IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; JEFF DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,
Defendants.

Case No.: 3:12-cv-00071-SI OPINION AND ORDER

Jesse Wing Katherine C. Chamberlain MACDONALD, HOAGUE & BAYLESS 1500 Hoge Building 705 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98104
Lance Weber HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER 1037 Western Avenue, Second Floor West Brattleboro, VT 05303
Marc D. Blackman RANSOM BLACKMAN, LLP 1001 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 1400 Portland, OR 97204
Of Attorneys for Plaintiff

Steven A. Kraemer Gregory R. Roberson HART WAGNER, LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, 20th Floor Portland, OR 97205
Of Attorneys for Defendants Lynn S. Walsh 209 S.W. Oak Street, Suite 400 Portland, OR 97204
Of Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Partnership for Safety and Justice
SIMON, District Judge. This case primarily involves the constitutionality of a county jail’s inmate mail policy
that restricts all incoming and outgoing inmate personal mail to postcards only. Plaintiff, Prison Legal News (“Plaintiff” or “PLN”), has sued Defendants Columbia County, the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office (“CCSO”), and Sheriff Jeffrey Dickerson (collectively, “Defendants”), claiming that Defendants are violating free speech and procedural due process rights guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Defendants operate the county jail in Columbia County, Oregon (the “Jail”). On March 3, 2010, Defendants instituted an inmate mail policy that restricts inmates’ incoming and outgoing personal mail to postcards only. PLN contends that Defendants’ policy unconstitutionally burdens the free speech rights of both senders and recipients. PLN also contends that Defendants’ mail policy unconstitutionally fails to require mail handlers at the Jail to provide notice to inmates and their correspondents, as required by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, when Defendants confiscate or return prohibited mail sent to or from inmates.
Page 2 – OPINION AND ORDER

Before the court is PLN’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, seeking to enjoin Defendants from enforcing “unconstitutional jail mail policies to reject or otherwise censor news journals, subscription materials, book offers, book catalogs, and other correspondence, and ordering Defendants to afford Plaintiff, other correspondents, and prisoners due process notice and an opportunity to challenge Defendants’ censorship decisions.” Dkt. 7. The court finds that under the free speech clause of First Amendment, made applicable to the states by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Defendants’ policy is likely to violate the free speech rights of both inmates and their correspondents. Accordingly, for the reasons stated below, the court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 7). Not later than 30 days from the date of this Order, Defendants are enjoined from enforcing those portions of the inmate mail policy that restrict all incoming and outgoing inmate personal mail to postcards only.
BACKGROUND Defendants operate the Columbia County Jail, a correctional institution funded to incarcerate as many as 150 inmates. Declaration of Jeffrey M. Dickerson (“Dickerson Decl.”) (Dkt. 32) at ¶ 24. The Jail employs 16 corrections deputies and five supervisors. Id. at ¶ 20. A typical “corrections shift currently has four deputies. The booking deputy on the swing shift processes and inspects all incoming and outgoing mail on a daily basis for compliance with the Jail’s mail policy.” Id. at ¶ 21. On March 3, 2010, the CCSO adopted an inmate mail policy that provided, among other things, that “[a]ll correspondence to and from inmates of the Columbia County jail will be in the form of a post card unless it is legal or official mail.” Dickerson Decl. Ex. B. (This policy will be referred to as the “postcard-only mail policy.”) The CCSO adopted revised inmate mail policies
Page 3 – OPINION AND ORDER

on July 19, 2011, and October 21, 2011. Id. Exs. C, D. These policies retained the postcard-only mail policy. Although all three policies restricted incoming and outgoing personal mail to postcards, each policy allowed inmates to receive books and periodicals sent directly from publishers: “Books and/or periodicals may be procured from outside the jail, however, any such book . . . must be sent directly from the publisher or bookstore via the U.S. mail.”1 Dickerson Decl. Exs. B-D. On January 12, 2012, the CCSO substantially revised its inmate mail policy, and on February 10, 2012, the CCSO adopted additional minor revisions. Dickerson Decl. Exs. E, F. The parties agree that the February 10, 2012, inmate mail policy (“IMP”) is the current mail policy. Dickerson Decl. Ex. F; Oral Argument Transcript (“Transcript”) at 8:9-11. The IMP retains the postcard-only mail policy.
The Jail receives about 50 pieces of mail addressed to inmates each day, of which approximately 35 to 40 pieces are personal mail. Declaration of Bryan Cutright (“Cutright Decl.”) (Dkt. 30) at ¶ 2. Inmates send about 40 pieces of mail per day. Id. Before the CCSO adopted the postcard-only mail policy in March 2010, personal mail “was opened and the envelope and papers inside were inspected for contraband[.]” Id. at ¶ 3. On average, CCSO staff “spent 1.5 to 3 hours . . . inspecting the incoming and outgoing mail[.]” Id. After adopting the postcard-only mail policy in March 2010, “the time it took [CCSO staff] to inspect incoming and outgoing mail was reduced by one-third (approximately 30 to 60 minutes . . . ).” Id. at ¶ 4.
1 Notwithstanding the provision in each policy that inmates may receive periodicals and books, the CCSO website, when accessed by Plaintiff on January 10, 2012, indicated that the Jail “do[es] not accept magazines” and magazines are “not allowed inside[.]” Declaration of Katherine Chamberlain (“Chamberlain Decl.”) (Dkt. 9) Ex. 1. In his declaration submitted in response to PLN’s motion for a preliminary injunction, Sheriff Dickerson stated that the mail policies described on the CCSO’s website were “incorrect” and the mail policies attached to his declaration, and described above, are the “actual policies.” Dickerson Decl. at ¶ 8.
Page 4 – OPINION AND ORDER

PLN refers to itself as a “project of the Human Rights Defense Center.” Declaration of Paul Wight (“Wight Decl.”) (Dkt. 8) at ¶ 2. The Human Rights Defense Center is a Washington State non-profit corporation. Id. According to the Complaint, PLN
publishes and distributes a monthly journal of corrections news and analysis and certain books about the criminal justice system and legal issues affecting prisoners, to prisoners, lawyers, courts, libraries, and the public throughout the Country. PLN also maintains a website . . . and operates an email list. Prisoners of all types, family and friends of prisoners, and prisoner advocates, are among the intended beneficiaries of PLN’s activities. Complaint (“Compl.”) at ¶ 3.1. PLN has approximately 7,000 subscribers, and its publications reach approximately 2,200 correctional institutions in the United States. Compl. at ¶ 4.2. Over the past year, PLN has had an average of 20 subscribers in the Jail at any given time. Second Decl. of Paul Wright (Dkt. 44) at ¶ 35. In December 2010, PLN began sending copies of its publications and related items to inmates in the Jail. Id. at ¶ 10. These include: (1) PLN’s monthly journal, “Prison Legal News.” See Wright Decl. Ex. LLL; (2) Informational brochures (one double-sided page). See Wright Decl. Ex. MMM; (3) Subscription renewal letters. See Wright Decl. Exs. DDD-KKK; (4) Book offers (one double-sided page). See Wright Decl. Ex. OOO. (5) Book catalogs (one double-sided page). See Wright Decl. Ex. NNN; and (6) Fundraising appeals. See Wright Decl. Exs. PPP-QQQ. PLN combines informational brochures, book catalogs, and book offers into a single mailing that it calls an “info pack.” Wright Decl. at ¶ 15. PLN combines subscription renewal letters and informational brochures into a single mailing that it calls a “subscription renewal pack.” Id. at ¶ 26. PLN sends info packs, subscription renewal packs, and fundraising appeals to inmates in
Page 5 – OPINION AND ORDER

the Jail in envelopes by first-class U.S. mail. Id. at ¶ 11; see, e.g., id. Exs. A-D, DDD-HHH, PPP-QQQ.
PLN alleges that since 2010, the Jail has returned or failed to deliver dozens of PLN publications mailed to inmates, including PLN’s journal, info packs, subscription renewal packs, and fundraising appeals. Wright Decl. at ¶ 13-14, 16-17, 26, 28; see also Compl. at ¶¶ 4.5 - 4.64. PLN editor Paul Wright submitted as exhibits to his declaration copies of PLN publications returned to PLN by the Jail. Many of the copies of envelopes included in these exhibits display stamps and stickers, apparently affixed by the Jail, stating variously: “RETURN TO SENDER,” e.g. Wright Decl. Exs. A, I, O; “As of April 1, 2010 The Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS[.] This applies to ALL incoming and out going mail,” e.g. id. Exs. AD, FF-II; “INSPECTED BY COLUMBIA COUNTY JAIL” (with several checkboxes, including checks next to “return to sender” and “refuse / violates security”), e.g. id. Exs. E, Q, U, W, AA; a stamp listing several options with the line near “Undeliverable as Addressed” checked, e.g. id. Exs. BB-DD; and a stamp listing several options with the line near “Refused” checked, e.g. id. Exs. JJ, QQ. In many cases, several of these markings are present on each envelope. See e.g. id. Ex. BBB.
Defendants concede that they returned or confiscated many PLN publications. In their Answer, Defendants admit allegations made in the Complaint that they rejected copies of PLN’s journal, info packs, subscription renewal packs, and fundraising appeals sent to inmates in the Jail. Answer (Dkt. 25) at ¶¶ 4.25, 4.38, 4.48, 4.58. Defendants also admit that they did not provide PLN or inmates “due process notice or an opportunity to appeal” the rejection of PLN’s publications. Compl. at ¶¶ 4.26-4.27; Answer at ¶¶ 4.26-4.27, 4.40-4.41, 4.50-4.51, 4.60-4.61. In
Page 6 – OPINION AND ORDER

addition, Defendants admit that their past policies and practices “violated some of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.” Answer at ¶ 1.1.
Notwithstanding these admissions, however, Defendants argue that they “have changed the inmate mail policy in a fashion that moots [P]laintiff’s motion for preliminary relief[.]” Response to Plaintiff’s Mot. for Preliminary Injunction (“Defs.’ Resp.”) (Dkt. 29) at 3. For “purposes of determining whether [PLN] is entitled to a preliminary injunction,” they assert, “only the current [inmate mail] policy . . . is relevant.” Id. at 4.
Defendants’ February 10, 2012, revised inmate mail policy – the IMP – is the current inmate mail policy used by Defendants. The IMP addresses both what mail the Jail permits inmates to send and receive and what notification the Jail affords to inmates and their correspondents when mail is confiscated or returned.
The IMP divides most incoming and outgoing inmate mail into one of four categories: (1) privileged mail; (2) junk mail; (3) periodicals; and (4) personal mail. The IMP defines privileged mail as incoming or outgoing mail sent to or from an attorney, a court, or certain county or state law enforcement officials. IMP at 1-2. Junk mail is defined as “[p]rinted materials, often sent as mass mailings, such as catalogs, advertisements, brochures, circulars, and pamphlets whose primary purpose is to sell, promote or solicit for, a product or service, and when taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, educational, religious, or scientific value.” Id. at 1. A “periodical” is defined as a “magazine, newspaper, or other publication formed of printed sheets that are issued at least four times a year at regular, specified intervals from a known office of publication .” Id. Personal mail is defined as “[p]ostcards mailed to or from family, friends, organizations, businesses, or other unofficial entities.” Id. at 2.
Page 7 – OPINION AND ORDER

The IMP’s provisions governing inmates’ rights to send and receive mail differ according
to the category into which a particular piece of mail falls. In general, inmates may send and
receive privileged mail with few restrictions. Id. at ¶¶ 12-17. In addition, inmates may receive
nearly all junk mail unless it violates certain content restrictions, which are not at issue in this
lawsuit. Id. at ¶ 10. The focus of Plaintiff’s complaint concerns the third and fourth categories:
periodicals and personal mail. As with earlier versions of the Jail’s inmate mail policy, dating
back to March 2010, the IMP contains a postcard-only mail policy for inmates’ incoming and
outgoing personal mail:
Inmates may send postcards they receive in their initial inmate hygiene kit or through jail commissary. Inmates may receive postcards in any size that is delivered by the U.S. Postal Service up to a maximum size of 5-1/2" tall x 8-1/2" wide. The jail does not permit any other form of personal mail for inmates. Inmates are not limited to a specific number of postcards that they may receive or send. IMP at ¶ 3 (emphasis added). Periodicals, including magazines, are permitted. The IMP permits inmates to receive periodicals,
so long as they receive no more than three periodicals in one day and the periodical is “new and .
. . delivered directly from the publisher or a bookstore.” Id. at ¶ 20. The definition of periodical,
quoted above, limits periodicals to those publications that are issued at least four times a year.
In addition to restrictions on the form and content of inmate mail, the IMP contains
several notice provisions. The most extensive description of a mail handlers’ responsibility to
notify senders and inmates of confiscated mail is found in paragraph 30, located in a section of
the IMP titled “Regulating Inmate Mail.” It provides in relevant part:
Normally, mail handlers confiscate prohibited items. The sender of confiscated mail must be notified pursuant to paragraph 31. . . .
a. . . .
b. Mail handlers will use a Prohibited Mail Slip to inform the inmate of the confiscation and use a copy as a tag for the items. They will place confiscated items in the inmate's property storage[.]
Page 8 – OPINION AND ORDER

c. Mail handlers must notify the sender in writing that mail they sent was confiscated or not delivered to the inmate, unless the inmate is no longer in custody. They should use a Prohibited Mail Slip for the notification. Any notice will give the reason and explain how the sender can informally appeal the action. Paragraph 31, located under the heading “Processing Incoming Mail,” requires mail handlers to “[s]end a notice of right to reconsideration with returned mail. Send a notice of right to reconsideration to senders of confiscated mail.” In addition to these provisions, paragraph 45 provides that a mail handler should use a sticker or a stamp to mark “return to sender” when returning mail that violates the IMP. The handler must also “note the reasons for refusal on the stamp.” Id. In addition, paragraph 45 provides that “[m]ail handlers will use a Prohibited Mail Slip to inform the inmate and the sender when mail is returned to sender.” Id. Several other provisions require notice when inmate mail violates content restrictions. See, e.g., paragraphs 21, 24, 27. Attached to the IMP is an exemplar titled “Prohibited Mail Notice.” IMP at 17; see also Dickerson Decl. Ex. H. The Prohibited Mail Notice (also referred to in the IMP as the “Prohibited Mail Slip”) consists of check-boxes allowing a mail handler to indicate the reason that a piece of mail was returned or confiscated. The check-box choices include such items as: “personal mail and not on a post card”; “contains sexually explicit material”; “did not come directly from a publisher.” At the bottom of the Notice is a paragraph describing the appeals process. The Prohibited Mail Notice used by the Jail is a triplicate carbon copy. One copy is sent to the sender, one copy is saved in the inmate’s file, and one copy is provided to the inmate.
PRELIMINARY LEGAL ISSUES A. Mootness
Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is moot. A claim is moot “when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable
Page 9 – OPINION AND ORDER

interest in the outcome.” United States Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 396 (1980) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “In other words, if events subsequent to the filing of the case resolve the parties’ dispute, we must dismiss the case as moot[.]” Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081, 1087 (9th Cir. 2011). Defendants argue that the IMP, adopted after PLN filed its lawsuit on January 13, 2012, resolves Plaintiff’s claims. The IMP, Defendants contend, “allows inmates to receive postcards, junk mail, periodicals and books.” Defs.’ Resp. at 10. They also contend that “a process is in place for [PLN] to appeal the return of mail should such a return occur.” Id.
Notwithstanding the revisions to Defendants’ mail policy adopted in the IMP, PLN’s suit is not moot because several areas of dispute remain unresolved. First, the postcard-only mail policy remains in effect. In addition to limiting correspondence between an inmate and the inmate’s family and friends to whatever can be written on a postcard, this restriction prohibits PLN from sending info packs, subscription renewal packs, and fundraising appeal letters. Second, the IMP only permits inmates to send outgoing personal mail on postcards provided by or purchased from the Jail. This restriction prevents inmates from filling out and returning reply forms found in PLN’s mailings. See, e.g., Wright Decl. Ex. FFF (containing PLN reply forms). Third, as discussed in greater detail below, the IMP does not expressly provide that mail handlers must provide notice to inmates when they confiscate inmates’ outgoing mail. B. Standing
Defendants next argue that PLN “does not have standing to seek a preliminary injunction on its own behalf or on behalf of” the Jail’s inmates and their correspondents. In general, to have standing to “seek injunctive relief, a plaintiff must show that he is under threat of suffering injury in fact that is concrete and particularized; the threat must be actual and imminent, not conjectural
Page 10 – OPINION AND ORDER

or hypothetical; it must be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and it must be likely that a favorable judicial decision will prevent or redress the injury.” Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 493 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Friends of Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81 (2000)). The party invoking federal jurisdiction – in this case, PLN – bears the burden of establishing standing. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992).
PLN has met each of the requirements set forth in Summers. First, PLN has shown that it is under threat of suffering a concrete and particular injury in fact: The IMP prohibits inmates from receiving personal mail that is not on a postcard. Accordingly, the Jail is likely to reject PLN mailings, such as info packs, subscription renewal packs, and fundraising appeals, that are neither a periodical nor contained on a postcard. See, e.g., Wright Decl. Exs. A-E, JJJ, KKK, MMM-PPP, and QQQ. Second, this threat is neither conjectural nor hypothetical: PLN has submitted evidence that the Jail has rejected PLN mailings, as well as incoming personal mail from inmates’ family and friends. See, e.g., Wright Decl.; 2nd Lennox Decl. at ¶ 5, Exs. C, E; see also Decl. of Patricia Mendoza (Dkt. 53) at ¶ 4 (Jail staff “told me that I was restricted to sending only postcards”). Third, this threat is traceable to Defendants’ adoption of the IMP. Finally, if this court decides in PLN’s favor, a preliminary injunction prohibiting Defendants from enforcing the IMP’s postcard-only mail policy would prevent continued injury to PLN.
PLN has also demonstrated that it has standing pursuant to the “overbreadth doctrine.” According to the overbreadth doctrine, a plaintiff “may challenge an overly broad statute or regulation by showing that it may inhibit the First Amendment rights of individuals who are not before the court.” 4805 Convoy, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 183 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 1999). The “requirements of ‘overbreadth standing’ [are] injury-in-fact and the ability to frame the
Page 11 – OPINION AND ORDER

issues in the case satisfactorily.” Gospel Missions of Am. v. City of Los Angeles, 328 F.3d 548, 554 (9th Cir. 2003). The injury-in-fact requirement does not require the plaintiff to show that its own First Amendment rights are at issue; the plaintiff need only establish that the statute, regulation, or policy caused it injury-in-fact. Sec’y of State of Maryland v. Joseph H. Munson Co., Inc., 467 U.S. 947 (1984) (even though the plaintiff’s own First Amendment rights were not at issue, it had standing to bring an overbreadth challenge on behalf of its clients because it suffered a financial injury from the statute); see also Clark v. City of Lakewood, 259 F.3d 996, 1011 (9th Cir. 2001) (same).
PLN meets both requirements for standing under the overbreadth doctrine. First, as demonstrated above, the IMP impedes PLN’s ability to send info packs, subscription renewal packs, and fundraising appeals to inmates; thus PLN has been injured-in-fact.2 Second, PLN is well-suited to frame the issues on behalf of inmates and their correspondents. PLN has been a vigorous advocate on behalf of inmates in previous litigation in this circuit. See, e.g., Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2005); Prison Legal News v. Cook, 238 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2001). Furthermore, in this matter PLN has submitted numerous declarations from inmates and their correspondents; these declarations demonstrate that PLN has invested time in determining how the IMP has affected inmates and their correspondents. See Dkt. 10-14, 34-40. Finally, PLN has framed its argument broadly; its briefing discusses alleged effects of the IMP on inmates and their correspondents in addition to the effect on PLN alone. See, e.g., Pl.’s Mem.
2 Even if the IMP allowed inmates to receive PLN’s incoming mail without restriction – including PLN’s info packs, subscription renewal packs, and fundraising appeals – the IMP’s limitation to postcards only for inmates’ outgoing mail would, nonetheless, injure PLN. This is because many PLN mailings, such as the fundraising appeal letters and book order forms, include reply forms. See, e.g., Wright Decl. Exs. JJJ, MMM. The IMP restriction to postcards only for inmates’ outgoing personal mail prevents inmates from sending replies to these PLN publications and, accordingly, could cause financial injury to PLN. Thus, PLN has demonstrated a threat of injury-in-fact.
Page 12 – OPINION AND ORDER

at 19-22 (discussing importance of letter-writing to rehabilitation and “exchange of ideas”). PLN’s advocacy satisfies the requirement that PLN is able to represent inmates and their correspondents’ interests in this litigation.
STANDARDS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION A preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must show: (1) that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in his favor; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. Id. at 20 (rejecting the Ninth Circuit's earlier rule that the mere “possibility” of irreparable harm, as opposed to its likelihood, was sufficient, in some circumstances, to justify a preliminary injunction). In addition, the Supreme Court’s decision in Winter did not disturb the Ninth Circuit’s alternative “serious questions” test. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2011) (“‘serious questions going to the merits’ and a hardship balance that tips sharply toward the plaintiff can support issuance of an injunction, assuming the other two elements of the Winter test are also met’”). Thus, a preliminary injunction may be granted “if there is a likelihood of irreparable injury to plaintiff; there are serious questions going to the merits; the balance of hardships tips sharply in favor of the plaintiff; and the injunction is in the public interest.” M.R. v. Dreyfus, 663 F.3d 1100, 1108 (9th Cir. 2011).
DISCUSSION PLN’s Complaint makes two principal claims based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In its first count, PLN claims that the IMP violates PLN’s First Amendment rights, as well as the First
Page 13 – OPINION AND ORDER

Amendment rights of inmates at the Jail and their correspondents (the “speech claim”). Compl. ¶¶ 5.1-5.4. In its second count, PLN claims that the IMP violates PLN’s Fourteenth Amendment due process rights and the due process rights of inmates and their correspondents (the “due process claim”). Compl. ¶¶ 5.5-5.8. PLN’s motion for a preliminary injunction addresses both claims. It requests that the court enjoin Defendants from “(1) enforcing unconstitutional jail mail policies to reject or otherwise censor news journals, subscription materials, book offers, book catalogs, and other correspondence, and (2) ordering Defendants to afford to Plaintiff, prisoners, and other correspondents due process notice and an opportunity to challenge Defendants’ censorship decisions.” Pl.’s Mem. at 2. For the reasons described below, the court concludes that PLN has demonstrated that it is entitled to a preliminary injunction with respect to the speech claim but not with respect to the due process claim. A. Free Speech Claim
In its Complaint, PLN alleges that Defendants violate free speech rights in two ways: By restricting inmate personal mail to postcards and by prohibiting magazines. Compl. at ¶¶ 4.72 4.74. As noted above, after PLN filed its complaint, Defendants adopted a new inmate mail policy – the IMP. The IMP retains the postcard-only mail policy that has been in effect since March 2010. The IMP, however, expressly permits inmates to receive magazines.3 IMP at 7. At oral argument, PLN acknowledged that the IMP provides that inmates may receive its journal: “I think that in the past there ha[s] been censorship where [Defendants] have identified that a
3 As noted above, although the CCSO’s website stated that magazines were not allowed in the Jail, Defendants contend that the official mail policies have always allowed inmates to receive magazines. See Compl. Ex. A; Dickerson Decl. at ¶ 8; Defs.’ Resp. at 3. Defendants “acknowledge that due to inconsistent practices on the part of jail staff, some mailings, including magazines[] from [P]laintiff[,] were not distributed to inmates up to and through January 26, 2012.” Defs.’ Resp. at 3.
Page 14 – OPINION AND ORDER

magazine is not a postcard; and therefore, it is not allowed in. But I agree with [the court] that this current policy [the IMP] does not seem to say that.” Transcript 22:16-20. Because the IMP permits inmates to receive PLN’s journal, the court limits its consideration of PLN’s free speech claim to the IMP’s postcard-only mail policy for both incoming and outgoing personal mail.4
1. Success on the merits “Publishers have a First Amendment right to communicate with prisoners by mail, and inmates have a First Amendment right to receive this mail.” Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692, 699 (9th Cir. 2005) (“PLN II”). The scope and potency of these rights are, however, “subject to substantial limitations and restrictions in order to allow prison officials to achieve legitimate correctional goals and maintain institutional security.” Walker v. Sumner, 917 F.2d 382, 385 (9th Cir. 1990). To determine whether a correctional institution’s regulation that “impinges on inmates’ constitutional rights” is valid, the court must determine whether that regulation “is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.” Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987). In Turner, the Supreme Court promulgated “a four-pronged test that guides courts in determining whether a challenged regulation passes constitutional muster.” Frost v. Symington, 197 F.3d 348, 354 (9th Cir. 1999). Under the Turner test, courts must determine:
4 At oral argument, PLN stated that “[w]e have brought both a facial challenge to the [inmate mail] policy, but we also have brought a challenge to the practices of the sheriff.” Transcript at 9:18-20. Considering this statement, it could be construed that PLN also asserts an “as applied” challenge, claiming that Defendants are unconstitutionally failing to deliver PLN’s journal. If PLN is bringing this claim, the court declines to consider it as part of PLN’s motion for a preliminary injunction for three reasons. First, PLN’s motion does not expressly request an order requiring Defendants to deliver PLN’s journal. See Pl.’s Mot.; Pl.’s Mem. at 2. Second, neither the Complaint, nor PLN’s briefing, develops this argument. Finally, there is inadequate evidence at this stage to determine whether Defendants have consistently failed to deliver PLN’s journal since implementing the IMP.
Page 15 – OPINION AND ORDER

(1) whether the regulation is rationally related to a legitimate and neutral governmental objective; (2) whether there are alternative avenues that remain open to the inmates to exercise the right; (3) the impact that accommodating the asserted right will have on other guards and prisoners, and on the allocation of prison resources; and (4) whether the existence of easy and obvious alternatives indicates that the regulation is an exaggerated response by prison officials. Prison Legal News v. Cook, 238 F.3d 1145, 1149 (9th Cir. 2001) (“PLN I”) (citing Turner, 482 U.S. at 89-90). These factors apply not only to regulations governing inmates’ rights receive mail but also “to regulations affecting publishers’ rights to send materials to prisoners.” Id. (emphasis omitted). “The first of these factors constitutes a sine qua non.” Walker, 917 F.2d at 385. In other words, “if a regulation is not rationally related to a legitimate and neutral governmental objective, a court need not reach the remaining three factors.” PLN II, 397 F.3d at 699.
a. Rational relationship Under the first Turner factor, the court must “determine whether the governmental objective underlying the regulations at issue is legitimate and neutral, and that the regulations are rationally related to that objective.”5 Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 414 (1989). A “regulation cannot be sustained where the logical connection between the regulation and the asserted goal is so remote as to render the policy arbitrary or irrational.” Turner, 482 U.S. at 89-90. Defendants contend that the IMP is rationally related to two penological objectives: the safety and security of the Jail’s inmates and staff and the efficient use of the Jail’s limited resources. Both are legitimate penological objectives. Abbott, 490 U.S. at 415 (the “legitimacy of the Government’s purpose in [protecting prison security] is beyond question”); Freeman v. Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 369 F.3d 854, 861 (5th Cir. 2004) (“staff and space limitations, as well as financial burdens, are valid penological interests”).
5 Whether a regulation is neutral depends on whether it operates “without regard to the content of the expression.” Turner, 284 U.S. at 90. The parties do not dispute that the IMP is neutral.
Page 16 – OPINION AND ORDER

The key question is whether the IMP is rationally related to enhancing security and improving efficiency. The correctional institution may demonstrate a rational relationship by showing “an intuitive, common[-]sense connection between the state’s policy and its objectives.” Frost, 197 F.3d at 356. If the plaintiff convincingly refutes this connection, the correctional institution “must demonstrate that the relationship is not so ‘remote as to render the policy arbitrary or irrational.’” PLN I, 238 F.3d at 1150 (quoting Mauro v. Arpaio, 188 F.3d 1054, 1060 (9th Cir. 1999)). With respect to enhancing security, Defendants contend that the IMP’s postcard-only mail policy is “rationally related” to the “security and safety of inmates and staff” because it prevents the introduction of contraband into the Jail. Defs.’ Resp. at 15. Defendants state that contraband, such as “bio-hazards, . . . illegal drugs, needles, blades, similar weapons, and handcuff keys,” can be “hidden in between sheets of paper and under postage stamps.” Id. The Jail’s IMP, “[l]imiting personal mail to postcards reduces these . . . security risks[.]” Id.
The court is unconvinced. Before the Jail implemented the postcard-only mail policy in 2010, the Jail opened and inspected mail for contraband. Cutright Decl. at ¶ 3; Dickerson Decl. Ex. A. Defendants have failed to offer evidence or even an intuitive, common-sense reason why the postcard-only mail policy more effectively prevents the introduction of contraband than opening and inspecting letters. In fact, the principal benefit of the policy identified by Sheriff Dickerson and Sergeant Cutright is not that inspecting postcards is more effective at preventing the introduction of contraband, but that inspecting postcards is quicker. See Cutright Decl. at ¶ 4; Dickerson Decl. at ¶ 16.6 That is likely true. Id. The speed at which at mail handling staff can
6 In his Declaration, Sergeant Cutright states that “[t]here is also less risk of contraband being present because a postcard is a standard-sized single piece of paper; contraband—such as bodily fluids and small metal objects—can be hidden between sheets of paper.” Id. at ¶ 4. The court agrees that inspecting a postcard is faster than inspecting a letter; but Defendants do not present evidence that inspecting a postcard is more effective than inspecting a letter.
Page 17 – OPINION AND ORDER

inspect mail, however, does not establish a rational link between the policy and reducing contraband. See PLN II, 397 F.3d at 700 (“While the DOC’s mailroom staff may have to spend more time analyzing the content of non-subscription bulk rate mail and catalogs, such a ban on non-subscription bulk rate mail and catalogs is not rationally related to the goal of reducing contraband.”).
This conclusion is consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent. The Ninth Circuit has frequently rejected claims that policies broadly prohibiting certain classes of mail have a rational relationship to enhancing security. See, e.g., PLN I, 238 F.3d at 1150 (correctional institution “has presented no evidence supporting a rational distinction between the risk of contraband in subscription non-profit organization standard mail and first class or periodicals mail”); Morrison v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896, 902 (9th Cir. 2001) (“although the defendants presented evidence that contraband is sometimes included in bulk rate, third, and fourth class mail, the defendants have failed to present any evidence that the risk of contraband in first or second class mail is any lower than the risk of contraband in mail that is sent bulk rate, third, or fourth class”); Ashker v. California Dep’t of Corrections, 350 F.3d 917, 923 (9th Cir. 2003) (invalidating requirement that books mailed to inmates have an approved book label or vendor stamp as not rationally related to reducing contraband, in part because correctional institution searches mail anyway); PLN II, 397 F.3d at 700 (overturning ban on requested bulk mail).7
7 Defendants cite several District Court cases from the District of Arizona addressing inmate mail policies. Only one, Covell v. Arpaio, 662 F. Supp. 2d 1146 (D. Az. 2009), thoroughly addresses each of the Turner factors. In Covell, the District Court held that the defendant’s inmate mail policy, which limited inmates to receiving metered postcards, was reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest in reducing contraband smuggling. The District Court reached this holding for two reasons. First, the inmate mail policy in Covell prohibited the use of postage stamps. The defendant argued that correspondents could smuggle drugs into the jail under stamps. The District Court agreed. Id. at 1153-54. The District Court’s rationale on this point is not transferrable here because the IMP does not forbid the use of
Page 18 – OPINION AND ORDER

With respect to improving efficiency, Defendants argue that “inspecting personal mail on a postcard reduces by one-third the time the booking deputy must spend on inspecting incoming and outgoing mail.” Defs.’ Resp. at 16. In addition, Defendants claim that postcards “are quicker to inspect because they are easier to hold, easier to turn over, more durable than regular paper, and easier and quicker to inspect for prohibited content than notepad paper.” Id. According to Sheriff Dickerson, without the postcard-only policy, “the time spent inspecting incoming and outgoing personal inmate mail would greatly increase, reducing the time available to staff for other tasks that are just as essential, and sometimes more essential, than inspecting the mail each day.” Dickerson Decl. at ¶25.
Although Defendants’ declarations establish that inspecting postcards is faster than opening and inspecting letters, the time-savings is too modest to demonstrate a significant rational relationship between the postcard-only policy and improving the Jail’s efficiency. Sergeant Cutright stated that the time-savings per day amounted to 30 to 60 minutes each day. Cutright Decl. at ¶ 4. Compared to opening and inspecting letters, this amounted to a one-third reduction in the amount of time spent inspecting mail. Id. Defendants have failed to articulate how this small saving in time has meaningfully contributed to the Jail’s efficiency. The Ninth Circuit, moreover, has consistently rejected claims that minimal or insignificant time-savings are rationally related to improving efficiency. See, e.g., PLN I, 238 F.3d at 1151 (“We do not believe that requiring delivery of non-profit organization standard mail will unduly burden the [correctional institution]”); Morrison, 261 F.3d at 903 (noting that in PLN I “we held that the
postage stamps. Second, the District Court found that the defendant’s postcard-only mail policy prevented the introduction of “notepad bindings have been hollowed to conceal contraband.” Id. at 1153. In this case, however, Defendants have not pressed the same argument. The Jail also might prohibit the mailing of notepads to inmates or confiscate notepads when opening and inspecting letters. In light of these considerations, the court declines to follow Covell.
Page 19 – OPINION AND ORDER

‘efficient use of staff time’ argument cannot justify an effective ban on non-profit subscription publications”); PLN II, 397 F.3d at 700 (rejecting ban on for-profit subscription publications as not rationally related to controlling volume of mail).
b. Alternative avenues Even though Defendants’ postcard-only mail policy fails the sine qua non “rational relationship” test, it may be useful to consider the other Turner factors as well. They all point in the same direction. The second factor of the Turner test “is whether there are alternative means of exercising the right that remain open to prison inmates.” Turner, 482 U.S. at 90. “In applying this factor, ‘the right in question must be viewed sensibly and expansively.’” Mauro, 188 F.3d at 1061 (quoting Abbott, 490 U.S. at 417). Defendants contend that inmates and their correspondents may exercise their First Amendment rights by visiting and calling or by sending multiple postcards. Defs. Resp. at 18-19. The court disagrees. The IMP’s postcard-only mail policy drastically restricts an inmate’s ability to communicate with the outside world. It prevents an inmate’s family from sending items such as photographs, children’s report cards and drawings, and copies of bills, doctor reports, and spiritual and religious tracts. See, e.g., Decl. of John Weisenberger (Dkt. 39). It prevents an inmate’s friends and other correspondents from sending printed copies of articles published in newspapers, magazines, or the internet. See, e.g., 2nd Lennox Decl. It prevents educational, community, and religious organizations from sending lessons, book and periodical offers, and fundraising appeals. See, e.g., Wright Decl. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the postcardonly mail policy creates a hurdle to thoughtful and constructive written communication between
Page 20 – OPINION AND ORDER

an inmate and his or her unincarcerated family and friends. See Decl. of Oana Popa (Dkt. 40); Decl. of Patricia Mendoza (Dkt. 53); Decl. of Sharon R. Berg (Dkt. 37).
These are not insignificant considerations. The limits imposed by the IMP’s postcardonly mail policy not only restrain PLN and inmates’ First Amendment rights, they inhibit rehabilitation. Indeed, the Supreme Court has noted that “the weight of professional opinion seems to be that inmate freedom to correspond with outsiders advances rather than retards the goal of rehabilitation.” Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 412 (1974), overruled on other grounds by Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989).
c. Effects on staff, inmates, and resources The third Turner factor “is the impact accommodation of the asserted constitutional right will have on guards and other inmates, and on the allocation of prison resources generally.” Turner, 482 U.S. at 90. According to Turner, “courts should be particularly deferential to the informed discretion of corrections officials” when accommodating a constitutional right will have “have a significant ‘ripple effect’ on fellow inmates or on prison staff.” Id. In Turner, the Court found that allowing certain inmate-to-inmate correspondence could “be exercised only at the cost of significantly less liberty and safety” for inmates and staff generally and, therefore, the court upheld certain restrictions on such correspondence. Id. at 92. This factor often weighs heavily when courts consider mail policies that restrict potentially disruptive content, such as depictions or descriptions of violence, escape, or criminal activity, sexually-explicit materials, and role-playing games. See, e.g., Abbott, 490 U.S. at 405; Frost, 197 F.3d at 351-52; Bahrampour v. Lampert, 356 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2004). Here, accommodating letters and periodicals is unlikely to have a “significant ripple effect” on inmates and staff. Plaintiff does not challenge the IMP’s content restriction; thus,
Page 21 – OPINION AND ORDER

incoming letters may still be subject to screening for the sort of disruptive content considered in Turner, Abbott, Frost, and Bahrampour. Moreover, as explained above, the time-savings afforded to the Jail by the postcard-only mail policy is modest, at best.
d. Easy and obvious alternatives The final Turner factor requires the court to “consider ‘whether the existence of easy and obvious alternatives indicates that the regulation is an exaggerated response by prison officials.’” Morrison, 261 F.3d at 905 (quoting PLN I, 238 F.3d at 1149). If a “claimant can point to an alternative that fully accommodates the prisoner’s rights at de minimis cost to valid penological interests, a court may consider that as evidence that the regulation does not satisfy the reasonable relationship standard.” Turner, 482 U.S. at 91. This factor favors Plaintiff. As noted above, before implementing the postcard-only policy in 2010, Defendants opened and inspected letters. Cutright Decl. at ¶ 3. Given that opening and inspecting mail that is not restricted to postcards required only 30 to 60 additional minutes each day, it is an easy and obvious alternative. The inmate mail policies in other correctional institutions also support this conclusion. Other jails in Oregon, as well the Washington State Department of Corrections and the United States Bureau of Prisons, have mail policies that permit inmates to send and receive letters and periodicals. See Declaration of Katherine Chamberlain (Dkt. 9), Exs. 4-6, 8. These policies provide further evidence that opening and inspecting letters is an easy and obvious alternative to the IMP’s postcard-only mail policy. Morrison, 261 F.3d at 905 (policies at other correctional institutions are relevant to consideration of fourth Turner factor). Considering all four Turner factors, the court concludes that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits with respect to its free speech claim. In reaching this conclusion, the court recognizes that the potential dangers posed by contraband within the Jail are undeniably serious.
Page 22 – OPINION AND ORDER

See Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington, 132 S. Ct. 1510, 1518-20 (2012). Nonetheless, jail “walls do not form a barrier separating . . . inmates from the protections of the Constitution.” Turner, 482 U.S. at 84. Defendants’ postcard-only mail policy blocks one narrow avenue for the introduction of contraband—within envelopes—at too great an expense to the First Amendment rights of inmates and their correspondents.
2. Irreparable Harm PLN has established that the IMP’s postcard-only mail policy causes irreparable harm. Both the Ninth Circuit “and the Supreme Court have repeatedly held that ‘[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.’” Klein v. City of San Clemente, 584 F.3d 1196, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976)). As discussed above, the IMP’s postcard-only mail policy restricts the First Amendment rights of both inmates and their correspondents. Because this policy has been in effect since 2010, the harm is more than a mere possibility; it is continuous and ongoing. 3. Balance of Equities The balance of equities tips in PLN’s favor. PLN has established that the IMP’s postcardonly mail policy burdens its First Amendment rights, as well as the First Amendment rights of inmates and their correspondents. Defendants face the possibility of spending 30 to 60 additional minutes each day opening and inspecting letters. The constitutional hardship is far greater than the modest impact on Defendants’ time and resources. 4. Public Interest “The public interest inquiry primarily addresses [the] impact on non-parties rather than parties.” Sammartano v. First Judicial Dist. Court, in & for County of Carson City, 303 F.3d
Page 23 – OPINION AND ORDER

959, 974 (9th Cir. 2002). “When the reach of an injunction is narrow, limited only to the parties, and has no impact on non-parties, the public interest will be ‘at most a neutral factor in the analysis rather than one that favor[s] [granting or] denying the preliminary injunction.’” Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Bernhardt v. Los Angeles County, 339 F.3d 920, 931 (9th Cir.2003)). Here, because the proposed preliminary injunction addresses the Jail’s inmate mail policy, and would not otherwise significantly affect the operation of national, state, or local government, the public interest factor is largely neutral. To the extent that this factor affects the court’s analysis, however, it favors PLN. A court order enjoining Defendants from enforcing the postcard-only mail policy will permit non-party members of the public to more easily communicate with inmates.
After considering each of the four factors set forth by the Supreme Court in Winter, the court concludes that PLN is entitled to a preliminary injunction that enjoins Defendants from enforcing those portions of the inmate mail policy that restrict inmates to sending or receiving personal mail only on a postcard. B. Due Process Claim
Inmates have a “Fourteenth Amendment due process liberty interest in receiving notice that [their] incoming mail is being withheld by prison authorities.” Frost v. Symington, 197 F.3d 348, 353 (9th Cir. 1999). Defendants acknowledge this; in fact, Defendants contend that the IMP “provides notice and an opportunity for administrative review to the sender and recipient when mail is rejected.” Defs.’ Resp. at 21. At this stage of the proceedings, Defendants appear to be correct. The IMP provides substantially broader and clearer due process notice provisions than the Jail’s earlier inmate mail polices. Compare Dickerson Decl. Exs. B-D. IMP paragraphs 30, 31, and 45, for example, require mail handlers to notify inmates and senders when the Jail
Page 24 – OPINION AND ORDER

confiscates mail. IMP paragraph 46 provides an appeals process. In addition, the “Prohibited Mail Notice,” attached to the IMP, is a standardized form for mail handlers to use to inform inmates and their correspondents of the reasons mail was returned or confiscated and to explain the appeals process. IMP at 17.
Nonetheless, PLN contends that the IMP fails to guarantee procedural due process. PLN argues, for example, that the IMP does not expressly apply to outgoing mail. PLN also argues that several provisions of the IMP are confusing. Notwithstanding these arguments, the court declines to issue a preliminary injunction at this time regarding PLN’s due process claim. Although the IMP’s notice provisions are not a model of clarity, they appear to broadly afford due process notice to inmates and their correspondents, at least sufficient to withstand Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction.
Defendants, however, acknowledge that they must provide due process notice for outgoing mail. Indeed, they argue that the IMP requires the Jail to provide notice when outgoing mail is confiscated. Nonetheless, PLN appears to be correct that the IMP does not expressly require Jail staff to provide notice when confiscating or censoring outgoing mail. In the light of the court’s order enjoining Defendants from employing a postcard-only mail policy, Defendants may also choose to clarify and restate the notice provisions in the IMP so that they clearly apply to outgoing as well as incoming mail and to address other arguably confusing provisions that may not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.
Finally, given that the IMP was only recently adopted, there is an insufficient evidentiary record to determine whether it has been consistently applied. All of these issues can be more fully developed at trial on the merits.
Page 25 – OPINION AND ORDER

CONCLUSION Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, Dkt. 7, is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Pending final resolution of this litigation, the court ORDERS that not later than 30 days from the date of this Order, Defendants must refrain from restricting all incoming and outgoing inmate personal mail to postcards only and shall not refuse to deliver or process personal inmate mail solely on the grounds that it is not on a postcard. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 29th day of May, 2012.
/s/ Michael H. Simon Michael H. Simon United States District Judge
Page 26 – OPINION AND ORDER

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 1 of 24 Page ID#: 1

Marc D. Blackman, OSB # 730338 1 marc~ransomblackman.com
Ransom Blackman LLP
2 1001 SW 5th Ave Ste 1400 

Portland OR 97204 
 3 
 503 228-0487
4 Katherine C. Chamberlain, OSB# 042580
KatherineC~rnhb.com
5 MacDonald Hoague & Bayless 
 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 

6 
 Seattle, Washington 98104-1745 
 206-622-1604 

7 


8

9

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

DISTRICT OF OREGON

12 PORTLAND DIVISION
13

14 PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the
HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER, 15

No·CV '12 - a071-~SI
COMPLAINT

Plaintiff,

16

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

v. 17

COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA 18 COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF

DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity 19 as Columbia County Sheriff,

20

Defendants.

21

22

I. NATURE OF THE CASE

23

1.1 Plaintiff Prison Legal News, a project of the Human Rights Defense Center,

24 brings this action to enjoin Defendants' censorship of Prison Legal News' monthly publication,

25 and correspondence mailed to prisoners who are held in custody at the Columbia County Jail, in

26 violation of the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

27 Defendants have adopted and implemented written mail policies and practices that

COMPLAINT - 1 £iLlt7d5
9870.05 fa 122203

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & SAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
TeI206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 2 of 24 Page ID#: 2

1 unconstitutionally restrict correspondence to and from prisoners to postcards only, and that

2 prohibit delivery of book catalogs and magazines to prisoners. Further, Defendants' policies and

3 practices do not afford due process notice and an opportunity to challenge the censorship as

4 required by the Constitution.

5

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6

2.1 This action arises under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United

7 States Constitution. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343,

8 2201, and 2202.

9

2.2 Venue is proper in the District of Oregon under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b)(2) because a

10 substantial part of the events complained of occurred in this District, and because the Defendants

11 reside in this District.

12

III. PARTIES

13

3.1 Plaintiff Prison Legal News (PLN) is a project of the Human Rights Defense

14 Center (HRDC), a Washington Non-Profit Corporation. The core ofHRDC's mission is public

15 education, prisoner education, advocacy, and outreach in support of the rights of prisoners and in

16 furtherance of basic human rights. PLN publishes and distributes a monthly journal of

17 corrections news and analysis and certain books about the criminal justice system and legal

18 issues affecting prisoners, to prisoners, lawyers, courts, libraries, and the public throughout the

19 Country. PLN also maintains a website (www.prisonlegalnews.org) and operates an email list.

20 Prisoners of all types, family and friends of prisoners, and prisoner advocates, are among the

21 intended beneficiaries of PLN' s activities.

22

3.2 Defendant Columbia County is a municipal corporation formed under the laws of

23 the State of Oregon.

24

3.3 Defendant Columbia County Sheriffs Office is a department of Columbia County

25 and operates the Columbia County laillocated in St. Helens, Oregon. The Columbia County Jail

26 facility houses convicted prisoners and pretrial detainees.

27

COMPLAINT 2
9870.0; ful22203

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle. Washington 98104
Tel206.622.1604 fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 3 of 24 Page ID#: 3

3.4 Defendant Jeff Dickerson is the Sheriff of Columbia County. Sheriff Dickerson is

2 employed by and is an agent of Columbia County and the Sheriff's Office. He is responsible for

3 the operations of the Columbia County Jail, and the training and supervision of the Jail staffwho

4 interpret and implement the Jail's mail policy for prisoners. He is the policymaker for the Jail

5 policy governing mail for prisoners.

6

3.5 Each of the acts and omissions of persons alleged herein were taken under color

7 of state law and within the scope of their official duties as employees and officers of Columbia

8 County and the Columbia County Sheriffs Office.

9

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

10

4.1 Prison Legal News publishes and distributes a soft-cover monthly journal, and

11 publishes and distributes paperback books; about the criminal justice system and legal issues

12 affecting prisoners.

13

4.2 Prison Legal News has approximately 7,000 subscribers in the United States and

14 abroad, including prisoners, attorneys, journalists, public libraries, judges, and other members of

15 the public. PLN distributes its publication to prisoners and law librarians in approximately 2,200

16 correctional facilities across the United States, including the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the

17 Oregon Department of Corrections.

18

4.3 Prison Legal News engages in core protected speech and expressive conduct on

19 matters of public concern, such as operations of prison facilities, prison conditions, prisoner

20 health and safety, and prisoners' rights.

21 A. CENSORSHIP AND LACK OF DUE PROCESS

22

4.4 Defendants have rejected PLN's monthly publications, book catalogs, book

23 offers, informational brochures, subscription forms, subscription renewal letters, fundraising

24 letters, and online articles mailed to prisoners held in custody at the Columbia County Jail. The

25 mail items rejected by Defendants include, but are not limited to, the items identified below.

26

27

COMPLAINT 3
9870.05 f.122203

l\IL\CDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle. Washington 98104
TeI206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 4 of 24 Page ID#: 4

1

Monthly Publications

2

4.5 Prison Legal News sent its monthly journal to certain prisoners at the Columbia

3 County Jail by U.S. Mail.

4

4.6 PLN's monthly journal is a 56-page publication titled Prison Legal News:

5 Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights and contains various articles on corrections news and 


6 analysis, about prisoner rights, court rulings, management of prison facilities and prison 


7 conditions. 


8

4.7 On or about December 8, 2010 PLN mailed a December 2010 Prison Legal News

9 publication addressed to prisoner Rusty Campo at the Columbia County Jail. Rusty Campo was

10 a prisoner at the Columbia County Jail at the time that the Jail received the December 2010

11 Prison Legal News publication from PLN.

12

4.8 On or about January 13,2011, PLN mailed a January 2011 Prison Legal News

13 publication addressed to prisoner Rusty Campo at the Columbia County Jail. Rusty Campo was

14 a prisoner at the Columbia County Jail at the time that the Jail received the January 2011 Prison

15 Legal News publication from PLN.

16

4.9 On or about January 31,2011, PLN mailed its September 2008 Prison Legal

17 News publication addressed to each ofthe following prisoners at the Columbia County Jail:

18

Prisoner Name 


19

Daniel Butts 


Cory Dell 


20

Jacob Francoeur 


William Hess 


21 The individuals identified above were prisoners at the Columbia County Jail at the time that the

22 Jail received the September 2008 Prison Legal News publications from PLN.

23 4.10 On or about January 31,2011, PLN mailed its November 2009 Prison Legal

24 News publication addressed to prisoner Nicholas Bierman at the Columbia County Jail. Nicholas

25 Bierman was a prisoner at the Columbia County Jail at the time that the Jail received the

26 November 2009 Prison Legal News publication from PLN.

27

COMPLAINT - 4
9870.05 fa122203

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 5 of 24 Page ID#: 5

1

4.11 On or about January 31, 2011, PLN mailed its January 2010 Prison Legal News

2 publication addressed to prisoner Andrew Plumber at the Columbia County Jail. Andrew

3 Plumber was a prisoner at the Columbia County Jail at the time that the Jail received the January

4 2010 Prison Legal News publication from PLN.

5

4.12 On or about February 1,2011, PLN mailed its July 2009 Prison Legal News

6 publication addressed to each of the following prisoners at the Columbia County Jail:

7

Prisoner Name

Ezra St. Helen

8

Scott Thomas

9 The individuals identified above were prisoners at the Columbia County Jail at the time that the

10 Jail received the July 2009 Prison Legal News publications from PLN.

11

4.13 On or about February 1,2011, PLN mailed its November 2009 Prison Legal

12 News publication addressed to each of the following prisoners at the Columbia County Jail:

13

Prisoner Name

Robert Beckwith

14

Scott Lavelle

Lloyd Myers

15

Alisha Vandolah

Jeffrey Vannatta 16

The individuals identified above were prisoners at the Columbia County Jail at the time that the

17

Jail received the November 2009 Prison Legal News publications from PLN.

18

4.14 On or about February 3,2011, PLN mailed its January 2010 Prison Legal News

19

publication addressed to prisoner KanaanMeyers at the Columbia County JaiL Prisoner Meyers

20

was a prisoner at the Columbia County Jail at the time that the Jail received the January 2010

21

Prison Legal News publication from PLN.

22

4.15 On or about February 3,2011, PLN mailed its July 2009 Prison Legal News

23

publication addressed to each of the following prisoners at the Columbia County Jail:

24

Prisoner Name

25

Troy McCarter

Shane McNutt

26

Robert Meader

Jason Quade
27

COMPLAINT - 5
9370.05 fa122203

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500
Seattle, Washington 98104 Tel 206,622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 6 of 24 Page ID#: 6

1 The individuals identified above were prisoners at the Columbia County Jail at the time that the

2 Jail received the July 2009 Prison Legal News publications from PLN.

3

4.16 On or about February 3, 2011, PLN mailed its September 2008 Prison Legal

4 News publication addressed to each of the following prisoners at the Columbia County Jail:

5

Prisoner Name

Nicholas Jones

6

Martin Kay

7 The individuals identified above were prisoners at the Columbia County Jail at the time that the

8 Jail received the September 2008 Prison Legal News publications from PLN.

9

4.17 Onor about February 10, 2011, PLN mailed its February 2011 Prison Legal News

10 publication addressed to each of the following prisoners at the Columbia County Jail:

11

Prisoner Name

Troy McCarter

12

Ezra St. Helen

13 The individuals identified above were prisoners at the Columbia County Jail at the time that the

14 Jail received the February 2011 Prison Legal News publications from PLN.

15

4.18 On or about March 10,2011, PLN mailed its March 2011 Prison Legal News

16 publication addressed to prisoner Ezra St. Helen at the Columbia County Jail. Ezra St. Helen

17 was a prisoner at the Columbia County Jail at the time that the Jail received the March 2011

18 Prison Legal News publication from PLN.

19

4.19 On or about April 11, 2011, PLN mailed its April 2011 Prison Legal News

20 publication addressed to prisoner Troy McCarter at the Columbia County Jail. Troy McCarter

21 was a prisoner at the Columbia County Jail at the time that the Jail received the April 2011

22 Prison Legal News publication from PLN.

23

4.20 On or about May 18, 2011, PLN mailed its May 2011 Prison Legal News

24 publication addressed to prisoner Ezra St. Helen at the Columbia County Jail. Ezra St. Helen

25 was a prisoner at the Columbia County Jail at the time that the Jail received the May 2011 Prison

26 Legal News publication from PLN. 27

COMPLAINT 6
9870.05 fal22103

MACDONALD "OAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500
Seattle, Washington 98104 Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 7 of 24 Page ID#: 7

1

4.21 On or about June 9, 2011, PLN mailed its June 2011 Prison Legal News 


2 publication addressed to each of the following prisoners at the Columbia County Jail: 


3 


Prisoner Name 


Ezra St. Helen 


4

Martin Kay

5 The individuals identified above were prisoners at the Columbia County Jail at the time that the

6 Jail received the June 2011 Prison Legal News publications from PLN.

7

4.22 On or about June 30, 2011, PLN mailed its May 2008 Prison Legal News 


8 publication addressed to each of the following prisoners at the Columbia County Jail: 


9 


Prisoner Name 


George Lammi 


10

Jeffrey Murray 


Cindy Seaston 
 11

The individuals identified above were prisoners at the Columbia County Jail at the time that the

12

Jail received the May 2008 Prison Legal News publications from PLN.

13

4.23 On or about July 20, 2011, PLN mailed its May 2009 Prison Legal News

14

publication addressed to each of the following prisoners at the Columbia County Jail:

15

Prisoner Name

16

Mark Gift 


Ralph Patterson 


17

Barry Shaft 


William Temple 


18

Robert Westmoreland

19 The individuals identified above were prisoners at the Columbia County Jail at the time that the

20 Jail received the May 2009 Prison Legal News publications from PLN.

21

4.24 Defendants rejected each publication identified in paragraphs 4.7-4.23, and did

22 not deliver the publications to the prisoner-addressees.

23

4.25 Defendants rejected many but not all of the journals that Prison Legal News sent

24 to prisoners. Defendants returned a number of the rejected journals, but it is unknown whether

25 they returned them all. For the journals that Defendants returned to Prison Legal News,

26 Defendants: (a) placed a sticker on the mail stating: "As of April 1, 2010 The Columbia County

27 Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS, This applies to ALL incoming and out going mail"; (b)

COMPLAINT - 7
9870,05 fal22203

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue. Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98\04
TeI206,622,]604 Fax 206343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 8 of 24 Page ID#: 8

1 stamped the mail "INSPECTED BY COLUMBIA COUNTY JAIL" and handwrote checkrnarks

2 next to "RETURN TO SENDER", and "REFUSE/VIOLATES SECURITY"; or (c) merely

3 stamped the mail "RETURN TO SENDER."

4

4.26 Defendants did not provide PLN due process notice or an opportunity to appeal

5 the censorship decisions.

6

4.27 Defendants did not provide the prisoner-addressees due process notice or an

7 opportunity to appeal the censorship decisions.

8

4.28 In addition to those identified above, PLN mailed other Prison Legal News

9 journals addressed to prisoners at the Columbia County Jail between January 201 I-January 2012.

10

4.29 On information and belief, Defendants rejected additional Prison Legal News

11 journals that PLN sent to prisoners, other 'than those identified above, and Defendants failed to

12 give PLN and the prisoners due process notice and an opportunity to be heard, and Defendants

13 continue to do so.

14

4.30 PLN intends to continue sending its monthly journal to prisoners at the Columbia

15 County Jail in the future.

16

Informational Brochures, Subscription Order Forms, Book Catalogs

17

4.31 Prison Legal News sent informational brochures about PLN and subscription

18 order forms, book catalogs, and book offers to prisoners at the Columbia County Jail in a white

19 standard # 10 envelopes via first-class mail.

20

4.32 Prison Legal News Brochure and Subscription Order Form: Prison Legal

21 News sent certain prisoners at the Columbia County Jail an informational brochure about its

22 organization and publications. The double-sided single-page brochure includes: a description of

23 the topics covered in PLN's monthly journal, subscription rates, special subscription offers, and

24 an order form; a description of three books available for purchase or included with a SUbscription

25 to Prison Legal News-Protecting your Health & Safety, With Liberty for Some: 500 Years of

26 Imprisonment in America, and Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money from Mass Incarceration;

27 and other information about PLN's bookstore.

COMPLAINT 8
9S70,05 f3122203

:'VL-\CDOi'iALD HOAGUE & 8.-\YLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel206,622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 9 of 24 Page ID#: 9

1

4.33 Book Catalog: Prison Legal News sent certain prisoners at the Columbia County

2 Jail its 2010 PLN Book List. The double-sided single-page book list includes a description of 43

3 books, dictionaries, and resource materials available for purchase. The books available for

4 purchase include information about a variety of topics, including but not limited to: the basic

5 rights ofprisoners regarding health and safety; the American criminal justice system; self­

6 representation in court; finding the right lawyer; DNA testing; issues related to imprisoned 


7 women; developing a successful re-entry plan upon release from prison; searching for a job; 


8 crime and poverty; and the mental health crisis in U.S. prisons and jails. 


9

4.34 Book Offers: Prison Legal News sent certain prisoners at the Columbia County

10 Jail a double-sided single-page informational brochure about two books for sale: The Habeas

11 Citebook: Ineffective Assistance ofCounsel, a handbook containing case citations, pleadings, and

12 forms designed to help a prisoner seek habeas corpus relief; and Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook

13 to Correspondence Programs in the United States and Canada, a handbook on high school,

14 vocational, paralegal, undergraduate, and graduate courses available through correspondence

15 study.

16

4.35 Collectively, the PLN Brochure, Book List, and Book Offer described above in

17 paragraphs 4.31-4.34 are referred to as "Informational Brochure Packs" below.

18

4.36 Prison Legal News mailed Informational Brochure Packs addressed to each of the

19 following prisoners at the Columbia County Jail:

20

Prisoner Name

Date Mailed to Prisoner 


Robert Beckwith

January 31, 2011 


21

Daniel Butts

Februat:y 3, 2011 


Cory Dell

22

Jacob Francoeur

February 3, 2011 
 February 3, 2011

Mark Gift

23

Nicholas Jones

July 20, 2011 February 3, 2011

Martin Kay

24

George Lammi

February 1,2011 June 30, 2011

Scott Lavelle

25

Troy McCarter

January 31,2011 February 1, 2011

Shane McNutt

26

Robert Meader

January 31,2011 February 3, 2011

Kanaan Meyers

27

Jeffrey Murray

January 31,2011 and February 4,2011 June 30, 2011

COMPLAINT 9
9870.05 fa 122203

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 10 of 24 Page ID#: 10

Lloyd Myers

January 31,2011

Ralph Patterson

July 20,2011

Andrew Plumber

January 31, 2011

2

Jason Quade

February 1, 2011

Cindy Seaston

3

Barry Shaft

June 30, 2011 July 20,2011

Ezra St. Helen

4

William Temple

February 1, 2011 July 20,2011

Scott Thomas

5

Alisha Vandolah

February 1, 2011 February 1, 2011

Jeffrey Vannatta

February 3,2011

6

Robert Westmoreland

July 20, 2011

7

8

4.37 The prisoners identified above in paragraph 4.36 were prisoners at the Columbia

9 County Jail at the time that the Jail received the Informational Brochure Packs addressed to each

10 prisoner from PLN.

11

4.38 Defendants rejected each Informational Brochure Pack sent by PLN and did not

12 deliver them to the prisoner-addressees.

13

4.39 For the Informational Brochure Packs that Defendants returned to Prison Legal

14 News, Defendants: (a) placed a sticker on the mail stating: "As of Apri11, 2010 The Columbia

15 County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS, This applies to ALL incoming and out going

16 mail"; (b) stamped the mail "INSPECTED BY COLUMBIA COUNTY JAIL" and handwrote

17 checkmarks next to "RETURN TO SENDER" and "REFUSENIOLATES SECURITY"; or (c)

18 merely stamped the mail "RETURN TO SENDER."

19

4.40 Defendants did not provide PLN due process notice or an opportunity to appeal

20 the censorship decisions.

21

4.41 Defendants did not provide the prisoner-addressees due process notice or an

22 opportunity to appeal the censorship decisions.

23

4.42 In addition to those identified above, PLN mailed Informational Brochure Packs

24 addressed to other prisoners at the Columbia County Jail in 2011.

25

4.43 On information and belief, Defendants rejected additional Informational Brochure

26 Packs that PLN sent to prisoners, other than those identified above, and Defendants failed to give

27 due process notice and an opportunity to be heard to PLN and the prisoner-addressees.

COMPLAINT 10
9870.05 [.122:203

l\'iAcDOI"ALD HOAGliE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 11 of 24 Page ID#: 11

4.44 Prison Legal News intends to continue sending Informational Brochure Packs to

2 prisoners at the Columbia County Jail in the future.

3

Renewal Letters

4

4.45 Prison Legal News sent sUbscription renewal letters along with Informational

5 Brochure Packs ("Subscription Renewal Packs") to certain prisoners at the Columbia County Jail

6 in white standard # lO envelopes via first-class mail.

7

4.46 Each personalized subscription renewal letter mailed to a prisoner at the

8 Columbia County Jail included information for the prisoner-addressee that his individual

9 subscription was nearing its end.

lO

4.47 In May and June 2011, Prison Legal News mailed Subscription Renewal Packs

11 addressed to each of the following prisoners at the Columbia County Jail:

12

Prisoner Name

Date Sent

William Hess

13

Martin Kay

6116111 6116111

Troy McCarter

14

Shane McNutt

6116111 6/16111

Andrew Plumber

6/16111

15

Jason Quade

5/21111

Ezra Sf. Helen

16

Alisha Vandolah

6/16111 6116111

17

18 The prisoners identified above were prisoners at the Columbia County Jail at the time that the

19 Jail received the Subscription Renewal Packs addressed to each prisoner from PLN.

20

4.48 Defendants rejected each Subscription Renewal Pack sent by PLN and did not

21 deliver them to the prisoner-addressees.

22

4.49 For the Subscription Renewal Packs that Defendants returned to Prison Legal

23 News, Defendants: (a) placed a sticker on the mail stating: "As of April 1,2010 The Columbia

24 County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS, This applies to ALL incoming and out going

25 mail"; or (b) merely stamped the mail "RETURN TO SENDER."

26

4.50 Defendants did not provide Prison Legal News due process notice or an

27 opportunity to appeal the censorship decisions.

COMPLAINT - 11
9870,05 fal22203

IVIACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98! 04
Tel206,622,1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 12 of 24 Page ID#: 12

1

4.51 Defendants did not provide the prisoner-addressees due process notice or an

2 opportunity to appeal the censorship decisions.

3

4.52 In addition to those identified above, PLN mailed Subscription Renewal Packs

4 addressed to other prisoners at the Columbia County Jail in 2011.

5

4.53 On infonnation and belief, Defendants rejected additional Subscription Renewal

6 Packs that PLN sent to other prisoners, other than those identified above, and Defendants failed

7 to give due process notice and an opportunity to be heard to PLN and the prisoner-addressees.

8

4.54 Prison Legal News intends to continue sending Subscription Renewal Packs to

9 prisoners at the Columbia County Jail in the future.

10

Fundraising Letters and Brochures

11

4.55 Prison Legal News sent fundraising letters along with Infonnational Brochure

12 Packs ("Fundraising Pack") to certain prisoners at the Columbia County Jail in white standard #

13 10 envelopes via standard rate nonprofit mail.

14

4.56 Each fundraising letter mailed to a prisoner at the Columbia County Jail included

15 infonnation for the prisoner-addressee about PLN's history, PLN's efforts to protect civil rights

16 across the country, and its journal and books available for purchase.

17

4.57 In approximately November 2011, Prison Legal News mailed Fundraising Packs

18 addressed to prisoners William Temple and Barry Shaft at the Columbia County Jail. Mr.

19 Temple and Mr. Shaft were prisoners at the Columbia County Jail at the time that the Jail

20 received the Fundraising Packs addressed to each of them from PLN.

21

4.58 Defendants rejected each Fundraising Pack sent by PLN and did not deliver them

22 to the prisoner-addressees.

23

4.59 For the Fundraising Packs that Defendants returned to Prison Legal News,

24 Defendants merely stamped them "RETURN TO SENDER" without stating a reason for

25 censorship.

26

4.60 Defendants did not provide Prison Legal News due process notice or an

27 opportunity to appeal the censorship decisions.

COMPLAINT - 12
9870,05 fal21203

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue. Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 13 of 24 Page ID#: 13

1

4.61 On infonnation and belief, Defendants did not provide the prisoner-addressees 


2 due process notice or an opportunity to appeal the censorship decisions. 


3

4.62 In addition to those identified above, PLN mailed Fundraising Packs addressed to

4 other prisoners at the Columbia County Jail in 2011.

5

4.63 On infonnation and belief, Defendants rejected additional Fundraising Packs that

6 PLN sent to other prisoners, other than those identified above, and Defendants failed to give due

7 process notice and an opportunity to be heard to PLN and the prisoner-addressees.

8

4.64 Prison Legal News intends to continue sending Fundraising Packs to prisoners at

9 the Columbia County Jail in the future.

10

PLN Online Article

11

4.65 An individual, Lucy Lennox, sent legal articles that she printed off ofPLN's

12 website to certain prisoners at the Columbia County Jail in standard #10 envelopes via U.S. Mail.

13

4.66 The legal articles mailed by Ms. Lennox to prisoners at the Columbia County Jail

14 include a critique ofprison privatization, and research findings about the goals and results of the

15 move toward privatization. The articles also identify a correspondence school book available

16 for sale, and include introductory descriptions ofPLN's 20 "Breaking News" headlines about

17 various topics, including but not limited to sex abuse in prison, poor forensics used to secure

18 criminal convictions, private prison companies behind Arizona's immigration law, and the death

19 penalty in Texas.

20

4.67 In December 2011, Ms. Lennox mailed PLN online articles to the following

21 prisoners at the Columbia County Jail:

22

Prisoner Name

Date Sent 


Steven Adams

23

Arthur Bates Jr.

12115/11
 12115111 


Toni Bertasso

24

Daniel Butts

12/21111
 12115/11 


Robert Clement

12115111 


25

Anthony Deherrera

12122111 


Kenna Haynes

12122111 


26

Scott Lavelle

12115111 


Billy Nelson

27

Samuel Oester

12115111 
 12115111

COMPLAlNT 13
9870,05 fa 122203

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel206,622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 14 of 24 Page ID#: 14

Cindy Seastone

1

Barry Shaft

12/15/11 12115111

William Temple

2

Timothy Turner

12/15/11 12/20/11

Alisha Vandolah 3

12/15/11

The prisoners identified above were prisoners at the Columbia County Jail at the time that the

4

Jail received the PLN articles addressed to each of them from Ms. Lennox. 5

4.68 Defendants rejected at least twelve PLN articles sent by Ms. Lennox and did not
6

deliver them to the prisoners to which they were addressed by name. 7
4.69 For the PLN articles that Defendants returned to Ms. Lennox, Defendants: (a)
8
placed a sticker on the mail stating: "As of April 1,2010 The Columbia County Jail ONLY 9
ACCEPTS POSTCARDS, This applies to ALL incoming and out going mail"; (b) stamped the 10
mail "INSPECTED BY COLUMBIA COUNTY JAIL" and handwrote checkmarks next to 11
"RETURN TO SENDER" and "REFUSENIOLATES SECURITY"; (c) stamped the mail 12
"INSPECTED BY COLUMBIA COUNTY JAIL" and handwrote checkmarks next to
13 "RETURN TO SENDER" and "CONTRABAND"; or (d) stamped the mail "INSPECTED BY
14

COLUMBIA COUNTY JAIL" and handwrote "no envelope mail". 15
4.70 Defendants did not provide Ms. Lennox due process notice or an opportunity to 16

appeal the censorship decisions. 17
4.71 Defendants did not provide the prisoner-addressees due process notice or an
18
opportunity to appeal the censorship decisions.
19 B. JAIL POLICIES
20
4.72 On April 1, 2010, the Columbia County Jail implemented a new policy governing 21
mail to prisoners. A true copy of the policy is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit A.
22
4.73 Ban on Speech that is Not a Postcard: Effective April 1, 2010, Defendants 23
instituted a policy that requires all incoming and outgoing mail to prisoners to be in postcard 24
form (hereinafter "Postcard-Only Mail Policy"). 25
4.73.1 The Jail's Postcard-Only Mail Policy states, in pertinent part:
26

Incoming Mail will be only accepted in the form of commercially­

27

produced postcards or a photograph used as a postcard.

COMPLAINT 14
98;0.05 fa[12203

MACDo~ALD HOAGliE & BAHESS 705 Second Avenue. Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel206.622.1604 Fax 206343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 15 of 24 Page ID#: 15

See Exhibit A.

2

4.73.2 In addition, Defendants sometimes place a sticker on returned mail,

3 which states: "As of April 1,2010 The Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS,

4 This applies to ALL incoming and out going maiL"

5

4.73.3 Defendants have used their Postcard-Only Mail Policy to censor

6 Plaintiff's Prison Legal News journal, Informational Brochure Packs, Renewal Brochure Packs,

7 Fundraising Packs, online articles, and other correspondence.

8

4.73.4 Defendants have used their Postcard-Only Mail Policy to censor

9 correspondence from other publishers, companies, organizations, prisoners and individuals. For

10 example, Defendants rejected numerous PLN articles that Lucy Lennox printed from the PLN

11 website and mailed to certain prisoners at the Columbia County Jail. The Jail's stated

12 justification for rejection was that "the Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS"

13 or "no envelope mail" as the reason for rejection.

14

4.73.5 Defendants' Postcard-Only Mail Policy is unconstitutionally overbroad.

15

4.73.6 Defendants' Postcard-Only Mail Policy and their practice of enforcing

16 this policy unconstitutionally burdens Plaintiff's First Amendment rights, the First Amendment

17 rights of other correspondents who send mail to prisoners confined at the Columbia County Jail,

18 the First Amendment rights of the intended recipients of outgoing mail from prisoners confined

19 at the Columbia County Jail, and the First Amendment rights of prisoners at the Columbia

20 County Jail.

21

4.74 Ban on Speech that is a Magazine: Defendants' Mail Policy bans all magazines

22 (hereinafter "No-Magazines Mail Policy"). The Jail's No-Magazines Mail Policy states, in

23 pertinent part:

24

Publications: "We do not accept magazines." ...

Magazines: "Are not allowed inside the facility." 25

26 See Exhibit A.

27

COMPLAINT 15
98;0.05 fu122203

MACDO/i,<\LD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Te1206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 16 of 24 Page ID#: 16

1

4.74.1 On information and belief, Defendants have used their No-Magazines

2 Mail Policy to censor Plaintiffs Prison Legal News journal and other correspondence.

3

4.74.2 On information and belief, Defendants have used their No-Magazines

4 Mail Policy to censor magazines, journals, publications and other correspondence from other

5 publishers, book distributors, companies, organizations, and individuals.

6

4.74.3 Defendants' No-Magazines Mail Policy is unconstitutionally overbroad.

7

4.74.4 Defendants' No-Magazines Mail Policy and its practice of enforcing this

8 policy unconstitutionally burdens Plaintiffs First Amendment rights, the First Amendment rights

9 of other correspondents who send mail to prisoners confined at the Columbia County Jail, and

10 the First Amendment rights of prisoners at the Columbia County Jail.

11

4.75 Lack of Procedural Due Process Protections: Defendants' mail policies do not

12 require them to provide due process notice or an opportunity for the mail sender, intended

13 recipient, or prisoner to appeal the Jail's censorship decisions; and Defendants' practice likewise

14 does not provide due process notice or an opportunity for the mail sender, intended recipient, or

15 prisoner to appeal the Jail's censorship decisions. Defendants' policies and practices violate the

16 Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

17

4.76 Defendants' policies and conduct prohibiting delivery of Prison Legal News'

18 monthly journal, informational brochures, subscription forms, book catalogs, book offers,

19 renewal letters, fundraising letters, online articles, and other publications and correspondence to

20 prisoners confined at the Columbia County Jail, violate the First Amendment. Similarly,

21 Defendants' policies and conduct prohibiting delivery of incoming mail from correspondents

22 other than PLN, and prohibiting delivery of outgoing mail from prisoners to PLN or other

23 intended recipients, violate the First Amendment.

24

4.77 Defendants' policies and their censorship of the expressive activities set forth

25 above have a chilling effect on future speech.

26

4.78 Defendants' policies and practices described above frustrate Prison Legal News's

27 organizational mission and have caused Prison Legal News to divert its resources.

COMPLAINT - 16
98;0.05 fale2203

IVL-\cDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle. Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 17 of 24 Page ID#: 17

4.79 Defendants' policies and actions have violated, continue to violate, and are

2 reasonably expected to violate in the future Plaintiffs constitutional rights to communicate its 


3 political message to prisoners, to recruit new supporters, readers and subscribers, and have 


4 caused Plaintiff additional financial harm in the form of di version of its resources, lost 


5 subscriptions, and lost publication and book purchases.

6

4.80 Defendant Dickerson and other agents of Columbia County are responsible for or

7 personally participated in creating and implementing these unconstitutional policies, practices,

8 and customs, and for training and supervising the mail staff members whose conduct also have

9 injured and continue to injure Plaintiff and others, or ratified or adopted the polices or actions

10 described herein. 11 12

v. CLAIM ALLEGATIONS
COUNT 1

13

FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

14

5.1 Plaintiffrealleges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs.

15

5.2 The acts described above constitute violations of Plaintiff's rights, the rights of

16 other correspondents who have attempted to or intend to correspond with prisoners at the

17 Columbia County Jail, and the rights of prisoners confined at the Columbia County Jail, under

18 the First Amendment to the United States Constitution through 42 U.S.c. § 1983.

19

5.3 The acts described above have caused damages to Plaintiff, and will continue to

20 cause damage.

21

5.4 Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and nominal and compensatory

22 damages against all Defendants. Plaintiff seeks punitive damages solely against Defendant

23 Dickerson in his individual capacity.

M

COUNT 2

25

DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

26

TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

27

5.5 Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs.

COMPLAINT - 17
9870.05 fa122203

MACDONALD HOAGL'E & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue. Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 18 of 24 Page ID#: 18

5.6 The acts described above constitute violations of Plaintiff's rights, the rights of

2 other correspondents who have attempted to or intend to correspond with prisoners at the

3 Columbia County Jail, and the rights of prisoners confined at the Columbia County Jail, under

4 the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution through 42 U.S.c. § 1983.

5

5.7 The acts described above have caused damages to Plaintiff, and will continue to

6 cause damage.

7

5.8 Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and nominal and compensatory 


8 damages against all Defendants. Plaintiff seeks punitive damages solely against Defendant 


9 Dickerson in his individual capacity.

10

VI. INJUNCTION ALLEGATIONS

11

6.1 Defendants' unconstitutional policy, practices, and customs are ongoing and

12 continue to violate Plaintiff's constitutional rights and the rights of other correspondents and

13 prisoners, and as such there is no adequate remedy at law.

14

6.2 Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from: refusing to

15 deliver or allow delivery of publications, books, informational brochures and subscription forms,

16 book catalogs, book offers, renewal letters, fundraising letters, online articles, and other

17 correspondence from Prison Legal News or other correspondents; censoring or rejecting mail on

18 the ground that it is not in the form of a postcard; censoring or rejecting a catalog on the ground

19 that it is a catalog or not a postcard; censoring or rejecting mail on the ground that it is a

20 magazine; and prohibiting Defendants from censoring mail without due process oflaw.

21

VII. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

22

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests relief as follows:

23

7.1 A preliminary injunction and a permanent injunction preventing Defendants from

24 continuing to violate the Constitution, and providing other equitable relief.

25

7.2 A declaration that Defendants' policies, practices, and customs violate the

26 Constitution.

27

COMPLAINT - 18
9SiO.05 fu 112203

l\'IACDON..\LD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98 \04
TeI206.622.J604 Fax 206343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 19 of 24 Page ID#: 19

7.2 An award of nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages for each violation of

2 its First Amendment rights to free speech and expression in an amount to be proved at trial.

3

7.3 An award of nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages for each violation of

4 its Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process in an amount to be proved at trial.

5

7.4 A trial by jury on damages.

6

7.5 Costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and under 


7 other applicable law. 


8

7.6 Pre-j udgment and post-judgment interest.

9

7.7 The fight to conform the pleadings to the proof and evidence presented at triaL

10

7.8 Such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

11

DATED this 13th day of January, 2012.

/l

12

RA7H iLACKMAN

13

14

By: ~~TtT~~~~~~~~------

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

COMPLAINT - 19
98;0.05 fal22203

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 70S Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98 \04
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 20 of 24 Page ID#: 20
EXHIBIT A TO
COMPLAINT

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 21 of 24 Page ID#: 21
Inmate Mail Last Updated Friday, 06 August 201016:48
Incoming Mail:
Incoming Mail will be only accepted In the form of commercially-produced postcards or a photograph used as a postcard. Themail is delivered to the Sheriff's Office Monday through Saturday, excluding holidays.
Address Inmate's Name (Booking Number) Columbia County Jail 901 Port Avenue St. Helens, Oregon 97051
Prohibited Mail
Effective April 1, 2010 the Columbia County Sheriff's Office is changing the procedures
that apply to inmate mail.
MAIL VIOLATIONS: (Will result in the post card(s) being returned to sender)
* No Inmate Name * Incomplete Return Address * Stickers of any kind (Includes address labels)
* Rubber Inked Stamps * Tape
* Lipstick * Colored Pencils * Paperclips I Staples etc.
• Correction Tape / Fluid • Crayon
* Paint
* Watercolor or colored markers * Food / Beverage Stains
• Perfume I Cologne
• Any unidentifiable substance
1/4

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 22 of 24 Page ID#: 22
Inmate Mail
Last Updated Friday, 06 August 201016:48
The following mail will not be received or sent from the facility and will be returned to the sender.
1. Mail from one inmate to another at this facility requires a supervisor's approval. 2. Mail that threatens blackmail or extortion. 3. Mail that concerns sending contraband into or out of our jail. 4. Mail that concerns escape plans. 5. Mail that concerns plans for activities in violation of the jail rules. 6. Mail that concerns plans for criminal activity. 7. Mail that contains information which, if communicated, would create a danger of violence or physical harm to a person 8. Mail that is sensational. Sensationalism is writing or other printed material that poses a threat to the security, safety, or good order of the jail. 9. Mail that contains any contraband materials. 10. No personal packages will be accepted through the mail or by the Sheriff's Office Clerks. 11. Polaroid or other instant developing photographs. 12. Picture frames or picture folders. 13. Photographs larger than 5" x 7". 14. Postage stamps, blank writing paper, or blank envelopes. 15. Mail that contains gang-related writings, drawings, or symbols on the outside of the envelope or letter. 16. Mail that contains a foreign substance, bodily fluid, perfume or cologne. 17. Mail written in code or suspected code. 18. Sexually explicit materials. 19. Mail that encourages or instructs in a commission of a crime. 20. Mail falsely labeled "Official Mail." 21. Photographs that are not printed by a professional commercial source (photo labs or kiosks) will not be accepted. (home printer produced pictures on regular paper are not allowed.) 22. Stickers, tape, and return address labels.
Legal Professional Mail Rules: Inmate legal mail and professional mail rules have not changed.
Publications:
We do not accept magazines. Books must be sent directly from the publisher or bookstore. An inmate may receive no more than three books per month.
Man Definitions and Frequently Asked Questions:
2/4

InmCaatseeM3a:1ll 2-cv-00071-SI Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 23 of 24 Page ID#: 23

c.

Last Updated Friday, 06 August 201016:48

Incomplete return address: Return address is missing either part of the address or first and last name of sender.

No Inmate Name: Inmate's first and last names are NOT on the post card.

Dead Mailed: There is no return address. In this case the postcard is returned to the Post Office.

What happens to the postcard I send to an inmate when it arrives at the Facility? After the post card has been cleared through administration, it is reviewed for mail violations. If a violation is found, the Deputy will complete a Mail Violation Form and the mail will be placed in the inmate's property until their release, or it will be returned to the sender.

Can I send a care package to an Inmate? Inmates housed in the Jail cannot receive care packages of any kind through the mail. Care packages which are not mail in can be purchased through www.columbia.icaredirect.eom . We only accept care packages by this method.

Can Inmates have access to Books, Magazines, and Newspapers? The Columbia County Jail has certain legal publications as well as books for entertainment, and some faith-based materials. Books may be procured from outside the jail. however any such book, hardbound or otherwise, must be sent directly from the publisher or bookstore via the U.S. Mail. Newspapers maybe subscribed to in the inmate's name for delivery to the jail.

Magazines: Are not allowed inside the facility.

Religious Materials: Inmates can request a Bible from the Law Library. Inmates can also attend a religious program and receive religious materials from the Columbia County Sheriff's Office Volunteer who facilitates that particular program.

3/4

.

InCmaasteeM3a:1il2-cv-00071-SI Document 1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 24 of 24 Page ID#: 24
Last Updated Friday, 06 August 2010 16:48

4/4

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 1-1 Filed 01/13/12 Page 1 of 1 Page ID#: 25

<!\>JS 44 (Rev. 12107)

CIVIL COVER SHEET

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings orother papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules ofcourt. This Conn, approved by the1udicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court forthe purpose of mitiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS

Prison Legal News, a project of the Human Rights Defense Center
(b) County of Residence ofFirst Listed Plaintiff Whindham, Vermont
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

Columbia County, Columbia County Sheriffs Office, Jeff

Dickerson, individually and in his capacity as Sheriff

County of Residence of First Listed Defendant

...;C;..o;..l;..u...;m;.....::b;..ia~_ _ _ _ __

(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONL Y)

NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES. USE THE LOCATION OF THE

LAND INVOLVED.

FILED13.JAt.J'12 iiG. ,USDC-DRP

(c) Attorney's (Finn Name, Address, and Telephone Number)

Attorneys (If Known)

Katherine C. Chamberlain, MacDonald Hoague & Bayless, 705 2nd

Ave., Suite 1500, Seattle, WA 98104-1745; 206-622-1604

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an "X" in One Box Only)

LlI u.s. Government
Plaintiff

~3 Federal Question (U.S. Government Not a Party)

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL P ARTIES(Place an "X" in One Box for Plaintiff

(For Diversity Cases Only)

and One Box for Defendant)

PTF DEF

PTF DEI'

Citizen ofn,is State

Ll 1 Ll I Incorporated or Principal Place

Ll 4 Ll 4

of Business [n This State

Ll2 U.S. Government Defendant

Ll4 Diversity (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item [II)

Citizen of Another State

Ll 2 Ll 2 Incorporated and Principal Place of Business [n Another State

o5 05

Citizen or Subject of a Foreign Countlv

o 3 0 3 Foreign Nation

o6 06

IV NATURE OF SUIT (Placean"X"inOneBoxOnlv) 

, <\:.: ;'i&ifl'CONTRAGmi!;; "Y7~:,,,~~,~t

\'C;FORFEITURE/PENA[;'IiY~ ~Bf\:NKRUIOf(fr~ ",~~f'I1:;iOTHER STA11:HES', ~c;~~ 


o 11 0 Insurance

PERSONAL INJURY

o 120 Marine

Ll 310 Airplane

o 130 Miller Act

c:! 315 Airplane Product

o 140 Negotiable Instrument

Liability

o 150 Recovery of Overpayment 0 320 Assaul~ Libel &

PERSONAL INJURY Ll 362 Personal Injury
Med. Malpractice 0 365 Personal Injury
Product Liability

& EnforcementofJudgment

Slander

o 151 Medicare Act

0 330 Federal Employers'

o 152 Recovery of Defaulted

Liability

0 368 Asbestos Personal Injury Product Liability

Student Loans

Ll 340 Marine

PERSONAL PROPERTY

(Excl. Veterans)

0 345 Marine Product

o 153 Recovery of Overpayment

Liability

0 370 Other Fraud 0 371 Truth in Lending

ofVeteran's Benefits

Ll 350 Motor Vehicle

o 160 Stockholders' Suits

0 355 Motor Vehicle

o 190 Other Contract

Product Liability

o 195 Contract Product Liability 0 360 Other Personal

0 380 Other Personal Property Damage
0 385 Property Damage Product Liability

Ll 196 F",nellise

Injury

1~.ilREA:LllRORERTY.. • :r:' 1!'l!Iii1!1'lCIVIB'RIGHTS1iW1!!tm r

o 210 Land Condemnation

0 441 Voting

0

o 220 Foreclosure

Ll 442 Employment

o 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 0 443 Housing!

o 240 Torts to Land

Accommodations

0

o 245 Tort Product Liability

0 444 Welfare

0

o 290 All Other Real Property 0 445 Amer. w/Disabilities- 0

510Motions to Vacate Sentence
Habeas Corpus: 530 General 535 Death Penalty 540 Mandamus & Other

Employment

0 550 Civil Rights

0 446 Amer. wlDisabilities - Ll 555 Prison Condition

Other

QI( 440 Other Civil Rights

o 610 Agriculture o 620 Olher Food & Drug

o 422 Appeal 28 USC 158

0

o 423 Withdrawal

0

Ll 625 Drug Related Seizure

28 USC 157

0

of Property 21 USC 881
o 630 Liquor Laws o 640 R.R. & Truck o 650 Airline Regs. o 660 Occupational

0

!l!l\'i\PROPER>T¥>RIGHTS~~11f 0

o 820 Copyrights

0

o 830 Patent

o 840 Trademark

0

Safety/Health

0

o 6900ther

0

R':n:,.,; lEi'f4i7%f~":Ci'::LAB(1

\:~-. ,;0 ~::. ~,:

SOCIAD.SEGURITI, " i,i"}i 0

o 710 Fair Labor Standards

o 861 HIA (1395ff)

Act

o 862 Black Lung (923)

0

o o 720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations

863 D[WC/DIWW (405(g))

o 730 LaborlMgmtReporting o 864 SSID Title XVI

0

& Disclosure Act
o 740 Railway Labor Act o 790 Other Labor Litigation o 791 Emp!. Ret. [ne.
Security Act

0865 RSI (, )

0

X SUITS '0
o 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff 0

or Defendant)

0

o 871 IRS-Tllird Party

0

26 USC 7609

IGRATI()N~

0

o 462 Naturalization Application

o 463 Habeas Corpus -

Alien Detainee

0

o 465 Other Immigration

Actions

400 State Reapportionment 410 Antitrust 430 Banks and Banking 450 Commerce 460 Deportation 470 Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations 480 Consumer Credit 
 490 Cable/Sat TV 
 810 Selective Service 
 850 Securities/Commoditiesl
Exchange 875 Customer Challenge
12 USC 3410 890 Other Statutory Actions 891 Agricultural Acts 892 Economic Stabilization Act 893 Environmental Matters 894 Energy Allocation Act 895 Freedom of Information
Act 900AppeaI of Fee Detennination
Under Equal Access 
 to Justice 
 950 Constitutionality of 
 State Statutes

V. ORIGIN
OJ I Original
Proceeding

(Place an "X" in One Box Only)

o 2 Removed from

0 3 Remanded from

State Court

Appellate Court

o 4 Reinstated or 0 Reopened

5 Transferred from 0 6 Multidistrict

anoth.er dlstnct s eClfv

Litigation

Appeal to District

o 7

Judge from Magistrate

Judgment

Cite the U.S. CjvjJ SUitute under whlch YOL\ pre fitipg (Do nQt citejurisd)j:tjQI\ll.1 ~(at\lteS.\lllless diversity): 1St and 14tn Amendmems to me U" COnStItutIon; 4L U.>::>.v. -!l;O,j

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION I-B-n-e'-r d-es-c-n-·p.-ti-on-of-c-a-us-e-;- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Censorship ot mail by the government without due process

VII. REQUESTED IN

o CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION

DEMAND $

CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint: 


COMPLAINT:

UNDER FKC.P. 23

JURY DEMAND:

Iiif Yes 0 No 


VIII. RELATED CASE(S)

IF Al~Y 


(See instructions):


JUDGE

DOCKET NUMBER

DATE
January. 13, 2012

SIGNATURE OF ATIORNE

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

-------- RECEIPT #

AMOUNT------------- APPLYINO IFP - - - - - - -

JUDGE ---------- MAG. JUDGE----------------

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 73 Filed 06/19/12 Page 1 of 6 Page ID#: 1762

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,

Case No.: 3:12-cv-00071-SI

Plaintiff, v.

OPINION AND ORDER

COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; JEFF DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,

Defendants.

Jesse Wing and Katherine C. Chamberlain, Macdonald, Hoague & Bayless, 1500 Hoge Building, 705 Second Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104; Lance Weber, Human Rights Defense Center, 1037 Western Avenue, Second Floor, West Brattleboro, VT 05303; and Marc D. Blackman, Ransom Blackman, LLP, 1001 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 1400, Portland, OR 97204. Attorneys for Plaintiff.
Steven A. Kraemer and Gregory R. Roberson, Hart Wagner, LLP, 1000 S.W. Broadway, 20th Floor, Portland, OR 97205. Of Attorneys for Defendants.

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 73 Filed 06/19/12 Page 2 of 6 Page ID#: 1763
SIMON, District Judge. Before the court is a motion to compel production filed by Defendants Columbia County,
the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office, and Sheriff Jeffrey Dickerson (collectively, “Defendants”). Dkt. 61. In response to a discovery request, Plaintiff Prison Legal News (“PLN” or “Plaintiff”) produced an e-mail, sent before this lawsuit began, from its editor to a third-party, discussing preparation for potential litigation against two Oregon county jails. One jail named in the e-mail is Columbia County Jail, which is administered by Defendants. Plaintiff redacted the name of the other jail. Defendants seek production of an unredacted version of this e-mail. They argue that identification “of the other jail is essential to [their] case and particularly to challenging [Plaintiff’s] alleged . . . damages.” Defs.’ Memorandum in Support (“Defs.’ Mem.”) at 5 (Dkt. 62). Plaintiff responds that the redacted name is protected by the work product doctrine. The court finds that the redacted information is protected work product. The court also finds that Defendants have failed to establish that they have a substantial need for an unredacted copy of the e-mail sufficient to overcome the protections of the work product doctrine. Defendants’ motion to compel production, Dkt. 61, is, therefore, DENIED.
DISCUSSION The work product doctrine is “designed to balance the needs of the adversary system: promotion of an attorney’s preparation in representing a client versus society’s general interest in revealing all true and material facts to the resolution of a dispute.” In re Martin Marietta Corp., 856 F.2d 619, 624 (4th Cir. 1988). To qualify for work product protection, documents must be prepared in anticipation of litigation and “be prepared by or for another party or by or for that other party’s representative.” United States v. Richey, 632 F.3d 559, 567 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In the Ninth Circuit, documents “prepared or obtained
Page 2 – OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 73 Filed 06/19/12 Page 3 of 6 Page ID#: 1764
because of the prospect of litigation” qualify as documents prepared in anticipation of litigation. In re Grand Jury Subpoena (Mark Torf/Torf Envtl. Mgmt.), 357 F.3d 900, 907 (9th Cir. 2004) (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The party asserting work product protection has the burden to prove that the doctrine applies. Resolution Trust Corp. v. Dabney, 73 F.3d 262, 266 (10th Cir. 1995) (“The party asserting a work product privilege as a bar to discovery must prove the doctrine is applicable.”).
The work product doctrine does not absolutely bar discovery of factual material.1 Admiral Ins. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Arizona, 881 F.2d 1486, 1494 (9th Cir. 1989). A party may discover work product when “it has substantial need for the materials to prepare its case and cannot, without undue hardship, obtain their substantial equivalent by other means.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A)(ii). To demonstrate that it has a “substantial need” to discover work product, a party must establish “that the facts contained in the requested documents are essential elements of the requesting party’s prima facie case.” 6 MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE, § 26.70[5][c] (Matthew Bender 3d Ed.); see, e.g., Kintera, Inc. v. Convio, Inc., 219 F.R.D. 503, 510 (S.D. Cal. 2003) (a party does not have a substantial need for documents when they are sought only for impeachment purposes). The requesting party must also establish that “substantially equivalent” information is not readily available by other means. See, e.g., Baker v. Gen. Motors Corp., 209 F.3d 1051, 1054 (8th Cir. 2000) (“Discovery of a witness statement to an attorney is generally not allowed if that witness is available to the other party.”); cf. Admiral
1 This discussion only concerns the discovery of factual material. A party seeking discovery of “opinion work product”—i.e., the “plans, strategies, tactics, and impressions” of the opposing party or its attorney, In re Seagate Tech., LLC, 497 F.3d 1360, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2007)— “must make a showing beyond the substantial need/undue hardship test required under Rule 26(b)(3) for non-opinion work product.” Holmgren v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 976 F.2d 573, 577 (9th Cir. 1992). The parties do not contend that the unredacted e-mail or the name of the redacted jail is opinion work product.
Page 3 – OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 73 Filed 06/19/12 Page 4 of 6 Page ID#: 1765
Ins. Co., 881 F.2d at 1494 (“when a party makes a substantial showing that he is unable through his efforts to obtain needed information, the balance of equities shifts in favor of disclosure of trial preparation materials”); Castaneda v. Burger King Corp., 259 F.R.D. 194, 197 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (defendant’s surveys protected by work product were discoverable because plaintiffs could not replicate those surveys).
In their First Request for Production, Defendants requested copies of correspondence “to and from Lucy Lennox relating to her mailings of PLN web articles to inmates at the Columbia County Jail and to her recruitment by PLN to assist it.” Dkt. 63-2, pg. 4. In response, Plaintiff produced an e-mail sent from its editor, Paul Wright, to Lucy Lennox dated December 10, 2011. The e-mail states in part:
[W]e are in the process of challenging the postcard only policies at the Columbia and [Redacted] jails in Oregon.
We expect them to pull some of the same stunts that Spokane did to avoid the prospect of their policy being found unconstitutional. Are you interested in doing the same as we did in Spokane which is to print out an article from our website and send it to some prisoners at each jail. . . .
This will help lock in our claims against the jails to ensure we get the postcard policy reversed. Dkt. 63-1. As indicated above, Plaintiff redacted the name of the other jail in Oregon. Defendants first argue that the e-mail is not work product because it was not written in anticipation of litigation: “This email was not prepared by Paul Wright ‘because of’ an anticipation of litigation, but was instead simply a solicitation to Ms. Lennox asking if she would be interested in sending material to the jails.” Defs.’ Mem. at 4. The court disagrees. The text of the e-mail indicates that Plaintiff anticipated litigation. Mr. Wright discusses “challenging” jail policies; he speculates that the jails will wish to avoid “the prospect of their policy being found unconstitutional”; and he asks for Ms. Lennox’s help to “lock in our claims against the jails.”
Page 4 – OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 73 Filed 06/19/12 Page 5 of 6 Page ID#: 1766
Terms such as “challenge,” “found,” “unconstitutional,” and “claims,” when used in this context, are indicative of an anticipation of litigation. Thus, the e-mail, including the redacted name of the other jail, is work product.
Defendants next argue that even if the e-mail is work product, they have a substantial need to know the identity of the redacted jail in order to address one of Plaintiff’s bases for damages. Plaintiff claims that “Defendants’ unconstitutional mail policy and censorship of incoming and outgoing prisoner mail caused PLN to divert time and resources to investigate the extent and nature of Defendants’ mail policy and censorship practices.” Dkt. 63-4, pg. 7 (Plaintiff’s initial disclosures). Plaintiff claims nearly $24,000 in damages for diverted time and resources. Id. According to Defendants, identification “of the other jail is essential to . . . challenging” this claim. Defs.’ Mem. at 5. Defendants argue that identifying the other Oregon jail will allow Defendants to “challenge PLN’s assertion that sending mail and speaking to inmates at the Columbia County Jail was a ‘diversion’ of resources, and challenge PLN’s assertion of the amount of time spent on these activities.” Defs.’ Mem. at 3-4.
Defendants have not demonstrated a substantial need to learn the name of the other jail by obtaining an unredacted copy of the e-mail. First, Defendants might readily obtain the same information contained in the e-mail by other means. Defendants could, for example, contact the other county jails in Oregon and inquire whether they use a postcard-only mail policy and whether inmates have received mail from PLN or Ms. Lennox. More importantly, however, even if Defendants could not obtain the same information by others means, Defendants have failed to demonstrate that the name of the other Jail is an essential element of their prima facie defense. Although Defendants do not explicitly describe how the name of the other jail will aid their defense, presumably they have two purposes in mind: They may wish to compare the amount of
Page 5 – OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 73 Filed 06/19/12 Page 6 of 6 Page ID#: 1767

time Plaintiff spends preparing litigation to the amount of time Plaintiff spends on other tasks, or they may wish to compare the amount of time Plaintiff spent sending mail to the Columbia County Jail to the amount of time Plaintiff spent sending mail to the other jail. In either case, Defendants should be able to obtain this sort of information by inquiring of Plaintiff generally, even if Defendants do not learn the name of the other jail.
Accordingly, the court concludes that the redacted information in Mr. Wright’s e-mail to Ms. Lennox is work product and that Defendants have failed to demonstrate that they have a substantial need to obtain an unredacted copy of that e-mail.
CONCLUSION Defendants Motion to Compel, Dkt. 61, is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 19th day of June, 2012.

United

/s/ Michael H. Simon __________________________ Michael H. Simon
States District Judge

Page 6 – OPINION AND ORDER

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 7 Filed 01/31/12 Page 1 of 3

1 Katherine C. Chamberlain, OSB #042580
katherinec@mhb.com
2 Jesse A. Wing, pro hac vice jessew@mhb.com
3 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News MacDonald Hoague & Bayless
4 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104-1745
5 (206) 622-1604

6

Marc D. Blackman, OSB #730338 mark@ransomblackman.com

7

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Ransom Blackman LLP

8

1001 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1400 Portland, OR 97204

9 (503) 228-0487

Lance Weber,pro hac vice

10 lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

11 Human Rights Defense Center 1037 Western Ave., 2nd Floor

12 West Brattleboro, VT 05303

(802) 257-1342

13

14

15

16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
17 DISTRICT OF OREGON
18 PORTLAND DIVISION
19

20

21 PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,

22

Plaintiff,

23

v.

24

COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF

25

DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,

26

Defendants.

No. CV 12-71-SI
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a) Request for Oral Argument

27

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY·INJUNCTION - 1 (CV 12-71-SI)
9870.05 fa266701

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 7 Filed 01/31/12 Page 2 of 3

1

COMES NOW Prison Legal News and respectfully moves for an order preliminarily

2 enjoining Defendants from enforcing unconstitutional jail mail policies to reject or otherwise

3 censor news journals, subscription materials, book offers, book catalogs, and other

4 correspondence, and ordering Defendants to afford Plaintiff, other correspondents, and prisoners

5 due process notice and an opportunity to challenge Defendants' censorship decisions.

6

In compliance with D. Or. LR 7-1 (a)(l)(A), the parties have made a good faith effort

7 through telephone conferences to resolve the dispute and have been unable to do so. See

8 Declaration of Katherine Chamberlain, ~~ 14-22.

9

Submitted in support of this Motion are Plaintiffs Legal Memorandum, Declaration of

10 Paul Wright, Declaration of Katherine Chamberlain, Declaration of Lucy Lennox, Declaration of

11 Ezra St. Helen, Declaration of Troy McCarter, Declaration of Rusty Campo, and Declaration of

12 Martin Kay.

13

WHEREFORE, Prison Legal News asks that the Court grant Plaintiffs motion for

14 preliminary injunction.

15

DATED this 31st day of January, 2012.

16

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 17

lsi Katherine C. Chamberlain

18

KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN

OSB #042580

19

(206) 622-1604

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News 20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY·INJUNCTION - 2 (CV 12-71-SI)
9870.05 fa266701

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 7 Filed 01/31/12 Page 3 of 3

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I hereby certify that on January 31,2012, I electronically filed the foregoing to the Clerk

3 of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the

4 following:

5

• Marc D. Blackman

marc@ransomblackman.com,pat@ransomblackman.com

6

• Gregory R. Roberson

grr@hartwagner.com,cej@hartwagner.com

7

• Lance Weber

8

lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org

• Jesse Wing

9

JesseW@mhb.com

10

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS

11

/s/ Katherine C. Chamberlain

12

KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN

OSB #042580

13

(206) 622-1604

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 3 (CV 12-71-SI)
9870.05 fa266701

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8 Filed 01/31/12 Page 1 of 21

1 Marc D. Blackman, OSB #730338 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News
2 mark@ransomblacklnan.coln Ransom Blackman LLP
3 1001 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1400 Portland, OR 97204
4 (503) 228-0487

5 Katherine C. Chamberlain, OSB #042580 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News
6 katherinec@mhb.coln MacDonald Hoague & Bayless
7 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104-1745
8 (206) 622-1604

9

10

11

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

DISTRICT OF OREGON

14

PORTLAND DIVISION

15 PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the
16 HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,

No. CV 12-71-SI

1 7

Plaintiff,

DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT

18

v.

In Support of Plaintiff s Motion for

Preliminary Injunction

19 COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA

COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF

20 DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity

as Columbia County Sheriff,

21

Defendants.

22

23

I, Paul Wright, declare as follows:

24

1. I am over the age of 18 and I am competent to testify. The statements of fact

25 contained herein are based on my personal knowledge.

26

27

DECLARATION OF PAUL WRlGHT (CV 12-71-SI) - 1
9870.05 fa271301

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961
Page 1

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8 Filed 01/31/12 Page 2 of 21

1

2. I am the founder and editor of Prison Legal News ("PLN"), a project of the

2 Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC). HRDC is a Washington State non-profit corporation

3 headquartered in Vermont.

4

3. For the past 21 years, the core ofHRDC's mission has been public education,

5 prisoner education, advocacy, and outreach in support of the rights of prisoners and in

6 furtherance of basic hlunan rights.

7

4. One of the projects ofHRDC is the operation ofPLN, which publishes a monthly

8 journal of the same name, maintains a website (www.prisonlegalnews.org). operates an email

9 list, distributes books of interest to prisoners and publishes self-help, non-fiction reference

10 books. PLN's monthly journal of corrections news and analysis is titled Prison Legal News:

11 Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights.

12

5. Prisoners of all types from pre-trial detainees to convicts, family and friends of

13 prisoners, and prisoner advocates, are among the intended beneficiaries of PLN' s activities.

14

6. Since PLN's founding in 1990, it has communicated its journals, books, letters,

15 catalogs, and brochures via mail to tens of thousands of prisoners all over the country.

16

7. Prison Legal News has approximately 7,000 subscribers in the United States and

17 abroad, including prisoners, attorneys, journalists, public libraries, and judges. PLN distributes

18 its publication to about 2,200 correctional facilities across the United States, including the

19 Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Washington Department of Corrections, and the Oregon

20 Department of Corrections.

21

8. Prison Legal News regularly receives correspondence from prisoners in

22 correctional facilities around the country in which they ask questions and report on prison

23 conditions.

24

9. Prison Legal News engages in core protected speech and expressive conduct on

25 matters of public concern, such as operations of prison facilities, prison conditions, prisoner

26 health and safety, and prisoners' rights.

27

DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT (CV 12-71-SI) - 2
9870.05 fa271301

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961
Page 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8 Filed 01/31/12 Page 3 of 21

1

10. In December 2010 and the months thereafter, Prison Legal News sent copies of its

2 monthly journal, informational brochures about PLN and subscribing to its monthly journal,

3 book catalogs, book offers, subscription renewal letters, and fundraising letters addressed

4 personally to prisoners at the Colulnbia County Jail ("the Jail"). All mailings to prisoners at the
5 Jail were addressed to: [Prisoner Name], Columbia Co Jail, 901 POli Ave, st. Helens, Oregon

6 97051.

7

11. Prison Legal News sent its monthly jou111al by u.s. mail and the informational

8 brochures, book catalogs, book offers, subscription renewal letters, and fundraising letters via

9 first-class mail.

10

12. All PLN correspondence, catalogs, materials and publications are printed

11 professionally for mailing to thousands of individuals. Although they have been copied on

12 separate pages for presentation to the court via ECF filing, PLN's original informational

13 brochures, the original PLN book catalogs, and the original book offers were each printed on the

14 front and back of a single piece of paper.

15

13. The Columbia County Jail rejected numerous journals, informational subscription

16 brochures, book catalogs, book offers, subscription renewal letters, and fundraising letters that

17 PLN mailed to specific prisoners held in its custody.

18

14. After censoring the mail, the Columbia County Jail returned only some of the

19 items to Prison Legal News, as stated below. True copies of mailings that the Jail returned to

20 PLN are attached to this declaration.

21

Informational Subscription Brochure, Book Offer, and Book Catalogs

22

15. Exhibits MMM, NNN, and 000 are copies of the three single-page brochures

23 that PLN mailed to prisoners at the Columbia County Jail together in one envelope (collectively

24 referred to as an "Info Pack"). Each Info Pack contained a PLN Brochure and Subscription

25 Order Form (Ex. MMM), the 2010 PLN Book Catalog (Ex. NNN), and a brochure about two

26 books for sale --The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance ofCounsel and Prisoners' Guerrilla

27 Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the United States and Canada (Ex. 000).

DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT (CV 12-71-SI) - 3
9870.05 fa271301

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961
Page 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8 Filed 01/31/12 Page 4 of 21

1

16. Prison Legal News mailed Info Packs individually addressed to certain prisoners

2 at the Colun1bia County Jail. The Jail rejected at least twenty-seven of the Info Packs that PLN

3 sent to prisoners held in its custody. The Jail returned some of the rejected Info Packs to Prison

4 Legal News, as described below:

5

A. Exhibit A is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Robert Beckwith on

6 January 31, 2011, and the front and back of the three brochures contained in the envelope. The

7 Jail returned the Info Pack to PLN. The returned envelope is stamped "RETURN TO SENDER"

8 and has a sticker that states, "As of April 1, 2010 The Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS

9 POSTCARDS This applies to ALL incon1ing and out going mail."

10

B. Exhibit B is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Daniel Butts on

11 February 3, 2011, and the front and back of the three brochures contained in the envelope. The

12 Jail returned the Info Pack to PLN. The returned envelope has a sticker that states, "As of April

13 1,2010 The Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS This applies to ALL

14 incoming and out going mail."

15

C. Exhibit C is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Cory Dell on February 3,

16 2011, and the front and back of the three brochures contained in the envelope. The Jail returned

17 the Info Pack to PLN. The returned envelope has a sticker that states, "As of April 1, 2010 The

18 Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS This applies to ALL incoming and out

19 going mail."

20

D. Exhibit D is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Jacob Francoeur on

21 February 3, 2011, and the front and back of the three brochures contained in the envelope. The

22 Jail returned the Info Pack to PLN. The returned envelope has a sticker that states, "As of April

23 1,2010 The Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS This applies to ALL

24 incoming and out going mail."

25

E. Exhibit E is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Mark Gift on July 20,

26 2011, and the front and back of the three brochures contained in the envelope. The Jail returned

27 the Info Pack to PLN. The returned envelope is stamped, "INSPECTED BY COLUMBIA

DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT (CV 12-71-SI) - 4
9870.05 fa271301

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961
Page 4

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8 Filed 01/31/12 Page 5 of 21

1 COUNTY JAIL," with checlanarks next to "RETURN TO SENDER" and

2 "REFUSENIOLATES SECURITY."

3

F. Exhibit F is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Nicholas Jones on

4 February 3, 2011, and the front and back of the three brochures contained in the envelope. The

5 Jail returned the Info Pack to PLN. The returned envelope is stamped "RETURN TO SENDER"

6 and has a sticker that states, "As of April 1, 2010 The Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS

7 POSTCARDS This applies to ALL incoming and out going mail."

8

G. Exhibit G is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Martin Kay on or about

9 February 1, 2011, and the front and back of the three brochures contained in the envelope. The

10 Jail returned the Info Pack to PLN. The returned envelope is stamped "RETURN TO SENDER"

11 and has a sticker that states, "As of April 1,2010 The Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS

12 POSTCARDS This applies to ALL incolning and out going mail."

13

H. Exhibit H is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner George Lammi on June

14 30,2011, and the front and back of the three brochures contained in the envelope. The Jail

15 returned the Info Pack to PLN. The returned envelope is staInped "RETURN TO SENDER" and

16 does not state a reason for censorship.

17

I.

Exhibit I is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Scott Lavelle on January

18 31,2011, and the front and back of the three brochures contained in the envelope. The Jail

19 returned the Info Pack to PLN. The returned envelope is stamped "RETURN TO SENDER" and

20 has a sticker that states, "As of April 1, 2010 The Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS

21 POSTCARDS This applies to ALL incoming and out going mail."

22

J. Exhibit J is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Troy McCarter on

23 February 1, 2011, and the front and back of the three brochures contained in the envelope. The

24 Jail returned the Info Pack to PLN. The returned envelope is stamped "RETURN TO SENDER"

25 and has a sticker that states, "As of April 1, 2010 The Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS

26 POSTCARDS This applies to ALL incoming and out going mail."

27

DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT (CV 12-71-SI) - 5
9870.05 fa271301

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961
Page 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8 Filed 01/31/12 Page 6 of 21

1

K. Exhibit K is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Shane McNutt on

2 January 31, 2011, and the front and back of the three brochures contained in the envelope. The

3 Jail retunled the Info Pack to PLN. The returned envelope is stamped "RETURN TO SENDER"

4 and has a sticker that states, "As of April 1, 2010 The Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS

5 POSTCARDS This applies to ALL incoming and out going Inail."

6

L. Exhibit L is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Robert Meader on

7 February 3, 2011, and the front and back of the three brochures contained in the envelope. The

8 Jail returned the Info Pack to PLN. The returned envelope has a sticker that states, "As of April

9 1,2010 The Colulnbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS This applies to ALL

10 incoming and out going mail."

11

M. Exhibit M is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Kanaan Meyers on

12 January 31, 2011, and the front and back of the three brochures contained in the envelope. The

13 Jail returned the Info Pack to PLN. The returned envelope is stmnped "RETURN TO SENDER"

14 and has a sticker that states, "As of April 1, 2010 The Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS

15 POSTCARDS This applies to ALL incoming and out going mail."

16

N. Exhibit N is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Kanaan Meyers on

17 February 4,2011, and the front and back of the three brochures contained in the envelope. The

18 Jail returned the Info Pack to PLN. The returned envelope has a sticker that states, "As of April

19 1,2010 The Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS This applies to ALL

20 incoming and out going mail."

21

O. Exhibit 0 is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Jeffrey Murray on June

22 30, 2011, and the front and back of the three brochures contained in the envelope. The Jail

23 returned the Info Pack to PLN. The returned envelope is stamped "RETURN TO SENDER" and

24 does not state a reason for censorship.

25

P. Exhibit P is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Lloyd Myers on January

26 31,2011, and the front and back of the three brochures contained in the envelope. The Jail

27· returned the Info Pack to PLN. The returned envelope is stmnped "RETURN TO SENDER" and

DECLARATION OF PAUL WRlGHT (CV 12'-71-SI) - 6
9870.05 fa27J301

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961
Page 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8 Filed 01/31/12 Page 7 of 21

1 has a sticker that states, "As of April 1, 2010 The Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS

2 POSTCARDS This applies to ALL incoming and out going Inail."

3

Q. Exhibit Q is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Ralph Patterson on July

4 20,2011, and the front and back of the three brochures contained in the envelope. The Jail

5 returned the Info Pack to PLN. The returned envelope is stmnped, "INSPECTED BY

6 COLUMBIA COUNTY JAIL," with check marks next to "RETURN TO SENDER" and

7 "REFUSE/VIOLATES SECURITY."

8

R. Exhibit R is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Andrew Plumber on

9 January 31, 2011, and the front and back of the three brochures contained in the envelope. The

10 Jail returned the Info Pack to PLN. The retulned envelope is stamped "RETURN TO SENDER"

11 and has a sticker that states, "As of April 1, 2010 The Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS

12 POSTCARDS This applies to ALL incoming and out going mail."

13

S. Exhibit S is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Jason Quade on February

14 1,2011, and the front and back of the three brochures contained in the envelope. The Jail

15 returned the Info Pack to PLN. The retulned envelope is stamped "RETURN TO SENDER" and

16 has a sticker that states, "As of April 1, 2010 The Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS

17 POSTCARDS This applies to ALL incon1ing and out going mail."

18

T. Exhibit T is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Cindy Seaston on June

19 30,2011, and the front and back of the three brochures contained in the envelope. The Jail

20 returned the Info Pack to PLN. The returned envelope is stamped "RETURN TO SENDER" and

21 does not state a reason for censorship.

22

U. Exhibit U is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Barry Shaft on July 20,

23 2011, and the front and back of the three brochures contained in the envelope. The Jail returned

24 the Info Pack to PLN. The returned envelope is stamped "INSPECTED BY COLUMBIA

25 COUNTY JAIL," with checkmarks next to "RETURN TO SENDER" and

26 "REFUSE/VIOLATES SECURITY."

27

DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT (CV 12-71-SI) - 7
9870.05 fa271301

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961
Page 7

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8 Filed 01/31/12 Page 8 of 21

1

V. Exhibit V is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Ezra St. Helen on

2 February 1,2011, and the front and back of the three brochures contained in the envelope. The

3 Jail returned the Info Pack to PLN. The returned envelope is stamped "RETURN TO SENDER"

4 and does not state a reason for censorship.

5

W. Exhibit W is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner William Temple on July

6 20,2011, and the front and back of the three brochures contained in the envelope. The Jail

7 returned the Info Pack to PLN. The returned envelope is stamped "INSPECTED BY

8 COLUMBIA COUNTY JAIL," with checkmarks next to "RETURN TO SENDER" and

9 "REFUSE/VIOLATES SECURITY."

10

x. Exhibit X is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Scott Thomas on

11 February 1,2011, and the front and back of the three brochures contained in the envelope. The

12 Jail returned the Info Pack to PLN. The returned envelope is stamped "RETURN TO SENDER"

13 and has a sticker that states, "As of April 1, 2010 The Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS

14 POSTCARDS This applies to ALL incoming and out going mail."

15

Y. Exhibit Y is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Alisha Vandolah on

16 February 1, 2011, and the front and back of the three brochures contained in the envelope. The

17 Jail returned the Info Pack to PLN. The returned envelope has a sticker that states, "As of April

18 1,2010 The Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS This applies to ALL

19 incoming and out going Inail."

20

z. Exhibit Z is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Jeffrey Vannatta on

21 February 3, 2011, and the front and back of the three brochures contained in the envelope. The

22 Jail returned the Info Pack to PLN. The returned envelope has a sticker that states, "As of April

23 1,2010 The Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS This applies to ALL

24 incoming and out going mail."

25

AA. Exhibit AA is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Robert Westmoreland

26 on July 20,2011, and the front and back of the three brochures contained in the envelope. The

27 Jail returned the Info Pack to PLN. The returned envelope is stamped "INSPECTED BY

DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT (CV 12-71-SI) - 8
9870.05 fa271301

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
TeI206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961
Page 8

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8 Filed 01/31/12 Page 9 of 21

1 COLUMBIA COUNTY JAIL," with check n1arks next to "RETURN TO SENDER" and

2 "REFUSE/VIOLATES SECURITY."

3

Prison Legal News Monthly Publications

4

17. The Jail rejected at least thirty-seven issues of Prison Legal News that PLN

5 mailed to prisoners held in its custody. Attached are true copies of n1ailings that the Colu1nbia

6 County Jail returned to PLN:

7

BB. Exhibit BB is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner George Lmnmi on or

8 about June 30, 2011, and the front and back pages of the May 2008 issue of Prison Legal News

9 contained in the envelope. The Jail retulned the journal to PLN. The returned envelope is

10 stamped "RETURN TO SENDER" and does not state a reason for censorship.

11

CC. Exhibit CC is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Jeffrey Munay on or

12 about June 30,2011, and the front and back pages of the May 2008 issue of Prison Legal News

13 contained in the envelope. The Jail returned the journal to PLN. The returned envelope is

14 stamped "RETURN TO SENDER" and does not state a reason for censorship.

15

DD. Exhibit DD is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Cindy Seaston on or

16 about June 30, 2011, and the front and back pages of the May 2008 issue of Prison Legal News

17 contained in the envelope. The Jail returned the journal to PLN. The returned envelope is

18 stamped "RETURN TO SENDER" and does not state a reason for censorship.

19

EE. Exhibit EE is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Daniel Butts on

20 January 31, 2011, and the front and back pages of the September 2008 issue of Prison Legal

21 News contained in the envelope. The Jail returned the journal to PLN. The returned envelope is

22 stamped "RETURN TO SENDER" and has a sticker that states, "As of April 1, 2010 The

23 Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS This applies to ALL incoming and out

24 going mail."

25

FF. Exhibit FF is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Cory Dell on January

26 31, 2011, and the front and back pages of the September 2008 issue of Prison Legal News

27 contained in the envelope. The Jail returned the joutnal to PLN. The returned envelope is

DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT (CV 12-71-SI) - 9
9870.05 fa271301

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961
Page 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8 Filed 01/31/12 Page 10 of 21

1 stamped "RETURN TO SENDER" and has a sticker that states, "As of April 1, 2010 The

2 Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS This applies to ALL incolning and out

3 going mail."

4

GG. Exhibit GG is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Jacob Francoeur on

5 January 31, 2011, and the front and back pages of the September 2008 issue of Prison Legal

6 News contained in the envelope. The Jail returned the journal to PLN. The returned envelope is

7 stamped "RETURN TO SENDER" and has a sticker that states, "As of April 1, 2010 The

8 Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS This applies to ALL incolning and out

9 going Inail."

10

HH. Exhibit HH is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner William Hess on

11 January 31,2011, and the front and back pages of the September 2008 issue of Prison Legal

12 News contained in the envelope. The Jail returned the journal to PLN. The returned envelope is

13 stamped "RETURN TO SENDER" and has a sticker that states, "As of April 1, 2010 The

14 Colulnbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS This applies to ALL incoming and out

15 going mail."

16

II. Exhibit II is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Nicholas Jones on

17 February 3,2011, and the front and back pages of the September 2008 issue of Prison Legal

18 News contained in the envelope. The Jail returned the journal to PLN. The returned envelope is

19 stamped "RETURN TO SENDER" and has a sticker that states, "As of April 1, 2010 The

20 Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS This applies to ALL incoming and out

21 going mail."

22

JJ. Exhibit JJ is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Martin Kay

23 on February 3, 2011, and the front and back pages of the September 2008 issue of Prison Legal

24 News contained in the envelope. The Jail returned the journal to PLN. The returned envelope is

25 stamped "RETURN TO SENDER" and does not state a reason for censorship.

26

KK. Exhibit KK is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Mark Gift on July 20,

27 2011, and the front and back pages of the May 2009 issue of Prison Legal News contained in the

DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT (CV 12-71-SI) - 10
9870.05 fa271301

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961
Page 10

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8 Filed 01/31/12 Page 11 of 21

1 envelope. The Jail returned the journal to PLN. The returned envelope is stanlped

2 "INSPECTED BY COLUMBIA COUNTY JAIL" with checkrnarks next to "RETURN TO

3 SENDER" and "REFUSE/VIOLATES SECURITY."

4

LL. Exhibit LL is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Ralph Patterson on July

5 20,2011, and the front and back pages of the May 2009 issue of Prison Legal News contained in

6 the envelope. The Jail returned the journal to PLN. The returned envelope is staInped

7 "INSPECTED BY COLUMBIA COUNTY JAIL" with checkrnarks next to "RETURN TO

8 SENDER" and "REFUSE/VIOLATES SECURITY."

9

MM. Exhibit MM is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner BaITY Shaft on July

10 20, 2011, and the front and back pages of the May 2009 issue of Prison Legal News contained in

11 the envelope. The Jail returned the journal to PLN. The returned envelope is stamped

12 "INSPECTED BY COLUMBIA COUNTY JAIL" and with checkrnarks next to "RETURN TO

13 SENDER," "CONTRABAND," and "REFUSE/VIOLATES SECURITY."

14

NN. Exhibit NN is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner William Temple on

15 July 20, 2011, and the front and back pages of the May 2009 issue of Prison Legal News

16 contained in the envelope. The Jail returned the journal to PLN. The returned envelope is

17 stamped "INSPECTED BY COLUMBIA COUNTY JAIL" with checkrnarks next to "RETURN

18 TO SENDER" and "REFUSENIOLATES SECURITY."

19

00. Exhibit 00 is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Robert Westmoreland

20 on July 20, 2011, and the front and back pages of the May 2009 issue of Prison Legal News

21 contained in the envelope. The Jail returned the journal to PLN. The returned envelope is

22 stamped "INSPECTED BY COLUMBIA COUNTY JAIL" and with checkmarks next to

23 "RETURN TO SENDER," "CONTRABAND" and "REFUSE/VIOLATES SECURITY."

24

PP. Exhibit PP is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Troy McCarter on or

25 about February 3,2011, and the front and back pages of the July 2009 issue of Prison Legal

26 News contained in the envelope. The Jail returned the journal to PLN. The returned envelope is

27 stamped "RETURN TO SENDER" and has a sticker that states, "As of April 1, 2010 The

DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT (CV 12-71-SI) - 11
9870.05 fa271301

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961
Page 11

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8 Filed 01/31/12 Page 12 of 21

1 Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS This applies to ALL incolning and out

2 going mail."

3

QQ. Exhibit 00 is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Shane McNutt on or

4 about February 3,2011, and the front and back pages of the July 2009 issue of Prison Legal

5 News contained in the envelope. The Jail returned the journal to PLN. The returned envelope is

6 stamped "RETURN TO SENDER" and has a sticker that states, "As of April 1, 2010 The

7 Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS This applies to ALL incoming and out

8 going mail."

9

RR. Exhibit RR is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Robert Meader on or

10 about February 3, 2011, and the front and back pages of the July 2009 issue of Prison Legal

11 News contained in the envelope. The Jail returned the journal to PLN. The returned envelope is

12 stamped "RETURN TO SENDER" and has a sticker that states, "As of April 1, 2010 The

13 Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS This applies to ALL incoming and out

14 going mail."

15

SS. Exhibit SS is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Jason Quade on or

16 about February 3,2011, and the front and back pages of the July 2009 issue of Prison Legal

17 News contained in the envelope. The Jail returned the journal to PLN. The returned envelope is

18 stamped "RETURN TO SENDER" and has a sticker that states, "As of April 1, 2010 The

19 Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS This applies to ALL incoming and out

20 going mail."

21

TT. Exhibit TT is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Ezra St. Helen on

22 February 1,2011, and the front and back pages of the July 2009 issue of Prison Legal News

23 contained in the envelope. The Jail returned the journal to PLN. The returned envelope is

24 stamped "RETURN TO SENDER" and has a sticker that states, "As of April 1, 2010 The

25 Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS This applies to ALL incoming and out

26 going mail."

27

DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT (CV 12-71-SI) - 12
9870.05 fa271301

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961
Page 12

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8 Filed 01/31/12 Page 13 of 21

1

UU. Exhibit UU is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Scott Thomas on or

2 about February 1, 2011, and the front and back pages of the July 2009 issue of Prison Legal

3 News contained in the envelope. The Jail returned the journal to PLN. The returned envelope is

4 stamped "RETURN TO SENDER" and has a sticker that states, "As of April 1, 2010 The

5 Colulnbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS This applies to ALL incoming and out

6 going mail."

7

VV. Exhibit VV is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Robert Beckwith on

8 February 1,2011, and the front and back pages of the November 2009 issue of Prison Legal

9 News contained in the envelope. The Jail returned the journal to PLN. The returned envelope is

10 stan1ped "RETURN TO SENDER" and has a sticker that states, "As of April 1, 2010 The

11 Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS This applies to ALL incoming and out

12 going mail."

13

WW. Exhibit WW is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Nicholas Bierman on

14 January 31, 2011, and the front and back pages of the November 2009 issue of Prison Legal

15 News contained in the envelope. The Jail returned the journal to PLN. The returned envelope is

16 stamped "RETURN TO SENDER" and has a sticker that states, "As of April 1, 2010 The

17 Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS This applies to ALL incoming and out

18 going mail."

19

XX. Exhibit XX is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Scott Lavelle on

20 February 1,2011, and the front and back pages of the November 2009 issue of Prison Legal

21 News contained in the envelope. The Jail returned the journal to PLN. The returned envelope is

22 staInped "RETURN TO SENDER" and has a sticker that states, "As of April 1, 2010 The

23 Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS This applies to ALL incoming and out

24 going mail."

25

YY. Exhibit YY is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Lloyd Myers on or

26 about February 1, 2011, and the front and back pages of the November 2009 issue of Prison

27 Legal News contained in the envelope. The Jail returned the journal to PLN. The returned

DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT (CV 12-71-SI) - 13
9870.05 fa271301

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
TeI206.622.l604 Fax 206.343.3961
Page 13

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8 Filed 01/31/12 Page 14 of 21

1 envelope is stamped "RETURN TO SENDER" and has a sticker that states, "As of April 1, 2010

2 The Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS This applies to ALL incoming and

3 out going mail."

4

zz. Exhibit ZZ is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Alisha Vandolah on

5 February 1,2011, and the front and back pages of the November 2009 issue of Prison Legal

6 News contained in the envelope. The Jail returned the journal to PLN. The returned envelope is

7 stamped "RETURN TO SENDER" and has a sticker that states, "As of April 1, 2010 The

8 Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS This applies to ALL incoming and out

9 going nlail."

1 0

AAA. Exhibit AAA is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Jeffrey Vannatta on

11 or about February 1,2011, and the front and back pages of the November 2009 issue of Prison

12 Legal News contained in the envelope. The Jail returned the joulnal to PLN. The returned

13 envelope is stamped "RETURN TO SENDER" and has a sticker that states, "As of April 1, 2010

14 The Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS This applies to ALL incoming and

15 out going mail."

16

BBB. Exhibit BBB is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Kanaan Meyers on or

17 about February 3, 2011, and the front and back pages of the January 2010 issue of Prison Legal

18 News contained in the envelope. The Jail returned the journal to PLN. The returned envelope is

19 stamped "RETURN TO SENDER" and has a sticker that states, "As of April 1, 2010 The

20 Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS This applies to ALL incoming and out

21 going mail."

22

CCC. Exhibit CCC is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Andrew Plumber on

23 January 31,2011, and the front and back pages of the January 2010 issue of Prison Legal News

24 contained in the envelope. The Jail returned the journal to PLN. The returned envelope is

25 stamped "RETURN TO SENDER" and has a sticker that states, "As of April 1, 2010 The

26 Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS This applies to ALL incoming and out

27 going Inail."

DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT (CV 12-71-SI) - 14
9870.05 fa271301

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Te1206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961
Page 14

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8 Filed 01/31/12 Page 15 of 21

1

18. The Columbia County Jail also rejected nunlerous issues of Prison Legal News

2 that it did not return to PLN, as described below.

3

19. PLN mailed the December 2010 issue of Prison Legal News to Rusty Campo at

4 the Columbia County Jail on or about December 8, 2010. Although the Jail did not return the

5 December 2010 issue of Prison Legal News sent to prisoner Campo, PLN learned from Mr.

6 Campo that the Jail never delivered the journal to him.

7

20. PLN mailed the January 2011 issue of Prison Legal News to Rusty Campo at the

8 Columbia County Jail on or about January 13, 2011. Although the Jail did not return the January

9 2011 issue of Prison Legal News sent to prisoner Campo, PLN learned from Mr. Campo that the

10 Jail never delivered the journal to him.

11

21. PLN mailed the February 2011 issue of Prison Legal News to prisoners Troy

12 McCarter and Ezra S1. Helen at the Columbia County Jail on or about February 10,2011.

13 Although the Jail did not return the February 2011 issues of Prison Legal News that PLN sent to

14 prisoners McCarter and S1. Helen, PLN learned from those prisoners that the Jail never delivered

15 the journals to them.

16

22. PLN mailed the March 2011 issue of Prison Legal News to Ezra S1. Helen at the

17 Columbia County Jail on or about March 10,2011. Although the Jail did not return the March

18 2011 issue of Prison Legal News sent to prisoner S1. Helen, PLN learned from Mr. S1. Helen that

19 the Jail never delivered the journal to him.

20

23. PLN mailed the April 2011 issue of Prison Legal News to Troy McCarter at the

21 Columbia County Jail on or about April 11, 2011. Although the Jail did not return the April

22 2011 issue of Prison Legal News sent to prisoner McCarter, PLN learned from Mr. McCarter

23 that the Jail never delivered the journal to him.

24

24. PLN mailed the May 2011 issue of Prison Legal News to Ezra S1. Helen at the

25 Columbia County Jail on or about May 18,2011. Although the Jail did not return the May 2011

26 issue of Prison Legal News sent to prisoner S1. Helen, PLN learned from Mr. S1. Helen that the

27 Jail never delivered the journal to him.

DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT (CV 12-71-SI) - 15
9870.05 fa271301

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961
Page 15

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8 Filed 01/31/12 Page 16 of 21

1

25. PLN mailed the June 2011 issue of Prison Legal News to prisoners Ezra S1. Helen

2 and Martin Kay at the Columbia County Jail on or about June 9, 2011. Although the Jail did not

3 return the June 2011 issues of Prison Legal News that PLN sent to prisoners S1. Helen and Kay,

4 PLN leanled from those prisoners that the Jail never delivered the journals to them.

5

Renewal Letter

6

26. The Columbia County Jail rejected at least eight of the subscription renewal

7 letters and Info Packs (collectively "Subscription Renewal Packs") that PLN sent to prisoners

8 there. The Jail returned some of the rejected Subscription Renewal Packs to Prison Legal News,

9 as described below.

10

DDD. Exhibit DDD is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner William Hess on

11 June 16,2011 and the Subscription Renewal Pack contained in the envelope. The Jail returned

12 the Subscription Renewal Pack to PLN. The returned envelope is stamped "RETURN TO

13 SENDER" and does not state a reason for censorship..

14

EEE. Exhibit EEE is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Martin Kay on June

15 16, 2011 and the Subscription Renewal Pack contained in the envelope. The Jail retunled the

16 Subscription Renewal Pack to PLN. The returned envelope is stamped "RETURN TO

17 SENDER" and does not state a reason for censorship.

18

FFF. Exhibit FFF is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Troy McCarter on

19 June 16,2011 and the Subscription Renewal Pack contained in the envelope. The Jail returned

20 the Subscription Renewal Pack to PLN. The returned envelope is stamped "RETURN TO

21 SENDER" and does not state a reason for censorship.

22

GGG. Exhibit GGG is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Shane McNutt on

23 June 16,2011 and the Subscription Renewal Pack contained in the envelope. The Jail returned

24 the Subscription Renewal Pack to PLN. The returned envelope is stamped "RETURN TO

25 SENDER" and does not state a reason for censorship.

26

HHH. Exhibit HHH is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Andrew Plumber on

27 June 16,2011 and the Subscription Renewal Pack contained in the envelope. The Jail returned

DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT (CV 12-71-SI) - 16
9870.05 fa271301

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961
Page 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8 Filed 01/31/12 Page 17 of 21

1 the Subscription Renewal Pack to PLN. The returned envelope is stamped "RETURN TO

2 SENDER" and does not state a reason for censorship.

3

III. Exhibit III is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Jason Quade on May

4 21, 2011 and the Subscription Renewal Pack contained in the envelope. The Jail returned the

5 Subscription Renewal Pack to PLN. The returned envelope has a sticker that states "As of April

6 1, 2010 The Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS This applies to ALL

7 incoming and out going mail."

8

JJJ. Exhibit JJJ is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Ezra St. Helen on June

9 16,2011 and the Subscription Renewal Pack contained in the envelope. The Jail returned the

10 Subscription Renewal Pack to PLN. The retun1ed envelope is stmnped "RETURN TO

11 SENDER" and does not state a reason for censorship.

12

KKK. Exhibit KKK is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Alisha Vandolah on

13 June 16,2011 and the Subscription Renewal Pack contained in the envelope. The Jail returned

14 the Subscription Renewal Pack to PLN. The returned envelope is stamped "RETURN TO

15 SENDER" and does not state a reason for censorship.

16

Exemplars of PLN Mailings

17

27. The following are true copies of certain documents cited in the Plaintiff s Motion:

18

LLL. Exhibit LLL is the full 56-page March 2011 issue of the monthly journal

19 Prison Legal News.

20

MMM. Exhibit MMM is the PLN informational subscription brochure that PLN

21 mailed to prisoners confined in the Jail.

22

NNN. Exhibit NNN is the PLN book catalog that PLN mailed to prisoners

23 confined in the Jail.

24

000. Exhibit 000 is the PLN book offer for The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective

25 Assistance ofCounsel and Prisoners' Guerilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the

26 United States and Canada that PLN mailed to prisoners confined in the Jail.

27

DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT (CV 12-71-SI) - 17
9870.05 fa271301

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Te1206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961
Page 17

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8 Filed 01/31/12 Page 18 of 21

1

Fundraising Letters

2

28. The Columbia County Jail rejected at least two of the Fundraising Letters, PLN

3 Brochure and Subscription Forms, 2011 PLN Book Catalogs, and Brochures offering books for

4 sale (collectively "Fundraising Packs") that PLN sent to prisoners there. The Jail returned the

5 following Fundraising Packs to PLN:

6

PPP. Exhibit PPP is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner William Temple in or

7 about November 2011 and the Fundraising Pack contained in the envelope. The Jail returned the

8 Fundraising Pack to PLN. The returned envelope is stamped "RETURN TO SENDER" and

9 does not state a reason for censorship.

10

QQQ. Exhibit 000 is an envelope sent by PLN to prisoner Barry Shaft in or

11 about Noveluber 2011 and the Fundraising Pack contained in the envelope. The Jail returned the

12 Fundraising Pack to PLN. The returned envelope is stamped "RETURN TO SENDER" and

13 does not state a reason for censorship.

14

PLN Online Articles

15

29. PLN maintains a website containing information about PLN's resources. In

16 addition to information about PLN's monthly magazine and books for sale, PLN's website

17 contains information about breaking news and a database of articles, publications, legal briefs,

18 and other information about state and federal issues affecting prisoners. Individuals can visit the

19 website and view PLN's news content, or become a member of PLN and search for and print

20 articles of interest to them-for themselves or to send to others, including prisoners who do not

21 have access to computers or the internet.

22

30. Exhibit RRR is a copy of an online article available on the PLN website in

23 December 2011 titled "The Failed Promise of Prison Privatization" by Richard Culp, Ph.D. This

24 online article includes a critique of prison privatization, and research findings about the goals

25 and results of the luove toward privatization. The article also identifies a correspondence school

26 book available for sale, and includes introductory descriptions ofPLN's 20 "Breaking News"

27 headlines about various topics, including but not limited to sex abuse in prison, poor forensics

DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT (CV 12-71-SI) - 18
9870.05 fa271301

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961
Page 18

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8 Filed 01/31/12 Page 19 of 21

1 used to secure crilninal convictions, private prison companies behind Arizona's immigration law, 2 and the death penalty in Texas.

3

Denial of Due Process

4

31. PLN did not receive any mail rejection forms or notices from the Jail for any of

5 the mail items that the Jail censored. Other than the returned mail itself, the Jail did not

6 communicate to PLN the reasons that Defendants censored the mail. The Jail did not

7 cOlTI111unicate to PLN any opportunity for challenging the Jail's censorship decisions.

8

Continued Censorship and Affect on Prison Legal News

9

32. PLN has several subscribers in the Columbia County Jail and will continue to

10 communicate with prisoners confined there. Therefore, Defendants' policies and practices will

11 continue to interfere with Plaintiff s free speech rights in the future.

12

33. PLN cannot communicate the information contained in its book catalog,

13 infonnational subscription brochure, book offers, renewal letter, fundraising letter, or its monthly

14 journal Prison Legal News, by telephone. It is impracticable and ineffective for PLN to describe

15 43 books over the telephone not to mention the highly time-consuming nature of trying to

16 coordinate telephone calls, and make calls, and the cost of paying for calls. Nor can PLN send

17 its staff from Vermont to the Jail to communicate its written speech in person.

18

34. PLN's book catalog, informational subscription brochure, and its book offer, do

19 not fit on a postcard. The text of each fill the front and back of a piece of paper measuring 8.5 by

20 11 inches. See Exhibits MMM, NNN, and 000. Self evidently, the content describing these

21 books and subscription offers does not fit on a postcard. Similarly, the content of PLN' s multi-

22 page Subscription Renewal Packs and Fundraising Packs do not fit on a postcard. See e.g.

23 Exhibits PPP and GGG. PLN cannot justify expending the resources to hire someone to modify

24 all of its catalogs, brochures, and other correspondence, in very substantial ways just to meet the

25 policy of the Columbia County Jail.

26

35. The Columbia County Jaillnail policies and censorship practices frustrate Prison

27 Legal News's organizational mission, and have caused Prison Legal News to divert its resources.

DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT (CV 12-71-SI) - 19
9870.05 fa271301

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961
Page 19

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8 Filed 01/31/12 Page 20 of 21

1, TIle Jail's censorship ofPLN's mail addressed. to plisoners at the Jail, the JaU's censorship of

2 PLN articles sent by other correspondents to prisoners at the Jail, and the Jail's censorship of

3 prisoner's outgoing mail, prevents PLN from comlTIunicating its political message to

4 recruiting n.ew supporters, readers and subscribers, and has caused PLN additional financial harm

5 in the form of diversion of its resources, lost sUbscriptions and purchases of its publications and

6 book purchases.

7

36. If the Jail's curren.t luail policy remains in effect, its rejection ofPLN's mail and

8 materials ,"Iill. make it much more difficult for PLN to communicate with prisoners.

9

37. I am not aware of any state OJ' federal prison that has a

policy.

1.0

I declare under penalty of pex.:,lury of the laws of the United States of America that the

11 foregoing is flue and cor.r.ect to the best of my kno\vledge.

12

31> DATED .•• •J

th. iS _ _rt,day

f
0

J
•

-ry n 2012, at I1t../'ct;.

's1lIi5 , \' <._

fA- .'JS o ..... n

'Y(

v

I ·

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

DECLARATION OF PAUL WRlGfIT. (CV

a 20

fh271301

MAC:OON/\LD HOAGlJE & BA."X'l.ESS 70S Second Avenue. Suite 1500 Sr::alt/!::. WaqhingtOll 98104
TcI206.622.1.604 Fo.."( 206.3'13.3961
Page 20

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8 Filed 01/31/12 Page 21 of 21

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I hereby certify that on January 31, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing to the Clerk

3 of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the

4 following:

5

• Marc D. Blackman

marc@ransomblackman.com,pat@ransomblackInan.com

6

• Gregory R. Roberson

grr@hartwagner.com,cej@hartwagner.com

7

• Lance Weber

8

lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org

CD Jesse Wing

9

Jesse W@mhb.coln

10

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS

11

lsi Katherine C. Chamberlain

12

KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN

OSB #042580

13

(206) 622-1604

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT (CV-12-71-SI) - 21
9870.05 fa306308

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961
Page 21

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9 Filed 01/31/12 Page 1 of 6

I Katherine C. Chamberlain, OSB #042580
katherinec@mhb.com
2 Jesse A. Wing, pro hac vice jessew@mhb.com
3 Of Attorneys for P laintiff Prison Legal News MacDonald Hoague & Bayless
4 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104-1745
5 (206) 622-1604

6

Marc D. Blackman, OSB #730338 mark@ransomblackman.com

7

Of Attorneys for PlaintiITPrison Legal News Ransom Blackman LLP

8

1001 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1400 Portland, OR 97204

9 (503) 228-0487

Lance Weber, pro hac vice

10 lweber@humanrightsdcfensecenter.org

Of Attorneys for P laintiff Prison Legal News

I I Human Rights Defense Center 1037 Western Ave., 2nd Floor

12 West Brattleboro, VT 05303

(802) 257-1342

13

14

IS

16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
17 DISTRICT OF OREGON
18 PORTLAND DIVISION
19

20 PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,

21

Plaintiff,

22

v.

23

COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF

24

DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff.

25

Defendants.

No. CV 12-71 -SI
DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

26

27

DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELll\1INARY INJUNCfION (CV 1271-SQ - I of 6
n70_0S I'a2S6l ll

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500
Seattle. Washington 98 104 Te l 206.622. 1604 FaK206.343.396 1

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9 Filed 01/31/12 Page 2 of 6

1

I, Katherine Chamberlain, declare as follows:

2

I am one of the attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News. I am over the age of 18, and

3 am competent to testify.

4

l. Ex.hibit I is a true copy ofa webpage of the Columbia County Sheriffs Office,

5 which identifies Defendant Jeffrey M. Dickerson as the Sheriff for Columbia County and

6 identifies "Corrections" as one of the Divisions over which be bas responsibility. This webpage

7 was accessed by going to tbe Sheriffs homepage and clicking on "Inmate Mail" on the left

8 column menu, contains a true copy of the Columbia County Jail "Inmate Mail" policies as of

9 January 10, 2012, and purports to have last been updated on "August 6, 2010." The PDF version

10 of this policy that was available on the Sheriffs website at the time this lawsuit was filed is

II attached to Plaintiffs Complaint, Dkt. I, as Exhibit A.

12

2. Exhibit 2 is a true copy ofa webpage of the Columbia County Sheriffs Office,

13 Jeffrey M. Dickerson, Sheriff, containing a posted announcement entitled "CCSO Jail

14 Revamping Inmate Mail Policy." The website is dated "Wednesday, 23 December 200913:37."

15 The posting purports to quote Sheriff Dickerson explaining the reasons for adopting the

16 Postcards-Only Policy.

17

3. Exhibit 3 is a true copy of an article in The Daily News dated December 22, 2009,

18 entitled "Columbia County Jail to restrict inmate mail to postcards only." The article pwports to

19 quote Sheriff Dickerson explaining the reasons for adopting the Postcards-Only Policy. Some of

20 the quotes are identical to those found in Exhibit 2 above.

21

4. Exhibit 4 is a true copy of the Multnomah County Sheriffs Office website

22 regarding "Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Inmate Mail, Funds and Phone Service." See

23 the website page at http://www.mcso.us/pubJiclinmate_mail_FAQ.htm.

24

5. Exhibit 5 is a true copy of the Lane County Sheriffs Office website regarding

25 "Inmate Mail Rules and Regulations." See the website page at http: //www.co.lane.or.us/

26 Departments/SherifflCorrections/Pages/mailrules.aspx.

27

DECLARAnON OF KATHER£NE CHAMBERLAIN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (CV 1271-SI)-2 of 6
9870,OS fa2S6J IJ

MACDONALO HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle. Washington 98104
Tc1 206.622. 1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9 Filed 01/31/12 Page 3 of 6

6. Exhibit 6 is a true copy of excerpts of the Washington State Department of

2 Corrections Policy concerning Mail for Offenders (approved July 25, 2011).

3

7. Exhibit 7 is a true copy of the "Average Daily Population in Prisons-Fiscal Year

4 2011" from the Washington State Department of Corrections website.

5

8. Exhibit 8 is a true copy of excerpts of the mail policy ofthe U.S. Department of

6 Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons (dated January I, 2003), regarding Incoming Publications.

7

9. Exhibit 9 is a true copy of "Quick Facts About the Bureau of Prisons" from the

8 Bureau of Prison's website (last updated on August 27, 2011).

9

10. Exhibit 10 is a true copy of Columbia County Inmate Jail Roster saved on

10 December 28, 2011.

II

11. Exhibit 11 is a true copy ofa webpage of the Columbia County Sheriff's Office's

12 website titled "Inmate Mail" as it appeared on the morning of January 24,2012.

13

12. Exhibit 12 is a true copy of the Federal Bureau of Prison's Office of Research and

14 Evaluation's Report titled "Prison Education Program Participation and Recidivism: A Test of

15 the Normalization Hypothesis" (published in May 1995).

16

13. Exhibit 13 is a true copy of The Urban Institute's Justice Policy Center's Report

17 titled "From the Classroom to the Community: Exploring the Role of Education During

18 Incarceration and Reentry" (published in 2009).

19

14. In compliance with D. Or. LR 7-1 (a)(I)(A), the parties have made a good faith

20 effort through telephone conferences to resolve this dispute and have been unable to do so. The

21 parties held three telephone conferences, on January 19,24, and 27, 2012, during which they

22 attempted to resolve this dispute.

23

15. In addition to the three telephone calls described above, I corresponded with

24 Counsel for Columbia County in two letters and a string of emails in an attempt to resolve this

25 dispute. Those documents are identified below.

26

16. Exhibit 14 is a true copy ofa letter dated January 13, 2012 that I sent to County

27 Counsel Sarah Hanson by email and U.S. mail with a courtesy copy of the Complaint, notifying

DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNcnON (CV 127t-81)- 3 of 6
9870.0S r02S6J IJ

M ACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3%1

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9 Filed 01/31/12 Page 4 of 6

1 her that we intend to file a motion for preliminary injunction, asking her to arrange a time to

2 discuss our motion in accordance with D. Or. LR 7-1(a)(1)(A), and inviting the County to

3 discuss resolution oftrus matter entirely. Exhibit 14 also.includes a true copy of a proposed

4 Stipulation and (proposed) Preliminary Injunction that I enclosed with my letter to Ms. Hanson.

5

17. Exhibit 15 is a true copy of an email string between me and Ms. Hanson

6 beginning on January 13, 2012 with my assistant's message sending her my letter dated that

7 same day (delivered on January 17, 2012) and ending with our arranging a time to talk on the

8 telephone on January 19, 2012.

9

18. On January 19, 2012, Sarah Hanson, County Counsel for Columbia County told

lOme in a telephone conference that the Jail had adopted a new mail policy in 2011 that had

11 replaced the policy still posted on the Sheriffs website. Ms. Hanson then faxed a copy of the

12 purportedly new policy to me that day. Exhibit 16 is Ms. Hanson's eight-page fax to me

13 including an Inmate Mail Policy that purports to be "Effective October 21,2011."

14

19. Exhibit 17 is a true copy of an email string between me and Ms. Hanson

15 beginning on January 19, 2012 with my message shortly after our teleconference that day

16 providing her a copy of the mail policy posted on the Sheriffs website as of that date; arranging

17 the second teleconference to for January 23,2012; and ending with an email from me dated

18 January 23,2012, responding to a question posed by Ms. Hanson about how we knew that the

19 prisoners whose mail was censored by the Jail were actually in custody at the Columbia County

20 Jail when PLN sent them mail.

21

20. Exhibit 18 is a true copy of a letter from me to Ms. Hanson dated January 25,

22 2012, recapping our second teleconference on January 24, 2012, and confirming that counsel

23 would be talking a third time on January 27, 2012.

24

21. During the third teleconference between counsel for the parties, which took place

25 on January 27,2012, new counsel for the Defendants, Greg Roberson, notified me that

26 Defendants would not stipulate to PLN's proposed preliminary injunction. Instead, Mr.

27 Roberson stated that the County would implement a new mail policy.

DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (CV 1271-SQ - 4 of 6
9870.05 folSl'i1 13

MACDONALD "OAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle Washington 98104
Tel 206.622. 1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9 Filed 01/31/12 Page 5 of 6

22. Exhibit 19 is a true copy of an email dated January 27, 2012, from Mr. Roberson

2 to me, attaching the Columbia County Jail' s "new" Inmate Mail Policy, and cantinning that

3 Defendants will not stipulate to a preliminary injunction.

4

23. Exhibit 20 is a true copy of the Inmate Mail Policy that Mr. Robertson sent to me

5 that purports to be "Effective January 26, 2012."

6

24. Exhibit 21 is a true copy of Oregon State Department of Corrections Policy

7 concerning Inmate Mail for Offenders found at Oregon Administrative Rules 291-131-0005

8 through 291-131-0050. See http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/pages/rules/oars_200/oar_291 1

9 291 13l.html.

IO

25. Exhibit 22 is a true copy of Oregon Department of Corrections lnrnate PopulatioI1

II Profile for 01 /0112012 found at http://www.oregon.gov/DOC/RESRCHIdocs/

12 inmateyrofile.pdf?ga=t.

13

I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States of America and the

14 State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

15

DATED this 30'" day of January, 2012 , at Seattle, Washin on~

16

17 atherine C. amberlain
18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN IN SUPPORT OF PLAlNTLFF'S MOTION FOR PREUMINARY INJUNCTION (CV 127t-SD - 5 of 6
9r10.0S Ilo2S6J II

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYL£SS 70S Second Avenue, Suite 1500
Tel2S06e.a6u2lc~.IW60as4hiFnagxto2n069.8314034.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9 Filed 01/31/12 Page 6 of 6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I hereby certify that on January 31, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing to the Clerk

3 of the Court using the CMlECF system which will send notification of such filing to the

4 following:

5

• Marc D. Blackman

marc@ransomblackman.com,pat@ransomblackman.com

6

• Gregory R. Roberson

grr@hartwagner.com,cej @hartwagner.com

7

• Lance Weber

lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org

8

• Jesse Wing

JesseW@mhb.com

9

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS

10

lsi Katherine C. Chamberlain

KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN

I I

OSB #042580

(206) 622-1604

12

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Pri son Legal News

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

DECLARAnON OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (CV 127 1-SI) -6 of 6
9l70_0S fa2S6111

MACDONALD HO,\CUE & BAYLr.ss
705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle Washington 98104
Tel 206.6ll. I604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 1 of 53

EXHIBIT 1
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

9870.OS f024630<1

Ex 1 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 1 of 3

Inmate Mal!

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 2 of 53
COI!.UMBIA ClmNl V
SHERIFF'S OFFICE
Jeffrey M. Dickerson, Sheriff

Main Menu
• 5heritl's Office Home Paoe • Mis5.ion
I > Contact Us
, CoIum~ Ccunty Website • Press Releases >Current inrTl<'lte Ll:;t
..Divisions
~, "f'orcernent > l'lilme • Criminat • Animal Q)ntrot COrrections > lnlTlllte V~ irIg • Inmate MI!~ • Inmate Phor>e5
j ' Inmate Money Accounts
, Inmate Housing Fees • Inmate Property • Request for F'ropo$al$
I Support services I CMI iIOd Records Processinq L • CHL iIOd F~tinQ_ __
Get Involved
, ~" • Search and Rescue • Mounted Posse I Reserve l'rooTam
Information
• Jalllnftlllte CeI1sus
Facilities

Inmate Mail

ll. G!i::I Recent Headlines

Incoming Mail :
Incoming M"il will be only accepted in the form of co mmercially-produced
postcards or iI photog raph used a s a postca rd , The mail Is deli~red to the Sheriff's Office Monday through saturday, excluding holidays.
Address Inmate's Name (Booking Number) CO lumbia County Jail 901 Port Avenue SI. Helens, Oregon 97051

Neighbors Thwart
Daytime Robbery aear Scappoose
a:so request:; public.
ilsslstaw jn lde ntjMng robbery suspect
a:so search and Resrue
I orates Body of Mlssjng
fun

Prohibited Mail

Effective April 1, 2010 t he Columbia County Sheriff's Office is changing the

procedures that appLy to inmate mall.

Your personal Safety

MAIL VIOLATIONS: (Will result In tile post card(s) being ret urned to sender)

• CCSO fO<" KleIs

* No Inmate Name

I • Resourcetullm

* Incomplete Return Ad dress
• StIckers of any kind (Indudes address labels) ~ Rubbe r l n~ed StllmpS

C(so Is on facebook!

" Tape

.. UjlS\:ldt

CCSO UP CLOSE

.. Colored Pencils
.. Paperclips I Staples etc. • Correction Tape I Fluid

loformational Video 00 your Sheriffs errore

• Crayon
.. Paint

.. Watercolor or colored markers

• Food I Beverage Stains .. Perfume I COlogne

.. Any unklentifiable substance

The following mail will not be received or sent from the fadl ity ~nd wm be returned to the
sender.

1. Mail from one inm ate ro another at this fadlity requires a superviSOr's approval.
2. Mail that threatens bladl.mail or extortion . 3. Ma il that concerns sendin\l contraband inro or out of our jail. ~ . Mail that concerns escape plans. S. Mail that concerns plans for activities In \riolatioo of the jail rules. 6. Mail that concerns plans for crimioal activity. 7. M ~il that contains Information whk;h , If communicated, would create a daOl~er of violence or physical harm ro a person 8. Mall that is seosatlooal. sensationalism Is writin\l or other printed material that poses a threat ro the security, safety, or \lood order of the ja il. 9. Mall that cont<lins any contraband materials.
10. No personal pad<.ages will be accepted throu\lh the mail or by the Sheriffs OffICe Clerks.
11. Polaroid or other Instant developing photographs. 12. Picture frames or picture folders . 13. Photog raphs larger than S· x 7".
1'1. Postllge stampS, blank writin\l paper, or blank envelopes. 15. Mail that contains gang · related writings, drawlogs, or symbols on the outside of the envelope or letter. 16. Mail that contains a foreign substance, bod ily fluid , perfume or cologne. 17. Mall written In code or suspected code. 18. sexually explicit materlafs.

Ex 1 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 2 of 3
1/ http://www .co .columbl~ . or.us/sheriff/lndex. php?optlon= com_content&view= article&id .. S&ltemld = 25[ 10/2012 11 :41 :37 AM!

Inmate Mail

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 3 of 53

19. Mail that encourages or Instructs In a commission of a Crime. 20. Mail falsely labeled ·Dffidal Mail." 21. Photographs that are not printed by a professiona l commercial source (photo labs or kiosks) will not be accepted. (home printer produced pictures on regular paper are not aliowed.) 22. Sti(i(ers, tape, and reb.lm address labels.
Legal Professional Mail Rules: Inmate legal mail and professional mall rules have not changed.
Publications:
We do not accept magazines. Books must be sent directly from the publisher or bookstore. An iJlmate may r!!teive no more than three books per month.
Mail Definitions and Frequently Asked Questions:
Incomplete retUrfl address: Return address is missing either part of the address or first aNI last name of 5eJlder.
No Inmate Name: Inmate's first and last names are NOT on the post card.
Dead Mailed : There Is no return address. In this case the postcard is reb.lrned to the Post OffICe.
What happens to the postcard I se nd to an inmate when it arrives at the Facility? After the post card has been deared through administrlltion, It Is revlewed for mall violations. If a violation is fouJld, the Deputy will complete a Mail Violation Form and the mall will be placed in the inmate's property until their release, or it will be returned to the sender.
Can I send a care package to an Inmate?
Inmates housed in the Jail cannot receive care packages of any kind through the mail. care
packages wt1idl are not mail In can be purdlased through WI'/W.co lumbja.icaredirect,coro. We only accept care packages by thfs method.
Can Inmates have access to Books, Magazines, and Newspapers ? The COlumbia COunty Jail has certain legal publications as well as books for entertainment, and some faith -based materials. Books may be procured from outside the jail, howevi!r any such boo\:., hardbound or otherwise, must be sent directly from the publisher or bookstore via the U.S. Mail. Newspapers may be subscribed to in the inmate's name for delM:ry to the jail.
Magazines : Are not allowed Inside the fadlity.
Religious Materials: Inmates can request a Sible from the Law Uorary. Inmates can also attend a religious program and receive religious materials from the COlumbia COunty Sheriffs
Office Volunteer who fadlitates that particular program.
Last Updated on Friday, 06 Auguo;t 2010 16:411

CO lumbia County Sheriff's Office 901 Port Ave., St. Helens, OR 97051 (503) 366-46J1 I Emergencies: Dlai911
© 2009 COlumbia County Sheriffs Office

Valid ~ and cs.s..

Ex 1 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 3 of 3
http://www.co.columbla .or.lI5/sheriff/index.php70ption..com_content&vlew "'artlcle&ld " S&ltemld-2S[ 1/10/20 12 11 :41 :37 AM)

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 4 of 53

EXHIBIT 2
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

9570,OS fa2~6l04

Ex 2 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 5 of 53
CCSO Jail Revamping Inmate Mall Policy
CO!!.U MI!UA COUNTY
SHERIff'S OUICE
Jeffrey M. Dickerson, Sheriff

Main Menu
• Sheriff's Office Home Page • Mission • COotaa: ll$ • Columbia Co.mt)' Website • Press Releases !. CUrrent Inmate U&
IDivisions
, ",.Enforcement
, Marine , Criminal r An~l COob"oI COrrections
> Inmate Visitin<;l • Inmate Mail • Inmate PI>ones • Inmate Money Acwunts
' Inmate Hrusing Fees I• Inmate Property
• ReQUeSt for Proposals Support Services ~ Civil and Records ~iog , ~L and FirIOe<P<YltinQ
Get Involved
, "'"
• Seilrch and Rescue
• Mouo\ed Posse • R~Prog",m
Information
• J"lIln'Tl(Ite Census
Facilities
_' Firin9 Range

CCSO Jail Revamping I nm a t e Mail Policy

b; @o ~

W~y, 23 Do!cIernber- 2009 13:37

In an effort to Improve effICiency and reduce threats to safety and security by minimiZing contrab.md, the COlumbia COunty Jail is moving to limit incoming and outgoing inmate mail to postcards only, according to Sheriff Jeff Dickerson.

Recent Headlines

"T11e processing of Inmate mail is very time consuming and labor Intensive," Dickerson says. "Additionally, mail coming In sealed envelopes Increases the likelihood that contraband will make Its way through the security measures we set up.

"Going to postcards will cut oown on the time we need to ta ke in that screening process, ttJus saving the taxpayer the costs Involved in that screening."
A number of oregon Jails are making the transitlon to postcards beginning: In January, wM a final implementation date of March 31. On that date, the Columbia County Jail will only accept and mall out inmate mail on postcards. The exceptlon will be for legal and official mall.
"We will begin at the first of the year to replace envelopes and writing paper with postcards in
all indigent and intllke packets issued to Inmates," the Sheriff says. "We will also replace
stamped envelopes with postcards on the commissary menu .
"We will spend the first few months of the year, letting people know of this new policy, and
on March 31, the only envelope mail allowed to rome Into or go out of the Jail will be offidal
and legal mall. "

Three in OIStodV Another Hospitalized after violent Domestic: Dtsnute
in Deer islilod
Your Personal Safety
• cesc for Kids • Resourceful too
CCSO is on
facebook!

The Sheriff's Office wlll be posting the new guidelines In the Sheriff's Office lobby and on the agency website at: www.co.columbia.or.uS;sheriffln the corning weeks.

CCSO UP CLOSE
Informational Video
on Your SheriffS Office

Columbia Co unty Sheriff's Office 901 Port Ave., St. Helens, OR 97051 (503) 366·4611 I Emergencies : Dial 911
© 2009 Columbia COunty Sheriff's Office

Valid XI:IIML. and c:ss..

Ex 2 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 2 of 2
http://www.co.columbia.or.us{...optiorl~com_content&view"..artide&ld .. 63:ccso·jail·revamplng·lnmate·mall·policy&catld .. l :news-and·press-releases&ltemid = 29[ 11/22{2011 3:49:55 PM]

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 6 of 53

EXHIBIT 3
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

9!7C_OS f.:wi)G4

Ex 3 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 7 of 53
Columbia County Jail to restrict inmate mail to postcards only
Columbia County Jail to restrict inmate mail to postcards only
By The Daily News I Posted: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 8:00 pm To save time and improve security, the Columbia County Jail soon will1imit incoming and outgoing inmate mail to postcards only, Sheriff Jeff Dickerson announced Tuesday. "The processing of inmate mail is very time-consuming and labor-intensive," Dickerson said in a prepared statement. "Additionally, mail coming in sealed envelopes increases the likelihood that contraband will make its way through the security measures we sct up. Going to postcards will cut down on thc time we need to take in that screening process, thus saving the taxpayer the costs involved in that screening." A number of Oregon jai ls are making the transition to postcards only beginning in January. with a final implementation by March 31, he said. On that date, the Columbia County Jail will only accept and mail out inmate mai l on postcards. Exceptions will be made for legal and official mail. "We will spend the first few months of the year letting people know of this new policy, and on March 31 the only envelope mail allowed to come into or go out oflhejail will be official and legal mail."
Ex 3 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 2 of 2
http://tdn.com/...-jail-to-restrict-inmate-maHo-postcards·only/artide]d67b7e2-ef4C-l l de-8a20-001cc4c002eO.html?print= 1[11/22/2011 3: 53 :27 PM]

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 8 of 53

EXHIBIT 4
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

9$70.05 f0246~

Ex 4 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 1 of 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 9 of 53

corrections home

Page 1 of 5

I Faces of Meth © I Breaki ng News I Jobs 1 Volunteer I
MULTNOMAH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE

CI YIL P ROCESS

NEWSLEU ER

Frequently Ask ed Questions Reg a rding Inmate Mail, Funds and Pho ne Se rvi ce

MCDC (Detention Center): 1120 SW 3rd, Portland OR 97204 Mel) (Inverness Jai l): 11540 NE Inverness Dr, Portland OR 97220

How do I s end f unds to a n inmate? may mail fun ds through the US Post al Service to one of ou r facilities.
MCDC (Detention Center): 1120 SW 3rd, Portland OR 97204 MeIJ (Inverness Jail): 11540 NE Inverness Dr, Portland OR 97220
You may drop the fu nds off at one of our facili ties. MCDC - 7 :00 AM to 10:30 PM seven days a week. MeIJ - 7 : 00 AM to 9:00 PM Monday through Friday; 07 : 00 AM to 10:30 PM Satu rday and Sunday.
What kind of funds can I send or bring to the j ail? Cash (bring in person, do not mai l) Certi fied Checks We do not accept personal checks, credit cards or debit cards .

Ho w do I send mail to an inmate?

I incoming mail books and magazines will be ope ned and inspected

may send mail v ia the US Postal Serv ice to one of our facilities.

** I nmatemail sha l l not be held for m ore t han twenty-four (24) hours,

1

weekends and holidays.**

may come in person to fill ou t an "Inma te Memo Form" which can be

through MCSO inter departmen t m ail to the inmate .

**Delivered Daily**

MCDC - 7:00 AM to 7 :00 PM Monday th ru Friday/7:00 AM to 10 : 30 PM

Ex 4 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 2 of 6

http://www.mcso.us/public/inmate_mail] AQ.htm

1127/2012

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 10 of 53

correcti ons home

Page 2 of5

Saturday and Sunday.
MeIJ - 7:00 AM to 10 :30 PM Monday through Friday; 3:30 PM to 10:30
PM Saturday and Sunday.
What kind of mail can 1 send? Personal Mail Legal Ma il Books Magazines
Co ntra b a nd Mail It is a felony to introduce contraband into a correctional facility . The Enforcement Division of the Sheriffs Office will investigate such activity or suspected act ivity for prosecution. Any mail that contains
unacceptable enclosu res will be returned to the sender. The entire piece of mail will be returned jf any part is unacceptable by facility regulations.
back to top
Guide lines fo r Perso n al Mail: Acceptable Items
- Letters
- Photos of an appropriate nature - Funds of an appropriate nature Una cce pta ble Items - Escape Plans - Flammable materials - Polaroid photos or any photo with stiff backing - Drugs or drug paraphernalia - Weapons, explosives, and lor any m aterials used in making weapons/explosives. - Pictu res, photos, motivational materials and greeting with st iff backings or larger than 8 V2 x 11. - Books, leaflets, bibles, or pages/clippings of these items. - Magazines other than acceptable publications directly from the pu blisher. - Personal checks, stamps, pens, bus passes, stickers, or ca ll ing (phone) ca rds . - Envelopes un less official self-addressed. - Material containing portrayals of sexual activity or nudity (materia l displaying uncovered genitalia or fema le breasts; - I nflam matory material if it constit utes a direct th reat to the security and safety of t he facilit y (as defined by MCSO Operat ional Procedures) . - Any device capable of st oring electronic med ia (videotapes, cassettes, CD ROMS, and computer disks. -Any foreign substance (i.e. perfume, tape, stickers, labels, glue, crayons, glitter, lipstick, body fluids, or any other foreign substance on t he envelope or within the contents. - Attachments to the envelope of contents such as labels, st ickers, and scrap book items, etc.
Ma il t hat contains nuisance contraband sh all: Be returned in its entirety t o the sender or sent to the Dead Letter Office in San Francisco if lacking a return ad dress. Nuisance contraband found in the mail being sent to an inmate that originated from another inmate within Mul t nomah Coun ty Sheriff's Offi ce faci lit ies shall not be given to or stored for any inm ate. Inmates are subject to disciplinary process for misuse of mail pe r the Inmate manual.

Ex 4 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 3 of 6

http: //www.mcso.u s/public/inmate_ mail_ FA Q .htm

1/2 7/2012

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 11 of 53

corrections home

Page 30[5

back to top
Guidelines for Legal Mail: - Incoming clearly marked official mail will be opened and searched for contraband in the inmates' presence.
Guid e lines f or Boo ks : Books must be sent directly from the publisher or approved retailer via US Post al Service or they will be rejected and returned. Below are examples of approved retailers: www .amazon.com www. barnesandnoble.com w ww.powells .com
AS we receive books from other retailers, if it is questionable the ore will
make the decision or exception on a case by case basis. - No bulk rate, third or fourth -class mail, junk mail, or packages shall be accepted. - Publications shall dearly be in unalter ed form and sha ll be subj ect to review. - Publications must be prepaid from outside funds . - Hard and soft covered books are accept able but soft cover is highly recommended . - Books cannot exceed 8 1h x 11 inches and two (2) pounds. - Ordered books will count towards t he inmates four (4) book and magazi ne t otal. If an inmate receives a new book or magazine and that total exceeds the four (4) book limit, excess books or magazines must be donated to general inmate circulation. - Inmates who are on discip linary segregation will not rece ive their publications but will have them stored wit h the rest of their personal items; books in excess of four (4) will be returned to sender. - Inmates moving within Multnomah County facilities are permitted to keep their four (4) publicatio n limit. - Inmates transported out side of Multnomah County facil it ies must donate t heir books to general use.
back to top
Guidelines fo r Magazines : - Magazines must be sent di rect ly from the pu blisher or approved retailer via US Postal Service. - Publications sha ll clearly be in unaltered form and shall be subject to review. - Publications must be prepaid from outside funds. - Ordered magazines will count towa rds the inmates four (4) book and magazine total. If an inmate receives a new book or magazine and that total exceeds the fou r (4) book limit, excess books or magazines must be donated to general inmate circulation. - Inmates who are on disciplinary segregation will not receive their publications but will have them stored with the res t of their personal items; books in excess of four (4) wil l be returned to sender. - In mates moving within Mul t nomah County facil ities are permitted to keep t heir four (4) publication limit. - I nmates t ransported outside of Multnomah County faci lit ies must donate t heir books to general use.
Unacceptable Books, Magazines, newsp apers and Peri odicals include : - Items wh ich contain instructions for the manufact uring of explosives, drugs, weapons or other unlawful substance;

Ex 4 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 4 of 6

http://www.mcso.us/public/inmate_mail_FAQ.htm

112712012

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 12 of 53

corrections home

Page 4 of 5

- Incites, aids or assists an inmate to attempt escape, riot or disrupt Facility order and security; - Contains portrayals of sexual activity or nudity (material displays uncovered genitalia or female breasts); - A type that has demonstrably caused violence or other disruption of Facility security; - Advocates racia l, religious, national or other hatred in such a way so as to create serious danger of violence or other disruptive activity in the
Faci lity; - Encourages sexual behavior which is criminal or in violation of institution rules or detrimental to inmate programs; - Violate state law; - Promotes a hostile work environment.

ba ck to top

Undeliverable I nmate Mail: - Shall be forwarded to the current address on file if the inmate has been t ransferred or re leased to another jurisdiction or Facility; - Returned to sender if the inmate address is unknown. - Sent to the US Postal Service Dead Letter Office if a return add ress is not available.

Guidelines f or Phone Usage : I nmates have access to a listing of free calls to public defenders, official agencies, pa role and probat ion officers and certain private attorneys in each housing area. Calls made to any of these num bers are free of cha rge. - Attorney/legal calls are to be made during scheduled walk times. - Personal phone calls are subject to monitoring . - Three way or third party calls are not perm itted . Detection by our phone system will result in term ination of the call. - The inmate will have to contact you via collect telephone call during t heir walk time; you cannot call the inmate. - The inmate telephone system has usage gu idelines, limiting the total minutes and call attempts. - Each call is automatically charged at the designated rate per call to the phone number, which accepts t he col lect call. Each personal call is programmed to last no more t ha n fifteen (15 ) m inutes.
To set up a phone accou nt, contact Correctiona l Bi lling Services (CBS) is responsible for addressing any billing or inmate telephone service issues faced by the friends and family of the inmates. 1-800-844-6591 Toll-Free Numbe r

back to top

If an inm at e is using th e t e lephon e to h a rass or threat en anot h er person and you would like to report this, please contact the specific facility the inmate is housed in immediately: Justice Center Jai l (503) 988-3689 Inverness Jai l (503) 988-5060 The facili t y will act on any urgent ma tter immediately.

A telephone number m ay be blocked: At the requ est of the called party by st riking 6 on t he phone keypad when you receive a cal l. Non - payment to loca l phone company or inmate telephone provider. Exceed ing daily, weekly or monthly -est ab lished dollar/credit amou nt limit s.

Ex 4 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 5 of 6

http: //www .mcso.u s/public/ inmate_ mail _FAQ .htm

1127/201 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 13 of 53

corrections home

Page 5 of5

Receiving caller attempting a three-way call (phone number becomes automatically blocked). Court order, request from police, staff, or victims. To place a block on your phone number, click HERE
Visiting Guidelines: The inmate must place you on their visiting list prior to your visit. You may contact the inmate through a letter via US Postal Service,
Inmate Memo Form or if they contact you via telephone.
For more complete information regard ing visiting see our visiting guidelines
back to top

H"""OM" COon" Sltfllff"l!lUt<.
'""""" co...,.." 2<l11., ....."'Q""" Coo"" So."",', 01"'......' "'...TO 1\<...."'.

Ex 4 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 6 of 6

hrtp://www.mcso.us/public/inmate mail FAQ.htm

112712012

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 14 of 53

EXHIBIT 5
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

9'7Q,OS f0:.146304

Ex 5 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 1 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 15 of 53

INMATE MAlL RULES AND REGULATIONS

Page 1 0[2

c
. · lANE · • •.. CG>.UNTY .:~
,~"'OR~""""""'4

Sear<:h

p

Home IWantTo... Services Departments Contact Us
You are here: Lane County, Oregon:> Departments;> Sheriff:> Corrections:> I NMATE MAll RULES AND REGULATIONS

INMATE MAIL RULES AND REGUIATIONS

EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 1, 2011: Mail sent between currently incarcerated inmates within this facility or any other correctional facility will no longer be accepted or forwarded , Mail intended for other inmates to be forwarded via 3rd parties will also no! be allowed. Failure to follow this rule may result in inmate discipline.
Exceptions to the rule may be requested if the other inmate is an immediate family member or the correspondence is strictly legal in nature.
All correspondence must go through the U. S. Mail. Unacceptable mail wi ll be returned to sender.
Correspondence is encouraged. It is important for all concerned to communicate and the best means to accomplish this is through the mail. Security staff is required to inspect both incoming and outgoing mail. This generally does not indude reading the mail, but the reading of mail may occur when there are concerns for inmate andlor facility safety and security. violations of law or when there is a requ irement that the behavior of an inmate be monitored.
Addressing Co rrespond ence to an Inmate at tlie Lalle County .Jail:
Offenders Full Name & AIRS Number (Number can be obtained by calling 541-682-2101) Lane County Adult Corrections 101 West 5th Avenue Eugene, OR 91401-2695
Leiters are required to have a valid retum address.
Poslage- Offenders must purchase pre-stamped envelopes through the commissary. If an offender is completely without funds and is considered indigent he or she may order and receive, through commissary, two stamped envelopes per week.
Packages Containing Personal Property- Unless previously authorized by a supervisor, packages addressed to inmates lodged in the Main Jail containing personal property or clothing will be returned to the sender. Packages addressed to Forest WorK Camp or Community Correction Center offenders will be forwarded to those locations and processed according to their program rules and specifications.
Books, Jl"lagtlZines and Newspape r s- Numerous books and magazines are available to offenders within the common areas of the housing units. Acceptable publications MUST be pre-paid, new, soft bound and mailed to the offender directly from a verifiable commercial publishing source or distributor. Publications will not be accepted if mailed or delivered by a second party. Receipt of these items will indude a complete inspection or examination for any illegal substance, unacceptable text or any other form of contraband. lane County is not responsible for the cost incurred for returning unacceptable items. The offender may be charged for the return of unacceptable items.
Aeceptnble ft e m s- Items that can be received by mail include acceptable publications, written correspondence. plain cards. most photocopies, drawings made of pencil or regular ink and standard photographs (4x6 or smaller, no more than 10 at a time, non-Polaroid).
Unacceptable ltems- Items received that include any of the following materials will be refused in their entirety and returned to the sender.
1. Material unacceptable for regular mailing with the US Postal Service. 2. Material that may incite violence or discrimination, based on race, religion, creed or nationality or which may create
danger of violence and physical harm. 3. Prohibited items may also include but are notlimi\ed to those that contain escape plans, criminal conspiracies,
threats of extortion, plans for making weapons, attempts at assaults or plans for introducing contraband. 4. Material that is likely to produce or incite lawless action. lawless action includes escape, violence, riots or
anarchy. Material that depicts methods of manufacturing firearms, explosives or other weapons or that approves their use in a disruptive or il\egal manner. Any material that contains life-size and realistic replicas of firearms or other weapons. 5. Material that, if delivered, could compromise the safely or security of this facility, personnel or inmates.

Ex 5 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 2 of 3
http: / /www.co.lane.or.us/Departments/S h eri fflCo rrection s/Pages/ . . . 1 I 2 7/2012

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 16 of 53

INMATE MAIL RULES AND REGULATIONS

Page 2 of2

6. Nude photos or other pictorial depictions of genitalia. including women's breasts. This policyrfl1!l;)lpr!·ilC :-; Iiit1 ill I I

publications containing photographs or drawings depicting sex, excretion, sadism, masochis_rli it ~.::.s.~ Translation

beyond the customary limits of decency.

Disclaimer

Wi 7. Catalogs, advertisements, brochures, promotional materials, pamphlets, sweepstakes, conle~~ PI:lJ/Hes I Privacy Policy I

materials where the primary purpose is to sell a product or service and when taken as a whO~l!:a~9~~i>ability Disclaimer I

literary. artistic, religious, political, educational or scientific value are prohibited.

Contact master

8. Credit or deferred billing transactions: mail involving credit or deferred billing (e.g. "bill me lat.l(hcor .'2r~eot~· er C 0

delivery") transactions for the purchase of/subscription to pUblications (books, newspapers or m~lfilne~§I'b

ount)', regon

items or merchandise is prohibited . Mail prohibited under this subsection includes:

1. Outgoing requests or purported agreements to en ter into a credit or deferred billing transaction,

2. Incoming publications or other Items or merchandise, including promotional (e.g. free gift or premium) items

given in exchange for purchase of subscription, which are accompanied by a billing or other statement

requiring payment upon delivery or at a later date.

10. Otherwise acceptable mail or publications containing a business reply envelope or reply card will be distributed to

you after the envelope or reply card has been discarded.

11. Other examples of prohibited items are: newspaper and magazine clippings; most catalogs; stickers; scratch-and-

sniff paper; bookmarks or business cards made with any material other than standard paper cardstock; glitter;

drawings made with crayon, colored pencils or other types of art medium; food items; glue; tape; paper clips;

rubber bands; cards with glitter, glue or plastic fron ts that cannot be inspected; postage stamps; envelopes; blank

writing paper or cards; unofficial or decorative ink stampings; etc.

12, Any substance that is foreign to authorized mail items including lipstick, crayon, watercolors, paint, correction fluid,

unknown stains, perfume/cologne, etc. is prohibited.

A dmill istra llve R evieu .>- Pursuant to Lane County Adult Corrections Policy and Procedures, a sender who has received a Mail Violation Notice may obtain an independent review of the rejection of correspondence by writing to the
attention of the Security Supervisor at 101 West 5 th, Eugene, Oregon 97401·2695, and requesting an administrative review.

Administrative review shall be available to the intended inmate recipient only for correspondence rejected because of its written or pictorial content. A request for an administrative review must be in writing and be received within 7 days of the date of the notice, and should specify the reason(s) the rejection should not be sustained. T he rejected correspondence and/or prohibited item(s) must be submitted with the review request. If no review is requested , the sender may correct or remove the portion of mail that violates the Lane County Adult Corrections rules and send the non·violating mail back to the offender.

A ny person supply ing c ontraband i nto a corrections facility is subject to criminal pros ecution in accordance w ith ORS 162.185.

Ex 5 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 3 of 3
http://www.co.lane.or.us/Departments/SherifflC orrections/Pages/... 11271201 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 17 of 53
EXHIBIT 6
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Ex 6 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 1 of 17

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 18 of 53

I

STATE OF WASHINGTON

PRISON

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS f2!¥.~,~

7/25/1 1

1 of 16

DOC 450.100

POLICY

MAIL FOR OFFENDERS

REVIEW/REVISION HISTORY:

Effective: Revised: Revised: Revised: Revised: Revised: Revised: Revised: Revised: Revised: Revised: Revised:

2/1/83 DOC 450.020 9/1/83 10/24/83 2/20/84 11/6/87 1/1/92 DOC 450.100 11/1/92 11/1/93 12127/93 11/1 /94 1/10/99 1/5/00

Revised: Revised: Revised: Revised: Revised: Revised: Revised: Revised: Revised: Revised: Revised: Revised:

5/1/04 1/22107 4/26/07 AS 07-013 6/7/07 AS 07-016 7130/07 AS 07-022 9/12107 AS 07-028 5119/08 8/11/08 AS 08-022 10/1/09 12131/09 9/1110 7/25/11

SUMMARY OF REVISION/REVIEW:

I. E.1. and IV.B.3. - Added eMessage applicability ILA., IV.A.3., V.E.2., VILS.1., VIILS., XI. S. - Added clarifying language ILA.5., IVA1.b., VIIIA1. & C., IX.A.2.b., XLF. - Adjusted language for clanfication IV.A.1.a.1) - Added that money orders without a DOC number may be accepted if the information can be easily confirmed from the envelope Added IV.B.1.a.3) that outgoing offender mail may not contain letters/documents from another offender VII.B.2.a. - Adjusted that the Superintendent's decision may be appealed to the Assistant Secretary for Prisons/designee V III.A.2. - Adjusted allowances for used books VIII.D.1. - Adjusted that rejected publications will be sent to the Publication Review Committee Added VII1.D.2.a. on instructional CDsfDVDs included in publications Several adjustments to Attachment 1

APPROVED:
Signature on file
ELDON VAIL, Secretary Department of Corrections

6/21/11 Date Signed

Ex 6 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 2 of 17

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 19 of 53

STATE OF WASHINGTON

PRISO N

DEPARTMENTOFCORRECTlONS P~~,~~~~~~

7/25/1 1

DOC 450.100

POLI CY

MAIL FOR OFFENDERS

REFEREN CES :
DOC 100.100 is hereby incorporated into this policy; RCW 72.02.260; RCW 72.09.450; WAC 137-36; WAC 137-48; ACA 4-4275; ACA 4-4487; ACA 4-4488; ACA 4-4489; ACA4-4490; ACA 4-4491; ACA 4-4492; ACA 4-4493; ACA 4-4494; ACA 4-4495; ACA 4-4496; DOC 200.000 Trust Accounts for Offenders; DOC 200.210 Facility Offender Stores; DOC 280.510 Public Disclosure of Records; DOC 290.100 Patents. Copyrights. and Royalties; DOC 420.375 Contraband and Evidence Handling; DOC 440.000 Personal Property for Offenders; DOC 450,050 Prohibited Contact; DOC 450.120 Packages for Offenders; DOC 590.500 Legal Access for Offenders
POLICY:
L The Department has established procedures governing mail services for offenders, defining staff responsibility for managing mail and maintaining safety and security of the public, staff, offenders, and facilities. [44487]
DIRECTIVE :
L General Requirements
A Offenders will be responsible for informing their correspondents regarding the rules governing offender mail, including legal mail.
B. When the offender bears the mailing cost, there is no limit on the volume of letters slhe can send or receive, or on the length, content, or source of mail or publication, except when there is reasonable belief limitation is necessary to protect public safety or facility order and security. [4-44881
C. An offender's writing privileges to a particular person or group may be withdrawn for the following reasons:
1. At the request of the recipient,
2. If the recipient is a minor and his/her parent or guardian has requested, in writing, that the privilege be terminated,
3. To comply with a court ordered restr1ction, or
4. For specific cause supported by criteria in this policy.
D. Offender mail will not be processed or handled by offenders other than the writer or the offender to whom the mail is sent.

Ex 6 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 3 of 17

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 20 of 53

STATE OF WASHINGTON

PRISON

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
P"7Ji!i,

7/25/11

3 of 16

DOC 450.100

POLICY

MAIL FOR OFFENDERS

E. [4-4495] Excluding weekends and holidays or emergency situations (Le., incidents which create a significant disruption of normal facility or Department procedure, policy, or activity caused by riot, escape, fire, natural disaster, employee action, or other serious incident), mail will be processed as follows:
1. Incoming first class mail and eMessages will be distributed to the offender within 48 hours of receipt,
2. Outgoing first class mail will not be held for more than 48 hours, and 3. All other mail will be delivered to the offender within 3 to 5 days.
II. Correspondence Between Incarcerated Offenders
A. There will be no correspondence between offenders confined in a correctional facility in state, Out-of-State, or out of the country, directly or indirectly, except as approved in writing by the appropriate Superintendentsljail administrator or designees. This includes, but is not limited to, Prisons, Work Releases, jails, juvenile facilities, federal correctional centers, and detention facilities. Mail to and from residents of the Special Commitment center is allowed.
1. Offender to offender correspondence will not be considered, unless:
a. The offenders are immediate family members,
b. The offenders have a child together, as proven through a birth certificate, and only if the parental rights of neither parent has been terminated by the court or the Department of Social and Health Services,
c. The offenders are co-parties in an active legal matter, or
d. One offender is providing a relevant witness statement in the other offender's active legal matter.
2. An offender requesting correspondence with another offender will complete DOC 21-746 Request for Offender to Offender Correspondence Approval and submit it to his/her Counselor/Community Corrections Officer (GGO).
a. The Counselor/CCO will verify the request meets policy requirements and fOIWard the request to the Superintendent/ designee for a final decision.
3. If an offender has been approved to correspond with another offender, the approval may be accepted by any receiving facility upon the offender's

Ex 6 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 4 of 17

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 21 of 53

STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

PRISON
I
7/25/11

4 of 16

DOC 450.100

POLICY

MAIL FOR OFFENDERS

transfer. Documentation of such approval will be maintained in the offender's central file and a copy sent 10 the mailroom. The approval may be revoked for cause.
4. A termination date will be set for offender to offender correspondence for co-parties in an active legal matter or for the purpose of providing a witness statement. When this expires, offenders must establish that the basis for correspondence is still active.
5. Each piece of offender to offender correspondence, excluding legal mail,
will be read and approved/denied by the Superintendent/designee. Incoming offender to offender legal mail will be opened in the presence of the offender per legal mail procedures.
6. Approved correspondence with co-party offenders and witnesses or prospective witnesses will be specifically limited to the legal matter involved. Other than brief greetings, the mail will not include correspondence of a personal nature, discussions of other litigation, or other communications not directly related to the legal matter involved.
7. In cases where approved co-party communications contain documented security concerns, the Superintendent may seek permission through the appropriate Deputy Director to deny further communications.
B. Mail received from organizations that specialize in facilitating offender to offender
correspondence will be rejected.
III. Inspection
A. {4-4491} [4-4493] [4-4494} Designated facility staff are authorized to inspect and read incoming and outgoing mail to prevent:
1. Receiving or sending contraband or any other material that threatens the security and order of the facility through the mail, and
2. Criminal activity.
B. Mail will not be censored to eliminate opinions critical of Department policy or staff. [4-4491J
C. [4-4493) Cash or personal checks will be logged and processed for return! disposal per the Rejection of Incoming and Outgoing Mail section of this policy. Other checks and money orders will be logged and sent directly to the facility Business Office for proceSSing. Receipts will be prepared immediately and forwarded to the offender with the incoming mail.

Ex 6 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 5 of 17

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 22 of 53

H·' . ~t~ . ~ STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS • : .. .,'ti
POLICY

APPLlCA81U

PRISON

OFFENDER/SPANISH MANUALS

REVISION DATE

PAGE NUMBER

7/25/11

5 of 16

NUMBER
DOC 450.100

nn.,
MAIL FOR OFFENDERS

IV. Content and Structure of Offender Mail
A. Incoming Offender Mail
1. United States Postal Service (USPS) Mail
8. Mail sent to offenders via the USPS will be addressed with the full committed name and DOC number. Staff will make reasonable efforts to identify the offender for whom the mail is intended. Mail not adequately addressed and for whom the intended recipient cannot be identified will be returned to the sender with the reason for return noted on the outside of the envelope.
1) Money orders received in mail to offenders must have the receiving offender's name and DOC number on them. Money orders without a DOC number may be accepted if staff can easily confirm the informatton from the envelope. Offenders are responsible for writing their name and DOC number on all other enclosures (e.g., photographs, newspaper clippings, etc.) immediately upon receipt.
2) Mailroom staff will remove enclosures such as social security cards, marriage/birthfdeath certificates, and visitor questionnaires and fOlward to staff designated by the Superlntendent (e.g., Visiting Sergeant, Records Manager, etc.) for processing andfor safekeeping. The offender will receive a receipt for the removed item and notice of its disposition.
3) Incoming mail must contain only correspondence/property for the addressed offender. Correspondence/property for a third party is not permitted.
4) Address labels on the outside of the envelope are allowed unless the facility can note or document a security concern.
b. Incoming mail for offenders must have a return address as defined by the USPS, including an identifiable first and last name. Mail without a return address will be rejected. The intended offender will be notified of the rejection on DOC 05-525 Mail Rejection Notice and will be given the opportunity to provide an address to return the item at the offender's expense.

Ex 6 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 6 of 17

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 23 of 53

8\.< :";.,} STATEOFWASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

APPUCABIU. l

PRISON

OFFENDER/SPANISH MANUALS

REVISION DATE

PAGE NUMBER

7/25/11

6 of 16

NUMBER
DOC 450.100

POLICY

TilLE

MAIL FOR OFFENDERS

C. Any attempt to use the mail to disseminate large amounts of information to a facility's entire offender population is inherently suspect. If the Superintendent has reasonable cause to believe an attempt is intended to cause disruption or otherwise threaten the order and security of the unit or tile facility, the mass mailing material will be restricted.
2. eMessages
a. eMessages that cannot be delivered to an offender will be returned to sender.
3. Mail in a foreign language will be handled per Attachment 1 of this policy.
B. Outgoing Offender Mail
1. United States Postal Service (USPS) Mail
a. Letters sent by offenders via the USPS must have a complete return address that includes the full committed name, DOC number, housing assignment, and the full name and address of the facility. The return address may include any other legal name, as long as it is listed below the offender's full committed name. The offender is responsible for instructing hislher correspondents to use the correct address as posted on the return address of the offender. Envelopes will be stamped with the following or similar message: ''This was mailed by an offender confined at a Washington State Department of Corrections facility. Its contents are uncensored." .
1) The salutation/opening of correspondence other than legal mail must contain the name of the person that appears on the envelope.
2) Offenders must use a kite or the USPS to correspond with staff. Offender use of campus or inter-officemail is prohibited.
3) Outgoing mail from an offender must contain only hisfher correspondence/property. Correspondence/property from a third party is not permitted.
2. eMessages

Ex 6 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 7 of 17

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 24 of 53

STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

,
PRISON

7/25/11

7 of 16

DOC 450.100

POLICY

MAIL FOR OFFENDERS

a. Offenders must agree to the terms of service to use the JPay
eMessaging system. eMessaging will only be available through the secured JPay kiosks and must be routed through the secured JPay site.
3. Letters and eMessages from offenders must be written in English, unless the offender or recipient is unable to correspond in English. Letters and eMessages in languages other than English may be reviewed by an approved and certified translator.
V. Legal Mail
A. Offenders have the right to correspond by means of legal mail. Legal mail must meet all of the following requirements:
1. Legal mail must be:
a. Correspondence to or from courts and court staff, attorneys, the Indeterminate Sentence Review Board (ISRB), established groups involved in the representation of offenders in judicial proceedings (e.g., American Civil Liberties Union, Disability Rights Washington, legal services groups, etc.), the President or Vice President of the United States, members of the United States Congress, embassies and consulates, the United States Department of Justice, state attorneys general, governors, members of the state legislature, law enforcement officers in their official capacity, the Washington State Office of Financial Management's Tort Claims Division, and the Prison Rape Elimination Act Unit at Headquarters, or [4-4275}
[4-4492[
b. Mail between offenders verified to be co-parties to the same legal proceeding who have been approved for offender to offender correspondence, which contains personal legal documents/papers and/or a legal pleading.
2. Legal mail must be hard copy. eMessages will not be processed as legal mail.
3. Incoming mail must have the return address on the front of the envelope clearty indicating that it is from one of the above listed sources.
4. The front of the envelope must be clearly marked "Legal MaW, "Attorney/ Client", "Confidential", or similar designating the item as legal mail.

Ex 6 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 8 of 17

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 25 of 53

I I

STATE OF WASHINGTON

PRISON

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ~~~~,~~~"¥~W.~iUMBER'I----::-:-iMiBER-:-1

7125111

8 of 16

DOC 450.100

POLICY

MAIL FOR OFFENDERS

a. Mail readily identifiable as being from a court will be handled as
legal mail regardless of whether it has been marked legal mail.

8. [4-4492] Incoming legal mail will be opened in the presence of the offender by designated correctional staff and outgoing legal mail will be sealed in the presence of staff. Staff will be authorized to inspect the contents of the legal mail to ensure they:

1. Do not contain contraband or any other material that would threaten the security and order of the facility, and

2. Meet the policy requirements for legal mail. If there is a question whether the mail qualifies as legal mail, it may be retained for not more than 24 hours, excluding weekends and holidays, to resolve the question.

C. Legal mail containers that permit mamng of 8" x 11 n envelopes wlll be provided in designated areas.

1. Outgoing legal mail will be handled as follows:

a. Offender presents the documents and envelope to staff,

b. Staff determines the documents are legal mail and there is no

contraband,

c. Offender seals the envelope,

d. Staff signs or initials over the sealed flap of the envelope,

e. Staff logs out the mail in the presence of the offender, and

f.

Staff observes offender deposit envelope in the legal mail

container, or offender observes staff deposit envelope in the legal

mail container.

2. Staff will ensure that outgoing legal mail procedures are followed in the Intensive Management Unit (IMU)/Segregation.

D. Offenders are required to demonstrate to the appropriate Superintendents/ designees that they are co-parties in an active legal matter in order for offender to offender mail to be handled as legal mail.

1. A copy of the pleading that was submitted to the court with the cause number assigned must accompany such verification requests. Upon verification, the Superintendent/designee w ill notify the mail room and/or other Superintendents, as necessary.

Ex 6 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 9 of 17

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 26 of 53

STATE OF WASHINGTON

PRISON

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

f-""-'iffi

POLICY

DOC 450.100 MAll FOR OFFENDERS

2. Offender to offender legal mail will be scanned, but not read, With closer scrutiny than other legal mail to ensure the correspondence relates solely to legal issues and otherwise complies with this policy.
E. Video/audio recordings of offender court proceedings and ISRB hearings may be received through the mail directly from the courUlSRB.
1. Video recordings will not be retained by the offender, but will be handled per DOC 590.500 Legal Access for Offenders.
2. Audio/data CDs may be retained by the offender, provided the CDs have an approved identifying label or emblem containing the offender's name and DOC number.
3. Recordings will not be available for downloading through JPay.
VI. Unauthorized Mail
A. [4-4491] Mail to or from offenders will be rejected based on legitimate facility interests of order and security and/or for any reason identified in Unauthorized Mail (Attachment 1).
8. An item printed off the Internet will not be automatically rejected.
C. Offenders will not send photocopies in outgoing mail, unless it has been determined the photocopies have been paid for in advance by the offender through appropriate processes identified in facility operational memorandums regarding photocopies, DOC 280.510 Public Disclosure of Records, and DOC 290. 100 Patents, Copyrights, and Royalties, or unless the copy has been received by the offender through normal facility channe ls. Photocopies will not be sent from offender to offender unless they meet the criteria for Offender to offender legal mail.
D. Offenders may not attach files to outgoing eMessages.
VI I. Rejection of Incoming and Outgoing Mail
A. If any portion of an offender's incoming or outgoing mail is rejected, mailroom staff will provide written notice to the offender and the sender using DOC 05-525 Mail Rejection Notice or, for rejected eMessages, an equ ivalent electronic notice. [4-4491J This notice will:
1. Include the reason for the rejection.
2. Inform the offender and sender that:

Ex 6 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 10 of 17

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 27 of 53

STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

I I
PRISON
~'~~~'T~~~WM;W'I--NiTr,",R-~

7/25/11

100116

DOC 450.100

POLICY

MAIL FOR OFFENDERS

a. S/he has the right to appeal the rejection of incoming mail to the
SuperintendenUdesignee, in writing, within 10 calendar days of the initial rejection decision,
b. Rejected outgoing written correspondence is automatically reviewed by the Superintendent and Secretary/designee and does not require an appeal request, and
c. It is the offender's responsibility to notify the mailroom of an appeal
for incoming mail to ensure the rejected item(s) are kept secured until the appeal process is completed.
3. Inelude the name and address of the sender.
8. The Superintendent's designee will review the rejection within 10 calendar days of the initial rejection decision and either uphold the rejection or allow delivery. If rejection is upheld, the Superintendent/designee will notify the offender on DOC 05-525 Mail Rejection Notice.
1. For rejected outgoing offender correspondence, the Superintendent will forward the letter or eMessage to the Secretary's designee (Le., the Correctional Manager responsible for Department offender mail operations), who will affirm or reverse the action taken at the fac[J[ty and notify the offender in writing. Correspondence sent for review will be returned to the sending facility to:
a. Mail to the addressee with in 7 days of receipt if the rejection is overturned, or
b. Retain in a separate file for 2 years if the rejection is upheld, after which it wi ll be destroyed.
2. For all other mail, if the offender and/or sender appeals, the Superintendent/designee will affirm or reverse the action taken at the facility and notify the offender andfor sender, in w riting, within 10 working days of receipt of the written request.
a. The offender andfor sender may appeal the Superintendent's decision, in writing, to the Assistant Secretary for Prisons/designee with in 10 calendar days of the decision.
1) Offenders may use DOC 21-757 Appeal of Mail Rejection to notify the mailroom an appeal has been made.

Ex 6 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 11 of 17

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 28 of 53

8U;~:., . ~

STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
POLICY

APPUCABILl

PRISON

OFFENDER/SPANISH MANUALS

REVISION DATE
7/25/1 1

I PAGE NUMBER 11 of 16

I NUMBER DOC 450.100

TITLE

MAIL FOR OFFENDERS

b. Upon receipt of the appeal, the Assistant Secretary for Prisons! designee wi ll affirm or reverse the action taken at the facility and notify the offender or sender, in writing, within 10 calendar days of
receipt of the written request
C. Incarcerated offenders will be financially responsible for disposing of their unauthorized incoming mail by sending it to a non-incarcerated person designated by the offender, at the offender's expense, within 30 days of receipt of the final rejection decision.
1. If the offender is without funds, refuses to pay the required postage, or refuses to designate an individual to receive the items, such items will be donated to charity or destroyed.
D. If any contraband or Hlegal item is found within the outgoing correspondence, it will be handled per DOC 420.375 Contraband and Evidence Handling, and the remaining documents will be sent for review after administrative processes have occurred.
VI II. Publications Received by Offenders [4-4490]
A. Offenders may receive publications as follows, provided they meet the requirements of this policy and facility requirements regarding property retention:
1. Offenders may receive new books, newspapers, and other publications sent directly from the publisher.
2. Offenders may receive used books from a non-profit organization as approved by the Superintendent. Offenders housed in stand-alone minimum facilities may also receive used books from a publisher or approved vendor.
B. Multiple copieslsubscriptions will not be allowed. Offenders may receive only one copy of each book, newspaper, magazine, or other publication (e.9., calendars, posters, etc.).
C. Books, magazines, and other publications will be rejected for offenders housed in the Reception Diagnostic Centers due to their tranSient placement.
D. Publications will be rejected for reasons outlined in Unauthorized Mail (Attachment 1).
1. Publications deemed a threat to legitimate penological objectives, or sexually explicit per Attachment 1, must be immediately sent to the

Ex 6 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 12 of 17

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 29 of 53

STATE OF WASHINGTON

PRISON

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

P-1iii I

7/25/11

12 of 16

DOC 450.100

POLICY

MAIL FOR OFFENDERS

Publication Review Committee at Headquarters for a decision on rejecting the publication Department wide.
a. Mailroom staff will complete and submit DOC 05~809 Publication Rejection Notice along with the publication.
b. The decision made regarding a particular issue of a publication will be binding for all Prisons. The Headquarters Correctional Manager will issue a Department wide notice when the decision is made.
c. Decisions regarding Department wide publication and catalog rejection may be appealed to the Assistant Secretary for Prisons/ designee.
2. Items such as product samples, CDs, DVDs, etc., will be removed from publications and discarded before delivering to the offender, if they can be removed Without altering the publication. If the item cannot be removed without altering the publication (e.g., tearing a page from the publication), or if the item potentially has value (e.g., CDs included with books), the entire publication wil l be restricted.
a. Exceptions win be made for publications with an instructional CD
included (e.g., "hoW to" books, lesson/learning CDs). DVDs will not be allowed. However, offenders will be allowed to send the OVO out at their own expense.
b. Blown in flyers may be removed based on staffing resources.
E. No publications will be withheld solely on the basis of their appeal to a particular ethnic, racial, religious, or political group or sexual orientation.
F. Items found in an offenders possession/ceil that violate the requirements of this policy will be confiscated per DOC 420.375 COntraband and Evidence Handling.
G. If subscription mail is rejected because of an offender's custody level, sJhe 'Nil! be
notified on DOC 05·525 Mail Rejection Notice.
H. Subscription publications wi!! be held for at least 90 days for offenders in IMU who are not permitted to possess subscription publications due to their custody level. If an offender does not promote to a custody level permitting receipt of subscription publications within 90 days, the publication(s) will be disposed of per the Rejection of Incoming and Outgoing Mail section of this policy.

Ex 6 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 13 of 17

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 30 of 53

STATE OF WASHINGTON

PRI SO N

DEPARTMENT Of CORRECTIONS

7/25/11

130116

DOC 4 50.100

POLICY

MAIL FOR OFFENDERS

I.

Offenders may receive gift subscriptions and/or publications from any party other

than another offender, or the friends or family of another unrelated offender.

1. While an offender may be the beneficiary of a gift subscription andfor publication, the offender may be temporarily deprived of actual receipt or possession of the publication while in IMU or Segregation, or if s/he is subject to other restrictions regarding property, consistent with the specific temporary property restrictions placed on the offender.

IX. Forwarding Mail

A. Fi rst Class Mai l

1. Offenders are responsible for informing their correspondents, including publishers, of any change of address.

2. [4.4496] Facilities will forward first class mail for a period of 90 days, consistent with USPS regulations, if the offender has provided the facility with a forwarding address.

a. Legal mail will be forwarded daily. Mailroom staffwHl log the items forwarded and the address to which they were sent

b. Other mail will be fOJwarded at least weekly.

c. Mail for offenders out to court will be forwarded to the county jail where they are be ing held.

3. If mail is unopened, the new address will be noted on the envelope and returned to the USPS for forwarding. state funds will not be used to forward unopened mail.

4. Opened mail will be placed in an envelope and mailed to the new address at the facility's expense.

S. eMessages

1. eMessages will not be forwarded unless the offender:

a. Has transferred to another facility with JPay services, and b. Is eligible to receive eMessages at the receiving facility.

2. eMessages will be fOlwarded in electronic format.

Mail Records

Ex 6 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 14 of 17

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 31 of 53

STATE OF WASHINGTON

PRISON

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

~~;!§If'~~~JMii:eR-T---:-,;m.;;BER~-~

7/25111

14 of 16

DOC 450.100

POLICY

MAIL FOR OFFENDERS

A The Superintendent/designee will be responsible for maintaining a continuous chronological written record of the following types of incoming and outgoing offender mail:
1. Legal mail, 2. Packages , and 3. Items of monetary value (e.g., money orders, cash, cashier's checks, etc.).
8. The continuous written record will show:
1. Source, 2. Destination, 3. Date received/sent, 4. Description, 5. Printed name and initials of staff person distributing, and 6. Signature and printed name of offender receiving/sending legal mail,
packages, or items of monetary value.
C. The continuous written record books will be maintained in the mailroom, living unit office, or mail sorting area by the staff designated by the Superintendent to handle mail delivery, receipt, and control.
XI. Mail Costs
A. Offenders must pay for their own mail costs.
1. Offenders will purchase pre-franked envelopes at cost from the facility offender store to mail first class, one ounce letters. Offenders may possess up to 40 pre-franked envelopes. Envelopes may not be used as cu rrency.
a. Offenders will use DOC 02-003 Postage Transfer for additional postage fees.
2. Offenders will purchase eStamps through the secured JPay kiosk to use the JPay eMessaging system.
B. Non-indigent offenders will be allowed to incur a postage debt for outgoing legal mail. Specialized services (e .g., certified, return receipt requested, etc.) will not be authorized.
C. Offenders will be pennitted to receive and use pre-paid envelopes if they are received from vendors or public agencies for the purpose of direct return mail service. Oirect return mail envelopes with altered addresses wi[[ be treated as

Ex 6 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 15 of 17

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 32 of 53

1~1~

. ~

'"" .-" (!;'

STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECT!ONS

A PLICABI ITY

PRISON

OFFENDER/SPANISH MANUALS

REVISION DATE

PAGE NUMBER

7/25/1 1

15 of 16

NUMBER
DOC 450.100

POLI CY

TITLE

MAIL FOR OFFENDERS

contraband and are prohibited for outgoing mail. This does not include preaddressed envelopes that require the addition of postage.
D. Mail arriving at the facility with postage due may, at the Superintendent's option, be delivered to the offender. The facility will either pay the postage due or hold the mail for a reasonable period of time to allow the offender to arrange for payment. If such arrangements are not made within the time provided, the maill package may be donated to charity Of discarded.
E. Legal mail arriving at the facility with postage due will be delivered to the offender without undue delay.
F. Indigent offenders with outgoing mail, including legal mail, may receive postage credit up to the equivalent of 5 first class pre-franked envelopes per week for mailing costs. (4-4489] This allowance cannot accumulate from week to week. Indigent postage will not include specialized services provided by the USPS (e.g., certified, return receipt requested, etc.) or eMessaging through the JPay system.
1. An indigent offender who has used all the postage allowed for mailing legal mail may receive postage equal to 15 additional first class prefranked envelopes per week for legal mail, if s/he:
a. Demonstrates to hisfher Counselor that the legal document being mailed is a personal restraint petition complaint, amended complaint, answer or reply to an answer in a habeas corpus action, or a civi l rights action challenging the offender's conditions of confinement, or
b. Has insufficient funds in hislher account to send the legal document and agrees, by filling out a disbursement request, to use all funds currently in hislher account to immediately pay postage for the requested legal mail.
2. An indigent offender meeting these criteria may be granted additional first class pre-franked envelopes with Counselor/Correctional Unit Supervisor approval.
G. The Department will recoup indigent postage for letters, postage for non-indigent offender legal mail, and any expenditu res made by the facility for postage due on incoming mail. Postage recoupment, including indigent postage, will occur at the time the Business Office posts withdrawals from the offender's account. Withdrawals and debts will be handled per DOC 200.000 T rust Accounts for Offenders.

Ex 6 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 16 of 17

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 33 of 53

STATE OFWASHINGTON

PRISON

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS f-"CEJ~, ~~!!§!¥~~&jMjjER-T-Nimi3ER----1

7/25/11

160116

DOC 450 .100

POLICY

MAIL FOR OFFENDERS

DEFINITIONS:
T he following words/terms are important to this policy and are defi ned in the glossary section ofthe Policy Manual: Contraband, Immediate Family, Indigent, Legal Mail, Legal Pleadings, Letters, Mail, Packages, Standard Mail. Other words/terms appearing in this policy may also be defined in the glossary section.
ATTACH MENTS:
Unauthorized Mai! (Attachment 1) [4-4490] [4-4491 }
DOC FORMS:
DOC 02-003 Postage Transfer DOC 05-525 Mail Rejection Notice [4-4490] [4-4491] DOC 05-809 Publication Rejection Notice DOC 21-746 Request for Offender to Offender Correspondence Approval DOC 21-757 Appeal of Mail Rejection

Ex 6 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 17 of 17

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 34 of 53

EXHIBIT 7
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

9810 05 fa246104

Ex 7 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 35 of 53

,

i.
,

i;
,

! !
,

II

.•,,

,

'.,

, ;

Ii
Ii

,

, h'iIi
,i'I
j'

" , ,

,
, ;

•
! ,
,
"

, ,i•
I•• !

, ,• , Ii n § ..

!

, , , , n £"!" •

, , , ,, •, ; i

, ~ Ino lo I
, ~ ~ ~ ~ " Ii "

, ,

, ,

,
!

, ,

•, iU" B,, HE";: "

, !

,
,

,
,

,
!

, ,
1

·, In"lo
, , n" I"

, ,
· ·

, ,, , • ,i ;

~ Ut"I"

, ,

I IS"; D j

~

, ,

, ,

,
!

• !
•

, , 111"1°

• ! n" I"

,

,
,

,

•
;

,
,

•, 1i!"I" I i

n ~"~"

,

, ,, ,
! !

,, III' ! ,

!I!O~"

, ,

! n"! 0

, •

,
,

,
,

,
j

Ii
11
•, !.j1,

, ,• • !I! .. I "

I

! H : ; 0 ~ ..

I

, It !i" I .. ! i

~ t ~ .. ! ..

, ,

, ,
,

,
;

, r

,

h
II

• "~~

H,," , ,,
• ,

,
, ,

, I'I. I
jii

n!i 0 § ..

, 1•

• En" il"

,
,

.,,,

,
!

~U
Ii!
, "IHH

."

, Ii' ,

! Ii "."

i ;

~ n"."

I

, , • ,, ;

i
I Will PII 1 I .., I"! !

I

i I Il'

!l I,

• •

i
!
! !

1
1..
'j i I
II ll"!

!
I•~

i
i

, , ,;I !
i •

,, I,"I'
."f'!I,
,1
II l'

,
!

-i

!1
" H

"

Ex 7 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 2 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 36 of 53

EXHIBIT 8
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

98W.OS fa24(;J04

Ex 8 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 1 of 14

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 37 of 53

u.s. Department of Justice

Federal Bureau of Prisons

&

-•

OPI: NUMBER:
DATE: SUBJECT:

CPD 5266 . 10 1/10/2003 Incoming Publications

I . [PURPOSE AND SCOPE § 540.70. Except when precluded by statute (see § 540.72), the Bureau of Prisons permits an inmate to subscribe to or to receive publications without prior approval and has established procedures to determine if an incoming publication is detrimental to the security, discipline, or good order of the institution or if it might facilitate criminal activity. The term publication, as used in this subpart, means a book, booklet, pamphlet, or similar document , or a single issue of a magazine, periodical , newsletter, newspaper , plus such other materials addressed to a specific inmate such as advertising brochures, flyers, and catalogs.]
Section 7 of this Program Statement contains procedures to implement Sec . 615 of The Commerce, Justice , State Appropriations Act of 2000 (P . L . 106-113) (hereinafter re f erred to as "the Ensign amendment") .
2 . PROGRAM OBJECTIVES. The expected results of this program are :
a. Inmates will be permitted to receive and retain publications which do not threaten security, good order, or discipline of the institution or that may facilitate criminal activity, or are otherwise prohibited by law .
b . Publications determined detrimental to the security, good order , or discipline of the institution or that may facilitate
criminal activity, or are otherwise prohibited by law , will be
excluded from Bureau facilities .
[Bracketed Bold - Rules] Regular Type - Implementing Information

Ex 8 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 2 of 14

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 38 of 53

PS 5266 . 10 1/10/2003 Page 2

c . A safer environment for staff and inmates will be provided by strengthening procedures designed to prevent the introduction of contraband .

3 . DIRECTIVES AFFECTED

a . Directive Rescinded

PS 5266 . 09

Incoming Publications (7/29/99)

b. Directives Referenced

PS 1330 . 13 PS 1350 . 02 PS 5265 . 11 PS 5360 . 08 PS 5580.06 PS 5800 . 10

Administrative Remedy Program (12/22/95) Donations , Acceptance of (6129198) Correspondence (7/9199) Religious Beliefs and Practices (5/25/01) Personal Property, Inmate (7/19/99) Mail Management Manual (11/3/95)

c. Rules cited in this Program Statement are contained in 28 CFR 540 . 70 through 540 . 72.

4 . STANDARDS REFERENCED

a. American Correctional Association 2nd Edition Standards for Administration of Correctional Agencies : 2-CO - SD- 01

b . American Correctional Association 3rd Edition Standards for Adult Correctional Institutions : 3-4432

c . American Correctional Association 3rd Edition Standards for Adult Local Detention Facilities : 3-ALDF-5D-04

d . American Correctional 'Association Standards for Adult Correctional Boot Camp Programs : 1-ABC-5D-04

5 . MCC/MDC/FDC/FTC APPLICATION. Procedures in this Program Statement apply to Metropolitan Correcti onal Centers , Metropolitan Detention Centers, Federal Detention Centers , and Federal Transportation Centers , all of which are referred to as "administrative institutions" for the purposes of this Program Statement.

6 . PROCEDURES § 540.71

[a . (1) At all Bu reau institutions , an inmate may receive hardcover publications and newspapers only from the publisher , fr om a b ook club, or from a bookstore.

Ex 8 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 3 of 14

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 39 of 53
PS 5266.10 1/10/2003 Page 3
The sender's address shall be clearly identified on the outside of the package .
(2) At medium security, high security, and administrative institutions, an inmate may receive softcover publications (for example, paperback books, newspaper clippings, magazines, and other similar items) only from the publisher, from a book club, or from a bookstore.
(3) At minimum security and low security institutions, an inmate may receive softcover publications (other than newspapers) from any source.
(4) The Unit Manager may make an exception to the provisions of paragraphs (a) (1) and (2) of this section if the publication is no longer available from the publisher, book club, or bookstore . The Unit Manager shall require that the inmate provide written documentation that the publication is no longer available from these sources. The approval of any request for an exception is to be documented, in writing, on an Authorization to Receive a Package which will be used to secure the item.
[b. The Warden may rej Qct a pub11cat10n only if i t is determined detrimental to the security, good order, or discipline of the institution or if it might facilitate criminal activity . The Warden may not reject a publication solely because its content is religious, philosophical, political, social or sexual, or because its content is unpopular or repugnant. Publications which may be rejected by a Warden include but are not limited to publications which meet one of the following criteria:
(1) It depicts or describes procedures for the _.construction or use of weapons, ammunition, bombs or incendiary devices;
(2) It depicts, encourages, or describes methods of escape from correctional facilities, or contains blueprints, drawings or similar descriptions of Bureau of Prisons institutions;
(3) It depicts or describes procedures for the brewing of alcoholic beverages, or the manufacture of drugs;
(4) It is written in code;
(5) It depicts, describes or encourages activities which may lead to the use of physical violence or group disruption;
Ex 8 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 4 of 14

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 40 of 53

PS 5266.10 1/10/2003 Page 4

(6) It encourages or instructs in the commission of criminal activity;

(7) It is sexually explicit material which .by its nature or content poses a threat to the security, good order, or discipline of the institution, or facilitates criminaL activity.]

Only the Warden may reject an i ncoming publication . In the Warden ' s absence , o nly the Acting Warden may perform this function .

Section 7 of this Program Statement contains procedures to implement the Ensign Amendment . In that Section , "sexually explicit" and "nudity" are defined in terms of pictorial depictions only . Publications not subject to return under Section 7 (for example , material which does not meet a definition in that section) are still subject to rejection under this section .

To assist staff in determining which materials may pose t he type of threat which warrants exclusion, the following guidelines are given .

(a) A Warden may determine that sexually e xplicit material of the following types is to be excluded, as potentially detrimental to the security and good order, or disci pline of the instituti on , or as facilitating criminal act i vity :

•

Sado-masochistic

•

Bestiality

•

Involving chi ldren

(b) Additionally :

•

The Wa rden must prohibit a sexually explicit

publication if it is determined to pose a threat

to the institution or is contrary to law . Child

pornography materials , which are prohibited by

law , are examples .

•

Se xually e xplicit material does not include

material of a news or information type .

Publications concerning research or opinions on

sexual , health, or reproductive issues , or

covering the activities of gay rights

organizations or gay religious groups , for

example, should be admitted unless otherwise a

threat to legitimate institution interests .

Ex 8 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 5 of 14

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 41 of 53

PS 52 6 6 . 10 1/10/2003 Page 5

•

Literary publications should not be excluded,

solely because of homosexual themes or references ,

if they are not sexually e xplicit i n a manner

which threatens legitimate institution interests .

• Sexually explicit material may nonetheless be admitted if it has scholarly value , or general social or literary value .

[c. The Warden may not establish an excluded list of publications. This means the Warden shall review the individual publication prior to the rejection of that publication. Rejection of several issues of a subscription publication is not sufficient reason to reject the subscription publication in its entirety.

d. Where a publication is found unacceptable, the Warden shall promptly advise the inmate in writing of the decision and the reasons fo r it. The notice must contain reference to the specific article(s) or material(s) considered objectionable. The Warden shall permit the inmate an opportunity to review this material for purposes of filing an appeal under the Administrative Remedy Program unless such review may provide the inmate with information of a nature which is deemed to pose a threat or detriment to the security, good order or discipline of the institution or to encourage or instruct in criminal activi ty. ]

In questionable cases , institution staff should consult with legal staff .

[e. The Warden shall provide the publisher or sender of an unacceptable publication a copy of the rejection letter. The Warden shall advise the publisher or sender that he may obtain an independent review of the rejection by writing to the Regional Director within 20 days of receipt of the rejection letter. The Warden shall return the rejected publication to the publisher or sender of the material unless the inmate indicates an intent to file an appeal under the Administrative Remedy Program, in which case the Warden shall retain the rejected material at the institution for review . In case of appeal, if the rejection is sustained, the rejected publication shall be returned when appeal or legal use is completed.]

Ex 8 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 6 of 14

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 42 of 53

PS 5266 . 10 1/10/2003 Page 6

See Notification to Inmate and Publisher/Sender of Rejected Publication (Attachment A) for a sample notification to inmate and publisher/sender .

o

The Warden must retain the rejected publication for 20

days from the date that the inmate is sent written

notification of the rejection .

•

This 20-day period is to allow the inmate the

opportunity to file an appeal under the Administrative

Remedy Program. If the inmate does not file an appeal

within 20 days , the rejected publication may be

returned to the publisher .

•

If the inmate does file an appeal, the Warden must

retain the rejected publication at the institution .

•

The rejected publication or the offensive portion of it

must be reviewed prior to a staff response being

prepared for the SP-9 or , when applicable , for a SP-IO

and/ or BP - ll .

The regional office and Central Office should not respond to a BP-IO or BP-II appeal of a rejected publication without first reviewing either the rejected publication or a copy of the offensive portion of it .

[f. The Warden may set limits locally (for fire, sanitation or housekeeping reasons) on the number or volume of publications an inmate may receive or retain in his quarters. The Warden may authorize an inmate additional storage space for storage of legal materials in accordance with the Bureau of Prisons procedures on personal property of inmates.]

7 . STATUTORY RESTRICTIONS REQUIRING RETURN OF COMMERCIALLY PUBLISHED INFORMATION OR MATERIAL WHICH IS SEXUALLY EXPLICIT OR FEATURES NUDITY § 540.72. The Ensign amendment states :

"None of the funds made available in this Act to the Federal Bureau of Prisons may be used to distribute or make available any commercially published information or material to a prisoner when it is made known to the Federal Official having authority to obligate or expend such funds that such information or material is sexually explicit or features nudity. "

Ex 8 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 7 of 14

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 43 of 53

PS 5266 . 10 1/10/2003 Page 7

•

Procedu res f or this section affect those publications

received on or after August 28, 1999. Publications

distributed/authorized prior to that date shall be

retained and transferred in accordance with the Program

Statement on Inmate Personal Property.

[a. When commercially published information or material may not be distributed by staff or made available to inmates due to statutory restrictions (for example , a prohibition on the use of appropriated funds to distribute or make available to inmates information or material which is sexually explicit or features nudity), the Warden or designee shall return the info rmation o r material to the publisher or sender. The War d e n or designee shall advise the publisher or sender that an indepe ndent review of the decision may be obta ined by writing to the Regional Director within 20 days o f receipt of the notificat i on letter . Staff shall provide the inmate with written notice of the =ti=l

(1) The Warden ' s authority to return publications prohibited under this section may be delegated to Mail Room staff.

(2) Mail Room staff are to return publications found to be non-distributable on the basis of the definitions listed in subsection (b) below .

(3) The publications must be returned along with the appropriate attachment .

(4) Ordinarily , the outside cover is to be used to assess content or the need for further review .

(5) Non-distributable publications may be returned to the sender or publisher in bulk annotating the number of returned copies (see Notification to Publisher of Return of Publication (Attachment B» .

(6) Materials extracted, photocopied, or clipped from such pUblications must also be returned to the sender with a Notification to Sender of Return of Materials (Attachment C) .

(7) Under subsect ion (a) of this section , there is no need to delay the return of non-distributable publications or materials even when an inmate files an appeal under the Administrative Remedy Program because the statutory restriction on making the material avai lable precludes any inmate review of the material.

Ex 8 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 8 of 14

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 44 of 53

PS 5266 .1 0 1/10/2003 Page 8

(8) Inmates are to be notified via use of the Notification to Inmate of Return of Publication or Materials (Attachment 0) .

(9) Although the publication or material is to be returned, the Warden is to insure that a copy of the publication cover and one page of the banned information or material is copied and retained at the institution in the event of a subsequent appeal by the inmate or publisher/sender .

Inmates may use the Administrative Remedy Program to appeal return of materials under this section . However , insofar as the Ensign amendment prohibits the BUreau from distributing the material , inmat es may not review copies of returned materials in connection with their admin i strative remedy filings .

The Warden needs make only one copy of the retained , statutorily prohibited information, even i f that publication is received by many inmates .

•

For e xample , if 20 inmates receive the April 1999

publication of XYZ , and that publication cannot be made

available under Section 7 ., only one set of the

materi als needs to be r etained .

•

A copy of the notificat ion sent to each inmate would

then be attached to the retained material .

[b. Definitions. For the purpose of this section:

(1) Commercially published information or material means any book, booklet, pamphlet, magazine, periodical, newsletter, photograph or other pictorial depiction, or similar document, including stationery and greeting cards, published by any individual, organization, company, or corporation which is distributed or made available through any means or media for commercial purposes. This definition includes any portion extracted, photocopied, or clipped from such items.

(2) Nudity means a pictorial depiction where genitalia or female breasts are exposed.

(3) Features means the publication contains depictions of nudity or sexually explicit conduct on a routine or regular basis or promotes itself based upon such depictions in the case of individual one- time issues. Publications containing nudity illustrative of medical, educational, or anthropological content may be excluded from this definition.]

Ex 8 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 9 of 14

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 45 of 53
PS 5266 . 1 0 1/10/2003 Page 9
The following are examples of commercial publications which , based on current practices of the publisher , may be distributed to inmates even though they may contain nudity because the publication does not feature nudity as defined above :
• National Geographic • Our Body , Our Selves • Sports magazine swimsuit issues • Lingerie catalogs Any publication may change a single issue or its general policies and practices at any time which would allow it to become acceptable or non-acceptable for distribution . The above examples are guidelines only and are subject to change . [(4) Sexually explicit means a pictorial depiction of actual or simulated sexual acts including sexual intercourse, oral sex, or masturbation.] For purposes of this section , written text in the publication does not qualify a publication as sexually explicit . Publications with sexual content which are not returned under these procedures are still subject t o rejection through application of the procedures in Section 6 . b . (7) of this Program Statement. For e xample , publications which :
contain sexually explicit tex t ,
• feature sado-masochism, • feature bestiality, or •• involve children
may not meet the definitions in this Section for "sexually e xplicit" or "nudity," but may be considered detrimental to the security and good order of t he institution , under Section 6.h . 171 .
151
Kathleen Hawk Sawyer Director
Ex 8 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 10 of 14

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 46 of 53

PS 5266.10 1/10/2003
Attachment A
NOTIFICATION TO INMATE AND PUBLISHER/SENDER OF REJECTED PUBLICATION (TO BE USED WHEN REJECTING A PUBLICATION UNDER
SECTION 6 . a. - 6 . e . OF THIS PROGRAM STATEMENT)

Inmate; Register Number : Institution :

Issue :

The above named publication/material from [publisher/sender name] has been rejected in accordance with the Bureau ' s Program Statement on Incoming Publications (PS 5266 . 10), which provides in part :
A publication may be rejected only if it determined detrimental to the security, good order, or discipline of the institution or if it might facilitate criminal activity.
The above named publication has been rejected because [provide reference to the specific artic!e(s) or material(s) considered objectionable and the reason(s) for the decision to reject].
A copy of this notification has been sent to the publisher/sender who may obtain an independent review of this rejection by writing to the ·Warden (name, address] within twenty (20) days of receipt of that copy .

Warden

Date

cc : [Publisher/Sender name and address]

Ex 8 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 11 of 14

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 47 of 53
PS 5266 . 10 1/10/2003
Attachment B NOTIFICATION TO PUBLISHER OF RETURN OF PUBLICATION (TO BE USED WHEN RETURNING A PUBLICATION UNDER SECTION 7 . a . (3)
OF THIS PROGRAM STATEMENT)
[Date]
XXX Enterprises Box 2345 ANYTOWN , STATE ZIP Re : XXX Magazine, December ' 99 Issue The above mentioned publication was received addressed to inmate(s) confined in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons . This pUblication is being returned in accordance with the Bureau of Prisons appropriations act, former l y known as the Ensign Amendment , which states :
None of the funds made available in this Act to the Federal Bureau of Prisons may be used to distribute or make available any commercially published information or material to a prisoner when it is made known to the Federal official having authority to obligate or expend such funds that such information or material is sexually explicit or features nudity. The enclosed publication(s) contain(s) sexually explicit information or material or features nudity and is being returned to you as explained above. If you desire an independent review of this action you may write Regional Director [Name, Address) within 20 days of receipt of this letter .
Sincerely ,
Warden
Ex 8 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 12 of 14

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 48 of 53
PS 5266 . 10 1/10/20 03
Attachment C NOTIFICATI ON TO SEN DER OF RETURN OF MATERIALS (TO BE USED WHEN RETURNING A PUBLICATION UNDER SECTION 7 . a . (4) OF
THIS PROGRAM STATEMENT) (Date)
John Doe 123 Anywhere St . ANYTOWN , STATE ZIP Re : Return of Materials The above mentioned material(s) was received addressed to inmate{s) confined in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. This material is being returned in accordance with the Bureau of Prisons appropriations act , formerly known as the Ensign Amendment , which s t a t es :
None of the funds made available in this Act to the Federal Bureau of Prisons may be used to distribute or make available any commercially publiShed information or material to a prisoner when it is made known to the Federal official having authority to obligate or expend such funds that such information or material is sexually explicit or features nUdity. The enclosed material(s) contain(s ) sexually explicit information or material or fea t ures nudity and is being returned to you as explained above . If you desire an independent review of this action you m"ay write Regional Director [Name , Address) within 20 days of receipt of this letter .
Sincerely,
Warden
Ex 8 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 13 of 14

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 49 of 53

PS 5266 . 10 1/10/2003
Attachment D
NOTIFICATION TO I NMATE OF RETURN OF PUBLICATION OR MATERIALS (TO BE USED WHEN RETURNING A PUBLICATION UNDER SECTION 7 . a . (8) OF
THIS PROGRAM STATEMENT)

Inmate : Register Number : Institution:

RE :

Issue:

The mail room has returned the above mentioned publication/material to the publisher/sender in accordance with the Bureau of Prisons appropriations act , formerly known as the Ensign Amendment, which states :
None of the funds made available in this Act to the Federal Bu reau of Prisons may be used to distribute or make available any commercially published information or material to a prisoner when it is made known to the Federal official having authority to obligate or expend such funds that such information or material is sexually explicit or features nUdity .
If you are dissatisfied with this decision, you may file an appeal through the Bureau of Prisons ' Administrative Remed y Procedure , Bureau of Prisons' Program Statement 1330 . 13 . A member of your institutional unit· team may be able to provide assistance or answer any questions you may have in filing your appeal .

Signature/Title

Date

Ex 8 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 14 of 14

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 50 of 53

EXHIBIT 9
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

9370 05 f0246104

Ex 9 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 1 of 4

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 51 of 53
BOP; Quick Facts Home· Site Map + Contact Us

Quick Facts About the Bureau of Prisons
Data presented here Is Irom BOP automated infonTIation systems. Because 01 the timing of updates to these various systems, Quick Facts Is updaled monthly. Percentages may not add 10 100 due to rounding.
Inmate population Inmale Breakdown Sentence Imposed Types of Offenses Staff Breakdown
Please see the most recent Week!y Poou!aHon Report for individual BOP institutions figures.
Last Updated: Saturday, 27 August 2011

e'" Download""
- .~~...~'¥-~~~.• ,
Adobe Reider is required to view documents on bop.gov.

ih• T:,I'i--m"a"t..€.....P-"o"'p"~:li-l-a-u'6~r'i";"~-""',P.;:~'~~~£'%-~'t,;.';''"04'::r-i:/~',Y~;~{~hn~ U:+'~'·ij,;j.;:~·"~~f.;~.~rpW!~,l;rdi~'>:I{:t,:;:,~,',~e~~:L'6~a~~~t~ Q~ ~)-.

Ii'

'~. ' Total popu!atiori :~ 217,582 '

:

.

.

,

_ r

'-.'

<;

>Tolal,.!isntenced population: 198,575

\

";c.,

j',','

,_

Inmates in BOP faylities:, 180,3?2'"

.:: !.nmat~s i(\ Privat~!y-;~nagei ~e~u;~' faCi!!tie~1: 22~908 c,

.,

Inmates
• ~.

in
.."

'other
j

co~tract -'.,.J ,1,

facilities:!::"
• ,u,

14,352 :-'"

, "

.~ ,

,
".,

,

"

, ,

,, I"~,'"

(" '",, L.,
'

- \. _
'

.1

1 tndudes inmates housed in privatety-managed secure faciti~s under contract with thll SOP or with a state or

toeal government that has an tntergovernmental Agreement (tGA) 'with the BOP. ,;,

:/ ",

2 tndudes inmaies housed In Community corrections centers, home' confine~~nt, jaiUshort-term detention, contract

juvenites; and ton9-ierm boarders. •

" , ' ~. i.

Inmates By Se,curity Level
~inimum: ' 17.2 % :

. ., Low: 38,"5- %
. M~ium: ' 29..4 %

'., '-- High: 10.8ro
,

"

Ethnicity

l;Iispanic: 74,472 (3fl,2 %)
., , ' ",

., ... Inmate Age - . ' , , ', . , "

,'" '."

,~.

" Average Inmat,e Age: 39

.

r-~--'~~.,---:-~---_"-'-"-l"I, :
, (n:~!~ By G;~~e,~ ,-:-_~___.c-__'
,; Male: 203,394 (93.~ %)
"

Citizens h i p
. . , I,lnileq .States: 159,01.2 (73:1 %). . Me;dw 40,135 (18.4 %)

brtp:lfwww.oop.gov/ocwslquicJc.jsp[911812011 3:26:37 PM]

Ex 9 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 2 of 4

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 52 of 53

BOP: Quiclc Facts

J

Female: 14,188 (6.5 %)

Inmates By Race
\Nhite: 127,568 (58.6 %) Black: 82,371 (37.9 %) Native American: 3,992 (1.8 %)
Asi~n: ~,Q51 (1,7~)

Colombia: 2,507 (1.2 %) Cuba: 1,713 (0.8 %)
Dominican Republic: 2,538 (1 .2 %) Other/Unknown: 11,677 (5A %)

1These inmates have not yet been assigned a security level.

Less than 1 year: 4,049 (2.0 %)
1-3 years: 25,zp (12.4 %)
3-5, years: 29,612 (14.5 %) 5-10 years: 59,289 (29.1 %) ':-10-15 y~ars: 41,,425 (20.3 %)
15-20 years: 18,228 (9.0 %)

More than 20 years: 19,597 (9.6 %) Ufe: 6,156 (3.0 %)
Death: 57

l Data is only ealculalE!d for cases where sentencing information is available.

;
~

~
. Drug Offenses: 102,580 (SO.6 %)

, 't.
,

, Weapons, Explosive;s, Arson: ' 30,756 (15.2 %)

:. -~

Immigration: 24,.311 ,_(12.0 .'Yo)

1

Rob."t>,,-e, ry: .8,403 (4,'; 0/0)

B,,:,rglary, Larc~ny , ~rop~rty Offenses: 7,161 (3.5 %)

Extortion, Fraud, Bribery: 10,480 (5.2 %)

Homicide, Aggravated Assault. and Kidnapping Offenses: 5,563 (2.7 'Yo)

Miscellaneous: 1,800 (0.9%)

Sex Offenses: 9,697, (4.8 %)

. Banking and Insurance, Counte,l-fe.il. Embezzlement

892 (0:4%)

" Courts or Corrections:
", ,C.ontin,Lueing.~C, rim, inaf'l Ente,r_prise,:

, 630 (0.3 %) 517 (0.3 %)

'- ,- Natio~al Security:

95 (0.0 %)

i·'

hllp:/Iwww.bop.gov/oewslquick.jsp[9/1 81201 t 3:26:37 PM]

Ex 9 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 3 of 4

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 53 of 53

BOP: Quick Facts

-----.-- Staff By Race/Ethnicity ~---.,--.VVhite (Non-Hispanic): 24,265 (63.9P/o) African, American: 8,045 (21.2 %) Hispanic; 4,313 (11.4 %) Asi~m: 813 (2.1 %) Native American: 520 (1.4 %) other. 15

Staff By Gender Male: 27,534 (72.5 'Yo)
Female: 10,434 (27.5 ;;/0)
).

I I I I I About Iinmale Locator Prison Faclli~es Careers I Inmale Matters PoIicylFonns 0011"19 Business
Newsllnfonnation
I I I I I I Accessibility Browser Requirements DIsclaimer OOJ Legal POlicies FOIA No FEAR Act Privacy
Policy

ht1p:/fwww.bop.gov/newslquick.jspI9/18l2011 3:26:37 PM]

Ex 9 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 4 of 4

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 1 of 37

EXHIBIT 10
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

9870_0S f1246104

Ex 10 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 1 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 2 of 37

12128111

County Jail Inmate Population List

This infolnmtion is provided to promote conmlUnity safety .
Any harassment ofthe offunder will not be tolerated and may be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Return to Sheriffs hOme page.

l~~'. '
IlnmateCount: 143

COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
CURRENT INMATE LISTING

#

Inmate N ame

I

I IADAMS.

LEE

,1.= 12 J~~~ ,AI

13

MARr1JS r HA1H HS

Book Date

Charge

2/13/20 I UN LAWFUL POSS METH

IV

H

HOLD

H.

HOLD

H . :~ 14 STI .VJANO

12/28/201

HOLD

~ o rK
15 IlAY

11 /18/201

HOLD 62058-065

W~ ~'IrJH.TIT\RRD

1'0?/ I1 O O1

HOLD

1r197 ~~~~ ~~t~

'A

:V

H

HOLD

1:05/12/20 , r r rS MHOLD

' .FF 11 " /15/201

rN A MlSCHIEF-2 X5

10 ':;:

' Rf)

12/20/2 01 ~T' n>'rn 10-6 193

Bail
I
11000
110.00

Scheduled Releas e
Date
I

0 00

I

11

0 00

I

11

000

I

11

110.00

I

110.00

I

110.00 11000
I'~?'·oo

I 1O~1I2/20 r2
I

IIRHTT (). : II liA r FfI\N DRO

H

7 1103065

1000

I

1

12
.B R~D LEY
3 A
14 ~

01118/20 I

HOLD

.02/15/20 I l1S M HOLD

2/06/2 01

HO LD

1000

I

1

1000

I

1

110 .00

1

;SO. TON I

I

YNIW.co.columbia.or.usJsherifflinmatesJindex.php

II

I

Ex 10 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 2 of 9

1/8

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 3 of 37

12128111
~ IALYSE
EJI~B~ILLA-ELORES.

County Jail Inmate Population List
11 12/06120 I iJlPROBATION VIOLATION
I 12/06120 II IUSM 75913065

11000

11 05/ 17 /2 0 121

I~O

EJI£T. HQLLY NICHO).E
[jIJIBUSTOS. ANTO~ IQ
EJIBifTQS-OSPANA. EDUbRQO
EJIBUUS. DAN IEL ARMA!.!GH
EJI~~~SCO-SQTQ. EJ I~~N WILLlAM EJI§=-' RQBERT EJI~NNELLY.
:ANTHONY PATRICK
EJICQSTA. BRIAN
EJI~~CIA. EJ1~~~iTIZ.

I 12/16120 ll IPROBATION VIOLATION 1I01 /251201l 1lUSM HOLD I05/1112011 iUSM HOLD I01/05/201 1iAGGRAVATED MURDER 07/08/201 1iUSM HOLD 12/06/201 1iUS M 57106065 lO/181201 1ipAROLE VIOLATION 10/2 1/20 11 iASSAULT 4 1I 121l 6/2011 1lUSM HOLD 112106120 I I IUSM 739 10065 111I22/20111USM HOLD

IEJO

11 0 0 0

11"

I

IEJO

IEJO

IEJO

IEJO

320000

11

10

Il lOOOOOO 1 1 0

11000 11"

I

I~O

I~O

EJ ID:-GRANQ. G !.!ADALUPE

111 /02/2010 IUSM HOLD

IEJO

EJIDAVIS. QERALD RYAN

I 11/30/2011

SEX ABUSE 11 X 15. SODOMY 11 X 15. PROBATION VIOL

IlOOOO.OO

10

EJI~~N. ZERICK

I06/10/2011 iUSM HOLD

IEJO

EJIDEAVALO S. MINERVA 112/28/201 1iUSM HOLD

IEJD

EJIDEHERRERA.

108120/20 II IROBBERY IN THE FIRST

.ANTHONY MICHaEL

DEGREE

932500

11

10

8 WARRANT CONTEMPT OF

IDELANO. THOMAS LEEI 12/2812011

COURT. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. FORG

1255 0 0 0

10

EJIDILLARD. NIKOLAS RYAN

111103/20 I I ITHEFT I 06-1 187

I~ 01 /09/201 2

RIDRAINA. MATTHEW I ll /29/2011 IUSMHOLD

IFain

www.co .columbia.or.us/sherifflinmates/inde)(.php

Ex 10 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 3 of 9

218

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 4 of 37

12128111
~I~ pnrry_

County Jail lnmale Population List
1',09/ 18/201 m ,m" TRESPASS I

,
,0.04

" ImIlO!? OI

137

~E.

: JASON 110/ 19/201

F.~rALFR A - VA T

138

JO

V7'"' II '

~~FLI STA nIAN 1101041201

140 1lJA! ~Ft'STA-SAI ,AS 11221201

~~I~ E

)]

~~TI1 F.~, AN
~~~A_YAPEZ

,v ,

)l:

112/ 11/2 01

145~~~'AA' 2128/201

2/06/201

146 I~~TRA P RRI AN

'12/17 /2 01

147 I

'AI ,"7 rAVlFR lARD

11181201

<\.RY 1 HOLD HOLD HOLD
VIOLATION HOLD
VIOLATION HOLD HOLD
IN POSS FIREARM HOLD 679 18-065

I I 1.00 1

0.00

1

1000 II 1

0.00

1

0.01

!01l191201 2

,0.00

1

0.01

101/ 1112012

0.00

1

0.00

1

1.00 1

0.00

1

148 AnR1AN

2/061201

HOLD

0 ,00

1

I~N?A 1~4i9!!'1r.0 rF.~AR ,YE

) 1

73909065

0 ,00

1

150 II~AN~ I.oPF?
~FFRT,; ,HAn
~~ rT TAMMVL m
153 D=

2116/201

HOLD

0,00

0/021201

I

)1

RECK! .R~SlY ENDANGERING
}""K
HOLD

0,00 1000

2120120 1

TION VIOLATION

0.00

1

01

}12

I 1

01

I?

I A~FS

JA

154 [FANN

012712011

,A '

I ~ooo 00 1

:55 AfJ.AN

1123120 1

www.co.columbia.or.us/sherifflinmates/index.php

TION VIOLATION

0.00

1

I

Ex 10 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 4 of 9

3/8

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 5 of 37

12128J11
~i:~ !
58 ~~ SKYTHR
= ~lJ~J>
59 DAVID

County Jail lnmale Population List

i 111191201

• llV l' VIOLATION

12120120 1

HOLD 73336-065

000
1
10.00

12124120 I J.U'U'U vnnLE SUSPENDED ;0,00

1MIOOn012 1 1

iM~~.R~ 60 III~vnON

'V

v. :12/191201

121161201

.ATlON OF RELEASE
II
HOLD

62 lA~N . BRANDON

FATTTO APPEAR

~.ANTHONY 63

1!0311 0/20 1

HOLD

1875.00 1

11000

I1

1'0.00

10,/1 ,;no 12

1.0 .00

1

A VELI . SCOTT 64 DAVlD~
.AVOI IIIKF 65
>A

66 I~

.

m{)]HA

A"I

-, I U COMMIT

.QQATffTI

I IT T IN THE FO URTH

2/28/201

HOLD

1,,00.00 1

4000.00 101103120 I2

0.00

1

67 r ,Q'DDIlRIAS

11221201

HOLD

ALBERTO

I, nl 68 r IIPIS ,nn, 69 MABE. <''fAWN L II ~~KAYl~

HOLD !RAPE IN THE 1ST DEGREE 21231201 rv~ 1 PRJ SON VIOLATION

71 IIM~

~A RRFRA

72 IIMAr;~_sor IS

HOLD IV>lvl 739 12065

0.00

1

I 1000

1

I 151000.00 1

000
1

I 1

0.00

1

0.00

1

73 IIMA rr~
~~F
~~ RFRNAN
\Arr~~N Rr
76 lINN 77 = T T DAVID

04/1212011 IUS MHOLD

211412011

' l"MY I OF COURT

2/03120 I I

d'UN VIOLATION

2/16120 1 IU> MHOLD

110612011

dIUN VIOLATION

0.00

1

0.00

0111912012

0.00

I?

0.00

1

2000.00 1

www.co.columbia.or.us/sheriff/inmatesJindex.php

Ex 10 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 5 of 9

418

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 6 of 37

12128111
178 79
1

IA FLLI( IT
~

County Jail Inma te Population List
1 11/08/2011 IIUSMHOLD
12/06/2011 I[JSMHOLD

1~7A' RICK 180

()7.A MI

1

~8 ~N(:HF7

182 11~()Jno

183 NFL~()N R(T.T.Y llQY

II IUSMHOLD
111181201 1 [JSM HOLD 11687-085
[JSM HOLD 1
"0"11 IRI mGI .A IY IN THE 1ST

INELS ON. I()NA cYNN

184

",k ,.v l l IUSMHOLD

0.00

II

0.00

I

10.00

I

10.00

I

1000

I

1005

12

1000

I

l v E~SWA
185 IRENAY

I I IUSMHOLD

10.00

I

186

)A JE~lJS

10/13120 11 1" 1 u 'lVu'TED MUROER WITH A

, no I

187 fci..MAS.SA ' .

~ 188

I ( HN TOf)f)

10115/20 II IROBBERY! 121271201 1IIMANUFAC 1UKb MARIJUANA

tJ1~ ~ 189 IIORNFI AS .MYKAL =TYARF

19 1

.CI-lAD

107/19/2011 IUSMHOLD 104114120 11IUSMHOLD 12/07/2011 IIpA' OTFYlOLATION

m 192 IWIT TI~

Hf\N f Ol0512011

" V" vrOLATJON

11'1 A
193 IF IDEL

,. Ann

W"' "'" 11 I I~MHOLD

lou
194 ICESAR

LAN. 1112212011 USMHOLD

1P7_

195 IRA

A

12116/201dITT~M HOLD

IA1

196 I(:HRlSTJ~

1'7 ''''~l TT~MHOLD
I

13723.42

12

10.00

lI?onoJ:

1000

I

10.00

I

1400004 10 ],

, IL l

10.00

1011 1812012

10.00

II I

10.00

II I

1000

II I

1

000

II I

11

197 ILEE

110120120 l I liFA IT TO APPEAR

000

I

11

198 IREY

IRrr. MAN I1011181201 II~M HOLD

110 00

I

www.co.columbia.or.us/sherifflinmateslindex.php

Ex 10 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 6 of 9

I
5/8

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 7 of 37

12128111
:e,99

County Jail Inmate Population List

Y LARRY AI.YN

21221201

"

)~YAK
I 00 11~T-f AWl\J

V7WW)l IU>lV1 HOLD

METH

0000.00 I

0.00

I

,AlTER !R AIN
10 ~NTINE7
TAN

V~/LIIL V ' IU>lV1 0/0512011 IU>'V1 HOLD

0.00

I

0.00

I

' Vj RENE

.
IUSMHOLD

0 .00

I

,AI DINA ANA 104 KR ISTINA

2/02/2011 ru>, PRISON VTOLAll0N

0 .0 0

2130120 1

~~

.CIND~ 0411 512011 IRAPE IN THE 2ND DEGREE

0.00

IAFT. BARRY

1181201

ITIN THE 4TH DEGREE 0.00

I I II.,TW OI2

'v "VA

OZA. LINC 1? /Oh!?Ol IUSM

0.00

I I

" JAMES ALLEN 0/10/20 I IRAPEI

131000.00 I I

109 ~~~~~~ARR'

2/161201 IU>'V1 HOLD

0 .0 0

I

~~OSA-GASr:ON. NAN 1122120 II IUSM HOLD

0.00

II'.II IS5TI~~ "AVEZ.

1122/2011 IU" V1 HOLD

0.00

~~S.S~,T"A"NmTIF.IFV

IU'lVI HOLD

0 .0 0

n IIU'M HOLD

0 .0 0

IF. WILT TAM 114
MATHEW Hll TARlO1
II

IUNI IMt I

,UL POSSESSION OF
'T.

0.00

"00 IUSMHOLD

0.00

I I I
I I I 01101/2014
I

liE PA~'gs S"AI I"

OR!? ,!?O 1

" IN THE 1ST DEGREE 'MOO 00 I

T...01METZ. r '·' AIlITY II :
ANN

" rn~M I

JOHN

11 ·

01

IUSM HOLD 1/2312 01 1 IASSA ' IT T rv 2/06120II IUSM 73905065

0.00

I

0 .0 0

I

0 .0 0

I

me
120 EVANGE1.ISTA

1122/20 11 lJSM HOLD

1000

I

www.co.columbia.or.us/sherifflinmateslindex.php

Ex 10 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 7 of 9

618

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 8 of 37

12128111

County Jail Inmate Population list

1121II~~~MOTI-IY 1'10/30120II "~=~;99IFTA,FTA

'~'06/0112012'

1I22IIRiiB~~ZJR JOSE I12/27/2011 IFELONPOSSESS WEAPONX 31~0

11 2311~~~OLAH, ALISHA II0/1S120I0I :::TOCOMMIT CRIME- 112500000 1 0

1 1 2411~:~OLAH. HARLEY 111125/2011 1pOSTPRISONVIOLATION I~ 12/2712011

112511&i:~i DONALDI0611012011 1USM HOLD

I~O

1 1 2611~'OiiisS-TORRES, 12/21120101USM HOLD

I~O

1I27IIVASQUEZ, TOMMY 12/15/2011 1lUSM HOLD 112SIIYETIER DANIEL 10/04120111 USMHOLD 11 2911g~TIMQTHY IBURG I 12/27/2011 IJ301IVlRUEI.FRANK RQSS 1071191201111USM HOLD @]IWALL.RQYJQSEPH 1 12122120111FAILTO REPORT 1132I WARINER, RANDALLK 09/27120111IUSM HOLD 113311~~lAMERGER. JOHN1105/12/2010 IUSM!-I0LD

1 000 III! I 11000 III! I
IBO 1 000 IVI I 11700000 1111 I 1 000 1111 I
I~O

IJ3411~=SQN. ERIC 103/0S12011 1USM !-I0LD

1152500001 0

IJ3511~~~' BRIAN 8 1PRBATIONVIOLATION I~O

IJ361IAL~~~AMS, RQBERT I12/0612011 IUSMHOLD

IEJO

G137 ISWHIALLUI~G:HSN,ESSY . I03/0912.011IUSM!-I0LD

.I 0.00 ~I! O

113SI1WQLD,JQHN EDWIN .112/27/2011 2P0V0IDSCISROOROOD1E7RSLYCONDUCT E. IJO"0'=1I0=6=12=0=12=ii

113911~gUifALL, VERNON I11129/201 1IUSM HOLD

I~O

D~ITYYQLUENRG. JOSHUA I I Ir=::l 11I1 6/2011PCS~ 12/16/2011

[§]IYOUNG. SARA JOAN 2 1III116/2011 1lpCS X 1 14211~'ETA-FALCON. 112/2912010 1USMHOLD

I ISOOOOO 1111 I IEJO

w.NW .co.columbia.or.uslsherifflinmatesJindex.php

7/8
Ex 10 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 8 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 9 of 37

12128111

County Jail lnmale Population List

!lIl29/2011 !USM D~IZGlRMEMGOERRMYAMNjC. HAEL

HOLD

!EJD

www.oo.columbia .or.us/sherifflinmatesli ndex.php

Ex 10 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 9 of 9

8/8

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 10 of 37
EXHIBIT 11
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Ex 11 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 1 of 2

Inmate Mail

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 11 of 37
COLUMBIA COUNTY
SHERIFF'S OffICE
Jeffrey M. Dickerson, Sheriff

'Malll Menu Sheriff's Ol'f\oe Home P3ge ~ Mission
I• CoomttUs
! • CoIumb~ County Website ! ' Press Releases
t~furr/!llt Inmate list__
! Divisions
IEnforcement , Patrol
• Marine • Criminal
.. Animal Control Corrections • Inmate V;sltinQ • InmateMaA • Inmate Phones .. Inmate Money ACcounts , Inma~ Houslog Fees • Inmate Property .. Request for Proposals Support Services • Civ~ and Records Processing • CHL and F~ting
Get Involved
,~" • Search and Rescue • Mounted Posse .. Reserve Program
Information
• jail Inmate Census
facilities

Inmate Mall The inmate mall policy is under review at this time.
last \.Ipc2!td on Toesd.1V. 2'1 January 2012 ()f!:11

).l @ E:l Recent Headlines
Neiohbors Thwart Daytime Robbery ONr Scappoose CCSO requests public assistance jn identifying robbery suspect asp SeardJ and Rescue Iroles Body of MiSSing
CO! IIMBIA COIlNT( SHERIFF REQUESTING PUBl Ie'S HEl P TO fiNO MISSING WOMAN
Your Personal Safety
• (esc for Kids
• Resourceful Lint<s
CCSO is on
facebook!
CCSO UP CLOSE
Informational Video
P, o VOl![ Sheriff's WOCf

Columbia Coun ty Sheriffs Office 901 Port Ave., st. He~ns, OR 97051 (S03) 366-4611 I Emergencies: Olal911
© 2009 Columbia County Sheriff's Office

Valid WIMl. and css..

Ex 11 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 2 of 2
http://ww-N.co .columbla .or.us/slleriff/inrlex.php?optloo mcom_oontent&v!ew=artide&id"S&.ltemld"2S[1/24/2012 8;24 :36 AM)

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 12 of 37

EXHIBIT 12
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

9S70.0S f;o246J04

Ex 12 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 1 of 26

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 13 of 37
Prison Education Program Participation and Recidivism: A Test of the Normalization Hypothesis
May 1995 Miles D. Harer Research Analyst Ph.O., 1987 in Sociology, from The Pennsylvania State University
Federal Bureau of Prisons Office of Research and Evaluation
Washington, DC Direct correspondence to : Miles D. Harer, Office of Research, NALC 200, Federal Bureau of Prisons, 320 First St. N W., Washington, DC 2053~ .
Ex 12 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 2 of 26

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 14 of 37
Prison Education Program Participation and Recidivism: A Test of the Normalization Hypothesis Abstract
I argue that prison education programs are representative of a larger number of what I call normalizing prison programs and operations found in many contemporary prisons that serve to increase prison safety and decrease recidivism. Normalizing programs and operations achieve these goals , I argue, by reducing prisonization and by nurturing prosocial norms . Using data for a cohort of .ederal prison releasees, I test the hypothesis that inmates who actively participate in education programs have lower likelihoods of recidivating, defined as a rearrest or parole revocation within 3 years after release, controlling for several background and post-release measures, including post-release employment. Results show t hat inmates who actively participate in education programs have significantly lower likelihoods of recidivating. Because this effect is independent of post-release employment, I argue that results support the normalization concept .
Ex 12 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 3 of 26

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 15 of 37
1 Prison Educ atio n Pr o g ram Pa r t icipa t i o n a nd Recidivism : A Test o f the N orma~i~ation Hypothe s is Introduction
This study argues that prison education programs are representative of a larger number of "normalizing " prison programs serving to increase prison safety and to decrease recidivism. Normalizing programs and operations achieve these goals , I argue , first, by reducing prisonization and, second, by nurturing prosocial norms supporting rule/law abiding behavior. 1
Gresham Sy kes (1958) identified five pains of imprisonment: isolation from the larger conuu.unity; lack of material possessions ; blocked access to heterosexual relationships ; reduced personal autonomy ; and reduced personal secur ity . Sykes argued that these deprivations foster what is currently referr ed to as pr isonization, that is , alienation from the prison staff and management, and from the larger society. Additionally, criminologists argue that many inmates bring to prison a commitment to c r iminal sub cultures and criminal norms (Irwin and Cressey 1962). Both the deprivations of impri sonment and the imported criminogenic norms, criminologists argue , facil itate the growth of inmate subcultures favoring a normative orientation hostile to prison management and supporting a continuation of cr~nal behavior after release from prison (Thomas and ~etersen 1977 ; Kassebaum et a1. 1971 ; Thomas and Foster 1972 ; Thomas and Poole 1975) . 1
While prisons , given their statutory mandate , cannot directly eliminate the pains of imprisonment, either by freeing inmates or by making life in prison nearly i dentical to life in the larger communi ty , prisons can be or gani zed in ways that simultaneously mitigate these pains and offer inmates seeking relief opportunities to find it in ways that promote their adoption of prosocial norms . This is done in many prisons today, by breaking down the barriers between staff and inmates , providi ng rolemodels of prosocial behavior, and by importing , when possible, institutional programs such as
Ex 12 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 4 of 26

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 16 of 37
2
schooling and work , which in the community, serve partly to social ize/normalize toward prosocial norms and behavior.
In practice, these normalizing programs and operations can take many forms , including emphasis on staff use of a human relations approach when working with inmates ; a unit management style of prison operation; prison industries and other work programs ; female correctional officers in male inst itutions; social furlough programs; use of effective classification techniques ; a formal policy guaranteeing inmates ' due process rights when charged and adjudicated for rule violations ; guidelines for sanctioning misconduct that eliminates disparity; and education programs , to mention only some of what I see as normali zing policies , programs , and operations found in many modern prisons . All of these programs facilitate humane trea t ment of inmates , open lines of communication between staff and inmates, and provide opport uniti es for diversion from the pains of imprisonment in ways that legitimate and reinforce law-abiding norms . My per spective is similar to that of Robert Johonson (19B7) who argues for prison operations that provide inmates with encouragement and opport unities to find "niches ," as he calls them, in which inmates can "maturely cope " with t he "pains of imprisonment ." Johnson claims that inmates who learn "mature coping " in prison will also cope more maturely with life in the community after release and, therefore , wil l. be less likely to recidivate .
Movement Toward Normalization in Ame rican Pr ison s After evaluations of rehabilitation programs rooted in a psycho-
pathology model of criminal behavior and e xperimented with in the 1970 ' s showed little, if any , treatment effect , American correctional treatment philosophy turned pragmatic. Policy emphasis shifted from a medical model of rehabilitation to strategies for managing safe and humane prisons i n which inmates are provided opportunities and encouragement to strengthen their
Ex 12 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 5 of 26

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 17 of 37
3
social bonds (i . e ., normalization) through programs emphasizing wor k, education , substance abuse treatment , strengthened family and community ties, and wellness . By design , this new policy emphasizes individual responsibility and target s prison conditions and inmate needs that from pr ofessional judgment and sound empirical research, have been identified to contribute to positive prison adjustment and to a productive non-criminal , life after release from prison.
Within this new normalization paradigm. progressive efforts , in many American prisons, have turned to improving the quality of program delivery, and experimentat ion with operational and programmatic modifications directed toward increasing inmat e adjustment withi n safe and humane prisons , while simultaneously reducing the recidivism rate. Examples of recent efforts to improve management quality, within the Federal Bureau of Prisons , are the adoption of strategic planning and improved management information systems. An e xample of a recent programmatic experiment is the development of the diSCipline hearing program, which created a group of specially trained and independent discipline hearing officers who adjud icate serious inmate mi sconduct .
As indicated , prison education programs are one critically important compqnent in this new normalization paradigm . Prison education program participa t ion normalizes by offering relief from the pains of i mprisonment and by helping inmates to appreciate and adopt prosocial norms . Since at least as far back as t he time of Aristotle , philosophers and scholars of education have argued that education creates the socially good (i . e ., moral) person (Aristotle ; Durkhe im 1911) . These scholars view the edu cated person as havi ng both the knowledge and reasoning ability synonymous with the truly free and moral human being . Uneducated, unsocialized/contrasocialized persons, incapable of informed mo r al r eflection, are the truly imprisoned .
Ex 12 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 6 of 26

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 18 of 37
,
A Test of the Normalizing Effects of Education Programs Since disproportionate numbers of prisoners have both low educational
attainment and poor work histories, it is not surprising that prison administrators justify education programs on the grounds that such programs contribute to the employment prospects of inmates and will thus reduce recidivism rates. While this linkage between education and employment is hypothesized as reducing recidivism, I do not test this hypothesis here. Instead, I aim to test the normalizing effects of prison education program participation . That is, does the normalizing experience of prison education programs reduce recidivism? EdUcation programs serve to occupy the inmate's time productively, thus limiting the negative influence of prisonization, and further serve to socialize/resocialize inmates toward acceptance of prosocial norms. In order to isolate the normalizing effects of participation in prison education programs from those of increased employment prospects, I control for post-release employment when testing the effect of education program participation on recidivism .
Methods Although Federal prison inmates without a high school or General
Educational Development (GED) diploma are required to take at least one literacy course, and all other inmates are encouraged to participate in educational programs, and various incentives exist to promote participation, both participation and successful completion remains largely voluntary. J The researcher cannot randomly assign inmates to successfully complete educational programs for experimental purposes; rather, inmates self-select themselves into and through programs. Therefore, the researcher must rely on statistical techniques to isolate the recidivism-reducing effect, if any, of prison education program participation. The primary concern is, guided by theory and past research , to identify empirical measures of the self-selection process
Ex 12 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 7 of 26

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 19 of 37
5 that can be used as statistical controls when evaluating program impact .
The research literature suggests several statistical methods for handling selection bias (see Berk 1987) . I report results for two of these methods here . First , I use multivariate models to predict recidivism in which a measure of program participation is included along with all variables thought to predict program participation and recidivism. I ref er to this approach as the full multivariate approach. Second, I separately estimate propensity scores predicting likelihood of not participat ing in education programs . I then use these propensity scores to control for selection bias , in place of the separate variables predicting program participation used in the full multivariate approach. I refer to this as the propensity score approach.
With the multivariate approach, the intention is to identify and measure all the individual and environmental factors thought to influence both program participation and recidivism, and contr ol for these measures in a regression model when assessing program effects .
The propensity score approach (Berk and Newton 1985 ; Rosenbaum and Rubin 1984) involves modeling the selection process with a set of measures predicting program participation to arrive at a single measure called a propensity score that is then used to cont rol for sel ection bias . Ideally, researchers use theory and prior resear ch to select measures thought to predict prog ram partic i pation. However , the ideal is seldom realized , and the researcher usually selects variables predicting program participation by using available measures in a stepwise regression . The predict ed, or conditional, probabilities , the propensity scores, are used to control for the selfselection process in further regressions predicting outcome (Rosenbaum and Rubin 1984) . Several advantages of the propensity score approach over direct multivariate control are described by Berk and Newton (1984) . One advantage Ber k and Newton cite is that measures found useful in modeling selection bias provide insight into the sel ect i on process . I would add that these insights
Ex 12 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 8 of 26

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 20 of 37
6 may guide the development of theories and measures allowing improved ability to model and subsequently control for the selection process in future evaluation research on similar programs. Additionally, an understanding of the selection process may also help correctional and education program personnel to develop operations and policies for attracting more inmates to become involved in prison education programs. 4
Ex 12 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 9 of 26

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 21 of 37
7 Data and Variables
The data used in this analysis are from a 35-percent random sample (N = 1,205) of all inmates who were released , between January 1 and June 30, 1987, directly from Federal prison or through halfway houses to the community in the United States and who had received prison sentences greater than 3 months . My analysis . is conducted on a subsample (N-619) of this group and contains only persons having a prison stay of more than 1 year. This was done because those in prison for less than a year may have had insufficient opportunity to participate meaningfully in education programs.
Table 1 provides the variable names and definitions . The outcome measure is labeled RECID and is a dummy variable coded "1 " if the person recidivated (i.e., was rearrested or had parole revoked during the 3-year followup period) and "0 " otherwise. The program measure is labeled EDUCPRG and is a dununy variable coded "1 " if the person successfully completed at least one-half (.5) of an education course per 6 months of the prison term and "0" otherwise. This measure was chosen for two reasons; first, it provides a measure of treatment dosage, something that is often missing from evaluation studies and, second, the bivariate association between education program participation and recidivism suggests that .5 courses per 6 months of the prison term was a tipping point for reduced recidivism rates . I control for employment at release with the variable labeled ~LEMP , coded "1 " if the person was employed at release from prison and "0" otherwise . The remaining variables listed in Table 1 were examined in developing the final model. The variables were chosen from research on individual and structural predictors of criminal behavior, recidivism, and community crime rates (Schmidt and Witte 1988 ; Farrington, Sampson, and Wikstr~m 1993J To arrive at the specification of the regression models used in the analysis, I conducted an exhaustive analysis using all the predictor variables listed in Table I , in various combinations , including interactions.
Ex 12 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 10 of 26

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 22 of 37
8 Table 2 provides variable means and standard deviations for the full sample and subsample for those variables used in the analysis .
Mode o f Analysi s I begin the analysis using the full multivariate method in which
discrete time hazard rates of recidivating, in six semiannual periods following release , are simultaneously regressed (logistic regression) on the program measure and all control variables (see Allison 1984, pp 16-22) . I also e xamine accelerated failure t ime models predicting the log of time to recidivism in months , assuming an e xponential distribution for failure times . I conclude with the propensity score analysis .
The logistic models were each subjected to a number of diagnostiC tests (see Hosmer and Lemeshow 1989, pp . 149-170) . I discovered no problems that would invalida te the findings ' reported.
In what follows , I first present , for the interested reader, results from analyzing r ecidivism predictors for the entire sample of 1987 releasees . I then move on to the main topic of the paper , testing the normalizing effects of educational program participation among inmates spending a year or more in prison .
A Pre~imi nary: Rec i div i sm Predi ctors for the entire 1987 Re l ease Sample . Before proceeding to analysis limited to relea sees spending a year or
longer in prison, it will be informat ive , especially for those wishing to formulate appropriate norma~izing prison policies, operations , and programs, to examine recidivism predictors for the entire sample of 1987 releasees. Tab~e 3 presents results for a discrete time hazard model . I a rrived at the model ' s specification gui ded by past research and theory on recidivism and after e xhaustive analysis using all the variables listed in Table 1 in various combinations , including interactions .
Ex 12 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 11 of 26

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 23 of 37
9 Results shown in Table 3 reveal that the following variables significantly (at the .05 level or less) increase the risk of recidivating : number of prior convictions ; heroin abuse; alcohol abuse ; and having been under some type of criminal justice system supervision at the time the current offense was commdtted . variables significantly related to a lower risk of recidivating are a high Salient Factor Score (the Salient Factor Score is heavily weighted with prior convictions and is designed to be inversely related to recidivism risk) ; stable employment prior to prison; receiving a social furlough while in prison ; employment at release ; age (the older the releasee, the lower the risk) ; living with a spouse after release ; and, nearly significant at the . 05 level, prison education program participation. While the variable measuring education program participation is not significant at the . 05 level , it is nearly significant at that level, with a p value of .0637 in model 1 and . 0766 in model 2 . This may be due to the extremely short prison stay for many of the inmates in the full sample . Shorter term inmates who participated in education programs may simply not have had sufficient exposure to have benefited from that parti cipation . These measures suggest normalizing prison policies , operations , and programs and inmate actions that could reduce prisonization and increase postrelease success . For example, the . link between prior record and recidivism indicates a possible link between prior record and prison misconduct (the correlation between both prior convictions and the Salient Factor Score with prison misconduct are 0.24 and -.26 respectively, with both significant at the . 05 level) suggesting , therefore, the need for placement into an institution with both more i ntensive custody practices and more intensive programming. The effect of prison education program participation suggests the need for well managed prison education programs and for efforts to increase inmate participation in them. Heroin and alcohol abuse need to be addressed with well mana ged drug treatment programs designed along the lines of programs
Ex 12 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 12 of 26

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 24 of 37
10 shown to be effective in reducing substance abuse. Well managed programs that improve work skills, work habits, and job search skills are needed for all inmates. Policies and programs promoting family stability and community contact such as parenting classes, visitations, social furloughs, and locating inmates close to their home residences should be maintained.
I now move on to a more complete analysis of the normalizing effects of education program participation.
Resu l t s Table 4 provides some basic information about the relationship between
education programs and recidivism, showing the three-way relation between education program participation , educational ,attainment at prison admission, and recidivism.
Looking first at the bottom row of Table 4, we see that 15.0 percent of the sample had an 8th grade education or less and an additional 27.9 percent had between an 8th and 12th grade education for a total of 42 . 9 percent without a high school degree. The Census Bureau reported that in 1987 only 14.0 percent of the population age 25 years or over had less than a high school education . If we take a high school degree as the basic educational attainment needed to function adequately in modern society, then we see that a much larger percentage of persons sentenced to Federal prison are in need of further education than persons in the community .
Also, in the bottom row, we see that except for a slight rise from those with less than an eighth grade education to those with some high school , the percent recidivating declines steadily from 54 . 9 percent recidivating among those with some high school to 7.7 percent among those with a college degree.
The last column of Table 4 displays the frequency of education program participation , measured by the number of courses successfully completed for each 6 months confined. Courses reflected here include Adult Basic Education
Ex 12 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 13 of 26

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 25 of 37
11
(ABE), General Educational Development (GED) , Adult Continuing Education (ACE) , Post Secondary Education (PSE) including college courses and vocational training, and social skills courses (e.g ., parenting). We see a definite decline in recidivism rates - - from 44 . 5 percent recidivating among those completing no courses during their prison term to 30 .1 percent among those completing at least . 5 courses during each 6 mon t hs of their prison term .
In the body of Table 4 , we see that within every educational attainment category, except college graduate (of which there are only 13), that the greater the educational program participat ion, the lower the recidivism rate . The greatest decli ne in recidivism, with educational program participation, is among those who come to prison with a high school degree. Among high school graduates , the recidivism rate for those who took no courses was 39 . 2 percent compared to 24 . 5 percent among high school graduates who participated in a t least . 5 education cour ses each 6 months of their term , or a drop of 14 . 7 percentage pOints in the recidivism rate. Howev er , ev en those who came to prison with an eighth grade education or less experienced a 7.9-percentagepoint drop in their recidivism rate between t hose who took no courses and those who actively participated in education programs .
The question t hat needs to be answered is : Are these declines in recidivism due to the normalizing effects of p'articipating in education programs? I must try to rule out two alternative explanations for this relationship: first , that it is due to the increased employment prospects that more education allows for and, second , that other characteristi cs of inmates explain both education program participation and lower recidiv i sm. To accomplish this objective, I first use the full multivariate approach and then the propensity score approach.
I begin the full mUltivariat e approach by estimating logistic regression models predicting discrete time hazard rates for the six semiannual periods making up the 3-year followup period, while cont rolling for all var iables
Ex 12 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 14 of 26

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 26 of 37
12 t hought to affect both educational program part icipat ion and recidivism, including post-rel ease employment . Table 5 provides the coefficient estimates for two models . Th e mod els differ only in the criminal momentum measure used in each , the U. S . Parole Commission ' s Salient Factor Score SFSCORE (in Model 1) and the number of p r ior felony convictions NPRIOR (in Model 2) . Separate models are estimated because of the very high correlation between the SFSCORE and NPRIOR. As we can see , in both models , EDUCPRG or educational p rogram participation significantly (at the . 01 level) reduces the hazard o f recidivating.
I tested for the combined significance of the variables measuring time (PRDl-PRDS) and found they do not add significantl y to the models , indicati ng a constant hazard rate . Therefore, I assumed an exponential distribut ion for hazard when estimating accelerated failure time for the variables used in Table 5 , Model s 1 and 2 . Coefficient estimates for the two models are provided in Table 6 . We see that education program participation significantly (at t he . 0001 level) increases the t ime unti l first recidivating event in both models.
To summarize , using the full multivariate ap p roach to control for selection bias and predictors of recidivism including post-release employment , we find strong evidence that education programs reduce recidivism, possibly through normalization .
Estimating Propensity Scores Measuring Self - Se l e cti on Into and Thro ugh Pr ison Educa t i on Programs
To provide grea t er insight into the self-selection process, I then estimated propensity scores p r edicting who i s not likely to participate in education programs, using these propensity scores to control for selection bias when evaluating the effect of program p a rticipation . I a lso estimated propensity scores that predict who participates , rath er than non-participants .
Ex 12 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 15 of 26

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 27 of 37
13 AS I expected , the variables selected (i.e . , MALE, HEROINMS , LSCHYRS, HFWHOUSE , LAGEREL , MILDOTH) were the same as those predicting lack of participation; however, the coefficient signs were just the opposite from those reported below . The steps required to estimate propensity scores provide insight regarding the self-selection process .
I estimated propensity scores by conducting a stepwise logistic regression of all the variables in Table 1 excluding NPRIOR and PROl-PROS on the educational program participation measure EDUCPRG. I required a . 05 significance level for a variable to remain in the model . Table 7 presents the final model . We see that males are less likely to participate than females; persons for whom there is missing information on heroin dependency (N=60) are less likely to participate; persons with higher educational attainment at admission are more likely to participate; persons released through a halfway house were more likely to participate ; older inmates were less likely to participate; and inmates who were in the military and discharged other than for honorable or dishonorable reasons (e.g., medical reasons) were more likely to participate .
The means, standard deviat i ons, minimum and max imum values, and box plots for the propensity scores for those who participated in more than . 5 courses semiannually during their term and for those who did not are presented separately in Table 8 . The important item to note is that for almost all persons (actually 98 . 5 percent) taking .5 courses or more, there is a nearly matching propensity score among persons taking less than .5 courses during their prison term. Only at the low end of the propensity score distributions are propensity scores for non-participants truncated relative to the distribution for participants, with 2.S-percent of participants having scores below the lowest score for non-participants .
Using logistic regression, I regressed a measure of whether or not a person recidivated on the propensity scores separately for the participants
Ex 12 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 16 of 26

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 28 of 37
14 and non-participants . Figure 1 shows a plot of the predicted values from these logistic regressions (Y axis) by the propensity scores (X axis). The plot indicates that among participants, the slope for probabilities of recidivating is relatively flat, but for the non-participants , the likelihood of recidivating increases with the probability of not participating in educational courses. What this plot indicates is that even those persons least inclined to participate in education programs would be less likely to recidivate if they participated in at least one-half of a course per half-year during their prison term.
Tables 9 and 10 reproduce the analysis of Tables 5 and 6 respectively, with the variables used to estimate propensity scores replaced by the single propensity score variable PSCORE. Again , we see that education program participation significantly reduces the recidivism hazard rate (Table 9) and increases the time until recidivism (Table 10) .
Ex 12 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 17 of 26

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 29 of 37
15 Es t i mated Cos t Savings From Educati o n Programs
To estimate potential cost savings from reduced recidivism due to education course participation , I first used a logistic regression model using all the variables for Model 2 in Table 6 to predict the log odds of recidivating in the 3-year followup period (results not shown). Then, with the coefficients from the regression , and by setting the control variables at their sample means , I estimated recidivism rates for the sample under the condition that no inmates took at least . 5 education courses during each 6 months of the prison term and under a second condition that all inmates took courses at that rate or higher. Under the first condition (no participation) , the estimated recidivism r ate is 45 . 73 percent and under the second condition (total participation) , the recidivism rate is 38.54 percent, reflecting a difference of 7.19 percentage points , or a 15.7-percent reduction in recidivism. With these estimates, we can get a crude estimate of the potential cost savings from prison education programs in Federal prison . Let us assume an annual release cohort of 5 , 000 inmates who served at least 1 year in prison . Then , with the recidivism rates from above , we can compute that if none of these inmates participated in at least . 5 courses per 6 mon ths served , the estimated number recidivating is 2, 287 . We can then compute t hat with all inmates participa ting in educat i on programs at this rate or higher , the estimated number recidivating is 1, 927, or a difference of 360 recidivists , again , a lS . 7-percent reduction in recidivism. Now , assuming recidivists spend an average of 1 year in prison for their recidivating offense , and using a conservative estimate ·of $22,000 as the annual per inmate cost of incarceration, we s e e that the prison savings alone come to $7 . 9 million. This does not include costs to victims , law enforcement costs , court costs , welfare costs , and lost income taxes -- all of which would no doubt be substantial and bring the total savings somewhere well above $10 million . Additional cost savings would most likely accrue due to lower custody costs
Ex 12 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 18 of 26

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 30 of 37
16 for prisons providing education programs, due to reduced prisonization and associated reduced misconduct. However, sufficient data are not available here for directly testing the hypothesis that education programs reduce prisonization and, thereby, misconduct. ~ In sum, only focusing on the effects of educational program participation on recidivism, we see that potential dollar savings from prison educational programs could be quite large.
Conclusions Results of this analysis provide substantial evidence that prison
education program participation reduces the likelihood of recidivating irrespective of post-release employment. I interpret this result as support for the normalization hypothesis, which posits that many policies, operations, and programs found in modern prisons reduce prisonization and nurture prosocial norms supporting rule/law abiding behavior. Therefore, results reported here for the education program and recidivism relationship may be generalized as showing that other prison policies, operations, and programs (e.g., unit management, prison industries, furlough programs, female corrections officers, due process in handling misconduct) that have normalization as a goal may also reduce recidivism. Additional analysis suggests that the monetary savings from reduced recidivism, due to prison education program participation , are substantial.
FutUre Research Clearly, additional research is needed not just to determine, in a very
broad sense, whether education programs reduce recidivism, but also to consider the following:
1} Use of subjective measures of commitment to criminogenic norms, as intermediate measures of prison program effects.
Ex 12 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 19 of 26

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 31 of 37
11
2) Use of pre- and post-achievement test scores to measure change in educational skills due to participation in educational programs.
Ex 12 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 20 of 26

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 32 of 37
18 3) The particular types of education courses (e.g _, GED , Literacy,
Adult Basic Education , college , vocational, social) that are most effective for increasing commitment to prosocial norms increasing educational skills and reducing recidivism . 4) The types of program delivery that are most effective for normalizing the prison environment , increasing educational ability, and reducing recidivism . 5) The type and amount, if any , of conflict between custody goals and educational program delivery . 6) The relative effec.tiveness , if any , of various educational program providers (e . g ., prison educat ion departments , colleges or universities , local school districts, private contractors) . 7) The educational needs of inmat e populations . 8) The methods used to encourage inma tes to participate in appropriate educational programs. 9) The effects of other normalizing prison operat ions and programs on both inprison adjustment and post-release success .
Ex 12 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 21 of 26

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 33 of 37

19 Table 1. List of Variable Names and Their Definitions.

RECIO

Coded 1 if the person was rearrested or had parole revoked within 3 years of release from prison, 0 if otherwise .

NPRIOR Number of prior convictions . This is one measure of what I call criminal momentum; the second is the Salient Factor Score. 7

SFSCORE

United States Parole Commission Salient Factor Score. The Salient Factor Score is determined by combining points assigned for prior convictions, prior incarcerations , age, the incarceration free period, and criminal justice status at the time of the current offense, and heroin dependency_ See Appendix A, for a copy of the Salient Factor Score computation form.

BLACK Code 1 if black, a if white .

HISPAN Coded 1 Hispanic, 0 if not Hispanic .

MALE

Coded 1 if male , 0 if female.

EDUCPRG Coded 1 if completed .5 or more courses per each 6 mont hs of prison term, 0 if less than .5 courses for each 6 months of prison term .

PSCORE

The propensity score measuring the conditional probability that a person will not participate in at least . 5 courses per each 6 months of his or her prison term .

CODRUG Coded 1 if incarcerating offense was a drug trafficking offense, 0 if other offense. The comparison group is the miscellaneous offense category.

COPROP

Coded 1 if incarcerating offense was a property offense (e . g , larceny theft, burglary, possession stolen goods), 0 if other offense. The comparison group is the miscellaneous offense category.

COFRGFRD Coded 1 if incarcerating offense was for forgery or fraud, 0 if other offense. The comparison group is the miscellaneous offense category .

COPERSON Coded 1 if incarcerating offense was a person c r ime other than robbery (e.g.,assault, rap~), 0 if other offense . Tbe comparison group is the
miscellaneous offense category .

COROBB Coded 1 if incarcerating offense was for robbery (most often bank robbery), 0 if other offense . The comparison group is the miscellaneous offense categor y.

HEROIN Coded 1 if the person used heroin five or more times in the 2 years prior to admission to prison for the instant offence, 0 if otherwise.

HEROINMS Coded 1 if there is missing information regarding heroin use, a if otherwise .

Ex 12 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 22 of 26

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 34 of 37

20 Table 1 . continued

ALCOHOL

Coded 1 if the person is an alcohol abuser as evidenced by prior arrests for alcohol related crimes (e.g ., DUl , public drunkenness) ; or presentence report accounts of referral to alcohol abuse treatment or other references t o a drinking problem, 0 if otherwise .

ALCOHOLMS Coded 1 if information regarding alcohol abuse is missing , 0 if otherwise .

LSCHYRS Natural log of the self-reported number of school years completed at the time of admission to prison for the instant offense .

VPPEMPLY Coded 1 if the person worked full time or was a full-time student for at
least 6 months during the 2 years prior to admission to prison for the instant offense , 0 if otherwise .

CJSUPER

Coded 1 if the person was under cri minal justice supervision (e.g. , parole , probation) at the time he or she committed the instant offense, 0 if otherwise .

LMISCOND Natural log of the number of misconduct charges plus 1.

FURLOUGH Coded 1 if the person received at least 1 social furlough during the prison stay , 0 if otherwise.

LTlMESRV Natural log of the number of days served in prison .

RELEMP Coded 1 if the person was employed at release from prison , 0 if otherwise .

HFWHOUSE Coded 1 if the person was released from pri son through a halfway house , 0 if otherwise .

LAGEREL Natura l log of the person ' s .ge (in years) .t the time of release .

FAMILY USCTZ MISCTZ MILHON

• Coded 1 if the person resided with spouse after release , 0 i f otherwise.
• Coded 1 if the person is United States citizen , 0 if otherwise .
., . Coded 1 if citizenship information is missing , 0 if otherwise . Coded 1 if the person h.d honorable discharge from military service , 0 if otherwise. The comparison group is persons with no military service .

MILDIS

Coded 1 if the person had a dishonorable discharge from the military , 0 if otherwise. The comparison group is persons with no military service.

MILDOTH

Coded 1 if discharge from t he military was other than honorable or dishonorable (e .g. , med ical) , 0 if otherwise . The comparison group is persons with no military service.

MILDMIS Coded 1 if mili t ary service information is missing, 0 if otherwise . The comparison group is persons with no military service.

Ex 12 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 23 of 26

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 35 of 37
21 COMMUNITY This is the first principal component from a principal component analysis of
the following variables f or the inmates ' home residence ZIF Codes : the Gini Coefficient for household income distribution for 1979; the median household i ncome in 1979; the percent of f amilies wi t h incomes below the poverty level in 1979; the population size in 1980; and the percent of the 1980 population that was black. This variable is used to measure urban socio-economically deprived community background . It is similar to a measure used by Land, McCall, and Cohen (199~) in an analysis of community crime rates . The first principal component e xplains 79 percent of the common variance . The correlations between the Community measure and each of the variables making it up are the following : 0 . 434 with the Gini ; -0 . 414 with median household income; 0 . 533 with poverty ; 0.375 with population ; and 0 . 996 with percent black. ZIP Code Dat a were obtained from CACI Marketing Systems in Arlington Virginia . The methodology used to obtain ZIP Code estimates wa s to overlay centroids , defined by latitude and longitude coor dinates, of census tracts or, for rural areas , Block Numbering Units (BNA's) on ZIP Code boundary coordinates. If the Tract/BNA centroid fell within a ZIP Code , the Tract or BNA was assigned to that ZIP Code , and 1980 Census data are assigned to t he ZIP Code based on the proportion of its area fal l ing within it . The remaining proportion of Tract/BNA data , if any , was assigned to adjacent ZIP Codes according to the proport ion of the Tract/BNA area falling within them. PRD1-PRD5 Dummy variables measuring the successive semiannual periods following release . Ea ch is coded 1 if the observation is for a period , and 0 if otherwise . The reference category is the last semiannual period before the end of the 3-year followup period .
Ex 12 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 24 of 26

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 36 of 37

22

Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations for Variables.

Time Served Greater

Full Sample N=1205

Than 1 Year N- 619

Variable

Mean

Standard Deviation

Mean

Standard Deviation

RECIO NPRIOR SFSCORE BLACK HlSPAN
MALE
EOUCPRG
CODRUG COPROP
COFRGFRD
COPERSON
COROBS
HEROIN HEROINMS ALCOHOL ALCOHOLMS LSCHYRS VPPEMPLY
CJSUPER LMISCOND FUnLOUCIl LTIMESRV RELEMP HFWHOUSE LAGEREL FAMILY USCTZ MISCTZ MILHON MILDIS
MILDMIS MILDOTH COMMUNITY

0.4074.70 3.683817 5.707884 0.282158 0.137759 0.887137 0.292116 0.390671 0.165145 0.224896 0.029046 0.071369 0.204149 0.054772 0.338589 0.054772 2.393269 0.513693 0.369295 0.334995 0.250622 5.881878 0.457261 0.509544 3.582375 0.332780 0.833195 0 . 147718 0.236515 0.043154 0.059751 0.023237 0.000000

0 . 487250 5.103785 3.248712 0.450237 0.344790 0.316557 0.454924
0.488148 0.371466 0.417687
0.168004 0.257548 0 . 403246 0.227629 0.473426 0.227629
0.282162 0.500020 0.482814 0.580612 0.433551 0.817957 0.498377 0.500ll6 0.261801 0 . 471404 0.372956 0.354967 0.425ll8 0.203287
0.237123 0. 150716 2 . 217000

0.386110 3.B10985 5.733441 0.274637 0.129241 0.930533 0.295638 0.439418 0.143780 0.192246 0.025848 0.095315 0.203554 0.058158 0.340872 0.054927
2.393816 0.536349 0.305331 0.482594 0.436197
6.526442 0.5428ll 0.668821 3.604833 0.318255 0.852989 0.129241 0.247173 0.048465 0.045234
0.019386 0.000000

0.487250 5.217733 3.257309 0.44.6692 0.335737 0.254452 0.456698 0.496718 0.351151 0.394.384 0.158810 0.293887 0.402967
0.234232 0.414386 0.228023 0.270431 0.499080 0.460920 0.682517 O.4!)6312
0.406882 0.498567 0.471018 0.254731 0.466176 0.354404 0.335737 0 . 431117 0.214921 0.207986 0.137989 2.24ll30

Ex 12 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 25 of 26

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 37 of 37

23

Table 3. Coefficient Estimates for Logistic Models Predicting the Probability of a First Re cidivating Event for the Entire Sample of 1987 Releasees (N ~ 1205) , 5178 Person Half-Years .

Coef . Variable Est.

Std.

Coef.

Error P Value Est.

Std. Error P Value

INTERCPT 2.2795

SFSCORE -0 . 1541

NPRIOR

------

BLACK

0.0833

MALE

0 . 2081

EDUCPRG -0 . 2211

COPROP

0.2017

HEROIN 0 . 3143

HEROINMS 0.3 126

ALCOHOL O. 312 B

ACOHOLMS 0.1235

LSCHYRS 0.0660

VPPEMPLY -0.2664

CJSUPER -0.0167

LMISCOND 0.1401

FURLOUGH -0.4558

LTIHESRV 0.0221

RELEMP -0.3311

HEWHQUSE 0.1258

LAGEREL 1.1795

FAMILY - 0.3274

MILHON -0.2739

MILDIS 0.0672

MILDMIS -0 . 1443

MlLDOTH -0.5198

COMMUNITY 0.0256

PROl

-0.1091

PRD2

0 . 2095

PRO)

-0.0145

PRD 4

-0.1607

PROS

0.0325

1.0242 0.0262
0 . 1361 0 . 1690 0 . 1192
0.1294
0.1255 0.2556 0.1114. 0 . 2559 0.1944 0 . 1206 0 . 1312 0.0905 0.1628 0.0755 0 . 1243 0 . 1293 0 . 2325 0.1436 0 . 1472 0.2225 0 . 2302 0 . 3803 0 . 0290 0. 1837 0.1817 0.1 932 0 . 20 41 .0 . 2037

0 . 02 60 0 . 0 001
0 . 5405 0 . 2180 0 . 0637 0. 1190 0 . 0123 0 . 2214 0.0050 0.6295 0 . 7344 0 . 0272 0 . 8987 0.1218 0.0051 0.7641 0 . 0076 0 . 3304 0 . 0001 0 . 0226 0 . 0627 0 . 7625 0 . 5308 0 .1717 0 . 3774 0 . 5527 0 . 2490 0 . 9400 0 .4 312 0 . 8731

1. 7689
0 . 0434 0 . 1344 0 . 2529 -0.2107 0 . 2363 0 . 5721 0.2986 0.3359 0. 1644 0. 0398 -0.3320 0.3392 0 .1 518 -0 . 5006 O. 0510 -0.3567 0.1284 1. 4070 - 0 . 3449 -0 . 2406 0.0 489 -0 . 1742 -0 . 5106 0 . 0233 -0 . 0973 0 . 2132 -0 . 0113 -0 . 1600 0.0384

1 . 0187
0 . 00954 0.1351 0.1678 0.1190 0.1294 0.1202 0.2618 0.1123 0.2605 0.1943 0.1202 0.1137 0.0906 0.1623 0.0760 0.1240 0.1295 0.2426 0.1438 0 .1476 0.2222 0.2306 0.3846 0 . 0289 0 . 1835 0 . 1816 0 . 1930 0 . 2039 0.2033

0 . 0825
0 . 0001 0.3198 0 . 1319 0.0766 0.0679 0.0001 0.2540 0.0028 0.5279 0.8376 0.0058 0.0029 0.0937 0.0020 0.5022 0.0040 0.3213 0 . 0001 0.0165 0.1031 0 . 8257 0 . 4499 0.1842 0.4203 0 . 5958 0.2 402 0.9531 0.4326 0.8502

-2 LOG L

441. 037

Hosmer and Lemeshow

Goodness-of-fit Statistic 9 . 1599

(p",0.3290)

RSquare·

0.0735

Adjusted RSquare·

0.1681

425.429
10.382 (p.. O.2392)
0.0710 0.1623

• See Nagelk~rke (1991) for an interpretation of RSquare and Adjusted RSqua r e.

Ex 12 to Chamberlain Dec, Pg 26 of 26

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 1 of 58

EXHIBIT 13
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF ' S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

9B10,OS fa246J04

Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 1 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 2 of 58

--""·">L.A' m th e Classroom to the Community
Exploring the Role of Education during Incarceration and Reentry

Diana Brazzell Anna Crayton Debbie A. Mukamal Amy L. Solomon Nicole Undahl

THE URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Ce nter

COLLEGE
CIUMilNALJUSTICE
Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 2 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 3 of 58
CopyrightC '2«J'}. The Urban Institute. Permission is granted for reproduction of this document. with attribution to the Urban Institute. The Urban Institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan pOlicy research and educational organization that ellamines the social. economic, and governance problems facing the nation. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
This project was supported by Grant No. 2008-MU-MU-K002 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs,
which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. and the Office for Victims of Crime. Points of
view or opinions in this document are those of the authors and do not represent the official posi-
tion of the United States Department of Justice.
Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 3 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 4 of 58

Contents

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

v

INTRODUCTION: EDUCATION, INCARCERATION, AND REENTRY

1

THE CURRENT lANDSCAPE OF EDUCATION DURING INCARCERATlON AND REENTRY

6

RESEARCH ON THE EFFeCT1VENESS OF CORRECTIONAL EDUCAT10N

16

EDUCATION BEHIND THE WALLS: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES

24

FROM CLASSROOM TO COMMUNITY: EDUCATION AND REENTRY

36

CONCLUSION

41

REFERENCES

44

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

49

iii
Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 4 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 5 of 58 Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 5 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 6 of 58
owled g ments
T he authors would like to thank the many individuals and organizations that made this report possi b le.
First, we would like to thank Jeremy Travis, the president of John Jay College of Criminal Justice, fo r serving as the facilitator of the Reentry Roundtable on Education, which serves as the basis for this report. We would also like to thank the Roundtable participants whose thoughtful discussion over the course of the meeting shaped the content of the report. We owe a special thanks to the following individua ls who prepared discussion papers and presentations that framed the meeting and g reatly influenced this monograph: Christopher Mumola, U.s. Department of J ustice, Bureau of Justice Statistics; Theodore M. Shaw, Colu m bi~ University School of Law; Bruce Western, Harvard Unjversity; Gerry Gaes, Florida State University; Aik Boon Ng, Singapore Pr)son Service; Doris MacKenzie, University of Maryland; Cindy Borden and Penny Richardson, Northstar Correctional Education Services; Peter Leone and Michael Wilson, Un iversity of Maryland; Michael P. Krezmien, University of Texas; Rosa eho and John Tyler, Brown University; Jeanne Contardo, Business-Higher Education Forum; Michelle To lbert, MPR Associates; and Suzanne Neusteter, John Jay College of Criminal Justice. We would also like to than k Gwynne Cunningham, Virginia Department of Correctiona l Education; Jody Lewen, Prison University Project; and Anne Charles, Transforming Lives Network, Correctional Education Association, for facilitating access to incarcerated students. These students' input on the Roundtable papers was extremely valuable and offered a critical perspective to the Roundtable discussion, and we thank the m for their contributions. We are also grateful to Gerry Gaes; John Linton, U.s. Department of Education; Stefan loBuglio, Montgomery County Department of Correction and Rehabilitation; and Doris MacKenzie, who provided
Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 6 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 7 of 58
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS critical feedback on various drafts of the report. Finally, we thank our funders and project partners, the Achelis and Bodman Foundations; the Bureau of Justice Assistance and the National Institute of Justice, U.s. Department of Justice; the Office of Vocational and Adult Education, u.s. Department of Education; the late Louis Reese III and his wife Susan Reese; and Jim Grenon. Without their support, this document would not have been possible. Lou Reese's vision, commitment to correctional education, and energy inspired us to undertake this project. We are indebted to him and hope that this report appropriately honors his memory.
Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 7 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 8 of 58
Introduction
Education, Incarceration, and Reentry
The United States now has both the highest incarceration rate and the largest total number of people behind bars of any country in the world: 2.3 million. For the first t ime in U.S. history,
more than one in every 100 adults is currently incarcerated in jailor prison (The Pew
Charitable Trusts 2008). The impact of this level of incarceration is acutely concentrated within particular communities, classes, and racial groups. In 2005, the national incarceration rate for whites was 412 per 100,000, compared with 2,290 per 100,000 for blacks and 742 per 100,000 for Hispanics (Mauer and King 2(07). Recent studies demonstrate that young black men, particularly those without co!1ege educations, are the population most affected by incarceration (The Pew Charitable Trusts 2008; Western 2006).
Nearly 95 percent of the nation's incarcerated population will eventually be released and will return home to communities across the country rr ravis 2ooS}. This year alone, more than 700,000 people wiUleave state and federal prison 0Nest and Sabol 2008) and more than 9 million individuals will cycle in and out of local jails (Solomon et al. 2008). When they are released, many of these individuals will return to some of the most impoverished neighborhoods in the country (La Vigne, Cowan, and Brazzell 2006; lynch and Sabol 2001). They will confront serious challenges as they struggle to reconnect with their families and neighbors and become productive members of
Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 8 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 9 of 58

FROM THE CLASSROOM TO THE COMMUNITY

Inmates would like to have the

society. The likelihood ofthese individuals returning tocrim-

same educational opportunities

inal activity is high: within three years of release, 68 percent of people released from state and federal prison are rear-

as people on the streets.

rested and over half return to prison (Langan and Levin 2(02). Identifying effective strategies for reintegrating the

Exercising our minds with healthy educational opportunities and

thousands of men and women who return home from prison and jail each year is critical not only for them, but also for the health and stability of their families and the safety and well-

preparing ourselves to transition

being of their communities. Given the potential impact on public safety, community well-being, and criminal justice

back into society is . . . important

budgets, prisoner reintegration should be an important priority for national, state, and local governments.

for everyone.

While there has been increasing discussion about the inter~

- FRANK, A STUDENT INCARCERATED IN VIRGINIA

section of prisoner reentry and issues of workforce development, housing, health, and public safety, insufficient attention has been p~id to the role that in-prison and post-prison edu-

cation can play in facilitating successful reentry. Education has

been widely recognized as a pathway to assimilation and

economic mobility for immigrant and other disadvantaged populations throughout

U.S. history (Isaacs, Sawhill, and Haskins 2008). For people involved in the criminal jus-

tice system, education offers a path to increased employment, reduced recidivism, and

improved quality of life (Gaes 20(8).

Access to education is particularly important given current economic trends. Economists predict that the labor market will tighten in the next decade and that labor market inequality, p.articularly among unskilled workers, will continue to grow ifthe demands for skilled labor are not met (Holzer and Nightingale 2007). An ever-increasing share of jobs in the u.s. economy requires postsecondary preparation, and college-educated workers earn 26 to 36 percent more than individuals who have not attended college (Decker et at 1997). If properly designed and jmplemented, education programs in correctional facilities and communities can provide individuals involved in the crimi~ nal justice system with the academic instruction, vocational training, and cognitive and life skills they need to succeed in today's economy.

Despite its potential for changing lives, high·quality education is not readily accessible to many people involved in the justice system. Adults returning from prison and jail and those on community supervision are still overwhelmingly undereducated compared with the general population, with lower levels of formal educational attainment and poorer performance on tests of basic literacy (Crayton and Neusteter 20(8). Fortunately, opportunities to address the educational needs of criminal justice populations may expand as policymakers increasingly recognize the limitations of the nation's narrow approach to crime and public safety issues. The passage of the federal Second Chance Act in April 2008, for example, indicates a remarkable shift in the political will to address the challenges facing currently and formerly incarcerated individu-

Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 9 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 10 of 58

als and encourage their potentia l to contribute to society.1 Instead of threatening community safety and draining economic resources, formerly incarcerated people with educational preparation and other suppo rts can provide for themselves and their fami lies and contribute to the economic and social well-being of their communities.
The Reentry Roundtable on Education
Recognizing the pressing need to explore the issues surrounding education, incarceration, and reentry, the Prisoner Reentry Institute at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and the Urba n Institute hosted the Reentry Roundtable on Education on March 31 and April 1,2008, at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City. The two-day meeting examined the currentstate of education during incarceration and reentry and identified promising programmatic and policy directions. Twenty-nine individuals participated in the Roundtable, along with more than 100 observers. As a start· lng point for the discussion, seven papers were commissioned on various topics related to the intersection of education, incarceration, and reentry. A list of the papers and the meeting participants can be found in the text boxes on pages 4 and 5. The Roundtable also benefited from the input of several incarcerated students with whom the papers were shared before the event. The students provided comments, suggestions for discussion, and questions that were shared, with the Roundtable participants during the sessions. Comments from the incarcerated students as well as the Roundtable attendees are included throughout this monograph.
Monograph Roadmap
The Reentry Roundtable on Education provided a valuable opportunity to assess the state of knowledge and practice and identify pr9mising new approaches, issues of concern, and opportunities for collaboration and innovation. This monograph synthesizes the findings of the Roundtable papers and
'Erik Ecl<ho lm, · U.S. Shifting Prison Focus to Re~ntry Into Society,· New
York Times, April 8, 2008.

IN T RODUCTION
The whole enterprise of correctional education-the teachers, the volunteers, the classrooms, the books, the computers-helps humanize correctional facilities and plays a key role in relieVing inmate stress and frustration by focusing incarcerated individuals on positive and constructive activities and relationships. Students benefit directly from these prog rams by improving their skills and knowledge, and staff-particularly correctional officers-benefit from working with individuals who are more cooperative and better adjusted to their ci rcumstances. More than that, educational programs help elevate the mission and professionalism of corrections fro m one of warehOUSing individuals to one of preparing individuals for their futures.
- STEFAN LOBUGUO, CHIEF OF PRE-RElEASE AND REENTRY SERVICES, MONTGOMERY COUNTY (MARYLAND) DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION AND REHABILITATION

Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 10 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 11 of 58
FROM THE CLASSROOM TO THE COMMUNITY the discussion generated throughout the sessions. It offers examples of innovative strategies being employed across the country to provide high-quality services, and it aims to contextualize correctional education within broader trends in the fields of education and criminal justice. Although the intent is to explore education during both incarceration and reentry, much of the material in the monograph focuses on correctional education because research on education for former prisoners in the community is limited. To begin, the monograph surveys the current landscape of correctional education, discussing both the educational needs of people involved in the criminal justice system and the programs being provided to meet those needs. It then reviews research on the effectiveness of correctional education and gUiding principles for effective programming, as well as gaps in the research literature. The subsequent section discusses the issues involved in providing education in correctional settings and identifies some potential responses to these challenges. The monograph then explores education during reentry and the connections between educational programs provided during incarceration and educational and employment opportunities available in the community. The report closes by looking to the future and highlighting key issues and new directions in research, policy, and practice.
Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 11 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 12 of 58
INTRODUCTION
Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 12 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 13 of 58
Y""'-"'nt Landscape of Education during Incarceration and Reentry
People involved in the crimina l justice system are significantly less educated than the general population, as measured by both formal educational attainment and educational performance. Justice-involved individuals typically have lower literacy levels than the general popu-
lation and are less likely to have a high school diploma or general educational devel-
opment (GED) certificate orto have received any postsecondary education. Many priso ns and jails offer education programs in an attempt to address these disparities,
alt hough typically only a portion of inmates actually receives programming. Commonly
available correctional education programs include academic instruction at all levels, special education courses for students with disabilities, and vocational training and life skills programs that provide concrete skills. This section examines the educational needs of individuals involved in the crimina l justice system, the programs available to meet those needs, and the funding sources used to finance education for this population.2
, In their paper 10. the Rourldtable, "The Currerlt State of Correctional Educatiorl,· Aflna Crayton and Suzaflne Neusteter (2OJ6l thoroughly review mud> of the information cove.ed in thi!; section.
Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 13 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 14 of 58

THE CURRENT LANDSCAPE OF EDUCATION DURING INCARCERATION AND REENTRY

-..

less than High school

A,y

GEO

19

26

5

51

Jail i

State

999)

44

26

17

13

51

42

7

Sources; Forgeneral population, Greenberg, Dunleavy, and Kutner (2007); federal and slate prison, Crayton and Neusleler (2008); jail, James (2004); stale parole, Hughes, Wilson, and Beck (2001); and state and local probation, Bonaar (1997).
Note: Data lor state a...d federal priso...ers, jail '...mates. and parolees represent educational level at prison intake. The general populatio... comprises adults age 16 and older.

The Need for Education: Priso ne r Profile
The disparities in educational attainment between incarcerated individuals and the general population are striking (table 1), though the gap has recently been narrowing. In 1997, 61 percent of state and federal prisoners and 82 percent of the general population had high school diplomas or GEDs (Harlow 2(03). By ZOOJ...04, 65 percent of prisoners had diplomas or GEDs, while the rate among the general population held steady at 82 percent (Crayton and Neusteter 2008; Greenberg, Dunleavy, and Kutner 2007). The growth in high school or equivalent educational attainment among prisoners has primarily been in GEDs. Between 1997 and 2004, the share of prisoners with GEDs increased from 28 to 31 percent, while the share with high school diplomas declined by nearly 5 percentage points (Harlow 2003; Crayton and Neusteter 2(08).] Further, 7 in 10 prisoners who had a GED reported obtaining it while in prison (Crayton and Neusteter 2008). These statistics suggest that a GED is increasingly the vehicle by which incarcerated individuals obtain high school credentials, although obtaining a GED typically provides a different educational experience than attending and graduating from high school.
The largest disparity in educational attainment between prisoners and the general population has been and continues to be in postsecondary education, with a gap that is almost twice that of high school/GED attainment. In 2004, 17 percent of state and federal prisoners had some level of postsecondary education, up from 12 percent in 1997 but still far behind the rate of 51 percent among the general population (Crayton and Neusteter 2008; Greenberg et at 2007; Harlow 2003). According to former U.s.

I These 5ta!isti~s do not i...elude individuals who had gone beyond their high school attainment!o obtain poSlsecondary education.

Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 14 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 15 of 58
FROM THE CLASSROOM TO THE COMMUNITY
Department of Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, "90 percent of the fastestgrowing jobs require postsecondary education or training" (Spellings 2007). As GED completion rates among prisoners continue to rise and a college degree becomes increasingly. essential in the U.S. job market, the case for providing postsecondary educational opportunities to prisoners becomes more compelling.
Data on educational attainment among jail inmates and individuals on probation and parole are much more limited and less recent. Like state and federal prisoners, these populations are significantly less educated than the general U.s. population (table 1). Jail inmates, state parolees, and people on state or local probation are also less likely to have completed high school than state and federal prisoners (although the figures for jail inmates, parolees, and probationers are less recent and may have changed). Historical data indicate that, as with state and federal prisoners, education levels have increased among jail inmates and state parolees overthe past several years (historical data are not available for people on probation).4 These gains were primarily in the share of individuals receiving a high school diploma or GED; unlike state and federal prisoners, jail inmates and state parolees did not see increased rates of postsecondary education.
Incarcerated individuals lag behind the general population not only in formal educational attainment, but also in educational performance and abilities. According to the National Assessment of Adult l iteracy (NAAl), people who are incarcerated have lower literacy rates than those who are not. The NAAL attempts to measure individuals' abilities to "us\e] printed and written information to function in society, to achieve [their] goals, and to develop [their] knowledge and potential," and it assesses literacy in three areas; prose, document, and quantitative (Greenberg et al. 2007). State and federal prisoners score significantly lower than the general population in all three domains, although prisoner scores did improve between 1992 and 2003. Some of the most interesting findings from the 2003 NAAL are the trends within racial groups. Unlike white prisoners. black and Hispanic adult prisoners had better literacy scores in some areas than black and Hispanic adults in the general population (see figure 1 for an example). This is an interesting and unexpected finding, but it has not yet been confirmed by other studies.5
Another important facet of the educational profile of the incarcerated population is the high prevalence of learning disabilities, emotional and behavioral disorders. and mental illness. These issues frequently go undiagnosed or misdiagnosed and untreated or improperly treated, which is part of the reason many incarcerated individuals have had difficu lty succeeding in the public education system in the past. Unfortunately the same problem often occurs within correctional facilities, as evidenced by the lack of
• James (20:14) documents educational attainment among jail inmates in 1996 and 2002. Hughes and colle~gues (2001) address allainment among people on state parole in 1990 and 1999. • There are some methodological issues with the NAAlstudy that make interpreting these findings diffi. cult. Individuals who are not literate in English orwho have cognitive or mental d isabilities that prevent them from being tested are not included in the NMl sample. It is possible that illiteracy and disability rates-and thus the rate of exclusion from the study-among the incarcerated population differ from rates among the general population.
Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 15 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 16 of 58
THE CURRENT LANDSCAPE OF EDUCATION DURING INCARCERA TlON AND REENTRY
r"liable data on the number and types of disabilities among inmates. Most com~c­ tionaIsystems do not maintain data on special needs individuals, and often the numbers they have are grossly unde restimated owing to [ow diagnosis rates (l eone, Wilson, and Krezmien 2008). The only existing national figures come from selfreported data from inmate surveys. In the 2003 NAALsUlvey, 17 percent of incarcerated individuals reported being diagnosed with some type of learning disability, compared with 6 percent of the general population (Greenberg et al. 2007). According to Harlow (2003), 40 percent of state prisoners report having a disability of some type, including 10 percent who report having a learning disability. Both these studies, however, are based on self-reported diagnoses and may not be accurate. In a more rigorous study, Krezmien and colleagues assess more than 500 boys in a juvenile facility and find that 45 percent have a disability (Krezmien, Mulcahy, and Leone 2008). Of those with a disability, 44 percent have an emotional disturbance and 26 percent have a learning disability. While none of the studies just described provide a definitive answe r regarding disability rates among the nation's incarcerated popu lation, they indicate a high prevalence of learning disabilities and other special needs and suggest that more accurate data are needed.
Access t o Edu cat io n during Inca rce ration a nd Reentry
The statistics outlined in the previous section dearly indicate a need for educationa l services among the incarcerated population. Several types of programs exist to meet
Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 16 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 17 of 58
FROM THE CLASSROOM TO THE COMMUNITY
this need, including academic instruction from the most basic levels to the more advanced, as well as practically oriented tra inings such as vocational and life skills. The array of programs typically included under the umbrella of correctional education6 can be categorized as follows:
111 Adult Basic Education (ABE): Basic skills trai ning in arithmetic, reading, writing, and, when needed, English as a second language (ESL).
m Adult Secondary Education: Instruction to complete high school or prepare fo r a certificate of high school equivalency, usually the GED.
B Postsecondary Education: Advanced, college-level instruction that in some cases may provide college credit.
EI Special Education: Educational training designed for individuals who have learning disabilities or other special needs.
II:! Vocational Education: Training in general employmentslcills as well as skills for specific jobs and/or industries.
15 Life Skills Education: Programs that focus on providing individuals with the skills needed to function successfully in everyday life, in areas such as goal-setting and decisionmaking, obtaining and maintaining a job, financial management, communication and interpersonal relationships, stress and anger management, and conflict resolution (Crayton and Neusteter 2008).
Most (84 percent) state prisons offer some type of corre ctional education program, and nearly all (98 percent) federal prisons offer a full range of programs (table 2). (Note that, even in the facilities that offer programming, on ly a portion of inmates are receiving these services.) In state prisons, adult basic and secondary education and life skills prog rams are the most common offerings, followed by vocational training. Postsecondary offerings are less common, as are special education programs. Between 20Cl0 and 2005, the percentage of state prisons offering programming shrank in every category except postsecondary and life skills programs, which expanded (Stephan 2008; Stephan and Karberg 2(03),
Compared with state and federal prisons, fa r fewer local jails offer educational programming, likely because of limited resources and the difficulty of providing programming to individuals in custody for short and unpredictable periods. In 1999, 8J percent of loca l jails offered some type of educational programming. As in state prisons, the most common offerings were adult basic and secondary education and life skills programs. Special education was less common, and postsecondary and vocational programs were rare.
Although the statistics outlined here document the prevalence of different types of programming, they tell us nothing about what the programs actually look like on the ground. Program curricula and methods, staffing and quality of instruction, participa-
• FO( the porposes of this report, programs that attempt to improve individuals' thinking skills using cognitive behavioral methods are not considered correctional education but instead fall under the domai" 01 counseling and treatment.
Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 17 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 18 of 58

THE CURRENT lANDSCAPE OF fDUCA nON DURING INCARCERATION AND REENTRY

II 'j correctional

% of facilities offering programs Federal prisons State prisons local jails

Ufe skills

98

50

6

98

77

21

Sources: Forfederaland state prisons, Stepkan (20081; for jails. Stephan (2001).
Note: The statistics for "Any correctional edcx:aoon program" include sorne types of programs not listed in this table, such as ESL and study release, and do not include life skills programs.

tion and completion rates, and other components vary widely from program to program and facility to facility. For example, some correctional education programs meet once a week while others meet five days a week for six to eight hours a day. Unfortunately, little national data are available beyond the number of programs offered by facilities within each category of programming.
Though the vast majo rity of state and federal prisons and a significant number of jails offer some type of educational programs, only a limited share of inmates in these facilities receive programming. As of 2004. the share of state and federal prisoners who received programming during their current incarceration was highest-between 20 and 30 percent-for adult secondary education and vocational and life skills training (table 3). (Note that the categories of programming are not mutually exclusive; for example, an inmate student may be engaged in both adult secondary education and vocational traini ng.) Interesting ly, although adult basic education is offered in most prisons and some jails, few inmates (less tha n 2 percent) receive these services. The NAAL literacy scores outlined in the previous section suggest that a greater share of inmates may need basic: education than are receiving it.
The share of state prisoners receiving educational programming during their current incarceration decreased slightly between 1997 and 2004, with the largest drops occurring in vocational training (a decrease of 5 percentage points) and adult secondary education (a decrease of 4 percentage points) (Crayton and Neusteter 2008; Harlow 2(03).1 During this time. the prison population expanded so rapidly that although participation rates fell, the actual number of inmates receiving educational programming may have
'Historical data on participation in life skills programs are not .....ailable.

Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 18 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 19 of 58

FROM THE CLASSROOM TO THE COMMUNITY

Ad ult basic education

% of inmates who received programming since admission to prison, by facility type

Federal prison s

State prisons

local jails

9

Ufe skills

31

27

5

29

24

Sources: Forfederal and state prisons. Crayton ar.d Neusteter (2008); for jails, Harlow (2003).

increased. The reason for stagnant or declining participation rates is unclear, but what is clear is that inmate engagement in educational programming has not grown alongside the expanding prison population.
In a number of jurisdictions, participation in certain types of educational programming is I!landatory for inmates who have not reached a specified level of achievement. In 1982, the Federal Bureau of Prisons adopted the first policy mandating participation in educational programming for inmates below a certain level (McGlone 2(02). After this change, participation rates increased significantly.s As of 2007, 16 state systems required GEO attainment, and a 2002 study found that 12 states required completion of the equivalent of 6th grade (Corrections Compendium 2008; McGlone 2002).
The discussion thus far has centered on education inside correctional facilities, primarily because little data are available on the involvement of formerly .incarcerated individuals in educational programs in the community. Recent findings from the Urban Institute's Returning Home study of 740 men released from prison in Illinois, Texas. and Ohio shed some light on participation in programming in the community (Visher. Debus, and Yahner 20(8). Six percent of respondents reported participating in an adult basic education Of GEO program and 11 percent participated in a vocational training program at any time in the first e ight months after release. The low participation rates may ~e due to a lack of available programs or a lack of awa reness about program opportunities on the part of potential participants (in addition, some individuals may not need these particular programs. for example. if they already have a GED). Less than 20 percent of respondents reported knowing of available adult basic education or GED programs and vocational training programs in their communities. On the other hand, low rates of

I Slelan LoBugiio. Chief o f Pre-Release and Reentry ServiCf!5. Montgomery County (Maryland! Department of Correction and Rehabili\<ltion, e-mail communication with the authors, April 2, 2OCR.

Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 19 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 20 of 58
THE CURRENT LANDSCAPE OF EDUCATION DURING I NCARCERATION AND REE N T RY
participation may also result from the many competing demands faced by former prisoners, from earning income to fulfilling supervision requirements, which may take precedence over obtaining education. A 2CXl6 survey of incarcerated men also suggests that access to programming may be an issue. The survey found that while over 90 percent of respondents reported they would like to attend a technical school or college after release if given the opportunity, less than 40 percent actually had plans to do so (Hanneken and Dannerbeck 2007).
Funding for Correctional Education
Funding for correctional education comes from several sources and varies from system to system. At the state level, funding may come from general fund appropriations to state departments of corrections, labor, or education, or special revenue sources such as "inmate welfare" funds or prison industry profits. States can also access various sources of fed eral funding to be used for education in state prisons and in some cases jails. Federal funding sources include
If funding for adult basic and secondary education, English literacy classes, and special education under Title II of the Workforce Investment Act (W1A), one of the largest federal sources of financial support for correctional education;
a money for vocational and technical training through the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act;
II grants for academic and vocational postsecondary education through the Workplace and Community Transition Training for Incarcerated Individuals State grant;
m funding geared toward juveniles and incarcerated youth (up to age 21 in some cases) such as the Title I State Agency Neglected and Delinquent Program under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act; and
• funds for educating youth (up to age 21) with disabilities from The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Crayton and Neusteter 2008; Tolbert 2002).
Private organizations and individuals have also been known to contribute funding, resources, and volunteer time to support the proviSion of correctional educatio n prowarns (Corrections Compendium 2008; Crayton and Neusteter 2(08).
Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 20 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 21 of 58
FROM THE CLASSROOM TO THE COMMUNITY
Differe nces in accounting among states and the range of funding streams used to pay for programs make it difficult to quantify state expenditures on correctional education {Klein et al. 2004}. In a recent study of all state systems, state corrections agencies reported budgeting an average of $12 million annually for correctional education programs {this may not include correctional education funds managed by other agencies such as departments of education}. The figure varied widely depending on the size of the system, from around $500,000 in some small state systems to over $67 million a year in Texas (Corrections Compendium 2008). An informal survey by the authors of seven state jurisdictions and one large urban jail found that these systems were typically spending appro ximately 1 to 3 percent of their corrections budgets on education. The jurisdictions reported a number of funding sources including general fund or state legislature monies, legislative member items, state departments of labor and education, federa l grants, inmate welfare funds, and private or nonprofit sources.
As states face increased budget pressures, the amount spent on correctional education may drop, and there is less federal fund ing available than in the past to fill the gap. The trend in recent years has generally been toward reduced federal spending on education for incarcerated populations (see text box on the next page). For example, the Adult Basic Education Act previously required that at least 10 percent of its allocated funds be used for correctional education; the Workforce Investment Act that replaced it in 1998 states that now a maximum of 10 percent of the funds can be used for this purpose. Perhaps the most widely d iscussed reductions in federal funding have been in postsecondary education, specifically t he 1994 elimination of access to Pell Grants for students incarcerated in state and federal prisons.9 Up to that point. Pell Grants had been the primary source of funding for higher education programs in correctional facilities. In the year followi ng the ban, the number of incarcerated individuals receiving postsecondary education dropped 44 percent (Tewksbury, Ericson, and Taylor 2000). Some states responded by develop ing new funding streams or offe ring loan programs to fill the gap (C rayton and Neusteter 2008). A recent national assessment by Erisman and Contardo (2005) finds that the percentage of incarcerated individuals enrolled in postsecondary education has returned to pre·1994 levels. However, a much larger share of these students is now enrolled in vocational rather than academic courses.
• Pell Gra"ts were not eliminated for people in jaits or treatment center~ (Eri.man and Contardo 2015).
Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 21 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 22 of 58

THE CURRENT LANDSCAPE OF EDUCATION DURING INCARCERATION AND REENTRY

":1

,'-.1,

'" , .., ' ~",

\

'r:r·.

, ,

th~ fi'r;t feaerally f~nded"

AtnABEA), ihe Adult_~_;~

,

Ir."ivesp'1~J" e'ht

A~
,

(WIA), t "

"
'"

federal funding for cor~

bt'approp~iated r

m,.xi,m,'mof 10 percent: ~,­

. . Rere,ml, oltl,. total appropriatiOl;
millio.n l,n W, IA fUlldifl"9 was allocated
"-
i ' Act.is another_so~rc~ of::'

19, 9'8" ! the P-~r, ki. ns,A''ct

, :,;,',:1,:

I,education -<'

-n6w spend -Mo J., 'j!

; "",", "

't',,'.:'1.0'. ,

, L

' "

>.-,

;,~,

,

!~:~;~r~ifr~~:l~;~ educati'on'al pro~~:' ":1

Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 22 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 23 of 58
Effect iveness of Correctio nal Ed ucatio n
R· esearch indicates that correctional education can reduce recidivism and increase employment after
release from prison. Theory and anecdotal evid ence suggest that education may also
imp rove in-prison behavior and p romote positive reentry outcomes beyond recidivism
and employment. Education promotes rehabil itation in several ways, t hrough tang ib le
b enefit s such as formal certifications and concrete skills, as well as int angible gains like
improved decisionmaki ng abilit ies and pro-social values. This section exami nes exist-
ing t heory and research on the impact of correctio nal education o n inmate students.
It also explores principles of successfu lcorrectional and adu lt education programs that may help g uide the deve lopment of correctional education program models.
Theoretical Foundatio ns: The Purpose of Education Duri ng Incarce ration and Reentry
There are several pathways by which education can improve outcomes for individuals both in prison and after release. Education improves decisionmaking skills and promotes pro-social thinking, thereby improving in-prison behavior and facilitating adjustment to prison. It keeps inmate students engaged and active, avoiding idleness and opportunities for misbehavior. Education also increases human capital. improving general cognitive functioning while providing specifi c skills. Afte r release, these gains
Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 23 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 24 of 58

RESEARCH ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CORRECTIONAL EDUCATION

can help people obtain and maintain employment and avoid engaging in criminal activity. Education can also help former prisoners build pro-social identities after re lease and become better family and community memb"ers. In addition to these positive outcomes, many people view education as an inherent right, a process that is valuable in and of itself, and an important component of a full and enjoyable life.
Education can improve in-prison behavior and promote reentry success by changing students' thinking patterns, attitudes, and behaviors. Research indicates that deficits in social cognition (understanding social interactions and the behavior of others), executive cognitive functioning (the ability to plan and implement goal-directed behavior), problem-so lving abilities, and self-efficacy are all cognitive issues associated with cri minal and antisocial behavior (Andrews and Bonta 2003; Foglia 2000; Giancola 2000; MacKenzie 2008). By enhancing cognitive abilities and decisionmaking skills, education can help forme rly incarcerated people avoid criminal activity and engage in positive behavior. Many scholars believe that education can also increase pro-social attitudes and moral reasoning, improve selfesteem and self-efficacy, and help individua ls develop a pro-social identity (Batiuk, Moke, and Rountree 1997; Fine et at. 2001; Harer 1995; Winterfield et at. forthcoming). These positive developments can serve as a direct counterweight to ~prisonization,« t he process whereby people who are incarcerated become acculturated to the negative values of prison subculture (Harer 1995).

Education in the prison setting provides far more than a degree and lower recid ivism rates ... Through its transfonnational powers, it provides for a socialization and self-actualization process that no other treatment program can offer. It allows offenders to better understand thei r own self-worth and potential, and most often has offenders reaching out to thei r own children to encourage them to continue their education.
- BRIAN FISCHE~, COMMISSIONER,
NEW YORK STATE DEPAR1MENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

By expanding students' general abilities and providing specific skills, education can make it easier for returning prisoners to find stable, well-paying jobs. In addition, education has a signaling effect to employers, serving as a formal indicator of an individual's abilities and achievement (Gaes 2008). Formal educational attainment can combat the negative signaling effect of incarceration, whereby conviction and incarceration send a negative message to employers about an individual's character and abilities (Western 2(07). The receipt of a GED, college degree, or vocational certificate is thus valuable not only for the skills and abilities developed in the course of receiving such certification but also for the certification itself. Education's effect on employment is particularly important because employment has been demonstrated to reduce recidivism among former prisoners (Harer 1994; Sampson and Laub 1997; Uggen 2<XlO). Level of compensation also influences reentry outcomes, as those making higher wages are less likely to recidivate (Bernstein and Houston 2<XlO; Grogger 1998; Visher et at. 2(08). In addition to lowering recidivism rates, employment helps former prisoners support their families and pay child support and other debts.

Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 24 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 25 of 58
FROM THE CLASSROOM TO THE COMMUNITY
In aU likelihood, education affects incarcerated students in a number of ways, and disentangl ing all these pathways is challenging. Yet considering the mechanisms by which education may affect in-prison and reentry outcomes is valuable because it can help guide research on the effectiveness of correctional education. It can also influence the development of education programs, since a program's purpose and design are likely to vary depending on the outcomes the program is attempting to influence. For example, policymaker.; and correctional administrators concerned only with employability and economic outcomes might focus their program ming on providing specific vocational skills. While valuable, such programming might miss the benefits that a liberal arts or other, more generalized curriculum could provide in improved cognitive functioning. AU these programming decisions are complicated by the fact that incarcerated students have a range of needs, and programs that are successful for certain students may not be for others.
The Imp'act of Correctio na l Education on StuQe nt O utco mes
Research on the effectiveness of correctional education primarily focuses on two sets of outcomes: (1) recidivism, in terms of reoffending, rearrest, or reincarceration , and (2) employment-related meas ures such as labor market participation and wages (Gaes 2008). A handful of mostly qualitative studies have also explo red the effect of correctional education on in-prison behavior and adjustment (see for example Fine et at 2001 and Winterfield et a1. forthcoming). Research examining reentry outcomes beyond employment and recidivism, such as pro-social attitudes. cognitive functioning, fam ily relationships, and civic engagement, could provide a much fuller picture of the impact of correctional education. Unfortunately, the fie ld lacks well-deSigned studies that address these outcomes. Also missing are evaluations of the impact of adult education provided in the community on outcomes for fo rmer prisoners. since many evaluations of.these types of programs do not distinguish people ~ith incarceration histories from other participants.
Although the field has not produced a dear understanding of the impact of correctional education on a full range of in-prison and post-release outcomes, there is fairly extensive resea rch on the impact on recidivism and employment. which are often the outcomes of greatest concern to policymakers, criminal justice officials, and the public. Taken together, numerous studies suggest that correctional education can reduce recidivism and increase employment levels and wages. These positive effects have been found for a range of types of programming, including vocational training and adult basic, secondary, and postsecondary education (Gaes 2008).
In a review of the research literature for his Roundtable paper ~The Impact of Prison Educational Programs on Post-Release Outcomes. N Gerald Gaes (2008) finds that most meta-analyses and systematic reviews of research on the impact of correctional
Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 25 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 26 of 58
RESEARCH ON THE EFFECTfVENESS OF CORRECTfONAl EDUCATfON
education indicate that it reduces recidivism and improves employment outcomes.10 The true size of this effect is still unknown, however; across four meta-analyses identified by Gaes, reductions in recidrvism ranged from 7 percent to 46 percent. Gaes concludes his review by stating that, despite the methodological issues present in several studies, "the takeaway message is that correctional education does promote successful prisoner reentry." like Gaes, most researchers who conducted the meta-analyses and systematic reviews discussed in his paper concluded that there was enough evidence from well-designed studies to state that correctiona l education produces positive outcomes in te rms of recidivism and employment. Some researchers, however, felt that there were too many methodological issues to draw definitive conclusions about the impact of correctional education; many of these methodological issues are discussed in greater detail later in this section. Though we cannot state with certainty the magnitude of the impact of correctional education, a cost-benefit analysis by Aos, Miller, and Drake (2006) suggests that even a 7 to 9 percent reduction in recidivis m can result in significant cost savings for taxpayers. Looking simply at the cost of p rogramming versus the cost of incarceration, Aos and his coauthors report that $1, 182 per prisoner invested in vocational training can save $6,806 in future criminal justice costs, and $962 per prisoner invested in academic education (adult basic, secondary, and postsecondary) can save $5,306 in criminal justice costs. If one considers the social benefits of avoiding victimization and the economic benefits from increasing the number of legally employed, taxpaying citizens, the savings are even greater.
10 The meta-analyses reviewed by Gaes are from Aos, Mmer, and Drake (2006); Chappell 120(4); Wilson, Gallagher, and MacKenzie 12000); and Ronald E. Welts, "Education as Prison Reform: A Meta-Analysis,· unpublished dissenation, Louisiana State University, 2000. The systematic reviews and research summaries Gaes discusses indude Cecil et al. (2000); Gerber and Fritsch (1995); Hrabowslci and Robbi (2002); Jancie (1998); Jensen and Reed (2(X)61; Taylor (1992); and Vae<:a (2004). Gaes also reviews individual studies aoo highl ights the strongest evaluations in the field.
Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 26 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 27 of 58
FROM THE CLASSROOM TO THE COMMUNITY
Principles of Effective Practice
The existing body of research has not advanced far enough to identify evidence-based best practices that are specific to education for criminal justice populations. Most evaluations of correctional education programs do not provide the information on program characteristics-such as curricula, dosage, and staffing- that is necessary to determine best practices (MacKenzie 2008). However, scholars have identified some general principles of effective practice in correctional programming more broadly (not specific to education) and adult education in the community (not specific to corrections) that may provide us with an indication of what works in correctional education.
In her Roundtab le paper "Structure and Components of Successful Educational Programs,· Doris MacKenzie outlines best practices in programming for incarcerated populations (MacKenzie 2008). After conducting several systematic reviews of evaluations of correctional programs, MacKenzie has drawn some conclusions about what types of programs are most effective in reducing recidivism. She finds the following:
EJ The most effective programs emphasize individual rehabilitation through skills building, cognitive development, and behavioral change. By their very nature, many correctional education programs fit squarely within this framework. MacKenzie emphasizes that individual-level cognitive and behavioral change must be achieved before other activities can be of value.
EJ Multimodal programs that address multiple needs are highly effective, which suggests that, for many individuals, correctional education may need to occur in tandem with substance abuse treatment, cognitive-behavioral therapy, job preparation, and other activities. MacKenzie highlights program models, such as Vermont's Workforce · Development Program and Texas's Project RIO, in which life skills, academic, and vocational education are embedded within multifaceted programs. Unfortunately, the evaluations of these types of programs often examine the program as a whole without attempting to determine the role of individual elements such as education.
C Programs need to be implemented with integrity, meaning the program model is based on a dear theoretical framework, the program elements and methods are grounded in research, and programming is provided by qualified, trained staff following standardized protocols. MacKenzie emphasizes that proper dosage is also important, and even effective programming may fail if it is not provided consistently or for a long enough period of time. (For more on the importance of program dosage, see the text box above.)
Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 27 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 28 of 58
RESEARCH ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CORRECTIONAL EDUCATION
While the principles outlined above apply to correctional programming in general and are not specific to education, they may help gUide the development of correctional education programs. In the same way, existing research on adult education in the community may inform education programs for adults who are incarcerated. In a review of the field, John Comings, lisa Soricone, and Maricel Santos (2006) draw on professional wisdom and empirical evidence to identify critical principles for adult education. They discuss a number of principles in their paper, including several that are relevant to correctional education:
II Programs should have clearly defined recruitment and hiring processes for instructors and policies that identify what constitutes qualified program staff. Instructional staff should have access to professional development opportunities and support. services.
12 Programs should have comprehensive student recruitment and orientation components. Before participation, staff should assess the goals, skill level, and needs of each student and develop an individual learning plan based on these assessments.
• Programs should be provided in environments supportive of learning in which students feel physically safe and comfortable. Programs should use materials and activities that have been designed especially for adult learners and are "relevant and meaningful to students' life contexts." In addition to print materials, programs should use computers and individual tutoring.
iii Programs should have appropriate staff-to-student ratios and avoid mixing different skill levels in the classroom.
I'll Programs should have well-defined ro les within their communities, governing bodies composed of community stakeholders, and open lines of communication with important local agencies. Additionally, strong management systems should incorporate data collection and evaluation processes to ensure program effectiveness and accountability.
The principles outlined above are not specific to correctional education, though they may offer valuable insight into how best to educate incarcerated adults. Clearly, there is still ·a great deal to learn about what works in correctional education, as well as how successful programs ~perate and what program models are most effective for different types of students.
Limitations in Existing Research
The body of research on educational programs for incarcerated and formerly incarcerated people is somewhat limited in both scope and rigor. Although several valuable studies exist, many others are plagued by methodological issues that make their findings unreliable. The most significant methodological concerns and research gaps in the field are listed below.ll
"The material ill this section comes from the authOts· examination of the research literature as well as from Gaes (2006) and MacKenzie (2(01).
Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 28 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 29 of 58
FROM THE CLASSROOM TO THE COMMUNITY
Creating Matched Comparison Groups
III Very few studies use random-assignment evaluation designs, though this is not surprising given the difficulty of implementing such evaluations in real-world settings.
II Participation in most programs is voluntary and some studies fail to account for potential selection bias, in terms of factors such as intrinsic motivation and positive attitudes that might set participants apart from nonparticipants. Some of the stronger studies attempt to address selection bias by modeling the selection process and creating carefully matched compa rison groups.
II Few studies control for the pre-treatment education and ability levels of participants and nonparticipants, in part because these data are rarely readily available.
Accurately Specifyin g the Treatment
r;J The existing research fails to answer questions about what types of programming are effective for different types of participants. Very few studies explore program characteristics such as instructional methods, dosage, and staff qualifications, which can vary significantly across programs.
II In evaluations of multimodal programming, it is difficult to parse out the role education may have played in influencing outcomes from the effect of other services and programs.
IJ Programs may not be implemented with fidelity to the theoretical program model: participation may be interrupted, dosage may be insufficient, or classroom activities may not follow specified curricula.
Defining and Measuring Relevant Outcomes
III The vast majority of studies conceptualize treatment as participation and/or completion of programming, without examining intermediate outcomes that could indicate how programs actually affect thinking and behavior. Relevant intermediate outcomes might include literacy gains, development of concrete skills, improved cognitive abilities, and reduced criminal thinking.
Il$ As in other studies that use recidivism as an outcome measure, there are diverse opinions about how to best define recidivism {rearrest, reincarceration, etc.) and the period over which to track recidivism.
Examining a Range of Prog ram s and Participants
II Like many studies in the criminal justice field, few evaluations of correctional education include significant samples of women.
I! Most evaluations focus on in-prison programming; research on education for former prisoners in the community is virtually nonexistent. Many studies of adult education programs in the community do not distinguish participants with incarceration histories from other participants.
Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 29 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 30 of 58
RESEARCH ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CORRECTIONAL EDUCATION tI Although mandatory participation requirements are common and often increase
participation rates, few studies examine whether individuals whose participation in education is required have different experiences and outcomes than individuals who volunteer to participate_ Addressing these methodological issues requires more rigorous studies that incorporate a broader range of data. To facilitate better research, programs and correctioni:ll systems should make an effort to collect more extensive data on both participants and progri:lm activities. Resei:lrchers also need to expi:lnd their theoretical frameworks to examine the effect of different types of program activities and progri:lm chari:lcteristics and explore a range of intermediate and long-term outcomes.
Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 30 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 31 of 58
hind the Wall s
Challenges and Opportunities
orrectional facilities present unique challenges for
"""",~V the provision of educational services. Educators are tasked with instructing adults with a wide range of cognitive ab ilities and previous
educational experiences, including many who have consistently been unsuccessful in
the broader public education system. Instructors must educate these individuals in
the face of limited funding, space, and resources; interruptions to program continuity; and institutional security concerns that significantly constrain programming.
Perhaps the biggest challenge is that correctional facil ities are, first and foremost, institutions of control and security, not classrooms or schools. Despite these challenges, education can flourish within the prison walls with the support of correctional administrators and a willingness on the part of correctional educators to teach within and around the constraints. In fact, education can contribute to the correctional mission of secure facil iti es and safe communities by improving inmate behavior on the inside and promoting success after release. The form that successful correctional education programs take varies significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction in terms of structure, staffing, teaching methodologies, program delivery, materials and technology, and other components. Yet the best programs often have several features in common: proper assessment and placement of students, well-trained teachers
Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 31 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 32 of 58
EDUCATION BEHIND THE WAllS
e q uipped with t he ri ght too ls, strategi c use of appropriate technology, and effective incentive structures. This secti on discusses both the challenges and opportun ities invo lved in providing education behind the prison or jail walls.
The Challenges of Providing Educat ion in a Correctiona l Set t in g
The correctional environment presents many challenges for the provision of educational services. The most common include the following:
A dive rse population with a wide range of cognitive abilities and previous educational experience s. The education levels of incarce rated people vary significantly, from almost total illiteracy to some level of high school ed ucation o r even postsecondary experience. In addition, forma l educational attainment is not always a re liable indicator of skills; an individual may have reached or even completed high school yet be reading at a 6th grade level. Incarcerated stude nts with a ful l range of formal and actual skill levels can sometimes end up in the same classroom together, depe nd ing on the size of the facility, the types of programs offered, and the eligibility requirements for different programs. In addition to the range of educational levels among inmate students, a significant share has learning disabilities, emotional or b ehavioral problems, andlor mental health issues that complicate their social and educationa l needs. Unfortunately, learning disabilities and mental health issues are often undiagnosed, misdiagnosed, or improperly treated. Other groups that present special educational needs are students with limited English language skills and juveniles, who make up approximately 1 percent of state and federal prison and local jail populations (Hartney 2(06; for more on educating incarcerated juveniles, see the text box on page 26).
Limited funding, materials, space, and other resources. As with education programs in the community, many correctional education systems face serious funding and resource limitations. Consistent, dedicated funding streams for correctional education are often lacking, as fu nd ing may come from multiple sources and may be one item among many in a facility's
Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 32 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 33 of 58
FROM THE CLASSROOM TO THE COMMUNITY general programming budget. Over the past several years, funding for correctional education generally has not increased as rapidly as the size of the incarcerated population. Education programs are often the first to go during budget cuts, either because they are viewed by correctional administrators as nonessential or because legally required services such as medical care and sanitary living conditions must be given priority. Limited funding restricts the availability of classroom materials; equipment for vocotional programs; computers, Internet access, and other technology; and even the availability of sufficient numbers of well-trained instructors. In fact, a number of correctional education programs are operated and staffed by nonprofit organizations or volunteers. Space concerns are also an issue: because many correctional facilities were not designed with programming in mind. classroom space can be limited and cramped. Classrooms may have to be shared with other programs, and space for computers or specialized eqUipment for vocational training can be scarce.
Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 33 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 34 of 58
EDUCATION BEHIND THE WALLS
Interruptions to program continuity, including short stays, frequent transfe rs, and restrictions on inmate movement. Research has demonstrated that dosage is a sigrlificant factor influencing program effectiveness, and that continuous participation in programming for a specified period is often essential to success (Cho and Tyler 20(8). Yet the needs of the correctional system frequently take precedence over the need for program continuity. Facility Iockdowns or restrictions on the movement of certain inmates can interrupt participation. Based on systemwide needs, inmates may be transferred to another facility with little advance notice, and the new facility mayor may not offer comparable educationa l programming. Inconsistent funding streams and teacher vacancies can also interrupt program continuity. Short stays are a significant issue as well, particularly for local jails. Jails typically lag behind state and federa l prisons in offering educational services, in large part because of the difficulty of providing programs to a population that changes from day to day and is only incarcerated for a short time.
Institutional security conce rns . Correctional administrators have a responsibility to ensure their facilities are safe and secure, which often means restricting inmates' access to various items and to other inmates. Things that may seem simple in community classrooms, such as offering Internet access or providing students with certain equipment or materials, may be nearly impossible in correctional facilities. Even ensuring that outside instructors and volunteers are able to enter and exit the faCility quickly and easily can be challenging. Bringing inmate students of different security classifications together in the same classroom may be difficult, and those on segregated security classifications may require one-on-one instruction or some form of computerized programming.
Most of the constraints outlined above result from the fact that a correctional facility is not, first and foremost, a school or a classroom. The vast majority of correctional administrators prioritize a safe and secure facility above all else, with good reason. The challenge for correctional educators is to work within and around the resulting constraints, but also to demonstrate to administrators that educational programming can actually promote institutional security rather than threaten it. Programming occupies and engages students who might otherwise be idle, and education can improve decisionmaking skills and promote pro-socia! behavior. Many of the correctional administrators who participated in the Roundtable emphasized that, by improving in-prison behavior and promoting adjustment to prison, education programs can playa critical role in maintaining security and order within correctional facilities.
Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 34 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 35 of 58
FROM THE CLASSROOM TO THE COMMUNITY
,.
Building Blocks for Program Success
The constraints and challenges of providing educational programm ing in a correctional setting only complicate the already difficult task of educating adults who have often been unsuccessful in the public education system for many years. Researchers in the field have yet to determine how incarcerated adults best learn, resulting in wide variation in program models across jurisdictions. Programs vary significantly in terms of curricula, instructional methods, quality of instruction, use of technology and other materials, staffing, program delivery, dosage, participation incentives, participation and completion rates, management and organizational structures, and other components. Because little data exist on many of these elements, describing an ideal or even a typical correctional education program is difficult. However, the Roundtable explored some components of effective correctional education in detail, including proper student assessment and placement, well-trained teachers, appropriate use of
Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 35 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 36 of 58

technology, and effective incentive structures, all of which are discussed below. While these elements are also components of successful adult education in the community, he re we have attempted to exp lore the dynamics of each within the correctional environment.
Assessme nt and Program Place me nt
The educational programming an inca rcerated student receives should be tailored to the educational needs and objectives of that student, as we ll as the correctional system. If the goal is vocational training and employability, programming will look very different than if the objective is GED attainment or a general liberal arts education aimed at expa nding cognitive abilities. (Participation in different types of programming is not mutually exclusive, however: an incarcerated student can participate in vocational training while also attending academic courses.) Systems need to accurately screen and assess in mates, ideaJly at inta ke, and have guidelines for placing them in education and other programs that suit thei r needs. Whenever possible, programming should also be genderresponsive, culturally competent, and otherwise appropriate to students' past social and educational experiences.
Proper screening, assessment, and placement can also help ensure continuity of participation. The determination of what programming is approp riate for an incarcerated student should consider that person's anticipated incarceration length and the types offacilities in which he or she is expected to stay during the incarceration. In North Carolina, for example, a prison"s educationa l offerings are determined by the minimum length of stay in the facility. All facilities' offer some type of programming, buta matrix is used to ensure that p rograms are only provided at facilities where inmates will be able to fin ish them (Contardo and Tolbert 2008). Standardizing course curricula across facilities is another strategy fo r promoting program continUity and completion. If courses are standardized, incarcerated students may be able to pick up where they left off once they transfer to a new facility.
Assessment also helps identify and properly place individuals with learning disabilities, physical disabilities, emotional or behavioral disorders, mental health issues, or other special needs. These individuals often have d ifficulty succeeding in

EDUCATION BEHIND TH E WA ll S

Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 36 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 37 of 58

FROM THE CLASSROOM TO THE COMMUNITY

a regular classroom and may need specialized programming provided by expert instructors.12 Federal law and various legal decisions require that correctional facilities make Preasonable accommodations" to provide disabled ind ividuals with access to the same types of educational services as other inmates.13 lt can be challenging to provide specialized and individualized services, but correctional agencies have some autonomy in determining how to best meet the needs of disabled students. Special needs individuals typically enter the justice system with lower educational attainment than non-disabled individuals (Harlow 2003), and their educational needs and objectives may differ from those of othe r students. For example, the most valuable goal for someone with a severe learning disability may not be a postsecondary degree or even a GED. Assessment and proper placement will help address these issues and ensure that a\\ individuals are receiving adequate and appropriate educational services.

Assessment is essential not only for placing students into prog ramming, but also for

measuring their progress and supporting release planning. Ongoing student assess-

ment can measure the effectiveness of a facility's programs and hold both students and

instructors accountable. Assessment shortly before release

can provide individuals with information about their current

If a prison classroom offers

ability level and help them make appropriate educational

inept .. . staff and/or cu rriculum,

plans for after thei r release. Pre-release assessment also provides valuable information about the educational level of the

it inherits the hostility generated

recently released population in a community, including those on probation and parole_ Unfortunately, educational assess-

by the entire prison experience.

ment at the time of release is rare, as is the transfer of institu-

However, if it shines with

tional educational records to programs at other facilities or in the community.

competency and concem, it shines brighter than its community counterpart could possibly shine. .. . Most prisoners are desperately in need of deserving heroes. Rarely have I seen a prison instructor fu lly

Well-Trained and Well-Suppo rte d Tea che rs
The success of any educational.system ultimately rests on having well-trained, engaged teachers who are equipped with the tools needed to educate their students. Many correctional systems require their teaching staff to be formally trained and certified. The Correctional Education Association (CEA), an organization that accredits adult and juvenile correctional education systems across the country, has standards

exploit his/her capacity to

perm anently redirect a life, but the capacity is there nonetheless.
- JUDY, A STUDENT INCARCERATED IN VIRG INIA

"More information on educating incarcerated stude r;ts with disabilities is available;r; the Rour;dtable paper · Ur;derstandin.g and Responding to the Education Needsof Spet:ial Populations in Adult Corrections· (Leone eta!' 2006). I) Key legislation governing educational acooss for people with disabili. ties, including incarcerated individuals. indudes the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990), Section 504 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act (1973), and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2004) (Leone etal. 2008).

Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 37 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 38 of 58
EDUCATION BEHfND THE WALLS
that require instructors to be certified as public school teachers at a minimum.14 Even certified teachers may need additional training, however, to prepare them to address the learning needs of incarcerated adults. Incarcerated students have a wide range of ability levels and educational backgrounds, and many have had poor experiences with education in the past. The CEA and other o'rganizations offer courses that provide specific training on teaching correctional populations. IS Correctional educators may also need preparation for working with students who have learning disabilities o r other spe· cial needs, given the high prevalence of these issues among the incarcerated population. Systems can hire special education teachers who have received rigorous, specialized training, or they can train general educators in how to modify and adapt instruction for special populations. Even non·disabled students can benefit when their instructors have training in teaching to different learning styles and ability levels.
Finding talented, well-trained teachers interested in work· ing in correctional facilities can be difficult. Prisons are ohen located far from urban areas or other places with large numbers of potential instructors. The share of correctional employees devoted to education has declined over the past several years. In 1990, 4.1 percent of state and federal prison employees were classified as educational staff; by 200S that number had dropped to 2,6 percent (Klein et al. 2004; Stephan 2(08),16 Government or private initiatives might increase the pool of potential correctional educators by training teachers and providing incentives for them to work in corrections. Roundtable participant Mindy Feldbaum is currently developing an initiative to train and support a corps of correctional educators, similar to the Teach for America program (see text box).
In many systems, particUlarly those with limited resources, certified teachers are supplemented with volunteer .instructors from the community and inmate instructors and tutors. Although these individuals typically have limited training as educators, they can offer significant support to trained teachers and enhance the classroom environment. They can be particularly valuable in areas such as literacy where one·on·one tutoring has been found to be important for learning. A recent survey of state correctional systems found that some systems have more inmate tutors than paid teachers, suggesting that
" Stephen Steurer, Executive Director 01 the Correction~1 Educatiorl Associ~tion, lI·m~il communication with the authors, JanusI)' 15, 2OCfi. "For morll information orl professional development opportun ities offered by CEA, vi.it their web site at ww.v.ceanstional.org. 1. The&!! figures do not reflect the use of outside contractors or partner agencies 10 provide instruct ior. !such as instructors lrom local colleges), because these individuals are typically not counted as correctional staff. Also, the data do not distinguish between lull·time and part·time stalf.
Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 38 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 39 of 58
FROM THE CLASSROOM TO THE COMMUNITY
peer-to-peer learning is an important method of instruction in correctional dassrooms (Corrections Compendium 2008). The selective use of volunteers and inmate instructors can b e a valuable tool for expanding program capacity and compounding the retu rn on salaried instructors, but these individuals will need to receive some degree of training and may only be able to provide certain types of programming.
Whether they are trained teachers Of volunteer instructors, correctional educators need adequate materials, equipment, instructiona l tools, and space for conducting their lessons. Facility design should take program needs into consideration, and correctional administrato rs must work to ensure that teache rs have the tools and resources they need. Communication between educators and correctional administrators is critical to ensuring that both material and logistical needs are met.
Appropriate Te ch nology
In recent years, promising new computer and communications technologies have slowly been incorporated into correctional education. Multimedia content and interactive learning opportunities can now be delivered via the Internet, dosed/restricted computer networks, satellite, dosed-circuit te levision, CDs or DVDs, videotapes, or videoconferencing. Coursework using these technologies ranges from highly structured, prepackaged instruction to self-gUided, individualized, and interactive lessons. Technology holds great promise for add ressing many of the challenges of providing education in a correctional environment, such as institutional security constraints and inadequate funding and resources.l1
The incorporation of new technological applications can enhance correctional education by
III providing programs specifically geared toward incarcerated populations; D. offering customized instruction that addresses different learning styles and ability
levels, as well as special needs; Iii delivering simultaneous instruction to large numbers of students in multiple loca-
tions, saving money and staff resources; iI selVing facilities that are too isolated or have too few students to make face-to-
face programming cost-effective; III providing standardized coursework that is consistent across students and facilities; tI selVing incarcerated students who, because of their security classification or for
other reasons, C<lnnot be in cont<lct with other inm<ltes; l1!I linking students to courses being offered in the community; and II improving training programs for correctional educators.
" Mo re information on the uSe of technology in ed""ation for incarcerated populations can be found in the Roundtable paper "The Effective Use of Technology in Correctional Education - (Borden and Richardson 2008).
Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 39 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 40 of 58
EDUCATION BEHIND THE WALLS Technology is more than simply a mechanism for delivering education; using computers, the Internet, and other communications technologies can be a learning experience in and of itself. Since many incarcerated students have limited exposure to these technolog ies, any interaction with computers orthe Internet can serve as a form of vocational training. Computers and the Internet are also an increasingly essential part of the educational process itself, and both teachers and students rely heavily on these tools for seeking information, locating articles and references, and composing documents. Having technology available in correctional facilities also opens up the opportunity for computer skills classes and other technological training courses.
Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 40 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 41 of 58

FROM THE CLASSROOM TO THE COMMUNITY

Despite many potential benefits, technology can have drawbacks jf not used carefully. While exciting new technologies can be appealing, the benefits and appropriate use of CI proposed technology should be carefully considered and, if deemed effective, the application should be deliberately and purposefully integrated into the classroom. Giving the latest technology to teachers and students without any support or guidance can be overwhelming and ineffective. These individuals need training in the technology's use and time to adapt to it and integrate it into the educational process. Occasionally, teachers fear that technology will replace them or hinder their preferred instructional methods. Many educators also question whether distance learning, computer-based coursework, or other technology-driven programs can provide the sarne quality of education as face- to-face instruction. Direct guidClnce from a teacher, contact with other students, and experience working in group environments are all intangible benefits of traditional classroom instruction. Hybrid models, wherein p rograms like distance learning are combined with face-to-face classroom instruction and support, may offer a promising compromise.

Technology should serve us, not

New technologies also come with security risks, which is why

the other way around.

some correctional facilities have strongly resisted allowing Internet access to incarcerated students and even staff.

- CiNDY BORDEN AND PENNY RICHARDSON, NORTHSTAR CORRECTIONAL EDUCATION SERV ICES

Many of these security concerns can be addressed with careful planning and regulations governing access and use. Software applications such as firewalls and content filters can restrict Internet access, and clear rules and sanctions can deter misuse of technolpgy. Although the security concerns

are well-founded, there is fairly widespread agreement that

technology must be allowed into correctional facilities in

some form, given the important role computers, the Internet, and other communica-

tions technologies play in life outside the walls.

Effective Incentives
Student motivation is a key issue in any educational system, particularly in settings such as correctional facilities where many students have been discouraged by their past educational experiences. Well-designed incentive structures can encourage individuals to participate in and complete education programs. In-prison benefits, such as expanded access to visitation or commissary, and rewards such as good time credits or other forms of sentence reduction can promote participation. In Indiana, certain types of offenders are eligible to receive sentence credits for completing educational programming. with increasing time credits rewarded for higher levels of educational achievement.18 When developing incentive structures, program administrators should consider both Hcarrots" (rewards) and Hsticks W (sanctions). For example, New Mexico encourages program completion by providing good time credits in a lump sum once

," Indiana State Code, http://www.in.govlleg;slative/ic/code/tide3S1arSOlch6.html.1C35-SQ..6-3. accessed March).'), 'lJXFI.

Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 41 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 42 of 58
EDUCATION BEHIND THE WAllS
a program is comp leted but also by garnishing inmate wages to help pay the cost of a program if the student drops out (Contardo and Tolbert 2008). Not all incentives need to provide tangible benefits: awards and acknowledgement within the classroom and in special ceremonies may seem trivial but can do a great deal to keep students motivated and make them feel proud of their achievements. Program quality and classroom environment also playa role in student engagement and motivation. Participation and good behavior can also be encouraged by requiring students to sign a participation agreement andlor classroom behavior contract laying out the responsibilities of the student, the instructors, and the correctional system. Even if such contracts are not legally binding, formalizing the educational agreement can encourage a1\ sides to fonow through on their commitments. Because incentives and disincentives affect who is in the classroom and for what reasons, correctional systems should careful1y consider the incentive structures they have in place. Some systems require participation in adult basic education, GED preparation, or other courses for individuals functioning below a certain level (Crayton and Neusteter 2(08). The goal of such requirements is to ensure that all inmates reach a certain level of literacy and abilities. However, some educators have questioned the value of having students who are being forced to participate in the same classroom with more motivated students_Program administrators also need to consider disincentives that may discourage or prevent individuals from participating. Communication between educators and correctional staff helps ensure that individuals who attend classes do not miss out on perks like recreation time or commissary. Inmates may not have time for education courses b ecause they need the money or other benefits from in-prison jobs. In response, some correctional systems pay people for participation in educational programming, in some cases paying the same wage an individual would have received at an in-prison job. For example, Rikers Island Jail in New York City is experimenting with a program that pays anyone under the age of 24 to participate in educational activities (Crayton and Neusteter 2008).
Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 42 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 43 of 58
o Community
Ed ucation and Reentry
Educational opportunities should not end at the prison - walls, and programs in correctional facilities should be
viewed as a first step on an individual's larger educational path. Correctional education should build a foundation that, supplemented with reentry planning and case manage-
ment, can bring individuals real-world success in continuing education and in employ-
ment. Structures and support are needed to help individuals transition from correctional education to education in the community after r~leas.e, and partnerships and collabqrations among key agencies can help build these links. This section explores the transition from education during incarceration to education, employment, and other reentry
successes in the community.19
Promoting Ed ucatio n and Employme nt Success after Re lease
Correctional education programs should be structured with reentry in mind, laying the groundwork for students to obtain employment and/or continue their education after release. Correctional education should provide relevant skills and abilities on par with similar programs available in the community, and
\9More information on education after release is available in tf"le Roundtable paper ·Prison Postseconda'Y Education: Bridging Learning from Incarceration to the Community· by Jeanne Contardo and Michelle Tolbert (2008).
Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 43 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 44 of 58

FROM CLASSROOM TO COMMUNITY

achievement should be formally recognized via widely accepted credentials. Individuals also need support and planning during the reentry process to help them translate their in-prison education into real world success.

The challenges are ensuring that current and new p rogram cred its , certificates, and licenses are not

Program designers need to ensure that course credits, certificates, and other credentials obtained during incarceration are recognized by the broader educational community

only transferable between prisons and outside institutions, but also

as well as employers. In the realm of academic instruction, programs should provide courses that q ualify students for

in demand by [the local] business

further education (such as the GED) or that transfer to other educational institutions like community colleges and state universities. Often the more centrali~ed and standardized a correctional education system is, the more likely credits are

community.
-

GENO, A STUDENT INCARCERATED IN VIRGINIA

to transfer. Postsecondary education in New Mexico's pris-

ons, for example, follows a standardized curriculum. The

most widely available program leads to an associate's degree in general studies that

articulates to all the state's public unive rsities and forms the core curriculum for a

bachelor's degree (Contardo and Tolbert 2(08).

Vocational prog rams should also be reentry-relevant, providing skills, abilities, and certifications that will help individuals obtain good-paying, stable employment, ideally in a high-growth industry where jobs are in demand. Creating programming that is relevant to the loca l and regional job market and suitable for the incarcerated population may require analyzing labor market trends and structuring vocational training and other education programs accordingly. Correctional administrators and educators should also consider legal barriers that p revent people with criminal histories from be ing employed in certain industries (Samuels and MukamaI 2004). Continual review is important to ensure that training programs provide the most current knowledge and techniques in a fjeld. Vocational training in some facilities is geared toward outdated career paths and uses equipment' and techniques that are no longer relevant. To ensure that their educational efforts are effectively preparing students for employment, North Carolina has developed a business and industry advisory committee that advises the state on academic and vocational education for incarcerated students (Contardo and Tolbert 20(8).

Even if a strong educational foundation is laid in prison, individuals may encounter significant barriers to continuing their education or obtaining employment after release. Returning prisoners face challenges on many fronts and obtaining education and training may not be their fjrst priority as they struggle to meet their basic needs and reconnect with thei r families. Those who do pursue education or employment may have difficulty with issues as basic as finding transportation to class or a job and a stable, calm living environment in which to study and rest. Individuals need reentry p lanning and case management to help them navigate the reentry process and ensure that all the pieces are in place to support thei r employment and education endeavors. Those who are

Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 44 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 45 of 58
FROM THE CLASSROOM TO THE COMMUNITY
pursuing further education can benefit from assistance in accessing educational opportunities and obtaining funding, academic counseling and mentoring, training in study skills, and peer support. In the realm of employment, formerly incarcerated individuals often need "soft skills" training that covers such topics as arriving at work on time and communicating with superiors and colleagues in the workplace. They also need resume and interview preparation, basic computer skills, and assistance with job development and placement. Vocational and academic education must be supplemented with these types of training activities and support in order for students to reap the full benefits of their education.
One of the most difficult challenges to continuing one's education after release is funding, despite the fact that people just released from prison are often eligible for financial aid.iI:l In a recent survey of incarcerated men, funding was identified as the biggest obstacle preventing individuals from pursuing education after release (Hanneken and Dannerbeck 2007). Many people return to the community without a job or with a low-paying job, lacking savings or assets, with poor credit histories, and with a significant amount of debt from child support and criminal justice expenses. Yet education can be a valuable investment and, given their low incomes, many former prisoners qualify for need-based financial aid for postsecondary education (see text box on the next page). Unfortunately, formerly incarcerated people are often unaware of public and private funding sources that may be available for continuing their education. Additionally, some colleges have started conduding background checks and making admissions decisions based on applicants' criminal histories ·(Center for Community Alternatives 2(08). There are generally no legal protections against using criminal records in college admissions.
Partnerships to Support Reentry Success
Whether they are seeking education, employment, or both, individuals returning from prison need support and case planning to achieve their goals. Increased collaboration and communication among agencies that work with returning prisoners can enhance educational services and support for this population. For example, when correctional
""In states where postsecondary correctional education is financed in part through loans which stud"nts are required to payoff after release. lack 01 Anancial resources can also discourage individuals from participating in education programs during incarceration.
Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 45 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 46 of 58

FROM ClASSROOM TO COMMUNfT Y

1IIm,,~i.il,,~?{fP)~;~JWi'j)f";t!m."ji;(\'iii'~m;t~~;;ill'i;;;;; j ".!!

0':Jt,!,ttl": r:it.W~~tt.:t;· ,i;,'"4;",

" ' . ~;,' ,~-"

~,,-

;f.SED~,~¥ ~UN_~.glG f:~ E~UGA:~~N::.~Ft~ R_ELEA~E 1: ~ ~ ~ :;J.", :'-~c'"

I

i

·C';:

:fl~o}Jgh~iliibili~ifbr S?frtj :forrns,of;fe~~_ra l fin_anc~al;i9 f~r po~tseco~dary ~~~ca,tion: s~ch ~s P~e!' .,:

li G,ran~S"IS2fev~ kE?l::I dW' f)g' mc~Jcera,tIOn; for,the vast mflJopty of Inmat~s, e! lg l bll l ty IS relnstatea up o n ','

i, r?I_~as~.•~?s.e. Vf!~_~h.lg-refatid cSlJ~victio~s, however,_rryay ~tiH be di~ctual,if!ed from 'receivi~g fed~ "

r e ral 'fiDancla l aid for p ostseconi::lary e d ucatlqn E:ven iaftertheill-release. Drug -offenders were once

r"

~~,-f:t,e, 9", c~ompJe-'ri"lI x:,

f•~".p- m.' r"'e,c'~eivl,-n,g

• 0.:

"

a id,und er

th'7:

,
Higher

"
Ed u,c a tip n

. Ac~,

,
but the

act

was

~,'
amel]9.ed

in

t 200q ~~~pply,.?"nl~-t?j'!fiqse.inaivi9.uql~ ~hR.w7re ~~.c~iv!ng Title IV Federal financ.ial aid a~' thf? time -

>" of1h~lrd(.Ug::c.onVlt;tJdt) : .F.Q r t~es~ Indlvlddals, fed e ra l loans, grants, and work assistance a re sus-

~ p'end~d 0n.'ttrel;l9~e"of con.jictio111or varying lengths of time, depending on the type of offense'and

l""

w, Heth~

r

i' t;,iisl"a.,'r..e.

p

,"
ea

,
t

• I
offense.

•" '
However,

a

, J
pers,oo

conv it t e d

of

a

d rug-related

-
offense

may

have

Mis

~·~cb;opmepfi!eelt~e~li>.b~piVe~p•.ffbe~qf~FdY¢p~e~1'9futrsi~u ibn,~sgl~~ne.c.ei~~;.~b\.ut,~~~b;eat:9~are$m~enet-eann9d.osu{ctche:sssf~uslplye, npsaiso~~espetw~ioc:dulnahnen:oOu~ nscbeed-

(~~fI ~EJ~~'Jti~,t~i~tY~~rJi?~n~iat~i? :Pay.~I~o. be rel.n?~~ed if t~~conviction 'is.: r:vers~d, se~asid~,

r, qr '_Q,:ttLervtJ~:repea l ed :.'W.B!le;!he ~lsqualJ fIc.;"tlon o f mdivlduals w,ho w~Je re~elv l.n g fe d era l fi nanCial

r icf--a\'itlie:tiwe bf tH~ir"drug ,c6:nYid,oo,on!y affed~ a smal l nJmberof f9!me.r pri;oners, confusion rj~

< " · su~r~ur;drn:l-!-'ths~lic!-~o~~~'4i;~otJ~age·tel'i,g'i81eindiv'c!u91~fr~rfiapp!ying. 1 ." _

,I

1 ij: °t ~f~ur~:.: D~n;~~~~; D~~;.~"n~~ft~~ib~~n,.~maill~~r~~.~~C;!i~~_~~~~ ..., - .~.'.,I~,-,

r'"~,.'=-~i:o:f4''t·:!":--r,,,:~.,~-j,j,:,t1, ~~,i!f:','"';:~'•!•r:,

- '1~· ' l(ii, .,,,,~hq~ .i

'~-',(,'t

r
.• ,;,;

.'.<

+

W _

~' h

e.

, ) ,~;<.,
~~~hors, ,~.ec:.mber

1

2.d1.~..-,;8_.,.'

= , = .. gt:l \IQlC...

"""""""'_ &"" " ,= 1 :=3

" i i t i _.-":== . i i

_ ~1 •• ie . . t. . . ..

; •
'.'
i
JJl'%

educators have information about what happens to their students after release, they can gauge whether their methods are being successful and how they might better prepa re their students for reentry. They can also work to link their students to opportunities in the community and design their programs to help facilitate the transition process.

Partnerships between corrections, community supe rvision, service providers, educational institutions, and employers can strengthen correctional and community education programs and create links between incarceration and the community. Collaborations are particularly valuable for providing multimodal programs that add ress individual's multiple interrelated reentry needs, from employment and education to physical and mental health, substance abuse treatment, stable housing, and family reconnection, Innovative programs such as education release (similar to work release) inside facil · ities and education-focused transition al hou sing after release can help create bridges between incarceration and education in the community. Partnerships li ke North Carolina's business and industry advisory committee not only bring the expertise of employers into the design of correctional education, they also build buy-in among employe rs ;md interest in hiring fo rmer r>r1son~rs f>rluc >'lt~d in thf> ~y~tem Multi-agency collaborations like the ones described above also he lp ensure that all partners are working toward a common goal; for example, that stringent supervision requirements are not getting in the way of individuals attending class_

Local jails are both uniquely suited for and in need of community partnerships (Solomon et al. 2(X)8). Because jails are located close to the communities where inmates live, they have promising opportunities to build connections with local educa tors, employers, ser-

Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 46 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 47 of 58
FROM THE CLASSROOM TO TH E COMMUNITY vice providers, and other key partners. Jails have a strong need for these partnerships because their inmate population transitions rapidly and many individuals only stay for a short time, making the provision of meaningful educational opportunities within the jail difficult. Partnershi"ps with community educational institutions might take the form of programs where jail inmates start their coursework during incarceration and transition into a comparable program after release, or ~education release~ programs where inmates are permitted to leave the jail during their incarceration to receive education in the community. For some jail inmates whose incarceration is likely to be very short. the most appropriate role for the jail may be to assess their educational needs and connect them with appropriate community agencies so they can continue their education upon release. Just as jails benefit from their proximity to the local community, community colleges are ideally suited for collaborations with the criminal justice system to educate current and former prisoners (Contardo and Tolbert 2008; U.S. Department of Education 2(09). They have an explicit goal of providing education to everyone in a community, including nontraditional students and populations that are underserved by other institutions of higher education. Their classes cost less than many other institutions, and their course offerings are often flexible and responsive to student and community needs. Community colleges are, by definition, "uniquely situated within local communities~ and have connections to employers, service providers, and others who shou ld be engaged in the reentry process (Contardo and Tolbert 2(08). Partnerships between correctional systems and community colleges can also benefit the colleges, as the funds they receive for providing correctional education can help them develop and expand their program offerings. Community colleges across the country are already strongly engaged in correctional education: they provide 68 percent of all postsecondary education behind bars (Institute for Higher Education Policy 2005).
Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 47 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 48 of 58

Conclusion

People lrom all walks 01 i;le pursue education lor much the same reason: because it provides opportunity-

the opportunity for self-improvement, a better life,
and the means to provide for oneself and one's family. That this opportunity should be available to all has been a longstanding American ideal, as

In a country where second chances and opportunity are professed values, democratic

demonstrated by the development of the country's

access to high-quality higher

public education system, the dedication of government and private funding for higher education, and even the provision of education programs in correctional facilities. Unfortunately, the country's commitment to public education has not always

education must include access for people in prison and people who have been convicted of crimes. We cannot bar the most

been fulfilled, particularly for low-income people,

vulnerable people from the very

people of color, and those involved in the criminal justice system. The lack offormal education among the incarcerated population is rooted in a much

thing that has the greatest potential to change their lives.

larger failure of the public education system in communities across the country, a failure that limits

- VIVIAN NIXON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COLLEGE AND COMMUNtr{ FELLOWSHIP

Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 48 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 49 of 58

FROM THE CLASSROOM TO THE COMMUNITY

Education for current and former prisoners is a cost-effective solution to reducing reoffending and improving public safety. The effect of education on recidivism has been well-demonstrated, and even small reductions in reoffending can have a significant impact when spread across large numbers of participants.
- GERRY GAES, VISITING RESEARCHER, COUEGE OF CRIMINOLOGY AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE, FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

the economic, political, and social opportunities
available to people in these communities. For many
individuals, even at the start of the 21st century, the
tremendous transformative power of education
remains out of reach.
The importance of access to high-quality education for incarcerated and formerly incarcerated people has once again garnered attention as part of a larger conversation on strategies for addressing the social and financial challenges caused by mass incarceration and prisoner reentry. The conversations at the Reentry Roundtable on Education made it dear that education can playa crucial role in rehabilitation and reintegration for people who are or have been incarcerated. Research demonstrates that education can change thinking, encourage pro-social behavior, increase employment, and reduce recidivism. Education's power to transform lives in both tangible and intangible ways makes itone of the most valuable and effective tools we may have for helping people rebuild their lives after incarceration, as well as for combating crime and redUCing criminal justice costs.

While providing education within correctional facilities is challenging, education programs can flourish within prisons and jails when dedicated educators are equipped with the necessary resources and are supported by correctional administrators and staff. There is still a great deal to learn about what program models work and what instructional methods, staff training and qualifications, technology applications, participation incentives and other program·components are effective for different types of students. There is also work to be done in developing models for providing education during and after reentry and ensuring that education does not stop at the prison walls. Individuals need planning and support to guarantee that the education they receive during incarceration translates into reentry success, employment, and especially opportunities for further education after release. Despite these challenges, the Roundtable demonstrated that there are individuals, from correctional administrators to reentry advocates to researchers, who believe in correctional education and are working to expand and improve it.

The Roundtable was meant to serve as a starting point for conversation and collaboration, and the discussion explored ideas fo r moving forward on several fronts. Participants highlighted the need to convince correctional administrators, policymakers, and the public that education is a sound investment that can reduce costs, enhance security and improve behavior within facilities, and produce positive outcomes after release. They suggested that the field has more to learn about how best

Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 49 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 50 of 58

to educate adults involved in the criminal justice system and how to support individua ls in shaping their own educational pathways. Roundtable participants focused on the importance of equipping educators witn the tools they need and working with them to develop innovative strategies for providing education within prisons and in the community. Perhaps most importantly, participants emphasized the value of building partnerships across the board: between the worlds of education and corrections; between programs within facilities and those on the outside; and between policymakers, researchers, advocates, and practitioners. While more work remains to be done, the authors hope that the Roundtable and this monograph will inform and influence future efforts in the fie ld of correctional education.

CONCLUSION

Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 50 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 51 of 58
References
Andrews, Don, and James Bonta. 2003. The Psychology ofCriminal Conduct. 4th ed. Cincinnati,
OH: Anderson Publishing.
Aos, Steve, Marna Miller, and Elizabeth Drake. 2006. Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to Reduce Future Prison Construction, Criminal Justice Costs, and Crime Rates. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
Batiuk, Mary Ellen, Paul Moke, and Pamela Wilcox Rountree. 1997. ·Crime and Rehabilitation: Correctional Education as an Agent of Change. · Justice Quarterly 14:167--80,
Bernstein, Jared, and Ellen Houston. 2OIXI. Crime and Work: What We Can learn (rom the LowWage Labor Market. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
Sonaar, Thomas P. 1997. Characteristics ofAdults on Probation, 1995. NCJ 164267. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Borden, Cindy, and Penny Richardson. 2008. "The Effective Use of Technology in Correctional Education." Paper presented at the Reentry Roundtable on Education, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, March 31.
Cecil, Dawn, Oaniella A. Drapkin, Doris L MacKenzie, and Laura J . Hickman. 2OXl. "The Effectiveness of Adult Basic Education and Life-Skilts Programs in Reducing Recidivism: A Review and Assessment of the Research." Journal ofCorrectional Education 51(2): 207-26.
Center for Community Altematives and National H.I.R.E. Network. 2008. Closing the Doors to Higher Education: Another Collateral Consequence of a Criminal Conviction. Syracuse, NY: Center for Community Alternatives. http://~.communityaltematives . orglpdf/HigherEd. pc!f
Chappell, Cathryn A. 2004. "Post-Secondary Correctional Education and Recidivism: A MetaAnalysis of Research Conducted 1990-17'19." Journal of Correctional Education 55(2): 148-69.
Cho, Rosa, and John Tyler. 2008. "Prison-Based Adult Basic Education (ABE) and Post-Release labor Market Outcomes." Paper presented at the Reentry Roundtable on Education, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, April 1.
Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 51 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 52 of 58

Coley, Richard J., and Paul E. Barton. 2006. Locked Up and Locked Out: An Educational Perspective on the U.s. Prison Population_ Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing SelVices.
Comings, John P., Lisa Soricone, and Maricel Santos. 2006. An Evidence~Based Adult Education Program Model Appropriate for Research. Cambridge, MA: National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and uteracy. http://WWN.ncsall.netifileadmin/resources/research/ op_comings4.pdf.
Contardo, Jeanne, and Michelle Tolbert. 2008. "Prison Postsecondary Education: Bridging Learning from Incarceration to the Community_· Paper presented at the Reentry Roundtable on Education, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, April 1.
Corrections Compendium. 2(X)8 . ~Inmate Education Programs." Corrections Compendium 33(3): 9- 25.
Crayton, Anna, and SUlanne Rebecca Neusteter, 2008. "The Current State of Correctional Education. " Paper presented at the Reentry Roundtable on Education, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, March 31 .
Decker, Paul T., Jennifer King Rice, Mary T. Moore, and Mary R. Rollefson. 1997. Education and the Economy: An Indicators Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,
Erisman, Wendy, and Jeanne B. Contardo. 2005. Learning to Reduce Recidivism: A 50·State Analysis ofPostsecondary Correctional Education Policy. Washington, DC: The Institute for Higher Education Policy.
Fine, Michelle, Maria Elena Torre, Kathy Boudin, Iris Bowen, Judith Clark, Donna Hylton, Migdalia "Missy~ Martinel, Rosemarie A. Roberts, Pamela Smart, and Debora Upegui. 2001, Changing: The Impact of College in a Maximum-Security Prison, New York: The Graduate Research Center of the City University of New York.
Foglia, Wanda D. 2O.Xl. "Adding an Explicit Focus on Cognition to Criminological Theory." In The Science, Treatment, and Prevention of Antisocial Behaviors: Application to the Criminal Justice System, edited by Diana H. Fishbein (10-1-10-25). Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute, Inc.
Gaes, Gerald G. 2008. ~The Impact of Prison Education Programs on Post-Release Outcomes. " Paper presented at the Reentry Roundtable on Education, John Jay CoUege of Criminal Justice, New York, March 31.
Gehring, Thorn. 1997. "Post-Secondary Education for Inmates: An Historical Inquiry. " Journal of Correctional Education 48(2): 46-55.
Gerber, Jurg, and Eric J. Fritsch. 1995. "Adult Academic and Vocational Correctional Education Programs: A ReviewofRacent Research.~ Journal ofOffender Rehabilitation 22(112): 119-42.
Giancola, PeterR. 2CKlO. "Neuropsychological Functioning and Antisocial Behavior: Implications for Etiology and Prevention. ~ In The Science, Treatment, and Prevention of Antisocial Behaviors: Application to the Criminal Justice System, edited by Diana H. Fishbein (11-1 - 11-16). Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute, Inc.
Greenberg, Elilabeth, Eric Dunleavy, and Mark Kutner. 2007. literacy behind Bars: Results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult u!eracy Prison Survey. Washington. DC: National Center for Education Stat istics.

REFERENC ES

Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 52 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 53 of 58
FROM THE ClASSROOM TO THE COMMUNITY
Grogger, Jeff. 1998. "Market Wages and Youth Crime." Journal ofLabor Economics 16(4): 756-91. Hanneken, Daniel, and Anne Dannerbeck. 2f1J7. "Addressing Offenders' Educational Oppor-
tunities and Challenges." Corrections Compendium 32(2): 1-4, 37. Hare r, Miles D. 1994. Recidivism of Federal Prisoners Released in 1987. Washington, DC:
Federal Bureau of Prisons, Office of Research and Evaluation. ---.1995. "Recidivism among Federal Prisoners Released in 1987." Journal of Correctional
Education 46:98-127. Harlow, Caroline W. 2003. Education and Correctional Populations. NCJ 195670. Washington,
DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Hartney, Christopher. 2OJ6. "Youth under 18 in the Adult Criminal Justice System." Fact sheet.
Washington, DC: National Council on Crime and Delinquency. Holzer, Harry J., and Demetra Smith Nightingale. '2f1J7. Reshaping the American Workforce in
a Changing Economy. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press. Hrabowski, Freeman A., and Jeremy Robbi. 2002. "The Benefits of Correctional Education."
Journal of Correctional Education S3(3): 96-99. Hughes, TImot hy, Doris Wilson, and Allen Beck. 2001. Trends in State Parole, 1990-20fXJ.
Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Institute for Higher Education Policy. 2005. The Investment Payoff: A SO-State Analysis of the
Public and Private Benefits of Higher Education. Washington, DC: Institu te for Higher Education Policy. Isaacs, Julia B., Isabel V. Sawhill, and Ron Haskins. 2008. Getting Ahead or Losing Ground: Economic Mobility in America. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. James, DorisJ. 2004. Profile ofJail Inmates, 2002. NCJ 201932. Washington, DC: Bureau ofJustice Statistics. Jancic, Mitchell 1998. "Does Correctional Education Have an Effect on Recidivismr Journal of Correctional Education 49(4): 152-61. Jensen, Eric L, and Gary E. Reed. 2OJ6. "Adult Correctional Education Programs: An Update on Current Status Based on Recent Studies.· Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 44(1): 81-98. Klein, Stephen, Michelle Tolbert, Rosio Burgarin, Emily F. Cataldi, and Gina Tauschek. 2004. Correctional Education: Assessing the Status of Prison Programs and Informacion Needs. Berkeley, CA: MPR Associates. Inc . Krezmien, Michael P., Candace A. Mulcahy, and Peter E. Leone. 2008. "Detained and Committed Youth: Examining Differences in Achievement, Mental Health Needs, and Special Education Status." Education and Treatment of Children 31(4): 445-64. La Vigne, Nancy, Jake Cowan, and Diana Brazzell. 20:16. M"pping Prisoner Reentry: An Action Research Guidebook. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: The Urban Insti tute. Langan, Patrick A., and David J. Levin. 2002. "Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994." NCJ 193427. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Leone, Peter E., Michael Wilson, and Michael P. Krezmien. 2008, "Understanding and Responding to the Education Needs of Special Populations in Adult Corrections." Paper pre-
Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 53 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 54 of 58

sented at the Reentry Roundtable on Education, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New

York,April1.

.

Lynch, James P., and William J. Sabol. 2001. Prisoner Reentry in Perspective. Crime Policy Report 3. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

MacKenzie, Doris L 2008. "Structure and Components of Successful Educational Programs.N Paper presented at the Reentry Roundtable on Education, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, March 31.

Mauer, Mark, and Ryan S. King. 2007 . Uneven Justice: State Rates of Incarceration by Race and Ethnicity. Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project.

McGlone, Jerry. 2002. Status of Mandatory Education in State Correctional Institutions. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

McKay, Heather, Mary Murphree, Bryn Herrschaft. and Patrice Morris. 2008. Raising the Bars: Early Findings from the Prison to Community Project. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, Center for Women and Work and Sloan Center on tnnovative Training and Workforce Development.

The Pew Charitable Trusts. 2008. One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008. Philadelphia, PA: The Pew Center on the States, Public Safety Performance Project.

Sampson, Robert J., and John L Laub. 1997. "A Ufe,Course Theory of Cumulative Disadvantage and the Stability of Delinquency." Advances in Criminological Theory 7:133-61.

Samuels, Paul. and Deborah Mukamal. 2004. After Prison: Roadblocks to Reentry: A Report on State Legal Barriers Facing People with Criminal Records. New Yorlc Legal Action Center.

Singapore Prison SeJVice. n.d. "Kaki Bukit Centre (Prison Schoo~." Video presented at the Reentry Roundtable on Education, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York. March 31.

Solomon, Amy L, JennyW. L Osborne, Stefan F. LoBuglio, Jeff Mellow, and DebbieA. Mukamal. 20)8. life after Lockup: Improving ReentryfromJail to the Community. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Spangenberg, Gail. 2004. Cvrrent Issues in Correctional Education: A Compilation and Discussion. Washington, DC: Council for Advancement of Adult literacy.

Spellings, Margaret. 2007. "Secretary Spellings Delivers Remarks at Boston Higher Education Summit. d Press release. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education.

Stephan, James J . 2001 . Census ofJails, 1999. NCJ186633. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

- -- . 2008. Census ofState and FecieralCorrectional Facilities, 2005. NCJ 222182. Washington, DC: Bureau ofJustice Statistics.

Stephan, James J., and Jennifer C. Karberg. 2003. Censvs of State and Federal Correctional
Facilities, 2000. NCJ 198272. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Taylor, Jon M. 1992. "Post-Secondary Correctional Education: An Evaluation of Effectiveness and Efficiency. " Journal ofCorrectional Education 43(3): 132-41.

Tewksbu'Y, Richard, David John Ericson, and Jon Marc Taylor. 2000. "Opportunities Lost: The Consequences of Eliminating Pelf Grant Eligibility for Correctional Education Students." Journal ofOffender Rehabilitation 31(1/2): 43-56.

REF ERENC ES

Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 54 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 55 of 58
FROM THE CLASSROOM TO THE COMMUNITY Tolbert, Michelle. 2002. State Correctional Education Programs: State Policy Update, No. EOOl P00319. Washington, DC: National Institute for literacy. Travis, Jeremy. 2005. But They All Come Back: Facing the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry. Washington, DC: Urban Institut e Press. Uggen, Christopher. 2{XXl ·W9rk as a Turning Point in the life Course of Criminals: A Duration Model of Age, Employment, and Recidivism." American SOCiological Review65:529-46. U.S. Department of Education. 2fXfi. Partnerships between Community Col/eges and Prisons: Providing Workforce Education and Training to Reduce Recidivism. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education. Vacca, James S. 2004. "Educated Prisoners Are Less likely to Return to Prison." Journal of Correctional Education 55(4); 297-305, Vlsher, Christy, Sara Debus, andJenniferYahner. 2008. Employment after Prison: A Longitudinal Study of Releasees in Three States. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. West, Heather C, and William J. Sabol. 2008. Prisoners in 2007. NCJ 224280. Washington. DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Western, Bruce. 2006. Punishment and Inequality inAmerica. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. - - - . 2fXJ7. "The Penal System and the Labor Markel" In Barriers to Reentry? The labor Market for Released Prisoners in Postindustrial America, edited by Shawn Bushway, Michael A. Stoll, and David F. Weiman (335-59). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Wilson, David, Catherine A. Gallagher, and Doris L Mackenzie. 2(XX). "A Meta-Analysis of Corrections-Based Education, Vocation, and Work Programs for Adult Offenders_" Journal of Research on Crime and Delinquency 37(4): 347-68. Winterfield, Laura, Mark Coggeshall, Michelle Burke-Storer, Vanessa Correa, and Simon Tidd. Forthcoming. "The Effects of Post-Secondary Correctional Education. H Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 55 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 56 of 58
t the Autho rs
DIANA BRAZZEll is a research associate in the Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute. Ms. Brazzell is involved in several research projects on topics including reentry from prison and jail to the community, the impact of incarceration on families and communities, faith-based programming in criminal jus-
tice, and the use of mapping to improve the understanding of justice issues. ANNA CRAYTON is the deputy director of research of the Prisoner Reentry Institute at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Ms. Crayton has worked on a number of projects pertaining to sentencing, corrections, and reentry, including the development of a national resource guide to assist individuals in planning for their education upon release from prison and a quantitative analysis of the effects of long-term incarceration on reentry. Additionally, she is a candidate for a doctoral degree in criminal justice at the City University of New York Graduate Center. DEBBIE A. MUKAMAL is the founding director of the Prisoner Reentry Institute at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. She is responsible for overseeing all the Institute's projects including the design and implementation of an innovative neighborhood-based reentry service initiative and the development of research and effective tools in the areas of entrepreneurship, education, long-term incarceration, and reentry from local jails. Before joining John Jay College, Ms. Mukamal served as the director of the National H.I.R.E. Network and a staff attorney at the Legal Action Center, where her work focused on the collateral consequences of criminal records. AMY SOLOMON is a senior research associate in the Urban Institute's Justice Policy Center. Ms. Solomon has worked in the criminal justice field for 20 years, in federal government state corrections, and nonprofit organizations. She currently directs projects on prisoner reentry, including t ransition from local jails, community supervision, and innovative reentry practices at the neighborhood level. Ms. Solomon serves on several national criminal justice advisory boards and has published extensively in the area of prisoner reentry.
Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 56 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 57 of 58
FROM THE CLASSROOM TO THE COMMUNITY NICOLE LINDAHL is a graduate student in jurisprudence and social policy at the University of California, Berkeley. Previously, she se rved as assistant director of the Prisoner Reentry Institute at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, where she developed p rojects facilitating entrepreneurship and education for currently and formerly incarcerated individuals. She also served as program director and an English instructor forthe Prison University Project, which operates the College Program at San Quentin State Prison in California.
Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 57 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 58 of 58

•• • gg - , s.•

, \ i.

11# '~m eN h l w r

i! ' t , .!it 4ft •. ' "•

os M!lU#44i! HI! , ~

THE URBAN INSTITUTE
2100 M Street, NW Wash ington, DC 20037
Pho ne: 202.833.7200 E-mai l: paffa irs@ uLurba n.o rg http://www. urba n.o rg

JO HN JAY C OU EGE OF ClUMINAL JUSTICE
Pri so ne r Reent ry In s tit ute 555 W. 57th Street, Roo m 601 New York, NY 10019
h ttp://www.jjay.cuny.ed u

Ex 13 to Chamberlain Dec, pg. 58 of 58

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 1 of 63

EXHIBIT 14
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

9I7Q,(JS f&246)04

Ex 22 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 1 of 4

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 2 of 63

M AcDoNALD H OACUE & BAYLESS
101loo N''' ....0 COUN"lOlS AT ,loW

705 SIICOrKI Avenue
5uite 1500
Seattle. Washington 9811)4·1745
Tel 206.612.1604 Fa~ 206.343.3961

VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL
Sarah Hanson Columbia County Counsel 230 Strand Street St. Helens. OR 9705 1

January 13, 2012

Alec Bayless (192.1-1991) Frards Hoague (1909·1993)
Kenneth A. MacDonald Retired
Miguel A. Bocanegra Andrea Brenneke Katherine C. Chambe~ain Andrew T. Cilan Mel Crawford Tmothy K. Ford Kal~n E. Frank Felicia L Gittleman Este. Greenflllid Elizabeth Poll Amy M. Roya\ly Josepll R. Shaeffer Oavid J. Whedbe e Jesse Wing

sarah.h allson@,co.columbia.or.us

Re: Prison Legal News v. Columbia County et. al.

Dear Ms. Hanson:

We represen~ Prison Legal News (pLN), a publisher and book distributor. Marc Blackman of Ransom Blackman LLP is our local counsel.

Attacbed is a courtesy copy of tbe Complaint that PLN filed in federal court today, challenging Columbia County Jail's postcard-only mail policy, its no-magazines policy, and its failure to afford due process to PLN and others-in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments ofllie United States Constitution. As set forth in the Complaint, the Jail censors PLN's monthly publications and other mail sent to detainees at the jai l and fails to provide adequate due process notice or an opportunity to be heard to challenge its censorship decisions. Please let us know if you are authorized to accept service of the Summons and Complaint.

By resorting to litigation, PLN seeks the assistance oftbe Federal Judiciary to ensure that the Jail's unconstitutional policy is pennanently abrogated. Because that policy as it presently exists results in on~going unconstitutional censorship of mail and denial of due process, PLN intends to file a Motion for Preliminary Injunction unless Defendants stipUlate to appropriate relief. Our motion for preliminary injunction will be accompanied by conclusive evidence that the censorship and denial of due process as alleged in the Complaint have occurred. Attached is' a copy of the Consent Decree we obtained in Prison Legal News v. Spokane County et. ai. involving a substantially similar mail pOlicy. The Consent Decree includes citation to relevant case law. Also attached is a proposed preliminary injunction. In accordance with Local Rule 7lea), we will call you on Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at W;30am to discuss the preliminary

mons 10132201

Ex 22 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 2 of 4

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 3 of 63
Sarah Hanson Columbia County Counsel January 13, 2011 Page 2
injunction. If you are not available at that time, please let us know and propose another day and time next week for a telephone conference. Time is of the essence.
Our client's goal remains the implementation of a judicially enforceable, constitutional mail policy at the Columbia County Jail.lfthe County is interested in avoiding a costly- and what we truly believe will prove to be a losing---defense. PLN is willing to resolve this case promptly by a stipulated consent decree that imposes a permanent injunction establishing a constitutional mail policy, payment of damages for the unconstitutional censorship of mail and denial of due process that has existed since 2010, and the payment of attorney fees, and costs incurred to date by PLN.
We look forward to speaking with you about this promptly. Sincerely, MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS
Ch~e;la0
atherine C.
Enclosures cc: Client
Marc Blackman, Local Counsel

• J
"
I '~' ....

,..... ',,;','. " "!" " ';",
_ ' __ ~":'_:-"'-'-'''':&j,,' --'-'-'-

",-. ''""''''''
Ex 22 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 3 of 4

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 4 of 63

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNlTED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

8

PORTLAND DMSION

9 PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project ofthe HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,
10 Plaintiff,
11 v.
12 COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA
13 COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF DICKERSON,
14 Defendants.
15

No.
STll'ULATION AND (PROPOSED) PRELIMlNARY INJUNCTION

16

17

COME NOW the parties and request entry of the following STIPULATION and

18 PRELIMlNARY INJUNCTION:

19

I. On April 1,20 10, tbe Columbia County Jail adopted and implemented mail

20 po1icies and procedures requiring all incoming and outgoing mail to be on a postcard and

21 banning all magazines from the facil ity. The mail policy does not require the Jail to provide the

22 correspondents and prisoners due process notice or an opportunity to be heard to challenge tbe

23 censorship decisions.

24

2. On January 13,2012, PiaintiffPrison Legal News filed a lawsuit alleging that the

2S Jail rejected mail Plaintiff and others sent to certain prisoners at the Columbia County Jail, and

26 claiming that the Jail's mail policies violate the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of

27 the Fourteentb Amendment oftbe United States Constitution.

(pROPOSED) PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 1
9110.0J I..OU201

MAcD ONALD HOAGUt: & BAYLESS 705 Sco;:ond Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Wasbington 98104
Tel206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3%1
Ex 22 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 4 of 4

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 5 of 63

1

3. Plaintiff is likely to prevail on the merits of its claims that Defendants' policies

2 prohibiting correspondence by mail other than in the form of postcards and prohibiting delivery

3 of catalogs and magazines violates tbe First Amendment and that denying Plaintiff, prisoners,

4 and their correspondents procedural due process violates tbe Fourteenth Amendment.

5

4. Plaintiff and its correspondents will suffer irreparable hann in the absence of the

6 Court entering this injunction because enforcement of Defendants' policies and practices will

7 likely interfere with Plaintiffs protected free speecb---namely, Plaintiffs journals, book

8 catalogs, infonnational brochures, and letters, mailed to prisoners at the Columbia County Jail-

9 without affording Plaintiff and its correspondents due process, resulting in hann to their

10 constitutional rights.

11

5. The balance of equities favors the Plaintiff, in that its constituti onal rights to

12 expression and due process will likely be hanned in the absence of an injunction whereas the

13 claimed effect on Defendants of granting preliminary relief is not substantial.

14

6. The public interest is served by the entry of an injunction that prevents likely

15 violations of constitutional rigbts protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments pending

16 resolution oftbis lawsuit.

17

ACCORDINGLY, the COURT HEREBY ORDERS that for the duration of the

18 Plaintiff's lawsuit Defendants are enjoined:

19

(1) from censoring or rejecting mail on the ground that it is not in the fonn of a

20 postcard;

21

(2) from censoring or rejecting catalogs on the ground that it is a catalog or not a

22 postcard;

23

(3) from censoring or rejecting mail on tbe ground that it is a magazine; and

24

(4) from denying due process to prisoners and their correspondents when rejecting

25 mail; specifically. for each piece of mail that Defendants censor or reject, the Defendants must

26 give written notice to the sender and addressee oftbe following:

27

(pROPOSED) PRELIMINARY INJUNCf10N - 2
~7MI f00ll2201

MACDON"LI) 1I0AGlJE & BAYLESS 70S Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961
Ex 22 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 5 of 4

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 6 of 63

I

(a) The identity of the mail censored or rej ected, described in sufficient detail

2

that the mai l can be matched to the mail rejection notices sent the sender and addressee.

3

(b) Each specific reason the mail was censored or rejected, described in

4

sufficient detail that the sender can cure or challenge it;

5

(c) The identity and substance of any mail policy on which the Defendants

6

rely as a justification for the censorship or rejection;

7

(d) The sender or addressee's rights to appeal the censorship or rejection,

S

including the person's name and .title to which an appeal may be submitted, any

9

requirements ofwbat must be contained in an appeal, any deadlines or timeframes for

to

appeal, and a timeframe by which the Defendants w ill issue a decision on the appeal.

II

12 ITIS SO ORDERED.

I3

DATED this _ _ _ of January, 20 12.

14

15
16 PRESENTED BY:
17

Hon. Michael H. Simon United States D istrict Court Judge

IS MacDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS
19
By:
20 Kaili~enn2·~e~C~.C~hLa~m~b~e~rl~a~in~,'O"S~B~#""04"2~5~S~0---KatherineC@rnhb.com
2 1 Attorney for Plaintiff
22
RANSOM BLACKMAN LLP 23

24 By:
Marc"D".'B"I"ac"km=a=n""C,O""SBD;;#c7"3"03"3"S,-- - - --
25 marc@ransomblac1cman.com
Attorney for P laintiff
26

27

(pROPOSED) PRELfM1NARY INJUNCfION - 3
9$10.05 foOSl Ull

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS
70S S~cond Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle Wasbington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961
Ex 22 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 6 of 4

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 7 of 63

I COLUMBIA COUNTY COUNSEL 2
By:
3 Sarah Hanson, OSB # 9836 18 sarah.hanson@co.columbia.or.us
4 Attorney for Defendants 5 6 7 8 9 10
II
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
(PROPOSED)PRELIMlNARY INJUNCflON - 4
9UO,05 1iOU201

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYl.&SS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seallle Washington 98 104
Tel206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961
Ex 22 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 7 of 4

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 8 of 63

EXHIBIT 15
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

9110.05 f.t246j04

Ex 15 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 1 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 9 of 63

Katherine C. Chamberlain

Fro m: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Katherine C. Chamberlain Tuesday, January 17, 2012 12: 26 PM 'Sarah Hanson'; Jennifer King Jesse Wing; 'Marc Blackman' ; Katherine C. Chamberlain RE: FW: PLN v. Columbia County , et al. - USDC District of OR Cause No.

Dea r Ms. Hanson:
Thank you for your email. We are available at 2pm on Thursday 1/19. We will give you a call th en.
Sincerely, Katie

Katherine C. Chamberlain MacDonald Ho ague & Bayless 705 Second Avenu e, Su ite 1500 Seattle, WA 98104 206.622.1604 I Fax 206.343.3961
katherinec@mhb.com I www.mhb.com
Check out OUt new website at MHB.com
ThiS email Is Intended only for the indlvidual(s) to whom It is addressed and It may ~ a confidential commun ication protected by la w. Any unauthorized use, dissemination, distnbutlon, disclosure, or copyin g Is prohibited. If you have received t his communication In erro r, please notify me immediately by return emall and delete t his message (rom you r system.

From: Sarah Hanson [mailto:Sarah.Hanson@co.columbia.or.us] Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 12:10 PM To: Jennifer King Cc: Jesse Wing; Katherine C. Chamberlain Subject: Re: FW: PLN v. Columbia County, et al. - USDC District of OR Cause No.
Ms. King:
I am not available tomorrow at 10:30. I am available Thursday, 1/19 at 2:00.
Office of County Counsel 230 Strand, Room 318 st. Helens, Oregon 97051 503-397-3839 503-366-3925 (fax)
Beginning July 11, 2011, my office hours are Monday through Thursday 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m .

»> Jennifer King <JenniferK@MHB.com > 1/17/ 2012 10:48 AM »> This letter wa s sent out on Friday, but we received a "und eliverable" message that evening after the office closed. I am re-sending this to you in hopes it is delivered this time.
Thank you.

1

Ex 15 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 2 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 10 of 63
Jenn ifer D. Ki n g I Lega l Assistant MacDonald Hoague & Bayless 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, WA 98104
fir 206.622 .1604 I Fax 206.343.3961 121 jenniferk@ m h b. com I www.mhb .com
ThiS email Is Intended only for the Individual(s) to whom It Is addressed and It maybe a confidential communication protected by law. Any unauthorized use, dissemination, distrib ution, disclosure, or copying is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify me Immediately by return email and delete t his message (rom your system.
From : Jennifer King Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 3:22 PM To: sarah.hanson@columbia.or.us Cc: marc@ransomblackman.com; pat@ransomblackman.com; Katherine C. Chamberlain; Jesse Wing; carrie Wilkinson; Kara McBride; Brina M. Carranza Subj ect: PLN v. Columbia County, et al. ~ USDC District of OR Cause No.
Please see attached letter from Katie Chamberlain and Jesse Wing. The original will follow by mail.
Jennifer D. King I Legal Assistant
MacDonald Hoague & Bayless 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, WA 98104
lit 206.622.1604 I Fax 206.343.3961 121 jennif erk@mhb. com I www.mhb.com
This email is intended only for the Individual(s) to whom it is addressed and It mity be a confidential communication protected by law. Any unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, disclosure, or copying Is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by ret urn email and delet e this messa ge from your system.

2

Ex 15 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 3 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 11 of 63

EXHIBIT 16
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

98X1.0S fa246.l04

Ex 16 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 1 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 12 of 63

Jan. 19. 20 12 4:35PM county counsel

No. 0503 P.

OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL
Columbia County Counhousc'9-230Slrand, noom )i8'¢"S(. Helens, OR 97051 -2096 503.397.3839 ¢' 503.366.)925 (Fax),¢, ~ww.w.col\lmbja.or,\IS

SAUAH HANSON
Coumy Counsel
!.r~h.h.nSOIl@co.(olu rnbi~.or. u!

RODIN ROJAS MCiNTYllE. A" isl.nl County Coun.d
cobjn.mc;nqrrC@co.colun,bi~."r . u.

CYNTH,.... ZEMAITIS
Paralegal J N~tlltRl Rt.$ou fee Admini,t(;ltor
eynlh;a.zetn"itl,@<;o.collJmb i ~.ot.us

FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION

To: Date : f'rom:

Katie Chamberlain
January 19, 2011
Cynthia Zemaitis, Paralegal I NaturaL
Resources Administrator

Fax: 206.343.3961 Pages: 8, Including cover sheet Re: PlN v. Columbia County, et al

COMMENTS
We are forward ing the Columbia County Jail Operations' Inmate Mall Policy, Polley No. J603-R05
(10.21.11). Let us know if you have any questions.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This facsimile transmission (and/or documents accompanying 1t) may contain confidential information belonging to the sende(which is protected by the attorney-client privilege. The information is intended only for the use of ~he individual or ent1ty named above. If you are not the intended reci pient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copylnB, distribution or the taking of any action ih reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission In error, please Immediately notify us by telephone to arrange for the return of the documents.
S:\COU HSEl\fORh\S\lmW\FAX a.wf)d
Ex 16 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 2 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 13 of 63

Jan. 19. 2012 4:3 6PM county counHl

No. 0503 P. 2

COLtJl\fnIA COUNTY SUERIFF'S OFFICE
Jail Operations Jeff Dickerson, Shariff
INMATE MAIL
Policy J603-R05 (10121111)

Effective: October 21, 2011
Supersedes: Inmllt~ Mail Policy Revised July 19 20"\ t
OJS: Dl-AO! Thru DI -C04, DI-A05, D2-DOl, D3-A02, FI-AOl thm PI-AD3
ACA: 3-ALDF-3D-16IMIISO-OB

Applies to all staff

POLICY

It is the policy of the Columbia County Sheriff's Office to provide for and encourage the maintenance of important ties of inmates with families, friends and the community, The Sheriff's Office reserves the Inmates rights to communicate with the courts and their attomeys by use of the U.S, Mall. AU incoming and outgoing mail is subject to search and/or scanning for the purpose of safety and security of the jail, All correspondence to and from inmates of the
Columbia County jail will be in the form of a post card unless it Is privileged or official mall.

Limits may be placed on the mail inmates receive based on volume, its affect on the inmate's rehabilitation or treatment, or on the safety, security and good order of the jail. Corrections staff may open and inspect all mail for contraband and may read aU personal mail.

An Inmate Mail Guide will be made avaUable to the public explaining mail rules and what can and cannot be sent through the mall to inmates. Copies of the Inmate Mail Guide will also be made
avallable to inmates upon request. Mail policy shall also be available to the public through the sheriff's office website at www.cO.columbia.o[.us/sheriff. or by calling Ihe Sheriff's Office at (503) 366-4630 .

I.

GENERAL INFORMATION

A.

Regulations

1.

Inmate mail will be picked up and delivered on a daily basis excluding

Sundays and holidays.

2.

The volume of mail an inmate may send or receive wilt be limited only to a

reasonable amount as it impacts the ability of jail staff to process it .

3.

Writing material and postage·paid enl/elopes (for Privileged material only),

special occasion cards, and/or postcards will be available for purchase

through commissary for all inmates with funds.

4,

Indigent inmates will be provided writing material and postage for a

maxirnum of two (2) personal mall pieces per week. Prlvlleged mail will be

limited to a reasonable amount, and may be sent in addition lo personal

mail. Privileged mail must be clearly marked and appropriately addressed.

Privileged mall is defined as correspondence to or from:

Ex 16 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 3 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 14 of 63

Jan. 19. 2012 4: 16PM county counse l

No . 0503 P. 3

J 6 0 3 -ROS

October21.2011

e.

Goverhor

b.

Attorney General

c. Attorneys

d.

Courts

e.

Department of Corrections

f.

Facility SupeNisor

g. Civil Rights OrganIzations

h.

Editor of any newspaper

i.

Jail Staff will not obstruct the use of privilege mail between court

and council.

5. ,Inmates in disciplinary or administrative segregation are not restricted from the use of mail to communicale with the courts and counsel in a manner consistent with that available to other inmates.

6. 'Inmate privileged or official mail will not be limited as to the number of pages in an outgoing correspondence, however:

8.

The letter most fit in a standard 4" X 9" business envelope and,

b. The weight of a leHer must not exceed one ounce, unless specifically approved by jail officials. Exceptions to the length and weight restrictions may be considered:

i.

If the inmate can demonstrate a legitimate and adequate

need to be exempted (rom the policy; or

ii.

To accommodate the special requirements involved with

privileged mail.

7.

Corrections staff will not hold or censor incoming inmate mail unless there

is convincing evidence that such correspondence poses a clear threat to

the safety and security of the facllily, public officials or the general public.

a.

Any correspondence or publication which is rejected, will be

rejected in It's entirety.

b.

If mail is rejected, the Inmate/addressee will be notified in writing of

the rejection and the reason for the rejection. A copy of the

notification will be placed tn the inmate'g fila.

Ex 16 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 4 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 15 of 63

Jan. 19. 2012 4:36PM county counse 1

No. 0503 P. 4

J603·R05

October 21, 2011

8.

Inmates may correspond with anyone not specifically prohibited by court

order. Inmates may also have no correspondence (verbal, written or third

party) with a no-contact directive Issued by the court, probation or the

arresting officer. Inmates in administrative or disciplinary segregation will

not be restricted from the use for communication between courts and

council in a manner consistent with othBr inmates.

a. On a case by case bases an inmate in the Columbia County Jail can request in wrlting to send and receive one letter per week to blood relative, husband or wife who Is housed in the Columbia County Jail at the same Ume. This request must be approved by a Supervisor in writing.

9.

Sexually explicit publications or materials will not be accepted. Sexually

explicit material is any material that

a.

Would violate state obscenity laws;

b.

By their nature or content would pose a threat to the securily, good

order, treatment goals, the discipline of the jailor would facilitate

criminal activity;

c.

Would exacerbate tensions and lead directly or indirectly to

disorder, even jf they did not lead directly to violence; or

d.

Promote a hostile work environment.

10. Inflammatory publications or material will not be accepted. Inflammatory material is any material that:

a. Would Violate state law;

b.

By nature or content would pose a threat to the security, good

order or dIscipline of the jail, or would facilitate criminal activity; or

c,

Would exacerbate tensions and lead directly or indireclly to

disorder, even if they did not lead directly to violence.

11. Books andlor periodicals may be procured from outside the jail, however, any such book, hardbound or otherwise, must be sent directly from the publisher or bookstore via the U.S. Mail.

12. No p.ersonal packages will be accepted through the mail or by the Sheriff's Office Clerks,

13. Availability of paper, envelopes, postege and post cards' are done through the Columbia County Commissary Program . All inmates housed in the

Ex 16 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 5 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 16 of 63

Jan. 19. 2012 4: 36PM county counse I

No. 0503 P. 5

J 6 0 3 -ROS

October 21, 2011
Columbia County Jail are able to obtain writing material regardless of their custody status are permitted this opportunity Including inmates housed in segregation. This Is subject to limitattons to accommodate safety, security, or other legitimate interests.

II.

INCOMING MAIL

A

The mail is delivered to the Sheriff's Office between 0900 hours and 1100 hours,

Monday through Friday, excluding holidays.

8. Sherjff's Office staff will sort the mail and place it in the "Jail" basket by 1600
hours on mail delivery days.

C. Mail received for inmates who ara no longer Incarcerated in the Columbia County Jail will be returned to sender.

D. Any non-privileged mail will be retrieved, opened and inspected for contraband, cash or' money orders, and scanned for content. The day shift Supervisor will assign the Booking Deputy the responsibility of screening inmate may in an effort
to reduce the number of authorized persons participating ;n the mail process. This wi11 protect the inmates rights to

1. Mail may be withheld if it could interfere wIth the good order and security
of the facility, i.e. escape or riot plans or any other plans for disorder.

a. Any correspondence rejected for content will be rejected in it's entirety.

b. If maills rejected the inmate/addressee will receive written notification explaining:

i.

The co~respondence has been rejected,

ii.

The reason It was rejected,

iii. Tha process to informally appeal the rejection to the jail commander

A copy of the notification wlll be placed in the Inmate's file.

2. Cash and money orders are not accepted. All inmates funds must be added to the inmate trust account via the TouchPay system.

3. Any contraband will be handled In accordance with the Contraband Control Policy and Procedure (J501)

Ex 16 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 6 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 17 of 63

Jao.19. 201 2 4: 36PM county counsel

No. 0503 P. 6

J603-R05
E. F. G.

October 21, 2011

4.

Privileged mail must be clearly marked as such. Such mail may be

opened and inspected In the presence of the inmate to whom it is addr6ssed~ Privileged mail is prohibited from being read by jail officials

shall not be read by jail slaff.

5.

If Privileged mail is inadvertently opened, jail start will:

a. Advise the inmate of the incident and the circumstances Involved,

b.

Prepare an incident report to document the event and place a copy

in the Inmate's file.

The deputy charged with mail duty will log all mail into the Inmate Management
Computer and note the Inmate's housing assIgnment on the outside of the post
card or envelope.

The Shift Supervisor will ensure that all maills delivered by 1900 hours on the day
of recelpt!f possible, but in all cases within twenty~four (24) hours of receIpt.

The Deputy delivering the mail will:

1.

Enter each housing unit and call the name of each inmale receiving mail.

2.

Hand the mail personally to the inmate.

3.

If the inmate Is not present in the housing unit, I.e. out to court, on work

assignment, medical appointment, etc., the Deputy willle8ve the mall with

Central Control for delivery upon the inmats's return.

3.

OUTGOING MAIL

A. All outgoing mall from inmates to their family and friends will be in the form of a
postcard os special occC'lsion card that has been purchased from the Columbia County commissary accoUnt. Inmates will place all outgoing mall in the mail drop located in the day room of each housing unit.

1.

All personal mail will be unsealed to accommodate inspection;

2.

All Privileged mall must be clearly marked and appropriately addressad .

Privileged mail may be sealed because it shall not be read by jail staff

unless so authorized by a court order. Privileged mail is defined as

correspondence to or from:

a.

Governor

b.

Attorney General

Ex 16 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 7 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 18 of 63

Jan. 19. 2012 4:36PM coullty counse I

No. 0503 P. 7

J 6 0 3 -ROS B. C.

October 21, 2011

c.

Attorneys

d.

Courts

e.

Department of Corrections

f.

Facility Supervisor

g.

Civil Rights Organizations

3.

AU mail will be picked up by the Rove Deputy after 2200 hours and be

logged accordingly.

4. Graveyard shift will log all outgoing mail in the Inmate Management Computer and may inspect and/or scan aU personal mail for contraband and to protect the good order and security of the facility.

5. All outgoIng mall will be delivered to the Mail/Records Room in the Sheriff's Office, and.placed in the "Out Basket" by 0800 hours each mail
day.

Use of Ehve[opes

Inmates may use an envelope, sold through the commissary, to send the following types of letlers:

1. A privileged and official mail leIter

2.

A privileged and official mailleHer that should not or cannot be folded or

that is more than one ounce.,

3.

With staff a.pproval, a personal letter that contains a program-related

diploma or certificate that should nor or cannot be folded. The inmate

must have a deputy confirm the contents of such an envelope before it is

sealed.

4.

Inmates may not use envelopes for any type of mail that does not meet

one of the three criteria listed above. Correcllons staff will deduct the cost

of the postage from the inmate's account for acceptable manila

envelopes.

Sending Certified Privileged or Official Mail

Inmates may send a privileged or official letter using U.S. Postal Service Certified and Return Receipt mail services. Inmates will be receipted for the mailing and receiving of such mail. The Jail will charge standard postal rates for these services to the Inmate. Any inmate sending certified privileged or official mail

Ex 16 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 8 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 19 of 63

Jan. 19. 20 12 4: 36PM county counse 1

No. 0503 P. 8

J603-R05

October Zl, 2011
must have money in his/her inmate account to pay these postal rates or have
appropriate approval from corrections staff ir he or she is indigent. A deputy will supply inmates with a ~Requ8st for Certified Mail" form that the inmate will be
required to f ill out and submit with the mail. Inmates shall be limited to two (2) ceriified-mailletters in any 3D-day period.

Ex 16 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 9 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 20 of 63
EXHIBIT 17
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Ex 17 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 1 of 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 21 of 63

Katherine C. Chamberlain

From: Sent: To:
Cc:
Subject:

Katherine C. Chamberlain Monday, January 23, 2012 12:07 PM 'Sarah Hanson' Jesse Wing; Marc Blackman ; PatGassner RE: PLN v. Columbia Co. et. at

Dear Sara h:
PLN se nt mail addressed to specific prisoners at t he Co lu mbia County Jail, not a mass mailing. We confi rmed t hei r presence at the Jai l through the rosters found on the Co lu mbia County Sheriffs website and communicated directly with prisoners. We have severa l declarations from prisoners who were in the Jail when PLN mailed materials t o them. Finally, in returning the rejected mail the Jail stated t he mail was censored because ''The Cplumbia County Jail ONLY ACCE PTS POSTCARDS." The Jail did not claim to return ma il because the prisoner was not in custody.
Ou r experience in successfully handling a number of other prison and j ail censo rship cases suggests that we will not have a problem showing that the Jail ce nsored PLN's mail for the reasons stated in our Complaint. Do you have reaso n to believe that the prisoners identified in our Complaint were not in the Columbia County Jail on the dates of the alleged ce nso rship?
Thank you for agree ing to speak by phone at 8am tomorrow. I will send teleconference phone number and password later t oday.
Since rely, Katie

Katherine C. Chamberlain MacDonald Hoague & Bayless 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, WA 98104
206.622.1604 I Fax 206.343.3961 katherinec@mhb.com I www.mhb.com
Check out our new website at MHB .com
ThiS em;,il is intend ed only for t he individu;,l(s ) to whom it is addressed and it may be;, confide ntia l oommunic;,tlon protected by I;,w. Any unauthori2ed uS{!, dlsS{!mln;,tion, distribution, disclosure, or copying is prohibited. If you have received this communicat ion in error, please notify me im mediately by retu rn emall and delete this message from your system.

From: Sarah Hanson [mailto:Sarah. Hanson@co.columbia.or. usJ Sent: Monday, January 23, 20129:51 AM To: Katherine C. Chamberlain Cc: Jesse Wing; Marc Blackman; PatGassner Subject: RE: PlN v. Columbia Co. et. al.

Katherine:

Yes, I am available at 8:00 a.m. Before the meeting can you please tell me how you've concluded that the named prisoners were in the Jail at the time PLN and other mailings were received at the County Jail? Are you relying on the County's website, or some other source? Thanks.

1

Ex 17 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 2 of 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 22 of 63
Sarah
"Katherine C. Chamberlain" <KatherineC@MHB.com> 1/23/20128:58 AM » > Dear Sarah:
Are you available for our phone conference at 8am tomorrow (instead of gam) ? Please let me know if that works for you.
Thanks, Katie
Katherine C. Chamberlain MacDonald Hoague & Bayless 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, WA 98104
206.622.1604 I Fax 206.343.3961 katherinec@mhb.com I www.mhb.com
Check out O lLr new website at MHB.com
This ema il Is Intende d only for the Indl vidual( s) to whom It Is ilddressed and it may be a confiden tial communjciltion protected by Iilw. Any uniluthorlzed use, d issemination , distrib ution, disclosure, or copying is prohibited . If you hav e received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by ret urn email and delete this message from your system .

From : Katherine C. Chamberlain Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 2:46 PM To : 'Sarah Hanson' Cc: 'Marc Blackman'; Jesse Wing; Pat Gassner; Katherine C. Chamberlain Subject: PLN v. Columbia Co. et. al.
Dear Sarah:
Thank you for speaking with us th is afternoon . Since you have tendered this matter to insurance and expect to hear back about that today, and expect the Sherriff to return from vacation on Monday, we agreed to speak by phone again on Tuesday. January 24 at ga m. I will plan to initiate the call; I' ll let you know ahead oftime if we need to use another conference call-in number instead.
Attached is the Columbia County Inmate Mail Policy which I downloaded from the Sheriffs website this afternoon . As you can see, it is the same as the policy that is attached as Exhibit A to the Complaint (in substance but not form). You shared with us that the Sheriffs office provided you with a different policy dated July 2011 and agreed to fax the policy to me. Thank you.
We look forward to speaking with you on Tuesday.
Since r ely, Katie

Kat h erine C. Chamb e rl a in MacDonald Hoague & Bayless 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, WA 98104

2

Ex 17 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 3 of 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 23 of 63
206.622.1604 I Fax 206. 343.3961 katherin ec@ mhb.com I www.m hb.com
Check out our new website at MHB.com
ThiS em,,;! is intended only for the individ ...~I(s) to whom it Is add ressed and It may be iI confidential communication protected by law. Any unauthorized U!';e, dissemination, distribution, disclosure, or copying is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me Immediately by return email and delete t his message (rom your system.
Office of County Counsel 230 Strand, Room 318 st. Helens, Oregon 97051 503-397-3839 503-366-3925 (fax)
Beginning July 11, 2011, my office hours are Monday through Thursday 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

3

Ex 17 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 4 of 6

Inmate Ma il

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 24 of 63
COLU MBIA conmy
SHERIff'S OffICE
Jeffrey M. Dickerson, Sheriff

Main Menu
, Sherllfs Olfice Home PiJ9I!
' Mi~
• Conlllcl Us , CoIumbi<> County Website • Press Releases • C\lrrent Inmate List
Divisions
Enforcement • Patrol
,l-1arloe I• Criminal
• Animal Control
ICorrections , I,~n.tc v~ .'11 • Inmate MaD • inmate PI'Icines • Inmate Money Ao:;c;ounts • Inmate Housing Fees • inmate Property • ~t for Propo&als
ISupport services • Civil and Records Processilg • CHl and F~iog
Get Involved
, ~" • Search ~nd Rescue • Mounted ~se • Reserve Program
Information
, JilillI1mate Census
Facilities

lnmateMaii

).. Ef. a:I Recent Headlines

Incoming Mail:
I ncoming Mail will be only accepted in the form of commeraally-produced postcards or a photograph used as a postcard. The mall is delivered to the Sheriffs OffICe Monday through Saturday, exdudirlg holidays.
Address Inmate's Name (Booking Number) Columbia County Jail
901 Pert Avenue
SI. Helens, D!e9on 9705 1
Prohibited Mail
Effective Apri l 1 , 2 010 the COlumbia County Sheriff's Office is changing the
pror:edures that apply to inmate mail.
MAil VIOLATIONS: (Will ..."ult in the pozt CIIrd(5) I>I:In9 ~tumed to 'lender)
~ NO Inmate Name .. Incomplete Return Address
* Stickers of any kind (Indudes address labels)
"Rubber Inked Stilmps .. Tape .. Upstick .. Colo red Pendls
* Paperc~ps I Staples etc. "Correction Tape I Fluid
'" Crayon • Paint .. Watercolor or COlored markers
I ,. Food ~verage Stains '" Perfume I Cologne * Any unidentifiable substance
The following mail will not be receiVed or sent from the facility and will be returned to the sender.

Neighbors Thwart Daytime Rgbbery near Scappoose
CCSO requests publjc
aSSistance in ldeoJjfyjno robbery suspect CCSO Seard) and BeSClIe
! QCales Bodv of Missing fun COl tlMBIA cowm
SHERIFF REQUESTING pUBLICS HELP TO fiND MISSING WOMAN
Your Personal Safety
, CCSO for Kid<: , Resourceful Links
CCSO is on facebookl

1. Mail from one inmate tD another at this fadllty requires a supervisor's approval. 2. Mail that threatens blackmail or extortion. 3. Mall that concerns send ing contraband into or out of our jail. ~. Mail that concerns escape plans.
5. Mail that concerns plans for activities in violation of the Jail rules. f>. Mail that concerns plans for criminal activity.
7. Mail that contains Infoonation which, if communicated, woukl create a danger of Violence or physical harm to a person
8. Mall that is sensational. Sensationalism is writing or other printed material that poses a
threat to the security, safety, or good order of the Jail.
9. Mall that contains any contraband materials. 10. No personal packages will be accepted throogh the mail or by the Sheriff's OffICe Clerks. 11. Polaroid or other Instant developing photographs. 12. Picture flClmes or picture foiders. 13. I'tlotographs larger than 5" x 7" . 14. Postage stamps, blank writing paper, or blank envelopes. 15. Mall that contains gang-related writh'lgs, drawings, or symbols on the outside of the envelope or letter. If>. Mall tIlat contains a foreign substance, bodily fluid, perfume or cologne. 17. Mall written In code or suspected code. 18. Sexually explicit materiats.

Ex 17 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 5 of 6
http://WWN.co.columbia.or.uslsheriff/index.php70ptlon _com_content&view :artide&id.. 5&Itemid.. 25[ 1/19/2012 2: 12:49 PM]

Inmate Mail

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 25 of 63

19. Mail that enrourages or instructs In a commIssion of a crime . ZOo Mall falsely labeled "OffIcial Mail.~ 21. Photographs that are not printed by a profess;onal commercial source (photo labs or l:Josk5) will not be accepted. (home printer produced pictures on re<;Ju~r paper are not allowed.) 22. Stickers, ta~, and rerum address labels.
Legal ProfessIonal Mail Rul es: Inmate legal mail and professklnal mail roles have not changed.
Publications:
We do not accept magazines. Books must be sent directly from the publisher or bookstore. An inmate may receive no more than three books per month.
Mail Definitions and Frequently Asked Questions:
Incomplete return address; Return address is missing either part of the address or first and last name of seoder.
No Inmate Name: Inmate's first and last names are NOT on the post card.
Dead Mailed : There Is no return address. In this case the postcard Is returned to the Post OffIce.
What happens to the postcard 1 send to an inmate when it arrives at the Facility? After the post card has been d eared through administration, It is reviewed for mall violations. 1f a violation is found, the Deputy will complete a Mail Violation Form and the mail will be placed in the Inmate's property until their release, or it wi ll be returned to the sender.
Can I send a care package to an Inmate? Inmates housed In the Jail cannot receive care packages of any kind through the mail. eare packages which are not mail in can be pun:hased through WNW CQIl!mbja lcaredjrect,com. We only accept care packages by this method.
Can Inmates have access to Books, Magazines, and Newspapers? The COlumbia County Jail has certil ln legal publications as well as books for entertainment, and some faith, based materials. Books may be procured from outside the Jail, however any such book, hardbound or otherwise, must be sent directly from the publisher or bookstore via the
U.S. Mail. Newspapers may be subscribed to In the Inmate's name for delivery to the jail.
Magazines: Are not allowed Inside the fadtity.
Religious Materials; Inmates can request a Bible from the Law Ubrary. Inmates can also attend a religious program amI receive religious materj~1s from tfle Columbia County Sheriff's Office Volunteer who fad\itates that pa rticular program.
UKt Updated"" """,,y, 0611o.Jg.6t 2010 16:43

Columbia County Sheriffs Office 901 Port Ave ., St. Helens, OR 97051 (503) 366·4611 I Emergendes; Dial911
© 2009 Columbia County Sheriffs Office

valid 0l::IIML. and C5S..

Ex 17 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 6 of 6
http;I/WWN.co.columbia.or.u5/sheriff/inde~.php?option=com_content&view=article&k;lzs&!temid:025[ 1/19/2012 2: 12:49 PM]

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 26 of 63

EXHIBIT 18
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

9B10.05 f1l46J04

Ex 18 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 1 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 27 of 63

M ACDoNA LD H OAGUE& BAYLESS
~nO'''f'~ IU<() {"""lfl""I~' l ~W

705 Secorld Avenue S"i~e 1500 Seaule. Washington 98104·1745 TII1 206.622.16(l4 Fa ~ 206.343.3961
January 25, 2012
VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL
Sarah E. Hanson Columbia County Counsel Office 230 Strand, Rm 318 St Helens, OR 97051
Re: PLN v. Columbia County, et af. USDC District of OR Cause No. CV- 12-71-SI

Alec Bayless (1921·1991) Francis Hoague (1909.1993)
KlIllflelh A. MacDonald RatirlKl
Miguel A Bocanegra Andrea Brenneka Kalhllrine C. Chamberlain AodrewT. Chan Mel Crawford Timothy K. Ford
Katrln E. Fmnk Felicia l. Gjl1leman
Ester Greenfl8ld Elizabeth Poll Amy M. Royalty
Joseph R. Shaeffer Da\lld J. Whedbee
Jesse Wing

Dear Sarah:
Thank you for speaking with Jesse Wing, Marc Blackman, and me yesterday. We understand that Steve Kraemer of Hart Wagner will be working with you on this case, so I have copied him on this correspondence.
With respect to our request that the County stipulate to a preliminary injunction, you advised us that although the sheriff is back from vacation you have not spoken with him. You also told us tbat the Columbia County Inmate Mail Policy that you faxed to us on January 19, 2012 is the current Jail mail policy, and the Sheriff's Office website contains an outdated policy that is no longer in effect. When we asked you how long the new poli cy has been in effect, you said you did not know. Nevertheless, you said that in light oftbe Sberiff's new policy you did not see how a preliminary injunction is necessary.
As we explained during the call, a preliminary injunction is still necessary. Both the old and allegedly new policies provide for the continued violation ofPLN's First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as the constitutional rights of prisoners and other correspondents. Accordingly, as was the stated purpose of our telephone call with you, we advised you that we wouh;l be seeking a preliminary injunction and simply needed to know if we could do so by stipulation. You told us that you would confer with the sheriff by the end of the week and get back to us.
We look forward to speaking with you again by Friday, January 27, 20l2, about whether· the parties call agree on the terms of a stipulated preliminary injunction. I understand that you will send us an email to set up a mutually agreeable time to speak by phone.

9B70.0J fa246701

Ex 18 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 2 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 28 of 63
Sarah Hanson January 25, 2012 Page 2
With respect to service of the Summons and Complaint, you advised us that you will not . accept service and we need to formally serve each defendant. We were surprised by your position. Although it will not be difficult to effect service, it will cost money. In any event, we have arranged to have each defendant officially served. We hope that in the future we can work together to avoid incurring unnecessary costs and attorney fees in this litigation-which is in the best interests not only of our client, but also the County, the Sheriff's Office, and Sheriff Dickerson.
Sincerely,
KCClidm cc; CEent
Marc D. Blackman Steve Kraemer

---oJ'" ~ 0-;""'" ~ 870.01 &24670)
,
--- ....:..~-~

,~.i ':. __"

1"", .....,.

....-- ' ' '

-~

. ;.i;,>.,

Ex:,.' 18 of ChambIe. r;_,lain Dec),~\pg. 3 of 3

,_..

.'

"

,1;"

,

~ '.

._

- _,_;::..:,•.,..2... ... ,

_:'"~~.:....~,.;;....:,">.:.::.L~:;,,_~."-~.::.::,·;_,L. ,~:..:..:.c:.. Yo' -,:""-,~""":",-:,,,,,,~,~

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 29 of 63

EXHIBIT 19
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

9@70,Q5r.246104

Ex 19 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 1 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 30 of 63

From : Gregory Roberson [mailto:GRR@hartwagner.com] Sent: Friday, Jan uary 27, 2012 5:13 PM To: Jennifer King; Katherine C. Chamberlain Cc: Marc Blackman; Pat Gassner; Steve A. Kraemer; Jesse Wing; sarah.hanson@co.columbia.or.us SUbject: RE: PLN v. Columbia County, et al.· USDC District of OR Cause No. CV·12·71·S1
Katie: During our discussion this morning, I said I wou ld send you the Columbia County Jail's new inmate mail policy once I received it. It is attached. This policy is effect ive and has been implemented. For the reasons we discussed earlier today, it is defendants' position that PLN cannot meet its burden to obtain a preliminary injunction given this new policy. If you have any questions, please let me know.
Per your request due to your firm's rece nt email problems, I will fax a copy of this policy to your office on Monday.
Greg Roberson Hart Wagner lLP 1000 SW Broadway 20th Floor Portland, OR 97205 (tel) (503) 222-4499 (fax) (503) 222-2301
From: Gregory Roberson Sent: Thursday, January 26, 20 124:58 PM To: 'Jennifer King'; Katherine C. Chamberlain Cc: marc@ransomblackman.comi pat@ransomblackman,com; Steve A. Kraemer; Jesse Wing; sara h .hanso n@co.columbia.or.us Subject: RE: PLN v. Columbia County, et al. · USDC District of OR Cause No. CV·12·71·S1
Katie: Please let me know of a good time I can ca ll you on Friday to discuss the stipulation to a preliminary injunction. I am assisting Steve Kraeme r in this matter. He has been tied up in depositions and asked me to handle. 1look forward to speaking with you.

Greg Roberson Hart Wagner LLP

1

Ex 19 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 2 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 31 of 63
1000 SW Broadway 20th Floor Portland, OR 97205 (tel) (503) 222-4499 (fax) (503) 222-2301
From: Jennifer King [mailto:JenniferK@MHB.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 20 12 12:36 PM To: sa rah.hanson@co.columbia.or.us Cc: marc@ransomblackman.com; pat@ransomblackman.com; Steve A. Kraemer; Jesse Wing; Katherine C. Chamberlain Subject: PLN v. Columbia County, et al. - USDC District of OR Cause No. CV-12-71-SI
Pl ease see attached letter from Katie Chamberlain. The original will follow by mail.
Jennifer D. King I Legal Assistant
MacDonald Hoague & Bayless 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, WA 98104
II 206.622.1604 I Fax 206.343.3961 B1 jenniferk@mhb.com I www.mhb.com
This email is intended o nly for the individua/(s) to whom It is addressed and It may be a confidential communication protected by law. Any unauthorized use, dissemination, dis tribution, disclosure, or copying is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me Immediately by return email and d elete this message from your system.

2

Ex 19 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 3 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 32 of 63

EXHIBIT 20
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

9S1O_0S fo1.46J04

Ex 20 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 1 of 17

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 33 of 63

COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF' S OFF ICE
Jail Operat ions
Jeff Dickerson, Sheriff

Effective: January 26, 2012
Supersedes Inmate Mail Policy Revised October 21 , 2011

INMATE MAIL POLICY J603-R06 (01126/12)

OJ S; 01-AOI THRU 01-C04, 01-AOS, 02-001 , DJ-A02, FI -AOI THRU FI -A03
ACA; 3-ALDF-30-16 thru 50-08

Applies to all staff
POLICY
Jail mai l handling procedu res must support the inmate's need to communicate in writing to carry out legal business and maintain family and community ties. The procedures must also meet the Jail's need for efficient operations that preseNe the good order, safety, and security of the facility, inmates, and staff.
DEFINITIONS
Contraband. 1) Controlled substances as defin ed in ORS 475.005. 2) Drug paraphernalia as defined by ORS 475.525. 3) Any currency possessed by or under the control of an inmate confined in a correctional facility , except fOf an authorized amount fOf an inmate at the Community Corrections Center. 4) Any item that a person in a correctional facility is proh ibited by statute, rule, or order from obtaining or possessing , and whose use wou ld enda nger the safety or secu rity of the facility or perso n within. 5) An unauthorized item in an inmate's possession or in a ce ll, bunk , or common area. 6) An authorized item altered in any way. 7) More than the autho rized number of an item.
Indigent. A financial condition when an inmate has less than $5 in his or her inmate account and has not had more than that amount fOf seven days.
Inflammatory material. Writings or other printed materials that pose a threat to the security, safety, Of good order of the jail because it may incite or advocate physical vio lence against others. This includes material that advocates the supremacy or hatred of a racia l, religious, national, or other group of people. (Note: Criticism of jait operations, programs, or staff, on its own, is not inflammatory material. If the criticism involves an illegal act or violates a jail rule , staff will handle it as that type of prohibited mail.)
Junk mail. Printed materia ls, often sent as mass mailings, such as catalogs , advertisements, brochures, circu lars, and pamphlets whose primary purpose is to sell. promote or so licit for, a product or seNice, and when taken as a whole, lacks se rious literary, artistic, political , educational , relig ious , or scientific value . Junk mail may come using a variety of postage rates.

Ex 20 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 2 of 17

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 34 of 63

J603- R06

J a nua ry 26, 2012

Privileged mail. Incoming or outgoing mail addressed to or from a licensed attorn ey and is clearly marked "legal mai l" on the ad dress side of the enve lope. Incoming or outgoing mai l addressed to or from the sheriff, jail command staff, cou nty administrator, probation authorities, district attorney , state attorney general. Govern or, cou rt, a court official, and other confining authorities that is clearly marked uoffidal mail" on the address side of the enve lope.

Mail handler . A staff member who picks up, transports, sorts, delivers, inspects, reads, or pe rforms other duties re lated to processing inmate mai l.

Negotiable ins trument. A written document that rep resents an unconditional promise to pay a specified amount of money upon the demand of its owner. Exa mples include cnecks and promissory notes. Negotiable instruments can be transferred from one person to another, as when a person writes "pay to the order of' on the back of a check in order to turn it ove r to someone else.

Periodical. A magazine, newspaper, or other publication formed of printed sheets tha t are issued at least four times a yea r at regu lar, specified intervals from a known office of publication. Periodicals usually must have a legitimate list of subscribers and requesters.

Person al mail. Postca rds mailed to or from fam ily, friends, organizations , bus inesses, or other unofficial en tities.

Sex ually ex plicit. 1) A pictorial depiction of any of the fo llowing: actual or simulated sexual acts (incl uding sexua l intercourse, oral sex, anal sex , or masturbation); sexual penetra tion ; bestiality; sexua l violence; sadomasochism: excretory functions; and exposed genita lia, buttocks, or female breasts, unless the exposure is fo r legitimate med ica l, religious, or anthropological reaso ns. 2) A written or pictorial depiction of lewdness, licentiousness, or graphic erotic behavior designed to cause sexual excitement. 3) Sex acts involving children. 4) Materials that violate state and local obscenity laws. (Note: W hether the material is commercia lly produced or is persona lly made or written has no bearing on this definition.)

Two-party ch ec k. A check that the payee endorses so that another pe rson may cash it.

PROCEDURES

INMATE MAIL OVERVIEW

1. Mail Limits and Restri c tions
Staff will normally not limit, ce nsor, or restrict the volume, language, content, or source of mail or publications.

a. Genera l reasons for limiting or restricting mai l are:

2
Ex 20 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 3 of 17

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 35 of 63

J603- R06

Jan uary 26, 20 12

(I) There is reason to be lieve that such correspondence would jeopardize personal safety, jail security or good order, inmate treatment, or would facilitate violation of the law.

(2) There is reason to believe that a sentenced inmate in rehabilita tive programs wou ld benefit from a limit with whom he or she has contact or the publications he or she receives.

(3) The vo lume of mail would place an unreasonable burden on mail handlers.

b. Specific reasons and exa mples for limiting, restricting , and prohibiting mail, which fa ll under each general reason category , are in Appendix 1, Prohibited Mail.

c. Inmates may receive a disciplinary sanction that restricts persona l mail. (See policy J2 12, Rules and Discipline.)

2. So urces o f Incoming Mail
Jai l staff will only accept written correspondence , notes, parcels, or documents for inmates that have been delivered by the U.S. Posta l Service and distri buted by Co lumbia Cou nty Jail Staff.

3. Postcards for Person al or Personal Busin ess Mail
Inmates may se nd postcards they receive in their initia l inmate hygiene kit or through jai l co mmissary. Inmates may rece ive postca rds in any size that is delivered by the U.S. Posta l Service up to a maximum size of 5_1/2nta ll x 8-112" wide . The jail does not perm it any olher form of pe rso nal mail for inmates. Inmates are not limited to a specific number of postcards that they may receive or send. Lodged inmates rece ive mo postca rds in their hygiene kit, and may purchase additional postcards th rough jail commissary. Policy 212. Rules and Discipline , sets limits on the number of personal mail items allowed in an inmate's ce ll. Provisions for lega l and officia l mail beg in at parag raph 12, be low.

4. Exce ption to Postcards for Inmates Within 30 Days of Compl eting Sentence A sergea nt may allow an inmate who is continuous ly involved in rehabilitation programs permission to correspo nd with a specific person (both send ing and rece iving). A supervisor must document that corresponding with the person is in the best interest of an inmate's rehabilitation . A suitable example might include a letter sent to recon nect with family prio r to release.

5. Photographs on Postcards Inmates may receive postcards with photog raph s on one side as allowed by the U.S. Posta l Service and jail rules. No othe r photog raphs are allowed on postcards .

6. Indigent Inmate Mail
Indigent inmates are afforded the opportunity once pe r week to purchase an indigent hygiene kit through the commissary program. Hygiene kits are taken to the pods and

3
Ex 20 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 4 of 17

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 36 of 63

J603-R06

J~nu~ry 26, 20 12

offered to all inmates. The indigent hygiene kit consists of two postage prepaid postcards, a pencil and hygiene items.

7. Addressing Inmate Mail
Incoming mail must have the inmate's booking name and should have the inmate's booking number as part of the addressee information.

8. Return Address
Incoming mail must have the name and address of the sender. The return address on lega l and official mail must have the sender's job, agency, or firm title and address commercially preprinted or stamped.

a. If the inmate is in custody, a mail handler will confiscate any mail without a return name and address. He or she will open it to both identity a sender's name and to see if it contains negotiable instruments or other items that need 10 be listed on the confiscation notice. Th is procedure also applies when mail is "refused" and returned to the jail.

b. If the inmate is no longer in custody, the mail handler will open the mail to check for negotiable instruments, stamps, official documents, or similar items of monetary or official value.

(1) If there are no valuables, the mail handler will destroy the mai l.

(2) If the mail contains valuables, Ihemail handler will take steps to identify the sende r and return the mail to the sender. If a sender's name and address is not found, the mail handler will send the mai l to the inmate's last known address. A mail handler will destroy any mail, along with its valuables, that is returned to the jail afte r send ing it to the original sender or former inmate.

9. Postage-Due Mail The jail will not accept or pay for any inmate mail with postage due.

10. Junk Mail Jail staff will accept solicited or Unsolicited junk ma il Of bulk mail for inmates, unless it violates other mail restrictions (such as contain ing sexually explicit content).

11. Personal Business Mail Needing Special Handling
A jail se rgeant may approve mail that needs specia l handling so an inmate can conduct persona l business. For examp le, the use of a business reply envelope to send a document back to the originating firm or sign ing a mailed-in personal check to make a rent or ca r payment or renew a driver's license. Such a check must not have a blank payee line . The inmate must act to add a cosigner to a checking account or make other arrangements to prevent reoccurrence of this need. Supporting documents, such as payment coupons or rent contracts, must accompany any personal business mail.

4
Ex 20 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 5 of 17

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 37 of 63

J603-R06

J a nuary 26, 20 12

PRIVILEGED MAIL

12. Legal and Official Mail Jail staff must protect the rights of inmates to privileged. confidential commu nication with their attorneys, the courts, and confining authorities.
a. The sende r is responsible for legitimately, properly, and clearly marking and addressing legal and officia l mail so that jail staff recogn ize it and treat it as confidentia l.
(1) The return address on all incoming legal and official mail must have the se nder's job, agency, or firm title and address either commercially prepri nted on the enve lope or a labe l, or as an ink sta mp. The sende r's name should be handwritten if not preprinted. Staff wi ll treat all mail with return addresses that are completely handwritten as personal mail.

(2) The words ~ Legal Mail," "Official Mail," or similar designation must appear on the add ress side of the enve lope. Jail staff wi ll not assume the contents of any letter from an attorney, law firm , or government official is legal or officia l mail.

(3) Jail staff will treat improperly marked or addressed mail as persona l mail.

b. Staff must not open recognized legal or official mail outside the presence of the inmate. Th ey may open it in the presence of the inmate to inspect it for contraband, but they must not read its contents.

c. A staff member must write a Jail Incident Report if he or she inadvertently opens a piece of recognizable legal or official mail outside the presence of the inmate.

d. Before the letter leaves the pod , deputies must verify that any letter marked as lega l or official mail is addressed to a person that qualifies for that privacy protection. Pod deputies will contact a shift sergeant if they suspect fraud.

e. Jail staff will pursue administrative, criminal , and disciplinary actions, as fitting, against all those involved in the fraudulent use of legal or official mail designations.

13. Contents of Envelopes and Parcels (Legal and Official Mail Only)
An envelope may only contain writte n correspondence that meets the definition of legal or official mail. A parcel may on ly contain up to three books or three periodicals. Mail handlers will consider any other item in the envelope or parcel as contraband and treat it as prohibited mai l.

14. Pre ~S tamped Envelopes
Jail staff wi ll make pre*stamped First Class business size or manila envelopes available for inmates to buy from the commissary for lega l or officia l mail. Indigent inmates may obtain pre*stamped envelopes fo r lega l or official mai l per paragraph 6.

5
Ex 20 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 6 of 17

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 38 of 63

J603-R06

January 26, 2012

Misrepresentation of legal or official mail is strictly proh ibited and may resu lt in disciplinary action against the inmate sender. An inmate may ask to mail an oversize or overweight envelope using special posta l services procedures listed below.

15. Certified Mail Limits for Legal or Official Mail
An inmate may send up to two letters as certified legal or official mail in a 30-day period . The inmate must have sufficient funds in his or her account to pay for Ihe service. A jail supervisor may make exceptions to th e volume of certified mail an inmate sends and may approve credit to allow an indigent inmate to send certified legal or official mail.

16. Requests for Certified Mail
An inmate that needs to send a letter using certified mail must fill out an Inmate Request Form. Only a supervisor can approve this request and it must be for the purpose of mailing legal, official, or materia ls related to an inmate 's rehabilitation program that have been screened and approved by the jail staff. The supervisor will ensure that the inmate's correspondence is ready to mail at the time of the request. If an inmate's request is approved, the supervisor will forward the request to the front office staff.

a. Jail staff will verify if the inmate has sufficient funds in his or her account before processing any request. They will fOlWard requests from indigent inmates to a supervisor. The inmate will fill out the necessary U.S. Postal Service formsReceipt for Ce rtified Mail (PS Form 3800) and Domestic Return Receipt (PS Form 381 1). The inmate will give the letter and the forms to a jail supervisor, who will fOlWard the mail to front office staff - who will mail the letter and charge the inmate for the postal fees for these special services. The inmate request form will be the source document authorizing the charge.
b. Staff will pass the receipt on to the inmate when it returns in incoming mail. They will return the Domestic Return Receipt postcard to the post office if the inmate is no longer in jail.
17. Other Special Postal Services
An inmate will use an Inmate Req uest form to request permission to mail oversize or ovelWeight items or for other special posta l services. If a jail sergeant or command office r approves such a request, funds will be drawn from the inmate's account to cover the costs.

PUBLICATIONS 18. Publications
An inmate must have someone outsid e the jail prepay for any publication he or she receives. An inmate may not engage in any delayed payment or credit ordering of publications while inside the jail.
6
Ex 20 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 7 of 17

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 39 of 63

J60J-R06

January 26, 20 12

19. Books An inmate may receive up to three books on a single mail delivery day. Books must come directly from the publisher, a book club , or a bookstore. Books may be new or used. They may not be larger than 9 inches by 12 inches. They may not have plastic or metal bindings. Either hardback or paperback books are acceptable for general population inmates. Inmates in segregation, including medical segregation , may on ly receive paperback books from recognized sources . Mail handlers will consider any other item in the envelope or parcel as contraband and treat it as prohibited mail.
20. Periodicals
An inmate may receive up to two periodicals on a single mail delivery day. Periodicals must be new and be delivered directly from the publisher or a bookstore. Periodicals include magazines.
21. Prohibited publications, books or periodicals. The jail must determine whether a specific publication , book or periodical viola tes jail rules . This determination must be made on an issue-by-issue basis, and it is unacceptable to put a blanket prohibition on all issues of a certain publication or pe riodical. If an issue of a publication, book or periodica l is determined to violate jail rules , it shou ld be returned to the sender and notifica tion to the sender and the inmate should be made pursuant to paragraph 31.

MONEY-BY-MAIL
22. No cash or negotiable instrument will be accepted through the mail and will be returned to sender for violation of the Mail Policy. A jail commander or designee can make exceptions to this policy for reasonable accommodations purposes. To return funds, the mail handler will:
a. Send a Returned Mail form letter to the sender along with the instrument being returned. Note on the letter the amount, number, and issuing institution of the check. Note the payee's name if it was not the inmate
b. Send the inmate a copy of the form letter and keep a mail file copy for reference.

REGULATING INMATE MAIL 23. Restrictions on Outgoing Mail Recipients
Inmates who are prohibited from sending mail to a specific recipient pursuant to a va lid court order will not be allowed to send mail to that recipient and may be disciplined for attempting to do so.
7
Ex 20 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 8 of 17

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 40 of 63

J603-R06

January 26, 2012

24. Regulating Inmate Mail Written in a Foreign Language
Incoming mail written in a language other than English must be interpreted prior to
delivery. The interpreter of inmate mail may be a designee from the Sheriff's Office or other law enforcement agency.

If, after tran sla tion,there are reasonable grounds to believe thai the contents of any
mail cou ld pose a risk to facility , community, or national security, it will not be
delivered. The mail handler will confiscate and place outgoing mail in the inmate 's property storage, and will return incoming mail to the sender, in each case giving
notice to the inmate or sender per paragraph 31 below.

25. Correspondence with Victims
Inmates may not correspond with a victim of a crime for which they are currently in custody in either pretrial or sentenced status. A jail supervisor may make exceptions.

26. Mail with Health Care Appointment Information
To ensure transport security, a mail handler will confiscate any mail with information about upcoming health care appointments, and notify the inmate and sender of the confiscation. The mail handler should inform heath care staff of the letter.

27. Gang-Related and Security Threat Group Materials in Mail
A mail handler will photocopy incoming or outgoing mail with gang-related or security threat group material and send the copy to the Gang Deputy. The mail handler will confiscate the mail as a prohibited item, and nolify the sender per paragraph 31.

28. Commercial Business Transactions and Government Services by Mail
An inmale may not conduct commercial business transactions by mail or request services from a government agency without the approval of a jail supervisor. Examples of transactions and requests include:

a. Buying or selling an item, real property, or service b. Applying for a credit card c. Applying for a commercial or student loan d. Opening a bank account e. Enrolling in a college course r. Applying for food stamps g. Any obligation of funds to which the inmate does not have access

29. Mail Monitoring
Absent a court order, a jail supervisor will only approve a request to monitor a specific inmate's mail because there is reasonable belief that there is a legitimate penological or public safety reason to do so. This is including, but not limited to the welfare and safety of the inmates or staff, the good order or security of the facility, the protection of property, the prevention of the commission of additional crimes or conspiracy to commit a crime, to thwart attempts to destroy or tamper with evidence of crimes or to harass or intimidate witnesses The requester from outside the jail must complete a

8
Ex 20 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 9 of 17

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 41 of 63

J60J- R06

Jalluary 26, 20 12

Request for Inmate Mail Monitoring . An approved request will expire 30 days after its approval date. The requester must submit a new request to continue monitoring. Jail staff will read the inmate's mai l and decide if any of it applies to the request and will only forward copies of mail that does apply. The requeste r must pick up the copies in person if from an agency within Columbia Cou nty. The jail commander or designee will coo rdinate the mail-monitoring program .

30. Confiscating Prohibited Mail
Normally, mail handlers confiscate prohibited items. The sender of confiscated mai l
must be notified pursuant to paragraph 31 . Staff may return prohibited mail to a
sender if it is in the best interest of the jail not to store it, such as perishables.

a. Mail handlers will con fiscate postca rd s, letters, cards, and publica tions in whole rather than removing or oblite rating individual pages, passages, or words with prohibited content. They will confiscate items that exceed a number limit as an entire set rather Ihan passing on a selection thai would meet the maximum number allowed.

b. Mail handlers will use a Prohibited Mail Slip to inform the inmate of the confiscation and use a copy as a tag for the items. They will place confiscated items in the inmate's property sto rage , unless it is evidence in a jail disciplinary action or a crime. Th ey will handle evidence according to the applicable policy: Staff will not notify the inmate or sender if they confiscate items that are part of a criminal investiga tion.

c. Mail handlers must notify the sender in writing that mail they sent was confiscated or not delivered to the inmate, unless the inmate is no longer in custody. They should use a Prohibited Mail Slip for the notification. Any notice will give the reason and explain how Ihe sender can informally appeal the action.

d. A mail handler may destroy any item in mail that presents a health or safety risk if it were to be stored in the jailor returned to se nder, and notify the sender by se nding a Prohibited Mail Slip.

PROCESSING INCOMING MAIL
31. Initial Processing of Incoming Mail The mail handler wi ll process incoming mail for inmates in the following manner:
a. Return ma il to the sender (unopened if possible) or the USPS if any of the following apply:
(\) Incoming personal mail that is not a postcard , except privileged (legal or official) mail .

9 Ex 20 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 10 of 17

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 42 of 63

J603-R06

January 26, 2012

(2) The addressee cannot be identified because of missing or incomplete information
(3) Prohibited items are affixed to the mail (4) Foreign substances or stains are on the mail (5) Odors, including perfume, are coming from the mail (6) The mail contains cash or negotiable instruments (7) The mail can otherwise be identified as being or containing prohibited mail
before it is opened

b. Send a notice of right to reconsideration with returned mail. Send a notice of right to reconsideration to senders of confiscated mail. Complaints and requests for reconsideration shall be forwarded to the Jail Commander for a determination of compliance with the Mail Policy and applicable legal requirements.

c. Handle mail without a return name and address according to paragraph 8.

d. Look up the inmate's name on an Alpha List Sorted by Name report and write the inmate's pod number or "CCJn on the mail. Return mait to the sender if the
inmate is not in jail.

e. Separate legal and official mail from personal mail and books , periodicals and bulk mail.

f. Open and inspecllhe contents of personal mail, books, periodicals and bulk mail for contraband items and money. Confiscate any prohibited item.

g. Have a jail sergeant or jail commander look at personal business mail that may need approval for special handling. If approved, provide handling instructions to the roving deputy.

h. Remove books from their mailing parcel.

I. Place mail in a foreign language in the "translation required»box. Take steps to locate a staff member who speaks that language. If mail cannot be translated within a reasonable time, the mail handler will fOlWard the mail to a supervisor.
J. Sort mail by pod and place in the pod folders in booking before 0800 hours (8:00 a.m.).
k. Place mail to return to the post office in booking pickup box.

32. Pod Processing of Incoming Mail
Day shift roving deputies will pick up the mail for their pods when coming on duty. They , or other staff if appropriate, will process the inmate mail for their pods as follows:

10
Ex 20 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 11 of 17

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 43 of 63

J603-R06

January 26, 2012

a. Scan all personal postcards and books, periodicals and bulk mail for prohibited content. Read in-depth only if there is a legitimate jail interest.
b. Remove postage stamps, flap-sealing tape, and gummed and adhesive address labels. (Remove labels only on personal mail-leave labels on legal and official mail).
c. Remove subscription-ordering postcards from magazines.
d. Open recognizable legal and official mail in front of the inmale and inspect it only for contraband-not content. (Deputies, or other staff, must not read the contents.)
e. The mail handler will scan each piece of mail with a bar code scanner to indicate th e status of that item. The mail handerl will scan the inmate's name and then scan the appropriate bar code for the disposition of the item. Every piece of mail will be sca nned with one of the following sca ns:
(1) Personal Mail Received (2) Privileged Mail Received (3) Bulk Mail Received (4) Periodicals (i.e. magazines) Received (5) Books Received (6) Returned Mail (Prohibited Mail Slip to follow) (7) Confiscated Mail (Report to Follow)
f. Deliver the mail as soon as practical upon receipt. Passing mai l under an inmate's door and placing books by the door is acceptable.
g. Have the inmate write his or her name and booking number on the inside flap of books. For magazines without mailing labels directly attached, have the inmate write his or her name and booking number on the cover. Newspapers do not need marking.
33. Mail as Nuisance Contraband Inmates are responsible for getting rid of any mailed item that puts them over the limits of allowed for nuisance contraba nd under policy J212, Rules and Discipline. An inmate may transfer items to their bin in the property room using procedures in policy J208, Secure Storage of Inmate Property.

OUTGOING MAIL
34. General Mail Rules for Inmates Inmates-

II
Ex 20 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 12 of 17

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 44 of 63

J603- R06

Ja nuary 26, 2012

a. May only use lead or colored pencils to write co rrespondence. b. May only use postcards sold through the commissary or issued by the jail. c. Must send lega l, official o r approved letters, notes, or other written mate rials using
the USPS or other approved system. d. Must put their first and last name, booking number, and the jail add ress as the
return address. e. May not draw or write anything on the outside of an e nvelope other than name
and address information and "legal" or uofficial" mail designations. f. May not send out ja il forms for others to fill out on behalf of the inmate. g. May not send prohibited mail. They are subject to disciplinary action for doing
so.
h. Shou ld pass on prohibited ma il ru les to people and businesses with whom they correspond .

35. Inspection of Outgoing Envelopes
Before lega l or official mail leaves the pod, roving deputies will verify the contents are legal or official mail before sealing the envelope. The inspecting deputy will initia l and write their DPSST number on the flap to show this verification . As appropriate, the deputy will return it to the inmate, confiscate it as evidence in disciplinary proceedings , or contact a jail sergean t or jail command officer if-

a. The return name, booking numbe r, and address are incomplete or fa lse. b. T here is drawing or non-address-related writing on the envelope. c. There is prohibited materia l on the envelope. d. Addressee information is missing that could cause the letter to be undeliverable
and returned to the jail. e. It is a manila envelope whose addressee does not meet the criteria for be ing
legal or official mail or being a program-related certificate or diploma. f. They believe the envelope should be opened for a leg itimate reason .

36. Opening and Ins pecting Co ntents of Outgoing Mail
Mai l handling staff w ill not read outgoing legal Of offiCial mail unless they have the approval of a sergeant or command officer.

a. A jail supervisor may have staff read outgoing mai l at any time and for any reason, except for lega l or official mai l. This authorization may be by housing area, class of inmate, individual inmate, or other basis. It may a lso be on an ongoing or a random basis an d for any length of time. However, the jail commander or designee must approve any ongoing monitoring of a specific inmate, as previously noted.

b. Ma il hand le rs will notify a jai l supervisor if-

(I) They suspect outgoing mail contains contraband. (2) It may present a sa fety or security issue based on the add ressee. (3) They have reasonable suspicion the mail may contain other contents of
legitimate jail interest.

12

Ex 20 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 13 of 17

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 45 of 63

J60J-R06

January 26, 2012

37 . Posting Outgoing Mail Inmates will place outgoing mail in the designated mail box located inside of their pod. The Grave yard sh ift roving Deputy's will pick up the mail out of the mail box and deliver it to the booki ng area to be processed. The mail will be placed in the outgoing mail basket and delivered to the front office for the regularly schedu led morning pickup on that same day as long as it is not a weekend or holiday. Outgoing mail should be processed withi n one business day after being received from the inmate. a. Processing of in mate mail wi ll consist of:
(1) Sorting the mail (2) Sca nning the inmates name and appropriate bar code to reflect the proper disposition of the mail.
A. Outgoing Personal Mail 8. Outgoing Privilege Mail (Official & Legal)
C. Mail Returned (Proh ibited Mail Slip to follow) D. Confiscated Mail (Report to Follow)
E. Ou tgoing Package
F. Outgoing Certified Mail.
38. Mail Delivery
Staff should deliver mail to inmates within 24 hours of receipt al the jail. Reasonable exceptions are allowed when special processing is requ ired, such as for mail delivered late in the day, needing translation , or items held as evidence in a criminal or disciplinary investig ation, etc.

ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES
39. Mail Rules The jail commander or designee will ensure mail rules are a part of inmate orientation and the Inmate Manual and will make copies of the Inmate Mail Gu ide available to the public. Civilian staff members who discover apparent misconduct as a result of reading inmate mail will report it via the cha in of command.
40. Mail Complaints Staff members will direct mail compla ints from the public to a jail command officer. The officer shou ld attempt to respond to the complai nant with in two business days. Inmates w ill use the inmate grieva nce process to lodge complaints or ask for the return of confiscated items.
41. Mail Handler Supervision and Training A jail supeIVisor will supervise the day-to-day handling of inmate mail. He or she will assig n staff to pe rform primary inmate ma il duties. Staff who in itially handle or open incoming inmate mail should attend training on the safe handling of strange or
13
Ex 20 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 14 of 17

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 46 of 63

J603-R06

January 26, 20 12

suspicious packages or receive similar training from another source. Those who open mail should also receive training on recognizing gang and security threat group symbols and signs.

42, Change of Address Responsibilities and Forwarding Mail
Inmates are responsible for submitting change of address requests to the publishers of the periodicals they receive and to others that send them mail at the jail. Mail handlers will normally not forward mail for inmates who are no longer in jail custody. They will return correspondence and packages unopened to the sender and th row periodicals away.

43. Holding Mail
Mail handlers will normally not hold mail for inmates released or temporarily transferred to another facility. A jail command office r may make exceptions.

44. Returning Mail to Sender To return postcards, a mail handler will use a sticker or stamp marked ~return to sender," note the reason for refusal on the stamp, obliterate any mail-sorting bar code, and return it to the post office. To return unopened mail (other than postcards), a mail handler will use the "return to sender" stamp in place of the sticker.
To return mail that was opened , a mail handler must repackage it and send it at the expense of the jail to the sender. The mail handler will include a copy of the Returned Mail form letter and the Inmate Mail Guide if he or she repackages the mail.
Mail handlers will use a Property Transfer and Confiscation form to inform the inmate when mail is returned to sender.

14 Ex 20 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 15 of 17

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 47 of 63

J603- R06

January 26, 2012

o Appendix 1: Prohibited Mail

Jail staff will not allow an inmate to receive or send mail that-

I. Containsa. Threats of physical harm, blackmail, extortion , or other criminal activity b. Plans fOf escape , criminal activity , or activity that violates jail rules c. Gang -related material d. Information that , if conveyed , could result in physica l harm to someone e. Sexua lly explicit materials f. Inflammatory material g. Contraband materials (see definition on page 1 and paragraphs 32-34), including but not limited to such commonly mailed items as:
(I ) Books larger than 9 by 12 inches or with plastic or metal bindings (2) More ·than th ree books in a single piece of mail (3) Foreign substances, such as:

(a) Bodily fluids
(b) Lipstick or perfume
(e) Glue or paint
(d) Anything with an unusual stain or odor that indicates a foreign substance may be present
2. Is writte n in code or suspected code 3. Is writte n in a foreign language not read by a mail handler or other reasonab ly
available staff member 4. Was sent by an inmate to a th ird party who then forwarded to another inmate 5. Was a form of written communication not sent through the USPS or other approved
system 6. Is incoming mail and comes from an inmate lodged in the Columbia County Jail, or
other corrections-monitored facility that lodges in-custOdy inmates. This includes mental hospitals and treatment facilities. 7. Is to or from an inmate on electronic home detention. 8. Is to or from a victim of a crime that the inmate is in custody for in either pretrial or sentenced status. 9, Would violate a court order. 10. May produce a hostile work environment. such as sexual harassment. II. Does not promote jail program and rehabilitation treatment goals.

J 5 Ex 20 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 16 of 17

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 48 of 63

J603-R06

J an uary 26, 2012

12.ls not an app roved commercial business or govern ment service transaction. 13. Is a cred it or deferred billing transaction, such as "bill me later' subscriptions or
merchandise bought on cred it or collect-on-delivery terms. 14. Violates negotiable instrument limits on sources and maximum dollar amount. 15. Is fra udulently marked as lega l or officia l mai l.

16
Ex 20 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 17 of 17

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 49 of 63

EXHIBIT 21
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

9'70,05 fl246104

Ex 21 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 1 of 10

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 50 of 63
Oregon Secretary of State Archives J);vision

.. The Oregon A dministrative Rules contain OA Rs filed through December 15, 2011 <II

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

DIVISION 131
MAIL (INMATE)
291-131-0005
Authority, Purpose, and Policy
(I) Authority: The authority for these rules is granted to the Director of the Department of Correctioos In aCCOfdance with ORS 179.040. 4 23 .020, 423.030, and
423.075 .
(2) Purpose: The purpose o f these rules is to establish Department of Correctioos policy and procedures gcwerning the sending, receipt and pl"OCessing of inmate mail in Department of Corrections facilities.
(3) Policy: WIthin the inherent limitatioos o f resources and the need for facilily security, safety . heallh. order and discipline. and inmate rehabilitation, ij is the policy of the Department o f Corrections (OOC) to permit inmates to send and receive mail in the manner and under the circumstances set forth in these rules.
Stat. AIlIh .: ORS 179.040, ORS 423.020. ORS 423.030 & ORS 423.075 Stats. Implemented: ORS 179.040, ORS 423 .020. ORS 423.030 & ORS 423.075 His!.: CD t-1979. f. & ef. 1-4-79; CD 11-1980(Temp), f. & ef. 4 -10-80; CD 18-1980(Temp), I. & 01. 4_18 _80; CD 28-1960, f. & ef. 8-22-60; CD 31-1961(Temp). f. & ef. 8-30-81; CD 43_1981, f. & 01. 10-30.81; CD 22-1983(Temp), f. & ef. 6-3·83: CD 27-1983, f. & ef. 7-11·83; CD 13-1984, f. & ef. 4-11-84; CD 57-1985 , f. & el. 8-16-65; CD 14-1988. 1. & cert ef. 10_7·88 (and corrected 10_25.88); CD 1_1992, f. & cert. ef. 1-29-92; DOC 20-1996, f. 9-22-96 , cert. ef. 12-1 -96; DOC 13-2002, f. 9-11-02 cert. 01. 9-20-02
291-131-0010
Definition5
(I) Business Transaction: A transaction involving the purchase, sale or delivery of me<chandise. commodibes or services.
(2) Central Administration: The Di rectOf, Depuly Directol", Assistant Directors, administrators. or other Department of Corrections officials whose offices or mail boxes are located in the central office at 2575 Genter Street NE, Salem, OR 97301-4667.
(3) COnfiscate: To remove the item or that portion 01 the ~em which violates these rules.
(4) Contraband: Any article or thing which an inmate is prohibited by statute, rule or order from obtaining, pOSsessing, or which the inmate is not specificalty authOrized to oblain or possess. or which the inmate altefS without authorization.
(5) Department of Corrections Facility: Any institution. facility or staff offICe . includillQ the grounds, operated by the Department of Corrections.
(6) Electronic Messages: Corresporldence e~changed between inmates and subscribers through a department approved third · party electronic messaging vendor by means of computers equipped for internet access.
(7) Functiona l Unit: Any organizatiooal component within Ihe Department of Corrections responsibfe for the delivery of services or coordinatioo of program operations.
(B) FUr>Ction,,1 Unit Man"ger: Any pQrwn within Iho o..pa"ment of Comx:tion~ who roports 10 eitller the Director. DeP'J\Y Di'eclo'. an Assistant Di'ector, or an administrator and has responsibility for delNery of program services or coordination 01 program operations.
(9) tnnammatory Materia l: Material whose presence in the facility is deemed by the department to constitute a direct and Immediate Ihreal to the security. safety.
health, good order. or discipline of the facility because il incites or advocates physical violence against others. No publication shall be conSidered inflammatory solely
on the basis of its appeal to a particular ethnic, racial or religious audience . No material shall be oonsk)erecl inflamma tory solety because ~ criticizes the operation, programs or personnel of the Department o f COrrections, the State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, or of any other government agency.
(10) Inmate: Any person under the supervision of the Department 01 Corrections who is not on parole. probation. or post-prison supervision status .
(II) Inspection: To eKamine or view. including reading or photocopying.
(12) Inter-Agency Mail System: A system of delivering mail between or among state ageodes and other un~s of govemment
(13) Intradepartmental Mail System: A system of delivering mail among functional units within the Department of Corrections.
(14) Legal Mail: Incoming or outgoing mail to or rom an attorney, court, or court official which is dearly worded "lega l mair on the addressee side of the envelope.

hrtpllarcweb.sos.state.or.uslpageslrulesloars_2001oar_2911291 _131 .hlml[ tf3012012 II :18:55 AM]

Ex 21 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 2 of 10

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 51 of 63

Or. gon Secrclary of Sial. Archivc5 Division
The legal mail designalion should be set apart from the relum address and mailing address for ease of recogn~ion.
(15) Mail: Incoming or outgoing mall, including eJectron;c messages, authorized by these rules to be sent or received by an inmate and delivefed by the United States Poslal Service or any other carrier approved by the department Indueling. but not limited to, parcel service enterprises or electronic messaging services.
(t6) Money: Cash. money orders. personal checks, warrants. certified checks, and other remittances.
(17) Non·lnmate Sender: The person wIlo is not residing at a Department of Cooections faci lity wIlo sends mail to an inmate who is residing in a Department of Corrections facility ,
(16) Official Mail: I~ng and outgoing mail addressed to Of from officials of the confining authority, the Governor. the Secretary of State. Oregon's state legislators, Oregon's United States Congressional delegation, tribal governments, administrators of grievance systems, foreign embassy consulate, and members of the paroling authority, which is dearly worded ·official mair on the addressee side of the envelope. The official mail designation Should be set apart from the return address and mailing address for ease of recognition.
(19) Package; A completely wrapped parcel received that is more than 1/4 inch thick regardless of other dimensions, received directly from the source w~h authorized postage, and legal and official mail up to three inct1es.
(20) Personal Photograph : Any an.alog or dig~al photograph of a person, or any duplication thereof, Personal photographs indude any photograph scanned and printed from the internet or other photographs where the identity of the perSOf1 is unknown 10 the department or cannot be reasonably ascertained by the department by examining the content of the accompanying material. Any graphic image sent w~h or attached to an electronic massage will be considered a personal photograph.
(21) Portrayal: The act or process by which an idea or message is depicted or represented , usually by written words or images.
(22) Publication : A book or sIngle issue of a magazine or newspaper, plus such other materials addressed 10 a specific inmate as Ryeo-s, and catak:>gs, received directly tom the publisher.
(23) Publisher, Distributor or Book Vender: A business, organization, or firm that issues and makes available 10 the public (generally lor sale and ~ disllibution) magazines, newspapers, new and used books ar.d other pu~icaijons.
(24) Se<:urity Threat Groop (STG): Any group of two Of fTl()(e individuals who:
(a) Have a oomrnon name, identifying symbol, or characteristic which serves to distinguish themselves from others .
(b) Have members, affi~ates, or associates who ir.dividually Of oollectively engage, or have engaged, in a pattern of ilticit activity or acts of miscondUct that violates
Oregon Department of Corrections rules.
(c) Have the potential to act in concert to present a threat, Of potential threat, to staff, public, visit0f5, inmates, offenders or the secure and orderly operation of the institution.
(25) Security Threat Group Paraphernalia: Any material, document(s) or items evidenciflQ security threat group involvement Or activities (e.g. , rosters, constitutions, structures, codes. pictures. training material, clothing , communica~ons or other security threat group-relate<! contraband ,
Stat. Auth .: ORS 179.040, 423 .020, 423 .030 & 423.075 Stats. lmplemented : ORS 179.040, 423.020. 423.030 & 423 .075
His\.. CD 1· 1979, I. & ef. 1-4·79; CD 1I·198O{Temp), f. & ef. 4.10·60: CD 18.1960{Temp), f. & el. 4.18_llD: CD 28.1980, f. & at. 8· 22·60; CD 31.1961(Temp), f. & el. 6·30-61 ; CD 43·1961, f. & ef. 10·30-61 ; CD 22·1983{Temp), I. & ef. 6·3·83; CD 27 ·1983, f. & el. 7·11-63; CD 13·1964, f. & ef. 4·11·64: CD 57.1985, f. & ef. 6·16·85; CD 14.1986. f. & cart ef. 10·7·68 (and COrlected 10·25·68): CD 1·1992, f. & cert. ef.l·29-92; CD 10·1993, I. 5·5·93, cert ef. 7·\·93; DOC 20-1998, I. 9·22·98, cert
ef. 12.1.98; DOC 12.2001{Temp) f. & cert ef. 6·20·01 thru 12·17-01; DOC 20·2001 , f. & cert ef. 12·17·01 ; DOC 4·2002{Temp) , f. & cert. el. 3·25-02 thru 9·21·02; DOC 13· 2002, f. 9.11·02 cert. ef. 9.20-02; DOC 5·2oo7{Temp), f. & cert. ef. 6·1·07thru 1·27·08: DOC 1·2006, f. & cert ef. 1·25"()8
Proce dures
291 -131·0015
Ge neral
(1) The functional unit manager or designee will ensure employees responsible for mail room operations are property trained prior to assignment.
(2) Inmates shal l not send, receive, transfer, or possess mail which vioiates the provisions of these rules.
(3) Inmates shall not send, receive, transfer, or possess mail to or Irom the victim(s) of their aime(s) 0 1conviction (both past and present), except as authorized in
w1\Ung by the functional unit manager or designee.
(4) Inma\e~ shall not cornlud business lransadion~ by mail without the prior written consent of the functional unit manager or design_.
(5) Exduding weekends and holidays, inooming ar.d outgoing oorrespondence should be processed within two days of receipt; publications and packages within four
days of receipt, unless the mail is being revfewed lor possible vioiations.
(6) All incomIng and outgoing maills subject to Inspection or examination. Legal and official mail is subject to Inspection or examination as provided In OAR 291.131.
0030.
(7) All mail , exduding packages, shall be rooted through the U.S. Postal Service, inler· agency or intra·departmental mail systems. Mail may also be sent by other approved mail service providers for packages and special circumstances, if authorized by the functional unit manager. other mail service providers includes, but is nol limited to, Un ited Parcel Service, U.S. Airborne, Federal Express, approved newspaper delivery, and approved vendors offering electronic messaging services. Authorization may vary among Department of Corrections facil~ies depending upon security coocerns, mail room operations and pllysicallayout of the building and groundS.
(8) Inmates shall be permitted to send business mail to officials of the Department of COrrectioos in Central Administration through the intra-departmental mail system. Inmates shall not be permitted to send mailthrollgh the state inteo-.agency mail system , Inmates shall be permitted 10 receive mall from state agencies and officials

hnp:!I••eweb.sos.state.or.uslpagesINl esloan_2001oar_291 1291 _ 131 .html[ 113012012 t t:18:55 AM]

Ex 21 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 3 of 10

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 52 of 63

Oregon S"""'tary of Stale Archives Division
throogh the inter-agency and intra-departmental mail systems.
(9) Each mootll an inmate, who in the previous month has not accumulated tile cost of five postage paid envelopes (for less tIlan one ounce) in his/her trust accounL w~1 be issued five postage paid envelopes by tile facility ifhelshe requests.
(10) Inmate to Inmate Mail Resl!iction:
(a) AIl inmate may be pfOhiOited from corresponding with another inmate(s) when d irected by the Department of Corrections facility lunctionalunrt manager or designee. and approved by the Assistant Director of DperationsJdesignee. based on specific circumstances or information which in their judgment indicates that tile inmate has or may use correspondence with the other inmate{s) in order to violate provisions of law. department administrative rules, or to otherwise engage in activity that threatens or impairs tile seculity, good order. or discipline of the facil ity, Inmate rehabilitation, or the health or safety of inmates. stalf or the public, or to
engage in other activity that threatens or is detrimental to other legitimate penological objectives.
(b) Affected inmate{s) win be notified of the restriction through written directive A decision to order an inmate-to-inmatemail restriction under these rules shall be final
and not subject to administrative review .
(II) Electronic Messaging:
(a) Availability and Inmate Access:
(A) The Department of Corrections may. in ~s sole discretion. authorize eligible inmates in certain Department of Corrections facilities to exchange electronic messages with friends and family as a non-monetary Incentive , subject to tile conditions and circumstances set forth in these and in the Pertormance Recognition
Award System (PRAS) rules (OAR 291-77).
(8) Wlen authorized by the depanment, electronic messaging will be available only 10 those inmates that are at the upper two Incentive levels at their respective instilullons (Levels 2 and 3 at mioifnum-seculily and above institutions or Levels 5 and 6 at minimum-security ins~tutions).
(C) In \hose Department of Corrections facilities in which electronic messaging is authorized, inmates that are otherwise eligible to access electronic messaging in
those facilities may do so in accordance with these rules. contingent upon the payment 01 a fee to the third-party vendor for subscription purposes by the inmates'
friendS or family.
(b) Processing of Electronic Messages:
(A) Except as otherwise provided in these ruk's, electronic messages witl be processed in the same manner and be subject to the same standards established in these rules for the sending, receipL and processing of other inmate mail.
(8) Incoming electronic messages !fom subscribers will be processed by an approved third · party venoor and delivered electronically to departmenl mail rooms for staff
review, printing, and delivery to inmates. Outgoing ~ectronic messages from inmates will be reviewed , scanned and processed by department mail room stalf and
forwarded to the approved third-party vendor for review, scanning, and posHng on the vendor's website for access by subscriber~
(C) All electrOflic messages wi\( be subject 10 regular maillnspedion and examination; no electronic message win be afforded special processing by department staff as legal ma~ or official mail.
(D) In the event that an Inmate is transferred from a Department of Corrections facility where electronic messaging is authorized to a facility where it is not. departmental mail room stalfwill forward incoming electronic messages to \tte inmate through the regular mail system tor the remainder of the calendar month.
Sial. Auth.: DRS 179.040, 423020. 423.030 & 423.075 Slats. Implemented: DRS 179.040, 423.020, 423.030 & 423.075 Hisl: CD 18(Temp), f. & ef. 12-18-73 thru4-17-74; CD 22, 1. 6_27_74, ef. 7_25_74; CO 1_1979. f. & ef. 1.4-79; Renumbered from 291-010_0300, CD 11-1980{Temp). f. & ef. 4-10-80; CO 16-1960(Temp), f. & ef. 4-16-60; CD 28-1960, f. & ef. 6-22-60; CO 22-1963(Ternp), 1. & ef. 6-3-83; CO 27-1963, I. & ef. 7-11·83: CD 57-t985, f. & ef. 8-16-85; CD 14-1988, f. & cert. ef. 10-7-88 (and OOfrected 10-25-68); CD 1-1992. f. & cert. ef. 1-29-92; CD 10-1993, I. 5-5-93, cen. ef. 7-1-93; DOC 20-1998.1. 9-22-98. cert. eI. 12-1-98; DOC 23-1998(Temp). f. & cert. ef. 12-23_98!hru 6-21-99; DOC 8-1999 . f. 5.24-99 . cert. ef. 6-1-99; DOC 20-2001, f. & cert. ef. 12_17-01; DOC 4-2002(Temp), I. & cen . ef. 3-25-02 thru 9-21-02; DOC 13-2002.1. 9_11-02 cert. ef. 9-20-02; DOC 16-2oo4(Temp). f. & cert. eI. 12_28.04 thnl6.26_05; DOC 72005, f. & cert. ef. 7-1·05; DOC 5-2007{Temp), f. & <:ert. ef. 8-1-07 thiU '-27-08; DOC 1-2008, f. & cerL ef. 1·25_08
291 -131-0020
Outgoing Mall
(1) Outgoing mail must be wnUen wilh lead or cobl" pencil, pen, nontoxic markers or be typewril1en or photocopied .
(2) OutgOing mail , except business ma,l to departmenl officials In Central Administration sent through the intra departmental mail system. shall be enclosed In an approved DOC envelope wilh U.S. postage. The outSide of the envelope shall contain only the inmate's committed name. SID number. and reMn address. and the addressee's name and address, excepl official or legal mail labeled as such in accordance w~h OAR 291-131-0030. If the sender cannot be idenlified, the mail will be destroyed.
(3) BuSiness mail to Department Of corrections offICials in Cenlf31 Administration shall require the inmate's complete name. SID number. hOllsing assignment. and return address and the official's complete name and address.
(4) Outgoing electronic messages shall indude the full name and address of the intended recipient and the name and SID number of the inmate sender.
(5) Inmales shall not send any ~em ·prohibited from rece;p\ by mair as described under OAR 291-131-0035 , except as authorized by the functionalunil manager.
(6) Inmale-to-Inmate COITespondence:
(a) Inmates are authorized to corresportd wilh other inmates II the correspondence is otherwise in compliance with department rules.
(A) Inmates may send only the following items to another inmate:
(i) Correspondence;

bnp:l!arcweb.sos.slalt.or.uslpalleslrulesioars_200/00J_2911291 _13 I.h1ml[ 1131112012 11: I8:55 AlV!]

Ex 21 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 4 of 10

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 53 of 63

Orecon Sec,dary efSt.te Archi"". Divi.ion
(iij Ooe drawing per envelope: and
(ii) One photograph per envelope.
(8) Inmates shall not send newspaper or magazine c~ppings. photocopies. printed web pages. or any other material not listed in subsectiOll (A) above to another
inmate through the mail.
(b) All inmate to inmate correspondence st1all be routed through the U.S. Postal Service.
(c) Inmates shall not enclose correspondence other than from the inmate sender whose name and relurn address appears on the front of the envelope . lnmates shall not request another inmate 10 forward COI1"espondence beyond the immediate addressee.
(d) Inmales st1all not send a package 10 another inmate.
(7) Inmates shall not send correspondence or any item to themselves through the ma il.
(8) Inmates shall not use electronic messaging to correspond with other inmates.
Stal. Auth .: ORS 179.040. 4 23 .020. 423.030 & 423 .075 Stats. Implemented: ORS 179.040.423.020, 423.030 & 423 .075 His\.: CD 18(Temp), f. & ef. 12-18-73 thru 4·17-74; CD 22, f. 6-27-74. ef. 7-25-74; CD 1-1979, f. & ef. 1·4-79: Renumbered from 291-010-0305, CD 11-1980(Temp), f. & ef. 4 -10-80; CD 16-1980(Temp), f. & ef. 4 -18-80; CD 28-1980, f. & ef. 8-22-80; CD 22-19B3(Temp), f. & ef. 8-3-83; CD 27-1983. f. & ef. 7.11·83; CD 57_1985. f.
& ef. 8-16-85; CD 14-1988, r. & cert. ef. 10-7-88 (and corrected 10-25-88); CD 1-1992. f, & cert. ef. 1-29_92; CD 10-1993. f. 5·5-93, cert. ef. 7_1 _93; DOC 20-1998. f. 9-22-98 , cert. ef. 12_1_98; DOC 20_2001.!. & cert. ef. 12_17_01; OOC 13-2002. f, 9 -11_02 cert. el. 9_20_02; DOC 5.2007(Temp). f. & cert. ef. 8-1-07 thru 1-27-08; DOC 1_2008, f. & cert. el. 1_25_08; DOC 4-2011(Temp), I. 3-4 _11. cert. ef, 4_1_11 thru 9_28_11: DOC 15-2011, f, & cert. ef. 8_15_11
291 -131 -0021
Out90in9 Mail Res triction
The department may prohib~ an inmate from sending unwanted mail to a partiCUlar person or address when requested by the person or, in Ihe case of a minor child. by Ihe child's parent or ~I guardian.
(1) A request for outgoing mail resltiction may be made by writing to the functional unit manager or designee at the Department of Corrections facility where the
inmate is incarcerated. The written request should Incl ude any information that would assist the furl(:tional un~ manager or designee in determining whether to order
the OI.Itgoing mail restriction .
(2) The functional unit manager Of designee will notify \he person requestiflQ the outgoing mall resltiction of hislher decision. The decision will be f,nal , and will not be subject to administrative review. If an outgoing mail restriction is ordered, \he inmate and the person reques~ng the outgoing mail restriction shall be provided with a copy o! the Outgoing Mail Restriction Notice (CD 618d).
(3) Inmales may not request an outgoing mail restriction.
Stat. Aulh. : ORS 179.040.423,020,423.030 & 423.075 Stats. Implemented: ORS 179.040. 423.020. 423,030 & 423.075 Hist: DOC 20-2001. I. & cert. el. 12-17-01, Renumbered from 291 -131-0020(6)
291-131 -0025
Incomin9 Mail
(1) Incoming mail shall require the sender's name and relurn address 011 the front of the envelope and shall be addressed to the inmate using onty hislher committed name and SID number. Incoming electronic messages shall include the name and address of the sender as part 01 the message and the full name and SID number of the inmate recipient.
(a) Ma~ whose recip;ent cannot be identified because of Inco~lete name or number will be relurned to the sender. A reasonable attempt will be made to identify the
inmate redpien\. II the inmate recipient cannot be posi~vely identified, the mail will be retumed to the sender.
(b) Mail with no return address or an incomp~le name and return address shall be refused and returned to the U.S. Postal Service or other authori1:ed mail service provider.
(c) The pla<:ement of the return address for intemational mail shall be in accordance with the sending country's postal regulations.
(2) Incoming mail must be in pen , lead or color pencil, non-toxic markers or be typewritten or photocopied.
(3) Transfers:
(a) Incoming mail to inmates not residing in the receiving fadlity wiU be forwarded to the inmate if he/she resides at another Department of Corrections !adlity.
(b) Incoming mail for inmates temporarity transferred to another criminal justice agency wiU be heid at the facHity for seven consecutive days. If the inmate does not return to the fadlity w~hin seven days. the facility will forward to the agency all acrumulated and subsequent ma il received at the racil ity. If the criminal justice agency refuses the forwarded mail. ~ wil l be held at \he department fadlity until the inmate has been returned.
(4) Ma ll received for an iflmate who has been released, discharged, or has escaped st1an be refused and returned to the U.S. Postal Service or other authorized mail service provider.
(5) New and used books, magazines, and newspapeffi shall onty be received directly from the publisher or distributor.
(a) Multiple copies of the same publication to an inmate shall be prohibited.
(b) Publications that have been previousty rejected by the department and altered (i.e.. offending pages removed) shall be prohibited.

h!tp:llarcwcb.so•.st.te.or.uslpageslrulesloar._200loar_2911291_131.html[ 1130/2012 II :18,55 AM)

Ex 21 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 5 of 10

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 54 of 63
Oreson Set'relary ofSlale Archives Division
(6) Inmates may reooive catalogs, advertisements, brochures, promotional materials , pamphlets. sweepstakes, and contesl materials solicited by the inmate provided the materials are properly addressed with the inmate's full name and SID number and are received directly al the correct address of Where the inmate is currently housed. These materials must conform to any oontent restrictions contained w~hin this N~.
(7) No notice or administrative review will be provided to the sender or intended inmate recipient lor mail refused under subsections (5)(a) and (b) or (6) 01 this rule.
(8) Packages. except books. magazines, and newspapers received directly from the pubHsher or distributor, require prior authorization from the functiona l unit manager or designee.
(9) Central Administration Review of PublicationS:
(a) Facility mailroom staff Shall stamp approval of all accepted books, magazines and other publications (except newspapers) on the front or inside front cover of the publication, together with the inmate'S name, SID number, date accepted, and the authoriZing staffs signature . Books and magazines withoul the completed stamp on the Iront or inside the front cover shall be unauthorized and coo~dered contraband.
(b) Unauthorized attachments , enclosures , merchandise, or materialS in publications may be removed and destroyed to allow the publication to be delivered to the intended inmate recipient, ilthe publication is otherwise in compliance with these rules, and doing so would not drastically alter/destroy the publication.
(c) II mailroom staff determine a publication conta ins material that is prohibited under these or other department administrative rules, the violation notk:e and prohibited mater~1 shall be reviewed by a deslgllated Central Administration official, who will either affirm, reverse or otherwise modily the original rejection decision in Wliti ng. The reviewing offICial shall not take part in any subsequent administrative review of the re)eded publication under OAR 291 -131-0050.
(10) General correspondence shall be au\l1olized up to 114 inch thickness. Legal and official mait received directly lrom the original source shan be authorized up to three inches thiel<.. Legal and off.cial mail in excess ofltlree inches shall require prior approval from the functional unil manager or designee.
(11) Unauthorized Attachments and Enclosures:
(a) Only the canceled postage stamp, address label, and return address stamp (if used) attached to the Iront of an envelope or package Shall be glued, taped or
otherwise affixed to an envelope or package , or ilScontents.
(b) Only written correspondence, newspaper and magazine d ippings, small pamphlets, photocopies, carbon copies, business ca rds, hand made drawings, printed web pages, and photographs that meet the content restrictions in these rules may be enclosed in the envelope.
(A) UnauthoriZed ~ems with min imal monetary value (e.g" paper clips, rubber bands, uncancelled stamps, book marks , envelopes, blank paper, etc.) may be removed alld destroyed and the remaining mail sent 10 the inmale ifltle remaining contents are otherwise in compliance wiltl department rules.
(B) Small pamphlets, photocopies. carbon copies and hand·made drawings shall be allowed provided the contents do not exceed the O11e fourth inch thickness
limitation as specified in section (10) above.
(C) Newspaper and magazine clipp;ngs and photographs shall not exceed ten ~ems for each category.
(D) Freestanding Nude or Partially Nude Images: Newspaper and magazine clippings, photocopies, printed web paillls, drawings, photog raphs, and other media with nude or partia lly nude subjects, Whether human or anime (i.e., cartoon) , that depict or display male or lemale genital ia, pubic area or anus , or expose the lemale
areola, may not be attached to or enclosed in correspondence to Inmates.
Stal Allth. : ORS 179.040, 423.020, 423.030 & 423.075 Sl ats. I mp~mented: ORS 179.040, 423.020, 423.030 & 423.075 His!.: CD 18(Temp), 1. & ef. 12·18-73 thru 4_17_74; CD 22, 1. 8 -27 -74 , el. 7_25_74; CD 1-1979, f. & ef. 1-4_79; Renumbered from 291-010_0310, CD 11 -1980(Te",,), I. & ef. 4-10-80; CD 16-1980(Temp), f. & er. 4-18-80: CD 28-19BO, f. & ef. 8-22-80; CD 22-19B3{Terlll), I. & er. 6_3_83; CD 27_1983, I. & ef. 7_11_83; CD 41_ 1963(Temp), f. & ef. 10-14-83; CD 13·1984, f. & af. 4-1 1-84; CD 57- 1985, 1. & ef. 8-16-85: CD 14-1988, f. & cert el. 10-7-B8 (and corrected 10-25-88); CD 1-1992, f. & cert. el. 1_29_92: CD 10-1993,1. 5-5_93, cert. ef. 7 -1-93; DOC 20-1998 , f. 9-22-98, cert. al. 12-1-98; DOC 12-2001(Temp} I. & cert. ef. 6-20-OlthN 12-17-01; DOC 20-2001,1. & cert. el. 12-17-01: DOC 4. 2oo2(Temp), f. & cert. el. 3_25-021tlru 9-21-02: DOC 13_2002, I. 9·11-02 cert. ef. 9-20 -02; DOC 5-2oo7(Temp), f. & cert. er. 8-1-07 thru 1-27-08: DOC 1-2008, f. & cert. ef. 1-25-08: DOC 17-2008, I. 7_18-08 , cert. el. 7-21.08: DOC 4-2011(Temp), f. 3-4-11, cert. ef. 4_1_11 Ihru 9-28-11; DOC 15-201 1, f. & cert. ef. 8-15-11
291-131-0030
Examlnation/tnspection of Lega t and Official Mall
(1) Legal or offICial ma~ shall be afforded special processing as provided in subsections (2) and (3) 01 this Nle.
(a) To quatily lor special processing, mail which otherwise qualifies as legal or official mail under OAR 291-131-0010(13) or (17) must have affixed to the addressee side 01 the envelope or parcel the words "LEGAL MAIL" or ·OFFICIAL MAIL', as appropriate. The "LEGAL MAIL" or "OFFI CIAL MAIL" designation should be sel apart
from both Ille return address and the maili1lQ address, and should be 01 suffoent size, to permit easy recognitioo by faCIlity mailroom employ~.
(b) Mail which otherwise qualifieS as !egal and official mail under OAR 291-131 -010(13) or (17) but lackS the proper designation shall be processed as ord inary mall (i.e., shall be subject to inspection (e.g., opening, e:<amination, reading or photocopying» outstde the inmate's presence .
(2) Legal and official ma~ sentlrom or received in a Department 01 Corrections facil ity in sealed envelopes or parcels shall be opened and e:<amined for contraband in the presence 01 the inmate, but sha ll not be read or photocopied. except as authorized in subsection (3) of this rule ,
{3} Legal and offICial mail may be inspected (I.e., opened, examined, read or photocopied) ootside of the inmate's presence only when directed by the Department of Corrections lacmty lunctional unit manager or de~gnee, and approved by the Assistant Director of Operations or the Inspector General. based on SpecifIC circumstances or specif.c information indicating that an inmate or other person has or may be in the process of viotating provisions of law, department administraUve Nles, or may otherwise be engaged in activity which threatens or impairs the security, good order, or discipline of the facility and officials. staff, or Inmates.
Stat. Aulh. : ORS 179.040,423.020,423.030 & 423.075 Stats. Imp~mented: ORS 179.040, 423.020, 423.030 & 423.075 Hist. : CD 18(femp), f. & ef. 12-18-73lhru 4-17-74: CD 22, I. 6-27-7 4, el. 7-25-74; CD 1-1979, I. & ef. 1-4-79: CD 11·198O(Temp), f. & er. 4-10-80; CD 161980(femp).I. & ef. 4-18 -80: CD 28 -1980, f. & ef. 8·22-60; CD 22-1983(Temp), f. & ef. 8-3-83: CD 27-1983, f. & ef. 7-11-83; CD 57-1985, f. & ef. 8-16·85: CD t4 -
Ex 21 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 6 of 10

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 55 of 63

Oregoo Secrelary of SI31e Archives Divisioo
1988, '- & cert. e'- 10_7_88 (and corrected 10-25-88): CD 1-1992, f, & cert. ef. 1-29·92: CD 10-1993, f. 5-5-93, cert. et. 7-1·93; DOC 20·1998, f. 9-:22-98, cert. ef. 12' -98; DOC 20-2001. f. & cert. ef, 12_17_01; DOC '-2008.1. & cert. ef. '-25-08 291-131..()035 Prohibited Mail The following materials consbtute prohibited mail which shall be confiscated or returned to the sender: (1) sexuatly Explicit Material: (a) se~ually explicit matenal which by its nature or content poses a threat or is detrimental to tile security, good order or disdpline of the facility, inmate rehabilitation, or facililales criminal activity including, but not limited to, the following: (Al sexual Acts Of Behaviors: (i) Portrayal of actual 0( Simulated sexual acts or behaviors between human beings including, but not limited to, intercourse , sodomy. fellatio, cunnilingus or masturbation. (ii) Portrayal of actual or simulated penetration of the vagina or anus, or contact between the mouth and the breast, genitals. or anus.
(i ii) Portrayal of actual or simulated stimulation of the breast, genita ls, or anus. ~v) Portrayal of actual or simulated acts or threatened ads of force or violence in a sexual context, including, but not limited to. forcible intercourse (rape) or acts of sadomasochism emphasizing the infliction of pain. (v) Portrayal of actual or Simulated sexual acts or behaviors in which one of the participants is a minci, or appears \0 be under the age of 18, (vi) Bestiality: Portrayal of actual Of simulated sexual acts or behaviorS between a human being and an animal.
(8) Excretory Functions: Portrayal of actual or simulated human excretoty functions, induding, but not limited to, urination, defecation, or ejaculation.
(C) PefSOl1a l photographS in which the subject is nude: displays male or female genitalia, pubic area, or anus: or exposes Ihe areola. (D) Freestanding Nude or Partia lly Nude Images: Newspaper and magazine c1ippirlgs, photocopies, printed web pages, drawings contained in Incoming mail, and photographs, with nude or partially nude sut:4ects, wllether human 0( anime (i.e ., cartoon) , that depict 0( display male or female geflitalia , pubic area or anus, or expose the female areola, (b) No distinction shall be made between depictions of heterosexual and homosexual activity in applying these standards.
(c) Sexually explicit material does not include material of a news Of informaUon type, for example, publications covering the activilies of gay rights or gay religious groups. (d) Literary publications shall not be excll.lded solely because of homosexual themes Of references, except for violations of these rules. (e) Sexually explidt material may be admitted if it has scholarly value , or general social Of literary v~lue.
(2) Material That T hreatens or is Detrimental to the Security , Safety, Health. Good Order Of Disdpline of the Facility , Inmate Rehabilitation, or Fadlitales Criminal Activity: Matenal whiCh by its nature or content poses a threat or is detrimental to the security, safety, health, good order or discipline of the facility, inmate
rehabilitation, Of facil~ates crimina! activity, including, but not limiled to, material that meets one or more of tile following enleria: (a) It indtes, advocates, aids or abets criminal activity such as iHegal drug use, or instrocts In tile manufaclure. use Of conversion of weapons ,
(b) It indies, advocates, aids or abets escape, such as picking locks or digging tunnels.
(c) It consists of threats of physical harm to any person or threats of crimina l activity.
(d) It contains 0( concerns sendirlg contraband within. into or ollt of the facility.
(e) 1\ concerns plans tOf activities in violation of other Department of Corrections administrative directives. (f) It contains code that directly threatens or Is detrimental to the security, safety, health, good order , or discipline of the facility, inmale rehabil itation, or facilitates
criminal activity. (g) It contains information which, if communicated, would create a clear and present danger of violence and physical harm to a human being. (h) 1\ contains contraband material. (i) It contains STG-related paraphernalia . (j) It contains inflammatory material. (k) It contains role·playing or similar fantasy games or materials. (3) Credit or Deferred Billing Transactions; Mail invoMng credit or deferred billing (e.g., "bill me later" 0( "payment after delivery") transadions for the purchase of or subscription to publications (eg., books, newspapers, magazines) or other items or merch~ndise is prohibited. Mail prohibited under th is subsection Includes: (a) Outgoirlg inmate requests or purported agreements to enter inlo a credit or deferred biH irlg transaction .
(b) tncoming publications 0( other items 0( merchand ise, Including promotions (e.g., free g1ft or premium) ilems given in exchange for purchase or subscription, received in a Department of Corrections facility which are accompanied by a billing 0( other statement requiring payment upon delivery or at a later date. (4) UnauthOl"ized 8usiness Transactions: Mall involving a business transaction not previously approved by the functional unit manager or designee.

hUpJ/arcweb.sos.Slale.Dr.uslpages/ru\esIoan_2001oar_2911291_131 ,h~nl[ \13012012 II :18:55 AM)

Ex 21 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 7 of 10

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 56 of 63

Oregon Secretary of Slale Arcllives Division

(5) Items Prohibited From Receipt by Mail:
(a) Any item or malerial which an inmate shall nol possess w~hin lhe Department of COOOClions facility 10 whid1 the inmate is assigned.
(b) Material which an inmate shall not possess wi\hin the faci lity or which meels one of Ihe following crileria:
(A) Weapons or explosi~es:
(B) Narcotics or narcotics paraphemalia;
(C) Intoxicants or medicalions;
(D) Escape devices;
(E) Money, negotiable instruments, deposit and withdrawal slips, uncancelled stamps, and stamp collections:
(F) Any item larger than IS" x IS" except subscription newspapers;
(G) Any electronic items, inctudirl\l batteries;
(H) Any substance that is unau\horized, including lipstick, crayon, water colors, paint, correction fiuid, etc.; or
(I) Polaroid type photographs with a chemical substance on the back of the photograph .
(6) Ma~ Subject to Outgoing Mail Restrictkm: Outgoing mall to a person or address to which the inmate has been ordered by the lunctiooal unit manager or designee
not to send mail.
(7) Any o\her material that the department deems to pose a threat or to be detrimental to leg~imate penological objectives.
Stat. Auth. : ORS 179.040 , 423.020 , 423 .030 & 423.075 Stats. Implemented: DRS 179.040, 423.020, 423.030 & 423.075 Hist. : CO IS(Temp),1. & el. 12_1S·73 through 4 -17-74; CO 22 , I. 6-27-74, el. 7-25-74: CO l-t979, f. & ef. I-4-79; Renumberedlfom291-010-03t5,C0111980(Temp), f. & ef. 4_10_S0; CO 16-198O{Temp). I. & ef. 4-18_60; CO 28·1980, f. & el. 6·22-80 ; CO 22-1963(Temp), I. & el. 6-3-83; CO 27-1983. f. & el. 7-11·83; CO 13-1964, f. & ef. 4-11-64 ; CO 57-1985, I. & ef. 8-16-85: CO 14_1988, I. & cert. ef. 10·7-88 (and corrected 10·25-88): CO 1-1992, I. & celt el. 1- 29 -92: CD 101993, f. 5-5-93, cert. ef. 7-1-93; DOC 20-1998, f. 9- 22-98, cert. ef. 12-1-98; DOC 16-2001(Temp),I. 7-9-0 1, cert. el. 7_11-01 thfIJ 1_7-02; DOC 20_2001 , 1. & cert. ef. 12-17-01 ; DOC 13-2002, I. 9-11-02 cert. ef. 9-20-02: DOC 1-2008, f. & cert el. 1-25-06: DOC 4-2011(Temp), 1. 3-4_11, cert ef 4_1_11 thru 9-28 -11 : DOC 15·2011, I. & cert. ef. S-15-ll
291-131-0037
Disposition of Prohibited Mail
(I) Mai~ if not confiscated , will be retumed to the U.S. Postal Service, or 10 the applicable mail service provider lor not meeting requirements provided in these rufes.
(2) Contraband:
(a) Illegal contraband or eviOence o f crime shall be confiscated and turned o~er 10 the Oregon State Po~. No notice of confiscalion shall be given.
(b) Non-Inmate Sender:
(A) Contraband (including unauthorized attachments or enclosures) not illegal or evidence of Clime shall be returned to the non inmale sender wi\h the contents of the envelope Of package Intact, together w~h a Mail VIOlation NotK:e (CD 6ISa).
(B) Unauthorized ~ems With minimal monetary value (e.g .. paper clips, rubbef bands, uncancelled stamps, book marks, envelopes, blank paper, etc.) may be removed and destroyed and the remaining mall sent to the inmate if \he remaining contents are otherwise In compliance wi\h department rules. No notice shall be provided to lt1e sender or Inmate recipient for the remo~al and destruction of minimally ~alued items.
(c) Inmate Sender: Any enclosures (I.e., photographs, hand -made draw ings in excess of that allowed) thai are not illegal or evidence of clime, Of thai are otherwise not prohibited in outgoing mail ur.cier these Mes shall be returned to the Inmate sender with the contents of \he envelope or package Intact, together with a Mail Violation Notice (CO 61Sa). Any item that poses a threat Of is a detriment to the security, good order. or discipline 01 the lacility. or that would encourage or instruct In criminal activity , may be confiscaled and retained pending an Investigation. If appropriate, the inmate may be issued a misconduct report, in accordance with the rule on Prohib~ed Inmate Conduct and Processing Oisciplinary Actions {OAR 291-105}.
(3) Money:
(a) Cash contained in mail shall be confiscated and deposited to \the Inmate VVelfare FUnd. NotK:e of the confiscation shall be provided 10 the sender on a Ma~
Confiscation Notice (CO 618b) . A COP')' of the notice shall also be provided to the Intended Inmate recipient
(A) If the cash was concealed in the mail, a written entry shall be made on the Ma~ Confiscation Notice {CD 61Sb} 10 document the method 01concealment. If, after an administrative review of the confiscation, it is determined thatlhe sender did not conceal the cash, the money shall be returned to the sender.
(8) Correspondence received in an envelope from which cash has beef1 confiscated shall be deli~ered to the intended inmate recipient ilthe correspondence is
otherwise in compliance wit/l department rules.
(b) Monies other than cash (e.g ., money orders, warrants, personal checks, withdrawal and depos~ slips, and certified checks) contained in mail shall be returned \0 the sender wfth the contents of the envelope or package intac~ toge\her With a Mail Violation Notice (CD 61Sa). A copy of the Mail VIOlation NotK:e shall be pro~ided 10 the intended Inmate recipient.
(A) Prior to returning the mail to the sentler, the offending money item shan be photocopied together with the add ressee side of the envelope or package.
(S) The photocopy shan be retained by the facility according to archive standardS

nnpJlorewob.."s.state.or.uslpagoslrulc:sloan_200103r_2911291_131.html[ 113012012 11 :18:55 N-I]

Ex 21 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 8 of 10

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 57 of 63

Oregon Secretary of State Archives Division
(4) Mail with unautholized or insufficient postage shall be refused and retumed to the U.S. Postal Service. NOlice of the reason(s) for the mail rejection shall be
provided on a fofm labet or stamp affi~ed to the outside of the envelope or package.
(5) Unauthorized Attachments or Enclosures:
(a) Mail received with unauthorized attachment(s) affIXed to the outside of an envelope or package shall remain unopened, be refused and returned to the U.S. Poslal Service or applicable mail service provider. Notice of the reason(s) for the mail rejection shalt be provided 00 a form label or stamp affixed to the outSide of the envelope or package.
(b) Ma~ received with unauthorized attachments affIXed to the inside of an envelope or package or affIXed to the conlents of an envelope or package, or mail received with unauthorized enclosure(s). except fof that with minimal monetary value as described in section (2)(b) above, shall be refused and returned to the sender with the
contents of the envelope or package intact. together with a Mail VIolation Notice.
(6) Correspondence and Publications: Wnen, after opening, mail is rejected for violation of these or other department rules the following procedures shall be fotlowed :
(a) Rejected Mail:
(A) Non.inmate sender: The sender and intended inmate recipient shall be notified of the rejecoon of mail . including the reasons. on a Mail VIOlation Notice (CD 618a) for conespondence. or a Publica~on Violation Not>ce for a publication. II the rejection is based upon written or pictorial content, the 1lOI>ce Shall advise \tIat an independent review of the rejection may be Obtained by writing to the functional unit manager within 30 days of the date of the notice_Mail rejected based on written or pictorial conlent shall be retumed inlact to the sender. The rejected portion{s) of the mail sha~ be photocopied and retained pending any admin istrative review. If no administrative review is requested, the photocopy Shall be maintained according to archive standards.
(B) Inmate Sender: The Inmate sender Shall receiVe the same standards as the non-inmate senOOr. however. the intended recipient shall not be notified of the rejection for arty mail sent by an inmate in a Department of Corrections facility and Shall nol be eligible lor an administrative review.
(b) No administrative review Shall be available if the rejection is based on the presence of an unauthorized attachmen~ substance or enclosure on or with \tie mail, or if the rejection is based on any violation not related 10 the written or pictorial content.
(c) Confiscated Mail:
(A) Non-inmate Sender: lIthe mail is confiscated. notice shall be made to ttle sender and inlended inmate recipient on a Mail Confiscation No~ce (CD 61ab), unless it includes plans for a discussion or commission of iI crime or evideJ1Ce of a crime. In such cases, no notice Shall be given and the mail shall be turned over to the Special Investigations Unit of the department or the Oregon State Potice. Confiscated mail not involving evidence of a crime shall be retained intact pending any administrative review. II no administrative review is requested . the mail shall be maintained according to archive standards.
(B) Inmate Sender. If the mail isconfiscated. nonoticeshal l begiventothesenderortheintendedinmaterecipient.Mail which includes ~ans for a discussion or commission of a crime or evidence of a crime shall be tumed over to the Special Investigations Unit of \tie department or the Oregon State Police. Confiscated mail which poses a threat or clelriment to the security. good order. or discipline of the ladlity, or would encourage or instruct in criminal activity shall be retained IntaC! pending an investiga~on. The inmate may be issued a misconduct report in accordance with the rule on Prohibited Inmate CondUct and Processing Disciplinary Aclions (OAR 291 -105). Otherwise. after ttle investigation is completed . the inmate will be notified of the confiscation. If no administrative review is requested. the mail shall be maintained according to archive standardS.
(7) Packages: Wlen a package is rejected, the following procedures shall be followed:
(a) Packages received withoot prior authorization of the functional uM manager or designee. or which have unauthorized attachmeots affixed to the outside of the package stlall be refused and retumed to the U.S. Postal Service or to the applicable mail service provider.
(b) Prior authorized packages which after opening are found to contain cootraband not illegal (indudiflg unauthorized attachments or enclosures) or evidence of crime or otherwise to be in violation of these or other department rules , shag be returned to the sender wi\tl the contents of \tie package intact, together with a Mail Violation Notice .
(c) Intended Inmate Recipient: If a prior authorized package is rehlrned to the semler after opening, the intended inmate recipient Shall be prompUy notifred In writing of the rej!lCtion. along wittl the reason(s) for the rejection, on a Mail Violation Notice. No administrative review shall be available 10 the intended inmate recipient.
(d) Sender: The sender shall be notified in writing of the rejection of any package received in a Department of Corrections facitity and addressed to an inmate. along
w~h the reason(s) lor rejection. on a form label or stamp affixed to the outside of the package if the package is refused without opening or, i1 the package is returned to
the sender after opening. on a Mait Violation Notice inserted into the package . No administrative review stlall be available 10 the sender.
Stat AuIh .: ORS 179.040. 423 .020. 4 23 .030 & 423.075 Stats. Implemented: ORS 179.040. 423.020. 423.030 & 423 .075 Hfst.: CD 14_1988, I. & cert. ef. 10_7_88 (and corrected 10- 25-88); CD 1_1992. f. & cart ef. 1-29-92; CD 10-1993. f. 5-5-93 , cert. ef. 7-1 -93: CD 25-1994. f. 12-21-94.
ceo.. el. 1-3-95: DOC 20-1998, f. 9-22-98, cert. ef. 12-1-98: DOC 20-2001, I. & cert. ef. 12-17-01; DOC 4-2oo2(Temp), r. & cert. ef. 3-25-02 thru 9-21-02: DOC 13-
2002, f. 9-11-02 cart. ef. 9-20 -02; DOC 1-2008, f. & cert. ef. 1-25-08; DOC 4 -2011(Temp), I. 3-4-11 , cart. ef. 4-1-11 ttlru 9-28-11 : DOC 15-2011, I. & cert. ef. 8-15-1 1

291-131-0050
Administrative Review
(1) COrrespondence and Publications'
(a) Non-Inmate Semler:
(A) A non -inmate sef'ld.er who has received a mail violation, publication violation, or confiscation notice for written or pictorial content may obtain an if'ld.ependent review of the rejection of mail by writing to the functional un~ manager or designee and requesting an administrative review within 30 days of \tie date of the notice.
The review request Shall specify in writing Ihe reason(s) why the rejection should not be sustained and inetude the rejection notice. The rejected mail if returned 10 the
sen.der must be submitted wilh the violation or confiscation notice along with the review request.

hllp:llarcw"b.sos.statc.or.usipageslrulesioaTS_200foar_2911291 _131.tlllul{ 113012012 I I: 18:55 AM)

Ex 21 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 9 of 10

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 58 of 63

Oreb'<ln Sec retary of State Archives Division
(6) A n intended inmate recipient WIlo has received a mail violalion, publication violation or confiscation notice for written or pictorial content may obtain an independent review by writing to the function unit ma ~ager or designee and requesting an administrative review within 30 days of the date of the notice , T he review request sha ll specify type of violation (mail, publication, confiscation), dale of violation , afld name and issue dale of any involved pubticatkln.
(b) Inmate Sender: An Inmate sel'lder who has received a ma it violation or confiscation notice lor written or pictorial content may obtain an Independent review with the
same provlsons as a non-inmate sender. The intended recipient shalt not be eligible for an administrative review.
(c) No administrative review shall be afforded if the rejection is based on the presence of an unauthorized attachment, subswnce or enclosure on or with the mait, or if
the rejec~on is based on any viotation not related to the written or pictorial content.
(2) Packages: No administrative review shall be available to the sender or intended inmate recipient of a package .
(3) Admi nislraijve Review Process :
(a) The functionat unij manager shall appoint an offiQal or e mployee. other than the employee who orig inally rejected the corre spondence or publication, to conduct
the administrative review.
(b)The administratiYe review shall consist of an Informal review of the original mail rejection decision and shallindude a review o f the mail or publicaton violation or
confiscation notice, the request for administrative review, and WIlere necessary, the rejected mail, a rtide(s) or material(s) for compliance wijh department rules. No formal hearing shaD be conducted.
(c) The functional unit manager or designee shall permit the intended inmate recipient an opportunity to review the rejected mait for purposes of administrative review,
unless such review may provide the inmate with inf()ffTlalion 0 1 a nature which is deemed to pose a threat or delriment lo the security, good order or disci~ine of the
facility Of to eocourage or instruct in criminal activity.
(A) The intended inmate recipient shall specify in writing the rea son(s) why the rejecoon Should nol be sustained within five days aner reviewing the rejected matefial, Of within five days of receiving notice that the Inmate was not allowed to review the rejected material for the reasons stated above.
(6) It the inmate refuses to review the material. the admin istrative review will be considered dismissed .
(d) The official or employee assigned 10 review the original mail rejection decision shall deliver a wrijten recommended decision (together w ith a copy o f the mail or
publication violatioo Of confiscation notice, the request for administrative review. afld where necessary, the rejected mail. article(s) and material(s)) to the functional unit manager or designee for hislher review and approval.
(e) The functional unH manager Of designee shall review the recommeflded decision and either affirm, reverse Of otherwise modify the original mail rejection decision In Wliting. The administrative review shall be completed within 45 days aner receipt of the request for administrative review. A copy of the functional unit manager Of designee's decision shall be provided to the party(tes) who requested the administrative review .
[ED. NDTE: Forms referenced in this rule are available from the agency.)
Stal Auth.: DRS 179.040, DRS 423.020, DRS 423.030 & DRS 4 23 .075 Slats . Implemenled: DRS 179.040. DRS 423 .020, DRS 423.030 & DRS 423.075 Hisl : CD 10-1993, I. 5-5-93. celt. ef. 7_1_93; CD 25_t994, f. 12-21 -94. celt. el. 1_3_95; DOC 20-t998, f. 9-22-98, celt. e l. 12-1-98; DOC 23-1998. f. & cert ef. 12-23-
98 thru 6-2 1-99; DOC 8-1999. f. 5-24-99. celt. el. 6_1_99; DOC 20·2001, f. & cert ef. 12-17-01
The official copy of an Oregon Adminlslfa!"", Rule Is contained in me Administrative Order fRed at the Archives Division, 800 Summer SI. NE, Salem. Oregon 973 10. Ally disctepancies with the pubtished V8fsion are salisfied in fallQl" of the Administrative Ordef. The Oreoon Admin;stralill('l Rul", and the Oregon BuBetin are <:opY~Qhted by the Oregon Secretary of Slate. Tefms and Condition. of Use

~

•ro 2010 Oregon Secretary of Stata Al l R I~h~s Reserved

,,, 136, St. ate Caprt' C>l, Salem. OR 97310 _ ,

,,c'',

Contact Us I ';\klrk With Us I Job OpportunIties I Contract Opportun ities I Text·Only Versron I GraphiC VerSion

'-, ~

,

Ex 21 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 10 of 10

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 59 of 63

EXHIBIT 22
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

9810.0S f1246304

Ex 22 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 1 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 60 of 63

Demographic TOTAL GENDER AGE
AACE
CUSTODY LEVEL
TIME TO RELEASE
SENTENCING GUIDELINES LIFE/DEATH SENTENCE CRIME TYPE OPFENSE GROUP

OReGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Inmate Population Profile for 01/01/2012

Value

INMATE POPULATION

'EMALE

"""E

" """ UNDER

" "

ro ro

"
"

" H ro

" ro "

" """ OLDER

ASIAN

BLACK

HISPANIC

AMER INDIAN

WHITE

5
, • , ,

UNCLASSIFIED 00-03 MONTHS 03-06 MONTHS 06-09 MONTHS 09-12 MONTHS 12-24 MONTHS 24+ MONTHS C1\LC. IN PROCESS NON-GUIDELINES ONLY GUIDELINES ONLY
'OT"
'" mc PROCESS
DEATH LIPE LIFE, NO PAROLE PERSON PROPERTY STATUTE OTHER ASSAULT HOMICIDE WE KIDNAPPING ROBBERY SODOMY SEX ABUSE ARSON BURGLARY

0" ~" CC~ CCIC CRCI ,,~ EOC' MCCF OSCI

PRCF TOTAL

m
.",
0

".
".
0
0

."
"
'" 0

"" 0 "0
0

'" 1,616 "0

0

0

0

' " "0 1,676

0

° 0

OS> 1, 993

0

0

,OS> 1, 99) 0

'" 13,931 0 :1,104
'" , 12,833 0

" " " " "

'" '"

'" '"

"no

"
'"

m no

"0 no

" ,

" 5

" , •

'"
,3)

'"
"
H

" no

m

'" " m

,'.",

'" "

'"
'"

" "

5
•

"
"

'" H 1,796

2,675
''"" "m 5,547

'" " 3,2:11

'" "

, 5

'"
'"

3)
" "
'" ,
m
'50
" " • "

"
" m "
0 0 0
'"
on
0
n

"
"
H
'" 0 " " "
,"., ,

" "
H
on
0
0
•
'" '"
0
H.

" '" "

" "

'" "

" ,

1, 091
'" , 0 , '"
." 0

no
0 0 0

'so",

" 0 m '"

0

0

0

'" " "

'" '" no '"

" "

'" 1, 355

.."
no

"
'"

'" m

m

"
'"

0

5

". '"

" 1,299
" 1,967
5 '" '" 10,114
0 '"
0 3,836

0 4,057

'" 1,230

'" 4,082

, 0

'" '"

"
)5
" "" .
5
o"n,
, 0
" ,

"
"
"
,OJ
"0 0 0
'" 0 0 0 0 0

.."
53
'" '" " •
'" 0 " , 0 ,

DO
" "
m
" , 0 ,595
0
, 0
0

" DO

" "

"
'"

"no

'" 1,266

, 0

" "

'", " 1, 615

0

0

, 0

0

"

0 "

" "
"
"
" , 0 '",
0
, 0
0

"0 '"

95

"0

" '"
'" '"
,'SO 1,055 H

" ". ,'" 1,739
, "
0

0
"

n"o

5 "

" 1,091

" 1,030

" '"

" 2,366

" 7,4)6

0

m

0 ."

'" 13,277 0 '" 0 " 0 " ° '" 0 '"

'" '"
55 0

'" '"
'" 0

'm" " "

' " m

1, 363

m'",

'n".
0

"0
m
0

'" " "
0

509 1, 421

'" '"

m ,

'" 5

'"
"
" 0

9,757 2,316 1,799
"

"".
"
H
"
H
" , "

" '"
0
•
" • D ,
"

" , , , "
D
" 0
"

" '" " " " "
" u
" 59 " "
", m, " ,.

>OJ >OS
.'"'
, "
>OS
'"
m "

" '"

'" "

0
•

"
"

" "

0 "

°
0

" ,

" "

.'""
'"
" '"", "0,
'"

",• , ,
,

1,84.9 1,621
'"
'"
1,586 1,075

" 1,683 0 "
3S 1,150

Ex 22 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 2 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 61 of 63

DftlIIOgraphic

Value FORGERY

, , , , , , ' OC' C~, CC~ CCIC CRCI DR~

MCC F OSCI

0

0

, , " D" PRCP TOTAL

SECURITY THREAT GROUP

THEFT VEHICLE THEFT DRIVING OFFENSES DRUGS ESCAPE OTHER OFFENSE ORe UNKNOWN OFFENSE GRP
'"

" '"

H ,

"
"

..",

'" 0

"

,0 ,0

"
" " " , "
0
"

,'".
n
" , " , "

"
"
H
" , "
0
"

" , "
" 0
" 0
'"

"
."".
0
" 0
"

" " " " , " , "

.." ,
m , no,
m

" ,

'"
m

" m " 1,027 0 " " '" 0 "
n 1,248

NO

DANGEROUS OFFENDER

YE<

SEX OFFENDER

YE<

NO

'", "
OS>

'" 0 "
'"

'", m "

m
•
no
m

'", 1,474 H
'" '"
' " SO,

,,OS
0
,so

" ,'" 1,832
'" m
'" 1,448

'", 12,689 DO
"". 4, 434 9,$03

DRUG OFFENDER EDUCATION NEED
MENTAL HEALTH NEED

ONLY "00 OFFENSES
"",. DRUG OFFENSES
NONE om PROGRAM NEEDED
. " REQUIRED
''" REQUIRED
NO NEED -TRNING ELIG,
NEED SKILL UPGRADE m REQ/ESL TRANSITN m NEEDED
NOT ASSESSED
HIGHEST TREAT. NEOD
SEVERE MH PROBLEMS
MODERATE TREAT. NEED
BENEFIT FROM TREATMENT

" " '"
"
" " '" '"
0
" , "
'"
" "

"
'"
'"ss
" 0
'"
'" 0 ,SO "
'" '"n

SO
"".
"
" ,
"
..'" 0
," .
H
" "

" " '" " " ,
>OS
'" 0 " , "
m
"
'"

" "
" '"
on 1,442

" "0

" '"

0

>OS

,os OS>

no, " ,

so,
,,". ,

" 1.26 '" '" " '"
'" '"

"
" '" " " ,
'm"
0
" ,
0
, 0 "

" '"
..'" '"
'" 1,642 no

'"
"

"'".

'" '"

'",
n

'"
"".

H "

"
m

,'o"s

" m
m m

" '"
SO 1,616

m 11 , 523

" '" ", 1,245
50'

" 4,653
DO 5,34 4

0
,>0

,'".,
'"

0
, '"2,)51 , 1, )11

" 2, 3:16

SUBSTANCE ABUSE NEED

NO N,m 'DR TREATMENT
'"' NO REPORTED ""D
SOME SUBSTANCE ABUSE

NO REPORTED PROBLEM

NO ASSESS. COMPLETED

DEPENDENCE/ADDICTION

DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITY

'0 69 OR BELOW '0 70·79 WITH ADAPTIVE NO DISABILITY

NO REPORTED DISABILITY

" "
"
" " '" " "
.""

" ".o
" ."" H ,
m "

n" . " "
>SO
,>0, , "
<DO

"
'"
" " ".o, , 0 " '"

" '"

'" '"

" '"

" '"

n
m ,

''"",

, ,

" ," '" 1,567

"
'"
" "
u
'" 0 0 "
'"

.'m "
,.o

'" '"
no

'"

" '"

, '" 1,106 " " u

" "0
'" 1. 869

" 2,767 '", 4,2 25
2.033

", 1, 702 1,783

'" 8.419

0 ,

"
'"

" '"

' " 12 , 834

Ex 22 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 3 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 62 of 63

Demographic T"''''' GENDER
M'
RAe,
CUSTODY LEVEL
TIME TO RELEASE
SENTENCING GUIDELINES LIFE/DEATH SENTENCE CRIME TYPE OFFENSE GROUP

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Inmate Population Profile for 01/01/2012

Value INMATE POPULATION
""'LE
MAL,
" """ UNDER " ;0 TO " " " " n TO
" TO "
" """ OLDER
ASIAN BLACK HISPANIC AMER INDIAN
,WHITE • , 3 ,
UNCLASSIFIED 00-03 MONTHS 03-06 MONTHS 06-09 MONTHS 09-12 MONTHS 12-24 MONTHS 24+ MONTHS CALC. IN PROCESS NON-GUIDELINES ONLY GUIDELINES ONLY
'''''
" me PROCESS
DEATH LIFE LIFE, NO PAROLE PERSON PROPERTY STATtrrE OTHER ASSAULT HOMICIDE
""'"
KIDNAPPING ROBBERY SODOMY SEX ABUSE ARSON BURGJ...,O,RY

SCCI
'", '"
0

,e,
.,.
,
.,.
0

SFFC
'" 0
'" 0

SRCI 2,887
0 2,887
0

,,~
'" 0
'" 0

TReI 1,589
0 1. 589
0

<>OM
'" 0
'" 0

wccp m
0
m
0

TOTAL 13,937
1.104
, 12,833

" n " '" " '" n " 1,796

"
m

"
'"

" , ,

n.
" "

" '"

" 1,115 n '"

, 0

;0'
"

" "
" ,
,

'n"o
no
'" "

" " 2,675

53
",•

'n"o
n
•

5 ,547 3,211
'" '"

" , ,

"
" •

" " ,

'"
'" "

"
" •

'"
no
"

"
,33

" 1,299
," 1,967
'"

1,90)

1,110

3<0 10, 1 14

'" '" '" '" " " , '" 0

0

0 m

0

0

0

0

0

0

" '"

0 1,081
, " 0 1,269

0 0
"

'" '"
"

0 0
"

,0 3,836 4,057
" 1,230

'" '" '"

0

0

0

" " "
" 30 "
" " "
n " "

'" '"

0
n

, 0

" 30 " " " "

'", '" 303 4,082

0

0

m

"
" "

•
, •

30
" "

'"
1,091 1, 030

" n " '"

" " '" " '"

" no

m 2,3 66

" " " '" " '" 2,295

1,198

7, 4)6

, 0

0

3

m, '",

0 " 0 "' , " '" 2,759

,0 "
". "
, " 1,515

, 0
m
0

, 0

m
'"

'" '" , 13,277

0

0

, 0

0

0

0

0

no '" " "

0 0

, 0

..,0

'" "

'" 2,420

'"

0 0

, 0

0 " 0 " '" 1,351 n '"

0 0 0

, 0 ,

"
n
'"

0 0 '"

" m

9,757

" " 2,316

" ,

'" 0

", ",

•
•

"
33

" ,

"
33

. >OJ
" • 0 m

." 0

m' "

• m

,

'"
m

" 0
,30
" • " "

" 3
'" '" '" " '" '"

n

" 1,799

0

0

"

1,849
"• ", 1,621

n, ",

'"
FE

..", " 1 ,586 1,075

", ",

0 0

'" "

" ,

m ,

," ,'" 1,683
"

" " " m " " " " 1,150

Ex 22 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 4 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 9-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 63 of 63

Demographic:
SECURITY THREAT GROUP

Va1uII
FORGERY
""IT
VEHICLE THEFT DRIVING OFFENSES DRUGS ESCAPE OTHER OFFENSE G" UNKNOWN OFFENSE GRP
<E'

'00,' " •
D
" ,
, U ,

'e,, "
D
" " , " , "

,SFFC " ,
,
" , " , ,

, "• ,, SRCI "eM
" , " m, ",
'"• ",
'" "

, , , TRCI "eM WCCF

"
" " " ,

,• ", , , ,• ",

" ,

,
,

" ,

m ""

TOTAL
"
en
m m
1,027
o"n
D 1,248

DANGEROUS OFFENDER SEX OFFENDER
DRUG OFFENDER

'0
'"
<E' '0 ONLY ORUG OFFENSES
'OM' ORUG OFFENSES

,NO '", n"o 'n". " " " "

2,573
'",, " 1,264
>OS 1,623
n " " '"

, " '" 1 ,312

" no

'", "

'"
m "

'" ,
"n,
n

,m 12,689 Be

'" 4, 434

m

9,503

" '"
" 1,616

EDUCATION NEED

NONE G" PROGRAM NEEDED
' " REQUIRED ''" REQUIRED

'" '" " "
", ",

'" 2,524
,, m

,

'" '"

'" 1,421

" "

" ,

"
"

no, , ,

no 11,523
" '"
, '" " 1,245

MENTAL HEALTH NEED SUBSTANCE ABUSE NEED

NO NEED-TRNING ELIG. NEED SKILL UPGRADE
' " REQ/ESL TRANSITN
m NEEDED 'OT ASSESSED
"''' HIGHEST TREAT.
SEVERE MH PROBLEMS
"'''' MODERATE TREAT.
BENEFIT FROM TREATMENT NO NEED FOR TREATMENT NO REPORTED MH ",mo SOME SUBSTANCE ABUSE

" DO
m, '",

" , ,

",,

, ,

, •

. .." ".

"
'"

, "

n

" " , , , , , , "
"
" "

..'"
'"
'"
" '"
on
n'
m
'"
'm "

n", , , ,
." ,
"
"
"

'"
'" "
'"
" "
'"
m
m no
'" '"

" '" 4. 653

" , , • , , ,

m ,
n , , , ,

5,344
'" '" '" '"
2,351 1,3U

" " 2,316 " no 2,767
" '" 4 ,225
" " 2,033

"' REPORTED PROBLEM
'0 ASSESS. COMPLETED DEPENDENCE/ADDICTION
.'LOW DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITY '0 69 OR
>0 70-79 WITH ADAPTIVE
'0 DISABILITY
"' REPORTED DISABILITY

" , m ,

"
" '" ,

, ,

, "

'" '"

"
"

"'",

'" , , 1,564

, "

" '"

m 2,626

" '"

m " ,

no
'",

, ,

" "

'" 1,480

n
n", , ,
no

" 1,702

" 1,783

'", ,

8, 41 9
" '"

" '" m 12,834

Ex 22 of Chamberlain Dec, pg. 5 of 5

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 1 of 6 Page ID#: 788

1 Marc D. Blackman, OSB #730338 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News
2 mark@ransomblackman.com Ransom Blackman LLP
3 1001 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1400 Portland, OR 97204
4 (503) 228-0487

5 Katherine C. Chamberlain, OSB #042580 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News
6 katherinec@mhb.com MacDonald Hoague & Bayless
7 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104-1745
8 (206) 622-1604

9

10

11

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

DISTRICT OF OREGON

14

PORTLAND DIVISION

15 PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,

No. CV 12-71-SI

16

Plaintiff,

DECLARATION OF LUCY LENNOX

17

v.

In Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for

18

Preliminary Injunction

COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA

19 COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; JEFF

DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity

20 as Columbia County Sheriff,

21

Defendants.

22

23

I, Lucy Lennox, declare and affirm as follows:

24

1. I am over the age of 18 and I am competent to testify. The statements of fact

25 contained herein are based on my own personal knowledge and belief.

26

2. I am a resident of the state of Washington.

27

DECLARATION OF LUCY LENNOX (CV 12-71-SI) - 1
9870.05 fa256311

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 2 of 6 Page ID#: 789

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 3 of 6 Page ID#: 790

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 4 of 6 Page ID#: 791

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 5 of 6 Page ID#: 792

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 6 of 6 Page ID#: 793

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I hereby certify that on January 31, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing to the Clerk

3 of the Couli using the CMlECF system which will send notification of such filing to the

4 following:

5

• Marc D. Blackman

marc@ransomblackman.com,pat@ransomblackman.com

6

• Gregory R. Roberson

grr@hartwagner.com,cej@hartwagner.com

7

• Lance Weber

8

lweber@hunlanrightsdefensecenter.org

• Jesse Wing

9

JesseW@mhb.com

10

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS

11

lsi Katherine C. Chamberlain

12

KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN

OSB #042580

13

(206) 622-1604

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

DECLARATION OF LUCY LENNOX (CV-12-71-SI) - 6
9870.05 fa306308

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fa'C 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 1 of 45 Page ID#: 794

9870.05 fa246305

EXHIBIT I
TO DECLARATION OF LUCY LENNOX
Ex I to Lennox Dec, Pg 1 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 2 of 45 Page ID#: 795 Ex I to Lennox DePcL, NPCgO2Lo_fLe9nnox_00001

c ~ f.~ ~~
L\{,l\ ~'~ S. ~
~£~0O1,~\ LUD)l4

Qq'qld~'033

'~:fi

'. :.. POs, : .. . 4~-~~E~SPOs, ~

:.9 •
i'lhl.

1_ I $ 0000-..64° '.

.J.'

' ~E1:9(~«(Z1-~4/P:' :-;-I;=P -.:.T ::.;I:.-N .T ~..AIE I.N !~!Y.!_E !=!.B!-Y !.O!=!,=!WB!=O!~E!=W:».S E#'S~

02 1P

0

: 0003048470 DEC 15 2011

•

MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 99201

',V~ L-
~ st~ C{UU.-aa,-1IWIf4}-. c~OD..o{(lI OD .~.~l~SS ~ cc,,,,//DD ~ ~ (!~ ..~ ~~

,'~:-',-.<'>--~-.-"-"."---'-'.-'.'--'t''-~---- - --''- ''.'..',.'..'..'..'..'..',.-.,'-*.'.~..'.'.'<--;.~.--~:-i-.-",...'._. _~.' .''.',;~~''4''--'i'-'_-'.''~'' :. -''-"... ~~.f":·'. rr;;..,,,',---:---:'-''·'~'-44

l-f:tX:tE-: , l'f:tX:!E-:

9*7'0 .' 4E-: 1

~ ..
0111>' l~''/22/e2~fJj/::VV

5?;b

RETU~N TO SSEENNCr3nE;::RR
ATTEMPTED - NOT KNOWN
L.lNAEILE: TO FF=-'~c:O)RJW:~AWiAi~~OO

·l .. ..··~~-,.:r.~7-C~.;-=:?.-::....1. ~~~r...j.-.-a=-7'j.,-i?:'.·.~?.0Pi@$@i.$;.2:"2}444--

E\lC ;! 9999,'.'2t2'0)~~~;HeS..~,i~'€44;4'4~~~~ae

*,~~?CC)).,~~S9;J--·' ;;;11. O..$$1~~'99--·-.,22(",

1JL1II)J) 1J) I"),,')I J)J 1Il1l/l)l))llIldJL)I JJ )J)) Ij ) LJI J)J JJ)) I J I,1J,II)IJ,J ,I)J1lJ11"J J, ,,IIII jII

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 3 of 45 Page ID#: 796

Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions
,~ ,

Page 1 of7
logged~as:lucyLennox
Firm: Status: Member
I I Edit Profile II'LOg Out of PLN

HOME

BOOK

SEARCH

ADVERTISE

SUBSCRIBE DONATIONS

CONTACT

STORE

PLN

US

Book Review I FAQ's I Interviews I PLN links I PLN in the News I Annual Reports I Referral Directory

VIEW CART

(. Articles r List Serv Messages
Thursday, Decembe~ 15,201112:22 PM

EE ISSUES!
a IineSer'ice~com

The Failed Promise of Prison Privatization

[ Please visit our advertiser above J BREAKING NEWS

by Richard Gulp, Ph.D.
We have been experimenting with prison privatization in the U.S. now for over twenty-five years. The privatization idea originated out of a notion that the private sector, with its competition-driven efficiency and innovation, could operate prisons of higher quality and fower cost than the public sector. Create a market for incarceration services, the argument ran, and the market will work its magic, improving prison conditions and rehabilitative outcomes while saving the taxpayers millions of dollars. That market has effectively been created over the past quarter century and we have now arrived at a place where prison privatization has been studied extensively and evaluated rigorously.

Judi,cial Conference Committee Disciplines Federal Judge for Membership in Discriminatory Country Club by Alex Friedmann In May 2011, PLN reported that the Sixth ...
Nationwide PLN Survey Examines Prison Phone Contracts, Kickbacks by John E. Dannenberg An exhaustive analysis of prison phone contracts nationwide has revealed that ...

Although hyperbole continues to propel prison privatization policy along, research findings

are incontrovertible: even in the best private prisons, quality of prisoner care is no better

than in public prisons and the cost advantage of privatization, which initially accounted for

minimal savings, is steadily eroding as the private prison. industry matures.

The big promises of prison privatization -less cost, higher quality - have simply not

materialized. Despite these disappointing results, prison privatization advocacy maintains .'

traction in diverse jurisdictions as policymakers from Ohio to Florida and from Maine to

California seek expedient solutions to budget shortfalls triggered by a lingering great

recession.

'

In retrospect, it silould come as no surprise tilat prison privatization would fail to live up to its promises. There are several reasons for this. First, free market solutions to social problems !iI,e crime assume, after all, that there are "free" markets for appropriate services. However, there is no such thing as a natural market for the services provided by private prison companies. On the contrary, tile marketplace for incarceration services is created by the government, for the government. It is an artificial market. Many of the services that have been privatized by government (e.g., custodial services, food preparation, medical care) are, provided by the private sector independently of the government's decision to privatize or not. There is a free market analogue for many kinds of services that governments routinely provide. Other fields such as education and health care, for example·, have an active market of e}:isting nonprofit and for-profit providers willing to sell educational and healthcare services to a huge market of potential buyers that includes both individuals and· governments.

The prison business is fundamentally different in that no one can freely purchase incarceration services as a private individual. There is no natural market for incarceration services. The power to incarcerate someone - to hold a person against his or her will - is a ' defining characteristic of the state. The government holds a monopoly over the legitimate use of physical force and the power to incarcerate. Only the government has the legitimate power to restrict a citizen's liberty; individuals are prohibited by law from incarcerating another person under "false imprisonment" statutes. The government can delegate this power on a limited basis - for example, "shopkeeper's privilege" allows merchants to temporarily detain suspected shoplifters. But long-term incarceration is a different matter. The only potential buyers who can legally purchase incarceration services are the government jurisdictions that have custody over indicted, convicted or detained persons. In order to privatize its incarceration function, the government has had to create a market since one does not and cannot exist without its direct intervention.

Prison Legal News Interviews Former Prisoner and Famous Actor Danny Trejo Danny Trejo is one of the best-known American actors living today....
Remembering Attica Forty Years Later by Dennis Cunnirigham, Michael Deutsch & Elizabeth Fink This year, September 9 will mark the 40th anniversary ...
The History of Prison Legal News by Paul Wright In May 1990, the first issue of Prisoners' Legal News (PLN) was published. It ...
Twenty Years of PLN in Court Since PLN was founded in 1990 we have been censored in prisons and jails around ...
Appalling Prison and Jail Food Leaves Prisoners Hungry for Justice by David M. Reutter, Gary Hunter & Brandon Sample Prison food. The very ...
Sexual Abuse by Prison·and Jail Staff Proves Persistent, Pandemic by Gary Hunter Sexual assault, rape, indecency, deviance. These terms represent reprehensible behavior ...
Judge Not: Judges Benched for Personal Misconduct by Gary Hunter & Alex Friedmann They decide hot-button topics ranging from abortion and racial discrimination ...

Secondly, the development of the private prison industry has resulted in a highly concentrated producer market where only four companies control over 90% of the incarceration services business. Economic theory tells us that when production is highly
concentrated in very few companies, the market becomes an oligopoly, a market situation that is inherently less competitive and innovative than a market witil more broad-based representation. An oligopoly is characterized by interdependence, avoidance of

The Graying of America's Prisons by James Ridgeway Frank Soffen, now 70 years old, has lived more than half his life ilJ prison, ...

https:llwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23838_displayArticle.aspx

12115/2011

Ex I to Lennox Dec, Pg 3 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 4 of 45 Page ID#: 797

rnson Lega~ l'''leWS - Legal artICles, cases ana coun aeClslons

.l:'age.L or I

competition and a rigid attachment to the status quo among the leading firms.
A third part of the story is that government itself unwitlingiy stifles innovation in the private prison industry. Since the only legitimate customers of prison companies are the jurisdictions that can indict, convict or otherwise detain people, the potential customer base for incarceration services is very limited. In practice, this has led to a situation where only a handful of customers, an oligopsony in economic terms, has come to dominate the customer base. The limited number of customers serves to dissuade private prison companies from conducting research and development into innovative correctional programming, as the tiny customer base tends to demand only those services that mimic what the governments themselves are accustomed to providing.
Origins of the Artificial Market
Contracting out of noncustodial prison services such as medical care, food service, maintenance, education and mental health services has been practiced for a long time and with little controversy. Contracting out of custody services, for which there is no free market analogue, is much more controversial. The deinstitutionalization movement in juvenile correctlons during the 1970s initiated a number of experiments in privatized services and custody for juveniles. A major step toward contracted custody of adults occurred when the immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the forerunner to today's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), decided in 1983 to partially outsource the detention of undocumented immigrants in its custody. In the summer of 1983, the INS issued a request for proposals and the newly-fanned Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) submitted the winning bid.

Secret Justice: Criminal Informants and America's Underground Legal System by Alexandra Natapoff I. Introduction Although it is almost invisible to the public, ...
Thou Shalt Not: Sexual Misconduct by Prison and .~ Jail Chaplains by David M. Reutter Traditionally, the
role of a chaplain in the correctional ...
.. Celebrity Justice: Prison Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous by Matt Clarke There are two criminal justice systems in the United States. One ...
. Crime Labs in Crisis: Shoddy Forensics Used to Secure Convictions by Matt Clarke To millions of people whose knowledge of crime labs comes ...
Private Prison Companies Behind the Scenes of
'" Arizona's Immigration Law by Beau Hodai"Beside my brothers and my sisters, I'll proudly take a ...

Likewise, the community corrections movement in the adult system involved contracting out of the custody function in many low-security adult facilities. Minnesota passed the Community Corrections Act in 1971, and 25 states followed suit with similar legislation over the next 12 years. Community corrections legislation transferred funding from state-Ieve! departments of correction to local governments which, in tum, used the funds for halfway house programs and other services for lower-level offenders. Many jurisdictions turned to private contractors to operate these facilities.
In 1986, Management and Training Corporation (MTC) secured a contract to operate a community corrections facility in Eagle Mountain, California. Also in 1986, the State of Kentucky contracted out the development and operation of a 200-bed minimum-security facility in Marion County. Another newly-formed company, the U.S. Corrections Corporation, was awarded the contract. Similarly, the U.S. Bureau of Prisons (BOP) began contracting out the operation of low-security halfway house programs to the private sector during this time. Another early private prison company, Correctional Services Corporatjon, originally Esmor Correctional Corp., began business in 1989 with two contracts from the BOP to operate halfway houses in New York City.

Medical Examiners Lack Qualifications,

~

Competence, Oversight by Matt Clarke Most people will only have direct contact with a medical

examiner, also known as ...

. 40% of Criminal Jurisprudence bills boost criminal penalties As has probably been the case every legislative session in living memory, bills ...

Texas Increasingly out of Step on Death Penalty By

I>

David Fathi Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle May 23, 2009, 3:44PM Barring unexpected events, in the

next ...

These early entrants to the incarceration services market found a political climate supportive of privatization in several states, including Kentucky', Tennessee, Texas, Florida, Arizona, New Mexico and Louisiana. By 1994 there were approximately 20 companies actively seeking contracts to either build and manage company-owned prisons or manage existing facilities owned by federal, state and local jUrisdictions.
The Supply Side cfthe Incarceration Services Industry
The traditional industrial life cycle model suggests that new markets move through a process marked by fUUf stages: fragmentation, shakeout, maturity and decline. The fragmentation period occurs when the industry is new, many entrepreneurs enier the market, and they operate at low volume and tend to ser.te narrow geographic areas. Eventually, a shakeout period occurs as some companies become more efficient and the less efficient ones fail to stay in business. Growth and competition are strongest during this period, as are the prOfits of the largest companies. The industry reaches maturity when growth slows and surviving companies try to solidify their positions in the industry'. At some later time, the industry moves into decline as the demand for the product or service drops and companies seek new ways to recover profitability.

. Some Agencies Balk at Releasing Prison Phone Data by Mike Rigby It is common knowledge among PLN readers that prison and jail phone ...
The Failed Promise of Prison Privatization by I> Richard Culp, Ph.D. We have been experimenting
with prison privatization in the U.S. now for over ...

The decade of the 1990s witnessed the rapid growth of prison privatization, consolidation of the industry and the cooling off of growth rates as the decade ended. The industry moved through the traditional life cycle stages of, fragmentation to maturity during this period. The industry experienced tremendous growth from 1992 to 1998, averaging an increase in capacity of 36% each year. But from 1999 to 2006, growth declined to an average rate of under 4% per year. As market maturity is commonly defined as reaching a state of equilibrium marked by the absence of significant grovofth or innovation, the industry reached maturity as the new millennium began.

The shakeout stage of the industry is reflected in the difference between the companies doing business in 1996 and those doing business in 2011. In 1996, there were 14 companies with private prison contracts in the United States. Table 1 lists these companies, the·ir rated capacity and their mari{et share of U.S. private prison business. A common measure of the dominance of companies in a given market is the market concentration ratio (CR), or the percentage of total industry sales (or capacity, or employment, or value added

https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/23 83 8_displayArtic1e.aspx

12115/2011

Ex I to Lennox Dec, Pg 4 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 5 of 45 Page ID#: 798

Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

Page 3 of7

or physical output) contributed by the four leading firms ranked in order of market share. A market is considered to have a high CR when the four leading firms control over two-thirds of market share, a moderate concentration when the ratio falls between one-third and tvlfOthirds, and a low concentration when the top four companies control less than a third of total market share.
The four-firm market concentration ratio of the private prison industry was 86% in 1996, a
significantly high level of concentration. But by the end of 2011 only seven companies
remained in the private prison business, and the market share of the top four firms increased to 92% (see Table 2).
Acquisitions and Ethical Challenges
The rise in concentration ratio means that the industry as a whole has become less competitive. Five ofthe companies that disappeared between 1996 and 2011 (U.S. Corrections Corporation, Correctional Services Corporation, Comell Corrections, Inc., Fenton Security. Inc. and Correctional Systems, Inc.) were acquired by larger companies. Four other firms went out of business (Bobby Ross Group, Capital Correctional Resources, Dove Development Corporation and Maranatha Production Company, LLC). Three newcomers, LaSalle Southwest Corrections, Louisiana Corrections Services and Emerald Companies, are small and regionally-based in Texas and Louisiana. A review of the ongoing concentration in the market is illustrative of shakeouts in the industry and of some of the ethically-cllaflenged behavior that can attend to the process of profit seeking. The largest company Corrections Corporation of America - acquired the third-ranked company, U.S. Corrections Corporation, in 1998. U.S. Corrections, based in Kentucky, had much in common with Tennessee-based CCA. Both companies were founded by entrepreneurs who were well connected with the political establishment in their state. One of CCA's founders, Thomas W. Beasley, was a fonner chair of the state Republican PClrty and managed the successful 1978 gubernatorial campaign of Lamar Alexander. Honey Alexander, the governor's wife, was an early investor in CCA. U.S. Corrections Corporation, based in neighboring Louisville, did all of its business in Kentucky prior to 1995. Executives of the company contributed over $77,000 to political campaigns in the state between 1987 and 1993, including $23,000 to Govemor Wallace G. Wilkinson and his wife Martha.
Clifford Todd, the CEO of U.S. Corrections, was implicated in a payoff scandal involving the company's contract to run the county jail in Louisville. He was arrested by the FBI in 1994, pleaded guilty to mail fraud and was sentenced to 6 months in j!'lil and fined $250,000. He sold his stake in the company for $15 million in 1994. At the time of the buyout by CCA, U.S. Corrections owned a total offour facilities in Kentucky, Ohio and North Carolina with a capacity of 5,275 beds, and had contracts to manage publicly-owned facilities in Kentucky, Florida and North Carolina with a capacity of 5,743 beds.
The second-largest company in 1996, Wackenhut Corrections Corporation (WCC), was formed in 1984 as a subsidiary to security 'finn Wackenhut Corporation, which was founded by George Wackenhut, a former FBI agent. Over the ensuing years, WCC grew to become one of the largest private prison companies in the world. The company began providing residential services for at-risk juveniles and young adults under the Job Corps program. WCC went public in 1994 (with Wackenhut Corporation as the majority shareholder). In 2002, the Danish company Group 4 Falck merged with the Wackenhut Corporation and, indirectly, became the owner of 57% of WCC's stocl<. In 2003, WCC bought out Group 4 Falck's interest in the company and changed its name to the GEO Group, Inc. The GEO Group acquired the industry's seventh-largest company, Correctional Services Corporation (CSC), in 2005 and Cornell Corrections, the fifth-largest company, in 2010.
Founded in 1989, CSC operated under $everal different names, including Esmor Correctional Services, inc. The company was founded by the owners of a welfare hotel in New York City and began its prison business operating halfway houses under contract with the BOP. CSC also managed the INS Detention Center in Elizabeth, New Jersey, remembered best for a .June 1995 riot in which 300 detainees took over the facility in protest of poor conditions of confinement. Esmor staff fled from the detention center, leaving order to be restored by federal, state and local law enforcement officers. The INS closed the facility after the riot, noting that CSC guards had abused detainees, gave them spoiled food and deprived them of sleep. The facility was reopened in 1997.
Later, in 2003, CSC was fined $300,000 by the New York State Lobbying Commission for failing to report free transportation, meals and gifts given to a dozen state legislators from Brooklyn and the Bronx. The nne was the largest the state had ever imposed on a company for violating the state's !obbying laws. In May 2008, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed charges.against three Fort Lauderdale, Florida physicians, alleging insider trading in GEO Group's 2005 acquisition of CSC. According to the complaint, one of the three worked as a consultant to GEO and had a son who worked in GEO's finance department, where he allegedly learned of the pending deal. The three were charged with illegally purchasing $390,000 in CSC stocl< before the acquisition. Two of the defendants entered into settlement agreements while the third was cleared of the charges.
Another GEO acquisition, Cornell Corrections, Inc., had been the third-largest private prison company in 2006, with 8% of industry market share. Incorporated in 1994, the company built its business primarily with youth services and community-based rehabilitation programs for
https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/23 838_displayArticle.aspx

12115/2011

Ex I to Lennox Dec, Pg 5 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 6 of 45 Page ID#: 799

r J.1~Ul1 LC;gct11~C;W~ - LC;gl:ll i:1.nlLaC;~, Ci:1.~t;~ i:UIU l,;UUTt Uel,;lSlOnS

Yage 4 ot I

adults. Pirate Capital, LLC, a hedge fund firm, acquired a 13% interest in Cornell in 2004, becoming the company's largest shareholder, and replaced several board members and the company's CEO with financiers more oriented toward short-term growth. Pirate Capital unloaded its shares of Cornell in 2006 in the midst of an SEC investigation over its stock sales practices, several bad investment decisions and company downsizing. The company warned its stockholders in 2009 of looming problems in managing indebtedness of some $303 million. GEO Group bought Cornell, along with its debt, in 2010.
Management and Training Corporation (MTC) is the third-largest company currently providing incarceration servIces. MTC is a privately-held Utah-registered company that gained expertise in working with at-risk young people as a major provider of Job Corps programs. The company first entered the private prison market in 1987 when it received a contract to manage the Eagle Mountain Community Correctional Facility in Desert Center, California (which experienced a major riot that resulted in the deaths of two prisoners in 2003). MTC expanded slowly and steadily since 1987 and now runs a total of20 correctional facilities in Arizona, California, Florida, Idaho, New Mexico, Ohio and Texas.
The company's generally positive reputation as a job training provider has been tarnished by its corrections experience. In 1997, MTC hired the former director of the Utah Department of Corrections, Lane McCotter, as Director of Corrections Business Development. McCotter was well connected in pro-privatization states, having served as director of both the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and tile New Mexico Corrections Department before serving as the corrections head in Utah. He left the Utah DOC job in the midst of an investigation over the death of a prisoner with schizophrenia who h3d been shackled to a hard plastic chair for the final sixteen hours of his life.
In 2003, MTC's Santa Fe, New Mexico facility was under investigation by the U.S. Justice Department for unsafe conditions and poor quality prisoner medical care while McCotter was employed·with the company. Nonetheless, that same year he was appointed by Attorney General John Ashcroft to serve on a U.S. Department of Justice team commissioned to assess and implement a plan for rebuilding Iraq's criminal justice system. The team's final act before leaving Iraq was to conduct a ribbon cutting ceremony at the refurbished Abu Ghraib prison, a centerpiece of their corrections planning. Although the facility was empty when McCotter lefilraq, the work of the committee of experts was indelibly stained by the infamous events that subsequently occurred at th~ plison and from on-going human rights abuse allegations in prison? under the direct supervision of other committee members.
MTC was also involved in a failed experiment in prison..privatization in Canada. In 2001, the company won a five-year contract to operate the Central North Correctional Centre (CNCC) in Ontario as part of a pUot project to compare operations of the CNCC facility with a similar publicly-run prison, the Central East Correctional Centre. The government hired PricewaterhouseCoopers to evaluate the two prisons across a variety of dimensions. The evaluation found that the public prison outperformed the MTC facility overall. While the MTC prison was cheaper to operate and provided a greater variety of programming than the government facility, the public prison rated significantly better on security, recidivism rates, health care and community impact. Based on the results of the experiment, Ontario decided to tum management of the privatized facility over to the public sector.
Community Education Centers (CEq, incorporated in 1996, rounds out the quartet of companies that control 92% of the current incarceration services market. Like MTC, CEC is a privately-held company whose finances and governance structure are much less transparent than is' the case with publicly-held companies. Until a few years ago, CEe's business was concentrated in providing community-based residential, re-entry and rehabilitative services to offenders, mostly in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, but the company moved into the secure incarceration services business with its acquisition of CiviGenics in 2007.
CiviGenics was founded in 1995 in Marlboro, MA by Roy Ross, the former president of Spectrum Health Systems, Inc., a nonprofit company that provided drug and alcohol treatment services for prisoners in the Massachusetts Department of Corrections. Ross arranged a contract for CiviGenics to provide management of Spectrum's Massachusetts inprison treatment programs. In 1996, CiviGenics acquired Fenton Security, Inc., a small company that had management contracts to operate two county jails in Colorado. Tom Rapone, a former Secreta!') of Public Safety in Massachusetts, joined CiviGenics as the firm's Chief Operating Officer. CiviGenics expanded its secure custody operations and by 1998 operated several small jail.facilities, employed more than 1,000 staff and had revenues of more than $30 million.
In July 1999, the·Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) awarded CiviGenics a $'14.9 million contract to operate the newly-built North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility (NCCTF) in Grafton. However, the ODRC elected not to renew its contract with CiviGenics when the contract expired in July 2001, citing problems with high staff turnover (including five different wardens in its first 18 months), repeated failure to maintain minimum staffing levels and problems with over-billing the state for positions that remained uncovered. The ODRC subsequently awarded the contract to MTC, which continues to operate the NCCTF facility.
https:/Iwww.prisonlegaInews.org/2383 8_displayArticle.aspx

12115/2011

Ex I to Lennox Dec, Pg 6 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 7 of 45 Page ID#: 800

.rU;::;Ull LCgclll'lCW:'; - Lcgm i:1rll~le;:.;, ~it:.;e;:.; i:tilU (;;UUn UC{;;ISIOnS

.page) ot"/

In 2004, the Massachusetts State Auditor completed an audit that found Spectrum Health Systems had misused $17.4 million in state money, with $10.2 million ofthe total amount involving excessive payments to CiviGenics. The matter was settled in January 2007 in an agreement that required CiviGenics to repay the state $3.4 million and Roy Ross to repay $650,000. With its acquisition of CiviGenics in 2007, CEC became the fourth largest private prison company in the U.S.
The Demand Side of the Incarceration Services Industry
The demand side of prison privatization, like the oligopoly of private prison companies, is also highly concentrated. The potential customers in the private prison market are government agencies at the federal, state and local level that operate jail, prison and detention programs. At the federal level, the Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Marshals Service and Immigration and Customs Enforcement all manage a variety of custody facilities. The four branches of the military also operate facilities for military personnel sentenced under the Uniform Gode of Military Justice. Of course, the 50 states and the District of Columbia each have departments of correction.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there are some 1,821 state and federal correctional facilities, not counting facilities operated by the U:S. Marshals Service and ICE. At the local level, counties and cities operate about 2,875 jail facilities in the United States. In sum, the potential consumer base of the private prison industry numbers somewhere in the area of 4,700 facilities.
After over 25 years of correctional privatization, there are fewer than 200 private correctional facilities in the United States - only about 4% of all facilities. The federal government is the most actively involved in privatization, with 16.3% offederal prisoners serving time in private facilities. State governments are next, with 6.6% of state prisoners in private facilities. However, whereas 60% of all correctional facilities in the United States are at the local level, only about two dozen city and county jurisdictions (1.7% of the total) contract with private companies to operate their jails and detention centers. In practice there are very few buyers of privatized incarceration services, and the federal government is the largest sirigle Gustomer. Betvlfeen 2000 and 2008, the number of state prisoners placed in private prisons increased by about 25%, from 75,018 to 93,537. In the federal system, however, the number increased from 15,525 to 32,712, or about 110%. During the same period, the number of states placing some portion of their prisoners in private facilities actually declined from 30 states to 27.
There are in practice only fifty-four "customers· buying incarceration services from the private prison industry - the three federal agencies, t\t.renty-seven state departments of correction and two dozen local jurisdictions. Within this small customer base, tile federal government plus eight states (Texas, Florida, Arizona, Oklahoma, Colorado, Tennessee, California and Mississippi) collectively account for more than 70% of all private prison business. In effect, the market of buyers constitutes an oligopsony, or a market form in which only a few customers buy a certain good and therefore possess the power to affect pricing. The two largest publicly-traded private prison companies recognize their dependency on a limited number of governmental customers as a threat to their profitability and include a warning to stockholders to that effect in their annual reports. At CCA, just three federal government agencies, the BOP, ICE and the U.S. Marshals, accounted for 43% of the company's total revenue for fiscal year 2010, or $717.8 million. The state of California, which is placing thousands of prisoners out-of-state in an effort to reduce in-state prison populations, provided 13% of CGA's total revenue for fiscal year 2010, or $214 'million. GEO Group reports that while they have a total of 45 govemmental clients (customers), 4 of those clients accounted for over 60% of their U.s.-based revenue (BOP, ICE, U.S. Marshals and the State of Florida). Among those, the three federal ' agencies combined are responsible for 53% of GEO Group's total U.S. revenue.
The oligopsony of governmental consumers serves to discourage innovation. In practice, government purchasers of incarceration services have required that private prison companies simply duplicate policies and procedures practiced in public prisons, to the effect that the standard operating procedures of most private prison programs closely mirror those of public prisons in the same state. Notably, none of the companies have distinct and viable research and development departments as would be expected in an industry that values innovation. Private prison companies encourage the adoption of public prison practice, rather than the development of innovative practice, by actively recruiting management-level staff from within the public sector.
As a case in point, a review of the background of CCA's facility management staff suggests a widespread practice of mining' the public corrections system for managers. Among the wardens of 63 of the company's correctional facilities, nearly two-thirds formerly worked in state departments of correction (36 wardens) or the federal BOP (5 wardens). The most warden-rich jurisdiction was the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, from whence 28% of all CCA wardens were recruited. These experienced staffers bring a degree of order and control to the company's private prisons, but they are not likely to be hired for their spirit of experimentation and innovation.
Arguably, private prisons are not looking to be innovative unless it is a way of cutting costs. The most common way for these companies to make money from government contracts is
https:llwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23838_displayArticle.aspx

12/15/2011

Ex I to Lennox Dec, Pg 7 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 8 of 45 Page ID#: 801
rage U V1 I

by reducing personnel expenses. Because labor represents about 80% of the operating cost of a prison, much of the cost savings in private prtsons results from paying private correctional officers less than comparable public correctional officers. But this advantage begins to erode in a market where prtvate companies are dependent upon contract renewals (with more experienced staff) rather than new facilities (with new, entry-level staff). Even as labor rates vary among the states, public sector correctional officer starting salaries average $28,000 across all states with a (one standard deviation) range between $23,000 and $34,200. By comparison, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports a mean annual salary of $42,270 for all occupations in the United States (in May 2008). Public sector prison staff salaries are very low already, suggesting that it is not easy for the private sector to continue to undercut the govemment in personnel costs.
Conclusion
The increasing concentration of market share among the top four companies and the declining number of companies in the incarceration services market mean that governments considering the privatization option will find a decreasing competitive environment when seeking contract bids. In 1995, for example, a total of seven companies submitted bids in response to a Arkansas Department of Corrections request for proposals for two new privately-operated prisons. In contrast, a 2006 request for proposals to manage a private prison in Pennsylvania yielded only two bidders. With market maturation and increased concentration, it is increasingly difficult for new companies to get into the business and for marginal perfornlers to stay afloat.
Oligopoly theory and industry life cyde theory suggest that the remaining companies will be less competitive overaH, seeking interdependent relationships with their competitors to help secure their position now that industry growth rates have cooled. As this scenario continues to unfold, any possibility of meaningful cost savings from privatization will decline over time. A recent study of private prison costs in Arizona found that this has already occurred, as the cost of incarcerating minimum-security prisoners has reached parity between state prisons and private prisons while the cost of housing medium-security prisoners is now actually lower in state prisons than in private facilities.
The private plison industry bears a fair share of tile responsibility for not registering a better showing in research results. Despite the fact that it has hired away from the public sector many "best and brightest" correctional staff, the industry's penchant for financially rewarding its executives and top managers has drained resources that could have been devoted to program research and development.
Governments have also played a role in the failure of private prisons to perfonn better, particularly in the area of program quality. As an oligopsony, gO\femments hold the power to be more demanding in the area of perfonnance yet ha\fe systematically failed to do so. In the m"ain, contracting govemments have simply abdicated demand for increasing program quality, settling for an illusory decrease in program costs. Given the history of "iron trianglen relationships that intertwine the private prison industry and government officials, this failure is perhaps not surprising.
One of the more depressing statistics to emerge in criminal justice in recent years is the fact that two-thirds of released prisoners are fe-arrested within three years. Enlightened government officials around the country have realized that they can reduce correctional expenditures only by focusing their efforts on reducing recidivism, not by building or contracting for more prison space. Government jurisdictions that are having the greatest success in reducing correctional expenditures are those that are turning to evidence-based practice to guide sentencing decisions and devoting correctional resources toward programs proven to reduce recidivism. Prison is not one of them. In enlightened jurisdictions, incarceration rates are beginning to decline.
As this trend continues, the private prison industry will eventually enter the fourth stage of the industrial life cycle - decline - and will begin shedding some of its capacity. Some companies have already sighted this trend on the horizon and have begun developing alternative business opportunities in areas such as electronic monitoring and prisoner health care. For those government agencies with heavy reliance on private prisons, decline in the industry will pose new problems as companies shed unprofitable contracts and simply walk away. Albert Einstein suggested that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. If a quarter century of experience with prison privatization
has not led to better quality and cost outcomes, it is time to take a more sane approach.
Richard Culp is an Associate Professor of Public Administration at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City and the Coordinator of the Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice Management program. He is also a member of the doctoral faculty in Criminal Justice at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York and serves as Deputy Ex.ecutive Officer of the CUNY Criminal Justice Doctoral Program. Professor Culp's research has been published in Justice Quarterly, Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, Criminal Justice Policy Review, The Prison Journal and tile Journal of Public Affairs Education.
This article includes new and expanded research findings previously published in "Prison Privatization Turns Twenty-five: In K. Ismaili (Ed.) U.S. Criminal Justice Policy: A
https;/Iwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23 838_displayArticle.aspx

12115/2011

Ex I to Lennox Dec, Pg 8 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 9 of 45 Page ID#: 802 rage I or I
Contemporary Reader (pp.183-209). Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers (2010).
Copyright © Prison Legal News 2011 Site designed and maintained by: AccuFind Internet Services Inc.®

https:/Iwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23 83 8_displayArticle.aspx

12115/2011
Ex I to Lennox Dec, Pg 9 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 10 of 45 Page ID#: 803

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBIT II
TO DECLARATION OF LUCY LENNOX
Ex II to Lennox Dec, Pg 1 of 9

jj~~ ~.~ '~"•. ~"".....
-'L4t~'t'S ~'
. S~t)I~\ \i)*,
q~~3

.-ui:it.....'ltIr%i!~.;, "..

. ..... ) '>

]=-i'.:.!.~·cf.,~~"'!'Ei!u.~~

: ,,";:.!:

,", ··i.~~-·

o0."':~:.tsj.S~tS:P.OS'S,P.',;(<);S';~<''~ 1.'~., "-, ,,'
€I ,,';mw' ?~Zj~,~;'r;dfcd~"!<'l11tFV~r9<V:';~i'.l~'~~l.V'"PP.~'":IIL."~:''~':.~l11;~.:ff:':ldll:;·;;:ii.:i;;'';:i;:JJ.::J, J!!....EE,,.iVV:~:w~B~ .-;7jO. ~jW~,;;mESw
02 1P $ OOHf).,64@
0003048470 DEC 15 2011
MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 99201 '

, J~
~ ~ ~(IDO.;l.34-3

C-/O ~~~

N1. x':t:t;:

\~.('<) 40 i

\ ...... 01.t.l;\.J (:le:./ ;V~

RETURN TO SENDER NOT CEL~VERAeLE AS ADDRESSED
UNASLE TO FORWARD

e c ~ $"9.,~O:$~S~44.'~~e

*~O~9-045~S-~~-S1

11111111111111,111111111111111111111111,11111111111111111/11111JI

Ex II to Lennox Dec, Pg 2 of 9

-r 0
Zoo
I~
(l)
I:'o:::JJJ-'
o o
(0
en

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 12 of 45 Page ID#: 805

Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

Page 1 of7

Logged in as: Lucy Lennox Firm: Status: Member
I I Edit Profile !fLog Out of PLN

HOME

BOOK

SEARCH

ADVERTISE

SUBSCRIBE

DONATIONS

CONTACT

STORE

PLN

US

Book Review I FAQ's I Interviews I PLN links PLN in the News i Annual Reports I Referral Directory

VIEW CART

r (ii Articles List Serv Messages

EE I SUE

Thursday, December 15,201112:22 PM

The Failed Promise of Prison Privatization

[ Please visit our advertiser above] BREAKING NEWS

by Richard Culp, Ph.D.
We have been experimenting with prison privatization in the U.S. now for over twenty-five years. The privatization idea originated out of a notion that the private sector, with its . competition-driven efficiency and innovation, could operate prisons of higher quality and lower cost than the public sector. Create a markel for incarceration services, the argument ran, and the market will work its magic, improving prison conditions and rehabilitative outcomes while saving the taxpayers millions of dollars. That market has effectively been created over the past quarter century and we have now arrived at a place where prison privatization has been studied extensively and evaluated rigorously.

Judidal Conference Committee Disciplines Federal Judge for Membership in Discriminatory Country Club by. Alex Friedmann In May 2011, PLN reported that the Sixth ...
Nationwide PLN Survey Examines Prison Phone Contracts, Kickbacks by John E. Dannenberg An exhaustive analysis of prison phone contracts nationwide has revealed that ...

Although hyperbole continues to propel prison privatization policy along, research findings are incontrovertible: even in !he best private prisons, quality of prisoner care is no better than in public pris<:lnS and the cost advantage of privatization, which initially accounted for minimal savings, is steadily eroding as the private prison industry matures. The big promises of prison privatization -less cost, higher quality - have simply not materialized. Despite these disappointing resuits, prison privatization advocacymainfains .. traction in diverse jUrisdictions as policymakers from Ohio to Florida and from Maine to
California seek expedient solutions to budget shortfalls triggered by a lingering great
recession.
In retrospect, it should come as no surprise that prison privatization would fail to live up to its promises. There are several reasons for this. First, free market solutions to social problems like crime assume, after all, that there are "freeD markets for appropriate services. However, there is no such thing as a natural market for the services provided by private prison . companies. On the contrary, the marketplace for incarceration services is created by the government, for the government. It is an artificial market. Many of the services that have been privatized by govemment (e.g., custodial services, food preparation. medical care) are provided by the private sector independentty of the government's decision to privatize or not. There is a free market analogue for many kinds of services that.govemments routinely provide. Other fields such as education and health care, for example; have an active marIcet ofexisting nonprofit and for-profit providers willing to sell educational and healthcare
services to a huge market of potential buyers that includes both individuals and
governments.
The prison business is fundamentally different in that no one can freely purchase incarceration services as a private individual. There is no natura! market for incarceration services. The power to incarcerate someone - to hold a person against his or her will- is a defining characteristic of the state. The government Ilolds a monopoly over the legitimate use of physical force and the power to incarcerate. Only the government has the legitimate power to restrict a citizen's liberty; individuals are prohibited by law from incarcerating another person under "false imprisonment" statutes. The govemment can delegate this power on a limited basis - for example, "shopkeeper's privilege" allows merchants to temporarily detain suspected shoplifters. But long-term incarceration is a different matter. The only potential buyers who can legally purchase incarceration services are the government jurisdictions that have custody over indicted, cOllvicted or detained persons. In order to privatize its incarceration function, the govemmi:mt has had to create a market since one does not and cannot exist without its direct intervention.

Prison Legal News Interviews Former Prisoner and Famous Actor Danny Trejo Danny Trejo is one of the best-known American actors living today..,.
Remembering Attica Forty Years Later by Dennis Cunningham, Michael Deutsch & Elizabeth Fink This year, September 9 will mark the 40th anniversary ...
The History of Prison Legal News by Paul Wright In May 1990, the first issue of Prisoners' Legal News (PLN) was published. It ...
Twenty Years of PLN in Court Since PLN was founded in 1990 we have been censored in prisons and jails around ...
Appalling Prison and Jail Food Leaves Prisoners Hungry for Justice by David M. Reutter, Gary Hunter & Brandon Sample Prison food. The very ...
Sexual Abuse by Prison and Jail Staff Proves Persistent, Pandemic by Gary Hunter Sexual assault, rape, indecency, deviance. These tenns represent reprehensible behavior ...
Judge Not: Judges Benched for Personal MisConduct by Gary Hunter & Alex Friedmann They decide hot-button topics ranging from abortion and racial diSCrimination '"

Secondly, the development of the private prison industry has resulted in a highly concentrated producer market where only four companies control over 90% of the incarceration services business. Economic theory tells us that when production is highly concentrated in very few companies, the market becomes an oligopoly, a market situation that is inherently less competitive and innovative than a market with more broad-based representation. An oligopoly is characterized by interdependence, avoidance of

The Graying of America's Prisons by James Ridgeway Frank Soffen, now 70 years old. has lived more than half his life In prison, ...

https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/23838_displayArticle.aspx

12115/2011

Ex II to Lennox Dec, Pg 3 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 13 of 45 Page ID#: 806

rnson Lega~ 1'1 ews - Legal aTIICleS, cases ana COUlL aeClSlOns

rage L or I

competition and a rigid attachment to the status quo among the leading firms.
A third part of the story is that govemment itself unwittingiy stifles innovation in the private prison industry. Since the only legitimate customers of prison companies are the jurisdictions that can indict, convict or othelwise detain people, the potential customer base for incarceration services is very limited. In practice, this has led to a situation where only a handful of customers, an oligopsony in economic terms, has come to dominate the customer base. The limited number of customers serves to dissuade private prison companies from conducting research and development into innovative correctional programming, as the tiny customer base tends to demand only those services that mimic what the govemments themselves are accustomed to providing.
Origins of the Artificial Market
Contracting out of noncustodial prison services such as medical care, food service, maintenance, education and menIal health services has been practiced for a long time and with little controversy. Contracting out of custody services, for which there is no free market analogue, is much more controversial. The deinstitutionalization movement in juvenile corrections during the 1970s initiated a number of experiments in privatized services and custody for juveniles. A major step toward contracted custody of adults occurred when the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the forerunner to today's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), decided in 1983 to partially outsource the detention of undocumented immigrants in Its custody. In the summer of 1983, the INS issued a request for proposals and the newly-formed Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) submitted the winning bid.

Secret Justice: Criminal Informants and America's Underground Legal System by Alexandra Natapoff I. Introduction Although it is almost invisible to the public, ...
Thou Shalt Not: Sexual Misconduct by Prison and ~ Jail Chaplains by David M. Reutter Traditionally, the
role of a chaplain in the correctional ...
.. Celebrity Justice: Prison Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous by Matt Clarke There are two criminal justice systems in the United States. One ...
.. Crime Labs in Crisis: Shoddy Forensics Used to Secure Convictions by Matt Clarke To millions of people whose knowledge of crime labs comes ...
Private Prison Companies Behind the Scenes of I>- Arizona's Immigration Law by Beau Hodai"Beside
my brothers and my sisters, I'll proudly lake a ...

Likewise, the community corrections movement in the adult system involved contracting out of the custody function in many low-security adult fatilities. Minnesota passed the Community Corrections Act in 1971, and 25 states followed suit with similar legislation over
the next 12 years. Community corrections legislation transferred funding from state-level
departments of correction to local governments which, in tum, used the funds for halfway house programs and other services for lower-level offenders. Many jurisdictions turned to
private contractors to operate these facilities.
In 1986, Management and Training Corporation (MTC) secured a contract to operate a community corrections facility in Eagle Mountain, California. Also in 1986, the State of Kentucky contracted out the development and operation of a 200-bed minimum-security facility in Marion County. Another newly-formed company, the U.S. Corrections Corporation, was awarded tile contract. Similarly, the U.S. Bureau of Prisons (BOP) began contracting out the operation of low-security halfway house programs to the private sector during this time. Another early private prison company, Correctional Services Corporation, originally Esmor Correctional Corp., began business in 1989 with two contracts from the BOP to operate halfway houses in New York City.

Medical Examiners Lack Qualifications,
.. Competence, Oversight by Matt Clarke Most people will only have direct contact with a medical examiner, also known as ...
.. 40% of Criminal Jurisprudence bills boost criminal penalties As has probably been the case every legislative session in living memory, bills ...
Texas IncreaSingly out of Step on Death Penalty By
.. David Fathi Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle May 23, 2009, 3:44PM Barring unexpected events, in the next ...

These early entrants to the incarceration services market found a political climate supportive of privatization in several states, including Kentucky', Tennessee, Texas, Florida, Arizona. New Mexico and Louisiana. By 1994 there were approximately 20 companies actively seeking contracts to either build and manage company-owned prisons or manage eXisting facilities owned by federal, state and local jurisdictions.
The Supply Side of the Incarceration Services Industry
The traditional industrial life cycle model suggests that new markets move through a process marked by four stages: fragmentation, shakeout, maturity and decline. The fragmentation period occurs wilen the industry is new, many entrepreneurs enter the market, and they operate at low volume and tend to serve narrow geographic areas. Eventually, a shakeout period occUrs as some companies become more efficient and the less efficient ones fail to stay in business. Growth and competition are strongest during this period, as are the profits of the largest companies. The industry reaches maturity when growth slows and sllrviving companies try to solidify their positions in the industry. At some later time, the industry moves into decline as the demand for the product or service drops and companies seek new ways to recover profitability.

.. Some Agencies Balk at Releasing Prison Phone Data by Mike Rigby It is common knowledge among PLN readers that prison and jail phone ...
.. The Failed Promise of Prison Privatization by Richard Culp, Ph.D. We have been experimenting with prison privatization iii the U.S. now for over ...

The decade of the 1990s witnessed the rapid growth of prison privatization, consolidation of the industry and the cooling off of growth rates as the decade ended. The industry moved through the traditional life cycle stages of.fragmentation to maturity during this period. The industry experienced tremendolls growth from 1992 to 1998, averaging an increase in capacity of 36% each year. But from 1999 to 2006, growth declined to an average rate of under 4% per year. As market maturity is commonly defined as reaching a state of equilibrium marked by the absence of significant growth or innovation, the industry reached maturity as the new millennium began.

The shakeout stage of the industry is reflected in the difference between the companies doing business in 1996 and those doing business in 2011. In 1996, there were 14 companies with private prison contracts in the United States. Table 1 lists these companies, their rated capacity and their market share of U.S. private prison business. A common measure of the dominance of companies in a given market is the market concentration ratio (CR), or the percentage of total industry safes (or capacity, or employment. or value added

https://www.prisonlegahlews.org/23838_displayArtic1e.aspx

12115/2011

Ex II to Lennox Dec, Pg 4 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 14 of 45 Page ID#: 807

Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

Page 3 of7

or physical output) contributed by the four leading firms ranked in order of market share. A market is considered to have a high CR when the four leading firms control over two-thirds of market share, a moderate concentration when the ratio falls between one-third and twothirds, and a low concentration when the top four companies control less than a third of total market share.
The four-firm market concentration ratio of the private prison industry was 86% in 1996, a significantly high level of concentration. But by the end of 2011 only seven companies remained in the private prison business, and the market share of the top four firms increased to 92% (see Table 2).
Acquisitions and Ethical Challenges
111e rise in concentration ratio means that the industry as a whole has become less competitive. Five of the companies that disappeared between 1996 and 2011 (U.S. Corrections Corporation, Correctional Services Corporation, Cornell Corrections, Inc., Fenton Security, Inc. and Correctional Systems, Inc.) were acquired by larger companies. Four other firms went out of business (Bobby Ross Group, Capital Correctional Resources, Dove Development Corporation and Maranatha Production Company, LLC). Three newcomers, LaSalle Southwest Corrections, Louisiana Corrections Services and Emerald Companies, are small and regionally-based in Texas and louisiana. A review of the ongoing concentration in the market is illustrative of shakeouts in the industry and of some of the ethically-challenged behavior that can attend to the process of profit seeking. The largest company - Corrections Corporaticin of America acquired the third-ranked company, U.S. Corrections Corporation, in 1998. U.S. Corrections, based in Kentucky, had much in common with Tennessee-based CCA Both companies were founded·by entrepreneurs who were well connected with the political establishment in theif state. One of CCA's founders, Thomas W. Beasley, was a former chair of the state Republican Party and managed the successful 1978 gubernatorial campaign of Lamar Alexander. Honey Alexander, the governor's wife, was an early investor in CCA. U.S. Corrections Corporation, based in neighboring Louisville, did all of its business in Kentucky prior to 1995. Executives of the company contributed over $77,000 to political campaigns in the state between 1987 and 1993, including $23,000 to Governor Wallace G. Wilkinson and his wife Martha.
Clifford Todd, the CEO of U.S. Corrections, was implicated in a payoff scandal involving the company's contract to run the county jail in Louisville. He was arrested by the FBI in 1994, pleaded guilty to mail fraud and was sentenced to 6 months in jf;lil and fined $250,000. He sold his stake in the company for $15 million in 1994. At the time of the buyout by CCA, U.S. Corrections owned a total of four facilities in Kentucky, Ohio and North Carolina with a capacity of 5,275 beds, and had contracts to manage publicly-owned facilities in Kentucky, Florida and North Carolina with a capacity of 5,743 beds.
The second-largest. company in 1996, Wackenhut Corrections Corporation (WCC), was formed in 1984 as a subsidiary to security "firm Wackenhut Corporation, which was founded by George Wackenhut, a former FBI agent. Over the ensuing years, WCC grew to become one of the largest private prison companies in the world. The company began providjng residential services for at-risk juveniles and young adults under the Job Corps program. WCC went public in 1994 (with Wackenhut Corporation as the majority shareholder). In 2002, the Danish company Group 4 Falck merged with the Wackenhut Corporation and, indirectly, became the owner of 57% ofWCC's stock:. In 2003, WCC bought out Group 4 Falck's interest in the company and changed its name to the GEO Group, Inc. The GEO Group acquired the industry's seventh-largest company, Correctional Services Corporation (CSC), in 2005 and Comell Corrections, the fifth-largest company, in 2010.
Founded in 1989, CSC operated under $everal different names, including Esrnor Correctional Services, Inc. The company was founded by the owners of a welfare hotel in New York City and began its prison business operating halfWay houses under contract with the BOP. CSC also managed the INS Detention Center in Elizabeth, New Jersey, remembered best for a June 1995 riot in which 300 detainees took over the facility in protest of poor conditions of confinement. Esmor staff fled from the detention center, leaving order to be restored by federal, state and local law enforcement officers. The INS closed the facility after ilie riot, noting that CSC guards had abused detainees, gave them spoiled food and deprived them of sleep. The facility was reopened in 1997.
Later. in 2003, CSC was fined $300,000 by the New York State Lobbying Commission for failing to report free transportation, meals and gifts given to a dozen state legislators from Brooklyn and the Bronx. The fine was the largest the state had ever imposed on a company for violating the state's lobbying laws. In May 200B, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed charges.against three Fort Lauderdale, Florida physicians, alleging insider trading in GEO Group's 2005 acquisition of CSC. According to the complaint, one of the three worked as a consultant to GEO and had a son who worked in GEO's finance department, where he allegedly learned of the pending deal. The three were charged with illegally purchasing $390,000 in CSC stock before the acquisition. Two of the defendants entered into settlement agreements while the third was cleared of the charges.
Ano~her GEO acquisition, Cornell Corrections, Inc., had been the third-largest private prison company in 2006, with 8% of industry market share. Incorporated in 1994, the company built its business primarily with youth services and community-based rehabilitation programs for
https:/Iwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23 838_displayArticle.aspx

12/15/2011

Ex II to Lennox Dec, Pg 5 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 15 of 45 Page ID#: 808

r lli::>Ull LC;gcU l'1!C;Wi::> - LC;gi:l1 i:Ulll...;te;;:s, l;a:se;;:::; anu C:UUIL ueC:lSlons

.page 4 ot I

adults. Pirate Capital, LLC, a hedge fund firm, acquired a 13% interest in Cornell in 2004, becoming the company's largest shareholder, and replaced several board members and the company's CEO with financiers more oriented toward short-term growth. Pirate Capital unloaded its shares of Cornell in 2006 in the midst of an SEC investigation over its stock sales practices, several bad investment decisions and company downsizing. The company warned its stockholders in 2009 of looming problems in managing indebtedness of some $303 million. GEO Group bought Cornell, along with its debt, in 2010.

Management and Training Corporation (MTC) is the third-largest company currently providing incarceration services. MTC is a privately-held Utah-registered company that gained expertise in working with at-risk young people as a major provider of Job Corps programs. The company first entered the private prison market in 1987 when it received a contract to manage the Eagle Mountain Community Correctional Facility in Desert Center, California (which experienced a major riot that resulted in the deaths of two prisoners in 2003}.Iv1TC expanded slowly and steadily since 1987 and now runs a total of20 correctional facilities in Arizona, California, Florida, Idaho, New Mexico, Ohio and Texas.

The company's generally positive reputation as a job training provider has been tarnished by its corrections experience. In 1997, MTC hired the former director of the Utah Department of Corrections, Lane McCotter, as Director of Corrections Business Development. McCotter was well connected in pro-privatization states, having served as director of both the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and the New Mexico Corrections Department before serving as the corrections head in Utah. He left the Utah DOC job in the· midst of an investigation over the death of a prisoner with schizophrenia who had been shackled to a hard plastic chair for the final sixteen hours of his life.

In 2003, rvrrc's Santa Fe, New Mexico facility was under investigation by the U.S. Justice

Department for unsafe conditions and poor quality prisoner medical care while McCotter

was employed with the company. Nonetheless, that same year he was appointed by

Attomey General John Ashcroft to serve on a U.S. Department of Justice team

commissioned to assess and implement a plan for rebuilding Iraq's crimim31 justice system.

The team's final act before leaving Iraq was to conduct a ribbon cutting ceremony at the

refurbished Abu Gllraib prison, a centerpiece of their corrections planning.

Although the facility was empty when McCotter left Iraq, tile work of the committee of

experts was indelibly stained by the infamous events that subsequently occurred at the

plison and from on-going human rights abuse allegations in prIsons under the direct

supervision of other committee members.

.

MTC was also involved in a failed experiment in prison..privatization in Canada. In 2001, the company won a five-year contract to operate the Central North Correctional Centre (CNCC) in Ontario as part of a pilot project to compare operations of the CNCC facility with a similar publicly-run prison, the Central East Correctional Centre. The government hired PricewaterhouseCoopers to evaluate the two prisons across a variety of dimensions. The evaluation found that the public prison outperformed the MTC facility overall. While the MTC prison was cheaper to operate and provided a greater variety of programming than the government facility, the public prison rated significantly better on security, recidivism rates, health care and community impact. Based on the results of the experiment, Ontario decided to tum management of the privatized facility over to the public sector.

Community Education Centers (CEC), incorporated in 1996, rounds out the quartet of companies that control 92% of the current incarceration services market. Like MTC, CEC is a privately-held company whose finances and governance structure are much less transparent than is' the case with publicly-held companies. Until a few years ago, CEC's business was concentrated in providing community-based residential, re-entry and rehabilitative services to offenders, mostly in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, but the company moved into the secure incarceration services business with its acquisition of CiviGenics in 2007.

CiviGenics was founded in 1995111 Marlboro, MA by Roy Ross, the former president of Spectrum Health Systems, Inc., a nonprofit company that provided drug and alcohol treatment services for prisoners in the Massachusetts Department of Corrections. Ross arranged a contract for CiviGenics to provide management of Spectrum's Massachusetts inprison treatment programs. In 1996, CiviGenics acquired Fenton Security, Inc., a small company that had management contracts to operate two county jails in Colorado. Tom Rapone, a former Secretary of Public Safety in Massacbusetts, Joined CiviGenics as the firm's Chief Operating Officer. CiviGenics expanded its secure custody operations and by 1998 operated several small jailJacilities, employed more than 1,000 staff and had revenues of more than $30 million.

In July 1999, the·Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) awarded CiviGenics a $14.9 million contract to operate the newly-built North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility (NCCTF) in Grafton. However, the ODRC elected not to renew its contract with CiviGenics when the contract expired in July 2001, citing problems with high staff turnover (including five different wardens in its first 18 months), repeated failure to maintain minimum staffing levels and probfems with over-billing the state for positions that remained uncovered. The ODRC subsequently awarded the contract to MTC, which continues to operate the NCCTF facility.

https:!Iwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23 83 8_displayArticle.aspx

12115/2011

Ex II to Lennox Dec, Pg 6 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 16 of 45 Page ID#: 809
.page) ot.,

In 2004, the Massachusetts State Auditor completed an audit that found Spectrum Health Systems had misused $17.4 million in state money, with $10.2 million ofthe total amount involving excessive payments to CiviGenics. The matter was settled in January 2007 in an agreement that required CiviGenics to repay the state $3.4 million and Roy Ross to repay $650,000. With its acquisition of CiviGenics in 2007, CEC became the fourth largest private prison company in the U.S.
The Demand Side of the Incarceration Services Industry
The demand side of prison privatization, like the oligopoly of private prison companies, is also highly concentrated. The potential customers in the private prison market are government agencies at the federal, state and local level that operate jail, prison and detention programs. At the federal level, the Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Marshals Service and Immigration and Customs Enforcement all manage a variety of custody facilities. The four branches of the military also operate facilities for military personnel sentenced under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Of course, the 50 states and the District of Columbia each have departments of correction.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there are some 1,821 state and federal correctional facilities, not counting facHities operated by the U:S. Marshals Service and ICE. At the local level, counties and cities operate about 2,875 jail facilities in the United States. In sum, the potential consumer base of the private prison industry numbers somewhere in the area of 4,700 facilities.
After over 25 years of correctional privatization, there are fewer than 200 private correctional facilities in the United States - only about 4% of al\ facilities. The federal government is the most actively involved in privatization, with 16.3% of federal prisoners serving time in private facilities. State govemments are next, with 6.6% of state prisoners in private facilities. However, whereas 60% of all correctional facilities in the United States are at the local level, only about two dozen city and county jurisdictions (1.7% of the total) contract with private companies to operate their jails and detention centers. In practice there are very few buyers of privatized incarceration services, and the federal govemment is the largest single customer. Betv\leen 2000 and 2008, the number of state prisoners placed in private prisons increased by about 25%, from 75,018 to 93,537. In the federal system, however, the number increased from 15,525 to 32,712, or about 110%. During the same period, the number of states placing some portion of their prisoners in private facilities actually declined from 30 states to 27.
There are in practice only fifty-four ucustomersn buying incarceration services from the private prison industry - the three federal agencies, twenty-seven state departments of correction and two dozen local jurisdictions. Within this small customer base, the federal government plus eight states (fexas, Florida, Arizona, Oklahoma, Colorado, Tennessee, California and Mississippi) collectively account for more than 70% of all private prison business. In effect, the market of buyers constitutes an oligopsony, or a market form in which onry a few customers buy a certain good and therefore possess the power to affect pricing. The two largest publicly-traded private prison companies recognize their dependency on a limited number of govemmental customers as a threat to their profitability and include a warning to stockholders to that effect in their annual reports. At CCA, just three federal government agencies, the BOP, ICE and the U.S. Marshals, accounted for 43% of the company's total revenue for fiscal year 2010, or $717.8 million. The state of California, which is placing thousands of prisoners out-or-state in an effort to reduce in-state prison populations, provided 13% of CCA's total revenue for fiscal year 2010, or $214 'million. GEO Group reports that while they have a total of 45 govemmental clients (customers), 4 of those clients accounted for over 60% of their U.S.-based revenue (BOP, ICE, U.S. Marshals and the State of Florida). Among those, the three federal, agencies combined are responsible for 53% of GEO Group's total U.S. revenue.
The oligopsony of governmental consumers serves to discourage innovation. In practice. govemment purchasers of incarceration services have required that private prison companies simply duplicate policies and procedures practiced in public prisons, to the effect that the standard operating procedures of most private prison programs closely mirror those of public prisons in 'the same state. Notably, none of the companies have distinct and viable research and development departments as would be expected in an industry that values innovation. Private prison companies encourage the adoption of public prison practice, rather than the development of innovative practice, by actively recruiting management-Jevel staff from within the public sector.
As a case in point, a review of the background of CCA's facility management staff suggests a widespread practice of mining' the public corrections system for managers. Among the wardens of 63 of the company's correctional fucilities, nearly two-thirds formerly worked in state departments of correction (36 wardens) or the federal BOP (5 wardens). The most warden-rich jurisdiction was the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, from whence 28% of all CCA wardens were recruited. These experienced staffers bring a degree of order and control to the company's private prisons, but they are not likely to be hired for their spirit of experimentation and innovation.
Arguably, private prisons are not looking to be innovative unless it is a way of cutting costs. The most common way for these companies to make money from government contracts is
https:/Iwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23 83 8_displayArticle.aspx

12/15/2011

Ex II to Lennox Dec, Pg 7 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 17 of 45 Page ID#: 810
rctgt:: 0 V1 I

by reducing personnel expenses. Because labor represents about 80% of the operating cost of a prison, much of the cost savings in private prisons results from paying private correctional officers ress than comparable public correctional officers. But this advantage begins to erode in a market where private companies are dependent upon contract renewals (with more experienced staff) rather than new facilities (with new, entry-level staff). Even as labor rates vary among the states, public sector correctional officer starting salaries average $28,000 across aU states with a (one standard deviation) range between $23,000 and $34.200. By comparison, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports a mean annual salary of $42,270 for all occupations in the United States (in May 2008). Public sector prison staff salaries are very low already, suggesting that it is not easy for the private sector to continue to undercut the government in personnel costs.

Conclusion

The increasing concentration of market share among the top four companies and the declining number of companies in the incarceration services market mean that governments considering the privatization option will find a decreasing competitive environment when seeking contract bids. In 1995, for example. a total of seven companies submitted bids in response to a Arkansas Department of Corrections request for proposals for two new prjvately-operated prisons. In contrast, a 2006 request for proposals to manage a private prison in Pennsylvania yielded only two bidders. With market maturation and increased concentration. it is increasingly difficult for new companies to get into the business and for marginal performers to stay afloat.

Oligopoly theory and industry life cycle the;ory suggest that the remaining companies wi!! be less competitive overall, seeking interdependent relationships with their competitors to help secure their position now that industry grovl}th rates have cooled. As this scenario continues to unfold, any possibility of meaningful cost savings from privatization will decline over time. A recent study of private prison costs in Arizona found that this has already occurred, as the cost of incarcerating minimum-security prisoners has reached parity between state prisons and private prisons while the cost of housing medium-security prisoners is now actually lower in state prisons than in private facifities.

The private prison industry bears a fair share of the responsibility for not registering a better showing in research results, Despite the fact that it has hired away from the public sector many "best and brightest" correctional staff, the industry's penchant for financially rewarding its executives and top managers has drained resources that could have been devoted to program research and development.

Govemments have also played a role in the failure of private prisons to perform better,

particularly in the area of program qualily. As an oligopsony, govemments hold the power to

be more demanding in the area of performance yet have systematically failed to do so.

In the main, contracting governments have simply abdicated demand for increasing program

quality, setlling for an illusory decrease in program costs. Given the history of "iron triangle"

relationships that intertwine the private prison industry and government officials, this failure

is perhaps not surprising.

•.... "'~,\}

One of the more depressing statistics to emerge in criminal justice in recent years is the fact

that two-ihirds of released prisoners are re-arrested within three years. Enlightened

government officials around the country have realized that they can reduce correctional

expenditures only by focusing their efforts on reducing recidivism, not by building or

contracting for more prison space. Government jurisdictions that are having the greatest

'f /,;"

success in redUCing correctional expenditures are those that are tuming to evidence-based

practice to guide sentencing decisions and devoting correctional resources toward programs

proven to reduce recidivism. Prison is not one of them. In enlightened jurisdictions.

incarceration rates are beginning to decline.

As this trend continues, the private prison industry will eventually enter the fourth stage of the industrial life cycle decline - and will begin shedding some of its capacity. Some companies have already sighted this trend on the horizon and have begun developing alternative business opportunities in areas such as electronic monitoring and prisoner health care. For those government agencies with heavy reliance on private prisons, decline in the industry will pose new problems as companies shed unprofitable contracts and simply walk away. Albert Einstein suggested that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. If a quarter century of experience with prison privatization has not led to better quality and cost outcomes, it is time to take a more sane approach.

Richard Culp is an Associate Professor'of Public Administration at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City and the Coordinator of the Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice Management program. He is also a member of the doctoral faculty in Criminal Justice at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York and serves as Deputy Executive Officer of the CUNY Criminal Justice Doctoral Program. Professor Culp's research has been published in Justice Quarterly, Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, Criminal Justice Policy Review. The Prison Journal and the Joumal of Public Affairs Education.

This article includes new and expanded research findings previously published in "Prison
Privatization Turns Twenty-five." In 1<. lsmaili (Ed.) U.S. Criminal Justice Policy: A

https;llwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23838_displayArticle.aspx

12/15/2011

Ex II to Lennox Dec, Pg 8 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 18 of 45 Page ID#: 811 .l;'age I or I
Contemporary Reader (pp.183-209). Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers (2010).
Copyright © Prison Legal News 2011 Site designed and maintained by: AccuFind Internet Services Inc.®

https:llwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23838_displayArticle.aspx

12/15/2011
Ex II to Lennox Dec, Pg 9 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 19 of 45 Page ID#: 812

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBIT III
TO DECLARATION OF LUCY LENNOX
Ex III to Lennox Dec, Pg 1 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 20 of 45 Page ID#: 813 Ex III to Lennox Dec, Pg 2 of 9

d- ~ SSt~I-{Pl- r. l'dO-d"P \-7C-~ 'I$Osr~ 'ul~S~ ¥ SSL\.¥- \~ -\\­ ..- JCDCJ)i!A}A~t ~~33

AA.._._ __•~• {3uvJ;~ d()J-oJ1t1l 00 d~:f5i'DD77

c6.//0od~W~~~ Utr/ 11'",. -R,~ 4 __ ~

. . .. , - "..,'-.-,."..-"...'~-.""''--,.-"..". -A··--s'.--o".f",.-A A.--"p.~.·:~n:.1...~lp ".1.l..".,.-.-22-n -001100,~.·-.-·..·-..·.'·-."..",.",".,'.-_'.'.'-..-,....:..-..-~--.--~-----,£8q& ~~,'<'1<l,.J~,:.x>(, :I.ttt;;":

~"".,..
9,f<'-- ;r:"00 44ttzz..;1,1..

' . ,-," ... e0,L1i. ',LjA,,..~~;~;jj .:,-~.:oBBli :.\l.i.l.1.,

Th. e C01u mbia County ,Jail

.

ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS

%~TTE\F;~UIrN.-;;A1"~{plI'"~,T.,lr£K~;f:;N:{:;

"fO .-.
"I'o

:sr;;ND~~j:.t
rN~OO'~"'jR~}h.4~:i~"lOr::~V,lN

This applies to ALL

fj I~C: ~;J~~.~~O::;;;'I6.~~~4:..~S

:)t.-:1.I::))11;;''~~----CC;;tt!!~~~~~~~~..!!~~----~~~;;ll--S8lS

I.ncomI'n.g and ont goine(o1' mail:::::·"·,"::::1'~M~;~,0:'~:~~'"2;h'~~S~~44

ILLddIl!IIIJil'llllIL,1111IILI111ILL111lLJllILJlIII.I

...: :,....~

"r"0 Z
()
o
r Ir
<D
:::J
:o::J
I~
o o o
<.D

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 21 of 45 Page ID#: 814

Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

Page 1 of7

Logged in as: Lucy Lennox Firm: Status: Member
IEdit Profile II- Log Out of PLN I

HOME

BOOI(

SEARCH

ADVERTISE

SUBSCRIBE

DONATIONS

CONTACT

STORE

PLN

US

Book Review I FAQ's I Interviews I PLN links PLN in the News I Annual Reports I Referral Directory

(i' Articles r List Serv Messages
Thursday. Decembe~ 15,201112:22 PM

rrf'~~:l?~Ili 1..2., F·

I

IJ:\',2~: I

Inmate

VIEW CART
UES!

The Failed Promise of Prison Privatization

[ Please visit our advertiser above] BREAKING NEWS

by Richard Gulp, Ph.D,
We have been experimenting with prison privatization in the U.S. now for over twenty-five years. The privatization idea originated out of a notion that the private sector, with its competition-tiriven efficiency and innovation, could operate prisons of higher quality and lower cost than the public sector. Greate a market for incarceration services, the argument ran, and the market will work its magic, improving prison conditions and rehabilitative outcomes while saving the taxpayers millions of dollars. That market has effectively been created over the past quarter century and we have now arrived at a place where prison privatization has been studied extensively and evaluated rigorously.

judicial Conference Committee Disciplines Federal Judge for Membership in Discriminatory Country Club by Alex Friedmann In May 2011, PLN reported that the Sixth ..,
Nationwide PLN Survey Examines Prison Phone Contracts, Kickbacks by John E. Dannenberg An exhaustive analYSis of prison phone contracts nationwide has revealed that ...

Although hyperbole continues to propel prison privatization policy along, research findings are incontrovertible: even in the best private prisons, quality of prisoner care is no better than in public prisons and the cost advantage of privatization, which initially accounted for minimal savings, is steadily eroding as the private prison industry matures. The big promises of prison privatization -less cost, higher quality - have simply not. , materialized. Despite these disappointing results, prison privatization advocacy maintains ' traction in diverse jurisdictions as policymakers from qhio to Florida and from Maine to California seek expedient solutions to budget shortfalls triggered by a lingering great recession.
In retrospect, it should come as no surprise that prison privatization would fail to live up to its - promises. There are several reasons for this. First, free market solutions to social problems
like crime assume, after all, that there are "freeD markets for appropriate services. However, there is no such thing as a natural market for the services provided by private prison companies. On the contrary, the marketplace for incarceration services is created by the government, for the government. It is an artificial market. Many of the services that have been privatized by government (e.g., custodial services, food preparation, medical care) are provided by the private sector independently of the government's decision to privatize or not. There is a free market analogue for many kinds of services that governments routinely provide. Other fields such as education and health care, for example', have an active market of existing nonprofit and for-profit providers willing to sell educational and healthcare services to a huge market of potential buyers that includes. both individuals and governments.
The prison business is fundamentally different in that no one' can freely purchase incarceration services as a private individual. There is no natural market for incarceration services. The power to incarcerate someone - to hold a person 'against his or her will - is a defining characteristic of the state. The government holds a monopoly over the legitimate use of physical force and the power to incarcerate. Only the government has the legitimate power to restrict a citizen's liberty; individuals are prohibited by law from incarcerating another person under "false imprisonment" statutes. The government can delegate this power on a limited basis - for example, "shopkeeper's privilege" allows merchants to temporarily detain suspected shoplifters. But long-term incarceration is a different matter. The only potential buyers who can legally purchase incarceration services are the government jurisdictions that have custody over indicted, convicted or detained persons. In order to privatize its incarceration function, the government has had to create a market since one does not and cannot exist without its direct interventio[l.

Prison Legal News Interviews Former Prisoner and Famous Actor Danny Trejo Danny Trejo is one of the best-known American actors living today...,
Remembering Attica Forty Years Later by Dennis Cunningham, Michael Deutsch & Elizabeth Fink This year, September 9 will mark the 40th anniversary ...
The History of Prison Legal News by Paul Wright In May 1990, the first issue of Prisoners' Legal News (PLN) was published. It ...
Twenty Years of PLN in Court Since PLN was founded in 1990 we have been censored in prisons and jails around ...
Appalling Prison and Jail Food Leaves Prisoners Hungry for Justice by David M. Reutter, Gary Hunter & Brandon Sample Prison food. The very ...
Sexual Abuse by Prison and Jail Staff Proves Persistent, Pandemic by Gary Hunter Sexual assault, rape, indecency, deviance. These terms represent reprehensible behavior ...
Judge Not Judges Benched for Personal Misconduct by Gary Hunter & Alex Friedmann They decide hot-button topics ranging from abortion and racial discrimination ...

Secondly, the development of the private prison industry has resulted in a highly concentrated producer market where only four companies control over 90% of the incarceration services business. Economic theory tells us that when production is highly concentrated in very few companies, the market becomes an oligopoly, a market situation that is inherently less competitive and innovative than a market with more broad-based representation. An oligopoly is characterized by interdependence, avoidance of

The Graying of America's Prisons by James Ridgeway Frank Soffen, now 70 years old, has lived more than half his life in prison, ...

https:llwww.prisonlegalnews.orgl23838_displayArtic1e.aspx

12115/2011

Ex III to Lennox Dec, Pg 3 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 22 of 45 Page ID#: 815

rnson Legall"l ews - Legal anlCles, cases ana coun aeCISlOns

Yage L or I

competition and a rigid attachment to the status quo among the leading firms.
A third part of the story is that govemment itself unwittingiy stifles innovation in the private
prison industry. Since the only legitimate customers of prison companies are the jurisdictions that can indict, convict or othelwise detain people, the potential customer base for incarceration services is very limited. In practice, this has led to a situation where only a handful of customers, an oligopsony in economic terms, has come to dominate the customer base. The limited number of customers serves to dissuade private prison companies from conducting research and development into innovative correctional programming, as the tiny customer base tends to demand only those services that mimic what the governments themselves are accustomed to providing.
Origins of the Artificial Market
Contracting out of noncustodial prison services such as medical care, food service, maintenance. education and menial health services has been practiced for a long time and with little controversy. Contracting out of custody services, for which there is no free market analogue, is much more controversial. The deinstitutionalization movement in juvenile corrections during the 1970s initiated a number of experiments in privatized services and custody for juveniles. A major step toward contracted custody of adults occurred when the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). the forerunner to today's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). decided in 1983 to partially outsource the detention of undocumented immigrants ill ils custody. In the summer of 19B3, the INS issued a request for proposals and the newly-formed Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) submitted the winning bid.

Secret Justice: Criminal Informants and America's Underground Legal System by Alexandra Natapoff l. Introduction Although it is almost invisible to the public, ...
Thou Shalt Not: Sexual Misconduct by Prison and to Jail Chaplains by David M. Reutter Traditionally, the
role of a chaplain in the correctional ...
.. Celebrity Justice: Prison Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous by Matt Clarke There are two criminal justice systems in the United States. One ...
. Crime Labs in Crisis: Shoddy Forensics Used to Secure Convictions by Matt Clarke To millions of people whose knowledge of crime labs comes ...
Private Prison Companies Behind the Scenes of ~ Arizona's Immigration Law by Beau Hodai"Beside
my brothers and my sisters, I'll proudly take a ...

Likewise, the community corrections movement in the adult system involved contracting out of the custody function in many low-security adult facilities. Minnesota passed the Community Corrections Act in 1971, and 25 states follo\[lled suit with similar legislation over the next 12 years. Community corrections legislation transferred funding from state-level departments of correction to local govemments which, in tum, used the funds for halfway house programs and other services for lower-level offenders. Many jurisdictions tumed to private contractors to operate these facilities.
In 1986, Management and Training Corporation (MTC) secured a contract to operate a community corrections facility in Eagle Mountain, California. Also in 1986, the State of Kentucky contracted out the development and operation of a 20D-bed minimum-security facility in Marion County. Another newly-formed company, the U.S. Corrections Corporation, was awarded the contract Similarly, the U.S. Bureau of Prisons (BOP) began contracting out the operation of low-security halfway house programs to the private sector during this time. Another early private prison company, Correctional Services Corporation, originally Esmor Correctional Corp., began business in 1989 with two contracts from the BOP to operate halfway houses in New York City.
These early entrants to the incarceration services market found a political climate supportive of privatization in several states, including Kentucky', Tennessee, Texas, Florida, Arizona, New Mexico and Louisiana. By 1994 there were approximately 20 companies actively seeking contracts to either build and manage company-owned prisons or manage existing facilities owned by federal, state and local jurisdictions.
The Supply Side of the Incarceration Services Industry
The traditional industrial life cycle model suggests that new markets move through a process marked by four stages: fragmentation, shakeout, maturity and decline. The fragmentation period occurs when the industry is new, many entrepreneurs enter the market, and they operate at low volume and tend to serve narrow geographic areas. Eventually. a shakeout period occurs as some companies become more efficient and the less efficient ones fail to stay in business. Growth and competition are strongest during this period, as are the profits of the largest companies. The industry reaches maturity when growth slows and surviving companies try to solidify their positions in the industry. At some later time, the industry moves into decline as the demand for the product or service drops and companies seek new ways to recover profitability.

Medical Examiners lack Qualifications,
. Competence, Oversight by Matt Clarke Most people will only have direct contact with a medical examiner, also known as '"
.. 40% of Criminal Jurisprudence bills boost criminal penalties As has probably been the case every legislative session in living memory, bills '"
Texas Increasingly out of Step on Death Penalty By
. David Fathi Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle May 23, 2009, 3:44PM Barring unexpected events, in the next ...
. Some Agencies Balk at Releasing Prison Phone Data by Mike Rigby It is common knowledge among PLN readers that prison and jail phone ...
The Failed Promise of Prison Privatization by to Richard Culp, Ph.D. We have been experimenting
with prison privatization iii the U.S. now for over ...

The decade of the 1990s witnessed the rapid growth of prison privatization, consolidation of the industry and the cooling off of growth rates as the decade ended. The industry moved through the traditional life cycle stages of-fragmentation to maturity during this period. The indusUy experienced tremendous growth from 1992 to 1998, averaging an increase in capacity of 36% each year. But from 1999 to 2006, growth declined to an average rate of under 4% per year. As market maturity is commonly defined as reaching a state of equilibrium marked by the absence of significant growth or innovation, the industry reached maturity as the new millennium began.

The shakeout stage of the industry is reflected in the difference between the companies doing business in 1996 and those doing business in 2011. In 1996, there were 14 companies with private prison contracts in the United States. Table 1 lists these companies, their rated capacity and their market share of U.S. private prison business. A common measure ofthe dominance of companies in a given market is the market concentration ratio (CR), or the percentage of total industry sales (or capacity, or employment. or value added

https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/23 83 8_displayArticle.aspx

12/15/2011

Ex III to Lennox Dec, Pg 4 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 23 of 45 Page ID#: 816

Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

Page 3 of7

or physical output) contributed by the four leading firms ranked in order of market share. A market is considered to have a high CR when the four leading firms control over two-thirds of market share, a moderate concentration when the ratio falls between one-third and twothirds, and a low concentration when the top four companies control less than a third of total market share.
The four-firm market concentration ratio of the private prison industry was 86% in 1996, a significantly high level of concentration. But by the end of 2011 only seven companies remained in the private prison business, and the market share of the top four firms increased to 92% (see Table 2).
Acquisitions and Ethical Challenges
The rise in concentration ratio means that the industry as a whole has become less competitive. Five of the companies that disappeared between 1996 and 2011 (U.S. Corrections Corporation, Correctional Services Corporation, Cornell Corrections, Inc., Fenian Security, Inc. and Correctional Systems, Inc.) were acquired by larger companies. Four other firms went out of business (Bobby Ross Group, Capital Correctional Resources, Dove Development Corporation and Maranatha Production Company, LLC). Three newcomers, LaSalle Southwest Corrections, Louisiana Corrections Services and Emerald Companies, are small and regionally-based in Texas and Louisiana. A review of the ongoing concentration in the market is illustrative of shakeouts in the industry and of some of the ethically-cllalienged behavior that can attend to the process of profit seek1ng. The largest company - Corrections Corporation of America - acquired the third-ranked company, U.S. Corrections Corporation, in 1998. U.S. Corrections, based in Kentucky, had much in common with Tennessee-based CCA. Both companies were founded by entrepreneurs who were well connected with the pOlitical establishment in their state. One of CCA's founders, Thomas W. Beasley, was a former chair of the state Republican Party and managed the successful 1978 gubernatorial campaign of Lamar Alexander. Honey Alexander, the govemor's wife, was an early investor in CCA. U.S. Corrections Corporation, based in neighboring Louisville, did all of its business in Kentucky prior to 1995. Executives ofthe company contrtbuted over $77.000 to political campaigns in the state between 1987 and 1993, including $23,000 to Govemor Wallace G. Wilkinson and his wife Martha.
'Clifford Todd, the CEO of U.S. Corrections, was implicated in a payoff scandal involving the company's contract to run the county jail in Louisville. He was arrested by the FBI in 1994, pleaded guilty to mail fraud and was sentenced to 6 months in jpil and 'fined $250,000. He sold his stake in the company for $15 million in 1994. At the time of the buyout by CCA, U.S. Corrections owned a total of four facilities in Kentucky, Ohio and North Carolina with a capacity of 5,275 beds, and had contracts to manage publicly-owned facilities in Kentucky, Florida and North Carolina with a capacity of 5,743 beds.
The second-largest company in 1996, Wackenhut Corrections Corporation (WCC), was formed in 1984 as a subsidiary to security firm Wackenhut Corporation, which was founded by George Wackenhut, a former FBI agent. Over the ensuing years, WCC grew to become one of the largest private prison companies in the world. The company began provid.ing residential services for at-risk juveniles and young adults under the Job Corps program. WCC went public in 1994 (with Wackenhut Corporation as the majortty shareholder). In 2002. the Danish company Group 4 Falck merged with the Wackenhut Corporation and, indirectly, became the owner of 57% of WCC's stock. In 2003, WCC bought out Group 4 Falck's interest in the company and changed its name to the GEO Group, Inc. The GEO Group acquired the industry's seventh-largest company, Correctional Services Corporation (CSC). in 2005 and Cornell Corrections, the fifth-largest company. in 2010.
Founded in 1989, CSC operated under ~everal different names, including Esmor Correctional Services. Inc. The company was founded by the owners of a welfare hotel in New York City and began its prison business operating halfway houses under contract with the BOP. CSC also managed the INS Detention Center in Elizabeth. New Jersey, remembered best for a June 1995 riot in which 300 detainees took over the facility in protest of poor conditions of confinement. Esmor staff fled from the detention center, leaving order to be restored by federal, state and local law enforcement officers. The INS closed the facility after the rio~ noting that CSC guards had abused detainees, gave them spoiled food and deprived them of sleep. The facility was reopened in 1997.
Later. in 2003. CSC was fined $300,000 by the New York State Lobbying Commission for failing to report free transportation, meals and gifts given to a dozen state legislators from Brooklyn and tile Bronx. The flne was the largest the state had ever imposed on a company for violating the state's lobbying laws. In May 2008, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) TIled charges,against three Fort Lauderdale, Florida physicians. alleging insider trading in GEO Group's 2005 acquisition of CSC. According to the complaint, one of the three worked as a consultant to GEO and had a son who worked in GEO's 'finance department, where he allegedly learned of the pending deaf. The three were charged with illegally purchasing $390,000 in CSC stock before the acquisition. Two of the defendants entered into settlement agreements while the third was cleared of the charges.
Another GEO acquisition, Cornell Corrections, Inc., had been the third-largest private prison
company in 2006, with 8% of industry market share. Incorporated in 1994, the company built
its business primarily with youth services and community-based rehabilitation programs for
https:/Iwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23 838_displayArticle.aspx

12115/2011

Ex III to Lennox Dec, Pg 5 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 24 of 45 Page ID#: 817 yage 401 I

adults. Pirate Capital, LLC, a hedge fund finn, acquired a 13% interest in Cornell in 2004, becoming the company's largest shareholder, and replaced several board members and the company's CEO with financiers more oriented toward short-term growth. Pirate Capital unloaded its shares of Cornell in 2006 in the midst of an SEC investigation over its stock sales practices, several bad investment decisions and company downsizing. The company warned its stockholders in 2009 of looming problems in managing indebtedness of some $303 million. GEO Group bought Cornell, along with its debt, in 2010.
Management and Training Corporation (MTC) is the third-largest company currently providing incarceration services. MTC is a privately-held Utah-registered company that gained expertise in working with at-risk young people as a major provider of Job Corps programs. The company first entered the private prison market in 1987 when it received a contract to manage the Eagle Mountain Community Correctional Facility in Desert Center, California (which experienced a major riot that resulted in the deaths of two prisoners in 2003). MTG expanded slowly and steadily since 1987 and now runs a total of 20 correctional facilities in Arizona, California, Florida, Idaho, New Mexico, Ohio and Texas.
The company's generally positive reputation as a job training provider has been tarnished by its corrections experience. In 1997, MTC hired the former director of the Utah Department of Corrections, Lane McCotter, as Director of Corrections Business Development. McCotter was well connected in pro-privatization states, having served as director of both the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and tile New Mexico Corrections Department before servil1g as the corrections head in Utah. He left the Utah DOC job in the midst of an investigation over the death of a prisoner with schizophrenia who had been shackled to a hard plastic chair for the final sixteen hours of his life.
In 2003, rvrrG's Santa Fe, New Mexico facility was under investigation by the U.S. Justice Department for unsafe conditions and poor quality prisoner medical care while McCotter was employed- with the company. Nonetheless, that same year he was appointed by Attorney General John Ashcroft to serve on a U.S. Department of Justice team commissioned to assess and implement a plan for rebuilding Iraq's criminal justice system. The team's final act before leaving Iraq was to conduct a ribbon cutting ceremony at the refurbished Abu Ghraib prison, a centerpiece of their corrections planning. Although the facility was empty when McCotter left Iraq, the work of the committee of experts was indelibly stained by the infamous events that subsequently occurred at the ptison and from on-going human rights abuse allegations in prison:? under the direct supervision of other committee members.
MTC was also involved in a failed experiment in prison.ptivatization in Canada. In 2001, the company won a five-year contract to operate the Central North Correctional Centre (CNCC) in Ontario as part of a pilot project to compare operations of the CNCC facility with a similar publicly-run prison, tile Central East Correctional Centre. The government hired PricewaterhouseCoopers to evaluate the two prisons across a variety of dimensions. The evaluation found that the public prison outperformed the MTC facility overall. Wllile the MTC prison was cheaper to operate and provided a greater variety of programming than the government facility, the public prison rated significantly better on security, recidivism rates, health care and community impact. Based on the results of the experiment, Ontario decided to tum management of the privatized facility over to the public sector.
Community Education Centers (GEC), incorporated in 1996, rounds out the quartet of companies that control 92% of the current incarceration services market. Like MTC, GEG is a privately-held company whose finances and governance structure are much less transparent than is the case with publicly-held companies. Until a few years ago, CEC's business was concentrated in providing community-based residennal, re-entry and rehabilitative services to offenders, mostly in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, but the company moved into the secure incarceration services business with its acquisition of CiviGenics in 2007.
CiviGenics was founded in 1995 in Marlboro, MA by Roy Ross, the former president of Spectrum Health Systems, Inc., a nonprofit company that provided drug and alcohol treatment services for prisoners in the Massachusetts Department of Corrections. Ross arranged a contract for Civ!Genics to provide management of Spectrum's Massachusetts inprison treatment programs. In 1996, CiviGenics acquired Fenton Security, Inc., a small company that had management contracts to operate two county jails in Colorado. Tom Rapone, a former Secretary of Public Safety in Massachusetts, joined CiviGenics as the firm's Chief Operating Officer. CiviGenics expanded its secure custody operations and by 1998 operated several small jail.facilities, employed more than 1,000 staff and had revenues of more than $30 million..
In July 1999, the-Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) awarded CiviGenics a $14.9 million contract to operate the newly-built North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility (NCCTF) in Grafton. However, the OORC elected not to renew its contract with CiviGenics when the contract expired in July 2001, citing problems with high staff turnover (induding five different wardens in its first 18 months), repeated failure to maintain minimum staffing levels and problems with over-billing the state for positions that remained uncovered. The ODRC subsequently awarded the contract to MTC, which continues to operate the NCCTF facility.
https:llwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23 838_displayArticle.aspx

12115/2011

Ex III to Lennox Dec, Pg 6 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 25 of 45 Page ID#: 818
J:"age) ot"/

In 2004, the Massachusetts State Auditor completed an audit that found Spectrum Health Systems had misused $17.4 million in state money, with $10.2 million of the total amount involving excessive payments to CiviGenics. The matter was settled in January 2007 in an agreement that required CiviGenics to repay the state $3.4 million and Roy Ross to repay $650,000. With its acquisition of CiviGenics in 2007, CEC became the fourth largest private prison company in the U.S.
The Demand Side of the Incarceration Services Industry
The demand side of prison privatization, like the oligopoly of private prison companies, is also highly concentrated. The potential customers in the private prison market are government agencies at the federal, state and local level that operate jail, prison and detention programs. At the federal level, the Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Marshals Service and Immigration and Customs Enforcement all manage a variety of custody facilities. The four branches of the military also operate facilities for military personnel sentenced under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Of course, the 50 states and the District of Columbia each have departments of correction.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there are some 1,821 state and federal correctional facilities, not counting facilities operated by the U:S. Marshals Service and ICE. At the locallelfel, counties and cities operate about 2,875 jail facilities in the United States. In sum, the potential consumer base of the private prison industry numbers somewhere in the area of 4,700 facilities.
After over 25 years of correctional privatization, there are fewer than 200 private correctional facilities in the United States - only about 4% of all facilities. The federal govemment is the most actively involved in privatization, with 16.3% of federal prisoners serving time in private facilities. State govemments are next, with 6.6% of state prisoners in private facilities. However, whereas 60% of all correctional facilities in the United States are at the local level, only about two dozen city and county jurisdictions (1.7% of the total) contract with private companies to operate their jails and detention centers. In practice there are very few buyers of privatized incarceration services, and the federal government is the largest single customer. Between 2000 and 2008, the number of state prisoners placed in private prisons increased by about 25%, from 75,018 to 93,537. In the federal system, however. the number increased from 15,525 to 32,712, or about 110%. During the same period, the number of states placing some portion of their prisoners in private facilities actuaHy declined from 30 states to 27.
There are in practice only fifty-four "customersn buying incarceration services from the private prison industry - the three federal agencies, twenty-seven state departments of correction and two dozen local jurisdictions. Within this small customer base, the federal government plus eight states (fexas, Florida, Arizona, Oklahoma, Colorado, Tennessee, Califomia and Mississippi) co([ectively account for more than 70% of all private prison business. In effect, the market of buyers constitutes an oligopsony, or a market form in which only a few customers buy a certain good and therefore possess the power to affect pricing. The two largest publicly-traded private prison companies recognize their dependency on a limited number of governmental customers as a threat to their profitability and include a warning to stockholders to that effect in their annual reports. At CCA, just three federal government agencies, the BOP, ICE and the U.S. Marshals, accounted for 43% of the company's total revenue for fiscal year 2010, or $717.8 million. The state of California, which is placing thousands of prisoners out-of-state in an effort to reduce in-state prison populations, provided 13% of CCA's total revenue for fiscal year 2010, or $214 'million. GEO Group reports that while they have a total of 45 governmental clients (customers). 4 of those clients accounted for over 60% of their U.S.-based revenue (BOP, ICE, U.S. Marshals and,the State of Florida). Among those, the three federal agencies combined are responsible for 53% of GEO Group's total U.S. revenue.
The oligopsony of governmental consumers serves to discourage innovation. In practice, government purchasers of incarceration services have required that private prison companies simply duplicate policies and procedures practiced in public prisons, to the effect that the standard operating procedures of most private prison programs closely mirror those of public prisons in the same state. Notably, none of the companies have distinct and viable research and development departments as would be expected in an industry that values innovation. Private prison companies encourage the adoption of public prison practice, rather than the development of innovative practice, by actively recruiting management-level staff from within the public sector.
As a case in point; a review of the background of eCA's facility management staff suggests a widespread practice of mining' the public corrections system for managers. Among the wardens of 63 of the company's correctional facilities, nearly two-thirds formerly worked in state departments of correction (36 wardens) or the federal BOP (5 wardens). The most warden-rich jurisdiction was the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, from whence 28% of aU CCA wardens were recruited. These experienced staffers bring a degree of order and control to the company's private prisons, but they are not likely to be hired for their spirit of experimentation and innovation.
Arguably, private prisons are not looking to be innovative unless it is a way of cutting costs. The most common way for these companies to make money from government contracts is
https:1Iwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23 838_displayArticle.aspx

12115/2011

Ex III to Lennox Dec, Pg 7 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 26 of 45 Page ID#: 819
ragIJ 0 V1 I

by reducing personnel expenses. Because labor represents about 80% of the operating cost of a prison, much of the cost savings in private prisons results from paying private correctional officers less than comparable public correctional officers. But this advantage begins to erode in a market where private companies are dependent upon contract renewals (with more experienced staff) rather than new facilities (with new, entry-level staff). Even ~s labor rates vary among the states, public sector correctional officer starting salaries average $28,000 across all states with a (one standard deviation) range between $23,000 and $34,200. By comparison, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports a mean annual salary of $42,270 for all occupations in the United States (in May 2008). Public sector prison staff salaries are very low already, suggesting that it is not easy for the private sector to continue to undercut the government in personnel costs.
Conclusion
The increasing concentration of market share among the top four companies and the declining number of companies in the incarceration services market mean that governments considering the privatization option will find a decreasing competitive environment when seeking contract bids. In 1995, for example, a total of seven companies submitted bids in response to a Arkansas Department of Corrections request for proposals for two new privately-operated prisons. In contrast, a 2006 request for proposals to manage a private prison in Pennsylvania yielded only two bidders. With market maturation and increased concentration, it is increasingly difficult for new companies to get into the business and for marginal performers to stay anoat.
Oligopoly theory and industry life cycle theory suggest that the remaining companies will be less competitive overall, seeking interdependent relationships with their competitors to help secure their position now that industry growth rates have cooled. As this scenario continues to unfold, any possibility of meaningful cost savings from privatization wHf decline over time. A recent study of private prison costs in Arizona found that this has already occurred, as the cost of incarcerating minimum-security prisoners has reached parity between state prisons and private prisons while the cost of housing medium-security prisoners is now actually lower in state plisons than in private facilities.
The private prison industry bears a fair share of tile responsibility for not registering a better showing in research results. Despite the fact that it has hired away from the public sector many "best and brightest" correctional staff, the industry's penchant for financially rewarding its executives and top managers has drained resources that could have been devoted to program research and development.
Govemments have also played a role in the failure of private prisons to perform better, particularly in the area of program quality. As an oligopsony. govemmentshold the power to be more demanding in the area of performance yet have systematically failed to do so. In the main, contracting govemments have simply abdicated demand for increasing program quality, settli/lg for an illusory decrease in program costs. Given the history ofuiron triangle" relationships that intertwine the private prison industry and government officials, this failure is perhaps not surprising.
One of the more depressing statistics to emerge in criminal justice in recent years is the fact that two-thirds of released prisoners are re-arrested within three years. Enlightened government officials around the country have realized that they can reduce correctional expenditures only by focusing their efforts on reducing recidivism, not by building or contracting for more prison space. Government jurisdictions that are having the greatest success in reducing correctional expenditures are those that are turning to evidence-based practice to guide sentencing decisions and devoting correctional resources toward programs proven to reduce recidivism. Plison is not one of them. In enlightened jurisdictions, incarceration rates are beginning to decline.
As this trend continues, the private prison industry wi[[ eventually enter the fourth stage of the industrial life cycle - decline - and will begin shedding some of its capacity. Some companies have already sighted this trend on the horizon and have begun developing alternative business opportunities in areas such as electronic monitoring and prisoner health care. For those government agencies with heavy reliance on private prisons, decline in the industry will pose new problems as companies shed unprofitable contracts and simply walk away. Albert Einstein suggested that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. If a quarter century of experience with prison privatization has not led to better quality and cost outcomes, it is time to take a more sane approach.
Richard Culp is an Associate Professor of Public Administration at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City and the Coordinator of the Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice Management program. He is also a member of the doctoral faculty in Criminal Justice at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York and serves as Deputy Executive Officer of the CUNY Criminal Justice Doctoral Program. Professor Culp's research has been published in Justice Quarterly, Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, Criminal Justice Policy Review, The Prison Joumal and the Journal of Public Affairs EdUcation.
This article includes new and expanded research findings previously published in "Prison Privatization Turns Twenty-five: In K Ismaili (Ed.) U.S. Criminal Justice Policy: A
https;//www.prisonlegalnews.org/23 838_displayArtic1e.aspx

12115/2011

Ex III to Lennox Dec, Pg 8 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 27 of 45 Page ID#: 820
rage lor I
Contemporary Reader (pp.183-209). Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers (2010).

[Secure Website)

Copyright © Prison Legal News 2011 Site designed and maintained by: AccuFind Internet Services Inc.®

https:llwww.prisonlegalnews.orgl23838_displayArticle.aspx

1211512011
Ex III to Lennox Dec, Pg 9 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 28 of 45 Page ID#: 821

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBIT I
TO DECLARATION OF LUCY LENNOX
Ex IV to Lennox Dec, Pg 1 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 29 of 45 Page ID#: 822 Ex IV to Lennox DePcL, NPCgO2Lo_fLe9nnox_00023

~ ~KK-J J
".,'iffl/:L 8' ~. ~ Sgff vvIC-~CLt,tLI Wit9rr0Ol-l-VV33

~, -- , :~\
:;:..:-

..,., ~"'h''''',

,, __~;:-..,.-01-. ':''' ·'' '~ii''

...- .....-.:: •.;....;.t"="" - -::t..:t
" ,.~ ... c· ••- ~ . :

.'"0 \ ~:" -:=~~~i~:"· :-!'\f..
', _ -'~." ": ::.::..;,:~.~.: ,~II200)01~ 331Q0 ~• >;;?-•z§-:I~:.I~~ .~."".~;~ ;:-~:.T:.n."P.,£.~ .E·'!n--"~~.£._o"-'."c.""~'"=

-. " ~~:!:'

~ ~- __ ~C!

~ •

0003048470 DEC 15 20f1 MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 99201

B:J6 (~1//O0 JJ~ ~ DQ~ ~& &. f6.(1~ .~

10J

qOI

$S;:CC \\

. :''::rf"??CC:;!5::: tj. :~~QQ!f~~m@66..~~41'44 .

N'IIXX::ttEE:

9se7re0.) -5S1~;:::\1..

0"11, -'.it'~??JJ ~I.~~<:O,)/I :'t,1, 1i

RETUl)RN 'TrOo SS£E::NNCD,EE;FRi ATTEMPTED - NOT KNOWN
~U)NNAAeBLL.E 'TTtO;) rF-OOFR?WWAP,~ROO

SC : S$l~S~.'2200·:"3$6!.!~.4~44.4;;2f)

* 11001144-- 0 0044S655--~1S5-- 4 ~5

JIJL) I,I)I IL) /1',)1)11,1,,/I/I LIJJ)J)1)'IJ1J1""IIJl"llIi ')JJ), J,)I 1J)u) JJ))JL) ,)1))J JL) IIJ,IiJ JJ)),I)) ,JIIJJ

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 30 of 45 Page ID#: 823

Prison Legal News ~ Legal articles, cases and court decisions

"Page 1 of7

Logged in as: Lucy Lennox Finn: Status: Member
I I ~ IEdit Profile IIII"- log Out of PlN I

HOME

BOOK

SEARCH

ADVERTISE

SUBSCRIBE

DONATIONS

CONTACT

STORE

PLN

US

Book Review I FAQ's I Interviews I PLN links PLN in the News I Annual Reports I Referral Directory

VIEW CART

{Q Articles t list Serv Messages
Thursday, December 15,201112:22 PM

,{;0~'12 F EEEII SUE lXJ~.~; Z:~ Inmate

The Failed Promise of Prison Privatization

[ Please visit our advertiser above 1
BREAKING NEWS

by Richard Gulp, Ph.D.
We have been experimenting with prison privatization in the U.S. now for over twenty-five years. The privatization idea originated out of a notion that the private sector, with its competition-ciriven efficiency and innovation, could operate prisons of higher quality and lower cost than the public sector. Create a market for incarceration services, the argument ran, and the market will work its magic, improving prison conditions and rehabilitative outcomes while saving the taxpayers millions of dollars. That market has effectively been created over the past quarter century and we have now arrived at a place where prison privatization has been studied extensively and evaluated rigorously.

Judicial Conference Committee Disciplines Federal Judge for Membership in Discriminatory Country Club by Alex Friedmann In May 2011, PLN reported thatthe Sixth ...
Nationwide PLN Survey Examines Prison Phone Contracts, Kickbacks by John E. Dannenberg An exhaustive analysis of prison phone contracts nationwide has revealed that ...

Although hyperbole continues 10 propel prison privatization policy along, research findings

are incontrovertible: even in the best private prisons, quality of prisoner carfe is no better

man in public prisons and the cost advantage of privatization, which initially accounted for

minimal savings, is steadily eroding as the private prison industry matures.

The big promises of prison privatization - less cost, higher quality - have simply not

.

materialized. Despite these disappointing results, prison privatization advocacy maintains'

traction in diVerse jurisdictions as policymakers from Ohio to Florida and from Maine to

California seek expedient solutions to budget shortfalls triggered by a lingering great

recession.

In retrospect, it should come as no surprise that prison privatization would fail to live up to its promises. There are several reasons for this. First, free market solutions to social problems like Gcrriime assume, after aU, that there are afreeu markets for appropriate services. However, there is no such thing as a natural market for the services provided by private prison companies. On the contrary. the marketplace for incarceration services is created by the government, for the government. It is an artificial market. MEElml1Yy of the services that have been privatized by government (e.g., custodial services, food preparation, medical care) are
provided by the private sector independently of the government's decision to privatize or not. There is a free market analogue for many kinds of services that govemments routinely
provide. Other fields slIch as education and health care, for example; have an active marl<et of existing nonprofit and for-profit providers willing to sell educational and healthcare services to a huge mn1aariket of potential buyers that includes both individuals and
governments.

The prison business is fundamentally different in that no one "can freely purchase incarceration services as a private individual. There is no natural market for incarceration services. The power to incarcerate someone - to hold a person against his or her will- is a defining characteristic of the state. The government holds a monopoly over the legitimate use of physical force and the power to incarcerate. Only the government has the legitimate power to restrict a citizen's liberty; individuals are prohibited by law from incarcerating another person under "false imprisonment" statutes. The government can delegate this power on a limited basis - for example, "shopkeeper's privilege" allows merchants to
temporarily detain suspected shoplifters. But long-term incarceration is a different matter.
The only potential buyers who can legally purchase incarceration services are the government jurisdictions that have custody over indicted, convicted or detained persons. In order to privatize its incarceration function, the govemmemt has had to create a market since one does not and cannot exist without its direct intervention.

Prison Legal News Interviews Former Prisoner and .. Famous Actor Danny Trejo Danny Trejo is one of
the best-known American actors living today....
Remembering Attica Forty Years Later by Dennis Cunningham, Michael Deutsch & Elizabeth Fink This year, September 9 will mark the 40th anniversary ...
The History of Prison Legal News by Paul Wright In May 1990, the first issue of Prisoners' Legal News (PLN) was published. It ...
Twenty Years of PLN in Court Since PLN was founded in 1990 we have been censored in prisons and jails around ...
Appalling Prison and Jail Food"Leaves Prisoners Hungry for Justice by David M. Reutter, Gary Hunter & Brandon Sample Prison food. The very ...
Sexual Abuse by Prison and Jail Staff Proves Persistent, Pandemic by Gary Hunter Sexual assaul~ rape, indecency, deviance. These terms represent repreh"ensible behavior ...
Judge Not: Judges Benched for Personal Misconduct by Gary Hunter & Alex Friedmann They decide hot-button topics ranging from abortion and racial discrimination ...

Secondly, the development of the private prison industry has resulted in a highly concentrated producer market where only four companies control over 90% of the incarceration services business. Economic theory tells us that when production is highly concentrated in very few companies, the market becomes an oligopoly, a market situation that is inherently less competitive and innovative than a market with more broad-based representation. An oligopoly is characterized by interdependence, avoidance of

The Graying of America's Prisons by James Ridgeway Frank Soffen, now 70 years old, has lived more than half his life in prison, ...

https:/Iwww.prisonlegalnews.orgl23 838_displayArticle.aspx

12/15/2011

Ex IV to Lennox Dec, Pg 3 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 31 of 45 Page ID#: 824

rnsol,1Lega~ NeWS - Legal aTIICleS, cases ana <?oun aeClslOns

.t'age 1. or /
.\.

competition and a rigid attachment to the status quo among the leading firms.
A third part of the story is that govemment itself unwittingiy stifles innovation in the private prison industry. Since the only legitimate customers of prison companies are the jurisdictions that can indict. convict or oL'lerwise detain people, the potential customer base for incarceration services is very limited. In practice, this has led to a situation where only a handful of customers, an oligopsony in economic terms, has come to dominate the customer base. The limited number of customers serves to dissuade private prison companies from conducting research and development into innovative correctional programming, as the tiny customer base tends to demand only those services that mimic what the governments themselves are accustomed to providing.
Origins of the Artificial Market
Contracting out of noncustodial prison services such as medical care, food service, maintenance, education and menial health services has been practiced for a long time and with little controversy. Contracting out of custody services, for which there is no free market analogue, is much more controversial. The deinstitutionalization movement in juvenile corrections during the 1970s initiated a number of experiments in privatized services and custody for juveniles. A major step toward contracted custody of adults occurred when the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the forerunner to today's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), decided in 1983 to partially outsource the detention of undocumented immigrants in its custody. In the summer of 1983, the INS issued a request for proposals and the newly-formed CotTection::: Corporation of America (CCA) submitted the Winning bid.

Secret Justice: Criminal·1nformants and America's Underground Legal System by Alexandra Natapoff I. Introduction Although it is almost invisible to the public, .,.
.. Thou Shalt Not: Sexual Misconduct by Prison and Jail Chaplains by David M. Reutter Traditionally, the role of a chaplain in the correctional ...
.. Celebrity Justice: Prison Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous by Matt Clarke There are two criminal justice systems in the United States. One ...
.. Crime Labs in Crisis: Shoddy Forensics Used to Secure Convictions by Matt Clarke To millions of people whose knowledge of crime labs comes ...
.. Private Prison Companies Behind the Scenes of Arizona's Immigration Law by Beau Hodai"Beside my brothers and my sisters, j'U proudly take a ...

Likewise, the community corrections movement in the adult system involved contracting out of the custody function in many low-security adult facilities. Minnesota passed the Community Corrections Act in 1971, and 25 states fonowed suit with similar legislation over the next 12 years. Community corrections legislation transferred funding from state-level departments of correction to local governments which, in tum, used the funds for halfway house programs and other services for lower-level offenders. Many jurisdictions turned to private contractors to operate these facilities.
In 1986, Management and Training Corporation (MTC) secured a contract to operate a community corrections facility in Eagle Mountain, Caltfornia. Also in 1986, the State of Kentucky contracted out the development and operation of a 20D-bed minimum-security facility in Marion County. Another newly-formed company, the U.S. Corrections Corporation, was awarded tile contract. Similarly, tile U.S. Bureau of Prisons (BOP) began contracting out the operation of low-security halfway house programs to the private sector during this time. Another early private prison company, Correctional Services Corporation, originally EsmorCorrectional Corp., began business in 1989 with two contracts from the BOP to operate halfway houses in New York City.

Medical Examiners Lack Qualifications,
. Competence, Oversight by Matt Clarke Most people will only have direct contact with a medical examiner, also known as '"
.. 40% of Criminal Jurisprudence bills boost criminal penalties As has probably been the case every legislative session in living memory, bills ...
Texas Increasingly out of Step on Death Penalty By
.. David Fathi Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle May 23, 2009, 3:44PM Barling unexpected events, in the next ...

These early entrants to the incarceration services market found a political climate supportive of privatization in several states, including Kentucky', Tennessee, Texas, Florida, Arizona, New Mexico and Louisiana. By 1994 there were approXimately 20 companies actively seeking contracts to either build and manage company-owned prisons or manage existing facilities owned by federal, state and local jurisdictions.
The Supply Side of the Incarceration Services Industry
The traditional industrial life cycle model suggests that new markets move through a . process marked by four stages: fragmentation, shakeout, maturity and decline. The fragmentation period occurs wilen the industry is new, many entrepreneurs enter the
market, and they operate at low volume and tend to serve narrow geographic areas. Eventually, a shakeout period occurs as some companies become more efficient and the less efficient ones fail to stay in business. Growth and competition are strongest during this period, as are the profits of the largest companies. The industry reaches maturity when growth slaws and surviving companies try to solidify their positions in the industry. At some later time, the industry moves into decline as the demand for the product or service drops and companies seek new ways to recover profitability.

. Some Agencies Balk at Releasing Prison Phone Data by Mike Rigby It is common knowledge among PLN readers that prison and jail phone ...
.. The Failed Promise of Prison Privatization by Richard Culp, Ph.D. We have been experimenting with prison privatization in the U.S. now for over ...

The decade of the 19905 witnessed the rapid growth of prison privatization, consolidation of the industry and the cooling off of growth rates as the decade ended. The industry moved through the traditional life cycle stages of. fragmentation to maturity during this period. The industry experienced tremendous growth from 1992 to 1998, averaging an increase in capacity of 36% each year. But from 1999 to 2006, growth declined to an average rate of under 4% per year. As market maturity is commonly defined as reaching a state of equilibrium marked by the absence of significant growth or innovation. the industry reached maturity as the new millennium began.

Tile shakeout stage of the industry is reflected in the difference between the companies doing business in 1996 and those doing business in 2011. In 1996, there were 14 companies with private prison contracts in the United States. Table 1 lists these companies, their rated capacity and their market share of U.S. private prison business. A common measure ofthe dominance of companies in a given market is the market concentration ratio (CR), or the percentage of total industry sales {or capacity, or employment, or value added

https:llwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23 83 8_displayArticle.aspx

1211512011

Ex IV to Lennox Dec, Pg 4 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 32 of 45 Page ID#: 825

Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

Page 3 of7

or physical output) contributed by the four leading firms ranked in order of market share. A market is considered to have a high CR when the four leading firms control over UNo-thirds of market share. a moderate concentration when the ratio falls between one-third and twothirds. and a low concentration when the top four companies control less than a third of total market share.
The four-firm market concentration ratio of the private prison industry was 86% in 1996. a significantly high level of concentration. But by the end of 2011 only seven companies remained in the private prison business. and the market share of the top four firms
increased to 92% (see Table 2).
Acquisitions and Ethical ChaUenges
The rise in concentration ratio means that the industry as a whole has become less competitive. Five of the companies that disappeared between i 996 and 2011 (U.S. Corrections Corporation, Correctional Services Corporation, Cornell Corrections. Inc., Fenton Security, Inc. and Correctional Systems. Inc.) were acquired by larger companies. Four other firms went out of business (Bobby Ross Group, Capital Correctional Resources, Dove Development Corporation and Maranatha Production Company, LLC). Three newcomers, LaSalle Southwest Corrections, Louisiana Corrections Services and Emerald Companies, are small and regionally-based in Texas and Louisiana. A review of the ongoing concentration in the market is illustrative of shakeouts in the industry and of some of the ethically-challenged behavior that can attend to the process of profit seeking. The largest company - Corrections Corporation of America - acquired the third-ranked company. U.S. Corrections Corporation, in 1998. U.S. Corrections, based in Kentucky, had much in common with Tennessee-based CCA. Both companies were founded by entrepreneurs who were well connected with the political establishment in their state. One of CCA's founders, Thomas W. Beasley. was a former chair of the state Republican Party and managed the successful 1978 gubernatorial campaign of Lamar Alexander. Honey Alexander, the govemor's wife, was an early investor in CCA. U.S. Corrections Corporation, based in neighboring Louisville, did all of its business in Kentucky prior to 1995. Executives ofthe company contributed over $77,000 to political campaigns in the state between 1987 and 1993, including $23,000 to Governor Wallace G. Wilkinson and his wife Martha.
CHfford Todd, the CEO of U.S. Corrections. was implicated in a payoff scandal involving the company's contract to run the county jail in Louisville. He was arrested by the FBI in 1994, pleaded guilty to mail fraud and was sentenced to 6 months in jpil and fined $250,000. He sold his stake in the company for $15 million in 1994. At the time of the buyout by CCA, U.S. Corrections owned a total offour facilities in Kentucky, Ohio and North Carolina with a capacity of 5,275 beds, and had contracts to manage publicly-owned facilities in Kentucky. Florida and North Carolina with a capacity of 5.743 beds.
The second-largest company in 1996, Wackenhut Corrections Corporation (WCC), was formed in 1984 as a subsidiary to securityflrm Wackenhut Corporation, which was founded by George Wackenhut, a former FBI agent. Over the ensuing years. WCC grew to become one of the largest private prison companies in the world. The company began provid.ing residential services for at-risk juveniles and young adults under the Job Corps program. WCC went public in 1994 (with Wackenhut Corporation as the majority shareholder). In 2002, the Danish company Group 4 Falck merged with the Wackenhut Corporation and, indirectly, became the owner of 57% of WCC's stock. In 2003. WCC bought out Group 4 Falck's interest in the company and changed its name to the GEO GrouP. Inc. The GEO Group acquired the industry's seventh-largest company, Correctional Services Corporation (CSC), in 2005 and Comell Corrections. the fifth-largest company, in 2010.
Founded in 1989, CSC operated under ~everal different names. including Esmor Correctional Services, Inc. The company was founded by the owners of a welfare hotel in New York City and began its prison business operating halfway houses under contract with the BOP. CSC also managed the INS Detention Center in Elizabeth, New Jersey, remembered best for a June 1995 riot in which 300 detainees took over the facility in protest of poor conditions of confinement. Esmor staff fled from the detention center. leaving order to be restored by federal, state and local law enforcement officers. The INS closed the facility after the riot, noting that CSC guards had abused detainees, gave them spoiled food and deprived them of sleep. The facility was reopened in 1997.
Later, in 2003, CSC was fined $300,000 by the New York State Lobbying Commission for failing to report free transportation, meals and gifts given to a dozen state legislators from Brooklyn and the Bronx. The flne was the largest the state had ever imposed on a company for violating the state's lobbying laws. In May 2008, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed charges.against three Fort Lauderdale, Florida physicians. alleging insider traQing in GEO Group's 2005 acquisition of CSC. According to the complaint. one of the three worked as a consultant to GEO and had a son who worked in GEO's finance department. where he allegedly learned of the pending deal. The three were charged with illegally purchasing $390,000 in CSC stock before the acquisition. Two of the defendants entered into settlement agreements while the third was cleared of the charges.
Another GEO acquisition, Cornell Corrections, Inc.• had been the third-largest private prison company in 2006, with 8% ofindustry market share. Incorporated in 1994, the company built its business primarily with youth services and community-based rehabilitation programs for
https:llwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23 83 8_displayArticle.aspx

12/15/2011

Ex IV to Lennox Dec, Pg 5 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 33 of 45 Page ID#: 826
rage 4 ot I

adults. Pirate Capital, LLC, a hedge fund firm, acquired a 13% interest in Cornell in 2004, becoming the company's largest shareholder, and replaced several board members and the company's CEO with financiers more oriented toward short-term growth. Pirate Capital unloaded its shares of Cornell in 2006 in the midst of an SEC investigation over its stock sales practices, several bad investment decisions and company downsizing. The company warned its stockholders in 2009 of looming problems in managing indebtedness of some $303 million. GEO Group bought Cornell, along with its debt, in 2010.
Management and Training Corporation (MTC) is the third-largest company currently providing incarceration services. MTC is a privately-held Utah-registered company that gained expertise in working with at-risK young people as a major provider of Job Corps programs. The company first entered the private prison market in 1987 when it received a contract to manage the Eagle Mountain Community Correctional Facility in Desert Center, California (which experienced a major riot that resulted in the deaths of two prisoners in 2003). MTC expanded slowly and steadily since 1987 and now runs a total of 20 correctional facilities in Arizona, California, Florida, Idaho, New Mexico, Ohio and Texas.
The company's generally positive reputation as a job training provider has been tarnished by its corrections experience. In 1997, MTC hired the former director of the Utah Department of Corrections, Lane McCotter, as Director of Corrections Business Development. McCotter was well connected in pro-privatization states, having served as director of both the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and the New Mexico Corrections Department before serving as the corrections head in Utah. He left the Utah DOC job in the midst of an investigation over the death c~ a prisoner with schizophrenia who had bGell shackled to a hard plastic chair for the final sixteen hours of his life.
In 2003, MTC's Santa Fe, New Mexico facility was under investigation by the U.S. Justice Department for unsafe conditions and poor quality prisoner medical care while McCotter was employed'with the company. Nonetheless, that same year he was appointed by Attomey General John Ashcroft to serve on a U.S. Department of Justice team commissioned to assess and implement a plan for rebuilding Iraq's criminal justice system. The team's final act before leaving Iraq was to conduct a ribbon cutting ceremony at the refurbished Abu Ghraib prison, a centerpiece of their corrections planning. Although the facility was empty when McCotter left Iraq, the work of the committee of experts was indelibly stained by the infamous events that subsequently occurred at the plison and from on-going human rights abuse allegations in prison~ under the direct supervision of other committee members.
MTC was also involved in a failed experiment in prison..privatization in Canada. [n 2001, the company won a five-year contract to operate the Central North Correctional Centre (CNCC) in Ontario as part of a pilot project to compare operations of the CNCC facility with a similar publicly-run prison, the Central East Correctional Centre. The government hired PricewaterhouseCoopers to evaluate the two prisons across a variety of dimensions. The evaluation found that the public prison outperformed the MTC facility overall. While the MTC prison was cheaper to operate and provided a greater variety of programming than the government facility, the public prison rated significantly better on security, recidivism rates, health care and communn.y impact Based on the results of the experiment, Ontario decided to turn management of the privatized facility over to the public sector.
Community Education Centers (CEC), incorporated in 1996, rounds out the quartet of companies that control 92% of the current incarceration services market. Like MTC, CEC is a privately-held company whose finances and governance structure are much less transparent than is' the case with publicly-held companies. Until a few years ago, CEC's business was concentrated in pro\liding community-based reSidential, re-entry and rehabilitative services to offenders, mostly in New J~rsey and Pennsyl\lania, but the company moved into the secure incarceration services business with its acquisition of CiviGenics in 2007.
CiviGenics was founded in 1995 in Marlboro, MA by Roy Ross, the former president of Spectrum Health Systems, Inc., a nonprofit company that provided drug and alcohol treatment services for prisoners in the Massachusetts Department of Corrections. Ross arranged a contract for CiviGenics to provide management of Spectrum's Massachusetts inprison treatment programs. In 1996, CiviGenics acquired Fenton Security, Inc., a small company that had management contracts to operate two county jails in Colorado. Tom Rapone, a former Secretary of Public Safety in Massachusetts, joined CiviGenics as the firm's Chief Operating Officer. CiviGenics expanded its secure custody operations and by 1998 operated several small jail.facilities, employed more than 1,000 staff and had revenues of more than $30 million.
In July 1999, the·Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) awarded CiviGenics a $14.9 million contract to operate the newly-built North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility (NCCTF) in Grafton. However, the ODRC elected not to renew its contract with CiviGenics when the contract expired in July 2001, citing problems with high staff turnover (including five different wardens in its first 18 months), repeated failure to maintain minimum staffing levels and problems with over-billing the state for positions that remained uncovered. The ODRC subsequently awarded the contract to MTC, which continues to operate the NCCTF facility.
https:llwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23838_displayArticle.aspx

12/1512011

Ex IV to Lennox Dec, Pg 6 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 34 of 45 Page ID#: 827
· .page :> or 'f

In 2004, the Massachusetts State Auditor completed an audit that found Spectrum Hearth Systems had misused $17.4 million in state money, with $10.2 million ofthe total amount involving excessive payments to CiviGenics. The matter was settled in January 2007 in an
agreement that required CiviGenics to repay the 9tate $3.4 million and Roy Ross to repay $650,000. With its acquisition of CiviGenics in 2007, CEC became the fourth largest private prison company in the U.S.

The Demand Side of the Incarceration Services Industry

The demand side of prison privatization, like the oligopoly of private prison companies, is also highly concentrated. The potential customers in the private prison market are government agencies at the federal, state and local level that operate jail, prison and detention programs. At the federal level, the Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Marshals Service and Immigration and Customs Enforcement all manage a variety of custody facilities. The four branches of the military also operate facilities for military personnel sentenced under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Of course, the 50 states and the District of Columbia each have departments of correction.

According to the Bureau of Justlce Statistics, there are some 1,821 state and federal correctional facilities, not counting facilities operated by the U:S. Marshals Service and ICE. At the focal level, counties and cities operate about 2.875 jail facilities in the United States. In sum, the potential consumer base of the private prison industry numbers somewhere in the area of 4,700 facilities.

After over 25 years of correctional privatization, there are fewer than 200 private correctional facilities in the United States - only about 4% of all facilities. The federal government is the most actively involved in privatization, with 16.3% of federal prisoners serving time in private facilities. State govemments are next, with 6.6% of state prisoners in private facilities. However, whereas 60% of all correctional facilities in the United States are at the local level, only about two dozen city and county jurisdictions (1.7% of the total) contract with private companies to operate their jails and detention centers. In practice there are very few buyers of privatized incarceration services, and the federal govemment is the largest sirigle customer. Between 2000 and 2008, the number of state prisoners placed in private prisons increased by about 25%, from 75,018 to 93,537. In the federal system, however, the number increased from 15,525 to 32,712, or about 110%. During the same period, the number of states placing some portion of their prisoners in private facilities actuaUy declin~d from 30 states to 27.

There are in practice only fifty-four Ucustomers· buying incarceration services from the

private prison industry - the three federal agencies, twenty-seven state departments of

correction and two doz.en local jurisdictions. Within this small customer base, the federal

government plus eight states (Texas, Florida, Ariz.ona, Oklahoma, Colorado, Tennessee,.

California and Mississippi) collectively account for more than 70% of all private prison

business. In effect, the market of buyers constitutes an oligopsony, or a market form in

which only a few customers buy a certain good and therefore possess the power to affect

pricing. The two largest publicly-traded private prison companies recogniz.e their

dependency on a limited number of governmental customers as a threat to their profitability

and include a warning to stockholders to that effect in their annual reports.

'

At CCA, just three federal government agencies, the BOP, ICE and the U.S. Marshals,

accounted for 43% of the company's total revenue for fiscal year 2010, or $717.8 million.

The state of California, which is placing thousands of prisoners out-of-state in an effort to

reduce in-state prison populations, provided 13% of CCA's total revenue for 'fiscal year

2010, or $214'milfion. GEO Group reports that while they have a total of 45 governmental

clients (customers), 4 of those clients accounted for over 60% of their U.s.-based revenue

(BOP, ICE, U.S. Marshals and the State of Flprida). Among those, the three federal.

agencies combined are responsible for 53% of GEO Group's total U.S. revenue.

The oligopsony of governmental consumers serves to discourage innovation. In practice,
government purchasers of incarceration services have required that private prison companies simply duplicate policies and procedures practiced in public prisons, to the effect that the standard operating procedures of most private prison programs closely mirror those of public prisons in 'the same state. Notably, none of the companies have distinct and viable research and development departments as would be expected in an industry that values innovation. Private prison companies encourage the adoption of public prison practice, rather than the development of innovative practice, by actively recruiting management-level staff from within the public sector.

As a case in point, a review of the background of CCA's facility management staff suggests a widespread practice of mining' the public corrections system for managers. Among the wardens of 63 of the company's correctional facilities, nearly two-thirds formerly worked in state departments of correction (36 wardens) or the federal BOP (5 wardens). The most warden-rich jurisdiction was the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, from whence 28% of all CCA wardens were recruited. These experienced staffers bring a degree of order and control to the company's private prisons, but they are not likely to be hired for their spirit of experimentation and innovation.

Arguably, private prisons are not looking to be innovative unless it is a way of cutting costs. The most common way for these companies to make money from government contracts is

https:/Iwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23 83 8_displayArticle.aspx

12115/2011

Ex IV to Lennox Dec, Pg 7 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 35 of 45 Page ID#: 828
ragv 0 V1 I

by reducing personnel expenses. Because labor represents about 80% of the operating cost of a prison, much of the cost savings in private prisons results from paying private correctional officers less than comparable public correctional officers. But this advantage begins to erode in a market where private companies are dependent upon contract renewals (with more experienced staff) rather than new facilities (with new, entry-level staff). Even as labor rates vary among the states, public sector correctional officer starting salaries average $28,000 across all states with a (one standard deviation) range between $23,000 and $34,200. By comparison, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports a mean annual salary of $42,270 for all occupations in the United States (in May 2008). Public sector prison staff salaries are very low already, suggesting that it is not easy for the private sector to continue to undercut the government in personnel costs.
Conclusion
The increasing concentration of market share among the top four companies and the declining number of companies in the incarceration services market mean that governments considering the privatization option will find a decreasing competitive environment when seeking contract bids. In 1995, for example, a total of seven companies submitted bids in response to a Arl(ansas Department of Corrections request for proposals for two new privately-operated prisons. In contrast, a 2006 request for proposals to manage a private prison in Pennsylvania yielded only two bidders. With market maturation and increased concentration, it is increasingly difficult for new companies to get into the business and for marginal performers to stay afloat.
Oligopoly theory and industry life cycle theory suggest that the remaining companies will be less competitive overall, seeking interdependent relationships with their competitors to help secure their position now that industry growth rates have cooled. As this scenario continues to unfold, any possibility of meaningful cost savings from privatization will decline over time. A recent study of private prison costs in Arizona found that this has already occurred, as the cost of incarcerating minimum-security prisoners has reached parity between state prisons and private prisons while the cost of housing medium-security prisoners is now actually lower in state prisons than in private facilities.
The private prison industry bears a fair share of the responsibility for not registering a better showing in research results. Despite the fact that it has hired away from the public sector many "best and brightesf correctional staff, the industry's penchant for financially rewarding its executives and top managers has drained resources that could have been devoted to program research and development.
Governments have also played a role in the failure of private prisons to perform better, particularly in the area of prograrn quality. As an oligopsony, governments hold the power to be more demanding in the area of performance yet have systematically failed to do so. In the main, contracting governments have simply abdicated demand for increasing program quality, settling for an illusory decrease in program costs. Given the history of "iron trianglen relationships that intertwine the private prison industry and government officials, this failure is perhaps not surprising.
One of. the more depressing statistics to emerge in criminal justice in recent years is the fact that two-thirds of released prisoners are re-arrested within three years. Enlightened government officials around the country have realized that they can reduce correctional expenditures only by focusing their efforts on reducing recidivism, not by building or contracting for more prison space. Government jurisdictions that are having the greatest success in reducing correctional expenditures are those that are turning to evidence-based practice to guide sentencing decisions and devoting correctional resources toward programs proven to reduce recidivism. Plison is not one of them. In enlightened jurisdictions, incarceration rates are beginning to decline.
As this trend continues, the private prison industry will eventually enter the fourth stage of the industrial life cycle - decline - and will begin shedding some of its capacity. Some companies have already sighted this trend on the horizon and have begun developing alternative business opportunities in areas such as electronic monitoring and prisoner health care. For those government agencies with heavy reliance on plivate prisons, decline in the industry will pose new problems as companies shed unprofitable contracts and simply walk away. Albert Einstein suggested that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. If a quarter century of experience with prison privatization has not led to better quality and cost outcomes, it is time to take a more sane approach.
Richard Culp is an Associate Professor of Public Administ,ration at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City and the Coordinator of the Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice Management program. He is also a member of the doctoral faculty in Criminal Justice at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York and serves as Deputy Ex.ecutive Officer of the CUNY Criminal Justice Doctoral Program. Profes~or Culp's research has been published in Justice Quarterly, Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, Criminal Justice Policy Review, The Prison Journal and the Journal of Public Affairs Education.
This article includes new and expanded research findings previously published in "Prison Privatization Turns Twenty-five: In K Ismaili (Ed.) U.S. Criminal Justice Policy: A
https;l/www.prisonlegalnews.org/23838_displayArticle.aspx

12/1512011

Ex IV to Lennox Dec, Pg 8 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 36 of 45 Page ID#: 829 rage I or I
Contemporary Reader (pp.183-209). Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers (2010).
Copyright © Prison Legal News 2011 Site designed and maintained by: AccuFind Internet Services Inc.®

https:/Iwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23 83 8_displayArticle.aspx

12115/2011
Ex IV to Lennox Dec, Pg 9 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 37 of 45 Page ID#: 830

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBIT
TO DECLARATION OF LUCY LENNOX
Ex V to Lennox Dec, Pg 1 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 38 of 45 Page ID#: 831 Ex V to Lennox Dec, Pg 2 of 9

ct~,K
Jl-\\. I do- <;( S. ~
qCr?r;rt:({)\)L\Lo.oJJAA..€.€...-- \\ I\A? .~A
qq~3

C':'~'S~~'~~il~f:: \ ::~ ,<i;H~S~;t.Uf 1l.'..\.~.:.?.~ .b,~,~_.'..~-'';-';-~\-''[bl"~\,.iL0~"nU\\"ti".t~-,"i':,,.'"i'::,,·"<'.,'•;.".."W "~"..r:

.,
"', :j :00,'" reOORRWW'ifM;A1'i~:ft,L"('.~

~$P08r
4}r '4~

2 .; til
::>

1~1'1rb~~ro/tt~~~~~~P**';'I!~!"1'"'';i~;;'rF'1,~Fu;,>I1;!'>AE!'miVAemi:"m~I,B,m"!ltwO!mmlWW"'W"~IE~S

02 1P $ 000,,640

0003048470 DEC 15 2011

MAILED FROM ZIP COPE 99201

"
~\;'...
f
";1'
.....,'"

t2v~+ W-~ ~OO~ao;;ll43 ;11:,','

I'

-~

ri;E'ruiF~:."j ,.}i:.:t\~Dt:B~f:~~:p.:? Jt)

f2nv-t- . . .. .' .' . .. q pi

ffjo.,L-

As of Apnll, 2010

.. ·..·..

.~ s+ ...~ ....\ .O"N'lLh¥"e'AC:GoGluEmPbTiSa;RC.oOuSnTt.yCJ.Aa..RilD-S

. .

"~ e. incoTmhiinsgaapnpdlieosuttogoAiLngLIIl!!.il [.'!-,:;;;O 'I.. "...•,."......
incoming and out going m~il v=r':::.O'1. e.

.'

...

. •

.

0 q I (

1UWA'f)A.. . • - 0 - " · l O S .~ ~"~":"'I'\. ,: .~~ ~.:.:.".

.' \\1\1\

'.: ..".: \l;~\RHl.:'~\H

'. !lnl!t\

c' . ;::.",.•L.":CC::,,;s';l¥i
\lhilllllHHll11iittnnn !III II 1\:\1\

::'~~.~

-_ .. _-.-"-'

• "'~-.r:J

r'""0 Z
(")
,or
r
CD :::l
'0-':ox::l -.
o
->.
o
..p..

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 39 of 45 Page ID#: 832

Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

Page 1 of7

Logged in as: Lucy Lenno){ Firm: Status: Member

-i IEdit Profile II' Log Out of PLN I

.~

HOME Book Review

BOOl< STORE
FAQ's

SEARCH

ADVERTISE

SUBSCRIBE

DONATIONS

CONTACT

PLN

US

Interviews I PLN links PL~.J in the News I Annual Reports I Referral Directory

VIEW CART

(i Articles [' List Serv Messages Thursday, December 15, 201112:22 PM

iilllnmate u tt:~::)~:~.1l122 FREEEII UES!

The Failed Promise of Prison Privatization

[ Please visit our advertiser above 1
BREAKING NEWS

by Richard Gulp, Ph.D.
We have been experimenting with prison privatization in the U.S. noVJ for over u",enty-five years. The·privatization idea originated out of a notion that the plivate sector, with its competition--driven efficiency and innovation, could operate prisons of higher quality and lower cost than the public sector. Create a market for incarceration services, the argument ran, and the market will work its magic, improving prison conditions and rehabilitative outcomes while saving the taxpayers millions of dollars. That market has effectively been created over the past quarter century and we have now arrived at a place where prison privatization has been studied extensively and evaluated rigorously_

Judicial Conference Committee DiSCiplines Federal Judge for Membership in DiSCriminatory Country Club by Alex Friedmann In May 2011, PLN reported that the Sixth ...
Nationwide PLN Survey Examines Prison Phone Contracts, Kickbacks by John E. Dannenberg An exhaustive analysis of prison phone contracts nationwide has revealed that ...

Although hyperbole continues to propel prison privatization policy along, research findings

are incontrovertible: even in the best private prisons, quality of prisoner care is no better

than in public prisons and the cost advantage of privatization, which initially accounted for

minimal savings, is steadily eroding as the private prison industry matures.

The big promises of prison privatization -less cost, higher quality - have simply not

.

materialized. Despite these disappointing results, prison privatization advocacy maintains .

traction in diverse jurisdictions as policymakers from Ohio to Florida and from Maine to

California seek expedient solutions to budget shortfalls triggered by a lingering great

recession.

In retrospect, it should come as no surprise that prison privatization would fail to live up to its promises. There are several reasons for this. First, free market solutions to social problems like crime assume, after all. that there are ufree" markets for appropriate services. However, there is no such thing as a natural market for the services provided by private prison companies. On the contrary, the marketplace for incarceration services is created by the
government, for the government. It is an artificial market. M~my of the services that have
been privatized by government (e.g .• custodial services, food preparation, medical care) are . provided by the private sedor independently of the government's decision to privatize or
not. There is a free market analogue for many kinds of services that govemments routinely provide. Other fields such as education and health care, for example, have an active market of eXisting nonprofit and for-profit providers willing to sell educational and healthcare services to a huge market of potential buyers that includes both individuals and governments.

The prison business is fundamentally different in that no one·can freely purchase incarceration services as a private individual. There is no natural market for incarceration services. The power to incarcerate someone - to hold a person against his or her will- is a defining characteristic of the state. The government holds a monopoly over the legitimate use of physical force and the power to incarcerate. Only the government has the legitimate power to restrict a citizen's liberty; individuals are prohibited by law from incarcerating another person under "false imprisonment" statutes. The government can delegate this power on a limited basis - for example, "shopkeeper's privilegen allows merchants to temporarily detain suspected shoplifters. But long-term incarceration is a different matter. The only potential buyers who can legally purchase incarceration services are the government jUrisdictions that have custody over indicted, convicted or detained persons. In order to privatize its incarceration function, the government has had to create a market since one does not and cannot exist without its direct intervention.

Prison Legal News Interviews Former Prisoner and Famous Actor Danny Trejo Danny Trejo is one of the best-known American actors living today....
Remembering Attica Forty Years Later by Dennis Cunningham, Michael Deutsch & Elizabeth Fink This year, September 9 will mark the 40th anniversary ...
The History of Prison Legal News by Paul Wright In May 1990, the first issue of Prisoners' Legal News (PLN) was published. It ...
Twenty Years of PLN in Court Since PLN was founded in 1990 we have been censored in prisons and jails around ...
Appalling Prison and Jail Food Leaves Prisoners Hungry for Justice by David M. Reutter, Gary Hunter & Brandon Sample Prison food. The very ...
Sexual Abuse by Prison and Jail Staff Proves Persistent, Pandemic by Gary Hunter Sexual assault, rape. indecency, deviance. These terms represent reprehensible behavior ...
Judge Not: Judges Benched for Personal Misconduct by Gary Hunter & Alex Friedmann They decide hot-button topics ranging from abortion and racial discrimination ...

Secondly, the development of the private prison industry has resulted in a highly concentrated producer market where only four companies control over 90% of the incarceration services business. Economic theory tells us that when production is highly concentrated in very few companies, the market becomes an oligopoly, a market situation that is inherently less competitive and innovative than a market with more broad-based representation. An oligopoly is characterized by interdependence, av0.idance of

The Graying of America's Prisons by James ~ Ridgeway Frank Soffen, now 70 years old, has lived
more than half his life in prison, ...

https:llwww.prisonlegalnews.org/2383 8_displayArtic1e.aspx

12111551/22011

Ex V to Lennox Dec, Pg 3 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 40 of 45 Page ID#: 833

Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

Page 2 of7

competition and a rigid attachment to the status quo among the leading firms.
A third part of the story is that government itself unwittingiy stifles innovation in the private prison industry. Since the only legitimate customers of prison companies are the jurisdictions that can indict, convict or otherwise detain people, the potential customer base for incarceration services is very limited. In practice, this has led to a situation where only a handful of customers, an oligopsony in economic terms, has come to dominate the customer base. The limited number of customers serves to dissuade private prison companies from conducting research and development into innovative correctional programming, as the tiny customer base tends to demand only those services that mimic what the govemments themselves are accustomed to providing.
Origins of the Artificial Market
Contracting out of noncustodial prison services such as medical care, food service, maintenance, education and mental health services has been practiced for a long time and with little controversy. Contracting out of custody services, for which there is no free market analogue, is much more controversial. The deinstitutionalization movement in juvenile correcUons during the 1970s initiated a number of experiments in privatized services and custody for juveniles. A major step toward contracted custody of adults occurred when the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the forerunner to today's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), decided in 1983 to partially outsource the detention of undocumented immigrants in its custody. In the summer of 1983, the INS issued a request for proposals and the newly-formed Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) submitted the winning bid.

Secret Justice: Criminal Informants and America's Underground Legal System by Alexandra Natapoff I. Introduction Although it is almost invisible to the public, ...
Thou Shalt Not: Sexual Misconduct by Prison and ~ Jail Chaplains by David M. Reutter Traditionally, the
role of a chaplain in the correctional ...
.. Celebrity Justice: Prison Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous by Matt Clarke There are two criminal justice systems in the United Slales. One ...
.. Crime Labs in Crisis: Shoddy Forensics Used to Secure Convictions by Matt Clarke To millions of people whose knowledge of crime labs comes '"
.. Private Prison Companies Behind the Scenes of Arizona's Immigration Law by Beau Hodai"Beside my brothers and my Sisters, I'll proudly take a ...

Likewise, the community corrections movement in the adult system involved contracting out afthe custody function in many low-security adult facilities. Minnesota passed the Community Corrections Act in 1971, and 25 states followed suit with similar legislation over the next 12 years. Community corrections legislation transferred funding from state-level departments of correction to local governments which, in tum, used the funds for halfway house programs and other services for lower-level offenders. Many jurisdictions turned to private contractors to operate these facilities.
In 1986, Management and Training Corporation (MTC) secured a contract to operate a community corrections facility in Eagle Mountain, California. Also in 1986, the state of Kentucky contracted out the development and operation of a 20D-bed minimum-security facility in Marion County. Another newly-formed company, the U.S. Corrections Corporation, was awarded tile contract. Similarly, the U.S. Bureau of Prisons (BOP) began contracting out the operatiqn of low-security halfway house programs to the private sector during this time. Another early private prison company, Correctional Services Corporation, originaJry Esmor Correctional Corp., began business in 1989 with two contracts from the BOP to operate halfway houses il1 New York City.

Medical Examiners Lack Qualifications,
.. Competence, OverSight by Matt Clarke Most people will only have direct contact with a medical examiner, also known as ...
.. 40% of Criminal Jurisprudence bills boost criminal penalties As has probably been the case every legislative session in living memory, bills ...
Texas Increasingly out of Step on Death Penalty By
.. David Fathi Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle May 23, 2009, 3:44PM Barling unexpected events, in the next ...

These eariy entrants to the incarceration services market found a political climate supportive of privatization in several states, including Kentucky', Tennessee, Texas, Florida, Arizona, New Mexico and Louisiana. By 1994 there were approximately 20 companies actively seeking contracts to either build and manage company-owned prisons or manage existing facilities owned by federal, state and local jurisdictions.
The Supply Side of the Incarceration Services Industry
The traditional industrial life cycle model suggests that new markets move through a
process marked by four stages: fragmentation, shakeout, maturity and decline. The fragmentation period occurs when the industry is new, many entrepreneurs enter the market, and they operate at low volume and tend to serve narrow geographic areas. Eventually, a shakeout period occurs as some companies become more efficient and the less efficient ones fail to stay in business. Growth and competition are strongest during this period, as are the profits of the largest companies. The industry reaches maturity when growth slows and surviving companies try to solidify their positions in the industry. At some later time, the industry moves into decline as the demand for the product or service drops and companies seel( new ways to recover profitability.

.. Some Agencies Balk at Releasing Prison Phone Data by Mike Rigby It is common knowledge among PLN readers that prison and jail phone ...
.. The Failed Promise of Prison Privatization by Richard Culp, Ph.D. We have been experimenting with prison privatization il1 the U.S. now for over ...

The decade of the 1990s witnessed the rapid growth of prison privatization, consolidation of the industry and the COOling off of growth rates as the decade ended. The industry moved through the traditional life cycle stages of. fragmentation to maturity during this period. The industry experienced tremendous gro"..1.h from 1992 to 1998, averaging an increase in capacity of 36% each year. But from 1999 to 2006, growth declined to an average rate of under 4% per year. As market maturity is commonly defined as reaching a state of equilibrium marked by the absence of significant growth or innovation, the industry reached maturity as the new millennium began.

Tile shakeout stage of the industry is reflected in the difference between the companies doing business in 1996 and those doing business in 2011. In 1996, there were 14 companies with private prison contracts in the United States. Table 1 lists these companies, their rated capacity and their market share of U.S. private prison business. A common measure of the dominance of companies in a given market IS the market concentration ratio (CR), orthe percentage of total industry sales (or capacity, or employment, or value added

https:llwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23838_displayArticle.aspx

12115/2011

Ex V to Lennox Dec, Pg 4 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 41 of 45 Page ID#: 834

Prison ,Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

Page 3 of7

or physical output) contributed by the four leading firms ranked in order of market share. A market is considered to have a high CR when the four leading firms control over two-thirds of market share, a moderate concentration when the ratio falls between one-third and twothirds, and a low concentration when the top four companies control less than a third of total market share.
The four-firm market concentration ratio of the private prison industry was 86% in 1996, a significantly high level of concentration. But by the end of 2011 only seven companies remained in the private prison business, and the market share of the top four firms increased to 92% (see Table 2).
AcqUisitions and Ethical Challenges
The rise in concentration ratio means that the industry as a whole has become tess competitive. Five of the companies that disappeared between 1996 and 2011 (U.S. Corrections Corporation, Correctional Services Corporation, Cornell Corrections, Inc., Fenton Security, Inc. and Correctional Systems,lnc.) were acquired by larger companies. Four other firms went out of business (Bobby Ross Group, Capital Correctional Resources, Dove Development Corporation and Maranatha Production Company, LLC). Three newcomers, LaSalle Southwest Corrections, Louisiana Corrections Services and Emerald Companies, are small and regionally-based in Texas and Louisiana. A review of the ongoing concentration in the market is illustrative of shakeouts in the industry and of some of the ethically-challenged behavior that can attend to the process of profit seeking. The, largest company Corrections Corporation of America - acquired the third-ranked company, U.S. Corrections Corporation, in 1998. U.S. Corrections, based in Kentucky, had much in common with Tennessee-based CCA. Both companies were founded by entrepreneurs who were wef( connected with the political establishment in their state. One of , CCA's founders, Thomas W. Beasley, was a former chair of the state Republican Party and managed the successful 1978 gubernatorial campaign of Lamar Alexander. Honey Alexander, the governor's wife, was an early investor in CCA. U.S. Corrections Corporation, based in neighboring Louisville, did all of its business in Kentucky prior to 1995. Executives of the company contributed over $77 ,000 to political campaigns in the state between 1987 and 1993, including $23,000 to Governor Wallace G. Wilkinson and his wife Martha.
Clifford Todd, the CEO of U.S. Corrections, was implicated in a payoff scandal involving the company's contract to run the county jail in Louisville. He was arrested by the FBI in 1994, pleaded guilty to mail fraud and was sentenced to 6 months in ii3i1 and fined $250,000. He sold his stake in the company for $15 million in 1994. At the time of the buyout by CCA, U.S. Corrections owned a total of four facilities in Kentucky, Ohio and North Carolina with a capacity of 5,275 beds, and had contracts to manage publicly-owned facilities in Kentucky, Florida and North Carolina with a capacity of 5,743 beds.
The second-largest company in 1996, Wackenhut Corrections Corporation (WCC), was formed in 1984 as a subsidiary to security firm Wackenhut Corporation, which was founded b~' George Wackenhut, a former FBI agent. Over the ensuing years, WCC grew to become one of the largest private prison companies in the world. The company began providing residential services for at~risk juveniles and young adults under the Job Corps program. WCC went public in 1994 (with Wackenhut Corporation as the majority sharehOlder). In 2002, the Danish company Group 4 Falck merged with the Wackenhut Corporation and, indirectly, became the owner of 57% of wee's stock. In 2003, WCC bought out Group 4 Falck's interest in the company and changed its name to the GEO Group, Inc. The GEO Group acquired the industry's seventh-largest company, Correctional Services Corporation (CSC), in 2005 and Comell Corrections, the fifth-largest company, in 2010.
Founded in 1989, CSC operated under ~everal different names, including Esmor Correctional Services, Inc. The company was foundec;i by the owners of a welfare hotel1n New York City and began its prison bugin'ess operating halfway houses under contract with the BOP. CSC also managed the INS Detention Center in Elizabeth, New Jersey, remembered best for a June 1995 riot in which 300 detainees took over the facility in protest of poor conditions of confinement. Esmor staff fled from the detention center, leaving order to be restored by federal, state and local law enforcement officers. The INS closed the facility after the riot, noting that CSC guards had abused detainees, gave them spoiled food . and deprived them of sleep. The facility was reopened in 1997.
Later, in 2003, CSC was fined $300,000 by the New York State Lobbying Commission for failing to report free transportation, meals and gifts given to a dozen state legislators from Brooklyn and the Bronx. The fine was the largest the state had ever imposed on a company for violating the state's lobbying laws. In May 2008, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed charges ,against three Fort Lauderdale, Florida physicians, alleging insider trading in GEO Group's 2005 acquisition of CSC. According to the complaint, one of the three worked as a consultant to GEO and had a son who worked in GEO's finance department, where he allegedly learned of the pending deal. The three were charged with illegally purchasing $390,000 in CSC stock before the acquisition. Two of the defendants entered into settlement agreements while the third was cleared of the charges.
Another GEO acquisition, Cornell Corrections, Inc., had been the third-largest private prison company in 2006, with 8% of industry market share. Incorporated in 1994, the company built its business primarily with youth services and community-based rehabilitation programs for
https:llwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23838_displayArticle.aspx

12/1512011

Ex V to Lennox Dec, Pg 5 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 42 of 45 Page ID#: 835

Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court. decisions

Page 4 of7

aadduullttss.. PPiirraattee CCaappiittaall,, LLLLCC,, aa hheeddggee ffuunndd ffinrmn,, aaccqquuiirreedd aa 1133%% iinntteerreesstt iinn CCoormnelll iinn 22000044,, becoming the company's llaarrggeesstt shareholder, andd replaceedd severaall bbooaarrdd members aanndd tthhee company's CEO with financiers more oriented toward short-term growth. Pirate Capital unloaded its shares of Cornell in 2006 in the midst of an SEC investigation over its stocl( sales practices, several bad investment decisions and company downsizing. The company wamrned its stockholders in 2009 of looming problems in managing indebtedness of some $303 million. GEO Group bought Cornell, along with its debt, in 2010.
Management and Training Corporation (MTG) is the third-largest company currently providing incarceration services. MTC is a privately-held Utah-registered company that gained expertise in working with at-risk young people as a major provider of Job Corps programs. The company first entered the private prison market in 1987 when it received a contract to manage the Eagle Mountain Community Correctional Facility in Desert Center, Califomia (which experienced a major riot that resulted in the deaths of two prisoners in 2003). MTC expanded slowly and steadily since 1987 and now runs a total of 20 correctional facilities in Arizona, California, Florida, Idaho, New Mexico, Ohio and Texas.
The company's generally positive reputation as a job training provider has been tarnished by its corrections experience. In 1997, MTC hired the former director of the Utah Department of Corrections, Lane McCotter, as Director of Corrections Business Development. McCotter was well connected in pro-privatization states, having served as director of both the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and the New Mexico Corrections Department before serving as the corrections head in Utah. He left the Utah DOC job in the midst of an investigation over the death of a prisoner with schizophrenia who had been shackled to a hard plastic chair for the fina!l sixteen hours of his life.
In 2003, MTGC's Santa Fe, New Mexico facility was under investigation by the U.S. Justice Department for unsafe conditions and poor quality prisoner medical care while McCotter was employed·with the company. Nonetheless, that same year he was apPOinted by Attomey General John Ashcroft to serve on a U.S. Department of Justice team commis::;ioned to assess and implement a plan for rebuilding Iraq's criminal justice system. The team's final act before leaving Iraq was to conduct a ribbon cutting ceremony at the refurbished Abu Ghraib prison, a centerpiece of their corrections planning. A1ltthilough the facility was empty when McCotter left Iraq, the work of the committee of experts was indelibly stained by the infamous events that subsequently occurred at the plison and from on-going human rights abuse alflegations in prison~ under the direct supervision of other committee members.
MTC was also involved in a failed experiment in prison..privatization in Canada. In 2001, the company won a five-year contract to operate the Central North Correctional Centre (CNCG) in Ontario as palt of a pilot project to compare operations of the CNCC facility with a similar publicly-run prison, the Central East Correctional Centre. The government hired PricewaterhouseCoopers to evaluate the two prisons across a variety of dimensions. The evaluation found that the public prison outperformed the MTC facility overall. While the MTC prison was cheaper to operate and provided a greater variety of programming than the government facility, the public prison rated significantly better on security, recidivism rates, health care and community impact. Based on thile results of the experiment, Ontario decided to tum management of the privatized facility over to the public sector.
Community Education Centers (CECe), incorporated in 1996, rounds out the quartet of companies that control 92% of the current incarceration services market. Like MTC, CEC is a privately-held company whose finances and govemance structure are much less transparent than is the case with publicly-held companies. Until a few years ago, CEC's business was concentrated in providing community-based residential, re-entry and. rehabilitative services to offenders, mostly in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, but the company moved into the secure incarceration services business with its acquisition of CiviGenics in 2007-.
CiviGenics was founded in 1995 in Marlboro, MA by Roy Ross, the former president of Spectrum Health Systems, Inc., a nonprofit company that provided drug and alcohol treatment services for prisoners in the Massachusetts Department of Corrections. Ross arranged a contract for CiviGenics to provide management of Spectrum's Massachusetts inprison treatment programs. In 1996, CiviGenics acquired Fenton Security, Inc., a small company that had management contracts to operate two county jails in Colorado. Tom Rapone, a fonner Secretary of Public Safety in Massachusetts, joined GCiviGenics as the firm's Chief Operating Officer. CiviGenics expanded its secure custody operations and by 1998 operated several small jail. facilities, employed more than 1,000 staff and had revenues of more than $30 million.
In July 1999, the·Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRCe) awarded CiviGenics a $14.9 million contlract to operate the newly-built North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility (NCCTF) in Grafton. However, the ODRC elected not to renew its contract with CiviGenics when the contract expired in July 2001, citing problems with high staff turnover (including five different wardens in its first 18 months), repeated failure to maintain minimum staffing levels and problems with over-billing the state for positions that remained uncovered. The ODRC subsequently awarded the contract to MTC, which continues to operate the NCCTF facility.
https:llwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23838_displayArticle.aspx

·1211512011

Ex V to Lennox Dec, Pg 6 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 43 of 45 Page ID#: 836

Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

Page 5 of7

In 2004, the Massachusetts State Auditor completed an audit that found Spectrum Health Systems had misused $17.4 million in state money, with $10.2 million ofthe total amount involving excessive payments to CiviGenics. The matter was settled in January 2007 in an agreement that required CiviGenics to repay the state $3.4 million and Roy Ross to repay $650,000. With its acquisition of CiviGenics in 2007, CEC became the fourth largest private prison company in the U.S.
The Demand Side of the Incarceration Services Industry
The demand side of prison privatization, like the oligopoly of private prison companies, is also highly concentrated. The potential customers in the private prison market are government agencies at the federal, state and local level that operate jail, prison and detention programs. At the federal level, the Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Marshals Service and Immigration and Customs Enforcement all manage a variety of custody facilities. The four branches of the military also operate facilities for military personnel sentenced under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Of course, the 50 states and the District of Columbia each have departments of correction.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there are some 1,821 state and federal correctional facilities, not counting facilities operated by the U:S. Marshals Service and ICE. At the local level, counties and cities operate about 2,875 jail facilities in the United States. In sum, the potential consumer base of the private prison industry numbers somewhere in the area of 4,700 facilities.
After over 25 years of correctional privatization, there are fewer than 200 private correctional facilities in the United States - only about 4% of all facilities. The federal government is the most actively involved in privatization, with 16.3% of federal prisoners serving time in private facilities. State governments are next, with 6.6% of state prisoners in private facilities. However, whereas 60% of all correctional facilities in the United States are at the local level, only about two dozen city and county jurisdictions (1.7% of the total) contract with private companies to operate their jails and detention centers. In practice there are very few buyers of privatized incarceration services, and the federal government is the largest single customer. Between 2000 and 2008, the number of state prisoners placed in private prisons increased by about 25%, from 75,018 to 93,537. In the federal system, however, the number increased from 15,525 to 32,712, or about 110%. During the same period, the number of states placing some portion of their prisoners in private facilities actually declined from 30 states to 27.
There are in practice only fifty-four "customers" buying incarceration services from the private prison industry - the three federal agencies, twenty-seven state departments of correction and two dozen local jurisdictions. Within this small customer base, the federal government plus eight states (Texas, Florida, Arizona, Oklahoma, Colorado, Tennessee, California and Mississippi) collectively account for more than 70% of all private prison business. In effect, the market of buyers constitutes an oligopsony, or a market form in which only a few customers buy a certain good and therefore possess the power to affect pricing. The two largest publicly-traded private prison companies recognize their dependency on a limited number of governmental customers as a threat to their profitability and include a warning to stockholders to that effect in their annual reports. At CCA, just three federal government agencies, the BOP, ICE and the U.S. Marshals, accounted for 43% of the company's total revenue for fiscal year 2010, or $717.8 million. The state of California, which is placing thousands of prisoners out-of-state in an effort to reduce in-state prison populations, provided 13% of CCA's total revenue for fiscal year 2010, or $214·million. GEO Group reports that while they have a total of 45 governmental clients (customers), 4 of those clients accounted for over 60% of their U.S.-based revenue (BOP, ICE, U.S. Marshals and the State of Florida). Among those, the three federal agencies combined are responsible for 53% of GEO Group's total U.S. revenue ..
The oligopsony of governmental consumers serves to discourage innovation. In practice, government purchasers of incarceration services have required that private prison companies simply duplicate policies and procedures practiced in public prisons, to the effect that the standard operating procedures of most private prison programs closely mirror those 0'[ public prisons in 'the same state. Notably, none of the companies have distinct and viable research and development departments as would be expected in an industry that values innovation. Private prison companies encourage the adoption of public prison practice, rather than the development of innovative practice, by actively recruiting management-level staff from within the public sector.
As a case in point, a review of the background of CCA's facility management staff suggests a widespread practice of mining the public corrections system for managers. Among the wardens of 63 of the company's correctional facilities, nearly two-thirds formerly worked in state departments of correction (36 wardens) or the federal BOP (5 wardens). The most warden-rich jurisdiction was the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, from whence 28% of aU CCA wardens were recruited. These experienced staffers bring a degree of order and control to the company's private prisons, but they are not likely to be hired for their spirit of experimentation and innovation.
Arguably, private prisons are not looking to be innovative unless it is a way of cutting costs. The most common way for these companies to make money from govemment contracts is
https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/23 838_displayArticle.aspx

12115/2011

Ex V to Lennox Dec, Pg 7 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 44 of 45 Page ID#: 837

Pnson Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

Page 6 of7

by reducing personnel expenses. Because labor represents about 80% of the operating cost of a prison, much of the cost savings in private prisons results from paying private correctional officers less than comparable public correctional officers. But this advantage
begins to erode in a market where private companies are dependent upon contract
renewals (with more experienced staff) rather than new facilities (with new, entry-level staff). Even as labor rates vary among the states, public sector correctional officer starting salaries average $28,000 across all states with a (one standard deviation) range between $23,000 and $34,200. By comparison, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports a mean annual salary of
$42,270 for all occupations in the United States (in May 2008). Public sector prison staff
salaries are very low already, suggesting that it is not easy for the private sector to continue to undercut the govemment in personnel costs.
Conclusion
The increasing concentration of market share among me top four companies and the deClining number of companies in the incarceration services market mean that governments considering the privatization option will find a decreasing competitive environment when seeking contract bids. In 1995, for example, a total of seven companies submitted bids in response to a Arkansas Department of Corrections request for proposals for two new
privately-operated prisons. In contrast, a 2006 request for proposals to manage a private
prison in Pennsylvania yielded only two bidders. With market maturation and increased concentration. it is increasingly difficult for new companies to get into the business and for
marginal performers to stay afloat.
Oligopoly theory and industry life cycle theory suggest that tile remaining companies will be less competitive overall, seeking interdependent relationships with their competitors to help secure their position now that industry gro\ivth rates have cooled. As this scenario continues to unfold. any possibility of meaningful cost savings from privatization will decline over time.
A recent study of private prison costs in Arizona found that this has already occurred, as the
cost of incarcerating minimum-security prisoners has reached parity between state prisons and private prisons while the cost of housing medium-security prisoners is now actually lower in state prisons than in private facilities.
The private prison industry bears a fair share of the responsibility for not registering a better showing in research results. Despite the fact that it has hired away from the public sector many "best and brightesf correctional staff, the industry's penchant for financially rewarding its executives and top managers has drained resources that could have been devoted to program research and development.
Governments have also played a role in the failure of private prisons to perform better, particularly in the area of program quality. As an oligopsony, govemments hold the power to be more demanding in the area of performance yet have systematically failed to do so. In the main, contracting governments have simply abdicated demand for increasing program quality, settling for an illusory decrease in program costs.' Given the history of "iron triangle" relationships that intertwine the private prison industry and government officials, this failure is perhaps not surprising.
One of the more depressing statistics to emerge in criminal justice in recent years is the fact that two-thirds of released prisoners are re-arrested within three years. Enfightened government officials around the country have realized that they can reduce correctional expenditures only by focusing their efforts on reducing recidivism. not by building or contracting for more prison space. Government jurisdictions that are having the greatest success in reducing correctional expenditures are those that are turning to evidence-based practice to guide sentencing decisions and devoting correctional resources toward programs proven to reduce recidivism. Plison is not one of them. In enlightened jurisdictions. incarce(ation rates are beginning to decline.
As this trend continues. the private prison industry will eventually enter the fourth stagE! of the industrial life cycle - decline - and will begin shedding some of its capacity. Some companies have already sighted this trend on the horizon and have begun developing alternative business opportunities in areas such as electronic monitoring and prisoner health care. For those government agencies with heavy reliance on private prisons, decline in the industry will pose new problems as companies shed unprofitable contracts and simply walk away. Albert Einstein suggested that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. If a quarter century of experience with prison privatization has not led to better quality and cost outcomes, it is time to take a more sane approach.
Richard Culp is an Associate Professor of Public Administration at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City and the Coordinator of the Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice Management program. He is also a member of the doctoral faculty in Criminal Justice at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York and serves as Deputy Executive Officer of the CUNY Criminal Justice Doctoral Program. Professor Culp's research has been published in Justice Quarterly, Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, Criminal Justice Policy Review, The Prison Journal and the Journal of Public Affairs Education.
This article includes new and expanded research findings previously published in "Prison Privatization Turns Twenty-five: In K. Ismaili (Ed.) U.S. Criminal Justice Policy: A
https;llwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23838_displayArticle.aspx

12115/2011

Ex V to Lennox Dec, Pg 8 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 45 of 45 Page ID#: 838
Contemporary Reader (pp.183-209). Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers (2010).

[Secure Website)

Copyright © Prison Legal News 2011
Site designed and maintained by: AccuFind Intemet Services tnc.®

https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/23 838_displayArticle.aspx

12115/2011
Ex V to Lennox Dec, Pg 9 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 1 of 45 Page ID#: 839

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBIT I
TO DECLARATION OF LUCY LENNOX
Ex VI to Lennox Dec, Pg 1 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 2 of 45 Page ID#: 840 Ex VI to Lennox DePcL, NPCgO2Lo_fLe9nnox_00031

cct~ t:~ ~~~
Ji.-.1\lIa~-~~ Ss..t\.c:hL
5 5ppoo~~t lJO)Aq ~q q~ ~3 3

I ~ . . ~ 'iV ~ ~L'~.>y'~., "'''"'''

~'II/# ,J...>

.

It.·'~:l

- O...... "!!

~~~

lVl . -. :r\.Oi·~J-~'

')-"10 201 ,

~. ~ .•.....-:"<1.

"

I:!.1&OT1P • I: 0003048470 DEC 15 2011 ~ MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 99201

:.....---.,.-_.-.
~.-' --'-~'

.-....____--. _
~~

~

_ _ 4qaIt ~ f~~~~ ~ l [i )~ d;)(.())/lIjIJO0O1I77JJ-Cfj

. e-/D

f
NN::tCXX :tIlE;~

970 StE;: 1:1

00:11. 11,2~~/22ie:J/}1:t.. ·'1,1.

'1if-

51t;:o;.;,

Rf!cEETTUURRNN 'T·O0 SENtD)EE:R
ATT 'rjEEtt"~JIpPT'iEE:OD -- NOT'r KNOO"\)\\P>'
UNABSLE TO FORWARD

EElClC:::: 99.'200::SS16S.'.22444.2'29S

*j; ),,O0i144----0~: :;' ;'-

:~;:rf??CC:f=:r.::.:; J:J.i8~:~t::):~~''66.2.24444 -~':i-~;=,•:.:.

111, 1J1,,111,11'1111'1J11111f1i"lii'I1,11/1111111111111111,IJII,lI, 11,111,1I j ,1,1I1I,1111111111 1,

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 3 of 45 Page ID#: 841

Prison Legal NevIs - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

Page 1 of7

Logged iinn aas: Luccyy Lennox ,Finn: Status: Member
I II' I Edit Profile Log Out of PLN

HOME

BOOK

SEARCH

ADVERTISE

SUBSCRIBE

DONATIONS

CONTACT

STORE

PLN

US

Book Review I FAQ's I Interviews I PLN links I PLl-1 in the News I Annual Reports I Referral Directory

VIEW CART

Ie Articles r List Serv Messages

EE I SUES!

Thursday, December 15,201112:22 PM
The Failed Promise of Prison Privatization

[ Please visit our advertiser above 1
BREAKING NEWS

by Richard Culp, Ph.D.
\II/e have beeil experimenting with prison privatization in the U.S. now for over twenty-five years. The privatization idea Oorriigginated out of a notion that the private sector, with its competition-driven efficiency and innovation, could operate prisons of higher quality and lower cost than the public sector. Create a market for incarceration services, the argument ran, and the market will work its magic, improving prison conditions and rehabilitative outcomes while saving the taxpayers millions of dollars. That market has effectively been created over the past quarter century and we have now arrived at a place where prison privatization has been studied extensively and evaluated rigorously.

JUdicial Conference Committee Disciplines Federal Judge for Membership in Discriminatory Country Club by Alex Friedmann In May 2011, PLN reported that the Sixth ...
Nationwide PLN Survey Examines Prison Phone Contracts, Kickbacks by John E. Dannenberg An exhaustive analysis of prison phone contracts nationwide has revealed that ...

Although hyperbole continues to propel prison privatization policy along, research findings are incontrovertible: even in the best private prisons, quality of prisoner care is no better than in public prisons and the cost advantage of privatization, which initially accounted for minimal savings, is steadily eroding as the private prison industry matures. The big promises of prison privatization -Jess cost, higher quality - have simply not materialized. Despite these disappointing results, prison privatization advocacy maintains .' traction in diverse jurisdictions as policymakers from Ohio to Florida and from Maine to California seek expedient solutions to budget shortfalls triggered by a lingering great recession.
In retrospect, it should come as no surprise that prison privatization would fail to live up to its promises. There are several reasons for this. First, free market solutions to social problems like crime assume, after all, that there are "free" markets for appropriate services. However, there is no such thing as a natural market for the services provided by private prison companies. On the contral)f, the marketplace for incarceration services is created by the government, for the government. It is an artificial market. Many of the services that have been privatized by government (e.g:, custodial services, food preparation, medical care) are provided by the private sector independently of the govemment's decision to privatize or not. There is a free market analogue for many kinds of services that.govemments routinely provide. Other fields such as education and health care, for example~ have an active market of existing nonprofit and for-profit providers, willing to sell educational and healthcare services to a huge market of potential buyers that includes both individuals and governments.
The prison business is fundamentally differentin that no one'can freely purchase incarceration services as a private individual. There is no natural marketfor incarceration services. The power to incarcerate someone - to hold a person against his or her will - is a defining characteristic of the state. The government holds a monopoly over the legitimate use of physical force and the power to incarcerate. Only the government has the legitimate power to restrict a citizen's liberty; individuals are prohibited by law from incarcerating another person under "false imprisonment" statutes. The government can delegate this
power oonn a limited basis - for example, "shopkeeper's privilege" allows merchants to
temporarily detain suspected shoplifters. But long-term incarceration is a different matter. The- only potential buyers who can legally purchase incarceration services are the government jurisdictions that have custody over indicted, convicted or detained persons. In order to privatize its incarceration function, the govemment has had to create a market since one does not and cannot exist without its direct intervention.

Prison Legal News Interviews Former Prisoner and Famous Actor Danny Trejo Danny Trejo is one of the best-known American actors living today....
Remembering Attica Forty Years Later by Dennis Cunningham, Michael Deutsch & Elizabeth Fink This year, September 9 will mark,'the 40th anniversary ...
The History of Prison Legal News by Paul Wright In May 1990, the first issue of Prisoners' Legal News (PLN) was published. It ...
Twenty Years of PLN in Court Since PLN was founded in 1990 we have been censored in prisons and jails around .,.
Appalling Pilson and Jail Food Leaves Prisoners Hungry for Justice by David M. Reutter, Gary Hunter & Brandon Sample Prison food. The very .. '
Sexual Abuse by Prison and Jail Staff Proves PerSistent, Pandemic by Gary Hunter Sexual assault, rape, indecency, deviance. These terms represent reprehensible behavior ...
Judge Not: Judges Benched for Personal Misconduct by Gary Hunter & Alex Friedmann They decide hot-button topics ranging from abortion and racial discrimination ...

Secondly, the development of the private prison industry has resulted in a highly concentrated producer market where only four companies control over 90% of the incarceration services business. Economic theory tells us that when production is highly concentrated in very few companies, the market becomes an oligopoly, a market situation that is inherently less competitive and innovative than a market with more broad-based representation. An oligopoly is characterized by interdependence, avoidance of

The Graying of America's Prisons by James Ridgeway Frank Soffen, now 70 years old, has lived more than half his life in prison, ...

https:/Iwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23 838_displayArtic1e.aspx

12/15/2011

Ex VI to Lennox Dec, Pg 3 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 4 of 45 Page ID#: 842

rr~s(:m L~ga~ 1"l ews - Legal anlCle~, cases ana COUTI aeClslons

, rage L or I

competition and a -rigid attachment to the status quo among the leading firms.
A third part of the story is that govemment itself unwittingiy stifles innovation in the private prison industry. Since the only legitimate customers of prison companies are the jurisdictions that can indict, convict or otherwise detain people, the potential customer base for incarceration services is very limited. In practice, this has led to a situation where only a handful of customers, an oligopsony in economic terms, has come to dominate the customer base. The limited number of customers serves to dissuade private prison companies from conducting research and development into innovative correctional programming, as the tiny customer base tends to demand only those services that mimic what the governments themselves are accustomed to providing.
Origins of the Artificial Market
Contracting out of noncustodial prison services such as medical care, food service, maintenance, education and mental health services has been practiced for a long time and with little controversy. Contracting out of custody services, for which there is no free market ana!ogue. is much more controversial. The deinstitutionalization movement in juvenile corrections during the 1970s initiated a number of experiments in privatized services and custody for juveniles. A major step toward contracted custody of adults occurred when the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the forerunner to today's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), decided in 1983 to partially outsource the detention of undocumented immigrants in its custody. In the summer of 1983, the INS issued a request for proposals and the newly-formed Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) submitted the winning bid.

Secret Justice: Criminallnfonnants and America's Underground Legal System by Alexandra Natapoff I. Introduction Although it is almost invisible to the public....
Thou Shalt Not: Sexual Misconduct by Prison and ~ Jail Chaplains by David M. Reutter Traditionally, the
role of a chaplain in the correctional ...
.. Celebrity Justice: Prison Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous by Matt Clarke There are two criminal justice systems in the United States. One ...
Crime Labs in Crisis: Shoddy Forensics Used to ~ Secure Convictions by Matt Clarke To millions of
people whose knowledge of crime labs comes ...
. Private Prison Companies Behind the Scenes of Arizona's Immigration Law by Beau Hodai"Beside my brothers and my sisters, I'll proudly take a".

likewise, the community corrections movement in the adult system involved contracting out of the custody funct!on in many low-security adult facilities. Minnesota passed the Community Corrections Act in 1971, and 25 states followed suit with similar legislation over the next 12 years. Community corrections legislation transferred funding from state-level departments of correction to local governments which, in tum, used the funds for halfway house programs and other services for lower-level offenders. Many jurisdictions turned to private contractors to operate these facilities.
In 1986, Management and Training Corporation (MTC) secured a contract to operate a community corrections facility in Eagle Mountain, California. Also in 1986, the State of Kentucky contracted out the development and operation of a 200-bed minimum-security facility in Marion County. Another newly-formed company, the U.S. Corrections Corporation, was awarded lhe contract. Similarly, the U.S. Bureau of Prisons (BOP) began contracting out the operation of low-security halfway house programs to the private sector during this time. Another early private prison company, Correctional Services Corporation, originally Esmor Correctional Corp., began business in 1989 with two contracts from the BOP to operate halfway houses in New York City.
These earty entrants to the incarceration services market found a political climate supportive of privatization in several states, including Kentucky', Tennessee, Texas, Florida, Arizona, New Mexico and Louisiana. By 1994 there were approximately 20 companies actively seeking contracts to either build and manage company-owned prisons or manage existing faCilities owned by federal, state and local jurisdictions.
The Supply Side of the Incarceration Services Industry
The traditional industria! life cycle model suggests that new markets move through a process marked by four stages: fragmentation, shakeout, maturity and decline. The fragmentation period occurs wilen the industry is new, many entrepreneurs enter the market, and they operate at low volume and tend to serve narrow geographic areas. Eventually, a shakeout period occurs as some companies become more efficient and the less efficient ones fail to stay in business. Growth and competition are strongest during this period, as are tile profits of the largest companies. The industry reaches maturity when growth slows and surviving companies try to solidify their positions in the industry. At some later time, the industry moves into decline as the demand for the product or service drops and companies seek new ways to recover profitability.

Medical Examiners Lack Qualifications,
. Competence, Oversight by Matt Clarke Most people will only have direct contact with a medical examiner, also known as .. ,
.. 40% of Criminal Jurisprudence bills boost criminal penalties As has probably been the case every legislative session in living memory, bills ...
Texas Increasingly out of Step on Death Penalty By
.. David Fathi Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle May 23, 2009, 3:44PM Barring unexpected events, in the next ...
.. Some Agencies Balk at Releasing Prison Phone Data by Mike Rigby It is common knowledg'e among PLN readers that prison and jail phone ...
The Failed Promise of Prison Privatization by I> Richard Culp, Ph.D. We have been experimenting
with prison privatization in the U.S. now for over ...

The decade of the 1990s witnessed the rapid growth of prison privatization, consolidation of the industry and the cooling off of growth rates as the decade ended. The industry moved through the traditional life cycle stages of. fragmentation to maturity during this period. The industry expertenced tremendous growth from 1992 to 1998, averaging an increase in capacity of 36% each year. But from 1999 to 2006, growth declined to an average rate of under 4% per year. As market maturity is commonly defined as reaching a state of eqUilibrium marked by the absence of significant growth or innovation, the industry reached maturity as the new millennium began.

The shakeout stage of the industry is reflected in the difference between the companies doing business in 1996 and those doing business in 2011. In 1996, there were 14 companies witJ, private prtson contracts in the United States. Table 1 lists these companies, their rated capacity and their market share of U.S. private prison business. A common measure ofthe dominance of companies in a given market is tile market concentration ratio (CR), or the percentage of total industry sales (or capacity, or employment, or value added

https:/Iwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23 83 8_displayArticle.aspx

12115/2011

Ex VI to Lennox Dec, Pg 4 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 5 of 45 Page ID#: 843

.Prison Legal News - Legal articles" cases and court decisions

PageJ of7

or physical output) contributed by the four leading firms ranked in order of market share. A market is considered to have a high CR when the four leading firms control over two-tllirds of market share, a moderate concentration when the ratio falls between one-third and twothirds, and a low concentration when the top four companies control less than a third of total market share.
The four-firm market concentration ratio of the private prison industry was 86% in 1996, a significantly high level of concentration. But by the end of 2011 only seven companies remained in the private prison business, and the market share of the top four firms increased to 92% (see Table 2).
Acquisitions and Ethical Challenges
111e rise in concentration ratio means that the industry as a whole has become less competitive. Five ofthe companies that disappeared betlNeen 1996 and 2011 (U.S. Corrections Corporation, Correctional Services Corporation, Comell Corrections, Inc., Fenion Security, fnc. and Correctional Systems, Inc.) were acquired by larger companies. Four other firms went out of business (Bobby Ross GrouP. Capital Correctional Resources, Dove Development Corporation and Maranatha Production Company, LlC). Three newcomers, LaSalle Southwest Corrections, Louisiana Corrections Services and Emerald Companies, are small and regionally-based in Texas and Louisiana. A review of the ongoing concentration in the market is illustrative of shakeouts in the industry and of some of the ethically-challenged behavior that can attend to the process of prom: seeking. The largest company - Corrections Corporation of America - acquired the third-ranked company, U.S. Corrections Corporation, in 1998. U.S. Corrections, based in Kentucky, had much in common with Tennessee-based CCA. Both companies were founded by entrepreneurs who were well connected with the political establishment in their state. One of CCA's founders. Thomas W. Beasley, was a former chair of the state Republican Party and managed the successful 1978 gubernatorial campaign of Lamar Alexander. Honey Alexander, the govemor's wife, was an early investor in CCA. U.S. Corrections Corporation, based in neighboring Louisville, did a\l of its business in Kentucky prior to 1995. Executives of the company contributed over $77,000 to political campaigns in the state betlNeen 1987 and 1993, including $23,000 to Govemor Wallace G. Wilkinson and his wife Martha.
CHfford Todd, the CEO of U.S. Corrections, was implicated in a payoff scandal involving the company's contract to run the county jail in Louisville. He was arrested by the FBI in 1994, pleaded guilty to mail fraud and was sentenced to 6 months in ji'll! and fined $250,000. He sold his stake in the company for $15 million in 1994. At the time of the buyout by CCA, U.S. Corrections owned a total of four facilities in Kentucky, Ohio and North Carolina with a capacity of 5,275 beds, and had contracts to manage publicly-owned facilities in Kentucky, Florida and North Carolina with a capacity of 5,743 beds.
The second-largest company in 1996, Wackenhut Corrections Corporation (WCC), was formed in 1984 as a subsidiary to security firm Wackenhut Corporation, which was founded by George Wackenhut, a former FBI agent. Over the ensuing years, WCC grew to become one of the largest private prison companies in the world. The company began providing residential services for at-risk juveniles and young adults under the Job Corps program. WCC went public in 1994 (with Wackenhut Corporation as the majority shareholder). In 2002, the Danish company Group 4 Falck merged with the Wackenhut Corporation and, indirectly, became the owner of 57% ofWCC's stock. In 2003, WCC bought out Group 4 Falck's interest in the company and changed its name to the GEO Group, Inc. The GEO Group acquired the industry's seventh-largest company, Correctional Services Corporation (CSC), in 2005 and Cornell Corrections, the fifth-largest company, in 2010.
Founded in 1989, CSC operated l,lnqer $everal different names, including Esmor Correctional Services, Inc. The company was founded by the owners of a welrore hotel in New York City and began its prison business operating halfway houses under contract with the BOP. CSC also managed the INS Detention Center in Elizabeth, New Jersey, remembered best for a June 1995 riot in which 300 detainees took over the facility in protest of poor conditions of confinement. Esmor staff fled from the detention center, leaving order to be restored by federal, state and local law enforcement officers. The INS closed the facility after the riot, noting that CSC guards had abused detainees, gave them spoiled food and deprived them of sleep. The facility was reopened in 1997.
Later, in 2003, CSC was fined $300,000 by the New York State Lobbying Commission for failing to report free transportation, meals and gifts given to a dozen state legislators from Brooklyn and the Bronx. The flne was the largest the state had ever imposed on a company for violating the state's lobbying laws. In May 2008, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed charges.against three Fort Lauderdale, Florida physicians, alleging insider trading in GEO Group's 2005 acquisition of CSC. According to the complaint, one of the three worked as a consultant to GEO and had a son who worked in GEO's finance department, where he allegedly learned of the pending deal. The three were charged with illegally purchasing $390,000 in CSC stock before the acquisition. Two of the defendants entered into settlement agreements while the third was cleared of the charges.
Another GEO acquisition, Cornell Corrections, Inc., had been the third-largest private prison company in 2006, with 8% of industry market share. Incorporated in 1994, the company built its business primarily with youth services and community-based rehabilitation programs for
https:llwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23 83 8_displayArticle.aspx

12/15/2011

Ex VI to Lennox Dec, Pg 5 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 6 of 45 Page ID#: 844
Yage 4 all

adults. Pirate Capital, LLC, a hedge fund firm, acquired a 13% interest in Cornell in 2004, becoming the company's largest shareholder, and replaced several board members and tile company's CEO with financiers more oriented toward short-term growth. Pirate Capital unloaded its shares of Cornell in 2006 in the midst of an SEC investigation over its stock sales practices, several bad investment decisions and company downsizing. The company warned its stockholders in 2009 of looming problems in managing indebtedness of some $303 million. GEO Group bought Cornell, along with its debt, in 2010.
Management and Training Corporation (MTC) is the third-largest company currently providing incarceration services. MTC is a privately-held Utah-registered company that gained expertise in working with at-risk young people as a major provider of Job Corps programs. The company first entered the private prison market in 1987 when it received a contract to manage the Eagle Mountain Community Correctional Facility in Desert Center, Califomia (which experienced a major riot that resulted in the deaths of two prisoners in 2003). MTC expanded slowly and steadily since 1987 and now funs a total of20 correctional facilities in Arizona, Califomia, Florida, Idaho, (\Jew Mexico, Ohio and Texas.
The company's generally positive reputation as a job training provider has been tarnished by its corrections experience. In 1997, MTC hired the former director of the Utah Department of Corrections, Lane McCotter, as Director of Corrections Business Development. McCotter was well connected in pro-privatization states, having served as director of both the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and tile New Mexico Corrections Department before serving as the corrections head in Utah. He left the Utah DOC job in the midst of an investigation over the death of a prisoner with schizophrenia who had been shackled to a hard plastic chair for the final sixteen hours of his life.
In 2003, MTC's Santa Fe, New Mexico facility was under investigation by the U.S. Justice Department for unsafe conditions and poor quality prisoner medical care while McCotter was employed'with the company. Nonetheless, that same year he was appointed by Attomey General John Ashcroft to serve on a U.S. Department of Justice team commissioned to assess and implement a plan for rebuilding Iraq's criminal justice system. Tile team's final act before leaving Iraq was to conduct a ribbon cutting ceremony at the refurbished Abu Ghraib prison, a centerpiece of their corrections planning. Although the facility was empty when McCotter left Iraq, the work of the committee of experts was indelibly stained by the infamous events that subsequently occurred at the plison and from on-going human rights abuse allegations in prison~ under the direct supervision of other committee members.
MTC was also involved in a failed experiment in prison..privatization in Canada. In 2001, the company won a five-year contract to operate the Central North Correctional Centre (CNCC) in Ontario as part of a pilot project to compare operations of the CNCC facility with a similar publicly-run prison, tile Central East Correctional Centre. The government hired PricewaterhouseCoopers to evaluate the two prisons across a variety of dimensions. The evaluation found that the public prison outperformed the MTC facility overall. While the MTC prison was cheaper to operate and provided a greater variety of programming than the government facility, the public prison rated significantly better on security, recidivism rates, health care and community impact. Based on the results of the experiment, Ontario decided to turn management of the privatized facility over to the public sector.
Community Education Centers (CEC), incorporated in 1996, rounds out the quartet of companies that control 92% of the current incarceration services market. Like MTC, CEC is a privately-held company whose finances and governance structure are much less transparent than is' the case with publicly-held companies. Until a few years ago, CEC's business was concentrated in providing community-based residential, re-entry and rehabilitative services to offenders, mostly in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, but the company moved into the secure Incarceration services business with its acquisition of CiviGenics in 2007.
CiviGenics was founded in 19951n Marlboro, MA by Roy Ross, the former president of Spectrum Health Systems, Inc., a nonprofit company that provided drug and alcohol treatment services for prisoners in the Massachusetts Department of Corrections. Ross arranged a contract for CiviGenics to provide management of Spectrum's Massachusetts inprison treatment programs. In 1996, CiviGenics acquired Fenton Security, Inc., a small company that had management contracts to operate two county jails in Colorado. Tom Rapone, a former Secretary of Public Safety in Massachusetts, joined CiviGenics as the fiOll'S Chief Operating Officer. CiviGenics expanded its secure custody operations and by 1998 operated several small jail.facilities, employed more than 1,000 staff and had revenues of more than $30 million.
In July 1999, the·Ohio Department of RehabHifation and Correction (ODRC) awarded CiviGenics a $14.9 million contract to operate the newly-built North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility (NCCTF) in Grafton. However, the ODRC elected not to renew its contract with CiviGenics when the contract expired in July 2001 , citing problems with high staff turnover (including five different wardens in its first 18 months), repeated failure to maintain minimum staffing levels and problems with over-billing the state for positions that remained uncovered. The ODRC subsequently awarded the contract to MTC, which continues to operate the NCCTF facility.
https:/Iwww.prisonlegalnews.org/2383 8_displayArticle.aspx

12/15/2011

Ex VI to Lennox Dec, Pg 6 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 7 of 45 Page ID#: 845

r ll;)Ull Lt>g1:U l'1v.W::> - LCgCU CUUCle::>, cases <:tllU court Ut:ClSlOnS

page:> or)

In 2004, the Massachusetts State Auditor completed an audit that found Spectrum Health Systems had misused $17.4 million in state money, with $10.2 million ofthe total amount involving excessive payments to CiviGenics. The matter was settled in January 2007 in an agreement that required CiviGenics to repay the state $3.4 million and Roy Ross to repay $650,000. With its acquisition of CiviGenics in 2007, CEC became the fourth largest private prison company in the U.S.
The Demand Side of the Incarceration Services Industry
The demand side of prison privatization, like the oligopoly of private prison companies, is also highly concentrated. The potential customers in the private prison market are government agencies at the federal, state and loeallevel that operate Jail, prison and detention programs. At the federal level, the Bureau of Prisons; the U.S. Marshals Service and Immigration and Customs Enforcement aU manage a variety of custody facilities. The four branches of the military also operate facilities for military personnel sentenced under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Of course, the 50 states and the District of Columbia each have departments of correction.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there are some 1,821 state and federal correctional facilities, not counting facilities operated by the U:S. Marshals Service and ICE. At the focal level, counties and cities operate about 2,875 jail facilities in the United States. In sum, the potential consumer base of the private prison industry numbers somewhere in the area of 4,700 facilities.
After over 25 years of correctional privatization, there are fewer than 200 private correctional facilities in the United States - only about 4% of all facilities. The federai government is the most actively involved in privatization, with 16.3% of federal prisoners serving time in private facilities. State govemments are next, with 6.6% of state prisoners in private facilities. However, whereas 60% of all correctional facilities in the United States are at the local level, only about two dozen city and county jurisdictions (1.7% of the total) contract with private companies to operate their jails and detention centers. In practice there are very few buyers of privatized incarceration services, and the federal government is the largest single customer. Between 2000 and 2008, the number of state prisoners placed in private prisons increased by about 25%, from 75,018 to 93,537. In the federal system, however, the number increased from 15,525 to 32,712, or about 110%. During the same period, the number of states placing some portion of their prisoners in private facilities actually declined from 30 states to 27.
There are in practice only fifty-four ~customers" buying incarceration services from the private prison industry - the three federal agencies, twenty-seven state departments of correction and two dozen local jurisdictions. Within this small customer base, the federal government plus eight states (Texas, Florida, Arizona, Oklahoma, Colorado, Tennessee, California and Mississippi) collectively account for more than 70% of all private prison business. In effect, the market of buyers constitutes an oligopsony, or a market form in which only a few customers buy a certain good and therefore possess the power to affect pricing. The two largest publicly-traded private plison companies recognize their dependency on a limited number of govemmental customers as a threat to their profitability and include a warning to stockholders to that effect in their annual reports. At CCA, just three federal government agencies, the BOP, ICE and the U.S. Marshals, accounted for 43% of the company's total revenue for fiscal year 2010, or $717.8 million. The state of California, which is placing thousands of prisoners out-of-state in an effort to reduce in-state prison populations, provided 13% of CCA's total revenue for ffscal year 2010, or $214 'million. GEO Group reports that while they have a total of 45 govemmental clients (customers), 4 ofthose clients accounted for over 60% of their U.S.-based revenue (BOP, ICE, U.S. Marshals and the State of Florida). Among those, the three federal agencies combined are responsible for 53% of GEOGroup's total U.S. revenue.
The oligopsony of governmental consumers serves to discourage innovation. In practice, government p.urchasers of incarceration services have required that private prison companies simply duplicate policies and procedures practiced in public prisons, to the effect that the standard operating procedures of most private prison programs closely mirror those of public prisons in the same state. Notably, none of the companies have distinct and viable research and development departments as would be expected in an industry that values innovation. Private prison companies encourage the adoption of public prison practice, rather than the development of innovative practice, by actively recruiting management-level staff from within the public sector.
As a case in point, a review of the background of CCA's facility management staff suggests a widespread practice of mining· the public corrections system for managers. Among the wardens of 63 of the company's correctional facilities, nearly two-thirds formerly worked in state departments of correction (36 wardens) or the federal BOP (5 wardens). The most warden-lich jurisdiction was the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, from whence 28% of all CCA wardens were recruited. These experienced staffers bring a degree of order and control to the company's private prisons, but they are not likely to be hired for their spirit of experimentation and innovation.
Arguably, private prisons are not looking to be innovative unless it is a way of cutting costs. The most common way for these companies to make money from government contracts is
https :llwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23838_displayArticle.aspx

12115/2011

Ex VI to Lennox Dec, Pg 7 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 8 of 45 Page ID#: 846
ragt:: 0 VI I

by reducing personnel expenses. Because labor represents about 80% of the operating cost of a prison, much of the cost savings in private prisons results from paying private correctional officers fess than comparable public correctional officers. But this advantage begins to erode .in a market where private companies are dependent upon contract renewals (with more experienced staff) rather than new facilities (with new, entry-level staff). Even as labor rates vary among the states, public sector correctional officer starting salaries average $28.000 across all states with a (one standard deviation) range between $23,000 and $34,200. By comparison. the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports a mean annual salary of $42,270 for all occupations in the United States (in May 2008). Public sector prison staff salaries are very low already, suggesting that it is not easy for the private sector to continue to undercut the government in personnel costs.
Conclusion
The increasing concentration of market share among the top four companies and the declining number of companies in the incarceration services market mean that governments considering the privatization option will find a decreasing competitive environment when seeking contract bids. In 1995, for example, a total of seven companies submitted bids in response to a Arkansas Department of Corrections request for proposals for two new privately-operated prisons. In contrast, a 2006 request for proposals to manage a private prison in Pennsylvania yielded only two bidders. With market maturation and increased concentration, it is increasingly difficult for new companies to get into the business and for marginal performers to stay afloat.
Oligopoly theory and industry life cycle theory suggest that the remaining companies will be less competitive overall, seeking interdependent relationships with their competitors to help secure their position now that industry growth rates have cooled. As this scenario continues to unfold, any possibility of meaningful cost savings from privatization will decline over time. A recent study of private prison costs in Arizona found that this has already occurred, as the cost of incarcerating minimum-security prisoners has reached parity between state prisons and private prisons while the cost of housing medium-security prisoners is now actually lower in state prisons than in private facilities.
The private prison industry bears a fair share of the responsibility for not registering a better showing in research results. Despite the fact that it has hired away from the public sector many "best and brightesf correctional staff, the industry's penchant for financially rewarding its executives and top managers has drained resources that Gould have been devoted to program research and development.
Govemments have also played a role in the failure of private prisons to perform better, particularly in the area of program quality. As an oligopsony, governments hold the power to be more demanding in the area of performance yet have systematically failed to do so. In the main, contracting govemments have simply abdicated demand for increasing program quality, settling for an illusory decrease in program costs. Given the history of "iron triangle" relationships that intertwine the private prison industry and govemment officials, this failure is perhaps not surprising.
One of the more depressing statistics to emerge in criminal justice in recent years is the fact that two-thirds of released prisoners are re-arrested within three yeaiS. Enlightened government officials around the country have realized that they can reduce correctional expenditures only by focusing their efforts on reducing recidivism, not by building or contracting for more prison space. Govemmentjurisdictions that are having the greatest success in reducing correctional expenditures are those that are turning to evidence-based practice to guide sentencing decisions and devoting correctional resources toward programs proven to reduce recidivism. Prison is not one of them. In enlightened jurisdictiol1s, incarceration rates are beginning to decline.
As this trend continues, the private prison industry will e'Jentually enter tlie fourth stage of the industrial fife cycle - decline - and will begin shedding some of its capacity. Some companies have already sighted this trend on the horizon and have begun developing alternative business opportunities in areas such as electronic monitoring and prisoner health care. For those government agencies with heavy reliance on private prisons, decline in the industry will pose new problems as companies shed unprofitable contracts and simpfy walk away. Albert Einstein suggested that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. If a quarter century of experience with prison privatization has not fed to better quality and cost outcomes, it is time to take a more sane approach.
Richard Culp is an Associate Professor of Public Administration at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City and the Coordinator of the Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice Management program. He is also a member of the doctoral faculty in Criminal Justice at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York and serves as Deputy Executive Officer of the CUNY Criminal Justice Doctoral Program. Professor Culp's research has been published in Justice Quarterly, Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, Criminal Justice Policy Review, The Prison Journal and the Journal of Public Affairs Education.
This article includes new and expanded research findings previously published in "Prison Privatization Turns Twenty-five." In K fsmaili (Ed.) U.S. Criminal Justice Policy: A
https;1Iwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23 838_displayArticle.aspx

12115/2011

Ex VI to Lennox Dec, Pg 8 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 9 of 45 Page ID#: 847 yaget or t
Contemporary Reader (pp.183-209). Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers (2010).

[Secure Website]

I_I

Copyright © Prison Legal News 2011 Site designed and maintained by: AccuFind Internet Services Inc.®

https:/Iwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23 83 8_displayArticle.aspx

12115/2011

Ex VI to Lennox Dec, Pg 9 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 10 of 45 Page ID#: 848

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBIT VII
TO DECLARATION OF LUCY LENNOX
Ex VII to Lennox Dec, Pg 1 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 11 of 45 Page ID#: 849 Ex VII to Lennox DePcL, NPCgO2Lo_fLe9nnox_00039

~~ l-,U\\dd.-<c/;( s. ~~ ,.s5~ o ~o~~ \~. \L..O.Jt\-.
C1q~3

1.Lpr9/' -.-'' -.":,~;U-- :_ -;~-'::M1/-04"'~ ~t~9I\l
-;:" ZDI -j -A
~~...
,~-

:::::~:::::=;~~;,;,:. _.~." r>"" "U'[ . ~:.:~~~,:' c~_
•..-.'•. .•1i...~~.
0003048470 DEC 15 2011 MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 99201

.~ . .b . b_~ ~

_ _ _ _ _ _ ~~'

~~

_ _ _ _ _ ~~~~~ _ _ _ _ _" -'

~

C/D~~~ ~ ~ If -~ n-v.}. :~;)D0I11lDDOD22----2U.133
CfD~~~

.. ----- q - . ...... --.-~ ~-~

~
.... ~ -:.-...-.... ...- . ~ .-~

7)_.-ft- a ~ ~

~ ~ . .-..

~

NI.XXJl:e5:

9~i7)'700 4E 1

01 1j..22// ..2ff.~)j/111

ee:??

RETURN TO SENDER

ATTEMPTED - NOT KNOWN

UNA9LE TO FORWARD

Be: 99~C 03S 62442S

* 1 0 1 4 - 0 3 89 4 6 - 2 2 - 4 4

==:::r:?r::?:~S-;iSA~>fti'~ftii~.o~.6~'S2~444· ..

II)I I1I1I1L1)1j1I1IIJII I1I1111/1111111I1I1I11I1111I1I1I1I1I 1L1L11L/1111L1I1,JJj IJ, ,)/1,,1J LJ, ,,1I1I1,111I111

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 12 of 45 Page ID#: 850

Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

Page 1 of7

Logged in as: Lucy Lennox Firm: Status: Member
IEdit Profile II' Log Out of PLN I

HOME

BOOK

SEARCH

ADVERTISE

SUBSCRIBE DONATIONS

CONTACT

STORE

PLN

US

Book Review I FAQ's I Interviews I PLN links I PLN in the News I Annual Reports I Referral Directory

VIEW CART

(ci Articles l List Serv Messages Thursday, December 15,201112:22 PM
TIle Failed Promise of Prison Privatization

EE I UES!
a lineSe
[ Please visit our advertiser above J
BREAKING NEWS

by Richard Culp, Ph.D.

We halfe been experimenting with prison privatization in the U.S. noVJ for over twenty-five years. The privatization idea originated out of a notion that the private sector, with its competition-driven efficiency and innovation, could operate prisons of higher quality and lower cost than the public sector. Create a market for incarceration services, the argument ran, and the market will work its magic, improving prison conditions and rehabilitative ou1comes while saving tile taxpayers millions of dollars. That market has effectively been created over the past quarter century and we have now arrived at a place where prison privatization has been studied extensively and evaluated rigorously_

Although hyperbole continues to propel prison privatization policy along, research findings

are incontrovertible: even in the best private prisons, quality of prisoner care is no better

than in public prisons and the cost advantage of privatization, which initially accounted for

minimal savings, is steadily eroding as the private prison industry matures.

The big promises of prison privatization -less cost, higher quality - have simply not

.

materialized. Despite these disappointing results, prison privatization advocacy maintains .

traction in diverse junsdictions as policymakers from Ohio to Florida and from Maine to

California seek expedient solutions to budget shortfalls triggered by a lingering great

recession.

In retrospect, it should come as no surprise that prison privatization would fail to live up to its promises. There are several reasons for this. First, free market solutions to social problems like crime assume, after all, tilat there are ~freen markets for appropriate services. However, there is no such thing as a natural market for the services provided by private prison companies. On the contrary, the marketplace for incarceration services is created by the government, for the government. It is an artificial market. Many of the services that have been privatized by government (e.g., custodial services, food preparation, medical care) are . provided by the 'private sector independently of tile government's decision to privatize or not. There is a free market analogue for many kinds of services that govemments routinely provide. Other fields such as education and health care, for example, have an active market of existing nonprofit and for-profit providers willing to sell educational and healthcare services to a huge market of potential buyers that includes both individuals and governments.

The prison business is fundamentally different in that no one'can freely purchase incarceration services as a private individual. There is no natural market for incarceration services. The power to incarcerate someone - to hold a person against his or her will - is a defining characteristic of the state. The government holds a monopoly over the legitimate use of physical force and the power to incarcerate. Only the government has the legitimate power to restrict a citizen's liberty; individuals are prohibited by law from incarcerating another person under "false imprisonment" statutes. The government can delegate this power on a limited basis - for example, "shopkeeper's privilege" allows merchants to temporarily detain suspected shoplifters. But long-term incarceration is a different matter. The only potential buyers who can legally purchase incarceration ·services are the government jurisdictions that have custody over indicted, convicted or detained persons. In order to privatize Us incarceration function, the govemment has had to create a market since one does not and cannot exist without its direct intervention.

Judicial Conference Committee Disciplines Federal Judge for Membership in Discriminatory Country Club by Alex Friedmann In May 2011, PLN reported that the Sixth ...
Nationwide PLN Survey Examines Prison Phone Contracts, Kickbacks by John E. Dannenberg An exhaustive analysis of prison phone contracts nationwide has revealed that ...
Prison Legal News Interviews Former Prisoner and Famous Actor Danny Trejo Danny Trejo is one of the best-known American actors living today....
Remembering Attica Forty Years Later by Dennis Cunningham, Michael Deutsch & Elizabeth Fink This year, September 9 will mark the 40th anniversary ...
The History of Prison Legal News by Paul Wright In May 1990, the first issue of Prisoners' Legal News (PLN) was published. It ...
Twenly Years of PLN in Court Since PLN was founded in 1990 we have been censored in prisons and jails around ...
Appalling Prison and Jail Food Leaves Prisoners Hungry for Justice by David M. Reutter, Gary Hunter & Brandon Sample Prison food. The very ...
Sexual Abuse by Prison and Jail Staff Proves Persisstteenntt., Pandemic by Gary Hunter Sexual assault, rape, indecency, deviance. These terms represent reprehensible behavior ...
Judge Not Judges Benched for Personal Misconduct by Gary Hunter & Alex Friedmann They decide hot-putton topics ranging from abortion and racial discrimination ...

Secondly., the development of the private prison industry has resulted in a highly concentrated producer market where only four companies control over 90% of the incarceration services business. Economic theory tells us that when production is highly concentrated in very few companies, the market becomes an oligopoly, a market situation that is inherently less competitive and innovative than a market with more broad-based
representation. An oligopoly is characterized by interdependence, avo.idance of

The Graying of America's Prisons by James ... Ridgeway Frank Soffen, now 70 years old, has lived
more than half his life in prison,•....

https:/lwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23 83 8_displayArticle.aspx

12/15/2011

Ex VII to Lennox Dec, Pg 3 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 13 of 45 Page ID#: 851

Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

Page 2 of7

competition and a rigid attachment to the status quo among the leading firms.
A third part of the story is that government itself unwitlingiy stifles innovation in the private prison industry. Since the only legitimate customers of prison companies are the jurisdictions that can indict, convict or otherwise detain people, the potential customer base for incarceration services is very limited. In practice, this has led to a situation where only a handful of customers, an oligopsony in economic terms, has come to dominate the customer base. The limited number of customers serves to dissuade private prison companies from conducting research and development into innovative correctional programming, as the tiny customer base tends to demand only those services that mimic what the governments themselves are accustomed to providing.
Origins of the Artificial Market
Contracting out of noncustodial prison services such as medical care, food service, maintenance, education and mental health services has been practiced for a long time and with little controversy. Contracting out of custody services, for which there is no free market analogue, is much more controversial. The deinstitutionaiization movement in juvenile corrections during the 1970s initiated a number of experiments in privatized services and custody for juveniles. A major step toward contracted custody of adults occurred when the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the forerunner to today's Immigration and Customs E:nforcement (ICE), decided in 1983 to partially outsource the detention of undocumented lmmigrants in its custody. In the summer of 1983. the INS issued a request for proposals and the newly-formed Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) submitted the winning bid.

Secret Justice: Criminal Informants and America's Underground Legal System by Alexandra Natapoff I. Introduction Although it is almost invisible to the public, ...
Thou Shalt Not: Sexual Misconduct by Prison and ~ Jail Chaplalns by David M. Reutter Traditionally, the
role of a chaplain in the correctional ...
Celebrity Justice: Prison Lifestyles of the Rich and ~ Famous by Matt Clarke There are two criminal
justice systems in the United States. One ...
Crime Labs in Crisis: Shoddy Forensics Used to ~ Secure Convictions by Matt Clarke To millions of
people whose knowledge of crime labs comes ...
.. Private Prison Companies Behind the Scenes of Arizona's Immigration Law by Beau Hodai"Beside my brothers and my sisters, I'll proudly take a ...

Likewise. the community corrections movement in the adult system involved contracting out of the custody function in many low-security adult facilities. Minnesota passed the Community Corrections Actin 1971, and 25 states followed suit with similar legislation over the next 12 years. Community corrections legislation transferred funding from state-level departments of correction to local governments which, in tum, used the funds for halfway house programs and other services for lower-level offenders. Many jurisdictions turned to private contractors to operate these facilities.
In 1986, Management and Training Corporation (MTC) secured a contract to operate a community corrections facility in Eagle Mountain, California. Also in 1986, the State of Kentucky contracted out the development and operation of a 200-bed minimum-security facility in Marion County. Another newly-formed company, the U.S. Corrections Corporation, was awarded the contract. Similarly, tile U.S. Bureau of Prisons (BOP) began contracting out the operatiqn of low-security halfway house programs to the private sector during this time. Another early private prison company, Correctional Services Corporation, originally Esmor Correctional Corp., began business in 1989 with two contracts from the BOP to operate halfway houses in New York City.

Medical Examiners Lack Qualifications, ~ Competence, Oversight by Matt Clarke Most people
will only have direct contact with a medical examiner, also known as ...

. 40% of Criminal Jurisprudence bills boost criminal penalties As has probably been the case every legislative session in living memory, bills ...

Texas Increasingly out of Step on Death Penalty By

~

David Fathi Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle May 23, 2009. 3:44PM Barring unexpected events, in the

next ...

These eariy entrants to the incarceration services market found a political climate supportive of privatization in several states, Including Kentuclw·, Tennessee, Texas, Florida, Arizona, New Mexico and Louisiana. By 199'4 there were approximately 20 companies actively seeking contracts to either build and manage company-owned prisons or manage existing facilities owned by federal, state and local julisdictions.
The Supply Side of the Incarceration Services Industry
The traditional industrial life cycle model suggests that new markets move through a process maffi:ed by four stages: fragmentation, shakeout, maturity and decline. The fragmentation period occurs when the industry is new, many entrepreneurs. enter the market, and they operate at low volume and tend to serve narrow geographic areas. Eventually, a shakeout period occurs as some companies become more efficient and the less efficient ones fail to stay in business. Growth and competition are strongest during this period, as are the profits of the largest companies. The industry reaches maturity when g~owtl1 slows and surviving companies try to solidify their positions in the industry. At some later time, the industry moves into decline as the demand for the product or service drops and companies seek new ways to recover profitability.

.. Some Agencies Balk at Releasing Prison Phone Data by Mike Rigby It is common knowledge among PLN readers that prison and jail phone ...
The Failed Promise of Prison Privatization by ~ Richard Culp, Ph.D. We have been experimenting
with prison privatization iii the U.S. now for over ...

The decade of the 1990s witnessed the rapid growth of prison privatization, consolidation of the industry and the COOling off of growth rates as the decade ended. The industry moved through the traditional life cycle stages of-fragmentation to maturity during this period. The industry experienced tremendous growth from 1992 to 1998, averaging an increase in capacity of 36% each year. But from 1999 to 2006, growth declined to an average rate of under 4% per year. As market maturity is commonly defined as reaching a state of eqUilibrium marked by the absence of significant growth or innovation. the industry reached maturity as the new millennium began.

The shakeout stage of the industry is reflected in the difference between the companies doing business in 1996 and those doing business in 2011. In 1996, there were 14 companies WiU1 private prison contracts in the United States. Table 1 lists these companies, their rated capacity and their market share of U.S. private prison business. A common measure of the dominance of companies in a given market is the market concentration ratio (CR), or the percentage of total industry sales (or capacity, or employment, or value added

https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/23 838_displayArticle.aspx

12115/2011

Ex VII to Lennox Dec, Pg 4 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 14 of 45 Page ID#: 852

- Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

Page 3 of7

or physical output) contributed by the four leading firms ranked in order of market share. A market is considered to have a high CR when the four leading firms control over two-thirds of market share, a moderate concentration when the ratio faUs between one-third and twothirds, and a low concentration when tile top four companies control less than a third of total market share.
The four-firm market concentration ratio of the private prison industry was 86% in 1996, a significantly high level of concentration. But by the end of 2011 only seven companies remained in the private prison business, and the market share of the top four firms increased to 92% (see Table 2).
Acquisitions and Ethical Challenges
The rise in concentration ratio means that the industry as a whole has become less competitive. Five of the companies that disappeared between 1996 and 2011 (U.S. Corrections Corporation, Correctional Services Corporation, Cornell Corrections, Inc., Fenton Security. Inc. and Correctional Systems, Inc.) were acquired by larger companies. Four other firms went out of business (Bobby Ross Group, Capital Correctional Resources, Dove Development Corporation and Maranatha Production Company, LLC). Three newcomers, LaSalle Southwest Corrections, Louisiana Corrections Services and Emerald Companies, are small and regionally-based in Texas and Louisiana. A review of the ongoing concentration in the market is illustrative of shakeouts in the industry and of some of the ethically-challenged behavior that can attend to the process of profit seeking. The largest I;:ompany - Corrections CorporatIcin of America - acquired the third-ranked company, U.S. Corrections Corporation, in 1998. U.S. Corrections, based in Kentucky, had much in common with Tennessee-based CCA. Both companies were founded by entrepreneurs who were well connected with the political establishment in their state. One of CeA's founders, Thomas W. Beasley, was a former chair of the state Republican Party and managed the successful 1978 gubematorial campaign of Lamar Alexander. Honey Alexander, the governor's wife, was an early investor in CCA. U.S. Corrections Corporation, based in neighboring Louisville, did all of its business in Kentucky prior to 1995. Executives of the company contributed over $77,000 to political campaigns in the state between 1987 and 1993, including $23,000 to GovemorWallace G. Wilkinson and his wife Martha.
Clifford Todd, the CEO of U.S. Corrections, was implicated in a payoff scandal involving the company's contract to run the county Jail in Louisville. He was arrested by the FBI in 1994, pleaded guilty to mail fraud and was sentenced to 6 months in jpil and fined $250,000. He sold his stake in the company for $15 million in 1994. At the time of the buyout by CCA, U.S. Corrections owned a total of four facilities in Kentucky, Ohio and North Carolina with a capacity of 5,275 beds, and had contracts to manage publicly-owned facilities in Kentucky, Florida and North Carolina with a capacity of 5,743 beds.
The second-largest company in 1996, Wackenhut Corrections Corporation (WCC), was formed in 1984 as a subsidiary to security firm Wackenhut Corporation, which was founded by George Wackenhut, a former FBI agent. Over the ensuing years, WCC grew to become bne of the largest private prison companies in the world. The company began providing residential services for at-riSk juveniles and young adults under the Job Corps program. WCC went public in 1994 (with Wackenhut Corporation as the majority shareholder). In 2002, the Danish company Group 4 Falck merged with the Wackenhut Corporation and, indirectly, became the owner of 57% ofWCC's stock. In 2003, WCC bought out Group 4 Falck's interest in the company and changed its name to the GEO Group, Inc. The GEO Group acquired the industry's seventh-largest company, Correctional Services Corporation (CSC), in 2005 and Comell Corrections, the fifth-largest company, in 2010.
Founded in 1989, CSC operated under ~everal different names, including Esmor Correctional Services, Inc. The company was founded by the owners of a welfare hotel in New York City and began its prison business operating halfway houses under contract with the BOP. CSC also managed the INS Detention Center in Elizabeth, New Jersey, remembered best for a June 1995 riot in which 300 detainees took over the facility in protest of poor conditions of confinement. Esmor staff fled from the detention center, leaving order to be restored by federal, state and local law enforcement officers. The INS closed the facility after the riot, noting that CSC guards had abused detainees, gave them spoiled food and deprived them of sleep. The facility was reopened in 1997.
Later, in 2003, CSC was fined $300,000 by the New York State Lobbying Commission for failing to report free transportation, meals and gifts given to a dozen state legislators from Brooklyn and the Bronx. The fine was the largest the state had ever imposed on a company for violating the state's lobbying laws. In May 2008, the Securities and B<change Commission (SEC) filed charges.against three Fort Lauderdale, Florida physicians, alleging insider trading in GEO Group's 2.005 acquisition of CSC. According to the complaint, one of the three worked as a consultant to GEO and had a son who worked in GEO's finance department, where he allegedly learned of the pending deal. The three were charged with iIIegaHy purchasing $390,000 in CSC stOCK before the acquisition. Two of the defendants entered into settlement agreements while the third was cleared of the charges.
Another GEO acquisition, Cornell Corrections, Inc., had been the third-largest private prison company in 2006, with 8% of industry market share. Incorporated in 1994, the company built its business primarily with youth services and community-based rehabifitation programs for
https://WWW.prisonlegalnews.org/23 83 8_displayArticle.aspx

12115/2011

Ex VII to Lennox Dec, Pg 5 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 15 of 45 Page ID#: 853

Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

Page 40f7

adults. Pirate Capital, LLC, a hedge fund firm, acquired a 13% interest in Cornell in 2004, becoming the ~ompany's largest shareholder, and replaced several board members and the company's CEO with financiers more oriented toward short-term growth. Pirate Capital unloaded its shares of Cornell in 2006 in the midst of an SEC investigation over its stock sales practices, several bad investment decisions and company downsizing. The company warned its stockholders in 2009 of looming problems in managing indebtedness of some $303 million. GEO Group bought Cornell, along with its debt, in 2010.
Management and Training Corporation (MTC) is the third-largest company currently providing incarceration services. MTC is a privately-held Utah-registered company that gained expertise in working with at-risk young people as a major provider of Job Corps programs. The company first entered the private prison market in 1987 when it received a contract to manage the Eagle Mountain Community Correctional Facility in Desert Center, California (which experienced a major riot that resulted in the deaths of two prisoners in 2003).IVlTC expanded slowly and steadily since 1987 and now runs a total of20 correctional facilities in Arizona, California. Florida, Idaho, New Mexico, Ohio and Texas.
The company's generally positive reputation as a job training provider has been tarnished by its corrections experience. In 1997, MTC hired the former director of the Utah Department of Corrections, Lane McCotter, as Director of Corrections Business Development. McCotter was well connected in pro-privatization states, having served as direGtor of both the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and the New Mexico Corrections Department before serving as the corrections head in Utah. He left the Utah DOC job in the midst of an investigation over the death of a prisoner with schizophrenia who had been shackled to a hard plastic chair for the flnal sixteen hours of his life.
In 2003, fvlTC's Santa Fe, New Mexico facility was under investigation by the U.S. Justice Department for unsafe conditions and poor quality prisoner medical care while McCotter was employed·with the company. Nonetheless, that same year he was appointed by Attorney General John Ashcroft to serve on a U.S. Department of Justice team commissioned to assess and implement a plan for rebuilding Iraq's criminal justice system. The team's final act before leaving Iraq was to conduct a ribbon cutting ceremony at the refurbished Abu Ghraib prison, a centerpiece of their corrections planning. Although the facility was empty when McCotter left Iraq, the work of the committee of experts was indelibly stained by the infamous events that subsequently occurred at the plison and from on-going human rights abuse allegations in prison? under the direct supervision of other committee members.
MTC was also involved in a failed experiment in prison..privatization in Canada. In 2001, the company won a five-year contract to operate the Central North Correctional Centre (CNCC) in Ontario as part of a pilot project to compare operations of the CNCC facility with a similar publicly-run prison, the Central East Correctional Centre. The government hired PricewaterhouseCoopers to evaluate the two prisons across a variety of dimensions. The evaluation found that the public prison outperformed the MTC facility overall. Wl1ile the MTC prison was cheaper to operate and provided a greater variety of programming than the government facility, the public prison rated significantly better on security, recidivism rates, health care and community impact Based on the results of the experiment, Ontario decided to turn management of the privatized facility over to the public sector.
Community Education Centers (CEe), incorporated in 1996, rounds out the quartet of companies that control 92% of the current incarceration services market. Like MTC, CEC is a privately-held company whose finances and governance structure are much less transparent than is the case with publicly-held companies. Until a few years ago, CEC's business was concentrated in providing community-based residential, re-entry and. rehabilitative services to offenders, mostly in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, but the company moved into the secure incarceration services business with its acquisition of CiviGenics in 2007.
CiviGenics was founded in 1995 in Marlboro, IVIA by Roy Ross, the former president of Spectrum Health Systems, Inc., a nonprofit company that provided drug and alcohol treatment services for prisoners in the Massachusetts Department of Corrections. Ross arranged a contract for CiviGenics to provide management of Spectrum's Massachusetts inprison treatment programs. In 1996, CiviGenics acquired Fenton Security, Inc., a small company that had management contracts to operate two county ja!1s in Colorado. Tom Rapone, a former Secretary of Public Safety in Massacl1usetts, joined CiviGenics as the firm's Chief Operating Officer. CiviGenics expanded its secure custody operations and by 1998 operated several small jail.facilities, employed more than 1,000 staff and had revenues of more than $30 million.
In July 1999, the-Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) awarded CiviGenics a $14.9 million contract to operate the newly-built North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility (NCCTF) in Grafton. However, the ODRC elected not to renew its contract with CiviGenics when the contract expired in July 2001, citing problems with high staff turnover (including five different wardens in its first 18 months), repeated failure to maintain minimum staffing levels and problems with over-billing the state for positions that remained uncovered. The ODRC subsequently awarded the contract to MTC, which continues to operate the NCCTF facility.
https:/Iwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23 83 8_displayArticle.aspx

12115/2011

Ex VII to Lennox Dec, Pg 6 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 16 of 45 Page ID#: 854

Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

Page 5 of7

In 2004, the Massachusetts State Auditor completed an audit that found Spectrum Health Systems had misused $17.4 million in state money, with $10.2 million of the total amount involving excessive payments to CiviGenics. The matter was settled in January 2007 in an agreement that required CiviGenics to repay the state $3.4 million and Roy Ross to repay $650,000. With its acquisition of CiviGenics in 2007, CEC became the fourth largest private prison company in the U.S.
The Demand Side of the Incarceration Services Industry
The demand side of prison privatization, like the oligopoly of private prison companies, is also highly concentrated. The potential customers in the private prison market are government agencies at the federal, state and local level that operate jail, prison and detention programs. At the federal level, the Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Marshals Service and Immigration and Customs Enforcement all manage a variety of custody facilities. The four branches of the military also operate facilities for military personnel sentenced under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Of course, the 50 states and the District of Columbia each have departments of correction.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there are some 1,821 state and federal correctional facilities, not counting facilrties operated by the U~S. Marshals Service and ICE. At the local level, counties and cities operate about 2,875 jail facilities in the United States. In sum, the potential consumer base of the private prison industry numbers somewhere in the area of 4,700 facilities.
After over 25 years of correctional privatization, there are fewer than 200 private correctional facilities in the United States - only about 4% of all facilities. The federal government is the most actively involved in privatization, with 16.3% of federal prisoners serving time in private facilities. State govemments are next, with 6.6% of state prisoners in private facilities. However, whereas 60% of all correctional facilities in the United States are at the local level, only about two dozen city and county jurisdictions (1.7% of the total) contract with private companies to operate their jails and detention centers. In practice there are very few buyers of privatized incarceration services, and the federal govemment is the largest single customer. Between 2000 and 200S, the number of state prisoners placed in private prisons increased by about 25%, from 75,018 to 93,537. In the federal system, however, the number increased from 15,525 to 32,712, or about 110%. During the same period, the number of states placing some portion of their prisoners in private facilities actually declined from 30 states to 27.
There are in practice only fifty-four "customers" buying incarceration services from the private prison industry - the three federal agencies, twenty-seven state departments of correction and two dozen loea! julisdictions. Within this small customer base, the federal government plus eight states (Texas, Florida, Arizona, Oklahoma, Colorado, Tennessee, California and Mississippi) collectively account for more than 70% of all private prison business. In effect, the market of buyers constitutes an oligopsony, or a market form in which only a few customers buy a certain good and therefore possess the power to affect pricing. The two largest publicly-traded private prison companies recognize their dependency on a limited number of govemmental customers as a threat to their profitability and include a warning to stockholders to that effect in their anllual reports. At eCA, just three federal government agencies, the BOP, ICE and the U.S. Marshals, accounted for 43% of the company's total revenue for fiscal year 2010, or $717.S million. The state of California, which is placing thousands of prisoners out-of-state in an effort to reduce in-state prison populations, provided 13% of CCA's total revenue for fiscal year 2010, or $214 ·million. GEO Group reports that while they have a total of 45 governmental clients (customers), 4 of those clients accounted for over 60% of their U.S.-based revenue (BOP, ICE; U.S. Marshals and the State of Florida). Among those, the three federal agencies combined are responsible for 53% of GEO Group's total U.S. revenue.
The oligopsony of governmental consumers serves to discourage innovation. In practice, government purchasers of incarceration services have required that private prison companies simply duplicate policies and procedures practiced in public prisons, to the effect that the standard operating procedures of most private prison programs closely mirror those of public prisons in lhe same state. Notably, none of the companies have distinct and viable research and development departments as would be expected in an industry that values· innovation. Private prison companies encourage the adoption of public prison practice, rather than the development of innovative practice, by actively recruiting management-level staff from within the public sector.
As a case in point, a review oflhe background of CCA's facility management staff suggests a widespread practice of mining' the public corrections system for managers. Among the wardens of 63 of the company's correctional facilities, nearly two-thirds formerly worked in state departments of correction (36 wardens) or the federal BOP (5 wardens). The most warden-rich jUrisdiction was the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, from whence 28% of all CCA wardens were recruited. These experienced staffers bring a degree of order and control to the company's private prisons, but they are not likely to be hired for their spirit of experimentation and innovation.
Arguably, private prisons are not looking to be innovative unless it is a way of cutting costs. The most common way for these companies to make money from govemment contracts is
https:llwww.prisonlegalnews.org/2383 8_displayArticle.aspx

12/15/2011

Ex VII to Lennox Dec, Pg 7 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 17 of 45 Page ID#: 855

Pnson Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

Page 6 of7

by reducing personnel expenses. Because labor represents about 80% of the operating cost of a prison, much of the cost savings in private prisons results from paying private correGtional officers less than comparable public correctional officers. But this advantage begins to erode in a market where private companies are dependent upon contract renewals (with more experienced staff) rather than new facilities (with new, entry-level staff). EVen as labor rates vary among the states, public sector correctional officer starting salaries average $28,000 across all states with a (one standard deviation) range between $23,000 and $34,200. By comparison, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports a mean annual salary of $42,270 for all occupations in the United States (in May 2008). Public sector prison staff salaries are very low already, suggesting that it is not easy for the private sector to continue to undercut the govemment in personnel costs.
Conclusion
The increasing concentration of market share among the top four companies and the declining number of companies in the incarceration services market mean that governments considering the privatization option will find a decreasing competitive environment when seeking contract bids. [n 1995, for example, a total of seven companies submitted bids in response to a Arkansas Department of Corrections request for proposals for WIfO new privately-operated prisons. In contrast, a 2006 request for proposals to manage a private prison in Pennsylvania yielded only two bidders. With market maturation and increased concentration, it is increasingly difficult for new companies to get into the business and for marginal performers to stay afloat
Oligopo[y theory and industry life cycle theory suggest that the remaining companies will be !ess competitive overall, seeking interdependent relationships with their competitors to help secure their position now that industry growth rates have cooled. As this scenario continues to unfold, any possibility of meaningful cost savings from privatization will decline over time. A recent study of private prison costs in Arizona found that this has already occurred, as the cost of incarcerating minimum-security prisoners has reached parity between state prisons and private prisons while the cost of housing medium-security prisoners is now actually lower in state prisons than in private facilities.
The private prison industry bears a fair share of the responsibility for not registering a better showing in research results. Despite the fact that it has hired away from the public sector many "best and brightestn correctional staff, the industry's penchant for financially rewarding its executives and top managers has drained resources that could have been devoted to program research and development.
Govemments have also played a role in the failure of private prisons to perform better, particularly in the area of program quality. As an oligopsony, govemments hold the power to
be more demanding in the area of performance yet have systematically failed to do so. [n the m'ain, contracting governments have simply abdicated demand for increasing program quality, settling for an illusory decrease in program costs. Given the history of "iron triangle" relationships that intertwine the private prison industry and govemment Officials, this failure is perhaps not surprising.
One of the more depressing statistics to emerge in criminal justice in recent years is the fact that two-thirds of released prisoners are re-arrested within three years. Enlightened government officials around the country have realized that they can reduce correctional expenditures only by focusing their efforts on reducing recidivism, not by building or contracting for more prison space. Government jurisdictions that are having the greatest success in reducing correctional expenditures are those that are turning to evidence-based
practice to guide sentencing decisions and devoting correctional resources toward programs
proven to reduce recidivism. Prison is not one of them. In enlightened jurisdictions, incarceration rates are beginning to decline.
As this trend continues, the private prison industry will eventually enter the fourth stagE! of the industrial life cycle - decline - and will begin shedding some of its capacity. Some companies have already sighted this trend on the horizon and have begun developing alternative business opportunities in areas such as electronic monitoring and prisoner health care. For those government agencies with heavy reliance on private prisons, decline in the industry will pose new problems as companies shed unprofitable contracts and simply walk away. Albert Einstein suggested that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. If a quarter century of experience with prison privatization has not led to better quality and cost outcomes, it is time to take a more sane approach.
Richard Culp is an Associate Professor of Public Administration at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City and the Coordinator of the Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice Management program. He is also a member of the doctoral faculty in Criminal Justice at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York and serves as Deputy Executive Officer of the CUNY Criminal Justice Doctoral Program. Professor Culp's research has been published in Justice Quarterly, Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, Criminal Justice Policy Review, The Prison Joumal and the Journal of Public Affairs Education.
This article includes new and expanded research findings previously published in "Prison Privatization Turns Twenty-five." In 1<. Ismaili (Ed.) U.S. Criminal Justice Policy: A
https;//WWW.prisonlegalnews.org/23 83 8_displayArticle.aspx

12/15/2011

Ex VII to Lennox Dec, Pg 8 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 18 of 45 Page ID#: 856
yage I or I
contemporary Reader (pp.183-209). Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers (2010).

[Secure Website]

I_I

Copyright © Prison Legal News 2011
Site designed and maintained by: AccuFind Internet Services Inc.®

https:llwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23838_displayArticle.aspx

12/15/2011

Ex VII to Lennox Dec, Pg 9 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 19 of 45 Page ID#: 857

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBITVIII
TO DECLARATION OF LUCY LENNOX
Ex VIII to Lennox Dec, Pg 1 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 20 of 45 Page ID#: 858 Ex VIII to Lennox DePcL, NPCgO2Lo_fLe9nnox_00047

h '"~ t:. .~~ .~
LLttl ld~--<~6 S s. ~ .~
SSppOO'\~~1I ~~J;*t-
qqeq t ~3

. (4;-.~~~~~~~~ -.-

.~-#. '

R~~~ r=~-L~-'~~ ~:~-> .

II- - -- -~ ~~ ~ --.-. .--.. PITNEY BOWES

$ 02 1P

000.664400

••: 0003048470 DEC 15 2011

MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 99201

,...,---.,-. .. --: 11" .

... . . ... - - -.".",.'..~ ~ "",-".~~ .' - Io .

~

~~ O 5SO ~ ccvo-~ ffft ;yr ;;...~~;_ ;))1..'.((.)J~ t{J(C.XX_~JJ;~;~ ;;;l'~__55''D'I

_ ._"" . ,..~__~_ -..JaJ:-------._..

q /)~-t V 1I /)1Yv-t C~ 4.L

po--S-- ._. -~

NN:t:t>~~<IIe£-;::

997700 44EE: 1~.

-- ',,-- II

();;1L. 1:t2./2~/~~~eall ::1L.1t

. ~ ~

RETURN TO SEENDER ATTEMPTED - NOT KNOWN
UNAS9LE TO FORWARD

°·;S7rC::::::. t~l. o·~~a~.~p~p@~S@S~~;;::444

EileC: : Sl}:3:2~CC;'J~:~3S62~44~2e

*~20022m9--O0Sag9S544--2222-- 4433

J1J, ]',1I JJ I1,11J1I1I J,,JII1I1,11JI1I1.J/ j 11,11111,11J11,1,11,1/J",ILJLJJJ LI, ,IId1L1,,1I ,,,II,I,JJIII

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 21 of 45 Page ID#: 859

Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

Page 1 of7

Logged in as: Lucy Lennox Firm: Staius: Member
IEdit Profile II·Log Out of PLN I

HQrillE

BOOK

SEARCH

ADVERTISE

SUBSCRIBE

DONATIONS

CONTACT

STORE

PLN

US

Book Review I FAQ's I Interviews I PLN tinles PLN in the News I Annual Reports I Referral Directory

VIEW CART

(cJ Articles (' List Serv Messages

I UE

Thursday, December 15,201112:22 PM The Failed Promise of Prison Privatization

[ Please visit our advertiser above J
BREAKING NEWS

by Richard Culp, PhD.
We have been experimenting with pn5()n privatization in the U.S. now for over tv.reniy-five
years. The privatization idea originated out of a notion that the private sector, with its competitlon-driven efficiency and innovation, could operate prisons of higher quality and lower cost than the public sector. Create a markei for incarceration services, the argument ran, and the market will work its magic, improving prison conditions and rehabilitative outcomes while saving the taxpayers millions of dollars. That market has effectively been created over the past quarter centUlY and we have now arrived at a place where prison privatization has been studied extensively and evaluated rigorously.

Although hyperbole continues to propel prison privatization policy along, research findings

are incontrovertible: even in the best private prisons, quality of prisoner care is no better
than .in public prisons and the cost advantage of privatization, which initially accounted for

minimal savings, is steadily eroding as the private prison industry matures.

The big promises of prison privatization -less cost, higher quality - have simply n·ot

.

to materiCjlized. Despite these disappointing results, prison privatization advocacy maintains .
traction in diverse jurisdictions as policymakers from Ohio Florida and from Maine to

California seek expedient solutions to budget shortfalls triggered ·by a lingering great

recession.

.

In retrospect, it should come as no surprise that prison privatization would fail to live up to its promises. There are several reasons for this. First, free market solutions to social problems like crime assume, after aU, tllat there are "free" markets for appropriate services. However, there is no such thing as a natural market for the services provided by private prison companies. On the contrary, the marketplace for Incarceration services is created by the government, for the government. It is an artificial market. Mimy of the services that have been privatized by government (e.g., custodial services, food preparation, medical care) are . provided by the private sector independently of the government's decision to privatize or not. There is a free market analogue for many kinds of services that govermnments routinely provide. Other fields such as education and health care, for example, have an active market of existing nonprofit and for-profit providers willing to.sell educational and healthcare services to a huge market of potential buyers that includes both individuals and governments.

The prison business is fundamentally different in that no one can freely purchase incarceration services as a private individual. There is no natural market for incarceration services. The power to incarcerate someone to hold a person against his or her will - is a defining characteristic of the state. The government holds a monopoly over the legitimate use of physical force and the power to incarcerate. Only the government has the legitimate power to restrict a citizen's liberty; individuals are prohibited by law from incarcerating another person under "false imprisonment" statutes. The government can delegate this power on a limited basis - for example, "shopkeeper's privilege" allows merchants to temporarily detain suspected shoplifters. But long-term incarceration is a different matter. The only potential buyers who can legally purchase incarceration services are the government jurisdictions that have custody over indicted, convicted or detained persons. In order to privatize iis incarceration function, the govemment has had to create a market since one does not and cannot exist without its direct intervention.

Judicial Conference Committee DiSCiplines Federal Judge for M.embership in Discriminato!), Country Club by Alex Friedmann In May 2011, PLN reported that the Sixth ...
Nationwide PLN Survey Examines Prison Phone Contracts, Kickbacks by John E. Dannenberg An exhaustive analysis of prison phone contracts nationwide has revealed that ...
Prison Legal News Interviews Former Prisoner and Famous Actor Danny Trejo Danny Trejo is one of the best-known American actors living today....
Remembering Attica Forty Years Later by Dennis Cunningham, Michael Deutsch & Elizabeth Fink This year, September 9 will mark the 40th anniversary ...
The History of Prison Legal News by Paul Wright In May 1990, the first issue of Prisoners' Legal News (PLN) was published. It ...
Twenty Years of PLN in Court Since PLN was founded in 1990 we have been censored in prisons and jails around ...
Appalling Prison and Jail Food Leaves Prisoners Hungry for Justice by David M. Reutter, Gary Hunter & Brandon Sample Prison food. The very ...
Sexual Abuse by Prison and Jail Staff Proves Persistent, Pandemic by Gary Hunter Sexual assault, rape, indecency, deviance. These terms represent reprehensible behavior ...
Judge Not: Judges Benched for Personal Misconduct by Gary Hunter & Alex Friedmann They decide hot-button topics ranging from abortion and racial discrimination ...

Secondly, the development of the private prison industry has resulted in a highly concentrated producer market where only four companies control over 90% of the incarceration services business. Economic theory tells us that when production is highly concentrated in very few companies, the market becomes an oligopoly, a market situation that is inherently less competitive and innovative than a market with more broad-based representation. An oligopoly is characterized by interdependence, av0.idance of

The Graying of America's Prisons by James Ridgeway Frank Soffen, now 70 years ord, has lived more than half his life in prison, ".

https:/l/lwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23 838_displayArticle.aspx

12115/2011

Ex VIII to Lennox Dec, Pg 3 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 22 of 45 Page ID#: 860

Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

Page 2 of7

competition and a rigid attachment to the status quo among the leading firms.
A third part of the story is that government itself unwittingiy stifles innovation in the private prison industry. Since the only legitimate customers of prison companies are the jurisdictions that can indict, convict or otherwise detain people, the potential customer base for incarceration services is very limited. In practice, this has led to a situation where only a handful of customers, an oligopsony in economic terms, has come to dominate the customer base. The limited number of customers serves to dissuade private prison companies from conducting research and development into innovative correctional programming, as the tiny customer base tends to demand only those services that mimic what the governments themselves are accustomed to providing.
Origins of the Artificial Market
Contracting out of noncustodial prison services such as medical care, food service, maintenance, education and mental health services has been practiced for a long time and with little controversy. Contracting out of custody services, for which there is no free market ana!ogue, is much more controversial. The deinstitutionalization movement in juvenile corrections during the 19705 initiated a number of experiments in privatized services and custody for juveniles. A major step toward contracted custody of adults occurred when the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the forerunner to today's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), decided in 1983 to partially outsource the detention of undocumented immigrants in its custody. In the summer of 1983~ the INS issued a request for proposals and the newly-formed Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) submitted the winning bid.

Secret Justice: Criminal Informants and America's Underground Legal System by Alexandra Natapoff I. Introduction Although it is almost invisible to the public, ...
Thou Shalt Not: Sexual Misconduct by Prison and ~ Jail Chaplains by David M. Reutter Traditionally, the
role of a chaplain in the correctional ...
Celebrity Justice: Prison Lifestyles of the Rich and ~ Famous by Matt Clarke There are two criminal
justice systems in the United States. One ...
.. Crime Labs in Crisis: Shoddy Forensics Used to Secure Convictions by Matt Clarke To millions of people whose knowledge of crime labs comes ...
.. Private Prison Companies Behind the Scenes of Arizona's Immigration Law by Beau Hodai"Beside my brothers and my sisters. I'll proudly take a ...

Likewise, the community corrections movement in the adult system involved contracting out of the custody function in many low-security adult facilities. Minnesota passed the Community Corrections Act in 1971, and 25 states followed suit with similar legislation over the next 12 years. Community corrections legislation transferred funding from state-level departments of correction to local governments which, in turn, used the funds for halfway house programs and other services for lower-level offenders. Many jurisdictions turned to private contractors to operate these facilities.
In 1986, Management and Training Corporation (MTC) secured a contract to operate a community corrections facility in Eagle Mountain, California. Also in 1986, the State of Kentucky contracted out the development and operation of a 200-bed minimum-security facility in Marion County. Another newly-formed company, the U.S. Corrections Corporation, was awarded the contract. Similarly, the U.S. Bureau of Prisons (BOP) began contracting out the operatiqn of low-security halfvvay house programs to the private sector during this time. Another early private prison company, Correction:al Services Corporation, originally Esmor Correctional Corp., began business in 1989 with two contracts from the BOP to operate halfway houses in New York City.

Medical Examiners Lack Qualifications,
. Competence, Oversight by Matt Clarke Most people will only have direct contact with a medical examiner, also known as ...
. 40% of Criminal Jurisprudence bills boost criminal penalties As has probably been the case every legislative session in living memory, bills ...
Texas Increasingly out of Step on Death Penalty By David Fathi Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle May I>- 23, 2009, 3:44PM Barring unexpected events, in the next ...

These early entrants to the incarceration services market found a political climate supportive of privatization in several states, including Kentucky', Tennessee, Texas, Florida, Arizona, New Mexico and Louisiana. By 1994 there were approximately 20 companies actively seeking contracts to either build and manage company-owned prisons or manage existing facilities owned by federal, state and local jUrisdictions.
The Supply Side of the Incarceration Services Industry
The traditional industrial life cycle model suggests that new markets move through a process marked by four stages: fragmentation, shakeout, maturity and decline. The fragmentation period occurs when the industry is new, many entrepreneurs enter the market, and they operate at low volume and tend to serve narrow geographic areas. Eventually, a shakeout period occurs. as some companies become more efficient and the less efficient ones fail to stay in business. Growth and competition are strongest during this period, as are the profits of the largest companies. The industry reaches maturity when grpwth slows and surviving companies try to solidify their positions in the industry. At some later time, the industry moves into decline as the demand for the product or service drops and companies seek new ways to recover profitability.

.. Some Agencies Balk at Releasing Prison Phone Data by Mike Rigby It is common knowledge among PLN readers that prison and jail phone ...
The Failed Promise of Prison Privatization by J- Richard Culp. Ph.D. We have been experimenting
with prison privatization in the U.S. now for over ...

The decade of the 1990s witnessed the rapid growth of prison privatization, consolidation of the industry and the cooling off of growth rates as the decade ended. The industry moved through the traditional life cycle. stages of.fragmentation to maturity during this period. The industry expeIienced tremendous growth from 1992 to 1998, averaging an increase in capacity of 36% each year. But from 1999 to 2006, growth declined to an average rate of under 4% per year. As market maturity is commonly defined as reaching a state of eqUilibrium marked by the absence of significant growth or innovation. the industry reached maturity as the new millennium began.

Tile shakeout stage of the industry is reflected in the difference between the companies doing business in 1996 and those doing business in 2011. In 1996, there were 14 companies with private prison contracts in tl1e United States. Table 1 lists these companies, their rated capacity and their market share of U.S. private prison bUSiness. A common . measure of the dominance of companies in a given market is the market concentration ratio (CR), or the percentage of total industry sales (or capacity, or employment, or value added

https:/Iwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23 838_displayArticle.aspx

12115/2011

Ex VIII to Lennox Dec, Pg 4 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 23 of 45 Page ID#: 861

Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

Page 3 of7

or physical output) contributed by the four leading firms ranked in order of market share. A market is considered to have a high CR when the four leading firms control over two-thirds of market share. a moderate concentration when the ratio falls between one-third and twothirds. and a low concentration when the top four companies control less than a third of total market share.
The four-firm market concentration ratio of the private prison industry was 86% in 1996, a significantly high level of concentration. But by the end of 2011 only seven companies remained in the private prison business, and the market share of the top four firms increased to 92% (see Table 2).
Acquisitions and Ethical Challenges
The rise in concentration ratio means that the industry as a whole has become less competitive. Five of the companies that disappeared between 1996 and 2011 (U.S. Corrections Corporation, Correctional Services Corporation, Cornell Corrections, Inc., Fenion Security, Inc. and Correctional Systems, Inc.) were acquired by larger companies. Four other firms went out of business (Bobby Ross GrouP. Capital Correctional Resources, Dove Development Corporation and Maranatha Production Company. LLC). Three newcomers, LaSalle Southwest Corrections, Louisiana Corrections Services and Emerald Companies, are smaH and regionally-based in Texas and Louisiana. A review of the ongoing concentration in the market is illustrative of shakeouts in the industry and of some of the ethically-challenged behavior that can attend to the process of profit seeking. The largest company - Corrections Corporation of America - acquired the third-ranked company, U.S. Corrections Corporation, in 1998. U.S. Corrections, based in Kentucky. had much in common with Tennessee-based CCA. Both companies were founded by entrepreneurs who were well connected with the political establishment in their state. One of CCA's founders, Thomas W. Beasley. was a former chair of the state Republican Party and managed the successful 1978 gubematorial campaign of Lamar Alexander. Honey Alexander, the governor's wife, was an early investor in CCA. U.S. Corrections Corporation, based in neighboring Louisville, did all of its business in I<entucky prior to 1995. Executives of the company contributed over $77.000 to political campaigns in the state between 1987 and 1993, including $23,000 to Govemor Wallace G. Willdnson and his wife Martha.
Clifford Todd. the CEO of U.S. Corrections, was implicated in a payoff scandal involving the company's confract to run the county jail in Louisville. He was arrested by the FBI in 1994, pleaded gUilty to mail fraud and was sentenced to 6 months in i!'lil and fined $250,000. He sold his stake in the company for $15 million in 1994. At the time of the buyoutby eCA, U.S. Corrections owned a total of four facilities in Kentucky, Ohio and North Carolina with a capacity of 5,275 beds, and had contracts to manage publicly-owned facilities'in Kentucky. Frorida and North Carolina with a capacity of 5,743 beds.
The second-largest company in 1996, Wackenhut Corrections Corporation (WCC), was formed in 1984 as a subsidiary to security firm Wackenhut Corporation, which was founded by George Wackenhut, a fonner FBI agent. Over the ensuing years, WCC grew to become one of the largest private prison companies in the world. The company began providing residential services for at-risk juveniles and young adults under the Job Corps program. WCC went public in 1994 (with Wackenhut Corporation as the majority shareholder). In 2002, the Danish company Group 4 FalCk merged with the Wackenhut Corporation and. indirectly, became the owner of 57% of WCC's stocl<. In 2003, WCC bought out Group 4 Falcl<'s interest in the company and changed its name to the GEO Group, Inc. The GEO Group acquired the industry's seventh-largest company, Correctional Services Corporation (CSC), in 2005 and Comell Corrections, the fifth-largest company, in 2010.
Founded in 1989, CSC operated under ~everal different names. including Esmor Correctional Services, Inc. The company was founded by the owners of a welfare hotel in New York City and began its prison business operating hallWay houses under contract with the BOP. CSC also managed the INS Detention Center in Elizabeth. New Jersey, remembered best for a June 1995 riot in which 300 detainees took over the facility in protest of poor conditions of confinement. Esmor staff fled from the detention center, leaving order to be restored by federal, state and local law enforcement officers. The INS closed the facility after the riot, noting that cse guards had abused detainees, gave them spoiled food and deprived them of sleep. The facility was reopened in 1997.
Later, in 2003, CSC was fined $300;000 by the New York State Lobbying Commission for failing to report free transportation, meals and gifts given to a dozen state legislators from Brooklyn and tile Bronx. The fine was the largest the state had ever imposed on a company for violating the state's lobbying laws. In May 2008, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed charges.against three Fort Lauderdale, Florida physicians, alleging insider trading in GEO Group's 2005 acquisition of CSC. According to the complaint, one of the three worked as a consultant to GEO and had a son who worked in GEO's finance department, where he allegedly learned of the pending deal. The three were charged with illegally purchasing $390,000 in CSC stock before the acquisition. Two of the defendants entered into settlement agreements while the third was cleared of the charges.
Another GEO acquisition, Cornell Corrections, Inc., had been the third-largest private prison company in 2006, with 8% of industry market share. Incorporated in 1994, the company built its business primarily with youth services and community-based rehabilitation programs for
https:llwww.prisonlegalnews.org/2383 8_displayArticle.aspx

12/15/2011

Ex VIII to Lennox Dec, Pg 5 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 24 of 45 Page ID#: 862

Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

Page 4of7

adults. Pirate Capital, LLC, a hedge fund firm, acquired a 13% interest in Cornell in 2004, becoming the company's largest shareholder, and replaced several board members and the company's CEO with financiers more oriented toward short-term growth. Pirate Capital unloaded its shares of Cornell in 2006 in the midst of an SEC investigation over its stock sales practices, several bad investment decisions and company downsizing. The company warned its stockholders in 2009 of looming problems in managing indebtedn-ess of some $303 million. GEO Group bought Cornell, along with its debt, in 2010.

Management and Training Corporation (MTC) is the third-largest company currently providing incarceration services. MTC is a privately-held Utah-registered company that gained expertise in working with at-risk young people as a major provider of Job Corps programs. The company first entered the private prison market in 1987 when it received a contract to manage the Eagle Mountain Community Correctional Facility in Desert Center, Califomia (which experienced a major riot that resulted in the deaths of tv.Jo prisoners in 2003). MTC expanded slowly and steadily since 1987 and now runs a total of 20 correctional facilities in Arizona, California, Florida, Idaho, New Mexico, Ohio and Texas.

The company's generally positive reputation as a job training provider has been tarnished by its corrections experience. In 1997, MTC hired the former director of the Utah Department of Corrections, Lane McCotter, as Director of Corrections Business Development. rv1cCotter was well connected in pro-privatization states, having served as director of both the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and the New Mexico Corrections Department before serving as the corrections head in Utah. He left the Utah DOC job in the midst of an investigation over the death of a prisoner with schizophrenia who had been shackled to a hard plastic chair for the final sixteen hours of his life.

In 2003, IvrrC's Santa Fe, New Mexico facility was under investigation by the U.S. Justice

Department for unsafe conditions and poor quality prisoner medical care while McCotter

was employed' with the company. Nonetlleless, that same year he was appointed by

Attomey General John AsllCroft to serve on a U.S. Department of Justice team

commissioned to assess and implement a plan for rebuilding Iraq's criminal justice system.

The feam's final act before leaving Iraq was to conduct a ribbon cutting ceremony at the

refurbished Abu Ghraib prison. a centerpiece of their corrections planning.

Although the facility was empty when McCotter left Iraq, the work of the committee of

experts was indelibly stained by the infamous events that subsequently occurred at the

plison and from on-going human rights abuse allegations in prisons under tile direct

supervision of other committee members.

.

MTC was also involved in a failed experiment in prison..privatization in Canada. In 2001, the company won a five-year contract to operate the Central North Correctional Centre (CNCC) in Ontario as part of a pilot project to compare operations of the CNCC facility with a similar publicly-run prison, the Central East Correctional Centre. The government hired PricewaterhouseCoopers to evaluate the two prisons across a variety of dimensions. The evaluation found that the public prison outperformed the MTC facility overall. While the MTC prison was cheaper to operate and provided a greater variety of programming than the government facility, the public prison rated significantly better on security, recidivism rates, health care and communi1.y impact. Based on the results of the experiment, Ontario decided to turn management of the privatized facility over to the public sector.

Community Education Centers (CEC), incorporated in 1996, rounds out the quartet of companies that control 92% of the current incarceration services market. Like MTC, CEC is a privately-held company whose tlnances and governance structure are much less transparent than is the case with publicly-held companies. Until a few years ago, CEC's business was concentrated in providing community-based residential, re-entry and_ rehabilitative services to offenders, mostly in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, but the company moved into the secure incarceration services business with its acquisition of CiviGenics in 2007.

CiviGenics was founded in 1995 in Marlboro, MA by Roy Ross. the former president of Spectrum Health Systems, Inc., a nonprofit company that provided drug and alcohol treatment services for prisoners in the Massachusetts Department of Corrections. Ross arranged a contract for CiviGenics to provide management of Spectrum's Massachusetts inprison treatment programs. In 1996, CiviGenics acquired Fenton Security, Inc., a small company that had management contracts to operate two county jails in Colorado. Tom Rapone, a fonner Secretary of Public Safety in Massachusetts, joined CiviGenics as the firm's Chief Operating Officer. CiviGenics expanded its secure custody operations and by 1998 operated several small jail.facilities, employed more than 1,000 staff and had revenues of more than $30 million.

In July 1999, the·Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction CODRC) awarded CiviGenics a $14.9 million contract to operate the newly-built North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility (NCCTF) in Grafton. However, the ODRC elected not to renew its contract with CiviGenics when the contract expired in July 2001, citing problems with high staff turnover (including five different wardens in its first 18 montlls), repeated failure to maintain minimum staffing levers and problems with over-billing the state for positions that remained uncovered. The ODRC subsequently awarded the contract to MTC, which continues to operate the NCCTF facility.

https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/23838_displayArticle.aspx

12/1512011

Ex VIII to Lennox Dec, Pg 6 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 25 of 45 Page ID#: 863

Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

Page 50f7

In 2004, the Massachusetts State Auditor completed an audit that found Spectrum Health Systems had misused $17.4 million in state money, with $10.2 million ofthe total amount involving excessive payments to CiviGenics. The matter was settled in January 2007 in an agreement that required CiviGenics to repay the state $3.4 million and Roy Ross to repay $650,000. With its acquisition of CiviGenics in 2007, CEC became the fourth largest private prison company in the U.S.
The Demand Side of the Incarceration Services Industry
The demand side of prison privatization, like the oligopoly of private prison companies, is also highly concentrated. The potential customers in the private prison market are government agencies at the federal, state and localleve\ that operate jail, prison and detention programs. At the federal level, the Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Marshals Service and Immigration and Customs Enforcement all manage a variety of custody facilities. The four branches of the military also operate facilities for military personnel sentenced under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Of course, the 50 states and the District of Columbia each have departments of correction.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there are some 1,821 state and federal correctional facilities, not counting facilities operated by the U~S. Marshals Service and ICE. At the local level, counties and cities operate about 2,875 jail facilities in the United States. In sum, the potential consumer base of the private prison industry numbers somewhere in the area of 4,700 facilities.
After over 25 years of correctional privatization, there are fewer than 200 private correctional facilities in the United States - only about 4% of all facilities. The federal government is the mostaciively involved in privatization, with 16.3% offederal prisoners·serving time in private facilities. State governments are next, with 6.6% of state prisoners in private facilities. However, whereas 60% of all correctional facilities in the United States are at the local level, only about two dozen city and county jurisdictions (1.7% of the total) contract with private companies to operate their jails and detention centers. In practice there are very few buyers of privatized incarceration services, and the federal government is the largest single customer. Between 2000 and 2008, the number of state prisoners placed in private prisons increased by about 25%, from 75,018 to 93,537. In the federal system, however, the number increased from 15,525 to 32,712, or about 110%. During the same period, tile number of states placing some portion of their prisoners in private facilities actually declined from 30 states to 27.
There are in practice only fifty-four "customers" buying incarceration services from the private prison industry - the three federal agencies, twenty-seven state departments of correction and two dozen local jurisdictions. Within this small customer base, the federal government plus eight states (Texas, Florida, Arizona, Oklahoma, Colorado, Tennessee, California and Mississippi) collectively account for more than 70% of all private prison business. In effect, the market of buyers constitutes an oligopsony, .or a market form in which only a few customers buy a certain good and therefore possess the power to affect pricing. The two largest publicly-traded private prison companies recognize their dependency on a limited number of govemmental customers as a threat to their profitability and include a warning to stockholders to that effect in their annual reports. At CCA, just three federal government agencies, the BOP, ICE and the U.S. Marshals, accounted for 43% of the company's total revenue for fiscal year 201 0, or $717.8 million. The state of California, which is placing thousands of prisoners out-of-state in an effort to reduGe in-state prison populations, provided 13% of CCA's total revenue for fiscal year 2010, or $214 ·million. GEO Group reports that while they have a total of 45 governmental clients (customers), 4 of those clients accounted for over 60% of their U.S.-based revenue (BOP, rCE, U.S. Marshals and the State of Florida). Among those, the three federal agencies combined are responsible for 53% of GEO Group's total U.S. revenue.
The oligopsony of governmental consumers serves to discourage innovation. In practice, government purchasers of incarceration services have required that private prison companies simply duplicate pOlicies and procedures practiced in public prisons, to the effect that the standard operating procedures of most private prison programs closely mirror those of public prisons in ·the same state. Notably, none of the companies have distinct and viable research and development departments as would be expected in an industry that values innovation. Private prison companies encourage the adoption of public prison practice, rather than the development of innovative practice, by actively recruiting management-level staff from within the public sector.
As a case in point, a review of the background of CCA's facility management staff suggests a widespread practice of mining' the public corrections system for managers. Among the wardens of 63 of the company's correctional facilities, nearly two-thirds formerly worked in state departments of correction (36 wardens) or the federal BOP (5 wardens). The most warden-rich jurisdiction was the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, from whence 28% of aU CCA wardens were recruited. These experienced staffers bring a degree of order and control to the company's private prisons, but they are not likely to be hired for their spirit of experimentation and innovation.
Arguably, private prisons are not looking to be innovative unless it is a way of cutting costs. The most common way for these companies to make money from government contracts is
https:/Iwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23 83 8_displayAliicle.aspx

12115/2011

Ex VIII to Lennox Dec, Pg 7 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 26 of 45 Page ID#: 864

Pnson Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

Page 6 of7

by reducing personnel expenses. Because labor represents about 80% of the operating cost of a prison, much of the cost savings in private prisons results from paying private correctional officers less than comparable public correctional officers. But this advantage begins to erode in a market where private companies are dependent upon contract renewals (with more experienced staff) rather than new facilities (with new, entry-revel staff). Even as labor rates vary among the states, public sector correctional officer starting salaries average $28,000 across all states with a (one standard deviation) range between $23,000 and $34,200. By comparison, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports a mean annual salary of $42,270 for all occupations in the United States (in May 2008). Public sector prison staff salaries are very low already, suggesting that it is not easy for the private sector to continue to undercut the govemment in personnel costs.

Conclusion

The increasing concentration of market share among the top four companies and the
declining number of companies in the incarceration services market mean that governments considering the privatization option will find a decreasing competitive environment when seeking contract bids. In 1995, for e)(8mple, a total of seven companies submitted bids in
response to a Arkansas Department of Corrections request for proposals for tvi/O new privately-operated prIsons. In contrast, a 2006 request for proposals to manage a private prison in Pennsylvania yielded only two bidders. With market maturation and increased concentration, it is increasingly difficult for new companies to get into the business and for
marginal performers to stay afloat.

Oligopoly theory and industry life cycle thepry suggest that the remaining companies will be less competitive overall, seeking interdependent relationships with their competitors to help
seCUfe their position now that industry growth rates have cooled. As this scenario continues
to unfold, any possibility of meaningful cost savings from privatization will decline over time.
A recent study of private prison costs in Arizona found that this has already occurred, as the cost of incarcerating minimum-security prisoners has reached parity between state prisons and private prisons while the cost of housing medium-security prisoners is now actually
lower in state prisons than in private facilities.

The private prison industry bears a fair share of the responsibility for not registering a better showing in research results. Despite the fact that it has hired away from the public sector many "best and blightest» correctional staff, the industry's penchant for financially rewarding its executives and top managers has drained resources that could have been devoted to program research and development.
Governments have also played a role in the failure of private prisons to perform better,
particularly in the area of program quality. As an oligopsony, governments hold the power to be more demanding in the area of performance yet have systematically failed to do so. rn the m"ain, contracting governments have simply abdicated demand for increasing program quality, settling for an illusory decrease in program costs. Given the history of "iron trianglen relationships that intertwine the private prison industry and government officials, this failure is perhaps not surprising.

One of the more depressing statistics to emerge in criminal justice in recent years is the fact that tI.'lIo-thirds of released prisoners are fe-arrested within three years. Enlightened government officials around the country have realized that they can reduce correctional expenditures only by focusing their efforts on reducing recidivism. not by building or contracting for more prison space. Government jurisdictions that are having the greatest success in reducing correctional expenditures are those that are turning to evidence-based
practice to guide sentencing decisions and devoting correctional resources toward programs
proven to reduce recidivism. Plison is nbt one of them. In enlightened jurisdictions, incarceration rates are beginning to decline.

As this trend continues, the private prison industry will eventually enter the fourth stage of the industrial life cycle - decline - and will begin shedding some of its capacity. Some companies have already sighted this trend on the horizon and have begun developing alternative business opportunities in areas such as electTOnic monitoring and prisoner health
care. For those government agencies with heavy reliance on private prisons, decline in the
industry will pose new problems as companies shed unprofitable contracts and simply walk away. Albert Einstein suggested that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting dffferent results. If a quarter century of experience with prison privatization has not led to better quality and cost outcomes, it is time to take a more sane approach.

Richard Culp is an Associate Professor of Public Administration at John Jay College of

Criminal Justice in New Yorl< City and the Coordinator of the Bachelor of Science in Criminal

Justice Management program. He is also a member of the doctoral faculty in Criminal

Justice at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York and serves as Deputy

Executive Officer of the CUNY Criminal Justice Doctoral Program. Professor Culp's

research has been published in Justice Quarterly, Journal of Contemporary Criminal

Justice, Criminal Justice Policy Review, The Prison Journal and the Journal of Public Affairs

E;ducation.

"

"

This article includes new and expanded research findings previously published in "Prison
Privatization Turns Twenty-five.n In 1<. Ismaili (Ed.) U.S. Criminal Justice Policy: A

https;/lwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23838_displayArticle.aspx

12/15/2011

PLNCOL_Lennox 00053
Ex VIII to Lennox Dec, Pg 8 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 27 of 45 Page ID#: 865 rage I or I
Contemporary Reader (pp.183-209). Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers (2010).

[Secure Website)

Copyright © Prison Legal News 2011 Site designed and maintained by: AccuFind Internet Services Inc.®

https:llwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23 83 8_displayArticle.aspx

12/15/2011

Ex VIII to Lennox Dec, Pg 9 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 28 of 45 Page ID#: 866

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBIT I
TO DECLARATION OF LUCY LENNOX
Ex IX to Lennox Dec, Pg 1 of 9

I

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 29 of 45 Page ID#: 867

-:t V)

0 Q..-

~ (l'"'
g (S'""'
t. -
:; rJ) J1

C)o
rb

~¥-J
41d-~ - ~. '~~
SfO\~( l1J~ '\ C( ~~

~

f)

W2S
~0".". ~2' 0
1L=u0f-
,«2

e}t1-fj; POs~ .

e~~-'''''''' z::>

I ~---~ PITNEY BOWES

~ , It. MPTE ATTE

~ 02 1P $ 000.640

NOT KNOWNr

0003048470 DEC 15 2011 MAILED FROM ZIPCODE99201

:/J
f
t ~ .
:=::: :
I

-~--~ .............,

·j,HHdl ;);;,; '

2~"i;.'.~ieT~~~d- ~~ ~ '\::,L "-I~
b6

~ ~~ r901l 0D /'b.4/

=t '0

. . . . ' ....".,-..... - ""'~.-

'~' ----';------

$-+ t+~ t O~ 97'OS I "NK

1$:1
_:.,.J
"',I..,,..,
!+.
... ~!
1.':1 , I•'··•1• I'" IJ'!
, I
I'
~
t , J
Ex IX to Lennox DePcL, NPCgO2Lo_fLe9nnox_00112

"' .. '~~' ~ .~ ,~ -

~ a37C:~a aj.. 1-:::.;:;.i..;

- 4\i'B\H~m'!lAI' I Hln"n,ntll!!1m. j.,\trr! I ,,\\.,.:\40

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 30 of 45 Page ID#: 868

Pris9P Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

Page 1 of7

Logged in as: Lucy Lennox Finn: Status: Member
I I I Edit Profile flOg Out of PlN

HOME

BOOK

SEARCH

ADVERTISE

SUBSCRIBE DONATIONS

CONTACT

STORE

PLN

US

Book Review I FAQ's I Interviews I PLN links I PlN in the News I Annual Reports I Referral Directory

VIEW CART

ra Articles r List Serv Messages

FR EI UE

Thursday. Decembe~ 15,201112:22 PM

The Failed Promise of Prison Privatization

[ Please visit our advertiser above} BREAKING NEWS

by Richard Gulp, Ph.D.
We have been experimenting with prison privatization in the U.S. now for over twenty-five years. The privatization idea originated out of a notion that the private sector, with its competition-driven efficiency and innovation, could operate prisons of higher quality and lower cost than the public sector. Create a market for incarceration services, the argument ran, and the market will work its magic, improving prison conditions and rehabifitative outcomes while saving the taxpayers millions of doflars. That market has effectively been created over the past quarter century and we have now arrived at a place where prison privatization has been studied extensively and evaluated rigorously.

Judicial Conference Committee Disciplines Federal Judge for Membership in DiSCriminatory Country Club by Alex Friedmann In May 2011, PLN reported that the Sixth ...
Nationwide PlN Survey Examines Prison Phone Contracts, Kickbacks by John E. Dannenberg An exhaustive analysis of prison phone contracts nationwide has revealed that ...

Although hyperbole continues to propel prison privatization policy along, research findings are incontrovertible: even in the best private prisons, quality of prisoner care is no better than in public prisons and the cost advantage of privatization, which initially accounted for minimal savings, is steadily eroding as the private prison industry matures. The big promises of prison privatization - less cost, higher quality - have simply not materialized. Despite these disappointing results, prison privatization ad"ocacy maintains .' traction in diverse jurisdictions as policymakers from Ohio to Florida and from Maine to California seek expedient solutions to budget shortfalls triggered by a lingering great recession.
In retrospect, it should come as no surprise that pilson privatization would fail to live up to its promises. There are several reasons -for this. First, free'market solutions to social problems lIke crime assume, after all, that there are "free" markets for appropriate services. However, there is no such thing as a natural market for the services provided by private prison companies. On the contrary, the marketplace for incarceration services is created by the government, for the government. It is an artificial market. Many of the services that have been privatized by government (e.g., custodial services, food preparation, medical care) are provided by the private sector independently of the government's decision to privatize or not There is a free market analogue for many kinds of services that.govemments routinely provide. Other fields sllch as education and health care, for example', have an active marl<et of existing nonprofit and for-profit providers willing to self educational and healthcare servicesto a huge market of potential buyers that includes both individuals and governments.
The prison business is fundamentally different in that no one can freely purchase incarceration services as a private individual. There is no natural market for incarceration services. The power to incarcerate someone - to hold a person against his or her will - is a defining characteristic of the state. The government Ilolds a monopoly over the legitimate use of physical force and the power to incarcerate. Only the government has the legitimate power to restrict a citiz.en's liberty; individuals are prohibited by law from incarcerating another person under "false imprisonmentn statutes. The government can delegate this power on a limited basis - for example, "shopkeeper's privilege" allows merchants to temporarily detain suspected shoplifters. But long-term incarceration is a different matter. The only potential buyers Who can legally purchase incarceration selVices are the government jurisdictions that have custody over indicted, convicted or detained persons. In order to privatize its incarceration function, the govemment has had to create a market since one does not and cannot exist without its direct intervention.

Prison Legal News Interviews Fonner Prisoner and Famous Actor Danny Trejo Danny Trejo is one of the best-known American actors living today....
Remembering Attica Forty Years Later by Dennis Cunningham, Michael Deutsch & Elizabeth Fink This year, September 9 will mark the 40th anniversary ...
The History of Prison Legal News by Paul Wright In May 1990, the first issue of Prisoners' Legal News (PLN) was published. It '..
Twenty Years of PlN in Court Since PLN was founded in 1990 we have been censored in prisons and jails around ...
Appalling Prison and Jail Food Leaves Prisoners Hungry for Justice by David M. Reutter, Gary Hunter & Brandon Sample Prison food. The very ...
Sexual Abuse by Prison and Jail Staff Proves Persistent, Pandemic by Garl)y' Hunter Sexual assault, rape, indecency, deviance. These tenns represent reprehensible behavior ...
Judge Not Judges Benched for Personal Misconduct by Garl)y' Hunter & Alex Friedmann They decide hot-button topiCS ranging from abortion and racial discrimination ...

Secondly, the development of the private prison industry has resulted in a highly concentrated producer market where only four companies control over 90% of the incarceration services business. Economic theory tells us that when production is highly
concentrated in very few companies. the market becomes an oligopoly, a market situation that is inherently less competitive and innovative than a market with more broad-based
representation. An oligopoly is characterized by interdependence, avoidance of

The Graying of America's Prisons by James Ridgeway Frank Soffen, now 70 years old, has lived more than half his life in prison, ...

https:/Iwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23 83 8_displayArticle.aspx

12115/2011

Ex IX to Lennox Dec, Pg 3 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 31 of 45 Page ID#: 869

rnson Lega.l.l'leWS - Legal arnCles, cases ana coun aeClslOns

Yage L or /

competition and a rigid attachment to the status quo among the leading firms.
A third part of the story is that govemment itself unwittingiy stifles innovation in the private prison industry. Since the only legitimate customers of prison companies are the jurisdictions that can indict, convict or otherwise detain people, the potential customer base for incarceration services is very limited. In practice, this has led to a situation where only a handful of customers, an oligopsony in economic terms, has come to dominate the customer base. The limited number of customers serves to dissuade private prison companies from conducting research and development into innovative correctional programming, as the tiny customer base tends to demand only those services that mimic what the govemments themselves are accustomed to providing.
Origins of the Artificial Market
Contracting out of noncustodial prison services such as medical care, food service, maintenance, education and mental health services has been practiced for a long time and with little controversy. Contracting out of custody services, for which there is no free market analogue, is much more controversial. The deinstitutionalization movement in juvenile corrections during the 19705 initiated a number of experiments in privatized services and custody for juveniles. A major step toward contracted custody of adults occurred when the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the forerunner to today's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), decided in 1983 to partially outsource the detention of undocumented immigrants in its custody. In the summer of 1983, the INS issued a request for proposals and the newly-formed Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) submitted the winning bid.

Secret Justice: Criminallnfonnants and America's Underground Legal System by Alexandra Natapoff I. Introduction Although it is almost invisible to the public, ...
.. Thou Shalt Not: Sexual Misconduct by Prison and Jail Chaplains by David M. Reutter Traditionally, the role of a chaplain in the correctional,..
.. Celebrity Justice: Prison Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous by Matt Clarke There are two criminal justice systems in the United States. One '"
.. Crime Labs in Crisis: Shoddy Forensics Used to Secure Convictions by Matt Clarke To millions of people whose knowledge of crime labs comes .,.
.. Private Prison Companies Behind the Scenes of Arizona's Immigration Law by Beau Hodai"Beside my brothers and my sisters, I'll proudly take a ...

Likewise, the community corrections movement in the adult system involved contracting out of the custody function in many low-security adult facilities. Minnesota passed tile Community Corrections Act in 1971, and 25 states followed suit with similar legislation over the next 12 years. Community corrections legislation transferred funding from state-Ieve! departments of correction to local governments which, in tum, used the funds for halfway house programs and other services for lower-level offenders. Many jurisdictions turned to private contractors to operate these facilities.
In 1986, Management and Training Corporation (MTC) secured a contract to operate a community corrections facility in Eagle Mountain, California. Also in 1986, the State of Kentucky contracted out the development and operation of a 200-bed minimum-security facility in Marion County. Another newly-formed company, the U.S. Corrections Corporation, was awarded the contract. Similarly, the U.S. Bureau of Prisons (BOP) began contracting out the operation of low-security halfway house programs to the private sector during this time. Another early private prison company, Correctional Services Corporation, originally Esmor Correctional Corp., began business in 1989 with two contracts from the BOP to operate halfway houses in New York City.

Medical Examiners Lack Qualifications,
. Competence, Oversight by Matt Clarke Most people will only have direct contact with a medical examiner, also known as ".
.. 40% of Criminal Jurisprudence bills boost criminal penalties As has probably been the case every legislative session in living memory, bills ...
Texas Increasingly out of Step on Death Penalty By
.. David Fathi Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle May 23, 2009, 3:44PM Barring unexpected events, in the next ...

These ealiy entrants to the incarceration services market found a political climate supportive of privatization in several states, including Kentucky', Tennessee, Texas, Florida, Arizona, New Mexico and Louisiana. By 1994 there were approximately 20 companies actively seeking contracts to either build and manage company-owned prisons or manage existing facilities owned by federal, state and local jurisdictions.
The Supply Side of the Incarceration Services Industry
The traditional industrial life cycle model suggests that new markets move through a process marked by four stages: fragmentation, shakeout, maturity and decline. The fragmentation period occurs when the industry is new, many entrepreneurs enter the market, and they operate at low volume and tend to serve narrow geographic areas. Eventually, a shakeout period occurs as some cqmpanies become more efficient and the less efficient ones fail to stay in bUsiness. Growth and competition are strongest during this period, as are the profits of the largest companies_ The industry reaches maturity when growth slows and surviving companies try to solidify their positions in the industry. At some later time, the industry moves into decline as the demand for the product or service drops and companies seek new ways to recover profitability,

. Some Agencies Balk at Releasing Prison Phone Data by Mike Rigby It is common knowledge among PLN readers that prison and jail phone ...
.. The Failed Promise of Prison Privatization by Richard Culp, Ph.D. We have been experimenting with prison privatization in the U.S. now for over ...

The decade of the 1990s witnessed the rapid growth of prison privatization, consolidation of the industry and the 'cooling off of growth rates as the decade ended. The industry moved
through the traditional life cycle stages of.fragmentation to maturity during this period. The industry experienced tremendous growth from 1992 to 1998, averaging an increase in capacity of 36% each year. But from 1999 to 2006, growth declined to an average rate of under 4% per year. As market maturity is commonly defined as reaching a state of eqUilibrium marked by the absence of significant growth or innovation, the industry reached maturity as the new millennium began.

The shakeout stage of the industry is reflected in the difference between the companies doing business in 1996 and those doing business in 2011. In 1996, there were 14 companies with private prison contracts in the United States. Table 1 lists these companies, their rated capacity and their market share of U.S. private prison business. A common measure of the dominance of companies in a given market is tile market concentration ratio (CR), or the percentage of total industry sales {or capacily, or employment, or value added

https:llwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23838_displayArticle.aspx

12115/2011

Ex IX to Lennox Dec, Pg 4 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 32 of 45 Page ID#: 870

Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

Page 3 of7

or physical output) contributed by the four leading firms ranked in order of market share. A market is considered to have a high CR when the four leading firms control over tvvo-thirds
of market share, a moderate concentration when the ratio falls between one-third and tvvo-
thirds, and a low concentration when the top four companies control less than a third of total market share.
The four-firm market concentration ratio of the private prison industry was 86% in 1996, a significantly high level of concentration. But by the end of 2011 only seven companies remained in the private prison business, and the market share of the top four firms increased to 92% (see Table 2).
Acquisitions and Ethical Challenges
The rise in concentration ratio means that the industry as a whole has become less competitive. Five of the companies that disappeared between 1996 and 2011 (U.S. Corrections Corporation, Correctional Services Corporation, Cornell Corrections, Inc., Fenion Security, Inc. and Correctional Systems, Inc.) were acquired by larger companies. Four other firms went out of business (Bobby Ross Group, Capital Correctional Resources, Dove Development Corporation and Maranatha Production Company, LLC). Three newcomers, LaSalle Southwest Corrections, Louisiana Corrections Services and Emerald Companies, are small and regionally-based in Texas and Louisiana. A review of the ongoing concentration in the market is illustrative of shakeouts in the industry and of some of the ethically-challenged behavior that can attend to the process of profit seeking. The largest company - Corrections Corporation of America - acquired the third-ranked company, U.S. Corrections Corporation, in 1998. U.S. Corrections, based in Kentecky, had much in common withTennessee-based CCA. Both companies were founded by entrepreneurs who were well connected with the political establishment in their state. One of CGA's founders, Thomas W. Beasley, was a fonner chair of the state Republican Party and managed the successful 1978 gubernatorial campaign of Lamar Alexander. Honey Alexander, the governors wife, was an early investor in CCA. U.S. Corrections Corporation, based in neighboring Louisville, did all of its business in Kentucky prior to 1995. Executives of the company contributed over $77,000 to political campaigns in the state between 1987 and 1993, including $23,000 to Governor Wallace G. Wilkinson and his wife Martha.
Clifford Todd, the CEO of U.S. Corrections, was implicated in a payoff scandal involving the company's contract to run the county jail in Louisville. He was arrested by the FBI in 1994, pleaded guilty to mail fraud and was sentenced to 6 months in jpil and fine(j $250,000. He sold his stake in the company for $15 million in 1994. At the time of the buyout by CCA, U.S. Corrections owned a total of four facilities in Kentucky, Ohio and North Carolina with a capacity of 5,275 beds, and had contracts to manage publicly-owned facilities in Kentucky, Fforida and North Carolina with a capacity of 5,743 beds.
The second-largest company in 1996, Wackenhut Corrections Corporation (WCC), was formed in 1984 as a subsidiary to security firm Wackenhut Corporation, which was founded
by George Wac!<enhut, a former FBI agent. Over the ensuing years, wee grew to become
one of the largest private prison companies in the world. The company began providing residential services for at-risk juveniles and young adults under the Job Corps program. WCC went public in 1994 (with Wackenhut Corporation as the majority shareholder). In 2002, the Danish company Group 4 Falck merged with the Wackenhut Corporation and, indirectly, became the owner of 57% of WCC's stocl<. In 2003, WCC bought out Group 4 Falck's interest in the company and changed its name to the GEO Group, Inc. The GEO Group acquired the industry's seventh-largest company, Correctional Services Corporation (CSC), in 2005 and Cornell Corrections, the fifth-largest company, in 2010.
Founded in 1989, CSC operated under $everal different names, including Esmor Correctional Services, Inc. The company was founded by the owners of a welfare hotel in New York City and began its prison business operating halfway houses under contract with the BOP. CSC also managed the INS Detention Center in Elizabeth, New Jersey, remembered best for a June 1995 riot in which 300 detainees tool< over the facility in protest of poor conditions of confinement. Esmor staff fled from the detention center, leaving order to be restored by federal, state and local law enforcement officers. The INS closed the facility after the riot, noting that CSC guards had abused detainees, gave them spoiled food and deprived them of sleep. The faciiity was reopened in 1997.
Later, in 2003, CSC was fined $300,000 by the New York State Lobbying Commission for failing to report free transportation, meals and gifts given to a dozen state legislators from Brooklyn and the Bronx. The nne was the largest the state had ever imposed on a company for violating the state's lobbying laws. In May 2008, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed charges.against three Fort Lauderdale, Florida physicians, alleging insider trading in GEO Group's 2005 acquisition of CSC. According to the complaint, one of the three worked as a consultant to GEO and had a son who worked in GEO's finance department, where he allegedly learned of the pending deal. The three were charged with illegally purchasing $390,000 in CSC stock before the acquisition. Two of the defendants entered into settlement agreements while the third was cleared of the charges.
Another GEO acquisition, Cornell Corrections, Inc., had been the third-largest private prison company in 2006, with 8% of industry market share. Incorporated in 1994, the company built its business primarily with youth services and community-based rehabilitation programs for
htips:llwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23838_displayArticle.aspx

1211512011

Ex IX to Lennox Dec, Pg 5 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 33 of 45 Page ID#: 871

r U;::;Vll Lt;gi:t1 1'1t;W::; - Lt;gi::11 i::1rLIClti::;, Ci::1StiS auu cuurt Ut::CISIOns

Yage 4 or I

adults. Pirate Capital, LLC, a hedge fund finn, acquired a 13% interest in Cornell in 2004, becoming the company's largest shareholder, and replaced several board members and the company's CEO with financiers more oriented toward short-term growth. Pirate Capital unloaded its shares of Cornell in 2006 in the midst of an SEC investigation over its stock sales practices, several bad investment decisions and company downsizing. The company warned its stockholders in 2009 of looming problems in managing indebtedness of some $303 million. GED Group bought Cornell, along with its debt, in 2010.
Management and Training Corporation (MTC) is the third-largest company currently providing incarceration services. MTC is a privately-held Utah-registered company that gained expertise in working with at-risk young people as a major provider of Job Corps programs. The company first entered the private prison market in 1987 when it received a contract to manage the Eagle Mountain Community Correctional Facility in Desert Center, California (which experienced a major riot that resulted in the deaths of two prisoners in 2003). MTC expanded slowly and steadily since 1987 and now runs a total of 20 correctional facilities in Arizona, California, Florida, Idaho, New Mexico, Ohio and Texas.
The company's generally positive reputation as a job training provider has been tarnished
as by its corrections experience. In 1997, MTC hired the former director of the Utah
Department of Corrections, Lane McCotter, Director of Corrections Business Development. McCotter was well connected in pro-privatization states, having served as director of both the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and the New Mexico Corrections Department before serving as the corrections head in Utah. He left the Utah DOC job in the midst of an investigation over the death of a prisoner with schizophrenia who had been shackled to a hard plastic chair for the final sixteen hours of his life.
In 2003, fvITC's Santa Fe, New Mexico facility was under investigation by the U.S. Justice Department for unsafe conditions and poor quality prisoner medical care while McCotter was employed' with the company. Nonetheless, that same year he was appointed by Attorney General John Ashcroft to serve on a U.S. Department of Justice team commissioned to assess and implement a plan for rebuilding Iraq's criminal justice system. The team's final act before leaving Iraq was to conduct a ribbon cutting ceremony at the refurbished Abu Ghraib prison, a centerpiece of their corrections planning. Although the facility was empty when McCotter left Iraq, the work of the committee of experts was indelibly stained by the infamous events that subsequently occurred at the plison and from on-going human rights abuse allegations in prison~ under the direct supervision of other committee members.
MTC was also involved in a failed experiment in prison..privatization in Canada. In 2001, the company won a five-year contract to operate the Central North Correctional Centre (CNCC) in Ontario as part of a pilot project to compare operations of the CNCC facility with a similar publicly-run prison, tile Central East Correctional Centre. The government hired PricewaterhouseCoopers to evaluate the two prisons across a variety of dimensions. The evaluation found that the public prison outperformed the MTC facility overall. Wllile tile MTC prison was cheaper to operate and provided a greater variety of programming than the government facility, the public prison rated significantly better on security, recidivism rates, health care and community impact. Based on the results of the experiment, Ontario decided to turn management of the privatized facility over to the public sector.
Community Education Centers (CEC), incorporated in 1996, rounds out the quartet of companies that control 92% of the current incarceration services market. Like MTC, CEC is a privately-held company whose finances and governance structure are much less transparent than is' the case with publicly-held companies. Until a few years ago, CEC's business was concentrated in providing community-based residential, re-entry and rehabilitative services to offenders, mostly in New Jersey anq Pennsylvania, but the ·company moved into the secure incarceration services business with its acquisition of CiviGenics in 2007.
CiviGenics was founded in 1995 in Marlboro, MA by Roy Ross, the former president of Spectrum Health Systems, Inc., a nonprofit company that provided drug and alcohol treatment services for prisoners in the Massachusetts Department of Corrections. Ross arranged a contract for CiviGenics to provide management of Spectrum's Massachusetts inprison treatment programs. In 1996, CiviGenics acquired Fenton Security, Inc., a small company that had management contracts to operate two county jails in Colorado. Tom Rapone, a former Secretary of Public Safety in Massacl1usetts, joined CiviGenics as the firm's Chief Operating Officer. CiviGenics expanded its secure custody operations and by 1998 operated several small jail.facilities, employed more than 1,000 staff and had revenues of more than $30 million.
In July 1999, the·Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction CODRC) awarded CiviGenics a $14.9 million contract to operate the newly-built North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility (NCCTF) in Grafton. However, the ODRC elected not to renew its contract with CiviGenics when the contract expired in July 2001 , citing problems with high staff turnover (including five different wardens in its first 18 months), repeated failure to maintain minimum staffing levers and problems with over-billing the state for positions that remained uncovered. The ODRC subsequently awarded the contract to MTC, which continues to operate the NCCTF facility.
https:/Iwww.prisonlegalnews.org/2383 8_displayArticle.aspx

12115/2011

Ex IX to Lennox Dec, Pg 6 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 34 of 45 Page ID#: 872
.t'age) 01"1

In 2004, the Massachusetts State Auditor completed an audit that found Spectrum Health Systems had misused $17.4 million in state money, with $10.2 million ofthe total amount involving excessive payments to CiviGenics. The matter was settled in January 2007 in an agreement that required CiviGenics to repay the state $3.4 million and Roy Ross to repay $650,000. With its acquisition of CiviGenics in 2007, CEC became the fourth largest private prison company in the U.S.
The Demand Side of the Incarceration Services Industry
The demand sIde of prison privatization, like the oligopoly of private prison companies, is also highly concentrated. The potential customers in the private prison market are government agencies at the federal, state and !ocallevel that operate jail, prison and detention programs. At the federal level, the Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Marshals Service and Immigration and Customs Enforcement all manage a variety of custody facilities. The four branches of the military also operate facilities for military personnel sentenced under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Of course, the 50 states and the District of Columbia each have departments of correction.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there are some 1,821 state and federal correctional facilities, not counting facililies operated by the U:S. Marshals Service and ICE. At the !ocallevel, counties and cities operate about 2,875 jail facilities in the United States. In sum, the potential consumer base of the private prison industry numbers somewhere in the area of 4,700 facilities.
After over 25 years of correctional privatization, there are fewer than 200 private correctional facilities in the United States - only about 4% of all facilities. The federal government is the most actively involved in privatization, with 16.3% of federal prisoners serving time in private facilities. State govemments are next, with 6.6% of state prisoners in pJivate facilities. However, whereas 60% of all correctional facilities in the United States are at the local level, only about two dozen city and county jurisdictions (1.7% of the total) contract with private companies to operate their jails and detention centers. In practice there are very few buyers of privatized incarceration services, and the federal government is the largest single customer. Between 2000 and 2008, the number of state prisoners placed in private prisons increased by about 25%, from 75,018 to 93,537. In the federal system, however, the number increased from 15,525 to 32,712, or about 110%. During the same period, the number of states placing some portion of their prisoners in private facilities actually declined from 30 states to 27.
There are in practice only fifty-four ucustomers" buying incarceration services from the private prison industry - the three federal agencies, twenty-seven state departments of correction and two dozen local jurisdictions. Within this small customer base, the federal government plus eight states (Texas, Florida, Arizona, Oklahoma, Colorado, Tennessee, Califomia and Mississippi) collectively account for more than 70% of all private prison business. In effect, the market of buyers constitutes an oligopsony, or a market form in which only a few customers buy a certain good and therefore possess the power to affect pricing. The two largest publicly-traded private prison companies recognize their dependency on a limited number of governmental customers as a threat to their profitability and include a warning to stockholders to that effect in their annual reports. At eCA, just three federal government agencies, the BOP, ICE and the U.S. Marshals, accounted for 43% of the company's total revenue for fiscal year 2010, or $717.8 million. The state of California, which is placing thousands of prisoners out-of-state in an effort to reduce in-state prison populations, provided 13% of CeA's total revenue for fiscal year 2010, or $214 'million. GEO Group reports that while they have a total of 45 governmental clients (customers), 4 of those clients accounted for over 60% of their U.S.-based revenue
of (BOP, ICE, U.S. Marshals and the State FloJida). Among those, the three federal,
agencies combined are responsible for 53o/~ of GEO Group's total U.S. revenue.
The oligopsony of governmental consumers serves to discourage innovation. In practice, government purchasers of incarceration services have required that private prison companies simply duplicate policies and procedures practiced in public prisons, to the effect that the standard operating procedures of most private prison programs closely mirror those of public prisons in the same state. Notably, none of the companies have distinct and viable research and development departments as would be expected in an industry that values innovation. Private prison companies encourage the adoption of public prison practice, rather than the development of innovative practice, by actively recruiting management-level staff from within the public sector.
fJ..s a case in point, a review of the background of CCA's facility management staff suggests a widespread practice of mining' the public corrections system for managers. Among the wardens of 63 of the company's correctional facilities, nearly two-thirds formerly worked in state departments of correction (36 wardens) or the federal BOP (5 wardens). The most warden-rich jurisdiction was the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, from whence 28% of all CCA wardens were recruited. These experienced staffers bring a degree of order and control to the company's private prisons, but they are not likely to be hired for their spirit of experimentation and innovation.
Arguably, private prisons are not looking to be innovative unless it is a way of cutting costs. The most common way for these companies to make money from government contracts is
https :/lwww.prisonlegalnews.org/2383 8_displayArticle.aspx

12/15/2011

Ex IX to Lennox Dec, Pg 7 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 35 of 45 Page ID#: 873
ragt; 0 VI I

by reducing personnel expenses. Because labor represents about 80% of the operating cost of a prison, much of the cost savings in private prtsons results from paying private correctional officers less than comparable public correctional officers. But this advantage begins to erode in a market where private companies are dependent upon contract renewals (with more experienced staff) rather than new facilities (with new, entry-level staff). EVen as labor rates vary among the states, public sector correctional officer starting salaries average $28,000 across all states with a (one standard deviation) range between $23,000 and $34,200. By comparison, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports a mean annual salary of $42,270 for all occupations in the United States (in May 2008). Public sector prison staff salaries are very low already, suggesting that it is not easy for the private sector to continue to undercut the govemment in personnel costs.
Conclusion
The increasing concentration of market share among the top four companies and the declining number of companies in the incarceration services market mean that governments considering the privatization option will find a decreasing competitive environment when seeking contract bids. In 1995, for example, a total of seven companies submitted bids in response to a Arkansas Department of Corrections request for proposals for two new privately-operated prisons. In contrast, a 2006 request for proposals to manage a private prison in Pennsylvania yielded only two bidders. With market maturation and increased concentration, it is increasingly difficult for new companies to get into the business and for marginal performers to stay afloat
Oligopoly theory and industry life cycle theory suggest that the remaining companies will be less competitive overall, seeking interdependent relationships with tMir competitors to help secure their position now that industry growth rates have cooled. As this scenario continues to unfold, any possibility of meaningful cost savings from privatization wiH decline over time. A recent study of private prison costs in Arizona found that this has already occurred, as the cost of incarcerating minimum-security prisoners has reached parity between state prisons and private prisons while the cost of housing medium-security prisoners is now actually lower in state prisons than in private facilities.
The private prison industry bears a lair share of the responsibility for not registering a better showing in research results. Despite the fact that it has hired away from the public sector many "best and brightest" correctional staff, the industry's penchant for financially rewarding its executives and top managers has drained resources that could have been devoted to program research and development.
Governments have also played a role in the failure of private prisons to perform better, particularly in the area of program quality. As an oligopsony, governments hold the power to be more demanding in the area of performance yet have systematically failed to do so. In the m'ain, contracting governments have simply abdicated demand for increasing program quality, settling for an illusory decrease in program costs. Given the history of "iron triangle" relationships that intertwine the private prison industry and government officials, this failure is perhaps not surprising.
One of the more depressing statistlcs to emerge in criminal justice in recent years is the fact that two-thirds of released prisoners are re-arrested within three years. Enlightened government officials around the country have realized that they can reduce correctional expenditures only by focusing their efforts on reducing recidivism, not by building or contracting for more prison space, Govemmentjurisdictions that are having the greatest success in reducing correctional expenditures are those that are turning to evidence-based practice to guide sentencing decisions and devoting correctional resources toward programs proven to reduce recidivism. Prison is not one of them. In enlightened jurisdictions, incarceration rates are beginning to decline.
As this trend continues, the private prison industry will eventually enter the fourth stage of the industrial life cycle - decline - and wilf begin shedding some of its capacity. Some companies have already sighted this trend on the horizon and have begun developing alternative business opportunities in areas such as electronic monitoring and prisoner health care. For those government agencies with heavy reliance on private prisons, decline in the industry will pose new problems as companies shed unprofitable contracts and simply walk away, Albert Einstein suggested that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. If a quarter century of experience with prison privatization has not led to better quality and cost outcomes, it is time to take a more sane approach.
Richard Culp is an Associate Professor of Public Administration at John Jay College of
Criminal Justice in New York City and the Coordinator of the Bachelor of Science in Criminal
Justice Management program. He is also a member of the doctoral faculty in Criminal Justice at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York and serves as Deputy Executive Officer of the CUNY Criminal Justice Doctoral Program. Professor Culp's research has been published in Justice Quarterly, Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, Criminal Justice Policy Review, The Prison Journal and the Journal of Public Affairs Education.
This article includes new and expanded research findings previously published in "Prison Privatization Turns Twenty-five." In K Ismaili (Ed.) U.S. Criminal Justice Policy: A
https;1Iwww.prisonlegalnews.org/2383 8_displayArticle.aspx

12115/2011

Ex IX to Lennox Dec, Pg 8 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 36 of 45 Page ID#: 874 .l:'age I or I
Contemporary Reader (pp.183-209). Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers (2010).

_'_I [Secure Website]

Copyright © Prison Legal News 2011 Site designed and maintained by: AccuFind Intemet Services Inc.®

https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/23838_displayArticle.aspx

1211512011

Ex IX to Lennox Dec, Pg 9 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 37 of 45 Page ID#: 875

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBIT
TO DECLARATION OF LUCY LENNOX
Ex X to Lennox Dec, Pg 1 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 38 of 45 Page ID#: 876 Ex X to Lennox DePcL, NPCgO2Lo_fLe9nnox_00055

tJ-{tl1dJ.-~ Ss .. "..~
~O D~l LU)nlDk\
qcctt~

:- .
••

. ..',. , (~;~-~~~~,:~ ..

. .

.. ' . ..

~ §~~ ~:~:=-::-J' ""~--~~"

~ ~ -

I ~ -~ -.~ .P~ - ITN.. E.Y...B.- O.W. ES

. •

02 1P

$ 000.640

·. 0000003300448844770 DEC 15 2011

.• MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 99201

-------- ~~...-. ----"--"-

s~ bd~ ;;))O01IJIOOOD;d}--/I.&3-3
x ~/D ~ ~~~-'t4; ~

-.:XX::

--'T.J /:':))#,0-.,
-,~

N:ll::XX:tE

''3~~7700

44t;E,~;;\\..

0O1J. ·'li.2'./22l29a// :~Lt ;1

~

RETURN TO SENDER ATTEMPTED - NOT KNOWN
UNNAA~9LLEE TO FORWARD

'r

B13eC : 9999-,,2~0O:3S66.2442 ~a e

*202 299-2~1e93311- 20--47

+ ··:~:rr({c;C~:;l?. ;:~l~1'-.~\~~~@@6S2~1444

JjIIJI1I.,/1I1I1I1II1I1I1JI.,I1I1II111111111111111111111111/1,1I1,1I1I),I11II1I1I1I1II1I1I1I1II//'/',11I1111II1II1I

, -- -~ ..... - ~ ~ .....:,---..-:....;;,.::\;.-.:~.:......~ .:-.~---,'~---- :',!.,. -'':~:,: .:" ' : ~

!...;...~-.-' -.;... . - : -

.~

- --

~~~~--'''.-:r ~·~~~-l :' !

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 39 of 45 Page ID#: 877

Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

Page 1 of7

Logged in as; LtICY Lennox ,) Firm:
Status: Member
I I · I Edit Profile Log out of PLN

HOME

BOOK

SEARCH

. ADVERTISE

SUBSCRIBE

DONATIONS

CONTACT

STORE

PLN

US

Book Review I FAQ's I Interviews I PLN links I PLN in the Ne,:,!s I Annual Reports I Referral Directory

VIEW CART

Ie Articles r List Serv Messages
Thursday, December 15,201112:22 PM

f'Yif12 FREE I ES!t
'X:2,' Inmate asaliBteSeryice.c@m

The Failed Promise of Prison Privatization

[ Please visit our advertiser above] BREAKING NEWS

by Richard Culp, Ph.D.
We have been experimenting with pJison privatization in tile U.S. noVJ for over twenty-five years. The privatization idea originated out of a notion tlllat the private sector, with its competition-driven efficiency and innovation, could operate prisons of higher quality and lower cost than the public sector. Create a market for incarceration services, the argument ran, and the market will work its magic, improving prison conditions and rehabilitative outcomes while saving the taxpayers millions of dollars. That market has effectively been created over the past quarter century and we have now arrived at a place where prison privatization has been studied extensively and evaluated rigorously.

Judicial Conference Committee Disciplines Federal Judge for Membership in Discriminatory Country Club by Alex Friedmann In May 2011, PLN reported that the Sixth ...
Nationwide PLN Survey Examines Prison Phone Contracts, Kickbacks by John E. Dannenberg An exhaustive analysis of prison phone contracts nationwide has revealed that ...

Although hyperbole continues to propel prison privatization policy along, research findings are incontrovertible: even in the best private prisons, quality of prisoner care is no better than in public prisons and the cost advantage of privatization, which initially accounted for minimal savings, is steadily eroding as the private prison industry matures. The big promises of prison privatization - less cost, higher quality - have simply not materialized. Despite these disappointing results, prison privatization advocacy mainlaills .' traction in diverse jurisdictions as policymakers from Ohio to Florida and from Maine to California seek expedient solutions to budget ShOltfaHs triggered by a lingering great recession.
In retrospect, it should come as no surprise that prison privatization would fail to live up to its promises. There are several reasons for this. First, free market solutions to social problems like crime assume, after all, that there are "free» markets for appropriate services. However, there is no such thing as a natural market for the services provided by private prison companies. On the contrary, the marketplace for incarceration services is created by the government, for the govemment. It is an artificial market. MElnY of the services that have been privatized by government (e.g., custodial services, food preparation, medical care) are provided by the private sector independently of the government's decision to privatize or not. There is a free market analogue for many kinds of services that. governments routinely provide. Other fields such as education and health care, for example; have an active market of existing nonprofit and for-profit providers willing to sell educational and healthcare Sseerrvices to a huge market of potential buyers that includes both individuals and governments.
The prison business is fundamentally different in that no one can freely purchase incarceration services as a private individual. There is no natural market for incarceration services. The power to incarcerate someone - to hold a person against his or her will - is a defining characteristic of the state. The government Ilolds a monopoly over the legitimate use of physical force and the power to incarcerate. Only the government has the legitimate power to restrict a citizen's liberty; individuals are prohibited by law from incarcerating another person under ~false imprisonment" statutes. The government can delegate this power on a limited basis - for example, "shopkeeper's privilegeD allows merchants to temporarily detain suspected shoplifters. But long-term incarceration is a different matter. The only potential buyers who can legally purchase incarceration services are the government jurisdictions that have custody over indicted, convicted or detained persons. In order to privatize iis incarceration function, the govemment has had to create a market since one does not and cannot exist without its direct intervention.

Prison Legal News Interviews Former Prisoner and .. Famous Actor Danny Trejo Danny Trejo is one of
the best-known American actors living today....
Remembering Attica Forty Years Later by Dennis Cunningham, Michael Deutsch & Elizabeth Fink This year, September 9 will mark the 40th anniversary .,'.
The History of Prison Legal News by Paul Wright In May 1990, the first issue of Prisoners' Legal News (PLN) was published. It '"..
Twenty Years of PLN in Court Since PLN was founded in 1990 we have been censored in prisons and jails around ...
Appalling Prison and Jail Food Leaves Prisoners Hungry for Justice by David M. Reutter, Gary Hunter & Brandon Sample Prison food. The very .'"..
Sexual Abuse by Prison and Jail Staff Proves Persistent, Pandemic by Gary Hunter Sexual assault, rape, indecency, deviance. These terms represent reprehensible behavior ...
Judge Not: Judges Benched for Personal Misconduct by Gary Hunter & Alex Friedmann They decide hot-button topics ranging from abortion and racial discrimination ...

Secondly, the development oftlle private prison industry has resulted in a highly concentrated producer market where only four companies control over 90% of the incarceration services business. Economic theory tells us that when production is highly concentrated in very few companies, the market becomes an oligopoly, a market situation that is inherently less competitive and innovative than a market with more broad-based representation. An oligopoly is characterized by interdependence, avoidance of

The Graying of America's Prisons by James Ridgeway Frank Soffen, now 70 years old, has lived more than half his life in prison, ...

https:llwww.prisonlegalnews.org/2383 8_displayArticle.aspx

12/15/2011

Ex X to Lennox Dec, Pg 3 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 40 of 45 Page ID#: 878

rnson Lega~ l"l ews - Legal arnCles, cases ana coun aeClSlOns

yage L or I

competition and a rigid attachment to the status quo among the leading firms.
A third part of the story is that govemment itself unwittingiy stifles innovation in the private prison industry. Since the only legitimate customers of prison companies are the jurisdictions that can indict, convict or otherwise detain people, the potential customer base for incarceration services is very limited. In practice, this has led to a situation where only a handful of customers, an oligopsony in economic terms, has come to dominate the customer base. The limited number of customers serves to dissuade private prison companies from conducting research and development into innovative correctional programming, as the tiny customer base tends to demand only those services that mimic what the govemments themselves are accustomed to providing.
Origins of the Artificial Market
Contracting out of noncustodial prison services such as medical care, food service, maintenance, education and mental health services has been praciiced for a long time and with little controversy. Contracting out of custody services, for which there is no free market analogue, is much more controversial. The deiostitutionalization movement in juvenile corrections dUring the 1970s initiated a number of experiments in privatized services and custody for juveniles. A major step toward contracted custody of adults occurred when the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the forerunner to today's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), decided in 1983 to partially outsource the detention of undocumented lmmigrants in its custody. In the summer of 1983, the INS issued a request for proposals and the newly-formed Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) submitted the Winning bid.

Secret Justice: Criminal Informants and America's Underground Legal System by Alexandra Natapoff I. Introduction Although it is almost invisible to the public, ...
Thou Shalt Not: Sexual Misconduct by Prison and ~ Jail Chaplains by David M. Reutter Traditionally, the
role of a chaplain in the correctional ...
.. Celebrity Justice: Prison Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous by Matt Clarke There are two criminal justice systems in the United States. One ..,
.. Crime Labs in Crisis: Shoddy Forensics Used to Secure Convictions by Matt Clarke To millions of people whose knowledge of crime labs comes ...
.. Private Prison Companies Behind the Scenes of Arizona's Immigration Law by Beau Hodai"Beside my brothers and my sisters, I'U proudly take a ...

likewise, the community corrections movement in the adult system involved contracting out of the custody function in many low-securtty adult facmties. Minnesota passed tile Community Corrections Act in 1971, and 25 states followed suit with similar legislation over the next 12 years. Community corrections legislation transferred funding from state-level departments of correction to tocal governments which, in turn, used the funds for halfway house programs and other services for lower-level offenders. Many jurisdictions turned to private contractors to operate these facilities.

In 1986, Management and Training Corporation (MTC) secured a contract to operate a

community corrections facility in Eagle Mountain, California. Also in 1986, the State of

Kentucky contracted out the development and operation of a 200-bed minimum-security

facility in Marion County. Another newly-formed company, the U.S. Corrections Corporation,

was awarded the contract. Similarly, the U.S. Bureau of Prisons (BOP) began contracting

out the operation of low-security halfway house programs to the private sector during this

time. Another eany private prison company. Correctional Services Corporation, originally

Esmor Correctional Corp., began business in 1989 with two contracts from the BOP to

operate halfway houses in New York City.

'

Medical Examiners Lack Qualifications,
.. Competence, Oversight by Matt Clarke Most people will only have direct contact with a medical examiner, also known as '"

.. 40% of Criminal Jurisprudence bills boost criminal penalties As has probably been the case every legislative session in living memory, bills ,..

Texas Increasingly out of Step on Death Penalty By

~

David Fathi Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle May 23, 2009, 3:44PM Barring unexpected events, in the

next ...

These early entrants to the incarceration services market found a political climate supportive of privatization in several states, induding Kentucky', Tennessee, Texas, Florida, Arizona, New Mexico and Louisiana. By 1994 there were approximately 20 companies actively seeking contracts to either build and manage company-owned prisons or manage existing facilities owned by federal, state and local jurisdictions.
The Supply Side ofthe Incarceration Services Industry
The traditional industrial life cycle model suggests that new markets move through a process marked by four stages: fragmentation, shakeout, maturity and decline. The fragmentation period occurs when the industry is new, many entrepreneurs enter the market, and they operate at low volume and tend to serve narrow geographic areas. EventuaHy, a shakeout period occurs as some companies become more efficient and the less efficient ones fail to stay in business. Growth and competition are strongest during this period, as are the profits of the largest companies. The industry reaches maturity when growth slows and surviving companies try to solidify their positions in the industry. At some later time, the industry moves into decline as the demand for the product or service drops and companies seek new ways to recover profitability.

.. Some Agencies Balk at Releasing Prison Phone Data by Mike Rigby It is common knowledge among PLN readers that prison and jail phone ...
. The Failed Promise of Prison Privatization by Richard Culp, Ph.D. We have been experimenting with prison privatization in the U.S. now for over ...

The decade of the 1990s witnessed the rapid growth of prison privatization, consolidation of the industry and the cooling off of growth rates as the decade ended. The industry moved through the traditional life cycle stages of-fragmentation to maturity during this period. The industry expelienced tremendous growth from 1992 to 1998, averaging an increase in
capacity of 36% each year. But from 1999 to 2006, growth declined to an average rate of under 4% per year. As market maturity is commonly defined as reaching a state of equilibrium marked by the absence of significant growth or innovation, the industry reached maturity as the new millennium began.

The shakeout stage of the industry is reflected in the difference between the companies doing business in 1996 and those doing business in 2011. In 1996, there were 14 companies with private prison contracts in the United States. Table 1 lists these companies, their rated capacity and their market share of U.S. private prison business. A common measure of the dominance of companies in a given market is the man<:et concentration ratio (CR), or the percentage of total industry sales (or capacity, or employment, or value added

https:/Iwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23 83 8_displayArticle.aspx

12115/2011

Ex X to Lennox Dec, Pg 4 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 41 of 45 Page ID#: 879

Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

Page 3 of7

or physical output) contributed by the four leading firms ranked in order of market share. A

market is considered to have a high CR when the four leading firms control over two-thirds

of market share, a moderate concentration when the ratio falls between one-third and two-

thirds, and a low concentration when the top four companies control less than a third of total

market share.

.

The four-firm market concentration ratio of the private prison industry was 86% in 1996, a Significantly high level of concentration. But by the end of 2011 only seven companies remained in the private prison business, and the market share of the top four firms increased to 92% (see Table 2).

Acquisitions and Ethical Challenges

The rise in concentration ratio means that the industry as a whole has become less competitive. Five of the companies that disappeared between 1996 and 2011 (U.S. Corrections Corporation, Correctional Services Corporation, Cornell Corrections, Inc., Fenton Security, Inc. and Correctional Systems, Inc.) were acquired by larger companies. Four other firms went out of business (Bobby Ross Group, Capital Correctional Resources, Dove Development Corporation and Maranatha Production Company, LLC). Three newcomers, LaSalle Southwest Corrections, Louisiana Corrections Services and Emerald Companies, are small and regionally-based in Texas and Louisiana. A review of the ongoing concentration in the market is illustrative of shakeouts in the industry and of some of the ethically-challenged behavior that can attend to the process of profit seeking: The largest company - Corrections Corporation of America - acquired the third-ranked company, U.S. Corrections Corporation, in 1998. U.S. Corrections, based in Kentucky, had much in common with Tennessee-based CCA Both companies were founded by entrepreneurs who were well connected with the political establishment in their state. One of CCA's founders, Thomas W. Beasley, was a former chair of the state Republican Party and managed the successful 1978 gubernatorial campaign of Lamar Alexander. Honey Alexander, the governor's wife, was an early investor in CCA. U.S. Corrections Corporation, based in neighboring Louisville, did all of its business in Kentucky prior to 1995. Executives ofthe company contributed over $77,000 to political campaigns in the state between 1987 and 1993, including $23,000 to Governor Wallace G. Will<inson and his wife Martha.

Clifford Todd, the CEO of U.S. Corrections, was implicated in a payoff scandal involving the company's contract to run the county jail in Louisville. He was arrested by the FBI in 1994, pleaded guilty to mail fraud and was sentenced to 6 months in jflil and fined $250,000. He sold his stake·jn the company for $15 million in 1994. At the time of the buyout by CCA, U.S. Corrections owned a total of four facilities in Kentucky, Ohio and North Carolina with a capacity of 5,275 beds, and had contracts to manage publicly-owned facilities in Kentucky, Florida and North Carolina with a capacity of 5,743 beds.

The second-largest company in 1996, Wackenhut Corrections Corporation (WCC), was formed in 1984 as a subsidiary to security firm Wackenhut Corporation, which was founded by George Wackenhut, a former FBI agent. Over the ensuing years, WCC grew to become one of the largest private prison companies in the world. The company began providing residential services for at-risk juveniles and young adults under the Job Corps program. WCC went public in 1994 (with Wackenhut Corporation as the majority shareholder). In 2002, the Danish company Group 4 Falck merged wifh the Wackenhut Corporation and, indirectly, became tile owner of 57% ofWCC's stock. In 2003, WCC bought out Group 4 Falck's interest in the company and changed its name to the GEO Group, Inc. The GEO Group acquired the industry's seventh-largest company, Correctional Services Corporation (CSC), in 2005 and Comell Corrections, the fifth-largest company, in 2010.

Founded in 1989, CSC operated under ~everal different names, including Esmor Correctional Services, Inc. The company was founded by the owners of a welfare hotel in New York City and began its prison business operating halfway houses under contract with the BOP. CSC also managed the INS Detention Center in Elizabeth, New Jersey, remembered best for a June 1995 riot in which 300 detainees took over the facility in protest of poor conditions of confinement. Esmor staff fled from the detention center, leaving order to be restored by federal, state and local law enforcement officers. The INS closed the faCility after the riot, noting that CSC guards had abused detainees, gave them spoiled food and deprived them of sleep. The facility was reopened in 1997.

Later, in 2003, CSC was fined $300,000 by the New York State Lobbying Commission for failing to report free transportation, meals and gifts given to a dozen state legislators from Brooklyn and the Bronx. The fine was the largest the state had ever imposed on a company for violating the state's lobbying laws. In May 2008, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed charges.against three Fort Lauderdale, Florida physicians, alleging insider trading in GEO Group's 2005 acquisition of CSC. According to the complaint, one of the three worked as a consultant to GEO and had a son who worked in GEO's finance department, where he allegedl}, learned of the pending deal. The three were charged with illegally purchasing $390,000 in CSC stocl, before the acquisition. Two of the defendants entered into settlement agreements while the third was cleared of the charges.

Another GEO acquisition, Cornell Corrections, Inc., had been the third-largest private prison company in 2006, with 8% of industry market share. Incorporated in 1994, the company built its business primarily with youth services and community-based rehabilitation programs for

https:llwww.prisonlegalnews.org/2383 8_displayArticle.aspx

12/15/2011

Ex X to Lennox Dec, Pg 5 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 42 of 45 Page ID#: 880

r l1:::iUll LCigC111'lCiW:S - LCigcH ctHllae:s, t;ct:ses anu (;UUTL Ue(;ISlOnS

Yage 4 or I

adults. Pirate Capital, LLC, a hedge fund firm, acquired a 13% interest in Cornell in 2004, becoming the company's largest shareholder, and replaced several board members and the company's CEO with financiers more oriented toward short-term growth. Pirate Capital
unloaded its shams of Cornell in 2006 in the midst of an SEC investigation over its stocl< sales practices, several bad investment decisions and company downsizing. TIle company
warned its stockholders in 2009 of looming problems in managing indebtedness of some $303 milHon. GEO Group bought Cornell, along with its debt, in 2010.

Management and Training Corporation (MTC) is the third-largest company currently providing incarceration services. MTC is a privately-held Utah-registered company that gained expertise in working with at-risk young people as a major provider of Job Corps programs. The company first entered the private prison market in 1987 when it received a contract to manage the Eagle Mountain Community Correctional Facility in Desert Center, California (which experienced a major riot that resulted in the deaths oftwo prisoners in 2003). MTC expanded slowly and steadily since 1987 and now runs a total of 20 correctional facilities in Arizona, California, Florida, Idaho, New Mexico, Ohio and Texas.

The company's generally positive reputation as a job training provider has been tarnished by its corrections experience. In 1997, MTC hired the former director of the Utah
Department of Corrections, Lane McCotter, as Director of Corrections Business
Development. McCotter was well connected in pro-privatization states, having served as
director of both the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and the New Mexico Corrections
Department before serving as the corrections head in Utah. He left the Utah DOC job in the midst of an investigation over the death of a prisoner WITh schizophrenia who had been
shackled to a hard plastic chair for the final sixteen hours of his life.

In 2003, MTC's Santa Fe, New Mexico facility was under investigation by the U.S. Justice

Department Tor unsafe conditions and poor quality prisoner medical care while McCotter

was employed' with the company. Nonetheless, that same year he was appointed by

Attorney General John Ashcroft to serve on a U.S. Department of Justice team

commissioned to assess and implement a plan for rebuilding Iraq's criminal justice system.

The team's final act before leaving Iraq was to conduct a ribbon cutting ceremony at the

refurbished Abu Gilraib prison, a centerpiece of their corrections planning.

Although the facility was empty when McCotter left Iraq, the work of the committee of

experts was indelibly stained by the infamous events that subsequently occurred at the

plison and from on-going human rights abuse allegations in prisons under the direct

supervision of other committee members.

.

MTC was also involved in a failed experiment in prison-.privatization in Canada. In 2001, the company won a five-year contract to operate the Central North Correctional Centre (CNCC) in Ontario as part of a pilot project to compare operations of the CNCC facilil.y with a similar publicly-run prison, tile Central East Correctional Centre. The government hired PricewaterhouseCoopers to evaluate the two prisons across a variety of dimensions. The evaluation found that the public prison outperformed the MTC facility overall. WI1i1e the MTC prison was cheaper to operate and provided a greater variety of programming than the government facility, the public prison rated significantly better on security, recidivism rates, health care and community impact. Based on the results of the experiment, Ontario decided to tum management of the privatized facility over to the public sector.

Community Education Centers (CEC), incorporated in 1996, rounds out the quartet of companies that control 92% of the current incarceration services marl<et. Lil<e MTC, CEC is a privately-held company whose finances and governance structure are much less transparent than is the case with publicly-held companies. Until a few years ago, CEC's business was concentrated in providing community-based residential, re-entry and rehabilitative services to offenders, mostly in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, but the
company moved into the secure incarceration services business with its acquisition of
CiviGenic5 in 2007.

CiviGenics was founded in 1995 in Marlboro, MA by Roy Ross, the former president of Spectrum Health Systems, Inc., a nonprofit company that provided drug and alcohol
treatment services for prisoners in the Massachusetts Department of Corrections. Ross arranged a contract for CiviGenics to provide management of Spectrum's Massachusetts inprison treatment programs. In 1996, CiviGenics acquired Fenton Security, Inc., a small company that had management contracts to operate two county jails in Colorado. Tom
Rapone, a former Secretary of Public Safety in Massachusetts, joined CiviGenics as the
firm's Chief Operating Officer. CiviGenics expanded its secure custody operations and by 1998 operaied several small jail.facilities, employed more than 1,000 staff and had revenues of more than $30 million.

In July 1999, the·Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction CODRC) awarded CiviGenics a $14.9 million contract to operate the newly-built North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility (NCCTF) in Grafton. However, the OORC elected not to renew its contract with CiviGenics when the contract expired in July 2001, citing problems with high staff turnover (including five different wardens in its first 18 months), repeated failure to maintain minimum staffing levels and problems with over-billing the state for positions that remained uncovered. The ODRC subsequently awarded the contract to MTC, which continues to operate the NCCTF facility.

https:llwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23838_displayArticle.aspx

12/15/2011

Ex X to Lennox Dec, Pg 6 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 43 of 45 Page ID#: 881

r 11;:;U11 LtJgcU 1'ItJW;:; - LtJga.! i:UUC;!C;:S, c;a:sc;:s auu c;uun UeGlSlOnS

Yage J ot "/

In 2004, the Massachusetts State Auditor completed an audit that found Spectrum Health Systems had misused $17.4 million in state money, with $10.2 million ofthe total amount involving excessive payments to CiviGenics. The matter was settled in January 2007 in an agreement that required CiviGenics to repay the state $3.4 million and Roy Ross to repay $650,000. With its acquisition of CiviGenics in 2007, CEC became the fourth largest private prison company in the U.S.
The Demand Side of the Incarceration Services Industry
The demand side of prison privatization, like the oligopoly of private prison companies, is also highly concentrated. The potential customers in the private prison market are government agencies at the federal, state and local level that operate jail, prison and detention programs. At the federal level, the Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Marshals Service and Immigration and Customs Enforcement all manage a variety of custody facilities. The four branches of the military also operate facilities for military personnel sentenced under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Of course, the 50 states and the District of Columbia each have departments of correction.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there are some 1,821 state and federal correctional facilities, not counting facilities operated by the U:S. Marshals Service and ICE. At the local level, counties and cities operate about 2,875 jail facilities in the United States. In sum, the potential consumer base of the private prison industry. numbers somewhere in the area of 4,700 facilities.
After over 25 years of correctional privatization, there are fewer than 200 private correctional facilities in the United States - only about 4% of all facilities. The federal govemment is the most actively involved in privatization, with 16.3% of federal prisoners serving time in private facilities. State governments are next, with 6.6% of state prisoners in private facilities. However, whereas 60% of all correctional facilities in the United States are at the local level, only about two dozen city and county jurisdictions (1.7% ofihe total) contract with private companies to operate their jails and detention centers. In practice there are very few buyers of privatized incarceration services, and the federal government is the largest single customer. Between 2000 and 2008, the number of state prisoners placed in private prisons increased by about 25%, from 75,018 to 93,537. In the federal system, however. the number increased from 15,525 to 32,712, or about 110%. During the same period, the number of states placing some portlon of their prisoners in private facilities actually declined from 30 states to 27.
There are in practice only fifty-four "customers" buying incarceration services from the private prison industry - the three federal agencies, twenty-seven state departments of correction and two dozen local jurisdictions. Within this small customer base, the federal government plus eight states (Texas, Florida, Arizona, Oklahoma, Colorado, Tennessee, California and Mississippi) collectively account for more than 70% of all private prison business. In effect, the market of buyers constitutes an oligopsony, or a market form in which only a few customers buy a certain good and therefore possess the power to affect pricing. The two largest publicly-traded private prison companies recognize their dependency on a limited number of govemmental customers as a threat to their profitability and include a warning to stockholders to that effect in their annual reports. At CCA, just three federal government agenCies, the BOP, ICE and the U.S. Marshals, accounted for 43% of the company's total revenue for fiscal year 2010, or $717.8 million. The state of California, which ;s placing thousands of prisoners out-of-state in an effort to reduce in-state prison populations, provided 13% of CCA's total revenue for TIscal year 2010, or $214 'million. GEO Group reports that while they have a total of 45 governmental clients (customers), 4 of those clients accounted for over 60% of their U.S.-based revenue (BOP, ICE, U.S. Marshals and the State of Florida). Among those, the three federal agencies combined are responsible for 53% of GEO Group's total U.S. revenue.
The oligopsony of governmental consumers serves to discourage innovation. In practice, govemment purchasers of incarceration services have required that private prison companies simply duplicate policies and procedures practiced in public prisons, to the effect that the standard operating procedures of most private prison programs closely rnirror those of public prisons in the same state. Notably. none of the companies have distinct and viable research and development departments as would be expected in an industry that values innovation. Private prison companies encourage the adoption of public prison practice, rather tl1an the development of innovative practice, by actively recruiting management-level staff from within the public sector.
As a case in point, a review of the background of CCA's facility management staff suggests a widespread practice of mining' the public corrections system for managers. Among the wardens of 63 of the company's correctional facilities, nearly two-thirds formerly worked in state departments of correction (36 wardens) or the federal BOP (5 wardens). The most warden-lich jurisdiction was the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, frqm whence 28% of all CCA wardens were recruited. These experienced staffers bring a degree of order and control to tile company's private prisons, but they are not likely to be hired for their spirit of experimentation and innovation.
Arguably, private prisons are not looking to be innovative unless it is a way of cutting costs. The most common way for these companies to mal(e money from government contracts is
https:/Iwww.prisonlegalnews.org/2383 8_displayArticle.aspx

12115/2011

Ex X to Lennox Dec, Pg 7 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 44 of 45 Page ID#: 882
ragt:: 0 U1 I

by reducing personnel expenses. Because labor represents about 80% of the operating cost of a prison, much of the cost savings in private prisons results from paying private correctional officers fess than comparable public correctional officers. But this advantage begins to erode in a market where private companies are dependent upon contract renewals (with more experienced staff) rather than new facilities (with new, entry-level staff). Even as labor rates vary among the states, public sector correctional officer starting salaries average $28,000 across all states with a (one standard deviation) range betvleen $23,000 and $34,200. By comparison, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports a mean annual salary of $42,270 for all occupations in the United States (in May 2008). Public sector prison staff salaries are very low already, suggesting that it is not easy for the private sector to continue to undercut the govemment in personnel costs.
Conclusion
The increasing concentration of market share among the top four companies and the declining number of companies in the incarceration services market mean that governments considering the privatization option wi!! find a decreasing competitive environment when seeking contract bids. In 1995, for example, a total of seven companies submitted bids in response to a Arkansas Department of Corrections request for proposals for two new privately-operated prisons. In contrast, a 2006 request for proposals to manage a private prison in Pennsylvania yielded only two bidders. With market maturation and increased concentration, it is increasingly difficult for flew companies to get into the business and for marginal performers to stay alloat
Oligopoly theory and industry life cycle theory suggest that the remaining companies will be less competitive overall, seeking interdependent relationships with their competitors to help secure their position now that industry growth rates have cooled. As this scenario continues to unfold, any possibility of meaningful cost savings from privatization will decline overtime. A recent study of private prison costs in Arizona found that this has already occurred, as the cost of Incarcerating minimum-security prisoners has reached parity between state prisons and private prisons while the cost of housing medium-security prisoners is now actually lower in state prisons than in private facilities.
The private prison industry bears a fair share of the responsibility for not registering a better showing in research results. Despite the fact that it has hired away from the public sector many "best and brightest" correctional staff, the industry's penchant for financially rewarding its executives and top managers has drained resources that could have been devoted to program research and development.
Governments have also played a role in the failure of private prisons to perform better, particularly in the area of program quality. As an oligopsony, govemments hold the power to be more demanding in the area of performance yet have systematically failed to do so. In the m'ain. contracting governments have simply abdicated demand for increasing program quality, settling for an illusory decrease in program costs. Given the history of "iron triangle" relationships t11at intertwine the private prison industry and govemment officials, this failure is perhaps not surprising.
One of the more depressing statistics to emerge in criminal justice in recent years is the fact that two-thirds of released prisoners are re-arrested within three years. Enlightened government officials around the country have realized that they can reduce correctional
expenditures only oy focusing their efforts on reducing recidivism, not by building or
contracting for more prison space. Government jurisdictions that are having the greatest success in reducing correctional expenditures are those that are turning to evidence-based practice to guide sentencing decisions and devoting correctional resources toward programs proven to reduce recidivism. Prison is not one of them. In enlightened jurisdictions; incarceration rates are beginning to decline.
As this trend continues, the private prison industry will eventually enter the fourth stage of the industrial life cycle - decline - and will begin shedding some of its capacity. Some companies have already sighted this trend on the horizon and have begun developing alternative business opportunities in areas such as electronic monitoring and prisoner health care. For those government agencies with heavy reliance on private prisons, dedine in the industry wil! pose new problems as companies shed unprofitable contracts and simply walk away. Albert Einstein suggested that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. If a quarter century of experience with prison privatization has not led to better quality and cost outcomes, it is time to take a more sane approach.
Richard Culp is an Associate Professor of Public Administration at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City and the Coordinator of the Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice Management program. He is also a member of the doctoral faculty in Criminal Justice at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York and serves as Deputy Executive Officer of the CUNY Criminal Justice Doctoral Program. Professor Culp's research has been published in Justice Quarterly, Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, Criminal Justice Policy Review, The Prison Journal and the Journal of Public Affairs Education.
This article includes new and expanded research findings previously published in "Prison Privatization Turns Twenty-five." In K Ismaili (Ed.) U.S. Criminal Justice Policy: A
https;//www.prisonlegalnews.org/23838_displayArticle.aspx

12115/2011

Ex X to Lennox Dec, Pg 8 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 45 of 45 Page ID#: 883 yage lor I
Contemporary Reader (pp.183-209). Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers (2010).

[Secure WebsiteJ

Copyright © Prison Legal News 2011
Site designed and maintained by: AccuFind Internet Services Inc.®

https:/Iwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23 83 8_displayArticle.aspx

12115/2011
Ex X to Lennox Dec, Pg 9 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 1 of 45 Page ID#: 884

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBIT I
TO DECLARATION OF LUCY LENNOX
Ex XI to Lennox Dec, Pg 1 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 2 of 45 Page ID#: 885 Ex XI to Lennox DePcL, NPCgO2Lo_fLe9nnox_00063

~ ?P/ ~/~W
JJ-f/J;;-.1 sS. tt. . ')
sS,foOOIl~~1, LAJ~
Qq11d~:V33

: , ~.~ ~::::6-~2 : ..

,~-.,...~~
-...~~.'~' ~.::"-- ~ ---.,....,.

~ !.2:,:~e.' .~~ T ==~ :P.IT"tE!J-!~W'-:h:~~: Z

.1 -

~

....,.",

PIT,,_"."!-!J>WE-': ,.

•• _ _. _

_P ;" ::..:. ~ ~ ~" nnnn~nR~ARO.4-o----

- - - - _ . ,... ~..... .. ..r.... ....... to

"r - - - - - •

0003048470 DEC 15 2011

~ ......

MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 99201

- (aL-/l~ob off.:J:nJJn~ lAAAA~~~~L?.o. ~

~ r-a '100))
J~-=
:::::r:?rc;?~C: 1;"~:?i~?~~:~::~~$$~~444

NN::ttXX:t:ttt~

~9~·"(f'o'OODEE 1:1.

00 -',,1l..2~i} ~t>>--CC/-J,1'..1:1.1.

RETURN TO SSEENNDCE~ R AT TTTE~MPPTEDO - NOT KNOWN
UNAB9LE TO FORWARDO

EI~3CC: : 9 9992.200::3366,.22444~~;;:?:a9

*10~4-C2s Sa 94-15-47

/I1I.1JI1l1l /l1, 1In111I)lLLIII IHIIi)lIJ 1J1j ,IIIII IIJJIllJ JJI /L1/I1J1,1jJ IJI1I1 JJnJ IL) JIJ JIJ JJJ J, J, J, I/IJI

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 3 of 45 Page ID#: 886

Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and coillt decisions

Page 1 of7

Logged in as: Lucy Lennox Finn: Status: Member
IEdit Profile II" Log Out of PLN I

HOME

BOOK

SEARCH

ADVERTISE

SUBSCRIBE

DONATIONS

CONT.lI.CT

STORE

PLN

US

Book Review I FAQ's I Interviews I PLN linl,s PLN in the News I Annual Reports I Referral Directory

VIEW CART

r (i' Articles List Serv Messages
Thursday. December 15,201112:22 PM

{fr{:i~i~1~~ll''~11"2"2 FFR II. E s E !
1X~l2]': Inmate aStilineServdce.com

The Failed Promise of Prison Privatization

[ Please visit our advertiser above] BREAKING NEWS

by Richard Culp, Ph.D.
We have been experimenting with prison privatization in the U.S. now for over twenty-five years. The privatization idea originated out of a notion that the private sector, with its competition-dnven efficiency and innovation, could operate prisons of higher quality and lower cost than the public sector. Create a market for incarceration services, the argument ran, and the market will work its magic, improving prison conditions and rehabilitative outcomes while saving the taxpayers millions of dollars. That market has effectively been created over the past quarter centUlY and we have now arrived at a place where prison privatization has been studied extensively and evaluated rigorously.

Judicial Conference Committee Disciplines Federal Judge for Membership in Discriminatory Country Club by Alex Friedmann In May 2011, PLN reported that the Slxth ...
Nationwide PLN Survey Examines Prison Phone Contracts, Kickbacks by John E. Dannenberg An exhaustive analysis of prison phone contracts nationwide has revealed that ...

Although hyperbole continues to propel prison privatization policy along, research findings are incontrovertible: even in the best private prisons, qualityy"'of prisoner care is no better than in public prisons and the cost advantage of privatization, which initially accounted for minimal savings, is steadily eroding as the private prison industry matures. The big promises of prison privatization -less cost, higher quality - have simply not materialized. Despite these disappointing results, prison privatization advocacy maintains "." traction in diverse jurisdictions as policymakers from Ohio to Florida and from Maine to California seel< expedient solutions to budget shortfalls triggered by a lingering great recession.
In retrospect, it should come as no surprise that prison privatization would fail to live up to its promises. There are several reasons for this. First, free market solutions to social problems Iif{e crime assume, after all, that there are ~freeD markets for appropriate services. However, there is no such thing as a natural market for the services provided by private prison companies. On the contrary, the marketplace for incarceration services is created by the government, for the government. It is an artificial market. MElOY of the services that have been privatized by government (e.g., custodial services, food preparation, medical care) are provided by the private sector independently of the government's decision to privatize or not. There is a free market analogue for many kinds of services that-.govemments routinely provide. Other fields such as education and health care, for example", have an active marlcet of existing nonprofit and for-profit providers willing to sell educational and healthcare services to a huge market of potential buyers that includes both individuals and governments.
The prison business is fundamentally different in that no one '"ccan freely purchase incarceration services as a private individual. There is no natural market for incarceration services. The power to incarcerate someone - to hold a person against Ilis or her will - is a defining characteristic of the state. The government holds a monopoly over the legitimate use of physical force and the power to incarcerate. Only the government has the legitimate power to restrict a citizen's liberty; indiVviduals are prohibited by law from incarcerating another person under "false imprisonment" statutes. The government can delegate this power on a limited basis - for exal)1ple, "shopkeeper's privilege" allows merchants to temporarily detain suspected shoplifters. But long-term incarceration is a different matter. The only potential buyers who can legally purchase incarceration services are the government jurisdictions that have custody over indicted, convicted or detained persons. In order to privatize its incarceration function, the govermnment has had to create a market since one does not and cannot exist without its direct intervention.

Prison Legal News Interviews Fonner Prisoner and Famous Actor Danny Trejo Danny Trejo is one of the best-known American actors living today....
Remembering Attica Forty Years Later by Dennis .. Cunningham, Michael Deutsch & Elizabeth Fink This
year, September 9 will mark the 40th anniversary ...
The History of Prison Legal News by Paul Wright In May 1990, the first issue of Prisoners' Legal News (PLN) was published. It '"
Twenty Years of PLN in Court Since PLN was founded in 1990 we have been censored in prisons and jails around .,..
Appalling Prison and Jail Food Leaves Prisoners Hungry for Justice by David M. Reutter, Gary Hunter & Brandon Sample Prison food. The very ...
Sexual Abuse by Prison and Jail Staff Proves Persistent, Pandemic by Gary Hunter Sexual assault, rape, indecency, deviance. These tenns represent reprehensible behavior ...
Judge Not: Judges Benched for Personal Misconduct by Gary Hunter & Alex Friedmann They decide hot-button topics ranging from abortion and racial discrimination ...

Secondly. the development of the private prison industry has resulted in a highly concentrated producer market where only four companies control over 90% of the incarceration services business. Economic theory tells us that when production is highly concentrated in ve"ry few companies, the market becomes an oligopoly, a market situation that is inherently less competitive and "innovative than a market with more broad-based representation. An oligopoly is characteriz~d by interdependence, avoidance of

The Graying of America's Prisons by James ,. Ridgeway Frank Soffen, now 70 years old, has lived
more than half his life in prison, ...

https:llwww.prisonlegalnews.orgl2383 8_displayArticle.aspx

12115/2011

Ex XI to Lennox Dec, Pg 3 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 4 of 45 Page ID#: 887

rnson Legal News - Legal aTIICleS, cases ana coun aeClslOns

t'age L or I

competition and a rigid attachment to the status quo among the leading firms.
A third part of the story is that government itself unwittingiy stifles innovation in the private prison industry. Since the only legitimate customers of prison companies are the jurisdictions that can indict, convict or otherwise detain people, the potential customer base for incarceration services is very limited. In practice, this has led to a situation where only a handful of customers, an oligopsony in economic terms, has come to dominate the customer base. The limited number of customers serves to dissuade private prison companies from conducting research and development into innovative correctional programming, as the tiny customer base tends to demand only those services that mimic what the governments themselves are accustomed to providing.
Origins of the Artificial Market
Contracting out of noncustodial prison services such as medical care, food service, maintenance, education and mental health services has been practiced for a long time and with little controversy. Contracting out of custody services, for which there is no free market analogue, is much more controversial. The deinstitutionaiization movement in juvenile corrections during the 1970s initiated a number of experiments in privatized services and custody for juveniles. A major step toward contracted custody of adults occurred when the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the forerunner to today's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), decided in 1983 to partially outsource the detention of undocumented immigrants in its custody. In the summer of 1983, the INS issued a request for proposals and the newly-formed Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) submitted the winning bid.

Secret Justice: Criminal Informants and America's Underground Legal System by Alexandra Natapoff I. Introduction Although it is almost invisible to the public, ...
Thou Shalt Not Sexual Misconduct by Prison and
" Jail Chaplains by David M. Reutter Traditionally, the role of a chaplain in the correctional ...
.. Celebrity Justice: Prison Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous by Matt Clarke There are two criminal justice systems in the United States. One ...
Crime Labs in Crisis: Shoddy Forensics Used to
" Secure Convictions by Matt Clarke To millions of people whose knowledge of crime labs comes ...
. Private Prison Companies Behind the Scenes of Arizona's Immigration Law by Beau Hodai"Beside my brothers and my sisters, I'll proudly take a ...

Likewise, the community corrections movement in the adult system involved contracting out afthe custody function in many low-security adult facilities. Minnesota passed the Community Corrections Act in 1971, and 25 states followed suit with similar legislation over the next 12 years. Community corrections legislation transferred funding from state-level departments of correction to local governments which, in tum, used the funds for haliWay house programs and other services for lower-level offenders. Many jurisdictions turned to private contractors to operate these facilities.
In 1986, Management and Training Corporation (MTC) secured a contract to operate a community corrections facility in Eagle Mountain, California. Also in 1986, the State of Kentuclcy contracted out the development and operation of a 200-bed minimum-security facility in Marion County. Another newly-formed company, the U.S. Corrections Corporation, was awarded the contract. Similarly, the U.S. Bureau of Prisons (BOP) began contracting out the operation of low-security halfway house programs to the private sector during this time. Another early private prison company, Correctional Services Corporation, originally Esmor Correctional Corp., began business in 1989 with two contracts from the BOP to operate haliway houses in New York City.

Medical Examiners Lack Qualifications,

~

Competence, OverSight by Matt Clarke Most people will only have direct contact with a medical

examiner, also known as ...

. 40% of Criminal Jurisprudence bills boost criminal penalties As has probably been the case every legislative session in living memory, bills ...

Texas Increasingly out of Step on Death Penalty By

~

David Fathi Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle May 23,2009, 3:44PM Barring unexpected events, in the

next ...

These earty entrants to the incarceration services market found a political climate supportive of privatization in several states, including Kentucky~ Tennessee, Texas, Florida, Arizona, New Mexico and Louisiana. By 1994 there were approximately 20 companies actively seeking contracts to either build and manage company-owned prisons or manage existing facilities owned by federal, state and local jurisdictions.
The Supply Side of the Incarceration Services Industry
The traditional industrial life cycle model suggests that new markets move through a process marked by four stages: fragmentation, shakeout, maturity and decline. The fragmentation period occurs when the industry is new, many entrepreneurs enter the market, and they operate at low volume and tend to serve narrow geographic areas. Eventually, a shakeout period occurs as some companies become more efficient and the less efficient ones fail to stay in business. Growth and competition are strongest during this period, as are the profits of the largest companies. The industry reaches maturity when growth slows and surviving companies try to solidify their positions in the industry. At some later time, the industry moves into decline as the demand for the product or service drops and companies seek new ways to recover profitability.

Some Agencies Balk at Releasing Prison Phone fro Data by Mike Rigby It is common knowledge among
PLN readers that prison and jail phone ...
.. The Failed Promise of Prison Privatization by Richard Culp, Ph.D. We have been experimenting with prison privatization irt the U.S. now for over ...

The decade of the 1990s witnessed the rapid growth of prison privatization, consolidation of the industry and the cooling off of growth rates as the decade ended. The industry moved through the traditional life cycle stages of. fragmentation to maturity during tl1is period. The industry experienced tremendous growth from 1992 to 1998, averaging an increase in capacity of 36% each year. But from 1999 to 2006, growth declined to an average rate of under 4% per year. As market maturity is commonly defined as reaching a state of equilibrium marked by the absence of Significant growth or innovation, the industry reached maturity as the new millennium began.

The shakeout stage of the industry is ref/ected in the difference between the companies doing business in 1996 and those doing business in 2011. In 1996, there were 14 companies with private prison contracts in the United States. Table 1 lists these companies, their rated capacity and their market share of U.S. private prison business. A common measure of the dominance of companies in a given market is the market concentration ratio (CR), or the percentage oftota! industry sales (or capacity, or employment, or value added

https:/Iwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23 83 8_displayArticle.aspx

12115/2011

Ex XI to Lennox Dec, Pg 4 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 5 of 45 Page ID#: 888

Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

. Page 3 of7

or physical output) contributed by the four leading firms ranked in order of market share. A market is considered to have a high CR when the four leading firms control over two-thirds of market share, a moderate concentration when the ratio falls between one-third and tvlfOthirds, and a low concentration when the top four companies control less than a third of total market share.
The four-firm market concentration ratio of the private prison industry was 86% in 1996, a significantly high level of concentration. But by the end of 2011 only seven companies remained in the private prison business, and the market share of the top four firms increased to 92% (see Table 2).
Acquisitions and Ethical Challenges
111e rise in concentration ratio means that the industry as a whole has become less competitive. Five oHhe companies that disappeared between 1996 and 2011 (U.S. Corrections Corporation, Correctional Services Corporation, Cornell Corrections, Inc., Fenion Security, Inc. and Correctional Systems, Inc.) were acquired by larger companies. Four other firms went out of business (Bobby Ross Group, Capital Correctional Resources, Dove Development Corporation and Maranatha Production Company, LLC). Three newcomers, LaSalle Southwest Corrections, Louisiana Corrections Services and EmeralrJ Companies, are small and regionally-based in Texas and Louisiana. A review of the ongoing concentration in the market is illustrative of shakeouts in the industry and of some of the ethically-challenged behavior that can attend to the process of profit seeking. The largest company - Corrections Corporation of America - acquired the third-ranked company, U.S. Corrections Corporation, in 1998. U.S. Corrections, based in Kentucky, had lTluch in cOlTlmon with Tennessee-based CGA. Both companies were founded by entrepreneurs who were well connected with the political establishment in their state. One of CCA's founders, Thomas W. Beasley, was a former chair of the state Republican Party and managed the successful 1978 gubernatorial campaign of Lamar Alexander. Honey Alexander, the govemor's wife, was an early investor in CCA. U.S. Corrections Corporation, based in neighboring Louisville, did all of Its business in Kentucky prior to 1995. Executives of the company contributed over $77,000 to political campaigns in the state between 1987 and 1993, including $23,000 to GovemorWaliace G. Willdnson and his wife Martha.
Clifford Todd, the CEO of U.S. Corrections, was implicated in a payoff scandal involving the company's contract to run the county jail in Louisville. He was arrested by the FBI in 1994, pleaded guilty to mail fraud and was sentenced to 6 months in j"i1 and fined $250,000. He sold his stake in the company for $15 million in 1994. At the time of the buyout by CCA, U.S. Corrections owned a total of four facilities in Kentucky, Ohio and North Carolina with a capacity of 5,275 beds, and had contracts to manage publicly-owned facilities in Kentucky, Florida and North Carolina with a capacity of 5,743 beels.
The second-largest company in 1996, Wackenhut Corrections Corporation (WCe), was formed in 1984 as a subsidiary to security firm Wackenhut Corporation, which was founded by George Wackenhut, a former FBI agent. Over the ensuing years, WCC grew to become one of the largest private prison companies in the world. The company began providing residential services for at-risk juveniles and young adults under the Job Corps program. WCC went public in 1994 (with Wackenhut Corporation as the majority shareholder). In 2002, the Danish company Group 4 Falck merged with the Wackenhut Corporation and, indirectly, became the owner of 57% of WCC's stock. In 2003, WCC bought out Group 4 Falck's interest in the company and changed its name to the GEO Group, Inc. The GEO Group acquired the industry's seventh-largest company, Correctional Services Corporation (CSC), in 2005 and Comell Corrections, the fifth-largest company, in ,2010.
Founded in 1989, CSC operated under ~everal different names, including Esmor Correctional Services, Inc. The company was founded by the owners of a welfare hotel in New York City and began its prison business operating halfway houses under. contract with the BOP. CSC also managed the INS Detention Center in Elizabeth, New Jersey, remembered best for a June 1995 riot in which 300 detainees took over the facility in protest of poor conditions of confinement. Esmor staff fled from the detention center, leaving order to be restored by federal, state and local law enforcement officers. The INS closed the facility after tile riot, noting that CSC guards had abused detainees, gave them spoiled food and deprived them of sleep. The facility was reopened in 1997.
Later, in 2003, CSC was fined $300,000 by the New York State Lobbying Commission for failing to report free transportation, meals and gifts given to a dozen state legislators from Brooklyn and the Bronx. The nne was the largest the state had ever imposed on a company for violating the state's lobbying laws. In May 2008, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) flied charges,against three Fort Lauderdale, Florida physiCians, alleging insider trading in GEO Group's 2005 acquisition ofCSC. According to the complaint, one of the three worked as a consultant to GEO and had a son who worked in GEO's finance department, where he allegedly learned of the pending deal. The three were charged with illegally purchasing $390,000 in CSC stock before the acquiSition. Two of the defendants entered into settlement agreements while the third was cleared of the charges.
Another GEO acquisition, Cornell Corrections, Inc., had been the third-largest private prison company in 2006, with 8% of industry market share. incorporated in 1994, the company built its business primarily with youth services and community-based rehabilitation programs for
https:/Iwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23 838_displayArtic1e.aspx

12/15/2011

Ex XI to Lennox Dec, Pg 5 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 6 of 45 Page ID#: 889

.. K41ge 401 /

adults. Pirate Capital, LLC, a hedge fund firm, acquired a 13% interest in Cornell in 2004, becoming the company's largest shareholder, and replaced several board rnembers and the company's CEO with iinanciers more oriented toward short-term growth. Pirate Capital unloaded its shares of Cornel! in 2006 in the midst of an SEC investigation over its stock sales practices, several bad investment decisions and company downsizing. The company warned its stockholders in 2009 of looming problems in managing indebtedness of some $303 million. GEO Group bought Cornell, along with its debt, in 2010.
Management and Training Corporation (MTC) is the third-largest company currently providing incarceration services. MTC is a privately-held Utah-registered company that gained expertise in working with at-risk young people as a major provider of Job Corps programs. The company first entered the private prison market in 1987 when it received a contract to manage the Eagle Mountain Community Correctional Facility in Desert Center, California (which experienced a major riot that resulted in the deaths of two prisoners in 2003). Iv1TC expanded slowly and steadily since 1987 and now runs a total of 20 correctional facilities in Arizona, Califomia, Florida, Idaho, New Mexico, Ohio and Texas.
The company's generally positive reputation as a job training provider has been tarnished by its corrections experience. In 1997, MTC hired the former director of the Utah Department of Corrections, Lane McCotter, as Director of Corrections Business Development. McCotter was well connected in pro-privatization states, having served as director of both the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and the New Mexico Corrections Department before serving as the corrections head in Utah. He left the Utah DOC job in the midst of an investigation over the death of a prisoner with schizophrenia who had been shacl(led to a hard plastic chair for the final sixteen hours of his life.
In 2003, MTC's Santa Fe, New Mexico facility was under investigation by the U.S. Justice Department for unsafe conditions and poor quality prisoner medical care while McCotter was employed·with the company. Nonetheless, that same year he was appointed by Attorney General John Ashcroft to serve on a U.S. Department of Justice team commissioned to assess and implement a plan for rebuilding Iraq's criminal justice system. The team's final act before leaving Iraq was to conduct a ribbon cutting ceremony at the refurbished Abu Ghraib prison, a centerpiece of their corrections planning. Although the facility was empty when McCotter left Iraq, the work of the committee of experts was indelibly stained by the infamous events that subsequently occurred at the plison and from on-going human rights abuse allegations in prison::; under the direct supervision of other committee members.
MTC was also involved in a failed experiment in prison..privatization in Canada. In 2001, the company won a five-year contract to operate the Central North Correctional Centre (CNCC) in Ontario as part of a pilot project to compare operations of the CNCC facility with a similar publicly-run prison, the Central East Correctional Centre. The government hired PricewaterhouseCoopers to evaluate the two prisons across a variety of dimensions. The evaluation found that the public prison outperformed the MTC facility overall. While the MTC prison was cheaper to operate and provided a greater variety of programming than the government facility, the public prison rated significantly better on security, recidivism rates, health care and community impact Based on the results of the experiment, Ontario decided to tum management of the privatized facility over to the public sector.
Community Education Centers (CEC), incorporated in 1996, rounds out the quartet of companies that control 92% of the current incarceration services market. Like MTC, CEC is a privately-held company whose finances and governance structure are much less transparent than is· the case with publicly-held companies. Until a few years ago, CEC's business was concentrated in providing community-based residential, re-entry and rehabilitative services to offenders, mostly in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, but the company moved into the secure incarceration services business with its acquisition of CiviGenics in 2007.
CiviGenics was founded in 1995 ill Marlboro, MA by Roy Ross, the former president of Spectrum Health Systems, Inc., a nonprofit company that provided drug and alcohol treatment services for prisoners in the Massachusetts Department of Corrections. Ross arranged a confract for CiviGenics to provide management of Spectrum's Massachusetts inprison treatment programs. In 1996, CiviGenics acquired Fenton Security, Inc., a small company that had management contracts to operate two county jailS in Colorado. Tom Rapone, a former Secretary of Public Safety in Massachusetts, joined CiviGenics as the firm's Chief Operating Officer. CiviGenics expanded its secure custody operations and by 1998 operaied several small jail.facilities, employed more than 1,000 staff and had revenues of more than $30 million.
In July 1999, the·Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) awarded CiviGenics a $14.9 million contract to operate the newly-built North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility (NCCTF) in Grafton. However, the ODRC elected not to renew its contract with CiviGenics when the contract expired in July 2001 f citing problems with high staff turnover (including five different wardens in its first 18 months), repeated failure to maintain minimum staffing levels and problems with over-billing the state for positions that remained uncovered. The ODRC subsequently awarded the contract to MTC, which continues to operate the NCCTF facility.

https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/23 838_displayArticle.aspx

12/15/2011

Ex XI to Lennox PDLeNcC, OPLg_L6eonfno9x_00067

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 7 of 45 Page ID#: 890
t'age;) ot '/

In 2004, the Massachusetts State Auditor completed an audit that found Spectrum Health Systems had misused $17.4 million in state money, with $102 million ofthe total amount involving excessive payments to CiviGenics. The matier was settled in January 2007 in an agreement that required CiviGenics to repay the state $3.4 million and Roy Ross to repay $650,000. With its acquisition of CiviGenics in 2007, CEC became the fourth largest private prison company in the U.S.
The Demand Side of the Incarceration Services Industry
The demand side of prison privatization, like the oligopoly of private prison companies, is also highly concentrated. The potential customers in the private prison market are government agencies at the federal, state and local level that operate jail, prison and detention programs. At the federal level, the Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Marshals Service and Immigration and Customs Enforcement all manage a variety of custody facilities. The four branches of the military also operate facilities for military personnel sentenced under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Of course, the 50 states and the District of Columbia each have departments of correction.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there are some 1,821 state and federal correctional fac1lities, not counting facilities operated by the U:S. Marshals Service and ICE. At the local level, counties and cities operate about 2,875 jail facilities in the United States. In sum, the potential consumer base of the private prison industry numbers somewhere in the area of 4,700 facilities.
After over 25 years of correctional privatization, there are fewer than 200 private correctional facilities in the United States - only about 4·% of a!1 facilities. The federal government is th", most actively involved in privatization, with 16.3% of federal prisoners serving time in private facilities. State governments are next, with 6.6% of state prisoners in private facilities. However, whereas 60% of all correctional facilities in the United States are at the local level, only about two dozen city and county jurisdictions (1.7% of the total) contract with private companies to operate their jails and detention centers. In practice there are very few buyers of privatized incarceration services, and the federal government is the largest single customer. Between 2000 and 2008, the number of state prisoners placed in private prisons increased by about 25%, from 75,018 to 93,537. In the federal system, however, the number increased from 15,525 to 32,712, or about 110%. During the same period, the number of states placing some portion of their prisoners in private facilities actually declined from 30 states to 27:
There are in practice only fifty-four "customers" buying incarceration services from the private prison industry - the three federal agencies, twenty-seven state departments of correction and DNO dozen local jurisdictions. Witllin this small customer base, the federal government plus eight states (fexas, Florida, Arizona, Oklahoma, Colorado, Tennessee, California and Mississippi) collectively account for more than 70% of aI/ private prison business. In effect, the market of buyers constitutes an oligopsony, or a market form in which only a few customers buy a certain good and therefore possess the power to affect pricing. The two largest publicly-traded private prison companies recognize their dependency on a limited number of governmental customers as a threat to their profitability and include a warning to stockholders to that effect in their annual reports. At CCA, just three federal government agencies, the BOP, ICE and the U.S. Marshals, accounted for 43% of the company's total revenue far fiscal year 2010, or $717.8 million. The state of California, which is placing thousands of prisoners out-of-state in an effort to reduce in-state prison populations, provided 13% of CCA's total revenue for fiscal year 2010, or $214 "million. GEO Group reports that while they have a total of 45 govemmental clients (customers), 4 of those clients accounted for over 60% of their U.s.-based revenue (BOP, ICE, U.S. Marshals and the State of Flortda). Among those, the three federal" agencies combined are responsible for 53% of GEO Group's total U.S. revenue.
The oligopsony of governmental consumers serves to discourage innovation. In practice, government purchasers of incarceration services have required that private prison companies Simply duplicate poliCies and procedures practiced in public prisons, to the effect that the standard operating procedures of most private prison programs closely mirror those of public prisons in "the same state. Notably, none of the companies have distinct and viable research and development departments as would be expected in an industry that values innovation. Private prison companies encourage the adoption of public prison practice, rather than the development of innovative practice, by actively recruiting management-level staff fram within the public sector.
As a case in pOint, a review of the background of CCA's facility management staff suggests a widespread practice of mining" the public corrections system for managers. Among the wardens of 63 of the company's correctional facilities, nearly two-thirds formerly worked in state departments of correction (36 wardens) or the federal BOP (5 wardens). The most warden-lich jurisdiction was the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, from whence 28% of all CCA wardens were recruited. These experienced staffers bring a degree of order and control to the company's private prisons, but they are not likely to be hired for their spirit of experimentation and innovation.
Arguably, private piisons are not looking to be innovative unless it is a way of cutting costs. The most common way for these companies to make money from government contracts is
https:/Iwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23 83 8_displayArticle.aspx

12/15/2011

Ex XI to Lennox Dec, Pg 7 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 8 of 45 Page ID#: 891

r l.l~~H LCgc:U 1'1 C W i::> - LCgi:U i:ll WACi::>, vCli::>C;:i a.llU VV i l l L, UCvl;:ilVU;:i

ra.gt: 0 Ul I

by reducing personnel expenses. Because labor represents about 80% of the operating cost of a prison, much of the cost savings in private prisons results from paying private correctional officers less than comparable public correctional officers. But this advantage begins to erode in a market where private companies are dependent upon contract renewals (with more experienced staff) rather than new facilities (with new, eotlY-level staff). Even as labor rates valY among the states, public sector correctional officer starting salaries average $28,000 across all states with a (one standard deviation) range between $23,000 and $34,200. By comparison, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports a mean annual salary of $42,270 for all occupations in the United States (in May 2008). Public sector prison staff salaries are very low already, suggesting that it is not easy for the private sector to continue to undercut the govemment in personnel costs.
Conclusion
The increasing concentration of markel share among the top four companies and the declining number of companies in the incarceration services market mean that governments considering the privatization option will find a decreasing competitive environment when seeking contract bids. In 1995, for example, a total of seven companies submitted bids in response to a Arkansas Department of Corrections request for proposals for two new privately-operated prisons. In contrast, a 2006 request for proposals to manage a private prison in Pennsylvania yielded only l>NO bidders. With market maturation and increased concentration, it is increasingly difficult for new companies to get into the business and for marginal performers to stay afloat.
Oligopoly theory and industl)' life C)fcle theory suggest that the remaining companies will be less competitive overall, seeking interdependent relationships wit.h their competitors to help secure their position now that industry growth rates have cooled. As this'scenarlo'continues' to unfold, any possibility of meaningful cost savings from privatization will decline over time. A recent study of private prison costs in Arizona found that this has already occurred, as the cost of incarcerating minimum-security prisoners has reached parity between state prisons and private prisons while the cost of housing medium-security prisoners is now actually lower in state prisons than in private facilities.
The private prison industry bears a fair share of the responsibility for not registering a better' showing in research resulis. Despite the fact that it has hired away from the public sector many Ubest and brightest» correctional staff, the industry's penchant for financially rewarding its executives and top managers has drained resources that could have been devoted to program research and development.
Govemments have also played a role in the failure of private prisons to perform better, particularly in the area of program quality. As an oligopsony, govemments hold the power to be more demanding in the area of performance yet have systematically failed to do so. In the m'ain, contracting governments have simply abdicated demand for increasing program quality, settling for an iIIUSOlY decrease in program costs. Given the history of "iron triang\en relationships that intertwine the private prison industry and govemment officials, this failure is perhaps not surprising.
One of the more depressing statistics to emerge in criminal justice in recent years is the fact that two-thirds of released prisoners are re-arrested within three years. Enlightened government officials around the country have realized that they can reduce correctional expenditures only by focusing their efforts on reducing recidivism, not by building or contracting for more prison space. Government jurisdictions that are having the greatest success in reducing correctional expenditures are those that are turning to evidence-based practice to guide sentencing decisions and devoting correctional resources toward programs proven to reduce recidivism. Prison is not one of them. In enlightened jurisdictions, incarceration rates are beginning to decline.
As this trend continues, the private prison industry will eventually enter the fourth stage of the industrial life cycle - decline - and will begin shedding some of its capacity. Some companies have already sighted this trend on the horizon and have begun developing alternative business opportunities in areas such as electronic monitoring and prisoner health care. For those govemment agencies with heavy reliance on private prisons, decline in the industry will pose new problems as companies shed unprofitable contracts and simply walk away. Albert Einstein suggested that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. If a Quarter centulY of experience with prison privatization has not led to better quality and cost outcomes, it is time to take a more sane approach.
Richard Culp is an Associate Professor of Public Administration at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City and the Coordinator of the Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice Management program. He is also a member of the doctoral faculty in Criminal Justice at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York and serves as Deputy Executive Officer of the CUNY Criminal Justice Doctoral Program. Professor Culp's research has been published in Justice Quarterly, Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, Criminal Justice Policy Review, The Prison Journal and the Joumal of Public Affairs Education.
T!1is article includes new and expanded research findings previously published in "Prison Privatization Turns Twenty-flve.n In K. Ismaili (Ed.) U.S. Criminal Justice Policy: A
https;1Iwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23 838_displayArticle.aspx

12115/2011

Ex XI to Lennox Dec, Pg 8 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 9 of 45 Page ID#: 892 rage I or I
Contemporary Reader (pp.183-209). Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers (201 O).

[Secure Website]
1111_1

Copyright © Prison Legal News 2011 Site designed and maintained by: AccuFind Internet Services Inc.®

https:/Iwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23 83 8_displayArticle.aspx

12115/2011 .
Ex XI to Lennox Dec, Pg 9 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 10 of 45 Page ID#: 893

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBIT II
TO
DECLARATION OF LUCY LENNOX
Ex XII to Lennox Dec, Pg 1 of 9

Ex XII to Lennox DePcL, NPCgO2Lo_fLe9nnox_00071

c;.~7--.kcL
. J.i \ ;)-<6 s · \\oj
Sf'O~\ \J)'k
qC\~3

4-~f:SPO)-~

•

. '9~r=~-' ~

. ~

J ~~~..-.
-,:::=- PITNey BOWES-

$ 000.64 '. 02 1P

0

•

00030484 0 DEC 15 2011

I IMAILED FR M ZIP CODE 99201

fu~ S
o....lT) ~1aL~

2D lI OO() 101 ~
~

W
H
X

N I>~ :t1:

~'7()

U U

(:C 1

o mt..

();1. :\'2/:'~~/:1.1

o !
W , ,lit>

(.i!

t'~

m W

mW:iOotnOQ:

OCi3 'rl _

Z t.t 0
~iJ!~)O Tii -

UlJI<lI:u.. ~ -
- cwo

r Jm! -

ZulLi (t)

ttrrt..J

m!:fJ-.wH>maZ:

!!.J:J 110 W ft)-
o 0

o ~
z

RETURN TO SENDER NOT CELXVERAaLE AS ADDRESSED
UNAeLE TO FORWARD

m( n -
.... -.-

\..,

~~ -.,.

('"~
¢ ~
C!i

'i (~C:: ~~9~20~6~~4A.~~~

-

-

0
v I

rl

*~014-091e3-17-47

tl)

H) In II LI ii 1,11 i1111I III I! Iii Ii Ij I,I,,11 IllIIIIIlI'1I1 J JI

ill

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 11 of 45 Page ID#: 894

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 12 of 45 Page ID#: 895

Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

Page 1 of7

Logged in as: Lucy Lennox Firm: Status: Member
I I Edit Profile II'Log Out of PLN

HOME

BOOK

SEARCH

ADVERTISE

SUBSCRIBE

DONATIONS

CONTACT

STORE

PLN

US

Book Review I FAQ's I Interviews I PLN links I PLN in the News I Annua~ Reports I Referral Directory

VIEW CART

r (0 Articles List Serv Messages
Thursday, December 15,201112:22 PM

I SUES!
agaljneieryicetcom

The Failed Promise of Prison Privatization

[ Please visit our advertiser above] BREAKING NEWS

by Richard Gulp, Ph.D.
We have been experimenting with prison prtvatization in tile U.S. now for over twenty-five years. The privatization idea originated out of a notion that the private sector, with its competition-driven efficiency and innovation, could operate prisons of higher quality and lower cost than the public sector. Create a market for incarceration services, the argument ran, and the market will work its magic, improving prison conditions and rehabilitative outcomes while saving the taxpayers millions of dollars. That market has effectively been created over the past quarter century and we have now arrived at a place where prison privatization has been studied extensively and evaluated rigorously.

Judicial Conference Committee DiSCiplines Federal Judge for Membership in Discriminatory Country Club by Alex Friedmann In May 2011, PLN reported that the Sixth ...
Nationwide PLN Survey Examines Prison Phone Contracts, Kickbacks by John E. Dannenberg An exhaustive analysis of prison phone contracts nationwide has revealed that ...

Although hyperbole continues to propel prison privatization policy along, research findings

are incontrovertible: even in the best private prisons, quality of prisoner care is no better

than in public prisons and the cost advantage of privatization, which initially accounted for

minimal savings, is steadily eroding as the private prison industry matures.

The big promises of prison privatization -less cost, higher quality - have simply not

,

materialized. Despite these disappointing results, prison privatization advocacy maintains'

tractiori in diverse jurisdictions as policymakers from Ohio to Florida and from Maine to

California seek expedient solutions to budget shortfalls triggered by a lingering great

recession.

In retrospect, it should come as no surprise that prison privatization would fail to live up to its promises. There are several reasons for this. First, free market solutions to social problems like crime assume, after all, that there are "free" marl<ets for appropriate services. However, there is no such thing as a natural market for the services provided by private prison companies. On the contrary, the marketplace for incarceration services is created by the government, for the government. It is an artificial market. MElnY of the services that have been privatized by govemment (e.g., custodial services, food preparation, medical care) are . provided by the private sector independently of the government's decision to privatize or not. There is a free market analogue for many kinds of services that governments routinely provide. Other fields such as education and health care, for example, have an active market of existing nonprofit and for-profit providers willing to sell educational and healthcare services to a huge market of potential buyers that includes both individuals and governments.

The prison business is fundamentally different in that no one 'can freely purchase incarceration services as a private individual. There is no natural market for incarceration services. The power to incarcerate someone - to hold a person against his or her will - is a defining characteristic of the state. The government holds a monopoly over the legitimate use of physical force and the power to incarcerate. Only the government has the legitimate power to restrict a citizen's liberty; individuals are prohibited by law from incarcerating another person under "false imprisonmene statutes. The government can delegate this power on a limited basis - for example, "shopkeeper's privilege" allows merchants to temporarily detain suspected shopliftt;!rs. But long-term incarceration is a different matter. The only potential buyers who can legally purchase incarceration services are the government 1urisdictions that have custody over indicted, convicted or detained persons. In order to privatize its incarceration function, the govemment has had to create a market since one does not and cannot exist without its direct intervention.

Prison Legal News Interviews Former Prisoner and Famous Actor Danny Trejo Danny Trejo is one of the best-known American actors living today....
Remembering Attica Forty Years Later by Dennis Cunningham, Michael Deutsch & Elizabeth Fink This year, September 9 will marl< the 40th anniversary ...
The History of Prison Legal News by Paul Wright In May 1990, the first issue of Prisoners' Legal News (PLN) was published. It ...
Twenty Years of PLN in Court Since PLN was .. founded in 1990 we have been censored in prisons
and jails around ....
Appalling Prison and Jail Food Leaves Prisoners Hungry for Justice by David M. Reutter, Gary Hunter & Brandon Sample Prison food, The very ...
Sexual Abuse by Prison and Jail Staff Proves .. Persistent, Pandemic by Gary Hunter Sexual
assault, rape, indecency, deviance. These terms represent reprehensible behavior ...
Judge Not: Judges Benched for Personal .. Misconduct by Gary Hunter & Alex Friedmann They
decide hot-button topiCS ranging from abortion and racial discrimination ...

Secondly, the development of the private prison industry has resulted in a highly concentrated producer market where only four companies control over 90% of the incarceration services business. Economic theory tells us that when production is highly concentrated in very few companies, the market becomes an oligopoly, a market situation that is inherently less competitive and innovative than a market with more broad-based representation. An oligopoly is characterized by interdependence, avo.idance of

The Graying of America's Prisons by James Ridgeway Frank Soffen, now 70 years old, has lived more than half his life in prison, ...

https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/2383 8_displayArticle.aspx

12115/2011

Ex XII to Lennox Dec, Pg 3 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 13 of 45 Page ID#: 896

Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

"Page 2 of7

competition and a rigid aitachment to the status quo among the leading'firms.
A third part of the story is that government itself unwittingiy stifles innovation in the private prison industry. Since the only legitimate customers of prison companies are the jurisdictions that can indict, convict or otherwise detain people, the potential customer base for incarceration services is very limited. In practice, this has led to a situation where only a handful of customers, an oligopsony in economic tenTls, has come to dominate the customer base. The limited number of customers serves to dissuade private prison companies from conducting research and development into innovative correctional programming, as the tiny customer base tends to demand only those services that mimic what the governments themselves are accustomed to providing.
Origins of the Artificial Market
Contracting out of noncustodial prison services such as medical care, food service, maintenance, education and mental health services has been practiced for a long time and with little controversy. Contracting out of custody services, for which there is no free market analogue, is much more controversial. The deinstitutionaiization movement in juvenile corrections during the 1970s initiated a number of experiments in privatized services and custody for juveniles. A major step toward contracted custody of adults occurred when the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the forerunner to today's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). decided in 1983 to partially outsoufce the detention of undocumented immigrants in its custody. In the summer of 1983, the INS issued a request for proposals and the newly-formed Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) submitted the winning bid.

,. ~.

~

Secret Justice: Criminal Informants and America's

Underground Legal System by Alexandra Natapoff I.

Introduction Although it is almost invisible to the

public, ...

.. Thou Shalt Not Sexual Misconduct by Prison and Jail Chaplains by David M. Reutter Traditionally, the role of a chaplain in the colTectional ...

.. Celebrity Justice: Prison Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous by Matt Clarke There are two criminal justice systems in the United States. One ...

.. Crime Labs in Crisis: Shoddy Forensics Used to Secure Convictions by Matt Clarke To millions of people whose knowledge of crime labs comes ...

. Private Prison Companies Behind the Scenes of Arizona's Immigration Law by Beau Hodai"Beside my brothers and my sisters, I'll proudly take a ...

Likewise. the community corrections movement in the adult system involved contracting out of the custody function in many low-security adult facilities. Minnesota passed the Community Corrections Act in 1971, and 25 states followed suit with similar legislation over the next 12 years. Community corrections legislation transferred funding from state-level departments of correction to local governments which, in tum, used the funds for halfway house programs and other services for lower-level offenders. Many jurisdictions turned to private contractors to operate these facitities.
In 1986, Management and Training Corporation (MTG) secured a contract to operate a community corrections facility in Eagle Mountain, California. Also in 1986, the State of Kentucky contracted out the development and operation of a 200-bed minimum-security facility in Marion County. Another newly-fonned company, the U.S. Corrections Corporation, was awarded the contract. Similarly, the U.S. Bureau of Prisons (BOP) began contracting out the operatiqn of low-security halfway house programs to the private sector during this time. Anoihereariy private prison company, Correctional Services Corporation, originally Esmor Correctional Corp., began business in 1989 with two contracts from the BOP to operate halfway houses in New York City.

Medical Examiners Lack Qualifications,
.. Competence, Oversight by Matt Clarke Most people will only have direct contact with a medical examiner, also known as ."

.. 40% of Criminal Jurisprudence bills boost criminal penalties As has probably been the case every legislative session in living memory, bills ...

Texas Increasingly out of Step on Death Penalty By

~

David Fathi Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle May 23, 2009, 3:44PM BaITing unexpected events. in the

next ...

These eariy entrants to the incarceration services market found a political climate supportive of privatization in several states, including Kentucky', Tennessee, Texas, Florida, Arizona, New Mexico and Louisiana. By 199'4 there were approximately 20 companies actively seei<ing contracts to either build and manage company-owned prisons or manage existing facilities owned by federal, state and local jurisdictions.
The Supply Side of the Incarceration Services Industry
The traditional industrial life cycle model suggests that new markets move through a process marked by four stages: fragmentation, shakeout, maturity and decline. The fragmentation period occurs when the industry is new, many entrepreneurs enter the market. and they operate at low volume and tend to serve narrow geographic areas. Eventually, a shakeout period occurs as some companies become more efficient and the less efficient ones fail to stay in business. Growth and competition are strongest during this period, as are the profits of the largest companies. The industry reaches maturity when grpwth slows and surviving companies try to solidify their positions in the industry. At some later time, the industry moves into decline as the demand for the product or service drops and companies seek new ways to recover profitability.

.. Some Agencies Balk at Releasing Prison Phone Data by Mike Rigby It is common knowledge among PLN readers that prison and jail phone ...
.. The Failed Promise of Prison Privatization by Richard Culp, Ph.D. We have been experimenting with prison privatization irt the U.S. now for over '"

The decade of the 19905 witnessed the rapid growth of prison privatization, consolidation of the industry and the cooling off of growth rates as the decade ended. The industry moved through the traditional life cycle stages of.fragmentation to maturity during this period. The industry experienced tremendous growth from 1992 to 1998, averaging an increase in capacity of 36% each year. But from 1999 to 2006, growth declined to an average rate of under 4% per year. As market maturity is commonly defined as reaching a state of equilibrium marked by the absence of significant grovlfth or innovation, the industry reached maturity as the new millennium began.

TIle shakeout stage of the industry is reflected in the difference between the companies . doing business in 1996 and those doing business in 2011. In 1996, there were 14
companies with private prison contracts in the United States. Table 1 lists these companies, their rated capacity and their market share of U.S. private prison business. A common measure of the dominance of companies in a given market is the market concentration ratio (CR), or the percentage of total industry safes (or capacity, or employment, or value added

https:iIwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23 83 8_displayArticle.aspx

12115/2011

Ex XII to Lennox Dec, Pg 4 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 14 of 45 Page ID#: 897

Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

Page 3 of7

or physical output) contributed by the four leading firms ranked in order of market share. A market is considered to have a high CR when the four leading firms control over two-thirds of market share, a moderate concentration when the ratio falls between one-third and twothirds, and a low concentration when the top four companies control less than a third of total market share.
The four-firm market concentration ratio of the private prison industry was 86% in 1996, a significantly high level of concentration. But by the end of 2011 only seven companies remained in the private prison business, and the market share of the top four firms increased to 92% (see Table 2).
Acquisitions and Ethical Challenges
The rise in concentration ratio means that the industry as a whole has become less competitive. Five ofthe companies that disappeared between 1996 and 2011 (U.S. Corrections Corporation, Correctional Services Corporation, Cornell Corrections, Inc., Fenton Security, Inc. and Correctional Systems, Inc.) were acquired by larger companies. Four other firms went out of business (Bobby Ross Group, Capital Correctional Resources, Dove Development Corporation and Maranatha Production Company, LLC). Three newcomers, LaSalle Southwest Corrections, Louisiana Corrections Services and Emerald Companies, are small and regionally-based in Texas and Louisiana. A review of the ongoing concentration in the market is illustrative of shakeouts in the industry and of some of the ethically-challenged behavior that can attend to the process of profit seeking. The largest company - Corrections Corporation of America - acquired the third-ranked company, U.S. Corrections Corporation, in 1998. U.S. Corrections, based in Kentucky, had much in common with Tennessee-based CCA. Both companies were founded by entrepreneurs who were well connected with the political establishment in their state. One of CCA's founders, Thomas W. Beasley, was a former chair of the state Republican Party and managed the successful 1978 gubernatorial campaign of Lamar Alexander. Honey Alexander, the governor's wife, was an early investor in CCA. U.S. Corrections Corporation, based in neighboring Louisville, did all ofils business in Kentucky prior to 1995. Executives of the company contributed over $77,000 to political campaigns in the state between 1987 and 1993, including $23,000 to GovernorWaUace G. Wilkinson and his wife Martha.
Clifford Todd, the CEO of U.S. Corrections, was implicated in a payoff scandal involving the company's contract to run the county jail in Louisville. He was arrested by the FBI in 1994, pleaded guilty to mail fraud and was sentenced to 6 months in jpil and fined $250,000. He sold his stake in the company for $15 million in 1994. At the time of the buyout by CCA, U.S. Corrections owned a total of four facilities in Kentucky, Ohio and North Carolina with a capacity of 5,275 beds, and had contracts to manage publicly-owned facilities in Kentucky, Florida and North Carolina with a capacity of 5,743 beds.
The second-largest company in 1996, Wackenhut Corrections Corporation (WCC), was formed in 1984 as a subsidiary to security firm Wacl<enhut Corporation, which was founded by George Wackenhut, a former FBI agent. Over the ensuing years, WCC grew to become one of the largest private prison companies in the world. The company began providing residential services for at-risk juveniles and young adults under the Job Corps program. WCC went public in 1994 (with Wackenhut Corporation as the majority shareholder). In 2002, the Danish company Group 4 Falck merged with the Wackenhut Corporation and, indirectly, became the owner of 57% ofWCC's stock:. In 2003, WCC bought out Group 4 Falck's interest in the company and changed its name to the GEO Group, Inc. The GEO Group acquired the industry's seventh-largest company, Correctional Services Corporation (CSC), in 2005 and Comell Corrections, the fifth-largest company, in 2010.
Founded in 1989, CSC operated under ;;everal different names, including Esmor Correctional Services, Inc. The company was founded by the owners of a welfare hotel in New Yorl< City and began its prison business operating halfway houses under contract with the BOP. CSC also managed the INS Detention Center in Elizabeth, New Jersey, remembered best for a June 1995 riot in which 300 detainees took over the facility in protest of poor conditions of confinement Esmor staff fled from the detention center, leaving order to be restored by federal, state and local law enforcement officers. The INS closed the facility after the riot, noting that CSC guards had abused detainees, gave them spoiled food and deprived them of sleep. The facility was reopened in 1997.
Later, in 2003, CSC was fined $300,000 by the New York State Lobbying Commission for failing to report free transportation, meals and gifts given to a dozen state legislators from Brooklyn and the Bronx. The fine was the largest the state had 'ever imposed on a company for violating the state's lobbying laws. In May 2008, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) 'filed charges,against three Fort Lauderdale, Florida physicians, alleging insider trading in GEO Group's 2005 acquisition of CSC. According to the complaint, one of the three worked as a consultant to GEO and had a son who worked in GEO's finance department, where he allegedly learned of the pending deal. The three were charged with illegally purchasing $390,000 in CSC stock before the acquisition. Two of the defendants entered into settlement agreements while the third was cleared of the charges.
AnoUler GEO acquisition, Cornell Corrections, Inc., had been the third-largest private prison company in 2006, with 8% of industry market share. Incorporated in 1994, the company built its business primanly with youth services and community-based rehabilitation programs for
https:/Iwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23 83 8_displayArticle.aspx

12/15/2011

Ex XII to Lennox Dec, Pg 5 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 15 of 45 Page ID#: 898

Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

Page 4 of7

adults. Pirate Capital, LLC, a hedge fund firm, acquired a 13% interest in Comell in 2004, becoming the company's largest shareholder, and replaced several board members and tl1e company's CEO with financiers more oriented toward short-term growth. Pirate Capital unloaded its shares of Cornell in 2006 in the midst of an SEC investigation over its stock sales practices. several bad investment decisions and company downsizing. The company wamed its stockholders in 2009 of looming problems in managing indebtedness of some $303 million. GEO Group bought Cornell, along with its debt, in 2010.

Management and Training Corporation (MTC) is the third-largest company currently providing incarceration services. MTC is a privately-held Utah-registered company that gained expertise in working with at-risk young people as a major provider of Job Corps programs. The company first entered the private prison market in 1987 when it received a contract to manage the Eagle Mountain Community Correctional Facility in Desert Center, California (which experienced a major riot that resulted in the deaths of two prisoners in 2003). MTC expanded slowly and steadily since 1987 and now runs a total of 20 correctional facilities in Arizona, California, Florida, Idaho, New Mexico, Ohio and Texas.

The company's generally positive reputation as a job training provider has been tarnished by its corrections experience. (n 1997, MTC hired the former director bf the Utah Department of Corrections, Lane McCotter, as Director of Corrections Business Development. McCotter was wen connected in pro-privatization states, having served as director of both the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and the New Mexico Corrections Department before serving as the corrections head in Utah. He left the Utah DOC job in the midst of an investigation over the dea1h of a prisoner with schizophrenia who had been shackled to a hard piastic chair for the final sixteen hours of his life.

In 2003, MTC's Santa Fe, New Mexico facility was under investigation by the U.S. Justice Department for unsafe conditions and poor quality prisoner medical care while McCotter was employed' with the company. Nonetheless, that same year he was appointed by Attorney General John Ashcroft to serve on a U.S. Department of Justice team commissioned to assess and implement a plan for rebuilding Iraq's criminal justice system. The team's final act before leaving Iraq was to conduct a ribbon cutting ceremony at the refurbished Abu Ghraib prison, a centerpiece of their corrections planning. Ntilough the facility was empty when McCotter left Iraq, the work of the committee of experts was indelibly stained by the infamous events that subsequently occurred at the plison and ITom on-going human rights abuse allegations in prjson~ under the direct supervision of other committee members.

MTC was also involved in a falled experiment in prison..privatization in Canada. In 2001, the company won a five-year contract to operate the Central North Correctional Centre (CNCC) in Ontario as part of a pilot project to compare operations of the CNCC facility with a similar publiclY-fun prison, the Central East Correctional Centre. The government hired PricewaterhouseCoopers to evaluate the two prisons across a variety of dimensions. The evaluation found that the public prison outperformed the MTC facility overall. While the MTC prison was cheaper to operate and provided a greater variety of programming than the government facility, the public prison rated significantly better on security, recidivism rates, health care and community impact. Based on the results of the experiment, Ontario decided to tum management of the privatized facility over to the public sector.

Community Education Centers (CEC), incorporated in 1996, rounds out the quartet of companies that control 92% of the current incarceration services market. Like MTC, CEe is a privately-held company whose finances and governance structure are much Jess transparent than is the case with publicly-held companies. Until a few years ago, CEC's business was concentrated in providing community-based residential, re-entry and. rehabilitative services to offenders, mostly in New. Jersey and Pennsylvania, but the company moved into the secure incarceration services business with its acquisition of CiviGenics in 2007.

CiviGenics was founded in 1995 in Marlboro, MA by Roy Ross, the former president of

Spectrum Health Systems, Inc., a nonprofit company that provided drug and alcohol

treatment services for prisoners in the Massachusetts Department of Corrections. Ross

arranged a contract for CiviGenics to provide management of Spectrum's Massachusetts in-

prison treatment programs. In 1996, CiviGenics acquired Fenton Security, Inc., a small

company that had management contracts to operate two county jails in Colorado. Tom

Rapone, a former Secretary of Public Safety in Massachusetts, joined CiviGenics as the

firm's Chief Operating Officer. CiviGenics expanded its secure custody operations and by

1998 operated several small jail.facilities, employed more than 1,000 staff and had revenues

of more than $30 million.

.

In July 1999, the·Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) awarded CiviGenics a $14.9 million contract to operate the newly-built North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility (NCCTF) in Grafton. However, the ODRC elected not to renew its contract with CiviGenics when the contract expired in July 2001, citing problems with high staff turnover (including five different wardens in its first 18 months), repeated failure to maintain minimum staffing levels and problems with over-billing the state for positions that remained uncovered. The ODRC subsequently awarded the contract to MTC, which continues to operate the NCCTF facility.

https:llwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23838_displayArtic1e.aspx

1211512011

Ex XII to Lennox Dec, Pg 6 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 16 of 45 Page ID#: 899

Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

Page 5 of7

In 2004, the Massachusetts State Auditor completed an audit that found Spectrum Health Systems had misused $17.4 million in state money, with $10.2 million ofthe total amount involving excessive payments to CiviGenics. The matter was settled in January 2007 in an agreement that required CiviGenics to repay the state $3.4 million and Roy Ross to repay $650,000. With its acquisition of CiviGenics in 2007, CEC became the fourth largest private prison company in the U.S.
The Demand Side of the Incarceration Services Industry
The demand side of prison privatization, like the oligopoly of private prison companies, is also highly concentrated. The potential customers in the private prison market are govemment agencies at the federal, state and local level that operate jail, prison and detention programs. At the federal level, the Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Marshals Service and Immigration and Customs Enforcement all manage a variety of custody facilities. The four branches of the military also operate facilities for military personnel sentenced under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Of course, the 50 states and the District of Columbia each have departments of correction.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there are some 1,821 state and federal correctional facilities, not counting facilfties operated by the U:S. Marshals Service and ICE. At the local level, counties and cities operate about 2,875 jail facilities in the United States. In sum, the potential consumer base of the private prison industry numbers somewhere in the area of 4,700 faCilities.
After over 25 years of correctional privatization, there are fewer than 200 private correctional facilities in the United States - only about 4% of all facilities. The federal government is the most actively involved in privatization, with 16.3% of federal prisoners serving time in private facilities. State governments are next, with 6.6% of state prisoners in private facilities. However, whereas 600"/0 of all correctional facilities in the United States are at the local level, only about two dozen city and county jurisdictions (1.7% of the total) contract with private companies to operate their jails and detention centers. In practice there are very few buyers of privatized incarceration services, and the federal government is the largest single customer. Between 2000 and 2008, the number of state prisoners placed in private prisons increased by about 25%, from 75,018 to 93,537. In the federal system, however, the number increased from 15,525 to 32,712, or about 110%. During the same period, the number of states placing some portion of their plisoners in private facilities actuaHy declined from 30 states to 27.
There are in practice only fifty-four "customers~ buying incarceration services from the private prison industry - the three federal agencies, twenty-seven state departments of correction and two dozen local jurisdictions. Within this small customer base, the federal govemment plus eight states (fexas, Florida, Arizona, Oklahoma, Colorado, Tennessee, California and Mississippi) collectively account for more than 70% of all private prison business. In effect, the market of buyers constitutes an oligopsony, or a market form in which only a few customers buy a certain good and therefore possess the power to affect pricing. The two largest publicly-traded private prison companies recognize their dependency on a limited number of governmental customers as a threat to their profitability and include a warning to stockholders to that effect in their annual reports. At CCA, just three federal government agencies, the BOP, ICE and the U.S. Marshals, accounted for 43% of the company's total revenue for fiscal year 2010, or $717.8 million. The state of California, which is placing thousands of prisoners out-of-state in an effort to reduce in-state prison populations, provided 13% of CCA's total revenue for fiscal year 2010, or $214·million. GEO Group reports that while they have a total of 45 govemmental clients (customers), 4 of those clients accounted for over 60% of their U.S.-based revenue (BOP, ICE, U.S. Marshals and the State of Florida). Among those, the three federal agencies combined are responsible for 53% of GEO Group's total U.S. revenue.
The oligopsony of governmental consumers serves to discourage innovation. In practice, government purchasers of incarceration services have required that private prison companies simply duplicate policies and procedures practiced in public prisons, to the effect that the standard operating procedures of most private prison programs closely mirror those of public prisons in ·the same state. Notably, none oftlle companies have distinct and viable research and development departments as would be expected in an industry that values innovation. Private prison companies encourage the adoption of public prison practice, rather tl1an the development of innovative practice, by actively recruiting management-level staff from within the public sector.
As a case in point, a review of the background of CCA's facility management staff suggests a widespread practice of mining' the public corrections system for managers. Among the wardens of 63 of the company's correctional facilities, nearly two-thirds formerly worked in state departments of correction (36 wardens) or the federal BOP (5 wardens). The most warden-rich jurisdiction was the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, from whence 28% of all CCA wardens were recruited. These experienced staffers bring a degree of order and control to the company's private prisons, but they are not likely to be hired for their spirit of experimentation and innovation.
Arguably, private prisons are not looking to be innovative unless it is a way of cutting costs. The most common way for these companies to make money from government contracts is
htlps:llwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23838_displayArticle.aspx

12/1512011

Ex XII to Lennox DPLeNc,CPOgL_7Leonfn9ox 00076

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 17 of 45 Page ID#: 900

.Pnson Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

Page 6 of7

by reducing personnel expenses. Because labor represents about 80% of the operating cost of a prison, much of the cost savings in private prisons results from paying private correctional officers less than comparable public correctional officers. But this advantage begins to erode in a market where private companies are dependent upon contract renewals (with more experienced staff) rather than new facilities (with new, entry-level staff). Even as labor rates vary among the states, public sector correctional officer starting salaries average $28,000 across all states with a (one standard deviation) range between $23,000 and $34,200. By comparison, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports a mean annual salary of $42,270 for all occupations in the United States (in May 2008). Public sector prison staff salaries are very low already, suggesting that it is not easy for the private sector to continue to undercut the government in personnel costs.
Conclusion
The increasing concentration of market share among the top four companies and the declining number of companies in the incarceration services market mean that governments considering the privatization option will find a decreasing competitive environment when seeking contract bids. In 1995, for e)(ample, a total of seven companies submitted bids in response to a Arkansas Department of Corrections request for proposals for two new piivately-operated prisons. In contrast, a 2006 request for proposals to manage a private prison in Pennsylvania yielded only two bidders. With market maturation andincreas.ed concentration, it is increasingly difficult for new companies to get into the business and for marginal performers to stay afloat
Oligopoly theory and industry life cycle theory suggest that the remaining companies will be less competitive overall, seeking interdependent relationships with their competitors to help secure their position now that industry gro1JlIth rates have cooled. As this scenario continues to unfold, any possibility of meaningful cost savings from privatization will decline over time. A recent study of private prison costs in Arizona found that this has already occurred, as the cost of incarcerating minimum-security prisoners has reached parity between state prisons and private prisons while the cost of housing medium-security prisoners is now actually lower in state prisons than in private facilities.
The private prison industry bears a fair share of the responsibility for not registering a better showing in research results. Despite the fact that it has hired away from the public sector many "best and brightest" correctional staff, the industry's penchant for financially rewarding its executives and top managers has drained resources that could have been devoted to program research and development.
Govemments have also played a role in the failure of private prisons to perfonn better, particularly in the area oJ program quality. As an oligopsony, governments hold the power to be more demanding in the area of performance yet have systematically failed to do so. In the rn'ain, contracting governments have simply abdicated demand for increasing program quality, settling for an illusory decrease in program costs. Given the history of "iron trianglen relationships that intertwine the private prison industry and government officials, this failure is perhaps not surprising.
One of the more depressing statistics to emerge in criminal justice in recent years is the fact that two-thirds of released prisoners are fe-arrested within three years. Enlightened government officials around the country have realized that they can reduce correctional expenditures only by focusing their efforts on reducing recidivism, not by building or contracting for more prison space. Government jurisdictions that are having the greatest success in reducing correctional expenditures are those that are turning to evidence-based practice to guide sentencing decisions and devoting correctional resources toward programs proven toreduce recidivism. Plison is not one of them. In enlightened jurisdictions, incarceration rates are beginning to decline.
As this trend continues, the private prison industry will eventually enter the fourth stage of the industrial life cycle - decline - and will begin shedding some of its capacity. Some companies have already sighted this trend on the horizon and have begun developing alternative bUSiness opportunities in areas such as electronic monitoring and prisoner health care. For those government agencies with heavy reliance on private prisons, decline in the industry will pose new problems as companies shed unprofitable contracts and Simply walk away. AlbertEinstein suggested that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. If a quarter century of experience with prison privatization has not led to better quality and cost outcomes, it is time to take a more sane approach.
Richard Culp is an Associate Professor of Public Administration at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City and the Coordinator of the Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice Management program. He is also a member of the doctoral faculty in Criminal Justice at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York and serves as Deputy Executive Officer of the CUNY Criminal Justice Doctoral Program. Professor Culp's research has been published in Justice Quarterly, Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, Criminal Justice Policy Review, The Prison Joumal and the Journal of Public Affairs Education.
This article includes new and expanded research findings previously published in "Prison Privatization Turns Twenty-five.n In K. Ismaili (Ed.) U.S. Criminal Justice Policy: A
htlps;llwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23838_displayAliicle.aspx

12/15/2011

Ex XII to Lennox Dec, Pg 8 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 18 of 45 Page ID#: 901 rage / or I
Contemporary Reader (pp.183-209). Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers (2010).
Copyright © Prison Legal News 2011
Site designed and maintained by: AccuFind Internet Services Inc.®

https://WWW.prisonlegaInews.org/23 83 8_displayArticle.aspx

12115/2011

Ex XII to Lennox Dec, Pg 9 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 19 of 45 Page ID#: 902

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBIT . III
TO DECLARATION OF LUCY LENNOX
Ex XIII to Lennox Dec, Pg 1 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 20 of 45 Page ID#: 903 Ex XIII to Lennox DePcL, NPCgO2Lo_fLe9nnox_00079

'Ch~~ ~\~~ s. ~
5S~~aC)) )~~eE!.... I ~ \.()
~ , '.10(' G

•
•• . ..

~4-~~EPSQPsO,s.~~ _',

§ 19~ ~~=~=:". ~e l l &..;;

I

-~ - ~---P-I~ -T~ -. NPE. ITYN. ,.EB.-Y.- O.-B.W.- O-.W E.-ESS

.·0022 1P

$ 000.640

0003048470 DEC 15 2011

- MMAAIILLEEDD FFRROOMM ZZIIPP CCOODDEE 99201

nO .-....
nO.~.fL2JJ\.;;uJyJ~~

\N ~ k~ 1~-D-tDItClcXx::0O5S'd~'.-1't
Q~l.,loo eC - ·· - ((IlO~'I.AA..kk Q-:J0

,

c'1t !1
Q ~

.....

::..~"~ \\1~\r./'" \~ ..... ~ :=;=:A trL?·~O::ttE:. :.::s;

i i

~~624 4 f$E:
"

·:-:-':•·:::;i·•.-•.:•·-•.:;:'.:~wSi~-.,I".~.'..~;5ao0"'3.:..~@rcl624

4

N I:O>C0l::EE~~

9'70 CC~;FF..;;: J.

01 ~12~/23/1~1

RETURN TO SENDER NOT CEL%IVVEERRAAOeLE AS ADDORREESSSSEEDe
UNABLE TO FORWARD

Be: 99992~0033e822444422a8

* 1 0 1144--00991t 9944- 1 7 - 4 7

III iII1I11111 i 1II11I1I1IJ; 1i1l1in111i1l i 111.111111111 J11I !J II I1J111J11/ JIii, 1I1i 1I1I1I )j111I1/11111l1d11I1I

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 21 of 45 Page ID#: 904

Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

Page 1 of7

Logged in as: Lucy Lennox Firm: Status: Member
I I I f Edit Profile Log Out of PLN

HOME

BOOK

SEARCH

ADVERTISE

SUBSCRIBE

DONATIONS

CONTACT

STORE

PLN

US

Book Review I FAQ's I Interviews I PLN linl<s I PLN in the News I Annual Reports I Referral Directory

VIEW CART

(i Articles r List Serv Messages

EI UE

Thursday. December 15,201112:22 PM Tile Failed Promise of Prison Privatization

[ Please visit our advertiser above 1
BREAKING NEWS

by Richard Gulp, Ph.D.
We have been e>"'Perimenting with prison privatization in the U.S. now for over twenty-five years. The privatization idea originated out of a notion that the private sector, with its competition-driven efficiency and innovation, could operate prisons of higher quality and lower cost than the public sector. Create a market for incarceration services, the argument ran, and the marlcet will work its magic, improving prison conditions and rehabilitative outcomes while saving the taxpayers millions of dollars. That market has effectively been created over the past quarter century and we have now arrived at a place where prison privatization has been studied extensively and evaluated rigorously.

Judicial Conference Committee DiSCiplines Federa!l Judge for Membership in Discriminatory Country Club by Alex Friedmann In May 2011, PLN reported that the Sixth '"
Nationwide PLN Survey Examines Prison Phone Contracts, Kickbacks by John E. Dannenberg An exhaustive analysis of prison phone contracts nationwide has revealed that ...

Although hyperbole continues to propel prison privatization policy along, research findings

are incontrovertible: even in the best private prisons, quality of prisoner care is no better

than in public prisons and the cost advantage of privatization, which initially accounted for

minimal savings, is steadily eroding as the private prison industry matures.

The big promises of prison privatization -less cost, higher quality - have simply not

.

materialized, Despite these disappointing results, prison privatization 'advocacy maintains .

b:action in diverse jurisdictions as policymakers from Ohio to Florida and from Maine to

California seek expedient solutions to budget shortfalls triggered by a lingering great

recession.

In retrospect, it should come as no surprise that prison privatization would fail to live up to its promises. There are several reasons for this. First, free market solutions to social problems like crime assume, after all, that there are ~free~ markets for appropriate services. However,
there is no such thing as a natural market for the services provided by private prison companies. On the contrary, the marketplace for incarceration services is created by the government, for the government. It is an artificial market. MEmy of the services that have been privatized by government (e.g., custodial services, food preparation, medical care) are . provided by the private sector independently of the government's decision to privatize or not. There is a free market analogue for many kinds of services that govemments routinely
provide. Other fields slIch as education and health care, for example, have 8n active market
of existing nonprofit and for-profit providers willing to sell educational and healthcare ,services to a huge market of potential buyers that includes both individuals and
governments.

The prison bUsiness is fundamentally different in that no one'can freely purchase incarceration services as a private individual. There is no natural market for incarceration services. The power to incarcerate someone - to hold a person against his or her will - is a defining characteristic of the state. The government holds a monopoly over the legitimate use of physical force and the power to incarcerate. Only the government has the legitimate power to restrict a citizen's liberty; individuals are prohibited by law frofTl incarcerating another person under "false imprisonment" statutes. The government can delegate this power on a limited basis - for example, "shopkeeper's privilege" allows merchants to
a temporarily detain suspected shoplifters. But fang-term incarceration is different matter.
The only potential buyers who can legally purchase incarceration services are the government jurisdictions that have custody over indicted, convicted or detained persons. In order to privatize its incarceration function, the govemment has had to create a market since one does not and cannot exist without its direct intervention.

Prison Legal News Interviews Former Prisoner and Famous Actor Danny Trejo Danny Trejo is one of the beSt~known American actors living today....

Remembering Attica Forty Years Later by Dennis Cunningham, Michael Deutsch & Elizabeth Fink This year, September 9 will mark the 40th anniversary ...

The History of Prison Legal News by Paul Wright In May 1990, the first issue of Prisoners' Legal News (PLN) was published. It ...

Twenty Years of PLN in Court Since PLN was founded in 1990 we have been censored in prisons and jailS around ...

Appalling Prison and Jail Food Leaves Prisoners Hungry for Justice by David M. Reutter, Gary Hunter & Brandon Sample Prison food. The very ...

Sexual Abuse by Prison and Jail Staff Proves PerSistent, Pandemic by Gary Hunter Sexual assault, rape, indecency, deviance. These terms represent reprehensible behavior ...

Judge Not: Judges Benched for Personal

,

Misconduct by Gary Hunter & Alex Friedmann They

decide hot-button topics ranging from abortion and

racial discrimination ...

Secondly, the development of the private prison industry has resulted hi a highly concentrated producer market where only four companies control over 90% cifthe' incarceration services business. Economic theory tells us that when production is highly concentrated in very few companies, the market becomes an oligopoly, a market situation that is inherently less competitive and innovative than a market with more broad-based representation. An oligopoly is characterized by interdependence, avo.idance of

The Graying of America's Prisons by James .. Ridgeway Frank Soffen, now 70 years old, has lived
more than half his life in prison, ...

https:/Iwww.prisonlegalnews.org/2383 8_displayArticle.aspx

12115/2011

Ex XIII to Lennox Dec, Pg 3 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 22 of 45 Page ID#: 905

Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

Page 2 of7

competition and a rigid attachment to the status quo among the leading firms.
A tJlird part of the story is that government itself unwitiingiy stifles innovation in the private prison industry. Since the only legitimate customers of prison companies are the jurisdictions that can indict, convict or otherwise detain people, the potential customer base for incarceration services is very limited. In practice, this has led to a situation where only a handful of customers, an oligopsony in economic ten11s, has come to dominate the customer base. The limited number of customers serves to dissuade private prison companies from conducting research and development into innovative correctional programming, as the tiny customer base tends to demand only those services that mimic what the govemments themselves are accustomed to providing.
Origins of the Artificial Market
Contracting out of noncustodial prison services such as medical care, food service, maintenance, education and mental health services has been practiced for a long time and with little controversy. Contracting out of custody services, for which there is no free market analogue, is much more controversial. The deinstitutionaiization movement in juvenile corrections during the 1970s initiated a number of experiments in privatized services and custody for juveniles. A major step toward contracted custody of adults occurred when the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the forerunner to today's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), decided in 1983 to partially outsource the detention of undocumented immigrants in its custody. In the summer of 1983, the INS issued a request for proposals and the newly-formed Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) submitted the winning bid.

Secret Justice: Criminallnfonnants and America's Underground Legal System by Alexandra Natapoff L Introduction Although it is almost invisible to the public, ."
Thou Shalt Not: Sexual Misconduct by Prison and ~ Jail Chaplains by David M. Reutter Traditionally, the
role of a chaplain in the correctional ...
Celebrity Justice: Prison Lifestyles of the Rich and ~ Famous by Matt Clarke There are two criminal
justice systems in the United States. One ...
Crime Labs in Crisis: Shoddy Forensics Used to ~ Secure Convictions by Matt Clarke To millions of
people whose knowledge of crime labs comes ...
Private Prison Companies Behind the Scenes of
... Arizona's Immigration Law by Beau Hodai"Beside
my brothers and my sisters, l'tI proudly take a ...

Likewise, the community corrections movement in the adult system involved contracting out of the custody function in many !ow-security adult facilities. Minnesota passed the Community Corrections Act in 1971, and 25 states followed suit with similar legislation over the next 12 years. Community corrections legislation transferred funding from state-level departments of correction to local governments which, in tum, used the funds for halfway house programs and other services for lower-level offenders. Many jurisdictions turned to private contractors to operate these facilities.
In 1986, Management and Training Corporation (MTC) secured a contract to operate a community corrections facility in Eagle Mountain, CaHfornia. Also in 1986, the State of Kentucky contracted out the development and operation of a 200-bed minimum-security facility in Marion County. Another newly-fanned company, the U.S. Corrections Corporation, was awarded the contract. Similarly, the U.S. Bureau of Prisons (BOP) began contracting out the operatiqn of fow-security halfway house programs to the private sector during this lime. Another early private prison company, Correctional Services Corporation, originally Esmor Correctionaf Corp., began business in 1989 with two contracts from the BOP to operate halfway 110uses in New York City.

Medical Examiners Lack Qualifications,

~

Competence, OverSight by Matt Clarke Most people will only have direct contact with a medical

examiner, also known as ."

40% of Criminal Jurisprudence bills boost criminal ... penalties As has probably been the case every
legislative session in living memory, bills ...

Texas Increasingly out of Step on Death Penalty By

~

David Fathi Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle May 23, 2009, 3:44PM Barling unexpected events, in the

next ...

These early entrants to the incarceration services market found a political climate supportive of privatization in several states, including Kentucky·, Tennessee, Texas, Florida, Arizona, New Mexico and Louisiana. By 1994 there were approximately 20 companies actively seeking contracts to either build and manage company-owned prisons or manage existing facilities owned by federal, state and local jUrisdictions.
The Supply Side ofthe Incarceration Services Industry
The traditional industrial life cycle model suggests that new markets move through a process marked by four stages: fragmentation, shakeout, maturity and decline. The fragmentation period occurs when the industry is new, many entrepreneurs enter the market, and they operate at low volume and tend to serve narrow geographic areas. Eventually, a shakeout period occurs as some companies become more efficient and the less efficient ones fail to stay in business. Growth and competition are strongest during this period, as are the profits of the largest companies. The industry reaches maturity when grpwth slows and surviving companies try to solidify their positions in the industry. At some later time, the industry moves into decline as the demand for the product or service drops and companies seek new ways to recover profitability.

.. Some Agencies Balk at Releasing Prison Phone Data by Mike Rigby It is common knowledge among PLN readers that prison and jail phone ...
.. The Failed Promise of Prison Privatization by Richard Culp, Ph.D. We have been experimenting with prison privatization in the U.S. now for over ...

The decade ofthe 1990s witnessed the rapid growth of prison privatization, consolidation of the industry and the cooling off of growth rates as the decade ended. The industry moved through the traditional life cycle stages of.fragmentation to maturity during this period. The industry experienced tremendous growth from 1992 to 1998, averaging an increase in capacity of 36% each year. But from 1999 to 2006, growth declined to an average rate of under 4% per year. As market maturity is commonly defined as reaching a state of eqUilibrium marked by the absence of significant growth or innovation, the industry reached maturity as the new milfennium began.

The shakeout stage of the industry is reflected in the difference between the companies doing business in 1996 and those doing business in 2011. In 1996, there were 14 companies with private prison contracts in the United States. Table 1 lists these companies, their rated capacity and their market share of U.S. private prison business. A common measure of the dominance of companies in a given market is the market concentration ratio (CR), orthe percentage ortota! industry sales (or capacity, or employment, or value added

https:llwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23 838_displayArticle.aspx

12115/2011

Ex XIII to Lennox Dec, Pg 4 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 23 of 45 Page ID#: 906

Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

Page 3 of7

or physical output) contributed by the four leading firms ranked in order of market share. A market is considered to have a high CR when the four leading firms control over two-thirds of market share, a moderate concentration when the ratio falls between one-third and twothirds, and a low concentration when the top four companies control less than a third of total market share.
The four-fiml market concentration ratio of the private prison industry was 86% in 1996, a significantly high level of concentration. But by the end of 2011 only seven companies remained in the private prison business, and the market share of the top four finns increased to 92% (see Table 2).
Acquisitions and Ethical Challenges
The rise in concentration ratio means that the industry as a whole has become less competitive. Five oHhe companies that disappeared between 1996 and 2011 (U.S. Corrections Corporation, Correctional Services Corporation, Cornell Corrections, Inc., Fenton Security, Inc. and Correctional Systems, Inc.) were acquired by larger companies. Four other firms went out of business (Bobby Ross Group, Capital Correctional Resources, Dove Development Corporation and Maranatha Production Company, LLC). Three newcomers, LaSalle Southwest Corrections, Louisiana Corrections Services and Emerald Companies, are small and regionally-based in Texas and Louisiana. A review of the ongoing concentration in the marl<et is illustrative of shakeouts in the industry and of some of the ethically-challenged behavior that can attend to the process of profit seeking. The largest company - Corrections Corporatlo"n of America - acquired tile third-ranked company, U.S. Corrections Corporation, in 1998. U.S. Corrections, based in Kentucky, had
much in common with Tennessee-based CCA. Both companies were founded by
entrepreneurs who were well connected with the political establishment in their state. One of CCA's founders, ThomasW. Beasley, was a former chair of the state Republican Party and managed the sllccessful 1978 gubernatorial campaign of Lamar Alexander. Honey Alexander, tbe governor's wife, was an early investor in CCA. U.S. Corrections Corporation, based in neighboring Louisville, did all of its business in l-(entucky prior to 1995. Executives of the company contributed over $77,000 to political campaigns in the state between 1987 and 1993, including $23,000 to Governor Wallace G. Wilkinson and his wife Martha.
Clifford Todd, the CEO of U.S. Corrections, was implicated in a payoff scandal involving the company's contract to run the county jail in Louisville. He was arrested by the FBI in 1994, pleaded guilty to mail fraud and was sentenced to 6 months in ipil and fined $250,000. He sold his stake in the company for $15 million in 1994. At the time of the buyout by CCA, U.S. Corrections owned a total of four facilities in Kentucky, Ohio and North Carolina with a capacity of 5,275 beds, and had contracts to manage publicly-owned facilities in Kentucky, Florida and North Carolina with a capacity of 5,743 beds.
The second-largest company in 1996, Wackenhut Corrections Corporation (WCC), was formed in 1984 as a subsidiary to security firm Wackenhut Corporation, which was founded
by George Wackenhut, a fanner FBI agent. Over tile ensuing years, wce grew to become
one ofthe largest private prison companies in the world. The company began providing residential services for at-risk juveniles and young adults under the Job Corps program. WCC went public in 1994 (with Wackenhut Corporation as the majority shareholder). In 2002, the Danish company Group 4 Falck merged with the Wackenhut Corporation and, indirectly, became the owner of 57% ofWCC's stock. In 2003, WCC bought out Group 4 Falck's interest in the company and changed its name to the GEO Group, Inc. The GEO Group acquired the industry's seventh-largest company, Correctional Services Corporation (CSC), in 2005 and Comell Corrections, the fifth-largest company, in 2010.
Founded in 1989, CSC operated under .several different names, including Esmor Correctional Services, Inc. The company was founded by the owners of a welfare hotel in New York City and began its prison business operating halfway houses under contract with the BOP. CSC also managed the INS Detention Center in Elizabeth, New Jersey, remembered best for a June 1995 riot in which 300 detainees took over the facility in protest of poor conditions of confinement. Esmor staff fled from the detention center, leaving order to be restored by federal, state and local law enforcement officers. The INS closed the
facility after the riot, noting that esc guards had abused detainees, gave them spoiled food
and deprived them of sleep. The facility was reopened in 1997.
Later, in 2003, CSC was fined $300,000 by the New York State Lobbying Commission for failing to report free transportation, meals and gifts given to a dozen state legislators from Brooklyn and the Bronx. The fine was the largest the state had ever imposed on a company for violating tile state's lobbying laws. In May 2008, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) 'filed charges.against three Fort Lauderdale, Florida physicians, alleging insider trading in GEO Group's 2005 acquisition of CSC. According to the complaint, one of the three worked as a consultant to GEO and had a son who worked in GEO's finance department, where he allegedly learned of the pending deal. The three were charged with illegally purchasing $390,000 in CSC stock before the acquisition. Two of the defendants entered into settlement agreements while the third was cleared of the charges.
Another GEO acquisition, Cornell Corrections, Inc., had been the third-largest private prison company in 2006, with 8% of industry market share. Incorporated in 1994, the company built its business primarily with youth services and community-based rehabilitation programs for

https:llwww.prisonlegalnews.org/2383 8_displayArticle.aspx

12/15/2011
J
Ex XIII to Lennox DPLeNc,CPOgL_5Leonfn9ox_00082

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 24 of 45 Page ID#: 907

Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

Page 4 of7

adults. Pirate Capital, LLC, a hedge fund firm, acquired a 13% interest in Cornell in 2004, becoming the company's largest shareholder, and replaced several board members and tile company's CEO with financiers more oriented toward short-term growth. Pirate Capital unloaded its shares of Cornell in 2006 in the midst of an SEC investigation over its stock sales practices, several bad investment decisions and company downsizing. The company warned its stockholders in 2009 of looming problems in managing indebtedness of some $303 million. GEO Group bought Cornell, along with its debt, in 2010.
Management and Training Corporation (MTC) is the third-largest company currently providing incarceration services. MTC is a privately-held Utah-registered company that gained expertise in working with at-risk young people as a major provider of Job Corps programs. The company first entered the private prison market in 1987 when it received a contract to manage the Eagle Mountain Community Correctional Facility in Desert Center, California (which experienced a major riot that resulted in the deaths of two prisoners in 2003). MTC expanded slowly and steadily since 1987 and now runs a total of 20 correctional facilities in Arizona, California, Florida, Idaho, New Mexico, Ohio and Texas.
The company's generally positive reputation as a job training provider has been tarnished by its corrections experience. In 1997, MTC hired the former director of the Utah Department of Corrections, Lane McCotter, as Director of Corrections Business Development. McCotter was well connected in pro-privatization states, having served as director of both the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and the New Mexico Corrections Department before serving as the corrections head in Utah. He left the Utah DOC job in the midst of an investigation over the death of a prisoner with schizophrenia who had been shackled to a hard plastic chair for the final sixteen hours of his life.
In 2003, MTC's Santa Fe, New Mexico facility was under investigation by the U.S. Justice Department for unsafe conditions and poor quality prisoner medical care while McCotter was employed' with the company. Nonetheless, that same year he was appointed by Attorney General John Ashcroft to serve on a U.S. Department of Justice team commissioned to assess and implement a plan for rebuilding Iraq's criminal justice system. The team's final act before leaving Iraq was to conduct a ribbon cutting ceremony at the refurbished Abu Ghraib prison, a centerpiece of their corrections planning. Although the facility was empty when McCotter left Iraq, the work of the committee of experts was indelibly stained by the infamous events that subsequently occurred at the plison and ITom on-going human rigllts abuse allegations in prjson~ under the direct supervision of other committee members.
MTC was also involved in a failed experiment in prison. privatization in Canada. In 2001, the company won a five-year contract to operate the Central North Correctional Centre (CNCC) in Ontario as part of a pilot project to compare operations of the CNCC facility with a similar publicly-run prison, the Central East Correctional Centre. The government hired PricewaterhouseCoopers to evaluate the two prisons across a variety of dimensions. The evaluation found that the public prison outperformed the MTC facility overall. While the MTC prison was cheaper to operate and provided a greater variety of programming than the government facility, the public prison rated significantly better on security, recidivism rates, health care and community impact. Based on the results of the experiment, Ontario decided to turn management of the privatized facility over to the public sector.
Community Education Centers (CEC), incorporated in 1996, rounds out the quartet of companies that control 92% of the current incarceration services market. Like MTC, CEC is a privately-held company whose finances and governance structure are much less transparent than is the case with publicly-held companies. Until a few years ago, CEC's business was concentrated in providing community-based residen1ial, re-entry and. rehabilitative services to offenders, mostly in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, but the company moved into the secure incarceration services business with its acquisition of CiviGenics in 2007.
CiviGenics was founded in 1995 in Marlboro, MA by Roy Ross, the former president of Spectrum Health Systems, Inc., a nonprofit company that provided drug and alcollol treatment services for prisoners in the Massachusetts Department of Corrections. Ross arranged a contract for CiviGenics to provide management of Spectrum's Massachusetts inprison treatment programs. In 1996, CiviGenics acquired Fenton Security, Inc., a small company that had management contracts to operate two county jails in Colorado. Tom Rapone, a former Secretary of Public Safety in Massacilusetts, joined CiviGenics as the firm's Chief Operating Officer. CiviGenics expanded its secure custody operatior)S and by 1998 operated several small jail.facilities, employed more than 1,000 staff and had revenues of more than $30 million.
In July 1999, the·Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) awarded CiviGenics a $14.9 million contract to operate the newly-built North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility (NCCTF) in Grafton. However, the ODRC elected not to renew its contract with CiviGenics when the contract expired in July 2001 , citing problems yvith high staff turnover (including five different wardens in its first 18 months), repeated failure to maintain minimum staffing levels and problems with over-billing the state for positions that remained uncovered. The ODRC subsequently awarded the contract to MTC, which continues to operate the NCCTF facility.
https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/23838_displayArticle.aspx

1211512011

Ex XIII to Lennox Dec, Pg 6 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 25 of 45 Page ID#: 908

Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and· court decisions

Page 5 of7

In 2004, the Massachusetts State Auditor completed an audit that found Spectrum Health Systems had misused $17.4 million in state money, with $10.2 million of the total amount involving excessive payments to CiviGenics. The matter was settled in January 2007 in an agreement that required CiviGenics to repay the state $3.4 million and Roy Ross to repay $650,000. With its acquisition of CiviGenics in 2007, CEC became the fourth largest private prison company in the U.S.
The Demand Side of the Incarceration Services Industry
The demand side of prison privatization, like the oligopoly of private prison companies, is also highly concentrated. The potential customers in the private prison market are government agencies at the federal, state and local level that operate jail, prison and detention programs. At the federal level, the Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Marshals Service and Immigration and Customs Enforcement all manage a variety of custody facilities. The four branches of the military also operate facilities for military personnel sentenced under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Of course, the 50 states and the District of Columbia each have departments of correction.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there are some 1,821 state and federal correctional fadlities, not counting facilities operated by the U:S. Marshals Service and ICE. At the local level, counties and cities operate about 2,875 jail facilities in the United States. In sum, the potential consumer base of the private prison industry numbers somewhere in the area of 4,700 facilities.
After over 25 years ofcorrectional privatization, there are fewer than 200 private correctional facilities in the United States - only about 4% of all facilities. The federal govemment is the most actively involved in privatization, with 16.3% offederal pfisoners serving time in private facilities. State govemments are next, with 6.6% of state prisoners in private facilities. However, whereas 60% of all correctional facilities in the United States are at the local level, only about two dozen city and county jurisdictions (1.7% of the total) contract with private companies to operate their jails and detention centers. In practice there are very few buyers of privatized incarceration services, and the federal government is the largest single customer. Between 2000 and 2008, the number of state prisoners placed in private prisons increased by about 25%, from 75,018 to 93,537. In the federal system, however, the number increased from 15,525 to 32,712, or about 110%. During the same period, the number of states placing some portion of their prisoners in private facilities actually declined from 30 states to 27.
There are in practice only fifty-four "customers" buying incarceration services from the private prison industry - the three federal agencies, twenty-seven state departments of correction and two dozen local jUrisdictions. Within this small customer base, the federal government plus eight states (Texas, Florida, Arizona, Oklahoma, Colorado, Tennessee, California and MiSSissippi) collectively account for more than 70% of all private prison business. In effect, the market of buyers constitutes an oligopsony, or a market form in which only a few customers buy a certain good and therefore possess the power to affect ptlcing. The two largest publicly-traded private prison companies recognize their dependency on a limited number of governmental customers as a threat to their profitability and include a warning to stockholders to that effect in their annual reports. At CCA, just three federal govemment agencies, the BOP, ICE and the U.S. Marshals, accounted for 43% of the company's total revenue for fiscal year 2010, or $717.8 million. The state of California, which is placing thousands of prisoners out-of-state in an effort to reduce in-state prison populations, provided 13% of CCA's total revenue for nscal year 2010, or $214 'million. GEO Group reports that while they have a total of 45 governmental clients (customers), 4 of those clients accounted for over 60% of their U.S.-based revenue (BOP, fCE, U.S. Marshals and the State of Florida). Among those, the three federal agencies combined are responsible for 53% of GEO Group's total U.S. revenue.
The oligopsony of governmental consumers serves to discourage innovation. In practice, government purchasers of incarceration services have required that private prison companies simply duplicate policies and procedures practiced in public prisons, to the effect that the standard operating procedures of most private prison programs closely mirror those of public prisons in 'the same state. Notably, none of the companies have distinct and viable research and development departments as would be expected in an industry that values innovation. Private prison companies encourage the adoption of public prison practice, rather than the development of innovative practice, by actively recruiting management-level staff from within the public sector.
As a case in point, a review of the background of CCA's facility management staff suggests a widespread practice of mining' the public corrections system for managers. Among the wardens of 63 of the company's correctional facilities, nearly two-thirds formerly worked in state departments of correction (36 wardens) or the federal BOP (5 wardens). The most warden-rich jurisdiction was the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, from whence 28% of all CCA wardens were recruited. These experienced staffers bring a degree of order and control to the company's private prisons, but they are not likely to be hired for their spirit of experimentation and innovation.
Arguably, private prisons are not looking to be innovative unless it is a way of cutting costs. The most common way for these companies to make money from government contracts is
https:/Iwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23 83 8_displayArticle.aspx

12115/2011

Ex XIII to Lennox Dec, Pg 7 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 26 of 45 Page ID#: 909

,Pnsonl:egal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

Page 6 of7

by reducing personnel expenses. Because labor represents about 80% of the operating cost of a prison, much of the cost savings in private prisons results from paying private correctional officers less than comparable public correctional officers. But this advantage begins to erode in a market where private companies are dependent upon contract renewals (with more experienced staff) rather than new facHities (with new, entry-level staff). Even as labor rates vary among the states, public sector correctional officer starting salaries average $28,000 across all states with a (one standard deviation) range betv'Ieen $23,000 and $34,200. By comparison, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports a mean annual salary of $42,270 for all occupations in the United States (in May 200B). Public sector prison staff salaries are very low already, suggesting that it is not easy for the private sector to continue to undercut the government in personnel costs.

Conclusion

The increasing concentration of market share among the top four companies and the declining number of companies in the incarceration services market mean that governments considering the privatization option will find a decreasing competitive environment when seeking contract bids. In 1995, for example, a total of seven companies submitted bids in response to a Arkansas Department of Corrections request for proposals for two new privately-operated prisons. In contrast, a 2006 request for proposals to manage a private prison in Pennsylvania yielded only two bidders. With market maturation and increased concentration, it is increasingly difficult for new companies to get into the business and for marginal performers to stay afloat.

Oligopoly theory and industry Hfe cycle theory suggest that the remaining companies will be less competitive overall, seeking interdependent relationships with their competitors to help secure their position now that industry growth rates have cooled. As this scenario continues to unfold, any possibility of meaningful cost savings from privatization will decline over time. A recent study of private prison costs in Arizona found that this has already occurred, as the cost of incarcerating minimum-security prisoners has reached parity between state prisons and private prisons while the cost of housing medium-security prisoners is now actually lower in state prisons than in private facilities.

The private prison industry bears a fair share of the responsibility for not registering a better showing in research results. Despite the fact that it has hired away from the public sector many "best and brightest" correctional staff, the industry's penchant for financially rewarding its executives and top managers has drained resources that could have been devoted to program research and development.

Governments have also played a role in the failure of private prisons to perform better, particularly in the area of program quality. As an oligopsony, governments hold the power to be more demanding in the area of performance yet have systematically failed to do so. [n the m'ain, contracting governments have simply abdicated demand for increasing program quality, settling for an illusory decrease in program costs. Given the history of "iroll triangle" relationships that intertwine the private prison industry and govemment offiCials, this failure is perhaps not surprising.

One of the more depressing statistics to emerge in criminal justice in recent years is the fact

that two-thirds of released prisoners are re-arrested within three years. Enlightened

government officials around the country have realized that they can reduce correctional

expenditures only by focusing their efforts on reducing recidivism, not by building or

contracting for more prison space. Government jurisdictions that are having the greatest

success in reducing correctional expenditures are those that are turning to evidence-based

practice to guide sentencing decisions and devoting correctional resources toward programs

proven to reduce recidivism. Prison is not one of them. In enlightened jUrisdictions,

incarceration rates are beginning to declihe.

.., ,

As this trend continues, the private prison industry will eventually enter the fourth stage of the industlial life cycle - decline - and will begin shedding some of its capacity. Some companies have already sighted this trend on the horizon and have begun developing alternative business opportunities in areas such as electronic monitoring and prisoner health care. For those government agencies with heavy reHance on private prisons, decline in the industry will pose new problems as companies shed unprofitable contracts and simply walk away. Albert Einstein suggested that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. If a quarter century of experience with prison privatization has not led to beUer quality and cost outcomes, it is time to take a more sane approach.

Richard Culp is an Associate Professor of Public Administration at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City and the Coordinator of the Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice Management program. He is also a member of the doctoral faculty in Criminal Justice at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York and serves as Deputy Executive Officer of the CUNY Criminal Justice Doctoral Program. Professor Culp's research has been published in Justice Quarterly, Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, Criminal Justice Policy Review, The Prison Journal and the Journal of Public Affairs Education.

This article includes new and expanded research findings previously published in "Prison Privatization Turns Twenty-five." In I<. (smaili (Ed.) U.S. Criminal Justice Policy: A

https;llwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23838_displayArticle.aspx

1211512011

Ex XIII to Lennox Dec, Pg 8 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 27 of 45 Page ID#: 910 ·yage I or I
Contemporary Reader (pp.183-209). Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers (2010).

[Secure Website]
~ ~ .. ff·1

Copyright © Prison Legal News 2011 Site designed and maintained by: AccuFind Internet Services Inc.®

https:/Iwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23 83 8_displayArticle.aspx

12115/2011

Ex XIII to Lennox Dec, Pg 9 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 28 of 45 Page ID#: 911

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBIT IV
TO DECLARATION OF LUCY LENNOX
Ex XIV to Lennox Dec, Pg 1 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 29 of 45 Page ID#: 912

~~ tti{lld-~ S. \\..PPt~A: .,
S~O~I\ qc'1\~3

.. -""".~""""~""~,,,,,,,,,,,,,-~,,",..- ..-.,~..~,~

-..r~ .~"'a:"~~~_'':'~''' ~"~...o..:c:r:=1"

~ ~~ ~~ ------::'~~. ::.:-..-=~:~~:;::~::::

'. 1'.'-'\

-.

'? -- ~

. -~"..

-~r . ' - ~ . d~"'=<'· · -~~~~ • ~ "'~ P'TNEY ::>

.. ~.:. . :,... ~
.D.I......... .~." . BaGOW NEESS

02 1P $ 000.640

''.;.~c 0003048470 DEC 15 2011

MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 99201

'~ J<
~

~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~DOII'1O0O0d,-:}d'}--.J#.-77
(!, 10

~~~~.~~~-----~.----------------~••-~ ---. ---~ ,~...-~. ~~--------~-~-----------------~~---~~~-~-~~
::::r=~ri~!ir~t~)~~~g~~~

N:CtXKIIE'e:

9'S7,700 .-. CCtE-: ;11.

O0 ',i1, ;:1i,22JJ~~~/e:1/.l:11.

RETURN TO SENDER ATTEMPTED - NOT KNOWN
lU..lNNAAEBI.LL.. E TCO' Ff!O"OJR=iW'\.A\}ARJ=D~O

ec:: : a : ~S)J99..~~OO::O~eS..''224444..~~ae

*29 a29-0~3~3 - 2a S-- 442 ~

IJL)J1)1J JI,)))))) I) II]JIIlIl]J,I1I1I1I1I1I1I111II11, II) Lj )Lj)JI)I,lJ,II,)))JI, I/1I,1I]L)lIIIn, J"11III1I1

Ex XIV to Lennox DePcL, NPCgO2Lo_fLe9nnox_00087

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 30 of 45 Page ID#: 913

Prisori Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

Page 1 of7

Logged in as: Lucy Lennox Firm: Status: Member
I II' I Edit Profile Log Out of PLN

HOME

BOOK

SEARCH

ADVERTISE

SUBSCRIBE

DONATIONS

CONTACT

STORE

PLN

US

Book Review I FAQ's I Interviews I PLN links I PLN in the News I Annual Reports I Referral Directory

(ti Articles {" List Serv Messages

VIEW CART
uUESf!

Thursday, December 15,201112:22 PMM

The Failed Promise of Prison Privatization

[ Please visit our advertiser above] BREAKING NEWS

by Richard Gulp, Ph.D.
We have been experimenting with prison privatization in the U.S. now for over twenty-five years. The privatization idea originated out of a notion that the private sector, with its competition-ctriven efficiency and innovation, could operate prisons of higher quality and lower cost than the public sector. Greate a market for incarceration services, the argument ran, and the market will work its magic, improving prison condiUons and rehabilitative outcomes while saving tl1e taxpayers millions of dollars. That market has effectively been created over the past quarter century and we have now arrived at a place where prison privatization has been studied extensively and evaluated rigorously.

Judicial Conference Committee Disciplines Federal Judge for Membership in Discriminatory Countrly Club by Alex Friedmann In May 2011, PLN reported thatthe Sixth ...
Nationwide PLN Survey Examines Prison Phone Contracts, Kickbacks by John E. Dannenberg An exhaustive analysis of prison phone contracts nationwide has revealed that ...

Although hyperbole continues to propel prison privatization policy along, research findings

are incontrovertible: even in the best private prisons, quality of prisoner care is no better

than in public prisons and tlie cost advantage of privatization, which initially accounted for

minimal savings, is steadily eroding as the private prison industry matures.

The big promises of prison privatization -less cost, higher quality - have simply not

.

materialized. Despite these disaPPOinting results, prison privatization advocacy maintains .

traction in diverse jurisdictions as policymakers from Ohio to Florida and from Maine to

Califomia seek expedient solutions to budget shortfalls triggered by a lingering great

recession.

In retrospect, it should come as no surprise that prison privatization would fail to live up to its promises. There are several reasons for this. First, free market solutions to social problems like crime assume, after all, that there are "free" markets for appropriate services. However, there is no such thing as a natural market for the services provided by private prison companies. On the contrary, the marketplace for incarceration services is created by the government, for the government. It is an artificial market. M1ilnY of the services that have been privatized by government (e.g., custodial services, food preparation, medical care) are
provided by the private sector independently of the government's decision to privatize or not. There is a free market analogue for many kinds of servic~s thatgovemments routinely provide. Other fields such as education and health care, for example; have an active marlcet
of existing nonprofit and for-profit providers wilting ito sell educational and health care services to a huge market of potential buyers that Includes both hidividuals i'lrid governments.

The prison business is fundamentally different in that no one'can freely purchase incarceration services as a private individual. There is no natural market for incarceration services. The power to incarcerate someone - to hold a person against his or her will - is a defining characteristic of the state. The government holds a monopoly over the legitimate use of physical force and the power to incarcerate. Only the government has the legitimate power to restrict a citizen's liberty; individuals are prohibited by law from incarcerating another person under ~false imprisonment" statutes. The government can delegate this power on a limited basis - for example, "shopkeeper's privilege" allows merchants to temporarily detain suspected shoplifters. But long-term incarceration is a different matter. The only potential buyers who can legally purchase incarceration services are the government jurisdictions that have custody over indicted, convicted or detained persons. In order to privatize its incarceration function, the govemment has had to create a market since one does not and cannot exist without its direct intervention.

Prison Legal News Interviews Fonner Prisoner and Famous Actor Danny Trejo Danny Trejo is one of the best-known American actors living today....
Remembering Attica Forty Years Later by Dennis Cunningham, Michael Deutsch & Elizabeth Fink This year, September 9 will mark the 40th anniversary ...
The History of Prison Legal News by Paul Wright In May 1990, the first issue of Prisoners' Legal News (PLN) was published. It ...
Twenty Years of PLN in Court Since PLN was founded in 1990 we have been censored in prisons and jails around ...
Appalling Prison and Jail Food Leaves Prisoners Hungry for Justice by David M. Reutter, Gary Hunter & Brandon Sample Prison food. The very ...
Sexual Abuse by Prison and Jail Staff Proves Persistent, Pandemic by Gary Hunter Sexual assault, rape, indecency, deviance. These tenns represent reprehensible behavior ...
Judge Not: Judges Benched for Personal Misconduct by Gary Hunter & Alex Friedmann They decide hot-button topics ranging from abortion and racial discrimin?:tion ...

Secondly, the development of the private prison industry has resulted in a highly concentrated producer market where only four companies control over 90% of the incarceration services business. Economic theory tells us that when production is highly
concentrated in very few companies, the market becomes an oligopoly, a market situation that is inherently less competitive and innovative than a market with more broad-based representation. An oligopoly is characterized by interdependence, avoidance of

The Graying of America's Prisons by James Ridgeway Frank Soffen, now 70 years old, has lived more than half his life in prison, ...

https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/2383 8_displayArtic1e.aspx

12115/2011

Ex XIV to Lennox Dec, Pg 3 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 31 of 45 Page ID#: 914

rnson Lega.L 1'1ews - Legal anlCles, cases ana coun aeClSlOns

Yage L or I

competition and a rigid attachment to the status quo among the leading firms.
A third part of the story is that govemment itself unwittingiy stifles innovation in the private prison industry. Since the only legitimate customers of prison companies are the jurisdictions that can indict, convict or otherwise detain people, the potential customer base for incarceration services is very limited. In practice, this has led to a situation where only a handful of customers, an oligopsony in economic terms, has come to dominate the customer base. The limited number of customers serves to dissuade private prison companies from conducting research and development into innovative correctional programming, as the tiny customer base tends to demand only those services that mimic what the govemments themselves are accustomed to providing.
Origins of the Artificial Market
Contracting out of noncustodial prison services such as medical care, food service, maintenance, education and men!al health services has been praciiced for a long time and with little controversy. Contracting out of custody services, for which there is no free market analogue, is much more controversial. The deinstitutionalization movement in juvenile corrections during the 1970s initiated a number of experiments in privatized services and custody for juveniles. A major step toward contracted custody of adults occurred when the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the forerunner to today's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), decided in 1983 to partially outsource the detention of undocumented immigrants in its custody. In the summer of 19B3, the INS issued a request for proposals and the newly-formed Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) submitted the winning bid.

Secret Justice: Criminal Informants and America's Underground Legal System by Alexandra Natapoff I. Introduction Although it is almost invisible to the public, ...
Thou Shalt Not: Sexual Misconduct by Prison and ~ Jail Chaplains by David M. Reutter Traditionally, the
role of a chaplain in the correctional ...
Celebrity Justice: Prison Lifestyles of the Rich and
.- Famous by Matt Clarke There are two criminal
justice systems in the United States. One ...
Crime Labs in Crisis: Shoddy Forensics Used to ~ Secure Convictions by Matt Clarke To millions of
people whose knowledge of crime labs comes ...
Private Prison Companies Behind the Scenes of ~ Arizona's Immigration Law by Beau Hodai"Beside
my brothers and my sisters, I'll proudly take a ...

Likewise, the community corrections movement in the adult system involved contracting out of the custody function in many low-security adult facilities. Minnesota passed the Community Corrections Act in 1971, and 25 states followed suit with similar legislation over the next 12 years. Community corrections legislation transferred funding from state-level departments of correction to local governments which, in tum, used the funds for halfway house programs and other services for lower-level offenders. Many jurisdictions turned to private contractors to operate thes·e facilities.
In 1986, Management and Training Corporation (MTC) secured a contract to operate a community corrections facility in Eagle Mountain, California. Also in 1986, the State of Kentucky contracted out the development and operation of a ZOO-bed minimum-security facility in Marion County. Another newly-formed company, the U.S. Corrections Corporation, was awarded the contract. Similarly, the U.S. Bureau of Prisons (BOP) began contracting out the operation of low-security halfway house programs to the private sector during this time. Another early private prison company, Correctional Services Corporation, originally Esmor Correctional Corp., began business in 1989 with two contracts from the BOP to operate halfway houses in New York City.
These early entrants to the incarceration services market found a political climate supportive of privatization in several states, including Kentucl(y; Tennessee, Texas, Florida, Arizona, New Mexico and Louisiana. By 1994 there were approximately 20 companies actively seeking contracts to either build and manage company-owned prisons or manage existing facilities owned by federal, state and local jUrisdictions.
The Supply Side of the Incarceration Services Industry
The traditional industrial life cycle model suggests that new markets move through a process marked by four stages: fragmentation, shakeout, maturity and decline. The fragmentation period occurs when the industry is new, many entrepreneurs enter the market, and they operate at low volume and tend to serve narrow geographic areas. Eventually, a shakeout period occurs as some companies become more efficient and the less efficient ones fail to stay in business. Growth and competition are strongest during this peliod, as are the profits of the largest companies. The industry reaches maturity when growth slows and surviving companies try to solidify their positions in the industry. At some later time, the industry moves into decline as the demand for 1he product or service drops and companies seek new ways to recover profitability.

Medical Examiners Lack Qualifications,

~

Competence, Oversight by Matt Clarke Most people will only have direct contact with a medical

examiner, also known as ...

40% of Criminal Jurisprudence bills boost criminal
" penalties As has probably been the case every legislative session in living memory, bills ...

Texas Increasingly out of Step on Death Penalty By
.. David Fathi Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle May 23, 2009, 3:44PM Barring unexpected events, in the next ...

Some Agencies Balk at Releasing Prison Phone
" Data by Mike Rigby It is common knowledge among PLN readers that prison and jail phone ...

. The Failed Promise of Prison Privatization by Richard Culp, Ph. D. We have been experimenting with prison privc:tization in the U.S. now for over ...

The decade of the 1990s witnessed the rapid growth of prison privatization, consolidation of the industry and the cooling off of growth rates as the decade ended. The industry moved through the traditional life cycle stages of-fragmentation to maturity during this period. The industry experienced tremendous growth from 1992 to 1998, averaging an increase in capacity of 36% each year. But from 1999 to 2006, growth declined to an average rate of under 4% per year. As market maturity is commonly defined as reaching a state of eqUilibrium marked by the absence of significant growth or innovation, the industry reached maturity as the new millennium began.

The shakeout stage of the industry is reflected in the difference between the companies doing business in 1996 and those doing business in 2011. In 1996, there were 14 companies with private prison contracts in the United States. Table i lists these companies, their rated capacity and their market share of U.S. private prison business. A common
measure ofthe dominance of companies in a given market is the market concentration ratio (CR), or the percentage oftotal industry sales {or capacity, or employment, or value added

htlps:llwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23838_displayArticle.aspx

12/15/2011

Ex XIV to Lennox Dec, Pg 4 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 32 of 45 Page ID#: 915

Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

Page 3 of7

or physical output) contributed by the four leading firms ranked in order of market share. A market is considered to have a high CR when the four leading firms control over two-thirds of market share, a moderate concentration when the ratio falls between one-third and twothirds, and a low concentration when the top four companies control less than a third of total market share.
The four-firm market concentration ratio of the private prison industry was 86% in 1996, a significantly high level of concentration. But by the end of 2011 only seven companies remained in the private prison business, and the market share of the top four firms increased to 92% (see Table 2).
Acquisitions and Ethical Challenges
The rise in concentration ratio means that the industry as a whole has become less competitive. Five of the companies that disappeared between 1996 and 2011 (U.S. Corrections Corporation, Correctional Services Corporation, Cornell Corrections, Inc., Fenton Security, Inc. and Correctional Systems, Inc.) were acquired by larger companies. Four other firms went out of business (Bobby Ross Group, Capital Correctional Resources, Dove Development Corporation and Maranatha Production Company, LLC). Three newcomers, LaSalle Southwest Corrections, Louisiana Corrections Services and Emerald Companies, are small and regionally-based in Texas and Louisiana. A review of the ongoing concentration in the market is illustrative of shakeouts in the industry and of some of the ethically-challenged behavior that can attend to the process of profit seeking. The largest company - Corrections Corporaticin of America acquiied the third-ranked company, U.S. Corrections Corporation, in 1998. U.S. Corrections, based in Kentucky, had much in common with Tennessee-based CCA Both companies were founded by entrepreneurs who were well connected with the political establishment in their state. One of CCA's founders, Thomas W. Beasley, was a former chair of the state Republican Party and managed the successful 1978 gubernatorial campaign of Lamar Alexander. Honey Alexander, the govemor's wife, was an early investor in CCA. U.S. Corrections Corporation, based in neighboring Louisville, did all of its business in Kentucky prior to 1995. Executives of the company contributed over $77,000 to political campaigns in the state between 1987 and 1993, including $23,000 to Govemor Wallace G. Wilkinson and his wife Martha.
Clifford Todd, the CEO of U.S. Corrections, was implicated in a payoff scandal involving the company's contract to run the county jail in Louisville. He was arrested by the FBI in 1994, pleaded guilty to mail fraud and was sentenced to 6 months in jl'lil and fined $250,000. He sold his stake in the company for $15 million in 1994. At the time of the buyout by CCA, U.S. Corrections owned a total of four facilities in Kentucky, Ohio and North Carolina with a capacity of 5,275 beds, and had contracts to manage publicly-owned facilities in Kentucky, Florida and North Carolina with a capacity of 5,743 beds.
The second-largest company in 1996, Wackenhut Corrections Corporation (WCC), was formed in 1984 as a subsidiary to security firm Wackenhut Corporation, which was founded by George Wackenhut, a former FBI agent. Over the ensuing years, WCC grew to become one of the largest private prison companies in the world. The company began providing residential services for at-risk juveniles and young adults under the Job Corps program. WCC went public in 1994 (with Wackenhut Corporation as the majority shareholder). In 2002, the Danish company Group 4 Falck merged with the Wackenhut Corporation and, indirectly, became the owner of 57% of WCC's stock. In 2003, WCC bought out Group 4 Falck's interest in the company and changed its name to the GEO Group, Inc. The GEO Group acquired the industry's seventh-largest company, Correctional Services Corporation (CSC), in 2005 and Cornell Corrections, the fifth-largest company, in 2010.
Founded in 1989, CSC operated under several different names, including Esmor Correctional Services, Inc. The company was founded by the owners of a welfare hotel in New York City and began its prison business operating halfway houses under contract with the BOP. CSC also managed the INS Detention Center in Elizabeth, New Jersey, remembered best for a June 1995 riot in which 300 detainees took over the facility in protest of poor conditions of confinement. Esmor siaff fled from the detention center, leaving order to be restored by federal, state and local law enforcement officers. The INS closed the facility after ilie riot, noting that CSC guards had abused detainees, gave them spoiled food and deprived them of sleep. The facility was reopened in 1997.
Later, in 2003, CSC was fined $300,000 by the New York State Lobbying Commission for failing to report free transportation, meals and gifts given to a dozen state legislators from Brooklyn and the Bronx. The fine was the largest the state had ever imposed on a company for violating the state's lobbying laws. In May 2008, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed charges.against three Fort Lauderdale, Florida physicians, alleging insider trading in GEO Group's 2005 acquisition ofCSC. According to the complaint, one of the three worked as a consultant to GEO and had a son who worked in GEO's finance department, where he allegedly learned of the pending deal. The three were charged with illegally purchasing $390,000 in CSC stock before the acquiSition. Two of the defendants entered into settlement agreements while the third was cleared of the charges.
Another GEO acqUisition, Cornell Corrections, Inc., had been the third-largest private prison company in 2006, with B% of industry market share. Incorporated in 1994, the company bunt its business primarily with youth services and community-based rehabilitation programs for
https:llwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23838_displayArticle.aspx

12/15/2011

Ex XIV to Lennox Dec, Pg 5 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 33 of 45 Page ID#: 916
yage 4 01 I

adults. Pirate Capital, LLC, a hedge fund finn, acquired a 13% interest in Cornell in 2004, becoming the company's largest shareholder, and replaced several board members and the company's CEO with financiers more oriented toward short-term growth. Pirate Capital unloaded its shares of Cornell in 2006 in the midst of an SEC investigation over its stock sales practices, several bad investment decisions and company downsizing. The company wamed its stockholders in 2009 of looming problems in managing indebtedness of some $303 million. GEO Group bought Cornell, along with its debt, in 2010.

Management and Training Corporation (MTC) is the third-largest company currently providing incarceration services. MTC is a ptivately-held Utah-registered company that gained expertise in working with at-riSK young people as a major provider of Job Corps programs. The company 'first entered the private prison market in 1987 when it received a contract to manage the Eagle Mountain Community Correctional Facility in Desert Center, Califomia (which experienced a major riot that resulted in the deaths of two prisoners in 2003). MTC expanded slowly and steadily since 1987 and now runs a total of 20 correctional facilities in Arizona, Califomia, Florida, Idaho, New Mexico, Ohio and Texas.

The company's generally positive reputation as a job training provider has been tarnished by its corrections experience. In 1997, MTC hired the former director of the Utah Department of Corrections, lane McCotter, as Director of Corrections Business Development. McCotter was well connected in pro-privatization states, having served as director of both the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and the New Mexico Corrections Department before serving as the corrections head in Utah. He left the Utah DOC job in the midst of an investigation over the death of a prisoner with schizophrenia who had been shackled to a hard plastic chair for the final sixteen hours of his life.

In 2003, MTC's Santa Fe, New Mexico facility was under investigation by the U.S. Justice Department for unsafe conditions and poor quality prisoner medical care while McCotter was employed' with the company. Nonetheless, that same year he was appointed by Attorney General John Ashcroft to serve on a U.S. Department of Justice team commissioned to assess and implement a plan for rebuilding Iraq's criminal justice system. The team's final act before leaving Iraq was to conduct a ribbon cutting ceremony at the refurbished Abu Gilraib prison, a centerpiece of their corrections planning. Although the facility was empty when McCotter left Iraq, the work of the committee of experts was indelibly stained by the infamous events that subsequently occurred at the plison and from on-going human rights abuse allegations in prison? under the direct supervision of other committee members.

MTC was also involved in a failed experiment in prison..privatization in Canada. In 2001, the company won a five-year contract to operate the Central North Correctional Centre (CNCC) in Ontario as part of a pilot project to compare operations of the CNCC facility with a similar pUblicly-run prison, tile Central East Correctional Centre. The government hired PricewaterhouseCoopers to evaluate the two prisons across a variety of dimensions. The eValuation found that tile public prison outperformed the MTC facility overall. While the MTC prison was cheaper to operate and provided a greater variety of programming than the government facility, the public prison rated significantly better on security, recidivism rates, health care and community impact. Based on the results of the experiment, Ontario decided to tum management of the privatized facility over to the public sector.

Community Education Centers (CEC), incorporated in 1996, rounds out the quartet of

companies that control 92% of the current incarceration services market. Lilee MTC, CEC is

a privately-held company whose finances and governance structure are much less

transparent than is' the case with publicly-held companies. Until a few years ago, CEC's

business was concentrated in providing community-based residential, re-entry and

rehabilitative services to offenders, mostly in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, but the

company moved into the secure incarceration services business with its acquisition of

CilliGenics in 2007.

.

CiviGenics was founded in 1995 in Marlboro, MA by Roy Ross, the former president of Spectrum Health Systems, Inc., a nonprofit company that provided drug and alcohol treatment services for prisoners in the Massachusetts Department of Corrections. Ross arranged a contract for CiviGenics to provide management of Spectrum's Massachusetts inprison treatment programs. In 1996, CiviGenics acquired Fenton Security, Inc., a small company that had management contracts to operate two county jails in Colorado. Tom Rapone, a former Secretary of Public Safety in Massachusetts, joined CiviGenics as the firm's Chief Operating Officer. CiviGenics expanded its secure custody operations and by 1998 operated several small jail.facilities, employed more than 1,000 staff and had revenues of more than $30 million.

In July 1999, the·Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) awarded CiviGenics a $14.9 million contract to operate the newly-built North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility (NCCTF) in Grafton. However, the ODRC elected not to renew its contract with ClviGenics when the contract expired in July 2001, citing problems with high staff turnover (including five different wardens in its first 18 months), repeated failure to maintain minimum staffing levels and problems with over-billing the state for positions that remained uncovered. The ODRC subsequently awarded the contract to MTC, which continues to operate the NCCTF facility.

https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/23 83 8_displayArticle.aspx

12115/2011

Ex XIV to Lennox DPLeNcC, POgL_6Leonfn9ox_00091

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 34 of 45 Page ID#: 917

r ll~Ull Lvgi:lll'lvW~ - LCgi:ll i:ll"U(;lCS, (.';i:lSC;:;S ,LIlU (;OUn Ue(;lSlOnS

Yage:> ot"/

In 2004, the Massachusetts State Auditor completed an audit that found Spectrum Health Systems had misused $17.4 million in state money, with $10.2 million ofthe total amount involving excessive payments to CiviGenics. The matter was settled in January 2007 in an agreement that required CiviGenics to repay the state $3.4 million and Roy Ross to repay $650,000. With its acquisition of CiviGenics in 2007, CEC became the fourtillargest private
prison company in the u.s.
The Demand Side of the Incarceration Services Industry
The demand side of prison privatization, like the oligopoly of private prison companies, is also highly concentrated. The potential customers in the private prison market are government agencies at the federal, state and local level that operate jail, prison and detention programs. At the federal level, the Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Marshals Service and Immigration and Customs Enforcement all manage a variety of custody facilities. The four branches of the military also operate facilities for military personnel sentenced under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Of course, the 50 states and the District of Columbia each have departments of correction.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there are some 1,821 state and federal correctional facilities, not counting facilities operated by the U:S. Marshals Service and ICE. At the local level, counties and cities operate about 2,875 jail facilities in the United States. In sum, the potential consumer base of the private prison industry numbers somewhere in the area of 4,700 facilities.
After over 25 years of correctional privatization, there are fewer than 200 private correctional facilities in the United States - only about 4% of all facilities. The federal government is the most actively involved in privatization, with 16.3% offederal prisoners serving time in private facilities. State govemments are next, with 6.6% of state prisoners in private facilities. However, whereas 60% of all correctfonal facilities in the United States are at the local level, only about two dozen city and county jurisdictions (1.7% of the total) contract with private companies to operate their jails and detention centers. In practice there are very few buyers of privatized incarceration services, and the federal govemment is the largest sirigle customer. Between 2000 and 2008, the number of state prisoners placed in private prisons increased by about 25%, from 75,018 to 93,537. In the federal system, however, the number increased from 15,525 to 32,712, or about 110%. During the same period, the number of states placing some portion of their prisoners in private facilities actually declined from 30 states to 27.
There are in practice only fifty-four Ucustomers' buying incarceration services from the private prison industry - the three federal agencies, twenty-seven state departments of correction and two dozen local jUrisdictions. Within this small customer base, the federal government plus eight states (Texas, Florida, Arizona, Oklahoma, Colorado, Tennessee, California and Mississippi) collectively account for more than 70% of all private prison business. In effect, the market of buyers constitutes an oligopsony, or a market form in which only a few customers buy a certain good and therefore possess the power to affect pricing. The two largest publicly-traded private prison"companies recognize their dependency on a limited number of govemmental customers as a threat to their profitability and include a warning to stockholders to that effect in their annual reports. At CCA, just three federal govemmen"t agencies, the BOP, ICE and the U.S. Marshals, accounted for 43% of the company's total revenue for fiscal year 2010, or $717.8 million. The state of California, which is placing thousands of prisoners out-of-state in an effort to reduce in-state prison populations, provided 13% of CCA's total revenue for fiscal year 2010, or $214 "million. GEO Group reports that while they have a total of 45 governmental clients (customers), 4 of those clients accounted for over 60% of their U.s.-based revenue (BOP, ICE, U.S. Marshals and the State of Florida). Among those, the three federal" agencies combined are responsible for 53% of GEOGroup's total U.S. revenue.
The oligopsony of governmental consumers serves to discourage innovation. In practice, government purchasers of incarceration services have required that private prison companies simply duplicate policies and procedures practiced in public prisons, to the effect that the standard operating procedures of most private prison programs closely mirror those of pubHc prisons in "the same state. Notably, none of the companies have distinct and viable research and development departments as would be expected in an industry that values innovation. Private prison companies encourage the adoption of public prison practice, rather than the development of innovative practice, by actively recruiting management-level staff from within the public sector.
As a case in point, a review of the background of CCA's facility management staff suggests a widespread practice of mining" the public corrections system for managers. Among the wardens of 63 of the company's correctional facilities, nearly two-thirds formerly worlced in state departments of correction (36 wardens) or the federal BOP (5 wardens). The most warden-rich jurisdiction was the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, from whence 28% of all CCA wardens were recruited. These experienced staffers bring a degree of order and control to the company's private prisons, but they are not likely to be hired for their spirit of experimentation and innovation.
Arguably, private prisons are not looking to be innovative unless it is a way of cutting costs. The most common way for these companies to make money from government contracts is
https://WWW.prisonlegalnews.org/23 838_displayArticle.aspx

12115/2011

Ex XIV to Lennox Dec, Pg 7 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 35 of 45 Page ID#: 918
rage 0 U.l I

by reducing personnel expenses. Because labor represents about 80% of the operating cost of a prison, much of the cost savings in private prisons results from paying private correctional officers less than comparable public correctional officers. But this advantage begins to erode in a market where private companies are dependent upon contract renewals (with more experienced staff) rather than new facilities (with new, entry-level staff). EVen as labor rates vary among the states, public sector correctional officer starting salaries average $28,000 across all states with a (one standard deviation) range bet"veen $23,000 and $34,200. By comparison, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports a mean annual salary of $42,270 for all occupations in the UnITed States (in May 2008). Public sector prison staff salaries are very low already, suggesting that it is not easy for the private sector to continue to undercut the govemment in personnel costs.
Conclusion
The increasing concentration of market share among the top four companies and the declining number of companies in the incarceration services market mean that governments considering the privatization option will find a decreasing competitive environment when seeking contract bids. In i 995, for example, a total of seven companies submitted bids in response to a Arkansas Department of Corrections request for proposals for two new privately-operated prisons. In contrast, a 2006 request for proposals to manage a private prison in Pennsylvania yielded only two bidders. With market maturation and increased concentration, it is increasingly difficult for new companies to get into the business and for marginal performers to stay a·Hoat.
Oligopoly theory and industry life cyde theory suggest that the remaining companies will be less competitive overall, seeking interdependent relationships with their competitors to help secure their position now that industry growth rates have cooled. As this scenario continues to unfold, any possibility of meaningful cost savings from privatization will decline over time. A recent study of private prison costs in Arizona found that this has already occurred, as the cost of incarcerating minimum-security prisoners has reached parity between state prisons and private prisons while the cost of housing medium-security prisoners is now actually lower in state plisons than in private facilities.
The private prison industry bears a lair share of the responsibility for not registering a better showing in research results. Despite the fact that it has hired away from the public sector many "best and brightest" correctional staff, the industry's penchant for financially rewarding its executives and top managers has drained resources that could have been devoted to program research and development.
Governments have also played a role in the failure of private prisons to perform better, particularly in the area of program quality. As an oligopsony, governments hold the power to be more demanding in the area of performance yet have systematically failed to do so. In the rn'ain, contracting governments have simply abdicated demand for increasing program quality, settling for an illusory decrease in program costs. Given the history of "iron triangle" relationships that intertwine the private prison industry and government officials, this failure is perhaps not surprising.
One of the more depressing statistics to emerge in criminal Justice in recent years is the fact that two-thirds of released prisoners are fe-arrested within three years. Enlightened government officials around the country have realized that they can reduce correctional expenditures only by fOCUSing their efforts on reducing recidivism, not by building or contracting for more prison space. Government jurisdictions that are having the greatest success in reducing correctional expenditures are those that are turning to evidence-based practice to guide sentencing decisions and devoting correctional resources toward programs proven to reduce recidivism. Prison is not one of them. In enlightened jurisdictions, incarceration rates are beginning to decline.
As this trend continues, the private prison industry will eventualiy enter tne fourth stage of the industrial life cycle - decline - and will begin shedding some of its capacity. Some companies have already Sighted this trend on the horizon and have begun developing alternative business opportunities in areas such as electronic monitoring and prisoner health care. For those government agencies with heavy reliance on private prisons, decline in the industry will pose new problems as companies shed unprofitable contracts and simply walk away. Albert Einstein suggested that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. If a quarter century of experience with prison privatization has not led to better quality and cost outcomes, it is time to take a more sane approach.
Richard Culp is an Associate Professor of Public Administration at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City and the Coordinator of the Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice Management program. He is also a member of the doctoral faculty in Criminal Justice at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York and serves as Deputy Ex.ecutive Officer of the CUNY Criminal Justice Doctoral Program. Professor Culp's research has been published in Justice Quarterly, Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, Criminal Justice Policy Review, The Prison Journal and the Journal of Public Affairs Education.
This article includes new and expanded research findings previously published in "Prison Privatization Turns Twenty-tlve: In I<. Ismaili (Ed.) U.S. Criminal Justice Policy: A
https;1Iwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23 83 8_displayArticle.aspx

12115/2011

Ex XIV to Lennox DPLeNc,CPOgL_8Leonfn9ox_00093

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 36 of 45 Page ID#: 919 yage I or I
Contemporary Reader (pp.183-209). Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers (2010).

[Secure Website]

Copyright © Prison Legal News 2011
Site designed and maintained by: AccuFind Internet Services Inc.®

https:/Iwww.prisonlegaInews.orgI23 83 8_displayArticle.aspx

'12115/2011
Ex XIV to Lennox DPeLcN,CPOgL_9Loenfn9ox_00094

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 37 of 45 Page ID#: 920

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBIT V
TO DECLARATION OF LUCY LENNOX
Ex XV to Lennox Dec, Pg 1 of 9

c-l b~ ~\[QX\..~ ~ 1-0{00 ~ 02/05"

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 38 of 45 Page ID#: 921

Illlllllllilllllllllllllllllllllilili!lill!lllllllllllI1IIIII1

1

02 1P $ 000.640

PITNEY BOWES

~~ '·~1~~.=..=...-.,..,..--..

, _ -:

<' III; ~ ~~ ,

OU) ID.

N

m m

~ol.OW

4-~-¢i POs,.~

(~ ~~ #'ijl~i-OQ~Woc~..~.g> f

~~ ~ ~ is'~n

a.~O
T - (o" )~w ONOO ;:!<E

• ::>

II

•

0003048470 DEC 15 2011 MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 99201

~
\.~ () N

~i :t X '.1: I;;:

0 0 ;l.~/ ~<:3l11

*~014-0S~S5-~7-47

-lI

}~

...n..,

V
;

f)

i''-

RETURN TO SENDER NOT CEL%VERABLE AS ADDRESSED
UNAELE TO FORWARO

I~C 1

r~
......
(1
~
0 0
.n
U 0

0 W
~) tr~
!Wi
!lt~
m::Oit
W(Hll:
zu 'll:n3:
WWO
ilHHl..
CWO
bJ!iill

- ~

-~

- !
a:)
- at

----

-- ~ m -

--- 0

;

-,..

V

-- ~

- 0

.~

;-II <j(

- .~ .~
-.-
--- --

9C : ~:J~:;~~() ::~lS:244'.?e

~~C?O

0t-.
!j1n
W
H
X

ZtOti!!
:!lJ!tw:Qm:,J
t->~I W ~~Z ~J:)
~~
:0
&0 Z

~

.~

-- ~
'It V

:.---:

(i~

..n.
- "l.,'

.-

- (?
0
r~
- ~

.--,..
,..
.-

--- m

--- ..

H

U

,-r.

ill

· ~~~( . ~RC~;±:3::-9.~O~@6~44

C D

'-#.c3'---~ I'L\~~~ s.~ '5 t>1J \Ca..tv-e. \ \.D~ ~q~

\\tJ

Ex XV to Lennox DePcL, NPCgO2Lo_fLe9nnox_00095

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 39 of 45 Page ID#: 922

Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

Page 1 of7

Logged in as: Lucy Lennox Finn: Status: Member
I I I Edit Profile flog· Out of PLN

HOME

BOOK

SEARCH

ADVERTISE

SUBSCRIBE

DONATIONS

CONTACT

STORE

PLN

US

Book Review 1 FAQ's I Interviews I PLN links I PLN in the News I Annual Reports I Referral Directory

(i Articles r List Serv Messages

EII

VIEW CART
SsuUE

Thursday, December 15,201112:22 PM

The Failed Promise of Prison Privatization

[ Please visit our advertiser above] BREAKING NEWS

by Richard Culp, Ph.D.

We have been experimenting with prison privatization in the U.S. now for over tvlfenty-five years. The privatization idea originated out of a notion that the private sector, with its competition-driven efficiency and innovation, GOuld operate prisons of higher quality and fower cost than the public sector. Create a market for incarceration services, the argument ran, and the market will work its magic, improving prison conditions and rehabilitative outcomes while saving the taxpayers millions of dollars. That marl,et has effectively been created over the past quarter century and we have now arrived at a place where prison privatization has been studied extensively and evaluated rigorously.

Although hyperbole continues to propel prison privatization policy along, research findings

are inconl:roverUble: even in tile best private' prisons, quality of prisoner care is no better

than in public prisons and the cost advantage of privatization, which initiaUyaccounted for

minimal savings, is steadily eroding as the private prison industry matures.

.

The big promises of prison privatization -less cost, higher quality - have simply not

materialfzed. Despite these disappointing results, prison privatization advocacy maintains ..

traction in diverse jurisdictions as policymakers from Ohio to Florida and from Maine to

California seek expedient solutions to budget shortfalls triggered by a lingering great

recession.

In retrospect, it should come as no surprise that prison privatization would fail to live up to its promises. There are several reasons for this. First, free market solutions to social problems like crime assume, after all. that there are afree" markets for appropriate services. However, there is no such thing as a natural market for the services provided by private prison companies. On the contrary, the marketplace for incarceration services is created by the government, for the government. It is an artificial market. Many of the services that have been privatized by government (e.g.• custodial services, food preparation, medical care) are . provided by the private sector independently of the government's decision to privatize or not. There is a free market analogue for many kinds of services that govemments routinely provide. Other fields such as education and health care, for example, have an active market of existing nonprofit and for-profit providers willing to sell educational and healthcare services to a huge market of potentialbLiyers that includes.both individuals and governments.

The prison bUsiness is fundamentally different in that no one ·can freely purchase incarceration services as a private individual. There is no natural market for incarceration services. The power to incarcerate someone to hold a person against his or her will - is a defining characteristic of the state. The government holds a monopoly over the legitimate use of physical force and the power to incarcerate. Only the government has the legitimate power to restrict a citizen's liberty; individuals are prohibited by law from incarcerating another person under "false imprisonment" statutes. The govemment can delegate this power on a limited basis - for example, "shopkeeper's privilege" allows merchants to temporarily detain suspected shoplifters. But long-term incarceration is a different matter. The only· potential buyers who can legally purchase incarceration services are the government jurisdictions that have custody over indicted, convicted or detained persons. In order to privatize its incarceration function, the government has had to create a market since one does not and cannot exist without its direct intervention.

Judicial Conference Committee DiSCiplines Federal Judge for Membership in Discriminatory Country Club by Alex Friedmann In May 2011, PLN reported that the Sixth ...
Nationwide PLN Survey Examines Prison Phone Contracts, Kickbacks by John E. Dannenberg An exhaustive analysis of prison phone contracts nationwide has revealed that ...
Prison Legal News Interviews Former Prisoner and Famous Actor Danny Trejo Danny Trejo is one of the best-known American actors living today....
Remembering Attica Forty Years Later by Dennis Cunningham, Michael Deutsch & Elizabeth Fink This year, September 9 will mark the 40th anniversary ...
The History of Prison Legal News by Paul Wright In May 1990, the first issue of Prisoners' Legal News (PLN) was published. It ...
Twenty Years of PLN in Court Since PLN was founded in 1990 we have been censored in prisons and jails around ...
Appalling Prison and Jail Food Leaves Prisoners Hungry for Justice by David M. Reutter, Gary Hunter & Brandon Sample Prison food. The very ...
Sexual Abuse by Prison and Jail Staff Proves Persistent, Pandemic by Gary Hunter Sexual assault, rape, indecency, deviance. These terms represent reprehensible behavior ...
Judge Not: Judges Benched for Personal Misconduct by Gary Hunter & Alex Friedmann They decide hot-button topics ranging from abortion and racial discrimination ...

Secondly, the development of the private prison industry has resulted in a highly concentrated producer market where only four companies control over 90% of the incarceration services business. Economic 1heory tells us that when production is highly
concentrated in very few companies, the market becomes an oligopoly, a market situation that is inherently less competitive and innovative than a market with more broad-based representation. An oligopoly is characterized by interdependence, avo.ldance of

The Graying of America's Prisons by James ~ Ridgeway Frank Soffen, now 70 years old, has lived
more than half his life in prison, ...

https:/Iwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23 838_displayArtic1e.aspx

12115/2011

Ex XV to Lennox Dec, Pg 3 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 40 of 45 Page ID#: 923

Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

Page 2 of7

competition anda·rigid attachment to the status quo among the leading firms.
A third part of the story is that government itself unwittingly stifles innovation in the private prison industry. Since the only legitimate customers of prison companies are the jurisdictions that can indict, convict or otherwise detain people, the potential customer base for incarceration services is very limited. In practice, this has led to a situation where only a handful of customers, an oligopsony in economic terms, has come to dominate the customer base. The limited number of customers serves to dissuade private prison companies from conducting research and development into innovative correctional programming, as the tiny customer base tends to demand only those services that mimic what the govemments themselves are accustomed to providing.
Origins of the Artificial Market
Contracting out of noncustodial prison services such as medical care, food service, maintenance, education and mental health services has been practiced for a long time and with little controversy. Contracting out of custody services, for which there is no free market analogue, is much more controversial. The deinstitutiooalization movement in juvenile corrections during the 1970s initiated a number of experiments in privatized services and custody for juveniles. A major step toward contracted custody of adults occurred when the Immigration and NatUralization Service (INS), the forerunner to today's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), decided in 1983 to partially outsDurce the detention of undocumented immigrants in its custody. In the summer of 19B3, the INS issued a request for proposals and the newly-formed Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) submitted the winning bid.

Secret Justice: Criminallnfonnants and America's Underground Legal System by Alexandra Natapoff I. Introduction Although it is almost invisible to 1he public, ...
Thou Shalt Not: Sexual Misconduct by Prison and ~ Jail Chaplains by David M. Reutter Traditionally, the
role of a chaplain in 1he correctional ...
Celebrily Justice: Prison Lifeslyles of the Rich and Famous by Matt Clarke There are two criminal
'" justice systems in the United States. One '.'
Crime Labs in Crisis: Shoddy ForensiCS Used to Secure Convictions by Matt Clarke To millions of
'" people whose knowledge of crime labs comes ...
Private Prison Companies Behind the Scenes of ~ Arizona's Immigration Law by Beau Hodai"Beside
my brothers and my sisters, i'i1 proudly take a ...

Likewise, the community corrections movement in the adult system involved contracting out of the custody function in many low-security adult facilities. Minnesota passed the Community Corrections Act in 1971, and 25 states followed suit with similar legislation over the next 12 years. Community corrections legislation transferred funding from state-level departments of correction to local governments which, in turn, used the funds for hall\lIJay house programs and other services for lower-level offenders. Many jurisdictions turned to private contractors to operate thes.a facilities.
In 1986, Management and Training Corporation (MTG) secured a contract to operate a community corrections facility in Eagle Mountain, California. Also in 1986, the State of Kentucky contracted out the development and operation of a 200-bed minimum-security facility in Marion County. Another newly-formed company, the U.S. Corrections Corporation, was awarded the contract. Similarly, the U.S. Bureau of Prisons (BOP) began contracting out the operatiqn of low-security hallWay house programs to the private sector during this time. Another early private prison company, Correctional Services Corporation, originally Esmor Correctional Gorp., began business in 1989 with two contracts from the BOP to operate halfway houses in New York City.

Medical Examiners Lack Qualifications,
. Competence, Oversight by Matt Clarke Most people will only have direct contact with a medical examiner, also known as ...

40% of Criminal Jurisprudence bills boost criminal ~ penalties As has probably been the case every
legislative session in living memory. bills ...

Texas Increasingly out of Step on Death Penally By

~

David Fathi Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle May 23, 2009, 3:44PM Barring unexpected events, in the

next _..

These early entrants to the incarceration services marlcet found a political climate supportive of privatization in several states, Including KentLlc\(y·, Tennessee, Texas, Florida, Arizona, New Mexico and Louisiana. By 1994 there were approximately 20 companies actively seeking contracts to either build and manage company-owned prisons or manage existing facilities owned by federal, state and local jUrisdictions.
The Supply Side of the Incarceration Services Industry
The traditional industrial life cycle model suggests that new markets move through a process marked by four stages: fragmentation, shakeout, maturity and decline. The fragmentation period occurs when the industry is new, many entrepreneurs enter the market, and they operate at low volume and tend to serve· narrow geographic areas.. Eventually, a shakeout period occurs as some companies become more efficient and the less efficient ones fail to stay in business. Growth and competition are strongest during this period, as are tile profits of the largest companies. The industry reaches maturity when grpwth slows and surviving companies try to solidify their positions in the industry. At some later time, the industry moves into decline as the demand for the product or service drops and companies seek new ways to recover profitability.

Some Agencies Balk at Releasing Prison Phone ~ Data by Mike Rigby It is common knowledge among
PLN readers that prison and jail phone ...
.. The Failed Promise of Prison Privatization by Richard Culp, Ph.D. We have been experimenting with prison privatization iii the U.S. now for over '.'

The decade of the 1990s witnessed the rapid growth of prison privatization, consolidation of the industry and the cooling off of growth rates as the decade ended. The industry moved through the traditional life cycle stages of.fragmentation to maturity during this period. The industry expeIienced tremendous growth from 1992 to 1998, averaging an increase in capacity of 36% each year. But from 1999 to 2006, growth declined to an average rate of under 4% per year. As market maturity is commonly defined as reaching a state of eqUilibrium marked by the absence of significant growth or innovation, the industry reached maturity as the new millennium began.

The shakeout stage of the industry is reflected in the difference between the companies doing business in 1996 and those doing business in 2011. In 1996, there were 14 companies with private prison contracts in the United States. Table 1 lists these companies, their rated capacity and their market share of U.S. private prison business. A common measure of the dominance of companies in a given market is the market concentration ratio (CR), or the percentage of total industry safes (or capacity, or employment, or value added

https://WWW.prisonlegalnews.org/23 83 8_displayArticle.aspx

12115/2011

Ex XV to Lennox Dec, Pg 4 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 41 of 45 Page ID#: 924

Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

Page 3 of7

or physical output) contributed by the four leading firms ranked in order of market share. A market is considered to have a high CR when the four leading firms control over two-thirds of market share, a moderate concentration when the ratio falls between one-third and twothirds, and a low concentration when the top four companies control less than a third of total market share.
The four-firm market concentration ratio of the private prison industry was 86% in 1996, a significantly high level of concentration. But by the end of 2011 only seven companies remained in the private prison business, and the market share of the top four firms increased to 92% (see Table 2).
Acquisitions and Ethical Challenges
The rise in concentration ratio means that the industry as a whole has become less competitive. Five ofthe companies that disappeared between 1996 and 2011 (U.S. Corrections Corporation, Correctional Services Corporation, Cornell Corrections, Inc., Fenton Security, Inc. and Correctional Systems, Inc.) were acquired by larger companies. Four other firms went out of business (Bobby Ross Group, Capital Correctional Resources, Dove Development Corporation and Maranatha Production Company, LLC). Three newcomers, LaSalle Southwest Corrections, Louisiana Corrections Services and Emerald Companies, are small and regionally-based in Texas and Louisiana. A review of the ongoing concentration in the market is illustrative of shakeouts in the industry and of
some of me eihically-chaflenged behavior that can attend to the process of profit seeking.
The largest company -Corrections Corpol"3Uon of America - acquired the third-ranked company, U.S. Corrections Corporation, in 1998. U.S. Corrections, based in Kentucky, had much in common with Tennessee-based CCA Both companies were founded by entrepreneurs who were well connected with the political establishment in their state. One of CCA's founders, Thomas W. Beasley, was a former chair of the state Republican Party and managed the successful 1978 gubematorial campaign of Lamar Alexander. Honey Alexander, the governor's wife, was an early investor in CCA. U.S. Corrections Corporation, based in neighboring Louisville, did all of its business in Kentucky prior to 1995. Executives ofthe company contributed over $77,000 to political campaigns in the state between 1987 and 1993, including $23,000 to GovemorWallace G. Wilkinson and his wife Martha.
Cllfford Todd, the CEO of U.S. Corrections, was implicated in a payoff scandal involving the company's contract to run the county jail in Louisville. He was arrested by the FBI in 1994, pleaded guilty to mail fraud and was sentenced to 6 months in ipil and fined $250,000. He sold his stake in the company for $15 million in 1994. At the time of the buyout by eCA, U.S. Corrections owned a total of four facilities in Kentucky, Ohio and North Carolina with a capacity of 5,275 beds, and had contracts to manage publicly-owned facilities in Kentucky, Florida and North Carolina with a capacity of 5,743 beds.
The second-largest company in 1996, Waci<enhut Corrections Corporation (WCC), was formed in 1984 as a subsidiary to security firm Wackenhut Corporation, which was founded by George Wackenhut, a former FBI agent. Over the ensuing years, wec grew to become one of the largest private prison companies in the world. The company began providing residential services for at-risk juveniles and young adults under the Job Corps program. WCC went public in 1994 (with Wackenhut Corporation as the majority shareholder). In 2002, the Danish company Group 4 Falck merged with the Wackenhut Corporation and, indirectlyJ became the owner of 57% of WCC's stock. In 2003, WCC bought out Group 4 Falck's interest in the company and changed its name to the GEO Group, Inc. The GEO Group acquired the industry's seventh-largest company, Correctional Services Corporation (CSC), in 2005 and Comel! Corrections, the fifth-largest company, in 2010.
Founded in 1989, CSC operated under !3everal different names, including Esmor Correctional Services, InG. The c0mpany was founded by the owners of a welfare·hotel in . New York City and began its prison business operating haliiNay houses under contract with the BOP. CSC also managed the INS Detention Center in Elizabeth, New Jersey, remembered best for a June 1995 riot in which 300 detainees took over the facility in protest of poor conditions of confinement. Esmor staff fled from the detention center, leaving order to be restored by federal, state and local law enforcement officers. The INS closed the facility after the riot, noting that CSC guards had abused detainees, gave them spoiled food and deprived them of sleep. The facility was reopened in 1997.
Later, in 2003, CSC was fined $300,000 by the New York State Lobbying Commission for failing to report free transportation, meals and gifts given to a dozen state legislators from Brooklyn and the Bronx. The flne was the largest the state had ever imposed on a company for violating the state's lobbying laws. In May 2008, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) "filed charges.against three Fort Lauderdale, Florida phYSicians, alleging insider trading in GEO Group's 2005 acquisition of CSC. According to the complaint, one of the three worked as a consultant to GEO and had a son who worked in GEO's finance department, where he allegedly leamed of the pending deal. The three were charged with illegally purchasing $390,000 in CSC stock before the acquisition. Two of the defendants entered into settlement agreements while the third was cleared of the charges.
Another GEO acquisition, Cornell Corrections, Inc., had been the third-largest private prison company in 2006, with 8% of industry market share. Incorporated in 1994, the company built its business primarily with youth services and community-based rehabilitation programs for
https:llwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23838_displayArticle.aspx

1211512011

Ex XV to Lennox DPLeNc,CPOgL_5Leonfn9ox 00098

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 42 of 45 Page ID#: 925

Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

Page 4of7

adults. Pirate Capital, LLC, a hedge fund firm, acquired a 13% interest in Cornell in 2004, becoming the company's largest shareholder, and replaced several board members and the company's CEO with financiers more oriented toward short-term growth. Pirate Capital unloaded its shares of Cornell in 2006 in the midst of an SEC investigation over its stock sales practices, several bad investment decisions and company downsizing. The company warned its stockholders in 2009 of looming problems in managing indebtedness of some $303 million. GEO Group boughtCorneH, along with its debt, in 2010.
Management and Training Corporation (MTC) is the third-largest company currently providing incarceration services. MTC is a privately-held Utah-registered company that gained expertise in working with at-risk young people as a major provider of Job Corps programs. The company first entered the private prison market in 1987 when it received a contract to manage the Eagle Mountain Community Correctional Facility in Desert Center, California (which experienced a major riot that resulted in the deaths of two prisoners in 2003). MTC expanded slowly and steadily since 1987 and now runs a total of 20 correctional facilities in Arizona, Califomia, Florida, Idaho, New Mexico, Ohio and Texas.
The company's generatly positive reputation as a job training provider has been tarnished by its corrections experience. In 1997, MTC hired the former director of the Utah Department of Corrections, Lane McCotter, as Director of Corrections Business Development McCotter was well connected in pro-privatization states, having served as director of both the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and the New Mexico Corrections Department before serving as the corrections head in Utah. He left the Utah DOC job in the midst of an investigation oIJer the death of a prisoner with schizophrenia who had been shackled to a hard plastic chair for the final sixteen hours of his life.
In 2003, MTC's Santa Fe, New Mexico facility was under investigation by the U.S. Justice Department for unsafe conditions and poor quality prisoner medical care while McCotter was employed·with the company. Nonetheless, that same year he was appointed by Attorney General John Ashcroft to serve on a U.S. Department of Justice team commissioned to assess and implement a plan for rebuilciing Iraq's criminal justice system. The team's final act before leaving Iraq was to conduct a ribbon cutting ceremony at the refurbished Abu Ghraib prison, a centerpiece of their corrections planning. Although the facility was empty when McCotter left Iraq, the work of the committee of experts was indelibly' stained by the infamous events that subsequently occurred at the plison and from on-going human rIghts abuse allegations in prison~ under the direct supervision of other committee members.
MTC was also involved in a failed experiment in prison privatization in Canada. In 2001, the company won a five-year contract to operate the Central North Correctional Centre (CNCC) in Ontario as part of a pilot project to compare operations of the CNCC facility with a similar publicly-run prison, the Central East Correctional Centre. The government hired PricewaterhouseCoopers to evaluate the two prisons across a variety of dimensions. The evaluation found that the public prison outperformed the MTC facility overall. While the MTC prison was cheaper to operate and provided a greater variety of programming than the government facility, the public prison rated significantly better on security, recidivism rates, health care and community impact. Based on the results of the experiment, Ontario decided to tum management of the privatized facility over to the public sector.
Community Education Centers (CEC), incorporated in 1996, rounds out the quartet of companies that control 92% of the current incarceration services market. Like MTC, CEC is a privately-held company whose "finances and governance structure are much less transparent than is the case with publicly-held companies. Until a few years ago, CEC's business was concentrated in providing community-based residential, re-entry and. rehabilitative services to offenders, mostly in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, but the company mO\led into the secure incarceration services business with its acquisition of ClviGenics in 2007.
CiviGenics was founded in 1995 in Marlboro, MA by Roy Ross, the former president of Spectrum Health Systems, Inc., a nonprofit company that provided drug and alcohol treatment services for prisoners in the Massachusetts Department of Corrections. Ross arranged a contract for CiviGenics to provide management of Spectrum's Massachusetts inprison treatment programs. In 1996, CiviGenics acquired Fenton Security, Inc., a small company that had management contracts to operate two county jails in Colorado. Tom Rapone, a former Secretary of Public Safety in Massachusetts, joined CiviGenics as the firm's Chief Operating Officer. CiviGenics expanded its secure custody operations and by 1998 operated several small jail.facilities, employed more than 1,000 staff and had revenues of more than $30 million.
In July 1999, the·Ohio Department of Rehabifitation and Correction (ODRC) awarded CiviGenics a $14.9 million contract to operate the newly-built North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility (NCCTF) in Grafton. However, the ODRC elected not to renew its contract with CiviGenics when the contract expired in July 2001, citing problems with high staff turnover (including five different wardens in its first 18 months), repeated failure to maintain minimum staffing levers and probfems with over-bilfing the state for positions that remained uncovered. The ODRC subsequently awarded the contract to MTC, which continues to operate the NCCTF facility.

https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/23 838_ displayArticle.aspx

12115/2011

Ex XV to Lennox Dec, Pg 6 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 43 of 45 Page ID#: 926

Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

Page 5 of7

In 2004, the Massachusetts State Auditor completed an audit that found Spectrum Health Systems had misused $17.4 million in state money, with $10.2 million of the total amount involving excessive payments to CiviGenics. The matter was settled in January 2007 in an agreement that required CiviGenics to repay the state $3.4 million and Roy Ross to repay $650,000. With its acquisition of CiviGenics in 2007, CEC became the fourth largest private prison company in the U.S.
The Demand Side of the Incarceration Services Industry
The demand side of prison privatization, like the oligopoly of private prison companies, is also highly concentrated. The potential customers in the private prison market are government agencies at the federal, state and local level that operate jail, prison and detention programs. At the federal level, the Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Marshals Service and Immigration and Customs Enforcement all manage a vartety of custody facilities. The four branches of the military also operate facilities for military personnel sentenced under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Of course, the 50 states and tile District of Columbia each have departments of correction.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there are some 1,821 state and federal correctional facilities, not counting facilities operated by the U:S. Marshals Service and ICE. At the local level, counties and cities operate about 2,875 jail facilities in the United States. In sum, the potential consumer base of the private prison industry numbers somewhere in the area of 4,700 facilities.
After over 25 years of correctional privatization, there are fewer than 200 private correctional facilities in the United States - only about 4% of all facilities. The federal govemment is the most actively involved in privatization, with 16.3% of federal prisoners serving time in private facilities. State govemments are next, with 6.6% of state prisoners in private facilities. However, whereas 60% of all correctional facilities in the United States are at the local level, only about two dozen city and county jurisdictions (1.7% of the total) contract with private companies to operate their jails and detention centers. In practice there are very few buyers of privatized incarceration services, and the federal govemment is the largest shigle customer. Between 2000 and 2008, the number of state prisoners placed in private prisons increased by about 25%, from 75,018 to 93,537. In the federal system, however, the number increased from 15,525 to 32.712, or about 110%. During tile same period, the number of states placing some portion of their prisoners in private facilities actually declined from 30 states to 27.
There are in practice only fifty-four "customersn buying incarceration services from the private prison industry - the three federal agenCies, twenty-seven state departments of correction and two dozen local jurisdictions. Within this small customer base, the federal government plus eight states (Texas, Florida, Arizona, Oklahoma, Colorado, Tennessee, California and Mississippi) collectively account for more than 70% of aU private prison business. In effect, the market of buyers constitutes an oligopsony, or a market fOnTI in which only a few customers buy a certain good and therefore possess the power to affect priCing. The two largest publicly-traded private pnson companies recognize their dependency on a Ilmited number of govemmental customers as a threat to their profitability and include a warning to stockholders to that effect in their annual reports. At CCA, just three federal government agencies, the BOP, ICE and the U.S. Marshals, accounted for 43% of the company's total revenue for fiscal year 2010, or $717.8 million. The state of Califomia, which is placing thousands of prisoners out-of-state in an effort to reduce in-state prison populations, provided 13% of CCA's total revenue fur fiscal year 2010, or $214·million. GEO Group reports that while they have a total of 45 govemmental clients (customers). 4 of those clients accounted for over 60% of their U.S.-based revenue (BOP, ICE, U.S. Marshals and the State of Florida). Among those, the three federal agencies combined are responsible for 53% of GEO Group's total U.S. revenue.
The oligopsony of governmental consumers serves to discourage innovation. In practice, govemment purchasers of incarceration services have required that private prison companies simpfy duplicate poliCies and procedures practiced in pubric prisons, to the effect that the standard operating procedures oT most private prison programs closely mirror those of public prisons in 'the same state. Notably, none of the companies have distinct and viable research and development departments as would be expected in an industry that values innovation. Private prison companies encourage the adoption of public prison practice, rather than the development of innovative practice, by actively recruiting management-level staff from within the public sector.
As a case in point, a review of the background of CCA's facility management staff suggests a widespread practice of mining' the public corrections system for managers. Among the wardens of 63 of the company's correctional facilities, nearly two-thirds formerly worked in state departments of correction (36 wardens) or the federal BOP (5 wardens). The most warden-rich jurisdiction was the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, from Whence 28% of all CCA wardens were recruited. These experienced staffers bring a degree of order and control to the company's private prisons, but they are not likely to be hired for their spirit of experimentation and innovation.
Arguably, private prisons are not looking to be innovative unless it is a way of cutting costs. T~e most common way for these companies to make money from government contracts is
https:llwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23838_displayArticle.aspx

12/1512011

Ex XV to Lennox Dec, Pg 7 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 44 of 45 Page ID#: 927

Pnson Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

Page 6 of7

by reducing personnel expenses. Because labor represents about 80% of the operating cost of a prison, much of the cost savings in private prisons results from paying private correctional officers less than comparable public correctional officers. But this advantage begins to erode in a market where private companies are dependent upon contract renewals (with more experienced staff) rather than new facilities (with new, entry-level staff). Even as labor rates vary among the states, public sector correctional officer starting salaries average $28,000 across all states with a (one standard deviation) range between $23,000 and $34,200. By comparison, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports a mean annual salary of $42,270 for all occupations in the United States (in May 2008). Public sector prison staff salaries are very low already, suggesting that it is not easy for the private sector to continue to undercut the govemment in personnel costs.
Conclusion
The increasing concentration of market share among the top four companies and the declining number of companies in the incarceration services market mean that governments considering the privatization option will find a decreasing competitive environment when seeking contract bids. In 1995, for example, a total of seven companies submitted bids in response to a Arkansas Department of Corrections request for proposals for two new privately-operated prisons. In contrast, a 2006 request for proposals to manage a private prison in Pennsylvania yielded only two bidders. With market maturation and increased concentration, it is increasingly difficult for new companies to get into the business and for marginal performers to stay afloat.
Oligopoly theory and industry life cycle theory suggest that the remaining companies will be less competitive overall, seeking interdependent relationships with their competitors to help secure their position now that industry gro\'l.rl:h rates have cooled. As this scenario continues to unfold, any possibility of meaningful cost savings from privatization will decline over time. A recent study of private prison costs in Arizona found that this has already occurred, as the cost of incarcerating minimum-security prisoners has reached parity between state prisons and private prisons while the cost of housing medium-security prisoners is now actually lower in state prisons than in private facilities.
The private prison industry bears a fair share of the responsibility for not registering a better showing in research results. Despite the fact that it has hired away from the public sector many "best and brightest" correctional staff, the industry's penchant for financially rewarding its executives and top managers has drained resources that could have been devoted to program research and development.
Governments have also played a role in the failure of private prisons to perform better, particularly in the area of program quality. As an oligopsony, governments hold the power to be more demanding in the area of performance yet have systematicafly failed to do so. In the main, contracting governments have simply abdicated demand for increasing program quality, settling for an illusory decrease in program costs. Given the history of "iron trianglen relationships that intertwine the private prison industry and government officials, this failure is perhaps not surprising.
One of the more depressing statistics to emerge in criminal justice in recent years is the fact that two-thirds of released prisoners are re-arrested within three years. Enlightened government officials around the country have realized that they can reduce correctional expenditures only by focusing their efforts on reducing recidivism, not by building or contracting for more prison space. Government jurisdictions that are having the greatest success in reducing correctional expenditures are those that are tuming to evidence-based practice to guide sentencing decisions and devoting correctional resources toward programs proven to reduce recidivism. Plison is not one of them. lil enlightened jurisdictions, incarceration rates are beginning to decline.
As this trend continues, the private prison industry will eventually enter the fourth stage of the industrial life cycle - decline - and will begin shedding some of its capacity. Some companies have already sighted this trend on the horizon and have begun developing alternative business opportunities in areas such as electronic monitoring and prisoner health care. For those government agencies with heavy reliance on private prisons, decline in the industry will pose new problems as companies shed unprofitable contracts and simply walk away. Albert Einstein suggested that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. If a quarter century of experience with prison privatization has not led to better quality and cost outcomes, it is time to take a more sane approach.
Richard Culp is an Associate Professor of Public Administration at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City and the Coordinator of the Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice Management program. He is also a member of the doctoral faculty in Criminal Justice at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York and serves as Deputy Executive Officer of the CUNY Crimina! Justice Doctoral Program. Professor Culp's research has been published in Justice Quarterly, Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, Criminal Justice Policy Review, The Prison Journal and the Journal of Public Affairs Education.
This article includes new and expanded research findings previously published in "Prison Privatization Turns Twenty-five." In K. Ismaili (Ed.) U.S. Criminal Justice Policy: A
https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/2383 8_displayArticle.aspx

12/15/2011

Ex XV to Lennox Dec, Pg 8 of 9

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 10-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 45 of 45 Page ID#: 928 rage I OI I
Contemporary Reader (pp.183-209). Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers (2010).

[Secure Website]

Copyright © Prison Legal News 2011 Site designed end maintained by: AccuFind Internet Services Inc.®

https:llwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23 83 8_displayArticle.aspx

12/15/2011

Ex XV to Lennox Dec, Pg 9 of 9

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 11 Filed 01/31/12 Page 1 of 5

1 Marc D. Blackman, OSB #730338 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News
2 Ransonrr Blackman LLP
3 1001 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1400 Portland, OR 97204
4 (503) 228-0487

5 Katherine C. Chanrrberlain, OSB #042580 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News
6 MacDonald Hoague & Bayless
7 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104-1745
8 (206) 622-1604

9

10

11

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

DISTRICT OF OREGON

14

PORTLAND DIVISION

15 PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the
16 HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,

No. CV 12-71-SI

1 7

Plaintiff,

DECLARATION OF TROY MCCARTER

18

v.

In Support of Plaintiffs Motion for

Prelinrrinary Injunction

19 COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA

COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF

20 DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity

as Colunrrbia County Sheriff,

21

Defendants.

22

23

24

25

26

27

DECLARATION OF TROY MCCARTER(CV 12-71-SI) -1
9870.05 fa256312

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961
McCarter Dec, Pg 1 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 11 Filed 01/31/12 Page 2 of 5

DECLARATION OF TROY MCCARTER

I, Troy McCarter, hereby declare as follqws:

1. I am over the age of 18, am competent to testify, and luake this Declaration based on my

personal knowledge.

2. By letter dated August 18, 2011, from the law fIrm MacDonald; Hoague & Bayless, I

received and reviewed the documents described below.

3. My check luarks (-..I) below indicate whether I received or did not receive mailings from

Prison Legal News (PLN) when I was a prisoner at the Columbia County Jail, and

,whether I received or did not receive written notice frOlu the Jail that luail addressed to

me was rej ected.

4., EXHIBIT A (3 single-page double-sided brochures)

(i) PLN Brochure and Subscription Order Form

(ii) 2010 PLN Book List

(iii) PLN Brochure about two books for sale

I RECEIVED Exhibit A from PLN; or

I did NOT receive Exhibit A from PLN; and

/ I did NOT receive written notification that the Columbia County

Jail rejected Exhibit A; or

I RECEIVED written notification that the Columbia County Jail

rej ected Exhibit A.

5. EXIllBIT B (copy of front and back of paperback book)

I RECEIVED a paperback book titled Protecting Your Health & Safety; or

I did NOT

a paperback book titled Protecting Your Health & Safety; and

I did NOT receive written notification that the Columbia County

Jail rejected a paperback book titled Protecting Your Health &

Safety; or

DECLARATION OF TROYMCCARTER-1
9870.05 eh172208

McCarter Dec, Pg 2 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 11 Filed 01/31/12 Page 3 of 5

I RECEIVED written notification that the Columbia County Jail

rejected a paperback book titled Protecting Your Health & Safety.

6. EXIllBIT C (sample front and back of Prison Legal News journal)

I RECEIVED PLN;s 56-page monthly

as indicated by my check marks

(v)belownext to the date ofthe issue(s) Ireceived:

_July 2009

_ February 2011

VMarch2011

April 2011

May 2011
_June201i) N-.Y\ \ \- \:"'\...-S,T0D{

or _ I did NOT receive ANY copies ofPLN's 56-page monthly journals.
Ifyou did NOT receive one or more ofthe PLNjournals listed above, please indicate
whether you received written notification that the journal(s) was rejected by the Jail:
I did NOT receive written notification that the Columbia County Jail rejected Prison Legal News journals addressed to me; or

I RECEIVED written notification EVERY tIME the Columbia County Jail rejected a Prison Legal News journal addressed to me; or

I RECEIVED written notification SOMETIMES, but not every time, when the Columbia County Jail rejected Prison Legal News journals addressed to me.

DECLARATION OF TROY MCCARTER- 2
9870.05 eh 172208

McCarter Dec, Pg 3 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 11 Filed 01/31/12 Page 4 of 5

7. Exhibit D (PLN renewal letter and 3 single-page double-sided brochures) I RECEIVED Exhibit D; or I did NOT receive Exhibit D; and I did NOT receive written notification that the Columbia County Jail rejected Exhibit.D; or· I itECElVED written notification that the Columbia County Jail rejected Exhibit D.
8. I run currently a prisoner at the Columbia County Jail; I have been a prisoner in the Columbia County Jail since:

[day] [month] [year]

9. I declare under penalty of peljury under the laws of the

States and the State of

Oregon that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

.

,

DATED thi8 day of IJ. \- 4 v:S1' ,2011 at )t \-..\6ut\--S ,Oregon.

. [month]

[city]

DECLARATION OF TROY MCCARTER- 3
9870.05 ehl72208

McCarter Dec, Pg 4 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 11 Filed 01/31/12 Page 5 of 5

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I hereby certify that on January 31, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing to the Clerk

3 of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the

4 following:

5

II Marc D. Blackman

marc@ransomblackman.com,pat@ransolnblackman.com

6

II Gregory R. Roberson

grr@hmiwagner.com,cej@hartwagner.com

7

II Lance Weber

8

lweber@hulnanrightsdefensecenter.org

.. Jesse Wing

9

JesseW@mhb.com

10

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS

11

lsi Katherine C. Chamberlain

12

KATHERlNE C. CHAMBERLAIN

OSB #042580

13

(206) 622-1604

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

DECLARATION OF TROY MCCARTER (CV-12-71-SI) - 5
9870,05 fa306308

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961
McCarter Dec, Pg 5 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 11-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 1 of 21

...... -. '-' ----r--,..- .

.. ._ ..... ....

.. ..' .'-" .'

EXHIBIT A
I
\
i .
Ex A to McCarter Dec, Pg 1 of 7

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 11-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 2 of 21 Ex A to McCarter Dec, Pg 2 of 7

Order Form

pay AIl J.Iurchuses must he px:e-l'aiu. l'risoners can w;tth

new stamps (strips

or pre-stamped anve!?pes.

(3

GffiGLE

one book.lU:honU5 issues, nndDO'NO:C add StH)

Protecting Your Hea.lth a.nd Sa.fety

..Q.£. 4

Issues (8-yr

offer)

$ Amt••

Prlson Profiteers..!!£ With Libertyfar Some .Q.£ jj Bonus Issues (4-yr suLscription offer) Bool,': Total (inc.ll;ll boolts nought sepnmtely) Add 6% saleess''ttaax for Vermont .residents only ADD $6.00 SIR to book orders TIDlDER $50

PLN Subscriptions

a-month Subsoription., (Prisoners ocl.y) I y.r Subsoription (J:Z issues)

2 yr

(24 2 Bonue issues)

Byr Sub (Cirale bonus nbovB.Q!:4 Bonus lssues)

4 yx Sub (Cirole bonus book nbove ill: 6 Bonued.G6ues)

Sample Issue - $3.50 each

TOTAL Amount Enclosed:

Send to:
Name:
DOC#:
AgencylInst: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Address: City/State/Zip: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

MAlL PADIENT AND TIDS FORM TO: .,

Prison Legal News P.O. ·,Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303

Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and· subscrIptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.arg

Pill Subsciiption Rates

* Subscription Rates 1 yr 2 y.cs 3 -yrs 4yrs

Prisoners

$24 $ 43 $ 72 $ 96

Individuals

$30 $ 60 $ 90 $120

Profcssionals

$80 $160 .,$240 $320

(Lawyers, govt. & professional agencies, lilil:llIill5, ate.)

Sample issue for any.one -"$3.50 eaoh*

Six-month prisoner subscription fOJ: $12*
*Prisoners canpay iYithnew fuat-class stWllpS (strips or books

only)

allowed bypmortpoCici"IlS.

:- .- - - - - -

- - - - - - -'-:

I..'

I

I :2 years - 2 bonus

for 20 monthly issues -total.

I

:,.

- 4 bonus issues (40 total) qRlrolecling Your Haalrh arul I

I 8afeo/ (sea hook desoription on the othc.rside ofthis broohure),

:

:.4yctu:a - 6bonusissucs (54total) ORyourchoice ofWirhLibertyfor I

_____:

New 3 or 4RYear Subscription Boo,.k Offers!

Subscribe or renew for t1n:ee years at the l'egular price .,($72 for prisoners & $90 for :individuals)", and receive as
a FREE hanus, Protecting Your Health and Safety m:
fotil:' honus issues of,·PLNI (40 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Oxder Form.
Subscdbc or renew for four years at the regular pdce ($96 for'pxisonera & $120 for :individuals), and xeceiye as a FREE honus, Prison Profiteers .Q.r With Libsrtyfor
Some, m: 6 honus issues of PLN! (54 monthly issues
total). Indicate yOUl' ohoiae on the Order Foxm.

NO shipping charge for suhscription honus books!'

NOTE: Ifyou 1vnnt the bonus 1ssues ofI'LN instead of the free book offer, please inilicilte thut on the o.ril.er Form.

----- iT;£0; pm;;'

-----

I

I

I You can huy dozens of legal, social commentary, self- I

I help books, and legal aud

dictionaries directly:

: from PLN's book storel Ask us for a book list, or view:

: our selection online at:

I

IL ______w_w_w_.p_ri_so_n_lega_ln_ew__s.o-rg-ls_to_r_e._as-p:_l.:-------:

I....·((.......!!II""''..__..\, 't -If 0,: f

.•.... :: :1:1--..:........... \\ : 10 ':.," :"1" f 0' • ' t • I " '
'&

• t {-, :'..11""..1
:
.

Dedicated to Protect41g Human Rights

PLN is a.

of the

Hlt1!Lan Rights Dffense Center

·Eastern State

1829-1971

Charles Dickens visited

Eastern

State Penitentiary in 1842 and he later wrote:

"The System is rigid, strict and hopeless ... and I .,

hbelieye it to be oruel and

..•,I hold this 5101:'

and. daily tampe:clng ,rith the mysteries of the'

brain to be immeasurahlJ{' worse than any tor-

ture of the hody." The

open for

129 years after Diokens dondemned it as being

barbaric, and some of inhumane practices

continue to he used in,.prisons nationwide.

I
P.O. Box 2420.,, BrattlIeboro, VT 05303

302-257-1342 •

.

-----

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 11-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 3 of 21 Ex A to McCarter Dec, Pg 3 of 7

i

P rison Legal News is a:n independent, non-pro£t 56-puge monthly pUblication that reports, xe-
views and anaj.yzes comi: rulings a:nd news related to
prisonexs' rights anCI. prison issues. PLN has a national
(U.S.) focus on state, £edexal a:nd private prison issues,
with some international coverage as well.

PLN's ma:ny thousands of suhscribexs and readers

include ci:vi1 and: cri:minal trial and appellate attoxneys,

judges, public defenders,

academics, para:.

legals,

.rights ,activists, students, family

members of prisoners, concel'lled incliv.iduals, politi-

cians, other govern'ment offioials, and numerous lopal,

state and federal pxis6ners nation'Wide. ,

,

,

PLN is a ;qtallink for prisone+s who otherwise dcin't

have access to current legal and prison-related news

and lnformation.

/'iilf9J:{llllgqn :'-.,,: :,:' '"prisoners,in:thtfBnited

affecting " ,

P LN's coverage

issues includes medical

neglect, disciplinary hearings, nutrition, living

conditions, excessive force, court access, censorships

Jail, litigation, visiting, telephones, religious freedom,

free speech, p.rison rape, mental health, attorney/

client access, sexual abuse of. w:oommeen prisoners, :re-
taliatioonn,; the PLRA., HIV fl.lld :hheep C, control units,

the death pe;ualty, attorneyfees and much

PLN Subscription Rates
* Prisoners: $12 fOl; 6 months, $24 per year

Non-incarcerated individuals: $30 per year,·

Law firms; govt. agencies and libraries: $80 per year

Sample issue for

$3.50 each* "-,

:I< Prisoners cun pay with '-nnow

or pre:stamped envelopes

E ach monthly issue 'PLN' includes;'threc different types of rep orting:

:g A cover story on 11 prison-related lssue.

o Reports on individual and class-nation prison alld relatedlaw6uits whan they are filed, when a 'judgI¥ent is. entered or the oase settles, and when an a,ppellate court deaision is issued. We also ha.ve prison-related,news articles.

o A

In B:def'l section

news stories across the U.S. and

interesting '

Each issue of PLN also contains "'..99--llllllltt9rous advcrtisemcnts from husinesses that provide prison-related pel'sonal 'and ·"·legal samccs md hooltS. PLN 'further sells dozel.JE of selfhelp, social.commentary aUdlegal'no'oks. ' " '

PLN also has oumulative subject and oase cite illdexes:for

. PLN issues 1990

2004.,. Write i}.lfo.

Spe,cial 3..

,<?£ferI

Freo ,vith n. 3-year PLN su.llJJssooddptionl Four bonus issues of

PLN (40 issues total) .ru: n'free book, Protecting Your

., Health cmd Sa.fetyl Circle your bonus choice on tIle form

on'the other side 'of t1rls hrochure

suhscription

rates: prisoners $72, individuals $90, professionals

:z;trotecting Your Health and Sa.fety, hy ".,.,,-.,---::--. ---1.1 Robert E. Toone. Published hy the Southern Poyerty Law Center, 325 pages (2009). $10.00 (free with n 3-year sullI). This hoaok explains some hasic rights that prisoners hnveln a jail or prison:in the U.S. It deals mninly with rights related, to liealth andd"IJ.I!---"';""",-jI
safaty, such as communicable wsaascs and abuso hy prison offioia16i it also explains how you oan emol'ce your :rights to health and safety ,vithin the facility md, if neoessary, :in court through litigation. Buy separataly: _ _

:' You Can Buy These Books Separately! :

I

I

I

I

:Ifyou don't

to purchase 11,3 or 4-year subscription:

: to PLN, you can still purchase any of the honus h,ooks-:
: at the regular prine. Just :indioate which hooks you want I I buy on this page, then enter the total cost 011 the other:

lliide of this hroochure on the "Book Total" line of the :
,l der Form. Shipping is $G6 per order (n!3l: per hook), and we l I offer F.REE shipping on hook o:rders of $50 or morel To l

: place n phone order, piease' call

We also 1

l a_c_c_e_ pt_h_o_o_k_o_rde_r_s_o_n_li_n_e,_a_t_1_V_1_V•_1V_ 'f.'_p.pr_riis_ soor_ruu_eeg_ gaa_llnn_eew_s".:o_r_g.___:l

D

is'a

Ruman

Defel,l,?e Center. tOur tnx-deductible dona-

tions support o}U' advocacy, fro,c speech a;pnd

ment litigation

on heha}! o£prisoners and

ers. Pili llOt only pro-vidas

prison-related news,

but aotivaly oontests 'prison ,aen'sorsbip th'at interferes with

the delivelY of our publication any other PLN materinls

sent to prisoners. All donatiollS ;further our goal. of ad,,!,ocat-

ing for people imprisoned in. U.S.! detention facilities.
, i

"Great so.uree ofinfuonnation, e,special1y in stnates such,os

Arizona where the law libraries have oceeo'taken from

the

and replaced with paralegals.1I

-SRI Arizon4 prisoner

SnIiscriptiOll.

Free with n 4.yeru: PPLiNN

Six ,bonus

oorf

pm (5!L issues total) .Q£ one tt?e

L,ibaruy for

Some .Q.J,: Prison. Profiteersl pirale your bonus ohoioe on

the form on the

side. o£ijthis hroohuroe (4-year' sub-

sodption rates: prisoners

individuals 5120, profes-

sionals $320). Noate: Free book!option is for .!:l1IlI.llJllbbookrr

. i

With Li.berty for Some:

Years

Imprisonment in Amerioci.J hy Scott

Christiansoll, NorthennssttOol'nl Univeerrssiittlvy

Press, a7Z pages (199B).

(free with

an. 4-yonr su.llJJI). A olassin hoole md the best

overall history of the

prison sys-

tem from 1492 to the 20th G:entury. Well

written and faot filled• .AA.

for understanding

how little things have ohlinged. as far as prisons go j,n the

U.S. over hunch:eds of years. Buy separately: _ __

m:

i

Prison. Profiteers: Who

Money

from Mass Incaroeration, ellited hy Paul

& Tara Herlvel, Press (2007).

$24.95 (nu'ee 1vitb. 11. 4.yel:!J:

This is

the third in a series of PLJ;'T anthologies

that examines the reality 9£ r?-assimprison-

ment in the U.S. Prison. Profi.tcars js unique

from. aother hooks on the

be,cause it exposes and

disoausses who profits and benefits from mass imprison.

ment, rather than who. is

the prison industrial

oomplex and our nation"s rellaJlce on over-inoarocceration.
Buy separately: ___' i '

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 11-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 4 of 21 Ex A to McCarter Dec, Pg 4 of 7

Form

All purchnses must be prc-paid. Prisoners cnn pay with
newfust-claS8 stamps (strips OJ: hOl]ka, no sillgles) oJ:'
px:c-atam:Feo. eo.velopes, i/allowed by prison. policies.
'. '

Book Title I Number

Qty Total Cost.

(Il.ttaoh another pll.go iufyyoou IIttttDo ordering more hooks)

-

.

Add 6%' sales tax £or YT

only:

Add $6.00 SIR to orders UNDER $50:

Total Order .8.mo'nnt:

Send to:
NNraumnee:: ___________________________________
DDOOCC##:: ______________________
Agencyllust:
Address:
City/State/Zip; _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
MAlL PAYrifENT AND THIS FORM. TO:
Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303
Purchase by phone with a- Visa or MasterCard 802-257-1342' .
Or buy books at1d'subscrip'tions onl,ine at
www.prisoillegainews.org .

.
FREE SillPPlNG

Ounook and index

OVER $50.001

A $6 ship'pingcharge applies to all other:hookaut1 iut1e;>:Ql'tlel;s.

(FrraaDo

polioy in effeot frolU Juui, !l010 IUltil fllrlhCl' not;ico)

More Books for Sale!.

J?rlsonets' Self-Help Litigation Manual, updntcd 4th (2010). by John

Boston and Dnnlcl M:mvillc; 01>fOJ;d -Uni..... Press, 1500

The

I I I prcmie.tc1 muse-lUlve "Bible" of.proison litigation foat current and nsplcilng inil-
house lnwyecrs. If you plnn to litill"te l\. poson aOtt jnil civilsult;

this bocikis n must-bnvc.

1 10770....7 _-'_7'--._-"--.'.

GucWUa Hnndbooclt to

:Programs in thlt! U.S.

and Canada, updo.tl!d 3td ecd. by Jon Mntt: TIIj'\or, Ph.D. and edited b}· Susnn

published bl' 'FLN, .221 pngcs.· .ji4!J.!J5. WOlten bl' r.onssourl

"-pcisoilf:tJon Ivrtnut:t: To.l'lor, 'WIlo obtllincd 0. D.S. degree) an M.A. degree and n

Doctornte, the Glfmilfu HU/lduaak contl1ins contllce lnfoon:uion nnd desaip-·

I I tions of high school, yocntion:ll, pru::Ucgnl and college cow:sas nvnilllble
tlu:Qugh com:spondence study. Grent resoutcce for porissoonnfe!trSs

who want to futthcer r1,cit education.

1057 .L.._ 'L... .-...-J-.'_ -__ _--''

Health and Snfety, b), Robc:rtE. Toone, SOUUlecrn PooVvernt}y'

Law Center, 325 pages.

This book c.'qllnins bnsic tights that possoonntc!lr:s

blwe 4t n JaR or prison In the U.S. It denI. mninl}' with tights rdated to licnldl

= I I I and snfut}', such liS cO,mmunic:tble

nnd nbuse b)lP' prison oEffEicidiatdls; it also

e1;plnins bow you enforce }}''OowW:: rights within the fnclllt}'

nod,1lfE.netes5srwu:y.ln tow:e r1l.tOllgh litig:ttioan.

10GO ...._..J._ _.--J.

The

edited by \Vullnm H.

.,Foosstte!lr:, PIt.D. &. Cru:l E. How, Ph.D••·Stntting' Out Inc., 446 pagecs• .jlZ2.!J5.

Complete do-ib-}'ow:self te·ent1:}' manunl annd workbook fot prisoners who

Wwnnnnct to develop tllcli: own re·cenlI)' plnan to 'incrcease thcit clmncecs of sut!cess

I I 'after they ru:e lr:cc:lensed. Iocludes:u. wide vru:iet}' of resources, IncclluucdUinng- 11 user
code to the Sotnut:ting Outwcbsiti:..,thnf cnn' be necessed follow-,

1lnnggrrcclleasc.

•' •, ••. : :,: .'

• 1074 '_--"__.1--'.._ '--__ ---..'./..

JJ:iillllhhOoUuGGCe LIoI.'\tVYYeeml

Defending Prisoncers 'V. the U.S.A., b)'

Ivrumia Abu Jnmnl, CIt}' Llglus l?ubUshccs,'2BO pngcs,

JAIP-

JfTl',

Legal News columnist, n\Vru:d-·winoing joumnlist nod denth--ctow

pclsoner Mumlll Abu-:Jru:nnal ptesents dIIee. stories lUUlledl J:lt!:flcctions oEf Edloaw ptis-

I I oncers-tumcd'llIIcdlvocntes who hllve learned to usc r1u,e: cCoOuUrtt system to J:eprrcessCcnllt
othber pcissaonncc:ts, nod In socmce cases bave won thelt freedom"

Must-ltend for Jnilhouse Inwye.c;1

'1073 L........__..J....._-_'___--...'....

How to Win Your l?etlional Inju.ty Clnim, by Atty. Joseph 1vfntdlcWS, 7th

edittiiooDn, NOLO Press, 304 pnges. $34.99. \'(I1me not spc:cific:nliy Eoar poson-

.reillted personnal injur}' c:ntsses, this book· provides compn:hcnsi\'c infonnation

I I ,. on IhtOoIwV to handle pC!sonnllnjUtj' ilnd prope.tt}y' dnmngc drnuims ruising- from

-

denllng with doctots, nUttoarrnncelr's and

lIIsutanc:e comprnunules.

1075 L.,,__.-.1.J.._ _----''..

"".,'.:':.:. ·. •, ,.,.' In " . :'__ll...•'•'•, ......
:.... '* No

>".
•'··•·..1.: "."'".' )) " ..,
* .

., .'......:'.

I
DDemdicated to Prote RUman Rights

, I

PLN is a.

ofthe

Human Rights DJjense Center

I.

---1-"-
i
I
2010'PW B(DOKLIST
! '
. Prices Subject to Ch1ge Withaut Notice

Graapphhiicc: froml Doolls

YnncDln'cr, 11 C

I
P.O. Box 2420, Bruttleboro, Yr' 05303
, . '. i . .
802"257"1342 0 1I''ffllV'flVv''ffddeeoonnlleegalunew5.org

I
I
·f

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 11-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 5 of 21 Ex A to McCarter Dec, Pg 5 of 7

CheFlc the box. of the- books y.ou waut to buy aud the Order FOIIIl on the other side of-this:brocbw:e to add up the cost of your order. FREE SHIPPING.for boole aud index. orders OVER $50.

I I Writing to Wlh:' 'Thi! I.egnl' Write.,'b),

D:Sr:uk; B=dwaj'

House, 283 p3gc5.

E.\1'1nins ,the ,Vciting ofclfecil'e complnints,

,

. .tt!Sponses, brlclS, motions nnd·othericg;UIT.lpexs. .

1035 Ll..._..JI.._ _...J...

There lS a $6 shipping

all Qther book and index. orders.

cdi!J:d by Paul Wrlglittind Ho:ivcl,323

$24.95. 1ltis is du!

dUn:land L1tcstbookin:i se.dcs ofP.rlsohI.cgnlNe\vs

dlC:milit), of

mass imprlso=tin ArnaiCl. Clhc 01ht:C titles are TiM Qlil(g(Amaiat &. 1'IiIolINah"oll,

I I sec below). PdJU/IPrr:j1tm is unique .from books bCCluse.lt :rses nnd discusses
who ptOSIS nnd bi!nc.fi1S fiom I11llSS imptisorlIIlI:ot; Lull!!!: !han. who is

hrumcdbyitnndhow.

1063 1'-.-.._-_J1......_ _--1 J..

I I I l'rilsonNation: 'lbe Warehousing of.AmcO",,'s Poor, o:li!J:d bj"r;=Heo'l'dnndl'aul '.
Wright; 332piIgl:S. $35.95.PIN oolhol0J?l' c:\Poses the d.1rk side oElhe

AcrtunlIimo=ce:Wht:nJUll!!llttiicceeGGooccssWWrroonnggnnd.HowtoMnltejtRlght;updna:d

pnpc:xoock cd., b). Bnc:y .Scheck, Peb:r Neufeld ood Jim DWl'CIi 403 pngcs. $1G.OO. "

Foundas or the: Innocence Projctt Cliplnin how c:imiaal drualdnnts nrc wrongly con- '.

I 'I vicccd on n.regulnr basis. E,,;plnins DNA tr.sling and ltow·jt:wotks to fu:c·thE: inno=!: •

DllVnStltmlng

oE polil::C and prosec:utocinl mlsconduct and Ethhee.,

S)'5tt:m that C115=.'; sum nbusc.:

.

.

1030 ....__ l... .1......._ _ _ _............J...

Roget's

717 pages.

i'o.u find

ronvhnt :

l'oU want to Sll}l'_ 11,000 words listed nlphnbeticnlll;'1viih oO\'ce.r 200,000 synonyms

I' ., ood annoton),rDs. 'Srunple sentences and pnm of speedl shown for !!\fCI)' main :
word. CovetS nllleveJs ofvocnbuJllU:)' ood' identifies infonnnli

ood sloogwords.

1045 . .

..

poTIticUngcndanndlCf¢ clirn:uIdo the U.s.

. lQ4.1. ......--I _ _ --1. 1 L............

.....J..

'lbe Cclllng

I I I edi!J:d btD.miclE=nllose,Dan 1'c:nsnndPnul Wright; 2M
ootholog)' prescins dcllliIeci i'insidc." 1001. at the 1001 ...._-'-.._ _-'.

EV!!tJdny Lemlra for Busy l'eop.le, by Dcbm H:w: May, 2B7 pugc:s. $lB.!)!!.

I I I Hundreds of smnple. letttce.rs that can be. ndnpted fat most no}' PUtpose, includiog
lette.ts to govemmmmcc:nt ngc:nnccic.s. and official;. Hns

tips forw.dting effective lettets. . .

1048 1.......__--.-1'-..._ _ _ _--''..

The Ctiminnl Law Hmldboolc Know Your rughlS, Survive the System, b)·

= Attomc),s Fnul Ecrgman &'·SwJ. :aei:man-BlIIIett; Nol,o Press, GOB pages. !ji39.99.
Explnins wbnt happens in It o:iminhl. from being am:stcd IO senl1!llcing, ood what

yourt.rrligghts are ntc:u:h sIl1ge

process. Uses llll c:LS}' 10 undCJ:4'

Wllbsttlr'a English Dlctionnty, Newl)'

annod upduted, fuuldom Hous!!,

I I I 75,000-1- c:ntrties.Inncdludes lips"on ,Vcoiting nannaa :"yord usage, nnd has up-.
dnr:d geogi;lphical IIII11d biogrmnphicnl entIies. Includces. Lcecen.t

bU5l,I1ess nnd computet terms..

• 1033 ....__.-.'J.._'--_ _------''..

I I Capital Ccimes, by George WmsiolV, Monthll}), Review, 360 pages. !P19.00.

E;.-plnins·how economic policiles

nod rostCt t:rime, lLCld

bow co.LcppooJm:llte &. government crime is tn.tcly punishecd. 1024 1L-.._.J.._ _.-..-..'....

.

Liberty for Some: 500 YeatS of Impcaonmllnt in Amenca, b)' S\:ott

ChrissttiilaUnlsonl NorthcnstWl. Unlvce.rsit), P!ess, .372. pages,' :p1B.!lS. Thl! best

ovc.cnll. hIstory oE the Amc.rican prison Jiystem from 1492 through the 20th

I .: I I CIe!ln1ttullIr:y. Well wcltten annod fnct lilJed. A must'J:end for undcrst;lIlrling how little
. . things ha.ve chlaUnlgged as fnr f1S prisons go in dle: U.S. ovce.r

.

oorryreeruar:s.•

. .

1026 _ 11.-... ...rL.._ _.......J..

Slruld qucstion-and-:U1SwL:':

. ... .... . ::

: 1036 l..._ _ --1' - -_ _ _ _- ...1'

Rt:prcsent Yourself.in

How 10 l'mpare -& Try II Wmnlng Case, by

Attomc},s PnulBc.rgmnn &: 5=:1.

Nolo P.cess, 526 pages.

I I I Erd:.s down tllC civil tIial pprrooII::::CCSSSS in e::Jsy-.to-und=tnnd steps so you c:1n cffecth'cly

represent

in colltt. 'Illl: nuUlots c.'P1nIn what to sal' in

coll.tt, how to SllY It, cit:.

'.

1037 ....__.-..-.J'.-...._ _ _ _.-..-.J'..

I . I I Ten Men Dead: The story of Ihe. 19B1lrlsh hungl!c strilre, h)'
ford, Aeltintlc Monulll' J.lre5s, 334 pnges. $16.95. Inside stor), of

Bce.rres- .

1M posoncrs lltBclfnst's Long I<esh poson.

100G ...._-'-._ _-'. l..._ _.'--_--'.

I I I' Finddiinngg.t.hth·(·la. Right Lawycl.", b): 1a)' Foonbbce.rg, .PJ3A, 25G pnges.

Bli·

plruns .how to detc.rmine yYoOuurt legal needs, hgw evaluate n

qunlificntions, file pn}'lDcnts, nnd more,

1015 1........__.....r.....J._ .'--__-..'J..

Law DIctionary,
to-dnt!l lllw dictionac)" Covc.rs dc:vMll, c:imlna1,

I I House Webster's, 525 pages. $l!I.!lS5. COOlptcltensiye u'l-
more thUll 8B,,5500 icg;U tumlS.,

&.int=natiooallaw.

103G ,-._- _-I l... .'.-..._ _ _ _--''

Sc.b;c fuc Dnayl 7 Steps to Achleving the

in :m Ordinnry

World; by Danny Cox 1011\1 Hooyc.r, 256 pages.

Provides 7 stl!pS

I I I to chnnging yYoOuurt I!."qlect:nltions nnd em1sioning yourself as being II successful
nnd respected person-which is essc:nonl to chnnging the

I I Tht: Blutl BooIe of Gmmmru: and Pununctuntion, b}' Jnne Strnus, 110 pages. ,
$14.95_ A guide to gmrnamr nod punct:lUJJlltion b}' no cduCltorl

with I!.\Jlc.ric:ncc tcnchingEngUsh lo;p.csonets.

'104G ....._-'._ _---r.

Lllgnl. RcseD.tCh: How to :Flnd nod

the Lnw, bl' StephenEUas ood

I I I Susoo r.e,rioIcind, 5GB pages.

nnd ens}' to underst:uJd guidE:

on xescntching the mw. E"'Plnins Case. mw, Ssttn:ltt)ltl:S anil digests,

lLCld much marc. Includes prnc:tictl e.'ice.rrddses.

1059 .\.-..__..--l'._ _ ._ _----..1J.

coursc.ofone's11fe, .

. 1052 ....1...__.....JJ.._ L.-_ .._--l'.

Womm!e!Inl Behind :BntS, The. Cdsis ofWo.men in the 11:S. POllon System, b)'

I I Siljll ]J..AA. Tnlvi, Sen! Press, 295 pnges.

Best book nvnilnble that cov=

r issues .xelated to lImprisonte:d Womc:n, qns;:d on intc.rvile!w widlt

hundreds ofwomen bcllind bars. .

JOGG L l...._ _....1I -_ _.-.J'.

10 Insldct 5ecfets to II Wlnnlng Job 'Search, by Todd BCrnlont, 216 pages. Rondmnp on how to .get II. job 'even under ndvce.rsl! cimunsmmnncc:ccs-liJ;e

I I Deposition H;mdbook,· b). PFaul Ec.rgmnn and Albl!!t Moore, Nolo Press, 352
pnges: $34.99. HOW-IO .hnndbook for noyone .who· conducts 11/

deposition oris going-IO be. deposed. ': .

1054

'- • ,_

I I Sp=ish.EngUsh/EriglliIh-S5panis.b.· Diction-ary, Random House.

sc:ctions, Spnnlsh·EngUsh ood

GO,OllO+ cotIies

from A to Zj includes Westem

usnge.

1034 .

I'l\vo •

Flease Note: .All habIt. and fudeX oroms are maiilleedd.Y.ia the U.S. Postal

sibllityto :tc'p]ace'hook ofinc1ex: oiders onCe their Clo1iVery to the

.(faciU.ty) is

U.S.

I I I being no c.,-con. Includes how to de\·e1op n winning attitude, write ntt!!lloon-.

grtnbbing .resumes, preeppraur:e for

netwodclllg, how to

PIesc:ntyourstrengths.IO nn.cmplol'c:I, llI1d much morel. 105G _--I 1 L.-... '...1._ .-__ --..'.J..

I . ,:. I The Politics of Herom; CIA Complicity'in Wthtl Global Drug Trade, 2003
Ed. bl'.AJ.fir.d II'IcCoy, 734pDge5. !ji34.!l5.·Documt:!lted c..=. pose

of IUh1EE: govcmment's involvement in drug tr.tffickiog. 1014 . .

.

•

•

.'.

1L.....----'1"-_ __ _- - '

LJclcdown America:

ht and Prlisoocn:s in

of ceesss; 'by'

P=mi,

I I I 2.!J0 p:!gCS. $l!I.OO. Annl)'us thc,iu; on me poonil dIE: clrrlin:ll justicce S)'litam. Wcll

. documented annod includes fu:;t-hnnd Dlrocting. CovetS ptisons, 1 I

I

·tni!itlrtypoliclcog,SWATt=nsnndthecINS.·

.-. "'1002

_

.

Hepatitis :mdUvc.cDisease: What You Nc6J;l !o )!.now, b)' MelissalF'::ili:ncr, Iv[J,

I I 457 pngcs. $17.95. Dcsaibes S)'mptoins &.. ttCJtl1lt:nts of htp;tdtis B & C and OOIlt:C

furc.r disC:lSes. Includcs. mecliClltions'to avoid,

10 [ollow, //-'

c.'(ercises 10 pce.rrffooon, and abibliogmphy.!

'..

i

1031. L\-...__..l........_ _--I' ..
•

'Ctiml! and l'uoishment In'Ameril::), bl'Elli9It Cumt; 230 pages.

I 'I rcbul\tOlto right-wing ptropocm:ms oE pcison building. Fntt-bnscd D.tJ?;UIIlcnt shmvs' dInt

o:ime is drlv;on b)'

pcisooll11..!!.mYylths :nnd disc:ussc:s

1

provaJ,cJTt::CCUU\\''ll::mm<<:::ttnnSSooffCcloJmllleep=noo.:;

1019..·

Pclscen Madness: The Mental Healtwh Crisis Behin'd 'EEru=:s :md What WWee.

MU5t Do About It, b)' TCl:I)' l((uupp==,J,oJsosscsYcJ·rB.Bnnsss, 245

H:m:ibsck only;

pesonern'plei1Stl include noy required ll1:ithoDzlJtion IolIII. $32.95. FsyclUJin.-
I I ttist writes about dle mcntnl hcnJth c:cisis lA U.S. pctilsons nod jails. Covvce.rs nil
nspccts of' menta! illness, ptison IlIPe, ncgniivc erfc,cts oElong-,

[eaIl Isolation in conlrO!i units, ood more.. •

1003...

Prison Writing in 20th Century ".Ameccil6, by H. Eruce Ftnn!clin, :PPeenngguin

I I ., 'Books, pDgC.S.

From Jack London to George Jackson, this

; nodlOlogj' provides a scelte:ction of some.-, of thE: best iY.citiog

i pr I desc:cibing life behind .batSin Ammcc.rrlicl4·'

.

1022 L...__..J1....._ _.-.1J.

Soledad Brothtemr: The P.cison Letters of qllocrge]aclcsono, bl' GeorrggIc!]ackkss,?n.

I.:.wre.ocl! Hill BoollS, 339

$18.95. Lucid e.\l'loontioo. of e tiCS of

poson bi n wcll·lmown,'pdson

!vIok xclE:voot now Ithoo

.

whhce:n it firtst nppc:ared 40 y= ngo. . '

-; 01 G

M:adjuana. L.:rw, by RRichlmnfrcd! Boire, RoDokir;!,!l1l

10 $17.95. Exnminc:s how I1J

I I reduce the. probability ofIlIlCSt oodp'rosec:urlon

accused of the usc, sale or

possession of mru:iju:mn. Info on Icg;tIl

seruch & s5eizutes'"-1I . I I

51ltVcilInncec, ?Sset fotfclture drug resting•. :

1iO0O0B8 _..1.. _J-. 1 1....... ._ _--l'.

Worse Th:m Slavery;

nod the Ordenl of1l.m Crow Justice, b)'

I I ' I Oshinsky, 30G pngcs. &ii1166.00.••.

of

J:1lbbor's roots.in

Focuses on peson phnmtiooS and SdE-SUStUnr•o:g pcisons thnt usce

w: pcison labol.".

• '

. . '' .

No Equal Justice: Race nnd Clnass tht:

. 1007 '-.1-.__...lJ....-",'---__--I'. Cciminnl Justice .

I I ) System, b)' David Cole. The '¥re5s, 21B pDgt:S.

•.

criminnl justice sl'stcm pe.rpenmrc.s roc.e imd clnss lnequnlity,

how.the

,two-ttiice.red s)'steenm1 ofjusdce. ! . . . . 102.B·.

.

The Prison and the Grulows: The

of Man!!iiSs Incarceration in

I 1 I' .AAmmearDicea, by lYIn.rle Gottschulk, Cmnbrldgec Unlvce.rsity P!fiSS, 451 pages.

GIeat political ano.ll'sis of the

of· events

leadiog to 2.3 million peo'plc behind blltS.in thi: U.S. 10G9..

.-

The HiJ.beas Citebook:

of CounsCl,'byEr:lIldon

Sample, PLN lP'uubblishing, 200 pages.

This is :PPLLNN's second published

I I ., ·book, which excliusivel)' covvce.rs ineffuddve nssisltlnlDce. of. counsel-relnted

issues in fedC!tlll hnbens petidons. GrceatlJ:esource for habeas 1 I

.,

litigation, ood contnins.hundreds of case

1077B8 Il!:...'_.'_....Lr.._ _-Il.

:FFanccttor 8 (DVD), n film b), Kelly

Films. $2.1.95. Movie

I:' I I nbout the ArknnSDS prison blood sCcnlUnlddnnl, in whiclhl prison officlnls sold
infected blood hraur:vveesstted, from ·'pdsonnce.rt Note: .Thls js n

DVD nod cnannotbbee. shilppt:d to p.cisod.
.' . I

107([ ......;.....-1._ _-.-'l.. 1...,:..'....
". " .. '

I'LN Cumulative Indl!X. $22.50 ·ench. P,LN.Atticle

dctniled

inforrnntion anboouutt:' nil 'PLN ntticles, including tiel!!; n\luthor, issue, puge number,

tqpics covce.rreedd,,..cciitltions, 1)rId IE it Is sbte, BOP ttl: lIn.il

Can be

seru:chcd over SOD

sudl as

the Jndci(es) ycu o.re. ordp;inm

1999-1I I Ot SI!.\-ucl mnssaauulJrr. 1!J99·

2001, 2002-2004. (morte .recentindc.'ies notj;t:t nvnilnblc)

.

.

I·

'

are All books soft

ii:ison'Madness

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 11-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 6 of 21

T he Habeas Citeboolc: . . Ineffective'Assistance of . Counsel is the :first in a

" The Habeas CitebooTc is a
n.ifty and concise self-help

series ofbooles by Prison Legal

guide for prisoJfers seeking

----NeewwssJJ??..uubblliisshhiinngg.d.deesisgignnededtot.O-=...,.,=-..=="'EE_._ .--_--_ pro-se prisoner litigants identify

habeas reliefbased on clirlms of

meffective assistallce-of

"------

and raise viable claims for poten-

Navigating the complex and

tial habeas corpus relief,. This

treacherous terrain

.

book is an invaluable resource

law is riever easy; but claim-

that identifies hundreds of cases .

thatyour lawyer screwed up

where the federal coups have

is even more difficult - espe- .,

granted habeas relief to prison-

d.ally from the confines of an

ers whose attorneys provided

demonstrate formatting and 'show ill-equipped prison law library.

fective assistance of counsel

how to frame a winning argu-

"Brando'n Sample has pro-

It 'Will save litigants

ment that will

a coUrt

to grant habeas relief 'Ihe Habeas

vided an amazing and tool for prisoners who

thousands ofhours ofresearch and it focuses on the'

explains tp.e procedural and substantive comple::p.ties offederal habeas corpus litigation with the goal ofidentifr-

are forced to seek ;relief on their 0O'VIl!!TllI; 'Ihe book is thorough; but simple and readable. It starts with a'wonderfully well-orga-

"'WWIINNING cases crllninal ing andlitigating claims involviI;tg

:'

assistance counsel

y' defendan,ts needlo .,. ., ., ., Br;mdon

k. success-

,success:fun

fuI

'lawyer litigant incar- .-

nized listing ofhUJ?dreds different types of tDne.efffeeccttii:ve taruUice of.,coUnsel, set fo:rth in the
of citations to court rul-

., ,their convictions. ,

the Bureau ofPrisons.

'ings - a novel

that

Well organized ip,to 52 con-

He is a Prison Legal News contrib-
a uting writer anda member ofthe

not only acts as a springboard ., for further research but also

cise

this easy to use )Jook National Lawyer's Guild. Editor

saves.the prisoner countless

puts the law"'aatt-the reader's fin-

Susa,n Schwarrttzzllccooppffhhaass''a mas-

hours ofpreliminary research:;

gertips. 'The.,Appendix

ter's degree ill education and is

pleadmgs forms 1!0m suc-,

the director and editor in chief of

PETER SCHMIDT

cessful habeas corpUs cases that

Prison Legal News Publliisilbiing.

Pl1:blisher, PW1.ch & Jurists

THE HABEAS CITEBOOK: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

By Brandon Sample,.

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed _ _--'-_ __

8.25" X 10.75» .. 22.4 pages ...By: 0 check new postage stamps 0 credit card 0 money order

ISBN 978-0-9819385-1-6
$49·95
3 or more copies ordered

,NNarmune __________________ _________________ _____________________________ m
DOC/BOP Number .'---='-______________.-,:--_______________________

., 'at once $39.95 each:·' . Institution!Agency _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _--'--_ _ _ _ _ _--..:...

FREE Shippppiinn.g eft Handlliinn.g .,

Order by maiill7, phone, or o11.-lin.e. Cio/___________________________________________________ Stme

ZIP

GS

NEw§ PRU§ON ILlEGAL

pP.Oo. Bo:.x: 2420 West,.Brattleboro VT 053003

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342

,

Ex A to McCarter Dec, Pg 6 of 7

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 11-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 7 of 21

"II, - , -CC-oo-ppi-eie!-is-,oo-ff-tt-h'h-iiss-vv-ee-rr-yy-uu-ss-aabb-]l-ee-aa-nn-dd-uu-ss-ee-ffuu-Il-gg-UU-iidd-ee-'-----,

shuuUll'ld be available in.every pris?n library-to

help

people give positive direc-

., tion'

while

.

--·. -· .·-------'--·-·'u·'se-of-their-timmee..-·:J-tI-ti-sis--aa--wweellll--eestab1lish@d--ffaaGGtt--ththaat-t-----.------.-_

people

in ppffiissoonn

have a

reduced rate .of recidivism.!'

'-----'-_ _ -BELL GALE CHEVIGNYr PEN Prison Writing Program, _ _ _-' , Ecii.,tor Doil}g Time: 25 Years ofPrison Writing,.

1

HIGH SCHOOL Q VOCATnONAL g ,

PARALEGAIL 0

UNDERGRADUATE Cl

GRADUA., TE COURSES

T HE, GREATLY anticipated and newly updated
., ., third edition of the Prisoner's Guerrilla -. Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the

for the individual and beneficial for use in all prison libraries and education departments.
The Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook is the only book

States and Canada has finally arrived! Author on the market for the non-traditional prisoner-stu-

Jon Marc Taylor's brand 'new version is the lateSt in dent. It includes detailed listings of the quality, cost,

thi5s unique and highly successful gUidebook for the arid

offerings for all correspondence pro-

prisoner-student. This j'nvaluable tool and how-to grams available to prisoners. In a time when 5500 many

handbooK proVides the reader with step-by-step academic opportunities in prisons ,have been elim-

instructions to

the' appropriate' educa'9oria1 .- iriated, this book is an invaluable re-.!'-.entry tl?ol for

program for., high school, vocational, paraleeggaall,,"' prisoners who seek furth,er their education while

undergraduate, and gra'duate' courses offered in
the, u.s: am:} Canada today.

and to help them prepare for life and work following·,their release.

re-entry teeD

Jon'Marc Taylor has more· than 25 years experience as an incarcerated student, advocate for pris-

It presents, more, than 160 program outlines and oner education, and author. He has

offers an 'easy-too-use format fo'r the student to earned a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and

determine which program :Suits their 'needs. It a doctorate via correspondence courses while incar-

is ideal for the' 'incarcerated student who does not ,ceratea. Editor Susan Schwartzkopf has aa"' master's

Internet access or the ability to attend educa-
tion classes in person. This resource is indispensable

degree in education and 12 years experience teach'ing immigrants English language skills.

PRISONERS' GUERRILLA HANDBOOK TO CORRESPONDENCE PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA,

ByJon Marc Taylor PHD -' Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed __".__ __

8.25" x1to'0..7755" .• 224 pages

By: 0 check 0 neW postage stamps 0 credit card 0 money order

ISBN 978-0-9819385-0-9

Name

' -

I

or $490 95
3 more copies ordered

til
DOC/BOP Number - - -' -' -' -' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

at once $39..9; each

Institution/Agency __---'-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

m·
R

FREE Shipping & Handling Order by mail, phone, or on-Tine.

'

Address-------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________

ZIP

I PUBLISHED BY
PffU§ON lEGAL N!EW§ P.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 0538 3

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.Pr:ison!E:igalnews.org

Ex A to McCarter Dec, Pg 7 of 7

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 11-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 8 of 21
EXHIBITB
Ex B to McCarter Dec, Pg 1 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 11-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 9 of 21

SPLG

Southern Poverty Law Genter

Ex B to McCarter Dec, Pg 2 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 11-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 10 of 21
__ ___ __ · ..- .........._........._.. ...._._......__;;-----__..._._-..............._........_..........._......-...................._...__.. .... .. .._..--_.............._...
SSPPllGG '---'----J Southern Poverty law Genter
Ex B to McCarter Dec, Pg 3 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 11-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 11 of 21

-_.. .

. .. ..

_. - --

..

.. '

.,

.,

....

-,

_..

....

EXHIBIt C··
Ex C to McCarter Dec, Pg 1 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 11-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 12 of 21

VOL. 22 No_4 D ed-lcated to Protectz.ng JI.TJ..uman R·zgJr' zts

----------ISSN-I075-76-78------------

--------- -------

April 2011 ,-----1

Nationwide PLN Survey Examines Prison Phone Contracts, Kickbacks

by JohTl E. Dallllenberg

A n exhaustive analysis of prison phone families - who are the overwhelming re- recent phone rates may now be in effect due

contracts' nationwide has revealed cipients of prison phone calls. Averaging to new

awmds or renewals, and

that with only limited exceptions, tele- a 42% kickback nationwide, this indicates while data was obtained from all 50 states,

phone service providers offer lucrative that the phone market in state prison sys- it was not complete for each category. See

kickbacks (politely termed _«commis- tems is worth more than an estimated $362 the chart accompanying this article for a

sions") to state contracting agencies million annually in gross revenue.

breakdown of the data obtained.

- amowzting Oil average to 42% of gross.

In a research task never before ac-

PLN has previously reported on the

revenues ji-om prisoners' phone calls - in complished, PrisolZ Legal News, using egregious nature of exorbitant prison

order to obtain exclusive, monopolistic public records laws, secured prison phone phone rates, notably in our January 2007

contracts for prison phone services:

contract information from all 50 states cover story, "Ex-Communication: Com-

These contracts are pI;iced not only (compiled in 2008-2009 and representing petition and Collusion in the U.s. Prison

to

enrich the telephone compa- data from 2007-2008). The initial survey Telephone Industry," by University of

nies by charging much higher rates than was conducted by PLNcontributing writ- Michigan professor Steven Jackson.

those paid by general public, but are er Mike Rigby, with follow-up research by further inflated to cover the commission ,PLN associate editor Alex Friedmann.

How Are Phone Rates Regulated?

payments, which suck over $152 million

The phone contracts were reviewed

Qomestic phone calls are generally

per year out of the pockets of prisoners' to. determine the service provider; the divided into three.categories: local, intra-

kickback percentage; the annual dollar state and interstate. The rates charged for

amount of the kickbacks; and the rates these calls depend on several factors and

for local calls, intrastate calls . are regulated by different authorities. Lo-

Phone Rate Chart

16

(within a state'based on calls from one Local Access and Transport Area to !mother,

cal calls are llsually flat-rate within a small area around the caWs originating location;

Editorial

known as interLATA), and interstate calls e.g., within the same city.

Prisoners' Human llights

(long distance

To simplify

Local and intrastate calls are often

22 this survey. only collect call and daytime regulated by

public utility or ser-

Crime Reporting Guantanamo Drugging

26 rates were analyzed.

vice commissions, which set rate caps.

Around 30 states allow discounted These caps are negotiated to allow phone

28 debit and/or prepaid collect calls. which companies. to recover capital costs in a

Washington Public Records Suit

32 provide lower prison phone rates (much reasonable time frame while also satisfYing lower in some cases). However, since other requirements levied by the state. The latter

Texas Parole Audit

34 states don't offer such options and not all include subsidizing low-income phone us-

Maine Private Prison Lobbying

37

. prisoners or their families have access to

debit or prepaid

'only collect

ers, providing emergency communications for state agencies, and providing required

Los Angeles Jail Heat Ray

38 calls - which are available in all prison phone coverage (such as emergency-

Prison Facebook Problems

systems except Iowa's - were compared. reporting phone booths along major 43 Also, while telephone companies some- highways). Obviously, some of these state-

Texas Legislator Sentenced New Jersey Bankrolls CEC

46 times provide reduced rates for evening mandated requirements are not in and of and nighttime calls, many prisoners don't themselves profitable, so negotiation of
48 have the luxury of scheduling phone calls rate structures includes recouping these

News in Bnef

50 during those time periods.

otherwise nonrecoverable costs.

Lastly, it should be noted that more

At the interstate level, phone com-

Prison Legal NeWs

1

. April.20ll

Ex C to McCarter Dec, Pg 2 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 11-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 13 of 21

.

ews_ .

P.O. Box 2420

West Brattleboro, VT 05303

Change Service Requested

Non-Profit Org.. US. Postage PAID Portland OR
Permit No. 3142

Subscription

.

Subscriptions expire after the issue shown on the label is mailed.

For example, if the label saYI?:· EXPIRES 02/2006, then the sub-

scription expires after the February 2006 issues is mailed. Please

renew at least 2 months before the expiration date. IF THE LA-

BEL SAYS EXPIRES: 041201Q TIllS IS YOUR LAST ISSUE.

Please renew immediately to avoid missing any issues.

of Change Address
If you move or are traUBfered, please
notify PLN as soon as possible your issues can be mailed to your new ad- .
dress! PLN only accepts
for sending an issue to the address pro-
vided at the "time an issue is mailed!

CAAS'H FOR YOUR STAMPS

. Get the HIGHEST REIMBURSEMENT RATES for ALL ofyour stamps

.

from the ONLY stamp service continuously serving inmates for 9 years.

WE BUY COMPLETE AND PARTIAL BOOKS, SHEETS, STRJPS AND ROLLS' OF ALL DENO:jY.JINATIO;i\IS 4N.D QUAlfrITIES OF
.,. POSTAGE ST.AM:PS IN GOOD CONDITION

Within 24 Hours we will send a Mon"e}'

Check, or Electronic Payment

to wherever you

we or will pay an approved vendor for a package or gift.

of Face Value (33¢ per stamp) for Forever Stamps in complete books or sheets

of Face Value for 44¢ stamps in complete books, sheets, strips or rolls

of Face Value for 44¢ Stamps in .,partial books, sheets pPI"' strips (minimum 4 each)
of Face Value for all other denominations or stamped envelopes

SEND FOR FREE BROCHURE"
(ThIfs VoId Where prohibilleed Yslfalfe regu/al/ons)

. * SPECIAL RATES FOR PLN SUBSCRIBERS CLIP &SEND TI:IIS AD TO:

CLN, P.O. Box 687-PN, Walnut, GA 91789

Or visit OUR Website: www.cash4urSfamps.cpm

Ex C to McCarter Dec, Pg 3 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 11-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 14 of 21
-------_._---_.------_._--_._---- ---------------_....__ ._-_.._.._--_._-----------------------......_.. _-----------_.. _--------.. -_...._-------..._--_.......... --..
EXHIBITD
Ex D to McCarter Dec, Pg 1 of 8

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 11-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 15 of 21

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
P.q. !3ox2420, W Brattleboro, VT 05303 ** ph: (802) 257-1342 fax: (866) 735-7136 www..prisonlegalnews.org

RE: Your PLN sUbscription expires with the July 201 J issue.

Dear Subscriber:

We are letting you lmow that one more issue remains to be mailed on your subscription to Prison Legal
News. We hope you are pleased with the information that PLN is providing you on a monthly basis.
and hope you intend to renew your subscription. Renew now and take advantage of our 2, 3 or 4:"year
subscriptic:>il

,__... --- ._. '... --

_..... ". "'" -.

at $48 and you will receive our

of24 issueiPLUS 2 extra

I .....;.issu€S;fe.r:-.a. t0taI..Q£2.6:issues;: f.' t.11;:1 nl

--...: _.. - .. --..:-----.......-.--- -:- -2) J'!'i.

::::;::;:,'

4.

(4;Q..

totalj QR-yeuI'·choice .

:.. :," 'cifitdtecting Your Health and Sqfoty (a $10 vaiue!). Please

brochure for a

.

." :

- . -...... . ..- .. . . . . . .... . . - . . .

.. ...... . .. .

Q Renew for four years at $96 and you will receive 6 extra issues (54 issues fatal) OR your choice of With Libertyfor Some (an $18.95 value!), or Prison Profiteers (a $24.95 value!). Please see PLN's book brochure for a description ofthese books.

We hope you decide to renew now so that your PLN subscription will not be interrupted. We look
forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,

Paul Wright Executive Director

++.++++ ••• +.+.++++.+++ ••••••••

.•.

The following form can be used to pay by credit card

Print Name 9n Card:._....:.·_·____-_:--____-.-.:,-_________________

. . . . .. . ..

.

I

a total of$

.

to my credit card;

';Hq

'1:1;:

P.o. News, Box 2420, vi

VT 05303 ph: (802)

fax:' (866) 735-7136. Prison Legal News is a 50 I(c)(3) non-profit and donations ere deduotible in accordance with tax laws.

Ex D to McCarter Dec, Pg 2 of 8

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 11-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 16 of 21 Ex D to McCarter Dec, Pg 3 of 8

Order Form

All purchases must be neW" stamps (strips

Prisoners can pay

or

cnveI?pes.

(3

CIRCLE

onabookm:honusissucs,lIlldDONOTaddSIH)

Protecting YOlLr Health and Safety

.Q£ 4 Bonus Issues (3-yr

offer)

$ Amt.

Prison Profiteers.Q£ With Liberty far Some 2£ GBouusIssucs (4-yrs'uhscJ:'iptionoffcJ:')
Book Total (inc. af1. hooks hought separntely)
Add 6% sales·tax. for Vermont xcsidcuts only ADD $6.00 SIR to book orders UNDER $50

PLN Subscriptions

6-month Subscription. (Prisoners only) 1 yr Subsoriptiou (12 issues)

2 yr

(24 plus 2 Bonus

3 yr Sub (Circle bonus hook abovem:4 Bonus jssues)

4 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above m: 6Bonus issues)

Sample Issue - $3.50 each

TOTAL Amount Enclosed:

Send to:
Name: DDQQCC##:: ____ _________________
AgencylInst: ________ _______ _________
44ddddrreessss:: ____________________ City/State/Zip: ____ ______________ ___________

MAIL PAYMENT AND TillS FORM TO; .
Prison Legal News P.O. -Box 2420
vr Brattleboro, 05303

Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard 802,,257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www..

PLN Subscription Rates

Subscription Rates 1 yr 2 yrs 3 yrs 4yrs

Prisoners *

$24 $ 43 $ 72 $ 96

Individuals

$30 $ 60 $ 90 $120

Professionals

$30 $160 $240 $320

(Lawyers, govt. & professional agencies, libraries, etc.)

Sample issue for any.one -'$3.50 each*

Six-month prisoner subscrriippttiioonn. for $12*
*Prisoners canpay1Yithnewfust-cIsss stamps (stclps or books

only) or pre,&ampcc1 envelopes,'ifallowed byprisoIl.polides.

r --------

-- ------'-.:

I

'.

I

1I 2 years - 2 bonus :issues, for 20 monthly issues total.

I I

:.3 years· - 4 bonus issues (40 total) qRj?ralecling Your Health and' :

I

(SIlC book.ddeessecrrlplptitoionnooDn.the other side oftlrls broohure).

I

: 4ycnrs -.0 bonus issues (5t;1,totel) ORyourchoice of With Lihertyfor I

_:" ___:

New 3 01'

Subscription

Offersl

Subscribe or renew for three'years at the regular price .($72 for prisoners & $90 for individuals)", and receive as a FREE bonus, Protecting Your Health and Safety m;. fout bonus issues of·PLN! (40 monthly issues total). Indicate yowux: ohoice on the aOIIdder Form.
.Subscribe or renew for four years at the regular price ($96 for'prisoners & $120 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Prison Profiteers ill: With Libertyfor Saine. ill: 6 hbonus issues of PLNI (54 monthly issues .. total). Indicate yowux: choice on the Order Foxm.

NO shipping charg.e for snbscriptionbonus

NOTE: l£you 1vanfthe bonus issues ofFLN instead of the

free book offer, ple8ase indicate that on the Orner Form.

r----- U;£0;

-----

I

I

I You can huy dozens of legal, sooial commentary, seJi-1

I help hooks, and legal and regulEq' diotionaries directly:

: from PLN's book storel Ask us for a book list, or view:

: oux selection online at:

I

,---------------------------------- I,

-www.prisonlegaInews.orgfstore.aspx

:

1______ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

::; ;':'

pIacOO *. :

.... ",

u.Luu,t.\.JU to Protecting Human Rights

is a

ofthe

HU1!Li;z,n Rights; Defense Center

Philadelphia's Eastern

in 184Z and he later wrote:

is rigid, smot and hopeless ... and I .

believe it e cruel anq i.vrong....I hold this slow

and daily

ering 'with the mysteries of

brain to immeaSUl':¢ly worse than any tar-

ture of the dy." The prison remained op en for

129 years

DiokenS condemned it as being

barbaric,

some ofi its inhumane practices

used in:p:risons natiomvide.

Brattlebor" VT 05303 G wwW.prisonlegalnews.org .

---------'

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 11-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 17 of 21 Ex D to McCarter Dec, Pg 4 of 8

P rison Legal

is an

56-page mon.thlY pUblication that reports, re-

views and analyzes court rulings and news related to
prisoners' rights and prison issues. PLN h.as a national

(U.S.) focus on state, federal and pliYate prison issues,

with some

coverage as well.

PLN's many thousands of sUbscr.ihera and readel;s

include ciYil and, criminal trial and appellate attorneys,

judges, pUblic defenders,

academics, para:..

legals, p11sop.ers' .rights activists, students, family

members of prisoners, concel'lled :individuals, politi-

cians, other government officials, and numerous local,

state and federal prisoners nationwide. .

.

"

PLN is a v.i,tallink for

who otherwise don't

have access to cmrent legal and prison-related news

and information.

about
'.
::", rughis

, !\ffecting " '.;
subscriber

P LN's

of.

issues includes medical

neglect, disciplinary hearings, nutrition, liYing

conditions, excessive force, court access, censorship,

Jail. litigation, visiting, telephones, religious freedom,

free speech, prison :rape, mental health, attorney/

client access, sexual abuse of women. prisoners,

taliation, the PLRA, mY and hap C, coniTol units,

the death pe.nalty, attorney'fees and much

PLN Subscription Rates
Prisoners: $12 6 months, $24 per year *

Non-incaxcerated :individuals: $30 per year

Law firms; govt. agencies and

$80 per year

Sample issue for

$3.50 each'" "

., Prisoners enn pay with 'now

Dr

. _ - ...... .._..- '.-...... .

envelopes

E ach monthly issue 'P:LN' includes:three different

types.ofreporting:

.

. ...

o .A.. cover story on a prison-related issue.

Q Reports on individual and class-notion prison and jEl.il::

related lawsuits when they are-filed, when a-judgn:lentis, .

entered or the oase settles, and when an a,ppellate court

decision is isSued. We also have

news articles.

o A "News In Brier' sectioll news stories across the U.S.

su:nuna.rlzes intcrcstkg .

Each iSsue of PLN also contains

advertisements

from businesses that pro'vide prison.--rrelated personal 'and

1egal services and boolts. PLN 'further sells dozens of self-

help, social,c'ommentary mid

•. '..

PLN also llas cumulative suJ:!jeot and case cite indexes:£or
D:0:n all PLr:T.:issues 1990 tllrough 2004. Write ipfo.

Spe.cial

,Su;!lscl'ip#o;n

Free with a B-yeaaIr' PLN suhscdptionl Four bonus issues of PLN (40 issues total) ill:. a' free book, Protecting Your Health and Safetyl Circle your bonus ohoice on tile form on' the othecr side of tlus brochure (S-year subscription rates: prisoners $72, individuals 590, professionals 5240).

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by .In,-.I.n-.,.-.".-..,.-.,.j

Robert E. Toone. Published by the South- .,

ern Poverty Law Center, 325 pages (2009).

(free 'with n a3-year sub!). This book

explains some basic rights that prisoners

have in a jail or prissoonn. .in the U.S. It deals

mnlnly 'with rights related· to lienlth and I!

.'", " ,

safety, such as communicable diseases alld abuse by

prison officials; it also explains how you oan enfol'ce your

rights to health and safety 1vlth.in tIle facility and, if neo-

essary, in court through litigation. Buy separately: _ _

:' You Can Buy These Books Separately! :

I

I

I

I

:Ifyou don't

to purohase a.3 or 4-year subscription:

: to PLN, you can still purochase any of the bonus booles.:

: at the regular price. Just indiocate which books you i.,ant :

: to buy on fills page, then enter the total cost on the other:

: liide of this hrochure on the "Book Total" line of tIle Or- :
: der Form. Shipping is $6 per order (n9t per book), and we l

: offer FREE shipping on.book orders of $50 or more! To:

: place a phone order, piease· call 302-257-1342. We also:

:1..a_c_c_ep_t_b_o_o_k...o_r:d- e_r_s_o_n_li_n_e,_a_t_1_V_1_v•°__ w__.p__r__ is__ on__l__eg__a__ln__e__w__s__.o__r__ g.______:1

PLN is'a project

nOll-profit Ruman

. Cenim... Your tax-deductible dona-

auyocllcy, £ree speech a;ud First Amend-

on hehaJ.f of prisoners and publish-

!uncrmsored prison-related ninvsT 'prison ,censorship that interferes with

our publication or'any other PLN materials

.All donations further our goal, of ad,!,Qcat-

imprisoned in. U.S. detention facilities.

ofinfonnation,

jn states such·as

law libraries have Ceen·taken :from

i replaced 'With pnrnlegals."

Arizona prisoner

subscL'iptionl Six .bonus

of

m: one n'ee book, With

for

Profiteersl Circle your bonus choioe on.

side of this hroohure (4-year'sub-

scription rates: prisoners $96, -bldividuals $120, profes-

sionals $320)1 Note: Free book option is for bookt

for Soame: 500 Years in America, by Scott Northeasthrn. University (199B). $18.95 (free with
.A. classic book anti the best of the .AAmmeerriican prison systo the 20th Century.• Well
filled. A must-read for understancling hayve ohll'ngead I1S far as prisons go the
of years. Buy separately: _ __

W7I10 MaTtes Money

Ifnrn!aarrcceerraatioIi, edited by Paul
Ne,"" HRernivel, Ne,'v- Press (2007).

with a

sub!). This is

a series of PLN anthologies

the reality 9f mass

.S. Prison Profitears is unique

DOltS onn. the lnl!I'ket

It exposes and

profits and benefits from mass imprison-

than who. ijs harmed by the prison industrial

our nation's reliance on over-inocarceration.

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 11-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 18 of 21 Ex D to McCarter Dec, Pg 5 of 8

O.r.d\\ e.".,r Form

All p1U'chases must he

can pay wit"!!

new first·c1ass stnmps'(sttips or hooks, no singles) or .

pre.atampcil envelopca, if allowed byprison policies.

•: 1

Book Title I Numhell

Qty Total Cost

arc (attach another page uyou ordering mo.te books)'

Subtotal: Add 6% sales tax for VT residents p.nly:
Add $6.00 qlH to orders UNDER $50:
Total OIder Amount:

Send to:
NNraumnee:: ________ __________________
DDOOCC##:: ____________________
AAggeennooyy//IInnsstt:: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _--'-_
. \ '.-
Address:
City/State/Zip: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

MArL P AYnillNT .AND TBIS FORM T.O:

PrIson Legal News

"R.O;: Box. 2420

. ,

vr 05303

Purchase by phone

Visa or MasterCard

Or buy b.ooks,imd ?ubscriptions online at
. www.pr.isonlegalnews.org .

FREE SHIPPING
Onbook and index orders OVER $50.001 A$6shlppmgchnrgenpplics to all othcrhookaqu index ol'tlel's.
(Frell shipping policy in cirect from J11111, 1!Uli! f1ll'ilior notice)

More Books for SaleI

P.cisoners'

Litigation Mruxual, updated 4th (201100)),,'bhy John

Boston nod Daniel Manville, Oxford Univ: l"ress. 1500 pages.

The

n I I I premiere, must-have "):Iible" of poson litigncion for ctu:It:nt and :lSpldng lnil-
house !lna.wwyee.rtSs. Ifyou plan to litignte poson Ot jnJl cMl

this book is II must-have.

.

1077 ......_..J._ _---l.

Prisoners' Guerrlllll. Hruxdbook to Correspondenc.e l"rogrl1ms in the U.S.

ruxd ClII1odn, updnted ::lrd cd. hbl' Jon Mn.trCc Tnylor, Ph.D. nod edlted by Susno

Schwru:tzkopt; published bl' PLN, 221 pages. $49.95. Written by rvDssou.cl

prlsone.rJon r'Mtliuitr:ec Tnyl,or, obtainr:d II II.S.

an M.A. dr:Ffce nod n

Doctornte, the Gllmilll1 HOllduaak. contnlns contact infomlllciQn nod dcsctip-

I I I tiODS of high school, vocnnttiioonnaal"l,. pnrnJegal ruld college COutSl!S av;illlaabbllce.
tlu:ough cOo=IICspSopnonddeenncce stUd}', Gte'ilt resow:ce fot prisoners

who wnot tto further their educncion.

1057 L...---l.._ _-I

l'rote<::dng Your Henlth.lII1d Safety, bJ' Robe.r:t E: Toone, Southam Pove.r:ty

I.tJ.w Center, 325 pages.

'I):Us book e.''i:plnlns bns!c rights thnt prisoners

have in. II jill at prison in the U!S. It ma411y wid\ .tights

to henltb

I I . I nod sq.fcty. such ns

nod libuse hbl' prison offidnls; 1t also

= explnlns how you cofotte yiaiuWt'r:'lrglg1i!jtsS::wwithin the fucility

nnd, jfneceSSl1l:Y. in cowut:t

lOGO . . .

.

Starting OutI The

Hruxdbook. edited bl' William H.

Foster, PhD. &; Cnd E. Horn,·PhhIlDb••:Sll1.J!:ting Out Inc., t\4G pillgglc!Ss. $22.95.

Complete

re-cut9' .001lJ.nu"nl itnd workbook for prisoners who

'wnot to dt!VClop thch: own Itlt:-cnntltI:}·' pp11¥¥tt to increase thcir cilnooCCCI!S of success

I I nftcr they nre .released. Inc1uudd£c::55'iIl wide ,:ni:!:el.}' of rCcs!oSuorucrlc!eSs, including It user

the Stnarting Out ws:bsit!! .t£!!JInt.,

foOlloloWw-I,

lmngrelease.

: : ",.:",.

1074- ...._-'._ _---1.

Jailhouse Lawyersl Ptisoners Defending Prisoners v. the U.S.A., bJ'

!vIumln Abu Jamal. City Lights Publliisshhee.trSs, 2Bq pages.

In

LLrr//Vvo-

jerr, Prdison Legal News columnis.,. Ilwnnrrddo-wwiinnnnling

rulel denth-row

prisoner: Mumin Abu-Jnmnl presents the stories nod reflections of fellow pris-
I -I I onets-turned..,dvocatecs who hllve lcamC!d to usC! the cowur:t s}y'st!e!mlll to represent
othct prisoners. nod in some caassCe5s have::won their freedom.

Must-rend for jailhousc lawyersl'

107.3 1..._ . _ L....._--J.

How to Win Your Personal Injury CI:ilip, by Attttjj··_. Joseph

7th

edition, NOLO Press. 304 pnges. $34.99. While not specli5cnllj' fot prison-

relnted pctSonni injury cnase5s, this book provides comprehcusive information

on how to hnodlie personal injut}' and propctq' dlUDnglt: clrnuims nrising from

I I I nccidents - including dcnling with doctors, IIttome},s and

I I imnsurnocc co:ommppnnoolCic:s.

1075 ...__.'-_--'.

:\.:>:
.,,:,...,:::. \£.1'lce5
'-:' NO

. ".

.',...' e W. !

<.'.'."..
*

'''0:1,
to Pr.otecting Human Righttss.'
is aproject ofthe nun-"an Rights ·,Defense t;Jenter .,

2010 PLN BOOK LIST

Subject to Change:Without Notice..

:

:

framllIaa!{s 2Prlsancrs, Vnneouvcr,lIG

a

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 11-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 19 of 21 Ex D to McCarter Dec, Pg 6 of 8

this Check the box of.,the .,books·',y.ol!-,.wflllt to., buy., and use the Order
Form on the other side of brochure to .,add up the cost ofyour order. FREE SBIPPING,for and ipdex orders OVER $50.
for Thereis a $6 shipping cbarge all otherbook andindex orders.

Priscn Pmfit=!i, cditl:d by Pnul Wrlghtnod TnraECIivcl: 323 Jl¥S.'

This Is

thitt! and lntl!St book in ascae,;

nothologies thnt=mines

of

lTL'155 impcisoameot in America. (Il1e other rldes rue TI» Cdllll,g tfAlIIaim &: FtiJDlINoIion,

h?oJ;s SCl!., below). J(tiJD!IFroJImT is unique from olb::r

becnuse it :rses oruI diisruussscs

I who profits nod beoelits from rbnss imptisoameot; Imher thlln who is

I

hrumcdb}'itnandhow.

10Ci3 L L--__ "-......_ _- - '' ..

I I I Prison Natioru The: Wrucl10using ofAmi-!oCis Poor, edltl:d b). TltCl Hi:dvclnod P:tul

Wright; 332

PIN nodlOlog)' c:;poses the d'llk side oflbe

1004411,L· L.......::.....'.- - l' . __,",----..... l .

I' I:' 1 'The qilling ofAmeclr:::J, edilCd by-D.mielBunon Rose; Dan Pc:ns and J,'aul WligIlI; 264
pages., $22.9S.,iPLN notllolcgi' prescqts n detnili!d "Insidc"look at the

woqoftbeAmciCllloimin.djusliccSystl:m.

100l . .

.

.Evetydny Lettl!r5 for Busy People, \:IY Debm Hart Mny, 287 pnges,.

Hundreds snmpll! It:tt= thnt ClU'l be ndnpt!!d for most :til}' pw:pOSf!, including

to

ngeocies nnd offic;inls.",Hns numerous 1 1

1

!IpS fOl:Wllt:lllg effuc!Ivc

., " .'

1048 LL...__........JJ..._ _-..-J'.

The Criminaall,.Law H:mdbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the Sysu:m. by

AtlOoi{l},s,. Pnul Be.tgml!G &;
E.-.plains whnat hnppens In n o:U;ninal ensc.from

Nolo Pll!SS, GOB pngc:s. $39.99. to st:ntendng, nnd whnt

yourrights lire atem:h 5tnge C!f the process. Uses aD. c:IS)' oj undt!t-I

slnlldquesdon-·nod.nosweJ:formnt.., ., :.,:'

' ., ' 1038 -J 11......_ _- -' '- -_ _ _ _- '

t? Represent YOllIliclf 1D. Court; Hqw,.: ,i.'rep.:U:1! &; 'Try a Winning Cnse, by

Attorneys Pnul Be.tgm:ui &; Sam].

Nolo P.ress,526 pages., $39.99.

I I I Breaks clown the civil t:cinI process in ct::lIsS}}'-,-toto:.uunnccllee..r::struld steps so you em effi:ccivcly

.rcprest:nt

In Court. The authors

what to say in

court, how to Ssnn))' '1l!1; etc.

'' ,.1 0 317 037 1I.....__....J..J....L_.-_ _--..I...I..

Law Dictionaty, Thlnclom House Wc:bste.t's, 525 pogc:s.,

Comprehensive uf

.law dictiioomnaur:y' c.'>plnins . more tIum 6,500

tc:n:ns., 1

Cove.r::s clvil. crlmIcal, commetcinl,

103G _ - 1 . . ._ _...1 1 L...._ . - ' - ._ _--'

I I Thl! Blue Book of Grnmmmmaair- and Punctuation, by Jane Stmus, 110 pnges.

A guide to grammnr nnd.,pum:tuntion by an eduentorl 1

I

with c.''-pccience tencl11ngEnglish to prisonc:rs,. ., .'101044GG _ 1 1...... ...J._ _---.l.

Leg;d Resean.rcb: How to :Find

the'Law, by StephenElins nod

I I I SUSD.n I.c:vinkiod, 5GB pages. $49.99. Comprehensive nnd easy to undeI5tnnd guidl!
011 .tese:m:hin[r the Inw. Ehplnins ense St:lttuuttccs :md digc.srs,

and mucll morc.1ncludes pr;u:tice c:sctcises,

1059 11......__....J..J_ .'-_ _-----''.

I I I Deposition Handbook, by F:iul Bl!l:gl71.'IO. nod :Albea: !vIoore, Nolo Prless, 352

pngc:s',

Ho:v.to,.

fa:

n

clCpoSlbOnot1lssggoommggtobcdeposc'd.•.' .,

1054 L. .L.__.-..11.._ _--.l1..

Spnnish-Engllsh/English-.Spahliin:: sections, Spanish-English nnd.

llnndom Hous!t!. $8.95. Two

60,000+ entries I 1

I

1034L1...__,,-_--L'._ L-__ --..'.J..

'please Note: .AUhoolt"and index"-orders ke -niirlled v:ia the U,S. Postal

'\\lith

pili

anyreS.Pon-

sibilltyto :rep1nci} book oriiideX:'otdc.ci Duck then: deliVery-to the desti-

(fnc!llty.)

U.S. Postal Service.

I I Wdting to Wm:·Tlie lip Writer, bYSici:t!ii D.·stu:k,

·, House, 2B3 pages.

:&'PLiins the

at ci!tecth'e eomplninrs,

I

1035..

.. .'

Actual Innocence: Whc:nJustlce Goes Wmng and How to Mnlce1t Rlght, updnlCd '

cd., by Baay Scbe4; PcciiII!I: Niufuld :md Jim

403 potges.,

,

Founders of the lnnoceoce PPrroojcjc:c::tt:

holV ao:iimminllUu defOldanl5., :til! wrongly con-

I ·1 I 'ric:ted on.n.regulnrbnsi;,. E.l1Ipq;ll::ttins DNA tl!Stingnod holVjtworks 10 fh:ce the innoCt:nt.

·

c:irlque oe police l\Ild

misconduct nod.,the

systc:n1 thncenSUIC5 such nbusl:.S connouc;.·' ,..

, .,

',.1100330 11......_ _- -''- -.._ _ _ _- -- -'' . .

Rogees .,Thl!Saurus, 717 pages.

you End the ,right word forwhnc

·. you want to sn}'. 11,000 wordsllsted

with o\'er 200,000 synollyms

itnd nntonyiDs. Sampll! sentences nnd patiS of speecl1.showii 'for c"CI:}' main

word. Covers till levels of

and identifies

"

,

and slanng words.

.' •' .'

1045 '-.__.I......._ __ _-----''..

Webatet;'s English DictiolllalrryJ, Newl)'

nn.,d updated, Random Hous!t!.

$B8.95,. 75,000+ entries. Includes tips on w.riting arid word USAge, nnd hnS up.

geogrnplucnl :md' blcgrnphicnl ."t:ntries. Includes recent 1 ' I

1

busmess :md computer temls.

1 103301..._3 ..l.3 ._ _ . ._..

I' I1 I CapItal Climes, by George \VInslo\v, 'Monthl): Review: 360 pages,. 1ji19:00•

.· E,",'-Pplnins how economic policies crente nnd foster

!lnd

I10W cOotLppoommte &: government ecrtime is m.rely punished. 1024

. '

·, With Liberty for Sornl!: 500 Years of

in

by Scott,

Christianson, Northenstt:m Uniyetsitj. Press.•,. 372 pages. 1Ijjil1B8.95. Tile becsrt

'ovemll blstoty of tile Americ:nn p'ocissoon system frbm 1492 wough tlll! 20th

I' 1 ,". Centut}r. Well written :md fuel:filled,. A must·.rtend for undCJ:Stnnding how little
tIUngs 'bavl! cl1nnged as fnr as. prisoos go in the l!'S; over

hundrt:ds ofyenrs.

. ''", .

102G..

."

Ten Men Dead: The stoty of the

hunge,;; strllte, by David

fortd, Adnntic Monthl}' PlesS, 334pages. $1G.95. Inside story of I 1

I

JltA: prisoners nt Belfnst's Long Kesh prison. '

1006 .. . . .,

1 . 1 I' Finding Right Lawyer, b}' Jo.y Fooobc,rg, ABA. 256 pAges. $19.95. Exhow to determine ypur legal needs, to cvnluntc n

ImVV}}'e'eri's qunlifkntiolls, fee pnyments, annd'more.

..

.•,

..Seize the Dayl 7 Steps to .Achieving.the Extraordinary in ail OrdinlalrryJ

World, by Dann}' COl> John Hoover, 256 pages;

Provides 7 steps

1 I I' to cl1nomng your (!l':pecmtions env!s!oning yourself as being·'a SUCCCfsful
and Icspecred pmon-whic\1 is ess!!ottiiuull't'tCc!,. cll:mging

of one's life.

•' 1052. .

•' ..

WOxIum Behind B:u-s,.Thl! CclsJs de

jn the u.s. Prison Systpm, by J

Siljn J.A. TnaIlvi, Sen! PJ:ess, 295 pages. 1ji15.9S. B"'eest book nvnilnbJe that covc.rs

.issues rdatt:d ,to imprisone,d womel1j bnse? an intteerMv:ieews

·. hundreds ofwomen beJ11nd b a r s . .,

.' 10G6., L '-..

. 1
_ _...JJ.

Sl!crets to :a

J

'b}}' Todd

2.1 Gpages.

$j!i.9!1,. ROlldmnp on how to g«:c n job.,evce':! und!!!: ndveI5e circ:umstnnces-llkc

' I I being nn e.'\-con. Includes 110W to, develop :\winning nttitudt:, write nttention-
. gmrabbing resumes, ptt:pate for intenit:\vs', rietwortkillg, bow to

., prescnt your strengths to an :cuplo}:c.r,

morel, 10055G6..

' .

'I" , The ,Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in Globnl Drug- Trade, 2003

,Ed. b}' A1lffrmed McCay, 734 pages. -ll34.9's. Documcented Chposi! , : I"

,

of dIe govermnmt:nt's

in drug trafficking.

1014 .....l. 1L....._ _- - '" -.._ _ _ _- - ' .

290 pages.

tlIld Prisons:in

ofCtisis, By Ouistian l':lrtt:nti,

I J\nal}'Z1:.S the won: the poor \1n dle o:iminnl jusrrllccCe SJ:s.rem. Well
nnd includes litst-hl1nd n:potting. COVl!l:S prisoos, p=-,

,

' 1002·.....__''..1l....._ __ _---''

Hepatitis ruJd LivdDlsensc: WhlltXou Nl!cd 10

by Mclissn Pnlmer, IvID,

I I 457 pngcs. $17.95. D.c.scilbes symptoms &:·'tre:nmciil5

13 & C nnd other

liver disl!!nn5cs•.Includes mcdk:adonS to nv'boid, Wlui.c diet tDo follow.

I·

.. ... 1031 ,. .. ''

Ctime nnd Punishment In .Amecll?>.,biElliott Cunic,'230 pages. $16,95. Effi:ctive

1- I· I rcbuttUlO rlgl.ll!-Winf'l proponents of pcisor bLiildiog; :t:,ncc:bascd rugumeot shows., dmc
me is dtiI= b}' PO\'W:}" Debunks pcison myths imd cllscusses

proveenn,,c£fccaahh'C'C'm'mccmIDs osofafoin:iint:ipt:rpciv=cnintioll.: '" . '".10101199..' '..'..;; ,

I

'" .

Prisoen Mndness: ['he Mental Hcnlth Cdsis B'chind'Ban; :md what We.

MUBe Do Aboeut It, by TeD:)' KupCIS,Jossl!y-13ass, 2:1-5 pnges., Hardback only,

prisoeners plcllSe

any Iequirc:d authocizatiofl foIm. $32.,95., psyc.liliJ.-

I rost writes nbout tDoeennttnali henltlhl in ·U.s,. posons nod jnils. COVeI5 nil
nspects of mentnl illness, prtison ncgntivl! cEfc;cts of 1lo0O0g'l ",.

terrn.1soL,tion in

units, nod more. .'

J PriSon Writing 20th Century

1003 .....l. _ 1I...._- .I'.-..._ __ _...J. 'b)' H. :nBrrooccee: Frnnklin, Penguin

I I' - 1 Books, 3GB pngesf $16.00. From Jnek Londoll to George Jnci;soo, tills .
Ill1tholog), provldC;'l n sclection of"ooml! of·the best writing

r I describioglife belliInd bats in Amerh:n.

.'1022 1L....._..II....._ _...Jl.

Soelednd Brother: 'fbI! Pcison Lcttc:rs of George JI1Cb:50o, by Geotg1:]ncl;son,

L:1\VICllCI! Hill Books, 339 pnges.,

•.,Luc:it,1 e.'>plnnntion of e prUdes of

prison by a wcl!.knbwn poson

Moorrce: J:cic:vant now than

whcn it first nppcaJd 40 yyt:n=rS ago.

1016

til, Mraurijuana I.mv,. Rldmrd
reduce the probnbili 'ofru:test:md
possession of marij J. Irifo on leg:ll surrvvcci1i1n1nncnec, en,snssesteftafdahdhltluturerennoodddrugtteesung.

pages.,

E.o.:mln!c!.Ss 110W to

I1 I· I furtpeoplenccused

USt; snle: OOt

se:m:h &; sc:izutes,

1008 ,L-..._--.l'.-'--_--._......Jl.

Worse Thnn

Frum tlIld the Otdl!nl ofT= CrowJustice, by

David Oshinslty. 30G pag<;s., $16.00.•.,Annlysls of p44ss001a1 Jnboe's roots io sInVEI:}'.

on prison flnntntions and

posonLL,,bbor.

I

prisons tbnt uUsS!!!. I 1

I

' .'...

1007 L. ,1...,.-,,-.1l...._ _-...l1.

No Equnl Justice: RaCI! and elnss in thl! .Amecrican Cciminnl Justice

I I· I System, by David iCo(f!,'The New Prl:.Ss, 219 pages. $19.95. E;;plnlcs how tile annd clm inequality,

ctcnung n twOO--ttlltt::rred systt:m ofJJU UStilce.'

1028' . .' ' ' .

The FriGon and Ithe Gallows: The '-ppoollitic.s ooCf Mass In=cerndon :iin

Amadea, by Marle GottsclUillt, Cnmbcridge Univcrsit}' PJ:ess, 451 .pnges.

$29.!l9. Great poUtic:al Ill1nlysis of the c:onflut:nce of t:\'cnts 1 I

,.

Ic:sding to 2.3 millibn pecople belllnd in the U:S. 10G9 __.JI 1 L.... ..._ _--_ I..

Thhfe! Habeas Cit!booIC IDclTective AsSistance of Counsel, by

Snmplf!, PLN Publishing, 200 pages: -ll49.9S. TIlls is PLN's second published

I book, whiclt Cl;clusivel}' covers ineffective nssistance of counsecl-relnted
issues in fi.edermnI hhbcns petitions. Gtent ,rcsow:ce for habeas 1 1

litigation, :tIld conthlns hundreds of ense cltesl

1... 107B 1...__.JI.....,.-.--_ _

Foctor: B

n film by I<,eilly D.udn, Conc:ete Fllms. $21.95.

!n abouuct the AtkIll1Sf1S prison blood sc:nndnl, whicll proison officinls sold
is a, I: I infected bloeod hnl:vested· from ptison,ets. Note: This

DVD and cannojbe shippl!d to

:

,'. ,:; .-' .

f1 PLN Cumulativi Indl!X.

eCalidclll: )?f;N Articll!

infommtion about PLN nrut:ttiicclles, incJu,qng

jsSUf!, poge ,oumbc.r,

topiccss", covered,

unel if it is Slnte, BnoOpP., or jnil specific. Cnn be

searched on over 5°0 subjects such.ns,.mcedicnal til!! indcx(es) you(1 :c ordering; 1990-:l;99.5,

I ,. s!t!..,'.''Uunl nssnulr. Circll!

1999-, 1

"

. . 2001, 2002-2004. morc rect!O.,tIndel>es not yet nvnilable) .'-

. ..

.•

All booles! ate soft cover except Prison Madness '

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 11-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 20 of 21

T he Habeas. Citeboolc:' .

. .

Assistan:e of

. CounsellS the first ill a

:-series ofbooles by Prison Legal

.

to

,.

identify·

.and raisejiable

for pciten-.

.

corpus relief. nlis

book is an invaluable resource

'Ii The

Citeboo7c is a

nifty and

self-help

guide fOF prisoners seeking

. habeas reliefbased on claims of

. ineffective assistance of counsel

Navigating the' complex and

treacherous.

o f habeas

.

the

courts l;1ave .

granted habeas relief to prison-

ers whose attorneys provided inef-

fective assistance of counsel

it :will litigants
thousarrdsofhours ofresearch and it focuses on the
WINNING cases criminal defendants need to
successfully 'challenge their. convictions. -"

. Well orgaDized into 52 cpn- .
ci.se chapter.s, this easy to book
puts the law at the reader's fin• gertips.:The Appendix includes
and forms f!om successful habeas corpus cases that.

q.emof;ls1;rate formatting and. show

how to frame a winning·argu-

ment thai: will persuade a court.

to grant habeas relie£ The HabeCl;S

Citebqolc explains the proce-

dural

complexi-

. ties offederal habeas corpus Jit-

igation with'the goal ofidentify-

ing Jiti.gating claims

iIieffective assistance of counsel.

Brandon Sample

fuljaiIhouse lawyer Jitigant incar-

in the Bureau of Prisons..

He is a Prisorz. Legal News contrib-

. ufing writer and a member ofthe

National Ll:1-wyer's GmId. Editor

Susan SchwartZlcopfhas a mas-

ter's 4egree in education and is
the director and editor in chief of

Prison Legal News Publishing.

.is.even more difficult espe-

cially from the

of an

ill-equipped prison law library.

"Brandon Sample has pro- .

vided an amazing a.J:!.d much-

needed tool for

who

are forced to seek relief on their

own. The book is thorough; but'

simple aI?-d readable. It starts

with a wonderfullyweU-orga-

nized listing ofhundreds of cllf-

fe!ent types ofineffective

in the

form of citatioI!-s to court rul-

ings - a novel

that

not only-acts as a springboard

for further research qut also

the priso.ner countless .

homs ofpreliminary research:'

PETER.SCHMIDT
Publisher, Punch <& Jurists

THE HABEAS CITEBOOK: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

By Brandon S"a+nple

Number of copies ordered __._ Amount enclosed _ _ _ __

.8.•2:5"·X 10.75". 0224 pages .. ' By:"O check D new postage stamps 0 credit card 0 money order [i

978-0-9.819385-1-6

$4.9·95

i or

.....:'at drtee

each·:

. J1ame ---'=- --.-. ''--------' ------ ----------- --.-,,. ., .--.-,:.-----,; .-., , ...---- ----' '------
.' DOC/BOP Number ----....:---.....,:--:-..:..'----=----<--'----,-:---.:.:...":" Institution/Agericy _ _______..:.._ -____ '_:._'. '--::.:..-'. -_::;.........::....;..:... __.._ _ _ _ _ ___

'Ci :F'RIJE Sliippi1tg & Him'dling: .:-by mail, phone, or on.,.line..

,.: " .: .: .::. ". -------:-'--------i.-S-t-at-e------

.

I?UDLI5HEDD'l - 0//------.-.'.-: ----------------------

ZIP

PPUIIU:U§§OONN llllEE66AAIILL NEWS P..Oo. Box 22420 West Brattleboro VT 0553303
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.pr.1.sonlegalnews.org

Ex D to McCarter Dec, Pg 7 of 8

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 11-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 21 of 21

Ii'"'' ............... , ..

Copies of this very usable and useful gUide . .should be 'available in every

help

people

.tf.on to 'th$ii:

while

use of .

.

vyho

have a df!;lm'atical1y

that .
.ip·prisoD. recidivism." ..

. -Bpr.:L GALE

PEN Prison Writing Program,

L..-,,___ • Edit.or Doing Time: 25 Years ofPrison Writing. ------'------''

HftCH

0 VOCATIONAL 0 PARAlLEGAlo UNDERCRADUATlE 1.1 GRADUATE CQURSES

·.HE GREATLY anticipated and .newly updated
third edition of the Prisoner's Guerrilla
T Handboolcto Correspondence Programsin the

for individual and beneficial for use in all 'prison

libraries and education departments. .

.

. The Prisoners Guerrilla Handbook is the only book

United States and Candda has final1y arrived! Author on the market for the rion-traditional prisoner-stu-

Jon Marc Taylor's brand new version is th,e latest in dent. It

detailed listings of the 'quality, cost,

'this unique and highly successful guidebook for the and course offerings f<?r all sorrespondence pro-

prisoner-student. This' invaluable tool and how-:to grams available to prisoners. In a time when so many

handbook provides the reader with step..by-step academic opportunities in prisons have been elim-

iristructions' to find the appropriate educat!onal

progra:m Jor: .high schoQ'I,

.paralegal,

undergril'duate,:aricJ graduate' course$' otfered in

the U.S. hnd

.'

.. ;.'

".

taoH

is, an invaJuable' re-entry.to<?! for

prisoners who seek to further their education while

. incarcerated and to help them

for life· and

work'following their

'.' ._'. .:. .

.. Jon Marc Taylor has more·than 25 ye'ars experi-

ence as 'an incarcerated student, advocate for pris-

It presents more than 160 program ouiH.nes and onereducation, and author. He has' successfully

offers an

format fOF the student to earned a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and

determine which program suits their needs. It a doctorate via correspondence courses wbile rri2ar-

is ideal for the incarcerated student who does not .·cerated. Editor Susan Schwartzkopf has a master's

have

access Of. the abiHty to attend

degree in education and',2 years

teach-

tion classes in person. This resource is indispensable h'ig immigrants English language skills.

I PRISONERS' GUERRILLA HANDBOOI<=: TO CORRESPON9ENCE PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA m

ByJon Marc Taylor PHD

Number of copies ordered ___ Amount enclosed

m 8.25" x10.75" • 224 pages' . By: 0 check 0 new

stamps 0 credit 0 money

m

rmn. . . ISBN 978-0-9819385-0 -9

Name ______________________________

·M

.i:" !:it or

$49..95 'copies' ordered·

Number _..'_-. DOqSOP

..•,.•.•!_ .__ ••...:,...- '

m

. ' .. , .... once' $39,,95 each" ...... Institution!Agepcy .. '. .

'.' .; ". .. :.: '.' .i.'· ;::: ::. . .

;.. 'IPREIS Shipping & Hahclling , . Add'ress

'..

" . :- ...... '.: ........ : ·:1:':"/ :. ·R

i ' ..... 0r-der'by-mail, phone, or on-line.' C.lty.,...-·_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ State

ZIP

";, :

Uk

I PUBLISHED BY
rPRB§ON .LEGAl I\IIEW§ P.o. Box :l420 West Brattleboro VT 05303

pedicated to Protecting Hu.man.Rights Tel 802225577--113342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Ex D to McCarter Dec, Pg 8 of 8

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 12 Filed 01/31/12 Page 1 of 5

1 Marc D. Blackman, OSB #730338 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News
2 Ransona Blackman LLP
3 1001 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1400 Portland, OR 97204
4 (503) 228-0487

5 Katherine C. Chanaberlain, OSB #042580 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News
6 MacDonald Hoague & Bayless
7 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104-1745
8 (206) 622-1604

9

10

11

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

DISTRICT OF OREGON

14

PORTLAND DIVISION

15 PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the
16 HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,

No. CV 12-71-SI

17

Plaintiff,

DECLARATION OF RUSTY D. CAMPO

18

v.

In Support of Plaintiffs Motion for

Prelinainary Injunction

19 COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA

COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF

20 DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity

as Colunabia County Sheriff,

21

Defendants.

22

23

24

25

26

27

T DECLARATION OF RUSTY D. CAMPO (CV 12-71-SI) e-
x1t
9870.05 fa256312

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961 '
Campo Dec, Page 1 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 12 Filed 01/31/12 Page 2 of 5

DECLARATION OF RUSTY D. CAlVIPO

I, Rusty D. Campo, hereby declare as follows:-

1. I am over the age of 18, am competent to testify, and Inake this Declaration based on my

p'ersorial kriowledge.

2. By letter dated August 18, 1, frorp. the law finn MacDonald, Hoague & Bayless, I

received and reviewed the documents described below.

3. My check marks ( >./ ) below indicate whether I received or did not receive mailings from

Prison Legal News (PLN) when I was a prisoner at the Columbia County Jail, and

whether I received or did not receive written notice frOln the Jail that mail addressed to

me was rej ected.

4. EXHIBIT A (3 single-page double-sided brochures)

(i) ,PLN Brochure and Subscription Order Form

(ii) 2010 PLN Book List

(iii) PLN Brochure about two booles for sale

I RECEIVED Exhibit A from PLN; or

I did NOT receive Exhibit A from PLN; and

I did NOT receive written notification that the Columbia County

Jail rejected Exhibit A; or
t RECEIVED written notification that the Columbia County Jail

rejected Exhibit A.

5. EXHIBIT B (copy of front and back of paperback book)

_

I RECEIVED a paperback book titled Protecting Your Health & Safety; or

I did NOT reeclJiivvee a paperback booktitled Protecting Your Health && RSaqfeoty; and
V I did NOT receive written notification that the Columbia County

Jail rejected a paperback book titled Protecting four Health &

Safety; or

DECLARATION OF RUSTY D. CAMPO - 1
9870.05 eh17;1408

Campo Dec, Page 2 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 12 Filed 01/31/12 Page 3 of 5

I RECEIVED written notification that the Columbia County Jail

rejected a paperback book titled Protecting Your Health & Safety.

6. EXlllBIT C (sample front and back of Prison Legal News journal)

. _'_ ' I RECEIVED PLN's 56-page monthly journals as iD.dicated by my check 'marks '

(v) below next to the date of the issue(s) I received:

I

.

March 2011

_April 2011

May 2011

or
Vr did NOT receive ANY copies ofPLN's

monthly jouma1s.

Jfyou did NOT receive one or more ofthe PLNjourna[s listed above, please indicate whether you received written notifiqation that the journal(s) was rejected by the Jail: ,

did NOT receive written notification that the Columbia County Jail rejected Prison Legal News journals addressed to me; or

I RECEIVED written notification EVERY TIlVIE the Columbia CountY Jail rejected a Prison Legal News journal addressed to me; or

I RECEIVED written notification SOMETIMES, but not every time, when the Columbia County Jail rejected Prison Legal News journals addressed to me.

DECLARATION OF RUSTY p. CAMPO - 2
,9870.05 ehl72208

Campo Dec, Page 3 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 12 Filed 01/31/12 Page 4 of 5

7. I run cUlTently a prisoner at the Columbia County Jail; I have been a prisoner in the Columbia CountY-Jail since:

[day] [month] [yeaJ]

8. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States and the State of

Oregon that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of lny lrnowledge.

it- DATED this day of AidtJ",{-,2011 atS} i

, Oregon.

/

[month]

[city]

Rusty D. Campo; Signature

DECLARATION OF RUSTY D. CAMPO - 3
9870.05 ehl7:!208

Campo Dec, Page 4 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 12 Filed 01/31/12 Page 5 of 5

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I hereby certify that on January 31,2012, I electronically filed the foregoing to the Clerk

3 of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the

4 following:

5

• Marc D. Blackman

marc@ransolnblackman.com,pat@ransolnblacknlan.coln

6

• Gregory R. Roberson

grr@hartwagner.com,cej@hartwagner.com

7

• Lance Weber

8

lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org

• Jesse Wing

9

JesseW@mhb.com

10

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS

11

lsi Katherine C. Chamberlain

12

KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN

OSB #042580

13

(206) 622-1604

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

DECLARATION OF RUSTY D. CAMPO (CV-12-71-SI) - 5
9870.05 fa306308

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961
Campo Dec, Page 5 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 12-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 1 of 13

•• __ ... _ . . • _ .

_ _ _ _ , _ 1"-

.,

EXHIBIT A
I
\
i .
Ex A to Campo Dec, Page 1 of 7

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 12-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 2 of 13 Ex A to Campo Dec, Page 2 of 7

Order Form

PLN Subscr!i'tion Rates.

AU pUI:cbases must:be lu:e-Ilaiil. I'risonel:s can·Fl1.y w.ith new stnmps (stl:ips pooks) or prc-stnmpeil onvel?pcs.

* SUbscrilltion Rntes 1 yr 2 yrs 3 yrs 4yrs $2!L $ 4B $ 72 $.96

TnilividuaIs

$30 $ GO $ 90 $120

(3

GffiGLE

Profcssionals

$30 $160 . $240 $320

onllecDoe!I'.\llIIhhoonnUu5siissssuuce9s, nnnddDDOOl'l{'{OO:C! add S5tIH)

$$ AAmmtt..

(Lawyors, goYl:. Bi:professiolnlal agoncies, lih.t:ru:ias, eta.)

'. Sample :issue for: an.y.one -- $3.50 each!\!

Your He.a.Zth a.nd Safet.y

S:ix-month prisoner subscription for :$12*

,!l.£

Isaues (3-yr

offer)

*Prisoners aen.pay iYithnewiiIst-olass stamps (strips or books

1

only) orpre:stampca

alloLued byprisanpalidcs.

: .

Erisan. Profiteer:;m: WitT, L£bcr'y for Some

.Q£ 6Bonus IsSUIlS (4.yr.suhsorlption offer) Baal): Total (inc. bool>aJJought sepn:mtely) Add. 6% sales'tax for Vermont :s:csidents only ADD l;l6.00 SIR to book ornata UNDER $50

-fuml.

J

Subscription. Bonuses!

: .

l J 2yeara -2

'
honus

for 26 monthly issues total.

I
I

: .

-4 bonus issues (40 total) qR,.PpraLeccing Your Haulrh uml :

1Saftl£f (sea hool. dcsociptionoIl the otherside oftbishJ:oehure).

I

: 4ycn.ul - 6:bonuaissucs (5<1totel) ORyour cbolae ofWilhLiberlyfur I

L

t!::

_____l

] eclicated to Protecting Human Riglits
PLN is a pll''f?jeCti ooffttihe HUl1Lan Rights Defense· Center

PLN Subscriptions.

.

6-month Subsoription,. (P.r.illoners only)

New 3 or 4..YeaJ! Suhsc1l''iption Boo.k Offersl

1 y.t: Subsoription (J:2 issucs)

a yr

(24 plus 2 Bonue issues)

3 yr Sub {elIoIe honus hoole above..!!.\:4 Bonus lssues}

Subscrllie ox: renew for three years at the l"'eegguulal.' pl.'lce
.($72 for prisoners & $90 for indiviidduuaallss))"', and reoeiY{l as a FREE hanus, Protecting Your Health and Safety m:

.... 1 ••

4 yr Sub (Chela bonus hoek above m: 6Bonus issues)

fauX bonus issues of ·PLNI (40 monthly issues total).

Sample Issue - $3.50 each

Indicate yom: ohoice on the Order Form.

TOTAL Amount Enc1osea:

Subscrllic or xenew for four years at the' regular prioe ($96 fox'prisoners & $120 for indi-viduaIs), and receiYe

Send to:
Nama: DOC#: ___________

_________________________________

as a FRE:Jj} hanus, Prison Profiteers m: With Libafl[yfor Some. m: 6 honus issues of PLNI (54 monthly i6.sues,.
total), Indicate yom: oholoe on the Order Foxm.

·Eastern State PenitentiaJ.'Y 1829-1971

AgencylInst: _____________________ __
Address: City/State/Zip: ____________ ___________ __
MAlL PAYlYIENT AND THIS FORM TO: .
Prison Legal News P.O. ·Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303

. NO smpping Oharge!or suhscriptionbonusJJooksl"
NOTE: I£you want the nonua issues o£:PLN instea.d of tbe
frco book offer, please indicate that on tho Oril!!r Form.

:------ U;io;

-----

I

.

I

I You oan huy dozens of legal, sooial oommentary, self- J

: help hooks, and legal and xegular 'diotionaries directly:

I from PLN's book storel Ask us £or a hook list, ox -view:

: our selection onli:ue at:

.

I

I .

www.prisonlegalnews.orgfstore.aspx

l

Charles Dickens -visited PhiladelpIrla's Eastern State Penitentiru:y ill 18l.LZ and he later Wl'ote:
"The System is :dgid, striot and hop eless ... and I ., lieUeYB it to be o:s:u.el and :..vrong....I hold -t;hls s5l1oo,i,':", and daaiily tampering with the mysteries of the' brain to be immeasu!ably worse than any tor-
ture ofthe body." The p:dson lr'eemmamed open for 129 years after Diokens oondemned it as being barbario, and some o£ its inhu.mane pxaotices oontinue to be used in.prisons nation-wide.

Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802"257-1342 Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

·'1ttff;ifJuJij;s. ; aIters i..::r.._,.....!!11..""==",, ""'1'I1I ,II,!!'1 --;;::..,,..

t.:...:•• \ .. ..',,,i;,''t

I 'nn-"..,'':. :1,.,(,.,, ".' .• I I1·-·..-. "•• •.:: ,,":.

lioii:rrir&:;:&:bg:xilS

',.

:,I
:

r.o. Box 242Q, Bxattlehoro, VT 05303
• "'WW1111'W'W..ppll..''iissoonnlcgaln.ews.oJ:g .

..i.t

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 12-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 3 of 13 Ex A to Campo Dec, Page 3 of 7

P rison Legal News is an. independent, non-pront 56-page monthly pUblication that J!epo:rts, J:e-
-views and a:ualyzcs aOUlt rulings and news related to
pJ!isone:I:s' rights a:ti:c'I. prison issues. PLN 'has a na.tional (U.S.) focus on state, fedexal and private prison issues,
"With some inte:I:nauonaI ooverage as'well.

PLN's many thousands of subsaciben:s and :readers
include ci:vil8.lld: criminal trial and appellate attomeys,

judges, public defenders, jomnalists, academics, paxa:.

legals, pl-iso,ners' '.,rights ,aotivists, students, fa:m:i1y members of prisoners, conc)ll'D.ed :individuals, politi-

cians, other govermnent offioials, and num.erous local,

state and£ederal prisoners nationwide. ,

PLN is a ;qtal J.fu.k for

who otherwis'e aon't

haY6 access to au:t:rent legal and prison-J.·'elated news andlnformation.

....:.::.,;.'::::,:: ',: ,::...

l,orlri-tiFle

affecting " srlbscriber

P LN'S coyerage of.,

issues includes medioal

neglect, ilisoiplinaxy' heaxings, nu1:J:itiolnl, living

oonditions, excessive force, court acoess, censQxshlp,

litigation, visiting, telephones, religious freedom,'

free speech, prison :rape, mental health, atto:r.neyl

client access, sexual abuse o£f·, women prisoners, re-

taliation, the PLEA, HIV flllllcdl hep 0, con'l:rol units,

the death

attorney'fees and much

PLN Subscription Rates
P:dsoners:,$lZ fOI;: 6 months, $24 per yeal' q'

N on-inCcaall::ccerated individuals: $30 per yeax,

Law-fiurms,' govt. agencies audliliraxies: $80 per year

Sample issue for'

each* "'.

::. Friaaners ottn pnay with'lloW

or prtl;atnmpcd envelopes

_ ....... ...-.- ....... .

E aoh monthly issue o( "PLN'

types ofrepox\l:inug:

.

A 'Q cover story on n prison-related ISss5uue.

different
-,."

DD ,Reports oOnll indhr.idual and cla6s-notion prison alld

.l:elatedlawsmts when they axe. filed. wheu a

is.,

enteted. or the oase 6ettles, and 'when an a,ppellate court

deoision is issued. We wso h'll.veprlson-related,.news axI:icles.

, 0' A 'INews In BrieP' section news stories across the U.S.

illtCtCstblg . '

Eaclhl issue of PLN also contaills J}.1llIJ.l)rOll6 adYc!;,osements

from bUus6wweessses that provide, prisol1:-IEIlatnad petsollal ·'Iullnld

..legal snamaces and books. PLl'T 'fw:ther salls dozens' of self-

help)! social,aommentEu'y,a.llii

•.' "'..'

PLLlN'T elsoa bas oumulatIve SubjBtit and ol1lse imlexeS:for

,ill PLN :issues £n::0o1:;Un 1990

20Q04. Wl'lte ipio.

3.. .,Su;!Jscl'iP.1?-ofl,.Qffe:d

FreD lvith D. S-year PLN.sullsol.'lillioni Four bonus issues of
1l'LL1N'1' (40 issur.:5s, totllll1l) m: !I.·'freEi book, Protecting Your
" Health cmd Safetyl Chole your bonus cohoice on the form
on'the aothhoolr' side 'of tlus broohure (B-yeeaaxr subsoription
l?risonCl's $12)! individuals :Jl90, professionals $240).

Protecting Your Health and Safety, hyy"i1 _, .. _,.....1

E. '.Lr:''ooonc. 1:P'uubblishea. by the South-

Brn Poverl:y Law Cenut6l:1 325 pages (2009). $10.00 (£Ceo lvith. !I. a-year sulli). 'TLh'hils book

e:qJlsins some basic rights itlilat prisonears

haa'Vvtc3 in a jail or

inn. the U.S. It deals

mninly with rlghts relaatteedd.,· to lienlth and I JIlf.1!...;...____ ',.

safety, such as cOlllllluttnfloable iliissccBa.sses alld abuso by

prison offioials; it also eBJJqqllainnSs how you oan eomol·'oe'your

l'ights to health and. smety lvithin thea faoility and., if neo-

essary. inn. coourt tbhroughhlliittiiggation,. 'Buy separraatt[aJly: _ _

I' You Can Buy Thcse:Books Separately! :

I

I

:I J! you don't

I
to purchase 11.,3 or 4-year subsoription :

: to PLN, you coan still purohase anlly of the bonus b.,oolts-.:

lilt the regular price. Just :indiocllte whioh books you want 1

::to buy oOnll this 'page, then enter the total cost a01l1l itlhie other:
: of thils brochure on the "Book 'T.r:o'ottaall" line or the Or- I i der Form. S,hipping 1s $6 per order (n}lt per hook), and we I : offer FREE shwipp:ing on book orders of $50 or morel To I : place I11l phone order, piease·' call 802-257-1342.., We elso I I I !..a._o..c_e.p.t_h_o_o_k_o_r:d- e_r_s_o_n_li_n_e,_a_t_'W__1_V._l'l_'.p_lr'_is_on_le_g_al_u_ew_s..:o_r_g.___1

D jSs'a project

1l0n-pIofit Human

Bights Defel,lse Cantm:. Your tax-deductilile dona-

tions

oD..uur acllvvoooo!!l.l[.JaYy, £rae spoeolhl ap.d Fh:Sstt.AAmmoelnld-

ment litigation

on beha;I£ of p:dsoners D.I1d publish":

Cl's. PLN lnlOott only providcs 1ulnllccecnllsSoorred prlson-:related news,

hut aotively contests 'prison .,oensorship t1iat interferes with

the deliveq at our publioation or' Dnully aoBler PLN materlnls

seut to prisoners.• .All donations further our goal, of ad-yooat-

ing for people :imprisoned in U.S, detention faoilities.

"Great sO,uree ofinformation,

in states such.,os

Arizona. wllere1he law librnrlcs have neen'taken from

the

and replaced ,yithimrnlega1s."

.... SB, Arizonll. prJsoner

4-Yy.,ea:c Suhscl'iption

FJ;ell ,vith D, 4-year I'LN subs[cJcell,,Ftionl Six

of

1l''LN (5!L iS5ues total) .Q£ ono free hoolt, Wieh. Ljberty for

Same .Q£ Frison Frqfiteersl Cirole your bonus ohoioe on

the form on the othllr side. of this b:coohutroe (4-yoea:r'sub-

soription. rates: prison(ll):s $96, iniliv.ia.uals S120, profes-.

SsiIoonnals S320). Note: Fxees book option is for .!1Mbookr

With Liberty for SonLel 500 Years of ImprLson.m.ant in Amerioa, hy Soott Clhur;iissttiiaansoll, N ortt111BB1l1lstOml:n University Press, 672. pages (199B). ;;:13.95 (£CCOooil with !nl. 4-your subl). A classio hook and the best o-verali history of the .AAmmoerricicUalnl prison system from 1492 to the 20th Century. Well iv:dtten and fillCot £iled,. A lUust-.teaa. for understanding how littll[oJ:tihlilings have oho:nged us far as prisons go i,n the U.S. over hUunllddrredos ofyaeuu:rs. :Suy sespa:ratcly: _ __

QI

Prison Frofiteers: Who MaTtes Money

frDm Mass Incarceration, edited by Paul

& 'TLa'arra. Herivel, NellY Press (2007).

$24,95 (:lul.''eBlal ,vith !nl

suhl). '.Lr:''rhuis is

the third in a series '0o£f PLl'T anthologies

that examines the :reaality 9f mass imprison-

ment in the U.,S., Frison. I'rofiiears:is unique

from aotthh[aJr .boolts on tho

it exposes !ul.nlld

disousses wllO profits and b!lUllefits from mass imprison-

ment, rather than -wwhhoo, is harmed by the prison :industrial

[oJoommplex and our nationis xreelliiamnce on over-inaaxceration.

'Buy sepm:ately: _ _ _.'

. '

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 12-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 4 of 13 Ex A to Campo Dec, Page 4 of 7

Or-der Form

All pw:nhllsc5 must be pro-paid. Prisoners clln pay with

ncw:W:st·c1SBS stnml,ls (strips or boC}ka, no singles) ox: .

prc-stnmpca.

i(alloVJed by prisonpoli.aies.

:Book Title I Number

Qty . Total Cost.

(atta?h

pngo if you IllttDa Ol'dering IllOIa boolts}

Subtotal:

Add 6%' sales tax for YT'

only:

Add $6.00 SIH to orders TINDER $50:

Total Order AmoUnt;

Send to:

Name:
DDOOCC##:: __________ ________
Agency/I:nst: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Address:

City/State/Zip: __:-_--_ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

.

.

lY.1ArL PAYl\1El'iT .AND TElS FORM TO:

Prison Legal News P.O, Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303

Purchase by phone With a'Vlsa or MasterCard 802-257,,1342' .
Or buy bqoks apd'sl,lbscrip'tions onUne at
www.prison.1egalnews.org

FREE SHlPPlliG

On..hook amI mde2C Ol:i:!e-cs OVER $50.001

ship'pingchm:ge Bppllcsto ull olherllookaUll iuue;o,:

{(FreD

in Cffllot frOlU JUIL i, !l010 \ulLil fmLhru: nooLtiiccnD})

More Books for Balel, .

J?risanI:IS' 5clf-HeIp Litigation Manual, updntd 4th cd. (2010), b}' Jolm

Eoston nnd Dnnlcl MIIDrillcj O"fotd

'Press, 1500 pnges.

The

I I I must-bnve "Bible" of,poson litigation for t:U.tl:l!nc nnd llspirlng jnll-

house lnWYClS. If you plm to litig;lte n

or j:ill choil sull;

thisbooklsnmust-bnvc,

1077...

GucniIill. HnndbbooDok to

rtograma.in the U.S.

at;td Cnnada, updnted 3td cd. by JJo0n0 Mntc Tny\or, llh.D. and edited bl' 5usm

Schw:JIl::2:kopi; published IlJ' FLN, 221 pngC!S.

Wetten IlJ' rtIissow:i

.piisonot:tJon ]lrlltc Tn}'lor, who obtlined all.S. degreeJ on M.A. degree and 11

Doctomtc, the Grttm'/{o

contnins contnct Ionfommion IMlI1dd dIOSaip-

I I I lions of high seboaoa!, vocntiaennl, pnmleg;t\ :mmd college CoautSC!S Il,':illnblc ,.
thtough cor=repsepnanddeennce stud},; Gm.t maew;cc fOalI: pcison=

whoa wnnt to futtlit:t UlclJ: educatiaen.

1057 ' - - - ' -_ __ _-..1J

Yow: He:1.lth. nnd Snfety", b)' Robctt E, Tooane, SaeUUlcrn Poovvll!tt),
nus Ll\\v Ct!Otu, 325 pOglls. ,DO. book c,'qJlnins bnslc rights .thnt posonars

hnvt! In nlnU or prison In the U.S. !t dcnls ronlnl)' with rights rtdelnatced Jicnlth

I I md snfetj·'l, such ns cqlllllJunic.1ble! pJSScc111lsCU and nbusa bi' posen offidnlsl it nlso

cl.pln/ns hew you am enforce yow: .tights within the. fnclUtj'l I

I

lll1d, If

In coutt tfu:tlljgh liititgiagtiaonti"on.,

1aGO ....._ ....._ _....J.

5tllrtibg Outl The

Handbook, edited by Wullrun H,.

,Foster, Pll,D. Ill: Cnd E. Hom, Fh.D••.

Out <PIG

tpZ2.9S.

Complete do-i!!!--))'o'oWw::;tc!lf Ic·ent:r)' mnnunl and wotkbooek

who

wnot to de.velop l1ieU: own te.·cnntt:IrJ)' plnn to 'Imoetens!: theIir chnnccs of SllI:CesS

I I I nfte.r thill' nIlt!: .te:lensed. loc1udes:n wldlt!: vnriectl' DE rcsoutcC!ST Including n us",
code to Ille 5mttlng Out'\vcbsiti!.thnceeMM''be nccassed foUaew-

1lnnggttcclleasc.

• , ": :,:,'

, 1074 .'_.-. _....>..-.._ __ _-.1.J_

JaUhouse LIl'l''iiyytt!mtlii1l

Dcfce.oodin·'g PnSOl1ct'S v: the U.S.A.. b)'

MutnlR Abu JnmOJ, Cll:j' LIghts PubllsbeCi":I.BO pngcs. $lG.!l5.

Lan'"

.JUT, l'riso,! Lcgnl Naws celumnlat, nWlu:d-wineing joumnlist nnd denth-caew

posone.r 'MMUumllRn Abu.;]nmul ptrle!sents the stODes nod .tclIectlons of fc:Iloew pods-

I I I whoe hna,yye learned to use. dIe: COUtt Sj'stcam tae .represent
pDSOnctS, nod 1In0 saeme! tases hnve won theil: ftaecdolll'

'Must-tend COt Jrillhouse Inw)'e.tsl

1073 . .'

..

How to Win Your Personal In;UI:J" Claim, bl' Atty. Joseph l'tfmdlcew5, 7th

editioo, NOLO PlesS, 304 pngcs.

\Vhile not spe:cliEicnll}' faet posen-

.ralnted pCJ:SonullojUIY cases, this bO!!JJkk.'ppt,Colv'llides cocmptchcnsh'c information

I I" on how to 11nndle pl!rSaennl iInljUI}' nod propt!J;t)' dnmnge dn.uims lltising aoro

:1cdd!!Ots -

dt!aliog- wIth doctOtS, utllomc},s aIlnI1ddl

iInsumnce

1075 1.....__

.........._ _ _ _..... . .

:.:.. "

",

. .,' ..(P,rlces,

,cJiaPge

".' :'

.. '*l'To

*.

., •...."l·f,.
S'
Dedicated to Protecting Rirman Rights
. PLN is a. IJ1-oaject af/the Hrr,mm,,aa.n Rights Defense Genter
Z010·PWBOOKLIST.
_Prices Subject to Change Without Notice
Graphldram! DooI.. 21'r1aollors,
P.O. Box 2420, ;Bl.'ULtlebol.'o, VT: 05303 802"257"1342 • "I'fiYV-;l'f'f.p.prriissoonnlleeggaaffue1'{s.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 12-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 5 of 13 Ex A to Campo Dec, Page 5 of 7

Cbepk the box. of thl?' books y.ou want to buy and US,? the Order

Form on "f!uhee other side ofil;lis:brochure to add up the cost ofyour

order., FREE SBIPPll:'l'Gforboole and index. orders OVER $50...

There js a $6 sbippIng

qther book and index. orders.

clitt:d bJ)'1P'aulWwrilghhct lind Haivt:J.,. 323 ;jii224,.95. 'Dnills is dIle

= = llUilirddnnnd L1!11l:Stbookin Ii se.rlecs

nndlologies th:n1tt==mrnines UlI:milit)' of

impdsollrmllUltin Aracadit:O\. (Ibl: other tides TIM Glfftw, (An/aaiiaMr &. PriJrJlfNohilll,

HOSes sec: below). PdmllPrvjf= is unique. .6II:om books bccnusec It HOSes nond
= I who profits annod benclits from m:tSS lmpddssooOcmWCC:OG mIllet lth.nn.who is

I

lwmcdbj·,itnrulhow.

1063 '----__l'.-.-..__-----'.

I I I l'rlsonNawm: The Warcllcusing of.Am!c!dca's Poor, o::lliinta:dl bl'Tnrn.Hem·'dnnd1'nul '.
W 332pngcs. :p35.99SS..1l'LN onnthoollo0!!!>l: ""Poses the d.l'uU!k; side ofthe

I I Wcritling to WJ.h:·Thi1. I.egaI.·'Wrcil(lIlll',·by SIiivcn
House, Z83 puges. $1!J.9S. :EE.."Plnins 1Yci!ing ofclfcttive. ecomplnniinnllSS,,\

I •

.

1035 ll.-...__ ..L....._ __ _.....J.

.AciualIonnODCCIllCC: WhanJU!ltica GGOotI::!!!! Wrong andHRow 1(0 MnludtRlght; updnn:d

p;"lpal.r.!c:.k cd., bl' Bntt)•.Scheck,

:NNeeuuffecld nond Jun Dwyc!; 403 pngrs.

...''

FOouUcllddcc:s of thhee. Inna=cec Project Chlo-'pP1lnlllin how cimionl dclf'endnonts nre w:rrocngl)' con-· '.

1"jIcicrtel:d Ollllal..tteegguilnr bnsls. E.1;p1nins DNA lJ:stingg;nmnd llllw'it;wocl:s lD fu:Cdl'taIItDeinnooccc:nt; ,

the.\ De\'nsltDllting c:iiddqquuCl!: oEpolticoe: 11Ild proseC:Ulorial misconduct 1n1oIldd Ihe,! .1

.'1!

,

•

10033001.....-.--......l..-...._ __ _-...'.J..

JR,tooggc:r.'s 'Ihesllurtus, 7117·'pngc:s,.

find

forwhhnnet :

lj''OOUU wnnt ttol Sill" 11,000 'wWoeredds listced a1phabedc:illl'wiUt OOVVIleJt: 200,000 5s}J'noonn}l'ms

I I' . ,,' annd oJInrtIotonn)')r,DmSs'. 'Snclple sentaCnlclcl:e!s! annd ppllr=tS of speech shoewn fcocr I!I\'I!I:J)' mmnwIn :•
.word. Coven; nlil levels aoE'voccanbbuul:llnLtjJ,' Inlol1dd' 'Ildentifies ionfofoI1nl1nl1n1li

annodshlnllnlgwords.

1045 l-._J..._ _....J. L..._

. . . . ._ _- ' .

HOop:llUlitis nndLivcrDisc!l.Se: What You Nce.d Know, by

l'nimcr, MD,

I' I I 457 pn;tg1l!'S, $17.U5, Descriuecs SJ'mppltOoms &. trICc:1lI1tm1lCcoOlISS oEhcpncltis B &. C nnned! olher

lhh'l':c.Ct disc:tJSSCc5s. Includces mccllcltions 'lD Iwoid,

10 foUow,

c.",mces 1\00

and nblbliooggrrnnppl1hly",

103311.1.....__..JI -. .__--- - l' .

'Cd!na alUnld Fu.oishme.nt Iln'Amce.rlit:), byj' Elliott Cunit; 230 p;1!gl!S.,

£/fct:tivc

I I !I .rmcbbuuttccUlDO riglli:-Wingproponents of pdson buDding;

ntgunlcent shmvs tImt

dc.tivm b}l' ppOovvecrt\yj'., J?cbunks priuson IIDD)I''UUltSs .nMod dtfiustussCcsSI

prtmtl\''CC1l,cc.Ili:cr:ddl\'l'lemmccmmssooEEOO:im:iem. pctpcrietV:Dt:DrluOooo.·

. '

1019.' . '.

l'dson Madncss: Thhee. Mental Hce.::iilth Crtisis :Bcl!hhlinn"'d 'Bn:urns llI1lrl Whne Wa

MUGt Do Aboeut It, hb)'Tcn)y' Kupt:rS,Jossc.l)'·'-BBncssss,,245 Pllgces., Hrmlbtu:k only,

mecluda lUlly" J;equull.rtcud nuuthoect:li:l:l!oon foca:n.

I I tIise wotes about lthae mcontlnl hCl!!1lth aisis 1In0 U.S. pOtissons nod jnils. Coovvet=S rill
nsppCccCltlsl oE' mecntlnl iJllnnCeSss5, pason IrlnlPpCe,, ncg>ldvec I!ffc.cts of loango-",

tle= an Isolnrdlon in control unilS,,1a1nIld moere.

1003 11......--'l..1I..-._-._..-.1I.

""'

theu.s. , 1041...1......-..:.-.--1-._ J."_ -_....1..

Engllsh Dictionru:y, NewI)' ;fIe!vliscd oJInrId updnted,l1.ru1dom House,

!he! I ' I TThhee CCccJlUl!nngg' ooff.AArrnn!c!ddrr::tt,, eeddiinta:dl bbttlIJJ;;IunUiccll..:lBluuIIIul::mmnToIsoes,eD,n.u.nt1'=nod Foul WWIriigghhtt,, 226644

r"'-

notholo!gl))'' Pprcsciits :i.dl:Clilai

I:.

00It

a

t

th'l
t:

1001 ...._-'.'--__.

Evecydny IL.!emttceJr:Ss for Busy Pea 1I b f D b H' M ' 287

$lB !!.)1!!11

p. e, jj C ra nert nJ, pages. ••

I I I 75,0[10-'1- .eennotr:iice.s. IrDodduudes tippss""on '''riling !lUIlll88 1voerd usngc, hus up-
bddunatts,cIl:ldndlcesggsecboannggdttnnppchhoiimmccnnppiluuttaneen!nr:ddttlllCbbllllCloolSggl.rrlnnlppShhl.lcc,nnllccnnOol:cic:ss..InIncclul. uddCeS's•..rr1ce0cc3ce3nnctll..._ ....._ _....I.

'

•

' - - - ' " - -....

I I Cnp1lt:u Ctimcs, bj'

1vIonthljl'

3CiO pnggcc:s.

!Ei..ll.l-plDnm.llsls··hhaoww· ecoonnoomtlll:c; polita:clc:s cerecnte IoUnld fuostCllJ: =c:, nnd

\.

I I ,I ". . Hundreds ooEf sraumnplll letttCc.Jr:s thrm:1t celoUnl bc ndnp!cd four ml:!st :amn)' purpose, Includlog to govl:Il1mmcc::nnct ngcenclices., nnd ofiici;us. EHns nurnetous

how cCoO.rtppOoImUtt1e: & gov=mcent aime is =ecll}j' punished. 1 0 2 4 ·

:PE.'d.dssoon Writing in 20th Ccntotlcty :AmllriC.'l, b)j' H.Dllruoccea. Fl11ll;;II1l1liilln., :PPeenngguin

I I I 1:B3ool;s, pages,.

From Jneck London to Gl!o'llc Jackson, this

. antholOgy provrides n selection of SOIDC' of thhec. best "'.citing

desscc:ri.\bbiinnglifa bechind .beutrSs in Ammcen.

. 1022 11.......--J--.'L._ -..__...J..J..

pprr°c.s I S50oiednd1:B3rrootthhcc.n Thll l'.roisocn LcucJ:S of GaorgajlnlcitSon, bl'

oc UUWWIICC.m.m:1:Ill.HHiill :]SoooollSts, pnaggle!Ss. $18.95. Luocd e.\'l['llnnnnootlon OEfff!t:

'of

p.ctlisoen bj' n wcll!.·]mown".·ppoossoonn··nnCclh1st.

noolwV Ithann.

.

when it litstnpp=cd 40 )'= aogo. •,

101G.

tips forwrllting

.

1048

, ' , .

The Criminal Law:Hnndboolt: Know

lUghUl, S5UuJr:vViivve the SYStl!Jll, b}'

Attormnce),s Fnul:'Bcrtggtmrun1nll &·Sam]. Bwonan-.:al1I%cetr, Nalp PtreeSss, (iOB puges.

EIpl.o.lnswllnth3ppensInnc:iminl1lClSe.frombdngmcstcdlosentencing,andwhnt

Liberty fOI:" Some: SOO Years ofImprlsoDmmeennet:in Amenca, bl)'5Sccooctt

ChristliiloUnlsonl Northca.nstcm Unlvl!Islt)' PIesS, pages.'

Thce bcesrt

oovcv.mdll hIstory eof the Ame.dcnn prison SIl'stl!lT1 from 1492 thrtough the 20th

I . I I Century' Will wclnen IIlld fnct A must-tend rOeI: undCc.trSstlll1fling how little
•• .,tthhiinngs. hnve ct:bhJolrnlged ns furilS pnsons go In the U.S. oeVvCeJr:1 :

Marijuana I,:tw, b)l,' Riclmtnfd :'Boke, Roell:. 271 paaggCe5;,.

E:wnincs hoolwV to

.I I reducaulblIel prmobability of 1n1oIldd

for pcoplll nccused orllle.musicl, s:Jtlca aort

possession of rnruiju:um. !nib on lcgnl defenses, se:m:.h B&e.

SUtVcillMtl!r ?"sct

dtugresting.

1to0008 l.\......-...l....1'-..--__..-..l1..

I lj'ourJrJiglunsnnrrennttccm:u:hsstt::llggcoofftl\lcleprporocccesssS.U'. UscsselsUlUlCl ClSlS}}ll'lo0uunnddce:r- .

. .,.' "

: 1038

RllptDSllnt Yomscl.Ein Cout:!!: 'How' 100:lP'.IrCa are'& 'TI a. WiinnJ.ng C

.

ofl'eDts.

. •

1t0022G L L......__

.........._ _ _ _...... .

b'

' I I Tcn Mlm De£\d: Thll stol:J' oEtmhe 1!lB1Idshhungcer stmriltce, b)·' Dn\\o-:ldBBcc.trecs- •

foutrdd,,AA..ttllttiinnttiiccMMoonmclblll)j''ll'.'.ttce:ss,

••$16.!l5.IlDossllddlalstot)' ofl

.

.• '" . P

l:J.

nsc" j

mA pntlsonCc.trSs

LODDggKKle:!s!h pJilJsson.

1001i

Worse Than SlaV!l!lt!y)':

Farm. llI1ld the Orddeenn!!. ofJim. CrowJUus!tliticwe, bJ'

' I I Dn\'id Oshl!nsl;),'. 30G p;ntgglc!Ss. !?1G.ao••Annllyl'sis aot

roOolISS.in s\i!tl!y!!Cl"

' I Focuses on poson plnmntioocS :nrnd sdE-sustnlning 1'00ss0e1nlSs lhnt use

1

pOtissoolnllnbor.

.• •

•

•

: 1007 '-.1...__!l..s!..__-.-..lJ..

AtiOomlllelj's PnulBergman & SaclJ' :'B!d!mutn-:BlltIetr. Nolo P.wtesss, 528 pages,

U I 1:BltmC<Jks dawn dle civil tIinil prooCceCsSsSiknU=::r1-Stoj'-.tuc.uc.dccdrc.r;.titnnnnd Sb:ps so you con.n cErfcc.ddvvccll}j'
lCprest:nt yourseclfin cCoOuUrItt. 'IlIIl nulhoJ:S c:.."P1lnln whnt 1to0 snl' iIn

courtt; how troc s:I)'irt;, ec.tct:.

'.

1037

•

'.

'I-..------LL._ _.-...J'

II 'I I,.' Finding the Right IL.nYll'llr, h),' JJinll' Foonbl!Ig, }J3A, 2SG (loges.

:EElJ>;-

pllnllns.•how

your lIeCgga;lUlnlCl!cdis,

Cc..vVnnliuunlitc n

lnww)y'IelJt:'sqquunnUUBCCllIIddoennss, ,fcepnj'mlmlO,alUndldmoertec.

1015 . . . 1..._..l.._ _....J.

NQo Equanli.

fRuaccti:l allnIld Clnss in thlel Amecrilcnan Ccrilminal Justtiiec.n •

I I I SYBtem, b), David Cole, 'The l'!ce.w '[Plrcess, 21[1 pages.

•. E..'Jllnailns how. the

airmnlnnl lustice SJ'5stctmn pe.cpCtlm(ll!S·' I[:iillll::!l: annod ci1."'llSS inequ:illlj',

Ss))'s'sllccrrnIorofjfujusDsticcCe.

...' 1028 ..

• '

u,. 'taw Dlctiooooaa.ty, Ilnod0':l House Wel!bbstillt's, 5Z5 pages. f,I9.95. Cottnnppttddl-l:"!"1-ssiiv-c. u,-
=S'I I I ltDo--cclntl! InIlw dicdonllt)j" c:'P1lnllins moorrce:. thnn 8,500 lcgn;dl 1036 _ . . . J . ' - - _ - - '-I 1... 1..._ - ' - ._ _

I I I 'TIhQ Blue Boole of G.runmnr lnlln'ld Punctuntion, b)j' Jnane StIrn.\us., 110 pngcs. ,
$14.95. A guide to gt:Imrmnnr ruld lJ??uunnccrruunntidOaoll by nn ecduucanttor

with cI!..\-pc.rc:liencec tuc:.nncchhlngEngUsh to;pdsoncrts.

'104G ...._ L.... .-J'._ _-l'.

II;:gaI. Rc.sccll!l.tChl How 10 Flnd lnlIn1d

thle!. I.:lw, bjl' Stcphen EUas and

Scl:z;e the Dnyl 7 Sleps 10 Achll!ving itlhia Extrnordinntjr in :ur O.dinn.rty

World; hby Dnnnl' COli

Hoocyt:t, 25G

!j115.99,. Pto\'Jdes 7 stl!pS

I I I to ct:hannging l'our e."Peccttnltions lnUnld Cllwvislonlng )J'omsclf ans being II succcssful

nnd

pen;ocn.-whilch !Is essentdinl rttol chlt1lllllging Wthe

coouwtS:Is!l!ooffaOoDlIl'Sslnlfce. . • '

1052 ...._..J.._ _-'.

Wacmc:a :Barriilliind :BalIllItS, The Cd!lis ofWoJIlCn:in thea U:S. P.dson Systttt:!Irl, by

I Silijn J.A. Tnlvi, Senll'.n'm:ss, 29S pnges.

:'Best book IIvnilnblce thnnet COCVI!IS

i.sssuut:e!s! .rtailnted to impclsoened

qnos;d eon inotle!rtVneiaWwf widl 1

Thll Poson InUnld thea GallQows: The :Politics ooCf Mm;s IneCae:ctCl:lltrlnlttion in

.A:mcdc:J!, by 1:Yfuccllca. q;Z9.9!1. Greclilt poUtic;u

I I I Cnamrnbcrilclgea Univc.trSs!llj' FPr'lSs, 151. pnges.
of ltha conEluenclcl of·cevvla!lnltS>'

le:ldlng to 2.3 millIlonpceo'plll bechIlnd bbOaItSs In U.S. lOG!) __... 1L...... lI.-..__-------l'.

The Habeas Cllcboolt: JnIclffii''ccccttiv",AssistnnCIl of Conunsa!, 'h}' BtlIllldon

Sraumnplec, PLN lP'uubblishIng, 200 pages,.

thiss is PLN's scecond published

I I I ·,book., whicl\ eCJJ::cclluusivclJ' covee.tS linceEfif'aactdivc nsssiiSsItMMCcac of·. counscel-teclnrted in fcedCcmtlll honbcens peatitdions. Grlelat .r.!:SOowut:el! foac habenas

I I S0u5sonn I.evioltind, 5GB pages. $49,.99., Comprtchaensi\,'e.l1tllld ens)' to undersltlnlild guide
on lecsc:mlll:hlag the.Ilnw., E.:"'tqpJllnnlons CDnse lInw, stnt).IteS anni!l digests",

aonod mudl moarc. Incclluuddle:!s! prncticl! c.'Il::dses.

10S!) _ 1 1....._. '.1•...-l._ .__ _...-..It.

I I I Decposiltion H:mdbook,' hb)J,' 1'l1ul

:l1lld Allbbe=rt Moon; Nolo 1P'==s., 352

FnogCS:

How·to .handboeok foll.."' nlnll'one :vho'l;It;ltlolldduCcffli InII

deposition oris gommggttJoJ be deposed. ': .•

1054 . . ' • • .

hundreds aoffwwoomcan b!e!hlliinnddbw.

fOGG .....1.-._ _.JL.----__-----l'

10 In9lder Secrects to 11 Wlnnlng Job 'Sentoh, by Todd :BBeerrmmoen., 216 pnges. Rondmap on how to .,get 1\ job "'eevvean unncdlcecr adverse clmunsllIncos-like
I I I being ann cI!..'i-con. ItmlI:iludcs how to de.v\'celop n winning ntti!Udc, Iwvrite ntt!!ntion-·
gmbbIng .trle:!s!uummes, (ltl!l?DJ:C for intl!.[\o::iice.ws, nCetlwwoordkting, hoew to p.cseotyourstIIccnnggtthhss,,lloonnnn..eemmppllooll'c'C:tI.':,,Jalrnldmucilmotcl. 105G ....1...__JI...._ __ _--I',.

litigntion, annod conmim.•..hundd.reads of cllSe citesl

1078 lI!!.-..''__ ..l........_ - - - l .

Factor 6 (DOVDJ), n film by Kcill)' Dudn,

Films. \121.95. Moviea

f I I about tilll!l

pasoen blood SscCnJolrdldnnl, in wlJech praison OofmfidnNlS' sold

Infcctcd blood hnrvecstad, from ·prisoners. NNOotltle1l:frhls. :Is a

DW aund cannot

to

.

,!07(f. ...".J..._ - l . 1L..;__;.•:,.............._ - - , .

.' ' . .

II !I I Sp:mish.English/ErlgIlsh.Spllllis.h' Dlctiolfnty, Rnndom House. !ii8,95. 1\vo
sceecntioonnSs', Spnolsh-·EngUsh and T::ngUsh-5/?nolsh. GO,OOO+ c.otIies

. from A 1to0 Zj Includes WWeessttCe0rn1 Ecmisphl:tc usnge.

"

'.

1034 ...'._.-.'."-_-J..
'----'----'

.

the U.S,. Po.stll

SllrVice1vitb.l;Je1iver.i

PJ;J.'J notassume any respon-

5lliilityto l:i;place'no'ok odncIe.x ciderS once theeDh: aelliiVimm::yyto WI: dcssttii..

is

U.S.

1I 'I' I The l'oellties

CIA. Complicity 'in·' thce Global Dtruugg-' Trade, 2003

Ed. b)'..Alfli:I!d McCo)" 7.344pnagecs. $34.!15.J.:Jlocumenttle!d

ofttlhleeggaovvallm.l:mllmcenntt'n'nininvvoollvveemmeanein dtugoc:;ltfllckiog. 10011441.'.-.-.__.J.L-.._ _--I'.

Locimewn

fu ruld l'rlso..:s·'

Ccisis: by'

llnrani,

I '.1 I 2.90

J\nJlIl= thc"'\\.f.u: on ddiill!l pooer \.In dIe c.inl.inlu juscte:ce S)'StI!l1l. Will

. doeruorncc:oor:cd aIInlldd..IInncludecs Ji!,;t·hnnd :n:pordng. CCOoVvte!It:SS pddssCcInISs, plltll: I ·.1

I

.'

., •.•. ".'1002..

•

I'LN Cumulative Index. $22.50 ·ench. lp'LilNi.A.AIIttiicclllel

dctnUed

Information nbout"'nalII'PLN nctttiiclecs, including titlCl anutlltor, 'hsuc, psggeennuummbbCcJr:,

Iqppiite:!s! coovvce.rteedd•"• citltions, nnd IE Ir Is sSm1lUecIl, BOP qr IJnriUll

Craunt be

seeDarJc:chhecd 01]. ovec 500 the indcxx((ce:s) you lIIiIrIa!

I I such UeSs mcdicni neglect oc

anssault. Gcui:tcciicc

1!l99-1

2001, 2002-·2004.,

'noc}:ce:nvnilnbla) •

All books ate soft

eXGept PJ:ison'Madn.ess

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 12-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 6 of 13

T he Habeas Citeboolc: Inejfecti1re"Assistance of Counsel is the first in a

.Ii' The Habeas Cite.b 0 o7c is a

I
j.

nifi:y and qmcise self-p.elp

I

series ofbooles by Prison Legal

guide for prisOI;l.ers seeking

News Publishing designed to help

habeas reliefbased on cl8.ims of

pro-se prisoner litigants identi:fy

ineffective assistance of coUnsel

and raise viable claims for poten-

Na:vigating the complex: and

tialhabeas corpus relief 'Ibis

treacherous terrain

.

book is·an invaluable resource

law is riever easy; but claim-

that identifies hundreds of cases .

that your lawyer screwed up

where the federal coups have

is even more difficult - espe- "

granted

reliefto prison-

dally from the confines of an

ers whose attorneys provided

demonstrate formatting and 'show iJl..equipped prison law library.

fective assistance of counsel

how to frame a wirming argu-

"Brandon Sample has pro-

It will. save litigants

ment that will

a court

to grant habeas relief The Habeas

vided an amazing and m,!!chtool for prisoners who

thousands ofhours of research and

eXJ?lains tp.e procedurP} and substantive compleJfities of federal habeas corpus lit-

are forced to seek;reliefon their OV(.[l; The boolcis thorough; but Simple and readable. It starts

it focuses on the igation with the goal ofidentlfy--

with a'wonderfullywell-orga-

W1NNlliG

criinmal ing andlitigating clairn.s involviI;tg

defendants needto

.

.. " ..

Br;mdon

counsel
a. success-

r successfully:

ful

litigant incar- -

nized listing ofhm;:tdreds of: different types of ta.:rice ofcoUnsel. set fo):th in the
of citations to court rul-

. . their corivlctioU:s. :
Well organized 52. con-

the Bureau ofPrisons. He is a Prison Legal News contrib-
a uting writer ana member ofthe

ings - a novel

that

not only ads as a springboard .

for further research but also

cise

this easy to use :ho·ok. National

Guild. Editor

saves.the prisoner countless

puts the law"at the

fin-

SusqilSchwartzkopfhas·aJI!.as-:- .

hours ofpreliminary

gertips. The.Appendix

ter's degree in education ·and is

pleadings and forms '!?:om suc-

the director and editor in chiefof

PETER SCHMIDT

cessful

corpru; cases that

Prison Legal News Publishing.

P'i1:blisher, Punch" Jurists

THE HABEAS CITEBOOK: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

By Brandon Sample.

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed __---''-_ __

8.25" x 10.75" .. 1.24 pages ""By: 0 check new postage stamps 0 credit card 0 money order m

ISBN 978-0-9819385-1--6 . Name ______________________________________________________________________

$49·95 3 or more copies ordered
" ·at once $39-95 each:· "

m DOC/BOP Number ""----='-______________________
fustitution/Agency ________________ _______ ______________ i

FREE Shipping & Handling "

_____________________________________________ State

ZIP

PRft§ON llE6AlL NEw§ EO. BO:X:2.fW West.Brattieboro VT 05303
\ Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802257-1342 www-pri?onlegalnews.org

Ex A to Campo Dec, Page 6 of 7

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 12-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 7 of 13

,'""',------------------., Copie(C?f"th15yeryusable andusefulgUide

be available in.every pris,?n library-to

help incatc<:rated people give positive direc-

tion'

while

use of their time..It is a well-established fact that

people

j"1)

have adrc:-fn.c:ttkally reduced rate,of fecidivisrn.!'

'--------"'--_ _'_ -- -BELL GALE CHEVrGHYr PEN Prison Writing Programl , Edi,tor DDil}9 Time: 25 Years ofPrisDn Writing. _ _ ---'----'-.-....IJ

HIGH SCHOOL '"

'" PARAlEGAlL a UNDERGRADUATIE t> "GRADUATE COURSES

T HE GREATLY anticipated and newly updated
. , third edition of the Prisoners Guerrilla" Handbookto Corresponc/.ence Programs in the

States and Canada has finally arrived! Author

Jon Mart Taylor's blond new. versi"on is the lateSt in

this unique and highly successful gUidebook for the

prisoner-student. This invaluable tool and how-to

handbooK proVides the reader with step-by-step

instructions to the' appropriate'

"

program for. high school, vocationaIr paralegal,' undergraduate, and graduate COUr-se5 offered in
the, u.s: am:;! Canada today.

we-elll1try

It presents, more ""than 160 program outlines and offers an 'easy-to-use format for the student to determine which program suits their needs. It is ideal for the 'incarcerated student who does not"
Internet access or the ability to attend education classes in person. This resource is indispensable

for the indiVidual and beneficial for use in all prison

libraries and education departments.

The Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook is the only book

on the market for the non-traditional prisoner-stu-

dent. It includes detailed listings of the quality, cost,

arid

offerings for an correspondence pro-

grams available to prisoners. In a time when so many

academic opportunities in prisons .have been elim-

inated, this book is an invaluabJe re.:.entry t,?ol for

prisoners who seek furth.er their education whiTe

and ,to help them prepare for iife and

work fol1owlng·thejr release.

Jon'Marc Taylor has mbre· than 25 years experi-

ence as an incarcerated student, advocate for pris-

oner education, and author. He has

earned a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and

a doctorate via correspondence courses while incar-

cerated. Editor Susan Schwartzkopf has a: master's

degree in education and 12 years

ing immigrants English language skills.

PRISONERS' GUERRilLA HANDBOOK TO CORRESPONDENCE PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES

CANADA. m

ByJon Marc Taylor PHD

Number of copies ori::Iered _ _ Amount enclosed _"_ _ __

8.25/1 x to.75/1 . 224 pages ISBN 978-0-9819385-0-9
or $49095
1 mere copies ordered

By: 0 check D neW postage stamps 0 creait card 0 money o"rder m

Nam'e ----------------------------------------------------------------------

1'1
I!'!

DOC/BOP Number

m

at once $l9..9S each

Institution/Agency __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___

FREE Shipping & Handling

"m

Order by mail, phone, or Dn-line•.
R PUDUSliEP ny
§[Dl\! lfEG,LML

_________________________

ZIP

IP.O. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 0530 3

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342

Ex A to Campo Dec, Page 7 of 7

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 12-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 8 of 13
EXHIBITB
Ex B to Campo Dec, Page 1 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 12-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 9 of 13
Southern Poverty law Genter
I • I
Ex B to Campo Dec, Page 2 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 12-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 10 of 13
SSoouuththeernrnPPoovveertrytylaLwawGCeennteterr
Ex B to Campo Dec, Page 3 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 12-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 11 of 13

. . .........

.. .....

-.

-" . ..

....,, -.. '

.

; ;

. .,' ........

.. . ...

............

_ ...

EXHIBIT C·"·
Ex C to Campo Dec, Page 1 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 12-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 12 of 13

VOL. 22 No.4
ISSN 1075-7678

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights

April 2011

Nationwide PLN Survey Examines Prison Phone Conn-acts!} Kickbacks

by 101m E. DaTlnellberg

A n exhaustive analysis ofprison phone families -''who aTe the overwhelming re- recent phone rates may now be in effect due

contracts nationwide has revealed cipients of prison phone calls. Averaging to new

awards or renewals, and

that with only limited exceptions, tele- a 42% kickback nationwide, tms indicates while data was obtained from alISO states,

phone service providers offer lucrative that the phone market in state prison sys- it was not complete for each category.. See

kickbacks (politely termed '"commis- temsisworthmorethananestimated$362 the chart accompanying this article for a

sions") to state contracting agencies million annually in gross revenue.

breakdown of the data obtained.

- am0ll1zti17g all aJ'erage to 42% of gross.

In a research task never before ac-

PLN has previously reported on the

revenues ji"om prisoners' phone calls - in

Pri$o1l. Legal NeHlS, using egregious nature of exorbitant prison

order to obtain exclusive, monopolistic publio records laws, secured prison phone . phone rates, notably in our January 2007

'contracts for prison phone services.·

contract information' from aU 50 states' cover story, «Ex.-Communication: Com.-

These contracts 9Ie pI;:iced not only (compiled in 2008-2009 and representing 'petitionand Collusion in the u.s. Prison

to unjustly enrich the telephone compa- data from 2007-2008)..The initial survey Telephone Il1.dustry," by University of

rues by charging much higl;1er rates than was conducted by PLNcontributing writ- Michigan professor

Jackson.

those paid by general public, but are er Mike Rlgby, with follow-up research by further inflated to cover the commission PLN associate editor Alex: Friedmann.

How .Are Phone Rates Regulated?

paynients, which suck over $152 million

The phone contracts were reviewed

Qomestic phone calls are generally

per year out of the pockets of prisoners' to. determine the service provider; the divided into three.categories: local, intra-

kickback percentage; the annual dollar state and interstate. The rates charged for

.amoUI!t of the kickbacks; and the rates these calls depend on several factors and

charged for local calls, intrastate

are regulated by different authorities. Lo-

Phone Rate Chart

16

(within a state based on calls from one Local Access and Transport Area to anQthei;,

cal calls are usually flat-rate within a small area around the call's originating location;

Editorial

known as interLATA). and interstate calls e.g., within the same city.

(long distance between states). To simplify

Local and intrastate calls are often

22 this survey, only collect call and daytime regulated by s:tate public utility or ser-

Crime Reporting Guantauamo Drugging

2.6 rates were analyzed.

. vice commissions, which set rate caps.

Around 30 states allow discounted These caps are negotiated to allow phone

28 debit and/or prepaid collect calls, which comparues. to recover capital costs in a

Washington Public Records Suit

32

provide lower prison phone rates (much lower in some cases). Howeve:r; since other

reasonable time frame while also satisfying requirements levied by the state. The latter

Texas Parole Audit

34 states don't offer such options and not all include subsidizing low-income phone us-

Maine Private Prison Lobbying

37

. prisoners or their families have access to

debit or prepaid

'only collect

ers, providingemergency communications for state agencies, and providing required

Los Angeles Jail Heat Ray

38 calls - which are available in all prison phone coverage (such as emergency-

Prison Facebook Problems

systems except Iowa's - were compared. reporting phone booths along major 43 Also, while telephone compaoies some- highways). Obviously, some of these s'tate-

Texas .Legislator Sentenced New Jersey Bankrolls CEC

46 times provide reduced rates for evening mandated requirements are not in and of and nighttime calls, many prisoners don't themselves profitable, so negotiation of
48 have the luxury of scheduling p'h.one calls rate structures includes recouping these

News in Brief

50 during those time periods.

otherwise nonrecoverable costs.

Lastly, it should be noted th.at more

At the interstate level, phone com-

Prison Legal News

1

. Apdl.2011

Ex C to Campo Dec, Page 2 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 12-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 13 of 13

. P.O. Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303
Change Service Requested

Nuon.s-.PProofsittaOgreg..
PAID Portland OR . -PermitN6. 3142'

Subscription Renewal

.

SUbscriptions expire after the issue shown on the label is mailed.

For example, if the label says:' EXPIRES 02/2006, then the sub-

scription expires after the February 2006 issues is mailed. Please

renew at 2 months before the expiration date. IF THE LA-

BEL SAYS EXPIRES:.04/201Q TIIIS IS YOUR LAST ISSUE.

Please renew immediately to avoid missing any

of Change Address
If you move or are transfered, please
notify PLN as soon as possible your issues can be mailed to your new ad- . dress! PLN only accepts for sending::wissue to the address provid¢d at the 'time an issue is mailed!

CAASH FOR YOUR STAMPS·

, Get the HIGHEST REIMBURSEMENT RATES for ALL ofyour stamps

.

from the ONLY stamp service continuously serv!,!g inmates for 9 years.

WE BUY

ANI) PARTIAL BOOKS, SHEETS, STRIPS

AND ROLLS, OF ALL DENQMJNATION8-AND ·QUA1.':ITITIES OF

.. ',POSTAGE ST.AMPS IN'GOOn CONDITION

a Within 24 Hours we will send

Check, or Electronic Payment

to wherever you

We or will pay an approved vendor for a package Dor gift

of Face Value (33¢ per stamp) for Forever stamps in complete books or sheets

of Falc:e Value for 44¢ stainps in complete books, sheets, strips or rolls

of Face Value for 44¢ Stamps in ,p.artial books, sheets or strips (minimum 4 each)

of FaceValue for all other

or stamped envelopes

SENDFOR ' FRREeEe BROCHUREe'
(ThIs olfervoicJ Where prohibifecJ by slale regllfalfons)

* SPECIAL RATES FOR PLN SUBSCRIBERS - CLIP &SEND THIS AD TO:

ClN, P.O. Box 687-PN, Walnut, GA91789

Or visit OUR Website: www.cash4urSfamps.cpm

Ex C to Campo Dec, Page 3 of 3

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 13 Filed 01/31/12 Page 1 of 5

1 Marc D. Blackman, OSB #730338 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News
2 Ransona Blackman LLP
3 1001 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1400 Portland, OR 97204
4 (503) 228-0487

5 Katherine C. Chanaberlain, OSB #042580 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News
6 MacDonald Hoague & Bayless
7 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104-1745
8 (206) 622-1604

9

10

11

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

DISTRICT OF OREGON

14

PORTLAND DIVISION

15 PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the
16 HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,

No. CV 12-71-SI

17

Plaintiff,

DECLARATION OF MARTIN KAY

18

v.

In Support of Plaintiffs Motion for

Prelinainary Injunction

19 COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA

COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF

20 DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity

as Colunabia County Sheriff,

21

Defendants.

22

23

24 T

25

e

xt 26

27

DECLARATION OF MARTIN KAY (CV 12-71-SI) 1
9870.05 fa256312

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BA¥LESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961
Kay Dec, Page 1 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 13 Filed 01/31/12 Page 2 of 5

DECLARATION OF MARTIN KAY Martin Kay, hereby declare as follows: 1. I am over the age of 18, am competent to testify, and make this Declaration based on my personal knowledge. 2. By letter dated August 18, 2011, from the law fInn MacDonald, Hoague & Bayless, I received and reviewed the documents described below. 3. My check Inarks (-..I) below indicate-whether I received or did not receive mailings from Prison Legal News (PLN) when I was a prisoner at the Columbia County Jail, and whether I received or did not receive written notice from the Jail that Inail addressed to me was rejected. 4. EXIllBIT A (3 single-page double-sided brochures)
- (i) PLN Brochure and Subscription Order-Ponn (ii) 2010 PLN Book List (iii) PLN Brochure about two books for sale I RECEIVED Exhibit A from PLN; or I did NOT receive Exhibit A from PLN; and / I did NOT receive written notifIcation that the Columbia County Jail rejected Exhibit A; or I RECEIVED written notifIcation that the Columbia County Jail rej ected Exhibit A.
5. EXHIBIT B (copy offront and back of paperback book)
L I RECEIVED a paperback book titled Protecting Your Health & Safety; or
I did NOT receive a paperback book titled Protecting Your Health & Safety; and I did NOT receive written notification that the Columbia County Jail rejected a paperback book titied Protecting Your Health & Safety; or

DECLARATION OF MARTIN KAY -1
9870.05 eh 172208

Kay Dec, Page 2 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 13 Filed 01/31/12 Page 3 of 5

I RECEIVED written notification that the Columbia County Jail rejected a paperback book titled Protecting Your Health & Safety. . 6. EXIllBIT C (sample front and back of Prison Legal News journal) -'- I RECEIVED PLN's 56-page monthly journals as indicated by my check marks (v) below next to the date of the issue(s) I received: September 2008
I February 2011
-'March 2011
/ April 2011

June 2011

or _ I did N01; receive ANY copies ofPLN's 56-page monthly journals.
Ifyou did NOT receive one or more ofthe PLNjournals listed above, please indicate
wh.ether you received written notification that the journal(s) was rejected by the Jail:

/ I did NOT receive written notification that the Columbia County Jail rejected Prison Legal News journals addressed to me; or

I RECEIVED written notification EVERY TIME the Columbia County Jail rejected a Prison Legal News journal addressed to me; or

I RECEIVED written notification SOMETIMES, but not every time, when the Columbia County Jail rejected Prison Legal News journals addressed to Ine.

DECLARATION OF MARTIN KAY - 2
9870.05 ch 172208

Kay Dec, Page 3 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 13 Filed 01/31/12 Page 4 of 5

7. Exhibit D (PLN renewal letter and 3 single-page double-sided brochures) I RECEIVED Exl.ubit D; or
"""7 I did NOT r,.,ive Exhibit D; and
_c/_ 1I did NOT receive written notification that the Columbia County
Jail rejected Exhibit D; or I RECEIVED written notification that the Columbia County Jail rejected Exhibit D. 8. I run currently a prisoner at the Columbia County Jail; I have been a prisoner in the
--=-,_, Colunlbia County Jail since: col 0
[day] [month] [year]

9. I declare under penalty. of peljury under the laws of the United States and the State of

Oregon that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

DATEDthisZ2.day of /..lqL.\.1\+,2011 at'S-h l+c.Jf-/AS ,Oregon. .

[month]

[city]

DECLARATION OF MARTIN KAY - 3
9870.05 ehl72208

Kay Dec, Page 4 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 13 Filed 01/31/12 Page 5 of 5

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I hereby celiify that on January 31, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing to the Clerk

3 of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the

4 following:

5

CD Marc D. Blackman

marc@ransomblackman.com,pat@ransomblackman.coln

6

.. Gregory R. Roberson

grr@hartwagner.com,cej@hartwagner.com

7

• Lance Weber

8

lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org

lit Jesse Wing

9

JesseW@mhb.com

10

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS

11

lsi Katherine C. Chamberlain

12

KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN

OSB #042580

13

(206) 622-1604

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

DECLARATION OF MARTIN KAY (CV-12-71-SI) - 5
9870.05 faJ06308

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961
Kay Dec, Page 5 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 13-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 1 of 21
....... --__.. ..__.. ----------1 111""""-- ''..

EXHIBIT A'

I .

Ex A to Kay Dec, Page 1 of 7

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 13-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 2 of 21 Ex A to Kay Dec, Page 2 of 7

Order Form
All purchnses must he pte-naitl. Prisonecs can Fay
new stumps (striFS }looks) or J.lrc-stumpeil cnvcI?pcs.

(3

cm.GtE

ann

issues, nndD01'{Ol! add SIR)

Protecting Your Health and Safety

.!!!. 4

(3-yr

offer)

$ Amt••

Pri.sorz,Profiteers.Q,£ Wit[,Libcrcy for Same
.9.!: 6 Bonus IsBUca (4-yr subscription offer)
Bool): Total (inc. B;ll hooks :bought separately)
Add 6% salcs'taxfor Yermontxllsidonts only
sm ADD $6.00 to hOQk ardors UNDER $50

PLN Subscriptions

6-month Subsoription. (Prisoners o;nUly) 1 y.t Subscription (1:2 issucs)

2 yr

(24 plus 2 Bonus issues)

3 yr Sub (Circle bonus book Dbove.Q£ 4. Bonus lssues)

4 yr Sub (Circle honus hook Dbove m; 6 Bonus issues)

Sample Issue - $3.50 each

TOTAL .Amount Enclosed:

Send to:
Name:
DOC#: ___ _________________
AgencylInst: _______________

Address: City/State/Zip: ________________

MAIL PAYIYIENT Al'!D TIDS FORlYI TO: ,.
Prison Legal News
P.O. .sox 2420
Brattleboro, VT 05303

Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www"prisorilegalnews.org

Pill Subscription Rates

* Subscription Rates 1 yr 2 yts 3 yts 4yrs

Prisoners

$24 $ 48 $ 72 $ 96

. Individuals

$30 $ 60 $ 90 $120

P.tofcsslonals

$80 $160 .$240 $320

(La1vycra, gon, &pIoressional agaucies,lihIru:ice, etc.)

Sample issue for any.one -'$3.50 each!\!

prison.er subscription. for $12*

.P.r.isoners canpD.y

stamps (strips or books

. only) or p:te.stsmpod ellvelopes,'ij'allowed byprisoupuliciilS.

J

Subscription- Bonuses I

: '

J,

I

J 2 years - 2 bonus

for 26 monthly jesuee to tal.

I

:,

- 4 honusjssues (40 total) qit;ProLecling Your Hcallh [lnd I

J Sa.feLy (sea dcscclption on the othar side of this hrochure).

:

: 4ycma • 6 honus issues (5q,totel) ORyour choice

Jar J

_____ :

.New 3 or 4·Year Subscription Boo,k Offers!

Subscribe or renew for th:ree yeaxs at the regular price ...($72 for· pl'isone:rs & $90 for individuals)" and receive as
a FREE honus, Protecting Your Health and Safety .ill: fow: honus issues of,PLNI (40 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Qxder Form.
SubsCI:ibe or renew for four years at the :regular price .($96 fox'prisoneIs & $120 for individuals), and receive
as a FREE hanus, Prison Profiteers m: With LibertyJor
Somel ill: 6 honus issues of PLNI (54 monthly issues., total). Indicate your oholoe on the Order Form.

NO shipping chaxge for subscription bonus booksr

NOTE: If)'ou 'Want tho bonus issues ofPLN instead of the

free Dook offer, please iuili.cate that on the

Form.

I

Contact Us for PLN's Book Listl

J

J

J

J You can buy dozens of legal, social commentaxy. self- I

J help hooks, and legal and

dictionaries cfuectly:

:from PLN's book stm:el Ask us for a hook list, or view:

: our selection online at:

I

IL ______w_-w_w_._pr_iB_o_nleg_a_In_ew-s-.o-rg_/s_to_re_.a-sp-x_------:

.;r....:J,l._., ., it or! t

::;

.1 ,".

..

'& off&s : ".: 'I ••:.....,0.., : 'n °° 1', :1",.. r ..' • It· . . . . . : ,'. ;".1.,' ,:'''' :,::'::";::,, '

1..

...... _ .

.. •

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a. pl'9ject ofthe Hll;IrLan Rights Defense Center
-Eastern State Penitentiary 1829-1971 Chaxles Dickens visited Philadelphia's Eastern State P enitentiaxy in 1842 and he later wIote: "The System is rigid, strict and hopeless ... and I. believe it to be oruel and :..v:rong....I hold this slo,?', and daily tampering 'with the mysteries of the brain to be immeasurably worse than any torture of the body." The pl'.ison remained open for 129 yeaxs after Dickens condemned it as being baxbaric, and some of its inhUmane p:r:actices continue to be used In.P:i:is0D:s nationwide.
P;O. Box 242q, Brattleboro, VT 05303
302-257-1342 • mvw.pdsonlcgalnews.org ,

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 13-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 3 of 21 Ex A to Kay Dec, Page 3 of 7

P rison Legal News" is an independent, non-profit 56-page monthly pUblication that J:eports, xe-
views and analyzes comt :rulings and news related to
ana p:cisoners'rights prison lssues. PLN has a national
(U.S.) foous on state, federal and private prison issues,
'With some mternational ooverage as well.

PLN's many thousands of subscribers and :readers

include ci:v:il and, criminal trial and appella.te a.ttorne)'13,

judges. public defenders, jomne.lists, academics, para:.

legals, plisoners' .rights .activists, students, family

members of prisoners, ooncel'lled individuals, politi-

cians, ather government officials, and numerous local,

state and federal prisoners nationwide. .

.

"

PLN 15 a -v:i,tallink for prisone;;s who otherwise don't

have acoess to cUJ:rent legal ancl

news

and lnformation.

.. .-:;..'.:..... : :.:' '..pmoners:lJI·the Bmted

.
affecting ..'

P LN's coverage of.

issues includes medical

neglect, disciplinaxy hearings, nutrition, living

conditions, excessive force, court access, censo:cship,

j,ail.litigation, visiting, telephones, religious freedom,

free speech. prison rape, mental health, attorney/

ouent aooess. sexual abuse of. wom'en prisoners, :re-

taliation, the PLRA, HIV :hep 0, control u:nits,

the de"ath pe.nalty, attomeyfees and much mo::e.

PLN SUbscription Rates
Prisoners: $12 fox: 6 months, $24 per year *

indi'Viduals: $30 per year"

Lawfums; govt. agencies nndliliraries: $80 per year

Sample iSSUB for

$3.50 each* '.

'" Prisoners can pay with·now

or prc:stampcd enyelopes

E ach monthly issue 'PLN' includes:'three different types of rep orting:

Q .A. coyer s1;.ory on a prison-related issue.

D Reports on individual alld class-action prison and

:related lawsuits when they are. filed, when

is,

entered or the case 6ettles, and 'when an a,ppellate COUl't

". d.eoision is issued. We i1so :hllyeprison-rclated.news articles.

Q .A "News In Brier' section news stories across the and

illtcrestfug .

Each issue of PLN also contains :t;lllllt'trous adve:rtisemlll1ts

from businesses that

prison-related pel'Sollal ·and

"·legal semces and books. PLN 'further sells dozellS' of self-

help, social commentary

•. " .

"PLN also has oumulatiye subject! and oa.se oite illdexes:£or

"all PLN :issues 1990

2004. Write jpfo.

m
1-Spe.cial 3..

..qq££ffeerrI I-l

Free 'with a a-year PLN subsodptionl Four bonus issues of
rLN (40 issues total) m.: u' free book, Protecting Your
Health and Safetyl Circle your bonus choice on the form on'the other side "0£ this brochure (a.year subsoription
prisoners $72, individuals professionals 5240).
Protecting Your Health and Safety, by " ". . - .."-_·I1
Robert E. Toone. Published by the Southern Poverty Law Center, 325 pages (2009). $10.00 (£Ceo with n 3-yoar subl). This book explains some hasic rights that prisoners huye in a jail or prison in the U.S. It deals mninly with rights :related· to llealth andd"I I ' . '.""'I safety, such as communioable c1iseascs aud abuse by prison officialsj it also explains how you oan enfol'co your l'ights to health and safety 'within the facility and, jf neoessary, in court through litigation. Buy separately: _ _

!. You Can Buy These Books Separately! 1

I"' If you don't

to pUl'ohase a. a or 4-year subscriptioll :I

: to PLN, you can still purohase any of the hOllus books,:

: at the regular prioe. Just inc1ioate which books you

: :to buy on this page, then enter the total cost on the other I

I of this brochure on the "Book

line of the Ox- :

: del' Form. Shipping is $$66 per order (llpt per book), and we:

: offer FREE shipping on book crrdel:s of $50 or morel To I

Iplaoe 11 phone order, piease' call 802-257·1342. We also I

_ j

D P!'r;Tis'a project

lloll-profit Human.

Rights

Centel·. YOul'

dona-

O}ll' advocacy, £rce speech a;nd First .Amend.

ment litigation

on

of prisoners and publish-

ers. PLN not only prov.iacs unoellSoIed Frison-related news,

but aatively oontests 'prison .censorship that interferes 'With

the

of Oul' publication or' my other PLN materials

sent to prisoners• .All donatiollS :fu.rther our goal. of

ing fO.l'people imprisoned in U.S, detention facilities.

"Great so.urce ofinformation,

in states such.as

Arizonn wherethe law libraries bve eecn·taken from

the

and replaced 'Yith pnrnlegllls."

....SR, Arp;onn prisoner

4 ..

Free with a 4-yeru: PLN subsm:illtionl Six .honus

of

PLN issues total) .Q.!,: ono free hook, With

for

Same .Q.!,: Prison Prf!fiteersl Ciro1e. Y0ul' honus ohoioe on

the form on the other side of this hIoohute (4-year'sub-

sol'iption rates: prisoners $96, inc1ividuals $120, profes-

sionals $320). Note: Free book optiOll is for .l2nJ!hookr

With Liberty for Some: sao Years
Imprisonment in America, by Soott Christianson, Nortlleastm:n University Procss, 372 pages (199B). $13.95 (£f.r:eoe with a 4.yoar subl). A olassio book and the best overall history of the Amerioan prison systecm from 1492 to the 20th Century. Woll written and fact :filled. A must-Iead ·£or understanding how littlectthings l1l1aaye ohlingsd os far as prisons go :i,n the U.S. oyeX' hundreds of years. Buy separately: ._ __

m;:

Prison Profiteers: W7to MaTtes Money

from. Mass Incarceration, edited by "Paul

Wright & Tara Heoyel, Press (2007).

$24',95 (fJ.'ee with n. 4-ycf!J: sub!). This is

the third in a series of PLN anthologies

that examines the l'eality 9£ mass imprison-

ment ill the U.S. Prison Profitaers is unique

£rom other boolts on the mI!Iket he.cause It exposes amnd

disousses who profits and henefits from mass impHson-

ment, rather than who. is harmed by the prison industrial

oomplex and Oul' nation's reliance on over·inoarc(lration.

Buy separately: ___.

.

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 13-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 4 of 21 Ex A to Kay Dec, Page 4 of 7

Or.der Form

All purchases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with newmst-claBs stamlls (strips or hogks, no singles) or'
. pre-stamped. en:velopee, if"allowed by prison policies•. "

Book Title / Number

Qty Total Cost.

(t4ttach n.noi:Jlllr pnga if you IIIIIIOO oraering mOJ:e hooks)

Subtotal:

Add 6%' sales tax for VT'

only:

Add $6.00 SIR to orders UNDER $50:

TotalOrdcr Amo'nnt:

Send to:'
Name:
DOC#:
AgencylInst:
Adcb:ess: CCiittyy//SSttaattee//ZZiipp:: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
MArL PAYI\1ENT Al'W TillS FoRM. TO:
Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattieborol VT 05303
Purchase by phone with a' VIsa or MasterCard
802-257... 1342' .
Or buy bQoks and'subscrip'tions onljne at
www.prison.legalnews.org ,

FREE SBIPPlNG

Ounook and

OVER. $50.001

A${5 shipping duu:geapplicsto clI othedJOokallll illllc;'I.: OL.le1.'6.

(Frca

in c.rreot fr01UJUU 1,2010 \uLlUfurLhru: nottiecDo)

More Booksfo:r Sale!,

llrisoneIs' Sill-Help Litigation Manual, updnated 4th cd. (2010)', b}' 101m

Boston nnd Dnnicl Manville; OJliraoId ·Unh". 'Press, 1500 pages. $39.95, The

I I I premiere, must-hnave ''Bible'' of,prison liligtltion foe cutten[ nml nspirlng jnll-

house lnwJ'I!J:S. Ifyou £plI;nmn to litigate n

or jnll civil suIt,

thissbaoookkisisnmn musuts-t-llltni.Vv!e!.

1001177 ....._ . . . 1__ _ _- - 1 ..

Gucn:flia Hnndboolc to

Programs.in the U.S.

and Canada, updated 3Id ed, by Jon Mntc

Ph.D. nnd edited by Susnn

published bJ' FlN, 221 £loges:

Wotten bl' lYLissoUIi

'prisonetJon lVf[!tc Tlnll'lol.', who obtained a B.S. degreeJ nn M.A. degree and n Doctooiinntt!c!, the GrmTilla Halfdbook contnains contact lnfolll1:!.don IlI1d clesr:crlp-

I I . I tio[]sof high school, Ytlcationnl, pa.mlcg;tl annd college coutSes avnillnblc ,.
woaugh com:spondenc!l: study, Gteat resou.tCe fOI: pcrisoonnll!lJt:S

who wnntto furthlelr Ulci.c education.

1057 . l... _, .-1._ _--1,
'---'---'

Your Healltthh. and Snfety, by Robcrt E, Toone, SOUUlcrn Pove.tt}'

Ltlw Center, 32.5 pages. 1$10,00. Tlus book cI!..'qlltuns bosic rlghts that pnsoners
htlye in a Jnaill aor prison in the U.S. It dcnls mnlnly with rights reared tTl ljcalth

I I I InlIn1dd safe!:}', such :IS co.mmunic:lblec

nnd Mnbuse b)' poson offidnlsj it also

c>>."."PPtnlnllnns bow you cnn enforce 1y'o0uurt .tights wiLhin the fnacllit),

nod, If

in ecouctt tlu:ollgh litigtltion.,
• .

10GO - - J . 11--.._ _ - - ',.,_ _ , _ _ - - , .
.

Starting Outl The CompIelD'Ee-Entry Handbook, edited by WUllnm H.

.Foster, FIl.D. &: Cnrl E. Horo, pb.D••,Stnrdng OUt Inc., 446 pages. IjlZZ.95.

Comptleett!e: do-.itl-)'outSc1f xe-·entr)' mnnunl nnd wo.kbook fot prisoncl'S who

wnnot to develop Ulcli: own te-·entr)' plan to 'inci:r:nse thci.c chnncc:s of suc;cess
I I 'afrtrlelrt. thel' lite tele:lSced. Inc1udes:a wide v:wet)' oDEf resaouuctces, indudlng- a
code tTl Ule 5tnrdng Oucwcbsiti::, thne c:nn. be nccC.!lsed. follOW-I

'lng!clCDsC.

• ,.,,: :,.:.'

• 1074 '-.l.-.__..LI...,_ _-...'...

J:illhouse LllWjleJ:S: Prisoners DtU:fecnd..i.rig :Prisoners 'V. the U.S.A., by

Mumin Abu Jnmal, Cit}' lights PublliissiillccCc1;,,''22BO pnges.

Injai/fJa(;s, lAll'-

yerr, Priso,! Lcg;tl News columnist, a\'intd-winoing joumnlist nnd dtlnth-·tow

pclssoom:t lMYIuurrnnln Abu-;]\IIllal pteseots the stories nod. .reflections of fdlow pns-

I I I oneniH-tummeedd-'lId.vvoocntcs who have learned to usc the court system to .Ireepprreesent
oUtllecr pdsoncrs, nod in some cases have won their freedom.

Must-tend fOJ: jnilhousce \mV)'l!.Csl

1073 .....1-.__.....J1..__'_ _.-...I.I.

HoW' to W.in Youe lletGonal InjwyClnim, b), Alty.Joseph lY[:1tthcws, 7Ul

edition, NOLO PIressSs, 304 pnges. $34.99. While not spcclficnlly fot poson-

,related pcrsonnl ionjuct), cases, this book, provides comprl!hcnsive infoJ:lllation

I I I on how to Itnndle p!lIsonn11njUt)'.nnd p.taplll;tJ' dnamnge drums :u:ising- from

:ccldents' -

cdleennllng dot:totli, nttotnl!l's nnd

lIlsumnCIl compnrues.

1075 ...._ . . J_ _ _- J . 1-._ - ' ,_ _--'.

,,-,
':,: ':. ''",. . "(p -. , . ,l'lce5

..'

.

:-: ",.

:,'

..•t1i ", ';' )" '..

* • •' •..r.' . " .' - :.......

... : I . '

.,

'.

: " .. No

'after orders he)m,pIaced

'1'"
Dedicated to Protecting Hinnan Rights
PLN is a. jn-oject afthe .Hlmtan Rights Defense :Center
Z010'PWBOOKLIST
. :Prices Subject to Change Without"Notice
Grnpllic froml Dool16 21'risollcrs, 'VancouvCt', DC P.O. Box 2420, ;Brattlehoro, VT: 05803
802-257-1342 0 "I'f'I-n'l'.prieoruegame'Ws.OI:g

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 13-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 5 of 21 Ex A to Kay Dec, Page 5 of 7

Che9k the box. of the. booIG y.ou want to buy and the Order
Farm on. the allier side ofthis=brocbure to add up the cost of your order. FREE S:s:p?PIr:fGfqr boole and :index. orders OVER $50.

I I Writing 10 Wih:' Thil I..eg:!l' Wrlter,'bj' SIi!\'cn D:Sculi,

House, 283 pagts.

E.\}lInins )he.'V!l!ing ofclfcctive cormoplnims,

I

're5j1onoses,btiefs,motioosnnd.othe:t'Icg.UJ.mpl!tS. ,

1035 ....L-._.JJ...._ _-'.

There js a $6 shipping

all qther book and index. orders.

cditl:d by Paul Wright lind
a IhixdnndL1u:stllCokln se.cies ofPJ:isoh

Haivcl, :323 $24.95. 'ntis is uu: nnd1loologi'es thnt=rnines d1laa==IIit)' of

tmSS impli,sorum:ntln ArneDt::1. (Ille: other titles :Ire Th Q/i/(g '!fAmaim &'17inIuNahl1//,

see bdow). P,wIlFrr:Jltm is unlquc Ji:om who profilS nnd bent!lits Ji:om tn:lSS

I I books b=usa it :rses nnd clisc:usscs .m.lhI:l: than. who is

l = e d bj,jtnnd how.

1063 ''----__J.'.-..__-----''..

I I I l'cison Nalion: The Watcllousing of.Aror::dc:;'s l'oor, cdib:d by 'I:v.t HciI,d nnd'Paul "

Wright, 33Zp:tF

tlla d.-waide: of the

.Actual InnoCCDcal Whcn.Justice Goes Wrong andHow to Milke It RIght; updntz:d

cd., b)' Bru:t}' :Scheck, Pcb:r :Neufeld nnd JIm Dwyer; 403 p:tgt!S. $16.00. .'

Fouod= of the InnoCCllce Project c;;plnio how c:iminal dcl'c:ndants nrc: wrongly con- "

I 'I vicred aOlill n.regulnr bnsis, E,,;plnins DNA testing al1nl1dd llOW'jt:works to li-tt::cc't,1th1e innocent. '
DcevllStlIting c:idque of police: nnd proseculodnl misconduct nnd dill,'

,

•

10301.....__. . J......._ _ _ _--l' ..

Rogel's Thesaurus, 717 pages.

Ht;lps )'o.u.lind

forwhllt :

)''OoUu w:u,t to say. 11,000 words listed clphnbetoiciilli,wvieth ovCc.t 200,000 synonyms

I' '1' annd anton)l'rOs. 'Sn.ociple senteni:es and p= oEf speedl shown for Ct!\'c.g' main '

:word. Covers nll levels of'vocabulnr)' nnd'

ilnlformnll

anndslnngwords.

1045 __ lL....... "..JJ,..._ _ _ _--' .

1ock-crrrup'poUtic:tlngmdaacdlcg;!lclimatl!io

• 104411..1.......,:.".,..-..L.......__----''..

I I I The CclIing of

editz:d b}'Donicl.BlJIIOn nose, Dnn Pens and Paul Wright; 2.G4

pages. $229S.'FlN nntholog}' pn:sc:ius dctililo:l l1nsidc" loolc at the

justia:sy.str:m.

100\ ...._--'-._ _.....J. L.._--'-._ _.......

Everyday Letters for Busy Faop.!e, bj' Dcbm Hnn. MlI.}" 2B7 pagc:s. $18.99,

I I I HWldreds of sample letters thnt cnn be adnptcd £ot most an}' purpose, Including
lel:tCts to govC.tllmall: ngencles. nnd officlnl;•.Bns

tips fot'1v.citing effectivelettets. .,

1048 ....._-'-._ _-'.

The Criminal Law Hnndb'ook: Know Your rughl5, Survive the. System, by

Attoau:)·s Fnul Ber:gmnn

Beman-Bno:ett, Nolp Press, GaS pngcs.

&plnlns wbnt happens In n crlrmnlniU ClSe Ji:om bclog ar:teStled to sentencing, and what

l'ow:riglus;u-encc:\ch

Usessnan CI5}''tloouunnddle:..!r:-/

WebstCt'B English Dlctionru:y, Newl)' Ievised and updnted, Random House,

I I I ijlB.95_ 75,000+ cntrlc.s. rodudes tips' on ,i·criting ann8a ,vord uussnnggee.. I!nd hIalSs up-
dnt:d &c:ogt.tphicru and biographicnl entdas. Includes•.recent

busltln1ecss nnd coommppuutlt:e.!r: tcn.:ns.,

,,110033 3 3 ...._.-'.._ _---'.

I I I' Capital

bl' George Wmslow, Monthl}' Revie.w, 360 pngaes. ¥J1,9.00.

EJ,plnains'how economic poUlides ctc.m:e and foossttCcJ.t: c.cime, and

how cOaIIppoomte &: government crtimce 1s =cly punishecd. 1024

., With Liberty for Some: SOOD Yr:o.rs of Impdsonment in .America, b)' Scott

Christianson; NorthaenasteWrnl Unlv[lIslt}, Press, ,37Z poages.·'

The best

ove.rnll hlstot)' of the. American prison Sj'ssttcc.mrn from 1492. through the 20th
I ," I I Century. Will written lnlolld fnct .6ll=d. A must-,tcnd for Wldcet.lristtrnun1!¥ng how little
• ,things have changed ns fur .ns prisons go in dtil!: U.S. over

'

ofyentS.

, •

t02G..

' ,'::

: 1038 .L.....,__.-.1' --_ __ _--''

Represent Yoursclf in

How to l'.tepare & Try \1, Wmnlng C:lSe, by

AtlOllle),s PnulBcrgmnn & S=j. :Se.rninn-Bno:cf;t, Nolo Press, 526 pages. $39.99.

I I I B.tt:nks down tuile civil triiaallppromCclc:SsSs in =y-to·uodcrstnand Stl:pS so you c:m effc:cov"c:l),

rep=cnt

in collLt 'TIll:: nnUUllllllOOll::SS e.l.,'ippllanin what 1to0 sn)' In

court, how to 5:1)' lr, ett:.

'.

1037 ...._-'-._____-.l..

I I II..aa..ww Dlctionaty, Enado',ll House

525 Fpllg1:S. $19.95. COlIllppttccll11<cmnsive u,-

to-dnte Inw' dictionltt}"

more. tthlUl 6,500 legal. t"C.I::ttll11SS.',.

Covurs civil, cimInnl,

& Inte.rnadocallaw.

1036 ....._ _. ' - - _ - - ' l.,._ - ' - ._ _-'

I I I The Blue Book of Gr:uru:mu: nnd Punctuation, by Jane Strnus, 110 pnges.
$144..9955_. AA guide to grammar ruJd punccuntioan bl' an eduCltor

with c..\\11llcc..dence tenchingEngUsh to;pcisoocts.

'104G .....l.,.__.......JJ._ _----!'.

Legru. fuseacch: How to :Flind and UndersWxd the I.o.w, b}, Stephen Elias nnd
I I I Susan LeviohInd, SGB pngcs. !i49.99. CompJ:chcosive nnd ens)' to underst:llld guide
o0n0 xesc:uclling tthe Illw. B."qllnios C:nse !rrooYy, Stltjlte.S annn1ai digests,

and much morc.Includes pmcdce !e!.'"\eJr:oOsseess.

1059 1....__'-'.,...._<._ -_-J1.

l I DeposItion Handbool!;· b)' Pllul13exgm:m and Albert Moore, Nolo PlreessSs, 352

pnges: $34.99. Ho\V<to

foc nDj'aofnlll :yho' COOdUClli 0n.1l I

deposition oris going to be deposcd. ': .,

1054 . . ' , . .

I I I Sp;mlsh-Eng!lsh!Eri.glish-Spnni.s,h· Dictiotinry, Ilnndom Hous!:.

Two

scctions, 5pnnish.EogUsh nnd

GO,OOO+ c.oot.trriiees

from A

1034 ...'.'.__..-.'J-._ .__ _---''..

I . I I Ten Men Dead: The BtO.ry of the 1981 rosh. hunger smitc, bl' Dmo-ijd Beres-
ford, Atlrintlc Monuul' P.cass, 334 pnagecs. $16.95. Inside'stol:)' of

1M prlsonec.trlsi lI.t

Lonog Kesh prison.

11000G0...G ._-.'.."--_--'..

I I /' :Finding lUght Lnwyer:, b): ]1I1l))'

}J3A, 25G pnges. ;P19.95. EA-

plnlns .how to dote.rmlnc yow: lecgnl net:ds, ht;Jw c.vruuatc: 1I1l

llalwyc.rt'5 qunliBcnaoons, fce plaI}}'tmrlants, nnd more.

i 0 0151...5.._......i.'--_.......I.

Scb:e the Day! 7 Steps to Aehleving the Extrnordinntjr Iin rut Ordinary

World; by Drumy Co" nnd ]ohp Hooyer, 2SG pages. !il15.!l9. ProvJdes 7 steps

I I I to chnanging }'our c..>>ppeeccttnclons IalIn1d emrlsioning yourself as bclng n successful
!lnd respected person-which is esSl:l1looraul to chiUlging the

•

105Z .....__.._..J..''----__...-..-.J'..

Wome:n Behind BIltsJ The.

ofWo!Den:in the 11:8. Poson SySstem, by

SUjIl.J.A. TnM, Sen! Press, 295 pnges. issuces .relIalted to imp.tlsoned women,

I Best book nvnilnble thnt coovvewrs
on intervicew,s with

hundreds of'Women bcltlnd bm. .

.

?OGG _ . . l -_ _- ' 1L....._ - ' -_ _- '

10 Inslidoer Secrtets to n Wlinning Job 'Sentell, by Todd BermaonnIr'. 216 pages.
$15;99. Roadmnp o0n0 how to ,get a0. job 'even under ndvvewrse OcitCcuUmllSlStltllnncceess--lil;e
I I I being an c..,,,--ccon. Incdluudaes how to dec\·e!op n winning nttil:Udll, write anttenoon-
grabbing .resuml!5, prcpp:lult:ce for intl!r\o-ijews, nCell::wwooddng, how to
presentycur strengths,to an.amplol'cr,;md much morel. 10055G6, . L-,_,-._ _-"

I 'I' 1 The 1'0liticsoCHc.[oin: CIA. Complicity'lin the Global Drug Tradoe, Z003
Ed, by.Alfi:ed McCo)', 7:34 pages., $34.95.-Documentc.d c:.,;pose

. _--' of

t1hlee··ggoovvec..rmnmcnt's •

involv,ement

in

dIxUu. . g trnf' 'ficld. , og.,

........ 1Ql<\- . '

.

1 ' ---_........_ - 1

Please Note: .8J.1 b06k end.iO.a.eX.

are mailed. "Via the U.S. Postal

IlOt

any:respOD.-

sibilltyto ':replace'bo'ok

oiderS once their Cle1i:Vcry to tho desti.-

natioD.addx,ess .(facill,ty) is

U.S.

I.oclaIown Arnerl=

and l'tiso.:s

of Cclsls: 'by'OwStiilll P=1i,

I I 290

$19,00. Annll'u:s the ,i,u: 011 !lie poor ,il the. c:irrddIlDn.:'Ull justice SJOSlI!lI1. Well

. dO.cumented nnd includes Srst-hnnd 11!pomng. CovetS prisoos, paro:

• milltl.r)' poUclog, SWJ\T tt=n5nnnnd thcJ:NS.· . ..••• .'·100D02

•

Hcpntlitis :mdLivcrDisease: What You Nee? !o Know, by McllsslaI1"P?:nilir:ncr, 11'lD,

I I 457 pngte:s. $17.95. Desc:ibtis S)'alptoins &. trcltmecnots of hcpp:m1liti5s B Be C :l1ml1d otllct
Jiver disl::lSes. Includes medicadons 'to uvoid, what''ddiet 10 follow, ,.

to

nnd nbibliogrnph}"

1031,1.....__..,..11 .._ _ _ _....J.

'Cdtnc and Punishment In'

bl'Elliott CUJIit'., 230 pngcs., $l1i,9S. ,ElfcttM:

I I I rebut!i!!lllDto righr:-wing propom:ms of prison building:. Fnct·bilSCd rugunJent shows U101t
c:ime is dtivtn b)' poVCl:tt))"·. Debunks prtisocn tmrI))''llllllSS ,nnd discusses

pro\'t:n,cl:Ii:<:th<cm=ofOimC:pn:Vt:ntiolal.· • 101g. '. _ '

l'Oson Madness: The. Mc.ntal BHeualcth Crisis :Bcc1hU!nn'd 'Braur:s rutd WIhlillt We

Must Do About It, b)' TCCDIt:)' lCup!:IS,Jossey-BlnlSs5s,245 png<:s., Hardbndt: only,

prisoners'plailSe include any required

roon. $32.95. l'S)'chin-

I I tIrist wotes about tha mentnl hcnl.th calsis In U.S., prisons nnd jnils, COV!:IS nil
aspects of'mentnl illnacss, prison );:IpPlel, m:g;lIivce effce,cts oElong-1

t = isolntioll In contrOl units, nnd more.

1 100301...0 _.I"3 ,_._ ,.....i.

Poson Writing Iin 20th

by H. BIxUuceF.rnnklln,l'cenguin

I I I ]ooaks, pages.

Fmm Jack London to George Jnckson, this

; nndlOlogJ' pJ:ovjdcs a0. selection of some:·' of the bc:st .wotiog I I

I

i I daescribinglife bchindbntSin Amc.dcn.

. 11002221.2.._..L.._ _..J..

Soledad Brother. The l'.risonI.cuers of Gaorgejncicsoll, b), Lawrence Hill Bool:s, 339 pagas. $¥J1,88..!9J5S. Lucid e.'iplnnntion of a Ptties 'of

poson. b)i 1aI well.lmown,'poson

More. rclevnnt now thnn

'

when It fitst:Jpp=cd 40 ycnts ngo. .,

. 101G

Marijuana. !I.,::tww, by IUc.lw,td Boire, Roncir; 271 pages.

&!mines 111100WW to

'I I reduce. dIhla probability ofru:r<:st nndTit05ccution fOaJ: peop\a nccused oflhe usc; sale ocr
possession of mru:ijuarnmn. Info on Icg;!l defuoses. se:u:ch Be Seiz1m:s(1

5UtVcllllll1l:C, ?Ssetfutfclll.lIl:nnd drug resting.

1la0O0S .....l....--.-..i...JI._ ...-__ .......Ji.

Worse Thnn Slavcry:

Frum and the Orlden!. ofJim CrowJustice, b),

I I ' I Oshinsky, 306 pngte:s. $11i.OO',Annlj'Sis of

mots.in s41tvvfJ:)"

Focuses on proison plnnll1tiooS :alnIld scJF.sustnlning prlisloos thnt usc

prison labor:.

, .

• .

; 110007D1...7_..J...,,--_..J..

No Equal Justice: fulce annd Cln.ss in the! Amedcan Ctiminal

. ,

I I I System, b). David Cole, The New 'Pracss, 218 pages. !p19.95.•,.
crimlnnl justice s)'stem pertpCtwlt\1C!S' );:Ice annd class lnequ:nility,

hoW". thhee.

IC:IJ::CCIllttiinng twoe·tiered 5)'slalll ofjusdce.,

• .' 1028 "

'

Thte! l'rison and the. Gallows: The :Politics of MIIGS mcrou.r:cerntion :in

I I I Amerdica, by !vIncie Gottschalk, Cambtidga UnniivvCeJr:ssilty l'rl!5s, 451 pages.
!p29.99. Grceat poaliticnl nnall·sis of tl1le0 t:onElul!lice. of'l!vents

the u.s. leading to 2.3 million people bclt!nd bll.ts In thi:

1069 1...__.Ll-...._ _--_ -J..

The Habeas Citeboolc: J:neffc'cc.ctltvlvee,.,A.AssIssItsOt;mtncc. of CounsCI,'bl' Brnndon

Sample, PLN Publishing, 200 pagces.

This is PLN's second published

I I I ,book, whlcl\ I!l:clusivclJ' covetS ineeffffll!!ccnnvvEel nsslssln:lmlllce of· counscl·relnutad
Issues in fedeml hnbens petitions. GJr:ecat .resoUtce for l1nbens

Utigntion, nnd contoUns ,huunncdhI:ccds ofcn.se. ecltasl

1078 \:.,'\!.,'__.".JJ.,.._ ____-'..

Fnctor 8 (OVD), n film by Kclly Dudne,

Films.

lyfovie

I I Ule Atknnsns poson blood scnndnl, in which prison offldnls sold
infected blood hru:vaest.ed, from ·pcrilsonneeJr:s. Note: ,This lS a0. C

DVD and connot be ed to

076. I-..ll;."',...........•..J•.._ __ _...J..
.. ' . . .

PLN Cumulative Indcex..

·'ench. PLN.A.ttit:le

dctnilcd

information nbout'nll 'PLN rnur:ttiiccies, including titlCc!i lIudlOr,'!i;suc:, page numbe.r:,

_tqpies covered,. citntionos, n.nd iIE it 1is5 Slntc, BOP o.t Jnil

Can be

scelltcbl!d OOJJ;;!! over 500

such tIS mcdicJ

the lndcx(es) you lI.te o.d,.c.r:iog;

or se..\',-uO.! assault.
1:19.9999-,

I

2001, 2002-·2004. (mora

indel\es 'noej;llt tivnilnablc)

All books are soft cove!: exeept PHsonMadness

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 13-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 6 of 21

T he Habeas Citeboolc: Ineffective'Assistance of Counsel is the first ill. a

"

series ofbboles by Prison Legal

News Publishing designed to help

pro-se prisoner litigants identify

and raise viable claims for poten-

tial habeas corpus relief 'TIbhis

book is an invaluable resource

that identifies hundreds of cases·'

where the federal

have

granted

relief to prison-

ers whose attorneys provided

demonstrate forrmmaatt1tinn.g and 'show

fective assistance of couunnsseeLl

how to frame a winning argu-

It will save litigants

ment that will

a court

to grant habeas relief The Habeas

thousands ofhours of research and

eXJ?lains tp.e procedural and substantive compleiP-ties of federal habeas corpus lit-

it focuses on the ' igation with. the goal ofidentify-

,

'

WINNING cases crllninal

ing and litigating claims involviI;tg

defendCiD,ts needto

.,-' ·'ine'fte.,ctive assistance counsel.

Br;m.don

k success-

,successfully'

ful

"'llaawwyer litigant imncar- .

, ,their corivlction:s. ,
Well organized 52 con-

the Bureau of Prisons. He is a Prison Legal News contrib-
a ultimng writer ana member ofthe

cise

tWs easy to use poole National Lawyer's Guild. Editor

puts the law·'at the reader's fin-

Susa,n Schwartzkoppffhass-'a mas-

gertips. 'The .Appendi.i:x:

degree in education and is

pleadings and forms from suc- .

the director and edittor imn chief of

cessful

corpru;'cases that

Prison Legal News Publishing.

The Ha.beas Citehoo7c is a

. nifty and concise self-help . _

guide for priso:q.ers seeking

habeas reliefbased on cl8ims of

ineefffeecc1:ti:vve assistance of coUnsel

Navigating the complex and

treacherous terrain

.

law is riever easy; but claim-

thatyoUI lawyer screwed up

is even more difficult - espe- ,

daallly from the confines of an

ill-equipped prison law library.

"Brando·'n Sample has pro-

vided an amazing and m-lp1.cch-

tool for prisoners who

are forced to seek ,relief on their

.. 'Ihe boole is thorough; but

simple and readable. It starts

with a'w6onderfully well-orga-
nized listing offhh1ull;t:;Jl.d{:rIeredds at:dif-

ferent types of

tance of,coUnsel, set in the

of citations to court rul-

ings - a novel

that

not only acts as a springboard .,

for further research but also

saves:the prisoner countless

hours ofpreliminary research:;

PETER SCHMIDT
P1l:bllsher, Punch' & Jurists

THE HABEAS CITEBOOK: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

m

By Brandon Sample,

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed ___---''-_ _____

8..2255'7" x 10.755"» .. 224 pages .,.'BBy: 0 check E? new postage stamps 0 credit card 0 money order §

ISBN 978-0-9819385-1-6 . Name _______________________________________________________________________

$49·95 3 or more copies ordered
, 'at once $39-95 each: - .,

m DOC/BOP Number '--'-_____________________________________________ _
i
Institution/Agency _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-!=--- -_ __ __ __ __ __ ___

FREE Shipping & Handling .,

Order by mail, phone, or on-line..

_________________________________________________ State

ZIP

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ PUBL1SHl!O BY _ _ _ _ ___

mI PRm§ON LEEGGAALl NNlEEWw§§ EO. BBOO:XJ:i:2244220 West,Brattleboro VT 053003
\ Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342

Ex A to Kay Dec, Page 6 of 7

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 13-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 7 of 21

,..,-,------------. of this very usable and useful gUide

should be available in,every pns<?n library-to

help inca,(cerated people give positive direc-- .

tion' to theirt

while making

use oftheit time.. lt is a well-established fact that

ppeople whQ hhave'

jj''nn pfison

have a

reduced rate ,of r-eddivism.!'

'----'-_ _ -BELL GALE CHEVIGIW, PEN Prison Writing Program, _ _ _--' 'Edi,tor Doil}g TIme: 25 Years ofPrison Writing,

.THIGH SCHOOL Q VOCATVONAL Ct PARALEGAl. " UNDERGRADUATE Q ,

.GRADUATE COURSES ,

HE GREATLY anticipated and newly updated for the individual and beneficial for use in all prison

. . third edition of the Prisoner's Guerrilla libraries and education departments.

Handbookto Corresp¢ndence Programs in the

The Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook is the only book

States and Canada has finally arrivedl Author on the market for the non-traditional prisoner-stu-

Jon Marc Taylor's

new version is the latest in dent. It inc1udes detailed listings ofthe

cost,

this unique and highly successful gUidebook for the arid

offerings for an correspondence pro-

prisoner-student. This invaluable tool and how-to grams available to prisoners. In a time when so many

handbook provides the reader with step-by-step academic opportunities in prisons.have been elim-

instructions to fin0 the' appropriate' educa'9orial ' inated, this book is an invaluable re.:.entry tt;:lOl for

program for, high school, vocational, paralegal,' prisoners who seek furth,er their education while

undergraduate, and graduate" cour-ses offered in

and to help them prepare for fife and

the. U.s: anq Canada today. we-entry tecH

work following,their release.
Jon 'Marc Taylor has more· than 25 years experi-
ence as an incarcerated student, advocate for pris-

It presents, more. than 160 program outlines and oner education, and author. He has

offers an 'easy-to-use format for the student to earned a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and

determine which program

suits their needs. It a doctorate via correspondence courses while incar-

is ideal for the 'incarcerated student who does not cerated. Editor Susan Sc::hwartzkopf has a'master's

Internet access Of the ability to attend educa- degree in education and 12 years experience teacli..:

tio.n classes iii person, This resource is indispensable ing immigrants English language skills.

I PRISONERS' GUERRILLA HANDBOOK TO CORRESPONDENCE PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA. m

ByJon Marc Taylor PHD

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed _._ _ __

8.25" x1'0·75/1 • 224 pages ISBN 978-0-9819385-0-9
or .$490 95
3 more copies ordered
at once $3909S each

By: 0 check 0 neW postage stamps 0 credit card 0 money order
Name -----------------------------------------------------------------
DOC/BOP Number _---"'-'-_________________________________________ Institution/Agency_---=-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

FREE Shipping & Handling

Order bv matt phone, or on-line. . Citv

R

/

State ZIP

I PUnLI5HEDDY

--------------

PfRU§ON ILECRAl NEW§ P.O, Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 0530 3

\ Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 WwwWwW.p.rp:ri:siosonnleleggaallnneeww55.org

Ex A to Kay Dec, Page 7 of 7

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 13-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 8 of 21
EXHIBITB
Ex B to Kay Dec, Page 1 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 13-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 9 of 21

SPPLLGG

Southern Poverty law Genter

'----l'--J

Ex B to Kay Dec, Page 2 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 13-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 10 of 21
Southern Poverty law Center Ex B to Kay Dec, Page 3 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 13-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 11 of 21
EXHIBIT c··
Ex C to Kay Dec, Page 1 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 13-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 12 of 21

VOL. 22. No.4
ISSN 1075-7678

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rigjr"ts

April 2011

Nationwide P LN Survey Examines Prison Phone
by John E. Dall1lellberg

Kickbacks

A n exhaustive analysis of prisonphone families - 'who are the overwhelming re- recent phone rates may now be in effect due

contracts nationwide has revealed cipients of prison phone calls. Averaging to new

awards or renewals, and

that with only limited exceptions, tele- a 42% kickback nationwide, this indicates willIe data was obtained from alISO states,

phone service providers offer lucrative that the phone maricet in state prison sys- it was not complete for each category. See

Idckbacks (politely termed trcomrills- tems is worth more than an estimated$362 the chart accompanying this article for a

sions") to state contracting agencies million annually in gross revenue.

breakdown of the data obtained.

- amounting on aJ1erage to 42% of gross.

In a research task never before ac-

PLN has previously reported on the

revenues from prisoners' pho1le calls - in complished, Prison Legal News, using egregious nature of exorbitant prison

, order to obtain exclusive, monopolistic public records laws, secured prison phone phone rates, notably in our January 2007

contracts for prison phone serviCes.'

contract information from aU 50 states cover story, "Ex-Communication: Com-

These contracts are prjced not only (compiled in 2008-2009 and representing petition and Collusion in the U.S. Prison

to unjustly enrich the telephone compa- data from 2007-2008). The initial sm-vey Telephone Industry," by University of

nies by charging much higher rates than was conducted by PLN contributing writ- Michigan professor Steven Jackson.

those paid by general public, but are er Mike Rigby, with follow-up research by further inflated to cover the commission PLN associate editor Alex Friedmann.,

How Are Phone Rates Regulated?

payIDents, which suck over $152 million

The phone contracts were reviewed

Oomestic phone calls are generally

per 'year out of the pockets of prisoners' to. determine the service provider; the divided into three.categories: local, intra-

kickback percentage; the annual dollar state and interstate. The rates chqrged for

amount of the kickbacks; and the rates these calls depend on several factors and

for local calls, intrastate· calls. . are regulated by different authorities. Lo-

Phone Rate Chart

(Within a state based on calls from one Lo- cal calls'

flat-rate within a small

16 cal Access and Transport Area to another; . area around the call's originating location;

Editorial

known as interLATA) and interstate calls e.g., within the same city.

Prisoners' H1lIllan Rights

(long distance between states). To simplify

Local and intrastate calls are often

22 tbis survey; only collect call and daytime regulated by

public utility or ser-

Crime Reporting Guantanamo Drugging

26 rates were analyzed.

vice commissions, which set rate caps.

Around 30 states allow discounted These caps are negotiated to allow phone

28 debit and/or prepaid collect calls, which . companies. to recover capital costs in a

Washington Public Records Suit

32 provide lower prison phone rates (much reasonable time frame while also satisfying lower in some cases). However; since other requirements levied by the state. The latter

Texas Parole Audit

34 states don't offer such options and not all include subsidizing low-income phone us-

Maine Private Prison Lobbying

37

. prisoners or their families have access to

debit or prepaid

·only collect

ers, providing emergency communications for state agencies, and providing required

Los Angeles Jail Heat Ray

38 calls - which are available ill all prison phone coverage (such as emergency-

Prison Facebook Problems

systems except Iowa's - were compared. reporting phone booths along major 43 Also, willIe telephone companies some- highways). Obviously, some of these state-

Texas Legislator Sentenced

New

Bankrolls CEC

46 times provide reduced rates for evening mandated requirements are not in and· of and nighttime calls, many prisoners don't themselves profitable, so negotiation of
48 have the luxury of scheduling phone calls rate structures includes recouping these

News in Brief

50 during those time periods.

otherwise nonrecoverable costs.

Lastly) it should be noted that more

At the interstate level, phone com-

Prison Legal News

1

. Apdl.2011

Ex C to Kay Dec, Page 2 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 13-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 13 of 21

.

ews_ .

P.O. Box 2420

West Brattleboro, VT 05303

Change Semce Requested

Non-Profit Org.. US. Postage PAID Portland OR
Permit No. 3142

Subscription Renewal

.

SUbscriptions expire after the issue shown on the label is mailed.

For 'example, if the label says:· EXPIRES 02/2006, then the sub-

scription expires after the February 2006 issues is mailed. Please

renew at least 2 months before the expiration date.IF THE LA-

BEL SAYS EXPIRES: 04/201Q TIllS IS YOURLAST ISSUE.

Please renew immediately to avoid .IIIissing any issues.

of Change Address
If you move or are transfered, please notifyPLN as soon as possible your issues can be mailed to your new ad- . dress! PLN only accepts for sending an issueto the address provided at the time an issue is mailed!

1/JeJ.

CA$HHFFOORRYYOOUUR STAMPS

. . Get the HIGHEST REIMBURSEMENT RATES for ALL of your stamps

.

from the ONLY stamp service continuously serving inmates for 9 years.

WE BUY COMPLETE AND PARTIAL BOOKS, SHEETS, STRIPS
AND ROLLS ALL DENO:j.VIINATIONS AND. QUANTITIES OF " POSTAGE STAMPS 1N GOOD CONDITION

Within 24. Hours we will.s!=nd a Money·Order,

Check, or Electronic Payment

to wherever you designate, or we will pay an approved vendor for a package or gift. .

I 1M;;1&)bWSM§lkijiji#J.\ij =til

of Face Value (33¢ per stamp) for Forever stamps in complete books or sheets
.
of Face Value for 44¢ stamps in complete books, sheets, strips or rolls

of Face Value for 44¢ Starnes in .partial books, sheets or strips (minimum 4 each) of Face Value for all other denominations or stamped envelopes

SEND FOR . FREE BROCHURE·
(ThIs olTer voId Where prohibiled
. by slafe regural/ons}

* SPECIAL RATES FOR PLN SUBSCRIBERS· CLIP &SEND THIS AD TO:

CLN, P.O. Box 687 Walnut, GA 91789 . Or visit OUR.Website: www.cash4urStamps.cpm

Ex C to Kay Dec, Page 3 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 13-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 14 of 21
EXHIBITD
Ex D to Kay Dec, Page 1 of 8

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 13-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 15 of 21
·....:.

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights

P.q. j30x 2420, W Brattleboro, VT 05303 ** ph: (802)

fax: (866) 735-7136

WWW •. prisoniegalnews.org

PLN@prisoniegalnews.org

RE: Your PLN sUbscription expires with the July 2011 issu·e.

Dear Subscriber:

We are letting you lmow that one more issue remains to be mailed on your sUbscription to Prison Legal" News. We hope you are pleased with the information that PLN is providing you on a monthly basis. and hope you intend to renew your subscription. Renew now and take advantage of our 2, 3 or
subsoripti?n

...•. " _..._- '•..... :.._. ........ .... - ..

-'C.'f'l'£'!l.!""""''::C'''? : .:';':'"I:'I"':or{"!"'i ...... •

"-.;:

,;. '.

t

le'" "R.enewfor'Z'years at $48 and you will receive our 2-ye'ar special of24 issues PLUS 2 extra

I ••••;.isstlgs; f0D<8. fetal, .oL2.6::issues.:: f:: r. [.1!iP nl ._-- .---' - •• - -. _ .."--- .-••- - - - - - -- -;") J!'J.

:";rr::r:;" .

',;-' ,

4. extra..

(4Q.

tota:lj QR'Y0ur .ohoic·e .

....:... 'o{Ptdfecting Your Health and Sqfoty (a $10 value!). Ple!lse

I :

. ....".-.... - .. . . . . "

f.q:r: f!. . .' .. ' " .

. g Renew for four years at $96 and you will receive 6 extra issues (54 issues total) OR your choice of With Libertyfor Same (an $18.95 value!), or Prison Profiteers (a $24.95 value!). Please see PLN's , book brochure for a description ofthese books.

We hope you decide to renew now so that your PLN subscription will not be interrupted. We look forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,

Paul Wright Executive Director

The following form can be used to pay by credit card

. :':" . Print Name 9n Card.;.__·_·____...,.--____--:-____________-,-____

,:7. ::};' ::.-::: ..

::r:: '. -

I

__

a total of$

to my credit card:

::it ?"i':'r, -:;1f1:1

H: ·{..

'1:t:.

.i:· i .,:S":

:i

News, P.o. Box 2420, vi

VT 05303 ph: (802) 257':1342

fax:' {866) 735-7136..Prison Legal News is a 50I(0)(3) non-profit and donations are deduotible in acoordance with true laws.

......

Ex D to Kay Dec, Page 2 of 8

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 13-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 16 of 21 Ex D to Kay Dec, Page 3 of 8

Order Form
All purch::ases mus!: he pte-paid. Pl:isoners cnn 'pay with
new stumps (strips poohs) or pre-strunpeil. cnveI?pes.

-

(3 &4yrSubscriptio;'Specials: CIRCLE

one book.ru;:honus issues, nndDONOT add SIR)

Protecting Your Hea.lth and Safety

.!!.£ 4 Bonus Issues (3-yr

offer)

$ Amt.

Prison Profiteers.Q! Wi.tl, Libertyfor Some .!!.£ 6 Bonus Issues (4-yr sulJscdption offer)
Total (ino. books bought sepnrately) Add 6% sales'tax for Vermont :residents only ADD $6.00 StH to hook orders TIN.OER $50

PLN Subscriptions

6-month Subscription, (Prisoners only) 1 y:r Subscription (1:2 issues)

2 y:r

(24 plu5 2 Bonus

3 yr Sub (Circle bonus hook above.!!!:4 Bonus issues)

4" yr Sub (Circle bonus hook above.ill: 6 Bonus issues)

Sample Issue .. $3.50 each

TOTAL Amount Enclosed:
-
Send to:
Name:

DOC#: AgencylInst: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

A.ddress: City/State/Zip: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

MAIL PAYlYIENT AND TIDS FORM _
Prison Legal News P.O. -Box 2420
Brattleboro, VT 05303

Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard 8 0 2.. 2 5 7.. 1 3 4 2
Or buy books and subscriptIons onllne at
www..

PLN Subscription Rates

Subscription Rates
* Prisoners
Individuals

1 yr 2 yrs 3 yrs 4yrs $24 $ 43 $ 72 $ 96 $30 $ 60 $ 90 $120

Pxofcssionals

$80 $160 $240 l$320

(Lawyers, goY!:. & professional agencies, librn:rics, etc.)

Sample issue for anyone --$3.50 each*

Six-month p:rriissooner subscription for $12*
*Prisoners canpuy ,v:ithnewfirst-class stamps (strips or books

only) or

envelopes,'ifalloluerI byprisonpolides.·

:- --------

--.. -----:

I'

1 I

I 2 yen:rs - 2 bonus issues, fo:r 26 monthly issues total.

I

:.3 ycm:a -- 4 bonus issues (40 total) qR.;Fratecting YourHealth and 1I

I Saftfff (sec book,description on the other side ofthis broohu:re).

:

. :4ycm:a. 6bouus lssUes (54 total) ORyonrohoicBofWifhLihertrjar 1I

!..

t.!::. _:- ___:

New 3 or 4..Year

Offers!

Subscribe or renew for three 'years at the l'eguIar price .($72 for prisoners & $90 for individuals)", and receive as a FREE bonus, Protecting Your Health and SaJeto' or four honus issues of'PLN! (40. monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the OGrder Form.
Subscribe or renew for four years at the regular price ($96 fox-prisoners & $120 for individuals). and receive
as a FREE honus, Prison Profiteers .m: With Libertyfor Soatmne, i.mll:: 6 bonus issues of PLNI (54 monthly issues._
total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.

NO shipping

for subhscriptionbhonus hbooksl

NOTE: Ifyou wnnt"the bonns iS6ues ofPLN instead of the free hook offer, please fudicnte thnt on the Oracr Form.

:------ U;£0;

-----

1 I

I

1I You can hbuy dozens of legal, social commentary, se1£-1

I help books, and legal and

dictionaries direcdy:

: from

book store! Ask us for a book list, or view:

.: oux selection online at:

I

1

wwww.prisonlegalnews.org/sto:ce.aspx

:

1______ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dedicated to .Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a pl'lJject Qfthe HltT!l,an Rights Defense Center
'Eastern State Penitentiary 1829-1971 Charles Dickens visited Philadelphia's Eastern State Penitentiary :in 1842 and he later -wrote: "The System is rigid, stiiot and hopeless ... and I belieye it to he cruel and 1Vl'ong....I hold this sio"\'{" . and daily tampering with the mysteries of brain to be immeasuxahly worse than any torture the body." The pl'ison remained open for 129 years after Dickens condemned it as being
barbario, and some cif its inhumane practices
continue to be used in.prisons nationwide.
P.O. Box 242Q, Brattleboro, VT 05303 302-257-1342 • m't'"\vcprisonlegalne"WS.org·

--,------_-.

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 13-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 17 of 21 Ex D to Kay Dec, Page 4 of 8

I ij

P :clson Legal News is an independent, non-pro£t 56-page monthly pUblication that :reports, :re-

views and analyzes couxt rulings and news related to
plisoners' rights ru:iCi prison lssues. PLN h,as national (U.S.) focus on state, federal and plivate prison issues,

'with some

coverage as well.

PLN's many thousands of subscribers and readers

'include civil and: criminal trial and appellate attomeys,

judges, public defenders, joUrnalists, academics, para:.

legals, plieo,ners' .rights activists, students, family

menibers of prisoners, concel'D.ed individuals, politi-

cians, other goverriment officials, and numerous local,

state and federal prisoners nationwide. ,

.

"

PLN is a Yi:tall:ink for

who othenvise don't

have access to cuxrent legal and prison-related news

andlnformation. ,

resource'for'

!lffecting

P LN's coverage

issues includes medical

neglect, disciplinary hearings, nutrition, living

conditions, excessive force, court accese, censorship,

iall, litigation, visiting, telephones, religious freedom,

free speech, prison rape, mental health, attorney!

client access, sexual abuse of. women prisoners, xe-

taliation, the PLRA, mY

hap C, contTol units,

the death

attorney fees and much mO::6.

PLN Subscription Rates
Prisoners; $12 fOI: 6 months, $24 per year *

Non-incarcerated individuals: $30 per year

Law firms; govt. agencies and libraries: $80 per year

Sample issue for

$3.50 each* "

>I> Prisoners ciln pay with 'now

OJ: prc.-stampild enyelopes

- .- ........ ..- -...... .

Each monthly issue of: ·PJ;.N' includes:th:ree different

types of rep orting:

.

..,.

o A.. cover story on a prison-related :issue.

o Reports on individual and class-action prison and :related lawsuits when they are. filed, when a entered or the case settles, and when an a,ppellate COUl't decision is issued. We also hayeprison-related,news aJ.'ticles.

o A "News In Brier' section news stories across the U.S. and

interesting '

Each issue of PLN also contains

advertisements

from businesses that pro,ride prison-:related pel'sonal "and

legal services and books. PLN 'further sells dozeUS' of self-

help,

ruidlegal'l:la'oks.... '

PLN also has cumulative subject: and case cite indexes:£or

all issues 1990

2004. Write jpfo.

Spe,cial

,Su!>8cl'ip. ,q:ffe:c!

Free ,'lith a 3-year PLN subscriptionl Folll' bonus issues of PLN (40 issues total) .ill: a· free book, Protecting Your Healtlt and Sa.fety! Circle your bonus choice on the form on'the other side of tIrls brochure (B-year subscription rates: prisoners $7Z, individuals 390, professionals $240).
Protecting Your Health and Safet.y, by ,.n.,..-,..,....-.--:,-.,-,--.,-----1! Robert E. Toone. Published by the Southern Poverty Lna.w Center, 325 pages (2009). $10.00 (£Cec 1'lith II. a-year sub!). This book explam.s some basic rights that prisoners have in a jail or prison in the U.S. It cleals mninly with rights related., to lienlth and U It ' ," "II safety, such as communicable diseases and. abuse by prison officials; it also explam.s how you can enfol'ce your rights to health and safety 1vithin the facility and, if necessary. in court tbroughlitigation. Buy separately: _ _

I' You Can Buy These Books Separately! 1

I

I

.1

I •

:Ifyou don't

to pUl'ohase 1l,3 or 4-year sUbscription:

: to PLN, you can still purchase any of the bonus books-:

. : at the :regular price. Just indiaate which books you

:

: to buy on this page, then enter tile total cost on the other:

lliide ohhis brochure on the "Book Total" line of the Or-I

: der Form. Shlpping is $6 per order (n?t per book), and we :
: offer FREE shipping on book orders of $50 or more! To l

: place a phone order, piease' call 802-257-1342. We also:

:La_c_c_e_pt_b_o_o_k_o_r"d" _er_s_o_n_li_n_e,_u_t_w__w_w'_.p_r_is_o_n_le_g_a_ln_e_w_s_.o_r_g.___:I

D onati:oIl;s:

is·a project

nOll-profit Humun

Rights DefeI;lse Cente+,. YOul' tax-deductible dona-

tions

o}ll' advocacy, free speech 2f1d Fi:rst.Amenc1-

ment litigation eff9rt;s on

ofprisoners and publish-

ers. PLN not ouly provides uncCllSored prison-related news,

but actively,contests 'prison .aensorslrlp t1iat interferes 'iwvith

the deJivety of our publication or' any otller PLN materiu1s

sent to prisoners. All donations further our goal. of adyocat-

ing£or people imprisoned in. U.S. detention facilities.

"Great sO,urce of information,

in states such.ns

Arizona where'the law libraries have ceen'taken from

the

and replaced '\Yith parnlegals."

- SB, Arizona prisoner

,.

·1

Free with. II 4.yeru: PLN subscriptionl Six ,bonus

of

PLN (54, issueS total) m,: one free hook, With

for

Some .Q.£ Prison PrC!fiteersl Circle Y0ul' bonus choice an

the form on the other side of this brochure (4-year' sub-

scription rates: prisoners $96, individuals 3120, profes-

sionals $320). Note: Free book option is for .Qill!. book:

With Liberty for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in Amerioa. by Scott Ch:ristianson, Northeastcrn University Press, 372 pages (1998). $13.95 (free with. aII 4.yenr anh!). A classic boole and the best overall history of the Amel'ican prison system from 1492 to the 20th Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-.tend for understanding how little things have ohDilged as ,far as prisons go :i,n the U.S. oyer hundreds of years. Buy separately: _ __

.QI

Prison Profiteers: W1LO Mal.es Money

from Mass Incarcera.tiDn, edited by Paul

Wright & Tal'a Heriyel, Ne,ir Press (2007).

$22!41:..995 (fJ:oe ,'lith. a

sub!). This is

the third in a series of PLN anthologies

that examines the reality ?f mass :imprison-

ment in the U.S. Prison Profiteers"is unique

from other booles on the

bCe,,ccause It exposes and

discusses who profits and hcenefits from mass impi:.ison-

ment, rather than who, js harmed by the prison industrial

complex and our nation's reliance on over-incarceration.

Buy separately: ___'

'

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 13-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 18 of 21 Ex D to Kay Dec, Page 5 of 8

. I

OtderForm
.:. ."

.AII purchases must he pre:paid.

can pay with

new first-class stnmps'(stcips or hooks, no singles) or .
prc.stllmpcil envelopes, ifallowed byprison policies.

•: 1

Book Title / NumheJ1

. Qty Total Cost

arc {attach another page ifyou ordering morebooksJ

Subtotal: Add 6% sales tax fox 'VT residents pnly: Add $6.00 to orders Ul'IDER $50: Total Order Amount:

Send to:
Name: DOC#: AgencylInst: Addxess: City/State/Zip: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

MAIL PAY.l'ImNT AND TIDS FORlY.[ T,.O:

Prison Legal News

. R.Oi: Box. 2420

.

VT 05303

Purchase by pholJ!3 wjth._a Vis.a. or MasterCard

Or buy b.ooks,and ?ubscriptions online at
. www.pr:isonlegalnews.org .

FREE SHIPPING
On.book and index orders OVER $50.001

(Free shipping110licy in

frow Jim 1, lwtH furLher noticD)

More Books for Sale!

Prisoners'

Litigation Manual, updntcd 4th (2010), 'by John

'Boston lLIld DDnici MnnViUtl, Ol>ford Univ: Press, 1500 pages.

The

n I I I prc:mitm:, must-have ".Bible" of prison litigation for eum:nt nnd nspicing jnil-
house I:lwyers. Ifyou plnn to litigate poson or jnJl civil suit;

this book is n must-have. . " '

1071 ......_-''.._'--__--1'..

Prisoners' GuerrllIn. Handbook to Correspondeno.e Programs in the U.S. and Cnnada, updated Srd ed. bl' Jon l'vl'nrc Tn),lor, Ph,.D. nnd edited hl' Susnn

Sc:hwru:tzkoPG published by PLN, 22.1 pages.

Wril:tcn bl' !'Ins.ow:!

prisonc:.t Jon Miu:c Tnyl.or, obtnincd a B.S. degre!!t nn M.A. degree nnd a

Doctorote., the Gllmil/a HnlldUDOk contnins contle, infommtiqn nnd desc:rlp-

I I lions of high school, vccalionru,. pnmlcgal. :tnel college courses av:illllble
'through co.o:t!Spondence stud}', Great resow:te fot p.ti5onersl

who wont to further theIr education.

1057 ''--------'--_ ' - -_ - ---Il

Protecting Your Health.and Safety, by ItobCJ:c E: Toone, Southem Poverty

Law Center, 325 p:lge5. :ji10.0D. '!;Ius book c."Plains bnsjc tights thnt prisoners

have in :l jllil or prison in the U:S. It

widl.cights rclatc9 to bc:ruth

I I . I nnd slJfctj'. such ns

nnd abuse b), prison officlnls; It ruso

CAplnins how you = enrOl:ce yOut·.tigl}ui;within the fucilitj,

ond, jfnecessru:y•.in. court

10GO . . .

.

Starting Out! The

edited b)' William H.

Foster, PhD. Be Carl E, Horr4·Ph..b.,:Stntting Out Inc., 446 pDgtlS. $22.95.

Complete do-it-l'ow:self re-ent9' .IDIJIlURl and workbook for pclsoners who
''Wnnt to dc:vclop tl1ciI: own rc-enb:y ph¥i to lnc.tcnst1. thc.lr clmnces 0.£ liUccess
I I I Met thcy nrc: Iclcased. Includc.s·iI. wide -:W:teq' of rtlSources, including n USet tbe Stntting Out

mgrclcnsc.

., " ".:".

10741.L.....__ .-. .'1.._ _ _ _-- '' ..

Jailhousc Lawyers: Pdsoners Defending l?risoners v. thc· U.S.A., bj'

Mumin Abu Jnmnl, City Lights Publishers, 280 pages. :ji1G.95. 10 Jailho/lse Lorll-

j':rJi P.tison I.egnl Ntlws columnis., nwnrd.winnlng jomnnIist nnd death-row

pasoner Mumin Abu-:Jnmnl pruents the stories nnd reflections of fellow pris-

I . , onecs-tumed-ndvocates who hm't1. learned to usc the court system to represent
., othc:.t ptisoners, :tnd in some C3Ses have:':won thc:ir freedom., .

Must-tend for jnilllouse lawy=I'

1073 ...._-_'.'--__--'.

How to Win Your Personal InJruy CI:ilip, bj' Atty. Joseph Mntthews, 7dl

edition, NOLO Press, 304 pages. $34.99. While not speci5cnlll' for prison-

relnted personnllnjw:y c:nses, this book ptm1des compcchensi\'e lnformntion

I I I on 1lOW to hnndle personnliojut}' nnd propctl:j' damage claims nrlsing from

-

dealing with doctors, nttorneys and

msurnnce cprnpruucs.

1075 1........_ _-_ '.''--_--_---J'.

pit

'.'

.;'.': . l'lce5 owiJectto:' . . em outnotice .. .

':": .

* ..

'1, ••
'" ·•"•••11 • 4
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is aproject afthe Hz£ntan Rights ·Defense genter .

2010 PLN BOOK LIST

Prices Subject to Change Without Notice .

:

:

Graphic from: Books 2 Prisooers, Yl!ncouvcr, Be

P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, 802-257·1342 "

05303

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 13-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 19 of 21 Ex D to Kay Dec, Page 6 of 8

Check me box. of-the ,books',y.oJ:!.,w,ant to, buy, and use the Order
Form on the other side oftbis brochure bJ ,add up the cost ofyour
order. FREE SBJllPJ:NG,forl;lOp1c and ijIdex. orders OVER $50.

W.dting 10 Wlli:·T.!l!! I..egal Wrlicij

D. 'Stark, Bioadway'BociJ;s/.Random '

· House, 283 pnges. ,w.9S., E.\'PLiins the

ofCfl'ective compInints, 1 I

I

responscs, briefS, motions f1Ild oth!!l:l,egal p:iPers.. '

1035 . .

. '

There is a $6 shipping charge for all other boole and index orders.

Ftison Frofit=, edin:d by Paul W.tightood 1-111:1 Hcivcl,.m p:!g(!S, $24,95. 'This is tIle:

thiId nndlnb:stbookin nsccicS

thnt=incs me=lit)' of

m;lS5 impclsooment in Amedc:a. (Illt! olhel: tItles me Tba Ctf/i/lt, rfAlIIaill1 & PrimJl NaJio/l,

· .Actual Innocence: WhImJusrlce

ruJd How to ¥nJte:lt Rlgbt, llP?ntccl '

00., by Bll.tI}' St:bec.l;>, P= Nci:Ucld and Jim DW)'l!!; 403 pages• .ji16.QO. .

Foundt!IS of me Innoceoce Projc:tt

how aimionl

m:c wrongly con-

vic:tt:d on.n.xegulnt bnsi;. ExpInins DNA tcsliog nnd how ltwotks to free the innocent;

, .',De:\'ilS?Jliog c:itiquc oE politi J!lld

misctondutt nod.me I '1

1

systecmtEhlnmt.eennssuurreesssusucchhabaubsuessecsocnoEnElDlDuutt;.' l ' ' . ',110033001.'.-.__-.'l-..._ __ _----1I.

sec, below). 1?liJoIlProJftrr.ls unique from who profits nod befits from rhnss hrumOObyitnndhi:lw.

I I I b?oks bl:C!lllSe it e:-'fXlses and discusses nuhel: Ih.'lll who Is 1003 '-._-'-._-----''.

I I I Frison Natiore 'The Wan:housing of.Am'c!rica:s Foor, edited bl' T= Herivclnod Paul

Wright, 332 p:igl!S.

nndlolog), c:;o;poscs the dlUk sid!! ofthe

the u.s.

1041 .....,.,;,,'_ ......--''--.......

I' I ' I The Qilling .Ame.dc:J, edin:d bY'D,mielEunonl\ose, D.m Pens and J?aul Wright, 264-
pages., $22.95.",PIN oolthologj. prc:sc:ts a detnilw.'lnside" look at me

woddogsofmcAmaicmcrlroi£Ulljuslio:Systl:m.

1001 _ - I . . ._ _-JI. 11.."..._ - ' - ._ _

Evetyday Letter.; IOE: Busy People, \:Iy Debra Hntt 1vfny, 2B7 pages. $1B.99.

I I \ Hundreds ?fsntnplelette.rs mnt cm be ndapt\!d for most nny pu.tposc, including

letters to govemrnl!l1t ageocies and

•• Hns numerous

tips fanvrldog effective l,etter,;;. , " , ' . ,

100

......JI. L L......_ _- -' '- -. ._ _ _ _

The Criminal.,Law Hnndbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System, b)'

Attoaiays.,Pnul Bergm.:;n & Sa;n J.

Nolo Press, 60B Ppngt:.s., !?39,99.

E.'Plains wllnt happens in nc:cil,nin:d ClSC from bciog='tt:d to SI:lltt:ncing, and what

yourtightsntenteacllsCJgeC!frbeprocess. Usesrui c:!5}' rouoder-I 1

Roget's .ThusaunIs, 717 pasc::o

!?clj?s you the pght wOId for what

· 'you wrlnt to sa}'. 11,000 words listed

WIth o\'er 200,000 synoo}rms

I I' I1 · imd antonyms. Sample St!.lltences patts of speech ,shown 'for cCv!veerr)),' mnin w.ord. CovetS :illlevcls oE "Vocaoulnt); nnd identifies

and shll1gwords.

:. , ,

1045 '-._ ....._ _-'.

Wcbster;'s English DictiODnty, Newly

nn,d updated, :Random House.

I .'1 I $8.95. 75,000+ enmes. Includes tips on w.ating nrid word usnge, nnd haS up-
dat:d gcographicnl and' 'bi6gti1phicnl·l!l1tries. Includes tCcc!ceennt

·

busmess

and

computer "

terms.

,

1033 . . . 1..-.----11.-._ _ _-...'.

CapItal Crimces. by GeoE:gc \Vtnslo\v, ivrontlll}' :Rl!vic.w, 3GO pnges. q;19:00.

I' 1 · E"Pinlns how economic policices CIcnttl: md foster crime, dod

1

Itow cotpomte & government cdme is mrell' punished. 1024

'

With Liberty for SOllle: 500 Yenrs

in Arne'dcll, by Scott·

Clu:istinoson, No.tthenste.m Uni,versiq' PIesS•• 372 pnges. JijlB.95. TIle best

'ovetull history of the Arnericnn prison B)'stern frOm 1492 through tile 20th

I;' I I' Centu.t:}" Well written nnd fact'.filled. A must-rend for unde.rstll.!lding Itow little
things 'hnve cllnnged ns fnr as rrisoas go in the l!'S: over

hundreds ofyentS.

. '"

102G..

."

stmd question.nod.noswer format., . :,:'

' , ' 1038 ....__ _. .'.-J._.'--__-_-_'

Ten Men Dead: The Slaty of the

strike. by Dmdd'Beres-

Represent.YoUISclfiIl Court; Hqw.:t?,P.tt:p.nte &'Tty a Winning Cnse, by

Attorneys Pnul Bergm:ui & Snt:lJ. 'B&mri'.ci.;Bp=tt; Nolo Press.52B pages.
I ' I Breaks down the ow tdcl process in C:lsl'-to-understnod steps so you can cfli:cdvelr
represl:llt yoursclf in court. 'TIle llUUlors el.-R1nin what to sny in

court, how to sny it; cetc.

' :,

1037 ...._...J.'--_ _. L..._ _. ' - _ - - ' .

ford, Atlnotic Mondll}' PlesS, 334- pnges.

Inside story of 1 I

I

.,IRA prisoners ntBelfnst's Long Kesh prison. • 100G. . ' '.

I ' I I'Ex- the RBight Lawyer, by Jny PoonbC;tg, .ABA, 256 pnges. $19.95.
plniqs how to determine l',our legnl needS, ho!v to evnalunte a

Inwl'er's qunlificntions, fcc pnyments, nnd ·more.

..

..

temlS., I 1 ;md I1 I' Law Dictionnty, Random House Webster's, 525 Pngt:.s, $19.95. Comprc.UCIlsive U

ttrdll!e Inw diction:u:y' C!.\-plains .more mm B,500 lcgul

Covers civil, c:ionin:!l,

'

103G _ - L . . ._ _- ' 1....._ - ' - ._ _- '

,.Seize the DayI 7 Steps to Achieving.the Extraord.ionty in an Ordinnty

World, by Danny COl> nn9John Hoover, 25G pnges; ..!JD. Pro\'ides 7 steps

to chnolrlng your C!.'qJectntions ;md

yoursclE os being'a

nod Iespected pt!rSon-whlc!t is ess!!ritinJ' tq. chil:rluOJging the, \

The Blue Book of Grrunmru: nnd Punctuation, by Jnnc Stmus. 110 PDges.

course ofone's life.

' 1052. .

' .

A guide to grammnr and,PWlctuation by an educator I 1

I

with e.\-pcdem:e teaching English to p.asone.rs. , .'10104466 .....t-.__.....J.J._ .'--_ _----''..

Women Behind Brus"The Cdsls SUj:l].A. Talvi, Seal Press, 295 pages. $q;1155.95.

the U.S.Pclson SystpOJ, by· book [lvnilnblc: that covers

Legal Resenteb: Bow to :Flnd

the'Law, by Stephen Elins ood .issues .related ,to imprisone,d women, bnse? on interviews 1

' 1

Susno Lt:v.inkiod. 5GB pages. $<19.99. Comp.rehensh'e nnd easy to understmd guide

digests", 00 .researching the Inw. ID-plnins ense Stiltut1!S nnd

,

andmucllmOrc.1ncludespmcticee.'1aclses.

10S!J .'-..._-'._ __ _-----'.

Deposl.lion Handboolt, by Pliul Betgro.'lO. nnd :Albl:tt Moore, Nolo l'IesS; 352

pngt:.s•• :04.99:

:11 :m,l:one:who'con.ducts I

I

deposloon om golDg to be: deposed. ' • ,

1054 ....__..-.J'.._ __ _--',..

Spnnish-English/English.SpniliSll: sections, Spruiish-EngUsh ood frmommA toZI include!! Westeai

llnndom House.

Two

60,000+ entries I 1

I

1034411 ......--::-----.,.-.,J_.'--_ _---''..

. hundreds ofwomen behind b a t S . ,

' 106G, 1...-:--'-_ _-'.-J. L..-:--'-_ _

Secrets to a.

'by Todd

216 pages.

.$q;1155..99. ROildmnp on how to gc:t ll. job ,cve!}

ndvCC!!ll::SS1c: clrcumstnnces-like

I I I being on e.'i:-con. Includes 110w to, develop n winning

write attention-

· 'liPbbing resumes, ptepate for incer;:vit!\vs', nctworking, how to

· present your strengths to nn

nnd,!Tlucl1 morel, 1'1005566..

'

.The :Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity:in Global D.rug Trade, 2003

,Ed. by Alfred McCoy, 734 pages. $34.95. Documented (!j,llosr! 1 'I"

1

dtugtrtnfficdkcing.

1011441,.-..__... 1l ...._ _ _ _--- ' .

Please Note: .All hoolt and indEiX-orde'rS lie niirlled via tlm U.S, Postal

pili

anyreS.Pon-

sibilltyto mplach hook

oneb thclX deliVary to the desd-
u.s. Postal Serv.ice.

ruJd I'tisons in

Ccrilsls, Uj' OlIisOao Parend,

290 pngc:s, ':;;19.00. Anm}rzes rbe Wm: 00:dIe poor ,ria me aiminnl justice

Well

P:IC\-I lirst·IL1Od repomng, Co\''Cct!:tS pesODS,

1

' ' . .

•
.':.

' 1002'. •.

Hecpatitis and liverDiscnsl!: What XouNecd 10 fij1ow, by Mclissn Pnimcr, 1vfD,

I 1I': I' 457 pnges. .$17.95. D=ues Ssy)'mIIlpPtlooms

OfllCpatitis]B3 & C nod othc.r

Jiv!!l: dis[!:l5es. Includes medicuiDnS to nv'oitl, wlmt diet ro follow.

esc.ccises to pl!Iform, ood nbibUogrnphy.

,

• . 1031 " ." . .

Crime and Punishment In Am;mt;:J,,bj:.'Elliott Cu.o:ice,'2.30 pages. .$ji1166.95. Effi:ctive .rebuuallO right-wing proponents of pclsoa!! bilildiog; :r::nn'based rugument shows., tImt
ccrriimmec:: is· chiIl'r1e:In\ by POlrert}'. Debunks pason myths ood disOJSScs , 1 . , provc::n,dfcah'C'mmcc::nnnnssooffccdlniept=ntioo.: . : "1019. '''. ; ,

Fdson Madness: The Mc.ntnl Henlth Ccsis Bchind'EntS nnd what WWec.

Muer Do AbOUt It, by Teerrrr:y

215 p:JgCS. Hrucibnr:k DIlly,

pcsoners please include nny requl.red

form.

Psychin.-

I' 1 trist wrires about the mcentnal henlth in U.s. prisons ood jills. Covers all
nspects of mcentni illness, prison :r::Jllr. ncegativle: eEft;cts of loog-,

term !solmion in control units,:lrOuJd morc., '

1 10030I..0 _.I.3 ._._.-.I.

Prison Writing in 20 th Century .A:ni.cr.ica, '0)' H. Bruce Ftnnldin, Penguin

I I' - 1 Books, 36B pages. !$j1i1GG..OOO. From Jack London to GeoIge Jttckson. dils
IUltholoID' pro\oides n selection or.ome of'thc bese wrldog

describing life behind bnrs in Americn.

10220 __..J1 1...... ....._ _-..'I..

Fr I Soledad Brother: ':Vbe Pdson Letters of George Jnclrtson, by Gcotgc]nckson,

Lawrence Hill Eooks, 339 pages.,

•. el>plnnation of (e lltiCS of

poson by n well-known prison nctivist. Morc. rcIln''aannttnnoolwV thnn

when it lirstnppe:m:d 40 y=

.' 101G

Mnciljjuunnnnaa. Lmv, b)' lUclumi Boire, Rooln, p;1gt:s.• .$ji1177,95.

how ro

reduce the probability ofru:i:est nnd prosecution far people accused of.the usc; sale or

possessIon of macijlll!!lll. !rlfuo on Jegnl

s6ttcil & scizutes, 1 1

,

sur:vvcciilllnnnnccee,,nnsssseeccffoottffccllbb.UennddrugrestiDg.

1008 . . ' .

Worse Tban SInVeettjjl: FntchmanFllml nnd the Otdlll11. ofI1Ill Croww]Juunsdteic::e, by

David Oshinslcy, 30G p:tgt;s. $11G6..O0O0.••Annlysis ofP4son labat's roots in slnveI:}'.

Focuses on prison pL'llltntioos and sclf..susraJning pesODS thot usc 1I 1

1

prisonL,bor.

" ,:.

1007 1.....,.-.-.J.._ _.....Jl.

No Equal Jostice: Rnce nnd Class in the Arneccnn Criminal Justice

SystClll, by Dnvid Colr:,'The NClv Press, 218 poges. $19.95. cimInDl jostice SJ'Stem perpetuates I:lCC ood clnss inequality"

I hoolwV tIle

"

1

o:cntingn two-tieredS}'Slem ofjustice. ' "

. 102B'" '

The Frison and the Gallows: The 'Folitics of Mnss Innc=acrccrrnnddoon in

I I I Amedea, by Mntic Gottschall" Cnmbrldge University Press, 451 .pnges.

$29.99. Great politieal anDallyysis of tl1e confluence of e\'cnts 1 1

I

lending to 2.3 million pcople beliind bDfS In die U.S. 1069 _ Ll...... .1t.....__ ...._ ...I..

The. HabbCelas Citec.bboolc InclTective Assistance of

by

Sntnplc, PLN Publishing, 200 Ppn3gt:S: $49.95. This is l'LN's second published
I book, whlcll exclusivel}' covers ineffecth'c nssistnnce oE counsel-relnted
issues in fedc.ml hllbens petitions. G.ent ·resource fat hnbens 1 I

litigation. and contnins hWldreds of cnse dtesl

1076 L L..__...1J.....,.-_

Paector 8 (DVD). n film b}· Kelly D,udn, Concrete Films. $21.95. Movie

abOUt tile Arknnsas prison

scoodnl, in whicll prison offidnls sold

iInfected blood h:u:vested· from pason,e:rs.

This js a 1 1:

DVD and cannot be shipped to

. '

107G " .•

"

I'LN CUIllulntive Index. $12.50 eacll. J?I:;N Article lnde.'(Cs

detnlled

informntion about nll PLN IIIticles, incJu,djng n?thor, issutn!, puge

ropics. cov!!l:ed. dc1lll1titoionnss, ooq if it is stnte, BOP or jnil specific. Cnn bc

senrclled on OVe:E: SOD subjects such,ns.,mcedicnal

se.,,'1l1ll assault'. Circle

Ul:: indc:t(cs) you nrc ordering: 1990-1,995,

1999-1

"

2001, 2002-2004. (mon;":ccen,tindeses notJcet nvnilable) "

. '

All books are soft cover except Prison Madness

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 13-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 20 of 21

T he Habeas. Citeboolc;' .

. Ineffective

of

Counsel is the first in a

'Ii Tlie

Ci;ebooJc is a

nifty and

self-help ,

... :·series ofboolcs by Prison Legal

guide fOF prisoners seeking

".' .

desig!1;ed to

haheas

on clainis of

..:. prb:-se"prisoner'litigan'ts identify·

. ineffective assistance of counsel.

.'arid

for pdten-.

Navigating the' complex and

.' . habeas corpus relief. 'Ihls

treacherous

o f habeas

boole is an invaluable resource

law is neve:!;' easy; but claim-

that identifies hundreds of cases

ing that your lawyer'screwed up

.

courts 1;lave ,

granted habeas reliefto prison-

.is.evenmore difficult - especially from the c:orrfines of an

ers

attorneys provided inef- q.emo:r:tsf;rate formatting and, show ill-equipped prison law library.

fective assistance of counsel.

how to frame a winning· argu-

"Brandon Sample has pro- .

It will

litigants

ment that will persuade a court. to grant habeas relief. The Habeas

vided an amazing aJ:!.d much-

needed tool for

who

tUousarrdsofhours of research and it focus'es on the

CitebiJok explains the procedural cmd substantive complenties offederal habeas corpus litigation with'the goal of identify-

are forced to seek relief on their own. '!he book is thorough; but' simple and readable. It starts with a wonderfully well-orga-

WINNING cases cr.iminal defendants need to

ing liti.gating claims

nized listing ofhundreds of dif-

meffective assistance of counsel.

types ofineffective

Brandon Sample ls'--a-su-c-c-'es'-s----l---;-tan-c-e-of counsel, serfottli in the

suc::cessfully 'challenge fuljailhouse lawyer litigant incar- form of citatioIj.s to court rul-

their.convictions....,'

in the Bureau of Prisons., ings - a novel

that

. He is a Prisop. Legal News contrib- not only-acts as a springboard

Well orgainzed into 52

. . uting writer arid a member ofthe

for further research qut also

qse

this easy to use boole National

Guild. Editor

the prisC!ner countless .

puts the,law at the reader's fin-

Susan Schwarizkopfhas a mas-

hours ofpreliniinary research:'

o gertips.:The

includes

ter's gegree in education and is

pleadiirgs and forms f!om successful hab'eas corpus cases that.,

the director and e.ditor in chief of

Prison

Publishing. '

PETER SCHMIDT
Publisher, Punch &Jurists

THE HABEASCITEBOOK: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

U

By Brandon

Number of copies ordered __._ Amount enclosed __ _ _ ___

.8.,..2:S"·x ,10.75". D ?24 pages .' Byy::--·,0D check 0 new postage stamps 0 credit card 0 money order

$49-95

, . Name

.

- - ' - - .- ' - ----------------------. ". .7. ,". .' -. .:.-.-, ,;.-.:.:.-. ,-.-, -. ..-:-. .-.--' - -. -

3' or irihre
.. '··;'at once

ordered .' DOC/BOP Number' --------------::----'-''-'---'--,-'.-.-.,'.-----'--'-.-.'-:.-.'------,,..''..--."'-each·: .' ': . -Institution/AgenCy _'_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __'.'...""..--'._.....-..;.., _'_ _ __

:FREEShippi11.g&Hi:m·illtng:·:-' Ad&e'ss

"....'. '; .:: . .:.

n.

by mail, phone, or on.,.line. ,

'------------......,..,-. -' -' ---------------------------- -

_ _ _-=--_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-'--_ _.. State

ZIP

PUDLISHEO DY

PrfU§ON llEGAfL NlEW§ P.O. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303 . . Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.pr.isonlegalnews.org

Ex D to Kay Dec, Page 7 of 8

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 13-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 21 of 21

,,:.. ..... ,.... .... ..

..

Copies of this very usable and useful gUide . should be 'available in every prison

help

people'

tion
.use of .

fC}(jt tba:t .

.

vyho

have a

.in·prisoD, recidivism." ..

. -BptL G:ALE
. Edit.or

PEN Prison Writing Program, Time: 25 Years ofPrison Writing.

Hftcli'SCIHIOPL 0 VOCATIONAL 0 PARALEGAl!,. 0 UNDERCRADU'ATIE I) GRADUATE COllJRSES

·HE GREATLY anticipated and newly updated
third edition of the Prisoner's Guerrilla
THandbookto Correspondence Programsin the

for individual and beneficial for use fn all 'prison

libraries and education departments. .

'

The Prisoners Guerrilla Handbook is the only book

United States and Canada has finally arrived! Author 'on the market for the

prisoner-stu-

Marc Taylor's brand new version is th,e Jatest in dent. It i'ncludes detailed listings of the -quality, cost,

this unique and highly successful guidebook fot the and cours'e offerings f<?r all c;orrespondence pro-

prisoner-student. This'invaluable tool and how,,:to grams.available to prisoners. In a time when so many

handbook provides the reader with step-by-step academic opportunities in prisons have been elim-

instructions' to find the appropriate

progra:m Jor: high schoc;fl,

.paralega.l,

inate91 this l?ook is, an iriva,luable re-entry.toC?! for prisoners who seek to further their educ:ation while

undergra'duate,:aricJ graduate' course$' offered hi

the U.S.

.... ;

.

.. , .

'HlrnviilUl!lIa!\blle

tocH

.. incarcerateo and to help them prepare' for life and

work'following their

'.'

.:. .

.. Jon Marc Taylor has more·than 25 ye'ars experi-

ence as an incarcerated student, ady'Ocate for pris-

It presents

than 160 program outli.nes and oner education, and author. He has' successfully

offers. an easy-to... format for. the stUdent to earned a bachelor's

a master's degree, and

determine which program suits their needs. It a doctorate via correspondence courses wbile fti2ar-

is ideal for the incarcerated student who does not .·cerated. Editor Susan Schwa.rtzkopf has a rriaster's

have Internet access Of the abiHty to attend' educa-" degree hi education and'12 years

teach-

tion classes in person. This resource is indispensable ir'ig immigrants English language skills.

I PRISONERS1 GUERRILLA HANDBOOI<: TO CORRESPONPENCE PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA m

ByJon Marc Taylor PHD

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount endosed _ _ _ __

m 8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages' . By: 0 check 0 new

stamps 0 credit

0 money

m

ISBN 978-0-9819385-0-9

Name

: .m

.. , .: 3 or

$49..95 ordered· DOC/BOP Number -':'.--'.....:-_.-_...,:;..-'

i..

.... ' ... '

each" ...... Institution/Agepcy..:..._'_..:...-'_____---._..:-._______. '-----.,:',_.._. '_.·_._1._,'_;._.:_,...:..=:-_

g.. 'FREIS Shipping & Handling' . 'Add'ress

'.,

.. ' .. : ...;.... : .: 1:.:'.,:' .'. .m

;'

phoner or on-line.' City._'_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ State

ZIP

':. : m

I PUBUSHED BY
fPRH§())N ·llEGAIL 1\IIEw§ P.O. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 00 5530 3
.Dedicated to Protecting Hu.man.Rights TeIl.8d2 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Ex D to Kay Dec, Page 8 of 8

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 14 Filed 01/31/12 Page 1 of 5

1 Marc D. Blackman, OSB #730338 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News
2 Ransona Blackman LLP
3 1001 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1400 Portland, OR 97204
4 (503) 228-0487

5 Katherine C. Chanaberlain, OSB #042580 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News
6 MacDonald Hoague & Bayless
7 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104-1745
8 (206)622-1604

9

10

11

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

DISTRICT OF OREGON

14

PORTLAND DIVISION

15 PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the
16 HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,

No. CV 12-71-SI

17

Plaintiff,

DECLARATION OF EZRA ST. HELEN

18

v.

In Support of Plaintiffs Motion for

Prelinainary Injunction

19 COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA

COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF

20 DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity

as Colunabia County Sheriff,

21

Defendants.

22

23

24

25

26

27

DECLARATION OF EZRA ST. HELEN (CV 12-71-SI) 1
9870.05 fa256312

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961 .
St. Helen Dec, Pg 1 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 14 Filed 01/31/12 Page 2 of 5 \
\

DECLARATION OF EZRA ST. HELEN I, Ezra St. Helen, hereby declaTe as follows: 1. I am over the age of 18, am competent to testify, and Inake this Declaration based on n1y personal knowledge. 2. By letter dated August 18, 2011, from the law fIrm MacDonald, Hoague & Bayless, I teceived and reviewed the documents described below. 3. My check Inarks ( v ) below indicate whether I received or did not receive Inailings froln Prison Legal News (PLN) when I was a prisoner at the Columbia County Jail, and whether I received or did not receive written notice from the Jail that mail addressed to me was rej ected. 4. EXIllBIT A (3 single-page double-sided brochures)
(i) PLN Brochure and Subscription Order FOIID. (ii) 2010 PLN Book List (iii) PLN Brochure about two books for sale I RECEIVED Exhibit A from PLN; or
V I did NOT receive Exhibit A from PLN; and
.j I did NOT receive written notification that the Columbia County
Jail rejected Exhibit A; or I RECEIVED written notification that the Columbia County Jail rejected Exhibit A. 5. EXHIBIT B (copy of front and back of paperback book) \/ I RECEIVED a paperback book titled Protecting Your Health & Safety; or I did NOT receive a paperback book titled Protecting Your Health & Safety; and I did NOT rtfceive written notification that the Columbia County Jail rejected a paperback book titled Protecting Your Health & Safety; or

DECLARATION OF EZRA ST. HELEN - 1
9870.05 ehl72208

St. Helen Dec, Pg 2 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 14 Filed 01/31/12 Page 3 of 5

I

written notification that the Columbia County Jail

rejected a paperback book titled Protecting Your Health & Safety.

6. EXIllBIT C (sample front and back of Prison Legal News journai) .

, / I RECEIVED PLN's 56-page lnon,thly journals as indicated by my check marks

(V' ) below next to the date of the issue(s) I received:

_July 2009

_ February 2011

March 2011
J April 2011

_May2011

June 2011

or

I did NOT receive ANY copies ofPLN's56-page monthly journals.
Ifyou did NOT receive one or more o/the PLNjournals listed above, please indicate
whether Y0l! received written notification that the journal(s) was rejected by the Jail:

I did. NOT receive written notification that the Columbia County·Jail rejected Prison Legal News journals addressed tome; or
I RECEIVED written notification EVERY TIME the Columbia County Jail rejecteq. a Prison Legal News journal addressed to me; or

I RECEIVED written notification SOMETIMES, but not every time, when the Columbia County Jail rejected Prison Legal News jourp.als addressed to me.

DECLARATION OF EZRA ST. HELEN - 2
9870.05 chl72208

St. Helen Dec, Pg 3 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 14 Filed 01/31/12 Page 4 of 5

7. Exhibit D (PLN renewal letter and 3 single-page double-sided brochures) I RECEIVED Exhibit D; or
\ / I did NOT receive Exhibit D; and
J I did NOT receive written notification that the Columbia County
Jail rejected Exhibit D; or I RECEIVED written notification that the Columbia County Jail rejected Exhibit D. 8. I aITI cU1Tently a prisoner at the Columbia CountyJail; I have been a prisoner in the Columbia County Jail since:
2s. FEiSUARV, f') 010 .
[day] [month] [year]

9. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States and the State of

Oregon that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of Iny knowledge.

DATED this ?2 day of

,2011 at S4

,Oregon.

[month]

[city]

tIJ Ezra St. Helen; Signature

DECLARATION OF EZRA ST. HELEN - 3
9870.05 eh17220B

St. Helen Dec, Pg 4 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 14 Filed 01/31/12 Page 5 of 5

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I hereby certify that on January 31, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing to the Clerk

3 of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the

4 following:

5

• Marc D. Blackman

marc@ransomblackman.com,pat@ransonlblackman.com

6

• Gregory R. Roberson

grr@hartwagner.cOlTI,cej @hartwagner.com

7

• Lance Weber

8

lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org

• Jesse Wing

9

JesseW@mhb.cOlTI

10

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS

11

lsi Katherine C. Chamberlain

12

KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN

OSB #042580

13

(206) 622-1604

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

DECLARATION OF EZRA ST. HELEN (CV-12-71-SI) - 5
9870.05 fa306308

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961
St. Helen Dec, Pg 5 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 14-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 1 of 21

""-_-.

f f

.1

EXHIBIT A.

i .

Ex A to St. Helen Dec, Pg 1 of 7

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 14-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 2 of 21 Ex A to St. Helen Dec, Pg 2 of 7

Order Form.
All purchases must n(} In:e-I'aiil. Prisoners can 'luiy m.th
new stnmps (stdllS prinks) or Frc-stnmped. cnvcl?pcs.

(5

CIRCLE

one bo 011:.111: 11onu5 issues, nndDO'l'!OT add. S/H)

Protecting Your Health and Sa.fe.ty

.!E 4

Issues (3-yr sul!sqription offer)

$ Amt, _

Prison Profiteers..![£ With Libertyfor Same ..![£ GBonus Issues (4-yr sul!scdption offer:)
Total (inc. afl books bought separately)
Add 6% llales'taxfor Yermontrcsidcnts only ADD $;5.00 SIR to hook orders TINDER $50

PLN Subscriptions

6,.month Subscription. (Prisoners o;nUly) 1 yr Subscription (1:2 issues)

Z yr

(2,* plus 2 Bonua iSSUDS)

3 yr Sub (Glrole honus book nbove..Q!. 4 Eonuslssues)

4 yr Sub (Circle bonus book nbove.Q! 6" Bonus isaues)

Sample Issue - $3.50 each

TOTAL Amount Enclosed:

Send to:
Name:
DDOOCC##:: _______ ____________________
AgencylInst: _ ___________ _ __________ __

Address: City/State/Zip: _ ___________ _ __________ __

MArL P AYlVIENT AND THIS FORM TO: .
Prison Legal News P.O. ·Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303

Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257..1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www"prisonlegalnews.org

PLN Subscription Rates

* SuhscriFtion Rates 1 yr 2.:_Y:YJJ:sS 3 :YJ:S 4yrs
$24 $ 43 $ 72 $ 96

Individuals

$30 $ 60 $ 90 $120

Professionals

$80 $160 .$240 $320

{L:nvyora, gon. & professional agencies, llbrnriDs, eta.}

,_Sample issue for a.n.yone -'$3,-'50 each*

Six-month prisoner subscription for $12*

Prisoners can pny 1vithnew :first-class stamps (strips or books

onlyy)) orpXtkstampCa ell.velopes,·ifallowed byprisonpolici·as.

1- -- ----- --Sub":':---'-'-'- -·-B------I -------.- i

I -

scrIptIOn- onuses

1 I

I

' . ._

(

I 2 years - Z bonus

fOk 26 monthly lGsues to tal. .

I

:. 3

• 4: bonus jssues (40 total) qR.;I?rolecling Your Haalrh and I

I So;for.y{SflQ book dcsoriptionon tho other side of thishroohure}.

:

: !liycru:a - Gbonus issucs (59itotal) 04your choice ofWirhLwerty for II

!..

0E:.er _:- ___:

New 301' 4.Year Subscription

Offers!

Subscribe or renew for three years at the regular price .($72 for prisoners & $90 for individuals)", and :reoeivt} as a FREE hanus, Protecting Your-·Health and Safety·'m;. fouI bonus issues of·PLNI (40 monthly issues total). Indioate yom: choice on the Order Form.

Sullscribc or renew for four years at the regular price

for'prisoners & $120 for ind±v:iduals), amI-'receive

as a FREE bonus, Prison Profiteers m;. With LibsTo/for

Same, ill: 6 bonus issues of PLNI (54 monthly issues ..

total).

yow: choice on the Order Form.

NO shipping charge for subscriptionhonus.booksr
NOTE: Ifyou "Want the IJJ'O'oDnUuSs issues of PLN instead of the free book offer, plesse indicate that aoDn the OIrilcer Form.

I

Contact Us for

Book Lis!:!

1

: You oan buy dozens of legal, sooial commentary, sel£-1

1help hbooks, and legal and regu1a.+ dictionaries direoctly:

: from PLN's hbook storel Ask us for a hbook list, or "View:

: ow: seleoction oIJJine at:

I

I I

www.prisonlegaInews.orgfstore.aspx

:

altern 5.:i:io : .:f.....:;"'....., .f"l,.,:t "J·:.i 4 r: 'r ••:...---:-:-....,:

:1."., , ' t .0 •• I l • • • • •

:: ;;';'

...
placed

*::...:).,.',::

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights

PLN is a

of"the

HU1?tan Rights Defense Genter

·Eastern State Penitentimy 1829-1971
Chraur:lles Dickens v.isited Philadelphia's Eastern State Penitentia.:ty in. 184Z and he later lV:tote: "The System is :rigid, stl'iot and hopeless ... and I . belieyve it to be oruel and :wl"ong..•..I hold this slow and da.il.y tampering with the mysteries of . brain to be immeasw:ably WOI'se thhaa.:nu ally toXxture of the hbodd.yy." The p:dson remmaaiinneedd. open for 1Z9 years after Dickens coondemned it as hbeing barhbaarrio, anndd. some of its :i.n.humane praoctices continue to be used iIn..pprriissons nationwide.

P.O. Box 242Q, Brattleboro, VT 05303

'-330022--2Z5577--11342 D

.

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 14-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 3 of 21 Ex A to St. Helen Dec, Pg 3 of 7

P rison Legal News is an independent, non-profit 56-page monthly pUblication that xeports, re"Views and analyzes court rulings and news related to pl'isoners' rights aD:cl.prisonissues, PLNhas a national
(U.S.) focus on state, federal and private prison issues,
with some international oovera.ge as well.

PLN's many thousands of subscribers and readers

include civil and: criminal trial and appellate attomeys,

judges, public defenders, joUrnalists, aoademics, para-

legals, pl-lSO,ners' ,rights .activists, students, family

members of prisoners, concel'lled mdividuals, politi-

cians, other goverriment officials, and numerous local,

state and federal prisoners nationwide. .

,

.

PLN is a Yi:talli.nk for prisone+s who otherwise do'n't

have access to current legal and prison-related news

and 'information.

relsioouurrccee'Jfo6i
about '::'.':::::::,
::..,

' affecting " '.
srlb'scrlber

P iN's coverage

issues includes medical

neglect, disciplinaiy hearings, nut:J;ition, living

conditions, excessive £01:ce, court access, censorship,

j,ail.litigation, visiting, telephones, religious freedom,

free speech. prison :rape. mental health, attorney!

olient aocess, sexual abuse of. w,om'en prisoners, :re-

mv taliation, the PLRA,

;amnd hep C, control units,

the death pe.nnlty, attorrnneeyy'fees and much

PLN Subscription Rates

Prisoners: $12 fOI; 6 mouths, $24 per year

Non-incarcerated individuals: $30 per year·

Lawfums,' govt. agencies andl:ibraries: $80 per year

Sample issue for

$3.50 each* "

:to Prisoners can pny with'now

or prc:stampcd envelopes

E ach monthly issue types ofrepo:rtlng:

'PLN' includes=th:ree different
fl.'

o .A.. cover story on n prison-related issue.

o Reports au individual and class-nction prison and jB;il7

related lawsuits when they are. filed, when a ·judgt!lcut is,

entered or the case settles, and. when an a,ppcllate court

decision is issued. Wc also have

articles.

a .A.. "News In Brief" section news stories across the U.S. and

ulteresthlg '

Each issue of PLN also contains1fulI).!?rOUs adve:rtisements from businesses that pro'vide prison-related pel'sonal -and
..legal sernces and books. PLN 'further sells dozellS' of self-
. help, social commentnry aUd.legel'hdolts. ' ., ,

PLN also has oumulative subject and case cite il1dexes:for

, all PLN 3ssue5 from 1990 •

2004. Write for ip.fo. I

Spe.cial

.9ffe:d

FreolVith u 3-year PLN subsodlltionl Four bonus issues of
FLN (40 issues total) .m: u' free book, Protecting Your
., HeaCth cr:n.d Safety! Circle your bonus ohoice on the form
on'the other side 'of t1rls broohure (3-year subscription
rates: prisoners $12., indiYiduals 590, professionals $2!L0).

Protecting Your Health and Safety, hbyy"U

.' ., .1

Robert E. Toone. Published by the South-

ern Poverty La,w Center, 325 pages (2009).

(:£cee with. n a-year subl). This hbook

explains some basic rights that prisoners

huave in a jail or prison inn. the U.S. It deals

mninly witll rights related· to health and IIII

-. -.,'PII

safety, such as communicable c1iscascs and abuso by

prison offioials; it also explains how you oan erum'oe your

., l'ights to health and safety within. the facility and, if neoessary, in court through litigation. Buy separately: __

I' You'CanBny These Books Separately! :

I

I

I

I

1Ifyou don't

to purohase a,S or 4-year subsoription:

: to PLN, you can still purchase any of the Dboonnus b.ooles,:
: at the regular prioe. Just indioate which books you want I I:to buy on this page, then enter the total oost on the other:

: qide of this brochure on the "Book Totallt line of the Or-· :
I del' Form. Shipping is per order (up!: per hbook), and we I

1offer FREE shipping on book arders of $50 or morel To I

: place a phone order, piease' call 802-257-1342. We also:

:!..a_c_c_ep_t_b_o_o_k_o_r,d... e_r_s_o_n_li_n_e,_n_t_i_'fw__"w'_._pr_is_o_ru_e_g_al_ne_w_s..:o_rg_.___:1

D project

non-profit Human

Bights DefeQse Centel" Your tax·-deductiilbile dona-

tions

o}ll' nclvooncy, nee spceech a;ncl First.Ameuc1-

ment litigation

on beha;If of prisoners and Fpublish-.

ers. :Pm l10t ollly pl:ovides uuceusored prison-related news,

hbut actively contests "prison,oensorship t1iat interfllres with

the deliveellY'J of our publicntion or'!lll..Y other PLN materials

seut to prisoners, .All donations further our goal, of ad-yooat-

ingfol'people:imprlsoned in U.S. detelnltionffaacciillities.

"Great so.uree ofmfonnation,

jn states such,as

Arizona where the law libraries have ececn' taken from

the

and replaced With IlBrnlega1s."

.... SB, Arizona prisoner

:pm Free with 11 4·yeewar:

sullscl!illtionl Six,bonus

of

:pm (541 issues total) .Q1: ono £:oe 1100It, With

for

Some. !.Q!.1!: Prison ProfiteersiCiro1e your honus ohoice on

the form on the

side of this bl:oohute (4-yea:r'sub·

soription rates: prisoners $96, individuals $12.0, profces-

sionals

Note: Free book option is for .!U1&bookr

With Liberty for SSOomnLeB:: saa Years Df
Imprisonmen& in AllLSriO!l, by Scott Christianson, Northeuasttlrn University
Press, 372 pages (1998). $13.95 (free with a 4-year sulMJl). .A. classio book and the best
overall history of the American prison sys-· tem nom 1492 to the 20th Century. Well iv:dtten and fact filled. .A. must-.tead for understanding
how littlothings have ohloinged ans f£a:r as prisons go :in the
U.S. over huncb:ec1s of yeaa:rrs. Buy separately: _ __

Q!.

Prrii..ssoon Profiteers: Who MaTees 1l'Ioney.

from.. Mass Incarceracion, edited by Paul

Wright & Tara RenveI, Nenn"y'". Press (2.007).

$24:95 (free with n

subl). This :is

the third in a series of PLN anthologies

that examines the reality mass imprison-

ment in the U.S. Prison Profitcl1rs:is unique

from other hbooIkts on the m'!l'ket

it exposes and

c1isousses who profits and benefits from mass imprjson-

ment, rather than who, is hwar:mmed by the prisonindustcial

oomplex and our nationi's reliance on over-inoarceration.,

Buy sepa:i:ately: _ _'

'

Or:der Form

All purchuses must be

Prisonera can pay with

stnmJ.ls (strips or hoc':ks, no singles) or'

pre-stamped. envelopes, if"allowed by prison policies.

rr=========================;;::============::=::;;rri/,_f-.' ,
. F.BEE SBIPPlNG

Ouhook and

OVER. $50.001

A${iship'pingcilal'geapplies to nlI Qihecbookautliuue7>:OLl1e1.'S.

(Frca lIhipping polioy in cffllCl' froiU Jun 1, 2010 \Ullil. furlhm: no lice)

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 14-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 4 of 21 Ex A to St. Helen Dec, Pg 4 of 7

Book Title I Number

Qty Total Cost.

pnga urou nra ordering mare hooks)

-

,

Add 60/0'sales tax for YT

Subtotal: only:

Add $6.00 SIR to orders UNDER $50:

Total Order AmoUnt:

Send to:
NNaammee:: ____________________________
DOC#:
AgeD.cylInst:
Addxess:
City/State/Zip: ..--,,..-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
lVIA:J.L PAYl\1ENT .AND TElS FORM TO:
Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420
Brattleboro, vr 05303
Purchase by phone with a'Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342' ,
Or buy bQoks a[1d'subscrip'tions onUl.ine at
www"prisonlegalnewsaorg .,

More Books for Sale!,

J?cisom:IS' Self-Help Litigation Mwual, updated 4th cd. (2010), bj' Jolm

Boston Ill1d Dnnlcl Manville; OiifoId ·Uni\'. "PlesS, 1500 pages. $39.95. The

I I I prl!lIli!!!:c, must-bnave "Bible" of,prison litigntioan for c:urr!!ne and nspirlng jill-
house lIIwycn;. If you plan to Jitignte n pason aoc jill chi! suit,

this book is n must-hnve.

1071...

Guc.r:dl.Ja Handboolc to Correspondence :ProgTams in the U.S.

and Canada, updlltcd 3Ird c.d, by Jon Mnrc Tny!or, 'Ph.D. and edited b}' SUSIll1

Schwru:tzkopE, published bJ' I'LN, 221 poges:

Wetten bl' Mlssouci

.pdsoner Jon 'Mnrc Taylor, who obtnincd n B.,S. degree. an M.A. degrtecec and :1-

'Docetomtc, the Gmrri/la Handbook contains contilcet Information and desail:'-

I I I tions of high school, vocntionni, pa.tnlcg;U and college coutst:s avnllllble ,.
through cO£J:Cspondllnce study. G'COlt J:esolwl.:tct: for prolsonnCcnIS;1

who WMt to funher £.hcic education.

1057 't----!.'.-_-_ - --'I

Your Health and ssuurree..ttyy,, by Robert E., Toone, 50Utllt:tn Poveny

·tn.w Center, 325 pOg1!s.

nus book c..'qllnins bnsic tights thhialt pdsonc:rs

hltVe In n Jill oc prison In the. U.S. It denls mnln1l' with rights ronted to· Jicnith

I I I and safetj', such ns co.mmimicnblec

Md :wuse by prison oEfidnals; it also

CJ,plnlns how you Cll1 enforce yow: rights within the facility

and. IfnecessllC)·.ln coute throllgh litigntion.

10GO ....._-'._ _----''.

St:u'tiIig

The

Har:dboaolt, edited by Wullnm H.

.,Foster,. 'Ph.D. &: Cnri E. Horo, Ph.D." Stnrting Out Inc., 446 pagecs. $22.95.

Complete do-iCo)·ow:sclf Ie-entIj' mnanumnl and wotkbook foc posomne:IS who

want to develop thdi: own Ia-entIj' plnn to'inci:cnse thcic chances of sut!cess

I I ':tfter thee.l' nre .rCe\\eell\S\!d. Includes:n. wide vru:icet}·' of resources, Including a user
code to the Stnrcing Outwebsiti:,. enn' be. accessed follOW-,

1ngrelease.

-- ,".,.'': :.,: "

, 1074 .L..-...__.l........._ _ _ _-..J.J..

Jnilhouse LIlWYcts:

Dcfenduig Prisoners 'yV. the U.S.A., by

MuoUn. Abu ]nmnl, CIt)· Lights PubUs:hct5,'2BO pnges. $16.95. In

1..Arp-

j'trT,

'Lcgnl Ne\vs columnist, nw'ru:d-winnoing joumnlist and dCe!!nntthh-cow

poson!!!: lirurrUn Abu-:fnrmnnl presents thhee. Stories and .rclIections of fcllow pds-

I I I oncn;-tuunrn1eCd!·dn'nddvvooccnntt:e.5 who haVe! learned to use the coure systcm to Icpresl!I1t
other podson!!!:5s, annd in some cnses have won thheiilJi: freedom.

Must-tend for jnllhousc lmvyersl

1073 ....J. L L......._ _ - , . ._ _. '_ _ _ _- ' .

How to Win Your J?etEonal InJju.ry Claim, b)' Atty., Joseph lvJ:ntdlCWS, 7th

ecedliitniono, !:-lOOLLOa PI.teessSs, 304 pnoges.

\'qhJlc not spc:c1ficnlly foc pdson-

•,.rclntt:d personrnul injury eDses,. thls book· provides ceomprcehhcennssiivvCe! information

I I I'":' on bow to hMdlc P!!!:SOIlni injlwl.:t)' nnd prooppte!lr;ty)' dnmnge chums nrlsing from

:cc1dcnts -

deallng with doc:tots, tlttornc),s Md

Ulslul.mtllm:e compruues.

1075 _ . . I_ _ _---l. 1 1.-..._

. . . ._ . _ _- - ' .

... :., '".,

'..',,

"'.

,' ..

:, ,'..'*

*'

.., "1 ••••••••.,-.'"1..
Dedicated to Protecting RUman Rights
PLNis a-pl<oject ofthe Hu,rnan Rights Defense Center
Z010'PLN BOOK LIST
. :Prices Subject to Change Without Notice
Graphic fromtl)Joo(\S Zl'risollcrs, VancDu:rcr, DC
P.O. Box 2420, ;BmttIeboro, 'VVT: 05303 G l'l1v,v.pdaonlegafuews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 14-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 5 of 21 Ex A to St. Helen Dec, Pg 5 of 7

Chep1c the box. of the. books y.ou want to buy and the Order' , Writing to WID:' Thil I.eg:tl. W.dtcr,'bj' Sm·en D: Brondl';'lj·

FOIlll on the other side

to add up the cost ofyour House, 283

E.',-plnins .dIe iVci!ingof cifcuive. complnints"

I

I

order. FREE SBIPPINGfor boole and:index orders OVER $50... .

,

1035 .'-..._ ....._ _-..'...

'There js a $6 Sshhiipping

all qther book and index orders.

edited by Pnul W.righi:ind Hetivcl, 323 $24.95. 'TItis is dIe.

lhitd:md L1ll::Stbooldn :ise.tices OfP.rlsohI.ei§llNe\vs :md101ogfes tlmt=mines

of

mass irnpcisc=tin Amait:01. (rile. olhl:r dues :ttl!

& PtirollNahDII,

see bclow).

is uniquL! .&om books bccuise it

who profits :md Ul:!1e.fits .&om mass irnpdsODIIll:!ltj.mili1:r than. who is

I I :md dis=

lwmcdby itnrul how.

1063 '----__'-....._---'.

I I I :Prison Nalicn: The Warehousing of.Am.:d<::l.'s l'oor, cdi!cd bJ' T,-u-nHc:.d\'cl nnd '. 33Zp;t!?FS- !p35.95. PIN nnlholopl: c:lposes the d.,.r:k side ofme

.Ar:tuiUInnoccnctll WhenJustice Goes Wrong (LIldHcV{ to Mo.lLCitRlght; updntc:!

pnperoock cd., b)' BIltt)' ,Scheck, Peb:r Neufeld and Tun Dw)'ct; '(03 pnges,

.'

Fcuodla::tsol' the InnOCt:Ilce Project t:hp1nin how c:imiool defendnnts nrc wrongij' con- '.

I 'I vicred on a rcgulnr basis. E,,;plnios DNA ll:sling Md !tow'it;wotks to fu:c'ule innoa:nt: '
DI:\'IlSlllting cinque of polic:ec1wllldd prosec:utorlnl misconduct: Md the'l

SJ'Smm

such nbuses. continue. ,

•

1030 1..._..J.._ _- ' .

Rogcet's Thesaurus, 717 pages.

Ht;lps find !he.rightword fonvhnt :

you WlIl1t to Sill" 11,OaOwords listed

OVI!t 200,000 s)'nonxms

I' " and nnton)'nis. 'Snniple secrmmces and pnm SpCedl shown' for CNc.t)' main :
word. Covers olIlevels of'vocnbul:u:j' and' identifies informnll

(LIld slnngwords.

.

1045 '-.__ 1.... ..I......_ __ _-----..'.l..

1ock-crn-up·poulicUngemlaandlcg;Uclim.ucin lheU.s. • 104-1.11.....-.'.."-.--'.'.''----__---''.

I I I The Cclllng ofAJIt.:dc:J, edired bJ'D.micl:Buntm:Rose, D.m Pens andPlIulWright; 2G4

P"F $'2.22..9955:PLN nnlhologj' pn:sciits dct;illC:!

loolc at the I I

1

1001 ....._--'-._ _.......

Ev'lUYdll.Y Letters for Busy Peop,le, by DDcc:b:bJ:tlal. Mal'. 287 pnges. $1B.99.

I I I Hundreds of sample letters thllt eM be ad;tptcd fur most lIl1}' purpose, including
lettc.ts to govanmenc ngendes. QIld offidnl;. Ens

tips fat writing effcctive.lettcts. .

1048 .1. . _-I-.._ _-'..

The Cci.minal Law Hnndb'ook: Know YOm' rughts, SUtVive the. System, by'

Attornc)'s Pnul Be.tgmrul &·Sam]. Bexm(Lll.Bru:rctt, Nolp P.ress, (jOB pages.

Exp\nlns wbntbnppcns in n c:riminhl CIS!: from being =tcd lO

(LIld whnt

yaw:.rights nrc ut c:tch sl:I.ge of process. Uses an c::I.S)' to under-,

Wreibbster's English Dictioflnty, Newi)' revised nnd updnted, R:lndom House,

I I I :jlB.9S. 75,000" cnttiecs. Iodudes tips" on ,,,dting Ma ,vord usnge,

dllted gcoginphicnl and biogmphicol entries.

.recent

has up-

bus!ncss and eomputC!!: terms..

. ' 1033 1.....__.-.'..._ J.'-_-_--'l..

I I Cipital Crimes, b), George Wmslow, MonthlJ' Rcvkw, 33G6O0 pnges.

&-plnlns'ho\v economic policies

nond fuster ccimc, nnd

\.

how cOiporutc & government crime is IJ:lllIt.ctcill' punished. 1024

, With'Liberty for Some: SOD YClI.t1l of ImposoDmenr:in Juneclca, b), 5c:ott

CIiristinnsonl !'lotthenstcm Uo.lvcrslit)' Press, ,372. pages.' $18.95. The best

ovcroll history of the Amc..dcnn prison system from 1492 through tIle 20th
I ' I I CeiJ.tu.ty. Well wdtten QIld [nct .6.llcd. A must-rend Ior undc.tst,'m!¥ng how littlc
• ,things have chnnged DS fur .as prisons go in tbe U.S. OVI!t

'

o f years.

, .

. tOZG 1. . _..J.._ _---'. L..._ - ' ._ _- - ' .

.::

: 1035 'L-....__.-.1' -_ __ _--1'

Represent Yoursclf in

n HoW' to Prepare 'Be Try W1Illling ClI.Se, b}'

Attorne}'s Pnul Bctgmnn &. Sata.:J. ilen:im.n-:Bru:rc\tr Nolo P!e.Ss, 52B pages.

I I I :Btenks dawn t1lc civil ttiol ptoo::ss in ClIS)·-to-uod=ttnd steps so you C1l1 c:ffcc::tivclj'
rcp.resl:lltYOutSel: in court. 'Tbe nuthots e..'qllnin whnt to snj' in

toUt!:, how to SlI)'lt, etT:.

"

1037 ...._ _.'--_......J. r..._ - ' . ' - -_ _.

Uij- Law DlctiooD.tjl, 11.nodot? House WebSle.r's, 57.5 pages. $1!l.$)5. Comprehensive
=.\ I 1Ir9nte In.w dictiona.q.. c::'P\nlns more thQIl a,5oo Icg.il

Covers cMI, c:imInnJ,

&int1:tl1naooolln.w:.

1036 1..._ - ' - ._ _-'....J L..._ - ' - ._ _

I I I The :Blue

of Grammw: and Punctuation, by Jane Strnus, 110 pogcs. ,

$1.4.95. A guide. to grammnr mid punCtu:ltioo by nn eduCltor

with c.\'pc..dence tenching EngUsh Io;prisoncrs.

'104G

L<:gnI. R.cseru:ch: How to Find nnd

the. !AWl bj' SlcphenEUlIS and

I / Sus(LllleYio.ldnd, 5GB PDg1!S.

Comprehensive nod CllSJ' to imderst:Uld guide

on Iesc:ttclling the lnw. E.'..p\nlns Case lnw, stnt],ltcS (LIle digests,/

(LIld much Includes

e"erdses.

1059 .....1... _ . ''_ -1.L.'--__----J'.

I ' I I Ten Men Dead: The story of the 19B1 Irish hunget strilcc, by Dm1d Be.r:es-
foId., Atllintic MomhIj' P.ress, 334 pages. $16.95. IDSide stOt}' of

IRA prisooc.ts ntBclfnst's LODgI<:esh prison.

1006 _-'. _..1 1L...... .'_ --__ -...J...J..

I I I' l'inding rugae Ltal"lVj'er, b): ]n)' Foonberg, JJ3A, 256 pnges. $19.95. Eli·

plulns ,how to

yow: Jeg:J.! OCl!ds, hgw evnluate \l

lmVj'CJ:'s qunilficntions, fee pn)'mecnts, and more.

1015 _...1..._ _-l. 1L...._ - ' - ._ _-".

Sc.l:z;e the Dayl 7 Stcps to AChleving the

in nn Ordinary

World; b)' Danny

Hooycr, 256 pnges.

Provides 7 steps

I I I to ch(Lllging }'ow: c.'qlectndons Md envisioning yourself DS being 11 successful

and

person-which Is essenodnl to chacging the

coursecofonc'sllfc, .

110502 5L..._2....J..'--_.....J..

Womco :Behind :B1llltSj. The Crisis ofWoplen in the 'O0:5S. Prison SySlcm, by

SUJn J.A. Tulvi, Sen! Press, 295 pageas.
issues related to impclsoned wwoomml!cJn1,

I I :Best book

thilt covers

on

with

hundreds ofwomen bcllind bars. .

J.Ouu ....._-> _..1 L... -_ _-...'..

10 Insider Secrels to 11 Winning Job 'Searoh, b)' Todd :Bcrnlont, 216 pngces. Rondmnp on how to.gee \l job'even undllt ndvCtse. ci.tt:umsllInccs-lille

I I I DeposItion Handbook,' b)' l,lllul

QIld Albert Mooo; Nolo Prcss, 352

-pnges:

How-to ,handbook for n.coll''oonc conducts a

deposition oris going-to be deposed. ': .

1054 . . ' , • .

I I I Spnnilih.EngUsh/ErigUsh-Spn.o.is,ll' DlctioDnty, RmIdom House. :j;B.95. nyO

sections, Spnnish-English (LIld

uO,OOO+ c:o.tries I I

1

from A to Zj

Western

1034 .. . . . L ...._ - ' - ._ - - - : - ' .

I I , being lIl1 cC.oxx--ccoon. Includes how to develop a-winning nttitude, w.rite attention-

gtnbbing resum!!S,

for interviews, networking, how to 1 I

I

precseot your strengths,to lIl1.ccmmppllool:lC:C!!:!,:,::mmd much morel. 105G .L......_ "_-_ -.'.l-.._ .__ _---.J'..

I . ,:. I, The l'olitics orfHeJ:o.i.n; CIA. Complicity':in the Global Drug Trade, 2003
Ed. by Alfred McCo}', 734pngt!s.

. . of the govc:mment's iovolvemcncin drug tr.1f.Bcl:icg.

•

. •

.'

•

1014 . . ..

.

1 ' ----"1-.-_----''

Please Note: .All hobk and.iI:idcX

are mniled. 'V:ia the U.S. Postal

oxam :Oeliveo/:

aoes not

any :respon-

sibility-to icplace'ho'ok or inddeeXx oroatS onete their Clelhi-cry to the dcsti..

.(fac.ili,ty) is

U.S.

I..ocki30Wll Ameci= l'oIicd acd F.cisol15 in

of Cdsis; 'by'duisd:m Pnrcnti,

I 1 290 pages. $1!l.00. J\nnI}'zes the ,iu: on tHe poor ,-in ule airdlrutl justice SJ'StI!m. Well
. doc:utDl:!ltd lICd includes llrs",hnnd reporting. COVf!!:S pcisol'lS,

'militu:ypoUdog,SWATt=nodthcINS.·

••• "·1002

.

Hepatitis nndLivcr Disease: Whnt You

)0 J!now, b),McUssa'Palmcr, lim,

I' 1 I 457 pages. $17.95. Describes symptoms &.lIC:Itromts oE'hcpadds:B & C and odler
fliuvree.rr: dismses. Includes meditC:lloons 'to avoid, 'wlmt 'diet to follow,

cC.!,,.,"eerrdses to

(oLnIldd a\l blbliogrnph)'.

103311..1L......__...ll.._-----' .l.

nG.!lS. ·Ctime and Pucishrnent In'Amerll::h b)' Elliott Cu.o:il; 230 p;!gCS.

XCbLlllal to

proponl:!1ts of pciscn

F;u:l!,bnscd llIgUOlent shows dmt

oime..is c!civ;c b}'

pcison, myulS ;Md clisrusses I :' 1

I

pttn'Cl1,cffi:cti\'cme:msofO::IllJt:ptt:Vt:Dttco.

t019. . '.

I'rison Madness: The: Mental. He.lIlth Ctisis :Bchin'd 'B:aur:s nod What We.

Must Do Abcut It, b)'T'l'!!ll:)' Kupc.ts, Josssee::jj,-'-::BSoa.s., 245 pages.H::tmbl1dt: only,

iDclude :my raquircd

lroan.

I I ttist writes about t11C ml:!1tnl hcnlth crisis in U.S. prisons n.od jnils. Coven; nll
nspCCts ot'ml:lltnl illness, POSOIl rope, negative effc.t:ts of long-I

1= isolntion in control units, nod more.

1 10030'-.0 _I-3._._ . .

Prison Writing in 20th Century :Amee.clc.'t, b)' H. :B.tIlce Frnnlcl.in, :Penguln

'.Books, pages. $1G.OO. From Jack LondoD to George Jncksoo, this

I I I l nnthology providcs a selection of some· of the best w.citiocg

describing life behind bars in Amcricn.

.

1022 LL...__...Ll.._ _..J.

Scle.dndBrothen Thel'rlsonLcttCCli of G!e!oorrggeeJJlllclitson, bl'
r I !.:lwIcnce Hill :Bool:5, 339 pages. $18.!l5. Lucid cC.!'P.'Plnlnnnaaaaoolnl of ie. ities 'of

poson b}' a wclJ.known'poson

More .r.cle.vn.ot now th(Lll

.

it fitstnppcared 40 y= ago. .

Marijuana !I,mv, bJy'RRicic::hhnnffcc!! :Boice, Rooiq, 271 pages, !fq7.95:&wlnes how to
'II I reduce. dll! probability ofn.c:cstMdp'rosec:utioo forpecop!le nccused offlhlite.:. usc, s:Uc oOCc
possession of rnru:ijuann. Info on lcg;tl defensces, se:uth &scizutes(l : 100B 1. .1-._--J-.l...I_ ...-_ _-1....J..

Worse Thlll1 Slavery:

Frum nnd the. Ordeal ofJlm CrowJustice, bl'

I I ' I D'l\'id OshinskJ, 30G pngcs. $11G6..O0O0. ,Annl)'Sis oE

Iftbors roots.in si!lyf.tl'.

Focuses on poson pbm:\tiocS :md seJF.sust;ilining posons usC!

pcCisonnlabor,

. '

•

.

: 1007 LL.......__...Ll...'.._- iI .

No Equal Justice: Raee!!: annd CIIllSSSs in Amedcnn Criminal Justice '

I I I SyetCIIl, bl' David ColE!, The J:gc.w "Press, 21B pages. $19.95., E.'l'lains thc
c:.dminnl justice sj'stem perpetnlmlllres' rmace onnd class inequality,

two·ae.rcd Sj'stCnl oFjusdce.

. .' 1026 '.

: .

The Pclson annd the. Gallows: The PoUtics of MIolss Incarceration in

I I I Amecolca, by tvfn.t:ie Gottschalk, Cambcldge Unive.rslt)'

451 pages.

ljiZ9.99. Grent political :mall'sis of the confluence of·events

1lcc:1idl1inng to 2.3 million people bcl1ind bblwlts in U.S. 1069 L\....._..Jl.._ _-...'.J,,

The Hllbeas Clte.book: Jncff'ective\Assistnnce. of Counsct, 'bj' Brnndon

SamplE!, PLN 'Publishing, 200 pnges. $49.95, This is :PLilNi's second published

I I I ,book, whiclhl C);clusivcly covers

nssistrulcc. of, cOWlscl-rc1nted

issues in fedc.tnl habeRs pe:ttiittiions. Great ..r!c!sSoouurrce fot habeas

Utigntiocn. nnd contnins ,hundreds of ca.se citesl

1078 _ 1::.....' ..JI..._ _-..1J.

Flletor 8 (DVD), n film by Kcll), Dudn, Cooctey: FlIrns.

Movie

t I I nbout the Atknnsns prison blood scnndnl, in which prison officinls sold
infccted blood hn.rvestcd. from pcisone.r:s. Note: .This 15 a

DVlJ nnd cnannot btl

to poson.

.J.,_ _...J.J. 1.._;••.,.:.'.J.•,_ _

'It ' • •

PIN Cumulllclve Indcx.li22.50 'cnch. Pili,Article

dctnilcd

informnlation nboufnll 'PLN ru:ticies, including title; outilOr, j;suc, pnge number,

tqplcs cove.rted,.

I)l1d If it Is Sltl1lte,.

qr lnil sresWc. e(Lll

I sCnIchcd Or} over SOD sub;jtelcts such as medical

or SsCC!.\'UD.! nssnult. Circle

the lnd[!)((ecs) you arur:t: ord.c..dog;

199.G·199B, 1999-1

2001, 2002-Z2004. (moott!e!

indl:,',!!!!Ss

,

AlI. books are so!t coveF exiept Fiison'Madness

J

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 14-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 6 of 21

T he Habeas Citebo07c

Ineffective'Assistance of

,

Counsel is the first in a

series ofbooles by Prison Legal

" The Habeas CitebooTc is a nifty and concise self-help guide for prisoI;lers seeldng

News Publishing designed to help

habeas reliefbased on dirims of

pro-se prisoner litigants identify

ineffective assistance of coUnsel.

and raise viable claims for poten-

Navigating the complex and

tial habeas corpus relief. This

treacherous terrain

.

boole. is an invaluable resource

law is never eassyy; but claim-

that identifies hundreds of cases '

thatyour lawyer screwed up

where the federal

have

is even more difficult - espe- ,

granted habeas reliefto prison-

dally from the confines ofan

ers whose attorneys provided

demonstrate formatting and 'show ill-equipped prison law library.

fective assistance of counseL

how to frame a winnlng argu-

, ccBrando'n Sample has pro-

It -will save litigants

ment that will

a court

to grant habeas relief The Habeas

vided an amazing and neeq.ed tool for prisoners who

thousands ofhours ofresearch and

eXJ?lains tp.e procedural and substantive compleJ!ities of federal habeas corpus lit-

are forced to seelc;relief on their .. 'The boole is thorough; but
simple and readable. It starts

it focuses on the I, igation with the goal ofideritify"-

with a'wonderfully well-orga-

WINNING cases crllninal ing andlitigating claims invvoolvlvfli;n1g

neeedd:to

.,

:" , ",

assistance BrJill.don

counseL' :a success-

:successfully'

ful

"lawyer litigant mcar-

nized listing ofhUJ;?H-drreds different types of tance of,coUnsel, set fo:rth in the
of citations to court rul-

, "their convictions. ,
Well organized ip.to 52 con-

the Bureau ofPrisons. is a Prison Legal News contrib-
a uting writer ana member of the

ings - a novel

that

not only acts as a springboard "

for further research but also

cise

this easy to use pook National Lawyer's Guild. Editor

saves ,the prisoner countless

puts the Jaw"at the reader's fin-

Susa,n Sc;hwartzkopfhas" a mas-

hours ofpreliminary research:;

gertips. The,Appenilix

in education and is

pleadings and forms suc-

the director and

in chief of

PETER SCHMIDT

cessful

cases that

Prison Legal News Publishlng_

Pll:blisher, Punch" & Jurists

THE HABEAS CITEBOOK: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

By Brandon Sample"

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed _ _-'-_ __

8.25» X 10.75" .. 224 pages "'By: 0 check C? new postage stamps 0 credit card 0 money order D

ISBN 978-0-9819385-1:-6 .
$49·95 3 or more copies ordered , 'at once $39-95 each:" "

Name _________________________________________________________________________
m'
DOC/BOP Number '--'-______________________________________
fustitution/Agency __________________ _______________

FREE"Shippin.g & Handling , Addrreessss,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Order by mail, phone, or on.-line..

PUBLlSHl!D BY

__________

ZIP

NlEw§ PffU§@N LE6AJL

p.o. BBOOJC:2422 o West.Brattleboro VT 0530 3

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342

Ex A to St. Helen Dec, Pg 6 of 7

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 14-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 7 of 21

of this very usable and useful gUide

should be available in-every pris9n library-to

help incarcerated people give positive direc-

tion' to theit

while making

use ofthelr time..It is a well-established fact that

people

j'T)

have adrc:-Tnc1tically reduced rate,of r-ecidivism.!'

'------''---_--_ '_ -BELL GALE CHEVIGNY, PEN Prison Writing Program, _ _ _--I' . Edi,tor Doil)g Time: 25 Years ofPrison Writing.

HIGH S, CHOOL Q VOCATROHAL. I> PARALEGAl 0 UNDERGRADUATE" ,GRADUA. TE COURSES

T HE GREATLY anticipated and newly updated
, ,'third edition of the Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbookto Correspondence Programs in the

States and Canada has finally arrived! Author

Jon Mart Taylor'S brand new version is the lateSt in

this unique and highly successful gUidebook for the

prisoner-student. This invaluable tool and how-to

handbooK proVides the reader with step-by-step

instructions to

the' appropriate'

.

program for, high school, vocational, paralegalz'
undergraduate, and graduate' cour-ses offered in
the. u.s: anq Canada today.

D'e"'elllltry

It presents, more, than 160 program oUtlines and

offers an' easy-to-use format fo'r the student to

determine which program

suits their needs. It

is

for the 'incarcerated student who does not

Internet access or the ability to attend educa-

tion classes hi person, This resource is indispensable

for the individual and beneficial for use in all prison

libraries and education departments.

The Prisoner's Guerrflla Handbook the only book

on the market for the non-traditional prisoner-stu-

dent. It includes detailed listings of the quality, cost,

arid

offerings for an correspondence pro-

grams available to prisoners. In a time when 50 many

academic opportunities in prisons ,have beef! elim-

iriated, this book is an invaluable re.:.entry t901 for

prisoners who seek furth.er their education while

and to help them prepare for iife and

work following·their release.

Jon'Marc Taylor has mbre, than 25 years experi-

ence as an incarcerated student, advocate for pris-

oner education, and author. He has

earned a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and

a doctorate via correspondence courses while incar-

cerated. Editor Susan Schwartzkopf has a'master's

degree in education and 12 years experience

ing immigrants English language skills.

PRISONERS' GUERRILLA HANDBOOK TO CORRESPONDENCE PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA. m

ByJon Marc Taylor PHD

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed _'_ _ __

8.25/1 X1'0.75" • 224 pages

By: D check 0 neW postage stamps D creait card D money order m

ISBN 978-0-9819385-0-9

Name __ ________________________________________

or $490 95
3 more coples ordered

DDOOCC//BBOOPP NNuummbbeerr -_--'-'-'_-_'_-_-__-_-__-_-_-__-_-_-__-_-_-__-_-_-_ m

at once $39,,9£; each

Institution/AAggeennccyy__-..._ :..._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

m, FREE Shipping & Handling

·m

Order by maill phone, or on-line.. R

_________________________________________________

ZIP

I punllSHED BY
IPRU§ON !LEGAL NEW§ P.O. Box 2 420 West Brattleboro VT 0530 3

DDeeddicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342

Ex A to St. Helen Dec, Pg 7 of 7

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 14-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 8 of 21
EXHIBITB
Ex B to St. Helen Dec, Pg 1 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 14-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 9 of 21
SPLG , ... L--.-J Southern Poverty law Center Ex B to St. Helen Dec, Pg 2 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 14-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 10 of 21

SPlG

Southern Poverty law Genter

Ex B to St. Helen Dec, Pg 3 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 14-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 11 of 21

· .. . - .

. .

_.'

..

_.

EXHIBIT C',
Ex C to St. Helen Dec, Pg 1 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 14-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 12 of 21

VOL. 22 No.4
ISSN 1075-7678

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rig/lts

April 2011

Nationwide P LN Survey Examines Prison Phone Contracts, Kickbacks

by JohTl E. Danllenberg

A n exhaustive analysis ofprison phone families - 'who are the overwhelming recontracts nationwide has revealed cipients of prison phone calls. Averaging

that with only limited exceptions, tele- a 42% kickback nationwide, this indicates

phone service providers offer lucrative that the phone market in state prison sys-

kickbacks (politely termed "commis- tems is worth more than an estimated $362

sions") to state contracting agencies million annually in gross revenue.

al77.owztbzg on average to 42% of gross.

In a research task never before ac-

reven.ues ji·onz prisoners' phone calls - in complished, Prisoll Legal NeHlS, using

.order to obtain exclusive, monopolistic public records laws, secured prison phone

contracts for prison phone services:

contract information from all 50 states

These contracts are pr:iced not only (compiled in 2008-2009 and representing

to unjustly enrich the telephone compa- data from 2007-2008). The initial survey

nies by charging much higher rates than was conducted by PLNcontributing writ-

those paid by general public, but are er Mike Rigby. with follow-up research by

further inflated to cover the commission PLN associate editor Alex: Friedmann.

paynients, which suck over $152 million

The phone cOlitracts were reviewed

per year out of the pockets of prisoners' to. determine the service provider; the

kickback percentage; the annual dollar

amount of the kickbackS; and the rates

for local calls, intrastate calls

Phone Rate Cbart

16

(within a state baSed.on calls from one Local Access and Transport Area to another,

Editorial .

known as interLATA), and interstate calls

Prisoners' Human

(long distance between states). To simplify 22 tbis survey, only collect call and daytime

Crime Reporting

26 rates were analyzed. . Around 30 states allow discounted

Guantanamo Drugging

28 debit and/or prepaid collect calls, which

Washington Public Records Suit

32 provide lower prison phone .rates (much lower in some cases). However, since other

Texas Parole Audit

34 states don't offer such options and not aU

Maine Private Prison Lobbying

37

. prisoners or their families have access to

debit or prepaid

'only collect

Los Angeles Jail Heat Ray

38 calls - which are available in all prison

Prison Facebook Problems

systems except Iowa's - were compared. 43 Also, while telephone companies some-

Texas Legislator Sentenced New Jersey Bankrolls CEC

46 times provide reduced rates for evening and nighttime calls, many prisoners don't
48 have the luxury of scheduling phone calls

News in Brief

50 during those time periods.. Lastly, it should be noted that more

recent phone rates may now be in effect due

to new

awards or. renewals, and

willie data was obtained from an 50 states,

it was not complete for each category. See

the chart accompanying this article for a

breakdown of the data obtained.

PLN has previously reported on the

egregious nature of exorbitant prison

phone rates, n:otably in OUI' January 2007

cover story, "Ex-:Communication: Com-

petition and Collusion in the U.S. Prison

Telephone Industry," by University of

Michigan professor Steven Jackson.

How Are Phone Rates Regulated?

pomestic phone calls are generally

divided into three.categories: local, intra-

state and interstate. The rates charged for

these calls depend on several factors and

are regulated by different authorities. Lo-
a cal calls are'usually flat-rate within small

area around the call's'oiiginating location;

e.g., within the same city.

Local and intrastate calls are often

regulated by

public utility or ser-

vice coIIllllissions, which set rate caps.

These caps are negotiated to allow phone

companies. to recover capital costs in a

reasonable time frame while also satisfying

requirements levied by the state. The latter

include subsidizing low-income phone us-

ers, providing emergency communications

for state agencies, and providing required

phone coverage (such as emeI'gency-'

reporting phone booths along major

bighways). Obviously, some of these state-

mandated requirements are not in and of

themselves profitable, so negotiation of

rate structures includes recouping these

otherwise nomecoverable costs.

At the interstate level, phone. com-

Prison Legal News

1

. Aplil.2011

Ex C to St. Helen Dec, Pg 2 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 14-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 13 of 21

,

News_,

P.O. Box 2420

West Brattleboro, VT 05303

Change Service Requested

Non-Profit Org., U.S. Postage PAID Portland OR
Permit No. 3142

Subscription Renewal

,

SUbscriptions expire after the issue shown on the label is mailed.

For example, if the label says:' EXPIRES 02/2006, then the sub-

scription expires after the February 2006 issues is mailed. Please

renew at least 2 montp.s before the expiration date. IF THE LA-

BEL SAYS EXP:ums: 04/201Q THIS IS YOURLAST ISSUE.

Please renew :immediately to avoid missing any issues.

of Change Address
If you move or are transfered, ,please
notifyPLN as soon as possible your
issues can be mailed to your new ad- , dress! PLN only accepts
for sending anissue to the address provided at the time an issue is mailed!

1jJf/,

,

,

CA$HFFOORRYYOOUR STAMPS

"Get the HIGHEST REIMBURSEMENT RATES for ALL ofyour stamps

.

, from the ONLY stamp service continuously serving inmates for 9 years.

WE BUY COMPLETE AND PARTIAL BOOKS, SHEETS, STRIPS

AND ROLLS O;F ALL

O]f

" POSTAGE STAMPS IN GOOD CONDITION

Within 24 Hours we will send a Mon-ey'

or Electronic Payment

to 'wherever you

or we will pay an approved vendo'r for a package or gift.

*
of Face Value (33¢ per stamp) for Forever stamps in complete books or sheets

ofFace Value for 44¢ stamps in complefe books, sheets, strips or rolls

of Face Value for 44¢ stamps in .partial books, sheets or strips (minimum 4 each) of Face Value for all other denominations or stamped envelopes

SEND FOR FREE BROCHURE"
(ThIs Void where prohibited Y slale reguralions)

* SPECIAL RATES FOR PLN SUBSCRIBERS - CLIP & SEND THIS AD TO:

CLN, P.O. Box 687-PN,

GA91789

Or visit OUR Website: www.cash4urStamps.cpm

Ex C to St. Helen Dec, Pg 3 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 14-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 14 of 21
EXHIBITD
Ex D to St. Helen Dec, Pg 1 of 8

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 14-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 15 of 21

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights

P.q. 2420, W Brattleboro, vr 05303 *it ph: (802) 257-1342 fax: (866) 735-7136

www..prisonlegalnews.org

PLN@prisonlegalnews'.org

RE: Your PLN sUbscription expires with the July 2011 issue.

Dear Subscriber:

We are letthig you lmow that one more issue remains to be mailed on your sUbscription to Prison Legal News. 'We hope you are pleased with the information that PLN is providing you on a monthly basis, and hope you intend to renew your sUbscription. Renew now and take advantage of our 2, 3 or 4-year subscripti?n

•.-:. __. '. _., .-- ._.. -......._. _......- ..... -.

at $4& and you will receive

of24 issued PLUS 2 extra

1

r-:

--...: _.. - -.--..:---....-.-.-----

C1 Renew.for.thre,e_y-ears..at$1.2 and y.ou .wiIl.r.ecei:ve 4. extra..

(40..i?slJ.(f.s.totalj QR-yeup,ohoice

,'. :," 'ciPtdfecting Your Health and 8qJety (a $10 value!). Please

brochure for a

'

" : :de[)criptlon:pfthis-{joofC: - . -_ ......_.... ,- . - .. _. .. -." . -.. . , ...... " . ., .

g Renew for four years at $96 and you will receive 6 eidra issues (54 issues total) OR your choice

of With Libertyfor Some (an $18.95 value!), or Prison Profiteers (a $24.95 valuel). Please see PLN's

book brochure for a description ofthese books.

-

We hope you decide to renew now so that your PLNsubscription will not be interrupted. We look to ,hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,

Paul Wright Director

The following form can be used to pay by credit card

Print Name 9n Caarrdd:.:_._-_'--__
.

.L. . . _ ____::::-:__----_-;----------::-------:--:------:-__-:_-:-:_-_'-:_-__-':__:.____:__:__:_:_:_:__::_:_:____c::___------

I

a total of$

,

.

to my credit card.:

'?lKj :'/ H:

'-oF1;.

!:..

P.o. News, P.o. Box2420, W

VT 05303 ph: (802)

fax:' .(866) 735-7136. Prison Legal News is a 501(0)(3) non-profit and donations are deductible in accordance with tax. laws.

Ex D to St. Helen Dec, Pg 2 of 8

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 14-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 16 of 21 Ex D to St. Helen Dec, Pg 3 of 8

Order Form
AI1llUrchases must 1m pre-paill. Prisoners can puY-with
new stamps (strips po'oks) or pre-stamped cnvel?pes.

(3 &4yrSuhscrlptionSpeainIs: CffiCLE oncbook.ru:honUSlsSUC5, nndDONOT add SIH)

Protecting Your Health and Safety

m: 4 Bonus Issues (S-Yl'

offer)

$ Amt.

Prison Profiteers.m;: With Libertyfor Some
m: 6 Bonus Issues (4.yr subscdption offer)
Book Total (inc. books bought separately) Add 6% sales 'tax for Vermont residents only
ADD $6.00 StH to book ordcre1JNDER $50

PLN Subscriptions

6-month Subscription, (Prisoners only)

1 y:r Subscription (1:2 issucs)

2 yr

(24 plus 2 Bonus

3 yr Sub (Circle bonus hook nbove.ru:4 Bonus issues)

4.. y.r Sub (Cirolc bonus booh: nbove.ru: 6 Bonus issues)

Sample Issue - $3.50 each

TOTAL Amonnt Enclosed:

Send to;
Name: DDOOCC##:: ___ ______________
AgencylInst: _ ___________ _ __________ __

4.dili:ess: City/State/Zip: _ ___________ _ ____________

MAlL PAYMENT AND THIS FORM TO: ,
Prison Legal News
P.O . .sox 2420
Brattleboro, VT 05303

PLN Subscription Rates

Subscription Rates 1 yr 2 yrs Syrs 4 yrs

*

$24 $ 48 $ 72 $ 96

Individuals

$30.$ 60 .$ 90 $120

Professionals

$80 $160 $240 $320

(Lawyers, govt. & professional agllncies, libraries, eta.)

Sample jssue for any.one -'$3.50 each'll

Six-month prisoner subscription for $12*

:{I Prisoners canpay withneW fust-class stamps (stl:ips or books

only)

alloLued bypmol7.policies.

:- - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - '- :

I·

I

I 2 years - 2 bonus issues, for 26 monthly issues total.

I

:,3 years ,- 4 bonus issues (40 total) q:k;Fratecnng YourHealth and I

t Safeo/ (sea hook,description on the other side ofthis hroohure).

:

: 4ycnre - 6bonusjssues (54 total) ORRyyoouurrechhooiice ofWUhLihert;yfor I

.

_ _ _ _:

New 301' 4-Year Subscription Boo,k Offers!

Subscribe or :renew for three'years at the regular price .($72 for prisoners & $90 for individualsJ, and receive as a FREE honus, Protecting Your Health and Safety .Q! fooUuIt' bonus issues of 'PLN! (40 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.
Subscribe or renew for four years at the regular price ($96 fox'prisoners & $120 for individuals), and receive as a FREE honus, Prison:Projfiicteers .!ll: With Libertyfor
'Soine, m: 6 honus issues of PLNI (54 monthly issues
total). Indicate your choice on the Order Foxrm.

NO shipp:i:ug charge for subscription honus booksl

NOTE: I£you 1vnnt'the honns issues ofPLN iJ;lStead of the free book offer, please indicate that on the Order Form.

:------ U;£0;pi,N;-s iistl-.-----

I I

Y

ou

oan

huy

dozens

of legal,

social

commentary,

I
self-I

: help hooks, and legal and :regula.+' dictionaries directly:

I from PLN's hook storel Ask us for a hbook list, or -view:

: ouxr·selection online at:

I

1 _ I

_

_

_

_

_

_w_w_w_.p_ri_so_n_Ie_ga_I_ne_w_s._o_rg_/s_to_re_.a_sp_x_

_

_

_

_

_

_ :

Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-251-1342
Or buy books and subscrIptions online at

I 1·
":;:

•• I:l

:b3nus ..:.... \ : '1: ...;0.:1•1,,:

t -.0"" .: ,':
., f :

::: ;"

p1aced :

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights

PLN is a

ofthe

HZt1!Lan Rights Defense Center

'Eastern State Penitentiru.'Y 1829-1971
Charles Dickens visited Philadelphia's Eastern State Penitentiary in 1842 and he later w:rroote: "The System is rigidt striot and hopeless' ... alid I . believe it to he cruel and :,vrong....I hold thi6 slow and daily tampering 'with the mysteries of hbrain to be immeasuxrabhly worse than any tuuJr:e of the hody." The prison :lr'eemained open foo:r 129 years after Dickens condemned it as heing barbaric, and 50me of its :inhumane praotioes continue to he used in,prisons nationwide.
P.o. Box 242Q, Brattleboro, VT '05303
• mvw.pdsonIegalnews.org ,

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 14-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 17 of 21 Ex D to St. Helen Dec, Pg 4 of 8

! 8g I

P rison Legal

an ID:dependent, non-profit

56-page monthly pUblication that reports, re-

views and analyzes court rulings and news

to

and prisoners'rights prison lssues. PLN h,as national

(U.S.) focus on state, federal and plivate prison issues,

with some

coverage as well.

PLN's many thousands of subscribers and readers
include CM and, criminal tcial and appellate attorneys,

judges, puhlicdefenders, joUrnalists, academics, para'legals, pliso,ners' ,rights activists, students, family

members of prisoners, concel'ned individuals, poIlticians, other goverriment officials, and numerous local,

state and federal prisoners nationwide. ,

'

PLN is a vital :Ifuk for

who otherwis'e don't

have access to current legal and prison-:relate9. news

and lnformation.

res'aurce"for

about

:,:' '"prisonerS;iil.:tJie'United

. "

P LN's coverage

issues includes medical

neglect, disoiplinary hearings, nutrition, living

conditions, excessive force, court access, censorship,

j,ail, litigation, visiting, telephones, religious :Er:eedom,

free speech, prison rape, mental health, attorney!

client access, sexual abuse of -w:omen prisoners, re-
taliation, the PLRA, HIV and hap C, control units,

the death pe:ualty, attorneyfees and much

PLN Snbsm"iptiOli

Prisoners: $12 6 months, $24 per

*

Non-incarcerated individuals: $30 per year

Law firms; govt. agencies and libraries: $80 per year

Sample issue for

$3.50 each* "

., Prisoners can pay with 'new

or

. - ..... ----- ....... .

envll]opes

E ach mont1ily issue of: types of reporting:

includes:tbree different

o A cover story on a prison-related issue.

o Reports on individual and class-action prison and j<j.iI.-: related lai'lsmts when they are. filed; when a -judgIl,lent is, entered or the case settles, and when an a,ppellate COUl't decision is issued. We ruso have prlson-rclated,news artiCles,

o .A. "News In Brier' section news stories across the U.S. and

il1tercsthIg '

Each issue of PLN also contains

ndvertls'ements

from businesses that provide prlson-xelated pel'sonal 'and

legal scrviccs and booIts. PLN 'further sells dozell5' of self-

' ".

PLN also has cumulative suJb;ljjeecc't and case cite indexes:for all PLN,:issues £r:o:n 1990 through 2004. Wxite jp,fo.

,SuJ1Scrip:.II::iioo:;nn ,Q£fer!

Free with a 3-year PLN suhsedption! Four bonu6 issues of PLN (40'issucs totaall)).!!QEE.. a.'free book, Protecting Your Health cmd Safetyl Circle your bonus choice on tlle form. on. 'the other side of t1rls brochUl'e (3-year subscription rates: prisoners $72, individuals $90, pro£feess:ionals $240).

Protecting Your Health and Safety, hby 1.I..'.r.-',-,:--..-.-.-:,-.:.:.-.-.....,,.-,.,..1j

Robert E. Toone. Puhblished hby the South-

ern Poverty Law Center, 325 pages (2009).

$10.00 (frec with a a-year sub!). This book

explains some hbasic rights that prisoners

have in a jail or prison in the U.S. It deals

mninly with rjghts xelatecl,to lienlth and ! ! " ' I

safety, such as communicable iliseases and abuse hby

pxiBon officials; it also

how you can enforce YY00uull''

rights to health and safety ivithin the fa.cility and, if nec-

essary, in cOUIt through litigation. Buy separately: _ _

:' You Can Buy These,Books Separatelyl !

1
:Ifyou don't

1 I
to pUl'ohase ll.,3 or 4-year subscription:

: to PLN, you can still purchase any of the honus hooks.:

: at the xegular price. Just :indioate which books you ";vant :

: to buy on this page, then enter tlle total cost on the other:

: !lide of this brochm:e on the "Book Total" line of tlle Ox-I

: del' Form. Shipping is $6 per order (n.ot per hook), and we:

1offer FREE sbipping on Eook orders of $50 or more! To :

: place a phone order, piease· call 802-257-1342. We also:

!..._---------,..._..:_----------'-----------______ : accept book orders online, at www.prisonlegalne.·Iw.Ss.org. :
' - - - - - - - - - - - , . . . _ . . : _ - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - - - ______1I

D Rights

is 'a project

non-profit Human

Center. YYOOuull'' tax-deductible doua-

tions

o:ur advocacy, free speech a;ncl First Amend-

ment litigation

on beh# o£.prisoners and publish-

ers. PLN not ouly provides uncenusored prlson-related news,

but actively contests 'prison ,censorship thilt interferes ivitt'h

the delivery OOuull'' publication or' any other PLN materla1s

sent to prisoners• .AJl donationus further OUI goal, of

ing for people imp.risoned in U.S. detentionfacilities.

"Great sO,urce ofinforrnation,

in states such,as

Arizona wherethe law libraries have eeeo'taken from

the

and replaced with paralegals."

-SB, Arizona prisoner

\'

Subscription

"

Free with a 4-year PLN sulJscciptionl Six ,bonua

of

PLN (54 issucs total) .!!1: one fl'ce book, With

for

Some Q£ Prison PrC!fiteersl Cirole your honus ohoioe oalnl.

the form on the other side of this brochure (4-year' sub-

soription rates: prisoners $96, :individuals $120, profes-

sionals $320). Note: Free book option is for .Qilll. book:

With Liberty for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in. Amerioa. hy Scott Chrlistiansolnl, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages (1998). $18.95 (free with. a 4-yonr stili!)., .AA. classio hbook and the best overall history of the Amerioan prison system from 1492 to the 20th Century. Well written and fact filled. .A. must-rIead fox understanding how little things have ochlinged Os far as prisons go in the U.S. over hundreds ofyoars. Buy separately: _ __

.Q1:

Prison Profiteers: Who Makes lVloney

from Mass Incarceration, edited by Paul

Wright & Tara RHenrivveeIl, Ne1'v Pxess (2007).

$24.95 (fl.'ee "Il'ith a 4-ycl!l-' sub!). This :is

the third in a series of PLN ari..thologies

that examines the :reality 9f mass imprison-

ment in the U.S. PrisonProfitcarsls unique

from other books on the m'!l'ket

it exposes and

disousses who profits and benefits from mass imprison-

ment, rather than who, is harmed hby the prison :industrial

complex and OOuull'' nation's reliancc on over-incarceration.

Buy separately: ___'

'

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 14-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 18 of 21 Ex D to St. Helen Dec, Pg 5 of 8

All purchases must he

can pay with

new first-class stamps' (stcipa or books, no singles) or .
pre-stamped envelopeS, ifalloweif. byprison policies.

•: t

Book Title / Numbell

Qty Total Cost

are (attach ll.Uother page ifyou ordering more books)"

SuhtQtal: Add 6% sales tax for VT residents pruy: Add $6.00 to orders UNDER $50; Total Order Amount:

Send to:

Name:

DOC#:

AgencylInst:

Address: CCiittyy//SSttaattee//ZZiipp:: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

MA.IL P AY.lImNT AND THIS FORM. ToO:

i Prison Legal News

. Box 2420

.

VT 05303

Purchase by phone with.a Visa or MasterCard

Or buy b.aaks,and ?ubscriptions onllne at
. www.pr.isonlegalnews.org .

FREE SHlPPll'fG

On.book and mdex orders OVER $50.001

A$6shlppIDg clmrgeapplies to all othel:

inuex o1l1els.

(Free shlppiDg 110licy in cffoct from J01111, lUllil furthor notice)

More Books for Sale!

Prisoners'

Litigation Manual., updilted 4th (2010). 'by John

Boston nnd Daniel Mnnville, Oxford Univ: P!1!S5, 1500 pngl!S.

The

n I I I premiere, must-have ".Bible'" of prison lituigntuion for cum:nc nnod nspidng Jnil-
house l:lw)'m. Ifyou pllUl to lltigme prlson Ot jnIl civil suit:;

thiissbbooool;l:,iissnammuuscsc-h-hlLave.

1077 ....L- _ ._ .....J.....__ _ __ _----''__

Prisoners' Guerrllln

to Corrcspondenc.c

in the U.S.

and Crnunllaldna. updated 3Id cd. bl' ] on M!U:c Taylor, Ph.D. nnd edited by Susan

Schwnrtzkopf, published by PLN, 221 pnges.

Wdtten by Ivnssourl

prisonerJon tvrnrc Tnl'Il.or, obtninC!d a :B.S.

rut M.A. degree nnd a

Doctomte; the Guerrilltt HttlfdlJook contains contact informatdiqn nnd dcscrip.

I I tionos of high school, vocatdiona.l,. pnmlcgnl nnod college cOutSCS av:illablc
through correspondence study. Grent resource four prisoneJ:S1

who '\VIUl t to funhcr the.lt education.

1057
'-------''-' -------'

Protecting Your Ecnlth.nnd Safety, by Robert E: Toone; Southem Poverty

I.aw· Centm; 325 pages.

TJUs book explains bns!c rights thnt prisoners

have in a jail or prison in the U:S. It

witlt .rriigghhts

to hea.lth

= nnd sqfety, such lIS communicablc..

nnd abuse bl' poeson ollicinIs; it also

explains hoo\wV you enfOlce }'oW:'rigqtS:within the fucility 1 I .. I

and, jfneccssru:.l', in court through)itigntibn.

lOGO . . .

.

Slmtlng Out! The Compleu;'ke-En;;'

edited by Wt1linm H.

Foster, PhD. & Curl E. Hom,·Ph:D.••:.StnJ::dti.ng aOuut Inc:., '\4G pnges. $22.95.

Complete do.it-j-outSe.lf Ie.ent9' .riu!nunl and workbook four prisoners who

= I I 'wnant to clr:wclop thc:k own

to increase. thc:k t:hnncl!S of success

nfier they Ielcnsed. IncludecS·it wide "nPe!;}' of rl!Sourccs, indudIDg n user

:ode.to the Stnrting aOuut

follOW-I

Ingre.lesse.

.. ". :: .' .:" •

1074 L L......_.....J1.._ _-1l ..

Ja.il.housc Lawyers: Pdsoners Defending l?rlsom:rs v. the U.S.A., by

Muntin. Abu Jamal, City Lights Publishets, 280 pages.

IInI jl1ilhullJe LLo1I/Jl}}..

jerI, P.dson I.egnl News columnist, nWtlll:l-wl.nnling loknnlist lMlI1d deathh--xtow

prisoner Mumill Abu:Jnmnl presents the storiecs lninod reflections of fellow pris-

I I oners-turned-advocates who have lcamed to usc the court system to represent
other prison!!rs, nnod in some c:ISI!S llnvC:won thc:k· fu:edom'l .

Must-read four jailhouse law)'l!rs\'

1073 ....__.-..'._J_'-_ __ --_ '__

How to Win Your Person:!l Injw;y C!:ilip, by Atty. Joseph Mntthews. 7th

edition, NOLO PP!!CeSsSs, pngl!S.

While not specific:nlil)' for prison-

relilted peJ:SonnI inllltJ' CIlSCS, this book

comprehensive infuormnatdion

I I' I 001l.110WW to hilndle personnl iojilrt)' and property damage drums ru:ising from

:ccidents -

dcnling with doctoJ:S, attorneys and

InSUI!Ulce complUllces.

1075 _-L..._ _...... 1L.-..._

.....' - - _ - - ' .

":- -':-1

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights

PLN is aproject ofthe

Hz£m.an Rights Defense

.

2010 PLN BOOK LIST

Prices Subject to Change Without Notice .

:

:

Grnl'We from: Boarts 2 rri5DOc.rB, Ynncouvcr, B G

P.O. Box 2420, Brattlebol'o, VT 05303 302-257-1342 II

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 14-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 19 of 21 Ex D to St. Helen Dec, Pg 6 of 8

Check the box of.the .boolcs·,y.ot;.wflllt to. buy. and use the Order Form on the other side ofthls brochure in .add up the cost ofyour order. FREE SHIPPING.for)?op1cand:4ldexorders OVER $50.

I I I Wtiting to Whl:·Tlie I.egal Writer, bfSSii!!\;Cii D.'SSIIlIlk, Bioad\Vlly-:Books/.Rnndam·

· Hauussee., 283 pages.

E.\}llhins the

dfrif:teci\'c complninlS,

· respooses, b.r:iclS, motions pod othertI,egnl papClS. •

1035 "

. •

There is a $6 shipping cbarge for all other boole andindex orders.

Tom Frison Frofitt:cm, cditI:d by Paul W.tightnnd Hcivcl, 323 pages, $24.95. nus is

II "'i1 thiDJnndlntJ:stbookin

nntbologies lhac=mlnes the=lity of

m1SS imprisanment in Ametitll. (I11e oiher rides nre The OIQII,gtj'Alllaifl1 &PriroJ1NahOIl,

=.bocl,w). f"m,""",";, ""''"l"'' Jlimmmn W,;" b""""""",k"

who profits nod benefits litlm rbnss impdsoamenlj miher ihlln who is

hntmedb}.jtnndhow.

101E

I I I PcisonNatiore The Wrux:housing ofAm'iriC3!a Foar, cditI:dby TnmHccivcl.nod F:1ul
W.r:iglu; 332pages. PIN nntholog)' exposes dled-u:k side ofIhe

Actual Innocence:

Goes Wrong:iDd How to Mnlcelt RIght, updnred .'

·

cd., b)l' Bru:tj· Scheerr.!):, 1'ci& NWfcld nnd Jinl Dww}}'C'cGr; 403 pnges.

.

FOUlldexs of the Innoceace Projl!d:

how o:iminnl. dcfc:ndanlS, nIl! wrongly con-

victI:d on.nItgUln.t basis.,:&plains DNA testing-nod llow itwacl:s to 6:cc thc innocent:.

c:Iitique ot:police I!lld

miscondud: nnd,.the.1 ·1

I

5}'litc!nthntensuressuchnbusesconnnuc;.' : ' ' . ',.1100330 .....__' l.... ..L....._ __ _--1'..

Rogel'S .,Thesaurus, 717 page;. $8.?5. you tlu:pghtword for what

· l'OU want to say. 11.000 words listed

mtll O\'er 200,000 synoo}'IIls

I I' I · itnd nntonyms. Sampltl!l sentences IIp.d pru:i.S of speeclJ .shown .for t!\'CI}' main word. Covers nIl levels of voclloul:tr:\' :otOod identifies in.f?rmnl

and ssllnang wwoords.

....

1045 ....__. 1.... .J......._ _ _ _--1I.

the U.s.

104411..1\.....:...--11..__...::....---1.

WcbstCl!;'S English Dictionary, NClwl)'

nnp updated, Randam Ht?usll.

I; I ' I. The Qilling of.Amedc:I, cditI:d bl"DnnielB=nli.ose, Diln P= nndl:'aul W.r:igIUj 264

pages,

nnulologj· prcsC!!1S a ddniled

look nc the "

wotkiogsoflhe:Ametit::lllc:Iiroin;ujustic:cSysIl::m.

1001 . . .-l. l...._ - ' - ._ _

Evetyday Letters for Busy People, jJy Debra Hnrt 1vfny, 287 pages. $18.99.

I I Hundreds afsnmple letreIS thOlt cnn be edapt\!d fot roost nny putpose, Including

l:ttCtS to

ngeocies and offic;inls..Has numerous I

.1

tIps forWDElng effuctIve

. '. . . . ,

1048

lL......._ _ - - , , - - . ._ _ _ _--- ' .

I " I lji8.95. 75,000+ CIltries. Inclluuddce:s tips on w.citing :uid ward usnge, nnd has up-
dnt:d geographicnl nnd' ijiogtnphic:tl 'entries. Includes recent! '

bUuSsllOlesSs nnd compun:r term..

1033. . . .

I' I I, CapItal Crimes, by George \Vnnslo\v, 1vIoridtli, Review, 360 pages. $19:00.
· E""Plnins how economic policil:!s crentc nnd foster crime, nod

baw corpomtc & gove.rament t:timeJs rnrcll' punished. 1024

.

With Liberty for Some: 500 Years

.A!mrnee··ddcca, by Scatt·

Clu:istillIlsoo, NOIthenste.ra UniyeJ:Siq' Press,. 372 pages. $18.95. The best

The Ctimin;d.,Law Eandboolc MOW Your Rights, Survive the System, by

Anom(!j's. Paul :Becgm:;n &

P=s, GOB pnges.

Explninswlmt hnppensin a cW,nio:U cnse from bcing=tz:d to sentencing., nnd whnt
an your rights are at each stnge l:!f thepract:SS. Uses ca5j' to undcr-I

'OVClmll histo.cy of dIe Amedcnn pi:ison Sl'stCIll li:bm 1492 through the 20th

I' 1 I: Centw:}·'. Well written nnd fuect".fillc::d. A must-rend fat undCJ:Smndlng how little
dliogs 'hOlve clmnged lIS fnr :15 pdsoas go in the: 1!'S; over

hundreds ofy=.

. '.. 1026..

.

stnnd question.nnd.nnswer fonn:l!:., . :. :.

.' .'' 1038 '-._--'-_ _--' 1..._--'-_ _--'

RIlpresentYoursclffu Court;

&'Tty a Winning Case, b}'

Attomeys Pnul Becgmrui & Sam]. ':Bcan;i'ri-;B!!=Ui Nolo PIeSS, 52B pages.

Brcnks dawn the civil ttinl process in C:ns}'-to-unde.rstnJld steps so yau cnn efICctivcly

represent

in

TIle authors

cCoOuurttt,l1IO10WW to Sn}'lt; etc.

"

what ta say in I I

1

1037 LL....__.-..'I..l.-._ -_-_ --J.....J,,

Ten Men Dead: The stoty of the

stdke., by D;nooiidd'B'Ble!Ir:es-

fard, Adnntic Mondu)l' Press, 334pnges.lji1G.95. Inside stoJ!:)j' of I I

1

IRA: prisoners nt:Belfast's Long Kesh poson. • 1DOG

:.....:

I . I I' · I'inding the Right Lawyer, b}' ]ey Foonbc,rg, ABA, 256 pnges. $19.95. E"'xplniqs how to dC!tcrmine y.our legal needs, to evnlunte n

In\II}'c:t's qunlificatians, fcc pnyl'IrInlents, nod ·'mote.

1

. . . l... _. ....J.'-_--I.

I Law Dietionru:y, Rnndom Hause WebStel:'s, 5ZS pages. $19.95. Comprehensive ur
to-dnte law diction;lI:y" c.''Plnlns . more than 8,500 legcl 1:I!mIS.,
Caverscivil, c:dmimu,commctd:t1.&¥1tCIll<!tionnll'l\v. • 103G 1..L.._ _-- I.'.-.. ._ __ _....J

I I Thll Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, by]nne Strous, 110 pages.

$14.95. A guide to grammar nnd, punctuntioo by nn educator

I

-...I! with c:..'Peclencc: tCllclliogEngUsh to pcisonCtS. . . 1046 1 \......._--,,_ _

I.egru Reseru:clJ: How to F.ind

the'Law, by Stephen Elias nnd

..Sr:lze the Dayl 7 Steps to .Achieving·the Extraordinary .in an Ordinaty

Wadel, by Dnnn)' COl>

Hoaver., 2S6 pnges;

Pro\'ides 7 steps

I I I" ta clJllIIging your ll.'Pectntlons pild envjs!anlng l'ow:scif ns bcing'n succClisfu!
and Iespected pClIlion-whlc!t 15s eCslss¢¢ttiinnl" tq. clllOanOggiinng

caurse ofone's life.

. 1052. .

. .

of Women Behind BaraJ, The Cdsls
5lIlja].A. Tnalvi, Senl.P.tcee5sSs, 2!JS pnges.
, .issues related .to imposone,d wamen,

the U.S. Foson Syst!1-ID. by •

I ." :B'ee.st book n.vvanllinnbbllte! thl1t covers

on intervie:ws

."

I I I SusnnLmriokiod, 5GB pages. $49.99. Comprehensi\'e and C:ns}' to understnnd guide
ao researching the Inw. Explains CIse Inw, stllttuu!tle!Ss nnd digests,

nnd rmnucll more.1ncludes prm:ticl:! e,..c:rcises.

1059 __.-. 1L...... -.!'.._ l--_ _---Jl..

· hundreds ofwomen bcillind b a r s . ,
S(e!ccrets to :1. $15.99. Roadmup on haw ta n job ,evcf;!

. 1066. 1L.....

_ _..J.

216 pages. ndverse circumsUtnlI1lces-IIlke

I I I Deposition Handbook, by Paul Bergman llIld :Albea: Moore, Nolo Ptl!SS, 352

pages"

fo:- :m?:one:who' con.ducts a

or15 golOg to be deposCrl. •' ': .'

1054 __.. LL..... ....11._ _-...1.

I I I Spnnlsh-English/EnnggUlish-SpahlSli:

ltnndam House. :18.95. Two

sections, Spanish-English nndd_:[3ngJ!7h-Sp,nanisl}. 60,000+ cntItiles

from A to Zjilln1cclluudl!!) Westc.mai

1034 ...J L...__-- I.'.-.. ._ _ _ _-I.

Please Noro:.All and index·'aoIIddeert.S;; me maned v.ia the U.S. Postal

then: with

anyres.Pon-

sihilityto roplncll beak orilic16c'orllcci oook then: de1i:Very to the dcreessti-

Cfac.!lity.}

Uu..sS.. Postal Service.

I bcing nn e,,,;:-can. Includes how to, develop n winning

write attention-

· .gtnbbing resumes, prepnre far inten1ews', networltiog, how to 1 I

1

· present yoU.t strengths ta nn

ennd.:nucll morel. 1056..

..

I The ·Folitics of Heroin: CIA Complicity m Glob11l Drug TIradce, 2003

·Ed. by Alfred McCoy, 734 pagces.

Documented C),-pose 1 .,.. I

of dle government's

in drug trmnf5clclng.

1014 _.L._ _--l. 1l.-...._

....._ _- - ' .

nod in

Cdsis, By Ou:istinnP=ti,

pages. 2!l0 ·$1!l.00. J\muyzes the ,viu: on: tbe poor '>in thte! airninnl juslicri

WcelIl

ennd includes fitst-l1nnd .tepot:ting. CO\'l!rIS pdsaos., p;axmm·'11 1

.

. 1002 ......_ 'L..._ .• ....l....,_ _ _ _-....'J

He'patitis and LiverDiseasc: WhatXouNeed to 1tn0w, by Mclissn Pnlmc:t; MD,

457 pngcs. $17.95. Descc::iibblc!5s symptoms &'!lre:ltmcfllS ofbcpalitis B & C nod olher

liver diissCe!n:ls5ees. Includes medic:uionS to !lv'oid, wwIIlllliiee diet to foulJlow\v'., 1 I

,.

(!)iercises to pcrfonn, nnd n bibliogrnph)'.

.. . . 1031 '.' ... ..

Crime and Punishment In Am;mt;n,.b);.E!liortlt:CCuunniiee.,·2.30 $1G.9S.Effi:ctivec

I ,.. I' .1 rebutltllta right-wing propoaents afpci.so!l bLiillddiinog.

rugument shows. dint

dm;:n. aim!: is

by PO\'l:tt}:.

ptison

nod.

, ,..

provc:n,clf='1:mc:ansof=cptcVtl1uon.:

.

1019.., ' .

l'rison Madness: Thll MClntal Health Cdsis Bi:hind 'Bamr.s; nnd what WI:!

Must Do About It, b)'Teo:y KupcertS,Jossey-Bnss., 2:l-S pages. Hrudbflck only,

prisoners plllODSlllel .include nny rcquirlld Iluthocizatiop. form.lji3Z.95,. PpsyclUa-.

u.s. I' 1 tItilst writes llbout til!: tmuentnl henalth in U.s. prisons nnd jnils, CovetS all

aspects of mcnctl. illnC!Ss, prison .I2p.f7 ncgativeccIfc;cts of 100g-1

1

term isolation in controlunits, and more... .'

1 10030....0 _.I. 3 . . . .._ _-'.

roson Writing in 20th Centuty Aniee.rciiccaa;b}' H. Bruce Franklin, Penguin

I /.' . I Books, 3li8 pnggce:s. $lG.OO. From Jack London to Gearge ]ecl,son, tills
anrholagr provides n selection af-some af·the best wtiting

describinglife belliod hbillttSs in Amccrr:licn.

102.2 .L......__ ....._ _-'. ....._ _-'.

r I Soledad Brothct: The FdsonI.cttCIS of George Jaclcsoo, by Gcorge]ncksan,

Lawrence HlIl Books., 339 pages,. lji1B.95.

eCh)-,-ppllnnnnntion af rllle: Jblities of

prison by It well·known prison nc:cciivisl:. More rcIcvnnt now thnn

. 1016

Mndjuana Law, bit' IUclmrtd Boire,

p;tgc:S, $17.95. :&.:mincs how to

re:dlUC1: the prtaooobllity ofru±estnnd proserutlioo for.peopleea:used of·the usc; sale or

possession af mimlunon. Jrlfu on leg.rl

se:uch & sci%utcs, I I

1

SswIll::vIe'e..iilllnnnnccee,,nnssssee.r:foucl'citllrellDOd dtugrestiog;

100B . .' .

WOJ:Se Than Slavecry.: PnichmanFOIJll and the prdcn1 afJIlll CrowJustice, by

I I David Oshinslty, 30G

$11GG.(.](O]O•.A,Annnniiyyssiiss

lnboc's IDOlS in slavery.,

Focuses on prison plnntntiaes annd self..ssuussttnniinning·prisoos lbile usc I I

1

prisonL1bor.

'. '.',

1007 L.,-...,,--..........._ __ _-..-.'I.

No Equ11l Justice: Race and Class .in the Ametican Cciminal Justice

SystllIIl, by David Cole,'Thc Nl.·w l'teSs, 218 £leges:

haw the

o:imlnual justice S5}'litem peqrpjetunates mele! and class inequnlity, 1 I' 1

a:endtinnggnn. two.tiee.rcdS)j'Sstlem ofjustice. . . '

'102.8"

. .

The Poson :md the Gallows: The"Polities of Muoss Incraur:cceerrndon in

I Amedca, by 'Mru:ic GOttscllnlit, CnmmbhcciiddggccUUnnivivl!c1rOoityl' Press, 451 .t:mges.

.$2.9.99. Grent political anaulyl'sis of the con£hiencc of events 1

I

Icnding to 2..3 million people beliind bD.¥' in dIle. U:S. 10G9 L _ ... ..I-.._ _--'.

Thhee. Habeas Citebooh:: IDeffeeccttiivvee. :Assistnnce of

by ]B3r.:mdon

Snmple, PLN Publislliog, 200 pnges: lji49.95. TItis is PLN's second published
I I I book, whicll cxclusiveJ}' cavers ineffactl\'(l nssistnnce of counsel-·related
issues I1n0 fedemllmbcns petitions. Grent ·resource for habens

Urignrion. iUld contnins hundreds ofcase cltesl

1078.. . .

Fnctor 8 (DVD), n film by Kell}' D.udn, Coocrete Films.

Movie

I I: I nbout dle AtHnnsas prison

scnndnl., In wh.icll prisan omceints sold

Infected blood h:u:vesrted, fram

Note: TJ1.is jg a

DVD and cannot be shipped to

'

107G .' . • .

PLN Cumulative Indcx.ji22.50 e:aicll. J?.tN 4rticle

detnIled

infarmntion Olbaut all PLN nrut:ttiicclles, incJu.d!ng n1;lthoc, issue, pege
tapics. covered, clqltions, nnq if it is stoete., :BOP or jnil specific. Cnn be

scru:clled on over 506 subjects such.as.mcedicual [b,e indc.'((cs) you ru:e orde.rlntr. 1990-l,995;

I I"' SC-\-unl nssault. Circlce
1999-1

2001, 2002-2004. (mon;.Iecen,tindeJ:cs noottyyetc"ta"valvlanbillea)ble).."

..

All

ate soft cover except P.tison Ma.dness

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 14-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 20 of 21

..

T he Habeas·Citeboolc: . Ineffective Assistance of . Counsel is the first in a

., Ii The

Citeboolc is a

nifty and

self-help

ofbo.olC$ by Prison Leg?1.

guide for prisoners seeking

. ,

to

habeas

on' claims of

.. prb:-s:e"prisoner'1itigarits identify·

. ineffective assistance of counsel.

.and raisejriable

for pciten-.

Navigating the' complex and

.' .,ti?J.

corpus rellef. 'Ihls

treacherous

of habeas

book is an invaluable resource

law is neveJ; easy; but claim-

that identifies hundreds of cases

ing that your lawyer·screwed up

.

the federal courts l;1ave

.is.even more difficult - espe-

granted habeas reliefto prison-

cially from the

of an

ers :vhose attorneys provided inef- i}.emoI?-sf;rate formatting and. show ill-equipped prison law library.

fective assistance of counsel.

how to frame a winning· argu-

"Brandon Sample has pro- .'

it will

litigants

ment that will persuade a court. to grant habeas relief The Habeas

vided an amazing aJ:!.d much-

needed tool for

who

Citebqok explains the proce-

are forced to seek relief on their

of research and itfocus'es on the

dural substantive complexities offederal habeas corpus litigation with'the goal ofidentify-

own. The boole is thorough; but' simple .,and readable. It starts with a wonderfullywell-orga-

WINNING cases criminal defendants need to

ing and litigating claims involving nized listing ofhundreds of dif-

:iIi:effective 'assistance of counsel:

fef:'ent types ofineffective,.

Brandon Sample is::-a-=--=ss=uu-==--c-c=-c=--=c'es=-=-"ss---s,---',l-ttan"=""'c""'e counsel, serfottli in the

successfully 'challenge fulja.ilhouse lawyer litigant incar- form of dtatioI!.s to court rul-

their. convictions .....

in the Bureau of Prisons., ings - a novel

that

. He is a Prisorz Legal News contrib- not only'acts as a springboard

Well orgaDized into 52 cpn- . ., uting writer and a member of the

for further research qut also

qse

this easy to use book National

Guild. Editor

the prisoner countless .

puts the law at the reader's fin-

Susan Schwartzlcopfhas a mas-

hours ofpreliminary research:'

o gertips.:The Appendix includes and forms f!om suc-

ter's q.egree in education and is . .
the director and editor in chief of

PETER SCHMIDT

cessful habeas corpus cases that.

Prison Legal News Publishing.

Publisher. Punch & Jurists

THE HABEAS CITEBOOK:

ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

m

By Brandon Sa)TIple

Number of copies ordered __._ Amount enclosed _ _ _ __

.,8.,..2:S"·,x 10.75",. G?24 pages .' By:·'·D check 0 new postage stamps D credit card D money order m

978-0-9.819385-1-6 ., . Name .

$49-95

- - = ' - -. -. -' -' - - -' -' - - - - - - - - - - -. ,.,,-, - -: -: ---: -: -: c : c: :--------' -' -----' -' -----. , -

3' or
"'-':at dilee

ordered .' DOC/BOP Number' -------"-":':-"-"-"-"--:-:--::-------..':=--..:....;. each·: .":' ·Institution/AgenCy _ _ _ _ _ _ _ '....;.:..__. ...".......;:;....;..,.,;..:.

_ _ __

:FREE Shipping &&HHimim'i'i::llUUng:':':---

. .

"....,.; .::. ".

_______ ____________________

ZIP

l'UDL15HED DY

PlfU§OI\! LEGAl NEW§! P.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights

802 257-1342 www.prjsonIega1news.org

Ex D to St. Helen Dec, Pg 7 of 8

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 14-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 21 of 21

Ii , . Copies ofthis very usable and useful gUide

. should be 'available in every prison Hbrary-:.:..to

help

people

ti.on to

while

use of

ft .

fCf<Jt tbat .

. have a

takE7.n

priseD. recidivism." ..

. -BpI.:L

PEN Prison Writing Program,

. ..' Editor

Time: 25 Years ofPrison Writing.

!'UCH

a VOCATIONAl!.. Q PARALEGAl!.. 0 UNDERGRADUA'f1i: 0 GRADUATE CQURSES

.HE GREATLY anticipated and newly updated

third edition of the Prisoner's Guerrilla

Handbookto Correspondence Programs in the

United States and Canada has finally arrived! Author

Jon Marc Taylor's brand new version is the latest in

this unique and highly successful

for the

prisoner-student. This' invaluable tool and how-:to

handboolc prOVides the reader with step..hy..step·

instructions' to find the appropriate educat!onal

progra:m Jqr: .high schoql,

.pa.;alegal,

the U.S.

graduate' course$' offered.iri

- : . '.

.. , '

'll:ogD

It presents more than 160 program ouili.nes and

offers an

format for. the stUdent to

determine which program suits their needs. It

is ideal for the incarcerated student who does not

have Internet acceSs or- the abilitY to

educa-"

tion classes in person. This resource is indispensable

for individual and beneficial for use in all 'prison

Hbraries and education departments. .

'

The Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook is the only book

'on the market for the rion-tradftional prisoner-stu-

dent. It

detailed listings of the ·quality,. cost,

and course offerings f<?r aU <;orrespondence pro-

grams available to prisoners. In a time when so many

academic opportunities in prisons have been elim-

this

is, an iIivaJuable re-entry.toC?! for

prisoners who seek to further their edu.cation

. incarcerated and to help them prepare for life and

work'foTIowing their

'.' .... , .:. .

.. Jon Marc Taylor has more·than 25 years experi-

ence as an incarcerated student, advocate for pris-

oner education, and author. He has' successfully

earned a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and

a doctorate via correspondence courses rri2ar-

.·cerated. Editor Susan Schwartzkopf has a rriaster's

degree iTl education and'12 years

teach-

ing immigrants English language skills.

m PRISONERS' GUERRILLA HANDBOOK TO CORRESPONPENCE P.ROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA m

ByJon Marc Taylor PHD

Number of copies ordered ____ Amount enclosed

m 8.25" x10.75" • 224 pages' .

rmn . . ISBN 978-0-9819385-0-9

$49a 95

'" ! 3 or

ordered.

By: 0 check 0 new

stamps 0 credit 0 money

m

Name ______________________________
e DOc;(BOP Number _...:...,.....:_.-... :. .-'----'-'----"'--'--'----..:...----=-.,..---

..........

each" ......

g.. 'FREIEShipping&Hahdling' . 'Add'ress

..._'-,'.-'._ _ _ _ _ _.._'---....:...,_.._._:_:':_'_.·_._i,_,._;._:'_'..!..'>_

'..

,.':- ...........:.... : ..'):.:",: :. ·m

0r.i.:lerb'ym. ail/ phoneJ or onNline.' CI'ty,._·_______________ State

ZIP

Iik =a

punusHED BY
I PRB§ON ·IEtGAIL NEW§) P.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303

pedicated to Protecting Hu.man.Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

-"-' m

Ex D to St. Helen Dec, Pg 8 of 8

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 15 Filed 01/31/12 Page 1 of 36

1 Katherine C. Chmnberlain, OSB #042580 katherinec@mhb.conl
2 Jesse A. Wing, pro hac vice
jessew@mhb.com
3 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News MacDonald Hoague & Bayless
4 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104-1745
5 (206) 622-1604

6

Marc D. Blackman, OSB #730338 mark@ransomblaclanan.conl

7

Of Attolneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Ransom Blackman LLP

8

1001 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1400 POliland, OR 97204

9 (503) 228-0487

10

Lance Weber, pro hac vice lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org

11

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Human Rights Defense Center

12

1037 Western Ave., 2nd Floor West Brattleboro, VT 05303

13 (802) 257-1342

14

15

16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
17 DISTRICT OF OREGON
18

19

20 PORTLAND DIVISION PRISON LEGAL

21

NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,

No. CV 12-71-SI

22

Plaintiff,

23 24

v.
COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

25 as Columbia County Sheriff,

26

Defendants.

27
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 1 (CV 12-71-SI)

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 15 Filed 01/31/12 Page 2 of 36

1 I.

FACTS ................................................................................................................................. 2

2

A. Parties ....................................................................................................................... 2

3

B. Columbia County Jail Censors PLN's Mailings and Articles ................................. 4

4

C. Defendants Censor Mail Under Facially Unconstitutional Policies ........................ 6

5

1. Unconstitutional Ban on Mail that is Not a Postcard................................... 7

6

2. Unconstitutional Ban on Book Catalogs ...................................................... 9

7

3. Unconstitutional Ban on Magazines .......................................................... 10

8

4. Unconstitutional Lack of Procedural Due Process .................................... 11

9 II. ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 13

10

A. Preliminary Injunction Standard ............................................................................ 14

11

B. PLN is Likely to Succeed on the Merits ................................................................ 14

12

1. First Amendment ....................................................................................... 14

13

a.

Postcard-Only Policy Unconstitutionally Infringes Free

Speech ............................................................................................ 16

14

(1) First Turner Factor: The Ban is Irrational. ......................... 16

15

(a) The Ninth Circuit Has Previously Rejected

16

Defendants' Justifications ...................................... 16

17

(b) The Policy is Not Rationally Related to

Saving Time and Money ........................................ 18

18

(c) The Policy is Overbroad and Not Rationally

19

Related to Enhancing Security ............................... 19

20

(d) The Policy Deters Speech ...................................... 20

21

(e) The Policy Impedes Rehabilitation ........................ 21

22

(2) Second Turner Factor: Plaintiff Has No

Reasonable Alternative Way to Express Its Speech .......... 22

23

(3) Third Turner Factor: The Effect on Defendants'

24

Resources is Minimal ......................................................... 23

25

(4) Fourth Turner Factor: Defendants' Policy is An

Exaggerated Response ...................................................... 23

26

b. Banning Catalogs Is Irrational ....................................................... 24

27

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - i
(CV 12-71-SI)

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 15 Filed 01/31/12 Page 3 of 36

1

c. Banning Material Generated from the Internet is Irrational .......... 25

2

d. Banning Magazines is Irrational .................................................... 26

3

2. Fourteenth Amendment ............................................................................. 27

4

C. PLN Continues to Suffer Irreparable Harm ........................................................... 30

5

D. The Balance of Hardships Tips In Favor of Plaintiff. ............................................ 31

6

E. The Public Interest Favors Free Flow of Information ........................................... 31

7 III. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 31

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - ii (CV 12-71-SI)

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 15 Filed 01/31/12 Page 4 of 36

1 CASES
2 Ashker v. California Dept. o/Corrections, 350 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2003) .............................. 15, 19
3 California Pharmacists Assoc. v. Maxwell-Jolly, 563 F.3d 847 (9th Cir. 2009) .......................... 13
4 Clement v. Cal. Dept. o/Corrections, 220 F. Supp.2d 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2002) ...................... 14,24
5 C%ne v. Manson, 409 F.Supp. 1033 (D. Conn. 1976)................................................................ 26
6 Connickv. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) ........................................................................................ 13
7 Cortez v. County o/Los Angeles, 294 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2002) ................................................... 3
8 Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 1999) ............................................................................... 15
9 Davis v. Mason County, 927 F.2d 1473 (9th Cir. 1991) ................................................................. 3
10 Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) ............................................................................................ 28
11 Frost v. Symington, 197 F.3d 348 (9th Cir. 1999) ........................................................................ 14
12 Henry v. Greenville Airport Com 'n, 284 F.2d 631 (4th Cir. 1960) .............................................. 28
13 Hrdlicka v. Reniff, 631 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2011) ........................................................................ 22
14 Jeldness v. Pearce, 30 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 1994) ......................................................................... 18
15 Krug v. Lutz, 329 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2003)................................................................................... 26
16 Mann v. Smith, 796 F.2d 79 (5th Cir. 1986) ................................................................................. 21
17 Martin v. Kelley, 803 F.2d 236 (6th Cir. 1986) ............................................................................ 26
18 Miniken v. Walter, 978 F.Supp. 1356 (E.D. Wa. 1997) ................................................................ 26
19 Montcalm Pub. Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105 (4th Cir. 1996) ......................................................... 26
20 Monterey Mechanical Co. v. Wilson, 125 F.3d 702 (9th Cir. 1997)............................ ~ ................ 28
21 Morrison v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2001) ............................................................... 15,20,21
22 Nebraska Press Ass 'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976) .................................................................. 29
23 Oviatt By & Through Waugh v. Pearce, 954 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1992) ................................:....... 3
24 Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817 (1974) .................................................................................. 13, 26
25 Pepperling v. Crist, 678 F.2d 787 (9th Cir. 1982) ........................................................................ 13
26 Prison Legal News v. Cook, 238 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2001) .................................................. passim
27

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - iii (CV 12-71-SI)

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 15 Filed 01/31/12 Page 5 of 36

1 Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2005) ............................................... passim

2 Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974) .............................................................. 16, 19,20,26

3 Reed v. Faulkner, 842 F.2d 960 (7th Cir. 1988) ........................................................................... 14

4 Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) ............................................................... 13,14,16,19

5 Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) ..................................................................................... passilll

6 Walker v. Sumner, 917 F.2d 382 (9th Cir. 1990) .......................................................................... 14

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - iv (CV 12-71-SI)

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 15 Filed 01/31/12 Page 6 of 36

1

Nearly two years ago, in April 2010, the Coluinbia County Jail adopted a mail policy that

2 prohibited all letters, restricting all incoming and outgoing mail to postcards only. The Jail's

3 policy also prohibited delivery of magazines to prisoners, and failed to afford due process. The

4 Jail then censored nun1erous letters, book catalogs, and monthly subscription journals that PLN

5 mailed to Columbia County prisoners.

6

On January 13, 2012, PLN filed this lawsuit and notified the County that PLN was

7 planning to file a Inotion for preliminary injunction. PLN then engaged in a series of discussions

8 with Colun1bia County to secure a stipulation to the preliminary injunction, during which time

9 the County asserted that it had adopted a different policy that had not been publicly disclosed.

10 That policy was constitutionally deficient too. Last week, on Friday, January 27, 2012, the

11 County declined to stipulate to a preliminary injunction, instead informing PLN that the Jail

12 would issue a new mail policy. Later that day, the County sent PLN a copy of a new mail

13 policy. That policy retains many provisions that continue to violate PLN's First and Fourteenth

14 Amendment rights. Accordingly, PLN is proceeding with this motion.

15

Prison Legal News respectfully moves for an order preliIninarily enjoining Defendants:

16 from (1) enforcing unconstitutional j ail mail policies to rej ect or otherwise censor news journals,

17 subscription materials, book offers, book catalogs, and other correspondence, and (2) ordering

18 Defendants to afford to Plaintiff, prisoners, and other correspondents due process notice and an

19 opportunity to challenge Defendants' censorship decisions.

20

I. FACTS

21 A. Parties

22

Plaintiff Prison Legal News ("PLN") is a project of the Human Rights Defense Center, a

23 non-profit corporation. Declaration of Paul Wright ~7. PLN publishes a monthly journal of

24 corrections, news, and analysis by the same name: Prison Legal News: Dedicated to Protecting
25 Human Rights. Id. ~4. PLN has approximately 7,000 subscribers in the u.s. and abroad,

26 including attorneys, journalists, public libraries, judges, and prisoners at about 2,200 correctional

27
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 2 (CV 12-71-SI)

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 15 Filed 01/31/12 Page 7 of 36

1 facilities nationwide. Id. ~~6-7. PLN regularly receives cOlTespondence from prisoners in

2 cOlTectional facilities around the country in which they ask questions and report on prison

3 conditions. Id. at 8. PLN engages in core protected speech and expressive conduct on matters of

4 public concern, such as prison operations and conditions, prisoner health and safety, and

5 prisoners' rights. Id. ~9; see Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2005) (PLN's

6 mail to prisoners is protected by the First Amendment).

7

Defendants include Columbia County and the Columbia County Sheriffs Office, which

8 operates the Columbia County Jail in st. Helens, Oregon. As is evident from the Sheriffs Office

9 website Imnate Jail List at any given time, the Jail houses convicted prisoners and pretrial 10 detainees charged with federal or state crimes. See, e.g., Ex. 101 to Declaration of Katherine

11 Chmnberlain.

12

Defendant Jeff Dickerson is the Sheriff of Columbia County. See Ex. 1. The Sheriff is

13 responsible for Jail operations, the training and supervision of its staff, including those who

14 interpret and implement the mail policy for prisoners, and is the policYlnaker for the Jail,

15 including its mail policies. See id.; Cj Oviatt By & Through Waugh v. Pearce, 954 F.2d 1470,

16 1477 (9th Cir. 1992) ("There is no question that Sheriff Pearce was the final policymaker with

17 respect to internal procedures at Multnomah County Detention Center."); Cortez v. County of

18 Los Angeles, 294 F.3d 1186,1187 (9th Cir. 2002) ("[W]e hold that the Los Angeles County

19 Sheriff ('Sheriff) acts as the final policymaker for the County of Los Angeles ('County') in

20 . establishing and implementing policies and procedures for the safekeeping of inmates in the

21 county jail"); Davis v. Mason County, 927 F.2d 1473, 1480-1481 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding

22 Washington sheriff is policY-lnaker over jail).

23

24

25

26

1 All numbered exhibits are attached to the Declaration of Katherine Chamberlain; all

lettered exhibits are attached to the Declaration of Paul Wright.

27
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 3 (CV 12-71-SI)

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 15 Filed 01/31/12 Page 8 of 36

1 B. Columbia County Jail Censors PLN's Mailings and Articles

2

In December 2010 and the months thereafter, Prison Legal News mailed its nl0nthly

3 journal, informational brochures about subscribing to PLN, a catalog of books that PLN offers,

4 book offers, subscription renewal letters, and fundraising letters, in envelopes addressed

5 personally to prisoners at the Columbia County Jail. See Wright Dec. ~~1 0-28; E.g., Exs. LLL

6 (exemplar of one of the rejected Prison Legal News journals); MMM (informational subscription

7 brochure), NNN (book catalog); 000 (book offer); DDD (subscription renewal letter); PPP

8 (fundraising letter).

9

But the Jail censored the one-page informational brochures, book catalogs, and book

10 offers that PLN lnailed to nearly 30 prisoners. Wright Dec. ~~13-26, 28; Exs. A through QQQ.

11 When censoring these mailings, the Jail returned SOlne of them to Prison Legal News. Wright

12 Dec. ~14. On four of the returned envelopes, the Jail stamped just "RETURN TO SENDER,"

13 without stating any reason for the rejection. See Exs. H, 0, T, V. Similarly, on another five

14 returned envelopes, the Jail stamped "INSPECTED BY COLUMBIA COUNTY JAIL" with a

15 checkmark next to "REFUSE/VIOLATES SECURITY," without explaining what violated

16 security. See Exs. E, Q, U, W, AA. On yet another eighteen envelopes, the Jail affixed a sticker

17 that reads "As of April 1, 2010 The Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS,

18 This applies to ALL incoming and out going mail," see Exs. A, B, C, D, F, G, I, J, K, L, M, N, P,
19 R, S, X, Y, z.

20

The Jail also censored at least thirty-seven issues of the Prison Legal News journal that

21 PLN mailed to prisoners held in its custody. Wright Dec. ~17. When censoring these mailings,

22 the Jail returned only some of them to Prison Legal News. Id. On four of the returned

23 envelopes, the Jail stamped just "RETURN TO SENDER," without stating any reason for the

24 rejection. See Exs. BB, CC, DD, JJ. On three other returned envelopes, the Jail marked

25 "INSPECTED BY COLUMBIA COUNTY JAIL" and "REFUSE/VIOLATES SECURITY,"

26 without stating what violated security. See Exs. KK, LL, NN. On two returned envelopes, the

27
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 4 (CV 12-71-SI)

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
TeI206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 15 Filed 01/31/12 Page 9 of 36

1 Jail stamped "INSPECTED BY COLUMBIA COUNTY JAIL" with checklnarks next to

2 "CONTRABAND" and "REFUSE/VIOLATES SECURITY," again, with no explanation. On

3 yet another nineteen envelopes, the Jail affixed a sticker that reads "As of April 1, 2010 The

4 Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS, This applies to ALL incoming and out

5 going mail." See Exs. EE through II, PP through CCC. The Jail also censored at least eight

6 other issues of Prison Legal News that it did not return to PLN. Wright Dec. ~~18-25; Campo

7 Dec. ~6; McCarter Dec. ~6; St. Helen Dec. ~6; Kay Dec. ~6.

8

The Jail censored at least eight of the subscription renewal letters and Info Packs

9 (collectively "Subscription Renewal Packs") that PLN sent to prisoners there. Wright Dec. ~ 32.

10 The Jail returned some of the censored Subscription Renewal Packs to Prison Legal News. Id.

lIOn seven of the returned envelopes, the Jail stmnped "RETURN TO SENDER," and did not

12 state a reason for censorship. See Exs. DDD, EEE, FFF, GGG, HHH, JJJ, KKK. On the other

13 returned envelope, the Jail affixed a sticker that reads "As of April 1, 2010 The Columbia

14 County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS, This applies to ALL incoming and out going

15 Inail." See Ex. III.

16

Although the Jail censored at least 74 pieces of mail, the Jail did not send to PLN any

17 rejection notices identifying the mail that the Jail had censored, the dates of the censorship, the

18 reason for the censorship, the Jail policy provisions that applied, or notifying PLN of any

19 opportunity to challenge or appeal the censorship decisions. Wright Dec. ~31. Nor did the Jail

20 provide the prisoner-addressees with notice that mail sent to them had been rejected, the reason

21 why, the applicable policy, or notification of an opportunity to challenge or appeal the censorship

22 decisions. See Campo Dec. ~~4, 6; McCarter Dec. ~~4, 6, 7; St. Helen Dec. ~~4, 6, 7; Kay Dec.

23 ~~4, 6, 7.

24

The Jail has also censored mail sent to several prisoners in its custody from individual

25 correspondents on the ground that the mail was contained in envelopes rather than on a postcard.

26 For example, as recently as last month, December 2011, the Jail censored a seven-page published

27
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 5 (CV 12-71-SI)

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 15 Filed 01/31/12 Page 10 of 36

1 news article printed froln the Prison Legal News website entitled "The Failed Promise of Prison

2 Privatization" that an individual, Lucy Lennox, sent to sixteen prisoners. Lennox Dec. ~~3-4;

3 Exs. I through XV. On the returned envelopes that contained the same contents, the Jail

4 nevertheless placed a stamp or sticker that stated differing reasons for the rejections: (a)

5 "REFUSENIOLATES SECURITY," (b) "CONTRABAND" and "REFUSENIOLATES

6 SECURITY," (c) "no envelope Inail," or (d) "As of April 1, 2010 The Columbia County Jail

7 ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS, This applies to ALL incoming and out going mail." Lennox

8 Dec. ~4, Exs. I through XV.

9 C. Defendants Censor Mail Under Facially Unconstitutional Policies

10

In the past two years, the Columbia County Jail has adopted three different mail

11 policies-all of them in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendment. In April 2010, the Jail

12 adopted a two-page Inail policy that prohibited all letters, restricting all incoming and outgoing

13 mail to postcards only. The Jail's policy also prohibited delivery of magazines to prisoners and

14 failed to afford any due process rights.

15

According to Defendants, eighteen months later (effective October 2011) they revised

16 their policy. But that policy continued the Jail's postcard-only policy, was ambiguous about

17 whether magazines were allowed, and provided for due process to some parties, in SOine

18 circumstances, and only to a limited degree. The County never made its revised policy publicly

19 available.

20

Finally, on January 27,2012, the Jail sent to PLN a second revised, now 16-page, mail

21 policy. This latest policy continues the Jails' well-established postcard-only policy, purports to

22 allow delivery of some magazines, and provides some due process procedures although they are

23 confusing, inadequate, and scattered among the lengthy policy so are difficult to piece together.

24 This most recent policy is constitutionally infirm and continues to violate PLN's First and

25 Fourteenth Amendment rights.

26

27
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 6 (CV 12-71-SI)

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fmc 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 15 Filed 01/31/12 Page 11 of 36

1

1. Unconstitutional Ban on Mail that is Not a Postcard

2

Since April 1, 2010 the Jail's mail policy has explicitly prohibited mail except in the form

3 of a postcard ("Postcard-Only Policy"). On December 23,2009 the Columbia County Sheriff's

4 Office's website announced the adoption of new mail policies under the heading: "CCSO Jail

5 Revamping InnlateMail Policy." Ex. 2 to Chamberlain Dec. In the announcement, Sheriff

6 Dickerson declared:

7

In an effort to improve efficiency and reduce threats to safety and security by minimizing contraband, the Columbia County Jail is moving to limit incoming

8

and outgoing inmate mail to postcards only... on March 31, the only envelope

mail allowed to come into or go out of the jail will be official and legal mail.

9 Id. (elnphasis added). The announcement further quoted the Sheriff's rationale for

10 adopting the Postcard-Only Policy:

11

The processing of inmate mail is very time consuming and labor intensive ...

mail coming in sealed envelopes increases the likelihood that contraband will

12

make its way through the security measures we set up... Going to postcards win

cut down on the time we need to take in that screening process, thus saving the

13

taxpayer the costs involved in that screening.

14 Id. (emphasis added). And, finally the announcement explained where to find the Postcard-Only

15 Policy: "The Sheriff's Office will be posting the new guidelines in the Sheriff's Office lobby

16 and on the agency website at: www.co.columbia.or.us/sheriffinthecomingweeks... Id.An

17 article in The Daily News entitled "Columbia County Jail to restrict inmate mail to postcards

18 only" also announced the Jail's adoption of the policy and the Sheriff's justifications. Ex. 3.

19

As described below, although the County recently revised its mail policy, twice, its

20 current policy continues to prohibit incoming and outgoing mail that is not a postcard.

21

Original Policy: The first line of the Jail's April 2010 policy stated that "Incoming Mail

22 will be only accepted in the form of commercially-produced postcards or a photograph used as a

23 postcard." Ex. 1. This policy ("Original Policy") was posted on the Sheriffs website at the

24 time this lawsuit was filed (January 13,2012). Chamberlain Dec. ~1. The policy also restricted

25 outgoing mail to postcards only, as stated on the sticker found on dozens of pieces of mail

26

27
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 7 (CV 12-71-SI)

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
TeI206.622.l604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 15 Filed 01/31/12 Page 12 of 36

1 returned to Plaintiff: "As of April 1, 2010 The Colun1bia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS

2 POSTCARDS, This applies to ALL incoming and out going l11ail." See, e.g., Ex. A.

3

Revised Policy: On January 19,2012, the County provided PLN with a copy of a mail

4 policy dated "October 21, 2011" ("Revised Policy") which the County contended was its current 5 policy.2 Chamberlain Dec. ~18; Ex. 16. This revised version also contained a Postcard-Only

6 Policy, instructing: "All correspondence to and frol11 inmates of the Columbia County Jail will

7 be in the fon11 of a post card unless it is privileged or official mail." Ex. 16 at pg. 3.

8

Second Revised Policy: Eight days later, on January 27,2012, Defendants provided PLN

9 with a copy of a second revised policy dated "January 26, 2012" ("Second Revised Policy,,).3 In

10 this newest version maintains the Jail's Postcard-Only Policy that Prison Legal News seeks to

11 enjoin. The second revised policy states as follows:

12

Postcards for Personal or Personal Business Mail

Inmates may send postcards they receive in their initial inmate hygiene kit or

13

through jail commissary. Inmates may receive postcards in any size that is

delivered by the U.S. Postal Service up to a maximum size of 5-112" tall x 8-1/2"

14

wide. The jail does not permit any other form of personal mail for inmates

15

Contents of Envelopes and Parcels (Legal and Official Mail Only)

16

An envelope may only contain written correspondence that meets the

17

definition of legal or official mail. A parcel may only contain up to three books

or three periodicals. Mail handlers will consider any other item in the envelope or

18

parcel as contraband and treat it as prohibited mail.

19 See Ex. 20 at pg. 4 ~3, pg. 5 ~6 (emphasis added). The policy explicitly restricts written 20 communication to postcards, except for legal and official mai14-neither of which is at issue in

21 this lawsuit.

22
2 Despite the County's statement that it had revised its policy, as of January 19,2012, the 23 Jail's original April 1, 2010 policy was still posted on the Sheriff s website. Chamberlain Dec.
~19; Ex.17.
24 3 On January 24, 2012, the Sheriffs Office removed its "Inmate Mail Policy" from its
25 website and replaced it with a statement that "the inmate mail policy is under review at this time." See Chamberlain Dec. ~11, Ex. 11. To date, the Sheriff has not posted either of the
26 revised policies on his website.

27
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 8 (CV 12-71-SI)

TMeAl70C2S50De6Soa.N6ettc2lAeo2L,n.1DWd6AH0a4sOvheAinFnGuagUexto,E2nS0&u69i.t8B3e14A013Y45.3L09E06S1S

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 15 Filed 01/31/12 Page 13 of 36

1

Thus, although the language and fOlm of the policy has changed, the Jail has retained its

2 Postcard-Only Policy, which Prison Legal News challenges.

3

Pursuant to its Postcard-Only Policy, the Jail censored PLN's informational brochures

4 and subscription order forms,5 book catalogs, journals, subscription renewal letters, and

5 fundraising letters. See Section LB., pgs. 3-6. The Jail also used its Postcard-Only Policy to

6 censor mail from individuals sent to prisoners, including articles printed from PLN's website.

7 Id. In addition, the Jail's postcard-only restriction on outgoing mail prohibits prisoners from

8 sending letters to PLN, about prison conditions or other topics, and from sending PLN

9 subscription forms and book order forms to order books and subscribe to Prison Legal News.

10

2. Unconstitutional Ban on Book Catalogs

11

At the outset of this litigation, Defendants' policy banned book catalogs, and their newest

12 policy still does.

13

Original Policy: Defendants' original policy explicitly banned all incoming mail that

14 was not a postcard, book, or newspaper. Ex. 1. On its face, the policy prohibited all other types

15 of publications including catalogs, such as the book catalogs that PLN mailed to prisoners, which

16 the Jail censored. See, e.g., Exs. A through AA, NNN. When rejecting SOine ofPLN's book

17 catalogs, the Jail identified its Postcard-Only Policy as the justification. See e.g. Ex. A.

18

Revised Policy: Similarly, Defendants' revised policy explicitly banned all incoming

19 mail that was not a postcard (unless it was "privileged" or "officia1" mail), a book, or a

20 4 "Legal mail" is defined as "mail addressed to or from a licensed attorney" that is clearly
21 marked "legal mail." Id. at pg. 3 ("Privileged Mail" section). "Official mail" is defined as mail addressed to or from "the sheriff, jail command staff, county administrator, probation authorities,
22 district attorney, state attorney general, Governor, court, a court official, and other confining authorities" that is clearly marked "official mail." Id.
23 5 In addition to prohibiting prisoners from receiving book catalogs or subscription order
24 forms because the forms are not postcards, see Exs. MMM and NNN, Ex. 20 at pg. 4 -,r3, the Jail's policy also prohibits a prisoner from receiving a subscription order form that is a postcard,
25 see Ex. 20 at pgs. 11-12 -,r32(c) ("Pod Processing of Incoming Mail ... staff. .. will process the inmate mail fortheirpodsasfollows: ... relnove subscription-ordering postcards from
26 magazines"). So, the Jail bans subscription order forms in any form.

27
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 9 (CV 12-71-SI)

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 15 Filed 01/31/12 Page 14 of 36

1 periodical. Ex. 16 at pg. 3. So, like the original policy, on its face, the revised policy prohibited

2 all other Inail, including catalogs.

3

Second Revised Policy: In its newest policy, the word "catalogs" is mentioned only

4 once, in the definition of "junk mail":

5

Junk mail. Printed Inaterial, often sent as mass mailings, such as catalogs,

advertisements, brochures, circulars, and pamphlets whose primary purpose is to

6

sell, promote or solicit for, a product or service, and when taken as a whole, lacks

serious literary, artistic, political, educational, religious, or scientific value. Junk

7

Inail may come using a variety of postage rates.

8 Ex. 20 at pg. 2 (emphasis added). According to the policy, "Jail staffwill accept solicited or

9 unsolicited junk mail or bulk mail for inmates, unless it violates other mail restrictions (such as 10 containing sexually explicit content)." Id. at pg. 5 ~1 O. So, according to this new policy, the Jail

11 now permits delivery ofjunk nlail, but only in the form of a postcard. And the Jail permits 12 delivery of catalogs that qualify as "junk mail"-that is, catalogs that lack "serious literary,

13 artistic, political, religious, or scientific value." So, the plain language of Defendants' newest

14 policy continues to ban PLN's book catalogs because they are not a postcard, and, bizarrely,

15 because the catalog possesses serious literary, political, and educational value and therefore is 16 not ''junk mail."

17

Defendants' newest Postcard-Only Policy continues to violate the First Amendment,

18 prohibiting all correspondence including book catalogs that are not on a postcard.

19

3. Unconstitutional Ban on Magazines

20

Since April 2010, the Sheriffs mail policy posted on his website explicitly banned

21 magazines, and Defendants censored numerous monthly issues of Prison Legal News. The

22 Sheriff s purported revised policy, which he never posted for the public to see, was ambiguous

23 about whether it permitted or prohibited magazines. In response to this litigation the Sheriff

24 adopted his newest version of a mail policy, which allows delivery of magazines but only if the

25 Inagazine and its publisher possess certain arbitrary features.

26

27
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 10 (CV 12-71-SI)

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 15 Filed 01/31/12 Page 15 of 36

1

Original Policy: The Jail's original policy explicitly prohibited all magazines. Under the

2 heading "Publications," the policy declared: "We do not accept magazines." Ex. 1 at pg. 3.

3

Revised Policy: The revised policy stated that "periodicals may be procured from outside

4 the jail," but the policy made no mention of magazines and did not define "periodicals." Ex. 16

5 at pg. 5 ~11.

6

Second Revised Policy: The second revised policy provides that: "An inmate Inay

7 receive up to two periodicals on a single mail delivery day... Periodicals include Inagazines..."

8 Ex. 20 at pg. 7 ~20. However, this policy allows only those magazines that meet certain

9 requirements and under certain circumstances "[a]n inmate must have someone outside the jail

10 prepay for any publication he or she receives" and periodicals are restrictively defined as " [a]

11 magazine, newspaper, or other publication formed of printed sheets that are issued at least four

12 times a year at regular, specified intervals from a known office of publication. Periodicals

13 usually must have a legitimate list ofsubscribers and requesters. .." Id. at pg. 3 (emphasis

14 added).

15

4. Unconstitutional Lack of Procedural Due Process

16

The Sheriffs mail policies fail to provide adequate due process to PLN, other

17 correspondents, and prisoners.

18

Original Policy: Initially, Defendants' mail policy was entirely devoid of any provisions

19 for due process. The policy did not require notifying anyone of censorship decisions or of any

20 opportunity to challenge or appeal censorship decisions. See Ex. 1.

21

Revised Policy: Then, Defendants' revised mail policy required the Jail to provide the

22 prisoner-addressees notice when the Jail censored incoming mail. But the policy failed to

23 require any notice to the publisher or other sender of incolning mail, or to the prisoner or

24 intended recipient of rejected outgoing mail. The policy stated as follows:

25

INCOMING MAIL ...

If mail is rejected the inmate/addressee will receive written notification

26

explaining:

27
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 11 (CV 12-71-SI)

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 15 Filed 01/31/12 Page 16 of 36

1

1. The correspondence has been rej ected,

2

11. The reason it was rejected,

iii. The process to infonnally appeal the rejection to the jail cormnander

3

A copy of the notification will be placed in the ininate's file.

(
4 Ex.16 at pg. 6, ILD.1.b.

5

Second Revised Policy: Numerous scattered references to due process in the second

6 revised policy are very difficult to make sense of. The confusion itself is likely to cause

7 Constitutional violations. To the extent that the policy can be understood, the following are

8 identifiable deficiencies in due process requirements:

9

•

The "prohibited publications, books or periodicals" provision states that the Jail

10 "should" notify the sender and inmate when the Jail rejects a publication, book, or periodical, but

11 does not make notice mandatory. Ex. 20 at pg. 8,-r21.

12

The "initial processing of incoining mail" provision states that the Jail must

13 provide "notice of right to reconsideration" to the sender of rejected mail, but does not identify

14 what the notice must contain. Nor does the policy provision identify what information must be

15 contained in an appeal or any time limits to appeal. Id. at pgs. 10-11 ,-r31 b.

16

The incoming mail policy does not require the Jail to notify the prisoner-addressee

17 of his right to appeal when mail addressed to him is rejected. See id.

18

The incoming mail policy does not require the Jail to provide notice of the reason

19 for censorship to the prisoner or to the mail sender. See id. at pgs. 10-11·,-r31.

20

The incoming mail policy states that Jail staff may scan rejected mail as

21 "Returned Mail (Prohibited Mail Slip to follow)" but the policy does not explain what the

22 "Prohibited Mail Slip" will contain or who will receive it. See id. at pgs. 11-12 ,-r32(e)(6).

23

•

The outgoing mail policy does not require the Jail to provide notice of the reason

24 for censorship to the prisoner or to the intended recipient. See id. at pgs. 12-14 ,-r,-r34-38.

25

•

The outgoing mail policy states that the Jail staff will scan the prisoner's name

26 and "appropriate bar code to reflect the proper disposition of the mail" including "Mail Returned

27
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 12 (CV 12-71-SI)

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 15 Filed 01/31/12 Page 17 of 36

1 (Prohibited Mail Slip to follow)" but the policy does not explain what the "Prohibited Mail Slip"

2 will contain or who will receive it. See id. at pg. 14 ~37(a)(2)(C).

3

•

The "returning mail to sender" provision states that when the Jail returns

4 "unopened mail (other than postcards), a mail handler will use the 'return to sender' stamp in

5 place of the sticker." This is the same procedure used by the Jail to return mail to PLN in the

6 past, which failed to provide adequate due process notice of the reason for rejection and did not

7 provide any notice of an 0ppoliunity to be heard. Id. at pg. 15 ~44.

\

8

•

If the Jail confiscates (rather than retUTIls) a "prohibited item" the policy does not

9 require the Jail to give the prisoner notice of his right to appeal. Id. at pg. 10 ~30.

10

The newest policy fails to afford due process. Several provisions are plainly inadequate.

11 Collectively, Defendants' latest iteration of a due process procedure is a mess. It is ilnpossible to

12 make sense of how the scattered pieces of the sixteen-page policy (which was formerly a two-

13 page policy) fit together, if at all. Under the Jail's Original and Revised policies, Defendants

14 failed to provide adequate due process notice of the reason for its censorship decisions and failed

15 to provide any notice of an opportunity to be heard to PLN. See Section LB. above at pgs. 3-6.

16 And under Defendants' newest policy, it is likely that Defendants will continue to provide

17 inadequate due process when the Jail censors incoming and outgoing mail.

18

II. ARGUMENT

19

Following their mail policies, the Defendants censored a great deal of PLN' s mail, as

20 well as the mail of prisoners and other correspondents, and did so without due process notice or

21 an opportunity to challenge the censorship decisions. By adopting and applying these policies to

22 censor correspondence between Prison Legal News and prisoners in the Columbia County Jail,

23 and by doing so without due process, the Jail is irrationally interfering with protected expressive

24 activities and chilling future speech.

25

Defendants' purported revisions to their mail policies fail to render them constitutional.

26 Since PLN will continue to communicate with prisoners confined in the Columbia County Jail,

27
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 13 (CV 12-71-SI)

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 15 Filed 01/31/12 Page 18 of 36

1 Defendants' policies and practices will likely violate PLN's free speech rights in the future and

2 do so without due process, causing irreparable harm. Wright Dec. ~~32-36. For the reasons

3 explained below, Plaintiff respectfully moves the Court to enter a preliminary injunction that

4 prohibits the Defendants from violating the Constitution during this litigation.

5 A. Preliminary Injunction Standard

6

When asked to grant a preliminary injunction where the public interest is at stake, a court

7 lnust consider whether: (1) the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, (2) the plaintiff is

8 likely to suffer irreparable hann in the absence of preliminary relief, (3) the balance of equities

9 tips in his favor, and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. California Pharmacists Assoc. v.

10 Maxwell-Jolly, 563 F.3d 847, 849 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a).

11 B. PLN is Likely to Succeed on the Merits

12

1. First Amendment

13

Plaintiff s right to correspond with prisoners through the mail is protected by the First

14 Amendment. Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692,699 (9th Cir. 2005) ("PLN IF'). In

15 Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 408 (1989), the Supreme Court recognized that publishers

16 have a protected First Amendment interest in access to prisoners. See also Prison Legal News v.

17 Cook, 238 F.3d 1145, 1149 (9th Cir. 2001) ("PLN F').

18

Prison Legal News's correspondence with prisoners is "core protected speech" because it

19 addresses issues of corrections policy and other social and political matters of public concenl,

20 which "occupies the 'highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendlnent values,' and is entitled to

21 special protection." Connickv. Myers, 461 U.S. 138,145 (1983) (internal citation omitted); see

22 also PLN 1,238 F.3d at 1149. "[T]he conditions in this Nation's prisons are a matter that is both

23 newsworthy and of the greatest public importance." Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 831,

24 n.7 (1974). A "blanket prohibition against receipt of the publications by any prisoner carries a

25 heavy presumption of unconstitutionality." Pepperling v. Crist, 678 F.2d 787, 791 (9th Cir.

26 1982).

27
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 14 (CV 12-71-SI)

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 15 Filed 01/31/12 Page 19 of 36

1

To withstand First Amendment scrutiny, a prison policy restricting incoming mail must

2 be "reasonably related to legitimate penological interests" under the four "Turner" factors:

3

(1) whether the regulation is rationally related to a legitimate and neutral

govenllnental objective, (2) whether there are alternative avenues that remain

4

open to the inmates to exercise the right, (3) the iInpact that accommodating the

asserted right will have on other guards and prisoners, and on the allocation of

5

prison resources; and (4) whether the existence of easy and obvious alternatives

indicates that the regulation is an exaggerated response by prison officials.

6 PLN II, 397 F.3d at 699 (citing Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987)). The first of these

7 factors can be dispositive: "if a regulation is not rationally related to a legitimate and neutral

8 governmental objective, a court need not reach the remaining three factors." Id.; see also, PLN I,

9 238 F.3d at 1151.

10

Defendants are required under Turner to articulate how their policy furthers a legitimate

11 penological interest; it may not be presumed:

12

The initial burden is on the State to put forth a "common-sense" connection

between its policy and a legitimate penal interest. If the State does so, the

13

plaintiff must present evidence that refutes the connection. Id. at 357. The State

must then present enough counter-evidence to show that the connection is not so

14

"remote as to render the policy arbitrary or irrational." Id.

15 Clement v. Cal. Dept. o/Corrections, 220 F. Supp.2d 1098, 1109 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (citing Frost

16 v. Symington, 197 F.3d 348 (9th Cir. 1999)).

17

Although corrections officials often emphasize that courts afford deference to their

18 experience, it is well-recognized that the Turner test "is not toothless." Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at

19 414.

20

Prison authorities cannot rely on general or conclusory assertions to support their policies. Rather, they must first identify the specific penological interests involved

21

and then demonstrate both that those specific interests are the actual bases for

their policies and that the policies are reasonably related to the furtherance of the

22

identified interests. An evidentiary showing is required as to each point.

23 Walker v. Sumner, 917 F.2d 382,386 (9th Cir. 1990) (emphasis added). The government may'

24 not pile "conjecture upon conjecture" to justify infringement of constitutional rights. Reed v.

25 Faulkner, 842 F.2d 960, 963-64 (7th Cir. 1988).

26

27
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 15 (CV 12-71-SI)

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 15 Filed 01/31/12 Page 20 of 36

1

a. Postcard-Only Policy Unconstitutionally Infringes Free Speech

2

(1) First Turner Factor: The Ban is Irrational

3

Defendants' Postcard-Only Policy was arbitrarily conceived. The Sheriff explained

4 publically that Defendants adopted the policy "In an effort to improve efficiency and reduce

5 threats to safety and security by minimizing contraband," and "Going to postcards will cut down

6 on the time we need to take in that screening process, thus saving the taxpayer the costs involved

7 in that screening." Ex. 2 to Chamberlain Dec.

8

Here, the same outcome is reached. Arguments that the Postcard-Only Policy was

9 implemented to save time and money, and increase security by preventing smuggling of

10 contraband, do not justify the Jail's extremely broad censorship policy, banning all mail other

11 than postcards.

12

(a) The Ninth Circuit Has Previously Rejected Defendants' Justifications

13

Applying Turner, the Ninth Circuit has repeatedly rejected these SaIne rationales for

14 prison policies that arbitrarily restrict a publisher's right to communicate by mail with prisoners.

15 See PLN 11,397 F.3d 692,699-701 (9th Cir. 2005) (striking down ban of non-subscription bulk

16 mail and catalogs); Ashker v. California Dept. ofCorrections, 350 F.3d 917, 924 (9th Cir. 2003)

17 (striking down policy requiring approved vendor labels); PLN 1,238 F.3d 1145, 1149-51 (9th

18 Cir. 2001) (striking down ban on bulk rate non-profit subscription mail); Morrison v. Hall, 261

19 F.3d 896, 904-05 (9th Cir. 2001) (striking down ban on for-profit bulk rate mail); Crofton v. Roe,

20 170 F.3d 957, 959-61 (9th Cir. 1999) (striking down ban on gift subscriptions).

21

In PLN I, the Oregon Department of Corrections asserted that banning all standard-rate

22 mail enhanced prison security because mailroom staff could concentrate on "timely processing

23 acceptable mail and thoroughly inspecting such mail for content and contraband." 238 F.3d at

24 1151. The Ninth Circuit rejected this rationale: "The reality is that all incoming Inail must be

25 sorted ... distinguishing between non-profit organization standard Inail and regular/ commercial

26 standard mail is not unduly cumbersome[.]" Id. Similarly, in PLN II, when the Washington

27
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 16 (CV 12-71-SI)

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 15 Filed 01/31/12 Page 21 of 36

1 Depalil11ent of Corrections claimed that it balmed non-subscription bulk mail to reduce l11ail

2 volume and increase security, the Court rejected this rationale again: "While mailroom staff may

3 have to spend l110re til11e analyzing the content of non-subscription bulk rate mail and catalogs,

4 such a ban ... is not rationally related to the goal of reducing contraband." 397 F.3d at 700.

5 Notably, the Defendants here censored PLN's subscription brochures and book catalogs virtually

6 identical to those censored by the Defendants in PLN II. So, here, the same outcome is reached.

7

In addition, the Jail's policy continues to restrict outgoing mail to communication by

8 postcard interfering with PLN's right to receive letters from prisoners. This, too,

9 unconstitutionally inhibits the publisher's First Al11endment rights:

10

Communication by letter is not accomplished by the act of writing words on paper. Rather, it is effected only when the letter is read by the addressee. Both

11

parties to the correspondence have an interest in securing that result, and censorship of the cOffil11unication between them necessarily impinges on the

12

interest of each.

13 Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396,408 (1974), overruled in part on other grounds by

14 Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 417 (1989) ("we acknowledge today that the logic

15 of our analyses in Martinez and Turner requires that Martinez be limited to regulations

16 concerning outgoing correspondence.").

17

The Jail has a far more limited interest in restricting outgoing mail than incoming

18 mail. Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 413 ("The implications of outgoing correspondence for

19 prison security are of a categorically lesser magnitude than the implications of incoming

20 materials.") Accordingly, the government must l11eet a higher standard to justify 21 censoring outgoing l11ail than the Turner test. Since 1974, the government has had to

22 show "First, that the regulation or practice in question must further an important or
23 substantial governmental interest unrelated to the suppression of expression." Martinez, 24 416 U.S. at 413. "Second, the limitation of First Amendment freedoms must be no 25 greater than is necessary or essential to the protection of the particular governmental

26 interest involved. Thus a restriction on inmate correspondence that furthers an important

27
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 17 (CV 12-71-SI)

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 15 Filed 01/31/12 Page 22 of 36

1 or substantial interest of penal administration will nevertheless be invalid if its sweep is

2 unnecessarily broad." Id. at 413-14 (elnphasis added). "Martinez required a close fit

3 between the challenged regulation and the interest it purported to serve." Thornburgh,

4 490 U.S. at 411.

5

The Defendants' asselied security rationale for adopting their Postcard-Only

6 Policy, to reduce contraband entering the Jail, simply does not apply to Inailleaving the

7 facility. And, the Defendants' remaining .rationale-the policy reduces time screening

8 mail-fails under the Turner test for the reasons explained herein, so must accordingly

9 fail under the more demanding Martinez test.

10

In sum, the Ninth Circuit has already rejected the efficiency and security

11 justifications offered by Defendants here, and under the standards set forth by the United

12 States Supreme Court Plaintiff is likely to show that Defendants' Inail policies are

13 unconstitutional.

14

(b) The Policy is Not Rationally Related to Saving Time and Money

15

Inspecting and delivering mail other than a postcard is not significantly more burdensome

16 than censoring the mail, even according to the Defendants' long-standing inadequate procedures:

17 (i) stamping the mail "Return to Sender"; (ii) placing a "postcard policy" sticker on the mail; and

18 (iii) returning the censored mail. And, if Defendants provided constitutionally-required due

19 process notice and opportunity to be heard when they censored mail, they would also have to:

20 (iv) fill out a mail rejection notice; (v) deliver the mail rejection notice to the prisoner; (vi) send

21 the mail rejection notice to the sender or intended recipient; and (vii) respond to prisoners and

22 their correspondents who exercise their rights to appeal the Jail's censorship decisions. Thus,

23 any argument that the policy saves time and money is meritless. Moreover, as explained below,

24 since correspondents must send multiple postcards to communicate what they could fit in a letter

25 the Jail must process all of the postcards instead of the contents of one envelope. This fuliher

26 undoes any rational connection between the Jail's stated interests and its mail policy.

27
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 18 (CV 12-71-SI)

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax: 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 15 Filed 01/31/12 Page 23 of 36

1

(c) The Policy is Overbroad and Not Rationally Related to

Enhancing Security

2
The Postcard-Only Policy is a substantially overbroad Ineans of enhancing security. The

3 mail policy already bans any mail that: contains "controlled substances;" "would endanger the

4 safety or security of the facility or person;" or contains "threats of physical hann... plans to

5 escape, criminal activity .. gang-related material ..." Ex. 20 at pg. 2 ("Cont~aband") and at pgs.

6 16-17 ("Prohibited Mail"). Until April 2010, the Jail screened for security threats in other ways,

7 which it cannot show to be ineffective. And, the policy captures all correspondence, including

8 those least likely to contain hazardous substances-like letters, book catalogs, and infonnational

9 brochures from publishers.

10 Importantly, even if it could show that its Postcard-Only Policy leads to SOine savings of

11 time or money, the Jail nevertheless cannot place constitutionally-protected speech on the

12 chopping block to cut costs. In other contexts where the constitutionality of prison regulations

13 has been challenged, the Ninth Circuit has held that "efficiency and cost effectiveness" are not

14 "valid security concerns." Jeldness v. Pearce, 30 F.3d 1220, 1230 (9th Cir. 1994) (emphasis in

15 original) (holding prison's "cost and manageinent concerns ... must be applied consistently with

16 the requirements of Title IX."). Free speech is not a commodity like paper towels that the Jail

17 can reduce to save money so as to have more tiine for security.

18 Defendants have no legitimate justification for singling out all regular correspondence to

19 censor, except postcards. The Defendants' distinction between forms of written communication

20 is arbitrary-and hannful. Letters, book catalogs, and written communications other than

21 postcards often contain core political and social speech or invite the reader to request such

22
speech, as PLN's subscription brochures and book offers do. Letters facilitate the exchange of

23 views on poor jail conditions and how to alleviate them, on legal rights, on how to address

24 private medical, psychological, and educational needs, and many other iinportant topics. For

25 centuries, letters have facilitated the exchange of ideas, in detail.

26

27
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 19 (CV 12-71-SI)

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 15 Filed 01/31/12 Page 24 of 36

1

In stark contrast, postcards provide so little space that Ineaningful exchange of ideas is all

2 but foreclosed. While Defendants might allow correspondents to mail multiple postcards, that

3 results in virtually no corresponding benefit to Defendants, who must review each postcard. For

4 example, in place of a correspondent's three-page double-sided 8.5" x 11" paper letter in a

5 single envelope the Jail would have to review and process at least twelve single-sided postcards

6 written by the sender conveying the same speech. So, there is no appreciable decrease in mail

7 volume except at the arbitrary expense of protected speech.

8

(d) The Policy Deters Speech

9

Importantly, the only reasonable explanation for Sheriff Dickerson's statement that

10 "Going to postcards will cut down on the time we need to take in that screening process, thus

11 saving the taxpayer the costs involved in that screening," Ex. 2 (emphasis added), is that the

12 policy deters, chills, and suppresses speech. See Wright Dec. ~17-19; see also Ashker v.

13 California Dept. o/Corrections, 350 F.3d 917, 921 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting that the prison's

14 approved-vender label policy caused a publisher to stop sending books to correctional facilities).

15 If Defendants have any evidence that mail volume has decreased since adopting their Postcard-

16 Only Policy it is simply the result of erecting unreasonable obstacles to communication. Since

17 the policy requires publishers and others who wish to communicate with prisoners, to conform

18 their written communications to an unusually restrictive and burdensome form, it would not be

19 surprising that prisoners and their correspondents have been deterred from communicating

20 entirely.

21

In fact, limiting speech to a postcard causes significant inconvenience and increased costs

22 sufficient to substantially reduce the speech of many prisoners, family melnbers, friends, and

23 professionals such as doctors, and is sufficient t6 deter publishers, booksellers, companies, and

24 others from communicating at all. Correspondents must find a store that sells postcards, buy

25 multiple postcards and the postage to mail each of them, and fit their communications within the

26 small confines of the card, allowing room for their own name and address, the addressee's name

27
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 20 (CV 12-71-SI)

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 15 Filed 01/31/12 Page 25 of 36

1 and address, postage, the postlnark, and the Jail's "received" stamp. It is completely iInpractical

2 for most publishers, booksellers, and others to spend the resources to create special postcards just

3 to communicate their messages to the prisoners at this Jail. See Wright Dec. ~34. In short, if

4 mail volume has decreased it is because Defendants have stamped out protected speech.

5

(e) The Policy Impedes Rehabilitation

6

Under the guise of accomplishing objectives that are irrationally and arbitrarily connected

7 to Defendants' policy, the Postcard-Only Policy hampers the penological objective of

8 rehabilitation. The Supreme Court has recognized that "the weight of professional opinion

9 seems to be that inmate freedom to correspond with outsiders advances rather than retards the

10 goalofrehabilitation[.]" Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396,412-413 (1974), overruled in part

11 on other grounds by Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 417 (1989). Indeed:

Constructive, wholesome contact with the community is a valuable therapeutic

12

tool in the overall correctional process.... Correspondence with members of an

inmate's family, close friends, associates and organizations is beneficial to the

13

morale of all confined persons and may form the basis for good adjustment in the

institution and the community. 14
Martinez, 416 U.S. at 413 n. 13 (quoting Policy Statement 7300.1A of the Federal Bureau of

15 Prisons and Policy Guidelines for the Association of State Correctional Administrators); see also

16 Morrison v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896, 904 n. 7 (9th Cir. 2001).

17 Education during incarceration is widely recognized as "a path to increased eInployment,

18

reduced recidivism, and improved quality of life." The Urban Institute Justice Policy

19 Center, From the Classroom to the Community: Exploring the Role ofEducation during

20 Incarceration and Reentry (2009), at 2 (Ex. 13 at pg. 9). The Bureau of Prisons states:

21

Research demonstrates that education can change thinking, encourage pro-social

22

behavior, increase employment, and reduce recidivism. Education's power to transform lives in both tangible and intangible ways Inakes it one of the most

23

valuable and effective tools we may have for helping people rebuild their lives after incarceration, as well as for combating and reducing criIninal justice costs.

24 Id. at 42 (Ex. 13 at pg. 49); see also, Ex. 12. Defendants' censorship impedes prisoners' ability

25 to educate thelnselves during incarceration and thus retards the penological goal of

26 rehabilitation.

27
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 21 (CV 12-71-SI)

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 15 Filed 01/31/12 Page 26 of 36

1

In sun1, for both incoining and outgoing n1ail, Defendants' Postcard-Only Policy is a

2 grossly overbroad, ineffective, and arbitrary means of achieving their goals, with the primary

3 effect of suppressing protected speech. As in PLN I and PLN II, Plaintiff has shown that

4 Defendant's Postcard-Only Policy is not rationally related to a legitimate penological objective.

5

(2) Second Turner Factor: Plaintiff Has No Reasonable

Alternative Way to Express Its Speech

6

The second Turner factor is whether the government affords Plaintiff an alternative

7 means to exercise its constitutional rights. The government does not. PLN has no practical way

8 to reach its intended audience. PLN cannot cOlnmunicate its speech by mail because its letters

9 and brochures to thousands of persons across the country are not written on postcards, and its

10 catalog describing 43 different books for sale does not fit onto a postcard. Wright Dec. ~34.

11 PLN cannot effectively communicate its written speech by telephone or fly from Ven110nt to

12 Oregon to meet with prisoners. Id. at ~33. Like Inost publishers, PLN cannot tailor its

13 correspondence to the irrational requirements of a particular jail. Id. at ~~33-34.

14

Courts have rejected mail policies requiring speech to be communicated in a particular

15 medium. In Morrison v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2001), the Ninth Circuit rejected the

16 Oregon DOC's argument that it could ban bulk-rate Inail because prisoners may listen to radio or

17 watch television instead: "Although radio and television are alternative media by which inmates

18 may receive information about the 'outside' world, they should not be considered a substitute for

19 reading newspapers and magazines." Id. at 904. Twenty-five years ago, the Fifth Circuit

20 rejected the Saine argument in Mann v. Smith, 796 F.2d 79, 83 (5th Cir. 1986):

21

[T]he contents of television are different from what one finds in the printed

media. It is not up to the Midland County Sheriff or this court to decide that

22

television can adequately serve the first amendment right to receive protected

materials. 23

Costly alternatives have likewise been held inadequate. In PLN 1,238 F.3d at 1149, and

24

Morrison, 261 F.3d at 904, the Ninth Circuit denied the governments' claiIns that banning bulk

25

rate Inail to prisons was permissible because publishers could send mail via first or second class,

26

27
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 22 (CV 12-71-SI)

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 15 Filed 01/31/12 Page 27 of 36

1 holding that forcing a publisher to "take additional costly steps" to communicate with prisoners

2 is unconstitutional. The same is true here.

3

(3) Third Turner Factor: The Effect on Defendants' Resources is Minimal

4

The third Turner factor is the effect on prison staffing and resource allocation. Turner,

5 482 U.S. at 90. As noted above, Jail staff must process all mail whether delivering or censoring

6 it, and the Jail processed the mail through other Inethods before adopting its Postcard-Only

7 Policy.

8

"[T]he policies followed at other well-run institutions [are] relevant to a determination of

9 the need for a particular type of restriction." Morrison, 261 F.3d at 905 (quoting Martinez, 416

10 U.S. at 414 n.14). PLN has communicated its letters, catalogs, and brochures via mail to

11 thousands of prisoners country-wide since its founding in 1990. Wright Dec. ~6. PLN sends

12 correspondence to about 2,200 correctional facilities, including the Federal Bureau of Prisons,

13 housing 209,770 prisoners, Ex. 9; the Oregon Department of Corrections housing 13,937

14 prisoners, Ex. 22; and the Washington Department of Corrections housing over 16,000, Ex. 7;

15 Wright Dec. ~7

16

Neither the Bureau of Prisons, the Washington DOC, nor the Oregon DOC restrict

17 incoming mail to postcards, or ban catalogs. See Exs. 6, 8. 21. Indeed, neither Multnomah

18 County Jail nor Lane County Jail restrict prisoner mail to postcards or ban catalogs. See Exs. 4,

19 5. PLN is not aware of any state or federal prison that limits prisoner correspondence to

20 postcards. Wright Dec. ~37. This is strong evidence that the third Turner factor favors PLN.

21

(4) Fourth Turner Factor: Defendants' Policy

Is An Exaggerated Response 22

The fourth Turner factor is whether prison authorities have "readily available"

23

alternatives. "[T]he existence of obvious, easy alternatives may be evidence that the regulation is

24

not reasonable, but is an 'exaggerated response' to prison concerns." Turner, 482 U.S. at 90.

25

26

27
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 23 (CV 12-71-SI)

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 15 Filed 01/31/12 Page 28 of 36

1

Regardless of Defendants' claimed justifications, the fact that more than 2,000

2 correctional facilities nationwide accept PLN's materials suggests that the Jail's ban is an

3 exaggerated response. See Hrdlicka v. Reniff, 631 F.3d 1044, 1055 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that

4 widespread distribution of publisher's materials suggests jail bans may be exaggerated response).

5 Indeed, until April 2010, Defendants accepted envelopes too.

6

The Sheriff s revised and second revised policies both maintain his Postcards-Only

7 Policy. Accordingly, a preliminary injunction is necessary to protect PLN froin Defendants

8 censoring its protected speech during the pendency of this lawsuit.

9

b. Banning Catalogs Is Irrational

10

The government's ban on all mail that is not a postcard is effectively a blanket ban on

11 catalogs. That is unconstitutional. In PLN II, the Ninth Circuit held a ban on catalogs-

12 including those virtually identical to the PLN catalogs censored here-violates the First

13 Amendment, and the Court permanently enjoined the Washington DOC policy. 397 F.3d 692,

14 696 (9th Cir. 2005).

15

Book catalogs can spark interest in science, literature, music, art, and human rights. And,

16 as here, a book catalog can offer books that a confined prisoner who is separated from the

17 outside world needs in order to manage his or her core legal, medical, or personal matters.

18 PLN's book catalog describes 43 books, dictionaries, and resource materials on the rights of

19 prisoners regarding health and safety, self-representation in court, finding a lawyer, job searches,

20 successful reentry upon release from prison, and the mental health crisis in prisons. See Wright

21 Dec. ~27; Ex. NNN. Since the Ninth Circuit has already held under the first Turner factor that

22 censoring catalogs is irrational, an exaggerated response, and unconstitutional, no analysis under

23 the other factors is warranted.

24

The Sheriff s revised policies do not provide for the delivery of PLN's catalogs, because

25 PLN's catalogs are not a postcard. Furthermore, the Sheriffs policies arbitrarily and oddly

26 prohibit PLN's catalogs even in the form of a postcard. This is because the policies allow only

27
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 24 (CV 12-71-SI)

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 15 Filed 01/31/12 Page 29 of 36

1 catalogs that are ''junk Inail" and PLN's catalogs possess serious literary, political, and

2 educational value and therefore are not junk Inail, the only type of catalog that the policies allow.

3

c. Banning Material Generated from the Internet is Irrational

4

Similar to the effect of the Sheriff s policy on catalogs, the government's ban on all mail

5 that is not a postcard effectively bans virtually all internet-generated material because such

6 material cannot meaningfully be placed on postcard. That is unconstitutional. The problem is

7 illustrated by the Defendants' Decelnber 2011 censorship of a seven-page published news article

8 printed from the Prison Legal News website entitled "The Failed Promise of Prison

9 Privatization" that an individual, Lucy Lennox, sent to sixteen prisoners in the Jail. Lennox Dec.
10 ~~3-4; Exs. I through xv.

11

This lengthy news article of particular interest to prisoners cannot be squeezed onto a

12 postcard or otherwise practically presented on a whole series of postcards mailed separately to

13 prisoners. For a seven-page article, approximately 28 postcards would be needed. That process

14 would be cumbersome, requiring the correspondent to find a way to divide and reformat the

15 article into many pieces and write the sender's and intended recipient's nmne and contact

16 information on each postcard. And, it would be expensive, requiring the sender to buy nearly 30

17 postcards and pay the postage for mailing each. And, unsurprisingly, it would be very difficult

18 for the prisoner to piece together the article and a much greater burden on Jail staff to process

19 nearly 30 postcards rather than seven pieces of paper in a single envelope.

20

Since the obstacles to mailing and receiving internet materials in postcard form are so

21 substantial, the practical effect of the Sheriff s policy is to chill virtually all communication of

22 internet-generated materials to prisoners.

23

As with catalogs, the Ninth Circuit has already rejected as unconstitutional a ban on mail

24 generated from the internet. In Clement v. Cal. Dept. a/Corrections, 220 F. Supp.2d 1098,1110

25 (N.D. Cal. 2002), the District Court considered California's ban on internet-generated mail:

26

27
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 25 (CV 12-71-SI)

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 15 Filed 01/31/12 Page 30 of 36

1

Defendants contend that Internet-generated information provides a particular

danger to prison security because the potential high volume of e-mail, the relative

2

anonymity of the sender, and the ability of senders easily to attach lengthy articles

and other publications would greatly increase the risk that prohibited criminal

3

communications would enter the prison undetected and would make tracing their

source more difficult.

4 Rejecting all of the Defendants' arguments, the District Court held that "Whatever impact

5 increased mail volume may have on prison resources cannot justify Pelican Bay's ban on

6 materials generated from this particular source." Id. at 1112. Accordingly, the Court

7 permanently enjoined the Defendants' ban on Internet-generated information." Id. at 1116. The

8 Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling in every respect, including the permanent

9 statewide injunction. Clement v. Cal. Dept. o/Corrections, 364 F.3d 1148, 1152 (2004) ("we

10 affirm its holding that the Pelican Bay internet-generated Inail policy violates Clement's First

11 Amendment rights.").

12 Since Sheriff Dickerson's ban on all mail that is not a postcard is just another way of

13 preventing delivery of virtually all mail generated from the internet, it runs afoul of binding

14 Ninth Circuit precedent finding such a policy unconstitutional.

15 d. Banning Magazines is Irrational

16 A preliminary injunction is still needed to protect PLN's right to deliver its monthly

17 journal to prisoners.

18 Defendants' explicit ban on magazines for 18 months violated the First Alnendment. Ex.

19 1 at pg. 2 ("We do not accept magazines."). Based on this policy, Defendants censored

20 numerous issues of the Prison Legal News journal, month after n10nth. See Ex. 16. Defendants

21 claim that effective October 2011 they adopted a Revised Policy, which is alnbiguous about

22 whether magazines are permitted. Although the Sheriff promised in his Revised Policy that the

23 policy shall "be available to the public through the Sheriffs office website, Ex. 16 at pg. 3, he

24 never posted the policy. Indeed he continued to publicize to the outside world on his website

25 that the "no magazines" policy was still in effect. That is, until after PLN filed this lawsuit and

26

27 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 26 (CV 12-71-SI)

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 15 Filed 01/31/12 Page 31 of 36

1 notified the Jail that PLN intended to file this motion for a preliminary injunction. Chamberlain

2 Dec. ~~19, 11; Exs. 17, 11.

3

And Defendants' last minute policy tnodification, Ex. 20, is insufficient to assure that the

4 Jail will not censor PLN's monthly journals, as Jail staff has done for many months. The Sheriff

5 has recently tnodified his mail policies twice, showing how easily he might make changes again

6 that interfere with delivery ofPLN's journals. And notably, unlike his Original Policy, he did

7 not issue a public notice on his website announcing either of his purported Revised Policies nor

8 did he ever post the revisions on his website. It remains to be seen why Defendants never

9 disclosed their revised policy to the public. But regardless of the reason, by withholding their

10 actual policy frotn the public and by failing to afford correspondents due process notice

11 Defendants have undermined any notion that the Court should just trust them to adopt and

12 implement a Constitutional policy.

13

Defendants have not conducted their censorship policies and practices in a transparent

14 fashion so cannot be relied upon to act transparently in the future. If Defendants intend to permit

15 delivery ofPLN's journals then they should have agreed to a stipulated preliminary injunction,

16 which simply holds them accountable to comply with the policy that Defendants claim to have

17 adopted in response to PLN's stated intention to file this Motion.

18

2. Fourteenth Amendment

19

The Supreme Court long ago recognized that a publisher's right to communicate with

20 prisoners is rooted not only in the First Amendment, but also in the Fourteenth Amendment. Pell

21 v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 832 (1974). Thus,

22

[T]he decision to censor or withhold delivery of a particular letter must be

accompanied by minimum procedural safeguards. The interest of prisoners and

23

their correspondents in uncensored cotnmunication by letter, grounded as it is in the First Amendment, is plainly a "liberty" interest within the meaning of the

24

Fourteenth Amendment even though qualified of necessity by the circumstance of imprisonment. As such, it is protected from arbitrary governmental invasion ...

25 Martinez, 416 U.S. at 417-18. Repeatedly, the Ninth Circuit has reaffitmed the core principle the

26 Constitution requires prison officials to afford that notice and an opportunity to appeal their

27
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 27 (CV 12-71-S1)

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 15 Filed 01/31/12 Page 32 of 36

1 censorship decisions. See, e.g., PLN 1,238 F.3d at 1152-53; PLN 11,397 F.3d at 701; Krug v.

2 Lutz, 329 F.3d 692, 697-98 (9th Cir. 2003).

3

Publishers have a right to procedural due process because:

Without notifying the free citizen of the ilnpending rej ection, he would not be

4

able to challenge the decision which may infringe his right to free speech ...

[and] since the inmate-recipient would not have seen the contents of the withheld

5

letter, he Inay require the aid of the author to meaningfully challenge the rejection

decision. 6

Martin v. Kelley, 803 F.2d 236, 243-44 (6th Cir. 1986); see also, Montcalm Pub. Corp. v.

7

Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 109 (4th Cir. 1996); Miniken v. Walter, 978 F.Supp. 1356, 1363-64 (E.D. Wa.

8

1997); C%ne v. Manson, 409 F.Supp. 1033,1042 (D. Conn. 1976). Similarly, the prisoner has

9

a right to due process, see Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396,418-19 (1974), which PLN has a

10

legally-protected interest in securing. If the Jail censors a prisoner's request to subscribe to PLN

11

or a letter to PLN complaining of censorship of PLN materials the prisoner is in the best position

12

to evaluate whether his letter was legitimately censored or whether any claimed deficiency can

13

be cured. And, the prisoner can challenge the decision and try to notify PLN. And, protecting

14 prisoner rights is part of PLN' s organizational nlission. Wright Dec. ~3.

15

Although constitutionally Inandated to afford due process to publishers when censoring

16

prisoner mail, Defendants plainly failed to do so. Defendants gave grossly inadequate notice

17

when censoring PLN's publications, catalogs, books, and correspondence. For several mailings,

18

the Jail merely returned the material stamped un-informatively, "RETURN TO SENDER" or

19

"REFUSE/VIOLATES SECURITY," without identifying any way in which the material violated

20

security or even what policy applies. These notations did not notify PLN what was

21

objectionable, how to cure any defect, or how to challenge the rejection. For the censored mail

22

that the Jail did not return to PLN, the Jail provided no notice of censorship at all.

23

And, for envelopes containing identical contents, the Jail at times gave four different

24 reasons for censorship. This does not comport with the requirements of due process. It suggests

25

that the policies are not applied uniformly or that some or all of the asserted reasons are not

26

27
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 28 (CV 12-71-SI)

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fa'{ 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 15 Filed 01/31/12 Page 33 of 36

1 legitimate, or that they are pretextual. Also, if all four reasons actually justified censorship then

2 the sender and recipient had a due process right to know each of those reasons so that the

3 cOlTespondents could cure each alleged deficiency so the mail would be timely delivered or so

4 the correspondents could challenge each reason on a single appeal. Otherwise, the Jail would

5 censor the same contents again and again, revealing each justification only serially, and requiring

6 correspondents to repeatedly attempt to cure deficiencies or overturn the censorship decisions on

7 repeated appeals. This is fundanlentally unfair and um-easonably burdensome for all concerned.

8

Even on mailings where the Jail's cursory notification was that the Jail "ONLY

9 ACCEPTS POSTCARDS" the government failed to notify PLN of any opportunity to challenge

10 the censorship decisions-a core requirement of due process. Indeed, Defendants failed to

11 provide Plaintiff with any opportunity to be heard to challenge the censorship decisions.

12 Defendants' rejections provide no information about how to challenge censorship decisions, who

13 to contact, what the appeal must contain, or any deadlines.

14

Defendants' Original Policy (April 2010) provided no appeal rights or procedures to

15 anyone. Defendants' Revised Policy (October 2011) required the Jail to provide the prisoner-

16 addressees notice when the Jail censored incoming mail. But the policy failed to require any

17 notice to the publisher or other sender of incoming mail, or to the prisoner or intended recipient

18 of rejected outgoing mail. See Ex.16 at pg. 6, ILD.1.b.

19

Defendants' Second Revised Policy (January 2012) provides inadequate due process and

20 is hopelessly confusing. There is no cohesive description of a due process policy; instead, the

21 policy is comprised of numerous scattered references to some due process measures, under some

22 circumstances, and only to some correspondents. See Section LC.4. above.

23

Assuming that the Sheriff makes his newest mail policy publicly available, which he has

24 not yet done, the public will be unable to ascertain what the due process procedures are.

25 Likewise, when implementing and enforcing this policy, the Jail's mail staff will be left to use

26 unfettered discretion to apply the confusing and inconsistent policy according to their own

27
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 29 (CV 12-71-SI)

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 15 Filed 01/31/12 Page 34 of 36

1 interpretations. Such a policy is prone to abuse and arbitrary and random application, resulting

2 in violations of the Constitution. All told, because the policy cannot be fully understood and

3 because the provisions that can be understood are constitutionally inadequate, a preliminary

4 injunction is required.

5 C. PLN Continues to Suffer Irreparable Harm

6

"[A]n alleged constitutional infringement will often alone constitute irreparable harm."

7 Monterey Mechanical Co. v. Wilson, 125 F.3d 702, 715 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal citation

8 omitted). Indeed, the Fourth Circuit has held that a court "has no discretion to deny relief by

9 preliminary injunction to a person who clearly establishes by undisputed evidence that he is

10 being denied a constitutional right." Henry v. Greenville Airport Com 'n, 284 F.2d 631, 63 3 (4th

11 Cir. 1960).

12

Here, Defendants continue to inflict irreparable harm on Prison Legal News by enforcing

13 their blanket policies to censor PLN correspondence and book catalogs mailed to prisoners, as

14 well as outgoing mail from prisoners. Wright Dec. ~~32-36. And, to the extent that the Sheriffs

15 Second Revised Policy purports to permit delivery of magazines the Defendants cannot be

16 trusted to transparently adopt and apply this purported policy. This is true especially in light of

17 their failure to publicly disclose their revised and newer policies and their routine denial of due

18 process-which prevents PLN and others from monitoring Defendants' compliance with the

19 Jail's policies and the Constitution. If Defendants intend to allow delivery of magazines then

20 they should have been willing to stipulate to an injunction that they must do so, since it is

21 indisputable that they have been refusing to deliver PLN's journals.

22

"The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time,

23 unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury." Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976). And,

24 Defendants are likely to continue giving inadequate notice for censoring PLN's future

25 communications and to continue denying PLN the opportunity to be heard to challenge the

26 censorship.

27
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 30 (CV 12-71-SI)

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 15 Filed 01/31/12 Page 35 of 36

1 D. The Balance of Hardships Tips In Favor of Plaintiff

2

Here, the irreparable harm suffered by Prison Legal News is concrete, severe, and

3 ongoing. Without due process, the government will continue to censor the publisher's mail to

4 prisoners by banning its subscription forms, book catalogs, book offers, and other mailings

5 containing core protected speech about pUblications that criticize government policies, educate

6 on the rights of prisoners, and that offer insights on the crilninal justice systeln and jail

7 conditions. In contrast, any potential injuries to the Defendants are IniniInal and speculative. No

8 great cost or expenditure of time is required to lift the policies to allow PLN to communicate

9 with prisoners. The balance of hardships strongly favors Plaintiff.

10 E. The Public Interest Favors Free Flow of Information

11

The First Atnendment furthers a compelling public interest. "[P]rior restraints on speech

12 and publication are the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment

13 rights." Nebraska Press Ass 'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 559 (1976). The public has an important

14 interest in protecting the "lnarketplace of ideas" wherever it Inay be found, and in the continued

15 vitality of the Bill of Rights. At the heart of the First Amendment is the right of the press to

16 disseminate and exchange information on issues of public concern, especially where critical of

17 the government. The public interest weighs strongly in favor of enjoining Defendants from

18 enforcing their unconstitutional mail policies and requiring adequate due process.

19

III. CONCLUSION

20

Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm, whereas

21 Defendants will suffer no meaningful harm from entry of a preliminary injunction. Accordingly,

22 Plaintiff asks that the Court to order a preliminary injunction, and waive any bond.

23

DATED this 31 st day of January, 2012.

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS

24
25
26
27
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 31 (CV 12-71-SI)

lsi Katherine C. Chamberlain KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN OSB #042580 (206) 622-1604 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff PLN
MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 15 Filed 01/31/12 Page 36 of 36

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I hereby certify that on January 31,2012, I electronically filed the foregoing to the Clerk

3 of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the

4 following:

5

• Marc D. Blackman

Inarc@ransomblackman.com,pat@ransomblackman.com

6

• Gregory R. Roberson

grr@hartwagner.com,cej@hatiwagner.com

7

• Lance Weber

8

lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org

• Jesse Wing

9

JesseW@mhb.com

10

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS

11

/s/ Katherine C. Chamberlain

12

KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN

OSB #042580

13

(206) 622-1604

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 32 (CV 12-71-SI)

MAcDoNALD I-IOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 25 Filed 02/16/12 Page 1 of 5

Steven A. Kraemer, OSB No. 882476 E-mail: sak@hartwagner.com Gregory R. Roberson, OSB No. 064847 E-mail: grr@hartwagner.com HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301
Of Attorneys for Defendants

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,

No. CV12-0071-SI

Plaintiffs, v.

ANSWER

COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF DICKERSON, individual and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Defendants.

Defendants deny each and every allegation of Plaintiff’s Complaint except as admitted in

this Answer.

I. NATURE OF THE CASE

1.1 Defendants admit that some of the Columbia County Jail’s (“Jail”) past mail

policies and practices violated some of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Defendants are without

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations

and therefore deny the same.

Page 1 - ANSWER

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 25 Filed 02/16/12 Page 2 of 5

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2.1 Admit.

2.2 Admit.

III. PARTIES

3.1 Admit that Human Rights Defense Center is a Washington non-profit corporation.

Admit that Prison Legal News (“PLN”) publishes and distributes a monthly publication of

corrections news and analysis and certain books about the criminal justice system and legal

issues affecting prisoners. Admit that PLN maintains a website. Defendants are without

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remainder in ¶ 3.1.

3.2 Admit.

3.3 Deny the Sheriff’s Office is a department of Columbia County. Admit that it

operates the Columbia County Jail in St. Helens, Oregon and that the Jail houses convicted

prisoners and pre-trial detainees.

3.4 Deny Sheriff Dickerson is employed by Columbia County or that that he is an

agent of Columbia County. Admit the remainder of ¶ 3.4.

3.5 Deny that the acts and omissions of the persons alleged herein were taken as

employees and officers of Columbia County, but admit this paragraph to the extent it alleges the

persons were employees or officers of Columbia County Sheriff’s Office.

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

4.1 Admit.

4.2 Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in ¶ 4.2, therefore they are denied.

4.3 Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the remainder in ¶ 4.3, therefore they are denied.

4.4 Admit that Defendants have rejected some of PLN’s mailings sent to inmates in

custody at the Jail. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

as to the truth of the remainder in ¶ 4.4., therefore they are denied.

Page 2 - ANSWER

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 25 Filed 02/16/12 Page 3 of 5

4.5 - 4.27 Admit.

4.28 Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in ¶ 4.28, therefore they are denied.

4.29 Deny.

4.30 Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in ¶ 4.30, therefore they are denied.

4.31 – 4.34 Admit.

4.35 Plaintiff’s statement does not contain an allegation for Defendants to admit or

deny. To the extent an answer is required, deny.

4.36 Admit.

4.37 Deny as to Lloyd Myers. Otherwise, admit.

4.38 – 4.41 Admit.

4.42 – 4.44 Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of the allegations in ¶ 4.42 - ¶4.44, therefore they are denied.

4.45 – 4.51 Admit.

4.52 – 4.54 Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of the allegations in ¶ 4.52 – ¶ 4.54, therefore they are denied.

4.55 – 4.61 Admit.

4.62 – 4.64 Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of the allegations in ¶ 4.62 - ¶ 4.64, therefore they are denied.

4.65 – 4.71 Admit.

4.72 – 4.73 Deny.

4.73.1

Deny.

4.73.2

Admit.

4.73.3

Deny.

4.73.4 Admit that Defendants rejected some PLN articles that Lucy Lennox printed from

PLN’s website and mailed to some inmates at the Jail. Admit that the Jail put on some of the

Page 3 - ANSWER

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 25 Filed 02/16/12 Page 4 of 5

rejected mail that “the Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS” or “No envelope

mail” as the reason for the rejection. Deny the remainder in ¶ 4.73.4.

4.73.5 – 4.73.6

Deny.

4.74

Deny.

4.74.1 – 4.74.2

Deny.

4.74.3 – 4.74.4

Defendants admit that some of its past mail policies violated some

of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

4.75 – 4.80 Deny.

V. CLAIM ALLEGATIONS

5.1 Defendants re-allege and incorporate herein each answer included in ¶¶ 1.1 –

4.80.

5.2 Defendants admit that some of its past mail policies violated some of Plaintiff’s

constitutional rights.

5.3 - 5.4

Deny.

5.5 Defendants re-allege and incorporate herein each answer included in ¶¶ 1.1 –

4.80.

5.6 Defendants admit that some of its past mail polices violated some of Plaintiff’s

constitutional rights.

5.7 - 5.8

Deny.

VI.

INJUNCTION ALLEGATIONS

6.1 Deny.

6.2 Deny.

BY WAY OF FURTHER ANSWER, DEFENDANTS ASSERT THE FOLLOWING

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES:

1. Plaintiff’s prayer for injunctive relief is moot.

2. Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Page 4 - ANSWER

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 25 Filed 02/16/12 Page 5 of 5
3. Plaintiff lacks standing and is not the real party in interest as to any claims and allegations from other publishers, companies, organizations, prisoners and individuals other than Plaintiff.
4. Defendant Sheriff Jeff Dickerson is entitled to qualified immunity. 5. Plaintiff cannot seek injunctive relief from Sheriff Jeff Dickerson in his individual capacity. WHEREFORE, having fully answered the Complaint, Defendants pray for a trial by jury on causation and damages, for judgment in their favor, for their costs, disbursements and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1988, and for such other relief as the court deems just and equitable. Respectfully submitted this 16th day of February, 2012.
HART WAGNER, LLP
By: /s/ Steven A. Kraemer Steven A. Kraemer, OSB No. 882476 Of Attorneys for Defendants

Page 5 - ANSWER

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 29 Filed 02/21/12 Page 1 of 24

Steven A. Kraemer, OSB No. 882476
E-mail: sak@hartwagner.com Gregory R. Roberson, OSB No. 064847 E-mail: grr@hartwagner.com
HART WAGNER LLP
1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503)222-2301
Of Attorneys for Defendants

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the
HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,
Plaintiffs,

No. CV12-0071-SI

v.
COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF DICKERSON, individual and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Request for Oral Argument

Defendants.

Table of Contents

I.

Introduction

2

II.

Relevant Facts

3

III. Argument

9

A. Plaintiffs Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is Moot

9

B. Plaintiff Lacks Standing to Seek a Preliminary Injunction

10

1. Plaintiff Lacks Standing to Seek a Preliminary Injunction on Its Own Behalf.

11

2. Plaintiff Lacks Standing to Seek a Preliminary Injunction on Behalf of Inmates

11

Page 1 - RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

,IART wagner llp
,00°SAV- *«•*»»* Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205
Telephone: (503) 222-4499
Facsimile: (503)222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 29 Filed 02/21/12 Page 2 of 24

3. Plaintiff Lacks Standing to Seek a PreliminaryInjunction on Behalf of "Other

Correspondents."

12

IV. Even if Plaintiff Has Standing to Bring All or Some of Its Claims, It Has Failed to Meet

Its Burden of Demonstrating the Need for Extraordinary Relief in the Form of a

Preliminary Injunction

13

A. Plaintiff Is Unlikely to Succeed on the Merits

13

1. Plaintiffs First Amendment Claim

13

a. First Turner Factor: Rational Relationship to Legitimate and Neutral Governmental

Interest

14

i. The Postcard Restriction Is Not Overbroad

16

ii. The Postcard Restriction Does Not Impede Inmate Rehabilitation

16

iii. The Postcard Restriction Does Not Chill Speech

17

iv. The Current Policy Does Not Ban Magazines and Catalogs

17

v. The Jail Bans Materials Not Directly Sent to an Inmate by the Publisher

17

b. Second Turner Factor: Alternative Avenues for Plaintiff.

18

c. Third Turner Factor: Impact on Inmates, Jail Staff, and Jail Resources

19

d. Fourth Turner Factor: Existence of Easy and Obvious Alternatives Suggesting an

Exaggerated Response by Prison Officials

20

2. Plaintiffs Fourteenth Amendment Claim

20

B. Plaintiff Has Failed to Demonstrate Irreparable Harm

22

C. The Balance of Equities Do Not Support Issuing a Preliminary Injunction

23

D. The Public Interest Does Not Support Issuing a Preliminary Injunction

23

V.

Conclusion.

24

t

I.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Prison Legal News (PLN) has filed a lawsuit against defendants alleging that the

inmate mail policy of the Columbia County Jail (the Jail) violates plaintiffs First Amendment

free speech rights and Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, as well as the same

constitutional rights of "other correspondents" and prisoners. (Compl., ffl| 5.1 - 5.8.) Plaintiffs

Page 2 - RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

HART WAGNER LLP
1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor Portland, Oregon 97205
Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503)222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 29 Filed 02/21/12 Page 3 of 24

Complaint prays for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief as well as nominal, compensatory and punitive damages. (Id., § VII.)
Defendants here respond to plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction. This response is supported by the Declarations of Jeffrey M. Dickerson, Sergeant Bryan Cutright, and Gregory R. Roberson, together with supporting exhibits, and the facts and argument set forth below.

As will be seen from the recitals below, defendants have changed the inmate mail policy in a fashion that moots plaintiffs motion for preliminary relief, and even if plaintiffs motion is

not moot, plaintiff does not have standing and has not demonstrated that preliminary relief is necessary or appropriate in the facts of this case.

II.

RELEVANT FACTS

For purposes of this response, defendants accept as true plaintiffs fact section regarding

the parties. (PI. Mem., pp. 2-3.)

Defendants acknowledge that prior to January 26,2012, the Jail's policy regarding

whether inmates could receive catalogs and other correspondence was unclear. The Jail's policies, however, have always allowed inmates to receive magazines as long as they were new

and sent directly from the publisher. (Dickerson Decl., ffil 4-7, Ex. A, U1.10; Ex. B, 11.10; Ex.

C, H1.10; Ex. D, H1.11. Defendants acknowledge that due to inconsistent practices on the part of jail staff, some mailings, including magazines, from plaintiff were not distributed to inmates up
to and through January 26,2012.' Thus, prior to January 26,2012, the Jail accepted PLN's

monthly magazine and other mailings on an inconsistentbasis, with some copies being rejected

1 For reasons that are not clear, mailing procedures were posted onthe Columbia County
Sheriffs Office website that were not consistent with its mail policy. (Dickerson Decl., U7). These procedures included a ban on magazines. (Chamberlain Decl., K1, Ex. 1.) Defendants are still investigating how the purported mail procedures were created, but it appears that some staff may have misunderstood the mail policy and were rejecting non-postcard size mailings addressed to inmates, instead of having the corrections staff process the inmate mail. (Dickerson Decl.,1fl| 7-10.) Because the office staff typically forwards to the corrections deputies all mail addressed to inmates for processing, only some magazines and similar mail were rejected. (Id, 11118-10.)

Page 3 - RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

HART WAGNER LLP
1000 SAV. Broadway, Twentieth Floor Portland, Oregon 97205
Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503)222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 29 Filed 02/21/12 Page 4 of 24

as set forth in plaintiffs statement of facts. Other inmates, however, did receive mail from plaintiff. For instance, inmates Troy McCarter, Martin Key, and Ezra St. Helen received plaintiffs paperbackbook entitled Protecting Your Health &Safety, as well as several issues of plaintiffs monthly magazine. (PI Mot., McCarter Decl. ffl[ 5-6; Kay Decl. f 6, St. Helen Decl., HH5-6.)
The Jail has a capacity for 255 inmates. Due to budget constraints that came about in 2010, however, the current funded capacity of the Jail is up to 150 inmates. (Dickerson Decl.,K 24.) Each day, the Jail receives about fifty incoming pieces of mail addressed to inmates and about forty pieces of mail from inmates to be sent out. (Cutright Decl., U2.) Out of the fifty pieces of incominginmate mail, about thirty-five to forty pieces are personal mail; the rest is legal mail. (Id., H2.) A typical shift has four corrections deputies. (Dickerson Decl., H21.) The booking deputy is responsible for inspecting incoming and outgoing non-legal mail, in addition to other responsibilities such as communicating with intake officers, booking arrestees into the Jail, and monitoring inmates in the cells in booking area. (Id.) The control room deputy manages all movements in the Jail, which are remotely controlled. (Id. H22.) The remaining two corrections deputies are roving deputies who must check on inmates every forty-five minutes, distribute food and mail, and monitor them during common and recreation periods. (W.,U23.)
Plaintiff recites "facts" regarding three mail policies. (PI Mem., pp. 7-13.) For purposes of determining whether plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary injunction, however, only the current policy, effective February 10,2012 (current policy) is relevant. To the extent that prior policies were constitutionally deficient, injunctive relief will not remedy these past violations.
/// ///

2The Jail amended its January 26,2012 Inmate Mail Policy on February 10,2012. (Dickerson
Decl., U 10, Ex. F.) The February 10,2012 Inmate Mail Policy did not make any substantive change in mail procedures. (Id.)

Page 4 - RESPONSE TO. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

HART WAGNER LLP
1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor Portland, Oregon 97205
Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 29 Filed 02/21/12 Page 5 of 24

The current policy, which was drafted within days of the filing of plaintiffs lawsuit,3
provides that jail staff will accept:
"written correspondence, notes, parcels, or documents for inmates that have been deliveredby the U.S. Postal Service and distributed by Columbia County Jail
Staff."
(Dickerson Decl., 110, Ex. F, p. 3, U2.)
The current policy limits inmates' personal mail to:
"postcards in any size that is delivered by the U.S. Postal Service up to a maximum size of 5-1/2" tall X 8-1/2" wide. The jail does not permit any other form of personal mail for inmates. Inmates are not limited to a specific number of postcards that they may receive or send."
(/</., p. 3, p.)
"Personal mail" is defined as:
"Postcards mailed to and from family, friends, organizations, businesses, or other
unofficial entities."
(Id., p. 2.)
The current policy further provides that:
"Jail staff will accept solicited or unsolicited junk mail or bulk mail for inmates, unless it violates other mail restrictions (such as containing sexually explicit content)."
(A/., p. 4, U 10.)
"Junk mail" is defined as:
"Printed materials, often sent as mass mailings, such as catalogs, advertisements, brochures, circulars, and pamphlets whose primary purpose is to sell, promote or solicit for, a product or service, and when taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, educational, religious, or scientific value. Junk mail may come using a variety of postal rates."
(/</., p. 1).
///

3 Defendants were notnotified that plaintiffhad concerns about the Jail's handling of inmate
mail until after the lawsuit was filed, despite plaintiff receiving rejected mailings from the Jail for over a year. (Chamberlain Decl. H 16, Ex. 14 (letter to county counsel and proposed preliminary injunction); Compl. ffll 4.7,4.24 (earliest rejected mail was sent on or about December 8,2010).)

Page 5 - RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

HART WAGNER LLP
1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor Portland, Oregon 97205
Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503)222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 29 Filed 02/21/12 Page 6 of 24

The currentpolicy allows inmates to receive publications that are prepaidby persons
outsidethe jail. (Id., p. 6, %18.) With permission of the jail supervisor, an inmate can conduct
personal business such as "the use of a business replyenvelope to send a document back to the
originating firm." (Id, p. 7, \ 11; id. U26.) Specifically, inmates are permitted to receive up to
three new or used books a day, as long as the books come directly from the publisher, a book
club, or a bookstore. (Id. p. 7, H19.) With regard to periodicals:
"An inmate may receive up to two periodicals on a single mail delivery day. Periodicals must be new and delivered directly from the publisher or bookstore. Periodicals include magazines."
(Id, p. 7,U 20.)
A "periodical" is defined as:
"A magazine, newspaper, or other publication formed of printed sheets that are issued at least four times a year at regular, specified intervals from a known office of publication. Periodicals usually must have a legitimate list of subscribers and
requesters."
(Id., p. 2.)
The current policy has this to say about prohibited publications:
"The jail must determine whether a specific publication, book or periodical violates jail rules. This determination must be made on an issue-by-issue basis, and it is unacceptable to put a blanket prohibition on all issues of a certain publication or periodical. If an issue of a publication, book or periodical is
determined to violate jail rules, it should be returned to the sender and notification
to the sender and the inmate should be made pursuant to paragraph 31.
(Id., p. 7, U21) (emphasis added).
With regard to confiscating prohibited mail, current policy provides:
"Normally, mail handlers confiscate prohibited items. The sender of confiscated mail must be notified pursuant to paragraph 31. Staff may return prohibited mail to a sender if it is in the best interest of the jail not to store it, such as perishables.
«* * * * #
"b. Mail handlers will use a Prohibited Mail Slip to inform the inmate of the confiscation and use a copy as a tag for the items. They will place confiscated items in the inmate's property storage, unless it is evidence in a jail disciplinary action or a crime. They will handle evidence according to the applicable policy: Staff will not notify the inmate or sender if they confiscate items that are part of a criminal investigation.

Page 6 - RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

HART WAGNER LLP
1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor Portland, Oregon 97205
Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 29 Filed 02/21/12 Page 7 of 24

"c. Mail handlers must notify the sender in writing that mail they sent was confiscated or not delivered to the inmate, unless the inmate is no longer in custody. They should use a Prohibited Mail Slip for the notification. Any notice will give the reason and explain how the sender can informally appeal the action.
"d. A mail handler may destroy any item in mail that presents a health or safety risk if it were to be stored in the jail or returned to the sender, and notify the sender bv sending a Prohibited Mail Slip."
(Id. p. 9, U30) (emphasis added).
The Prohibited Mail Notice advises the sender that a piece of mail is being returned or
confiscated and gives the reason for the denial. Under the heading "APPEALS," it states:
"If you believe that your correspondence/publication was improperly denied, vou may appeal the decision bv sending in a written letter stating the reasons
vou believe that the decision was wrong within 15 days from the date of this
letter. Your appeal should identify specifically why you believe our decision to deny the mail was wrong and include your name and return address. You are not required to provide a phone number, but it may be useful if we need further clarification. We will send you a decision on your appeal within 15 days of receiving it. Please direct your written appeal to: [address for the jail commander]."
(Dickerson Decl., K29, Ex. H) (emphasis added).
Paragraph 31 of the current policy provides for the mail handler to return rejected mail to
the sender or to the United States Postal Service and to:
"b. Send a notice of right to reconsideration with return mail. Send a notice of right to reconsideration to senders of confiscated mail. Complaints and requests for reconsideration shall be forwarded to the Jail Commander for a determination of compliance with the Mail Policy and applicable legal requirements."
(Dickerson Decl., U 10, Ex. F, p. 10, H31.)
The current policy provides for supervisionand training of mail handlers and requires jail
personnel to "[djeliver the mail as soon as practical upon receipt." (Id., p. 11, Uf; p. 13,K41.)
Finally, the current policy provides procedures for returning mail to a sender as follows:
"To return postcards, a mail handler will use a sticker or stamp marked 'return
to sender,' note the reason for refusal on thestamp, obliterate any mail-sorting
bar code, and return it to the post office. To return unopened mail (other than postcards), a mail handler will use the 'return to sender' stamp in place of the
sticker.
///

Page 7 - RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

HART WAGNER LLP
1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor Portland, Oregon 97205
Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503)222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 29 Filed 02/21/12 Page 8 of 24

"To return mail that was opened, a mail handler must repackage it and send it at the expense of the jail to the sender. The mail handler will include a copy of the Returned Mail form letter and the inmate Mail Guide if he or she repackages the
mail.
"Mail handlers will use a Prohibited Mail Slip to inform the inmate and the sender when mail is returned to sender. The Prohibited Mail Slip will conform to the model shown below[on pages 16 and 17 of the policy]." (Id., p. 15, H45; see also id., p. 15, U46 (inmates must follow the grievance procedure set forth in the inmate manual to appeal a decision to deny delivery of mail and a sender of mail must send a written letter within fifteen days addressed to the jail commander identifying why the decision was wrong.) All corrections deputies and all non-corrections staff who handle incoming mail have been formally trained on the new mail policy. (Dickerson Decl., HU 28-29.) Plaintiff has not had a magazine, catalog, or brochure rejected by the Jail since July 20,2011, several months before the implementation of the current policy. Plaintiffs statement of facts, which includes arguments that do not belong in a statement of facts, mischaracterizes the current policy in several regards. Defendants address these arguments and mischaracterizations here becausethey form the false basis for all of plaintiffs
arguments.
Plaintiff asserts that the current policy retains the postcard-only policy. (PI. Mem., p. 9.) In fact, as set forth above, the current policy also allows delivery of bulk mail, junk mail, periodicals, catalogs, brochures, fundraising lettersand books.
Plaintiff further asserts that the postcard-only restriction on outgoing mail prohibits inmates from sending letters to PLN or from returning subscription and book order forms. (Id.) Inmates, however, may send as many postcards as they like to PLN. They are not, therefore, deprived of the opportunity to write to PLN. With regard to subscription and book orders, these are permittedas long as they originate and are paid for outside the jail. (DickersonDecl., U10, Ex. F, p. 7,1j20.) Further, although the Jail has limited resources to assist inmates in conduction personal business, an inmate may do so with approval by a jail supervisor. (Id.,U26.) In

Page 8 - RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

HART WAGNER LLP
1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor Portland, Oregon 97205
Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503)222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 29 Filed 02/21/12 Page 9 of 24

addition, an inmate may, with approval, conduct personal business such as "the use of a business replyenvelope to send a document backto the originating firm." (Id., f 10, Ex. F, p. 4, U11.) These policies clearly allow an inmate to renewsubscriptions or donatemoney to organizations such as plaintiff. In any event, prior to filing its motion, plaintiff never conferred with defendants regarding an inmate's ability to send money, directly or indirectly, to plaintiff.
Plaintiff also argues that the current policy "permits delivery ofjunk mail, but only in the form of a postcard." (PI. Mem., p. 10.) This is patently false. The postcard requirement is restricted to "personal mail." (Dickerson Decl., U11, Ex. F, p. 2.) "Junk mail" is defined as

including "catalogs, advertisements, brochures, circulars, and pamphlets." (Id., p. 1.) Thus, it cannot be restricted to postcards.

Plaintiffs argument that it may not send its catalogs under the current policy is equally without merit. (PI. Mem., p. 10.) The current policy states that "solicited and unsolicited" junk

mail and bulk mail is distributed to inmates, unless it violates other mail restrictions. (Dickerson Decl., If 11, Ex. F, p. 4, H 10.) A catalog is either junk mail or bulk mail, and neither is required

to be on a postcard because the postcard restriction is limited to personal mail. (Id., %11, Ex. F, p. 2.)
Plaintiffs assertion that the due process provisions in the current policy are confusing is also without merit. (PI. Mem., p. 12.) All of the information that plaintiff argues is not provided by the policy is, in fact, provided. As set forth above, paragraph 30 of the current policy clearly sets forth the procedure for returning mail, and includes the requirement that notice be given to both the inmate and the sender. Further, the Prohibited Mail Notice required by paragraph 30 clearly describes the time for filing an appeal, the necessary contents of an appeal, and the address to which the appeal should be sent. (Dickerson Decl., f 29, Ex. H.)

III. ARGUMENT

A. Plaintiffs Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is Moot.

Voluntary cessation of a challenged practice moots a request for injunctive relief "if

subsequent events [make] it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not

Page 9 - RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

HART wacner llp
,00°SW"Broadway.Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205
Telephone: (503) 222-4499
Facsimile: (503)222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 29 Filed 02/21/12 Page 10 of 24

reasonably be expected to recur." Friendsofthe Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services

(TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167,188 (2000). The party asserting mootness bears the burden to

persuade the court that the challenged conduct will not reasonably be expected to recur. Id.

Here, that burden has been met. As soon as plaintiff filed its lawsuit, which was the first

notice defendants had of plaintiffs concerns about the Jail's handling of inmate mail, defendants

moved quickly and decisively to address plaintiffs concerns. As set forth in detail above, the

current inmate mail policy allows inmates to receive postcards,junk mail, periodicals and books.

Further, there is no reason to believe that there will be future incidents of returns of plaintiffs

mailings because they are not "postcards." Except for two fundraising letters returned in

November, 2011, plaintiff has not had a piece of mail returned since July 20,2011, and all staff

who handle inmate mail have been trained in the current policy. Further, a process is in place for

plaintiff to appeal the return of mail should such a return occur. Defendants have met their

burden on mootness and respectfully ask the Court to deny plaintiffs motion for a preliminary

injunction.

B. Plaintiff Lacks Standing to Seek a Preliminary Injunction.

For a plaintiff to have standing under Article III of the United States Constitution, it must

show that (1) it has suffered an "injury in fact" that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b)

actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the

challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the

injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. Friends ofthe Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw

Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167,180-81 (2000). "[A]t the preliminary

injunction stage, a plaintiff must make a 'clear showing' of his injury in fact." Lopez v.

Candaele, 630 F.3d 775, 785 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Winter v. Natural Resources Defense

Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7,129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008)). Plaintiff bears the burden of satisfying

these elements, Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555,561 (1992), and each element must

be supported in the same way as any other matter in which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof

and the evidence relevant to the standing inquiry consists of the facts as they existed at the time

Page 10 - RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

hartwacner llp
100° sw- Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205
Telephone: (503) 222-4499
Facsimile: (503)222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 29 Filed 02/21/12 Page 11 of 24

the plaintifffiled the complaint. D 'Lil v. Best Western Encina Lodge &Suites, 538 F.3d 1031,
1036 (9th Cir. 2008), cert, den., 2009 WL 273213 (2009). Whether aparty has standing is a
question of law. Id. at 1035. Plaintiff brings this lawsuit on behalf of itself, "other correspondents," and inmates. For
the reasons set forth below, plaintiffdoes not have standing to seek a preliminary injunction on its own behalf or on behalf of the other two groups that it purportsto represent.
1. Plaintiff Lacks Standing to Seek a Preliminary Injunction on Its Own Behalf. Because defendants have changed the Jail's inmate mail policy in a manner that allows plaintiff to send mail to, and receive mail from, the Jail, and provides for notice to senders of the reasons for the rejection of mail along with an opportunity to appeal the rejection, a preliminary injunction will not address or redress any injury in fact. To the extent that plaintiff is able to demonstrate past injuries, these injuries can only be compensated monetarily. Thus, plaintiff lacks standing to seek a preliminary injunction. 2. Plaintiff Lacks Standing to Seek a Preliminary Injunction on Behalf of Inmates. A party may only assert the rights of third parties if three criteria are met: "The litigant must have suffered an "injury in fact," thus giving him or her a 'sufficiently concrete interest' in the outcome of the issue in dispute; the litigant must have a close relation to the third party; and there must exist some hindrance to the third party's ability to protect his or her interests." Coalition ofClergy, Lawyers, and Professors v. Bush, 310 F.3d 1153,1163 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400,410-11 (1991)). Plaintiff cannot meet these requirements. Again, plaintiff has not suffered an injury that can be redressed by a preliminary injunction. Further, plaintiff is a non-profit business enterprise that can claim no close relationship with inmates, their families or friends. Finally, plaintiff has not shown that inmates, or the friends or family of inmates, cannot protect their own interests. In fact, inmates frequently file lawsuits to assert their constitutional rights. Further, although courts may relax the above prudential considerations where there is a substantial abridgement of a third party's speech rights, SecretaryofState ofMarylandv. Joseph

Page 11 - RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

HART WAGNER LLP
1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor Portland, Oregon 97205
Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503)222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 29 Filed 02/21/12 Page 12 of 24

H. Munson Co., Inc., 467 U.S. 947,956-57 (1984), there is no such substantial abridgement here thatcould be addressed by a preliminary injunction. Under the current policy, inmates are entitled to receive books,junk mail, bulk mail and magazines; they may send and receive unlimited postcards; and they are entitled to notice when mail has been returned.
In The PittNews v. Fisher, 215 F.3d 354,364 (3d Cir. 2000), cert. den. 531 U.S. 1113 (2001), a Pennsylvania statute provided for criminal sanctionsagainst businessesthat advertised alcoholic beverages in educational institution-funded newspapers. Plaintiff, a student newspaper, challenged the statute on First Amendment grounds. The Third Circuit found that the relaxed prudential standing requirement in the First Amendment context did not applyto the plaintiffbecause itscould not show that the rights of the third parties it sought to protect (its actual and potential advertisers) were "forced to forego their rights entirely, or else face criminal prosecution to vindicate them." Id. Similarly here, inmates and their family and friends are not forced to forego their First Amendment rights, nor do they face prosecution should they seek to vindicate their rights.
The Supreme Court has stated that "[fjederal courts must hesitate before resolving a controversy, even one within their constitutional power, on the basis of the rights of third persons not parties to the litigation." Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106,113-14 (1976). The Court explained that the holders of those rights may not wish to assert them or may not be able to enjoy those rights regardless of the in-court litigant's success, and "usually will be the best proponents of their own rights." Id. at 114. In light of this caution, the Court should not recognizeplaintiff as having standing to seek a preliminary injunction on behalf of inmates.
3. Plaintiff Lacks Standing to Seek a Preliminary Injunction on Behalf of "Other Correspondents."
For the reasons set forth in section 2 above, the court should also decline to recognize plaintiff as having standing to bring claims on behalf of "other correspondents." Plaintiff apparently bases this claim upon the rejection of letters containing a PLN article printed from plaintiff's website sent by one Lucy Lennox to Jail inmates. (Compl., UK 4.65 - 4.71; Lennox

Page 12 - RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

HART WAGNER LLP
1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor Portland, Oregon 97205
Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503)222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 29 Filed 02/21/12 Page 13 of 24

Decl.) Plaintiff has presented no evidence of a close relationship with Ms. Lennox or that she requires plaintiffs assistance in vindicating her rights. Further, plaintiff has presented no evidenceof a concrete and particularized injury in fact stemming from the rejection of mail from other correspondents. See Lopez, 630 F.3d at 785.
IV. EVEN IF PLAINTIFF HAS STANDING TO BRING ALL OR SOME OF ITS
CLAIMS, IT HAS FAILED TO MEET ITS BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING
THE NEED FOR EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF IN THE FORM OF A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.
A preliminary injunction is an "extraordinary and drastic remedy." Munafv. Green, 553 U.S. 674,689-90 (2008). As correctly recited by plaintiff, a plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction in a case in which the public interest is involved must establish (1) that they are likely to succeed on the merits, (2) that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, (3) that the balance of equities tips in their favor, and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest." California Pharmacists Ass'n v. Maxwell-Jolly, 563 F.3d 847,849-50 (9th Cir. 2009). Here, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that any of these factors weigh in its
favor.
A. Plaintiff Is Unlikely to Succeed on the Merits.
1. Plaintiffs First Amendment Claim.
A prison regulation does not violate the First Amendment if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987). The Turner Court identified four factors to be considered in making this determination: (1) whether the regulation is rationally related to a legitimate and neutral governmental objective; (2) whether there are alternative avenues that remain open to inmates to exercise the right; (3) the impact that accommodating the asserted right will have on other guards and prisoners, and on the allocation of prison resources; and (4) whether the existence of easy and obvious alternatives indicates that the regulation is an exaggerated response by prison officials. Prison Legal News v. Cook, 238 F.3d 1145,1149 (citing Turner, 482 U.S. at 89-90). The test applies to regulations affecting a publisher's right to communicate to inmates. Id.

Page 13 - RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

IIART WAGNER LLP
1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor Portland, Oregon 97205
Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503)222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 29 Filed 02/21/12 Page 14 of 24

Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its First Amendment Claini based upon these four factors.
a. First Turner Factor: Rational Relationship to Legitimate and Neutral
Governmental Interest.
As explained above, the current mail policy allows plaintiffs magazines, catalogs, brochures, subscription renewal forms, and fundraising letters to be distributed to inmates as long as they are mailed from plaintiffs business address. Inmates may respond by postcard or if they desire to transact business or donate funds to plaintiff, they may have an outside party do so or obtain permission from the jail commander. Defendants have maintained the postcard-only mail policy for incoming and outgoing personal mail only. As argued above, plaintiff does not have standing to challenge this policy. Even if plaintiff did have standing, the postcard-only policy bears a rational relationship to legitimate and neutral interests.
The postcard-only policy is rationally related to the needs of the Jail's limited resources and need for security and safety of inmates and the jail's staff. These goals are legitimate penological interests. Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401,414 (1989); see also, O'Keefe v. Van Boening, 82 F.3d 322, 326 (9th Cir. 1996) ("[Prevention of criminal activity and the maintenance of prison security are legitimate penological interests which justify the regulation of both incoming and outgoing prisoner mail"); Witherow v. Paff 52 F.3d 264 (9th Cir. 1995) ("When a prison regulation affects outgoing mail as opposed to incoming mail, there must be a closer fit between the regulation and the purpose it serves." (internal citation omitted)).
None of the cases relied upon by plaintiff rejects a postcard-only restriction on incoming and outgoing personal inmate mail. There are, however, cases upholding postcard-only policies. In Covell v. Arpaio, 662 F. Supp.2d 1146 (D. Az. 2009), the court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment against the plaintiffs claim that restricted incoming inmate mail to postcard size. The court found that the postcard restriction was a neutral policy that was rationally related to the legitimate purpose of reducing the risk of contraband entering the facility and compromising jail security. Id. at 1153; see also, Rogers v. Maricopa County Sheriff's

Page 14 - RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

HART WAGNER LLP
1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor Portland, Oregon 97205
Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503)222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 29 Filed 02/21/12 Page 15 of 24

Office, 2008 WL 898721, No. CV07-00641 (D. Az.) (not reported) (dismissing plaintiffs claim

relating to postcard restriction for failure to state a claim); Jordan v. Arpaio, 2008 WL

22622401, No. CV08-00856 (D. Az.) (not reported) (dismissing plaintiffs claim relating to a

postcard restriction for failure to state a claim); Medleyv. Arpaio, 2008 WL 3911138, No.

CV08-00086 (D. Az.) (not reported) (denying plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction for

failing to show that legal mail was barred by the postcard restriction); Gibbons v. Arpaio, 2008

WL 4447003, No. CV07-1456 (D. Az.) (not reported) (granting jail's motion for summary

judgment against plaintiffs claim that postcard restriction violated the First Amendment).

Plaintiff seeks extraordinary preliminary injunctive relief, yet cites no authority for its position

that a postcard restriction on personal inmate mail is unconstitutional.

The Jail's restriction to postcards for personal mail is rationally related to the legitimate

interest in jail security and the safety of inmates and staff. For example, personal mail is more

likely to contain contraband than plaintiffs business mail and thus there is a greater security risk

to the Jail. (Dickerson Decl., 1J18;Cutright Decl., U4.) Contraband is a constant security and

safety risk and it takes many different forms, including bodily fluids, lipstick, perfume, glue,

paint, and unidentifiable substances. (Dickerson Decl., H 11.) These substances are bio-hazards

or can contain bio-hazards, other hazardous material, or illegal components. (Id.) Airborne

contaminates that enter the inmate holding areas can also spread quickly. (Id) Contraband also

includes illegal drugs, needles, blades, similar weapons, and handcuff keys. (Id.) Contraband

can be hidden in between sheets of paper and under postage stamps. (Id., 1ffl 13-15.) The Jail has

a clear list of factors that allow it to censor mail. (Id, U10, Ex. F, K44.) Limiting personal mail

to postcards reduces these greater security risks and reduces the time-consuming nature of

screening personal mail for contraband.

Also, reviewing personal mail for prohibited content is more time-consuming when the

mail comes from an inmate or an inmate's family and friends, as opposed to plaintiffs business

mail, because personal mail is more likely to contain prohibited topics. (Dickerson Decl., HH 12,

18.) Prohibited content includes threats of physical harm, blackmail, extortion, other criminal

Page 15 - RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

hartwagner llp
100°SW- B™a<lway,Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205
Telephone: (503) 222-4499
Facsimile: (503)222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 29 Filed 02/21/12 Page 16 of 24

activity, sexually explicit material, gang-related material, plans for escape or other violations of jail rules, and inflammatory material. (Id., U12.) If inmates were allowed to view mail that contained this information, it would undermine the security and safety of the inmates, staff, and

public. (Id.) Restricting personal mail to postcards makes it easier and more efficient to review personal mail. (Id., UU 16,25; Cutright Decl. U4.)
The Jail's experience has shown that inspecting personal mail on a postcard reduces by

one-third the time the booking deputy must spend on inspecting incoming and outgoing mail.

(Cutright Decl. UU 3-4.) Plaintiff argues that with a postcard restriction, multiple postcards may

be necessary to communicate the same information that previously could be communicated in a

letter. (PI. Mem., p. 18.) Plaintiffs argument is speculation. Postcards are quicker to inspect

because they are easier to hold, easier to turn over, more durable than regular paper, and easier

and quicker to inspect for prohibited content than notepad paper. (Cutright Decl., 14.) Thus,

although the jail-issued postcards are half the size of a standard piece of paper (Dickerson Decl.,

U17), they provide real and measurable time-savings. (Cutright Decl., UU 3-4.) Inspecting two

postcards is significantly faster than inspecting one piece of 8.5 inch by 11 inch paper.

i. The Postcard Restriction Is Not Overbroad.
Plaintiff argues that a postcard restriction is overbroad. (PI. Mem., p. 19.) The Jail's

current policy has limited the postcard restriction to personal mail because of the greater risk of

contraband and prohibited content that exists in personal mail, and because postcard-mail is

easier and quicker to inspect than non-postcard mail. (Dickerson Decl., UU 16,18; Cutright Decl., U4.) The postcard restriction is a legitimate and neutral way of limiting the greater risks

associated with personal mail. Covell, 662 F. Supp.2d at 1153. The postcard restriction is not overbroad because speech is not limited in any way. (Dickerson Decl., U19.)

ii. The Postcard Restriction Does Not Impede Inmate Rehabilitation.

Plaintiff has offered no evidence that the Jail's postcard restriction impedes inmate

rehabilitation. (PI. Mem., p. 21.) Inmates are not impeded because they may send as many

postcards as they desire. (Dickerson Decl., U19.) Prohibitedcontent is detailed in the mail

Page 16- RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

,,ART wagner llp
,00°SW- Broadway.Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205
Telephone: (503) 222-4499
Facsimile: (503)222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 29 Filed 02/21/12 Page 17 of 24

policy. (Id, U 10, Ex. F, p. 14, U44.) Because there are no other content restrictions, an inmate

may speak freely. Also, an inmate may obtain permission from a sergeant to send and receive

letters not on a postcard when the inmate is within thirty days of completing his or her sentence.

(Id, U10, Ex. F, p. 3, U4.) This policy is rationally related to the legitimate goal of encouraging

inmate rehabilitation.

iii. The Postcard Restriction Does Not Chill Speech.

Plaintiffs argument that a postcard restriction on personal mail chills speech is

speculation. (PI. Mem., p. 20.) Postcards are as readily available as notepad paper and

envelopes are to persons outside the Jail. Plaintiff quotes Sheriff Dickerson that the postcard

restriction cuts down on the time to screen mail and then speculates that the time-saving is due to

a reduction in mail because speech is chilled. (Id.) The Jail's actual experience, however, is not

that the amount of mail was reduced but that inspecting postcard mail is one-third faster than

inspecting non-postcard mail. (Cutright Decl., U4.) Plaintiff has not shown that a postcard

restriction on personal mail chills speech in any way.

iv. The Current Policy Docs Not Ban Magazines and Catalogs.

Plaintiffs argument that magazines and catalogs are banned under the current policy is

equally without merit. (PI. Mem., pp. 24-25,26-27.) As set forth Part II above, plaintiffs

magazines and catalogs are distributed to inmates under the current policy. (Dickerson Decl., p.

2;/</.U10,Ex.F,pp.4,7,UU10,20).

v. The Jail Bans Materials Not Directly Sent to an Inmate by the Publisher.

Plaintiff argues that banning materials from the internet is irrational, relying on Clement

v. California Dep't ofCorrections, 364 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2004) and Clementv. California

Dep't ofCorrections, 220 F. Supp.2d 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2002). (PI. Mem., p. 25.) This argument

relates to Ms. Lennox's claims, for which plaintiff lacks standing. In any event, the Clement

cases do not assist plaintiff here because they involved a prison policy that banned all internet-

generated mailings. The courts found such a total ban to be an arbitrary way of reducing mail

volume and further found that there would be no increased security concerns if the requirement

Page 17 - RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

IIART wagner llp
imSW-*™»*wy.Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205
Telephone: (503) 222-4499
Facsimile: (503)222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 29 Filed 02/21/12 Page 18 of 24

were removed. As explained above, a postcard restriction has nothing to do with reducing the volume of mail; inmates can send and receive as much personal mail as they desire, and if the restriction were lifted, security and safety concerns would greatly increase, along with the time

spent reviewing personal mail. (Dickerson Decl., UU 16,18,25; Cutright Decl, U4.) Thus, the Clement cases do not assist plaintiff even if the Court were to reach the merits of Ms. Lennox's

claims.

Further, Ms. Lennox's attempts to send a printed article from PLN's website to inmates violated the long-recognized "publisher's rule" that articles sent to inmates must come directly from the publisher. This rule has been upheld as a valid security regulation. See, e.g., Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 272 F. Supp.2d 1151,1160-61 (upholding "publisher's only" rule for publications not mailed directly from publisher); Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520,549 (1979) (hardback books); Ward v. Washtenaw County Sheriff'sDep't, 881 F.2d 325,326 (6th Cir. 1989) (softcover publications); Mines v. Day, 754 F.2d 28,29 (1st Cir. 1985); Hurd v. Williams, 755 F.2d 603, 309 (3d Cir. 1985) (same); Cotton v. Lockhart, 620 F.2d 670,672 (8th Cir. 1980) (same). If Ms. Lennox were to send PLN's web article today, it would be rejected because it was

not sent directly from the publisher and because it was personal mail not on a postcard.

(Dickerson Decl., U 10, Ex. F, p. 20, U20.) Allowing an exception to the "publisher's rule" on

the basis that the article was on a website would swallow the rule because many publishers make their articles available on their websites. Also, as the Jail showed above, its postcard restriction on personal mail is rationally related to the legitimate and neutral interest in jail security given the higher risks associated with personal mail.

b. Second Turner Factor: Alternative Avenues for Plaintiff.
Defendants' current mail policy allows plaintiffs correspondence to be distributed to

inmates. Thus, although alternative avenues may exist for plaintiff, plaintiff need not engage in

them.

To the extent that plaintiff has standing to challenge defendants' personal mail policy,

persons who desire to communicate with inmates may visit and call inmates during appropriate

Page 18 - RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

"ART wagner llp
100°SW-Brwdway,Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205
Telephone: (503) 222-4499
Facsimile: (503)222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 29 Filed 02/21/12 Page 19 of 24

times. (Dickerson Decl., U19.) If they choose to communicate by mail, there is no restriction on

the number and frequency of postcards that they may send to an inmate. (Id.) There is no restriction on what the person and the inmate may say to each other in person or on the phone.

The content restrictions on personal mail narrowly relate to ensuring jail security. "Where 'other

avenues' remain available for the exercise of the asserted right... courts should be particularly

conscious of the 'measure ofjudicial deference owed to corrections officials ... in gauging the

validity of the regulation." Turner, 482 U.S. at 90 (internal citation omitted). Inmates, their

family, and their friends have sufficient alternative avenues of communication.

c. Third Turner Factor: Impact on Inmates, Jail Staff, and Jail Resources. Again, under defendants' current mail policy, plaintiffs correspondence is distributed to

inmates. To the extent that plaintiff has standing to challenge defendants' personal mail policy,

the unfettered ability of persons to send inmates materials in any format—postcard, non-

postcard, hardcover books, soft cover books, magazines, notepads, post-it pads, etc.—would

greatly increase the risks of contraband entering the Jail, along with the time required for

screening personal mail. (Dickerson Decl., UU 16, 18,25.) "When an accommodation of an

asserted right will have a significant 'ripple effect' on fellow inmates or on prison staff, courts

should be particularly deferential to the informed discretion of corrections officials." Turner,

482 U.S. at 90.

Plaintiff claims it is not aware of other jails or prisons that limit inmates to postcards for

personal mail. (PL Mem., p. 23.) A review of case law shows that jails across the country have

adopted postcard restrictions on incoming and outgoing inmate mail. See, e.g., Jamison v.

Alachua County Jail, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99225, No. CV10-00250 (N.D. Fla.) (Alachua

County Jail); Price v. Cameron, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121550, No. CV11-00199 (M.D. Fla.)

(Charlotte County Jail); United States v. Kosoko, 2010 WL 3636276, No. CV08-00332 (D. Nev.) (North Las Vegas Detention Center); Omar v. Maketa, 2011 WL 4485955, No. CV 10-08975 (D.

Colo.) (Cheyenne Mountain Re-Entry Center).

///
Page 19 - RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

,,ART wagner llp
100° SW- Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205
Telephone: (503) 222-M99
Facsimile: (503)222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 29 Filed 02/21/12 Page 20 of 24

d. Fourth Turner Factor: Existence of Easy and Obvious Alternatives Suggesting an Exaggerated Response by Prison Officials.
Again, under defendants' current mail policy, plaintiffs correspondence addressed to

inmates at the jail is distributed. To the extent plaintiff has standing to challenge defendants'

personal mail policy, the burden is on plaintiff to show that there are obvious and easy

alternatives to the postcard restriction on personal mail. See O'Lone v. Estate ofShabazz, 482

U.S. 342,350 (1987). This test is not a "least restrictive alternative" test:

[P]rison officials do not have to set up and then shoot down every conceivable alternative method of accommodating the claimant's constitutional complaint. But if an inmate can point to an alternative that fully accommodates the prisoner's right at de minimis cost to valid penological interests, a court may consider that as evidence that the regulation does not satisfy the reasonable relationship standard.

Turner, 482 U.S. at 90-91. Because of the increased risk of contraband with personal mail and the time-consuming nature of screening personal mail for appropriate mail violations, discarding

the postcard restriction would have more than a de minimis cost to the Jail. (Dickerson Decl., UU

16,18,25.) Plaintiff has the burden to show otherwise and has not done so.

For the above reasons, defendants' current mail policy satisfies the Turner test in all respects, and plaintiff is not likely to succeed on the merits of its First Amendment claim.

2. Plaintiffs Fourteenth Amendment Claim.
The Fourteenth Amendment requires due process procedures for the sender and the

receiver of mail that is rejected by ajail. In Procunierv. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396,417-19 (1974),

overruledon othergrounds by Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989), the Court upheld the district court's decision to require:

that an inmate be notified of the rejection of a letter written by him or addressed to him, that the author of that letter be given a reasonable opportunity to protest that decision, and that complaints be referred to a prison official other than the person who originally disapproved the correspondence.

Id. at 418-19; see also Prison Legal News v. Cook, 238 F.3d 1145,1152 (same); Krug v. Lutz,

Z29 F.3d 692,697-98 (due process requires notice of administrative review of decision to

withhold correspondence from an inmate). To the extent that plaintiff seeks more than notice of

rejection, an opportunity to appeal, and administrative review by an official other than the

Page 20 - RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

,URT wacner llp
l00°SW- •"•dw.y. Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205
Telephone: (503) 222-4499
Facsimile: (503)222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 29 Filed 02/21/12 Page 21 of 24

official who rejected the mailing, plaintiff seeks more than is required by the Fourteenth

Amendment. See Cook, 238 F.3d at 1152.

The Jail's current mail policy provides notice and an opportunity for administrative

review to the sender and recipient when mail is rejected. (Dickerson Decl., U10, Ex. F, UU 30-

31; id. U29, Ex. H.) Paragraphs 30 and 31 are mandatory, not permissive. (Id., U30 (mail

handlers "will" use a Prohibited Mail Slip); id, U31 (mail handlers"will" process incoming mail

"in the following manner")). Plaintiffclaims the currentpolicy does not require notice to an

inmate of rejected outgoing mail despite the clear language in U30 that "Mail handlers will

confiscate postcards, letters, cards, and publications" and "will use a Prohibited Mail Slip to

inform the inmate of the confiscation." (Id, U10, Ex. F, U30(a)-(b).) The prohibited mail slip

contains clear appeal procedures to the sender and recipient of the mail. (Id, U29, Ex. H.)

The Jail's current policy has greater due process procedures than that agreed to by

plaintiffin Prison Legal News v. Spokane County, No. 11-00029 (E.D. Wash.). In the Spokane

County case, plaintiff and Spokane County agreed to a consent decree, and plaintiff is

monitoring the county's compliance. (Roberson Decl. U2, Ex. A (Spokane County Sheriffs

Office Inmate Policy 204); id. U3, Ex. B (ConsentDecree)). Unlike the Columbia County Jail,

the Spokane County Jail does not provide a right to appeal if the rejection of mail is not content-

based. (Id. U2, Ex. A, p. 6, U204.7.)

As evidenced by the proposed due process requirements in its proposed preliminary

injunction (Chamberlain Decl. U16, Ex. 14, pp. 5-6), plaintiff seeks due process beyond that

required by the Fourteenth Amendment. The proposed preliminary injunction would have

required the Jail to notify the publisher of the exact identity of the rejected mailing "described in

sufficient detail that the mail can be matched to the mail rejection notices." (Id.) This is a vague

and untenable condition not required by due process. Plaintiff is a commercial non-profit that

sometimes sends multiple mailings in a day to inmates at the Jail. Due Process does not require

that defendants ensure that plaintiffcan match a rejected mailing with what plaintiff believes it

mailed. Plaintiff also sought to require the Jail to notify it of the reason for the rejection

Page 21 - RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

,,ART wagner llp
im sw- Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205
Telephone: (503) 222-4499
Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 29 Filed 02/21/12 Page 22 of 24

"described in sufficient detail that the sender can cure or challenge it." (Id.) This is another vague condition. Defendants agree that Due Process requires notice to the sender of the reason for the rejection, but a simple reference to the reason is sufficient. Due Process does not require that defendants quote each section of plaintiffs magazine that caused it to be rejected. Plaintiff also sought to require the Jail to reference the "identity and substance" of the mail policy relied upon for justification for the rejection. (Id) This is the same as identifying the reason for the rejection. Defendants' current policy meets Due Process standards. B. Plaintiff Has Failed to Demonstrate Irreparable Harm.
Plaintiff has failed to show that it will suffer irreparable harm without a preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court recently made it clear that the mere possibility of irreparable harm is not sufficient. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7,22 (2008). As extensively argued above, plaintiff is not suffering any ongoing harm under the current policy. The current policy allows plaintiffs magazines, catalogs, brochures, subscription renewal forms, and fundraising letters to be distributed to inmates. Plaintiffs argument that "Defendants cannot be trusted to transparently adopt and apply this purported policy" lacks any merit. (PI. Mem., p. 30.)
Although the loss of First Amendment freedoms constitutes irreparable harm, "the assertion of First Amendment rights does not automatically require a finding of irreparable injury, thus entitling a plaintiff to a preliminary injunction if he shows a likelihood of success on the merits." Hohe v. Casey, 868 F.2d 69,72-73 (3d Cir. 1989) (citing Rushia v. Town of Ashburnham, 701 F.2d 7,10 (1st Cir. 1983)). "Rather the plaintiffs must show a 'chilling effect on free expression,'" Id. at 73 (quoting Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479,487 (1965)). Plaintiff has not made a showing that the Jail's current mail policy chills speech.
Plaintiffs financial harm can be remedied by an action at law, that is, it is "reparable" harm not "irreparable." Maxwell-Jolly, 563 F.3d at 851 ("Typically, monetary harm does not constitute irreparable harm.").

Page 22 - RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

HART WAGNER LLP
1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor Portland, Oregon 97205
Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 29 Filed 02/21/12 Page 23 of 24

Plaintiff submitted evidence that subsequentto July 20,2011, two fundraising letters sent

to two inmates were rejected by the Jail. The current policy allows plaintiffs fundraising letters

to be distributed to inmates. The only other post-July. 20,2011 alleged constitutional violation

relates to inmates who did not receive an article available on PLN's website mailed by Lucy

Lennox, a non-party. As argued above, plaintiff lacks standing to assert claims on behalf of Ms.

Lennox and, in any event, the rejection of her mailings was proper because the mailings violated

the postcard-rule for personal mail and the long-standing "publisher's rule." Since July 20,

2011, no monthly publications, catalogs, or brochures have been rejected by the Jail. Plaintiffs

have simply failed to present evidence of irreparable harm.

C. The Balance of Equities Do Not Support Issuing a Preliminary Injunction. Defendants have made a great effort to conform the Jail's mail policies to constitutional

requirements. Plaintiffs familiarity with its constitutional rights is demonstrated by the other

lawsuits it has filed raising the same issues raised in this lawsuit. See e.g., Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2005); Prison Legal News v. Cook, 238 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2001); Prison Legal News v. Spokane County, E.D. Wash. CV11-00029-RHW. Plaintiff, nonetheless, did not notify defendants of its claims until filing a lawsuit. (Chamberlain Decl. U 16, Ex. 14 (letter and proposed preliminary injunction).) Had plaintiff notified defendants of its

concerns, it could have mitigated the damages it now seeks from defendants. Under these

circumstances, the Court cannot say that the balance of equities "tips sharply" in plaintiffs favor.

D. The Public Interest Does Not Support Issuing a Preliminary Injunction. Although the public interest is always implicated when the First Amendment is at issue,

the public interest will not be served by enjoining conduct in which defendants are no longer

engaging.

///

///

///

///
Page 23 - RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

HART wagner llp
100°SW- Broadway,Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205
Telephone: (503) 222-4499
Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 29 Filed 02/21/12 Page 24 of 24

V.

CONCLUSION.

For all of the above reasons, defendants respectfully request that plaintiffs Motion for

Preliminary Injunction be denied.

Respectfully submitted this 21st day of February, 2012.

HART WAGNER. LLP
By: /s/Steven A. Kraemer Steven A. Kraemer, OSB No. 882476 Of Attorneys for Defendants

Page 24 - RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

HART WAGNER LLP
1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor Portland, Oregon 97205
Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503)222-2301

 </s> Feb. 20. 2012Cas3e:533P:1M2-cv-00071-SI Document 30 Filed 02/21/12 Page 1Noo. f32691 P. 2

Steven A. Kraemcr, OSB No. 882476
E-mail: sak@hartwagner.com Gregory R. Roberson,OSB No. 064847 E-mail: grr@hartwagner.com
HART WAGNER LLP
1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor Portland, Oregon97205 Telephone: (503)222-4499 Facsimile: (503)222-2301
OfAttorneys for Defendants

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project ofthe HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,
(, Plaintiffs,

No.CV12-0071-SI

v.
COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA
COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF
DICKERSON, individual and in'his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,

DECLARATION OF BRYAN CUTRIGHT
In Support of Defendants'Response to Plaintiffs Motion for a Preliminary Injunction

Defendants.
I, Bryan Outright, declare as follows:
1, I ama Sergeant atthe Columbia County Jail (the Jail). I have worked for the Columbia

County Sheriffs Officefor about seventeen years,all of whichwas at the Jail. The statements in

this declaration are based on my personal knowledge.

2. I am familiar with how the corrections staffat the Jail inspects mail. I estimate that we

receive about fifty piecesof mail per day addressed to inmates. Approximately ten to fifteen

pieces of mailarelegalmail. The restof themail is primarily personal mail from an inmate's

family or friends. Personal mail must be inspected thoroughly forcontraband and forprohibited

I--DECLARATION OF BRYAN CUTRIGHT
•

hart wagner lip
1000 8.W,Bromtaay, Twentieth Floor
Portland. Orcson 97305

Feb. 20. 2012Cas3e:533P:1M2-cv-00071-SI Document 30 Filed 02/21/12 Page 2Noo. f32691 P. 3
content. Each piece ofmail is scanned via the use of a bar code scanner as incoming or outgoing mail I estimate that inmates sendaboutforty pieces ofmailper day to whomever they wish. 3. Beforethe postcard policywas implemented in 2010, the Jail receivedpersonalmail in envelopes of a variety of sizes, Theenvelope was opened and the envelope and papersinside were inspectedfor contraband, such as sticky substances or prohibited items. Both sides ofthe paperwereinspected to see if prohibited content wasdiscussed. The inmates usedpencil and notepadpaper to draft letters. Their outgoingmail wasinspected for contraband and for prohibited content. Although there is lessriskthatoutgoing mailcontains contraband, it still mustbe inspected. On average, the booking deputy spent 1.5to 3 hours of his or her shift on inspecting the incoming and outgoing mail,depending on the volumeofmail. 4. In March, 2010,whenthe Jail beganto require most incoming and outgoing mail to be on a postcard, the time it took the booking deputy to inspect incoming and outgoing mailwas reduced by one-third (approximately 30 to 60 minutes depending on the volume ofmail). Some
ofthe factors making inspecting postcard-sized mail quicker are: (a)postcards areeasy to hold in one's hand (b)postcards are easyto turnover to inspect bothsides(c) postcards are on thick
paper, which makes them durable and (d) it is easier and quicker to scan postcards than other types of papersuchas notepad paper. There is alsolessrisk of contraband beingpresentbecause a postcard is a standard-sized single pieceof paper; contraband—such as bodilyfluids andsmall metal objects—can be hidden between sheets of paper.
I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
Respectfully submitted mis 20* day ofFebruary, 2012.
By:

Page 2 - DECLARATION OF BRYAN CUTRIGHT

hartwacner llp
1000 S.W. Broadway, Tweaftttb Floor
Pordantf. Ortson 97305

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 31 Filed 02/21/12 Page 1 of 2

Steven A. Kraemer, OSB No. 882476 E-mail: sak@hartwagner.com Gregory R. Roberson, OSB No. 064847
E-mail: grr@hartwagner.com
HART WAGNER LLP
1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503)222-2301
OfAttorneys for Defendants

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,

No. CV12-0071-SI

Plaintiffs,

v.

DECLARATION OF GREGORY R.

ROBERSON

COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA
COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF
DICKERSON, individual and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,

In Support of Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs Motion for a Preliminary Injunction

Defendants.

I, Gregory Roberson, declare as follows:

1. I am one of the attorneys representing defendants in this matter. 2. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and accurate copy of the Spokane County Sheriffs Office Inmate Policy 204, effective September 1,2011.

///

///

///

///
Page 1- DECLARATION OF GREGORY R.
ROBERSON

HART WAGNER LLP
1000 SAV. Broadway, Twentieth Floor Portland, Oregon 97205
Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 31 Filed 02/21/12 Page 2 of 2
3. Attached as Exhibit B is a true and accurate copy of the signed consent decree between plaintiffand Spokane County in Eastern Districtof Washington U.S. District Court Case No. CV-11-00029-RHW, sent to defendants in this matterby plaintiffs counsel.
I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING IS
TRUE AND CORRECT.
Respectfully submitted this 21s1 day of February, 2012.
By: /s/ GregoryR. Roberson Gregory R. Roberson

Page 2 - DECLARATION OF GREGORY R.
ROBERSON

HART WAGNER LLP
1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor Portland, Oregon 97205
Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 31-1 Filed 02/21/12 Page 1 of 14

SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DETENTION SERVICES

Policy 204

Inmate Mail

PURPOSE AND SCOPE

Spokane County Sheriffs Office, Detention Services will provide employees and inmates with guidelines and a process to send and receive mail in a timely manner while ensuring the safety, security, and orderly operation of the facilities.

Mail is an important means of assisting inmates in maintaining family and community ties while incarcerated. Mail must be regulated and handled in a manner that protects an inmate's constitutional right of expression while maintaining a safe, secure, efficient and effective custodial environment.

204.1 DEFINITIONS:

The following words/terms are defined as:

Contraband - Includes illegal items, hazardous materials, explosives, deadly weapons, alcoholic beverages, drugs, tobacco products, controlled substances, and any item that is controlled, limited, or prohibited on the grounds or within the secure perimeter of a correctional facility.

Contraband also includes lawful items that can secrete illegal items such as correction tape, fluids, crayon, metal clasps, staples, lipstick, glitter, stains, perfume, glue, adhesives, stickers, rubber inked stamps,
stickers/labels.

Letters - Consist of handwritten/typed communications and/or written/pictorial enclosures to and from inmates. A standard first class, one ounce letter shall be consistent with the dimensions, weight, and thickness as prescribed by the U.S. Postal Service. A properly addressed and stamped post card or greeting card shall be processed with the same
standards as described above for a first class one ounce letter.
Nonstandard first class mail requires a surcharge as established by the
U.S. Postal Service.
Mail - Consists of letters, publications, or packages delivered by the U.S. Postal Service or by other established and authorized carriers.

Packages - Wrapped or boxed objects; a parcel or bundle containing one

or more objects; or a container in which something is packed for storage,

transport, or mailing.
September 1st 2011

EXH|B|T

Approved Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich

PAGE

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 31-1 Filed 02/21/12 Page 2 of 14
SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DETENTION SERVICES

Publications - Include books, periodicals, magazines, newspapers, circulars, pamphlets, catalogs, and newsletters.

204.2 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

A. Inmates will be responsible for informing their correspondents regarding the rules governing inmate mail, including legal mail.

B. When the inmate bears the mailing cost, there is no limit on the volume of letters s/he can send or receive, or on the length, content, or source of mail or publication, except when there is reasonable belief such limitation is necessary to protect public safety or facility order and security. Inmates must comply with module policies in storing their mail and publications.

C. An inmate's writing privileges to a particular person or group may be withdrawn for the following reasons:

1. At the request of the recipient; 2. If the recipient is a minor and his/her parent or guardian has
requested, in writing, that the privilege be terminated; 3. To comply with a court ordered restriction; 4. For specific cause supported by criteria in this policy; or 5. An inmate may grieve any withdrawal of writing privileges.

D. Excluding weekends and holidays or emergency situations (i.e., incidents which create a significant disruption of normal jail operations) mail will be processed as follows:

1. Incoming first class mail will be distributed to the inmate within 24 hours of receipt;
2. Outgoing first class mail will not be held for more than 24 hours;
and
3. All other mail will be delivered to the inmate within 3 to 5 days.

E. No "over the counter" mail will be accepted for inmates, except for that mail from those within the criminal justice system. (E.g. prosecutor, public defender)

F. Incoming mail that contains contraband will be returned to sender.

G. Incoming mail that contains illegal contraband may be seized as

evidence, and handled accordingly.

A

September 1sl, 2011

EXHIBIT [_[ 2

Approved Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich

PAPF J)~ DF /^/

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 31-1 Filed 02/21/12 Page 3 of 14
SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DETENTION SERVICES

204. 3 INCOMING MAIL

A. Designated Detention Services personnel are authorized to open and inspect incoming mail to prevent:

1. Receiving contraband or any materials that could secrete contraband and other materials that could threaten the security and order of the facility through the mail, and
2. Criminal activity.

204. 4 CONTENT AND STRUCTURE OF INMATE MAIL

A. INCOMING INMATE MAIL

1. United States Postal Service (USPS) Mail

a. Mail sent to inmates via the USPS will be addressed with the
inmate's name written as it appears on the Inmate Roster. See
Sheriffs Office Web Site:
http//www.spokanecounty.org/Sheriff/inmateroster/default.aspx

Sample: Inmate First, Ml, Last Name C/o Spokane County Detention Services
1100W. Mallon
Spokane, WA 99260

b. Staff will make reasonable efforts to identify the inmate for whom the mail is intended. Mail not adequately addressed and for whom the intended recipient cannot be identified will be
returned to the sender with the reason for return noted on the
outside of the envelope.

2. Money Orders/Checks

Detention Services will accept US postal money orders, Western Union Money Orders, Cashiers Checks, US Treasury checks, checks from Tribal institutions and other correctional facilities through the mail for posting on an inmate's account.

Social Security, SSI, and unemployment checks will be placed in the inmate's property. These checks will not be posted to the inmate's
account.

ASeppptreomvebderSh1Se1r,if2f0O11zzie Knezovich

FYAHnI'RdI"T j 7* r 3
PAGE d> OF /lj

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 31-1 Filed 02/21/12 Page 4 of 14

SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DETENTION SERVICES

Any other checks or cash will be returned to sender.

3. Incoming mail must contain only correspondence for the addressed inmate. Correspondence for a third party is not permitted.

4. Incoming mail for inmates must have a return address as defined by the USPS, including an identifiable first and last name. Mail without a return address will be rejected.

5. Mail in a foreign language will be handled per Attachment A of this policy.

6. Certified or Registered Mail

a. Certified and registered mail for inmates will be accepted by the
mail room.

b. Registered mail with restricted delivery may be signed by a designee of Detention Services, as outlined in the USPS Domestic
Mail Manual.

c. Any Detention Services employee may sign for certified or registered mail.

d. If not authorized, the certified/registered mail will be returned to
sender.

e. A receipt of this mail will be completed by the mail clerk, and sent to the inmate for signature.

B. OUTGOING INMATE MAIL

1. Letters sent by inmates must have a complete return address, to include cell number/housing location, facility address, and the inmate's name as it appears on the roster.

Sample:
Inmate First, Ml, Last Name Spokane County Detention Services, Cell Number/Housing Location
1100 W. Mallon
Spokane, WA 99260
The inmate is responsible for instructing his/her correspondents to use the correct address as posted on the return address of the inmate.

September 1st, 2011
Approved Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich

EXHIBIT /t

4

pApc T7 7TT

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 31-1 Filed 02/21/12 Page 5 of 14

SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DETENTION SERVICES

2. Outgoing mail, including legal mail, may be opened and inspected when there are reasonable grounds to believe that such mail: (1) poses a threat to public safety or the order and security of the jail, or (2) contains contraband. Provided that, outgoing legal mail will be opened and inspected only in the inmate's presence.
3. Outgoing mail from an inmate must contain only his/her correspondence. Correspondence from a third party is not permitted.

204. 5 LEGAL MAIL
A. Legal mail must meet all of the following requirements:

1. Legal mail must be:
a. Correspondence to or from courts and court staff, attorneys, public defender, prosecuting attorney, the Indeterminate Sentence Review Board (ISRB), established groups involved in the representation of inmates in judicial proceedings (e.g., American Civil Liberties Union, Disability Rights Washington, legal services groups, etc.), the President or Vice President of the United States, members of the United States Congress, embassies and consulates, the United States Department of Justice, state attorneys general, governors, members of the state legislature, law enforcement officers in their official capacities, and the Prison Rape Elimination Act Unit at Headquarters, or Mail between inmates verified to be co-parties to the same legal proceeding which contains personal legal documents/papers and/or a legal pleading.
2. Incoming legal mail must have the return address on the front of the envelope clearly indicating that it is from one of the above listed
sources.
3. The front of the envelope must be clearly marked "Legal Mail", "Attorney/Client", or similar designation of the item as legal mail.
a. Mail readily identifiable as being from a court will be handled as legal mail regardless of whether it has been marked legal mail.
B. Incoming legal mail will be opened in the presence of the inmate by designated Detention Services personnel. Staff will be authorized to inspect the contents of the legal mail to ensure it:

September 1st, 2011
Approved Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich

EXHIBIT *^

5

dapc cr np ii I

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 31-1 Filed 02/21/12 Page 6 of 14

SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DETENTION SERVICES

1. Does not contain contraband or any other material that would threaten the security and order of the facility, and

2. Meets the policy requirements for legal mail. If there is a question whether the mail qualifies as legal mail, it may be retained for not more than 24 hours, excluding weekends and holidays, to resolve the question.

204. 6 UNAUTHORIZED MAIL

A. Mail to or from inmates will be rejected based on specific and articulated legitimate facility interests of order and security and/or for any reason identified in Unauthorized Mail (See: Attachment "A").

204. 7 REJECTION OF MAIL

A. Incoming Mail (Content Based)

1. A rejection is for content if it is based on the written or pictorial
content of the mail.

2. If an inmate's incoming mail restriction is content based, written notification will be provided to the inmate and sender.

3. The notification shall specify the publication, letter, package or other mail which has been restricted and specify the reason for the restriction as outlined in this policy.

4. The notice shall notify the inmate that the Detention Services grievance procedures will apply to his/her request for review.

5. The sender will be notified that the restriction will become final 15
days after the postmark date of the notice unless the sender seeks review by the Detention Services Commander/designee.

6. The sender's request for review must be postmarked within 15 days of the postmark date of the notice of rejection and sent to the Detention Services Commander/designee.

7. The request for review shall include the sender's reasons for disagreeing with the restriction and any other information the sender wants the Detention Services Commander/designee to
consider.

September 1st, 2011
Approved Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich

A
PAGE jj OF /C/

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 31-1 Filed 02/21/12 Page 7 of 14

SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DETENTION SERVICES

8. Within 10 days after receiving the sender's request for review, the Detention Services Commander/designee will issue a written decision and send it to the party seeking review.
B. Incoming Mail (Non-Content Based)
1. A rejection is non-content based when the restriction is based on the presence of contraband, improper address, lack of postage or other reason not relating to written or pictorial content of the mail.
2. The sender will be notified of the rejection but have no right to administrative review. The inmate will be notified of the rejection and may grieve the same.
C. Outgoing Mail (Content Based)
1. A rejection is for content if it is based on the written or pictorial content of the mail. A rejection on the grounds stated in Attachment "A" Paragraph II is not content based.
2. If an inmate's outgoing mail restriction is content based, written notification will be provided to the inmate and intended recipient.
3. The notification shall specify the publication, letter, package or other mail which has been restricted and specify the reason for the restriction as outlined in this policy.
4. The notice shall notify the inmate that the Detention Services grievance procedures will apply to his/her request for review.
5. The intended recipient will be notified that the restriction will become final 15 days after the postmark date of the notice unless such person seeks review by the Detention Services Commander/designee.
6. The intended recipient's request for review must be postmarked within 15 days of the postmark date of the notice of rejection and sent to the Detention Services Commander/designee.
7. The request for review shall include the intended recipient's reasons for disagreeing with the restriction and any other information such person wants the Detention Services Commander/designee to consider.

September 1st, 2011
Approved Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich

4 EXHIBIT
RAGE bor_ (H

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 31-1 Filed 02/21/12 Page 8 of 14

SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DETENTION SERVICES

8. Within 10 days after receiving the intended recipient's request for review, the Detention Services Commander/designee will issue a written decision and send it to the party seeking review.

D. Outgoing Mail (Non-Content)

1. A rejection is non-content based when the restriction is based on Attachment "A", Paragraph II, the presence of contraband, improper address, lack of postage or other reason not relating to written or pictorial content of the mail.

2. If an inmate's outgoing mail restriction is non-content based the inmate will be notified in writing and may grieve the same.

E. Detention Services staff shall keep a mail rejection log of incoming and outgoing mail.

F. The Detention Services Commander/designee shall keep a record of all mail rejection reviews to include notice of rejection, request for review/grievance, decision and copy of the rejected mail.

204. 8 PACKAGES

A. Packages are not allowed except for those that contain publications or legal mail.

204. 9 PUBLICATIONS RECEIVED BY INMATES

A. Inmates may receive publications as follows, provided they meet the requirements of this policy and Attachment "A".

1. Inmates may receive new/used paperback books, newspapers, and other publications sent directly from the publisher or a bona fide
bookstore/retailer.

B. Publications not meeting the requirements of this Policy and Attachment "A" will initially be rejected by Detention Services personnel. The initial rejection shall be reviewed by the Detention Services Commander/designee prior to a notice of rejection being given pursuant to Section VI.
C. No publications will be withheld solely on the basis of their appeal to a particular ethnic, racial, religious, or political group or sexual
orientation.

September 1st, 2011
Approved Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich

EXHIBIT A 8 PAGEJ^OF. /^(

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 31-1 Filed 02/21/12 Page 9 of 14
SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DETENTION SERVICES
D. Items such as product samples, CDs, DVDs, etc. will be removed from publications and placed in the inmate's property. Items such as perfume samples will be discarded.
E. Any ribbon or bookmarks attached or included with any publication will be cut away and discarded.
F. All publications shall be receipted by the Detention Services personnel, and signed for by the inmate.
204. 10 FORWARDING MAIL
A. Inmates are responsible for informing their correspondents, including publishers, of any change of address.
B. If the inmate is not in Detention Services custody, the mail will be
returned to the sender.
204.11 RETURNED MAIL
A. All mail returned to the facility by the post office as undeliverable will be opened and inspected for contraband.
B. Any re-mailing must be done at the inmate's expense.
C. Any return mail qualifying as "Legal Mail" will be opened and inspected for contraband in the inmate's presence.
204. 12 MAIL RECORDS
A. The Detention Services Commander/designee will be responsible for maintaining a continuous chronological written record of the following types of incoming and outgoing inmate mail:
1. Legal mail, and 2. Items of monetary value (e.g., money orders, cashier's checks,
etc.).

,=..2011 September 1st, 2011
Approved Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich

BIHm-rafc7t7
PAGE J.U I -3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 31-1 Filed 02/21/12 Page 10 of 14
SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DETENTION SERVICES
B. The continuous written record will show:
1. Source, 2. Destination, 3. Date received/sent, 4. Description, 5. Printed name and initials of staff person distributing, and
6. Signature and printed name of inmate receiving/sending legal mail, or items of monetary value.
C. The continuous written record books will be maintained in the
mailroom, by the Detention Services personnel.
204.13 MAIL COSTS
A. Inmates must pay for their own mail costs.
1. Inmates may purchase pre-franked envelopes at cost from the commissary store to mail first class, one ounce letters.
B. Inmates will be allowed to incur a postage debt for outgoing legal mail.
C. Specialized services (e.g., certified, return receipt requested, etc.) will
not be authorized.
D. Legal mail arriving at the facility with postage due will be delivered to the inmate without undue delay.
E. Indigent inmates may order three (3) stamped envelopes per week from Commissary.
1. Request for additional legal envelopes shall be submitted with a jail request form to the law library. A Property Release from should accompany the additional envelopes for any correspondence postage.

September 1st, 2011
Approved Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich

A EXHIBIT ,/ \0 l^f

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 31-1 Filed 02/21/12 Page 11 of 14

SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DETENTION SERVICES

ATTACHMENT"A"
UNAUTHORIZED MAIL
I. Mail to or from inmates, will not be allowed for any of the following reasons:
1. Mail unauthorized by this policy.
2. Mail to or from an individual with whom contact is restricted by a
court.
3. Mail containing threats of physical harm against any persons or any other threats of criminal activity.
4. Mail containing blackmail or extortion threats.
5. Mail that is contraband or could secrete contraband, or relates to
sending contraband in or out of the facility.
6. Mail depicting or describing the procedures for constructing or using weapons, ammunition, bombs, or incendiary devices.
7. Mail containing plans to escape, or mail depicting or describing blueprints or operational detail of an existing facility's security devices (e.g., locks, electronics, facility grounds/ buildings, etc.).
8. Mail containing plans for activities in violation of facility rules or for criminal activity, or mail that violates facility rules.
9. Mail that appears to be in code.
10. Maps, charts (e.g., topographical, nautical), or aerial photographs of any kind, with the exception of those received by the facility
libraries.
11. Mail in a foreign language with contents not understood by the inspecting staff, when reasonable efforts to have the mail interpreted have been unsuccessful.
12. Mail containing information that, if communicated, could create a risk of violence and/or physical harm to any person.

September 1st, 2011
Approved Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich

A EXHIBl I

11

P&J3E l L fi

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 31-1 Filed 02/21/12 Page 12 of 14

SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DETENTION SERVICES

13. Mail that is sexually explicit.
a. The term sexually explicit refers to any pictorial representation that is intended for sexual gratification and shows male or female genitalia, full frontal nudity, or depicts any of the following sexual behaviors:
1) One or more of the participants appears to be:
a. Non-consenting, b. A minor, or a minor alone is depicted in a sexually
suggestive way, c. Acting in a forceful, threatening, or violent manner, d. Dominating one or more of the other participants, e. In a submissive role, or f. Degraded or humiliated, or appears to willingly
engage in behavior that is degrading or humiliating.
2) Bodily excretory behavior that appears to be sexual in
nature;
3) Bestiality, sadomasochistic behavior, and/or bondage; or
4) Sexual acts including, but not limited to, intercourse/penetration, sodomy, fellatio, cunnilingus, anilingus, or masturbation.
14. Mail that is deemed a threat to specific and articulated legitimate penological objectives.
15. Publications that have been altered after publication (e.g., pages or portions of pages removed, extraneous markings, etc.).
16. Mail advocating that any group is inferior based on national origin, race, color, religion, age, gender, marital status or status as a state registered domestic partner, sexual orientation, status as a Vietnam Era Veteran, Wartime Veteran, or Disabled Veteran, or the presence of a physical, mental, or sensory impairment and makes such group the object of ridicule and scorn, and may reasonably be thought to precipitate a violent confrontation between the recipient and a member(s) of the target group.

September 1st, 2011
Approved Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich

A
i"T"nT/U 12
PAGE _jJfert" ' 4

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 31-1 Filed 02/21/12 Page 13 of 14

SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DETENTION SERVICES

17. Mail purported to be legal mail, but upon visual scanning for contraband is determined to be general correspondence.
18. Mail containing cash or personal check(s).
19. Mail containing markings of gang symbols or symbols of other groups that may reasonably be thought to precipitate violence.
20. Mail containing a photo wherein the non-photo side is, or can be, separated from the photo side of the picture, or mail containing multiple copies of the same photo.
21. Mail containing items such as hazardous materials, correction tape, fluids, crayon, metal clasps, staples, lipstick, glitter, stains, perfume, glue, adhesives, stickers, rubber inked stamps, stickers/labels, stamps, batteries, or other envelopes or containing another inmate's correspondence.
22. Mail containing cassette tape(s) or CD(s).
23. Publications (i.e., reproduced handwritten, typed/printed, or pictorial materials including books, periodicals, newspapers, magazines, and pamphlets) and catalogs (i.e., a publication predominantly or substantially focused on offering items for sale) not mailed directly from the publisher/retailer.
24. Mail without an identifiable author/sender.
25. The outside of the envelope or package does not contain a return address as defined in this policy.
26. Other items that threaten the security and order of the facility or the inmate's treatment as identified by the Detention Services Commander/designee.
Outgoing mail from inmates may also be denied for any of the following reasons:
1. The inmate's Judgment and Sentence prohibits contact with the individual or class of individuals during or upon release from
incarceration.
2. The mail is addressed to a minor whose parent(s) or guardian(s) have objected, in writing, to such correspondence.

September 1st, 2011
Approved Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich

EXHIBIT / \

13

PAGE I3 /H

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 31-1 Filed 02/21/12 Page 14 of 14
SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DETENTION SERVICES
3. There is an active no contact order with the individual.
4. The mail is addressed to an individual or his/her guardian who has previously received unwanted mail from the offender and has complained or asked that mail from the offender not be sent.
5. Mail that does not specify the intended recipient. 6. Mail that threatens facilitates criminal activity or constitutes
evidence of a crime.

September 1st, 2011
Approved Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich

II
3A<.GE5E„[? E

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 31-2 Filed 02/21/12 Page 1 of 9
Case 2:11 -cv-00029-RHW Document 109 Filed 08/03/11

1 Jesse Wing, WSBA #27751
JesseW@mhb.com
2 Katherine C. Chamberlain, WSBA #40014 KatherineCfg),m h b. com
3 MacDonald Hoague & Bayless 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500
4 Seattle, Washington 98104-1745
206-622-1604
5
Lance Weber, Pro Hac Vice 6 lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org
Human Rights Defense Center
7 PO Box 2420
Brattleboro, VT 05303
8 802-257-1342

Hon. Robert H. Whaley

9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SPOKANE

11 PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of
the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE
12 CENTER,

No. CV-11-029 RHW CONSENT DECREE

13

Plaintiff,

14

v.

15 SPOKANE COUNTY; SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; OZZIE
16 KNEZOVICH, individually and in his capacity as Spokane County Sheriff;
17 JOANNE LAKE, in her official and individual capacity; LYNETTE
18 BROWN, in her official and individual capacity,
19 Defendants.
20

21

COME NOW the parties and request entry of the following:

22

1. Plaintiff Prison Legal News publishes and distributes a monthly

23 journal of corrections news and analysis, and offers and sells books about the

CONSENT DECREE - 1
SJ70.02.J206J1I

tAnlD

I a C *^1
Ut _J_

M77aU0c55DSSoeenccooannlddd AAHvvoeeannguueue,,eSS&uuiittBee a115y5U0lOe0ss
Seattle, Washington 98104
- Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 31-2 Filed 02/21/12 Page 2 of 9
Case 2:11-cv-00029-RHW Document 109 Filed 08/03/11

i criminal justice system and legal issues affecting prisoners, to prisoners, lawyers,

2 courts, libraries, and the public throughout the Country. PLN engages in protected

•] speech and expressive conduct on matters of public concern. See Prison Legal

4 News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2005).

5

2. Defendant Spokane County is a municipal corporation formed under

5 the laws of the State of Washington.

7

3. Defendant Spokane County Sheriffs Office operates the Spokane

3 County Jail and the Geiger Con-ections Center, located in Spokane, Washington,

9 which house convicted prisoners and pretrial detainees charged with federal, state

IQ or local crimes.

jj

4. On September l, 2010, Defendants enacted new policies that

j2 restricted incoming and outgoing mail at Spokane County Jail to 5.5" x 8.5"

13 postcards. The postcards-only policy prohibited mail other than "non-glossy" and

j4 "pre-franked" postcards, apart from "legal and official mail." The mail policy also

15 restricted the types of "Publications" allowed in prison to: "newspapers, paperback

16 books, and approved magazines," prohibiting all other types of publications,

j7 including catalogs. The policy restricted delivery of magazines to only the fifteen

jg magazines named in the policy, which does not include Prison Legal News.

19 Defendants referto this mail policy as "Inmate Mail Policy No. 204."

20

5. The September 1, 2010 mail policies did not require the Defendants to

2i notify the non-inmate sender or addressee of rejected mail that Defendants had

22 censored it or of the reasons for their censorship.

23

CONSENT DECREE - 2
9H0.02c«20&>ll

EXHIBIT _
PA6Ej2-0FfL

MacDonald Hoacue& Bayless
705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 31-2 Filed 02/21/12 Page 3 of 9

Case 2:11-cv-00029-RHW Document 109 Filed 08/03/11

1

6. In August, September, 2010 and afterwards, Prison Legal News

2 mailed its montlily journal, a soft-cover book entitled Protecting Your Health and

3 Safety, informational brochures about subscribing to PLN and book offers, and a

4 catalog of books that PLN offers, in envelopes addressed personally to prisoners at

5 the Spokane County Jail.

6

7. The Jail censored 24 issues of the journal Prison Legal News mailed

7 to prisoners. Defendants stamped them with the phrase "unauthorized content" as

g 1 the sole justification for rejecting 23 journals, and added the phrase "not a

9 postcard" on the 24th journal, and returned the journals to PLN.

10

8. The Jail censored the one-page informational brochures, book

11 catalogs, and book offers that PLN mailed to 27 prisoners in envelopes. The Jail

12 stamped "unauthorized content" on thirteen ofthe envelopes and returned them to

13 PLN, without further explanation. The Jail stamped and returned eleven envelopes

14 with the phrase "unauthorized content" adding the notation "postcard policy" on

15 three envelopes and the phrase "not a post card" on eight envelopes, without

16 further explanation. The Jail returned three envelopes stamped "Exceeds 1/4"

17 thickness/size limit" that did not exceed 1/4" thickness.

18

9. The Jail censored four copies of the Protecting Your Health and

19 Safety book that PLN had mailed to prisoners, stamped "unauthorized content" on

20 the mailings as the justification for rejection, and returned the books to PLN.

2i |

10. Consistent with their policy, Defendants did not notify PLN of any

22 opportunity to appeal the censorship decisions.

23

C,O-,N,„S„E.N,_T,,DEC„ RE,E,- - 3. 9I7OO2CJ306JII

FVHnlwBl -1~2—- ——_—— O QC /
PAGE

M7a0cS5DeSaotetclneoa.,nldWdHAasvoheianncugueto.enS&u9it8Be1a014y50le0ss Tel 206.622.1604 Fax206.3433961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 31-2 Filed 02/21/12 Page 4 of 9

Case 2:11-CV-00029-RHW Document 109 Filed 08/03/11

1

11. The Jail's censorship of PLN's mail occurred between September 1,

2 I 2010 and September 17, 2010 but the Jail continued to censor other incoming and

3 I outgoing correspondents' non-legal mail.
4 j 12. On January 21, 2011, PLN filed alawsuit in this matter. On February

5 3, 2011, PLN filed a motion for preliminary injunction.

6

13. On February 14, 2011, Defendants amended Inmate Mail Policy No.

7 204 to eliminate the postcards-only restriction on outgoing prisoner mail. On

8 February 17, 2011, Defendants amended Inmate Mail Policy 204 to eliminate: (a)

9 the postcards-only restriction on incoming legal, official, and business mail—

10 including letters, publications, and catalogs; and (b) the restrictions limiting

magazines to those listed by name in the policy. In addition, Defendants
11

12 established due process notice and appeal procedures for prisoners and for non-

prisoners who send rejected mail. Defendants retained the policy restricting
13

14 incoming non-business mail to postcards only.

15

14. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects a

16 publisher's right to correspond with prisoners through the mail. Thomburgh v.

17 Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 408 (1989); Prison Legal News v. Cook, 238 F.3d 1145,

18 1149 (9th Cir. 2001); Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692, 699 (9th Cir.

19 2005). "[WJhen a prison regulation impinges on inmates' constitutional rights, the

20 regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests."

21 Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987). To withstand First Amendment scrutiny,

22 "prison authorities ... must first identify the specific penological interests involved

23 and then demonstrate both that those specific interests are the actual bases for their

CnmONroSErvNiTTDnEcCpRnEccE - 4A
HTOSZtftOUII

EXHIBfl - , . *IZS..
nPAnnGrE- (_Lf Or-h- 6^ f

MA70CSDOSeNcAoLnDd AHOveAnGueU,XS&uitBeA1Y5L0E0SS
Tel20S6ea.6tt2le1,1W60a4shiFngatxo2n096SJ14034396l

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 31-2 Filed 02/21/12 Page 5 of 9

Case 2:11-cv-00029-RHW Document 109 Filed 08/03/11

i policies and that the policies are reasonably related to the furtherance of the

2 identified interests. An evidentiary showing is required as to each point." Walker v.

3 Sumner, 917 F.2d 382, 386(9th Cir. 1990).

4

15. Defendants have not articulated a legitimate penological interest for

5 their September 1, 2010, mail policies: (1) restricting incoming business mail to

5 postcard form, (2) restricting outgoing prisoner mail to postcard form, and (3)

7 restricting delivery ofpublications to "newspapers, paperback books, and approved

8 magazines" and prohibiting all other types of publications including catalogs and

9 brochures. These policies are not reasonably related to legitimate penological

10 interests. Defendants' restriction of incoming business mail to postcards only,

11 restriction of outgoing prisoner mail to postcards only, and ban on catalogs and

12 brochures was unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

13

16. Defendants' September 1, 2010 mail policy prohibiting delivery of

14 magazines that are not listed by name in the policy (and which did not list Prison

15 Legal News by name), violated the First Amendment.

16

17. By enforcing the September 1, 2010 mail policies to censor PLNs

17 monthly journal, PLN's informational subscription and book brochures, PLNs 18 book catalog, and the Protecting Your Health and Safety book, addressed

19 personally to prisoners at the Spokane County Jail, and the incoming business mail

20 and outgoing mail ofprisoners, Defendants violated the First Amendment.

2i

18. Defendants failed to afford due process protections to PLN when

22 censoring its mail to prisoners. Defendants' notice when censoring Prison Legal

23

»t70.02e8M6JII

B iH DiI ¥_

-

PiPF ^C OF ^S1\

M7a0c5DSoencoanldd H Avoeancueu.eS&uitBe a1y50le0ss
Tel2S06ea.6tt2lei.,1W60a4shiFngaxto2n069.83143034961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 31-2 Filed 02/21/12 Page 6 of 9
Case 2:11-cv-00029-RHW Document 109 Filed 08/03/11

1 News's publications, catalogs, books, and correspondence was inadequate and

2 failed to provide an opportunity to appeal.

3

19. Defendants failed to provide minimum procedural safeguards to PLN,

4 in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

5

20. Defendants have denied that their remaining postcard-only policy

6 restricting incoming non-business mail to postcard form ("Remaining Postcard7 Only Policy") is unconstitutional. There is no decision of a United States Court of 8 Appeals upholding or overturning a Remaining Postcard-Only Policy under facts
comparable to those facts presented here. Defendants believe there is a substantial
9
10 risk that a court may find that Defendants' postcard policy violates inmates' or 11 others' First Amendment rights. For that reason, Defendants agree at the present 12 time that an injunction is appropriate in that it lessens risk and clearly protects such

13 rights.

14

21. While Defendants dispute that their Remaining Postcard-Only Policy

15 is unconstitutional, they agree for the Court to enjoin such policy under the Turner

16 test. However, the parties agree that Defendants may seek relief from the terms of

17 this paragraph in the event that the United States Supreme Court or the United

18 States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, or three (3) other circuits of the

19 I United States Court of Appeals, decide in apublished opinion that such apolicy is

20 constitutionally permissible. In seeking such relief, Defendants must present facts specific to the Spokane County Jail and show that a new policy of their own would
21
22 be constitutionally permissible. Defendants must provide sixty (60) days advance 23 notice to Plaintiff before seeking modification of this Order.

CONSENT DECREE - 6,
waoKtMU.i

'l"AYnUlDiRI"I . L,h2/— 0.
PAGE W 0' _lL—

TMeAl7C02S5D0e6OSa.e6Nttc2lAoe2L,n.1DdW6A0Ha4sOvheAinFnCuagUxeto,E2nS0&u69i.t83Ue14A013Y45.30L90E6S1S

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 31-2 Filed 02/21/12 Page 7 of 9

Case 2:11-cv-00029-RHW Document 109 Filed 08/03/11

1

22. The Ninth Circuit held in Keith v. Volpe, 833 F.2d 850 (9lh Cir. 1987)

2 that a party which prevails by obtaining a consent decree may recover attorneys'

3 fees under § 1988 for monitoring compliance with the decree, even when such

4 monitoring does not result in judicially sanctioned relief.

5

23. The Parties agree that PLN shall seek neither attorneys' fees nor costs

6 for monitoring compliance with this Order. This does not limitPLN's right to seek

7 fees and costs for any other action or enforcement effort (other than the cost of

8 monitoring compliance with this Order).

9

ACCORDINGLY, the COURT HEREBY ORDERS, ADJUGES AND

10 DECREES as follows:
(1) Defendants' September 1, 2010 mail policy violates the First and
11

12 Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution in the following ways:

13

a. The mail policy did not require that Defendants provide due process

14 notice and an opportunity to be heard to non-inmate senders when mail is rejected;

15

b. The mail policy allowed Defendants to reject incoming business mail

16 and outgoing prisoner mail because the mail was not in postcard form; and

17

c. The mail policy restricted delivery of publications to newspapers,

18 paperback books and approved magazines and prohibited all other types of

19 publications including catalogs and brochures.

20

(2) Defendants believe there is a substantial risk that a court may find that

21 Defendants' Remaining Postcard-Only Policy violates inmates' or otliers' First

22 Amendment rights and the Defendants have agreed to be enjoined as follows:

23 Defendants are enjoined from rejecting non-business mail on the ground that it is

CONSENT DECREE - 7
?J7O.02c»2OUII

£ EXHIBIT _

MacDonald Hoague& Bayless 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 31-2 Filed 02/21/12 Page 8 of 9

Case 2:11-cv-00029-RHW Document 109 Filed 08/03/11

i contained in an envelope rather than in postcard form. The Court further orders

2 that Defendants may seek relief from the terms of this paragraph in the event that

i the United States Supreme Court or the United States Court of Appeals for the

4 Ninth Circuit, or three (3) other circuits of the United States Court of Appeals,

5 decide in a published opinion that such a policy is constitutionally permissible; in

5 doing so, Defendants must present facts specific to the Spokane County Jail and

7 show that a new policy of their own would be constitutionally permissible.

g

(3) Defendants are further enjoined as follows:

9

a. Defendants are enjoined from rejecting mail without giving

1o constitutionally adequate due process.

jj

b. Defendants are enjoined from rejecting incoming business mail and

12 outgoing prisoner mail on the ground that it is contained in an envelope rather than

13 in postcard form.

14

c. Defendants are enjoined from rejecting delivery of publications on a

15 categorical basis. Defendants may reject incoming business mail on a case by case
15 I basis where they can satisfy the Turner test as to that particular publication.

17

(4) Defendants are ordered to modify their mail policy to be consistent

18 with this Order within thirty (30) days. Defendants shall post the amendments in

19 the inmates' living areas for a period of 90 days and post the mail policy on their

20 website, update their automated telephone message and update applicable written

21 material that are accessible to inmates.

22

(5) Plaintiff is a prevailing party entitled to payment by Defendants of

23 $230,000 which includes all claims for damages ($55,000), fees ($172,867.40) and

CONSENT DECREE - 8
MTO.03 t»306Jll

\1

CYi-liPJT DUllDI!

I) \y _

Q, ,__ /\jl

PAGE 5 Or_TL,

M7a0c5DSoencoanlddAHvoeangueo,eS&uitBe a1y50le0ss
Seattle,Washington 98104 Tel206.622.1604 Fax206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 31-2 Filed 02/21/12 Page 9 of 9
Case 2:11-cv-00029-RHW Document 109 Filed 08/03/11

1 costs ($2,132.60) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1988. Defendants will pay

2 this sum within ten (10) calendar days of the entry of this Order. By agreement by

3 the Parties, PLN shall not seek and shall not recover attorneys' fees or other relief

4 for the costs for monitoring compliance with this Order. This does not limit PLN's

5 right to seek fees and costs for any other action or enforcement effort (other than

6 the costof monitoring compliance with this Order).

7

(6) The public interest is served by the entry of this Order, which protects

3 the constitutional rights of publishers and other persons who correspond with

9 prisoners by mail, and the right ofprisoners to send and receive mail.

1Q

(7) The Court retains jurisdiction of this matter for the purpose of

11 enforcement of its Order.

12

DATED thhisis33fr otf HAHu<^VOkfc 2011.

13

14

15

,

(^Hon. Robert H. Whaley

16

United States District Court Judge

17 PRESENTED BY:
18 MacDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS
19

20
By:

21

Jesse Wing, WSBA # 27751

JesseW@MHB.com

-'• 2

Katherine C. Chamberlain, WSBA #40014

katherinec@mhb.com
-3 Attorneys for Plaintiff

CONSENT DECREE -9
9170.02 .n2l>S) 11

CVU..\_W.-i-l \J -"CT,r"
PftGEjL.™ I

"M'7a0c5SDeocnona<lpl AHvoeancuueHe s&StBelasOylOess
Tel 2S0e6a.6tt2le1,1W60a4shiFngaxto2n069.8314034.3961

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32 Filed 02/21/12 Page 1 of 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32 Filed 02/21/12 Page 2 of 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32 Filed 02/21/12 Page 3 of 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32 Filed 02/21/12 Page 4 of 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32 Filed 02/21/12 Page 5 of 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32 Filed 02/21/12 Page 6 of 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-1 Filed 02/21/12 Page 1 of 5

Columbia County Sheriff's Office
Jail Operations Jeff Dickerson, Sheriff
INMATE MAIL Policy J603-R02 (11/16/09)

Effective: November 16,2009
Supersedes: Inmate Mail Policy Revised August 15,2009
OJS: D1-A01 thru D1-C04, D1-A05, D2-D01, D3-A02, F1-A01 thruFl-A03
ACA: 3-ALDF-3D-16 thru 5D-08

Applies to all staff

POLICY
It is the policy of the Columbia County Sheriff's Office to provide for and encourage the maintenance of important ties of inmates with families, friends, attorneys and the community by use of the U.S. Mail. All incoming and outgoing mail is subject to search and/or scanning for the purpose of safety and security of the jail.

I.

GENERAL INFORMATION

A. Regulations

1. Inmate mail will be picked up and delivered on a daily basis excluding Sundays and holidays.

2. The volume of mail an inmate may send or receive will be limited only to a reasonable amount as it impacts the ability of jail staff to process it.

3. Writing material and postage-paid envelopes and/or postcards will be available for purchase through commissary for all inmates with funds.

4. Indigent inmates will be provided writing material and postage for a maximum of two (2) personal mail pieces per week. Legal mail will be limited to a reasonable amount, and may be sent in addition to personal mail. Legal mail must be clearly marked and appropriately addressed. Legal mail is defined as correspondence to or from:

a.

Governor

b. Attorney General

c.

Attorneys

d.

Courts

e. Department of Corrections

f.

Facility Supervisor

EXHIBIT PAGE

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-1 Filed 02/21/12 Page 2 of 5

J603-R02

November 16,2009

g.

Civil Rights Organizations

h. Editor of any newspaper

5. Inmate mail will not be limited as to the number of pages in an outgoing
correspondence, however:

a. The letter must fit in a standard 4" X 9" business envelope and,

b. The weight of a letter must not exceed one ounce, unless specifically approved by jail officials. Exceptions to the length and weight restrictions may be considered:

i.

Ifthe inmate can demonstrate a legitimate and adequate

need to be exempted from the policy; or

ii. To accommodate the special requirements involved with legal mail.

6. Corrections staff will not hold or censor incoming inmate mail unless there is convincing evidence that such correspondence poses a clear threat to the safety and security of the facility, public officials or the general public.

a. Any correspondence or publication which is rejected, will be rejected in it's entirety.

b. If mail is rejected, the inmate/addressee will be notified in writing of the rejection and the reason for the rejection. A copy of the
notification will be placed in the inmate's file.

7. Inmates may correspond with anyone not specifically prohibited by court order except, no mail will be sent or received between inmates in the Columbia County Jail, without the express written consent of the Jail commander or his designee.

a. On a case by case bases an inmate in the Columbia County Jail can request in writing to send and receive one letter per week to blood relative, husband or wife who is housed in the Columbia County Jail at the same time. This request must be approved by a Supervisor in writing.

8. Sexually explicit publications or materials will not be accepted. Sexually explicit material is any material that:

a. Would violate state obscenity laws;

b. By their nature or content would pose a threat to the security, good order, treatment goals, the discipline of the jail or would facilitate criminal activity;
2
EXHIBIT __rL^

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-1 Filed 02/21/12 Page 3 of 5

J603-R02

November 16,2009

c.

Would exacerbate tensions and lead directly or indirectly to

disorder, even if they did not lead directly to violence; or

d.

Promote a hostile work environment.

9. Inflammatory publications or material will not be accepted. Inflammatory material is any material that:

a.

Would violate state law;

b. By nature or content would pose a threat to the security, good order or discipline of the jail, or would facilitate criminal activity; or

c.

Would exacerbate tensions and lead directly or indirectly to

disorder, even if they did not lead directly to violence.

10. Books and/or periodicals may be procured from outside the jail, however, any such book, hardbound or otherwise, must be sent directly from the publisher or bookstore via the U.S. Mail.

11. No personal packages will be accepted through the mail or by the Sheriff's
Office Clerks.

II.

INCOMING MAIL

A. The mail is delivered to the Sheriffs Office between 0900 hours and 1100 hours, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays.

B. Sheriffs Office Staff will sort the mail and place It in the "Jail" basket by 1200 hours on mail delivery days.

C. Mail received for inmates who are no longer incarcerated in the Columbia County
Jail will be returned to sender.
D. Any non-privileged mail will be retrieved, opened and inspected for contraband, cash or money orders, and scanned for content by day shift.

1. Mail may be withheld if it could interfere with the good order and security of the facility, i.e. escape or riot plans or any other plans for disorder.

a. Any correspondence rejected for content will be rejected in it's entirety.
b. If mail is rejected the inmate/addressee will receive written notification explaining:

EXHIBIT jA
PAGE_2r0FJ>

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-1 Filed 02/21/12 Page 4 of 5

J603-R02
E. F. G.

November 16, 2009

i.

The correspondence has been rejected,

ii. The reason it was rejected,

iii. The process to informally appeal the rejection to the jail
commander

A copy of the notification will be placed in the inmate's file.

2.

Cash and money orders will be processed in accordance with the Inmate

Money Accounts Policy and Procedure (See "INMATE

PROPERTY/SECURE STORAGE J208.I.C thru J208.I.G)

3. Any contraband will be handled in accordance with the Contraband Control Policy and Procedure (J501)

4. Legal mail must be clearly marked as such. Such mail may be opened and inspected in the presence of the inmate to whom it is addressed. Legal mail shall not be read by jail staff.

5. If legal mail is inadvertently opened, jail staff will:

a.

Advise the inmate of the incident and the circumstances involved,

b. Prepare an incident report to document the event and place a copy
in the inmate's file.

The officer charged with mail duty will log all mail into the Inmate Management Computer and note the inmate's housing assignment on the outside of the
envelope.
The ShiftSupervisorwill ensure that all mail is delivered by 1900 hours on the day of receipt if possible, but in all cases within twenty-four (24) hours of receipt.

The Deputy delivering the mail will: 1. Enter each housing unit and call the name of each inmate receiving mail.

2. Hand the mail personally to the inmate.
3. Ifthe inmate is not present in the housing unit, i.e. out to court, on work assignment, medical appointment, etc., the Deputy will leave the mail with Central Control for delivery upon the inmate's return.

3.

OUTGOING MAIL

EXHIBIT n
PAGE ^ 0F_^_

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-1 Filed 02/21/12 Page 5 of 5

J603-R02 A.

November 16,2009

Inmates will place all outgoing mail in the mail drop located in the day room of each housing unit.

1. All personal mail will be unsealed to accommodate inspection;

2. All legal mail must be clearly marked and appropriately addressed. Legal mail may be sealed because it shall not be read by jail staff unless so authorized by a court order. Legal mail is defined as correspondence to or
from:

a.

Govemor

b.

Attorney General

c.

Attorneys

d.

Courts

e.

Department of Corrections

f.

Facility Supervisor

g-

Civil Rights Organizations

3. All mail will be picked up by the Rove Deputy after 2200 hours and be logged accordingly.

4. Graveyard shift will log all outgoing mail in the Inmate Management Computer and may inspect and/or scan all personal mail for contraband and to protect the good order and security of the facility.

5. All outgoing mail will be delivered to the Mail/Records Room in the Sheriff's Office, and placed in the "Out Basket" by 0800 hours each mail
day.

6.

Sheriffs Office Staff will sort and meter all outgoing mail prior to 0900

hours each mail day to ensure it is ready for pickup by the Postal Service.

A EXHIBIT _
PAGE_<0FfL_.

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-2 Filed 02/21/12 Page 1 of 6

Columbia County Sheriff's Office
Jail Operations
Jeff Dickerson, Sheriff
INMATE MAIL
Policy J603-R03 (03/03/10)

Effective: March 3,2010
Supersedes: Inmate Mail Policy
Revised November 16,2009
OJS: D1-A01 thruDl-C04, D1-A05, D2-D0I,
D3-A02, F1-A01 thru F1-A03
ACA: 3-ALDF-3D-16 thru 5D-08

Applies to all staff

POLICY
It is the policy ofthe Columbia County Sheriffs Office to provide for and encourage the maintenance ofimportant ties ofinmates with families, friends, attorneys and the community by use ofthe U.S. Mail. All incoming and outgoing mail is subject to search and/or scanning for the purpose of safety and security of the jail.AH correspondence to and from inmates of the Columbia County jail will be in the form ofa post card unless it is legal or official mail.

Limits may be placed on the mail inmates receive based on volume, its affect on the inmate's
rehabilitation or treatment, or on the safety, security and good order ofthejail. Corrections staff may open and inspect all mail for contraband and may read all personal mail.
An Inmate Mail Guide will be made available to the public explaining mail rules and what can and cannot be sent through the mail to inmates. Copies of the Inmate Mail Guide will also be made available to inmates upon request. Mail policy shall also be available to the public through the sheriffs office website at www.co.columbia.or.us/sheriff. or by calling the Sheriffs Office at (503)
366-4630.

I.

GENERAL INFORMATION

A. Regulations
1. Inmate mail will be picked up and delivered on a daily basis excluding
Sundays and holidays.
2. The volume of mail an inmate may send or receive will be limited only to a reasonable amount as it impacts the ability of jailstaff to process it.
3. Writing material and postage-paid envelopes (for legal material only), special occasion cards, and/or postcards will be available for purchase
through commissary for all inmates with funds.
4. Indigent inmates will be provided writing material and postage for a maximum of two (2) personal mail pieces per week. Legal mail will be limited to a reasonable amount, and may be sent in addition to personal mail. Legal mail must be clearly marked and appropriately addressed. Legal mail is defined as correspondence to or from:

EXHIBIT u
PAGE LOFJU-

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-2 Filed 02/21/12 Page 2 of 6

J603-R03

March 3,2010

a.

Governor

b. Attorney General

c. Attorneys

d.

Courts

e.

Department of Corrections

f.

Facility Supervisor

g. Civil Rights Organizations h. Editor of any newspaper

5. Inmate legal or official mail will not be limited as to the number of pages in an outgoing correspondence, however:

a. The letter must fit in a standard 4" X 9" business envelope and,

b. The weight of a letter must not exceed one'ounce, unless specifically approved by jail officials. Exceptions to the length and weight restrictions may be considered:

i.

If the inmate can demonstrate a legitimate and adequate

need to be exempted from the policy; or

ii. To accommodate the special requirements involved with legal mail.

6. Corrections staff will not hold or censor incoming inmate mail unless there is convincing evidence that such correspondence poses a clear threat to the safety and security of the facility, public officials or the general public.

a. Any correspondence or publication which is rejected, will be rejected in it's entirety.

b. If mail is rejected, the inmate/addressee will be notified in writing of the rejection and the reason for the rejection. A copy of the notification will be placed in the inmate's file.

7. Inmates may correspond with anyone not specifically prohibited by court order except, no mail will be sent or received between inmates in the Columbia County Jail, without the express written consent of the Jail commander or his designee.

a. On a case by case bases an inmate in the Columbia County Jail can request in writing to send and receive one letter per week to blood relative, husband or wife who is housed in the Columbia

EXHIBIT _P_ PAGE_JL0F- &

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-2 Filed 02/21/12 Page 3 of 6

J603-R03

March 3,2010
CountyJail at the same time. This request must be approved by a Supervisor in writing.

8. Sexually explicit publications or materials will not be accepted. Sexually
explicit material is any material that:

a. Would violate state obscenity laws;

b. By their nature or contentwould pose a threat to the security, good order, treatment goals, the discipline of the jail or would facilitate
criminal activity;

c. Would exacerbate tensions and lead directly or indirectly to disorder, even if they did not lead directly to violence; or

d.

Promote a hostile work environment.

9. Inflammatory publications or material will not be accepted. Inflammatory
material is any material that:

a.

Would violate state law;

b. By nature or contentwould pose a threat to the security, good order or discipline of the jail, or would facilitate criminal activity; or

c. Would exacerbate tensions and lead directly or indirectly to disorder, even if they did not lead directly to violence. .

10. Books and/or periodicals may be procured from outside the jail, however, any such book, hardbound or otherwise, must be sent directlyfrom the
publisher or bookstore via the U.S. Mail.

11. No personal packages will be accepted through the mail or by the Sheriffs
Office Clerks.

II.

INCOMING MAIL

A. The mail is delivered to the Sheriff's Office between 0900 hours and 1100 hours, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays.

B. Sheriffs Office Staff will sort the mail and place it in the "Jail" basket by 1600 hours on mail delivery days.

C. Mail received for inmates who are no longer incarcerated in the Columbia County
Jail will be returned to sender.

£ EXHIBIT
PAGE 7J '^ t?

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-2 Filed 02/21/12 Page 4 of 6

J603-R03
D.
E. F. G.

March 3,2010
Any non-privileged mail will be retrieved, opened and inspected for contraband, cash or money orders, and scanned for content by day shift.

1. Mail may be withheld if it could interfere with the good order and security of the facility, i.e. escape or riot plans or any other plans for disorder.

a. Any correspondence rejected for content will be rejected in it's
entirety.

b. If mail is rejected the inmate/addressee will receive written notification explaining:

i. The correspondence has been rejected,

ii.

The reason it was rejected,

iii. The process to informally appeal the rejection to the jail
commander

A copy of the notification will be placed in the inmate's file.

2. Cash and money orders are not accepted. All inmates funds must be added to the inmate trust account via the TouchPay system.

3.

Any contraband will be handled in accordance with the Contraband

Control Policy and Procedure (J501)

4. Legal mail must be clearly marked as such. Such mail may be opened and inspected in the presence of the inmate to whom it is addressed. Legal mail shall not be read by jail staff.

5. Iflegal mail is inadvertentlyopened, jail staff will:

a. Advise the inmate of the incident and the circumstances involved,

b. Prepare an incident report to document the event and place a copy
in the inmate's file.

The deputy charged with mail duty will log all mail into the Inmate Management Computer and note the inmate's housing assignment on the outside of the post card or envelope.

The ShiftSupervisorwill ensure that all mail is delivered by 1900 hours on the day of receipt ifpossible, but in all cases within twenty-four (24) hours of receipt.

The Deputy delivering the mail will:

EXHIBIT __jl___
PAGE J£-i&L-

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-2 Filed 02/21/12 Page 5 of 6

J603-R03

March 3,2010
1. Entereach housing unit and call the name of each inmate receiving mail.
2. Hand the mail personally to the inmate.
3. Ifthe inmate is not present in the housing unit, i.e. out to court, on work assignment, medical appointment, etc., the Deputy will leave the mail with Central Control for delivery upon the inmate's return.

3.

OUTGOING MAIL

A. All outgoing mail from inmates to theirfamily and friends will be in the form of a postcard os special occasion card that has been purchased from the Columbia County commissary account. Inmates will place all outgoing mail in the mail drop located in the day room of each housing unit.
1. All personal mail will be unsealed to accommodate inspection;
2. All legal mail must beclearly marked and appropriately addressed. Legal mail may be sealed because itshall not be read byjail staff unless so authorized by a court order. Legal mail is defined as correspondence to or
from:

a.

Governor

b. Attorney General

c. Attorneys
i

d.

Courts

e.

Department of Corrections

f. Facility Supervisor

g. Civil Rights Organizations
3. All mail will be picked up by the Rove Deputy after 2200 hours and be
logged accordingly.

4. Graveyard shift will log all outgoing mail in the Inmate Management Computer and may inspect and/or scan all personal mail for contraband and to protect the good order and security of the facility.
5. All outgoing mail will be delivered to the Mail/Records Room in the Sheriff's Office, and placedin the "Out Basket" by 0800 hours each mail day.

B EXHIBIT _ ?AGE_jS>_-C7

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-2 Filed 02/21/12 Page 6 of 6

J603-R03

March 3,2010

B. Use of Envelopes Inmates may use an envelope, sold through the commissary, to send the following types of letters:

1. A legal and official mail letter

2.

A legal and offical mail letter that should not or cannot be folded or that is

more than one ounce.

3. With staff approval, a personal letter that contains a program-related
diploma or certificate that should nor or cannot be folded. The inmate must have a deputy confirm the contents of such an envelope before it is
sealed.

4. Inmates may not use envelopes for any type of mail that does not meet
one of the three criteria listed above. Corrections staff will deduct the cost
of the postage from the inmate's account for acceptable manila envelopes.

C. Sending Certified Legal or Official Mail

Inmates may send a legal or offical letter using U.S. Postal Service Certified and Return Receipt mail services. Inmates will be receipted for the mailing and receiving of such mail. The Jail will charge standard postal rates for these services to the inmate. Any inmate sending certified legal or official mail must have money in his/her inmate account to pay these postal rates or have appropriate approval from corrections staff if he or she is indigent. A deputy will supply inmates with a "Request for Certified Mail" form that the inamte will be required to fill out and submit with the mail. Inmates shall be limited to two (2) certified-mail letters in any 30-day period.

EXHII P
PAGE_jLV;r;Je

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-3 Filed 02/21/12 Page 1 of 6

Columbia County Sheriff's Office
Jail Operations Jeff Dlckerson, Sheriff
INMATE MAIL Policy J603-R04 (07/19/11)

Effective: July 19, 2011
Supersedes: Inmate Mail Policy Revised March3, 2010
OJS-.D1-A01 thruDl-C04,Dl-A05,D2-D01> D3-A02, F1-A01 thru F1-A03
ACA: 3-ALDF-3D-16 thru 5D-08

Applies to all staff

POLICY
It is the policy of the Columbia County Sheriffs Office to provide for and encourage the maintenance of important ties of inmates with families, friends, attorneys and the community by use of the U.S. Mail. All incoming and outgoing mail is subject to search and/or scanning for the purpose of safety and security of the jail. All correspondence to and from inmates of the Columbia County jail will be in the form of a post card unless it is privileged or official mail.

Limits may be placed on the mail inmates receive based on volume, its affect on the inmate's rehabilitation or treatment, or on the safety, security and good order of the jail. Corrections staff may open and inspect all mail for contraband and may read all personal mail.
An Inmate Mail Guide will be made available to the public explaining mail rules and what can and cannot be sent through the mail to inmates. Copies of the Inmate Mail Guide will also be made available to inmates upon request. Mail policy shall also be available to the public through the sheriffs office website at www.co.columbia.or.us/sheriff, or by calling the Sheriffs Office at (503)
366-4630.

I.

GENERAL INFORMATION

A. Regulations

1. Inmate mail will be picked up and delivered on a daily basis excluding Sundays and holidays.

2. The volume of mail an inmate may send or receive will be limited only to a reasonable amount as it impacts the ability of jail staff to process it.

3.

Writing material and postage-paid envelopes (for legal material only),

special occasion cards, and/or postcards will be available for purchase

through commissary for all inmates with funds.

4.

Indigent inmates will be provided writing material and postage for a

maximum of two (2) personal mail pieces per week. Legal mail will be

limited to a reasonable amount, and may be sent in addition to personal

mail. Legal mail must be clearly marked and appropriately addressed.

Legal mail is defined as correspondence to or from:

EXHIBIT ^
PAGE (- OF C

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-3 Filed 02/21/12 Page 2 of 6

J603-R04

July 19,2011

a.

Governor

b. Attorney General

c.

Attorneys

d.

Courts

e. Department of Corrections

f.

Facility Supervisor

g. Civil Rights Organizations

h.

Editor of any newspaper

5.

Inmate privilged or official mail will not be limited as to the number of

pages in an outgoing correspondence, however:

a. The letter must fit in a standard 4" X 9" business envelope and,

b. The weight of a letter must not exceed one ounce, unless specifically approved by jail officials. Exceptions to the length and weight restrictions may be considered:

i.

Ifthe inmate can demonstrate a legitimate and adequate

need to be exempted from the policy; or

ii. To accommodate the special requirements involved with privileged mail.
6. Corrections staff will not hold or censor incoming inmate mail unless there is convincing evidence that such correspondence poses a clear threat to the safety and security of the facility, public officials or the general public.

a. Any correspondence or publication which is rejected, will be rejected in it's entirety.

b. If mail is rejected, the inmate/addressee will be notified in writing of the rejection and the reason for the rejection. A copy of the notification will be placed in the inmate's file.

7. Inmates may correspond with anyone not specifically prohibited by court order. Inmates may also have no correspondence (verbal, written or third party) with a no-contact directive issued by the court, probation or the arresting officer

a. On a case by case bases an inmate in the Columbia County Jail can request in writing to send and receive one letter per week to blood relative, husband or wife who is housed in the Columbia

c fXHIBr

2

PAGE 2^ OF u

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-3 Filed 02/21/12 Page 3 of 6

J603-R04

July 19,2011
County Jail at the same time. This request must be approved by a
Supervisor in writing.

8. Sexually explicit publications or materials will not be accepted. Sexually explicit material is any material that:

a. Would violate state obscenity laws;

b. By their nature or content would pose a threat to the security, good order, treatment goals, the discipline of the jail or would facilitate
criminal activity;

c. Would exacerbate tensions and lead directly or indirectly to disorder, even ifthey did not lead directly to violence; or

d.

Promote a hostile work environment.

9. Inflammatory publications or material will not be accepted. Inflammatory
material is any material that:

a.

Would violate state law;

b. By nature or content would pose a threat to the security, good order or discipline of the jail, or would facilitate criminal activity; or

c. Would exacerbate tensions and lead directly or indirectly to disorder, even if they did not lead directly to violence.

10. Books and/or periodicals may be procured from outside the jail, however, any such book, hardbound or otherwise, must be sent directly from the publisher or bookstore via the U.S. Mail.

11. No personal packages will be accepted through the mail or by the Sheriff's
Office Clerks.

II.

INCOMING MAIL

A. The mail is delivered to the Sheriffs Office between 0900 hours and 1100 hours, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays.

B. Sheriffs Office Staff will sort the mail and place it in the "Jail" basket by 1600 hours on mail delivery days.

C. Mail received for inmates who are no longer incarcerated in the Columbia County
Jail will be returned to sender.

EXHIBVT _^c—j—
PAGE JL.0F -k-

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-3 Filed 02/21/12 Page 4 of 6

J603-R04 D.
E. F. G.

July 19,2011

Any non-privileged mail will be retrieved, opened and inspected for contraband, cash or money orders, and scanned for content by day shift.

1. Mail may be withheld if it could interfere with the good order and security of the facility, i.e. escape or riot plans or any other plans for disorder.

a. Any correspondence rejected for content will be rejected in it's entirety.

b. If mail is rejected the inmate/addressee will receive written notification explaining:

i.

The correspondence has been rejected,

ii. The reason it was rejected,

iii. The process to informally appeal the rejection to the jail
commander

A copy of the notificationwill be placed in the inmate's file.

2. Cash and money orders are not accepted. All inmates funds must be added to the inmate trust account via the TouchPay system.

3. Any contraband will be handled in accordance with the Contraband Control Policy and Procedure (J501)

4. Privileged mail must be clearly marked as such. Such mail may be opened and inspected in the presence of the inmate to whom it is addressed. Legal mail shall not be read by jail staff.

5. If Privileged mail is inadvertently opened, jail staff will:

a.

Advise the inmate of the incident and the circumstances involved,

b. Prepare an incident report to document the event and place a copy
in the inmate's file.

The deputy charged with mail duty will log all mail into the Inmate Management Computer and note the inmate's housing assignment on the outside of the post card or envelope.

The Shift Supervisor will ensure that all mail is delivered by 1900 hours on the day of receipt if possible, but in all cases within twenty-four (24) hours of receipt.

The Deputy delivering the mail will:

c EXHIBIT
PAGE

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-3 Filed 02/21/12 Page 5 of 6

J603-R04

July 19,2011
1. Enter each housing unit and call the name of each inmate receiving mail.
2. Hand the mail personally to the inmate.
3. Ifthe inmate is not present in the housing unit, i.e. out to court, on work assignment, medical appointment, etc., the Deputy will leave the mail with Central Control for delivery upon the inmate's return.

3.

OUTGOING MAIL

A. All outgoing mail from inmates to their family and friends will be in the form of a postcard os special occasion card that has been purchased from the Columbia County commissary account. Inmates will place all outgoing mail in the mail drop located in the day room of each housing unit.

1. All personal mail will be unsealed to accommodate inspection;

2. All legal mail must be clearly marked and appropriately addressed. Legal mail may be sealed because it shall not be read by jail staff unless so authorized by a court order. Legal mail is defined as correspondence to or
from:

a.

Governor

b.

Attorney General

c.

Attorneys

d.

Courts

e.

Department of Corrections

f.

Facility Supervisor

g.

Civil Rights Organizations

3. All mail will be picked up by the Rove Deputy after 2200 hours and be logged accordingly.

4. Graveyard shift will log all outgoing mail in the Inmate Management Computer and may inspect and/or scan all personal mail for contraband and to protect the good order and security of the facility.

5. All outgoing mail will be delivered to the Mail/Records Room in the Sheriffs Office, and placed in the "Out Basket" by 0800 hours each mail day.

EXHIBIT ^
PAGE S~ U

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-3 Filed 02/21/12 Page 6 of 6

J603-R04

July 19,2011

B. Use of Envelopes Inmates may use an envelope, sold through the commissary, to send the following types of letters:
1. A privileged and official mail letter
2. A privileged and official mail letter that should not or cannot be folded or
that is more than one ounce.
3. With staff approval, a personal letter that contains a program-related
diploma or certificate that should nor or cannot be folded. The inmate must have a deputy confirm the contents of such an envelope before it is
sealed.
4. Inmates may not use envelopes for any type of mail that does not meet
one of the three criteria listed above. Corrections staff will deduct the cost
of the postage from the inmate's account for acceptable manila envelopes.
C. Sending Certified Privileged or Official Mail
Inmates may send a privileged or official letter using U.S. Postal Service Certified and Return Receipt mail services. Inmates will be receipted for the mailing and receiving of such mail. The Jail will charge standard postal rates for these services to the inmate. Any inmate sending certified privileged or official mail must have money in his/her inmate account to pay these postal rates or have appropriate approval from corrections staff if he or she is indigent. A deputy will supply inmates with a "Request for Certified Mail" form that the inmate will be required to fill out and submit with the mail. Inmates shall be limited to two (2) certified-mail letters in any 30-day period.

c
0>A5QCE_i£0Ffe

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-4 Filed 02/21/12 Page 1 of 7

Columbia County Sheriff's Office Jail Operations
Jeff Dicker-son, Sheriff
INMATE MAIL Policy J603-R05 (10/21/11)

Effective: October 21, 2011
Supersedes: Inmate Mail Policy Revised July 19, 2011
OJS: D1-A01 thru D1-C04, D1-A05, D2-D01, D3-A02, F1-A01 thru F1-A03
ACA: 3-ALDF-3D-16 thru 5D-08

Applies to all staff

POLICY
It is the policy of the Columbia County Sheriffs Office to provide for and encourage the maintenance of important ties of inmates with families, friends and the community. The Sheriffs Office reserves the inmates rights to communicate with the courts and their attorneys by use of the U.S. Mail. All incoming and outgoing mail is subject to search and/or scanning for the purpose of safety and security of the jail. All correspondence to and from inmates of the Columbia County jail will be in the form of a post card unless it is privileged or official mail.
Limits may be placed on the mail inmates receive based on volume, its affect on the inmate's rehabilitation or treatment, or on the safety, security and good order of the jail. Corrections staff may open and inspect all mail for contraband and may read all personal mail.
An Inmate Mail Guide will be made available to the public explaining mail rules and what can and cannot be sent through the mail to inmates. Copies of the Inmate Mail Guide will also be made available to inmates upon request. Mail policy shall also be available to the public through the sheriffs office website at www.co.columbia.or.us/sheriff. or by calling the Sheriffs Office at (503)
366-4630.

I.

GENERAL INFORMATION

A. Regulations

1.

Inmate mail will be picked up and delivered on a daily basis excluding

Sundays and holidays.

2. The volume of mail an inmate may send or receive will be limited only to a reasonable amount as it impacts the ability of jail staff to process it.

3. Writing material and postage-paid envelopes (for Privileged material only), special occasion cards, and/or postcards will be available for purchase through commissary for all inmates with funds.

4. Indigent inmates will be provided writing material and postage for a

maximum of two (2) personal mail pieces per week. Privileged mail will be

limited to a reasonable amount, and may be sent in addition to personal

mail. Privileged mail must be clearly marked and appropriately addressed.

Privileged mail is defined as correspondence to orfrom:

-^

B(H!BiT P_

page__L_of;t-

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-4 Filed 02/21/12 Page 2 of 7

J603-R05

October 21,2011

a.

Governor

b.

Attorney General

c

Attorneys

d.

Courts

e.

Department of Corrections

f.

Facility Supervisor

S-

Civil Rights Organizations

h. Editor of any newspaper

i.

Jail Staff will not obstruct tr

and council.

5. Inmates in disciplinary or administrative segregation are not restricted
from the use of mail to communicate with the courts and counsel in a manner consistent with that available to other inmates.

6. Inmate privileged or official mail will not be limited as to the number of pages in an outgoing correspondence, however:

a. The letter must fit in a standard 4" X 9" business envelope and,

b. The weight of a letter must not exceed one ounce, unless specifically approved by jail officials. Exceptions to the length and weight restrictions may be considered:

i. Ifthe inmate can demonstrate a legitimate and adequate need to be exempted from the policy; or

ii. To accommodate the special requirements involved with privileged mail.

7. Corrections staff will not hold or censor incoming inmate mail unless there is convincing evidence that such correspondence poses a clear threat to the safety and security of the facility, public officials or the general public.

a. Any correspondence or publication which is rejected, will be rejected in it's entirety.

b. If mail is rejected, the inmate/addressee will be notified in writing of

the rejection and the reason for the rejection. A copy of the

notification will beplaced in the inmate's file.

-p.

EXHIBIT 0

PAGE I** OF "^

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-4 Filed 02/21/12 Page 3 of 7

J603-R05

October 21,2011
8. Inmates may correspond with anyone not specifically prohibited by court order. Inmates may also have no correspondence (verbal, written or third party) with a no-contact directive issued by the court, probation or the arresting officer. Inmates in administrative or disciplinary segregation will
not be restricted from the use for communication between courts and council in a manner consistent with other inmates.

a. On a case by case bases an inmate in the Columbia County Jail can request in writing to send and receive one letter per week to
blood relative, husband or wife who is housed in the Columbia
County Jail at the same time. This request must be approved by a Supervisor in writing.

9. Sexually explicit publications or materials will not be accepted. Sexually explicit material is any material that:

a. Would violate state obscenity laws;

b. By their nature or content would pose a threat to the security, good order, treatment goals, the discipline of the jail or would facilitate criminal activity;

c. Would exacerbate tensions and lead directly or indirectly to disorder, even if they did not lead directly to violence; or

d.

Promote a hostile work environment.

10. Inflammatory publications or material will not be accepted. Inflammatory material is any material that:

a.

Would violate state law;

b. By nature or content would pose a threat to the security, good order or discipline of the jail, or would facilitate criminal activity; or

c. Would exacerbate tensions and lead directly or indirectly to disorder, even if they did not lead directly to violence.

11. Books and/or periodicals may be procured from outside the jail, however, any such book, hardbound or otherwise, must be sent directly from the publisher or bookstore via the U.S. Mail.

12. No personal packages will be accepted through the mail or by the Sheriffs
Office Clerks.

13. Availability of paper, envelopes, postage and post cards are done through the Columbia County Commissary Program. All inmates housed in the

EXHIBIT U_
PAGE__2*-0F

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-4 Filed 02/21/12 Page 4 of 7

J603-R05

October 21,2011
Columbia CountyJail are able to obtain writing material regardless of their custody status are permitted this opportunity including inmates housed in segregation. This is subject to limitations to accommodate safety,
security, or other legitimate interests.

II.

INCOMING MAIL

A. The mail is delivered to the Sheriffs Office between 0900 hours and 1100 hours, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays.

B. Sheriffs Office Staff will sort the mail and place it in the "Jail" basket by 1600 hours on mail delivery days.

C. Mail received for inmates who are no longer incarcerated in the Columbia County
Jail will be returned to sender.

D. Any non-privileged mail will be retrieved, opened and inspected for contraband, cash or money orders, and scanned for content. The day shift Supervisor will assign the Booking Deputy the responsibility of screening inmate may in an effort to reduce the number of authorized persons participating in the mail process. This will protect the inmates rights to

1. Mail may be withheld if it could interfere with the good order and security of the facility, i.e. escape or riot plans or any other plans for disorder.

a. Any correspondence rejected for content will be rejected in it's entirety.

b. If mail is rejected the inmate/addressee will receive written notification explaining:

i.

The correspondence has been rejected,

ii. The reason it was rejected,

iii. The process to informally appeal the rejection to the jail
commander

A copy of the notification will be placed in the inmate's file.

2. Cash and money orders are not accepted. All inmates funds must be added to the inmate trust account via the TouchPay system.

3. Any contraband will be handled in accordance with the Contraband Control Policy and Procedure (J501)

T> EXHIBIT .
page_j4of.^.

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-4 Filed 02/21/12 Page 5 of 7

J603-R05
E. F. G.

October 21,2011

4. Privileged mail must be clearly marked as such. Such mail may be opened and inspected in the presence of the inmate to whom it is addressed. Privileged mail is prohibited from being read by jail officials shall not be read by jail staff.

5.

If Privileged mail is inadvertently opened, jail staff will:

a.

Advise the inmate of the incident and the circumstances involved,

b. Prepare an incident report to document the event and place a copy
in the inmate's file.

The deputy charged with mail duty will log all mail into the Inmate Management Computer and note the inmate's housing assignment on the outside of the post card or envelope.

The Shift Supervisor will ensure that all mail is delivered by 1900 hours on the day of receipt if possible, but in all cases within twenty-four (24) hours of receipt.

The Deputy delivering the mail will:

1. Enter each housing unit and call the name of each inmate receiving mail.

2.

Hand the mail personally to the inmate.

3. If the inmate is not present in the housing unit, i.e. out to court, on work assignment, medical appointment, etc., the Deputy will leave the mail with Central Control for delivery upon the inmate's return.

3.

OUTGOING MAIL

A. All outgoing mail from inmates to their family and friends will be in the form of a postcard os special occasion card that has been purchased from the Columbia County commissary account. Inmates will place all outgoing mail in the mail drop located in the day room of each housing unit.

1. All personal mail will be unsealed to accommodate inspection;
2. All Privileged mail must be clearly marked and appropriately addressed. Privileged mail may be sealed because it shall not be read by jail staff unless so authorized by a court order. Privileged mail is defined as correspondence to or from:

a.

Governor

b. Attorney General

PAGE CoFJS

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-4 Filed 02/21/12 Page 6 of 7

J603-R05
B. C.

C.

Attorneys

October 21,2011

d.

Courts

e.

Department of Corrections

f.

Facility Supervisor

g.

Civil Rights Organizations

3. All mail will be picked up by the Rove Deputy after 2200 hours and be logged accordingly.

4. Graveyard shift will log all outgoing mail in the Inmate Management Computer and may inspect and/or scan all personal mail for contraband and to protect the good order and security of the facility.

5. All outgoing mail will be delivered to the Mail/Records Room in the Sheriffs Office, and placed in the "Out Basket" by 0800 hours each mail day.

Use of Envelopes

Inmates may use an envelope, sold through the commissary, to send the following types of letters:

1. A privileged and official mail letter

2. A privileged and official mail letter that should not or cannot be folded or
that is more than one ounce.

3. With staff approval, a personal letter that contains a program-related diploma or certificate that should nor or cannot be folded. The inmate must have a deputy confirm the contents of such an envelope before it is
sealed.

4. Inmates may not use envelopes for any type of mail that does not meet
one of the three criteria listed above. Corrections staff will deduct the cost
of the postage from the inmate's account for acceptable manila envelopes.

Sending Certified Privileged or Official Mail

Inmates may send a privileged or official letter using U.S. Postal Service Certified and Return Receipt mail services. Inmates will be receipted for the mailing and receiving of such mail. The Jail will charge standard postal rates for these services to the inmate. Any inmate sending certified privileged or official mail

EXHIBIT JX
PAGE _M- ^3-

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-4 Filed 02/21/12 Page 7 of 7

J603-R05

October 21,2011
must have money in his/her inmate account to pay these postal rates or have appropriate approval from corrections staff ifhe or she is indigent. A deputy will supply inmates with a "Request for Certified Mail" form that the inmate will be required to fill out and submit with the mail. Inmates shall be limited to two (2) cert'ified-mail letters in any 30-day period.

EXHIBIT..,])

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-5 Filed 02/21/12 Page 1 of 16

COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
Jail Operations Jeff Dickerson, Sheriff

Effective: January 26, 2012
Supersedes Inmate Mail Policy Revised October 21, 2011

INMATE MAIL
POLICY J603-R06 (01/26/12)

OJS: D1-A0I THRU D1-C04, D1-A05, D2-D01, D3-A02, FI-A01 THRU F1-A03
ACA: 3-ALDF-3D-16 thru 5D-08

Applies to all staff
POLICY
Jail mail handling procedures must support the inmate's need to communicate in writing to carry out legal business and maintain family and community ties. The procedures must also meet the Jail's need for efficient operations that preserve the good order, safety, and security of the facility, inmates, and staff.

DEFINITIONS
Contraband. 1) Controlled substances as defined in ORS 475.005. 2) Drug paraphernalia as defined by ORS 475.525. 3) Any currency possessed by or under the control of an inmate confined in a correctional facility, except for an authorized amount for an inmate at the Community Corrections Center. 4) Any item that a person in a correctional facility is prohibited by statute, rule, or order from obtaining or possessing, and whose use would endanger the safety or security of the facility or person within. 5) An unauthorized item in an inmate's possession or in a cell, bunk, or common area. 6) An authorized item altered in any way. 7) More than the authorized
number of an item.
Indigent. A financial condition when an inmate has less than $5 in his or her inmate account and has not had more than that amount for seven days.
Inflammatory material. Writings or other printed materials that pose a threat to the security, safety, or good order of the jail because it may incite or advocate physical violence against others. This includes material that advocates the supremacy or hatred of a racial, religious, national, or other group of people. (Note: Criticism of jail operations, programs, or staff, on its own, is not inflammatory material. If the criticism involves an illegal act or violates a jail rule, staff will handle it as that type of prohibited mail.)
Junk mail. Printed materials, often sent as mass mailings, such as catalogs, advertisements, brochures, circulars, and pamphlets whose primary purpose is to sell, promote or solicit for, a product or service, and when taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, educational, religious, or scientific value. Junk mail may come using a variety of postage rates.

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-5 Filed 02/21/12 Page 2 of 16

J603-R06

January 26,2012

Privileged mail. Incoming or outgoing mail addressed to or from a licensed attorney and is clearly marked "legal mail" on the address side of the envelope. Incoming or outgoing mail addressed to or from the sheriff, jail command staff, county administrator, probation authorities, district attorney, state attorney general, Governor, court, a court official, and other confining authorities that is clearly marked "official mail" on the address side of the envelope.

Mail handler. A staff member who picks up, transports, sorts, delivers, inspects, reads, or performs other duties related to processing inmate mail.

Negotiable instrument. A written document that represents an unconditional promise to pay a specified amount of money upon the demand of its owner. Examples include checks and promissory notes. Negotiable instruments can be transferred from one person to another, as when a person writes "pay to the order of on the back of a
check in order to turn it over to someone else.

Periodical. A magazine, newspaper, or other publication formed of printed sheets that are issued at least four times a year at regular, specified intervals from a known office of publication. Periodicals usually must have a legitimate list of subscribers and requesters.

Personal mail. Postcards mailed to or from family, friends, organizations, businesses, or
other unofficial entities.

Sexually explicit. 1) A pictorial depiction of any of the following: actual or simulated sexual acts (including sexual intercourse, oral sex, anal sex, or masturbation); sexual penetration; bestiality; sexual violence; sadomasochism; excretory functions; and exposed genitalia, buttocks, or female breasts, unless the exposure is for legitimate medical, religious, or anthropological reasons. 2) A written or pictorial depiction of lewdness, licentiousness, or graphic erotic behavior designed to cause sexual
excitement. 3) Sex acts involving children. 4) Materials that violate state and local obscenity laws. {Note: Whether the material is commercially produced or is personally made or written has no bearing on this definition.)

Two-party check. A check that the payee endorses so that another person may cash it.

PROCEDURES

INMATE MAIL OVERVIEW

1. Mail Limits and Restrictions
Staff will normally not limit, censor, or restrict the volume, language, content, or source of mail or publications.

a. General reasons for limiting or restricting mail are:

EXHIBi: {y _J
RAGE_Z_ [U

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-5 Filed 02/21/12 Page 3 of 16

J603-R06

January 26, 2012

(1) There is reason to believe that such correspondence would jeopardize personal safety, jail security or good order, inmate treatment, or would facilitate violation
of the law.

(2) There is reason to believe that a sentenced inmate in rehabilitative programs would benefit from a limit with whom he or she has contact or the publications
he or she receives.

(3) The volume of mail would place an unreasonable burden on mail handlers.
b. Specific reasons and examples for limiting, restricting, and prohibiting mail, which fall under each general reason category, are in Appendix 1, Prohibited
Mail.

c. Inmates may receive a disciplinary sanction that restricts personal mail. (See policy J212, Rules and Discipline.)

2. Sources of Incoming Mail
Jail staff will only accept written correspondence, notes, parcels, or documents for inmates that have been delivered by the U.S. Postal Service and distributed by Columbia County Jail Staff.

3. Postcards for Personal or Personal Business Mail
Inmates may send postcards they receive in their initial inmate hygiene kit or through jail commissary. Inmates may receive postcards in any size that is delivered by the U.S. Postal Service up to a maximum size of 5-1/2" tall x 8-1/2" wide. The jail does
not permit any other form of personal mail for inmates. Inmates are not limited to a specific number of postcards that they may receive or send. Lodged inmates receive
two postcards in their hygiene kit, and may purchase additional postcards through jail commissary. Policy 212, Rules and Discipline, sets limits on the number of personal mail items allowed in an inmate's cell. Provisions for legal and official mail begin at
paragraph 12, below.

4. Exception to Postcards for Inmates Within 30 Days of Completing Sentence A sergeant may allow an inmate who is continuously involved in rehabilitation programs permission to correspond with a specific person (both sending and receiving). A supervisor must document that corresponding with the person is in the best interest of an inmate's rehabilitation. A suitable example might include a letter
sent to reconnect with family prior to release.

5. Photographs on Postcards
Inmates may receive postcards with photographs on one side as allowed by the U.S. Postal Service and jail rules. No other photographs are allowed on postcards.

6. Indigent Inmate Mail
Indigent inmates are afforded the opportunity once per week to purchase an indigent hygiene kit through the commissary program. Hygiene kits are taken to the pods and

EXHIBIT __&
PAGEJl_ \/t

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-5 Filed 02/21/12 Page 4 of 16

J603-R06

January 26, 2012

offered to all inmates. The indigent hygiene kit consists of two postage prepaid postcards, a pencil and hygiene items.

7. Addressing Inmate Mail
Incoming mail must have the inmate's booking name and should have the inmate's booking number as part of the addressee information.

8. Return Address
Incoming mail must have the name and address of the sender. The return address on legal and official mail must have the sender's job, agency, or firm title and address commercially preprinted or stamped.

a. Ifthe inmate is in custody, a mail handler will confiscate any mail without a return name and address. He or she will open it to both identify a sender's name and to see if it contains negotiable instruments or other items that need to be listed on the confiscation notice. This procedure also applies when mail is "refused" and returned to the jail.

b. If the inmate is no longer in custody, the mail handler will open the mail to check for negotiable instruments, stamps, official documents, or similar items of monetary or official value.

(1) If there are no valuables, the mail handler will destroy the mail.

(2) Ifthe mail contains valuables, the mail handler will take steps to identify the
sender and return the mail to the sender. If a sender's name and address is not found, the mail handler will send the mail to the inmate's last known address. A
mail handler will destroy any mail, along with its valuables, that is returned to the jail after sending it to the original sender or former inmate.

9. Postage-Due Mail The jail will not accept or pay for any inmate mail with postage due.

10. Junk Mail
Jail staff will accept solicited or unsolicited junk mail or bulk mail for inmates, unless it violates other mail restrictions (such as containing sexually explicit content).

11. Personal Business Mail Needing Special Handling
A jail sergeant may approve mail that needs special handling so an inmate can conduct personal business. For example, the use of a business reply envelope to send a document back to the originating firm or signing a mailed-in personal check to make a rent or car payment or renew a driver's license. Such a check must not have a blank payee line. The inmate must act to add a cosigner to a checking account or make other arrangements to prevent reoccurrence of this need. Supporting documents, such as payment coupons or rent contracts, must accompany any personal business mail.

^

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-5 Filed 02/21/12 Page 5 of 16

J603-R06

January 26, 2012

PRIVILEGED MAIL
12. Legal and Official Mail Jail staff must protect the rights of inmates to privileged, confidential communication with their attorneys, the courts, and confining authorities.
a. The sender is responsible for legitimately, properly, and clearly marking and addressing legal and official mail so that jail staff recognize it and treat it as
confidential.
(1) The return address on all incoming legal and official mail must have the sender's job, agency, or firm title and address either commercially preprinted on the envelope or a label, or as an ink stamp. The sender's name should be handwritten if not preprinted. Staff will treat all mail with return addresses that are completely handwritten as personal mail.

(2) The words "Legal Mail," "Official Mail," or similar designation must appear on the address side of the envelope. Jail staff will not assume the contents of any letter from an attorney, law firm, or government official is legal or official mail.
(3) Jail staff will treat improperly marked or addressed mail as personal mail.

b. Staff must not open recognized legal or official mail outside the presence of the inmate. They may open it in the presence of the inmate to inspect it for contraband, but they must not read its contents.
c. A staff member must write a Jail Incident Report if he or she inadvertently opens a piece of recognizable legal or official mail outside the presence of the inmate.
d. Before the letter leaves the pod, deputies must verify that any letter marked as legal or official mail is addressed to a person that qualifies for that privacy protection. Pod deputies will contact a shift sergeant if they suspect fraud.

e. Jail staff will pursue administrative, criminal, and disciplinary actions, as fitting, against all those involved in the fraudulent use of legal or official mail designations.

13. Contents of Envelopes and Parcels (Legal and Official Mail Only)
An envelope may only contain written correspondence that meets the definition of legal or official mail. A parcel may only contain up to three books or three periodicals. Mail handlers will consider any other item in the envelope or parcel as contraband and treat it as prohibited mail.

14. Pre-Stamped Envelopes Jail staff will make pre-stamped First Class business size or manila envelopes available for inmates to buy from the commissary for legal or official mail. Indigent inmates may obtain pre-stamped envelopes for legal or official mail per paragraph 6.

b

T PAGE

fe

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-5 Filed 02/21/12 Page 6 of 16

J603-R06

January 26, 2012

Misrepresentation of legal or official mail is strictly prohibited and may result in disciplinary action against the inmate sender. An inmate may ask to mail an oversize or overweight envelope using special postal services procedures listed below.

15. Certified Mail Limits for Legal or Official Mail
An inmate may send up to two letters as certified legal or official mail in a 30-day period. The inmate must have sufficient funds in his or her account to pay for the service. A jail supervisor may make exceptions to the volume of certified mail an inmate sends and may approve credit to allow an indigent inmate to send certified legal or official mail.

16. Requests for Certified Mail
An inmate that needs to send a letter using certified mail must fill out an Inmate Request Form. Only a supervisor can approve this request and it must be for the purpose of mailing legal, official, or materials related to an inmate's rehabilitation program that have been screened and approved by the jail staff. The supervisor will ensure that the inmate's correspondence is ready to mail at the time of the request. If an inmate's request is approved, the supervisor will forward the request to the front
office staff.

a. Jail staff will verify if the inmate has sufficient funds in his or her account before processing any request. They will forward requests from indigent inmates to a supervisor. The inmate will fill out the necessary U.S. Postal Service forms— Receipt for Certified Mail (PS Form 3800) and Domestic Return Receipt (PS Form 3811). The inmate will give the letter and the forms to a jail supervisor, who will forward the mail to front office staff- who will mail the letter and charge the inmate for the postal fees for these special services. The inmate request form will be the source document authorizing the charge.
b. Staff will pass the receipt on to the inmate when it returns in incoming mail. They will return the Domestic Return Receipt postcard to the post office if the inmate is no longer in jail.
17. Other Special Postal Services An inmate will use an Inmate Request form to request permission to mail oversize or overweight items or for other special postal services. If a jail sergeant or command officer approves such a request, funds will be drawn from the inmate's account to
cover the costs.

PUBLICATIONS
18. Publications
An inmate must have someone outside the jail prepay for any publication he or she receives. An inmate may not engage in any delayed payment or credit ordering of publications while inside the jail.
V

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-5 Filed 02/21/12 Page 7 of 16

J603-R06

January 26,2012

19. Books
An inmate may receive up to three books on a single mail delivery day. Books must come directly from the publisher, a book club, or a bookstore. Books may be new or used. They may not be larger than 9 inches by 12 inches. They may not have plastic or metal bindings. Either hardback or paperback books are acceptable for general population inmates. Inmates in segregation, including medical segregation, may only receive paperback books from recognized sources. Mail handlers will consider any other item in the envelope or parcel as contraband and treat it as prohibited mail.
20. Periodicals
An inmate may receive up to two periodicals on a single mail delivery day. Periodicals must be new and be delivered directly from the publisher or a bookstore. Periodicals include magazines.
21. Prohibited publications, books or periodicals. The jail must determine whether a specific publication, book or periodical violates jail rules. This determination must be made on an issue-by-issue basis, and it is unacceptable to put a blanket prohibition on all issues of a certain publication or periodical. If an issue of a publication, book or periodical is determined to violate jail rules, it should be returned to the sender and notification to the sender and the inmate should be made pursuant to paragraph 31.

MONEY-BY-MAIL
22. No cash or negotiable instrument will be accepted through the mail and will be returned to sender for violation of the Mail Policy. A jail commander or designee can make exceptions to this policy for reasonable accommodations purposes. To return funds, the mail handler will:
a. Send a Returned Mail form letter to the sender along with the instrument being returned. Note on the letter the amount, number, and issuing institution of the check. Note the payee's name if it was not the inmate
b. Send the inmate a copy of the form letter and keep a mail file copy for reference.

REGULATING INMATE MAIL
23. Restrictions on Outgoing Mail Recipients Inmates who are prohibited from sending mail to a specific recipient pursuant to a valid court order will not be allowed to send mail to that recipient and may be disciplined for attempting to do so.
_6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-5 Filed 02/21/12 Page 8 of 16

J603-R06

January 26, 2012

24. Regulating Inmate Mail Written in a Foreign Language
Incoming mail written in a language other than English must be interpreted prior to delivery. The interpreter of inmate mail may be a designee from the Sheriff's Office or other law enforcement agency.

If, after translation,there are reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of any
mail could pose a risk to facility, community, or national security, it will not be delivered. The mail handler will confiscate and place outgoing mail in the inmate's property storage, and will return incoming mail to the sender, in each case giving notice to the inmate or sender per paragraph 31 below.

25. Correspondence with Victims
Inmates may not correspond with a victim of a crime for which they are currently in custody in either pretrial or sentenced status. A jail supervisor may make exceptions.

26. Mail with Health Care Appointment Information To ensure transport security, a mail handler will confiscate any mail with information about upcoming health care appointments, and notify the inmate and sender of the
confiscation. The mail handler should inform heath care staff of the letter.

27. Gang-Related and Security Threat Group Materials in Mail
A mail handler will photocopy incoming or outgoing mail with gang-related or security threat group material and send the copy to the Gang Deputy. The mail handler will confiscate the mail as a prohibited item, and notify the sender per paragraph 31.

28. Commercial Business Transactions and Government Services by Mail
An inmate may not conduct commercial business transactions by mail or request services from a government agency without the approval of a jail supervisor. Examples of transactions and requests include:

a. Buying or selling an item, real property, or service b. Applying for a credit card c. Applying for a commercial or student loan d. Opening a bank account c. Enrolling in a college course f. Applying for food stamps g. Any obligation of funds to which the inmate does not have access

29. Mail Monitoring
Absent a court order, a jail supervisor will only approve a request to monitor a specific inmate's mail because there is reasonable belief that there is a legitimate penological or public safety reason to do so. This is including, but not limited to the welfare and safety of the inmates or staff, the good order or security of the facility, the protection of property, the prevention of the commission of additional crimes or conspiracy to commit a crime, to thwart attempts to destroy or tamper with evidence of crimes or to harass or intimidate witnesses The requester from outside the jail must complete a

PAGE_2L0F_lfe

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-5 Filed 02/21/12 Page 9 of 16

J603-R06

January 26,2012

Request for Inmate Mail Monitoring. An approved request will expire 30 days after its approval date. The requester must submit a new request to continue monitoring. Jail staff will read the inmate's mail and decide if any of it applies to the request and will only forward copies of mail that does apply. The requester must pick up the copies in person iffrom an agency within Columbia County. The jail commander or designee
will coordinate the mail-monitoring program.

30. Confiscating Prohibited Mail Normally, mail handlers confiscate prohibited items. The sender of confiscated mail must be notified pursuant to paragraph 31. Staff may return prohibited mail to a sender if it is in the best interest of the jail not to store it, such as perishables.

a. Mail handlers will confiscate postcards, letters, cards, and publications in whole rather than removing or obliterating individual pages, passages, or words with prohibited content. They will confiscate items that exceed a number limit as an entire set rather than passing on a selection that would meet the maximum
number allowed.

b. Mail handlers will use a Prohibited Mail Slip to inform the inmate of the confiscation and use a copy as a tag for the items. They will place confiscated items in the inmate's property storage, unless it is evidence in a jail disciplinary action or a crime. They will handle evidence according to the applicable policy: Staff will not notify the inmate or sender if they confiscate items that are part of a criminal investigation.

c. Mail handlers must notify the sender in writing that mail they sent was confiscated or not delivered to the inmate, unless the inmate is no longer in custody. They should use a Prohibited Mail Slip for the notification. Any notice will give the reason and explain how the sender can informally appeal the action.

d. A mail handler may destroy any item in mail that presents a health or safety risk if it were to be stored in the jail or returned to sender, and notify the sender by sending a Prohibited Mail Slip.

PROCESSING INCOMING MAIL
31. Initial Processing of Incoming Mail The mail handler will process incoming mail for inmates in the following manner:
a. Return mail to the sender (unopened if possible) or the USPS if any of the following apply:
(1) Incoming personal mail that is not a postcard, except privileged (legal or official)
mail.

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-5 Filed 02/21/12 Page 10 of 16

J603-R06

January 26,2012

(2) The addressee cannot be identified because of missing or incomplete
information
(3) Prohibited items are affixed to the mail (4) Foreign substances or stains are on the mail (5) Odors, including perfume, are coming from the mail (6) The mail contains cash or negotiable instruments (7) The mail can otherwise be identified as being or containing prohibited mail
before it is opened

b. Send a notice of right to reconsideration with returned mail. Send a notice of right to reconsideration to senders of confiscated mail. Complaints and requests
for reconsideration shall be forwarded to the Jail Commander for a determination
of compliance with the Mail Policy and applicable legal requirements.

c Handle mail without a return name and address according to paragraph 8.

d. Look up the inmate's name on an Alpha List Sorted by Name report and write the inmate's pod number or "CCJ" on the mail. Return mail to the sender if the inmate is not in jail.

e. Separate legal and official mail from personal mail and books, periodicals and
bulk mail.

f. Open and inspect the contents of personal mail, books, periodicals and bulk mail for contraband items and money. Confiscate any prohibited item.

g. Have a jail sergeant or jail commander look at personal business mail that may need approval for special handling. If approved, provide handling instructions to the roving deputy.

h. Remove books from their mailing parcel.

i. Place mail in a foreign language in the "translation required" box. Take steps to locate a staff member who speaks that language. If mail cannot be translated within a reasonable time, the mail handler will forward the mail to a supervisor.
j. Sort mail by pod and place in the pod folders in booking before 0800 hours (8:00 a.m.).
k. Place mail to return to the post office in booking pickup box.

32. Pod Processing of Incoming Mail Day shift roving deputies will pick up the mail for their pods when coming on duty. They, or other staff if appropriate, will process the inmate mail for their pods as
follows:

10
PAGE J6 . If,

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-5 Filed 02/21/12 Page 11 of 16

J603-R06

January 26, 2012

a. Scan all personal postcards and books, periodicals and bulk mail for prohibited content. Read in-depth only if there is a legitimate jail interest.
b. Remove postage stamps, flap-sealing tape, and gummed and adhesive address labels. (Remove labels only on personal mail—leave labels on legal and official mail).
c. Remove subscription-ordering postcards from magazines.
d. Open recognizable legal and official mail in front of the inmate and inspect it only for contraband—not content. (Deputies, or other staff, must not read the contents.)
e. The mail handler will scan each piece of mail with a bar code scanner to indicate
the status of that item. The mail handed will scan the inmate's name and then
scan the appropriate bar code for the disposition of the item. Every piece of mail will be scanned with one of the following scans:
(1) Personal Mail Received (2) Privileged Mail Received (3) Bulk Mail Received (4) Periodicals (i.e. magazines) Received (5) Books Received (6) Returned Mail (Prohibited Mail Slip to follow) (7) Confiscated Mail (Report to Follow)
f. Deliver the mail as soon as practical upon receipt. Passing mail under an inmate's door and placing books by the door is acceptable.
g. Have the inmate write his or her name and booking number on the inside flap of books. For magazines without mailing labels directly attached, have the inmate write his or her name and booking number on the cover. Newspapers do not need marking.
33. Mail as Nuisance Contraband
Inmates are responsible for getting rid of any mailed item that puts them over the limits of allowed for nuisance contraband under policy J212, Rules and Discipline. An inmate may transfer items to their bin in the property room using procedures in policy J208, Secure Storage of Inmate Property.

OUTGOING MAIL
34. General Mail Rules for Inmates Inmates—

?AGE_4J)_0F_/£

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-5 Filed 02/21/12 Page 12 of 16

J603-R06

January 26,2012

a. May only use lead or colored pencils to write correspondence. b. May only use postcards sold through the commissary or issued by the jail. c. Must send legal, official or approved letters, notes, or other written materials using
the USPS or other approved system. d. Must put their first and last name, booking number, and the jail address as the
return address.
e. May not draw or write anything on the outside of an envelope other than name
and address information and "legal" or "official" mail designations.
f. May not send out jail forms for others to fill out on behalf of the inmate. g. May not send prohibited mail. They are subject to disciplinary action for doing
so.
h. Should pass on prohibited mail rules to people and businesses with whom they
correspond.

35. Inspection of Outgoing Envelopes
Before legal or official mail leaves the pod, roving deputies will verify the contents are legal or official mail before sealing the envelope. The inspecting deputy will initial and write their DPSST number on the flap to show this verification. As appropriate, the deputy will return it to the inmate, confiscate it as evidence in disciplinary proceedings, or contact a jail sergeant or jail command officer if—

a. The return name, booking number, and address are incomplete or false. b. There is drawing or non-address-related writing on the envelope. c. There is prohibited material on the envelope. d. Addressee information is missing that could cause the letter to be undeliverable
and returned to the jail.
e. It is a manila envelope whose addressee does not meet the criteria for being legal or official mail or being a program-related certificate or diploma.
f. They believe the envelope should be opened for a legitimate reason.

36. Opening and Inspecting Contents of Outgoing Mail Mail handling staff will not read outgoing legal or official mail unless they have the approval of a sergeant or command officer.

a. A jail supervisor may have staff read outgoing mail at any time and for any reason, except for legal or official mail. This authorization may be by housing
area, class of inmate, individual inmate, or other basis. It may also be on an
ongoing or a random basis and for any length of time. However, the jail commander or designee must approve any ongoing monitoring of a specific
inmate, as previously noted.

b. Mail handlers will notify a jail supervisor if—

(1) They suspect outgoing mail contains contraband. (2) It may present a safety or security issue based on the addressee. (3) They have reasonable suspicion the mail may contain other contents of
legitimate jail interest.

£>

12

PAGE li l(s

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-5 Filed 02/21/12 Page 13 of 16

J603-R06

January 26,2012

37. Posting Outgoing Mail Inmates will place outgoing mail in the designated mail box located inside of their pod. The Grave yard shift roving Deputy's will pick up the mail out of the mail box and deliver it to the booking area to be processed. The mail will be placed in the outgoing mail basket and delivered to the front office for the regularly scheduled morning pickup on that same day as long as it is not a weekend or holiday. Outgoing mail should be processed within one business day after being received
from the inmate.
a. Processing of inmate mail will consist of:
(1) Sorting the mail (2) Scanning the inmates name and appropriate bar code to reflect the proper disposition of the mail.
A. Outgoing Personal Mail B. Outgoing Privilege Mail (Official & Legal) C. Mail Returned (Prohibited Mail Slip to follow) D. Confiscated Mail (Report to Follow) E. Outgoing Package F. Outgoing Certified Mail.
38. Mail Delivery Staff should deliver mail to inmates within 24 hours of receipt at the jail. Reasonable exceptions are allowed when special processing is required, such as for mail delivered late in the day, needing translation, or items held as evidence in a criminal or disciplinary investigation, etc.

ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES
39. Mail Rules
The jail commander or designee will ensure mail rules are a part of inmate orientation and the Inmate Manual and will make copies of the Inmate Mail Guide available to the public. Civilian staff members who discover apparent misconduct as a result of reading inmate mail will report it via the chain of command.
40. Mail Complaints Staff members will direct mail complaints from the public to a jail command officer. The officer should attempt to respond to the complainant within two business days. Inmates will use the inmate grievance process to lodge complaints or ask for the
return of confiscated items.
41. Mail Handler Supervision and Training A jail supervisor will supervise the day-to-day handling of inmate mail. He or she will assign staff to perform primary inmate mail duties. Staff who initially handle or open incoming inmate mail should attend training on the safe handling of strange or

b

13

pageL23Q£

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-5 Filed 02/21/12 Page 14 of 16

J603-R06

January 26,2012

suspicious packages or receive similar training from another source. Those who open mail should also receive training on recognizing gang and security threat group symbols and signs.

42. Change of Address Responsibilities and Forwarding Mail
Inmates are responsible for submitting change of address requests to the publishers of the periodicals they receive and to others that send them mail at the jail. Mail handlers will normally not forward mail for inmates who are no longer in jail custody. They will return correspondence and packages unopened to the sender and throw periodicals away.

43. Holding Mail Mail handlers will normally not hold mail for inmates released or temporarily transferred to another facility. A jail command officer may make exceptions.

44. Returning Mail to Sender To return postcards, a mail handler will use a sticker or stamp marked "return to sender," note the reason for refusal on the stamp, obliterate any mail-sorting bar code, and return it to the post office. To return unopened mail (other than postcards), a mail handler will use the "return to sender" stamp in place of the sticker.
To return mail that was opened, a mail handler must repackage it and send it at the expense of the jail to the sender. The mail handler will include a copy of the Returned Mail form letter and the Inmate Mail Guide if he or she repackages the mail.
Mail handlers will use a Property Transfer and Confiscation form to inform the inmate
when mail is returned to sender.

14
PAGE_Ji^ Ji*

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-5 Filed 02/21/12 Page 15 of 16

J603-R06

January 26, 2012

o Appendix 1: Prohibited Mail

Jail staff will not allow an inmate to receive or send mail that—

I. Contains—
a. Threats of physical harm, blackmail, extortion, or other criminal activity
b. Plans for escape, criminal activity, or activity that violates jail rules c Gang-related material d. Information that, if conveyed, could result in physical harm to someone e. Sexually explicit materials f. Inflammatory material g. Contraband materials (see definition on page 1 and paragraphs 32-34), including
but not limited to such commonly mailed items as:
(1) Books larger than 9 by 12 inches or with plastic or metal bindings (2) More than three books in a single piece of mail (3) Foreign substances, such as:

(a) Bodily fluids
(b) Lipstick or perfume
(c) Glue or paint
(d) Anything with an unusual stain or odor that indicates a foreign substance may be present
2. Is written in code or suspected code 3. Is written in a foreign language not read by a mail handler or other reasonably
available staff member
4. Was sent by an inmate to a third party who then forwarded to another inmate 5. Was a form of written communication not sent through the USPS or other approved
system
6. Is incoming mail and comes from an inmate lodged in the Columbia County Jail, or other corrections-monitored facility that lodges in-custody inmates. This includes mental hospitals and treatment facilities.
7. Is to or from an inmate on electronic home detention.
8. Is to or from a victim of a crime that the inmate is in custody for in either pretrial or
sentenced status.
9. Would violate a court order.
10. May produce a hostile work environment, such as sexual harassment. 11. Does not promote jail program and rehabilitation treatment goals.

PAGE__/^QF ffr

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-5 Filed 02/21/12 Page 16 of 16

J603-R06

January 26,2012

12. Is not an approved commercial business or government service transaction. 13. Is a credit or deferred billing transaction, such as "bill me later" subscriptions or
merchandise bought on credit or collect-on-delivery terms.
14. Violates negotiable instrument limits on sources and maximum dollar amount. 15. Is fraudulently marked as legal or official mail.

e>

16

5E_iieOFj^_

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-6 Filed 02/21/12 Page 1 of 17

COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
Jail Operations Jeff Dickerson, Sheriff
INMATE MAIL
POLICY J603-R07(02/10/I2)

Effective: February 10, 2012 Supersedes Inmate Mail Policy Revised January 26, 2012
OJS: DI-AOI THRU D1-C04. DI-A05. D2-D01. D3-A02. F1-A01 THRU FI-A03
ACA: 3-ALDF-3D-16 THRU 5D-08

Applies to all staff

POLICY
Jail mail handling procedures must support the inmate's need to communicate in writing to carry out legal business and maintain family and community ties. The procedures must also meet the Jail's need for efficient operations that preserve the good order, safety, and security of the facility, inmates, and staff.

DEFINITIONS
Contraband. 1) Controlled substances as defined in ORS 475.005. 2) Drug paraphernalia as defined by ORS 475.525. 3) Any currency possessed by or under the control of an inmate confined in a correctional facility, except for an authorized amount for an inmate at the Community Corrections Center. 4) Any item that a person in a correctional facility is prohibited by statute, rule, or order from obtaining or possessing, and whose use would endanger the safety or security of the facility or person within. 5) An unauthorized item in an inmate's possession or in a cell, bunk, or common area. 6) An authorized item altered in any way. 7) More than the authorized
number of an item.

Indigent. A financial condition when an inmate has less than $5 in his or her inmate account and has not had more than that amount for seven days.

Inflammatory material. Writings or other printed materials that pose a threat to the security, safety, or good order of the jail because it may incite or advocate physical violence against others. This includes material that advocates the supremacy or hatred of a racial, religious, national, or other group of people. (Note: Criticism of jail operations, programs, or staff, on its own, is not inflammatory material. If the criticism involves an illegal act or violates a jail rule, staff will handle it as that type of
prohibited mail.)

Junk mail. Printed materials, often sent as mass mailings, such as catalogs, advertisements, brochures, circulars, and pamphlets whose primary purpose is to sell, promote or solicit for, a product or service, and when taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, educational, religious, or scientific value. Junk mail
may come using a variety of postage rates.

Privileged mail. Incoming or outgoing mail addressed to or from a licensed attorney and is clearly marked "legal mail" on the address side of the envelope. Incoming or
outgoing mail addressed to or from the sheriff, jail command staff, county EXHIBIT
PAGE

^— Y
0FJ3i_

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-6 Filed 02/21/12 Page 2 of 17

J603-R07

February 10,2012

administrator, probation authorities, district attorney, state attorney general, Governor, court, a court official, and other confining authorities that is clearly marked "official mail" on the address side of the envelope.

Mail handler. A staff member who picks up, transports, sorts, delivers, inspects, reads, or performs other duties related to processing inmate mail.
Negotiable instrument. A written document that represents an unconditional promise to pay a specified amount of money upon the demand of its owner. Examples include checks and promissory notes. Negotiable instruments can be transferred from one person to another, as when a person writes "pay to the order of on the back of a
check in order to turn it over to someone else.
Periodical. A magazine, newspaper, or other publication formed of printed sheets that are issued at least four times a year at regular, specified intervals from a known office of publication. Periodicals usually must have a legitimate list of subscribers and requesters.
Personal mail. Postcards mailed to or from family, friends, organizations, businesses, or
other unofficial entities.
Sexually explicit. 1) A pictorial depiction of any of the following: actual or simulated sexual acts (including sexual intercourse, oral sex, anal sex, or masturbation); sexual penetration; bestiality; sexual violence; sadomasochism; excretory functions; and exposed genitalia, buttocks, or female breasts, unless the exposure is for legitimate medical, religious, or anthropological reasons. 2) A written or pictorial depiction of lewdness, licentiousness, or graphic erotic behavior designed to cause sexual excitement. 3) Sex acts involving children. 4) Materials that violate state and local obscenity laws. (Note: Whether the material is commercially produced or is personally made or written has no bearing on this definition.)
Two-party check. A check that the payee endorses so that another person may cash it.

PROCEDURES

INMATE MAIL OVERVIEW

1. Mail Limits and Restrictions
Staff will normally not limit, censor, or restrict the volume, language, content, or source of mail or publications.

a. General reasons for limiting or restricting mail are:
(I) There is reason to believe that such correspondence would jeopardize personal safety, jail security or good order, inmate treatment, or would facilitate violation
of the law.

EXHIBIT __!___ 2
PAGE 'L0Fi±_

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-6 Filed 02/21/12 Page 3 of 17

J603-R07

February 10,2012

(2) There is reason to believe that a sentenced inmate in rehabilitative programs would benefit from a limit with whom he or she has contact or the publications
he or she receives.

(3) The volume of mail would place an unreasonable burden on mail handlers.

b. Specific reasons and examples for limiting, restricting, and prohibiting mail, which fall under each general reason category, are in Paragraph 44, Prohibited
Mail.

c. Inmates may receive a disciplinary sanction that restricts personal mail. (See policy J212, Rules and Discipline.)

2. Sources of Incoming Mail
Jail staff will only accept written correspondence, notes, parcels, or documents for inmates that have been delivered by the U.S. Postal Service and distributed by Columbia County Jail Staff.

3. Postcards for Personal or Personal Business Mail
Inmates may send postcards they receive in their initial inmate hygiene kit or through jail commissary. Inmates may receive postcards in any size that is delivered by the U.S. Postal Service up to a maximum size of 5-1/2" tall x 8-1/2" wide. The jail does not permit any other form of personal mail for inmates. Inmates are not limited to a specific number of postcards that they may receive or send. Lodged inmates receive two postcards in their hygiene kit, and may purchase additional postcards through jail commissary. Policy 212. Rules and Discipline, sets limits on the number of personal mail items allowed in an inmate's cell. Provisions for legal and official mail begin at
paragraph 12, below.

4. Exception to Postcards for Inmates Within 30 Days of Completing Sentence A sergeant may allow an inmate who is continuously involved in rehabilitation programs permission to correspond with a specific person (both sending and receiving). A supervisor must document that correspondence with the person is in the
best interest of an inmate's rehabilitation. A suitable example might include a letter
sent to reconnect with family prior to release.

5. Photographs on Postcards Inmates may receive postcards with photographs on one side as allowed by the U.S.
Postal Service and jail rules. No other photographs are allowed on postcards.

6. Indigent Inmate Mail
Indigent inmates are afforded the opportunity once per week to purchase an indigent hygiene kit through the commissary program. Hygiene kits are taken to the pods and offered to all inmates. The indigent hygiene kit consists of two postage prepaid postcards, a pencil and hygiene items.

f EXHIBIT
PAGE_3_.0FJ3l

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-6 Filed 02/21/12 Page 4 of 17

J603-R07

February 10,2012

7. Addressing Inmate Mail
Incoming mail must have the inmate's booking name and should have the inmate's booking number as part of the addressee information.

8. Return Address
Incoming mail must have the name and address of the sender. The return address on legal and official mail must have the sender's job, agency, or firm title and address commercially preprinted or stamped.

a. If the inmate is in custody, a mail handler will confiscate any mail without a return name and address. He or she will open it to both identify a sender's name and to see if it contains negotiable instruments or other items that need to be listed on the confiscation notice. This procedure also applies when mail is "refused" and returned to the jail.

b. If the inmate is no longer in custody, the mail handler will open the mail to check for negotiable instruments, stamps, official documents, or similar items of monetary or official value.

(1) If there are no valuables, the mail handler will destroy the mail.

(2) If the mail contains valuables, the mail handler will take steps to identify the
sender and return the mail to the sender. If a sender's name and address is not found, the mail handler will send the mail to the inmate's last known address. A
mail handler will destroy any mail, along with its valuables, that is returned to the jail after sending it to the original sender or former inmate.

9. Postage-Due Mail The jail will not accept or pay for any inmate mail with postage due.

10. Junk Mail
Jail staff will accept solicited or unsolicited junk mail or bulk mail for inmates, unless it violates other mail restrictions (such as containing sexually explicit content).

11. Personal Business Mail Needing Special Handling
A jail sergeant may approve mail that needs special handling so an inmate can
conduct personal business. For example, the use of a business reply envelope to send a document back to the originating firm or signing a mailed-in personal check to make a rent or car payment or renew a driver's license. Such a check must not have a
blank payee line. The inmate must act to add a cosigner to a checking account or make other arrangements to prevent reoccurrence of this need. Supporting
documents, such as payment coupons or rent contracts, must accompany any personal business mail.

EXHIBIT JL—.
pageJAofAI

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-6 Filed 02/21/12 Page 5 of 17

J603-R07

February 10,2012

PRIVILEGED MAIL
12. Legal and Official Mail Jail staff must protect the rights of inmates to privileged, confidential communication with their attorneys, the courts, and confining authorities.
a. The sender is responsible for legitimately, properly, and clearly marking and addressing legal and official mail so that jail staff recognize it and treat it as
confidential.
(1) The return address on all incoming legal and official mail must have the sender's job, agency, or firm title and address either commercially preprinted on the envelope or a label, or as an ink stamp. The sender's name should be handwritten if not preprinted. Staff will treat all mail with return addresses that are completely handwritten as personal mail.

(2) The words "Legal Mail," "Official Mail," or similar designation must appear on the address side of the envelope. Jail staff will not assume the contents of any letter from an attorney, law firm, or government official is legal or official mail.
(3) Jail staff will treat improperly marked or addressed mail as personal mail.
b. Staff must not open recognized legal or official mail outside the presence of the inmate. They may open it in the presence of the inmate to inspect it for contraband, but they must not read its contents.
c. A staff member must write a Jail Incident Report if he or she inadvertently opens a piece of recognizable legal or official mail outside the presence of the inmate.
d. Before the letter leaves the pod, deputies must verify that any letter marked as legal or official mail is addressed to a person that qualifies for that privacy protection. Deputies will contact a shift sergeant if they suspect fraud.
c. Jail staff will pursue administrative, criminal, and disciplinary actions, as fitting, against all those involved in the fraudulent use of legal or official mail designations.
13. Contents of Envelopes and Parcels (Legal and Official Mail Only) An envelope may only contain written correspondence that meets the definition of legal or official mail. A parcel may only contain up to three books or three periodicals. Mail handlers will consider any other item in the envelope or parcel as contraband and treat it as prohibited mail.

14. Pre-Stamped Envelopes
Jail staff will make pre-stamped First Class business size or manila envelopes available for inmates to buy from the commissary for legal or official mail. Indigent inmates may obtain pre-stamped envelopes for legal or official mail per paragraph 6. Misrepresentation of legal or official mail is strictly prohibited and may result in
P EXHIBIT _
CAGE ^ 0Fj3r

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-6 Filed 02/21/12 Page 6 of 17

J603-R07

February 10,2012

disciplinary action against the inmate sender. An inmate may ask to mail an oversize or overweight envelope using special postal services procedures listed below.

15. Certified Mail Limits for Legal or Official Mail
An inmate may send up to two letters as certified legal or official mail in a 30-day period. The inmate must have sufficient funds in his or her account to pay for the service. A jail supervisor may make exceptions to the volume of certified mail an inmate sends and may approve credit to allow an indigent inmate to send certified legal or official mail.

16. Requests for Certified Mail
An inmate that needs to send a letter using certified mail must fill out an Inmate Request Form. Only a supervisor can approve this request and it must be for the purpose of mailing legal, official, or materials related to an inmate's rehabilitation program that have been screened and approved by the jail staff. The supervisor will ensure that the inmate's correspondence is ready to mail at the time of the request. If an inmate's request is approved, the supervisor will forward the request to the front
office staff.

a. Jail staff will verify if the inmate has sufficient funds in his or her account before processing any request. They will forward requests from indigent inmates to a supervisor. The inmate will fill out the necessary U.S. Postal Service forms— Receipt for Certified Mail (PS Form 3800) and Domestic Return Receipt (PS Form 3811). The inmate will give the letter and the forms to a jail supervisor, who will forward the mail to front office staff-who will mail the letter and charge the inmate for the postal fees for these special services. The inmate request form will be the source document authorizing the charge.
b. Staff will pass the receipt on to the inmate when it returns in incoming mail. They will return the Domestic Return Receipt postcard to the post office if the inmate is no longer in jail.
17. Other Special Postal Services An inmate will use an Inmate Request form to request permission to mail oversize or overweight items or for other special postal services. If a jail sergeant or command officer approves such a request, funds will be drawn from the inmate's account to
cover the costs.

PUBLICATIONS
18. Publications
An inmate must have someone outside the jail prepay for any publication he or she receives. An inmate may not engage in any delayed payment or credit ordering of publications while inside the jail.
F EXHIBI"
pAGE__U.0F.\^

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-6 Filed 02/21/12 Page 7 of 17

J603-R07

February 10,2012

19. Books
An inmate may receive up to three books on a single mail delivery day. Books must come directly from the publisher, a book club, or a bookstore. Books may be new or used. They may not be larger than 9 inches by 12 inches. They may not have plastic or metal bindings. Either hardback or paperback books are acceptable for general population inmates. Inmates in segregation, including medical segregation, may only receive paperback books from recognized sources. Mail handlers will consider any other item in the envelope or parcel as contraband and treat it as prohibited mail.

20. Periodicals
An inmate may receive up to three periodicals on a single mail delivery day. Periodicals must be new and be delivered directly from the publisher or a bookstore. Periodicals include magazines.
21. Prohibited publications, books or periodicals The jail must determine whether a specific publication, book or periodical violates jail rules. This determination must be made on an issue-by-issue basis, and it is unacceptable to put a blanket prohibition on all issues of a certain publication or periodical. Ifan issue of a publication, book or periodical is determined to violate jail rules, it should be returned to the sender and notification to the sender and the inmate should be made pursuant to paragraph 31.

MONEY-BY-MAIL
22. No cash or negotiable instrument will be accepted through the mail and will be returned to sender for violation of the Mail Policy. A jail commander or designee can make exceptions to this policy for reasonable accommodations purposes. To return funds, the mail handler will:
a. Send a Returned Mail form letter to the sender along with the instrument being returned. Note on the letter the amount, number, and issuing institution of the check. Note the payee's name if it was not the inmate
b. Send the inmate a copy of the form letter and keep a mail file copy for reference.

REGULATING INMATE MAIL
23. Restrictions on Outgoing Mail Recipients Inmates who are prohibited from sending mail to a specific recipient pursuant to a valid court order will not be allowed to send mail to that recipient and may be disciplined for attempting to do so.

EXHIBIT \
page__3tofj3;

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-6 Filed 02/21/12 Page 8 of 17

J603-R07

February 10,2012

24. Regulating Inmate Mail Written in a Foreign Language
Incoming mail written in a language other than English must be interpreted prior to delivery. The interpreter of inmate mail may be a designee from the Sheriffs Office or other law enforcement agency.

If, after translation,there are reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of any mail could pose a risk to facility, community, or national security, it will not be delivered. The mail handler will confiscate and place outgoing mail in the inmate's property storage, and will return incoming mail to the sender, in each case giving notice to the inmate or sender per paragraph 31 below.

25. Correspondence with Victims Inmates may not correspond with a victim of a crime for which they are currently in custody in either pretrial or sentenced status. A jail supervisor may make exceptions.

26. Mail with Health Care Appointment Information To ensure transport security, a mail handler will confiscate any mail with information about upcoming health care appointments, and notify the inmate and sender of the confiscation. The mail handler should inform heath care staff of the letter.

27. Gang-Related and Security Threat Group Materials in Mail
A mail handler will photocopy incoming or outgoing mail with gang-related material and send the copy to the Gang Deputy. The mail handler will confiscate the mail as a prohibited item, and notify the sender per paragraph 31.

28. Commercial Business Transactions and Government Services by Mail
An inmate may not conduct commercial business transactions by mail or request services from a government agency without the approval of a jail supervisor. Examples of transactions and requests include:

a. Buying or selling an item, real property, or service b. Applying for a credit card c. Applying for a commercial or student loan d. Opening a bank account e. Enrolling in a college course f. Applying for food stamps ». Any obligation of funds to which the inmate does not have access

29. Mail Monitoring
Absent a court order, a jail supervisor will only approve a request to monitor a specific
inmate's mail because there is reasonable belief that there is a legitimate penological or public safety reason to do so. This is including, but not limited to the welfare and safety of the inmates or staff, the good order or security of the facility, the protection of property, the prevention of the commission of additional crimes or conspiracy to commit a crime, to thwart attempts to destroy or tamper with evidence of crimes or to harass or intimidate witnesses The requester from outside the jail must complete a Request for Inmate Mail Monitoring. An approved request will expire 30 days after its

EXrMBIT Y
PAGE fr OF ft-

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-6 Filed 02/21/12 Page 9 of 17

J603-R07

February 10,2012

approval date. The requester must submit a new request to continue monitoring. Jail staff will read the inmate's mail and decide if any of it applies to the request and will only forward copies of mail that does apply. The requester must pick up the copies in person if from an agency within Columbia County. The jail commander or designee will coordinate the mail-monitoring program.

30. Confiscating Prohibited Mail
Normally, mail handlers confiscate prohibited items. The sender of confiscated mail must be notified pursuant to paragraph 31. Staff may return prohibited mail to a sender if it is in the best interest of the jail not to store it, such as perishables.

a. Mail handlers will confiscate postcards, letters, cards, and publications in whole rather than removing or obliterating individual pages, passages, or words with prohibited content. They will confiscate items that exceed a number limit as an entire set rather than passing on a selection that would meet the maximum
number allowed.

b. Mail handlers will use a Prohibited Mail Slip to inform the inmate of the confiscation and use a copy as a tag for the items. They will place confiscated items in the inmate's property storage, unless it is evidence in a jail disciplinary action or a crime. They will handle evidence according to the applicable policy: Staff will not notify the inmate or sender if they confiscate items that are part of a criminal investigation.

c. Mail handlers must notify the sender in writing that mail they sent was confiscated or not delivered to the inmate, unless the inmate is no longer in custody. They should use a Prohibited Mail Slip for the notification. Any notice will give the reason and explain how the sender can informally appeal the action.

d. A mail handler may destroy any item in mail that presents a health or safety risk if it were to be stored in the jail or returned to sender, and notify the sender by sending a Prohibited Mail Slip.

PROCESSING INCOMING MAIL
31. Initial Processing of Incoming Mail The mail handler will process incoming mail for inmates in the following manner:
a. Return mail to the sender (unopened if possible) or the USPS if any of the
following apply:
(1) Incoming personal mail that is not a postcard, except privileged (legal or official)
mail.
(2) The addressee cannot be identified because of missing or incomplete
information
(3) Prohibited items are affixed to the mail
MRU *
PAGE *l OF. (3;

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-6 Filed 02/21/12 Page 10 of 17

J603-R07

February 10,2012

(4) Foreign substances or stains are on the mail (5) Odors, including perfume, are coming from the mail (6) The mail contains cash or negotiable instruments (7) The mail can otherwise be identified as being or containing prohibited mail
before it is opened

b. Send a notice of right to reconsideration with returned mail. Send a notice of right to reconsideration to senders of confiscated mail. Complaints and requests
for reconsideration shall be forwarded to the Jail Commander for a determination
of compliance with the Mail Policy and applicable legal requirements.

c. Handle mail without a return name and address according to paragraph 8.

d. Look up the inmate's name on an Alpha List Sorted by Name report and write the inmate's pod number or "CCJ" on the mail. Return mail to the sender if the inmate is not in jail.
e. Separate legal and official mail from personal mail and books, periodicals and
bulk mail.
f. Open and inspect the contents of personal mail, books, periodicals and bulk mail for contraband items and money. Confiscate any prohibited item.

g. Have a jail sergeant or jail commander look at personal business mail that may need approval for special handling. If approved, provide handling instructions to
the roving deputy.
h. Remove books from their mailing parcel.

i. Place mail in a foreign language in the "translation required" box. Take steps to locate a staff member who speaks that language. If mail cannot be translated within a reasonable time, the mail handler will forward the mail to a supervisor.
j. Sort mail by pod and place in the pod folders in booking before 0800 hours (8:00
a.m.).
k. Place mail to return to the post office in booking pickup box.

32. Pod Processing of Incoming Mail Day shift roving deputies will pick up the mail for their pods when coming on duty. They, or other staff if appropriate, will process the inmate mail for their pods as
follows:
a. Review all personal postcards and books, periodicals and bulk mail for prohibited content. Read in-depth only if there is a legitimate jail interest.

P EXHIBIT

10

PAGE \0 OF Li

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-6 Filed 02/21/12 Page 11 of 17

J603-R07

February 10,2012

b. Remove postage stamps, flap-sealing tape, and gummed and adhesive address labels. (Remove labels only on personal mail—leave labels on legal and official mail).
c. Remove subscription-ordering postcards from magazines.
d. Open recognizable legal and official mail in front of the inmate and inspect it only for contraband—not content. (Deputies, or other staff, must not read the contents.)

e. The mail handler will scan each piece of mail with a bar code scanner to indicate
the status of that item. The mail handler will scan the inmate's name and then
scan the appropriate bar code for the disposition of the item. Every piece of mail will be scanned with one of the following scans:

(1) Personal Mail Received (2) Privileged Mail Received (3) Bulk Mail Received (4) Periodicals (i.e. magazines) Received (5) Books Received (6) Returned Mail (Prohibited Mail Slip to follow) (7) Confiscated Mail (Report to Follow)
f. Deliver the mail as soon as practical upon receipt. Passing mail under an inmate's door and placing books by the door is acceptable.

g. Have the inmate write his or her name and booking number on the inside flap of books. For magazines without mailing labels directly attached, have the inmate write his or her name and booking number on the cover. Newspapers do not
need marking.

33. Mail as Nuisance Contraband
Inmates are responsible for getting rid of any mailed item that puts them over the limits of allowed for nuisance contraband under policy J212, Rules and Discipline. An inmate may transfer items to their bin in the property room using procedures in policy J208, Secure Storage of Inmate Property.

OUTGOING MAIL
34. General Mail Rules for Inmates Inmates—
a. May only use lead or colored pencils to write correspondence. b. May only use postcards sold through the commissary or issued by the jail. c. Must send legal, official or approved letters, notes, or other written materials using
the USPS or other approved system.
FXHIBIT F . M
PAGE. H R

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-6 Filed 02/21/12 Page 12 of 17

J603-R07

February 10,2012

d. Must put their first and last name, booking number, and the jail address as the
return address,
c. May not draw or write anything on the outside of an envelope other than name and address information and "legal" or "official" mail designations.
f. May not send out jail forms for others to fill out on behalf of the inmate. g. May not send prohibited mail. They are subject to disciplinary action for doing
so.
h. Should pass on prohibited mail rules to people and businesses with whom they correspond.

35. Inspection of Outgoing Envelopes
Before legal or official mail leaves the pod, roving deputies will verify the contents are legal or official mail before sealing the envelope. The inspecting deputy will initial and write their DPSST number on the flap to show this verification. As appropriate, the deputy will return it to the inmate, confiscate it as evidence in disciplinary proceedings, or contact a jail sergeant or jail command officer if—

a. The return name, booking number, and address are incomplete or false. b. There is drawing or non-address-related writing on the envelope. c. There is prohibited material on the envelope. d. Addressee information is missing that could cause the letter to be undeliverable
and returned to the jail. e. It is a manila envelope whose addressee does not meet the criteria for being
legal or official mail or being a program-related certificate or diploma. f. They believe the envelope should be opened for a legitimate reason.

36. Opening and Inspecting Contents of Outgoing Mail Mail handling staff will not read outgoing legal or official mail unless they have the approval of a sergeant or command officer.

a. A jail supervisor may have staff read outgoing mail at any time and for any reason, except for legal or official mail. This authorization may be by housing area, class of inmate, individual inmate, or other basis. It may also be on an ongoing or a random basis and for any length of time. However, the jail commander or designee must approve any ongoing monitoring of a specific inmate, as previously noted.

b. Mail handlers will notify a jail supervisor if—

(1) They suspect outgoing mail contains contraband. (2) It may present a safety or security issue based on the addressee. (3) They have reasonable suspicion the mail may contain other contents of
legitimate jail interest.

37. Posting Outgoing Mail Inmates will place outgoing mail in the designated mail box located inside of their pod. The Grave yard shift roving Deputy's will pick up the mail out of the mail box and deliver it to the booking area to be processed. The mail will be placed in the
12
EXHIBIT \
PAGE \£0F XV

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-6 Filed 02/21/12 Page 13 of 17

J603-R07

February 10,2012

outgoing mail basket and delivered to the front office for the regularly scheduled morning pickup on that same day as long as it is not a weekend or holiday. Outgoing mail should be processed within one business day after being received
from the inmate.
a. Processing of inmate mail will consist of:

(1) Sorting the mail (2) Scanning the inmates name and appropriate bar code to reflect the proper disposition of the mail.
A. Outgoing Personal Mail B. Outgoing Privilege Mail (Official & Legal) C. Mail Returned (Prohibited Mail Slip to follow) D. Confiscated Mail (Report to Follow) E. Outgoing Package F. Outgoing Certified Mail.

38. Mail Delivery
Staff should deliver mail to inmates within 24 hours of receipt at the jail. Reasonable exceptions are allowed when special processing is required, such as for mail delivered late in the day, needing translation, or items held as evidence in a criminal or disciplinary investigation, etc.

ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES
39. Mail Rules
The jail commander or designee will ensure mail rules are a part of inmate orientation and the Inmate Manual and will make copies of the Inmate Mail Guide available to the public. Civilian staff members who discover apparent misconduct as a result of reading inmate mail will report it via the chain of command.
40. Mail Complaints Staff members will direct mail complaints from the public to a jail command officer. The officer should attempt to respond to the complainant within two business days. Inmates will use the inmate grievance process to lodge complaints or ask for the return of confiscated items (see paragraph 46, below).
41. Mail Handler Supervision and Training A jail supervisor will supervise the day-to-day handling of inmate mail. He or she will assign staff to perform primary inmate mail duties. Staff who initially handle or open incoming inmate mail should attend training on the safe handling of strange or suspicious packages or receive similar training from another source. Those who open mail should also receive training on recognizing gang and security threat group symbols and signs.

13

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-6 Filed 02/21/12 Page 14 of 17

J603-R07

February 10,2012

42. Change of Address Responsibilities and Forwarding Mail
Inmates are responsible for submitting change of address requests to the publishers of the periodicals they receive and to others that send them mail at the jail. Mail handlers will normally not forward mail for inmates who are no longer in jail custody. They will return correspondence and packages unopened to the sender and throw periodicals away.

43. Holding Mail Mail handlers will normally not hold mail for inmates released or temporarily transferred to another facility. A jail command officer may make exceptions.

44. Prohibited Mail Jail staff will not allow an inmate to receive or send mail that—

1. Contains—
a. Threats of physical harm, blackmail, extortion, or other criminal activity. b. Plans for escape, criminal activity, or activity that violates jail rules.

c. Gang-related material. d. Information that, if conveyed, could result in physical harm to someone,

c. Sexually explicit materials

I'.

Inflammatory material

g. Contraband materials including but not limited to such commonly mailed
items as:

(1) Books larger than 9 by 12 inches or with plastic or metal bindings (2) More than three books in a single piece of mail (3) Controlled substances as defined by ORS 475.525 (4) Foreign substances, such as:

(a) Bodily fluids (b) Lipstick or perfume (c) Glue or paint (d) Anything with an unusual stain or odor that indicates a foreign
substance may be present

2. Is written in code or suspected code 3. Was a form of written communication not sent through the USPS or other approved
system

4. Is to or from a victim of a crime that the inmate is in custody for in either pretrial or
sentenced status.

5. Would violate a court order.

6. May produce a hostile work environment, such as sexual harassment.

7. Is a credit or deferred billing transaction, such as "bill me later" subscriptions or merchandise bought on credit or collect-on-delivery terms.

ABIT J

l4

PAGE lM 0M^"

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-6 Filed 02/21/12 Page 15 of 17

J603-R07
8. Is fraudulently marked as legal or official mail.

February 10,2012

45. Returning Mail to Sender To return postcards, a mail handler will use a sticker or stamp marked "return to sender," note the reason for refusal on the stamp, obliterate any mail-sorting bar code, and return it to the post office. To return unopened mail (other than postcards), a mail handler will use the "return to sender" stamp in place of the sticker.
To return mail that was opened, a mail handler must repackage it and send it at the expense of the jail to the sender. The mail handler will include a copy of the Returned Mail form letter and the Inmate Mail Guide if he or she repackages the mail.
Mail handlers will use a Prohibited Mail Slip to inform the inmate and the sender when mail is returned to sender. The Prohibited Mail Slip will conform to the model
shown below.
46. Appealing Returned Mail Decisions Inmates wishing to appeal a decision to deny delivery of the mail will use the normal grievance procedure set forth in the inmate manual and Policy J207, Inmate Rights.
If a sender believes that any mail was improperly denied, the decision to deny the mail may be appealed to the Jail Commander by sending a written letter stating the reasons the sender believes that the decision was wrong within 15 days from the date of the Prohibited Mail Slip notice. The appeal should identify specifically why the sender believes that the decision to deny the mail was wrong and include the sender's name and return address. The Jail Commander will return a decision on the appeal to the sender within fifteen days of receiving the appeal. The appeal process will be set forth in the notice given on the Prohibited Mail Slip in the manner shown
below.

EXHIBIT J_p _ 15
PAGEjfilOFjl

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-6 Filed 02/21/12 Page 16 of 17

J603-R07

February 10,2012

COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
Jeffrey M. Dickerson, Sheriff

Address: 901 Port Ave. St. Helens, OR 97051 Phone: (503)366-4611 Fax: (503)366-4644

PROHIBITED MAIL NOTICE
Dale:

Because of rules contained in the Columbia County Jail Inmate Mail Policy,

we are • returning or • confiscating the • letter or • publication

you sent to inmate

. Booking U

The mail was denied for the following reason(s):

• It is deemed personal mail and not on a post card.
• It contains sexually explicit material at page(s):
• It contains prohibited material or a foreign substance:
• It did not come directly from a publisher, book club, or bookstore.
• It contains plans for escape, criminal activity, or activity that violates jail rules.
• It contains inflammatory materials, such as advocating violence against a group based upon their religion, race, gender or ethnicity.
• Other
The reverse side of this letter is an Inmate Mail Guide which contains guidance on mail rules and complaint information. You may alsogo to thejail's web page at www.co.columbia.or.us/sheriffto find the information. The inmate was also notified of this denial and can appeal this decision as well.
APPEALS: If you believe that your correspondence/publication was improperly denied, you may appeal Ihedecision by sending in a written letterstaling the reasons you believe that the decision was wrong wilhin 15 days from the date of this letter. Your appeal should identify specifically why you believe thai our decision to deny the mail was wrong and include your name and return address. You arc not required to provide a phone number, but it may be useful if we need further clarification. We will send you a decision on your appeal within fifteen days of receiving it. Please direct your written appeal to:
Jail Commander
ATTN: Denied Mail Appeal Columbia County Sheriff's Office
901 Port Ave.
St. Helens, OK 97051

Mail Handler and DPSST it

while - Sender ♦ Yellow-Inmates Jail File ♦ Pink-Inmate
EXHIBIT __£_-- 16
PAGE WflOF.n-

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-6 Filed 02/21/12 Page 17 of 17

.J603-R07

February 10,2012

INMATE MAIL GUIDE

Personal Mail
Inmates may send or receive personal mail from friends, family, or associates on postcards only. Inmates may receive postcards in any size that is delivered by the U.S. Postal Service up to a maximum size of 51/2" tall x 8-1/2" wide. Inmates may receive postcards with photographs on one side as allowed by the U.S. Postal Service. The jail does not permit any other form of personal mail for inmates.

Addressing Inmate Mail
Inmate mail must have the inmate's booking number as part of the addressee information. Incoming mail
must have a return address to include the name and address of the sender.

Prohibited Mail

Jail staff will not allow an inmate to receive or send mail that—

l. Contains—
a. Threats of physical harm, blackmail, extortion, or other criminal activity. b. Plans for escape, criminal activity, or activity that violates jail rules.
C. Gang-related material. d. Information that, if conveyed, could result in physical harmto someone.
e. Sexually explicit materials f. Inflammatory material
g. Contraband materials including but not limited to such commonly mailed items as:
(1) Books larger than 9 by 12 inches or with plastic or metal bindings (2) More than three books in a single piece of mail (3) Controlled substances as defined by ORS 475.525 (4) Foreign substances, such as:

(a) Bodily fluids (b) Lipstick or perfume (c) Glueor paint (d) Anything with an unusual slain or odorthat indicates a foreign substance may be present

2. Is written in code or suspected code 3. Was a form of written communication not sent through the USPS or other approved system

4. Is to or from a victim of a crime that the inmate is in custody for in either pretrial or sentenced
status.

5. Would violate a court order.

6. May produce a hostile work environment, such as sexual harassment.

7. Is a credit or deferred billing transaction, such as "bill me later" subscriptions or merchandise bought on credit or collect-on-delivery terms.

8. Is fraudulently marked as legal or official mail.

EXHiBIT P

17

RAGE^iOP C7

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-7 Filed 02/21/12 Page 1 of 2

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY STANDARDS AND TRAINING

DPSST

COURSE ATTENDANCE ROSTER

F-6

(Please Refer to Instructions for Completion. Available at www.di3sst.state.or.us)

Only Course Title and Course Number from Standardized Course List Will Be Accepted- Refer to DPSST Website

1.Course Title: Mail Policy Training

2. Course Number: -]2-0756

3. Start Date: 02/01/2012

4. Ending Date: 02/01/2012

5. Total Course Hours:

1

6. Course Description/Topics:
Mail policy upda e training for the staff

7. Subject Area: (Check subject area as identified on Standardized Course List)

• Firearms/ Use of Force

• First Aid Expiration Date:

• Leadership

• CPR Expiration Date:

• Other

8. Sponsoring Agency or Entity and Address:
Columbia County Sheriff's Office 901 Port Ave. St. Helens Or 97051

9. Location of Training, City: St. Helens

10. Location of Training, County: Columbia

11. Instructor Name, Address, Phone Number and Email Address:
Undershenff Andy Moyer 901 Port Ave. St. Helens OR 97051 503.366.4630 andy.moyer@co.columbia.or.us

12. Attendee Information (onlv those with DPSST numbers identified .vi 1receive DPSST training credit):

DPSSTU

Attendee Name*'

Did you

Agency/Department Hours

(Last, First)

Instruct ?

/ here

Attended

1 49829

Lautt, Arnold

Columbia County Sheriffs Office

2 30771 3 31831

Outright, Bryan Rigdon, R

X

Columbia County Sheriffs Office

Columbia County Sheriffs Office

4

26754

Westfall. Sheryl

Columbia County Sheriffs Office

5 40293

Miller, Raquel

Columbia County Sheriffs Office

6 38847

McMiller, John

Columbia County Sheriffs Office

7 50583

Weaver, Tony

Columbia County Sheriffs Office

8 26793

Hibbs, Derek

Columbia County Sheriffs Office

9 51226

Yon, Brandon

Columbia County Sheriffs Offce

10 50584

Kernutt, Jonathan

Columbia County Sheriff's Off ce

11 38689

Watkins, Mitchell

Columbia County Sheriffs Office

12 35661

Moore, Sean

Columbia County Sheriffs Office

13 51619

Johnson, Ivan

Columbia County Sheriffs Office

14 40677

Scholl, Ryan

Columbia County Sheriff's Office

13. Lead Instructor/Agency Head/Training Officeror Designee: As an authorized instructor, agency head, trainiiiK officer,

or designee. I have rt viewed this roster for completeness and accuracy. 1under tand that falsification of information on thisdocui lent is suliiccl

lo penaltv under ORS 162 055: et at. and ORS 162.305 and is cause to d.env or revot e public safetv certification,

Signature:

/^^^

p*-m— Sot Bryan L. Outright Sr. 3C771

Address: (If same a< Sponsoring Agency in 8 above, may indie ale "same as above" or "sec above")

Date: 02/04/2012!

Dav Pho ie: 503.366 4638

"By submitting his/her name for inclusion on this roster.'the identified panicipant(s) understand that falsification of information on this

document issubject to penalty under ORS 162.055. et al. and ORS 162.305 and is cause lodeny orrevoke certification

Failure to complete ALL fields WILL result In officers not receiving credit ontheir DPSST Training Records or roster being returned to agency.

Return to: DPSST, Attn: Training Records, 4190 Aumsville Hwy. SE,Salem OR 97317

Fax: 503-378-4600 Phono: 503-373-0389

Basic Class &

#:

DPSST Use Only: Advanced/Regional
Revised 01-14-09

Basic/Academy

Oilier

Dale Entered/By: Discard all previous versions

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-7 Filed 02/21/12 Page 2 of 2

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY STANDARDS AND TRAINING

DPSST

COURSE ATTENDANCE ROSTER -Continuation page-

F-6

14. Course Title: Mail Policy Training
16. Sponsoring Agency or Entity:
Columbia County Sheriff's Office 901 Port Ave. St. HelensOr 97C51

15. Course Number: 12-0756
17. Course Date(s):
0201/2012

DPSST# Attendee Name (Last, First)**

15

34755

16

31899

17

51621

18

42769

19

42436

20

46980

21

Ritchie, Michelle Moyer, Andrew Townsend, Carolyn Rush, Marcia McDowall, Brooke Frazier, Sophie

Did you
Instruct ? y here
X

Agency/Department

Hours Attended

Columbia County Sheriffs Office

1

Columbia County Sheriffs Office

1

Columbia County Sheriffs Office

1

Columbia County Sheriffs Office

1

Columbia County Sheriffs Office

1

Columbia County Sheriffs Office

1

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

19. Lead Instructor/Agency Head/Training Officer or Designee: As an authorized instructor, agency head, training officer, or df-igncc Ihnvr ri-ii*-^'' thic ""J^ tnr <"«"n|,,p"""'« an<l 9<,pur9CV- ' understand that falsification of information on this document is subject to penalty under ORS 162.055. et af«ntl ORS 162.305 and is cause lo denv or revoke puhlicsafelv certification.

Sienature:

T/.f-T»^H__ 7_,I

P_ri.n,ted. NName: _S»at. Br1yan L. Outri2ght Sr 30771

Address: (Ifsame asSponsoring Agency in 8above, may indicate "same asabove" or"see above')

Date- 02/04/2012

DayPhone: 503.366.4638

HV SMunmuiiu mhmiici n a m e mi i i m u o m n m i u m • •jjq.i. •••»- .ww...•••>.>• ^

•.

..-. .

,. .

———

document is subject to penalty underORS 162.055. et al.and ORS 162.305 and is cause to denvor revoke certification.,

Failure tocomplete ALL fields WILL result in officers not receivinq credit on their DPSST Training Records orroster being returned toagency,

Return to: DPSST, Attn: Training Records, 4190Aumsville Hwy. SE, Salem OR 97317

, Basic Class &

Fax: 503-378-4600 Phone: 503-373-0389

#-.fc%,l-: =-;•>'.'

DPSST Use Only: Advanced/Regional Basic/Academy

Other

Date Entered/By:

EXHiBli j£L
z_JZ-

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-8 Filed 02/21/12 Page 1 of 2

COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
Jeffrey M. Dickerson, Sheriff

Address: 901 Port Ave. St. Helens, OR 97051 Phone: (503)366-4611 Fax: (503)366-4644 Web Address: www.co.columbia.or.us/sheriff

PROHIBITED MAIL NOTICE
Dale:

Because of rules contained in the Columbia County Jail Inmate Mail Policy,

we are • returning or • confiscating the • letter or • publication

you sent to inmate

, Booking #

The mail was denied for the following reason(s):

• It is deemed personal mail and not on a post card.
• It contains sexually explicit material at pagc(s):
• It contains prohibited material or a foreign substance:
• It did not come directly from a publisher, book club, or bookstore.
D It contains plans for escape, criminal activity, or activity that violates jail rules.
• It contains inflammatory materials, such as advocating violence against a group based upon their religion, race, gender or ethnicity.
• Other
The reverse side of Ibis letter is an Inmate Mail Guide which contains guidance on mail rules and complaint information. You may also go to the jail's web page at www.co.columbia.or.us/sheriffto find the information. The inmate was also notified of this denial and can appeal this decision as well.
APPEALS: If you believe that your correspondence/publication was improperly denied, you may appeal the decision by sending in a written letter stating the reasons you believe that the decision was wrong within 15 days from the date of this letter. Your appeal should identify specifically why you believe that our decision to deny the mail was wrong and include your name and return address. You are not required to provide a phone number, but it may be useful if we need further clarification. We will send you a decision on your appeal within fifteen days of receiving it. Please direct your written appeal to:
Jail Commander
ATTN: Denied Mail Appeal Columbia County Sheriffs Office
901 Port Ave.
St. Helens, OR 97051

Mail Handler and DPSST #

White - Sender ♦ Yellow - Inmates Jail File ♦ I'ink - Inmate
EXHIBIT ti;
PAGE I 'M 2-

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 32-8 Filed 02/21/12 Page 2 of 2
INMATE MAIL GUIDE
Personal Mail
Inmates may send or receive personal mail from friends, family, or associates on postcards only. Inmates may receive postcards in any size that is delivered by the U.S. Postal Service up to a maximum size of 51/2" tall x 8-1/2" wide. Inmates may receive postcards with photographs on one side as allowed by the U.S. Postal Service. The jail does not permit any other form of personal mail for inmates.
Addressing Inmate Mail
Inmate mail must have the inmate's booking number as part of the addressee information. Incoming mail
must have a return address to include the name and address of the sender.
Prohibited Mail
Jail staff will not allow an inmate to receive or send mail that—
1. Contains— a. Threats of physical harm, blackmail, extortion, or other criminal activity.
b. Plans for escape, criminal activity, or activity that violates jail rules. c. Gang-related material. d. Information that, if conveyed, could result in physical harm to someone. e. Sexually explicit materials. f. Inflammatory material. g. Contraband materials including but not limited to such commonly mailed items as:
(1) Books larger than 9 by 12 inches or with plastic or metal bindings. (2) More than three books in a single piece of mail. (3) Controlled substances as defined by ORS 475.525 (4) Foreign substances, such as:
(a) Bodily fluids (b) Lipstick or perfume (c) Glue or paint (d) Anything with an unusual stain or odor that indicates a foreign substance may be present.
2. Is written in code or suspected code.
3. Was a form of written communication not sent through the USPS or other approved system. 4. Is to or from a victim of a crime that the inmate is in custody for in either pretrial or sentenced status.
5. Would violate a court order.
6. May produce a hostile work environment, such as sexual harassment. 7. Is a credit or deferred billing transaction, such as "bill me later" subscriptions or merchandise bought
on credit or collect-on-delivery terms. 8. Is fraudulently marked as legal or official mail.
EXHIBIT TT

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 34 Filed 03/06/12 Page 1 of 24
Katherine C. Chamberlain, OSB #042580 katherinec@mhb.com Jesse A. Wing, pro hac vice jessew@mhb.cOlTI Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News MacDonald Hoague & Bayless 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104-1745 (206) 622-1604
Marc D. Blackman, OSB #730338 mark@ransomblackman.com Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Ransom Blackman LLP 1001 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1400 Portland, OR 97204 (503) 228-0487
Lance Weber,pro hac vice lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Human Rights Defense Center 1037 Western Ave., 2nd Floor West Brattleboro, VT 05303 (802) 257-1342

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,
Defendants.

No. CV 12-71-SI
SECOND DECLARATION OF LUCY LENNOX

SECOND DECLARATION OF LUCY LENNOX (CV 12-71-SI) - 1
9870.05 fb281302

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 34 Filed 03/06/12 Page 2 of 24

I, Lucy Lennox, declare and affirm as follows:

1. I am over the age of 18 and I am competent to testify. The statements of fact

contained herein are based on my personal knowledge and belief.

2. I am a resident of the state of Washington.

3. On February 7,2012, I visited the Prison Legal News website

(www.prisonlegalnews.org) and printed multiple copies of the same legal article titled "Prison

Legal News Files Censorship Suit Against Florida DOC" to send to 11 prisoners at the Columbia

County Jail. I enclosed the printed articles in separate envelopes and sent them to specific

prisoners at the Columbia County Jail in standard sized #10 envelopes with the required amount

of postage affixed to each one.

4. I sent the website article to the following prisoners at the Columbia County Jail:

Name

Inmate No.

Steven Adams

2011002552

Toni Bertasso

2011002507

Robert Clement

2011002143

Anthony Deherrera

2011001729

Kenna Haynes

2011002213

Scott Laville

2011002501

Samuel Oester

2011002123

Barry Shaft

2011000612

William Temple

2011000529

Alisha Vandolah

2010002105

Shaughnessy Williams 2011000534

5. The Columbia County Jail rejected three of the articles I mailed and returned the

rejected mailings to me, as described below:

A. Exhibit A is a true copy of the envelope and article that I mailed to Scott

Lavelle on February 7, 2012. The Jail returned the envelope to me, unopened. The returned

SECOND DECLARATION OF LUCY LENNOX (CV 12-71-SI)-2
9870.05 tb281302

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Te1206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 34 Filed 03/06/12 Page 3 of 24

envelope is stmnped "RETURN TO SENDER." I did not receive a Prohibited Mail Notice or any other communication froin the Columbia County Jail regarding the mail I sent to Mr. Lavelle or why the Jail rej ected this envelope.
B. Exhibit B is a true copy of the envelope and article that I mailed to Alisha Vandolah on February 8, 2012. The Jail returned the envelope to me, unopened. The returned envelope is stamped and marked "INSPECTED BY COLUMBIA COUNTY JAIL," "RETURN TO SENDER," and "CONTRABAND."
C. Exhibit C is a true copy of the Prohibited Mail Notice dated February 11, 2012, that I received from the Columbia County Sheriff s Office regarding my mailing to Alisha Vandolah, and the envelope the notice arrived in. The envelope is postmarked February 14, 2012. The notice states that the Sheriffs Office "denied" my mail because "It is deemed personal mail and not on a postcard."
D. Exhibit D is a true copy of the envelope and article that I mailed to Shaughnessy Williams on February 8, 2012. The Jail returned the envelope to me, unopened. The returned envelope is stamped and marked ~'INSPECTED BY COLUMBIA COUNTY JAIL," "RETURN TO SENDER," and "CONTRABAND." .
E. Exhibit E is a true copy of the Prohibited Mail Notice dated February 11, 2012, that I received from the Columbia County Sheriffs Office regarding my mailing to Shaughnessy Williams, and the envelope the notice arrived in. The envelope is postmarked February 14, 2012. The notice states that the Sheriffs Office "denied" my mail because "It is deemed personal mail and not on a postcard."
6. Prior to sending the mail described above in Paragraphs 3-4 I visited the Columbia County Sheriffs website in an attempt to learn about the Jail's Inmate Mail Policy and any restrictions on sending mail to prisoners. I clicked on "Inmate Mail" on the left-hand side of website's home page, but the mail policy was not posted. Instead, I found a notice that said the mail policy was "under review."

SECOND DECLARATION OF LUCY LENNOX (CV 12-71-SI) - 3
9870.05 fb281302

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 34 Filed 03/06/12 Page 4 of 24

7. The two Prohibited Mail Notices I received, Exhibits D and E, directed me to "the

jail's web page at www.co.columbiaor.uslsheriff.. to find information about the Jail's mail policy. Therefore~ I re-visited the site on March 1, 2012, but the website still had posted the

same notice that the mail policy is "under review." Exhibit F is a true copy of the notice I saw

on the website. I was unable to locate the Columbia County Jail's Mail Policy on the Sheriffs

website.

8. Other than the exhibits described above and attached to this declaration I have

received no further communication from the Columbia County Jail. I do not know whether the

Jail delivered or censored the other eight articles I sent to prisoners at the Columbia County Jail.

I declare under penalty ofpeIjury ofthe laws ofthe State of Washington and the United

States of America that the forei;;;J: true and correct to ~ 0:::'~OWledge.

DATED this

day ofMarch, 2012, at

~ Washington.

~~

SECOND DECLARATION OF LUCY LENNOX (CV 12-71~SI).;. 4
9810.05 0081302

MAcDoNALD HOA.G1JE & BA.YLESS 705 Second Avcnue,; Suite 1500 Seattle WaShington 9S104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 34 Filed 03/06/12 Page 5 of 24
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 6, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing to the Clerk of
the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: • Marc D. Blackman marc@ransomblackman.com,pat@ransomblackman.com • Gregory R. Roberson grr@hartwagner.com,cej@hartwagner.com • Lance Weber lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org • Jesse Wing JesseW@mhb.com
MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS lsi Katherine C. Chamberlain
KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN OSB #042580 (206) 622-1604 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

SECOND DECLARATION OF LUCY LENNOX (CV 12-71-SI) - 5
9870.05 tb281302

MAcDoNALD HOA.GUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 34 Filed 03/06/12 Page 6 of 24
EXHIBIT A TO
DECLARATION OF LUCY LENNOX
Ex A to Lennox Decl, Pg 1 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 34 Filed 03/06/12 Page 7 of 24

\1
.~

~!~
(~
~
!~;

J~¢ t~

I 'l~~ ';,;.1
'"Ii,

i.tf
j~

'
~

;'.

I.

! )

.~.;•

:

~:.~.

\.
·i

~.~
rb
D
[)

["l!

i"-

.-.r.I,l.

~ I

'¢ -rli

nI\-

.....
tF. 0
-rll 1[1

:!I,.
l.:l
:z: @
:3 0 00 "Iii

~
-
-~
~

~;Zfit: I

W::l:Q: m ~

0 :3 f:,l ~

-- Zr@: {f: ~
WOO "l1 --'

WZi.:... ,':,"'

~

r 0

fO b

--

- D
;t:::WW @

00--...1 !)l

:Ju..ffi
rl:~
lilHI!:£.: iJrrJ
*Q-:

¢
-t
r-..t
ili
~~
0
~

-
---......~ ...

- ill
O't

.. ~ .--

0 ill

Ex A to Lennox Decl, Pg 2 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 34 Filed 03/06/12 Page 8 of 24

Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

Page 1 of3

Logged in as: Lucy Lennox Firm: none Status: Member
I II I Edit Profile Log Out of PLN

HOME

BOOK STORE

SEARCH PLN

ADVERTISE

SUBSCRIBE

DONATIONS

CONTACT US

Bool( Review I FAG's I Interviews I PLN links I PLN in the News I Annual Reports I Referral Directory

VIEW CART

(i Articles (' List Serv Messages

Tuesday, February 07,20125:43 PM

Prison Legal News Files Censorship Suit Against Florida DGC

[~Iease vis!t our adv~rtiser above] BREAKING NEWS

Gn November 17, 2011 litS AClU of Florida and the Florida Justice Institute filed a lawsuit on behalf of Prison Legal News in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Named as defendants in the suit are Florida Dept. of Corrections (FDGC) Secretary Kenneth. S. Tucker and FDGC wardens at the Everglades, Dade and Homestead Correctional Institutions.

Politics as Unusual: Florida Senate President

Crosses the Line by Randall C. Berg, Jr. On

February 1, Florida Senate President Mike

Haridopolos {R- ...

.

According to the complaint, PLN accuses the FDGC of violating its rights under the Fir!?t and Fourteenth Amendments by refusing to deliver its monthly publication and books to FDGC prisoners system-wide.
"When the government blocks information based on the content of that information, that's censorship," said Randall Marshall, Legal Director for the ACLU of Florida. "These publications provide inmates with vital information about their legal rights and individuals in FDGC' custody have a right to access these publications."
Although PLN's articles and editorial content do not violate FDGC policies or regulations, PLN is being censored by Florida prison officials purportedly due to its advertisements such as ads for pen-pal services and alternative prison phone services.
"The FDGC is imposing a blanket ban on all of PLN's publications, including our self-help books for prisoners, because they don't like some of our advertisers," said PLN editor Paul Wright. "We believe that is entirely pretextual and an unjustified, exaggerated response that is being used to'uphold unconstitutional censorship in violation of the First Amendment."
"We're a national news publication: added PLN associate editor Alex Friedmann. "We can't
to tailor our ad content to one particular state. Florida's not banning Time or Newsweek
because they have advertisers for cigarettes or cars, though prisoners aren't allowed have those either."

judicial Conference Committee Disciplines Federal Judge for Membership in DiSCriminatory Country Club by Alex Friedmann In May 2011, PLN reported that the Sixt~ ...
Nationwide PLN Survey EXamines Prison Phone Contracts, Kickbacks by John E. Dannenberg An exhaustive analysis of prison phone contracts nationwide has revealed that ...
Prison Legal News Interviews Former Prisoner and Famous Actor Danny Trejo Danny Trejo is one of the best-known American actors living today....
Remembering Attica Forty Years L~ter by Dennis Cunningham, Michael Deutsch & Elizabeth Fink This year, September 9 will mark the 40th anniversary ...

The complaint asks the district court to find that the FDGC is censoring PLN's reading materials and failing to provide due process in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and also requests i!1junctive relief; attorney fees and costs.

The History of Prison Legal News by Paul Wright In May 1990, the first issue of Prisoners' Legal News (PlN) was published. It ...

"This illegal conduct by the FDGC is precisely the type of activity the First Amendment was meant to protect. It is why our country was founded in the first place, and the reason free speech and freedom of the press is in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights," noted
Randall Berg, lead counsel and President of the Florida Justice Institute.

Twenty Years of PLN in Court Since PLN was founded in 1990 we have been censored in prisons and jails around ...

PLN sued the FDGC in 2004 over similar censorship issues, and the FDGC changed its mail policy in 2005 to allow PLN to be distributed to Florida state prisoners. The district court dismissed the suit as being moot; the 11 th Circuit affirmed, noting that the FDGC had "presente'd sufficient evidence to show that it has 'no intent to ban PLN based solely on the advertising content at issue in this case' in the future." [See: PLN, May 2011, p.i0]. However, in 2009 the FOGG changed its mail policy again and began censoring PLN's publications, even though PLN's ad content had not changed.
"This is about as clear a case of censorship as there can be: stated ACLU of Florida Executive Director Howard Simon. "Government can't censor material just because it doesn't like what's being published in the material- in this case, advertisements for pen-pal services. Just because our client provides legal information for people who are incarcerated doesn't mean they forfeit their constitutional rights. The Department of Corrections doesn't have to like that fact, but they are obligated to respect it." See: Prison Legal News v. Mayo, l!.8.D.C. (S.D. Fla.), Case No. 1:11-cv-24145-PAS.

Sexual Abuse by Prison and Jail Staff Proves Persistent, Pandemic by Gary Hunter Sexual assault, rape, indecency, deviance. These terms represent reprehensible behavior ...
Judge Not Judges Benched for Personal Misconduct by Gary Hunter & Alex Friedmann They decide hot-button topics ranging from abortion and racial discrimination ...
. The Graying of America's Prisons by James Ridgeway Frank Soffen, now 70 years old, has lived more than half his life in prison, ...

I .

httos:llwww.prisonlegalnews.org/24082 displayArticle.aspx

2/7/2012

Ex A to Lennox Decl, Pg 3 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 34 Filed 03/06/12 Page 9 of 24
EXHIBIT B TO
DECLARATION OF LUCY LENNOX
Ex B to Lennox Decl, Pg 1 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 34 Filed 03/06/12 Page 10 of 24 Ex B to Lennox Decl, Pg 2 of 3

<.il

,i

~~

' . wit " . If I ~<? S.

,

~ 1) lUuu-1 qq :}..1) 3

~.i~~~Jf,:;}.\1~l::·'iIiVA :~;;.~it " i~ 'r-E~' ·;2:f,.'i;:t2 :~;·J4·1..

~ It \r~ ~\tJOOd-\oE)

.:'.

~~~~~~~~~~~-~~~~~

INSPECTED BY COLUMBiA COUNTY JAil

, I

RETURN TO SENDER PERSON NOT HERE CONTRABAND

tX...
x

Cq ofo,~~~ ~ .,•

.~
NIX '1'''=' ,,'_

~
/l'. .•-""...... •. L- .
Il>?O $1;;\

(.xo ~~) ;l:~:.) i~

il

INTER-FACILlTV

~ETURN TO SENOER
1~jTE-:t1~iEO - Mo'r XNC~~N

I

REFUSLWIOLATE8 SECURITY _._

UNABLE TO FORWARD

Be: 9Sl~0362t~4.s1l!l

*2029-01490-08-37

·~\~(·o~. in~~~131@6244

)\ I\ II \ i) ))J )) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) )\ \ ) 1\1) ))}\)\)\)))1\ )1'\ 11) 1\) llll ) } II i\

-r 0 Z
(")
o r
Ir
CD :::::l
:>o:::<:l
10 o
->. I\.) .1\.)

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 34 Filed 03/06/12 Page 11 of 24

Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

Page 1 of3

Logged~as:LucyLennox
Firm: none Status:. Member
I II I Edit Profile Log Out of PLN

HOME.

BOOK STORE

SEARCH PLN

ADVERTISE

SUBSCRIBE

DONATIONS

CONTACT US

Book Review I FAQ's I Interviews I PLN links I PLN in the News I Annual Reports I Referral Directory

VIEW CART

(i Articles r List Serv Messages

Tuesday, February 07, 2012 5:43 PM

Prison Legal News Files Censorship Suit Against Florida DOC

[ Please visit our advertiser above] BREAKING NEWS

On November 17, 2011 the ACLU of Florida and the Florida Justice Institute filed a lawsuit on behalf of Prison Legal News in the U_S. District Court for the Southem District of Florida. Named as defendants in the suit are Florida Dept. of Corrections (FDOG) Secretary Kenneth S. Tucker and FDOC wardens at the Everglades, Dade and Homestead Correctional Institutions.

Politics as Unusual: Florida Senate President
Crosses the Line by Randall C. Berg, Jr. On February 1, Florida Senate President Mike Haridopolos (R- ._.

According to the compiaint, PLN accuses the FDOC of violating its rights under the First and FourteenthAmendments by refusing to deliver its monthly publication and books to FDOC prisoners system-wide.
"When the government blocks information based on the content of that information, thafs censorship," said Randall Marshall, Legal Director for the ACLU of Florida. "These publications provide inmates with vital information about their legal rights and individuals in FDOC custody have a right to access these publications."
Although PLN's articles and editorial content do not violate FDOC policies or regulations, PLN is being censored by Florida prison officials purportedly due to its advertisements such as ads for pen-pal services and alternative prison phone services.
"The FDOC is imposing a blanket ban on all of.PLN's publications, including our self-help books for prisoners, because they don't like some of our advertisers," said PLN editor Paul Wright "We believe that is entirely pretextual and an unjustified, exaggerated response that is being used to uphold unconstitutional censorship in violation of the First Amendment."
"We're a national news publication," added PLN associate editor Alex Friedmann. "We can't .tailor our ad content to one PClrticular state. Florida's not banning Time or Newsweek because they have advertisers. for cigarettes or cars, though prisoners aren't allowed to have those either."

Judicial Conference Committee Disciplines Federal Judge for Membership in Discriminatory Counby Club by Alex Friedmann In May 2011, PLN reported that the Sixth ...
Nationwide PLN Survey Examines Prison Phone Contracts, Kickbacks by John E: Dannenberg An exhaustive analysis of prison phone contracts nationwide has revealed that ...
Prison Legal News Interviews Former Prisoner and Famous Actor Danny Trejo Danny Trejo is one of the best-known American actors living today....
Remembering Attica Forty Years Later by Dennis ~.. Cunningham, Michael Deutsch & Elizabeth Fink This
year, September 9 will mark the 40th anniversary ...

The complaint asks the district court to find that the FDGC is censoring PLN's rr=ading

materials and failing to provide due process in violation of the First and Fourteenth

Amendments, and also requests injunctive relief, attorney fees and costs.

.

The History of Prison Legal News by Paul Wright In May 1990, the first issue of Prisoners' Legal News (PLN) was published. It ...

"This illegal conduct by the FOOC is precisely the type of activity the First Amendment was meant to protect. It is why our country was founded in the/first place, and the reason free speech and freedom of the press is in the Rrst Amendment of the Bill of Rights,n noted Randall Berg, lead counsel and President of the Florida Justice Institute.

Twenty Years of PLN in Court Since PLN was founded in 1990 we have been censored in prisons and jails around ...

PLN sued the FDGC in 2004 over similar censorship issues, and the FDGC changed its mail policy in 2005 to allow PLN to be distributed to Florida state prisoners. The district court dismissed the suit as being moot; the 11 th Circuit affirmed, noting that the FDGC had "presented sufficient evidence to shbw that it has 'no intent to ban PLN based solely on the advertising content at issue in this case' in the future." {See: PLN, May 2011, p_10]. However, in 2009 the FDOC changed its mail policy-again and began censoring PLN's publications, even though PLN's ad content had not changed.
. "This is about as clear a case of censorship as there can be," stated ACLU of Florida Executive Director Howard Simon. "Govemment can't censor material just because it doesn't like what's being published in the material - in this case, advertisements for pen-pal services. Just because our client provides legal information for people who are incarcerated doesn't mean they forfeit their constitutional rights. The Department of Corrections doesn't have to like that fact, but they are obligated to respect it" See: Prison Legal News v. Mayo, U.S.D.C. (S.D. Fla.), Case No. 1:11-cv-24145-PAS.

Sexual Abuse by Prison and Jail Staff Proves Persistent, Pandemic by Gary Hunter Sexual assault, rape, indecency, deviance. These terms represent reprehensible behavior ...

Judge Not Judges Benched for Personal

Misconduct by Gary Hunter & Alex Frie.dmann They

decide hot-button topics ranging from abortion and

racial discrimination ...

.

The Graying of America's Prisons by James Ridgeway Frank Soifen, now 70 years old, has lived more than half his life in prison, ...

httos:llwww.Drisonlegalnews.org/24082 displayArticle.asDx

2/7/2012

Ex B to Lennox Decl, Pg 3 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 34 Filed 03/06/12 Page 12 of 24
EXHIBIT C TO
DECLARATION OF LUCY LENNOX
Ex C to Lennox Decl, Pg 1 of 4

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 34 Filed 03/06/12 Page 13 of 24 Ex C to Lennox Decl, Pg 2 of 4

~ .',
.~.

COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFf'S OffiCE
Jeffrey M. Dickerson, Sheriff

Address: 90 I Port Ave., St. Helens, OR 97051 Phone: (503) 366-4611 Fax: (503) 366-4644 Web Address: www.co.columbia.or.us/sheriff

Lucy Lennox 4128 S Hatch Spokane, WA 99203

016H16501628

lI"j"} $OO.45Q

~'1

I1;l

02/14/2012

;;;C;
Mailed From 97051

US POSTAGE

;:F3:~::'::::;i::t:E::;;::!:~::~ =:::::; :i :2

dU....1.t..lH U"Ud,:i/.liliIiJ. .,t,:,:,:i/1..". hiLlil,..J',: }:,'"i.1. J' :, l1:,..,,ift,,,I,.t L.. lHl:.:..:::II,·jti/I

\r J Z
()
,or
r
CD ::::l
'0:ox:::l
o
~
N
~

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 34 Filed 03/06/12 Page 14 of 24

J603-R07 LfA_C,\;

February 10,2012
Address: 901 Port Ave. St. Helens, OR 97,051 Phone: (503) 366-4611 Fax: (503) 366-4644
PROHIBITED MAIL NOTICE

Because of rules contained in the Columbia County Jail Inmate Mail Policy,

we are 0 ret1ll!JrllD.illD.g or 0 comrlfnscatnlIllg the 0 letter or 0 plLlllbIIic21tioJlJl

AL you sent to inmate

~~C'- ifcu,.,clo!'),

, 0> Booking # ;)010bt?;21

The mail was denied for the following reason(s):

~ is deemed personal mail and not on a post card.

o It contains sexually explicit material at page(s):_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

o It contains prohibited material or a foreign substance: __________________

o It did not come directly from a publisher, book club, or bookstore.

o It contains plans for escape, criminal activity, or activity that violates jail rules.

o It contains inflammatory materials, such as advocating violence against a group based upon

their religion, race, gender or ethnicity.

.

o Other ------------------------------------------~-------------

The reverse sid.e of this letter is an Inmate Mail Guide which contains guidance on mail rules and complaint

information. You may also go to the jail's web page at www.co.columbia.or.us/sheriffto fmd the information. The

inmate was also notified of this denial and can appeal this decision as well.

.

APPEALS: If you believe that your correspondence/publication was improperly denied, you may appeal the decision by sending in a written letter stating the reasons you believe that the decision was wrong within 15 days from the date of this letter. Your appeal should identify specifically why you believe that our decision to deny the mail was wrong and include your name and return address. You are not required to provide a phone number, but it may be useful if we need further clarification. We will send you a decision on your appeal within fifteen days of receiving it. Please direct your written appeal to:

Jail Commander ATTN: Denied Mail Appeal Columbia County Sheriff's Office 901 Port Ave. St. Helens, OR 97051

White-Sender ¢' YeIlow-InmatesJailFile ~ Pink-Inmate
16
PLNCOL Lennox_00125
Ex C to Lennox Decl, Pg 3 of 4

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 34 Filed 03/06/12 Page 15 of 24

·J603-R07

~NMATE MA~L GU~DE

February :u.o, 2012

Inmates may send or receive personal mail from friends, family, or associates on postcards only. Inmates may receive postcards in any size that is delivered by the U.S. Postal Service up to a maximum size of 51/2" tall x 8-1/2" wide. Inmates rriay receive postcards with photographs on one side as allowed by the U.S. Postal Service. The jail does not permit any other form of personal mail for inmates.
Adldrressill1l£l ~H1lmate lMaU
Inmate mail must have the inmate's booking number as part of the addressee information. Incoryling mail must have a return· address to include the name and address of the sender.
Jail staff will not allow an inmate to receive or send mail that-
1. Contains-
a. Threats of physical harm, b[ackmail, extortion, or other criminal activity.
. b. Plans for escape, criminal activity, or activity that violates jail rules.
c. Gang-related material.
d. Information that, if conveyed, could result in physical harm to someone.
e. Sexually explicit materials
f. Inflammatory material
g. Contraband materials including but not limited to such commonly mailed items as:
(1) Books larger than 9 by 12 inches or with plastic or metal·bindings (2) More than three books in a single piece of mail
(3) Controlled substances as defined by ORS 475.525
(4) Foreign substances, such as:
(a) Bodily fluids (b) Lipstick or perfume
(c) Glue or paint
(d) Anything with an unusual stain or odor that indicates a foreign substance may be present
2. Is written in code or suspected code
3. Was a form of written communication not sent through the USPS or other approved system
4. [s to or from a victim of a crime that the inmate is in custody for in either pretrial or sentenced
status.
5. Would violate a court order. 6. May produce a hostile work environment, such as sexual harassment. 7. Is a credit or deferred billing transaction, such as "bill me [ater" subscriptions or merchandise
bought on credit or collect-on-delivery terms. 8. [s fraudulently marked as legal or official mail.
17
Ex C to Lennox Decl, Pg 4 of 4

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 34 Filed 03/06/12 Page 16 of 24
EXHIBIT D TO
DECLARATION OF LUCY LENNOX
Ex D to Lennox Decl, Pg 1 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 34 Filed 03/06/12 Page 17 of 24 Ex D to Lennox Decl, Pg 2 of 3

\'j;l . ':.~

" ,. f?l'~'·---·---·

~ - $ '.-'.

'. ~~'~~'~

1:ll d- ~ S ~ 1-\-dclu

S.~~\ LD~

'1.tt~3

:-~~.;J:~·:;:Z~·;,~~~;:'tl.:"~\~::::. .:;:..'::~:j..;: ~~!.?~.:£:Z· .:..:~:~:". :-;:'~~i:::~';':' ~:;~.:~::-:~~:~.:~~_ :"':;.:.;;':..'.;..'. ,:.":.....·.:t·,.:

. '~""N'.... !,..:.r:'.\.
'"\"":'"·i··~=-.~ :"t.... ~

_.:~1 . I'---_.

~IINSPECTED COU~ (fT"'"

t:r:m~.

~r'i

-m

BY COLUfiJI8'iA

JAil

~I-!

RETURN TO SENDER

~

PEF,SON NOT HERE

~

-

Ii

~

CONTRABAND

.-)l..

!~t.

REFUS~,?~~!!~~~~ INTER·FACILITV

I~ --.---- .

w s~~

~~~ ;;Lo,1\

0 00

<;

3,/-

~fo ~~ &J-.>

·go
3-t

)'nrl,)!,l.~

~11'('o

~t;;.' i

'tIC' ~:-'~l i~) :V:.'a

ATRTEETMUPRTNEDTO- NSEONTDEXRNOWN UNASLE TO FCRWARC

E{C : S~S1:20SlS~-Jl,}:q,:~a

*1e~g-07321-ce-37

··~r7\J7:. i ~'~~~~6:~~4

1\ 1) 1}1\) JIll 111\ 1 11 \ I 11 }\ 1}1}\

1} III \ ) I '11 I \ I \ I \ I I \ )\ J I \ ) )

I\ )) I

\r J
Zoor
Ir
CD
~ ~
o x
10 o
....l.
N .-..!

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 34 Filed 03/06/12 Page 18 of 24

Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

j

.

Page 1 of3

.1
Logged in as: Lucy Lennox Firm: none Status: Member
I II I Edit Profile Log Out of PLN

HOME

BOOK STORE

SEARCH PLN

ADVERTISE

SUBSCRIBE

DONATIONS

CONTACT US

Bool< Review I FAQ's I Interviews I PLN links I PLN in the News I Annual Reports I Referral Directory

VIEW CART

".
(i Articles l List Serv Messages

Tuesday, February 07, 2012 5:46 PM

Prison Legal News Files Ce.nsorship Suit Against florida DGC

.[ Please visit our advertiser above] BREAKING NEWS

On November 17,2011 the ACLU of Florida and the Florida Justice Institute filed a lawsuit on behalf of Prison Legal News in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Named as defendants in the suit are Florida Dept. of Corrections (FDOG) Secretary Kenneth S. Tucker and FOOC wardens at the Everglades, Oade and Homestead Correctional Institutions.

Politics as Unusual: Florida Senate President
Crosses the Line by Randall C. Berg, Jr. On February 1, Florida Senate President Mike Haridopolos (R- ...

According to the complaint. PLN accuses the FOGC of violating its rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments by refusing to deliver its monthly publication and books to FDGC prisoners system-wide.

"When the govemment blocks information based on the content ofthat information, thafs censorship," said Randall Marshall, Legal Director for the ACLU of Florida. "These publications provide inmates with vital information about their legal rights and individuals in FOGC custody have a right to access these publications:

. Although PLN's articles and editorial content do not violate FOOC policies or regulations, : PLN is being censored by Flonda prison officials purportedly due to its advertisements -
such as ads for pen-pal services and alternative prison phone services.

"The FOOC is imposing a blanket ban on all of PLN's publications, including our self-help books for prisoners, because they don't like some of our advertisers,n said PLN editor Paul ' Wnght. "We believe that is entirely pretextual and an unjustified, exaggerated response that is being used to uphold unconstitutional censorship in violation of the First Amendment=

"We're a national news publication: added PLN associate editor Alex Friedmann. "We can't

tailor our ad content to one particular state. Florida's not banning Time or Newsweek

.

because they have advertisers for cigarettes or cars, though prisoners aren't allowed to

have those either."

Judidal Conference Committee Disciplines Federal

Judge for Membership in Discriminatory Country

Club by Alex Friedmann In May 2011, PLN reported

that the Sixth ...

.

Nationwide PLN Survey Examines Prison Phone Contracts, Kickbacks by John E.. Dannenberg An exhaustive analysis of prison phone contracts nationwide has revealed that ...

Prison Legal News Interviews Former Prisoner and Famous Actor Danny Trejo Danny Trejo is one of r' the best-known American actors living today....

Remembering Attica Forty Years Later by Dennis • Cunningham, Michael Deutsch & Elizabeth Fink This year, September 9 will mark the 40th anniversary ...

The complaint asks the district court to find that the FDOC is censoring PLN's reading

materials and failing to provide due process i.n violation ofthe First and Fourteenth

Amendments, and also requests injunctive relief, attorney fees and costs.

.

The History of Prison Legal News by Paul Wright In
May 1990, the first issue of Prisoners' Legal News (PLN) was published. It ...

"This illegal conduct by the FOGC is precisely the type of activity the First Amendment was meant to protect. It is why our country was founded in the first place, and the reason free speech and freedom of the press ·is in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights,= noted Randall Berg, lead counsel and President of the Florida Justice Institute.

Twenty Years of PLN in Court Since PLN was founded in 1990 we have been censored in prisons and jails around ...

PLN sued the FDGC in 2004 over similar censorship issues, and the FOGC changed its mail policy in 2005 to allow PLN to be distributed to Florida $tate prisoners. The district court dismissed the suit as being moot; the 11th Circuit affirmed, noting that the FDGC had "presented sufficient evidence to show that it has 'no intent to ban PLN based solely on the advertising content at issue in this case' in the future." [See: PLN, May 2011, p.10J. However, in 2009 the FOGC changed its mail policy again and began censoring PLN's publications, even though PLN's ad content had not changed.
"This is about as Clear a case of censorship. as there can be," stated ACLU of Flonda Executive Director Howard Simon. "Government can't censor material just because it doesn't like what's being published in the material- in this case, advertisements for pen-pal services. Just because our client provides legal information for people who are incarcerated doesn't mean they forfeit their constitutional rights. The Department of Corrections doesn't have to like that fact, but they are obligated to respect it: See: Prison Legal News v. Mayo, U.S.D.C. (S.D. Fla.), Case No. 1:11-cv-24145-PAS.

Sexual Abuse by Prison and Jail Staff Proves Persistent, Pandemic by Gary Hunter Sexual assault, rape, indecency, deviance. These terms represent reprehensible behavior ...
Judge Not: Judges Benched for Personal Misconduct by Gary Hunter & Alex Friedmann They decide hot-button topics ranging from abortion and racial discrimination ...
The Graying of America's Prisons by James Ridgeway Frank Soffen, now 70 years old, has lived more than half his life in prison, ...

https:/Iwww.prisonlegainey.rs.org/24082 displayArtic1e.aspx

2/7/2012
PLNCOL Lennox_00128
Ex D to Lennox Decl, Pg 3 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 34 Filed 03/06/12 Page 19 of 24
EXHIBIT E TO
DECLARATION OF LUCY LENNOX
Ex E to Lennox Decl, Pg 1 of 4

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 34 Filed 03/06/12 Page 20 of 24 Ex E to Lennox Decl, Pg 2 of 4

w

COLUMBIA COUNTY
SHERIFf'S OFfiCE
Jeffrey M. Dickerson, Sheriff

Address: 90 I Port Ave., St. Helens, OR 97051 Phone: (503) 366-4611 Fax: (503) 366-4644 Web Address: www.co.columbia.or.us/sheriff

Lucy Lennox 4128 S Hatch Spokane, WA 99203

016H16501628

:."
mIt!

$OO~4.5Q'

flJ

02/'14/20i2

:;t

~,~ailed From 97051

US POSTAGE

=::j=::;:2:=::~j:i:E::~2::~~~~ ::::i:i<i :~::

n! 1 1:1 llHI ldl11 HilL iHiIL! Hi ....

••

.. • • • •

j i j i iil ri

.....
iJi

,.

I

' I · . . . . . . .

.'1

1;.;J: il; IilUi

r\J Z
()
r o
Ir
('[)
::::I
o::::I
I~
o
-l.
N
.(0

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 34 Filed 03/06/12 Page 21 of 24

J603-R07

February Jl. 0, 2012
Address: 901 Port Ave. St. Helens, OR 97,051 Phone: (503) 366-4611 Fax: (503) 366-4644

PROHIBITED MML NOTICE

LillO}
If/ {), >1

#

/

Because of rules contained in the Columbia County Jail Inmate Mail Policy,

we are 0 retllIJl"llJling or 0 confiscating the 0 letter or 0 pulbHc21tJion

you

sent

to

inmate

s·L~/'1A-,f?L
V

77 h..\e..s5.U •

kJ//~~"M S

, Booking

#

/101/00053y

The mail was denied for the following reason(s):

)sfIt is deemed personal mail and not on a post card.
o It contains sexually explicit material at page(s):_._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
o It contains prohibited material or a foreign substance: _________---,._ _ _ _ __
o It did not come directly from a publisher, book club, or bookstore. o It contains plans for escape, criminal activity, or activity that violates jail rules.
o It contains inflammatory materials, such as advocating violence against a group based upon
their religion, race, gender or ethnicity.
o Other -------------------------------------------------
The reverse side of this letter is an Inmate Mail Guide which contains guidance on mail rules and complaint information. You may also go to the jail's web page at www.co.columbia.or.us/sheriffto find the information. The inmate was also notified of this denial and can appeal this decision as well.
APPEALS: If you believe that your correspondence/publication was improperly denied, you may appeal the decision by sending in a written letter stating the reasons you believe that the decision was wrong within 15 days from the date of this letter. Your.~ppeal should identifY specifically why you believe that our decision to deny the mail was wrong and include your name and return address. You are not required to provide a phone number, but it may be useful if we need further clarification. We will send you a decision on your appeal within fifteen days ofreceiving it. Please direct your written appeal to:
Jail Commander ATTN: Denied Mail Appeal Columbia County Sheriff's 0 ffice 901 port Ave. St. Helens, OR 97051

White - Sender ~ Yellow - Inmates Jail File ~ Pink- Inmate
16
PLNCOL_Lennox_00130
Ex E to Lennox Decl, Pg 3 of 4

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 34 Filed 03/06/12 Page 22 of 24

J603-R07

February 10, 2012

~INlMATE MA~l GU~DE

Personal Mail
Inmates may send or receive personal mail from fri~ndsJ family, or associates on postcards only.. Inmates may receive postcards in any size that is delivered by the U.S. Postal Service up to a maximum size of 51/2" tall x 8-1/2" wide. Inmates may receive postcards with photographs on one side as allowed by the U.S. Postal Service. The jail does not permit any other form of personal mail for inmates.
~

I~'J
Inmate mail mus~ have the inmate's booking number as part of the addressee information. Incoming mail must have a return address to include the name and address of the sender.

Prohibited! Ma8~

Jail staff will not allow an inmate to receive or send mail that-
1. Contains-
a. Threats of physical harm, blackmail, extortion, or other criminal activity.
. b. Plans for escape, criminal activity, or activity that violates jail rules. c. Gang-related material.
d. Information that, if conveyed, could result in physical harm to someone. e. Sexually explicit materials
f. Inflammatory material
g. Contraband materials including but not limited to such comm~nly mailed items as:
(1) Books larger than 9 by 12 inches or with plastic or metal bindings (2) More than three books in a single piece of mail (3) Controlled substances as defined by DRS 475.525 (4) Foreign substances, such as:
(a) Bodily fluids (b) Lipstick or perfume .(c) Glue or paint (d) Anything with an unusual stain or odor that indicates a foreign substance may be present

2. Is written in code or suspected code 3. Was a form of written communication not sent through the USPS or other approved system

4. Is to or from a victim of a crime that the inmate is in custody for in either pretrial or sentenced
status.

5. Would violate a court order.

1

'. •

•

•

6. May produce a hostile work environment, such as sex'ual h,an3ssment.

7. Is a credit or deferred billing transaction, such as J'bill me laterll subscriptions or merchandise
bought on credit or collect-an-delivery terms.

8. Is fraudulently marked as legal or official mail.

17

Ex E to Lennox Decl, Pg 4 of 4

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 34 Filed 03/06/12 Page 23 of 24
EXHIBIT F TO
DECLARATION OF LUCY LENNOX
Ex F to Lennox Decl, Pg 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 34 Filed 03/06/12 Page 24 of 24

Inmate Mail

Page 1 of1

Search
Main Menu
Sheriff's Office Home Page MISSion Contact Us Columbia County Website Press Releases Current Inmate list 2011 Annual ReJX)lt
Divisions
Erlf'o«:emem Patrol
~1arine
. Criminal . Animal Control
Corrections
Inmate Visiting Jrvnate Mail Inmate Phones Inmate r<1oney Accounts Inmate Housing Fees Inmate Property Request for Proposals Supj:xlrt Services Civil and Records Processing CHl and Fingerprinting
Get Involved
VIPS Search and Rescue Mounted Posse Reserve Program
Information
Jail Inmate Census 2011 Annual Report
Facilities
Firing Range

InmateMaiJ The iomatemail policy is under review at this time.
Lasl Updated on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 OS, 11

Columbia County Sheriffs Office 901 Port Ave., St. Helens, OR 97051
(503) 366-4611 I Emergencies: Dial 911
© 2009 Columbia County Sheriffs Office

).. ..;. -=l Recent Headlines • Sheriff's Office Releases 2011 Annual Reoort • Neighbors Thwart Daytime Burglarv near Scappoose • ((SO requests public assistance in identifying robbery suspect
• (eso Search and Rescue
Locates Body of Missing Teen Your Personal Safety . CCSO for Kids . Resourceful links
CCSOisoo facebook!
ceso UP CLOSE
Informational Video
on your Sheriffs Office
Valid XHTMl and C55.

http://www.co.columbia.or.US/sherifflindex.php?option=co~content&view=article&id=5&... 3/1/2012
Ex F to Lennox Decl, Pg 2 of 2

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 35 Filed 03/06/12 Page 1 of 13

1 Katherine C. Chamberlain, OSB #042580 katherinec@mhb.colTI
2 Jesse A. Wing, pro hac vice
jessew@mhb.com 3 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News
MacDonald Hoague & Bayless
4 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104-1 745
5 (206) 622-1604

6

Marc D. Blackman, OSB #730338 mark@ransomblackman.com

7

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Ransom Blackman LLP

8

1001 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1400 Portland, OR 97204

9 (503) 228-0487

Lance Weber, pro hac vice

10 lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

11 HUlllan Rights Defense Center 1037 Western Ave., 2nd Floor

12 West Brattleboro, VT 05303

(802) 257-1342

13

14

15

16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
17 DISTRICT OF OREGON
18 PORTLAND DIVISION
19

20

21 PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,

22

Plaintiff,

23

v.

24

COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF

25

DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,

26

Defendants.

No. CV 12-71-SI
DECLARATION OF SHAUGHNESSY WILLIAMS

27

DECLARATION OF SHAUGHNESSY WILLIAMS (CV 12-71-SI) - 1
9870.05 fb025803

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 35 Filed 03/06/12 Page 2 of 13

1
2
I, Shaugmlessy WilliaIns, declare and affirm as follows:
3 1. I am over the age of 18, not a party to this action, and I aIn cOlnpetent to testify.
4 The statements of fact contained herein are based on lny own personal knowledge and belief.
5 2. I have been incarcerated at the Colulnbia County Jail since March 9,2011.
6 3. Exhibit 1 is a true copy ofa Grievance, with attacmnents, dated June 1,2011 that
7 I filed with the Columbia County Jail. Attached to my Grievance is a postcard I received from
8 my brother, Davey, in which he states that he wrote to nle at the Columbia County Jail on four
9 previous occasions. I did not receive notice froln the Jail that my brother tried to write to lne or
10 that the Jail censored my brother's letters..
11 4. Exhibit 2 is a true copy of a nlemo dated June 5, 2011 that I received from Deputy
12 Lautt in response to my Grievance.
13 5. In November 2011, I observed a stack of Prison Legal News issues sitting on a
14 shelf in the Clothing Room. I asked Sergeant Miller if I could have one of the issues, and he
15 responded that I could. Later, I noticed the issue was addressed to another imnate by name. I
16 tried to return the mail so it could be delivered to the inmate.
17 6. Exhibit 3 is a Mail Violation Notice I recently received at the Columbia County
18 Jail, dated January 21, 2012.
19 7. My mother sent me a bible, but the Jail did not deliver it to lne and the distributor
20 did not receive it back. The Jail did not provide me notice that it censored the bible.
21 8. The restrictive Postcard-Only Policy of the Columbia County Jail has caused
22
undue hardship for me and my family. At times, I have had to write six postcards to convey a 23
message to my friends and family. The cost of six postcards is higher than sending one letter. 24
During this difficult period in my life, I am in need of love and support from family and friends 25
more than ever, and the Postcard-Only Policy at the Columbia County Jail inhibits my ability to 26
communicate with them. Although the Jail has sonletimes allowed in mail from my mother and 27

DECLARATION OF SHAUGHNESSY WILLIAMS (CV 12-71-SI) - 2
9870.05 fb025803

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 35 Filed 03/06/12 Page 3 of 13

1 brother that is not a postcard, the Jail has also censored lnail from lny fmnily and failed to notify

2 me of the censorship.

3

9. Typically, in the past the Jail has not notified me when the Jail censors mail from

4 lny fatnily and friends. Therefore, I cannot challenge the Jail's censorship decisions.

5

I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States of America and the

6 State of Oregon that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

7

DATED this _--'--- day of February 2012, at ~::...:!::!:~~_, Oregon.

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

DECLARATION OF SHAUGHNESSY WILLIAMS (CV 12-71-SI) - 3
9870.05 fb025803

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 35 Filed 03/06/12 Page 4 of 13

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I hereby certify that on March 6, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing to the Clerk of

3 the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following:

4

• Marc D. Blackman

marc@ransomblackman.com,pat@ransomblackman.com

5

.. Gregory R. Roberson grr@hartwagner.com,cej@hartwagner.com

6

• Lance Weber lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org

7

CD Jesse Wing

JesseW@mhb.com

8

9

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS

10

lsi Katherine C. Chamberlain

KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN

11

OSB #042580

(206) 622-1604

12

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

DECLARATION OF SHAUGHNESSY WILLIAMS (CV 12-71-SI) - 4
9870.05 fb025803

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle Washington 98104
Te1206.622.l604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 35 Filed 03/06/12 Page 5 of 13
EXHIBIT 1
Ex 1 to Williams Decl, Pg 1 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 35 Filed 03/06/12 Page 6 of 13

COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERlFF'S OFFICE : INSTITUTION'S DIVISION
INMATE CruEVANCE FORM

N~ 000228

INSTRUCTIONS: Follow the rules in the Inmate Handbook regarding 'the facility's ,grievance procedures. Fill in the blanks in the first two sections. If you need lnore room, use additional sheets of paper, but not additional forms. If you want to grieve more thfln one issue, use a separate form for each issue.

***********I ***************************' ***************************************************

Reason for Grievance (check one):

[ ] conditions of confinement [ ] medical care [ ] general classification procedures
[ ] general discipline procedures [J participation in inmate programs

[ ] religious practices

~ telephone, mail and visiting procedures [ ] other (be specific)

*****************************************************************************************

Inmate's Name: u.-I (}-JA r/u\.) I 'S ~J,<?\,-(;>,-grJ ESS'1

SID: (...c.)/i0U057\.f

0+ Grievance:\7"lI\'-l~'-'" 1C.2LJ~,DT'" -N< ~ ~ t':;' ,'AlTA\ ::, ~J~~~~

\

r
1..I'fO

\

;"v='t,...~rv(t,\~t1\..b'Q)\,(\.:'5'VV~U~DI=

-+i2dw_

~!"'-'I\I.....""'~ \

•

Cell: \ --~~---------------

Inma~e Signature~/V- Ll.=~JI.--f!~~=~

Date/Time: t' \-~..~ ~<:;~ 2.~, ~ ~\

Receiving Deputy Signature:

DPSST#

Date/Time:_ _ _ _ __

***************************************************************************************** I
Dlleesppuotnys'se:___c.~7et~,~~~.~~_~4~c~~~fetl~,~~~~a=2~n~C7~--------------------------------------------------- j,

I,,},·'

Deputy's Signature:

DPSST# ti7fJ::z-1

Date/ ime:/<--<7l'-'!-,pL-V&..-_ t' _ __

I*m**n*a*te*'*s*s*ig*n*a*t*u*re**a*c*c*e*p*ti*n*g*d*e*p*u*t*y*'s**re*s*o*l*u*ti*o*n*o*f*g*r*ie*v*a*n*c*e*:*:***************D*a*t*e/*T*i*m*e*:*-*-*-**-*-*-*-**-*-*-*-**-

Supervisor's Signature:

teft ate/Time:

1/ r/~

Imnate's signature accepting supervisor's resolution of grievan .

Date/Time:

************************************************* .**. *********************-*-*-**-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

Administrators Review:

Date/Time Received:-------------------

Administrator's Signature

DPSST#

Inmate's signature accepting deputy's resolution of grievance:

DDaattee//TTiimmee::- - - - - -

******* *** ***** ***** ******:J:* **** ***** ** **** ** **** *** **** **** ***** ********* *** *-**-.*-.*--'*-.*-*-*-*-*-*

Distribution: W'hite - Administrator's Copy Canary - Inmate File Pink - Inmate Copy

, S:\Programs\Program Forms\Columbia County Inmate Grievance form.wpd

Ex 1 to Williams Decl, Pg 2 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 35 Filed 03/06/12 Page 7 of 13

To Whom It May Concern

June Ist,2011

I, Shaun Williams, 2011000534, have been having issues with the mail system since

my arrival in December, 2010.
I am a federal inmate and the majority of my family lives outside the u.s.

Ireland & Canada ). My wife, Tammy L. Hall is in custody in Multnomah County Jail

at inverness and is unable to purchase postcards.

The mail system here has produced undue hardship un myself and my family, both mentally

and moneterily as I will attempt to show.

While I think that I may understand the purpose of this policy, I believe . it is being

misused. My purpose in writing this is to be part of some sort of solution.

I want to thank both First Sgt Cutright and Sgt. Westfall for their compassinn and

understanding with me and my correspondence with my wife. We are in the biggest ' fight '

of our lives. I know how much it means to her to recievemail from me, I can tell you

it is a huge piece of my emotional support to receive mail from her. I know also that it

is a priviledge and not a right to receive that mail. My behavior in this facility has

been positivly motivated by said priviledgeo

The first statement of the mail policy is ' that the mail will be dilivered it per US

postal guidelines .n

Under the General Rules section of our inrp.FI,t!.e handbook, the first sentance states " that

restrictions may be placed n on our mail·.if it affects Qur " treatment or rehabilitation."

---

r

I have attached two copies of mail that I have recieved from immediate family. One is

from my younger brother in Ireland and the other is from my mother in Canada.

In order to save money, and because my mother could be described as ' frugal ' in the

extreme, she buys v card stock Y from ttre craft store my sister works at and cuts it

herself to the 5! x 8~ that is required by the policy of this jail. When someone is involve(
in the type of case I am involved in, one 8~ x 52 post card is not enough for me, or as

it is stated in my little brothers post card, or my family to convey the type .0f or the

ammount of, love and support they are trying to send. The policy is restricting the type of SUp'~'b'rt:: that encourages the t rehabilitation anlff treatment that you say you are trying

to protect. The policy also rest~icts the 'love and support of our family by our ability

to pay for ' commercia~ly p.roduced ' postcards. There have been numerous times that I have

written six post card letters trying to convey a point to friends and family. Because my

family lives outside the country, the bulk of our communication is through the mail.

I have not been recieving confiscation notices from the jail when a letteF has heen

deemed contraband, and there are no letters in my small property. My mom has a habit of

not putting a return address on her postcaras. I have a hard time believing that a

post card signed " Mom " in which she babbles on about the goings on of my nieces and

nephews is a threat to the 'Safety and orderly running" of the Jail. And is it nessesar}
Ex 1 to Williams Decl, Pg 3 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 35 Filed 03/06/12 Page 8 of 13
to threaten me with the distructiou' of that mail ? Is it legal to destroy that mail ? I know that my brother has written we four times as statp.d, in his letter, where are those letters ? Who desides their fate ?
In March I had an incident where a letter addressed to me, approved by SGT. Westfall was f misplaced i and was never returned to my wife or myself.
I don't believe this follows US Postal Guidelines. I also don't believe that this was the way that the acminiRtration of this facility wanted the mail policy to be used. In my case at least, none of the mail that has been sent to me by these people could be considered contraband that would effect my rehabilitation or treatment. On the contr~~y, it has taken away much needed support during an extremely difficult time of my wife and My life. To say that I am exceptionaly frustrated by the continued rejection of her letters spacifically is the understaemE?;nt of the y~ar. This continues despite several verbal and written memo's from SGT Westfall. It seems like it would be so much easier to exercise compassion and understanding in these cases. If you need any more information, please ask. I am looking for a solution to these issues.
Shaughnessy Williams June 1st, 2011 2011000534
Ex 1 to Williams Decl, Pg 4 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 35 Filed 03/06/12 Page 9 of 13

'iIGY Si.fAVN, 11'5 .lJ/JrIfG';I. I MoP£
'4'R.b WGCL M-~ PRJf:N b:'.J

, 1N1~JT-rG-i-J !1 () r I Sl1itlNf( I-r- to

A-i> 4-' BII5j .
[N:::::l=Sr;-W~' IH /M-{t~E (/JI-{I

iMPOSSISL€!) I i{'t)P& 'jtr\.) ~'I:; bOtNC1 ~R~IJ;:':::~~"""""'~~5=~~~~=

i: , ; M/ luVSv'TlJ'W!3GlIV\f'J.)e~P- / TK{8;otC\j-otRv[WlfJ!fCV:\s(-,rgMMfc,G.f5

!
I

1'1Jt-{NiU.)U"'1C'1!1t11"115"IJ0~ 'I<..s:c

O.It!.

II--i(rw~fg

fflLTf.(
Lrt:=E..

: l3ter-.\ getr~ BOT 'I~"\. ClJer-rlNCi gy

; C-..sNLo .svR.~ ~c 'wr£11. 1-I./lNINCj

j~l~ BR..oTHEi2. J~\~ (IN 4fTNb

%VKG . L~:7 ME JlNuw Wl-1tifr5 ~'DtN

;ON IJV t-rH ,/O\J . PrN"1 (bE1\ !-4.eJW ldJN q Vov

leG kWV't:'1 M:.l2..1 -;:rus-r !<..I\,\()\..J \l{l'n fM)Nt::\.

4- 4- , :;TU1:4:.EI: ~:\,;J,Mpof ~~I'N.\t,

~w~s Uo(JG yIN

fJ1rR-t.GeQ~ ..E.NlO GTI'<LS..I<~..O¢N

PLAYTIME SERIESI'VI.€,N"11Kt'1 PV('151C.Ji.\-t~

www.rooerlopiclrading.co.ul< J{oPIO t o I{~

~'V\

L()V~ F/2.(!)V\I\ .;rVQ..

Ex 1 to Williams Decl, Pg 5 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 35 Filed 03/06/12 Page 10 of 13
EXHIBIT 2
Ex 2 to Williams Decl, Pg 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 35 Filed 03/06/12 Page 11 of 13

Date:

June 5,2011

To:

Williams, Saughnessy

Columbia County Jail

From:

Deputy Lautt 49829 Corrections Division

Subject: Postcard Grievalllce Respolllse Template

Thank you for expressing your concern about the Columbia County Jail mail procedures. As you are aware, there are multiple ways for inmates to communicate with friends, fmnily mld others outside the jail. You may send and receive postcards, as well as have personal visits mld use the telephone. You are also allowed to communicate with your attorney, mld con-espond with other officials, by writing letters using paper and envelopes to ensure your privacy. Our postcard policy was enacted after a good deal of review, and we believe that the policy decreases the opportunity for contraband to be introduced into the jail, which enhances jail safety and security. In addition, the use of postcards saves significant public resources as staff do not need to spend nearly as much time searching for contraband or for communications that threaten jail safety and security. In light of the clear benefits to jail safety and security, the reduced staff time required to process inmate mail, and the alternative methods available to inmates to communicate with the outside, we believe that our policy of requiring postcards for personal mail is appropriate and reasonable. YoUr grievance is denied.

Ex 2 to Williams Decl, Pg 2 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 35 Filed 03/06/12 Page 12 of 13
EXHIBIT 3
Ex 3 to Williams Decl, Pg 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 35 Filed 03/06/12 Page 13 of 13
MAIL VIOLATION NOTICE

INMATE NAME: WILLIAMS, SHAUGHNESSY INMATE POD:J~-_P_O_D___1_9_____

DATE: 01/21/2012

The mail that is addressed or sent by the above inmate is in violation of the facility mail policy_ The Post Card has beel returned to sender or placed into the inmates property for the following reason(s):

No Inmate Name

/

St~ckers ot any K~nd {InCludes Address Labels}

Taoe/ Glue Colored Pencils Correction Tape / Fluid Paint Food / Beveracre Stains Do not acceot periodicals Inaorooriate Content{POSTCARD)

Incomplete Return Address
Rubber Inked Stamos Liostick Paoerclios / Staoles etc. Cravon Watercolor Perfume / Colocrne Inaorooriate Content (BOOK) V- No Envelopes

CAROLYN TOWNSEND Mail inspected by

Ex 3 to Williams Decl, Pg 2 of 2

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 36 Filed 03/06/12 Page 1 of 54
K_atherine C. Chatnberlain, OSB #042580 katherinec@lnhb.com Jesse A. Wing, pro hac vice jessevv@In11b.com Of AttOTIleys for Plaintiff Prison Legal Nevvs MacDonald Hoague & Bayless 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104-1 745 (206) 622-1604
Marc D. Blac1Gnan, OSB #730338 Inark@ransonlblaclGnan.coln Of AttOTIleys for Plaintiff Prison Legal Nevvs Ransonl Blac1Gnan LLP 1001 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1400 Portland, OR 97204 (503) 228-0487
Lance Weber,pro hac vice lvveber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal Nevvs Hlunan Rights Defense Center 1037 WesteTIl Ave., 2nd Floor West Brattleboro, VT 05303 (802) 257-1342

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF DICI(ERSON, individually and in his capacity as Colulnbia County Sheriff,
Defendants.

No. CV 12-71-SI DECLARATION OF BRADLEY BERG

DECLARATION OF BRADLEY BERG (CV 12-71-SI) - 1
9870_05 fu242203

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 36 Filed 03/06/12 Page 2 of 54

I, Bradley Berg, declare as follows: 1. I anl over the age of 18 and I am cOlnpetent to testify. The statements of fact contained herein are based on lny personal knowledge. 2. I have been incarcerated in the Coluinbia County Jail since February 2011. 3. The Coluinbia County Jail has had a Postcard-Only Mail Policy for as long as I've been incarcerated here. 4. The Jail's Postcard-Only Mail Policy deters lne froin cOlnnlunicating with Iny friends and fanlily by lnail because anyone who handles the postcards can read my messages. There is no privacy. When talking with Ine Cohllnbia County Jail Staff have referred to state1nents written in lny lnail so I lrnow they have read Iny mail. 5. I have also refrained froin cOlnmunicating with my pastor because of the Postcard-Only Policy. I do not want the jail staff or others to read lny private cOlnmunications with nly pastor. 6. The Postcard-Only Mail Policy has also Inade it difficult for Ine to cOlmnunicate with nly friends and family because a postcard is so small. There is not enough room to cOlnmunicate the infonnation I would like to send to my fanlily and friends. 7. Exhibit A is a hue copy of the Colulnbia County Jail's hunate Manual dated Novenlber 18,2010, which I received fronl the Jail staff while incarcerated in the Colulnbia County Jail beginning in 2011. 8. Attached below as Exhibits are true copies of lny grievances to the Columbia County Jail regarding its lnail policy and library, and the Jail's response to lny grievances. 9. Exhibit B is a tlue copy of my grievance dated February 22,2011, regarding the lack of federal books in the library, and the Jail's response to Iny grievance.

DECLARATION OF BRADLEY BERG (CV 12-71-SI) - 2
9870.05 fb242203

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Te1206.622.l604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 36 Filed 03/06/12 Page 3 of 54

10. Exhibit C is a true copy oflny a "Mail Violation Notice" I received on or about February 26, 2011, regarding Inail sent to Ine that the Jail returned to sender because of the Postcard-Only Mail Policy.
11. Exhibit D is a true copy of my grievance dated October 22, 2011, regarding the Jail's lack of available legal resources in the Jail's law library, and the Jail's response to my gnevance.
12. Exhibit E is a hue copy of a Inen10 I received froln Sgt. Bryan L. Cutright dated October 27, 2011, denying Iny grievance about the lack of available legal resources in the Jail's law library.
13. Exhibit F is a true copy oflny grievance dated Novelnber 22, 2011, regarding the Jail's Postcard-Only Mail Policy, and the Jail's response to Iny grievance.
14. Exhibit G is a true copy of a Inemo I received froln Sgt. Ralph Lee Rigdon dated Novelnber 22,2011, denying my grievance about the Postcard-Only Mail Policy.
15. Exhibit H is a tnle copy of a Inelno I received froln Sgt. Bryan L. Cutright dated Novelnber 23, 2011, denying Iny grievance about the Postcard-Only Mail Policy.
16. Exhibit I is a true copy of my grievance dated December 11, 2011, regarding the Jail's Postcard-Only Mail Policy, and the Jail's response to Iny grievance.
17. Exhibit J is a true copy of Iny grievance dated December 21, 2011, regarding Iny request to receive Inagazines, and the Jai1's response to Iny grievance.
18. Exhibit I( is a true copy oflny request for a copy of the Columbia County Jail's new Inail policy dated Febluary 7, 2012, and the Jail's response.
19. Exhibit L is a hue copy of a "Prohibited Mail Notification" fonn that I received froln the Jail on or about February 10, 2012.

DECLARATION OF BRADLEY BERG (CV 12-71-S1) - 3
9870.05 fb242203

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 36 Filed 03/06/12 Page 4 of 54
20. In early Febnlary 2012, I heard from Jail staff that the Jail was changing its Inail policy. But the Jail did not post the new mail policy or inform me or other prisoners about the specific changes that were being Inade. So, I requested a copy of the cun-ent Inail policy. A Jail staff person denied Iny request and told me that the legal depminlent does not want the Jail staff to distribute the policy.
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States of Alnerica and the State of Oregon that the foregoing is true and conect to the best of my lmowledge.
DATED this ~><-- day of February, 2012, at St. Helens, Oregon.

DECLARATION OF BRADLEY BERG (CV 12-71-SI) - 4
9870.05 fb242203

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 36 Filed 03/06/12 Page 5 of 54
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 6, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing to the Clerk of
the Court using the CMlECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: " Marc D. Blackman marc@ransomblackman.com,pat@ransomblackman.com " Gregory R. Roberson grr@hartwagner.com,cej@hartwagner.com " Lance Weber lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org " Jesse Wing JesseW@mhb.com
MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS
/s/ Katherine C. Chamberlain KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN OSB #042580 (206) 622-1604 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

DECLARATION OF BRADLEY BERG (CV 12-71-SI) - 5
9870.05 fb242203

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 36 Filed 03/06/12 Page 6 of 54

9870.05 fa246305

EXHIBIT A
TO DECLARATION OF BRADLEY BERG
Ex A to Berg Decl, Pg 1 of 27

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 36 Filed 03/06/12 Page 7 of 54

~!.

is-.un frliJlll(i;§ llrfil frlhJft§ ru31HlllilliBlll rum)' !he mmrrH2:Rlldledl' O?'Ir':'slill§jpleillidierru :~U:at.lIT!':Y -([Rme by
!!)wdlell oj[ tTIne §TIntewllflf ow rlle§~gJIilee. As an Inmate in the:Columbia Count; Jail, vau are oartiallv responsible
for vour own safety. o. You_ are in iail and vou must be aware of your surroundin~

The Columbia County Inmate Manual has been reviewed and approved on j\Jovember t~

2010 by Jeffrey rvl, Dickerson, Sheriff, Columbia County, Oregon.

o

~ 17~ «-- "~n t\lnM'!'
M,D~sonl Jeffrey

~ llL . ~ lj'~'!'"V.Ad""'l---.

'

Sheriff

----.-------=--,.

Ex A to Berg Decl, Pg 2 of 27

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 36 Filed 03/06/12 Page 8 of 54

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................... . YOUR RIGHTS AND PRlVILEGES ......... .... . . .. 1 YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES AND EXPECTED
BEHAVIOR .......................... 1-2 BEDS AND BEDDING ........... , .............. 2 BILLING FEES .............................. 2-3 CELL IN COMMAND ........................... 3 CLASSIFICATION ............................. 3 CLOTIllNG EXCHANGE ........................ 3 COMMISSARY ..........' ...................... 3 CONTRABAND ............................... 3 COUNTY ISSUED ITEMS ....................... 4 COURT CONDUCT ............................ 4 DRESS CODE .............................. : .. 4 FIRE AND EMERGENCY SAFETY ............... 4 HAIR CARE AND PERSONAL GROOMING ........ 5 HEALTH APPRAISALS ......................... 5 HOUSING UNIT OPERATIONS .................. 5 ICE CONTACT INFORMATION .....: ............ 5 IDENTIFICATION CARDS' ...................... 5 INMATE COUNTS .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5-6 INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE ............. 6 INMATE REQUEST FORMS ..................... 6 INMATE WORKER ACTMTIES ................. 6 INTERCOM SYSTEM .......................... 7 LAW LIBRARY ............................... 7 LIBRARy ................................... . 7 7-8-9-10 1lV\l/..f.tA"lT..llT...I ..... , .................... .. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • MEALS ............ : .................... . 10-11 MEDICAL SERVICES ......................... 11 MEDICATION ................................ 11 MEDICAL GRlEVANCES ....~ ..... "......' ...... , 11 MENTAL HEALTH SERvICES .................. 11 MONEY ACCOUNTS.' ......... : ........."" . . . .. 1.1 OUTPOORRECREATION ........... ',' ...... 11-12

PERSONAL PROPERTY ................................. 12 PROGRAM SERVICES .................................. 12, PROPERTY TRANSFERS ................................ 12 SANITARY INSPECTIONS ............................. . 12 SANITARY PRACTICES ................................ 13 SEARCHES ............................................ 13 SELF-ESCORT ......................................... 13 SICK CALL ........................................... , 13 SPECIAL DIETS ........................................ 13 TELEPHONE PRIVILEGES ............................... 14 TE. LEPHONE SERV:ICE NUMBER ....... .........' ........ .. 14
TRANSFER TO WORK RELEASE CENTER .... :; ........... 14
VISIT1N'G ..............................,........ : ~ .. . 14-1~ SPECIAL VISITS ................................... ; ....... ': 15
VISITSWITHATIORNEY . ~ ...... ::,; .,.: .. : .. : ......:.. ~:-:. 15 . VISITS BY CLERGY .................................,.'...:... :'.. .'15 ..
VOLUNTARY ACTIVITIES ................................. i6
WAKEUP AND LOCK DOWN .... : .·...................... 16 MINOR RULE VIOLATIONS PROCEDURES ................ 16 MINOR RULE VIOLATION SANCTIONS ........., ....... 16-17 MINOR RULE VIOLATIONS ......................... . 17-18 MAJOR RULE VIOLATION PROCEDURES ............. '.' .. 18 MAJOR RULE VIOLATION SANCTIONS ................ . 18-19 MAJOR RULE VIOLATIONS ......................... . 19-20 VIOLATIONS APPEALS PROCESS ........................ 20 SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS .................... . 20-21 SEXUAL ASSAULT .........,........................... . 21 SEXUAL ASSAULT AVOIDANCE ...................... 21-22

Ex A to Berg Decl, Pg 3 of 27

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 36 Filed 03/06/12 Page 9 of 54

YOURRIGHTSANDPRnnLEGE§

We want you to know exactly what is expected ofyou while you are in this j ail. We will let you know what you can expect from us by explaining our rules, procedures and schedules to you. While at this jail, you will
be provided with:

1. Three daily meals served at reasonable intervals 2. Clean bedding and clothing at least twice weekly
3. The opportunity to shower at least twice weekly
4. Regular exercise 5. Opportunities to exercise your religion 6. Basic hygi~ne items 7. Access to th-e:raw-library 8. Access to counsel·
9. Emergency medical and dental treatment 10. A safe and secure environment

If you follow jail rules and sanitation practices, you may receive these privileges:

1. Use of televison 2. Use of library services 3. Use of outdoor recreation 4. Use oftelephones 5. Having social visits 6. Making commissary purchases
7. Sending and receiving mail 8. Voluntary participation injail programs

Remember that these are not rights. Jail staff can limit or suspend these privileges at any time in order to maintain the s~fety, security, good order and sa:nitation of the jail.

This manual does not cover every situation that may arise, but it will serve as a basic guide for your conduct and facility procedures.

Columbia County Jail has a no smoking policy.

YOUR RESPONSmaITIES AND EXPECTED BEBAVIOR

Read this manual to know what is expected of you. The excuse "1 did not know that~' is not acceptable. It
is your responsibility to follow all laws, jail rules, schedules, a-.,.d staff requests. You must respect jail property and the property of others. This would include staying out of other inmate's cells and off of their bunks. You are expected to keep your sleeping area, the day room and outdoor recreation areas clean and orderly. Unacceptable behavior will be dealt with fmnly, but fairly. Misbehavior may result in a change ofyour custody status which can directly affect your privileges in the jail.

This manual is an accountable item and is issued to you for your use while you are in this facility. You are
responsible for the condition of tills manual and you will be billed for any damage, graffiti, or unusable condition when returned. Ifthe manual is damaged, please report it to a staff member to have it replaced immediately.

The best control ofyour behavior is by you practicrng self-discipline and respect for others. Inmates are not

allowed to become personally"familiar with corrections' staff. Be considerate and respectful toward all

officials. We will expect you to address uniformed staff as "Deputy or Sergeant

'.' and non-

uniformed staff as "Mr.

" or "Ms.

" Central Control personnel will be addressed as

"Control."

. Page 1 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10

Ex A to Berg Decl, Pg 4 of 27

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 36 Filed 03/06/12 Page 10 of 54

fumate basic rules for tllIe Columbia County Jail: 1. The ID card is to be put into the window. facing out so that it can be seen and scanned during your stay. Z. Whellll you are out of your room, the ID card is to be in your pocket. 3. When you are iin tllIe day room, YOll are to be completely dressed with l' shirt tucked in. 4. Wh.en you are in your room, you are to have the T shirt and boxers on. at aU times imduding wh:iHe you are sleeping, no exceptions. 5. When you come out of the pod and into the circle, you are to stay on tllIe colored squares. The squ.ares form a lillle that you walk Oll. You stay on that lille with the exception to go around am obstacle. You are to stay in a single fiRe line. 6. When you are in any other h~dJlway, you are to walk (m the right side of the hall and in a single file. YOlll are not to t01lJlch anythiHllg. Do not speak, yen or signal at anyone. JKeep your hands to yourself. 7. -y¥hen illl the hallway, there should be only six (6) inmates at one time. S. DO NOT cover the ventilation units ot speaker in the cells.

BEDS AND BEDDING

Bedding will consist of two sheets and two blankets. Blankets and sheets may not be removed from your cell or bunk, nor may they be placed on the floor or table for any reason. You are not to take the mattress offthe bunk and place it on the floor of your cell or in the day room ofthe pod. Your mattress may only be used for sleeping purposes. The bunk area must be left in an orderly fashion through out the day.

BILLJNG FJEES

As authorized in ORS 169.150 and 169.151; Local Correctional Facilities are allowed to bill Inmates for items and services that are provided to them while incarcerated in Correctional Facilities.

Every Sentenced Inmate will be charged a boarding fee of$10.00 per day. The Inmate will receive a bill

when he or she is released from the jail. The Inmate will have 30 days to pay the bill or set up a payment

plan.

"

An initial hygiene kit is $2.15 and the Inmate ID card is "$1.00. All over the counter medications as well as prescription medications will be billed through the inmate's commissary account. When the Inmate is released from j ail and his or her commissary account is in the negative, that amount will also show up on the release billing. When 30 days have passed with no payment received on the release billing, the account will
be turned over to the Oregon Department of Revenue for collection.

Other Gharges are listed below:

1) Work Release Inmates are charged a minimum of$15.00 per day or two hours of pay lithe inmate's

hourly rate of pay is higher than $7.50 per hour.

"

If any ofthe following items are damaged or

destroyed you will be billed as follows:December

2,2010

2) Hygiene Kits

$ 2.15 each 11) Tote

$44.95

3) Postcard

$ 0.50

12) Tote Lid

$26.95

4) Hair Cuts

$ 5.00

13) Sporks

$ 0.25

5) Medical/Nurse visits

$ 5.00

6) Medical visit for aTC meds $ 1.00

14) Sandals 15) Cups

$2.49 $ 0.75

7) Medical kites submitted

$ .50

16) Socks (If Appl.)

$ 0.85

Page 2 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10

Ex A to Berg Decl, Pg 5 of 27

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 36 Filed 03/06/12 Page 11 of 54

8) Feminine Hygiene Products 9) Razors (if more than 1) 10) Copies of legal materials

$ 0.20 $ 0.15 $ 0.25

17) Towels

$ 0.75

18) Striped Shirt

$ 6.55-$12.75

19) Striped:pants

$ 8.75-$14.95

20) T-Shirts

$ 3.99 - $ 7.30

21) Shorts

$ 2.32 - $ 2.74

22) Replacement ID Card $ 5.00

All fees are subj ect to change at any time

CELL IN COMMAND

The command "cell-in"or "bunk-up" means you need to stop what you are doing and go directly to your cell or bunk. You must follow this command without question or hesitation. Ifyou do not, it will directly affect your classification and custody status and also will result in disciplinary actions against you.

CLASSIFICATION

All newly arrested inmates who are not released pri9r to movement from the booking area will be assigned
, housing in a Pre-Classification unit. They may be maintained' on lock-down status for up to the first
Seventy-Two (72) hours, for classification purposes.. The Columbia County Jail has thre~ classifications
which are minimum, medium and maximum security. All inmates are assigned a classification according to
their status. Inmates may request a classification review in writing on an Inmate Request Form at any time.

Most inmates involved in the Inmate Worker Program and Alternative Programs must qualify for and maintain a minimum custody status.

ACTIVITIES MAY DIFFER BASED ON YOUR LEVEL OF CLASSIFICATION.

CLOTHING EXCHANGE

Clean clothing will be provided twice weekly. You must tum in all ofyour soiled clothing during clothing exchange. In return you will receive 1 T-shirt, 1 pair of shorts, 1 towel, 1 striped shirt and 1 pair striped pants. On every other exchange you will receive clean sheets. Blankets may be exchanged every 30 days. Each housing unit will have a different laundry, s~hedule.

Jail staff will make every effort to ensure clothing is in good repair. You are responsible for all clothing and

bedding issued to you. You should check the condition ofthe clothing you receive and immediately inform

a staff member and exchange any clothing or bedding that has a tear or graffiti written on it. Ifyou are

found to be in possession of damaged items, you will be' subject to disciplinary action. This may include

payment for the damaged clothing.

'

.

COMMISSARY

The Columbia County Jail has a well-appointed commissary"list from which inmates with funds may
purchase various items. Inmates without funds may order indigent hygiene kits once per week, if needed. Indigent items will be posted to the inmate's account creating a negative balance. Commissary sheets will be handed out once a week. Ifyou did not get funds in before the commissary sheets were made up to be passed out, you will have to wait until the following week to order.' Commissary purchases are limited to no more than $75.00 per week. Inmates may have no more than two (2) lead pencils in their possession at any given time. In addition each inmate will be allowed to purchase one pack of colored pencils.

CONTRABAND

Any authorized item found in an inmate's possession that has been altered or is not being used for it's original purpose, or any items in excess of the issued quantity as stated within this manual.

Page 3 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10 ,

Ex A to Berg Decl, Pg 6 of 27

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 36 Filed 03/06/12 Page 12 of 54

COUNTY ISSUED ITEMS

All inmates who are dressed into the Columbia County jail will be issued jail clothing after intake, and in the clothing change/shower room. You will 'be issued a plastic bin containing a hygiene kit, bed linen, towel, and clothing and this Inmate Manual. Another issued item wiII include a mattress. You will be responsible for the condition of all items issued to you. The gray property box (totes) are to be used specifically for storage of your personal and issued belongings. Totes are not to be used for chairs or any use other than what has been mentioned above. Totes are to remain under your bunk at all times.

1. One inmate uniform top.

7.

2. One inmate uniform pants

8.

3. Two T-Shirts

9.

4. Two pair of gym shortslUnderwear

10.

5. One pair ofjail sandals.

6. One mattress

Two sheets Two Blankets One Towel
One Rule Book

Female inmates may be allowed to retain the following;

1. Personal underwear, if needed for hygiene reasons, if determined appropriate by staff. 2. Personal bras, with no metal fasteners or under wires. A sports style bra is preferred.

During the winter months you will be issued a sweatshirt to be worn in your cell, day room area, the outdoor recreation yard or under the striped shirt when. going to court.

COURT CONDUCT

Your arraignment will be your first court appearance in j ail. During your arraignment, a judge will tell you what you are charged with and your rights with regard to those charges. The judge may appoint an attorney at this time if you qualify.

During any court appearance you will not have contact with any person other than your lawyer or the court officials. Contact includes talking, signaling, or passing notes to people.

Video arraignment is considered a court room setting and the above rules apply.

DRESS COJD~'

You are expected to remain fully dressed at all times except when you are on your bunk. When you are in your assigned bunk area YOll! mlllst wear at least the T~sb.irt and shorts issued by this facility. Any time
you leave your sleeping area or room, you must be fully clothed. Fully clothed consists of your shorts, Tshirt, striped shirt and striped pants or shorts, T-shirt, gray sweatshiIj and striped pants. During lights out, you may go to use the restroom in your t-shirt and shorts if you live in an open doim.

Your T-shirt must be tucked in at all times and not hanging loosely. Rolling your pant legs up if they are too long, but not above the ankles, is allowed. Do not alter the appearance ofyour clothes.

You may not roll your sleeves, tuck your pants into your socks, or pull your pants down below the hips. It is not allowed to wear clothes that are too large or too small.

You will be allowed to take your outer striped shirt off while exercising in the recreation area.

FIRE AND EMERGENCY SAFETY

In case of any type of emergency or evacuation, you are to follow any direct order of a Deputy. There are emergency evacuation procedures in place and you will be evacuated in an orderly m~nner to a safe place.

Ifyou are asked to evacuate an area by a Deputy, you are to form a straight line at your Pod door and wait for directions from a Deputy or the Control Room staff. A Deputy will direct you to a safe area.

Page 4 -: c;:olumbia County Jail Inmate Manual 11/12/10

Ex A to Berg Decl, Pg 7 of 27

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 36 Filed 03/06/12 Page 13 of 54

HAIR CARE AND PERSONAL GROOMING

We encourage you to shower daily. We hand out razors three times a week. If an individual has a court appearance they will be allowed to use a razor prior to their court appearance. Once a week a list will be put into your. respective pod and you must sign up on that list to receive a haircut. Hair cuts can be done when a person is available to be the barber. There is a $5.00 charge for the haircut. Haircuts will be done on Saturdays and Sundays only. You will be allowed to have one haircut per month. Haircuts other than a trim or a complete removal to a short stubble are not allowed. No other styles will be tolerated. Only
kitchen and floor workers are allowed one free haircut per month.

HEALTH APPRAISALS

A health appraisal must be done before an inmate can be considered for "worker" status.

HOUSING UNIT OPERATIONS

The daily operation in the pods will be as follows.

.You will be allowed to come out of your cell for a short period of time during the morning at breakfast.

You will then be instructed to return to your cell until lunch time. After lunch, you will then have three

hours out of your cell. At the end of that period, you will return to your cell. The next period out, will be

after dinner for two hours.

.

Inmate time out of cells for each pod will be set as necessary to fulfill the needs of the facility.

Cleaning gear will be provided during the day. We require you to use it daily to clean your cell, bunk area and the pod as a whole on a daily basis.

No one is allowed to sit, stand or loiter on the stairs or catwalks (upper tier floors) at any time. This will include walking or pacing off laps upstairs, or on the stairs. There is to be no sitting on the table tops.

ICE CONTACT INFORMATION

Inmates who are housed in the Columbia County Jail for Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) may

contact ICE via the use of an ICE inmate request form.

.

ICE inmates may contact ICE Pro Bono Attorneys by calling (800) 646-6283. In each Pod located on the mail boxes, there is a list of all Pro Bono calls for use by all ICE detainees. ICE agents make scheduled visits to the Columbia County Jail on Wednesdays of every week.

IDENTIFICATION CARDS

You must keep your inmate ID card on your person any time you are out of your cell. Do not let anyone use your ID card. The best place to keep this card is in your shirt pocket. When you are in your cell, place your ID card, right side up, in the window of your door with the picture facing out so the Deputy can see your name and picture. You must surrender your ID card to any staff member upon request.

INMATE COUNTS

. There will be at least six "Formal Counts" per day. At the beginning of each "formal count" you will be instructed to '~cell in or bunk up." Televisons will be turned off. At that time you must:

1. Go into your cell and close the door or get onto your bunk depending on the pod you are in. 2. Correctly place your lD. card in the window of your door or on your bunk. If you are on a bunk,
or otherwise not in your room or pod, having the ID card in your hand and presenting it to the deputy doing the count is acceptable.

Prior to lock-down each night a final formal head count will be conducted in the following manner.

Page 5 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 11/12/10

Ex A to Berg Decl, Pg 8 of 27

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 36 Filed 03/06/12 Page 14 of 54

1. In Pods with cells you will go to your room, close the door stand with one individual on each side . of the door, ID card in hand, ready for the count. All inmates will remain in this manner until a Deputy scans your identification card.
2. In an open dorm go to your bunk and stand next to your bunk with your ID card in hand, until a Deputy scans your card. After formal you should bUI?k up for the night and remain quiet."
There will be numerous informal counts per day, therefore, whenever a Deputy enters your cell, remain where you are, do not move until the deputy leaves or instructs you to move.
:iNMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
You may submit a grievance about a condition in the jail if you think it is a problem or is unfair. You cannot grieve: disciplinary actions (there is an appeal process for that), classification decisions, incidents or problems which you were not party to, a collection of unrelated complaints, and no group grievances.
To file a grievance, you must follow the steps below in the order shown. You cannot skip one.
1. An inmate may request a Grievance Form from any Corrections Deputy at any time to bring to attention any perceived problems and proposed solutions. The Deputy will address any grievance within the scope of his/her authority and document any action taken regarding the request within five (5) working days.
2. The inmate may redirect the grievance to the Shift Supervisor for any complaint which cannot pe reasonably resolved by the Deputy. The Supervisor will address any grievance within the scope of his/her authority and document any action taken on the form within five (5) working days.
3. If the complaint is not resolved to the inmate's satisfaction by the Supervisor, the inmate may send the Grievance FOnTI to the Facility Superv~sor or his designee. The Facility Supervisor or designee will address the complaint and document any action taken on the form within five (5) working days.
4. If the complaint is not resolved to the inmate's satisfaction by the Facility Supervisor, the inmate may send a sealed Grievance Form to the Sheriff. The Sheriffwill address the complaint and document his decision on the form within ten (10) working days. The Sheriff's decision will be final!
Inmates may file, an Emergency Grievance in the event that circumstances exist to warrant one. This will be filed directly to the Jail Commander in a sealed envelope, utilizing the same inmate grievance fonn.

INMATE REQUEST FORMS
The Inmate Request Forms (also known as kites) are available upon request. There are two of them. One will be for general questions, law library and visiting. The other form will be a Medical Request Form. This is only for the medical staff and doctor to answer and will be forwarded to them. There are separate forms to correspond with Columbia County Community Corrections or with Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE)lhnmigration.
INMATE WORKER ACTIVITIES
If you want to work in the jail, you will need to request and fill out an Inmate Worker Labor Agreement, then submit it into the mailbox. It may take several days to receive your copy.
Staffwill select various inmates to do kitchen, custodial or maintenance jobs in the facility. Health care staff must clear you before you can participate in the worker activities, especially in the kitchen.
YOll may receive work time credit only if you are sentenced and your sentence order authorizes it. Any change of a job description or shift must be approved by a Supervisor.

Page 6 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 11/12/10

Ex A to Berg Decl, Pg 9 of 27

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 36 Filed 03/06/12 Page 15 of 54

INTERCOM SYSTEM
The call buttons in the cells are to be used for emergency purposes only. They are not to be u~yd for any other communication. If the call buttons are misused, the inmate violating this rule will be written 'up for failure to abide by the rules of the Columbia County Jail.
LAW LIBRARY
All inmates of the Columbia County Jail wil1 be given access to one hour in the law library per request. Use of the law library will be limited only by time and the need to maintain the safety and security of the facility. To gain access, you must submit a request form at least twenty-four (24) hours in advance. You will be expected to take a note pad and pencil with you to the law library to assist you in your research. All law books, reference material lind other articles must remain in the law library to ensure equal access for all inmates. There will be very limited copying capabilities available to you for which your account will be charged a fee per copy. No inmate will be denied this service based on an inability to pay.

When you finish, you are required to leave the law library orderly and neat. Please be aware that corrections staff cannot provide you with legal advice or legal assistance. If you have any questions, please consult your attorney.
LIBRARY

All inmates of the Columbia County Jail will be afforded ample opportunity to have access to library books within the jail library. The books may be delivered by a cart. You may have up to six books at a time. All books must be returned to the library or the cart, prior to checking out more. If a search of your person or cell reveals that you have more than six books in your possession, you may be subjected to disciplinary action. Damaged books must be returned to a Deputy, immediately. Possession of damaged books may be grounds for disciplinary action. The six books do not include religious or educational. Discretion of Corrections Staff will determine whether the books are in fact religious or educational.
~

The mail is delivered to the Sheriffs Office per U.S. Postal Service guidelines, excluding holidays.

General Rules: You may send and receive correspondence through the U.S. Mail. Hand delivered mail, messages and notes will not be accepted or forwarded to you.

Except for unusual ci~cumstances, such as on holidays or weekends, incoming mail will be forwarded to you within 24 hours of its receipt. Outgoing mail will be placed in a pickup box within 24 hours of receiving it from you. If we receive mail for you after your departure" it will be returned to the sender. You must notify the post office of your forwarding address when you leave the jail.

Except for "Official or Legal and Confidential mail," staff may scan and inspect all incomin~ and

outgoing mail.

,

'

"\

"Official or Legal and Confidential mail" is ,Jail Commander, Sheriff, courts, your doctor

all or

mmaeidlictoalofrafcriolimty,yvoeurrifaitatbolrenereyl,iggoiovuesrncmonetnatctost,P~.prGtJhse,

media. We may open an~ inspect this mail in front of you to ensure it does not contain contralJand.

General Mail Rules: We may place limits on your mail because of its volume, its affect on your rehabilitation or treatment, or for the safety, security, and good order of the jail. We may open and inspect all mail for contraband and may read all personal mail.

Page 7 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 11/12/10

Ex A to Berg Decl, Pg 10 of 27

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 36 Filed 03/06/12 Page 16 of 54

We will provide an Inmate Mail Guide for members of the public. It explains mail rules and what they can and cannot send you. Ask a Deputy for copies. People may also call (503) 366-4630 to get the infonnation
found in the guide or read it on the jail's web site at:
\VW\v.co.collllnbia.or.us/sheriff

"Do" Mail Rules for Inmates
For mail, you must do the following:

1. Use only lead pencils to write letters.

2. Use only jail-approved postcards sold through the commissary or issued by staff for social

mail.

.

3. Keep the weight of legal or official correspondence in a pre-stamped envelope below 1 ounce

(28 gm). To keep a business envelope to one ounce or less means the contents cannot be

more than four 8- Y:z" x 11" sheets of standard weight paper.

4. Keep your friends and family informed if you received books, newspapers, or money they

have provided for you.

5. When you are released or transferred from the jail, send change-of-address notifications to

thos,e that send you postcards and periodicals.

6. Put the return address noted on the sample, postcard below on all your outgoing mClil. Tell

people sending you postcards or other acceptable mail to use it to address mail to you~ Write

the recipient's full name and complete address legibly on any mail you send.

"Don't" Mail Rules for Inmates You may not do any of the following:

1. Draw or write anything on a postcard in the address area or on the picture of the postcard other than name and address information.
2. Send out jail forms for others to fill out on your behalf. 3. Send prohibited mail. 4. Send out jail property. 5. Order publications on credit or delayed billing from the jail. 6. Operate a commercial business or nonprofit organization from the jail. 7. Order correspondence courses unless you have ajail command officer's approval. 8. Conduct commercial or personal business transactions or request services from a government
agency unless you have ajail command officer's approval. 9. You may not send mail to another inmate in this facility witho~t prior written permission.

Sending and Receiving Mail
You may send and receive correspondence only through the U. S. Postal Service. The jail internal mail system for communicating only with jail staff. Any transfer of written communication on your part that does not comply with mail rules and procedures is a rule violation that subjects you to discipline. This includes sending notes to other inmates or notes, postcards or mail to anyone by way of a contact visit, court appearance, or transport. People may not leave mail, messages, or notes for you at the jail. Personal mail must come on a commercially produced postcard'which does not exceed 5 Y:z by 8 Y:z inches.

Except in unusual circumstances and on holidays or weekends, we will deliver incoming mail to you within 24 hours of its receipt. We will put outgoing mail in a pickUp box within 24 hours of receiving it from you. There is no pickup by the post office on weekends and holidays.

It is important that you use a person's complete and correct address when sending mail. If someone says he or she did not receive something you sent and you did not receive a confiscation notice from us, it is a matter for you to resolve with the post office-not the jail. For your convenience, the addresses of commonly contacted government agencies are at the back of this manual and entitled "Government Pages."

We do not forward mail. If we receive mail for you and you are not here, we will retu.m it to the sender. (Please tell those sending you mail to put on return addresses. We confiscate mail without return addresses or destroy it if you are no longer in jail.)

Paqe 8 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 11/12/10

Ex A to Berg Decl, Pg 11 of 27

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 36 Filed 03/06/12 Page 17 of 54

Legal and Official Mail

Legal mail is mail addressed to your attorney Of comes from your attorney and is clearly marked "legal mail".

or Official mail is to or from confining authorities, like ajail command officer, the sheriff, the' county
administrator, probation authorities, district attorney, state attorney general, Governor, court, a court

offici~.

.

We will open and inspect legal and official mail in front of you to make sure it does not contain contraband. If you send this type of mail, you must label it on the front of the envelope as "legal mail" or "official mail" or we will treat it as personal mail. We will treat mail from your attorney not marked as "legal mail" as personal mail. You are subject to disciplinary action and criminal prosecution for fraudulently labeling an envelope as legal or official mail.

Books
You may receive up to three new or used books per month, which may be paperback or hardback. Hardback books are not allowed in male or female segregation. Inmates in segregation may only receive new paperback books. A person from outside the jail must pay for and order books directly from the publisher, a book club, or a reputable bookstore for you. Books may not be larger than 9 by 12 inches (228 by 305 mm). They may not have plastic or metal bindings.

Periodicals We do not accept any periodicals.

Acceptable Mail
We only accept packages that contain pUblications from an approved source. An incoming or outgoing envelope may only contain these types of items, and with the noted limits and restrictions:

Acceptable Personal Mail

Type of Mail Item

Limits and Restrictions

Written correspondence
Pictures
Checks and money orders
Personal business documents

Must be a commercially produced postcard or legal or official mail.

Excludes junk m a i l . '

,

Only photographs printed on photo paper and used as a postcard, delivered via the U.S. Postal Service.

We do not accept checks or money orders. Touchpay is available in the lobby and can be accessed by phone or the Internet.

None, unless general mail rules would apply.

If it is not listed in this section, it is contraband and we will return the item to the sender, confiscate it, or destroy it if it presents a health or safety risk.

Prohibited Mail We will not deliver or send mail that

1. Contains threats of physical harm, blackmail, extortion, or other criminal activity.

2. Concerns plans for escape, criminal activity, or activity that violates jail rules.

3. Is contraband material (tape, stickers, markers, crayons, foreign substances, fragrances, etc.)

4. Is an item that could hide contraband.

5. Concerns sending or receiving contraband.

6. Encourages or instructs in how to commit a crime.

7. Contains gang-related or security threat group material.

8. Contains infonnation that, if communicated, would create a danger of violence or physical

harm to a person.

9. Is written in code or suspected code. (This may include a foreign language if we cannot fmd a

translator in a reasonable period of time.)

,

10. Contains sexually explicit material, pictures or written language.

Page 9 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 11/12/10

Ex A to Berg Decl, Pg 12 of 27

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 36 Filed 03/06/12 Page 18 of 54

11. May create a sensation. (A tlrreat to the safety, security, or good order of the jailor disrupts

your progress in a rehabilitative program.)

12. Contains a foreign substance or bodily fluid.

13. Is from or addressed to an inmate in this correctional facility or on electronic home detention.

14. Is addressed to or from a victim of a crime that you are in custody for, either in pretrial or

sentenced status, or in any other no contact order.

"

15. Is from or to an inmate by way of a third party.

16. Is an item that exceeds size or number limits.

17. Is a publication that did not come directly from the publisher, bookstore, or book club.

18. Is an unacceptable check or money order.

19. Is unsolicitedjunk mail.

Mail Confiscation: We will give you a confiscation notice for mail we confiscate. When we confiscate items because they exceed a number limit, such as books or magazines, we will confiscate (or return) all of them rather than selecting some to bring the number down to the limit amount. We will return. stored confiscated mail to you when you are released, if it was not disposed of for health or safety reasons. You may submit a grievance to ask for its return before then. We will return to sender any form of prohibited mail. You may not get a notice that we have returned contraband to the sender.

Use of Envelopes
You may use an envelope sold tlrrough the commissary to send these types of letters:
1. Legal or official mail.
2. A legal or official mail letter that should not or cannot be folded or that is more than one ounce.
3. With staff approval, a personal letter that contains a program-related diploma or certificate that should not or can not be folded. You must have a Deputy confirm that you are sending a diploma or certificate before you seal the envelope.

You may not use these envelopes for any type of mail that does not meet one of the three criteria listed above. We will deduct the cost of the postage from your inmate account for acceptable manila envelopes.

Sending Certified Legal or Official Mail
You may send a legal or official letter using U. S. Postal Service Certified Mail and Return Receipt mail services. You will get receipts that you sent the letter and that the letter was received by the addressee. We will charge you the standard postal rates for these services. You must have money in your inmate account to pay the postal rates or have appropriate approval if you are indigent. A deputy will supply you with a request for Certified Mail form that you need to fill out and submit along with the letter. You may only send 2 certified-mail letters in a 30-day period.
Outgoing MaH Inmates will place all outgoing mail in the mail d:rop located in the day :room of each housing unit. You are expected to legibly address your correspondence and use the proper postage. All outgoing mail must list the following return address:
Your full name Columbia County Jail 901 Port Avenue St. Helens Oregon 97051"
MEALS
Meals will be served three times daily at approximately 6:30 A.M., 12:00 P.M. and 5:00 P.M. Preclassification and disciplinary inmates may be required to eat in their cells. All others will line up for service, and will eat at the tables provided in the day rooms. If you choose not to eat, please advise the deputy. Televisions will be off during the serving of meals. Once the meals have been served and the Deputy leaves the pod, the television may be turned back on. Do not save food from meal service.

P;:Jnp 1n - r.nh Imhi<=l f:O!Jntv Jail Inmate Manual 11/12/10

Ex A to Berg Decl, Pg 13 of 27

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 36 Filed 03/06/12 Page 19 of 54

All special personal preference diet requests, such as vegetarian meals, must be pre.,.approved by the jail supervisors. All inmates on a personal preference diet wiII be charged a fee of $ 1.00 per meal, to be taken directly out of their individual inmate trust account to cover the additional cost of these meals. Indigent inmates will not be eligible to receive this type of special diet.
MEDICAL SERVICES
The Columbia County Jail will provide emergency medical, dental" and mental health care to all inmates regardless oftheir ability to pay for such services. No inmate will be denied care for serious health care needs based on the cost of medical services or the inmate's inability to pay for health care. All medical visits initiated by you will be assessed a fee which will be charged to your personal money account. You will be financially responsible for any elective surgery or other treatment you may request from your personal physician, dentist or other provider.
will Medical screening or appraisals at intake, or for inmate workers be provided at no cost to you. All
Detainees will receive a medical evaluation within their first 14 days of incarceration.
Prescription medications: You will be charged for all prescription medication prescribed for you and purchased by the j ail on your behalf.
Over the counter medications such as; Tylenol, Aspirin, antacid etc., will be available from our medical department for a small charge.
MEDICATION
Health care staff may fill prescriptions at their discretion. Health care staff may discontinue prescribed medication as directed by the jail health care supervisor or physicians. If you came from another correctional facility and had your medication transferred with you, the transporting Deputy will give your medication ·to the health care staff. If you are leaving our jail and going to another jail, the transporting Deputy will get your medication from the health care staff and transport it with you.
As a warning, any abuse of your medication may result in the discontinuation of your receiving the medicine.
MEDICAL GRIEVANCES
In case of any unresolved problem regarding medical, dental or infirmary care, you may follow the grievance procedures outlined in this manual.
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
Columbia Community Mental Health is the provider of these services for the facility. If you feel the need to see a mental health professional, contact a Deputy or the health care staff.
MONEY ACCOUNTS
Each inmate in the Columbia County Jail will have a "money account" established during the booking procedure. Funds may be deposited 24 hours per day seven days per week, via Visa or Mastercard by a to11free phone call to 1-866-232-1899, via internet at: www.touchpaydirect.com or by depositing cash into a kiosk in the Sheriff's Office lobby. The depositor needs the inmate's name, booking number, and Facility Locator No., which is 297001. All purchases will be deducted from the account. Funds deposited to an account showing a negative balance will be deducted from that balance. The positive balance, if any, is available for the inmate's use. The balance will be refunded to the inmate upon discharge. Inmates who possess a negative balance on their account will not be denied their basic medical needs such as medical care and hygiene items. With a negative balance an inmate may request to participate in the 50/50 program at which time 50 % of any funds placed into the inmate account will go towards the negative balance and the other 50 % will be placed on the inmate's account ,available for use on individual items in the Jail.
OUTDOOR RECREATION
An open air recreation area is provided in the jail for your use as scheduled throughout the day. Central Control will notify each of you of your recreation time. When you are called for outdoor recreation~ you

Page 11 - Columbia County JaiJ Inmate jVlanual 11/12/10

Ex A to Berg Decl, Pg 14 of 27

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 36 Filed 03/06/12 Page 20 of 54

need to be ready to go. You wiIl leave the Pod in groups of six. No one will be allowed to depart the Pod late for recreation.

The following rules apply while using the open air recreation area: 1. Do not yell or attempt to communicate in any way with the people outside the recreation area,
except for Corrections Staff.
2. Do not engage in "horseplay." We do not want people to get injured. 3. You must wear a minimum of a T-shirt, pants and shoes . Movement to or from outdoor
recreation will require the complete uniform, including your ID card. 4. DO NOT take anything other than your ID card with you to outdoor recreation. This includes
papers, candy, food items and anything that can be used to write or color with. If you are found with these items, disciplinary action may be taken.

PERSONAL PROPERTY

All personal property items will be stored in the secure storage area of the Columbia County Jail. No personal items will be allowed to be kept on an inmate unless approved by the Jail Commander in writing.

PROGRAM SERVICES

If and when available, you have the opportunity to participate in a variety of program activities. Recommended programs assist you in making constructive use of your time and to make positive changes in your life. We have grouped these into two main categories:

Voluntary activities

Inmate worker activities

You may participate in activities in one or all of these categories depending on your:

Sentencing status Length of sentence

Assessments results Classification

PROPERTY TRANSFERS

You must follow these guidelines regarding your property:

1. You may release your personal property to any adult outside the facility on an "all or nothing" basis. The adult must present a state driver's license, state ID card, passport or military ID to jail staff, to ensure
property is released to the proper individual. A signed inmate request form from you is required.

2. Release of property is available Monday through Friday from 3:00 P.M. lllnti14:00 P.M. ONLY.

3. The following exception applies when: An Inmate is committed to a state prison and must release all personal property including their clothing prior to being transported to a state facility.
If the property is not picked up prior to the inmate's departure. it will be forwarded to ODOe with the inmate.
4. We do not allow personal property to be dropped off for ipmates, except for medical items which will be checked and approved by medical staff first Clothes may be brought in if the situation calls for it. This will be at the discretion of the jail SuperVisors.
SANITARY INSPECTIONS
Deputies will inspect each housing unit daily to ensure it is a safe and clean environment. You will need to follow basic sanitary practices to ensure your cell area meets the sanitation requirements and pass the sanitation inspections. If your cell does not meet sanitation requirements, you will lose privileges and be instructed to clean the area. If the day room, shower area and outside recreation areas do not meet sanitation requirements, the entire housing unit may lose privileges. These privileges are those listed at the beginning of this manual. If you or your housing unit lose privileges, they will be reinstated if you pass the next regularly scheduled inspection.
SANITARY PRACTICES

Page 12 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 11/12/10

Ex A to Berg Decl, Pg 15 of 27

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 36 Filed 03/06/12 Page 21 of 54

It is your responsibility to keep your cell clean and uncluttered. It is also the responsibility of each member of the housing unit to keep the day room, shower and outside recreation area clean. You will be provided with cleaning supplies and are expected to use the cleaning supplies as much as necessary to ensure you live in a clean environment.

You are to follow these rules for a clean and healthy housing unit:

Clean your cells, including the sink, toilet, floors and door windows daily. Pod Porters will clean day room areas daily. Pod Porters will clean the following, but not limited to: Tables, floors, stairs, walls, showers, bathroom areas, railings, and windows. Keep the walls clean and free of graffiti or marks of any kind. Place all garbage in the trash cans in the housing units. Keep all pictures and papers off the walls, bunks, bottom of bunks. Do not hang, stick, or paste pictures or papers to the walls, bunks or any where else in the facility. Keep commissary food items in your property container. (Gray totes) Do not save food from meal service. Wash your hands frequently. Participate in laundry exchange twice we'ekly. Shower at least twice weekly, but we strongly encourage you to shower daily.
Keep the showers clean, and free of excess soap and shampoo bottles. Keep your gray bin or tote clean
Perform any other duties that Corrections Staff may assign. Keep your room or bunk area uncluttered of excess items. This includes legal papers. Ask staff for assistance if you have a large amount of legal papers to store. Vents for air circulation should be kept clean and obstruction free.

SEARCHES

Jail staff may conduct random unannounced searches of your person or of items in your possession, and in any area of the jail at any time. Your personal property and/or living area may be searched without your permission and whether or not you are present.

SELF-ESCORT

Most inmate movement within the jail, including visiting, medical, programs, work assignments Etc., will be

unescorted unless you abuse the privilege. You are expected to conduct yourself in an orderly fashion at all

times. Inmates moving unescorted througb the facility may not talk to other inmates, may not touch

the walls or the glass, loiter or detour while en route to their destination. When leaviJ;lg an area, you

need to state your name and where you are going to Central Control. Any inmate who abuses these rules will

be subject to disciplinary action and may lose their opportunity for unescorted movement. The exceptioD'

will be any inmate who is classified as maximum security and who needs to be escorted in the facility at all

times.

.

SICK CALL

If you need to see medical personnel, fill out the appropriate Inmate Medical Request form. Each day the Medical Staffwill address these issues upon receipt of the Request forms.

SPECIAL DIETS

You must direct all requests for medical diets to the heath care stafffor approval. If you need a special diet
for medical reasons, please submit a request slip to the health care staff. If you need a special diet for
religious reasons, please submit a request form. A Deputy will pick up the form from you and give it to a
supervisor for approval. If approved, the religious diet will remain in effect for the length of your incarceration. Be aware that there may be a charge assessed for the extra cost associated for the special meal.

Page 13 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 11/12/10

Ex A to Berg Decl, Pg 16 of 27

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 36 Filed 03/06/12 Page 22 of 54

TELEPHONEPRnnLEGES

Your use ofjail telephones is a privilege. Jail staff may limit your telephone use for reasons of safety, security, good order, or sanitation of the jail. Inmates classified to housing units will be allowed to use telephones from 0800 hrs to approximately 2200 hrs, based on the operations of the housing unit you are in. Conversations on any telephone in the jail may be monitored and/or recorded without further notice. You are consenting to this monitoring when you. use the jail telephones.

There are some local attorney's phone numbers that have been set up as non collect so you can call them directly from the telephones in the pods. Confirmed attorney phon.e numbers are blocked from the monitoring system.

All telephone caIls from a housing unit are a collect call or by the phone cards that you purchase here. The phone cards are able to be used upon release from the Columbia County Jail. Telephone calls are limited to15 minutes each. The telephone system will warn you before the 15 minute time period is up so you can end your conversation.

Inmates are not allowed to receive incoming telephone calls. Jail staffwill deliver verifiable emergency

messages to you.

'

.

.

.'

.

"

.

REMINDER: TELEPHONES ARE A PRIVILEGE. DO NOT ABUSE

THE SYSTEM. ANY DAMAGE TO THE PHONE WILL RESULT IN

A DISCIPLINARY HEARING AND A CRIMlNAL CHARGE BEING

FILED AGAINST TIlE INMATE.

TELEPHONE SERVICE NUJ.VmER

If you or your family have any questions about hilling or connection problems concernin.g the inmate phones, please call the service provider at 1-866-230-7761. We have a brochure available to answer more questions if you need it, please ask and we will provide it.

TRANSFER TO WORK RELEASE CENTER

The Courts and/or Supervisory Authority may consider you for transfer to the Work Release Center if authorized on your sentence order. These transfers are not automatic. Jail staff must approve all transfers.

Factors considered in transfer decisions will include: Judge's approval Length of sentence. Individual needs. Available space. Classification: Demonstration of compliance with jail rules, expectations and responsible behavior.

If you are interested in participating in any programs, you must submit a request on an Inmate Request Form. Misbehavior or administrative concerns may prevent access to these programs. Disciplinary write-ups or actions will affect program eligibility.

VISITING

AU public visits will be scheduled by the Inmate requesting the visit. The inmate must contact
prospective visitors by phone or mail, and determine an acceptable visiting date. Time slots may be used Ol!1 a first come, first serve basis. Visitors are encouraged to arrive 10 to 15 minutes early to sign in. If all of the slots are taken for that tim~ frame they can either wait till the next times start for that pod, if it is
available, or return on another day. Visits will start.on the hour and half hour.

Authorized visitors shall be members from the inmate's family, and friends age 18 and older. Visitors under the age of 18 must be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian. Attorneys and clergy are not considered public visitors.

Inmate visitation is a privilege and while the Columbia County Sheriffs Office encourages visitation, that privilege must be regulated to protect the needs of the entire jail operation. The amount of time allotted for visitation is based upon the classification and status of each inmate.

Page 14 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 11/12/10

Ex A to Berg Decl, Pg 17 of 27

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 36 Filed 03/06/12 Page 23 of 54

Classification is based upon the inmate's current charges, criminal history and current demeanor. All inmates will be allowed a m~ximum of two thirty (30) minute visits per seven (7) day period (Sunday through Saturday), as time and space allows.

Inmates assigned to Disciplinary Segregation will not be allowed visitation privileges.

Inmates not yet assigned to a housing unit or who are housed in the pre-classification unit, will not be allowed public visitation.

Inmates serving a sentence of seventy-two hours(72) or less will not be allowed public visitation.

Due to space limitations, acceptable visiting combinations are limited to:

1.

One Adult

2.

Two Adults

3.

One Adult and One Child

4.

One Adult and Two Children

5.

Two Adults and One Child

Inmates have the right to refuse any visit, however that right should be exercised prior to visiting time.

All. inmates wishing to receive public visits must establish a visiting list of not more than five (5) people. Persons not on the approved list will not be allowed to visit. You are able to change your visiting list once every 30 days from the time you establish your list.. You need to fill out the visitation part of the request form to make the changes. The minimum information required for each p~rson will be:

1.

Visitor's full name

2.

Date of birth

3.

Relationship

4.

The name of any chi~d who may be in the company of his/her parent or guardian.

The visiting schedule will be posted in the housing units. Visiting times and days are subject to change periodically, so please refer to the schedule when talking to your loved ones.

SPECIAL VISITS

Special considerations may be given for emergency andlor special situations where normal visiting procedures may not be practical. Such situations as the death of a family member or close friend, serious injury of a family member or visitors traveling great distances, who have arrived unexpectedly may be considered on a case-by-case basis by the Supervisor or Corporal on duty. All special visits will be subject to the same rules and requirements as regular visitation. Special visits may be conducted in the Attorney Visiting Rooms if available and necessary due to other visitation which may be in progress.

VISITS WITH ATTORNEY

Inmates shall be given the opportunity to visit their attorneys at reasonable times, consistent with the safety and security of the facility. All visits will be scheduled by the attorney.

VISITS BY CLERGY

Clergy Visits will be handled as a regular visit. The member of the Clergy you want to have a visit with will be added like a normal visitor just like it is described in the regular visiting rules. They will be allowed to visit you on the regular date and time for the pod you are assigned to. The Clergy member will not count against you for the five people you are allow.ed to have on your visiting list. The Columbia County Jail provides.non denominational religious services once per week and individual bible study twice per week.

Page 15 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 11/12/10

Ex A to Berg Decl, Pg 18 of 27

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 36 Filed 03/06/12 Page 24 of 54

VOLUNTARY ACTnnTffiS

All general population inmates may have access to voluntary activities. These activities include but may not be limited to:

Religious services

.

Narcotics Anonymous (NA) and Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) groups

Religious based life skills classes

Individual educational tutoring (21 and under)

Recreational library

Law library

A sign up sheet for the voluntary activities will be posted in your housing unit. You must sign up on the provided list to be able to participate. Remember that participatiol!1 in these activities is a privilege. Participation is dependent on your continued cooperation and responsible behavior.

WAKE UP AND LOCK DOWN

Day room and cell lights will be turned on at 6:00 A.M. daily. Make your bed and dress for breakfast. Breakfast service will begin at approximately 6:30 A.M. daily. Day room lights and television will be turned off by about 10:00 P.M. and the cell lights will be turned off at 10:00 P.M.. All inmates must be on their bunks at "lights out" and are required to remain quiet.

Each inmate is expected to completely clean your room and area, make your bed, dump trash cans, etc. when the cleaning supplies are available to you. Be aware that there are usually some cleaning materials available at all times.

MINOR RULE VIOLATIONS PROCEDURES

1. The accused inmate shall be served with a minor rule citation by the citing Deputy as quickly as is

practical, after the violation is discovered, but in no case shall it be longer than 24 hours after the

.' .:-

investigation is complete.

2. The inmate will sign the misconduct report and aclmowledge receipt 9f alleged violation(s) and the right to appeal. The inmate may enter a plea of "Guilty" or ''Not Guilty".

A. Upon entry of a "Guilty" plea, a Deputy will schedule an informal hearing for possible san~tions to be imposed.

B. Upon entry of a "Not Guilty" plea on the misconduct report or upon request for a fonnal hearing the incident will be handled the same as a Major Violation.

MINOR RULE VIOLATION SANCTIONS

Sanctions resulting from a guilty plea on a Minor Misconduct Report may include:

a. Verbal warning.

b. Creative sanction appropriate to the offense (Le. extra work detail, etc.).

c. Housing Unit lock down not to exceed 24 hours.

d. Disciplinary segregation not to exceed five (5) calender days for a single violation. Inmates may' receive separate lock down time for each marked violation. This should not exceed a total of fourteen (14) calender days.

.e. Re-Classification

f. Probation for up to 30 days.

Page 16 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 11/12/10

Ex A to Berg Decl, Pg 19 of 27

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 36 Filed 03/06/12 Page 25 of 54

g. While in disciplinary segregation there is no access to programs.
Inmates get one hour out each 24 hours. Telephone (except legal) and television use may not be permitted. Commissary choices are restricted. Personal visits are suspended for the duration of the segregation. Book cart or library access is permitted; however, this privilege may be taken away as a sanction.
MINOR RULE VIOLATIONS 01 Possession ofNuisance Contraband: Any authorized item found in an inmates possession that has
been altered or is in excess of the authorized amount.
02 Arguing: Any disagreement which becomes disruptive, loud or obnoxious.
03 Possession of another inmates property.
04 Unauthorized use of facility property or equipment (i.e. washers/dryers, barber equipment etc.)
05 Acting as a lookout
06 Being in an unauthorized area without corrections staff present.
07 Purposefully obstructing the view of Corrections Staff.
08 Inappropriate remarks or misuse of the inmate request forms or any of the forms or paperwork handed out or used in the facility.
09 Unwarranted emergency calls.
10 Horse Playing: Any aggressive or faked aggressive actions, which may lead to or be mistaken for a physical altercation.
11 Disrespect to other inmates (i.e. name calling, profanity or accusations directed at another inmate).
12 Cursing, uncontrolled use of profanity or obscenities that may be considered offensive to others.
13 Excessive noise.
14 Failure to properly maintain living area.
15 Hanging paper, linen, clothing, etc. on light fixtures, walls, ceilings etc.
16 Failure to maintain personal hygiene.
17 Improper attire (i.e. not following the dress code stated in the manual).
18 Displaying or demonstrating gang affiliations (i.e. hand gestures, hand in pants, low riding trousers, etc.).
19 Graffiti: writing, drawing or marking on any of the surfaces of the facility.
20 Posting any type of picture, drawing or any other material on the walls, bunles or any the surfaces of the facility.
21 Misuse of the intercom system.
22 Disrespect towards any Staff Member or Sheriff's Office Employee 23 Disruptive Behavior

Page 17 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 11/12/10

Ex A to Berg Decl, Pg 20 of 27

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 36 Filed 03/06/12 Page 26 of 54

24 Unauthorized use of the typewfiter. (Law Library)

25· Lying to Staff Members.

26 Other

MAJOR RULE VIOLATION PROCEDURES

All Major Rule Violations will be handled through a formal disciplinary process, and require a formal

hearing.

:

1. When an inmate commits, or is believed to have committed a Major Rule Violation, the inmate will be
immediately placed on pre-hearing segregation status pending the outcome of the disciplinary hearing, regardless the nature of the alleged conduct. This can cause restriction in your privileges.

2. The accused inmate shall be served with a Major Rule Citation and the Inmate Rights fonn by the citing Deputy as quickly as is practical, after the violation is discovered, but in no case shall it be longer than 24 hours after the investigation is complete.

3. The inmate will have a hearing before a hearings officer within five (5) days of the incident excluding Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays. The inmate will be notified at least 24 hours prior to the hearing.

4. After the hearing, the hearings officer can render a decision immediately or within 72 hours.

A. lfthe inmate is found "Not Guilty", the inmate will be restored to the same status and privileges as before charged.

B. Tfthe inmate is found "Guilty", the Hearings Officer will impose an appropriate sanction from the Major Rule Violation Sanction list.

MAJOR RULE VIOLATION SANCTIONS

Sanctions resulting from a finding of "Guilty" in a hearing for a Major Violation may include the following:

1. Temporary or permanent change in programming to include:

A. Change in housing assignments. (i.e. re-classification)

B. Change in custody status.

C. Removal from work status with concurrent suspension of credit for work, as directed by O.R.S. 169.120

2. Reclassification to Disciplinary Segregation for no more than sixty (60) days for all (multiple) violations arising out of one incident Conly 30 days maximum on a single violation) and giving credit for time served as appropriate.
in 3. Loss of Statutory Good time and modification of release date accordance with O.R.S. 169.110.

4. Suspension of any part, (or all of the above if appropriate), along with information of expected conduct to avoid imposition.

5. Any combination of one (1) through four (4), listed aboye.

6. Unless medically or psychiatrically required, no segregated inmate shall be denied clothing or bedding that is allowed to general population inmates.

7. Segregated inmates shall be provided the same food as.general population inmates.

Page 18 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 11/12/10

Ex A to Berg Decl, Pg 21 of 27

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 36 Filed 03/06/12 Page 27 of 54

8. Personal hygiene items and shower facilities will be provided regularly to segregated inmates, unless there are documented security reasons which would prohibit them.
9. While in_disciplinary segregation there is no access to programs. Inmates get one hour out each 24 hours. Telephone ( except legal) and television use is not permitted. Commissary choices are restricted to hygiene items only. Personal visits are suspended for the duration of the segregation. Book cart or library" access is permitted; however this privilege may be taken away as a condition of the sanction.
MAJOR RULE VIOLATIONS
40 Habitual Misconduct: 3 or more separate minor rule violations within 30 days.
41 Refusing to comply with a Deputy's/ Staff! Kitchen Staff directives.
42 Tampering with or destruction of Identification Card
43 Refusing to lock down on command, or during a disturbance.
44 Refusing to go to court.
45 Tampering with security devices/ facility equipment.
46 Threatening or strong arming another inmate.
47 Giving false information to a Deputy.
48 Creating a disturbance while on lock down (i.e. banging doors, excessive noise, flooding the cell, etc).
50 Threatening staff members 51 Smoking, or possession of smoking paraphernalia.
52 Possession of unauthorized beverages (i.e. pruno).
53 Indecent exposure.
54 Theft. 55 Extortion.
56 Destruction of, or Defacing County property.
57 Possession of illegal drugs or prescription medications belonging to another or misuse of prescribed medications.
58 Participation in organizing or recruiting for gang related activities.
59 Sexual misconduct! homosexual activities 60 Fighting.
61 Assault on another inmate. 62 Assisting a suicide
63 Possession of a weapon.

Page 19 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 11/12/10

Ex A to Berg Decl, Pg 22 of 27

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 36 Filed 03/06/12 Page 28 of 54

64 Assault on a staff member.
65 Attempted or actual escape, or possession of an escape plan.
66 Participating in or inciting a riot.
67 Taking a hostage
68 Arson
69 Rape or Sodomy.
70 Homicide.
71 Violation of any Criminal Code
72 Tampering with or altering any other person's food.
73 Other.
VIOLATIONS APPEALS PROCESS
All appeals must be submitted to the Facility Supervisor or their designee within 72 hours, following the decision. The Facility Supervisor or designee will review the recommendations and return the appeal form to the inmate within five (5) working days of the appeal. The response time may be extended due to extenuating circumstances or further investigation, with written notice to the inmate of the reason(s) for the delay. Ask a deputy if you need a form.
SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS
DID YOU KNOW?
Rape and sexual assault happens to females and males of all ages, from infancy to senior years.
98% of males who have raped boys reported they are heterosexual. Most males who assault men or women are married or report having girlfriends.
Sexual assault had nothing to do with the victim's present or future sexual orientation. Victims may be either heterosexual or homosexual.
A survivor is not at fault for 'the rape, even if shelhe was in a secluded area, or had previous consensual sex with the attacker. .
The fact a male victim of sexual assault ejaculated or became sexually aroused does not mean they were not raped or that they gave consent. These are nonnal, involuntary physiological reactions.
It is cornman for survivors of sexual assault to have feeling of anger embarrassment, panic, depression, guilt, and fear after the attack. Other common reactions include loss of appetite, nausea or stomachaches, headaches, loss of memory andlor trouble concentrating and changes in sleep patterns.
FACTS FOR THE INMATE THAT SEXUALLY ASSAULTS OTHER INMATES:
All cases of sexual assault will be referred tothe Enforcement Branch or Major Crimes Team (MCT) for criminal investigation. You may be prosecuted and if found guilty of a felony, you may be sentenced to prison time (up to 100 months for each Rape I or Sodomy I conviction). Any sex offense conviction will automatically add sex offender conditions when you release, which may require you to register as a sex offender per ORS 181.594. This registration requirement is for life. You also be deemed as a "Predatory Sex Offender," which would require community notification upon your release.

Page 20 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 11/12/10

Ex A to Berg Decl, Pg 23 of 27

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 36 Filed 03/06/12 Page 29 of 54

Regardless of how you choose to characterize it, any sexual activity will increase your risk ofHTY infection, along with exposing you to other sexually transmitted diseases.
If you have trouble controlling your actions seek help from mental health staff and/or consider participating in programs designed to control anger or reduce stress. To reduce immediate feelings of anger or aggression, try talking to or writing a friend, meditate or do breathing exercises to relax, work on a hobby, or engage in some type of exercise.
SEXUAL ASSAULT
Sexual assault as defined by Columbia County Jail policy is "Sexual conduct where force or threat of force is used, or when the person is unable to consent because of age or incapacitation (mental defect, mental incapacitation, or physical helplessness). Sexual conduct includes: vaginal penetration by a penis; contact between the genitals of a person and the mouth or anus of another person; penetration of the vagina, anus, or penis of another person with any object other than the penis or mouth; touching of the sexual or intimate parts of someone or causing someone to touch the sexual or intimate parts of another for the purpose of sexual gratification." Any behavior or act of a sexual nature directed toward an inmate by an inmate, employee, volunteer, visitor, contract,employee or other agency representatives. This includes acts or any attempts to commit such acts including, but not limited to, sexual contact, inappropriate behavior of a sexual nature, unreasonable invasion of privacy, conversations or correspondence that suggests a romantic relationship between an inmate and any party referenced above.
Sexual assault affects everyone, either directly or through the experience of those we care about. It is not only a woman's issue as it can affect persons of any gender, age, race, ethnic group, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, or disability.
The statistics are proof of this problem: According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), in 2002 there were 247,730 victims of rape (This number does not include victims 12 or younger), seven out of every eight rape victims were female, and one in every eight rape victims was male. A 1998 study indicates that about 2.78 million American men have experienced an attempted or completed rape and one out of six American women have experienced an attemp~ed or completed rape~
SEXUAL ASSAULT AVOIDANCE
The only rape that can be prevented is when a potential rapist chooses NOT to rape. However, you may avoid an attack by keeping the following safety guidelines in mind:
Be aware of situations that make you feel uncomfortable. Trust your instincts. If it feels wrong, LEAVE.
Don't let manners get in the way of keeping yourself safe. Don't be afraid to say "NO" or "STOPTT NOW".
Walk and stand with confidence. Many rapists choose victims who look like they won't fight back or are emotionally weak.
Avoid talking about sex and casual nUdity. These things may be considered a come on, or make another inmate believe that you have an interest in a sexual relationship.
Do not accept canteen items or other gifts from other inmates. Placing yourself in debt to another inmate can lead to sexual favors.
Avoid secluded areas; position yourself in plain view of staff members. If you are being pressured for sex, report it to a supervisor immediately.

Page 21 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 11/12/10

Ex A to Berg Decl, Pg 24 of 27

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 36 Filed 03/06/12 Page 30 of 54

WHAT TO DO IF YOU ARE SEXUALLY ASSAULTED

If the attack has just happened..... ..

Get to a safe place. REPORT THE ATTACK TO A STAFF :MEMBER IMMEDJIA'fELY.

The longer you wait to report the attack the more difficult it is to obtain the evidence necessary for criminal and!or administrative investigation.

Request immediate medical attention. You may have serious injuries that you are not aware or, and any sexual contact can expose you to sexually transmitted diseases.

Do not shower, brush your teeth, use the restroom, or c~ange your clothes. You may destroy important

evidence.

.

If you have been attacked or witness an attack, but you are unwilling to' report it in person to a CCSO
uniformed staff member, then you may speak with a counselor, chaplain, medical staff, write a sealed letter to any command staff member, or contact a CCSO Detective at 503-366-4650.

Later OD•••••

Seek the support of a trusted friend, family member or staff member, such as the Chaplain or the

counseling staff. The days ahead can be traumatic and it helps to have people who care about you

supporting you.

.

Seek professional help. Mental Health staff are available for crisis care 365 days a year, to listen and offer support.

Page 22 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 11/12/10

Ex A to Berg Decl, Pg 25 of 27

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 36 Filed 03/06/12 Page 31 of 54

GOVERNMENT LISTINGS:

Clackamas County State Courts 807 Main St., # 7 Oregon City, OR 97045

Clatskanie Municipal·Court

PO Box 9

Clatskani~, OR

97016

Clatsop County Circuit Court PO Box 35 Astoria, OR 97103

Clatsop County: Community Corrections PO Box 540 Astoria; OR 97103

Columbia County State Courts 230 Strand Street . st. Helens, OR 97051
(We h!=md deliver)

Columbia county Justice Court PO Box 128 Vernonia, OR 97064

Columbia City Municipal Court 1840 Second Street Columbia City, OR 97018

Rainier Municipal. Court PO Box 100 Rainier, OR 97048

St. Helens Municipal Court PO Box 278 st. Helens, OR 97051
(We hand deliver)

Scappoose Municipal Court PO Box P Scappoose, OR 97056

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Public Phone No.: 503-326-3302
(for your family)
Multnomah County Circuit Court 1021 SW 4th Portland, OR 97204
Multnomah County Dept. Of Com. Corrections 501 SE Hawthorne Blvd, Suite 250 Portland, OR 97214-3514
Washington County Community Corrections 150 N. First Ave., Suite 200 Hillsboro, OR 97124
Washington County Circuit Court 150 North 1st Ave. Hillsboro, OR 97124

Ex A to Berg Decl, Pg 26 of 27

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 36 Filed 03/06/12 Page 32 of 54
Ex A to Berg Decl, Pg 27 of 27

Inmate/Your full, legible, name

1st Class

Columbia County Jail 901 Port Ave. St. Helens, OR 97051

Postage

Required

\

.. i,:~,
~
. Joe Meek - Oregon's First Sheriff Picture taken circa 1865
.__8__ ____ __

TO: Addressee's full name Street Address or PO Box City, State, Zip
~..

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 36 Filed 03/06/12 Page 33 of 54

9870.05 fa246305

EXHIBITB
TO DECLARATION OF BRADLEY BERG
Ex B to Berg Decl, Pg 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 36 Filed 03/06/12 Page 34 of 54

COLUMBIA COUNTY JAIL INMATE REQUEST FORM

Date: ?;;;-~J:;'l~ '-,~ .¥ Booking Number (locac'~d on ID Card) "---"-"'-'-="'--'-"'--"=--'--"-"--=-~____________

Law Library
Visitin Sign-Up
Visitor Change List

Date Requested for use: Law Library:
1. Visitor Name: Children:

Law Computer: 4 1 . . . --,-,f-:+,-,(-,-("'-,-~"'7-tt.....;-:i:...~.:~'-'',f\_!f\_=_iV_--''''___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

/0 0 8 ., .. 'l-d'~ '.,:"lt1£1''''r

, )

DOB :

;. r
/ / ....

l"=! '!I

""

10! ..".J.)·b:'"

Relationship: ~Jl~v~7f2~·~~~71~j-·________

Remove! Add

2 . Visitor Name:

Children~
Remove! Add 3. Visitor Name:

APproved~

DOB: ____________________ Relationship: ________________

Remove! Add

Approved! Denied

4. Visitor Name: Children: Remove! Add

Approved! Denied

DOB: _________________________ Relationship: _______________

5. Visitor Name: Children:

DOB: _____________________ Relatioship: __________________

Remove! Add

Approved! Denied

******Need to read pages 16-17 of the Inmate Manual for Visiting Information******

other

Recieved:

*****Staff Use Only Below This Line*****

J. Date! Time Answered: -c2.]....,//

Answering DeputY: ______~~J!L-A2:~_____________________
Ex B to Berg Decl, Pg 2 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 36 Filed 03/06/12 Page 35 of 54

9870.05 fa246305

EXHIBITC
TO DECLARATION OF BRADLEY BERG
Ex C to Berg Decl, Pg 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 36 Filed 03/06/12 Page 36 of 54

MAIL VIOLATION NOTICE

INMATE NAME: _B_ER_G__, _B_R_A_D_L_E_Y___________ DATE: 02/26/2011 INMATE POD~D:_-P_O_D__,_____T_2 _____________
The mail that is addressed or sent by the above inmate is in violation of the facility mail policy_ The Post Card has been retUlned to sender or placed into the inmates property for the following reason(s):

No Inmate Name Stickers of any Kind (Includes Address Labels)

Incomplete Return Address Rubber Inked Stamps

Tape

Lipstick

Colored Pencils

Paperclips / Staples etc.

Correction Tape / Fluid

Crayon

Paint

Watercolor

Food / Beverage Stains

Perfume / Cologne

j'io F(;u~ -,-

CI< L' 13w7UJ ~

LiJ7h c:r

0/015 .-- w~ vnl Cj a~u."pt PbBtCQvciS

SOPHIE FRAZIER ~ Mail inspected by

Ex C to Berg Decl, Pg 2 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 36 Filed 03/06/12 Page 37 of 54

9870.05 fa246305

EXHIBITD
TO DECLARATION OF BRADLEY BERG
Ex D to Berg Decl, Pg 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 36 Filed 03/06/12 Page 38 of 54

COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERlFF'S OFFICE INSTITUTION'S DIVISION
INMATE GRlEVANCE FORM

81

~ r~;, fCY~"C'{" f

!

N~ 000402

INSTRUCTIONS: Follow the rules in the Inmate Handbook regarding the facility's grievance procedures. Fill in the blanks in the first two sections. If you need more room, use additional sheets of paper, but not additional forms. If you want to grieve more than one issue, use a separate form for each issue.

**********r**************************~***************************************************

Reason for Grievance (check one):

[ ] conditions of confinement [ ] medical care [ ] general classification procedures

[] general discipline procedures [] participation in inmate programs

[ ] religious practices

[ ] telephone, mail and visiting procedures fi1 other (be specific)

*****************************************************************************************

Inmate's Name: 8r;,.(ci ~,fjJi("e::V'j .

$ID: 1I/;2..R.t-'.!S'S

Cell:~:T----f'P7=.rl."-.'!:ti,-,-=.~-,--_ _ _ __

i Grievance: #\1 (' F.{~r:Je,iCl.J eu ! ;., ! PC) c\ 1 \{~t::::::. <."(,,-) ~l ,. ;(~.(?-\- .···?'~~.I £J'P _1. '! '>rf .'~\'~';I·"-,· ~::), }/,.,.-

t:· Lr''L.tA. :;; e~:~·.: ~t1f11e" Le.,~<::L~ '~\1',;)6J ;'t,r~).\3,)i[:i;;q

A I.h.{:":rt '"~"(=:;~ ~ 1r,tbt.c!"..~?~ t~;~yj t:i(,f:.:~,'(::l' ';G-!l,~i'i"' ;:~I.

ld~~~~~;~t~~-~~~~j1~~~~£1{;~~~t£1;t1:f~~~~~i:~~f.~f1~'~~:~~4f;~)%

*** Receiving Deputy Signature:_~"r ~ '." ,;;" ,)'F" DPSST# So5g~

Date/Time: ., /.~. ·~?.;;~"i.N4"i /O-:.2.:!-// .

************************r~***************************************************[* ***/S:10

Deputy's

v

.""'/ Deputy's Signature: .-.:;f!;~:.~

DPSST# Qj!{t'7/£

Dat~/Time: /¢b"~h:~';J.6

Inmate;s signature a'6ceptlng geputy's resolution of grievance:

Date/Time: 0 I' .. f - ':~"'-

**********************************************************~******************************

SuperVis s Signature:

DPSST#

l'S'vtJ

Inmate's signature accepting supervisor's resolution of grievance:_______.

*****************************************************************************************

Administrators Review:

Date/Time Received: rr;)~1 1« Q ~ Q 0 Cd

S. e, -g"

J\ \ .}. r

e.t-\ ecl aD , 'L"Z- ( \. i

Administrato:r's Signature

~() L u..

DPSST# 5071 l

,i) Date/Time: 'c, IIi '\ '30

Itnnate's signature accepting dep ty's resolution of grievance: \6 e.wol fu £.J' '" Date/Time: Ibh.., h~ 9\ ~j­

*****************************************************************¥***********************

Distribution: White - Administrator?s Copy Canary - Inmate File Pink - Inmate Copy

S:\Programs\Program Fonns\Columbia County Inmate Grievance fonn.wpd

+0 •

I

('/'

rnwl-ed appeal shef't\f - /10

Ex D to Berg Decl, Pg 2 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 36 Filed 03/06/12 Page 39 of 54

9870.05 fa246305

EXHIBITE
TO
DECLARATION OF BRADLEY BERG
Ex E to Berg Decl, Pg 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 36 Filed 03/06/12 Page 40 of 54

October 27, 2011 To:

From:

Serg COlTections Division

RE:

Response to Grievance Nmnber 000402

M1~: James Bennett I have reviewed your Grievance number 000377 dated October 22,2011, in regards to the law library. It has been detenllined through the United States Marshall's service that you have been appointed and attorney. Your attOlney of record on this case is Paul Petterson and his telephone number is (503) 341-6308, it is his responsibility to provide you with any legal material that is not present in the Colun1bia County Law Library. Please contact your attorney and ask him to provide you with the necessary Federal Law material that you are requesting. As stated in the previous responses the Law Library COlnputer to intended for the use of Immigrations Cases. In the past ICE has provided updates that have been beneficial for the use of USM inmates but since that portion has expired there a,re no updates. The Grievance is denied on the grounds that it is your responsibility to obtain this infol111ation via the use of yOUf'court appointed attOlney.

Ex E to Berg Decl, Pg 2 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 36 Filed 03/06/12 Page 41 of 54

9870.05 fa246305

EXHIBITF
TO DECLARATION OF BRADLEY BERG
Ex F to Berg Decl, Pg 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 36 Filed 03/06/12 Page 42 of 54

COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERlFF'S OFFICE INSTITUTION'S DIVISION
. INMATE GRIEVANCE FORM

JINSTRUCTIONS: Follow the rules in the Inmate Handbook regarding the facility's grievance procedures. Fill in the blanks in the first two sections. If you need more room, use additional sheets of paper, but not additional. fOlTI1S. If you want to grieve more than·one issue, use a separate form for each issue.

***********I ***************************•***************************************************

Reason fo.r Grievance (check one):

[ ] conditions ofconfmement [ ] medical care [ ] general classification procedures

[ ] general discipline procedures [] participation in inmate programs

[ ] religious practices

~1krtelephone, gJ..3i1 and visiting procedures [ ] other (be specific)

IG*n*rm*ie*av*tae*n'*sc*eN*: a*m:*T~*e.,*:C\*tl*1{~1\"*'\\*'It.*l}GI*.,.*;\"\4,;.*·\~*E~r*:.(.*U:*u~*lL,*+*~h*n ~{*"j}*''*o.~.~*_ {p*'\*C;~*:*.;*;**,(*,-*=;*fA*:S:*-I~*.D;*?:I*«:,r*:.",~"1*~1"~)*.f..~i.*'~~:*O?·*O/7.*0Oo*.."..*"...i":*~ir)I*".'SK*'>*P"*f}*\*::*~C*LJ*e)\l*lI*:~-*r-:;*-!'-i*f\"':,'*}~:;')1*:-,;-+*- -'*-t:\\-(*,-Cf:'J*;-)':.*~'-.•*R.-I~J.*-~1-*!.I*~-~*f'-:*r--*,"-*;-l*·~-*:')e;--,. 1

Pn. C=~:-(j u~-:;e. ,.-r; f ,'" ~"?fe'l~ .' a\.r-lI'/;\, cY.~'.--~ ~~ r.

f.

-A-.:5:.:".I;1-n/t~-f.t0:O7J",p~5.Ii/'(t~Jrdr~::/:tf"tTJ{:+~-i0"j)"~!'1"''-.1O-(j':,;O/jr"L-,1-A-n.:,'--.1A\-C..J:A:CtI,:~;Y. GP\-n-'clI-\Pn.~~O~Y,-l~I,tI F. rI-'!Y}'!f7PAnJu"t.i.?&('"/)-,~Q{"

t
~
=-

tttl~~. 1(S~F,r0l

)\o ~

6[.}
a::

(

(O,~Idll';

Lfilnl1..--1l.rn(;m:)Te;,-.,c7l'7!-.C-:'*~/,'i.d/.)i'Jf£/!f-1\,)!

. I "-J

\. I i. . . . -

J

'\j

f.;j?'7~'.{-}"'r?}'l::r)O'l'li'ijr"'~1 J
C- n~.".l;\.p~~I(.I j){L )r-lo"~.- '.~• .J '

i::!:~~~g~:~~~~i~~e ~.

D~s~tfa:;Jr~': I!'~ ~~;~{~e: K~~${$C··

*************************************************************~***************************

/.

.

Deputy's Signature:

DPSST# $/=13: (

Date/Time:

Inmate's signature accepting deputy's resolution of grievance:_______ Date/Time:_______

"1.-/1 *****************************************************************************************

Date/Time Received: 1117

I

. lft,.L !:":f!~.;V"'PI:Vib:-fo,·7!Lt..~-- q.):If/~~ i1'f;~~ .}-~.~h;.r·)~? 2.i-?.-//Y-;).· ( . _ .

SupervIsor's SIgnature: ')l CL/;)lt.-!7 ~. , .' DPSSTtt th)a-l3

Date/Tnne: 11/'2.1-/1/ 2~2'1 D

Inmate's sigilature acceptfng\mpirvisor's resolution of grievance: "

Date/Time:_ _ _ _ __

A**d*m**in**is*t*r*a*to*r*s*R**e*v*ie*w**: *******************************D*a*t*e/*T*i*m*e**R*e*c*e*iv*e*d*:**I**n*{**~*I**0*~ ***U*S*. s**s***

Administrator'S

* Inmate's signature accepting

resolution of grievance: ~e(u,.scc:i'- \0 ~·r,~.v....

******** *******************************************************':i.************************

Distribution: White - Administrator's Copy Canary - Inmate File Pink - Inmate Copy

S:\Programs\Program Forms\Columbia C~:>unty Inmate Grievance form.wpd

Ex F to Berg Decl, Pg 2 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 36 Filed 03/06/12 Page 43 of 54

9870.05 fa246305

EXHIBITG
TO DECLARATION OF BRADLEY BERG
Ex G to Berg Decl, Pg 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 36 Filed 03/06/12 Page 44 of 54

Date: To:
From:

November 22,2.011
Bradley ~:~.
C07~
Rigdon, Ralph Lee, Sgt. 31831 Corrections Division

Subject: Postcard Grievance Response

Thank you for expressing your concemabout the Columbia County Jail mail procedures. As you are aware, there are lTIultiple ways for inmates to communicate with friends, family and others outside the j ail. You may send and receive postcards, as well as have personal visits and use the telephone. You are also allowed to communicate with your attorney, and correspond with other officials, by writing letters using paper and envelopes to ensure your privacy. Our postcard policy was enacted after a good deal of review, and we believe that the policy decreases the opportunity for contraband to be introduced into the jail, which enhances jail safety and security. In addition, the use of postcards saves significant public resources as staff do not need to spend nearly as much time searching for contraband or for communications that threaten jail safety and security. In light of the clear benefits to jail safety and security, the reduced staff time required to process inmate mail, and the alternative methods available to inmates to communicate with the outside, we believe that our policy of requiring postcards for personal mail is appropriate and reasonable. Your grievance is denied.

Ex G to Berg Decl, Pg 2 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 36 Filed 03/06/12 Page 45 of 54

9870.05 fa246305

EXHIBITH
TO DECLARATION OF BRADLEY BERG
Ex H to Berg Decl, Pg 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 36 Filed 03/06/12 Page 46 of 54

Date: To: From:

November 23,2011
Bradley L. Berg ./' .;-
;-
Columbia Co..u_~;~n-:;'Wf1; . "Jail
~tfZ- ..5:07 I (
<.<,.?l
Cutrigl)t{8ryan L. Sr. 30771 Corrections Division

Thank you for expressing your concern about the Columbia County Jail mail procedures. As you are aware, there are multiple ways for inmates to communicate with friends, family and others outside the jail. You may send and receive postcards, as well as have personal visits and use the' telephone. You are also allowed to communicate with your attorney, and correspond with other officials, by writing letters using paper and envelopes to ensure your privacy. Our postcard policy was enacted after a good deal of review, and we believe that the policy decreases the opportunity for contraband to be introduced into the jail, which enhances jail safety and security. In addition, the use of postc?Tds saves significant public resources as staff do not need to spend nearly as much time searching for contraband or for communications that threaten jail safety and security. In light of the clear benefits to jail safety and security, the reduced stafftime required to process inmate mail, and the altelnative methods available to innlates to communicate with the outside, we believe that our policy of requiring postcards for personal mail is appropriate and reasonable. Your grievance is denied.
Mr. Berg the policy of the Columbia County Sheriffs Office in regards to the mail procedures has been reviewed and approved by Columbia County Counsel and is in affect as written. In an effort to control contraband and ensure the safety and security of the Columbia County Jail it was determined that this was the best practice. As stated above your grievance is denied.

Ex H to Berg Decl, Pg 2 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 36 Filed 03/06/12 Page 47 of 54

9870.05 fa246305

EXHIBIT I
TO DECLARATION OF BRADLEY BERG
Ex I to Berg Decl, Pg 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 36 Filed 03/06/12 Page 48 of 54

cCOJL1UMJEJIA COUNTY JTAJIJL JINMATE UQUJEST JFO]RM

d· Inmates Full Name: 1~l"fA l3P")rQ

DaB: __________ POD/Cell

Date:/ 'J. -J {- ( f

.. ""
Booking

I
Number (ro'cated

on

ID

Card) '''-'_~--'--!..:~()L.....L{J,.-Of~O:.....:C::::...)~3",-S=..,.>-_q.;.:b,---_ _ _ _ _ _ __

Law Library

Date Requested for use: Law Library:

Law Computer: ___________________________

Visiting 1. Visitor Name:

Sign-Up

Children:

Remove/ Add

Visitor 2. Visitor Name:

Change

Children:

List

Remove/ Add

3. Visitor Name:

Children:

Remove/ Add

Approved/ Denied Approved/ Denied Approved/ Denied

DOB: ________________________ Relationship= ______________
DaB: ___________________________ Relationship: _________________
DaB: _________________________ Relationship: ___________________

4. Visitor Name: Children: Remove/ Add

Approved/ Denied

DOB: ________________________ Relationship: _________________

Other

5. Visitor Name:

DOB: _______________________

Children:

Relatioship: __________________

Remove/ Add

Approved/ Denied

******Need to read pages 16-17 of the Inmate Manual for Visiting Information******

t d, nf:Y) (hp,(':ft ~ te:, J;:xpla:in your issue:

rna

,1.\ / l1.-::;v(r)Jr] ,fit (p

,on [

/r T'c-') \.E'- G.-I E..-{ /<"":dl)r {Q_:=f::b ~ft1lfot ':.) Rc>Dro r-c,ll j1 0 h-e Po <.J-ccir rI ~ 'l

Date/ Time Recieved: _ ____nn~C+r~·~.,1~r+7~?nrr·Hl1----ReCeiving Deputy: __,;_~·_ =~__~_____________________ D L. v .~. ~ !... 0 i ,
COLUMBIA COUNTY
I t\ II

Date/ Time

Ex I to Berg Decl, Pg 2 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 36 Filed 03/06/12 Page 49 of 54

9870.05 fa246305

EXHIBIT J
TO DECLARATION OF BRADLEY BERG
Ex J to Berg Decl, Pg 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 36 Filed 03/06/12 Page 50 of 54

COLUMJBJIA COUNTY JAJIIL JINMATE REQUEST FORM

Date: f~-';;1...1 - II

DaB: ___________________ POD!Cell ________________ Booking Number(located on ID Card) =-:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Law Library

Date Requested for use: Law Library:

Law Computer: ____________________________

Visitin 1. Visitor Name:

Sign-Up

Children:

Remove! Add

Visitor 2. Visitor Name:

Change

List

Remove/. Add

3. vi si·tor Name:

Children:

Remove! Add

Approved! Denied Approved! Denied Approved! Denied

DaB: _______________________ Relationship: ________________
DaB: ____________________________ Relationship: ________________
DaB: ______________________________ Relationship: _______________

4. Visitor Name: Children: Remove! Add

Approved! Denied

DaB: ________________________ Relationship: ___________________

at'her

5. Visitor Name: Children:

DaB: ____________________________ Relatioship: _____________________

Remove! Add

Approved! Denied

******Need tb read pages 16-17 of the Inmate Manual for Visiting Information******

Explain your issue:

'I\(\ ~flf~J"-I~:)'+-e6 1'/1 hCA.\ ),1 ~o -<

e 7aLtO.Z.t'IlC':::){

<;'p,tf!+ ,'f'la g.rp./' +hevE?./ ~Yl(£ ·;e.;+v-I~~~h;.?f.'-')~<: on -~--hp, &l\uYVl.hf2r·~

0\'

.

}"

J

. -

.

"taff Use Only Below This Line*****
Date! Time Recieved: _..;;;..D--",E,-",C--=.lJj..:.:$,--·-=lj-,,-@-,-u~___ Receiving Deputy: --:../-=A:;;.:..;.U_ .=~T-_ ·. ___________

Date! Time Answered:.~I=~+I~~~11~1____~12=~~6:~__._.~swering Deputy:_~~~~-===~____~5~c5~~SL-___
Ex J to Berg Decl, Pg 2 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 36 Filed 03/06/12 Page 51 of 54

9870.05 fa246305

EXHIBITK
TO
DECLARATION OF BRADLEY BERG
Ex K to Berg Decl, Pg 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 36 Filed 03/06/12 Page 52 of 54

COLUMBIA COUNTY JAIL INMATE REQUEST FORM

r-1 P,CJ n Inmates Full Name:

(IQ.

f\("\ .,C\j;.--

.-.J"-.....!\!f'<...&l'l\

DOB:

POD/Cell :---\.~'--14,--_______

1.1066 '1·· Date: ~-

~. .

i

------------------

(d;;y Booking Number(loc'aied on ID Card) :

()

~5,L<-~"

Law

Date Requested for use:

Library .Law Library:

~
Law Computer: _______________________ -.1

1:: ~----~~--------------------------~------------------------------------------~O~)

Visiting 1. Visitor Name:

DOB: ____________________ t·

Sign-Up

Children:

~ Relationship: ____________
,J

Remove/ Add

Approved/ Denied

Visitor 2. Visitor Name:

DOB: _____________________

Change

Children:

Relationship: _____________

List

Remove/ Add 3 .. Visitor Name:
Children:

Approved/ Denied

DOB: ____________________ Relationship: ______________

Remove/ Add

Approved/ Denied

4 .. Visitor Name: Children: Remove/ Add

Approved/ Denied

DOB: __________________________ Relationship: _________________

5 . Visitor Name: Children:

DOB: _____________________________ Relatioship: ________________

Remove/ Add

Approved/ Denied

******Need to read pages 16-17 of the Inmate Manual for Visiting Information******

Other

-

~

_.

Date/ Time Recieved:

Receiving Deputy: ____________________________

-r- \r... L.

02 \ \ , "" \IY\

0 b \ I: c. v

~",C"_ \ So

<.:;\ I...<.. c.

\
.s. \: '" IN'\.C"'.\ 1.-

V"\t\ 0, ',- \

.,.J
c .....::,.

(..,c..~..Jr

(',1•. .:.-...J ..\ \r.c.' q Go:". :s. c.::. ........ \ r:> \ "'.<::

Q\0 .('(\ e V\"C~ o.,l..t--c""\

Lt"-C! ,\ ...."

~-~

V\:e u..) 1.....-\..{)

J CD \(Y\ \, ..-..

~ "'~ ~'I..'! ~- ~ roa.lId.. ....Cl.. \ •

J

.""'''-.(,,.:.. {...0.~\\. ~("_ 'AD ci..\,,,·w,;j"C Iv-.. -.{.\...( .~"-'--\,5C'\V'\') tv,ct'\. ·~n.ct::.,~ •.....,:.5 yY\.c\.\\ i.•..l·;j;t.. \::,.:. :t.~,:-....-c..'l. Ctv...",,\ c\e\i:..,J'~~ec...

~-;;;/"'t;;i:e:~:~:;ed: OJ. IDC:j/a '-

-::£'~19,'.-.:.;}-.<-;~.::" Answering Deputy: ___

•.:...!'1'-....).:....::....(_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

.I'J/~

Ex K to Berg Decl, Pg 2 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 36 Filed 03/06/12 Page 53 of 54

9870.05 fa246305

EXHIBITL
TO
DECLARATION OF BRADLEY BERG
Ex L to Berg Decl, Pg 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 36 Filed 03/06/12 Page 54 of 54

PROHIBITED MAIL NOTIFICATION

INMATE NAME:SHAFT, BARRY DEVON

DATE: 02/10/20

INMATE POD: J-PO 27

Your Mail contained:

Threats of harm, blackmail, extortion, or other criminal activity
Plans for escape, criminal activity, or activity that vioaltes jail rules
Gang-related material
Information that, if conveyed, could result in physical harm to someone
Sexually explicit material
Inflammatory material
Contrband materials (1) Books larger than 9 by 12 inches or with plastic or metal bindings (2) More than three books in a single piece of mail (3) Anything with an unusual stain or odor that indicates a foreign substance may be present
Is written in code or suspected code
Is written in a foreign language not read by a mail handler or other reasonably available staff member Was sent by an inmate to a third party who when forwarded to another inmate
Was a form of written communication not sent through the USPS or other approved system Is incoming mail and comes from an inmate lodged in the Columbia County Jail, or other corrections-monitored facility that lodges in-custody inmates. This includes mental hospitals and treatment facilities.
Is to or from an inmate on electronic home detention.
Is to or from a victim of a crime that the inmate is in custody for in either pretrial or sentenced status. Would violate a court order.
May produce a hostile work environment.
Does not promote jail program and rehabilitation treatment goals.
Is not an approved commercial business or government service transaction.
Is credit or deferred billing transaction, such as "bill me later" sub~criptions or merchandise bought on credit or collect-on-delivery terms. Violates negotiable instrument limits on sources and maximum dollar amount.
Is fraudulently marked as legal or official.

Mail inspected by

Yo d... ~ 10- (d--. ate', /1 j~-(0L-k2-~5

,

t I

,.,

::5 ~ t'\t®cl:t)~f'l,.S· a:s ()k;. (~,1c(){?:~..5:

Ex L to Berg Decl, Pg 2 of 2

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 37 Filed 03/06/12 Page 1 of 4
Katherine C. Chamberlain, OSB #042580 katherinec@mhb.com Jesse A. Wing,pro hac vice jessew@mhb.com Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News MacDonald Hoague & Bayless 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104-1745 (206) 622-1604
Marc D. Blackman, OSB #730338 mark@ransomblackman.com Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Ransom Blackman LLP 1001 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1400 Portland, OR 97204 (503) 228-0487
Lance Weber,pro hac vice lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Human Rights Defense Center 1037 Western Ave., 2nd Floor West Brattleboro, VT 05303 (802) 257-1342

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,
Defendants.

No. CV 12-71-SI DECLARATION OF SHARON R. BERG

DECLARATION OF SHARON R. BERG (CV 12-71-SI) - 1
9870.05 tb281303

. MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 37 Filed 03/06/12 Page 2 of 4

I, Sharon R. Berg, declare as follows: 1. I am over the age of 18 and I am competent to testify. The statements of fact contained herein are based on my personal knowledge. 2. I am Bradley L. Berg's mother. Brad has been incarcerated at the Columbia County rail since January 2011. 3. I wrote many letters to Brad while he was incarcerated in other correctional facilities. I value being able to stay in touch with Brad. It is important to me that Brad is able to share his concerns with me without being concerned about privacy. 4. The Postcard-Only Policy at the Coluiubia County Jail has been very frustrating for me. I have a lot to share with Brad. It seems like as soon as I start writing a message to Brad on a postcard I have to end my message because of the size limitations, unless I send multiple postcards which means I have to buy additional stamps. 5. I am concerned about the lack of privacy. I don't want to share confidential information with Brad on a postcard that people I don't know can read. He told me he has the same privacy concerns, and does not feel he can communicate with me about matters that he feels are confidential. 6. Conforming my communications with Brad to the Jail's restrictive Postcard-Only Policy is a hassle. I don't ordinarily have postcards on hand and have to make a special trip to the post office or the souvenir section in a store to buy postcards. They can be more expensive than stationary which can get spendy. I tried making my own, using card stock from the craft store, but the Post Office returned the postcards to me as unacceptable, which only added to IUY frustration. 7. I do not drive, so it is difficult for me to visit Brad in person. The letters we wrote to each other when he was incarcerated at other facilities in the past were our primary means of communication. The Jail's Postcard-Only Policy has severely limited our ability to communicate with each other.

DECLARATION OF SHARON R. BERG (CV 12-71-SI) - 2
9870.05 fb281303

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 37 Filed 03/06/12 Page 3 of 4
8. I am very fortunate in that Brad is not only Iny son but my good friend. I miss him very much. Every week I wish I could write him a letter, but I know I can't.
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States of America and the State of Oregon that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
DATED this L2L day of(!I/IIe.) !J.t;1a..at Portland, Oregon.

DECLARATION OF SHARON R. BERG (CV 12-71-SI) - 3
9870.05 fb281303

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 37 Filed 03/06/12 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 6, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing to the Clerk of
the Court using the CMlECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: • Marc D. Blackman marc@ransomblackman.com,pat@ransomblackman.com • Gregory R. Roberson grr@hartwagner.com,cej@hartwagner.com e Lance Weber lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org • Jesse Wing JesseW@mhb.com
MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS
lsi Katherine C. Chamberlain KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN OSB #042580 (206) 622-1604 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

DECLARATION OF SHARON R. BERG (CV 12-71-SI) - 4
9870.05 fb281303

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle Washington 98104
TeI206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 38 Filed 03/06/12 Page 1 of 4
Katherine C. Chamberlain, OSB #042580 katherinec@mhb.com Jesse A. Wing, pro hac vice jessew@mhb.com OfAttorneys for PlaintiffPrison Legal News MacDonald Hoague & Bayless 70S Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104-1745 (206) 622-1604
Marc D. Blackman, OSB #730338
mark@ransomblackman.com Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Ransom Blackman LLP 1001 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1400 Portland~ OR 97204 (503) 228-0487
Lance Weber,pro hac vice lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org OfAttorneys for PlaintiffPrison Legal News Human Rights Defense Center 1037 Western Ave. ~ 2nd Floor West Brattleboro, VT 05303 (802) 257-1342

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DNISION

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project ofthe HUMAN RIG·HTS DEFENSE CENTE~
Plaintiff,
v.
COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity
as Columbia County Sheriff,
Defendants.

No. CV 12-71-S1
DECLARATION OF NATALIYA MIKHAYLOVA

n DECLARATION OF
NATALlYA MIKHA

o

v A

(CV

12-71.S1)

-

]

!1!1iO.o~ ib2813DI

MACDoNALD HOAC1:l'E & lJAnESS
70~ ScconcJAvenue, Suite 1500 Seattle WB5hiflgton 96104
Tel.206.621.1604 Fax 206.343J96l

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 38 Filed 03/06/12 Page 2 of 4

I, NataIiya Mikhaylova, declare as follows:

1. I am over the age of 18 and I am competent to testify. The statements of fact

contained herein are based on my person~ knowledge.

2. I am a close friend of Eric Wilcoxson, who has been incarcerated in the Columbia

County Jail since December 2010. Our families know eaoh other well. I have four sisters and

consider Eric to be my "older brother." He has always been there to talk with me about personal

matters, relationships in my life, and things that happen with my family.

3. Eric told me about the Postcard-Only Policy at the Columbia County JaiL I have

tried to communicate with Eric by postcard, but it has been difficult to do so.

4_ I must send multiple postcards at one time due to the size limitations of the postcards. Also, I must number the postcards (al of 4~' etc.) so that Eric knows the order he

should read them, otherwise my message would not make sense. I have also received mUltiple

postcards from Eric, but the postcards do not always arrive on the same day or in any kind of

order. It can take several days before I receive all the numbered postcards from Eric so I can

read them in the order that he wrote them and understand his full message to me.

5.

I believe that the Columbia County Jail did not deliver postc'ards that I sent to Eric

and that Ellc sent to me from Jail. It has been difficult for us to figure this out, because so much

time passes before we can discuss it and there mayor may not be other postcard communications

in the meantime. For example, on February 21,2012, I spoke with Eric on the telephone. He

told me he sent me postcards approximatelY two months ago, and wondered why I never

responded. He told me that he later learned the Jail did not mail the postcards he wrote to me.

The Jail never sent me a notice that it did not send his postcards to me.

6. It talces me approximately one hour to drive to the Columbia County Jail to visit Eric. ViSiting days/times vary depending on the Pod he is assigned to. I attend school and I

work, so I am not able to visit Eric very often because ofmy schedule and the cost ofthe

commute from my home to the JaiL Additionally, Eric has recently been in segregation, whi~h

DECLARATION OF NATALIYA MIKHAYLOVA (CV 12~71-S1) - 2
9870.05 ib181~0 I

MAcDoN4LD B04.GVE & l4n&ss
705 Second Avenue. Suite 1500 Seattle Wll!ihington 9811)4
Tel 206.622,1604 Fax 206,343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 38 Filed 03/06/12 Page 3 of 4

Ineans I cannot visit him at all. This makes our written communication that much more

important.

7.

Because of the lack of privacy 'With postcards, I don't feel I can write to Eric

about personal matters, relationships in my life, and things that happen with my family.

8. Columbia County Jail's Postcard-Only Policy has severely limited my ability to

communicate in vvriting with Eric_ I really miss the presence of my "big brother" in my Hfe, and

the advice and opinions he has always had for me.

I declare under penalty ofpeIjury ofthe laws ofthe United States of America and the

State of Oregon that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
DATED this _f_ day of tJorr.~ 20/i!..., at Cornelius, Oregon.

DEClARAnON OF NATALlYA MIKHAYLOVA (CV 12-71-81) - 3
!}870.0S 0031301

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & SAYL~S 705 Second Avcl1Uo. Suite 1500
Seanle., Washington 9g104 Tc:l206.622.1604 Fax 206.3433961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 38 Filed 03/06/12 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 6, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing to the Clerk of
the Court using the CMlECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: • Marc D. Blackman marc@ransomblackman.com,pat@ransomblackman.com • Gregory R. Roberson grr@hartwagner.com,cej@hartwagner.com • Lance Weber lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org .. Jesse Wing JesseW@mhb.com
MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS
lsi Katherine C. Chamberlain KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN OSB #042580 (206) 622-1604 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

DECLARATION OF NATALIYA MIKHAYLOVA (CV 12-71-SI) - 4
9870.05 tb281301

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Te1206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 39 Filed 03/06/12 Page 1 of 4
Katherine C. Chamberlain, OSB #042580 katherinec@mhb.com Jesse A. Wing, pro hac vice jessew@mhb.com Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News MacDonald Hoague & Bayless 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104-1745 (206) 622-1604
Marc D. Blackman, OSB #730338 mark@ransomblackman.com Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Ransom Blackman LLP 1001 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1400 Portland, OR 97204 (503) 228-0487
Lance Weber, pro hac vice l\veber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Human Rights Defense Center 1037 Western Ave., 2nd Floor West Brattleboro, VT 05303 (802) 257-1342

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,
Defendants.

No. CV 12-71-SI
DECLARATION OF JOHN WEISENBERGER

DECLARATION OF JOHN WEISENBERGER (CV 12-71-SI) - 1
9870.05 fb221314

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622. J604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 39 Filed 03/06/12 Page 2 of 4
I, John Weisenberger, declare as follows: 1. I am over the age of 18 and I am competent to testify. The statements of fact contained herein are based on my personal knowledge. 2. I was incarcerated in the Columbia County Jail from May 2010 until January 2012. The Columbia County Jail had a Postcard-Only Mail Policy the entire time I was incarcerated. 3. Due to the Postcard-Only Policy, I was not able to communicate by mail with my partner, Kira Diamond, regarding our two children, our financial situation, or other matters important to our family. 4. While I was incarcerated in the Columbia County Jail, my young children were not able to meaningfully write to me on postcards because of the limitations of their handwriting, and they could not send me pictures that they drew for me or any photographs because the restrictive policy prohibited such mail. I had very little contact with my young children during the 1.5 years I was at Columbia County Jail as a result of the Postcard-Only Policy. 5. Kira purchased magazine subscriptions for me to National Geographic, Newsweek, and Bloomberg Weekly while I was in the Columbia County Jail. I received all three magazines monthly for approximately eight months. 6. But I stopped receiving the magazines in approximately September 2011. I filed a written grievance but received no written response from the Jail. Based on my experience in the Columbia County Jail, it was typical for the Jail to respond to written grievances in person instead of in writing.

DECLARATION OF JOHN WEISENBERGER (CV 12-71-SI) - 2
9870.05 fb221314

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 39 Filed 03/06/12 Page 3 of 4
7. Sgt. McMiller responded verbally to my grievance. He told me that the Columbia County Jail was enforcing its Postcard-Only Policy, so the Jail would not deliver my paid sUbscription magazines to me.
8. I did not receive any of my magazines from September 2011 up until the time I transferred to the SeaTac Federal Detention Center in mid-January 2012.
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States of America and the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct to the best oflny knowledge.
DATED this --'=----=-- day of February, 2012, at SeaTac, Washington.

DECLARATION OF JOHN WEISENBERGER (CV 12-71-SI) - 3
9870.05 tb221314

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 39 Filed 03/06/12 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 6, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing to the Clerk of
the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: • Marc D. Blackman marc@ransomblackman.com,pat@ransomblackman.com • Gregory R. Roberson grr@hartwagner.com,cej@hartwagner.com • Lance Weber lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org • Jesse Wing JesseW@mhb.com
MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS
lsi Katherine C. Chamberlain KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN OSB #042580 (206) 622-1604 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

DECLARATION OF JOHN WEISENBERGER (CV 12-71-SI) - 4
9870.05 tb221314

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 40 Filed 03/06/12 Page 1 of 4
Katherine C. Chamberlain, OSB #042580 katherinec@mhb.com Jesse A. Wing, pro hac vice jessew@luhb.com Of Attonleys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News MacDonald Hoague & Bayless 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104-1745 (206) 622-1604
Marc D. Blackman, OSB #730338 luark@ransolublaclcnnan.com Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Ransom Blac1m1an LLP 1001 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1400 Portland, OR 97204 (503) 228-0487
Lance Weber, pro hac vice lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Human Rights Defense Center 1037 Western Ave., 2nd Floor West Brattleboro, VT 05303 (802) 257-1342

lJNITED STATES DISTRlCT COURT DISTRlCT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,
Defendants.

No. CV 12-71-SI DECLARATION OF OANA POPA

DECLARATION OF OANA paPA (CV 12-71-SI) - 1
9870.05 fb291305

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 40 Filed 03/06/12 Page 2 of 4
I, Oana Popa, declare as follows: 1. I am a friend of Eric Wilcoxson, who is incarcerated in the Columbia County Jail. Eric was my best friend at the time he went to jail. 2. Eric was incarcerated at the MuItnomah County Jail in downtown Portland before he was transfelTed to the Colulnbia County Jail. I used to write letters to Eric when he was at the Multnomah County Jail. 3. The last letter I sent to Eric at the Multnonlah County Jail was returned to me because he had been transferred to the Columbia County Jail. After I learned this, I sent the same letter to the Columbia County Jail, but the Jail censored IUY letter and returned it to me. The Jail did not telllue why it rejected my letter. I called Eric's luother and asked her if Eric can receive letters at the Columbia County Jail. She told lue that the Jail will only allow me to send him postcards. 4. I am not able to write luuch on a postcard, so I usually send three postcards at once. I number the postcards so Eric can read them in order. It also takes me more time to communicate by postcard, because I can't type on a postcard and must write by hand. It is difficult to find postcards because not very many retail stores sell them. Sending luultiple postcards is more expensive for lue than sending one letter. I used to send Eric postcards several times per month, but the Columbia County Jail's restrictive Postcard-Only Policy is such a hassle, I only send him postcards about once a mo:r~.th now. 5. Because of the Jail's restrictive Postcard-Only Policy it is really hard for me to keep in touch with Eric about what is happening in nly life. 6. My work schedule makes it difficult for lue to visit Eric in person. I must drive over one hour from my home to the Columbia County Jail. Each Pod at the Columbia County Jail has different days/times for visitation. The last three tilnes I tried to visit Eric, Jail staff told me was moved to another Pod, and therefore, I could not see him.

DECLARATION OF OANA POPA (CV 12-71-SI) - 2
9870.05 fb291305

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fa,x 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 40 Filed 03/06/12 Page 3 of 4
7. I have not seen Eric in over tllTee months because of the three unsuccessful times I tried to visit him and because he has been in segregation and is not allowed to have visitors. I can only con1IDunicate with him in vvTiting, and the Jail's restrictive Postcard-Only Policy makes this extremely hard for me.
I declare under penalty ofperjury of the laws of the United States of America and the State of Oregon that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
DATED this :10 day of fe\o'rIJ..Ql(j' at Portland, Oregon.
f' Oana Popa /

DECLARATION OF OANA paPA (CV 12-71-SI) - 3
9870.05 fb291305

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fa-x 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 40 Filed 03/06/12 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 6, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing to the Clerk of
the Court using the CMlECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: o Marc D. Blackman marc@ransomblackman.com,pat@ransomblackman.com • Gregory R. Roberson grr@hartwagner.com,cej@hartwagner.com • Lance Weber lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org • Jesse Wing JesseW@mhb.com
MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS
lsi Katherine C. Chamberlain KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN OSB #042580 (206) 622-1604 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

DECLARATION OF OANA POPA (CV 12-71-SI) - 4
9870.05 fb291305

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44 Filed 03/06/12 Page 1 of 11
Katherine C. Chamberlain, OSB #042580 katherinec@mhb.com Jesse A. Wing, pro hac vice jessew@mhb.com Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News MacDonald Hoague & Bayless 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104-1745 (206) 622-1604
Marc D. Blackman, OSB #730338 marc@ransomblackman.com Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Ransom Blackman LLP 1001 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1400 Portland, OR 97204 (503) 228-0487
Lance Weber,pro hac vice lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Human Rights Defense Center 1037 Western Ave., 2nd Floor West Brattleboro, VT 05303 (802) 257-1342

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,
Defendants.

No.3:12-CV-71-SI
SECOND DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUCTION

SECOND DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT (CV 12-71-SI) - 1
9870.05 fc012203

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44 Filed 03/06/12 Page 2 of 11

I, Paul Wright, declare as follows: 1. I am over the age of 18 and I am competent to testify. The statements of fact contained herein are based on my personal knowledge. 2. I am the founder and editor of Prison Legal News ("PLN"), a project of the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC). 3. Since 1990 I have been the editor and co-founder of the monthly magazine Prison Legal News and the executive director of the Human Rights Defense Center ("HRDC"), a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation organized under Washington law in 1991 as Prisoners' Legal News. 4. For the past 21 years, the core ofHRDC's mission has been public education, prisoner education, advocacy, and outreach in support of the rights of prisoners and in furtherance of basic human rights. 5. One of the projects ofHRDC is the operation of Prison Legal News ("PLN"), which publishes a monthly magazine of the same name, maintains a website, operates an email list, distributes books of interest to prisoners and publishes self-help, non-fiction reference books. 6. Prisoners of all types (from pre-trial detainees to convicts), family and friends of prisoners, and prisoner advocates, are among the intended beneficiaries of PLN' s activities. 7. I am frequently contacted by individuals who are concerned about the health and well-being of one or more prisoners, and who are seeking information or materials from PLN on issues related to prisoners' rights. 8. PLN's website, www.prisonlegalnews.org. gets approximately 100,000 unique visitors per month. The website contains over 23,000 articles, 9,000 court opinions, and 5,000 legal documents in its brief bank and in excess of 4,000 documents in its publications library. The PLN website is the largest online repository of data related to detention facility news and litigation in the world. It is updated on a daily basis.

SECOND DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT (CV 12-71-SI) - 2
9870.05 fc012203

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44 Filed 03/06/12 Page 3 of 11

9. Since prisoners do not generally have access to the internet, they rely on friends,

family members and other supporters who are not incarcerated to download and print articles

from PLN's website and mail those documents to the prisoners in jails or prisons.

10. PLN has purposely designed its website so that non-prisoners can research topics

of interest and importance to prisoners, and then download, print and mail the infolmation to

prisoners because PLN lacks the resources to communicate this information individually to each

and every prisoner who desires it.

11. In fact, PLN's website invites anyone who corresponds with prisoners to utilize

the material on the website to educate prisoners. The website states: "Prisoners generally do not

have internet access. We encourage the distribution of information on our website to

incarcerated persons by printing it out and mailing it to them. If you are volunteering your time

to research a topic for someone in prison, jailor other detention facility please feel free to print

out articles and send them to the prisoner." Exhibit 1, at 3, is a true copy of the web page

containing this language.

12. Exhibit 2 is a true copy of an email I received on July 6, 2011 referencing our

website invitation to print material to send to prisoners, asking questions about whether her

brother in prison in North Carolina has the right to receive materials printed from the internet.

We have redacted the author's name to protect her privacy.

13. PLN also

a free emaillistserv, which has approximately 1,500

subscribers who receive scores of emails on a weekly basis related to detention facility news and

litigation. Many of the recipients of these emails print and mail articles of interest to friends and

relatives in prisons and jails.

14. In fact, several times per week, friends or relatives contact me by telephone

asking me to talk them through the steps of locating material on a particular topic of interest or

need on PLN's website for the stated purpose of printing and mailing it to a prisoner who is their

family member or friend.

SECOND DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT (CV 12-71-SI) - 3
9870.05 fc012203

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44 Filed 03/06/12 Page 4 of 11

15. The Columbia County Jail's adoption of its Postcard-Only Policy means that no family member, no friend, nor any other concerned individual can ever utilize PLN's website to
print and mail information from PLN's website or listserv to prisoners in custody in the Jail. The
policy prevents prisoners from receiving free material on the PLN website about prisoners'
criminal or civil legal rights, about health and safety issues in Jail, about reasonable
accommodation or treatment of medical or mental health issues, about their right to effective
assistance of counsel and how to represent themselves in court, or about a host of other important
issues to prisoners.
16. Indeed, the Jail's policy prevents individuals from mailing to prisoners from the
website PLN's article reporting the Ninth Circuit's opinion in Clement v. California Dep't of
Corr., 364 F.3d 1148, (9th Cir. 2004), which informed readers that "The Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals upheld the statewide permanent injunction issued by the U.S. District Court (N.D. Cal.)
enjoining the California Department of Corrections' (CDC) policy prohibiting prisoners from
receiving Internet-generated mail." Exhibit 3 is a true copy ofPLN's article available on our
website. The Jail's policy also prevents prisoners from receiving in the mail the amicus brief
filed by Prison Legal News in Clement on July 1,2003, in which PLN informed the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals:
PLN...maintain[s] a Web site (www.prisonlegalnews.org) where it provides back issues for download, links to other Web sites relevant to prison legal issues, and subscription order forms. PLN often receives printouts of these order forms from first-time subscribers who are incarcerated. As prisoners lack Internet access of their own, they must receive these forms after they are printed out and mailed to them by friends or family. When resources allow, PLN intends to extend its Web site to include legal briefs and other informational material of use to prisoners and prisoner-rights activists. Again, prisoners would have to rely on non-incarcerated friends and family to download, print, and mail those materials to them. Exhibit 4, at 2-3 (a true copy of excerpts ofPLN's amicus brief in Clement). Now, eight years
later, PLN no longer has subscription order forms available for printout on its website because
print subscriptions can now be purchased online, but it has met its stated goal in hosting "legal
briefs and other informational material" for purposes of downloading, printing and mailing to

SECOND DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT (CV 12-71-SI) - 4
9870.05 fc012203

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44 Filed 03/06/12 Page 5 of 11

pnsoners. Exhibit 5 is a true copy of PLN' s webpage on which the amicus brief can be downloaded by individuals who want to send it to incarcerated persons.
17. Without question, Defendants' Postcard-Only Policy prohibiting family, friends,
and other individuals from mailing to prisoners materials printed off PLN' s website frustrates
PLN's core tnission of educating prisoners.
18. Just two weeks ago an individual notified nle that she had recently tnailed
envelopes containing articles printed from the PLN website to prisoners at the Colunlbia County
Jail. She notified me that the envelopes were refused by the Jail and returned to her unopened, marked "Return to Sender" and "Contraband."
19. I am frequently contacted by prisoners and by individuals who correspond with
prisoners who complain of prison or jail censorship or of violations of due process rights. As
part of PLN' s mission of education and advocacy for prisoners' rights, my staff and I respond to
complaints, investigate them, and are sometimes able to take action to remedy them.
20. Beginning in at least February 2011, prisoners in custody at the Columbia County
Jail contacted Prison Legal News complaining that the Jail's Postcard-Only Policy interfered
with their rights to send and receive mail and asked PLN for help to stop the Jail's violation of
their rights.
21. Exhibit 6 is a true copy of a postcard that PLN received from Columbia County Jail prisoner Robert Mead in March20 1L
22. Exhibit 7 is a true copy of a postcard from Spokane County Jail prisoner Cedric
Burton to Prison Legal News postmarked September 10,2010, which states,
I have received mail rejection slips regarding my family sending me mail or Pictures. I have a 15 month old daughter, and am missing inches off her toes (Growth). My grandfather is very ill and doesn't know anything about these new mail changes. He shouldn't have to go out of his way or search for ways to accommodate jail rules. In reference to this new "Jail Rule," I can't receive Pictures, mail, "I miss you dad!" cards, or any other only contact or communication from my family. It is very stressful and psychologically tormenting. I can't sleep or eat well due to this harassment. In addition, it raises constitutional concerns; it in itself is Prejudicial error to my expectation of

SECOND DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT (CV 12-71-SI) - 5
9870.05 fc012203

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44 Filed 03/06/12 Page 6 of 11

Privacy right for officers/Postal workers to have visual access to the content of my mail. Exhibit 7 also includes a transcription of this postcard because the best photocopy of the original is still too light to read in places. 23. I and members of my staff received, read, and responded to the correspondence of these and other Columbia County Jail prisoners who complained that they and their families were prohibited by a new Jail mail policy from sending letters to each other. We conducted an investigation into their complaints, researched the issue, and strategized actions that PLN could take to educate the prisoners and their families on their legal rights and advocate to protect their First Amendment rights. 24. As a result of the Jail's adoption of its postcard-only policy prohibiting these prisoners and their families from communicating by letter, Prison Legal News was forced to divert its limited resources from other matters to review, respond, and investigate their complaints, and to strategize whether and how PLN could advocate for their First Amendment rights. PLN expended the cost and diversion associated with staff spending several hours on these activities and the cost of postage necessary to communicate with the complaining prisoners. We also received and responded to phone calls from friends and family melubers of Columbia County Jail prisoners asking for our expertise and assistance in this matter. Additionally, the Defendants' interference with family members or friends communicating with prisoners--especially those seeking help directly from PLN-frustrated PLN's mission of national education and advocacy for prisoners' rights. PLN only has four full time employees in our Vermont office and we have many tasks to accomplish each day in order to publish a monthly magazine: processing book and subscription orders; banking, research, advertising, advocacy, editing, etc. The diversion of our very limited resources from the essential task of producing, publishing and disseminating our publications due to censorship means we have fewer resources to carry out our core public education mission. However, if we ignore these

SECOND DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT (CV 12-71-SI) - 6
9870.05 fc012203

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Te1206.622.l604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44 Filed 03/06/12 Page 7 of 11

censorship issues we face the prospect of eventually not being able to reach our prisoner audience at all.
25. Prisoners at the Spokane County Jail in Washington also contacted Prison Legal News complaining about the Jail's mail policy-which, like the Columbia County Jail Policy; restricted incoming and outgoing mail to postcards.
26. Exhibit 8 is a true copy of a postcard from Spokane County Jail prisoner Samuel Bertolet to Prison Legal News stamped "Received" by PLN in September 2010, which states that "I am currently incarcerated in Geiger Corrections Center where the mail is restricted to postcards. My attorney sent me a letter concerning you and the action you are taking to get us our rights back. I am glad to hear that someone is fighting for us, and I atn also grateful to hear what you are doing." Mr. Bertolet wrote that "My only source of letting my family know about certain facts about my case and other important personal details of Iny life is through the mail and I feel as if there is no privacy whatsoever concerning myself and my loved ones."
27. Exhibit 9 is a true copy of a postcard from Spokane County Jail prisoner Kevin Nichols to Prison Legal News postmarked September 2,2010, which states that he is contacting PLN "about what the Spokane County is doing to are [sic] mail if you can see its on the post card system they set up we are no longer able to send or receive mail only post cards no pictures from loved ones of my kids or family .... My family will be trying to contact you too."
28. Exhibit 10 is a true copy of five (5) pages of the Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual dated "7/23/1 0" that PLN received from a prisoner.
29. Exhibit 11 is a true copy of a postcard from Spokane County Jail prisoner Daren Suiter to Prison Legal News marked "Received" on September 13,2010, stating:
I do not believe that the use of postcards is even close to being able to send or receive personal information we are now completely open 4 interpretation how the j ail sees fit. I am a 32 yr old male with children and am not able to use the phone to communicate with my children or family[.] I cannot receive pictures or anything else of the sort and try to explain this to a nine yr old let alone a 8 or 6 yr old and I know there a lot of people in the county Jail in the same boat/under the same circumstances....

SECOND DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT (CV 12-71-SI)-7
9870.05 fc012203

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44 Filed 03/06/12 Page 8 of 11

Mr. Suiter then wrote: "This is a list of inmates who also believe this[.] Thank you frOln all of us," which is followed by the signatures of six other prisoners along with their Jail identification numbers.
30. Exhibit 12 is a true copy of an envelope from Spokane County Jail prisoner Caleb Nichols to Prison Legal News postmarked "September 29,2010," enclosing a letter that states, in part: "I'm contacting you do to the mail at the S.C.J. Spokane County Jail. They have stoped [sic] the mail to & from inmates that R in envelopes other than legal and even then they look at it before we can seal it. All of are [sic] mail to family-n-Ioved ones are on a postcard for the public to read. .. I was told you might be able to help. This is the refusal form they give me rather than lny letters. Thank you."
31. In 2011, PLN filed a lawsuit against the Spokane County Jail, challenging its Postcard-Only Policy, its Magazine Policy, and its inadequate due process procedures. CV-11029 RHW. PLN successfully obtained a Consent Decree permanently enjoining the Defendants from: enforcing its Postcard-Only Policy; rejecting publication on a categorical basis, and rejecting lnail without giving constitutionally adequate due process. See Dkt. 31 at Ex. B pgs. 78.
32. In 2011, after receiving numerous complaints from the prisoners at the Chelan County Jail in Washington, PLN filed a lawsuit against the Chelan County Jail, challenging its ban on periodicals, magazines, and books, and its failure to provide adequate due process. CV11-337 EFS. PLN successfully obtained a Consent Decree permanently enjoining the Defendants from: rejecting mail because it is a periodical, magazine, pUblication, catalog, brochure, or book; and rejecting mail without giving constitutionally adequate due process. Exhibit 13 is a true copy of the Consent Decree in that case.
33. Based on my personal knowledge-from knowing hundreds of prisoners and their
families, reading countless government and other sources about prison conditions and issues
affecting prisoners and their families, writing and editing PLN for 21 years, and trying to find
lawyers to litigate on behalf of prisoners' rights-I know the following facts to be true:

SECOND DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT (CV 12-71-SI) - 8
9870.05 fcOl2203

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
TeI206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44 Filed 03/06/12 Page 9 of 11

Individuals incarcerated in jails face enonnous obstacles to successfully obtaining judicial relief
for constitutional violations related to the conditions of their confinement. These include: the
fact that the average duration of a prisoner's stay in a county jail might be less than the period of
tilne in which defendants have just to answer a complaint; the fact that the vast majority of
county jail inmates are struggling to cope with other personal crises related to the disruption that
sudden incarceration has wreaked on their lives; a lack of legal training; lack of financial
resources; high levels of functional illiteracy; ignorance of the legal system and how to use it to
vindicate constitutional rights; high rates of mental illness; and a lack of English language skills
all contribute to make it difficult for prisoners to successfully vindicate their rights. Friends and
family members of prisoners who wish to vindicate their First Amendment rights to send and
receive letters from prisoners also face similar obstacles, with additional concerns that any
attempt to vindicate their constitutional rights will lead to retaliation or negative consequences
for their incarcerated loved one. Nationally, the number of lawyers with the capacity, resources
and desire to litigate these issues on behalf of prisoners and their families is miniscule so for the
vast majority of prisoners and their families and friends access to a lawyer to vindicate their First
Amendment rights is non-existent.
34. As PLN stated eight years ago in its amicus brief to the Ninth Circuit in Clement,
PLN has litigated the speech rights of prisoners and their correspondents in order to preserve its own ability to accurately report and effectively distribute legal news relevant to prisoners .... PLN, because of its reliance on the Internet in continuing its nlission to provide timely and accurate legal news to prisoners and concerned citizens, and as evidenced by its past involvement in similar litigation, has a strong interest in defending the right of prisoners to receive, and nonincarcerated citizens to send, mail containing speech printed from the Internet. Exhibit 4, at 3. In light of society's fast growing reliance on the internet and the increasing population of prisoners in America, PLN's legal interest in vindicating the rights at stake in this litigation is stronger than ever.

SECOND DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT (CV 12-71-SI) - 9
9870.05 fc012203

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44 Filed 03/06/12 Page 10 of 11

35. Although it fluctuates, in the past 12 months, PLN has had on average 20 subscribers in the Columbia County Jail.

I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States of America that

the foregoing is true and conect to the best of Iny knowledge.

DATED this Jd['day of March, 2012, at

oV\

Paul Wright

SECOND DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT (CV 12-71-SI) - 10
9870.05 fc012203

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44 Filed 03/06/12 Page 11 of 11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 6, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing to the Clerk of
the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: • Marc D. Blackman marc@ransomblackman.com,pat@ransomblackman.com It Gregory R. Roberson grr@hartwagner.com,cej@hartwagner.com • Lance Weber lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org It Jesse Wing JesseW@mhb.com
MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS
lsi Katherine C. Chamberlain KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN OSB #042580 (206) 622-1604 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

SECOND DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT (CV 12-71-SI) - 11
9870.05 fc012203

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
TeI206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 1 of 54
EXHIBIT 1 TO
SECOND DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT
Ex 1 to Wright Decl, Pg 1 of 4

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 2 of 54

Prison Legal News - Frequently asked questions - FAQ

Page lof3

Emall
Password
I I! I Member Login Help

HOME

BOOK STORE

Book Review I FAQ's

SEARCH PLN

ADVERTISE

SUBSCRIBE

DONATIONS

CONTACT US

Interviews ! PLN links 1 PLN in the News ! Annual Reports I Referral Directory

VIEW CART

Articfes List Serv Messages Monday, March 05, 2012 6:15 PM

12 FRE ISSUESI InmilteMaallineSer'ice.om

If you would like more information about PLN you can call our office at (802) 257 1342, or you can email us at mailto: info@prisonlegalnews.org .

Q. What;s Prison Legal News?

A. Prison Legal News is an independent

monthly magazine that provides a cutting edge review and analysis of prisoner rights, court rulings

and news about prison issues. PLN has a national (U.S.) focus on both state and federal prison issues, with international coverage as well. PLN

provides information that enables prisoners and other concerned individuals and organizations to seek the protection and enforcement of prisoner's

rights at the grass roots level.PLN is published by the Human Rights Defense Center.

Q. What sorts of issues does PLN cover?
A. Prison Legal News' coverage includes court access, disciplinary hearings, prison conditions, excessive force, mail censorship, jail litigation, visiting, telephones, religious freedom, free speech, prison rape, abuse of women prisoners, retaliation, the Prison Legal Reform Act (PLRA), medical treatment, AIDS, the death penalty, control units, attorney fees and much more.Sample copies of the most recent copies of PLN are posted on our homepage in PDF format.

Q, What is PLN's circulation and readership?
A. As of November 2011 PLN has a circulation of approximately 7,000 hardcopy issues per month. PLN also has subscribers in European and Asian countries. About 65% of PLN's subscribers are state and federal prisoners, and PLN has prisoner subscribers in all fifty states. Based on PLN's November 2009 reader survey each subscriber's magazine is read by an average of almost 10 people, so the monthly readership of PLN is around 70,000. PLN also posts all of its back issues on its website. Those back issues have the complete content of the magazine, including aU advertisements.

Q. What type of people subscribe to Prison Legal News?
A. About 65% of PLN's subscribers are state and federal prisoners. The balance of PLN's subscribers include civil and criminal trial and appellate attorneys, public defender agencies, journalists, academics, paralegals, university and law school libraries, prison law libraries, investment bankers, prison rights activists, students, family members of prisoners and concerned private individuals. State-level government officials also subscribe to PLN, including attorney generals, prison wardens, and members of other prisoner related agencies.

Q. How does PLN support its operations?
A. PLN is a project of the Human Rights Defense Center, a 501 (c)(3) non-profit organization that is primarily funded by subscription and advertising revenue, foundation grants, book sales and individual donations. Subscription rates for prisoners are kept at a near subsidized level by the higher rates for non-prisoners and advertising revenue that enable PLN to cover its operating costs. PLN's financial self-sufficiency enables it to maintain complete editorial independence. We also gratefully accept donations and grants and receives grants from several large foundations.

Q. Does PLN have prisoner oriented advertising? A. Yes. Each issue of PLN has numerous advertisements from businesses and organizations nationwide that provide prisoner related personal and legal services and books. PLN only accepts advertisements from sources that provide their products or services in a manner consistent with their claims. PLN does turn down ads for products or services that were not reputable or were contrary to the editorial content of PLN. We are not a profitdriven publication. Therefore we can turn down advertising without having to worry about antagonizing shareholders expecting a satisfactory return on their investment.
Our website accepts advertising for a wide variety of products and services that are of interest to our website users.

https:llwww.prisonlegalnews.org/FAQ.aspx

Ex 1 to Wright Decl, Pg 2 of 4 3/5/2012

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 3 of 54

Prison Legal News - Frequently asked questions - FAQ

Page 2 of3

Q. What does an advertisement in PLN cost? A. PLN's prisoner advertising rates can be viewed by going to the tab that says "adverHsing." Contact us about website advertising.

Q. Does PLN sell books? A. Yes. PLN directly sells about four dozen prisoner oriented books, and indexes of past PLN issues. You can either order over the Internet with your Visa or MasterCard, you can call PLN's office and order with your Visa or MasterCard, or you can print the pages on your printer and mal! your order to PLN with the appropriate payment. A flat shipping and handling charge of $6 applies to aU book: and index orders under $50. Orders $50 and more are shipped at no extra charge. All PLN book and index orders are mailed at the U.S. Postal Service's media mail rate with the delivery confirmation option. Delivery confirmation provides PLN with a legal record of when a book and index purchase is delivered to a prison facility. This protects both the purchaser and PLN from prison mail rooms that are not conscientious in delivering mail.
Go to the PLN bookstore for more details.
Q. How long has PLN been published? A. PLN has been published monthly since May 1990.

Q. How is PLN produced?
A. Prison Lega! News has six fuB-time employees. We also have work study students, volunteers, part time employees and others who help as needed.

Q. How does PLN get the information published in the magazine?

A. PLN is on all the online news feeds for prison and jaH news. PLN has a subscription exchange arrangement with scores of other publications,

from well-known alternatiVe magazines to very smaH, independent newsletters. Another valuable source of information is the scores of newspaper

clippings about prison related matters mailed to PLN by readers in the U.S. and other countries. Imprisoned PLN readers also regularly send first

person accounts that provide PLN with "inside scoops." Many readers also send

court rulings that are a valuable source of not

normally reported information. PLN also investigates, develops and breaks news stories, some of which have been picked up by other media. Online

research by PLN staff are also a valuable source of news stories.

Q. Who writes for PLN?
A. PLN has "regular" writers and also solicits and publishes articles written by other writers, many of them in prison. Authors and activists who have published in PLN include: Noam Chomsky, Dan Savage, William KUnstler and Ron Kuby, Mumla Abu-Jamal, Ken Silverstein, Jennifer Vogel, Adrian Lomax, Raymond Luc Levasseur, John Perotti, WiUie Wisely, Christian Parenti, William Greider, Noelle Hanrahan, and many, many more.

Q. Where is PLN located? A. PLN's business and editorial office is located in Brattleboro, Vermont.

Q. Who manages PLN"s day-to-day operation?
A. PLN's editor is Paul Wright who is also the executive director of the Human Rights Defense Center, the non profit umbrella which pubJishes PLN. Susan Schwartzkopf is our business manager.

Q. Who is PLN's editor?

A. PLN is edited by Paul Wright.He can be contacted by the information listed on PLN's Contacts webpage.

Web: Contact Us

Email: mailto:pwright@prisonlegalnews.org

Q. What other media work does PLN do?
A. In addition to this website and its monthly magazine PLN published a critically acclaimed anthology titled The Ceiling of America: An Inside Look at the U.S. Prison Industry. PLN"s second book: Prison Nation was released in January 2003. PLN's next book: Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money from Mass Imprisonment was published by The New Press in Janaury, 2008. PLN's editor, Paul Wright, and our associate editor Alex Friedmann, do interviews with journalists and media personalities seeking information about prison issues. We also work with other media to develop and distribute prison related stories and news items. Click here to go to PLN's Media Interview Page.

Q. How much does a subscription to PLN cost? A. Subscriptions are $30/yr for prisoners, $35/yr for non-incarcerated individuals, and $90/yr for lawyers, government agencies and corporations. PLN regularly offers one or more special subscription "specials" at any given time. The current subscrlption "specials" are listed on the Subscription webpage accessed by clicking on SUbscribe Today!
Ex 1 to Wright Decl, Pg 3 of 4

https:1Iwww.prisonlegalnews.orglFAQ .aspx

3/5/2012

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 4 of 54

Prison Legal News - Frequently asked questions - FAQ

Page 3 of3

Q. How do I subscribe by mail or te/ephone to PLN?
A. You can print out the Subscription Order Form and mail it with the a check or money order for the correct amount to: Prison Legal News, P.O. Box 2420, West Brattleboro, VT 05303.

If you have a Visa or MasterCard you can order a subscription and/or any book sold directly by PLN by calling our office at 802 am to 5:00pm (East Coast Time) Monday through Friday.

from 9:00

Q. Can prisoners access or receive the material and information on the Prison Legal News website?
A: Prisoners generally do not have internet access. We encourage the distribution of information on our website to incarcerated persons by printing it out and mailing it to them. [f you are volunteering your time to research a topic for someone in a prison, jail or other detention facility please feel free to prlnt out articles and send them to the prisoner.
Q. What If1don't want to subscribe, but would like to make a contribution to Prison Legal News?
A. As a 501 (c)(3) non-profit organization, donations to PLN or the Human Rights Defense Center can be tax deductible. The same procedures are followed to mail or phone a contribution to PLN that are outlined above to subscribe. You can also donate online via our homepage.ln addition to accepting contributions at any time of the year, PLN has an annual fund drive. Contributions are used to fund PLN promotional programs and to ensure that low cost subscriptions can continue to be offered to prisoners.
Q. If I live in the New England area, can 1do volunteer work for PLN?
A. Sure. PLN has a regular need for people willing to volunteer a few hours of their Ifme to do envelope stuffing and sorting, particularly during the I week of each month. That time enables PLN's paid staff to focus on the business of running an internationally distributed magazine. As a non-profit organization, PLN is also always interested in people with specialized skills related to fund raising. Contact PLN's office at 802 257-1342 if you have any questions related to volunteering a few hours of your time or you want to contribute your specialized fundraising skills.We maintain a list serv on Google Groups for our Vermont area volunteers who are interested in helping out locally.

Thanks for having an interest in Prison Legal News, and we hope you decide to support our important work by subscribing, advertiSing, time or money to PLN!

Home I Book Store j Printed Issues I Advertise j Subscribe to PLN ! Contact us I View Cart I Terms
Copyright © Prison Legal News 2012
SHe designed and maintained by: AccuFind !nlemel Services Inc.@

https:llwww.prisonlegalnews.orglFAQ .aspx

Ex 1 to Wright Decl, Pg 4 of 4 3/5/2012

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 5 of 54
EXHIBIT 2 TO
SECOND DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT
Ex 2 to Wright Decl, Pg 1 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 6 of 54

From: 'Redacted

Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011'23:50

To: pwright@prisonlegalnews.org

, ,

Subject: question regarding receipt of material from Prison Legal News

My brother is incarcerated in North Carolina DOC. He called me .today to notify me that there was a "memo" placed around the prison to notify inmates that

Effective immediately July 11th inmates are no longer allowed items printed offthe internet.

your In trying to ascertain if this was a violation of my brother's rights at all, I found website and noticed this in
the FAQ section:

'''Q, Can prisoners access or receive the material and information on the Prison

Legal News website?

'

A: Prisoners generally do no! have internet access. We encourage the distribution of information on our website to incarcerated persons by printing. it out and mailing it to them. If you are volunteerilJg your time to research a topic for someone in a prison, jail or other detention facility please feel free to print out articles and send them to the prisoner.

Do you know if it is against any rights my brother has to receive information printed off the internet? For instance, I recently sent him numerous documents from a medical journal to help him diagnose symptoms he has been having that mimic carpal tunnel or a pinched nerve. I've also sent him NC statutes regarding other rules for prisoners, the law pertaining to copyrights, any many religious materials pertaining to his studies and faith, etc. I have never sent him anything that would pose a threat to the security of the prison system, any pornographic content, etc. And certainly this memo was not specifically sent to my brother, rather all inmates but it is a concern to me if I will not be able ,to aide my brother by sending him things frqm the internet- it seems like somehow this is not appropriate? Does this also pertain to etnails printed off and sent to him? Blog feeds that are printed and sent regarding the football lockout?

Have you any insight or anywhere you can point me to see if in fact there is sornething that can be done about this? Among many other things, this is one thing that I feel is certainly a violation of rights, but I'm just not sure now to know for certain beforel risk getting my brother in trouble by pursuing this further.
1

Ex 2 to Wright Decl, Pg 2 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 7 of 54

Thank you for your time.
Redacted

I
!

- sister of an inmate in the NCprison system

2
Ex 2 to Wright Decl, Pg 3 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 8 of 54
EXHIBIT 3 TO
SECOND DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT
Ex 3 to Wright Decl, Pg 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 9 of 54

Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions,

Page 1 of3

Logged in as: Carrie Wilkinson Firm: MacDonald Hoague Bayless Status: Member
I II I Edit Profile Log Out of PLN

HOME

BOOK
STORE

Book Review I FAQ's

SEARCH
PLN

ADVERTISE

SUBSCRIBE

DONATIONS

CONTACT US

Interviews I PLN finks I PLN in the News I Annual Reports I Referral Directory

VIEW CART

Articles list Serv Messages Monday, March 05, 2012 8:52 PM

2 FREE ISSUES!

California Internet Injunction Upheld
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the statewide permanent injunction issued by the U.S. District Court (N.D. Cal.) enjoining the Califomia Department of Corrections' (CDC) policy prohibiting prisoners from receiving Internet-generated mail. Prison Legal News also filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of the plaintifin this case. The brief was drafted by Tien lee of the Electronic Frontier Foundation on PlN's behalf.
Frank Clement. a prisoner at Pelican Bay State Prison (PBSP) had successfully prosecuted a writ of habeas corpus in the district court to enjoin PBSP officials from implementing their policy of arbitrarily prohibiting prisoner mall solely because it was Internet-generated. Affecting only about 500 of PBSP's 300,000 letters per month, and not meeting any of the
"legitimate penological interest" tests ofTumer v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), the policy was
deemed a prima facie violation of Clement's First Amendment rights. Because in the meanwhile, eight other CDC prisons had implemented copycat regulations in an attempt to bootstrap the ban into a statewide truism, District Judge Claudia Wilken broadened the sweep of her order into a statewide injunction. See: Clement v. California Dep't of Corrections, 220 F.Supp.2d 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2002); PlN, Feb. 2003, p.19.
CDC appealed, complaining that the injunction was broader than necessary to remedy the First Amendment violation. The Ninth Circuit strongly disagreed. It noted that CDC's ban was unconstitutional because it discriminated against the source of the mail, not because such mail violated some legitimate penological or security principle. The court further observed that this unconstitutional defect would not be cured by implementing the ban at other prisons, as CDC had suggested. In fact, since PBSP is California's most secure prison, if the ban didn't pass constitutional muster there, it would not pass elsewhere thus justifying the statewide breadth of the injunction.
In its First Amendment analysis, the court relied upon Prison legal News v. Cook, 238 F.3d 1145 (9th Cif. 2001) [prison regulation banning standard rate mail implicates both publisher's and prisoner's First Amendment rlghts] to conclude that prisoners retain their First Amendment fjghts to receive information while incarcerated. Adopting the district court's thorough analysis, the Ninth Circuit agreed that a blanket ban on Internet-generated mail was an arbitrary way to reduce mail volume; that it failed the Turner test because such policy did not demonstrate a rational connection to a legitimate penological interest; that it was no more likely to contain dreaded coded messages than otherwise-permitted wordprocessed documents; and because Internet-generated mail was inherently more, not less, amenable to tracking of its origin than any other type of mail. The court next found the ban sufficiently narrowly drawn, citing Ashker v. California Dept of Corrections, 350 F.3d 917 (9th eir. 2003) [PLN, Aug. 2004J.
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court's analysis, based on Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 870-872 (9th Cif. 2001) {scope of relief dictated by extent of violation established], that to nip this spreading ban in the bud would forestall repetitive litigation at CDC's 33 other prisons. The court found the injunction conservative in that it did not require court supervision, enjoined only an unconstitutional policy and did not interfere with prison mail security measures. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court upholding the statewide injunction. See: Clement v. California Department of Corrections, 364 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2004). Note: PlN previously reported (he enjoining of a similar ban in Arizona prisons. (See: Canadian Coa!itlon Againstthe Death Penalty v. Ryan, 269 F.Supp.2d 1199 (0. AZ 2003); PlN, Dec. 2003, p.35.)

https:/Iwww.prisonlegalnews.org/703 5_displayArticle,aspx

Ex 3 to Wright Decl, Pg 2 of 2
3/5/2012

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 10 of 54
EXHIBIT 4 TO
SECOND DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT
Ex 4 to Wright Decl, Pg 1 of 7

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 11 of 54

In the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FORTHE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case No. 03-15006

FRANK CLEMENT, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

On Appeal from the United States District Court For the Northern District of California, Judge Claudia Wiken,
Case No. C 00-1860 CW

BRIEF OF PRISON LEGAL NEWS AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
FRANK CLEMENT AND IN FAVOR OF AFFIRMANCE

July 1,2003

Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
Lee Tien Kevin Bankston Electronic Frontier Foundation 454 Shotwell Street San Francisco, CA 94110 (415) 436-9333 (415) 436-9993 (fax)

Ex 4 to Wright Decl, Pg 2 of 7

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 12 of 54
TABLE OF CONTENTS I. lNTERESTS OF AMICUS ................................................................ 1 II. ARGUMENT .................................................................................... 4
A. Prisoners have a First Amendment light to receive mail .......... 4 B. There is no common-sense connection between the ban on
Internet-generated mail and the goverinnent interests put forward to justify it.. .............................................................. 6 1. 111ere is no common-sense connection between the ban
on Internet-generated mail and the government interests put forward to justify it. ................................................ 7 2. There is no common-sense connection between the ban on Internet-generated mail and Defendants' concern over mail volume................................................................. 8 C. The ban on Internet-generated mail leaves prisoners with no alternative means of accessing valuable speech that is actually or practically available only online ............... ....................... 10 III. CONCLUSION............................................................................... 15
1
Ex 4 to Wright Decl, Pg 3 of 7

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 13 of 54
L INTERESTS OF AMICUS Amicus Curiae Prison Legal News (PLN) publishes a 36-page monthly magazine providing cutting-edge review and analysis of prisoner rights, prisoner-relevant legislation and COU1i rulings, and news about general prison issues. This infonnationl1elps prisoners and other concerned individuals and organizations protect prisoners' rights. Founded in 1990 by two prison inmates with a budget of $50 and access only to a typewriter and a prison law library, PLN is now a non-profit corporation with three fulltime employees, based in Seattle, Washington. PLN covers such issues as court access, prison conditions, excessive force, mail censorship and other free speech issues, prison rape, abuse of women prisoners, the Prison Legal Refonn Act, medical treatment for . prisoners, AIDS in prisons, the death penalty, and many more topics of great import to prisoners and those concerned about them. A purposeful publication with limited resources, the PLN magazine uses no color and contains almost nothing but infomiative text; no space or money is wasted on crossword puzzles or personal ads. Unsurprisingly, this Court has characterized PLN as "core political speech." Prison Legal News v. Cook, 238 F.3d 1145, 1149 (9th Cir. 2001). PLN subscribers and readers include state and federal prisoners, civil and criminal trial and appellate attorneys, judges, public defenders, jomnalists, academics, paralegals, prison rights activists, students, family members of prisoners, concerned private individuals, politicians and
1
Ex 4 to Wright Decl, Pg 4 of 7

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 14 of 54
government officials. As of December 2002, PLN was distributing approximately 4,000 issues per month, including overseas distribution to 23 countries. fu the United States, roughly 65% ofPLN's subscribers are state and federal prisoners, and PLN has prisoner subscribers in all 50 states. Thirteen percent of its subscribers are,located in California, more than any other state.
PLN maintains a stable of regular contributing writers, most of whom are imprisoned. PLN also uses an extensive network of freelance writers, again often imprisoned. To enable imprisoned writers to adequately research and report on an assignment, PLN typically must send source material via mail, such as news articles, case law, and other legal sources concerning prison-related issues, litigation, and legislation. To the extent resources allow, PLN also sends such materials to prisoners who request them, regardless of whether they are contributing writers.
PLN relies extensively on the Internet for,much of this material. PLN especially relies on govenunentWeb sites, as well as online databases such as Westlaw, Lexis-Nexis, and the free resource Findlaw, to locate and print necessary source materials. Internet sources are particularly important for timely repOliing on new court decisions and statutes that have not yet been published on paper.
PLN also relies on the Internet for pUblicity and distribution, maint,aining a Web site (www.prisonlegalnews.org) where it provides back issues for download, links to other Web sites relevant to prison legal issues,
2
Ex 4 to Wright Decl, Pg 5 of 7

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 15 of 54
and subscription order forms. PLN often receives printouts of these order forms from flIst-time subscribers who are incarcerated. As prisoners lack Intemet access of their own, they must receive these forms after they are printed out and mailed to them by friends or family. When resources allow, PLN intends to extend its Web site to include legal briefs and other informational material of use. to prisoners and prisoner-rights activists. Again, prisoners would have to rely on non-incarcerated friends and family to download, Plint, and mail those materials to them.
PLN has litigated the speech rights of prisoners and their correspondents in order to preserve its own ability to accurately report and effectively distribute legal news relevant to prisoners. See, e.g., Prison Legal News v. Cook, 238 F.3d at 1149 (challenge to a prison regulation bamling standard or "bulk" mail); Prison Legal News v. Schumacher, USDC OR, Case No. 02-248-MA (negotiated settlement with Oregon Department of Corrections under which all mailings from PLN will now be delivered to prisoners regardless of postal classification).
PLN, because of its reliance on the Internet in continuing its mission to provide tinlely and accurate legal news to prisoners and concemed citizens, and as evidenced by its past involvement in sinlilar litigation, has a strong interest in defending the right of prisoners to receive, and nonincarcerated citizens to send, mail containing speech printed from the Internet.
Plaintiff has consented to the filing of this brief, and Defendants have
3 Ex 4 to Wright Decl, Pg 6 of 7

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 16 of 54

DATED: July 1, 2003

__

_____

Lee Tien, Esq. (SBN 148216)

Kevin Bankston, Esq. (SBN 217026)

ELECTRONIC FRONTJER

FOUNDATION

454 Shotwell Street

San Francisco, CA 9411 0

Telephone: (415) 436-9333 xl08

Facsimile: (415) 43Q-9993

Attorneys for Amicus Curiae PRlSON LEGAL NEWS

16 Ex 4 to Wright Decl, Pg 7 of 7

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 17 of 54
EXHIBIT 5 TO
SECOND DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT
Ex 5 to Wright Decl, Pg 1 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 18 of 54

Emal!
Password
I II I Member Login Help

HOME

BOOK

STORE

Book Review I FAQ's

SEARCH
PLN

ADVERTISE

SUBSCRIBE

DONATIONS

CONTACT
US

Interviews PLN links I PLN in the News I Annual Reports I Referral Directory

VIEW CART

@Articles List Serv Messages Monday, March 05, 2012 9:06 PM
Click on a red or green state to view our legal pleadings and our friend of the court briefs.

Under PLN Court

consent

'.

DW80 'Of Both

Friends of Court: PLN US Supreme Court Amicus Brief in Banks v. Beard. Pennsylvania control unit ban on publications case. PLN US Supreme Court Amicus Brief in Goodman v. Georgia. Right of disabled prisoners to collect damages in ADA cases. 2005 PLN US Supreme Court Amicus Brief in support of certiorari in Jones v. Bock. Michigan PLRA administrative exhaustion case. 2005 PLN US Supreme Court Amicus Brief in support of plaintiff in Jones v. Bock. Michigan PLRA administrative exhaustion case. 2005 PLN Amicus Brief, Pavey v. Conley. Support for rehearing en bane in Seventh Circuit Indiana PLRA administrative exhaustion
case 2008.
PLN Amicus Brief, Williams v. Donald, US District Court case, Georgia DOC ban on internet downloads, 2005.
Ex 5 to Wright Decl, Pg 2 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 19 of 54
PLN Amicus Brief, Clement v. CDC. California Ban on Internet Downloads 2003 Haywood v. Drown, PLN amicus brief, USSC, Right to Sue Prison Employees in State Court, 2008 Norris v. Nelson, PLN AmIcus Brief 8th Circuit, Shackling Women Prisoners in Labor 2008 Hammer v. Ashcroft, PLN Amicus Brief, Cert Petitition to US Supreme Court, 2010 Mattos v. Agharanos HRDC Amicus Brief 9th Circuit Taser 201 0 Smith v. Almada, HRDC Amicus Brief 9th Circuit Police Hlding Exculaptory Evidence 2010
[Secure Website J Home I Book Store I Printed Issues I Advertise I Subscribe to PLN I Contact us I View Cart I Terms
Copyright © Prison Legal News 2012
Site deSIgned and maintained by: AccuFlnd Internet Services Inc.®
Ex 5 to Wright Decl, Pg 3 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 20 of 54
EXHIBIT 6 TO
SECOND DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT
Ex 6 to Wright Decl, Pg 1 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 21 of 54

--'

1 st

",

' , n ' .. \

"r q'l'"

L"{!t>
REt

,.

(lI
'"ffi
:I:

o 'ttl-
SlVJ'i

US POSTAGE

MAR 13 2011
COLUMBIA COUN1Y JAIL

To:

LO\.(I (. .e....

vJ 12- r;:J

'P..._ U"#""."...".i__
;- k

}-'4(,->-,,.-
'"J'io- f«,

......'." l"'-1 ",""-1-'-""'}.

C,{

.",«"

"B,r <...0-. .. .:;..... -:::p_::.-.L ;_,

("\ r-' i /"' L)_')iV

Ex 6 to Wright Decl, Pg 2 of 3

Joe Meek - Oregon's First Sheriff

Picture taken circa 1865

:...::::•.::!l_'..::.!..;':,:.•..-:::.:.:_";.'.;':.:.:.:-_.!

Ill""I,i,"iI,! I",,.ii",i,I,i"I"I,IIi,,n ,j,iil, ,,l,iIIi

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 22 of 54

Ex 6 to Wright Decl, Pg 3 of 3

'Y''"

<-",:.1 "I-:t:

L -vi V'>O '1
'\ \'

._.
\ I

I

Co: T C>lv

>"0,,,,, ','" cf1?t:;'':;;/'':6j:

'I

t

,-",j

JoJ "'\-r 'hI'\ v>o/..

'\.

','

T"""" "'.'"

\--1 "oS '0

I
V"Io/\

-0 ' . 'f?\''',_;J, (''\

"-.:J ,L
'" I

...
i

5J" .,;C) fii

-----yij7\i:i 'v" \

"""01,

,W"'t '\ l

i \v"\.

/0

'\ y':"f

'" o?

VI ''\<:'\

.)--f --1;"'':- ' t.'o,5

/..-
;'/'\""> -.;:>vol

it ",-"..A J;dJ"O'r)

v.>Y' o <,'

lM.J \- q 5" -.a-oj Cv f"J J)O",\

'f-''tJ, "It --\

/\Nt:\O.5

""' \ IoVO"')

.h,W

I1To, "\'" "J5"4)

/\w

v\

Jt·l '<.? --ql''1

\

(

\\ .

}

-"'Y'-"""
!I\t\:V9l-:

'('vo
C "16

l ,\",·,,")

+0

va'j- tOI'" '-"'''I Y\"V)

\-

"'",to. .. \ 0
fJ"'al0;c'}

\)J'b -L ·SJ"ifvi'O\.v\

T '-'cJ! ""j"'f
VO$'tl

/'1"""5 v: "<'ti?X-,,

1\ /2QA.

-t,.V'4(,\

/

,4

,.

v.r.::::' - r /\ -'-

1\

L -

\

"'"9

J \ \ +1-..\

'.'

\.
i

,...9

1.. ,"::')

'0'<l\"'}
I \

t\ .l

'O71/. W"O

vt

--" / ., +- ,»-,- 5'--.0 ),1/
I I
h\\"'''J -.1..

, ! [' "t 'C-'" O)----:JI\(l J/ C 51"""/ .>/'0,'1'

-<J'v,
_,(,(9".,\,0

'1 'C" J (;+ '0
J' r . J

'j---;:O-I'" r-Qv/5D i>"\

,I ;N."

hi

I'"

___

?\V\",(j

yVO jV(l.'t'<JV:,)V1\x)O(

?

]_ _."

v'. n-" /\

\.-.). V'

, " '......, ,,-.....

1-

'/-....-..,

v->/>/.

If' >.M4j

1.-0 1'O\..) /

-oj(1W

-:;>(\0:-=,-3-"
r,; 0\.1, tN'0
'0 ')-QV"",
"iJI.jT' 'v or"'!. \

C\.rr...

. 'f1"!9 M
";:,i..

I 'q/l-Jt VJ '
r T I v

/\??I,...

-"'--;'::;:-,

1
YJVV '/

,v O :t"'":\"-t,)f'..1
fi· ?')-/,+
J

'I r
J'!'>'I'-") \ I'

--""tf'1-\- vi
, \
j!
,\.-!-T) ..... \.

':¥'Jtl'i:7\ ,T y:'0VV;':7\V-
,\

'>P -;::rrY\01
.1

d t
., .....

-y-J ----:>) //F.,O-\",f"'i5 -

'I

\

.... :;; l-

.L

I

r"

.. '-'v..A vQ(jM T,v?WQ-$v:J+'-"\

\ >.J

-...J.

c: ....
\ IT

d?V (\Q. 1 /

)

--.-.

"';

'?rol'\

fra-\I/I-'l jVq:-t'O?:I'¥'l\.·

a\.AU
-)O'3f '1-

qf\"b

!
",,0 5i'\",q,,)

\I'" VQ

\/'0'1

1\'0'-';1'>0 V\;i '("''1

L

!

\:'"\ ""ll- l

,--

pvv

1:n1 t'-O\<J-.J '1'-0>-')

(

-:""'t

'PIt

-V:J -s.--cij -r'-"fi-o:;.,) --\ 'Co C-(J :-_\-",,,v.a.lJ

i- r--a:y\ 9- -

-iTj ')'-.()o--

',,(>7i(,<?: J ,.J- J'

J"" ,,'ld
/if"'? i'Zl'1

'.'1 t vi;
'1"0"''\

uov.o .I: 'wav\t hO,!/VO' h\j""'>..J

T\TT'

'\''''I

--'1+

P?'-lfr', .?-<It

""1 'i,"t i\

"')\ >AU \, .\-
! 1

,

...cn1 I "(VIet-

!

"'-t'

;"a!t(J:/Dq"1S
roc.. 1.

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 23 of 54
EXHIBIT 7 TO
SECOND DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT
Ex 7 to Wright Decl, Pg 1 of 4

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 24 of 54

,.<!"• • •

:::L./YI IL t/. S, C;'j;;;-eI1.
: if) +he. 51'"1<,,.1"1-: CO",,?},? ';;il.

il1a:l !Uet:+iCl1 SliP,P

inS' 111 ':)

S<fidi/Jf1 /.r;e: ,--ntlj{ Of"

r

a. i,OkJ.i1-f--h Nd

J 1.71.(:0

"£;t);g;'I1,'3 ;/1ehe"5:

. Oir"!: .hu
'!:;Y!t:.,

·,J·i;..1::i.'l

5'>-"i:;)
;;'Lr;i :'"J,Jl.;.. /}''':-

. :" .. . ..:.•,.,.

".

..

. Ph: ..rhtJv/d/J·; )l.?tt/e ?t? :flO

tJu" IJf hiS way Of S"cUI::h f'Of

: It,-

Jebil /1//<'). f n'

r:::c 7c1 ,-/-..t,Ii<; .FleW II Jc:l:ir ,4!U'/f?4

Ca.-n·:?' /i{'C' ;t/!!

f maN,

/111 n 'd1(Jl/ den,·-! " c'

aye

O-J-lic-f" Ol1l.!::1 C.O)'l;:ia.c:+ CJI Cr:-4YYYlU

t> ..·.:Ur-;-\Jl} .fl'CI.4·1 /J?! 9 (liNn J:;j, 'IV ,':S

l,/;,i'''l ':t\ .•

Cwrid i?J'!lch?l/t:l.fj/c.:.'t,I,I,#'

f'O{J1/rl.eIr!7... . :z:: CCt_I',lf S/C'?/:? cY eM

->:0L v=(=fO"..,.vu..
CCID# -""-"""-''''-''---7
Spoka1le County Jail 1100 W. MaHon Spokane, WA 99260

'02 1A 0004627019 MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 99260

y,/rj CJm-- • Edi-lpf
fh.)t,l1 I. /V£;uJ.p
f? 0, 80x ;?</.'''-D
INMATE CORRESPONDENCE

SJ

-..

f<:t.;J.( fo

OFF

278

11) ';'i!-e c.;:;/":rfurr.!- 0/ my

I - p ....L

S j tYl j?!.!3 (f't/.:;fr ate.::: 'rJ? C .iJ!I{PO.J-If.' Cf DiJ(" ['I:;

'./it.hlCr:. / :; lid-'l4 at?..·}ot:'c'"':..r-: t.Jr l'i':"!.·i

?

£:'.).:1)"(:

I

,

}

.,'
, :JiU

{

,"IJ il •• '

•

'.:

!

L l7<."c /

,

• ..'

jl i i.i.. ;i.. ll

.. T "'/;?,,,} -,I

II;!
I !j(:••

;11:.;1 ;'J .l,.F?".!;-1,.J;t';j';·1}71iu!£'J,iV •

.:ef- jyy} f'?t...V

.. I I)?Y r;r;1i-yl .

.rf"r:?,..,-;.'

/ .

2

...

t .; ....··"t ,-'"';,: yJ1t"i'..r/*

r

,

l'; ,.,f ....' /

,,, ..'

I
.. ::{..t,/:C'

!" .- ,\,.". ,

Ij I

Ex 7 to Wright Decl, Pg 2 of 4

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 25 of 54

1 Jesse Wing, WSBA#27751
JesseW@mhb.com
2 . Katherine C. Chamberlain, WSBA #40014 KatherilleC@mhb.com
3 MacDonald Hoague & Bayless
705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500
4 Seattle, Washington 98104-1745
206-622-1604 5
Lance Weber, Pro Hac Vice 6 lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org
Human Rights Defense Center 7 PO Box 2420
Brattleboro, VT 05303 8 802-257-1342

Hon. Robert H. Whaley

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SPOKANE

10 PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of

the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE 11 CENTER,

Plaintiff,

12

v.

No. CV-I1-029 RHW
DECLARATION OF BRINA CARRANZA

13 SPOKANE COUNTY; et aI.,

14

Defendants.

15

I, Brina Carranza, declare as follows:

16

I am an employee at the law firm of MacDonald Hoague & Bayless,

17 attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News. I am over the age of 18, and am

18 competent to testify.

19

20

DECLARATION OF BRlNA CARRANZA - 1
9870.Q2 cg0709(}1

MAcDONALD HOAGU£ & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle Washington 98104
Tel 206.6221604 Fax 206.343.3961
Ex 7 to Wright Decl, Pg 3 of 4

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 26 of 54

1

1. The following is a true transcription (grannnar and punctuation

2 uncorrected) ofthe text of Exhibit 7 (a prisoner postcard) to the Declaration of

3 Paul Wright:

4

1m a U.S. Citizen. [illegible] Detained in the Spokane County Jail. I

have received mail rejection slips regarding my family sending me

5

mail or Pictures. I have a 15 month old daughter, and am missing

inches offher toes (Growth). My grandfather is very ill and doesn't

6

know anything about these new mail changes. He shouldn't have to

go out of his way or search for ways to acconnnodate jail rules. In

7

reference to this new "Jail Rule," I can't receive Pictures, mail, "1

miss you dad!" cards, or any other only contact or communication

8

from my family. It is very stressful and psychologically tormenting. I

can't sleep or eat well due to this harassment. In addition, it raises

constitutional concerns; it in itself is Prejudicial error to my .

expectation of Privacy right for officers/Postalworkers to have visual

10

access to the content of my mail. It simply frustrates the Purpose of

our constitutional guarantees our Founding Fathers have established,

11

and has been settled law, many years now. If im not mistaken, my

right to Privacy has been the First amendment since the 1800s. I think

12

people need not forget that we are a government of law and not of

men.

13

(P.S. Please send me the latest issue and PLN's Legal books.

14

Thanks!)

15

I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States of

16 .America and the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct.

17

L DATED this

day of July, 2011, at Seattle, Washington.

18

19

20

DECLARATION OF BRlNA CARRANZA - 2 .
9870.02. eg070001

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS
705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle Washington 98104
Tel 206.622 1604 Fax 206.343.3961
Ex 7 to Wright Decl, Pg 4 of 4

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 27 of 54
EXHIBIT 8 TO
SECOND DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT
Ex 8 to Wright Decl, Pg 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 28 of 54

Spokane County Jail 1100 W. Mallon Spokane, WA 99260

n

...

"

Le.:<;a..l

.td«...JS

\P. '-'
150x 021.);;1.0 . . .

0%-\; [3ruW.Q.tprD VT

INMATE CORRESPONDENCE

SHERIFF OZZIE D. KNEZOVICB SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON OFFENDER INFORMATION (509) 477-2278
Iii",,I,I",II, II,;w;w.;w.·J1ip.@t$iw,l;lI?ili1J1RJW'iIl,pRG
- .............. ................. .....

o
(: \ ""1'.;

Ex 8 to Wright Decl, Pg 2 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 29 of 54
EXHIBIT 9 TO
SECOND DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT
Ex 9 to Wright Decl, Pg 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 30 of 54

,('•.• __,w .. _ ••.•• _
!

' ....._. _""eo ._.._ , w _•.

... __" .__.

.. ,,'

".-"____ •

• _ " " " ' " "_ _

_ _ ' _ _ ..

_ _ _ _ _ _. _• • _ _ • • _ _ . " , •

-" .

.---'

INMATE CORRESPONDENCE
SHERIFF OZZlB D. KNEZOVICH SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON OFFENDER INFORMATION (509) 477-2278
WWW.SPOKANESHERIFF.ORG

.------"..,,--. -...' .,,"-'" .-_.... ,..._......_..._..

De,,] ?... '" f
H,, :{ vJ D'" d/

2.106"'1 :
,"lOt',

',,? .•.<,.....

;

r \ r"::

.

f aI . . '

,.',.<,'1'.1"'""

r'l -t

y I
1>

Sc<'";J"'1

loc."roi {Gf." Mfort16Y.5 fa

I .: .

!s +0 .l

do,'nq

cJc. [VJCrl, J'.{: ,110 t/1 C-&n

{.wnrYJ

,/

!>,
If-s 01'1

+h<-

fic.sf

. I 5ySf<-"'7

+- 6

wv olf

"'[& (10

)0'23&-( o,b/? fo

b

i S ... nd

f<-vir/v" iy I'lg,j11 01'1 P",s+ (c,r).5 ;I/o PI'c--i-U.(c-S -froY")

0""',5

i of' M..) 1'(r'J-s of' ("",,",,'11 fh<J :S<7'Y if.-:, be-Ge,,,,,}v -jt,c''i J",nt- \,,,,lIc.. H,,,- +U-fl6&;

,

,

'-'

'f"'y !-1--0

+ke. i""l<'-' ,'I t:.oOQ''1 f!,Ul 011

or c,(QI!'v'l.,( Qt.} ,fh":j ctrJf-.-

!}/I'K or;.:r arc. 0 1'5,''/-,::5 ::r.'Y\ ' I &"" &It'}'"O,"/'C,"()ovJ ' f(...... -jr(ra au", 1h '"') I':'.')

I}

.3 j:"", 100/.('>, A---I- l7 160t «; WI-/'h A :J: A5S",.,",I+ j:Zo bbc(lWt'H.. tlo

!

J' SeA- Plu;,x., <:.ot>f."'l-+ .,1,:_ b",,, k +0 r1"'/.(& '5lAr,,-, 1)" :'.5 Ylos+ (&,(,,( j"",..s !",-c,00e

: ·Yav.
: l,,)

V-;c,..

,
;
"
I
l..,_.,..

"___" _... , . __ '"'."_._.........

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ "H_._ _ _ _ _.•. __....._ .....__ ,_." _".. ,•. w.¥..... .
Ex 9 to Wright Decl, Pg 2 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 31 of 54
EXHIBIT 10 TO
SECOND DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT
Ex 10 to Wright Decl, Pg 1 of 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 32 of 54

You may receive work time credit only if you are sentenced and your sentence order authorizes it. Any change of a job description or shift must be approved by a Supervisor.

INTERCOM SYSTEM

The call buttons in the cells are to be used for emergency pnrposes only. They are not to be used for any other communication. If the call buttons are misused, the inmate violating this rule will be written up for failure to abide by the rules of the Columbia County Jail.

LAW LIBRARY

I

All inmates of the Columbia County Jail will be given access to one hour in the law library per request. Use of the law library will be limited only by time and the need to maintain the safety and security of the facility. To gain access, you must submit a request form at least twenty-four (24)
.hours Irtildvance. Y6frWili be expeCfed·fotakeaiiOtepadaildpeiiCirwHh you to tlieiawIibraryto
assist you in your research. All law books, reference material and other articles must remain in the law library to ensure equal access for all inmates. There will be very limited copying capabilities available to you for which your account will be charged a fee per copy. No inmate will be denied this service based on an inability to pay.

When you finish, you are required to leave the law library orderly and neat. Please be aware that corrections staff cannot provide you with legal advice or legal assistance. If you have any questions, please consult your attorney.

LIBRARY

All inmates of the Columbia County Jail will be afforded ample opportunity to have access to library books within the jail library. The books may be delivered by a cart. All books must be returned to the library or the cart, prior to checking out more. If a search of your person or cell reveals that you have more than six books in your possession, you may be subjected to disciplinary action. Damaged books must be returned to a Deputy, immediately; Possession of damaged books may be grounds for disciplinary action.

You may have six (6) books in your possession/cell at any time. The six books may be any combination of novels, personal books, religious or educational materials.

MAIL

The mail is delivered to the Sheriffs Office per U.S. Postal Setvice guidelines, excluding holidays.

General Rules: You may send and receive correspondence through the U.S. Mail. Hand delivered mail, messages and notes will uot be accepted or forwarded to you.

Except for unusual circumstances, such as on holidays or weekends, incoming mail will be

forwarded to you withiu 24 hours of its receipt. Outgoing mail will be placed in a pickup box

within 24 hours of receiving it from you. If we receive mail for you after your departure, it will be

returned to the sender. You must notifY the post office of your forwarding address when you leave

the jail.

Ex 10 to Wright Decl, Pg 2 of 6

.Page 11 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 07/23/10 rev3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 33 of 54

Except for "Official or Legal and Confidential mail," staff may scan and inspect all incoming and outgoing mail.

"Official or Legal and Confidential mail" is all mail to or from your attomey, government officials, Jail Commander, Sheriff, courts, yom- doctor or medical facility, verifiable religious contacts, or the media. We may open and inspect this mail in front of you to ensm-e it does not contain contraband.

General Mail Rules: We may place limits on yow' mail because of its volwne, its affect on yom- rehabilitation or treatment, or for the safety, security, and good order of the jail. We may open and'inspect all mail for contmband and may read all personal mail.

We will provide an Inmate Mail Guide for members of the public. It explains mail rules and what they can and cannot send you. Ask a Deputy for copies. People may also call (503) 366-4630 to get the information ,··found·intheguide orTeaditonthejail's web'siteat:·· www.co.colwnbia.or.us/sheriff

"Do" Mail Rules for Inmates For mail, you must do the following:

1. Use only lead or pencils to write letters.

2. Use only jail-approved postcards sold through the connnissary or issued by staff for social

mail.

3. Keep the weight oflegal or official correspondence in? pre-stamped envelope below I

OWlce (28 gm). To keep a business envelope to one OWlce or less means the contents camlot

be more that four 8-112" x 11" sheets of standard weight paper.

4. Keep your friends and family informed if you received books, newspapers, or money they

have provided for you.

'

5. When you are released or transferred from the jail, send change-of-address notifications to

those that send you postcards and periodicals.

6. Put the retm-n address noted on the sample postcard below.9n

outgoing mail. Tell

people sending you postcards or other acceptable mail to use it to address mail to you. Write

the recipient's full name and complete address legibly on any mail you send.

"Don't" Mail Rules for Inmates You may not do any of the following:

I. Draw or write anything on a postcard in the address area or on the picture of the postcard other 111811 n81ue 8l1d address infonnation.
2. Send out jail fol'l11s for others to fill ont on your behalf. 3. Send proh ibited mail. 4. Send out jail property. 5. Order publications on credit or delayed billing from the jail. 6. Operate a commercial business or nonprofit 0l'g8l1ization from 111e jail. 7. Order correspondence courses unless you have ajail comm8l1d officer's approval. 8. Conduct commercial or personal bnsiness transactions or request services from a government
agency unless you have ajail comm811d officer's approval. 9. You may not send mail to 8l10ther inmate in this facility without prior written penuission.
Ex 10 to Wright Decl, Pg 3 of 6
Page 12 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 07/23/10 rev3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 34 of 54

Sending and Receiving Mail
You may send and receive conespondence only tlrrough the U. S. Postal Service. The jail intemal mail system for communicating only with jail staff. Any transfer of written connmmication on your part that does not comply with mail rules and procedures is a rule violation that subjects you to discipline. This includes sending notes to other inmates or notes, postcards or mail to anyone by way of a contact visit, court appearance, or il'ansport. People may not leave mail, messages, or notes for you at the jail. Personal mail must come on a commercially produced postcard which does not exceed 5 Y:, by 8 Y:, inches.

Except in unusual circwnstances and on holidays or weekends, we will deliver incoming mail to you within 24 hours of its receipt. We will put outgoing mail in a pickup box within 24 hours of receiving it from you. There is no pickup by the post office on weekends and holidays.

It is imp011ant that you use a person's complete and conect address when sending mail. If someone says he or ...· ..shedidnotreceivc-somethingyou sent and you did.notreceive.a.confiscation notice from us, iUs a matter for.
you to resolve with the post office-not the jail. For your convenience, the addresses of commonly contacted government agencies are in appendix 2, Government Pages.

We do not forward mail. If we receive mail for yoil and you are not here, we will return it to the sender. (Please tell those sending you mail to put on return addresses. We confiscate mail without return addresses or destroy it if you are no longer in jail.)

Legal and Official Mail
Legal mail is mail addl'essed to your attorney or comes from your attorney and is clearly marked "legal mail". Official mail is to or from confining authorities, like a jail command officer, the sheriff, the connty administrator, prohation authorities, district attorney, state attorney general, Governor, court, or a court official.

We will open and inspect legal and official mail in front of you to make sure it does not contain contrahand.

If you send this type of mail, you must label it on the front of the envelope as "legal mail" or "official mail"

or we will treat it as personal mail. We will treat mail from your attorney not marked as "legal mail" as

personal mail. You are suhject to disciplinary action and criminal prosecution tor fraudulently laheling an

envelope as legal or official mail.

..,'

Books
You lIIay receive up to three new or used books per month, which may be paperback or hardback. Hardback books are not allowed in male or female segregation. Inmates in segregation may only receive new paperback books. A person from outside the jail lUust pay for and order books directly from the publisher, a book club, or a reputable bookstore for you. Books may not be larger than 9 by 12 inches (228 by 305 mm). They may not have plastic or metal bindings.

Periodicals We do not accept any periodicals.

Acceptable Mail
We only accept packages that contain publications from an approved source. An incoming or outgoing envelope may only contain these types of items, and with the noted limits and restrictions:

Page 13 • Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 07/23/10 rev3

Ex 10 to Wright Decl, Pg 4 of 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 35 of 54

Acceptable Personal Mail

Type of Mail Item

Limits and Restrictions

Written correspondence

Must be a commercially produced postcard or legal or official mail. Excludes junk mai1.

Pictures

Only photographs printed on photo paper and used as a postcard, delivered via the U.S. Postal Service.

Checks and money orders We do not accept checks or money orders. Touchpay is available in

the lobby and can be accessed by phone or the Internet.

Personal business documents None, unless general mail rules would apply.

'

If it is not listed in this section, it is contraband and we will return the item to the sender, confiscate it, Of destroy it if it presents a health or safety risk.
. Prohibited Mail
We will not deliver or send lllail that:
1. Contains threats of physical harm, blackmail, extortion, or other criminal activity. 2. Concerns plans for escape, criminal activity, or activity that violates jail rules. 3. Is contraband material (tape, stickers, markers, crayons, foreign substances, etc.) 4. Is an item that could hide contraband. 5. Concerns sendillg or receiving contraband. 6. Encourages Of instructs ill how to commit a crime. 7. Contains gang-related or security threat group material. 8. Contains information that, if communicated, would create a danger of violence or physical
harm to a person. 9. Is written in code or suspected code. (This may include a foreign language if we cannot find a
translator in a reasonable period of time.) 10. Contains sexually explicit material, pictures or writlen language. 11. May create a sensation. (A threat to the safety, security, or good order of the jailor disrupts
your progress in a rehabilitative p r o g r a m . ) . · 12. Contains a foreign substance or bodily fluid. 13. Is from or addressed to an inmate in this con'ectional facility or on electronic home detention.
14. Is addressed to or from a victim of it crime that you are in custody for, either in pretrial or
'. sentenced status, or in any other no contact order. 15. Is from or to an inmate by way of a third party. 16. Is an item that exceeds size or number limits. 17. Is a publication that did not come directly from the publisher, bookstore, or book club. 18. Is an unacceptable check or money order. 19. Is unsolicited junk mail.

Mail Confiscation: We will give you a confiscation notice for mail we confiscate. When we confiscate items because they exceed a number limit, such as books or magazines, we will confiscate all of them rather than selecting some to bring the number down to the limit amount. We will return stored confiscated mail to you when you are released, if it was not disposed of for health or safety reasons. You may submit a grievance to ask for its return before then. We will return to sender any form of prohibited
Ex 10 to Wright Decl, Pg 5 of 6
Page 14 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 07{23{1O rev3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 36 of 54

mail. You may not get a notice that we have returned contraband to the sender.
Use of Envelopes You may use an envelope sold through the commissary to send these types of letters: I. Legal or official mail. 2. A legal or official mail letter that should not or cannot be folded or that is more than one ounce. 3. With staff approval, a personal letter that contains a program-related diploma or certificate that should not or can not be folded. You must have a Deputy confirm that you are sending a diploma or certificate before you seal the envelope.
You may not use these envelopes for any type of mail that does not meet one of the three criteria listed above. We will deduct the cost ofthe postage from your inmate account for acceptable manila envelopes.
. SeIJ.ding Certified Leg3Ior oi:'fiCi3IMaii You may send a legal or official letter using U. S. Postal Service 'Certified Mail and Return Receipt mail services. You will get receipts that you sent the letter and that the letter was received by the addressee. We will charge you the standard postal rates for these services. You must have money in your inmate account to pay the postal rates or have appropriate approval if you are indigent. A deputy will supply you with a request for Certified Mail form that you need to fill out and submit along with the letter. You may only send 2 certified-mail letters in a 30-day period.
Outgoing Mail Inmates will place all outgoing mail in the mail drop located in the day room of each housing unit. You are expected to legibly address your correspondence and use the proper postage. All outgoing mail must list the following return address:
Your full.l1ame Columbia County Jail 901 Port Avenue St. HelensOregon 97051
MEALS
Meals will be served three times daily at approximately 6:30 A.M., 12:00 P.M. and 5:00 P.M. Inmates on disciplinary lock-down are required to eat in their cells. All others will eat at the tables provided in the day rooms. Televisions will be off during the serving of meals. Once the meals have been served and the Deputy leaves the pod, .the television may be turned back on.
All special personal preference diet requests such as vegetarian meals must be pre-approved by the jail supervisors. All inmates on a personal preference diet will be charged a fee of $ 1.00 per meal to be taken directly out of their individual inmate trust account to cover the additional cost of these meals. Indigent inmates will not be eligible to receive this type of special diet. Do not save food from meal service.

Page 15 - COlumbia County Jail Inmate Manual 07/23/10 rev3

Ex 10 to Wright Decl, Pg 6 of 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 37 of 54
EXHIBIT 11
TO SECOND DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT
Ex 11 to Wright Decl, Pg 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 38 of 54

(

f
pe(fi(

r dt ..... 'iJ'.0

- _ : ' : _ - - " - " .."-.,'.,;;,,'-=-'- -

jj>,

,u;t r d.· "A tcl;a'G

tkc+Jk. V7e of G"'17 15

.

ff!! bcfh7 "" [, To 5e",c or

fel/'-<'\{(

i4tu,rtt-t:o,,- WI<.-

/},.,(f. 1\Ov

01"1-> .'f

rl'et""T:ol\ /reo IJ +1..", jt..;G f;f, :r-

Spokane County Jail 1100 W. Mallon Spokane, WA 99260

0.t; iA- 32..yr uU l'\dt v:1" Ck\ U,I"

Vc hJ. "" "" ",0 t " bIe 10 uS' c t'Z p/"""do

C"""vhiu.ie wd( M7 ()h.;LJn, or

1- =-""-0+ f'ccitY( f;ct-re,

;or

+(;"-1 -el,.,. d t'< )iJrf c..."-<-t]

y/b;J to' 'J-.
;'(D, eYf'L..:n Tl.,:1

",t\;M

cd

: tA:lOn \: k {! or yf o&J "'-hi J-I,!-ov

.-tLuc r.-r(

of plUff..( i" f lG c-o"-r1

c9

.

.ii"'" />,(5)- .,<Iv"" ""h!,'

e:4 '"

-;) <y",e,

Pcclt& hir{9t-.t; f.Jrt,,'i"
N'e141
PO /30): '2_82-0
vr . Wd' 13r"tlie bora)

J",{t tt...v 5' "'- "1 t (jv" «r tic

'

OF3 0.5

iCn." t t;irCo,\

1/0-"-> ruff:j INMATE CORRESPONDENCE

1L-.;j h t"-"- ... "if., boil' "1/3 1, !c.t

if,IOJ rtc;ev e I'-f M.'-1

, !

. f '>

0<1, r-7

1,$ 0"-. tV.. IrJf" d tic [Mk' I

,]f;,J,J: _

.[}.5v;Tbl'

- '---, .. ...." .-_.

SHERlFFOZZIED,KNEZOVICH
SPOKANECOUNTY,WASHINGTQN OFFENDER INFORMATION (509) 477-2278
WWW.SPOKANESHERlFF.ORG

, , l

i--'
<b

<..! :j

i--\--
l

¢'"

.u..

'"
-s:

.i-
-s:".

Ex 11 to Wright Decl, Pg 2 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 39 of 54
EXHIBIT 12
TO SECOND DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT
Ex 12 to Wright Decl, Pg 1 of 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 40 of 54

•.,,-<...J;::OVili If _ _
8pO!{Gl/0, wt\•. $W21S.

Floor ""

-Cell #

SpO ane County Jail

1100 West Malton

Spokane, WA 99260

"':q ,-_...

-:;l

P1TN£Vaow£S

021A

$ (I(Io44{)

0004627019 SEP 29 2010

MAILED fROM ZlPCODE 99260

/ fiL:5C)n Ge'1i--t\

jJulM-. :iAf;

v
/-or )

163f

c2L\b1 0 . . '. '

.....

"

.. - '

.. ' .

. -'

".:4; "

.-"; . .)
. " -< ,.. ,

>:..."..

",

.. , . '

\", ..;

INMATE'S MAIL Spo«aneCoMuty,Jall l1QOWestMililan _ """"J",n'l, \MA 9926Q-o::!;n

Ex 12 to Wright Decl, Pg 2 of 6

__ ..._...._------ _.-.,.-----_.._----_. ._-_..,-_..-----

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 41 of 54 Ex 12 to Wright Decl, Pg 3 of 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 42 of 54

..' ' ....
.<

-------
J- . tfcl;QJC --6-he--

-. .-
6Qilt_-.

i

: <

·20

1':---'- - - '
.

:
.

- '".

/-' '.

- . - - - - -...--....- - .-...---..- - - . - ..- - .- c - - - - - · - - · - - - -....- - - · - · · --

__ .-._. ..
,
-

.._-_.._------ - -

--

__ _. _ - .-..

---_.-.---.----0--- ._ _

Ex 12 to Wright Decl, Pg 4 of 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 43 of 54

·.

_.•

_ ..__. _ •. -r....,.""""" •. - . - - - - . - - - - - - - -

, .
COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE DETENTION SERVICES POSTCi\RD I LETTER I PACKAGE REFUSAL FORM

A postcard I

received for you on 0 9 . 0 ; : 3 , I Q

from:

NAME:

W'c.Jr-.c:, \$

I

ADDRESS:
.

w"" c d-,,=\-\--=\;-

D\'n(Y\obd:JL.{

grve:.-- \

99

This item Was returned to seher for the following reason:

'.

o 0 0 Exceeded size limit o Incomplete return address o Incornplete addressee

.. Letter/note with money order
0 Sexually explicit rnaterial 0 Glossy finish

Check not accepted
0 Book not paperback 0 Book not 'new 1m store'

o Unlmown/unapPfoved SUbstance (e.g., stickers, glue, glitter, lipstick" crayon, lipstick, etc... )

o Detrimental to the safety.,. security and/or orderly operation of this facility.

I

Other reason:r:--f)-\ -;;;:,...

ROUTING: Original to Inrnate Copy: Inmate file

Employee Initials I Nr.

Ex 12 to Wright Decl, Pg 5 of 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 44 of 54

SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE DETENTION SERVICES
POSTCARD I LETTER I PACKAGE REFUSAL FORM

TO:

___

_ _-=-_ _ CELL iot. - 00

LN

'

FN

MI

A postcardc(;tt:;)1 package received for you on

glo I {to

from:

_____

_____________________

ADDRESS: __-<'£4-J-f7-1-'P7-t---et=.U-,'

"-1_- __________________

-SPoIM7l£ lArA qq-Z11J

This item was returned to sender for the following reason:

o 0 Exceeded size limit

Letterlnote with money order

o 0 Incomplete return address

Sexually explicit material

0 Check not accepted 0 Book not paperback

o8 0 0 Incomplete addressee

Glossy finish

Book not new 1m store

Unknown/unapproved substance (e.g., ,stickers, glue, glitter, lipstick" crayon, lipstick, etc... )

Detrimental to the safety, security and/or orderly operation of this facility.

Other reason: POW:V-YoS"-rClh"P>

ROUTING: Original to Inmate Copy: Inmate file

Employee Initials / Nr.

\:
\

Ex 12 to Wright Decl, Pg 6 of 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 45 of 54
EXHIBIT 13 TO
SECOND DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT
Ex 13 to Wright Decl, Pg 1 of 10

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 46 of 54
__ . - - - - - - - -.... .••...•..............•..•..... ._.._-_...
Case 2:11-cv-00337-EFS Document 52 Filed 12/01111

1 Jesse Wing, WSBA #27751

JesseW@mhb.com

2 Katherine C. Chamberlain, WSBA #40014

KatherineC@mhb.com 3 MacDonald Hoagae & Bayless
705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500

4 Seattle, Washington

1745

206-622-1604

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

8
PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of 9 the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE
CENTER,
IO Plaintiff,

No. CV-1l-337-EFS CONSENT DECREE

11
v.

12 CHELA..N COUNTY; CHELAN
13 COUNTY SHERIFF'S OJ:<"FICE; BRIAN BURNETT, individnally and in his
14 capacity as Chelan County Sheriff;
lv1IKE HARUM, individually and in his I
15 capacity as Chelan County Sheriff; PHIL
8TANLBY, in his official and individual
16 capacity; and RON WINEINGER, in his official and individnal capacity,

17 Defendants,

l8

19

20

COME NOW the parties and request entry of the following:

21

L Plaintiff Prison Legal News pnblishes and distrihutes a monthly

22 jonrnal of eorrections news and analysis, and offers and selts books abemt the

23 criminal justice system and legal issues affecting prisoners, to prisoners, lawyers,

CONSENT DECREE - 1

Ex 13 to Wright Decl, Pg 2 of 10

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 47 of 54

Case 2:11-cv-00337-EFS Document 52 Filed 12i01111

1 courts, libraries, and the public throughout the Country. PLN engages in protected

2 speech and expressive conduct on matters of public concern. See

Legal

3 News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2005).

4

2. Defendant Chelan County is a municipal corporntion formed under

5 the laws ofthe State of Washington.

6

3. Defendant Chelan County operates the Chelan County Regional

7 Justice Center and satellite buildings located in Wenatchee, Washington, which

8 house convicted prisoners and pretrial detainees charged with federaJ, state or local

9 crimes. 4. Defendant Phi! Stanley is the Director of the Chelan Comity Jail. He
10 reports directly to the Board of Commissioners of Chelan County. Ron Wineinger
II
12 is the Deputy Director of the Chelan County Jail. Stanley and Wineinger are

13 employed by and arc agents of Chelan County. The)" are responsible for and

14 personally participated in creating, implementing, and enforcing the Jail's prisoner

15 mail policies at issue in this case.
16 5. All Defendants bave represented to Plaintiff that since 2001, hy
17 Chelan County Resolntion, the Chelan County Sherifl:'has not been responsible for
18 19 the operations oflhe Chelan County Jailor for the training and b'Upervision of the
20 Jail staff, and is not tile policymaker for the Jail policy governing mail for

21 prisoners. Plaintiff relies on these representations in cntering into this consent

22 decree. 23

(''ONSENT DECREE - 2

Ex 13 to Wright Decl, Pg 3 of 10

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 48 of 54

Case

Document 52 File(j 12101/11

1

6. On September 21,2010, Defendants enacted new policies that banned

2 all incoming periodicals and magazines except for one specific newspaper, and

3 banned all books of any kind. The Jail's Mail Policy stated, in pertinent part:

4

[The Chelan County Regional Justice Center1currently provides the

Wenatchee World newspaper to general popUlation inmates. No

5

subscriptions to any periodical or magazine will be allowed.

6

7

LIST OF UNAUTHORIZED lNCOMING MAIL

8

... Hardbound or paperback books of any kind.

9 Defendants refer to this mail policy as "Policy-Ill Inmate Mail Services."

10

7. The September 21, 2010 mail policy d.oes not provide an opportunity

11 for the sender to be heard to appeal the Jail's censorship decisions.

12

8. Defendants' "Mail Denial Notice" form states that the sender may

13 appeal the censorship decision, but denies the opportunity to appeal if the mail is

14 censored because it eontains unauthorized attachments or enclosures.

15

9. In December 2010 through September 2011, and afterwards, Prison

16 Legal News mailed its monthly journal, a soft-cover book entitled Protecting Your

17 Health and Safety, informational brochures about subscribing to PLN and book

18 offers, aud a catalog of books that PLN offers, in envelopes addressed personally

19 to prisoners at the Chelan County Jail.

20

10. The Jail censored at least 70 issues of the journal Prison Legal News

21 mailed to prisoners. For approximately one-half of the censored journals, PLN

22 received back a partial copy of the back cover marked "REFUSED" without 23

CONSENT DECREE - 3

MACDONALl} 110AGlJ£ & BAYLiSS 705 SeCond Avenue, Suite l500 Seattre WMhlnzxw 981/)..1
Tc1206.621.1604 fiix10i5-34JJ961
Ex 13 to Wright Decl, Pg 4 of 10

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 49 of 54

Case 2:1 'l-cv-00337-EFS Document 52 Filed 121Oii11

1 stating any reason for the censorship. For the other censored joumals, the Jail did

2 not retum the mail to PLN or provide any notice of censorship.

3

I L The Jail censored the one-page informational brochures, book

4 catalogs, and book offers that PLN mailed to at least 13 prisoners in envelopes.

5 The Jail did not return the mail to PLN or provide any notice of censorship for the

6 rejected maiL

7

12. The Jail censored 31 copies of the Protecting Your Health and Safety

8 book that PLN had mailed to prisoners, marked them "REFUSED" and retumed

9 most, but not all, of the books to PLN.

10

13. The Jail sent PLN a "Mail Denial Notice" fmID for two items of

11 censored maiL The forms state that the Jail rejected PLN's mail for the following

12 reaSOll: "Unauthorized attachments or enclosures in or on packages (no

13 administrative review)" and "No Books/magazines." The Jail failed to provide a

14 similar form or other notice to PLN for the other 112 items censored, nor did it

15 provide any notice to PLN about how to appeal the censorship decisions.

16

14. The Jail's censorship of PLN's mail, and its failure to provide due

17 process !lotice, have frustrated PLN's organizational mission, and have caused

18 Prison Legal News additional financial hann in the form nf diversion of its

19 resources, lost subscriptions, purchases of its puhlications, book purchases, and

20 retnrti to sender charges.

21

15. Defendants used this "Policy-Ill Inmate Mail Services" to censor

22 publications, newspapers, magazines, journals, and correspondence from other

23 publishers, book distributors, companies, and individuals.

CONSENT DECREE - 4

Ex 13 to Wright Decl, Pg 5 of 10

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 50 of 54

Case 2:1 i-cv-00337-EFS Document 52 Filed 12i01i11

1

16. On September 9,201], PLN filed a lawsuit in this matter. On October

2 21,2011, PLN filed a motion for preliminary injunction.

3

17. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects a

4 publisber's right to correspond with prisoners through the mail. Thornburgh v.

5 Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 408 (1989); Prison Legal News v. Cook, 238 F.3d 1145,

6 1149 (9th Cir. 2001); Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692, 699 (9th Cir.

7 2005). "[W]hen a prison regulation impinges on inmates' constitutional rights, fhe

8 regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. n

9 Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987). To withstand First Amendment scrutiny,

10 "prison anthorities ... mnst first identify the specific penological interests involved

! 1 and then demonstrate both that fuose specific interests arc the actual bases for their

12 policies and that the policies are reasonably related to the furtherance of the

13 identified interests. An evidentiary showing is required as to each point." Walker v.

14 Sumner, 917 F.2d 382, 386 (9th eir. 1990).

15

18. Defendants have not articulated a legitimate penological interest for

16 their September 21, 2010, mail policy prohibiting prisoners from receiving: (1)

17 periodicals or magazines, or other publications including catalogs and brochures,

18 or (2) paperback books. These policies are not reasonahly related to legitimate

19 penological interests. Defendants' ban on incoming periodicals, magazines,

20 paperback books, and other pnblications including catalogs and brochures, was

21 nnconstitutional under the First Amendment.

22

19. By enforcing the September 21, 201 () mail policies to censor PLN's

23 monthly joumal, PLN's informational subscription and book brochures, PLN's

CONSENT DECREE ·5

Ex 13 to Wright Decl, Pg 6 of 10

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 51 of 54

Case 2:11-cv-00337-EFS Document 52 Filed 12i01111

I book catalog, and the Protecting Your Health and Safety book, addressed

2 personally to prisoners at the Chelan County Jail, Defendants violated the First

3 Amendment.

4

20. Defendants fulled to afford due process protections to PLN when

5 censoring mail to prisoners. Defendants' notice when censoring Prison Legal

6 News's pnblications, catalogs, books, and correspondence was inadequate and

7 failed to provide an opportunity to appeal.

8

21. Defendants failed to provide minimum procedural safeguards to PLN,

9 in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

J {}

22. Defendants agree that a permanent injunction is appropriate.

11

23. The Ninth Circuit held in Keith v. Volpe, 833 F.2d 850 (9th CiT. 1987)

12 that a party which prevails by obtaiuing a consent decree may recover attorneys'

13 fees under § 1988 for monitoring compliance with the decree, even when such

14 monitoring does not result in judicially sanctioned relief.

15

24. The Parties agree that PLN shaH seek neither attorneys' fees nor costs

16 for monitoring compliance with this Order. This does not limit PLN's right to seek

17 fees and costs for any other action or enforcement effort (other than the cost of

18 monitoring compliance with this Order).

19

ACCORDlNGLY, the COURT HEREBY ORDERS, ADJUGES AND

20 DECREES as follows:

21

(1) Defendants' September 21,2010 mail policy and their mail practices

22 pursuant to that policy violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United

23 States Constitution in the following ways:

CONSENT DECREE - 6

Ex 13 to Wright Decl, Pg 7 of 10

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 52 of 54

Cilse 2:1 'l-cv-00337-EFS Document 52 Filed 12/0111 i

I

(a) The mail policy prohibited delivery of incoming periodicals and

2

magazines, and prohibited all other types of pUblications including catalogs

3

and brochures.

4

(b) TIle mail policy prohibited delivery of paperback books,

5

(c) Themail policy did not require that Defendants provide an

6

opportunity for Ihe sender to be heard to appeal Ihe Jail's censorship

7

decisions,

8

(d) The "Mail Denial Notice" form did not provide an opportunIty

9

for the prisoner-addressee or sender to appeal the censorship decision if tbe

10

mail is rejected because it contains unauthorized attachments or enclosures,

11

(e) With two exceptions, Defendants failed to send a notice or

12

otherwise identify the reason for their decision to censor PLN's mail, and

13

failed to provide an opportunity to be heard toPLN.

14

(2) Defendants Chelan County, Director Phil Stanlcy, and Deputy

15 Director Ron Wineinger, and their agents and employees charged with the

16 operation ofthe Chelan County Jail, are further enjoincd as follows:

17

(a) Defendants are enjoined from rejecting mail without giving

18

constitutionally adequate due process.

19

(b) Defendants are enjoined from rejecting incoming mail because

20

it is a periodical, magazine, or other pnblication including but not limited to

21

catalogs and brochures,

22

(c) Defendants are enjoined from rejecting incoming mail because

23

it is a paperback book.

CONSENT DBCRBE - 7

Ex 13 to Wright Decl, Pg 8 of 10

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 53 of 54

Casa 2:1'l-cv,·()()337-EFS Document 52 Filed 12J()1J11

I

(3) This permanent injunction applies to Defendants' successors,

2 including but not limited to any law enforcement agency, public entity, private

3 organization, public official, or private person, who takes over responsibility for

4 the opemtion ofthe Chelan Cmmty Jail in the future.

5

(4) Defendants are ordered In modify their mail policy and "Mail Denial

6 Notice" form to be consistent with this Order within thirty (30) days. Defendants

7 shall post the amendments in the inmates' living areas for a period of 90 days and

8 post the mail policy on their website, update their automated telephone message

9 and update applicable written material that are accessible to inmates.

10

(5) Plaintiff is a prevailing party entitled to payment by Defendants of

11 $180,000 which includes all clainls for damages ($H4,000.00), fees ($65,145.00)

12 and costs ($855.00) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1988. Defendants will pay

13 this sum withiu ten (10) calendar days ofthe entry of this Order. By agreement by

14 the Parties, PLN shall not seek and shall not recover attomeys' fees or other relief

15 for the costs for monitoring compliance with this Order. This does not limit PLN's

16 right to seek fees and costs for any other action or enforcement effort (other than

17 the cost of monitoring compliance with this Order).

18

(6) The public interest is served by the entry ofthis Order, whioh protects

19 the constitutional rights of pnhlishers and other persons who correspond with

20 prisoners by mail, and the right ofprisoners to send and receive mail.

21

(7) The Court retains jnrisdiction of this matter for the purpose of

22 enforcement of its Order.

23

CONSflNT DECREE· 8

Ex 13 to Wright Decl, Pg 9 of 10

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 44-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 54 of 54

Case 2:11-ev-00337-EFS Document 52 Filed 12101111

1

,2011.

2

3

4

Hon. Edward F.

5

United States District Conrt Judge

6

7 PRESENTED BY:

8 MacDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS

9

10 By:

Je se Wing, WSBA# 27751

11

J sseW@t'\ilHB.com

KatheJ1ne C. Chamberlain, WSBA #40014

12 .

katherinec@mhb.com

13

Attorneys for Plaintiff

14 FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 15

16 By: IslMilton Rowland via e-mail approval

Milton G. Rowland, WSBA #15625

17

Attorney for Defendants

.Foster Pepper PLLC

18

422 W. Riverside Ave., Suite 1310

Chelan, WA 99201

19

Phone: 5091777/1600

Fax: 5091777/1616

20

rowhn@foster.com

21

22

23

CONSENT DEC'REE • 9

Ex 13 to Wright Decl, Pg 10 of 10

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45 Filed 03/06/12 Page 1 of 4
Katherine C. Chamberlain, OSB #042580 katherinec@mhb.com Jesse A. Wing, pro hac vice jessew@mhb.com Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News MacDonald Hoague & Bayless 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104-1745 (206) 622-1604
Marc D. Blackman, OSB #730338 marc@ransomblackman.coln Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Ransom Blackman LLP 1001 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1400 Portland, OR 97204 (503) 228-0487
Lance Weber,pro hac vice lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Human Rights Defense Center 1037 Western Ave., 2nd Floor West Brattleboro, VT 05303 (802) 257-1342

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,
Defendants.

No.3:12-CV-71-SI
DECLARATION OF JESSE WING IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S REPLY RE MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

DECLARATION OF JESSE WING IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S REPLY RE MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 1 (CV 12-71-SI)
9870.05 fb240904

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45 Filed 03/06/12 Page 2 of 4

I, Jesse Wing, declare as follows: I am one of the attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News. I am over the age of 18, and am competent to testify. 1. Exhibit 1 is a true copy of the webpage titled "Inmate Mail" on the Columbia County Sheriffs website, printed on March 5,2012. 2. Exhibit 2 is a true copy of excerpts from the 2011 Annual Report of the Columbia County Sheriff s Office. 3. Exhibit 3 is a true copy of a declaration my office received from Juliebrie Magness, whose partner was incarcerated at the Spokane County Jail when the Jail restricted friends and family mail to postcards only. 4. Exhibit 4 is a true copy of a declaration my office received from Julie Davis, whose son was incarcerated at the Spokane County Jail when the Jail restricted friends and family mail to postcards only. 5. Exhibit 5 is a true copy of a declaration my office received from Chris Teuscher, who was a prisoner the Spokane County Jail when the Jail restricted friends and family mail to postcards only. 6. Exhibit 6 is a true copy of the Settlement Agreement and Consent Degree in Hamilton v. Hall, 3:10-CV-355 (N.D. Fla. 2011), at 1,11-12, in which a Florida jail agreed to halt its postcard-only policy regarding outgoing mail.

DECLARATION OF JESSE WING IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S REPLY RE MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 2 (CV 12-71-SI)
9870.05 fb240904

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45 Filed 03/06/12 Page 3 of 4

7. Exhibit 7 is a true copy of the Settlement and Release Agreement in Clay v. Pelle, 10-CV-01840 (D. Colo. 2011) in which a Colorado jail agreed to halt its postcard-only policy regarding outgoing mail. See Memorandum of Understanding at 12-16.
8. Exhibit 8 is a true copy of the Order Approving Settlement in Clay v. Pelle, (Settlement Agreement attached above as Exhibit 7).
9. Exhibit 9 are true copies of an article from The Spotlight dated December 14, 2011, posted on the internet at http://vvww.spotlightnews.net (printed March 6, 2012), and an excerpt of an article from The Clatskanie Chiefdated February 24, 2012, posted on the internet at http://www.clatskaniechiefnews.com (printed on March 6, 2012).
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.

6 DATED this

of March, 2012, at Seattle, Washington.

DECLARATION OF JESSE WING IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S REPLY RE MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 3 (CV 12-71-SI)
9870.05 fb240904

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45 Filed 03/06/12 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 6th, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing to the Clerk
of the Court using the CMlECF system which will send notification of such filing to the
following: CD Marc D. Blackman marc@ransomblackman.com,pat@ransomblaclanan.com CD Gregory R. Roberson grr@hartwagner.com,cej@hartwagner.com CD Lance Weber lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org CD Katherine C. Chamberlain katherineC@mhb.com
MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS
lsi Jesse Wing JESSE WING Pro Hac Vice Attorney (206) 622-1604 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

DECLARATION OF JESSE WING IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S REPLY RE MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 4 (CV 12-71-SI)
9870.05 fb240904

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 1 of 70
EXHIBIT 1 TO
DECLARATION OF JESSE WING
Ex 1 to Wing Dec, Pg 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 2 of 70

Inmate Mail

Page 1 of I

Search
f"lain Menu
Sheriff's Office Home Page Mission COntact Us (,olumbia County Website Press Releases Current Inmate List 2011 Annual Report
Divisions
Enforcement Patrol Marine Criminal Animal Control
Corrections Inmate Visiting Inmate Mall Inmate Phones Inmate Money Accounts Inmate Housing Fees Inmate Property Request for Proposals
Support Services Civil and Records Processing CHI. and Fingerplintlng
Get Involved
VIPS Searcll and Rescue r·1ounted Posse Reserve Program
Information
JaillnlT\tIte Census 2011 Annual Report
Facilities
Firing Range

Inmate Mail The inmate mail policy is under review at this time.
!.a,t Updated on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 08:11

Columbia County Sheriff's Office 901 Port Ave., St. Helens, OR 97051 (503) 366-4611 I Emergencies: Dial 911
© 2009 Columbia County Sheriff's Office

h; 4"b :,31 Recent Headlines 2llll.BnnualReJ1QJi
Neiqhbors Thwart
e(So reqUests QubU.c m!;>oorv suspect .cCSQ...$Iwrh aoil ReglJe
local'es Body of Missing Your Personal Safety
C(SO for Kids Resourcefu! LinkS
eeso is on
facebook!
ceso UP CLOSE
Informational Video, po your Sheriff's
Valid ;QjIML ilnd .c.s.s.

Ex 1 to Wing Dec, Pg 2 of 2 http://www.co.columbia.or.us/sheriff/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5&... 3/5/2012

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 3 of 70
EXHIBIT 2 TO
DECLARATION OF JESSE WING
Ex 2 to Wing Dec, Pg 1 of 4

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 4 of 70 Ex 2 to Wing Dec, Pg 2 of 4

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 5 of 70

I

Corrections Division

Jail Operations
The sheriff operates the jail, providing lockup to offenders and arrestees sent here by the courts and the 9 separate law enforcement agencies and community corrections department operating in this county.
A total of 16 deputies and five supervisors are responsible for staffing 4-5 posts on every shift in tbe jail-24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Supervisors double as floor deputies, especialJy since four staff positions and one command
nnsitinn wp.rp. rot from thp.

jail budget in 2011.
Jail Operations were reduced in 2011 when the capacity of the jail dropped from 255 beds to 150 beds due to a lack of funding. The reduction in jail staff and the higher cost to house an inmate has led to this reduction in jail beds.

In order to run a Constitutionally sound and safe detention facility, we need a certain number of staff to manage the population at given levels. We also need enough resources to feed and house the inmates, as well as to provide the medical attention required by the Constitution.
The jail capacity was reduced to 150 beds in 2011 in order to account for these realities. Once
Continued on Pane 15

14 Columbia County Sheriffs Office - 2011 Annual Report

Ex 2 to Wing Dec, Pg 3 of 4

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 6 of 70

Corrections Division

Jail Operations
(Continued from Page 14)
the jail population reaches 150, we now must release inmates according to a matrix program developed to ensure that the most dangerous offenders are kept in jail.
Of the remaining 150 beds, 85 beds are reserved for detention of federal inmates. The U.S. government pays local facilities to house its inmates who are awaiting trial. The Columhia County Jail is paid $78 per night per federal inmate in our facility. These bed rentals help keep the lights on and the staff employed to run an effective jail facility. Without our federal partners paying for the use of our facility, the jail capacity would drop below 50 beds, and could undermine meaningful levels of jail services.
A typical day in our jail begins with breakfast. The jail serves three meals a day to approximately 150 inmates. Mter breakfast, court transports and medicine passes occur. Later, visitation from family members of inmates, video court arraignments and inmate programs are managed by our deputies, who also must account for inmates every hour of the day.
Deputies conduct rounds every hour in fulfillment of state law. They process inmate complaints and adjudicate violations of inmate rules. They carry out post orders for their assigned posts (duty stations). They book, fingerprint and process new arrestees. They classify inmates according to the level of threat they pose to the safety and security of the facility. They release inmates from custody once they have finished their sentence, or they are released from the court.
Columbia County Sheriff's Office - 2011 AnnuaJ Report

Transportation

& Court Security
The Sheriff also is responsible for security atthe Columbia County Courthouse and for transporting inmates to and from court, as well as to and from other jurisdictions.

Two retired law enforcement

officers make

up the detail

responsible

for most of the

transportation

and security

needs on a day

to day basis.

These deputies

are employed

part-time and are augmented in their service

Dep__ R Magnuson

by corrections

deputies, our

volunteer re-

serve deputies

and our sworn

enforcement

deputies from

time to time.

The Transportation and Security Unit is managed by the Corrections Division, under a jail operations sergeant. Every year, the unit transports over 4·00 inmates to other jurisdictions. The unit will also pick up inmates bound for our jail from other jurisdictions.
Security is provided to the courthouse on a daily basis, and occasionally to some outside court functions at the direction of the courts. These duties are Dart of the duties assigned by the Oregon Constitution to the sheriff as a "ministerial officer of the courts."

15

Ex 2 to Wing Dec, Pg 4 of 4

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 7 of 70
EXHIBIT 3 TO
DECLARATION OF JESSE WING
Ex 3 to Wing Dec, Pg 1 of 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 8 of 70

Jesse Wing, WSBA#27751

JesseW@mhb.com 2 Katherine C. Chamberlain, WSBA #40014

KatherineC@mhb.com 3 MacDonald Hoague & Bayless

705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500

4 Seattle, Washington 98104·1745

206-622-1604

5

Lance Weber, Pro Hac Vice

6 lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org Human Rights Defense Center

7

PO Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303

8 802-257-1342

Hon. Robert H. Whaley

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SPOKANE

10 PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of

the HUMAN RIGl-ITS DEFENSE 11 CENTER,

Plaintiff,

12

v.

No. CV-I1-029 RHW
DECLARATION OF JULIEBRlE MAGNESS.

13 SPOKANE COUNTY; SPOKANE

COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; OZZlE

14 KNEZOVICH, individually and in his .

capacity as Spokane County Sheriff;

15 JOANNE LAKE, in her official and

individual capacity; LYNETTE

16 BROWN, in her official and individual

capacity,

1 7

Defendants.

18

I, Juliebrie Magness, declare as follows:

19

1. I am over the age of 18, not a party to this action, competent to testify,

20 and make this declaration based on my personal knowledge.

DEC LARAnON OF JULlEBRlE MAGNESS - 1

MACDON,\l,D HOAGUE & BAyLESS 705 Second Avenue,. Suite 1500 Seat1le Washington 98104
Te120G.622.1604 Fa."\. 206.343.3961
Ex 3 to Wing Dec, Pg 2 of 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 9 of 70
(

1

2. My partner, Chris Teuscher, was a prisoner confined to the Spokane

2 County Jail from approximately June 3, 2011, until July 2, 2011. Chris and I have

3 a child together.

4

3.. . Shortly after Chris went to Jail, J called the Jail's automated recording.

5 regarding sending mail to prisoners. That's how I leamed that prisoners in the

6 Spokane County Jail can only receive mail in the form of a postcard.

7

4. . I had a hard time figuring out where to purchase postcards. I didn't

8 have any postcards at home because I don't usually write to people on postcards. I

9 did not Imow where to go to buy a postcard either. Finally, after asking

for

10 about two days, I found out that the post office sells postcards, so I traveled to the

11 post office to purchase some postcards so I could write to Chris.

12

5. Writing to Chris on a postcard was expensive for me. By the time I

13 addressed the postcard to Chris, and wrote my full name (which is quite long) and

14 address, there is very little space left to commlUlicate. It can take me 6 to 15

15· postcards just to write one letter to Chris. I had to buy many postcards with

16 postage on them, when I normally would be able to mail a letter to him in one

17 envelope with one stamp. I paid approximately $12.80 to buy 40 postcards.

18

6. It was also difficult to write to Chris by postcard because I had to talee

19 extra steps to make sure that he could track what I was trying to tell him. When r

mailed him mUltiple postcards, continuing my message to him on each, I had to 20
mark the postcards by numbering them (1,2,3, etc.) so that he knew which

DECLARATION OF JULIEBRIE MAGNESS - 2
,,!!011.10l

IHACJ)ONhLl> l:IOAGtJE & 8"Yl,.ESS 705 Second Avcnuc,Sujte 1500 Seattle, Washiob>1:on 98104
Tcl20G.622.l604 Fax 206.343,3961
Ex 3 to Wing Dec, Pg 3 of 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 10 of 70

1. postcard to read first and which to read second, and so on. Additionally, because I

2 wrote Chris every day, I had to color code the numerical sequence becansemai1 is

3 not delivered in the Jail over the weekend. I would use one color for the postcards
that I sent on a Friday, a different color for Saturday, and then a third color for 4
Sunday. I could never be sure that all the postcards would be delivered at the same 5
time; my communication would not make sense if the postcards were not read in
6 order.

7

7. If there was not a postcard-only policy at the Spokane County Jail, r

8 would have written to Chris on the front and back of pieces of regular-size paper

9 and mailed them in an envelope, both of which 1 already own and keep at my

10 home.

11

8. I also had difficulty getting the Spokane County Jail to accept the

12 postoaTds I sent to Chris. One time, the USPS circled an address on my postcard

13 with crayon to make it cleaT where it was being mailed; the Spokane County Jail

14 rejected the postcard saying it contained crayon.

15

9. I could not communicate with Clu:is about really important matters,

16 like our financial information, while he was irijail. I did not want people we didn:t

17 know to be able to read infoffilation about om finances. I also had to limit the

18 iniormation I gave him about our son, again, because J didn't want everyone

19 knowing about what goes on in our family.

20

DECLARATJON OF JULIEBRIE MAGNESS" 3

M,\cDONIiLD HO,\Gl,JE & a" "LESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite !500 Seattle Washington 98104
Te120(1.622.1604 Fax206.343.396!
Ex 3 to Wing Dec, Pg 4 of 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 11 of 70
(

1

10. I was not able to communicate with my partner while he was in the

2 Spokane County Jail because of the mail policy that required me to send my

3 communication in the form of a postcard.

4

11. I have visited the Prison Legal News 'website and looked through

5 . sonle of the materials they have available online.. I hope that Chris does not spend
any more time in Jail, but ifhe does I would like to be able to mail him some of the 6
materials that Prison Legal News has available which I believe he would find 7
interesting and helpful.
8

9

I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States of

10 America and the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct tb the

11 best of my knowledge.

12

DATED this _ _ day of July, 2011, at Spokane, Washington.

13

14

15

16

,

17

18

19

20

DECLARATION OF JULlEBRJE MAGNESS - 4

HOAGlJE & )31\ 'fl..J:SS 705 SL'Cond Avenue, Suite. J500
Scrltlie. Washingwn 98104 Tel 206.622. 1604 Fax 206.343.3961
Ex 3 to Wing Dec, Pg 5 of 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 12 of 70

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I certify that on the date noted below I electronically filed this document

3 entitled DECLARATION OF JULIEBRIE MAGNESSwith the Clerk of the

4 Court using the CM!ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the

5 following persons:

6 Co-Counsel for all Defendants:

Milton G. Rowland 7 Foster Pepper PLLC
422 W Riverside Avenue, Suite 1310 Spokane, WA 99201 8 Phone: 509/777-1600 Fax: 509/777-1616 9 Email: rowlm@foster.com

Co-Counsel for All Defendants:

10

Robert B. Binger

11

Sr. Deputy Prosecuting Attomey SjJokane County Prosecuting Attomey's Office

W. 1115 Broadway, 2nd Floor .

12

Spokane WA 99260 Phone: 509/477-2881

Fax: 509/477-3672

13 Email: rbinger@spokanecounty.org

14

DATED this 8th day of July, 2011, at Seattle, Washington.

15

16

17

18

19

20

DECLARATION OF JULIEBRlE MAGNESS - 5
9870.02 cgOl1303

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500
Seattle, Washington 98104 Tei206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961
Ex 3 to Wing Dec, Pg 6 of 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 13 of 70
EXHIBIT 4 TO
DECLARATION OF JESSE WING
Ex 4 to Wing Dec, Pg 1 of 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 14 of 70

1 Jesse Wing, WSBA #27751

JesseW@mhb.com

2 Katherine C. Chamberlain, WSBA #40014

KatherineC@mhb.com

3 MacDonald Hoague & Bayless

705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500

4 Seattle, Washington 98104-1745

206-622-1604 5

Lance Weber, Pro Hac Vice
6 ]weber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org Hurhan Rights Defense Center

7

POBox 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303

8 802c257-1342

Hon. Robert H. Whaley

UN1TED STATES DISTRlCT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRlCT OF WASHINGTON AT SPOKANE

10 PRlSON LEGAL NEWS, a.project of

the HUMAN RlGHTS DEFENSE 11 CENTER,

Plaintiff,

12

v.

No. CV-ll-029 RHW DECLARAnON OF JULIE DAVIS

13 SPOKANE COUNTY; SPOKANE

COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; OZZIE

14 KNEZOVICH, individually and in his

capacity as Spokane County Sheriff;

J5 JOANNE LAKE, in her official and

individual capacity; LYNETTE

16 BROWN, in her official and individual

capacity,

17

Defendants..

I, Julie Davis, declare as follows: 18
I. I am over the age of 18, not a party to this action, competent to testify, 19
and m'ake this declaration based on my personal knowledge.
20

. DECLARATION OF JULIE DAVIS - 1

l'IfAcDONM.D J:lOt\GUE & BA)'LESS 70S Second Avenue. Suite 1500
Seattle W<lShing1on 98J04tel 206.622.1604 Fro:. 206.343.3961
Ex 4 to Wing Dec, Pg 2 of 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 15 of 70

1

2. My son, Chris Te\Jscher, was a prisoner confined to the Spokane

2 County Jail from approximately June 3, 2011, until July 2, 2011.

3

3. I wanted to write Chris every day that he was in jail. I thought it

would help keep his spirits up. 4
4. A few qays before Chris entered the Spokane County Jail to complete 5
his sentence, I leamed from the Jail's website that prisoners in the Spokane County.

6 Jail can only receive mailin the form of a postcard. I called and spoke with

7 someone who confirmed that this was the policy and that I would be required to

8 use postcards if I wanted to

to Chris while he was in jail.

9

5. r sent Chris postcards four separate times, but I stopped because it was

too hard to communicate what I wanted to say to him on a small postcard. Because 10
oftbe limited space, I had to write many postcards to include the same information 11
I would have written in one letter. I sent a total of21 postcards in the four times I 12
wrote to Chris. Each time, I hadto write his address and my address, and try to fit·
13 rriy message into the small space, over and over again.

14

6. The hassle of obtaining postcards, writing on them, and the monetary

J5 cost of having to mail so many (when compared with the cost of mailing one

16 letter), became too much for me.

17

7. The Jail's postcard-only policy also deterred me from writing toChris

because I did not want our private communications to be available for anyone to· 18
read. It was important to me that our communications remain private and I felt like 19
communicating by postcard meant that the information I relayed to him would be

20 available for anyone to read. For example, I wanted to keep Chris updated on the

DECLARATION OF JULfE DAVIS - 2

MACDONALD HOAGU£ &. UAYlXSS

705 Second Avenue. Suite 1500

. Seattle, Washington 98104

Tel

Fox 206.343.396 I

Ex 4 to Wing Dec, Pg 3 of 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 16 of 70

1 status of my health while he was in jail. I am a disabled person and I know that he

2 worries about me, so it was important to me that I tell him how I am doing. But I

3 didn't want people that don't1mow me to be able to read private infonnation about

my health and the health care Twas receiving. I didn't want everyone to know 4
about it, which is what I felt would happen if I put this information on a postcard 5
and mailed it to the Spokane County Jail..

6

8. I was only able to visit Chris one time While he was in jail. The

7 logistics of getting to the Jail and the Jail's visitation rules were too difficult for

8 me. Traveling is difficult for me because I am wheelchair bound. This made

9 writing to him even more important to me because that Was the only way I could
1,0 communicate with him while he was gone.
9. An issue arose regarding the length of Chris's sentence. His
11 Probation Officer told me to mail a copy of the Judgment and Sentence issued by
12 the Court to Chris in jail so he could get it worked out. I contacted the Spokane
13 Counly Jail by telephone and asked how to send Chris a copy of the court
14 documents he needed, or ifI should send them directly to Classifications at the

15 Spokane County Jail. The person I spoke to at the Jail told me that I could not mail

16 the documents to the Jail at all and that only his attorney could send court
17 documents.
10. The Spokane County Jail's mail policy hindered my ability to 18
communicate with my son ,,¥hile he was in the Jail because it required me to send 19
my written communications in the form of a postcard. 20

DECLARAnON OF JULIE DAVIS - 3

MACJ)Q/'i"LD HOt\GOl!: & B.\:rL!l:ss 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle.. Washington 98104
Tc\20G,622,1604 Fax: 206.343.3961
Ex 4 to Wing Dec, Pg 4 of 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 17 of 70

1

11. I had a collage of photos made into a postcard that I sent to ·Chris

2 while he was in the Spokane COUl1ty Jail. I have learned that the section of the
3 postcard that contained the stamp was cut off before the postcard was delivered to Clu·is. This mined the collage; it would not have been damaged if I had been
4 allowed to send it to him -in an envelope.
5 12. I am familiar with Prison Legal News and I have visited the Prison
6 Legal News website and looked through some of the materials they have available
7 online. I mailed information published by Prison Legal News to Chris when he

8 was incarcerated in Idaho. If Chris had been in Spokane county Jail for a longer
9 period of time, r would have mailed him Prison Legal News materials, as I had
10 done in the past. I hope that Chris does not need to spend any more time in Jail, but ifhe does I would like to be able to mail him some of the materials that Prison
I J Legal News has available which I believe he would find interesting and helpful.
12 13. I considered taking legal action against the Spokane County Jail to
13 enable me to better communicate with my son, but did not initiate any action due
14 to the short duration of his sentence. Had he been in the Jail for a longer period of

15 time, I would have done everything I could to fight the postcard-only mail polley.

16

I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States of

l7 America and the State of Washington that the foregoing is tme and correct to tile

best ofmy knowledge.

18

f 0>

.

DATED this ltf!.- day of July; 2011, at Spokane, Washington.

19

20

DECLARATION OF JUUE DA ViS - 4

MACDONALD BOA-CUE & l3A.)'tESS 105 Second Avenul!, Suite 1500 Scaillc, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622. J601\ Fax 206.343.3961
Ex 4 to Wing Dec, Pg 5 of 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 18 of 70

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I certify that on the date noted below I electronically filed this document

3 entitled DECLARAnON OF JULIE DAVIS with the Clerk of the Court using

4 the CMlECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following

5 persons:

6 Co-Counsel for all Defendants:

Milton G. Rowland 7 Foster Pepper PLLC
422 W Riverside Avenue, Suite 1310 Spokane, WA 99201 8 Phone: 509/777-1600 Fax: 509/777-1616 9 Email: rowlm@foster.com

Co-Counsel for All Defendants:

10

. Robert B. Binger

Sr. Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

11 Spokane County Prosecuting Attomey's Office

W. 1115 Broadway, 2nd Floor

12 Spokane WA 99260 .

.

. Phone: 509/477-2881

Fax: .509/477-3672

13 Email: rbinger@spokanecounty.org

14

DATE,D this 8th day of July, 2011, at Seattle, Washington.

15

16

17

18

19

20

DECLARATION OF JULIE DAVIS - 4
9870,02 egO! 1301

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500
Seattle Washington 98104 Te1206.622.l604 Fax 206.343.3961
Ex 4 to Wing Dec, Pg 6 of 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 19 of 70
EXHIBIT 5 TO
DECLARATION OF JESSE WING
Ex 5 to Wing Dec, Pg 1 of 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 20 of 70

1 Jesse WUlg, WSBA#27751
JesseW@mhb.com 2 Katherine C. Chamberlain, WSBA #40014
KatherineC@mhb.com 3 MacDonald Hoague & Bayless
705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 4 Seaitle, Washington 98104-1745
206-622-1604 5
Lance Weber, Pro Hac Vice 6 lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org
Human Rights Defense Center 7 PO Box 2420
Brattleboro, \If 05303 8 802-257-1342

Hon. Robert H. Whaley

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SPOKANE

)O PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of

11

the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,

12

Plaintiff, v.

No. CV-l1-029RHW
DECLARATION OF CHRIS TEUSCHER

13 SPOKANE COUNTY; SPOKANE

COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; OZZIE

14 KNEZOVICH, individually and in his

capacity as Spokane County Sheriff;

15 JOANNE LAKE, in her official and

individual capacity; LYNETTE

J6 BROWN, in her official and individuaJ

capacfty,

17

Defendants.

18

I, Chris Teuscher, declare as follows:

19

1. r am over the age of 18, not a party to this action, competent to testifY,

20 and make this declaration based on my personal knowledge.

DECLARATION OF CHRIS TEUSCHER - 1

MACl)ONALD I10AGllE & BAYLESS
705 Second Avenue, Sutic.1500 Seattle Washington 98104
TeI206.622.J604 Fn'l( 2063433961
Ex 5 to Wing Dec, Pg 2 of 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 21 of 70

1

2. r was a prisoner confined to the Spokane CountY Jail from

2 approximately June 3, 2011, until July 2, 20J 1.

3.

3. The Spokane County Jail would only allow me to receive written

4 communication from my family and friends that was contained on a postcard.

5

4. Receiving communication in the fonn of a postcard is very difficult.

6 My girlfriend sent me multiple postcards (sometimes up to 16). She numbered

7 them so I could read them in order, otherwise the communication would not make

8 . sense. On several occasions I did not receive one of the postcards (I remember not

9 getting #3 one time) which niade it very diftkult to understand what she was trying

10 to tell me.

11

5. My girlfriend and I have a son together. I was not able to keep up

12 with what was happening with him because we agreed it would be best not to write

13 private infonnation on the postcards. This was also true of financial infonnation;

14 we did not want people we don't know to read private details about our life

15 together.

16

6. It bothered me that because of the Jail's postcard-only policy, the

17 postcards were not only read by the mailroom staff (as a letter would be) but the

18 postcards can (and are) also read by the corrections officers who handle the

19 postcards from the time they leave the mailroom tmtil there are delivered to the

20 pnsoneJ:s.

DECLARATION OF CHRIS TEUSCHER - 2
?S10M cgOlilJOJ

J'l.1AcDoNALD lloAGUE & BA\'LESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle. Washington 98104-
Tel 206.622.1604- Fax. 206.343.3961
Ex 5 to Wing Dec, Pg 3 of 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 22 of 70

1

7. J understand that a friend of lnine sent me a letter containing a money

2 order that was returned to him by the Spokane County Jail; I did not receive a

3 rejection notice.

4

8. I was sentenced to 120 days, but the Jail calculated my sentence to be

5 122 days. I asked my mother to send me the Sentence and Judgment documents

6 issued by the Court so I could get it worked out. My mother told me she was

7 unable to mail those documents to me because of the Jail's mail policy. I believe I

8 was required to serve two extra days in the Spokane County Jail because of the

9 mail policy.

10

9. I am familiar with Prison Legal News and the monthly publication

J I they produce. Also, my mother sent me information fi'om the Prison Legal News

12 website when I was incarcerated in

I did not attempt to receive any

13 materials from Prison Legal News while I was in the Spokane County Jail because

14 of the short duration of my sentence. Had I been required to stay longer, it would

15 have been important for me to receive information that Prison Legal News makes

16 available to prisoners and their families.

[7

18

19

20

DBCLAMTION OF CHRIS TEUSCHER - 3
nS70.0.! eg06110)

MACI>ONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS

70S Second

Suite J500

Seattle Washington 9&104

Tcl206.622.1604 Fa"

Ex 5 to Wing Dec, Pg 4 of 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 23 of 70

1

. 1 declare under penalty of perjury of-the laws of the United States of

2 America arid the State of Washington that the foregoing is tme and correct to the

3 best of my knowledge_

4

DATED tllis 7-0- day ofJuly, 2011, at Spokane, Washington_

5

6

7

8

Chris Teuscher

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

DECLARATtON OF CHRlS TEUSCHER - 4

MACDoNALD HOhGtlE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, SlIile }SOO Seallle, Washington 98104-
Te! 206.622.! 604 Fa,'{ 206.343396 J
Ex 5 to Wing Dec, Pg 5 of 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 24 of 70

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I certify that on the date noted below I electronically filed this document

3 entitled DECLARATION OF CHRIS TEUSCHER with the Clerk ofthe Court
\
4 usingthe CMlECF system which will send notification of such filing to the

5 following persons:

6 Co-Counsel for all Defendants:
7 Milton G. Rowland Foster Pepper PLLC 422 W Riverside Avenue, Suite 1310
8 Spokane, WA 99201 Phone: 509/777-1600
9 Fax: 509/777-1616 Email: rowlm@foster.com
10 Co-Counsel for All Defendants:
11 Robert B. Binger Sr. Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
12 Spokane County Prosecuting Attorney's Office W. 1115 Broadway, 2nd Floor
13 Spokane, WA 99260· Phone: 509/477-2881
14 . Fax: 509/477-3672 Email: rbinger@spokanecounty.org
15 DATED this 8th day of July, 2011, at Seattle, Washington.
16

17

18

fiilll Carranza

19

20

DECLARATION OF CHRlS TEUSCHER- 5
9870.02 cC06130 I

MAcDoNALD ROAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 2063433961
Ex 5 to Wing Dec, Pg 6 of 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 25 of 70
EXHIBIT 6 TO
DECLARATION OF JESSE WING
Ex 6 to Wing Dec, Pg 1 of 18

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 26 of 70

Case 3:10-cv-00355-MCR-EMT Document 133-1 Filed 1.2101/11 Page 1 of 1.7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION

MARCIE HAM1LTON etal.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

No. 3:10-cv-355 MCRIEMT

WENDELL I-fALL,

Defendant.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AN)) CONSENT DECREE Plaintiff: Marcie Hamiltoll, individually and on behalf of the SettleJi1ent Class defined herein (hel'einaJler "Plaintiffs''), and Defendant, Wendell Hall, in his official capacity as Sheriff fol' Santa Rosa County, P[orida (hereinafter "Defendant Sheriff' and collectively referred to as the "Parties"), hereby agree to and submit the following Settlement Agi'eement and Consent Decree (hereinafter "Consent DecI'ce") foJ' adoption and entry by'the Court.
I. RECITALS A. WHEREAS Plaintiffs filed this action on Septembel' 13,2010, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and seeking to enjoin the Defendant ShedfffroIll forbidding inmates hOllsed in the Santa Rosa County Jail (hereinafter the "Jail"), in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U,S. Constitution, fi'0111 sending letters enclosed in envelopes to their parents, children, spouses, friends, loved ones, or other correspondents (hereinafter the "Postcard-Only Mall Policy"), as described in Santa Rosa County Outgoing Mal! Procedure, Standard Operating Procedure No. 15.48; and

Ex 6 to Wing Dec, Pg 2 of 18

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 27 of 70

Case 3:10-cv-00355-MCR-EMT Document 133-1 Filed 12101/11 Page 2 of 17

B. WHEREAS the United States Distriet Court for the Northel'I1 Distriet of Florida

h(ls subject matter jurisdiction over this.displlte; see 28 U.S;c. § 1331 (federal question) and 28

U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) (civil rights); and

C. WHE'R.EAS the Pm-ties, in an effort to avoid the burden, costs and inherent risks

of further litigation, agree that it is in the best interests of the Parties; and

D. WHEREAS tbe Parties have engaged in extensive discovery in the above-

captioned matter, inclllciiJlg the exchange of documents, preparation and responses to requests for

production of documents, requests for admissions, interrogatories, and depositions; and

E. WHEREAS this action has been celtiHed by the Court, pursuant to Rule 23,

Federal Rules of Civil

as a class action on behalf of all current and future detainees in

the Jail who are subject to or affected by the Postcard-Only Mail Policy; and

F. WHEREAS by agreeing to this Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree

(hereinafter "Consent

the Defendant Sheriff does not admit to liability; and

G. WHEREAS the signatories' to this Consent Decree represent tbat they are

authorized to enter into this Consent Decree, and promise to carry out the varioLls promises and

representations made herein; and

H. WHEREAS this Consent Decree

a general release and, upon execution

by the Defendant-Sheriff of the promises and representations made herein and the COUlt's entry

of this Consent Decree, the Defendant Sheriff will be released fl'ol11 all claims and liability as

stated in this Consent Decree; and

r.

WHEREAS the Parties agree that the relief provided herein is narrowly drawn

relief that extends no JiJrther than necessary to correct the alleged violation of Plaintiffs'

Page 2 01'17
Ex 6 to Wing Dec, Pg 3 of 18

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 28 of 70

Case 3:10-cv-00355-MCR-EMT Document 133-1 Filed 12/01/11 Page 3 of 17

constitutional rights, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the alleged violation of

Plaintiffs' constitlltional rights, pursuant to 18 V.S.c. § 3626(a)(I)(A); ancl

1.

WHEREAS the Parties agl'ee that the terms and conditions of this Consent Decree

constitute a fail') reasonable, and adequate resolution fOl' the Plaintiffs) pursuant to Rule 23(e)(2),

Federal Rules ofCiviJ .Pl'Ocedure,

NOW, THEREFORE, it is mlltllally agreed between the Parties, sllbject to the Court's

entry of this Consent Decree, as fol10v,ls:
n.

DKFINITIONS

1. The foHowing ter111S as used in this Consent Decree have the meanings set forth

below in this Paragraph. In construing these definitions, the singular shall include the plural and

the plural shall include the singular:

(a) "Envelope COrl'cspondencc" means correspondence enclosed in an

envelope, Such correspondence includes, but is not limited_ to, letters, paperwork,

newspaper clippings, photographs, drawings, or a combination of one or more of these

items.

(b) "Postcard" means a piece of light-colored card stock of dimensions

consistent with the postcards sold by the United States Postal Service.

(c) H'Privilcged" describes a piece of correspondence that is sent to or from a

court, attorney, governmental official or agency, or news media.

(d) "Non-Privileged" describes all other correspondence that is not otherwise

Privileged.

Page 3 of 17
Ex 6 to Wing Dec, Pg 4 of 18

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 29 of 70
Case 3:10-cv-00355-MCR-EMT Document 133-1 Filed 12/01/11 Page 4 of 17
(e) Ulndigcnt hllnntc" rei:ers to a Jail inmate who, for the last seven (7) consecutive days, has had no more than one dollar ($1.00) in his or her inmate account tl1(}t may be used foJ' the pU!'Cbase OfC01111llisS8t'y items.
(f) HWritillg Materials" means a \:vriting instrument (e.g., pen or pencil) approved by the .Iai!, and:
(I) 1'01' every piece of Envelope Correspondence, also one (I) No. 10 sized envelope of any color, two (2) pieces of light-colored paper measuring at least 7.25" wiele by at least 10.5" tall, and postage sufficient fol' mailing a one ounce Envelope COl'respondence via First Class U.S. Mail (The Defendant Sheriff will provide prepaid postage to the inmates or affix the postage to the correspondence after receiving it from the inmate for mailing); or
(2) For every Postcard, also one (I) Postcard, and postage sufficient for mailing a Postcard via First Class U.S. Mail (The Defendant Sheriif Volil! provide pl'epaid postage to the inmates 01' affix the postage to the correspO!ldence after receiving it from the inmate for mailing).
(g) An inmate is "Booked Hud Processed" at the earlier of (i) the court's failure to order the inmate!s release at the inmate's first appearance hearing or (ii) the expiratioll oftwenty.(24) hOllt's after the inmate's initial custody at: the Jail.
(b) "Jnil" refers to the'Santa Rosa County, Florida, Jail. III. SETTL.EMENT CL.ASS
Page 4 of 17
Ex 6 to Wing Dec, Pg 5 of 18

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 30 of 70

Case 3:1O-cv-00355-MCR-EMT DoclIment 133-1 Filed 12/01/11 Page 5 of 17

2. The Settlement Class, as used herein, wi!! hereby be defined as all current and

future inmates incarcerated or detained at the Jail.

IV. TERMS AND EFFECT OF CONSENT DECREE

3,

Full Resolution. This Consent Decree resolves in fuJI all claims against the

Defendant Sheriff by all Plaintiffs, including m'llJ1cd Plaintiff Marcie I-familtol1, except the issue

of Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs as set forth below, involving alleged violations of their

First and Fourteenth Amendment l'ights, or of any other federal, state or local law, regulation,

duty, OJ' obligation \·vhich arc based upon or could be based upon OJ' arise fr0111 the facts alleged

in Case No. 3:10-cv-3550-MCR-EMT, filed in the United States District COllrt, Northern

Division of Florida, Pensacola Division,

4, Release. Upon execution by the Defendant Sheriff of the promises and

representations made herein and the Court's entry of this Consent Decree, the Plaintiffs agree

that the Defendant Sheriff is released fj'om any and all liability. claim, action or demand of

whatever kind or sort which any of them might have against the Defendant Sheriff, except the

issue of Plaintiffs' attorneys' tees and costs as set forth belO\v, and that they release Defendant

Sherifft)'olll any and aI! grievances, suits, causes ofactioll, and claims of any nature whatsoever,

V>.lhether kno\l.,ll1 or unknown, including but not limited to all claims

in this action

together with any and all charges, complaints and claims, which are based on

facts or

occurrences prior to the execution of this Consent Decree,

S, Merger. This Consent Decree contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon

by the Parties hereto regarding the subject matter of the instant proceeding, and no ora!

agreement entered into at any time nor any written agreement entered into prior to the execution

Page 5 of!7
Ex 6 to Wing Dec, Pg 6 of 18

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 31 of 70

Case 3:1O-cv-00355-MCR-EMT Document 133-1 Filed 12/01/11 Pa[Je 6 on7

of this Consent Decree shall be deemed to exist> or to bind the Parlies hereto, 01' to vary the terms

and conditions contained herein, except as expressly provided herein,

6.

Lhlbility. Nothing contained in this Consent Decree, nor any Dreier entered by the

Comt adopting this Consent Decree, is or shall be construed as an admission by the Defendant

Sheriff of the truth of any

OJ' the validity of any claim asserted in the Complaint, 01' of

the Defendant Sheriff's liability therefor, nor as a concession or an admission of any fault 01'

omission, of any act or failure to act, 01' of any statement, written document, or report heretofore,

filed 'or made by the Defendant Sheriff. Nor shall this Consent Decree nor any confidential

papers related hereto and created for settlement purposes only, nor any- of the tenns of either, be

offered or received as evidence in any civil, criminal 01' administrative action or proceeding

against the Defendant Sheriff:: 1101' shall they be construed by anyone for any purpose whatsoever

as an admission or presumption of any wrongdoing on the part of the Defendant Sheriff, nor as

an admission of the Detendant Sheriff that the modifications or concessions given hereunder

represents the relief that cOlild be recovered at triaL However, nothing herein shall be construed

to preclude the use of this Consent Decree in order to effectuate the consummation, enforcement,

O!' modification of its terms.

7. Assignment. This Consent Decree shall apply to all persons who are members of

the Settlement Class. This Consent Decree creates no rights in favor of any other person and

creates no obligations 01' duties all the part or the Defendant Sheriff beyond the terms of this

Consent Decree. This Consent Decree shall bind all parties to this action as well as the

successors in office to the Defendant Sheriff, and to any other person or entity who in the future

operates the Jail. Defendant Sheriff agrees to lise his best efforts to make the requirements of

this Consent "Decree known to each of his employees, deputies, and agents who are responsible

Page Gof-17

Ex 6 to Wing Dec, Pg 7 of 18

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 32 of 70

Case 3:10-cv-00355-MCR-EMT Document 133-1 r=ilecl12/01/1:l Page 7 of 17

For operation of the Jai I. Should the Defendant Sheriff hereinafter enter into a contract for the

operation of the Jail by another entity. whether public 01' private, the Defendant Sheriff shall

insure that the terms of tbis Consent Decree fire incorporated into such contract, and the
,
Defendant Sheriff shall be required to insure that the entity operating the Jail complies with the

terms of this Consent Decree. Nothing set forth in this particular Paragraph shall bar or limit the

comes 'PO\:vcr to enforce the terms of this Consent Decree, or the right of the Defendant Sheriff

or any Sllccessor Sheriff or any other person or entity who in the future operates the Jail to

petition the Court for modification of this Consent Decree.

8. Enforcement. Except as otherwise provided in this Consent Decree, if class

cOllllsel believes that there has been a failure to comply with the terms of this Consent

before moving the Court to redress the non-compliance class counsel must notify the Defendant

Sheriff and his counsel in writing of the alleged non-compliance and include in the notice

sufficient speciflcity so that the De1:bndant Sheriff can identify the nature of the allegation,

including describing with particularity the term(s) oftbe Consent Decree that are alleged to have

been violated, 'the specific errors or omissions upon which the alleged violation is based, and the

corrective action -sought. Upon class counsel's request, the Defendant Sheriff shall provide

additional, relevanfinformation pertinent to the alleged violation. The Parties then have

eight (28) days fi'om the date of written notification to meet and confer to attempt to resolve the

issue or issues. Tf the Parties are unable to

the dispute witbin twenty-elgbt days,

class counsel may me a Illation or notice \",ith the Court seeking appropriate relief. Class

counsel may file such a motion without substituting new named representative plaintiffs, if the

named plaintiffs at the time of the entry of this Consent Decree are 110 longer members of the

class at the time of the filing of such (1, motion.

Page 7 of 17

Ex 6 to Wing Dec, Pg 8 of 18

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 33 of 70

Case 3:10-cv-00355-MCR-EMT Document 133-1 Filed 12101/11 Page 8 of 17

9. COUl't Approval. The Parties agree th8t they will take aJ! necessary and

appropriate steps to obtain preliminary approval ft'Ol11 the Court of this Consent Decree, final

approval and entry by the Court of this Consent Decree) and dismissal of the Glction with

prejudice, subject to the

jUt'isdiction to enforce this Consent Decree and adjudicate any

dispute over Plaintiffs' a1torney fees, costs. and litigation expenses.

10. Effective Date. This Consent Decree shall be effective immediately upon the

Court's entry ofl'111s Consent Decree.

1J. Settlement Contingent. on Court Adoption. The Parties agree that tbis C01)Sent

Decree is subject to anel conditioned upon the Comt's entry of this Consent Decree, In the event

that the Court declines to approve or enter this Consent

the Parties agree that· this

Consent Decree shaH be null and void and without prejudice to the Parties' rights,

12. WaiveI' of Appeal. Upon the Court's enuy of this Consent Decree, tbe Parties

waive their rights to appea,J any existing order, decision or

in this action. The Parties

further waive their rights.to appeal the Court's entry of this Consent Decree.

13. Default. Subject to the foregoing terms, and following the Court's entry of this

Consent Decree, no default by any person or party to this Consent Decree in the performance of

any or the covenants or obligations Linder this Consent Decree, or any judgment or order entered

in conjunction therewith, shall 8ffect the dismissal of the Complaint,· the preclusion of

prosecution of actions" the discharge and release of the Defendant Sheriff, or the judgn'lent

entered approving these provisions, Nothing in the'preceding sentence shall be construed to

affect the Court's jurisdiction to enforce this Consent Decree on a Motion for Contempt or any

other motion seeking appropriate relief,

Page 8 of 17
Ex 6 to Wing Dec, Pg 9 of 18

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 34 of 70

Case 3:1O-cv-00355-MCR-EMT Document 133-1 [=ileci12iOlill Page 9 of 17

!4, Captions. The captions of this Consent Decree are for oonvenience of reference

only and in no way

limit, 01' describe the scope 01' intent of this Consent Decree.

! 5, Recitals: The parties agree that recitals set forth above are true and that they

constitute a part of this Settlement.

V. INMATE MAlL PROVISlONS

16. The Defendant Sheriffs specific obligations regarding Jail policies and practices

pursuant to this Consent Decree are as follows:

Cal Inmates May Send Lette,·s. The Defendant Sheriff will not prohibit or restdct

Jail inmates from mailing

Envelope Correspondence to

cOl'l'espondents outside the Jail, except as set forth in paragraph 16(g);below.

Cb) Provision of Writing Materials upon Intake. The Defendant Sheriff will

provide each inmate at the time the inmate' is Booked and Processed with

sufficient Writing Materials so that the inmate may send two (2) pieces of

Envelope Correspondence at no cost to the inmate.

Cc) Provision of Writing Materials to Indigent Inmates. The Defendant Sheriff

\·vi11 provide each Indigent Inmate with sufficient Writing Materials so that the

ilUllate may send per week one (I) piece of Envelope Correspondence and two (2)

Postcards, at no expense to the inmate. The indigent status of an inmate wi!! be

based upon the status of the inmate's account for the seven (7) day perIod p,:ioJ' to

the issuance of. indigent packages. If an inmate is determined to be indigent, the

Defendant Sheriff will provide the indigent Inmate with an indigent package that

lnduc\es the Writing Materials at the time of the next issuance of the packages,

not to exceed two weeks.

Page90f17

Ex 6 to Wing Dec, Pg 10 of 18

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 35 of 70

Case 3:10-cv-00355-MCR-EMT Document 133-1 Filecl12!01/11 Page 10 of 17

Cd) Provision of Lcgnl Writing Matcl"hlls to rlldigent Inmates. The Defendant

Sllcriff wil! provide each lndigent Inmate, upon request, with sufficient Writing

Materials so that the Indigent Inmate Illay send pel' v,Ieek two (2) pieces of

Privileged Envelope Correspondence, at no expense to the inmate. Absent an act

of nature or a declared slate of emergency, the Defendant Sheriff must provide

slIch Writing "Materials at the next indigent package "distribution, not to exceed

two (2) weeks from the Indigent Inmate's request for sLich Writing -Materials. The

Writing Materials provided to the Indigent Illlnate may be pJ'e-stamped as

"pl'ivileged mail" and restricted to that purpose. If an inmate specially requests

Writing -Materials to send urgent Privileged Envelope Correspondence before the

next regular indigent package distribution, the Defendant Sheriff wil1 respond to

the special request within three (3) days.

(e) Sale of Writing Materials. The Defendant She"iffwill offer for sale to each Jail

inmate, on a basis of not less than once per week, the foUowing:

(1)

an unlimited number of Postcards;

(2)

at least eight (8) No. 10 sized envclopes of any color;

(3)

at least one (I) notepad of light-colored paper measuring at least

7.25" wide by at least 1005" tall;

(4)

an unlimited number of postage stamps for Postcards and Envelope

COl'l'0spondence; and

(5)

an unlimited number ofNe. 10 sized envelopes, which may be pl'e-

stamped as "privileged mail" and restricted to that pUJ'pose.

Pugc 10ofl7
Ex 6 to Wing Dec, Pg 11 of 18

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 36 of 70

Case 3:10-cv-00355-MCR-EMT Document 133,1 Filed 12/01/11 Page 11 of 17

(f) Pric;e of 'Wrif:il1g Matcrinls. Writing Materials sold to Jail

by the

Defendant Sheriff, his agents 01' contractors, will not be priced any greater than

the price regularly charged by the U,S. Posta! Service foJ' such items.

(g) No Content or Volume Restrictions. The Defendant Sheritf will 110t censor or

restrict the number of Postcards or Envelope Correspondence a Jail inmate can

send 01' receive, 0'1' t[le length, language, content, recipient OJ' source of such

Postcards or Envelope Correspondence, except where the restriction is necessary

OJ' essential to preserve inte1'l1a1 order and discipline, maintain institutional

secUI'ity against escape or unauthorized entry, or rehabilitate the sentenced

inmates or prevent the sending of (i) threats of physical harm against persons or

threats of criminal activity, Oi) threats of blackmail 01" extortion, (iii) plans for

escape, (iv) codes, (v) plans for activities in violation of facility rules, or (vi)

information, which if communicated, would create a clear and present danger of

violence and physical harm to a human being.

(h) Third-Party Provisions. The Defendant Sheriff will not prohibit 01' restrict the

number of blank Postcards or envelopes a Jail inmate can receive from outside

correspondents, so long as such envelopes and postcards bear no postage, or

OJ) have First Class postage printed and permanently affixed py a postal meter or

the U,S. Post81 SeJ'vice, Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Defendant Sheriff

may limit the number of such blank envelopes a Jail inmate may receive from

outside correspondents to a maximum of two (2) envelopes pCI' incoming

con'espondence, Furthermore, the Defendant Sheriff may prohibit Jail inmates

fl'om possessing 1110re than ten' (10) sllch envelopes at anyone time. The

Page 11 ofl7

Ex 6 to Wing Dec, Pg 12 of 18

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 37 of 70

Case 3:10-cv-00355-MCR-EMT Document 133-1 Filed 12/01/11 Page 12 of 17

Defendant Sheriif may treat as contraband any such envelopes over these limits,

but wi!! transmit to the inmate the remaining nOll-contraband items (leti'ers,

drawings) in the incoming correspondence.

(i) Third-Party Inmate Provisions. The Defendant Sheriff will nat prohibit 01'

['estriot .the number of envelopes, postcards and Writing Materials a Jail inmate

can exchange, give, or receive fi·om other Jail iIimates, so long as such envelopes)

postcards and Writing Materials contain no message or markings written by

a11otl1el' Jail inmate, Ot' except where the restriction is necessary 01' essential to

prevent the sending or receipt of Ci) threats of physical harm against persons or

threats of crimina! activity, (ii) threats of bJackmail or extortion) (iii) plans for

escape, (iv) codes, (v) plans fat' activities in violation of facility rules, (vi)

information, which if communicated, would create a clear and present danger of

violence and physical harm to a human being, or (vii) where the envelopes,

postcards or writing materials are used fol' purposes of gambling OJ' bartering.

17. Within fifteen (15) days ["0111 the COurt's entry of this Consent Decree, the

Defendant Sheriff shall revise fill written policies, procedures, orders, regulations ancl rules to

contbnn to the above specific injunctive relief, including, but not limited to, Santa Rosa County

Outgoing Mail Procedure for Security Staff - Standard Operating Procedure No. 15.48, Santa

Rosa County Inmate Mail Procedure - General Order No.

and the Inmate Handbook, and

shall provide a copy of all such revised policies, procedures, orders, regulations and rules to class

counsel.

VI. NOTICE

Page 120fl7
Ex 6 to Wing Dec, Pg 13 of 18

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 38 of 70

Case 3:10-cv-00355-MCR-EMT Document 133-1 Fileci12/01/11 Page 13 of 17

18. Pmsu.,;t to Rule 23(e), Federal Rules of Civil ProeedUl'e, the Defendant Sherin;

v,lithin seven (7) days of the Court's preliminary approval of the Notice of Proposed Settlement

(hereinafter "Notice") attached to this Consent Decree. as Exhibit A, shall provide the Notice to

those niel1lbers of the Plaintiff Class presently confined at the Jail, by posting a copy of the

attached Notice in each dorm until December 31, 2011 in a'place plainly readable and accessibJe

to inmates generally, and providing a copy of the attached Notice individually to any inmate who

is not hOllsed in a common dormitory setting. The attached Notice shall be posted and

distributed in English and Spanish. The cost of pl'Oviding such notice and distributing copies of

this Consent Decree shall be horne by the Defendant Shel'iffin his official capacity.

19. Class members shall have until December 31) 20 It, to tile with the Clerk of the

Court any written objections to this pl'Oposed Consent Decree, with a copy to class counsel. The

Defendant Sheriff shaH provide li-ee paper, envelopes and postage to any indigent inmate who

wishes to file

to this

Decree. Such communications with the Court shall be

considered privileged legal mail by the Defendant Sheriff, his agents and employees.

VU. COSTS, EXPENSES AND ATTORNEYS' FEES

20. Prevailing Party. Defendant Sheriff agrees that Plaintiffs are the prevailing

parties in this action and, as such, are entitled undpr 42 U.S.C. § 1988 to reasonable attorneys'

fees, costs and expenses. The Defendant Sheriff is liable for and will pay Plaintiffs sllch

reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. However, the Defendant Sheriff reserves the

right to challenge any'and all aspects other than liability of Plaintiffs' application for fees, costs

and expenses. The Parties wi.ll endeavor in good faith to resolve the CUl'l'ent anci!lary dispute

over the amount of reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses before the Court's final

approval and entry of the Conselit Decree. However, if the Parties are unable to resolve this

Page 13 of 17

Ex 6 to Wing Dec, Pg 14 of 18

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 39 of 70

Case 3:10-cv-00355-MCR-EMT Document 133-1 Filed 12/01/1.1 Page 14 of 17

8ncill81'Y dispute'before the Court's final apPl'Ovaland entry of tile Consent Decree, the Plaintiffs

wil! waive any claim and entitlement to reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses incurred

in resolving this ancillary dispute after the Court's final approval and enhy of the COnS0!)t

Decree.

21, Taxable Costs. Plaintiffs' counsel shall file a Bill of Costs and other appropriate

papers as required by Rule 54.2, Local Rules oflhe Northern District of Florida, within ten (10)

days of the coul'es cntry of this Consent Decree.

22. Attorneys' ,Fees and Litigation. Expenses. Plaintiffs' counsel shall submit

appropriate papers l'egarcling Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and related nontaxable litigation expenses

to the Defendant Sheriff's counsel within twenty-eight (28) days of the COllrt's entry of this

Consent Decree.

f01." the Parties shall thereafter have twenty-eight (28) days to meet and

confer in an attempt to settle all attorneys' f(';es and related nontaxable expenses. If the matter ,is

not settled within the twentYMeight (28) day time frame,

counsel shall submit

appropriate papers to the Court as an application for their l"e£lsonable attorneys' fees and related

nontaxable expenses, pmsllant to Local Rule 54.1 (£), Local Rules of the Northern District of

Florida.

23. Enlargement of Time. The aforementioned time ti-ames for attempting to settle

Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, costs and expenses may be extended by the tiling the Court of a

Joint StipUlation ofEnlargcment.

VIlI. CONSENT AND EXECUTION BY PARTIES AND COUNSEL

WHEREFORE the Parties and their counsel do hereby agree to the terms and conditions

of the Consent Decree as set forth above, subject to the Court's entry of this COllSCllt Decree

below.

Page 14orl7

Ex 6 to Wing Dec, Pg 15 of 18

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 40 of 70

Case 3:1O-cv-00355-MCR-EMT Document 1.33-1 Fileci12/0JJll I'ClUO 15 of 17

{Vi Uh

Marcie

"',-"

Rcpmscnwtive

\\. 0\

Wendell nail

Sheriff or

Rosa County

5755 Ensl l'."lilton Rot!,d

r-,'filton, FL32583

Ben,19:1 :(iu

te-venson (Flu. BaL No. 59B909)

ACU\) Found. of Fla.

Po.s! Of[icc Box 12723

Pensaco!:'!, FL 3259'.1-2723

T.786.363.2738 F. 786..163.1985

JoJJy. and h:tcr.son, P.,A. 2145 Delta Blvd., Stc. 200 Tallah"ssec,FL 32303-4209 (850)422,(1282
(850)942-5524 (facsimile) kcl@jollylaw.com

RJlndllll C.Berg, Jr, (Fla. Bar No. 3.18371) ,Joshuu A. Glickman (Fill, Baf No. 43994) Sh,mll A. HelieI' (Fin. Bar No. 4(346) Horida Just'icc JliS-li!'u!.c, Jric,
toO SE Second SI., Sic. 3750 Miami. FL 3313.1-2115 RBcrf:!,@Flo,riclaJusiiccIf)sHtut'e.org T, 30S::;S1.L20S·1 r.305.358.09.10

Randall C. 1\111I'Shllil (Ft". Bnr No.: 18.1765)

RMm:;;hull@'aclun,()rg

Mada 1(l1ya"'1O(FI". Bnr No.: JOSGO.!)

M K<I Y<ll\lI1\@nclufLorg

American Civil

Union Found, of FIll.

4500 Biscayne .Blvd.) Ste, 340

Miami j FL 33.137 T. 786.363.2707

COIlNSel for Defendallt Sherijj

Page 'ISM ,17

Ex 6 to Wing Dec, Pg 16 of 18

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 41 of 70

Case 3:10-cv-00355-MCR-EMT Document 133-1 Filed 12/01/11 Page 16 of 17

F. 786.363.1108
COUl/sel!Ol' PlaiJl1itr-

IX. APPROVAL AND EXECUTION BV THE COURT

This matter carne before the Court for a Fairness Hearing on February

9 '-'

2012, 11:aving conducted such a hearing, and lipan the foregoing approvals by the Parties and

their counsel, the Court being 1'lilly advised in the premises, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED AS FOLLOWS:

[. The Settlement Class is hereby c1et1ned as all current and future detainees of the

Santa Rosa County, Florida, Jail.

2. The foregoing Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree was entered into in

good faith:.-.provides a fair, reasonable, and adequate resolution of the Plaintiffs' claims, and is in

the best interest of the Settlement Class.

3, The foregoing Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree constitutes narrowly

drawn relief that extends no further than necessary to correct the alleged violation of

constitutional rights, and is the least intrusi've means necessary to correct the alleged violation of

Plaintiffs' constitutional rights, plII'Sliant to 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)( I)(A);

4. 'the terms and

of this Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree at'e

hereby approved and entered as ajudicially enforceable Consent Decree;

5. This Court reserves jurisdiction over the Parties in this action, including the

Defendant Sheriff, all successors in office to the Defendant Sheriff, and aU Settlement Class

members, to enforce this Consent Decree in accordance with the terms foJ' the mutua! benefit of

all the parties.

PagelGofJ7

Ex 6 to Wing Dec, Pg 17 of 18

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 42 of 70

6.

Subject to this Court's jttrisdiction over the Parties in this action to enforce this Consent

Decree, it is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Complaint in this action be dismissed with

prejudice. Done and Ordered in Pensacola, Florida, this 13th day of February, 2012.

M. CASEY RODGERS CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 17 of 17

Ex 6 to Wing Dec, Pg 18 of 18

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 43 of 70
EXHIBIT 7 TO
DECLARATION OF JESSE WING
Ex 7 to Wing Dec, Pg 1 of 19

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 44 of 70

- _.. Casel:10-ev-OlS40-WYD-BNB DOGument49-1 . Filed04127/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 19

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. IO-cv-01840-WYD.BNB
David Clay; Matthew Dehen-era; Lamon! Morgan; William LaFontaine; and Cynthia ShawePierce, on behalf ofthemselves and all others similarly situateo,
PIain!i ffs;
v.
Joe Pelle, in his of6cial capacity as Boulder County Sheriff, and Larry R. Hank; in his offidal capacity as administrator orthe BC] andDivisioll ChiefoftheBoulder County Shel'iff Office,
Defendants .
.
SETTLEMENT AND R$LEASE AGREEMENT

1//i This Settlement Agreemetlt is illade and entered into this

day of April, 201 I

between David C. Rath! and Mark Silverstein oftlle American eivi'! Lihe!tjes 0.l).ion ("ACLU")

who are Appoiilted COllnsel representing· all Class Members for the class defi!led as "all c(irrent

·and future pijsonets in the Boulder County Jail who are subjecrto oraffeeted by the defendai*'

pqstcard-only policy," hereinafter refen-ed to as "Releasor" and the BouIde!' County Sheriff,

hel'einafier refb-req- to as

n

1
Ex 7 to Wing Dec, Pg 2 of 19

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 45 of 70
Case 1:10,ov-01840-WYD-BNBDocument49-1 Filed-04/27111 USDCColorado Page 3 of. 19
RECITALS A. WHEREAS, on August 3, 2010, Releasor filed a lawsuit designated as Civil Action Number 1O-cv-01840-WYD-BNB in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against Joe Pelle, in his official capacity as Boulder County Sheriff, and Larry R. Hank, in his official capacity as administrator of the Boulder County Jail ("Jail") and Divisiot1 Chief of the Boulder County Sheriff Office. The lawsuit challenged the portion of Boulder County Jail Inmate Mail Policy Number 15-01-05 that concerned the use of postcards for outgoing non-legal ilUnate mail. B. WHEREAS, on March 8, 2011, the Court issued an order granting plaintiffs
Boulder County Jail who are subject to or affected by the defendants' postcard-only policy," and ordered that David C. Fathi and Mark Silverstein of the ACLU be Appointed Counsel representing all Class Members.
C. WHEREAS, on March 17,2011 the parties palticipated in a Settlement Conference with the Honorable MagistrateJndgeBoyd N. Boland. A Memorandnm ofUnderstallding ("MOU") was prepared to memorialize the settlement terms agreed to by the parties. A copy of the MOU is attached as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein hy reference.
C. NOW; THEREFORE, the palties wish to provide for the settlement of all claims for injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees, pled or unpled, betwee11 the Releasor and Rel!"asee arising out of Civil Action No.1 0-cv-01840-WYD-BNB in the United States District Court for the Disttict of Colorado.
2
Ex 7 to Wing Dec, Pg 3 of 19

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 46 of 70

--Gas"

DocumenlA9-1 FileciQ4/271l1 USDGColmacioPage40f-19

WARRANTIES

1. Releasor and Releasee warrant and represent, each to the other, that they have been

fully informed and have full knowledge of the terms, conditions and effects of this Agreement.

2. Releasor and Releasee warrant and represent, each to the other, that they have, either

personally or through their attorney or attorneys, fully investigated to each party's full satisfaction all

facts surrounding the various claims, controversies, and disputes and are fully satisfied with the

terms and effect of this Agreement.

3. Releasor and Releasee warrant and represent, each to the other, that no promise or

inducement has been offered or made except as herein set forth, and that this Agreement is executed

withi)ut

any statement or representation by any other party or her agent.

4. Releasor and Releasee warrant and represent, each to the other, that they have the

power and authority to execute this Agreement.

AGREEMENT

1. Undertaking of Releasee.

A. Releasee Boulder County Sheriff, through the. Board of County

Commissioners of the County of Boulder will tender to Releasor a Boulder County warrant

in the total amount of Sixty-five Thousand Dollars ($65,000.00), within fourteen (14) days of

the Court's entty of the Stipulated Judgment and Order incorporating the tenns of this

Agreement as an Order of the Court pursuant to paragraph 5 of this Agreement. Releasee

shall tender this amount as payment for Plaintiffs' counsel's costs and attorneys' fees

incurred in this matter.

3
Ex 7 to Wing Dec, Pg 4 of 19

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 47 of 70

--Cas(31 :10ccl/o01840"WYD.,BNB

Document 49"1 19

-Filed-04!27!11 - USDCColorado .Page 5 of.

B. On AprilS, 2011, Releasee changed the Jail's Inmate Mail Policy

regarding outgoing non-legal mail to reflect that:

1.

Postcards shall be utilized by ifunates, if at all, on a voluntary basis;

and

11.

Inmates shall be allowed to write and send personal letters on paper

designated by the Jail for such use and in envelopes supplied by the Jail without

having to first ask, andlor receive, permission to do so.
c. Releasee agrees that hencef01ih it will maintain an inmate outgoing mail

policy that:

1.

Does not require inmates to use postcards for their outgoing mail;

and

i1.

Allows inmates to write personal letters on paper designated by the

Jail for such use and in envelopes supplied by the Jail without having to first ask,

andlor receive, permission to do so.

D. Releasee further agrees that for two years after the execution of the MOU, it

will notif'y Releasor of any changes to the Releasee's outgoing inmate mail policy as it relates

to inmates' abilities to send personal letters on paper and in envelopes.

2. This agreement does not affect Releasee's previously established power under the

law to inspect ontgoing mail and to read outgoing non-legal mail.

3. Release. In consideration fOr the relief provided for herein, Releasor fully releases,

acquits and forever discharges Releasee, and its employees, attorneys, predecessors, successors and

assigns, to whom and for whose condnct the parties hereby released may be liable, including, but not 4
Ex 7 to Wing Dec, Pg 5 of 19

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 48 of 70

,

.

19 Filed 04/27111 .LJSDCColorado Page6·of

limited to the Boulder County Sheriff, Division Chief Lan'y R. Hank, and the Board of County

Commissioners of the County of Boulder, from any and all claims for injunctive and declaratory

relief, including class action claims, as well as claims for attomeys' fees, against the Defendants

arising out of Civil Action No.

This ·release is made by Releasor on

behalfofthe class celtified and defined as "all current and future prisoners in the Boulder County

Jail who are snbject to or affected by the defendants' postcard-only policy."

4. Attomeys' Fees and Costs.' Other than as provided for herein, each party shall bear

hislher/its own costs, attorneys' fees, disbursements and expenses ofany kind incurred in connection

with this malter.

5. Compromise of Disputed Claims. It is understood and agreed that the acceptance of

the consideration herein mentioned is in fnll accord and satisfaction of a dispnted claim and that the

payment ofsaid sums, the entering into this Agreement or anything recited herein shall not constitute

an acknowledgment of any liability whatsoever on the part of the parties or persons released. This

Agreement does not include any finding of a constitutional or statutory violation.

6. Enforcement. Upon execution ofthis Agreement, the parties will file a Joint Motion

for Entry of Stipulated Judgment and Order, incorporating the terms of this Agreement as an Order

of the Court. The Court shall have the power to enforce this Agreement upon appropriate motion.

The prevailing patty in any such enforcement action, in addition to any other legal or equitable

remedies, shall be entitled to recover attorneys' fees and costs in accordance with the standards set

forth in 42 U.S.C. § 1988 as determined by the Court.

7. Prison Litigation Reform Act Compliance. The Parties stipulate that the

Settlement Agreement complies with the Prison Litigation Reform Act, and its terms are 5
Ex 7 to Wing Dec, Pg 6 of 19

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 49 of 70

Case 1:1

. Document

Filed 04/27111 USDC ColoradoPage-T of

19

narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the alleged violation of Plaintiffs' constitutional rights, are the least intrusive means necessary to correct the alleged violation of Plaintiffs' constitutional rights, and that the Proposed Order to be submitted to the District Court pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Settlement Agreement will include these findings.
8. ComRliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(e) and (h) A. Upon execution of this agreement, the Parties agree to jointly request that
the Court set a date for a hearing, pursuant to Rule 23(e)(2), to consider Whether the terms of this Settlement Agreement constitute a fair, reasonable, and adequate resolution ofplaintiffs' claims in the Action. The Parties agree that the terms of this Settlement Agreement provide all the relief requested in the Complaint. Accordingly, the Parties agree that the proposed resolution is not only fair to the absent members of the class, it is also reasonable and adequate.
B. The Parties agree that, pending the Court's approval and pursuant to Rule 23(e), Releasee shall post notice to class members of the proposed resolution of this case (attached hereto as Exhibit 2) in a noticeable location in each of the pods within the Boulder County Jail (and individually deliver the notice to inmates who are in segregation, or otherwise do not have ready access to the location in which the notice is. posted), within fOliy-eight (48) hours after the Court sets a date for a hearing, pursuant to . Rule 23(e), to determine whether the resolution is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The notice shal1 remain posted until the date. the Court establishes for the Rule 23(e) fairness hearing. The Parties agree that posting the notice in snch a manner is a reasonable way to notifY all class members who would be bound by the proposed resolution of this case.
6
Ex 7 to Wing Dec, Pg 7 of 19

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 50 of 70

Case 1:10.-ev-01840-WYD-BNB Document 494 -Filed 04/27111 USDC ColoraGio-Page8 of
19

C. The Parties agree that, upon execution of this Agreement, and pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h):

i.

ReleaSor shall file a motion for reasonable costs and attorneys fees in

this Action in the amount of$65,000;

ii.

Releasee agrees that this motion will be unopposed; and

iii.

Releasee does not contest that an award to Plaintiffs' counsel of

$65,000.00 in attorneys' fees and costs is reasonable in this case.

9. Dismissal. Within fifteen (15) days of Court's Entry of Stipulated Judgment and

Order, incorporating the terms of this Agreement as an Order of the Court, the parties file a

Joint Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice Civil Action No.1 O-cv-OI840-WYD-BNB in the United

States District Court for the District of Colorado. The parties agree that the motion shall ask the

Court to retain jurisdiction over this Agreement, and that the proposed order of dismissal

submitted to the Court shall include such a retention ofjurisdiction.

10. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire contract, understanding and

agreement between the Parties, is a full, final and complete compromise settlement of all disputed

claims, and supersedes any prior understandings or agreements, all of which are by the execution

hereof rendered null and void. The parties expressly warrant and represent that they have carefully

read this Agreement, reviewed it with counsel as to its meaning and effect, understand that this is a

full, complete and final settlement of all claims and causes of action arising from Civil Action No.

I 0-cv-01840-WYD-BNB, and is forever binding, and have entered into the Agreement as their own

free atid voluntary act.

7
Ex 7 to Wing Dec, Pg 8 of 19

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 51 of 70
Case 1:1 0-ev-01840-WYD-E3NE3 Document 49-1 Filed 04/27f.11USDD Colorado Rage90f 19

t

II.

This Settlement Agreemdntmay be executed in seveml

\

countcr))n;-!:", each of which 'hall be fin original as against any party who signed it, and all of

which will constitute one and the same documenL
,,, IN WITNESS 'YfIEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Settlemcl1t Agreement this
__ .J1;:1_L,2011.

I CBRTIFY THAT I HAVE FULLY READ AND UNDERSTAND THE FORBGOING

of .___

E,N1T AND RELEASE AGREBMENTand] -1f.£1..I-.-' 2011 as my free and voluntary act,

hereby

affix

my

hand

aluL_J /,1$.

this

-

/$'/1;

day

APPOINTED COUNSEL REPRESENTiNG ALL CLASS MEMBERS.

-'
N-ClJ;:,--\ of> t.t..1,0 )i L-

______.____
MArk Silverstein, Legal Director AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
POUNDATION OF COLORADO
400 Corona Streel Denver, Colol'ado 80218 Telephone: (303) 777-5482
F .; (303) 7n I773
EI oi. ')lsi! vor2@att. 0

DEBRA L WOODS
Notary Public Stat, of Coloraoo.

Do id c:-paiiiT;-;-:iirocto--;.-- ---"'--'---
NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT OPTI-IE ACLU
FOUNDATION, INC.
915 IS'hStreel NW, 7,hPIoor Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 548-6603 Email: dfalili@npp--actn.org
"'Not admitted in DC; practice limited to fec!eraf courts,

8
Ex 7 to Wing Dec, Pg 9 of 19

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 52 of 70

1:10-cv-01840-WYD -BNB Document 49-1 Filed 04/27/11 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 19

I CERTIFY THAT I HAVE FULLY READ AND UNDERSTAND THE FOREG'jp;lG

$ - SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT and I hereby affix rnyhand and seal this

day

&d ( of

,2011 as my free and voluntary act.

BOULDER COUNTY SHERIFF

STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss.
COUNTY OF BOULDER )
Subscribed and sworn to before me this Boulder Connty Sheriff.

A<'in \ of

,2011 by Joe Pelle

.

9
Ex 7 to Wing Dec, Pg 10 of 19

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 53 of 70
Case 1: 10-cv-01840-WYD -BNB Document 49-1 Filed 04/27/11 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 19

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

BOULDER COUNTY ATTORNEY

BY: __
Rebecca T. Wallace, Staff Attorney AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF COLORADO 400 Corona Street Denver, Colorado 80218 Telephone: (303) 777-5482 Fax: (303) 777-1773 Email: rtwallace@aclu-co.org
ATTORNEY FOR RELEASEE

Andrew R. Macdonald, Esq. Assistant County Attorney P.O. Box 471 Boulder, CO 80306 Telephone: (303) 441-3190 Fax: (303) 441-4794 Email: arnacdona1d@bouldercounty.org
ATTORNEY FOR RELEASOR

J.O
Ex 7 to Wing Dec, Pg 11 of 19

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 54 of 70
Case 1:10-cv-01840-WYD -BNB Document 49-1 Filed 04/27/11 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 19
EXHIBIT 1
Ex 7 to Wing Dec, Pg 12 of 19

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 55 of 70
Case 1:1,o-cv-01840-WYD -BNB Document 49-1 Filed 04/27/11 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 19
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No.1 O-cv-O 1840-WYD-BNB David Clay; Matthew Deherrera; Lamont Morgan; William LaFontaine; and Cynthia Shaw-Pierce, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v. Joe Pelle, in his official capacity as Boulder County Sheriff, and Larry R. Hank, in his official capacity as administrator of the BCJ and Division Chief of
the Boulder County Sheriff Office,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") memorializes the terms ofthe Parties' agreement to resolve this matter.
1. The settlement is a compromise of all disputed claims. Defendants admit no liability in this matter.
2. Within twenty-one (21) days of the execution oflhis MOU, Defendants shall change the outgoing mail policy of the Boulder County Jail so that: a. Postcards shall be utilized by inmates, if at all, on a voluntary basis; and b. Inmates shall be allowed to write and send personal letters on paper designated by the jail for such use and in envelopes supplied by the jail without having to first ask, and/or receive, permission to do so.
Ex 7 to Wing Dec, Pg 13 of 19

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 56 of 70
Case 1:1'o-cv-01840-WYD -BNB Document 49-1 Filed 04/27/11 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 19
c. This agreement does not affect Defendants' previously established right to inspect outgoing mail and to read outgoing non-legal mail.
3. Defendants agree that henceforth the Boulder County Jail will maintain an inmate outgoing mail policy that: a. Does not require inmates to use postcards for their outgoing mail; anci b. Allows inmates to write personal letters on paper designated by the jail for such use and in envelopes supplied by the jail without having to first ask, andlor receive, permission to do so. c. This agreement does not affect Defendants' previously established right to inspect outgoing mail aud to read outgoing non-legal mail.
4. For two years after the execution of this MOU, Defendants shall notify Plaintiffs of any changes to the Boulder County Jail's outgoing inmate mail policy as it relates to inmates' abilities to send personal letters on paper and in envelopes.
5. Defendants shall pay Plaintiffs' reasonable costs and attorneys' fees in this matter in the total amount of sixty five thousand and no dollars ($65,000), subject to final approval by the Board of County Commissioners ofBoulder County ("Board"), which shall vote on this settlement by Tuesday, April 12, 2011.
6. Counsel for Defendants', Andrew Macdonald, warrants that: a. He has authority from the Board to settle this matter for a total of$65,000 in costs and attorneys' fees; b. He has a good faith belief based on facts known to him that the Board will approve the terms of this settlement, including an award of costs and attorneys' fees in the total amount $65,000; and
2
Ex 7 to Wing Dec, Pg 14 of 19

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 57 of 70
-Case 1"IO-cv-01840-VVYD BNB Document 49-1 Filed ozr/277Tr USDC Colorado Page 15 of 19
c. He and Defendants will urge the Board to approve all of the terms of this
settlement, including an award of costs and attorneys' fees in the total
amount $65,000.
7. The Parties agree to draft and execute a Settlement Agreement ("Settlement
Agreement") containing, inter alia, the following language:
a. This Settlement Agreement does not constitute an admission of liability against the interest of any party. It is a compromise of a disputed claim for the sole purpose of avoiding the expense, hardship and uncertainty of litigation.
b. This Settlement Agreement will not include any finding of a constitutional or statutory violation.
c. Plaintiffs agree to waive and release all claims for injunctive and declaratory relief, including class action claims, against the Defendants arising out of Civil Action No. lO-cy-01840-WYD-BNB . Plaintiffs will dismiss their case with prejudice, each party to pay its own fees and costs, except as provided in this Settlement Agreement.
d. The parties stipulate that the terms ofthe Settlement Agreement are narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the alleged violation ofPlaintiffs' constitutional rights, are the least intrusive means necessary to correct the alleged violation of Plaintiffs' constitutional rights, and that the Proposed Order submitted to the District Court pursuant to [paragraph titled "Enforcement," below] of this Settlement Agreement will include these findings.
e. Enforcement
1. Upon execution of this Agreement, the paJ1ies will file a Joint Motion for Entry of Stipulated Judgment and Order, incorporating the terms of this Settlement Agreement as an Order ofthe Court.
i1. The Court shall have the power to enforce this Settlement Agreement upon appropriate motion, after due notice and hearing. The prevailing party in any such enforcement action, in addition to all legal or equitable remedies, shall be entitled to recover attorneys' fees and costs in accordance with the standards set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 1988 as determined by the Court.
3
Ex 7 to Wing Dec, Pg 15 of 19

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 58 of 70

Case 1: 10-cv-01840-WYD -BNB Document 49-1 Filed 04/27/11 USDC Colorado Page"'16 of 19

8. Pursuant to

as soon as practicably possible after execution of the Settlement

Agreement, the Parties agree to file with the Court a Joint Motion for Entry of

Stipulated Judgment and Order, requesting that the Court incorporate the terms of

this Settlement Agreement as an Order of the Court.

Executed by the undersigned attorneys this IStll day of March, 20 II.

APPROVED:

Mark Silverstein, Legal Director Rebecca T. Wallace, Staff Attorney AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF COLORADO 400 Corona Street
Denver, Colorado SOi18
Telephone: (303) 777-5482 Fax: (303) 777-1773 Email: I11silver2@att.net
David C. Fathi, Director* NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT OF THE ACLU FOUNDATION, INC. 915 15th Street NW, 7th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 548-6603 Email: dfathi@npp-aclu.org
Counselfor Plaintiffs
*Not admitted in DC; practice limited to
federal courts. Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Andrew Ross Macdonald Assistant County Attorney BOULDER COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE PO Box 471 Boulder, CO 80306 Ph: (303) 441-3190 Fax: (303) 441-4794 amacdonald@bouldercounty.org
Counsel for Defendants

4
Ex 7 to Wing Dec, Pg 16 of 19

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 59 of 70
Case 1:1 O-cv-01840-WYD -BNB Doeument-4B+ Filed 04/2-7/11 .. LJSDG-Bolorado Page H of 19
EXHIBIT 2
Ex 7 to Wing Dec, Pg 17 of 19

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 60 of 70

--Gase-1 :10

Filecf04727TrFlJSHC-=GeJi'iffiOO-Fagem----------of 19

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 10-cv-OI840-WYD-BNB David Clay; Matthew Deherrera; Lamont Morgan; William LaF ontalne; and Cynthia Shaw-Pierce, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Joe Pelle, in his official capacity as Boulder County Sheriff, and Larry R. Hank, in his official capacity as administrator of the BCJ and Division Chief of the Boulder County Sheriff Office,
Defendants.
NOTICE TO BOULDER COUNTY JAIL PRISONERS
1. In March, 2010, the Boulder County Jail ("Jail") implemented a new policy that limited most outgoing inmate mail to postcards.
2. On August 3, 2010, five inmates filed a legal challenge to that policy, arguing that the policy violated inmates' First Amendment rights: Clay, et a!. v. Pelie, et aI., case number 10-cv01840-WYD-BNB, United States District Court, District of Colorado. The inmate-plaintiffs also filed a motion to certify the case as a class action.
3. The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment and an h\iunction ordering the Jail to stop what the lawsuit called the "postcard-only" policy. The lawsuit does not seek monetary damages on behalf of any prisoners.
4. On March 8, 2011, the Court issued an order granting plaintiffs' motion for class certification for the class defined as "all current and future prisoners in the Boulder County Jail who
Ex 7 to Wing Dec, Pg 18 of 19

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 61 of 70
- Case I. 1CJ:cv-O IMO-vv y D -BNB Document 49-1 Filea 047211 11 USDC Colorado Page 19
of 19
are subject to or affected by the defendants' postcard-only policy." The Court appointed attorneys working for the American Civil Liberties Union ("ACLU") of Colorado and the ACLU National Prison Project to serve as counsel for the class.
5. On April 8,2011, the Jail rescinded the postcard-only policy and allowed inmates to write and send personal letters on paper designated by the Jail for such use and in envelopes
supplied by the Jail without having to first ask, andior receive, permission to do so.
6. The parties have now agreed to a proposed settlement that will resolve all issues in the
case. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), this notice is provided to class members to advise them of
the tenns of the proposed settlement, which are summarized as follows: a. The Jail will henceforth maintain an inmate outgoing mail policy that: (1) does not require inmates to use postcards for their outgoing mail; and (2) allows inmates to write personal letters on paper designated by the Jail for such use and in envelopes supplied by the Jail without having to first ask, andior receive, permission to do so. b. This settlement does not affect the Jail's previously established power under the law to inspect outgoing mail and to read outgoing non-legal mail. c. Counsel for Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs to be paid by the Defendant. The parties have agreed that $65,000 represents a reasonable amount.
7. The Court has set a date _ _ _ _ _ _ for a hearing to determine whether the
settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. Any class member who objects to the proposed settlement may snbmit an objection. Objections mnst be postmarked no later than _ _, 201l and should be sent
Ex 7 to Wing Dec, Pg 19 of 19

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 62 of 70
EXHIBIT 8 TO
DECLARATION OF JESSE WING
Ex 8 to Wing Dec, Pg 1 of 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 63 of 70
Case I. IC-cv-C II34C-vvYD -/'IN/'l Document 51 fOiled 0.8718111 USDC Colorado Page I of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel
Civil Action No. 1o.-cv-o.184o.-WYD-BNB DAVID CLAY; MATTHEW DeHERRERA; LAMONT MORGAN; WILLIAM LaFONTAINE; and CYNTHIA SHAW-PIERCE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. JOE PELLE, in his official capacity as Boulder County Sheriff; and LARRY R. HANK, in his official capacity as administrator of the Boulder County Jail and Division Chief of the Boulder County Sheriff Office,
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
This matter is before the Court on the Parties' Joint Motion to Approve Settlement of Class Action and Entry of Stipulated Judgment [ECF NO. 49], filed April 27, 2011 and Order and Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees [ECF No. 47], also filed April 27, 20.11. The Court, being fully advised in these matters, enters the following Findings:
1. Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint on August 3,20.10., challenging the Boulder County Jail's recently implemented outgoing mail policy, which limited most outgoing prisoner correspondence to postcards. [ECF No.1]. Plaintiffs alleged in their Class Action Complaint that the Boulder County Jail's postcard policy violated the free
-1-
Ex 8 to Wing Dec, Pg 2 of 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 64 of 70
Case I. IO-Cy-O 1840-vv YD -131113 Docurnellt 57 Filed 081 18i I I USDC Colorado Page 2 of 5
speech rights of prisoners under the United States and Colorado constitutions. In this lawsuit, Plaintiffs sought no money damages, but only demanded that Boulder County Jail rescind its postcard policy.
2. On February 17, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction which this Court set for hearing on April 15, 2011. [ECF Nos. 32, 36].
3. On March 8, 2011, the Court issued an order granting Plaintiffs' motion for certification of a class defined as "all current and future prisoners in the Boulder County Jail who are subject to or affected by the defendants' postcard-only policy," and ordered that David C. Fathi and Mark Silverstein of the American Civil Liberties Union ("ACLU") be Appointed Counsel representing all Class Members. [ECF No. 37].
4. On March 17, 2011, the parties participated in a Settlement Conference with the Honorable Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland. On March 18, 2011, Defendants agreed to rescind the postcard policy, and the parties agreed to settle this case.
5. On March 21,2011, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Hold Case in Abeyance Pending Finalization of Settlement. [ECF No. 41]. On March 23, 2011, the Court granted the parties' motion. [ECF No. 42].
6. The parties have since executed a settlement agreement resolving all claims in this matter, and providing in relevant part for Defendants' termination of the postcard policy and Defendants' payment of $65,000 in attorneys' fees and costs to Plaintiffs' counsel. In the settlement agreernent, the parties agree that a costs and fees award totaling $65,000 is reasonable in this case.
7. On April 27, 2011, the Parties filed a Joint Motion to Approve Settlement
-2-
Ex 8 to Wing Dec, Pg 3 of 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 65 of 70

Case I: 10-cv-0'1840-VVYD

Document 5/ Filed 08/ 18/ I I OSDC Colorado Page 3 of 5

of Class Action and Entry of Stipulated Judgment and Order requesting this Court to approve the proposed settlement agreement, enter it as an order of the Court, and retain jurisdiction of this case for the purposes of enforcement of the settlement agreement That same day, Plaintiffs fiied an Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees requesting request this Court enter an order that $65,000,00 is a reasonable attorneys' fee and cost award in this case.
8. The Court held a hearing on August 17, 2011, to consider whether the proposed settlernent is fair, reasonable, and adequate. Prior to the hearing, the Court directed that reasonable notice be sent to the ciass members in the manner provided for in the Joint Motion to Approve Settlement of Class Action and Entry of Stipulated Judgment and Order.
9. The Court, having reviewed the pleadings in this matter, as well as the motions at issue and the proposed settlement agreement, finds that the proposed settlement provides all the relief requested in Plaintiffs' Complaint Accordingly, the proposed settlement is not only fair to the absent members of the class, it is also reasonable and adequate.
10. The Court further finds that the relief set forth in the settlement agreement is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the alleged violation of Plaintiffs' constitutional rights, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the alleged violation of Plaintiffs' constitutional rights.
11. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs are the prevailing parties in this litigation, and that they are entitled to recovery of their reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
-3-
Ex 8 to Wing Dec, Pg 4 of 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 66 of 70
Case I. Io-cv-o ItI40-\/v to -BNB Document 57 Flied 08718/1 I USOC C()lorado Page 4 of 5
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The Court further finds that an attorneys' fees and costs award of $65,000 in this case is reasonable, considering Plaintiffs' significant downward departure frorn actual time spent litigating this case, the Significance and scope of the case, the fact that Plaintiffs achieved in settlernent all of the relief sought in their cornplaint, Defendants' continuing defense against Plaintiffs' claims, and Defendants' agreement that Plaintiffs' fee request in this case is reasonable, Now, therefore, it is hereby
ORDERED that plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Attorneys Fees [ECF No, 47] and the Parties' Joint Motion to Approve Settlement of Class Action and Entry of Stipulated Judgment and Order [ECF 49] are hereby GRANTED, It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the proposed settlement agreement is hereby ratified and approved by this Court. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Settlement and Release Agreement, attached as Exhibit 1 to Plaintiffs' Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement of Class Action and Entry of Stipulated Judgment and Order [ECF No, 49-1] is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety and is entered hereby as a stipulated judgment and order of the Court, It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall pay $65,000 in attorneys' fees and costs within 14 days of this Order. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that this Court shall retain jurisdiction of this case for the purposes of enforcement of the settlement agreement.
Dated: August 18, 2011
-4-
Ex 8 to Wing Dec, Pg 5 of 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 67 of 70
Case 1.1 0-cv-01840-'v'v'YD BNB Docuillelll57 Filed 08118/1 I U3DC ColOiado rage 5 of 5 BY THE COURT: sl Wiley Y. Daniel Wiley Y. Daniel Chief United States District Judge
-5Ex 8 to Wing Dec, Pg 6 of 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 68 of 70
EXHIBIT 9 TO
DECLARATION OF JESSE WING
Ex 9 to Wing Decl, Pg 1 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 69 of 70
Scappoose officer to challenge Sheriff Dickerson in reelection bid
THE
Scappoose officer to challenge Sheriff Dickerson in reelection bid
BY STOVER E. HARGER III The South County Spotlight, Dec 14, 2011
Scappoose Police Officer Anthony Miltich has filed to run for Columbia County Sheriff in 2012, the first to publicly challenge Jeff Dickerson in his reelection bid.
Dickerson told The Spotlight Monday he will look to be reelected next November, citing a desire to continue his efforts of stabilizing the department marred by an ongoing budget crisis.
Dickerson has publicly struggled to balance police services with a dire fiscal reality, a tough job that will continue for whoever is elected next year, he said.
"I've been growing as a sheriff the last four years and 1 think it would be a waste to just give up," he said. "1 love this job."
Miltich and his wife also own Scappoose Outfitters.
Copyright 2012 Pamplin Media Group, 6605 S.E. Lake Road, Portland, OR 97222 • 503-226-6397
http://www.spotlightnews.net/news/print_story.php?story_id=132390385119620700[3/6/2012 12:39:58 PM] Ex 9 to Wing Decl, Pg 2 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 45-1 Filed 03/06/12 Page 70 of 70
The Clatskanie Chief» February 23, 2012

http://www.clatskaniechiefnews.com/20 12/02/27/february-23-2012-3/[3/6/2012 12:45:09 PM]

Ex 9 to Wing Decl, Pg 3 of 3

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 46 Filed 03/06/12 Page 1 of 41
Katherine C. Chamberlain, OSB #042580 katherinec@mhb.com Jesse A. Wing, pro hac vice jessew@mhb.com Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News MacDonald Hoague & Bayless 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104-1745 (206) 622-1604
Marc D. Blackman, OSB #730338 marc@ransomblackman.com Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Ransom Blackman LLP 1001 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1400 Portland, OR 97204 (503) 228-0487
Lance Weber,pro hac vice lweber@humam"ightsdefensecenter.org Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Human Rights Defense Center 1037 Western Ave., 2nd Floor West Brattleboro, VT 05303 (802) 257-1342

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,
Defendants.

No.3:12-CV-71-SI
PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

9870.05 fc052208

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
TeI206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 46 Filed 03/06/12 Page 2 of 41

1. THE SHERIFF'S RECENT MAIL POLICY CHANGES DO NOT RENDER PLN'S REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF MOOT ............. 1
A. The Sheriff's Revised Policy Still Violates the Constitution................ 1
1. The Sheriff Still Bans All Outgoing Mail that Is Not a Postcard ....................................................................................... 1
2. The Sheriff Still Bans Incoming Personal and Business Mail That is Not a Postcard......................................................... 2
3. The Sheriff Still Bans Internet-Generated Mail, Including PLN's Online Articles ................................................................. 5
4. The Sheriff's Due Process Procedures Are Constitutionally Inadequate ........................................................ 5
B. The Sheriff Has Not Shown He Has "Irrevocably Eradicated" His Prior Policies ................................................................................... 6
1. The Sheriff Has Not Asserted Let Alone Demonstrated that He Will Never Return to the Policies and Practices He Claims to Have Voluntarily Ceased ...................................... 7
2. The Sheriff's Policy Change on the Heels of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction Strongly Weighs Against Mootness ........................................................................ 8
3. The Sheriff Offers No Explanation or Reason for His Policy Change ............................................................................. 9
4. The Sheriff Has Misrepresented the History and Content of His Mail Policies to the Court, to the Prisoners, and to the Public ................................................................................... 10
a. The Sheriff Has Not Made His Alleged Policies Available ......................................................................... 10
b. The Sheriff's Policies Banned Delivery of Magazines....................................................................... 11
c. The Sheriff Has Misrepresented the History of His Mail Policies, and His Personal Knowledge of TheIn............................................................................... 12
d. The Sheriff Failed to Adequately Supervise Jail Staff in the Past and Has Failed to Improve His Supervision ..................................................................... 13

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (CV 12-71-SI) - i
9870.05 fc052208

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 46 Filed 03/06/12 Page 3 of 41

II. PLN HAS STANDING TO CHALLENGE ALL OF THE MAIL POLICIES AT ISSUE ...................................... ~ ............................................ 14
A. PLN Has Standing In Its Own Right ................................................... 19
B. PLN Has Organizational Standing ...................................................... 19
1. Injury ......................................................................................... 20
2. Causal Connection and Redressability...................................... 21
C. Third-Party Standing ........................................................................... 21
1. Prudential Standing Is Suspended in Overbreadth Cases ......... 21
2. PLN Brought a Facial Overbreadth Challenge to the Mail Policy........~................................................................................. 23
3. The Sheriff s Postcard-Only Policy Chills Free Speech........... 23
4. PLN Has Satisfactorily Framed the Issues on Behalf of Non-Parties ................................................................................ 24
5. Plaintiff Meets Prudential Standing Requirements ................... 25
6. Prisoners, Friends, and Families Seek to Exercise Their Free Speech Rights .................................................................... 27
III. A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD BE ENTERED..................... 28
A. The Sheriff Fails to Undermine PLN's Showing of Success on the Merits ............................................................................................. 28
1. The Sheriff s Policy is Unreasonably Overbroad and Bans Protected Speech .............................................................. 28
2. The Sheriff Relies Solely on General or Conclusory Assertions to Support His Overbroad Policy ............................ 29
a. "Security and Safety Concerns" ..................................... 29
b. "Volume" ........................................................................ 30
3. The Sheriff Admits That Communication Promotes Rehabilitation ............................................................................ 32
4. Plaintiff is Likely to Show that the Sheriff s Outgoing Mail Policy Does Not Meet the Martinez Standard.................. 32

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (CV 12-71-SI) - ii
9870.05 fc052208

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 46 Filed 03/06/12 Page 4 of 41
5. Postcard-Only Policy Litigation................................................ 33 B. Alternative Avenues Are Too Costly and Burdensome for PLN
and other Correspondents .................................................................... 33 C. The Postcard-Only Policy is an Exaggerated Response ..................... 33 D. PLN is Likely to Show the Sheriff's Due Process Procedures
Are Inadequate ..................................................................................... 34 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 34

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (CV 12-71-SI) - iii
9870.05 fc052208

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Te1206.622.l604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 46 Filed 03/06/12 Page 5 of 41

CASES
Ashker v. California Dept. o/Corr., 350 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2003) ........................ 24
Benjamin v. Aroostook Medical Ctr., Inc., 57 F.3d 101 (1st Cir. 1995)................. 26
Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (1973) ........................................................ 22
Cal. Pro-Life Council Inc. v. Getman, 328 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2003) ................... 24
Clark v. City 0/Lakewood, 259 F.3d 996 (9th Cir. 2001) ...................................... 23
Clement v. California Dept. o/Corr., 364 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2004) ........ 16, 19, 21
Connection Distributing Co. v. Reno, 154 F.3d 281 (6th Cir. 1998)...................... 23
Craigv. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976) ...................................................................... 25
DiLoreto v. Downey Unified Sch. Dist. Bd. o/Educ., 196 F.3d 958 (9th Cir. 1999) ............................................................................... 8
Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972) ............................................................... 22
Enterline v. Pocono Medical Center, 751 F.Supp.2d 782 (M.D. Pa. 2008) .................................................................. 23
Fair Housing 0/Marin v. Combs, 285 F.3d 899 (9th Cir. 2002) ............................ 20
Friends o/the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) ..................................................................................... 7
Granville House, Inc. v. Dept. o/Health & Human Services, 715 F.2d 1292 (8th Cir. 1983) ........................................................................... 20
Hang On, Inc. v. City 0/Arlington, 65 F.3d 1248 (5th Cir. 1995).......................... 23
Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982) ......................................... 20
Jacobus v. Alaska, 338 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2003) .................................................... 8
Jones v. Brown, 461 F.3d 353 (3d Cir. 2006) ......................................................... 29
Lamont v. Postmaster Gen. o/US., 381 U.S. 301 (1965) ...................................... 24
LGS Architects, Inc. v. Concordia Hon1es o/Nevada, 434 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2006) ........................................................................... 10
Lujan v. De/enders o/Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) ............................................. 20

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (CV 12-71-SI) - iv
9870.05 fc052208

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 46 Filed 03/06/12 Page 6 of 41

Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) .................................................................. 3
NAACP v. Ameriquest Mortg. Co., 635 F. Supp.2d 1096 (C.D. Cal. 2009) ................................................................................................. 21
Norman-Bloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, 135 F.3d 1260 (9th Cir. 1998) ......................................................................... 7, 8
Olagues v. Russoniello, 770 F.2d 791 (9th Cir. 1985).............................................. 8
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No.1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007) ..................................................................... 8
Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 (1991) ............................................................... 25,26
Prison Legal News v. Cook, 238 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2001) ................................... 18
Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2005) ............................ 3, 18
Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974) .......................................................... 32
Reed v. Faulkner, 842 F.2d 960 (7th Cir. 1988) ..................................................... 29
Secretary 0/State 0/Md. v. Joseph H Munson Co., Inc.,
467 U.S. 947 (1984) ........................................................................................... 22
Sefick v. Gardner, 164 F.3d 370 (7th Cir. 1998) ...................................................... 9
Smith v. Pac. Properties and Dev. Corp., 358 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2004) ........................................................................... 20
Smith v. Univ. o/Washington Law Sch., 233 F.3d 1188 (9th Cir. 2000) .................. 9
Summartano v. First Jud. Cir. Ct., in and/or Cty. o/Carson City, 303 F.3d 959 (9th Cir. 2002) ............................................................................. 34
Thornburgh V. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) ........................................................... 32
US. v. Oregon State Medical Soc., 343 U.S. 326 (1952) ......................................... 8
United States v. Government o/Virgin Islands, 363 F.3d 276 (3d Cir. 2004)................................................................................. 9
Virginia V. American Booksellers Ass'n, Inc., 484 U.S. 383 (1988) ........... 22,24, 26
Walker v. Sumner, 917 F.2d 382 (9th Cir. 1990) .................................................... 29

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (CV 12-71-SI) - v
9870.05 fc052208

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 46 Filed 03/06/12 Page 7 of 41

In response to PLN's lawsuit, the Columbia County Jail adopted a new mail policy for the eighth time in just the three years since Sheriff Dickerson was elected. Although he has maintained his Postcard-Only Policy for incoming and outgoing mail challenged by PLN, the Sheriff claims that his new policy allows delivery of PLN' s incoming mail so PLN lacks standing to challenge the Postcard-Only Policy and that by changing his policies he has mooted all of PLN' s claims for injunctive relief.
But the Sheriff s claimed improvements have not rendered his policies constitutional or deprived PLN·of standing, nor has he met his heavy burden of establishing mootness. Contrary to his assertions, PLN has standing in its own right to challenge the Jail's Postcard-Only Policy since the policy still prohibits incoming letters from businesses like PLN and outgoing mail from prisoners who want to write letters to or subscribe to PLN. Finally, even if the Sheriff now allows delivery of letters from businesses to prisoners, as he claims, PLN may continue its First Amendment facial overbreadth challenge to the Jail's "friends and family" plan restricting incoming "personal" mail to postcards, because PLN has organizational and third-party standing. I. The Sheriff's Recent Mail Policy Changes Do Not Render PLN's Request for
Injunctive Relief Moot
The Sheriff s recent changes do not moot PLN's claims or the need for a preliminary injunction because the policy is still unconstitutional and he failed to meet the heavy burden of proving he has "irrevocably eradicated" the need for judicial protection sought by PLN.
A. The Sheriff's Revised Policy Still Violates the Constitution The Sheriff continues to maintain his Postcard-Only Policy, which he admits still prohibits incoming personal and business mail in envelopes and all outgoing mail. And, his newly-adopted policy on due process is incomplete and confusing.
1. The Sheriff Still Bans All Outgoing Mail that Is Not a Postcard The Sheriffs current mail policy bans outgoing mail that is not a postcard. Dkt. 32-6 at 3 ("Inmates may send postcards they receive in their initial inmate hygiene kit or through jail commissary... The jail does not permit any other form of personal mail for inmates."). A copy

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (CV 12-71-SI) - 1
9870.05 fc052208

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 46 Filed 03/06/12 Page 8 of 41

of the only postcard made available to prisoners is attached as the last page of the Inmate Manual. See Ex. A to B. Berg Dec., at 27. According to the Inmate Manual, "You may not ... 1. Draw or write anything on a postcard in the address area or on the picture of the postcard other than name and address infonnation." Id. at 11. So, a prisoner may write content only on the back of the postcard, not on the photograph of Oregon's first Sheriff emblazoned on the frontwhich takes up one-third of the writing space on a postcard. The Sheriff s policy continues to restrict prisoner's First Amendment rights to communicate with their spouses, children, parents, friends, pastors, doctors, and organizations and businesses with whom they wish to correspond.
The Sheriff contends that prisoners are free to send postcards to PLN. Dkt. 29 at 8. And, with regard to subscription and book order forms, "these are pennitted as long as they originate and are paid for outside the jail" or a prisoner may request approval of a supervisor to send a business reply envelope. Id. at 8-9. In other words, prisoners may not return subscription and book order forms to PLN; someone outside the Jail must do that for them or the prisoner must seek special permission from a supervisor who may reject the request. And the Sheriffs current policy prohibits a prisoner from sending letters to PLN. As a result, PLN plainly has a legally protected interest in challenging the Postcard-Only Policy because it interferes with PLN's First Amendment right to receive mail from prisoners.
2. The Sheriff Still Bans Incoming Personal and Business Mail That is Not a Postcard
The Sheriffs current policy prohibits inmates from receiving personal or business correspondence unless it is a postcard:
Postcards for Personal or Personal Business Mail ... Inmates may receive postcards .... The jail does not permit any other form of personal mail for inmates.
Initial Processing of Incoming Mail ... Return mail to sender (unopened if possible) or the USPS if any of the following apply: (1) Incoming personal mail that is not a postcard, except privileged (legal or official) mail. ..
Dkt. 32-6 at 3, 9.

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (CV 12-71-SI) - 2
9870.05 fc052208

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 46 Filed 03/06/12 Page 9 of 41

The Sheriff contends that his Postcard-Only Policy now pennits delivery of PLN book catalogs as "junk" or "bulk" lnail not on a postcard, Dkt. 29 at 9, so no preliminary injunction is needed. PLN does not agree. Bizarrely, the Sheriffs policy defines catalogs as "junk mail" only if they meet the third prong of the Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 39 (1973), obscenity test: "when taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, educational, religious, or scientific value." Dkt. 32-6, at 1. Under his definition, PLN's book catalogs are not junk mail. And, the Sheriff s alleged "junk mail" exception is not new; he has accepted such mail since at least July 2010. See Ex. 10 to Wright (Second) Dec., at 5; Ex. A to Berg Dec., at 12. Moreover, his actions are contrary to his words. Despite claiming that PLN's catalogs are deliverable as "junk mail" the Sheriff has repeatedly censored them. See e.g. Dkt. 8-1 Exs. A through H.
And the Sheriffs contention that PLN's catalogs are allowed as "bulk lnail" is no better. His policy does not define "bulk mail," but the Postal Service used the term to refer to mail sent at a postage rate lower than first class. Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692, 697 (9th Cir. 2005). So, the Sheriffs policy allows delivery of catalogs when mailed at bulk mail rates, but not when mailed first class. As recognized by the Ninth Circuit repeatedly, distinctions based on postal rate are an irrational basis for prison censorship. Prison Legal News v. Cook, 238 F.3d 1145,1149 (9th Cir. 2001); PLN v. Lehman, 397 F.3d at 700. And PLN mails its book catalogs via first-class mail, so the catalogs do not qualify as bulk mail anyway. Dkts. 8 and 11.
After censoring letters that PLN mailed, the Sheriff baldly claims that his "current policy allows plaintiffs fundraising letters to be distributed to inmates," Dkt. 29, at 23, without pointing to any provision in their policy that affords delivery of such letters. On its face, the policy permits only letters that constitute legal or official mail.
Moreover, the Sheriffhas failed to show why mailing a book catalog in an envelope does not violate the Postcard-Only Policy - thereby violating "other lnail restrictions." His policy on "Junk Mail" states that "Jail staff will accept solicited or unsolicited junk mail or bulk mail for

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (CV 12-71-SI) - 3
9870.05 fc052208

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 46 Filed 03/06/12 Page 10 of 41

inmates, unless it violates other mail restrictions.. .." Dkt. 32-6 (emphasis added). The Sheriff claims the Postcard-Only Policy does not apply to catalogs because "the postcard restriction is lilnited to personal mail." Dkt. 29 at 9. But this gets him nowhere. His mail policy defines "Personal mail" as "Postcards mailed to or from family, friends, organizations, businesses, or other unofficial entities." Dkt. 32-6 at 2 (emphasis added).1 As defined, "personal mail" plainly applies to written communications "to or froln ... businesses," which includes PLN. That "personal mail" includes all mail from businesses-including junk and bulk mail-is reinforced by the Sheriff s policy on "Initial Processing of Incoming Mail," which states that staff must "Return mail to the sender [that is]. .. Incoming personallnail that is not a postcard, except privileged (legal or official) mail." Dkt. 32-6 at 9 (emphasis added). This policy makes no exception for admitting any business mail let alone junk or bulk mail--only for legal or official mail. And since "personal mail" includes business mail, this policy plainly prohibits all business mail other than a postcard. If the Sheriff in fact allows delivery of catalogs and brochures of any kind, and letters, he should say so in his policy.
In short, the Sheriff s policy still prohibits PLN's book catalog and other mail. The plain language of the policy prohibits the delivery of PLN' s book catalog, book offers, infonnational subscription brochures, and letters because they are not postcards. So, if the Sheriff is delivering PLN's catalogs and other mail then it is not because the Jail's policy pennits the delivery. The Sheriff s irrational interpretation of his policy to allow delivery of PLN book catalogs and fundraising letters suggests that he delivers PLN's mail now because he is under the scrutiny of this Court. Given the muddled policy language and disingenuous interpretations that the Sheriff gives his policies, scrutiny should continue in the fonn of a preliminary injunction.
Since the Sheriff states that he bans all incoming personal mail from friends and family and other correspondents that is not a postcard, his Postcard-Only policy applies to all incoming nonlegal mail.

1 It is perplexing that the definition of "personal mail" refers only to written communication by "postcards" since that renders the Sheriff s policy requiring all "personal" mail to be sent in the fonn of a postcard meaningless.

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (CV 12-'71-SI) - 4
9870.05 fc052208

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 46 Filed 03/06/12 Page 11 of 41

3. The Sheriff Still Bans Internet-Generated Mail, Including PLN's Online Articles
The Sheriff admits that the Jail will continue to censor PLN's online articles. Dkt. 29 at 18 ("If Ms. Lennox were to send PLN's web article today, it would be rejected because it was not sent directly from the publisher and because it was personal mail not on a postcard."). Therefore, his recent changes to the mail policy did not render this issue moot.
4. The Sheriff's Due Process Procedures Are Constitutionally Inadequate
The Sheriff contends that paragraph 30 of his policy requires notice to the inmate and sender and the notice form describes the procedures to appeal. Dkt. 29 at 9. However, his recent policy changes and recent one-hour training did not fix his inadequate due process procedures.
First, Ms. Lennox's recent experience with sending mail to prisoners reveals that a preliminary injunction is needed to require the Sheriff to provide constitutionally adequate due process. On February 7,2012, Ms. Lennox mailed an article that she printed from the PLN website and mailed identical copies to eleven prisoners at the Columbia County Jail. Lennox (Second) Dec. at ~~3-4. The Jail rejected three of the articles and returned them to Ms. Lennox on February 14, 2012-two weeks after the Jail's "formal staff training meeting" on the mail procedures. Id. at ~5. The Jail stamped one of the envelopes "RETURN TO SENDER" but did not state a reason for its decision to censor the mail or provide a Prohibited Mail Notice form to Ms. Lennox. Id. at ~5A. For the two other returned articles, the Jail marked the envelopes "CONTRABAND" and sent Ms. Lennox a Prohibited Mail Notice that states the Sheriff returned her Inail because "It is deemed personal mail and not on a postcard." Id. at ~5B-5(E).
Regarding all three censored articles, the Jail failed to give Ms. Lennox any notice of the second reason it censored her mail-because her mail "violated" the "publisher's rule.,,2 See

2 Ms. Lennox's mail to prisoners does not violate the "publisher's rule." In PLN v. Lehman, 272 F.Supp.2d 1151, 1160 (W.D.Wa. 2003), the district court upheld the Washington DOC's "publishers only" rule that prohibited delivery of "[p]ublications not mailed directly from the publisher/retailer." The DOC's definition of "publications" included "reproduced handwritten or typed/printed or pictorial materials including books, periodicals, newspapers, magazines, and pamphlets" and did not include "[c]lippings of newspaper and Inagazine articles"-which

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (CV 12-71-SI) - 5
9870.05 fc052208

TMeA7l 0c2DS50e6OSa.N6ettc2Aleo2L,n.1DWd6AH0as4OvheAinFnGuagUexto,E2nS0&u69i.t8B3e14A013Y54.3L09E06S1S

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 46 Filed 03/06/12 Page 12 of 41

Dkt. 29 at 23. Assuming that the Jail censored all of the mail that Ms. Lennox sent to prisoners, as it told the Court it would do, Dkt. 29 at 18, Defendants failed to return eight of the mailings and did not provide Ms. Lennox any notice of censorship or opportunity to be heard regarding those mailings. See also Mikhaylova Dec. ~5 (no notice).
Second, the policy provision that the Sheriff references as providing "clear" due process procedures-Paragraph 30--only applies to censorship based on prohibited content or items contained in correspondence but not form-based censorship (e.g. not a postcard). The Jail confiscates prohibited items, such as threats, sexually explicit materials, glue, or paint. Dkt. 29 at 9; Dkt. 32-6 at 9, 14. That is not the kind of censorship PLN challenges here.
Third, notably, it took the Sheriff nearly two pages to summarize the provisions scattered over his current policy that touch on notice and appeal procedures.3 Dkt. 29 at 6-8. It is no surprise that the Jail staff is arbitrarily enforcing the procedures and continue to deny due process to individuals who send mail to prisoners at the Jail.
Based on Ms. Lennox's very recent experience it is evident that the Jail's current mail policy and staff training did not correct the Jail's unconstitutional procedures and practices. The Sheriff needs a concise and clear order from the Court that requires him to provide due process notice and an opportunity to be heard whenever his censors mail.
B. The Sheriff Has Not Shown He Has "Irrevocably Eradicated" His Prior Policies
The Sheriff argues that PLN is not entitled to any injunctive relief at all-preliminary or permanent-because he "voluntarily" ceased his conduct. See Dkt. 29 at 14. But he has presented no evidence that he has stopped his prior misconduct for good, not to mention his

individuals (who are not a publisher/retailer) could send to prisoners. Ms. Lennox's mail constituted the latter, so her mail did not fall within the "publishers only" rule.

3 The Sheriff claims that his policies offer more due process than "that agreed to by plaintiff' in PLN v. Spokane County, and that PLN is monitoring Spokane's compliance with its Consent Decree. Dkt. 29 at 21. This is incorrect. The Consent Decree requires the jail to provide constitutionally adequate due process but neither the Decree nor PLN approved Spokane's subsequent mail policy nor does the Decree provide for PLN to monitor compliance.

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (CV 12-71-SI) - 6
9870.05 fc052208

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 46 Filed 03/06/12 Page 13 of 41

ongoing unconstitutional conduct.
The Sheriff bears '" [t]he heavy burden of persua[ding]' the court that the challenged conduct cannot reasonably be expected to start up again." Friends ofthe Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOe), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 170, 189 (2000) (burden of proof "lies with the party asserting mootness.") The Supreme Court has explained the Sheriff must meet a very high threshold:
[T]he standard we have announced for determining whether a case has been mooted by the defendant's voluntary conduct is stringent: "A case might become moot if subsequent events made it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur." Id. at 189 (emphasis added) (citation omitted). The Sheriff must show the Court that "interiln relief or events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation." Norman-Bloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, 135 F.3d 1260, 1274 (9th Cir. 1998)
(emphasis added) (citation omitted). "Irrevocable" means "not to be revoked or recalled; unable to be repealed or annulled; unalterable." See www.dictionary.com. "Eradicate" means "to remove or destroy utterly; extirpate." Id. So, his burden is indeed heavy.
The only peppercorn the Sheriff offers for finding Plaintiff s request for relief moot is his partial policy change and his one-hour training for staff. See Dkt. 32 at 3, 8. The Sheriffhas a history of censoring mail contrary to his claimed policies, including just last month (See Lennox
(Second) Dec.), and repeated violation of due process notice. So his mere assertion that he no
longer bans magazines is insufficient evidence of compliance. Because his policies still violate
the Constitution, and he has failed to .prove that his prior unconstitutional policies and practices
have ended in a final and inalterable way, PLN's request for an injunction is not moot. L The Sheriff Has Not Asserted Let Alone Demonstrated that He Will Never Return to the Policies and Practices He Claims to Have Voluntarily Ceased
The Supreme Court's standard contemplates that mere cessation is by itself inadequate.
The Ninth Circuit has rejected assertions of mootness by voluntary cessation of conduct by
government actors who "have neither asserted nor demonstrated that they will never resume [the
challenged conduct]; nor have they offered any reason why they might not return in the future to

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (CV 12-71-SI)-7
9870.05 fc052208

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 46 Filed 03/06/12 Page 14 of 41

their original views on the utility of [the challenged conduct].,,4 Norman-Bloodsaw, 135 F.3d at 1274 (holding voluntary change in policy by public actor did not moot claims); see also Olagues
v. Russoniello, 770 F.2d 791, 794-95 (9th Cir. 1985) (holding u.s. Attorney to "heavy burden"
of showing challenged conduct had been "completely and irrevocably eradicated"). The Ninth Circuit has recognized that voluntary change in policy is easily reversed so it
is often insufficient to moot the challenge to government violations. For example, the court held that a school board's decision to relnove all advertising from a football field to avoid a First Amendment challenge to its advertising policy did not moot the controversy since the school board was free to change its policy at any time. DiLoreto v. Downey Unified Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 196 F.3d 958, 963 n. 1 (9th Cir. 1999); see also Jacobus v. Alaska, 338 F.3d 1095, 1103 (9th Cir.2003) (holding challenge to campaign finance laws not moot, even though law had been repealed, because the State's voluntary cessation did not foreclose future reenactment).
Nowhere in his brief or supporting declaration does the Sheriff assert or demonstrate he will not revert to his old policies and practices, let alone abandon those still in place. Even a statement by the current Sheriff-who serves at the will of the electorate and whose term expires this year, Ex. 9to Wing Dec-that he is committed to cOlnplying with the Constitution-is not sufficient to demonstrate that he, let alone the Sheriff s Office and the next Sheriff, will not revert back to the old ways. The Sheriffhas not even done that.
2. The Sheriff's Policy Change on the Heels of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction Strongly Weighs Against Mootness
When a defendant's voluntary conduct results from impending litigation, a court should be wary of finding mootness, which is plainly the case here. The U.S. Supreme Court cautioned: "It is the duty of the courts to beware of efforts to defeat injunctive relief by protestations of repentance and reform, especially when abandonment seems timed to anticipate suit, and there is probability of resumption." Us. v. Oregon State Medical Soc., 343 U.S. 326, 333 (1952).

4 Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that government actors are held to the same stringent standard that every other defendant faces. See Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No.1, 551 U.S. 701,719 (2007).

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF-MOTION FOR 'PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (CV 12-71-SI) - 8
9870.05 fc052208

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 46 Filed 03/06/12 Page 15 of 41

In United States v. Government of Virgin Islands, 363 F.3d 276,285 (3d Cir. 2004), the Third Circuit found the Governor's last minute "voluntary" termination of a purportedly illegal contract insufficient to moot the lawsuit against the government: "The timing of the contract termination-just five days after the United States moved to invalidate it, and just two days before the District Court's hearing on the motion-strongly suggests that the impending litigation was the cause of the termination." See also Smith v. Univ. of Washington Law Sch., 233 F.3d 1188, 1194 (9th Cir. 2000) (finding mootness less appropriate when cessation occurred due to the "prodding effect" of litigation, which "tends to indicate that the change was not really voluntary at all."); Sejick v. Gardner, 164 F.3d 370, 372 (7th Cir. 1998) ("the current no-display policy, adopted after the commencement of this suit, is not implemented by statute or regulation and could be changed again, so this voluntary cessation of the challenged conduct does not eliminate the [First Amendment] controversy.").
Here, the Sheriff did not change his policy until Plaintiff filed this lawsuit and received notice ofPLN's impending motion for preliminary injunction. See Dkt. 1 (Complaint filed January 13, 2012); Dkt. 9-4, Exhibit 14 (January 13, 2012 letter requesting conference regarding preliminary injunction motion); Dkt. 32-5, Exhibit E (revised policy adopted January 26,2012). His timing strongly suggests the lawsuit and impending motion caused his change in policy, instead of a genuine and truly voluntary decision to abandon it. Indeed, the Sheriff states that he changed policies in response to PLN's lawsuit. See Dkt. 29 at 5 ("The current policy ... was drafted within days of the filing of plaintiff s lawsuit[.]").
3. The Sheriff Offers No Explanation or Reason for His Policy Change Courts should be unmoved to find mootness when a defendant fails to even explain the basis for cessation. Here, the Sheriff offers no reason at all for amending his policy, further calling into question the finality of the change. In Government of Virgin Islands, the Third Circuit remarked: "the Governor's sole justification for the termination of the contract was that 'such termination is in the best interest of the Government.' But this statement is extremely general, and surely does not provide any assurance that a similar contract would not be entered

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (CV 12-71-SI) - 9
9870.05 fc052208

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 46 Filed 03/06/12 Page 16 of 41

into again." 363 F.3d at 285. Indeed, in rejecting mootness of a preliminary injunction appeal where the defendant said
it would stop its copyright infringement, the Ninth Circuit remarked, if such a promise were sufficient "any defendant could moot a preliminary injunction appeal by sin1ply representing to the court that it will cease its wrongdoing." LGS Architects, Inc. v. Concordia Homes ofNevada, 434 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006). Instead, the Court held, "Concordia's representation that it has no intention to use LGS's architectural plans in the future does not make it 'absolutely clear' that Concordia will permanently refrain froin future infringement." Id.
Here, the Sheriff does not offer even an inadequate "extremely general" explanation for his cessation, let alone make a specific promise to abstain from illegal censorship of the mail.
4. The Sheriff Has Misrepresented the History and Content of His Mail Policies to the Court, to the Prisoners, and to the Public a. The Sheriff Has Not Made His Alleged Policies Available
The Sheriff states that he had "never seen" the Inmate Mail Policy that was published on his website for nearly two years before Plaintiff filed this lawsuit. Dkt. 32 ~8. He states that the mail procedures in that policy are inconsistent with his actual jail mail policies. Id. Although the Sheriffs new "Prohibited Mail Notice" directs its recipients to "go to the jail's web page at www.co.columbia.or.us/sheriff. to find the Jail's mail policies,s the Sheriff removed the published mail policy from his website on January 24, 2012, and has not posted either his policy dated January 26,2012 or February 10,2012. Wing Dec. at 1; Ex. 1 to id. Instead, the webpage titled "Inmate Mail" says "the inmate mail policy is under review at this time." Id. The Sheriff has made no attempt to correct the information previously posted on his website or make the current policy available to families, friends, and organizations who visit the Sheriff s website to find out what restrictions there are on inmate mail. See e.g. Lennox (Second) Dec. ~7.
Likewise, the Sheriff is withholding information about the new mail policy from

5 The November 12,2010, Inmate Manual states that members of the public can read these "mail rules" "on the jail's website at: www.co.columbia.or.us/sheriff... See B. Berg Dec. Ex. A at 8.

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (CV 12-71-SI) - 10
9870.05 fc052208

MacDonald Hoague & BAYLESS
705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 46 Filed 03/06/12 Page 17 of 41

pnsoners. On February 8, 2012-twelve days after the Jail's January revision became effective-the Jail denied prisoner Berg's request for a copy of the policy, telling him the "legal department" does not want staff to distribute it. See B. Berg. Dec. ~18, 20, and Ex. K to id.
The Sheriffs failure to inform prisoners, their correspondents, or the public of his current policy further supports the fact that he is not committed to complying with the constitution and that he has failed to show he irrevocably eradicated his prior conduct.
b. The Sheriff's Policies Banned Delivery of Magazines. The Sheriff asserts that: "The Jail's policies, however, have always allowed inmates to receive magazines as long as they were new and sent directly from the publisher." Dkt. 29 at 3. But his assertion is demonstrably false. He ignores the plain language of the mail policy posted on his website for the world to rely on for nearly two years. That policy stated: "Magazines: Are not allowed inside the facility." Dkt. 9-1 at 3. He also ignores the plain language of his Inmate Manual given to prisoners, which bears his signature and declares under the heading "Periodicals" that "We do not accept any periodicals." Ex. A to B. Berg Dec. Yet, the Sheriff told the Court his policies "have always" said the opposite. Dkt. 29 at 3. Also, the Jail repeatedly censored magazines while the Sheriffs alleged internal policies permitted their delivery. In addition to censoring PLN's monthly journals, see Dkt. 8, ~17, the Jail also censored magazines from other publishers, including National Geographic, Newsweek, and Bloomberg Weekly, and told the prisoner-addressee that the Jail's postcard policy prohibited delivery of magazines, see Weisenberger Dec. at ~5. And on December 25, 2011-just three weeks before this lawsuit was filed-the Jail wrote to prisoner Bradley Berg "WE DO NOT ALLOW MAGAZINES." Ex. J to B. Berg Dec. In short, the Jail censored magazines for at least 12 months while claiming its internal policies permitted their delivery. Finally, the Sheriffs claim that his policy now allows delivery of magazines is flawed. As noted in PLN's Motion, the Jail's policy permits delivery of only those magazines or periodicals "issued at least four times a year at regular, specified intervals ...." Dkt. 32-6 at 2. He fails to articulate a legitimate basis for restricting any periodicals.

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (CV 12-71-SI) - 11
9870.05 fc052208

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 46 Filed 03/06/12 Page 18 of 41

The Sheriff either knowingly violated the First Amendment or else he recklessly disregarded the unconstitutional practices of his staff that took place on a regular basis. The Jail's repeated censorship ofPLN's journal and the Inagazines of other publishers cannot be chalked up to staff misunderstanding the Sheriff s allegedly "true" but undisclosed policies; rather the censorship resulted from his published policies. The Sheriff s credibility is in doubt.
c. The Sheriff Has Misrepresented the History of His Mail Policies, and His Personal Knowledge of Them.
Defendant Jeff Dickerson became Columbia County Sheriff as of January 2009. Dkt. 32 ~1. Since then, the Sheriffs Office has adopted at least eight versions of a Jail mail policy. But the Sheriff has acknowledged only six of them. See Dkt. 32, Exhibits A through F.
The seventh version of the Sheriffs policy, dated April 1, 2010, Dkt. 9-1, Ex. 1, was posted by the Sheriff s Office on his website for twenty months until he took it down after this lawsuit was filed in late January 2012, see id.; Dkt. 9 ~11. Although the Sheriffs Office announced in December 2009 that it will be posting the new guidelines "on the agency website at www.co.columbia.or.us/sheriffin the coming weeks," Dkt. 9-1 Ex. 2, the Sheriff now declares that "Prior to receiving plaintiffs complaint, I had never seen this document," Dkt. 32 ~8.
The eighth known version of the Sheriff s policy is found on pages 7 through 10 of the "Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual" dated "11/12/10." Ex. A to B. Berg Dec. 6 At least one relevant mail policy provision in that Manual-the one that bans "periodicals"-does not mirror any of the mail policies the Sheriff presented to the Court, Dkt. 32-1 through 6. In his declaration, the Sheriff failed to acknowledge the existence of the Manual, but he cannot credibly deny he was aware of it because it bears his signature. Ex. A to B. Berg Dec. at 1.
There Inay be other descriptions or versions of the Sheriff s policies as well. His March 3,2010 and July 19,2011 versions announced that "An Inmate Mail Guide will be made available to the public explaining mail rules ... Copies of the Inmate Mail Guide will also be
6 An Inmate Manual dated 07/23/1 0 and labeled "rev3" contains the same provisions. See Ex. 10 to Wright (Second) Dec. Discovery will reveal whether the Sheriff changed the mail policy in other revisions to the Inmate Manual during his tenure.

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (CV 12-71-SI) - 12
9870.05 fc052208

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 46 Filed 03/06/12 Page 19 of 41

made available to inmates upon request." Dkts. 32-2 at 1; 32-3 at 1. Likewise, in his most recent policy version, the Sheriff acknowledges the existence of "the Inmate Manual" and promises to "make copies of the Inmate Mail Guide available to the public." Dkt. 32-6 at 13 ~39. The Sheriff did not submit any manuals or guides or post his policy on his website, so Plaintiff and the Court cannot determine whether they track his latest claimed policy.
The Sheriff cannot be relied on to comply with the Constitution absent a court order. d. The Sheriff Failed to Adequately Supervise Jail Staff in the Past and Has Failed to Improve His Supervision
Sheriff Dickerson acknowledges that throughout his tenure he has been responsible for establishing procedures for handling prisoners' mail. Dkt. 3213. But the evidence reflects that he did not shoulder his responsibility and he failed to ensure that his Jail complied with the Constitution. Either the Sheriff put in place the policies and practices that his staff have used to violate the rights ofPLN, his prisoners, and many others, or else for the majority of his tenure. the Sheriff was oblivious that his staff created unconstitutional policies, published them on his website, compiled theln in an Inmate Manual that they gave to his prisoners, and implemented them on a daily basis in his Jail. Either portrait undermines the Sheriffs argument that the Court can rely on him to comply with the Constitution on his own.
The Sheriff states that he is "investigating how the purported mail policies [on his website] were created, but it appears that some staff may have misunderstood the mail policy and were rejecting non-postcard size mailings addressed to inmates, instead of having the corrections staff process the inmate mail." Dkt. 29 at 3 n. 1. And the Sheriff declares that he only recently learned that his front office employees were rej ecting mailings before sending them to conections staff and they sOlnetilnes placed a sticker and other notations on the rejected mail referring to incorrect mail procedures. Dkt. 32 ~~8-9. He paints a picture of a few isolated incidents of negligence on the part of office staff. That is not what happened. Instead, over at least a 12-month period, the Jail censored at least 74 pieces ofPLN's mail. See Dkt 8 at ~~I626, 28. Why were the front office staff equipped with stickers and stamps that said "As of April 1,2010, The Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS This applies to ALL

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (CV 12-71-SI) - 13
9870.05 fc052208

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 46 Filed 03/06/12 Page 20 of 41

incoming and out going mail" and "CONTRABAND"? The Sheriff claims that he has solved the problems with ilnplementing his policies by
holding a one-hour training on February 1,2012, attended by most of his deputies. See Dkt. 29 at 8. His new policies are 17 pages long. Dkt. 32-6. Given the serious problems of censorship and lack of due process afforded by his staff, a one-hour training seems quite meager. As shown by Ms. Lennox's experience, the training was inadequate. See Lennox (Second) Dec.
Remarkably, the Sheriffs name is conspicuously absent from the training roster; he neither instructed his' staff himself nor did he attend the mail training to see whether they understand his new policies and how to implement them. See Dkt. 32-7, Ex. G. And, the Sheriffs Office provided this instruction at the beginning of February before he updated his policy again, on February 10,2012. He claims the update was not substantive, but he moved around substantive provisions in his lengthy policy, changed some policy language, and does not claim that his staff were notified.
Notably, the Sheriff required only one of the front office staff who handle mail to attend the February 1st training, and asked that person to "share the information with the other full-time staff member and the volunteers who might also handle themail... Id.at ~27. II. PLN Has Standing to Challenge All of the Mail Policies at Issue
For the past 21 years, the core ofPLN's mission has been public education, advocacy, and outreach in support of the rights of prisoners and in furtherance of basic human rights. Wright (Second) Dec. ~4. PLN publishes a monthly magazine of the same name, maintains a website, operates an email list, distributes books of interest to prisoners and publishes self-help, non-fiction reference books. Id. ~5.
Prisoners, their family, friends, and advocates, are among the intended beneficiaries of (and do benefit from) PLN's activities. Id. ~6. PLN is frequently contacted by prisoners and individuals who are concerned about the health and well-being of one or more prisoners, and who seek information or materials from PLN on issues related to prisoners' rights. Id. ~7. PLN's website, www.prisonlegalnews.org. gets approximately 100,000 unique visitors per

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (CV 12-71-SI) - 14
9870.05 fc052208

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Te1206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 46 Filed 03/06/12 Page 21 of 41

n10nth. Id. ~8. The website contains over 23,000 articles, 9,000 court opinions, and 5,000 legal documents in its brief bank, and in excess of 4,000 documents in its publications library. Id. The website is the largest online repository related to detention facility news and litigation in the world. It is updated on a nearly daily ba~is. Id.
Since prisoners do not have access to the internet, they rely on friends, family, and others to download and print articles from PLN's website and mail them to prisoners. Id. ~9. Because PLN lacks the resources to cOlnmunicate this information individually to each prisoner who desires it, PLN has purposely designed its website so that non-prisoners can research topics of importance to prisoners, and download, print, and mail the information to prisoners. Id. ~10. In fact, PLN's website invites anyone to "please feel free to print out articles and send them to the prisoner." Id. ~11, Ex. 1 at 3.
As a recently-released prisoner in Washington and his family declare, the materials on PLN's website are important to and desired by prisoners during incarceration. See Wing Dec. ~~3-5; Exs. 3,4 and 5 to id. PLN operates a free emaillistserv with approximately 1,500 subscribers who receive emails on a weekly basis related to detention facility news and litigation. Wright (Second) Dec. ~13. Many recipients of these emails print and mail articles of interest to friends and relatives in prisons and jails. Id. Several times per week, friends or relatives contact PLN by telephone, asking Editor Paul Wright to help them locate material on a particular topic on PLN's website for the stated purpose of printing arid mailing it to a prisoner who is their family member or friend. 7 Id. ~14.
The Sheriffs adoption of a Postcard-Only Policy means that no family member, friend, or other concerned individual can ever utilize PLN's website or listserv to print and mail information to prisoners in the Columbia County Jail. Id. ~15. The Jail has censored and

7 For example, PLN received an email inquiry from the sister of a prisoner in North Carolina

referencing PLN's website invitation to print material to send to prisoners. Id. ~12, Ex. 2 to id.

In her email, the sister asked whether her brother in prison has the right to receive materials

printed from the internet. Ex. 2 to id.

'

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (CV 12-71-SI) - 15
9870.05 fc052208

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 46 Filed 03/06/12 Page 22 of 41

rejected materials printed from the PLN website and admits to the Court that it will continue to
do so. See Dkt. 29 at 18; Lennox (Second) Dec. 'TI'TI2-8.
The policy prevents prisoners from receiving free material on the PLN website about
prisoners' criminal or civil rights, health and safety issues, reasonable accommodation, effective
assistance of counsel, or a host of other inlportant issues. Wright (Second) Dec. 'TIIS. Indeed, the Jail policy prevents family mail containing a website print-out ofPLN's article on Clement v.
California Dept. a/Carr., 364 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2004), which informs readers that the Ninth
Circuit "upheld the statewide permanent injunction issued by the U.S. District Court (N.D. Cal.)
enjoining the California Department of Corrections' (CDC) policy prohibiting prisoners from receiving Internet-generated mail." Id. ~16; Ex. 3 to id.
The Jail's policy also prevents prisoners from receiving the runicus brief filed in Clement
by PLN. In that brief, PLN informed the Ninth Circuit:
PLN... maintain[s] a Web site (www.prisonlegalnews.org) where it provides back issues for download, links to other Web sites relevant to prison legal issues, and subscription order forms. PLN often receives printouts of these order forms from first-time subscribers who are incarcerated. As prisoners lack Internet access of their own, they must receive these forms after they are printed out and mailed to them by friends or family. When resources allow, PLN intends to extend its Web site to include legal briefs and other informational material of use to prisoners and prisoner-rights activists. Again, prisoners would have to rely on non-incarcerated friends and family to download, print, and mail those materials to them. Id. ~16; Ex.4 to id. Eight years later, PLN has met its goal of hosting "legal briefs and other informational material" for printing and mailing to prisoners. Id at ~16; Ex. S to id.
Without question, the Sheriffs Postcard-Only Policy prohibiting family, friends, and
other individuals from mailing to prisoners materials printed off PLN' s website frustrates PLN's core mission of educating prisoners. Id. ~17. As just one example, Ms. Lennox notified PLN
that she recently mailed envelopes containing articles printed from PLN's website to prisoners in
the Columbia County Jail, but that the Jail returned some of the envelopes to her unopened, and
for two stated the Jail returned the mail because it is "not on a postcard." Lennox (Second) Dec.
PLN is frequently contacted by prisoners and their correspondents who complain of

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (CV 12-71-SI) - 16
9870.05 fc052208

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 46 Filed 03/06/12 Page 23 of 41

censorship or of violations of due process rights. Wright (Second) Dec. ~19. As pati ofPLN's
mission of education and advocacy for prisoners' rights, PLN's editor and staff respond to
complaints, investigate them, and are sometimes able to take action to relnedy them. Id.
Colulnbia County prisoners have communicated cOlnplaints to PLN about the Sheriff s
mail policies. Id. ~20. For example, a prisoner wrote the following to PLN:
I am a mentally ill inmate I experience hallucinations and have severe paranoia, panic disorder, and anxiety. I have done almost 14 years in prisons/jails almost 3 years solitary confinement ... Any information or help that you may offer or maybe a reference would be awesome! !! Thank you again oh and you like the post card? I'd send copies of my grievances etc. but they won't fit on a card I'm filing on that next.
Ex. 6 to id. And the complaints of prisoners in other jails further amplify their close and reliant
relationship with PLN, depending on PLN to take legal action to improve their conditions of
confinement, as PLN seeks to do for current and future prisoners confined in the Columbia
County Jail. For example, prisoners in Washington's Spokane County Jail contacted PLN
complaining that the Jail's postcard-only policy interfered with their rights to communicate with
family and asked PLN for help to stop the Jail's violation of their rights. Id. ~~22, 26-27, 29-30.
They complained to PLN that:
"My only source of letting my family know about certain facts about my case and other important personal details of my life is through the mail and I feel as if there is no privacy whatsoever concerning myself and my loved ones." Ex. 8 to id.
"[W]e are no longer able to send or receive mail only post cards no pictures from loved ones of my kids or family .... My family will be trying to contact you too." Ex. 9 to id.
"I have a 15 month old daughter, and am missing inches off her toes (Growth). My grandfather is very ill and doesn't know anything about these new mail changes. He shouldn't have to go out of his way or search for ways to accommodate jail rules. In reference to this new 'Jail Rule,' I can't receive Pictures, mail, 'I miss you dad!' cards, or any other only contact or communication from my family. It is very stressful and psychologically tormenting. I can't sleep or eat well due to this harassment." Ex. 7 to id.
"I am a 32 yr old male with children and am not able to use the phone to communicate with my children or famiIy[.] I cannot receive pictures or anything else of the sort and try to explain this to a nine yr old let alone a 8 or 6 yr old and I know there a lot of people in the county Jail in the same boat/under the same circumstances...." Ex. 11 to id. (signed by six

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (CV 12-71-SI) - 17
9870.05 fc052208

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 46 Filed 03/06/12 Page 24 of 41

other concerned prisoners).
"All of are [sic] mail to family-n-Ioved ones are on a postcard for the public to read... I was told you might be able to help. This is the refusal form they give me rather than my letters. Thank you." Ex. 12 to id.
PLN challenged the Spokane County Jail's postcard-only policy. The Consent Decree that PLN obtained resolving that litigation enjoined Spokane County from enforcing a postcardonly policy for incoming or outgoing mail and to afford due process to all, thereby advancing the rights of the more than 25,000 prisoners who pass through that Jail annually, as well as their families and friends. Id. ~31. Similarly, in 2011, after receiving numerous complaints from the prisoners at the Chelan County Jail in Washington, PLN challenged the Jail's ban on periodicals, magazines, and books, and its failure to provide adequate due process. PLN successfully obtained a Consent Decree permanently enjoining the Defendants from rejecting mail because it is a periodical, magazine, publication, catalog, brochure, or book, and from rejecting mail without giving constitutionally adequate due process. Id. at 32; Ex. 13 to id. And PLN has successfully challenged other prison and jail mail policies as welL See, e.g., Prison Legal News v. Cook, 238 F.3d 1145, 1149 (9th Cir. 2001); Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692, 697 (9th Cir. 2005).
In sum, PLN has a close relationship with prisoners and their families and friends, and PLN has vigorously and repeatedly advocated for their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights in court-on the very same mail policies challenged here. And the adverse effects of the Columbia County Jail's Postcard-Only Policy on prisoners, fatuilies, and friends mirrors the experiences of prisoners, and their families and friends, at the Spokane County JaiL See e.g., Exs. C, F through I, B. Berg Dec.
And, as in the Spokane litigation, PLN has investigated the censorship by the Columbia County Sheriff at considerable disruption to its operations, which affords it organization standing. As a result of the Jail's policy prohibiting prisoner-family letters, PLN-with only an editor and three other staff-was forced to divert its very limited resources from many other publishing, education, and advocacy tasks to review, respond, and investigate these complaints,

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (CV 12-71-SI) - 18
9870.05 fc052208

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 46 Filed 03/06/12 Page 25 of 41

and strategize how PLN could advocate for the rights of prisoners and their families. Wright (Second) Dec. ~24. PLN's staff spent several hours on these activities and incurred the cost of
postage to write to the complaining prisoners. Id. Defendants' interference with
communications between family, friends, and prisoners seeking help from PLN frustrated PLN's
mission of national education and advocacy for prisoners' rights. Id. Eight years ago, PLN told the Ninth Circuit in its amicus brief in Clement: PLN has litigated the speech rights of prisoners and their correspondents in order to preserve its own ability to accurately report and effectively distribute legal news relevant to prisoners .... PLN, because of its reliance on the Internet in continuing its mission to provide timely and accurate legal news to prisoners and concerned citizens, and as evidenced by its past involvement in similar litigation, has a strong interest in defending the right of prisoners to receive, and nonincarcerated citizens to send, mail containing speech printed from the Internet.
Id. ~34, Ex. 4 at 3 to id. In light of society's fast growing reliance on the internet and the
increasing population of prisoners in America, PLN's legal interest in vindicating the rights at stake here is stronger than ever. Id ~34.
Plaintiff may challenge the Jail's Postcard-Only Policy in its entirety because PLN has:
(a) standing in its own right; (b) organizational standing-the Jail's policy frustrates PLN's
mission and diverts its resources; and (c) third-party standing-PLN has been injured and can
satisfactorily frame the issues on behalf of non-parties whose legal interests PLN can represent in
a First Amendment challenge.
A. PLN Has Standing In Its Own Right
As set forth in Section I(A), on its face the Sheriffs current mail policy continues to ban
incoming mail sent from PLN to prisoners and outgoing mail from prisoners to PLN-including,
book catalogs, informational brochures, letters, subscription renewal forms, book order forms,
online articles. And the due process procedures are inadequate, as described in Section I(A)(4),
above. Therefore, the Sheriffs current policies injure PLN rights under the First and Fourteenth
Amendments, giving PLN standing in its own right to seek preliminary relief.
B. PLN Has Organizational Standing
A plaintiff must meet Article III constitutional standing requirements: injury, a causal

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (CV 12-71-S1) - 19
9870.05 fc052208

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 46 Filed 03/06/12 Page 26 of 41

connection between the injury and defendants' conduct, and likelihood that the injury can be redressed by the court. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992).
1. Injury PLN meets the injury-in-fact requirement under the well-recognized doctrine of "organizational" standing. Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982). In Havens, a fair housing case, the U.S. Supreme Court explained that, "If, as broadly alleged, petitioners' steering practices have perceptibly impaired HOME's ability to provide counseling and referral services for low-and moderate-income homeseekers, there can be no question that the organization has suffered injury in fact." Id. at 379. Article III is satisfied where the organization suffers (1) frustration of its nlission; and (2) diversion of its resources. See Smith v. Pac. Properties and Dev. Corp., 358 F.3d 1097, 1105 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Fair Housing of Marin v. Combs, 285 F.3d 899, 905 (9th Cir. 2002)). The first prong is satisfied by demonstrating that the organization's mission is frustrated by the Defendants' conduct. For example, in Smith, 358 F.2d at 1105, the court found sufficient that the Disabled Rights Action Committee alleged it was '"organized with the principal purpose of helping to eliminate discrimination ... Part and parcel to this effort is ensuring an adequate stock of accessible housing for those who are freed to leave the nursing homes. '" See also Granville House, Inc. v. Dept. ofHealth & Human Services, 715 F.2d 1292,1298 (8th Cir. 1983) (non-profit had standing to challenge HHS's interpretation of the term mental diseases because it "perceptibly impaired Granville's ability to provide its services to indigent patients"). Similarly, the core ofPLN's mission is "public education, advocacy, and outreach in support of the rights of prisoners and in furtherance of basic human rights." As explained above, PLN accomplishes this in a significant way by providing materials available for free to nonincarcerated family and friends to print from PLN's website and mailto prisoners in Jail, and inviting individuals to do so-which they do. Lennox (Second) Dec. ~~3-4. PLN is frequently contacted by individuals seeking help in doing just that. The Sheriff s current Postcard-Only Policy blocks PLN's use of this educational mechanism 100% of the time. See e.g., Dkt. 10 ~4;

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (CV 12-71-SI) - 20
9870.05 fc052208

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 46 Filed 03/06/12 Page 27 of 41

Dkt. 19 at 18. PLN's interest and pursuit of this mechanisnl is long-standing and wellestablished as illustrated by its amicus brief filed in Clement eight years ago. This is ample support that the Sheriffs Postcard-Only Policy frustrates PLN's mission in a legally injurious way.
The second prong requires the organization to show that cOlnbating the Defendants' conduct caused diversion of organizational resources. See NAACP v. Ameriquest Mortg. Co., 635 F. Supp.2d 1096, 1102 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (injury where defendants' actions impaired plaintiffs work and drained resources). Prisoners wrote to PLN complaining about the Sheriff s policy and asking for help to stop interference with their correspondence with their families. PLN had to divert the litnited time of its staff to read, respond, investigate the censorship, and to strategize solutions; and PLN had to incur costs to correspond with prisoners. The diversion of time and resources satisfies the injury requirement.
2. Causal Connection and Redressability The injury associated with frustration of PLN' s mission and diversion of its resources is caused directly by the Sheriffs Postcard-Only Policy. PLN seeks to enjoin the Policy alleviating PLN's injuries. In short, PLN has standing as an organization to challenge all of the Sheriff s policies. C. Third-Party Standing PLN has organi~ational standing, so it does not need to establish third-party standing. But PLN satisfies the requirements of third-party standing as well. As shown above, PLN suffers the threshold "minimal injury" to satisfy Article III, which leaves only the question of prudential considerations.
1. Prudential Standing Is Suspended in Overbreadth Cases
The prudential standing doctrine generally requires that: "[the plaintiff] assert his own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest his claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties." ... The reason for this rule is twofold: The limitation "frees the Court not only from unnecessary pronouncement on constitutional issues, but also from premature interpretations

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (CV 12-71-SI) - 21
9870.05 fc052208

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 46 Filed 03/06/12 Page 28 of 41

of statutes in areas where their constitutional application might be cloudy," ... and it assures the court that the issues before it will be concrete and sharply presented. Secretary ofState ofMd. v. Joseph H Munson Co., Inc., 467 U.S. 947, 955-58 (1984) ("Munson
Co.") (recognizing relaxed rules of standing in First Amendment cases, holding a fundraising
organization had standing to assert rights of client charities because "the activity sought to be
protected is at the heart of [plaintiffs] business....").
However, prudential standing is not jurisdictional. And, it is suspended in First
Amendment overbreadth cases because of the special nature of risk to expressive rights: [W]hen there is a danger of chilling free speech, the concern that constitutional adjudication be avoided whenever possible may be outweighed by society's interest in having the statute challenged. "Litigants, therefore, are permitted to challenge a statute not because their own rights of free expression are violated, but because of a judicial prediction or assumption that the statute's very existence may cause others not before the court to refrain from constitutionally protected speech or expression."
Munson Co., 467 U.S. at 956-57 (quoting Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601,612 (1973))
(emphasis added). The high court explained that "[fJacial challenges to overly broad statutes are
allowed not primarily for the benefit of the litigant, but for the benefit of society-to prevent the
statute from chilling the First Amendment rights of other parties not before the court." Id. at
958; see also Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438,446 n. 5 (1972) (noting "in First Amendment
cases we have relaxed our rules of standing without regard to the relationship between the
litigant and those whose rights he seeks to assert precisely because application of those rules
would have an intolerable, inhibitory effect on freedom of speech.").
Accordingly, for decades, courts across the country have allowed litigants to assert the
rights of third parties in First Amendment cases. In Virginia v. American Booksellers Ass'n, Inc.,
484 U.S. 383, 392-393 (1988), bookseller organizations and bookstores challenged a statute
prohibiting display of sexually explicit materials. The booksellers argued that the statute was
facially overbroad. The Supreme Court held that the booksellers had standing based on the
rights of non-party potential book buyers, recognizing that the statute's very existence may cause

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (CV 12-71-SI) - 22
9870.05 fc052208

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 46 Filed 03/06/12 Page 29 of 41

non-parties to refrain from constitutionally protected speech. Id. at 392. See also, e.g., Clark v. City ofLakewood, 259 F.3d 996, 1010 (9th Cir. 2001) (business had standing to challenge ordinance that required managers and entertainers to be licensed, recognizing "a credible risk the Ordinance could cause self-censorship and chilling of expression."); Connection Distributing Co. v. Reno, 154 F.3d 281,295 (6th Cir. 1998) (publisher had standing to assert freedom of association rights of its readers); Hang On, Inc. v. City ofArlington, 65 F.3d 1248,1252 (5th Cir. 1995) (business had standing to challenge ordinance on behalf of its employees, recognizing "customers' First Amendment rights where the violation of those rights adversely affects the financial interests or patronage of the business."); Enterline v. Pocono Medical Center, 751 F.Supp.2d 782 (M.D. Pa. 2008) (newspaper had standing to assert rights of individuals who posted on its online forums).
Similarly, for the reasons that follow, PLN has third party standing. 2. PLN Brought a Facial Overbreadth Challenge to the Mail Policy
PLN has alleged that the Sheriff s mail policies are unconstitutionally overbroad. Dkt. 1 at ~~4.73.5 and 4.74.3. Specifically, PLN contends that instead of adopting a legitimate Inail policy prohibiting just contraband, the Sheriff adopted a substantially overbroad policy prohibiting all letters and other mail contained in envelopes. See, e.g., Dkt. 15 at 23.
3. The Sheriffs Postcard-Only Policy Chills Free Speech The Sheriff asserts that prudential considerations should not be suspended because there is no "substantial abridgement [of a third party's rights] that could be addressed by a preliminary injunction." Dkt. 29 at pg. 12. The Sheriff also contends that "the postcard restriction does not chill speech." Dkt. 29 at 17. However, the plain language of the Sheriffs current policy and the experience of prisoners, and their friends and family, show otherwise. Rather than abandon his Postcard-Only Policy, the Sheriff cOlltinues to censor and deter speech between prisoners and their friends and family, a substantial infringement on their free speech rights. See B. Berg Dec. ~~3-6; S. Berg Dec. ~~2-8; Mikhaylova Dec. ~~2-8; Popa Dec. ~~3-7; Williams Dec. ~~2-9; Dkt. 10 ~~3-5; Lennox (Second) Dec. ~~3-8.

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (CV 12-71-SI) - 23
9870.05 fc052208

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 46 Filed 03/06/12 Page 30 of 41

The chilling effect of prison censorship has been well recognized. See, e.g., Ashker v. California Dept. o/Corr., 350 F.3d 917, 921 (9th Cir. 2003) ("Ashker no longer asks Khalsa to attempt to order books for him because of the difficulties she has encountered in the process."); Lamont v. Postmaster Gen. o/US., 381 U.S. 301, 307 (1965) ("This requirement is almost certain to have a deterrent effect... any addressee is likely to feel some inhibition in sending for literature which federal officials have condemned"); Virginia v. American Booksellers Assn., Inc., 484 U.S. 383, 393 (1988) (recognizing risk of self-censorship as constitutional injury); Cal. Pro-Life Council Inc. v. Getman, 328 F.3d 1088, 1094-95 (9th Cir. 2003) (smne).
When the Sheriff amended his mail policy just recently in January and February 2012, he did not publicize that magazines are now allowed-so the chilling effect to virtually all correspondents continues. The Sheriffs practices have not been consistent with the Constitution, he opposes PLN's request for injunctive relief, and his policies still violate the Constitution. These facts show that the Sheriff unconstitutionally interfered with expressive activities and continues to chill future speech.
Thus, unlike Pitt News, 215 F.3d 354 (3rd Cir. 2000), the Third Circuit case cited by the Sheriff, Dkt. 29 at 12, PLN has shown that third parties "are likely to have their speech chilled... and a risk they will forego their constitutionally protected rights" because of the Sheriffs mail policy. There is no question that his current policy "may cause others not before the court to refrain from constitutionally protected speech or expression"-it has chilled speech and will continue to do so.
4. PLN Has Satisfactorily Framed the Issues on Behalf of Non-Parties The Supreme Court has instructed that when claims are presented vigorously and resolution of the merits would be an efficient use ofjudicial resources, the claims of third parties should not wait for another day:
[A] decision by us to forgo consideration of the constitutional merits in order to await the initiation of a new challenge to the statute by injured third parties would be impermissibly to foster repetitive and time-consuming litigation under the guise of caution and prudence. Moreover, insofar as the applicable constitutional

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (CV 12-71-S1) - 24
9870.05 fc052208

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
TeI206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 46 Filed 03/06/12 Page 31 of 41

questions have been and continue to be presented vigorously and "cogently," ... the denial ofjus tertii standing in deference to a direct class suit can serve no functional purpose.
Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 193-94 (1976) ("vendors and those in like positions have been uniformly permitted to . . . [act] as advocates of the rights of third parties who seek access to their market or function.").
In the short life of this case, Plaintiff has sought a preliminary injunction challenging the entire Postcard-Only Policy, and invited an amicus brief by the Partnership for Safety and Justice. Plaintiff has submitted postcards, letters, grievances, and declarations of several nonparties whose interests PLN is advancing here, including prisoners, and their family and friends, illustrating the need for PLN to challenge the policy. See Declarations of Bradley Berg (prisoner), Sharon Berg (mother of prisoner), Lucy Lennox (individual whose mail to prisoner has been censored), Natalia Mikhaylova (friend of prisoner), Oana Popa (friend of prisoner), John Weisenberger (former prisoner), and Shaughnessy Willimns (prisoner), filed herewith.
PLN has framed the issues of the non-parties with great vigor. If the Sheriff has indeed corrected his previous ban on all magazines and periodicals, as he claims, then his claimed modifications of his mail policies and training ofjail employees triggered by PLN's lawsuit has already improved the lives of hundreds of prisoners and their correspondents. The parties have already expended significant resources on this issue and the Court will have expended its time as well since this motion is fully briefed for consideration. So, denial of standing would be contrary to judicial economy and interfere with the interests of non-parties who could benefit from courtordered relief now while they, or their loved ones, are still in Jail.
5. Plaintiff Meets Prudential Standing Requirements Even if prudential standing was required, Plaintiff meets the three requirements: actual injury, special relationship, and hindrance. See Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 410-411 (1991). In Powers, a white criminal defendant had third-party standing to challenge the prosecutor's peremptory strike of a black juror because the defendant was injured by discriminatory jury

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (CV 12-71-SI) - 25
9870.05 fc052208

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 46 Filed 03/06/12 Page 32 of 41

empanelling, a stricken juror has a limited stake so is hindered frOITI filing a challenge, and the defendant would vigorously do so showing a close relationship to the juror's interests.
First, a litigant must have suffered actual injury, "thus giving him or her a 'sufficiently concrete interest' in the outcome of the issue in dispute." Id. at 411. PLN has shown its injury.
Second, the litigant must have a close enough relationship with the third party giving it a "sufficiently concrete interest" in the outconle of the issue in dispute, such that the litigant will be an effective advocate. Id. at 411. PLN has established its close relationship with prisoners and their loved ones in spades, one that is far closer than between bookstores and their customers recognized as sufficient in American Booksellers Ass'n, Inc., 484 U.S. at 392-93.
Third, "there must exist some hindrance to the third party's ability to protect his or her own interests." Powers, 499 U.S. at 411. "[A] party must show that some barrier or practical obstacle ... prevents or deters the third party from asserting his or her own interest." Benjamin v. Aroostook Medical Ctr., Inc., 57 F.3d 101, 106 (1st Cir. 1995).
Individuals incarcerated in jails face enormous obstacles to successfully obtaining judicial relief for constitutional violations related to the conditions of their confinement. Wright (Second) Dec. ~33. These include: the average duration of a prisoner's stay in a county jail is less than the period of time Defendants have just to answer a complaint; the vast majority of county jail inmates are struggling to cope with other personal crises related to the disruption that incarceration has wreaked on their lives; lack of legal training; lack of financial resources; high levels of functional iliiteracy; ignorance of the legal system and how to use it to vindicate constitutional rights; high rates of mental illness; and lack of English language skills all make it difficult for prisoners to successfully vindicate their rights. Id.
Friends and family members of prisoners who wish to vindicate their First Amendment rights to send and receive letters from prisoners also face similar obstacles, see Ex. 4 ~12 to Wing Dec., with additional concerns that any attempt to vindicate their constitutional rights will lead to retaliation or negative consequences for their incarcerated loved one, Wright (Second) Dec. ~33. Nationally, the number of lawyers with the capacity, resources, and desire to litigate

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (CV 12-71-SI) - 26
9870.05 fc052208

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 46 Filed 03/06/12 Page 33 of 41
these issues on behalf of prisoners and their families is miniscule, so for the vast majority of prisoners and their families and friends access to a lawyer to vindicate their First Amendment rights is non-existent. Id.
The cost and time required to litigate is often prohibitive for families suffering loss of income or child care provider because their loved one is incarcerated. And a person who initiates a lawsuit would face Defendants' challenge to their standing once the prisoner was released. The average length of stay for a prisoner at the Columbia County Jail was a mere 19 days in 2011 (Ex. 2 at 15 to Wing Dec.)-much too short to bring suit before release. Even prisoners with longer confinements in the Jail would be hard pressed to cOlnplete a vigorously contested lawsuit while incarcerated. The delay in finding a willing and knowledgeable lawyer, the ramp up time to investigate and start a lawsuit, and the risk of losing standing for injunctive relief on a low damages case when the prisoner is released, even on appeal, illustrate the formidable obstacles to prisoners or their families or friends bringing the challenge that PLN has already brought.
The Sheriffs policy is counter-productive. That it deprives hundreds of prisoners, families, friends, and others of their First Amendment rights puts into perspective the need to allow PLN to press its challenge to conclusion. These persons should not have to wait until a prisoner or family member overcomes the considerable obstacles to bring a lawsuit themselves.
6. Prisoners, Friends, and Families Seek to Exercise Their Free Speech Rights
Defendants caution the court against finding third-party standing, because third parties "may not wish to assert [their rights] or may not be able to enjoy those rights regardless of the incourt litigants' success." Dkt. 29 at pg. 12. But, Defendants cannot seriously dispute that prisoners and their correspondents desire to exercise their First Amendment rights and will enjoy doing so if the Court enters a preliminary injunction. See B. Berg Dec. ~~4-6, 13; S. Berg Dec. ~~4-6; Mikhaylova Dec. ~~3-6; Popa Dec. ~~3-6; Williams Dec. ~~3, 8; Dkt. 10 ~~3-5.

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (CV 12-71-SI) - 27
9870.05 fc052208

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
TeI206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 46 Filed 03/06/12 Page 34 of 41

III. A Preliminary Injunction Should be Entered
A. The Sheriff Fails to Undermine PLN's Showing of Success on the Merits
1. The Sheriff's Policy is Unreasonably Overbroad and Bans Protected Speech
The Sheriff boldly states that "the postcard restriction is not overbroad because speech is not limited in any way." Dkt. 29 at 16. This statement is nonsensical. He bans all outgoing mail that is not a postcard, all incoming personal and business mail that is not a postcard, and all internet-generated mail.
Although the Sheriff claims that his mail policy furthers security and safety concerns, his policies do not target contraband. Instead, he adopted a substantially overbroad policy prohibiting all speech in particular forms, including: letters between a prisoner and his pastor (B. Berg. Dec. ~5); letters between a prisoner and his mother (S. Berg Dec. at ~5 and7); letters between a prisoner and his friend about their families and advice (Mikhaylova Dec. ~7-8 and Popa Dec. ~3); letters between a prisoner and his brother who the prisoner depends on for love and support (Williams Dec. ~3, 8); issues of National Geographic, Newsweek, and Bloomberg Weekley (Weisenberger ~5-8); articles from PLN's website sent by an non-prisoner regarding prison privatization and censorship suits (Dkt. 10~~3-4; Lennox (Second) Dec. ~~3-5); book catalogs offering dictionaries and legal resources offered for sale by PLN (Dkt. 8 ~~15-16, Ex. NNN); informational brochures about correspondence school books offered for sale by PLN (Dkt. 8 ~~15-16, Ex. (00); letters regarding PLN's history and cases in litigation (Dkt. 8 ~28, Ex. QQQ); andjoumals regarding prison news and analysis (Dkt. 8 ~17, Ex. LLL).
In contrast, the Sheriff fails to articulate any reduction in contraband, or how often he finds contraband in incoming or outgoing mail, asserting only that it "can" be included in mail. While ajail can prohibit the mailing of contraband it cannot justify censoring an entire medium of mail on the mere speculation that some unspecified amount in that medium sometimes "can" contain "contraband," undercutting the First Amendment rights of hundreds of people every year. The Sheriffs argument utterly fails regarding most of the serious forms of contraband he

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN. SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (CV 12-71-SI) - 28
9870.05 fc052208

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 46 Filed 03/06/12 Page 35 of 41

has identified since envelopes cannot successfully conceal needles, blades, handcuff keys, or prescription drug pills, escape plans, or sexually explicit material. And a person can write prohibited content such as threats of physical harm and gang-related materials on a postcard so prohibiting all letters does not further the Sheriff s stated interests.
2. The Sheriff Relies Solely on General or Conclusory Assertions to Support His Overbroad Policy a. "Security and Safety Concerns"
The Sheriff and Sergeant Cutright list a host of items that they consider "contraband" because of what can be concealed within or behind them. Dkt. 29 ~~11-15; Dkt. 30 ~~3, 4. But they fail to identify a single circumstance in 2009,2010,2011, 2012--or during any year for that matter-in which something harmful was·actually concealed and sent to a prisoner at the Jail in an envelope. They do not describe a single event that led the Jail to adopt the Postcard-Only Policy, or that shows their prior methods of screening for contraband were not sufficient. Nor do they demonstrate--or even contend-that the Postcard-Only Policy has furthered their interest in reducing contraband from entering the jail.
To support his Postcard-Only Policy, the Sheriff claims that contraband "can contain biohazards," Dkt. 29 ~11, contaminants "can also spread quickly," id., and envelopes "can hide contraband," id. ~14. But "[p]rison authorities cannot rely on general or conclusory assertions to support their policies." Walker v. Sumner, 917 F.2d 382, 386 (9th Cir. 1990). They must "demonstrate" that their specific interests "are the actual bases for their policies and that the policies are reasonably related to the furtherance of the identified interests. An evidentiary showing is required as to each point." Id. (emphasis added). Conjecture is not enough. Reed v. Faulkner, 842 F.2d 960, 963-64 (7th Cir. 1988).
And, federal courts have rejected blanket policies censoring mail based on generalized fear of contaminants. See, e.g., Jones v. Brown, 461 F.3d 353, 364 (3d Cir. 2006) ("while the health and safety of inmates and staff are legitimate penological interests, if there is no information suggesting a significant risk of an anthrax attack, there is no reasonable connection

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (CV 12-71-SI) - 29
9870.05 fc052208

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 46 Filed 03/06/12 Page 36 of 41

between those interests and the policy"). Here, the Sheriff offers no evidence of an actual, let alone significant, risk. And, any contaminants that can be placed in an envelope can be placed on a postcard, so the distinction he draws regarding contaminants is erroneous. In fact, the Sheriffs statenlent that "a variety of drugs ... can be hidden under a postage stamp," Dkt. 32 ~15, does not support his argument at all since a correspondent must put a stamp on a postcard just like a letter. And since a prisoner and his correspondents must write multiple postcards to communicate what could be written in a letter, see e.g. Mikhaylova Dec. ~4, Popa Dec. ~4, Williams Dec. ~8, the Sheriffs policy leads to more stamps arriving at the Jail.
In sum, the Sheriff fails to show that a contraband problem existed or that his policy addresses such a problem, and a generalized fear of contaminants is not sufficient. PLN is likely to show that the Sheriffs policy is irrational. See Dkt. 15 at 16-22.
b. "Volume" Even setting aside for the moment that an unbroken series of Ninth Circuit opinions has rejected volume of mail as a justification for governmental censorship of Inail to prisoners, the Sheriff s complaint about Inail volume is moribund under its own weight. Sergeant Cutrigi?-t contends that the Jail receives "about fifty pieces of mail per day addressed to inmates." Dkt.30, ~2. Out of this tiny amount of mail, 10 to 15 pieces are legal mail," id., which the Jail screens "only for contraband-not content," see Dkt. 32-6 at 5, so jail staff "must not read its contents," id., ~12.b. So, the Jail screens a mere 35 to 40 pieces of mail addressed to prisoners per day. Common sense and experience teaches that this is a de minimis amount of mail. Indeed, in PLN v. Cook, 238 F.3d at 1151, the Ninth Circuit rejected the Oregon DOC's argument that it would be overburdened by having to deliver 15 to 30 pieces of mail. Here, unlike in PLN v. Cook, the Jail is not faced with an additional 15 to 30 pieces of mail to handle. Rather, without its Postcard-Only Policy the Jail would inspect the same 35 to 40 pieces of mail, Defendants contend, they just would be letters in lieu of postcards. This is the slimmest of reeds for justifying the wholesale censorship of an entire medium of

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (CV 12-71-SI) - 30
9870.05 fc052208

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel206.622.l604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 46 Filed 03/06/12 Page 37 of 41

communication-letters. 8 Sheriff Dickerson declares that "Postcards are easier and quicker to inspect for
contraband and prohibited content than multiple sheets of paper in an envelope because contraband is easier to detect on a postcard and there is less area to inspect." Dkt. 32, ~16. But in making this statement, the Sheriff necessarily admits that his policy deters speech-because it is only possible for there to be "less area to inspect" on a postcard if the prisoner or his correspondent communicated less on a postcard than they would have in a letter. So, if the Sheriffs staff is saving time inspecting prisoner mail it is because his policy has been decimating the amount of speech flowing between prisoners and their correspondents. See, e.g., B. Berg Dec. ~~4-6 (prisoner deterred); Weisenberger Dec. ~4 (prisoner's children deterred).
If the Jail received multiple postcards in place of a multiple-page letter then the Sheriff would have compared the ease and time involved in inspecting numerous postcards-including the time spent removing stamps, and checking the names and addresses on each-with inspecting a single envelope containing "multiple sheets of paper." It is telling that he didn't make that comparison. It suggests that his policy has chilled a lot of speech.
Further, the Sheriff makes the illegitimate leap from "easier and quicker" inspections to his declared outcome: "Thus, the risk of prohibited substances entering the Jail is reduced by the use of postcards for personal mail." Dkt. 32, ~16. Even accepting that his staff can more easily and quickly scan a postcard for contraband, it follows that the staff accomplish their job faster; but it does not follow that the risk of contraband entering the facility is reduced.
Finally, the Sheriff did not dispute PLN's argument that prior to adopting his PostcardOnly Policy his staff successfully inspected the mail nor did he dispute PLN's contention that when the Jail staff comply with Constitutional due process requirements it takes more time to censor mailed envelopes than to screen and deliver them, undercutting any potential saving in time resulting from Defendants' policies. See Plf s Mot. (Dkt. 15), at 18-19.

8 And where the policy does not deter prisoners and their correspondents, it creates more mail to inspect. See e.g. Williams Dec. ~8 ("I have had to write six postcards to convey a message to my friends and family"); Popa Dec. ~4 ("I usually send three postcards at once.").

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (CV 12-71-SI) - 31
9870.05 fc052208

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
TeI206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 46 Filed 03/06/12 Page 38 of 41

3. The Sheriff Admits That Communication Promotes Rehabilitation The Sheriff contends that his mail policy encourages prisoner rehabilitation because it allows an inmate to "obtain permission from a sergeant to send and receive letters not on a postcard when the inmate is within thirty days of completing his or her sentence." Dkt. 29 at 17. In doing so, he concedes that communication promotes rehabilitation and that restricting prisoners' communications with the outside world to postcards, as he does, impedes rehabilitation.
4. Plaintiff is Likely to Show that the Sheriff's Outgoing Mail Policy Does Not Meet the Martinez Standard
Sheriff fails to acknowledge let alone Ineet the higher Martinez standard to justify censoring outgoing mail. Although he mentions that there must be a "closer fit" between a regulation that affects outgoing mail and its purpose, the Sheriff seems to contend that a "rational" connection is enough. See Dkt. 29 at pg. 14. But the Supreme Court has held that that more is required: a policy affecting outgoing mail must "further an important or substantial governmental interest unrelated to the suppression of expression" and ((the limitation of First Amendment freedoms must be no greater than is necessary or essential to the protection of the particular govermnental interest involved. Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396,413-14 (1974), overruled in part on other grounds by Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401,417 (1989) (emphasis added). And the high Court has recognized that "outgoing personal correspondence from prisoners... [does] not, by its very nature, pose a serious threat to prison order and security." Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 411.
The Sheriff fails to demonstrate or even articulate an important or substantial governmental interest that he seeks to protect through his ban on all outgoing mail that is not a postcard. And he fails to demonstrate that his limitation on speech is no greater than necessary to protect the governmental interest. Instead, he bundles his justifications for restricting incoming and outgoing mail together and relies solely on general or

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (CV 12-71-SI) - 32
9870.05 fc052208

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 46 Filed 03/06/12 Page 39 of 41

conclusory assertions, without stating any basis for them. PLN is likely to show that the Sheriff s restrictions on outgoing mail are unconstitutional.
5. Postcard-Only Policy Litigation The Sheriff misread Plaintiff s brief commenting that PLN is unaware of any jails that have implemented postcard-only policies. Dkt. 29 at 19. PLN wrote that it is unaware of any "state or federal prison" with such a policy, Dkt. 15 at 23 (emphasis added), and Defendants have not identified any. Instead, Defendants identified some jails with postcard-only policies challenged by pro se prisoners. When PLN or the ACLU has challenged postcard-only policies, jails have agreed to a settlement or consent decree ending their postcard-only policy entirely. See, e.g., Dkt. 31-2 (Spokane County, Washington); Wing Dec. Ex. 6 at pg. 9, 17-18 (Santa Rosa County, Florida); Wing Dec. Ex. 8 (Boulder County, Colorado). B. Alternative Avenues Are Too Costly and Burdensome for PLN and other
Correspondents
As discussed in PLN's Motion, Dkt. 15 at 22-23, PLN has no practical way to reach its intended audience at the Columbia County Jail except through the mail. And notably, the resources in the Jail's library are scarce. B. Berg. Dec. ~~ 9, 11, 12. For many friends and families of prisoners, in-person visits and phone calls are too costly and burdensome, as is reducing their communications to postcard form. See, e.g., S. Berg Dec. ~~6-7; Mikhaylova Dec. ~~4-6; Popa Dec.~~4-7.
C. The Postcard-Only Policy is an Exaggerated Response
The Sheriffhas failed explain why his former policy, permitting letters, was insufficient to control contraband, and he failed to demonstrate that "discarding the postcard restriction would have more than a de minimis cost to the Jail." Dkt. 29 at 20. Sergeant Cutright's estimation that "approximately 30 to 60 minutes" of staff time "depending on the volume of mail," Dkt. 30 ~4, is a de minimis saving of resources and at the substantial cost of suppressing protected speech.

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (CV 12-71-S1) - 33
9870.05 fc052208

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 46 Filed 03/06/12 Page 40 of 41

D. PLN is Likely to Show the Sheriff's Due Process Procedures Are Inadequate

The Sheriff contends that his due process procedures are "clear" and already require notice and an opportunity to be heard. But his policy-with various references to notice scattered throughout-is far from clear or adequate as evidenced by Ms. Lennox's recent expenence. See Section I(A)(4) above.
CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, the Court should hold that PLN has direct, organizational, and third-party standing to challenge all of the Sheriff s unconstitutional mail policies, and that the Sheriff s modifications have not rendered PLN's request for injunctive relief moot. "It is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party's constitutional rights." Summartano v. First Jud. Cir. Ct., in andfor Cty. ofCarson City, 303 F.3d 959, 974 (9th Cir. 2002). The Sheriff has not remedied his unconstitutional mail policy. Therefore, Plaintiff, prisoners, and their families, friends, and other correspondents, face irreparable harm during this litigation in the absence of preliminary relief, which should be granted.

DATED March 6,2012.

MacDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS

IslKatherine C. Chamberlain Jesse Wing, Pro Hac Vice JesseW@MHB.com Katherine C. Chamberlain, OSB #042580 KatherineC@MHB.coin Attorneys for Plaintiff

DATED March 6,2012.

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

IslLance Weber Lance Weber, Pro Hac Vice lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org Attorneys for Plaintiff

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (CV 12-71-SI) - 34
9870.05 fc052208

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 46 Filed 03/06/12 Page 41 of 41
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 6, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing to the Clerk of
the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: • Marc D. Blackman marc@ransomblackman.com,pat@ransomblaclanan.com • Gregory R. Roberson grr@hartwagner.com,cej@hartwagner.com .. Lance Weber lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org .. Jesse Wing JesseW@mhb.com
MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS
lsi Katherine C. Chamberlain KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN OSB #042580 (206) 622-1604 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (CV 12-71-SI) - 35
9870.05 fc052208

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 1 of 110 Page ID#: 1538 1

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

3 PRISON LEGAL NEWS,

4

Plaintiff,

5

vs.

6 COLUMBIA COUNTY, et al.,

7

Defendants.

) ) ) 3:12-CV-0071-SI ) ) April 4, 2012 ) ) Portland, Oregon ) )

8

9

10

11

12

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

13

BEFORE THE HONORABLE MICHAEL H. SIMON

14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 2 of 110 Page ID#: 1539 2

1

APPEARANCES

2 FOR THE PLAINTIFF: 3 4

Jesse Wing Katherine C. Chamberlain MacDonald Hoague & Bayless 705 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98104

5

Marc D. Blackman

6

Ransom Blackman, LLP

1001 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 1400

7

Portland, OR 97204

8

9 FOR THE DEFENDANTS: Steven A. Kraemer

Gregory R. Roberson

10

Hart Wagner LLP

1000 SW Broadway, Suite 2000

11

Portland, OR 97205

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23 COURT REPORTER: 24 25

Dennis W. Apodaca, RMR United States District Courthouse 1000 SW Third Avenue, Room 301 Portland, OR 97204 (503) 326-8182

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 3 of 110 Page ID#: 1540 3

1

(April 4, 2012)

2

P R O C E E D I N G S

3

(Open court:)

4

THE CLERK: Your Honor, this is the time set for

5 argument in civil Case No. 12-71-SI, Prison Legal News

6 versus Columbia County, et al.

7

Counsel, beginning with the plaintiff, would you

8 please identify yourself.

9

MR. BLACKMAN: Good morning, Your Honor. Marc

10 Blackman appearing for plaintiff. With me are Jesse Wing

11 and Katherine Chamberlain from the firm of MacDonald

12 Hoague & Bayless from Seattle. They will be carrying the

13 bulk of the weight of the argument for plaintiff this

14 morning.

15

THE COURT: Good morning.

16

MR. KRAEMER: Steve Kraemer for defendants and

17 Greg Roberson also with my office.

18

THE COURT: Good morning. Please be seated. We

19 have as much time this morning as we need, so feel free

20 not to rush through things if you don't need to. Let me

21 ask you: Am I correct in recalling, and if so, has

22 anything changed, that there will not be any live

23 witnesses to present this morning? We are ready to move

24 to argument. Am I correct?

25

MR. WING: That's correct, Your Honor.

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 4 of 110 Page ID#: 1541 4

1

THE COURT: Okay. Let me share with you briefly

2 some of my thoughts that may or may not help shape your

3 arguments, but you are still welcome to cover and address

4 anything that you wish. I really don't think it will be

5 that effective use of your time to talk about mootness or

6 standing. That said, if you want to cover it, you are

7 welcome to.

8

With respect to the First Amendment issues, the

9 items that I see -- and if I have missed some, by all

10 means alert me to it -- come down to four categories: The

11 restrictions on incoming personal mail. There is a

12 strange definition of "personal," but we will talk about

13 that. But basically the restrictions on personal incoming

14 mail be limited to postcards only. The restrictions on

15 outgoing personal mail being limited to postcards only.

16 The issue of book catalogs, the third item. And the

17 fourth item is magazines. That's with respect to the

18 First Amendment issues.

19

I would assume that most of what we would be

20 talking about would be the application of the four factors

21 of Turner. I am interested, especially from the

22 plaintiffs, on whether or not plaintiffs would agree, at

23 least in concept or in theory, that there could be any

24 limitations, non-content based limitations, on the

25 quantity of mail that comes in, whether that be page

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 5 of 110 Page ID#: 1542 5

1 limits, if we were to allow more than just postcards but

2 full letter-sized comments or copies of Internet-generated

3 articles, would there be any appropriate limitations on

4 page limits? For example, is it your position that under

5 Turner they could not refuse to receive, let's say, a

6 480-page printout of an Internet article, and you might

7 have to read all 480 pages to see if there is something

8 inappropriate on page 430. So in theory might there be

9 appropriate page limitations?

10

Similarly, might there be appropriate

11 limitations on the quantity of incoming mail on a daily or

12 weekly or other periodic basis? If the answer to that is

13 no, then where in Turner do you get that from and why and

14 what do we do about staff resources? If the answer to

15 that is yes, then where and how should a court draw the

16 lines? So plaintiff may want to address those issues

17 especially. As I said, anybody is welcome to address

18 anything you want, but these are some of the things I have

19 been struggling with as I have been reading the papers.

20

Then with respect to the procedural due process

21 question under the Fourteenth Amendment, I think the

22 parties may want to specifically talk about paragraphs 30,

23 31, 45 and 46 of the most current policy from Columbia

24 County Jail, although as I said, you are welcome to talk

25 about anything you want.

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 6 of 110 Page ID#: 1543 6

1

Although speaking of the most current policy,

2 let me just ask, and either side can answer this. Feel

3 free to jump in, whoever wishes to. I see that sometimes

4 plaintiffs refer to Exhibit 20 to Ms. Chamberlain's

5 declaration as the most recent or the second revised

6 policy, but that's the one that is numbered J603-R06 dated

7 January 26th, 2012, whereas Sheriff Dickerson attaches as

8 Exhibit F to his declaration an inmate policy that appears

9 to be more recent. It is numbered J603-R07. It is dated

10 February 10th, 2012 as opposed to January 26th, 2012.

11

There are a couple of small differences. Some

12 on procedural due process issues, and one on the

13 magazines. I think one allows three periodicals a day;

14 one allows two. Someone needs to correct me if I'm wrong,

15 but I'm assuming that Sheriff Dickerson's Exhibit F is the

16 current state of the policy at Columbia County.

17

A couple of other issues that you might want to

18 address and that is as follows: I see that there is a lot

19 of evidence that has been presented primarily by the

20 plaintiff in declaration form about inconsistent

21 treatment. Sometimes things are returned; sometimes not.

22 Sometimes the prohibited mail slips are attached;

23 sometimes not. Maybe some magazines are treated

24 inappropriately under the policy. I have a big-picture

25 question that he would like you all to address at some

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 7 of 110 Page ID#: 1544 7

1 point. That is, what am I supposed to do with that

2 evidence on a facial challenge?

3

As I understand it, we are here, if I have got

4 this right -- and if I have got it wrong, someone needs to

5 correct me -- we are here to evaluate the facial

6 constitutionality of the most recent and current inmate

7 mail policy at Columbia County Jail, which I'm treating as

8 Dickerson Exhibit F unless I'm wrong on that. And so what

9 do I do, if anything? How do I process how things were

10 treated under earlier versions of the policies, either

11 consistently or inconsistently? What do they tell us

12 about how to interpret the current policies? Is that why

13 you are offering it?

14

But also, if the current policy has aspects that

15 are invalid facially, then what use do I make of the

16 inconsistent treatment under older policies? And to the

17 extent that we're talking about a facial challenge as

18 opposed to an as-applied challenge, what do I do with what

19 appears to be in some way an inconsistent challenge?

20

Those are my thoughts right now that I share

21 with you. As I said in the beginning, you are welcome to

22 talk about anything you want; frankly, whatever order you

23 want. Although that said, it is plaintiff's motion, so I

24 will hear from plaintiff first.

25

MR. WING: Thank you, Your Honor. May I ask,

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 8 of 110 Page ID#: 1545 8

1 having not been in your courtroom before, do you want us

2 to sit or stand?

3

THE COURT: It makes no difference to me.

4 Whatever you are more comfortable with. You can sit down,

5 you can stand, you can walk in the well of the court,

6 whatever you are comfortable with.

7

MR. WING: Thank you very much.

8

First, let me say as a housekeeping matter, we

9 agree that, as far as we can tell, Exhibit F to the

10 declaration of Sheriff Dickerson, as we understand it, is

11 the most recent version of the policy.

12

Your Honor, what is at stake here is the ability

13 of persons who are confined 24 hours a day to communicate

14 with the outside world while they are at the mercy of

15 individuals who are completely in charge of what they can

16 see, hear, review and learn about, and those prisoners

17 have a well-known and well-recognized need under the

18 First Amendment to access a range of material to educate

19 themselves, to learn about their rights, about prison

20 conditions, and many of these prisoners are prisoners of

21 the federal government who, for administrative reasons,

22 are in this jail suffering under a policy that they would

23 not suffer from if they were in the Federal Bureau of

24 Prisons.

25

THE COURT: Is that a relevant distinction? Do

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 9 of 110 Page ID#: 1546 9

1 the standards change if it is a federal prisoner versus a

2 state prisoner?

3

MR. WING: I don't think the standards change at

4 all. I think it merely illustrates that there is such a

5 differential treatment that -- I think it is over 200,000

6 prisoners in the federal system don't experience this.

7 And the question is, why does the Columbia County Jail

8 need to do this?

9

THE COURT: By the way, when I shake my head and

10 say "okay," it doesn't mean I agree. It means at least I

11 have understood what you are saying.

12

MR. WING: Thank you. Fair enough.

13

I'm going to do my best to negotiate my much

14 more developed notes on each of these topics to veer

15 toward the things you said that you think are useful to

16 turn to.

17

I want to talk about -- very briefly, if I can,

18 to set the stage -- where I think we are at. We have

19 brought both a facial challenge to the policy, but we also

20 have brought a challenge to the practices of the sheriff.

21 The sheriff has declared that the policy that we say

22 exists is not the policy that he says existed. The

23 sheriff has said that the policy that his staff were

24 working under is not the policy that he thought they were

25 working under. And so we challenge, not only the policy

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 10 of 110 Page ID#: 1547 10

1 itself, but prior policies and the application of those

2 policies. I think that becomes relevant. I will take up

3 a little bit later the question you asked, what do you do

4 with the inconsistency? I prefer not to start there.

5

THE COURT: Fine.

6

MR. WING: Okay.

7

So the defense says in their answer that they

8 have admitted virtually all factual allegations made by

9 the plaintiff, I think with the exception of one person

10 they say was not in the jail. These are what we wold say

11 are dozens of unconstitutional acts. They, in three

12 places in their answer, admit "some of their past mail

13 policies violated some of the plaintiffs' constitutional

14 rights." As we sit here today, we don't know what they

15 admit to and what they don't. I think it would be helpful

16 today to hear from the defense what it is that they admit

17 was unconstitutional and what wasn't, as I think that

18 would help direct what we do.

19

We are seeking a preliminary injunction on all

20 of the policies that the sheriff has passed and the

21 practices. That is, the sheriff has, since this

22 litigation begun, just two and a half months ago, issued

23 two new policies. We see the injunction as the admonition

24 about what the jail may or may not do; not merely a

25 determination whether the current policy meets the

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 11 of 110 Page ID#: 1548 11

1 Constitution. That is, we think an injunction is

2 necessary to say: Here are the guidelines that you may

3 follow. You may not come up with a new policy tomorrow or

4 next week that violates the Constitution.

5

Now, towards this end, I would actually like to

6 go in a little bit different order, which is I want to

7 talk about the outgoing postcard policy first. The

8 defense acknowledges that the outgoing postcard-only

9 policy is still in effect. 100 percent of the mail that

10 leaves the jail cannot be in the form of a letter.

11

THE COURT: When you say 100 percent, that

12 doesn't apply to legal or official mail, I believe?

13

MR. WING: Excuse me. That's right. If we

14 could say as a caveat --

15

THE COURT: We're not talking about legal or

16 official mail.

17

MR. WING: And we have no problem with their

18 policy regarding that. If I made a statement like that, I

19 mean to not apply it to legal or official mail.

20

THE COURT: I understand.

21

MR. WING: Thank you.

22

So it is still in effect. If it is

23 unconstitutional, there is irreparable harm and it needs

24 to be halted.

25

Now, it is important, I think, to start with the

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 12 of 110 Page ID#: 1549 12

1 test. There is binding Ninth Circuit precedent that this

2 is not the Turner test, and I would like to draw the

3 Court's attention to this. I don't want to belabor it if

4 the Court is already aware of this. But the plaintiff

5 asserted in our opening brief that the threshold of

6 outgoing mail -- to censor it -- is under the Procunier v.

7 Martinez test. We said that at docket 15, 17 and 18. A

8 substantial government interest is necessary and the limit

9 be no greater than necessary. The restriction cannot be

10 any greater than necessary.

11

The defendant didn't really address that in

12 their brief, but they took the occasion in response to the

13 amicus brief that was filed, to spend half their brief

14 telling us why that is wrong. They cited to a Tenth

15 Circuit case, and then they cited to a Ninth Circuit case

16 that they say tells us that the Turner test applies. That

17 case is Witherow v. Paff. Witherow actually says exactly

18 the opposite. The Witherow Court says, "When a prison

19 regulation affects outgoing mail, as opposed to incoming

20 mail, there must be a 'closer fit' between the regulation

21 and the purposes it serves." It cites Abbott. The

22 "closer fit" language is clearly that of the Martinez

23 test. Then the Witherow Court applied Procunier. "We

24 find that the regulation challenged in this case is

25 closely related."

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 13 of 110 Page ID#: 1550 13

1

Now, if that were not enough, in Barrett v.

2 Belleque, Ninth Circuit, 544 F.3d 1060, on page 1062,

3 overturning a District of Oregon decision, the

4 Ninth Circuit said as follows: "The standards for

5 evaluation of a First Amendment claim concerning outgoing

6 correspondence sent by a prisoner to an external recipient

7 were established by the Supreme Court in Procunier v.

8 Martinez. Procunier is controlling law in the Ninth

9 Circuit and elsewhere, as applied to claims involving

10 outgoing prisoner mail." It then cites to Bradley v.

11 Hall, a 1995 Ninth Circuit case, an Eighth Circuit case, a

12 Third Circuit case and a Fifth circuit case. "It cannot

13 be colorably contended in this case that the Turner test

14 applies to outgoing correspondence."

15

I would note that the articulation of an

16 argument that the defense made, that if it has to do with

17 non-content mail, there is a reason to treat it according

18 to a different test makes no sense. Since the mail goes

19 out of the prison, whether it is content or not content,

20 it doesn't create any greater risk in the jail.

21

THE COURT: Let me show how I was looking at it

22 tentatively. I'm really not that familiar with Witherow

23 or Barrett. I thought that Procunier really was a

24 content-based case. I'm right about that, right? It did

25 involve content restrictions?

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 14 of 110 Page ID#: 1551 14

1

MR. WING: Yes, because they were saying don't

2 send your grievances.

3

THE COURT: Now, Witherow or Barrett, did either

4 of those involve content-based restrictions?

5

MR. WING: Witherow was not content-based

6 restrictions, and I think Barrett was content-based

7 restrictions.

8

THE COURT: I will take a closer look at

9 Witherow, but here is how I thought this closer fit

10 applied, if one assumes -- and I'm not sure what to do

11 about this. If one assumes that the Turner test does

12 apply to outgoing mail, then I thought all we are learning

13 from this concept of closer fit for outgoing mail is that

14 there is a less of a need for concern about the format of

15 outgoing mail because it is outgoing; and therefore, it is

16 less likely to be rationally upheld -- restrictions on

17 outgoing mail are less likely to be rationally upheld than

18 similar or comparable restrictions on incoming mail, but

19 that still would be the same analysis applied under Turner

20 but recognizing that the same test could have very

21 different outcomes depending upon the circumstances --

22 incoming versus outgoing. I'm hearing you tell me that's

23 really not the right standard to apply.

24

MR. WING: I believe that it is not the right

25 standard --

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 15 of 110 Page ID#: 1552 15

1

THE COURT: Okay.

2

MR. WING: -- and that the Ninth Circuit has

3 said, not only must the interest be higher, but there must

4 be a closer fit. It is not just a legitimate government

5 interest, but it is an important governmental interest.

6 And secondly, there must be limitation no greater than

7 necessary to achieve that.

8

THE COURT: And has the Ninth Circuit said that

9 in the context of a content-neutral regulation of outgoing

10 mail?

11

MR. WING: I believe that's what Witherow is all

12 about.

13

THE COURT: I thought Witherow was a Tenth

14 Circuit case.

15

MR. WING: Witherow was a Ninth Circuit case.

16

THE COURT: I'm sorry, okay.

17

MR. WING: I have the cite.

18

THE COURT: Please.

19

MR. WING: 52 F.3d 267.

20

THE COURT: Okay. As you can tell, I know some

21 of these cases, but not all of them. I will take a closer

22 look at Witherow. Thank you.

23

MR. WING: And Barrett, please. Can I give you

24 the cite, please? The defense really didn't argue this.

25 We haven't had the chance to brief this in more detail.

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 16 of 110 Page ID#: 1553 16

1

THE COURT: Barrett, I wrote down 544 F.3d 1060

2 at 1062.

3

MR. WING: Yes. I guess I told you already.

4 Barrett is 2008.

5

THE COURT: And Witherow was when?

6

MR. WING: 1995.

7

THE COURT: And Witherow is Ninth Circuit, huh?

8

MR. WING: Yes. I will note that Barrett also

9 quotes Bradley v. Hall --

10

THE COURT: I got that.

11

MR. WING: -- a 1995 case.

12

THE COURT: Okay.

13

MR. WING: All right. Let me see where I'm at.

14

THE COURT: By the way, to give both sides a

15 heads up on how I approach this, as long as we have time,

16 and I'm sure this morning we will have time, I am not

17 going to follow a rule where plaintiff argues, then

18 defendant argues and plaintiff gets the last word and

19 we're done. I am going to let people go back and forth.

20 After plaintiff's opening comments and defendants' opening

21 comments, we can go back and forth until everybody has

22 said their piece, at least twice. Three times, I will

23 probably put a limit on it.

24

MR. WING: Thank you.

25

Your Honor, turning to the merits of the

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 17 of 110 Page ID#: 1554 17

1 outgoing mail. I would like to draw the Court's attention

2 to a Northern District of California opinion. Harrison v.

3 Institutional Gang of Investigations. I can give you the

4 cite, but let me first tell you what this is. The Court

5 said in 2010 that applying Barrett -- that is the

6 important governmental interest test in prison -- the

7 Court said, "The defendants have the burden to prove that

8 the confiscation furthered an important government

9 interest and to prove that the confiscation of the

10 materials was no greater than necessary to protect that

11 interest."

12

So I point out it is not merely a different

13 standard, but the Northern District of California

14 recognizes that the burden is on the Government. I have

15 not seen other cases that address this issue, but that

16 further illustrates the need for the different treatment.

17 I have a Westlaw cite for that. 2010 WL 653137.

18

The U.S. Supreme Court in two different cases

19 tells us that the burden of proof on a preliminary

20 injunction is the same as it is at trial. So the burden

21 would be on the defense in a motion for preliminary

22 injunction. That's Ashcroft v. ACLU in 2004 and

23 Gonzalez v. O Centro Espirita in 2006.

24

So what is the important governmental interest

25 that the Government says is served here? They say, "The

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 18 of 110 Page ID#: 1555 18

1 postcard-only policy allows the jail staff to attend to

2 other equally important constitutional duties and

3 administrative functions."

4

Now, if that were the standard, that could be

5 used to violate all kinds of constitutional rights. If

6 the test is simply, could we be doing other things instead

7 of this thing, then it would work always.

8

THE COURT: And that's why I'm concerned as to

9 whether there is going to be any limit to the plaintiff's

10 position on this or is there ever any position that the

11 defendants can say that what you were asking us to do was

12 so burdensome that we're being called away from our other

13 important functions.

14

MR. WING: That's a fair analysis. So Prison

15 Legal News v. Cook and Prison Legal News v. Lehman says,

16 well, that clearly isn't the standard. It isn't does it

17 affect your time, and they point out that all the mail

18 must be handled in some fashion.

19

So it is not meaningful to say, well, because we

20 have to handle it, we choose to handle it by censoring it

21 as opposed to admitting it or reviewing it. The Court

22 says is the mechanism by which the defense is handling it

23 rational for the purpose -- in this case the limitation is

24 no greater than necessary. What the Courts say there was

25 the prison already has a policy -- that's the Washington

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 19 of 110 Page ID#: 1556 19

1 Department of Corrections and Oregon Department of

2 Corrections -- that says a prisoner may not collect more

3 than a certain amount of printed material in their jail

4 cell.

5

So it seems to me that the law is already clear

6 that there can be limits on the amount of mail that is

7 collected by somebody, and the jail could say to a

8 prisoner: You can't have this because you already have

9 too much in your cell. They may also say: We're going to

10 put this in your property, and when you get rid of

11 something else, then we will look at it.

12

So I think the Court already says, yes, there

13 are ultimately some limits, but I'm not sure the Court

14 needs to reach what those limits are here. It is simply

15 enough to say that there are other acceptable policies

16 that can accomplish the goal that the defendant claims it

17 is trying to achieve.

18

The risks here are that it is some individual

19 deputy who is sitting and looking at something and saying,

20 ah, this is too much. And what is the criteria for that?

21 I think if the jail came up with a policy, then we would

22 all be able to evaluate whether they are successfully

23 implementing what the Ninth Circuit said was okay in

24 Prison Legal News v. Cook or Prison Legal News v. Lehman.

25

Right now they have no other policy that the

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 20 of 110 Page ID#: 1557 20

1 Department of Corrections have adopted to achieve that

2 goal, which they could.

3

The defense has not explained why such a policy

4 would not work, even in face of the Ninth Circuit

5 precedent. The defense, unlike regarding the incoming

6 mail, offers no statistics or estimates or even

7 speculation about the effect of outgoing mail on its time.

8 They submitted two declarations from the sheriff and

9 from --

10

THE COURT: Sergeant Cutright.

11

MR. WING: Thank you. They don't say how much

12 they spent inspecting outgoing letters, how much time they

13 save from restricting this to postcards. Whether they've

14 had security concerns that are addressed by this record is

15 bare. Given the fact that I don't think that accomplishes

16 what is necessary for the defense, even under the Turner

17 standard, it can't possibly satisfy their burden under the

18 Procunier test.

19

I would also note that their policy doesn't seem

20 to suggest that there is any routine inspection of the

21 outgoing mail at all. The only policy that I see is in

22 Docket 32-6 at page 12. That's Section 36, which says

23 essentially that there does not appear to be routine

24 inspection, but a supervisor may authorize the inspection

25 of the outgoing mail affirmatively.

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 21 of 110 Page ID#: 1558 21

1

That suggests that there is not a reason to

2 think there is a problem, a known problem, or that the

3 postcard policy is solving any problem since they are not

4 spending time reviewing outgoing mail on a regular basis.

5

I would like to answer any questions you might

6 have about the outgoing mail. I was going to turn to --

7

THE COURT: I will not be shy about interrupting

8 with questions.

9

MR. WING: Thank you.

10

THE COURT: Thank you.

11

MR. WING: So from our perspective, shifting

12 from the outgoing mail to incoming mail means we are now

13 clearly within the Turner test. The parties are not in

14 disagreement over that.

15

Well, what is the policy that we're seeking to

16 enjoin? We say that the defense says all incoming

17 correspondence, except legal and official mail, must be on

18 a postcard, period.

19

Now, you noted in your initial remarks that they

20 try to claim -- this is only regarding personal mail, but

21 personal mail is defined to say, first of all, postcards,

22 which is a little bizarre because --

23

THE COURT: My sense is they clearly intended to

24 not have full-sized correspondence and letters, but that

25 doesn't fit within the definition of "personal mail,"

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 22 of 110 Page ID#: 1559 22

1 because "personal mail" is defined as postcards.

2

MR. WING: Right.

3

THE COURT: I kind of see that point. I don't

4 think that necessarily rises to a constitutional issue,

5 but they are trying to limit incoming mail whether from

6 family, from friends, from businesses, solicitations -- I

7 see all of that -- to postcard size. I don't think, by

8 the way, and I think your briefs may have said this, but

9 I'm not positive. I don't think that the postcard

10 limitation applies to magazines and junk mail and books.

11 I do think that catalogs is falling through the cracks,

12 and that's a different issue. But I don't think anyone is

13 expecting that only magazines that fit on a postcard can

14 come in.

15

MR. WING: Because they have allowed -- the

16 definition of "periodicals" appears to address that. I

17 think that in the past there have been censorship where

18 they have identified that a magazine is not a postcard;

19 and therefore, it is not allowed in. But I agree with you

20 that this current policy does not seem to say that.

21

THE COURT: Sure. I don't see the evidence in

22 which I can make a finding that they are interpreting

23 their policy to say that a periodical or a magazine must

24 be on a postcard.

25

MR. WING: Their current policy. I think we

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 23 of 110 Page ID#: 1560 23

1 concede that.

2

But as you have noted, personal mail does, by

3 definition, prevent delivery of mail from businesses. The

4 defense seems to say, well, their current policy allows

5 PLN's mailings. But it doesn't. The fact that the jail

6 is saying that they are allowing PLN's mailings now raises

7 a question about the legitimacy of the policy that they

8 have created here.

9

THE COURT: Don't we distinguish different types

10 of PLN mailings? One is the magazine.

11

MR. WING: Yes.

12

THE COURT: That would come under the magazine

13 provision. Then I also think you are talking about other

14 solicitation, fund-raising requests, requests for

15 subscriptions, things like that, and that would fit under

16 the postcard-only policy as I read it.

17

MR. WING: Yes. So our view is that -- their

18 policy says that they would censor everything other than

19 our magazine, our journal. They say that's not true. And

20 I don't think that's a legitimate interpretation of the

21 policy, which makes this policy unconstitutional.

22

THE COURT: My big concern about the

23 postcard-only policy -- on plaintiff's side -- is I can

24 understand the value of wanting to cut out or print off an

25 Internet-generated article and send it to a family member

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 24 of 110 Page ID#: 1561 24

1 or friend. I am really worried about the 480-page

2 Internet article and the burden that that would place on

3 the institution in terms of either person power or in

4 terms of security of having to go through all 480 pages to

5 see whether contraband has been interlaced on page 430 or

6 whether there is a paragraph on estate planning on page

7 430, because I just don't see the Constitution requiring

8 them to read all 480 pages that come in.

9

Am I wrong?

10

MR. WING: I am pondering your question. I can

11 envision a policy that, again, might limit how frequently

12 a prisoner receives something of size or possibly the

13 length. It might be possible that somebody has to send

14 such an article over the course of more than one day so

15 that the burden is less. I don't know where one would

16 draw the line, but I would have to concede that there

17 would be a line in which that would be necessary. Now,

18 the Court in Clement didn't discuss that.

19

THE COURT: Right.

20

MR. WING: I realize they put it off for another

21 day so you have to figure it out.

22

THE COURT: Or I can put that off for another

23 day too.

24

MR. WING: I think, actually, there is a good

25 reason for you to put it off because you have not been

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 25 of 110 Page ID#: 1562 25

1 faced with any factual circumstance that sharpens the

2 issue for you. But I do agree that's a problem that might

3 result in a legitimate limitation.

4

THE COURT: I'm just thinking that if I were to

5 agree with some portion of the plaintiff's arguments on

6 the incoming mail policy, I don't think I could phrase it

7 or should phrase it in such a way to be limitless.

8

MR. WING: I guess that I would suggest,

9 Your Honor, as Clement defines the issue, it is really

10 that you cannot limit something being sent in to the

11 prison simply because it is printed off from the Internet.

12

THE COURT: I agree. I think that's what

13 Clement says, but they leave open the possibility of these

14 lengthy articles.

15

MR. WING: Yeah. So I think we would be seeking

16 an injunction along those same lines. That doesn't have

17 to say that they could never limit something because of

18 its length, but certainly that's not what they have asked

19 for.

20

THE COURT: By the way, I take it there is no

21 challenge at all as to binders and fasteners. They could

22 have a policy that says no staples, no binders, no binder

23 clips. That's not being challenged; am I correct?

24

MR. WING: It is not being challenged but nor

25 have they claimed that that's the reason why they rejected

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 26 of 110 Page ID#: 1563 26

1 anything. And if they were to start doing that, we might

2 be back in front of you. I think there has been for very

3 long time materials that have been sent into jails that

4 have staples. The binding, I'm less sure about. I don't

5 think that's before you now.

6

THE COURT: I'm just trying to get a handle on

7 these issues and sort of understand where the limitations,

8 if any, might lie.

9

MR. WING: Okay. So the incoming policy can

10 only save the defense time if there is a substantial

11 reduction in the amount of speech. It seems quite

12 evident. They claim that the amount of savings that they

13 have is 30 to 60 minutes a day. Now, that's not a great

14 deal of time for the First Amendment. And as we've

15 pointed out, there is a series of steps, if you were going

16 to censor somebody's mail, that you would have to go

17 through, and it seems like that would be eaten up pretty

18 quickly.

19

And if the same amount of speech were to come

20 through the door, whether on a postcard versus a letter,

21 it is hard to conceive, just if you walk through the

22 steps, that if you have to take a stamp off of 20

23 postcards versus a five-page letter, you are taking off 20

24 stamps versus one stamp. You are looking at the same

25 amount of print to determine whether or not they have

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 27 of 110 Page ID#: 1564 27

1 written something about an escape plan. If you are

2 censoring the letter, you are also writing a mail notice.

3 It is hard to see where the savings occur.

4

So the natural conclusion -- we have not

5 conducted discovery yet -- is that people are giving up.

6 As the declarations from people state, from our witnesses,

7 they state: This is too much of a hassle. I can't write

8 something meaningful to my spouse on a postcard that

9 everybody is going to see. So they just stop sending.

10 The defense points at its conclusion: See, we save time.

11 And we say: That's because you have chilled speech.

12

THE COURT: So your argument is, in terms of

13 peeling off a stamp, if anything, you require more

14 postcards, so you have more stamps to peel off. So that

15 can't be the basis. An argument would be that opening an

16 envelope and looking inside the envelope is de minimis;

17 and therefore, what we are really talking about the time

18 saving is the reading of the content, the reading of the

19 words. And there, if you can send 10,000 words in a

20 number of postcards versus 10,000 words in a number of

21 sheets of paper, there is no savings of time. Therefore,

22 the time savings must come in the chilling of the speech

23 because people, as some of your declarants have said,

24 don't want to say as much in a postcard, don't want to

25 write a postcard. Maybe the child can't draw a picture on

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 28 of 110 Page ID#: 1565 28

1 a postcard as they can on a larger piece of paper, or they

2 can't send a copy of their grades or a greeting card.

3

Do I understand that correctly?

4

MR. WING: That's right. We think this is a

5 hard argument to refute and that the defense possesses all

6 of the evidence but has not come forward with anything to

7 support it.

8

THE COURT: And in fairness to the defense right

9 now, obviously that's what I'm expecting they will spend

10 some time addressing in their arguments.

11

MR. WING: Okay. I want to draw the Court's

12 attention to the opinion in Crofton v. Roe, which was a

13 censorship decision in 1999 which involved the Washington

14 Department of Corrections, the Ninth Circuit said, "The

15 State did not offer any evidence that it actually

16 experienced any of these problems in connection with its

17 publications or attempt to explain in what way

18 publications by a particular characteristic of their own

19 threatened security."

20

This just illustrates the need for the

21 Government to actually come forward with something, not

22 theorize. They have plenty of experience with this. They

23 should be able to relatively easily put their hands on

24 evidence to present to the Court.

25

I would also point out that if the goal is to

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 29 of 110 Page ID#: 1566 29

1 keep out contraband, and they illustrate things like drugs

2 or poison, 24 stamps is 24 opportunities to put drug or

3 poison under a stamp. A letter with one stamp, only one

4 opportunity. It is irrational to suggest that there is

5 fewer chances.

6

THE COURT: Is it easier to hide things, though,

7 in the interior of an envelope, whether it be needle at

8 the bottom of the envelope or the folds of the envelope,

9 things like that? I am also concerned that I haven't seen

10 evidence of that, and I get that point. But isn't it not

11 completely irrational to say things can be hidden in an

12 envelope than a postcard, also biologicals too?

13

MR. WING: We haven't had anybody explain how

14 this works on the record, but it seems to me that most

15 things that would be of a serious nature other than drugs

16 or biologicals would simply fall out of a letter. It is

17 quite hard to put a knife or anything that is hard in a

18 letter that wouldn't just simply fall out. So then we are

19 talking about the amount of space. It is hard for me to

20 imagine that, other than let's say soaking the letter,

21 there is really any effective way to try to hide something

22 in the folds of a letter.

23

Now, if the sheriff thinks that that truly is

24 the case, then it certainly seems possible that the

25 envelope itself could be crumpled, folded, twisted --

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 30 of 110 Page ID#: 1567 30

1 whatever -- and that that censoring all letters on the

2 chance that this might happen with some envelope seems

3 very speculative, and it could be handled in a much more

4 protective way of the First Amendment.

5

THE COURT: I'm still struggling with, well, if

6 a No. 10 envelope is allowed, then what about an eight and

7 a half by eleven envelope where some limits on those

8 things is part of the concern? Also, it really is easier

9 to put biologicals in an envelope that would cause risk to

10 the security of jail and prison officers in a way that you

11 can't do that in a postcard, at least not as easily.

12 There, it is much more likely that those problems will be

13 discovered at the post office, not at the prison. If

14 someone wanted to cause injury to a correctional officer,

15 there is that opportunity.

16

See, one of the things I have in mind right is

17 another one of my cases, granted on the criminal side of

18 the docket, is the defendant in Vancouver who was recently

19 arrested and indicted and accused of sending the powders

20 to Speaker Boehner and others. It is a different side of

21 my docket, but it is one of the things I'm thinking about

22 when I think about envelopes versus postcards.

23

MR. WING: It is a fair question. I don't have

24 the cite in front of me. I think we did cite in our

25 materials a Third Circuit decision specifically about

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 31 of 110 Page ID#: 1568 31

1 anthrax. The Third Circuit there said: Hold on a second.

2 It is true anything is possible, but we can't have as a

3 general rule something based on a theoretical possibility

4 that some person might include anthrax in an envelope.

5

So it is not irrational to have that concern,

6 but if our nation adopts a postcard-only policy based on

7 the possibility that one or two people might do that, I

8 think that's an exaggerated response, even though there is

9 a potential concern there.

10

THE COURT: Thank you.

11

MR. WING: I do also want to point out that,

12 although the defendant cites its policy as a non-content

13 based policy, they actually put in something in their

14 brief, Docket 29 at page 15, that it is reasonable to

15 treat personal mail different than business mail because

16 personal mail might be more likely to contain prohibited

17 topics, like threats, blackmail, distortion. That's a

18 content-based decision. If they have to read everything,

19 now they are turning this into a viewpoint discrimination

20 case.

21

THE COURT: I also didn't see any distinction in

22 the policy between business mail and personal mail with

23 respect to the postcard-only issue.

24

MR. WING: Yes. So we say that prohibiting all

25 letters is not a common sense way to save time and reduce

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 32 of 110 Page ID#: 1569 32

1 contraband. There is a whole series of decisions from the

2 Ninth Circuit where prisons have tried banning all

3 subscription mail, third-class mail, gift subscriptions.

4 They go through this gamut, and the Court has repeatedly

5 said -- and we don't know why the law enforcement at jails

6 don't get it -- that these kind of arbitrary

7 classifications are not rationally related to achieving

8 the legitimate goal of reducing contraband.

9

And what is the cost? The cost of the

10 First Amendment is quite high. It chills speech

11 altogether. There are those people who don't write at all

12 because of the hassle or the loss of privacy. We have

13 Dockets 36 through 40 and 53, declarations that say that.

14

There is not just the hassle, but the cost to --

15 in many cases -- people who are paying a criminal defense

16 lawyer and may have other debts to go out and buy

17 postcards and postage and spend a bunch of time to write a

18 bunch of postcards is really too much to bear.

19

There is the confusion ID. You can send as many

20 postcards as you want, but then you have to number them

21 and expect the U.S. Postal Service to deliver them the way

22 you would like to receive them, or you are getting pages

23 17 and 20 and 10 and 4. It is not an effective or

24 meaningful way to communicate.

25

THE COURT: And I am concerned about the expense

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 33 of 110 Page ID#: 1570 33

1 too. If it takes ten postcards to have the same amount of

2 content of a two or three-page letter, we are talking

3 about three and a half dollars or so versus 46 cents, give

4 or take.

5

MR. WING: Indeed. I might add that this

6 applies to the outgoing mail as well; that is, the

7 prisoners who in many cases are indigent are limited to

8 two postcards. So there is a limitation.

9

Then, of course, there is the well-recognized

10 harm to rehabilitation. For those people who have been

11 convicted, staying in touch with their families, figuring

12 out how to manage their lives is harmed by this.

13

So what can the jail do, because the jail must

14 find a way to manage the contraband. Well, the first

15 thing you can do is do what it used to do. Not so very

16 long ago it allowed letters. It could simply go back to

17 what it did before.

18

We have provided copies of the policies for the

19 Multnomah County Jail, the Lane County Jail, the King

20 County Jail, the Oregon Department of Corrections, the

21 Washington Department of Corrections, the Federal

22 Bureau of Prisons. One of the illustrations of an

23 exaggerated response is that most other well-known

24 institutions don't have to have this limitation. What is

25 so special about the Columbia County Jail that it can't

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 34 of 110 Page ID#: 1571 34

1 manage mail -- letters -- which have been used for

2 hundreds of years to communicate in and out of jail.

3

As the Ninth Circuit said in Bradley v. Hall, it

4 takes little imagination -- little imagination -- to find

5 constitutional ways to run a prison or a jail. They just

6 have not exercised common sense in this situation to limit

7 contraband and show that there is a problem.

8

Now, we have already talked about, I think,

9 about the junk and the bulk mail. Unless you have

10 questions, I will simply point out that it doesn't seem to

11 me that it is remotely rational to have a policy that

12 allows in junk; that is, in order for it to be admitted it

13 must have no value whatsoever, by definition. But if the

14 catalog or the brochure or the solicitation letter has

15 value, then it is not allowed in. It just doesn't make

16 any sense on its face.

17

And what the jail is saying is: Well, we

18 consider your material as junk, so it gets in. Now, that

19 means that some mail handler, some clerk, some deputy is

20 making the decision what has value and what doesn't. And

21 if we look at cases along the lines of the vagueness and

22 overbroad criteria, when somebody is seeking a parade

23 permit, for example, there are a whole lot of cases that

24 talk about too much discretion makes a policy

25 unconstitutional.

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 35 of 110 Page ID#: 1572 35

1

As to the junk mail policy, that seems clearly

2 to fall within those line of cases. You cannot have

3 individual clerks deciding whether something has value or

4 not. In this case, if it doesn't have value, it gets in.

5 If it does have value, it doesn't get in.

6

THE COURT: Help me analytically here.

7 Obviously what they allow in terms of the junk mail to

8 come in, that's not constitutionally infirm as I see it.

9 The problem is the things that are excluded that don't

10 fall within the junk mail policy, which could include, as

11 you say, business brochures and other solicitations and

12 also book catalogs.

13

MR. WING: Yes, that's right. The very

14 definition here is violative of PLN v. Lehman, which said

15 you must allow catalogs in. The Ninth Circuit didn't say

16 "if they have value or don't have value." So this a clear

17 violation of this Ninth Circuit ruling.

18

THE COURT: Right.

19

MR. WING: Okay.

20

THE COURT: By the way, I don't know if you have

21 gotten to the magazines or periodicals yet. If so, I have

22 a question. If not, I'll wait.

23

MR. WING: Please go ahead and ask your

24 question.

25

THE COURT: On the magazines, I see that they

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 36 of 110 Page ID#: 1573 36

1 have restrictions. It used to be two per day; now it is

2 three per day. Is that part of plaintiff's challenge

3 here? If so, I would like to you tell me why and talk

4 about it.

5

Also, their definition of a "periodical or

6 magazine" requires four publications per year. I think

7 that PLN easily satisfies that. But is that part of PLN's

8 challenge as well? So talk to me about both the substance

9 of that as well as whether PLN has standing as assert that

10 issue.

11

MR. WING: So we have not contended that the

12 three periodicals a day violates the law. If we were to

13 be faced with the facts where it so happened that a fourth

14 periodical arrived one day, we might take the position

15 that the jail should not be returning it and that maybe it

16 should set it aside and let it be dealt with the next day.

17 Prisoners don't have control over when periodicals arrive.

18 But we really don't have those facts in front of us.

19

As to the separate question, the definition of

20 "periodical," it is a strange and, we think, arbitrary

21 definition. What is the justification for saying that a

22 periodical is only allowed if it is sent a certain number

23 of times in a year, whether that be four or two or

24 fourteen, and why must it be regular? And who decides if

25 it is regular? Does that mean that a poetry magazine that

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 37 of 110 Page ID#: 1574 37

1 is run by creative folks who produce it five times a year,

2 but it doesn't get out the door on a regular basis, that

3 gets to be censored? It seems an irrational basis. The

4 Government might say: Well, this is one way to determine

5 whether the organization is legitimate, but that doesn't

6 strike me as a rational basis for determining that it is

7 legitimate.

8

THE COURT: The example that came to my mind is

9 the Georgetown Law Journal annual issue on the summary of

10 criminal law and criminal procedure. I think you don't

11 have to subscribe to the entire Georgetown Law Journal to

12 get just that one issue. You can subscribed to that once

13 per year, and it is only issued once per year.

14

MR. WING: I think that's right. I think there

15 are sports annuals. There is Life Magazine. They come

16 out with their "Best of the Year." There might be a

17 number of circumstances where less than once a year or

18 irregular would be censored on an arbitrary basis.

19

THE COURT: So that part of the magazine policy

20 is part of PLN's challenge in this case?

21

MR. WING: Yes, it is.

22

I wanted also to sort of leave you with this

23 thought about the incoming/outgoing mail. Would we ever

24 have postcards from Birmingham Jail; 55 postcards from

25 Martin Luther King handwritten telling the world about the

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 38 of 110 Page ID#: 1575 38

1 destruction of society and the need for a civil rights

2 movement if Martin Luther King were to sit in his cell

3 trying to collect postcards to write that?

4

I printed off a copy of it from the Internet.

5 It is 17 pages typed. It is quite an important piece of

6 literature and political and social commentary and

7 illustrates in kind of stark terms what the defense is

8 doing.

9

As to irreparable harm, I do want to also

10 identify for the Court that after Winter, the U.S. Supreme

11 Court decision, the Ninth Circuit retained its so-called

12 sliding scale. It sounds like you are familiar with that.

13

THE COURT: I am.

14

MR. WING: We think that strongly favors the

15 plaintiffs here with a strong merits case, a strong

16 hardship and public interest.

17

THE COURT: Do you want to turn to procedural

18 due process? Although it probably can be written better,

19 doesn't paragraphs 30, 31, 45 and 46 and the attached

20 prohibited mail notice provide all the process that really

21 is due?

22

MR. WING: We are on the same page here. I just

23 literally pulled up my due process. I don't think so.

24

THE COURT: Tell me why.

25

MR. WING: Well, first of all, I read this

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 39 of 110 Page ID#: 1576 39

1 entire policy several times, and I have been unable to

2 find a due process provision that applies to outgoing

3 mail. That's the first problem. I just don't see

4 anything that provides due process to the inmate and to

5 Prison Legal News or any other recipient as to outgoing

6 mail.

7

THE COURT: Now, I'm kind of missing your point

8 here because, as I understand it, it is a blanket rule

9 that says all outgoing mail must fit on a postcard. They

10 are not asking for -- you are right -- they are not giving

11 appeals from that. And if that's constitutional, then it

12 is constitutional in the First Amendment, right? If it is

13 unconstitutional, then it is unconstitutional. Where does

14 procedural due process fit into that? Aren't we starting

15 down a dangerous path to say: Well, we will prohibit

16 outgoing mail, unless it is on a postcard -- unless it

17 fits through our appeal process; unless it is approved by

18 an appeal process.

19

MR. WING: I think it is a twofold answer. If

20 it is unconstitutional, then the outgoing mail has to

21 allow letters, but totally apart from that, the jail may

22 determine that it is going to censor outgoing mail for

23 other reasons. It has a whole long list of things that

24 they might believe violate policy. And there is no due

25 process for addressing that. So, for example, let's

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 40 of 110 Page ID#: 1577 40

1 suppose that the jail, we think irrationally, decides that

2 requesting a subscription to Prison Legal News violates

3 some policy. Well, Prison Legal News would never know

4 that that prisoner wrote a letter that was censored asking

5 for a Prison Legal News book or magazine or a

6 subscription.

7

THE COURT: Are you saying that the prisoner

8 wouldn't know that his outgoing mail was censored?

9

MR. WING: I believe that's correct, and we

10 believe that the recipient, as Procunier very clearly

11 declares, both the sender and the recipient -- no matter

12 who is sending and who is receiving -- is entitled to due

13 process notice. There are no provisions for due process

14 for outgoing mail.

15

THE COURT: That's interesting. I have not

16 thought about that.

17

MR. WING: So that's the first point. We think

18 it is plainly unconstitutional for that reason.

19

Secondly, this is a very confusing policy, and

20 it is not just my opinion. Last month Lucy Lennox sent in

21 eleven pieces of identical mail. She received back three

22 of those. Of those three, one of them simply said "return

23 to sender," with no explanation, no opportunity to be

24 heard, and the other two stated a reason.

25

Nobody has any idea, from our perspective, what

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 41 of 110 Page ID#: 1578 41

1 happened to the other eight. Were they delivered contrary

2 to the policy? Were they not delivered and they are

3 sitting in the property room? Were they thrown out in the

4 trash? So apparently the jail is having a hard time

5 implementing this confusing policy.

6

THE COURT: Now, that's interesting. Let me

7 share with you -- this goes back to the comment I made

8 earlier. At least with respect to incoming mail, and I

9 haven't given much thought to outgoing mail on procedural

10 due process. But I will.

11

With respect to incoming mail, I didn't see the

12 policies, especially the four paragraphs I have

13 identified, as very confusing, but I do see your argument

14 on inconsistent treatment. That's why I'm asking: What

15 do I do with the inconsistent treatment? I'm hearing you

16 say: All right, I should consider that as evidence that

17 the policy is confusing. All right; maybe. But what if I

18 don't find the policy confusing, but I'm concerned about

19 inconsistent treatment?

20

MR. WING: Okay. Then you are dealing possibly

21 with the "as applied," and it would still call for an

22 injunction that says you may not apply these policies on

23 an inconsistent basis. You need to get your house in

24 order and make sure that due process occurs whenever mail

25 is censored. I don't think that relieves the Court of an

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 42 of 110 Page ID#: 1579 42

1 obligation to tell the defendant you are not applying your

2 policy.

3

But if I may --

4

THE COURT: Sure.

5

MR. WING: -- I have some examples of where I

6 think there are problems with the due process policy as it

7 goes to incoming mail. I have identified nine places

8 where I think there are due process provisions. I will

9 rattle them off, if that's okay with you.

10

THE COURT: Slowly.

11

MR. WING: Okay. Section 21.

12

THE COURT: You say "section;" I say

13 "paragraph."

14

MR. WING: Paragraph. I mean numbered sections.

15

THE COURT: 21.

16

MR. WING: 24.

17

THE COURT: Okay.

18

MR. WING: 26, 27, 30, 31, 45, 46 and the

19 prohibited mail notice, which is an attachment.

20

THE COURT: All right. I'm especially

21 interested in hearing why you think 30, 31, 45, 46 and the

22 prohibited mail notice are confusing.

23

MR. WING: Okay. Would you mind if I take a

24 lead in, because I think the earlier ones illustrate that?

25

THE COURT: No, that's fine. Do whatever you

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 43 of 110 Page ID#: 1580 43

1 want. But I tend to agree with you that some of those

2 early ones are very confusing, but I thought it was all

3 clarified and the appeal rights were set forth. But when

4 one looks at 30, 31, 45 and 46 and the prohibited mail

5 notice, I just wasn't sure what to do with that

6 conclusion.

7

MR. WING: Okay. So 21 says that the sender and

8 the inmate will receive notice via paragraph 31.

9

24 says that the sender or the inmate will

10 receive notice via paragraph 31.

11

Paragraph 26 doesn't mention paragraph 31. Does

12 that mean that paragraph 31 doesn't apply, or is it just

13 an oversight?

14

Paragraph 27 says notify the sender only via

15 paragraph 31.

16

Paragraph 30 says normally the staff should

17 confiscate postcards and letters and provide notice via

18 paragraph 31.

19

Paragraph 31 says the opposite: Don't

20 confiscate the postcards and the letters. Return them.

21

Now, if you were a staff member, what would you

22 do? You might read one and do that, or you might read the

23 other and do that. Maybe some days you would do one;

24 maybe some days you would do the other.

25

Paragraph 30 -- this may seem like small

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 44 of 110 Page ID#: 1581 44

1 matters, but they really raise questions -- says send a

2 prohibited mail slip. There is no identified mail slip.

3 There is a mail notice. Is that a different form or the

4 same form?

5

Paragraph 31, which is supposed to be the way in

6 which the jail says here is how you do it, says send a

7 "notice of right to reconsideration". What is that? It

8 does not talk about sending a prohibited mail slip or a

9 prohibited mail notice.

10

I think this is far too confusing to be

11 constitutional. Some of the censorship without due

12 process that we have seen illustrates that problem. We

13 have had the sheriff declare he didn't know people were

14 using stickers. He didn't know they were censoring. It

15 is a particular concern here where this is the considered

16 effort -- after the jail has been sued -- to have so many

17 provisions that could leave both the jail staff and the

18 public confused as to the proper way something should be

19 handled. I think that if there is a sufficient risk that

20 constitutional due process will not be given, because the

21 policy is confusing and contradictory, then it rises to

22 the level of being constitutionally vague.

23

I will also point out that the prohibited mail

24 notice says to go to the Web page for information. We

25 brought with us a copy of the mail page, which was printed

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 45 of 110 Page ID#: 1582 45

1 off yesterday before we left Seattle, which says it is

2 pending.

3

THE COURT: For disclosure to everyone, I

4 checked a couple of days ago, and that's what I saw too.

5

MR. WING: Okay.

6

THE COURT: Let me ask this: I notice in the

7 defendants' response -- I'm not sure which declaration.

8 It might be Mr. Roberson. They attach the Spokane, I

9 believe, consent decree and said that has less process

10 than here. I take it your argument is not necessarily the

11 quantum of process but the clarity of process and the

12 inconsistent explanations as the problem. Am I correct?

13

MR. WING: Yes, with a footnote, if I may. We

14 didn't approve of that policy. We signed a consent decree

15 which essentially, as the Court order says: You must

16 provide due process notice. After that was done, Spokane

17 County went and wrote their policy. So we didn't endorse

18 it; we didn't say this is fine.

19

THE COURT: I see.

20

MR. WING: And so I don't think that can be used

21 as sort of an acknowledgment on our part that that's just

22 fine. But I will note that the Spokane policy does

23 provide due process notice for outgoing mail, and I think,

24 while we might think it is not enough, it certainly is

25 clear and concise and you can find it and relatively easy

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 46 of 110 Page ID#: 1583 46

1 to apply is my view on that.

2

THE COURT: Okay.

3

MR. WING: Let me see what else you asked about.

4 I think we have discussed generally what our views are on

5 how to apply the inconsistent practice; that it really

6 goes to the vagueness. It goes to the ability to

7 implement the policy. And if it is too difficult to

8 implement; and therefore, there is a likelihood of

9 violations in the Constitution, then it is

10 constitutionally vague and confusing.

11

I don't have a real need to discuss the magazine

12 censorship right now. It seems very clear that the

13 magazines need to be delivered. The current policy

14 doesn't say that they are going to censor the magazines.

15 This might go more towards the evidence that we think

16 shows the lack of mootness, and I don't plan to get into

17 that at this point.

18

The sheriff has done so many things that show

19 either he is not paying attention to what is happening

20 with the mail, that the policies and practices have been

21 very inconsistent, and there have been lots of violations.

22 We think it is essential that there be a preliminary

23 injunction regarding the magazines because this sheriff

24 needs to know that this is a top priority, and it would be

25 a court order. It would be a violation of a court order

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 47 of 110 Page ID#: 1584 47

1 as opposed to his own policy. His own policy seems to

2 have meant relatively little to him, the policy on the Web

3 site for two years that he has said he has never seen

4 before.

5

He told us that every policy he has had allowed

6 for magazines, and we have provided you with a copy of the

7 inmate mail manual, which is signed by him on

8 November 18th, 2010 in which it actually prohibits

9 periodicals.

10

THE COURT: Where does it say that?

11

MR. WING: Do you see the first page with the

12 signature on it?

13

THE COURT: Okay. What I was looking at, and I

14 have spent most of my time -- of the time that I spent

15 looking at policy --

16

MR. WING: Yes.

17

THE COURT: -- I was looking at Exhibit F to

18 Sheriff Dickerson's declaration. The last page of that

19 Exhibit F, page 17, is the Inmate Mail Guide. It does not

20 prohibit periodicals, but nor does it say that periodicals

21 are allowed. So I was going to ask defendants about that.

22

MR. WING: Yes.

23

THE COURT: I think what you are showing me on

24 the screen right now is an outdated policy.

25

MR. WING: I would agree with you. My point in

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 48 of 110 Page ID#: 1585 48

1 showing it to you is that the sheriff has not been honest

2 about what his policies provide for or not. His staff,

3 either with his direction or his being oblivious to what

4 they are doing, have violated their own written policy, or

5 in some cases he had a policy that said the opposite of

6 what he represented to the Court. He has said that he has

7 never seen a policy that has prohibited periodicals. Here

8 it is.

9

THE COURT: What's the exhibit or docket you are

10 putting up on the screen?

11

MR. WING: This is Docket 36. Page 10 of that

12 is the inmate manual; the first page with his signature on

13 it. Page 12 is the very short policy under the heading

14 "Periodicals," which says, "We do not accept any

15 periodicals." He represented to the Court that he has

16 never had such a policy. We think that a preliminary

17 injunction is essential to make sure that the sheriff does

18 things constitutionally.

19

If you could give me one moment, I think I am

20 about wrapped up for our initial presentation.

21

I may just add we submitted to the defendants,

22 and it is in the record, a proposed preliminary

23 injunction, which includes a very short and clear due

24 process provision. We don't see why the sheriff needs to

25 have nine different provisions that one must read the

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 49 of 110 Page ID#: 1586 49

1 entire policy to figure out what the due process is. I

2 just think that's an important component. It can be

3 constitutional and very short.

4

THE COURT: Can you remind me where in the

5 record that is, please?

6

MR. WING: It is in the declaration of Katie

7 Chamberlain, Exhibit 14, Docket 9-4.

8

THE COURT: One second.

9

MR. WING: I think at I have nothing further,

10 unless have you a question.

11

THE COURT: When we're all done with this aspect

12 of the preliminary injunction hearing on the substance, I

13 do want to ask all counsel about where things stand with

14 respect to a protective order and discovery issues, but we

15 will cover that later.

16

All right. Thank you very much. I appreciate

17 that.

18

Mr. Kraemer or Mr. Roberson, or both.

19

MR. KRAEMER: Your Honor, I would like to start

20 for a minute, and then Mr. Roberson has got, frankly, a

21 better working knowledge of the ins and outs of the facts,

22 if that's okay.

23

THE COURT: Whatever you want.

24

MR. KRAEMER: My understanding, and admittedly I

25 could be mistaken in part or in whole, is that we're here

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 50 of 110 Page ID#: 1587 50

1 today to determine whether preliminary injunction is going

2 to be issued.

3

I look at this case as being divided into two

4 discrete parts. The first is a historical part that

5 nothing that is done here today is going to address.

6 That's why we will have a jury trial at some point.

7

As to past practices, as this Court knows, we

8 have taken what I will say, without trying to beef

9 anything up or to be blusterous or anything, is a rather

10 unusual approach in that our answer admits liability to

11 some extent, which doesn't happen very often. So from a

12 historical perspective, I kind of look at that as being

13 off to one side. Mistakes were clearly made.

14

Now, moving forward as to why we are here, which

15 is: Should a preliminary injunction be issued? As the

16 Court is aware better than I, there are really four

17 elements: One is, is the plaintiff likely to succeed on

18 the merits? The second is, will the suffer irreparable

19 harm? That's a high standard. Irreparable harm without

20 the injunction. Third is, do the balance of equities

21 favor the preliminary relief? And the fourth is, is the

22 injunction in the public interest?

23

So is what we have here in the first instance --

24 and again, the facts, Mr. Roberson will address, and the

25 issues that you have raised that you want to hear about.

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 51 of 110 Page ID#: 1588 51

1

Is the plaintiff likely to succeed? Well, we

2 have addressed the due process problem, and it was a

3 problem for us. We have admitted that in our answer. I

4 recognize that there may be some question with the

5 plaintiffs as to whether we have addressed them enough.

6

But to me the big issue that we're here about

7 right now is this postcard matter. Going to the issue of

8 is plaintiff likely to succeed on the merits, I have not

9 seen a case yet that says it is a constitutional violation

10 to use postcards. PLN is a very experienced litigating

11 company. They have many, many cases that they have filed.

12 Everybody here has done a tremendous amount of legal

13 research. We have a content-neutral postcard policy and I

14 don't think -- maybe I missed it, and it wouldn't be the

15 first time. But I don't think anybody here has said:

16 Here is a Ninth Circuit case that says postcard are

17 permitted, incoming or out, or any case that says that.

18

I don't think the Constitution -- at least I

19 have not seen any cases -- dictate the size of the medium

20 in which somebody is going to correspond on. Put another

21 way: If this Court said: Okay, you can't use postcards.

22 And we went and said: Okay -- I don't mean this wrong.

23 I'm talking from a constitutional standpoint. We said:

24 We can't use postcards, so just cut all the eight and a

25 half by eleven paper in half. It will now be 8.5 by 5.5,

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 52 of 110 Page ID#: 1589 52

1 which is the same size as the postcard, and let them write

2 on that size of paper. Would that be unconstitutional?

3

My point is, where we're at here, all I'm trying

4 to emphasize, Your Honor, is that to some extent I think

5 the cart is before the horse, because we haven't had a

6 summary judgment hearing or a trial on whether or not the

7 postcard policy is even unconstitutional. So without the

8 County being told whether it is or is not, why should

9 there be a preliminary injunction prohibiting them from

10 doing something that as of the time we are right here,

11 right now, no court has said it is unconstitutional.

12

The second issue -- the second element is

13 irreparable harm. I would suggest that there may be many

14 ways to look at whether somebody or an entity experiences

15 irreparable harm. One is course of conduct. Now, as this

16 Court is aware from the filings that we have submitted on

17 both sides, they have sat here for a year aware of

18 constitutional violations.

19

Each constitutional violation creating

20 irreparable harm -- and these very good lawyers in

21 response to each of those -- I think there are 70-some

22 instances -- what did they do? Nothing. They did nothing

23 but monitor it and document it and gather their evidence

24 for the better part of a year.

25

I would suggest that if they were truly

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 53 of 110 Page ID#: 1590 53

1 concerned about irreparable harm to their client, there

2 would have been an e-mail to the sheriff's office saying:

3 Hey, do you know what you are doing? There would have

4 been a phone call to the sheriff's office. There would

5 have been a letter to the sheriff's office. I'm not

6 saying that's required.

7

THE COURT: I'm not familiar with that way of

8 looking at irreparable harm. Do you have any case law

9 authority that supports that that's a legitimate way to

10 look at the concept of irreparable harm; namely,

11 essentially lawyers who are trying to accomplish sort of a

12 big picture systemic change. If they wait and allow

13 several instances of irreparable harm, or even many to

14 happen over a year, and then they bring their lawsuit,

15 that they have somehow lost the right to claim irreparable

16 harm in an preliminary injunction?

17

MR. KRAEMER: I haven't researched it, and I'm

18 not saying they don't have a right. I'm saying that when

19 you are evaluating whether there would be irreparable harm

20 in the future, I think there is nothing inappropriate

21 about taking a look at what they did in the past.

22

THE COURT: All right.

23

MR. KRAEMER: But that's only one issue. I

24 didn't mean to beat that to death.

25

THE COURT: Frankly, the way I look at your

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 54 of 110 Page ID#: 1591 54

1 argument, it is an interesting point, and probably in my

2 opinion it is better in the balance of the hardships,

3 because I do think there is irreparable harm if either

4 inmates or senders of mail are being denied their

5 constitutional rights. I just don't think that's a close

6 question. I do see a point, though, and it is an

7 interesting question. We will hear from Mr. Wing or his

8 colleagues on how that may fit into the balance of the

9 equities.

10

MR. KRAEMER: Fair enough. I put it in the

11 wrong place. It is something that I was just kind of

12 thinking about when I wanted to talk about what this is

13 about today, which is this is a preliminary injunction.

14

I'm just actually just about done. There is

15 only about two other things I wanted to say, and then I'll

16 let Mr. Roberson take over. Again, in my mind it is a

17 cart before the horse scenario because when we were made

18 aware of these constitutional violations, which as you

19 know from our submissions, when we received the complaint,

20 we moved immediately -- maybe too fast -- to correct the

21 changes, although I would say that you can't move too fast

22 when somebody tells you you've violated the Constitution.

23 So there have been a couple of versions of this that have

24 come out. Quite frankly, there may be another one. I

25 don't know, because we move rapidly to remedy what was

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 55 of 110 Page ID#: 1592 55

1 clearly a historical wrong.

2

Enough said. My point is: I think, if

3 anything -- and I appreciate counsel's advocacy for his

4 client. This county immediately responded when it first

5 became aware of the constitutional problems. And if this

6 Court is going to issue some preliminary ruling that it is

7 a constitutional violation, I don't think that it follows

8 that this Court needs to issue any type of preliminary

9 injunction because there is no evidence that we would

10 violate the ruling. I guess that's what I'm getting at

11 here. I don't know if I'm expressing it very artfully.

12

THE COURT: I don't want you to answer this.

13 But what more would I expect to learn or what additional

14 evidence would I expect to see at a trial on the merits

15 that would affect the constitutional question on either on

16 the outgoing postcard-only rule or the incoming

17 postcard-only rule that defendants haven't had the

18 opportunity to present so far?

19

MR. KRAEMER: I don't think you would at a

20 trial. I personally think -- and we actually discussed

21 this once before -- and I believe the plaintiffs said they

22 didn't want to do it, although I could be mistaken, was a

23 discussion about making this a motion for summary

24 judgment.

25

THE COURT: Or a trial on the merits.

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 56 of 110 Page ID#: 1593 56

1

MR. KRAEMER: Yeah. I thought the decision was

2 not to go that route.

3

THE COURT: That was plaintiff's decision.

4

MR. KRAEMER: This is not a motion for summary

5 judgment on whether or not the policy is unconstitutional.

6 This is only a hearing to determine whether the Court

7 should issue a preliminary injunction.

8

The last thing I want to say on that issue is --

9 again, this is that broad-based language that I know bores

10 everybody to death. But one of the most recent case that

11 just came out on Monday about the deference to jail

12 administrators --

13

THE COURT: I am very well aware of that. I

14 read the case.

15

MR. KRAEMER: I am sure you are also aware,

16 right along that same line, is the importance of 18 U.S.C.

17 3626, which talks about appropriate remedies with prison

18 conditions and how prospective relief in any civil action

19 with respect to prison conditions shall extend no further

20 than necessary; that the Court is, again, to give

21 substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety

22 or the operation of the criminal justice system, which is

23 here. The only point is, these are very narrow remedies,

24 I think only to be applied after no other means of

25 correcting a harm appears to be available.

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 57 of 110 Page ID#: 1594 57

1

Again, I am beating this to death. I apologize

2 for being so repetitive. As of right now, there has not

3 even been a ruling that this is unconstitutional. So if

4 the Court is inclined to say "I think it is," I'm saying

5 give us a chance to comply with your order, because we

6 have no intention of violating it. But again --

7

THE COURT: I'm not sure I understand that last

8 sentence. I'm not sure I understand the point. I

9 understand the good faith expression, but substantively I

10 am missing what you are saying.

11

MR. KRAEMER: Well, they want preliminary

12 injunction, but I'm saying there has been no evidence that

13 a preliminary injunction would be necessary. If you're

14 going to rule, which this isn't a summary judgment for

15 that ruling -- but if you are going to rule that

16 postcards -- there is something unconstitutional at this

17 point, I believe it is unconstitutional and it is going to

18 be you guys can address it in more detail at a summary

19 judgment hearing, I think your ruling should stop there.

20 You should not then dictate to the sheriff's office how

21 they should respond to their ruling. You should give us a

22 chance to do what we would be obligated to do at that

23 point, which is to make sure our policy complied with this

24 ruling that you would make, although, again, our position

25 is it is constitutional.

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 58 of 110 Page ID#: 1595 58

1

THE COURT: Well, let me ask you: I know this

2 is in the form of a hypothetical, but it also is

3 tentatively where my thinking is right now. If I were to

4 conclude that the plaintiff was likely to succeed in its

5 challenge on the constitutionality of the postcard-only

6 policy, outgoing and incoming, what is your position or

7 defendant's position as to what I should then say or do in

8 response to the ruling on the motion for preliminary

9 injunction. I understand your point, by the way, on

10 balance of equities. We will talk about that. But in

11 terms of the last point you are making, are you saying

12 that I should make that finding if that's what I believe,

13 but then not give any further specifics, or what are you

14 saying?

15

MR. KRAEMER: Right, right. Isn't it -- yeah,

16 that's what I'm saying.

17

THE COURT: That I should basically say

18 something to the effect of: And defendant has X number of

19 days to come up with a new policy that doesn't violate

20 these provisions. Or to just simply state: I think part

21 of the role of the Court on declaratory relief, as well as

22 injunctive relief, if I conclude that it is likely to

23 succeed on those points, I state that. Then we will hear

24 from plaintiff what is more specifically enjoined. What

25 I'm hearing you say is you can enjoin the implementation

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 59 of 110 Page ID#: 1596 59

1 of the postcard-only rule without then dictating further

2 aspects of the policy that should be developed by the

3 defendants?

4

MR. KRAEMER: Correct. I guess I'm sort of

5 thinking along the lines of -- and this is my concern. I

6 usually think of preliminary injunctions as: Here is the

7 law; you are violating the law. These are my rights; you

8 are violating my rights. You are taking the water from my

9 well or something that is irreparable harm. What we have

10 here, though, is we don't have a case that says that these

11 postcards are unconstitutional.

12

THE COURT: No. But that doesn't mean that this

13 can't be the case where a declaration comes out --

14

MR. KRAEMER: I understand that.

15

THE COURT: -- and if I believe that it is

16 likely to succeed on the merits of a constitutional

17 challenge -- the postcard-only policy -- at least as

18 reflected in Exhibit F, is unconstitutional, I guess I can

19 enter a preliminary injunction that says stop violating

20 the Constitution that way.

21

MR. KRAEMER: Right. I'm not disagreeing with

22 what you can do. I didn't mean it that way. My point is,

23 as of right now, that's not the case.

24

THE COURT: I understand.

25

MR. KRAEMER: That's really my point. It is

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 60 of 110 Page ID#: 1597 60

1 tedious, and I mean this respectfully when I use that

2 word. To suggest that we can't be trusted, which I think

3 is their exact words, when I'm reminded of the fact that

4 the first time we learned of this is when there is a

5 lawsuit, and they sat there and did nothing for a year,

6 and we moved on it rapidly. Maybe we stumbled a few

7 times, but that's because we were running and not walking

8 when it was brought to our attention.

9

Like I say, it may even be a situation where

10 there is more tweaking as the dust settles. But I think

11 we have shown good faith to respond to this complaint.

12 Whether it pleases them is one issue, but I think that we

13 have shown good faith to respond.

14

THE COURT: I will tell you now, I'm not going

15 to rule from the bench. I will take this under advisement

16 and issue a written ruling. But since I'm tentatively

17 expressing my views on some things, I will tentatively

18 express my views. I don't believe in all the evidence

19 that I have seen, I don't believe I have seen bad faith by

20 the defendants. I think that there is that interesting

21 point about Sheriff Dickerson said the policy has never

22 prohibited periodicals, and we have seen that the earlier

23 policy did. I think it is an erroneous statement. I

24 wouldn't characterize it as dishonest. I would

25 characterize it as in error or incorrect. Whether or not

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 61 of 110 Page ID#: 1598 61

1 it was knowingly incorrect, I have not seen any evidence

2 that leads me to conclude that it was a knowing falsehood

3 or bad faith. But then again, I also don't think that a

4 conclusion of bad faith is at all required at this stage

5 of a pleading. That's where I am.

6

MR. KRAEMER: Thank you. I certainly agree.

7 That is not required.

8

THE COURT: Okay.

9

MR. KRAEMER: With that, I will turn it over to

10 Mr. Roberson.

11

THE COURT REPORTER: Judge, can we take a

12 five-minute break, please?

13

THE COURT: Actually we can take a longer break,

14 a ten-minute break.

15

(Recess.)

16

(Open court; proceedings resumed:)

17

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Roberson.

18

MR. ROBERSON: Thank you, Your Honor.

19

I thought it might be helpful to first discuss

20 what the policy actually says and answer any questions

21 that you may have about it as well as address what the PLN

22 has said about it today. First, there doesn't seem to be

23 any dispute about magazines with the current policy.

24

Your Honor raised -- I'm sorry -- any dispute

25 about the delivery of magazines and distribution to

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 62 of 110 Page ID#: 1599 62

1 inmates at the jail. Your Honor did raise a question

2 about the definition that the current policy has for a

3 magazine, which more or less states that it has to be

4 published four or more times per year. I think the

5 approach the jail has taken is appropriate. Most

6 magazines are, in fact, published four or more times a

7 year. So the jail just drew a line. It is a common sense

8 definition, but the policy actually gives some discretion

9 as well to the jail.

10

I wanted to point that out for you. In

11 paragraph 21, I think it is important that the policy have

12 these categorical distinctions, but it is not a policy

13 that predicts every single piece or type of mail that

14 could be sent to the jail. So the policy builds in some

15 issue-by-issue discretion, and the jail just cannot put in

16 a blanket prohibition. Paragraph 21 refers to prohibited

17 publications, books and periodicals.

18

THE COURT: Now, I read paragraph 21 as more

19 content based; that if there is inappropriate content in

20 there, they would decide that on an issue-by-issue basis

21 as opposed to saying the entire content -- or the entire

22 source of the magazine. Am I reading that incorrectly?

23

MR. ROBERSON: I think it definitely applies to

24 common sense. But if you get a piece of mail that doesn't

25 fit into any these categorical distinctions that every

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 63 of 110 Page ID#: 1600 63

1 mail policy makes, there is this built-in discretion that

2 the jail needs to approach that category of mail, not just

3 a blanket --

4

THE COURT: So if there is a periodical that we

5 would all accept as a legitimate periodical, no reason why

6 it shouldn't go to an inmate, but it is published twice a

7 year, what would a jail staff person look to in paragraph

8 21 and elsewhere for authority that, well, we will make an

9 exception for this one?

10

MR. ROBERSON: Well, first, does the jail deputy

11 even know whether that publication is published twice a

12 year?

13

THE COURT: If they don't, then what is the

14 point of the definition that requires four times a year?

15

MR. ROBERSON: I think it is just a common sense

16 approach to what a magazine is, Your Honor. You raised

17 the issue of the Georgetown Law Journal. I mean, that

18 sounds like it is a book to me. If it is in a binding, it

19 is a book. Certainly that would be permitted under --

20

THE COURT: It is like every other paperback law

21 journal. It kind of looks like a periodical, and it is a

22 periodical. It comes out once a year.

23

MR. ROBERSON: But it is also a book,

24 Your Honor.

25

THE COURT: Okay.

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 64 of 110 Page ID#: 1601 64

1

MR. ROBERSON: That's a submission to you as

2 well. I do think that paragraph 21 allows some discretion

3 in case something happens to be published three times a

4 year.

5

THE COURT: Okay. I would be interested at some

6 point -- you can talk about whatever you want whenever you

7 want. But I would be interested in you responding to

8 Mr. Wing's comments about the procedural due process

9 points when he identified paragraph 21 referring to sender

10 and inmate; 24, sender or inmate; 26 doesn't mention 31;

11 27 says use only 31; 30 says normally confiscates; 31 says

12 don't confiscate but return.

13

Any response to those comments as to those

14 arguments that Mr. Wing had?

15

MR. ROBERSON: Yes, Your Honor. First, I think,

16 just because the policy refers to other parts of the

17 policy, it doesn't mean it is confusing. It actually

18 makes it more clear.

19

With respect to paragraph 24, it does say "or,"

20 not "and." I think that's just simply a typo. I would

21 ask you read the policy in whole in its complete context.

22 It is clear that the other parts of the policy use "and,"

23 and it would not be the first time that the "and/or"

24 distinction -- lawyers use it interchangeably all the

25 time.

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 65 of 110 Page ID#: 1602 65

1

THE COURT: Well, let me ask you this. To some

2 extent I'm sympathetic to that, because I read it as a

3 whole. As I commented to Mr. Wing when he was arguing, it

4 did strike me as reasonably affording of due process until

5 he pointed out those other issues. But then he said, and

6 he reminded me of the declaration of Ms. Lennox. So if it

7 is really as clear as defendants say it is, why do we have

8 inconsistent treatment, as identified in the declaration

9 of Ms. Lennox?

10

MR. ROBERSON: I'm not so sure there is a due

11 process violation with Ms. Lennox's mailing. She appeared

12 to have mailed the same thing, I believe on the same day,

13 although maybe I'm wrong about that, but the same thing to

14 about a dozen or so inmates. It is true we don't know if

15 some of them were delivered outside the policy that we

16 have. However, I'm not sure that there is a due process

17 violation because she was given multiple printed mail

18 slips that put her on notice that if she wanted to

19 challenge or find out what happened to her other mailings,

20 there was a process.

21

THE COURT: I understand that. But the argument

22 that I'm hearing from Mr. Wing is that, because of the

23 inconsistent treatments that Ms. Lennox identifies in her

24 declaration, that's evidence that whoever is handling the

25 mail policies on any given day at the jail must be

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 66 of 110 Page ID#: 1603 66

1 confused because why else would they be handling things

2 inconsistently? That's evidence, therefore, they say,

3 that the policy really is inconsistent -- not

4 inconsistent -- confusing.

5

MR. ROBERSON: Well, I think it is evidence that

6 the policy was not followed.

7

THE COURT: No. But there are only two reasons

8 why the policy wouldn't be followed. One is because it is

9 confusing. The other because of some type of bad faith

10 finding, and I don't think you want me to go the latter

11 direction.

12

MR. ROBERSON: Or just a misunderstanding of the

13 policy.

14

THE COURT: Right, because it is confusing.

15 That's the plaintiff's argument.

16

MR. ROBERSON: But I don't know if that jail

17 deputy is misunderstanding or if it is because the policy

18 is confusing. I think those are two separate things.

19

THE COURT: In theory, wouldn't you agree that a

20 policy should be written in such a way as to not be

21 confusing to a reasonable jail deputy?

22

MR. ROBERSON: I absolutely agree, Your Honor.

23

THE COURT: Okay.

24

MR. ROBERSON: For paragraph 26, I don't think

25 it is a constitutional problem that it doesn't refer the

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 67 of 110 Page ID#: 1604 67

1 person reading the policy to the latter paragraphs of the

2 policy, just like paragraphs 21 and 24 do.

3

On paragraph 30, it states normally mail

4 handlers confiscate prohibited items, and I think Mr. Wing

5 raised the issue that's confusing. I disagree with that

6 contention. I think the issue is if a care package is

7 sent, you might have items in there that are prohibited.

8 So those can be confiscated. So I think this policy is

9 making a distinction between the actual correspondence and

10 what is included in the correspondence.

11

Mr. Wing raised the issue of the prohibited

12 mail. It says "prohibited mail slip" in paragraph 30 as

13 well as other parts of the policy. The actual notice that

14 is sent out is called a "prohibited mail notice."I don't

15 see how that's a constitutional issue. I don't think it

16 is confusing either. There is nothing in this policy that

17 says that prohibited mail notice is not a prohibited mail

18 slip. I think it is clear enough.

19

THE COURT: Do you think it is confusing to use

20 two different terms or labels for the same thing?

21

MR. ROBERSON: I do. But I think Your Honor

22 should read the policy in its full context.

23

THE COURT: Okay.

24

MR. ROBERSON: I believe Mr. Wing also raised

25 the issue that -- let me see if I have this correctly. He

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 68 of 110 Page ID#: 1605 68

1 does not believe that the policy states that the inmate

2 receives notice -- a due process notice from their

3 outgoing mail. I think the policy fairly clearly states

4 that.

5

THE COURT: Where?

6

MR. ROBERSON: It might even state it in

7 multiple portions here.

8

THE COURT: Where do you think it says it most

9 clearly?

10

MR. ROBERSON: I think paragraph 30B: Mail

11 handlers will use the prohibited mail slip to inform the

12 inmate of the confiscation -- for the item.

13

THE COURT: You are saying that 30B applies to

14 incoming or outgoing mail that is confiscated?

15

MR. ROBERSON: Yes. As well as paragraph 44.

16 Maybe paragraph 44 is clearer.

17

THE COURT: One second. All right. Show me

18 where in 44. Here is what I'm thinking: Imagine the

19 family member or the young daughter sends a three-page

20 handwritten letter to the father or mother in jail, and it

21 is not delivered. Where will the -- no, that's incoming.

22 Where does it say that notice will be given to the inmate

23 if the outgoing mail is rejected or confiscated or not

24 approved or not sent because it is not on a postcard?

25

MR. ROBERSON: Well, first, page 16, the actual

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 69 of 110 Page ID#: 1606 69

1 prohibited mail notice.

2

THE COURT: I agree --

3

MR. ROBERSON: Then in the middle there it says

4 it is deemed personal mail not on a postcard.

5

THE COURT: Where?

6

MR. ROBERSON: In the middle, there is a check

7 box. I'm on page 16.

8

THE COURT: But that's the prohibited mail

9 notice. Does it say anywhere in the policy that a

10 correctional officer must give notice to an inmate if the

11 inmate's outgoing mail is rejected as violative of the

12 postcard rule?

13

MR. ROBERSON: Your Honor, we are relying on

14 paragraph 30B, the mail handlers use of prohibited mail

15 slip.

16

THE COURT: Okay.

17

MR. ROBERSON: I also think that paragraph 44,

18 again, provides clear direction to the mail handlers.

19

THE COURT: Where in paragraph 44?

20

MR. ROBERSON: It is the first part: Jail will

21 not allow an inmate to receive or send mail -- that. Then

22 it contains almost a recitation --

23

THE COURT: Which one says --

24

MR. ROBERSON: -- of prohibited mail notice.

25

THE COURT: Where in 44(1), after the word

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 70 of 110 Page ID#: 1607 70

1 "contains," does it say that it has to be on a postcard?

2

MR. ROBERSON: It doesn't say that in paragraph

3 44.

4

THE COURT: See, that's what I'm asking. Is

5 there a direction being given to a correction officer that

6 says that if an inmate sends a three-page letter -- not on

7 a postcard but on letter -- stamped and addressed to his

8 daughter, puts it in the outgoing mail, it is not going to

9 be delivered because it is a postcard. Is that

10 correctional officer told that he or she must give notice

11 of that to the inmate? I don't see that in 44.

12

MR. ROBERSON: Your Honor, if you read the

13 policy in its full context, I think the clearest part of

14 the policy states that it is paragraph 30B.

15

THE COURT: Well, I think it is clear that the

16 jail is not going to deliver it. But what I'm looking

17 for, for due process purposes, is where the inmate is

18 given clear notice that it is not being delivered and

19 their right to appeal?

20

MR. ROBERSON: Your Honor, we are relying on

21 paragraph 30B, again, as well as the prohibited mail

22 notice. If you look at it, towards the bottom, it is a

23 carbon copy type form.

24

THE COURT: Yes.

25

MR. ROBERSON: It says: White to sender, yellow

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 71 of 110 Page ID#: 1608 71

1 to jail file, pink to the inmate. This is the form that

2 the jail is using for incoming and outgoing.

3

THE COURT: I agree that the prohibited mail

4 notice clearly does have that box that says it is deemed

5 personal mail and not on a postcard. If that box is

6 checked and the white copy is given to -- well, if the

7 inmate is the sender, does he get the white copy or the

8 pink copy? What does the correctional officer need to do?

9 What is the correctional officer told to do? Give him the

10 white copy or the pink copy?

11

MR. ROBERSON: I think you get the pink copy,

12 Your Honor. That's what it says.

13

THE COURT: Even if the inmate is the sender?

14

MR. ROBERSON: I believe that's correct, yes.

15

THE COURT: Okay. That's probably what I would

16 do if I were a correctional officer, but it is confusing.

17

Speaking of confusing, let me ask you this, and

18 I'll acknowledge it is probably an unfair question. Where

19 in the policy does it tell somebody that they may not send

20 a personal letter that's three pages and not on a

21 postcard? So we have got the little daughter, seven years

22 old. She wants to write a letter to her mom or dad in

23 jail. She writes a nice little letter on three pages. It

24 is not a postcard. Where does the policy clearly prohibit

25 that?

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 72 of 110 Page ID#: 1609 72

1

MR. ROBERSON: It is a three-page letter --

2

THE COURT: Eight and a half by eleven.

3

MR. ROBERSON: -- incoming to the -- addressed

4 to the inmate at the jail.

5

THE COURT: Where does it prohibit that?

6

MR. ROBERSON: First, the definition of personal

7 mail falls out by the definition of "personal mail."

8

THE COURT: It is not personal mail as "personal

9 mail" is defined; am I correct?

10

MR. ROBERSON: Say that again, Your Honor. I'm

11 sorry.

12

THE COURT: Sure. A seven-year-old daughter

13 writes a three-page letter, eight and a half by eleven.

14 Maybe one of those pages is a nice little drawing. She

15 puts it in an envelope, addresses it to her dad in prison

16 or at the jail and puts a stamp on it. That's not

17 personal mail as "personal mail" is defined in the policy.

18 Am I correct or incorrect?

19

MR. ROBERSON: I think you are incorrect,

20 Your Honor.

21

THE COURT: Let's take a look at the definition

22 of personal mail. Personal mail is defined on page 2.

23 "Postcards mailed to or from family, friends,

24 organizations, businesses or other unofficial entities."

25 That's the definition of "personal mail." Therefore, if

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 73 of 110 Page ID#: 1610 73

1 it is not on a postcard, it doesn't fit that definition.

2

Why am I wrong? By the way, I acknowledge it is

3 an unfair question. But why am I wrong?

4

MR. ROBERSON: Your Honor, you are not wrong.

5 That's one interpretation; certainly a valid

6 interpretation. I'm not saying you are reading the policy

7 wrong.

8

But it wouldn't be the first definition that

9 included the word being defined in the definition

10 basically -- to restrict something to a postcard by saying

11 it is on a postcard. I think there are plenty of words in

12 the dictionary that would use that same --

13

THE COURT: I don't agree. I think it is

14 confusing. Why don't we see a definition that tells us

15 what "personal mail" is? By the way, I don't know why we

16 include organizations or businesses in personal mail. And

17 then once we have appropriately defined "personal mail,"

18 the jail says "and all personal mail must be on a

19 postcard; no ifs, ands or buts," or something like that.

20 Wouldn't that be clearer to everyone?

21

MR. ROBERSON: Yes.

22

THE COURT: Okay. By the way, what about books?

23 I will tell you, I like receiving book catalogs from

24 Yale University Press, Princeton University Press, Oxford

25 University Press. My wife thinks I'm crazy, but I really

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 74 of 110 Page ID#: 1611 74

1 enjoy getting those catalogs and browsing through them.

2 There is some interesting stuff in there -- law related

3 and non-law related. Those catalogs wouldn't fit within

4 this policy, would they? They would not be deliverable to

5 an inmate; am I incorrect?

6

MR. ROBERSON: It would be deliverable.

7

THE COURT: Okay. Show me where.

8

MR. ROBERSON: Paragraph 10.

9

THE COURT: Okay.

10

MR. ROBERSON: It is titled "junk mail."

11

THE COURT: But then I go back to the definition

12 of "junk mail." What I just described I don't think fits

13 the definition of "junk mail." Do you?

14

MR. ROBERSON: I agree it doesn't fit the

15 definition of "junk mail." It might fit the first part of

16 it because it is to sell a product.

17

THE COURT: I agree.

18

MR. ROBERSON: There is the tail end of it,

19 which arguably the publications you are receiving do have

20 serious scientific and literary value.

21

THE COURT: Right. So the corrections officer

22 trying to figure out, "Is that book catalog junk mail or

23 not? Well, let me take a look at the definition," and

24 concludes in good faith, "no, it does have scientific or

25 literary or political or educational value. Therefore, it

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 75 of 110 Page ID#: 1612 75

1 is not junk mail. Therefore, well, I don't see where it

2 is allowed in here." And then it doesn't get allowed.

3

MR. ROBERSON: I think under paragraph 10 it is

4 allowed because the jail accepts solicited and unsolicited

5 junk mail or bulk mail for inmates.

6

THE COURT: Where is "bulk mail" defined?

7

MR. ROBERSON: "Bulk mail" does not have a

8 definition.

9

THE COURT: I don't think you want to say, well,

10 whether it does or doesn't get allowed depends upon its

11 postage class, right? There are cases that disregard

12 that.

13

MR. ROBERSON: Right. I think the intention

14 here was bulk mail is mail that we commonly know as mass

15 mailings. It is bulk mail.

16

THE COURT: Okay. By the way, as I said to

17 Mr. Wing, "okay" means I understand what you are saying;

18 it doesn't mean I'm agreeing.

19

MR. ROBERSON: I think we have talked about

20 magazines and books and various types of catalogs. The

21 other issue is Mr. Wing stated that 100 percent of the

22 outgoing mail from the inmates must be on a postcard.

23 Again, we are excluding legal and official mail, and we

24 talked about this.

25

THE COURT: I get that.

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 76 of 110 Page ID#: 1613 76

1

MR. ROBERSON: I don't think that's a correct

2 reading of the policy.

3

THE COURT: Which paragraph should I look at?

4

MR. ROBERSON: The first paragraph to look at is

5 paragraph 11. I think this is important because in PLN's

6 complaint they do mail book catalogs and also fund-raising

7 letters to inmates at the jail, and the First Amendment is

8 a two-way street. How can the inmate respond to a

9 solicitation for money or a method of purchasing? So the

10 very nature of having inmates conduct a business

11 transaction addresses a unique circumstance that we don't

12 have a full record on, but the point is the policy will

13 allow the inmate to respond to that solicitation if they

14 choose to.

15

THE COURT: If they receive it. And if they

16 receive it is up to the jail sergeant.

17

MR. ROBERSON: Yeah. Because of the special

18 nature of having to do a business transaction, the policy

19 requests that they get permission from the jail staff.

20

THE COURT: Wouldn't you agree with me that we

21 cannot allow, under the Constitution, a jail sergeant to

22 say, "Well, this is a solicitation from the ACLU; I'm not

23 going to let it go through. But this is a solicitation

24 from the NRA; I will let that go through," or vice versa,

25 by the way, to be fair? Do you agree that's not

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 77 of 110 Page ID#: 1614 77

1 constitutional, is it?

2

MR. ROBERSON: I agree with you.

3

THE COURT: So where is there in this policy

4 that solicitations, even if not on a postcard from, I

5 guess, charitable activities, 501(c)(3), charitable

6 activities are allowed? Because I don't see it in there.

7 I think what you're telling me, if I look at paragraph 11,

8 it is up to the discretion of the jail sergeant. I have a

9 problem with that.

10

MR. ROBERSON: It is up to the discretion of the

11 jail sergeant in the context of the policy. You can see

12 the prohibited mail notice as well as other parts of the

13 policy inform the deputies when you can reject mail and

14 what is an inappropriate content-based restriction. So

15 something from the NRA or ACLU does not fit under --

16 because it is an appropriate content base.

17

THE COURT: So how is a jail sergeant or a

18 corrections officer processing the mail to know whether or

19 not to let in a non-postcard-sized letter that may or may

20 not be a solicitation for money, a solicitation or

21 invitation for a subscription or just general

22 announcements about what is going on to receive to get to

23 the inmate? Do they allow it in or do they not allow it

24 in and how do they know?

25

MR. ROBERSON: I think it is in, under the

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 78 of 110 Page ID#: 1615 78

1 policy. I think what I'm addressing is how can the inmate

2 respond back not on a postcard.

3

THE COURT: I would like to know the first part.

4 How does it come in if it is not on a postcard? I notice

5 the definition of "personal mail" -- putting side the

6 postcard issue -- it also includes mail not only from

7 family or friends but from organizations or businesses,

8 whether that be NRA or ACLU or other organizations. It

9 has got to be on a postcard. So a lot of their letters

10 that either let folks know what they are doing, give folks

11 an opportunity to send in comments, give folks an

12 opportunity to contribute, those things are not on

13 postcards.

14

So what is the correctional officer, who looks

15 at the policy, to do to with those types of incoming mail?

16 It looks like to me that he is told, "If it is not on a

17 postcard, it doesn't come in." Am I wrong?

18

MR. ROBERSON: I understand your question now.

19 Those items are allowed in, I think, either as junk mail

20 or bulk mail. The issue with the definition of personal

21 mail, including organizations, businesses and other

22 unofficial entities is to basically close a loophole to

23 get around the postcard restriction.

24

For instance, if an employee wanted to send a

25 letter -- an employee of the company wanted to send a

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 79 of 110 Page ID#: 1616 79

1 letter to an inmate. They write it out. It is not on a

2 postcard. They fit it in their employer's envelope. So

3 it purportedly comes from a business address --

4

THE COURT: I have seen long letters from both

5 the ACLU and the NRA, and they purport to describe what

6 their agendas are. You can't fit that under the category

7 of junk mail, which says, "When taken as a whole, like

8 serious artistic, political," et cetera, "value," they

9 will contend that it has a lot of political value or

10 educational value. Therefore, it is not junk mail.

11 Therefore, it doesn't come in under junk mail. Therefore,

12 it has to be in a postcard.

13

MR. ROBERSON: I think it comes in under bulk

14 mail.

15

THE COURT: Which is not defined.

16

MR. ROBERSON: Correct.

17

THE COURT: Okay. By the way, Mr. Roberson, I

18 acknowledge these are hard questions I am asking you, and

19 you are doing a fine job on the hard questions.

20

MR. ROBERSON: Thank you, Your Honor.

21

Your Honor, unless there are further questions,

22 I think I have covered the meaning of the policy.

23

THE COURT: Thank you. Anything further,

24 Mr. Kraemer, at this time?

25

MR. KRAEMER: No, Your Honor.

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 80 of 110 Page ID#: 1617 80

1

THE COURT: Anything further from plaintiff?

2

MR. WING: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you. Kind of

3 some housekeeping things about what we just heard. If the

4 Court looks at page 16 of Exhibit F of the current policy,

5 which is the prohibited mail notice.

6

THE COURT: I'm there.

7

MR. WING: I'll point out that the language does

8 not support that this is ever used or intended to be used

9 to notify an inmate as a sender; that is, outgoing mail.

10 Under the four boxes, we are -- there is a box "returning,

11 confiscating, letter, publication." Do you see that?

12

THE COURT: Yes.

13

MR. WING: It has the language, "You sent to

14 inmate" -- blank -- and there is nothing on this form that

15 seems to suggest that this would be used for the purpose

16 of sending notice to an inmate or to a recipient who is

17 not in jail. So that adds to the lack of due process

18 policy. There is nothing in the policies that say that,

19 and the notice itself does not support that it is used

20 that way.

21

THE COURT: Okay.

22

MR. WING: Okay.

23

THE COURT: I will give Mr. Roberson a chance to

24 respond when you are done.

25

MR. WING: Okay. I don't believe that paragraph

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 81 of 110 Page ID#: 1618 81

1 30B does anything to help. It identifies the inmate or

2 the sender. That's how the parties are known.

3

I want to point out that Prison Legal News'

4 mailings to the jail are not what the post office is now

5 calling standard rate mail. It used to be called bulk

6 mail. So it is clearly a perhaps sizeably large class of

7 mail. Even if they were in the business of discriminating

8 on the basis of postage, PLN's mail wouldn't fit under the

9 bulk mail policy.

10

THE COURT: Because PLN is sending it first

11 class mail?

12

MR. WING: That's right.

13

THE COURT: Where in the record is there

14 evidence on that?

15

MR. WING: In the declaration of Paul Wright.

16 If you like, I will locate it. I think it is stated in

17 our brief.

18

THE COURT: I will look at that.

19

MR. WING: I think Mr. Blackman is going to talk

20 a little bit about the hardships question that you raised,

21 but I would like to draw the Court's attention as a lead

22 in to that to the declaration of Patricia Mendoza who

23 said, "I called the jail under this paragraph 11 of their

24 new policy for permission to send a Federal Tort Claims

25 Act form so my husband can file a claim against the United

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 82 of 110 Page ID#: 1619 82

1 States Government, and I was told, no, you can't do that."

2

So it reinforces the idea that this is not a

3 mechanism by which everybody who wants to get legitimate

4 mail may do so. The only example we have recently after

5 this lawsuit was, no, you can't get in a blank government

6 form that allows a prisoner to exercise their rights.

7

Then I would like to also point out that

8 declaration docket 36, paragraph 20, a current prisoner in

9 the jail asks for what the policy is; what the mail policy

10 is. It is now over two months since Exhibit F, supposedly

11 the jail's new policy, and the prisoner is told, "It is

12 pending." So I don't think the Court ought to accept at

13 face value that this is their new policy. The prisoners

14 have not been given a copy of it to use, and it is not

15 posted on the Web site to the rest of the world.

16

The only folk whose seem to know of the

17 existence of this policy is this Court, the plaintiffs and

18 the jail staff themselves. That is not, in my view, a

19 legitimate constitutional policy that is confined to just

20 a few parties. I note that the prohibited mail notice

21 says, if you want to know what the policy is, go look on

22 the Web site.

23

I will now turn it over to Mr. Blackman with

24 some comments about the hardships.

25

THE COURT: Thank you.

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 83 of 110 Page ID#: 1620 83

1

MR. BLACKMAN: Your Honor, I don't know if you

2 really wanted to address the balance of equities issue

3 that you raised with Mr. Roberson. We think they are

4 pretty clear. But to the extent that Mr. Kraemer is

5 suggesting that there is no need for preliminary

6 injunction here because PLN had some notice as to the way

7 this policy was operating for some time before this

8 lawsuit and that somehow undermines its claim for the need

9 for a preliminary injunction, I would just like to point

10 out, as the complaint identifies, PLN, it is a project of

11 the Human Rights Defense Center. Its mission is public

12 education, prisoner education, advocacy and outreach and

13 support of the rights of prisoners. It doesn't exist for

14 a commercial-only reason.

15

If its goal was to get its magazine admitted to

16 various jails, the kinds of irrational implementation that

17 we have been seeing at Columbia County would really

18 be advantageous, because it would basically create a

19 monopoly by just arranging to have its own publication

20 admitted and everything else excluded. Its goal here is

21 exactly what this complaint says -- education, advocacy,

22 outreach and support of the rights of prisoners.

23

When a facility is precluding legitimate

24 communications between prisoners, not only with PLN, but

25 others, that's a concern of PLN, and it needs to have a

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 84 of 110 Page ID#: 1621 84

1 record to present to a court to make that claim. So

2 waiting until we are certain that this isn't just a

3 mistake, that this is really a policy, is essential to a

4 legitimate claim, both in terms of the underlying merits

5 and in terms of the relief. So I hope the Court does not

6 hold it against PLN that it waited to make sure that this

7 was in fact an intentional designed policy to exclude

8 legitimate communications before it filed its lawsuit.

9

THE COURT: I understand what you are saying.

10

Anything further from the defendants?

11

MR. ROBERSON: Thank you, Your Honor.

12

I will respond to some of Mr. Wing's comments.

13 The issue in the most recent declaration that PLN filed --

14 I forget the person's name. The one filed last week about

15 the tort claim notice.

16

THE COURT: Ms. Mendoza.

17

MR. ROBERSON: Mendoza. It is unclear to me

18 what she means when she talks about a tort claim notice

19 form. There is no specific form for a tort claim notice.

20 It could be on a postcard. I don't see the constitutional

21 issue with that. It also sounds like it has an as-applied

22 challenge, and we're dealing here with a facial challenge

23 to the policy.

24

THE COURT: Do you want to talk about Mr. Wing's

25 comment, on the prohibited mail notice, the form says,

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 85 of 110 Page ID#: 1622 85

1 "Because of the rules contained in Columbia County Jail

2 Inmate Mail Policy, we are" -- and then there is a place

3 to check boxes -- "returning, confiscating letter or

4 publication," and then it continues, "you sent to inmate"

5 blank.

6

Here, Mr. Wing is saying that shows that the

7 prohibited mail notice policy is for incoming mail, and

8 this notice will be sent to senders who send mail to

9 inmates and that mail is then rejected or confiscated.

10 Mr. Wing's argument is this mail notice on its face shows

11 that it doesn't apply to confiscated or rejected mail sent

12 by inmates that are outgoing; and therefore, there is no

13 procedure for appeal, or for even notice, for outgoing

14 mail to inmates.

15

That's the argument I'm hearing. Do you want to

16 respond to that?

17

MR. ROBERSON: Thank you, Your Honor.

18

First, we think there is a procedure to provide

19 the inmate notice that their mail is not delivered. We

20 take at face value Mr. Wing's point here. It says, "That

21 you sent to inmate." We are not going to deny it says

22 that. I think this goes in line with what Mr. Kraemer

23 said earlier, which is this was rapidly done to correct

24 the violations that we have admitted to. We have admitted

25 90 percent or more of the factual allegations of the

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 86 of 110 Page ID#: 1623 86

1 complaint, and we acted rapidly to correct it.

2

THE COURT: Okay.

3

MR. ROBERSON: As far as the Web site, it says

4 the mail policy is under review. That's an accurate

5 statement. I don't think it is a misstatement. The

6 policy is under review. I think it is appropriate.

7

Now, Mr. Wing has pointed out that one of the

8 inmate declarations -- I think it was Mr. Berg if I'm

9 correct -- had a deputy told him something like he can't

10 get access to the mail policy. If you look at Exhibit K

11 attached to his declaration, there is a written response

12 from a jail deputy, not just a statement in the

13 declaration, but a written response from a jail deputy as

14 to why it is completely reasonable why -- I forgot what

15 the specific request was on the grievance form. But it is

16 a perfectly appropriate response telling Mr. Berg there

17 are no differences in the outgoing mail policy and the

18 incoming -- something about the mail policy. There are no

19 changes to outgoing mail. So that was addressing his

20 concerns.

21

I don't have anything further to say about what

22 the policy says, but we also have what standard to use --

23 Martinez or Turner -- which I think is important to

24 address. Mr. Wing has cited some case law that I have not

25 read yet, but it sounded to me that they were

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 87 of 110 Page ID#: 1624 87

1 content-based restrictions. The Bradley and Barrett case.

2 They were also cases decided, I believe, in the '90s, so

3 prior to some of the case law we cited by the Supreme

4 Court, which suggests that Turner would be a factor to

5 apply to all prisoner regulations.

6

THE COURT: Although if I heard him correctly,

7 Mr. Wing said that Witherow from the Ninth Circuit was not

8 a content-based censorship but does show that for outgoing

9 mail the standard is not the Turner case. At least that's

10 what I heard.

11

MR. ROBERSON: You are right. I was going to

12 address that. We cited the Witherow case in response to

13 their motion, and we cited it again in our response to the

14 amicus brief. We agree that it is a non-content-based

15 prison regulation. We don't agree that it applied a

16 higher standard to the regulation. What it in effect said

17 was this meets both standards. That's our interpretation

18 of the case.

19

THE COURT: As I have confessed I think already

20 in open court, I have read a lot of cases before today's

21 hearing on this. I didn't read Witherow. But I will.

22

MR. ROBERSON: It is very short, Your Honor.

23

MR. KRAEMER: Most of us haven't read all the

24 cases either, I suspect.

25

THE COURT: I have read about a dozen. I didn't

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 88 of 110 Page ID#: 1625 88

1 select that one to read.

2

MR. ROBERSON: Again, the other case that I

3 believe Mr. Wing mentioned was a District Court of

4 California was, again, confiscation, not mail policy. So

5 not having read the cases, I can't say more about them.

6 But we agree Witherow is the case you should be reading

7 when it comes to the Ninth Circuit. Our position is it

8 just doesn't tell you what the Ninth Circuit would say

9 about this, so then we are into all the other case law.

10

Unless you have questions. I didn't want to go

11 through, because I think its spelled out in the amicus

12 brief, as clear as we could.

13

THE COURT: No. I think this has been very

14 helpful. As I did say, if anyone really wants to get in

15 either the last word or the penultimate word, you are

16 welcome to do it. But I have heard plenty, and I am going

17 to take it under advisement. I do then want to talk about

18 discovery and a protective order.

19

Mr. Wing.

20

MR. WING: Yes, just briefly, on the topic of

21 Witherow. The defense argued and quoted the language that

22 the Court rejected in the exacting standard. I want to

23 tell you what that is so that when you look at the case

24 you will see this.

25

The exacting standard that was at issue in that

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 89 of 110 Page ID#: 1626 89

1 case was Mr. Witherow was challenging a non-content-based

2 regulation that said they were going to inspect his mail

3 to public officials in non-content. Those public

4 officials we're going to really read it.

5

Mr. Witherow, the prisoner, said: Well, there

6 is a lot of cases which say that letters sent to public

7 officials should be subject to an even higher standard

8 than Procunier -- an exacting standard. And the Court

9 said: No, we are not going to do that. We are just going

10 to subject it to Procunier.

11

I think it is not a reasonable interpretation of

12 this opinion to suggest that what the Court meant by that

13 is it is not applying Procunier, okay. They said we are

14 not going to go higher than Procunier, and we're not going

15 to do the Turner test. They said we are going to apply

16 the Procunier v. Martinez test. That, of course, is what

17 Barrett, much more recently, said.

18

THE COURT: Very good.

19

MR. WING: I wanted to tell you, to save you

20 time, the declaration of Paul Wright, Docket 8 --

21

THE COURT: One second.

22

MR. WING: Okay.

23

THE COURT: Yes.

24

MR. WING: That's where he says that the

25 mailings, brochures, catalogs, book catalogs, letters are

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 90 of 110 Page ID#: 1627 90

1 all sent first class, to save you time. It is Docket 8,

2 paragraph 11.

3

THE COURT: Thank you.

4

MR. WING: Finally, I think looking at Exhibit K

5 that Mr. Roberson just cited is in fact the inmate request

6 form that says, "Could you please provide me a copy of the

7 CTJs and the mail policy, please." And the sheriff

8 responds, "The mail policy is changing. The information

9 that affects inmates' mail as far as outgoing and incoming

10 mail remains the same." When is that? Remember, it is

11 not on the Web site. It is not in the inmate mail manual.

12 This is on February 8th, 2012, after they have adopted the

13 policy.

14

THE COURT: Anything further from the defendant?

15

MR. ROBERSON: Yes. I would just add that it is

16 our understanding of the inmate mail policy has been

17 changed -- I'm sorry -- the inmate mail handbook has been

18 changed to reflect the current policy, and Mr. Berg has

19 access to the inmate mail handbook.

20

THE COURT: What are you referring to by "inmate

21 mail handbook"? I know something called the "Inmate Mail

22 Guide" that's on the last page of Exhibit F. Is that what

23 you are referring to?

24

MR. ROBERSON: No, Your Honor.

25

THE COURT: What are you referring to as the

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 91 of 110 Page ID#: 1628 91

1 "inmate mail handbook"? Where do I find that?

2

MR. ROBERSON: Earlier in this hearing PLN

3 submitted an inmate mail handbook, I believe it is called.

4 It is the instructions to the inmates.

5

THE COURT: What docket number is that or where

6 can I find that exhibit?

7

MR. ROBERSON: There is a prior version in the

8 record. The current one is not in the record.

9

THE COURT: The prior version, where would I

10 find that in the record?

11

MR. ROBERSON: I don't know offhand.

12

MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Your Honor, it is in the

13 declaration of Bradley Berg, which is Docket 36, I believe

14 Exhibit A. Yes.

15

THE COURT: Now, I'm sorry, Mr. Roberson, but

16 now what point do I draw? Let me find it. One second.

17

All right. I have the declaration of Mr. Berg.

18 Exhibit A is labeled "Inmate Manual, Columbia County

19 Jail." So it is not an inmate mail handbook. It is the

20 inmate manual. It is the inmate manual for Columbia

21 County Jail. On pages 7 through 10 it does discuss the

22 mail policies. It says a number of different things in

23 there. That's where it says, under periodicals, you do

24 not accept periodicals.

25

Okay. Now, what point did you want me to draw

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 92 of 110 Page ID#: 1629 92

1 from that? I'm not following you. I'm sorry.

2

MR. ROBERSON: My point, Your Honor, is that

3 inmate manual is updated to reflect the current policy and

4 inmates, of course, have access to the inmate manual.

5

THE COURT: So you are saying that the inmate

6 manual has been updated to reflect the inmate mail policy

7 that was effective as of February 10, 2012, but we don't

8 have in our record that updated inmate manual handbook?

9

MR. ROBERSON: Correct. We did not put it in

10 the record. This is a facial challenge to the policy.

11

THE COURT: Okay. I understand what you are

12 saying.

13

All right. Thank you all very much. I found

14 this argument very, very helpful to me. Thank you,

15 counsel on both sides, for your comments. I am going to

16 take this matter under advisement.

17

Let me ask briefly, following up on our

18 telephone conversation from, I think, last week. Where

19 are we in terms of discovery issues? There was an issue

20 on the protective order, the form of that, on whether or

21 not a protective order was even needed and then also

22 discovery issues.

23

MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Your Honor. Katie

24 Chamberlain for the plaintiff. After we spoke with you

25 last Thursday, we exchanged some e-mails with defense

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 93 of 110 Page ID#: 1630 93

1 counsel. Because the defendants are requesting a

2 protective order, I asked Mr. Roberson to provide me with

3 a proposed protective order so we can take a look at it

4 and also to specifically let us know what it is he seeks

5 to be protected for special treatment in this case.

6

Yesterday afternoon I received the proposed

7 protective order that the defendants would like. It

8 identifies that they want protected the names of

9 arrestees, detainees, inmates housed at the Columbia

10 County Jail for the past several years, including arrest

11 dates and release dates.

12

I believe Mr. Roberson, as the Court suggested,

13 took a look at the tier-one protective order that's on the

14 Court's Web site. Although I have not compared it to the

15 original form but all of the potential provisions of that

16 tier-one protective order are in here, including

17 requirements that documents and deposition testimony and

18 interrogatory answers be sealed if they have inmate names

19 or arrest dates on them, including also pleadings that

20 have that type of information. It restricts the handling

21 of documents that have inmate names and arrest dates to

22 specific people, court personnel, attorneys and so forth.

23 It requires a part of the court record that contains this

24 information be kept from the public.

25

I have asked Mr. Roberson to please let us know

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 94 of 110 Page ID#: 1631 94

1 the legal basis for the protective order, perhaps the

2 Constitution or something, so we can consider it. But to

3 date the only reason I've heard, unless I've missed

4 something, is that the defendants contend that PLN had not

5 previously tried to make contact with certain prisoners,

6 and so the defendants contend that we don't have a right

7 to receive their names and arrest dates and so forth.

8

I don't think that constitutes close to good

9 cause required for a protective order. Actually I have

10 freshened up on my state legal standard for protective

11 orders. It is my understanding that the Ninth Circuit has

12 been pretty clear and actually issued a decision in

13 November affirming Judge Aiken's analysis of the legal

14 standards, which are there must be good cause for a

15 protective order and special handling of information and

16 discovery. But if a party wants to require that a party

17 file information under seal, the standard becomes

18 compelling reasons.

19

But for the first standard, the good cause

20 standard, the defendants who want this special protection

21 must make a specific showing of specific prejudice or harm

22 that will result if a protective order is not granted.

23 Actually probably the first place to look is the rules.

24 Rule 26(c)(1) says that the Court can order for good cause

25 an order to protect a party or person from annoyance,

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 95 of 110 Page ID#: 1632 95

1 embarrassment, oppression, undue burden or expense.

2

There has been no showing that there is any

3 specific need for that. Of course, we need the prisoners'

4 names and information about the prisoners to litigate this

5 case and try to help them get their mail, to send and

6 receive their mail, and I don't think there are other

7 allegations that we have other intentions.

8

Then I'm particularly also concerned about any

9 requirement that we have to seal information that's filed

10 with the Court. It is very burdensome to have to do that.

11 Frankly, the default is that things filed with the Court

12 are a public record, and it is an important part of the

13 judicial process that there is transparency there. But

14 the standard there is quite higher -- it is compelling

15 reason -- it is what the defendant has to be able to

16 articulate. They have to show that the records may be

17 used for improper purposes, such as to gratify private

18 spite, promote public scandal, commit libel or release

19 trade secrets. The most recent case I'm reading from is

20 In Re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Oregon,

21 Ninth Circuit, 661 F.3d 417.

22

So, Your Honor, it is our position that there is

23 not good cause or compelling reasons to have any form of a

24 protective order to protect the prisoners' names in this

25 case. This came up in the context of counsel's discussion

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 96 of 110 Page ID#: 1633 96

1 regarding discovery issues and most recently following up

2 on the Court's suggestion that we sample the prisoner

3 files as part of discovery. It is our understanding

4 that's quite a bit of responsive documents that may be

5 contained in those files.

6

We got hung up on two pieces of sampling. One

7 was whether or not the defendants need to provide a report

8 to plaintiffs with the prisoners' names and arrest dates.

9 To date, we have received a report that has no names but

10 does have a booking number. We think it would be

11 unreasonable and extraordinary burdensome for us to have

12 to proceed in this case having to take depositions and

13 asking the sheriff, for example, about booking No. 86971

14 without using their name or requiring special

15 circumstances to use their name in deposition.

16

So our position is that the protective order --

17

THE COURT: Do you have the cite for the recent

18 Ninth Circuit decision on protective orders. I know State

19 v. Foltz. Is there a recent one?

20

MS. CHAMBERLAIN: The most recent one that I was

21 quoting from was In Re Catholic Archbishop of Portland in

22 Oregon, 661 F.3d 417.

23

Excuse me, Your Honor. One additional point I

24 wanted to make regarding this point and whether

25 specifically prisoners' names and book and release dates

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 97 of 110 Page ID#: 1634 97

1 should be subject to a protective order, and that is that

2 Oregon Revised Statute 192.501, part of the Oregon Public

3 Records Act.

4

THE COURT: That's what I was going to ask you

5 about next.

6

MS. CHAMBERLAIN: It specifically speaks to this

7 point; in particular Section 3. What the statute says is,

8 "The following public records are exempt from disclosure,

9 unless the public interest requires disclosure on a

10 particular instance." Then it goes on to state No. 3,

11 "Investigatory information compiled for criminal law

12 purposes. The record of an arrest or the report of a

13 crime shall be disclosed, unless and only for so long as

14 there is a clear need to delay disclosure in the course of

15 a specific investigation, including the need to protect

16 the complaining party or the victim."

17

Then it goes on later to say, "For the purposes

18 of this section the record of an arrest or the report of a

19 crime includes, but is not limited to, the arrested

20 person's name, age, residence, employment, marital status,

21 the offense with which the arrested person is charged,"

22 and it goes on.

23

So how I read the statute, very clearly it

24 states explicitly, Your Honor, that unless there is a need

25 to delay disclosure because of a specific ongoing

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 98 of 110 Page ID#: 1635 98

1 investigation. If we were to obtain the same information

2 through the Public Records Act instead of a discovery

3 request, the Columbia County Jail would be required to

4 hand it over.

5

THE COURT: Let me ask the defendant, in light

6 of the Oregon public records law on that provision, don't

7 you have to turn that over?

8

MR. ROBERSON: Well, that statute was cited to

9 me last night. I did not look into it or research it

10 because I was preparing for today's hearing, but we talked

11 about it for an hour last week. I think we're talking

12 sideways on the issue.

13

PLN's discovery request do not actually ask for

14 an inmate report with 43,000 names on it. It has come up,

15 with respect to this, how to sample files randomly. Then

16 there is a separate question later on, when we sample the

17 files, here are the names disclosed. What I have

18 explained is that I think it depends on the nature of the

19 disclosure. I need to know what records we are dealing

20 with here. That would not just be the name of the inmate,

21 the date of arrest, the date of release. That would be

22 what's in their inmate file. It is a totally separate

23 question.

24

So the first question is: Does this report need

25 to be turned over with inmate names if it is just being

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 99 of 110 Page ID#: 1636 99

1 used for the purpose of figuring out how to sample files

2 randomly? Our position is that it does not need to be

3 produced. We produced the one with the inmate numbers

4 instead, and we are relatively competent we are going to

5 be able to produce an Excel spreadsheet from the jail

6 inmate software, which is, again, an issue we discussed --

7

THE COURT: I remember that.

8

MR. ROBERSON: -- last week.

9

THE COURT: So what's the reason why defendant

10 is concerned about the list that's given with inmate names

11 and booking dates and release dates -- I'm missing that --

12 especially that it is discoverable or subject to the

13 Oregon public records law. Where is defendant's concern?

14

The concern I heard last week, and I can fix it

15 right now, you are concerned about possibly getting sued

16 for disclosure of private information or something like

17 that. I will fix that right now. You are getting a court

18 order. You may not withhold prisoner names, booking

19 dates, release dates and the like. Anything that would

20 otherwise be discoverable or producible under the Oregon

21 public records law, you can't disclose.

22

I will do that as part of an oral order from the

23 bench, an order to compel. I think that gives you and the

24 clients the protection you need to not be subject to a

25 meritorious claim for invasion of privacy because you are

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 100 of 110 Page ID#: 1637
100

1 under a court order to produce that information or not to

2 withhold it.

3

So I think that takes care of what I hear to be

4 a legitimate concern, but we have now solved that. Any

5 further concerns we need to address on that?

6

MR. ROBERSON: Does that order include a

7 protective order as well --

8

THE COURT: I have not yet heard anything that

9 would qualify for protection under a protective order

10 under the good cause standard that I'm familiar with in

11 the case of State v. Foltz, which also requires that the

12 Court has to do a serious evaluation of whether there is

13 good cause. I have not read the recent case. It sounds

14 like it is not inconsistent.

15

So if you all want to have a protective order

16 that you can stipulate to, the concept for how to deal for

17 things for which there is good cause, that's fine with me.

18 But I don't think the names of inmates, their booking

19 dates, their release dates and the like would qualify for

20 good cause.

21

MR. KRAEMER: Your Honor --

22

THE COURT: Yes, Mr. Kraemer.

23

MR. KRAEMER: You hit the nail on the head as to

24 the reason. I appreciate what Mr. Blackman has said, and

25 I'm mindful of the laws. I am also mindful of the fact

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 101 of 110 Page ID#: 1638
101

1 that somebody who is arrested for sexually abusing a

2 13-year-old girl two years ago and then charges were

3 dismissed, if it gets turned over to them and they have

4 that information, I guess in the scheme of things that's

5 life.

6

THE COURT: If it is subject to the Oregon

7 public records law, then it is life.

8

MR. KRAEMER: And whether or not that would be a

9 public disclosure of matters that have now become somewhat

10 private because of passage of time, yeah, we can probably

11 defend against it by incurring legal fees and blah, blah,

12 blah, and people would be embarrassed by this coming out.

13 I am rambling way too far.

14

I want you to understand: That's our only

15 concern, that situation right there. Some of this would

16 be stale information; charges that were never prosecuted.

17 You are ordering us to do it. Quite frankly, my notes

18 were "hopefully the judge will order us to do it," because

19 that makes it very easy for us.

20

THE COURT: It is so ordered.

21

MR. KRAEMER: I appreciate it.

22

THE COURT: All right. Anything else we should

23 talk about in terms of discovery now, or should I wait for

24 you to contact Mary and let us know when you are ready for

25 further scheduling?

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 102 of 110 Page ID#: 1639
102

1

MR. KRAEMER: I think we are good right now.

2

MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Your Honor, a couple of

3 things. We have recently noted up a request to inspect

4 the jail. We actually did that a few weeks ago and just

5 rescheduled it this week to happen the first full week of

6 May along with a 30(b)(6) deposition at the jail as well.

7 We had some discussions with counsel regarding inspection

8 and a contemporaneous 30(b)(6) deposition. There may have

9 been some issues that we can use the Court's assistance

10 on. I am not sure.

11

MR. ROBERSON: I don't think we have a dispute

12 for you at this time, Your Honor. We might have one in

13 the future over the mechanics of the 30(b)(6) deposition

14 when it is scheduled.

15

THE COURT: That's fine. And if you need my

16 assistance, contact Mary Austad by telephone or by e-mail,

17 and the Court will make itself available to you as soon as

18 we reasonably can.

19

MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Your Honor, the one other

20 additional thing we were going to talk about today is the

21 default scheduling order says discovery ends very soon, in

22 the next few weeks, and there are a number of other

23 deadlines coming up. We were going to talk about a

24 scheduling order today.

25

THE COURT: When do you all propose to have

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 103 of 110 Page ID#: 1640
103

1 discovery close? I will tell you that I expect my

2 decision on the preliminary injunction motion will be out

3 no earlier than 30 days from now and no later than 60 days

4 from now.

5

MR. KRAEMER: From our perspective we have got

6 three to six -- well, we have got three or four PLN

7 people. I can't remember how many people work for the

8 organization. Obviously we have a great interest in the

9 damages component of this case. So there is a good chance

10 that half if not all of those people will need to be

11 deposed on our end. It is really going to be a matter

12 once we get discovery from them on the financial aspect of

13 their business and diversion of resources and things like

14 that that they have alleged.

15

Then we may interview or depose a number of

16 these declarants. It depends. So I'm thinking most

17 likely at the low end for us it would be four or five

18 depositions and at the high end ten to twelve. I think

19 probably in the next two and a half or three months we

20 should have them wrapped up from our end.

21

THE COURT: Okay.

22

MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Your Honor, it is a little

23 hard to tell right now. I think in the very first

24 conference with you, I think the parties were hoping to

25 push this along and keep this on track and have an early

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 104 of 110 Page ID#: 1641
104

1 trial. Although there have been quite a few

2 communications between counsel, we have not seen the

3 discovery yet, which I understand the first part is coming

4 next week. If indeed the sheriff's deposition, Sergeant

5 Cutright's deposition and 30(b)(6) inspection happen that

6 first full week of May, and we're on track from that point

7 forward, we think probably the earliest we could be done

8 with discovery is the middle of August.

9

We would propose that there be a dispositive

10 motions deadline pretty soon after that, maybe on the

11 31st, and then we would want Your Honor's suggestion about

12 how far out trial should be after that.

13

THE COURT: All right. Let's schedule the close

14 of discovery for the last business day in August. What's

15 that, Mary?

16

THE CLERK: August 31.

17

THE COURT: Discovery closes August 31st. Is

18 there going to be -- do you all anticipate expert

19 discovery?

20

MR. WING: I don't think so.

21

MR. KRAEMER: I anticipate experts.

22

THE COURT: Do you need expert discovery to

23 close before dispositive motions? Sometimes it is more

24 economically efficient to wait until after dispositive

25 motions to do expert discovery if the expert disclosure is

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 105 of 110 Page ID#: 1642
105

1 not going to be relevant or needed for the dispositive

2 motions and responses.

3

MR. WING: Steve, can I ask you, are you talking

4 about damages?

5

MR. KRAEMER: Yes.

6

MR. WING: Then it wouldn't be relevant to

7 dispositive motions.

8

MR. KRAEMER: I'm not sure. I guess I have to

9 think this through. I guess if part of the summary

10 judgment is going to be the final issue on the

11 constitutionality of any of the policy, there may be room

12 for jail experts to be submitting declarations in that

13 regard.

14

THE COURT: And if there are facts in dispute,

15 my attitude is we shouldn't do it on summary judgment; we

16 should do it on a trial on the merits.

17

MR. KRAEMER: Would a jury decide if the policy

18 is constitutional?

19

THE COURT: Not necessarily. That's not a jury

20 question. But I would still want to do it on a

21 bifurcated --

22

MR. KRAEMER: Understood.

23

THE COURT: Even if not bifurcated, there are

24 some questions for the Court. Permanent injunctions and

25 declarations for the Court. Fact disputes and damages for

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 106 of 110 Page ID#: 1643
106

1 the jury. By the way, I'm not quite sure what it is you

2 want for the jury on this, but you all might want to think

3 about waiving jury. You have jury trial rights on

4 whatever issues you have a right to have a jury trial on.

5 If you want to stand on those rights, you are welcome to.

6 We will have a jury trial. If you want to waive it, I

7 will deal with everything on a bench trial. I think in

8 terms of permanent injunctive relief, if any, and

9 declaratory relief, that's for the Court, not a jury.

10

MR. KRAEMER: Agree. I was looking at the jury

11 and damages, how much money was involved.

12

THE COURT: If both sides want a jury -- I guess

13 if either side wants a jury trial issue on that, you have

14 a right to it, I think.

15

MR. WING: I think we are in agreement it sounds

16 like.

17

THE COURT: Okay. Let's have dispositive

18 motions due the last business day in September. What date

19 is that, Mary?

20

THE CLERK: September 28th.

21

THE COURT: September 28th for dispositive

22 motions being due and then go through the regular rules

23 for responses. Three weeks after response; two weeks

24 after that reply. If nobody needs, or if someone needs an

25 extension, we will deal with that then and then schedule

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 107 of 110 Page ID#: 1644
107

1 oral argument on motions.

2

Let's schedule a status conference sometime

3 maybe in August, early part of August, just to sort of see

4 if we're on track.

5

MR. WING: Generally speaking, this looks good

6 to us. We have got another trial that seems fairly likely

7 to go in October. We would wonder if we can bump things

8 up two weeks earlier; that is, discovery close mid-August,

9 dispositive motions two or three weeks earlier.

10

THE COURT: Sounds fine to me. Any objection

11 from defendant?

12

MR. KRAEMER: No.

13

THE COURT: Mary, let's pick something around

14 the middle --

15

THE CLERK: August 16th for discovery closing.

16

THE COURT: Will that work for you?

17

MR. WING: Yes.

18

THE COURT: Then 30 days after that, roughly

19 September 15th or 16th?

20

THE CLERK: September 13th.

21

MR. WING: Yes, that would be better.

22

THE COURT: Okay. Dispositive motions filed

23 September 13th.

24

Do you all think we need another status

25 conference? The other option is we are here when you need

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 108 of 110 Page ID#: 1645
108

1 us. Either party can contact us if there is something you

2 need to talk about. As of right now, I'm not going to

3 require any ADR report. I think you all know how to

4 discuss that among yourselves, if you need to. I am not

5 going to require that. It is too early to talk about

6 pretrial orders. We will see how things look like after

7 summary judgment.

8

MR. WING: Excuse me one second.

9

THE COURT: Of course.

10

MR. WING: What about having a status conference

11 a little bit earlier, let's say early July, to see how

12 things are moving?

13

THE COURT: That's fine.

14

MR. WING: If we have a logjam, we can do it by

15 telephone.

16

THE COURT: Mary, how do we look in early July?

17

THE CLERK: Friday, July 6th. Does that sound

18 okay?

19

THE COURT: If there is problem, just set off

20 fireworks two days earlier.

21

MR. BLACKMAN: Mary, what time?

22

THE CLERK: 9:30.

23

THE COURT: All right. Anything else?

24

MS. CHAMBERLAIN: No.

25

COUNSEL: Thank you.

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 109 of 110 Page ID#: 1646
109

1

(Recess.)

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 55 Filed 04/24/12 Page 110 of 110 Page ID#: 1647
110

1

2

--oOo--

3

4

I certify, by signing below, that the foregoing

5 is a correct transcript of the record of proceedings in

6 the above-entitled cause. A transcript without an

7 original signature, conformed signature or digitally

8 signed signature is not certified.

9 /s/ Dennis W. Apodaca
10 DENNIS W. APODACA, RMR, FCRR, RPR Official Court Reporter
11

April 23, 2012 DATE

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 80 Filed 07/30/12 Page 1 of 5 Page ID#: 1874

Steven A. Kraemer, OSB No. 882476 E-mail: sak@hartwagner.com Gregory R. Roberson, OSB No. 064847 E-mail: grr@hartwagner.com HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301
Of Attorneys for Defendants

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,

No. 3:12-CV-0071-SI

Plaintiffs,

AMENDED ANSWER

v. JURY TRIAL DEMAND

COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF DICKERSON, individual and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,

Defendants.

Defendants deny each and every allegation of Plaintiff’s Complaint except as admitted in

this Answer.

I. NATURE OF THE CASE

1.1 Defendants admit that some of the Columbia County Jail’s (“Jail”) past mail

policies and practices violated some of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Defendants are without

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations

and therefore deny the same.

///

Page 1 - AMENDED ANSWER

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 80 Filed 07/30/12 Page 2 of 5 Page ID#: 1875

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2.1 Admit.

2.2 Admit.

III. PARTIES

3.1 Admit that Human Rights Defense Center is a Washington non-profit corporation.

Admit that Prison Legal News (“PLN”) publishes and distributes a monthly publication of

corrections news and analysis and certain books about the criminal justice system and legal

issues affecting prisoners. Admit that PLN maintains a website. Defendants are without

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remainder in ¶ 3.1.

3.2 Admit.

3.3 Deny the Sheriff’s Office is a department of Columbia County. Admit that it

operates the Columbia County Jail in St. Helens, Oregon and that the Jail houses convicted

prisoners and pre-trial detainees.

3.4 Deny Sheriff Dickerson is employed by Columbia County or that that he is an

agent of Columbia County. Admit the remainder of ¶ 3.4.

3.5 Deny that the acts and omissions of the persons alleged herein were taken as

employees and officers of Columbia County, but admit this paragraph to the extent it alleges the

persons were employees or officers of Columbia County Sheriff’s Office.

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

4.1 Admit.

4.2 Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in ¶ 4.2, therefore they are denied.

4.3 Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the remainder in ¶ 4.3, therefore they are denied.

4.4 Admit that Defendants have rejected some of PLN’s mailings sent to inmates in

custody at the Jail. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

as to the truth of the remainder in ¶ 4.4., therefore they are denied.

Page 2 - AMENDED ANSWER

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 80 Filed 07/30/12 Page 3 of 5 Page ID#: 1876

4.5 - 4.27 Admit.

4.28 Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in ¶ 4.28, therefore they are denied.

4.29 Deny.

4.30 Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in ¶ 4.30, therefore they are denied.

4.31 – 4.34 Admit.

4.35 Plaintiff’s statement does not contain an allegation for Defendants to admit or

deny. To the extent an answer is required, deny.

4.36 Admit.

4.37 Deny as to Lloyd Myers. Otherwise, admit.

4.38 – 4.41 Admit.

4.42 – 4.44 Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of the allegations in ¶ 4.42 - ¶4.44, therefore they are denied.

4.45 – 4.51 Admit.

4.52 – 4.54 Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of the allegations in ¶ 4.52 – ¶ 4.54, therefore they are denied.

4.55 – 4.61 Admit.

4.62 – 4.64 Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of the allegations in ¶ 4.62 - ¶ 4.64, therefore they are denied.

4.65 – 4.71 Admit.

4.72 – 4.73 Deny.

4.73.1

Deny.

4.73.2

Admit.

4.73.3

Deny.

4.73.4 Admit that Defendants rejected some PLN articles that Lucy Lennox printed from

PLN’s website and mailed to some inmates at the Jail. Admit that the Jail put on some of the

Page 3 - AMENDED ANSWER

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 80 Filed 07/30/12 Page 4 of 5 Page ID#: 1877

rejected mail that “the Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS” or “No envelope

mail” as the reason for the rejection. Deny the remainder in ¶ 4.73.4.

4.73.5 – 4.73.6

Deny.

4.74

Deny.

4.74.1 – 4.74.2

Deny.

4.74.3 – 4.74.4

Defendants admit that some of its past mail policies violated some

of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

4.75 – 4.80 Deny.

V. CLAIM ALLEGATIONS

5.1 Defendants re-allege and incorporate herein each answer included in ¶¶ 1.1 –

4.80.

5.2 Defendants admit that some of its past mail policies violated some of Plaintiff’s

constitutional rights.

5.3 - 5.4

Deny.

5.5 Defendants re-allege and incorporate herein each answer included in ¶¶ 1.1 –

4.80.

5.6 Defendants admit that some of its past mail polices violated some of Plaintiff’s

constitutional rights.

5.7 - 5.8

Deny.

VI.

INJUNCTION ALLEGATIONS

6.1 Deny.

6.2 Deny.

BY WAY OF FURTHER ANSWER, DEFENDANTS ASSERT THE FOLLOWING

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES:

1. Plaintiff’s prayer for injunctive relief is moot.

2. Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

/// Page 4 - AMENDED ANSWER

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 80 Filed 07/30/12 Page 5 of 5 Page ID#: 1878
3. Plaintiff lacks standing and is not the real party in interest as to any claims and allegations from other publishers, companies, organizations, prisoners and individuals other than Plaintiff.
4. Defendant Sheriff Jeff Dickerson is entitled to qualified immunity. 5. Plaintiff cannot seek injunctive relief from Sheriff Jeff Dickerson in his individual capacity. 6. Plaintiff failed to mitigate its damages, if any. 7. The punitive damages claim fails to state a claim against Columbia County, a government entity. WHEREFORE, having fully answered the Complaint, Defendants pray for a trial by jury on causation and damages, for judgment in their favor, for their costs, disbursements and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1988, and for such other relief as the court deems just and equitable. Respectfully submitted this 30th day of July, 2012.
HART WAGNER LLP
By: /s/ Steven A. Kraemer Steven A. Kraemer, OSB No. 882476 Of Attorneys for Defendants

Page 5 - AMENDED ANSWER

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 85 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 4
Katherine C. Chamberlain, OSB #042580 katherinec@mhb.com Jesse A. Wing, pro hac vice jessew@mhb.com Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News MacDonald Hoague & Bayless 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104-1745 (206) 622-1604
Marc D. Blackman, OSB #730338 marc@ransomblackman.com Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Ransom Blackman LLP 1001 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1400 Portland, OR 97204 (503) 228-0487
Lance Weber, pro hac vice lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Human Rights Defense Center 1037 Western Ave., 2nd Floor West Brattleboro, VT 05303 (802) 257-1342

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,
Defendants.

No.3:12-CV-71-SI
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Request for Oral Argument

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (CV 1271-SI) - 1
9870.05 0072208

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 85 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 4
COMES NOW Prison Legal News and respectfully moves for an order: (1) declaring that Plaintiff has organizational standing to challenge Defendants' mail policies and practices; (2) declaring that Defendants' Postcard-Only Policy and No-Magazines Policy violated the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and Defendants' Due Process Policy violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution; (3) declaring that Defendants violated the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of prisoners and their correspondents; (4) declaring that Defendants censored Plaintiffs mail in violation.ofthe First and Fourteenth Amendments, violations for which Defendants must pay damages to Plaintiff; (5) permanently enjoining Defendants from rejecting or otherwise censoring mail (a) on the ground that it is not in the form of a postcard, or (b) on the ground that it is a magazine or periodical; and (6) permanently enjoining Defendants from denying due process to prisoners and their correspondents when rej ecting or otherwise censoring mail.
Pursuant to Local Rule 7-1, the parties have made a good faith effort through telephone conferences, letters and email communications to resolve the issues identified in this motion and have been unable to do so. See Declaration of Katherine Chamberlain, ~77.
Submitted in support of this Motion are Plaintiffs Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment on Claims for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, the Declaration of Katherine Chamberlain, the Declaration of Jesse Wing, and the Second Declaration of Brad Berg, filed with this motion. Plaintiff also relies on the declarations and exhibits previously filed in support of its Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Dkts. 7 through 15, 34 through 40, and 44 though 46.

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (CV 1271-SI) - 2
9870.05 0072208

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 85 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 4
DATED this 13th day of September, 2012.
RANSOM BLACKMAN LLP lsi Marc D. Blackman
MARC D. BLACKMAN OSB #730338 (503) 228-0487 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News
MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS lsi Katherine C. Chamberlain
KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN OSB #042580 (206) 622-1604 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (CV 1271-SI) - 3
9870.05 1h272208

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 85 Filed 09/13/12 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on September 13,2012, I electronically filed the foregoing to the
Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the
following:
• Marc D. Blackman marc@ransomblackman.com,pat@ransomblackman.com
• Steven A. Kraemer sak@hartwagner.com,rcd@hartwagner.com
• Gregory R. Roberson grr@hartwagner.com,cej@hartwagner.com
• Lynn S. Walsh walsh@europa.com
• Lance Weber lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org,ahull@humanrightsdefensecenter.org
MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS
lsi Katherine C. Chamberlain KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN OSB #042580 (206) 622-1604 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (CV 1271-SI) - 4
9870.05 fh272208

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 1 of 65

9870.05 fa246305

EX IBIT A
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 22

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 2 of 65 PageP2L3NCOL-00176

Prison Legal News

P.O. Box 2420

.... '.: ~: i:'

, West Brattleboro, Vermont 05303

..,." , "

,'!'::"",.'
~~<<>>::~~VV''NN··IITTFF ~~PP>>ii''ff'',, .JeT 'V%· (t5(j, ::·'\\·",~~{{~~~~1')Jo;,;j'.·;J,';t::,-J.:r,;;''ff\\""

::1'.t ",~. i,
__.~..t.....

J..:.,.~~'i"~!;''Ih,j~
.....N';-1,.';, 'tt

~:..":2j=,:...(r."~.'·r:w·t,~t~.l.~.~t~·t,,

r·· " ... ;.'....' F t!"1' · . .'::~{:\"/~7::f:. 't·· .. 'q':~''J).':h:.,.'\.

'. t .. "1'~"·
..:w.... ......

.,.,'~;;.'";,.''¥'1lf..,"JJ:'..:':'.";'•,:•.,.•,:.\\~')'.~~~,~~::•.-:..:•."."':''::~/~F.;·".

"

"
,

RETURN. '1II '0J t6"p\C~-Jf\\j9~DfIt"""R

As of April 1, 2010 The Columbia County Jail ONLY AA~CCCEEPPTTSS POSTCARDS . TIhlils applies to ALL iIncoming and out going mail

59588 ** EXPIRES: 7/201 1
ROBERT BECKWITH 2011000082

COLUMBIA Co JAIL

901 PORT AVE ST HELENS, OREGON 97051

N:IX :.tl:: NOT

97C) 51::;1

00 0:2/06/;;1.;1

J:;'{~'1'URN "]"0 SENI'E-:F?
C~LXVEAABLE AS ADDRESSED UNA8L~ TO FORWARD

Be: 05303242020

*2668-03468-31-44

97 O/:iJ :~Sbi@24.~O

JJJ)) )) I)J)))Jj I JJ )) )))JJ)))J)J) j) )J) )J)JJJ))))) J)JJJ))J JJ)JJJ) )

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 3 of 65 PageP2L4NCOL-00177

Order Form
All pm'chases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new stamps (strips 01' books) or pre-stamped envelopes.'

Books (3 & 4yr Subscription Specials: CffiCLE
one hook Qm:I honus issues, and DO NOT add S/H)
Protecting Your Health and Safety ill: 4 Bonus Issues (3-yr subscription offer)

$Amt.
Free

Prison Profiteers ill: With Liberty for Some

or 6 Bonus Issues (4-yr subscription offer)

Free

Book Total (inc. all hooks hought separately)

Add 6% sales tax for Vermont residents only

ADD $6.00 S/H to book orders UNDER $50

PLN Subscriptions
6-month Subscription (Prisoners only) 1 yr Subscription (12 issues) 2 yr Subscription (24 plus 2 Bonus issues) 3 yr Sub (Circle honus hook above Qm:I 4 Bonus issues) 4 yr Sub (Circle bonus hook above Qm:I 6 Bonus issues) Sample Issue - $3.50 each
TOTAL Amount Enclosed:

Send to:
Name: DOC#: Agency/Inst: _ ___________ _ __________ ____
Address:
City/State/Zip: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
MAIL PAYMENT AND TillS FORM TO:
I i
Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303

Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

PLN Subscription Rates

Subscription Rates
Prisoners *

lyr 2yrs 3 yrs 4yrs $24 $ 48 $ 72 $ 96

Individuals

$30 $ 60 $ 90 $120

Professiouals

$80 $160 $240

(Lawyers, govt. & professional agencies, libraries, etc.)

Sample issue for anyone - $3.50 each*

$320

Six-month prisoner subscription for $12*

* Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips 01' books
only) 01' pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed byprison policies.

:Ir- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -SS~-us-b-s-cc;-ri- ipp-;tii-o~-n~-~Bi-oo- -n;-u'~-s;e-;ss-!!-- -- -- -- -- -- ----~-I

I
I 2 years - 2 bonus issues, for 26 monthly issues total.

I

: 3 years - 4 bonus issues (40 total) OR Protecting Your Health ami

I Safety (see book description on the other side of this brochure).

:I 4 years - 6 bonus issues (54 total) OR your choice of With Libertyfor
:!-..S~-o~m-ee_-Q~-I ~P-r~i-soo~-n ~P-rr-oTf~i-tee~e-:rs.-((s~-e:e-.dd-.e:s-sc~r-i.ppt-~ioo-n~.s-.0?1-~1 t~-h:e-.oo-.t:hh-e~rr-~sii-d~ee-)~.-_-_-_-__-:I

New 3 or 4-Year Subscription Book Offers!

Subscribe or renew for three years at the regular price ($72 for prisoners & $90 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Protecting Your Health and Safety or four bonus issues of PLN! (40 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.
Subscribe or renew for four years at the regular price ($96 for prisoners & $120 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Prison Profiteers or With Liberty for Some, or 6 bonus issues of PLN! (54 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.

NO shipping charge for subscription bonus books!

NOTE: If you want the bonns issues ofPLN instead ofthe free book offer, please indicate that on the Order Form.

:- - - - - - -0; io; PiN;s-So:'k - - - - - :------- -CC--oo-;n'-t;a- ac~-t;U-- s f-o-r -P-L-N-'s-B-o-o-k-iLi-iss- ~t!!-------~~:

I

I

:I You can buy dozens of legal, social commentary, self- I

:I help books, and legal and regular dictional'ies ddiirr~eccttllyy::

:I from PLN's book store! Ask us for a book list, or view:I

:II our seleeccttIi"Oon online at:

I I

IL ______w_w_w_.p_ri_so_n_ie_ga_l_ne_w_s._o_rg_/s_to_re_.a_s_px______ _:II

All subscription rates & bonus offers are effective as of 5-1-10
and valid through 12-31-10
* No refunds after orders have heen placed *

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
Eastern State Penitentiary 1829-1971
Charles Dickens visited Philadelphia's Eastern State Penitentiary in 1842 and he later wrote: "The System is rigid, strict and hopeless ... and I believe it to be cruel and wrong....I hold this slow and daily tampering with the mysteries of the brain to be immeasurably worse than any torture of the body." The prison remained open for 129 years after Dickens condemned it as being barbaric, and some of its inhumane practices continue to be used in prisons nationwide.
P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.prisoniegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 4 of 65 PageP2L5NCOL-00178

~ ~~
l
P rison Legal News is an independent, non-pl'ofit 56-page monthly publication that reports, reviews and analyzes court rulings and news related to
prisoners' rights and prison issues. PLN has a national
(U.S.) focus on state, federal and private prison issues, with some international coverage as well.
PLN's many thousands of SubscI'ihers and readers include civil and criminal trial and appellate attorneys, judges, public defenders, journalists, academics, paralegals, prisoners' rights activists, students, family members of prisoners, concerned individuals, politicians, other government officials; and numerous local, state and federal prisoners nationwide.
PLN is a vital link for prisoners who otherwise don't have access to current legal and prison-related news and information.
"Invaluable resource for anyone w,anting 'user friendly' information about current legal developments affecting
prisoners in the United States." - Duman Rights Watch, a long-time PLN subscriber
P LN's coverage of pl'ison issues includes medical neglect, disciplinary hearings, nutrition, living conditions, excessive force, court access, censorship, jail litigation, visiting, telephones, religious freedom, free speech, prison rape, mental health, attorney/ client access, sexual abuse of women prisoners, retaliation, the PLRA, HIV and hep C, control units, the death penalty, attorney fees and much more.
PLN Subscription Rates
Prisoners: $12 for 6 months, $24 per year *
Non-incarcerated individuals: $30 per year Law firms, govt. agencies and libraries: $80 per year
Sample issue for anyone: $3.50 each*
• Prisoners can pay with new stamps or pre-stamped envelopes

E ach monthly issue of PLN includes three different types of reporting:
.. A cover story on a prison-related issue. .. Reports on individual and class-action prison and jail-
related lawsuits when they are, filed, when ajudgment is entered or the case settles, and when an appellate court decision is issued. We also have prison-relate"-d news arLicles. .. A "News In Brief' section that summarizes interesting news stories across the U.S. and Internationally.
Each issue of PLN also contains numerous advertisements from businesses that provide prison-related personal and legal services and books. PLN further sells dozens of selfhelp, social commentary and legal books.
PLN also has cumulative subject and case'cite indexes for all PLN issues from 1990 through 2004,. Write for info.
I I Special 3-yeal' Subscription Offffeer!r!/

Free with a 3-year PLN subscription! Four bonus issues of PLN (40 issues' total) or a D'ee book, Protecting Your Health and Safety! Circle your bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (3-year subscription rates: prisoners $72, individuals $90, professionals $24,0).

Protecting Your Health and Safety, bbyy".",[..-----------1;

Robert E. Toone. Published by the South-

ern Poverty La'\v Center, 325 pages (2009).

$10.00 (free with a 3-yeaI' sub!). This book explains some basic ~ights that prisoners

I have in a jail or prison in the U.S. It deals

"'@____

mainly with rights related to health and "m- -"-'@-------;

safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by

prison officials; it also explains how you can enforce your

rights to health and safety within the, facility and, if nec-

essary, in court through litigation. Buy separately: ___

r-----------------------------------------,

Yo~ Can Buy These Books Separately!

1

1

,1

: If you don't want to purchase a 3 or 4-year subscription:

: to PLN, you can still purchase any of tille bonus books :

: at the regular price. Just indicate which books you want:

: to buy on this page, then enter the total cost on the other:

: side of this brochure on the "Book Total" line of the Or- :

: del' Form. Shipping is $6 per order (not per book), and we :

: offer FREE shipping on book orders of $50 or more! To :

:1 place a phone order, please' call 802-257-134,2. 'We also:

: accept book orders online, at .www.prisonlegahlews.org. :
L _________________________________________ J

D onations: PLN is a project of the non-profit Duman Rights Defense Center. Your tax-deductible donations support our advocacy, free speech and First Amendment litigation efforts on behalf of prisoners and publishers. PLN not only provides uncensored prison-related news, but actively contests prison censorship that intelieres with the delivery of our publication or any other PLN materials sent to prisoners. All donations further our goal of advocating for people imprisoned in U.S. detention facilities.
"Great source of information, especially in states such as Arizona where the law libraries have been taken from the inmates and replaced with paralegals." - SB, Arizona prisoner
I-SS;p~e~ci~ia1I44--yyeeartu.' SS~u~bcsrcirippttiioonn OOffefle'!l!]
Free with a 4-year PLN subscription! ,Six bonus issues of PLN (54 issues total) or one D'ee book, With Liberty for Some or Prison Profiteers! Circle your bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (4-year subscription rates: prisoners $96, individuals $120, professionals $320). Note: Free book option is for one boooll.:.
With Liberty for Some: 500 Years oofflr~:,-:,;1;,W';;¥',;l;';:n;,:':!:f;.:',:::-?",'E,1 Imprisonment in America, by Scott Christianson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages (1998). $18.95 (free with a 4-year sub!). A classic book and the best overall history of the American prison system from 14,92 to the 20th Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how little things have changed as far as prisons go in the U.S. over hundreds of years. Buy separately: ___
or
Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money from Mass Incarceration, edited by Paul Wright & Tara Derivel, New Press (2007). $24.95 (D'ee with a 4,-yeru' sub!). This is the third in a series of PLN anthologies that examines the reality of mass imprisonment in the U.S. Prison Profiteers is unique from other books on the market because it exposes and discusses who profits and benefits from mass imprisonment, rather than who is harmed by the prison industrial complex and our nation's reliance on over-incarceration. Buy separately: _ __

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 5 of 65 PageP2L6NCOL-00179

Order Form
All purchases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books, no singles) or
pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed by prison policies.

Book Title / Number

Qty Total Cost

(attach another page if you are ordering more books)
Subtotal: Add 6% sales tax for VT residents only: Add $6.00 SIH to orders UNDER $50: Total Order Amount:
Send to:
Name: DOC#: Agency/lnst: Address: City/State/Zip:
MAIL PAYMENT AND THIS FORM TO: Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303
Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

FREE SHIPPING
On hook and index Ol'Clers OVER $50.00! A $6 shipping chlU.'ge applies to all other hook amI index OldCl'S.
(Free shipping policy in cJfecl from J anI, 2010 lmtil further notice)

More Books for Sale!

Prisoners' Self-Help Litigation Manual, updated 4th ed. (2010), by John

Boston and Daniel Manville, Oxford Univ. Press, 1500 pages. $39.95. The

I I I premiere, must-have "Bible" of prison litigation for current and aspiting jail-
house lawyers. If you plan to litigate a prison or jail civil suit,

this bookis a must-have.

1077

Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the U.S. and Canada, updated 3rd ed. by Jon Marc Taylor, Ph.D. and edited by Susan Schwartzkopf, published by PLN, 221 pages. $49.95. Written by Missouri

prisoner Jon Marc Taylor, who obtained a B.S. degree, an M.A. degree and a Doctorate, the GlIenilla Hal/dbook contains contact information and descriptions of high school, vocational, paralegal and college courses available

through correspondence study. Great resource for prisoners I I

who want to further their education.

1057 ''-------'1---_------''

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by Robert E. Toone, Southern Poverty Law Center, 325 pages. $10.00. This book explains basic rights that prisoners have in a jail or prison in the U.S. It deals mainly with rights related to health and safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by prison officials; it also

explains how you can enforce your rights within the facility I I

I

and, if necessary, in court through litigation.

1060 _--.J._ _ _-l. L L.._ - ' ._ _- - ' .

Starting Out! The Complete Re-Entry Handbook, edited by William H.

Foster, Ph.D. & Carl E. Horn, Ph.D., Starting Out Inc., 446 pages. $22.95.

Complete do-it-yourself re-entry manual and workbook for prisoners who

want to develop their own re-entry plan to increase ,their chances of success

after they are released. Includes a wide variety of resources, including a user

~ode to the Starting Out website that can ·be accessed fOllOW-I I

I

Ing release.

1074 _--1 L L.._ - '..._ _ _ __ -----'-_ '_

Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners v. the U.S.A., by

Mumia Abu Jamal, City Lights Publishers, 280 pages. $16.95. In Jailhollse LtlIv-

yers, Prison Legal News columnist, award-winning journalist and death-row

prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal presents the stories and reflections of fellow pris-

oners-turned-advocates who have learned to use the court system to represent

other prisoners, and in some cases have won their freedom. I I

I

Must-read for jailhouse lawyers!

1073 . . . L._ - ' ._ _- - ' .

How to Win Your Personal Injury Claim, by Atty. Joseph Matthews, 7th

edition, NOLO Press, 304 pages. $34.99. While not specifically for prison-

related personal injnty cases, this book provides comprehensive information

on how to handle personal injury and property damage claims arising from

~ccidents - incl~ding dealing with doctors, attorneys and I I

I

Insurance comparues.

1075 . _ . L._ - '_ _ _- - ' .

All prices are effectiVe as of9-15-10 (prices subject to change without notice)
* No refunds after orders have been placed *

PRI's-ON, LEGAL NEWS
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
2010 PLNBOOK LIST
Prices Subject to Change Without Notice Graphic from: Books 2 Prisoners, Vancouver, Be
P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.pl·isonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 6 of 65 PageP2L7NCOL-00180

Check the box of the books you want to buy and use the Order Form on the other side ofthis brochure to add up the cost of your order. FREE SHIPPING for book and index orders OVER $50. There is a $6 shipping charge for all other book and index orders.

Prison Profiteers, edited by Paul Wright and Tara HeriveI, 323 pages. $24.95. TIJis is the

d1ird and L,test book in a series ofPJison Leg:U News anthologies that e.=ines d,e reality of

mass impJisonment in America (The other tides are The Cellillg ofAJlJerica & PTirOIlNaholl,

I I I see below). PTirOIl Profiteers is unique from other books because it ""poses and discusses

who profits and benefits from mass imprisonment, radler than who is

I

barmed by it and bow.

1063 LL.._ _ - -_ . J .L'.-_ - __ - - ._ J .•

I I I Prison Nation: The Warehousing of America's Poor, edited by Tara Herivel and Paul

Wright, 332 pages. $35.95. PIN antilOlogy ""poses tile dark side ofthe I

I

1ock-em-up' political agenda and legal climatein the U.s.

1041 . .

..

The Celling of America, edited by Darnel Bur1Dn Rose, Dan Pens and Paul Wright, 264

pages. $22.95. pr.N antilOlogy presents a detIiled "inside" look at the I 1

1

workings oftile American criminal justice system.

1001 . .

.

Everyday Letters for Busy People, by Debra Hart May, 287 pages. $18.99.

Hundreds of sample letters that can be adapted for most any purpose, including

letters to government agencies and officials. Has numerous 11 1

1

tips for writing effective letters.

1048 . . . --.J L._ - - '_ _

The Crintinal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System, by

Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sara J. Berman-Barrett, Nolo Press, 608 pages. $39.99.

E>.plains what bappens in a ctin1inal case from being arrested to senteneing, and what

your rights are at eacll stage of the process. Uses an easy to under-I

I

stand question-and-answer fo=t.

1038 L L.._ _- -- -''_ __ __ _--' .'

Represent Yourself in Court: How to Prepare & Try a Winning Case, by
Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sara J. Berman-Barrett, Nolo Press, 528 pages. $39.99.

I I I Breaks down the civil trial process in easy-to-uoderstand steps so you can effectively

represent yourself in court. TI,e authors e.'plain wbat to sal' in I I

I

court, bow to sa)'lt, etc.

1037...

Law Dictionary, lbndom House Webster's, 525 pages. $19.95. Comprreell1ensive uo-

to-date law dictionary e.'plains more than 8,500 legal terms. I

I

Covers civil, ctin1inal, commercial & international law.

1036 '--_-1-_ _- - ' L!_ _'--_ _- '

I I I The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, by Jane Straus, 110 pages.

$14.95. A guide to grammar and puoctuation by an educator I I

I

with e"1'erience teaching English to prisoners.

1046 L._-.-l._ _ _---1.

Legal Research: How to Find and Understand the Law, by Stephen Elias and

I I I Susan Levinkind, 568 pages. $49.99.' Comprellensive and easy to understand guide

on researclling the law. E"1'lains case law, statutes and digests,

I

and mum more. Includes practice e."ercises.

1059 L L..__---1-1.._ _ _-'.

I I I Deposition Handbook, by Paul Bergman and Albert Moore, Nolo Press, 352

pages. $34.99. How-to handbook for anyone who conducts a 1 1

1

deposition oriis going to be deposed.

1054 . L._--. -1._ _ _-'..

Spanish-English/English-Spanish Dictionary, Random House. $8.95. Two

sections, Spanish-English and English-Spanish. 60,000+ ent-r-i'e-s- 1I 1I

from A to Z; includes Western Hemisphere usage.

1034 L._-.-l.L--_ _-'

Please Note: All book and index orders are mailed via the U.S. Postal Service with Delivery Confirmation. PLN does not assume any responsibility to replace book or index orders once their delivery to the destination address (facility) is confirnied by the U.S. Postal Service.

Writing to Wm: The Legal Wtiter, by Steven D. Stark, Broadway Books/Random

House, 283 pages. $19.95. fuplains the wtiting of effective complaints, 1 1

1 I

responses, btielS, motions and od,er legal papers.

1035 L._ - ' - ._ _- - ' .

Actual Innocence: When Justice Goes Wrong and How to Make it Right, updated

papethack ed., by Bany Scheck, Peter Neufeld and Jim Dwyer; 403 pages. $16.00.

Founders of tile Innocence Project e.'plain how criminal defendants are wrongly con-

victed on a regu1ar basis. fuplains DNA testing and how it works to free the innocent.

Devastating ctitique of police and prosecutotial misconduct and ti,e 1I 11

'1

system tlmt ensures such abuses continue.

1030 _..J.'--_ _~. L L..._ - ' - ._ _ _-'.

Roger's Thesaurus, 717 pages. $8.95. Helps you find tmhe right word for what

you want to sal'. 11,000 words listed alphabetically ,vitl, over 200,000 synonymmss

and antonyms. Sample sentences and parts of speech shown for every main

word. Covers all levels of vocabulary and identifies informal I 1

1 I

and slang words.

1045 L L.._ _- -''- -. ._ _ _ _-_ - - ' .•

Webster's English Dictionary, Newly revised and updated, Random House.

$8.95. 75,000+ entries. Includes tips on writing and word usage, and has up-

dated geographical and biographical entries. Includes recent 1I 1

1

business and computer terms.

1033..

..

I I Capital Crinles, by George Winslow, Monthly Review, 360 pages. $19.00.

Explains how economic policies create and foster crime, and I I

I

how corporate & government crime is rarely puoished. 1024

With Liberty for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America, by Scott

Christianson, Nortlleastern Urtiversity Press, 372 pages. $18.95. The best

overall history of ti,e American prison system from 1492 through the 20th

I I I Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how little

tllings have manged as far as prisons go in tmhe U.S. over I I

I

hundreds of years.

1026..

.

Ten Men Dead: The story of the 1981 Irish hunger strike, by David Beres-

ford, Adantic Montllly Press, 334 pages. $16.95. Inside story of 1 I

'1

IRA prisoners at Belfast's Long Kesh prison.

1006 . . '

...

Finding the Right Lawyer, by Jay Foonberg, ABA, 256 pages. $19.95. Ex-

plains how to determine your legal needs, how to evaluate a 1I 1

1

lawyer's qualifications, fee payments, and more.

1015..

.

Seize the Day! 7 Steps to Achieving the Extraordinary in an Ordinary

World, by Danny Cox and John Hoover, 256 pages. $15.99. Provides 7 steps

I I I to changing your expectations and envisioning yourself as being a successful
and respected person-which is essential to changing the

course of one's life.

1052

Women Behind Bars, The Ctisis of Women in the U.S. Prison System, by
Silja J.A. Tal,~, Seal Press, 295 pages. $15.95. Best book available that covers

issues related to imprisoned women, based on interviews with

huodreds of women behind bars.

1066

10 Insider Secrets to a Wintnting Job Search, by Todd Bermont, 216 pages. $15.99. Roadmap on how to get a job even under adverse circumstances-like being an e.,,-con. Includes how to develop a winning atrtitude, write attentiongrabbing resumes, prepare for intet\~ews, networking, how to present your strengtlls to an employer, and much more! 1056

The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, 2003

I I Ed. by Alfred McCoy, 734 pages. $34.95. Documented C'-1'ose 1 1

1 1

of d,e government's involvement in drug trafficking.

1014 L.._ _ - -''--.._ _ _ _ _ - --''..

Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis, by Olristian Parenti,

290 pages. $19.00. Ari.~yzes ti,e war on the poor via ti,e criminal justice system. Well

documented and includes first-hand reporting. Covers prisons, para-I

military polieing; SWAT teams and the INS.

1002 L._ _- - ' ' - -_ _- ''

Hepatitis and Liver Disease: What You Need to Know, by Melissa Palmer, 1-ID,

I 457 pages. $17.95. Descnbes symptoms & treatments of hepatitis B & C and otller

liver diseases. Includes medications to avoid, what diet to follow, I 1I

I

e."erOses to perfonn, and a bibliography.

.

1003311. .

.

Crime and Puoishment In America, by Elliott Currie, 230 pages. $16.95. Ef!ective

rebuuttttla!!l to right-wing proponents of prison building. Fact-based rugument shows ti4~t

crime is dtiven by poverty. Debnnks prison myths and discusses I 1I

1 I

proven, effective means ofcrime prevention.

1 10190 1 9 . . .

Prison Madness: The Mental Health Crisis Behind Bars and What We

Must Do About It, by Terry Kupers, Jossey-Bass, 245 pages. Hardback only,

prisoners please include any required authorization form. $32.95. Psychia-

trtist writes about the mental healtll crisis in U.S. prisons and jails. Covers all

aspects of mental illness, ptison rape, negative effects of long-I.' 1I

1 I

term isolation in control units, and more.

1 10030 0 3 . . .

Prison Writing in 20th Century America, by H. Bruce Franklin, Pengnin

Books, 368 pages. $16.00. From Jack London to George Jackson, tllis

antllology provides a selection of some of ti,e best writing 1I 1I

describing life bellind bars in America.

1022 L _ .. ..1._ _-----''

i pr I Soledad Brother: The Prison Letters of George Jackson, by George Jackson,
Lawrence Hill Books, 339 pages. $18.95. Lucid e.'1'lanation of ,e prlitiCS of I

ptison by a well-known prison activist More relevant now than

when it first appeared 40 years ago.

1016

Marijuana Law, by Richard Boire, Rollin, 271 pages. $17.95. EJmmines how to

reduce the probability ofanest and prosecution for people accused of ti,e use, sale or

possession of marijuana. Infu on legal defenses, Searcll & seizures, 1 1

1

surveillance, asset forfeiture and drug testing.

1008 _ L.. ..1._ _---'.

Worse Than Slavety: Parchman Farm and the Ordeal ofJim Crow Justice, by

David Oshinsky, 306 pages. $16.00. Analysis of prison labor's roots in sLwery.

Focuses on ptison plantations and self-sustaining prisons tlmt use 1 1I

1

prison labor.

1007..

.

No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the American Crintinal Justice

System, by David Cole, TI,e New Press, 218 pages. $19.95. R--.plains how the

criminal justice system perpetuates race and class inequality, 1I I

1

creating a two-tiered system of justice.

1028 . .

'.

The Prison and the Gallows: The Politics of Mass Incarceration in

America, by Marie GOttsclla1k, Cambridge Urtiversity Press, 451 pages.

$29.99. Great polirtical analysis of ti,e confluence of events 11 1

1 1

leading to 2.3 million people bellind bars in ti,e U.S. 1100696. 9..

.

The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, by Brandon

Sample, PLN Publislling, 200 pages. $49.95. Tllis is PLN's second published

book, wllicll e."clusively covers ineffective assistance of counsel-related

issues in federal habeas petitions. Great resource for habeas 1 1

1

litigation, and contains huodreds of case cites!

1107087 8 . . . L._ - ' - ._ _-'.

Factor 8 (DVD), a film by Kelly Duda, Concrete Films. $21.95. Movie

about ti,e Arkansas prison blood scandal, in wllich prison officials sold

infected blood harvested from prisoners. Note: This is a 11 1

DVD and cannot be shipped to prison.

1076 LL..__---.!'LL._ __ _-_ '

PLN Cumulative Index. $22.50 each. PLN Article Inde."es p~ovide detailed

information about all PLN articles, including title, autllor, issue, page number,

topics covered, citations, and if it -is state, BOP or jail specific. Can be

searched on over 500 subjects such as medical neglect or se.,-uaIl assault. Circle

the index(es) you are ordering:1990-1995,1996-1998, 1999-1

2001, 2002-2004. (more recent illdexes not yet available)

L._ - ' -_ _- '

All books are soft cover except Prison Madness

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 7 of 65

T he Habeas Citebook: InejJ;ctive Assistance of Counsel is the first in a series of books by Prison Legal News Publishing designed to help pro-se prisoner litigants identify and raise viable claims for potential habeas corpus relief. This book is an invaluable resource that identifies hundreds of cases where the federal courts have granted habeas relief to prisoners whose attorneys provided ineffective assistance of counseL
It will save litigants thousands ofhours
of research and it focuses on the WINNING cases criminal defendants need to successfully challenge their convictions.
Well organized into 52 concise chapters, this easy to use book puts the law at the reader's fingertips. The Appendix includes pleadings andJorms from successful habeas corpus cases that

"

The HabeasCitebook is a

nifty and concise self-help

guide for prisoners seeking

habeas'reliefbased on claims of

ineffective assistance of counseL

Navigating the complex and

treacherous terrain of habeas

law is never easy; but claim-

ing that your lawyer screwed up

is even more difficult - espe-

cially from the confines of an

demonstrate formatting and show ill-equipped prison law library.

how to frame a winning argu-

"Brandon Sample has pro-

ment that will persuade a court

vided an amazing and much-

to grant habeas relief. The Habeas

needed tool for prisoners who

Citebook explains the proce-

are forced to seek relief on their

dural and substantive complexi-

own. The book is thorough; but

ties of federal habeas corpus lit-

simple and readable. It starts

igation with the goal of identify-

with a wonderfully well-orga-

ing and litigating claims involving nized listing of hundreds of dif-

ineffective assistance of counseL

ferent types of ineffective assis-

Brandon Sample is a success-

tance of counsel, set forth in the

ful jailhouse lawyer litigant incar-

form of citations to court rul-

cerated in the :Bureau of Prisons.

ings - a novel approach that

He is a Prison Legal News contrib- not only acts as a springboard

uting writer and a member of the

for further research but also

National Lawyer's Guild. Editor

saves the prisoner countless

Susan Schwartzkopf has a mas-

hours of preliminary research:'

ter's degree in education and is

the director and editor in chief of

PETER SCHMIDT

PrisorrLegal News Publishing.

Publisher, Punch & Jurists

THE HABEAS CITEBOOK: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

By Brandon Sample 8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed _ _ _ __
I By: 0 check 0' new postage stamps 0 credit card 0 money order

ISBN 978-0-9819385-1-6

Name __________________________________________

$49·95
3 or more copies ordered

DOC/BOP Number _________________________________

at once $39.95 each

Institution/Agency ______________________-'-~__________

FREE Shipping 1& Handling Address_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Order by mail, phone, or on-line. City _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ State

ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

PRISON lEGAL NEWS p.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org ,

PageP2L8NCOL-00181

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 8 of 65
" - - - - - - - Copies ofthis very usable and useful gUide should be available in every prison library-to help incarcerated people give positive direction to their energies while making constructive use of their time.lt is a well-established fact that people who have taken college courses in prison have a dramatically reduced rate of recidivism."
L-_____ -BELL GALE CHEVICiNY, PEN Prison Writing Program, _ ____~ Editor Doing Time: 25 Years ofPrison Writing.

HIGH SCHOOL • VOCATIONAL • PARALEGAL • UNDERGRADUATE. GRADUATE COURSES

HE GREATLY anticipated and newly updated third edition of the Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the United States and Canada has finally arrived! Author Jon Marc Taylor's brand new version is the latest in this unique and highly successful gUidebook for the prisoner-student. This invaluable tool and how-to handhook provides the reader with step-by-step instructions to find the appropriate educational program for high school, vocational, paralegal, undergraduate, and graduate courses offered in the U.S. and Canada today.
Invaluable re-entry tool
It presents more than 160 program outlines and offers an easy-to-use format for the student to determine which program best suits their needs. It is ideal for the incarcerated student who does not have Internet access or the ability to attend education classes in person. This resource is indispensable

for the individual and beneficial for use in all prison libraries and education departments.
The Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook is the only book on the market for the non-traditional prisoner-student. It includes detailed listings of the quality, cost, and course offerings for all correspondence programs available to prisoners. In a time when so many academic opportunities in prisons have been eliminated, this book is an invaluable re-entry tool for prisoners who seek to further their education while incarcerated and to help them prepare for life and work following their release.
Jon Marc Taylor has more than 25 years experience as an incarcerated student, advocate for prisoner education, and author. He has successfully earned a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and a doctorate via correspondence courses while incarcerated. Editor Susan Schwartzkopf has a master's degree in education and 12 years experience teaching immigrants English language skills.

I P- RISON-ERS'- GUER- RILLA-HAN-DBO- OK T- O COR-RESP-ONDE-NCE-PROG-RAM- S IN T- HE U- NITED-STA~ TES A- ND C- ANAD. A g

By Jon Marc Taylor PHD 8.25/1 x 10.75" • 224 pages ISBN 978-0-9819385-0-9

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed _ _ _ __
By: D check D new postage stamps D credit card D money order I
Name ________________________

$49-95
3 or more copies ordered

DOC/BOP Number _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

at once $39.95 each

Institution/Agency _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

FREE Shipping & Handling Address____________________________

R Order by mail, phone, or on-line. City _______________ State

ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

PRISON LEGAL NEWS I P.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

PageP2L9NCOL-00182

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 9 of 65

9870.05 fa246305

EXHI' IT B
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 30

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 10 of 65 PageP3L1NCOL-00050

Prison Legal News
P.O. Box 2420 West Brattleboro, Vermont 05303

"";~\<H'd,<" jC\ ,<"jt'''t't:~~

:t).::~ :F.EB 2.t)'1."J.

.~p;.~ ,,'.~ ~,' .?'> :\ ...

,or. . ' '). u.... }....

"

..., .• ,

,'n:;.

"

, .. ~ :~·-4~·S/ ':~:~:)I

,
,J
USA FOREVER

59572 ** EXPIRES: 1 /2012
DANIEL Burrs 2011000043 COLUMBIA Co JAIL 901 PORT AVE ST HELENS, OREGON 97051
::.:r?G~~\stg~~&4~O

As of April 1, 2010 The Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS
This applies to ALL incoming and out going mail

j.D;x:r:c,,:

sn 0

.:~E:;1.

O(~ 02.1 ;;U!1.1 ;1. ;l,

~ETURN TO SENDER
Fi'F.:"." Ll SEI:) UNAElL.I;; TO F-"ORWAPi'D

e o : O.$:;;'lO:;l;H~4.20:20

*oea4-~5a54-0a-40

HI)))J IJI) J) II ,11)))1) IIJ IJ I) I) J)) J) I I) JJJ )))))1 d11)) Ji)lnl

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 11 of 65 PageP3L2NCOL-00051

Order Form
All purchases must be pre-paid. Prisoners crui pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books, no singles) or
pre-stamped envelopes, if allowed by prison policies.

Book Title / Number

Qty Total Cost

(attach another page if you are ordering more books)
Subtotal: Add 6% sales tax for VT residents only: Add $6.00 SIR to orders UNDER $50: Total Order Amount:
Send to:
Name: DOC#: Agency/lnst: Address: City/State/Zip:
MAIL PAYl\1ENT AND TillS FORM TO: Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303
Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegal news.org

FREE SmPPING
On hook and index orders OVER $50.00! A $6 shipping charge applies to all other book am1 index on1el's.
(Free shipping policy in effect from Jan 1, ::lOIO unlil f1lIlhcr nOlice)

More Books for Sale!

Prisoners' Self-Help Litigation Manna!, updated 4th ed. (2010), by John

Boston and Daniel Manville, Oxford Univ. Press, 1500 pages. $39.95. The

I premiere, must-have "Bible" of prison litigation for current and aspiring jail-
house lawyers. If you plan to litigate a prison or jail civil suit, "

this book is a must-have.

1077

Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the U.S.

and Canada, updated 3rd ed. by Jon Marc Taylor, Ph.D. and edited by Susan

Schwartzkopf, published by PLN, 221 pages. $49.95. Written by Missouri

prisoner Jon Marc Taylor, who obtained a B.S. degree, an M.A. degree and a

Doctorate, the Cltemlla Haltdbook contains contact information and descrip-

I I tions of high school, vocational, paralegal and college courses available
through correspondence study. Great resource for prisoners

who want to further their education.

1057
'----'----'

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by Robert E. Toone, Southern Poverry

Law Center, 325 pages. $10.00. Tlus book e"plains basic rights dlat prisoners

have in a jailor prison in the U.S. It deals mainly widl rights related to health

I ' I and safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by prison officials; it also
explains how you can enforce your rights widun dle facility

and, if necessary, in court through litigation.

1060

Starting Out! The Complete Re-Entry Handbook, edited by William H.

Foster, Ph.D. & Carl E. Horn, Ph.D., Starting Out Inc., 446 pages. $22.95.

Complete do-it-yourself re-entry manual and workbook for prisoners who

want to develop dleir own re-entry plan to increase dleir chances of success

I I after they are released. Includes a wide variety of resources, including a user
~ode to the Starting Out website that can be accessed fOllOW-,

lllg release.

1074

Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners v. the U.S.A., by

Mumia Abu Jamal, City Lights Publishers, 280 pages. $16.95. In Jailhollse La1l1-

yers, Prison Legal News columnist, award-winning journalist and death-row

prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal presents the stories and reflections of fellow pris-

I I oners-turned-advocates who have learned to use the court system to represent
other prisoners, and in some cases have won dleir freedom.,

Must-read for jailliouse lawyers!

1073

How to Win Your Personal Injury Claino, by Atty. Joseph Mamlews, 7th

edition, NOLO Press, 304 pages. $34.99. While not specifically for prison-

related personal injury cases, this book prO\~des comprehensive infotn1ation

I I I on how to handle personal injury and property damage claims arising from
accidents - including dealing with doctors, attorneys and

insurance companies.

1075

All prices are effective as of9-15-10 (Plices subject to change without notice)
* No refunds after orders have been placed *

':':1.:0.?~;~' ~,~ "\.,.: :i~1~;;
PRIS0N/fEGAL NEWS
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
2010 PLN BOOK LIST
Prices Subject to Change Without Notice
Graphic from: Books 2 Prisoners, Vancouver, Be .
P.O. Box 2420, Bl'attleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.prisonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 12 of 65 PageP3L3NCOL-00052

Check the box of the books you want to buy and use the Order Form on the other side of this brochure to add up the cost of your order. FREE SIllPPING for book and index orders OVER $50. There is a $6 shipping charge for all other book and index orders.

Prison Profiteers, edited by Paul Wright and Tam Herivel, 323 pages. $24.95. This is d,e

dlird and btestbook in a series ofPrison Legal News and1Dlogies thm examines d,e reality of
mass imprisonment in Amerim (The other tides are The Cellillg ifAlllenro & PlisollNatioIJ,

see below). PIisoIJ Projteers is unique from other books because it ""poses and discusses

who profits and benefits from mass imprisonmen~ ",d,er than who is 1

1

1

hanned by it and how.

1063 .

.

.

Prison Nation: The Warehousing ofAmerica's Poor, edited by Tam Herive1 and Paul

Wrigh~ 332 pages. $35.95. PIN and1Dlogy ""poses d,e d'ltk side ofthe 1 1

I

1ock-em-up'political agenda and legal cJimate in d,e u.s.

1041 .

.

.

The Celling of America, edited by Daniel Burton Rose, Dan Pens and Paul Wrigh~ 264

pages. $22.95. PIN and1Dlog)' presents a demiled "inside" look at d,e '

,

,

workings ofdleAmerican criminal justice system.

1001

Everyday Letters for Busy People, by Debra Hart May, 287 pages. $18.99.

Hundreds of sample letters that can be adapted for most any purpose, ineluding

letters to government agencies and officials. Has numerous I

tips for writing effective letters.

1048 L._ - - - '_ _----'

The Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System, by
Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sara J. Bettnan-Barre~ Nolo Press, 608 pages. $39.99.

E..-. pbins what happens in a criminal case from being arrested to sentenciog, and what

your rights are at eaell stage of d,e process. Uses an easy to under-I

stand question-and-answer fonnat

1038 L._ - '_ _ _- '

Represent Yourself in Court: How to Prepare & Try a Winning Case, by
Attorneys Paul Bergman & J. Sara Bettnan-Barre~ Nolo Press, 528 pages. $39.99.

I I I Breaks down the civil trial process in easy-to-understand steps so you can effectively
represent yoursel~ in court TI,e authors e...plain what to say in

i co~ how to say It, etc.

1037...

Law Dictionary, Random House Webster's, 525 pages. $19.95. Comprellensive

to-date 1~w dictionary e..-. pbins more d,an 8,500 legal terms. 1

I

Covers civil, criminal, commercial & internatiooal bw.

1036 L._ - - - ' . ' -_ _--'

I I I The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuarion, by Jane Straus, 110 pages.
$14.95. A guide to grammar and punctuation by an educator

widl e..-. perience teaching English to prisoners.

. 1046

Legal Research: How to Find and Understand the Law, by Stephen Elias and

I I I Susan Levinkiod, 568 pages. $49.99. Comprellensive and easy to understand guide
on researelling d,e law. E..-. pbins case law, statutes and digests,

and muell more. Includes practice e.,ercises.

1059 L._....1.._ _ _..J.

Deposirion Handbook, by Paul Bergman and Albert Moore, Nolo Press, 352

pages. $34.99. How-to handbook for anyone who conducts a I I

I

deposition or is going to be deposed.

1054 L._...l.._ _ _..J.

Spanish-English/English-Spanish Dicrionary, Random House. $8.95. Two

sections, Spanish-English and English-Spanish. 60,000+ entries I

from A to Z; includes Western Hemisphere usage.

1034 ..J L._ - '_ _ _

Please Note: All book and index orders are mailed via the U.S. Postal
Service with Delivery Confirmation. PLN does not assume any respon-
sibility to replace book or index orders once their delivery to the destination address (facility) is confirmed by the U.S.Postal Service.

I. Writirig to Wm: The Legal Writer, by Steven D. Stark, Broadway Books/Random
House, 283 pages. $19.95. &-plains the writing of effective compbints, I I

responses, briefS, monons and other legal papers.

1035 L._..J.._ _--'.

Actual Innocence: WhenJustice Goes Wrong and How to Make it Right, updated

paperback ed., by Barry Scheck, Peter Neufeld and Jim Dwyer; 403 pages. $16.00.

Founders of d,e Innocence Project e..-. pbin how criminal defendmts are wi:ongly con-

victed on a regular basis. E..-. pbins DNA testing and how it works to free d,e innocent

Devastnting critique of police and prosecutorial misconduct and the I I

I

system that ensures such abuses continue.

1030 L._ - ' ._ _ _-'.

Roger's Thesaurus, 717 pages. $8.95. Helps you find the right word for what

you want to sal'. 11,000 words listed a1phaberically with over 200,000 synonyms

and antonyms. Sample sentences and parts of speech shown for every main

word. Covers all levels of vocabulary and identifies informal I I

I

and slang words.

1045 . .

.

Webster's English Dictionary, Newly re\~sed and updated, Random House.

$8.95. 75;000+ entries. Includes rips on writing and word usage, and has up-

dated geographical and biographical entries. Includes recent I I

I

business and computer terms.

1033...

I I I Capital Crinles, by George Winslow, Monduy Review, 360 pages. $19.00.
Explains how economic policies create and foster crime, and how corporate & government crime is rarely punished. 1024
L......L_ _- - '

With Liberty for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America, by Scott

Chrisrianson, Nordleastern University Press, 372 pages. $18.95. The best

overall history of d,e American prison system from 1492 dltough d,e 20th

I I I Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for underst.mding how litde
things have changed as far as prisons go in d,e U.S. over

hundreds of years.

1026..

.

Ten Men Dead: The story of the 1981 Irish hunger strike, by Da\~d Beres-

ford, Adanric Mondlly Press, 334 pages. $16.95. Inside story of I I

I

IRA prisoners at Belfast's Long Kesh prison.

1006 . .

.

Finding the Right Lawyer, by Jay Foonberg, ABA, 256 pages. $19.95. Ex-

plains how to determine your legal needs, how to evaluate a I I

I

lawyer's qualifications, fee payments, and more.

.1015..

.

Seize the Day! 7 Steps to Achieving the Extraordinary in an Ordinary

World, by Danny Co..... and John Hooyer, 256 pages. $15.99. Provides 7 steps

to changing your e...pectations and em~sioning yourself as

a successful

and respecte~ person-whiell is essential to changing d,e

course of one's life.

1052

Women Behind Bars, The Crisis of Women in the U.S. Prison System, by

Silja J.A. Talvi, Seal Press, 295 pages. $15.95. Best book available d,at covers
I issues related to imprisoned women, based on interviews with

hundreds of women behind bars.

1066 L._..L_ _----'

10 Insider Secrets to a Winning Job Search, by Todd Bermont, 216 pages.

$15.99. Roadmap on how to get a job even under adverse circumstances-like

heing an ex-con. Includes how to develop a \vinning attitude, write attention-

grabbing resumes, pr.cpare for intet\~ews, networking, how to I I

I

present your strengdls to an employer, and much morel 1056..

.

The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, 2003

Ed. by Alfred McCoy, 734 pages. $34.95. Documented e"-pose I I

I

of d,e government's involvement in drug trafficking.

1014 L._...L._ _ _--'.

Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis, by Christian Parenti,

290 pages. $19.00. Analyzes the war on the poor via the crinlinaI justice system. Well

documented and includes first-hand reporting. Covers prisons, pam-I

military policing, SWAT teams and the INS.

1002 L._..L._ _..l

Hepatitis and Liver Disease: What You Need to Know, by Melissa Palmer, 1·lD,

457 pages. $17.95. Describes symptoms & treatments of hepatitis B & C and odler

liver diseases. Includes medications to avoid, what diet to follow, I 1

I

exercises to perfOnTI, and a biblingraphy.

1031. .

.

Crime and Punishment In America, by Elliott Cunie, 230 pages. $16.95. Effective

rebuttal to right-wing proponents of prison building Fact-based argument shows that

crime is driven by poverty. Debunks prison myths and discusses I I

I

proven, effective means ofcrime prevention.

1019 'L..._.L.._ _-'.

Prison Madness: The Mental Health Crisis Behind Bars and What We

Must Do Ahout It, by Terry Kupers, Jossey-Bass, 245 pages. Hardback only;

prisoners please include any required authorizarion form. $32.95. Psychia-

I trist writes about d,e mental health crisis in U.S. prisons and jails. Covers all
aspects of mental illness, prison rape, negative effects of long-I I

term isolation in control units, and more.

1003

Prison Writing in 20th Century America, by H. Bruce Franklin, Pengrlin

Books, 368 pages. $16.00. From Jack London to George Jackson, this

anthology provides a selection of some of the best writing i i

describing life behind bars in America.

1022

rr I Soledad Brother: The Prison Letters of George Jackson, by GeorgeJackson,
Lawrence Hill Books, 339 pages. $18.95. Lucid ""-planation of Ie litiCS of prison by a well-known prison acti\~st More relevant now than

when it first appeared 40 years ago.

1016

Marijuana Law, by Riclwd Boire, Ronin, 271 pages. $17.95. E....-anlines how to

reduce d,e probability of arrest and prosecution for people accused of d,e use, sale or

possession of marijuana. Info on legal defenses, search & seizures, I I

I

surveillance, asset forfeiture and drng testing.

1008 L._..J.._ _----'.

Worse Than Slavery: Parchman Farm and the Ordeal ofJinl CrowJustice, by

David Oshiosky, 306 pages. $16.00. Analysis of prison bbor's roots in sbvery.

Focuses on prison p1mtations and self-sustaining prisons that use I I

I

prison bbor.

1007..

.

No Equal Jusrice: Race and Class in the American Criminal Justice System, by D3\~d Cole, TI,e New Press, 218 pages. $19.95. E,,-plains how d,e

criminal justice system perpetuates race and class inequality, I I

I

creating a two-tiered system of justice.

1028...

The Prison and the Gallows: The Polirics of Mass Incarcerarion in

America, by Marie Gottschalk, Cambridge University Press, 451 pages.

$29.99. Great political analysis of the confluence of events I

I

leading to 2.3 miI1ion people bellind bars in the U.S. 1069.

.

The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, by Brandon

Sample, PLN Publishing, 200 pages. $49.95. TIus is PLN's second published

I I I book, which exclusively covers ineffective assistance of counsel-related
issues in federal habeas petitions. Great resource for habeas

litigarion, and contains hundreds of case cites!

1078

Factor 8 (DVD), a film by Kelly Duda, Concrete Films. $21.95. MO\~e

about d,e Arkansas prison blood scandal, in wluch prison officials sold

infected blood harvested from prisoners. Note: This is a I

DVD and cannot be shipped to prison.

1076 ..J L.- ' - - ' -_ _

PLN Cumularive Index. $22.50 each. PLN Article Inde...es provide detailed

information about all PLN articles, including tide, author, issue, page number,

topics covered, citations, and if it is state, BOP or jail specific. Can be

searched on over 500 subjects such as medical neglect or se,,-ual assault. Circle

the inde...(es) you are ordering: 1990-1995, 1996-1998, 1999-1

I.

2001, 2002-2004. (more recent indexes not yet available)

.

All books are soft cover except Prison Madness

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 13 of 65 PageP3L4NCOL-00053

Order Form
All pm'chases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new stamps (strips or books) or pre-stamped envelopes.

Books (3 & 4 yr Subscription Specials: CffiCLE
one book ill bonus issues, and DO NOT add SIH)
Protecting Your Health and Safety or 4 Bonus Issues (3-yr subscription offer)

$Amt.
Free

Prison Profiteers.!!! With Liberty for Some

or 6 Bonus Issues (4-yr subscription offer)

Free

Book Total (inc. all books bought separately)

Add 6% sales tax for Vermont residents only

ADD $6.00 SIH to book orders UNDER $50

PLN Subscriptions
6-month Subscription (Prisoners only) 1 yr Subscription (12 issues) 2 yr Subscription (24 plus 2 Bonus issues) 3 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above ill 4 Bonus issues) 4 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above ill 6 Bonus issues) Sample Issue - $3.50 each
TOTAL Amount Enclosed:

Send to:
Name:
DOC#: Agency/lnst: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Address: City/State/Zip: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

MAIL PAYMENT AND TillS FORM TO:

~

Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303

Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

PLN SubSCl'iption Rates

Subscription Rates
Prisoners *

1 yr 2 yrs 3 yrs 4yrs $24 $ 48 $ 72 $ 96

Individuals

$30 $ 60 $ 90 $120

Professionals

$80 $160 $240

(Lawyers, govt. & professional agencies, libraries, etc.)

Sample issue for anyone - $3.50 each*

$320

Six-month prisoner subscription for $12*

* Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books only) or pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed ~prison policies.

:- - - - - - - - - S~s-c;ipti~~ B-o-;'~;;s! - - - - - - - - -
•• 2 years - 2 bonus issues, for 26 monthly issues total.
: 3 years - 4 bonus issues (40 total) OR Protecting Your Health and • Safety (see book description on the other side of this brochure). : 4 years - 6 bonus issues (54 total) OR your choice of With Libertyfor
~~~e_~~~o~ ~r~e:::(:::.d.:s~.r~o~..?~~l:'o~h~r~i~e~ _____:

. New 3 or 4-Year Subscription Book Offers!
Subscribe or renew for three years at the regular price
($72 for prisoners & $90 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Protecting Your Health and Safety or four bonus issues of PLN! (40 monthly issues total).
Indicate your choice on the Order Form.
Subscribe or renew for four years at the regular price
($96 for prisoners & $120 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Prison Profiteers or With Libertyfor Some, or 6 bonus issues of PLN! (54 monthly issues
total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.
NO shipping charge for subscription bonus books!
NOTE: If you want the bonus issues of PLN instead of the free book offer, please indicate that on the Order Form.
:- --- -- -c-o;.~~~U; io~ PiN;s-io~k iis~!- ---- - ~
•• You can buy dozens of legal, social commental'y, self-.•
. : help books, and legal and regular dictionaries directly:
• from PLN's book store! Ask us for a book list.. or view· • our selec'tlOn 0 nlineat: •L ______w_w_w_.p_ri_so_n_le_ga_ln_e_w_s._or_g_/s_to_re_.a_s_px______ _

All subsCliption rates & bonus offill'S are clIective as of 5-1-10
and valid through 12-31-10
* No l'efunds after orders have been placed *

'~i~";" '\,,,.~~~.~ .'~W:.t<~"
PR1SON:t:,EGAL NEWS
Dedicat.ed to Protecting Human Right.s
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
Eastern State Penitentiary 1829-1971
Charles Dickens visited Philadelphia's Eastern State Penitentiary in 1842 and he later wrote: "The System is rigid, strict and hopeless ... and I
believe it to be cruel and wrong....1 hold this slow
and daily tampering with the mysteries of the brain to be immeasurably worse than any torture of the body." The prison remained open fOl' 129 years after Dickens condemned it as being barbal'ic, and some of its inhumane practices continue to be used in prisons nationwide.
P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.prisonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 14 of 65 PageP3L5NCOL-00054

I
P rison Legal News is an independent, non-profit 56-page monthly publication that reports, reviews and analyzes court rulings and news related to
prisoners' rights and prison issues. PLN has a national
(U.S.) focus on state, federal and private prison issues, with some international coverage as well.
PLN's many thousands of subscrihers and readers include civil and criminal trialand appellate attorneys, judges, public defenders, journalists, academics, paralegals, prisoners' rights activists, students, family members of prisoners, concerned individuals, politicians, other government officials, and numerous local, state and federal prisoners nationwide.
PLNis a vital link for prisoners who otherwise don't have access to current legal and prison-related news and information.
"Invaluable resource.for anyone wanting 'user friendly' information about current legal ,developments affecting
prisonersiri the United States~" - Human Rights Watch, a long-time PLNsubscriber
P LN's coverage of prison issues includes medical neglect, disciplinary hearings, nutrition, living conditions, excessive force, court access, censorship, jail litigation, visiting, telephones, religious fl'eedom, free speech, prison rape, mental health, attorney/ client access, sexual abuse of women prisonel's, re-
taliation, the PLRA, HIV and hep C, control units,
the death penalty, attorney fees and much more.
PLN Subscription Rates Prisoners: $12 for 6 months, $24 per year '" Non-incarcerated individuals: $30 per year Law firms, govt.agencies and libraries: $80 per year Sample issue for anyone: $3.50 each*
* Prisoners can pay with new stamps or pre-stamped envelopes

E ach monthly issue of PLN mcludes three different types of reporting: • A cover story on a prison-related issue. .• Reports on individual and class-action prison and jail-
related lawsuits when they m;e fIled, when a judgment is entered or the case settles, an4 when an appellate court decision is issued. We also have prison-related news articles. • A "News In Brief' section that s~mmarizes interesting news stories across the U.S. and internationally. '
Each issue of PLN also contains numerous advertisements from businesses that provide prison-related personal mId legal services and books. PLN further sells dozens of selfhelp, social commentary and legal books.
PLN also has cumulative subject and case cite indexes for all PLN issues from 1990 through 2004.. Write for info.
1 Special 3-year SuhSCI'iption Offel'!

Free with a 3-year PLN subscription! Four bonus issues of PLN (40 iss~es total) or a free book, Protecting Your Health and Safety! Circle your bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (3,-year subscription .rates: prisoners $72" individuals $90, professionals $24.0).
Protecting Your Health and. Safety, by - "-1'\ - - - - 1 Robert E. Toone. Published by the Southern Poverty Law Center, 325 pages (2009r $lO.OO(fi:ee with a 3-year sub!). This book explains some 'basic rights that prisoners
have in a jail or prison in the U.S; It deals 'J '_'€I__~_I
mainly with rights related to health and :"--------I. safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by prison officials; it also explains how you can enforce your rights to health and safety within the facility and, if necessary, in court through litigation. Buy separately: ___

I---------------------------------~---------,
You Can Buy These Books Sepal'ately! :

,

'

I

If you don't want to purchase a 3 or 4.-year subscription:

to PLN, you can still pUI'chase any of the bonus books:

at the regular price. Just indicate which books you want:

to buy on this page, then enter the total cost on the other:
side of this brochur~ Ol~ the "Book Total" line of the 01'- : del' Form. Shipping is $6 per order (not pe~ book), and we :

offer FREE shipping on book orders of $50 or more! To :

I place a phone order, please call 802-257-134.2. We also:

: accept' book orders online, at ww,v.prisonlegalnews.org. I
L _________________________________________ J

D onations: PLN is a project ofthe non-profit Human . . Rights Defense Center. Your tax-deductible donations support our advocacy, free speech and First Amendment litigation efforts on behalf of prisoners and publish-, ers. PLN not only provides uncensored prison-related news, but actively contests prison censorship that intelieres with" the delivery of our publication or any other PLN materials sent to prisoners. All donations further our goal of advocating for people imprisoned in U.S. detention facilities.
"Great source of information, especially in states such as Arizona where the law libraries have been taken from the inmates and replaced with paralegals." - SB; AriZona prisoner .,
cs;e~i~l ~~ Sllhscri;~ion Offer!
Free with a 4-year PLN subscription! Six bonus issues of PLN (54. issues total) or one free book, With Liberty for Some 01' Prison Profiteers! Circle your bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (4-year subscription rates: prisoners $96, individuals $120, professionals $320). Note: Free book option is for one book.
With Liberty for Some: 500 Years Imprisonment in America, by Scott Christianson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages (1998). $18~95 (free with
a: 4-year sub!). A classic book and the best
overall history of the American prison system from 1492 to the 20th Century. Well written and fact fIlled. A must-read for understanding how little things have changed as far as prisons go in the U.S. over hundreds of years. Buy separately: _'__
or
Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money from Mass Incarceration, edited by Panl Wright & Tara Herivel, New Press (2007). $24.95 (free with a 4-year sub!), This is the third in a series of I'LN anthologies that examines the reality of mass imprisonment in the U.S. Prison Profiteers is unique from other hooks. on the market because it exposes and discusses who .profits and benefits from mass imprisonment, rather than who is harmed by the prison industrial complex and our nation's reliance on over-incarceration. Buy separately: ___'

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 15 of 65

T he Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel is the first in a series of books by Prison Legal News Publishing designed to help pro-se prisoner litigants identify . and raise viable claims for potential habeas corpus relief. This . . book is an invaluable resource that identifies hundreds of cases where the federal courts have granted habeas relief to prisoners whose attorneys provided ineffective assistance of counsel.
It will save litigants thousands ofhours
of research and it focuses on the WINNING cases criminal defendants need to successfully challenge their convictions.
Well organized into 52 concise chapters, this easy to use book puts the law at the reader's fingertips. The Appendix includes pleadings and forms from successful habeas corpus cases that

"

The Habeas Citebook is a

nifty and concise self-help

guide for prisoners seeking

habeas relief based on claims of

ineffective assistance of counsel.

Navigating the complex and

treacherous terrain of habeas

law is never easy; but claim-

ing that your lawyer screwed up

is even more difficult - espe-

cially from the confines of an

demonstrate formatting and show ill-equipped prison law library.

how to frame a winning argu-

"Brandon Sample has pro-

ment that will persuade a court

vided an amazing and much-

to grant habeas relief. The Habeas

needed tool for prisoners who

Citebook explains the proce-

are forced to seek relief on their

dural and substantive complexi-

own. The book is thorough; but

ties of federal habeas corpus lit-

simple and readable. It starts

igation with the goal of identify-

with a wonderfully well-orga-

ing and litigating claims involving nized listing of hundreds of dif-

ineffective assistance of counsel.

ferent types of ineffective assis-

Brandon Sample is a success-

tance of counsel, set forth in the

ful jailhouse lawyer litigant incar-

form of citations to court rul-

cerated in the Bureau of Prisons.

ings - a novel approach that

He is a Prison Legal News contrib- not only acts as a springboard

uting writer and a member of the

for further research but also

National Lawyer's Guild. Editor

saves the prisoner countless

Susan Schwartzkopf has a mas-

hours of preliminary research:'

ter's degree in education and is

the director and editor in chief of

PETER SCHMIDT

Prison Legal News Publishing.

Publisher, Punch & Jurists

THE HABEAS CITEBOOK: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

By Brandon Sample 8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages
ISBN 978-0-9819385-1-6
$49·95 3 or more copies ordered
at once $39.95 each

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed _ _ _ __
I By: D check D new postage stamps D credit card D money order
Name ____________________________________________
DOC/BOP Number ___________________...,,-________-,-___
Institution/Agency ________________________________

FREE Shipping & Handling Address_______________________

Order by mail, phone, or on-line. City _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ State

ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

PRISON lEGAL NEWS I. P.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

PageP3L6NCOL-00055

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 16 of 65
,,----------.

Copies of this very usable and useful gUide

should be available in every prison library-to

help incarcerated people give positive direc-

tion to their energies while making constructive

use of their time. It is a well-established fact that

people who have taken college courses in prison

have a dramatically reduced rate of recidivism."

-BELL GALE CHEVICNY, PEN Prison Writing Program,

~---

Editor Doing Time: 25 Years ofPrison Writing. ----~

HIGH SCHOOL • VOCATIONAL CI PARALEGAL. UNDERGRADUATE. GRADUATE COURSES

IIIIIIIIIIIIIHE GREATLY anticipated and newly updated third edition of the Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the
United States and Canada has finally arrived! Author Jon Marc Taylor's brand new version is the latest in this unique and highly successful gUidebook for the prisoner-student. This invaluable tool and how-to handbook provides the reader with step-by-step instructions to find the appropriate educational program for high school, vocational, paralegal, undergraduate, and graduate courses offered in the U.S. a~d Canada today.
Invaluable re-entry tool
It presents more than 160 program outlines' and offers an easy-to-use format for the student to determine which program best suits their needs. It is ideal for the incarcerated student who does not have Internet access or the ability to attend educa-
tion classes In person. This resource is indispensable

for the individual and beneficial for use in all prison libraries and education departments.
The Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook is the only book on the market for the non-traditional prisoner-student. It includes detailed listings of the quality, cost, and course offerings for all correspondence programs available to prisoners. In a time when so many academic opportunities in prisons have been eliminated, this book is an invaluable re-entry tool for prisoners who seek to further their education while incarcerated and to help them prepare for life and work following their release.
Jon Marc Taylor has more than 25 years experience as an incarcerated student, advocate for prisoner education, and author. He has successfully earned a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and a doctorate via correspondence courses while incarcerated. Editor Susan Schwartzkopf has a master's degree in education and 12 years experience teaching immigrants English language skills.

r~-~---~-------------~

m
fij

PRISONERS' GUERRILLA HANDBOOK TO CORRESPONDENCE PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA

i

By Jon Marc Taylor PHD

Number of copies ordered ___ Amount enclosed _ _ _ __

8.25/1 x 10.75/1 • 224 pages

By: D check D new postage stamps D credit card D money order I

ISBN 978-0-9819385-0-9
$49·95
3 or more copies ordered

Name __________________________ I
DOC/BOP Number __________________________

at once $39-95 each

Institution/Agency ______________________

FREE Shipping & Handling Address____________________________

R Order by mail, phone, or on-line. City _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ State

ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

PIUSON lEGAL NEWS I p.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 0530 3
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

PageP3L7NCOL-00056

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 17 of 65

9870,05 f3146305

EXHIBITC
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 18 of 65 PageP3L9NCOL-00078

Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 West Brattleboro, Vermont 05303

:~~f'J~:~~~:'ii ''L'''f' f:::"::"

*f.. \) -.\ .. .:,~J.;n::;\·"{·:·

:;'":/f"f'
I, ," .:.

.·r.t~'f~t..1::':·i·"",':"./;..:(.~~~~a~~)iul'l'.'V'.''~','~~~~!"\IJiilI.M..m...n..·.n~{.~'"!~'

(K?rf~f2:'if.:}'<~~O.~,.t, . p,t"'t ;'/:: "fo ''ii~' '/:/\'.(~'"{' \,»:,:~:~'1/' ';,< <',<1:"",

"'.J:,'/.

59573 ** EXPIRES: 1/2012
COREY DELL 201 0002487 COLUMBIA~c> JAIL 901 PORT AVE ST HELENS. OREGON 97051
;::r?c:~b\;;g:~~i~20

As of April 1,2010 The Columbia County Jail
ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS
This applies to ALL incoming ~lDd out going mail

t'>ll:X:l:E::

\iJ70 ,sr.: i

00 O.';:/::L 01 ::L'1

RETURN TO SENDER REFl.j~;:ED
UNA9L.e-: j'O FOJ:i'~"ARD

ElC : o.s$O$.~4.~C'l.~i:lO

*0884-15893-03-40

JJ 1))))1) I)) I II) 1111))) lI))) J)J) I)) I)) I) III))))) J) IIjI) )l)l))J

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 19 of 65 PageP4L0NCOL-00079

Order Form
All purchases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books, no singles) or
pre-stamped envelopes, if allowed by prison policies.

Book Title I Number

Qty Total Cost

(attach another page if you are ordering mOre books)
Subtotal: Add 6% sales tax for VT reside~ts only: Add $6.00 SIR to orders UNDER $50: Total Order Amount:
Send to:
Name: DOC#: Agency/lnst: Adill.-ess: City/State/Zip:
MAIL PAYl\1ENT AND TillS FORM TO: Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303
Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

FREE SlDPPING
On hook and index orders OVER $50.00! A $6 shipping chargc applies to all other book anll indcx Oll1cl'S.
(Free shipping policy in clTcct frOID Jan I, :l010 until further notice)

MOioe Books fOlo Sale!

Prisoners' Self-Help Litigation Manual, updated 4th ed. (2010), by John

Boston and Daniel Manville, Oxford Univ. Press, 1500 pages. $39.95. The

I premiere, must-have ''Bible'' of prison litigation for current and aspiring jail-
house l~wyers. If you plan to litigate a prison or jail civil suit, [ [

this book is a must-have.

1077

Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the U.S.

and Canada, updated 3rd ed. by Jon Marc Taylor, Ph.D. and edited by Susan

Schwartzkopf, published by PLN, 221 pages. $49.95. Written by tvIissouri

prisoner Jon Marc Taylor, who obtained a B.S. degree, an M.A. degree and a

Doctorate, the Gllmi//a Ha/ldbook contains contact information and descrip-

I I tions of high school, vocational, paralegal and college courses available
through correspondence srudy. Great resource for prisoners

who want to further their education.

1057
'---L_..........l

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by Robert E. Toone, Southern Poverty

Law Center, 325 pages. $10.00. This book "'"plains basic rights that prisoners

have in a jail or prison in the U.S. It deals mainly with rights related to health

I I I and safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by prison officials; it also
explains how you can enforce your rights within the facility

and, if necessary, in court through litigation.

1060 L._--1.._ _ _..J.

Starting Out! The Complete Re-Entry Handbook, edited by William H.

Foster, Ph.D. & Carl E. Horn, Ph.D., Starting Out Inc., 446 pages. $22.95.

Complete do-it-yourself re-entry manual and workbook for prisoners who

want to develop their own re-entry plan to increase their chances of success

after d,ey are released. Includes a wide variety of resources, including a user

code to the Starting Out website that can be accessed f O l l O W - I I I

Ing release. .

1074 L._-L._ _--'.

Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners v. the U.S.A, by

Mumia Abu Jaina~ City Lights Publishers, 280 pages. $16.95. In Jailbollse LAII'-

yers, Prison Legal News columnist, award-winning journalist and death-row

prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal presents d,e stories and reflections of fellow pris-

oners-turned-advocates who have learned to use the court system to represent

other prisoners, and in some cases have won d,eir freedom."

,

Must-read for jaill,ouse lawyers!

1073 . .

.

How to Win Your Personal Injury Claim, by Atty. Joseph Matd,ews, 7d,

edition, NOLO Press, 304 pages. $34.99. While not specifically for prison-

related personal injury cases, d,is book provides comprehensive information

on how to handle personal injury and property damage claims arising from

~ccidents - incl~ding dealing wid, doctors, attorneys and 1 1

,

Insurance comparues.

1075 . .

.

All prices are effective as of 9-15-10 (prices subject to change without notice)
* No refunds after orders have been placed *

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
2010 PLN BOOK LIST
Prices Subject to Change Without Notice Graphic from: Books 2 Prisoners, Vancouver, Be
P.O. Box 2420, Brattlcboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.prisonlcgalncws.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 20 of 65 PageP4L1NCOL-00080

Check the box of the books you want to buy and use the Order Form on the other side of this brochure to add up the cost of your order. FREE SIDPPING for book and index orders OVER $50. There is a $6 shipping charge for all other book and index orders.

Prison ProfiteeIS, edited by Paul Wright and Tam Herivel, 323 pages. $24.95. This is dle

dlird and L1test book in a series ofPrison Legal News anthologies dmt examines the reality of
mass imprisonment in America (The other tides are The Cellillg ifAJlJenta & PmollNatioll,

I I I see below). Pmoll PivJiteer.r is unique from odler books beCluse it ""-poses and disOlSses
who profits and benefits from miss imprisonment, ruther than who is

hanned by it and how.

1063 L._ _L._ _-'.

I I I Prison Nation: The Warehousing of America's Poor, edited by Tam Herivel and Paul
Wright, 332 pages. $35.95. PIN and1010gy ""-poses dle d1rk side ofthe

1ock-em·up'politiali agenda and legal climate in the U.s.

1041 .

.

.

The CeI1ing of America, edited by Daniel Burron Rose, Dan Pens and Paul Wright, 264

pages. $22.95. PIN anthology presents a dellliled "inside" look at dle I

I

I

workings ofdle AmerialIl crimin,'] justice system.

1001 .

.

.

Everyday Letters for Busy People, by Debra Hart May, 287 pages. $18.99.

I Hundreds of sample letters that can be adapted for most any purpose, including

letters to government agencies and officials. Has numerous

I

tips for writing effecrive letters.

1048 .

.

The Criminal Law Handbook Know Your llights, Survive the System, by
Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sam J. Berman-Barrett, Nolo Press, 608 pages. $39.99.

E.':pLws what happens in a criminal case from being arrested to sentencing, and what

your rights are at each stage of dle process. Uses an easy to under-I

stand question-and-answer format

1038 L._ - - '_ _ _- '

Represent Yourself in Court: 'How to Prepare & Try a Winning Case, by
Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sam J. Berman-Barrett, Nolo Press, 528 pages. $39.99.
I I Breaks down dle civil trial process in easy-to-understand steps so you can effectively
represent yourself in court The authors e.,"plain what to say in

court, how to say it, etc.

1037 .

.

Law Dictionary, Random House Webster's, 525 pages. $19.95. Comprellensive un -

to-date law dierionary e."<plains more than 8,500 legal terms.'

,

Covers civil, criminal, commercial & international law.

1036 I'--_...L_ _--'

I I I The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, by Jane Sttaus, 110 pages.
$14.95. A guide to grammar and punctuation by an educator

with e."perience teaching English to prisoners.

1 046

Legal Research: How to Find and Understand the Law, by Stephen Elias and

I I I Susan Levinkind, 568 pages. $49.99. Comprellensive and easy to understand guide
on researclling the law. E""plains case law, statutes and digests,

and mucll more. Includes practice e.,ercises.

1059 L._......1.._ _ _-'.

I I Deposition Handbook, by Paul Bergman and Albert Moore, Nolo Press, 352
pages. $34.99. How-to handbook for anyone who conducts a I

deposirion or is going to be deposed.

1054 L._.....L._ _ _-'.

I I Spatrish-English/English-Spatrish Dictionary, Random House. $8.95. Two
sections, Spanish-English and English-Spanish. 60,000+ entries

from A to Z; includes Western Hemisphere usage.

1034 L._--1._ _ _-'

Please Note: All book and index orders are mailed via the U.S. Postal Service with DeliverY Confinnation. PIN does not assume any responsibility to replace book or index orders orice their delivery to the destination address (facility) is confinned bythe U.S. Postal Service.

I I I Wtiting to Will: The Legal Writer, by St",;eri D. Stark, Broadway Book.,/Random
House, 283 Pages. $19.95. E.'"p.1ains the writing of effeCtive compLwts,

responses, briefS, motions and other legal papers.

1035 L._ - ' - ._ _- - ' .

Actual Innocence: When Justice Gnes Wrong and How to Make it Right, updated

paperback eel., by Barry Scheck, Peter Neufeld and Jim Dwyer; 403 pages. $16.00.

Founders of dle Innocence Project e.'"plain how ctiminaI defendants are wrongly con-

I I I victed on a regular basis. fu"plains DNA testing and how it works to free the innocent
Devasmting critique of police and prosecutcrial misconduct and the

system dmt ensures such abuses continue.

.

1030 L._ - - ' - ._ _ _-'.

Rogel's Thesaurus, 717 pages. $8.95. Helps you find the right word for what

you want to sal'. 11,000 words listed alphabetically with over 200,000 synonyms
I I I and antonyms. Sample sentences and parts of speech shown for every main
'vord. Covers all levels of vocabulary and identifies infornnal

and slang words.

1045 L._ - ' - ._ _ _-'.

Webster'S English Dictionary, Newly re,~sed and updated, Random House.

I I ,. $8.95. 75,000+ entries. Includes tips on writing and word usage, and has up-
dated geographical and biographical entries. Includes rece.nt

business and computer ternns.

1033...

I I I Capital Crimes, by George Winslow, Monthly Review, 360 pages. $19.00.
Explains how economic policies create and foster crime, and how corporate & government crime is rarely punished. 1024

With Liberry for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America, by Scott

Christianson, Nottheastern University Press, 372 pages. $18.95. The best

overall history of the American prison system from 1492 through the 20th
I I I Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how little
tllings have changed as far as prisons go in tile U.S. over

hundreds of years.

1026..

.

I I I Ten Men Dead: The story of the 1981 Irish hunger strike, by D",~d Beres-
ford, Atlanric Montllly Press, 334 pages. $16.95. Inside story of

IRA prisoners at Belfast's Long Kesh prison.

1006..

.

I ' Finding the Right Lawyer, by Jay Foonberg, ABA, 256 pages. $19.95. Ex-

plains how to determine your legal needs, how to evaluate a

I

lawyer's qualifications, fee payments, and more.

1015..

.

Seize the Day! 7 Steps to Achieving the Extraordinary in an Ordinary

World, by Danny Cox and John Hoover, 256 pages. $15.99. Provides 7 steps

I , to changing your expectations and envisioning yourself as being. a successful
and respected person-which is essential to changing dle I

course of one's life.

1052

Women Behind Bars, The Crisis of Women in the U.S. Prison System, by

I Silja J.A. TaI\~, Seal Press, 295 pages. $15.95. Best book available that covers
issues related to imprisoned women, based on _iqterviews with

hundreds of women behind bars.

1066 L._ - ' L_ _---'

10 Insider Secrets to a Winning Job Search, by Todd Bernnont, 216 pages.

$15.99. Roadmap on how to get a job even under adverse circumstances-like

I I I being an e.,,-con. Includes how to develop a winning atritude, write attention-
grabbing resumes, prepare for inter\~ews, networking, how tc

present your strengtlls to an employer, and much more! 1056..

.

The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, 2003

Ed. by Alfred McCoy, 734 pages. $34.95. Documented e.'pose I '

,

of the government's involvement in drug trafficking.

1014 L._ - ' . ' - -_ _-'.

Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis, by Christian Parenti,

290 pages. $19.00. Analyzes dle war on the poor via dle ctiminaI justice system. Well

documented and includes first-hand repotting. Covers prisons, pam-I

military policing, SWAT tearns and the lNS.

1002 L.·_ - ' -_ _-'

Hepatiris and Liver Disease: What You Need to Know, by Melissa Palmer, MD,

I I I 457 pages. $17.95. Describes symptoms & treatments of hepatitis B & C and odler
liver di.·seases. Includ.es medications to avoid, what diet to fullow,

exercises tc perform, and a bibliogrnphy.

1031. .

.

Crime and Punishment In America, by Elliott Currie, 230 pages. $16.95. E£lecrive

I I I reburial to right-wing proponents of prison building. Fact-based rugumeot shows that
crime is driven by poverty. Debunks prison myths and discnsses

proven, e£rective means ofcrime prevention. .

1019 . L._ - ' ._ _--'.

Prison Madness: The Mental Health Ctisis Behind Bars and What We

Must Do About It, by Terry Kupers,Jossey-Bass, 245 pages. Hardback only,

prisoners please include any required authorization. form. $32.95. Psychia-

I trist writes about the mental health crisis in U.S. ptisons and jails. Covers all
aspects of mental illness, prison rape, negative effects of long-I'

term isolation in control units, and more.

1003

Prison Writing in 20th Century America, by H. Bruce Franklin, Pengoin

I I Books, 368 pages. $16.00. From Jack London to George Jackson, this
antllOlogy pro\~des a selection of some of tile best writing

describing life behind bars in America.

1022 L-._

. . . . ._ _- - '

r I Soledad Brother: The Prison Letters of George Jackson, by George Jackson,
Lawrence Hill Books, 339 pages. $18.95. Lucid """planation of e TlitiCS of

prison by a well-known prison activist More relevant now than

when it first appeared 40 years ago.

1016

Zn Marijuana Law, by Richard Boire, Ronin, pages. $17.95. Ex,unines how to

I I I reduce dle probability of arrest and prosecution for people aCOlSed of dle use, sale or
possession of marijuana. Info on legal defenses, search & seizures,

surveillanoe, asset forfeiture and drng testing.

1008 L._ - ' - ._ _- - ' .

Worse Than Slavery: Parchman Farm and the Ordeal ofJirn Crow Justice, by

I I I Da\~d Oshinsky, 306 pages. $16.00. Analysis of prison labor's roots in slavery.
FOOlSes on prison pbntations and self-sustaining prisons that use

ptison labor.

1007..

.

No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the American Criminal Justice

I I I System, by David Cole, TIle New Press, 218 pages. $19.95. fu"plains how dle
criminal justic~ system perpe~:es race and class inequality,

cteatlnga two-tlered system ofJustlce.

1028 L._ . - ' ._ _- - ' .

The Prison and the Gallows: The Politics of Mass Incarceration in
I I America, by Marie Gottschalk, Cambridge University Press, 451 pages.
$29.99. Great political analysis of tile confluence of events

leading to 2.3 million people behind bars in the U.S.

1069 L._ - ' -_ _-'.

The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, by Brandon

Sample, PLN Publishing, 200 pages. $49.95. This is PLN's second published

I I I book, which exclusively covers ineffective assistance of 'counsel-related
issues in federal habeas petirions.. Great resource for habeas

Iitigarion, and contains hundreds of case cites!

1078 L._ _ ••' - - _ - - - ' .

Factor 8 (DVD), a film by Kelly Duda, Concrete Films. $21.95. Movie

about tile Arkansas prison blood scandal, in whicll prison officials sold
I infected blood harvested from prisoners. Note: This is a

DVD and cannot be shipped to prison.

1076 L._..J...._ _- '

PLN Cumulative Index. $22.50 each. PLN Article Indexes provid~ detailed information about all PLN articles, including ritle, audlor, issue, pase number, topics covered, citations, and if it is state, BOP or jail specific. Can be searched on over 500 subjects such as medical neglect o~ se,,-ual. assault. Circle tile index(es) you are ordecinl?' 1990-1995, .1996-1998, 1999-1 2001, 2002-2004. (more recent indexes not yet available)

All books are soft cover except Prison Madness

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 21 of 65 PageP4L2NCOL-00081

Order Form
All purchases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new stamps (strips or books) or pre-stamped envelopes.

Books (3 & 4 yr Subscription Specials: CIRCLE
one book m:: bonus issues, and DO NOT add SM)
Protecting Your Health and Safety
m: 4 Bonus Issues (3-yr subscription offer)

$Amt.
Free

Prison Profiteers m: With Liberty for Some

or 6 Bonus Issues (4-yr subscription offer)

Free

Book Total (inc. all books bought separately)

Add 6% sales tax for Vermont residents ollIy

ADD $6.00 StH to book orders UNDER $50

PLN Subscriptions
6-month Subscription (Prisoners only) 1 yr Subscription (12 issues) 2 yr Subscription (24 plus 2 Bonus issues) 3 )11: Sub (Circle bonus book above m:: 4 Bonus issues) 4 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above m:: 6 Bonus issues) Sample Issue - $3.50 each
TOTAL Amount Enclosed:

Send to:
Name:
DOC#: Agency/lnst: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Address: City/State/Zip: '--_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
MAIL PAYMENT AND THIS FORM TO:
Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303

Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegainews.org

PLN Subscription Rates

Subscription Rates
Prisoners *

1 yr 2 yrs 3 yrs 4yrs $24 $ 48 $ 72 $ 96

Individuals

$30 $ 60 $ 90 $120

Professionals

$80 $160 $240

(Lawyers, govt. & professional agencies, libraries, etc.)

Sample issue for anyone - $3.50 each*

$320

Six-month prisoner subscription for $12*

* Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books
only) or pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed by prison policies.

:- - - - - - - - - S~s-c~ip;i~~ B-o~~;;s! - - - - - - - --
I
I 2 years - 2 bonus issues, for 26 monthly issues total. : 3 years - 4 bonus issues (40 total) OR Protecting Your Health and I Safety (see book description on the other side of this brochure). : 4 years - 6 bonus issues (54 total) OR your choice of With Libertyfor I
!..~r;:e_~~~o::: ~rji~e~~J~:.d.:s:rT~o~..o~t!,t:.o,:h.:r~i~e~ _____:

New 3 or 4-Yeal' Subscription Book Offers!

Subscribe or renew for three years at the regular price
($72 for prisoners & $90 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Protecting Your Health and Safety or four .bonus issues of PLN! (40 monthly issues total).
Indicate your choice on the Order Form.
Subscribe or renew for four years at the regular price
($96 for prisoners & $120 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Prison Profiteers or With Libertyfor Some, or 6 bonus issues of PLN! (54 monthly issues
total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.

NO shipping charge for subscription bonus books!

NOTE: H you want the bonus issues of PLN instead of the free book offer, please indicate that on the Order Form.

:- ------Co;;a~;U; i~ PiN;'s-io-;'kiis;!- ----- ~

I

I

I You can buy dozens of legal, social commentary, self-I

: help books, and legal and regular dictionaries directly:

I from PLN's book store! Ask us for a book list, or view:

II our selec'tlOn 0 nline at:

I

IL ______w_w_w_.p_ri_so_n~le-g- al- ne-w-s- .o- rg-/s-to-re-.a-s- px-------:

All subscription rates & bonns offers ru:e effective as of5-1-10
and valid tln-oogh 12-31-10
* No l'efunds after ordel'S have been placed *

PRIS'ON,-fEGAL NEWS
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
Eastern State Penitentiary 1829-1971
Charles Dickens visited Philadelphia's Eastern State Penitentiary in 1842 and he later wrote: "The System is rigid, strict and hopeless ... and I believe it to be cruel and wrong....I hold this slow and daily tampering with the mysteries of the brain to be immeasurably worse than any torture of the body." The prison remained open fO!' 129 years after Dickens condemned it as being barbaric, and some of its inhumane practices continue to be used in prisons nationwide.
P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.pl·isonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 22 of 65 PageP4L3NCOL-00082

q"! Ii
P rison Legal News is an independent, non-pl"Ofit 56-page monthly publication that reports, reviews and analyzes court rulings and news related to
prisoners' rights and prison issues. PLNhas a national
(U.S.) focus on state, federal and private prison issues, with some international coverage as well.
PLN's many thousands of subscribers and readers include civil and criminal trial and appellate attorneys, judges, public defenders, journalists, academics, paralegals, pl'isoners' rights activists, students, family members of prisoners, concerned individuals, politicialls, other government officials, and numerous local, state and federal prisoners nationwide.
PLN is a vitallinlc for prisoners who otherwise don't have access to current legai and prison-related news and information. '
"Invaluable resource for anyone \Vanting 'user friendly' infonnation 'about current legal developments affecting
, prisoners in the United States." ,- Human Rights Watch, a IIlng-time PLN s'ubscriber
P LN's coverage of prison issues includes medical neglect, disciplinary hearings, nutrition, living conditions, excessive force, court access, censorship, jail litigation, visiting, telephones, religious freedom, free speech, prison rape, mental health, attorney/ client access, sexual abuse of women prisoners, re-
taliation, the PLRA, HIV and hep C, control units,
the death penalty, attorney fees and much more.
PLN Subscription Rates
Prisoners: $12 for 6 months, $24 per year *
Non-incarcerated individuals: $30 per year Law firms; govt. agencies and libraries: $80 per year
Sample issue for anyone: $3:50 each*
* Prisoners can pay with new stamps or pre-stamped envelopes

E ach monthIy~sue of PLN fucludes three different
, types of reportmg:
• A cover story on a prison-related issue. • Reports on individual and class-action prison and jail-
related lawsuits when they are filed, when a judgment is, entered or the case settles, and when an appellate court decision is issued. We also have prison-related news articles. " • A "News In Brief' section that summarizes interesting , news stories across the U.S. and internationally.
Each issue of PLN also contains numerous advertisements from businesses that provide prison-related personal and legal services and books. PLN further sells dozens' of selfhelp, social cOl1UJlentary' and legal books.
PLN also has cumulative subject and case cite indexes for all PLNissues from 1990 through 2004. Write for info.
Specia13-year Subscription Offel'! ,I

Free with a 3-year PLN subscription! Four honus issues of PLN (40 issues total) or' a free hook, Protecting Your
Health and Safety! Circle your bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (3-year subscription rates: prisoners $72, individuals $90, pr~fessionals $240).

Protecting Your ,Health and Safety, by E'rEi-----;

Robert E. Toone. Published by the South-

erriPoverty Law Center, 325 pages (2009).

$10.00 (free with a 3-year sub!). This book

explains some basic rights that prisoners
have in a jail or prison in the U.S. It deals m mainly with rights related to health alid -

... e----I
' '.

safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by

prison officials; it also explains how yoil can enforce your

rights to health and safety within, the facility and', if nec-

essary, in court through litigation. Buy separately: ___

1- - - - - - -- - - - - ---.-- - - - - --- - - - - - - -:--- -- - - - - - - - - ,

: You Can Buy These Books Sepamtely! :

I

I

"

I

: If you don't want to purchase a 3 or 4.-year subscription:

: to PLN, you can still purchase any of the bonus books :

: at the regular price. Just indicate which books you want:

: to buy on this page, then enter the total cost on the other: : side of this brochure' o~ the "Book Total" line of the Or- :

: der Form. Shipping is $6 per order (not per book), and we :

: offer FREE shipping 'on book orders of $50 or morel To:

: place a phone order, 'please call 802-257-1342. We also:

:La_c_c_ep_t_b_o_o_k_o_r_d_er_s_o_n_li_n_e,_a_t_w_w__v._...p_r_is_o_n_le_g._al_n_e_w_s_.o_r_g.__ J:

D onations: PLN is a projecto'fthe non-profit Human Rights Defense Center. Your tax-deductible donations supp.ort ,our ad.vocacy, free speech and First Amendment litigation efforts on behalf of prisoners and publishers. PLN not ouly provides uncensored prison-related news, but actively contests prison censorship that interferes with the delivery of our publication or any other PLN materials sent to prisoners. All donations further our goal of advocating for people imprisoned in U.S. detention facilities.
"Great source of iufonnation, especially in states such as Arizona where the law libraries have been taken from the inmates and replaced with paralegals." -SB, Arizona prisoner
Special 4-yem' Subscription Offel'!
Free with a 4-yeru: PLN subscription! Six honns issues of PLN (54 issues total) or one n'ee hook, With Liberty for Some or Prison Profiteers! Circle your bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (4.-year subscription rates: prisoners $96, individuals $120, professionals $320). Note: Free book option is for one book.
With Liberty for Some: 500 Years ofLnm-'-;:J',n'1f."·~ Imprisonment in America, by Scott Christianson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages (1998). $18.95 (free with a 4-yeru: sub!). A classic book and the best overall history of the American prison system from 1492 to the 20th ,Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how little things have changed as far as prisons go in the U.S. over hundreds of years. Buy separately: _ __
or
Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money Mass Incarceration, edited by Paul
Wright & Tara Herivel, New Press (2007). $24.95 (n'ee with a 4-year sub!). This is the third in a series of PLN allthologies that examines the reality of mass imprisonment in the U.S. Prison Profiteers is unique from other books on the market because it exposes and discusses who profits and benefits from mass imprisonment, rather than who is harmed by the prison industrial complex and our nation's reliance on over-incarceration. Buy separately: __'_'_

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 23 of 65

T he Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel is the first in a series of books by Prison Legal News Publishing designed to help pro-se prisoner litigants identify and raise viable claims for potential habeas corpus relief. This book is an invaluable resource that identifies hundreds of cases where the federal courts have granted habeas relief to prisoners whose attorneys provided ineffective assistance of counsel.
It will save litigants thousands ofhours
of research and it focuses on the WINNING cases criminal defendants need to successfully challenge their convictions.
Well organized into 52 concise chapters, this easy to use book puts the law at the reader's fingertips. The Appendix includes pleadings and forms from successful habeas corpus cases that

"

The Habeas Citebook is a

nifty and concise self-help

guide for prisoners seeking

habe.as relief based on claims of

ineffective assistance of counsel.

Navigating the complex and

treacherous terrain of habeas

law is never easy; but claim-

ing that your lawyer screwed up

is even more difficult - espe-

cially from the confines of an

demonstrate formatting and show ill-equipped prison law library.

how to frame a winning argu-

"Brandon Sample has pro-

ment that will persuade a court

vided an amazing and much-

to grant habeas relief. The Habeas

needed tool for prisoners who

Citeboolc explains the proce-

are forced to seek relief on their

dural and substantive complexi-

own. The book is thorough; but

ties of federal habeas corpus lit-

simple and readable. It starts

igation with the goal of identify-

with a wonderfully well-orga-

ing and litigating claims involving nized listing of hundreds of dif-

ineffective assistance of counsel.

ferent types of ineffective assis-

Brandon Sample is a success-

tance of counsel, set forth in the

fuljailhouse lawyer litigant incar-

form of citations to court rul-

cerated in the Bureau of Prisons.

ings - a novel approach that

He is a Prison Legal News contrib- not only acts as a springboard

uting writer and a member of the

for further research but also

.National Lawyer's Guild. Editor

saves the prisoner countless

Susan Schwartzkopf has a mas-

hours of preliminary research:'

ter's degree in education and is

the director and editor in chief of

PETER SCHMIDT

Prison Legal News Publishing.

Publisher, Punch & Jurists

THE HABEAS CITEBOOK: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

By Brandon Sample 8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed _ _ _ __
i By: 0 check 0 new postage stamps 0 credit card 0 money order

ISBN 978-0-9819385-1-6

Name _____________________________________________

$49·95 3 or more copies ordered

DOc/BOP Number ________________________________

at once $39.95 each

Institution/Agency _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

FREE Shipping & Handling Address_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-'--_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Order by mail, phone, or on-line. City _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ State

ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

1m _

PRISON LEGAL 1\1 EWS P.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

PageP4L4NCOL-00083

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 24 of 65

" - - - - - - - Copies ofthis very usable and useful gUide

should be available in every prison library-to

help incarcerated people give positive direc-

tion to their energies while making constructive use of their time. It is a well-established fact that

people who have taken college courses in prison

have a dramatically reduced rate of recidivism."

.-BELL GALE CHEVIGNY, PEN Prison Writing Program,

~---

-~-~

Editor Doing Time: 25 Years ofPrison Writing.

HIGH SCHOOL • VOCATIONAL II PARALEGAL. UNDERGRADUATE. GRADUATE COURSES

B11111I11I11HE GREATLY anticipated and newly updated third edition of the Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the
United States and Canada has finally arrived! Author Jon Marc Taylor's brand new version is the latest in this unique and highly successful gUidebook for the prisoner-student. This invaluable tool and how-to handbook provides the reader with step-by-step instructions to find the appropriate educational program for high school, vocational, paralegal, undergraduate, and graduate courses offered in the U.S. and Canada today.
Invaluable re-entry tool
It presents more than 160 program outlines and offers an easy-to-use format for the student to determine which program best suits their needs. It is ideal for the incarcerated student who does not have Internet access or the ability to attend education classes in person. This resource is indispensable

for the individual and beneficial for use in all prison libraries and education departments.
The Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook is the only book on the market for the non-traditional prisoner-student. It includes detailed Iistirigs of the quality, cost, and course offerings for all correspondence programs available to prisoners. In a time when so many academic opportunities in prisons have been eliminated, this book is an' invaluable re-entry tool for prisoners who seek to further their education while incarcerated and to help them prepare for life and work following their release.
Jon Marc Taylor has more than 25 years experience as an incarcerated student, advocate for prisoner education, and author. He has successfully earned a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and a doctorate via correspondence courses while incarcerated. Editor Susan Schwartzkopf has a master's degree in education and 12 years experience teaching immigrants English language skills.

I

~~~-~--~-------~----~
PRISONERS' GUERRILLA HANDBOOK TO CORRESPONDENCE PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA ~

By Jon Marc Taylor PHD 8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages ISBN 978-0-9819385-0-9

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed _____ By: D check D new postage stamps D credit card D money order ~
Name ____________________________

$49·95
3 or more copies ordered

DOC/BOP Number ___________-'-__________

at once $39.95 each

Institution/Agency _____________________

FREE Shipping & Handling Address,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

I Order by mail, phone, or on-line. City __________________ State

ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

I PRISON lEGAL NEWS p.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

PageP4L5NCOL-00084

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 25 of 65

9870.05 fa246305

EXHIBITD
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRlGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 46

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 26 of 65 PageP4L7NCOL-00085

Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 West Brattleboro, Vermont 05303

/~

/.""
I. J

n?,' '. c."'1 \

fFB 3 \. 0' 2011'

.\~,:'~~'."

... -.....-.,,-.

59574 ** EXPIRES: 1/2012
JACOB FRANCOEUR 201 1000086 COLUMBIA Co JAIL 901 PORT AVE ST HELENS, OREGON 97051

As of April 1, 2010 The Columbia County Jail
ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS This applies to ALL
.:1 :~~~-:-~ ~_..1 ~ •• +~~: _____

OB:~O;.;l@.:2420

NX)CIl::

$1"10 :O~:L

co C>!:'se./:i CJ i :1

TO R~TURN

S~N:OER

R:EF-" l)S E::!'

UN AI:oJl.E-: -TO FOJ~WARD

51C: OB~O:;~.l~4.20~O

*2~ea-O:i794-0a-4S

Ill) I) IIIJ) 1111 dII II) I II))) III d)) I) 1// JJI//) /) JI JIIJ) 1bJ) 11

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 27 of 65 PageP4L8NCOL-00086

Order Form
All purchases must he pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or hooks, no singles) or
pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed by prison policies.

Book Title / Number

Qty Total Cost

(attach another page if you are ordering more books)
Subtotal: Add 6% sales tax for VT residents only: Add $6.00 S/R to orders UNDER $50: Total Order Amount:
Send to:
Name: DOC#: Agency/Inst: Address: City/State/Zip:
MAIL PADiENT AND THIS FORlU TO: Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303
Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

FREESffiPPING On hook and index Olllel'S OVER $50.001
A $6 shipping charge applies to all other book amI index onlel's.
(Free shipping policy in cJIccl from Jan 1, ~01O until further notice)

More Books for Sale!

Prisoners' Self-Help Litigation Manual, updated 4th ed. (2010), by John

Boston and Daniel Manville, Oxford Univ. Press, 1500 pages. $39.95. The
I I I premiere, must-have "Bible" of prison litigation. for current and aspiring jail-
house lawyers. If you plan to litigate a prison or jail civil suit,

this book is a must-have.

1077

Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the U.S.

and Canada, updated 3rd ed. by Jon Marc Taylor, Ph.D. and edited by Susan

Schwartzkopf, published by PLN, 221 pages. $49.95. Written by Missouri

prisoner Jon Marc Taylor, who obtained a B.S. degree, an M.A. degree and a

Doctorate, the Gllenilla Halldbook contains contact information and descrip-

tions of high school, vocational, paralegal and college courses available

through correspondence study. Great resource for prisoners 1 1

who want to further their education.

1057 .
'----'----'

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by Robert E. Toone, Southern Poverty

Law Center, 325 pages. $10.00. This book explains basic rights that prisoners

have in a jailor prison in the U.S. It deals mainly with rights related to health

and safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by prison officials; it also

eJ'plains how you can enforce your rights widlin the £~cilit)' I I

1

and, if necessary, in court dlrough litigation.

1060 . .

.

Starting Out! The Complete Re-Entry Handbook, edited by William H.

Foster, Ph.D. & Carl E. Horn, Ph.D., Starting Out Inc., 446 pages. $22.95.

Complete do-it-yourself re-entry manual and workbook for prisoners who

want to develop their own re-entry plan to increase their chances of success

after they are released. Includes a wide vatiety of resources, including a user

~ode to dle Starting Out website that can be accessed f O l l O W - I I I

mg release.

1074 . .

.

Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners v. the U.S.A, by

Murnia Abu Jamal, City Lights Publishers, 280 pages. $16.95. In Jailhollse Law-

j'ers, Prison Legal News columnist, award-winning journalist and deadl-row

prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal presents dle stories and reflections of fellow pris-

oners-turned-advocates who have learned to use the court system to represent

other prisoners, and in some cases have won their freedom_I

Must-read for jailhouse lawyers!

1073 L._ - L_ _ _.J

How to Win Your Personal Injury Claim, by Atty. Joseph Mamlews, 7dl

edition, NOLO Press, 304 pages. $34.99. While not specifically for prison-

related personal injury cases, this book pro\~des comprehensive information

on how to handle personal injury and property damage claims arising from

~ccidents - incl~ding dealing widl doctors, attorneys and 1 1

1

msurance comparues.

1075 . .

.

AD prices are effective as of 9-15-10 (Plices subject to change without notice)
* No refunds after orders have been placed *

. .::~ ..<,,::'!.!
PRISON)fEGAl NEWS
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
2010 PLN BOOK LIST
Prices Subject to Change Without Notice
Graphic from: Books 2 Prisoners, Vancouver, BC
P.O. Box 2420, Bl'attleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 0 www.pl.isonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 28 of 65 PageP4L9NCOL-00087

Check the box of the books you want to buy and use the Order Fonn on the other side ofthis brochure to add up the cost of your order. FREE SHlPPING for book and index orders OVER $50. There is a $6 shipping charge for all other book and index orders.

Prison Profiteers, edited by Paul Wright and Tara Herivel, 323 pages. $?A.95. TIlis is d,e

dUrd and htest book in a series ofPrison I.egal News anthologies dmt e.'<ll111ines d,e reality of

nmss imprisonment in Amerim (The other tides are The CeIlingqfAtlJeflCO & PIiroIJ Nation,

I I I see below). Prison Projteers is unique from odler books because it ""-poses and discusses
who profits and benefits from nmss imprisonment; rather than who is

harmed by it and how.

1063 L._ _-'-._ _- - ' .

I I Prison Nation: The Warehousing of Ametica's Poor, edited by Tara Herivel and Paul

Wright; 332 pages. $35.95. PiN andlOlogy ""-poses d,e dm:k side ofthe

1

1ock-em-up'politiad agendaandlegal climate in d,e U.s.

1041 . .

.

The CeIling of Ametica, edited by Daniel Burton Rose, Dan Pens and Paul Wright; 264

pages. $22.95. PiN anthology presents a delliiled "inside" look at the I I

I

worlcings ofd,e Ameriam crimil",1 justice system.

1001 . .

.

Everyday Letters for Busy People, by Debra Hart May, 287 pages. $18.99.

Hundreds of sample letters that can be adapted for most any putpose, including

letters to government agencies and officials. Has numerous I

tips for writing effective letters.

1048 L._ _' - -_ _-'

The Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System, by

Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sara J. Berman-Barrett; Nolo Press, 608 pages. $39.99.

&-pL·uns what happens in a ctinUnai case from being arrested to senteneing, and what

your rights are at eacll stage of d,e process. Uses an easy to under-I

stand question-and-answer fonnat

1038 L._ - - - '_ _ _- '

Represent Yourself in Court: How to Prepare & Try a Winning Case, by
Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sara J. Berman-Barrett; Nolo Press, 528 pages. $39.99.

Breaks down d,e civil trial process in easy-to-understand steps so you can effectively

represent yourself in court TIle authors e.'-plain what to say in 1

1

court, how to say it; etc.

1037 .

.

I I Law Dictionary, Random House Webster's, 525 pages. $19.95. COlnpreilensive , -
to-dme law dictionary e.'-plains more than 8,500 legal terms.

Covers civil, ctinUnal, commercial & international law.

1036 L._ _L._ _- - - '

The Blue Book of Grammar and PunctUation, by Jane Straus, 110 pages.

$14.95. A guide to grammar and punctuation by an educator 1 1

1

widl e.xperience teaching English to prisoners.

1046

Legal Research: How to Find and Understand the Law, by Stephen Elias and

I Susan Levinkind, 568 pages. $49.99. Comprellensive and easy to understand guide

on researclling d,e law. E"-plains case law, statutes and digests,

1

1

and much more. Includes practice e.xercises.

1059 L._ - ' - ._ _ _-'.

Deposition Handbook, by Paul Bergman and Albert Moore, Nolo Press, 352

pages. $34.99. How-to handbook for anyone who conducts a I I

I

deposirion or is going to be deposed.

1054 L._ - L ._ _ _-'.

Spatrish-English/English-Spatrish· Dictionary, Random House. $8.95. Two

sections, Spanish-English and English-Spanish. 60,000+ entries I I

from A to Z; includes Western Hemisphere usage.

1034 L._ - ' ._ _ _- '

Please Note: All book and index orders are mailed via the U.S. Postal Service with Delivery Co~tion. PLN does not ~e any responsibility to replace book or index orders once their delivery to the destination address (facility) is confirmed by the U.S. Postal Service.

Writing to WID:· The LegaI Writer, by Ste\'en D. Stark, Broadway Books/Random

House, 283 pages. $19.95. E.'-pL1irtsthe writing of effective complaints, I I

I

responses, briefS, motions and other legal papers.

1035 L._ - ' - ._ _- - ' .

Actual Innocence: WhenJustice Goes Wrong and How to Make it Right; updated

paperback ed., hy Barry Sclleck, Peter Neufeld and Jim Dwyer; 403 pages. $16.00.

Founders of d,e Innocence Project e.'-pbin how criminal defendants are wtongly con-

victed on a reguIar basis. &-phins DNA testing and how it works to free d,e innocent

Devastating critique of police and prosecutorial misconduct and the I I

I

system timt ensure., SUcll abuses continue.

1030 oJ. L._ - ' - ._ _ _

Rogel's Thesaurus, 717 pages. $8.95. Helps you find the right word for what

you want to say. 11,000 \vords listed alphabetically with over 200,000 synonyms

and antonyms. Sample sentences and parts of speech shown for every main

word. Covers all levels of vocabulary and identifies infonnal I I

I

and slang words.

1045 L._ - ' - ._ _ _-'.

Webster's English Dictionary, Newly re\~sed and updated, Random House.

$8.95. 75,000+ entries. Iricludes tips on writing and word usage, and has up-

dated geographical and biographical entries. Includes recent I I

I

business and computer tenns.

. 1033..

.

Capital Crimes, by George Winslow, Monthly Review, 360 pages. $19.00.

Explains how economic policies create and foster ctime, and '

how corporate & government crime is rarely punished. 1024 '---'-------'

With Liberty for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America, by Scott

Christianson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages. $18.95. The best

overall history of the American prison system from 1492 through the 20th

I Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how little

dUngs have changed as far as prisons go in the U.S. over

1

1

hundreds of years.

1026..

.

Ten Men Dead: The story of the 1981 Irish hnnger strike, by Da\~d Beres-

ford, Adantic Monthly Press, 334 pages. $16.95. Inside story of I I

I

IRA prisoners at Belfast's Long Kesh prison.

1006 . .

.

Finding the Right Lawyer, by Jay Foonberg, ABA, 256 pages. $19.95. Ex-

plains how: to detennine your legal needs, how to evaluate a '

lawyer's qualifications, fee payments, and more.

1015

Seize the Day! 7 Steps to Achieving the Extraordinary in an Ordinary

World, by Danny Cox and John Hoover, 256 pages. $15.99. PrO\~des 7 steps

to changing your e.xpectations and em~sioning yourself as being a successful

and respected person-whicll is essential to changing d,e I I

course of one's life.

1052

.

'----'----'

Women Behind Bars, The Ctisis of Women in the U.S. Prison System, by

I Silja J.A. Tal\~, Seal Press, 295 pages. $15.95. Best book available d,at covers
issues related to imprisoned women, based on interviews with

hundreds of women behind bars.

1066 L._ - ' -_ _ _- '

10 Insider Secrets to a Winning Job Search, by Todd Bennont, 216 pages.

$15.99. Roadmap on how to get a job even under adverse circumstances-like

being an ex-con. Includes how to develop a \vinning atritude, write attention-

grabbing resumes, prepare for inten~ews, networking, how to I I

I

present your strengths to an employer, and much more! 1056..

.

The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, 2003

Ed. by Alfred McCoy, 734 pages. $34.95. Documented expose I I

I

of d,e government's involvement in drug trafficking.

1014 L._ - ' - ._ _ _- ' .

Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis, by Olristian Parenti,

290 pages.. $19:00. Analyzes d,e war on d,e poor \<ia d,e crimil",1 justice system Well

dOCUfi1ented and includes first-hand reporting. Covers prisons, para-I

military policing, SWAT tean1S and d,e INS.

1002 L._ - ' -_ _-'

Hepatiris and Liver Disease: What You Need to Know, by Melissa Palmer, lvlD,

I 457 pages. $17.95. Desctibes symptoms & treatments of hepatitis B & C and other
liver diseases. Includes medications to avoid, wlmt diet to follow, 1 1

exercises to perform, and a bibliography.

. 1031

Ctin1e and Punishment In Ametica, by Elliott Currie, 230 pages. $16.95. Effective

I I I rebuttal to right-wing proponents of prison building. Fact-based mgument shows that
crime is driven by poverty. Debunks prison myths and discusses

proven, effective means ofcrime prevention.

1019

Prison Madr1ess: The Mental Health Ctisis Behind Bars and What We

Must Do About It, by Terry Kupers,Jossey-Bass, 245 pages. Hardback only,

prisoners please include any reqnired authorization form. $32.95. Psycl1ia-
I I trist writes about the mental health crisis in U.S. prisons and jails. Covers all
aspects of mental illness, prison rape, negative effects of long-I

term isolation in control units, and more.

1003

Prison Writing in 20th Century America, by H. Bruce Franklin, Penguin

Books, 368 pages. $16.00. From Jack London to George Jackson, dus

antilOlogy pro\~des a selection of some of ti,e best writing I I

i T I describing life behind bars in America.

1022 '---'--_......l

Soledad Brother: The Ptison Letters of George Jackson, by GeorgeJackson, Lawrence Hill Books, 339 pages. $18.95. Lucid CJo.-pianation of ,e litiCS of

prison by a well-known prison acti\~st More relevant now d,an

when it first appeared 40 years ago.

1016

Marijuana Law, by Richard Boire, Ronin, 271 pages. $17.95. E.",'lll1ines how to

reduce d,e probability ofarrest and prosecution for people accused of d,e use, sale or

possession of marijuana. Info on legal defenses, scarro & seizures, I I

I

surveillance, asset forfeiture and drug testing.

1008 L._ - ' ._ _--'.

Worse Than Slavery: Parchman Farm and the Ordeal ofJim Crow Justice, by

David Osbinsh"y, 306 pages. $16.00. Analysis of prison labor's roots in shvery.

Focuses on prison pbntations and self-sustaining prisons d,at use I I

I

prison bbor.

1007..

.

No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the Ametican Criminal Justice

System, by David Cole, TI,e New Press, 218 pages. $19.95. E.'-plains how the

ctinUnai justice system perpetu.~tes race and class inequality, 1 I

I

creating a two-tiered system of justice.

1028 .L ._ - ' ._ _--'.

The Prison and the Gallows: The Politics of Mass Incarceration iIi

America, by Marie GOttScilalk, Cambridge University Press, 451 pages.

$29.99. Great political analysis of the confluence of events I

I

leading to 2.3 million people bellind bars in the U.S. 1069.

.

The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, by Brandon

Sample, PLN Publishing, 200 pages. $49.95. This is PLN's second published

book, which exclusively covers ineffective assistance of counsel-related

issues in federal habeas petitions. Great resource for habeas I I

I

litigation, and contains hundreds of case cites!

1078..

.

Factor 8 (DVD), a film by Kelly Duda, Concrete Films. $21.95. Movie

about d,e Arkansas prison blood scandal, in whicll prison officials sold

infected blood harvested from prisoners. Note: This is a I

DVD and cannot be shipped to prison.

1076 L._ - L_ _-'

PLN Cumulative Index. $22.50 each. PLN Arricle Indexes prO\~de detailed infonnation about all PLN articles, including tide, author, issue, page number, topics covered, citations, and if it is state, BOP or jail specific. Can be searched on over 500 subjects such as medical neglect or se.,"Uai assault. Circle d,e index(es) you are orderir)g: 1990-1995, 1996-1998, 1999-1 2001, 2002-2004. (more recent indexes not yet available)

All books are soft cover except Prison Madness

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 29 of 65 PageP5L0NCOL-00088

Order Form
All purchases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new stamps (strips or books) or pre-stamped envelopes.

Books (3 & 4yr Subscription Specials: CIRCLE
one book QI bonus issues, and DO NOT add S/H)
Protecting Your Health and Safety
m: 4 Bonus Issues (3-yr subscription offer)

$Amt.
Free

Prison Profiteers m: With Liberty for Some

m: 6 Bonus Issues (4-yr subscription offer)

Free

Book Total (inc. all books bought separately)

Add 6% sales tax for Vermont residents ouly

ADD $6.00 SIR to book orders UNDER $50

PLN Subscriptions
6-month Subscription (Prisoners ouly) 1 yr Subscription (12 issues) 2 yr Subscription (24 plus 2 Bonus issues) 3 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above QI 4 Bonus issues) 4 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above QI 6 Bonus issues) Sample Issue - $3.50 each
TOTAL Amount Enclosed:

Send to:
Name:
DOC#: Agency/lnst: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Address: City/State/Zip: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

MAIL PAY]HENT AND TillS FORM TO:
I i
Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303

Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

PLN Subscription Rates

Subscription Rates
Prisoners *

1yr 2 yrs 3 yrs 4yrs $24 $ 48 $ 72 $ 96

Individuals

$30 $ 60 $ 90 $120

Professionals

$80 $160 $240

(Lawyers, govt. & professional agencies, libraries, etc.)

Sample issue for 'anyone - $3.50 each*

$320

Six-month prisoner subscriptIon for $12*
* Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books ouly) or pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed byprison policies.

:- - - - - - - - -S~s-c;ip;i~; B~;'~;;s! - - - - - - - --
1
1 2 years - 2 bonus issues, for 26 monthly issues total. : 3 years - 4 bonus issues (40 total) OR Protecting Your Health and I Safety (see book descriptiou on the other side of this brochure). : 4 years - 6 bonus issues (54 total) OR your choice of With Libertyfor
!..~,:;e_~~n:o~ ~r.3fi~e~:5~~d.:':nf~o~..?~ ~~o~h~r~i~e~ _____I

New 3 or 4-Year Subscription Book Offers!

Subscribe or renew for three years at the regular price
($72 for prisoners & $90 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Protecting Your Health and Safety or
four bonus issues of PLN! (40 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.
Subscribe or renew for four years at the l·egular price ($96 for prisoners & $120 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Prison Profiteers or With Liberty for Some, or 6 bonus issues of PLN! (54 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.

NO shipping charge for subscription bonus books!
NOTE: If you want the bonus issues of PLN instead of the free book offer, please indicate that on the Order Form.

:- ------Co~;a~;U; £0; PLN;"s-io:'kiis~!- - - - - - ~

1

I

I You can buy dozens of legal, social commentary, self-I

1 help books, and legal and regular dictionaries. directly:
1
1from PLN's book store! Ask us for a book list, or view:

: our selection online at:

I

I

www.prisoniegaInews.org/store.aspx

:

1______ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

AIl subscription rates & bonus offers are effective as of5-1-10
and valid through 12-31-10
* No l'efunds after ordel'S have been placed *

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
Eastern State Penitential'Y 1829-1971
Charles Dickens visited Philadelphia's Eastern State Penitentiary in 1842 and he later wrote: "The System is rigid, strict and hopeless ... and I believe it to be crnel and wrong....I hold this slow and daily tampering "with the mysteries of the brain to be immeasurably worse than any torture of the body." The prison remained open for 129 years after Dickens condemned it as being barbaric, and some of its inhumane practices continue to be used in prisons nationwide.
P.O. Box 2420, BI'attieboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.prisonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 30 of 65 PageP5L1NCOL-00089

n r:
P rison Legal News is an independent, non-profit 56-page monthly publication that reports, reviews and analyzes court rulings and news related to
prisoners' rights and prison issues. PLN has a national
(U.S.) focus on state, federal and private prison issues, with some international coverage 'as well.
PLN's many thousands of subscribers and readers include civil and criminal trial and appellate attorneys, judges, public defenders, journalists, academics, paralegals, prisoners' rights activists, students, family members of prisonel's, concerned individuals, politicians, other government officials, and numerous local, state and federal prisoners nationwide. PLN is a vital link f~r prisoners who othel'wise don't have access t6 current legal and prison-related news and information.
~'Invaluable resource for anyone wanting 'user friendly' information about current legal developments affecting
prisoners in the United States." ..,. Human Rights Watch, a long-time PLN subscriber
P LN's coverage of prison issues includes medical neglect, disciplinary hearings, nutrition, living conditions, excessive force, court access, censorship, jail litigation, visiting, telephones, religious freedom, free speech; prison rape, mental health, attorney/ client access, sexual abuse of women prisoners, re-
taliation, the PLRA, HIV and hep C, control units,
the death penalty, attorney fees and much J::Iiore:
PLN Subscription Rates Prisoners: $12 for 6 months, $24 per year * Non-incarcerated individuals: $30 per year Law firms, govt. agencies and libraries: $80 pel' year Sample issue for anyone: $3.50 each*
* Prisoners can pay with new stamps or pre-stamped envelopes

E ach monthly issue of PLN includes three different types of reporting: , • A cover story on a prison-related issue. , • Reports OIl individual and class-action prison and jail-
rela_ted lawsuits when they are filed, when a judgment is entered or the case settles, and when an appellate court decision is issued. We also have prison-related news articles. _ • A "News In Brief' section that summarizes interesting news stories across the U.S. and internationally.
Each issue of PLN also ,contains numerous advertisements from businesses that provide prison-related -personal and legal services and -books. 'PLN further sells dozens of selfhelp, social commentary and legal books.
PLN also has cumulative subject and case cite indexes for all PLNissues from 1990 through 2004,. Write for info.
[SF~i~13~yeal' Suh~~l'iption Off~l'!

Free with a 3-year PLN subscl"iption! Four bonus issues of PLN (40 issues total) ill:-a fi'ee book, Protecting Your Health and Safety! Circle your bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (3-year subscription rates: prisoners $72, individuals $90, P!ofessionals $24,0).

Protecting Your Health and Safety; by "'6-----1
Robert E. Toone. Published by the Southern Poverty Law Center, 325 page~ (2009).
$10.00 (free with a 3-yeru: sub!). This book

explains some basic rights that prisoners have in a jailor prison ill the U.S. It deals
mainly with rights related to health and II

I ,.,~----

safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by prison: officials; it also explains how you can enforce your rights to health and safety within ,the facility and, if nec~ essary, in court through litigation. Buy separately: ___

·1------------------------------------------,
: You Can Buy These Books Sepamtely! '

"

,

If you don't want to purchase a 3 or 4,-year subscription

to PLN, you can still purchase any of the bonus books

at the regular price. Just indicate which books you want

to buy on this page, then enter the total cost on the other

side of this brochure on the "Book Total" line of the Or-

der Form. Shipping is $6 per order (not per book), and we

offer FREE shipping on book orders of $50 or more! To :

place a phone order, please call 802-257-1342. We also:

accept book orders online; at www.prisonlegalnews.org. :
________________________________.__________ J

D onations: PLN is a project of the non-profit Human Rights Defense Center. Your tax-deductible donations support our advocacy, free speech and First AIilendment litigation efforts on behalf of prisoners and publishers. PLN not only provides uncensored prison-related news, but actively contests prison, censorship that interferes with the delivery of our publication or any other PLN materials sent to prisoners. All donations further our goal of advocating for people imprisoned in U.S. detention facilities.
"Great source of information, especially in states such as Arizona where the law libraries have been taken from the inmates and replaced with paralegals." - SB, Arizona prisoner
Special 4-year Subscription Offer!
Free with a 4,-year PLN subscription! Six bonus issues of PLN (54 issues total) or one free book, With Liberty for Some ill: Prison Profiteers! Circle your bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (4-year subscription rates: prisoners $96, individuals $120, professionals $320). Note: Free book option is for one booll:.
With Liberty for Some: 500 Years ofl"'i~;;r_~i"er.i",-J Imprisonment in America, by Scott Christianson, Northeastern _ University Press, 372 pages (1998). $18.95 (free with a 4-year sub!). A classic book and the best overall history of the American prison system from 1492 to the 20th Century. Well written and fact fIlled. A must-read for understanding how little things have changed as far as prisons go in the U.S. over hundreds of years. Buy separately: _'_ __
ill:
Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money from Mass Incarceration, edited by Paul Wright & Tara Herivel, New Press (2007). $24·.95 (free with a 4-year sub!). This is the third in a series of PLN anthologies that examines the reality of mass imprisonment in the U.S. Prison Profiteers is unique from other books on the market because it exposes and discusses who profits and benefits from mass imprisonment, rather than who is harmed by the prison industrial complex and our nation's re~iance on over-incarceration. Buy separately: _ __

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 31 of 65

T he Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel is the first in a

"

The Habeas Citebook is a

nifty and concise self-help

series of books by Prison Legal

guide for prisoners seeking

News Publishing designed to help

habeas relief based on claims of

pro-se prisoner litigants identify

ineffective assistance of counsel.

and raise viable claims for poten-

Navigating the complex and

tial habeas corpus relief. This

treacherous terrain of habeas

book is an invaluable resource

law is never easy; but claim-

that identifies hundreds of cases

ing that your lawyer screwed up

where the federal courts have

is even more difficult - espe-

granted habeas relief to prison-

cially from the confines of an

ers whose attorneys provided inef- demonstrate formatting and show ill-equipped prison law library.

fective assistance of counsel.

how to frame a winning argu-

"Brandon Sample has pro-

It will save litigants

ment that will persuade a court to grant habeas relief. The Habeas

vided an amazing and muchneeded tool for prisoners who

thousands ofhours of research and it focuses on the

Citebook explains the procedural and substantive complexities of federal habeas corpus litigation with the goal of identify-

are forced to seek relief on their own. The book is thorough; but simple and readable. It starts with a wonderfully well-orga-

WINNING cases criminal defendants need to
successfully challenge

ing and litigating claims involving ineffective assistance of counsel.
Brandon Sample is a successful jailhouse lawyer litigant incar-

nized listing of hundreds of different types of ineffective assistance of counsel, set forth in the form of citations to court rul-

their convictions.

cerated in the Bureau of Prisons. He is a Prison Legal News contrib-

ings - a novel approach that not only acts as a springboard

Well organized into 52 con-

uting writer and a member of the

for further research but also

cise chapters, this easy to use book National Lawyer's Guild. Editor

saves the prisoner countless

puts the law at the reader's fin-

Susan Schwartzkopf has a mas-

hours of preliminary research:'

gertips. The Appendix includes

ter's degree in education and is

pleadings and forms from suc-

the director and editor in chief of

PETER SCHMIDT

cessful habeas corpus cases that

Prison Legal News Publishing.
--------

Publisher, Punch & Jurists

THE HABEAS CITEBOOK: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

By Brandon Sample 8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed _______
By: 0 check 0 new postage stamps 0 credit card 0 money order I

ISBN 978-0-9819385-1-6
$49·95 3 or more copies ordered

Name

I

DOC/BOP Nuinber ___________________

at once $39.95 each

Institution/Agency ____________________

FREE Shipping 1& Handling Address__________________________________________

Order by mail, phone, or on-line. City __________________________ State

ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

PRISON lEGAL NEWS p.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

PageP5L2NCOL-00090

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 32 of 65

" - - - - - - - Copies of this very usable and useful gUide

should be available in every prison library-to

help incarcerated people give positive direc-

tion to their energies while making constructive

use of their time. It is a well-established fact that

people who have taken college courses in prison

have a dramatically reduced rate of recidivism."

-BeLL GALE CHEVIGNY, PEN Prison Writing Program,

~-----

Editor Doing Time: 25 Years ofPrison Writing. -----~

HIGH SCHOOL. VOCATIONAL • PARALEGAL. UNDERGRADUATE. GRADUATE COURSES

.II1IIl1li HE GREATLY anticipated and newly updated third edition of the Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the
United States and Canada has finally arrived! Author
Jon Marc Taylor's brand new version is the latest in this unique and highly successful gUidebook for the
prisoner-student. This invaluable tool and how-to handbook provides the reader with step-by-step instructions to find the appropriate educational program for high school, vocational, paralegal, undergraduate, and graduate courses offered in
the U.S. and Canada today.
Invaluable re-entry tool
It presents more than 160 program outlines and
offers an easy-to-use format for the student to
determine which program best suits their needs. It is ideal for the incarcerated student who does not have Internet access or the ability to attend education classes in person. This resource is indispensable

for the individual and beneficial for use in all prison libraries and education departments.
The Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook is the only book
on the market for the non-traditional prisoner-student. It includes detailed listings of the quality, cost, and course offerings for all correspondence programs available to prisoners. In a time when so many academic opportunities in prisons have been eliminated, this book is an invaluable re-entry tool for prisoners who seek to further their education while incarcerated and to help them prepare for life and work following their release.
Jon Marc Taylor has more than 25 years experi-
ence as an incarcerated student, advocate for prisoner education, and author. He has successfully earned a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and a doctorate via correspondence courses while incar-
cerated. Editor Susan Schwartzkopf has a master's
degree in education and 12 years experience teaching immigrants English language skills.

r~~----~---~~~--~--~-~

I PRISONERS' GUERRILLA HANDBOOK TO CORRESPONDENCE PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA

ByJon Marc Taylor PHD 8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages

Number of copies ordered ___ Amount enclosed _________
By: D check D new postage stamps D credit card D money order ~

ISBN 978-0-9819385-0-9
$49·95
3 or more copies ordered

i Name __________________________________________
DOC/BOP Number ________________________________

at once $39.95 each

Institution!Agency _________________________________

FREE Shipping & Handling Address____________-'---__________________________

I / Order bv mail/ phone/ or on-line. City __________________-'--______ State

ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

PfUSON lEGAL NEWS I p.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

PageP5L3NCOL-00091

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 33 of 65

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBIT E
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRlGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 54

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 34 of 65 PageP5L5NCOL-00327

6

/

Prison Legal News

P.O. Box 2420

West Brattleboro, VT - - ....l\.'l.

16'.3t4<~10(

8 G

**

INF"o

**

'. -.

< COl.,or., It>'"r 01 0

90 1 1=>0 al4 Co J41l., 000410

.•

ST'H ~T'4\{,,"

pIr;; " -'f.- .

;~ IN=S--?-E-C-T--E=D=B""Y.C=O=L=-U=i.~\";""-:";";.:"!~,-."_. ~:.<...I...:.:"'lNr.'.S,,r,"""O"'"b~I::GON 9"70S 1 RETURN TO SENDEH

PeRSON NOT HERE

Ir

CONTRABt,ND

.:,~~riif.~:::~.\~~:~r:J~:'; .j.~:'(,~)~,:t:~/~~'/~;;:~ "~:;;~,,i.:~~~;{!:::~~::::;~';:~~~~1g~':tJ, ;~!~"":r' ~i\~;1;·£.~\~~ "ji, I.t..
.': .3~i~~:!f· ·:~~;L~~~L.·, ~:~.t~~,~t:~l ',",1}~~1¥,,~ . ,:.;;",
------
--.,,"(
-----.

INTER-FACILITY
li!=-~~~~~"~~";;tf"--'m

l'UX:I:!i:

\~'('o

~:'C~;1.

~ .~ ,
('0 0"'" / ~~~/;1.;L

RETU~N TO SENDER NOT CELXVE~ABLE AS ADDRESSED
UNABLE TO FORWARD

Be: : (''').S::)O~:l~4~(:)~O

*~SS3-iOiSS-~O-41

0,530:3@?420 970.51 $:"=:O 1 f...?

111111111111111,11"",I)II,III,I"I"I,IIIII'l,l,llll,,1,1,,1

I

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 35 of 65 PageP5L6NCOL-00328

Order Form
All purchases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new stamps (strips or books) or pre-stamped envelopes.

Books (3 & 4yr Subscription Specials: CffiCLE
one book ill: bonus issues, and DO NOT add SfH)
Protecting Your Health and Safety ill: 4 Bonus Issues (3-yr subscription offer)

$Amt.
Free

Prison Profiteers or With Liberty for Some

or 6 Bonus Issues (4-yr subscription offer)

Free

Book Total (inc. all books bought separately)

Add 6% sales tax for Vermont residents only

ADD $6.00 SIB to book orders UNDER $50

PLN Subscriptions
6-month Subscription (Prisoners only) 1 yr Subscription (12 issues) 2 yr Subscription (24 plus 2 Bonus issues) 3 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above ill: 4 Bonus issues) 4 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above ill: 6 Bonus issues) Sample Issue - $3.50 each
TOTAL Amount Enclosed:

Send to:
Name: DOC#: Agency/lnst: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Address:
City/State/Zip: _ _ _ _~_ _ _ _ _ __
MAIL PAUIENT AND TillS FORM TO:
• i
Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303

Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802~257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

PLN Subscription Rates

Subscription Rates
Prisoners *

lyr 2 yrs 3 yrs 4Jrs $24 $ 48 $ 72 $ 96

Individuals

$30 $ 60 $ 90 $120

Professionals

$80 $160 $240 $320

(Lawyers, govt. & professional agencies, libraries, etc.)
Sample issue for anyone - $3.50 each*

Six-month prisoner subscription for $12*

* Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books only) or pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed byprison policies.

--------: :- - - - - - - - - S;ib;c~ip;i~; B-o~~;;S!

: 2 years - 2 bonus issues, for 26 monthly issues total.

:

: 3 years - 4· bonus issues (40 total) OR Protecting Your Health and I

I Safety (see book description on the other side of this brochure).

:

: 4 years - 6 bonus issues (54 total) OR your choice of With Libertyfor I
~S...?~e_~~n.::0~~rp~e~~(~e..d:s~!,~o~...?~~e..0:h:r~i~e~ _____:

New 3 or 4-Year Subscription Book Offers!

Subscribe or renew for three years at the regular price
($72 for prisoners & $90 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Protecting Your Health and Safety or
four bonus issues of PLN! (40 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.
Subscribe or renew for four years at the regular price ($96 for prisoners & $120 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Prison Profiteers or With Libertyfor Some, or 6 bonus issues of PLN! (54 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.

NO shipping charge for subscription bonus books!

NOTE: H you want the bonus issues of PLN instead of the free book offer, please indicate that on the Order Form.

:- - ---- u; -Co~;a~; io; 'PiN;-s-io~k iis~!- -- --- ~

I

I

I You can buy dozens of legal, social commentary, self- I

: help books, and legal and regular dictionaries directly:

: from PL~'s boo~\: store! Ask us for a book list, or view:

I our selectIOn online at:

I

I

www.prisonlegalnews.org/store.aspx

:

~-----------~---------------------

All subscription rat~ & bonus off~ are dIective asof 5-1-10
and valid through 12-31-10
* No refunds after orderS have been placed *

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
Eastern State Penitentiary 1829-1971
Charles Dickens visited Philadelphia's Eastern State Penitentiary in 1842 and he later wrote: "The System is rigid, strict and hopeless ... and I believe it to be cruel and wrong....1 hold this slow and daily tampering with the mysteries of the brain to be immeasurably worse than any torture of the body." The prison remained open for 129 years after Dickens condemned it as being barbaric, and some of its inhumane practices continue to be used in prisons nationwide.
P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.prisonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 36 of 65 PageP5L7NCOL-00329

'; DU Ii/!l' IIi I:
~ fj
u
P rison Legal News is an independent, non-profit 56-page monthly publication that reports, reviews and analyzes court rulings and news related to
prisoners'l'ights aiidprison issues. PLN has a national
(V.S.) focus on state, federal and private prison issues, with some international coverage as well.
PLN's many thousands of subscribers and readers include civil and criminal trial and appellate attorneys, judges, public defenders, journalists, academics, paralegals, pl'isoners' rights activists, students, family members of prisoners, concerned individuals, politicians, other government 'officials, and numerous,local, state and federal prisoners nationwide. -
PLN is a vitallinlc for prisoners who otherwise don't have access to CUl'l'ent legal and prison-related news and information.
"Invahiableresource for anyone wanting 'user friendly' inforlnation about current legal developments affecting
-prisoners in the United States."
- Human Rights Watch" a long-time PLN subscriber
P LN's coverage of prison issues includes medical neglect, disciplinal'y hearings, nutrition, living conditions, excessive fo:rce, court access, censorship, jail litigation, visiting, telephones, religious freedom, free speech, prison rape, mental health, attorney/ client a~cess, sexual abuse of women prisoners, l'etaliation, the PLRA, HIV and hep C, control units, the death penalty, attorney fees and much more.
PLN Snbscl;iption Rates
Prisoners: $12 for 6 months, $24 per year *
Non"incarcerated individuals: $30 per yeal' Law firms, govt. agencief'; andlibl'aries: $80 pel' year
Sample issue for anYOl~e: $3.50 each* * Prisoners can pay with new,stamps or pre-stamped envelopes

E ach monthly -issue- of PLN includes three different

types ofreporting:

,

• A cover story on a prison-related issue.

• Reports OIl individual and class-action prison and jailrelated lawsuits when they are filed, when a judgment is entered or the case settles, and when an appellate court decision is issued. We also have prison-related news articles.

• A "News In Brief" section that summarizes interesting news stories across the U.S. and internationally.

Each issue of PLN also -contains numerous advertisements from businesses that provide prison-related personal- and legal services and books. PLN ,further sells dozens of selfhelp, social commentary and legal books. '

PLN also has cumulative subject and case cite indexes for all PLN issues from 1990 through 2004. Write for info.

[S;eciaI3.;eru. S1l1Jscrip~ion Offer! ,I

Free, with a 3-year PLN subscription! Four bonus issues of PLN (40 issues total) or a free book, Protecting Your Health and Safety! Circle your bonus choice on the form .on the other side of this brochure (3-year subscription rates: prisoners $72, individuals $90, professionals $240).

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by 110'"4---;---:--1

Robert E. Toone. Published by the South-

ern Poverty Law' Center, 325 pa'ges (2009).

$10.00 (free with a 3-yeru.· sub!). This book

explains some basic rights that -prisoners
have in a jailor prison in the U~S. It deals Ii

I ,.,@----

mainly with rights related to health and l' - -. -'----1,

safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by

prison officials; it also explains how you can enforce your

rights to health and safety within the facility and, if ilec-

essary, in court through litigation. Buy separately: ___

------------------------~-~---------------,

You Can Buy These Books Sepru'ately! :

I

,

I

If you don't want to purchase a 3 or 4,-year 'subscription:

to PLN, you can still pm'chase any of the bonus books:

at the regular price. Just indicate which books you want:

to buy on this page, then enter,the total cost on the other:

side of this brochure on the "Book Total" line of the 01'- : : del' Form. Shipping is $6 per ~rde~ (not per'book), and we :

: offer FREE shipping on book orders of $5001' more! To :

: place a phone order, please call 802-257-134,2. We also:

: accept book orders online, at www.prisonlegalllews.org. :
L _________________________________________ J

-D onatiolls: PLN is a project -of tIle non-profit Human Rights Defense Center. Your tax-deductible donations support our advocacy, free speech and First .Amendment litigation efforts on behalf of prisoners and publishers. PLN not only provides uncensored prison-related news, but actively contests prison censorship that interferes with the delivery of our publication or ally other PLN materials sent to prisoners. All donations further our goal of advocating for people imprisoned in U.S. detention facilities.
"Great source of information, especially in states such as Arizona where the law libraries have been taken from the inmates and replaced with paralegals," - SB, AriZona prisoner
Special 4-year Subscription Offer!
Free with a 4-year PLN subscription! Six honns issues of PLN (54, issues total) or one u'ee book, With Liberty for Some or Prison Profiteers! Circle your bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (4.-year subscription rates: prisoners $96, individuals $120, professionals $320). Note: Free book option is for one book.
With Liberty for Some: 500 Years Imprisonment in America, by Scott Christianson, Northeastern Univerllity Press, 372 pages (1998). $18.95 (u'eewith a 4-year sub!). A classic book and the best overall history of the American prison system from 1492 to the 20th Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how little things have changed as far as prisons go in the U.S. over hundreds of years. Buy separately: ___
or
Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money Mass Incarceration, edited by Paul
Wright & Tara Herivel, New Press (2007). $24.95 (u'ee with a 4-year sub!). This is the third in a series of PLN anthologies that examines the reality of mass imprisonment in the U.S. Prison Profiteers is unique from other books on the market because it exposes 'discusses who profits· and benefits from mass -imprisonment, rather than who is harmed by the prison industrial complex and our nation's reliance on over-incarceration. Buy separately: _ __

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 37 of 65 PageP5L8NCOL-00330

Order Form
All purchases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books, no singles) or
pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed by prison policies.

Book Title / Number

Qty Total Cost

(attach another page if you are ordering more books)
Subtotal: Add 6% sales tax for VT residents only: Add $6.00 SIH to orders UNDER $50: Total Ol'der Amount:
Send to:
Name: DOC#: Agency/lnst: Address: City/State/Zip:
MAIL PAYl\lENT AND TillS FORM TO: Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303
Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

FREE SIDPPING
On hook and index orders OVER $50.00! A $6 shipping charge applies to all other hook and index onlet'S.
(Free shipping policy in elIcct from Jan 1, ::lOlO until further notice)

More Books for Sale!

Prisoners' Self-Help Litigation Manual, updated 4th ed. (2010), by John

Boston and Daniel Manville, Oxford Univ. Press, 1500 pages. $39.95. The
I I I premiere, must-have "Bible" of prison litigation for current and aspiring jail-
house lawyers. If you plan to litigate a prison or jail civil suit,

this book is a must-have.

1077

Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the U.S.

and Canada, updated 3rd ed. by Jon Marc Taylor, Ph.D. and edited by Susan

Schwartzkopf, published by PLN, 221 pages. $49.95. Written by l'vIissouri

prisoner Jon Marc Taylor, who obtained a B.S. degree, an M.A. degree and a

Doctorate, dle Gl/erril/a Hal/dbook contains contact information and descrip-

I I tions of high schoo~ vocational, paralegal and college courses available
through correspondence study. Great resource for prisoners

who want to furdler their education.

1057 '----'-----'

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by Robert E. Toone, Soudlern Poverty

Law Center, 325 pages. $10.00. TIus book explains basic rights that prisoners

have in a jailor prison in dle U.S. It deals mainly widl rights related to healdl

I I I and safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by prison officials; it also
explains how you can enforce your rights widun dle facility

and, if necessary, in court through litigation.

1060 ..J. L._ - ' - ._ _ _

Starting Out! The Complete Re-Entry Handbook, edited by William H.

Foster, Ph.D. & Carl E. Horn, Ph.D., Starring Out Inc., 446 pages. $22.95.

Complete do-it-yourself re-entry manual and workbook for prisoners who

want to develop dleir own re-entry plan to increase dleir chances of success

I I after they are released. Includes a wide variety of resources, including a user
~ode to dle Starring Out website that can be accessed fOllOW-I

mgrelease.

1074 L._-1.._ _ _..J.

Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners v. the U.S.A, by

Mumia Abu ]am~ City Lights Publishers, 280 pages. $16.95. In Jar/bollse U'P-

yers, Prison Legal News columnist, award-winning journalist and death-row

prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal presents the stories and reflections of fellow pris-
I I oners-rurned-advocates who have learned to use the court system to represent
od1er prisoners, and in some cases have won their freedom.

Must-read for jailhouse lawyers!

1073 ..J L._ - ' - ._ _ _

How to Win Your Personal Injury Claim, by Atty. Joseph Mawlews, 7dl

edition, NOLO Press, 304 pages. $34.99. \'(1hile not specifically for prison-

related personal injury cases, this book provides comprehensive information

on how to handle personal injury and property damage claims arising from

~ccidents - including dealing widl doctors, attorneys and 1 1

1

msurance comparues.

1075 . .

.

All prices are effective as of9-15-10 (Plices subject to change without notice)
* No l'efunds after Ol,del's have been placed *

..., ..A: ~ ";",:, ·,'Fl·~ /:~\t::
PRISON.;fEGAl NEWS .'"r"
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
2010 PLN BOOK LIST
Prices Subject to Change Without Notice
Graphic from: Books 2 Prisoners, Vancouver, Be
P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.prisonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 38 of 65 PageP5L9NCOL-00331

Check the box of the books you.want to buy and use the Order FOnTI on the other side of this brochure to add up the cost of your order. FREE SBJPPING for book and index orders OVER $50. There is a $6 shipping charge for all other book and index orders.

Prison Profiteers, edited by Paul Wright and Tam Herivel, 323 pages. $24.95. TIus is d,e dlird and latest book in a series ~fPrison I..eg.U News and1010gies dmt examines d,e reality of

mass in1prisonment in America. (il1e oilier tides are The Cellillg rjAJ/leTira & PrisOIl Natioll,

I I I see below). PrisOIlProjleers is unique from od1er books beclUse it ""poses and discusses
who profits and benefits from mass in1prisonment, rnd,er ilian who is

ham1ed by it and how.

1063 L._ - ' _ ' - - - _ - ' _

I I I Prison Nation: The Warehousing of America's Poor, edited by Tam Herivel and Paul
Wright, 332 pages. $35.95. PIN aniliology ""-poses d,e d-u:k side ofilie

1ock-em-up' political agenda and legal climate in ilie U.s.

1041 . _

_

The Celling of America, edited by Daniel Burton Rose, Dan Pens and Paul Wright, 264

pages. $22.95. PIN aniliology presents a detniled ''inside'' look at d,e I I

I

workings ofti1e American criminal justice system.

1001 _ _

_

Everyday Letters for Busy People, by Debra Hart May, 287 pages. $18.99.

Hundreds of sample letters that can be adapted for most any purpose, including

letters to government agencies and officials. Has numerous I

tips for writing effective letters.

1048 L_ _---'_ _- '

The Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System, by

Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sam]. Berman-Barrett, Nolo Press, 608 pages. $39.99.

E..-.p1ains what happens in a ctiminaI case from being arrested to sentencing, and what

your rights are at eacl1 stage of the process. Uses an easy to under-I

stand question-and-answer fornmt

1038

L ._ - - - '_ _ _- '

Represent Yourself in Court: How to Prepare & Try a Winning Case, by

Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sam ]. Berman-Barrett, Nolo Press, 528 pages. $39.99.

I Breaks down the civil trial process in easy-to-understand steps so you can effectively
represent yourself in court The aud10rs e..-.plain what to say in

court, how to say it, etc.

1037 L_ _--'-_ _ _-'

Law Dictionary, lhndom House Webster's, 525 pages. $19.95. Comprehensive un-

to-date law dictionary e..-.pL-ilns more d,an 8,500 legal terms.'

,

Covers civil, criminal, commercial & international law.

1036 L!_ _' - -_ _- '

I I I The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, by Jane Straus, 110 pages.
$14.95. A guide to grammar and punctuation by an educator

wid1 e"-perience teaching English to prisoners.

1046

Legal Research: How to Find and Understand the Law, by Stephen Elias and

I I I Susan Levinkind, 568 pages. $49.99. Comprehensive and easy to understand guide
on researcl1ing the law. E..-.plains case law, statutes and digests,

and mucl1 more. Includes practice e.,ercises.

1059 L_ _----'_ - _ _ _---'.

I Deposition Handbook, hy Paul Bergman and Albert Moore, Nolo Press, 352

pages. $34.99. How-to handbook for anyone who conducts a

I

I

deposition or is going to be deposed.

.

1054 L._----'_ - _ _ _---'.

I I Spanish-English/English-Spanish Dictionary, Ibndom House. $8.95. Two
sections, Spanish-English and English-Spanish. 60,000+ entries

from A to Z; includes Western Hemisphere usage.

1034 L_ _--'_ _ _ _---'

Please Note: All book and index orders ru:e mailed via the U.S. Postal Service with Delivery Confun:mtion~PLNdoes not assume any responsibility to replace book or index orders once their delivery to the destination address (facility) is confirmed bythe U.S. Postal Service.

Writing to· Win: The Legal Writer, by Steven D. Stark, Broad\\",y Books/R.-mdom

House, 283 pages. $19.95. fu-plains rl,e wtiting of effective compL1ints, I I

I

responses, briefu, motions and oilier legal papers.

1035 L_ _- '_ - _ _----'_

Actual Innocence: WhenJustice Goes Wrong and How to Maire it Right, updated

paperback ed., by Barry Scheck, Peter Neufeld and Jin1 Dwyer; 403 pages. $16.00.

Founders of d,e Innocence Project ",,-pL-iln how criminal defendants are wrongly con-

victed on a regular basis. E..-.plains DNA testing and how it works to free rl,e innocent

Devastating critique of police and prosecutorbl misconduct and rl,e I I

I

system rl,at ensures sueh abuses continue.

1030 L_ _----_ '- _ _ _-'_

Roger's Thesaurus, 717 pages. $8.95. Helps you find d,e right word for what

you want to say. 11,000 words listed alphabetically wid1 over 200,000 synonyms

I I I and antonyms. Sample sentences and parts of speech shown for every main
word. Covers all levels of vocabulary and identifies informal

and slang words.

1045 L_ _-'-_ - _ _--'.

Webster's English Dictionary, Newly re\~sed and updated, R.-mdom House.

I I $8.95. 75,000+ entries. Includes tips On writing and word usage, and has up-

dated geographical and biographical entries. Includes recent

I

business and computer terms.

1033 _ _

.

I I I Capital Crimes, by George Winslow, Monthly Review, 360 pages. $19.00.
Explains how economic policies create and foster crime, and how corporate & government crime is rarely punished. 1024

With Liberty for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America, by Scott

Christianson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages. $18.95. The best

overall history of d,e American prison system from 1492 through the 20th

I ' , Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how lirde
dUngs have changed as far as prisons go in d,e U.S. over

hundreds of years.

1026 _ _

_

I I Ten Men Dead: The story of the 1981 Irish hunger strike, by Da\~d Beres-

ford, Atlanric Montluy Press, 334 pages. $16.95. Inside story of

I

IRA prisoners at Belfast's Long Kesh prison.

1006 _ .

_

I I I Finding the Right Lawyer, by Jay Foonberg, ABA, 256 pages. $19.95. Ex-
plains how to detern"line your legal needs, how to evaluate a

lawyer's qualifications, fee payments, and more.

1015 _ .

_

Seize the Day! 7 Steps to Achieving the Extraordinary in an Ordinary

World, by DarU1Y Cox and John Hoover, 256 pages. $15.99. PrO\~des 7 steps

I I I to changing your e"-pectations and efi\~sioning yourself as being a successful
and respected person-which is essential to changing tl,e

course of one's life.

1052

Women Behind Bars, The Crisis of Women in the U.S. Prison System, by

I Silja J.A. TaI\~, Seal Press, 295 pages. $15.95. Best book available that covers
issues related to imprisoned women, based on interviews with

hundreds of women belUnd bars.

1066 L_ _..L_ _- '

10 Insider Secrets to a Winning Job Search, by Todd Bermont, 216 pages.

$15.99. Roadmap on how to get a job even under adverse circumstances-like

being an e.x-con. Includes how to deVelop a winning attitude, write attention-

grabbing resumes, prepare for inten~ews, networking, how to I I

I

present your strengcl1s to an employer, and much more! 1056 _ _

_

The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, 2003

Ed. by Alfred McCoy, 734 pages. $34.95. Documented expose I I

I

of d,e government's involvement in drug trafficking.

1014 L_ _---'_ - _ _ _..J.

Lockdown Ametica: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis, by Christian Parenti,

290 pages. $19.00. Analyzes the war on the poor vi, the criminal justice system. Well

documented and includes first-hand reponing. Covers prisons, pam-,

military policing, SWAT teams and tl,e INS.

1002 L_ _- ' -_ _-'

Hepatiris and Liver Disease: What You Need to Know, by Melissa Palmer, l'vID,

I 457 pages. $17.95. Describes symptoms & treatments of hepatitis B & C and other

liver diseases. Includes medications no avoid, what diet to follow, I

I

e.,ercises to perfOIlTI, and a bibliography.

1031 _ .

.

Crime and Punishment In America, by Elliott Cuttie, 230 pages. $16.95. Effu:tive

rebuttal to right-wing proponents of prison buildiog. Fact-based argument shows that

crime is driven by poverty. Debuoks prison myths and discusses"

,

proven, effective means ofcrime prevention.

1019 _ .

.

Prison Madness: The Mental Health Crisis Behind Bars and What We

Must Do About It, by Terry Kupers, Jossey-Bass, 245 pages. Hardback only,

prisoners please include any required authorization fonn $32.95. Psyclua-

trist writes about d,e mental health crisis in U.S. prisons and jails. Covers all

aspects of mental illness, prison rape, negative effects of long-I I

I

term isolation in control units, and more.

1003 _ _

.

Prison Writing in 20th Century America, by H. Bruce Franklin, Pengr1in

I I Books, 368 pages. $16.00. From Jack London to George Jackson, tlus
antl1010gy provides a selection of some of d,e best writing

describing life bel1ind bars in America.

1022 1_ .. _-'_ _ _- - '

I Soledad Brother: The Prison Letters of George Jackson, by George Jackson,
Lawrence Hill Books, 339 pages. $18.95. Lucid ""-planation of ('e JOlitiCS of

prison by a well-known prison activist More relevant now than

when it first appeared 40 years ago.

1016

Marijuana Law, by Ricl1ard Boire, Ronin, 271 pages. $17.95. E.x.'UTIines how to

reduce tI,e probability of arrest and prosecution for people accused of rl,e use, sale or

possession of marijuana. Infu on legal defenses, searcl1 & seizures, I I

I

surveillance, asset forfeiture and drug testing.

1008 L _ _ ...1._ _--...l.

Worse Than Slavery: Parchman Fann and the Ordeal ofJirn CrowJustice, by

I I I Da\~d Osl1insky, 306 pages. $16.00. Analysis of prison labor's roots in slavery.
Focuses on prison pL-mtations and self-sustaining prisons timt use

prison labor.

1007 _ _

_

No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the American Criminal Justice

I I I System, by Da\~d Cole, TI,e New Press, 218 pages. $19•.95. fu-plains how the
ccin1inal justice system perpetuates race and cbss inequality,

creating a two-tiered system of justice.

.

1028 L_ _-'_ _ _-'_

The Prison and the Gallows: The Politics of Mass Incarceration in

America, by Marie Gottschalk, Cambridge University Press, 451 pages.

$29.99. Great political analysis of d,e confluence of events I

I

leading to 2.3 million people belUnd bars in the U.S. 1069 ._... _..JL_ _-'_

The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, by Brandon

Sample, PLN Publishing, 200 pages. $49.95. This is PLN's second published

I I I book, wluch exclusively covers ineffective assistance of counsel-related
issues in federal habeas petitions. Great resource for habeas

litigation, and contains hundreds of case cites!

1078

Factor 8 (DVD), a film by Kelly Duda, Concrete Films. $21.95. MO\~e

I about d,e Arkansas prison blood scandal, in wluch prison officials sold
infected blood harvested from prisoners. Note: This is a

DVD and cannot be shipped to prison.

1076 1_ .. _-"-_ _---'

PLN Cumulative Index. $22.50 each. PLN Article Indexes provide detailed information about all PLN articles, including title, aud10r, issue, page number, topics covered, citations, and if it is state, BOP or jail specific. Can be searched on over 500 subjects such as medical neglect or se"'llal assault. Circle the index(es) you are ordering: 1990-1995, 1996-1998, 1999-1 2001, 2002-2004. (more recent indexes not yet available)

All books are soft cover except Prison Madness

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 39 of 65

T he Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel is the first in a series of books by Prison Legal News Publishing designed to help pro-se prisonerlitigants identify and raise viable claims forpotential habeas corpus relief. This book is an invaluable resource that identifies hundreds of cases where the federal courts have granted habeas relief to prisoners whose attorneys provided ineffective assistance of counsel.
It will save litigants thousands ofhours
of research and it focuses on the WINNING cases criminal defendants need to successfully challenge their convictions.
Well organized into 52 concise chapters, this easy to use book puts the law at the reader's fingertips. The Appendix includes pleadings and forms from successful habeas corpus cases that

"

The Habeas Citebook is a

nifty and concise self-help

guide for prisoners seeking

habeas rdiefbased on claims of

ineffective assistance of counsel.

Navigating the complex and

treacherous terrain of habeas

law is never easy; but claim-

ing that your lawyer screwed up

is even more difficult espe-

cially from the confines of an

demonstrate formatting and show ill-equipped prison law library.

how to frame a winning argu-

"Brandon Sample has pro-

ment that will persuade a court

vided an amazing and much-

to grant habeas relief. The Habeas

needed tool for prisoners who

Citebook explains the proce-

are forced to seek relief on their

dural and substantive complexi-

own. The book is thorough; but

ties of federal habeas corpus lit-

simple and readable. It starts

igation with the goal of identify-

with a wonderfully well-orga-

ing and litigating claims involving nized listing of hundreds of dif-

ineffective assistance of counsel.

ferent types of ineffective assis-

Brandon Sample is a success-

tance of counsel, set forth in the

ful jailhouse lawyer litigant incar-

form of citations to court rul-

cerated in the Bureau of Prisons.

ings - a novel approach that

He is a Prison Legal News contrib- not only acts as a springboard

uting writer and a member of the

for further research but also

National Lawyer's Guild. Editor

saves the prisoner countless

Susan Schwartzkopf has a mas-

hours of preliminary research:'

ter's degree in education and is

the director and editor in chief of

PETER SCHMIDT

Prison Legal News Publishing.

Publisher, Punch & Jurists

I

THE HABEAS CITEBOOK: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

By Brandon Sample

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed ______

I

8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages

I By: 0 check 0 new postage stamps 0 credit card 0 money order

I I

ISBN 978-0-9819385-1-6
$49·95 3 or more copies ordered

Name

I

DOC/BOP Number _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~_ _ _ _ _ _ __

at once $39.95 each

Institution/Agency _ _ _ _ _ _ _--:..._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

I FREE Shipping & Handling Address_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _--.:.._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

I Order by mail, phone, or on-line. City _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ State PUBLISHED BY

ZIP

PRISON LEGAL NEWS P.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

PageP6L0NCOL-00332

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 40 of 65
"----------, Copies of this very usable and useful gUide

should be available in every prison library-to

help incarcerated people give positive direc-

tion to their energies while making constructive

use of their time. It isa well-established fact that

people who have taken college courses in prison

have a dramatically reduced rate of recidivism."

-'-BELL GALE CHEVICNY, PEN Prison Writing Program,

~-~-

Editor Doing Time: 25 Years ofPrison Writing. ---~

HIGH SCHOOL • VOCATIONAL • PARALEGAL • UNDERGRADUATE. GRADUATE COURSES

."-HE GREATLY anticipated and newly updated
third edition of the Prisoners Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the United States and Canada has finally arrived! Author
Jon Marc Taylor's brand new version is the latest in this unique and highly successful gUidebook for the
prisoner-student. This invaluable tool and how-to handbook prOVides the reader with step-by-step instructions to find the appropriate educational program for high school, yocational, paralegal, undergraduate, arid graduate courses offered in
the U.S. and Canada today,
Invaluable re-entry tool
It presents m()re than 160 program outlines and
offers an easy-to-use format for the student to
determine which program best suits their needs. It is ideal for the incarcerated student who does not have Internet access or the ability to attend education classes in person. This resource is indispensable

for the individual and beneficial for use in all prison libraries and education departments.
The Prisoners Guerrilla Handbook is the only book
on the market for the non-traditional prisoner-student. It includes detailed listings of the quality, cost, and course offerings for all correspondence programs available to prisoners. In a time when so many academic opportunities in prisons have been eliminated, this book is an invaluable re-entry tool for prisoners who seek to further their education while incarcerated and to help them prepare for life and work following their release.
Jon Marc Taylor has more than 25 years experi-
ence as an incarcerated student, advocate for prisoner education, and author. He has successfully earned a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and a doctorate via correspondence courses while incar-
cerated. Editor Susan Schwartzkopf has a master's
degree in education and 12 years experience teaching immigrants English language skills.

PRISONERS' GUERRILLA HANDBOOK TO CORRESPONDENCE PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA m

ByJon Marc Taylor PHD 8.25/1 X10.75/1 • 224 pages

Number of copies ordered ___ Amount enclosed _ _ _ __
i By: 0 check 0 new postage stamps 0 credit card 0 money order

ISBN 978-0-9819385-0-9

Name _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

$49·95
3 or more copies ordered

DOC/BOP Number --'-_ _ _ _ _ _ _---'-_ _ _ _---'-_-'--__

at once $39-95 each

Institution/Agency _ _ _'--_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

FREE Shipping & Handling Address_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

I Order by mail/ phone/ or on-line. City _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _--,-_ State

ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

L I!lla!I

I PRISON LEGAL NEWS P.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 0530 3

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

PageP6L1NCOL-00333

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 41 of 65

9870.05 fa246305

EXHIBIT F
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 62

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 42 of 65 PageP6L3NCOL-00134

Prison Legal News
P.O. Box 2420 West Brattleboro, Vermont 05303

,··r-i "'>1'1", i""'1 'i -) ,!'f'" 'll' t, , •. -,
., '1'i .!,~

,
:

'

-'t.~.•••.~••.

- .•~
..,

-- ••• . ," •• -..•••.••_.,

<'j..

i'
t·

"'t.

,r..n~·

r. ",

•
Ii;
.

'~-.,;~.'•.t,,•~"I

,;~t:iY·I.-~T.I~f~!i':.'1'.l'·':ll.~;•";•I;~"~I,;~.'\:'."r.".."t.\,~~:>:-:,&•i'r•._;<•;•;•tf'

-::!wtw ,:.w ('~" ":-:;;:fT' '::'l'rn"J,
. ·.f.;;:' }. .":...:-:- ::/... '.. -_. -.

:r.~'n
,',:.'"

)"".j~'1w" ~'Yl.l\'t.~</~""\;,;i~!.,;~<<6!,~J:.,".:!.:,'.~~:iL

59576 ** EXPIRES: 7/201 1
NICHOLAS JONES 201001862 COLUMBIA CO JAIL 901 poRT AVE 5T HELENS. OREGON 97051
-----~
~:i70~~t~,~;~~34,~O

As of April 1, 2010 The ColUmbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS
TlJis applies to ALL incoming and out going mail

OLT. Bnf'iU Tn nrIl\U-,. .... _

N:J:X:CI:::

~ll'?') .SI::;;l,

OC;' O,2.1;1.0./:L;;l.

F~E:·n)f"N 1'0 SENx:n·:;\,
J:~J:.:F'use:o
UN,.')J;;sI...E 'r'c) F'Of"W~~r"O

5lC : o,:>~o:a~4~O.O;;:O

*o.e4-~7122-03-40

JJj""I, J",II, JI,""II),) J,j,lnJ)) J)jJJ))))) I) JjJ))) j) J)) I

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 43 of 65 PageP6L4NCOL-00135

Order Form
AIl purchases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new stamps (strips 01' books) 01' pre-stamped envelopes.

Books (3 & 4yr Subscription Specials: CIRCLE
one book ill: bonus issues, and DO NOT add SIH)
Protecting Your Health and Safety !!!: 4 Bonus Issues (3-yr subscription offer)

$Amt.
Free

Prison Profiteers or With Liberty for Some

!!!: 6 Bonus Issues (4.-yr subscription offer)

Free

Book Total (inc. all books bought separately)

Add 6% sales tax for Vermont residents only

ADD $6.00 SIR to book orders UNDER $50

PLN Subscriptions
6-month Subscription (Prisoners only) 1 yr Subscription (12 issues) 2 yr Subscription (24 plus 2 Bonus issues) 3 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above.Qr4 Bonus issues) 4 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above .Qr 6 Bonus issues) Sample Issue - $3.50 each
TOTAL Amount Enclosed:

Send to:
Name: DOC#: Agency/lnst: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Address: City/State/Zip: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

MAIL PAYMENT AND THIS FORM TO:
Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303

Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

PLN Subscription Rates

Subscription Rates 1yr 2 yrs 3 yrs 4yrs

Prisoners *

$24 $ 48 $ 72 $ 96

Individuals

$30 $ 60 $ 90 $120

Professionals

$80 $160 $240 $320

(Lawyers, govt. & professional agencies, libraries, etc.)

Sample issue for anyone - $3.50 each*

Six-month prisoner subscription for $12*
* Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books only) or pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed ry prison policies.

:- - - - - - - - - S~s-c;ipti~; B-o~~;;s! - - - - - - - --
1
1 2 years - 2 bonus issues, for 26 monthly issues total. : 3 years - 4· bonus issues (40 total) OR Protecting Your Health and 1 Safety (see book description on the other side of this brochure). : 4 years - 6 bonus issues (54. total) OR your choice of With Libertyfor
t!::. !..~~e_~~~o~ ~r~e~~(~:.d.:s:.rTt!.0~..?~ o~h.:r.::i~e~ _____I

New 3 or 4-Year Subscription Book Offers!

Subscribe or renew for three years at the regular price ($72 for prisoners & $90 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Protecting Your Health and Safety or four bonus issues of PLN! (40 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.
Subscribe or renew for four years at the regular price ($96 for prisoners & $120 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Prison Profiteers or With Liberty for Some, or 6 bonus issues of PLN! (54 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.

NO shipping charge for subscription bonus books!

NOTE: If you want the bonus issues of PLN instead of the free book offer, please indicate that on the Order Form.

u; :- ---- - -C-";';a~; io; PiN;s-io~k iis~!- - ---- ~

1

1

1 You can buy dozens of legal, social commentary, self-I

: help books, and legal and regular dictionaries directly:

: from PL~'s boo!\: store! Ask us for a book list, or view:

1 our selectIOn online at:

1

1

www.prisonlegalnews.org/store.aspx

:

~---------------------------------

All subscription rates & bonus offers are effective as of 5-1-10
and valid through 12-31-10
* No refunds aftel' ol'ders have been placed *

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
Eastern State Penitentiary 1829-1971
Charles Dickens visited Philadelphia's Eastern State Penitentiary in 1842 and he later wrote: "The System is rigid, strict and hopeless .,. and I believe it to be cruel and wrong....1 hold this slow and daily tampering with the mysteries of the brain to be immeasurably worse than any torture of the body." The prison remained open for 129 years after Dickens condemned it as being barbaric, and some of its inhumane practices continue to be used in pl'isons nationwide.
P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.prisonlegalnews.Ol·g

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 44 of 65 PageP6L5NCOL-00136

I"T Un

II: i r,
J kt:

P rison Legal News is an independent, non-pl'ofit 56-page monthly publication that reports, reviews and analyzes court rulings and news related to
prisoners'rights and prison issues. PLN has a national
(U.S.) focus on state, federal and private prison issues, with some international coverage as well.
PLN's many thousands of subscribers and reader~ include civil and criminal trial and appellate attorneys, judges, public defenders, journalists, academics, paralegals, prisoners' rights activists, students, family members of prisoners, concerned individuals, politicians, other government officials, and numerous local, state and federal prisoners nationwide.
PLN is a vital link for prisoners who otherwise don't have access to current legal and prison-related news and information.
"Invaluable resource for anyone wanting 'user friendly' infonnation about current legal.developmeJJts affecting
prisoners in the United States."
- BumanRigbts Watch, a long-time PLN subscriber
P LN's coverage of prison issues includes medical neglect, disciplinary hearings, nutrition, living conditions, excessive force, .court access, censorship, jail litigation, visit:\ng; telephones, religious freedom, free speech, prison rape, mental health, attorney/ client access, sexual abuse of women prisonel's, retaliation, the PLRA, HIV and hep C, control units, the death penalty, attorney fees and much more.
PLN Snhseription Rates Prisoners: $12 for 6 months, $24 per year * Non-incarcerated individuals: $30 per year Law firms, govt. agencies and libraries: $80 per year Sample issue for anyone: $3.50 each* * Prisoners can pay with new stamps or pre-stamped envelopes

. Each monthly issue of :PLN includes three different types of reporting:
• A cover story on a prison-related issue. .• Reports on individual and class-action prison and jail-
related lawsuits when they are flied, when a judgment is entered or the. case settles, and whel~ an appellate court decision is issued. We also have prison-related news articles. • A "News In Brief' section that summarizes interesting news stories across the U.S. and internationally.
Eaeh issue of PLN also contains. numerous advertisements from businesses that provide prison-related personal and legal services and books. PLN further sells dozens of self~ help, social commentary and legal books..
PLN also lIas cumulative subject and case cite iIIdexes for all PLN issues from 1990 through 2004. Write for info.
SpeciaI3-yem' Subscription Offer!

Free with a 3-year PLN suhscription! Four honus issues of PLN (40 issues total) o~ a free hook; Protecting Your Health and. Safety! Circle your bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (3-year subscription rates: prisoners $72, individuals $90, professionals $240).
Protecting Your Health and Safety, by .....- - - - - 1 Robert E. Toone. Published by the Southern Poverty Law Center, 325 pages (2009). $10.00 (free ;with a 3-yeM sub!). This book
II ..e----I explains some basic rights that prisoners
have in a jailor prison in the U.S. It deals mainly with rights related to health and - u.. - - - - - I . safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by prison officials; it also explains how you can enforce your rights to health and safety within the facility and, if necessary, in court through litigation. Buy separately: ___

-----------------------------------~------,

You Can Buy These Books Sepm'ately!
.

, : ,

If you don't want to purchase a3 .or 4-year subscription:

to PLN, you can still purchase any of the bonus books'

at the regular price. Just indicate which books you want

to buy on this page, then enter the'total cost on the other

side of this brochure on the "Book Total" line of the 01'-

, del' Form. Shipping is $6 per order (not per book), and we

: offer FREE shipping on book orders of $50 or more! To

: place a phone order, please call 802-257-1342. We also

.: accept book orders online; at www.prisonlegalnews.org. '
L _________________________________________ J

D onations: PLN is' a project of the non-profit Human Rights Defense Center. Your tax-deductible donations support our advocacy, free speech and First Amendment litigation efforts on behalf of prisoners and publishers. PLN not only provides uncensored prison-related news, but actively contests prison censorship that interferes with the delivery of our publication or any other PLN materials sent to prisoners. All donations further our goal of advocating for people iInprisoned in U.S. detention facilities.
"Great source ofinfonnation, especially in states such as Arizona where the law libraries have been taken from the inmates and replaced with.paralegals." - SB, Arizona prisoner
Special 4-year SubSCl'iption Offer!
Free with a 4-year PLN subscription! Six honus issues of PLN (54 issues total) or one free hook, With Liberty for Some or Prison ProfiteersrCircle your bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (4.-year subscription rates: prisoners $96, individuals $120, professionals $320). Note: Free book option is for one boolc
With Liberty for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America, by .Scott Christianson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages (1998). $18.95 (free with a 4-year sub!). A classic book and the best overall history of the American prison system from 1492 to the 20th Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how little things have changed as far as prisons go in the U.S. over hundreds of years. Buy separately: ___
m:
Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money from Mass Incarceration, edited by Paul Wright & Tara Herivel, New Press (2007). $24.95 (free with a 4-year sub!). This is the third in a series of PLN anth~logies that examines the reality of mass imprisonment in the U.S. Prison Profiteers is unique from other books on the market because it exposes and discusses who profits and benefits from mass imprisonment, rather than who is harmed by the prison industrial complex and our nation's reliance on over-incarceration. Buy separately: ___ ,

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 45 of 65 PageP6L6NCOL-00137

Order Form
All purchases must he pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or hooks, no singles) or
pre-stamped envelopes, if allowed by prison policies.

Book Title / Number

Qty Total Cost

(attach another page if you are ordering more books)
Subtotal: Add 6% sales tax for VT residents only: Add $6.00 S/R to orders UNDER $50: Total Order Amount:
Send to:
Name: DOC#: Agency/lnst: Address: City/State/Zip:
MAIL PAYl\1ENT AND TillS FORl1'l TO: Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303
Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

FREE SmPPING On hook and index Olodel's OVER $50.00!
A $6 shipping charge applies to all other hook aml index orders.
(Free shipping policy in dIcet from Jan I, :lOlO uutil further notice)

More Books for Sale!

Prisoners' Self-Help Litigation Manual, updated 4th ed. (2010), by John

Boston and Daniel Manville, Oxford Uniy. Press, 1500 pages. $39.95. The

premiere, must-have "Bible" of prison litigation for current and aspiring jail-

house lawyers. If you plan to litigate a prison or jail civil suit, 1 1

1

this book is a must-have.

1077

Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the U.S.

and Canada, updated 3rd ed. by Jon Marc Taylor, Ph.D. and edited by Susan.

Schwartzkopf, published by PLN, 221 pages. $49.95. Written by l'vIissouti

prisoner Jon Marc Taylor, who obtained a B.S. degree, an M.A. degree and a

Doctorate, the Gllmilla Halldbook contains contact information and descrip-

I I tions of high school, vocational, paralegal and college courses available
through correspondence study. Great resource for prisoners

who want to further their education.

1057 ' - _ - ' -_ _-..J

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by Robert E. Toone, Southern Poyerty

Law Center, 325 pages. $10.00. This book explains basic rights that prisoners

have in a jailor prison in the U.S. It deals mainly \vith rights related to health

and safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by prison officials; it also

explains how you can enforce your rights \vithin the facility I I

1

and, if necessary, in court through litigation.

1060

Starting Out! The Complete Re-Entry Handbook, edited by William H.

Foster, Ph.D. & Carl E. Horn, Ph.D., Starting Out Inc., 446 pages. $22.95.

Complete do-it-yourself re-entry manual and workbook for prisoners who

want to deyelop tileir own re-entry plan to increase tileir chances of success

after tiley are released. Includes a \vide variety of resources, including a user

~ode to the Starting Out website that can be accessed f O l l o w - I I I

mg release.

1074

Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners v. the U.S.A, by

Murnia Abu Jamal, City Lights Publishers, 280 pages. $16.95. In Jailhollse La,v-

yers, Prison Legal News columnist, award-winning journalist and deatil-row

prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal presents the stories and reflections of fellow pris-

I oners-turned-advo~ates who have learned to use the court system to represent
other prisoners, and in some cases have won their freedom. \ I

Must-read for jailhouse lawyers!

1073

How to Win Your Personal Injury Claim, by Atty. Joseph Mattilews, 7th

edition, NOLO Press, 304 pages. $34.99. While not specifically for prison-

related personal injury cases, this book prO\~des comprehensive information

I on how to handle personal injury and property damage claims arising from

~ccidents - incl~ding dealing witil doctors, attorneys and \

I

msurance comparues.

1075

All prices m'e effective as of9-15-10 (ptices subject to change without notice)
* No t'efunds after ordet'S have been placed *

".. ~,,";i~:' -""'):"'" 6_
P,RISON~lEGAL NEWS
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
2010 PLN BOOK LIST
Prices Subject to Change Without Notice Graphic from: Books 2 Prisoners, Vancouver, Be
P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.prisonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 46 of 65 PageP6L7NCOL-00138

Check the box of the books you want to buy and use the Order Fonn on the other side of this brochure to add up the cost of your order. FREE SmPPING for book and index orders OVER $50. There is a $6 shipping charge for all other book and index orders.

Prison Profiteers, edited by Paul Wright and Tam HeriveI, 323 pages. $24.95. TIns is tile

tilird and btestbook in a series ofPnson Legal News anthologies that e.'>lll11ines the reality of

mass imprisonment in Amerim (The other tides are The CeIling ofAmerim & PrisonNation,

I I I see below). Prison Projteers is unique from other books because it "'--poses and discusses
who profits and benefits from mass imprisonmen~ radler than who is

hanned by it and how.

1063 L._--'.L-_--'.

I Prison Nation: The Warehousing ofAmerica's Poor, edited by Tam Herivel and Paul

Wright, 332 pages. $35.95. PIN antilOlogy e.'poses the d'lIk side ofthe I

I

1ock-em-up' politirnl agend~ and legal climatl'in the U.s.

1041 . .

.

The CeIling of America, edited by Daniel Burton Rose, Dan Pens and Paul Wrigh~ 264

pages. $22.95. PIN anthology presents a demiled "inside" look at tile I I

I

workings ofti,e American criminal justice system.

1001 . .

.

Everyday Letters for Busy People, by Debra Halt Mal', 287 pages. $18.99.

Hundreds of sample letters that can be adapted for most any purpose, including

letters to government agencies and officials. Has numerous I

I

tips for writing effective letters.

1048 .

.

The Criminal Law Handboolc Know Your Rights, Survive the System, by

Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sara J. Berman-Barre~ Nolo Press, 608 pages. $39.99.

fuplains what happens in a criniinal case from being arrested to sentencing, and what

your rights are at eacll stage of the process. Uses an easy to under-I

stand question.and-answer format

1038 L._ - - "_ _ _- '

Represent Yourself in Court: How to Prepare & Try a Winning Case, by

Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sara J. Berman-Barre~ Nolo Press, 528 pages. $39.99.

I I I Breaks down the civil rtial process in easy-ta-understand steps so you can effectively
represent yoursel~ in court The authors ""plain what to say in

co~ how to sal' 1t, etc.

1037...

j- Law Dictionary, Random House Webster's, 525 pages. $19.95. Comprehensive
I I ta-date law dictionary ""pbins more than 8,500 legal terms.

Covers civil, criniinal, commercial & international bw.

1036 L._ - ' ._ _ _- '

I I I The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, by Jane Sttaus, 110 pages.
$14.95. A guide to grammar and punctuation by an educator

with experience teaching English to prisoners.

1046 . .

.

Legal Research: How to Find and Understand the Law, by Stephen Elias and

I I I Susan Levinkind, 568 pages. $49.99. Comprehensive and easy to understand guide
on researclling the law. R,pbins case law, statutes and digests,

and mum more. Includes practice e.,ercises.

1059 ..J. L._ - ' - ._ _ _

I Deposition Handbook, by Paul Bergman and Albert Moore, Nolo Press, 352

pages. '$34.99. How-to handbook for anyone who conducts a I

I

deposition or is going to be deposed.

1054 L._-L._ _ _-'.

I Spartish-English/English-Spartish Dictionary, Random House. $8.95. Two

sections, Spanish-English and English-Spanish. 60,000+ enrties

I

from A to Z; includes Western Hemisphere usage.

1034 L._ - - ' ._ _ _- '

Please Note: All hook and index orders are mailed via the U.S. Postal Service with Delivery Confinnation. PIN does not assume any responsibility to replace hook or index orders once their delivery to the destination address (facility) is confirmed hy the U.S. Postal Service.

I I Writing to Wm: The Legal Wtiter, by Ste\'en D. Stark, Broadway Books/Random
House, 283 pages. $19.95. EApbins the wtiting of effective compbinlS, I

responses, briefu, motions and other legal papers.

1035 L._..L._ _--'.

Actual Innocence: WhenJustice Goes Wrong and How to Make it Right, updated

paperback ed., by Barry Smeck, Peter Neufeld and Jim Dwyer; 403 pages. $16.00.

Founders of tile Innocence Project e.'pbin how criminal defend~ts are wrongly con-

I ,>jcted on a regubr basis. EAplains DNA testing and how it works to free d,e innocentc
Devastating critique of police and prosecutorial misconduct and the I I

system that ensures such abuses continue.

1030 L._..L._ _ _.l.

Rogel's Thesaurus, 717 pages. $8.95. Helps you find the right word for what

you want to say. 11,000 words listed alphabetically with over 200,000 synonyms

I I I and antonyms. Sample sentences and parts of speech shown for every main
word. Covers all levels of vocabulary and identifies informal

and slang words.

1045 L._..L._ _--'.

Webster's English Dictionary, Newly re,';sed and updated, Random House.

I I I $8.95. 75,000+ entries. Includes tips on writing and word usage, and has up-
dated geographical and biographical enrties. Includes recent

business and computer terms.

1033...

I I Capital Crimes, by George Winslow, Monthly Review, 360 pages. $19.00.
Explains how economic policies create and foster crime, and how corporate & government crime is rarely punished. 1024 L--'-_ _--'

With Libetty for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America, by Scott

Christianson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages. $18.95. The best

overall history of the American prison system from' 1492 through the 20th

I I I Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how little
things have changed as far as prisons go in the U.S. over

hundreds of years.

1026..

.

I I Ten Men Dead: The story of the 1981 Irish hunger strike, by D,,';d Beres-

ford, Atlantic Monthly Piess, 334 pages. $16.95. Inside story of

I

IRA prisoners at Belfast's Long Kesh prison.

1006 . .

.

I I I Finding the Right Lawyer, by Jay Foonberg, ABA, 256 pages. $19.95. Ex-
plains how to detemline your legal needs, how to evaluate a

lawyer's qualifications, fee payments, and more.

1015..

. >

Seize the Day! 7 Steps to Achieving the Extraordinary in an Ordinary

World, by Danny Cox and John Hoover, 256 pages. $15.99. Prm';des 7 steps

I I I to changing your e>.pectations and em';sioning yourself as being a successful
and respected person-which is essential to changing ti,e

course of one's life.

1052

Women Behind Bars, The Crisis of Women in the U.S. Prison System, by

Silja J.A. Talvi, Seal Press, 295 pages. $15.95. Best book available that covers
I issues related to imprisoned women, based on interviews witll

hundreds of women behind bars.

1066 L._..L_ _--'

10 Insider Secrets to a Winning Job Search, by Todd Bermont, 216 pages.

$15.99. Roaclmap on how to get a job even under adverse circumstances-like

I being an e.,-con. Includes how to de,'elop a winning attitude, write attention-
grabbing resumes, prepare for inten';ews, networking, how to I I

present your strengths to an employer, and much more! 1056..

.

The Politics of Heroin: CIA Compliciry in the Global Drug Trade, 2003

Ed. by Alfred McCoy, 734 pages. $34.95. Documented expose ' ,

of the government's involvement in drug ttafficking.

1014 ' - _ L -_ _-'

Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis, by Clu:ist:i.~ Parenti,

290 pages. $19.00. Analyzes the war on the poor via the criminal justice sYStem. Well

documented and includes first-hand repotting. Covers prisons, pam-I

military policing, SWi\T teams and the lNS.

1002 L._ - ' -_ _- '

Hepatiris and Liver Disease: What You Need to Know, by Melissa Palmer; lvID,

I 457 pages. $17.95. Describes symptoms & treattnenlS bf hepatitis B & C and odler

liver diseases. Includes medications to avoid, what diet to follow, I

I

exercises to perform, and a bibliography.

1031

Crime and Punishment In America, by Elliott Curtie, 230 pages. $16.95. E£rective

I I I reburial to right-wing proponents of prison building. Fact-based argument shows that
crime is driven by poverty. Debunks prison myths and discusses

proven, effective means ofcrime prevention.

1019

Prison Madness: The Mental Health Ctisis Behind Bars and What We

Must Do About It, by Terry Kupers,Jossey-Bass, 245 pages. Hardback only,

prisoners please include any required authorization form. $32.95. Psychia-

I I rtist writes about d,e mental health crisis in U.S. prisons and jails. Covers all
aspeclS of mental illness, prison rape, negative effects of long-I

term isolation in control units, and more.

1003

Prison Writing in 20th Century America, by H. Bruce Franklin, Penguin

Books, 368 pages. $16.00. From Jack London to George Jackson, tlus

antllOlogy provides a selection of some of the best writing I

describing life behind bars in America.

1022

T I Soledad Brother: The Prison Letters of George Jackson, by George Jackson,
Lawrence Hill Books, 339 pages. $18.95. Lucid e.'planation of f,e litiCS of

prison by a well-known prison acti,';st More relevant now than

when it first appeared 40 years ago.

1016

Marijuana Law, by Richard Boire,Ronin, 271 pages. $17.95. R'<aD1ines how to

I reduce the prohsbilil)' of arrest and prosecution for people accused of the use, sale or

possession of marijuana. Info on ·legaI defenses, Searcll & seizures,

I

I

surveilL~ce, asset furfeiture and drug testing.

1008 L._ - ' ._ _- ' .

Worse Than Slavery: Parchman Farm and the Ordeal ofJim CrowJustice, by

I D,,';d Osllinsky, 306 pages. $16.00. Analysis of prison labor's roOIS in slavery.

Focuses on prison plantations and self-sustairiing prisons dlat use

I

I

prison bbor.

1007..

.

No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the American Criminal Justice

I I I System, by David Cole, TI,e New Press, 218 pages. $19.95. R,pLws how ti,e
criniinal justic~ system perpe:ua:es race and class inequalil)',

creaMg a two-oered system of JusOce.

.

1028 L._.J._'_ _-,.

The Prison and the Gallows: The Politics of Mass Incarceration in

America, by Marie Gottschalk, Cambridge Universil)' Press, 451 pages.

$29.99. Great political analysis of ti,e confluence of events I

I

leading to 2.3 million people behind bars in the U.S. 1069 L._..L_ _-'.

The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, by Brandon

Sample, PLN Publishing, 200 pages. $49.95. This is PLN's second published

I book, wluch exclusively covers ineffective assistance of counsel-related
issues in federal habeas petitions. Great resource for habeas I I

litigation, and contains hundreds of case cites!

1078..

.

Factor 8 (DVD), a film by Kelly Duda, Concrete Films. $21.95. Movie

about ti,e Arkansas prison blood scandal, in which prison officials sold
I infected blood harvested from prisoners. Note: This is a

DVD and cannot be shipped to prison.

1076 L._...L._ _-'

PLN Cumulative Index. $22.50 each. PLN Article Indexes prm';de detailed information about all PLN articles, including title, autllor, issue, page number, topics covered, citations, and if it is state, BOP or jail specific. Can be searched on over 500 subjects such as medical neglect or se>.-ual assault. Circle the index(es) you are ordering: 1990-1995, 1996-1998, 1999-1 2001, 2002-2004. (more recent indexes not yet available)

All books are soft cover except Prison Madness

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 47 of 65

T he Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel is the first in a series of books by Prison Legal News Publishing designed to help pro-se prisoner litigants identify and raise viable claims for potential habeas corpus relief. This book is an invaluable resource that identifies hundreds of cases where the federal courts have granted habeas relief to prisoners whose attorneys provided ineffective assistance of counsel.
It will save litigants
thousands of hours of research and it focuses on the
WINNING cases criminal defendants need to
successfully challenge their convictions.
Well organized into 52 concise chapters, this easy to use book puts the law at the reader's fingertips. The Appendix includes pleadings and forms from successful habeas corpus cases that

"

The Habeas Citebook is a

nifty and concise self-help

guide for prisoners seeking

habeas relief based on claims of

ineffective assistance of counsel.

Navigating the complex and

treacherous terrain of habeas

law is never easy; but claim-

ing that your lawyer screwed up

is even more difficult - espe-

cially from the confines of an

demonstrate formatting and show ill-equipped prison law library.

how to frame a winning argu-

"Brandon Sample has pro-

ment that will persuade a court

vided an amazing and much-

to grant habeas relief. The Habeas

needed tool for prisoners who

Citebook explains the proce-

are forced to seek relief on their

dural and substantive complexi-

own. The book is thorough; but

ties of federal habeas corpus lit-

simple and readable. It starts

igation with the goal of identify-

with a wonderfully well-orga-

ing and litigating claims involving nized listing of hundreds of dif-

ineffective assistance of counsel.

ferent types of ineffective assis-

Brandon Sample is a success-

tance of counsel, set forth in the

ful jailhouse lawyer litigant incar-

form of citations to court rul-

cerated in the Bureau of Prisons.

ings - a novel approach that

He is a Prison Legal News contrib- not only acts as a springboard

uting writer and a member of the

for further research but also

National Lawyer's Guild. Editor

saves the prisoner countless

Susan Schwartzkopf has a mas-

hours of preliminary research:'

ter's degree in education and is

the director and editor in chief of

PETER SCHMIDT

Prison Legal News Publishing.

Publisher, Punch & Jurists

I

THE HABEAS CITEBOOK: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

By Brandon Sample

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed _ _ _ __

I

8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages

I By: D check D new postage stamps D credit card D money order

I

ISBN 978-0-9819385-1-6

I Name _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

I

$49·95
3 or more copies ordered

DOC/BOP Number _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
I

at once $39.95 each

Institution/Agency _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~_ _ _ _ __

I

I FREE Shipping & Handling Address_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

I Order by mail, phone, or on-line. City _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ State PUBLISHED BY

ZIP

I

PRgSON LEGAL NEWS p.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

PageP6L8NCOL-00139

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 48 of 65

" - - - - - - Copies of this very usable and useful gUide should be available in every prison library-to help incarcerated people give positive direction to their -energies while making constructive use of their time~ It is a well-established fact that people who have taken college courses in prison have a dramatically reduced rate of recidivism."

-BELL GALE CHEVIGNY, PEN Prison Writing Program,

~~---

Editor Doing Time: 25 Years ofPrison Writing. -----~

HIGH SCHOOL • VOCATIONAL • PARALEGAL • UNDERGRADUATE. GRADUATE COURSES

T HE GREATLY anticipated and newly updated third edition of the Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the United States and Canada has finally arrived! Author Jon Marc Taylor's brand new version is the latest in this unique and highly successful gUidebook for the prisoner-student. This invaluable tool and how-to handbook provides the reader with step-by-step instructions to find the appropriate educational program for high school, vocational, paralegal, undergraduate, and graduate courses offered in the U.S. and Canada today.
Invaluable re-entry tool
It presents more than 160 program outlines and offers an easy-to-use format for the student to determine which program best suits their needs. It is ideal for the incarcerated student who does not have Internet access or the ability to attend education classes in person. This resource is indispensable

for the individual and beneficial for use in all prison libraries and education departments.
The Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook is the only book on the market for the non-traditional prisoner-student. It includes detailed listings of the quality, cost, and course offerings for all correspondence programs available to prisoners. In a time when so many academic opportunities in prisons have been eliminated, this book is an invaluable re-entry tool for prisoners who seek to further their education while incarcerated and to help them prepare for life and work following their release.
Jon Marc Taylor has more than 25 years experience as an incarcerated student, advocate for prisoner education, and author. He has successfully earned a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and a doctorate via correspondence courses while incarcerated. Editor Susan Schwartzkopf has a master's degree in education and 12 years experience teaching immigrants English language skills.

I PRISONERS' GUERRILLA HANDBOOK TO CORRESPONDENCE PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA I

ByJon Marc Taylor PHD Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed

I

8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages

By: D check D new postage stamps D credit card D money order ~

ISBN 978-0-9819385-0-9

Name __________________________________________

$49-95
3 or more copies ordered

DOC/BOP Number ________________________________

at once $39-95 each

Institution/Agency _______________________________

FR.EE Shipping & Handling Address_______________________________________

I Order by mail/ phone/ or on-line. City ___________________________ State

ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

PRISON LEGAL NEWS I P.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

PageP6L9NCOL-00140

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 49 of 65

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBIT G
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 70

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 50 of 65 PageP7L1NCOL-00106

Prison Legal News
P.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro, Vermont 05303

·'..:3.. i1~..}\''',1I!-r.c· ,1'\"''',1'\ ~,' -".,-.\;-r. '1• .~r-t:" f,-II Jr.7'.r.'\: '\-•
......... \ ',oJ .'..... ..•..••;.!....... •d j ........,' ,t""" .... :<'",",,'"
',:t-il "i , ·Ff:":::;;' .:;:i.~i::I:·i, ,~.i . ~'-;'··:Fi. :.::;.
,1.

F~E" TURN TO SENDER

As of April 1, 2010

M59A577** ExPIRES: 7/201 1

RTINKAY 2

COLUMBIACo

010001188
JAIL

901 PORT AVE

.ENS, OREGON 97051

The Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS
This applies to ALL incoming and out going mail

'
1\
:::~"-:::·"::':.A •.;.."::::"': 't r.::
•..: : ·····"··'OW$'O$@.'.'ll!t.},20

N·.:tX·,tE

~~'70 .501;::1.

00 ('~?/iO/:l.:1

~ETU~N TO SEND5R NOT DELIVERA9L5 AS ADDRESSED
UNA8LE "j,) J!"().j::~\.v.A.RO

at:: : C~.S3Cl:~;l:242C)20

'''''OI!H':)''~-020:;':ll~1I- 0;1- 44

JJJ!!) l J, I) III J) IL, l ))j J))) I) I) J,) I)) j)lll))))) I) Jll)) )J)J))I

'j

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 51 of 65 PageP7L2NCOL-00107

Order Form
All purchases must he pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or hooks, no singles) or
pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed by prison policies.

Book Title / Number

Qty . Total Cost

(attach another page if you are ordering more books)
Subtotal: Add 6% sales tax for VT residents only: Add $6.00 SIR to orders UNDER $50: Total Order Amount:
Send to:
Name: DOC#: Agency/Inst: Address: City/State/Zip:
MAIL PAYMENT AND THIS FORM TO: Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303
Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

FREE SHIPPING
On hook and index orders OVER $50.001 A $6 shipping charge applies to all oilier book aml index olllcl's.
(Frce shipping policy in effect from Jan I, :lOIO until furthcr notice)

More Books fOl' Sale!

Prisoners' Self-Help Litigation Manual, updated 4th cd. (2010), by John

Boston and Daniel Mam~lle, Oxford Univ. Press, 1500 pages. $39.95. The

I premiere, must-have "Bible" of prison litigation for current and aspiring jail-
house lawyers. If you plan to litigate a prison or jail civil suit, I I

this book is a must-have.

1077

Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the U.S.

and Canada, updated 3rd cd. by Jon Marc Taylor, Ph.D. and edited by Susan

Schwartzkopf, published by PLN, 221 pages. $49.95. Written by Missouri

prisoner Jon Marc Taylor, who obtained a B.S. degree, an M.A. degree and a

Doctorate, the Gmnilla HalJdbook contains contact information and descrip-

I I tions of high school, vocational, paralegal and college courses available
through correspondence study. Great resource for prisoners

who want to further their education.

1057 ..J L._ - ' - ._ _ _

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by Robert E. Toone, Southern Poverty

Law Center, 325 pages. $10.00. This book explains basic rights that prisoners

have in a jailor prison in the U.S. It deals mainly with rights related to health

and safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by prison officials; it also

explains how you can enforce your rights within the facility I I

I

and, if necessary, in court through litigation.

1060

Starting Out! The Complete Re-Entry Handbook, edited by Willi.~m H.

Foster, Ph.D. & Carl E. Horn, Ph.D., Starting Out Inc., 446 pages. $22.95.

Complete do-it-yourself re-entry manual and workbook for prisoners who

want to develop their own re-entry plan to increase their chances of success

after they are released. Includes a wide variety of resources, including a user

~ode to the Starting Out website that can be accessed fOllOW-I

I

I

Ing release.

1074

Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners v. the U.S.A, by

Mumia Abu Jamal, City Lights Publishers, 280 pages. $16.95. In Jailhollse LlJI}-

yers, Prison Legal News columnist, award-winning journalist and death-row

prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal presents the stories and reflections of fellow pris-

oners-rurned-advocates who have learned to use the court system to represent

other prisoners, and in some cases have won their freedom. I I

I

Must-read for jailhouse lawyers!

1073

How to Win Your Personal Injury Claim, by Atty. Joseph Matthews, 7th

edition, NOLO Press, 304 pages. $34.99. While not specifically for prison-

related personal injury cases, this book provides comprehensive information

on how to handle personal injury and property damage claims arising from

accidents - including dealing with doctors, attorne),s and I I

I

Insurance comparues.

1075

All prices am effective as of9-15-10
(PIices subject to change withont notice)
* No refunds after Ol'del's have been placed *

~RISON,.t:E~AL NEWS Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
2010 PLN BOOK LIST
Prices Subject to Change Without Notice
Graphic from: Books 2 Prisoners, Vancouver, BC
P.O. Box 2420, Brattlebol'o, VT 05303 302-257-1342 • www.pl·isonlegalnews.ol.g

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 52 of 65 PageP7L3NCOL-00108

Check the box of the books you want to buy and use the Order Form on the other side of this brochure to add up the cost of your order. FREE SIDPPING for book and index orders OVER $50. There is a $6 shipping charge for all other book and index orders.

Prison Profiteers, edited by Paul Wright and Tara Herivel, 323 pages. $24.95. This is the

dlitd and btest book in a series ofPrison I.egaI News andlOlogies that e.'ffilllines d,e reality of
mass imprisonment in America (The other tides are The Celul1g ifAJJJoTt'l1 & Pmol1 Nanol1,

see below). Pmol1 Projteer! is unique from other books bealuse it ""-poses and disOlSses

who profits and benefits from mass imprisonmen~ rndler than who is

harmed by it and how.

1063 L!_---'L-_---'

Prison Nation: The Warehousing ofAmerica's Poor, edited by Tara Herivel and Paul

Wtigh~ 332 pages. $35.95. PiN anthology ""po~es d,e d'llk side ofthe 1 I

1

~ock-em-up' political agenda and legal climate in d,e U.s.

1041 .

.

.

The Gelling of America, edited by Daniel Burton Rose, Dan Pens and Paul Wrigh~ 264

pages. $22.95. PiN anthology presents a detniled '"mside" look at the I

I

I

workings ofd,e American aimirml justice system

1001 .

.

.

Everyday Letters for Busy People, by Debra Hart May, 287 pages. $18.99.

Hundreds of sample letters that can be adapted for most any purpose, including

letters to government agencies and officials. Has numerous I

I

tips for writing effective letters.

1048 .

.

The Criminal Law Handhook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System, by
J. Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sara Berman-Barre~ Nolo Press, 608 pages. $39.99.

E..p. bins what happens in a aiminal case from being arrested to sentencing, and what

your rights are at eacll stage of the process. Uses an easy to under-I

stand question-and-answer format.

1038 L._ - - '_ _ _- '

Represent Yourself in Court: How to Prepare & Try a Winning Case, by
J. Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sara Berman-Barre~ Nolo Press, 528 pages. $39.99.

Breaks down the civil trial process in easy-to-understand steps so you can effectively

represent yourself in court. TI,e authors ""pbin what to say in 1 1

I

j- co~ how to say It, etc.

1037...

Law Dictionary, Random House Webster's, 525 pages. $19.95. Comprehensive

to-date bw dictionary ""pbins more than 8,500 legal terms. 1 I

Covers civil, aiminal, commercial &intemational bw.

1036 L._ _L_ _ _---1

I I I The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, by Jane Sttaus, 110 pages.
$14.95. A guide to grammar and punctuation by an educator

with e>.perience teaching English to prisoners.

1046

Legal Research: How to Find and Understand the Law, by Stephen Elias and

I I I Susan Levinkind, 568 pages. $49.99. Comprehensive and easy to understand guide
on researclling the bw. E..p. lains case bw, statutes and digests,

and much more. Includes practice e.,ercises.

1059 L._ - - ' ._ _ _- ' .

Deposition Handbook, by Paul Bergman and Albert Moore, Nolo Press, 352

pages. $34.99. How-to handbook for anyone who conducts a 1 1

I

deposition or is going to be deposed.

1054 L._ - - ' - ._ _ _-'.

Spanish-English/English-Spanish Dictionary, Random House. $8.95. Two

sections, Spanish-English and English-Spanish. 60,000+ entries 1 I

1

from A to Z; includes Western Hemisphere usage.

1034 L._ - - - ' ._ _ _-'_

Please Note: All hook and indexorders are mailed via the U.S. Postal Service with Delivery Confirmation. PIN does not assume any responsibility to replace hook or index orderS once their delivery to the destination address (facility) is confirmed hy the U.S. Postal Service.

Writing to Wm: The LegaI Writer, by Ste\'en D.Statk, Broadway Books/Random

House, 283 pages. $19.95. E..p. binsdle wtiting of effective compbints, 1 1

1

responses, btiefS, motions and other legal papers.

1035 L._ - ' - ._ _- - ' .

Actual hmocence: When Justice Goes Wrong and How to Make it Right, upd,ted

paperback ed., by Barry Scheck, Peter Neufeld and Jim Dwyer; 403 pages. $16.00.

Founders of d,e Innocence Project e..p. bin how criminal defendants are wrongly con-

victed On a regular basis. E>.pbins DNA testing and how it works to free d,e innocent.

Devastating critique of police and prosecutori,u misconduct and the I I

I

system dillt ensure.< such abuses continue.

1030 oJ. L._ - ' - ._ _ _

Roger's Thesaurus, 717 pages. $8.95. Helps you find the right word for what

you want to sal'. 11,000 words listed alphabetically with over 200,000 synonyms

and antonyms. Sample sentences and parts of speem shown for every main

word. Covers all levels of vocabulary and identifies informal I I

I

and slang words.

1045 L._ - ' - ._ _ _-'.

Webster's English Dictionary, Newly revised and updated, Random House.

$8.95. 75,000+ entries. Includes tips on w!iting and word usage, and has up-

dated geographical and _biographical entries. Includes recent I 1

I

business and computer terms.

1033...

Capital Crimes, by George Winslow, Monthly Review, 360 pages. $19.00. Explains how economic policies create and foster crime, and I how corporate & government crime is rarely punished. 1024 L._..L_ _ _-'

With Liberty for Snme: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America, by Scott

Christianson, Northeastern University Press, 372· pages. $18.95. The best

overall history of the American prison system from 1492 through the 20th

I I Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for underst.wding how little
tllings have changed as far as prisons go in tl,e U.S. over I

hundreds of years.

1026. _

.

Ten Men Dead: The story of the 1981 Irish hunger strike, by David Beres-

ford, Atlantic Montllly Press, 334 pages. $16.95. Inside story of I 1

I

IRA prisoners at Belfast's Long Kesh prison.

. 1006. _

..

Finding the Right Lawyer, by Jay Foonberg, ABA, 256 pages. $19.95. Ex-

plains how to determine your legal needs, how to evaluate a I I

I

lawyer's qualifications, fee payments, and more.

1015 _ .

.

Seize the Day! 7 Steps to Achieving the Extraordinary in an Ordinary

World, by Danny Cox and John Hoover, 256 pages. $15.99. PrO\~des 7 steps

I I I to changing your e>.pectations and envisioning yourself as being a successful
and respected person-wruch is essential to cllanging tl,e

course of one's life.

1052

Women Behind Bars, The Ctisis of Women in the U.S. Prison System, by

Silja J.A. Talvi, Seal Press, 295 pages. $15.95. Best book available tl,at covers

issues related to imprisoned women, based on interviews with

hundreds of women bellind bars.

1066 '-_"-_ _--'

10 Insider Secrets to a Winning Job Search, by Todd Bermont, 216 pages.

$15.99. Rmidmap on how to get a job even under adverse circumstances-like

being an e.,-con. Includes how to develop a winning attitude, write attention-

grabbing resumes, prepare for interviews, networking, how to I I

I

present your strengths to an employer, and much more! 1056. _

.

The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, 2003

Ed. by Alfred McCoy, 734 pages. $34.95. Documented expose I I

1

of tl,e government's involvement in drug trafficking.

1014 .J. L._ - ' - ._ _ _

LoCkdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis, by Christian Parenti,

290 pages. $19.00. Analyzes tl,e war on d,e poor ,>ia d,e criminal justice system. Well

dOCUOlented and includes first-hand repotring. Covers prisons, para-I

milil2ry policing, SWAT teams and tl,e INS.

1002 L._ - - ' -_ _- '

Hepatiris and Liver Disease: What You Need to Know, by Melissa Palmer, MD,

457 pages. $17.95. Describes symptoms & treatments of hepatitis B & C and other

liver diseases. Includes medications to avoid, what diet to follow, 1 1

1

e.xercises to perform, and a bibliography.

1031 . .

.

Crime and Purtishnient In America, by Elliott Curtie, 230 pages. $16.95. Effective

rebutml to right-wing proponents of ptison building. Fact-based argument shows th.,t

aime is driven by poverty. Debunks prison myths and disOlSses I I

I

proven, effective means ofaime prevention.

1019...

Prison Madness: The Mental Health Crisis Behind Bars and What We

Must Do About It, by Terry Kupers,Jossey-Bass, 245 pages. Hardback only;

prisoners please include any required authorization fonn. $3295. Psychia-

trist writes about tl,e mental healtll crisis in U.S. prisons and jails. Covers all

aspects of mental illness, prison rape, negative effects of long-I I

I

term isolation in conttol units, and more.

1003...

Prison Writing in 20th Century America, by H. Bruce Franklin, Penguin

Books, 368 pages. $16.00. From Jack London to George Jackson, tlus

antllOlogy provides a selection of some of tl", best writing I I

describing life behind bars in America.

1022 '---'----'

T Soledad Brother: The Ptison Letters of George Jackson, by George Jackson,
Lawrence Hill Books, 339 pages. $18.95. LUcid. expbnation of f,e litiCS of 1

prison by a well-known prison activist. More relevant now than

when it first appeared 40 yeats ago.

1016

Marijuana Law, by Riclmrd Boire, Ronin, 271 pages. $17.95. E.'ffilllines how to

reduce d,e probability of arrest and prosecution fur people aCOlSed of d,e use, sale or

possession ofmatijuana. Infu on legaI.defenses, search & seizures, I I

I

surveillance, asset forfeiture and drug testing.

1008 L._..1._ _---'.

Worse Than Slavery: Parchman Farm and the Ordeal ofJinl CrowJustice, by

Da,>id Oshinsky, 306 pages. $16.00. Analysis of prison bbor's roots in sbvery.

Focuses on prison pbntations and self-sustaining prisons tllat use I I

1

prison bbor.

1007..

.

No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the Ametican Criminal Justice

System, by David Cole, TI,e New Press, 218 pages. $19.95. E"plilins how the

·1 aiminal justice system perpetuates race and class inequality, I

I

creating a two-tiered system of justice.

1028. _

.

The Prison and the Gallows: The Politics of Mass Incarceration in

America, by Marie GottschaJk, Cambridge University Press, 451 pages.

$29.99. Great political analysis of tl,e confluence of events I

I

leading to 2.3 million people bellind bars in the U.S. 1069.

.

The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, by Brandon

Sample, PLN Publislling, 200 pages. $49.95. This is PLN's second published

I I book, wruch exclusively covers ineffective assistance of counsel-related

issues in federal habeas petitions. Great resource for habeas

I

litigation, and contains hundreds of case cites!

1078..

.

Factor 8 (DVD), a film by Kelly Duda, Concrete Films. $21.95. Movie

about tl,e Arkansas prison blood scandal, in wlucll prison officials sold

infected blood harvested from prisoners. Note: This is a I

DVD and cannot be shipped to prison.

1076 L._...L_ _..J

PLN Cumulative Index. $22.50 each. PiN Article Indexes provide detailed information about all PLN articles, including title, author, issue, page number, topics covered, citations, and if it is state, BOP or jail specific. Can be searched on over 500 subjects such as medical neglect or se..-.ual assault. Circle tl,e index(es) you are ordering: 1990-1995, 1996-1998, 1999-1 2001, 2002-2004. (more recent indexes not yet available)

All books are soft cover except Prison Madness

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 53 of 65 PageP7L4NCOL-00109

Order Form
All purchases must he pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new stamps (strips or hooks) or pre-stamped envelopes.

Books (3 & 4yr Subscription Specials: CIRCLE
one book m; bonus issues, and DO NOT add SIH)
Protecting Your Health and Safety ill: 4 Bouus Issues (3-yr subscription offer)

$Amt.
Free

Prison Profiteers or With Liberty for Some

ill: 6 Bonus Issnes (4-yr subscription offer)

Free

Book Total (inc. all books bought separately)

Add 6% sales tax for Vermont residents only

ADD $6.00 S/H to book orders UNDER $50

PLN Subscriptions
6-month Subscription (Prisoners only) 1 yr Subscription (12 issues) 2 yr Subscription (24 plus 2 Bonus issues) 3 yr Sub (Circle bonus book abovem;4 Bonus issues) 4 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above m; 6 Bonus issues) Sample Issue - $3.50 each
TOTAL Amount Enclosed:

Send to:
Name: DOC#: Agency/lnst: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Address:
City/State/Zip: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
MAIL PAYMENT AND TillS FORM TO:
I ,
Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303

Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

PLN Subscription Rates

Subscription Rates 1yr 2 yrs 3 yrs 4yrs

Prisoners *

$24 $ 48 $ 72 $ 96

Individuals

$30 $ 60 $ 90 $120

Professionals

$80 $160 $240 $320

(Lawyers, govt. & professional agencies, libraries, etc.)

Sample issue for anyone - $3.50 each*

Six-month prisoner subscription for $12*

* Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books only) or pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed byprison policies.

:- - - - - - - - - S~s-c;ip;i~~ 'io~~~;s! - - - - - - - --
1
1 2 years - 2 bonus issues, for 26 monthly issues total. : 3 years - 4. bonus issues (40 total) OR Protecting Your Health and 1 Safety (see book description on the other side of this brochure). : 4 years - 6 bonus issues (54 total) OR your choice of With Libertyfor 1
!..~~e_~~~o~~rp_te:;.~(~:.d:s~riJ.lt!.0~..o~t.!,t:.o.:h:r:i~e2: _____:

New 3 or 4-Year Subscription Book Offel's!

Subscribe or renew for three years at the regular price
($72 for prisoners & $90 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Protecting Your Health and Safety or
four bonus issues of PLN! (40 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.
Subscribe or renew for four years at the regular price
($96 for prisoners & $120 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Prison Profiteers or With Libertyfor Some, or 6 bonus issues of PLN! (54 monthly issues
total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.

NO shipping charge for subscription bonus books!

NOTE: If you want the honus issues of PLN instead of the free hook offer, please indicate that on the Order Form.

:- - ---- -Co~~a~~U;{o; i-LN;-s-Bo~k iis~!- ----- ~

1

1

1 You can buy dozens of legal, social commentary, self-I

1 1

h

elp
.

books,

and

legal

and

regular

dictionaries

directly:

: from PL~'s boo~\: store! Ask us for a book list, or view:

1 our selectIOn online at:

1

1

www.prisonlegaluews.org/store.aspx

:

1______ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

All subscription rates & bonus offeI'S are effective as of5-1-10
and valid through 12-31-10
* No refunds after ordel'S have been placed *

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
Eastern State Penitentiary 1829-1971
Charles Dickens visited Philadelphia's Eastern State Penitentiary in 184.2 and he later wrote: "The System is rigid, strict and hopeless ... and I believe it to be cruel and Wl·ong....I hold this slow and daily tamperiug with the mysteries of the brain to be immeasurably worse than any torture of the body." The prison remained open for 129 years after Dickens condemned it as beiug barbaric, and some of its inhumane practices continue to be used in prisons nationwide.
P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.prisonlegaluews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 54 of 65 PageP7L5NCOL-00110

fl
P rison Legal News is an independent, non-profit 56-page monthly publication that reports, reviews and analyzes court rulings and news related to
a prisoners' rights and prison issues. PLN has national
(U.S.) focus on state, federal and private prison issues, with some international coverage as well.
PLN's many thousands of subscribers and readers include civil and criminal trial and appellate attorneys, judges, public defenders, journalists, academics, paralegals, prisoners' rights activists, students, family members of prisoners, concerned individuals, politicians, other government officials, and numerous local, state and federal prisoners nationwide.
PLN is ,a vital link f~r prisoners who otherwi~edon't
have access to current legal and prison-related news and information.
"Invaluable res'ource for anyone wanting 'user friendly' , inforrmition about current legal developments affecting
prisoners in the United States." ;...Duman Rights Watch, a long-time PLN subscriber
P LN's coverage of prison issues includes medical neglect, disciplinary hearings, nutrition, living conditions, excessive fOI'ce, court access, censorship, jail litigation, visiting, telephones, religious freedom, free speech, prison rape, mental health, attorney/ client access, sexual abuse of women prisoners, re-
taliation, the PLRA, HIV and hep C, control units,
the death penalty, attorney fees and much more.
PLN Subscription Rates
Prisoners: $12 for 6 months, $24 per year *
Non-incarcerated individuals: $30 per year Law firms, govt. agencies and libraries: $80 per year Sample issue for anyone: $3.50 each* * Prisoners can pay with new stamps or pre-stamped envelopes

E ach monthly 'issue of PLNi~cludes three different types of reporting: • A cover story on a prison-related issue. , • Reports on individual and class-action prison and jail-
related lawsuits when they are filed, when a judgment is entered or the case settles, and whenan appellate court decision is issued. We also have prison-related news articles. • A "News In Brief" section that summarizes interesting news stories'across the U.S. and internationally.
Each issue of PLN also contains numerous advertisements from businesses that pro,ide prison-related' personal and, legal senices and books. PLN further sells dozens of selfhelp, social commimtary'and legal books. '
PLN also has cumnlative subject and case cite indexes for all PLN issues from 1990 through 2004. Write for info.
rS;~ci~13-year SubSCl'ip~~~~Offer!

Free with a 3-year PLN subscI'iption! Four bonus issues of PLN (40 issues total) or a free book, Protecting Your Health and Safety! Circle your bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (3-year subscription rates: prisoners $72, indi,iduals $90, professionals $24.0).

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by ".,.-----;

Robert E. Toone. Published by the South-

ern Poverty Law Center, 325 pages (2009).

$10.00 (free with a S-yelll; sub!). This book expl~ins some basic rights that prisoners have in a jail or prison in the U.S. It deals [~

I ...@---.,

mainly with rights related to health and.. " .

safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by

prison officials; it also explains how you can enforce your

rights to health and safety within the facility and, if nec-

essary, in court through litigation. Buy separately: ___

,---------------------~--------------------,
,, You Can Buy These Books Sep:l1'ately!
: If you don't want to purchase a 3 or 4-year subscription : to PLN, you can still purchase any of the bonus books
at the regular price. Just indicate which books you want to buy on this page, then enter'the total cost on the other side of this' brochure on the "Book Total" line of the Order Form. Shipping is $6 per order (not per book), and we offer FREE shipping on book orders of $50 or more! To place a phone order, please call 802-257-134·2. We also " accept book orders online, at www.prisoniegalnews.org.
L _________________________________________ _

D onations: PLN is a project of the non-profit Human , Rights Defense Center.. Your tax-deductible dona-
tions support our advocacy, free speech and First Amendment litigation efforts O~l behalf of prisoners and publishers. PLN not only provides uncensored prison-related ~lews, but actively contests prison .censorship that inteIfer~s "ith
the delivery of our publication or any other PLN materials
sent to prisoners. All donations further our goal of advocat-
ing for people imprisoned in U.S. detention facilities.

"Great source of information, especially in states such as

Arizona where the law libraries have been taken from

the inmates and replaced with.paralegals."

- SB, AriZona prisoner

'

Special 4-year Subscription Offel'!
Free with a 4-year PLN subscription! Six bonus issues of PLN (54 issues total) 01' one free book, With Liberty for Some or Prison Profiteers! Circle your bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (4.-year subscription rates: prisoners $96, individuals $120, professionals $320). Note: Free book option is for one book.
With Liberty for Some: 500 Years Imprisonment in America, by Scott Christianson, Northeastern. University Press, 372 pages (1998). $18.95 (free with a 4-yeru' sub!). A classic book and the best overall history of the American prison system from 1492 to the 20th Century. Well written and fact fIlled. A must-read for understanding how little things have changed as far as prisons go in the U.S. over hundreds of years. Buy separately: ___
or
Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money Mass Incarceration, edited by Paul
Wright & Tara Derivel, New Press (2007). $24.95 (fi'ee with a 4-yeru' sub!). This is the third in a series, of PLN anthologies that examines the reality of mass imprisonment in the U.S. Prison Profiteers is unique from other hooks on the market, because it exposes and discusses who profits and benefits from mass imprisonment, rather than who is harmed by the prison industrial complex and our nation's reliance on over-incarceration. Buy separately:, ___ ,

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 55 of 65

T he Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel is the first in a series of books by Prison Legal News Publishing designed to help pro-se prisoner litigants identify and raise viable claims for potential habeas corpus relief. This book is an invaluable resource that identifies hundreds of cases where the federal courts have granted habeas relief to prisoners whose attorneys provided ineffective assistance of counsel.
It will save litigants
thousands ofhours of research and it focuses on the
WINNING cases criminal defendants need to
successfully challenge their convictions.
Well organized into 52 concise chapters, this easy to use book puts the law at the reader's fingertips. The Appendix includes pleadings and forms from successful habeas corpus cases that

"

The Habeas Citebook is a

nifty and concise self-help

guide for prisoners seeking

habeas relief based on claims of

ineffective assistance of counsel.

Navigating the complex and

treacherous terrain of habeas

law is never easy; but claim-

ing that your lawyer screwed up

is even more difficult - espe-

cially from the confines of an

demonstrate formatting and show ill-equipped prison law library.

how to frame a winning argu-

"Brandon Sample has pro-

ment that will persuade a court

vided an amazing and much-

to grant habeas relief. The Habeas

needed tool for prisoners who

Citebook explains the proce-

are forced to seek relief on their

dural and substantive complexi-

own. The book is thorough; but

ties of federal habeas corpus lit-

simple and readable. It starts

igation wlth the goal of identify-

with a wonderfully well-orga-

ing and litigating claims involving nized listing of hundreds of dif-

ineffective assistance of counsel. Brandon S~rriple is a success-

ferent types of ineffective assistance of counsel, set forth in the

ful jailh()Use'iaWyer litigant incar-

form of citations to court rul-

cerated in the Bureau of Prisons.

ings - a novel approach that

He is a Prison Legal News contrib- not only acts as a springboard

uting writer and a member of the

for further research but also

National Lawyer's Guild. Editor

saves the prisoner countless

Susan Schwartzkopf has a mas-

hours of preliminary research:'

ter's degree in education and is

the director and editor in chief of

PETER SCHMIDT

Prison Legal News Publishing.

Publisher, Punch & Jurists

THE HABEAS CITEBOOK: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

By Brandon Sample 8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages ISBN 978-0-9819385-1-6
$49·95 3 or more copies ordered
at once $39.95 each

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed _ _ _ __
g By: 0 check 0 new postage stamps 0 credit card 0 money order
Name ______________________
DOC/BOP Number _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Institution/Agency _ _ _ _~_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

FREE Shipping & Handling Address,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Order by mail, phone, or on-line. City _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ State

ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

PRISON LEGAL NEWS P.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

PageP7L6NCOL-00111

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 56 of 65
" ------,.-----, Copies of this very usab1e and usefu1 gUide

shou1d be availab1e in every prison library-to

he1p incarcerated peop1e give positive direc-

tion to their energies while making constructive

use of their time. It is a we11-established fact that

peop1e who have taken co11ege courses in prison

have a dramatica11y reduced rate of recidivism."

-BELL GALE CHEVICNY, PEN Prison Writing Program,

~-----

Editor Doing Time: 25 Years of Prison Writing. -----~

HIGH SCHOOL • VOCATIONAL • PARALEGAL • UNDERGRADUATE· GRADUATE COURSES

."IIHE GREATLY anticipated and newly updated third edition of the Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the
United States and Canada has finally arrived! Author Jon Marc Taylor's brand new version is the latest in this unique and highly successful gUidebook for the prisoner-student. This invaluable tool and how-to handbook provides the reader with step-by-step instructions to find the appropriate educational program for high school, vocational, paralegal, undergraduate, and graduate courses offered in
the u.s. and Canada today.
Invaluable re-entry tool
It presents more than 160 program outlines and offers an easy-to-use format for the student to determine which program best suits their needs. It is ideal for the incarcerated student who does not have Internet access or the ability to attend education classes in person. This resource is indispensable

for the individual and beneficial for use in all prison libraries and education departments.
The Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook is the only book on the market for the non-traditional prisoner-student. It includes detailed listings of the quality, cost, and course offerings for all correspondence programs available to prisoners. In a time when so many academic opportunities in prisons have been eliminated, this book is an invaluable re-entry tool for prisoners who seek to further their education while incarcerated and to help them prepare for life and work following their release.
Jon Marc Taylor has more than 25 years experience as an incarcerated student, advocate for prisoner education, and author. He has successfully earned a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and a doctorate via correspondence courses while incarcerated. Editor Susan Schwartzkopf has a master's degree in education and 12 years experience teaching immigrants English language skills.

~~~~-~~--------------~

I

PRISONERS' GUERRILLA HANDBOOK TO CORRESPONDENCE PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA Ii
Iii

By Jon Marc Taylor PHD

Number of copies ordered ___ Amount enclosed ________

8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages

By: 0 check 0 new postage stamps 0 credit card 0 money order I

ISBN 978-0-9819385-0-9
$49·95
3 or more copies ordered

Name --------------------------------
DOC/BOP Number ________________________

at once $39.95 each

Institution!Agency _,.--_________________

FREE Shipping & Handling Address____________________________

a Order by mail, phone, or on-line. City ____________________ State

ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

I PiU§ON LEGAL NEWS p.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

PageP7L7NCOL-00112

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 57 of 65

9870.050046305

EXHIBITH
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRlGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 78

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 58 of 65 PageP7L9NCOL-00274

Prison Legal News P.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303
• . I '.-.\\~,
'\.,-\'r.''''

("'iJ.I'·"'''·\·'~''~h(n.r\"",,,

\l..:1? ·.1~~·1~~9~~~~i~· :~:1:" ,..t::~

. --;~:'k'
..... hI>.

~.'.}. :,'j(';'':i'C~ 1'-').i-.'';J,'f;:,.:'"'"'{y.......,';r.,;~'•f•,·~W~. ,·

$:ilr;;~~ ! •

6Zi64 .... \Nf"O .... zO\\00\ZZ5
GE:.ORGE:. \..J>,tJltJI\
co\..UtJI6 \J>, co JJ>,\\..

10 ,,l.1),/6t.'.~,"'" ,l."~./~/?t:~l:~ , '-', 1/;/

··.e·',.. •

9501'\\-\fE:'.\..OE:~.t-ISp-,"OE:R. E:.GOt-l9i05\

OS:SO::;:J@24:20
:~:r;:!:::5 i M~ ::i() i j:3

lIt !t x:tt::

'~r'¥''!'lt 3@""1

'OO;e1')le!ljl~ 11.

RETURN TO SENDER
NOT CELXVERA9LE AS ADDRESSED
UNA6L.E TO FORWARD

EJC: o.S:30:::.l!24::?O.'20

*06a4-~oai4-ao-as

,11"""1""1"',,,,,1 I,,'!, 1,1 ,,1,,1,111 ,""I,III,"I'!,,1

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 59 of 65 PageP8L0NCOL-00275

Order Form
All pmchases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new stamps (strips or books) or pre-stamped envelopes.

Books (3 & 4yr Subscription Specials: CffiCLE
one book m: bonus issues, and DO NOT add SIH)
Protecting Your Health and Safety or 4 Bonus Issues (3-yr subscription offer)

$Amt.
Free

Prison Profiteers or With Liberty for Some

ill: 6 Bonus Issues (4-yr subscription offer)

Free

Book Total (inc. all books bought separately)

Add 6% sales tax for Vermont residents only

ADD $6.00 StH to book orders UNDER $50

PLN Subscriptions
6-month Subscription (Prisoners only) 1 yr Subscription (12 issues) 2 yr Subscription (24 plus 2 Bonus issues) 3 yr Sub (Circle bonus book abovem:4 Bonus issues) 4 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above m: 6 Bonus issues) Sample Issue - $3.50 each
TOTAL Amount Enclosed:

Send to:
Name:
DOC#: Agency/lnst: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Address:
City/State/Zip: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
MAIL PAYl\'IENT AND THIS FORM TO:
I •
Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303

Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

PLN Subscription Rates

Subscription Rates 1 yr 2 yrs 3 yrs 4yrs

Prisoners *

$24 $ 48 $ 72 $ 96

Individuals

$30 $ 60 $ 90 $120

Professionals

$80 $160 $240 $320

(Lawyers, govt. & professional agencies, libraries, etc.)

Sample issue for anyone - $3.50 each*

Six-month prisoner subscription for $12*
* Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books
only) or pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed byprison policies.

:- - - - - - - - - S;ilis-c;ip;i~; 'io;'~~;s! - - - - - - - - -
1
1 2 years - 2 bonus issues, for 26 monthly issues total. : 3 years - 4 bonus issues (40 total) OR Protecting Your Health and 1 Safety (see book description on the other side of this brochure). : 4 years - 6 bonus issues (54 total) OR your choice of With Libertyfor
!..~~e_~~n.:0~~r~e~:(~~d:s:rift!.0~_o~ ~~o~h:r~i~e~ _____I

New 3 or 4-Yeru' SubsCl'iption Book Offers!

Subscribe or renew for three years at the regulru' price ($72 for prisoners & $90 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Protecting Your Health and Safety or four bonus issues of PLN! (40 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.
Subscribe or renew for four years at the regular price
($96 for prisoners & $120 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Prison Profiteers or With Liberty for Some, or 6 bonus issues of PLN! (54 monthly issues
total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.

NO shipping charge for subscription bonus books!

NOTE: H you want the bonus issues of PLN instead of the free book offer, please indicate that on the Order Form.

:- - ---- -C-o~;a~;U;fo; PiN;s-io~k iis;!- ---- - ~

1

1

1 You can buy dozens of legal, social commentary, self- 1

: help books, and legal and regular dictionaries directly:

: from PL~'s boo:\: store! Ask us for a book list, or view:

1 our selectIOn online at:

1

1

www.prisonlegalnews.org/store.aspx

:

1______ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

All suhscriptionmtes & honus offers are effective as of5-1-10
and valid through 12-31-10
* No l'efunds after OlUel'S have heen placed *

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
Eastern State Penitentiary 1829-1971
Charles Dickens visited Philadelphia's Eastern State Penitentiary in 1842 and he later wrote: "The System is rigid, strict and hopeless ... and I believe it to be cmel and ·wTong....I hold this slow and daily tampering with the mysteries of the brain to be immeasurably worse than any torture of the body." The prison remained open for 129 years after Dickens condemned it as being barbaric, and some of its inhumane practices continue to be used in prisons nationwide.
P.O. Box 2420, Brattlehoro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.prisonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 60 of 65 PageP8L1NCOL-00276

I E,G,-I, Iifii',
~
P rison Legal News is an independent, non-profit 56-page monthly publication that reports, reviews and analyzes court l'ulings and news related to
prisoners' rights and prison issues. PLN has a national
(U.S.) focus on state, federal and private prison issues, with some international coverage as well.
PLN's many thousands of subscribers and readers include civil and criminal tl'ial and appellate attmneys, judges, public defenders, journalists, academics, paralegals, prisoners' rights activists, students, family members of prisoners, concerned individuals, politicians, other government officials, and numerous local, state and federal prisoners nationwide.
PLN is a vitallinlc for prisoners who otherwise don't have access to current legal and prison-related news and information.
"Invaluable resource foranyon~ wanting 'user· friendly' information about current legal developments affecting
. prisonersm the United.States." - Human Rights Watch, a long-time PLN subscriber
P LN's coverage of prison issues includes medical neglect, disciplinary hearings, nutrition, living conditions, excessive force, court access, censorship, jail litigation, visiting, telephones, religious freedom, free speech, prison rape, mental health, attorney/ client access, sexual abuse of women prisoners, re-
taliation, the PLRA, HIV and hep C, control units,
the death penalty, attorney fees and much more.
PLN Stibscription Rates
Prisoners: $12 for 6 months, $24 per year *
N on-incarcerated individuals: $30 per year Law firms, govt. agencies and libraries: $80 per year Sample issue for anyone: $3.50 each* * Prisoners can pay.with new stalllPs or pre-stamped envelopes

E ach monthly issue of PLN includes three different types of reporting:
• A cover story on a prison-related issue. • Reports on individual and class-action prison and jail-
related lawsuits when.they are filed, when a judgment is entered or the case settles, and when an appellate court decision is issued. We also have prison-related news articles. • A "News In Brief" section that summarizes interesting news stories across the U,S. and internationally.
Each issue of PLN also contains numerous advertisements from businesses that provide prison-related personal and legal services and books. PLN further sells dozens of selfhelp, social commentary and legal books.
PLN also has cumulative subject and case cite indexes for all PLN issues from 1990 through 2004. Write for info.
Special 3-yeru' Subscription Offer!
Free with a 3-year PLN subscription! Fow: bonus issues of PLN (40 issues total) 01' a free book, Protecting Your Health and Safety! Circle your bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (3-year subscription rates: prisoners $72, individuals $90, professionals $24.0).
Protecting Your Health and Safety, by [;'6----...,
Robert E. Toone. Published by the Southern Poverty Law Center, 325 pages (2009). $10.00 (free with a 3-year sub!). This book explains some basic rights that prisoners
have in a jail or prison in the U.S. It deals Ii ".9_____ 1
mainly with rights related to health and ..------i. safety, such as communicable. diseases and abuse by prison officials; it also explains how you can enforce your rights to health and safety within the facility and, if necessary, in court through litigation. Buy separately: __. _
,------------------------------------------,
, You Can Buy These Books Sepru'ately! ,:
: If you don't want to purchase a 3 cir4-year subscription: : to PLN, you can still purchase any of the bonus books: : at the regular price. Just indicate which books you want: : to buy on this page, then enter the total cost on the other: : side of this brochure on the "Book Total" line of the Or- : : del' Form. Shipping is $6 per order (~ot per book), and we : : offer FREE shipping on bo·ok orders of $50 or more! To : : place a phone order, please call 802~257-1342. We also: : accept book orders online, at www.prisonlegalnews.org. :
L ___________________.______________________ J

D onations: PLN is a project of the non-profit Human Rights Defense Center. Your t/lx-deductible donations support our advocacy, free. speech and First Amendment litigation efforts on behalf of prisoners and publishers. PLN not only provides uncensored prison-related news, but actively contests prison censorship that interferes with the delivery of ow: publication or any other PLN materials sent to prisoners. All donations further our goal of advocat~ ing for people imprisoned in U.S. detention facilities.
"Great source of information, especially in states such as Arizona where the law libraries have been taken from the inmates and replaced with paralegals." - SB, Arizona prisoner
Special 4=;~ar .Subsc~'i~~i~n OffCl"-J
Free with a 4-yem' PLN subscription! Six bonus issues of PLN (54 issues total) 01' one free book, With Liberty for Some 01' Prison Profiteers! Circle your bonus choice on the form on the other side of tIllS brochure (4-year subscription rates: prisoners $96, individuals $120, professionals $320). Note: Free book option is for one book.
With Liberty for Some: 500 Years Imprisonment in America, by Scott Christianson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages (1998). $18.95 (free with a 4-year sub!). A classic book and the best overall history of the American prison system from 1492 to the 20th Century. Well written and fact filled. A must~read for understanding how little things have changed as far as prisons go in the U.S. over hundreds of years. Buy separately: ___
or
Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money from Mass Incarceration, edited by Paul Wright & Tara Herivel, New Press (2007). $24.95 (free with a 4-year sub!). Thi~ is the third in a series of PLN anthologies that examines the reality of mass imprisonment in the U.S. Prison Profiteers is unique from other books on the .market because. it exposes and discusses who profits and benefits, from mass imprisonment, rather than who is harmed by the prison industrial complex and our nation's reliance on over-incarceration. Buy separately: ___'

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 61 of 65 PageP8L2NCOL-00277

Order Form
All purchases must he pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or hooks, no singles) or
pre-stamped envelopes, if allowed by prison policies.

Book Title / Number

Qty Total Cost

(attach another page if you are ordering more books)
Subtotal: Add 6% sales tax for VT residents only: Add $6.00 S/R to orders UNDER $50: Total Order Amount:
Send to: Name: DOC#:
Agency/lnst: Address:
City/State/Zip: MAIL PAYl\lENT AND TillS FORM TO: Prison Legal News
P,O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303
Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prison lega Inews.org

FREE SHIPPING
On hook and index orders OVER $50.00! A $6 shipping chru.'ge applies to all other hook amI index onlel.'s,
(Free shipping policy in elIecl from Jan 1, :l010 until further notice)

MOl'e Books fOl' Sale!

Prisoners' Self-Help Litigation Manual, updated 4th ed. (2010), by John

Boston and Daniel Manville, Oxford Univ. Press, 1500 pages. $39.95. The
I I I premiere, must-have "Bible" of prison litigation for current and aspiring jail-
house lawyers. If you plan to litigate a prison or jail civil suit,

this book is a must-have.

1077

Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the U.S.

and Canada, updated 3rd ed. by Jon Marc Taylor, Ph.D. and edited by Susan

Schwartzkopf, published by PLN, 221 pages. $49.95. Written by ]\;Iissouri

prisoner Jon Marc Taylor, who obtained a B.S. degree, an M.A. degree and a

Doctorate, the Gllmilla Halldbook contains contact information and descrip-

I I tions of high school, vocational, paralegal and college courses available
through correspondence study. Great resource for prisoners

who want to further their education.

1057 L....._-'-_ _- '

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by Robert E. Toone, Southern Poverty

Law Center, 325 pages. $10.00. This book explains basic rights that prisoners

have in a jail or prison in the U.S. It deals mainly with rights related to health
I I and safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by prison officials; it also
e"plains how you can enforce your rig.hts within the facility,

and, if necessary, in court through litigation.

1060

Starting Out! The Complete Re-Entry. Handbook, edited by William H.

Foster, Ph.D. & Carl E. Horn, Ph.D.; Starting Out Inc., 446 pages. $22.95.

Complete do-it-yourself re-entry manual, and workbook for prisoners who

want to develop tileir own re-entry plan to increase their chances of success

I I after tiley are released. Includes a wide variety of resources, including a user
~ode to the Starting Out website that can he accessed fOllOW-I

rng release.

,

1074

Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners v. the U.S.A, by

Mumia Abu Jamal, City Lights Publishers, 280 pages. $16.95. In Jailhollse LIlli-

yers, Prison Legal News columnist, award-winning journalist and death-row

prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal presents the stories and reflections of fellow pris-

I I I oners-turned-advocates who have learned to use the court system to represent
other prisoners, and in some cases have won their freedom.

Must-read for jailhouse lawyers!

1073

How to Win Your Personal Injury Claim, by l\tty. Joseph Matdlews, 7dl

edition, NOLO Press, 304 pages. $34.99. While not specifically for prison-

related personal injury cases, dlis book provides comprehensive information

I I on how to handle personal injury and property damage claims arising from
~ccidents - including dealing Witil doctors, attorneys and I

rnsurance comparues.

1075

All prices moe effective as of 9-15-10 (plices subject to change without notice)
* No refunds after orders have been placed *

. _,_ _ _;~" ~1'tft;:· -_.~:~ :,~.. >.
PRls0N,;i1.EGAL NEWS
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
2010 PLN BOOK LIST
Prices Subject to Change Without Notice
Graphic from: Books 2 Prisoners, Van'conver, BC
P,O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.pl.isonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 62 of 65 PageP8L3NCOL-00278

Check the box of the books you want to buy and use the Order Form on the other side ofthis brochure to add up the cost of your order. FREE SIDPPING for book and index orders OVER $50. There is a $6 shipping charge for all other book and index orders.

Prison Profiteers, edinxl by Paul Wright and Tara HeriveJ, 323 pages. $24.95. TIUs is d,e dlird and larest book in a series ofPrison ~ News andlOlogies th.,t e.'illtIlines d,e reality of

mass impUsonment in AmeriCl. (TIle other tides are The CelliJJg ofAJlIerica & H;,ollNatioll,

see below). PlirOIl Projteers is unique from other books becluse it ""poses and discusses

who profits and benefits from mass imprisonment; rndler dmn who is I

I

I

banned by it and how.

1063 L._---'.'--_---'.

I I I Prison Nation: The Warehousing of America's Poor, edinxl by Tara Herivel and Paul
Wright; 332 pages. $35.95. PIN anthology ""poses the d-u:k side ofthe

1ock-em-up' political agenda and legal climate in d,e U.s.

1041 .

.

.

The CelIing of America, edinxl by Daniel Burton Rose, Dan Pens and Paul Wright; 264

I pages. $22.95. PIN anthology presents a demiled "inside" look at d,e

I .

I

workings ofd,e American crimirml justice system.

1001..

.

Everyday Letters for Busy People, by Debra Hart May, 287 pages. $18.99.

Hundreds of sample letters that can be adapted for most any purpose, including

letters to government agencies and officials. Has numerous I

1

tips for writing effective letters.

.

1048 .

.

The Criminal Law Handbook: Knm~ Your Rights, Survive the System, by
Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sara J. Berman-Barrett; Nolo Press, 608 pages. $39.99.

&1'lains what happens in a criminal case from being arrested to sentencing, and what

your rights are at eacll stage of the process. Uses an easy to under" 1

stand question-and-answer format.

1038 L._---'_ _ _-'

Represent Yourself in Court: How to Prepare & Try a Winning Case, by

Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sara J. Berman-Barrett; Nolo Press, 528 pages. $39.99.

I I Breaks down d,e civil trial process in easy-ta-understand steps so you can effectively
represent yourself in court. TI,e authors e.'-1'lain what to say in

court; how to say it; etc.

.

1037 .

.

Law Dictionary, Random House Webster's, 525 pages. $19.95. Comprellensive

ta-date bw dictionary e.'-1'bins more d,an 8,500 legal terms. I

I

Covers civil, criminal, commercial & intemational.l"v.

1036 L!_---"'---_ _-'

The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, by Jane Straus, 110 pages.

$14.95. A guide to grammar and punctuation by an educator 1 1

1

widl e"perience teaching English to prisoners.

1046

Legal Research: How to Find and Understand the Law, by Stephen Elias and

I I I Susan Levinkind, 568 pages. $49.99. Comprehensive and easy to understand guide
on researclling d,e law. E.'-1'lains case law, statutes and digests,

and mucll more. Includes practice e.'(ercises.

1059 L._ - ' - ._ _ _--'.

Deposition Handbook, by Paul Bergman and Albett Moore, Nolo Press, 352

pages. $34.99. How-to handbook for anyone who conducts a 1 1

I

deposition or is going to be deposed.

1054 . .

.

Spanish-English/English~Spanish Dictionary, Random House. $8.95. Two

I sections, Spanish-English and English-Spanish. 60,000+ entries

I

1

from A to Z; includes Western Hemisphere usage.

1034 L._ - - - ' . - , -_ _- ' .

Please Note: All book and index orders are mailed via the U.S. Postal Service with Delivery Confirniiation: PLN does not assume any responsibility to replace hook or index oITlers OIice their delivery to the desti-
by nation address (facility) is confirmed the U.S. Postal Service.

I I Writing to Wm: The Legal Writer;by Steven D. Stark, Broadway Books/Random
House, 283 pages. $19.95. E.'1'bins the wtiting of effective compbints'l

responses, btiefs, motions and odler legal papers.

1035 L._-L._ _---1.

Actual Innocence: When Justice Goes Wrong and How to Make it Right, updated paperback ed., by Barry Scheck, Peter Neufeld and Jinl Dwyer; 403 pages. $16.00. Founders of rile Innocence Project e.'1'bin how ctiminaJ defendants are wrongly con\~cted On a regular basis. &1'lains DNA resting and how it works to free ri,e innocent.

Devasmting critique of police. and prosecutoti'1l misconduct and d,e 1 1

I

system dmt ensures such abuses continue.

1030 ...I. L._ - ' - ._ _ _

Rogel's Thesaurus, 717 pages. $8.95. Helps you find ri,e right word for what

you want to say. 11,000 words listed alphabetically wiril over 200,000 synonyms

and antonyms. Sample sentences and parts of speech shown for every main

word. Covers all levels of vocabulary and identifies informal 1 1

1

and slang words.

1045 ...I. L._ - ' - ._ _ _

Webster's English Dictionary, Newly revised and updated, Random House.

$8.95. 75,000+ entries: Includes· tips on writing and word usage, and has up-

dated geographical and biographical entries. Includes recent! !

business and compoter terms.

1033

Capital Crimes, by George Winslow, Monthly Review, 360 pages. $19.00.

Explains how economic policies create and foster crinle, and 1

1

how corporate & government crime is rarely punished. 1024 '---1-_------'

With Liberry for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America, by Scott

Christianson, Nordleastern University Press, 372 pages. $18.95. The best

overall history of the American prison system from 1492 through the 20d,

Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how little

I 1 dungs have changed as far as prisons go in the U.S. over

I

hundreds of years.

1026..

.

Ten Men Dead: The story of the 1981 Irish hunger strike, by David Beres-

ford, Adantic Mondlly Press, 334 pages. $16.95. Inside story of 1 I

1

IRA prisoners at Belfast's Long Kesh prison.

1006 . .

.

Finding the Right Lawyer, by Jay Foonberg, ABA, 256 pages. $19.95. Ex-

plains how to detem1ine your legal needs, how to evaluate a I 1

1

lawyer's qualifications, fee payments, and more.

1015..

.

Seize the Day! 7 Steps to Achieving the Extraordinary in an Ordinary

World, by Danny Cox and John Hoover, 256 pages. $15.99. Provides 7 steps

I I I to changing your expectations and envisioning yourself as being a successful
and respected person-wluch is essential to changing d,e

course of one's life.

1052..

.

Women Behind Bars, The Crisis of Women in the U.S. Prison.8ystem, by
Silja J.A. Talvi, Seal Press, 295 pages. $15.95. Best book available dlat covers

issues related to imprisoned women, based on interviews widl

hundreds of women behind bars.

1066

10 Insider Secrets to a Wincing Job Search, by Todd Bermont, 216 pages.

$15.99. Roadmap on how to get a job even under adverse circumstances-like

being an e.'(-con. Includes how to develop a winning atritude, write attention-

grabbing resumes, prepare for inten~ews, networking, how to I I

1

present your strengdls to an employer, and much more! 1056..

.

I I I The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, 2003
Ed. by Alfred McCoy, 734 pages. $34.95. Documented e.'(pose

of d,e government's involvement in drug trafficking.

1014 L._ - ' - ._ _ _- ' .

Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis, by Chtistian Parenti,

290 pages. $19.00. Analyzes d,e war on die poor via d,e ctimin.'1l justice system. Well
para-I documented and includes first-hand reporting. Covers prisons,

military policing, SWAT teams and d,e lNS. .

1002 L..._ - ' -_ _- '

Hepatitis and liver Disease: What You Need to Know, by Melissa Palmer, ]'vID,

457 pages. $17.95. Desctibes symptoms & treatmerits ofhepatiris B & C and oilier

liver diseases. Includes medications .to avoid, what diet to follow, I I

1

exercises to perform, and a bibliography.

1031

Crime and Purtishment In America, by Elliott Cutrie, 230 pages. $16.95. Effective

rebutml to right-wing proponents of prison building. Fact-based rugument shows that

crime is driven by poverty. Debunks prison myths and discusses I I

I

proven, effective means ofcrime prevention.

1019

Prison Madness: The Mental Health Crisis Behind Bars and What We

Must Do About It, by Terry Kupers, Jossey-Bass, 245 pages. Hardback only,

prisoners please include any required authorization fonn $32.95. Psychia-

I I triSt writes about d,e mental heald, crisis in U.S. ptisons and jails. Covers all
aspects of mental illness, prison rape, negative effects of long-I

term isolation in control units, and more.

1003

Prison Writing in 20th Century America, by H. Bruce Franklin, Penguin

Books, 368 pages. $16.00. From Jack London to George Jackson, this

anthology prO\~des a selection of some of the best writing 1 1

describing life belund bars in America.

1022 ---1 L._ - ' - ._ _

r T Soledad Brother: The Prison Letters of George Jackson, by GeorgeJackson,
Lawrence Hill Books, 339 pages. $18.95. Lucid e.'-1'lanation of ,e litiCS of I

prison by a well-known prison activist. More relevant now d,an

when it first appeared 40 years ago.

1016

Marijuana Law, by Ricllard Boire, Ronin, 271 pages. $17.95. E.'illtIlines how to

reduce d,e probability of arrest and prosecution for people accused of d,e use, sale or

I I possession of m.wjuana. Info on legal defenses, search & seizures,

1

surveiJ1mce, asset furfeiture and drug testing.

1008 L._ - - ' ._ _----'.

Worse Than Slavery: Parchman Farm and the Ordeal ofJim Crow Justice, by

Da\~d Osllinsky, 306 pages. $16.00. .Analysis of prison labor's roots in slavery.

Focuses on ptison planmtions and self-sustaining prisons dmt use 1 .1

I

prison labor.

1007..

.

No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the American Criminal Justice

I I I System, by Da\~d Cole, The New Press, 218 pages. $19.95. E.'-1'bins how the
criminal justice system perpetuates race and class inequality,

creating a two-tiered system of justice.

1028 L._ - ' - ._ _- - ' .

The Prison and the Gallows: The Politics of Mass Incarceration in

America, by Marie Gottschalk, Cambridge University Press, 451 pages.

$29.99. Great political analysis of d,e confluence of events 1 1

I

leading to 2.3 rnillion people behind bars in the U.S. 1069..

.

The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, by Brandon

Sample, PLN Publishing, 200 pages. $49.95. Tlus is PLN's second published

I I I book, wluch e.'(clusively covers ineffective assistance of counsel-related
issues in federal habeas petitions. Great resource for habeas

litigation, and contains hundreds of case cites!

1078..

.

Factor 8 (DVD), a film by Kelly Duda, Concrete Films. $21.95. MO\~e

I about ti,e Arkansas prison blood scandal, in \vluch prison officials sold
infected blood harvested from prisoners. Note: This is a

DVD and cannot be shipped to prison.

1076 L._ - L_ _-'

PLN Cumulative Index. $22.50 each. PIN Article Indexes provide detailed info=ation about all PLN articles, including tide, author, issue, page number, topics covered, citations, and if it is state, BOP or jail specific. Can be searched on over 500 subjects such as medical neglect or se.'(ual assault. Circle d,e index(es) you are ordeting: 1990-1995, 1996-1998, 1999-1 2001, 2002-2004. (more recent indexes not yet available)

All books are soft cover except Prison Madness

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 63 of 65

T he Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel is the first in a series of books by Prison Legal News Publishing designed to help pro-se prisoner litigants identify and raise viable claims for potential habeas corpus relief. This book is an invaluable resource that identifies hundreds of cases where the federal courts have granted habeas relief to prisoners whose attorneys prOvided ineffective assistance of counsel.
It will save litigants thousands of hours
of research and it focuses on the WINNING cases criminal defendants need to successfully challenge their convictions.
Well organized into 52 concise chapters, this easy to use book puts the law at the reader's fingertips. The Appendix includes pleadings and forms from successful habeas corpus cases that

"

The Habeas Citebook is a

nifty and concise self-help

guide for prisoners seeking

habeas relief based on claims of

ineffective assistance of counsel.

Navigating the complex and

treacherous terrain ofhabeas

law is never easy; but claim-

ing that your lawyer screwed up

is even more difficult - espe-

cially from the confines of an

demonstrate formatting and show ill-equipped prison law library.

how to frame a winning argu-

"Brandon Sample has pro-

ment that will persuade a court

vided an amazing and much-

to grant habeas relief. The Habeas

needed tool for prisoners who

Citebook explains the proce-

are forced to seek relief on their

dural and substantive complexi-

own. The book is thorough; but

ties of federal habeas corpus lit-

simple and readable. It starts

igation with the goal of identify-

with a wonderfully well-orga-

ing and litigating claims involving nized listing of hundreds of dif-

ineffective assistance of counsel.

ferent types of ineffective assis-

Brandon Sample is a success-

tance of counsel, set forth in the

fuljailhouse lawyerlitigant incar-

form of citations to court rul-

cerated in the Bureau of Prisons.

ings - a novel approach that

He is a Prison Legal News contrib- not only acts as a springboard

uting writer and a member of the

for further research but also

National Lawyer's Guild. Editor

saves the prisoner countless

Susan Schwartzkopf has a mas-

hours of preliminary research:'

ter's degree in education and is

the director and editor in chief of

PETER SCHMIDT

Prison Legal News Publishing.

Publisher, Punch & Jurists

THE HABEAS CITEBOOK: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

I

By Brandon Sample

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed _ _ _ __

8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages

g By: D check D new postage stamps D credit card D money order

ISBN 978-0-9819385-1-6

Name _______________________________________

$49·95
3 or more copies ordered

DOC/BOP Number _____~_______________________

at once $39.95 each

Institution/Agency ___________________________--'-_____

FREE Shipping & Handling Address__________________________________

Order by mail, phone, or on-line. City _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ State

ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

PReSON LEGAL NEWS P.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 0530 3
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

PageP8L4NCOL-00279

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 64 of 65
"---------, Copies of this very usable and useful gUide should be available in every prison library-to help incarcerated people give positive direction to their energies while making constructive use of their time. It is a well-estabHshed fact that people who have taken college courses in prison have a dramatically reduced rate of recidivism."
-BEl,L GALE CHEVICNY, PEN Prison Writing Program, _ _ _-'
'-----'--. . Editor Doing Time: 25 Years ofPrison Writing.

HIGH SCHOOL • VOCATIONAL • PARALEGAL • UNDERGRADUATE. GRADUATE COURSES

. . . .HE GREATLY anticipated and newly updated third edition of the Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the
United States and Canada has finally arrived! Author Jon Marc Taylor's brand new version is the latest in this unique and highly successful gUidebook for the prisoner-student. This invaluable tool and how-to handbook provides the reader with step-by-step instructions to find the appropriate educational program for high school, vocational, paralegal, undergraduate, and graduate courses offered in the U.S. and Canada today.
Invaluable re-entry tool
It presents more than 160 program outlines and
offers an easy-to-use format for the student to
determine which program best suits their needs. It is ideal for the incarcerated student who does not have Internet access or the ability to attend education classes in person. This resource is indispensable

for the individual and beneficial for use in all prison libraries and education departments.
The Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook is the only book on the market for the non-traditional prisoner-student. It includes detailed listings of the quality, cost, and course offerings for all correspondence programs available to prisoners. In a time when so many academic opportunities' in prisons have been eliminated, this book is an invaluable re-entry tool for prisoners who seek to further their education while incarcerated and to help them prepare for life and work following their release.
Jon Marc Taylor has more than 25 years experi-
ence as an incarcerated student, advocate for prisoner education, and author. He has successfully earned a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and a doctorate via correspondence courses while incar-
cerated. Editor Susan Schwartzkopf has a master's
degree in education and 12 years experience teach~ ing immigrants English language skills.

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed _ _ _ __ By: D check D new postage stamps D credit card D money order m

Name _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~------ m DOC/BOP Number _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~__________

Institution!Agency __.,.--___~_________-'-__________

Address_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

I Order by mail, phone, or on-line. City _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ State

ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

PlfUSON LEGAL N[WS I p.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

PageP8L5NCOL-00280

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 65 of 65
"---------, Copies of this very usable and useful gUide should be available in every prison library-to help incarcerated people give positive direction to their energies while making constructive use of their time. It is a well-estabHshed fact that people who have taken college courses in prison have a dramatically reduced rate of recidivism."
-BEl,L GALE CHEVICNY, PEN Prison Writing Program, _ _ _-'
'-----'--. . Editor Doing Time: 25 Years ofPrison Writing.

HIGH SCHOOL • VOCATIONAL • PARALEGAL • UNDERGRADUATE. GRADUATE COURSES

. . . .HE GREATLY anticipated and newly updated third edition of the Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the
United States and Canada has finally arrived! Author Jon Marc Taylor's brand new version is the latest in this unique and highly successful gUidebook for the prisoner-student. This invaluable tool and how-to handbook provides the reader with step-by-step instructions to find the appropriate educational program for high school, vocational, paralegal, undergraduate, and graduate courses offered in the U.S. and Canada today.
Invaluable re-entry tool
It presents more than 160 program outlines and
offers an easy-to-use format for the student to
determine which program best suits their needs. It is ideal for the incarcerated student who does not have Internet access or the ability to attend education classes in person. This resource is indispensable

for the individual and beneficial for use in all prison libraries and education departments.
The Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook is the only book on the market for the non-traditional prisoner-student. It includes detailed listings of the quality, cost, and course offerings for all correspondence programs available to prisoners. In a time when so many academic opportunities' in prisons have been eliminated, this book is an invaluable re-entry tool for prisoners who seek to further their education while incarcerated and to help them prepare for life and work following their release.
Jon Marc Taylor has more than 25 years experi-
ence as an incarcerated student, advocate for prisoner education, and author. He has successfully earned a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and a doctorate via correspondence courses while incar-
cerated. Editor Susan Schwartzkopf has a master's
degree in education and 12 years experience teach~ ing immigrants English language skills.

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed _ _ _ __ By: D check D new postage stamps D credit card D money order m

Name _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~------ m DOC/BOP Number _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~__________

Institution!Agency __.,.--___~_________-'-__________

Address_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

I Order by mail, phone, or on-line. City _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ State

ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

PlfUSON LEGAL N[WS I p.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

PageP8L5NCOL-00280

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 1 of 64

9870.05 fa246305

EXHIBI I
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 86

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 2 of 64 PageP8L7NCOL-00148

Prison Legal News . P.O. Box 2420 West Brattleboro, Vermont 05303

"\i;;'lH:nr·E:· 31 "Ml"tij

\/1" 1)Sx:J.. it

RETURN TO SENDER

As of April 1, 2010

. 7/201 1 -9587** EXPIRES'2010000245

The ColumbI•a County JaI.l : >sco-rT LAVEcLoLEJAIL

ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS COLU;;; AVE

97051

This applies to ALL

OREGON

incoming and out going mail

9'7' /).51

NXX;Ce:

.5e: 1

00 02./06/;t;L

m::TUFr?N TO NOT DELXVEAA9LE AS ADDRESSED
lJNAF.sLE TO P(;'RWARP
ee :

JH)) JJ I)1) )dJ) I1))) JJ11))) Jd)J))}) J} ) 111JJ J J J1J JJ1JJ JLI JJ I

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 3 of 64 PageP8L8NCOL-00149

Order Form
All purchases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new stamps (strips or books) or pre-stamped envelopes.

Books (3 & 4. yr Subscription Specials: CIRCLE
one book ill bonus issues, and DO NOT add SIH)
Protecting Your Health and Safety ill: 4 Bonus Issues (3-yr subscription offer)

$Amt.
Free

Prison Profiteers ill: With Liberty for Some

or 6 Bonus Issues (4-yr subscription offer)

Free

Book Total (inc. all books bought separately)

Add 6% sales tax for Vermont residents only

ADD $6.00 SIH to book orders UNDER $50

PLN Subscriptions
6-month Subscription (Prisoners only) 1 yr Subscription (12 issues) 2 yr Subscription (24 plus 2 Bonus issues) 3 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above ill 4 Bonus issues) 4 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above ill 6 Bonus issues) Sample Issue - $3.50 each
TOTAL Amount Enclosed:

Send to:
Name: DOC#: Agency/Inst: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Address: City/State/Zip: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

MAIL P AYlHENT AND THIS FORM TO:
I i
Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303

Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

PLN Subscription Rates

Subscription Rates 1yr 2 yrs 3 yrs 4 yrs

Prisoners *

$24 $ 48 $ 72 $ 96

Individuals

$30 $ 60 $ 90 $120

Professionals

$80 $160 $240 $320

(Lawyers, govt. & professional agencies, libraries, etc.)

Sample issue for anyone - $3.50 each*

Six-month prisoner subscription for $12*

* Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books only) or pre-stamped envelopes, ifalluwed byprison policies.

:- - - - - - - - -

B-o;';';;sl ---------

•• 2 years - 2 bonus issues, for 26 monthly issues total.

: 3 years - 4 bonus issues (40 total) OR Protecting Your Health and

• Safety (see book description on the other side of tlris brochure).

: 4 years - 6 bonus issues (54 total) OR your choice of With Libertyfor

!.

_____:

New 3 or 4-Year Subscription Book Offers!

Subscribe or renew for three years at the regular price ($72 for prisoners & $90 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Protecting Your Health and Safety or four bonus issues of PLN! (40 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice oli the Order Form.
Subscribe or renew for four years at the regular price ($96 for prisoners & $120 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Prison Profiteers or With Liberty for Some, or 6 bonus issues of PLN! (54 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.

NO shipping charge for subscription bonus books!

NOTE: If you want the bonus issues of PLN instead of the free book offer, please indicate that on the Order Form.

:- ----- U;£0; PiN;s

-----

•I You can buy dozens of legal, social commentary, self-.•

: help books, and legal and regular dictionaries directly:

•from PLN's book store! Ask us for a book list, or view:

• our selec'tlOn 0 nlineat:

•

•L ______w_w_w_.p_ri_so_n_Ie_ga_l_ne_w_s._o_rg_/s_to_re_.a_s_px______ _:

All subscription rates & bonus offers are effective as of 5-1-10
and valid through 12-31-10
* No l'efunds after Ol·ders have heen placed *

P,RISONJtEGAL NEWS
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Centel'
Eastern State Penitentiary 1829-1971
Charles Dickens visited Philadelphia's Eastern State Penitentiary in 1842 and he later wrote: "The System is rigid, strict and hopeless ... and I believe it to be cmel and wrong....I hold this slow and daily tampering with the mysteries of the brain to be immeasurably worse than any torture of the body." The prison remained open for 129 years after Dickens condemned it as being barbaric, and some of its inhumane practices continue to be used in prisons nationwide.
P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.prisonIegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 4 of 64 PageP8L9NCOL-00150

l i1 1! >-
P rison Legal News is an independent, non-profit 56-page monthly publication that reports, reviews and aualyzes court l'ulings and news related to
prisoners' rights and prIson issues. PLN has a national (U.S.) focus on state, federal and private prison issues,
with some international coverage as well.
PLN's many thousands of subscribers and readers include civil and criminal trial and appellate attOl'neys, judges, public defenders, journalists, academics, paralegals, prisoners' rights activists, students, family members of prisoners, concerned individuals, politicians, other government officials, and numerous local, state and federal prisoners nationwide.
PLN is a vital link for prisoners who otherwise don't have access to .current legal and prison-related news and information.
"Invaluable resource foianyone wanting 'user friendly' infonnation about current legal developments affecting
prisoners in the. United States." ..,. Human Rights Watch, a long-time PLN subscriber
P LN's coverage of prison issues includes medical neglect, disciplinary hearings, nutrition, living conditions, excessive force, court access, censorship, jail litigation, visiting, telephones, religious freedom, free speech, prison rape,· mental health, attorney/ client access, sexual abuse of women prisoners, retaliation, the PLRA, HIV and hepe, control units, the death penalty, attorney fees and much more.
PLN Snbscription Rates Prisoners: $12 for 6 months, $24 per year * N on-incarcerated individuals: $30 per year Law firms, govt. agencies and libraries: $80 per year Sample issue for anyone: $3.50 each*
* Prisoners can pay with new stamps or pre-stamped envelopes

E ach monthly issue of PLN· fucludesthree different

types of reporting:

.

• A cover story on a prison-related issue.

o Reports on individual and class-action prison and jail-

related lawsuits when they are filed, when a judgment is

entered or the case settles, and when an appellate court

decision is issued. We also have

news arlicles.

• A "News In Brief' section that summarizes interesting news stories across the U.S. alid internationally.

Each issue of PLN also contains numerous advertisements from businesses that provide prison-related personal and legal services and books. PLN further sells dozens of selfhelp, social commentary and legal books.

PLN also has cumulative subject and case cite indexes for . all PLN issues from 1990 through 2004. Write for info.

Special 3-yeal' Subscription Offer! .1

Free with a 3-year PLN subscription! Four bonus issues of PLN (40 issues total) Q! a free book, Protecting Your Health and Safety! Circle your bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (3-year subscription rates: prisoners $72, individuals $90, professionals $240).

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by

Robert E. Toone. Published by the South-

ern Poverty Law Center, 325 pages (2009):

$10.00 (free with a 3-yero' sub!). This book

explains some basic rights that prisoners have in a jailor prison in the U.S. It deals rJ

I " ' 9 _ _ _. ,

mainly with rights related to health and - I!.- --'---I.

safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by

prison officials; it also explains how you can enforce your

rights to health and safety within the facility and, if nec-

essary, in court through litigation. Buy separately: ___

: You Can Buy These Books Separately! :

I

I

I

: If you don't want to purchase a 3 or 4-year subscription:

: to PLN, you can still purchase any of the bonus books:

: at the regular price. Just indicate which books you want:

: to buy on this page, then enter the total cost on the other:

: side of this brochure on the "Book Total" line of the 01'- :

: del' Form. Shipping is $6 per order (not per book), and we :

: offer FREE sllipping on book orders of $50 or more! To :

: place a phone order, please call 802-257-134.2. We also:

: accept book orders online, at www.prisonlegahiews.org. I
L _________________________________________ J

D onations: PLN is a project of the non-profit Human Rights Defense Center. Your tax-deductilile donations support our advocacy, free speech and First Amendment litigation efforts on behalf of prisoners and publishers. PLN not only provides uncensored prison-related news, but actively contests prison censorship that interferes with the delivery of our publication or any other PLN materials sent to prisoners. All donations further our goal of advocating for people imprisoned in U.S. detention facilities.
"Great source of infonnation, especially in states such as Arizona where the law libraries have been taken from the inmates and replaced with paralegals." - SB, Arizona prisoner
Offer!J
Free with a 4-year PLN subscription! Six bonus issnes of PLN (54 issues total) Q! one free book, With Liberty for Some or Prison Profiteers! Circle your bonus choice on the form on the other side of this ·brochure (4.-year subscription rates: prisoners $96,· individuals. $120, professionals $320). Note: Free book option is for one book.
With Liberty for Some: 500 Years Imprisonment in America, by Scott Christianson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages (1998). $13.95 (fi:ee with a 4,-yero' sub!). A classic book and the best overall history of the American prison system from 14-92 to the 20th Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how little things have changed as far as prisons go in the U.S. over hundreds of years. Buy separately: ___
or
Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money from Mass Incarceration, edited by Paul Wright & Tara Herivel, New Press (2007). $24.95 (free with a 4-year sub!). This is the third in a series of PLN anthologies that examines the reality of mass imprisonment in the U.S. Prison Profiteers is unique from other books on the market because it exposes and discusses who profits and benefits from mass imprisonment, rather than who is harmed by the prison industrial complex and our nation's reliance on over-incarceration. Buy separately: _ __

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 5 of 64 PageP9L0NCOL-00151

Order Form
All purchases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new fIrst-class stamps (strips or books, no singles) or
pre-stamped envelopes, if allowed by prison policies.

Book Title / Number

Qty Total Cost

(attach another page ifyou are ordering more books)
Subtotal: Add 6% sales tax for VT residents only: Add $6.00 S/R to orders UNDER $50: Total Order Amount:
Send to:
Name: DOC#: Agency/lnst: Address: City/State/Zip:
MAIL PAYMENT AND TIDS FORM: TO: Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303
Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

FREE SIDPPING

On book and index orders OVER $50.00!

A $6 shipping charge applies to all oilIer book amI onleI's.

(Free shipping policy in clIect from Jan I,

lmtil further notice)

More Books fOl' Sale!

Prisoners' Self-Help Litigation Manual, updated 4th ed. (2010), by John

Boston and Daniel Manville, Oxford Univ. Press, 1500 pages. $39.95. The
I I I premiere, must-have ''Bible'' of prison litigation for current and aspiring jail-
house lawyers. If you plan to litigate a prison or jail civil suit,

this book is a must-have.

1077

Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the U.S.

and Canada, updated 3rd ed. by Jon Marc Taylor, Ph.D. and edited by Susan

Schwartzkopf, published by PLN, 221 pages. $49.95. Written by Missouri

prisoner Jon Marc Taylor, who obtained a B.S. degree, an M.A. degree and a

Doctorate, the Gllmil/a Hatrdbook contains contact information and descrip-

I I tions of high school, vocational, paralegal and college courses available
through correspondence study. Great resource for prisoners

who want to furtiler their education.

1057 L---'_ _---l

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by Robert E. Toone, Soutilern Poverty

Law Center, 325 pages. $10.00. This book explains basic rights that prisoners

have in a jail or prison in the U.S. It deals mainly Witil rights related to health
I I I and safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by prison officials; it also
explains how you can enforce your rights within the facility

and, if necessary, in court through litigation.

1060

Starting Out! The Complete Re-Entry Handbook, edited by William H.

Foster, Ph.D. & Carl E. Horn, Ph.D., Starting Out Inc., 446 pages. $22.95.

Complete do-it-yourself re-entry manual and workbook for prisoners who

want to develop their own re-entry plan to increase tileir chances of success

I I after tiley are released. Includes a wide variety of resources, including a user to tile Starting Out website that can be accessed fOllow-I

Ing release.

1074

Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners v. the U.S.A, by

Mumia Abu Jamal, City Lights Publishers, 280 pages. $16.95. In Jailhollse Low-

yers, Prison Legal News columnist, award-winning journalist and death-row

prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal presents tile stories and reflections of fellow pris-

I oners-turned-advocates who have learned to use the court system to represent
other prisoners, and in some cases have won their freedom.

Must-read for jailliouse lawyers!

1073 L._-1-_ _ _.J

How to Win Your Personal Injury Clainl, by Atty. Joseph Matthews, 7til

edition, NOLO Press, 304 pages. $34.99. WIllie not specifically for prison-

related personal injury cases, tius book provides comprehensh'e informarion

I I I on how to handle personal injury and property damage claims arising from - including dealing with doctors, attorneys and

Insurance comparues.

1075 . .

.

All prices are effective as of9-15-10 (Plices subject to change without notice)
I * No refunds after ordel'S have been placed *

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
2010 PLN BOOK LIST
Prices Subject to Change Without Notice Graphic from: Books 2 Prisoners, Vancouver, Be
P.O. Box 2420, BI'attleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.prisonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 6 of 64 PageP9L1NCOL-00152

Check the box of the books you want to buy and use the Order Form on the other side of this brochure to add up the cost of your order. FREE SHIPPING for book and index orders OVER $50. There is a $6 shipping charge for all other book and index orders.

Prison Profiteers, edited by Paul Wright and Tarn Herivel, 323 pages. $24.95. TIns is the

dlird and L1test book in a series ofPnson Legal News anthologies dillt e.xamines d,e reality of
fi1aSS imprisonment in ArneriaL (The other tides are Tbe Cellillg ifAlIlenro & PJirOIl Natioll,

see below). PJirOIl Projteers is unique from odler books because it ""-poses and disrusses

who profits and benefits from n1aSS imprisonment, .mther than who is I

I

I

hannedbyitandhow.

1063 LI_--''-_.......J

Prison Nation: The Warehousing ofAmerica's Poor, edited by Tarn Herivel and Paul

Wright, 332 pages. $35.95. PIN anthology ""-poses the d'lIk side ofd,e •

1ock-em-up' political agenda and legal climate in the US.

1041

The Celling of America, edited by Daniel Burton Rose, Dan Pens and Paul Wright, 264

pages. $22.95. PIN andlOlogy presents a detniled "inside" look at d,e I I

I

workings ofd,e ArneriCUl aimin,'] justice system.

1001 . .

.

Everyday Letters for Busy People, by Debra Hart May, 287 pages. $18.99.

Hundreds of sample letters that can be adapted for most any purpose, including

letters to government agencies and officials. Has numerous

tips for writiog effective letters.

1048 LI_ - - '_ _.......J

The Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System, by
Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sam J. Berman-Barn;tt, Nolo Press, 608 pages. $39.99.

ExpL1ins what lillppens in a criminal case from being arrested to sentencing, and what

your rights are at eacll stage of the process. Uses an easy to under-I

stand question-and-answer fOffilat

1038 L._ - - '_ _ _--'

Represent Yourself in Court: How to Prepare & Try a Winning Case, by
Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sam J. Berman-Barrett, Nolo Press, 528 pages. $39.99.

Breaks down d,e civil trial process in easy-to-understand steps so you can effectively

represent

in court The authors ""-plain what to say in I I

I

coutt, how to sal' It, etc.

1037...

Law Dictionary, Random House Webster's, 525 pages. $19.95. Comprellensive

to-date L1w dictionary e."-pL1ins more than 8,500 legal terms. I

I

Covers civil, criminal, commercial & international L1w.

1036 L..'_ _L -_ _- '

The Blue Book of Grammar and PunctUation, by Jane Straus, 110 pages.

$14.95. A guide to gtammar and punctuation by an educator I I

I

with e"-perience teaching English to prisoners.

1046 LI_ - - '_ _ _- '

Legal Research: How to Find and Understand the Law, by Stephen Elias and

Susan Levink:ind, 568 pages. $49.99. Comprellensive and easy to understand guide

on researcltiog the L1w. &-pL1ins case L1w, statutes and digests, I I

I

and much more. Includes p.mctice e.xercises.

1059 L..._ - - ' ._ _ _-'.

Deposition Handbook, by Paul Bergman and Albert Moore, Nolo Press, 352

pages; $34.99. How-to handbook for anyone who conducts a I I

I

deposition or is going to be deposed.

1054 L._ - ' . ._ _ _--'.

Spattish-English/English-Spattish Dictionary, Random House. $8.95. Two

sections, Spanish-English and English-Spanish. 60,000+ entries I I

from A to Z; includes Western Hemisphere usage.

1034 L._ - - ' ._ _ _--'

Please Note: All hook and index orders are mailed via the U.S. Postal Service with Delivery Confumation. PIN does not assume any respon-
sibility to replace book or index orders once their delivery to the desti-
nation address (facility) is confumed hy the U.S. Postal Service.

I I Writing to Win: The Legal Writer, by Steven D. Stad" Broadway Books/Random

House, 283 pages. $19.95. R,,-pL1ins ti,e wtiting of effective compL1ints,

I

responses, btiefS, motions and odler legal papers.

1035 L._-L._ _.......J.

Actual Innocence: When Justice Goes Wrong and How to Make it Right, updated
paperback ed., by Barry Scheck, Peter Neufeld and Jim Dwyer; 403 pages. $16.00.

Founders of d,e Innocence Project e."-pL1in how ctiminaI defendants are wrongly con-

victed on a regular basis. &-pL1ins DNA testing and how it works to free the innocent

Devastating critique of police and prosecutotinl misconduct and ti,e I I

I

system tlillt ensures such abuses continue..

1030 L._-L._ _ _J.

Roger's Thesaurus, 717 pages. $8.95. Helps you find the right word for what

you want to say. 11,000 words listed alphabetically ,vith over 200,000 synonyms

and antonyms. Sample sentences and parts of speech shown for every main

word. Covers all levels of vocabulary and identifies informal

and slang words.

1045

Webster's English Dictionary, Newly

and updated, lbndom House.

I $8.95. 75,000+ entries. Includes tips on writiog and word usage, and has up-
dated geogtaphical and biogtaphical entries. Includes recent I I

business and computer terms.

1033 ..J. •L•.._---'-._ _ _

Capital Crimes, by George Winslow, Monthly Review, 360 pages. $19.00.

Explains how economic policies create and foster crime, and I I

I

how corporate & government crime is rarely punished. 1024
'-,,--'------'

With Liberty for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America, by Scott

Christianson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages. $18;95. TI,e best

overall history of the American prison system from 1492 tl1!ough the 20th

Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how little

tltiogs have changed as far as prisons go in the U.S. over 1 1

1

hundreds of years.

1026..

.

Ten Men Dead: The story of the 1981 Irish hunger strike, by David Beres-

ford, Atlantic Monthly Press, 334 pages. $16.95. Inside story of I I

I

IRA prisoners at Belfast's Long Kesh prison.

1006..

.

Finding the Right Lawyer, by Jay Foonberg, ABA, 256 pages. $19.95. Ex-

plains how to detemtioe your legal needs, how to evaluate a I I

I

lawyer's qualifications, fee payments, and more.

1015..

.

Seize the Day! 7 Steps to Achieving the Extraordinary in an Ordinary

World, by Darmy Cox and John Hoover, 256 pages. $15.99.

7 steps

to changing your expectations and

yourself as being a successful

and respected person-which is essential to changing the I I

I

course of one's life.

1052

Women Behind Bars, The Crisis of Women in the U.S. Prison System, by

Silja J.A. Talvi, Seal Press, 295 pages. $15.95. Best book available that covers

issues related to imprisoned women, based on interviews with

hundreds of women behind bars.

1066

10 Insider Secrets to a Winning Job Search, by Todd Bermont, 216 pages.

$15.99. Roadmap on how to get a job even under adverse circumstances-like

bejng an ex-con. Includes how ro develop a winning atritude, write attention-

gtabbing resumes, prepare for interviews, networking, how to I I

I

present your strengths to an employer, and much more! 1056..

.

The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, 2003

Ed. by Alfred McCoy, 734 pages. $34.95. Documented expose I I

I

of ti,e government's involvement in drug trafficking.

1014 L._ - - " - ._ _ _- ' .

Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis, by Ouisti1I1 Parenti,

290 pages. $19.00. Analyz;" the war on ti,e poor via the ctiminal justice system. Well

documented and includes first-hand repotting. Covers prisons, parn-I

military policing, SWAT teams and ti,e INS.

1002 L._ - ' -_ _- '

Hepatiris and Liver Disease: What You Need to Know, by Melissa Palmer, lYID,

457 pages. $17.95. Desctibes symptoms & treatments of hepatitis B & C and odler

liver diseases. Includes medications to avoid, what diet to follow, I I

I

e.xerOses to perform, and a.bibliography.

. 1031

Clime and Punishment In America, by Elliott Cnetie, 230 pages. $16.95. Effective

rebuttnl to right-wing proponents of prison building. Fact-based argument shows dillt

crime is driven by poverty. Debunks prison myths and disrusses I I

I

proven, effertive means ofcrime prevention.

1019

Prison Madness: The Mental Health Crisis Behind Bars and What We

Must Do About It, by Terry Kupers, Jossey-Bass, 245 pages. Hardback on{y,

prisoners please include any required authorization funn $32.95. Psychia-

trist wtites about ti,e mental health crisis in U.S. prisons and jails. Covers all

aspects of mental illness, prison rape, negative effects of long-I I

I

term isolation in conttol units, and more.

1003

Prison Writing in 20th Century America, by H. Bruce Franklin, Penguin

Books, 368 pages. $16.00. From Jack London to George Jackson, this

antllOlogy provides a selection of some of ti,e best writiog I I

rT describing life behind bars in America.

1022 L._...L._ _---'

Soledad Brother: The Prison Letters of George Jackson, by GeorgeJackson, Lawrence Hill Books, 339 pages. $18.95. Lucid ""-pL1nation of e litiCS of I

prison by a well-known prison activist. More relevant now than

when it first appeared 40 years ago.

1016

Marijuana Law, by Richard Boite, Ronin, 271 pages. $17.95. Examines how to

I I reduce ti,e probability of arrest and prosecution for people acrused of the use, sale or

possession of marijuana. Infu on legal defenses, searcll & seizures,

I

surveillance, asset furfeiture and drng testing.

1008 L..._...L._ _---'.

Worse Than Slavery: Parchman Fann and the Ordeal ofJim CrowJustice, by

David Osltiosky, 306 pages. $16.00. Analysis of ptison L1bor's roots in sL1very.

Focuses on prison pL1ntations and self-sustaining prisons tI,at use I I

I

ptison L1bor.

. 1007..

.

No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the American Criminal Justice

System, by David Cole, TI,e New Press, 218 pages. $19.95. R"-plains how the

justice system perpe:uates .mce and class inequality, I I

I

creattng a two-tlered system of Justlce.

1028 L.._..J._ _---'.

The Prison and the Gallows: The Politics of Mass Incarceration in

America, by Marie Gottschalk, Cambridge University Press, 451 pages.

$29.99. Great political analysis of the confluence of events I

I

leading to 2.3 million people beltiod bars in the U.S. 1069.

.

The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, by Brandon

Sample, PLN Publishing, 200 pages. $49.95. TIus is PLN's second published

I book, wluch exclusively covers ineffective assistance of counsel-related
issues in federal habeas petitions. Great resource for habeas I I

litigation, and contains hundreds of case cites!

1078..

.

Factor 8 (DVD), a film by Kelly Duda, Concrete Films. $21.95. Movie

about ti,e Arkansas prison blood scandal, in wluch prison officials sold

infected blood harvested from prisoners. Note: This is a I

DVD and cannot be shipped to prison.

1076 L.- ' - - ' -_ _--'

PLN Cumulative Index. $22.50 each. PLN Article Indexes

detailed

information about all PLN articles, including title, author, issue, page number,

topics covered, citations, and if it is state, BOP or jail specific. Can be

se""ched on over 500 subjects such as medical neglect or se.,,-ual assault. Circle

the index(es) you are ordecing: 1990-1995, 1996-1998, 1999-1

2001, 2002-2004. (more recent indexes not yet available)

All books are soft cover except Prison Madness

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 7 of 64

T he Habeas Citebook: Inejf;ctive Assistance of Counsel is the first in a series of books by Prison Legal News Publishing designed to help pro-se prisoner litigants identify and raise viable claims for potential habeas corpus relief. This book is an invaluable resource that identifies hundreds of cases where the federal courts have granted habeas relief to prisoners whose attorneys provided ineffective assistance of counsel.
It will save litigants thousands ofhours
of research and it focuses on the WINNING cases criminal defendants need to successfully challenge their convictions.
Well organized into 52 concise chapters, this easy to use book puts the law at the reader's fingertips. The Appendix includes pleadings and.,forms from successful habeas corpus cases that

"

The HabeasCitebook is a

nifty and concise self-help

guide for prisoners·seeking

habeas·reliefbased on claims of

ineffective assistance of counsel.

Navigating the complex and

treacherous terrain ofhabeas

law is never easy; but claim-

ing that your lawyer screwed up

is even more difficult espe-

cially from the confines of an

demonstrate formatting and show ill-equipped prison law library.

how to frame a winning argu-

"Brandon Sample has pro-

ment that will persuade a court

vided an amazing and much-

to grant habeas relief. The Habeas

needed tool for prisoners who

Citebook explains the proce-

are forced to seek relief on their

dural and substantive complexi-

own. The book is thorough; but

ties of federal habeas corpus lit-

simple and readable. It starts

igation with the goal of identify-

with a wonderfully well-orga-

ing and litigating claims involving nized listing of hundreds of dif-

ineffective assistance of counsel.

ferent types of ineffective assis-

Brandon Sample is a success-

tance of counsel, set forth in the

ful jailhouse lawyer litigant incar-

form of citations to court rul-

cerated in the Bureau of Prisons.

ings - a novel approach that

He is a Prison Legal News contrib- not only acts as a springboard

uting writer and a member of the

for further research but also

National Lawyer's Guild. Editor

saves the prisoner countless

Susan Schwartzkopf has a mas-

hours of preliminary research:'

ter's degree in education and is

the director and editor in chief of

PETER SCHMIDT

Prison Legal News Publishing.

Publisher, Punch & Jurists

I

·THE HABEAS CITEBOOK: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

By Brandon Sample

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed ______

I

8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages

I By: 0 check 0 new postage stamps 0 credit card 0 money order

I I

ISBN 978-0-9819385-1-6
$49·95 3 or more copies ordered

Name _________________________ DOC/BOP Number _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

at once $39.95 each

Institution/Agency __________________

I

FREE Shipping & Handling Address_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

I Order by mail, phone, or on-line. City _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,State PUBLISHED BY

ZIP

PIUSON LEGA.l NEWS p.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

PageP9L2NCOL-00153

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 8 of 64
" - - - - - - Copies of this very usable and useful gUide should be available in every prison library-to help incarcerated people give positive direction to their energies while making constructive use of their time. It is a well-established fact that people who have taken college courses in prison have a dramatically reduced rate of recidivism."
--':BELL GALE CHEVIGNY, PEN Prison Writing Program, Editor Doing Time: 25 Years ofPrison Writing.

HIGH SCHOOL. VOCATIONAL • PARALEGAL • UNDERGRADUATE. GRADUATE COURSES

_ _ HE GREATLY anticipated and newly updated third edition of the Prisoners Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the
United States and Canada has finally arrived! Author Jon Marc Taylor's brand new version is the latest in this unique and highly successful gUidebook for the prisoner-student. This invaluable tool and how-to handbook provides the reader with step-by-step instructions to find the appropriate educational program for high school, vocational, paralegal, undergraduate, and graduate courses offered in the U.S. and Canada today.
Invaluable re-entry tool
It presents more than 160 program outlines and offers an easy-to-use format for the student to determine which program best suits their needs. It is ideal for the incarcerated student who does not have Internet access or the ability to attend education classes in person. This resource is indispensable

for the individual and beneficial for use in all prison libraries and education departments.
The Prisoners Guerrilla Handbook is the only book on the market for the non-traditional prisoner-student. It includes detailed listings of the quality, cost, and course offerings for all correspondence programs available to prisoners. In a time when so many academic opportunities in prisons have been eliminated, this book is an invaluable re-entry tool for prisoners who seek to further their education while incarcerated and to help them prepare for life and work following their release.
Jon Marc Taylor has more than 25 years experience as an incarcerated student, advocate for prisoner education, and author. He has successfully earned a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and a doctorate via correspondence courses while incarcerated. Editor Susan Schwartzkopf has a master's degree in education and 12 years experience teaching immigrants English language skills.

I

PRISONERS' GUERRILLA HANDBOOK TO CORRESPONDENCE PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA 1m
ll!

By Jon Marc Taylor PHD

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed _ _ _ __

8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages

By: 0 check 0 new postage stamps 0 credit card 0 money order I

ISBN 978-0-9819385-0-9
$49.95
3 or more copies ordered

Name -----------------------------------------
DOC/BOP Number _____________________________

at once $39.95 each

Institution!Agency ______________________________

FREE Shipping & Hanelling Address,____________________________________

Oreler by mail, phone, or on-line. City _________________________ State

ZIP

PUBLISHED BY
I PRMSON LEGAL NEWS P.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

PageP9L3NCOL-00154

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 9 of 64

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBIT J
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 94

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 10 of 64 PageP9L5NCOL-00120

Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 West Brattleboro, Vermont 05303

. ,.

V.\f!-HT£- • --I'l:.'..". T . .

...."'" '\:....)', .

,r

<'.'>l·J;!'\·!»:;"""·i.I"I';j;l ','. .

RETURN TO SENDER
,-

As of April 1, 2010 The Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS
This applies to ALL incoming and out going mail

59578 ** EXPIRES: 7/201 1
TROY MCCARTER 201 0002022 COLUMBIA Co JAIL 901 PORT AVE 5T HELENS, OREGON 970F1

N :CXII::

i:l7<::1 -SH::;l.

00 02/ ;1. OJ 11

'T OfSF.:NDF.:R NOT DEL%VF.:RASLE AS ADDRESSED
'1'0 ,F-·O.l::.?ul,r.a.l::.?D

E-l(::;:

Ill»))l lL» Jj ,d J.I,\ »,1 1]»))J,\1) Inl»],\ JJJ,\.1 ,I,\,J)}11» ,1.1, 1))1

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 11 of 64 PageP9L6NCOL-00121

Order Form
All purchases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books, no singles) or
pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed by prison policies.

Book Title / Number

Qty Total Cost

(attach another page if you are ordering more books)
Subtotal: Add 6% sales tax for VT residents only: Add $6.00 S/H to orders UNDER $50: Total Order Amount:
Send to:
Name: DOC#: Agency/lnst: Address: City/State/Zip:
MAIL PAYl\1ENT AND TIDS FORM TO:
Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303
Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

FREE SIDPPING
On hook and index Ol'del's OVER $50.00!
A $6 shipping charge applies to all other book am1 index Oldel's.
(Free shipping policy in elfccl from Jan 1, :lOla until further notice)

More Books fOl' Sale!

Prisoners' Self-Help Litigation Manual, updated 4th ed. (2010), by John

Boston and Daniel Manville, Oxford Univ. Press, 1500 pages. $39.95. The

I I I premiere, must-have "Bible" of prison litigation for current and aspiring jail-
house lawyers. If you plan to litigate a prison or jail civil suit,

this book is a must-have.

1077...

Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the U.S.

and Canada, updated 3rd ed. by Jon lVLnc Taylor, Ph.D. and edited by Susan

Schwartzkopf, published by PLN, 221 pages. $49.95. Written by Missouri

prisoner Jon Marc Taylor, who obtained a B.S. degree, an M.A. degree and a

Doctorate, the G/leni//a Hal/dbook contains contact information and descrip-

I I tions of high school, vocational, paralegal and college courses available
through correspondence study. Great resource for prisoners

who want to further their education.

1057
'---'------'

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by Robert E. Toone, Southern Poverty

Law Center, 325 pages. $10.00. This book e"plains basic rights that prisoners

have in a jailor prison in the U.S. It deals mainly with rights related to health

I I I and safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by prison officials; it also
explains how you can enforce your rights within the facility

and, if necessary, in court through litigation.

1060

Starting Out! The Complete Re-Entty Handbook, edited by William H.

Foster, Ph.D. & Cat! E. Horn, Ph.D., Starting Out Inc., 446 pages. $22.95.

Complete do-it-yourself re-entry manual and workbook for prisoners who

want to develop their own re-entry plan to increase their chances of success

I I after the)' are released. Includes a wide variety of resources, including a user to the Starting Out website that can be accessed fOllOW-I

mg release.

1074

Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners v. the U.S.A., by

Mumia Abu Jamal, City Lights Publishers, 280 pages. $16.95. In faithollse La]})-

yers, Prison Legal News columnist, award-winning journalist and death-row

prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal presents the stories and reflections of fellow pris-

I I oners-turned-advocates who have learned to use the court system to represent
other prisoners, and in some cases have won their freedom. I

Must-read for jailhouse lawyers!

1073

How to Win Your Personal Injuty Claim, b), Atty. Joseph Matthews, 7th

edition, NOLO Press, 304 pages. $34.99. \'qhile not specificall)' for prison-

related personal injury cases, this book provides comprehensive information

I I I on how to handle personal injury and property damage claims arising from
accidents - including dealing \vith doctors, attorneys and

msurance comparues.

1075

All prices are effective as of 9-15-10 (Plices subject to change without notice)
* No refunds after orders have been placed *

!

,'"

NEWS

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center

2010 PLN BOOK LIST
Prices Subject to Change Without Notice
Grapbic from: Books 2 Prisoners, Vancouver, Be
P.O. Box 2420, Bl'attlebol'O, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.pl·isonlegalnews.ol.g

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 12 of 64 PageP9L7NCOL-00122

Check the box of the books you want to buy and use the Order Fonn on the other side of this brochure to add up the cost of your order. FREE SIllPPING for book and index orders OVER $50. There is a $6 shipping charge for all other book and index orders.

Prison Profiteers, edited by Paul Wright and Tam HeriveI, 323 pages. $24.95. This is d,e

dlird and brest book in a series ofPrison Legal News and1Dlogies mat e.xarnines d,e reality of

mass imprisonment in America (The oilier tides are TIlf! Cellillg ifAmenta & Hisol1Natioll,

I see below). Prisol1 P"!ftleer.r is unique from oilier books beCluse it ""poses and discusses

who profits and benefits from mass imprisonment, mdler rl1an who is

1

1

hannedbyitandhow.

1063 L..._ _' - ._ _- ' .

Prison Nation: The Warehousing of America's Poor, edited by Tam Herivel and Paul

Wright, 332 pages. $35.95. PLN aniliology ""poses d,e d,u:k side ofilie 1 1

1

ilie U.s.

1041 . .

.

The Celling of America, edited by Daniel Burton Rose, Dan Pens and Paul Wright, 264

pages. $22.95. PLN and1Dlogy presents a dell!iled "inside" look at ilie I I

1

workings ofilie American criminal justice system.

1001 . .

.

Everyday Letters' for Busy People, by Debra Hart May, 287 pages. $18.99.

Hundreds of sample letters that can be adapted for most any purpose, including

letters to government agencies and officials. Has numerous 1

tips for writing effective letters.

1048 L._ _" -_ _-'

The Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive me System, by
Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sam J. Berman-Barrett; Nolo Press, 608 pages. $39.99.

llipbins what happens in a criminal c.1Se from being arrested to sentencing, and what

your rights are at each stage of ilie process. Uses an easy to under-I

stand question-and-answer format.

1038 L._ - '_ _ _- '

Represent Yourself in Court: How to Prepare & Try a Winning Case, by
Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sam J. B=-Barrett; Nolo Press, 528 pages. $39.99.

Breaks down the civil ttiaI process in easy-to-understand steps so you can effectively

I represent yourself in court. TI,e auiliors e."plain what to say in 1

1

court, how to sal' It, etc.

1037...

Law Dictionary, Random House Webster's, 525 pages. $19.95. Comprehensi\'e U'

to-dme bw dictionary e."p11ins more d,an 8,500 legal terms. j

j

Covers civil, criminal, commercial & international hw.

1036 1'-_-'-_ _--'

I I I The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, by Jane Straus, 110 pages.
$14.95. A guide to grammar and punctuation by an educator

with experience teaching English to prisoners.

1046

Legal Research: How to Find and Understand me Law, by Stephen Elias and

I I I Susan Levinkind, 568 pages. $49.99. Comprehensive and easy to understand guide
on researclling the hw. llipbins case law, statutes and digests,

and mucll more. Includes pmctice e.,ercises.

1059 L.._---L._ _ _-'.

Deposition Handbook, by Paul Bergmao and Albert Moore, Nolo Press, 352

pages. $34.99. How-to handbook for anyone who conducts a 1 1

1

deposition or is going to be deposed.

1054 L._-1.._ _ _-'.

Spanish-English/English-Spanish Dictionary, Random House. $8.95. Two

sections, Spanish-English and English-Spanish. 60,000+ entries 1 1

from A to Z; includes Western Hemisphere usage.

1034 L._ - ' ._ _ _- '

Please Note: All book and index orders are mailed via the U.S. Postal

Service with Delivery

PLN does not assume any respon-

sibility to replace book or index orders once then- delivery to the desti-

nation address (facility) is confirmed by the U.S. Postal Service.

I I I Writing toWm: The LegaI Writer, byBte\'en D. Stad<, Broadway Books/Random
House, 283 pages. $19.95. E."pfuins ilie writiog of effective comp11ints,

responses, briefS, motions and oilier legal papers.

1035 L.._ - ' - ._ _- - ' .

Actual Innocence: WhenJustice Goes Wrong and How to Make it Right, updated

paperl1ack ed., by Barry Scheck, Peter Neufeld and Jim Dwyer; 403 pages. $16.00.

Founders of d,e Innocence Project e.'pbin how criminal defendants are wrongly con-

victed on a regu1'lf basis. E."pL'lins DNA testiog and how it works to free the innocent

Devastatiog critique of police and prosecutoria! misconduct and d,e 1 1

1

Sj'Stern mat ensures such abuses contioue..

. ' 1030 ..I. L.._ - ' - ._ _ _

Roget's Thesaurus, 717 pages. $8.95. Helps you find the right word for what

you want to say. 11,000 words listed alphabetically with over 200,000 synonyms

and antonyms. Sample sentences and parts of speech shown for every main

I I word. Covers all levels of vocabulary and identifies informal

'1

and slang words.

1045..

.

Webster's English Dictionary, Newly

and updated, Random House.

$8.95. 75,060+ entries. Includes tips on writing and word usage, and has up-

dated geographical and biographical entries. Includes recent 1 1

1

business and computer terms.

,

1033...

I I Capital Crinles, by George Winslow, Mondily Review, 360 pages. $19.00.
Explains how economic policies create and foster crinle, and how corporate & government·crime is rarely punished. 1024

Wim Liberty for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America, by Scott

Christianson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages; $18.95. The best

overall history of the American' prison system 'from 1492 dlfough the 20th
I I I Century. Well written and·fact filled. A must-read for underst'mding how little
dlings have changed as ("If as prisons go in the U.S. over

hundreds of years.

1026..

.

Ten Men Dead: The story of me 1981 Irish hunger strike, by

ford, Adantic Mondily Press, 334 pages. $16.95. Inside story of 1

IRA prisoners at Belfast's Long Kesh prison.

1006 .

BeresI .

Finding me Right Lawyer, by Jay Foonberg, ABA, 256 pages. $19.95. Ex-

plains how to determine your legal needs, how to evaluate a I 1

1

lawyer's qualifications, fee payments, and more.

1015..

.

Seize the Day! 7 Steps to Achieving me Extraordinary in an Ordinary

World, by Danny Cox and John Hoover, 256 pages. $15.99. Provides 7 steps

to changing your expectations and

yourself as being a successful

and respected person-which is essential to changing the 1 1

1

course of one's life.

1052

Women Behind Bars, The Crisis of Women in me U.S. Prison System, by
Silja J.A. Talvi, Seal Press, 295 pages. $15.95. Best book available that covers

issues related to imprisoned women, based on interviews wid1 1

hundreds of women behind bars.

1066 L..._ - ' -_ _- - '

10 Insider Secrets to a Winning Job Search, by Todd Bermont, 216 pages.

$15.99. Roadmap on how to get a job even under adverse circumstances-like

being an ex-con. Includes how to develop a winning atritude, write attention-

grabbing resumes, prepare for

networking, how to 1 1

1

present your strengths to an employer, and much more! 1056..

.

The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in me Global Drug Trade, 2003

Ed. by Alfred McCoy, 734 pages. $34.95. Documented ""1'ose 1 1

1

of d,e government's involvement in drug trafficking.

1014 L.._ - ' - ._ _ _--'.

Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in me Age of Crisis, by Omstian Parenti,

290 pages. $19.00. Analyzes d,e war on d,e poor via d,e ctiminal justice Sj'stern. Well
pam-I documented and includes first-hand reporting. Covers prisons,

military policing, SWAT teams and d,e INS.'

1002 L._ - ' - -_ _- '

Hepatiris and Liver Disease: What You Need to Know, by Melissa Palmer, lYID,

457 pages. $17.95. Describes Sj>ffiptoms & treatments ofhepatiris B & C and odler

liver diseases. Includes medications to avoid, what diet to follow, 1 1

1

exercises to perfonn, and a bibliography.

. 1031

Crime and Punishment In America, by Elliott Cunie, 230 pages. $16.95. Effective

rebuttal to right-wing proponents of prison building. Fact-based argument shows that

crime is driven by poverty. Debuoks prison myths and discusses ' ,

proven, effective means ofcrime prevention.

1019

Prison Madness: The Mental Healm Crisis Behind Bars and What We

Must Do About It, by Terry Kupers,jossey-Bass, 245 pages. Hardback only,

prisoners please include any required aumorization fonn. $32.95. Psychia-

trist writes about d,e mental healdl crisis in U.S. prisons and jails. Covers all

aspects of mental illness, prison mpe, negative effects of l o n g - I I I

term isolation in control units, and more.

1003

Prison Writing in 20th Century America, by H. Bruce Franklin, Penguin

Books, 368 pages. $16.00. From Jack London to George Jackson, dus

anthology provides a selection of some of d,e best writing 1 1

describing life behind bars in America.

1022 L.._ - ' ._ _- - '

i Fi I Soledad Bromer: The Prison Letters of George Jackson, by GeorgeJackson,
Lawrence Hill Books, 339 pages. $18.95. Lucid ""phnation of ,e litiCS of

prison by a well-known prison activist. More relevant now than

when it first appeared 40 years ago.

1016

Marijuana Law, by Richard Boire, Ronin, 271 pages. $17.95. E.xan1ines how to

reduce d,e probability of arrest and prosecution for people accused of d,e use, sale or

possession of marijuana. Info on legal defenses, search & seizures, I 1

1

surveillance, asset forfeiture and drug testiog.

1008 '-._ ......_ _-'.

Worse Than Slavery: Parchman Fann and me Ordeal ofJim Crow Justice, by

David Osllins!,.)', 306 pages. $16.00. Anal)'sis of prison labor's roots in sbvery.

Focuses on prison phntations and self-sustaining prisons that use I 1

1

prison hbor.

1007..

.

No Equal Justice: Race and Class in me American Criminal Justice

System, by

Cole, The New Press, 218 pages. $19.95.lliplains how the

criminal justice system perpetuates mce and class inequ,ility, 1 '1

1

creating a two-tiered system of justice.

.

1028 L.._ - ' . ' - - _ - - ' .

The Prison and me Gallows: The Politics of Mass Incarceration in

America, by Marie Gottschalk, Cambridge University Press, 451 pages.

$29.99. Great political analysis of d,e confluence of events 1

1

leading to 2.3 million people bellind bars in d'e U.S. 1069 L._-L_ _-'.

The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, by Brandon

Sample, PLN Publishing, 200 pages. $49.95. TIus is PLN's second published

book, which e.,clusively covers ineffective assistance of counsel-related

issues in fedecil habeas petitions. Great resource for habeas 1 1

1

litigation, and contains hundreds of case cites!

1078

Factor 8 (DVD), a film by Kelly Duda, Concrete Films. $21.95.

about d,e Arkansas prison blood scandal, in wluch prison officials sold

infected blood harvested from prisoners. Note: This is a

DVD and cannot be shipped to prison.

1076 '-c--''-----'

PLN Cumulative Index. $22.50 each. PLN Article Indexes provide detailed information about all PLN articles, including tide, author, issue, page number, topics covered, citations, and if it is state, BOP or jail specific. Can be searched on over 500 subjects such as medical neglect or se."."al assault. Circle d,e .indeX(eS) you are ordering: 1990-1995, 1996-1998, 1999-1 2001, 2002-2004. (more recent indexes not yet available)

All books are soft cover except Prison Madness

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 13 of 64 PageP9L8NCOL-00123

Order Form
All purchases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new stamps (stl'ips 01' books) or pre-stamped envelopes.

Books (3 & 4 yr Subscription Specials: cmCLE
one book ill: bonus issues, and DO NOT add SIH)
Protecting Your Health and Safety ill: 4 Bonus Issues (3-yr subscription offer)

$Amt. Free

Prison Profiteers ill: With Liberty for Some ill: 6 Bonus Issues (4-yr subscription offer) Book Total (inc. all books bought separately) Add 6 % sales tax for Vermont residents only ADD $6.00 SIR to book orders UNDER $50

Free

PLN Subscriptions
6-month Subscription (Prisoners only) 1 yr Subscription (12 issues) 2 yr Subscription (24. plus 2 Bonus issues)
3 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above ill: 4 Bonus issues) 4 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above ill: 6 Bonus issues) Sample Issue - $3.50 each
TOTAL Amount Enclosed:

Send to:
Name:
DOC#:
Agency/Inst: ______________
Address:
City/State/Zip: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
MAlL PAnlENT AND THIS FORM TO:
I •
Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303

Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

PLN Subscription Rates

Subscription Rates 1yr 2 yrs 3 YI'S 4yrs

Prisoners *

$24 $ 48 $ 72 $ 96

Individuals

$30 $ 60 $ 90 $120

Professionals

$80 $160 $240 $320

(Lawyers, govt. & professional agencies, libraries, etc.)

Sample issue for anyone - $3.50 each*

Six-month prisoner subscription for $12*

* Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books
only) or pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed byprison policies.

:- - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - "j

1
1 2 years - 2 bonus issues, for 26 monthly issues total.

: 3 years - 4 bonus issues (40 total) OR Protecting Your Health and

1 Safety (see book description on the other side of this brochure).

: 4 years - 6 bonus issues (54 total) OR your choice of With Libertyfor

!..s. ??:e_m:.

t!,t:.o,:11:r _____I

New 3 or 4-Year Subscription Book Offers!

Subscribe or renew for three years at the regular price ($72 for prisoners & $90 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Protecting Your Health and Safety or four bonus issues of PLN! (40 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.
Subscribe or renew for four years at the regular price ($96 for prisoners & $120 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Prison Profiteers or With Liberty for Some, or 6 bonus issues of PLN! (54 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.

NO shipping charge for subscription bonus books!

NOTE: Ifyou want the bonus issues of PLN instead of the free book offer, please indicate that on the Order Form.

:- - - - - -

iT;£0; piN;;' Us;!- -----

1

1

1 You can buy dozens of legal, social commentary, self- 1

: help books, and legal and regular dictionaries directly:

1 from PLN's book store! Ask us for a book list, or view:

: our selection online at:

1L ______w_w_w_.p_ri_so_n_le_g_am_e_w_s._o_rg_/s_to_re_.a_s_px__. ____ _:

All subscriptionrates & bonus offers are effective as of5-1-10
and valid through 12-31-10
* No l'efunds after orders have been placed *

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
Eastern State Penitentiary 1829-1971 Charles Dickens visited Philadelphia's Eastern State Penitentiary in 1842 and he later wrote: "The System is rigid, strict and hopeless ... and I believe it to be cruel and wrong....I hold this slow and daily tampering with the mysteries of the brain to be immeasurably worse than any torture of the body." The prison remained open for 129 years after Dickens condemned it as being barbaric, and some of its inhumane practices continue to be used in pI'isons nationwide.
P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.prisonlegamews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 14 of 64 PageP9L9NCOL-00124

G n

P rison Legal News is an independent, non-profit 56-page monthly publication that reports, reviews and analyzes court rulings and news related to
prisoners' rights and prison issues. PLN has a national
(U.S.) focus on state, federal and private prison issues, with some international coverage as well.

PLN's many thousands of subscribers and readers include civil and criminal trial and appellate attorneys, judges, public defenders, journalists, academics, paralegals, prisoners' rights activists, students, family members of prisoners, concerned individuals, politicians, other government officials, and numerous local, state and federal prisoners nationwide.

PLN is a vital link for'prisi:lners who otherwise don't have access to current legal and prison-related news and information.

"Invaluable

wanting 'user friendly'

information about.current legal developments affecting

prisoners in the United States."

- Human Rights Watch, a long-time PLN subscriber

P LN's coverage of prison issues includes medical neglect, disciplinary hearings, nutI:ition, living conditions, excessive force, court access, censorship, jail'litigation, visiting, telephones, religious freedom, free speech, prison rape, mental health,' attorney/ client access, sexual 'abuse of women prisoners, re-
taliation, the PLRA, HIV and hep C, control units,
the death penalty, attorney fees and much more.

PLN Subscription Rates Prisoners: $12 for 6 months, $24 per year * Non-incal'cerated individuals: $30 per year Law firms, govt. agencies and libraries: $80 per year Sample issue for anyone: $3.50 each*
* Prisoners,can pay with new stamps or pre-stamped envelopes

E ach monthly,

of PLN includes' three different

, types of reportmg:

,

, • A cover story on a prison-related issue.

• Reports on individual and class-action prison and jail-

related lawsuits when tIley al;efiled, when a judgment is

entered or the case settles, and ,yhen an appellate court

decision is issued. We also have prison-related news articles.

,

,

• A "News In Brief' section that summarizes intere'sting

news stories across the U.S: and internationally. '

Each issue of PLN also contains numerous, advertisements from businesses that provide prison-related personal 'and legal services and books. PLN further sells dozens of self'help, social commentary alid legal books.

PLN also has cumulative subject and case cite indexes for all PLN issues from 1990 through 2004. Write for info.

SpeciaI3-yeru',SuhsCl'iption

Free with a 3-year PLN subscription! Four bonus issues of
PLN (40 issues total) .ru: a free book, Protecting Your
Health and Safety! Circle your bonus choice on tIle form on the other side of this brochure (3-year subscription rates: prisoners$72, indixiduals $90, professionals $240).

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by ,,,.,-----;

Robert E. Toone. Published by the South-

ern Poverty Law Center, 325 pages (2009).

$10.00 (free with a 3-year sub!). This book

'explains some basic rights that prisoners

in a }ail prison in the U.S. It -----

c'@ _ _

mamly WIth rIghts related to health and Ii!._

---;,

safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by

prison officials; it also explains liow you can enforce your

rights to health 'and safety within the facility and, if nec-

essary, in court through litigation. Buy separately: ___

You Can Buy These Books Sepru'ately! :

I

I

I

I

: If you don't want to purchase a' 3 or 4-year subscription:

: to' PLN, you can'still purchase any of the bonus books:

: at the regular price. Just indicate which books you want:

: to buy on this page, theiIenter the total cost ou the other:

: side of this' brochure on the "Book Total" line of the Or- :

: der

Shipping is $6 per order (not book), and we :

: offer FREE shipping on book orders of $50 or more! To :

: place a phone order, please call 802-257-134·2. We also:

: accept book orders online, at www.prisonlegalnews.org. :
1- __ ________________________ __.__ ____________I

D onations: PLN is a project of the non-profit Human Rights Defense Center. Your tax-deductible dona-

tions support ouradvocacy, free

and First Amend-

ment litigation efforts on behalf of prisoners and

ers. PLN not only provides uncensored prison-related news,

but actively cOlltestsprison

that interferes with'

the delivery of our publication or any other PLN materials

sent to prisoners. All donations further our goal of advocat-

ing for people imprisoned in U.S. detention facilities.

"Great source of information, especially in states such as Arizona where the law libraries have been taken from the inmates and replaced with.paralegals."
- SB, Arizona prisoner

Special 4-year

1

Free with a 4-yem' PLN subscription! Six honus issues of PLN (54 issues total) 01' one free hook, With Liberty for
Some .ru: Prison Profiteers! Circle your bonus choice on
the form on the other side of this brochure (4-year'subscription rates: prisoners $96, individuals $120" professionals $320). Note: Free book option is for one book.
With Liberty for' Some: 500 Years Imprisonment in America, by Scott Christianson, Northeastern, University Press, 372 pages (1998). $18:95 (free with a 4-year sub!). A classic book and the best overall history of the American prison system from 1492 to the 20th Century. Well L written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how little things have changed as far as prisous go in the U.S. over hundreds of years. Buy separately: ___
or
Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money from Mass Incarceration, edited by Paul Wright & Tara Herivel, New Press (2007). $24.95 (free with a 4-year sub!). This is the third in a series of P'LN anthologies that examines the reality of mass imprison-' ment in the U.S. Prison Profiteers is unique from other books on the market because it exposes and. discusses who profits and benefits from rp.ass imprisonment, rather than who is harmed by the prison industrial complex and our nation's reliance on over-incarceration. Buy separately: _ __

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 15 of 64

T he Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel is the first in a series of books by Prison Legal News Publishing designed to help pro-se prisoner litigants identify and raise viable claims for potential habeas corpus relief. This book is an invaluable resource that identifies hundreds of cases where the federal courts have granted habeas relief to prisoners whose attorneys provided ineffective assistance of counsel.
It will save litigants thousands ofhours
of research and it focuses on the WINNING cases criminal defendants need to successfully challenge their convictions.
Well organized into 52 concise chapters, this easy to use book puts the law at the reader's fingertips. The Appendix includes pleadings and forms from successful habeas corpus cases that

"

The Habeas Citebook is a

nifty and concise self-help

guide for prisoners seeking

habeas relief based on claims of

ineffective assistance of counsel.

Navigating the complex and

treacherous terrain ofhabeas

law is never easy; but claim-

ing that your lawyer screwed up

is even more difficult - espe-

cially from the confines of an

demonstrate formatting and show ill-equipped prison law library.

how to frame a winning argu-

"Brandon Sample has pro-

ment that will persuade a court

vided an amazing and much-

to grant habeas relief. The Habeas

needed tool for prisoners who

Citebook explains the proce-

are forced to seek relief on their

dural and substantive complexi-

own. The book is thorough; but

ties of federal habeas corpus lit-

simple and readable. It starts

igation with the goal of identify-

with a wonderfully well-orga-

ing and litigating claims involving nized listing of hundreds of dif-

ineffective assistance of counsel.

ferent types of ineffective assis-

Brandon Sample is a success-

tance of counsel, set forth in the

ful jailhouse lawyer litigant incar-

form of citations to court rul-

cerated in the Bureau of Prisons.

ings - a novel approach that

He is a Prison Legal News contrib- not only acts as a springboard

uting writer and a member of the

for further research but also

National Lawyer's Guild. Editor

saves the prisoner countless

Susan Schwartzkopf has a mas-

hours of preliminary research:'

ter's degree in education and is

the director and editor in chief of

PETER SCHMIDT

Prison Legal News Publishing.

Publisher, Punch & Jurists

THE HABEAS CITEBOOK: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

By Brandon Sample 8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages
ISBN 978-0-9819385-1-6
$49·95 3 or more copies ordered
at once $39.95 each FREE Shipping & Handling Order by mail, phone, or on-line.
PUBLISHED BY

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed _ _ _ __

By: D check D new postage stamps D credit card D money order m

Name

I

DOC/BOP Number _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Institution/Agency _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Address_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

City _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ State

ZIP

PRISON LEGAL NEWS P.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 1P0L0NCOL-00125

" Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 16 of 64 -----------, Copies of this very usable and useful gUide should be available in every prison library-to help incarcerated people give positive direction to their energies while making constructive use of their time. It is a well-established fact that people who have taken college courses in prison have a dramatically reduced rate of recidivism."
-BELL GALE CHEVICNY, PEN Prison Writing Program,
' - - - - - . Editor Doing Time: 25 Years ofPrison Writing. - - - - - '

HICH SCHOOL. VOCATIONAL • PARALEGAL • UNDERGRADUATE. GRADUATE COURSES

• • • HE GREATLY anticipated and newly updated
third edition of the Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the United States and Canada has finally arrived! Author
Jon Marc Taylor's brand new version is the latest in this unique and highly successful gUidebook for the prisoner-student. This invaluable tool and how-to handbook provides the reader with step-by-step instructions to find the appropriate educational program for high school, vocational, paralegal, undergraduate, and graduate courses offered in the U.S. and Canada today.
Invaluable re-entry tool
It presents more than 160 program outlines and offers an easy-to-use format for the student to determine which program best suits their needs. It is ideal for the incarcerated student who does not have Internet access or the ability to attend education classes in person. This resource is indispensable

for the individual and beneficial for use in all prison libraries and education departments.
The Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook is the only book
on the market for the non-traditional prisoner-student. It includes detailed listings of the quality, cost, and course offerings for all correspondence programs available to prisoners. In a time when so many academic opportunities in prisons have been eliminated, this book is an invaluable re-entry tool for prisoners who seek to further their education while incarcerated and to help them prepare for life and work following their release.
Jon Marc Taylor has more than 25 years experience as an incarcerated student, advocate for prisoner education, and author. He has successfully earned a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and a doctorate via correspondence courses while incarcerated. Editor Susan Schwartzkopf has a master's degree in education and 12 years experience teaching immigrants English language skills.

PRISONERS' GUERRILLA HANDBOOK TO CORRESPONDENCE PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA m

ByJon Marc Taylor PHD 8.25/1 x 10.75/1 • 224 pages

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed _ _ _ __
By: D check D new postage stamps D credit card D money order I

ISBN 978-0-9819385-0-9

Name __________________________

$49-95
3 or more copies ordered

DOC/BopNumber ______________________

at once $39-95 each

Institution/Agency _.,---_______________________

FREE Shipping & Handling Address.______________________________

a Order by mail, phone, or on-line. City _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ State

ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

LEGAL NEWS I p.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 0530 3

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 1P0L1NCOL-00126

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 17 of 64

9870.05 fa246305

EXHIBIT
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRlGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 102

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 18 of 64 Page 1P0L3NCOL-00183

, Prison Legal News' , P.O. Box 2420
West Brattleboro, Vermont 05303

_.'-
",
::V::;'\" \tT OSO

't

I.

. . . ',',,' ,,':.'

,

RETURN TO SENDER

As of April 1, 2010 The Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS
This applies to ALL iI!coming and out going mail

59579 ** EXPIRES: 7/201 1
5HANE MCNUTT' 2011000193 COLUMBIA Co JAIL 901 PORT AVE 5T HELENS, OREGON 97051
97 0,51

N:CX:CE NOT

970 SE:!.

00 02/06/::1.;:1.

TO SENDER AS ADDRESSED
UNABLE TO FORWARD

Be: 0.53"3242020

*2683-08895-31-44

)JJ)))) JI JI I I JJ Ill)) lH II)) I JI I) IIJ J)) 1,) JJ))))) J) JJl))))) h,J

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 19 of 64 Page 1P0L4NCOL-00184

Order Form
All purchases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new stamps (su'ips 01' books) or pre-stamped envelopes.

Books (3 & 4yr Subscription Specials: CIRCLE
one book Q! bonus issues, and DO NOT add S!H)
Protecting Your Health and Safety ill: 4 Bonus.Issues (3-yr subscription offer)

$Amt.
Free

Prison Profiteers ill: With Liberty for Some

ill: 6 Bonus Issues (4-yr subscription offer)

Free

Book Total (inc. all books bought separately)

Add 6% sales tax for Vermont residents only

ADD $6.00 S/H to book orders UNDER $50

PLN SubSCliptions
6-month Subscription (Prisoners only) l.yr Subscription (12 issues) 2 yr Subscription (24 plus 2 Bonus issues) 3 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above Q! 4 Bonus issues) 4 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above Q! 6 Bonus issues) Sample Issue - $3.50 each
TOTAL Amount Enclosed:

Send to:
Name:
DOC#: Agency/Inst: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Address:
City/State/Zip: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
MAIL PAYl\'IENT AND TillS FORM TO:
I •
Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303

Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

PLN Subscription Rates

Subscription Rates
Prisoners *

1yr 2 yrs 3 yrs 4yrs $24 $ 48 $ 72 $ 96

Individuals

$30 $ 60 $ 90 $120

Professionals

$80 $160 $240 $320

(Lawyers, govt. & professional agencies, libraries, etc.)

Sample issue for anyone - $3.50 each*

Six-month prisoner subscription for $12*
* Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books only) or pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed byprison policies.

:- - - - - - - - -

"B-o;';';;s! - - - - - - - - -

1
I 2 years - 2 bonus issues, for 26 monthly issues total.

: 3 years - 4 bonus issues (40 total) OR Protecting Your Health and

1 Safety (see book description on the other side of this brochure).

: 4 years - 6 bonus issues (54 total) OR your choice of With Libertyfor

!..

_____I

New 3 or 4.yeal· Subscription Book Offers!

Subscribe or renew for three years at the regular price
($72 for prisoners & $90 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Protecting Your Health and Safety or
four bonus issues of PLN! (40 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.
Subscribe or renew for four years at the regular price ($96 for prisoners & $120 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Prison Profiteers or With Liberty for Some, or 6 bonus issues of PLN! (54 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.

NO shipping charge for subscription bonus books!
NOTE: If you want the bonus issues of PLN instead of the free book offer, please indicate that on the Order Form.

:- ----- U;£0; PiN;-s-io-;'kiis;!- -----

I

.

I

I You can buy dozens of legal, social commentary, self- I

: help books, and legal and regular dictionaries directly:

: from

store! Ask us for a book list, or view:

1 our selectIOn online at:

1

1L ______w_w_w_.p_ri_so_n_le_ga_l_ne_w_s._or_g_/s_to_re_.a_s_px______ _:

All subscription rates & bonns offers are effective as of5-1-10
and valid through 12-31-10
* No refunds after OrdCl'S have been placed *

Dedicat.ed to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
Eastern State Penitentiary 1829-1971
Charles Dickens visited Philadelphia's Eastern State Penitentiary in 1842 and he later wrote: "The System is rigid, strict and hopeless ... and I believe it to be cruel and wrong....I hold this slow and daily tampering with the mysteries of the brain to be immeasurably worse than any torture of the body." The prison remained open for 129 years after Dickens condemned it as being barbaric, and some of its inhumane practices continue to be used in prisons nationwide.
P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.prisonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 20 of 64 Page 1P0L5NCOL-00185

n n

P rison Legal News is an independent, non-profit 56-page monthly publication tbat reports, reviews and analyzes court rulings and news related to
prisoners' l'igbts and prison issues: PLN has a national
(U.S.) focus on state, federal and private prison issues, with some international coverage as well.
PLN's many thousands of subscribers and readers include civil and criminal trial and appellate attorneys, judges, public defenders, journalists, academics, paralegals, prisoners' rights activists, students, family members of prisoners, concerned individuals, politicians, other government officials, and numerous local, state and federal prisoners nationwide;
PLNis a vital link for prisoners who otherwise don't have access to current legal and prison-related news and information.

"Invaluable resource for anyone wanting 'user friendly' information about current legal developments affecting
prisoners in the Ullited States."

- Human Rights Watch, a

PLN subscriber

P LN's coverage of prison issues includes medical neglect, disciplinary hearings, nutrition, living conditions, excessive fOI'ce, court access, censorship, jail litigation, visiting, telephones, religious freedom, free speech, prison rape, mental health, attorney/ client access, sexual abuse of women prisoners, retaliation, the PLRA, HIV and hep C, control units, the death penalty, attorney fees and much more.

PLN Subscription Rates
Prisoners: $12 for 6 months, $24 per year *
Non-incarcerated individuals: $30 per year
Law firms, govt. agencies and libraries: $80 per year
Sample issue for anyone: $3.50 each*
* Prisoners can pay with new stamps or pre-stamped envelopes

E ach monthly issue of PLN includes three different types of reporting:
• A cover story on a prison-related issue. " Reports on individual and class-action prison and jail-
related law,suits when they are filed, when a judgment is entered or the case settles, and when an appellate court decision is issued. We also have prison-related news articles. • A "News In Brief' section that summarizes interesting news stories across the U.S. and
Each issue of PLN also contains numerous advertisements from businesses that provide prison-related personal and legal services and books. PLN further sells dozens of selfhelp, social commentary legal books.
PLN also has cumulative subject and case cite indexes for' all PLN issues from 1990 through 2004·. Write for info.

Special

' I

Free with a 3-year PLN subscription! Four bonus issues of PLN (40 issues total) ora free book, Protecting Your Health and Safety! Circle your bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (3-year subscription rates: prisoners $72, individuals $90, professionals $24.0).

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by E'rA--,----;

Robert E. Toone. Published by the South-

ern Poverty

Center, 325 pages (2009).

$10.00 (free with a 3-year sub!). This book

explains some basic rights that prisoners
I have in a jail or prison in the U.S. It deals [I ...@ ____

mainly with rights related to health and ". ' ,

'.

safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by

prison officials; it also

how you can enforce your

rights to health and safety within the facility and, if nec-

essary, in court through litigation. Buy separately: ___

------------------------------------------,
You Can Buy These Books Separately! I I
If you don't want to purchase a 3 or 4-year subscription: to PLN, you can still purchase any of the bonus books: at the regular price. Just indicate which books you want: to buy on this page, then enter the total cost on the other: I side of this brochure on the "Book Total" line of the Or- : : der Form. Shipping is $6 per order (not per book), and we: : offer FREE shipping on book orders of $50 or more! To : : place a phone order, please caU 802-257-134,2. We also: : accept book orders online, at www.prisonlegalnews.org.. :
L _________________________________________ J

D onations: PLN is a: project of the non-profit Human Rights Defense Cellter. Your tax-deductible donations support our advocacy, free speech and First Amendment litigation efforts on behalfof prisoners and publishers. PLN not only provides uncensored prison-related news, but actively contests prison censorship that interferes with the delivery of our publication or any other PLN materials sent to prisoners. All donations further our goal of advocating for people imprisoned in U.S. detention facilities.
"Great source of information, especially in states such as Arizona where the law libraries have been taken from the inmates and replaced with paralegals." - SB, Arizona prisoner
J Special4-year Subscription Offer! u
Free with a 4-year PLNsuhsCliption! Six bonus issues PLN (54 issues total) or one fi'ee book, With Liberty for Some or Prison Profiteers! Circle your bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (4-year subscription rates: prisoners $96, individuals $120, professionals $320). Note: Free book option is for one bool;:.
With Liberty for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America; by Scott Christianson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages (1998). $18.95 (fi'ee with a 4-yeru: sub!). A classic book and the best overall history of the American prison system from 1492 to the 20th Century. Well written and fact fIlled. A must-read for understanding how little things have changed as far as prisons go in the U.S. over hundreds of years. Buy separately: ___
or
Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money from Mass Incarceration, edited by Paul Wright & Tara Herivel, New Press (2007). $24.95 (fi'ee with a 4-year sub!). This is the third in a series of PLN anthologies that examines the reality of mass imprisonment in the U.S. Prison Profiteers is unique from other books on the market because it exposes and discusses who profits and benefits from mass imprisonment' rather than who is harmed by the prison industrial complex and our nation's reliance on over-incarceration. Buy separately: _ __

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 21 of 64 Page 1P0L6NCOL-00186

Order Form
All purchases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books, no singles) or pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed by prison policies.

Book Title / Number

Qty Total Cost

(attach another page if you are ordering more books)
Subtotal: Add 6% sales tax for VT resideuts only:
Add $6.00 sm to orders UNDER $50:
Total Order Amount:
Send to:
Name: DOC#: Agency/lnst: Address: City/State/Zip:
MAIL PAYMENT AND TillS FORM TO: Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303
Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books arid subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

FREE SIDPPlNG

On hook and index orders OVER $50.001

A $6 shipping charge applies to all otheJ: book antI intIe'\: ollleJ:s.

'(Free shipping policy in effect from Jan 1,

Imtil further notice)

MOl'e Books for Sale!

Prisoners' Self-Help Litigation Manual, updated 4dl ed. (2010), by John

Boston and Daniel Manville, Oxford Univ. Press, 1500 pages. $39.95. The

premiere, must-have "Bible" of prison litigation for current and aspiring jail-

house lawyers. If you plan to litigate a prison or jail civil suit, I I

I

this book is a must-have.

1077

Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the U.S.

and Canada, updated 3rd ed. by Jon Mate Taylor, Ph.D. and edited by Susan

Schwattzkopf; published by PLN, 221 pages. $49.95. Written by lVfissouri

prisoner Jon Mate Taylor, who obtained a B.S. degree, an M.A. degree and a

Doctorate, ilie Gllmil/a Halldbook contains contact information and descrip-

I I rions of high school, vocational, patalegal and college courses available
wough correspondence study. Great resource for prisoners

who want to further ilieir education.

1057
'----'------'

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by Robert E. Toone, Souiliern Poverty

Law Center, 325 pages. $10.00. This book "-,,plains basic rights dlat prisoners

have in a jail or prison, in ilie U.S. It deals mainly wiili rights related to healili
I I and safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by prison officials; it also
explains how you can enforce your rights within dIe facility,

and, if necessaty, in court ilirough litigation.

1060

Starting Out! The Complete Re-Entry Handbook, edited by William H.

Foster, Ph.D. & Catl E. Horn, Ph.D., Starting Out Inc., 446 pages. $22.95.

Complete do-it-yourself re-entry manual and workbook for prisoners who

want to develop ilieir own re-entry plan to increase ilieir chances of success
I I after iliey ate released. Includes a wide variety of resources, including a user to ilie Statting Out website iliat can be accessed fOllOW-I

mg release.

1074

Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners v. the U.S.A, by

Mumia Abu Jamal, City Lights Publishers, 280 pages. $16.95. In JailhollSe LIII'-

),ers, Prison Legal News columnist, awatd-winning journalist and deadl-row

prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal presents the stories and reflections of fellow pris-

I oners-turned-advocates who have learned to use the court system to represent
oilier prisoners, and in some cases have won ilieir freedom.,

Must-read for jailhouse lawyers!

1073

How to Win Your Personal Injury Clainl, by Atty. Joseph Matthews, 7dl

edition, NOLO Press, 304 pages. $34.99. While not specifically for prison-

related personal injury cases, tlus book provides comprehensive information

I I I on how to handle personal injury and property damage claims arising from

-

dealing wiili doctors, attorneys and

msurance companIes.

1075

All prices are effective as of9-15-10

(ptices subject to ch3nge without notice)

I * No refunds after orders

placed *

PRISOi\t:;£EGAl NEWS
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
2010 PLN BOOK LIST
Prices Subject to Change Without Notice
Graphic from: Books 2 Prisoners, Vancouver, BC
P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.pl.isonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 22 of 64 Page 1P0L7NCOL-00187

Check the box of the books you want to buy and use the Order Form on the other side of this brochure to add up the cost of your order. FREE SHIPPING for book and index orders OVER $50. There is a $6 shipping charge for all other book and index orders.

Prison Profiteers, editJ>:! by Paul Wright and Tam Herive1, 323 pages. $24.95. TIlis is the

third and 1,testbook in a series ofPrison Legal News anthologies that examines tile reality of
mass implisonment in Amerim (The other tides are The Cellillg ifAll/enra & PJisOIl NatiOJI,

I I I see below). PJisoll Prr!fiteer.r is unique from other books beatuse it ""poses and discusses

who profits and benefits from mass

ratiler tilan who is

hanned by it and how.

1063 '_- ___'--_--'_

I I I Prison Nation: The Warehousing of America's Poor, editJ>:! by Tam Herive1 and Paul 332 pages. $35.95. PIN anthology ""-poses tile datk side ofthe

1ock-em-up' political agenda and 1egal c1imatein the U.s.

1041 _ _

_

The CeIling of America, editJ>:! by Daniel Button Rose, Dan Pens and Paul

264

pages. $22.95. PIN anthology presents a demiled "inside" look at tile I I

I

WorlcingsoftileAmericancciminaljusticesystem.

1001 _ _

_

Everyday Letters for Busy People, by Debra Hart May, 287 pages. $18.99.

Hundreds of sample letters that can be adapted for most any purpose, including

letters to government agencies and officials. Has nUfllerous 1

tips for writing effective letters.

1048 L_ _--'-_ _- - '

The Criminal Law Handboolc Know Your Rights, Survive the System, by

Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sam J.

Nolo Press, 608 pages. $39.99.

E>.-plains what happens in a criminal case from being arrested to sentencing, and what

your rights are at each singe of the process. Uses an easy to under-I

smnd question-and-answer format.

1038 '_- _--'_ _ _--'

Represent Yourself in Court: How to Prepare & Try a Winning Case, by

Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sara J.

Nolo Press, 528 pages. $39.99.

I I Breaks down the civil trial process in easy-to-undersmnd steps so you can effectively

represent

in court. The authors ""-plain what to say in

1

how to say It, etc.

1037 _ _

_

I I Law Dictionary, Random House Webster's, 525 pages. $19.95. Comprehensive ul-
to-date law dictionary explains more than 8,500 legal terms.

Covers civil, criminal, commercial & intemationallaw.

1036 L____'--_ _---'

I The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, by Jane Straus, 110 pages.
$14.95. A guide to grammar and punctuation by an educator 1 1

with experience teaching English to prisoners.

1046 _ _

_

Legal Research: How to Find and Understand the Law, by Stephen Elias and

I I Susan Levinkind, 568 pages. $49.99. Comprehensive and easy to undersmnd guide

on researching the law. Explains case law, statutes and digests,

1

and much more. Includes practice exercises.

1059 '_- _-'-____-'_

I I Deposition Handbook, by Paul Bergman and Albert Moore, Nolo Press, 352
pages. $34.99. How-to handbook for anyone who conducts a 1

deposition or is going to be deposed.

1054 '_- _-'-____--'_

I Spanish-English/English-Spanish Dictionary, Random House. $8.95. Two
sections, Spanish-English and English-Spanish. 60,000+ entries

from A to Z; includes Western Hemisphere usage.

1034 L_ _--'_ _ _-'

Please Note: All hook and index orders are mailed via the U.S. Postal Service with Delivery Confirmation. PLN does not assume any responsibility to replace hook or indeiorders once their delivery to the destination address(facility) is confirmedhy the U.S. Postal Service.

I I I Writing to Wm: The Legal Writer, by SteVen D. Statk, Broadway Books/Random
House, 283 pages. $19.95. Explains the wtiting 6feffective complaints,

responses, briefS, motions and other legal papers.

1035 L_ _-1._ _---'_

Actual Innocence: When Justice Goes Wrong and How to Make it Right, updatJ>:!

papethack ed, by Barry Scheck, Peter Neufeld and Jim

403 pages. $16.00.

Founders of the Innocence Project explain how ctiminal defendants are wrongly con-

I I victed on a regular basis. E>.-pIainsDNA teSting and how it works-to free the innocent.
Devastating ctitique of police and prosecutoria1 misconduct and tile /

system timt ensures such abuses continue.,

1030 '_- _--'-_- ___-'_

Roger's Thesaurus, 717 pages. $8.95. Helps you find the right word for what

you want to say. 11,000 words listed alphabetically with over 200,000 synonyms

and antonyms. Sample sentences and parts of speech shown for every main

word. Covers all levels of vocabulary and identifies informal·l: I

I

and slang words.

1045 L._ - - '_ - _ _---'_

Webster's English Dictionary, Newly revised and updated, Random House.

I $8.95. 75,000+ entries. Includes· tips on writing and word usage, and has up-

dat,:d geographical and biographical entries. lricludes recent I '

I

busmess and computer terms.

1033. _

_

Capital Crimes, by George Winslow, Monthly Review, 360 pages. $19.00.

E>:plains how economic policies create and foster crime, and / /

/.

how corporate & government crime is rarely punished. 1024
'----'-----'

With Liberty for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America, by Scott

Christianson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages. $18.95. The best

overall history of ti,e American prison system from 1492 through the 20th

Century. Well written and mct filled. A must-read for understanding how littie

things have changed as far as prisons go in the U.S. over 1 1

1

hundreds of years.

1026 _ _

_

I I Ten Men Dead: The story of the 1981 Irish hunger strike, by David Beres-

ford, Atiantic Montilly Press, 334 pages. $16.95. Inside story of

I

'

IRA prisoners at Belfast's Long Kesh prison.

1006 _ _

_

I I Finding the Right Lawyer, by lay Foonberg, ABA, 256 pages. $19.95. Ex-

plains how to determine your legal needs, how to evaluate a

I

lawyer'S qualifications, fee payments, and more.

1015 _ _

,

Seize the Day! 7 Steps to Achieving the Extraordinary in an Ordinary

World, by Danny Cox and John Hoover, 256 pages. $15.99. Provides 7 steps

to changing your expectations and envisioning yourself as being a successful

and respected person-which is essential to changing the 1 /

/

course of one's life.

1052

Women Behind Bars, The Crisis of Women in the U.S. Prison System, by

I Silja J.A. Talvi, Seal Press, 295 pages. $15.95. Best book available that covers
issues related to inlprisoned women, based on interviews \vith

hundreds of women behind bars.

1066 L_ _...1-_ _--'

10 Insider Secrets to a Winning Job Search, by Todd Bermont, 216 pages.

$15.99. Roadmap on how to get a job even under adverse circUfllstances-like

I being an ex-con. Includes how to develop a winning atritude, write attention-

grabbing resumes, prepare for interviews, networking, how to I

I

present your strengths to an employer, and much more! 1056 _ _

.

The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, 2003

Ed. by Alfred McCoy, 734 pages. $34.95. Documented expose , . ,

,

of the government's involvement in drug trafficking.
,

1014 L_ .. _---'_ _ _ _-'_

Loekdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis, by Q1ristian Parenti,

290 pages. $19.00. Analyzes the wat on the poor via the ctiminal justice system. Well

documented and includes first-hand reporting. Covers prisons, pam-I

I

military policing, SWAT teamS and thdNS:

1002 _

..

Hepatiris and Liver Disease: What You Need to Know, by Melissa Palmer, MD,

I I I 457 pages. $17.95. Describes symptoms & treatments of hepatitis B & C and other
liver diseases. Includes medications to avoid, wlmt diet to follow,

exercises to perform, and a bibliography. .

1031 _ _

_

Ctinle and Punishment In. America, by Elliott Curtie, 230 pages. $16.95. Effective

rebutrnl to right-wing proponents of prison building. Fact-based argument shows timt

ctime is driven by poverty. Debunks prison myths and discusses I I

I

proven, effective means ofctime prevention.

1019 _ .

.

Prison Madness: The Mental Health Crisis Behind Bars and What We

Must Do About It, by Terry Kupers,Jossey-Bass, 245 pages. Hardback only,

prisoners please include any required authorization form. $32.95. Psycl1ia-

trist wtites about tile mental healtil crisis in U.S. ptisons and jails. Covers all

aspects of mental illness, prison rape, negative effects of long-I I

I

tertn is01,tion in control units, and more.

1003 _ _

_

Prison Writing in 20th Century America, by H. Bruce Franklin, Pengoin

I Books, 368 pages. $16.00. From Jack London to George Jackson, this
anthology provides a selection of some of the best writing I

describing life behind bars in America.

1022 '_- _-_' __--'

I Soledad Brother: The Prison Letters of George Jackson, by GeorgeJackson,
Lawrence Hill Books, 339 pages. $18.95. Lucid e.'--planation of je prlitiCS of

prison by a well-known prison activist. More relevant now than

when it first appeared 40 years ago.

1016'

Marijuana Law, by Richard Boire, Ronin, 271 pages. $17.95. fuanlines how to

I I reduce tile probability ofarrest and prosecution for people accused of the use, sale or
possession of marijuana Info on legal defenses, search & seizures, I

surveillance, asset rorfeiture and drug testing.

1008 L_ _-'_ _ _---'_

Worse Than Slavery: Parchman Farm and the Ordeal ofJim Crow Justice, by

I I I David OshinSh:y, 306 pages. $16.00. Analysis of prison labors, roots in slavery.
Focuses on prison plantations and self-sustaining prisons timt use

ptison labor.

1007 _ _

_

No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the American Criminal Justice

I I I System, by David Cole, TI,e New Press, 218 pages. $19.95. E>.-plains how the
criminal justice system perpetuates race and class inequality,

creating a two-tiered system of justice.

1028 _ _

_

The Prison and the Gallows: The Politics of Mass Incarceration in

I I America, by Matie GOttScilalk, Cambridge University Press, 451 pages.
$29.99. Great political analysis of the confluence of events

leading to 2.3 million people behind bars in the U.S. 1069.

.

The -Habeas Citeboolc Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, by Brandon

Sample, PLN Publishing, 200 pages. $49.95. This is PLN's second published

I I I book, which exclusively covers ineffective assistance of counsel-related
issues in federal habeas petitions. Great resource for habeas

litigation, and contains hundreds of case cites!

1078 _ _

_

Factor 8 (DVD), a film by Kelly Duda, Concrete Films. $21.95. Movie

I about the Arkansas prison blood scandal, in which prison officials sold

infected blood harvested from prisoners. Note: This is a

I

DVD and cannot be shipped to prison.

1076 _L_ _-...1_ _ _- - '

PLN Cumulative Index. $22.50 each.. PLN Article Indexes provide detailed information about all PLN articles, including titie, author, issue, page nUfllber, topics covered, citations, and if it is state, BOP or jail specific. Can be searched on over 500 subjects such as medical neglect or seJo.-ual assault. Circle the index(es) you are ordering: 1990-1995, 1996-1998, 1999-1 2001, 2002-2004. (more recent kidexes not yet available) _

All books are soft cover except Prison Madness

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 23 of 64

T he Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel is the first in a series of books by Prison Legal News Publishing designed to help pro-se prisoner litigants identify and raise viable claims for potential habeas corpus relief. This book is an invaluable resource that identifies hundreds of cases where the federal courts have granted habeas relief to prisoners whose attorneys provided ineffective assistance of counseL
It will save litigants
thousands of hours of research and it focuses on the
WINNING cases criminal defendants need to
successfully challenge their convictions.
Well organized into 52 concise chapters, this easy to use book puts the law at the reader's fingertips. The Appendix includes pleadings and forms from suc-' cessful habeas corpus cases that

"

The Habeas Citebook is a

nifty and concise self-help

guide for prisoners seeking

habeas relief based on claims of

ineffective assistance of counseL

Navigating the complex and

treacherous terrain of habeas

law is never easy; but claim-

ing that your lawyer screwed up

is even more difficult - espe-

cially from the confines of an

demonstrate formatting and show ill-equipped prison law library.

how to frame a winning argu-

"Brandon Sample has pro-

ment that will persuade a court

vided an amazing and much-

to grant habeas relief. The Habeas

needed tool for prisoners who

Citebook explains the proce-

are forced to seek relief on their

dural and substantive complexi-

own. The book is thorough; but

ties of federal habeas corpus lit-

simple and readable. It starts

igation with the goal of identify-

with a wonderfully well-orga-

ing and litigating claims involving nized listing of hundreds of dif-

ineffective assistance of counsel.

ferent types of ineffective assis-

Brandon Sample is a success-

tance of counsel, set forth in the

ful jailhouse lawyer litigant incar-

form of citations to court rul-

cerated in the Bureau of Prisons.

ings - a novel approach that

He is a Prison Legal News contrib- not only acts as a springboard

uting writer and a member of the

for further research but also

National Lawyer's Guild. Editor

saves the prisoner countless

Susan Schwartzl<opf has a mas-

hours of preliminary research:'

ter's degree in education and is

the director and editor in chief of

PETER SCHMIDT

Prison Legal News Publishing.

Publisher, Punch & Jurists

THE HABEAS CITEBOOK: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

By Brandon Sample 8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages ISBN 978-0-9819385-1-6
$49·95 3 or more copies ordered
at once $39.95 each FREE Shipping & Handling Order by mail, phone, or on-line.
PUBLISHED BY

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed ______
I By: D check D new postage stamps D credit card D money order
Name ___________ ___ __________ I
DOC/BOP Number _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Institution/Agency _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Address_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-'--_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____

City _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ State

ZIP

PRISON LEGAL l\hEWS P.O. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 1P0L8NCOL-00188

" Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2

Filed 01/31/12

Page 24 of 64

-----------,

Copies of this very usable and useful guide

should be available in every prison library-to

help incarcerated people give positive direc-

tion to their energies while making constructive

use of their time. It is a well-established fact that

people who have taken college courses in prison

have a dramatically reduced rate of recidivism."

---'BELL GALE CHEVICNY, PEN Prison Writing Program, . Editor Doing Time: 25 Years ofPrison Writing.

HIGH SCHOOL e VOCATIONAL e PARALEGAL e UNDERGRADUATE. GRADUATE COURSES

. . . . HE GREATLY anticipated and newly updated third edition of the Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the
United States and Canada has finally arrived! Author Jon Marc Taylor's brand new version is the latest in this unique and highly successful gUidebook for the prisoner-student. This invaluable tool and how-to handbook provides the reader with step-by-step instructions to find the appropriate educational program for high school, vocational, paralegal, undergraduate, and graduate courses offered in the U.S. and Canada today.
Invaluable re-entry tool
It presents more than 160 program outlines and
offers an easy-to-use format for the student to
determine which program best suits their needs. It is ideal for the incarcerated student who does not have Internet access or the ability to attend education classes in person. This resource is indispensable

for the individual and beneficial for use in all prison libraries and education departments.
The Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook is the only book on the market for the non-traditional prisoner-student. It includes detailed listings of the quality, cost, and course offerings for all correspondence programs available to prisoners. In a time when so many academic opportunities in prisons have been eliminated, this book is an invaluable re-entry tool for prisoners who seek to further their education while incarcerated and to help them prepare for life and work following their release.
Jon Marc Taylor has more than 25 years experi-
ence as an incarcerated student, advocate for prisoner education, and author. He has successfully earned a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and a doctorate via correspondence courses while incar-
cerated. Editor Susan Schwartzkopf has a master's
degree in education and 12 years experience teaching immigrants English language skills.

ByJon Marc Taylor PHD 8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages

Number of copies ordered ___ Amount enclosed
By: D check D new postage stamps D credit card D money order I

ISBN 978-0-9819385-0-9

Name __________________________________________

$49·95
3 or more copies ordered

DOC/BOP Number __________________________________

at once $39.95 each

Institution/Agency _______________________

FREE Shipping & Handling Address__________________________________

I Order by mail, phone, or on-line. City __________________________ State

ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

I PRISON LEGAL NEWS P.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 1P0L9NCOL-00189

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 25 of 64

9870.05 fa246305

EXHIBIT L
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 110

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 26 of 64 Page 1P1L1NCOL-00141

Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 West Brattleboro, Vermont 05303

f.'t.3 FE1::'$

. :):(t::':i

, ....._ .' .:_ : ", "'oj"! "l' ,,} iii'j"

.

I

.

• -t

.
',"('

'

1>:.. i..

"
..
.-- ,..),. "):""",""1.1';;-1"'"

59580 *,* EXPIRES: 7/201 1 ROBERT MEADER 2010002293 COLUMBIA Co JAIL 901 PORT AVE 5T HELENS, OREGON 97051

._-----.,

As of April 1,2010 The Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS
This applies to ALL incoming and out going mail

N:CXIE:

,s:e:::1. RETW'N TO S:e::NOER
J':i'EF-"l)SE,:D 'TO F'ORWr.,J=t'C:'l

O;&/;"j, (:u ;1 :l

eo:

Ill)))) J) I))) IJ) JI»))) >11)) J) /) I)) J) )/) JJ /))) ))1) JJJ) ))/) I) d

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 27 of 64 Page 1P1L2NCOL-00142

Order Form
All purchases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books, no singles) or
pre-stamped envelopes, if allowed by prison policies.

Book Title / Number

Qty Total Cost

(attach another page if you are ordering more books)
Subtotal: Add 6% sales tax for VT residents only: Add $6.00 S/R to orders UNDER $50: Total Order Amonnt:
Send to:
Name: DOC#: Agency/Inst: Address: City/State/Zip:
MAIL PAYl\1ENT AND TillS FORM TO:
Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303
Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

FREE SIDPPING
On hook and index orders OVER $50.00! A $6 shipping charge applies to all other book amI index onlel's.
(Free shipping policy in effecl from Jan 1, :lOlO lUltil further notice)

More Books for Sale!

Prisoners' Self-Help Litigation Manual, updated 4th ed. (2010), by John

Boston and Daniel Manville, Oxford Univ. Press, 1500 pages. $39.95. The
I I I premiere, must-have "Bible" of prison litigation for current and aspiting jail-
house lawyers. If you plan to litigate a prison or jail civil suit,

tIlls book is a must-have.

1077

Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the U.S.

and Canada, updated 3rd ed. by Jon Marc Taylor, Ph.D. and edited by Susan

Schwartzkopf, published by PLN, 221 pages. $49.95. Written by Missouri

prisoner Jon Marc Taylor, who obtained a B.S. degree, an M.A. degree and a

Doctorate, the GI/Cnilla Handbook contains contact information and descrip-

I I tions of high school, vocational, paralegal and college courses available
through correspondence study. Great resource for prisoners

who want to further tI,eir education.

1057 '---'-----'

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by Robert E. Toone, SoutI,ern Poverty

Law Center, 325 pages. $10.00. TIllS book explains basic rights that prisoners

have in a jailor prison in the U.S. It deals mainly with rights related to healtIl

and safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by prison officials; it also

explains how you can enforce your rights witIlin tI,e facility 1 1

1

and, if necessary, in court throughlitigation.

1060 L._ - - ' ._ _ _- ' .

Starting Out! The Complete Re-Entry Handbook, edited by William H.

Foster, Ph.D. & Carl E. Hom, Ph.D., Starting Out Inc., 446 pages. $22.95.

Complete do-it-yourself re-entry manual and workbook for prisoners who

want to develop tI,eir own re-entry plan to increase their chances of success

after tI,ey are released. Includes a wide variety of resources, including a user

code to the Starting Out website that can be accessed fOllOW-III

mgrelease.

1074 L._ - ' - ._ _ _-'.

Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners v. the U.S.A, by

Mumia Abu Jamal, City Lights Publishers, 280 pages. $16.95. In Jailhollse Lmv-

yers, Prison Legal News columnist, award-winning journalist and death-row

prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal presents me stories and reflections of fellow pris-

oners-rurned-advocates who have learned to use the court system to represent

otI,er prisoners, and in some cases have won their freedom. 1

Must-read for jailllOuse lawyers!

1073 L._ - ' -_ _ _- '

How to Win Your Personal Injury Clainl, by Atty. Joseph Matthews, 7tIl

edition, NOLO Press, 304 pages. $34.99. While not specificaliy for prison-

related personal injury cases, this book provides comprehensive information

on how to handle personal injury and property damage claims arising from

- including dealing WitIl doctors, attorneys and 1 1

1

msurance compafiles.

1075 . '

.

All prices al'e effective as of 9-15-10 (Plices subject to change without notice)
* Norefunds after orders have been placed *

P)RIS-OI\.L, ifEGAl NEWS
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
2010 PLN BOOK LIST
Prices Subject to Change Without Notice
Gra(lhic from: Books 2 Prisoners, Vancouver, Be
P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 802.257-1342 • www.prisonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 28 of 64 Page 1P1L3NCOL-00143

Check the box of the books you want to buy and use the Order Fonn on the other side of this brochure to add up the cost of your order. FREE SIDPPING for book and index orders OVER $50. There is a $6 shipping charge for all other book and index orders.

Prison Profiteers, edired by Paul Wright and Tara Herivel, 323 pages. $24.95. TIus is dIe

dUnl and L,test book in a series ofPrison Leglli News andlOlogies that e.xamines the reality of
mass imprisonment in America. (The odler tides are The Cellillg tfAlIlerita & Pmoll Nolioll,

see below). Pmoll Profiteers is unique from odler, books because it ""-poses and discusses

who profits and benefits from mass

I rather than who is

I

I

hanned by it and how.

1063 l..,_ _, ' - - _ - - ' ,

Prison Nation: The Warehousing of America's Poor, edired by Tara Herivel and Paul

332 pages. $35.95. PIN andlOlogy ""poses the d1fk side ofthe I ,

I

1ock-em-up' political agenda and legal climate in the U.s.

1041 , .

'

I The CelIing of America, edired by Daniel Burton Rose, Dan Pens and
pages. $22.95. PIN anthology presents a det:illed "inside" look at dIe

I '

264 I

workings ofdIe American criminal justice system.

1001 , .

'

Everyday Letters for Busy People, by Debra Hart Mal', 287 pages. $18_99.

Hundreds of sample letters thatcan be adapted for most any purpose, including

letters to government agencies and, officials. Has numerous I

tips for writing effective letters.

1048 l..,_ _' -_ _- '

The Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System, by

Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sara J.

Nolo Press, 608 pages. $39.99.

fuplains what happens in a ctin1inal case from being arrested to sentencing, and what

your rights are at each stage of the process. Uses an easy to under-I

stand question-and-answer format.

1038 l..,_ - '_ _ _- '

Represent Yourself in Court: How to Prepare & Try a Winning Case, by

Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sara J.

Nolo Press, 528 pages. $39.99.

Breaks down dIe civil trial process in easy-to-understand steps so you can effectively

represent

in court. The authors e.'plain ,vhat to sal' in I '

I

how to say It, etc.

1037,.,

Law Dictionary, Random House Webster's, 525 pages. $19.95. Comprehensive , -

to-date law dictionary ""plains more dIan 8,500 legal terms.,

I

Covers civil, ctin1inal, commercial & international law.

1036 L,_----',_ _ _- '

I I I The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, by Jane Straus, 110 pages.
$14.95. A guide to grammar and punctuation by an educator

with e"perience teaching English to prisoners.

1046

Legal Research: How to Find and Understand the Law, by Stephen Elias and

I I I Susan Levinkind, 568 pages. $49.99. Comprehensive and easy to understand guide
on researclnng dIe law. E.'-pL1ins case law, statutes and digests,

and mucll more. Includes practice e.xercises.

1059 L._-I.._ _ _.J.

Deposition' Handbook, by Paul Bergman and Albert Moore, Nolo Press, 352

pages. $34.99. How-to. handbook for anyone who conducts a I I

I

deposition or is going to be deposed.

1054 l..._ - - ' - ._ _ _- ' .

Spanish-English/English-Spanish Dictionary, Random House. $8.95. Two

sections, Spanish-English and English-Spanish. 60,000+ entties I I

I

from A to Z; includes Western Heo1isphere usage.

1034 l..._ - ' ._ _ _- ' .

Please Note: All book and index orders are mailed yia the U.S. Postal Service with Delivery Confirmation. PIN does not assume any responsibility to replace book or iD.dex orders once their delivery to the destination address (facility) is confirmed bythe U.S. Postal Service.

I I I Writing to WID: The Legal Writer, by Steven D. Stark, Broadway Books/R,mdom
House, 283 pages. $19.95. E.'plains the writing ofeffecti:l;e complaints,

responses, briefS, motions and odler legal papers.

1035 l..._ - - ' ._ _----'.

Actual Innocence: When Justice Goes Wrong and How to Make it Right, updated

paperback ed., by Barry Scheck, Peter Neufeld and Jim Dwyer; 403 pages. $16.00.

Founders of dIe Innocence Project ""plain how criminal defendants are wrongly con-

victed on a regular basis. &plains DNA testing and how it works to free dIe innocent

Devasmting. critique of police and prosecutotial misconduct and d,e I I '

I

system dmt ensure.' such abuses continue.

.

1030 l.. _ . .J._ _ _--'.

Roger's Thesaurus, 717 pages. $8_95. Helps you find the right word for what

you want to sal'. 11,000 words listed alphabetically \vith over 200,000 synonyms

I I and antonyms. Sample sentences arid paris of speech shown for every main

word. Covers all levels of vocabulary and identifies mformal

I

and slang words.

1045 . .

.

Webster's English Dictionary, Newly

and updated, Random House.

$8.95. 75,000+ entries. Includes dps on writing and word usage, and has up-

dated geographical and biographical entties. Includes recent I I

I

business and computer terms.

1033...

I I I Capital Crimes, by George Winslow, Monthly Review, 360 pages. $19.00.
Explains how econonUc policies create and foster crime, and how corporate & government crime is rarely -punished. 1024

With Uberty for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America, by Scott

Christianson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages. $18.95. TIle best'

overall history of the American prison system from 1492 through the 20th

I I I Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how litde
things have changed as far as prisons go in the U.S. over

hundreds of years. .

1026..

.

Ten Men Dead: The story of the 1981 Irish hunger strike, by David Beres-

ford, Atlantic Montluy Press, 334 pages. $16.95. Inside story of I I

I

IRA prisoners at Belfast's Long Kesh prison.

1006 . .

.

I Finding the Right Lawyer, by Jay Foonberg, ABA, 256 pages. $19.95. Ex-

plains how to detem1ine your legal needs, how to evaluate. a'l

I

lawyer's qualifications, fee payments, and more.

1015 . .

.

Seize the Day! 7 Steps to Achieving the Extraordinary in an Ordinary

World, by Danny Cox and John Hoover, 256 pages. $15.99. PrO\·ides.7 steps

I to changing your e"-pectations and

yourself as being a successful

and respected person-whicll is essential to changing the I I

course of one's life.

1052

Women Behind Bars, The Crisis of Women in the U.S. Prison System, by

Silja ].A.

Seal Press, 295 pages. $15.95. Best book available tl,at covers

I issues related to imprisoned women, based on interviews with

hundreds of women behind bars.

1066 '-._--'-_ _--'

10 Insider Secrets to a Winning Job Search, by Todd Bermont, 216 pages.

$15.99. Roadmap on how to get a job even under adverse circumstances-like

being an ex-con. Includes how to develop a \vinning attitude, write attention-

grabbing resumes, prepare for

networking, how to I I

I

present your strengdls to an employer, and much more! 1056..

.

The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, 2003

Ed. by Alfred McCoy, 734 pages. $34.95. Documented expose I I

I '

of d,e government's involvement in drug trafficking.

1014 oJ. L._---'--._ _ _

Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis, by Christian Parenti,

290 pages. $19.00. Analyzes the war on tlle poor \,;a dIe ctirninal justice system. Well

documented and includes first-hand reporting. Covers prisons, para-I

oUlitary policing, SWAT teams and the INS.

1002 '-._-'-_ _-'

Hepatitis and Liver Disease: What You Need to Know, by Melissa Palmer, l'v1D,

457 pages. $17.95. Desctibes symptoms & treatments ofhep.titis B & C and odler

liver diseases. Includes medications to avoid, what diet to follow,

e.xercises to perfonn, and a bibliography.

1031

Crime and Punishment In America, by Elliott Curtie, 230 pages. $16.95. Eftective

I I rebuttBl to right-wing proponents of ptison building. Fact-based argument shows that
crime is !hiven by poverty. Debunks prisoo myths and discusses,

proven, effective means ofcrime prevention.

1019

Prison Madness: The Mental Health Ctisis Behind Bars and What We

Must Do About It, by Terry Kupers,Jossey-Bass, 245 pages. Hardback only,

prisoners please include any required authorization form $32.95. Psychia-

I ttist writes about the mental health crisis in U.S. prisons and jails. Covers all

aspects of mental illness, prison rape, negative effects of long-I

I

term isolation in control units, and more.

1003

Prison Wriring in 20th Century America, by H. Bruce Franklin, Penguin

Books, 368 pages. $16.00. From Jack London to George Jackson, this

anthology provides • selection of some of the best writing I I

describing life belnnd bars in America.

1022 --1 L._-'-._ _

i Fr I Soledad Brother: The Prison Letters of George Jackson, by GeorgeJackson,
Lawrence Hill Books, 339 pages. $18.95. Lucid ""planation of e litiCS of

prison by a well-known prison acti\,;st. More relevant now dlill1

when it first appeared 40 years ago.

1016

Marijuana Law, by RiclJard Boire, Ronin, 271 pages. $17.95. E."'llnines how to

reduce the probability of arrest and prosecution for people accused of the use, sale or

possession of marijuana. Info on legal defenses, Searcll & seizures, I I

'1

surveillance, asset forfeiture and drug testing.

1008 --1. L._-'-._ _

Worse Than Slavery: Parchman Farm and the Ordeal ofJim CrowJustice, by

I David Oshinsky, 306 pages. $16.00. Analysis of prison L1bor's roots in slavery.

Focuses on prison plantations and self-sustaining prisons dmt use I

I

prison labor.

1007..

.

No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the Ametican Criminal Justice System, by Da\,;d Cole, The New Press, 218 pages. $19.95. E.'-plains how the

ctin1inal justice system perpetuates race and class inequality, I I

I

creating a two-tiered system of justice.

1028...

The Prison and the Gallows: The Politics of Mass Incarceration in

America, by Marie Gottschalk, Cambridge University Press, 451 pages.

$29.99. Great political analysis of the confluence of events I

I

leading to 2.3 million people behind bars in tlle U.S. 1069.

.

The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, by Brandon

Sample, PLN Publishing, 200 pages. $49.95. This is PLN's second published

book, which exclusively covers ineffective assistance of counsel-related

issues in federal habeas petitions. Great resource for habeas I I

I

litigation, and contains hundreds of case cites!

1078 --1. l..._.---'._ _

Factor 8 (DVD), a film by Kelly Duda, Concrete Films. $21.95. Movie

about d,e Arkansas prison blood scandal, in which prison officials sold

infected blood harvested from prisoners. Note: This is a I

DVD and cannot be shipped to prison.

1076· L._.JL_ _---'

PLN Cumulative Index. $22.50 each. PLN Article Indexes prm;ide detailed information about all PLN articles, including title, autllor, issue, page number, topics covered, citations, .and if it is state, BOP or jail specific. Can be searched on over 500 subjects such as medical neglect or s",,-ual assault. Circle the index(es) you are ordering: 1990-1995, 1996-1998, 1999- ' 2001, 2002-2004. (more recent indexes not yet available)

All books are soft cover except Prison Madness

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 29 of 64 Page 1P1L4NCOL-00144

Order Form
All purchases must be pre-paid. Prisonel's can pay with new stamps (strips 01' books) or pre-stamped envelopes.

Books (3 & 4yr Subscription Specials: CIRCLE. one book Q! bonus issues, and DO NOT add SIH)
Protecting Your Health and Safety ill: 4, Bonus Issues (3-yr subscription offer)

$Amt.
Free

Prison Profiteers or With Liberty for Some

ill: 6 Bonus Issues (4,-yr subscription offer)

Free

Book Total (inc. all books bought separately)

Add 6% sales tax for Vermont residents only

ADD $6.00 SIH to book orders UNDER $50

PLN Subscriptions 6-month Subscription (Prisoners only) 1 yr Subscription (12 issues) 2 yr Subscription (24 plus 2 Bonus issues) 3 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above Q! 4 Bonus issues) 4 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above Q! 6 Bonus issues) Sample Issue - $3.50 each
TOTAL AInount Enclosed:

Send to: Name: DOC#:
Agency/lnst: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Address:
City/State/Zip: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
MAIL PAYl\'IENT AND TillS FORM TO:
I ,
Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303

Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

PLN Subscription Rates

Subscription Rates
Prisoners *

1yr 2 yrs 3 yrs 4yrs $24 $ 48 $ 72 $ 96

Individuals

$30 $ 60 $ 90 $120

Professionals

$80 $160 $240

(Lawyers, govt. & professional agencies, libraries, etc.)

Sample issue for anyone - $3.50 each*

$320

Six-month prisoner subscription for $12*
* Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books
only) or pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed by prison policies.

:- - - - - - - - -

--------

1
1 2 years - 2 bonus issues, for 26 monthly issues total.

: 3 years - 4· bonus issues (40 total) OR Protecting Your Health and

1 Safety (see book description on the other side of this brochure).

: 4, years - 6 bonus issues (54 total) OR your choice of With Libertyfor 1

!..

o:h:r _____:

New 3 or 4-Year Subscription Book Offel's!

Subscribe or renew for three years at the regulat· price ($72 for prisoners & $90 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Protecting Your Health and Safety or four bonus issues of PLN! (40 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.
Subscribe or I'enew for four years at the regular price
($96 for prisoners & $120 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Prison Profiteers or With Libertyfor Some, or 6 bonus issues of PLN! (54 monthly issues
total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.

NO shipping charge for subscription bonus books!

. NOTE: If you want the bonus issues of PLN instead of the free book offer, please indicate that on the Order Form.

:- ----- U;fo; PiN;s

-----

1

1

1 You can buy dozens of legal, social commentary, self-I

: help books, and legal and regular dictionaries directly:

1from PLN's book store! Ask us for a book list, or view:

: our selection online at:

1

1

www.prisonlegalnews.org/store.aspx

:

1______ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

All subscription rates & bonus offers are effective as of 5-1-10
and valid through 12-31-10
* * No refunds after orders have heen placed

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
Eastel'll State PenItentiary 1829-1971
Charles Dickens visited Philadelphia's Eastern State Penitentiary in 1842 and he later wrote: "The System is rigid, stl'ict and hopeless ... and I believe it to be cruel and wrong....I hold this slow and daily tampering with the mysteries of the brain to be immeasurably worse than any torture of the body." The prison remained open for 129 years after Dickens condemned it as being barbaric, and some of its inhumane practices continue to be used in prisons nationwide.
P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.pl·isonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 30 of 64 Page 1P1L5NCOL-00145

Dr: r
i:l

P rison Legal News is an independent, non-pI'ofit 56-page monthly publication that reports, reviews and analyzes court rulings and news related to
pI'isoners' rights and prison issues. PLN has a national
(U.S.) focus on state, federal and pI'ivate prison issues, with some international coverage as well.

PLN's many thousands of subscribers and I'eaders

include civil and criminal trial·and appellate attorneys,

judges, public defenders, journalists, academics, para-

legals, pI'isoners' rights activists, students, family

members of prisoners, concerned individuals, politi-

cians, other government' officials, and. numerous local,

state and federal

nationwide.

PLNis a vitallinlc prisoners who have access tocUlTent legal and prison-related news and information.

"Invaluable

for

wanting 'user friendly'

information about currerit higaldevelopments affecting

prisoners in the United States." .

:... Human Rights Watch, a long-time PLN subscriber

P LN's coverage of prison issues includes medical neglect, disciplinary hearings, nutrition, living conditions, excessive force, court access, censorship, jail litigation, visiting, telephones, religious freedom, free speech, prison rape, mental health, attorney/ client access, sexual abuse of women prisoners, re-
taliation, the PLRA, HIV and hep C, control units,
thedeath penalty, attorney fees and much more.

PLN Suhscl"iption Rates
Prisoners: $12 for 6 m'onths, $24 per year *
Non-incarcerated individuals: $30 per year
Law firms, govt. agencies and libraries: $80 per year
Sample issue for anyone: $3.50 each*
• Prisoners can pay with new stamps or pre-stamped envelopes

E ach monthly issue of PLN 'mcludes' three different types of reporting:

.• A coyer story on a prison-related issue.

• Reports on individual and class-action prison. and jail-

related lawsuits when they are flied, when a judgment is

entered or the case settles, and when appellate court

decision is

We also have prisop.-related news articles.

• A "News In Brief' s'ection that summarizes interesting news stories across the U.S. and internationally.

Each issue of PLN also contains numerous advertisements from businesses that provide prison-related persona) and legal services and books. PLN further sells, dozens of selfhelp, social commentary and legal books.

PLN also has cumulative subject and case cite indexes for all PLN issues from 1990 through 2004. Write for info.

Offer!)

Free with a 3-yeru: PLN subscription! Four bonus issues of

PLN (40 issues total) or a free book, Protecting Your

Health and Safety! Circle your bonus choice on the form

on the other side of this brochure (3-year subscription

rates:

$72, individuals $90, professionals $240).

Protecting Your .Health and· Safety, by """-----1
Robert E. Toone. Published by the ,Southern Poverty La,\' Center, 325 pages (2009). $10.00 (fi'ee With a 3-year sub!). This book explains some basic rights that prisoners
I have in a jail or prison in the U.S. It deals
mainly with rights related to health and II ",9-----:
safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by prison officials; it also explahts how' you can enforce your rights to. health and' safety within the facility and, if necessary, in court through litigation; Buy separately: ___

------------------------------------------,
You Can Buy These Books Sepal'3tely! : I
I
If you don't want to purchase a 3 or 4-year subscription:

to PLN, you can still

any of the bonus books:

at the regular price. Just indicate which books you want:

to buy on this page, then enter the total cost on the other :

side of this brochure on the "Book Total" line ofthe 01'- :

del' Form. Shipping is $6 per order (not per book), and we :

offer FREE shipping on book orders of $50 or morel To :

I place a phone order, please call 802-257-134·2. We also:

: accept book orders online, at www.prisonlegalnews.org. :
L ____________._____________________________ J

D onations: PLN is a project of the non-profit Human Rights Defense Center. Your tax-deductible donations support our advocacy, free speech and First Amendment litigation efforts on behalf of prisoners publishers. PLN not only provides uncensored prison-related news, but actively contests prison censorship that interferes with the delivery of our publication or any other PLN materials sent to prisoners. All donations further our goal of ing for people imprisoned in U.S. detention facilities.
"Great source of information, especially in states such as Arizona where the law libraries have been taken from the inmates and replaced with.paralegals." - SB, Arizona prisoner .
I SpeciaI4-yeal' SuhSC1'iption Offer!
Free with a 4-year PLN subscI"iption! Six bonus issues of PLN (54 issues total) 01' one fi'ee book, With Liberty for Some or Prison Profiteers! Circle yoUr bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (4.-year subscription rates: prisoners $96, indiyiduals. $120, professionals $320). Note: Free book option is for one boole
With Liberty for Some: 500 Years Imprisonment in America, by Scott Christianson, Northeastern Uniyersity Press, 372 pages (1998). $18.95 (free with a 4-year sub!). A classic book and the best overall history of the American prison system from 14·92 to the 20th Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how little things have changed as far as prisons go in the U.S. oyer hundreds of years. Buy separately: ___
or
Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money from Mass Incarceration, edited by Paul Wright & Tara Heriyel, New Press (2007). $24.95 (fi'ee with a 4-year sub!). This is the third in a series of PLN anthologies that examines the reality of mass imprisonment in the U.S. Prison Profiteers is unique from other books on the mark!!t because it exposes. and discusses who profits and benefits from -qIass imprisonment, rather than who is: harmed by the prison industrial complex and our nation's reliance on over-incarceration. Buy separately: _ __

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 31 of 64

T he Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel is the first in a series of books by Prison Legal News Publishing designed to help pro-se prisoner litigants identify and raise viable claims for potential habeas corpus relief. This book is an invaluable resource that identifies hundreds of cases where the federal courts have granted habeas relief to prisoners whose attorneys provided ineffective assistance of counsel.
It will save litigants thousands ofhours
of research and it focuses on the WINNING cases criminal defendants need to successfully challenge their convictions.
Well organized into 52 concise chapters, this easy to use book puts the law at the reader's fingertips. The Appendix includes pleadings and forms from successful habeas corpus cases that

"

The Habeas Citebook is a

nifty and concise self-help

guide for prisoners seeking

habeas relief based on claims of

ineffective assistance of counsel.

Navigating the complex and

treacherous terrain of habeas

law is never easy; but claim-

ing that your lawyer screwed up

is even more difficult - espe-

cially from the confines of an

demonstrate formatting and show ill-equipped prison law library.

how to frame a winning argu-

"Brandon Sample has pro-

ment that will persuade a court

vided an amazing and much-

to grant habeas relief. The Habeas

needed tool for prisoners who

Citebook explains the proce-

are forced to seek relief on their

dural and substantive complexi-

own. The book is thorough; but

ties of federal habeas corpus lit-

simple and readable. It starts

igation with the goal of identify-

with a wonderfully well-orga-

ing and litigating claims involving nized listing of hundreds of dif-

ineffective assistance of counsel.

ferent types of ineffective assis-

Brandon Sample is a success-

tance of counsel, set forth in the

ful jailhouse lawyer litigant incar-

form of citations to court rul-

cerated in the Bureau of Prisons.

ings - a novel approach that

He is a Prison Legal News contrib- not only acts as a springboard

uting writer and a member of the

for further research but also

National Lawyer's Guild. Editor

saves the prisoner countless

Susan Schwartzkopf has a mas-

hours of preliminary research:'

ter's degree in education and is

the director and editor in chief of

PETER SCHMIDT

Prison Legal News Publishing.

Publisher, Punch & Jurists

THE HABEAS CITEBOOK: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

By Brandon Sample

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed ______

8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages By: D check D new postage stamps D credit card D money order m

ISBN 978-0-9819385-1-6
$49·95 3 or more copies ordered

Name DOC/BOP Number _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

at once $39.95 each

Institution/Agency __________________

FREE Shipping & Handling Address_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Order by mail, phone, or on-line. City _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ State

ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

PRISON LEGAL NEWS P.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 1P1L6NCOL-00146

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 32 of 64
"----------, Copies of this very usable and useful gUide should be available in every prison library-to help incarcerated people give positive direction to their energies while making constructive use of their time. It is a well-established fact that people who have taken college c;ourses in prison have a dramatically reduced rate of
L-_____ -BELL GALE CHEVICNY, PEN Prison Writing Program, _ _ _ Editor Doing Time: 25 Years ofPrison Writing.

HIGH SCHOOL .. VOCATIONAL .. PARALEGAL .. UNDERGRADUATE .. GRADUATE COURSES

HE GREATLY anticipated and newly updated
third edition of the Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the United States and Canada has finally arrived! Author
Jon Marc Taylor's brand new version is the latest in this unique and highly successful gUidebook for the
prisoner-student. This invaluable tool and how-to handbook provides the reader with step-by-step instructions to find the appropriate educational program for high school, vocational, paralegal, undergraduate, and graduate courses offered in
the U.S. and Canada today.
Invaluable re-entry tool
It presents more than 160 program outlines and
offers an easy-to-use format for the student to
determine which program best suits their needs. It is ideal for the incarcerated student who does not have Internet access or the ability to attend education classes in person. This resource is indispensable

for the individual and beneficial for use in all prison libraries and education departments.
The Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook is the only book
on the market for the non-traditional prisoner-student. It includes detailed listings of the quality, cost, and course offerings for all correspondence programs available to prisoners. In a time when so many academic opportunities in prisons have been eliminated, this book is an invaluable re-entry tool for prisoners who seek to further their education while incarcerated and to help them prepare for life and work following their release.
Jon Marc Taylor has more than 25 years experi-
ence as an incarcerated student, advocate for prisoner education, and author. He has successfully earned a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and a doctorate via correspondence courses while incar-
cerated. Editor Susan Schwartzkopf has a master's
degree in education and 12 years experience teaching immigrants English language skills.

PRISONERS' GUERRILLA HANDBOOK TO CORRESPONDENCE PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA Iil

ByJon Marc Taylor PHD 8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages ISBN 978-0-9819385-0-9

til
Number of copies ordered ____ Amount enclosed _ _ _ __
I By: 0 check 0 new postage stamps 0 credit card 0 money order
Name ___________________________

$49-95
3 or more copies ordered

DOC/BOP Number ________________________________

at once $39-95 each

Institution/Agency __-,--____________________________

FREE Shipping & Handling Address,______________________________________

I Order by mail, phone, or on-line. City ___________________________ State

ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

PfU§ON LEGAL NEWS I p.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 1P1L7NCOL-00147

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 33 of 64

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBIT
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 118

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 34 of 64 Page 1P1L9NCOL-00155

· Prison Legal News

:. :-i

.i P.O. Box 2420

West Brattlebc>ro, Vermont 05303

RETURN TO SENDER

As of April 1, 2010 The Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS
This applies to ALL incoming and out going mail

59589 ** EXPIRES: 7/201 1
KANAAN MEYERS 2010002077

COLUMBIA CO JAIL

901 PORT AVE 5T HELENS, OREGON 97051

N:.I:x:rr::

970 .se:;;!.

1:)0 0.2./ 06/ :I. :I.

,Col J!\IEi\.ltilN
NOT DELXVERA9LE AS ADDRESSED UNABLE TO FORWARD

ec :

.

*2688-08418-31-44

0.5 j

j JJ)) JI I, JJ»)J JJJJJ) II) JJI J) I, JJ 1))1)J I, JJ1,) JJ) 1) J11),) J, JII J

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 35 of 64 Page 1P2L0NCOL-00156

Order Form
All purchases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books, no singles) or
pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed by prison policies.

Book Title / Number

Qty Total Cost

(attach another page if you are ordering more books)
Subtotal: Add 6% sales tax for VT residents only: Add $6.00 SIR to orders UNDER $50: Total Order Amount:
Send to:
Name: DOC#: Agency/lnst: Address: City/State/Zip:
MAIL PAYMENT AND TillS FORM TO: Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303
Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

FREESIDPPING On hook and index orders OVER $50.00!
A $6 shipping charge applies to aU other book amI index OllIel's.
(Free shipping policy in effect from Jan 1, 2010 until further notice)

More Books for Sale!

Prisoners' Self-Help Litigation Manual, updated 4dl ed. (2010), by John

Boston and Daniel Manville, Oxford Univ. Press, 1500 pages. $39.95. TIle

I premiere, must-have "Bible" of prison litigation for current and aspiring jail-
house lawyers. If you plan to litigate a prison or jail civil suit, I I

this book is a must-have.

1077

Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the U.S.

and Canada, updated 3rd ed. by Jon Marc Taylor, Ph.D. and edited by Susan

Schwartzkopf, published by PLN, 221 pages. $49.95. Written by lVIissouri

prisoner Jon Marc Taylor, who obtained a B.S. degree, an M.A. degree and a

Doctorate, ilie Gllerrilla HalJdbook contains contact information and descrip-

I I tions of high school, vocational, paralegal and college courses available
through correspondence study. Great resource for prisoners

who want to furilier ilieir education.

1057 L._-1.._ _ _...l

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by Robert E. Toone, Soudlern Poverty

Law Center, 325 pages. $10.00. This book e."plains basic rights iliat prisoners

have in a jailor prison in ilie U.S. It deals mainly widl rights related to healili

and safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by prison officials; it also

explains how you can enforce your rights widlin ilie facility I I

I

and, if necessaty, in court through litigation.

1060

Starting Out! The Complete Re-Entry Handbook, edited by William H.

Foster, Ph.D. & Carl E. Horn, Ph.D., Starting Out Inc., 446 pages. $22.95.

Complete do-it-yourself re-entry manual and workhook for prisoners who

want to develop ilieir own re-entry plan to increase dleir chances of success

I after iliey are released. Includes a wide variety of resources, including a user to ilie Starting Out website iliat can be accessed fOllOW-I I

mg release.

1074

Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners v. the U.S.A, by

Mumia Abu Jamal, City Lights Publishers, 280 pages. $16.95. In JaillJOIIIe LP'J1-

)'erJ, Ptison Legal News columnist, award-winning journalist and deadl-row

prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal presents dle stories and reflections of fellow pris-

I oners-turned-advocates who have learned to use the court system to represent
oilier prisoners, and in some cases have won ilieir freedom. I I

Must-read for jailliouse lawyers!

1073

How to Win Your Personal Injury Claim, by Atty. Joseph Matdlews, 7ili

edition, NOLO Press, 304 pages. $34.99. While not specifically for prison-

related personal injury cases, dus book provides comprehensive information

on how to handle personal injury and property damage claims arising from

?ccidents -

dealing widl doctors, attorneys and I I

I

msurance comparues.

1075

An prices are effective as of 9-15-10
(plices subject to ckmge without notice)
* No refunds after orden, have been placed *

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
2010 PLN BOOK LIST
Prices Subject to Change Without Notice
Graphic from: Books 2 Prisoners, Vancouver, Be
P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.prisonlegalnews.Ol·g

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 36 of 64 Page 1P2L1NCOL-00157

Check the box of the books you want to buy and.use the Order Form on the other side of this brochure to add up the cost of your order. FREE SHIPPING for book and index orders OVER $50. There is a $6 shipping charge for all other book and index orders.

Prison Profiteers, edited by Paul Wright and Tara HeriveI, 323 pages. $2A.95. TIUs is d,e

third and brestbookin a series ofPrisoo I.egaI News andlOlogies dlat e.xamines the reality of
mass imprisonment in Ameria!. (The odler tides are Tbe Cellillg ifAtllmro & HisollNanoll,

I I I see below). PJisOIl Projteers is unique from odler books because it ""-poses and discusses

who profits and benefits from !Th1SS

mdler than who is

l=ed by it and how.

1063 L._ _L._ _...J.

I I , Prison Nation: The Warehousing of America's Poor, edited byTara Hetivel and Paul 332 pages. $35.95. PIN andlOlogl' e.'l'oses d,e d,u:k side ofthe

1ock-em-up'political agenda and legal climate in the U.s.

1041 . .

.

I The Celling of America, edited by Daniel Burton Rose, Dan Pens and Paul
pages. $22.95. PIN andlology presents a detailed "inside" look at d,e I

I264

workings ofd,e Ameriam criminal justice system.

1001 . .

.

Everyday Letters for Busy People, by Debra Hart May, 287 pages. $18.99.

I I Huodreds of sample letters that can be adapted for most any purpose, including
letters to government agencies and officials. Has numerous

tips for writing effective letters.

1048 L._ _L-_ _.J.

The Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System, by

Attorneys Paul Bergnlan & Sara J.

Nolo Press, 608 pages. $39.99.

R'l'bins what happens in a criminal case from being arrested to senteociog, and what

your rights are at each stage of the process. Uses an easy to under-,

stand question-and-answer format

1038 L._.....l_ _ _...J

Represent Yourself in Court: .How to Prepare & Try a Winning Case, by

Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sara J.

Nolo Press, 528 pages. $39.99.

Breaks down d,e civil ttial process in easy-to-understand steps so you can effectively

represeot yourself in court TI,e authors ""-plain what to say in "

,

court, how to say it, etc.

1037

Law Dictionary, Rnndom House Webster's, 525 pages. $19.95. Comprel1ensive Uh -

to-date low dictionary ""l'bins more than 8,500 legill terms.'

,

Covers civil, criminal, commercial & international low.

1036 LI_ _' -_ _- '

I I I The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, by Jane Straus, 110 pages.
$14.95. A guide to grammar and punctuation by an educator

with experience teaching English to prisoners.

1046

Legal Research: How to Find and Understand the Law, by Stepheo Elias and

I Susan Levinkind, 568 pages. $49.99. Comprel1ensive and easy to understand guide
on researclling the lmv. E"l'bins case low, statutes and digests",

and much more. Includes pmctice e.,ercises.

1059 L._ - - ' ._ _ _ _.

I I I Deposition Handbook, by Paul Bergman and Albert Mooie, Nolo Press, 352
pages. $34.99. How-to handbook for anyone who conductS a

deposition or is going to be deposed.

1054 L._...l.._ _ _-'.

I I Spanish-English/English-Spanish Dictionary, Rnndom House. $8.95. Two
sections, Spanish-English and English-Spanish. 60,000+ entties

from A to Z; includes Western Hemisphere usage.

1034 L._.....l._ _ _-'

Please Note: All book and index orders are mailed via the U.S. Postal Service with Delivery Confirmation. PLN does not assume any respon-
sibility to replace book or index orders mice their delivery to the desti-
nation address (facility) is confirmed by the U.S. Postal Service.

I I I Writing to Will: The Legal Writer, by Steven D. Stark, Broad\vay BookS/R,mdom
House, 283 pages. $19.95. Rxpbins d,e writiog df effective compbints,

responses, btiefS, motions and other legal papers.

1035 L._...JL._ _-----'.

Actual Innocence: When Justice Goes Wrong and How to Make it Right, updated

paperback ed., by Barry Scheck, Peter Neufeld and Jim Dwyer; 403 pages. $16.00.

Founders of d,e Innocence Project ""l'bin how criminal defendants are wrongly con-

I I I victed on a regular basis. R,-pbins DNA resting and how it works to free d,e innocent
Devastatiog ctitique of police and prosecutorial misconduct and d,e

system dlat ensures such abuses continue.

.

1030 L._...JL._ _ _.1.

Roger's Thesaurus, 717 pages. $8.95. Helpsyou find the right word for what

you want to say. 11,000 words listed alphabetically with over 200,000 synonyms
I I , and antonyms. Sample sentences and parts of speech shown for every main
word. Covers all levels of vocab;Uary and identifies infoffilal

and slang words.

1045 L._ _. ' - - _ - - , - ' .

Webster's English Dictionary, Newly revised and updated, Random House.

I I I $8.95. 75,000+ entties. Includes tips on writing and word usage, ·and has up-
c;lated geographical and biographical entties. Includes recent

business and computer terms.

1033...

I I I Capital Crimes, by George Winslow, Monthly Review, 360 pages. $19.00.
Explains how economic policies create and foster .crime, and how corporate & government crime is rarely punished. 1024

With Liberty for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America, by Scott

Christianson, Northeastern University Press,· 372 pages. $18.95. The best

overall history of the American prison system from 1492 through the 20th
I I , Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for uodersLIDding how little
things have cllanged as Ltr as prisons go in the U.S. over

hundreds of years.

1026

.

'----'------'

I I I Ten Men Dead: The story of the 1981 Irish hunger strike, by David Beres-
ford, AtIantic MontIlly Press, 334 pages. $16.95. Inside story of

IRA prisoners at Belfast's Long Kesh prison.

1006 . .

.

I I I Finding the Right Lawyer, by Jay Foonberg, ABA, 256 pages. $19.95. Ex-
plains how. to detemline your legal needs, how to evaluate a

!awyer's qualifications, fee payments, and more.

1015 . .

.

Seize the Day! 7 Steps to Achieving the Extraordinary in an Ordinary

World, by Danny Cox and John Hoover, 256 pages. $15.99.

7 steps

I I I to changing your e"-pectations and envisioning yourself as being a successful
and respected person-which is essential to changing tI,e

course of one's life.

1052

Women Behind Bars, The Crisis of Women in the p.S. Prison System, by
Silja J.A. Talvi, Seal Press, 295 pages. $15.95. Best book available tImt covers
I issues related to imprisoned women, based on interviews with

huodreds of women behind bars.

1066 L._ - ' -_ _- - '

10 Insider Secrets to a Winning Job Search, by Todd Bermont, 216 pages.

$15.99. Roadmap on how to get a job even uoder adverse circumstances-like

I I I being an ex-con. Includes how to develop a \vinning attitude, write attention-
grabbing resumes, prepare for interviews, networking, how t.o

present your sttengths to an employer, and much more! 1056..

.

I I I The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, 2003
Ed. by Alfred McCoy, 734 pages. $34.95. Documented expose

of tI,e government's involvement in drug trafficking.

1014 ....l. L._ - ' - ._ _ _

Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis, by Christian Parenti,

290 pages. $19.00. Analyzes d,e war on ti,e poor d,e crin\inal justice system. Well

dOCUfllented and includes first-11aOd repotting. Covers prisons, para-I

military policing, SWAT teams and d,e lNS.·

1002 ...J L._ - ' -_ _

Hepatitis and Liver Disease: What You Need to Know, by Melissa Palmer, l'vID,

I I I 457 pages. $17.95. Descnbes symptoms & treatments of hepatitis B & C and od,er
liver diseases. Includes medications to avoid, what diet to follow,

exercises to perfonTI, and a bibliogrnphy.

1031

Crinle and Purrishment In America, bi Elliott Curtie, 230 pages. $16.95. Effective

I I I rebuttal to right-wing proponents of prison building. Fact-based argument shows that
ctime is driven by poverty. Debunks prison myths and discusses

proven, effective means ofctimeprevention.

1019

Ptison Madness: The Mental Health Crisis Behind Bars and What We·

Must Do About It, by Terry Kupers,Jossey-Bass, 245 pages. Hardback only,

prisoners please include any required authorization form. $32.95. Psychia-

I ttist writes about tI,e mental hea1tIl crisis in U.S. prisons and jails. Covers all
aspects of mental illness, ptison mpe, negative effects of long-I I

term isolation in control units, and more.

1003

Prison Writing in 20th Century America, by H. Bruce Franklio, Penguin

I I Books, 368 pages. $16.00. From Jack London to George Jackson, tIllS

antIlOlogy

a selection of some of tl,e best writing

describing life behind bars in America.

1022 - - 1 L._ - ' - ._ _

I Soledad Brother: The Prison Letters of George Jackson, by George Jackson,
Lawrence Hill. Books, 339 pages. $18.95. Lucid e.'-pbnation of I'e PllitiCS of ptison by a well-known ptison activist More relevant now tI,an

when it first appeared 40 years ago.

1016

Marijuana Law, by Ricllard Boire, Ronin, 271 pages $17.95. R'<afl1ines how to

I I I reduce the probability of arrest and prosecution for people accused of tI,e use, sale or
possession of marijuana. Infu on legal defenses, Searcll & seizures,

surveillance, asset furfeiture and drug resting.

1008 L._ - ' - ._ _---'.

Worse Than Slavery: Parchman Fann and the Ordeal ofJinl CrowJustice, by

I I I Oshinsj,:y, 306 pages. $16.00. Analysis of ptison bbot's roots in sbvery.
Focuses on prison pL'Ultations and self-sUstaining ptisons tIlat use

prison bbor.

1007..

.

No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the Ametican Criminal Justice

I I I System, by David Cole, TI,e New Press, 218 pages. $19.95. R,-plains how the
criminal justice. system perpe:uates mce and class inequality,

creatlnga two-nered system ofJusnce. .

1028...

The Prison and the Gallows: The Politics of Mass Incarceration in

I I America, by Marie Gottschalk, Canlbridge University Press, 451 pages.
$29.99. Great political analysis of tl,e confluence of events

leading to 2.3 million people behind bars in the U.S. 1069.

.

The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, by Brandon

Sample, PLN Publishing, 200 pages. $49.95. TIllS is PLN's second published

I I I book, which e.,elusively covers ineffective assistance of counsel-related
issues in federal habeas petitions. Great resource for habeas

litigation, and contains hundreds of case cites!

1078..

.

Factor 8 (DVD), a film by Kelly Duda, Concrete Films. $21.95. Movie

about the Arkansas prison blood scandal, in willch prison officials sold
I infected blood harvested from prisoners. Note: This is a

DVD and cannot be shipped to prison.

1076 L._...L_ _-'

PIN Cumulative Index. $22.50 each. PLN Artiele Indexes provide detailed

infoffilation about all PLN articles, including titIe, autllor, issue, page number,

topics covered, citations, and if it is state, BOP or jail specific. Can be

searched on over 500 subjects such as medical

sC>.-ual assault Cirele

tI,e index(es) you are ordering: 1990-1995, 1996-1998, 1999-1

2001, 2002-2004. (more recent indexes not yet available)

All books are soft cover except Prison Madness,

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 37 of 64 Page 1P2L2NCOL-00158

Order Form
All pm'chases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new stamps (strips or books) or pre-stamped envelopes.

Books (3 & 4yr Subscription Specials: cmCLE
one book ill: bonus issues, and DO NOT add SIH)
Protecting Your Health and Safety
m: 4 Bonus Issues (3-yr subscription offer)

$Amt.
Free

Prison Profiteers or With Liberty for Some

m: 6 Bonus Issues (4-yr subscription offer)

Free

Book Total (inc. all books bought separately)

Add 6% sales tax for Vermont residents only

ADD $6.00 SIR to book orders UNDER $50

PLN Subscriptions
6-month Subscription (Prisoners only) 1 yr Subscription (12 issues) 2 yr Subscription (24. plus 2 Bonus issues) 3 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above ill: 4 Bonus issues) 4 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above m: 6 Bonus issues) Sample Issue - $3.50 each
TOTAL Amount Enclosed:

Send to:
Name:
DOC#: Agency/lnst: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Address:
City/State/Zip: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
MAIL P AYl\'IENT AND TillS FORM TO:
I ,
Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro[ VT 05303

Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

PLN SubSCl'iption Rates

Subscription Rates
Prisoners *

1yr 2 yrs 3 yrs 4yrs $24 $ 48 $ 72 $ 96

Individnals

$30 $ 60 $ 90 $120

Professionals

$80 $160 $240 $320

(Lawyers, govt. & professional agencies, libraries, etc.)

Sample issue for anyone - $3.50 each*

Six-month prisoner subscription for $12*
* Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books
only) or pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed byprison policies.

:- - - - - - - - -

---------

1
1 2 years - 2 bonus issues, for 26 monthly issues total. : 3 years - 4 bonus issues (40 total) OR Protecting Your Health and 1 Safety (see book description on the other side of this brochure). : 4 years - 6 bonus issues (54 total) OR your choice of With Libertyfor
o,:h:r _____I

New 3 or 4-Year Subscription Book Offers!

Subscribe or renew for three years at the regular price ($72 for prisoners & $90 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Protecting Your Health and Safety or four bonus issues of PLN! (40 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.
Subscribe or- renew for four years at the regnlar price ($96 for prisoners & $120 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Prison Profiteers or With Liberty for Some, or 6 bonus issues of PLN! (54 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.

NO shipping charge for subscription bonus books!

NOTE: If you want the bonus issues of PLN instead of the free book offer, please indicate that on the Order Form.

:- - - - - -

U;£0;'PiN;s-io-;'k -----

1

1

1 You can buy dozens of legal, social commentary, self- 1

: help books, and legal and regular dictionaries directly:

1from PLN's book store! Ask us for a book list, or view:

: our selection online at:

1

1

www.prisonlegalnews.org/store.aspx

:

1______ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

All subscription rates & bonus offers are effective as of5-1-10
and valid through 12-31-10
* No refunds aftel' orders have been placed *

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
Eastern State Penitentiary 1829-1971 Charles Dickens visited Philadelphia's Eastern State Penitentiary in 1842 and he later wrote: "The System is rigid, strict and hopeless ... and I believe it to be cruel and wrong....I hold this slow and daily tampering with the mysteries of the brain to be immeasurably worse than any torture of the body." The prison remained open for 129 years after Dickens condemned it as being barbaric, and some of its inhumane practices continue to be used in prisons nationwide.
P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.prisonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 38 of 64 Page 1P2L3NCOL-00159

r!.1,Ii

P rison Legal News is an independent, non-profit 56-page monthly publication that reports, reviews and analyzes court rulings and news.related to
prisoners' rights and prison issues. PLN has a national
(U.S.) focus on state, federal and private prison issues, with some international coverage as well.

PLN's many thousands of subscribers and readers include civil and criminal trial and appellate attorneys, judges, public defenders, journalists, academics, paralegals, prisoners' rights activists, students, family members of prisoners, concerned individuals, politicians, other government officials, and numerous local, state and federal priso:p.el·s nationwide.

PLN is a vital link for prisoners who otherwise don't

have access to current legal and prison-related news

and information.

-

.

"Invaluable resource for anyone wanting 'user friendly'

infonnation about current legal'developments affecting

prisoners in the.United States."

'" Duman Rights Watch, a long-time PLN subscriber

P LN's coverage of pl'ison issues includes medical neglect, disciplinary hearings, nutrition, living conditions, excessive force, court access, censorship, jail litigation, visiting, telephones, religious freedom, free speech, prison rape, mental health, attorney/ client access, sexual abuse of women prisoners, re-
taliation, the PLRA, HIV and hep C, control units,
the death penalty, attorney fees and much more.

PLN Subscription Rates
Prisoners: $12 for 6 months, $24 per year *
N on-incarcerated individuals: $30 per year
Law firms, govt. agencies and libraries: $80 per year
Sample issue for anyone: $3.50 each* * Prisoners can pay with new stamps or pre-stamped envelopes

E ach monthly issue of PLN includes three different types ofreporting: • A cover story on a prison-related issue. • Reports on individual and class-action prison and jail-
related lawsuits when they are filed, when a judgment is entered or the case settles, and when an appellate court decision is issued. We also have prison-related news articles. • A "News In Brief" section that summarizes interesting news stories across the U.S. and internationally.
Each issue of PLN also contains numerous advertisements from businesses that provide prison-related personal and legal services and books. PLN further sells dozens of selfhelp, social commentary and legal books.
PLN also has cumulative subject and case cite indexes for all PLN issues from 1990 through 2004,. Write for info.
Special 3-yem' SuhSCl'iption Offel'! J
Free with a 3-year PLN subscription! Four bonus issues of PLN (40 issues total) or a fi'ee book, Protecting Your Health and Safety! Circle your bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (3-year subscription rates: prisoners $72, individuals $90, professionals $24,0).
Protecting Your Health and Safety, by "'6------,--1 Robert E. Toone. Published by_ the Southern Poverty Law Center, 325 pages (2009). $10.00 (free with a 3-year sub!). This book explains some basic rights that prisoners
have in a jail or prison in the U.S. It deals [i '_'@__
mainly with rights related to health and "---.-----1safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by prison officials; it also explains how you can enforce your rights to health and safety within the facility and, if necessary, in court through litigation. Buy separately: ___

: You Can Buy These Books Sepm'ately! :

I

I

I

I

: If you don't want to purchase a 3 or 4-year subscription:

I to PLN, you can still purchase any of the bonus books:

at the regular price. Just indicate which books you want:

to buy on this page; then enter the total cost on the other:

side of this brochure on the "Book Total" line of the 01'- :

del' Form. Shipping is $6 per order (not per book), and we :

offer FREE shipping on book orders of $50 or· more! To :

place a phone order, please call 802-257-1342. We also:

_a_c_c_ep_t_b_o_o_k_o_r_d_er_s_o_n_li_n_e,_a_t_w_w__w_.p_r_is_o_n_le_g_a_ille_w_s_.o_rg_.__ J:

D onations: PLN is a project of the non-profit Human Rights Defense ·Center. Your tax-deductible donations support. our advocacy, free speech and First Amendment litigation efforts. on behalf of prisoners and publishers. PLN not only provides uncensored prison-related news, but actively contests prison censorship that interferes with the delivery of our publication or any other PLN materials sent to prisoners. All donations further our goal of advocating for people imprisoned in U.S. detention facilities.
"Great source of infonnation, especially in states such as Arizona where the law libraries have been taken from the inmates and replaced with paralegals." - SB, Arizona prisoner
SuhSCl'iption Offer!
Free with a 4-year PLN subscription! Six bonus issues of PLN (54 issues total) or one fi'ee book, With Liberty for Some or Prison Profiteers! Circie your bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (4'-year subscription rates: prisoners $96, individuals $120, professionals $320). Note: Free book option is for one book.
With Liberty for Some: 500 Years of 1,";1';\ -.j-,-,--:T.c,·jl Imprisonment in America, by Scott Christianson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages (1998). $18.95 (free with a 4-year sub!). A classic book and the best overall history of the American prison system from 14-92 to the 20th Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how little things have changed as far as prisons go in the U.S. over hundreds of years. Buy separately: ___
or
Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money from Mass Incarceration, edited by Paul Wright & Tara Derivel, New Press (2007). $24.95 (fi'ee with a 4-year sub!). This is the third in a series of PLN anthologies that examines the reality of mass imprisonment in the U.S. Prison Profiteers is unique from other books on the market because it exposes and discusses who profits and benefits from mass imprisonment, rather than who is harmed by the prison industrial complex and our nation's reliance on over-incarceration. Buy separately: _ __

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 39 of 64

T he Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel is the first in a

"

The Habeas Citebook is a

nifty and concise self-help

series of books by Prison Legal

guide for prisoners seeking

News Publishing designed to help

habeas relief based on claims of

pro-se prisoner litigants identify

ineffective assistance of counsel.

and raise viable claims for poten-

Navigating the complex,and

tial habeas corpus relief. This

treacherous terrain of habeas

book is an invaluable resource

law is never easy; but claim-

that identifies hundreds of cases

ing that your lawyer screwed up

where the federal courts have

is even more difficult espe-

granted habeas relief to prison-

cially from the confines of an

ers whose attorneys provided inef- demonstrate formatting and show ill-equipped prison law library.

fective assistance of counsel.

how to frame a winning argu-

"Brandon Sample has pro-

It will save litigants

ment that will persuade a court to grant habeas relief. The Habeas

vided an amazing and muchneeded tool for prisoners who

thousands ofhours of research and

Citebook explains the procedural and substantive complexities of federal habeas corpus lit-

are forced to seek relief on their own. The book is thorough; but simple and readable. It starts

it focuses on the igation with the goal of identify-

with a wonderfully

WINNING cases criminal defendants need to

ing and litigating claims involving ineffective assistance of counsel.
Brandon Sample is a success-

nized listing of hundreds of different types of ineffective assistance of counsel, set forth in the

successfully challenge ful jailhouse lawyer litigant incar- form of citations to court rul-

their convictions.

cerated in the Bureau of Prisons. He is a Prison Legal News contrib-

ings - a novel approach that not only acts as a springboard

Well organized into 52 con-

uting writer and a member of the

for further research but also

cise chapters, this easy to use book National Lawyer's Guild. Editor

saves the prisoner countless

puts the law at the reader's fin-

Susan Schwartzkopf has a mas-

hours of preliminary research:'

gertips. The Appendix includes

ter's degree in education and is

pleadings and forms from suc- .

the director and editor in chief of

PETER SCHMIDT

cessful habeas corpus cases that

Prison Legal News Publishing.

Publisher, Punch & Jurists

------- ------

THE HABEAS CITEBOOK: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

By Brandon Sample 8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages ISBN 978-0-9819385-1-6
$49·95 3 or more copies ordered
at once $39.95 each

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed _ _ _ _ __
By: D check t;J new postage stamps D credit card D money order I
Name ______________________
DOC/BOP Number _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _----'_ _ _ _ __
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

FREE Shipping & Handling Address,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Order by mail, phone, or on-line. City _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ State

ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

PRISON LEGAL NEWS P.O. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 1P2L4NCOL-00160

" Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 40 of 64 ------------, Copies of this very usable and useful gUide

should be available in every prison library-to

help incarcerated people give positive direc-

tion to their .energies while making constructive

use of their

It is a well-established fact that

people who have taken college courses in prison

have a dramatically reduced rate of recidivism."

-BELL GALE CHEVICNY, PEN Prison Writing Program, Editor Doing Time: 25 Years ofPrison Writing.

HIGH SCHOOL. VOCATIONAL • PARALEGAL • UNDERGRADUATE. GRADUATE COURSES

HE GREATLY anticipated and newly updated
third edition of the Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the United States and Canada has finally arrived! Author
Jon Marc Taylor's brand new version is the latest in this unique and highly successful gUidebook for the
prisoner-student. This invaluable tool and how-to handbook provides the reader with step-by-step instructions to find the appropriate educational program for high school, vocational, paralegal, undergraduate, and graduate courses offered in
the u.s. and Canada today.
Invaluable re-entry tool
It presents more than 160 program outlines and
offers an easy-to-use format for the student to
determine which program best suits their needs. It is ideal for the incarcerated student who does not have Internet access or the ability to attend education classes in person. This resource is indispensable

for the individual and beneficial for use in all prison libraries and education departments.
The Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook is the only book
on the market for the non-traditional prisoner-student. It includes detailed listings of the quality, cost, and course offerings for all correspondence programs available to prisoners. In a time when so many academic opportunities in prisons have been eliminated, this book is an invaluable re-entry tool for prisoners who seek to further their education while incarcerated and to help them prepare for life and work following their release.
Jon Marc Taylor has more than 25 years experi-
ence as an incarcerated student, advocate for prisoner education, and author. He has successfully earned a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and a doctorate via correspondence courses while incar-
cerated. Editor Susan Schwartzkopf has a master's
degree in education and 12 years experience teaching immigrants English language skills..

I PRISONERS' GUERRILLA HANDBOOK TO CORRESPONDENCE PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA

ByJon Marc Taylor PHD 8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages

Number of copies ordered ___ Amount enclosed
I By: 0 check 0 new postage stamps 0 credit card 0 money order

ISBN 978-0-9819385-0-9

Name ___________________________________________

$49-95

I

3 or more copies ordered
at once $39-95 each

DOC/BOP Number ___________________________________ Institution/Agency _________________________________

I

FREE Shipping & Handling Address__________________________________________

I Order by mail/ phone/ or on-line. City __________________________ State

ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

PRISON LEGAL NEWS I P.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 1P2L5NCOL-00161

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 41 of 64

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBIT
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 126

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 42 of 64 Page 1P2L7NCOL-00057

Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 West Brattleboro, Vermont 05303

Rl.\f.1I :PC:T' 'l;l'Jf" PtJ't'

As of April 1, 2010 The Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS
TIIis applies to ALL incoming and out going mail

KANAAN MEYERS 2010002077 COLUMBIA Co JAIL

901 PORT AVE

ST HELENS. OREGON 970l

N:tXIi;:

l1""'li_..."... IJ _ _ _

101"10 .$[;:;1

00

RETVRN TO
PeEF'LISE!) UNASI...E: TO

;i.C)/:1.;L

DI

97(151$3(:18
O!!'>:30$@:.a4:.20

Be:
III»» I) I») II) II»») II») I) 1)1»1» Id II»») J) JIJ) »l )1»1

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 43 of 64 Page 1P2L8NCOL-00058

Order Form
All purchases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books, no singles) or
pre-stamped envelopes, if allowed by prison policies.

Book Title / Number

Qty Total Cost

(attach another page if you are ordering more hooks)
Subtotal: Add 6% sales tax for VT residents only: Add $6.00 SIR to orders UNDER $50: Total Order Amount:
Send to:
Name: DOC#: Agency/lnst: Address: City/State/Zip:
MAIL PAYIHENT AND THIS FORM TO: Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303
Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

FREE SHIPPING On hook and index ol'del's OVER $50.001
A. shipping charge applies to all other hook and index onlel's.
(Free shipping policy in dIect from Jan 1, :lOIO nntil further notice)

More Books fOl' Sale!

Prisoners' Self-Help Litigation Manual, updated 4th ed. (2010), by John

Boston and Daniel

Oxford Univ. Press, 1500 pages. $39.95. The

I I I premiere, must-have "Bible" of prison litigation for current and aspiting jail-
house lawyers. If you plan to litigate a prison or jail civil suit,

this book is a must-have.

1077

Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the U.S.

and Canada, updated 3rd ed. by Jon Marc Taylor, Ph.D. and edited by Susan

Schwartzkopf, published by PLN, 221 pages. $49.95. Written by lvlissouri

prisoner Jon Marc Taylor, who obtained a B.S. degree, an M.A. degree and a

Doctorate, the Cllemlla Halldbook contains .,ontact information and descrip-

tions of high school, vocational, paralegal and college courses available
1 I' through correspondence study. Great resource for prisoners

who want to furd,er their education.

1057

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by Robert E. Toone, Southern Poverty

Law Center, 325 pages. $10.00. Tlus book explains basic rights that prisoners

have in a jailor prison in the U.S. It deals mainly wid1 rights related to heald1
I I I and safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by prison officials; it also
explains how you can enforce your rights within the facility

and, if necessary, in court through litigation.

1060

Starting Out! The Complete Re-Entry Handbook, edited by William H.

Foster, Ph.D. & Carl E. Horn, Ph.D., Starting Out Inc., 446 pages. $22.95.

Complete do-it-yourself re-entty manual and workbook for prisoners who

want to develop d,eir own re-entty plan to increase d,eir chances of success

after d,ey are released. Includes a wide variety of resources, including a user

to the Starting Out website dlat can be accessed fOllOW-I I

1

Ing release.

1074

Jaflhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners v. the U.S.A, by

Mumia Abu Jamal, City Lights Publishers, 280 pages. $16.95. In Jailhollse LaIJl-

),ers, Prison Legal News columnist, award-winning journalist and death-row

prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal presents d,e stories and reflections of fellow pris-

oners-turned-advocates who have learned to use the court system to represent

other prisoners, and in some cases have won their freedom. 1

1

Must-read for jailliouse lawyers!'

1073

How to Win Your Personal Injury Claim, by Atty. Joseph Matd,ews, 7d,

edition, NOLO Press, 304 pages. $34.99. While not specifically for prison-

related personal injury cases, this book

comprehensive information

on how to hanrlle personal injury and property damage claims arising from

-

dealing wid1 doctors, attorneys and 1 1

I

Insurance comparues.

1075

All prices aJ.'e effective as of9-15-10 (Plices subject to change without notice)
* No refunds after orders have been placed *

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
2010 PLN BOOK LIST
Prices Subject to Change Without Notice
Graphic from: Books 2 Prisoners, Vancouver, Be
P.O. Box 2420, Bmttleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.pdsonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 44 of 64 Page 1P2L9NCOL-00059

Check the box of the books you want to buy and use the Order Form on the other side ofthis brochure to add up the cost of your order. FREE SIllPPING for book and index orders OVER $50. There is a $6 shipping charge for all other book and index orders.

Prison Profiteers, edited by Paul Wright and Tam HeciveI, 323 pages. $24.95. This is the

third and l1test book in a series ofPrison I..eg.U News and1Dlogies dmt examines d,e reality of

mass imprisonment in Ameriat. (TIle other tides are Tbe CelliJ1g ofAJJJenra & H;'OJ1NatioJ1,

I I I see below). Pliroll Projleers is unique from omer books beamse it ""1"'ses and disrusses
who profits and benefits from mass imprisonment, romer than who is

hamJed by it and how.

1063 L._ _L._ _--'.

I I I Prison Nation: The Warehousing ofAmerica's Poor, edited by Tam Herivel and Paul
Wright, 332 pages. $35.95. PIN anmolog)' ""poses d,e d'Uk side ofd,e

1ock-em-up' political agenda and legal climare in me U.s.

1041 L._ - ' - ._ _--'.

The Ce1ling of America, edited by Daniel Burton Rose, Dan Pens and Paul Wright, 264

pages. $22.95. PIN anmolOg)' presents a delJliled '"mside" look at d,e I

I

I

workings ofd,e American olininal justice system.

1001 .

.

.

Everyday Letters for Busy People, by Debra Hart May, 287 pages. $18.99.

Hundreds of sample letters that can be adapted for most any purpose, including

letters to government agencies and officials. Has numerous I

I

rips for writing effective letters.

1048 .

.

The Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System, by
Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sam J. Berman-Barrett, Nolo Press, 608 pages. $39.99.

R'pl1ins what happens in a criminal case from being arrested to sentencing, and what

your rights are at eacll stage of the process. Uses an easy to under-I

stand question-and-answer format.

1038 .J L._ - ' -_ _ _

Represent Yourself in Court: How to Prepare & Try a Winning Case, by
Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sara J. Berman-Barrett, Nolo Press, 528 pages. $39.99.

I I I Breaks down d,e civil trial process in easycto-understand steps so you can effectively
represent yourself in court 11,e authors explain what to say in

coutt, how to sal' It, etc.

1037...

Law Dictionary, Random House Webster's, 525 pages. $19.95. Comprellensive UD-

to-date l1w dictionary ""plains more d,an 8,500 legal terms. I

I

Covers civil, criminal, commercbl & international L1W.

1036 L'_ - - - '_ _ _--'

I I I The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, by Jane Straus, 110 pages.
$14.95. A guide to grammar and punctuation by an educator

widl eXl'erience teaching English to prisoners.

1046

Legal Research: How to Find and Understand the Law, by Stephen Elias and

I I I Susan Levinkind, 568 pages. $49.99. Comprel1ensive and easy to understand guide
on researel1ing the bw. R'l'lains case bw, statutes and digests,

and mucll more. Includes practice e.xercises.

1059 L.._ - ' - ._ _ _--'.

Deposition Handbook, by Paul Bergman and Albert Moore, Nolo Press, 352

pages. $34.99. How-to handbook for anyone who conducts a I I

I

deposition or is going to be deposed.

1054 L._ - ' - ._ _ _-'.

Spanish-English/English-Spanish' Dictionary, Random House. $8.95. Two

sections, Spanish-English and English-Spanish. 60,000+ entries I I

I

from A to Z; includes Western Hemisphere usage.

1034 L.._ - ' ._ _ _--'.

Please Note: All hook and index orders are mailed via the U.S. Postal Service with Delivery Confumatiori. PlNdoes not assume any responsibility to replace hook or index orders once their delivery to the destination addre.."5 (facility) is confirmed by the U.S. Postal Service.

Writing to Wm: The LegaI Writer, by Sreven D. Stark, Broadway Book.jRandoin

House, 283 pages. $19.95. Exl'lains d,e writing of effective complaints, I I

I

responses, brief;;, motions and odler legal papers.

1035 L.._-'-._ _--'.

Actual Innocence: When Justice Goes Wrong and How to Make it Right, updated

paperback ed, by Barry Smeck, Peter Neufeld and Jim Dwyer; 403 pages. $16.00.

Founders of d,e Innocence Project ""pl1in how aiminal defendants are wrongly con-

victed on a regul1r basis. Explains DNA testing and how it works to free d,e innocent

Devastating critique of police and prosecutotial misconduct and d,e I I

I

system that ensures sum abuses continue.

1030 .J. L._ - ' - ._ _ _

Roger's Thesaurus, 717 pages. $8.95. Helps you find the right word for what

you want to sal" 11,000 words listed alphabetically widl over 200,000 synonyms

I and antonyms. Sample sentences and parts of speech shown for e"ery main
word. Covers all levels of vocabulaIJ; and identifies informal I I

and slang words. .

1045 ..J. L._ - ' - ._ _ _

Webster's English Dictionary, Newly revised and updated, Random House.

75;000+ entries. Includes tips on writing and word usage, and has up-

dated geographical and biographical entries.. Includes recent I I

I

business and computer terms.

1033...

I I Capital Crimes, by George Winslow, Monthly Review, 360 pages. $19.00.
Explains how economic policies create and foster crime, and how corporate & government crime is rarely punished. 1024 L._-'-_ _ _..J

With Liberty for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America, by Scott

Christianson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages. $18.95. The best

m'erall history' of d,e American prison system from 1492 through d,e 20d,

I I I Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for underst,wding how liroe
dlings have. changed as far as prisons go in d,e U.S. over

hundreds of years.

. 1026..

.

Ten Men Dead: The story of the 1981 Irish hunger strike, by

Beres-

ford, Adantic Mondlly Press, 334 pages. $16.95. Inside story of I I

I

IRA prisoners at Belfast's Long Kesh prison.

1006 . .

.

I Finding the Right Lawyer, by Jay Foonberg, ABA, 256 pages. $19.95. Ex-

plains how to determine your legal needs, how to. evaluate a

I

I

lawyer's qualifications, fee payments, and more.

1015..

.

Seize the Day! 7 Steps to Achieving the Extraordinary in an Ordinary

World, by Danny Cox and John Hoover, 256 pages. $15.99. Provides 7 steps

I to changing your expectations and envisioning yourself as being a successful
and respected person-which is essential to changing d,e I I

course of one's life.

1052

Women Behind Bars, The Crisis of Women in the U.S. Prison System, by

Silja J.A. Talvi, Seal Press, 295 pages. $15.95. Best book available d,at covers
I issues related to imprisoned women, based on interviews with

hundreds of women behind bars.

1066 L.- ' - - ' -_ _ _- '

10 Insider Secrets to a Winning Job Search, by Todd Bermont, 216 pages. $15.99. Roadmap on how to get a job even under adverse circumstances-like being an ex-con. Includes how to develop a winning attitude, write attentiongrabbing resumes, prepare for interviews, networking, how to I I present your strengths to an employer, and much more! 1056

The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, 2003

Ed. by Alfred IvIcCoy, 734 pages. $34.95. Documented e.xpose I I

I

of the government's involvement in drug trafficking.

1014 .J. L._ - ' - ._ _ _

Lockdown Ametica: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis, by Christian Parenti,
290 pages. $19.00. Analyzes d,e war on the poor '';'1 the criminaI jUstice system. Well

documented and includes first-hand reporting. Covers prisons, para-I

military policing, SWAT teamS and d,e INS.

1002 L._ - ' -_ _--'

Hepatiris and Liver Disease: What You Need to Know, by Melissa Palmer, 1vlD,

I 457 pages. $17.95. Descnbes symptoms & treatments of hepatitis B & C and odler

liver diseases. Includes medications to avoid, what diet to follow, I

I

exercises to perform, and a bibliogtaphy.

1031. .

.

Cdrne and Punishment In America, by Elliott Currie, 230 pages. $16.95. Effective

I rebuttal to right-wing proponents of prison building. Fact-based argument shows dmt

aime is driven by poverty., Debunks prison myths and disrusses

I

I

proven, effective means ofaime prevention.

1019...

Prison Madrless: The Mental Health Ctisis Behind Bars and What 'We

Must Do About It, by Terry Kupers,Jossey-Bass, 245 pages. Hardback only;

prisoners please include any reqJtired authorization form. $32.95. Psychia-

trist writes about the mental healdl crisis in U.S. prisons and jails. Covers all

aspects of mental illness, prison rape, negative effects of long-I I

I

term isolation in control units, and more.

1003...

Prison Writing in 20th Century America, by H. Bruce Franklin, Penguin

Books, 368 pages. $16.00. From Jack London to George Jackson, dus

anthology provides a selection of some of d,e best writing I I

describing life behind bars in America.

1022 L._.1._ _---1

i T I Soledad Brother: The Prison Letters of George Jackson, by George Jackson,
Lawrence Hill Books, 339 pages. $18.95. Lucid""l'lanation of ,e litiCS of

prison by a well-known prison activist More relevant now than

when it first appeared 40 years ago.

1016

Marijuana Law, by Riclmrd Boire, Ronin, 271 pages. $17.95. Examines how to

reduce the probability of arrest and prosecution for people acrused of d,e use, sale or

possession of marijuana Infu on legal defenses, Searcll & seizures; I I

I

surveillance, asset furfeiture and drug testing.

1008 L._ - ' ._ _- - ' .

Worse Than Slavery: Parchman Farm and the Ordeal ofJim CrowJustice, by

David OshinsJ.:y, 306 pages. $16.00. Analysis of prison bbor's roots in sl1very.

Foruses on prison plantations and self-sustaining prisons d,at use I I

I

prison l1bor.

1007..

.

No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the American Criminal Justice

System, by

Cole, The New Press, 218 pages. $19.95. R'l'lains how the

criminal justice system perpetuates race and cbss inequality,' ,

creating a two-tiered system of justice.

1028 Ll_.JL_ _--'

The Prison and the Gallows: The Politics of Mass Incarceration in

America, by Marie Gottschalk, Cambridge University Press, 451 pages.

$29.99. Great political analysis of d,e confluence of events I

I

leading to 2.3 million people behind bars in the U.S. 1069.

.

The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, by Brandon

Sample, PLN Publishing, 200 pages. $49.95. Tlus is PLN's second published

I book, which exclusively covers ineffective assistance of counsel-related
issues in federal habeas petitions. Great resource for habeas I I

litigation, and contains hundreds of case cites!

1078 •L•._.J._ _--'.

Factor 8 (DVD), a film by Kelly Duda, Concrete Films. $21.95. Movie

about d,e Arkansas prison blood scandal, in which prison officials sold

infected blood harvested from prisoners. Note: This is a

DVD and cannot be shipped to prison.

1076 '-_-'-_ _--'

PLN Cumulative Index. $22.50 each. PLN Article Indexes

detailed

information about all PLN articles, including tide, author; issue, page number,

topics covered, citations, and if it is state, BOP or jail specific. Can be

se;trched on over 500 subjects such as medical neglect or sex"al assault. Circle

d,e index(es) you are ordering: 1990-1995, 1996-1998, 1999-1

2001, 2002-2004. (more recent indexes not yet available)

All books are soft cover except Prison Madness

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 45 of 64 Page 1P3L0NCOL-00060

Order Form
All purchases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new stamps (strips or books) or pre-stamped envelopes.

Books (3 & 4 yr Subscription Specials: CIRCLE
one book m: bonus issues, and DO NOT add SfH)
Protecting Your Health and Safety
m: 4 Bonus Issues (3-yr subscription offer)

$ Amt.
Free

Prison Profiteers m: With Liberty for Some

or 6 Bonus Issues (4-yr subscription offer)

Free

Book Total (inc. all books bought separately)

Add 6% sales tax for Vermont residents only

ADD $6.00 SIB to book orders UNDER $50

PLN Subscriptions
6-month Subscription (Prisoners only) 1 yr Subscription (12 issues) 2 yr Subscription (24. plus 2 Bonus issues) 3 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above m: 4 Bonus issues) 4 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above m: 6 Bonus issues) Sample Issue - $3.50 each
TOTAL Amount Enclosed:

Send to:
Name: DOC#: Agency/lnst: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Address: City/State/Zip: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
MAIL PAYl\'IENT AND TillS FORM TO:
Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303

Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

PLN Subscription Rates

Subscription Rates
Prisoners *

1yr 2 yrs 3 yrs 4yrs $24 $ 48 $ 72 $ 96

Individuals

$30 $ 60 $ 90 $120

Professionals

$80 $160 $240 $320

(Lawyers, govt. & professional agencies, libraries, etc.)
Sample issue for anyone - $3.50 each*

Six-month prisoner subscription for $12*

* Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books only) or pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed byprison policies.

:- - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - --

1
1 2 years - 2 bonus issues, for 26 monthly issues total.

: 3 years - 4 bonus issues (40 total) OR Protecting Your Health ami

1 SaJety (see book description on the other side of this brochure).

: 4 years - 6 bonus issues (54. total) OR your choice of With LibertyJor

!..

_____I

New 3 or 4-Year Subscription Book Offers!

Subscribe or renew for three years at the regular price
($72 for prisoners & $90 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Protecting Your Health and Safety or
four honus issues of PLN! (40 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.
Subscribe or renew for four years at the regular price ($96 for prisoners & $120 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Prison Profiteers or With Libertyfor Some, or 6 bonus issues of PLN! (54 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.

NO shipping charge for subscription honus books!

NOTE: If you want the honus issues of PLN instead of the free hook offer, please indicate that on the Order Form.

:- ----- U;fo; "PiN;s

-----

1

1

1 You can huy dozens of legal, social commental'y, self-I

1 help books, and legal and l'egular dictionaries di1:ectly:

1

1from PLN's book store! Ask us for a book list, or view 1

1

.,

1

1 our selectIOn online at:

1

1

www.prisonlegalnews.org/store.aspx

:

1______ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

AIIsuhscriptionrates & bonus offers are effective as of5-1-10 and valid through 12-31-10
*No refunds after orders have been placed *

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
Eastern State Penitentiary 1829-1971 Charles Dickens visited Philadelphia's Eastern State Penitentiary in 1842 and he later wrote: "The System is rigid, strict and hopeless ... and I believe it to be cruel and wrong....1 hold this slow and daily tampering with the mysteries of the brain to he immeasurably worse than any torture of the body." The prison remained open for 129 years after Dickens condemned it as being harbaric, and some of its inhumane practices continue to be used in prisons nationwide.
P.O. Box 2420, Brattlebol'o, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.prisonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 46 of 64 Page 1P3L1NCOL-00061

P rison Legal News is an independent, non-profit 56-page monthly publication that reports, reviews and analyzes court rulings and news related to
pI;isoners' rights and prison issues. PLN has a national
(U.S.) focus on state, federal and private prison issues, with some international coverage as well.

PLN's many thousands of subscribers and readel's include civil and criminal trial and appellate attOl"neys, judges, public defenders, journalists, academics, paralegals, prisoners' rights activists, students, family members of prisoners, concerned individuals, politicians, other government officials, and numerous local, state and federal prisoners nationwide.

PLN is a :vJ.tallink for prisoners who

don't

have access to current legal and prison-related news

and infOl"mation.

"Invaluable resourcefor anyone wanting 'user friendly' infonnatiOIi about current legal developments affecting
, prisoners in,the Vnited
..:.. Human Rights Watch, a long-time PLN subscriber

P LN's coverage of pI'ison issues includes medical neglect, disciplinary hearings, nutrition, living conditions, excessive force, couri: access, censorship, jail litigation, visiting, telephones, religious freedom, free speech, prison rape, mental health,. attOl"neyi client access, sexual abuse of women prisoners, re-
taliation, the PLRA, HIV and hep C, contl"Ol units,
the death penalty, attorney fees and much more.

PLN Subscription Rates
Prisoners: $12 for 6 months, $24 per year *
Non-incarcerated individuals: $30 per year
Law firms, govt. agencies and libraries: $80 peryear
Sample issue for anyone: $3.50 each*
* Prisoners can pay with new stamps or pre-stamped 'envelopes

E ach monthly issue of PLN includes three different types of reporting:

.. A cover story on a prison-related issue.

.. Reports on individual and class-action prison and j ailrelated lawsuits when they are filed, when a judgment is entered or the case settles, and when an appellate court decision is issued. We also have prison-related news articles.

.. A "News In Brief'

that summarizes interesting

news stories across'the U.S. and 'internationally.

Each issue of PLN also contains numerous advertisements from businesses that provide prison-related personal and legal services and books. PLN further sells dozens of selfhelp, social cOlllIllentary and legal books.

PLN also has cumulative subject and case cite indexes for all PLN issues from 1990 through 2004. Write for info.

Special 3-yeru' Subscription Offel'!

Free with a 3-year PLN subscl'iption! Four bonus issues of PLN (40 issues total) 'or a free book, Protecting Your Health and Safety! Circle your bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (3-year subscription rates: prisoners $72, individuals $90, professionals $24.0).

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by

Robert E. Toone. Published by the South-

ern Poverty Law Center, 325 pages (2009).

$10.00 (fi:ee with a 3-year sub!). This book

explains some basic rights that prisoners

have in a jailor prison in the U.S. It deals

mainly with rights related to health and II

. I

safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by

prison officials; it also explains how you can enforce your

rights to health and safety within the facility and, if nec-

essary, in court through litigation. Buy separately: ___

,------------------------------------------,
,,: You Can Buy These Books Sepru'ately! ,,
: If you don't want to pl.lrchase a 3 or 4.-year subscription: : to PLN, you can still purchase any of the bonus· books: : at the regular price. lust indicate which books you want: to buy on this page, then enter the total cost on the other: side of this brochure on the "Book Total" line of the Or- :
der Form. Shipping is $6 per order (not per book), and we : offer FREE shippillg on book orders of $50 or more! To : place a phone order, please call 802-257-1342. We also: _a_c_c_ep_t_b_o_o_k_o_r._de_r_s_o_n_li_n_e,_a_t_w_w__w_.p_r_is_o_n_le_g_a_hl_e_w_s_.o_r_g.__ J:

D onations: PLN is a project orthe non-profit Human Rights Defense Center. Your tax-deductible donations support our advocacy, free speech and First Amendment litigation efforts on behalf of prisoners and publishers. PLN not only provides uncensored prison-related news, but actively contests prison censorship that interferes with the delivery of our publication or any other PLN materials sent to prisoners. All donations further our goal of advocating for people imprisoned in U.S. detention facilities.
"Great source of infonnation, especially in states such as Arizona where the law libraries have been taken from the inmates and replaced with paralegals." - SR, Arizona prisoner
Special4-yeal' Subscl'iption Offel'!
Free with a 4-year PLN subscription! Six bonus issues of PLN (54 issues total) or one free book, With Liberty for Some or Prison Profiteers! Circle your bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (4-year subscription rates: prisoners $96, individuals $120, professionals $320). Note: Free book option is for one book.
With Liberty for Some: 500 Years Imprisonment in America, by Scott Christianson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages (1998). $18.95 (free with a 4-year sub!). A classic book and the best overall history of the American prison system from 14·92 to the 20th Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how little things have changed as far as prisons go in the U.S. over hundreds of years. Buy separately: ___
or
Prison Profiteers: Who Mal£es Money Mass Incarceration, edited by Paul
Wright & Tara Herivel, New Press (2007). $24.95 (free with a 4-year sub!). This is the third in a series of PLN anthologies that examines the reality of mass imprisonment in the U.S. Prison Profiteers is unique from other books on the market because it exposes and discusses who profits and benefits from mass imprisonment, rather than who is harmed by the prison industrial complex .and our nation's reliance on over-incarceration. Buy separately: _ __

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 47 of 64

T he Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel is the first in a series of books by Prison Legal News Publishing designed to help pro-se prisoner litigants identify and raise viable claims for potential habeas corpus relief. This book is an invaluable resource that identifies hundreds of cases where the federal courts have granted habeas relief to prisoners whose attorneys provided ineffective assistance of counsel.
It will save litigants thousands ofhours
of research and it focuses on the WINNING cases criminal defendants need to successfully challenge their convictions.
Well organized into 52 concise chapters, this easy to use book puts the law at the reader's fingertips. The Appendix includes pleadings and forms from successful habeas corpus cases that

"

The Habeas Citebook is a

nifty and concise self-help

guide for prisoners seeking

habeas relief based on claims of

ineffective assistance of counsel.

Navigating the complex and

treacherous terrain of habeas

law is never easy; but claim-

ing that your lawyer screwed up

is even more difficult - espe-

cially from the confines of an

demonstrate formatting and show ill-equipped prison law library.

how to frame a winning argu-

"Brandon Sample has pro-

ment that will persuade a court

vided an amazing and much-

to grant habeas relief. The Habeas

needed tool for prisoners who

Citebook explains the proce-

are forced to seek relief on their

dural and substantive complexi-

own. The book is thorough; but

ties of federal habeas corpus lit-

simple and readable. It starts

igation with the goal of identify-

with a wonderfully well-orga-

ing and litigating claims involving nized listing of hundreds of dif-

ineffective assistance of counsel.

ferent types of ineffective assis-

Brandon Sample is a success-

tance of counsel, set forth in the

ful jailhouse lawyer litigant incar-

form of citations to court rul-

cerated in the Bureau of Prisons.

ings - a novel approach that

He is a Prison Legal News contrib- not only acts as a springboard

uting writer and a member of the

for further research but also

National Lawyer's Guild. Editor

saves the prisoner countless

Susan Schwartzkopf has a mas-

hours of preliminary research:'

ter's degree in education and is

the director and editor in chief of

PETER SCHMIDT

Prison Legal News Publishing.

Publisher, Punch & Jurists

THE HABEAS CITEBOOK: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

By Brandon Sample 8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed _._ _ _ __
I By: 0 check 0 new postage stamps 0 credit card 0 money order

ISBN 978-0-9819385-1-6
$49·95 3 or more copies ordered
at once $39.95 each FREE Shipping & Handling

I Name ____________________________________ I DOC/BOP Number ______________--'--_-,--___________
Institution/Agency ___________--,-_____________
I Address,______________________________________

Order by mail, phone, or on-line. City _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ State

ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

I

PRISON LEGAL NEWS P.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 1P3L2NCOL-00062

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 48 of 64
" - - - - - - - Copies ofthis very usable and useful gUide should be available in every prison library-to help incarcerated people give positive tion to their energies while making constructive use of their time. It is a well-established fact that people who have taken college courses in prison have a dramatically reduced rate of recidivism."
-BELL GALE CHEVIGNY, PEN Prison Writing Program, . Editor DOing Time: 25 Years ofPrison Writing. - - - - - '

HIGH SCHOOL. VOCATIONAL. PARALEGAL • UNDERGRADUATE. GRADUATE COURSES

GREATLY anticipated and newly updated
third edition of the Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the United States and Canada has finally arrived! Author
Jon Marc Taylor's brand new version is the latest in this unique and highly successful gUidebook for the
prisoner-student. This invaluable tool and how-to handbook provides the reader with step-by-step
to instructions find the appropriate educational
program for high school, vocational, paralegal, undergraduate, and graduate courses offered in
the U.S. and Canada today.
Invaluable re-entry tool
It presents more· than 160 program outlines and
offers an easy-to-use format for the student to
determine whlch program best suits their needs. It is ideal for the incarcerated student who does not have Internet access or the ability to attend education classes in person. This resource is indispensable

for the individual and beneficial for use in all prison libraries and education departments.
The Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook is the only book
on the market for the non-traditional prisoner-student. It includes detailed listings of the quality, cost, and course offerings for all correspondence programs available to prisoners. In a time when so many academic opportunities in prisons have been eliminated, this book is an invaluable re-entry tool for prisoners who seek to further their education while incarcerated and to help them prepare for life and work following their release.
Jon Marc Taylor has more than 25 years experi-
ence as an incarcerated student, advocate for prisoner education, and author. He has successfully earned a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and a doctorate via correspOndence courses while incar-
cerated.Editor Susan Schwartzkopf has a master's
degree in education and 12 years experience teaching immigrants English language skills.

I I PRISONERS' GUERRILLA HANDBOOK TO CORRESPONDENCE PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA

ByJon Marc Taylor PHD

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed _ _ _ __

8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages

By: 0 check 0 new postage stamps 0 credit card 0 money order m

ISBN 978-0-9819385-0-9
$49-95
3 or more copies ordered

I Name _________________________________________
DOC/BOP Number _______________ ____________

at once $39-95 each

Institution/Agency __________-'---______________

FREE Shipping & Handling Address_ _ _ _ _ _ _--'-'--_ _ _ _ _ _ _--,-_ _ _ __

I Order by mail, phone, or on-line. City _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ State

ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

I [PIUSON LEGAL NEWS P.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 1P3L3NCOL-00063

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 49 of 64

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBI 0
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRlGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 134

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 50 of 64 Page 1P3L5NCOL-00260

Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303

:

'\lfbt

.

If/;'I" I,)
1 ' U1tl1/10

6J2EF7F6R3E*Y*MINUFRORA*Y* 2011001364

co COI..UMBIA JAIl..

901 pofU' A.VE

51

5T I-\EI..ENS, OREGON 970

. 8£11//)£1(

NlX:t'E!! NOT

RETURN TO SENDER AS ADDRESSED
TO FORWARD

E1C :

11111"1,111,11,11, " " /I" " I , " " 'II , I f11,1 " ,,III ,II1II 1III

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 51 of 64 Page 1P3L6NCOL-00261

Order Form
All pm'chases must he pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new stamps (strips or hooks) or pre-stamped envelopes.

Books (3 & 4 yr Subscription Specials: cm.CLE one book.QI bonus issues, and DO NOT add SIH)
Protecting Your Health and Safety ill: 4 Bonus Issues (3-yr subscription offer)

$Amt.
Free

Prison Profiteers ill: With Liberty for Some

or 6 Bonus Issues (4-yr subscription offer)

Free

Book Total (inc. all books bought separately)

Add 6% sales tax for Vermont residents only

ADD $6.00 SIH to book orders UNDER $50

PLN Subscriptions 6-month Subscription (Prisoners only) 1 yr Subscription (12 issues) 2 yr Subscription (24 plus 2 Bonus issues) 3 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above.QI 4 Bonus issues) 4 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above.QI 6 Bonus issues) Sample Issue - $3.50 each
TOTAL Amount Enclosed:

Send to: Name: DOC#:
Agency/Inst: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Address:
City/State/Zip: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
MAIL PAYMENT AND TillS FORM TO:
I i
Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303

Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

PLN Subscription Rates

Subscription Rates
Prisoners *

lyr 2 yrs 3yrs 4yrs $24 $ 48 $ 72 $ 96

Individuals

$30 $ 60 $ 90 $120

Professionals

$80 $160 $240 $320

(Lawyers, govt. & professional agencies, libraries, etc.)

Sample issue for anyone - $3.50 each*

Six-month prisoner subscription for $12*

* Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books only) or pre-stamped envelopes, ifallawed byprison policies.

:- - - - - - - - -

---------

1
1 2 years - 2 bonus issues, for 26 monthly issues total.

: 3 years - 4 bonus issues (40 total) OR Protecting Your Health and

1 Safety (see book description on the other side of this brochure).

: 4 years - 6 bOllus issues (54 total) OR your choice of With Libertyfor

!..

_____I

New 3 or 4-Year Subscription Book Offers!

Subscribe or renew for tJrreeyears at the regular price ($72 for prisoners & $90 for :individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Protecting Your Health and Safety or four bonus issues of PLN! (40 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.
Subscribe or renew for foul' years at the regular price ($96 for prisoners & $120 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Prison Profiteers or With Liberty for Some, or 6 bonus issues of PLN! (54 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.

NO shipping charge for subscription bonus books!

NOTE: If you want the honus issues of PLN instead of the free hook offer, please indicate that on the Order Form.

:- ----- U;£0;

iis;!- -----

I 1 You can buy. dozens of legal, social commentary, self-I1

: help books, and legal and regular dictionaries directly:

1from PLN's book store! Ask us for a book list, or view 1

1

: our selection online at:

1

'1______ -w-w-w-.p-ri-so-n-Ie-g-al-ne-w-s.-o-rg-/s-to-re-.a-s-px-------:

All subscription rates & bonus offers are effective as of5-1-10

and valid

12-31-10

* * No refunds after ordel'S have heen placed

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
Eastern State Penitentiary 1829-1971 Charles Dickens visited Philadelphia's Eastern State Penitentiary in 1842 and he later wrote: "The System is rigid, strict and hopeless ... and I believe it to be cruel and wrong....I hold this slow and daily tampering with the mysteries of the brain to be immeasm'ably worse than any torture of the body." The prison remained open for 129 years after Dickens condemned it as being barbaric, and some of its inhumane practices continue to be used in prisons nationwide.
P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.prisonIegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 52 of 64 Page 1P3L7NCOL-00262

nFi 'i:
"[, l I'

P l'ison Legal News is an independent, non-profit 56-page monthly publication that reports, reviews and analyzes court rulings and news related to
prisonel's' l'ights and prisOli issues. PLN has a national
(U.S.) focus on state, federal and private prison issues, with some international coverage as well.

PLN's many thousands of subscribers and readers

include civil and criminal trial and appellate attorneys,

judges, public defenders, journalists, academics, para-

legals, prisoners' rights activists, students, family

members of prisonel's,

individuals, politi-

cians, other government officials, and numerous ,local,

state and federal prisoners nationwide.

PLNis a vitallink for prisoners who otherwise don't have access' to current legal and prison-related news and information.

"Invaluable resource for anycinewanting 'user friendly' infonnation about cUrrent legaldevelopments affecting
'prisoners in the United States."
.<:. Human RightsWatcli, a long-time PLN subscriber

P LN's coverage of prison issues includes medical neglect, disciplinary hearings, nutrition, living conditions, excessive force, court access, censorship, jail litigation, visiting, telephones, religious freedom, free speech, prison rape, mental health, attorney/ client access, sexual abuse of women prisoners, re-
taliation, the P:LRA, HIV and hep C, control units,
the death penalty, attorney fees and much more.

PLN Subscription: Rates Prisoners: $12 for 6 months, $24per year * Non-incarcerated individuals: $30 pel' year Law firms, govt. agencies and libraries: $80 per year Sample issue for anyone: $3.50 each* * Prisoners can pay with new stamps, or pre-stamped envelopes

E ach monthly issue of PLN' includes 'three different

types of reporting:

,

• A cover story on a prison-related issue.

• Reports on individual and class-action prison and jailrelated lawsuits when they are filed, when a judgment is entered or the case settles, and when an appellate court decision is issued. We also have prison-related news articles.

• A "News In Brief" section that s,ummarizes interesting news stories across the U.S.'and internationally.

Each issue of PLN also contains numerous advertisements from businesses that provide prison-related personal and legal services and books. PLN further sells dozens of selfhelp, social commentary and legal books.

PLN also has cumulative subject and case cite indexes for all PLN issues from 1990 through 2004,. Write for info.

Special3-yeal' Subscription Offer!

Free with a 3-year PLN subscription! FoUl' bonus issues of PLN (40 issues total) or a fi'eebook, Protecting Your Health and Safety! Circle your bonus choice on tIle form on the other side of this brochure (3-year subscription rates: prisoners $72, individuals $90, professionals $24,0).
Protecting Your Health and Safety, by., Robert E. Toone. Published by the Southern Poverty Law Center, 325 pages (2009). $10.00 (fi'ee with a 3-year sub!). This book explains some basic rights that prisoners
9----1 have in a jail or prison in the U.S. It deals lij ...
mainly with rights related to health and ,,-,---'---j. safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by prison officials; it also explains how you can enforce your rights to health and ,safety within the facility and, if necessary, ,in court through litigation. Buy separately: ___

: You Can Buy These .Books Sepamtely! :

I

I

: If you don't want to purchase a 3 or 4,-year subscription:

: to PLN, you can still purchase any of the bonus books:

: at the regular price. Just indicate which books you want:

: to buy on this page, then' enter the total cost on the other:

: side of this brochure on the "Book Total" line of the 01'- :

: del' Form. Shipping is $6 per order (not per book), and we :

: offer FREE shipping' on book orders of $50 or more! To :

: place a phone order, please call 802-257-1342. We also:

: a_c_c_ep_t_b_o_o_k_o_r_d_er_s_o_n_li_n_e,_a_t_w_w__"\_v_.p_ri_s_on_l_eg_a_h_le_w_s._.o_rg_.__ J:

D onations: PLN is a project of the non-profit Human Rights Defense Center. Your tax-deductible dona-

tions support our advocacy, free speech and First Amend-

,

'

ment litigation efforts on behalf of prisoners and publish-

ers. PLN not only provides uncensored prison-related news,

but actively contests prison' censorship that interferes with

the delivery of our publication or any other PLN materials

sent to prisoners. All donations further our goal of advocat-

ing for people imprisoned in U.S. detention facilities.

"Great source of infonnation, especially in states such as Arizona where the law libraries have been taken from the inmates and replaced with paralegals."
- SB, Arizona prisoner

Special 4-yeal' SubSCl'iption Offm'!
Free with a 4-year PLN subscl'iption! Six, honus issues of PLN (54 issues total) or one free hook, With Liberty for Some or Prison Profiteers! Circle yonr bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (4,-year subscription rates: prisoners $96, individuals $120, professionals $320). Note: Free book option is for one boole
With Liberty for Some: 500 Years Imprisonment in America, by Scott Christianson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages (1998). $18.95 (free with a 4-year sub!). A classic book and the best overall history of the American prison system from 14-92 to the 20th Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how little things have changed as far as prisons go in the U.S. over hundreds of years. Buy separately: ___
or
Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money from Mass Incarceration, edited by Paul Wright & Tara Herivel, New Press (2007). $24,95 (free with a 4-yearsub!). This the third in a series of PLN anthologies that examines the reality of mass imprisonment in the U.S. Prison Profiteers is unique from other books on the market because, it exposes and discusses who profits and benefits from mass imprisonment, rather than who is harmed by the prison industrial complex and our nation's reliance on over-incarceration. Buy separately: _ _, _

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 53 of 64

T he Habeas Citeboolc: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel is the first in a series of books by Prison Legal News Publishing designed to help pro-se prisoner litigants identify and raise viable claims for potential habeas corpus relief. This book is an invaluable resource that identifies hundreds of cases where the federal courts have granted habeas relief to prisoners whose attorneys provided ineffective assistance of counsel.
It will save litigants
thousands ofhours of research and it focuses on the
WINNING cases criminal defendants need to
successfully challenge their convictions.
Well organized into 52 concise chapters, this easy to use book puts the law at the reader's fingertips. The Appendix includes pleadings and forms from successful habeas corpus cases that

"

The Habeas Citeboolc is a

nifty and concise self-help

guide for prisoners seeking

habeas relief based on claims of

ineffective assistance of counsel.

Navigating the complex and

treacherous terrain of habeas

law is never easy; but claim-

ing that your lawyer screwed up

is even more difficult - espe-

cially from the confines of an

demonstrate formatting and show ill-equipped prison law library.

how to frame a winning argu-

"Brandon Sample has pro-

ment that will persuade a court

vided an amazing and much-

to grant habeas relief. The Habeas

needed tool for prisoners who

Citeboolc explains the proce-

are forced to seek relief on their

dural and substantive complexi-

own. The book is thorough; but

ties of federal habeas corpus lit-

simple and readable. It starts

igation with the goal of identify-

with a wonderfully well-orga-

ing and litigating claims involving nized listing of hundreds of dif-

ineffective assistance of counsel.

ferent types of ineffective assis-

Brandon Sample is a success-

tance of counsel, set forth in the

ful jailhouse lawyer litigant incar-

form of citations to court rul-

cerated in the Bureau of Prisons.

ings - a novel approach that

He is a Prison Legal News contrib- not only acts as a springboard

uting writer and a member of the

for further research but also

National Lawyer's Guild. Editor

saves the prisoner countless

Susan Schwartzkopf has a mas-

hours of preliminary research:'

ter's degree in education and is

the director and editor in chief of

PETER SCHMIDT

Prison Legal News Publishing.

Publisher, Punch & Jurists

I

THE HABEAS CITEBOOK: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

I

By Brandon Sample

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed _ _ _ __

I

8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages

I By: 0 check 0 new postage stamps 0 credit card 0 money order

I

ISBN 978-0-9819385-1-6
$49·95

Name _______________________________

I

I

3 or more copies ordered at once $39.95 each

I DOC/BOP Number ____________________________-----
. Institution/Agency ___________________________________

I

I FREE Shipping & Handling Address_________________________

I Order by mail, phone, or on-line. City _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ State PUBLISHED BY

ZIP

I

IPRISON LEGAL NEWS P.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 1P3L8NCOL-00263

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 54 of 64
" - - - - - - - Copies ofthis very usable and useful gUide should be available in every prison library-to help incarcerated people give positive direction to their energies while making constructive use of their time. It isa well-established fact that people who have taken college courses in prison have a dramatically reduced rate of recidivism."
L-_ _ -BELL GALE CHEVI(:NY, PEN Prison Writing Program, _ _ _ Editor Doing Time: 25 Years ofPrison Writing.

HIGH SCHOOL • VOCATIONAL • PARALEGAL. UNDERGRADUATE. GRADUATE COURSES

HE GREATLY anticipated and newly updated third edition of the Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the United States and Canada has finally arrived! Author Jon Marc Taylor's brand new version is the latest in this unique and highly successful gUidebook for the
prisoner-student. This invaluable tool and how-to handbook provides the reader with step-by-step instructions to find the appropriate educational program for high school, vocational, paralegal, undergraduate, and graduate courses offered in
the U.S. and Canada today.
Invaluable re-entry tool
It presents more than 160 program outlines and
offers an easy-to-use format for the student to
determine which program best suits their needs. It is ideal for the incarcerated student who does not have Internet access or the ability to attend education classes in person. This resource is indispensable

for the individual and beneficial for use in all prison libraries and education departments.
The Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook is the only book on the market for the non-traditional prisoner-student. It includes detailed listings of the quality, cost, and course offerings for all correspondence programs available to prisoners. In a time when so many academic opportunities hi prisons have been eliminated, this book is an invaluable re-entry tool for prisoners who seek to further their education while incarcerated and to help them prepare for life and work following their release.
Jon Marc Taylor has more than 25 years experi-
ence as an incarcerated student, advocate for prisoner education, and author. He has successfully earned a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and a doctorate via correspondence courses while incar-
cerated. Editor Susan Schwartzkopf has a master's
degree in education and 12 years experience teaching immigrants English language skills.

ByJon Marc Taylor PHD

Number of copies ordered ___ Amount enclosed

8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages

By: D check D new postage stamps D credit card D money order

ISBN 978-0-9819385-0-9

Name ______________________________

$49·95
3 or more copies ordered

DOC/BOP Number --'-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _--'-----,-_ _ _ __

at once $39-95 each

Institution/Agency __________________

FREE Shipping & Handling Address_________________________

I Order by mail, phone, or on-line. City ________________ State

ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

PRISON LEGAL NEWS I P.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 1P3L9NCOL-00264

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 55 of 64 Page 1P4L0NCOL-00265

Order Form
All purchases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books, no singles) or
pre-stamped envelopes, if allowed by prison policies.

Book Title / Number

Qty Total Cost

(attach another page if you are ordering more books)
Subtotal: Add 6% sales tax for VT residents only: Add $6.00 S/R to orders UNDER $50: Total Order Amount:
Send to:
Name: DOC#: Agency/lnst: Address: City/State/Zip:
M.A.IL PAYl\1ENT AND THIS FORM TO:
Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303
Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

FREE SHIPPING On hook and index orders OVER $50.001
A $6 shipping cbarge applies to all other hook a11l1 index Oldel's.
(Free shipping policy in effect from Jan 1, :lOlO l111til further notice)

More Books for Sale!

Prisoners' Self-Help Litigation Manual, updated 4th ed. (2010), by John

Boston and Daniel Manville, Oxford Univ. Press, 1500 pages. $39.95. TI,e

I I I premiere, must-have ''Bible'' of

litigation for current and aspiring jail-

house lawyers. If you plan to litigate a prison or jail civil suit,

tlus book is a must-have.

1077

Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the U.S.

and Canada, updated 3rd ed. by Jon Marc Taylor, Ph.D. and edited by Susan

Schwartzkopf, published by PLN, 221 pages. $49.95. Written by l'vfissouri

prisoner Jon Marc Taylor, who obtained a B.S. degree, an M.A. degree and a

Doctorate, the GlICrrilla Halldbook contains contact information and descrip-

I I tions of high school, vocational, paralegal and college courses available
tl1!ough correspondence study. Great resource for prisoners

who want to further their education.

1057.
'----'----'

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by Robert E. Toone, Southern Poverty

Law Center, 325 pages. $10.00. This book e.'\l'lains basic rights that prisoners

have in a jail or prison in the U.S. It deals mainly \vith rights related to health

I ' , and safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by prison officials; it also
explains how you can enforce your rights \vithin the facility

and, if necessary, in court waugh litigation.

1060

Starting Out! The Complete Re-Entry Handbook, edited by William H.

Foster, Ph.D. & Carl E. Horn, Ph.D., Starting Out Inc., 446 pages. $22.95.

Complete do-it-yourself re-entry manual and workbook for prisoners who

want to develop tI,eir own re-entry plan· to increase tI,eir chances of success

after tI,ey are released. Includes a wide variety of resources, including a user

to the Starting Out website that can be accessed fOllOW-"

,

rng release.

1074

Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners v. the U.S.A, by

Mumia Abu Jamal, City Lights Publishers, 280 pages. $16.95. In Jailbollse Lom-

yers, Prison Legal News columnist, award-winning journalist and death-row

prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal presents the stories and reflections of fellow pris-

who have learned to use the court system to represent

otl,er prisoners, and in some cases have won their freedom."

,

Must-read for jailllOuse lawyers!

1073

How to Win Your Personal Injury Claim, by Atty. joseph Matthews, 7th

edition, NOLO Press, 304 pages. $34.99. While not specificaliy for prison-

related personal injury cases, this book provides comprehensive information

on how to handle personal injury and property damage claims arising from

accidents - including dealing Witll doctors, attorneys and"

,

insurance companies.

1075

All prices are effective as of 9-15-10 (Plices subject to change without notice)
* No refunds after ordel'S have been placed *

.PRiSON". I.!EGAL NEWS
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
2010 PLN BOOK LIST
Prices Subject to Change Without Notice
Graphic from: Books 2 Prisoners, Vancouver, Be
P.O. Box 2420, Bl'attleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.prisonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 56 of 64 Page 1P4L1NCOL-00266

Check the box of the books YOll want to buy and use the Order Form on the other side of this brochure to add up the cost of your order. FREE SIllPPING for.book and index orders OVER $50. There is a $6 shipping charge for all other book and index orders.

Prison Profiteers, edited by Paul Wright and Tara Herive!, 323 pages. $24.95. This is d,e

dlird and latest book in a series ofPrisori Legal News andlDlogies dillt e.xamines the reality of
mass imprisonment in Amerim (TIle odler tides are The CeIling tfAlJJmra & Pmoll Nanoll,

I I I see below). Pmoll Projteers is unique from odler books bealuse it e.'poses and discusses

who profits and benefits from mass

railler than who is

hanned by it and how.

1063 L._ _L._ _-'.

I I I Prison Nation: The Warehousing of America's Poor, edited by Tara Herivel and Paul 332 pages. $35.95. PIN andlology ""poses d,e dm:k side of the

1ock-em-up' politiail agenda and legal climate in d,e US.

1041 . .

.

I The Celling of America, edited by Daniel Burton Rose, Dan Pens and Paul

pages. $22.95. PIN anthology presents a derniled "inside" look at d,e

I

264 I

worlcings ofthe AmeriClll aimirilll justice system

1001 . .

.

Everyday Letters for Busy People, by Debra Hart May, 287 pages. $18.99.

Hundreds of sample letters that can be adapted for most any purpose, including

letters to government agencies and officials. Has numerous I

tips for writing effective letters..

1048 L._ _' -_ _.J

The Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System, by

Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sara J.

Nolo Press, 608 pages. $39.99.

R,-plains what happens in a aimtinal case from being arrested to sentencing, and what

your rights are at each stage of the process. Uses an easy to under-I

stand question-and-answer format.·

1038 L._ - 1_ _ _-'

Represent Yourself in Court: How to Prepare & Try a Winning Case, by

Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sam J.

Nolo Press, 528 pages. $39.99.

Breaks down the civil trial process in easy-ta-understand steps so you can effectively

represent yourself in court. The authors e.'-plain what to say in I

I

how to say etc.

1037 .

.

Law Dictionary, R'lIldom House Webster's, 525 pages. $19.95. Comp.u,U",," UjJ

to-date law dictionary e.'-plains more than 8,500 legal terms."

,

Covers civil, aimtinal, commercial & intemationallaw.

1036 ,'-_-'-_ _--'

I I I The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, by Jane Straus, 110 pages.
$14.95. A guide to grammar and punctuation by an educator

with experience teaching English to prisoners.

1046 L._ - - ' ._ _ _-'.

Legal Research: How to Find and Understand the Law, by Stephen Elias and

I Susan Levinkind, 568 pages. $49.99. Comprellensive and easy to understand guide
on researclling the law. R,-plains case law, statutes and digests, I I

and mucll more. Includes practice e.,ercises.

1059 L._--'-._ _ _..J.

I I I Deposition Handbook, by Paul Bergman and i\Ibert Moore, Nolo Press, 352
pages. $34.99. How-to handbook for anyone who conducts a

deposition or is going to be deposed.

1054 '-._-'-._ _ _-'.

Spanish-English/English-Spanish Dictionary, R'lIldom House. $8.95. Two

sections, Spanish-English and English-Spanish. 60,000+ entries I I

from A to Z; includes Western Hemisphere usage.

1034 L._ - ' ._ _ _- '

Please Note: All book and indeX orders are mailed via the U.S. Postal

Service with Delivery

does not assmne any respon-

sibility to replace book or index orders once their delivery to the desti-

nation address (facility) is confirmed by the U.S. Postal Service.

I I Writing to Wm: The Legal Wtiter, by St(!\'CU D. Stark, Broadway Books/Random
House, 283 pages. $19.95. R,-plains ti,e writing of effective compbints, I

responses, btiefS, motions and odler legal papers.

1035 .L. _-'-._ _--'.

Actual Innocence: WhenJustice Goes Wrong and How to Malee it Right, upd1ted

paperback ed., by Barry Scheck, Peter Neufeld and Jim Dwyer; 403 pages. $16.00.

Founders of the Innocence Project e.'-pL'lin how criminal defendants are wtongly con-

I I victed on a regular basis. &-plains DNA testing and how it works to free the irrnocent

Devastllting critique of police and prosecutotia! misconduct and d,e

I

S)'Stem dillt ensures such abuses continue.

1030 I.._ - ' - ._ _ _-'.

Roger's Thesaurus, 717 pages. $8.95. Helps you find the right word for what

you want to sal'. 11,000 words listed alphabetically with over 200,000 synonyms

I I I and antonyms. Sample sentences and parts of speech shown for every main
word. Covers all levels of vocabulary and identifies informal

and slang words.

1045 . .

.

Webster's English Dictionary, Newly

and updated, Random House.

I I $8.95. 75,000+ entries. Includes tips on writing and word usage, and has up-

dated geographical and biographical entries. Includes recent

I

business and computer terms.

1033...

I I I Capital Crimes, by George Winslow, Monthly Review, 360 pages. $19.00.
Explains how economic policies create and foster crime, and how corporate & government crime is rarely punished. 1024 L._-1.._ _ _.1.

With Liberty for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America, by Scott

Christianson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages. $18.95. The best

overall history of the American prison system from 1492 through the 20th
I I I Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how little
things have changed as far as prisons go in the U.S. over

hundreds of years.

1026..

.

I Ten Men Dead: The story of the 1981 Irish hunger strike, by
ford, Atlantic Montllly Press, 334 pages. $16.95. Inside story of

I Beres-
I

IRA prisoners at Belfast's Long Kesh prison.

1006 . .

. '

I I Finding the Right Lawyer, by Jay Foonberg, ABA, 256 pages. $19.95. Ex-
plains how to determine your legal needs, how to evaluate a I

lawyer's qualifications, fee payments, and more.

1015..

.

Seize the Day! 7 Steps to Achieving the Extraordinary in an Ordinary

World, by Danny Cox and John Hoover, 256 pages, $15.99.

7 steps

I to changing your expectations and

yourself as being a successful

and respected person-which is essential to changing tile

I

I

course of one's life.

1052..

.

Women Behind Bars, The Ctisis of Women in the U.S. Prison System, by

Silja J.A.

Seal Press, 295 pages. $15.95. Best book available tllat covers

issues related to imprisoned women, based on

I with

hundreds of women behind bars.

1066 L._ - ' -_ _ _- '

10 Insider Secrets to a Winning Job Search,.by Todd Bermont, 216 pages.

$15.99. Roadmap on how to get a job even under adverse circumstances-like

I being an ex-con. Includes how to develop a winning attitude, write attention-

grabbing resumes, prepare for

networking, how to I I

present your strengths to an employer, and much morel 1056..

.

The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, 2003

Ed. by i\Ifred McCoy, 734 pages. $34.95. Documented expose I I

I

of the government's involvement in drug trafficking.

1014 I.._ - ' - ._ _ _- ' .

Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis, by Christian Parenti,

290 pages. $19.00. Analyzes the war on ti,e poor via ille criminal justice system. Well

documented and includes first-hand repotting. Covers prisons, para-I

military policing, S\'(IAT tearns and d,e INS.

1002 L._ - ' -_ _- '

Hepatitis and Liver Disease: What You Need to Know, by Melissa Palmer, MD,

I I 457 pages. $17.95. Describes S)'I1lptorns.& treatments of hepatitis B & C and odler
liver diseases. Includes medications to avoid, what diet to follow, I

e.,ercises to perform, and a bibliography.

1031

Crime and Purtishment In Ametica, by Elliott Currie, 230 pages. $16.95. E£Iecti\'C

I I I rebuttal to right-wing proponents of prison building. Fact-based argument shows that
aime is driven by poverty. Debunks prison myths and discusses

proven, effective means ofaime prevention.

1019

Prison Madness: The Mental Health Crisis Behind Bars and What We

Must Do About It, by Terry Kupers,jossey"Bass, 245 pages. Hardback only,

prisoners please include any required authorization form. $32.95. PS)'chia-

trist writes about ti,e mental healtll crisis in U.S. prisons and jails. Covers all

aspects of mental illness, ptison rape, negative effects of long-I I

I

term isolation in control units, and more.

1003

Prison Writing in 20th Century America, by H. Bruce Franklin, Penguin

I Books, 368 pages. $16.00. From Jack London to George Jackson, tllis

antllOlogy

a selection of some of ti,e best writing

I

describing life bellind bars in America.

1022
L-..L-_-'-

r pr Soledad Brother: The Prison Letters of George Jackson, by George Jackson,
Lawrence Hill Books, 339 pages. $18.95. Lucid ""--planation of ,e lities of I

ptison by a well-known prison

More relevant now tI,an

when it first appeared 40 years ago.

1016

Marijuana Law, by Rid-lard Boire, Ronin, 271 pages. $17.95. R",'lInines how to

reduce ti,e probability ofarrest and prosecution for people accused of ti,e use, sale or

possession of m,u:ijuana. InfO on legal defenses, search & seizures, I I

I

survei1lance, asset forfeiture and drug testing.

1008 . .

.

Worse Than Slavery: Parchman Farm and the Ordeal ofJirn Crow Justice, by

I I I David Osllinslq', 306 pages. $16.00. Analysis of ptison 11bor's roots in slavery.
Focuses on prison phntations and self-sustaining prisons tlmt use

prison hbor.

1007..

.

No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the American Criminal Justice

System, by

Cole, The New Press, 218 pages. $19.95. R,-plains how ti,e

aimtinal justice system perpetuates race and class inequality, ' ,

creating a two-tiered system of justice.

1028 I.'_ - ' -_ _- - - '

The Prison and the Gallows: The Politics of Mass Incarceration in

I America, by Marie Gottschalk, Cambridge University Press, 451 pages.

$29.99. Great political analysis of the confluence of events

I

leading to 2.3 million people behind bars in ti,e U.S. 1069.

.

The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, by Brandon

Sample, PLN Publislling, 200 pages. $49.95.Tllis is PLN's second published

I I book, which exclusively covers ineffective assistance of counsel-related
issues in federal habeas petitions. Great resource for habeas I

litigation, and contains hundreds of case cites!

1078..

.

Factor 8 (DVD), a film by Kelly Duda, Concrete Films. $21.95. Movie

about ti,e Arkansas prison blood scandal, in wllich prison officials sold

infected blood harvested from prisoners. Note: This is a I

DVD and cannot be

to prison.

1076 L._-1-_ _-'

PLN Cumulative Index. 522.50 each. PLN Article Indexes provide detailed information about all PLN articles, including title, author, issue, page number, topics covered, citations, and if it is state, BOP or jail specific. Can be searched on over 500 subjects such as medical neglect or se,:ual assault. Circle ti,e index(es) you are ordering: 1990-1995, 1996-1998, 1999-1 2001, 2002-2004. (more recent indexes not yet available)

All books are soft cover except Prison Madness

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 57 of 64

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBIT P
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 142

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 58 of 64 Page 1P4L3NCOL-00162

Prison Legal News : P.O. 2420 West Brattleboro, Vermont 05303

RETURN TO SENDER

----

As of April 1, 2010

59
586 ** EXPIRES: 7/2011

LLOYD MYERs 201

210

COLUMalA Co JAIL 1000

- "'I PORT AVE

The Columbia County Jail

HELENS, OREGON 97051

ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS

This applies to ALL

incoming and out going mail

9 7'-'S ,o.tSeO:iJ§.2420

.
:;}l 20i 1 P'l"'1

"
.. ..'"
:,:.,: .•..

NIX:!:£;;

970 51:;:1

00 0:;3/06/;1,:1

TC NOT DELIVEAASLE AS ADDRESSED
UNASLE TO rORWARO

sc :

-44

JJJ,) I ,} d)l) 1JI JJ"" JJJ))) J) 1,1,,1))1, JlJJJ' I.d dlJ).1J J).I)) J

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 59 of 64 Page 1P4L4NCOL-00163

Order Form
All purchases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new stamps (strips or books) or pre-stamped envelopes.

Books (3 & 4 yr Subscription Specials: CIRCLE
one book ill: bonus issues, and DO NOT add SfH)
Protecting Your Health and Safety
m: 4 Bonus Issues (3-yr subscription offer)

$Amt.
Free

Prison Profiteers m: With Liberty for Some

m: 6 Bonus Issues (4-yr subscription offer)

Free

Book Total (inc. all books bought separately)

Add 6% sales tax for Vermont residents only

ADD $6.00 SfH to book orders UNDER $50

PLN Subscriptions
6-month Subscription (Prisoners only) 1 yr Subscription (12 issues) 2 yr Subscription (24. plus 2 Bonus issues)
3 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above ill: 4 Bonus issues) 4 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above ill: 6 Bonus issues) Sample Issue - $3.50 each
TOTAL Amount Enclosed:

Send to:
Name:
DOC#:
Agency/lnst: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Address:
City/State/Zip: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
MAIL PAYlUENT AND TillS FORM TO:
I ,
Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303

Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

PLN Subscription Rates

Subscription Rates 1yr 2 yrs 3 yrs 4yrs

Prisoners *

$24 $ 48 $ 72 $ 96

Individuals

$30 $ 60 $ 90 $120

Professionals

$80 $160 $240 $320

(Lawyers, govt. & professional agencies, libraries, etc.)

Sample issue for anyone - $3.50 each*

Six-month prisoner subscription for $12*

* Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books only) or pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed byprison policies.

,:- - - - - - - - -

---------

, 2 years - 2 bonus issues, for 26 monthly issues total.

: 3 years - 4 bonus issues (40 total) OR Protecting Your Health and

, Safety (see book description on the other side of this brochure).

: 4 years - 6 bonus issues (54 total) OR your choice of With Libertyfor ,

!..

_____:

New 3 or 4-Year Subscription Book Offers!

Subscribe or renew for three years at the regular price ($72 for prisouers & $90 for indiViduals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Protecting Your Health and Safety or four bonus issues of PLN! (40 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.
Subscribe or renew for four years at the regular price ($96 for prisoners & $120 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Prison Profiteers 01" With Liberty for Some, or 6 bonus issues of PLN! (54 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.

NO shipping charge for subscription bonus books!

NOTE: If you want the bonus issues of PLN instead of the
free book offer, please indicate that on the Order Form.

:- ----- iT;io; PiN;s-io:'k ----, ' I You can buy dozens of legal, social commentary, self-'

: help books, and legal and regular dictionaries directly:

, from PLN's book store! Ask us for a book list, or view'

,

•

0

,

, our selectIOn online at:

,

www.prisonlegalnews.org/store.aspx

:

All subscription rates & bonus offers are effective as of 5-1-10
and valid through 12-31-10
* No l'efunds after onlers have heen placed *

'h "

)'/{-;

NEWS

Dedicat.ed to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center

Eastern State Penitentiary 1829-1971

Charles Dickens visited Philadelphia's Eastern

State Penitentiary in 1842 and he later wrote:

"The System is rigid, strict and hopeless ... and I

believe it to be clouel and wrong....I hold this slow

and daily tampering with the mysteries of the

brain to be immeasurably worse than any tOl"-

ture of the body." The prison remained

for

129 years after Dickens condemned it as being

barbaric, and some of its inhumane pmctices

continue to be used in prisons nationwide.

P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.prisonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 60 of 64 Page 1P4L5NCOL-00164

n

P rison Legal News is an independent, non-profit 56-page monthly publication that reports, reviews and analyzes court rulings and news related to
prisoners' rights and prison issues. PLN has a national
(U.S.) focus on state, federal and private prison issues, with some international coverage as well.

PLN's many thousands of subscribers and readers

include civil and criminal trial and appellate attorneys,

judges, public defenders, journalists, academics, para-

legals, prisoners' rights activists, students, family

members of prisoners, concerned individuals, politi-

cians, other government officials, and numerous local,

state and federal

nationwide. .

.

PLN is a vitallinlc for prisoners who otherwise don't have access' to current legal and prison-related news and information.

"Invaluable resourcefor;u.;yone wanting 'user friendly' information about current l.egal developments affecting
prisoners in the United States."-
-- Human Rights Watch, a long-time PLN subscriber

P LN's coverage of prison issues includes medical neglect, disciplinal-Y heal'ings, nutrition, living conditions, excessive force, court access, censorship, jail litigation, visiting, telephones, religious freedom, free speech, prison rape, mental health, attorney/ client access, sexual abuse of women prisoners, re-
taliation, the PLRA, HIV and hep C, control units,
the death penalty, attorney fees and much more.

PLN Subscription Rates Prisoners: $12 for 6 months, $24 per year * Non-incarcerated individuals: $30 per year Law firms, govt. agencies and libraries: $80 per year Sample issue for anyone: '$3.50 each*
* Prisoners can pay with new stamps or pre-stamped envelopes

E ach monthly _issue of PLN includes three different types of reporting:
" A cover story on a prison-related issue. " Reports on individual and class-action prison and jail-
related lawsuits when they are filed, when a judgment is entered or the case settles, and when an appellate court decision is issued. We also have prison-related news articles. " A "News In Brief" section that summarizes interesting news stories across the U.S. and internationally.
Each issue ofPLN also contains numerous advertisements from businesses that provide prison-related personal and legal services and books. _PLN further sells dozens of selfhelp, social commentary and legal books.
PLN also has cumulative subject and case cite indexes for all PLN issues from 1990 through 2004. Write for info.
rs---------------l Special 3-yeru' Subscl'iption Offer!

Free with a

PLN subscl'iption! Fonr bonus issues of

PLN (40 issues' total) or a free book, Protecting Your

Health and Safety! Circle your· bonus choice on the form

on the other side of this brochure (3-year subscription

rates: prisoners $72, individnals $90, professionals $240).

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by "''_- - - - - I Robert E. Toone. Published by the South-
Poverty Law Center, 325 pages (2009). $10.00 (free with a 3-year sub!). This book explains some basic rights that prisoners
I have in a jail or prison in the U.S. It deals.
mainly with rights related to health and Ii "'61----
safety, such as communicflble diseases and abuse by prison officials; it also explains how you can enforce yonr rights to health and safety within the facility and, if necessary, in court through litigation. Buy separately: ___

1------------------------------------------,

: You Can Buy These Books Separately!

I

I _

I

: If you don't want to purchase a 3 or 4-year subscription:

: to PLN, you can still purchase any of the bonus books:

: at the regular price. Just indicate which books you want:

: to buy on this page, then enter the total cost on the other:

: side of this brochure on the "Book Total" line of the Or- :

: der Form. Shipping is $6 per order (not per book), and we :

.: offer FREE shipping on book orders of $50 or more! To :

: place a phone order, please call 802-257-1342. We also:

: accept book orders online, at www.prisonlegalnews.org.
L _______________._________________________

_

:
J

D onations: PLN is a project of the non-profit Human Rights Defense Center. Your tax-deductible dona-

tions support our advocacy, fi'ee speech and First Amend-

ment litigation efforts on behalf of prisoners and publish-

ers. PLN not only provides uncensored prison-related news,

but actively contests prison censorship .that interferes with

the delivery of our publication or any other PLN materials

sent to prisoners. AIl donations further our goal of advocat"

ing for people imprisoned in U.S. detention facilities.

-

"Great source of information, especially in states such as Arizona where the law libraries have been taken from the inmates and replaced with paralegals."
- SB, Arizona prisoner

Special4-year Subscription Offer!
Free with a 4-year PLN subscription!. Six bonus issues of PLN (54 issues total) or one free book, With Liberty for Some or Prison Profiteers! Circle your bonus choice on' the form on the other side of this brochure (4-year subscription rates: prisoners $96, individuals $120, professionals $320). Note: Free book option is for one boole
With Liberty for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America, by Scott Christianson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages (1998). $18.95 (fi'ee with a 4-year sub!). A classic book and the best overall history of the American prison system from 14,92 to the 20th Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how little things have changed as far as prisons go in the U.S. over hundreds of years. Buy separately: _ __
or
Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money from Mass Incarceration, edited by Paul Wright & Tara Herivel, New Press (2007). $24.95 (free with a. 4-year sub!). This is the third in a series of PLN anthologies that examines the reality of mass imprisonment in the U.S. Prison Profiteers is unique from other books on· the market because it exposes and discusses who profits and benefits from mass imprisonment, rather than who is harmed by the prison industrial complex and our nation's reliance on over-incarceration. Buy separately: ____

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 61 of 64 Page 1P4L6NCOL-00165

Order Form
All purchases must he pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or hooks, no singles) or pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed by prison policies.

Book Title / Number

Qty Total Cost

(attach another page if you are ordering more books)
Subtotal: Add 6% sales tax for VT residents only: Add $6.00 SIR to orders UNDER $50: Total Order Amount:
Send to:
Name: DOC#: Agency/lnst: Address: City/State/Zip:
MAIL PAYMENT AND TillS FORM TO: Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303
Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

FREE SHIPPING On hook and index orders OVER $50.001
A $6 shipping charge applies to all other hook anll inllex onlel's.
(Free shipping policy in elIect from Jalll, :l01O ulltil further notice)

More Books for Sale!

Prisoners' Self-Help Litigation Manual, updated 4th ed. (2010), by John

Boston and Daniel Manville, Oxford Univ. Press, 1500 pages. $39.95. The
I I I premiere, must-have ''Bible'' of prison litigation for current and aspiriog jail-
house lawyers. If you plan to litigate a prison or jail civil snit,

this book is a must-have.

1077

Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the U.S.

and Canada, updated 3rd ed. by Jon Marc Taylor, Ph.D. and edited by Susan

Schwartzkopf, published by PLN, 221 pages. $49.95. Written by lvIissouti

prisoner Jon Marc Taylor, who obtaioed a B.S. degree, an M.A. degree and a

Doctorate, the Gllmil/a Halldbook contaios contact information and descrip-

I I tions of high school, vocational, paralegal and college courses available
dlfough correspondence study. Great resource for prisoners

who want to furdler their education.

1057
'------'-----'

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by Robert E. Toone, Southern Poverty

Law Center, 325 pages. $10.00. Tllis book e"1'laios basic rights that prisoners

have in a jail or prison in the U.S. It deals mainly widl rights related to health

I and safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by prison officials; it also
explaios how you can enforce your rights within the facility"

and, if necessaty, in court dlfough litigation.

1060

Starting Out! The Complete Re-Entry Handbook, edited by William H.

Foster, Ph.D. & Cad E. Horn, Ph.D., Starting Out Inc., 446 pages. $22.95.

Complete do-it-yourself re-entty manual and workbook for prisoners who

want to develop their own re-entty plan to increase their chances of success

I , after they are released. Includes a wide variet), of resources, including a user to the Starting Out website that can be accessed fOliow-,

mg release.

1074

Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners v. ilie U.S.A:, by

Mumia Abu Jamal, City Lights Publishers, 280 pages. $16.95. In Jailhoflse LItv-

),ers, Prison Legal News columnist, award-\vinning journalist and death-row

prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal presents d,e stories and reflections of fellow pris-

oners-turned-advocates who have learned to use tile court system to represent

odler prisoners, and in some cases have won their freedom."

,

Must-read for jailliouse lawyers!

1073

How to Win Your Personal Injury Claim, by Atty. Joseph Matiliews, 7ili

edition, NOLO Press, 304 pages. $34.99. While not specifically for prison-

related personal injury cases, this book provides comprehensive information

on how to handle personal injury and property damage claims arising from

-

dealing widl doctors, attorneys and"

,

msurance comparues.

1075

All prices are effective as of 9-15-10 (prices subject to change without notice)
* No refunds after orders have been placed *

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
2010 PLN BOOK LIST
Prices Subject to Change Without Notice
Graphic from: Books 2 Prisoners, Vancouver, Be
P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.prisonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 62 of 64 Page 1P4L7NCOL-00166

Check the box ofthe books you want to buy and use the Order Fonn on the other side ofthis brochure to add up the cost of your order. FREE SHIPPING for book and index orders OVER $50. There is a $6 shipping charge for all other book and index orders.

Prison Profiteers, edited by Paul Wright and Tam Herivel, 323 pages. $24.95. TIlls is the

third and L1test book in a series ofPrison Legal News anthologies dmt e.'[mnines d,e reality of

mass imprisonment in America. (TIle odler tides are Tbe Cellillg tfAJJJenra & Pi;'OIl Natioll,

I I , see below). PrisOIl Projteer.r is unique from odler books because it ""poses and disOlSses
who profits Mcl benefits from omss imprisonment, radler thM who is

hMned by it and how.

1063 L_ _--'_ - _ _-'_

I I I Prison Nation: The Warehousing ofAmerica's Poor, edited by Tam Heffi>el and Paul
Wright, 332 pages. $35.95. PIN MdlOlog)' ""poses d,e d1!k side ofthe

1ock-em-up'politiallagendaandlegal climate in the U.s.

1041 _ _

_

I 'I The CeIling of America, edited by Daniel Burton Rose, DM Pens and Paul Wright, 264

pages- $22.95. PIN anthology presents a detniled "inside" look at d,e

I

workings ofd,e Ameri= criminal justice system.

1001 _ _

'

Everyday Letters for Busy People, by Debra Hart May, 287 pages. $18.99.

I Hundreds of sample letters that can be adapted for most any purpose, including
letters to government agencies and officials. Has numerous

rips for wriring effective letters.

1048 L_ _-----'-_ _- - '

The Criminal Law Handbook! Know Your Rights, Survive the System, b),

Attorneys Paul BergmM & Sam]. BermM-Barrett, Nolo Press, 608 pages. $39_99,

E..-.plains what happens in a ctin1inal case from being arrested to sentencing, and what

your rights are at eaeh stage of the process. Uses an easy to under-I

stand question-and-answer fommt'

1038 L_ _-'-_ _ _-'

Represent Yourself in Court: How to Prepare & Try a Winning Case, by

Attorneys Paul BergmM & Sam]. B=-Barrett, Nolo Press, 528 pages. $39.99.

I I Breaks down the civil ttial process in easy-to-understand steps so you can effectively
represent yourself in court The authors eA-pL1in what to say in

coUlt, how to say it, etc.

1037 _

,

Law Dictionary, R.wdom House Webster's, 525 pages. $19.95. Comprehensive u

to-date law dictionary e..-.pL,uns more than 8,500 legal terms.'

,

Covers civil, crinUnal, commercial & international law.

1036 >-'_---J'--_ _-'

I I I The Blue Book of Grarruuar and Punctuation, by Jane Straus, 110 pages.
$14.95. A guide to grammar and punctuation by an educator

with e>.-perience teaching English to prisoners.

1046

Legal Research: How to Find and Understand the Law, by Stephen Elias and

I I I Susan Levinkind, 568 pages. $49.99. Comprehensive and easy to understand guide
on researclung the E.xpL1ins case law, statutes and digests,

.'U1d mucll more. Includes practice e.'[ercises.

1059 >_- _-'-_ _ _ _-"

I I Deposition Handbook, by Paul Bergm.'li1 and Albert Moore, Nolo Press, 352

pages. $34.99. How-to h.'U1dbook for anyone who conducts a

I

deposition or is going to be deposed.

1054 L,_ - ' -_ _ _ _-',

I Spanish-English/English-Spanish Dictionary, Random House. $8.95. Two

sections, Spanish-English and English-Spanish. 60,000+ entries

I

from A to Z: includes Western Heo1isphere usage.

1034 '_- _- '____-'

Please Note: All book and index orders are mailed via the U.S. Postal Service with Delivery Confirmation. PIN does not assume any responsibility to replace book or index orders once their delivery to the destination address (facility) is confirmed by the U.S. Postal Service.

I I I Writing to Wm: The Legal Writer, by Steven D. Stark, Broadway Books/Random
House, 283 pages. $19.95. E.'-plains the ,voting of effective complaints,

responses, briefS, motions.'U1d odler legal papers.

1035 '_- _-'_- __--',

Actual Innocence: When Justice Goes Wrong and How to Make it Right, updated

paperback ed, by Barry Scheck:, Peter Neufeld and Jim Dwyer; 403 pages. $16.00,

Founders of the Innocence Project e..-. pbin hO\" crinUnal defendants are wrongly con-

victed on a regular basis. E>.-plains DNA testing .'U1d how it works to free d,e innocent

Devastating critique of police and prosecutorial nUsconduct .'U1d d,e I I

I

S)'Stern dmt ensures such abuses continue.

1030 L__ - '_ _ _ _- ' ,

Rogel's Thesaurus, 717 pages. $8_95. Helps you find the right word for what

you W.'U1t to say. 11,000 words listed alphabetically ,vid, over 200,000 synonyms

I I and .'U1tonyms. Sample sentences and parts of speech shown for every main
word. Covers all levels of vocabulary .'U1d identifies informal I

and sl.'U1gwords.

1045 '_-___'--_ _-'_

Webster's English Dictionary, Newly

and updated, Random House,

I $8.95. 75,000+ entries. Includes tips on wriring and word usage, .'U1d has up-
dated geograplucal and biograplucal' entries. _Includes recent I I

business and computer terms.

'

1033 _ _

-.

I I I Capital Crinles, by George Winslow, Monthly Review, 360 pages. $19.00.
Explains how econoo1ic policies create and foster crime, and how corporate & government crime is rarely punished. 1024
L--'-_--'

With Liberry for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America, by Scott

Christi.'U1son, Northeastern University Press, 372 -pages. $18.95. The best

overall !Ustory of d,e Americ.'U1 prison system from 1492 through the 20th

I I I Century. Well written .'U1d fact filled. A must-read for understanding how little
dungs have changed as far as prisons go in d,e U.S. over

hundreds of years.

1026 _ _

_

I I Ten Men Dead: The story of the 1981 Irish hunger strike, by David Beres-

ford, Adantic Monthly Press; 334 pages. $16.95. Inside story of

I

IRA prisoners at Belfast's Long Kesh prison.

1006 _ _

,

I Finding the Right Lawyer, by Jay Foonberg, ABA, 256 pages. $19.95. Ex-
plains how to detemline your legal needs, how to evaluate a I I

lawyer's qualifications, fee payments, and more.

1015 _ _

,

Seize the Day! 7 Steps to Achieving the Extraordinary in an Ordinary

World, by Danny Cox and John Hoover, 256 pages. $15.99..Provides 7 steps

I I I to changing your e>.-pectations and envisioning yourself as being a successful
and respected person-wlucl1 is essential to ch.'U1ging d,e

course of one's life.

1052

Women Behind Bars, The Crisis of Women in the U.S. Prison System, by

Silja J-A. Talvi, Seal Press, 295 pages_ $15.95. Best book available d,at covers

issues

I t9 imprisoned women, based on interviews widl

hundreds of women belund bars.

1066 L_ _-'-_ _--'

10 Insider Secrets to a Winning Job Search, by Todd Bermont, 216 pages.

$15.99. Roadrnap on how to get a job even under adverse circumst.'U1ces-like

I I being .'U1 e.'(-con. Includes how to develop a ,vinning atritude, write attention-

grabbing resumes, prepare for

networking, how to

I

present your strengths to .'U1 employer, and much more! 1056, _

'

I I The Politics of Heroin: CIA Compliciry in the Global Drug Trade, 2003
Ed. by Alfred McCoy, 734 pages. $34.95. Documented expose I

of the government's involvement in drug trafficking.

1014 L_ _-'_ _ _ _-',

Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis, by ChristiM Parenti,

290 pages. $19.00, Analyzes the war On the poor via the crinUnal justice Sj'Stem. Well

documented .'U1d includes first-Imnd

Covers prisons, pam-

military policing, SWAT teamS Md the INS.

·1002 ,-I_ - ' -_ _- '

Hepatiris and Liver Disease: What You Need to Know, by Melissa Palmer, lYID,

I I 457 pages. $17.95. Descobes symptoms"& treatments afhepatiris B & C and odler

liver diseases. Includes medications to avoid, wlmt diet to follow,

I

e.'[ercises to perfonn, Md a bibliography.

1031 L_ _---1_ - _ _-"

Crinle and Punishment In America, by Elliott Curtie, 230 pages. $16.95. Effective

I I I rebuttal to right-wing proponents of prison'building Fact-based argument shO\vs d,at
crime is dtiven by poverty. Debunks prison myths Md disOlSSes

proveri,effective meMS ofcrime prevention.

1019 _ _

_

Prison Madness: The Mental Health Crisis Behind Bars and What We

Must Do About It, by Terry Kupers,Jossey-Bass, 245 pages. Hardback only,

prisoners please include any required authorization fonn $32.95. Psycllia-

I triSt writes about d,e mental health crisis in U.S. ptisons and jails. Covers all

aspects of mental illness, prison rape, negative effects of long-I

I

term isoL1tion in control units, and more.

1003 _ _

_

Prison Writing in 20th Century America, by H. Bruce Franklin, Penguin

Books, 368 pages. $16.00. From Jack London to George Jackson, this

.'U1thology

a selection of some of the best wriring I I

describing life behind bars in America.

1022 ---1 L,_ - ' -_ _ _

I T I Soledad Brother: The Prison Letrers of George Jackson, by George Jackson,
Lawrence Hill Books, 339 pages. $18.95. Lucid ""-planation of ,e litiCS of

prison by a well-known prison acti,';st More relevant now than

when it first appeared 40 years ago.

1016

Marijuana Law, by Richard Boire, Ronin, 271 pages, $17.95. Examines how to

reduce d,e probability of arrest Md prosecution for people aCOlSed of d,e use, sale or

possession of marijuana. Info on legal defenses, searcll & seizures, I I

I

surveillance, asset furfeiture and thug testing_

1008 L__ - ' - _ _ _- - ' ,

Worse Than Slavery: Parchman Farm and the Ordeal ofJinl Crow Justice, by

Da\';d OslUnsky, 306 pages. $16.00. Analysis of prison L1bor's roots in slavery.

FOOlSes on prison plantations wd

prisons dlat use I I

I

prison Lobor.

,

1007 _ _

_

No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the American Criminal Justice

I I System, by David Cole, The New Press, 218 pages. $19.95. E..-.plains how the

justice S)'stem

race .'U1d class inequality,

I

ereanag a two-tiered system of Justice.

-1028 _ _

.

The Prison and the Gallows: The Politics of Mass Incarceration in

I America, by Marie Gottschalk, Cambridge University Press, 451 pages,
$29.99. Great political analysis of ti,e confluence of events I

leading to 2.3 million people bellind bars in the U.S. 1069 _

.

The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, by Br.'U1don

Sample, PLN Publishing, 200 pages. $49.95. Tlus is PLN's second published

I book, w!Uch e.'[clusively covers ineffecrive assistance of counsel-related

issues in federal habeas petitions. Great resource for habeas I

I

litigation, .'U1d contains hundreds of case cites!

1078, _

.

Factor 8 (DVD), a film by Kelly Duda, Concrete Films. $21.95. Movie

I about ti,e Arkansas prison blood scandal, in wluch prison officials sold
infected blood harvested from prisoners. Note: This is a

DVD and cannot be shipped to prison.

1076 L_- , - - ' -_ _- '

PLN Cumulative Index. $22.50 each. PIN Article Indexes provide detailed

information about all PLN articles, including title, autllor, issue, page number,

topics covered, citations, and if it is state, BOP or jail specific_ C.'U1 be

searched on over 500 subjects such as medical neglect or se..-.ual assault Circle

tl,e index(es) you are

1996-1998, 1999-1

2001, 2002-2004. (more recent indexes not yet available)

All books are sOft cover except Prison Madness

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 63 of 64

T he Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance oj Counsel is the first in a series of books by Prison Legal News Publishing designed to help pro-se prisoner litigants identify and raise viable claims for potential habeas corpus relief. This book is an invaluable resource that identifies hundreds of cases where the federal courts have granted habeas relief to prisoners whose attorneys provided ineffective assistance of counsel.
It will save litigants
thousands of hours of research and it focuses on the
WINNING cases criminal defendants needto
successfully challenge their convictions.
Well organized into 52 concise chapters, this easy to use book puts the law at the reader's fingertips. The Appendix includes pleadings and forms from successful habeas corpus cases that

"

The Habeas Citebook is a

nifty and concise self-help

guide for prisoners seeking

habeas relief based on claims of

ineffective assistance of counsel.

Navigating the complex and

treacherous terrain of habeas

law is never easy; but claim-

ing that your lawyer screwed up

is even more difficult - espe-

cially from the confines of an

demonstrate formatting and show ill-equipped prison law library.

how to frame a winning argu-

"Brandon Sample has pro-

ment that will persuade a court

vided an amazing and much-

to grant habeas relief. The Habeas

needed tool for prisoners who

Citebook explains the proce-

are forced to seek relief on their

dural and substantive complexi-

own. The book is thorough; but

ties of federal habeas corpus lit-

simple and readable. It starts

igation with the goal of identify-

with a wonderfully well-orga-

ing and litigating claims involving nized listing of hUIidreds of dif-

ineffective assistance of counsel.

ferent types of ineffective assis-

Brandon Sample is a success-

tance of counsel, set forth in the

ful jailhouse lawyer litigant incar-

form of citations to court rul-

cerated in the Bureau of Prisons.

ings - a novel approach that

He is a Prison Legal News contrib- not only acts as a springboard

uting writer and a member of the

for further research but also

National Lawyer's Guild. Editor

saves the prisoner countless

Susan Schwartzkopf has a mas-

hours of preliminary research:'

ter's degree in education and is

the director and editor in chief of

PETER SCHMIDT

Prison Legal News Publishing.

Publisher, Punch & Jurists

I

THE HABEAS CITEBOOK: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

By Brandon Sample

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed _ _ _ __

I

8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages

By: 0 check 0 new postage stamps 0 credit card 0 money order I

g

ISBN 978-0-9819385-1-6

Name ________________________ _______________

I

$49·95 3 or more copies ordered
at once $39.95 each

DOC/BOP Number _______________ ________ Institution/Agency _________________________

I

FREE Shipping & Handling Address_______________________

I Order by mail, phone, or on-line. City _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ State PUBLISHED BY

ZIP

PHRSON LEGAL NEWS P.O. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303 Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 1P4L8NCOL-00167

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/12 Page 64 of 64
" -----------, Copies of this very usable and useful gUide should be available in every prison library-to help incarcerated people give positive direction to their energies while making constructive use of their time. It is a well-established fact that people who have taken college courses in prison have a dramatically reduced rate of recidivism."

-BELL GALE CHEVICNY, PEN Prison Writing Program,

'-----:---

Editor Doing Time: 25 Years ofPrison Writing. - - - - - '

HIGH SCHOOL It VOCATIONAL It PARALEGAL It UNDERGRADUATE It GRADUATE COURSES

IIIIIIJIIIHE GREATLY anticipated and newly updated
third edition of the Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the United States and Canada has finally arrived! Author
Jon Marc Taylor's brand new version is the latest in this unique and highly successful gUidebook for the
prisoner-student. This invaluable tool and' how-to handbook provides the reader with step-by-step instructions to' find the appropriate educational program for high school, vocational, paralegal, undergraduate, and graduate courses offered in
the U.S. and Canada today.
Invaluable re-entry tool
It presents more than 160 program outlines and
offers an easy-to-use format for the student to
determine which program best suits their needs. It is ideal for the incarcerated student who does not have Internet access or the ability to attend education classes in person. This resource is indispensable

for the individual and beneficial for use in all prison libraries and education departments.
The Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook is the only book
on the market for the non-traditional prisoner-student. It includes detailed listings of the quality, cost, and course offerings for all correspondence programs available to prisoners. In a time when so many academic opportunities in prisons have been eliminated, this book is an invaluable re-entry tool for prisoners who seek to further their education while incarcerated and to help them prepare for life and work following their release.
Jon Marc Taylor has more than 25 years experi-
ence as an incarcerated student, advocate for prisoner education, and author. He has successfully earned a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and a doctorate via correspondence courses while incar-
cerated. Editor Susan Schwartzkopf has a master's
degree in education and 12 years experience teaching immigrants English language skills.

I PRISONERS' GUERRILLA HANDBOOK TO CORRESPONDENCE PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA

ByJon Marc Taylor PHD

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed ______

8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages

I By: D. check D new postage stamps D credit card D money order

ISBN 978-0-9819385-0-9
$49·95
3 or more copies ordered

• Name ______________________________________
DOC/BOP Number _______________-'-_____________

at once $39.95 each

Institution/Agency _____________________________

I

FREE Shipping & Handling Order by mail/ phone/ or on-line.

Address-----------------------------------------
City _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ State ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

PlfU§ON LEGAL NEWS I P.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 1P4L9NCOL-00168

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 1 of 64

9870.05 fa246305

E IBIT
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 150

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 2 of 64 Page 1P5L1NCOL-00306

\li'~ft.'lf;r..rE:

~X~:r'i:rl:;i,,{:··1UNC:"f!.C~,\l;f.·
"'iJ;T, '{;l~~'k 't',T

':i::X},;; .?/.,:,:?!',~; ':,~;'ij;~!~,,1,~, ,~;,~,§""

Prison Legal NewS

P.O. Box 2420

-_-,-_~- -'W~~ .es~t" ~Br~a~ttl,eb.o,.r-o:_.V=-,T--.0--5=-3-03-~I

-¥--, INSPECTED BY COLUMBI.!.\. COUNTY Ji\lL RETURN TO SENDEIOZ

PERSON NOT HEfU:'

--'

-~ 4~" I\

CONTRABAND 1 m E R-FAGI L i n '

_ _

.... €.;1Itf'\~,., \ ,,,00\\"\ 0 0\

'IlI " ~_~""" o~ ~R~ EFUSEN~ lOLA1ES' SECU1':'· ..'\,"""'fVci9.o\0.\..f.\'\d.lI:tpf-\-AP\O.6.!.ffX\-(p.tt,-.':lCS,f.>O,.'.iof~.j-fp-.\c\,..ot-lZ9"10 '0\

5'1' p

N :00:&: NOT

\;)'" ~)

,~H;: j.

I:' (:)(' 0'" I.!? l':.l I ;~,1

DE~RUIENTVAUEBRR~NEABLTTEOO

SENDER AF*OSaR5WeAA3DR-DD~R0E7S0S7E-D~O-4i

E\C: : O~;'::~1l::)~;J,?4~~<:)::OlO

II1,,,1I, 1,,1111111 I1III IJ11111,IIII1II,III",I,llllIII,I,I,,1

e O~~:30:3@~~4~O
97 [J.51$.~:JI') 1

'"'"

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 3 of 64 Page 1P5L2NCOL-00307

Order Form
All purchases must he pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new stamps (st1:ips 01' hooks) or pre-stamped envelopes.

Books (3 & 4yr Subscription Specials: CIRCLE
one book ill: bonus issues, and DO NOT add SIH)
Protecting Your Health and Safety
m: 4 Bonus Issues (3-yr subscription offer)

$Amt.
Free

Prison Profiteers m: With Liberty for Some

m: 6 Bonus Issues (4-yr subscription offer)

Free

Book Total (inc. all books bought separately)

Add 6% sales tax for Vermont residents only

ADD $6.00 SIH to book orders UNDER $50

PLN Subscriptions
6-month Subscription (Prisoners only) 1 yr Subscription (12 issues) 2 yr Subscription (24 plus 2 Bonus issues) 3 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above ill: 4 Bonus issues) 4 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above ill: 6 Bonus issues) Sample Issue - $3.50 each
TOTAL Amount Enclosed:

Send to:
Name:
DOC#:
Agency/Inst: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Address: City/State/Zip: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

MAIL PAY]HENT AND TillS FORM TO:

~

Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303

Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

PLN Subscription Rates

Subscription Rates 1yr 2yrs 3 yrs 4yrs

Prisoners *

$24 $ 48 $ 72 $ 96

Individnals

$30 $ 60 $ 90 $120

Professionals

$80 $160 $240 $320

(Lawyers, govt. & professional agencies, libraries, etc.)

Sample issue for anyone - $3.50 each*

Six-month prisoner subscription for $12*

* Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books only) or pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed byprison policies.

:- - - - - - - - - S~;c;ipti~~"B-o;';';;s! ---------
•• 2 years - 2 bonus issues, for 26 monthly issues total.
: 3 years - 4 bonus issues (40 total) OR Protecting Your Health and • Safety (see book description on the other side of this brochure). : 4 years - 6 bonus issues (54 total) OR your choice of Wid£ Libertyfor
!..~~eJ!..~~o~~r~e:;:(~:.d:S~E~o~.?~ ~:.o.:h~r~i~e2: _____:

New 3 or 4-Year Subscription Book Offers!

Subscribe or renew for three years at the regular price
($72 for prisoners & $90 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Protecting Your Health and Safety or
four bonus issues of PLN! (40 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.
Subscribe or renew for four years at the regular price ($96 for prisoners & $120 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Prison Profiteers or With Liberty for Some, or 6 bonus issues of PLN! (54 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.

NO shipping charge for subscription bonus books!

NOTE: If you want the honus issues of PLN instead of the free hook offer, please indicate that on the Order Form.

:- - ---- -Co;';a~;iT; fo; piN;-sBo~kiis;!- --- -- ~

•• You can buy dozens of legal, social commentary, self-.•

. : help books, and legal and regular dictionaries directly: : from PL~'s boo!;;: store! Ask us for a book list, or view:

• our selectIOn online at:

•

•~------w-w-w-.p-r-is-on-le-g-al-ne-w-s-.o-rg-/s-to-re-.a-s-px-------:

AIl snbscriptionrates & bonus offers are effective as of 5-1-10
and valid through 12-31-10
* No refunds after ordel'S have been placed *

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
Eastern State Penitentiary 1829-1971 Charles Dickens visited Philadelphia's Eastern State Penitentiary in 1842 and he later wrote: "The System is rigid, strict and hopeless ... and I believe it to be cruel and ·wTong....I hold this slow and daily tampering with the mysteries of the brain to be immeasurably worse than any torture of the body." The prison remained open for 129 years after Dickens condemned it as being barbaric, and some of its inhumane practices continue to be used in prisons nationwide.
P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.prisonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 4 of 64 Page 1P5L3NCOL-00308

n p
l;
I
P rison Legal News is an independent, non-profit 56-page monthly: publication that reports, reviews and analyzes COUl"t l"ulings and news l"elated to
pI'isoners' rights and prison issues. PLN has a national
(U.S.) focus on state,.federal and private pl"ison issues, with some intel"national coverage as well.
PLN's many thousands, of subscribers and l"eaders include civil and criminal trial and appellate attorneys, judges, public defenders, jomnalists, academics, paralegals, pl"isoners' rights activists, students, family members of prisoners, concerned individuals, politician~, other government' officials, and numerouS local, state and federal prisoners nationwide.
PLNis a vitalli~.k for p~isoners who otherwise don't
have access to CUl'l'ent legal and prison-related news and information.
"Invaluable resource for anyone wanting 'user friendly' infonnation about current l~gal ,developments affecting
prisoners,in the United States.'"
- Human Rights Watch, a long-time PLN subscriber
P LN's coverage of prison issues includes medical neglect, disciplinaI'y hearings, nutrition, living conditions, excessive force, court access, censorship, jail litigation, visiting, telephones, religious freedom, free speech, prison rape, mental health, attorney/ client access, sexual abuse of women prisoners, retaliation, the PLRA, HIV and hep C, control units, the death penalty, attorney fees and much more.
PLN Subscription Rates
Prisoners: $12 for 6 months, $24 pel' year *
Non-incarcerated individuals: $30 pel' year Law firms, govt. agencies and liPraries: $80 per year
Sample issue for anyone: $3.50 each*
• Prisoners can pay with new stamps'or pre-stamped envelopes

E ach monthly issue of PLN includes three different types of reporting: • A cover story on a prison-related issue. • Reports on individual and class-action prison <lnd jail-
related lawsuits when they are fIled, when a judgment is entered or the case settles, and when an appellate court decision is issued. We also have prison-related news articles. • A "News In Brief" section that summarizes interesting news stories across the U.S. and internationally.
Each issue of PLN also contains numerous advertisements from businesses that provide prison-related personal and legal services and books. PLN' further sells dozens of selfhelp, social commentary and legal books.
PLN also has cumulative subject and case cite indexes for all PLN issues from 1990 through 2004. Write for info.
SpeCiaI3-yeal' SuhSCI'iption Offel.i-,

Free with a 3-year PLN subscription! Foll!' bonus issues of PLN (40 issues total) or a free book, Protecting Your Health and Safety! Circle your bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (3-year subscription rates: prisoners $72, individuals $90, professionals $240).

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by "'''-----1

Robert E. Toone. Published by the South-

ern Poverty Law Center, 325 pages (2009).

$10.00 (fi.·ee with a 3-yeru.· sub!). This book

explains some basic rights that prisoners

I have in
mainly

a jail with

or prison in the U.S. It rights related to health

daenadls,I~

:"'El----

safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by

prison officials; it also explains how you can enforce your

rights to health and safety within the facility and, if nec-

essary, in court through litigation. Buy separately: ___

I---------------~--------------------------,

You Can Buy These Books Separately!

I

I

I

: If you don't ,vant to purchase a 3 or 4,-year subscription:

,: to PLN, you can still purchase any of the bonus books:

: at the regular price. Just indicate which books' you want:

: to buy on this page, then enter the total cost oil the other:

: side of this brochure on the "Book Total" line of the 01'- :

: del' Form. Shipping is $6 per order (not per book), and we :

: offer FREE shipping on book orders of $50 or more! To :

: place a phone order, please call 802-257-1342. We also:

: accept book orders online, at www.prisonlegalnews.org. :
L _________________________________________ J

D onations: PLN is' a project of the non-profit Human

.

Rights Defense Center. YoUr tax-deductible dona-

tions support our advocacy; free speech and Fir~t Amend-

ment litigation efforts on behalf of prisoners and publish-

ers. PLN not only provides uncensored prison-related news,

but actively contests prison censorship that interferes with

the delivery of our pUblication or any other PLN materials

sent to prisoners. All donations further our goal of advocat-

ing for people imprisoned in U.S. detention facilities.

"Great source of infonnation, especially in states such as Arizona where the law libraries have been taken from the inmates and replaced with paralegals," - SB, Arizona prisoner

Special 4-yeru' SuhSCI'iption Offel'!
Free with a 4-year PLN SubSCl'iption!, Six bonus issues of PLN (54 issues total) or one fi.·ee book, With Liberty for Some or Prison Profiteers! Circle your bonus 'choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (4'-year subscription rates: prisoners $96, individuals $120, professionals $320). Note: Free book option is for one boole
With Liberty for Some: 500 Years Imprisonment in America, by Scott Christianson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages (1998). $18.95 (fi.·ee with a 4-year sub!). A classic book and the best overall history of the American prison system from 1492 to the 20th Century. Well written and fact filled. A mustcread for understanding how little things have changed as far as prisons go in the U.S. over hundreds ofyeru.·s. Buy separately: _ __
or
Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money Mass Incarceration, edited by Panl
Wright & Tara Herivel,New Press (2007). $24.95 (free with a 4-yeru.· sub!). This is the third in a series of PLN anthologies that examines the reality of mass imprisonment in the U.S. Prison Profiteers is unique from other books on the market because it exposes and discusses who profits and benefits from mass imprisonment, rather than who is harmed by the prison industrial complex and our nation's reliance, on over-incarceration. Buy separately: _ __

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 5 of 64 Page 1P5L4NCOL-00309

Order Form
All purchases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books, no singles) or
pre-stamped envelopes, if allowed by prison policies.

Book Title / Number

Qty Total Cost

(attach another page if you are ordering more books)
Subtotal: Add 6% sales tax for VT residents only: Add $6.00 SIR to orders UNDER $50: Total Order Amount:
Send to:
Name: DOC#: Agency/Inst: Address: City/State/Zip:
MAIL PAYl\1ENT AND TillS FORM TO: Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303
Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

I

FREE SIDPPING

I
I

On book and index orders OVER $50.00!

A $6 shipping clmrge applies to all other book a11l1 index onlel's.
(Free shipping policy in effect from Jan 1, :2010 lllltil further notice)

MOl'e Books for Sale!

Prisoners' Self-Help Litigation Manual, updated 4th ed. (2010), by John

Boston and Daniel Manville, Oxford Univ. Press, 1500 pages. $39.95. The

I premiere, must-have ''Bible'' of prison litigation for current and aspiring jail-
house lawyers. If you plan to litigate a prison or jail civil suit, "

this book is a must-have.

1077

Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to'Correspondence Programs in the U.S.

and Canada, updated 3rd ed. by Jon Marc Taylor, PhD. and edited by Susan Schwartzkopf, published by PLN, .221 pages. $49.95. Written by Missouri prisoner Jon Marc Taylor, who obtained a B.S. degree, an M.A. degree and a Doctorate, d,e Glleni/la Halldbook contains conmct information and descrip-

tions of high school, vocational, paralegal and college courses available

through correspondence study. Great resource for prisoners 1 I

who want to further their education.

1057 . .
'----'---'

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by Robert E. Toone, Southern Poverty

Law Center, 325 pages. $10.00. This book explains basic rights that prisoners

have in a jailor prison in the U.S. It deals mainly widl rights related to health
I I I and safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by prison officials; it also
explains how you can enforce your rights ,Vid,in the facility

and, if necessary, in court through litigation.

1060

Starting Out! The Complete Re-Entry Handbook, edited by William H.

Foster, PhD. & Carl E. Horn, Ph.D., Starting Out Inc., 446 pages. $22.95.

Complete do-it-yourself re-entry manual and workbook for prisoners who

want to develop d,eir own re-entry plan to increase d,eir chances of success

after dley are released. Includes a ,Vide variety of resources, including a user

~ode to the St,rrting Out website that can be accessed f O l l O W - I I I

Ing release.

1074 . .

.

Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners v. the U.S.A., by

Mumia Abu Jamal, City Lights Publishers, 280 pages. $16.95. In Jailhouse Lalli-

yers, Prison Legal News columnist, award-,irinning journalist and death-row

prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal presents d,e stories and reflections of fellow pris-

oners-turned-advocates who have learned to use the court system to represent

od,er prisoners, and in some cases have won their freedom. 1

Must-read for jailllouse lawyers!

1073 '---'------'

How to Win Your Personal Injury Claim, by Atty. Joseph Matd,ews, 7th

edition, NOLO Press, 304 pages. $34.99. While not specifically for prison-

related personal injury cases, this book prO\~des comprehensive information

on how to handle personal injury and property damage claims arising from

accidents - incl~ding dealing widl doctors, attorneys and 1 1

1

Insurance compames.

1075 ' .

.

All prices aJ.'eeffective as of 9-15-10 (plices subject to cIuUlge without notice)
* No refunds after ordel'S have been placed *

P,Rj'SON:'iEEGAL NEWS
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
2010 PLN BOOK LIST
Prices Subject to Change Without Notice
Graphic from: Books 2 Prisoners, Vancouver, Be
P.O. Box 2420, Brattlebol"O, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.prisonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 6 of 64 Page 1P5L5NCOL-00310

Check the box of the books· you want to buy and use the Order Form on the other side of this brochure to add up the cost of your order. FREE SIDPPING for book and index orders OVER $50. There is a $6 shipping charge for all other book and index orders.

Prison Profiteers, editro by Paul Wright and Tam HeriveI, 323 pages. $24.95. TIus is d,e

third and latest book in a series ofPrison Legal News aniliologies dmt examines d,e reality of
nmss imprisonment in America. (TIle odler tides are Tbe Cellillg ifAJJJenm & Prisoll Natioll,

I I I see below). Prisoll Projleer.r is unique from odler books because it ""-poses and discusses
who profits and benefits from mass imprisonment, milier dmn who is

harmed by it and how.

1063 .

.

.

I I I Prison Nation: The Warehousing ofAmerica's Poor, editro by Tam Heffi>el and Paul
Wright, 332 pages. $35.95. PIN aniliology ""-poses d,e dm:k side ofilie

1ock-etn-up'politiall agenda and leg,,] climate in d,e U.s.

1041 . .

.

The Celling of America, editro by Dmliel Burton Rose, Dan Pens and Paul Wrigh~ 264

pages: $22.95. PIN andlologl' presents a detniled ''inside'' look at ilie 1 1

1

workiogs ofd,e Ameriam criminal justice system.

1001..

.

Everyday Letters for Busy People, by Debra Hart Mal', 287 pages. $18.99.

Hundreds of sample letters iliat can be adapted for most any purpose, including

letters to government agencies and officials. Has numerous 1

tips for wriring effective letters.

1048 L._ _1 -_ _...J

The Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive me System, by
Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sam J. Berman-Barre~ Nolo Press, 608 pages. $39.99.

R,-plains what h,'ppens in a criminal case from being arrested to sentencing, and what

your rights are at eacll stage of d,e process. Uses an easy to under-I

stand question-and-answer format

1038

1 . . . ._ - '_ _ _- '

Represent Yourself in Court: How to Prepare & Try a Winning Case, by

Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sam J. Berman-Barre~ Nolo Press, 528 pages. $39.99.

I I I Breaks down d,e civil trial process in easy-to-understand steps so you cm effectively
represent yoursel~ in court TI,e audlOrs e.'-plain what to say in

court, how to say It, etc.

1037...

Law Dictionmty, R,mdom House Webster's, 525 pages. $19.95. Comprel1ensive u~-

to-date law dictionary e.'-pL1ins more d,an 8,500 leg,,] terms.'

,

Covers civil, criminal, commercial & internationall1w.

1036

1 . . . '_ - - ' ' -_ _- - '

The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, by Jane Straus, 110 pages.

$14.95. A guide to grammar md punctuation by an educator 1 1

1

with e"-perience teaching English to prisoners.

1046

Legal Research: How to Find and Understand me Law, by Stephen Elias and

Susm Levinkind, 568 pages. $49.99. Comprel1ensive md easy to understand guide

on researclling the law. fu-pL1ins case law, statutes and digests, 1 1

I

and much more. Includes practice e.,ercises.

1059 L._ - ' - ._ _ _-'.

Deposirion Handbook, by Paul Bergmari and Albert Moore, Nolo Press, 352

pages. $34.99. How-to handbook for anyone who conducts a 1 1

1

deposition or is going to be deposed. .

1054 L._ - ' - ._ _ _-'.

Spartish-English/English-Spartish Dictionmty, Random House. $8.95. Two

sections, Spmlish-English and EnglishcSpmlish. 60,000+ entries 1 1

from A to Z; includes Western Henlisphere usage.

1034 L._ - - ' . ' -_ _- '

Please Note: All book and index orders are mailed via the U.S. Postal Service with Delivery Confumation. PLN does not assmne any responsibility to replace book or index orders once their delivery to the destination address (facility):is confirmed by the U.S. Postal Service.

Writing to Win: The Legal Writer, by Steven D. Stark, Broadway Books/Random

House, 283 pages. $19.95. R,-p11ins d,e writing of effective compL1ints, 1 1

1

responses, briefS, motions and odler leg,,] papers.

1035 L.._..L._ _--'.

Actual Innocence: WhenJustice Goes Wrong and How to Mal{e it Right, updated

paperback ed., by Barry Scheck, Peter Neufeld ""d Jim Dwyer; 403 pages. $16.00.

Founders of d,e Innocence Project e.'pL1in hO\,: criminal defendants are wrongly con-

,~cted On a regular basis. R,-p11ins DNA testing and how it works to free ilie innocent

I Devastating critique of police and prosecuto,".al misconduct and the 1

·1

system that ensures such abuses continue. ."

1030 ...J. L._ - ' - ._ _ _

Roget's Thesaurus, 717 pages. $8.95. Helps you find ilie right word for what

you want to say. 11,000 words listed alphabetically with over 200,000 synonyms

and antonyms. Sample sentences and parts of speech shown for every main

word. Covers all levels of vocabulary and identifies informal 1 1

1

and slang words.

1045 L.._ - ' - ._ _- - ' .

Webster's English Dictionary, Newly re,~sed and updated, Random House.

$8.95. 75,000+ entries. Includes tips on wfiring arid word· usage, ·and has up-

dated geographical and biographical entries. Includes recent I 1

1

business and computer terms.

1033...

Capital Crimes, by George Winslow, l'vlonthly Review, 360 pages. $19.00.

Explains how econonlic policies create and foster crime, and 1

1

how corporate & government crime is rarely punished. 1024

With Liberty for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America, by Scott

Christimson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages. $18.95. The best

overall history of the American prison system from 1492 through ilie 20ili

I. Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how little
things have changed as far as prisons go in ilie U.S. over 1 1

hundreds of years.

1026..

.

Ten Men Dead: The story of the 1981 Irish hunger strike, by Da,~d Beres-

ford, Atlantic Montluy Press, 334 pages. $16.95. Inside story of 1 1

1

IRA prisoners at Belfast's Long Kesh prison.

1006 . .

.

I Finding me Right Lawyer, by Jay Foonberg, ABA, 256 pages. $19.95. Ex-

plains how to detem1ine your legal needs, how to evaluate a 1

1

lawyer's qualifications, fee payments, and more.

1015..

.

Seize the Day! 7 Steps to Achieving the Extraordinary in an Ordinary

World, by Danny Cox and John Hoover, 256 pages. $15.99. Provides 7 steps

to changing your expectations and em~sioning yourself as being a successful

and respected person-whicll is essential to changing tl,e 1 1

1

course of one's life.

1052

Women Behind Bars, The Crisis of Women in me U.S. Prison System, by
Silja J.A. Talvi, Seal Press, 295 pages. $15.95. Best book available that covers

issues related to imprisoned women, based on interviews Witll 1

: 1

hundreds of women behind bars.

1066 .

.

10 Insider Secrets to a Winning Job Search, by Todd Bermont, 216 pages.

$15.99. Roadmap on how to get a job even under adverse circumstances-like

being an ex-con. Includes how to develop a winning attitude, write attention-

grabbing resumes, prepare for intef\~ews, networking, how to 1 1

1

present your strengths to an employer, and much more! 1056..

.

The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in me Global Drug Trade, 2003

Ed. by Alfred McCoy, 734 pages. $34.95. Documented expose 1 1

1

of tl,e government's involvement in drug trafficking.

1014 L._ - L ._ _ _--'.

Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in me Age of Crisis, by Christian Parenti,

290 pages. $19.00. Analyzes d,e war on the poor ,';', d,e criminal justice system. Well

documented and includes first-hand reponing. Covers prisons, pam-I

military policing, SWAT teams and tl,e INS.

1002 L.._ - ' -_ _- '

Hepatiris and Liver Disease: What You Need to Know, by Melissa Palmer; I'vID,

I I I 457 pages. $17.95. Describes S)mptoms & treatments of hepatitis B & C and other
liver diseases. Includes medications to avoid, what diet to follow,

e.,ercises to perform, and a bibliography..

1031

Crime and Punishment In America, by Elliott Currie, 230 pages. $16.95. E£!ective

rebuttal to right-wing proponents of prison building. Fact-based argument shows dmt

crime is driven by poverty. Debunks prison myths and discusses ' ,

proven, elfu:tive means ofcrime prevention.

1019

Prison Madness: The Mental Healm Crisis Behind Bars and What We

Must Do About It, by Terry Kupers, Jossey-Bass, 245 pages. Hardback only,

prisoners please include any requited aumorization fonn $32.95. Psycllia-

trist writes about d,e mental healtll crisis in US. prisons md jails. Covers all

aspects of mental illness, prison rape, negative effects of long- ' ,

term isolation in control units, and more.

1003

Prison Writing in 20m Century America, by H. Bruce Franklin, Penguin

Books, 368 pages. $16.00. From Jack London to George Jackson, tllls

anmology provides a selection of some of tl,e best wriring 1 1

i pr I describing life behind bars in America.

1022 L--'--_-'

Soledad Bromer: The Prison Letters of George Jackson, by GeorgeJackson, Lawrence Hill Books, 339 pages. $18.95. Lucid ""-p11nation of ,e litiCS of

prison by a well-known prison activist More relevmt now tl,m

when it first appeared 40 years ago.

1016

Mmrijuana Law, by Richard Boire, Ronin, 271 pages. $17.95. Rxan1ines how to

reduce d,e probability of arrest and proserution for people accused of ilie use, sale or

possession of marijuana. Infu on leg,,] defenses, Searcll & seizures, , ,

surveillance, asset forfeiture ""d drug testing.

1008 LI_ - ' -_ _--'

Worse Than Slavery: Parchman Farm and me Ordeal ofJim CrowJustice, by

Da,~d Oshinsh:y, 306 pages. $16.00. Analysis of prison L1bor's roots in sLwery.

Focuses on prison plantations and self-sustaining prisons tl1l1t use 1 1

1

prison L1bor.

1007..

.

No Equal Justice: Race and Class in me American Criminal Jusrice

System, by Dl1\~d Cole, The New Press, 218 pages: $19.95. R,-plains how tl,e

criminal justice system perpetuates race and class inequality, 1 1

1

creating a two-tiered system of justice.

1028 L._ - ' - ._ _- - ' .

The Prison and the Gallows: The Politics of Mass Incarceration in

America, by Marie Gottschalk, Cambridge University Press, 451 pages.

$29.99. Great political analysis of tl,e confluence of events I

1

leading to 2.3 million people behind bars in ilie US. 1069.

.

The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, by Brandon

Sample, PLN Publishing, 200 pages. $49.95. TIllS is PLN's second published

I book, which exclusively covers ineffective assistance of counsel-related

issues in federal habeas petitions. Great resource for habeas 1

1

litigation, and contains hundreds of case cites!

1078

Factor 8 (DVD), a film by Kelly Duda, Concrete Films. $21.95. MO\~e·

about tl,e Arkansas prison blood scandal, in wlllch prison officials sold

infected blood harvested from prisoners. Note: This is a 1

DVD and cannot be shipped to prison.

1076 ...l L._ - ' -_ _

PLN Cumularive Index. $22.50 each. PIN Article Indexes prO\~de detailed information about all PLN articles, including title, auilior, issue, page number, topics covered, citations, and if it is state, BOP or jail specific. Can be searched on over 500 subjects such as medical neglect or se.,-ual assault. Circle tl,e index(es) you are ordering: 1990-1995, 1996-1998, 1999-1 2001, 2002-2004. (more recent indexes not yet available)

All books are soft cover except Prison Madness

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 7 of 64

T he Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel is the first in a series of books by Prison Legal News Publishing designed to help pro-se prisoner litigants identify and raise viable claims for potential habeas corpus relief. This book is an invaluable resource that identifies hundreds of cases where the federal courts have granted habeas relief to prisoners whose attorneys provided ineffective assistance of counseL
It will save litigants
thousands of hours of research and it focuses on the
WINNING cases criminal defendants needto
successfully challenge their convictions.
Well organized into 52 concise chapters, this easy to use book puts the law at the reader's fingertips. The Appendix includes pleadings and forms from successful habeas corpus cases that

"

The Habeas Citebook is a

nifty and concise self-help

guide for prisoners seeking

habeas relief based on claims of

ineffective assistance of counseL

Navigating the complex and

treacherous terrain of habeas

law is never easy; but claim-

ing that your lawyer screwed up

is even more difficult - espe-

cially from the confines of an

demonstrate formatting and show ill-equipped prison law library.

how to frame a winning argu-

"Brandon Sample has pro- .

ment that will persuade a court

vided an amazing and much-

to grant habeas relief. The Habeas

needed tool for prisoners who

Citebook explains the proce-

are forced to seek relief on their

dural and substantive complexi-

own. The book is thorough; but

ties of federal habeas corpus lit-

simple and readable. It starts .

igation with the goal of identify-

with a wonderfully well-orga-

ing and litigating claims involving nized listing of hundreds of dif-

ineffective assistance of counseL

ferent types of ineffective assis-

Brandon Sample is a success-

tance of counsel, set forth in the

ful jailhouse lawyer litigant incar-

form of citations to court rul-

cerated in the Bureau of Prisons.

ings - a novel approach that

He is a Prison Legal News contrib- not only acts as a springboard

uting writer and a member ofthe

for further research but also

National Lawyer's Guild. Editor

saves the prisoner countless

Susan Schwartzkopf has a mas-

hours of preliminary research:'

ter's degree in education and is

the director and editor in chief of

PETER SCHMIDT

Prison Legal News Publishing.

Publisher, Punch & Jurists

THE HABEAS CITEBOOK: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

By Brandon Sample 8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages

Number of copies ordered

Amount enclosed ______

I By: 0 check 0 new postage stamps 0 credit card 0 money order

ISBN 978-0-9819385-1-6
$49·95 3 or more copies ordered

Name

I

DOC/BOP Number _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.,----"_ _ _ _ _ _ __

at once $39.95 each

Institution/Agency _ _---'-_ _ _ _ _--"_ _---,-_ _ _ _ __

FREE Shipping & Handling·

Order by mail, phone, or on-line; City _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ State

ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

PRISON LEGAL NEWS p.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 1P5L6NCOL-00311

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 8 of 64
" - - - - - - - Copies of this very usable and useful gUide should be available in every prison library-to help incarcerated people give positive direction to their energies while making constructive use of their time. It is a well-established fact that people who have taken college courses in prison have a dramatically reduced rate of recidivism."
L--~_ -BELL GALE CHEVIGNY, PEN Prison Writing Program, _ _ _-' Editor Doing Time: 25 Years ofPrison Writing.

HIGH SCHOOL • VOCAT.IONAL • PARALEGAL • UNDERGRADUATE. GRADUATE COURSES

IIIIIIfIIHE GREATLY anticipated and newly updated third edition of the Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the
United States and Canada has finally arrived! Author Jon Marc Taylor's brand new version is the latest in this unique and highly successful gUidebook for the prisoner-student. This invaluable tool and how-to handbook provides the reader with step;.;bY-step instructions to find the appropriate educational program. for high school, vocational, paralegal, undergraduate, and graduate courses offered in
the u.s. and Canada today.
Invaluable re-entry tool
It presents more than ·160 program outlines and offers an easy-to-use format for the student to determine which program best suits their needs. It is ideal for the incarcerated student who does not have Internet access or the ability to attend education classes in person. This resource is indispensable

for the individual and beneficial for use in all prison libraries and education departments.
The Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook is the only book on the market for the nOli-traditional prisoner-student. It includes detailed listings of the quality, cost, and course offerings for all correspondence programs available to prisoners. In a time when so many academic opportunities in prisons have been eliminated, this book is an invaluable re-entry tool for prisoners who seek to further their education while incarcerated and to help them prepare for life and work following their release.
Jon Marc Taylor has more than 25 years experience as an incarcerated student, advocate for prisoner education, and author. He has successfully earned a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and a doctorate via correspondence courses while incarcerated. Editor Susan Schwartzkopf has a master's degree in education and 12 years experience teaching immigrants English language skills.

IrPR-ISON- ERS' - GUER- RILLA-HAN- DBOO-K TO-COR-RESP- ONDE-NCE- PROG- RAMS-IN T- HE U- NITED-STA- TES A- ND CA-NAD~ A I

By Jon Marc Taylor PHD 8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages ISBN 978-0-9819385-0-9
$49-95
3 or more copies ordered

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed _ _-'--__
o By: check 0 new postage stamps 0 credit card 0 money order m
Name ________________________ I
DOC/BOP Number _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~_ _ _ _ _ _ ___

at once $39.95 each

Institution/Agency _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-'---'-_ _ _ __

m FREE Shipping & Handling Address_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

I Order by mail, phone, or on-line. City _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.,-State

ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

I PRISON LE.GAl NE.WS P.O; Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 1P5L7NCOL-00312

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 9 of 64

9870.05 fa246305

EXHIBITR
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 158

;~,
. .-~' .'..\

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 10 of 64 Page 1P5L9NCOL-00169

Prison Legal News

P.O. Box 2420

West Br!lttl~boro, Vermont 05303.

•;<, ',. " .... ::<.;1>"~....: ..

\ ~

.-:;...I\;, .

""":~';;,:;:;:: ::":'::,';';f~,r" J:

'-,J:I'~ J

:.: ',C"'''F·';t'''''

't"'}. 'lr:~"

,1'.' .,,"t: .....:,',.>;r.'. '.'. x..\~,.. , .·r.".~··'.·f"" .. '~

"-,

.

. .. .. '" ':':::<.>~:.;:.:::~::::: ::~::;,::.~.".: ~ ,~I~·
... __ ..... H

RE1URN 10 SENDER

ANDREW pL.UMBER 2,010001809

As of ApI-ill, 2010 The Columbia County Jail

COL.UMBIA co JAIL.
901 pORT AVE ST HEL.ENS. OREGON 97051

- ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS This applies to ALL

incoming and out going mail

97().51 :~1$b%@24.20

N:IX J: I;;

'$170 .SE:;;L

00 02/061 ;1.;;L

l'U,;"nJRN '1'0 SENOE:R
NOT CELXVERA9LE AS ADDRESSED IJNAF.JU:': TO FOR\J}ARO

ee: 05303242020

*oe84-00517-31-44

In I I I I I) I) I) 11) II) I)~) 11))) JI JI JI) J) I I) JJJI I)) I I) Ill) I 11 I III I

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 11 of 64 Page 1P6L0NCOL-00170

Order Form
All pill'chases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new stamps (strips 01' books) or pre-stamped envelopes.

Books (3 & 4yr Subscription Specials: CIRCLE
one book Q! bonus issues, and DO NOT add Sill)
Protecting Your Health and Safety
.ru: 4 Bonus Issues (3-yr subscription offer)

$Amt.
Free

Prison Profiteers or With Liberty for Some

.ru: 6 Bonus Issues (4-yr subscription offer)

Free

Book Total (inc. all books bought separately)

Add 6% sales tax for Vermont residents only

ADD $6.00 S/H to book orders UNDER $50

PLN Subscriptions
6-month Subscription (Prisoners only) 1 yr Subscription (12 issues) 2 yr Subscription (24. plus 2 Bonus issues) 3 yr Sub (Circle bonus book abovem: 4 Bonus issues) 4 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above Q! 6 Bonus issues) Sample Issue - $3.50 each
TOTAL Amount Enclosed:

Send to:
Name: DOC#: Agency/lnst: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Address:
City/State/Zip: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
MAIL PAYl\IENT AND THIS FORl\:I TO:
I i
Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303

Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

PLN SubSCI'il!tion Rates

Subscription Rates
Prisoners *

1yr 2 }'l'S 3 yrs 4 yrs $24 $ 48 $ 72 $ 96

Individuals

$30 $ 60 $ 90 $120

Professionals

$80 $160 $240 $320

(Lawyers, govt. & professional agencies, libraries, etc.)

Sample issue for anyone - $3.50 each*

Six-month prisoner subscription for $12*

* Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books only) or pre-stamped envelopes, ifalluwed byprison policies.

1- - - - - - - - - S~;c;ip;i~~ -io;';'~;s! - - - - - - - - -
1
1 2 years - 2 bonus issues, for 26 monthly issues total. : 3 years - 4 bonus issues (40 total) OR Protecting Your Health and 1 Safety (see book description on the other side of this brochure). : 4 years - 6 bonus issues (54. total) OR your choice of With Libertyfor
!..S_:J1~e_~~~o~~r~e.::.~(::~d.:s:nl'~o~..?~ ~~o,:h.:r~i~e~ _____I

New 3 or 4-Year Subscril!tion Book Offers!

Subscribe or renew for three years at the regular price ($72 for prisoners & $90 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Protecting Your Health and Safety or four bonus issues of PLN! (40 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.
Subscribe or renew for four years at the regular price ($96 for prisoners & $120 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Prison Profiteers or With Liberty for Some, or 6 bonus issues of PLN! (54 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.

NO shipping charge for subscription bonus books!

NOTE: If you want the bonus issues of PLN instead of the free book offer, please indicate that on the Order Form.

:- - ---- -Co;'~a~~iT; io; PiN;-s-io~k iis~!- - -- -- ~

1

I

1 You can buy dozens of legal, social commentary, self- 1

I help books, and legal and regular dictionaries directly:

I
: from

PL~'s

boo~

store!

Ask

us

for

a

book

list,

or

view:

I our selectIOn online at:

1

1L ______w_w_w_.p_ri_so_n_le_ga_ln_e_w_s._or_g_/s_to_re_.a_s_px______ _:

All subscription rates & bonns offers are effective as of 5-1-10
and valid through 12-31-10
* No l'efunds after orders have been placed *

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
Eastern State Penitentiary 1829-1971 Charles Dickens visited Philadelphia's Eastern State Penitentiary in 1842 and he later VITote: "The System is rigid, strict and hopeless ... and I believe it to be cruel and wrong....I hold this slow and daily tampering with the mysteries of the brain to be immeasurably worse than any torture of the body." The prison remained open for 129 years after Dickens condemned it as being barbal'ic, and some of its inhumane practices continue to be used in prisons nationwide.
P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.prisonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 12 of 64 Page 1P6L1NCOL-00171

!; Ii ~., I' t;
c !]
P rison Legal News is an independent, non-profit 56-page monthly publication that reports, reviews and analyzes court rulings and news related to
prisonel's' rights and prison issues. PLN has a national
(U.S.) focus on state, federal and private prison issues, with some international coverage as well.
PLN's many thousands of subscribers and readers include civil and criminal trial and appellate attorneys, judges, public defenders, journalists, academics, paralegals, prisoners' rights activists, students, family members of prisoners, concerned individuals, politicians, other government· officials, and numerous local, state and federal p~isoners nationwide..
PLN is a vital link for prisoners who otherwise don't have acce~sto current legal and prison-related news and information.
"Invaluable resource.for anyone wanting 'user friendly' infornlation about current legal developments affecting
prisoners in the United States." -Human Rights Watch, a long-time PLN subscriber
P LN's coverage of prison issues includes medical neglect, disciplinary hearings, nutrition, living conditions, excessive force, court access, censorship, jail litigation, visiting, telephones, religious freedom, free speech, prison rape, mental health, attorney/ client access, sexual abuse of women prisoners, re-
taliation, the PLRA, HIV and hep C, control units,
the death penalty, attorney fees and much more.
PLN Subscl'ipt~on Rates
Prisoners: $12 for 6 months, $24 per year *
Non-incarcerated individuals: $30 per year Law firms, govt. agencies and libraries: $80 per year
Sample issue for anyone: $3.50 each* * Prisoners can pay with new stamps or pre-stamped envelopes

E ach monthly issue of PLN includes' three different types of reporting: .. A cover story on a prison-related issue. .. Reports on individual and class-action prison and jail-
related lawsuits when they are fIled, when a judgment is entered or the case settles, and when an appellate court decision is issued. We also have prison-related news articles. .. A "News In Brief" section that summarizes interesting news stories across the U.S. and internationally.
Each issue of PLN also contains numerous advertisements from businesses ·that provide prison-related personal and legal services and books. PLN further sells dozens of selfhelp, social commentary and legal books.
PLN also has cumUlative subject and case cite indexes for all PLN issues from 1990 through 2004. Write for info.
Special 3-yeal' Subscription Offel'!

Free with a 3-year PLN subscription! Four honus issues of PLN (40 issues total) 01" a free hook, Protecting Your Health and Safety! Cirde your bonus choice on the form on. the other. side ~f this. brochure (3-year subscription rates: prisoners $72, individuals $90, professionals $24.0).
Protecting Your Health and Safety, by ".,,-----1 Robert E. Toone. Published by the Southern Poverty Law Center, 325 pages '(2009). $10.00 (free with a 3-yeru: sub!). This book explains sOlne basic rights that 'prisoners
I have in a jail or prison in the U.S. It deals fi "'€I---~
maiUly with rights related to health and ...--.----1. safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by prison officials; it also explains how you can ellforce 'your rights.to health and safety within the facility and, if necessary, in court through litigation..Buy separately: _ __

r---------~-------------------------------,

: You Can Buy These Books Separately! :

,

I

I

.

_

I

: If you don't want to purchase a3 or 4-year subscription:

: to PLN, you can still purchase any of the bonus books:

: at the regular price. Just indicate which books you ,vant :

: to buy on this page; then enter the total cost on the other:

: side of this brochure on the "Book Total" line of the Or- :

: der Form. Shipping is $6 per order (not per book), and we:

: offer FREE shipping on book orders of $50 or more!' To :

: place a phone order, please call 802-257-134·2. We also:

: accept book orders online, at www.prisonlegalnews.org. :
L ____________._____________________________ J

D onations: PLN is a project ofihe non-profit Human Rights Defense Center. Your tax-deductible donations supp~rtour advocacy, free speech and First Amendment litigation efforts on behalf of prisoners and publishers. PLN not only provides uncensored prison-related news, but actively contests prison censorship that iriterferes with the delivery of our publication or any other PLN materials sent to prisoners. All donations further our goal of advocating for people imprisoned in U.S. detention facilities.
"Great source of information, especially in states such as Arizona where the law libraries have been taken from the inmates and replaced with paralegals." - SB, Arizona prisoner
Special 4-yeru' Subscl'iption Offel'!
Free with a 4-year PLN subscription!. Six honus issues PLN (54 issues total) or one n:ee hook, With Liberty for Some or Prison ProfiteersrCircle your bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (4-year subscription rates: prisoners $96, individuals $120, professionals $320). Note: Free book option is for one book.
With Liberty for Some: 500 Years' of Imprisonment in America, by· Scott Christianson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages (1998). $18.95 (free with a 4-yeru: sub!). A classic book and the best overall history of the American prison system from 14·92 to the 20th Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how little things have changed as far as prisons go in the U.S. over hundreds of years. Buy separately: ___
or
Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money from Mass Incarceration, edited by PaUl Wright & Tara Herivel, New Press (2007). $24.95 (n:ee with a 4-year sub!). This is the third in a series of PLN anthologies that examines the reality of mass imprisonment in the U.S. 'Prison Profiteer; is unique from other books on the market because it exposes and discusses who profits and benefits from mass imprison.ment, rather than who is harmed by the prison industrial complex and our nation's reliance on over-incarceration. Buy separately: _._ _

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 13 of 64 Page 1P6L2NCOL-00172

Order Form
All purchases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books, no singles) or pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed by prison policies.

Book Title / Number

Qty Total Cost

(attach another page if you are ordering more books)
Subtotal: Add 6% sales tax for Vr residents only: Add $6.00 SIH to orders UNDER $50: Total Order Amount:
Send to:
Name: DOC#: Agency/lnst: Address: City/State/Zip:
MAIL PAYMENT AND TillS FORM TO: Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303
Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

FREE SHIPPING On book and index orders OVER $50.00!
A $6 shipping chru-ge applies to all other hook amI index onlers.
(Free shipping policy in effect 'from Jan 1, :lOla Imtil further notice)

More Books for Sale!

Prisoners' Self-Help Litigation Manual, updated 4th, ed. (2010), by Jobn

Boston and Daniel Manville, Oxford Univ. Press, 1500 pages. $39.95. The

I I I premiere, must-have "Bible" of prison litigation for current and aspiring jail-
house lawyers. If you plan to litigate a prison or jail civil suit,

tlus book is a must-have.

1077...

Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the U.S.

and Canada, updated 3rd ed. by Jon Marc Taylor, Ph.D. and edited by Susan

Schwartzkopf, published by PLN, 221 pages. $49.95. Written by Missouri

prisoner Jon Marc Taylor, who obtained a B.S. degree, an M.A. degree and a

Doctorate, the Gllmil/a Halldbook contains contact information and descrip-

I I tions of high school, vocational, paralegal and college courses available
through correspondence study. Great resource for prisoners

who want to further their education.

1057 .
'---'-----'

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by Robert E. Toone, Southern Poverty

Law Center, 325 pages. $10.00. This book e"-plains basic rights that prisoners

have in a jail or prison in the U.S. It deals mainly \vith rights related to health

I I I and safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by prison officials; it also
explains how you can enforce your rights \vitllin the facility

and, if necessary, in court through litigation.

1060

Starting Out! The Complete Re-Entry Handbook, edited by William H.

Foster, Ph.D. & Carl E. Horn, Ph.D., Starting Gut Inc., 446 pages. $22.95.

Complete do-it-yourself re-entry manual and workbook for prisoners who

want to develop tlleir own re-entry plan to increase their chances of success

after tlley are released. Includes a \vide variety of resources, including a user

~ode to the Starting Gut website that can be accessed fOllOW-"

,

tngrelease.

1074 L,_--1.._ _ _-'.

Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners v. the U.S.A, by

Mumia Abu Jamal, City lights Publishers, 280 pages. $16.95. In Jailhollse LoIV-

yers, Prison Legal News columnist, award-\vinning journalist and death-row

prisoner Munlia Abu-Jamal presents tile stories and reflections of fellow pris-

oners-rurned-advocates who have learned to use tile court system to represent

other prisoners, and in some cases have won their freedom."

,

Must-read for jailhouse lawyers!

1073 ' .

,

How to Win Your Personal Injuty Claim, by Atry. Joseph Mattllews, 7th

edition, NGLG Press, 304 pages. $34.99. While not specifically' for prison-

related personal injury cases, this book provides comprehensive information

on how to handle personal injury and propert), damage claims arising from

~ccidents - including dealing with doctors, attorneys and"

,

tnsurance comparues.

1075 , .

.

All prices are effective as of9.;15-10 (plices Subjecttochange without notice)
* No refunds after ordel'S have been placed *

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe HumanRights Defense Center
2010 PLN BOOK LIST
Prices Subject to Change Without Notice
Graphic from: Books 2 Prisoners, Vancouver, Be
P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.prisonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 14 of 64 Page 1P6L3NCOL-00173

Check the box of the books you want to buy and use the Order Fonn on the other side of this brochure to add up the cost of your order. FREE SHIPPING for book and index orders OVER $50. There is a $6 shipping charge for all other book and index orders.

Prison Profiteers, edited by Paul Wright and Tam HeriveI, 323 pages. $24.95. This is the

thin:! and latestbook in a series ofPrison Legal News anthologies that examines the reality of

mass inlprisonment in Amerim (The other tities are TbeCelfjllgrjAJlJenra & PdsOIlNaiiOll,

see below). Pdsoll Projteers is unique from other books because it ""poses and discusses

who profits and benefits from moss inlprisonmen~ ratiler than who is 1

I

1

hanned by it and how.

1063 L._ - - - ' . ' - - _ - - ' .

Prison Nation: The Warehousing of Ametica's Poor, edited by Tam Hetivel and Paul

Wrigh~ 332 pages. $35.95. PIN anthology ""poses me datk side ofme 1 I

1

1ock-em-up' political agenda and legal climate in me U.s.

1041 . .

.

The CeIling of Ametica, edited by Daniel Burton Rose, Dan Pens and Paul Wrigh~ 264

I pages. $22.95. PIN anthology presents a demiled "inside" look at me

I .

I

workings ofthe American crirninaI justice system.

1001 . .

.

Everyday Letters for Busy People, by Debra Hart May, 287 pages. $18.99.

I Hundreds of sample letters mat can be adapted for most any purpose, including
letters to government agencies and officials. Has numerous

tips for writing effective letters.

1048 L._ - - '_ _- - '

The Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System, by
Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sara J. Bennan:-Barre~ Nolo Press, 608 pages. $39.99.

R"Plains what happens in a ctin1inal case from being arrested to sentenciog, and what

your rights are at each stage of me process. Uses an easy to under-I

stand question-and-answer format

1038 L._ - - '_ _ _- '

Represent Yourself in Court: How to Prepare & Try a Winning Case, by
Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sara J. Berman-Barre~ Nolo Press, 528 pages. $39.99.

Breaks down the civil trial process in easy-to-understand steps so you can effectively

represent yours~ in c.ourt. The authors ""plain what to say in I I

I

co~ how to say 1t, etc.

1037...

Law Dictionary, Random House Webster's, 525 pages. $19.95. Comprehensive , -

to-date law dictionary e."Plains more than 8,500 legal terms. 1 1

Covers civil, criminal, commercial & international law.

1036 L._ - ' - ._ _- - '

I I I The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, by Jane Straus, 110 pages.
$14.95. A guide to grammar and punctuation by an educator

with ",,-perience teaci1ing English to prisoners.

1046 L._ - - ' ._ _ _--'.

Legal Research: How to Find and Understand the Law, by Stephen Elias and

Susan Levinkind, 568 pages. $49.99. Comprehensive and easy to understand guide

on researching the law. Explains case law, statutes and digests, I I

I

and much more. Includes practice e.,ercises.

1059 L._-1.._ _ _-'.

Deposition Handbook, by Paul Bergman and Albert Moore, Nolo Press, 352

pages. $34.99. How-to handbook for anyone who conducts a I I

I

deposition oris going to be deposed.

1054 . .

.

Spacrish-English/English-Spacrish Dictionary, Random House. $8.95. Two

sections, Spanish-English and English-Spanish. 60,000+ entries

from A to Z; includes Western Hemisphere usage.

1034 I'--_..L-_ _--'

Please Note: All book and index orders are mailed via the U.S. Postal
Service with Delivery Confinriation. PLN does not assume any respon-
sibility to replace book or mdex orders once their delivery to the destination address (facility) is confirmed by ~e U.S. Postal Service.

Writing to Wrn: The Legal Writer, by Steven D. Stark, Broadway Books/Random .

1 House, 283 pages. $19.95. E."Plains the wtiting ofeffective complaints, I

I·

responses, briefu, motions and other legal papers.

.1 035 L._ - ' ._ _---'.

Actual Innocence: WhenJustice Goes Wrong and How to Make it Right, updated

paperback ed, by Barry Scheck, Peter Neufeld and Jinl Dwyer; 403 pages. $16.00.

Founders of me Innocence Project e>.pl1in how crirninaI defendants are wrongly con-

I victed On a regular basis. &plains DNA testing and how it works to free the innocent

Devastating critique of police and prosecutorial misconduct and me I

I

S}'Stern that ensures such abuses continue.

1030 L._-1-._ _ _..1.

Rogel's Thesaurus, 717 pages. $8.95. Helps you frod the right word for what

you want to say. 11,000 words listed alphabetically ,vid, over 200,000 synonyms

I I and antonyms. Sample sentences and parts of speech shown for every main

word. Covers all levels of vocabulary and identifies informal

I

and slang words.

1045 L.--,--'L._ _--'.

Webster's English Dictionary, Newly revised and updated, Random House.

$8.95. 75,000+ entries. Includes tips on writing and word usage, and has up-

dated geographical and· biographical entries. Includes· recent

business and computer terms.

1033

I I Capital Crimes, by George Winslow, Mondliy Review, 360 pages. $19.00.

E"-plains how economic policies create and foster crime, and

I

how corporate & government crime is rarely punished. 1024
'---'-----'

With Liberty for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America, by Scott

Christianson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages. $18.95. ·The best

overall history of d,e American prison system from 1492 rllrough the 20th

I I I Century. Well ,,,ritten and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how little
things have changed as far as prisons go in the U.S. over

hundreds of years.

1026..

.

I Ten Men Dead: The story of the 1981 Irish hunger strike, by David Beres-

ford, Atlantic Monthly Press, 334 pages. $16.95. Inside story of

I

I

IRA prisoners at Belfast's Long Kesh prison.

1006 . .

.

I Finding the Right Lawyer, by Jay Foonberg, ABA, 256 pages. $19.95. Ex-
plains how to detemaine your legal needs, how. to evaluate a I I

lawyer's qualifications, fee payments, and more.

1015..

.

Seize the Day! 7 Steps to Achieving the Extraordinary in an Ordinary

World, by Danny Cox and John Hoover, 256 pages. $15.99. Provides 7 steps

to changing your expectations and envisioning yourself as being a successful

and respected person-which is essential to changing the I I

I

course of one's life.

1052..

.

Women Behind Bars, The Crisis of Women in the U.S. Prison System, by

Silja J.A. Talvi, Seal Press, 295 pages. $15.95. Best book available that covers

issues related to imprisoned women, based on interviews with I

hundreds ofwomen behind bars.

1066 L._..lL_ _--'

10 Insider Secrets to a Winning Job Search, by Todd Bermont, 216 pages. $15.99. Roadmap on how to get a job even under adverse circumstances-like being an e.x-con. Includes how to develop a winning atritude, write attentiongrabbing resumes, prepare for interviews, networking, how to i i present your strengths to an employer, and much more! 1056 LI_...1-_ _ _-'

The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, 2003

Ed. by Alfred McCoy, 734 pages. $34.95, Documented expose I I

I

of the government's involvement in drug trafficking.

1014 L._ - - ' . ._ _ _- ' .

Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the .Age of Crisis, by Christian Parenti,

290 pages. $19.00. Analyzes me war on me poor via the ctin1inaI justice S}'Stem. Well

documented and includes first-hand repotting. Covers prisons, pam-I

military policing; SWAT teams and me INS.·

1002 L._..L..._ _-'

Hepatitis and Liver Disease: What You Need to Know, by Melissa Palmer, MD,

457 pages. $17.95. Describes symptoms & treatments of hepatitis B & C and odler

liver diseases. Includes medications to avoid, what diet to follow, 1 1

I

exercises to perfonn, and a bibliography.

1031

Ctinae and Punishment In Ametica, by Elliott Cutrie, 230 pages. $16.95. E£rective

rebuttnl to right-wing proponents of prison building. Fact-based rugument shows that

crime is driven by poverty. Debunks prison myths and discusses 1 I

I

proven, effective means ofcrime prevention. ..

1019

Prison Madness: The Mental Health Crisis Behind Bars and What We

Must Do About It, by Terry Kupers,Jossey-Bass, 245 pages. Hardback only,

prisoners please include any required authorization form. $32.95. Psychia-

trist writes about me mental healm crisis in U.S. prisons and jails. Covers all

aspects of mental illness, prison rape, negative effects of long-I I

I

term isolation in control units, and mnre.

1003

Prison Writing in 20th Century America, by H. Bruce Franklin, Pengoin

I Books, 368 pages. $16.00. From Jack London to George Jackson, dus
anthology provides a selection of some of the best writing I

describing life behind bars in America.

1022 L._...J.._._ _- '

T Soledad Brother: The Prison Letters of George Jackson, by GeorgeJackson,
Lawrence Hill Books, 339 pages. $18.95. Lucid ""planation of je litiCS of I

prison by a well-known prison activist More relevant now than

when it first appeared 40 years ago.

1016

Marijuana Law, by Richard Boire, Ronia, 271 pages. $17.95. Examines how to

I reduce the probability of attest and prosecution for people accused of me use, sale or

pnssession of marijuana. Info on legal defenses, search & seizures, I

I

surveillance, asset furfeiture and drug testing.

1008 L._...l._ _--'.

Worse Than Slavery: Parchman Fann and me Ordeal ofJim Crow Justice, by

I David Oshins1:y, 306 pages. $16.00. Analysis of prison labot's roots in slavery.

Focuses on prison plantations and self-sustaining plisons that use

I

I

prison labor.

1007..

.

No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the American Criminal Justice

System, by David Cole, The New Press, 218 pages. $19.95. &plains how the

ctin1inal justice system perpetuates race and class inequality, I I

I

creating a two-tiered system of justice.

1028 L._ - ' ._ _- - ' .

The Prison and the Gallows: The Politics of Mass Incarceration in America, by Marie Gottschalk, Cambridge University Press, 451 pages. $29.99. Great political analysis of the confluence of events ' leading to 2.3 million people behind bars in d,e U.S. 1069 LI_..lL_ _-'

The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, by Brandon

Sample, PIN Publishing, 200 pages. $49.95. This is PLN's second published

I book, which exclusively covers ineffective assistance of counsel-related
issues in fedecal habeas petitions. Great resource for habeas I I

litigation, and contains hundreds of case cites!

1078..

.

Factor 8 (DVD), a film by Kelly Duda, Concrete Films. $21.95. Movie

about the Arkansas prison blood scandal, in wlucll prison officials sold

infected blond harvested from prisoners. Note: This is a I

DVD and cannot be shipped to prison.

1076 L._ - ' -_ _- '

PLN Cumulative Index. $22.50 each. PLN Article Indexes provide detailed information about all PIN articles, including tide, author, issue, page number, topics covered, citations, and if it is state, BOP or jail specific. Can be searched on over 500 subjects such as medical negiect or sexual assault. Circle the index(es) you are ordecing: 1990-1995, 1996-1998, 1999-1 2001, 2002-2004, (more recent indexes not yet available)

All books are soft cover except Prison Madness

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 15 of 64

T he Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel is the first in a series of books by Prison Legal News Publishing designed to help pro-se prisoner litigants identify and raise viable claims for potential habeas corpus relief. This book is an invaluable resource that identifies hundreds of cases where the federal courts have granted habeas relief to prisoners whose attorneys provided ineffective assistance of counsel.
It will save litigants thousands ofhours
of research and it focuses on the WINNING cases criminal defendants need to successfully challenge their convictions.
Well organized into 52 concise chapters, this easy to use book puts the law at the reader's fingertips. The Appendix includes pleadings and forms from suc- . cessful habeas corpus cases that

"

The Habeas Citebook is a

nifty and concise self-help

guide for prisoners seeking

habeas relief based on claims of

ineffective assistance of counsel.

Navigating the complex and

treacherous terrain of habeas

law is never easy; but claim-

ing that your lawyer screwed up

is even more difficult - espe-

cially from the confines of an

demonstrate formatting and show ill-equipped prison law library.

how to frame a winning argu-

"Brandon Sample has pro-

ment that will persuade a court

vided an amazing and much-

to grant habeas relief. The Habeas

needed tool for prisoners who

Citebook explains the proce-

are forced to seek relief on their

dural and substantive complexi-

own. The book is thorough; but

ties of federal habeas corpus lit-

simple and readable. It starts

igation with the goal of identify-

with a wonderfully well~orga­

ing and litigating claims involving nized listing of hundreds of dif-

ineffective assistance of counsel.

ferent types of ineffective assis-

Brandon Sample is a success-

tance of counsel, set forth in the

ful jailhouse lawyer litigant incar-

form of citations to court rul-

cerated in the Bureau of Prisons.

ings - a novel approach that

He is a Prison Legal News contrib- not only acts as a springboard

uting writer and a member of the

for further research but also

National Lawyer's Guild. Editor

saves the prisoner countless

Susan Schwartzkopf has a mas-

hours of preliminary research:'

ter's degree in education and is

the director and editor in chief of

PETER SCHMIDT

Prison Legal News Publishing.

Publisher, Punch & Jurists

THE HABEAS CITEBOOK: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

By Brandon Sample 8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed _ _ _ __
I By: 0 check 0 new postage stamps 0 credit card 0 money order

ISBN 978-0-9819385-1-6

Name __________________________~_________________

$49·95
3 or more copies ordered

DOC/BOP Number __________________________________

at once $39.95 each

Institution/Agency ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____

FREE Shipping & Handling Address_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Order by mail, phone, or on-line. City _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ State

ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

L _

PRISON LEGAL NEWS P.O. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303 Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Td 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 1P6L4NCOL-00174

" Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 16 of 64 -----------, Copies of this very usable and useful gUide

should be available in every prison library-to

help incarcerated people give positive direc-

tion to their eryergieswhile making constructive

use of theirtime.:lt is a well-established fact that

people who have taken college courses in prison

have a dramatically reduced rate of recidivism."

. -BELL GALE CHEVIGNY, PEN Prison Writing Program,

~-----

Editor DOing Time: 25 Years ofPrison Writing. -----~

HIGH SCHOOL • VOCATIONAL • PARALEGAL • UNDERGRADUATE. GRADUATE COURSES

IIIiIIIIIIIIHE GREATLY anticipated and newly updated third edition of the Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the
United States and Canada has finally arrived! Author Jon Marc Taylor's brand new version is the latest in this unique and highly successful gUidebook for the prisoner-student. This invaluable tool and how-to handbook provides the reader with step-by-step instructions to find the appropriate educational program for high school, vocational, paralegal, undergraduate, and graduate courses offered in the U.S. and Canada today.
Invaluable re-entry tool
It presents' more than 160 program outlines and offers an easy-to-use format for the student to determine which program best suits their needs. It is ideal for the incarcerated student who does not have Internet access or the ability to attend education classes in person. This resource is indispensable

for the individual and beneficial for use in all prison libraries and education departments.
The Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook is the only book on the market for the non-traditional prisoner-student. It includes detailed listings of the quality, cost, and course offerings for all correspondence programs available to prisoners. In a time when so many academic opportunities in prisons have been eliminated, this book is an invaluable re-entry tool for prisoners who seek to further their education while incarcerated and to help them prepare for life and work following their release.
Jon Marc Taylor has more than 25 years experience as an incarcerated student, advocate for prisoner education, and author. He has successfully earned a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and a doctorate via correspondence courses whileincarcerated. Editor Susan Schwartzkopf has a master's degree in education and 12 years experience teaching immigrants English language skills.

rPR~ISON- ERS' - GUER- RILLA-HAN- DBOO-K TO-COR- RESP- ONDE- NCE- PROG- RAM- S IN T- HE U- NITED-STA- TES A- ND CA-NAD~ A I

By Jon Marc Taylor PHD 8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages ISBN 978-0-9819385-0-9

Number of copies ordered ___ Amount enclosed _ _ _ __
By: D check D new postage stamps D credit card D money order I
Name _____________________________

$49.95
3 or more copies ordered

DOC/BOP Number ______________________

at once $39.95 each

Institution/Agency __________________________

FREE Shipping & Handling Address,________________________

I Order by mail, phone, or on-line. City _______________ State

ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

I PRISON LEGAL NEWS P.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 1P6L5NCOL-00175

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 17 of 64

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBIT
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 166

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 18 of 64 Page 1P6L7NCOL-00064

Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 West Brattleboro, Vermont 05303

.;.i.:[:J:\. '

V4H,:rrF" '\tT ";.' l,l)""ii: ,

ll~I\j:i ·~.I(:"T

• >'

......

• I

. . , ....

.'

(l;~~n::l( .,......

--- :t~tr;11:~ ,i~1'·'m,.>~;~

. ' ':'1·1"16,,'2/3,11· .Nt', ~. 'C'(~;:;~"'r{(:;;

2TUAN TO SEN-DER ,\,;, 59581 ** EXPIRES: 1/2012

JASON QUADE 2010001 105

COLUMBIA Co JAIL

901 PORT AVE 5T HELENS, OREGON 97051

As of April 1, 2010

The Columbia County Jail

ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS

This applies to AL.L incoming and out going mail

~:r?c:~::; bEk~~\~4.20

NXX%E

970 BE 1

00 O~/10J11

fi'e-:'rUJ"N TO SF.:N:DE:F?
NOT DELIVERAeLE AS ADDRESSED I.JN,AtElL,t:; TO F-·O.F:?~l)~m

ec: 05~03242020

*2.83-05789-01-44

llL)) J) J») jj )J1.,)J.l )JJ) ))}) }J) ))))) 1)11JJ )))))J1J} J.l Jl.dJJJ

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 19 of 64 Page 1P6L8NCOL-00065

Order Form
All pm'chases must he pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new stamps (sb'ips or hooks) or pre-stamped envelopes.

Books (3 & 4yr Subscription Specials: CIRCLE
one book QJ; bonus issues, and DO NOT add S/H)
Protecting Your Health and Safety
m: 4 Bonus Issues (3-yr subscription offer)

$Amt.
Free

Prison Profiteers m: With Liberty for Some

or 6 Bonus Issues (4-yr subscription offer)

Free

Book Total (inc. all books bought separately)

Add 6% sales tax for Vermont residents only

ADD $6.00 StH to book orders UNDER $50

PLN Subscl'iptions
6-month Subscription (Prisoners only) 1 yr Subscription (12 issues) 2 yr Subscription (24 plus 2 Bonus issues) 3 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above QJ; 4 Bonus issues) 4 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above QJ; 6 Bonus issues) Sample Issue - $3.50 each
TOTAL Amount Enclosed:

Send to:
Name:
DOC#: Agency/Inst: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Address: City/State/Zip: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

MAIL PAY]HENT AND THIS FORM TO:

~

Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303

Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

PLN Subscription Rates

Subscription Rates
Prisoners *

1yr 2 yrs 3 yrs 4 yrs $24 $ 48 $ 72 $ 96

Individuals

$30 $ 60 $ 90 $120

Professionals

$80 $160 $240

(Lawyers, govt. & professional agencies, libraries, etc.)

Sample issue for anyone - $3.50 each*

$320

Six-month prisoner subscription for $12* * Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books
only) or pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed ry prison policies.

:- - - - - - - - - S~;c;ip;i~~ B-o~~;;s! - - - - - - - --
1
1 2 years - 2 bonus issues, for 26 monthly issues total. : 3 years - 4· bonus issues (40 total) OR Protecting Your Health and 1 Safety (see book description on the other side of this brochure). : 4 years - 6 bonus issues (54 total) OR your choice of With Lwertyfor
I !..~~e_~~n.::0~ ~r~e.:r~(~:.d:S~T~o~..?~ ~:.o~h.:r~i~e~ _____

New 3 or 4-Yeal' Subscription Book Offers!

Subscribe or renew for three years at the regular price ($72 for prisoners & $90 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Protecting Your Health and Safety or four bonus issues of PLN! (40 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.
Subsct'ibe or renew for four years at the regular price ($96 for prisoners & $120 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Prison Profiteers or With Liberty for Some, or 6 bonus issues of PLN! (54 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.

NO shipping charge for subscription bonus books!

NOTE: If you want the bonus issues of PLN instead of the free book offer, please indicate that on the Order Form.

:- - - - - - iT; -C-o~~~~ £0; PiN;-s-io~k iis~!- -- - - - ~

1

1

1 You can buy dozens of legal, social commentary, self- 1

: help books, and legal and regular dictionaries directly:

: from PL~'s boo~\: store! Ask us for a book list, or view:

1 our selectIOn online at:

1

1

www.prisonlegalnews.org/store.aspx

:

1______ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

All subscription rates & bonus offers are effective as of 5-1-10
and valid through 12-31-10
* No refundS after Ol-del"S have heen placed *

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
Eastern State Penitentiary 1829-1971
Charles Dickens visited Philadelphia's Eastern State Penitentiary in 1842 and he later wrote: "The System is rigid, strict and hopeless ... and I believe it to be cruel and wrong....I hold this slow and daily tampering with the mysteries of the brain to be immeasurably worse than any torture of the body." The prison remained open for 129 years after Dickens condemned it as being barbaric, and some of its inhumane practices continue to be used in prisons nationwide.
P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.pt·isonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 20 of 64 Page 1P6L9NCOL-00066

~ u
P rison Legal News is an independent, non-profit 56-page monthly publication that reports, reviews and analyzes court rulings and news related to
prisoners' rights and prison issues. PLN has it national
(U.S.) focus on state, federal and private prison issues, with some internationalcoverage as well.
PLN's many thousands of subscribers and readers include civil and criminal trial and appellate attorneys, judges, public defenders, journalists, academics, paralegals, prisoners' rights activists, students, family members of prisoners, concerned individuals, politicians, other government officials, and numerous local, state and fedel'a1 prisoners nationwide.
PLN is a vital link for pris~ners who otherwise d@'t have access to current legal a~d prison-related news
and information.
"Invaluable resource for anyone wanting 'user friendly' . information about cUrrent legal developmentll affecting
. prisoners in the United States>' ,.., Hu'than Rights Watch, a long-time PLN subscriber'
P LN's coverage of prison issues includes medical neglect, disciplina1"y hearings, nutrition, living conditions, excessive force, court access, censorship, jail litigation, visit~g, telephones, religious freedom, free speech, prison rape, mental health, attorney/ client access, sexual abuse of women prisoners, retaliation, the PLRA, HIV and hep C, control units, the death penalty, attorneyfees and much more.
PLN Subscription Rates Prisoners: $12 for 6 months, $24 per year * Non-incarcerated individuals: $30 per year Law firms, govt. agencie,s and libraries: $80 per year Sample issue fm anyone: $3.50 each*
* Prisoners can pay with new stamps or pre-stamped envelopes

E ach monthly issue of PLN .includes three different types of reporting:
• A cover story on a prison-related issue. , 0 Reports on individual and class-action prison and jail-
rel~ted lawsuits when they are fUed, when a judgment is entered or the case settles, and when an appellate court decision is issued. We also have prison-related news articles. • A "News In Brief' section that summarizes interesting news stories across the U.S. and internatio·nally.
Each issue of PLN also contains numerous advertisements from businesses that provide prison-related personal and legal services and books. PLN further' sells dozens of selfhelp, social commentary alid legal books.
PLN also has 'cumulative subject and case cite indexes for
_ . _- "'-----"---1 all PLN issues from 1990 through 2004,. Write for info. ~ Special 3-yeat'· Subscription Offer:

Free with a 3-year PLN subscription! Four bonus issues of PLN (40 issues total) Ol~ a free book, Protecting Your Health and Safety! Circle your bo;nus choice on the form on the other side· of. this brochure (3~year subscription rates: prisoners $72, individuals $90, professionals $24,0).
Protecting Your.Health and Safety, ,by I'l'Ei------; Robert E. Toone. Published by the Southern Poverty Law Center, 325 pages (2009). $10.00 (free with a 3-year sub!). This book
I explains sOJrie basic rights that prisoners
have in 'a jail or prison in the U.S. It deais Ii ...@ ____
maiuIy with rights related to health and ·...--.----1. safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by prison officials; it also explains how you can enforce your rights to health and safety within the facility and, if necessary, in court through litigation. Buy separately: ___

r--------------~--------------~-----------,

: You Can Buy These Books Separately!

I

I

I

,

I

: If you don't want to purchase a 3 or 4-year subscription:

: to PLN, you can still purchase any of the bonus books:

: at the regular price. Just indicate which books you 'want:

: to buy on this page, then enter the total cost on the other:

: side of this brochure on the "Book Total" line of the Or- :

: der Form. Shipping is $6 per order (not per book), and we :

: offer FREE shipping on book orders of $50 or more! To :

: place a phone order, please call 802-257-1342. We also:

:La_c_c_e_p_t b_o_o_k__o_rd_e_r_s_o_n_li_n_e_, _a_t _w_w_·_w_.p_r_is_o_u_le_g._a_ln_e_w_s_.o_r_g._ __:I

D onations: PLN is a project of the non-profit Human Rights Defense Center. Your tax-deductible donations support our advocacy, free speech and First Amendment litigation efforts on behalf of prisoners and publishers. PLN not only provides uncensored prison-related news, but actively contests prison censorship that interferes with the delivery of our publication or any other PLN materials sent to prisoners. All donations further our goal of advocating for people imprisoned in U.S. detention facilitie~.
"Great source of information, especially in states such as Arizona where the law libraries have been taken from the inmates and replaced with paralegals." - SB, Arizona prisoner
Special 4-year Subscription Offet'!
Free with a 4-year PLN subscription! Six bonus issues of PLN (54 issues total) m: one free book, With Liberty for Some or Prison Profiteers! Circle your bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (4-year subscription rates: prisoners $96, individuals $120, professionals $320). Note: Free book option is for Q!l& boole
With Liberty for Some: 500 Years 0fIT.m":r,,, ,,,,,,,,,;·,1
Imprisonment in America, by Scott Christianson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages (1998). $18~95 (free with a 4-year sub!). A classic book and the best overall history of the American prison system from 1492 to the 20th Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how little things have changed as far as prisons go in the U.S. over hundreds of years. Buy separately: _ __
or
Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money from Mass Incarceration, edited by Paul Wright & Tara Herivel, New Press (2007). $24.95 (free with a 4-year sub!). This is the third in a series of PLN anthologies that examines the reality of mass imprisonment in the U.S. Prison Profiteers is unique from other books on the market because it exposes and discusses who profits and benefits from :rp.ass imprisonment, rather than who is harmed by the prison industrial complex and our nation's reliance on over-incarceration. Buy separately: _ __

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 21 of 64 Page 1P7L0NCOL-00067

Order Form
All purchases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books, no singles) or
pre-stamped envelopes, if allowed by prison policies.

Book Title / Number

Qty Total Cost

(attach "another page if you are ordering more books)
Subtotal: Add 6% sales tax for VT residents only: Add $6.00 S/R to orders UNDER $50: Total Order Amonnt:
Send to:
Name: DOC#: Agency/lnst: Address: City/State/Zip:
MAIL PAYl\iENT AND THIS FORM TO: Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303
Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

FREE SIDPPING
On hook and index orders OVER $50.00! A $6 shipping charge applies to all other book aml index onlel's.
(Free shipping policy in effect from Jail 1, 2010 mltiJ fmther notice)

More Books for Sale!

Prisoners' Self-Help Litigation Manual, updated 4th ed. (2010), by John

Boston and Daniel Manville, Oxford Univ. Press, 1500 pages. $39.95. The
I I I premiere, must-have "Bible" of prison litigation for current and aspiring jail-
house lawyers. If you plan to litigate a prison or jail civil suit,

this book is a must-have.

1077

Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the U.S.

and Canada, updated 3rd ed. by Jon Marc Taylor, Ph.D. and edited by Susan

Schwartzkopf, published by PLN, 221 pages. $49.95. Written by l:vIissoari

prisoner Jon Marc Taylor, who obtained a B.S. degree, an M.A. degree and a

Doctorate, the Gllemlla Hafldbook contains contact information and descrip-

I I tions of high school, vocational, paralegal and college courses available
through correspondence study. Great resource for prisoners

who want to further their education.

1057 '----'------'

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by Robert E. Toone, Southern Poverty

Law Center, 325 pages. $10.00. Tlus book e"1'lains basic rights that prisoners

have in a jailor prison in the U.S. It deals mainly \vith rights related to healdl
I I I and safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by prison officials; it also
explains how you can enforce your rights widun d,e facility

and, if necessary, in court dlroUgh litigation.

1060 . .

.

Starting Out! The Complete Re-Entry Handbook, edited by William H.

Foster, Ph.D. & Cad E. Horn, Ph.D., Starting Out Inc., 446 pages. $22.95.

Complete do-it-yourself re-entry manual and workbook for prisoners who

want to develop d,eir own re-entry plan to increase their chances of success

after dley are released. Includes a wide variety of resources, including a user

code to the Starting Out website that can be accessed follOW-I

ingrelease.

1074 L._ - ' -_ _ _- '

Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners v. the U.S.A, by

Mumia Abu Jamal, City Lights Publishers, 280 pages. $16.95. In Jailbollse Law-

yers, Prison Legal News columnist, award-\vinning journalist and death-row

prisoner Mumia Abu-:Jamal presents d,e stories and reflections of fellow pris-

I I I oners-rurned-advocates who have learned to use the court system to represent
other prisoners, and in some cases have won their freedom.

Must-read for jailhouse lawyers!

1073 " .

.

How to Win Your Personal Injury Claim, by Atty. Joseph Matthews, 7d,

edition, NOLO Press, 304 pages. $34.99. While not specifically for prison-

related personal injury cases, d,is book prO\~des comprehensive information

I I I on how to handle personal injury and property damage claims arising from
?ccidents - including dealing with doctors, attorneys and

illsurance comparues.

1075 " .

"

All prices ru.e effective as of9-15-10 (plices subject to change without notice)
* No refunds after orders have been placed *

PRIS-ON. EEGAL NEWS
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
2010 PLN BOOK LIST
Prices Subject to Change Without Notice
Graphic from: Books 2 Prisoners, Vancouver, Be P.O. Box 2420,Bl'attleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.pl·isonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 22 of 64 Page 1P7L1NCOL-00068

Check the box of the books you want to buy and use the Order Form on the other side of this brochure to add up the cost of your order. FREE SHIPPING for book and index orders OVER $50. There is a $6 shipping charge for all other book and index orders.

Prison Profiteers, edited by Paul Wright and Tara Herivel, 323 pages. $?A.95. 11ns is d,e

d1ird and 11test book in a series ofPrison I.egaI News anmologies dlat examines d,e reality of
mass imprisonment in America. (Ille odler tides are The Cellillg tfAJ/lenro & Plisoll NaiiOIl,

see below). Plisoll Prrjileer.r is unique from odler books beelUse it "'--poses and discusses

man who profits and benefits from mass imprisonmen~ ramer who is 1

1

1

harmed by it and how.

1063 .

.

.

Prison Nation: The Warehousing ofAmerica's Poor, edited by Tara Herivel and Paul

Wrigh~ 332 pages. $35.95. PIN anmolog)' "'-'Poses d,e d1lk side ofd,e 1 1

1

1ock-em·up' politiCll agenda and legal climate in me U.s.

1041 .

.

.

The CeIling of America, edited by Daniel Burton Rose, Dan Pens and Paul Wrigh~ 264

pages. $22.95. PIN andlOlogy presents a detniled "inside" look at d,e 1 1

1

workings ofd,e American aimir1.11 justice system.

1001..

.

Everyday Letters for Busy People, by Debra Hart May, 287 pages. $18.99.

Hundreds of sample letters that can be adapted for most any purpose, including

letters to government agencies and officials. Has numerous

rips for wriring effecrive letters.

104il

The Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System, by

Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sara j. Berman-Barre~ Nolo Press, 608 pages. $39.99.

lli.'Plains what happens in a criminal case from being arrested to sentencing, and what

your rights are at eacl1 stage of me process. Uses an easy to under-I

stand question-and-answer fo=t.

.

1038 L._ - '_ _ _- '

Represent Yourself in Court: How to Prepare & Try a Winning Case, by

Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sara]. Bennan-Barre~ Nolo Press, 528 pages. $39.99.

Breaks down d,e civil trial process in easy-to-understand steps so you can effecrively

represent yoursel~ in court. 11,e aumors e..'.Plain what to say in 1 1

1

court. how to say l~ etc.

1037...

Law Dictionary, Random House Webster's, 525 pages. $19.95. Comprel1ensi\'e , .

to-date 11w dictionary e..'.P11ins more than 8,500 legal terms. 1 1

Covers civil, criminal, commercial & intemationallaw.

1036 L._--.J.'-_ _..J

I I I The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, by jane Straus, 110 pages.
$14.95. A guide to grammar and punctuarion by an educator

with e.'{perience teaching English to prisoners.

1046

Legal Research: How to Find and Understand the Law, by Stephen Elias and

Susan Levinkind, 568 pages. $49.99..Comprcl1ensive and easy to understand guide

on researclling the law. R"''P11ins case law, statutes and digests, 1 1

I

and mucll more. Includes practice e.'{ercises.

1059 L.._ - ' - ._ _ _- ' .

Deposition Handbnok, by Paul Bergman and Albert Moore, Nolo Press, 352

pages. $34.99. How-to handbook for anyone who conducts a 1 1

1

deposition or is going to be deposed.

1054 . .

.

Spanish-English/English-Spanish Dictionary, Random House. $8.95. Two

sections, Spanish-English and English-Spanish. 60,000+ entries 1

from A to Z; includes Westem Hemisphere usage.

1034 L.._ - - '_ _ _- '

Please Note: All book and index orders are mailed via the U.S. Postal Service with Delivery Confinnation. PIN does not assume any responsibility to replace book or index orders once their delivery to the destination addJ:ess (facility) is confinned by the U.S. Postal Service.

I I I Writing to Wm: The Legal Writer, by Ste\·en D. Stark, Broadway Books/Random
House, 283 pages. $19.95. R"''P11ins d,e writing ofeffeaive compL'lints,

responses, briefS, motions and omer legal papers.

1035 L._ - ' - ._ _- - ' .

Actual Innocence: When Justice Goes Wrong and How to Make it Righ~ upd~ted

paperback ed., by Barry Scheck, Peter Neufeld and jm Dwyer; 403 pages. $16.00.

Founders of me Innocence Project e..'.P1ain how aiminal defendants are wrongly convicted On a reguInr basis. lli'Plains DNA testing and how it works to free d,e innocent.

Devastating aitique of police and prosecutotial misconduct and me·1 1

1

system iliat ensures sucl1 abuses continue.

1030 L._ - ' ._ _ _-'.

Roger's Thesaurus, 717 pages. $8.95. Helps you find d,e right word for what

you want to say. 11,000 words listed alphabetically \vim over 200,000 synonyms

I and antonyms. Sample sentences and parrs of speech shown for every main

word. Covers all levels of vocabulary and identifies informal

1

1

and slang words.

1045 . .

.

Webster's English Dictionary, Newly re\~sed and updated, Random House.

$8.95. 75,000+ entries. Includes tips on writing and word ';sage, and has up-

dated geographical and biographical entries. Includes recent 1 1

1

business and computer terms.

1033...

I I I Capital Crinles, by George Winslow, Monduy Review, 360 pages. $19.00.
Explains how economic policies create and foster crime, and how corporate & government crime is rarely punished. 1024

With Liberty for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America, by Scott

Christianson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages. $18.95. The best

overall history of the American prison system from 1492 through me 20m

I I I Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how lillie'
things have changed as far as prisons go in the U.S. over

hundreds of years.

1026..

.

I Ten Men Dead: The story of the 1981 Irish hunger strike, by Da\~d Beres-

ford, Atlantic Monmly Press, 334 pages. $16.95. Inside story of

1

1

IRA prisoners at Belfast's Long Kesh prison.

1006 . .

.

I Finding the Right Lawyer, by jay Foonberg, ABA, 256 pages. $19.95. Ex-

plains how to determine your legal needs, how to evaluate a 1

1

lawyer's qualifications, fee payments, and more.

1015..

.

Seize the Day! 7 Steps to Achieving the Extraordinary in an Ordinary

World, by Danny Cox and john Hoover, 256 pages. $15.99. Provides 7 steps

to changing your expectations and em~sioning yourself as being a successful

and respected person-whlcl1 is essential to changing me 1 1

course of one's life.

1052
'----'----'

Women Behind Bars, The Crisis of Women in the U.S. Prison System, by

Silja j.A. Talvi, Seal Press, 295 pages. $15.95. Best book available tI,at covers

issues related to imprisoned women, based on inten7jews widl 1

hundreds of women behind bars.

1066 L._ - " -_ _- - - '

10 Insider Secrets to a Winning Job Search, by Todd Bermont, 216 pages.
$15.99. Roadmap on how to get a job even under adverse circumstances-like
I being an e.'{-con. Includes how to develop a winning attitude, write attention-
grabbing resumes, prepare for intet\~ews, networking, how to 1 1 present your strengdls to an employer, and much morel 1056 .L.~-L._ _ _-'.

The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, 2003

Ed. by Alfred McCoy, 734 pages. $34.95. Documented expose 1 1

1

of ti,e government's involvement in drug ttafficking.

1014 ....J. L.._ - ' - ._ _ _

Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis, by Christian Parenti,

290 pages. $19.00. Analyzes me war on ti,e poor via me aiminal justice system. Well

documented and includes first-hand repotting. Covers prisons, para-I

military policing, SWAT teams and me INS.

1002 1...._ - ' -_ _- '

Hepatitis and Liver Disease: What You Need to Know, by Melissa Palmer, MD,

457 pages. $17.95. Descnbes symptoms & treatments of hepatitis B & C and odler

liver diseases. Includes medications to avoid, what diet to follow,

e.xercises to perform, and a bibliography.

1031

Ctimeand Punishment In America, by Elliott Cutrie, 230 pages. $16.95. Effective

rebuttal to right-wing proponents of prison building. Fact-based argument shows dillt

aime is driven by poverty. Debunks prison myths and discusses 1 1

I

proven, effeaive means ofaime prevention.

1019

Prison Madness: The Mental Health Crisis Behind Bars and What We

Must Do About It, by Terry Kupers,jossey-Bass, 245 pages. Hardback only,

prisoners please include any required authorization fonn. $32.95. Psychia-

trist writes about d,e mental heald, crisis in U.S. prisons and jails. Covers all

aspects of mental illness, prison rape, negative effects of l o n g - I I I

term isolation in control units, and more.

1003

Prison Writing in 20th Century America, by H. Bruce Franklin, Penguin

Books, 368 pages. $16.00. From jack London to George jackson, dus

aniliology provides a selection of some of d,e best writing 1 1

i describing life behind bars in America.

1022 '--..1--_-'

Soledad Brother: The Ptison Letters of George Jackson, by George jackson, Lawrence Hill Books, 339 pages. $18.95. Lucid e..'.Planation of ,e prlitiCS of 1

prison by a well-known prison acti\~st. More relevant now man

when it first appeared 40 years ago.

1016

Marijuana Law, by Ricl1ard Boire, Ronin, 271 pages. $17.95. Examines how to

reduce d,e probability of arrest and prosecution for people accused of d,e use, sale or

possession of marijuana Info on legal derenses, searcll & seizures, 1 1

'·1

surveillance, asset forfeiture and drug testing.

1008 L.._ - ' - ._ _- - - ' .

Worse Than Slavery: Parchman Farm and the Ordeal ofJinl CrowJustice, by

David Oshins],.y. , 306 pages. $16.00. Analysis of prison 11bor's roots in s11very.

Focuses on prison pbntacioris and self-sustaining prisons that use 1 1

1

prison bbor.

1007..

.

No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the American Criminal Justice System, by Da\~d Cole, 11,e New Press, 218 pages. $19.95. R"''P11ins how d,e

criminal justice system perpetuates race and class inequality, 1 1

1

creating a two-tiered system of justice.

1028 L._ - ' ._ _- - ' .

The Prison and the Gallows: The Politics of Mass Incarceration in

I America, by Marie Gottschalk, Cambridge University Press, 451 pages.
$29.99. Great political analysis of d,e confluence of events 1

leading to 2.3 million people behind bars in ilie U.S. 1069.

.

The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Co~nsel, by Brandon

Sample, PLN Publishing, 200 pages. $49.95. This is PLN's second published

book, wluch e.'{clusively covers ineffective assistance of counsel-related

issues in federal habeas petitions. Great resource for habeas 1 1

1

litigation, and contains hundreds of case cites!

1078

Factor 8 (DVD), a film by Kelly Duda, Concrete Films. $21.95. Movie

about ti,e Arkansas prison blood scandal, in which prison officials sold

infected blood harvested from prisoners. Note: This is a 1

DVD and cannot be shipped to prison.

1076 L._ - L_ _-'

PLN Cumulative Index. $22.50 each. PIN Article Indexes provide detailed information about all PLN articles, including tide, autllOr, issue, pag~ number, topics covered, citations, and if it is state, BOP or jail. specific. Can be searched on over 500 subjects such as medical neglect or sexual assault. Circle d,e index(es) you are ordecing: 1990-1995, 1996-1998, 1999-1 2001, 2002-2004. (more recent indexes not yet available)

All books are soft cover except Prison Madness

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 23 of 64

T he Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel is the first in a series of books by Prison Legal News Publishing designed to help pro-se prisoner litigants identify and raise viable claims for potential habeas corpus relief. This book is an invaluable resource that identifies hundreds of cases where the federal courts have granted habeas relief to prisoners whose attorneys provided ineffective assistance of counsel.
It will save litigants
thousands of hours of research and it focuses on the
WINNING cases criminal defendants need to
successfully challenge their convictions.
Well organized into 52 concise chapters, this easy to use book puts the law at the reader's fingertips. The Appendix includes pleadings and forms from successful habeas corpus cases that

"

The Habeas Citeboolc is a

nifty and concise self-help

guide for prisoners seeldng

habeas relief based on claims of

ineffective assistance of counsel.

Navigating the complex and

treacherous terrain of habeas

law is never easy; but claim-

ing that your lawyer screwed up

is even more difficult espe-

cially from the confines of an

demonstrate formatting and show ill-equipped prison law library.

how to frame a winning argu-
a ment that will persuade court

"Brandon Sample has provided an amazing and much-

to grant habeas relief. The Habeas

needed tool for prisoners who

Citebook explains the proce-

are forced to seek relief on their

dural and substantive complexi-

own. The book is thorough; but

ties of federal habeas corpus lit-

simple and readable. It starts

igation with the goal of identify-

with a wonderfully well-orga-

ing and litigating claims involving nized listing of hundreds of dif-

ineffective assistance of counsel.

ferent types of ineffective assis-

Brandon Sample is a success-

tance of counsel, set forth in the

ful jailhouse lawyer litigant incar-

form of citations to court rul-

cerated in the Bureau of Prisons.

ings - a novel approach that

He is a Prison Legal News contrib- not only acts as a springboard

uting writer and a member of the

for further research but also

National Lawyer's Guild. Editor

saves the prisoner countless

Susan Schwartzkopf has a mas-

hours of preliminary research:'

ter's degree in education and is

the director and editor in chief of

PETER SCHMIDT

Prison Legal News Publishing.

Publisher, Punch & Jurists

THE HABEAS CITEBOOK: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

By Brandon Sample 8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed _______
I By: D check D new postage stamps D credit card D money order

ISBN 978-0-9819385-1-6

Name ____________________________________

$49·95 3 or more copies ordered

DOC/BOP Number ____________________________

at once $39.95 each

Institution/Agency ___________________________________

FREE Shipping & Handling Order by mail, phone, or on-line.

Address----------------------------------------

City _______________ State

ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

PRISON LEGAL NEWS p.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 1P7L2NCOL-00069

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 24 of 64

" - - - - - - - Copies ofthis very usable and useful gUide should be available in every prison library-to help incarcerated people give positive direction to their energies while making constructive use of their time. It is a well-established fact that people who have taken college courses in prison have a dramatically reduced rate of recidivism."

-BELL GALE CHEVICNY, PEN Prison Writing Program,

~-----

Editor Doing Time: 25 Years ofPrison Writing. -----~

HIGH SCHOOL • VOCATIONAL • PARALEGAL • UNDERGRADUATE. GRADUATE COURSES

IIIIlIIpII HE GREATLY anticipated and newly updated third edition of the Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the
United States and Canada has finally arrived! Author Jon Marc Taylor's brand new version is the latest in this unique and highly successful gUidebook for the prisoner-student. This invaluable tool and how-to handbook provides the reader with step-by-step instructions to find the appropriate educational program for high school, vocational, paralegal, undergraduate, and graduate courses offered in
the u.s. and Canada today.
Invaluable re-entry tool
It presents more than 160 program outlines and offers an easy-to-use format for the student to determine which program best suits their needs. It is ideal for the incarcerated student who does not have Internet access or the ability to attend education classes in person. This resource is indispensable

for the individual and beneficial for use in all prison libraries and education departments.
The Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook is the only book on the market for the non-traditional prisoner-student. It includes detailed listings of the quality, cost, and course offerings for all correspondence programs available to prisoners. In a time when so many academic opportunities in prisons have been eliminated, this book is an invaluable re-entry tool for prisoners who seek to further their education while incarcerated and to help them prepare for life and work following their release.
Jon Marc Taylor has more than 25 years experience as an incarcerated student, advocate for prisoner education, and author. He has successfully earned a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and a doctorate via correspondence courses while incarcerated. Editor Susan Schwartzkopf has a master's degree in education and 12 years experience teaching immigrants English language skills.

P~ RISON-ERS'~ GUER- RILLA-HAN-DBO- OK T- O COR-RESP- ONDE-NCE- PROG- RAM- S IN T- HE U- NITED-STA- TES A- ND C- ANAD~ A g

By Jon Marc Taylor PHD 8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages

Number of copies ordered __' _ Amount enclosed _________
By: 0 check 0 new postage stamps 0 credit card 0 money order I

ISBN 978-0-9819385-0-9

Name ___________________________

$49·95
3 or more copies ordered

DOC/BOP Number _______________________

at once $39-95 each

Institution/Agency ________________________

I FREE Shipping & Handling Address_____________________________________

I Order by mail, phone, or on-line. City __________________________ State

ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

I PnDSON LEGAL l'hEWS P.O. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 1P7L3NCOL-00070

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 25 of 64

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBIT T
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 174

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 26 of 64 Page 1P7L5NCOL-00267

::

Prison Legal News

P~(i'Box 2420'"

, I',"

. West" Brattleboro, vi' 05303

(:i.l.~,,\~·'n".'''!hl.(:.{,~~\,.,. '

!r.&:·~? 1~~1/:~};~i~~.r· ~~i:'" "t;~

::;'ll~};': ~J~~:if.{i'~l.·;:~'·~~::~;:.$ •.. P'ii~~;

....,

~'. '(. :

62762 ** INFO **
CINDY M SEASTON 2011000819 COLUMBIA Co JAIL 901 PORT AVE ST HELENS, OREGON 97051
~::r70S: i +~.:£~:3@2420

I?!;/{jp", -..
- II;; 100:"

(';Jjoj.',o

~:bl::t~

1.!IJ""~'~'tt It

.t)t) ;07,"G9).rl.'l

RETURN TO NOT D~L%VERAeLE
UNA9LE TO
ee: 05:30:3:24:20:20

SENDER A~ ADDRESSED FORWARD
*osa4-20~SS-$O-~S

1111111111111/111/" 1111111 " " 1/11/ II /1111 II II I'll " I I 1'1/11 I

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 27 of 64 Page 1P7L6NCOL-00268

Order Form
All purchases must he pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new stamps (strips 01' hooks) 01' pre-stamped envelopes.

Books (3 & 4yr Subscription Specials: cm.CLE
one book.!!.!: bonus iss~es, and DO NOT add S/H)
Protecting Your Health and Safety or 4 Bonus Issues (3-yr subscription offer)

$Amt.
Free

Prison Profiteers ill: With Liberty for Some

m: 6 Bonus Issues (4-yr subscription offer)

Free

Book Total (inc. all books bought separately)

Add 6% sales tax for VermoIit residents only

ADD $6.00 S/H to book orders UNDER $50

PLN Subscriptions
6-month Subscription (Prisoners only) 1 yr Subscription (12 issues) 2 yr Subscription (24 plus 2 Bonus issues) 3 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above m: 4 Bonus issues) 4 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above m: 6 Bonus issues) Sample Issue - $3.50 each
TOTAL Amount Enclosed:
Send to:
Name: DOC#: Agency/Inst: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Address: City/State/Zip: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
MAIL PAYl\'IENT AND TillS FORM TO:
Prison Legal News P.O .. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303

Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard 802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegainews.org

PLN Subscription Rates

Subscription Rates 1yr 2yrs 3yrs 4yrs

Prisoners *

$24 $ 48 $ 72 $ 96

Individuals

$30 $ 60 $ 90 $120

Professionals

$80 $160 $240

(Lawyers, govt. & professional agencies, libraries, etc.)

Sample issue for anyone - $3.50 each*

$320

Six-month prisoner subscription for $12*
* Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books
only) or pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed byprison policies.

:- - - - -- - - - S~;c;ip;i~; B-;n~;;s! - - - - - - - --

I
I 2 years - 2 bonus issues, for 26 monthly issues total.

: 3 years - 4 bonus issues (40 total) OR Protecting Your Health and

I Safeo/ (see book description on the other side of this brochure).

I

: 4 years - 6 bonus issues (54 total) OR your choice of With Libertyfor I

I Some Q!: Prison Profiteers (see descriptions on the other side).

:

-------------------------------~--

New 3 or 4-Year Subscription Book Offers!

Subscribe or renew for three years at the regular price ($72 for prisoners & $90 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Protecting Your Health and Safety or four bonus issues of PLN! (40 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.
Subscribe or renew for four years at the regular price ($96 for prisoners & $120 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Prison Profiteers or With Liberty for Some, or 6 bonus issues of PLN! (54 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.

NO shipping charge for subscription bonus books!

NOTE: If you want the honus issues of PLN instead of the free book offer, please indicate that on the Order Form.

:- - - - - - -C-o~~a~~U;£0; PiN;-s-io~k iis;!- ---- - ~

I

I

I You can buy dozens of legal, social commentary, self- I

: help books, and legal and regular dictionaries directly:

I from PLN's book store! Ask us for a book list, or view:

: our selection online at:

I

IL ______w_w_w_.p_ri_so_n_le_ga_In_e_w_s._or_g/_st_o_l.e_.a_s_px______ _:

All subscription l'ates & bonus offers are effective as of 5-1-10
and valid through 12-31-10
* No refunds after ordel'S have been placed *

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
Eastern State Penitential'Y 1829-1971
Charles Dickens visited Philadelphia's Eastern State Penitentiary in 1842 and he later wrote: "The System is rigid, strict and hopeless ... and I believe it to be cruel and v,rrong.... I hold this slow and daily tampering with the mysteries of the brain to be immeasurably worse than any torture of the body." The prison remained open for 129 years after Dickens condemned it as being barbaric, and some of its inhumane practices continue to be used in pl'isons nationwide.
P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.prisonlegaInews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 28 of 64 Page 1P7L7NCOL-00269

-niU'll"!
Ii
P l'ison Legal News is an independent, non-profit 56-page monthly publication tbat reports, reviews and analyzes court rulings and news related to
prisoners' rigbts and prison issues. PLN has a national
(U.S.) focus on state, federal and pI'ivate prison issues, with some international coverage as well.
PLN's many thousands of subscribers and readers include civil and crinIinal trial and appellate attorneys, judges, public defenders, journalists, academics, paralegals, prisoners' rights activists, students, family members of prisoners, concerned individuals, politicians, other government officials, 'and numerous local, state and federal prisoners nationwide.
PLN is a vital link for prisoners who otherwise don't have access to current legal and prison-related news and information.
"Invaluable resourcefor anyone wanting 'user friendly' information about current legatdevelopments affecting
prisoners in the United States." - Human Rights, Watch~ a long-time PLN subscriber
P LN's coverage of prison issues includes medical neglect, disciplinary hearings, nutrition, living conditions, excessive force, court access, censorship, jail litigation, visiting, telephones, religious freedom, free speech, prison rape, mental health, attorney/ client access, sexual abuse of women prisoners, retaliation, the PLRA, HIV and hep C, control units, the death penalty, attOl'ney fees and much more.
PLN S~scription Rates
Prisoners: $12 for 6 months, $24 per year *
Non-incarcerated individuals: $30 per year Law firms, govt. agencies and libraries: $80 per year
Sample issue for anyone: $3.50 each*
* Prisoners can pay with new stamps or pre-stamped',envelopes

E ach monthly issue of PLN includes three different types of reporting: .. A cover story on a prison-related issue. .. Reports on individual and class-action prison and jail-
related lawsuits when they are fIled, when a judgment is entered or the case settles, and when an appellate court decision is issued. Weals? have prison-related news articles. co A "News In Brief' section that su~marizes interesting news stories across the U.S. and internationally.
Each issue of PLN also contains numerous advertisements from businesses that provide, prison-related personal and legal services and books. PLN further sells dozens of selfhelp, social commentary and legal 'books.
PLN also has cumulative'subject and case cite indexes for all PLN issues from 1990 through 2004. Write for info.
Special 3-yeal'SubscI'iption Offel'!

Free with a 3-year PLN subscription! Four bonus issues of PLN (40 issues total) 01" a fi:ee book, Protecting Your Health and Safety! Circle your bonus choice on the form on the other side ';f this brochure (3-year subscription rates: prisoners $72, individuals $90, professionals $240).

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by li

, I

Robert E. Toone. Published by the South-

ern Poverty Law Center, 325 pages (2009).

$10.00 (free with a3-year sUb!). This book

explains some basic rights that prisoners
"'@I----I have in a jail or prison in the U.S. It deals I~
mainly with rights related to health and ·....- - - - - ; .

safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by

prison officials; it also explains how you can enforce your

rights to health ·andsafety within the facility and, if nec-

essary, in court through litigation. Buy separately: ___

,------------------------------------------,

You Can Buy These Books Sepamtely! , ,

:,,

If you don't want to purchase a 3 or 4,-year subscription:

to PLN, you can still purchase any of the bonus books:

at the regular price. Just indicate which books you want:

to buy on this page, then enter the iotal cost 011 the other:

side of this brochure on the "Book Total" line of the Or- :

del' Form. Shipping is $6 per order (not per book), and we :

offer FREE shipping on book orders of $50 or more! To :

,place a phone order, please call 802-257-134,2. We also:

: accept book orders online, at ww·w.prisonlegahlews.org. :
,_____ - - - - ____ - - - - - - ___ - - - __ _ .___ - - - - - __ - - - __I

D onations: PLN is a project of the non-profit Human Rights Defense Center. Your tax-deductible donations support our advocacy, free speech and First AIDendment litigation efforts on behalf of prisoners and publishers. PLN not only provides uncensored prison-related news, but actively contests prison censorship that interferes with the delivery of our publication or any other PLN materials sent to prisoners. All donations further our goal of advocating for people imprisoned in U.S; detention facilities.
"Great source of information, especially in states such as Arizona where the law libraries have been taken from the inmates and replaced with paralegals." - SB, Arizona prisoner
Special 4-yeru' Subscription Offer!
Free with a 4-year PLN subscription! Six bonus issues of PLN (54 issues total) 01' one free book, With Liberty for Some ill: Prison Profiteers! Circle your bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (4-year subscription rates: prisoners $96,individuals $120, professionals $320). Note: Free book option is for one book.
With Liberty for Some: 500 Years ofL"ffl"r,,,.,T.1,-;,e,1
Imprisonment in America, by Scott Christianson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages (1998). $18.95 (free with a 4,-yeal' sub!). A classic book and the best overall history of the American prison system from 1492 to the 20th Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how little things have changed as far as prisons go in the U.S. over hundreds of years. Buy separately: _ __
or
Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money from Mass Incarceration, edited by Paul Wright & Tara Herivel, New Press (2007). $24.95 (fi'ee with a 4-yeal' sub!).. This is the third in a series of PLN anthologies that examines the reality of mass imprisonment in the U.S. Prison Profiteers is unique from other books on the' market because it exposes and discusses who profits and benefit~ from mass imprisonment, rather than who is harmed by the prison industrial complex and our nation's reliance on.over-incarceration. Buy separately: _ __

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 29 of 64 Page 1P7L8NCOL-00270

Order Form
All purchases must he pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or hooks, no singles) or pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed by prison policies.

Book Title / Number

Qty Total Cost

(attach another page if you are ordering more books)
Subtotal: Add 6% sales tax for VT residents only: Add $6.00 SIH to orders UNDER $50: Total Order Amount:
Send to:
Name: DOC#: Agency/lnst: Address: City/State/Zip:
MAIL PAYl\1ENT AND TillS FORM TO: Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303
Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

FREE SHIPPING On book and index ol'(lers OVER $50.00!
A $6 shipping charge applies to all other hook a11l1 inde.x olllcl's.
(Free shipping policy in drecl frOUl Jan 1, :l0l0 until further notice)

More Books for Sale!

Prisoners' Self-Help Litigation Manual, updated 4th ed. (2010), by John

Boston and Daniel Manville, Oxford Univ. Press, 1500 pages. $39.95. The

I I I premiere, must-have "Bible" of prison litigation for current and aspiring jail-
house lawyers. If you plan to litigate a prison or jail civil suit,

this book is a must-have.

1077

Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the U.S.

and Canada, updated 3rd ed. by J on Marc Taylor, Ph.D. and edited by Susan

Schwartzkopf, published by PLN, 221 pages. $49.95. Written by lVlissouri

prisoner Jon Marc Taylor, who obtained a B.S. degree, an M.A. degree and a

Doctorate, the Gllmilla Halldbook contains contact information and descrip-

I I tions of high schoo~ vocational, paralegal and college courses available
through correspondence study. Great resource for prisoners

who want to further their education.

1057 L._..-J. .-J_ _-1

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by Robert E. Toone, Southern Poverty

Law Center, 325 pages. $10.00. Tlus book explains basic rights that prisoners

have in a jailor prison in the U.S. It deals mainly with rights related to healdl

I I I and safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by prison officials; it also
e"l'lains how you can enforce your rights within d,e facility

and, if necessary, in court through litigation.

1060 L._..-J._ _ _-1.

Starting Out! The Complete Re-Entry Handbook, edited by William H.

Foster, Ph.D. & Carl E. Horn, Ph.D., Starting Out Inc., 446 pages. $22.95.

Complete do-it-yourself re-entry manual and workbook for prisoners who

want to develop d,eir own re-entry plan to increase their chances of success

after d,ey are released. Includes a wide variety of resources, including a user

~ode to d,e Starting Out website dlat can be accessed f o l l o w - I I I

Ingrelease.

1074 ...l. L._ - ' - ._ _ _

Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners v. the U.S.A, by

Mumia Abu Jamal, City Lights Publishers, 280 pages. $16.95. In Jail!;ollse LtIV-

J'ers, Prison Legal News columnist, award-winning journalist and deadl-row

prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal presents d,e stories and reflections of fellow pris-

oners-turned-advocates who haye learned to use dIe court system to represent

OdIeI' prisoners, and in some cases have won their freedom. 1 1

1

Must-read for jailhouse lawyers!

1073 . .

.

How to Win Your Personal Injury Claim, by Atty. Joseph Matthews, 7th

edition; NOLO Press, 304 pages. $34.99. While not specifically for prison-

related personal injury cases, d,is book provides comprehensiye information

on how to handle personal injury and property damage claims arising from

~ccidents - incl~ding dealing widl doctors, attorneys and 1 1

1

Insurance comparues.

1075 . .

.

All prices are effective as of9-15-10
(PIices subject to change without notice)
* No refunds after Ol,ders have beeupIaced *

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
2010 PLN BOOK LIST
Prices Subject to Change Without Notice
Graphic from: Books 2 Prisoners, Vancouver, Be
P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.prisonlegalnews.Ol·g

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 30 of 64 Page 1P7L9NCOL-00271

Check the box of the books you want to buy and use the Order Fonn on the other side of this brochure to add up the cost of your order. FREE SHIPPlNG for book and index orders OVER $50. There is a $6 shipping charge for all other book and index orders.

Prison Profiteers, edited by Paul Wright and Tara HeriveI, 323 pages. $24.95. 'This is d,e

third and L1test book in a series ofPrison I..egal News andlDlogies d,Ht e.xarnines d,e reality of
m.1SS imprisonment in Amerim (The odler tides are The Cellillg ifA/J1mm & PlirOI/Natioll,

I I I see below). PlirOIl Prrjileers is unique from odler books bealuse it ""poses and disOlSses
who profits and benefits from niass imprisonment, mdler tllilll who is

hanned by it and how.

1063 .

.

.

I I I Prison Nation: The Warehousing of America's Poor, edited by Tara Herivel and Paul
Wright, 332 pages. $35.95. PiN antllDlog)' ""poses dle d,u:k side oftl,e

1ock-em-up'politirnlagendaandlegalclimateindleU.s.

1041 _~. L.

L ._ _- ' .

The CeIling of America, edited by Daniel Burton Rose, Dan Pens and Paul Wright, 264

pages. $22.95. PiN andlolog)' presents a detailed "inside" look at tI,e I I

I

workings ofdle Ameriam crimin,lI justice system.

1001 . .

.

Everyday Letters for Busy People, by Debra Hatt Mal', 287 pages. $18.99.

Hundreds of sample letters that can be adapted for most any purpose, including

letters to government agencies and officials. Has numerous I

I

tips for writing effective letters. .

1048 .

.

The Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System, by

Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sam]. Berman-Barrett, Nolo Press, 608 pages. $39.99.

fuplains what happens in a criminal case from being arrested to sentencing, and what

your rights are at each stage of d,e process. Uses an easy to under-I

stand question-and-answer format.

1038 L._....J._ _ _-'

Represent Yourself in Court: How to Prepare & Try a Winning Case, by

Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sam ]. Berman-Barrett, Nolo Press, 528 pages. $39.99.

I I I Breaks down d,e civil ttial process in easy-to-understand steps so you can effectively
represent yoursel~ in court. TI,e audlors e.'-plain what to say in

court, how to sal' It:, etc.

1037...

to-date law dictionary e.'pbins more than 8,500 legal terms.

Covers civil, criminal, commercial & international bw.

1036 L _' ...J'-_ _..J

The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, by Jane Straus, 110 pages.

$14.95. A guide to grammar and punctuation by an educator \ \

\

with e"-perience teacbing English to prisoners.

1046

Legal Research: How to Find and Understand the Law, by Stephen Elias and

Susan Levinkind, 568 pages. $49.99. Comprellensive and easy to understand guide

I \ on researching the bw. R,-plains case law, statutes and digests,

\

and mucll more. Includes practice exercises.

1059 L._....J.._ _ _-'.

Deposition Handbook, by Paul Bergman and Albert Moore, Nolo Press, 352

pages. $34.99. How-to handbook for anyone who conducts a I I

I

deposition or is going to be deposed.'

1054 L._....J.._ _ _..J.

Spanish-English/English-Spanish Dictionary, Random House. $8.95. Two

sections, Spanish-English and English-Sf'anish. 60,000+ entties I I

from A to Z; includes Western Hemisphere usage.

1034 L._....J.._ _ _-'

Please Note: All book and index orders are mailed via the U.S. Postal
Service with Delivery Confirination. PIN does not assmne any responsibility to replace book or index orders once their delivery to the desti! nation address (facility) is confirmed by the U.S. Postal Service.

I Writing to Wm: The Legal Writer,by SteVen D. Stark, Broadway Books/lhndom

House, 283 pages. $19.95. R"plains ti,e \VJ:iring'of effective compL1ints,

I

I

responses, briefu, motions and odler legal papers.

1035 . .

.

Actual Innocence: When Justice Goes Wrong and How to Maire it Right, updated

paperback ed., by Barry Sclleck, Peter Neufeld and Jim Dwyer; 403 pages. $16.00.

Founders of ti,e Innncence Project e.'plain how criminal defendants are \wongly con-

I victed on a regular basis. fupbins DNA testing and how it works to free tI,e innocent
Devastnting critique of police and prosecutoti,u misconduct and d,e, I I

system that ensures such abusesconrinue.

1030 L._...L,_ _ _-'.

Rogel's Thesaurus, 717 pages. $8.95. Helps you find the right word for what

you want to sal'. 11,000 words listed alphabetically \vith over 200,000 synonyms

and antonyms. Sample sentences and parts of speech shown for every main

word. Covers all levels of vocabulary and identifies informal I I

I

and slang words.

1045 . .

.

Webster's English Dictionary, Newly revised and updated, Random House.

$8.95. 75,000+ entties. Includes tips on writing and word usage, and'lms up-

dated geographical and biographical entties. Includes recentl I

I

business and computer terms.

1033.,.

Capital Crimes, by George Winslow, Monthly Review, 360 pages. $19.00. Explains how economic policies create and foster crime, and \ how corporate & government crime is rarely punished. 1024 '-_L...__--'

With Liberty for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America, by Scott

Chrisrianson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages. $18.95. TI,e best

overall history of the American prison system from 1492 through the 20th

Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how little

tlungs have changed as far as prisons go in the U.S. over \ \

\'

hundreds of years.

1026..

.

Ten Men Dead: The story of the 1981 Irish hunger strike, by David Beres-

ford, Atlantic Mondlly Press, 334 pages. $16.95. Inside story of I I

I

IRA prisoners at Belfast's Long Kesh prison.

1006 . .

.

Finding the Right Lawyer, by Jay Foonberg, ABA, 256 pages. $19.95. Ex-

plains how to determine your legal needs, how to evaluate a I I

I

lawyer's qualifications, fee payments, and more.

1015 . .

.

Seize the Day! 7 Steps to Achieving the Extraordinary in an Ordinary

World, by Danny Cox and John Hoover, 256 pages. $15.99. Provides 7 steps

to changing your e"-pectations and em~sioning yourself as being a successful

and respected person-wluch is essential to changing ti,e I I

I

course of one's life.

1052..

.

Women Behind Bars, The Crisis of Women in the U.S. Prison System, by
Silja J.A TaI\~, Seal Press, 295 pages. $15.95. Best book available tI,at covers

issues related to imprisoned women, based on interviews Witll I

hundreds of women behind bars.

1066 L._ - ' -_ _- - '

10 Insider Secrets to a Winning Job Search, by Todd Bermont, 216 pages.

$15.99. Roadmap on how to get .. job even under adverse circumstances-like

I being an ex-con. Includes how to develop a \vinning attitude, write attention-

grabbing resumes, prepare for intet\~ews, networking, how to

I

I

present your strengdls to an employer, and much morel 1056..

.

I The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, 2003

Ed. by Alfred McCoy, 734 pages. $34.95. Documented expose

I

\

of the government's involvement in drug trafficking. 1014

.

Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis, by Christian Parenti,

290 pages. $19.00. Analyzes the war on dle poor via d,e crimir",1 justice system. Well

documented and includes first-hand l1."potting. Covers prisons, para-

military policing, SWAT tean1S and d,e INS,

1002 L.......!._ _- - '

Hepatiris and Liver Disease: What You Need to Know, by Melissa Palmer, NlD,

I I 457 pages. $17.95. Describes symptoms &treatments of hepatitis B & C and odler
liver diseases. Includes medications to avoid, what diet to follow, \

e.,ercises to perform, and a bibliography.

1031

Crime and Punishment In America, by Elliott Curtie, 230 pages, $16.95. Effective

I rebuttal to right-wing proponents of prison bw1ding. Fact-based argument shows that
crime is driven by poveri¥. Debunks prison myths and disOlSSes I I

proven, effective means ofcrime prevention.

1019

Prison Madness: The'Mental Health Crisis Behind Bars and What We

Must Do About It, by Terry Kupers,Jossey-Bass, 245 pages. Hardback only,

prisoners please include any required authorization fonn. $32.95. Psyclua-

I ttist writes about d,e mental health crisis in U.S. prisons and jails. Covers all
aspects of mental illness, prison rape, negative effects of long-I I

term isolation in control units, and more.

1003

Prison Writing in 20th Century America, by H. Bruce Franklin, Penguin

Books, 368 pages. $16.00. From Jack London to George Jackson, tI,is

anthology pro\~des a selection of some of the best writing I I

describing life behind bars in America.

1022 L._.J.._ _- - '

er I Soledad Brother: The Prison Letters of George Jackson, by George Jackson,
Lawrence Hill Books, 339 pages. $18.95. Lucid ""-planation of I'e litiCS of

prison by a well-known prison activist More relevant now d,an

when it first appeared 40 years ago.

1016

Marijuana Law, by Richard Boire, Ronin, 271 pages. $17.95. R,,1mines how to

reduce the probability of arrest and prosecution for people aCOlSed of d,e use, sale or

possession of marijuana. Infu on legal defenses, SearcJl & seizures, I I

I

surveillance, asset forfeiture and drug testing.

1008 1..._ - ' ._ _- - ' .

Worse Than Slavery: Parchman Farm and the Ordeal ofJim CrowJustice, by

Da\~d Oshinshl', 306 pages. $16.00. Analysis of prison bbor's roots in sbvery.

Focuses on prison plwtations and self-sustaining prisons d,at use I I

I

prison bbor.

1007..

.

No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the American Criminal Justice

System, by Da\~d Cole, TI,e New Press, 218 pages. $19.95. R,plains how ti,e

criminal justice system perpetuates mce and class inequality, I I

I

creating a two-tiered system of justice.

1028 . ,

.

The Prison and the Gallows: The Politics of Mass Incarceration in

America, by Marie Gottschalk, Cambridge University Press, 451 pages.

$29.99. Great political analysis of ti,e confluence of events I

I

leading to 2.3 million people behind bars in ti,e U.S. 1069.

.

The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, by Brandon

Sample, PLN Publishing, 200 pages. $49.95. This is PLN's second published

book, which exclusively covers ineffective assistance of counsel-related

issues in federal habeas petitions. Great resource for habeas I I

I

litigation, and contains hundreds of case cites!

1078..

.

Factor 8 (DVD), a film by Kelly Duda, Concrete Films. $21.95. Movie

about d,e Arkansas prison blood scandal, in wluch prison officials sold

infected blood harvested from prisoners. Note: This is a I

DVD and cannot be shipped to prison.

1076 1..._ - ' -_ _- '

PLN Cumulative Index. $22.50 each. PiN Article Indexes provide detailed information about all PLN articles, including title, autllor, issue, page number, topics covered, citations, and if it is state, BOP or jail specific. Can be searched on over 500 subjects such as medical neglect or se.,,-ual assault. Circle ti,e index(es) you are ordering: 1990-1995, 1996-1998, 1999-1 2001, 2002-2004. (more recent indexes not yet available)

All books are soft cover except Prison Madness

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 31 of 64

T he Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel is the first in a series of books by Prison Legal News Publishing designed to help pro-se prisoner litigants identify and raise viable claims for potential habeas corpus relief. This book is an invaluable resource that identifies hundreds of cases where the federal courts have granted habeas relief to prisoners whose attorneys provided ineffective assistance of counsel.
It will save litigants thousands ofhours
of research and it focuses on the WINNING cases criminal defendants need to successfully challenge their convictions.
Well organized into 52 concise chapters, this easy to use book puts the law at the reader's fingertips. The Appendix includes pleadings and forms from successful habeas corpus cases that

"

The Habeas Citebook is a

nifty and concise self-help

guide for prisoners seeking

habeas relief based on claims of

ineffective assistance of counsel.

Navigating the complex and

treacherous terrain of habeas

law is never easy; but claim-

ing that your lawyer screwed up

is even more difficult espe-

cially from the confines of an

demonstrate formatting and show ill-equipped prison law library.

how to frame a winning argu-

"Brandon Sample has pro-

ment that will persuade a court

vided an amazing and much-

to grant habeas relief. The Habeas

needed tool for prisoners who

Citebook explains the proce-

are forced to seek relief on their

dural and substantive complexi-

own. The book is thorough; but

ties of federal habeas corpus lit-

simple and readable. It starts

igation with the goal of identify-

with a wonderfully well-orga-

ing and litigating claims involving nized listing of hundreds of dif-

ineffective assistance of counsel.

.ferent types of ineffective assis-

Brandon Sample is a success-

tance of counsel, set forth in the

ful jailhouse lawyer litigant incar-

form of citations to court rul-

cerated in the Bureau of Prisons.

ings - a novel approach that

He is a Prison Legal News contrib- not only acts as a springboard

uting writer and a member of the

for further research but also

National Lawyer's Guild. Editor

saves the prisoner countless

Susan Schwartzkopf has a mas-

hours of preliminary research:'

ter's degree in education and is

the director and editor in chief of

PETER SCHMIDT

Prison Legal News Publishing.

Publisher, Punch & Jurists

THE HABEAS CITEBOOK: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

By Brandon Sample 8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed ______
I By: 0 check 0 new postage stamps 0 credit card 0 money order

ISBN 978-0-9819385-1-6
$49·95 3 or more copies ordered
at once $39.95 each FREE Shipping & Handling

I Name ______________~_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ I DOC/BOP Number _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _---:---.::-'-'-'---'-_~-----_
Institution/Agency _ _ _ _ _ _ _--'-_ _~_ _ _ _ _ __
Address_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ I

Order by mail, phone, or on-line. City _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ State

ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

I

PRISON LEGAL NEWS p.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 1P8L0NCOL-00272

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 32 of 64

" - - - - - - Copies of this very usable and useful gUide should be available in every prison library-to help incarcerated people give positive direction to their energies while making constructive use of their time. It is a well-established fact that people who have taken college courses in prison have a dra.matically reduced rate of recidivism."

-BELL GALE CHEVICiNY, PEN Prison Writing Program,

~-----

Editor Doing Time: 25 Years of Prison Writing. -----~

HIGH SCHOOL • VOCATIONAL • PARALEGAL • UNDERGRADUATE. GRADUATE COURSES

HE GREATLY anticipated and newly updated third edition of the Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the United States and Canada has finally arrived! Author Jon Marc Taylor's brand new version is the latest in this unique and highly successful gUidebook for the prisoner-student. This invaluable tool and how-to handbook provides the reader with step-by-step instructions to firid the appropriate educational program· for high school, vocational, paralegal, undergraduate, and graduate courses offered·in the U.S. andCinada today.
Invaluable re-entry tool
It presents more than 160 program outlines and offers an easy-to-use format for the student to determine which program best suits their needs. It is ideal for the incarcerated student who does not have Internet access or the ability to attend education classes in person. This resource is indispensable

for the individual and beneficial for use in all prison libraries and education departments.
The Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook is the only book on the market for the non-traditional prisoner-student. It includes detailed listings of the quality, cost, and course offerings for all correspondence programs available to prisoners. In a time when so many academic opportunities in prisons have been eliminated, this book is an invaluable re-entry toOl for .prisoners who seek to further their education while incarcerated and to help them prepare for life and work following their release.
Jon Marc Taylor has more than 25 years experience as an incarcerated student, advocate for prisoner education, and author. He has successfully earned a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and . a doctorate via correspondence courses while incarcerated. Editor Susan Schwartzkopf has a master's degree in education and 12 years experience teaching immigrants English language skills.

IpPR-ISON- ERS' - GUER- RILLA-HAN- DBOO-K TO-COR- RESP- ONDE- NCE- PROG- RAMS-IN T- HE U- NITED-STAT-ES A- ND CA-NAD~ A •

By Jon Marc Taylor PHD 8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages ISBN 978-0-9819385-0-9
$49.95
. 3 or more copies ordered

Number of copies ordered ____ Amount enclosed ________
By: D check D new postage stamps D credit card D money order I Name ___________________________ I
DOC/BOP Number ___________________-'--_

. at once $39.95 each

Institution/Agency ___________________

I

FREE Shipping & Handling Order by mail, phone, or on-line.

Address- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
City ___________________________ State ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

I PRISON lEGAL NEWS P.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 1P8L1NCOL-00273

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 33 of 64

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBIT U
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRlGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 182

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 34 of 64 Page 1P8L3NCOL-00320

Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303

/'
.~~t~~i~·~:~j~:;{"'JS::: :~1t~~~V~,:l/~~~~t Jr)t~~~~J'Ji~·~~r~~~~~fJt~~l~:~.
': f1j;)l'·''(' ~~::~~:1(~ 3}:, t ...
'::j':;~:fli ..~J).t~~}.t:. ";:~~GJ'·i~r::i11. ,"¥:~f~/~'i~l. ,...L~\'·P""W'!~

.. .. - .- ~~-i7' '"--~

='~m

. "iNSPECTED BY COLUMBIA COUhlTY

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

RETURN TO SENDER

Y
-(-"-.

I
63210 ** EXPIRES: 1/2012

PERSON NOT HERE CONTRABAND INTER-FACILITY

__

BARRYSHAFT 2011000612 CO-LUMBIA Co JAIL 90'1 PORT AVE STIIi~ELENS. OREGON 970S1

RE~~~o:_:~URI~=1f_=~._~J:!

NIX:J:I;':

5)7 C) ):'E-: ;1.

\:' t') \"J"71~;;:' ~~ I ;\, :1.

RETURN TO SENDER

NOT

CELUNIAV9ELR.!:A::~LOrEe)

AS ADDRESSED
r·(;:JR\v~~)::?[;l

F-lC : C),'$.:SI'",,):;!l.~~4.2C)2C:)

*2663-10127-20-41

O.S::;)03@!?4~ao
97(1.S"J $3(1"J 13

1/1111111111 III III J "1'.1/ IIIIIIIIIII, III111,,1,1 JIIJ/11 I/II, II

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 35 of 64 Page 1P8L4NCOL-00321

Order Form
All purchases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new stamps (strips 01' books) 01' pre-stamped envelopes.

Books (3 & 4· yr Subscription Specials: CIRCLE
one bookQr bonus issues, and DO NOT add SIR)
Protecting Your Health and Safety
m: 4 Bonus Issues (3-yr subscription offer)

$Amt.
Free

Prison Profiteers m: With Liberty for Some

m: 6 Bonus Issues (4-yr subscription offer)

Free

Book Total (inc. all books bought separately)

Add 6% sales tax for Vermont residents only

ADD $6.00 SIR to book orders UNDER $50

PLN Subscriptions
6-month Subscription (Prisoners only) 1 yr Subscription (12 issues) 2 yr Subscription (24 plus 2 Bonus issues) 3 yr Sub (Circle bonus book abovcQr4 Bonus issucs) 4 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above Qr 6 Bonus issues) Sample Issue - $3.50 each
TOTAL Amount Enclosed:

Send to:
Name: DOC#: Agency/lnst: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Address: City/State/Zip: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
MAn.. PAYMENT AND TillS FORM TO:
Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303

Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

PLN Subscription Rates

Subscription Rates 1yr 2yrs 3 yrs 4yrs

Prisoners *

$24 $ 48 $ 72 $ 96

Individuals

$30 $ 60 $ 90 $120

Professionals

$80 $160 $240 $320

(Lawyers, govt. & professional agencies, libraries, etc.)

Sample issue for anyone - $3.50 each*

Six-month prisoner subscription for $12*
* Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books only) or pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed by prison policies.

:- - - - - - - - - S;d;s-c;ip~i~; Bo;'~;;s! - - - - - - - - -
1
1 2 years - 2 bonus issues, for 26 monthly issues total. : 3 years - 4. bonus issues (40 total) OR Protecting Your Health and 1 Safety (see book description on the other side of this brochure). : 4 years - 6 bonus issues (54 total) OR your choice of With Libertyfor !.~~e_~~~o~ !:,r~e.:r:(~:.d:s:.ng~o~~~ ~:.o~h~r~i~e~ _____I

New 3 or 4-Year Subscription Book Offers!

Subscribe or renew for three years at the regular price
($72 for prisoners & $90 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Protecting Your Health and Safety or
four bonus issues of PLN! (40 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.
Subscribe or reuew for four years at the regular price ($96 for prisoners & $120 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Prison Profiteers or With Liberty for Some, or 6 bonus issues of PLN! (54 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.

NO shipping charge for subscription bonus books!

NOTE: If you want the bonus issues of PLN instead of the free book offer, please indicate that on the Order Form.

:- - - - - - -C-o;';a~;U; £0; PiN;-s-io~k iis~!- - - - - - ~

1

1

1 You can buy dozens of legal, social commentary, self-I

: help books, and legal and regular dictionaries directly:

: from PL~'s boo~\. store! Ask us for a book list, or view:

1 our selectIOn online at:

1

1

www.prisonlegalnews.org/store.aspx

:

1______ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

AU subscriptiourates & bonus offers are effective as of 5-1-10
and valid through 12-31-10
* No refunds aftel· ordel'Shave been placed *

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
Eastern State Penitentiary 1829-1971
Charles Dickens visited Philadelphia's Eastern State Penitentiary in 1842 and he later wrote: "The System is rigid, strict and hopeless '" and I believe it to be cruel and wrong....I hold this slow and daily tampering with the mysteries of the brain to be immeasurably worse than any torture of the body." The prison remained open for 129 years after Dickens condemned it as being barbaric, and some of its inhumane practices continue to be used in prisons nationwide.
P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.pl·isonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 36 of 64 Page 1P8L5NCOL-00322

~ [: f) Ii
L
P rison Legal News i~ an independent, non-profit 56-page monthly' publication that reports, reviews and analyzes court rulings and news I'elated to
prisoners' rights and prison issues. PLN has a national
(U.S.) focus on state, federal and private prison issues, with some international coverage as well.
PLN's many thousands of subscribers and readers include civil and criminal trial and appellate attorneys, judges, public defenders, journalists, academics, paralegals, prisoners' I'ights activists, students, family members of prisoners, concerned individuals, politicians, other government officials, and numerous local, state and federal prisoners nationWide.
PLN is a vital link for p:risoners who otherwise don't have access to current legal and prison-related news and information.
"Invaluable resource for anyone wanting 'user friendly' information aboutcurrent It;galdevelopments affecting
. prisoners in the. United States." . - Human Rights Watch, a long-time PLN subscriber
P LN's coverage of prison issues includes medical neglect, disciplinary hearings, nutrition, living conditions, excessive force, c'ourt access, censorship, jail litigation, visiting, telephones, religious freedom, free speech, prison rape, mental health, attorney/ client access, sexual abuse of women prisoners, re-
taliation, the PLRA, HIV andhep C, control units,
the death penalty, attorney fees and' much more.
PLN Srihscription Rates Prisoners: $12 for 6 months, $24 per year * Non-incarcerated individuals: $30 per year Law firms, govt. agencies and libraries: $80 per year Sample issue for anyone: $3.50 each*
• Prisoners can pay with new stamps;. ~r pre-stamped envelopes

E ach monthly issue of PLN includes three different types of reporting:
.. A cov.er story on a prison-related issue. .. Reports on individual and class-action prison and jail-
related lawsuits when they are flied, when a judgment is entered or the case settles, and when an appellate court decision is issued. We also have prison-related news articles. , .. A "News In Brief" section that summarizes interesting news stories across the U.S. and internationally.
Each issue of PLN also contains numerous advertisements from businesses that provide prison-related personal and legal services and books. PLNfurther sells dozens of selfhelp, social commentary and legal books.
PLN also has cumulative subject and case cite indexes for all PLN issues from 1990 through 2004.. Write for info.
CS;~i~i3-;~l' Suhs~l'ip~Off~1
Free with a 3-ye:u' PLN subscription! Four bonus issues of PLN (40 issues total) 01' a free book, Protecting Your Health and Safety! Circle your bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (3-year subscription rates: prisoners $72, individuals $90, professionals $24.0).
Protecting Your Health and Safety, by '''"'------1
Robert E. Toone. Published by the Southern Poverty La,,, Center,' 325 pages (2009). $10.00 (free with a 3-year sub!). This book eA'Plains some basic rights that prisoners
I have in a jail or prison in the U.S; It deals Ii ...@ ____
mainly with rights related to health and - u. - - - - I . safety, such as commuuicablediseases and abuse by prison officials; it also explains how you can enforce your rights to health and safety within the facility and, if necessary, in court through litigation. Buy separately: _.__._
,------------------------------------------,
You Can Buy These Books Sepamtely! I I
If you don't want to purchase a 3 or 4-year subs.cription : to PLN, 'you can still purchase any of the bonus books: at the regular price. Just indicate which books you want: to buy on this page, then enter the total cost on the other: side of this brochure on the "Book Total" line of the 01'- : del' Form. Shipping is $6 per order (not per book), and we : offer FREE shipping on book iirdei:~ of $50 or more! To : place a phone order, please call 802-257-1342. We also: accept book orders online, at www.prisonlegalnews.org. :
__________________________________________ J

D onations: PLN is a 'project of the non-profit Human Rights Defense Center. Your tax-deductible donatiOils support our advocacy, free speech and First Amendment litigation efforts on behalf of prisoners and publishers. PLN not only provides uncensored prison-related news, but actively contests prison censorship that interferes with the delivery of our publication or any other PLN materials sent to prisoners. All donations further our goal of advocating for people imprisoned in U.S. detention facilities.

"Great source of information, especially in states such as

,-_Arizona where the law libraries have been taken from the inmates and replaced with paralegals." - SB, Arizona prisoner .

....

_- ._-

.. _ -

Special 4-year Suhscl'iption Offer!

Free with a 4-year PLN subscl'iption! Six bonus issues of PLN (54. issues total) 01' one free hook, With Liberty for Some or Prison Profiteers! Circle your bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (4.~year subscription rates: prisoners $96, individuals $120, professionals $320). Note: Free book option is for one boole.
With Liberty for Some: 500 Years Imprisonment in America, by Scott Christianson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages (1998). $18.95 (free with a 4-year sub!). A classic book and the best overall history of the American prison system from 1492 to the 20th Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how little things have changed as far as prisons go in the U.S. over hundreds of years. Buy separately: ___
or
Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money' from Mass Incarceration, edited by Paul Wright & Tara Herivel, New Press (2007). $24.95 (free with a 4-year sub!). This is the third in a series of 'PLN anthologies that examines the reality of mass imprisonment in the U.S. Prison Profiteers is unique from other books on the market because it exposes and discusses who profits and benefits from mass imprisonment, rather than who is harmed by the prison industrial complex and our nation's reliance on over-incarceration. Buy separately: __._

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 37 of 64 Page 1P8L6NCOL-00323

Order Form
All purchases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books, no singles) or
pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed by prison policies.

Book Title / Number

Qty Total Cost

(attach another page if you are ordering more books)
Subtotal: Add 6% sales tax for VT residents only: Add $6.00 S/R to orders UNDER $50: Total Order Amount:
Send to:
Name: DOC#: Agency/lnst: Address: City/State/Zip:
MAIL PAYIHENT AND THIS FORM TO: Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303
Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

FREE SHIPPING
On book and index orders OVER $50.00! A $6 slJipping charge applies to all other hook anll index ordel's.
(Free shipping policy in elfcct frOlll Jan 1, ::lOlO tllltil further notice)

More Books for Sale!

Prisoners' Self-Help Litigation Manual, updated 4th ed. (2010), by John

Boston and Daniel Manville, Oxford Univ. Press, 1500 pages. $39.95. The
I I I premiere, must-have "Bible" of prison litigation for current and aspiring jail-
house lawyers. If you plan to litigate a prison or jail civil suit,

tius book is a must-have.

1077

Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the U.S.

and Canada, updated 3rd ed. by Jon Marc Taylor, Ph.D. and edited by Susan Schwartzkopf, published by PLN, 221 pages. $49.95. Written by Missouri

prisoner Jon Marc Taylor, who obtained a B.S. degree, an M.A. degree and a

Doctorate, the Gllenil/o Halldbook contains contact information and descrip-

I I tions of high schoo~ vocational, paralegal and college courses available
through correspondence study. Great resource for prisoners

who want to further ti1eir education.

1057 ......._-'-----'

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by Robert E. Toone, Southern Poverty

Law Center, 325 pages. $10.00. Tlus book explains basic rights ti1at prisoners

have in a jail or prison in the U.S. It deals mainly witi1 rights related to healti1

I I I and safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by prison officials; it also
explains how you can enforce your rights witiun ti1e facility

and, if necessary, in court through litigation.

1060

Starting Out! The Complete Re-Entry Handbook, edited by William H.

Foster, Ph.D. & Carl E. Horn, Ph.D., Starting Out Inc., 446 pages. $22.95.

Complete do-it-yourself re-entry manual and workbook for prisoners who

want to develop their own re-entry plan to increase ti1eic chances of success
I I after ti1ey are released. Includes a wide variety of resources, including a user
~ode to ti1e Starting Out website ti1at can be accessed fOlloW-I

mg release.

1074

Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners v. the U.S.A, by

Mumia Abu Jamal, Cit)' Lights Publishers, 280 pages. $16.95. In Jailhollse L1I/1-

yers, Prison Legal News columnist, award-winning journalist and deati1-row

prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal presents the stories and reflections of fellow pris-
I I I oners-turned-advocates who have learned to use the court system to represent
other prisoners, and in some cases have won ti1eic freedom.

Must-read for jailliouse law),ers!

1073

How to Win Your Personal Injury C/ain1, by Att)'. Joseph Matti1ews, 7ti1

edition, NOLO Press, 304 pages. $34.99. While not specifically for prison-

related personal injut)' cases, ti1is book provides comprehensive information
I I on how to handle personal injury and property damage claims arising from
accidents - incl~ding dealing witi1 doctors, attorneys and I

msurance companIes.

1075

All prices are effective as of9-15-10 (plices subject to change without notice)
* No refunds after ordel'S have heen placed *

~-~~~~
pmSON£EGALNEWS
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
2010 PLN BOOK LIST
Prices Subject to Change Without Notice
Graphic from: Books 2 Prisoners, Vancouver, Be
P.O. Box 2420, BrattlebOl'o, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.pl.isonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 38 of 64 Page 1P8L7NCOL-00324

Check the. box ofthe books you want to buy and. use the Order Form on the other side of this brochure to add up the cost of your order. FREE SIDPPING for book and index orders OVER $50. There is a $6 shipping charge for all other book and index orders.

Prison Profiteers, edited by Paul Wright and Tara HeciveI, 323 pages. $24.95. This is ti,e

third and btest book in a series ofPrison iegal News anthologies that eX:lInines tile reality of mass imprisonment in AmeriCl. (The other tities are Tbe Cellillg ifAlJlenra & PrisollNanoll,

see helow). Prisoll ProjleelJ is unique from otiler books becmse it ""poses and discusses

who profits and benefits from moss imprisonmen~ mtiler th:m who is 1

1

1

harmed by it and how.

1063 .

.

.

Prison Nation: The Warehousing of America's Poor, edited by Tara Herivel and Paul

Wright:, 332 pages. $35.95. PIN antilOlogy ""poses the d-u:k side ofthe 1 1

I

1ock-em-up'politicalagendaandlegal climate in the U.s.

1041 . .

.

The CeIling of America, edited by Daniel Burton Rose, Dan Pens and Paul Wright, 264

pages. $22.95. PIN anthology presents a d~tniled "inside" look at the I

I

I

workings ofti,e Americm criminal justice system.

1001 . .

.

Everyday Letters for Busy People, by Debra Hart May, 287 pages. $18.99.

I Hundreds of sample letters that can be adapted for most any purpose, including

letters to government agencies and. officials. Has numerous I

I

tips for wriring effecrive letters.

1048 .

.

.

The Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System, by
Attorneys Paul Betgman & Sara J. Berman-Barre~ Nolo Press, 608 pages. $39.99.

R,plains what happens in a criminal case from being arrested to sentencing, and what

your rights are at each stage of the process. Uses an easy to under-I

stand question-and-answer fommt

1038 ..J L._ - - '_ _ _

Represent Yourself in Court: How to Prepare & Try a Winning Case, by

Attorneys Paul Betgman & Sam J. Berman-Barre~ Nolo Press, 528 pages. $39.99.

I I I Breaks down the civil trial process in easy-to-understand steps so you can effectively
represent yourself in court The authors ,,-'-plain what to say in

court:, how to say It, etc.

1037...

Law Dictionary, R:mdom House Webster's, 525 pages. $19.95. Comprehensive u

to-d~te bw dictionary "-'-plws more than 8,500 legru terms. i

i

Covers civil, criminal, commerci:u & internation:U bw.

1036 Li_---'L-_ _-'

I I I The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, by Jane Sttaus, 110 pages.
$14.95. A guide to grammar and punctuation by an educator

with ,,-,<perience teaching English to prisoners.

1046 . .

.

Legal Research: How to Find and Understand the Law, by Stephen Elias and

I I I Susan Levinkind, 568 pages. $49.99. Comprehensive and easy to understand guide
on researching d,e law. R,-plains case bw, statutes and digests,

and mucll more. Includes practice ,,-,<ercises.

1059 L.._ - ' ._ _ _-'.

Deposition Handboolt, by Paul Bergman and Albert Moore, Nolo Press, 352

pages. $34.99. How-to handbook for anyone who conducts a I I

I

deposirion or is going to be deposed.

1054 L._.-L._ _ _..J.

Spatrish-English/English-Spanish Dictionary, Random House. $8.95. Two

sections, Spanish-English and Eoglish-Spanish. 60,000+ entries

from A to Z; includes Western Hemisphere usage.

1034

Please Note: All book and indeX orders are mailed via the U.S. Postal
Service with Delivery Confinmition. PIN does not asswne any respon-
sibility to replace book or index orderS once their delivery to the desti-
nation address (facility) isconfumed by the U.S. Postal Service.

I Writing to Wm: The Legal Writer, by Steven D. Stark, Broadway Books/Random
House, 283 pages. $19.95. R,pbins the writing of effective compbints, I I

responses, briefS, motions and other legru papers.

1035 L.._ - ' - ._ _ _•

Actual Innocence: WhenJustice Goes Wrong and How to Make it Right, updated

paperback ed., by Barry Sclleck, Peter Neufeld and Jim Dwyer; 403 pages. $16.00.

Founders of ti,e Innocence Project e.'pbin how crirnin:u defendmts are wrongly con-

victed on a regular basis. lli-pbins DNA testing and how it works to free the innocent

Devasmting critique of police and prosecutorial misconduct and d,e I I

I

system dlat ensures sucll abuses continue. . .

1030 L._...J.L-_ _-'.

Roger's Thesaurus, 717 pages. $8.95. Helps you find the right word for what

you want to say. 11,000 words listed alphabetically widl over 200,000 synonyms

and antonyms. Sample sentences and parts of speech shown for every main

word. Covers all levels of vocabillary and identifies infonnal I I

I

and slang words.

1045 L.._.JL.._ _---'.

Webster's English Dictionary, Newly re\~sed and updated, Random House.

$8.95. 75,000+ enrries. Includes tips on writing and word usage, and has up-

dat:d geographical and biographical entries. Includes recent I I

I

bUSiness and computer tenns.

1033...

I Capital Crimes, by George Winslow, Mondlly Review, 360 pages. $19.00.
Explains how economic policies create and foster crime, and how corporate & government crime is rarely punished. 1024 '-_-'--_ _--'

With Liberty for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America, by Scott

Christianson, Nordleastern University Press, 372 pages. $18.95. The best

overall history of the American prison system from 1492 dlrough d,e 20d,

I I I Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how litde
things have changed as far as prisons go in the U.S. over

hundreds of years.

1026..

.

I Ten Men Dead: The story of the 1981 Irish hunger strike, by David Beres-

ford, Adantic Mondlly Press, 334 pages. $16.95. Inside story of I

I

IRA prisoners at Belfast's Long Kesh prison.

1006 . .

.

Finding the Right Lawyer, by Jay Foonberg, ABA, 256 pages. $19.95. Ex-

plains how to determine your legal needs, how to evaluate a I

lawyer's qualifications, fee payments, and more.

1015

Seize the Day! 7 Steps to Achieving the Extraordinary in an Ordinary

World, by Danny Cox and John Hoover, 256 pages. $15.99. Pro\~des 7 steps

to changing your expectations and em~sioniog yourself as being a successful

and respected person-which is essential to changing d,e I I

course of one's life.

1052
'---'-----'

Women Behind Bars, The Crisis of Women in me U.S. Prison System, by
Silja J.A. Talvi, Seal Press, 295 pages. $15.95. Best book available that covers

issues related to imprisoned women, based on inten~ews widl I

hundreds of women behind bars.

1066 L.._ - ' -_ _ _- '

10 Insider Secrets to a Winning Job Search, by Todd Bennont, 216 pages.

$15.99. Roadmap on how to get a job even under adverse circumstances-like

being an ex-con. Includes how to develop a \vinning attitude, write attention-

grabbing resumes, prepare for inten~ews, networking, how to I I

I

present your sttengdls to an employer, and much more! 1056..

.

The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, 2003

Ed. by Alfred McCoy, 734 pages. $34.95. Documented expose I I

I

of d,e government's involvement in drug ttafficking.

1014 L.._ - ' - ._ _ _- ' .

Lockdown Ametica: Police and Prisons in me Age of Crisis, by Christian Parenti,

290 pages. $19.00. Analyzes d,e war on d,e poor vii d,e crimin:u justice system. Well

documented and includes first-hand reporting. Covers prisons, para-I

military policing, SWAT teams and d,e INS.

.

1002 L.._ - ' -_ _- '

Hepatiris and Liver Disease: What You Need to Know, by Melissa Palmer, ]'yIn,

I 457 pages. $17.95. Describes symptoms & ttearments of hepatitis B & C and odler
liver diseases. Includes medicttions to avoid, what diet to follow, 1 1

e.,<ercises to perform, and a bibliography.

1031

Crime and Punishment In America, by Elliott Cuttie, 230 pages. $16.95. Effi:ctive

I rebuttlli to right-wing proponents of prison building Fact-based argument shows ti,,~t

crime is driven by poverty. Debunks prison myths and discusses 1

1

proven, effi:ctive means ofcrime prevention.

1019

Prison Madness: The Mental Health Crisis Behind Bars and What We

Must Do About It, by Terry Kupers,Jossey-Bass, 245 pages. Hardback only,

prisoners please include any required aumorization fonn. $32.95. Psychia-

trist writes about d,e mental health crisis in U.S. prisons and jails. Covers all

aspects of mental illness, prison rape, negative effects of l o n g - I I I

term isolation in conttol units, and more.

1003

Prison Writing in 20th Century America, by H. Bruce Franklin, Penguin

Books, 368 pages. $16.00. From Jack London to George Jackson, dus

andlology provides a selection of some of d,e best writing I I

describing life behind bars in America.

1022 L._..1._ _---'

i Soledad Brother: The Prison Letters of George Jackson, by GeorgeJackson,
Lawrence Hill Books, 339 pages. $18.95. Lucid "-'--pbfiation of ,e prlitiCS of 1

prison by a well-known prison acti\~st More relevant now d,an

when it first appeared 40 years ago.

1016

Marijuana Law, by Rich.~d Boire, Ronin, 271 pages. $17.95. R",~es how to

I reduce tile probability of arrest and prosecution for people accused of ti,e use, sale or

possession of marijuana. Info on legru defenses, searcll & seizures, I

I

surveillance, asset forfeiture and drag testing.

1008 L.._...l._ _--'.

Worse Than Slavery: Parchman Farm and the Ordeal ofJim Crow Justice, by

David Oshinsky, 306 pages. $16.00. Analysis of prison bbor's roots in slavery.

Focuses on prison plmtations and self-sustaining prisons dlat use I I

I

prison labor.

1007..

.

No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the American Criminal Justice System, by D",~d Cole, TI,e New Press, 218 pages. $19.95. R,-plains how the

criminal justice system perpetuates race and class inequality, I I

I

creating a two-tiered system of justice.

1028 L.._ - ' ._ _- - ' .

The Prison and the Gallows: The Politics of Mass Incarceration in

America, by Marie Gottschalk, Cambridge University Press, 451 pages.

$29.99. Great political analysis of the confluence of events I

I

leading to 2.3 million people behind bars in d,e U.S. 1069.

.

The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, by Brandon

Sample, PLN Publislung, 200 pages. $49.95. Tlus is PLN's second published

book, which ,,-,<clusively covers ineffective assistance of counsel-related

issues in federal habeas petitions. Great resource for habeas I I

I

litigation, and contains hundreds of case cites!

1078..

.

Factor 8 (DVD), a film by Kelly Duda, Concrete Films. $21.95. MO\~e

about d,e Arkansas prison blood scandal, in wluch prison officials sold

infected blood harvested from prisoners. Note: This is a

DVD and cannot be shipped to prison.

1076

PLN Cumulative Index. $22.50 each. PLN Article Indexes pro,~de detailed information ahout all pLN articles, including tide, author, issue, page number, topics covered, citations, and if it is state, BOP or jail specific. Can be searched on over 500 subjects such as medical neglect or se:-.."Uru assault. Circle d,e index(es) you are ordering: 1990-1995, 1996-1998, 1999-1 2001, 2002-2004. (more recent indexes not yet available)

All books are soft cover except Prison Madness

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 39 of 64

..--.....""hje Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel is the first in a
series of books by Prison Legal News Publishing designed to help pro'-se prisoner litigants identify and raise viable claims for potential habeas corpus relief. This book is an invaluable resource that identifies hundreds of cases where the federal courts have granted habeas relief to prisoners whose attorneys provided ineffective assistance of counsel.
It will save litigants thousands ofhours
of research and it focuses on the WINNING cases criminal defendants need to successfully challenge their convictions.
Well organized into 52 concise chapters, this easy to use book puts the law at the reader's fingertips. The Appendix includes pleadings and forms from successful habeas corpus cases that

"
demonstrate formatting and show how to frame a winning argument that will persuade a court to grant habeas relief. The Habeas Citebook explains the procedural and substantive complexities of federal habeas corpus litigation with the goal of identifying and litigating claims involving ineffective assistance of counsel.
Brandon Sample is a successful jailhouse lawyer litigant incarcerated in the Bureau of Prisons. He is a Prison Legal News contributing writer and a member of the National Lawyer's Guild. Editor Susan Schwartzkopf has a mas- . ter's degree in education and is the director and editor in chief of Prison Legal News Publishing.

The Habeas Citebook is a nifty and concise self-help guide for prisoners seeking habeas relief based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Navigating the complex and treacherous terrain of habeas law is never easy; but claiming that your lawyer screwed up is even more difficult - especially from the confines of an ill-equipped prison law library. "Brandon Sample has provided an amazing and muchneeded tool for prisoners who are forced to seek relief on their own. The book is thorough; but simple and readable. It starts with a wonderfully well-organized listing of hundreds of different types of ineffective assistance of counsel, set forth in the form of citations to court rulings - a novel approach that not only acts as a springboard for further research but also saves the prisoner countless hours of preliminary research:'
PETER SCHMIDT
Publisher, Punch & Jurists

THE HABEAS CITEBOOK: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

I

By Brandon Sample

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed _ _ _ __

8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages

By: 0 check 0 new postage stamps 0 credit card 0 money order I

ISBN 978-0-9819385-1-6
$49·95 3 or more copies ordered
. at once $39.95 each

I Name __________________~_________________________
DOC/BOP Number _______________....,-_________________
Institution/Agency _______________-'-__________________

FREE Shipping <& Handling Order by mail, phone, or on-line.
PUBLISHED BY

Address_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

City _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ State

ZIP

PRISON lEGAL NEWS P.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 1P8L8NCOL-00325

" Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3

Filed 01/31/12

Page 40 of 64

-------,-------,

Copies of this very usable and useful gUide

should be available in every prison library-to

help incarcerated people give positive direc-

tion to their energies while making constructive

use of their time. It·is a well-established fact that

people who have taken college courses in prison

have a dramatically reduced rate of recidivism."

-BELL GALE CHEVICiNY, PEN Prison Writing Program,

~-----

Editor Doing Time: 25 Years ofPrison Writing. -----~

HIGH SCHOOL. VOCATIONAL • PARALEGAL • UNDERCRADUATE. GRADUATE COURSES

T HE GREATLY anticipated and newly updated third edition of the Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the United States and Canada has finally arrived! Author Jon Marc Taylor's brand new version is the latest in this unique and highly successful gUidebook for the prisoner-student. This invaluable tool and how-to handbook provides the reader with step-by-step instructions to find the appropriate educational program for high school, vocational, paralegal, undergraduate, and graduate courses offered in the U.S. and Canada today.
Invaluable re-entry tool
It presents more than 160 program outlines and
offers an easy-to-use format for the student to
determine which· program best suits their needs. It is ideal for the incarcerated student who does not have Internet access or the ability to attend education classes in person. This resource is indispensable

for the individual and beneficial for use in all prison libraries and education departments.
The Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook is the only book on the market for the non-traditional prisoner-student. It includes detailed listings of the quality, cost, and course offerings for all correspondence programs available to prisoners. In a time when so many academic opportunities in prisons have been eliminated, this book is an invaluable re-entry tool for prisoners who seek to further their education while incarcerated and to help them prepare for life and work following their release.
Jon Marc Taylor has more than 25 years experi-
ence as an incarcerated student, advocate for pris(mer education, and author. He has successfully earned a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and a doctorate via correspondence courses while incar-
cerated. Editor Susan Schwartzkopf has a master's
degree in education and 12 years experience teaching immigrants English language skills.

ByJon Marc Taylor PHD 8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages

Number of copies ordered

Amount enclosed

By: D check D new postage stamps D credit card D money order I

ISBN 978-0-9819385-0-9
$49-95
30r more copies ordered

Name ___________________________________________ DOC/BOP Number ____________________________----'_____

.at once $39-95 each

Institution/Agency ___________________________________

FREE Shipping & Handling Address___________________________________________

I Order by mail, phone, or on-line. City ___________________________ State

ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

PRISON LEGAL NEWS I p.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 1P8L9NCOL-00326

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 41 of 64

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBITV
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 190

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 42 of 64 Page 1P9L1NCOL-00113

Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 . West Brattleboro, Vermont 05303

,;'!~~;\':"';')~;:K~' ·~f~l1~i ·:~..\A::,. :\:~\j;'):~ .~j~(,.:, , ....... " . ~.. . .;:" \':":!

. ~:~'.'! .

Z"L{

., .....

RETURl\ij ~ro SE;~'~uER

USA FOReVeR

59582 ** ExPIRES: 7/201 1
EZRA ST HELEN 2010000397 COLUMBIA Co JAIL 901 PORT AVE ST HELENS, OREGON 97051

"-.::~

N 'I)( :te-:

9'7(;) .'5 E-: :L

C)(';) r:)~?J;1. OJ ;1. :L

F"E'TU;~N 'TO SENDER
NOT DELIV~RAeLE AS ADDRESSED
\JN~'1aLE 'TO J!'O.F?\tl.AJ;;!J:)

~j'?C:S":J.s1;;~~;~;4.~O

SCi : C;lr:>::!IO:~;':J420:;a"

*2853-05741-01-44

JJj)))) J) J) n11.1 JJ.I .lwJJ) nJ)L J))1)) J.I m.I)))) LJJJ.I.I.I J.I JnJ

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 43 of 64 Page 1P9L2NCOL-00114

Order Form
All purchases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new stamps (strips or books) or pre-stamped envelopes.

Books (3 & 4 yr Subscription Specials: CIRCLE
one book ill: bonus issues, and DO NOT add Sill)
Protecting Your Health and Safety or 4 Bonus Issues (3-yr subscription offer)

$Amt.
Free

Prison Profiteers m; With Liberty for Some

m; 6 Bonus Issues'(4,-yr subscription offer)

Frce

Book Total (inc. all books bought separately)

Add 6% sales tax for Vermont residents only

ADD $6.00 S/H to book orders UNDER $50

PLN Subscriptions
6-month Subscription (Prisoners only) 1 yr Subscription (12 issues) 2 yr Subscription (24. plus 2 Bonus issues) 3 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above ill: 4 Bonus issues) 4. yr Sub (Circle bonus book above ill: 6 Bonus issues) Sample Issue - $3.50 each
TOTAL Amount Enclosed:

Send to:
Name: DOC#: Agency/Inst: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Address:
City/State/Zip: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
MAIL PAYMENT AND TillS FORM TO:
I ,
Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303

Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

PLN Subscription Rates

Subscription Rates 1yr 2 yrs 3 yrs 4yrs

Prisoners *

$24 $ 48 $ 72 $ 96

Individuals

$30 $ 60 $ 90 $120

Professionals

$80 $160 $240 $320

(Lawyers, govt. & professional agencies, libraries, etc.)

Sample issue for anyone -$3.50 each*

Six-month prisoner subscription for $12*
* Prisoners can pay with new fust-class stamps (strips or books only) or pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed ~prison policies.

:- - - - - - - - - S~s-c;ip;i~~ B-o~~~;s! - - - - - - - --
•• 2 years - 2, bonus issues, for 26 monthly issues total.
: 3 years - 4 bonus issues (40 total) OR Protecting Your Health and • Safety (see book description on the other side of this brochure). : 4years - 6 bonus issues (54 total) OR your choice of With Libertyfor
!..~,!!:e_Sl£P"ri:o~ ~r~e:::.(~:.d~s~ri"p~o~..?~ ~:.o.:h~r~i~e~ _____•

New 3 or 4-Year SubSCI'iption Book Offers!

Subscribe or renew for three years at the regular price ($72 for prisoners & $90 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Protecting Your Health and Safety or four bonus issues of PLN! (40 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.
Subscribe or renew for four years at the regular price ($96 for prisoners & $120 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Prison Profiteers or With Libertyfor Some, or 6 bonus issues of PLN! (54 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.

NO shipping charge for subscription bonus books!

NOTE: If you want the bonus issues of PLN instead of the free book offer, please indicate that on the Order Form.

:- - - - - - -C-o;'h.~~U;fo; "PLN;-s-io~k iis~!- - ---- ~

•• You can buy dozens of legal, social commentary, self-.•

. : help books, and legal and regular dictionaries directly:
• from PLN's book store! Ask us for a book list.. or view·

: our selection online at:

I

•L ______w_w_w_.p_ri_so_n_Ie_ga_l_ne_w_s._o_rg_/s_to_re_.a_s_px______ _:

All subscriptionrates & bonus offeI'S are effective as of5-1-10
and valid through 12-31-10
* No refunds after ordel'S have been placed *

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
Eastern State Penitentiary 1829-1971
Charles Dickens visited Philadelphia's Eastern State Penitentiary in 184.2 and he later wrote: "The System is rigid, strict and hopeless ... and I believe it to be cruel and wrong....I hold this slow and daily tampering with the mysteries of the brain to be immeasurably worse than any torture of the body." The prison remained open for 129 years after Dickens condemned it as being barbaric, and some of its inhumane practices continue to be used in prisons nationwide.
P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.prisonIegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 44 of 64 Page 1P9L3NCOL-00115

n nn
., !!
P rison Legal News is an independent, non-profit 56-page monthly publication that reports, reviews and analyzes court rulings and news related to
prisonel's' rights and prison issues. PLN has a national
(U.S.) focus on state, federal and private prison issues, with some international coverage as well.
PLN's many thousands of subscribers and readers include civil and crinllnal trial and appellate attorneys, judges, puhlic defenders, journalists, academics, paralegals, pl'isoners' rights activists, students, family members of prisoners, concerned individuals, politicians, other government officials, and numerous local, state aild federal prisoners nationwide. .
PLNis a vital link for prisoners who otherwise don't have access to current legal and prison-related news and information.
"Invaluable resource for anyone wanting 'user friendly' infonnation about current legal developme1'!ts affecting
prisoners in the United States." - Human Rights Watch, a long-time PLN subscriber
P LN's coverage of prison issues includes medical neglect, disciplinary heal'ings, nutrition, living conditions, excessive force, court access, censorship, jail litigation, visiting, telephones, religious freedom, free speech, prison rape, mental health, attorney/ client access, sexual abuse of women prisoners, re-
taliation, the PLRA, HIV and hep C, control units,
the death penalty, attorney fees and much more.
PLN Suhscription Rates
Prisoners: $12 for 6 months, $24 per year *
Non-incarcerated individuals: $30 per year Law firms, govt. agencies and libraries: $80 per year
Sample issue for anyone: $3.50 each*
* Prisoners can pay with new stamps or pre-stamped envelopes

E ach monthly issue of PLN includes .three different

types of reporting:

.

o A cover story on a prison-related issue.

o Reports on individual and class-action prison and jail-. related lawsuits when they are filed, when a judgment is entered or the case settles, and when an appellate court decision is issued. We also have prison-related news articles.

o A "News In Brief' section that summarizes interesting news stories ac~oss the U.S. and internationally.

Each issue of PLN also contains nUmerous advertisements from businesses that ·provide prison-related personal and legal services and books. PLN further sells dozens of selfhelp, social commentary and legal books.

PLN also has cumulative subject and case cite indexes for all PLN issues from 1990 through 2004. Write for info.

Special 3-yeal' Subscription Offer!]

Free with a 3-yeru: PLN subscription! Four bonus issues of PLN (40 issues total) ill: a free book, Protecting Your Health and Safety! Circle your bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (3-year subscription riltes: prisoners $72, individuals $90, professionals· $24.0).
Protecting Your H~alth and Safety, by E"(1-----1 Robert E. Toone. Published by the Southern Poverty Law Center, 325 page~ (2009). $10.00 (free with a 3-yeru' sub!). This book
I explains some basic rights that prisoners
have in· a jail or prison in the U.S. It deals Ii ...@____
mainly with rights related to health and --j. I:1.00_ _ _ _ safety, such. as communicable diseases and abuse by prison officials; it also explains how you can enforce your rights to health and safety within the facility and, if necessary, in court through litigation. Buy separately: ___

r----------~----~-----~-------------------,

You Can Buy These Books Sepamtely! :

I

I

I

.

.

.

.

I

: If you don't want to purchase a 3 or 4.-year subscription:

: to PLN, you can still purchase any Of the bonus books:

: at the regular price. Just indicate which books you want:

: to buy on this page, then enter the total cost on the other:

: side of this brochure on the "Book Total" line of the '01'- :

: der Form. Shipping is $6 per order (not per book), and we :

: offer FREE shipping on book orders of $50 or more! To :

: place a phone order, please call 802-257-134·2. We also:

: accept book orders online, at www.prisonlegahlews.org. :
L _______________________________.__________ J

D onations: PLN is a project of the non-profit Human Rights Defense Center. Your tax-deductible donations support our advocacy, free speech and First Amendment litigation efforts on behalf of prisoners and publishers. PLN not only provides uncensored prison-related news, but actively contests prison censorship that interferes with the delivery of our publicatiOli or any other PLN materials sent to prisoners. All donations further our goal of advocating for people imprisoned in U.S. detention facilities.
"Great source of infonnation, especially in states such as Arizona where the law libraries have been taken from the inmates and replaced with paralegals." - SB, Arizona prisoner
SpeciaI4-yeat· Subscl'iption Offer!
Free with a 4-yeru' PLN subscription! Six bonus issues of PLN (54 issnes total) or one free book, With Liberty for Some or Prison Profiteers! Circle your bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (4-year subscription rates: prisoners $96" individuals $120, professionals $320). Note: Free book option is for one book.
With Liberty for Some: 500 Years Imprisonment in America, .by Scott Christianson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages (1998). $18.95 (free with a 4-yeru' sub!). A classic book and the best overall history of the American prison system from 14·92 to the 20th Century. Well written and fact. filled. A must-read for understanding how little things have changed as far as prisons go in the U.S. over hundreds of years. Buy separately: ___
or
Prison Profiteers: WhQ Makes Money Mass Incarceration, edited by Paul
Wright & Tara Herivel, 'New Press (2007). $24.95 (free with a 4-yeru' sub!): This is the third in a series of PLN anthologies that examines the reality of niass imprisonment in the U.S. Prison Profiteers is unique from other bool{S on the market becanse it exposes and discusses who profits and· benefits from mass imprisonment, rather than who is harmed by the prison industrial complex and our nation's reliance on over-incarceration.
separately: _ __

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 45 of 64 Page 1P9L4NCOL-00116

Order Form
All purchases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books, no singles) or
pre-stamped envelopes, if allowed by prison policies.

Book Title / Number

Qty Total Cost

(attach another page if you are ordering more hooks)
Subtotal: Add 6% sales tax for VT residents only: Add $6.00 S/H to orders UNDER $50: Total Order Amount:
Send to:
Name: DOC#: Agency/Inst: Address: City/State/Zip:
M..uL p AYl\1ENT AND TillS FORM TO: Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303
Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

FREE SmPPING On hook and index ol'del's OVER $50.001
A $6 shipping charge applies to all other hook and index onlers.
(Free shipping policy in clIect [rolll Janl, ~OlO unLil furLher nOLice)

MOl'e Books fol' Sale!

Prisoners' Self-Help Litigation Manual, updated 4th ed. (2010), by John

Boston and Daniel Manville, Oxford Univ. Press, 1500 pages. $39.95. TIle
I I I premiere, must-have ''Bible'' of prison litigation for current and aspiring jail-
house lawyers. If you plan to litigate a prison or jail civil suit,

this book is a must-have.

1077

Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the U.S.

and Canada, updated 3rd ed. by Jon Marc Taylor, Ph.D. and edited by Susan

Schwartzkopf, published by PLN, 221 pages. $49.95. Written by lvIissouri

prisoner Jon Marc Taylor, who obtained a B.S. degree, an M.A. degree and a

Doctorate, dle Gllmil/a Halldbook contains contact information and descrip-

I I tions of high school, vocational, paralegal and college courses available
d1rough correspondence study. Great resource for prisoners

who want to further their education.

1057 '----'----'

Protecting Your Health.and Safety, by Robert E. Toone, Soudlern Poverty

Law Center, 325 pages. $10.00. This book e.xplains basic rights that prisoners

have in a jailor prison in dle U.S. It deals mainly widl rights related to healdl

I I I and safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by prison officials; it also
explains how you can enforce your rights \vidun the facility

and, if necessary, in court through litigation.

1060 . .

.

Starting Out! The Complete Re-Entry Handbook, edited by William H.

Foster, Ph.D. & Carl E. Horn, Ph.D., Starting Out Inc., 446 pages. $22.95.

Complete do-it-yourself re-entty manual and workbook for prisoners who

want to develop dleir own re-entry plan to increase dieir chances of success

I after dley are released. Includes a wide. variety of resources, including a user
code to the Starting Out website that can be accessed fOilO\.:V-1

ing release.

.

1074 ..J L._ - ' - ._ _ _

Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners v. the U.S.A.; by Mumia Abu Jamal, City Lights P~blishers, 280 pages. $16.95. In Jailbollse lA/v-

yers, Prison Legal News columnist, award-\vinning journalist and death-row

prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal presents the stories and reflections of fellow pris-

I I I oners-rnrned-advocates who have learned to use dle court system to represent
other prisoners, and in some cases have won their freedom.

Must-read for jailhouse lawyers!

1073 . .

.

How to Win Your Personal Injury Claim, by l\tty. Joseph Matd1ews, 7dl

edition, NOLO Press, 304 pages. $34.99. WIllie not specifically for prison-

related personal injury cases, this book provides comprehensive information

I I I on how to handle personal injury and property damage claims arising from
~ccidents - including dealing widl doctors, attorneys and

msurance comparues.

1075 . .

.

All prices are effective as of 9-15-10 . (ptices subject to change without notice)
* No refunds aftel' ol'ders have been placed *

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
2010 PLN BOOK LIST
Prices Subject to Change Without Notice
Graphic from: Books 2 Prisoners, Vancouver, Be
P.O. Box 2420, Bl'attleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.prisonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 46 of 64 Page 1P9L5NCOL-00117

Check the box of the books you want to buy and use the Order Form on the other side of this brochure to add up the cost of your order. FREE SHIPPING for book and index orders OVER $50. There is a $6 shipping charge for all other book and index orders.

Prison Profiteers, edited by Paul Wright and Tara Herive!, 323 pages. $24.95. This is d,e

dlird and 11testbook in a series ofPrison I..egaI News antilOlogies dmt e.'<llITIines the reality of

m1SS imprisonment in Amerim (The other tides are The Cellil{l!. ofAJllmca & PrisollNaoOlI,

see below). PJisoIl Projlef!/J is unique from other books because it e>.poses and discusses

who profits and benefits from mass imprisonmen~ rad,er than wbo is I

I

1

h,mned by it and how.

1063 L._ _.1-._ _- ' .

I I I Prison Nation: The Warehousing of America's Poor, edited by Tara Herivel and Paul
Wrigh~ 332 pages. $35.95. PIN anthology e>.poses the d'l!:k side ofthe

~ock-em-up'politiall agendaandleg.U climate in the U.s.

1041 . .

.

a I The CeIling of America, edited by Daniel Burton Rose, Dan Pens and PaulWright; 264

pages. $22.95. PIN anthology presents detniled "inside" I~k at d,e

I

I

worlcings ofthe American a:iminaI justice system

1001 . .

.

Everyday Letters for Busy People, by Debra Hart May, 287 pages. $18.99.

Hundteds of sample letters that can be adapted for most any purpose, including

letters to government agencies and officials. Has numerous I

I

tips for writing effective letters.

1043 .

.

The Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System, by

Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sam J. Berman-Barrett, Nolo Press, 608 pages. $39.99.

&-p11ins what happens in a criminal case from being arrested to senteneing, and what

your rights are at each stage of the process. Uses an easy to under-I

stand question-and-answer fornmt

1038 L._ - - '_ _ _- '

Represent Yourself in Court: How to Prepare & Try a Winning Case, by
Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sam J. Berinan-Barrett, Nolo Press, 528 pages. $39.99.

I I I Breaks down d,e civil trial process in easy-to-understand steps so you can effectively
represent yours~ in court The autilOts ·e.'plain what to say in

court; how to say It, etc.

1037...

Law Dictionary, Random House Webster's, 525 pages. $19.95. Comprehensive uito-date l~w dictionary exp11ins more d,an 8,500 1eg.U terms. 1 1

Covers civil, criminal, commercial & international11w.

1036 L._ _L.._ _- - '

The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, by Jane Straus, 110 pages.

$14.95. A guide to grammar and punctuation by an educator 1 1

1

wirll experience teaching English to prisoners.

1046

Legal Research: How to Find and Understand the Law, by Stephen Elias and

Susan Levinkind, 568 pages. $49.99. Comprehensive and easy to understand guide

on researclling rl,e bw. R,plains case bw, statutes and digests, 1 1

I

and much more. Includes practice ,,-"{ercises.

1059 L._ - - - ' ._ _ _-'.

Deposition Handbook, by Paul Bergman and Albert Moore, Nolo Press, 352

pages. $34.99. How-to handbook for anyone who conducts a I I

I

deposition or is going to be deposed.

1054 L._--1.._ _ _-'.

I Spanish-English/English-Spanish Dictionary, Random House. $8.95. Two
sections, Spanish-English and English-Spanish. 60,000+ entries

from A to Z; includes Western Hemisphere usage.

1034 L._ - - '_ _ _- '

Please Note: All book and index orders ru:e mailed via the U.S. Postal Service with Delivery Confinnation. PIN does n~t assume any respon-
sibility to replace book or index orders once their delivery to the desti-
nation address (facility) is confinned by the U.S. Postal Service.

I I I Wtiting to Wm: The Legal Writer, by Steven D. Stmk, Broad\vay Books/R.mdom
House, 283 pages. $19.95. R,p11ins the writiog ofeffeerivecomp11ints,

respooses, briefS, motions and other 1eg.U papers.

1035 L._ - - ' - ._ _- - - ' .

Actual Innocence: WhenJustice Goes Wrong and How to Make it Right, updated

paperback ed, by Barry Scheck, Peter Neufeld and Jim Dwyer; 403 pages. $16.00.

Founders of the Inoocence Project e>.pbin how a:iminaI defendants are wrongly con-

victed 00 a regular basis. &p11ins DNA testiog and how it works to free tile innocent.

Devastltiog critique of police and prosecutotial misconduct and d,e I I

I

SJ'Stern timt ensures such abuses continue. .

1030 oJ. L._ - - ' - ._ _ _

Roget's Thesaurus, 717 pages. $8.95. Helps you find the right word for what

you want to sal'. 1(000 words listed alphabetically \vith over 200,000 synonyms and anto~yms. Sample sentences and parts of speech shown for every main

word. Covers all levels of vocabulary and identifies informal 1 1

1

and s11ngwords.

1045 . .

.

Webster's English Dictionary, Newly re\~sed anc) updated, R.mdom House.

$8.95. 75,000+ entries. Includes tips on writing and word tisage, and has up-

dated geographical and biographical entries. Includes recent I I

I

business and computer terms.

1033...

Capital Crimes, by George Winslow, Monrluy Review, 360 pages. $19.00.

Explains bow economic policies create and foster crime, and 1

1

how corporate & government crime is rarely punished. 1024

With Liberry for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America, by Scott

Christianson, Norrlleastern University Press, 372 pages. $18.95. The best

overall history of the American prison system from 1492 through rl,e 20th

Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how little

things have changed as far as prisons go in d,e U.S. over 1 1

1

bundteds of years.

1026..

.

I Ten Men Dead: The story of the 1981 Irish hunger strike, by David Beres-

ford, Arlantic Monrluy Press, 334 pages. $16.95. Inside story of I

I

IRA prisoners at Belfast's Long Kesh prison.

1006 . .

.

Finding the Right Lawyer, by Jay Foonberg, ABA, 256 pages. $19.95. Ex-

plains how to determine your legal needs, how to evaluate a I I

I

lawyer'S qualifications, fee payments, and more.

1015 . .

.

Seize the Day! 7 Steps to Achieving the Extraordinary in an Ordinary

World, by Danny Cox and John Hoover, 256 pages. $15.99. Provides 7 steps

to changing your expectations and em~sioning yourself as being a successful

and respected person-whicb is essential to. changing rl,e I I

I

course of one's life.

1052

Women Behind Bars, The Crisis of Women in the U.S. Prison System, by

Silja J.A. Talvi, Seal Press, 295 pages. $15.95. Best book available rllat covers

issues related to imprisoned women, based on interviews with j

hundreds of~vomen behind bars. .

1066 LI_ - ' -_ _----'

10 Insider Secrets to a Winning Job Search, by Todd Bermont, 216 pages.

$15.99. Roadmap on how to get a job even under adverse circumstances-like

being an ex-con. Includes how to develop a winning attitude, write attention-

grabbing resumes, prepare for inter\~ews, networking, how to I I

I

present your strengrhs to an employer, and much more! 1056..

.

The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, 2003

Ed. by Alfred McCoy, 734 pages. $34.95. Documented expose I I

I

of rl,e government's involvement in dtug trafficking.

1014 L.._ - ' - ._ _----'.

Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis, by Christian Parenti,

290 pages. $19.00. Analyzes tile war on d,e poor via the criminal justice SJ'stem. Well

documented and includes first-hand reporting. Covers prisons, para-I

military policing, SWAT teams and the lNS.

1002 1...._ - ' - - -_ _- - '

Hepatiris and Liver Disease: What You Need to Know, by Melissa Palmer, lVlD,

457 pages. $17.95. Deseribes SJ'IIlproins & treatments of hepatitis B & C and odler

liver diseases. Includes medications to avoid, what diet to follow, I 1

1

exercises to perform, and a bibliography. .

1031

Crime and Punishment In America, by Elliott Currie, 230 pages. $16.95. Effective

rebuttru to right-wing proponents of prison building. Fact-based rugurnent shows.dmt

erime is driven by poverty. Debunks prison myths and discusses 1 .1

1

proven, effective means oferime prevention.

1019

Prison Madness: The Mental Health Crisis Behind Bars and What We

Must Do About It, by Terry Kupers,Jossey-Bass, 245 pages. Hardback only,

prisoners please include any required authorization form. $32.95. Psychia-

trist writes about tile mental health crisis in U.S. prisons and jails. Covers all

aspects of mental illness, prison rape, negative effects of l o n g - I I I

term isolation in control units, and more.

1003

Prison Writing in 20th Century America, by H. Bruce Franklin, Penguin Books, 368 pages. $16.00. From Jack London to George Jackson, dus

anthology provides a selection of some of the best writing I I

describing life bellind bars in America.

1022 L._ - ' ._ _- - '

T Soledad Brother: The Prison Letters of George Jackson, by George Jackson,
Lawrence Hill Books, 339 pages. $18.95. Lucid e.'pbnation of f,e litiCS of 1 prison by a well-known prison activist. More relevant now than

when it first appeared 40 years ago.

1016

Marijuana Law, by Ricllard Boire, Ronin, 271 pages. $17.95. Examines how to

reduce the probability of arrest and prosecution for people accused of tile use, sale or

possession of marijuana. Info on 1eg.U defenses, Searcll & seizures, I I

I

surveillance, asset forfeiture and drug testiog.

1008 L._..1._ _- ' .

Worse Than Slavery: Parchman Fann and the Ordeal ofJirn CrowJustice, by

I David Oshinsky, 306 pages. $16.00. AnaI)'Sis of prison l1bor's roots in sbvery.

Focuses on prison pLmtations and self-sustaining prisons rllat use

I

I

prison bbor.

1007..

.

No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the American Criminal Justice

System, by David Cole, The New Press, 218 pages. $19.95. R,p11ins how d,e

criminal justice system perpetuates race and class inequality, I I

I

creating a two-tiered system of justice.

1028 . .

.

The Prison and the Gallows: The Politics of Mass Incarceration in

America, by Marie Gotrschalk, Cambridge University Press, 451 pages.

$29.99. Great political analysis of dle confluence of events I

I

leading to 2.3 million people behind bars in rl,e U.S. 1069 L._-'L_ _-'.

The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, by Brandon

Sample, PLN Publishing, 200 pages. $49.95. This is PLN's second published

book, wluch exclusively covers ineffective assistance of counsel-related

issues in federal habeas petitions. Great resource for habeas I I

I

litigation, and contains hundteds of case citesl

1078..

.

Factor 8 (DVD), a fUm by Kelly Duda, Concrete Films. $21.95. Movie

about rlle Arkansas prison blood scandal, in wluch prison officials sold

infected blood harvested from prisoners. Note: This is a

DVD and cannot be shipped to prison.

1076 L._'--_--'

PLN Cumulative Index. $22.50 each. PLN Article Indexes provide detailed information about all PLN articles, including ritle, audlor, issue, page number, topics covered, citations, and if it is state, BOP or jail. specjfic. Can be searched on over 500 subjects such as medical neglect or sexual assault. Circle the index(es) you are ordering: 1990-1995, 1996-1998, 1999-1 2001, 2002-2004. (more recent indexes not yet available)

All books are soft cover except Prison Madness

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 47 of 64

T he Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel is the first in a series of books by Prison Legal News Publishing designed to help pro-se prisoner litigants identify and raise viable claims for potential habeas corpus relief. This book is an invaluable resource that identifies hundreds of cases where the federal courts have granted habeas relief to prisoners whose attorneys provided ineffective assistance of counsel.
It will save litigants
thousands of hours of research and it focuses on the
WINNING cases criminal defendants need to
successfully challenge their convictions.
Well organized into 52 concise chapters, this easy to use book puts the law at the reader's fingertips. The Appendix includes pleadings and forms from successful habeas corpus cases that

"

The Habeas Citebook is a

nifty and concise self-help

guide for prisoners seeking

habeas relief based on claims of

ineffective assistance of counsel.

Navigating the complex and

treacherous terrain of habeas

law is never easy; but claim-

ing that your lawyer screwed up

is even more difficult - espe-

cially from the confines of an

demonstrate formatting and show ill-equipped prison law library.

how to frame a winning argu-

"Brandon Sample has pro-

ment that will persuade a court

vided an amazing and much-

to grant habeas relief. The Habeas

needed tool for prisoners who

Citebook explains the proce-

are forced to seek relief on their

dural and substantive complexi-

own. The book is thorough; but

ties of federal habeas corpus lit-

simple and readable. It starts

igation with the goal of identify-

with a wonderfully well-orga-

ing and litigating claims involving nized listing of hundreds of dif-

ineffective assistance of counsel.

ferent types of ineffective assis-

Brandon Sample is a success-

tance of counsel, set forth in the

ful jailhouse lawyer litigant incar-

form of citations to court rul-

cerated in the Bureau of Prisons.

ings - a novel approach that

He is a Prison Legal News contrib- not only acts as a springboard

uting writer and a member of the

for further research but also

National Lawyer's Guild. Editor

saves the prisoner countless

Susan Schwartzkopf has a mas-

hours of preliminary research:'

ter's degree in education and is

the director and editor in chief of

PETER SCHMIDT

Prison Legal News Publishing.

Publisher, Punch & Jurists

THE HABEAS CITEBOOK: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

By Brandon Sample 8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages
ISBN 978-0-9819385-1-6

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed ______
I By: 0 check 0 new postage stamps 0 credit card 0 money order
Name _____________________________

$49·95
3 or more copies ordered at once $39.95 each

DOc/BOP Number ________________________ Institution/Agency _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

FREE Shipping & Handling Address_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Order by mail, phone, or on-line. City _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ State

ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

PRISON LEGAL NEWS P.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 1P9L6NCOL-00118

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 48 of 64

" - - - - - - Copies of this very usable and useful gUide should be available in every prison library-to

help incarcerated people give positive direc-

tion to their energies while making constructive use of their time. It is a well-established fact that

people who haVe taken college courses in prison

have a dramatically reduced rate of recidivism."

-BELL GALE CHEVICNY, PEN Prison Writing Program,

'----'-~-

. Editor Doing Time: 25 Years ofPrison Writing. - - - - '

HIGH SCHOOL It VOCATIONAL It PARALEGAL It UNDERGRADUATE It GRADUATE COURSES

."IIIIHE GREATLY anticipated and newly updated third edition of the Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the
United States and Canada has finally arrived! Author Jon Marc Taylor's brand new version is the latest in this unique and highly successful gUidebook for the prisoner-student. This invaluable tool and how-to handbook provides the reader with step-by-step instructions to find the appropriate educational program for high school, vocational, paralegal, undergraduate, and graduate courses offered in the U.S. and Canada today.
Invaluable re-entry tool
It presents more than 160 program outlines and
offers an easy-to-use format for the student to
determine which program best suits their needs. It is ideal for the incarcerated student who does not have Internet access or the ability to attend education classes in person. This resource is indispensable

for the individual and beneficial for use in all prison libraries and education departments.
The Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook is the only book on the market for the non-traditional prisoner-student. It includes detailed listings of the quality, cost, and course offerings for all correspondence programs available to prisoners. In a time when so many academic opportunities in prisons have been eliminated, this book is an invaluable re-entry tool for prisoners who seek to further their education while incarcerated and to help them prepare for life and workfollowing their release.
Jon Marc Taylor has more than 25 years experi-
ence as an incarcerated student, advocate for prisoner education, and author. He has successfully earned a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and a doctorate via correspondence courses while incar-
cerated. Editor Susan Schwartzkopf has a master's
degree in education and 12 years experience teaching immigrants English language skills.

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed _ _ _ __
By: D check D new postage stamps D credit card D money order I I Name ______________________________
DOC/BOP Number _______________________

Institution/Agency ________________________

Address_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

a Order by mail/ phone/ or on-line. City _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ State

ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

PRISON LE.GAl NEWS I P.O. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 1P9L7NCOL-00119

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 49 of 64

9870.05 fa246305

EXHI ITW
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRlGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 198

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 50 of 64 Page 1P9L9NCOL-00334

{

.....
Prison Legal News P.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303 '

\!~;lf:'''Er::r.E: F1..:};3-'{E',R: J'£j,t'{c:rH::,1;f,~', "J':T.. ~~,~,&r; 1.: T
~;;,:-:r:~·: 3J'!::.:;~t:;L ::M:f;~~~~.t.'.:. ~~~~~~ .

,_~-. "-~"-"-""~'v-'~=m

cou~ " :',0 BY COLUMBIA
-f-- F", .,N TO SENDER

JAlL II
I

f-'l:i '::':'::;N NOT HERE

--

!I

~ CC.:;Tr<ABAND

--

~ IN::H-FACILlT'f
_, \L F~E 'J~:~:~~~:~::_::cur,(lTY

'::;;~d~

6321 3 ** ExPIRES: 1 /201 2
WILLIAM TEMPLE 2011000529

COLUMBIA Co JAIL 901 PORT AVE 5T HELENS, OREGON 97051

1'1 :£X:I:E~

l;:J-?O 1:');-::.1.

00 07 J '.:?\iJJ :.1. :1.

NOT

DELRIETVUERRNA~LTOE

SENDER AS ADDRESSED

UNA9LE TO FORWARD

e e : O,~$~O~;J~,q..2CI,~O

*26SS-~0144-'.:?O-41

O,$:SO:S@.24.20
970.51 :j;:..:-'W 1.13

111,1,11111,,11111,11,,111111,1,1,,1,11111111,1,1,111111I11111

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 51 of 64 Page 2P0L0NCOL-00335

Order Form
All purchases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new stamps (strips or books) or pre-stamped envelopes.

Books (3 & 4yr Subscription Specials: CIRCLE
one bookm: bonus issues, and DO NOT add Sm)
Protecting Your Health and Safety
m: 4 Bonus Issues (3-yr subscription offer)

$Amt.
Free

Prison Profiteers or With Liberty for Some

or 6 Bonus Issues (4-yr subscription offer)

Free

Book Total (inc. all books bought separately)

Add 6% sales tax for Vermont' residents only

ADD $6.00 S/H to book orders UNDER $50

PLN Subscriptions
6-month Subscription (Prisoners only) 1 yr Subscription (12 issues) 2 yr Subscription (24. plus 2 Bonus issues) 3 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above m: 4 Bonus issues) 4 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above m: 6 Bonus issues) Sample Issue - $3.50 each
TOTAL Amount Enclosed:

Send to:
Name: DOC#: Agency/lnst: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Address:
City/State/Zip: _ _ _~_ _ _ _ _ _ __
MAIL PAYl"IENT AND THIS FORM TO:
I i
Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303

Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

PLN Subscription Rates

Subscription Rates
Prisoners *

lyr 2 yrs 3 yrs 4yrs $24 $ 48 $ 72 $ 96

Individuals

$30 $ 60 $ 90 $120

Professionals

$80 $160 $240 $320

(Lawyers, govt. & professional agencies, libraries, etc.)

Sample issue for anyone - $3.50 each*

Six-month prisoner subscription for $12*

* Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books only) or pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed byprison policies.

--------- :- - - - - - - - - S~s-c;ip~i~; B-o-;'~;;s!
1
1 2 years - 2 bonus issues, for 26 monthly issues total. : 3 years - 4 bonus issues (40 total) OR Protecting Your Health and 1 Safety (see book description on the other side of this brochure). : 4 years - 6 bonus issues (54 total) OR your choice of With Libertyfor
!..~~e_!!!.~~o~~r~e:r:.(~~d:s~.f~o~3~~~o:h~r~i~e~ _____:

New 3 or 4-Year Subscription Book Offers!

Subscribe or renew for three years at the regular price ($72 for prisoners & $90 for individuals), and -receive as a FREE bonus, Protecting Your Health and Safety or four bonus issues of PLN! (40 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.
Subscribe or renew for four years at the regular price ($96 for prisoners & $120 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Prison Profiteers or With Libertyfor Some, or 6 bonus issues of PLN! (54 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.

NO shipping charge for subscription bonus books!

NOTE: If you want the bonus issues of PLN instead of the free book offer, please indicate that on the Order Form.

:- - - - - - -C-o;';a~;U;£0; PiN;"s-io~k iis~!- ---- - ~

1

1

1 You can buy dozens of legal, social commentary, self-I

1 help books, and legal and regular dictionaries directly:

1
: from

PL~'s

boo~

store!

Ask

us

for

a

book

list,

or

view:

I our selectIOn online at:

1

1

www.prisonlegalnews.org/store.aspx

:

1______ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

All subSCliption rates & bonus offers are effective as of5-1-10
and valid through 12-31-10
* No l·efunds after Oluers have heen placed *

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
Eastern State Penitentiary 1829-1971
Charles Dickens visited Philadelphia's Eastern State Penitentiary in 1842 and he later wrote: "The System is rigid, strict and hopeless ... and I believe it to be cruel and wrong....I hold this slow and daily tampering with the mysteries of the brain to be immeasurably worse than any torture of the body." The prison remained open for 129 years after Dickens condemned it as being barbaric, and some of its inhumane practices continue to be used in prisons nationwide.
P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.prisonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 52 of 64 Page 2P0L1NCOL-00336

I r: L,r..'

P rison lLegal News is an independent, non-profit 56-page monthly publication that reports, reviews and analyzes court rulings and news related to
prisoners' rights and prison issues. PLN has a national
(U.S.) focus on state, federal and private prison issues, with some international coverage as well.

PLN's many thousands of subscribers and readers

include civil and criminal trial and appellate attorneys,

judges, public defenders, joUrnalists, academics, para-

legals, prisoners' rights activists, students, family

members of prisoners, concerned individuals, politi-

cians, other government officials, and numerous local,

state and federal prisonel's nationwide.

.

. .. '

PLN isa vital link for prisoners who otherwise don't

have access to CUlTent legal and prison-related news

and information.

. "Invaluable resource for anyone wanting 'user friendly' infonnation about current legal'devel()pments affecting prisoners in the United States,"
:;:, Human.Rights Watch, a long-time PLN subscriber

P LN's coverage of prison issues includes medical neglect, disciplliiary hearings, nutrition, living conditions, excessive force, court access, censorship, jail litigation, visiting, telephones, religious freedom, free speech, prison rape, mental health, attorney/ client access, sexual abuse of women prisoners, retaliation, the PLRA, HIV and hep C, control units, the death penalty, attorney fees and much more.

PLN Subscription Rates
Prisoners: $12 for 6 moriths, $24 per year *
N on-incarcerated individuals: $30 per year Law firms, govt. agenciesand libraries: $80 per year Sample issue for anyone: $3.50 each;I' * Prisoners can pay with new stamps. or pre-stamped envelopes

E ach monthly issue of PLN includes three different types of reporting:
• A cover story on a prison-related issue. .. Reports on individual and class-action prison and jail.-
related lawsuits when they ar~ filed, when a .judgment is entered or the case settles, and when an appellate court decision is issued. We also have prison-related news articles. .. A "News In Brief' section that summarizes interesting news stories across the U.S. and internationally.
Each issue of PLN also contains numerous advertisements from businesses that provide prison-related· personal and legal services and books. PLN further sells dozens of selfhelp, social commentary and legal books.
PLN also has cumulative subject and case cite indexes for all PLN issues from 1990 through 2004. Write for info.
[S;~ciai3~;~a1' s.ili~~l·iptio~ ()ff~

Free with a 3-ye:u' PLN subscription! Four bonus issues of PLN (40 issues total) or a free book, Protecting Your Health and Safety! Circle your bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (3-year subscription rates: prisoners $72, individuals $90, professionals $240).

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by ..-(4-----1 Robert E. Toone. Published by the Southern Poverty Law Center, 325 pages (2009). $10.00 (free with a 3-year sub!). This book explaiils some basic rights that prisoners
,·'@----I have in a jail or prison in the U.S. It deals.
mainly with rights rehited to health and Ii
safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse. by prison officials; it also explains how you can enforce your rights to health and safety within the facility and, if necessary, in court through litigation.. Buy separately: _ __

1------------------------------------------,

: You Can Buy These Books Sepat'ately!

I

I

I

: If you don't want to plu-chase a 3 or 4-year subscription:

: to PLN, you can still purchase any of the bonus books:

: at the regular price. Just indicate which books you want:

: to buy on this page, then enter the total cost on the other:

: side of this brochure on the "Book Total" line of the 01'- :

: del' Form. Shipping is $6 per order (not per book), and we :

: offer FREE shipping on book orders of $50 or more! To :

: place a phone order, please call 802-257-134,2. We also:

: accept book orders online; at www.prisonlegalnews.org. :
L _________________________________________ J

D onations: PLN is a project of the non-profit Human Rights Defense Center. Your tax-deductible donations support' our advocacy, free speech and First Amendment litigation efforts on behalf of prisoners and publishers. PLN not only provides uncensored prison-related news, but actively contests prison censorship that interferes with the delivery of our publication or any other PLN materials sent to prisoners. All donations further our goal of advocating for people imprisoned in U.S. detention facilities.
"Great source of infonnation, especially in states such as Arizona where the law libraries have been taken from the inmates and replaced with paralegals." - SB, AriZona prisoner
I-~p-ec·ia·l · 4-y·e~ at··S·ub·sc·ri~pt· io· n O·f- fer·!
Free with a 4-year PLN SubSCl'iption! Six bonus issues of PLN (54 issues total) or one fi'ee hook, With Liberty for Some or Prison Profiteers! Circle your bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (4-year subscription rates: prisoners $96, individuals $120, professionals $320). Note: Free book option is for one book.
With Liberty for Some: . 500 Years Imprisonment in America, by Scott Christianson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages (1998). $13.95 (fi'ee with a 4-ye:u' sub!). A classic book and the best overall history of the American prison system from 14,92 to the 20th Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how little things have changed as far as prisons go in the U.S. over hundreds of years. Buy separately: ___
or
Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money Mass Incarceration, edited by Paul
Wright & Tara Herivel, New Press (2007). $24.95 (fi'ee with a 4-year sub!). This is the third in a series of PLN anthologies that examines the reality of mass imprisonment in the U.S. Prison Profiteers is unique from other books on the market because it exposes and discusses who profits and benefits from mass imprisonment, rather than who is harl11ed by the prison industrial complex and our· nation's reliance on over-incarceration. Buy separately: _ __

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 53 of 64 Page 2P0L2NCOL-00337

Order Form
All purchases must he pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or hooks, no singles) or
pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed by prison policies.

Book Title / Number

Qty Total Cost

(attach another page if you are ordering more books)
Subtotal: Add 6% sales tax for VT residents only: Add $6.00 S/R to orders UNDER $50: Total Order Amount:
Send to:
Name: DOC#: Agency/Inst: Address: City/State/Zip:
MAIL PAYl\1ENT AND THIS FORM TO: Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303
Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

FREE SHIPPING On hook and index orders OVER $50.00!
A $6 shipping charge applies to all other hook aml index ol'del's.
(Free shipping policy in clIect from Janl, :!OlO lmtil further notice)

More Books for Sale!

Prisoners' Self-Help Litigation Manual, updated 4th ed. (2010), by John

Boston and Daniel Manville, Oxford Univ. Press, 1500 pages. $39.95. The

I 1 I' - premiere, must-have ''Bible'' of prison litigation for current and aspiring jail-
house lawyers. If you plan to litigate a ptison or jail civil suit,

tlus book is a must-have.

1077

Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the U.S.

and Canada, updated 3rd ed. by Jon Marc Taylor, Ph.D. and edited by Susan

Schwartzkopf, published by PLN, 221 pages. $49.95. Written by lvIissouti

prisoner Jon Marc Taylor, who obtained a B.S. degree, an M.A. degree and a

Doctorate, tl,e Glfemlla Halldbook contains cont:.~ct information and descrip-

I I tions of high school, vocational, paralegal and college courses available
tluough correspondence study. Great resource for prisoners

who want to furtl,er meir education.

1057 L. ..--'-_----'

Protecring Your Health and Safety, by Robert E. Toone, Soutllern Poverty

Law Center, 325 pages. $10.00. Tlus book e""plains basic rights mat prisoners

have in a jail or prison in tl,e U.S. It deals mainly witll rights related to healm
I I I and safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by prison officials; it also
explains how you can enforce your rights \vitllin tl,e facility

and, if necessary, in court mrough litigation.

1060

Starting Out! The Complete Re-Entty Handbook, edited by William H.

Foster, Ph.D. & Carl E. Horn, Ph.D., Starting Out Inc., 446 pages. $22.95.

Complete do-it-yourself re-entry manual and workbook for prisoners who

want to develop tileir own re-entry plan to increase tl,eir chances of success

I I after tiley are released. Includes a \vide variety of resources, including a user
~ode to tl,e Starting Out website mat can be accessed fallow-I

Ing release.

1074

Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners v. the U.S.A, by

Mumia Abu Jamal, City Lights Publishers, 280 pages. $16.95. In jailiJolfsc La,V-

),crs, Prison Legal News coluttmist, award-winning journalist and deam-row

prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal presents me stories and reflections of fellow pris-
I I oners-turned-advocates who have learned to use the court system to represent
omer prisoners, and in some cases have won meir freedom.

Must-read for jailllOuse lawyers!

1073

How to Win Your Personal Injuty Clainl, by Atty. Joseph Matd,ews, 7tll

edition, NOLO Press, 304 pages. $34.99. While not specifically for prison-

related personal injuty cases, tl,is book prO\~des comprehensive information

I I on how to handle personal injury and property damage claims arising from
~ccidents - incl~ding dealing Witil doctors, attorneys and I

Insurance comparues.

1075

All prices m'e effective as of9-15-10 (PIices subject to change without notice)
* No refunds after orders have been placed *

.'~
PRiSON,EEGAL NEWS
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
2010 PLN BOOK LIST
Prices Subject to Change Without Notice Graphic from: Books 2 Prisoners, Vancouver, Be
P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.prisonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 54 of 64 Page 2P0L3NCOL-00338

Check the box of the books you want to buy and use the Order Form on the other side of this brochure to add up the cost of your order. FREE SHlPPING for book and index orders OVER $50. There is a $6 shipping charge for all other book and index orders.

Prison Profiteers, edited by Paul Wright and Tara Herivel, 323 pages. $24.95. TIus is the

dlitd and btestbookin a series ofPrison Legal News andlOlogies dlllt examines d,e reality of
nlllSS imprisonment in America (TIle odler tides are The Cellill?, ifAJlJenca & Priro" Natio",

I I I see below). PFiro" Projteers is unique from odler books because it """]JOses and discusses
wh~ profits and benefits from m1SS imprisonmenl; rather dmn who is

h,umedbyitandhow.

1063

L . . ._ - - - ' . ' - - _ - - - ' .

I , , Prison Nation: The Warehousing ofAmerica's Poor, edited by Tara Herivel and Paul
Wrighl; 332 pages. $35.95. PIN andlolog)' ""1'oses the d-u:k side of the

1ock-em-up'politicalagenda and legal climate in the U.s.

1041 . .

.

The CeIling of America, edited by Daniel Burton Rose, Dan Pens and Paul Wrighl; 264

I pages. $22.95. PIN anthology presentsa detailed "inside" look at d,e

I

I

workings ofd,e Ameriam ctimin,u justice system.

1001 .

.

.

Everyday Letters for Busy People, by Debra Hart Mal', 287 pages. $18.99.

Hundreds of sample letters that can be adapted for most any purpose, including

letters to government agencies and officials. Has numerous I

tips for writing effective letters.

1048 L.._ _' -_ _- '

The Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System, by
Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sara J. Bennan-Barret!; Nolo Press, 608 pages. $39.99.

lli.1'bins what happens in a criminal case from being arrested to sentenciog, and whar

your rights are at eacll stnge of d,e process. Uses an eas), to under-I

stand question-and-answer fOffilllt

.

1038

L . . ._ - - ' -_ _ _- - '

Represent Yourself in Court:. How to Prepare & Try a Winning Case, by

Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sara J. Berman-Barret!; Nolo .Press, 528 pages. $39.99.

I I I Breaks down d,e civil trial process in easy-to-understand steps so you can effectively
represent yoursel~ in court The audlOrs e.'1'lain what to sal' in

courl; how to say 11; etc.

1037...

Law Dictionary, Random House Webster's, 525 pages. $19.95. Comprcl1ensive un-

to-date bw dictionary e.'1'lains more than 8,500 legal terms. I

I

Covers civil, criminal, commercial & internationalbw.

1036 L. _I .......J'---_ _- '

I The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, by Jane Straus, 110 pages.

$14.95. A guide to grammar and pUnctuation by an educator,

I

widl experience teaclling English to prisoners.

1046

Legal Research: How to Find and Understand the Law, by Stephen Elias and

I I I Susan Levinkind, 568 pages. $49.99. Comprellensive and easy to understand guide
on researclling the law. R'1'lains case bw, statutes and digests,

and much more. Includes practice e.xercises.

1059 L.._ - ' - ._ _ _-'.

I Deposition Handbook, by Paul Bergmm and Albert Moore, Nolo Press, 352

pages. $34.99. How-to handbook for anyone·who conducts a I

I

deposition or is going to be deposed.

1054 L..._ - ' - ._ _ _- ' .

Spanish-English/English-Spanish Dictionary, Random House. $8.95. Two

sections, Spanish-English and English-Spanish. 60,000+ entries I I

from A to Z; includes Western Hemisphere usage.

1034 L._.......J.'-_ _-'

Please Note: All book and index ord~ are mailed via the U.S. Postal Service with Delivery Confirmiltion>PLNdoes not assume any responsibility to replace book or index orders once their delivery to the destination address (facility) is confirmed by the U.S. Postal Service.

I I Wrirh1g to Wm: The Legal Writer, by Steven D. Stark, Broadway Books/fumdom
House, 283 pages. $19.95. E.'1'lirins·the wtiting of effective compbints, I

responses, btiefs, motions and other legal papers.

1035 L._....lL._ _--'.

Actual Innocence: When Justice Goes Wrong and How to Maire it Right, updated

paperback ed., by Barry Scheck, Peter Neufeld and Jim Dwyer, 403 pages. $16.00.

Founders of the Innocence Project e.'1'L'lin how ctiminal defendants are wrongli· con-

victed on a regular basis. R'1'11ins DNA testing and how it works to free d,e innocent

Devastnting critique of police and prosecutorial nrisconduct and d,e I I

I

systern dlllt ensures such abuses continue.

1030 L._....lL._ _ _.J.

Roger's Thesaurus, 717 pages. $8.95. Helps you find the right word for what

you want to sal'. 11,000 words listed alphabetically widl over 200,000 synonyms

and antonyms. Sample sentences and parts of speech shown for every main

word. Covers all levels of vocabulary and identifies informal I I

I

and slang words.

1045 L._....lL._ _ _.J.

Webster's English Dictionary, Newly revised and updated, Random House.

$8.95. 75,000+ entries. Includes tips on writing and word usage, and has up-

dated geographical. and biographical entries. Includes recent I I

I

business and computer terms.

1033...

I I I Capital Crimes, by George Winslow, Mondll}' Review, 360 pages. $19.00.
Explains how economic policies create and foster crime, and

how corporate & government crime is rarely punished. 1024
'----'-----'

With Liberty for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America, by Scott

Christianson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages. $18.95. The best

overall history of d,e American prison system from 1492 through d,e 20th
I I I Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how little
dlings have changed as far as prisons go in the U.S. over

hundreds of years.

1026..

.

I Ten Men Dead: The story of the 1981 Irish hunger strike, by David Beres-

ford, Adantic Monthly Press, 334 pages. $16.95. Inside story of

I

I

IRA prisoners at Belfast's Long Kesh prison.

1006 . .

.

Finding the Right Lawyer, by Jay Foonberg, ABA, 256 pages. $19.95. Ex-

plains how to determine your legal needs, how to evaluate a I I

I

lawyer's qualifications, fee payments, and more.

1015..

.

Seize the Day! 7 Steps to Achieving the Extraordinary in an Ordinary

World, by Danny Cox and John Hoover, 256 pages. $15.99. Provides 7 steps

I to cllanging your expectations and envisioning yourself as being a successful
and respected person-wluch is essential to changing the I I

course of one's life.

1052

Women Behind Bars, The Crisis of Women in the U.S. Prison System, by

Silja J.A. Talvi, Seal Press, 295 pages. $15.95. Best book available that covers
I issues related to imprisoned women, based on interviews widl

hundreds of women behind bars.

1066 L._ - ' -_ _.......J

10 Insider Secrets to a Wintring Job Search, by Todd Bermont, 216 pages.

$15.99. Roadmap on how to get a job even under adverse circumstances-like

I I being an ex-con. Includes how to develop a winning atritude, write attention-

grabbing resumes, prepare for interviews, networking, how to

I'

present your strengdls to an employer, .and much more! 1 0 5 6 . .

.

I The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, 2003

Ed. by Alfred McCoy, 734 pages. $34.95. Documented expose

I

I

of d,e government's involvement in drug trafficking.

1014 1..._ - ' - ._ _ _....

Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis, by Christian Parenti,

290 pages. $19.00. Analyzes d,e war on d,e poor via d,e ctimin,u justice system. Well

documented and includes first-hand reporting. Covers ptisons, para-I

military policing, SWt\T teams and d,e lNS.

1002 L.._ - ' -_ _--'

Hepatitis and Liver Disease: What You Need to Know, by Melissa Palmer, !YID,

I I I 457 pages. $17.95. Descobes symptoms & treatments of hepatitis B & C and odler
liver diseases. Includes medications to avoid, what diet to follow,

e.xercises to perfonn, and a bibliography.

1031

Ctime and Punishment In America, by Elliott Cunie, 230 pages. $16.95. Efl:ective

I I I rebuttnl to right-wing proponents of prison building. Fact-based argument shows that
crime is driven. by poverty. Debunks prison myths and discusses

proven, effective means ofcrime prevention.

1019

Ptison Madness: The Mental Health Ctisis Behind Bars and What We

Must Do About It, by Terry Kupers,Jossey-Bass, 245 pages. Hardback only,

prisoners please include any required authorization form. $32.95. Psyclua-

I I trist wtites about d,e mental health crisis in U.S. prisons and jails. Covers all
aspects of mental illness, prison rape, negative effects of long-I

tenn isolation in control units, and more.

1003

Prison Writing in 20th Century America, by H. Bruce Franklin, Penguin Books, 368 pages. $16.00. From Jack London to George Jackson, dus

anthology provides a selection of some of the best writing I I

describing life bellind bars in America.

1022

L . . ._ - ' ._ _- - '

T I Soledad Brother: The Prison Letters of George Jackson, by George Jackson,
Lawrence Hill Books, 339 pages. $18.95. Lucid e.'1'lanation of je litiCS of

prison by a well-known prison activist More relevant now than

when it first appeared 40 years ago.

1016

Marijuana Law, by Richard Boire, Ronin, 271 pages. $17.95. Ex,unines how to

I I reduce d,e probability of arrest and prosecution for people accused of d,e use, sale or

possession of marijuana. Info on legal defenses, search & seizures,

I

surveilL"lIlce, asset forfeiture and drug testing.

1008 L.._ - ' ._ _- - ' .

Worse Than Slavery: Parchman Fann and the Ordeal ofJim CrowJustice, by

I D",~d Osllins1:y, 306 pages. $16.00. Analysis of prison bbor's roots in sbvery.

Focuses on ptison pL"lIltations and self-sustaining prisons dla.t use I

I

prison bbor.

1007..

.

No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the American Criminal Justice

I System, by David Cole, TI,e New Press, 218 pages. $19.95. E"1'lains how d,e

criminal justice system perpetuates race and class inequality,

I

I

creating a two-tiered system of justice.

1028 . .

.

The Prison and the Gallows: The Politics of Mass Incarceration in

America, by Marie Gottschalk, Cambridge University Press, 451 pages.

$29.99. Great political analysis of d,e confluence of events I

I

leading to 2.3 million people behind bars in d,e U.S. 1069.

.

The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, by Brandon

Sample, PLN Publishing, 200 pages. $49.95. Tlus is PLN's second published

I I book, wluch exclusively covers ineffective assistance of counsel-related
issues in federal habeas petitions. Great resource for habeas I

litigation, and contains hundreds of case cites!

1078..

.

Factor 8 (DVD), a mm by Kelly Duda, Concrete Fihns. $21.95. MO\~e

about the Arkansas prison blood scandal, in wluch prison officials sold

infected blood harvested from prisoners. Note: This is a.1

DVD and cannot be shipped to prison.

1076 L..._ - ' -_ _--'

PLN Cumulative Index. $22.50 each. PLN Article Indexes provide detailed information about all PLN articles, including tide, author, issue, page number, topics covered, citations, and if it is state, BOP or jail specific. Can be searched on over 500 subjects such as medical neglect or se.,-ual assault Circle d,e index(es) you are ordering: 1990-1995, ,1996-1998, 1999-1 2001, 2002-2004. (more recent indexes not yet available)

All books are soft cover except Prison Madness

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 55 of 64

T he Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel is the first in a series of books by Prison Legal News Publishing designed to help pro-se prisoner litigants identify and raise viable claims for potential habeas corpus relief. This book is an invaluable resource that identifies hundreds of cases where the federal courts have granted habeas relief to prisoners whose attorneys provided ineffective assistance of counsel.
It will save litigants
thousands of hours of research and it focuses on the
WINNING cases criminal defendants need to
successfully challenge their convictions.
Well organized into 52 concise chapters, this easy to use book puts the law at the reader's fingertips. The Appendix includes pleadings and forms from successful habeas corpus cases that

"

The Habeas Citebook is a

nifty and concise self-help

guide for prisoners seeking

habeas relief based on claims of

ineffective assistance of counsel.

Navigating the complex and

treacherous terrain of habeas

law is never easy; but claim-

ing that your lawyer screwed up

is even more difficult - espe-

cially from the confines of an

demonstrate formatting and show ill-equipped prison law library.

how to frame a winning argu-

"Brandon Sample has pro-

ment that will persuade a court

vided an amazing and much-

to grant habeas relief. The Habeas

needed tool for prisoners who

Citebook explains the proce-

are forced to seek relief on their

dural and substantive complexi-

own. The book is thorough; but

ties of federal habeas corpus lit-

simple and readable. It starts

igation with the goal of identify-

with a wonderfully well-orga-

ing and litigating claims involving nized listing of hundreds of dif-

ineffective assistance of counsel.

ferent types of ineffective assis-

Brandon Sample is a success-

tance of counsel, set forth in the

ful jailhouse lawyer litigant incar-

form of citations to court rul-

cerated in the Bureau of Prisons.

ings - a novel approach that

He is a Prison Legal News contrib- not only acts as a springboard

uting writer and a member of the

for further research but also

National Lawyer's Guild. Editor

saves the prisoner countless

Susan Schwartzkopf has a mas-

hours of preliminary research:'

ter's degree in education and is

the director and editor in chief of

PETER SCHMIDT

Prison Legal News Publishing.

Publisher, Punch & Jurists

I

THE HABEAS CITEBOOK: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

By Brandon Sample

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed _ _ _ __

I

8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages

I By: 0 check 0 new postage stamps 0 credit card 0 money order

I I

ISBN 978-0-9819385-1-6
$49·95 3 or more copies ordered

I Name _____________________________________________
DOC/BOP Number _____________-'-_________________
I

at once $39.95 each

Institution/Agency _____-'-____________________

I

I FREE Shipping & Handling Address________-'--_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

I Order by mail, phone, or on-line. City _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ State PUBLISHED BY

ZIP

I

lID _

PRISON LEGAL NEWS P.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303

_ d

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 2P0L4NCOL-00339

" Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3

Filed 01/31/12

Page 56 of 64

-----------,

Copies of this very usable and useful gUide

should be available in every prison library-to

help incarcerated people give positive direc-

tion to their energies while making constructive

useof theirt!me. Itis a well-established fact that

people who have taken college courses in prison

have a dramatically reduced rate of recidivism./I

-BELL GALE CHEVICiNY, PEN Prison Writing Program,

~-----

Editor Doing Time: 25 Years ofPrison Writing. -----~

HIGH SCHOOL • VOCATIONAL • PARALEGAL • UNDERGRADUATE. GRADUATE COURSES

_ _ HE GREATLY anticipated and newly updated third edition of the Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the
United States and Canada has finally arrived! Author Jon Marc Taylor's brand new version is the latest in this unique and highly successful gUidebook for the prisoner-student. This invaluable tool and how-to handbook provides the reader with step-by-step instructions to find the appropriate educational program for high school, vocational, paralegal, undergraduate, and graduate courses offered in the U.S. and Canada today.
Invaluable re-entry tool
It presents more than 160 program outlines and
offers an easy-to-use format for the student to
determine which program best suits their needs. It is ideal for the incarcerated student who does not have Internet access or the ability to attend education classes in person. This resource is indispensable

for the individual and beneficial for use in all prison libraries and education departments.
The Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook is the only book on the market for the non-traditional prisoner-student. It includes detailed listings of the quality, cost, and course offerings for all correspondence programs available to prisoners. In a time when so many academic opportunities in prisons have been eliminated, this book is an invaluable re-entry tool for prisoners who seek to further their education while incarcerated and to help them prepare for life and work folloWing their release.
Jon Marc Taylor has more than 25 years experi-
ence as an incarcerated student, advocate for prisoner education, and author. He has successfully earned a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and a doctorate via correspondence courses while incar-
cerated. Editor Susan Schwartzkopf has a master's
degree in education and 12 years experience teaching immigrants English language skills.

ByJon Marc Taylor PHD 8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages

Number of copies ordered ___ Amount enclosed
By: D check D new postage stamps D credit card D money order I

ISBN 978-0-9819385-0-9
$49.95
3 or more copies ordered

Name __________________________________~___ I
DOC/BOP Number ________________________________

.at once $39.95 each

Institution/Agency ______________________________

FREE Shipping & Handling Address_______________________________________

I Order by mail, phone, or on-line. City _________________________ State

ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

PlfUSON lEGAL NEWS I P.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 2P0L5NCOL-00340

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 57 of 64

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBIT X
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 206

•

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 58 of 64 Page 2P0L7NCOL-00099

.Prison Legal'News ··.. 1.
P.O. Box 2420 West Brattleboro, Vermont 05303

:~~t'{:~1·'~~:··\:·:E:, '·5;~;·h,>.i ;;;~;,~".\.~; :~~N·.:·~~·: :~';%~il~)'

.1

·\;~:L ·:F:E,::~::~ ;~:~}:~~ {..::.~

:~~

RETURN TO SENDER

As of April 1, 2010 59583**oE':~RES2: 7/2011

•

•

0100024

The ColumbIa County JaIl i Co JAIL

88

ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS ,.A,cYREEGO

This applies to ALL

N 97051

incoming and out going mail

::r?f=t~~'&~G.4~~o

l'l:l:X :1:£;:
NOT

!c)7'O .SloE ',1.

00 O~/iOJ:1.1

RETURN TO SENDER DEL%VERA9LE AS ADDRESS~C
UN$~Ell...E '1"CI .r!'(')Rh),(J),~m

E~C : (:).S;~O:~:~il;l~::?'O,"110

*,2.\S>t:;:;,~·-o,S$ee-(a-44

Hll))) 1)1))) JJ) JJ))))) JJ))) J) J).1 ,\.d») J) 111 ,\)))) J) 11J)J) J,j »)1

Order Form
All purchases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books, no singles) or
pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed by prison policies.

Ii

II ..

FREE SmPPING On hook and index orders OVER $50.00!

"

A $6 shipping charge applies to all other book amI index onlcl'S.

(Free slllpping policy in cJIeel from Jan 1, 2010 until further notice)

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 59 of 64 Page 2P0L8NCOL-00100

Book Title / Number

Qty Total Cost

(attach another page if you are ordering more books)
Subtotal: Add 6% sales tax for VT residents only: Add $6.00 SIH to orders UNDER $50: Total Order Amount:
Send to:
Name: DOC#: Agency/lnst: AddJ.-ess: City/State/Zip:
MAIL PAYl\1ENT AND THIS FORM TO: Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303
Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

More Books for Sale!

Prisoners' Self-Help Litigation Manual, updated 4th ed. (2010), by John

Boston and Daniel Manville, Oxford Univ. Press, 1500 pages. $39.95. The
I I I premiere, must-have "Bible" of prison litigation for current and aspiring jail-
house lawyers. If you plan to litigate a prison or jail civil suit,

this book is a must-have.

1077

Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the U.S.

and Canada, updated 3rd ed. by Jon Marc Taylor, Ph.D. and edited by Susan

Schwartzkopf, published by PLN, 221 pages. $49.95. Written by lvIissouri

prisoner Jon Marc Taylor, who obtained a B.S. degree, an M.A. degree and a

Doctorate, the Gl/errilla HalJdbook contains contact information and descrip-

tions of high school, vocational, paralegal and college courses available

through correspondence study. Great resource for prisoners I I

who want to further their education.

1057
'----'----'

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by Robert E. Toone, Southern Poverty

Law Center, 325 pages. $10.00. TIus book explains basic rights that prisoners

have in a jail or prison in dle U.S. It deals mainly with rights related to healdl

I and safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by prison officials; it also
explains how you can enforce your rights \vithin the facility I I

and, if necessary, in court dlrough litigation.

1060 . '

.

Starting Out! The Complete Re-Entry Handbook, edited by William H.

Foster, Ph.D. & Carl E. Horn, Ph.D., Starting Out Inc., 446 pages. $22.95.

Complete do-it-yourself re-entry manual and workbook for prisoners who

want to develop dleir own re-entry plan' to increase their chances of success

after dley are released. Includes a wide variety of resources, including a user

~ode to the Starting Out website that can be accessed fOllOW-I

I

I

mg release.

1074 . .

.

Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners v. the U.S.A, by
u,v- Munlia Abu Jamal, City Lights Publishers, 280 pages. $16.95. In Jailbollse

yers, Prison Legal News columnist, award-winning journalist and deadl-row

prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal presents the stories and reflections of fellow pris-

oners-turned-advocates who have learned to use dle court system to represent

adler prisoners, and in some cases have won dleir freedom. I I

I

Must-read for jailliouse lawyers!

1073 L._ - ' - ._ _ _..J.

How to Win Your Personal Injuty Claim, by Atty. Joseph Matdlews, 7dl

edition, NOLO Press, 304 pages. $34.99. While not specifically for prison-

related personal injuty cases, this book provides comprehensive information

on how to handle personal injury and property damage claims arising from

~ccidents - incl~ding dealing with. doctors, attorneys and I I

I

msurance comparues.

1075 . .

.

All prices 3.J.'e effective as of9-15-10 (plices subject to change withont notice)
* No l'efunds after Ol·del'S have been placed *

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
2010 PLN BOOK LIST
Prices Subject to Change Without Notice
Graphic from: Books 2 Prisoners, Vancouver, Be
P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.pl.isonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 60 of 64 Page 2P0L9NCOL-00101

Check the box of the ,books you want to buy and use the Order Form on the other side of this brochure to add up the cost of your order. FREE SHlPPING for book and index orders OVER $50. There is a $6 shipping charge for all other book and index orders.

Prison Profiteers, edited by Paul Wright and Tam Herivel, 323 pages, $24.95. This is the

third and hrest book in a series ofPrisonLegru News andlOlogies dlat e.xamines d,e reality of
O1aSS imprisonment in Amerirn. (The other tides are The Cellillg rfAlllmat & PJisOIl Naholl,

I I I see below). PJisOIl Projteers is unique from odler books bealuse it e"poses and discusses
who profits and benefits from mass imprisonmen~ mdler d1aO who is

hanned by it and how.

1063 L,_ _L,_ _-"

I I I Prison Nation: The Warehousing ofAmerica's Poor, edited by Tam Herivel and Paul
Wrigh~ 332 pages. $35.95. PIN andlOlogy ""poses the d'llk side ofthe

1ock-em-up'politicalagendaandlegal climate in the u.s.

1041 , ,

.

I The CeIling of America, edited by Daniel Burton Rose, Dan Pens and Paul Wrigh~ 264

pages. $22.95. PIN anthology presents a detniled "inside" look at d,e

I

I

workings ofd,e American alminal justice system.

1001 ,

,

'

Everyday Letters for Busy People, by Debra Hart May, 287 pages. $18.99.

I Hundreds of sample letters that can be adapted for most any purpose, including
letters to government agencies and officials. Has numerous

tips for wriring effective letters.

1048 L,_ _L -_ _-'

The Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System, by

Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sam J. Berman-Barre~ Nolo Press, 608 pages. $39.99.

R-"'p1'lins what happens in a criminal case from being arrested to sentencing, and what

your rights are at eaell stage of the process. Uses an easy to under, ,

stand question-and-answer fo=t.

1038 L,_ - - - "_ _ _- '

Represent Yourself in Court: How to Prepare & Try a Winning Case, by

Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sam J.BermiU1-Barre~ Nolo Press, 528 pages. $39.99.

I I I Breaks down d,e civil trial process in easy-to-understand steps so you can effectively
represent yourself in court The audlors e.'plain what to say in

court, how to saY'~ etc.

1037",

Law Dictionary, R.'lIldom House Webster's, 525 pages. $19.95, Comprehensive u

t~date law dictionary e>.p1'lins more d,an 8,500 legal terms. j

j

Covers civil, criminal, commercial & international hw.

1036 1'-_-'-_ _---'

I I I The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, by Jane Straus, 110 pages,
$14.95. A guide to grammar and punctuation by an educator

wiili e"perience teaching English to prisoners.

1046 L,_ - - ' ,_ _ _--',

Legal Research: How to Find and Understand the Law, by Stephen Elias and

I I I Susan Levinkind, 568 pages. $49.99. Comprehensive ~d easy to understand guide
on researching d,e law. R,plains case law, statutes and digests,

and mucll more. Includes practice e.xercises.

1059 L,_--L,_ _ _-'.

Deposition Handbook, by Paul Bergomn and Albert Moore, Nolo Press, 352

pages, $34.99. How-to handbook for anyone who conducts a I I

1

deposition or is going to be deposed.

1054 L,_ - " - ,_ _ _-'.

Spanish-English/English-Spanish Dictionary, R.'lIldom House. $8.95, Two

sections, Spanish-English and English-Spanish. 60,000+ entries I I

from A to Z; includes Western Hemisphere usage.

1034 L._ - - ' ,_ _ _- '

Please Note: All hook and index orders are mailed via the U.S. Postal Service with Delivery Confirmation. PLN does not assume any responsibility to replace book or iIidex orders once their delivery to the desti-
nation address(facility) is confirmed by the U.S. Postal Service.

I I Wtiting to Wm: The Legal Writer, by Steven D; Stadt, Broadway Books/R'lIldom
House, 283 pages $19.95. R,phins ti,e wtiting of effective complaints, I

responses, briefS, motions and other legal papers.

1035 L,_ - , - ,_ _---',

Actual Innocence: When Justice Goes Wrong and How to Mal{e it Right, updated

paperback ed., by Barry Smeck, Peter Neufeld and Jim Dwyer; 403 pages. $16.00.

Founders of tile Innocence Project e>.plain how criminal defendants are wrongly con-

victed on a regul1r basis. fuphins DNA resting and how it works to free d,e innocent

Devasillting ctitique of police and prosecutotial misconduct and the I I

I

systen1 d1at ensures sum abuses continue.,

' 1030 L._ - ' ,_ _ _-'.

Roger's Thesaurus, 717 pages. $8.95. Helps you find ilie right word for what

you want to sal'. 11,000 words listed alphabeticilly \viili over 200,000 synonyms

and antonyms, Sample sentences and parts of speech shown for every main

word. Covers all levels of vocabulary and identifies informal 1 1

1

and slang words.'

1045 , .

.

Webster's English Dictionary, Newly revised and updated, Random House.

$8.95. 75,000+ entries, Includes tips on writing and word usage, and has up-

dat~d geographical and biographical' entries. Includes recent I I

I

busmess and computer terms.

1033",

Capital Crimes, by George Winslow, Monthly Review, 360 pages. $19.00.

I 1 Explains how economic policies create and foster crime, and

I'

how corporate & government crime is rarely punished. 1024

With Libetty for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America, by SCOtt

Christianson, Norilieastern University Press, 372 pages. $18.95. The best

overall history of d,e American prison system from 1492 ilirough the 20ili
I I I Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how little
things have ellanged as far as prisons go in the U.S. over

hundreds of years.

1026"

.

Ten Men Dead: The story of the 1981 Irish hunger strike, by David Beres-

ford, Adantic Mondlly Press, 334 pages, $16.95. Inside story of I I

I

IRA prisoners at Belfast's Long Kesh prison.

1006 "

,

Finding the Right Lawyer, by Jay Foonberg, ABA, 256 pages. $19.95. Ex-

plains how to determine your legal needs, how to evaluate a I I

I

lawyer's qualifications, fee payments, and more.

1015,.

,

Seize the Day! 7 Steps to Achieving the Extraordinary in an Ordinary

World, by Danny Cox and John Hoover, 256.pages. $15.99, Provides 7 steps to changing your expectations and em~sioning yourself as being a successful

and respected person-whim is essential to changing ilie 1 1

1

course of one's life.

1052,

Women Behind Bars, The Crisis of Women in the U.S. Prison System, by Silja J.A. Talvi, Seal Press, 295 pages. $15.95. Best book available d,at covers

issues related to imprisoned women, based on interviews Wi.dl I

hundreds of women· behind bars.

1066 L,_ - ' -_ _- - - '

10 Insider Secrets to a Winning Job Search, by Todd Bermont, 216 pages.

$15.99. Roadmap on how.to get a job even under adverse circumstances-like

being an e.x-con. Includes how to develop a winning attitude, write attention-

grabbing resumes, prepare for inte[\~ews, networking, how to I 1

I

present your strengdls to an employer, and much more! 1056"

.

The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, 2003

Ed. by Alfred McCoy, 734 pages. $34.95. Documented expose I I

1

of the government's involvement in drug trafficking.

1014 L,-,---,-,_ _ _-',

Loekdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis, by Olristi'lIl Parenti,

290 pages. $19.00. Analyzes d,e war on the poor via the criminal justice system. Well

documented and includes first-11aOd reporting. Covers prisons, pam-I

military policing, SWAT teams and d,e INS.

1002 ,-,_-'-_ _-'

Hepatitis and Liver Disease: What You Need to Know, by Melissa Palmer, MD,

457 pages. $17.95. Descobes symproms & treatments of hepatiris B & C and other

1 I liver diseases. Includes medications to avoid, wllat diet to follow,

I

e.xercises to perfonn, and a bibliography.

1031

Crime and Punishment In America, by Elliott Cutrie, 230 pages. $16.95. Effective

I I I rebutllll to right-wing proponents of prison building: Fact-based argument shows that
crime is driven by poverty. Dehunks prison myths and discusses

proven, effective means ofcrime prevention.

1019

Prison Maooess: The Mental Health Crisis Behind Bars and What We

Must Do About It, by Terry Kupers,Jossey-Bass, 245 pages. Hardback only,

prisoners please include any required authorization form. $32.95. Psyclria-

trist wtites about the mental healili crisis in U.S. prisons and jails. Covers all

aspects of mental illness, prison rape, negative effects of long- j I

term isolation in control units, and more.

1003

Prison Writing in 20th Century America, by H. Bruce Franklin, Penguin

Books, 368 pages. $16.00. From Jack London to George Jackson, this

aniliology prO\~des a selection of some of ilie best writing I 1

describing life behind bars in America.

1022 L,_ - , - ,_ _---'

i I Soledad Brother: The Prison Letters of George Jackson, by George Jackson,
Lawrence Hill Books, 339 pages. $18.95. Lucid e.'planation of ,e prlitiCS of

prison by a well-known prison activist More relevant now d,an

when it first appeared 40 years ago,

1016

Marijuana Law, by Rimard Boire, Ronin, 271 pages. $17.95. Rxamines how to

reduce the ptobability ofarrest and prosecution for people accused of d,e use, sale or

I' 1 possession of marijuana. InfO on legal defenses, Searcll & seizures,

I'

surveillance, asset fOrfeiture and drug testing.

1008 L,_.J.,_ _--',

Worse Than Slavery: Parchman Farm and the Ordeal ofJim CrowJustice, by

David Oshins1.-y, 306 pages. $16.00. Analysis of prison labor's roots in slavery.

Focuses on prison pL'lIltations and self-sustaining prisons dlat use I 1

1

prison 1,bor.

1007.,

.

No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the American Criminal Justice

System, by David Cole, TI,e New Press, 218 pages. $19.95. 'E"plains how ilie

criminal justice system perpetuates race and class inequality, I I

I

creating a two-tiered system of justice. .

1028 L._ - , - ,_ _ _ ,

The Prison and the Gallows: The Politics of Mass Incarceration in

America, by Marie Gottschalk, Cambridge University Press, 451 pages.

$29.99. Great political analysis of d,e confluence of events I

1

leading to 2.3 million people behind bars in the U.S.

1069 L,_ - ' -_ _-'.

The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, by Brandon

Sample, PLN Publishing, 200 pages. $49.95. Tlris is PLN's second published

book, wlrich e.xclusively covers ineffective assistance of counsel-related

issues in federal habeas petitions. Great resource for habeas I 1

I

litigation, and contains hundreds of case cites!

1078"

,

Factor 8 (DVD), a film by Kelly Duda, Concrete Films. $21.95. Movie

about ilie Arkansas prison blood scandal, in which prison officials sold

infected blood harvested from prisoners. Note: This is a I

DVD and cannot be shipped to prison.

1076 L,_ - ' -_ _- '

PLN Cumulative Index. $22.50 each. PLN Article Index~s prO\~de detailed informarion about all PLN articles, including tide, auilior, issue, page.number, topics covered, citations, and if it is stat.e, BOP or jail spec:;ific. Can be searched on over 500 subjects such as medical neglect or se.-.,."ual assault Circle d,e index(es) you are ordering: 1990-1995, 1996-1998, 1999-1 2001, 2002-2004. (more recent indexes not yet available)

All books are soft cover except Prison Madness

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 61 of 64 Page 2P1L0NCOL-00102

Order Form
All pm-chases must he pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new stamps (strips or hooks) or pre-stamped envelopes.

Books (3 & 4yr Subscription Specials: CffiCLE one book Q! bonus issues, and DO NOT add SIH)
Protecting Your Health and Safety ill: 4 Bonus Issues (3-yr subscription offer)

$Amt.
Free

Prison Profiteers ill: With Liberty for Some

ill: 6 Bonus Issues (4-yr subscription offer)

Free

Book Total (inc. all books bought separately)

Add 6% sales tax for Vermont residents only

ADD $6.00 SIB to book orders UNDER $50

PLN Subscriptions 6-month Subscription (Prisoners only) 1 yrSubscription (12 issues) 2 yr Subscription (24. plus 2 Bonus issues) 3 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above Q! 4 Bonus issues) 4 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above Q! 6 Bonus issues) Sample Issue - $3.50 each
TOTAL Amount Enclosed:

Send to: Name: DOC#:
Agency/lnst: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Address: City/State/Zip: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

MAIL PAY1UENT AND THIS FORM TO:

~

Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303

Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

PLN Subscription Rates

Subscription Rates 1yr 2 yrs 3 yrs 4yrs

Prisoners *

$24 $ 48 $ 72 $ 96

Individuals

$30 $ 60 $ 90 $120

Professionals

$80 $160 $240 $320

(Lawyers, govt. & professional agencies, libraries, etc.)

Sample issue for anyone - $3.50 each*

Six-month prisoner subscription for $12*

* Prisoners call pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books only) or pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed byprison policies.

:- - - - - - - - - S~s-c;ipti~; 'io~~;;s! - - - - - - - --
1
1 2 years - 2 bonus issues, for 26 monthly issues total. : 3 years - 4 bonus issues (40 total) OR Protecting Your Health and 1 Safety (see book description on the other side of this brochure). : 4 years - 6 bonus issues (54. total) OR your choice of With Libertyfor
!..~~e_~~n.:0~~r~e::.~(~:.d:s:.rT~o~..?~ ~:.o~h:r..::i~e~ _____I

New 3 or 4-Year Subscription Book Offers!

Subscribe or renew for three years at the regular price
($72 for prisoners & $90 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Protecting Your Health and Safety or
four bonus issues of PLN! (40 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.
Subscribe or renew for four years at the regular price
($96 for prisoners & $120 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Prison Profitei3Ts or With Liberty fOT Some, or 6 bonus issues of PLN! (54 monthly issues
total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.

NO shipping charge for subscription bonus books!

NOTE: If you want the bonus issues of PLN instead of the free hook offer, please indicate that on the Order Form.

£0; - ---- U; piN;;' :- - - - - - -C-o;~a~;

-io~k iis~!-

~

1

1

1 You can buy dozens of legal, social commentalT, self-I

1 help books, and legal and regular dictionaries directly:
1
1 from PLN's book store! Ask us for a book list, or view:

: our selection online at:

1

.

1

1

www.prisonlegalnews.org/store.aspx

1

~---------------------------------

All subscription rates & bonus offers are effective as of5-1-10
and valid through 12-31-10
* * No refunds after ordel'S have been placed

PR:rSON~EEGAL NEWS
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
Eastern State Penitentiary 1829-1971
Charles Dickens visited Philadelphia's Eastern State Penitentiary in 1842 and he later wrote: "The System is rigid, strict and hopeless ... and I believe it to be cruel and wrong....I hold this slow and daily tampering with the mysteries of the brain to be immeasurably worse than any torture of the body." The prison remained open for 129 years after Dickens condemned it as being barbaric, and some of its inhumane practices continue to be used in prisons nationwide.
P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 ·www.pl·isonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 62 of 64 Page 2P1L1NCOL-00103

r'<lri:
P rison Legal News is an independent, non-profit 56-page monthly publication that reports, reviews and analyzes court rulings and news related to
prisoners' l'ights and prison issues. PLNhas a national
(U.S.) focus on state, federal and private prison issues, with some international coverage as well.
PLN's many thousands of subscribers and readers include civil and criminaItrial and appellate attorneys, judges, public defenders, journalists, academics, paralegals, prisoners' rights activists, students, family membel's of prisoners, concerned individuals, politicians, other government officials, and numerous local, state and federalpl'isoners nationwide.
PLN is a vital link for prisoners who otherwise don't have access to cunent legal and prison-related news and information.
"Invaluable resource for anyone wanting 'user friendly' infonnation about current legal developments affecting
prisoners in the ,United States." - Human Rights Watch, a long-time PLN subscriber
P LN's coverage of prison issues includes medical neglect, disciplinary hearings, nutrition, living conditions, excessive force, court access, censorship, jail litigation, visiting, telephones, religious freedom, free speech, prison rape, mental' health, attorney/ client access, sexual abuse of women prisoners, re-
taliation, the PLRA, HIV and hep C, control units,
the death penalty, attorney fees and much mor~.
PLN Subscription Rates
Prisoners: $12 fOl' 6 months, $24 per year *
Non-incarcerated individuals: $30 per year Law firms, govt. agencies and libraries: $80 per year
Sample issue for anyone: $3.50 each*
• Prisoners can pay witb new stamps or pre-stamped envelopes

, Each monthly issue of PLN includes three different types of reporting:
• A cover story on a prison-related issue. • Reports OIl individual and class-action prison and jail-
related lawsuits when they are filed, when a judgment is entered or the case settles, and when an appellate court decision is issued. We also have prison-related news articles. • A "News In Brief' section that summarizes interesting news stories across the U.S. and internationally.
Each issue of PLN also contains numerous advertisements from businesses that provide prison-related personal and, legal services and, books. PLN further sells dozens of selfhelp, social commentary and legal books.
PLN also has cumulative subject and case cite indexes for all PLN issues from 1990 through 2Q04. Write for info.
[SP~~i~I 3-;;r-S~~crip~Oifel'!

Free with a 3-yeru: PLN subscription! Four bon'l;ls issues of PLN (40 issues total) or a free book, Protecting Your Health and Safety! Circle your bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (3-year subscription rates: prisoners $72, individuals $90, p~ofessionals $24,0).

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by ..-.,------1

Robert E. Toone. Published by the South~

ern Poverty Law Center, 325 pages (2009).

$10.00 (n'ee with a 3-year sub!). This book

I explains some basic rights that prisoners
have in a jailor prison in the U.S. It deals Ii .,®____

mainly with rights related to health and·

' -

safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by

prison officials; it also explains how you can enforce your

rights to health and safety within the facility and, if nec-

essary, in court through litigation. Buy separately: _'_ _

,------------------------------------------,

: You Can Buy These Books Separately!

I •

• I

: If you don't want to purchase a 3 or 4-year subscription:

: to PLN, you can still purchase any of the bonus books

: at the regular price. Just indicate which books you want

I to buy on this page, then enter the total cost on the other

side of this brochure on the "Book Total" line of the Or-

der Form. Shipping is $6 per order (not per book), and we

offer FREE shipping on book orders of $50 or more! To

place a phone order, please call 802-257-134,2. We also

accept book orders online, at www.prisonlegaillews.org. :
_________________________ ._________________ J

D onations: PLN isa project of the non-profit Human Rights Defense Center. Your tax-deductible donations support our advocacy" free speech and First Amendment litigation efforts on behalf of prisoners and publishers. PLN not only provides uncensored prison-related news, but actively contests pris~n censorship that interferes with the delivery of our publication or any other PLN materials sent to prisoners. All donations, further our goal of advocating for people imprisoned in U.S. detention facilities.
"Great source of infonnation, especially in states such as Arizona where the law libraries have been taken from the inmates and replaced with paralegals.," - SB, Arizona prisoner
[S;~~ial 4-;~~: Suhscri;~i~~ Offer!
Free with a 4-year PLN subscription! Six bonus issues of PLN (54 issues total) 01' one free book, With Liberty for Some or Prison Profiteers! Circle your bonus choice on the form on the other side of tillS brochure (4'-year subscription rates: prisoners $96, individuals $120, professionals $320). Note: Free book option is for one book.
With Liberty for Some: 500 Years Imprisonment in America,- by Scott Christianson, Northeastern University Press,372 pages (1998):$18.95 (free with a 4-year sub!). A classic book and the best overall history of the American prison system from 1492 to the 20th Century. Well written and fact fIlled. A must-read for understanding how little things have changed as far as prisons go in the U.S. over hundreds of years. Buy separately: ___
or
Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money from Mass Incarceration, edited by Paul Wright & Tara Herivel, New Press (2007). $24.95 (free with a 4-year sub!). This is the third in a series of PLN anthologies that examines the reality of mass imprisonment in the U.S. Prison Profiteers is unique from other books on the market because it exposes and discusses who profits and benefits from mass imprisonment, rather than who is harmed by the prison industrial complex and our nation's reliance on over-incarceration. Buy separately: _ __

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 63 of 64

T he Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel is the first in a series of books by Prison Legal News Publishing designed to help pro-se prisoner litigants identify and raise viable claims for potential habeas corpus relief. This book is an invaluable resource that identifies hundreds of cases where the federal courts have granted habeas relief to prisoners whose attorneys provided ineffective assistance of counsel.
It will save litigants thousands ofhours
of research and it focuses on the WINNING cases criminal defendants need to successfully challenge their convictions.
Well organized into 52 concise chapters, this easy to use book puts the law at the reader's fingertips. The Appendix includes pleadings and forms from successful habeas corpus cases that

"

The Habeas Citebook is a

nifty and concise self-help

guide for prisoners seeking

habeas relief based on claims of

ineffective assistance of counsel.

Navigating the complex and

treacherous terrain of habeas

law is never easy; but claim-

ing that your lawyer screwed up

is even more difficult espe-

cially from the confines of an

demonstrate formatting and show ill-equipped prison law library.

how to frame a winning argu-

"Brandon Sample has pro-

ment that will persuade a court

vided an amazing and much-

to grant habeas relief. The Habeas

needed tool for prisoners who

Citebook explains the proce-

are forced to seek relief on their

dural and substantive complexi-

own. The book is thorough; but

ties of federal habeas corpus lit-

simple and readable. It starts

igation with the goal of identify-

with a wonderfully well-orga-

ing and litigating claims involving nized listing of hundreds of dif-

ineffective assistance of counsel.

ferent types of ineffective assis-

Brandon Sample is a success-

tance of counsel, set forth in the

ful jailhouse lawyer litigant incar-

form of citations to court rul-

cerated in the Bureau of Prisons.

ings - a novel approach that

He is a Prison Legal News contrib- not only acts as a springboard

uting writer and a member of the

for further research but also

National Lawyer's Guild. Editor

saves the prisoner countless

Susan Schwartzkopf has a mas-

hours of preliminary research:'

ter's degree in education and is

the director and editor in chief of

PETER SCHMIDT

Prison Legal News Publishing.

Publisher, Punch & Jurists

THE HABEAS CITEBOOK: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

By Brandon Sample 8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed _ _ _ __
I By: D check D new postage stamps D credit card D money order

ISBN 978-0-9819385-1-6
$49·95 3 or more copies ordered

Name

I

DOC/BOP Number _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

at once $39.95 each

Institution/Agency _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

FREE Shipping & iIandling Address_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-'--_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Order by mail, phone, or on-line. City _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ State

ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

PRISON LEGAL NEWS P.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 2P1L2NCOL-00104

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-3 Filed 01/31/12 Page 64 of 64
" - - - - - - Copies of this very usable and useful gUide should be available in every prison library-to help incarcerated people give positive directiOn to their energies while making constructive use of their time. It is a well-established fact that people who have taken college courses in prison have a dramatically reduced rate of recidivism."
L - _ _ _ -BELL GALE CHEVIGNY, PEN Prison Writing Program, _ _ _~ Editor Doing Time: 25 Years ofPrison Writing.

HICH SCHOOL. VOCATIONAL • PARALEGAL • UNDERCRADUATE. GRADUATE COURSES

-.IIHE GREATLY anticipated and newly updated
third edition of the Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the United States and Canada has finally arrived! Author
Jon Marc Taylor's brand new version is the latest in this unique and highly successful gUidebook for the .
prisoner-student. This invaluable tool and how-to handbook provides the reader with step-by-step instructions to find the appropriate educational program for high school, vocational, paralegal, undergraduate, and graduate courses offered in
the U.S. and Canada today.
Invaluable re-entry tool
It presents more than 160 program outlines and
offers an easy-to-use format for the student to
determine which program best suits their needs. It is ideal for the incarcerated student who does not have Internet access or the ability to attend education classes in person. This resource is indispensable

for the individual and beneficial for use in all prison libraries and education departments.
The Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook is the only book
on the market for the non-traditional prisoner-student. It includes detailed listings of the quality, cost, and course offerings for all correspondence programs available to prisoners. In a time when so many academic opportunities in prisons have been eliminated, this book is an invaluable re-entry tool for prisoners who seek to further their education while incarcerated and to help them prepare for life and work following their release.
Jon Marc Taylor has more than 25 years experi-
ence as an incarcerated student, advocate for prisoner education, and author. He has successfully earned a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and a doctorate via correspondence courses while incar-
a cerated. Editor Susan Schwartzkopf has master's
degree in education and 12 years experience teaching immigrants English language skills.

rPR~ ISON- ERS' ~ GUER~ RILLA-HAN- DBOO-K TO-COR- RESP- ONDE- NCE- PROG- RAM- S IN T- HE U- NITED-STA- TES A- ND C- ANAD~ A ~

ByJon Marc Taylor PHD 8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed _ _ _ __
I By: D check D new postage stamps D credit card D money order

ISBN 978-0-9819385-0-9

Name ______________________________

$49.95
3 or more copies ordered

DOC/BOP Number _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- - - - - - - - - -

at once $39.95 each

Institution/Agency _____________________

FREE Shipping & Handling Address_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _:--

R Order by mail, phone, or on-line. City _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ State

ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

PRISON LEGAL NEWS I p.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 2P1L3NCOL-00105

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 1 of 60

9870.05 fa246305

HIBITY
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRlGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 214

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 2 of 60 Page 2P1L5NCOL-00127

Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 ...,
West Brattleboro, Vermont 05303

£~~~~~;;:,:- "lIi'.;-~I.,'_i~<:t~""""·~\~\I';.l!O'fI.\.:t.'!r~;:.y...; ....'~.t' l.:it~..,~~~'.•.., "',"

~ETURN TO SENDER

59584 ** EXPIRES: 7/201 1

ALiSHA V ANDOLAH 20100021 05

COLUMBIA Co JAIL

~S, ~'"" O~~TAvE

As of April 1, 2010

OREGON 97051

The Columbia County Jail

ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS

This applies to AL.L

incoming and out going mail

:::r"::t":::::·: ..:-...:::-:": :::
'.' : ·..·'···-6$,:~t;tj'rs~.q..20

. NIX:CEE:

9'70 ~;,E:::t,

00 02/1r..?/11

NOT

J:;rE:;'rURN on;, DEULNIV.AE.ERlLAE B~Lr 0E

.1As'"mOSJ:~N\O~~lF.DA.:1CRR.Ro ESSED

ac: (;J.S~O::;).2"~.2J;';,.glO

'i:.~6~:~-O.$7;'3.:5-0:1-44

JJJ))))1)J.I ).' JJ.•1JJ))) .1.11 )J .. 1.11J1. J1. ,,J.• 1.1,I. ,') J) J) JJJJ.. J J. J) J1

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 3 of 60 Page 2P1L6NCOL-00128

Order Form
All purchases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books, no singles) or
pre-stamped envelopes, if allowed by prison policies.

Book Title / Number

Qty Total Cost

(attach another page if you are ordering more hooks)
Subtotal: Add 6% sales tax for VT r~sidents only: Add $6.00 S/H to orders UNDER $50: Total Order Amount:
Send to:
Name: DOC#: Agency/Inst: Address: City/State/Zip:
MAIL PAYMENT AND TillS FORM: TO: Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303
Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
. 802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

FREE SIDPPING On book and index orders OVER $50.oo!
A $6 shipping charge applies to all other book allll index olllel's.
(Free shipping policy in effect frOIll Jan I, :l010 lllltil furlher nolice)

More Books for Sale!

Prisoners' Self-Help Litigation Manual, updated 4th ed. (2010), by John

Boston and Daniel Manville, Oxford Univ. Press, 1500 pages. $39.95. The

premiere, must-have "Bible" of prison litigation for current and aspiring jail-

house lawyers. If you plan to litigate a prison or jail civil suit, I I

I

this book is a must-have.

1077

Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the U.S.

and Canada, updated 3rd ed. by Jon Marc Taylor, Ph.D. and edited by Susan

Schwartzkopf, published by pLN, 221 pages. $49.95. Written by Missouri

prisoner Jon Marc Taylor, who obtained a B.S. degree, an M.A. degree and a

Doctorate, the Gllmi/la Hal/dbook contains contact information and descrip-

I I tions of high school, vocational, paralegal and college courses available
through correspondence study. Great resource for prisoners

who want to further their education.

1057 L._.J._ _ _..J

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by Robert E. Toone, Southern Poverty

Law Center, 325 pages. $10.00. TIus book explains basic rights dlat prisoners

have in a jail or prison in d'e U.S. It deals mainly with rights related to health

and safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by prison officials; it also

explains how you can enforce your rights within the facility I I

I

and, if necessary, in court through litigation.

1060

Starting Out! The Complete Re-Entry Handbook, edited by William H.

Foster, Ph.D. & Carl E. Horn, Ph.D., Startiog Out Inc., 446 pages. $22.95.

Complete do-it-yourself re-entry manual and workbook for prisoners who

want to develop their own re-entry plan to increase their chances of success

after they are released. Includes a wide variety of resources, including a user

~ode to the Startiog Out website that can be accessed fOllOW-I I

I

fig release.

1074

Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners v. the U.S.A, by

Mumia Abu Jamal, City Lights Publishers, 280 pages. $16.95. In Jailbollse LaIV-

yers, Prison Legal News columnist, award-winning journalist and deadl-row

prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal presents d,e stories and reflections of fellow pris-

oners-turned-advocates who have learned to use d,e court system to represent

od,er prisoners, and in some cases have won their freedom. I I

I

Must-read for jailliouse lawyers!

1073

How to Win Your Personal Injury Clain1, by Atty. joseph Matthews, 7th

edition, NOLO Press, 304 pages. $34.99. While not specifically for prison-

related personal injury cases, dUs book provides comprehensive information

on how to handle personal injury and property damage claims arising from

~ccidents - incl~ding dealing widl doctors, attorneys and I I

I

fisurance comparues.

1075

All prices are effective as of 9-15-10 (Plices subject to change without notice)
* No refunds after oluers have been pla~ *

PRISON;[EGAL NEWS

{

"

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center

2010 PLN BOOK LIST
Prices Subject to Change Without Notice
Graphic from: Books 2Prisoners, Vanconvcr, Be
, P.O. Box 2420, BI'attlebol"O, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.prisonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 4 of 60 Page 2P1L7NCOL-00129

Check the box of the books you want to buy and use the Order Form on the other side ofthis brochure to add up the cost of your order. FREE SlIJPPING for book and index orders OVER $50. There is a $6 shipping charge for all other book and index orders.

Prison Profiteers, edited by Paul Wright and Tara Herivel, 323 pages. $24.95. Ihis is the

third and latestbookin a series ofPrison l.egaI News anthologies that examines tile reality of
mass imprisonment in America. (TIle other tides are TIJe Cellillg ifAJlIerica & Prisoll Natioll,

see below). PrisOIl Projteers is unique from other books because it ""poses and discusses

who profits and benefits from mass imprisonment; rather than who is I

1

I

hanned bl'it and how.

1063 .

.

.

Prison Nation: The Warehousing of America's Poor, edited byTara Hetivel and Paul

I Wright; 332 pages. $35.95. PIN anthology ""poses the dm:k side of the

1

I

1ock-em-up'politica1 agenda and legal climate in the u.s.

1041 . .

.

The Ce1Iing of America, edited by Daniel Burton Rose, Dan Pens and Paul Wright; 264

pages. $2295. PIN anthology presenis a detailed "inside" look at the 1 1

1

workings oftile American aiminal justice system.

1001 . .

.

Everyday Letters for Busy People, by Debra Hart May, 287 pages. $18.99.

Hundreds of sample letters that can be adapted for most any purpose, including

letters to government agencies and officials. Has numerous

tips for writing effective letters.

1048

The Criminal Law Handboolc Know Your Rights, Survive the System, by
Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sara J. Berman-Barrett; Nolo Press, 608 pages. $39.99.

R,-plains what happens in a criminal case from being arrested to sentencing, and what

your rights are at each stage of tile process. Uses an easy to under-I

stand question-and-answer fommt.

1038 L._ - '_ _ _---'

Represent Yourself in Court: How to Prepare & Try a Winning Case, by
Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sara J. Berman-Barrett; Nolo Press, 528 pages. $39.99.

Breaks down tile civil trial process in easy-to-understand steps so you can effectively

1 I represent yoursel~ in court. The authors e.'-plain what to say in

I

coutt; how to say 1t, etc.

1037...

Uj- Law Dictionary, RllIldom House Webster's, 525 pages. $19.95. Comprehensive

to-date law dicrionmy explains more tilan 8,500 legal terms. 1 1

Covers civil, criminal, commercial & international law.

1036 1-._ _'-._ _- - '

I I The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, by Jane Straus, 110 pages.
$14.95. A guide to grammar and punctuation by an educator I

with experience teaching English to prisoners.

1046 1-._ - - ' ._ _ _---'.

Legal Research: How to Find and Understand the Law, by Stephen Elias and

Susan Levinkind, 568 pages. $49.99. Comprehensive and easy to understand guide

on researching tile law. R,-plains case law, statutes and digests, I I

I

and much more. Includes practice exercises.

1059 _ 1-. ---L._ _ _-'.

Deposition Handbook, by Paul Bergman and Albert Moore, Nolo Press, 352

pages. $34.99. How-to handbook for anyone who conducts a I 1

1

deposition or is going to be deposed.

1054 L._ - ' . ._ _ _---'.

Spanish-English/English-Spanish Dictionary, Random House. $8.95. Two

sections, Spanish-English and English-Spanish. 60,000+ entries I I

from A to Z; includes Western Hemisphere usage.

1034 1-._ - - ' ._ _ _- '

Please Note: All book and index orders are mailed via the U.S. Postal Setvice with Delivery Confumation. PLNdoes n~t assume any respon-
sibility to replace book or index orders once their delivery to the desti-
nation address (facility)is confirmed by the U.S. Postal Setvice.

Writing to Wm: The Legal Wtiter, by Steven D. StaIl<, Broadway Books/Randorri

I 1 House, 283 pages. $19.95. lli.-plains tile wtiting of effective complaints,

I

responses, btiern, motions and other legal papers.

1035 L._-L._ _--'.

'Actual Innocence: When Justice Goes Wrong and How to Make it Right, updated

paperback ed., by Bony Sclleck, Peter Neufeld and Jim Dwyer; 403 pages. $16.00.

Founders of ti,e Innocence Project ""pbin how aiminal defencbnts are wrongly con-

v:icted on a regular basis. R"Plains DNA testing and how it works to free the innocent.

Devastating critigue of police and prosecutotial misconduct and tile. I 1

1

system t:h.~t ensures SUcll abuses continue.

1030 L._ - ' - ._ _ _-'.

Roger's Thesaurus, 717 pages. $8.95. Helps you find the right word for what

you want to say. 11,000 words listed alphabetically \v:ith over'200,000 synonyms

and an·tonyms. Sample sentences and parts of speech shown for every main

word. Covers all levels of vocabulary and identifies informal I I

I

and slang words.

.

1045 L._ - - ' . ' - -_ _---'.

Webster's English Dictionary, Newly revised and updated, Random House.

$8.95. 75,000+ entries. Includes tips on writing arid word usage, 'and has up-

dated geographical and biographical entries. Includes recent 1 1

1

business and computer terms.

1.033...

I Capital Crimes, by' George Winslow, Monthly Rev:iew, 360 pages. $19.00.

Explains how economic policies create and foster crime, and I

I

how corporate & government crime is rarely punished. 1024

.

'----'-----'

With Liberty for Some: 500 Years of Innprisonment in America, by Scott

Christianson, Northeastern University Press, .372 pages. $18.95. The best

overall histoty of the American prison system from 1492 through the 20th

I I I Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how lillie
things have cl1anged as far as prisons go in the U.S. over

hundreds of years.

' 1026..

.

I Ten Men Dead: The story of the 1981 Irish hunger strike, by Da\~d Beres-
ford, Atiantic Monthly Press, 334 pages. $16.95. Inside story of I I

IRA prisoners at Belfast's Long Kesh prison.

1006 . .

.

finding the Right Lawyer, by Jay Foonberg, ABA, 256 pages. $19.95. Ex-

plains how to detemline your legal needs, how to evaluate a ' ,

lawyer's gualifications, fee payments, and more.

1015

Seize the Day! 7 Steps to Achieving the Extraordinary in an Ordinaty

World, by Danny Cox and John Hoover, 256 pages. $15.99. PrO\~des 7 steps

to changing your expectations and env:isioning yourself as being a successful

I I and respected person-whicl1 is essential to .cllanging the

1

course of one's life.

1052

Women Behind Bars, The Crisis of Women in the U.S. Prison System, by
Silja J.A. Talv:i, Seal Press, 295 pages. $15.95. Best book available that covers

issues related to imprisoned women, based on interviews with 1

hundreds of women bellind bars.

1066 1-._ - - ' -_ _- - '

10 Insider Secrets to a Winning Job Search; by Todd Bermont, 216 pages.

$15.99. Roadmap on how to get a job even under adverse circumstances-like

being an e.x-con. Includes how to develop a \v:inning atritude, write attention-

grabbing resumes, prepare for interviews, networking, how to 1 1

I

present your strengths to an employer, and much more! 1056..

.

The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, 2003

Ed. by Alfred McCoy, 734 pages. $34.95. Documented expose I I

1

of the government's involvement in drug trafficking.

1014 L._ - ' - ._ _ _- ' .

Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis, by Olristian Parenti,

290 pages. $19.00. Analyzes the war on the poor via d,e criminal justice system. Well

documented and includes first-hand reporting. Covers prisons, para-I

militmy policing, SWAT teams and the INS.

1002 L..._ - ' -_ _- '

Hepatitis and Liver Disease: What You Need to Know, by Melissa Palmer, MD,

457 pages. $17.95. Describes S)'II1ptoms & treatments of hepatitis B & C and otiler

liver diseases, Includes medicmions to avoid, what diet to follow, I I

1

e.,ercises to perform, and a bibliography. '.

1031

Crime and Punishment In America, by Elliott Cutrie, 230 pages. $16.95: Effective

rebuttal to right-wing proponents of prison building. Fact-based argument shows that

crime is driven by poverty. Debunks prison myths and discusses 1 1

I

proven, effective means ofcrime p",,'ention.

1019

'

Prison Madness: The Mental Health Crisis Behind Bars and What We

Must Do Ahout It, by Terry Kupers, Jossey-Bass, 245 pages. Hardback only,

prisoners please include any required authorization form. $32.95. Psychia-

triSt writes about tile mental healdl crisis in U.S. prisons and jails. Covers all

aspects of mental illness, prison rape, negative effects of long-I I

1

term isolation in control units, and more.

1003

Prison Writing in 20th Century America, by H. Bruce Franklin, Penguin Books, 368 pages. $16.00. From Jack London to George Jackson, tIus

anthology prov:ides a selection of some of the best writing 1 1

describing life behind bars in America.

1022 1 _ -. ..J.._ _- - '

T Soledad Brother: The Prison Letters of George Jackson, by GeorgeJackson,
Lawrence Hill Books, 339 pages. $18.95. Lucid ""-planation of je litiCS of 1

prison by a well-known ptison activ:ist. More relevant now d,an

when it first appeared 40 years ago.

1016

Marijuana Law, by Richard Boire, Ronin, 271 pages. $17.95. ExanJines how to

reduce tile probability of arrest and prosecution for people accused of tile use, sale or

possession ·of marijuana. Info on legal defenses, searcll. & seizures, ' ,

surveillance, asset furfeiture and drug testing.

1008 1-'_ - - ' - - -_ _- '

Worse Than Slavery: Parchman Farm and the Ordeal ofJim CrowJustice, by

Da\~d Oshinsky, 306 pages. $16.00. Analysis of ptison labor's roots in slavety.

Focuses on prison pbntations and self-suStaining prisons tilat use 1 I'

1

prison bbor.

1007..

.

No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the American Criminal Justice

System, by Dav:id Cole, TI,e New Press, 218 pages. $19.95. lli.-plains how tI,e

criminal justice system perpetuates race and c1"s ineguality, I I

1

creating a two-tiered system of justice. .

1028 L._ - ' ._ _- - ' .

The Prison and the Gallows: The Politics of Mass Incarceration in

America, by Marie Gottscl1alk, Cambridge University Press, 451 pages.

$29.99. Great political analysis of tI,e confluence of events I

1

leading to 2.3 mi1Iion people behind bars in the U.S. 1069.

.

The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, by Brandon

Sample, PLN Publishing, 200 pages. $49.95. This is PLN's second published

book, wluch exclusively covers ineffective assistance of counsel-related

issues in federal habeas petitions. Great resource for habeas I 1

I

litigation, and contains hundreds of case cites!

1078

Factor 8 (DVD), a fiIn1 by Kelly Duda, Concrete Films. $21.95. Mov:ie

I about the Arkansas prison blood scandal, in wluch prison officials sold
infected blood harvested from prisoners. Note: This is a

DVD and carmot be shipped to prison.

1076 L."'-:c'--_ _-'

PLN Cumulative Index. $22.50 each. PLN Article Indexes prov:ide detailed information about all PLN articles, including titIe, author, issue, page number, topics covered, citations, and if it is state, BOP or jail specific. Can be searched on over 500 subjects such as medical neglect or se.,,,al assault. Circle tile index(es) you are ordering: 1990-1995, 1996-1998, 1999-1 2001, 2002-2004. (more recent indexes not yet available)

All books are soft cover except Prison Madness

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 5 of 60 Page 2P1L8NCOL-00130

Order Form
All purchases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new stamps (strips 01.' books) 01.' pre-stamped envelopes.

Books (3 & 4yr Subscription Specials: cm.CLE
one book QI bonus issues, and DO NOT add SIH)
Protecting Your Health and Safety or 4 Bonus Issues (3-yr subscription offer)

$Amt.
Free

Prison Profiteers ill: With Liberty for Some

ill: 6 Bonus Issues (4-yr subscription offer)

Free

Book Total (inc. all books bought separately)

Add 6% sales tax for Vermont residents only

ADD $6.00 S/H to book orders UNDER $50

PLN SubSCliptions
6-month Subscription (Prisoners only) 1 yr Subscription (12 issues) 2 yr Subscription (24 plus 2 Bonus issues) 3 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above QI 4 Bonus issues) 4 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above QI 6 Bonus issues) Sample Issue - $3.50 each
TOTAL Amount Enclosed:

Send to:
Name: DOC#: Agency/lnst: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Address:
City/State/Zip: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
MAn.. PAYl\'IENT AND TillS FORM TO:
I i
Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303

Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

PLN Subscription Rates

Subscription Rates 1yr 2 yrs 3yrs 4yrs

Prisoners *

$24 $ 48 $ 72 $ 96

Individuals

$30 $ 60 $ 90 $120

Professionals

$80 $160 $240 $320

(Lawyers, govt. & professional agencies, libraries, etc.)

Sample issue for anyone - $3.50 each*

Six-month prisoner subscription for $12*

* Prisoners can pay with new fust-class stamps (strips or books only) or pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed byprison policies.

:- - - - - - - - - S;bs-c;ip;i~~ B-o~;;s! - - - - - - - --
1
12 years - 2 bonus issues, for 26 monthly issues total. : 3 years - 4 bonus issues (40 total) OR Protecting Your Health and • Safety (see book description on the other side of tills brochure). : 4 years - 6 bonus issues (54. total) OR your choice of With LibertyfOT
(:::. ~8;!~e_m:..~n:o:: ~T~e::.:. d:s~ril':!.o~..?~ ~:.o':h:r~i~e~ _____I

New 3 01' 4-Year Subscription Book Offel's!

Subscribe 01' renew for three years at the regular price ($72 for prisoners & $90 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Protecting Your Health and Safety or four bonus issues of PLN! (40 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.
Subscribe 01' renew for fom' years. at the regula!' price
($96 for prisoners & $120 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Prison Profiteers or With Liberty for Some, or 6 bonus issues of PLN! (54 monthly issues
total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.

NO shipping charge for subscription bonus books!

NOTE: If you want the bonus issues of PLN instead of the free book offer, please indicate that on the Order Form.

:- -- - - - -Co;';a~;iT; £0; "PiN;-s-io~k iis~!- - - - - - ~

11 You can buy dozens of legal, social commentary, self-.•

1help books, and legal and regular dictionaries directly:

1
: from

PL~'s

boo!.:

store!

Ask

us

for

a

book

list,

or

view:

10m' selectIOn online at:

1

1

www.prisonlegalnews.org/store.aspx

:

~---------------------------------

All subscription rates & bonus offers are effective as of5-1-10
and valid through 12-31-10
* No l'Cfunds after ordel'S have been placed *

PRisON.[EGAL NEWS
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
Eastern State Penitentiary 1829-1971
Charles Dickens visited Philadelphia's Eastern State Penitentiary in 1842 and he later wrote: "The System is l'igid, strict and hopeless ... and I believe it to be cruel and wrong....1 hold this slow and daily tampering with the mysteries of the brain to be immeasurably worse than any torture of the body." The prison remained open for 129 years after Dickens condemned it as being barbaric, and some of its inhumane practices continue to be used in prisons nationwide.
P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.prisonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 6 of 60 Page 2P1L9NCOL-00131

r r:
P rison Legal News is an independent, non-profit 56-page monthly publication that reports, reviews and analyzes cou!"t rulings and news related to
prisoners' rights and prison issues. PLN has a national (V.S.) focus on state, federal and private prison issues,
with some international coverage as well.
PLN's many thousands of SUbscl'ibers and readers include civil and criminal trial and appellate attorneys, judges, public defenders, j'oUl"nalists, academics, paralegals, prisoners' rights activists, students, family members of prisoners, concerned individuals, politicians, other government officials, and numerous local, state and federal prisoners nationwide.
PLN is a vital link for prisoners who otherwise don't have access to CUl'l'ent legal and prison-related news and information.
"Invaluable resource for anyone wanting 'user friendly' information about current legal developments affecting
prisoners in the United States." - Human Rights Watch, a long-time PLN subscriber
P LN's coverage of prison issues includes medical neglect, disciplinary heal'ings, nutrition, living conditions, excessive force, court access, censorship, jail litigation, visiting, telephones, religious freedom, free speech, prison rape, mental health, attorney/ client· access, sexual abuse of women prisoners, retaliation, the PLRA, HIV and hep C, control units, the death penalty, attorney fees and much more.
PLN Subscription Rates
Prisoners: $12 for 6 months, $24 pel' year *
Non-incarcerated individuals: $30 pel' year Law [urns, govt. agencies and libraries: $80 pel' yea!" Sample issue for anyone: $3.50 each* * Prisoners cap. pay with new stamps or pre-stamped envelopes

E ach monthly issue ofPLN includes three different types of reporting: .. A cover story on a prison-related issue. .. Reports on individual and class-action prison and jail-
related lawsuits when they are flied, when a judgment is entered or the case settles, and when an appellate court decision is issued. We also have prison-related news articles. .. A "News In Brief' section that summari~es interesting news stories across the U.S. and internationally.
Each issue of PLN also contains numerous advertisements from businesses that provide prison-related personal and legal services and books. PLN further sells dozens of selfhelp, social commentary and legal books.
PLN also has cumulative subject and case cite indexes for all PLN issues from 1990 through 2004,. Write for info.
Special3-year SuhsCl'iption Offel'!

Free with a 3-yeru: PLN subscl'iption! Four bonus issues of PLN (40 issues total) or a ti'ee book, Protecting Your Health and Safety! Circle your bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (3-year subscription rates: prisoners $72, individuals $90, professionals $24,0).

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by "'"'_-----1

Robert E. Toone. Published by the South-

ern Poverty Law Center, 325 pages (2009).

$10.00 (ti'ee with a 3-yeru' sub!). This book

explains some basic rights that prisoners have in a jail or prison in the U.S. It deals I
mainly with rights related to health and Ii

I '",e----

safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by

prison officials; it also explains how you can enforce your

rights to health and safety within the facility and, if nec-

essary, in court through litigation. Buy separately: _ _._

I---------------------~--------------------,

You Can Buy These Books Sepal'ately! :

I

I

I

: If you don't want to purchase a 3 or 4-year subscription:

to PLN, you can still purchase any of the bonus books:

at the regular price. Just indicate which books you want:

to buy on this page, then enter the total cost on the other:

side of this brochure on the "Book Total" line of the 01'- :

del' Form. Shipping is $6 per order (not per book), and we :

offer FREE shipping on book orders of $50 or more! To :

place a phone order, please call 802-257-134,2. We also:

accept book orders online, at www.prisoulegalnews.org. :
__________________________________________ J

D onations: PLN is a project of the non-profit Human Rights Defense Center. Your tax-deductible donations support our advocacy, free speech and First Amendment litigation efforts on behalf of prisoners and publishers. PLN not only provides uncensored prison-related news, but actively contests prison censorship that interferes with the delivery of our publication or any other PLN materials sent to prisoners. All donations further our goal of advocating for people imprisoned in U.S. detention facilities.
"Great source of information, especially in states such as Arizona where the law libraries have been taken from the inmates and replaced with paralegals." - SB, Arizona prisoner
I-S;~~i~14-yeal' suhsc~i;~i~~ Offer!
Free with a 4,-year PLN SubSC1'iption! Six bonus issues of PLN (54 issues total) 01' one free book, With Liberty for Some m: Prison Profiteers! Circle your bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (4-year subscription rates: prisoners $96, individuals $120, professionals $320). Note: Free book option is for one boole
With Liberty for Some: 500 Years Imprisonment in America, by Scott Christianson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages (1998). $18.95 (ti'ee with a 4.-year sub!). A classic book and the best overall history of the American prison system from 1492 to the 20th Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how little things have changed as far as prisons go in the U.S. over hundreds of years. Buy separately: ___
or
Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money from Mass Incarceration, edited by Paul Wright & Tara Herivel, New Press (2007). $24.95 (ti'ee with a 4-yeal' sub!). This is the thli·d in a series of PLN anthologies that examines the reality of mass imprisonment in the U.S. Prison Profiteers is unique from other books on the market because it exposes and discusses who profits and benefits from mass imprisonment, rather than who is harmed by the prison industrial complex and our nation's reliance on over-incarceration. Buy separately: _._ _

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 7 of 60

T he Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel is the first in a series of books by Prison Legal News Publishing designed to help pro-se prisoner litigants identify and raise viable claims for potential habeas corpus relief. This book is an invaluable resource that identifies hundreds of cases where the federal courts have granted habeas relief to prisoners whose attorneys provided ineffective assistance of counsel.
It will save litigants
thousands ofhours of research and it focuses on the
WINNING cases criminal defendants need to
successfully challenge their convictions.
Well organized into 52 concise chapters, this easy to use book puts the law at the reader's fingertips. The Appendix includes pleadings and forms from successful habeas corpus cases that

"

The Habeas Citebook is a

nifty and concise self-help

guide for prisoners seeking

habeas relief based on claims of

ineffective assistance of counsel.

Navigating the complex and

treacherous terrain of habeas

law is never easy; but claim-

ing that your lawyer screwed up

is even more difficult - espe-

cially from the confines of an

demonstrate formatting and show ill-equipped prison law library.

how to frame a winning argu-

"Brandon Sample has pro-

ment that will persuade a court

vided an amazing and much-

to grant habeas relief. The Habeas

needed tool for prisoners who

Citebook explains the proce-

are forced to seek relief on their

dural and substantive complexi-

own. The book is thorough; but

ties of federal habeas corpus lit-

simple and readable. It starts

igation with the goal of identify-

with a wonderfully well-orga-

ing and litigating claims involving nized listing of hundreds of dif-

ineffective assistance of counsel.

ferent types of ineffective assis-

Brandon Sample is a success-

tance of counsel, set forth in the

ful jailhouse lawyer litigant incar-

form of citations to court rul-

cerated in the Bureau of Prisons.

ings - a novel approach that

He is a Prison Legal News contrib- not only acts as a springboard

uting writer and a member of the

for further research but also

National Lawyer's Guild. Editor

saves the prisoner countless

Susan Schwartzkopf has a mas-

hours of preliminary research:'

ter's degree in education and is

the director and editor in chief of

PETER SCHMIDT

Prison Legal News Publishing.

Publisher, Punch & Jurists

I

THE HABEAS CITEBOOK: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

By Brandon Sample

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed ______

I

8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages

I By: 0 check 0 new postage stamps 0 credit card 0 money order

I

ISBN 978-0-9819385-1-6
$49·95

I Name _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____

I

3 or more copies ordered at once $39.95 each .

DOC/BOP Number ___________________
I Institution/Agency _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

I

i FREE Shipping & Handling Address_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

I Order by mail, phone, or on-line. City _ _ _~_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ State PUBLISHED BY

ZIP

I

PIUSON LEGAL NEWS P.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 2P2L0NCOL-00132

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 8 of 60
,,-----------.

Copies of this very usable and useful gUide

should be available in every prison library-to

help incarcerated people give positive direc-

tion totheir energies while making constructive

use of their time. It is a well-established fact that

people who have taken college courses in prison

have a dramatically reduced rate of recidivism."

-BELL GALE CHEVICiNY, PEN Prison Writing Program,

~-----

Editor DOing Time: 25 Years ofPrison Writing. -----~

HIGH SCHOOL., VOCATIONAL • PARALEGAL., UNDERGRADUATE. GRADUATE COURSES

HE GREATLY anticipated and newly updated third edition of the Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the United States and Canada has finally arrived! Author Jon Marc Taylor's brand new version is the latest in this unique and highly successful gUidebook for the prisoner-student. This invaluable tool and how-to handbook provides the reader with step-by-step instructions to find the appropriate educational program for high school, vocational, paralegal, undergraduate, and graduate courses offered in the U.S. and Canada today.
Invaluable re-entry tool
It presents more than 160 program outlines and offers an easy-to-use format for the student to determine which program best suits their needs. It is ideal for the incarcerated student who does not have Internet access or the ability to attend education classes in person. This resource is indispensable

for the individual and beneficial for use in all prison libraries and education departments.
The Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook is the only book on the market for the non-traditional prisoner-student. It includes detailed listings of the quality, cost, and course offerings for all correspondence programs available to prisoners. In a time when so many academic opportunities in prisons have been eliminated, this book is an invaluable re-entry tool for prisoners who seek to further their education while incarcerated and to help them prepare for life and work following their release.
Jon Marc Taylor has more than 25 years experience as an incarcerated student, advocate for prisoner education, and author. He has successfully earned a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and a doctorate via correspondence courses while incarcerated. Editor Susan Schwartzkopf has a master's degree in education and 12 years experience teaching immigrants English language skills.

IpPR-ISON- ERS' - GUER- RILLA-HAN- DBOO-K TO-COR- RESP- ONDE- NCE- PROG- RAMS-IN T- HE U- NITED-STAT-ES A- ND CA-NAD~ A m

By Jon Marc Taylor PHD 8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages

Number of copies ordered ____ Amount enclosed
By: 0 check 0 new postage stamps 0 credit card 0 money order I

ISBN 978-0-9819385-0-9

Name ___________________________________________

$49-95
3 or more copies ordered

DOC/BOP Number _________________________________

at once $39-95 each

Institution/Agency ___________________________________

FREE Shipping & Handling Address,_________________________________________

a Order by mail/ phone/ or on-line. City ___________________________ State

ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

I PR9S0N lEGAL NEWS p.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 0 5303

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 2P2L1NCOL-00133

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 9 of 60

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBIT
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRlGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 222

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 10 of 60 Page 2P2L3NCOL-00092

Prison Legal News
p,o, Box 2420 West Brattleboro, Vermont 05303

:'~vJ~:~,~rfT'E··:jf<tit'\;t' .:~C:'J .';~;:I H3·FE{f!'12,,\:'7il:;l

59585 ** EXPIRES: 7/201 1

JEFFREY VANNATTA COLUMBIA Co JAIL 901 PORT AVE

2011000104

5T HELENS, OREGON 97051

:::i70~~·t~i~~tJ=i420

As of April 1, 2010 The Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS
This applies to ALL incoming and out going mail
.-~

N~XU~

9'70 -S,E~:L

or.) 0.2J:1 C~J:l.;:I.

RETURN TO SENDER REFUSED
UNABLE TO FORWARO

EtC; o.s~o:s~.t~~O~i)O

*oe~4-~eeo5-0a-40

JII»» I) IJ J) II) JJJ J J) J JJ») JJ J) I») I»))) II J» J) I) JII» j J) I» I

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 11 of 60 Page 2P2L4NCOL-00093

Order Form
All purchases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books, no singles) or
pre-stamped euvelopes, ifallowed by prison policies.

Book Title / Number

Qty Total Cost

(attach another page if you are ordering more books)
Subtotal: Add 6% sales tax for VT residents only: Add $6.00 S/H to orders UNDER $50: Total Order Amount:
Send to:
Name: DOC#: Agency/lnst: Address: City/State/Zip:
MAIL PA"fllENT AND TillS FORM TO: Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303
Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

FREE SIDPPING
On hook and index orders OVER $50.00! A $6 shipping chru:ge applies to all other hook a11l1 index o111el's.
(Frce shipping policy in elTccl from Jan 1, 2010 until further noticc)

More Books for Sale!

Prisoners' Self-Help Litigation Manual, updated 4th ed. (2010), by Jolm

Boston and Daniel Manville, Oxford Univ. Press, 1500 pages. $39.95. The
I I I premiere, must-have "Bible" of prison litigation for current and aspiring jail-
house lawyers. If you plan to litigate a prison or jail civil suit,

this book is a must-have.

1077

Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the U.S.

and Canada, updated 3rd ed. by Jon Marc Taylor, Ph.D. and edited by Susan

Schwartzkopf, published by PLN, 221 pages. $49.95. Written by lYIissouti

prisoner Jon Marc Taylor, who obtained a B.S. degree, an M.A. degree and a

Doctorate, dle GlImilla Handbook contains contact information and descrip-

tions of high school, vocational, paralegal and college courses available

through correspondence study. Great resource for prisoners I I

who want to furmer dleir education.

1057 L---'_ _--'

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by Robert E. Toone, Soudlern Poverty

Law Center, 325 pages. $10.00. TIus book explains basic rights mat prisoners

have in a jail or prison in me U.S. It deais mainly wim rights related to healm
I I I and safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by prison officials; it also
explains how you can enforce your rights wiiliin me facility

and, if necessary, in court mrough litigation.

1060

Starting Out! The Complete Re-Entry Handbook, edited by William H.

Foster, Ph.D. & Carl E. Horn, Ph.D., Starting Out Inc., 446 pages. $22.95.

Complete do-it-yourself re-entry manual and workbook for prisoners who

want to develop dleir own re-entry plan to increase dleir chances of success

after mel' are released. Includes a wide vatiety of resources, including a user

~ode to dle Starting Out website mat can be accessed fOllOW-I I

I

tng release.

1074 '---'----'

Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners v. the U.S.A, by Mumia Abu Jamal, City Lights Publishers, 280 pages. $16.95. In Jailhollse Ll1Ip-

yers, Prison Legal News columnist, award-winning journalist and deam-row

prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal presents dle stories and reflections of fellow pris-
I I oners-turned-advocates who have learned to use me court system to represent
odler prisoners, and in some cases have won meir freedom'j

Must-read for jailliouse lawyers!

1073 L._ - ' - ._ _ _-'.

How to Win Your Personal Injury Claim, by Atty. Joseph Matdlews, 7dl

edition, NOLO Press, 304 pages. $34.99. While not specifically for prison-

related personal injury cases, mis book provides comprehensive information

on how to handle personal injury and property damage claims atising from

~ccidents - incl~ding dealing widl doctors, attorneys and I I

I

tnsurance comparues.

1075 . .

.

All prices al'e effective as of9-15-10 (plices subject to change without notice)
* No refunds after ordel'S have been placed *

,~ "I.,
_ _,>,;;~~f(,
PR1SON;LEGAl NEWS
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
2010 PLN BOOK LIST
Prices Subject to Change Without Notice
Graphic from: Books 2 Prisoners, Vancouver, BC
P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.pl·isonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 12 of 60 Page 2P2L5NCOL-00094

Check the box of the books you want to buy and use the Order Form on the other side of this brochure to add up the cost of your order. FREE SIDPPING for book and index orders OVER $50. There is a $6 shipping charge for all other book and index orders.

Prison ProfiteetS, edited by Paul Wright and Tam Herivel, 323 pages. $24.95. TIlis is d,e

dUrd and L,test bookin a series ofPrison Legal News andlOlogies that examines d,e reality of
mass imprisonment in Amerim (TIle other tides are TI;e Celli/If, tfhllerieo & PmollNatiolJ,

I I I see below). PrisolJ Projteers is unique from odler books bccltlSe it ""-poses and discusses
who profits and benefits from mass inlprisonmen~ rndler than who is

hanned by it and how.

1063 .

.

.

I I Prison Nation: The Warehousing ofAmerica's Poor, edited by Tam Herivel and Paul
Wrigh~ 332 pages. $35.95. PIN anthology ""-poses d,e d-u:k side of the 1

1ock-em-up'poliriali agenda and legal climate in the U.s. . 1041.

.

.

The CeDing of America, edited by Daniel Burton Rose, Dan PerlS and Paul Wrigh~ 264

pages. $22.95. PIN anthology presents; detniled "inside" look at the '

,

,

workings ofd,e American crimin,u justice system.

1001

Everyday Letters for Busy People, by Debra Hart May, 287 pages. $18.99.

Hundreds of sample letters that can be adapted for most aoy purpose, including

letters to government agencies aod officials. Has numerous I

tips for writing effective letters.

104S L._ - - - '_ _- - - '

The Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System, by
Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sara J. Berman-Barre~ Nol? Press, 608 pages. $39.99.

E.'1'lains what happens in a crinlinal case from heing arrested to sentenciog, and what

your rights are at each stage. of the process. Uses an easy to under-I

stand question-and-answer format

1038 L-._ - '_ _ _- '

Represent Yourself in Court: How to Prepare & Try a Winning Case, by

Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sam J. Bern1ao-Barrett, Nolo Press, 528 pages. $39.99.

I Breaks down d,e civil trial process in easy-to-undetStand steps so you can effecti\'ely
represent yourself in court. The audlots e.'-plain what to say in

I I l- co~howtosayit,etc.

1037 ..J L._ - ' -_ _ _

Law Dictionary, Raodom House Webster's, 525 pages. $19.95. Comprel1ensive tc-date law dictionary e.'1'lains more thao 8,500 legal terms.

CovetS civil, crinlinal, commercial & international law.

1036 L._ - - - ' . ' -_ _- '

The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, by Jaoe Straus, 110 pages.

$14.95. A guide to grammar aod punctuation by ao educator 1 1

1

with experience teaching English to prisoners.

1046

Legal Research: How to Find and Understand the Law, by Stephen Elias and

Susan Levinkind, 568 pages. $49.99. Comprehensive and easy to understand guide

on researching the law. E.'1'lains case law, statutes and digests, 1 1

I

aod much more. Includes prncrice e.'(ercises.

1059 L._ - ' - ._ _ _-'.

Deposition Handbook, by Paul Bergman and Albert Moore, Nolo Press, 352

pages: $34.99. How-to handbook for anyone who conducts a I I

I

deposition or is going to be deposed.

1054 L.._ - ' ._ _ _- ' .

Spanish-English/English-Spanish Dictionary, Raodom House. $8.95. Two

sections, Spanish-English and English-Spanish. 60,000+ entries

from A to Z; includes Western Hemisphere usage.

1034 '-_-'-_ _---'

Please Note: All book and index orders are mailed via the U.S. Postal Service with Delivery Confinnation. PIN does not assume any responsibility to replace book or index orders once their delivery to the destination address (facility) is confinned by the U.S. Postal Service.

I Writing to Wm: The Legal Writer, by Steven D. Stark, Broadway Books/lhndom

House, 283 pages. $19.95. E.'-plains d,e writing of effective complaints, I

I

responses, btiefS, motions and other legal papers.

1035 L._ - ' - ._ _---'.

Actual hmocence: When Justice Goes Wrong and How to Make it Right, updated paperback ed., by Barry Scheck, Peter Neufeld and Jinl Dwyer; 403 pages. $16.00.

Founders of the Innocence Project ""-plain how criminaI defendants are wrongly convicted on a reguL1t basis. &-plains DNA testing and how';t works to Ereethe innocent

Devastating critique of police and prosecutorial misconduct and the I I

I

system that ensures such abuses continue.

1030 L._ - ' ._ _ _-'.

Rogel'S Thesaurus, 717 pages. $8.95. Helps you find the right word for what

you waot to sal'. 11,000 words listed alphabetically with over 200,000 synonyms

aod aotonyms. Sample sentences aod parts of speech shown for every main

word. Covers all levels of vocabulary aod identifies informal I I

I

aod slaog words.

1045 . .

.

Webster's English Dictionary, Newly revised and updated, Random House.

$8.95. 75,000+ entries. Includes tips on writing aod word usage, and has up-

dated geographical aod biographical entries. Includes recent I I

I

business aod computer terms.

1033...

Capital Crimes, by George Winslow, Monthly Review, 360 pages. $19.00. E"1'lains· how economic policies create aod foster crime, aod 1 how corporate & government crime is rarely punished. 1024 L----'_ _ _-'

With Liberty for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America, by Scott

Christiaoson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages. $18.95. The best

overall history of the American prison system from 1492 through the 20th

Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how little

things have changed as far as prisons go in the U.S. over 1 1

1

hundreds of years.

1026..

.

Ten Men Dead: The story of the 1981 Irish hunger strike, by Da\~d Beres-

ford, Atlantic Montllly Press, 334 pages. $16.95. Inside story of I I

I

IRA prisoners at Belfast's Long Kesh prison.

1006 . .

.

Finding the Right Lawyer, by Jay Foonberg, ABA, 256 pages. $19.95. Ex-

plains how to determine your legal needs, how to evaluate a I I

I

lawyer's qualifications, fee payments, and more.

1015

Seize the Day! 7 Steps to Achieving the Extraordinary in an Ordinary

World; by DarUlY Cox aod John Hoover, 256 pages. $15.99. Provides 7 steps

to chaoging your expectations aod envisioning yourself as being a successful

and respected person-which is essential to chaoging the I I

I

course of one's life.

1052

Women Behind Bars, The Crisis of Women in the U.S. Prison System, by
Silja J.A. Talvi, Seal Press, 295 pages. $15.95. Best book available that covers

issues related to imprisoned women, based on interview,' witll I

hundreds of women behind bars.

1066 L._ - ' -_ _- - '

10 Insider Secrets to a Winning Job Search, by Todd Bermont, 216 pages.

$15.99. Roadmap on how to get a job even under adverse circumstances-like

being ao ex-con. Includes how to develop a winning atritude, write attention-

grabbing resumes, prepare for intet\~ews, networking, how to I I

I

present your strengths to ao employer, aod much more!. 1056..

.

The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, 2003

Ed. by Alfred McCoy, 734 pages. $34.95. Documented e"1'ose I I

I

of ti,e government's involvement in drug trafficking.

1014 -<. L.._.....l..._ _ _

Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis; by Christian Parenti,

290 pages. $19.00. Analyzes the win· on the poor via the criIriir",] justice system. Well

documented and includes first-hand repotting. Covers prisons, pam-

military policing, SWAT teams and the INS.

1002 '----'-_ _--'

Hepatitis and Liver Disease: What You Need to Know, by Melissa Palmer, MD,

I I I 457 pages. $17.95. Desctibes symptoms & treatments of hepatitis B & C and other
liver diseases. Includes medications to avoid, what diet to follow,

e.'(ercises to perfonn, and a bibliography.

1031

Crime and Punishment In· America, by Elliott Curtie, 230 pages. $16.95. Effective

I I I rebuttal to right-wing proponents of prison building. Fact-based argument shows dillt
crime is driven by poverty. Debunks prison myths and discusses

pIO\'Cfl, e£fecrive means ofcrime prevention.

1019

Prison Madness: The Mental Health Crisis Behind Bars and What We

Must Do About It, by Terry Kupers,Jossey-Bass, 245 pages. Hardback only,

prisoners please include any required authorization form. $32.95. Psychia-

I I trist writes about d,e mental healdl crisis in U.S. prisons and jails. Covers all
aspects of mental illness, prison rnpe, negative effects of long-I

term isolation in control units, and more.

1003

Prison Writing in 20th Century America, by H. Bruce Fraoklin, Penguin

Books, 368 pages. $16.00. From Jack London to George Jackson, tlus

; antllOlogy provides a selection of some· of the best writing I I

describing life behind bars in America.

1022 '---'----'

r T Soledad Brother: The Prison Letters of George Jackson, by George Jackson,
Lawrence Hill Books, 339 pages. $18.95. Lucid e.'-planation of ,e litiCS of I

prison by a well-known ·prison activist. More relevant now than

when it first appeared 40 years ago.

1016

Marijuana Law, by Rich,"\tCI Boire, Ronin, 271 pages. $17.95. Exanlines how to

reduce d,e probability of arrest and prosecution for people accused of the use, sale or

possession of marijuana. Infu on legal defenses, searcl1 & seizures, I I

I

surveilLmce, asset furfeiture and drug testing.

1008 L._ - ' - ._ _---'.

Worse Than Slavery: Parchman Farm and the Ordeal ofJim Crow Justice, by

David Oshinsky, 306 pages. $16.00. Analysis of prison labor's roots in slavet}'.

Focuses on ptison plantations and self-sustaining prisons that use I I

I

prison labor.

.

1007

_-'.~. L.

_ _- ' .

No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the American Criminal Justice System, by Da\~d Cole, The New Press, 218 pages. $19.95. E.'1'lains how the

crinlinal justice system perpetuates rnce aod class inequality, I I

I

creating a two-tiered system of justice.

.

1028..

.

The Prison and the Gallows: The Politics of Mass Incarceration in

America, by Marie Gottschalk, Cambridge University Press, 451 pages.

$29.99. Great political aoalysis of ti,e confluence of events I

I

leading to 2.3 million people behind bars in the U.S. 1069.

.

The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective,Assistance of Counsel, ·by Braodon

Sample, PLN Publishing, 200 pages. $49.95. TIus is PIN's second published

book, whicll exclusively covers ineffective assistance of counsel-related

issues in federal habeas petitions. Great resource for habeas I I

I

litigation, aod contains hundreds of case cites!

1078..

.

Factor 8 (DVD), a film by Kelly Duda, Concrete Filins. $21.95. Movie

about ti,e Arkaosas prison blood scaodal, in which prison officials sold

infected blood harvested from prisoners. Note: This is a I

DVD and cannot be shipped to prison.

1076 L.~-'-_ _-'

PLN Cumulative Index. $22.50 each. PLN Article Ind~xes provide detailed information abouf allPLN articles, including title; autllOr, i~sue, page number, topics covered, citations, aod if it is state,. BOP or jail spe~i(ic. Cao be
searched on over 500 subjects such as medical neglect or se.,-ual assault. Circle
the index(es) you are ordering: 1990-1995, 1996-1998, 1999-1 2001, 2002-2004. (more recent indexes ·not yet available)

All books are sott cover except Prison Madness

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 13 of 60 Page 2P2L6NCOL-00095

Order Form
All pm'chases must he pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new stamps (stl'ips or hooks) or pre-stamped envelopes.

Books (3 & 4yr Subscription Specials: CffiCLE
one book ill: bonus issues, and DO NOT add SIH)
Protecting Your Health and Safety or 4 Bonus Issues (3-yr subscription offer)

$Amt.
Free

Prison Profiteers!!! With Liberty for Some

!!! 6 Bonus Issues (4-yr subscription offer)

Free

Book Total (inc. all books bought separately)

Add 6% sales tax for Vermont residents only

ADD $6.00 SIH to book orders UNDER $50

PLN Subscriptions
6-month Subscription (Prisoners only) 1 yr Subscription (12 issues) 2 yr Subscription (24 plus 2 Bonus issues) 3 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above ill: 4. Bonus issues) 4. yr Sub (Circle bonus book above ill: 6 Bonus issues) Sample Issue - $3.50 each
TOTAL Amount Enclosed:

Send to:
Name:
DOC#:
Agency/lnst: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Address:
City/State/Zip: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
MArL PAYl\'IENT AND TillS FORM TO:
I •
Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303

Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

PLN Subscription Rates

Subscription Rates
Prisoners *

1yr 2yrs 3 yrs 4yrs $24 $ 48 $ 72 $ 96

Individuals

$30 $ 60 $ 90 $120

Professionals

$80 $160 $240

(Lawyers, govt. & professional agencies, libraries, etc.)

Sample issue for anyone - $3.50 each*

$320

Six-month prisoner subscription for $12*

* Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books only) or pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed byprison policies.

:- - - - - - - - - S~s~;ipti~; B-o~~;;s! - - - - - - - --
1
1 2 years - 2 bonus issues, for 26 monthly issues total. : 3 years - 4 bonus issues (40 total) OR Protecting Your Health and 1 Safety (see book description on the other side of this brochure). : 4 years - 6 bonus issues (54. total) OR your choice of With Libertyfor
!..~~e_~~n.:0~~r~e:r:.(~:.d:s~ri.rt!.0~.?~t.?:.o,:h:r~i~e~ _____:

New 3 or 4-Year Subscl'iption Book Offel's!

Subscribe or renew for three years at the regular price ($72 for prisoners & $90 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Protecting Your Health and Safety or four bonus issues of PLN! (40 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.
Subscribe or renew for four years at the regular price ($96 for prisonel's & $120 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Prison Profiteers or With Libertyfor Some, or 6 bonus issues of PLN! (54 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.

NO shipping charge for subscription bonus books!

NOTE: If you want the honus issues of PLN instead of the free book offer, please indicate that on the Order Form.

:- ---- - U; -C-o;';a~; fo; PiN;s-io~k iis~!- ---- -~

1

1

1 You can buy dozens of legal, social commentary, self-I

: help books, and legal and regular dictionaries directly: : from PL~'s boo~ store! Ask us for a book list, or view:

1 our selectIOn online at:

1

1

www.prisonlegalnews.org/store.aspx

:

1______ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

All subscription rates & bonus offers are effective as of 5-1-10
and valid through 12-31-10
* No refunds after orders have been placed *

''PR2('S~ON'.'"';;~>'f('",~,.G""A\\ L

'.
NEWS

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center

Eastern State Penitentiary 1829-1971
Charles Dickens visited Philadelphia's Eastern State Penitentiary in 1842 and he later wrote: "The System is rigid, strict and hopeless ... and I believe it to be cruel and wrong....I hold this slow and daily tampeI'ing with the mysteries of the brain to be immeasurably worse than any torture of the body." The prison remained open for 129 years after Dickens condemned it as being barbaric, and some of its inhumane practices continue to be used in prisons nationwide.
P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303
802-257-1342 • www.pl.isonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 14 of 60 Page 2P2L7NCOL-00096

P l'ison Legal News is an independent, non-profit 56-page monthly publication that reports, reviews and analyzes com1: rulings and news related to
prisoners' rights and prison issues. PLN has a national
(U.S.) focus on state, federal and private prison issues, with some international coverage as well.
PLN's many thousands of subscribers and readers include civil and criminal trial and appellate attorneys, judges, public defenders, jomnalists, academics, paralegals, pl'isoners' ,rights activists, students, family members of prisoners, concerned individuals, politicians, other government officials, and numerous local, state and federal pl'isoners nationwide.
PLN is a vital link for pl'isoners who otherwise don't have access to current legal and prison-related news and information.
"Invaluable resource for anyone wanting 'user friendly' infonnation about current legal developments affecting
prisoners in the United States."
- Human Rights Watch, a long-time PLN subscriber
P LN's coverage of prison issues includes medical neglect, disciplinary hearings, nutrition, living conditions, excessive force, court access, censOl'ship, jail litigation, visiting, telephones, religious freedom, free speech, prison rape, mental health, attorney/ client access, sexual abuse of women prisoners, re-
taliation, the PLRA, HIV and hep C, control units,
the death penalty, attorney fees and much more.
PLN Subscription Rates Prisoners: $12 for 6 months, $24 per year .. Non-incarcerated individuals: $30 per year Law firms, govt. agencies and libraries: $80 per year Sample issue for anyone: $3.50 each" * Prisoners can pay with new stamps or pre-stamped envelopes

E ach monthly issue of PLN includes three different

types of reporting:

,

It A cover story on a prison-related issue.

It Reports on individual and class-action prison and jailrelated lawsuits when they are filed, when a judgment is entered or the case settles, and when an appellate court decision is issued. We also have prison-related news articles.

It A "News In Brief" section that summarizes interesting news stories across the U.S. and internationally.

Each issue of PLN also contains numerous advertisements from businesses that provide prison-related personal and legal services and books. PLN 'further sells dozens of selfhelp, social commentary and legal books.

PLN also has cumulative subject and case cite indexes for all PLN issues from 1990 tlll'ough 2004·. Write for info.

Special 3-yeal' SuhSCl'iption Offer!

Free with a 3-year PLN subscription! Four bonus issues of PLN (40 issues total) 01' a fi'ee book, Protecting Your Health and Safety! Circle your bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (3-year subscription rates: prisoners $72, individuals $90, professionals $24.0).
Protecting Your Health and Safety, by 1'1'(1-----1 Robert E. Toone. Published by the Southern Poverty Law Center, 325 pages (2009). $10.00 (fi'ee with a 3-year sub!). This book explains some basic rights that prisoners
€l----I have in a jail or prison in the U.S. It deals I~ ...
mainly with rights related to health and Ll.-. - - - - - I . safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by prison officials; it also explains how you can enforce your rights to health and safety within the facility and, if necessary, in court through litigation. Buy separately: ___

----------------------~-------------------,
You Can Buy These Books Sepamtely!
If you don't want to purchase a 3 or 4-year subscription to PLN, you can still purchase any of the bonus books at the regular price. Just indicate which books you want to buy on this page, then enter the total cost on the other side of this brochure on the "Book Total" line of the Order Form. Shipping is $6 per order (not per book), and we : offer FREE shipping on book orders of $50 or more! To : : place a phone order, please call 802-257-1342. We also: : accept book orders online, at ,vww.prisonlegalnews.org. I
L _________________________________________ J

D onations: PLN is a project of the non-profit Human Rights Defense Center. Your tax-deductible donations support our advocacy, free speech and First Amendment litigation efforts on behalf of prisoners and publishers. PLN not only provides uncensored prison-related news, but actively contests prison censorship that interferes with the delivery of our publication or' any other PLN materials sent to prisoners. All donations further our goal of advocating for people imprisoned in U.S. detention facilities.
"Great source of infonnation, especially in states such as Arizona where the law libraries have been taken from the inmates and replaced with paralegals." - SB, Arizona prisoner
[sp~~ial ~~~l: suhsc~·i~~ion Offel'!
Free with a 4-year PLN subscription! Six bonus issues of PLN (54 issues total) 01' one fi'ee book, With Liberty for Some 01' Prison Profiteers! Circle your bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (4-year subscription rates: prisoners $96, individuals $120, professionals $320). Note: Free book option is for Q.!1& book.
With Liberty for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America, by Scott Christianson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages (1998). $18.95 (fi'ee with a 4-year sub!). A classic book and the best overall history of the American prison system from 1492 to the 20th Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how little things have changed as far as prisons go in the U.S. over hundreds of years. Buy separately: ___
or
Prison Profiteers: Who Mal£es Money from Mass Incarceration, edited by Paul Wright & Tara Herivel, New Press (2007). $24.95 (free with a 4-ye:u' sub!). This is the third in a series of PLN anthologies that examines the reality of mass imprisonment in the U.S. Prison Profiteers is unique from other books on the market because it exposes and discusses who profits and benefits from mass imprisonment, rather than who is harmed by the prison industrial complex and our nation's reliance on over-incarceration. Buy separately: ___'

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 15 of 60

T he Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel is the first in a

"

The Habeas Citebook is a

nifty and concise self-help

series of books by Prison Legal

guide for prisoners seeking

News Publishing designed to help

habeas relief based on claims of

pro-se prisoner litigants identify

ineffective assistance of counsel.

and raise viable claims for poten-

Navigating the complex and

tial habeas corpus relief. This

treacherous terrain of habeas

book is an invaluable resource

law is never easy; but claim-

that identifies hundreds of cases

ing that your lawyer screwed up

where the federal courts have

is even more difficult - espe-

granted habeas relief to prison-

cially from the confines of an

ers whose attorneys provided inef- demonstrate formatting and show ill-equipped prison law library.

fective assistance of counsel.

how to frame a winning argu-

"Brandon Sample has pro-

It will save litigants

ment that will persuade a court to grant habeas relief. The Habeas

vided an amazing and muchneeded tool for prisoners who

thousands ofhours of research and it focuses on the

Citeboolc explains the procedural and substantive complexities of federal habeas corpus litigation with the goal of identify-

are forced to seek relief on their own. The book is thorough; but simple and readable. It starts with a wonderfully well-orga-

WINNING cases criminal defendants need to
successfully challenge

ing and litigating claims involving ineffective assistance of counsel.
Brandon Sample is a successful jailhouse lawyer litigant incar-

nized listing of hundreds of different types of ineffective assistance of counsel, set forth in the form of citations to court rul-

their convictions.

cerated in the Bureau of Prisons. He is a Prison Legal News contrib-

ings - a novel approach that not only acts as a springboard

Well organized into 52 con-

uting writer and a member of the

for further research but also

cise chapters, this easy to use book National Lawyer's Guild. Editor

saves the prisoner countless

puts the law at the reader's fin-

Susan Schwartzkopf has a mas-

hours of preliminary research:'

gertips. The Appendix includes

ter's degree in education and is

pleadings and forms from suc-

the director and editor in chief of

PETER SCHMIDT

cessful habeas corpus cases that

Prison Legal News Publishing.
-------

Publisher, Punch & Jurists

I

THE HABEAS CITEBOOK: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

By Brandon Sample

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed _ _ _ __

I

8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages

By: 0 check 0 new postage stamps 0 credit card 0 money order I

I I

ISBN 978-0-9819385-1-6
$49·95 3 or more copies ordered

Name

I

DOC/BOP Number _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

at once $39.95 each

Institution/Agency _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _--'-_ _ _ _ _ _ __

I

FREE Shipping <& Handling Address_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

I Order by mail, phone, or on-line. City _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ State PUBLISHED BY

ZIP

PRISON LEGAL NEWS p.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 2P2L8NCOL-00097

" Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 16 of 60 -----------, Copies of this very usable and useful gUide

should be available in every prison library-to

help incarcerated people give positive direc-

tion to their energies while making constructivE;

use of their time. It is a well-established fact that

people who have taken college courses in prison

have a dramatically reduced rate of recidivism."

-BELL GALE CHEVICiNY, PEN Prison Writing Program,

~~---

-----~

Editor Doing Time: 25 Years ofPrison Writing.

HIGH SCHOOL • VOCATIONAL • PARALEGAL • UNDERGRADUATE. GRADUATE COURSES

~IIIIIIIIHE GREATLY anticipated and newly updated
third edition of the Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the United States and Canada has finally arrived! Author
Jon Marc Taylor's brand new version is the latest in this unique and highly successful gUidebook for the
prisoner-student. This invaluable tool and how-to handbook prOVides the reader with step-by-step instructions to find the appropriate educational program for high school, vocational, paralegal, undergraduate, and graduate courses offered in
the U.S. and Canada today.
Invaluable re-entry tool
It presents more than 160 program outlines and
offers an .easy-to-use format for the student to
determine which program best suits their needs. It is ideal for the incarcerated student who does not have Internet access or the ability to attend education classes in person. This resource is indispensable

for the individual and beneficial for use in all prison libraries and education departments.
The Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook is the only book
on the market for the non-traditional prisoner-student. It includes detailed listings of the quality, cost, and course offerings for all correspondence programs available to prisoners. In a time when so many academic opportunities in prisons have been eliminated, this book is an invaluable re-entry tool for prisoners who seek to further their education while incarcerated and to help them prepare for life and work follOWing their release.
Jon Marc Taylor has more than 25 years experi-
ence as an incarcerated student, advocate for prisoner education, and author. He has successfully earned a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and a doctorate via correspondence courses while incar-
cerated. Editor Susan Schwartzkopf has a master's
degree in education and 12 years experience teaching immigrants English language skills.

r--------------------~ I i PRISONERS' GUERRILLA HANDBOOK TO CORRESPONDENCE PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA

ByJon Marc Taylor PHD 8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed _ _ _ __
By: 0 check D new postage stamps 0 credit card 0 money order ~

ISBN 978-0-9819385-0-9
$49·95
3 or more copies ordered

I Name _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
DOC/BOP Number _~___________________

at once $39.95 each

Institution/Agency ______________________

n FREE Shipping & Handling Address.__________________________________

\

I Order by mail, phone, or on-line. City _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ State

ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

\

I PtlUSON LEGAL NEWS P.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 2P2L9NCOL-00098

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 17 of 60

9870.05 fa246305

EXHIBIT AA
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 230

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 18 of 60 Page 2P3L1NCOL-00313

~o _ _ _ _ _ _ \

"
Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303

li[~i.ff!fr~rE.' f.~:Pil.'E:£t.: J'lEg\t\~.::::~r'[~tJN,.·
·~IT, '~rJS4T.r.·. 1:. :-r.:
~~;'~$;:!;\.....1~~J~i. ·~~:~~·~~!I:~t·. ~~·~I:,r~l'

1\ :,S..# PE. CT~ ED~B, Y C. O-·l=- U=Nl=~~ ""'~""":""'c""'o-~""'-.""'~;~=·-""'J=A~~I~l'

....--..

RETURN TO SENDER'

~- .. 63212 ** E.IX::: PIRES: 1/2012

PERSON NOT HERE

ROBERT WEIS' TMORELAND 2011001188
,:

._.GOLUMBIA cO JAIL

CONTRABAND

I

_~ REFU::::~~"': t~ INTER-FACILITY

901 poRT AVE

'i

"ELENtREGON 9705'

l'~:ex:£ I;':

(
1;J'70 .:;'El: :1.

00 Cr"? ./ ::.~ '::\1.1 'l. ',1•

RETURN TO SENDER NOT CELZVEAASLE AS ADDRESSED
lJN,,~aL.E "1'0 r"Ol=H,)AF:?C)

SO: O.~~:~'l$.~4:;;;().'d?t;;)

*286S-10140-20-41

O,!:;::SO:~({l!~4!20
971).151 :t:...":? I) j f)

111111111 111111.11111 1111111111,11 ,I,d,Ill" 111/1111 ,,,1d"I

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 19 of 60 Page 2P3L2NCOL-00314

Order Form
All purchases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new stamps (strips 01' books) or pre-stamped envelopes.

Books (3 & 4 yr Subscription Specials: CIRCLE
one book Q! bonus issues, and DO NOT add SIH)
Protecting Your Health and Safety or 4 Bonus Issues (3-yr subscription offer)

$Amt.
Free

Prison Profiteers m:With Liberty for Some

m: 6 Bonus Issues (4-yr subscription offer)

Free

Book Total (inc. all book~ bought separately)

Add 6% sales tax for Vermont residents only

ADD $6.00 S/H to book orders UNDER $50

PLN Subscriptions
6-month Subscription (Prisoners only) 1 yr Subscription (12 issues) 2 yr Subscription (24. plus 2 Bonus issues) 3 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above Q! 4 Bonus issues) 4 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above Q! 6 Bonus issues) Sample Issue - $3.50 each
TOTAL Amount Enclosed:

Send to:
Name:
DOC#: Agency/lnst: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Address:
City/State/Zip: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
. MAIL PAYMENT AND TillS FORM TO: , Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303

Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

PLN SubscI'ipti~n Rates

Subscription Rates
Prisoners *

1yr 2 yrs 3yrs 4yrs $24 $ 43 $ 72 $ 96

Individuals

$30 $ 60 $ 90 $120

Professionals

$80 $160 $240 $320

(Lawyers, govt. & professional agencies, libraries, etc.)

Sample issue for anyone - $3.50 each*

Six-month prisoner subscription for $12*

* Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books only) or pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed byprison policies.

:- - - - - - - - - S~s~;ip;i~~ 'B""o;';';';s! - - - - - - - - -
•• 2 years - 2 bonus issues, for 26 monthly issues total. : 3 years - 4 bonus issues (40 total) OR Protecting Your Health aral • Safety (see book description on the other side of this brochure). : 4 years - 6 bonus issues (54. total) OR your choice of Will. Libertyfor
!..S..?~e_~~n.:0~~r~e::~(~:.d:s:n.p~o~-"~~:.o.:h~r~i~e~ _____I

New 3 or 4-Year Subscription Book Offers!

Subscribe or renew for three years at the regnIar price ($72 for prisoners & $90 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Protecting Your Health and Safety or four bonus issues of PLN! (40 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.
Subscribe or renew for four years at the regnIar price ($96 for prisoners& $120 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Prison Profiteers or With Liberty for Some, or 6 bonus issues of PLN! (54 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.

NO shipping charge for subscription bonus books!

NOTE: If you want the bonus issues of PLN instead of the free book offer, please indicate that on the Order Form.

:- - - - - - -C~;';a~;-0;io; PLN;-s-io-;'kiis~!- - - - - - ~

1• You can buy dozens of legal, social commentary, self-.•

: help books, and legal and regular dictionaries directly:

: from PL~'s boo!\: store! Ask us for a book list, or view:

1 our selectIOn online at:

1

,

1

•

www.prisonlegalnews.org/store.aspx

1

1______ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

All subscription rates & bonus offers are effective as of5-1-10
and valid through 12-31-10
* No refunds after ordel'S have heen placed *

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
Eastern State Penitentiary 1829-1971 Charles Dickens visited Philadelphia's Eastern State Penitentiary in 1842 and he later wrote: "The System is rigid, strict and hopeless ... and I believe it to be cruel and wrong....I hold this slow and daily tampering with the mysteries of the brain to be immeasurably worse than any torture of the body." The prison remained open for 129 years after Dickens condemned it as being barbaric, and some of its inhumane practices continue to be used in prisons nationwide.
P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.prisonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 20 of 60 Page 2P3L3NCOL-00315

I D U ~
I
P rison Legal News is an independent, non-profit 56-page monthly publication that reports, reviews and analyzes court l'ulings and news related to
prisollers' rights and prison issues. PLN has a national
(U.S.) focus on state, federal and private prison issues, with some international coverage as well.
PLN's many thousands of subscribers and readers include civil and criminal trial and appellate attorneys, judges, public defenders, journalists, academics, paralegals, prisoners' rights activists, students, family members of prisoners, concerned individuals, politicians, other goverliment officials, and numerous local, state and federal prisoners nationwide.
PLN is a vital link for prisoners who otherwise don't have access to current legal and prison-related ne,vs and information.
"Invaluable resource for anyone\vanting 'user friendly' infonnation about current legal developments affecting
prisoners in the United States~" - Human Rights Watch, a long-tiine PLN subscriber
P LN's coverage of prison issues includes medical neglect, disciplinal'y hearings, nutrition, living conditions, excessive force, court access, censorship, jail litigation, visiting, telephones, religious freedom, free speech, prison rape, mental health, attorney/ client access, sexual' abuse of women prisonel's, re-
taliation, the PLRA, HIV and hep C, control units,
the death penalty, attorney fees and much mme.
PLN Subscription Rates
Prisoners: $12 for 6 months,;$24 per year *
N on-incarcerated individuals: $30 per year Law firms, govt. agencies and libraries: $80 per year
Sample issue for anyone:' $3,50 each*
* Prisoners can pay with new stamps or pre-stamped envelopes

E ach monthly issue of PLN includes three different types of reporting:
• A cover story on a prison-related issue. • Reports on, individual and class-action prison and jail-
related lawsuits when they areflled, when a judgment is entered or the case settles, and when an appellate court decision is issued. We also have prison-related news articles. • A "News In Brief' section that summarizes interesting news stories across the U.S. and internationally.
Each issue of PLN also contains numerous advertisements from businesses that provide prison-related personal and legal services and books. PLN further sells dozens of selfhelp, social commentary and legal books.
PLN also has cumulative subject and case Cite indexes for all PLN issues from 1990 through 2004·. Write for info.
[S~~~i~13-Y~'-S~~crip~-Offel'!

Free with a 3-yeru: PLN subscription! Four bonus issues of PLN (40 issues total) or a free book, Protecting Your Health and Safety! Circle your bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (3-year rates: prisoners $72, individuals $90, professionals $24.0).

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by ,.,... - - - - - ;

Robert E. Toone. Published by the South-

ern Poverty Law Center, 325 pages (2009).

$10.00 (free with a 3-yeru: sub!). This book

explains some basic rights that prisoners

I have in a jail or prison in the U.S. It deals,
mainly with rights related to health and Ii

"'€l-.,..~-

safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by

prison officials; it also explains how you can enforce your

rights to health and safety within the facility and, if nec-

essary, in court through litigation. Buy separately: _'_ _

r-----------------------------------------,

You Can Buy These Books Sepru'ately! :

I

I

I

: If you don't want to purchase a 3 or 4-year subscription

': to PLN, you can still purchase any of the bonus books

: at the regular price. Just indicate which books you want

: to buy on this page, then enter the total cost on the other

: side of this brochure on the "Book Total" line of the Or-

: der Form. Shipping is $6 per order (not per book), and we

: offer FREE shipping on book orders of $50 or more! To

: place a phone order, please call 802-257-134.2. We also

: accept book orders online, at www.prisonlegalnews.org.
L _________________________________________ J

D onations: PLN is a project ofthe non-profit Human Rights Defense Center. Your tax-deductible donations support our advocacy, free speech and First Amendment litigation efforts on behalf of prisoners and publishers. PLN not only provides uncensored prison-related news, but actively contests prison censorship that interfer~s with the delivery of our publication or any other PLN materials sent to prisoners. All donations further our goal of advocating for people imprisoned in U.S. detention facilities.

"Great source of infonnation, especially in states such as

Arizona where the law libraries have been taken from

the inmates and replaced with paralegals."

- SB, Arizona prisoner

'

Special 4-year Subscription Offer!
Free with a 4-year PLN subscription! Six bonus issues of PLN (54 issnes total) or one free book, With Liberty for Some or Prison Profiteers! Circle your bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (4-year subscription rates: prisoners $96, individuals $120, professionals $320). Note: Free book option is for one boole
With Liberty for Some: 500 Years Imprisonment in America, by Scott Christianson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages (1998). $18.95 (ii.·ee with a 4.-year sub!). A classic book and the best overall history of the American prison system from 14·92 to the 20th Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how little things have changed as far as prisons go in the U.S. over hundreds of years. Buy separately: ___
or
Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money Mass Incarceration, edited by Paul
Wright & Tara Herivel, New Press (2007). $24.95 (ii.·ee with a 4-yeru: sub!). This is the third in a series of PLN. anthologies that examines the reality of mass imprisonment in the U.S. Prison Profiteers is unique from other books on the market because it exposes and discusses who profits and benefits from mass imprisonment, rather than who is harmed by the prison industrial complex and our nation's reliance on over-incarceration. Buy separately: ___,

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 21 of 60

T he Habeas Citeboolc: . Ineffective Assistance of Counsel is the first in a series of books by Prison Legal News Publishing designed to help pro-se prisoner litigants identify and raise viable claims for potential habeas corpus relief. This book is an invaluable resource that identifies hundreds of cases where the federal courts have granted habeas relief to prisoners whose attorneys provided ineffective assistance of counsel.
It will save litigants thousands of hours
of research and it focuses on the WINNING cases criminal defendants need to successfully challenge their convictions.
Well organized into 52 concise chapters, this easy to use book puts the law at the reader's fingertips. The Appendix: includes pleadings and forms from successful habeas corpus cases that

"

The Habeas Citeboolc is a

nifty and concise self-help

guide for prisoners seeking

habeas relief based on claims of

ineffective assistance of counsel.

Navigating the complex and

treacherous terrain of habeas

law is never easy; but claim-

ing that your lawyer screwed up

is even more difficult - espe-

cially from the confines of an

demonstrate formatting and show ill-equipped prison law library.

how to frame a winning argu-

"Brandon Sample has pro-

ment that will persuade a court

vided an amazing and much-

to grant habeas relief. The Habeas

needed tool for prisoners who

Citeboolc explains the proce-

are forced to seek relief on their

dural and substantive complexi-

own. The book is thorough; but

ties of federal habeas corpus lit-

simple and readable. It starts

igation with the goal of identify-

with a wonderfully well-orga-

ing and litigating claims involving nized listing of hundreds of dif-

ineffective assistance of counsel.

ferent types of ineffective assis-

Brandon Sample is a success-

tance of counsel, set forth in the

ful jailhouse lawyer litigant incar-

form of citations to court rul-

cerated in the Bureau of Prisons.

ings - a novel approach that

He is a Prison Legal News contrib- not only acts as a springboard

uting writer and a member of the

for further research but also

National Lawyer's Guild. Editor

saves the prisoner countless

Susan Schwartzkopf has a mas-

hours of preliminary research:'

ter's degree in education and is

the director and editor in chief of

PETER SCHMIDT

Prison Legal News Publishing.

Publisher, Punch & Jurists

THE HABEAS CITEBOOK: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

By Brandon Sample 8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed _ _ _ __
I By: 0 check 0 new postage stamps 0 credit card 0 money order

ISBN 978-0-9819385-1-6
$49·95 3 or more copies ordered
at once $39.95 each FREE Shipping & Handling Order by mail, phone, or on-line.
PUBLISHED BY

Name ______________________ I I DOC/BOP Number _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _--'-_ _ _-'-_-'-_ __
Institution/Agency _ _ _ _~_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Address,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ I

City _ _ _ _.....:-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ State

ZIP

I

PRISON LEGAL NEWS P.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 2P3L4NCOL-00316

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 22 of 60

" - - - - - - - Copies of this very usab1e and usefu1 gUide

shou1d be avai1ab1e in every prison library-to

he1p incarcerated peop1e give positive direc-

tion to their energies while making constructive use of their time, It is a well-established fact that

peop1e who have taken college courses in prison have a dramatically reduced rate of recidivism./I

-BELL GALE CHEVIGNY, PEN Prison Writing Program,

~-----

Editor Doing Time: 25 Years ofPrison Writing. -----~

HIGH SCHOOL • VOCATIONAL • PARALEGAL • UNDERGRADUATE. GRADUATE COURSES

.IIIIIII1HE GREATLY anticipated and newly updated third edition of the Prisoners Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the
United States and Canada has finally arrived! Author Jon Marc Taylor's brand new version is the latest in this unique and highly successful gUidebook for the prisoner-student. This invaluable tool and how-to handbook provides the reader with step-by-step instructions to find the appropriate educational program for high school, vocational, paralegal, undergraduate, and graduate courses offered in the U.S. and Canada today.
Invaluable re-entry tool
It presents more than 160 program outlines and offers an easy-to-use format for the student to determine which program best suits their needs. It is ideal for the incarcerated student who does not have Internet access or the ability to attend education classes in person. This resource is indispensable

for the individual and beneficial for use in all prison libraries and education departments.
The Prisoners Guerrilla Handbook is the only book on the market for the non-traditional prisoner-student. It includes detailed listings of the quality, cost, and course offerings for all correspondence programs available to prisoners. In a time when so many academic opportunities in prisons have been eliminated, this book is an invaluable re-entry tool for prisoners who seek to further their education while .incarcerated and to help them prepare for life and work following their release.
Jon Marc Taylor has more than 25 years experience as an incarcerated student, advocate for prisoner education, and author. He has successfully earned a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and a doctorate via correspondence courses while incarcerated. Editor Susan Schwartzkopf has a master's degree in education and 12 years experience teaching immigrants English language skills.

rPR-ISON- ERS' - GUER- RILLA-HAN-DBOO-K TO-COR-RESP- ONDE-NCE- PROG- RAMS-IN T- HE U- NITED-STA- TES A- ND CA-NAD~ A I

By Jon Marc Taylor PHD

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed _ _ _ __

8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages

By: 0 check 0 new postage stamps 0 credit card 0 money order I

ISBN 978-0-9819385-0-9
$49·95
3 or more copies ordered

Name ____________________________ I
DOC/BOP Number .______________--'-_ _ __

at orice $39.95 each

Institution/Agency ____________________

I FREE Shipping & Handling Address_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

I Order by mail, phone, or on-line. City _________________________ State

ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

I PRISON LEGA.l NEWS p.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 2P3L5NCOL-00317

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 23 of 60 Page 2P3L6NCOL-00318

Order Form
All purchases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books, no singles) or
pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed by prison policies.

Book Title / Number

Qty Total Cost

(attach another page if you are ordering more hooks)
Subtotal: Add 6% sales tax for VT residents only: Add $6.00 S/H to orders UNDER $50: Total Order Amonnt:
Send to:
Name: DOC#: Agency/lnst: Address: City/State/Zip:
MAll.. PAYl\lENT AND TIDS FORM TO: Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303
Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

FREE SIDPPING On hook and index orders OVER $50.001
A $6 shipping chatge applies to all other book aml index onlel's.
(Free shipping policy in effect from Jan I, :!010 until further notice)

More Books for Sale!

Prisoners' Self-Help Litigation Manual, updated 4th ed. (2010), by John

Boston and Daniel Manville, Oxford Univ. Press, 1500 pages. $39.95. TIle

I I I premiere, must-have "Bible" of prison litigation for current and aspiring jail-
house lawyers. If you plan to litigate a prison or jail civil suit,

this book is a must-have.

1077

Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the U.S.

and Canada, updated 3rd ed. by Jon Marc Taylor, Ph.D. and edited by Susan

Schwartzkopf, published by PLN, 221 pages. $49.95. Written by 1-fissouri

prisoner Jon Marc Taylor, who obtained a B.S. degree, an M.A. degree and a

Doctorate, dle Gllerolla Ha/ldbook contains contact information and descrip-

tions of high school, vocational, paralegal and college courses available

through correspondence study. Great resource for prisoners 1 1

who want to further their education.

1057 .L---..l_ _---'

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by Robert E. Toone, Soudlern Poverty

Law Center, 325 pages. $10.00. This book e."-plains basic rights mat prisoners

have in a jailor prison in dle U.S. It deals mainly widl rights related to healm
I I I and safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by prison officials; it also
e"-plains how you can enforce your rights widlin dle facility

and, if necessary, in court mrough litigation.

1060

Starting Out! The Complete Re-Entry Handbook, edited by William H.

Foster, Ph.D. & Cad E. Horn, Ph.D., Starting Out Inc., 446 pages. $22.95.

Complete do-it-yourself re-entry manual and workbook for prisoners who

want to develop dleir own re-entry plan to increase meir chances of success

after mel' are released. Includes a wide varietl' of resources, including a user

~ode to dle Starting Out website dlat can be accessed f O l l O W - I I I

mg release.

1074 ' .

.

Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners v. the U.S.A, by

Mumia Abu Jamal, City Lights Publishers, 280 pages. $16.95. In Jailhollse Law-

yers, Prison Legal News columnist, award-winning journalist and deadl-row

prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal presents dle stories and reflections of fellow pris-

I oners-turned-advocates who have learned to use the court system to represent
odler prisoners, and in some cases have won meir freedoIIl.1

Must-read for jailllouse lawyers!

1073 L-.-L.._---'

How to Win Your Personal Injury Clainl, by Atty. Joseph Mardlews, 7dl

edition, NOLO Press, 304 pages. $34.99. \'{1hile not specifically for prison-

related personal injury cases, dlis book provides comprehensive information
I I I on how to handle personal injury and propert)' damage claims arising from
accidents - including dealing widl doctors, attorneys and

msurance comparues.

1075

AD prices am effective as of 9-15-10 (Plices subject to change without notice)
* No refunds after orders have been placed *

,

," _, ;:'1:1,.

PR1S0N;;LEGAL NEWS

!

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center

2010 PLN BOOK LIST
Prices Subject to Change Without Notice
Graphic from: Books 2 Prisoners, Vancouver, Be
P.O. Box 2420, Bmttleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.prisonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 24 of 60 Page 2P3L7NCOL-00319

Check the box of the .books you .want to buy and use the Order Form on the other side of this brochure to add up the cost of your order. FREE SIDPPING for book and index orders OVER $50. There is a $6 shipping charge for all other book and index orders.

Prison Profiteers, edited by Paul Wright and Tara HeriveI, 323 pages. $24.95. TIlis is the
Liu dlird and btest book in a series ofPrison News andlOlogies that examines d,e reality of
mass implisonment in America. (The odler tides are Tbe Celli/I?, ifA/J/mra & PIirOI/Naliol/,

I I I see below). PIirOI/ Projleer.r is unique from odler books because it ""poses and disOlSses
who profits and benefits from m'lSS imprisonment, mther dmn who is

harmed by it and how.

1063 .

.

.

I I I Prison Nation: The Warehousing ofAmerica's Poor, edited by Tarn Herivel and Paul
Wright, 332 pages. $35.95. PLN anthology ""poses d,e dark side of d,e

1ock-em-up'politiall agenda and leg.d c1imatein d,e u.s.

1041 ~_-". 1..._ - ' - .

I I I The CelIing of America, edited by Daniel Burton Rose, Dan Pens and Paul Wright, 264
pages. $22.95. PLN anthology presents a detniled "inside" look at the

workings ofd,e Ameriarn erimin,u justice system.

1001..

.

Everyday Letters for Busy People, by Debra Hart May, 287 pages. $18.99.

I Hundreds of sample letters that can be adapted for most any purpose, including
letters to government agenc.ies and officials. Has numerous

rips for writing effective letters.

1048 L._ _'---_ _..J

The Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System, by

Attorneys Paul Bergomn & Sam]. Berman-Barrett, Nolo Press, 608 pages. $39.99.

Explains what h.1ppens in a criminal case from being arrested to sentencing, and what

your rights are at eacll stage of the process. Uses an easy to under-,

stllnd question-and-answer format.

1038 ...J L..._ - ' ._ _ _

Represent Yourself in Court: How to Prepare & Try a Winning Case, by

Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sam]. Berman-Barrett, Nolo Press, 528 pages. $39.99.

Breaks down the civil trial process in easy-to-understllnd steps so you can effectively

represent yourself in court. The authors ""-plain what to say in I I

I

coutt, how to say It, etc.

.

1037..

.

Law Dictionary, Random House Webster's, 525 pages. $19.95. Comprehensive u

to-date bw dictionary e.'-pbins more than 8,500 legal terms. 1

1

Covers civil, criminal, commerci.ll & international law.

1036 L..I_ - - ' ' -_ _- "

I I I The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, by Jane Straus, 110 pages.
$14.95. A guide to grammar and punctuation by an educator

with e"perience teaching English to prisoners.

1046 . .

.

Legal Research: How to Find and Understand the Law, by Stephen Elias and

I I I Susan Levinkind, 568 pages. $49.99. Comprehensive and easy to understllnd guide
on researclling the law. li,-plains case law, statutes and digests,

and mucll more. Includes pmctice e.,ercises.

1059 L..._...l.._ _ _...J.

I I I Deposition Handbook, by Paul Bergomn and Albert Moore, Nolo Press, 352
pages. $34.99. How-to handbook for anyone who conducts a

deposition or is going to be deposed.

1054 L._ - L ._ _ _-".

I I Spanish-English/English-Spanish Dictionary, Ihndom House. $8.95. Two
sections, Spanish-English and English-Spanish. 60,000+ entries

from A to Z; includes Western Hemisphere usage.

1034 L._....J.~_ _-'

Please Note: All book and indeX orders are mailed via the U.S. Postal
Service with Delivery Confinnati()n~ PLN does not assume any respon-
sibility to replace book or index oiuers once their delivery to the desti-
nation address (facility) is ~nfinned bytheU.S. Postal Service.

I I I Writing to Wm: The Legal Writer, by Steven D. Stark, Broadway Books/Random
House, 283 pages. $19.95. R,-pbins ti,e writing of effective compbints,

responses, briefS, motions and odler leg.d papers.

1035 _ L... ...J._ _---'.

Actual Innocence: When Justice Goes Wrong and How to Make it Right, updated

paperback ed, by Barry Scheck, Peter Neufeld and Jim Dwyer; 403 pages. $16.00.

Founders of the Innocence Project e.'l'L1in how erimioal defendants are wrongly con-

I I I victed on a regobr basis. R,-pbins DNA testing and how it works to free d,e innocent.
Devastating critique of police and prosecutotial misconduct and ti,e

system dmt ensures sucll abuses continue.

.

1030 L._..J._ _ _-'.

Roger's Thesaurus, 717 pages. $8.95. Helps you find the right word for what

you wan~ to sal'. 11,000 words listed alphabetically with over 200,000 synonyms

I I I and antonyms. Sample sentences and parts of speech shown for every main
word. Covers all levels of vocabulary and identifies informal

and slang words.

1045 . .

.

Webster's English Dictionary, Newly revised and updated, Random House.

I I I $8.95. 75,000+ entries. Includes tips on writing and word usage, and has up-
dated geographical and biographical entries. Includes recent

business and computer terms.

1033 . .L._-"-._ _ _..J.

I I I Capital Crimes, by George Winslow, Monthly Review, 360 pages. $19.00.
Explains how economic policies create and foster crime, and how corporate & government crime is rarely punished. 1024

With Liberty for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America, by SCOtt

Christianson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages. $18.95. The best

overall history of the American prison system from 1492 through the 20th

I I I Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how little
things have changed as far as prisons go in the U.S. over

hundreds of years.

1026..

.

I I I Ten Men Dead: The story of the 1981 Irish hunger strike, by David Beres-
ford, Atlantic Montluy Press, 334 pages. $16.95. Inside story of

IRA prisoners at Belfast's Long Kesh prison.

1006..

.

I I I Finding the Right Lawyer, by Jay Foonberg, ABA, 256 pages. $19.95. Ex-
plains how to determine your legal needs, how to evaluate a

lawyer's qualifications, fee payments, and more.

1015..

.

Seize the Day! 7 Steps to Achieving the Extraordinary in an Ordinary

World, by Danny Cox and John Hoover, 256 pages. $15.99. PrO\~des 7 steps

I I I to changing your expectations and em~sioning yourself as being a successful
and respected person-which is essential to changing the

course of one's life.

1052

Women Behind Bars, The Crisis of Women in the U.S. Prison System, by

Silja J.A. Talvi, Seal Press, 295 pages. $15.95. Best book available tllat covers
I issues related to imprisoned women, based ?n interviews widl

hundreds of women behind bars.

1066 L..._ - ' -_ _- - '

10 Insider Secrets to a Winning Job Search, by Todd Bermont, 216 pages.

$15.99. Roadmap on how to get a job even under adverse circumstances-like

I I I being an ex-con. Includes how to develop a winning atritude, write attention-
grabbing resumes, prepare for intef\~ews, networking, how to

present your strengtl1s to an employer, and much morel 1056..

.

I I I The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, 2003
Ed. by Alfred McCoy, 734 pages. $34.95. Documented expose

of tl,e government's involvement in drug trafficking.

1014 ...J. L.._ - ' . ._ _ _

Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis, by Christian Parenti,

290 pages. $19.00. Anruyzes d,e war on ti,e poor via ti,e crimin,ll justice system. Well
pam-I documented and includes first-hand reporting. Covers prisons,

military policing, SWAT teams and ti,e INS.

1002 L._ - ' -_ _- '

Hepatitis and Liver Disease: What You Need to Know, by Melissa Palmer, lVlD,

I I 457 pages. $17.95. Describes symptoms & treatments of hepatitis B & C and other

liver diseases. Includes medications to av~id, wlmt diet to follow,

I

e.,ercises to perform, and a bibliogtaphy. .

1031

Crime and Purrishment In America, by Elliott Curtie, 230 pages. $16.95. Effective

I I I rebuttal to right-wing proponents of prison building. Fact-based argument shows that
crime is driven by poverty. Debunks prison myths and disOlSSes

proven, effective meansofcrime preventioo.

1019

Prison Madness: The Mental Health Crisis Behind Bars and What We

Must Do About It, by Terry Kupers,Jossey-Bass, 245 pages. Hardback only,

prisoners please include any required authorization fonn. $32.95. Psychia-

I trist writes about the mental hea/tll crisis in U.S. prisons and jails. Covers all

aspects of mental illness, prison mpe, negative effects of long-I

I

term isolation in control units, and more.

1003

Prison Writing in 20th Century America, by H. Bruce Franklin, Penguin

I I Books, 368 pages. $16.00. From Jack London to George Jackson, this
anthology pro\~des a selection of some of tl,e best writing

describing life behind bars in America.

1022 1..._

. . . . ._ _- - '

pr I Soledad Brother: The Prison Letters of George Jackson, by George Jackson,
Lawrence Hill Books, 339 pages. $18.95. Lucid e.'-planation of f,e litiCS of

prison by a well-known ptison activist. More relevant now than

when it first appeared 40 years ago.

1016

Marijuana Law, by Ricllard Boire, Ronin, 271 pages. $17.95. R",1mioes how to

I I I reduce the probability of arrest and prosecution for people aCOlSed of d,e use, srue or
possession of marijuana. Infu on leg.d defenses, Seardl & seizures,

surveillaoce, asset furfeiture and drug testing.

1008 L..._

. . . . ._ _- - ' .

Worse Than Slavery: Parchman Fann and the Ordeal ofJina CrowJustice, by

I I I D",~d Oshinsl.y. , 306 pages. $16.00. Analysis of prison labor's roots in sbvery.
Focuses on ptison pLwtations and self-sustaining prisons tllat use

ptison Lobor.

1007..

.

No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the American Criminal Justice

I I I System, by D",~d Cole, The New Press, 218 pages. $19.95. lli.-plains how the
criminal justice system perpetuates mce and class inequality,

creating a two-tiered system of justice.

1028...

The Prison and the Gallows: The Politics of Mass Incarceration in

I I America, by Marie Gottschalk, Cambridge Uni,'ersity Press, 451 pages.
$29.99. Great political analysis of tl,e confluence of events

leading to 2.3 million people bellind bars in the U.S. 1069.

.

The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, by Brandon

Sample, PLN Publishing, 200 pages. $49.95. Tlus is PLN's second published

I I I book, which exclusively covers ineffective assistance of counsel-related
issues in federal habeas petitions. Great resource for habeas

litigation, and contains hundreds of case cites!

1078..

.

Factor 8 (DVD), a film by Kelly Duda, Concrete Films. $21.95. MO\~e

about tl,e Arkansas prison blood scandal, in which prison officials sold
I infected blood harvested from prisoners. Note: This is a

DVD and cannot be shipped to prison.

1076 _ L. ...JL_ _- '

PLN Cumulative Index. $22.50 each. PiN Article Indexes provide detailed information about all PLN anicles, including title, author, issue, page number, topics covered, citations, and if it is state, BOP or jail specific. Can be searched on over 500 subjects such as medical neglect or se.,-ual assault. Circle the index(es) you are ordering: 1990-1995, -1996-1998, 1999-1 2001, 2002-2004. (more recent indexes not yet available)

All books are soft cover except Prison Madness

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 25 of 60

9870.05 fa246305

EXHIBITBB
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRlGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 238

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 26 of 60 Page 2P3L9NCOL-00281

~~ Priso.n Legal News P.O. Box 2420 West Brattleboro, Vermont 05303

~:;~::~i)i' "
'<. -.:·0cF/ l' .'<'~'c!rcS8

,

. ':'!)0 ~~,I)

;
:~

62764 ** ExPIRES: 1 2/201 1
GEORGE LAMMI 2011001225"" _ ,; COLUMBIA Co JAIL 901 PORT AVE 5T HELENS, OREGON 97051

"
'§).r"il.'e; /

Tn ,R:ETf IJ1rv

SENDER •

Ul; ~ Jj ~ li !d

NON-PROFIT ORG, U.S. Postage Paid
'IS
/1.
(:j

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 27 of 60

I

VOL. 19 No.5
ISSN 1075-7678

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights

May 2008

Washington Jail Prisoners Suffer from Overcrowding,

Abusive Guards, Inadequate Health Care and Indifferent Politicians

by Roger Smith

Since the mid-1990s, Washington State jail populations have increased exponentially. Obsolete facilities built decades ago to hold a handful of prisoners are now packed like sardine tins, with as many prisoners sleeping on the floor as in bunks. Overcrowding has resulted in numerous problems in terms of security and meeting prisoners' medical needs. But such problems pale in comparison to those caused by guards who beat and sexually abuse prisoners; healthcare personnel who are either too incompetent, or too unconcerned, to adequately diagnose and treat prisoners' medical and

From the Editor

10

MRSA Spreading in Prisons

12

$100,000 Verdict Vacated

15

.Shoddy Doctors Treat Prisoners

24

Sex Offenders Online

26

PLN Wins Washington Records Suit 28

Habeas Hints

30

Crazy in America Book Review

33

Texas Prison Health Care

34

Texas Pepper Spray Settlement

36

Alabama DOC's Illegal Fees

38

News in Brief

42

Rhode Island Rec Verdict

44

mental health issues; and politicians who are content to simply sweep these types of problems under the rug.
Overcrowding, Understaffing
Historically, cities in King County that don't have their own jails have sent criminal defendants to the King County Jail in Seattle or the Regional Justice Center in Kent. But a growing jail population in King County, plus an anticipated boom in coming years, has led to the conclusion that the jail will be forced to stop housing misdemeanor defendants by 2012 because (here will only be room for those charged with felonies.
COllsequently, King County and a number of western Washington cities have rented beds in other county jails for several years. Pierce, Snohomish and Spokane Counties are expected to do the same.
Rentingjail beds hasn't always proven effective. In 2002, 35 cities in King County entered into a contract to rent 440 beds in a new jail set to open in 2004 in Yakima County. King County officials agreed to pay about $8 million annually for the beds, but by 2006 the $21 million, 47,000 square-foot Yakima facility still wasn't ready.
At that time, Yakima County's old jail was holding about 220 western Washington prisoners. The county's failure to open the new facility not only exacerbated overcrowding problems in the cities trying to rent bed space, but also cau.~ed overcrowding in Yakima's existing jail. Thus, Yakima County's old facility, built to hold 574 prisoners, often held more

than 900. These cramped conditions led to fights (about 25 per month), many of which were between Yakima County prisoners and those from the western side of the state, who were viewed as unwelcome trespassers.
At least one King County prisoner, Alexander Hooks, sued over his transfer to Yakima County's jail, stating the move restricted access to his lawyer and led him to fear for his life due to the level of violence. His fears may not have been exaggerated; in August 2007, Yakima County jail prisoner Damian Long, 30, was beaten to death by four other prisoners.
In 2005, the cities that had been contracted to house prisoners at the Yakima facility hired William C. Collins, a consultant, to study conditions at the jail. His report cited racial tensions, gang violence, overcrowding and substandard medical care. The city of Renton removed its prisOl)erS from Yakima County due to the poor conditions. Renton Police Chief Kevin Milosevich said he was unwilling to subject Renton prisoners to that degree of violence; the city now houses overflow prisoners in the Okanogan County Jail.
Expressing her frustration, Renton Mayor Kathy Keolker stated that "Yakima's continued refusal to open and operate permanently the new facility is a testament to its disregard for inmates' rights and needs." On Sept. 27, 2006, Seattle and 11 other municipalities filed a claim against Yakima County for not opening the new jail in a timely manner.
A follow-up report by consultant William Collins in January 2007 found

Prison Legal News

1

May 2008

Page 2P4L0NCOL-00282

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 28 of 60

,-

. . . - - - - - - - - C L N WILL BUY YOUR STAMPS----~-~
CONVERT YOUR. POSTAGE STAMPS INTO CASH·
Upon receipt of your stamps, we immediately (within 48 hours) send a money orderas you direct - for your Trust Account, or to a family member or friend, to an
outside account, or to order a package to be sent in.

For complete books or sheets of new 41-cent stamps
55% of FACE VALUE
For all other denominations of unused stamps (strips, partial books or sheets, individual stamps, or USPS stamped envelopes)
We accept unlimited amounts of stamps. Reimbursement rates iriclude our cost of the money order and postage.

PLEASE:

Give us the complete name and address where you want your funds sent. .. Provide any special instructions or forms that your system may require. -;" DO NOT send used, torn or damaged stamps. DO NOT apply tape of any kind to the stamps. DO NOT send stamps with a face value of less than 20 cents each. DO NOT request money orders for less than $15.00 each.

CLN, P.O. BOX 687, WALNUT, CA 91788

.

-

, CLN. (CALIFORNIA LIFER NEWSLETTER) Is an established, reputable entity that provides services to prisoners In all state and federal Jurisdictions. You may write for delalls about

subscriptions and the paralegal services we provide. We don't rip you off like some stamp services we've heard about; we don't know of a single dissatisfied customer. Purchasing

stamps at these rates helps to defray the cost of publishing and distributing our Newsletter, CLN, end to underwrite expenses In litigating prisoner suits.

Subscription Renewal Subscriptions expire after the issue shown on the label is mailed. For example, if the label says: EXPIRES 02/2006, then the subscription expires after the February 2006 issues is mailed. Please renew at least 2 months before the expiration date. IF THE LABEL SAYS EXPIRES: 05/2008 THIS IS YOUR LAST ISSUE. Please renew immediately to avoid missing any issues.
Prison Legal News
2400 NW 80th Street #148 Seattle, WA 98117
Change Service Requested

Change of Address If you move or are transfered, please notify PLN as soon as possible so your I issues can be mailed to your new address! PLN only accepts responsibility for sending an issue to the address provided at the time an issue is mailed!
Non-Profit Org. U.S. Postage PAID Portland OR
Permit No. 3142

Page 2P4L1NCOL-00283

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 29 of 60

9870.05 fa24630S

E HIBIT CC
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 242

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 30 of 60 Page 2P4L3NCOL-00284

"'"""" )"''1> r ·'>'".!
. I ,I":'
.......~/
~ ,
7 '\c'1~7"'::'':;'
~..):~t.
~'\1Ij'~!' ~~:'''';.k)1
'"""
C"''",:''i
,,)
~~~
.,q jn""
""' '- ~.';l> I"~ ;;'~ ~

I~,)0~'''', ,

,i!;'/<>I .i,;' i,;. !I:..

• J I'll'?

I':',

,",

~ /~J """,:""':, .~l :~')

,,/it i "//'
, :,:~,:...','
.. ,
! ~,

I:)
..-cI,S
'-'J '"'- .....

p:!!r;I:rO<0:g:f:;j{O~l

/17 0 ~ jg Ol
.m)E.;/!pE.-:<:W~

~(ji) ~gr~:c-~<:Jm!~

o,</0

N ."..
ON

U/

.-.. N"-

00

0-

W
f

UNITED STATES POSTAGE UNITED STATES POSTAGE

IIIII

P~ ."t
!!l.

i.Qi:

7Q 0

:::t>

t(j:)rNt

0<:::

~•d

C

n-g~

p:>pun0A\, ll)qmO:J
"til JOJ IUP;)W :11tL lJ~~Hl~f~Jnd•. ...J.:. w..___.::

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 31 of 60

VOL. 19 No.5
ISSN 1075-7678

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights

May 2008

Washington Jail Prisoners Suffer from Overcrowding,

Abusive Guards, Inadequate Health Care and Indifferent Politicians

by Roger Smith

Since the mid-1990s, Washington State jail populations have increased exponentially. Obsolete facilities built decades ago to hold a handful of prisoners are now packed like sardine tins, with as many prisoners sleeping on the floor as in bunks. Overcrowding has resulted in numerous problems in terms of security and meeting prisoners' medical needs. But such problems pale in comparison to those caused by guards who beat and sexually abuse prisoners; healthcare personnel who are either too incompetent, or too unconcerned, to adequately diagnose and treat prisoners' medical and

From the Editor

10

MRSA Spreading in Prisons

12

$100,000 Verdict Vacated

15

Shoddy Doctors Treat Prisoners

24

Sex Offenders Online

26

PLN Wins Washington Records Suit 28

Habeas Hints

30

Crazy in America Book Review

33

Texas Prison Health Care

34

Texas Peppc<r Spray Settlement

36

Alabama DOC's Illegal Fees

38

News in Brief

42

Rhode Island Rec Verdict

44

mental health issues; and politicians who are content to simply sweep these types of problems under the rug.
Overcrowding, Understaffing
Historically, cities in King County that don't have their own jails have sent criminal defendants to the King County Jail in Seattle or the Regional Justice Center in Kent. But a growing jail population in King County, plus an anticipated boom in coming years, has led to the conclusion that the jail will be forced to stop housing misdemeanor defendants by 2012 because there will only be room for those charged with felonies.
Consequently, King County and a number of western Washington cities have rented beds in other county jails for several years. Pierce, Snohomish and Spokane Counties are expected to do the same.
Rentingjail beds hasn't always proven effective. In 2002, 35 cities in King County entered into a contract to rent 440 beds in a new jail set to open in 2004 in Yakima County. King County officials agreed to pay about $8 million annually for the beds, but by 2006 the $21 million, 47,000 square-foot Yakima facility still wasn't ready.
At that time, Yakima County's old jail was holding about 220 western Washington prisoners. The county's failure to open the new facility not only exacerbated overcrowding problems in the cities trying to rent bed space, but also caused overcrowding in Yakima's existing jail. Thus, Yakima County's old facility, built to hold 574 prisoners, often held more

than 900. These cramped conditions led to fights (about 25 per month), many of which were between Yakima Countypris_oners and those from the western side of the state, who were viewed as unwelcome trespassers.
At least one King County prisoner, Alexander Hooks, sued over his transfer to Yakima County's jail, stating the move restricted access to his lawyer and led him to fear for his life due to the level of violence. His fears may not have been exaggerated; in August 2007, Yakima County jail prisoner Damian Long, 30, was beaten to death by four other prisoners.
In 2005, the cities that had been contracted to house prisoners at the Yakima facility hired William C. Collins, a consultant, to study conditions at the jail. His report cited racial tensions, gang violence, overcrowding and substandard medical care. The city of Renton removed its prisoners from Yakima County due to the poor conditions. Renton Police Chief Kevin Milosevich said he was unwilling· to subject Renton prisoners to that degree of violence; the city now houses overflow prisoners in the Okanogan County Jail.
Expressing her frustration, Renton Mayor Kathy Keolker stated that "Yakima's continued refusal to open and operate permanently the new facility is a testament to its disregard for inmates' rights and needs." On Sept. 27, 2006, Seattle and II other municipalities filed a claim against Yakima County for not opening the new jail in a timely manner.
A follow-up report by consultant William Collins in January 2007 found

Prison Legal News

1

May 2008

Page 2P4L4NCOL-00285

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 32 of 60
..--------CLN WILL BUY YOUR STAMPS--------.
CONVERT YOW POSTAGE STAMPSINTO'CA$H
Upon receipt of your stamps, we immediately (within 48 hours) send a money orderas you direct - for your Trust Account, or to a family member or friend, to an outside account, or to order a package to be sent in.

For complete books or sheets of new 41-cent-stamps
55% of FACE VALUE
For all other denominations of unused stamps (strips, partial books or sheets, , individual stamps, or USPS stamped envelopes)
We accept unlimited amounts of stamps. Reimbursement rates include our cost of the money order and postage.

PLEASE:

Give us the complete name and address where you want your funds sent. Provide any ~pecial instructions or. forms that your system may require. ..l' DO NOT send used, torn or damaged stamps.
DO NOT apply tape of any kind to the stamps.
DO NOT send stamps with a face value of less than 20 cents each. DO NOT request money orders for less than $15.00 each.

CLN, P.O. BOX 687, WALNUT, CA91788
,"CLN (CALIFORNIA LIFER NEWSLETTER) Is an established, repulable entity that provides services to prisoners In all state and federal Jurisdictions, You may write for details ~bout
subscriptions and the paralegal services we provide. We don't rip you off like some stamp services we've heard abou~ we don't know of a single dissatisfied customer. Purchasing stamps at these rates helps to defray the cost of publishing and dlstribuUng our Newsletter, CLN, and to underwrite expenses In litigating prisoner suits.

Subscription Renewal Subscriptions expire after the issue shown on the label is mailed. For example, if the label says: EXPIRES 02/2006, then the subscription expires after the February 2006 issues is mailed. Please renew at least 2 months before the expiration date. IF THE LABEL SAYS EXPIRES: 05/2008 THIS IS YOUR LAST ISSUE. Please renew immediately to avoid missing any issues.
Prison Legal News
2400 NW 80th Street #148
Seattle, WA 98117
Change Service Requested

Change of Address If you move or are transfered, please notify PLN as soon as possible so your' issues can be mailed to your new address! PLNonly accepts responsibility for sending an issue to the address provided at the time an issue is mailed!
Non-Profit Org. US. Postage PAID Portland OR
Permit No. 3142

-----------~--- -~--,--------~-,-

Page 2P4L5NCOL-00286

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 33 of 60

9870.05 fa246305

EXHIBITDD
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 246

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 34 of 60 Page 2P4L7NCOL-00287

Prison Legal News
~ P.O. Box 2420
West Brattleboro, Vermont 05303

*fL;:i:';~;i'i "

!-.,

;\;i,

_J,

':','

~J_.'';'J ':':'le!:; ~

r--T:o •
!--.!:\!G

..:t,."

LJ1\J:::"

';~ '--

Ict' " /./:.\,:-' 1\\~\ >••• \ '

.w :&0.'

~~( M~ .' !l;t

--~-/f

8'l!\ b\.l

\~' \

"" 0...('·(\\ "\,.

}

"'------;-:-)--'-~;-..,..~............:

\
~

62762 ** ExPIRES: 12/201 1

....

CINDY M SEASTON 201 190()f:j1 9"

COLUMBIA Co JAIL

901 PORT AVE'.,:

ST HELENS, OREGONS1.705f"-
-'=.I.. '

(- ~?
-~7-

T f..".."?g"..".."""q'=.if, i"lL~.¥fH

#~i1 0 l' uL 9 U'iJ II

"'-

"'.

: , .,.C..:F.c."'cU-I\I'D-,8-.-IR,

l '/"1l

'

I'.I!I"I f

;

I

fjlIP/! t.; 11

/!
'"

"

,

I

.
t

tt.

NON-PROFIT ORG. U.S. Postage Paid Prisoners Legal News

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 35 of 60

VOL. 19 No.5
ISSN 1075-7678

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights

May 2008

Washington Jail Prisoners Suffer from Overcrowding,

Abusive Guards, Inadequate Health Care and Indifferent Politicians

by Roger Smith

Since the mid-1990s, Washington State jail populations have increased exponentially. Obsolete facilities built decades ago to hold a handful of prisoners are now packed like sardine tins, with as many prisoners sleeping on the floor as in bunks. Overcrowding has resulted in numerous problems in terms of security and meeting prisoners' medical needs. But such problems pale in comparison to those caused by guards who beat and sexually abuse prisoners; healthcare personnel who are either too incompetent, or too unconcerned, to adequately diagnose and treat prisoners' medical and

From the Editor

10

MRSA Spreading in Prisons

12

$100,000 Verdict Vacated

15

Shoddy Doctors Treat Prisoners

24

Sex Offenders Online

26

PLN Wins Washington Records Suit 28

Habeas Hints

30

Crazy in America Book Review

33

Texas Prison Health Care

34

Texas Pepper Spray Settlement

36

Alabama DOC's Illegal Fees

38

News in Brief

42

Rhode Island Rec Verdict

44

mental health issues; and politicians who are content to simply sweep these types of problems under the rug.
Overcrowding, Understaffing
Historically, cities in King County that don't have their own jails have sent criminal defendants to the King County Jail in Seattle or the Regional Justice Center in Kent. But a growing jail population in King County, plus an anticipated boom in coming years, has led to the conclusion that the jail will be forced to stop housing misdemeanor defendants by 2012 because there will only be room for those charged with felonies.
Consequently, King County and a number of western Washington cities have rented beds in other county jails for several years. Pierce, Snohomish and Spokane Counties are expected to do the same.
Rentingjail beds hasn't always proven effective. In 2002, 35 cities in King County entered into a contract to rent 440 beds in a new jail set to open in 2004 in Yakima County. King County officials agreed to pay about $8 million annually for the beds, but by 2006 the $21 million, 47,000 square-foot Yakima facility still wasn't ready.
At that time, Yakima County's old jail was holding about 220 western Washington prisoners. The county's failure to open the new facility not only exacerbated overcrowding problems in the cities trying to rent bed space, but also caused overcrowding in Yakima's existing jail. Thus, Yakima County's old facility, built to hold 574 prisoners, often held more

than 900. These cramped conditions led to fights (about 25 per month), many of which were between Yakima County prisoners and those from the western side of the state, who were viewed as unwelcome trespassers.
At least one King County prisoner, Alexander Hooks, sued over his transfer to Yakima County's jail, stating the move restricted access to his lawyer and led him to fear for his life due to the level of violence. His fears may not have been exaggerated; in August 2007, Yakima County jail prisoner Damian Long, 30, was beaten to death by four other prisoners.
In 2005, the cities that had been contracted to house prisoners at the Yakima facility hired William C. Collins, a consultant, to study conditions at the jail. His report cited racial tensions, gang violence, overcrowding and substandard medical care. The city of Renton removed its prisoners from Yakima County due to the poor conditions. Renton Police Chief Kevin Milosevich said he was unwilling to subjeCt Renton prisoners to that degree of violence; the city now houses overflow prisoners in the Okanogan County Jail.
Expressing her frustration, Renton Mayor Kathy Keolker stated that "Yakima's continued refusal to open and operate permanently the new facility is a testament to its disregard for inmates' rights and needs." On Sept. 27, 2006, Seattle and 11 other municipalities filed a claim against Yakima County for not opening the new jail in a timely manner.
A follow-up report by consultant William Collins in January 2007 found

Prison Legal News

1

May 2008

Page 2P4L8NCOL-00288

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 36 of 60
.---------CLN WILL BUY YOUR STAMPS--------.
(CONVERT YOUR POSTAGE §'TAMPS INTO CA$H
Upon receipt of your stamps, we immediately (within 48 hours) send a money orderas you direct - for your Trust Account, or to a family member or friend, to an outside account, or to order a package-to be sent in.

For complete books or sheets of new 41-cent stamps
55% of FACE VALUE
For all other denominations of unused stamps (strips, partial books or sheets, individual stamps, or USPS stamped envelopes)
We accept unlimited amounts of stamps. Reimbursement rates Include our cost of the money order and postage.

PLEASE:

Give us the complete name and address where you want your funds sent. ._ Provide any special instructions or forms that your system may require. .; --DO NOT send used, torn or damaged stamps. DO NOT apply tape of any kind to the stamps. DO NOT send stamps with a. face value of less than 20 cents each. DO NOT request money orders for less than $15.00 each.

CLN, P.O. BOX 687, WALNUT, CA 91788

,'CLN (CALIFORNIA LIFER NEWSLETIER) Is an established, reputable entity that provides services to prisoners In all state and federal Jurlsdlcllons. You may write for details about subscriptions and the paralegal services we provide •. We don't rip you off like some stamp services we've heard about; we don't know of a single dissatisfied customer. Purchasing stamps at these rales helps to defray the cost of publishing and distributing our Newsletter, CLN, and to underwrite expenses In litigating prisoner suits.

Subscription Renewal Subscriptions expire after the issue shown on the label is mailed. For example, if the label says: EXPIRES 02/2006, then the subscription expires after the February 2006 iss'!les is m~iled. Please renew at least 2 months before the expiration date. IF THE LABEL SAYS EXPIRES: 05/2008 THIS IS YOUR LAST ISSUE. Please renew immediately to avoid missing any issues.
Prison Legal News
2400 NW 80th Street #148 SeattIe,WA 98117
Change Service Requested

.Change of Address If you move or are transfered, please notify PLN as soon as possible so your issues can be mailed to your new address! PLN only accepts responsibility for sending an issue to the address provided at the time an issue is mailed! -
Non-Profit Org. U.S. Postage PAID Portland OR
Permit No. 3142

Page 2P4L9NCOL-00289

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 37 of 60

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBIT EE
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 250

PtJlson Legal f\lews iol .\.~..1" D~CX 24?.~'l.O
Vvest Brattleboro vr
05303=2420

~~<o«:'r' ~J. ~ of... ~; ,\\.l- ',\ ,:"~J: ilI..J~ ,'' l~,~..,{ ;~§.J? ."i"<(~c:
s ' t j /!.. M ~~Yhl." •

\

F\ H

[oJ',"" ;

~ " .,/ / \ '-

;)

~

/

1,.<..I.e.,n,,:,-,<-:;

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 38 of 60 Page 2P5L1NCOL-00254

fiJ ~F.
il !; t:

~ifl !!U'!~

M§"'-' !l

li c.i:::'::Z: "" ~

T€~i n~ ~~ ~;:;
t: r.~

~ ~1 ~ ~ ~"""F bi§ f"f'"\t ig ~!~fWU~H

~
!I!.-.&~

As of April 1, 2010 The Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS
This appJies to ALL incoming and outgoing mail

"'* ~"lt-,::-:.N~ N.', . f~:, ," ::- -', . ,

EXPIRES: 1 /,1,:/2012

6~;I,.!?U~n5 2011000(),43 ,..'

COLUM""sYA'~.~.AI'\-:f;;' 2, , ' -

97<?51~-- 901 poRT E':'<• - ' , - . .

ST HELENS. 0

oN

-

r'<~

, f
.

_----<: :.3:2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 39 of 60

I

VPL. 19 No.9 ':1
dSSN l075~7678
:'.) \

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights September 2008

Massachusetts" Mental Health Treatment Policies

Prove Deadly for Public., Prisoners

by David M. Reutter

As America's prisons continue their transformation into mental health institutions, little thought is given t6 mentally ill prisoners who languish within the harsh confines of prison environments with little if any treatment. That all changes, at least temporarily, when a mentally ill prisoner who has been held in solitary confinement for years is set free without any supervision, and then com. mits multiple murders. While the mainstream media recently covered such a story about a homicidal ex-offender - who was released from the Massachusetts Department of Correction (MDOC}and killed a newlywed couple in

Women Behind Bars Review

7

From the Editor

8

Mississippi Jail Abuse Continues

10

Geo Group Expands

16

Preventable California Deaths

18

Sex Offender Internet Bans

19

Medical Research Guide

22

PLN Wins Kansas Suit

25

Vita Pro Acquittal

27

Immigrants Prisons Growing

30

Virginia DNA Evidence

34

Texas Guard Shortage

38

News in Brief

42

Washington state several months later - reduction i~l mel,1tal hospital beds nation-

as well as the usual sound bites and hand wide, prisons now house the patients who

wringing, past history proves that once the were once held in such asylums.

furor dies down it will be back to business

It is conservatively estimated that at

as usual.

. least 25 percent of MDOC's 11,500 pris-

For the past several decades Amer- oners suffer from some type of mental

ica's prison system has become the new illness and thus have a heightened risk of

warehouse for the mentally ill, which is no suicide or self-harm. Over the past decade,

secret among those overseeing our nation's MDOC prisoners have engaged in more

detention facilities. Eventually, about 95 than 3,000 self-inflicted injuries or suicide

percent of those incarcerated will one day attempts; 513 of those occurred in 2006.

be released; they will either successfully Within the last three years there have been

reintegrate into society or prey upon it. 15 successful suicides in MDOC prisons-

That, of course, presupposes that the men- arate three times higher than the national

tally ill survive their time behind bars. average. Alarmingly, 11 of those suicides

A December 2007 special series in the were committed by prisoners in segrega-

Boston Globe revealed that the likelihood tion, many of whom were mentally ill.

of a mentally ill person surviving a prison

An independent study of the MDOC's

sentence in the MDOC unmaimed has high suicide rate, released in February
In become less and less likely. fact, it ap- 2007, determined that prison policies and

pears that our public policy of curtailing practices had contributed to the problem.

the use of mental health institutions and "Confining a suicidal inmate to their cell

criminalizing mental illness, which began for 24 hours a day only enhances isola-

in the 1950s and hit its pinnacle in the tion and is antitherapeutic," the report

1980s, has transformed the mentally ill stated. MDOC officials agreed to adopt

into outcasts reminiscent of lepers during the study's recommended changes, but

Biblical times. That harsh policy leaves the such policy changes do not alter the state's

mentally ill largely to their own devices systemic approach to how mentally ill

whether they receive treatment or not, prisoners are handled.

then sends them to prison "colonies" once

"The Department of Correction

they exhibit behavior that deviates from did not ask to become the state's biggest

societal norms.

psychiatric facility, but it is," said Leslie

Making Them Sicker

Walker, director of Massachusetts Correctional Legal Services.

Prisons, by their very nature and de-

A prisoner afflicted with mental ill-

sign, are secretive places tucked away in ness does not have full control over his

mostly rural communities, hidden from actions. When confronted with the daily

public view. They are perfect for isolating rigors of prison life, which can be difficult

people who are considered difficult to deal for even the most mentally sound person,

with or undesirable. With a su1;>stantial inadequate treatment can lead down a

Prison Legal News

1

September 2008

Page 2P5L2NCOL-00255

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 40 of 60
r--~-----CLN WILL BUY YOUR S T A M p s , - - - - - - - : ;
CONVERT YOUR POSTAG:E STAMPS INTO CASH
Upon receipt of your stamps, we immediately (within 48 hours) send a money orderas you direct - for your Trust Account, or to a family member or friend, to an outside account, or to order a package to be sent in.

For complete books or sheets of new 41·cent stamps
55% of FACE VALUE
For all other denominations of unused stamps (strips, partial books or sheets, individual stamps, or USPS stamped envelopes)
We accept unlimited amounts of stamps. Reimbursement rates include our cost of the money order and postage.

, PLEASE: Give us the complete name and address where you want your funds sent. "", ''.' Provide any special instructions or forms that your system may require. f' DO NOT send used, torn or damaged stamps. DO NOT apply tape of any kind to the stamps. DO NOT send stamps with a face value of less than 20 cents each. DO NOT request money orders for less than $15.00 each.

CLN, P.O. BOX 687, WALNUT, CA 9·1788

rep~lable J~rlsdlcUons. yo~ ~bo'ut :. 'bLN (CALIFORNIA LIFER NEWSLETTER) Is an eslabllshed,

entity that provides services to prisoners In all slate and federal

may write for delalls

, subscriptions and the paralegal services we provide. We don't rip you off like some slamp services we've heard about: we don't know of a single dissatisfied customer. P~rchaslng

Slamps at these rates helps to defray the cost of p~bllshlng and distributing our Newsletter, CLN, and to ~ndelWrite expenses In litigating prisoner s~lls.

"

Subscription Renewal

"

Subscriptions expire after the issue shown on the label is mailed.

For example, if the label says: EXPIRES 02/2006, then the sub-

scription expires after the February 2006 issues is mailed. Please

renew at l~ast 2 months before the expiration date. IF THE LA-

BEL SAYS EXPIRES: 09/2008 THIS IS YOUR LAST ISSUE.

Please renew immediately to avoid missing any issues.

Prison Legal News
2400 NW 80th Street #148 Seattle, WA 98117
Change Service Requested

Change of Address If you move or are transfered, please notify PLN as soon as possible so you,r 1 issues can be mailed to your new ad- : dress! PLN only accepts responsibility for sending an issue to the address provided at the time an issue is mailed!
Non-Profit Org. US. Postage PAID Portland OR
Permit No. 3142

Page 2P5L3NCOL-00256

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 41 of 60

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBIT FF
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRlGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 254

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 42 of 60 Page 2P5L5NCOL-00242

Prison Legal Nevvs DliDO, b~,.u.-~)..{ ~24"?=O
West Brattleboro \IT
05303=2420

.; )~_r...J""""""J_n-"\~f"-'"'_"..!"-r-J'...!'.-'f)y..!'~('I_f)~0.f"0_F-r

I - k\ W " b!~)-t~n>~~~P~.~gU~p·~t~ fs j~

~r7-'
nR [w~~

Crr~ "'.:.
~dI "=

DER

As of April 1,2010 The Columbia County Jail
NLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS This applies to ALL
incomill~g and oU~~~!~~f!1.~i!_

'-,

U

t"'-

/r,"if.{"eC''.'~_;'''''~

-~ '";.;:::.., l. '.-

-c-o~~:'ti~;;c~~~\ ,,'" OC;62:48:i ,,;':

\

~~~u;O'::~:~~L ",>.>)<.'

\

ORE?<i!!I,.~"~.,', _~S</H~EL·EN1S,iifZ~~~,~,·"·-·-~-:,"_---_...JI

c .v/','9,%;;,-..~''

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 43 of 60
;'

I

VOL. 19 No.9
ISSN 1075-7678

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights September 2008

Massachusetts' Mental Health Treatment Policies

Prove Deadly for Public, Prisoners

by David M. Reutter

As America's prisons continue . their transformation into mental health institutions, little thought is given . to mentally iII prisoners who languish within the harsh confines of prison environments with little if any treatment. That all changes, at least temporarily, when a mentally ill prisoner who has been held in solitary confinement for years is set free without any supervision, and then commits multiple murders. While the mainstream media recently covered such a story about a homicidal ex-offender - who was released from the Massachusetts Department of Correction (MDOC) and killed a newlywed couple in

Women Behind Bars Review

7

From the Editor

8

Mississippi Jail Abuse Continues

10

Geo Group Expands

16

Preventable California Deaths

18

Sex Offender Internet Bans

19

Medical Research Guide

22

PLN Wins Kansas Suit

25

Vita Pro Acquittal

27

Immigrants Prisons Growing

30

Virginia DNA Evidence

34

Texas Guard Shortage

38

News in Brief

42

Washington state several months later as well as the usual sound bites and hand wringing, past histol;y proves that once the furor dies down it will be back to business as usual.
For the past several decades America's prison system has become the new warehouse for the mentally ill, which is no secret among those overseeing our nation's detention facilities. Eventually, about 95 percent of those incarcerated will one day be released; they will either successfully reintegrate into society or pl:ey upon it. That, of course, presupposes that the mentally ill survive their time behind bars.
A December 2007 special series in the Boston Globe revealed that the likelihood of a mentally ill person surviving a prison sentence in the MDOC unmaimed has become less and less likely. In fact, it appears that our public policy of curtailing the use of mental health institutions and criminalizing mental illness, which began in the 1950s and hit its pinnacle in the 1980s, has trar1sformed the mentally ill into outcasts reminiscent of lepers during Biblical times. That harsh policy leaves the mentally ill largely to their own devices whether they receive treatment or not, then sends them to prison "colonies" once they exhibit behavior that deviates from societal norms.
Making Them Sicker
Prisons, by their very nature and design, are secretive places tucked away in mostly rural communities, hidden from public view. They are perfect for isolating people who are considered difficult to deal with or undesirable. With a substantial

reduction in mental hospital beds nationwide, prisons now house the patients who were once held in such asylums. ,
It is conservatively estimated that at "least 25 percent of MDOC's 11,500 prisoners suffer from some type of mental illness and thus have a heightened risk of suicide or self-harm. Over the past decade, MDOC prisoners have engaged in more than 3,000 self-inflicted injuries or suicide attempts; 513 of those occurred in 2006. Within the last three years there have been 15 successful suicides in MDOC prisons a rate three times higher than the national average. Alarmingly, 11 of those suicides were committed by prisoners in segregation, many of whom were mentally ill.
An independent study of the MDOC's high suicide rate, released in February 2007, determined that prison policies and practices had contributed to the problem. "Confining a suicidal inmate to their cell for 24 hours a day only enhances isolation and is antitherapeutic," the report stated. MDOC officials agreed to adopt the study's recommended changes, but such policy changes do not alter the state's systemic approach to how mentally ill prisoners are handled.
"The Department of Correction did not ask to become the state's biggest psychiatric facility, but it is," said Leslie Walker, director of Massachusetts Correctional Legal Services.
A prisoner afflicted with mental illness does not have full control over his actions. When confronted with the daily rigors of prison life, which can be difficult for even the most "mentally sound person, inadequate treatment can lead down a

Prison Legal News

1

September 2008

Page 2P5L6NCOL-00243

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 44 of 60
.-------'---CLN WILL BUY YOUR STAMPS-----'-------,
(;ONVERT YOW POSTAGE STAMPS INTO.CA$H
Upon receipt of your stamps, we ·immediately (within 48 hours) send a money order- as you direct -. for your Trust Account, or to a family member or friend, to an outside account, or to .order a packclge to be sent in..

()5% of FACE VALUE
For complete books or sheets of new 41·cent stamps

55% of FACE VALUE

For all other denominations of unused stamps (strips, partial books or sheets,

individual stamps, or USPS stamped envelopes)

We accept unlimited amounts of stamps. Reimbursement rates include our cost of the money order and postage.

, .

PLEASE: Give us the complete name and address where you want your funds sent. Provide any special instructions or forms that your system may require. -' DO NOT send used, torn or damaged stamps. DO NOT apply tape of any kind to the stamps.
DO NOr send stamps with a face value of less than 20 cents each.
DO NOT request money orders for less than $15.00 each.

CLN, P.O. BOX 687, WALNUT,CA 91788

.' ·CLN (CALIFORNIA LIFER NEWSLETTER) Is an established, repJtable entity that provides services to prisoners In all state and federallurlsdlcUons, You may write for details ~ilout

.: subscriptions and the paralegal services we provide, We don't rip you off like some stamp services we've heard aboJ~ we don't know of a single dissatisfied customer, Purchasing

stamps at these rates helps to defray the cost of publishing and distributing our NewsleUer, CLN, and to undelWrite expenses In IIUgating prisoner suits,

.

Subscription Renewal SUbscriptions expire after the issue shown on the label is mailed. .For example, if the label says: EXPIRES 02/2006, then the subscription expires after the February 2006 issues is mailed. Please renew at least 2 months before the expiration date. IF THE LABEL SAYS EXPIRES: 09/2008 THIS IS YOUR LAST ISSUE. Please renew immediately to avoid missing any issues.
Prison Legal News
2400 NW 80th Street #148 Seattle, WA 98117
Change Service Requested

Change of Address If you move or are transfered, please notify PLN as soon as possible so your issues can be mailed to your new address! PLN only accepts responsibility for sending an issue to the address provided at the time an issue is mailed!
Non-Profit Org. U.S. Postage PAID Portland OR
Permit No. 3142

Page 2P5L7NCOL-00244

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 45 of 60

9870.05 fa246305

EX IBITGG
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRlGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 258

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 46 of 60 Page 2P5L9NCOL-00248

..

)

"i" PrlSPfl lJ~ged Nf!Jvv~

tf'-'".»';,F,,,~"".

~ #'~";:V
Ik:;llv:,\

~~.~, At;"U

\&1'a'!/J~yI,t,::~,~f iQ'.}.J~!~{;';~HieLhyt"~'vl,i"'",_ A; _\I1HT

05303-2420

0"0-. _~.~~~. \..,t;.'-'Vr(

/~

~.~:.

?

'

'''i .;:
J!

2tU)it1I);

RUCMUfi"U\E r&-c~~i\jN ~r14 rI DgIF"'niigM !~ 't=L:~;,":i:J\.!~

~fF~l ':\~l.:...:B;.

~""""n 8rll!l'=~
Ii,d"""," ",Ug"".,~ tl

As of April 1, 2010

The Columbia County Jail

ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS

This applies to ALL

incoming

and

out

goin- g

mail ---

--,,~

...... 59574 ** N-EWc*{ExPI-FiEs: 1/:15/2012"

.'"

ACOB F.'R,.;N~OEu'R·- 2011:000086
~ ~~~?iJft;;~~f:~i~3.

:5

'·J/n .... ~ -

v01'8o~

"',;/8

~
.:r!J

;/1

~ !~~

-----~ "~."-- --~---.

_ _ ~_____.-" ::J! -\
..,.~

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 47 of 60

I

VOL. 19 No.9
ISSN 1075-7678

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights September 2008

Massachusetts' Mental Health Treatment Policies

Prove Deadly for Public, Prisoners

by David M. Reutter

As America's prisons continue their transformation into mental health institutions, little thought is given to mentally ill prisoners who languish within the harsh.confines of prison envi, ronments with little if any treatment. That all changes, at least temporarily, when a mentally ill prisoner who has been held in solitary confinement for years is set free without any supervision, and then commits multiple murders. While the mainstream media recently covered such a story about a homicidal ex-offender - who was released from the Massachusetts Department of Correction (MDOC) and killed a newlywed couple in

Women Behind Bars Review

7

From the Editor

8

Mississippi Jail Abuse Continues

10

Geo Group Expands

16

Preventable California Deaths

18

Sex Offender Internet Bans

19

Medical Research Guide

22

PLN Wins Kansas Suit

25

Vita Pro Acquittal

27

Immigrants Prisons Growing

30

Virginia DNA Evidence

34

Texas Guard Shortage

38

News in Brief

42

Washington state several months later - reduction in mental hospital beds nation-

as well as the usual sound bites and hand wide, prisons now house the patients who

wringing, past history proves that once the were once held in such asylums.

furor dies down it will be back to business

It is conservatively estimated that at

as usual.

"least 25 percent of MDOC's 11,500 pris-

For the past several decades Amer- oners suffer from some type of mental

ica's prison system has become the new illness and thus have a heightened risk of

warehouse for the mentally ill, which is no suicide or self-harm. Over the past decade,

secret among those overseeing our nation's MDOC prisoners have engaged in more

detention facilities. Eventually, about 95 than 3,000 self-inflicted injuries or suicide

percent of those incarcerated will one day attempts; 513 of those occurred in 2006.

be released; they will either successfully Within the last three years there have been

reintegrate into society or prey upon it. 15 successful suicides in MDOC prisons -

That, of course, presupposes that the men- a rate three times higher than the national

tally ill survive their time behind bars. average. Alarmingly, 11 of those suicides

A December 2007 special series in the were committed by prisoners in segrega-

Boston Globe revealed that the likelihood tio11, many of whom were mentally ill.

of a mentally ill person surviving a prison

An independent study of the MDOC's

sentence in the MDOC unmaimed has high suicide rate, released in February

become less and less likely. In fact, it ap- 2007, determined that prison policies and

a pears that our public policy of curtailing practices had contributed to the problem.
the use of mental health institutions and "Confining suicidal inmate to their cell

criminalizing mental illness, which began for 24 hours a day only enhances isola-

in the 1950s and hit its pinnacle in the, tion and is antitherapeutic," the report

1980s, has transformed the mentally ill stated. MDOC officials agreed to adopt

into outcasts reminiscent of lepers during the study's recommended changes, but

Biblical times. That harsh policy leaves the such policy changes do not alter the state's

mentally ill largely to their own devices systemic approach to how mentally ill

whether they receive treatment or not, prisoners are handled.

then sends them to prison "colonies" once

"The Department of Correction

they exhibit behavior that deviates from did not ask to become the state's biggest

societal norms.

psychiatric facility, but it is," said Leslie

Making Them Sicker

Walker, director of Massachusetts Correctional Legal Services.

Prisons, by their very nature and de-

A prisoner afflicted with mental ill-

sign, are secretive places tucked away in ness does not have full control over his

mostly rural communities, hidden from actions. When confronted with the daily

public view. They are perfect for isolating rigors of prison life, which can be difficult

people who are considered difficult to deal for even the most mentally sound person,

with or undesirable. With a substantial inadequate treatment can lead, down a

Prison Legal News

1

September 2008

Page 2P6L0NCOL-00249

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 48 of 60
'.;
r---------CLN WILL BUY YOUR STAMPS---------,·
CONVERT YOlUR POSTAGE STAMPS INTO CASH
Upon receipt of your stamps, we immediately (within 48 hours) send a money orderas you direct - for your Trust Account, or to a family member or friend, to an outside account, or to order a package to be sent in.
For complete books or sheets of new_4.1·cent stamps
55% of FACE VALUE
For all other denominations of unused stamps (strips, partial books or sheets, individual stamps, or USPS stamped envelopes)
We accept unlimited amounts of stamps. Reimbursement rates include our cost of the money order and postage.
PLEASE: Give us the complete name and address where you want your funds sent. .. Provide any special instructions or forms that your system may require. -; DO NOT send used, torn or damaged stamps. DO NOT apply tape of any kind to the .stamps. DO NOT send stamps with a face value of less than 20 cents each. DO NOT request money orders for less than $15.00 each.
CLN, P.O. BOX 687, WALNUT, CA 91788. . :. ~~
. .' CLN (CAliFORNIA LIFER NEWSLETTER) Is an established, reputable entity that provides seNices to prisoners In all stale and federal JurlsdlcUons. You may write for details about
: subscriptions and the paralegal seNices we provide. We don't rip you off like some stamp seNices we've heard about: we don't know of a single dissatisfied customer. Purchasing stamps at !hese rates helps to defray the cost of publishing and distributing our Newsletter, CLN, and to underwrite expenses in litigating prisoner suits.

.

Subscription Renewal

Subscriptions expire after the issue shown on the label is mailed.

For example, if the label says: EXPIRES 02/2006, then the sub-

scription expires after the February 2006 issues is mailed. Please

renew at least 2 months before the expiration date. IF THE LA~

BEL SAYS EXPIRES: 09/2008 THIS IS YOUR LAST ISSUE.

Please renew immediately to avoid missing any issues.

Prison Legal News
2400 NW 80th Street #148 Seattle, WA 98117
Change Service Requested

Change of Address If you move or are transfered, please notify PLN as soon as possible so your issues can be mailed to your new address! PLN only accepts responsibility for sending an issue to the address provided at the time an issue is mailed!
Non-Profit Org. U.S. Postage PAID Portland OR
Permit No. 3142

Page 2P6L1NCOL-00250

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 49 of 60

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBITHH
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
\
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 262

..

aJ. ~r--~~~;r~
!! ftvVG Ii

!~~:g..>.;..g' ~I!

~- ~!~~~':1~f,M;;.et}

r9 "",.~, D.""'" - P'j) ~ "':'U;t">
"l...J" i["'HJA ,£.I.df/.

V~il~~.;':~=:~;n.Jtb QWlIi!~~r~t'k1.'~GQ~b'"0""£'"0_ \'.VIiIUT
IViOtEwnUn0n-~i?)4"2tUrt

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 50 of 60 Page 2P6L3NCOL-00239

~=~... .

f~~:JE~ ~~VSH.\::f!:d1·

~
VU".JQ

As of April 1, 2010 The Columbia County Jail NLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS
This applies to ALL incoming and out ,going mail

'=~:::-'"

59~5,*~.~E.W~:';. WILL/~ ExPIREs; 7/15/201 1 HESsi 20100022.,<P

COLUM8/;<1, Co JAIL
901 PORTXv:

~J • _.// ._

ST HELE,.NS.at;EGoN/ 97051 .
"..x'-"'<j.-~I~' :..

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 51 of 60

•

I

VOL~J9 No.9
ISSN 1075-7678 ,

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights September 2008

Massachusetts'Mental Health ,Treatment Policies

Prove Deadly for Public,Prisoners

·. · s America's prisons continue A.' their transformation into mental
health institutions, little thought is given to mentally ill prisoners who languish within the harsh confines of prison environments with little if any treatment. That all changes, at least temporarily, when a mentally ill prisoner who has been held in solitary confinement for years is set free without any supervision, and then commits multiple murders.
While the mainstream media recently covered such a story about a homicidal ex-offender - who was released from the Massachusetts Department of Correction , (MDOC) and killed a newlywed couple in

Women Behind Bars Review

7

From the Editor

8

Mississippi Jail Abuse Continues

10

Geo Group Expands

16

Preventable California Deaths

18

Sex Offender Internet Bans

19

Medical Research Guide

22

PLN Wins Kansas Suit

25

Vita Pro Acquittal

27

Immigrants Prisons Growing

30

Virginia DNA Evidence

34

Texas Guard Shortage

38

News in Brief

42

by David M. ~elltter

Washington state several months later - reduction in mel,ltal hospital beds na~ion­

as well as the usual sound bites and hand wide, prisons now house the patients who

wringing, past histoty proves that once the were once held in such asylums.

furor dies down it will be back to business

It is conservatively estimated that at

as usual.

. least 25 percent of MDOC's 11,500 pris-

For the past severai' decades Amer- oners suffer from some type of mental

ica's prison system has become the riew illness and thus have a heightened risk of

warehouse for the mentally ill, which is no suicide or self-harm. Over the past decade,

secret among those overseeing our nation's MDOC prisoners have engaged in more

detention facilities. Eventually, about 95 than 3,000 self-inflicted injuries or suicide

percent of those incarcerated will one day attempts; 513 of those occurred in 2006.

be released; they will either successfully Within the last three years there have been

reintegrate into society or prey upon it. 15 successful suicides in MDOC prisons-

That, of course, presupposes that the men- a rate three times higher than the national

tally ill survive their time behind bars. average. Alarmingly, 11 of those suicides

A December 2007 special series in the were committed by prisoners in segrega-

Boston Globe revealed that the likelihood tion, many of whom were mentally ill.

of a mentally ill person surviving a prison

An independent study of the MDOC's

sentence in the MDOC unmaimed has high suicide rate, released in February

become less and less likely. In fact, it ap- 2007, determined that prison policies and

pears that our public policy of curtailing practices had contributed to the problem.

the use of mental health institutions and "Confining a suicidal inmate to their cell

criminalizing mental illness, which began for 24 hours a day only enhances isola-

in the 1950s and hit its pinnacle in the tion and is antitherapeutic," the report

1980s, has transformed the mentally ill stated. MDOC officials agreed to adopt

into outcasts reminiscent of lepers during the study's recommended changes, but

Biblical times. That harsh policy leaves the such policy changes do not alter the state's

mentally ill largely to their own devices systemic approach to. how mentally ill

whether they receive treatment or not, prisoners are handled.

then sends them to prison "colonies" once

"The Department of Correction

they exhibit behavior that deviates from did not ask to become the state's biggest

societal norms.

psychiatric facility, but it is," said Leslie

Making Them Sicker

Walker, director of Massachusetts Correctional Legal Services.

Prisons, by their very nature and de-

A prisoner afflicted with mental ill-

sign, are secretive places tucked away in ness does not have full control over his

mostly rural communities, hidden from actions. When confronted with the daily

public view. They are perfect for isolating rigors of prison life, which can be difficult

people who are considered difficult to deal for even the most mentally sound person,

with or undesirable. With a substantial inadequate treatment can lead down a

Prison Legal News

1

September 2008

Page 2P6L4NCOL-00240

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 52 of 60
r--:-------- CLN WILL BUY YOUR STAMPS--------,----,
CONVERT YOI I POS'TAGE S'TAMPS INTO' CASH
Upon receipt of your stamps, we immediately (within 48 hours) send a money orderas you direct - for your Trust Account, or to a family member or friend, to an outside account, or to order a package to be sent in.
65% of FACE VALUE
For complete books or sheets of newA:.1·cent stamps
55% of FACE VALUE
For all other denominations of unused stamps (strips, partial books or sheets, ' individual stamps, or USPS stamped envelopes)
We accept unlimited amounts of stamps. Reimbursement rates include our cost oftha money order and postage.
PLEASE: Give us the complete name and address where you want your funds sent. Provide any special instructions or forms that your system may require. ., DO NOT send used, torn or damaged stamps. DO NOT apply tape of any kind to the stamps. DO NOT send stamps with a face value of less than 20 cents each. DO NOT request money orders for less than $15.00 each.
CLN, P.O. BOX 687, WALNU1; CA 91788
:. 'CLN (CALIFORNIA LI FER NEWSLETTER) Is an established, reputable entity that provides services to prisoners In all state and federaljurlsdlcUons. You may wllte for details ~bout
" subscrlpUons and the paralegal services we provide. We don't rip you off like some stamp services we've heardabou~we don't know of a single dlssaUsiled customer. Purchasing stamps at these rates helps to defray the cost of publishing and distribuUng our Newsletter, CLN, and to underwrite expenses In IiUgating prisoner suits.

Subscription Renewal Subscriptions expire after the issue shown on the label is mailed. For example, if the label says: EXPIRES 02/2006, then the subscription expires after the February 2006 issues is mailed. Please renew at least 2 months before the expiration date. IF THE LABEL SAYS EXPIRES: 09/2008 THIS IS YOUR LAST ISSUE. Please renew immediately to avoid missing any issues.
Prison Legal News
2400 NW 80th Street #148 Seattle, WA 98117
Change Service Requested

Change of Address If you move or aretransfered, please notify PLN as soon as possible so your issues can be mailed to your new address! PLN only accepts responsibility for sending an issue to the address pro~ vided at the time an issue is mailed!
Non-Profit Org. U.S. Postage PAID
, Portland OR Permit No. 3142

Page 2P6L5NCOL-00241

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 53 of 60

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBIT II
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 266

!\t,fJ.-W 5!?~B~~!~~*f~":'I~;Ai

l~ -ue-r:!~-.-~:~;·lt~aF~,

Ii

_ ~ o
~u ~

D (--";; 0 .... ;":.. A = .. #1l .,~ 1<

J;

•

~ .@~ ~O'" [j?---; ,,,,"¥,,,.;'

;.

I!!f .7_

,/" ~AP

!1

VVest BratUeboro VT

OKr:d:0vQ.."';"·V==~"·')420

,~~~~

i
J.0
~{'{f-~~ ~~:::~'
," -'9~~'"

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 54 of 60 Page 2P6L7NCOL-00206

!~J!I.~~J~ ~~'~
D/1~1o:4~1!UIj0~;.;.no~'.;~u:CI;''Im.nc1I;"pCa',C'/l,·h;;'en<e,sn,"-.,_~,;''1L,:~.:;,"':.;,';':'''.':)[r.'!7'~\':},2:;~-O',;f,-..:W ~,":;t;(n.(';!J:;"::::-'r~_;>~~~-r':~:_'-:-r')_5'_i_~
SAlt,";;-", ',~i:'5·;9;5:?7N6f,:&'~}p:,:rP.;A:il~'ibl,J;~~~'~oP1IR0E0S;178/6125/201
COLUMBIA Co JA'jc 901 PORT AVE
5T HELENS, OREGON 97051

As of April 1, 2010 The Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS
This applies to ALL incoming and out going mail

Rt TOtf', r.' " URi! r.E=r~r~ rTg

M f

n~ D~J ~ro.n1\1'\;~'i,,' .IaI --... y

,~&:8'

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 55 of 60

I

VOL. 19 No.9
ISSNI075-7678

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights September 2008

Massachusetts' Mental Health Treatment Policies

Prove Deadly for Public, Prisoners

by Dayid M. Reutter

As America's prisons continue
, their transformation into mental health institutions, little thought is given to mentally ill prisoners who languish within the harsh. confines of prison environments with little if any treatment. That all changes, at least temporarily, when a
I
mentally ill prisoner who has been held in solitary confinement for years is set free without any supervision, and then commits multiple murders.
While the mainstream media recently covered such a story about a homicidal ex-offender - who was released from the Massachusetts Department of Correction (MDOC) and killed a newlywed couple in

Women Behind Bars Review

7

From the Editor

8

Mississippi Jail Abuse Continues

10

Geo Group Expands

16

Preventable California Deaths

18

Sex Offender Internet Bans

19

, Medical Research Guide

22

PLN Wins Kansas Suit

25

Vita Pro Acquittal

27

.Immigrants Prisons Growing

30

Virginia DNA Evidence

34

Texas Guard Shortage

38

News in Brief

42

Washington state several months later as well as the usual sound bites and hand wringing, past history proves that once the furor dies down it will be back to business as usual.
For the past several decades America's prison system has become the new warehouse for the mentally ill, which is no secret among those overseeing our nation's detention facilities. Eventually, about 95 percent of those incarcerated will one day be released; they will either successfully reintegrate into society or prey upon it. That, of course, presupposes that the mentally ill survive their time behind bars.
A December 2007 special series in the Boston Globe revealed that the likelihood of a mentally ill person surviving a prison sentence in the MDOC unmaimed has become less and less likely. In fact, it appears that our public policy of curtailing the use of mental health institutions and criminalizing mental illness, which began in the 1950s and hit its pinnacle in the 1980s, has transformed the mentally ill into outcasts reminiscent of lepers during Biblical times. That harsh policy leaves the mentally ill largely to their own devices whether'they receive treatment or not, then sends them to prison "colonies" once they exhibit behavior that deviates from societal norms.
MakingThem Sicker
Prisons, by their very nature and design, are secretive places tucked away in mostly rural communities, hidden from public view. They are perfect for isolating people who are considered difficult to deal with or undesirable. With a substantial

reduction in mental hospital beds nationwide, prisons now house the patients who were once held in such asylums.
It is conservatively estimated that at least 25 percent of MDOC's 11,500 prisoners suffer from some type of mental illness and thus have a heightened risk of suicide or self-harm. Over the past decade, MDOC prisoners have engaged in more than 3,000 self-inflicted injuries or suicide attempts; 513 of those occurred in 2006. Within the last three years there have been 15 successful suicides in MDOC prisonsa rate three times higher than the national average. Alarmingly, 11 of those suicides were committed by prisoners in segregation, many of whom were inentally ill.
An independent study of the MDOC's high suicide rate, released in February 2007, determined that prison policies and practices had contributed to the problem. "Confining a suicidal inmate to their cell for 24 hours a day only enhances isolation and is antitherapeutic," the report stated. MDOC officials agreed to adopt the study's recommended changes, but such policy changes do not alter the state's systemic approach to how mentally ill prisoners are handled.
"The Department of Correction did not ask to become the state's biggest psychiatric facility, but it is," said Leslie Walker, director of Massachusetts ,Correctional Legal Services.
A prisoner afflicted with mental illness does not have full control over his actions. When confronted with the daily rigors of prison life, which can be difficult for even the most mentally sound person, inadequate treatment can lead down a

Prison Legal News

1

September 2008

Page 2P6L8NCOL-00207

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 56 of 60
r-:------.,------- CLN WILL BUY YOU R STAMPS- - - - - - - - ,
CONVERT YOUR POSTAGE STAMPS INTO CASH
Upon receipt of your stamps, we immediately (within 48 hours) send a money orderas you direct - for your Trust Account, or to a family member or friend, to an outside account, o~ to order a package to be sent in.

65% of FACE VALUE
For complete books or sheets of new 41·cent stamps
55% of FACE VALUE
For all other denominations of unused stamps (strips, partial books or sheets, individual stamps, or USPS stamped envelopes)
We accept unlimited amounts of stamps. Reimbursement rates include our cost of the money order and postage.

PLEASE: Give us the complete name and address where you want your funds sent. .. Provide any special instructions or forms that your system may require. .; DO NOT send used, torn or damaged stamps. DO NOT apply tape of any kind to the stamps. DO NOT send stamps with a face value of less than 20 cents each. DO NOT request money orders for less than $15.00 each.

CLN, P.O. BOX 687, WALNU1; CA 91788

,.

. .

.' CLN (CALIFORNIA LI FER NEWSLETTER) Is an established, repJtable enUty that provides services to prisoners In all state and federal jurlsdlcllons. You may write for details about

'. subscrlpUons and the paralegal services we provide. We don't rip you off like some stamp services we've heard about; we don't know of a single dlssaUsfied customer. Purchasing

slamps at these rates helps 10 defray Ihe cost of publishing and distrlbuUng OJr Newslelier, CLN, and to underwrite expenses In IiUgaling prisoner sulls.

Subscription Renewal Subscriptions expire after the issue shown on the label is mailed. For example, if the label says: EXPIRES 02/2006, then the subscription expires after the February 2006 issues is mailed. Please renew at least 2 months before the expiration date. IF THE LA--__ BEL SAYS EXPIRES: 09/2008 THIS IS YOUR LAST ISSUE. Please renew immediately to avoid missing any issues.
Prison Legai News
2400 NW 80th Street #148 Seattle, WA 98117
Change Service Requested

Change of Address If you move or are transfered, please notify PLN as soon as possible so your issues can be mailed to your new address! PLN only accepts responsibility for sending an issue to the address provided at the time an issue is mailed!
Non:-Profit Org. U.S. Postage PAID Portland OR
Permit No. 3142

Page 2P6L9NCOL-00208

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 57 of 60

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBIT JJ
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 270

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 58 of 60 Page 2P7L1NCOL-00215

-, '" 2='n. Prh~Of4J V ;: ~ _ ..,.. n ~~~ ~~ d~ ~n ~

~:~~~\!i

~Ii kiPt~ \:.1"tJ 11

p r 1 ~ .~; -~U.~~:J4 J.""",'"\i.f ~ if"~ ;.I'. J

\rr \'ti1 V~~\l;t..;r:y.t "R-r",~1rl;At....+.. ,!...~..!h>-f...,1v.ro

')0 Ov~;y<=O.0... = ~ 24-t;..

~\\\ "\ '" \---J:::. .c;.-zI~5:,:cl=~r';~. '-~. f) ;

," 1'-,

;1-

"

;;:~,;;~~{f~~:::

Insu~nCi6:lt Acid;e::s _~-=",_~-.""'~ Ho S'.tCii ~tfe(;~ ~~-=<"...... f~:"lfr:ber..,..............-. No ~~uch Offit..~~ !:; :2~?it9 I"'·~.=':';~""--·-""'" Do r·!ot p.e;--n~~H T~·lk· t;:';·iBfOP:;' .___-=-=~..,....
SAINT HELS;~B, Qi?,970S1·S'iC8
".-...:,.

59577 ** NEW ** EXPIRES: 7/15/201 1
MARTIN KAY 2010001188 COLUMBIA Co JAIL
901 PORT AVE 5T HELENS. OREGON 97051

~Fr\lrCR i= lfn -'i"~ 1T bnHEUa~B'lnKi;h!E"~ti

Tn

n M

U '• p.

U._n\JUl..

~

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 59 of 60

I

. VOL. 19 No.9
ISSN lQ75-7678

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights September 2008

Massachusetts' Mental Health Treatment Policies

Prove Deadly for Public, Prisoners

by David M. Relltter

As America's prisons continue their transformation into mental health institutions, little thought is given .to mentally ill prisoners who languish within the harsh confines of prison environmentswith little.if any treatment. That all changes, at least temporarily, when a mentally ill prisoner who has been held in solitary confinement for years is set free without any supervision, and then commits multiple murders. While the mainstream media recently covered such a story about a homicidal ex-offender - who was released from the Massachusetts Department of Correction (MDOq and killed.a newlywed couple in

Women Behind Bars Review

7

From the Editor

8

Mississippi Jail Abuse Continues

10

Geo Group Expands

16

Preventable California Deaths

18

Sex Offender Internet Bans

19

Medical Research Guide

22

PLN Wins Kansas Suit

25

Vita Pro Acquittal

27

Immigrants Prisons Growing

30

Virginia DNA Evidence

34

Texas Guard Shortage

38

News in Brief

42

Washington state several months later - reduction in mental hospital beds nation-

as well as the usual sound bites and hand wide, prisons now house the patients who·

wringing, past history proves that once the were once held in such asylums.

furor dies down it will be back to business

It is conservatively estimated that at

as usual.

. least 25 percent of MDOC's 11,500 pris-

For the past several decades Amer- oners suffer from some type of mental

ica's prison system has become the new illness and thus have a heightened risk of

warehouse for the mentally ill, which is no suicide or self-harm. Over the past decade,

secret among those overseeing our nation's MDOC prisoners have engaged in more

detention facilities. Eventually, about 95 than 3,000 self-inflicted injuries or suicide

percent of those incarcerated will one day attempts; 513 of those occurred in 2006.

be released; they will either successfully Within the last three years there have been

reintegrate into society or prey upon it. 15 successful suicides in MDOC prisons-

That, of course, presupposes that the men- a rate three times higher than the national

tally ill survive their time behind bars. average. Alarmingly, 11 of those suicides

A December 2007 special series in the were committed by prisoners in segrega-

Boston Globe revealed that the likelihood tion, many of whom were mentally ill.

of a mentally ill person surviving a prison

An independent study of the MDOC's

sentence in the MDOC unmaimed has high suicide rate, released in February

become less and less likely. In fact, it ap- 2007, determined that prison policies and

pears that our public policy of curtaUing practices had contributed to the problem..

the use of mental health institutions and "Confining a suicidal inmate to their cell

criminalizing mental illness, which began for 24 hours a day only enhances isola-

in the 1950s and hit its pinnacle in the tion and is antitherapeutic," the report

1980s, has transformed the mentally ill stated. MDOC officials agreed to adopt

into outcasts reminiscent of lepers during the study's recommended changes, but

Biblical times. That harsh polley leaves the such policy changes do not alter the state's

mentally ill largely to their own devices systemic approach to how mentally ill

whether they receive treatment or not, prisoners are handled.

then sends them to prison "colonies" once

"The Department of Correction

they exhibit behavior that deviates from did not ask to become the state's biggest

societal norms.

psychiatric facility, but it is," said Leslie

Making Them Sicker

Walker, director of Massachusetts Correctional Legal Services.

Prisons, by their very nature and de-

A prisoner afflicted with mental ill-

sign, are secretive places tucked away in ness does not have full control over his

mostly rural communities, hidden from actions. When confronted with the daily

public view. They are perfect for isolating rigors of prison life, which can be difficult

people who are considered difficult to deal for even the most mentally sound person,

with or undesirable. With a substantial inadequate treatment can lead down a

Prison Legal News

1

September 2008

Page 2P7L2NCOL-00216

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-4 Filed 01/31/12 Page 60 of 60
r---------CLN WILL BUYYOUR STAMPS-------i
,CONVERT YOUR POSTAGE S)YAMPS INTO CA$U·
Upon receipt of your stamps, we immediately (w,ithin 48 hours) send a money orderas you direct - for your Trust Account, or to a family member or friend, to an outside account, or to order a package to be sent in.

For complete books or sheets of new 41·cent stamps

55% of FACE VALUE
For all other denominations of unused stamps (strips, partial books or sheets,
individual stamps, or USPS stamped envelopes)

We accept unlimited amounts of stamps. Reimbursement rates include our cost ofthe money order and postage.

J, ':,

PLEASE:

GIve us the complete name and address where you want your funds sent. .. Provide any special instructions or forms that your system may require. -; DO NOT send used, torn or damaged stamps. DO NOT apply tape of any kind to the stamps. DO NOT send stamps with a face value of less than 20 cents each. DO NOT request mon~y orders for less than $15.00 each.

CLN, P.O. BOX 687, WALNUT, CA 91788

. :- CLN (CALIFORNIA LI FER NEWSLETTER) Is an established, reputable entity that provides services to prisoners In all state and federal jurisdictions. You may write for details about . sUbscrlpUons and the paralegal services we provide. We don't rip you off like some stamp services we've heard about; we don't know of a single dissatisfied customer. Purchasing
stamps at these rates helps to defray the cost of publishing and distributing OJr Newsletter, CLN, and to underwrite expenses In litigating prisoner sulls.

Subscription Renewal Subscriptions expire after the issue shown on the label is mailed. For example, if the label says: EXPIRES 02/2006, then the subscription expires after the February 2006 issues is mailed. Please renew at least 2 months before the expiration date. IF THE LA- _ BEL SAYS EXPIRES: 09/2008 THIS IS YOUR LAST ISSUE. Please renew immediately to avoid missing any issues.

Change of Address If you move or are transfered, please
notify PLN as soon as possible so your issues can be mailed to your new address! PLN only accepts responsibility for sending an issue to the address provided at the time an issue is mailed!

Prison Legal News
2400 NW 80th Street #148 Seattle, WA 98117
Change Service Requested

Non-Profit Org.
U.S. Postage PAID
Portland OR Permit No. 3142

Page 2P7L3NCOL-00217

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 1 of 60

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBITKK
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 274

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 2 of 60 Page 2P7L5NCOL-00350

I

Prison Legal News PO Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303

!3
c u55
~~ f:~
~'E
2 c::
~·~c 28c::
M~
1;g

(

63208 ** EXP\RES: 1/2012

,/

MARK. G \FT 2010000410

COLUMB\A CO JA\L

901 PORT AVE ST HELENS, OREGON 97051

ii,' III ! i," ; . ;;: d .. i ;Ii; .

i i rlllj I

.:"

I

·
I

·i"
i i jl
."

i i

j
.

ij"
II i
l.I.

"••
III I

i
i
,

; j

i
.

·.or
if
•. l.

;
Ii Ij

fi"

:

iii ji. i
.....

i

i
,

i

.i

ffli,i

i

j'

I• . i

i

iifif
d.

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 3 of 60

VOL. 20 No.5
ISSN 1075-7678

D~dicated to Proiecting Human Rights

May 2009

Sexual Abuse by Prison and Jail Staff Proves Persistent, Pandemic

by Gary Hunter

Sexual assault, rape, indecency, deviance. These terms repres.ent reprehensible behavior in.,our society. They also represent recurring themes in our nation's prisons - not only by prisoners, but also by guards and other staff members. P LN's August 2006 cover story, Guards Rape of Prisoners Rampant, No Solution in Sight, profiled examples of sexual abuse by prison guards and other employees in 26 states. Since that time the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission has issued proposed standards to reduce sexual abuse behind bars, and the Bureau of Justice Statistics has released reports on sexual victilnization in our

California Parole Law Passes

12

Maryland Prison Problems Persist

14

Kids Jailed by Bribed Judges

20

Texas Youth Prisons Grow

24

Phoenix Jail Still Unconstitutional

28

Hawaii Trust Fund Ruling

29

Prisoners Get Out the Vote

34

Prison Television Switchover

37

Missouri Abortion Ban Illegal

40

Bivens Suits Barred Against CCA

46

Unicor Wins Copyright Suit

48

News in Brief

50

BOP Guards Sentenced in Beating

52

nation's prisons and jails. The latter reports found that over 60% of allegations of sexual abuse involved staff members rather than other prisoners.
What has not changed in the past several years is th2'continued rape and sexual exploitation of prisoners by prison and jail employees who are supposed to ensure their safety. All 50 states have enacted laws criminalizing sex between prisoners and prison staff; thus, employees who engage in sexual miscondllct can no longer claim consent as a defense.
Due to the nature of prisons as "total institutions," it is impossible for prisoners to voluntarily consent to sexual advances by staff members who exert complete control over their lives and in some cases over their release from prison.
Past issues of PLN have pushed this significant problem to the forefront. We would like to report that exposure of this issue has eased the problem. It hasn't. We would like to say our continued coverage on this subject has deterred sexual abuse by prison staff. It didn't.
Prison and jail employees are more out of control than ever. From state to state, north to south, east to west, sexual Jnisconduct by guards and other staff members continues to weave its way through the fabric of our nation's prisons. A common thread of rape, debauchery and even sexual torture is present in detention facilities nationwide.
This time we bring you recent reports from 39 states, which constitute only a fraction of the tragic truth about rape and sexual abuse by prison and jail workers. Indeed, it would easily be possible to publish a monthly magazine consisting

of nothing but substantiated reports of the sexual assault of prisoners by their captors. It also illustrates the shortcomings of the PREA which contains no real enforcement mechanism to stop or deter sexual assaults, merely the collection of data self reported by the agencies holding the prisoners. But one result is we may now have slightly better data than we did before in a central location.
Arizona
Former prison guard Elsa Gutierrez, 33, was booked into the Yuma County Jail on October 1, 2008 after being charged with unlawful sexual conduct with a male prisoner: She had been employed at the Arizona State Prison Complex.
On November 7,2008, Steve Edward Hiser was arrested and charged with six counts of sex crimes involving female prisoners. He was a maintenance worker at the Eddie Warrior Gorrectional Center when the incidents occurred; the charges include sexual battery, indecent exposure, forcible oral sodomy, sexual battery and rape by instrumentation. Hiser posted a $15,000 bond; his case is still pending.
Arkansas
Former Arkansas DOC psychologist Anna Clark, 57, was convicted of thirddegree sexual assault after being caught in the act of sexual intercourse with prisoner Dan Burns. In a taped confession Clark admitted that she had sex several times with Burns, who was diagnosed as depressed and suicidal. She was sentenced in August 2007 to three years in prison and her conviction was upheld by the state Supreme Court on Sept. 25,2008 [See: Clark

Prison Legal News

1

May 2009

Page 2P7L6NCOL-00351

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 4 of 60

Prison Legal News
2400 NW 80th Street #148 Seattle, WA 98117
Change Service Requested

Non-Profit Org. U.S. Postage PAID Portland OR
Permit No. 3142

Subscription Renewal Subscriptions expire after the issue shown on the. label is mailed. For example, if the label says: EXPIRES 02/2006, then the subscription expires after the February 2006 issues is mailed. Please renew at least 2 months before the expiration date. IF THE LABEL SAYS EXPIRES: 04/2009 THIS IS YOUR LAST ISSUE. Please renew immediately to avoid missing any issues.

Change of Address If you move or are transfered, please notify PLN as soon as possible so your issues can be mailed to your new ad.. dress! PLN only accepts responsibility .for sending an issue to the addres's provided at the time an issue is mailed!
".

~ PLN's website offers all issues of PLN in both searchable database ar:ld PDF formats. Issues are indexed and posted as soon as they go to press.
~ Publications section has numerous downloadable government reports, audits and investigations from around the country.
~ Full text decisions of thousands of court cases, published and unpublished.
~ All content is easy to print for downloading and mailing to prisoners.
~ Most complete collection of prison and jail related verdicts and settlements anywhere.
~ Order books, print subscriptions and make donations on line.

~ Brief bank with a wide assortment of

winning motions, briefs, complaints and

settlements.

.

~ Links to thousands of prison, jail, criminal justice and legal websites around the world.

~ Thousands of articles and cases, all fully indexed by more than 500 subjects, searchable by case name, case year, state of origin, court, author, location, case outcome, PLN issue and key word search.

~ Search free, pay only if you find it!

~ The highest quality, most comprehensive prison litigation news and research site in the world.

Affordable rates to meet your budget
$14.95 per month" $99.95 per year

Subscribe to Prison Legal News Online! http://www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 2P7L7NCOL-00352

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 5 of 60

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBIT LL
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 278

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 6 of 60
~)
J
,/

M 0 M
lr)

0

CZl
~
<l)

> ~
;0....

Z.-
C\$

0 N

0 ..0
.<-l)

Of)

<l)
~

N";"x'":

~ 0

0 CO

..C..Z..l
;....

0

A.; 0....

~
;....
CO ......
CZl
~

Page 2P7L9NCOL-00354

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 7 of 60

VOL. 20 No.5
ISSN 1075-7678

DecJicated to Pro'tecting Human Rights

May 2009

Sexual Abuse by Prison and Jail Staff Proves Persistent, Pandemic

by Gary Hunter

Sexual assault, rape, indecency, deviance. These terms represent reprehensible behavior in. our society. They also represent recurring themes in our nation's prisons - nGt only by prisoners, but also by guards and other staff members. PLN's August 2006 cover story, Guards Rape of Prisoners Rampant, No Solution in Sight, profiled examples of sexual abuse by prison guards and other employees in 26 states. Since that time the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission has issued proposed standards to reduce sexual abuse behind bars, and the Bureau of Justice Statistics has released reports on sexual victimization in our

California ParoleLaw Passes

12

Maryland Prison Problems Persist

14

Kids Jailed by Bribed Judges

20

Texas Youth Prisons Grow

24

Phoenix Jail Still Unconstitutional

28

Hawaii Trust Fund Ruling

29

Prisoners Get Out the Vote

34

Prison Television Switchover

37

Missouri Abortion Ban Illegal

40

Bivens Suits Barred Against CCA

46

Unicor Wins Copyright Suit

48

News in Brief

50

BOP Guards Sentenced in Beating

52

nation's prisons and jails. The latter reports found that over 60% of allegations of sexual abuse involved staff members rather than other prisoners.
What has not changed in the past several years is the continued rape and sexual exploitation of prisoners by prison and jail employees who are supposedto ensure their safety. All 50 states have enacted laws criminalizing sex between prisoners and prison staff; thus, employees who engage in sexual misconduct can no longer claim consent as a defense.
Due to the nature of prisons as "total institutions," it is impossible for prisoners to voluntarily consent to sexual advances by staff members who exert complete control over their lives - and in some cases over their release from prison.
Past issues of PLN have pushed.this significant problem to the forefront. We would like to report that exposure of this issue has eased th~ problem. It hasn't. We would like to say our continued coverage on this subject has deterred sexual abuse by prison staff. It didn't.
Prison and jail employees are more out of control than ever. From state to state, north to south, east to west, sexual misconduct by guards and other staff members continues to weave its way through the fabric of our nation's prisons. A common thread of rape, debauchery and even sexual torture is present in detention facilities nationwide.
This time we bring you recent reports from 39 states, which constitute only a fraction of the tragic truth about rape and sexual abuse by prison and jail workers. lIideed, it would easily be possible to publish a monthly magazine consisting

of nothing but substantiated reports of the sexual assault of prisoners by their captors. It also illustrates the shortcomings of the PREA which contains no real enforcement mechanism to stop or deter sexual assaults, merely the collection of data self reported by the agencies holding the prisoners. But one result is we may now have slightly better data than we did before in a central location.
Arizona
Former prison guard Elsa Gutierrez, 33, was booked into the Yuma County Jail on October 1, 2008 after being charged with unlawful sexual conduct with a male prisoner. She had been employed at the Arizona State Prison Complex.
On November 7,2008, Steve Edward Hiser was arrested and charged with six counts of sex crimes involving female prisoners. He was a maintenance worker at the Eddie Warrior Correctional Center when the inCidents occurred; the charges include sexual battery, indecent exposure, forcible oral sodomy, sexual battery and rape by instrumentation. Hiser posted a $15,000 bond; his case is still pending.
Arkansas
Former Arkansas DOC psychologist Anna Clark, 57, was convicted of thirdd~gree sexual assault after being caught in the act of sexual intercourse with prisoner Dan Burns. In a taped confession Clark admitted that she had sex several times with Burns, who was diagnosed as depressed and suicidal. She was sentenced in August 2007 to three years in prison and her conviction was upheld by the state Supreme Court on Sept. 25, 2008 [See: Clark

Prison Legal News

1

May 2009

Page 2P8L0NCOL-00355

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 8 of 60

Prison Legal News
2400 NW 80th Street #148 Seattle, WA 98117
Change Service Requested

Non-Profit Org. U.S. Postage PAID Portland OR
Permit No. 3142

Subscription Renewal '..
Subscriptions expire after the issue shown on theJabel is mailed. For example, if the label says: EXPIRES 02/2006, then the subscription expires after the February 2006 issues is mailed. Please renew at least 2 months before the expiration date. IF THE LABEL SAYS EXPIRES: 04/2009 THIS IS YOUR LAST ISSUE. Please renew immediately to avoid missing any issues.

Change of Address If you move or are transfered, please notify PLN as soon as possible so your issues can be mailed to your new address! PLN only accepts responsibility for sending an issue to the address provided at the time an issue is mailed!

~ PLN's website offers all issues of PLN in both searchable database and PDF formats. Issues are indexed and posted as soon as they go to press.
~ Publications section has numerous downloadable government reports, audits and investigations from around the country.
~ Full text decisions of thousands of court cases, published and unpublished.
~ All content is easy to print for downloading and mailing to prisoners.
~ Most complete collection of prison and jail related verdicts and settlements anywhere.
~ Order booksl print subscriptions and make donations on line.

~ Brief bank with a wide assortment of winning motionsl briefs, complaints and settlements.
~ Links to thousands of prison, jail, criminal justice and legal websites around the world.
~ Thousands of articles and cases, all fully indexed by more than 500 subjects, searchable by case name, case year, state of origin, court, authorl locationl case outcome, PLN issue and key word search.
~ Search free, pay only if you find it! ~ The highest qualitYI most comprehensive
prison litigation news and research site in the world.
Affordable rates to meet your budget
$14.95 per month • $99.95 per year

Subscribe to Prison legal News Online! http://www.prisonlegalnews.org

r

Page 2P8L1NCOL-00356

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 9 of 60

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBITMM
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 282

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 10 of 60
-_-__...
_.. - .--' - '
....
__ . .
-_..-.-..-...-.......
---0-9.."..'
_.-.--. ~-.
----.......
Page 2P8L3NCOL-00358

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 11 of 60

VOL. 20 No. '5
ISSN 1075-7678

De,dicated to Protecting Human Rights

May 2009

Sexual Abuse by Prison and Jail Staff Proves Persistent, Pandemic

by Gary Hunter

Sexual assault, rape, indecency, deviance. These terms represent reprehensible behavior in.our society. They also represent recurring themes in our nation's prisons n0t only by prisoners, but also by guards and other staff members. P LN's August 2006 cover story, Guards Rape of Prisoners Rampant, No Solution in Sight, profiled examples of sexual abuse by prison guards and other employees in 26 states. Since that time the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission has issued proposed standards to reduce sexual abuse behind bars, and the Bureau of Justice Statistics has released reports on sexual victimization in our

California Parole Law Passes

12

Maryland Prison Problems Persist

14

Kids Jailed by Bribed Judges

20

Texas Youth Prisons Grow

24

Phoenix Jail Still Unconstitutional

28

Hawaii Trust Fund Ruling

29

Prisoners Get Out the Vote

34

Prison Television Switchover

37

Missouri Abortion Ban Illegal

40

Bivens Suits Barred Against CCA

46

Unicor Wins Copyright Suit

48

News in Brief

50

BOP Guards Sentenced in Beating

52

nation's prisons and jails. The latter reports found that over 60% of allegations of sexual abuse involved staff members rather than other prisoners.
What has not changed in the past several years is the continued rape and sexual exploitation of prisoners by prison and jail employees who are supposed to ensure their safety. All 50 states have enacted laws criminalizing sex between prisoners and prison staff; thus, employees who engage in sexual misconduct can no longer claim consent as a defense.
Due to the nature of prisons as "total institutions," it is impossible for prisoners to voluntarily consent to sexual advances by staff members who exert complete control over their lives - and in sonie cases over their release from prison.
Past issues of PLN have pushed this significant problem to the forefront. We would like to report that exposure of this issue'has eased the problem. It hasn't. We would like to say our continued coverage on this subject has deterred sex.ual abuse by prison staff. It didn't.
Prison and jail employees are more out of control than ever. From state to state, north to south, east to west, sexual .misconduct by guards and other staff members continues to weave its way through the fabric of our nation's prisons. A common thread of rape, debauchery and even sexual torture is present in detention facilities nationwide.
This time we bring you recent reports from 39 states, which constitute only a fraction of the tragic truth about rape and sexual abuse by prison and jail workers. Indeed, it would easily be possible to publish a monthly magazine consisting

of nothing but substantiated reports of the sexual assault of prisoners by their captors. It also illustrates the shortcom-: ings of the PREA which contains no real enforcement mechanism to stop or deter sexual assaults, merely the collection of data self reported by the agencies holding the prisoners. But one result is we may now have slightly better data than we did before in a central location.
Arizona
Former prison guard Elsa Gutierrez, 33, was booked into the Yuma County Jail on October 1, 2008 after being charged with unlawful sexual conduct with a male prisoner. She had been employed at the Arizona State Prison Complex.
On November 7, 2008, Steve Edward Hiser was arrested and charged with six . counts of sex crimes involving female prisoners. He was a maintenance worker at the Eddie Warrior Correctional Center when the incidents occurred; t!le charges include sexual battery, indecent exposure, forcible oral sodomy, sexual battery and rape by instrumentation. Hiser posted a $15,000 bond; his case is still pending.
Arkansas
Former Arkansas DOC psychologist Anna Clark, 57, was convicted of thirddegree sexual assault after being caught in the act of sexual intercourse with prisoner Dan Burns. In a taped confession Clark admitted that she had sex several times with Burns, who was diagnosed as depressed and suicidal. She was sentenced in August 2007 to three years in prison and her conviction was upheld by the state Supreme Court on Sept. 25, 2008 [See: Clark

Prison Legal News

1

May 2009

r

Page 2P8L4NCOL-00359

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 12 of 60

Prison Legal News
2400 NW 80th Street #148 Seattle, WA 98117
Change Service Requested

Non-Profit Org. U.S. Postage PAID Portland OR
Permit No. 3142

Subscription Renewal Subscriptions expire after the issue shown on thelabel is mailed. For example, if the label says: EXPIRES 0212000, then the subscription expires after the February 2006 issues is mailed. Please renew at least 2 months before the expiration date. IF THE LABEL SAYS EXPIRES: 04/2009 THIS IS YOUR LAST ISSUE. Please renew immediately to avoid missing any issues.

Change of Address If you move or are transfered, please notify PLN as soon as possible so your issues can be mailed to your new address! PLN only accepts responsibility for sending an issue to the address provided at the time an issue is mailed!

~ PLN's website offers all issues of PLN in both searchable database aQd PDF formats. Issues are indexed and posted as soon as they go to press.
~ Publications section has numerous downloadable government reports, audits and investigations from around the country.
~ Full text decisions of thousands of court cases, published and unpublished.
~ All content is easy to print for downloading and mailing to prisoners.
~ Most complete collection of prison and jail related verdicts and settlements anywhere.
~ Order books, print subscriptions and make donations on line.

~ Brief bank with a wide assortment of winning motions, briefs, complaints and settlements.
~ Links to thousands of prison, jaaiilt, criminal justice and legal websites around the world.
~ Thousands of articles and cases, all fully indexed by more than 500 subjects, searchable by case name, case year, state of origin, court, author, location, case outcome, PLN issue and key word search.
~ Search free, pay only if you find it! ~ The highest quality, most comprehensive
prison litigation news and research site in the world.
Affordable rates to meet your budget
$14.95 per month. $99.95 per year

Subscribe to Prison legal News Online! http://www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 2P8L5NCOL-00360

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 13 of 60

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBIT
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 286

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 14 of 60
PLNCOL-00346

Prison Legal News

PO Box 2420

~

West Brattleboro VT 05303

6'1'3112(,1\-13,,1*0*"T\NEMrPO\..*E*

5
2-0\ \ 000 2-9

co\..UM6\A CO JA\\..

gO\ poRI p..v.£

5

Sf \-IE\..ENS, OREGON 970 \

~' '~"/' /,,:

.

' ',,< ' '"" "":".."

",

~
5i
:>
;,:) )RG. ..laid 'Iews '1'+-7

Page 287

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 15 of 60

VOL. 20 No.5
ISSN 1075-7678

D~cjicated to Protecting Human Rights

May 2009

Sexual Abuse by Prison and Jail Staff Proves Persistent, Pandemic

by Gary HUllter

Sexual assault, rape, indecency, deviance. These terms represent reprehensible behavior in pur society. They also represent recurring themes in our nation's prisons not only by prisoners, but also by guards and other staff members. PLN's August 2006 cover story, Guards Rape of Prisoners Rampant, No Solution in Sight, prO"filed examples of sexual abuse by prison guards and other employees in 26 states. Since that time the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission has issued proposed standards to reduce sexual abuse behind bars, and the Bureau of Justice Statistics has released reports on sexual victimization in our

California Parole Law Passes

12

Maryland Prison Problems Persist

14

Kids Jailed by Bribed Judges

20

Texas Youth Prisons Grow

24

Phoenix Jail Still Unconstitutional

28

Hawaii Trust Fund Ruling

29

Prisoners Get Out the Vote

34

Prison Television Switchover

37

Missouri Abortion Ban Illegal

40

Bivens Suits Barred Against CCA

46

Unicor Wins Copyright Suit

48

News in Brief

50

BOP Guards Sentenced in Beating

52

nation's prisons and jails. The latter re- of nothing but substantiated reports of

ports found that over 60% of allegations the sexual assault of prisoners by their

of sexual abuse involved staff members captors. It also illustrates the shortcom-

rather than other prisoners.

ings of the PREA which contains no real

What has not changed in the past sev- enforcement mechanism to stop or deter

eral years is the'.continued rape and sexual sexual assaults, merely the collection of

exploitation of prisoners by prison and data self reported by the agencies holding

jail employees who are supposed to ensure the prisoners. But one result is we may

their safety. All 50 states have enacted laws, now have slightly better data than we did

criminalizing sex between prisoners and before in a central location.

prison staff; thus, employees who engage in sexual misconduct can no longer claim

Arizona

consent as a defense.

Former prison guard Elsa Gutierrez,

Due to the nature of prisons as "total 33, was booked into the Yuma County Jail

institutions," it is impossible for prisoners on October 1, 2008 after being charged

to voluntarily consent to sexual advances with unlawful sexual conduct with a male

by staff members who exert complete prisoner: She had been employed at the

control over their lives - and in some cases Arizona State Prison Complex.

over their release from prison.

On November 7, 2008, Steve Edward

Past issues of PLN have pushed'this Hiser was arrested and charged with six •

significant problem to the forefront. We counts of sex crimes involving female

would like to report that exposure of this prisoners. He was a maintenance worker

issue has eased the problem. It hasn't. We at the Eddie Warrior Correctional Center

would like to say our continued, coverage when the incidents occurred; the charges

on this subject has deterred sexual abuse include sexual battery, indecent exposure,

by prison staff. It didn't.

"

forcible oral sodomy, sexual battery and

Prison and jail employees are more rape by instrumentation. Hiser posted a

out of control than ever. From state to $15,000 bond; his case is still pending.

state, north to south, east to west, sexual misconduct by guards and other staff

Arkansas

members continues to weave its way

Former Arkansas DOC psychologist

through the fabric of our nation's prisons. Anna Clark, 57, was convicted of third-

A common thread of rape, debauchery degree sexual assault after being caught

and even sexual torture is present in deten- in the act of sexual intercourse with pris-

tion facilities nationwide.

oner Dan Burns. In a taped confession

This time we bring you recent reports Clark admitted that she had sex several

from 39 states, which constitute only a times with Burns, who was diagnosed as

fraction of the tragic truth about rape depressed and suicidal. She was sentenced

and sexual abuse by prison and jail work- in August 2007 to three years in prison and

ers. Indeed, it would easily be possible to her conviction was upheld by the state Su-

publish a monthly magazine consisting preme Court on Sept. 25, 2008 [See: Clark

Prison Legal News

1

May 2009

Page 2P8L8NCOL-00347

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 16 of 60

Prison Legal News
2400 NW 80th Street #148 Seattle, WA 98117
Change Service Requested

Non-Profit Org. U.S. Postage PAID Portland OR
Permit No. 3142

Subscription Renewal Subscriptions expire after the issue shown on the ~abel is mailed. For example, if the label says: EXPIRES 02/2006~ then the sub-
scription expires after the February 2006 issues is mailed. Please
renew at least 2 months before the expiration date. IF THE LABEL SAYS EXPIRES: 04/2009 THIS IS YOUR LAST ISSUE. Please renew immediately to avoid missin~,any issues.

Change of Address If you move or are transfered, please notify PLN as soon as possible so your issues can be mailed to your new address! PLN only accepts responsibility Jor sending an issue to the address provided at the time an issue is mailed!

~ PLN's website offers all issues of PLN in both searchable database al"!d PDF formats. Issues are indexed and posted as soon as they go to press.
~ Publications section has numerous downloadable government reports, audits and investigations from around the country.
~ Full text decisions of thousands of court cases, published and unpublished.
~ All content is easy to print for downloading and mailing to prisoners.
~ Most complete collection of prison and jail related verdicts and settlements anywhere.
~ Order books, print subscriptions and make donations on line.

~ Brief bank with a wide assortment of winning motions, briefs, complaints and settlements.
~ Links to thousands of prison, jail, criminal justice and legal websites around the world.
~ Thousands of articles and cases, all fully indexed by more than 500 subjects, searchable by case name, case year, state of origin, court, author, location, case outcome, PLN issue and key word search.
~ Search free, pay only if you find it! ~ The highest quality, most comprehensive
prison litigation news and research site in the world.
Affordable rates to meet your budget
$14.95 per month • $99.95 per year

Subscribe to Prison legal News Online! http://www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 2P8L9NCOL-00348

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 17 of 60

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBIT 00
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 290

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 18 of 60 Page 291

Prison Legal News PO Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303
~?;r.
r'"0
Z
o(')
r b o
W .!:>-
J:0
f~::-:

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 19 of 60

VOL. 20 No.5
ISSN 1075-7678

Dec!icated to Protecting Human Rights

May 2009

Sexual Abuse by Prison and Jail Staff Proves Persistent, Pandemic

by Gary Hunter

Sexual assault, rape, indecency, deviance. These terms represent reprehensible behavior in our society. They also represent recurring themes in our nation's prisons - not only by prisoners, but also by guards and other staff members. PLN's August 2006 cover story, Guards Rape of Prisoners Rampant, No Solution in Sight, profiled examples of sexual abuse by prison guards and other employees in 26 states. Since that time the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission has issued proposed standards to reduce sexual abuse behind bars, and the Bureau of Justice Statistics has released reports on sexual victimization in our

California Parole Law Passes

12

Maryland Prison Problems Persist

14

Kids Jailed by Bribed Judges

20

Texas Youth Prisons Grow

24

Phoenix Jail Still Unconstitutional

28

Hawaii Trust Fund Ruling

29

Prisoners Get Out the Vote

34

Prison Television Switchover

37

Missouri Abortion Ban Illegal

40

Bivens Suits Barred Against CCA

46

Unicor Wins Copyright Suit

48

News in Brief

50

BOP Guards Sentenced in Beating

52

nation's prisons and jails. The latter reports found that over 60% of allegations of sexual abuse involved staff members rather than other prisoners.
What has notchanged in the past several years is the-.continued rape and sexual exploitation of prisoners by prison and jail employees who are supposed to ensure . their safety. All 50 states have enacted laws criminalizing sex between prisoners and·· prison staff; thus, employees who engage in sexual misconduct can no longer claim consent as a defense.
Due to the nature of prisons as "total institutions," it is impossible for prisoners to voluntarily consent to sexual advances by staff members who exert complete control over their lives and in some cases over their release from prison.
Past issues of PLN have pushed this significant problem to the forefront. We would like to report that exposure of this issue has eased the problem. It hasn't. We would like to say our continued coverage on this subject has deterred sexual abuse by prison staff. It didn't.
Prison and jail employees are more out of control than ever. From state to state, north to south, east to west, sexual misconduct by guards and other staff "members continues to weave its way through the fabric of our nation's prisons. A common thread of rape, debauchery and even sexual torture is present in detention facilities nationwide.
This time we bring you recent reports from 39 states, which constitute only a fraction of the tragic truth about rape and sexual abuse by prison and jail workers. Indeed, it would easily be possible to publish a monthly magazine consisting

of nothing but substantiated reports of the sexual assault of prisoners by their captors. It also illustrates the shortcomings of the PREA which contains no real enforcement mechanism to stop or deter sexual assaults, merely the collection of data self reported by the agencies holding the prisoners. But one result is we may now have slightly better data than we did before in a central location.
Arizona
Former prison guard Elsa Gutierrez, 33, was booked into the Yuma County Jail on October 1, 2008 after being charged with unlawful sexual conduct with a male prisoner: She had been employed at the Arizona State Prison Complex.
On November 7,2008, Steve Edward Hiser was arrested and charged with six counts of sex crimes involving female prisoners. He was a maintenance worker at the Eddie Warrior Correctional Center when the incidents occurred; the charges include sexual battery, indecent exposure, forcible oral sodomy, sexual battery and rape by instrumentation. Hiser posted a $15,000 bond; his case is still pending.
Arkansas
Former Arkansas DOC psychologist Anna Clark, 57, was convicted of thirdd~gree sexual assault after being caught in the act of sexual intercourse with prisoner Dan Burns. In a taped confession Clark admitted that she had sex several times with Burns, who was diagnosed as depressed and suicidal. She was sentenced in August 2007 to three years in prison and her conviction was upheld by the state Supreme Court on Sept. 25, 2008 [See: Clark

Prison Legal News

1

May 2009

r

Page 2P9L2NCOL-00343

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 20 of 60

Prison Legal News
2400 NW 80th Street #148 Seattle, WA 98117
Change Service· Requested

Non-Profit Org. U.S. Postage PAID Portland OR
Permit No. 3142

Subscription Renewal Subscriptions expire after the issue shown on the label is mailed. For example, if the label says: EXPIRES 02/2006, then the subscription expires after the February 2006 issues is mailed. Please renew at least 2 months before the expiration date. IF THE LABEL SAYS EXPIRES: 04/2009 THIS IS YOUR LAST ISSUE. Please renew immediately to avoid missing any issues.

Change of Address If you move or are transfered, please notify PLN as soon as possible so your issues can be mailed to your new address! PLN only accepts responsibility , .' for sending an issue to the address provided at the time an issue is mailed!

~ PLN's website offers all issues of PLN in both searchable database and PDF formats.lssues are indexed and posted as soon as they go to press.
~ Publications section has numerous downloadable government reports, audits and investigations from around the country.
~ Full text gecisions of thousands of court cases, published and unpublished.
~ All content is easy to print for downloading and mailing to prisoners.
~ Most complete collection of prison and jail related verdicts and settlements anywhere.
~ Order books, print subscriptions and make donations on line.

~ Brief bank with a wide assortment of winning motions, briefs, complaints and settlements.
~ Links to thousands of prison, jail, criminal justice and legal websites around the world.
~ Thousands of articles and cases, all fully indexed by more than 500 subjects, searchable by case name, case year, state of origin, court, author, location, case outcome, PLN issue and key word search.
~ Search free, pay only if you find it! ~ The highest quality, most comprehensive
prison litigation news and research site in the world.
Affordable rates to meet your budget
$14.95 per month • $99.95 per year

Subscribe to Prison legal News Online! http://www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 2P9L3NCOL-00344

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 21 of 60

9870.05 fa246305

E RIBI PP
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 294

,
L '
- u
r Z
(")o
r
o 6
N o
< 0
·r~·

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 22 of 60 Page 295

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 23 of 60

.
I

VOL. 20 No.7
ISSN 1075-7678

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights

July 2009

Preserving the Rule of Law in America's Jails and Prisons: The Case for Amending the Prison Litigation Reform Act

by Margo Schlallger alld Giovalilla Shay**

Prisons and jails pose a significant - In the absence of other levers by which
- challenge to the rule of law within these ordinary norms can be encouraged,

American boundaries. As a nation, we are lawsuits, which bring judicial scrutiny

c~mmitted to constitutional regulation behind bars, and which promote or even

of governmental treatment of even those compel constitutional compliance, ac-

who have broken society's rules. And ac- cordingly take on an outsize importance.

cordingly, many of our prisons and jails Unfortunately, over the past twelve years,

are run by dedicated professionals who it has become apparent that a number

care about prisoner welfare and consti- of provisions of the Prison Litigation

tutional compliance. At the same time, Reform Act ("PLRA")I cast shadows of

for'prisons-closed institutions holding an constitutional immunity, contravening

ever-growing disempowered population- our core commitment to constitutional

_most of the methods by which we, as a. governance. The PLRA's obstacles to

polity, foster government accountability meritorious lawsuits are undermining

and equality among citizens are unavail- the rule of law in our prisons and jails,

able or at least not currently practiced. granting the government near-impunity

to violate the rights of prisoners without fear of consequences. - , ,

This damage to the rule of law in

From the Editor

America's prisons is occurring even 10 as those prisons have grown in their

Texas Exonerates Dead Man The ADA and Deaf Prisoners

12 importance-both because of the nation's increasing incarcerated popUlation (the
14 world's largest) and the sharpening inter-

Immigrant Criminality Exposed USSC Rules on Supervisory Liability

16 national focus on American treatment of prisoners, both domestically and abroad.
18 Amendment is urgently needed. In recent

Corrupt Oregon Food Manager Flees

20

months numerous advocates and organizations have urged reform.2 Indeed, a bill

Habeas Hints

24 offered in the last Congress, the Prison

New Mexico Abolishes the Death Penalty 28

Abuse Remedies Act-of 2007, H.R. 4109, 110th Congo (2008), would offer some

Female Informant Raped by BOP Guards 36 moderate fixes to the most pressing prob-

PLN Sues Los Angeles County

lems created by the PLRA. In this Article, 39 we discuss three of these problems. First,

PA Sex Offender Ordinance Enjoined Texas Parole Law Upheld

46 the PLRA's ban on awards of compensatory damages for "mental or emotional
48 injury suffered while in custody without

News in Brief

51 a prior showing of physical injury" has obstructed judicial remediation of reli-

gious discrimination, coerced sex, and other constitutional violations typically unaccompanied by physical injury, un<;lermining the regulatory regime that is supposed to prevent such abuses. Second, the PLRA's provision barring federal lawsuits by prisoner plaintiffs who have failed to comply with their jails' or prisons' internal grievance procedures-no matter how difficult, futile, or dangerous such compliance might be for them-obstructs rather than promotes constitutional oversight of conditions of confinement. It strongly encourages prison and jail authorities to come up with ever-higher procedural hurdles in order to foreclose subsequent litigation. Third, the application of the PLRA's limitations to juveniles incarcerated in juvenile institutions has rendered those institutions largely immune from judicial oversight because so few young people are able to follow the complex requirements imposed by the statute, and compliance by their parents or guardians on their behalf has been deemed legally insufficient. Each of these three problems disrupts accountability and enforcement of constitutional compliance.
Below, we discuss these issues in some depth. But it is important to mention in preface what we see as the primary salutary effect of the PLRA-its lightening of the burdens imposed on jail and prison officials by frivolous litigation. Pro se prisoner lawsuits in federal court al,e numerous, often lack legal merit, and pose real management challenges both for: courts and for correctional authorities. Congress passed the PLRA in order to deal with this problem.3 This has in fact

Prison Legal News

1

July 2009

Page 2P9L6NCOL-00210

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 24 of 60

Prison Legal News
2400 NW 80th Street #148 Seattle, WA 98117
Change Service Requested

';,1
Non-Profit Org. U.S. Postage PAID Portland OR
Permit No. 3142

Subscription Renewal Subscriptions expire after the issue shown onthe label is mailed. For example, if the label says: EXPIRES 02/2006, then the subscription expires after the February 2006 issues is mailed. Please renew at least 2 months before the expiration date. IF THE LABEL SAYS EXPIRES: 07/2009 THIS IS YOUR LAST ISSUE. Please renew immediately to avoid missing any issues.

Change of Address If you move or are transfered, please notify PLN as soon as possible so your issues can be mailed to your new address! PLNonly accepts responsibility for sending an issue to the address provided at the time an issue is mailed!

~ PLN's website offers all issues of PLN in both searchable database and PDF formats. Issues are indexed and posted as soon as they go to press.
~ Publications section has numerous downloadable government reports, audits and investigations from around the country.
~ Full text decisions of thousands of court cases, published and unpublished.
~ All content is easy to print for downloading and mailing to prisoners.
~ Most complete collection of prison and jail related verdicts and settlements anywhere.
~ Order books, print subscriptions and make donations on line.

~ Brief bank with a wide assortment of winning motions, briefs, complaints and settlements.
~ Links to thousands of prison, jail, criminal justice and legal websites around the world.
~ Thousands of articles and cases, all fully indexed by more than 500 subjects, searchable by case name, case year, state of origin, court, author,location, case outcome, PLN issue and key word search.
~ Search free, pay only if you find it!
~ The highest quality, most comprehensive prison litigation news and research site in the world.
Affordable rates to meet your budget
$14.95 per month • $99.95 per year

Subscribe to Prison Legal News Online! http://www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 2P9L7NCOL-00211

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 25 of 60

9870,05 fa246305

E HIBIT
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 298

-~".
g~il~f5i"~""M,=E"="~ ij L.gv;~·">'-A-<~.~n Bf\~"i"~''\JH"VY~ 1~r~~'1-F-'"t,:,-U. 0g0"';,--.V.. . ~5~1;~:2~=O
rrr Vt'V~yY~vl~l+. ~~~"kv>ja>+~H~t..hf5".V.,~,·V;r~-U"t{"" ~\V ~
o5 9 0 '=- vqO··~__.rt"::"),=Arg",.

:l'
.,.
"I.~.
. ...,

59579

****

NNEEWW

****

EEXXPPIIRREESS::

77 // 11

1 55//22001

1

55SH9H5AA7NN9EE MMCCNNUUTTTT 22 0011110000001199'33;"

CCOOLLUUMMBBIIAA CCOO JJAAIILL

''0'

901 PORT AVE 5ST HELENS, OREGON 97051-

As of April 1, 2010 The Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS

Page 2P9L9NCOL-00212

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 27 of 60

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. ,

",J

I

VOL. 20 No.7
ISSN 1075-7678

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights

July 2009

Preserving"the Rule of Law in America's Jails and Prisons: The Case for Amending the Prison Litigation Reform Act

by Margo Selliallger alld Giovalllia SlIay*-J:

Prisons and jails pose a significant challenge to the rule of law within American~ boundaries. As a nation, we are committed to constitutional regulation of governmental treatment of even those who have broken society's rules. And accordingly, many of our prisons and jails are run by dedicated professionals 'Who care about prisoner welfare and constitutionalcompliance. At the same time, for prisons-closed institutions holding an ever-growing disempowered populationmost of the methods by which we, as a polity, foster government accountability and equality among citizens are unavailable or at least not currently practiced.

From the Editor

10

Texas Exonerates Dead Man

12

The ADA and Deaf Prisoners

14

Immigrant Criminality Exposed

16

USSC Rules on Supervisory Liability 18

Corrupt Oregon Food Manager Flees 20

Habeas Hints

24

New Mexico Abolishes the Death Penalty 28

Female Informant Raped by BOP Guards 36

PLN Sues Los Angeles County

39

PA Sex Offender Ordinance Enjoined 46

Texas Parole Law Upheld

48

News in Brief

51

In the absence of other levers by which these ordinary norms can be encouraged, lawsuits, which bring judicial scrutiny behind bars, and which promote or even compel constitutional compliance, ac.cordingly take on an outsize importance. Unfortunately, over the past twelve years, it has become apparent that a number of provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA")I cast shadows of constitutional immunity, contravening our core commitment to constitutional governance. The PLRA's obstacles to meritorious lawsuits are undermining the rule of law in our prisons and jails, granting the government near-impunity to violate the rights of prisoners without fear of consequences.
This damage to the rule of law in America's prisons is occurring even as those prisons have grown in their importance-both because of the nation's increasing incarcerated population (the world's largest) and the sharpening international focus on American treatment of prisoners, both domestically and abroad. Amendment is urgently needed. In recent months numerous advocates and organizations have urged reform.2 Indeed, a bill offered in the last Congress, the Prison Abuse Remedies Act of 2007, H.R. 4109, 110th Congo (2008), would offer some moderate fixes to the most pressing problems created by the PLRA. In this Article, we discuss three of these problems. First, the PLRA's ban on awards of compensatory damages for "mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury" has obstructed judicial remediation of reli-

gious discrimination, coerced sex, and

other constitutional violations typically

unaccompanied by physical injury, un-

dermining the regulatory regime that is

supposed to prevent such abuses. Second,

the PLRA's provision barring federal law-

suits by prisoner plaintiffs who have failed

to comply with theirjails' or prisons' inter-

nal grievance procedures-no matter how

difficult, futile, 01: dangerous such compli-

ance might be for them-obstructs rather

than promotes constitutional oversight

of conditions of confinement. It strongly

encourages prison and jail authorities

to come up with ever-higher procedural

hurdles in order to foreclose subsequent

litigation. Thirfl, :the application of the

PLRA's limitations to juveniles incarcer-

ated in juvenile institutions has rendered

those institutions largely immune from

judicial oversight because so few young

people are able to follow the complex

requirements imposed by the statute, and

compliance by their parents or guardians

on their behalf has been deemed legally

insufficient. Each of these three probleJ;11S

disrupts accountability and enforcement

of constitutional compliance.

'

Below, we discuss these issues in some

depth. But it is important to mention

in' preface what we see as the prilmlry

salutary effect of the PLRA-its lighten-

ing of the burdens imposed on jail l:lnd

prison officials by frivolous litigation.

Pro se prisoner lawsuits in federal court

are numerous, often lack legal merit, and

pose real management challenges both for

courts and for correctional authorities.

Congress passed the PLRA in order to

deal with this problem.3 This has in fact

Prison Legal News

1

July 2009

Page 3P0L0NCOL-00213

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 28 of 60

Prison Legal News
2400 NW 80th Street #148 Seattle, WA 98117
Change Service Requested

Non-Profit Org. U.S. Postage·
PAID Portland OR Permit No. 3142

.

Subscription Renewal

Subscriptions expire after the issue shown on the label is mailed.

For example, if the label says: EXPIRES 02/2006, then the sub-

scription expires after the February 2006 issues is mailed. Please

renew at least 2 months before the expiration date. IF THE LA-

BEL SAYS EXPIRES: 07/2009 THIS IS YOUR LAST ISSUE.

Please renew immediately to avoid missing any issues.

Change of Address If you move or are transfered, please notify PLN as soon as possible so your issues can be mailed to your new address! PLN only accepts responsibility for sending an issue to the address provided at the time an issue is mailed!

~ PLN's website offers all issues of PLN in both searchable database and PDF formats. Issues are indexed and posted as soon as they go to press.
~ Publications section has numerous downloadable government reports, audits and investigations from around the country.
~ Full text decisions of thousands of court cases, published and unpublished.
~ All content is easy to print for downloading and mailing to prisoners.
~ Most complete coilection of prison and jail related verdicts and settlements anywhere.
~ Order books, print subscriptions and make donations· on line.

~ Brief bank with a wide assortment of winning motions, briefs, complaints and settlements.
~ Links to thousands of prison, jail, criminal justice and legal websites around the world.
~ Thousands of articles and cases, all fully indexed by more than 500 subjects, searchable by case name, case year, state of origin, court, author, location, case outcome, PLN issue and key word search.
~ Search free, pay only if you find it! ~ The highest quality, most comprehensive
prison litigation news and research site in the world.
Affordable rates to meet your budget
$14.95 per month • $99.95 per year

Subscribe to Prison Legal News Online! http://www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 3P0L1NCOL-00214

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 29 of 60

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBITRR
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 302

.!,~.

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 30 of 60 Page 303

lrJ
Z o o
r;-
o o N o
W

· .:~

, ,I

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 31 of 60

i
:'

I

VOL. 20 No.7
ISSN 1075-7678

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights

July 2009

Preserving the Rule of Law in America's Jails and Prisons: The Case for Amending the Prison Litigation Reform Act

by Margo Sclliallger·alld Giovalllia Sllay**

Prisons and jails pose a significant challenge to the rule of law within American boundaries. As a nation, we are committed to constitutional regulation of governmental treatment of even those who have broken society's rules. Andaccordingly, many of our prisons and jails are run by dedicated professionals', who care about prisoner welfare and constitutional compliance. At the same time, for prisons-closed institutions holding an ever-growing disempowered populationm,ost of the methods by which we, as a polity, foster government accountability and equality among citizens are unavaila.ble oi' a, t least not currently practiced.

From the Editor

10

Texas ExoneratesDead Man

12

The ADA and Deaf Prisoners

14

Immigrant Criminality Exposed

16

USSC Rules on Supervisory Liability 18

Corrupt Oregon Food Manager Flees 20

Habeas Hints

24

New Mexico Abolishes the Death Penalty 28

Female Informant Raped by BOP Guards 36

PLN Sues Los Angeles County

39

PA Sex Offender Ordinance Enjoined 46

Texas Parole Law Upheld

48

News in Brief

51

In the absence of other levers by which gious discrimination, coerced sex, and

these ordinary norms can be encouraged, other constitutional violations typically

lawsuits, which bring judicial scrutiny unaccompanied by physical injury, un-

behind bars, and which promote or even dermining the regulatory regime that is

compel constitutional compliance, ac- supposed to prevent such abuses. Second,

cordingly take on an outsize importance. the PLRA's provision barring federal law-

Unfortunately, over the past twelve years, suits by prisoher phlintiffs who have failed

it has become apparent that a number to comply withtheir jails' or prisons' inter-

of provisions of the Prison Litigation nal grievance procedures-no matter how

Refoi'm Act ("PLRA")' cast shadows of difficult, futile, or dangerous such compli-

constitutional immunity, contravening ance might be for them-obstructs rather

our core commitment to constitutional than promotes constitutional oversight

governance. The PLRA's obstacles to of conditions of confinement. It strongly

meritorious lawsuits are undermining encourages prison and jail authorities

the rule of law in our prisons and jails, to come up with ever-higher procedural

granting the government near-impunity hurdles in order to foreclose subsequent

to violate the rights of prisoners without litigation. Thitd, the application of the

fear of consequences.

PLRA's limItatIons to juveniles incarcer-

This damage to the rllleof law in ated in juvenile institutions has rendered

America's prisons is occurring even, those institutions largely immune from

as those prisons have grown in their judicial oversight because so few young

importance-both because of the nation's people are able to follow the complex

increasing incarcerated population (the requirements imposed by the statute, and

world's largest) and the sharpening inter- compliance by their parents or guardians

national focus on American treatment of on their behalf has been deemed legally

prisoners, both domestically and abroad. insufficient. Each of these three problems

Amendment is urgently needed. In recent disrupts accountability and enforcement

months numerous advocates and organi- of constitutional compliance.

zations have urged reform.2 Indeed, a bill

Below, we discuss these issues in some

offered in the last Congress, the Prison depth. But it is important to mention

Abuse Remedies Act of 2007, H.R. 4109, in preface what we see as the primary

110th Congo (2008), would offer some salutary effect of the PLRA-its lighten-

moderate fixes to the most pressing prob- ing of the burdens imposed on jail and

lems created by the PLRA. In this Article, prison officials by frivolous litigation.

we discuss three of these problems. First, Pro se prisoner lawsuits in federal court

the PLRA's ban on awards of compensa- are numerous, often lack legal merit, and tory d~l1nages for "mental or emotional pose real management challenges both for

injury suffered while in custody without courts and for correctional authorities.

a prior showing of physical injury" has Congress passed the PLRA in order to

obstructed judicial remediation of reli- deal with this problem.3 This has in fact

Prison Legal News

1

July 2009

Page 3P0L4NCOL-00204

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 32 of 60

·. Prison Legal News
2400NW 80th Street #148 Seattle, WA 98117
Change Service Requested

Non-Profit Org. U.S. Postage
PAID Portland OR
Permit No. 3142

I I

.

.

Subscription Renewal

Subscriptions expire after the issue shown on the label is mailed.

For example, if the label says: EXPIRES 02/2006, then the sub-

scription expires aftel~ the February 2006 issues is mailed. Please

renew at least 2 months before the expiration date. IF THE LA-

BEL SAYS EXPIRES: 07/2009 THIS IS YOUR LAST, ISSUE.

Please renew i111lilediately to avoid missing any issues.

Change of Address If you move or are transfered, please notify PLN as soon as possible so your issues can be mailed to your'new address! PLN only accepts responsibility for sending an issue to the address provided at the time an issue is mailed!

~ PLN's website 6ffers all issues of PLN in both searchable database and PDF formats. Issues are indexed and posted as soon as they go to press.
~ Publications section has numerous downloadable government reports, audits and investigations from around the country.
~ Full text decisions of thousands of court cases, published and unpublished.
~ All content is easy to print for downloading and mailing to prisoners.
~ Most complete collection of prison and jail related verdicts and settlements anywhere.
~ Ord~r book~, pririt.subscriptions
and make donations on line.

~ Brief bank with a wide assortment of winning motions, briefs, complaints and settlements.
~ Links to thousands of prison, jail, criminal justice and legal websites around the world.
~ Thousands of articles and cases, all fully indexed by more than 500 subjects, searchable by case name, case year, state of origin, court, author, location, case outcome, PLN issue and key word search.
~ Search free, pay only if you find it! ~ The highest quality, most comprehensive
prison litigation news and research site in the world.
Affordable rates to meet your budget
$14.95 per month • $99.95 per year

Subscribe to Prison Legal News Online! http::/!/wWw"'Ww.lpllrii!siOonlleegg,alnleew'ss..oorg

Page 3P0L5NCOL-00205

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 33 of 60

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBIT ......
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 306

NS Dyif~ 'fri~.':"~'-~";~t R;

~~ ;! ~~:~~ .:~-f .~ ~ ~ '.-! Eii

h! N-
i: _

t,,,~,,,'\1' Y-

~-
"'-

~

VVest Brattleboro vr F:(J~ "'2-0-' Di~~ u t> ';,~.y ...

Ir~ i"'"1'· -i r-¥ ~ ..A ,.._.Fe~l;Jo..I t..,rt

.

\1i1\lrt-ir~:'::::.h+. ~....·.."ia...~"t'_tii e-bo-ifI 'o

05303~?420

4c~

.. ~

.:. ~"UIRi~

.~ .

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 34 of 60 Page 3P0L7NCOL-00200

~V1~?~~:~'.;~,'r~~~ . ~ N.'..Ifno.tr~li.J-:fV:/t~fl-r:efo;j-iIi,'t);)!';'t-"/r':)Ie'tJI.d'."?>12".~'~"v=>lO.;.":aJ:";r'"\,:"f~-J'.~~"'f~..m~''-;J.'J,:"k~'~
59581 ** NE.W\"9~?~E;i~':·/15/Z0 1 Z
JASON QUADE ZO-1;Og()J,j 05 COLUMBIA CO JAIL '-<'9:;;"
901 PORT AVE ST HELENS. OREGON 97051

As of April 1,2010 The Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS
This appplies to ALL .~___~ncoming and out going mail
r·-~llwt =I=rURrA~~ TO t ~tF.tlE~~'JHL~g"-=FH;

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 35 of 60

I

VOL. 20 No.7
ISSN 1075-7678

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights

July 2009

Preserving the Rule of Law in America's Jails and Prisons: The Case for Amending the Prison Litigation Reform Act

by Margo Sciliallger and Giovalllla SIlay**

Prisons and jails pose a significant challenge to the rule of law within American boundaries. As a nation, we are committed to constitutional regulation of governmental treatment of even those who have broken society'S rules. And accordingly, many of our prisons and jails are run by dedicated professionals who care about prisoner welfare and constitutional compliance. At the same time, for prisons-closed institutions holding an ever-growing disempowered populationmost of the methods by which we, as a polity, foster government accountability and equality among citizens are unavailable or at least not currently practiced.

From the Editor

10

Texas Exonerates Dead Man

12

The ADA and Deaf Prisoners

14

Immigrant Criminality Exposed

16

USSC Rules on Supervisory Liability 18

Corrupt Oregon Food Manager Flees 20

Habeas Hints

24

New Mexico Abolishes the Death Penalty 28

Female Informant Raped by BOP Guards 36

PLN Sues Los Angeles County

39

PA Sex Offender Ordinance Enjoined 46

Texas Parole Law Upheld

48

News in Brief

51

In the absence of other levers by which gious discrimination, coerced sex, and

these ordinary norms can be encouraged, other constitutional violations typically

lawsuits, which bring judicial scrutiny. unaccompanied by physical injury, un-

behind bars, and which promote or even dermining the regulatory regime that is

compel constitutional compliance, ac- supposed to prevent such abuses. Second,

cordingly take on an outsize importance. the PLRA's provision barring federal law-

Unfortunately, over the past twelve years, suits by prisoner plaintiffs who have failed

it has become apparent that a number to comply with their jails' or prisons' inter-

of provisions of the Prison Litigation nal grievance procedures-no matter how

Reform Act ("PLRA")1 cast shadows of difficult, futile, or dangerous such compli-

constitutional immunity, contravening ance might be for them-obstructs rather

our core commitment to constitutional than promotes constitutional oversight

governance. The PLRA's obstacles to of conditions of confinement. It strongly

meritorious lawsuits are undermining encourages prison and jail authorities

the rule of law in our prisons and jails, to come up with ever-higher procedural

granting the government near-impunity hurdles in order to foreclose subsequent

to violate the rights of prisoners without litigation~ Third, the application of the

fear of consequences,

PLRA's limitations to juveniles incarcer-

This damage to the rule of law in ated in juvenile institutions has rendered

America's prisons is occurring even those institutions largely immune from

as those prisons have grown in their judicial oversight because so few young

importance-both because of the nation's people are able to follow the complex

increasing incarcerated population (the requirements imposed by the statute, and

world's largest) and the sharpening inter- compliance by their parents or guardians

national focus on American treatment of on their behalf has been deemed legally

prisoners, both domestically and abroad. insufficient. Each of these three problems

Amendment is urgently needed. In recent disrupts accountability and enforcement

months numerous advocates and organi- of constitutional compliance.

zations have urged reform.2 Indeed, a bill

Below, we discuss these issues in some

offered in the last Congress, the Prison depth. But it is important to mention

Abuse Remedies Act of 2007, H.R. 4109, in preface what we see as the primary

110th Congo (2008), would offer some salutary effect of the PLRA-its lighten-

moderate fixes to the most pressing prob- ing of the burdens imposed on jail and

lems created by the PLRA. In this Article, prison officials by frivolous litigation.

we discuss three of these problems. First, Pro se prisoner lawsuits in federal court

the PLRA's ban on awards of compensa- are numerous, often lack legal merit, and

tory damages for "mental or emotional pose real management challenges both for

injury suffered while in custody without courts and for correctional authorities.

a prior showing of physical injury" has Congress passed the PLRA in order to

obstructed judicial remediation of reli- deal with this problem.3 This has in fact

Prison Legal News

1

July 2009

Page 3P0L8NCOL-00201

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 36 of 60

'Prison Legal News
2400 NW 80th Street #148 Seattle, WA 98117
Change Service Requested

Non-Profit Org.
U.S. Postage PAID
Portland OR Permit No. 3142

Subscription Renewal Subscriptions expire after the issue shown on the label is mailed. For example, if the label says: EXPIRES 02/2006, then the subscription expires after the February 2006 issues is mailed. Please renew at least 2 months before the expiration date. IF THE LABEL SAYS EXPIRES: 07/2009 THIS IS YOUR LAST ISSUE. Please renew immediately to avoid missing any issues.

Change of Address .If you move or are transfered, please notify PLN as soon as possible so your issues can be mailed to your new ad:. dress! PLN only accepts responsibility for sending an issue to the address provided at the time an issue is mailed!

~ PLN's website offers all issues of PLN in both searchable database and PDF formats. Issues are indexed and posted as soon as they go to press.
~ Publications section has numerous downloadable government reports, audits and investigations from around the country.
~ Full text decisions of thousands of court cases, published and unpublished.
~ All content is easy to print for downloading and mailing to prisoners.
~ Most complete collection of prison and jail related verdicts and settlements anywhere.
~ Order books, priritsubscriptions and make donations on line.

~ Brief bank with a wide assortment of winning motions, briefs, complaints and settlements.
~ Links to thousands of prison, jail, criminal justice and legal websites around the world.
~ Thousands of articles and cases, all fully indexed by more than 500 subjects, searchable by case name, case year, state of origin, court, author, location, case outcome, PLN issue and key word search.
~ Search free, pay only if you find it! ~ The highest quality, most comprehensive
prison litigation news and research site in the world.
Affordable rates to meet your budget
$14.95 per month • $99.95 per year

Subscribe to Prison Legal News Online! http://www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 3P0L9NCOL-00202

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 37 of 60

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBIT TT
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRlGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 310

I
evvs Prison a~-,,r!~5,0'n- kLg .e-e.g~g~~-Ju~ ='NN~" \"i,V'~S
R,,"'"v D QQ~:-(:n ~!1~""'' u_~"u";,"--:;. ££~~,4.. .'-t~'")o-
VVest Brattleboro vr
05303-2420

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 38 of 60 Page 3P1L1NCOL-00224

_~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I " t. K ~""I1i-. IiE-1T~0 n~~~,I0~ln~i'ii\tt\.,~"l"';,c5

'"U~ 'i\i9l. "1n1 '~i",\ "Jj~"fi'FF"~~,~n~~ l.~i>l r='~•

B

'",,"" ""'"

"-=>'

'thel\c.o~ 1ouf ll\\l.bll.1railC1,0'Ul0l\1h~01J Ja1.l\lDS
,1'<1-'l A.CCf,y,\,S yOS'\'CA.
o 'this allll\ies to l\.·L1\L0 l\la.\\
il\CoIl\ing al\d oUt g()l t:O." " "

~~
Kt:l"J3~~;;-~ C:~iECKEO
!Jh-;1tifii~rl~",~Ftnf!Jsad ~
;ri~~~~~~;,~:~'~~~::~=,~: -:
14'0 !3"l:r.h SS~~{{~~))--::""tt......--rr$$--""""""'''''''''' Numt:.or--======--===-No SL~h t;rr~;B ~n Slaia ~=--=-=' Do K'6t R;;;ffiaH inls E~I~~I()?e_
SAWir Hi2'...ENS, OR gg';j0'50H5H~~99SS88

59582**NEW*~PEIxREP~ISR:77E~~/S~2if~'i"_02,1_ -1._0-_1_-1~ ---~

EZRA 5T HELEN

01 000 97

COLUMBIA Co JAIL

:

901 PORT AVE

/'

051

-'" --1~~~ ,--.-'

.......,.-/

l.II ,.",,"-

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 39 of 60

VOL~ 20 No.7
ISSN 1075-7678

Dedicated to:·Protecting.Human Rights

July 2009

Preserving the Rule of Law in America's Jails and Prisons: The Case for AQIending the Prison Litigation Reform Act

by Margo Sclliallger alld Giovalilla Sllay*'}:

Prisons and jails pose a significallt In the absence of other levers by which gious discrimination, coerced sex, and t~hallenge to the rule of law within these ordinary norm~ can be enccmniged, other cOllstitutional violations typically

American boundaries. As a nation, we are , lawsuits, which bring judicial scrutiny. unaccompanied 'by physical injury, un-

cOlnmitted to constitutional regulation behind bars, and which promote or even dermining the regulatory regime that is

of governmental treatment of even those compel constitutional compliance, ac- supposed to prevellt such abuses. Second,

w.ho·have broken society's rules. And ac- .' cordingly take on an outsize importance. the PLRA's provision barring federal law.;.

cordingly, many of our prisons and jails . Unfortunately, over the past twelve years, suits .by prisoner plaintiffs who have failed

are run by dedicated professionals who it has become apparent that a number to comply with their jails' or prisons' intercar~ about prisoner welfare and consti- of provisions of the Prison Litigation nal grievance procedures-no matter how

tutional compliance.. At the same time, Reform Act ("PLRA")l cast shadows of difficult, futile, or dangerous such compli-

for pris'ons-closed institutions holding an constitutional immunity, contravening ance might be for them-obstru~ts rather

ever-growing disempowered population- our core commitment to constitutional than promotes constitutional oversight

most of the methods by which we, as a governance. The PLRA's obstacles to of COllditions of confinement. It strongly

polity, foster'government accountability meritorious lawsuits are undermining encourages prison and jail authorities

and equality among citizens are unavail- the nile of law in our prisons and jails, to come up with ever-higher procedural

able'<or 'af lea.st not currently practiced. granting the government near-impunity hurdles in order to foreclose subsequent

to violate the rights of prisoners without litigation. i;'llird,' the application of the

fear of consequences. ,

PLRA's limitations· to juveniles incarcer-

This damage to the rule' of law in ated in juvfnll1e 'institutiolls has rendered

From the Editor

.10

America's prisons is occud'ing even those institutions largely immune from as those prisons have growil' In their judicial oversight becallseso few .young

Texas Exonerates Dead Man

12 importance-both because of the nation's people are able 'to' follow. the c.omplex

The ADA and Deaf Prisoners

increasing incarcerated population (the requirements imposed by the statute, and 14 world's largest) and the sharpening inter- compliance by their parents or guardians

Immigrant Criminality Exposed

16 mitional focus on American' treatment of on their behalf has beeri deemed legally prisoners, both domestically arid abroad. insufficient. Each of these three problems

USSC Rules on Supervisory Liability 18 Amendment is urgently needed. In ,recent disrupts aC'countability and enforcement

Corrupt Oregon Food Manager Flees 20 months numerous advocates and organi- of constitutional compliance.

zations have urged reform.2 Indeed, a bill

Below, we discuss these issues in some

Habeas Hints

24 offered in the last Congress, the Prison depth. But it is irrwortant to mention

Abuse Remedies Act of 2007, H.R. 4109, in preface what. we see as the primary New Mexico Abolishes the Death Penalty 28 110th Congo (2008), would offer some salutary effect of the PLRA-its lighten-

. Female Informant Raped by BOP Guards 36 moderate fixes to the most pressing prob- ing of the burdells imposed on jail and

PLN Sues Los Angeles County

lems created by the PLRA. In this Article, prison officials by frivolous litigation. 39 we discuss three of these problems. First, Pro se prisoner lawsuits in fedenil court

PA Sex Offender Ordinance Enjoined 46 the PLRA's ban on awards of compensa- are immerous, often lack legal merit, and tory damages for "mental or emotional pose real management challenges both for

Texas Paroli') Law Upheld

48 injury suffered while in custody without courts and for correctional authorities.

News in Brief

51 a prior showing of physical injury" has Congress passed the PLRA in order to obstructed judicial remediation of reli- deal with this problem.3 This has in fact

Prison Legal News

1

July 2009

PLNCOL-00225

Page 312

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 40 of 60

Prison Legal News
2400 NW 80th Street #148 Seattle, WA 98117
Change Service Requested

Non-Profit Org.
U.S. Postage PAID
Portland OR Permit No. 3142

Subscription Renewal Subscriptions expire after the issue shown on thelabel is mailed. For example, if the label says: EXPIRES 02/2006, thenJhe subscription expires after the February 2006 issues is mailed. Please renew at least 2 months before the expiration date. IF THE LA-
BEL SAYS EXPIRES: 07/2009 THIS IS YOUR LAST: ISSUE. Please renew immediately to avoid missing any issues.

Change of Address If you move or are transfered, please notifyPLN as soon as possible so your
issues can be mailed to your new address! PLN only accepts responsibility for sending an issue to the address provided at the time an issue is mailed!

~ PLN's website offers all issues of PLN in both searchable database and PDF formats. Issues are indexed and posted as soon as they go to press.
~ Publications section has numerous downloadable government reports, audits and investigations from around the country.
~ Full text decisions of thousands of court cases, published and unpublished.
~ All content is easy to print for downloading and mailing to prisoners.
~ Most complete collection of prison and jail related verdicts and settlementsanywhere.
~ Order books, print subscriptions and make donations on line.

~ Brief bank with a wide assortment of winning motions, briefs, complaints and settlements.
~ Links to thousands of prison, jail, criminal justice and legal websites around the world.
~ Thousands of articles and cases, all fully indexed by more than 500 subjects, searchable by case name, case year, state of origin, court;.author, location, case outcome, PLN issue and key word search.
~ Search free, pay only if you find it! ~ The highest quality, most comprehensive
prison litigation news and research site in the world.
Affordable rates to meet your budget
$14.95 per month • $99.95 per year

Subscribe to Prison Legal News Online!http://www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 3P1L3NCOL-00226

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 41 of 60

9870.05 fa246305

EXHIBITUU
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 314

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 42 of 60 Page 3P1L5NCOL-00227

g%~-rB~~~~'O- i~n L~ ~r-q~,..Ia---;;.~~ ~§~~!Ot\-~;·\~tib~
pr1 rU~1:\ t~w540v-XrV... ":?e';-,"4'".".I1t?c,."...O'0·'
VVest Brattleboro VT
05303=2420

?\\,., '" ~ .-~~\

~ ~ ,

"

\'

II \0 t'-

~

"':\ \ v =--""tn\>\\~ULnn ~la~:;"\

e~y ,",,.~ .,.~~.t, . ..,'(.."

\.
~ .

Il1 ~r\l \).

~~

~~
~fiA..:::G>i G!-;:::Ct(F.D
~tf~~illg;~::~ Unci\5irn!"·j.........-.~__Rs.ft;!3Gc ~~
t'!\!?f!!::t';-:d . Hot ;<nGwn ==:..__--=-......~=_
lr;~Li~[!\::l;1;;! AddfS8S ~._~_.-.~~
HG §:l~h __ ;~if;;':-lt., .L-.-"""''= N!lrflbsr~
N;;~ st;:r: (;~~lC0 ~:! ~;~:;:s .=~===:-.=-~ :00 ~:st ~:'~0~;~~:'i~ T~11s En\j~~Dpe ~
SAH~t 'HELENS. OR 97051-9928

§
jf
$-

20100~Ar4~8 59583 ** N

*xx* EXPIREsSi:./i1/155//22001111

55CCOOTTTTTTHHOOM MAASS 201000' 488

As of April 1, 2010 The Columbia County Jail

COLUMBIA Co JA 901 PORT AVE

1..,

ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS

7<1511

.~

This applies to ALL incoming and out going mail

«1~,..
"" 9',
~" ~

~

1
;,'
~

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 43 of 60

VOL. 20 No.7
ISSN 1075-7678

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights:

July 2009

Preserving the R~e of Law in America'S Jails and Prisons: The Case ,for Amending the Pri~onLitigation Reform Act

by Margo Schlallger alld Giovallila Slzay'Jd:

Prisons and jails pose, a sign,ificant dlallenge to the rule of law within American boundaries. As a nation, we are comlilitted to constitutional regulation of governmental treatment of even those who lutve broken society's i·ules. And accordingly, many of ol.ir prisons and jails ate run by dedicated professionals who car,e about prisoner welfare and constitutional compliance. At the same time, for prisons-closed institutions holding an ever-growing disempowered populationmost of the methods by which we, as a polity, foster government accountability and equality, among citizens are unavailable' ?l~at least not currently practiced.

From the Editor

10

Texas Exonerates Dead Man

12

The ADA and Deaf Prisoners

14

Immigrant Criminality Exposed

16

USSC Rules on Supervisory Liability 18

Corrupt Oregon Food Manager Flees 20

Habeas Hints

24

New Mexico Abolishes the Death Penalty 28

Female Informant Raped by-BOP Guards 36'

PLN Sues Los Angeles County

39

PA Sex Offender Ordinance Enjoined 46

Texas Parole Law Upheld

48

News in Brief

51

In the absence of other levers by which

these' ordinary norms can be encouraged,

lawsuits, which bring judicial scr:utiny

behind bars, and which promot,e or even compel constitutional compliance~ 'ac-

cordingly take on an,outsize iID:po~tance.

Unfortunately, over the past twelve years, it has become apparent that a l~U1nber

of provisions of, the Prison Litigation

Reforrp. Act ("PLRA")' cast shadows of

constitutional immunity, contravening

our core commitment to constitutional

governance. The PLRA's obstacles to

meritorious lawsuits are undermining tli~rule of law in our prisolls and jails,

granting' the government near-impu'nity

to ,violate the rights ofpr~sp:ners without

fear of conseqtlellces. ,', ,:",

,

This damage to -the 'i'ule of. law i'n

America's prisons is occurring even

as those prisons have grown in their

importance-both because of the nation's

increasing incarcerated popUlation (the

world's largest) and the sharpening inter-

national focus on American treatment of

prisoners, both domestically and abroad.

Amendment is urgently needed. In recent

months numerous advocates and organi-

zations hav.e urged reform.2 Indeed, a bill

offered in the last Congress, the Prison Abuse Remedies Act of 2007, H~R. 4109,

1'10th Congo (2008), would. offer some

moderate fixes to the most pressing prob-

lems created by the PLRA. In this Article,

we discuss three of these problems. First,

the PLRA's ban on awards of compensa-

tory damages for "mental or emotional

injury suffered while in custody without

a prior showing of physical injury" has

obs~ructed judicial remediation of reli-

gious discrimination, coerced sex, and other constitutional violations typically unaccompanied by physical injury, ungermining the regulatory regime that is supposed to prevent such abuses. Second, the PLRA's provision barring federal lawsuits by prisoner plaintiffs who have failed to comply with theirjails' or prisons' internal grievance procedures-no matter how difficult, futile, or dangerous such compli~ ance might be for them-obstructs rather than promotes constitutional oversight of conditions of confinement. It strongly encourages prison and jail allthorities to come up with 'ever-higher procedural hurdles in order to foreclose subsequent litigation. Tl~ir~~' the application of tIle PLRA's limitatiol~s to juveniles incarcerated in juvenile institutions has rendered those institutions largely immune fl~om judicial oversight because so few youllg people are able to, follow the complex requirements imposed by the statute, and compliance by their parents or guardians on their behalf has been deemed legally insuffiCient. Each of these three problems disrupts accountability and enforcement of constitutional compliance.
Below, we discuss these issues in some depth. But it is important to meh~ion in preface what we see as' the primary salutary effect of thePLRA-its lightening of the burdens imposed on jail and prison officials by friyolous litigation. Pro se prisoner lawsuits ,in federal cotirt are numerous, often lack legal merit, and pose real management challenges both for courts and for correctional authorities. Congress passed the PLRA in order to deal with this problem.3 This has in fact

Prison Legal News

1

July 200,9

Page 316

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 44 of 60

Prison Legal News
2400 NW 80th Street #148 ' Seattle, WA 98117
Change Service Requested

Non-Profit Org. U.S. Postage PAID '
Portland OR Permit No. 3142

Subscription Renewal Subscriptions expire after the issue shown on the label is mailed. For example, if the label says: EXPIRES 02/2006, then:the subscription expires after the February 2006 issues is mailed. Please renew at least 2 months before the expiration date. IF THE LABEL SAYS EXPIRES: 07/2009 THIS IS YOUR LAST ISSUE. Please renew immediately to avoid missing any issues.

Change of Address If you move or are transfered, please notify PLN as soon as possible so your issues can be mailed to your new address! PLN only accepts responsibility for sending an issue to the address provided at the time an issue is mailed!

~ PLN's website offers all issues of PLN in both searchable database and PDF formats. Issues are indexed and posted as soon as they go to press.
~ Publications section has numerous downloadable government reports, audits and ,investigations from around the country.
~ Full text decisions of thousands of court cases, published and unpublished.
~ All content is easy to print for downloading and mailing to prisoners.
~ Most complete collection of prison and jail related verdicts and settlements anywhere.

~ Brief bank with a wide assortment of winning motions, briefs, complaints and settlements.
~ Links to thousands of prison, jail, criminal justice and legal websites around the world.
~ Thousands of articles and cases, ,all fully indexed by more than 500 subjects, searchable by case name, case year, state of origin, court, author, location, case outcome, PLN issue and key word search.
~ Search free, pay only if you find it! ~ The highest quality, most comprehensive
prison litigation news and research site in the world.

~ Order books, print subscriptions and make donations on line.

Affordable rates to meet your budget
$14.95 per month • $99.95 per year

Subscribe to Prison legal News Online! http://www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 3P1L7NCOL-00229

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 45 of 60

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBITVV
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 318

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 46 of 60 Page 3P1L9NCOL-00230

Prison Lee{g..1:.!?a.l' Nevvs

::.-:ru.... 2-4'1)0 r;,. K~V ~=;=~~ irp- '
p

~

'J

":J'i...JfJ

:r:--~,.:-t,~...'J.1":1o:o...,

':_.rt:_:.a, .u

West Brattleboro VT

05303-2420

~\\ \RN 10 SENDER
~tl~~ ~Ov

As of April 1,2010· .. The Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS
This applies to ALL incoming and out going mail

5958 ~**~E~xPEIRSE:S: 77//220011 11 RROOBBEER~T .B ~~ITH 2011
COLUMBIA Co

901 PORT AVE

--,/.,---"","" ST HELENS. CREGO -

....... - "". '0..

!1';'1~-

Q

.~~q1~'1'-:.Y-'-"'r!~.li",,-~,,~,,-~~..~~

'Q"i

~
!

~f.
(,.,

/ ' \ '';~ -\S"?I'~'··-·O ·OJ'}" /

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 47 of 60

I

VOL. 20 No. 11
D.erlicated to Protecting Human Rights November 2009
ISSN 1075-7678

Pennsylvania County Prisons Mired in Conditions Litigation

by David M. Reutter

W hether or not a large number of lawsuits is indicative of management or operational problems at a prison or jail is a matter of debate that depends on one's perspective - that is, which side of the fence you're on. One thing is certain, though. Correctional facilities in Pennsylvania, including the Lancaster County Prison (LCP) and Bucks County Correctional Facility (BCCF), have been the subject of dozens of lawsuits over the past several years. LCP has faced litigation due to claims involving illegal strip searches, denial of adequate medical care, wrongful deaths, and physical and sexual abuse by guards, while BCCF and the Northampton

From the Editor

9

Prison Radio Shows

10

American Methods Book Review

14

Mississippi Medical Care

16

Texas Prison Legislation

18

Erie County Jail Conditions

20

$1 Million Washington Rape Suit

24

ICE Detainee Death Cover Up

26

Colorado Lockdown

28

PLN Sues Virginia DOC

32

$21 Million Wrongful Conviction

40

Philadelphia Strip Search Settlement 46

News in Brief

50

County Prison have been sued for fail-

ing to prevent and treat dangerous staph

infections.

LCP's warden, Vincent Guarini,

believes prisoners file lawsuits as a way

to pass the time. "They spend a day in

the law library. They read about a case

in a law book, and all of a sudden it be-

comes theirs. They manipulate it," said

Guarini, who has served as LCP's warden

since 1981. "In many cases, an inmate is

rolling the lottery. The vast majority of

lawsuits are dismissed. There isn't any-

thing there."

.I' ,'.

Guarini is correct that mostprisoners'

lawsuits are tossed out. The reasons for

such dismissals include inexperience, an

inability to procure evidence to overcome

summary judgment motions, having to

face skilled defense counsel with bet-

ter legal and monetary resources, and a

reluctance by attorneys to take prisoner

lawsuits due to limits on attorney fees

under the PLRA, among other factors.

However, the very fact that so many

lawsuits against LCP are attracting law-

yers willing to represent prisoners, and

are resulting in settlements, appears to

indicate that Guarini is investing more

time in fighting lawsuits than in chang-

ing the conditions and practices at LCP

that result in such suits being filed in the

first place.

"Our whole system is documenta-

tion," Guarini explained when describing

the files maintained on prisoners at LCP.

"A guy could be in prison for a week and

have a thick file because everything is

reported. You never know when you're

going to use it." Such as when the prison

is sued, for example.

Overcrowding the Castle
LCP's original structure was built in 1851, upon high ground, patterned after an old castle in Lancashire, England. Its massive stone fa9ade was designed to reassure the public that its 160 prisoners could not escape. Numerous expansions since that time have increased the size of the facility to a city block, spanning seven stories. LCP is now designed to hold 1,029 prisoners, but had a population of 1,250 in November 2008, including almost 140 women. More than 6,000 people cycle through the prison each year.
Staff shortages are a serious problem. "We're busy nonstop. We have 102 people on a block and one officer," stated LCP guard Jodi Barone, a 10-year veteran.
Prison guard Bob Barley said he hears of 7 to 10 fights per month among prisoners, but most are minor and not reported "because of fear of retaliation from other inmates." Assaults on guards occur regularly, too. "If you're here long enough, eventually [every guard] is going to get assaulted," he said. Barleyacknowledged that some of the difficulties at LCP are caused by prison staff. "Ten percent of the [guards] create 90 percent of the problems," he stated.
Squeezing too many prisoners into LCP is the root cause of most violence. "When you start putting a bunch of people into a small area, you start getting into other people's space," Barley explained. "Sooner or later it's going to erupt, because they want their space back."
Violent incidents are not limited to prisoners assaulting guards or other prisoners, according to lawsuits filed against

Prison Legal News

1

November 2009

Page 3P2L0NCOL-00231

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 48 of 60

~risonLegal'News
2400 NW 80th Street #148 Seattle, WA 98117
Change Service Requested .

, i ! riil
Noun.S-P. rPoofsittaOgreg. ': PAID, . Portland OR.: . Permit No.,3142

Subscription Renewal Subscriptions expire after the issue shown on the label is mailed. For example, if the label says: EXPIRES 02/2006, then tpe subscription expires after the February 2006 issues is mailed. Please renew at least 21nonths before the expiration date. IF THE LABEL SAYS EXPIRES: 1112009 TillS IS YOUR LAST ISSUE. Please renew immediately to avoid missing any issues.

Change of Address If-you move or are transfered, please
notify PLN as soon as possible so YO'llr issues' can be mailed to your new address! PLN only accepts responsibility for sending an issue to the address pro- , vided at the time an issue is mailed!

POST-CONVICTION SERVICES

DAMORE
DELGADO
ROMANIK
&RAWLINS
X2ID: c:ommunity Law Firm
227 Seabreeze Blvd. Daytona Beach, FL 32118
P: (386) 255-1400
F: (386) 255-8100

o 3.850 Motions ~ Federal Habeas Corpus • NewTrials

• Sentence Corrections e Appeals • State Habeas Corpus

Toll Free 1-877-509-1400
. www.communitylawfirm.com

David R. Damore, P.A. Robert W. Rawlins III, P.A. Aaron D. Delgado, P.A.

DavidD. Ege Board Certified Criminal Trial Law

The Hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely on advertisements. Before you decide, ask us to send you free written information about our qualifications.

PLNCOL-00232

Page 321

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 49 of 60

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBITWW
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 322

~=====~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-------'---'------',-

rison Legal Nevvs

P~ r..O O. BB·o- Xx' .??....d4...i"2~B0O
Vest Brattleboro vr

05303=2420

USPS
~

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 50 of 60 Page 3P2L3NCOL-00245

DCT~ ~n f l~ 1Y\~tb:"nt~;:J:t;;l:>-""~=-_

l~f~.~

n

~£ed\ n ~~

ll~

S,:. '0~

As of April 1, 2010

The Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS

59570 H'NEW *~** EXPIRES: 1 /15/2012
NNIICCHHOOLLAASS BBIIEERRMMAANN, 220011("0?'0~0001155'5_5.44,

,,

This applies to ALL

COLUMBIA Co JAIL 990011 PPOO''RRTT AAVVEE

-~..., '

'"" -~""

,,,;-, _, '""

incoming and out going mail

5T

HELE'NS.

OREGON

97051
- --.~,-~,

~..''1-''\_"' -'".~."'"
~,-:;;:;-;-~~-~- ~

'.".,";'.:;;;;/;8v

~{"~I

"

\

..

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 51 of 60

,
I

VOL. 20 No. 11 Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights November 2009
ISSN 1075-7678

Pennsylvania County Prisons Mired in Conditions Litigation

by David M. Reutter

Whether or not a large number County Prison have been sued for failof lawsuits is indicative of ing to prevent and treat dangerous staph

Overcrowding the Castle

management or operational problems at a infections.

LCP's original structure was built in

prison orjail is a matter of debate that de-

LCP's warden, Vincent Guarini, 1851, upon high ground, patterned after

pends on one's perspective - that is, which believes prisoners file lawsuits as a way . an old castle in Lancashire, England. Its

side of the fence you're on. One thing is to pass the time. "They spend a day in massive stone fa<;:ade was designed to

certain, though. Correctional facilities in the law library. They read about a case reassure the public that its 160 prisoners

Pennsylvania, inchlding the Lancaster in a law book, and all of a sudden it be- could not escape. Numerous expansions

County Prison (LCP) and Bucks County comes theirs. They manipulate. it," said since that time have increased the size of

Correctional Facility (BCCF), have been Guarini, who has served as LCP's warden the facility to a city block, spanning seven

the subject of dozens of lawsuits over the since 1981. "In many cases, an inmate is stories. LCP is now designed to hold 1,029

past several years.

rolling the lottery. The vast majority of prisoners, but had a population of 1,250

LCP has faced litigation due to claims lawsuits are dismissed. There isn't any- in November 2008, including almost 140

involving illegal strip searches, denial of thing there."

women. More than 6,000 people cycle

adequate medical care, wrongful deaths,

Guarini is correct that most prisoners' through the prison each year.

and physical and sexual abuse by guards, lawsuits are tossed out. The reasons for

Staff shortages are a serious problem.

while BeCF and the Northampton such dismissals include inexperience, an "We're busy nonstop. We have 102 people

inability to procure evidence to overcome on a block and one officer," stated LCP

summary judgment motions, having to guard Jodi Barone, a 10-year veteran.

face skilled defense counsel with bet-

Prison guard Bob Barley said he

From the Editor

ter legal and monetary resources, and a hears of 7 to 10 fights per month among 9 'reluctance by attorneys to take prisoner prisOners, but most are minor and not

Prison Radio Shows

10 lawsuits due to limits on attorney fees reported "because of fear of retaliation

American Methods Book Review

under the PLR.A, among other factors. from other inmates." Assaults on guards

14

However, the very fact that so many occur regularly, too. "If you're here long

Mississippi Medical Care Texas Prison Legislation

16 lawsuits against LCP are attracting law- enough, eventually [every guard] is going yers willing to represent prisoners, and to get assaulted," he said. Barley acknowl-
18 are resulting in settlements, appears to edged that some of the difficulties at LCP

Erie County Jail Conditions

20 indicate that Guarini is investing more are caused by prison staff. "Ten percent time in fighting lawsuits than in chang- of the [guards] create 90 percent of the

$1 Million Washington Rape Suit

24 ing the conditions and practices at LCP problems," he stated.

ICE Detainee Death Cover Up

26

that result in such suits being filed in the first place.

Squeezing too many prisoners into LCP is the root cause of most violence.

Colorado Lockdown

28

"Our whole system is documenta- , "When you start putting a bunch of peo-

PLN Sues Virginia DOC

tion," Guarini explained when describing ple into a small area, you start getting into 32 the files maintained on prisoners at LCP. other people's space," Barley explained.

$21 Million Wrongful Conviction Philadelphia Strip Search Settlement

40 "A guy could be in prison for a week and "Sooner or later it's going to erupt, be-

have a thick file because everything is cause they want their space back."

46 reported. You never know when you're

Violent incidents are not limited to

News in Brief

50 going to use it." Such as when the prison prisoners assaulting guards Qr other pris-

is sued, for example.

oners, according to lawsuits filed against

Prison Legal News

1

November 2009

Page 3P2L4NCOL-00246

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 52 of 60

,,--

Prison Legal News
2400 NW 80th Street #148 Seattle, WA 98117
Change Service Requested

Non-Profit Org.
U.S. Postage PAID
Portland OR Permit No. 3142

Subscription Renewal Subscriptions expire after the issue shown on the label is mailed. For example, if the label says: EXPIRES 02/2006, then the subscription expires after the February 2006 issues is mailed. Please renew at least 2 months before the expiration date. IF THE LA-
BEL SAYS EXPIRES: 11/2009 THIS IS YOUR LAST ISSUE. Please renew immediately to avoid missing any issues.

Change of Address If you move or are transfered, please notify PLN as soon as possible so your issues can be mailed to your new address! PLN only accepts responsibility for sending an issue to the address provided at the time an issue is mailed!

POST-CONVICTION SERVICES

DAMORE DELGADO ROMANIK &RAWLINS
Your Community Law Firm
227 Seabreeze Blvd. Daytona Beach, FL 32118
. P: (386) 255-1400 F: (386) 255-8100

• 3.850 Motions • Federal Habeas Corpus ., New Trials

48 Sentence Corrections ., Appeals • State Habeas Corpus

.Toll Free 1-877-509-1400
www.communitylawfinn.com

David R. Damore, P.A. . Robert W. Rawlins III, P.A.
Aaron D. Delgado, P.A.

DavidD. Ege Board Certified Criminal Trial Law

*r.ERTIFlED
'file Flo!'kla Bar

I The Hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely on advertisements. Before you decide, ask us to send you free written information about our qualifications.

I

Page 3P2L5NCOL-00247

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 53 of 60

9870,05 fa246305

E HIBIT X
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 326

-

Q

!

r ~ ~ ;~

DnSUfiil ..... ' . ~r""
:J =_

B~1, ~.t-;,,I~~~.O....J•~

~faf\'1\" .~eV'H~U'~~

D~ ::JrU')!t

R n a. . .,lh\J.vI~

?A2-··0····
__ ey

vr \Vf\\l'rv;.v~t

UiQr..~..."t",Hto!Q""O, n

O~O !

05303=2420

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 54 of 60 Page 3P2L7NCOL-00236

JETLJlF"llfill Tn li')FR . -II~"="'-!:'l1

Ei Hi 11....... r-~

I;

<'! 0rt~=rlf\/9 ii r.

_,

U 0L~\L7J!=J H

.

As of April 1, 2010 The Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS
This applies to ALL incoming and out going I1l:ail

r

~\t, 1tJ~6-1"-,=."-"--~\L.'L

;;~Z~~~~;:7;;;:::-:: JAUn$tnttefcfml!!apcJitae:mRdnetE,-d.ANq_tSn~idOt_'i;NR(e;~&;3Cf(=H)U\nE's_Cisn~_ =,=~-_ jE~_=D~ .~__._~"_ ~"~-_,",.

::::

/ ' , . , ~-7' --:---~

-

--. '.

-'
. - - - - ,j

/- ,

'-_..

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 55 of 60

r

II " "

•

I

I

I

VOL. 20 No. 11
ISSN 1075-7678

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights November 2009

" .'

,

Pennsylvania County Prisons Mired in Conditions Litigation

by David M. Reutter

Whether or not a large number of lawsuits is indicative of managemen~ or operational problems at a prison or jail is a matter of debate that depends on one's perspective - that is, which side of the fence you're on. One thing is certain, though. Correctional facilities in Pennsylvania, including the Lancaster County Prison (LCP) and Bucks County Correctional Facility (BCCF), have been the subject of dozens of lawsuits over the past several years. LCP has faced litigation due to claims involving illegal strip searches, denial of adequate medical care, wrongful deaths, and physical and sexual abuse by guards, while BCCF _and the Northampton

From the Editor

9

Prison Radio Shows

10

American Methods Book Review

14

Mississippi Medical Care

16

Texas Prison Legislation

18

Erie County Jail Conditions

20

$1 Million Washington Rape Suit

24

ICE Detainee Death Cover Up

26

Colorado Lockdown

28

PLN Sues Virginia DOC

32

$21 Million Wrongful Conviction

40

Philadelphia Strip Search Settlement 46

News in Brief

50

County Prison have been sued for failing to prevent and treat dangerous staph infections.
LCP's warden, Vincent Guarini, believes prisoners file lawsuits as a way to pass the time. "They spend a day in the law library. They read about a case in a law book, and all of a sudden it becomes theirs. They manipulate it," said Guarini, who ha~ served as LCP's warden since 1981. "In many cases, an inmate is rolling the lottery. The vast majority of lawsuits are dismissed. There isn't anything there."
Guarini is correct that most prisoners' lawsuits are tossed out. The reasons for such dismissals include inexperience, an inability to procure evidence to overcome summary judgment motions, having to face skilled defense counsel with better legal and monetary resources, and a reluctance by attorneys to take prisoner lawsuits due to limits on attorney fees under the PLRA, among other factors.
However, the very fact that so many lawsuits against LCP are attracting lawyers willing to represent prisoners, and are resulting in settlements, appears to indicate that Guarini is investing more time in fighting lawsuits than in changing the conditions and practices at LCP that result in such suits being filed in the first place.
"Our whole system is documentation," Guarini explained when describing the files maintained on prisoners at LCP. "A guy could be in prison for a week and have a thick file because everything is reported. You never know when you're going to use it." Such as when the prison is sued, for example.

Overcrowding the Castle
LCP's original structure was built in 1851, upon high ground, patterned after an old castle in Lancashire, England. Its massive stone fa9ade was designed to reassure the public that its 160 prisoners could not escape. Numerous expansions since that time have increased the size of the facility to a city block, spanning seven stories. LCP is now designed to hold 1,029 prisoners, but had a population of 1,250 in November 2008, including almost 140 women. More than 6,000 people cycle through the prison each year.
Staff shortages are a serious problem. "We're busy nonstop. We have 102 people on a block and one officer," stated LCP guard Jodi Barone, a lO-year veteran.
Prison guard Bob Barley said he hears of 7 to 10 fights per month among prisoners, but most are minor and not reported "because of fear of retaliation from other inmates." Assaults on guards occur regularly, too. "If you're here long enough, eventually [every guard] is going to get assaulted," he said. Barley acknowledged that some of the difficulties at LCP are caused by prison staff. "Ten percent of the [guards] create 90 percent of the problems," he stated.
Squeezing too many prisoners into LCP is the root cause of most violence. "When you start putting a bunch of people into a small area, you start getting into other people's space," Barley explained. "Sooner or later it's going to erupt, because they want their space back."
Violent incidents are not limited to prisoners assaulting guards or other prisoners, according to lawsuits filed against

Prison Legal News

1

November 2009

Page 3P2L8NCOL-00237

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 56 of 60

Prison Legal News
2400 NW 80th Street #148 Seattle, WA 98117
Change Service Requested

Non-Profit Org. US. Postage
PAID Portland OR Permit No. 3142

Subscription Renewal Subscriptions expire after the issue shown on the label is mailed. For example, if the label says: EXPIRES 02/2006, then the subscription expires after the February 2006 issues is mailed. Please renew at least 2 months before the expiration date. IF THE LA.BEL SAYS EXPIRES: 11/2009 THIS IS YOUR LAST ISSUE. Please renew immediately to avoid missing any issues.

Change'of Address
If you move or are transfered, please notify PLN as soon as possible so your
issues can be mailed to your new address! PLN only accepts responsibility for sending an issue to the address provided at the time an issue is mailed!

POST-CONVICTION SERVICES

DAMORE DELGADO ROMANIK

• 3.850 Motions • Federal Habeas Corpus • New Trials

• Sentence Corrections
• Appeals • State Habeas Corpus

&RAWLINS
Your Community Law Firm
227 Seabreeze Blvd. Daytona Beach, FL 32118
P: (386) 255-1400 F: (386) 255-8100

Toll Free 1-877-509-1400
www.communitylawfirm.com

David R. Damore, P.A. Robert W. Rawlins III, P~A. Aaron D. Delgado, P.A.

DavidD. Ege
Board Certified Criminal Trial Law

*ztSCERTIFIED
TIle Florida Bar

The Hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely on advertisements. Before you decide, ask us to send you free written information about our qualifications.

Page 3P2L9NCOL-00238

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 57 of 60

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBIT Y
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 330

:,
Prison ~. egal f\Je\ivs or) ?.1?rO· Ii t:~111 PUUt."'r-~v _ T_
VVest Brattleboro VT
05303=2420

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 58 of 60 Page 3P3L1NCOL-00221

\U v ii"'\

.q~~'*\~".'''"~''i

~~;~.\;~ ~~
e=

As of April 1, 2010 The Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS
This applies to ALL
incomingaII)l.dd._~ut gooii~~~_~..".:"1:1~~iil

59586 ** NEW **
LLOYD MYERS COLUMBIA Co JAIL 901 PORT AVE

~\C
;~~~J:
REi\$C)l"1 GH::CKED Uhch;!;'7l~.1_.;-=~1~fu~3d ~ A.~~~~pl::·;l- N;:;t KiiO~/n __..:=.~=.~ hi~l!{ni}!::lit·~\ctjr€s~ ___-'--..-_u==~ ~:~ s!.£Gh ;;~~re~1 ..;J~ J'!f1i'nC~)r~
No Sutn {;;7.~~ In ~Bts~ flo ~~cl Hefffu'ii ThlS Ern;e!~?a ~
%AjNrm:Ll::N'S. DR 97lliH-S9S8

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 59 of 60

I

VOL. 20 No. 11 Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights November 2009
ISSN 1075-7678

Pennsylvania County Prisons Mired in Conditions Litigation

by David M. Relltter

W hether or not a large number County Prison have been sued for failof lawsuits is indicative of ing to prevent and treat dangerous staph

Overcrowding the Castle

management or operational problems at a infections.

LCP's original structure was built in

I,

prison or jail is a matter of debate that de-

LCP's warden, Vincent Guarini, 1851, upon high ground, patterned after

I

pends on one's perspective - that is, which believes prisoners file lawsuits as a way - an old castle in Lancashire, England. Its

side of the fence you're on. One thing is to pass the time. "They spend a day in massive stone fa9ade was designed to

certain, though. Correctional facilities in the law library. They read about a case reassure the public that its 160 prisoners

Pennsylvania, including the Lancaster in a law book, and all of a sudden it be- could not escape. Numerous expansions

County Prison (LCP) and Bucks County comes theirs. They manipulate it," said since that time have increased the size of

Correctional Facility (BCeF), have been Guarini, who has served as LCP's warden the facility to a city block, spanning seven

the subject of dozens of lawsuits over the since 1981. "In many cases, an inmate is stories. LCP is now designed to hold 1,029

past several years.

rolling the lottery. The vast majority of prisoners, but had a population of 1,250

LCP has faced litigation due to claims lawsuits are dismissed. There isn't any- in November 2008, including almost 140

involving illegal strip searches, denial of thing there."

women. More than 6,000 people cycle

'adequate medical care, wrongful deaths,

Guarini is correct that most prisofiers' through the prison each year.

and physical and sexual abuse by guards, lawsuits are tossed out. The reasons for

Staff shortages are a serious problem.

while BCCF and the Northampton such dismissals include inexperience, an "We're busy nonstop. We have 102 people

inability to procure evidence to overcome on a block and one officer," stated LCP

summary judgment motions, having to guard Jodi Barone, a lO-year veteran.

face skilled defense counsel with bet-

Prison guard Bob Barley said he

From the Editor

ter legal and monetary resources, and a hears of 7 to 10 fights per month among 9 reluctance by attorneys to take prisoner prisoners, but most are minor and not

Prison Radio Shows

10 lawsuits due to limits on attorney fees reported "because of fear of retaliation

American Methods Book Review

under the PLRA, among other factors. from other inmates." Assaults on guards

14

However, the very fact that so many occur regularly, too. "If you're here long

Mississippi Medical Care. Texas Prison Legislation

16 lawsuits against LCP are attracting law- enough, eventually [every guard] is going yers willing to represent prisoners, and to get assaulted," he said. Barley acknowl-
18 are resulting in settlements, appears to edged that some of the difficulties at LCP

Erie County Jail Conditions

20 indicate that Guarini is investing more are caused by prison staff~ "Ten percent time in fighting lawsuits than in chang- of the [guards] create 90 percent of the

$1 Million Washington Rape Suit

24 ing the conditions and practices at LCP problems," he stated.

ICE Detainee Death Cover Up

26

that result in such suits being filed in the first place.

Squeezing too many prisoners into LCP is the root cause of most violence.

Colorado Lockdown

28

"Our whole system is documenta- "When you start putting a bunch of peo-

PLN Sues Virginia DOC

tion," Guarini explained when describing ple into a small area, you start getting into 32 the files maintained on prisoners at LCP. other people's space," Barley explained.

$21 Million Wrongful Conviction Philadelphia Strip Search Settlement

40 "A guy could be in prison for a week and "Sooner or later it's going to erupt, be-

have a thick file because everything is cause they want their space back."

46 reported. You never know when you're

Violent incidents are not limited to

News in Brief

50 going to use it." Such as when the prison prisoners assaulting guards or other pris-

is sued, for example.

oners, according to lawsuits filed against

Prison Legal News

1

November 2009

Page 3P3L2NCOL-00222

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 60 of 60

Prison Legal News
2400 NW 80th Street #148 Seattle, WA 98117
Change Service Requested

Non-Profit Org. U.S. Postage
PAID Portland OR Permit No. 3142

Subscription Renewal Subscriptions expire after the issue shown on the label is mailed. For example, if the label says: EXPIRES 02/2006, then the subscription expires after the February 2006 issues is mailed. Please renew at least 2 months before the expiration date. IF THE LABEL SAYS EXPIRES: 11/2009 THIS IS YOUR LAST ISSUE. Please renew immediately to avoid missing any issues.

_ Change of Address If you move or are transfered, please notify PLN as soon as possible so YOllr issues can be mailed to your new address! PLN only acceptsresponsibility for sending an issue to the address provided at the time an issue is mailed!

POST-CONVICTION SERVICES

DAMORE DELGADO ROMANIK &RAWLINS
Your Community Law Firm
227 Seabreeze Blvd. Daytona Beach, FL 32118
P: (386) 255-1400 F: (386) 255-8100

• 3.850 Motions • Federal Habeas Corpus • New Trials

• Sentence Corrections • Appeals· • State Habeas Corpus

Toll Free 1-877-509-1400
www.communitylawfirm.com

David R. Damore, P.A. Robert W. Rawlins III, P.A. Aaron D. Delgado, P.A.

DavidD. Ege Board Certified Criminal Trial Law

*CERTIFIED
1116 Florida Ilar

The Hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely on advertisements. Before you decide, ask us to send you free written information about our qualifications.

Page 3P3L3NCOL-00223

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 1 of 61

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBIT
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRlGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 334

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 2 of 61 Page 335

"r"0
Z
(r o )
6
a '•. ~ co

~CC1SY1.: ~)... .;.----.~;;;.>.--~'\.

~ 1.~1~ _
___

-

.-
-

-

.:
-

-;.....:.__1_: .I,t/.--o:-.r\;~}.'

~s ~'3\ _____'

C o}. j:'):.b):.\'a 0\1.1\t'j

't'" c O~)...;{

o\

"

'"

yOS't -o\Ws to ~

C»'~\'--"nS\..:;\-i:..\-:> •.:-.-,. -\.:.<-.·-...'..--
, , \\' ... .. '

-.--_~\-1--\-1c.\.\..o\',2~1~('1~a'p\la).:1-;1\~Uo-\1~.t;-"'b..'.,.o.-'.\-l--\._('.-1".--'.~t'-o...------'....,-3..\_-}.:...--_.-_,<.".H..,..,.-'.-'--'-

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 3 of 61

VOL. 20 No. 11
ISSN 1075-7.678

Dedicqted to Protecting Human Rights November 2009
....

Pennsylvania County Prisons Mired in Conditions Litigation
by David M. Rellttel'

Whether or not a large number of lawsuits is indicative of management or operational problems at a prison orjail is a matter of debate that depends on one's perspective - that is, which side of the fence you're on. One thing is certain, though. Correctional facilities in Pennsylvania, including the Lancaster County Prison (LCP) and Bucks County Correctional Facility (BCCF), have been the subject of dozens of lawsuits over the past several years. LCP has faced litigation due to clainis .. involving illegal strip searches, denial of adequate medical care, wi'ongful deaths,· and physical and sexual abuse by guards, while BCCF and the Northampton

From the Editor

9

Prison Raciio Shows

10

American Methods Book Review

14

Mississippi Medical Care

16

: Texas,Prison Legislation

18

~rie County Jail Conditions

20

$1 Million Washington Rape Suit

24

ICE Detainee Death Cover Up

26

Colorado Lockdown

28

PLN Sues Vi,rginia DOC

32

$21 Million Wrongful Conviction

40

Philadelphia Strip Search Settlement 46

News in Brief

50

County Prison have been sued for fail-'

ing to prevent and treat dangerous staph

infections.

LCP's warden, Vincent Guarini,

believes prisoners file lawsuits· as a way

to pass the time. "They spend a day in

the law library. They read about a case

in a law, book, and all of a sudden it be-

comes theirs. They.manipulate it," said

Guarini, who has served as LCP's warden

since 1981. "In many cases, an inmate is

rolling the lottery. The vast majority of

lawsuits are dismissed. There isn't any-

thing there."

'

Guarini is correct that most prisoners'

lawsuits are tossed out. The reasons for

such disrpissals include inexperience, an

inability to procure evidence to overcome

summary judgment motions, havin:g to

face skilled defense counsel with bet-

ter legal and monetary resources, and a

reluctance by attorneys to take prisoner

lawsuits due to limits on attorney fees

under the PLRA, among other factors.'

However, the very fact that so many

lawsuits against LCP are' attracting law-

yers' willing to represent prisoners, and

are resulting in settlements, appears to

indicdte that Guarini is· investing ,more

time in fighting lawsuits than in chang-

ing the conditions a'nd practices at LCP

that l:esult in such suits being filed in the

first place.

"Our whole system is documenta-

tion," Guarini explained when describing

the files maintained on prisoners at LCP.

"A guy could be in prison for a week and

have a thick file because everything is

reported. You never know when you're

going to use it." Such as when the prison

is sued, for example. '

Overcrowding the Castle

LCP's original structure was built in

1851, upon high ground, patterned after

,an old castle in Lancashire, England. Its

massive stone favade was designed to

reassure the public that its 160 prisoners

could not escape. Numerous expansions

since that time have increased the size of

the facility to a city block, spanning seven

stories. LCP is now designed to hold 1,029

prisoners, but had a population of 1,250

in November 2008, including almost 140

women. More than 6,000, people cycle

through the prison each year.

'

Staff shortages are a serious problem.

"We're busy nonstop. We have 102 people

on a block and one officer," stated LCP

guard Jodi Barone, a 10-year veteran.

Prison guard Bob Barley said he

hears of 7 to 10 fights per month among

prisoners, but most are minor and not

reported "because of fear of retaliation

from other inmates." Assaults on guards

occur regularly, too. "If you're here long

enough, eventually [every guard] is going

to get assaulted,'; he said. Barley acknowl-

edged that some of the difficulties at LCP

are caused by prison staff. "Ten percent

of the [guards] create 90 percent of the

problems," he stated.

Squeezing too many prisoners into

LCP is the root cause of most violence.

"When you start 'putting a bunch of peo-

ple into a small area, you start getting into

other people's space," Barley explained.

"Sooner or later it's going to erupt, be-

cause they want their space back."

Violent incidents are not limited to

prisoners assaulting guards or other pris-

oners, according to lawsuits filed against

Prisoh Legal News

1

N ovelnber 2009

PLNCOL-00219

Page 336

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 4 of 61

PrisonLegal News
2400 NW 80th Street #148 Seattle, WA 98117
Change Service Requested

Non-Profit Org. U.S. Postage
PAID Portland OR Permit No. 3142

Subscription Renewal Subscriptions expire after the issue shown on the label is mailed. For example, if the label says: EXPIRES 02/2006, then the subscription expires after the February 2006 issues is mailed. Please renew at least 2 months before the expiration date. IF THE LABEL SAYS EXPIRES: 11/2009 THIS IS YOUR LAST ISSUE. Please renew immediately to avoid missing any issues.

Change of Address If you move or are transfered, please notify PLN as soon as possible so your issues can be mailed to your new address! PLN only accepts responsibility for sending an issue to the address provided at the time an issue is mailed!

POST-CONVICTION SERVICES

DAMORE DELGADO ROMANIK
&RAWLINS
Your Community Law Firm
227 Seabreeze Blvd. Daytona Beach, FL 32118
P: (386) 255-1400 F: (386) 255-8100

• 3.850 Motions • Federal Habeas Corpus • NewTrials

• Sentence Corrections
• Appeals • State Habeas Corpus

Toll Free 1-877-509-1400
www.communitylawfirm.com

David R. Damore, P.A. . Robert W. Rawlins III, P.A.
Aarqn D. Delgado, P.A.

DavidD. Ege Board Certified Criminal Trial Law

*CER'flFIED
.The FlorIda Bar •

The Hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely on advertisements. Before you decide, ask us to send you free written i,nformation abo. ut our qualifications.

Page 3P3L7NCOL-00220

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 5 of 61

9870.05 fa246305

EXHIBIT A A
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 338

iOJrfson u

i.....en~$~~J_ r~ \,I",!~5~..~-,ev-.v.i~I

Df~
H-~tJu~u

~-';{1V WV... 1i..

t0:-.a:' 'IJ~fV)

est Brattleboro VT

05303-2420

- ~-------~-

\",~o"~~

",4.\,-0

I//;;"<,/,f;,:";::y;'''';t;"")~~.,:~o:"~!'.4,.~",">'~)''~,o',');,;<'

I - a H 1lJ..! .s.I.r-.rr'-'F:'.>iJ,·~!b,'IO'lilll~~t~&iwittt~~.,"l,,."'c'(..,(';"-.0.,'~\-";':, .

rr,r"~ ." '.

/ /

.~ ~

USF;S
~

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 6 of 61 Page 3P3L9NCOL-00233

R~if1\J· ~ ~ C',~, 'ER Fb

9 U

,=~D,. ".H%'\\i~ii

T~ ~ ~
h \",,#

0 -1)

FFb.. \\\~\\~ nLgv~'=

g u

'

As of April 1, 2010
The Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS
This applies to ALL incoming and out going_I!!~il

IP"-

\~~~~-;-':-~--.----------~

N.;;~·t;;i~~s: iT~' A.:·'.~29,1) 595. 85 ** -,!.?;'£:,c r:, ~- ...,,-:.,:;,- f:.1
~;i~~~!~~~,~;;::::.>= JEFFR.f::;Y,rrVe-NNATT

7/1 5/20 000 104

___ . . ~:if\~~:;~'1;;£;:;:i2 5Tf.t;Jlf:1...EfJS.':P~I;,~ON·~7,Q5t."

•.";;.~.'Js. CiT 97'~:~~

,

• V'~ 1-&9-iif;J

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 7 of 61

,
I

VOL. 20 No. 11 Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights November 2009
ISSN 1075-7678

Pennsylvania County Prisons Mired in Conditions Litigation

by David M. Reutter

Whether or not a large number

.

of lawsuits is indicative of

management or operational problems at a

prison orjail is a matter of debate that de-

pends on one's perspective - that is, which

side of the fence you're on. One thing is

certain, though. Correctional facilities in

Pennsylvania, including the Lancaster

County Prison (LCP) and Bucks County

Correctional Facility (BCCF), have been

the subject of dozens of lawsuits over the

past several years.

LCP has faced litigation due to claims

involving illegal strip searches, denial of

adequate medical care, wrongful deaths,

and physical and sexual abuse by guards,

while BCCF and the Northampton

From the Editor

9

Prison Radio Shows

10

American Methods Book Review

14

Mississippi Medical Care

t'6

Texas Prison Legislation

18

Erie County Jail Conditions

20

$1 Million Washington Rape Suit

24

ICE Detainee Death Cover Up

26

Colorado Lockdown

28

PLN Sues Virginia DOC

32

$21 Million Wrongful Conviction

40

Philadelphia Strip Search Settlement 46

News in Brief

50

County Prison have been sued for failing to prevent and treat dangerous staph

Overcrowding the Castle

infections.

LCP's original structure was built in

LCP's warden, Vincent Guarini, 1851, upon high ground, patterned after

believes prisoners file lawsuits as a way -an old castle in Lancashire, England. Its

to pass the time. "They spend a day in massive stone fayade was designed to

the law library. They read about a case reassure the public that its 160 prisoners

in a law book, and all of a sudden it be- could not escape. Numerous expansions'

comes theirs. They manipulate it," said since that time have increased the size of

Guarini, who has served as LCP's warden the facility to a city block, spanning seven

since 1981. "In many cases, an inmate is stories. LCP is now designed to hold 1,029

rolling the lottery. The vast majority of prisoners, but had a population of 1,250

lawsuits are dismissed. There isn't any- in November 2008, including almost 140

thing there."

women. More than 6,000 people cycle

Guarini is correct that most prisoners' through the prison each year.

lawsuits are tossed out. The reasons for

Staff shortages are a serious problem.

such dismissals include inexperience, an "We're busy nonstop. We have 102 people

inability to procure evidence to overcome on a block and one officer," stated LCP

summary judgment motions, having to guard Jodi Barone, a lO-year veteran.

face skilled defense counsel with bet-

Prison guard Bob Barley said he

ter legal and monetary resources, and a hears of 7 to 10 fights per month among

reluctance by attorneys to take prisoner prisoners, but most are minor and not

lawsuits due to limits on attorney fees reported "because of fear of retaliation

under the PLRA, among other factors. from other inmates." Assaults on guards

However, the very fact that so many occur regularly, too. "If you're here long

lawsuits against LCP are attracting law- .enough, eventually [every guard] is going

yers willing to represent prisoners, and to get assaulted," he said. Barleyacknowl-

are resulting in settlements, appears to edged that some of the difficulties at LCP

indicate that Guarini is investing more are caused by prison staff. "Ten percent

time in fighting lawsuits than in chang- of the [guards] create 90 percent of the

ing the conditions and practices at LCP problems," he stated.

that result in such suits being filed in the

Squeezing too many prisoners into

first place.

LCP is the root cause of most violence.

"Our whole system is documenta- "When you start putting a bunch of peo-

tion," Guarini explained when describing ple into a small area, you start getting into

the files maintained on prisoners at LCP. other people's space," Barley explained.

"A guy could be in prison for a week and "Sooner or later it's going to erupt, be-

have a thick file because everything is cause they want their space back."

reported. You never know when you're

Violent incidents are not limited to

going to use it." Such as when the prison prisoners assaulting guards or other pris-

is sued, for example.

oners, according to lawsuits filed against

Prison Legal News

1

November 2009

Page 3P4L0NCOL-00234

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 8 of 61

PrisonLegal News
2400 NW 80th Street #148 Seattle, WA 98117
Change Service Requested

Non-Profit Org. U.S. Postage PAID Portland OR
Permit No. 3142

SUbscription Renewal Subscriptions expire after the issue shown on the label is mailed. For example, if the label says: EXPIRES 02/2006, then the subscription expires after the February 2006 issues is mailed. Please
renew at least 2 months before the expiration date. IF THE LABEL SAYS EXPIRES: 11/2009 THIS IS YOUR LAST ISSUE. Please renew immediately to avoid missing any issues.

Change of Address If you move or are transfered, please notify PLN as soon as possible so your
issues can be mailed to your new address! PLN only accepts responsibility for sending an issue to the address provided at the time an issue is mailed!

POST-CONVICTION SERVICES

DAMORE DELGADO ROMANIK

• 3.850 Motions • Federal Habeas Corpus • New Trials

• Sentence Corrections
• Appeals • State Habeas Corpus

&RAWLINS
Your Community Law Firm
227 Seabreeze Blvd. Daytona Beach, FL 32118
P: (386) 255-1400 F: (386) 255-8100

Toll Free 1-877-509~1400
www.communitylawfirm.com

David R. Damore, P.A. Robert W. Rawlins III, P.A. Aaron D. Delgado, P.A.

DavidD. Ege Board Certified Criminal Trial Law

*8f6CERTIFIED
JllC Florida Bar

The Hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely on advertisements. Before you decide, ask us to send you free written information about our qualifications.

Page 3P4L1NCOL-00235

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 9 of 61

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBIT BBB
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 342

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 10 of 61 Page 343

I I~I r!.~"eH"To~

...."A...M:tb"~-""'~~ll

~~i~w~
F, '\!i\;;.l 02)

A2" irta]V!;~e.s IDt::<U,*~,,,~.~ ~~~. O·.

\tVest Brattleboro VT

05303~2420.

r'"'0 Z
o()
r;-
o
~ "~" <0 -..j
.;.

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 11 of 61

VOL. 21 No.1
ISSN 1075~7678

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights

January 2010

PrisoD.Health Care, Political Choice and the

Accidental Death Penalty in Michigan

· .I n Hadix v...CarliS?, represent a I class of pnsoners In a decades-

by Elizabeth Alexallder1
This article seeks to trace some connec~ tions between a dysfunctional Griminal

long case challenging' conditions of justice policy and the death of one man.

confinement, including medical care, at

Prison systems like Michigan's have

various Michigari prison facilities. 2 Since. been allowed to operate. unsafe prisons

August 2006 I have been haunted by the because the Eighth Amendment fails to

de~th of one of those prisoners, because provide an effective form of oversight, an<;i

in retrospect his death appears to be the no other forni of serious oversight .ex·ists in

inevitable .by~prodllct of a prison system the United States. In a series of decisions,

swollel). beyond any historical precedents the Supreme Court has preserved the ,or. its abilfty. to maliage such a huge num- form of E~ghth Amendment challenges to

),er of people safely. Prisons are' in fact coiiditiOllS o(c:onfinement biltlittle orthe .¢~traordinarily difficult to operate s~fely substah~e, byalIowitlg severely overcrowd~

~nd humanely,'and the United State's will ed prisOlis;3 suggesting that considerq,tions

continue to fail to do so absent a fund a::" of cost can·defea:tan Eighth Ainendment .~~ntal change in criminal justice policy.. ,... claim,4 and allowing Eighth Amendment

claims to be defeated even when, pdson

conditions are objectively intolerable and

deny prisoners basic human needs, includ~

From the Editor .'

'ing health care.5 Unfortunately, Michigan 10 may ultimately illustrate that the only real

Ho~ston Jail Deat11s Grow

14 restraiilt on prison growth is its cost, not

.Prisons as Economic Boon

the Constitution.

16

t The Lonesome· Death of Timothy

CCA Modifies Guard Settlement Prison Video Visits Expand

20 Souders ' Timothy Souders arrived at the
22 Southern Michigan Correctional Facility

California Sex Offenders

24 in March 2006 with medical problems that included a thyroid disorder an,d cardiac

Education as a 'Right for Prisoners

29 risk factors.6 He also had been diagnosed

$10 Million Illinois Verdict Upheld

34

with bipolar disorder and depression, and had attempted suicide multiple times. It

PLN Texas Lawsuit Update

38 was duly noted in his medical record that,

China Reduce's;Ex6~litions;

. because of his medications and medical 40 problems, he was at very high risk of in-

Starting Out Book Review BOP Fails Drug Treatment

44 jury if exposed to excessive heat. In March 2006, the prison psychiatrist
45 at the Southern Michigan Correctional

News in Brief

50 Facility where Mr. Souders was confined changed. his medications, prescribing

lithium for his bi-polar disorder and subsequently'.increasing his' lithium. However, there are no records· of laboratory ·monitoring of the level of lithium in his blood for the relevant .period, although elevated lithium levels are toxic and can cause symptoms rangili.g from mental confusion to life-threatening side effects such as kidney failure. Monitoring lithium levels in the blood is considered aqsolutely necessary when lithium is prescribed, and .high ~ithium levels are partictilaily dangerous in someorie who is dehYdntted. . ,
Near the end of May 2006, the psychiatrist went· on' medic'al leave and thereafter there was no psychiatrist on-site for the 1,400 prisoners at the prison. In July Mr. S<;mders was involved iri.a fight with another prisoner and was ordered to punitive detention. After 30 days he was .released, but he was sent back to· the segregation unit for:taking an unauthorized shower during an August d'ay in which the heat index was over 90.
He was put in a boxcar cell, meaning an essentially 'unventilated cell with no window and a solid metal door, rather than an open barred cell front, on the sixth level of the prison. When staff opened the food slot in one 'of the solid doors, which is how staff talked to people in those cells, on hot days they could feel a blast of hot air from inside the cell. During the next few days the heat index in' the cells rose to around 100. . _
On August 2, 2006, Mr.. Souders damaged the metal stool in his _cell and was pitt into standing restraints. WIlen he tried to flood his sink, according to prison records, a supervisory nurse approved cut-

Prison Legal News

1

January 2010

PLNCOL-00198

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ . _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . _ - - - - . - - - - - _ . _ - - - - - - - . _.._-_._-_._._._--_..----------_._------_._------

Page 344

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 12 of 61

Prison Legal News
.. 2400 NW 80th Street #148 . Seattle, WA 98117
Change Service Requested

Non-Profit Org. U.S. Postage PAID Portland OR
Permit No. 3142

Subscription Renewal Subscriptions expire after the issue shown on the label is mailed. For example, if the label says: EXPIRES 02/2006, then the subscription expires after the February 2006 issues is mailed. Please renew at least 2 months before the expiration date. IF THE LABEL SAYS EXPIRES: 0112010 THIS IS YOUR LAST ISSUE. Please renew immediately to avoid missing any issues.

·Change-of Address If you move or are transfered, please notify PLN as soon as possible so your issues can be mailed to your new address! PLN only accepts responsibility for sending an issue to the address provided at the time an issue is mailed!

Page 3P4L5NCOL-00199

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 13 of 61

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBITCCC
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 346

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 14 of 61 Page 3P4L7NCOL-00257

...... 'f!i"b8g~-"9URg~O- t~r";U;

at~o. ~,;,"Q-o~1,~e»~~n!l~"~!d~1:'eO.'~tf1I~§~~ .

?A?O ~Ii r::I)\.Js ~nv )l.......;IU;'\. ~~-~

West Brattleboro \IT

05303~2420

j \~\

!f~/ Y,-.' '<~:'".~',~' i.~\~>

'
Ji rAu~,~$ :JiJ

~L,ltJVl"l;~~,1~ .. ~i N -~

" , - - / \ ~\', ~;:'~";~~':~''':~:'' ~ --"---

USPS

'T Fl

t~4~ >l
U

As of April 1, 2010 The Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS
This appJies to ALL incoming and out going mail

.;}::":..::J:.:: ....

,
- ". "~""'-.........

p~,

..:.

~959,():".,~ NEW ** EXPI,RES: 7/15/,201 1

DREW PLUMBER 2010001809 '

CO 'MBIA Co JAIL

" ,

", 901 P1~AVE
ST HEt:EN9'~ON 97051

f'"

,

"-,

~

~ ~
~
e

~~~~t~~~f"\

~ ~

\

,\~ , \~. I I,nA:r~-,f

"<'"j
:J

~••

2- ufi":!i"~::

-:..:...~ j 1

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 15 of 61

I

VOL. 21 No.1
ISSN 1075-7678

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights

January 2010

Prison Health Care, Political Choice and the

Accidental Death Penalty in Michigan

I n Hadix v. Caruso, I represent a class of prisoners in a decadeslong case challenging conditions of confinement, includIng medical care, at various Michigan prison facilities. 2 Since August 2006 I have been haunted by the death of one of those prisoners, because in retrospect his death appears to be the inevitable by-product of a prison system swollen beyond any historical precedents or its ability to manage such a huge num.,bel' of people safely. Prisons are in fact extraordinarily difficult to operate safely and humanely, and the United States will continue to fail to do so absent a fund a.mental change in criminal justice policy.

'From the Editor

10

Houston Jail Deaths Grow

14

Prisons asEconomic Boon

16

'CCA Modifies Guard Settlement

20

Prison Video Visits Expand

22

California Sex Offenders

24

,Education as a Right for Prisoners

29

$10 Million Illinois Verdict Upheld

34

PLN Texas Lawsuit Update

38

China Reduces Executions

40

Starting Out Book Review

44

BOP Fails Drug Treatment

45

News in Brief

50

by Elizabeth Alexailderl

This article seeks to trace some connec- lithium for his bi-polar disorder and

tions between a dysfunctional criminal subsequently increasing his lithium. How-

justice policy and the death of one man. ever, there are no records of laboratory

Prison systems like Michigan's have monitoring of the level of lithium in his

been allowed to operate unsafe prisons . blood for the relevant period, although

because the Eighth Amendment fails to elevated lithium levels are toxic and can

provide an effective form of oversight, and cause symptoms ranging from mental

no other form of serious oversight exists in confusion to life-threatening side effects

the United States. In a series of decisions, such as kidney failure. Monitoring lithium

the Supreme Court has preserved the levels in the blood is considered absolutely

form of Eighth Amendment challenges to necessary when lithium is prescribed, and

conditions of confinement but little of the high lithium levels are particularly danger-

substance, by allowing severely overcrowd- ous in someone who is dehydrated.

ed prisons,3 suggesting that considerations

Near the end of May 2006, the

of cost can defeat an Eighth Amendment psychiatrist went on medical leave and

claim,4 and allowing Eighth Amendment thereafter there was no psychiatrist on-site

claims to be defeated even when prison for the 1,400 prisoners at the prison. In

conditions are objectively intolerable and July Mr. Souders was involved in a fight

deny prisoners basic human needs, includ- with another prisoner and was ordered to

ing health care.5 Unfortunately, Michigan punitive detention. After 30 days he was

may ultimately illustrate that the only real released, but he was sent back to the seg-

restraint on prison growth is its cost, not regation unit for taking an unauthorized

the Constitution.

'

shower during an August day in which the

I. The Lonesome Death of Timothy heat index was over 90.

Souders

He was put in a boxcar cell, meaning

Timothy Souders arrived at the an essentially unventilated cell with no

Southern Michigan Correctional Facility window and a solid metal door, rather

in March 2006 with medical problems that than an open barred cell front, on the sixth

included a thyroid disorder and cardiac level of the prison. When staff opened the

risk factors. 6 He also had been diagnosed food slot in one of the solid doors, which

with bipolar disorder and depression, and is how staff talked to people in those cells,

had attempted suicide multiple times. It on hot days they could feel a blast of hot

was duly noted in his medical record that, . air from inside the cell. During the next

because of his medications and medical few days the heat index in the cells rose

problems, he was at very high risk of in- to around 100. '

jury if exposed to excessive heat.

On August 2, 2006, Mr. Souders

In March 2006, the prison psychiatrist damaged the metal stool in his cell and

at the Southern Michigan Correctional was put into standing restraints. When he

Facility where Mr. Souders was confined tried to flood his sink, according to prison

changed his medications, prescribing records, a supervisory nurse approved cut-

Prison Legal News

1

January 2010

Page 3P4L8NCOL-00258

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6
. Prison Legal News
; 2400 NW 80th Street #148 Seattle, WA 98117
Change Service Requested

Filed 01/31/12

Page 16 of 61
Non-Profit Org. U.S. Postage ,. ,PAID Portland OR
Permit No. 3142

Subscription Renewal Subscriptions expire after the issue shown on the label is mailed. For example, if the label says: EXPIRES 02/2006, then the subscription expires after the February 2006 issues is mailed. Please renew at least 2 months before the expiration date. IF THE LABEL SAYS EXPIRES: 0112010 THIS IS YOUR LAST ISSUE. Please renew immediately to avoid missing any issues.

. .

Change of Address

If you move or are transfered, please

notify PLN as soon as possible so your

issues can be mailed to your new ad-

dress! PLN only accepts responsibil~ty

for sending an issue to the address pro-

vided at the time an issue is mailed!

Page 3P4L9NCOL-00259

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 17 of 61

9870.05 fa246305

EXHIBITDDD
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 350

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 18 of 61 Page 3P5L1NCOL-00298

"Ii' Pn-c/lsUultUnIl;L!!e' iga

II "ji•'..J!HeWW.!Sl!,

II I Hr! tl!!
I .. _,,-, ,

i

1j' p .,

m -

i II'
.• ,

i

l

l n II
.•

P.O. Box 2420

West Brattleboro, Vermont 05303

t..~
~ ;Wt¥tl§5£~:~§JAg~4~jUi'jL:'i".h~}g>;\-
..:~~~~'1- ~~~~~;~f:J ':~. 1.,:.. ;lf~.. "11.-:rr('J :~~tl"1:1 1:::el\:1.·

RETURN TO SENDER

OS:30:3@:24.20

'~

"~"t~ ..~~ "'1.

."Ot) "-e-S"~:1'!;'~

RETURN TO SENDER NOT OELIVERA6LE AS ADDRESSED
UNA6LE TO FORWARD

ee: 0.5:30:3:24:20:20

*266:3-:.1.9'7::::1'7- :.1.1$-42

111111111111 d1111111111111111111111,11,) 11,11,1) I JJ1,,, JIIII1

..;. -r_

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 19 of 61

Prison Legal N e-w-s

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights

P.O. Box 2420, W Brattleboro, VT 05303 ** ph: (802) 257-1342 fax: (866) 735-7136

www.prisonlegalnews. org

PLN@prisonlegalnews.org

06-Jun-ll

59575 **PLC** Expires: 7/2011 William Hess 2010002207 Columbia Co Jail 901 Port Ave 8t Helens, Oregon 97051

RE: Your PLN subscription expires with the July 2011 issue.

Dear Subscriber:

We are letting you know that one more issue remains to be mailed on your sUbscription to Prison Legal News. We hope you are pleased with the information that PLN is providing you on a monthly basis and hope you intend to renew your subscription. Renew now and take advantage of our 2, 3 or 4-year subscription specials!

• Renew for one year at $24 and you will receive 12 issu~s,

'.

·.';i:~Reh~:W [of:fye'its at $48 and you will receive our 2-year special of24 issues PLUS 2 extra

,.issues, for.a totalof26 issues>: ..,<'.,

. . - .•

• Renew for three .years at$72 and you will receive 4 extra issues (40 issues total) OR your choice of Protecting Your Health and Safety (a $10 value!). Pleasesee. PLN's book brochure for a
description of this book.

• Renew for four years at $96 and you will receive 6 extra issues (54 issues total) OR your choice of With Libertyfor Some (an $18.95 value!), or Prison Profiteers (a $24.95 value!). Please see PLN's book brochure for a description ofthese books.

We hope you decide to renew now so that your PLN subscription will not be interrupted. We look forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,

Paul Wright Executive Director

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The following form can be used to pay by credit card

Print Name on Card: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Visa/Me:

~._. --,-.-: _ _. _,- Expiration Date:...:..;....:..,.-"::-_---'_'-'-_'_

" , .. '

I autho.ri~e..Pri~o[\ LegalNe",stocharge a total of$_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _to my credit card.

Cardhdlders Signatlii~:::_·__·_·_ __'__ _ _ _ _ _·' ,_..BliIing ZIP: _ _ _ _ Date: _ _ _ __

Mail this form to: Prison Legal News, P.O. Box 2420, W Brattleboro, VT 05303 ph: (802) 257-1342 fax: (866) 735-7136. Prison Legal News is a 50J(c)(3) non-profit and donations are deductible in accordance with tax laws.

Page 3P5L2NCOL-00299

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 20 of 61 Page 3P5L3NCOL-00300

Order Form
All purchases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books, no singles) or pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed by prison policies.

Book Title / Number

Qty Total Cost

(attach another page if you are ordering more hooks)
Subtotal: Add 6% sales tax for VT residents only: Add $6.00 S/H to orders UNDER $50: Total Order Amount:
Send to:
Name: DOC#: Agency/lnst: Address: City/State/Zip:
M.UL PAYl\iENT AND TIDS FORM TO:
Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303
Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

FREE SHIPPING
On book and index orders OVER $50.00! A $6 shipping charge applies to all other book amI index onlel's.
(Free shipping policy in effect from Jan I, ::lOIO 1mtil further notice)

More Books for Sale!

Prisoners' Self-Help Litigation Manual, updated 4th ed. (2010), by John

Boston and Daniel Manville, Oxford Univ. Press, 1500 pages. $39.95. The

I I I premiere, must-have "Bible" of prison litigation for current and aspiring jail-
bouse lawyers. If you plan to litigate a prison or jail civil suit,

this book is a must-bave.

1077

Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the U.S.

and Canada, updated 3rd ed. by Jon Marc Taylor, Ph.D. and edited by Susan

Schwartzkopf, published by PLN, 221 pages. $49.95. Written by Missouri

prisoner Jon Marc Taylor, who obtained a B.S. degree, an M.A. degree and a

Doctorate, the Gllemlla Handbook contains contact information and descrip-

I I tions of high school, vocational, paralegal and college courses available
through correspondence study. Great resource for prisoners

who want to further dleir education.

1057 L - - . l_ _---'

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by Robert E. Toone, Southern Poverty

Law Center, 325 pages. $10.00. This book explains basic rights that prisoners

have in a jail or prison in the U.S. It deals mainly with rights related to health

I and safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by prison officials; it also
explains how you can enforce your rights within dle £~Cilil:Y"

and, if necessary, in court through litigation.

1060

Starting Out! The Complete Re-Entry Handbook, edited by William H.

Foster, Ph.D. & Carl E. Hom, Ph.D., Starting Out Inc., 446 pages. $22.95.

Complete do-it-yourself re-entry' manual and workbook for prisoners who

want to develop their own re-entry plan to increase their chances of success

I I after they are released Includes a wide variety of resources, including a user
~ode to dle Starting Outwebsite'that can be, accessed fOllOW-I

Ing release.

,

1074 ' "

'

Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners v. the U.S.A, by

Mumia Abu Jamal, City Lights Publishers, 280 pages. $16.95. In Jailhollse UIV-

yers, Prison Legal News columnist, award-winning journalist and deadl-row

prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal presents dle stories and reflections of fellow pris-

I oners-turned-advocates who have learned to use the court system to represent
other prisoners, and in some cases have won their freedom. I I

Must-read for jailhouse lawyers!

1073 L,_ - - ' ,_ _ _--',

How to Win Your Personal Injury Claim, by Atty. Joseph Matthews, 7dl

edition, NOLO Press, 304 pages. $34.99. While not specifically for prison-

related personal injury cases, this book prm~des comprehensive information

I on how to handle personal injury and property d~mage claims arising from

~ccidents - including dealing widl doctors, attorneys and

I

I

Insurance comparues.

1075 "

'

All prices are effective as of9-15-10 (plices subject to change without notice)
* No refunds afterorders have been placed *

P,RISON)[EGAL NEWS
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
2010 PLN BOOK LIST
Prices Subject to Change Without Notice Grapbic from: Books 2 Prisoners, Vancouver, Be
P.O. Box 2420, BmttlebOl'o, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.prisonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 21 of 61 Page 3P5L4NCOL-00301

Check the box of the books you want to buy and use the Order Fonn on the other side ofthis brochure to add up the cost of your order. FREE SmPPJNG for book and index orders OVER $50. Th~re is a $6 shipping charge for all other book and index orders.

Prison Profiteer.;, edital by Paul Wright and Tam Herivel, 323 pages. $24.95. 'nus is d,e d1ircfand hrest book in a series ofPris~n r.eg,.I News andlOlogies th.,t examines d,e reality of

mass imprisonment in America. (The other tides are The Cellillg ofAJJJenra & Piisoll Naholl,

I I I see below). Prisoll Projleer.r is unique frum odler books becluse it ""']JOses and discusses
who profits and benefits frum m'5S imprisonmen~ ruther than who is

hannedbyitandhow.

1063 ,

,

,

I I , Prison Nation: The Warehousing of America's Poor, edital by Tam Herivel and Paul
Wrigll~ 332 pages. $35.95. PIN andlOlogr ""poses d,e cbrk side ofthe

1ock-em-up'politicli agenda and legal climarein the U.s. ,1041,

,

,

The CeIling of America, edital by Daniel Burton Rose, Dan Pens and Paul WrigI1t, 264

pages. $22.95. PIN andlology presents a detlliled "inside" look at the 1 1

1

workings ofthe Ameriam criminal justice system.

1001 , ,

,

Everyday Letters for Busy People, by Debra Hart Mal', 287 pages. $18.99.

Hundreds of sample letters that can be adapted for most any purpose, including

letters to government agencies and officials. Has numerous 1

1

tips for writing effective letters.

1048 ,

,

The Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System, by
Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sam J. Berman-Barrett, Nolo Press, 608 pages. $39.99.

&plains what happens in a criminal case from being arrested to sentencing, and what

),our rights are at eacll stage of d,e process. Uses an eas)' to under-I

stand question-and-answer fotnlat

1038 L,_ - "_ _ _- '

Represent Yourself in Court: How to Prepate & Try a Winning Case, by
Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sam J. Berman-Barrett, Nolo Press, 528 pages. $39.99.

I I Breaks down d,e civil trial process in easy-to-understand steps so ),ou can effectively
represent yourself in court TI,e authors "-,plain what to sal' in

co~ how to sal' it, etc.

1037 ,

,

Law Dictionary, Random House Webster's, 525 pages. $19.95. Comprellensi\'e un -

to-date hw dictionary ""phins more d,an 8,500 legal terms. I

/

Covers civil, criminal, commercial & international hw.

1036 L../_ _' - -_ _- '

The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, by jane Straus, 110 pages,

$14.95. A guide to grammar and punctuation by an educator I I

1

with experience teaching English to prisoners.

1046 L,_ - ' ,_ _ _-'.

Legal Research: How to Find and Understand the Law, by Stephen Elias and

Susan Levinkind, 568 pages. $49.99. Comprellensive and easy to understand guide

on researclling the law. &phins case hw, statutes and digests, I 1

1

and much more. Includes practice "-'(ercises.

1059 L..,_ - ' - ,_ _ _- ' .

Deposition Handbook, by Paul Bergman and Albert Moore, Nolo Press, 352

pages: $34.99. How-to handbook for anyone who conducts a 1 1

I

deposition or is going to be deposed.

1054 L,_ - , - ,_ _ _-',

Spanish-English/English-Spanish Dictionary, R.wdom House. $8.95. Two

sections, Spanish-English and English-Spanish. 60,000+ entries 1 1

from A to Z; includes Western Hemisphere usage.

1034 L,_ - ' ,_ _ _- '

Please Note: All hook and nidex orders are mailed via the U.S. Postal Service with Delivery Confumation. PLN does not assume any responsibility to replace hook or index orderS once their delivery to the destination address (facility) is confumed hy the U.S. Postal Service.

Writing to Win: The Legal Writer, by Steven D. Stark, Broadway Books/Random

House, 283 pages. $19.95. E.'phins d,e \vciting of effe,ctive compLwts, I I

1

responses, btiefs, motions and other legal papers.

1035 L,_ - , - ,_ _- - ' ,

Actual Innocence: When Justice Goes Wrong and How to Make it Right, updHred

paperback ed., by Barry Scherk, Peter Neufeld and Jim Dwyer; 403 pages. $16.00.

Founders of d,e Innocence Project ""phin how ctiminaI defendants are wtongly con-

victed on a regular basis. E.'pLws DNA resting and how it works to free d,e ionocent

Devasmting ctitique of police and prosecutoti.'1I misconduct and the. 1 1

1

systern d,at ensures such abuses continue.

,.

1030 L..,_ - , - ,_ _ _-',

Roger's Thesaurus, 717 pages. $8.95. Helps you find the right word for whHt

you want to say. 11,000 words listed a1phabeticaiIy with over 200,000 synonyms

and antonyms. Sample sentences and parts of speech shown for every main

word. Covers all levels of vocabulary and identifies informal 1 1

1

and slang words.

1045 L,_ - ' - ._ _- - ' ,

Webster's English Dictionary, Newly revised and updated, Random House.

$8.95. 75,000+ entries. Includes tips on writing Hnd word uSHge, and has up-

dated geographical and biographical entries. Includes recent 1 1

1

business and computer terms.

1033".

Capital Crimes, by George Winslow, Montiuy Review, 360 pages. $19.00.

Explains how economic policies create and foster crime, and 1 1

1

how corporate & government crime is rarely punished. 1024

With Liberty for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America, by Scott

Christiahson, Nortileastern Urnversity Press, 372 pages. $18.95. TI,e best

overall history of the American prison system from 1492 tilfough tile 20th

I I 'I Ceutury. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how little
tiungs have changed as far as prisons go in tile U.S. over

hundreds of years.

1026"

.

Ten Men Dead: The story of the 1981 Irish hunger strike, by Da\~d Beres-

ford, Atiantic Monthly Press, 334 pages. $16.95. Inside story of 1 1

'1

IRA prisoners at Belfast's Long Kesh prison.

1006 . ,

,

Finding the Right Lawyer, by jay Foonberg, ABA, 256 pages. $19.95. E.'(-

plains how to deternline your legal needs, how to evaluate a 1 1

1

lawyer's qualifications, fee payments, and more.

1015"

.

Seize the Day! 7 Steps to Achieving the Extraordinary in an Ordinary

World, by Danny Cox and john Hoover, 256 pages. $15.99. PrO\~des 7 steps

to changing your expectations and eO\~sioning yourself as being a successful

and respected person-which is essential to changing tile 1 1

1

course of one's life.

1052

Women Behind Bars, The Crisis of Women in the U.S. Prison System, by

Silja ].A. Talvi, Seal Press, 295 pages. $15.95. Best book available that covers

issues related to imprisoned women, based on interviews widl 1

hundreds ofwomeu behind bars.

1066 L,_ - ' -_ _- - '

10 Insider Secrets to a Winning Job Search, by Todd Bermont, 216 pages.

$15.99. Roadmap on how to get a job even under adverse circumstances-like

being an ex-con. Includes how to develop a winning attitude, write attention-

grabbing resumes, prepare for intet\~ews, networkin.g, how to 1 1

1

present your strengths to an employer, and much more! 1056"

,

The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, 2003

Ed. b)' Alfred McCoy, 734 pages. $34.95. Documented "-'"pose 1 1

1

of the government's involvement in drug trafficking.

1014 L,_ - , - ,_ _- - ' .

Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis, by Christian Parenti,

290 pages. $19.00. Analyzes d,e war on the poor via d,e ctiminaI justice system Well

documenred and includes first-hand reponing. Covers prisons" pam-I .1

milimr)' policing, SWAT t = and d'e lNS.

1002 L,_ - , - ,_ _- - '

Hepatitis and Liver Disease: What You Need to Know, by Melissa Palmer, lYID,

457 pages. $17.95, Desctibes symptoms & treatments ofhepatiris B & C and other

liver diseases. Includes medications to avoid, what diet to follow, I 1

1

"-xercises to perfonn, and a bibliography.

1031

Crime and Punishment In America, by Elliott Currie, 230 pages.·$16.95. Effective

I I I rebuttal to rigI1t-wing proponenis of prison building. Fact-based argument shows th.,t
crime is driven by povetty. Debunks prison myths and discusses

proven, effective means ofcrime prevention.

1019

Prison Madness: The Mental Health Crisis Behind Bars and What We

Must Do About It, by Terry Kupers,jossey-Bass, 245 pages. Hardback only,

prisoners please include any required authorization fonn. $32.95. Psychia-

I I I trist writes about d,e mental health crisis in U.S. prisons and jails. Covers all
aspects of mental illness, prison rape, negative effects of longe

term isolation in control units, and more.

1003

Prison Writing in 20th Century America, by H. Bruce Franklin, Penguin

Books, 368 pages. $16.00. From jack London to George jackson, this

antilOlogy provides a selection of some of tile best writing 1 1

describing life behind bars in America.

1022 ----1 L._ - ' ,_ _

Fi I Soledad Brother: The Prison Letters of George Jackson, by George jackson,
Lawrence Hill Books, 339 pages. $18.95. Lucid ""phnation of I'e litiCS of prison by a well-known prison acti\~st More relevant now d,an

when it first appeared 40 years ago.

1016

Marijuana Law, by Richard Boire, Ronin, 271 pages. $17.95. Ex.W1ines how to

reduce d,e ptobability ofarrest and prosecution for people accused of d,e use, sale or

possession of marijuana. Infu on legal defenses, search & seizures, I 1

1

sntVeilhnce, asset forfeiture and drug testing.

1008 ----1, L..,_ - ' ,_ _

Worse Than Slavery: Parchman Fann and the Ordeal ofJirn Crow Justice, by

Da\~d Osllinsky, 306 pages. $16.00. Analysis of ptison bbor's roots in shvet}'.

Focuses on prison pLwtations and self-sustaining prisons tilat use I 1

1

prison L,bor.

1007,.

,

No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the American Criminal Justice

System, by David Cole, The New Press, 218 pages. $19.95. &plains how the

criminal justice system perpetuates race and d,ss inequality, 1 1

1

creating a two-tiered system of justice.

1028 L,_ - ' ,_ _- - ' ,

The Prison and the Gallows: The Politics of Mass Incarceration in

America, by Marie Gottscllalk, Cambridge Urnversity Press, 451 pages.

$29.99. Great political analysis of tile confluence of events 1

1

leading to 2.3 million people bellind bars in the U.S.

1069

L . . ,_ - ' -_ _- ' .

The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, by Brandon

Sample, PIN Publislling, 200 pages. $49.95. Tlus is PIN's second published

book, wlucll exclusively covers ineffective assistance of counsel-related

issues in federal habeas petitions. Great resource for habeas I 1

1

litigation, and contains hundreds of case cites!

1078"

.

Factor 8 (DVD), a film by Kelly Duda, Concrete Films. $21.95. Movie

about tile Arkansas prison blood scandal, in wluch prison officials sold

infected blood harvested from prisoners. Note: This is a 1

DVD and cannot be shipped to prison.

1076 L.,_ - ' -_ _- '

PLN Cumulative Index. $22.50 each. PLN Article Ind"-'(es provide detailed information about all PLN articles, including title, autilor, issue, page number, topics covered, citations, and if it is state, BOP or jail specific. Can be
I' searched on over 500 subjects such as medical neglect or se>.-ual assault Circle
the index(es) you are ordering: 1990-1995, 1996-1998, 1999-1 2001, 2002-2004. (more recent indexes not yet available)

All books are soft cover except Prison Madness

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 22 of 61 Page 3P5L5NCOL-00302

Order Form
All purchases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new stamps (strips or books) or pre-stamped envelopes.

Books (3 & 4 yr Subscription Specials: CIRCLE
one book.Q! bonus issues, and DO NOT add SIH)
Protecting Your Health and Safety or 4 Bonus Issues (3-yr subscription offer)

$Amt.
Free

Prison Profiteers or With Liberty for Some

m: 6 Bonus Issues (4-yr subscription offer)

Free

Book Total (inc. all books bought separately)

Add 6% sales tax for Vermont residents only

ADD $6.00 SIH to book orders UNDER $50

PLN Subscriptions
6-month Subscription (Prisoners only) 1 yr Subscription (12 issues) 2 yr Subscription (24 plus 2 Bonus issues) 3 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above.Q! 4 Bonus issues) 4 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above.Q! 6 Bonus issues) Sample Issue - $3.50 each
TOTAL Amount Enclosed:

Send to:
Name: DOC#: Agency/lnst: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Address: City/State/Zip: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

MAIL PA1'lHENT AND THIS FORM TO:
Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303

Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.qrg

PLN SubSCl'iption Rates

Subscription Rates 1yr 2yrs 3yrs 4yrs

Prisoners *

$24 $ 48 $ 72 $ 96

Individuals

$30 $ 60 $ 90 $120

Professionals

$80 $160 $240 $320

(Lawyers, govt. & professional agencies, libraries, etc.)

Sample issue for anyone - $3.50 each*

Six-month prisoner subscription for $12*

* Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books only) or pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed byprison policies.

-- ------- :- - - - - - - - - S~;c;ip;i~~ B-o;'~;;s!
1
1 2 years - 2 bonus issues, for 26 monthly issues total. : 3 years - 4 bonus issues (40 total) OR Protecting Your Health and 1 Safety (see book description on the other side ofthis brochure). : 4 years - 6 bonus issues (54 total) OR your choice of With Libertyfor
!..S~~e_J!!.~ri.:o~~r~e~:.(~:.d:s~ri'p~o~.?~~:.o~h:r:i~e~ _____I

New 3 01' 4-Year SubSCl'iption Book Offel's!

Subscribe or renew for three years at the regular price
($72 for prisoners & $90 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Protecting Your Health and Safety or
four bonus issues of PLN! (40 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.
Subscribe or renew for four years at the regular price ($96 for prisoners & $120 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Prison Profiteers or With Libertyfor Some, or 6 bonus issues of PLN! (54 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.

NO shipping charge for subscription bonus books!

NOTE: If you want the bonus issues of PLN instead of the free book offer, please indicate that on the Order Form.

u;io; :- - - - - - -C-o;';a~;

'PiN;-s-io~k - ii~! --- --~

1

1

1 You can buy dozens of legal, social commentary, self-I

: help books, and legal and regular dictionaries directly:

: from PL~'s boo~c store! Ask us for a book list, or view:

1 our selectIOn online at:

1

www.prisonlegainews.org/store.aspx

1

1______ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

All subscription rates & bonus offers are effective as of5-1"10
and valid through 12-31-10
* No l'efunds after onleI'S have heen placed *

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
Eastern State Penitentiary 1829-1971
Charles Dickens visited Philadelphia's Eastern State Penitentiary in 1842 and he later wrote: "The System is rigid, strict and hopeless ... and I believe it to be cruel and wrong....I hold this slow and daily tampering with the mysteries of the brain to be immeasurably worse than any torture of the body." The prison remained open for 129 years after Dickens condemned it as being barbaric, and some of its inhumane practices continue to be used in prisons nationwide.
P.O. Box 2420, BI·attleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.prisonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 23 of 61 Page 3P5L6NCOL-00303

"I! InlU" lrl!"!' I_If!n i"l

P l'ison Legal News is an independent, non-profit 56-page monthly publication that repOl'ts, reviews and analyzes COUl't rulings and news related to
prisoners'rights a:n:d prison issues'. PLN has a national (U.S.) focus on state, federal and pl'ivate prison issues,
with some intel'national coverage as well.
PLN's many thousands of subscribers and readers include civil and crinIinal tl'ial and appellate attorneys, judges, public defenders, jOUl'nalists, academics, pamlegals, pI'isoners' l'ights activists, students, family members of prisonel's, concerned individuals, politicians, other government officials, and numerous local, state and fedel'al prisoners nationwide.
PLN is a vital link for prisoners who othenvise don't
have access to cUlTent, legal. and pl'ison-l'elated ,news and information.

"Invaluable resource for an)rcme\vanting 'user friendly'

information about currenUegal,developments affecting

, .'prisoners in the. United States."

. .

....

, - Human Rights Watch, :i long-time PLN subscriber

P LN's coverage of prison issues includes medical neglect, disciplinary heal'ings, nutrition, living conditions, excessive force, court access, censorship, jail litigation, visiting, telephones, l'eligious freedom, fi'ee speech, prison rape, mental health, attorney/ client access, sexual abuse of women prisoners, re-
taliation, the PLRA, HIV and hep C, control units,
the death penalty, attorney fees and much more.

PLN Subscription Rates
PI'isoners: $12 for 6 months, $24 per year *
'l'on-incarcerated individuals: $30 per year l.aw firms, govt. agencies and libraries: $80 per year
,ample issue for anyone: $3.50 each*
, Prisoners can pay with new stamps or pre-stamped envelopes

E ach monthly, issue of· PLN .includes· three different types of reporting: • A cover story on a prison-related issue. ... Reports on. individual and class-action prison and jail-
related lawsuits when they are filed, when a judgment is entered or the case settles, and when an appellate court decision is issued. We also have prison-related news articles. , • A "News In Brief" section that summarizes interesting news stories across the U.S. and internationally.
Each issue of PLN also contains numerous advertisements 'from businesses that provide prison-related personal and , legal services and books. PLN further sells dozens of selfhelp, social commentary and legal books.
PLN also has cumulative subject and case cite indexes for all PLN issues from 1990 through 2004. Write for info.
Special3-year Subscription Offer!

Free with a 3-year PLN subscl'iption! Four bonus issues of PLN (40 issues total) or a fi.·ee book, Protecting Your Health and Safety! Circle your bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (3-year subscription rates: prisoners $72, individuals $90, professionals $240).

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by "A-----t

Robert E. Toone. Published by the South-

ern' Poverty Law Center, 325 pages (2009).

$10.00 (free with a 3-year sub!). This book

explains, some basic rights' that prisoners

I have in
maiIily

a jail with

or prison in the U.S. It deals rights related to health and

II~

-9----

safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by

prison officials; it also explains how you can enforce your

rights to health and safety within the facility and, if nec-

essary, in court through litigation. Buy separately: ___

-----------------------------------~------,
You Can Buy These Books Sepat'ately!
If you don't want to purchase a 3 or 4,-year subscription to PLN, you can still purchase any of the bonus books at the regular price. Just indicate which books you want to buy on this page, then enter the iotal cost on the other side of this brochure on the "Book Total" line of the 01'I del' Form. Shipping is $6 per order (not per book), and we : offer FREE shipping on book orders of $50 or more! To : place a phone order, please call 802-257-134,2. We also I : accept book orders online, at ww'\.....prisoIilegalnews.org. :
L ___.______________________________________ J

D onations: PLN is a project of the non-profit Human . Rights Defense Center. Your tax-deductible donations support .our advocacy, free speech and First Amendment litigation efforts on behalf of prisoners and publishers. PLN not oIily provides uncensored prison-related news, but actively contests prison censorship 'that intetferes with the delivery of our publication or any other PLN materials sent to prisoners. All donations further our goal, of advocating for people imprisoned in U.S. detention facilities.
"Great source of information, especially in states such as Arizona where the law libraries have been taken from the inmates and replaced with paralegals." - SB, Arizona prisoner '
I Special4-year Subscription Offer! -
Free with a 4-year PLN subscription!. Six bonus issues of PLN (54 issues total) 01' one free book, With Liberty for Some 01' Prison Profiteers! Circle your bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (4-year subscription rates: prisoners $96, individuals $120, professionals $320). Note: Free book option is for one book.
With Liberty for Some: 500 Years Imprisonment in America, by Scott Christianson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages (1998). $18.95 (fi.·ee with a 4-yeru: sub!). A classic book and the best overall history of the American prison system from 1492 to the 20th Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how little things have changed as far as prisons go in the U.S. over hundreds of years. Buy separately: ___
or
Prison Profiteers: Who Ma/.es Money Mass Incarceration, edited by Paul
Wright & Tara Herivel, New Press (2007). $24.95 (fi.·ee with a 4-year sub!). This is the third in a series ofPLN anthologies that examines the reality of mass imprisonment in the U.S. Prison Profiteers is unique from other .books on the market because it exposes and discusses who profits and benefits from mass imprisonment, rather than whoisharmed by the prison industrial complex and our nation's reliance ouover-incarceration. Buy separately: _ __

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 24 of 61

, ,.
T he Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance oj Counsel is the first in a series of books by Prison Legal News Publishing designed to help pro-se prisoner litigants identify and raise viable claims for potential habeas corpus relief. This book is an invaluable resource that identifies hundreds of cases where the federal courts have granted habeas relief to prisoners whose attorneys provided ineffective assistance of counsel.
It will save litigants
thousands of hours of research and it focuses on the
WINNING cases criminal defendants need to
successfully challenge their convictions.
Well organized into 52 concise chapters, this easy to use book puts the law at the reader's fingertips. The Appendix includes pleadings and forms from successful habeas corpus cases that

"

The Habeas Citebook is a

nifty and concise self-help

guide for prisoners seeking

habeas relief based on claims of

ineffective assistance of counsel.

Navigating the complex and

treacherous terrain of habeas

law is never easy; but claim-

ing that your lawyer screwed up

is even more difficult - espe-

cially from the confines of an

demonstrate formatting and show ill-equipped prison law library.

how to frame a winning argu-

"Brandon Sample has pro-

ment that will persuade a court

vided an amazing and much-

to grant habeas relief. The Habeas

needed tool for prisoners who

Citebook explains the proce-

are forced to seek relief on their

dural and substantive complexi-

own. The book is thorough; but

ties of federal habeas corpus lit-

simple and readable. It starts

igation with the goal of identify-

with a wonderfully well-orga-

ing and litigating claims involving nized listing of hundreds of dif-

ineffective assistance of counsel.

ferent types of ineffective assis-

Brandon Sample is a success-

tance of counsel, set forth in the

ful jailhouse lawyer litigant incar-

form of citations to court rul-

cerated in the Bureau of Prisons.

ings - a novel approach that

He is a Prison Legal News contrib- not only acts as a springboard

uting writer and a member of the

for further research but also

National Lawyer's Guild. Editor

saves the prisoner countless

Susan Schwartzkopf has a mas-

hours of preliminary r~search:'

ter's degree in education and is

the director and editor in chief of

PETER SCHMIDT

Prison Legal News Publishing.

Publisher, Punch & Jurists

THE HABEAS CITEBOOK: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

By Brandon Sample 8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed ______
I By: D check D new postage stamps D credit card D money order

ISBN 978-0-9819385-1-6
$49·95 3 or more copies ordered
at once $39.95 each

Name

I

DOC/BOP Number _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-'--_ _ _ _ _ _ __
I Institution/Agency _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _'---_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

I FREE Shipping & Handling Address_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Order by mail, phone, or on-line. City _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ State

ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

I

PRISON LEGAL NEWS P.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 0530 3
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 3P5L7NCOL-00304

" Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6

Filed 01/31/12

Page 25 of 61

-----------,

Copies of this very usable and useful gUide

should be available in every prison library-to

help incarcerated people give positive direc-

tion to their energies while making constructive

use of their time. It is a well-established fact that

people who have taken college courses in prison

have a dramatically reduced rate of recidivism."

L-_____ -BELL GALE CHEVIGNY, PEN Prison Writing Program, _ ____~ Editor Doing Time: 25 Years ofPrison Writing.

HIGH SCHOOL. VOCATIONAL • PARALEGAL • UNDERGRADUATE. GRADUATE COURSES

IIII!IIIIIIII HE GREATLY anticipated and newly updated third edition of the Prisoners Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the
United States and Canada has finally arrived! Author Jon Marc Taylor's brand new version is the latest in this unique and highly successful gUidebook for the prisoner-student. This invaluable tool and how-to handbook provides the reader with step-by-step instructions to find the appropriate educational program for high school, vocational, paralegal, undergraduate, and graduate courses offered in the U.S. and Canada today.
Invaluable re-entry tool
It presents more than 160 program outlines and offers an easy-to-use format for the student to determine which program best suits their needs. It is ideal for the incarcerated student who does not have Internet access or the ability to attend education classes in person. This resource is indispensable

for the individual and beneficial for use in all prison libraries and education departments.
The Prisoners Guerrilla Handbook is the only book on the market for the non-traditional prisoner-student. It includes detailed listings of the quality, cost, and course offerings for all correspondence programs available to prisoners. In a time when so many academic opportunities in prisons have been eliminated, this book is an invaluable re-entry tool for prisoners who seek to further their education while incarcerated and to help them prepare for life and work following their release.
Jon Marc Taylor has more than 25 years experience as an incarcerated student, advocate for prisoner education, and author. He has successfully earned a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and a doctorate via correspondence courses while incarcerated. Editor Susan Schwartzkopf has a master's degree in education and 12 years experience teaching immigrants English language skills.

--------------------~ I PRISONERS' GUERRILLA HANDBOOK TO CORRESPONDENCE PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA I

By Jon Marc Taylor PHD 8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages ISBN 978-0-9819385-0-9

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed _____
By: D check D new postage stamps D credit card D money order I
Name __________________________

$49·95
3 or more copies ordered

DOC/BOP Number _________________________-'-__

at once 539.95 each

Institution/Agency ________________________

FREE Shipping & Handling Address_________________________________

I Order by mail/ phone/ or on-line. City _________________________ State

ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

I PRISON lE6AlNEWS P.O. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 0530 3

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 3P5L8NCOL-00305

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 26 of 61

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBIT EEE
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 359

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 27 of 61 Page 3P6L0NCOL-00017

Sox ,Prison Legal News
, p'"O. 2420',,,
West Brattleppro, Vermont 05303
'.,; ,

\j~~~'~{£:l';'~2 ~~~7f'·~~.![!?~';t· _1~l:~~~~:C;1~"r~~~I!'~~.
. ·~~:I~~1Z·. ?C:~s.~: ~K: It.
1~;~~"~~'" ;J~:~f~~;}~~; .;:~·~~;'::f.1;!.~. ~~~~t~~{.\·~.

TO RETURN~~ 1 0("Cr~r.\,jlu~,-"ER

._.._~ .....:-.: .::: :- :...:;:~: J.

'":r

."._::':.:'__:.

.!~ ?::~: :z,03@!24!20

'}~I't'5~it~

'~"":~ .~~ 'Ii

"'O'e) ~'~~7~ii

FilE:'TlJRN 'TO SENOEr-l NOT CELXVERA9LE AS ADDRESSED
UNA6LE 'TO FORWARD

Be: C).!''>SO::3!24!2020

*2SSS-1e7S0-1S-4~

111""1,1",/1,11"",/1,11/,1,1"1,,/,111,,,,,1,111,,,/,/,,/

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 28 of 61
Prison Legal Ne~s

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights

P.O. Box 2420, W Brattleboro, VT 05303 ** ph: (802) 257-1342 fax: (866) 735-7136

www.prisonlegalnews.org

PLN@prisonlegalnews.org

06-Jun-11

59577 **PLC** Expires: 7/2011 Martin Kay 2010001188 Columbia Co Jail 901 Port Ave 8t Helens, Oregon 97051

RE: Your PLN subscription expires with the July 2011 issue.
Dear Subscriber:
We are letting you know that one more issue remains to be mailed on your sUbscription to Prison Legal News. We hope you are pleased with the information that PLN is providing you on a monthly basis and hope you intend to renew your subscription. Renew now and take advantage of our 2, 3 or 4-year subscription specials!

• Renew for one yeaLl!t$24_E!:mtXQlJwilLreceive 12, issues.
:.'i 'Renew fo(2)years at $48 and you will receive our 2-year special of24 issues PLUS 2 extra

is~ues, for ,a tptal of26.issues.:

' ", ,,-,'" "

": . ,:

• ':R~~ew f~ithree y:earsat,,$72 and you will receive 4 extra issues (40 issues total) OR your choice

"of Protecting Your Health and Safety (a $10 value!). Please see PLN's book brochure for a

description of this book.

• Renew for four years at $96 and you will receive 6 extra issues (54 issues total) OR your choice

of With Libertyfor Some (an $18.95 value!), or Prison Profiteers (a $24.95 value!). Please see PLN's

book brochure for a description ofthese books.

We hope you decide to renew now so that your PLN subscription will not be interrupted. We look forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,

Paul Wright Executive Director

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• +•• +.+ •• + The following form can be used to pay by credit card

Print Name on Card: ------------------------------------------------------
Visa/MC:'~- ~~'_. _~ _ _ _' _- _ _ _ _ Expirationpate:_-'--__--'-__-'----'-'_

"

,;';.;r.: ". •

" , ' " ,I, .,,:" -

'., "

"

•

I

I

auth;o;:'r.:I.z"'e:,.:P' r:I.>s"on"L,ega:l"N"e,w;,'s

:,t.o'Cc' harge

a

total

of$

to

-----------------------

my

credit

card.

Cardholders Sigiiatu~e:;_v_::;'-:-:--:--~~-,--_,,,_.:_<_'_'_'_:,_:.":__:>i3iiling zip:' '_'_':'___ Date: ._. _'_:'_',_,_.'_ _

Mail this form to: Prison Legal News, P.O. Box 2420, W Brattleboro, VT 05303 ph: (802) 257-1342 fax: (866) 735-7136. Prison Legal News is a 501 (c)(3) non-profit and donations are deductible in accordance with tax laws.

Page 3P6L1NCOL-00018

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 29 of 61 Page 3P6L2NCOL-00019

Order Form
All purchases must he pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or hooks, no singles) or pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed by prison policies.

Book Title / Number

Qty Total Cost

(attach another page if you are ordering more books)
Subtotal: Add 6% sales tax for VT residents only: Add $6.00 SIR to orders UNDER $50: Total Order Amonnt:
Send to:
Name: DOC#: Agency/lnst: Address: City/State/Zip: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
MAIL PAYMENT AND TillS FORM TO: Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303
Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard 802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

FREE SHIPPING
On hook and index ol'del's OVER $50.00! A $6 shipping charge applies to all other hook 3]](1 index Oll1el'S.
(Free shipping policy in effect from Jan 1, 2010 until further notice)

More Books for Sale!

Prisoners' Self-Help Litigation Manual, updated 4th ed. (2010), by John

Boston and Daniel Manville, Oxford Univ. Press, 1500 pages. $39.95. The
I I I premiere, must-have "Bible" of prison litigation for current and aspicing jail-
house lawyers. If you plan to litigate a prison or jail civil suit,

tlus book is a must-have.

1077

Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the U.S.

and Canada, updated 3rd ed. by Jon Marc Taylor, Ph.D. and edited by Susan

Schwartzkopf, published by PLN, 221 pages. $49.95. Written by :tvfissouri

prisoner Jon Marc Taylor, who obtained a B.S. degree, an M.A. degree and a

Doctorate, ti,e Guerol/a HalJdbook contains contact information and descrip-

I I tions of high school, vocational, paralegal and college courses available
through correspondence study. Great resource for prisoners

who want to further tlleir education.

1057 '--_.1-_ _--'

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by Robert E. Toone, Southern Poverty

Law Center, 325 pages. $10.00. This book explains basic rights that prisoners

have in a jailor prison in ti,e U.S. It deals mainly witll rights related to health

I I I and safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by prison officials; it also
explains how you can enforce your rights witlun the facility

and, if necessary, in court through litigation.

1060 . .

.

Starting Out! The Complete Re-Entry Handbook, edited by William H.

Foster, Ph.D. & Carl E. Horn, Ph.D., Starting Out Inc., 446 pages. $22.95.

Complete do-it-yourself re-entry manual and workbook for prisoners who

want to develop tI,eir own re-entry plan to increase their chances of success

I I after tlley are released. Includes a· wide variety of resources, including a user
~ode to the Starting Out website that can be accessed fOllOW-j

lng release.

:

1074 . .

.

Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners v. the U.S.A., by

Murnia Abu Jamal, City Lights Publishers, 280 pages. $16.95. In jailhollSe Lo,v-

yers, Prison Legal News columnist, award-winning journalist and death-row

prisoner Murnia Abu-Jamal presents tile stories and reflections of fellow pris-

I oners-turned-advocates who have learned to use tile court system to represent
other prisoners, and in some cases have won their freedom.,

Must-read for jaililOuse lawyers!

1073 ..J L-._ - ' - ._ _ _

How to Win Your Personal Injury Claim, by Atty. Joseph Matthews, 7th

edition, NOLO Press, 304 pages. $34.99. While not specifically for prison-

related personal injury cases, tlUs book provides comprehensive information

I I I on how to handle personal injury and property damage claims arising from
~ccidents - including dealing with doctors, attorneys and

lnsurance comparues.

1075 L._ - ' ._ _ _--'.

All prices me effective as of 9-15-10 (plices subject to change without notice)
* No l'efunds afterordel's have been placed *

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
2010 PLN BOOK LIST
Prices Subject to Change Without Notice
Graphic from: Books 2 Prisoners, Vancouver, Be
P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.pl.isonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 30 of 61 Page 3P6L3NCOL-00020

Check the box of the books you want to buy and use the Order Form on the other side of this bro~hure to add up the cost of your order. FREE SIllPPING for book and index orders OVER $50. There is a $6 shipping charge for all other book and index orders.

Prison Profiteets, edited by Paul Wright and Tara Herivel, 323 pages. $24.95. TIns is the

third and Lotest book in a series ofPrison Leglli News andlDlogies dmt examines d,e reality of
mass inlprisonment in America. (Ihe odler tides are The Cellillg ifAJlJenm & PIisOII Natioll,

see below). Pdsoll Projlt'C1S is unique from odler books because it ""poses and disrusses

who profits and benefits from mass imprisonment; mther than who is 1 1

1

hanned by it and how.

1063 .

.

.

I Prison Nation: The Warehousing of America's Poor, edited by Tara Herivel and Paul
Wright; 332 pages. $35.95. PIN andlDlogy e."poses the d1lk side ofthe I I

1ock-em·up'political agenda and legal climate in d,e US.

1041 . .

.

The CeIIing of America, edited by Darciel Burton Rose, Dan Pens and Paul Wright; 264

pages. $22.95. PIN andlDlogy presents a detniled "inside" look at d,e I I

I

workings ofthe American criminal justice system.

1001 . .

.

Everyday Letters for Busy People, by Debra Hatt May, 287 pages. $18.99.

Hundreds of sample letters that can be adapted for most any purpose, including

letters to government agenci.es and officials. Has numerous I

rips for writing effecrive letters. .

1048 L._ - - '_ _........l

The Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your llights, Survive the System, by
Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sara J. Berman-Barrett; Nolo Press, 608 pages. $39.99.

E.'pLoins what happens in a criminal case from being arrested to sentenciog, aod what

your rights are at eam stage of the process. Uses ao easy to under-I

stand question-aod-aoswer format.

1038 '-._--'_ _ _-'

Represent Yourself in Court: How to Prepare & Try a Winning Case, by

Attorneys Paul Bergmao & Sara J. Benruin-Barrett; Nolo Press, 528 pages. $39.99.

I I Breaks down the civil trial process in easy-to-understand steps so you cao effectively

represent yoursel~ in court. TIle authors ""pLoin what to say in

I

court, how to say It; etc.

1037...

Law Dictionary, Raodom House Webster's, 525 pages. $19.95. Comprel1ensive

to-date law dictionary e."pLoins more thao 8,500 legal terms. i

i

Covers civil, criminal, commercial & int<;rnatioruU law.

1036 Li_ - ' ' - -_ _--'

The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, by Jaoe Straus, 110 pages.

I $14.95. A guide to grammar and punctuation by an educator

I

I

with e."perience teachiog English to prisoners.

1046

Legal Research: How to Find and Understand the Law, by Stephen Elias aod

I I I Susao Leviokind, 568 pages. $49.99. Comprehensive aod easy to understand guide
on researclling the law. E.'plains case law, statutes and digests,

aod muel1 more. Includes practice e."ercises.

1059

L . . ._ - - ' ._ _ _- ' .

Deposition Handbook, by Paul·Bergmao aod Albert Moore, Nolo Press, 352

pages. $34.99. How-to haodbook for aoyone who conducts a I I

I

deposirion or is going to be deposed.

1054 ..J. L._---'-._ _ _

Spanish-English/English-Spanish' Dictionary, Random House. $8.95. Two

secrions, Spanish-English aod English-Spanish. 60,000+ entries I 1

from A to Z; includes Western Henlisphere usage.

1034 ..J L..._ - - ' ._ _ _

Please Note: All book and index orders are mailed via the U.S. Postal Service with Delivery Confinnatiori. PLN does not assume any responsibility to replace book or index orders once their delivery to the destination address (facility)ls .confinned by the U.S. Postal Service.

Writing to Wm: The Legal Writer, by Steven D. Stark, Broadway Books/R'lIldom .

House, 283 pages. $19.95. E.'p11ins the wtiting of effective compbints, 1 1

1

responses, briefu, motions aod odler legal papers.

1035 L._ - - ' - ._ _- - - ' .

Actual Innocence: When Justice Goes Wrong and How to Make it Right, updated

paperback ed, by Barry Smeck, Peter Neufeld aod Jinl Dwyer; 403 pages. $16.00.

Founders of the Innocence Project ""p11in how erin1iruU defendants are wrongly con-

victed on a regular basis. E.'pL-tins DNA testing aod how it works to free the innocent.

Devastating critique of police aod prosecutotial misconduct and d,e I I

I

systen1 t:lmt ensures sum abuses continue.

1030 L._ - ' ._ _ _-'.

Roger's Thesaurus, 717 pages. $8.95. Helps you find the right word for what

you want to sal'. 11,000 words listed alphaberically with over 200,000 synonyms

aod aotonyms. Sample sentences and paris of speech shown for every main

word. Covers all levels of vocabulary aod identifies ioforn1al I I

I

and slaog words.

.

1045 . '

.

Webster's English Dictionary, Newly revised and updated, Random House.

$8.95. 75,000+ entries. Includes rips on writing aod word usage, and has up-

dated geographical and biographical entries. Includes recent I I

I

business and computer tern1S.

1033...

I Capital Crimes, by George Winslow, Monthly Review, 360 pages. $19.00.
Explains how econonlic policies create aod foster crime, and how corporate & government crime is· rarely punished. 1024 L_-'-_ _........l

Wim Liberty for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America, by Scott

Christiaoson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages. $18.95. The best

overall history of the American prison system from 1492 through the 20th
I I Century. Well written aod fact filled. A must-read for understaoding how little
tllings have chaoged as far as prisons go io ti,e U.S. over I

hundreds of years.

1026..

.

I Ten Men Dead: The story of the 1981 Irish hunger strike, by Da\~d Beres-

ford, Atlantic Montllly Press, 334 pages. $16.95. Inside story of

I

I

IRA prisoners at Belfast's Long Kesh prison.

1006 . '

.

Finding the Right Lawyer, by Jay Foonberg, ABA, 256 pages. $19.95. Ex-

plains how to detern"line your legal needs, how to evaluate a I I

I

lawyer's qualifications, fee payments, and more.

1015 . .

.

Seize me Day! 7 Steps to Achieving the Extraordinary in an Ordinary

World, by DarU1Y Cox aod John Hoover, 256 pages. $15.99. Provides 7 steps

to chaoging your expectations aod em~sioniog yourself as being a successful

and respected person-which is essenrial to changing ti,e I I

I

course of one's life.

1052..

.

Women Behiod Bars, The Crisis of Women in the U.S. Prison System, by

Silja J.A. Talvi, Seal Press, 295 pages. $15.95. Best book available tlmt covers

issues related to imprisoned wome~, based on inten~ews \vitll I

hundreds of women bellind bars.

1066 '-._-'-_ _--'

10 Insider Secrets to a Winning Job Search, by Todd Bermon!, 216 pages.

$15.99. Roadmap on how to get a job even under adverse circumstaoces-like

being an ex-con. Includes how to develop a winning atritude, write attenrion-

grabbiog resumes, prepare for inten~ews, networking, how to I I

I

present your strengths to an employer, aod mum more! 1056..

.

The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, 2003

Ed. by Alfred McCoy, 734 pages. $34.95. Documented expose 1 I·

1

of ti,e government's involvement in drug trafficking.

1014 L._-1.._ _ _--'.

Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis, by Cltristian Parenti,

290 pages. $19.00. Analyzes ti,e war on the poor vi1 ti,e erin1iruU justice system. Well

documented aod includes first-Imnd reporting. Covers prisons, para-I

nlilitary policiog, SWAT teams aod t:lle INS.·

1002 L._ - " -_ _- '

Hepatiris and Liver Disease: What You Need to Know, by Melissa Palmer, MD,

I 457 pages. $17.95. Descobes symptoms & treatments ofhepatiris B & C aod ot:l1er
liver diseases. Includes medications to avoid, wlmt diet to follow, 1 1

e.'<erOses to perfonn, aod a bibliography.

1031

Crime and Punishment In America, by Elliott Curtie,230 pages. $16.95. Effective

I rebuttnl to right-wing proponents of prison building Fact-based argument shows that

crime is driven by poverty. Debunks prison myths aod disrusses 1

1

proven, e£lecrive meaos ofcrime preventton.

1019

Prison Madness: The Mental Health Crisis Behiod Bars and What We

Must Do About It, by Terry Kupers,Jossey-Bass, 245 pages. Hardback only,

prisoners please include any required authorization form. $32.95. Psycl1ia-

trist writes about the mental healtl, crisis in U.S. prisons aod jails. Covers all

aspects of mental illness, prison mpe, negative effects of l o n g - I I I

term isolation in control units, aod more.

1003

Prison Writing in 20th Century America, by H. Bruce Fraoklin, Penguin

Books, 368 pages. $16.00. From Jack London to George Jackson, this

anthology provides a selection of some of the best writing I I

describing life bellind bars io America.

1022 L._..l.._ _........l

i T Soledad Brother: The Prison Letters of George Jackson, by Georgr Jackson,
Lawrence Hill Books, 339 pages. $18.95. Lucid ""plaoation of ,e litiCS of 1

prison by a well-known ptison acti\~st. More relevaot now thao

when it first appeared 40 years ago.

1016

Marijuan:a Law, by Richard Boire, Ronin, 271 pages. $17.95. Ex,unines how to

I reduce t:l,e probability ofarrest aod prosecution for people acrused of t:l,e use, sale or
possession of marijuao..1. Info on legal defenses, search· & seizures, I I

surveilbnce, asset furfeiture aod drug testing.

1008 L._..1._ _........l.

Worse Than Slavery: Parchman Farm and the Ordeal ofJim CrowJustice, by

Da\~d Oshinsky, 306 pages. $16.00. Analysis of prison L1bor's roots in sL1Very.

Focuses on prison pL1!ltations aod se!f-sustitining prisons tI,at use I I

I

prison Lobor.

1007..

.

No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the American Criminal Justice

System, by David Cole, The New Press, 218 pages. $19.95. E.'plains how the

criminal justice systen1 perpetuates mce aod class inequality, I I

I

creating a two-tiered system of justice.

1028 L._ - ' ._ _........l.

The Prison and the Gallows: The Politics of Mass Incarceration in

America, by Marie Gottschalk, Cambridge University Press, 451 pages.

$29.99. Great political analysis of ti,e confluence of events I

I

leading to 2.3 nliIlion people behind bars io the U.S. 1069.

.

The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, by Braodon

Sample, PLN Publishing, 200 pages. $49.95. This is PLN's second published

book, which e."c1usively covers ioeffective assistance of counsel-related

issues in federal habeas petitions. Great resource for habeas I I

I

litigation, aod contains hundreds of case cites!

1078..

.

Factor 8 (DVD), a film by Kelly Duda, Concrete Films. $21.95. Movie

about ti,e Arkansas prison blood scaodal, in which prison officials sold

infected blood harvested from prisoners. Note: This is a I

DVD and cannot be shipped to prison.

1076 L._...L_ _..J

PLN Cumulative Index. $22.50 each. PLN Arricle Indexes provide· detailed information ahout all PLN articles, iocluding title, author, issue, page number, topics covered, citations, aod if it is state, BOl;' or jail specific. Can be searched on over 500 suhjects such as medical neglect or selmal assault. Circle the index(es) you are ordering: .1990-1995, 1996-1998, 1999-1 2001, 2002-2004. (more recent iodexes not yet available)

All books are soft cover except Prison Madness

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 31 of 61 Page 3P6L4NCOL-00021

Order Form
All purchases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new stamps (strips or books) or pre-stamped envelopes.

Books (3 & 4 yr Subscription Specials: cmCLE
one book ill: bonus issues, and DO NOT add StH)
Protecting Your Health and Safety or 4 Bonus Issues (3-yr subscription offer)

$Amt. Free

Prison Profiteers or With Liberty for Some

m: 6 Bonus Issues (4-yr subscription offer)

Free

Book Total (inc. all books bought separately)

Add 6% sales tax for Vermont residents only

ADD $6.00 S/H to book orders UNDER $50

PLN Subscriptions
6-month Subscription (Prisoners only) 1 yr Subscription (12 issues) 2 yr Subscription (24 plus 2 Bonus issues)
3 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above ill: 4. Bonus issues) 4 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above ill: 6 Bonus issues) Sample Issue - $3.50 each
TOTAL Amount Enclosed:

Send to:
Name:
DOC#:
Agency/Inst: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Address:
City/State/Zip: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
MAIL PAYlUENT AND TillS FORM TO:
I •
Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303

Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

PLN Subscription Rates

Subscription Rates lyr 2 yrs 3 yrs 4yrs'

Prisoners *

$24 $ 48 $ 72 $ 96

Individuals

$30 $ 60 $ 90 $120

Professionals

$80 $160 $240 $320

(Lawyers, govt. & professional agencies, libraries, etc.)

Sample issue for anyone - $3.50 each*

Six-month prisoner subscription for $12*
* Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books only) or pre-stamped envelopes, ifallawed byprison policies.

:- - - - - - - - - S~s-c;ipti~~ Bo;';';;s! - - - - - - - - -
1
1 2 years - 2 bonus issues, for 26 monthly issues total. : 3 years - 4 bonus issues (40 total) OR Protecting Your Health and 1 Safety (see book description on the other side of this brochure). : 4 years - 6 bonus issues (54 total) OR your choice of With Libertyfor
!..S~,::e_Sl£~n:o~ ~r~e:;.:(~:.d:s~ri.r~o~..?~ ~:.o,:h:r~i~e~ _____I

New 3 01' 4-Year Subscription Book Offel's!

Subscribe or renew for three years at the regular price ($72 for prisoners & $90 forindividuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Protecting Your Health and Safety or four bonus issues ofPLN! (40 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.
Subscribe or renew for fonr years at the regular price ($96 for prisoners & $120 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Prison Profiteers or With Liberty for Some, or 6 bonus issues of PLN! (54 monthly issues total). Indicate yonr choice on the Order Form.

NO shipping charge for subscription bonus books!

NOTE: Ifyou want the bonus issues of PLN instead of the
free book offer, please indicate that on the Order Form.

:- - -- -- -C-o~;a~;u;io; PiN;s-io-;'iiis~!- ---- - ~

1

1

1 You can buy dozens of legal, social commentary, self- 1

: help books, and legal and regular dictionaries directly:

1 from PLN's book store! Ask us for a book list, or view 1

1

: onr selection online at:

1

1

www.prisonlegalnews.org/store.aspx

:

1______ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

All subscription rates & bonuS offers are effective as of 5-1-10
and valid through 12-31-10
* No l'efunds after orders have been placed *

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
Eastern State Penitentiary 1829-1971
Charles Dickens visited Philadelphia's Eastern State Penitentiary in 184.2 and he later wrote: "The System is rigid, strict and hopeless ... and I believe it to be cruel and wrong....I hold this slow and daily tampering with the mysteries of the brain to be immeasurably worse than any torture of the body." The prison remained open for 129 years after Dickens condemned it as being barbaric, and some of its inhumane practices continue to be used in prisons nationwide.
P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.prisonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 32 of 61 Page 3P6L5NCOL-00022

I Enl,
P rison Legal News is a~ in~ependent, non-pI'ofit 56-page monthly publicatIOn that reports, reviews and analyzes court I'ulings and news related to
prisoners' rights and prison issues. PLN has a national (U.S.) focus on state, federal and private pI'ison issues,
with some international coverage as well.
PLN's many thousands of subscribers and readeI's include civil and criminal trial and appellate attorneys, judges, public defenders, journalists, academics, paralegals, pI'isoners' I'ights activists, students, family members of prisoners, concerned individuals, politicians, other government officials, and numerous local, state and federal prisoners nationwide.
PLN'is a vitallinlc for prisoneI's who otherwise don't have access tOCUl'l'ent le'gal and prison-related news and information.
"Invaluable resourcefor anyone wanting 'user friendly' information about current leg'1Ldevelopmcmts affecting
,pi:isoners' in the United Stat~s." , -Human Rights Watch;a long-time PLNsubscriber
P LN's coverage of prison issues includes medical neglect, disciplinary hearings, nutrition, living conditions, excessive force, court access, censorship, jail litigation, visiting, telephones, religio~s freedom, free speech, prison nipe~ mental health, attorney/ client access, sexual abuse of women prisoners; retaliation, the PLRA, HIV and hep C, control units, the death penalty, attorney fees and much more.
PLN Subsci'iption Rates
Prisoners: $12 for 6 nionths, $24 per year *
N on-incarcerated individuals: $30 per year Law firms, govt. agencies and libraries: $80 per year
Sample issue for anyone: $3.50 each*
• Prisoners can pay with ~ewstamps or pre-stamped envelopes

E ach monthly issue of PLNincludes thI'ee different types of reporting: • A ,cover story on a prison-related issue. • Reports on individual and class-action prison and jail-
related lawsuits when they are filed, when ajudgment is entered or the case settles, and when an appellate court decision is issued. We also have prison-related news articles. • A "News In Brief' section that summarizes interesting news stories across the U.S. and internationally.
Each issue of PLN also contains numerous advertisements from businesses that provide prison-related personal and legal services and books. PLN further sells dozens of selfhelp, social commentary and legal books:
PLN also has cumulative subject and case cite indexes for all PLN issues from 1990 through 2004. Write for info.
1 Special3-yeru' Subscription Offer!

Free with a 3-yem' PLN subscription! Four bonus issues of
PLN (40 issues total) 01: a free hook, Protecting Your
Health and Safety! Circle your, bonus choice on the form
on the other side of this brochure (3-year subscription
rates: prisoners $72, individuals $90, professionals $240).

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by "•. - - - - - 1

Robert E. Toone. Published by the South-

ern Poverty Law Center, 325 pages (2009).

$10.00 (free with a 3-year sub!). This book

explains some basic rights that prisoners

have in mainly

a jail with

or prison in the U.S. It rights related to health

deals and

Iii'

_..____ 1
-

safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by

prison officials; it also explains how you can enforce your

rights to health and safety within the facility and, if nec-

essary, in court through litigation. Buy separately: ___

r-----------~--~--------~-----------------,

: You Can Buy These Books Separately!

I

I

I

': If you don't want to purchase a 3 or 4-year subscription:

: to PLN, you can still purchase any of the bonus books:

': at the regular price. Just indicate which books you want:

: to buy on this page, then enter the total cost on the other :

: side of this brochure on the "Book Total" line of the 01'- :

: del' Form. Shipping is $6 per order (not per book), and we :

: offer FREE shipping oli book orders of $50 or more! To :

: place a phone order, please call 802-257-134,2. We also:

:
L

accept book orders online, at wwvv.prisonlegalnews.org.
__ ._______________________________________

J :

D onations: PLN" is a project of th~ non-profit Human , Rights Defense Center. YoUI' tax-deductible donations support our advocacy, free speech and First Amendment litigation efforts on behalf of prisoners and publishers. PLN not only provides uncensored prison-related news, but actively contests prison censorship that interferes with the delivery of our publication or any other PLN materials sent to prisoners. All donations further our goal of advocating for people imprisoned in U.S. detention facilities.
"Great source of information, especially in states such as Arizona where the law libraries have been taken from the inmates and replaced with paralegals."
- SB, Arizona prisoner
CS;~~i~1 4=yeal' SubSCl'i~~i~n Offel'!
Free with a 4-year PLN subscription! Six bonus issues of PLN (54 issues total) or one free hook, With Liberty for Some or Prison Profiteers! Circle your bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (4,-year subscription rates: prisoners $96, individuals $120, professionals $320). Note: Free book option is for one boole
With Liberty for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America, by Scott Christianson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages (1998). $18.95 (fi:ee with a 4-year sub!). A classic book and the best overall history of the American prison system from 1492 to the 20th Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how little things have changed as far as prisons go in the U.S. over hundreds of years. Buy separately: ___
or
Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money from Mass Incarceration, edited by Paul Wright & Tara Herivel, New Press (2007). $24.95 (free with a 4-yem' sub!). This is the third in a series of PLN anthologies that examines the reality of mass imprisonment in the U.S. Prison Profiteers is Unique from other books on the market because it exposes and discusses who profits and benefits from mass imprisonment, rather than who is harmed. by the prison industrial complex and om' nation's reliance on over-incarceration. Buy separately: _'__

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 33 of 61

T he Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel is the first in a series of books by Prison Legal News Publishing designed. to help pro-se prisoner litigants identify and raise viable claims for poterttial habeas corpus relief. This book is an invaluable resource that identifies hundreds of cases where the federal courts have granted habeas relief to prisoners whose attorneys provided ineffective assistance of counsel.
It will save litigants
thousands ofhours of research and
.it focuses on the WINNING cases criminal
defendants need to successfully challenge
their convictions.
Well organized into 52 concise chapters, this easy to use book puts the law at the reader's fingertips. The Appendix includes pleadings and forms from successful habeas corpus cases that

"

The Habeas Citebook is a

nifty and concise self-help

guide for prisoners seeldng

habeas relief based on claims of

ineffective assistance of counsel.

Navigating the complex and

treacherous terrain ofhabeas

law is never easy; but claim-

ing that your lawyer screwed up

is even more difficult - espe-

cially from the confines of an

demonstrate formatting and show ill-equipped prison law library.

how to frame a winning argu-

"Brandon Sample has pro-

ment that will persuade a court

vided an amazing and much-

to grant habeas relief. The Habeas

needed tool for prisoners who

Citebook explains the proce-

are forced to seek relief on their

dural and substantive complexi-

own. The book is thorough; but

ties of federal habeas corpus lit-

simple and readable. It starts

igation with the goal of identify-

with a wonderfully well-orga-

ing and litigating claims involving nized listing of hundreds of dif-

ineffective assistance of counsel.

ferent types of ineffective assis-

Brandon Sample is a success-

tance of counsel, set forth in the

ful jailhouse lawyer litigant incar-

form of citations to court rul-

cerated in the Bureau of Prisons.

ings - a novel approach that

He is a Prison Legal News contrib- not only acts as a springboard

uting writer and a member of the

for further research but also

National Lawyer's Guild. Editor

saves the prisoner countless

Susan Schwartzkopf has a mas-

hours of preliminary research:'

ter's degree in education and is

the director and editor in chief of

PETER SCHMIDT

Prison Legal News Publishing.

Publisher, Punch & Jurists

THE HABEAS CITEBOOK: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

By Brandon Sample 8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages
ISBN 978-0-9819385-1-6
$49·95 3 or more copies ordered
at once $39.95 each

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed ______
i By: D check D new postage stamps D credit card D money order
Name ___________________________
DOC/BOP Number ___________--'--,-________
. Institution/Agency _ _ _ _ _ _ _--'-_____-'--'---_____

FREE Shipping & Handling Address,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Order by mail, phone, or on-line. City _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ State

ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

PRISON lEGAL NEWS P.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 3P6L6NCOL-00023

" Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 34 of 61 -----------, Copies of this very usable and useful gUide should be available in every prison library-to. help incarcerated people give positive direction to their energies while making constructive use of their time. It is a well-established fact that people who have taken college courses in prison have a dramatically reduced rate of recidivism."
L-_____ -BELL GALE CHEVIGNY, PEN Prison Writing Program, _ ~ ___~ Editor Doing Time: 25 Years ofPrison Writing.

HIGH SCHOOL • VOCATIONAL • PARALEGAL • UNDERGRADUATE. GRADUATE COURSES

IIIiIIIlPIIIHE GREATLY anticipated and newly updated
third edition of the Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the United States and Canada has finally arrived! Author
Jon Marc Taylor's brand new version is the latest in this unique and highly successful gUidebook for the
prisoner-student. This invaluable tool and how-to handbook provides the reader with step-by-step instructions to find the appropriate educational program for high school, vocational, paralegal, undergraduate, and graduate courses offered in
the U.S. and Canada today.
Invaluable re-entry tool
It prese·nts more than 160 program outlines and·
offers an easy-to-use format for the student to
determine which program best suits their needs. It is ideal for the incarcerated student who does not have Internet access or the ability to attend education classes in person. This resource is indispensable

for the individual and beneficial for use in all prison libraries and education departments.
The Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook is the only book
on the market for the non-traditional prisoner-student. It includes detailed listings of the quality, cost, and course offerings for all correspondence programs available to prisoners. In a time when so many academic opportunities in prisons have been eliminated, this book is an invaluable re-entry tool for prisoners who seek to further their education while incarcerated and to help them prepare for life and work following their release.
Jon Marc Taylor has more than 25 years experi-
ence as an incarcerated student, advocate for prisoner education, and author. He has successfully earned a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and a doctorate via correspondence courses while incar-
cerated. Editor Susan Schwartzkopf has a master's
degree in education and 12 years experience teaching immigrants English language skills.

r--------------------~ I PRISONERS' GUERRILLA HANDBOOK TO CORRESPONDENCE PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA III Iij

ByJon Marc Taylor PHD

Number of copies ordered

Amount enclosed __________

8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages

I By: D check D new postage stamps D credit card D money order

ISBN 978-0-9819385-0-9

Name __________________________________________

$49-95
3 or more copies ordered

DOC/BOP Number ____________________~____________

at once $39.95 each

Institution/Agency ________________________________

FREE Shipping & Handling Address_________________________________________

I Order by mail, phone, or on-line. City ___________________________ State

ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

I PRISON LEGAL NEWS p.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 3P6L7NCOL-00024

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 35 of 61

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBIT FFF
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 368

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 36 of 61 Page 3P6L9NCOL-00009

Pri~ot11 r~g'MI!Ii\ll4Wsl! /I'II"W II'1'1 ".'.'111 II 'jI 'I'll. .

.:
:....

:.-~:~..-l:"~'-·:;~~~j.,;\:i;~.

t-;t:-::7::~-l·~*),"l:..t·:ti1;";"!:t.::.i.~....f~:).,;~:'J~·~t:..,.

~;'l
.1 ,-)

~
'tt...••

~.~'#-.:.~)~.'.:'..'1\,:','J1.;.•.f'

L"-;j~ .....

•• ""'<:'?:"r••

P.O. Box 2420 West Brattleboro, Vermont 05303

"/~h;!f"'!r ::~~:t~"~i.J;:$ 'jl. 't. ' "...';~",'~IY~-\;-:~~~t\~W

·1

'1.1':', ··'n. n:·iJ. ::;.1t'11 '1 r;~l\'.1.·

• ,.\Iolh·...~W',.~

·'r.·.":.-,·..::.u. ,.'

RE1""UR'" N TO' . .

'.

,.....i"·~!I\"DER hil .,! .' I

I

~".,')\l1~."..~",tl~ j

.Q

0.5303@24~O

;'f;I~

"'1 .~~ .• i'~~

'oe "'~'l''!!a':, 1:3:'t.

RETURN TO NOT OELIVERA9LE
UNABLE TO
ec: OS30:S~4~C)20

SENDER
AS ADDRESSED FORWARD
*2SS3-~a7~e-~S-42

111,",1,1,"11,1111, "II" rI, 1,1, ,1"',111",,, /, III", /,1, ,I

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 37 of 61
Prison Legal N e"ftTS

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights

P.O. Box 2420, W Brattleboro, VT 05303 ** ph: (802) 257-1342 fax: (866) 735-7136

www.prisonlegalnews. org

PLN@prisonlegalnews.org

06-Jun-11

59578 **PLC** Expires: 7/2011 Troy McCarter 2010002022 Columbia Co Jail 901 Port Ave St Helens, Oregon 97051

RE: Your PLN subscription expires with the July 201] issue.

Dear Subscriber:

We are letting you know that one more issue remains to be mailed on your subscription to Prison Legal News. We hope you are pleased with the information that PLN is providing you on a monthly basis and hope you intend to renew your subscription. Renew now and take advantage of our 2, 3 or 4-year subscription specials!

• Renew for one year_at $24 and you will receive 12 issues.. ", , "- " ",

'

-

;!nrRgn~\Vfo:;:t'y~~~s at $48 and you will receive our 2-ye~r speciaJ of24 issues' PLUS 2 extra

,.-.,issues.for-atota].of26cissues"":'-';:';:::i',:'--'- ----- -

;, '.. ,; :.':"_.'" ,'~~. ~';"~: - .••• J. .•••. ' ; .~.'! , . .' '- .. - '~:-.,.' .. ,.,....

!". I"

",J'

,-, --------

'-i.(;,;:;' ",::.',',

• .Renew forJmee_years at $72 and you will receive 4 extra issues (40 issues total) QRyour choice

ofProtecting Your Health and Sajety (a $10 value!). Please seePLN'sbook brochure for a

descriptionofthis-book.-

-

"

• Renew for four years at $96 and you will receive 6 extra issues (54 issues total) OR your choice of With Liberty for Some (an $18.95 value!), or Prison Profiteers (a $24.95 value!). Please see PLN's book brochure for a description ofthese books.

We hope you decide to renew now so that your PLN subscription will not be interrupted. We look forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,

Paul Wright Executive Director

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• +•••••••• ++. The following form can be used to pay by credit card

Print Name on Card: ------------~---------------------------------------------
Visa I M(;: ",' _ - , ' , ' : : ' , ' " 'Expiration Date:
I aut~9Ii~y~~rl~~n Legal:~e\V~tQ9.ilarge ~total ~f-$~ --,.--,--,.-:-:-"' .,' . -. ,," ". ·:i-:-'-~t'-:o-'-,m:-cyc-:-"-cr~e~d-'-,it:.;:,c-'-ar-d.

..

' : '.'.,

:S'lgrlafure;<: '" ' . ..,. Cardh~lders . '-:-: '~': l'

',r."

..•. " ",' :." ....! ,-~" ~).. ; 1\ "': :.-:

'. r} ,'~ i

r, r • ~ ! !'.

Mail this form to: Prison Legal News, P.O. Box 2420, W Brattleboro, VT 05303 ph: (802) 257-1342 fax: (866) 735-7136. Prison Legal News is a 501(c)(3) non-profit and donations are deductible in accordance with tax laws.

Page 3P7L0NCOL-00010

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 38 of 61 Page 3P7L1NCOL-00011

Order Form
All purchases must be pre-paid; Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books, no singles) or
pre-stamped envelopes, if allowed by prison policies.

Book Title / Number

Qty Total Cost

(attach another page if you are ordering more hooks)
Subtotal: Add 6% sales tax for VT residents only: Add $6.00 SIH to orders UNDER $50: Total Order Amount:
Send to:
Name: DOC#: Agency/lnst: Address: City/State/Zip:
MAIL PADrnNT AND TillS FORM TO:
Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303
Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

FREE SmPPING On hook and index ol'ders OVER $50.001
A $6 shipping charge applies to all other book amI index orders.
(Free shipping policy in effect from Jan 1, ::lOIO until further notice)

More Books for Sale!

Prisoners' Self-Help Litigation Manual, updated 4th ed. (2010), by John

Boston and Daniel Manville, Oxford Urnv. Press, 1500 pages. $39.95. The

I I I premiere, must-have ''Bible'' of prison litigation for current and aspiring jail-
house lawyers. If you plan to litigate a prison or jail civil suit,

this book is a must-have.

1077

Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the U.S.

and Canada, updated 3rd ed. by Jon Marc Taylor, Ph.D. and edited by Susan

Schwartzkopf, published by PLN, 221 pages. $49.95. Written by lvIissonti

prisoner Jon Marc Taylor, who obtained a B.S. degree, an M.A. degree and a

Doctorate, the Gllerrilla Halldbook contains contact information and descrip-

tions of high school, vocational, paralegal and college courses available

through correspondence study. Great resource for prisoners I

who want to further their education.

1057

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by Robert E. Toone, Southern Poverty

Law Center, 325 pages. $10.00. This book explains basic rights that prisoners

have in a jail or prison in the U.S. It deals mainly Witil rights related to health

I I I and safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by prison officials; it also
e>.-plains how you can enforce your rights \vithin tile facility

and, if necessary, in court through litigation.

1060 . .

.

Starting Out! The Complete Re-Entry Handbook, edited by William H.

Foster, Ph.D. & Carl E. Horn, Ph.D., Starting Out Inc., 446 pages. $22.95.

Complete do-it-yourself re-entry manual and workbook for prisoners who

want to develop ti,eir own re-entry plan to increase their chances of success

after tiley are released. Includes a wide variety of resources, including a user

code to tile Starting Out website timt can be accessed follow- I I

ing release.

1074

Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners v. the U.S.A, by

Mumia Abu Jamal, City Lights Publishers, 280 pages. $16.95. In Jailhollse Ul1V-

yers, Prison Legal News columnist, award-\vinning journalist and death-row

prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal presents the stories and reflections of fellow pris-

I oners-turned-advocates who have learned to use the court system to represent
other prisoners, and in some cases have won tileir freedom.

Must-read for jailhouse lawyers!

1073 1-._ - ' -_ _ _--'

How to Win Your Personal Injury Claim, by Atty. Joseph Matd,ews, 7th

edition, NOLO Press, 304 pages. $34.99. While not specifically for prison-

related personal injury cases, this book provides comprehensive information

I I I on how to handle personal injury and property damage claims arising from
~ccidents - incl~ding dealing Witil doctors, attorneys and

Insurance comparues.

1075

All prices are effective as of9-15-10
to (PIices subject change without notice)
* No refunds after Ol,ders have been placed *

-.,
P,RISON/I[EGAL NEWS
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
2010 PLN BOOK LIST
Prices Subject to Change Without Notice Graphic from: Books 2 Prisoners, Vancouver, Be
P.O. Box 2420, Bl'attlebol'O, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.pl·isonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 39 of 61 Page 3P7L2NCOL-00012

Check the box of the books you want to buy and use the Order Form on the other side of this brochure to add up the cost of your order. FREE SIllPPING for book and index orders OVER $50. There is a $6 shipping charge for all other book and index orders.

Prison Profiteers, edited by Paul Wright and Tara Herivel, 323 pages. $24.95. This is d,e

third and latest book in a series ofPrison l.eg.1l News anthologies that examines the reality of
moss imprisonment in America. (TIle odler tiqes are Tile Cellillg ifAJllenra & PIirOIlNanoll,

see below). PIirOIl Projteers is unique from odler books because it "'-poses and disOlSSes

wh~ profits and benefits from rimss imprisonment; 'rnther th.1l1 who is I

I

I

hrumedbyitandhow.

1063 L _ . --.J.'--_--'.

Prison Nation: The Warehousing ofAmerica's Poor, edited by Tara Herivel and Paul

Wright; 332 pages. $35.95. PLN andlOlogy e"poses d,e dark side of d,e 1 1

1

1ock-em-up' political agenlla and legal climare in the u.s.

1041 . 1...._ - ' - ._ _- ' .

The CeIling of America, edited by Daniel BurtOn Rose, Dan Pens and Paul Wright; 264

pages. $22.95.,PLN andlOlogy presents a dellliled "inside" look at d,e 1 ' I

1

workings ofthe American ccimuml justice system.

1001 .

,

.

Everyday Letters for Busy People, by Debra Hart May, 287 pages, $18.99.

Hundreds of sample letters that can be adapted for most any purpose, including

letters to government agencies and officials. Has numerous 1 1

1

tips for writing effective letters.

1048 .

.

.

The Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System, by
Attorneys, Paul Bergman & Sara J. Berman-Barrett; Nolo Press, 608 pages, $39.99.

&-plains what happens in a criminal case from being arrested to sentencing, and what

your tights are at each stage of d,e process. Uses an easy to under-I

stand question-and-answer format

1038 ...J L._ - - '_ _ _

Represent Yourself ill Court: How t~ Prepare & Try a Winning Case, by
Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sam J. Benruin-Barrett; Nolo Press, 528 pages. $39.99,

Breaks down the civil trial process in easy-to-understand steps so you can effectively

represent yoursel~ in court TI,e audlOrs "'-plain what to say in 1 1

1

court; how to say It, etc.

1037...

Law Dictionary, Random House Webster's, 525 pages. $19.95. Comprellensive , -

to-date law dictionary e.'-pl1ins more d,an 8,500 legal terms. 1 1

Covers civil, criminal, commercial. & internationall~w.

1036 L._ _L._ _- - '

The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, by Jane Straus, 110 pages.

$14.95. A guide to grammar and punctuation by an educator 1 1

1

with e.'-perience teaching English to prisoners.

1046

Legal Research: How to Find and Understand the Law, by Stephen Elias and

Susan Levinkind, 568 pages. $49.99. Comprehensive and easy to understand guide

on researclling the law. E'-plains case law, statutes and digests, 1 1

1

and mucl, more. Includes practice e.,ercises.

1059 L._ - ' ._ _ _...l.

Deposition Handbook, by Paul Bergman and Albert Moore, Nolo Press, 352

pages. $34.99. How-to hand~ook for anyone who conducts a 1 1

1

deposition or is going to be deposed.

1054 ...J. L._ - - - ' - ._ _ _

Spanish-English/English-Spanish' Dictionary, Random House. $8.95. Two

sections, Spanish-English and English-Spanish. 60,000+ entries 1 1

from A to Z; includes Westerri Hemisphere usage.

1034 L._ - - ' ._ _ _- '

Please Note: All book and index ordersare mailed via the U.S. Postal Service with Delivery Confirination. PLN does not assume any responsibility to replace book or indexOlUerS once their delivery to the destination address (facility) is confirnied.bythe U.S. Postal Service.

I I I Writing to Wm: The Legal Writer, bi' Steven D. Stark, Broadway Books/Random
House, 283 pages. $19.95. E.'-pl~s the writing ofeffective complaints,

responses, briefS, motions and odler legal papers.

1035 . .

. -

Actual Innocence: When Justice Goes Wrong and How to Make it Right, updated

paperback ed., by Barry Scheck, Peter Neufeld and Jim Dwyer; 403 pages. $16.00.

Founders of d,e Innocence Project "'-plain how c:tin1inal defendants are wrongly con-

victed on.a regular basis. Explains DNA resting and how it works to free the innocent

Devastating critique of police and prosecutorial misconduct and, d,e

S}'Stern dmt ensures such abuses continue.

1030

Roger's Thesaurus, 717 pages. $8.95. Helps you find d,e ,right word for what

you want to say. 11,000 words listed alphabetically wid, over 200,000 synonyms

and antonyms. Sample sentences and parts of speech shown for every main

word. Covers all leveis of vocabulary and identifies informal 1 1

1

and slang words.

1045 .J. L._ - ' - ._ _ _

Webster's English Dictionary, Newly revised and updated, Random House.

$8.95. 75,000+ entries. Includes tips on writing and word usage, and has up-

dated geographical and biographical entries. Includes recent' ,

business and computer terms.

1033

Capital Crimes, by George Winslow, Monthly Review, 360 pages. $19.00.

Explains how economic policies create and foster crime, and 1 1

I

how corporate & government crime is rarely punished. 1024

.

With Liberty for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America, by Scott

Christianson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages. $18.95. The best

overall history of d,e American prison system from 1492 through d,e 20th

Century. Wen written and facr filled. A must-read for understanding how little

dlingshave changed as far as prisons go in d,e U.S. over I' 1

1

hundreds of years.

1026..

.

Ten Men Dead: The story of the 1981 Irish hunger strike, by Da\~d Beres-

ford, Adantic Mondlly Press, 334 pages. $16.95. Inside story of 1 1

1

IRA prisoners at Belfast's Long Kesh prison.

1006 . .

.

Finding the Right Lawyer, by Jay Foonberg, ABA, 256 pages. $19.95. Ex-

plains how to determine your legal needs, how to evaluate a 1 1

1

lawyer's qualifications, fee payments, and more.

1015.,

.

Seize the Day! 7 Steps to Achieving the Extraordinary in an Ordinary

World, by Danny Cox and John Hoover, 256 pages. ~15.99. Provides 7 steps

to changing your expectations and em~sioning yourself as being a succe~sful

and respected person-which is essential to. changing d,e 1 1

I'

course of one's life.

1052

Women Behind Bars, The Crisis of Women in the U.S. Prison System, by

Silja J.A. Talvi, Seal Press, 295 pages. $15.95. Best book available that covers

issues related to imprisoned women, based on interviews widl 1

hundreds of women bellind bars.

1066 L.-,-...lL_ _- - '

10 Insider Secrets to a Winning Job Search; by Todd Bermont, 216 pages.

$15.99. Roadmap on how to get a job even under adverse circumsmnces-like

being an ex-con. Includes how to develop a \vinning attitude, write attention-

grabbing resumes, prepare for interviews, networking, how to 1 1

1

present your strengths to an employer, and much more! 1056..

.

The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, 2003

Ed. by Alfred McCoy, 734 pages. $34.95. Documented e>.-pose 1 1

1

of the government's involvement in drug ttafficking.

1 0 1 4 L..._ - - - ' - _ _ _ _- ' .

Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis, by Christian Parenti,

290 pages. $19.00. Analyzes d,e \Vat on d,e poor via d,e c:rimin,11 justice system. Well

dOCUfi1ented and includes first-hand repotting. Covers prisons, para-I

military policing, SWAT teams and d,e INS.

1002 L._ - ' - - -_ _- '

Hepatitis and Liver Disease: What You Need to Know, by Melissa Palmer, lvID,

457 pages. $17.95. Describes S}'Illptoms & treatments of hepatiris B & C and odler

liver diseases. Includes medications to avoid, wl";t diet to follow, I I

I

exercises to perfonn, and a bibliography.

. 1031

Crime and Punishment In America, by Elliott Cuttie, 230 pages. $16.95. Effective

rebut1lll to right-wing proponents of prison btiilding. Fact-based argument shows dmt

crime is driven by poverty. Debunks prison myths and discusses I 1

I

proven, effective means ofcrime prevention.

' 1019

Prison Madness: The Mental Health Crisis Behind Bars and What We

Must Do About It, by Terry Kupers,Jossey-Bass, 245 pages. Hardback only,

prisoners please include any required authorization form. $32.95. PS}>dlia-

trist writes about d,e mental heald, crisis in U.S. ptisons and jails. Covers all

aspects of mental illness, prison rap" negative effects of long-I I

I

term isolation in conttol uttits, and more.

1003

Prison Writing in 20th Century America, by H. Bruce Franklin, Penguin

Books, 368 pages. $16.00. From Jack London to George Jackson, this

anthology provides a selection of some of the best writing 1 1

describing life behind bars in America.

1022 '--'----'

er Soledad Brother: The Prison Letters of George Jackson, by GeorgeJackson,
Lawrence Hill Books, 339 pages. $18.95. Lucid ""-p11nation of f,e litiCS of I prison by a well-known prison activist More relevant now than

when it first appeared 40 years ago.

1016

Marijuana Law, by Riclmrd Boire, Ronin, 271 pages. $17.95. Ex.1!1lines how to

reduce the probability of arrest and prosecution for people accused of the use, sale or

possession of marijuana. Info on legal defenses, search & seizures, 1 1

1

surveillance, asset forfeiture and drug testing.

1008 L._..1._ _--'.

Worse Than Slavery: Parchman Farm and the Ordeal ofJinl CrowJustice, by

David Osllins!.-y, 306 pages. $16.00. Anai)'Sis of prison l1bor's roots in Focuses on prison p11ntations and self-sustaining prisons dmt use ,.--,.--..:....,

prison lobor.

1007 L._'--_--'

No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the American Criminal Justice

System, by David Cole, The New Press, 218 pages. $19.95. E.'\-plains how d,e

criminal justice system perpetuates race and class inequality, 1 1

1

c:reatinga two-tiered system of justice.

1028 L _ . .J..'_ _.....J.

The Prison and the Gallows: The Politics of Mass Incarceration in

America, by Marie Gottschalk, Cambridge University Press, 451 pages.

$29.99. Great political analysis of d,e confluence of events 1

1

leading to 2.3 million people bellind bars in d,e U.S.

1069 ...J. L._ - ' -_ _

The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, by Brandon

Sample, PLN Publislling, 200 pages. $49.95. This is PLN's second published

book, which exclusively covers ineffective assistance of counsel-related

issues in federal habeas petitions. Great resource for habeas 1 1

1

litigation, and contains hundreds of case cites!

1078.,

.

Factor 8 (DVD), a film by Kelly Duda, Concrete Films. $21.95. MO\~e

about d,e Arkansas prison blood scandal, in which prison officials sold

infected blood harvested from prisoners. Note: This is a

DVD and cannot be shipped to prison.

1076 L---.J'--_--'

PLN Cumulative Index. $22.50 each. )"LN Article Index~s pro,~de detailed information about all PLN articles, including tide, author, issue, page number, topics, covered, citations, and if it is state, BOP or jail specific. Can be searched on over 500 subjects such as medical neglect or se,,-ua\ assault. Circle d,e index(es) you are ordecing: 1990-1995, 1996-1998, 19992001, 2002-2004. (more recent indexes not yet available)

All books are soft cover except Prison Madness

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 40 of 61 Page 3P7L3NCOL-00013

Order Form
All purchases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new stamps (strips or books) or pre-stamped envelopes.

Books (3 & 4 yr Subscription Specials: CIRCLE
one book m: bonus issues, and DO NOT add S/H)
Protecting Your Health and Safety Q[ 4 Bonus Issues (3-yr subscription offer)

$Alnt.
Free

Prison Profiteers or With Liberty for Some

Q[ 6 Bonus Issues (4-yr subscription offer)

Free

Book Total (inc. all books bought separately)

Add 6% sales tax for Vermont residents only

ADD $6.00 S/H to book orders UNDER $50

PLN Subscriptions
6-month Subscription (Prisoners only) 1 yr Subscription (12 issues) 2 yr Subscription (24 plus 2 Bonus issues) 3 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above m: 4 Bonus issues) 4 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above m: 6 Bonus issues) Sample Issue - $3.50 each
TOTAL Amount Enclosed:

Send to:
Name: DOC#:
Agency/lnst: _ _ _ _- - - - - - - -
Address:
City/State/Zip: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
. MAIL PAnIENT AND TillS FORM TO: , Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303

Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

PLN Subscription Rates

Subscription Rates
Prisoners *

lyr 2 yrs 3 yrs 4yrs $24 $ 48 $ 72 $ 96

Individuals

$30 $ 60 $ 90 $120

Professionals

$80 $160 $240 $320

(Lawyers, govt. & professional agencies, libraries, etc.)

Sample issue for anyone - $3.50 each*

Six-month prisoner subscription for $12*

* Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books only) or pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed byprison policies.

:- - - - - - - - - S;bs-c;ip;i~~ "B-o;';';;S!" - - - - - - - - -
1
1 2 years - 2 bonus issues, for 26 monthly issues total. : 3 years - 4 bonus issues (40 total) OR Protecting Your Health and 1 Safety (see book description on the other side of this brochure). : 4years - 6 bonus issues (54 total) OR your choice of With Liberf:Yfor 1
~~~eJ£~n:0:!:~rp.:e~~(~<:..d~s~f~o~..?~~<:..o~h~r~i~e~ _____:

New 3 or 4-Year Subscription Book Offers!

Subscribe or renew for three years at the regular price ($72 for prisoners & $90 forindividuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Protecting Your Health and Safety or four bonus issues of PLN! (40 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on th~ Order Form.
Subscribe or renew for four years at the regular price ($96 for prisoners &$120 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Prison Profiteers or With Liberty for Some, or 6 bonus issues. of PLN! (54 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.

NO shipping charge for subscription bonus books!

NOTE: If you want the bonus issues ofPLN instead of the free book offer, please indicate that on the Order Form.

:- - - - - - -C-"~;a~;iT; to; PiN;-s-io~k iis~!- - - - - -~

1

1

1 You can buy dozens of legal, social commentary, self-I

1 help books, and legal and regular dictionaries directly:

1
: fi'om

PL~'s

boo!;:

store!

Ask

us

for

a

book

list,

or

view:

1 our selectIOn online at:

1

11 - ______w_w_w_.p_ri_so_n_le_ga_ln_e_w_s._or_g_/s_to_re_.a_s_ px______ _:

Au subscription mtes & bonus offers are effective as of 5-1-10
and valid through 12-31-10
* No l'efunds aftel' Ol'del'S have been placed *

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
Eastern State Penitentiary 1829-1971
Charles Dickens visited Philadelphia's Eastern State Penitentiary in 1842 and he later WI'ote: "The System is rigid, strict and hopeless ... and I believe it to be cruel and wrong....I hold this slow and daily tampering with the mysteries of the brain to be immeasurably worse than any torture of the body." The prison remained open for 129 years after Dickens condemned it as being barbaric, and some of its inhumane practices continue to be used in prisons nationwide.
P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.prisonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 41 of 61 Page 3P7L4NCOL-00014

1"U:.1

Ii
fIii.

ui1

P rison Legal News is an independent, non-profit 56-page monthly publication that reports, reviews and analyzes court rulings and news related to
prisonel's' l'ights and prisoti issues. PLN has a national
(U.S.) focus on state, federal and pl'ivate prison issues, with some international coverage as well.
PLN's many thousands of subscribers and readers include civil and crinlinal trial and appellate attorneys, judges, public defenders, journalists, academics, paralegals, prisoners' rights activists, students, family members of prisoners, concerned individuals, politicians, other government officials, and numel"OUS local, state and federal priso~ers nationwide.
PLN is a vital link forpti~oners who otherwise don't have access to current legal and prison-related news and information.
."Invaluable resource for ~yone wanting 'user' friendly' information about current legal developments affecting ,. prisoners in the United States."
;... HumariRig~ts Watch, a I~ng-time PLN subscriber
P LN's coverage of prison issues includes medical neglect, disciplinal'y hearings, nutrition, living conditions, excessive force, court access, censorship, jail litigation, visiting, telephi>nes; religious freedom, free speech, prison 'rape, niental health, attorney/ client ac~ess, sexual ahuse of women prisonel's, l'etaliation, the PLRA,iIIV and hep C, control units, the death penalty, attorney fees and much more.

PLN Subscription Rates

.

.

Prisoners: $12 for 6111onths, $24 per yeal' *

Non-incarcerated individuals: $30 per year

Law fums, govt. agencies aIJ.d libraries: $80 per year

Sample issue for anyone: $3.50 each*
* Prisoners can pay with new.stamps or pre-stamped envelopes

E ach monthly issue· ofPLN includes three different

types of reporting:.

. .

• A cover story on a prison-related issue.

. 0 Reports on individual and class-action prison and jailrelated lawsuits when they are flled, when a judgment is entered or the case settles, and when an appellate court decision is issued. We also have prison-related news articles.
.• A "News In Brief" section that sum~arizes interesting news stories across the U.S. and internati·onally.

Each issue of PLN also contains numerous advertisements from businesses that ·provideprison-related personal and legal services and books.' PLN further sells 'dozens of selfhelp, social commentary and ltigal books;

PLN also has cumulative subject and case cite indexes for all PLN issues from 1990 through 2004·. Write for info.

I Specia13-year SuhSCl'iption Offel'!

Free with a 3-yeaJ." PLN subscription! FOll" honus issues of PLN (40 issues total) or' a free hook, Protecting Your Health and Safety! Circle your bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochur.e (3-year subscription rates: prisoners $72, individuals $90, professionals $240).

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by rri.-----; Robert E. Toone. Published by the Southern Poverty Law Center, 325' pages (2'009). $10.00 (free With a 3-year sub!). This book explains some· basic rights that 'prisoners
--9---- have in a jailor prison in the U.S. It deals!
I mainly with rights related to health and I I .
safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by prison officials; it also explains how you can enforce your rights to health and safety within .the facility and, if necessary, in court through litigation. Buy separately: ___

------------------------------------------,

You Can Buy These Books Sepal'ately!

i

,

.

.

. I

If you don't want to purchase a 3 or 4.-year subscription:

to PLN, you dill still purchase any of the bonus books:

at the regular price. Just indicate which books you want:

to buy on this page, then enter' the total cost Oil the other:

: side of this brochure on the "Book Total" line of the Or- :

: der Form. Shipping is $6 per order (not per book), and we :

: offer FREE shipping on book'orders of $50 or more! To :

: place a phone order, please call 802-257-1342. We also:

: accept book.orders online, at www.pris9nlegalnews.org. :
L __________________________,_______________ J

D onations: PLN is a'project of the non-profit Human Rights Defense Center.. Your tax-deductible donations support our advocacy, free speech and FiIst Amendment litigation efforts on behalf of prisoners and publishers. PLN not only provides uncensored prison-related news, but actively contests prison censorship that interfer~s with the delivery of our publication or any other PLN materials sent to prisoners. All donations, further our goal of advocating for people imprisoned in U.S. detention facilities.
"Great source of information, especially in states such as Arizona where the law libraries have been taken from the inmates and replaced with paralegals." - SB, Arizona prisoner
Special 4-yem' SuhSCl'iption Offcl'!
Free with a 4-year PLN subscl'iption! Six. bonus issues of PLN (54 issues total) m: one free hook, With Liberty for Some 01' Prison Profiteers! Circle your bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochll"e (4-year subscription rates: prisoners $96,. individuals $120, professionals $320). Note: Free book option is for one boole
With Liberty for Some: 500 Years Imprisonment in America, by Scott Christianson, Northeastern .University Press, 372 pages (1998). $18:95 (free With a 4-year sub!). A classic book and the best overall history of the American prison system from 1492 to the 20th Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how little things have changed as far as prisons go in the U.S. over hundreds of years. Buy separately: _ _._
or
Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money Mass Incarceration, edited by Paul
Wright & Tara Herivel; New Press (2007). $24·.95 (free with a 4-year sub!). This is the third in a series of PLN anthqlogies that examines the reality of mass imprisonment in the U.S.. Prison Profiteers is unique from other books on. the market because it exposes and discusses who profits and benefits from mass imprisonment, rather than who is harmed by the prison industrial complex and our nation~s r{Jliance on over-incarceration. Buy separately: _ __

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 42 of 61
"---------, Copies of this very usable and useful gUide should be available in every prison library-to help incarcerated people give positive direction to their energies while making constructive use of their time. It isa well-established fact that people who have taken college.courses in prison have a dramatically reduced rate of recidivism."
L-_____ -BELL GALE CHEVIGNY, PEN Prison Writing Program, _ __~~ Editor Doing Time: 25 Years ofPrison Writing.

HIGH SCHOOL. VOCATIONAL • PARALEGAL • UNDERGRADUATE. GRADUATE COURSES

1III'IIlI" HE GREATLY anticipated and newly updated for the individual and beneficial for use in all prison

third edition of the Prisoner's Guerrilla libraries and education departments.

Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the

The Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook is the only book

United States and Canada has finally arrived! Author on the market for the non-traditional prisoner-stu-

Jon Marc Taylor's brand new version is the latest in dent. It includes detailed listings of the ·quality, cost,

this unique and highly successful gUidebook for the and course offerings for all correspondence pro-

prisoner-student. This invaluable tool and how-to grams available to prisoners. In a time when so many

handbook provides the reader with step-by-step· academic opportunities in prisons have been elim-

instructions to find the appropriate educational program for high school, vocational, paralegal,

inated,

this

book .

is , an

invaluable

re-entry

tool

for

prisoners who seek to further their education while

undergraduate, and graduate courses offered in incarcerated and to help them prepare for life and

the U.S. and Canada today.

work foliowing their release.

Invaluable re-entry tool

Jon Marc Taylor has more than 25 years experience as an incarcerated student, advocate for pris-

It presents more than 160 program outlines and oner education, and author. He has successfully

offers an easy-to-use format for the student to earned a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and

determine which program best suits their needs. It a doctorate via correspondence courses while incar-

is ideal for the incarcerated student who does not cerated. Editor Susan Schwartzkopf has a master's

have Internet access or the ability to attend educa- degree in education and 12 years experience teach-

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . tion classes in person. This resource is indispensable ing immigrants English language skills. PRISONERS' GUERRILLA HANDBOOK TO CORRESPONDENCE PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA I

By Jon Marc Taylor PHD 8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages

Number of copies ordered ___ Amount enclosed _ _ _ __
By: D check D new postage stamps D credit card D money order I

ISBN 978-0-9819385-0-9

Name _______________________________~

$49-95
3 or more copies ordered

DOC/BOP Number ____________________________---

at once $39.95 each

Institution!Agency ______________________________

FREE Shipping & Handling Address,____________________________

I Order by mail, phone, or on-line. City ________________ State

ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

I tpmU§ON LEGAL NEWS P.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 3P7L5NCOL-00015

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 43 of 61

T he Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel is the first in a series of books by Prison Legal News Publishing designed to help pro-se prisoner litigants identify and raise viable claims for patential habeas corpus relief. This book is an invaluable resource that identifies hundreds of cases where the federal courts have granted habeas relief to prisoners whose attorneys provided ineffective assistance of counsel.
It will save litigants
thousands of hours of research and it focuses on the
WINNING cases criminal defendants need to
successfully challenge their convictions.
Well organized into 52 concise chapters, this easy to use book puts the law at the reader's fingertips. The Appendix includes pleadings and forms from successful habeas corpus cases that

"

The Habeas Citebook is a

nifty and concise self-help

guide for prisoners seeking

habeas relief based on claims of

ineffective assistance of counsel.

Navigating the complex and

treacherous terrain of habeas

law is neveJ; easy; but claim-

ing that your lawyer screwed up

is even more difficult - espe-

cially from the confines of an

demonstrate formatting and show ill-equipped prison law library.

how to frame a winning argu-

"Brandon Sample has pro-

ment that will persuade a court

vided an amazing and much-

to grant habeas relief. The Habeas needed tool for prisoners who

Citebook explains the proce-

are forced to seek relief on their

dural and substantive complexi-

own. The book is thorough; but

ties of federal habeas corpus lit-

simple and readable. It starts

igation with the goal of identify-

with a wonderfully well-orga-

ing and litigating claims involving nized listing of hundreds of dif-

ineffective assistance of counsel.

ferent types of ineffective assis-

Brandon Sample is a success':~~-~~tance of counsel, seCf6ith in the

fuljailhouse lawyer litigant incar- form of citations to court rul-

cerated in the Bureau of Prisons.

ings - a novel approach that

He is a Prison Legal News contrib- not only acts as a springboard

. uting writer and a member of the

for further research but also

National Lawyer's Guild. Editor

saves the prisoner countless

Susan Schwartzkopf has a mas-

hours of preliminary research:'

ter's degree in education and is

the director and editor in chief of

PETER SCHMIDT

Prison Legal News Publishing.

Publisher, Punch & Jurists

I

THE HABEAS CITEBOOK: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

By Brandon Sample

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed _______

I

8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages

By: 0 check 0 new postage stamps 0 credit card 0 money order I

I

ISBN 978-0-9819385-1-6
$49·95

Name _ _~ _________________~_________

I

3 or more copies ordered DOC/BOP Number --------------------------

, at once $39.95 each

Institution/Agency _______________--'----'.'------

I I

FREE Shipping & Handling Order by mail, phone, or on-line.

Adclress- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
City _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ State ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

PRISON LEGAL NEWS P.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 3P7L6NCOL-00016

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 44 of 61

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBIT GGG
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 377

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 45 of 61 Page 3P7L8NCOL-00025

Pri~b\1!flegHIINJlWs"!l11! 11/1' III/III!: 1/11111/11/1/1
P.O. Box 2420 West Brattleboro, Vermont 05303

:":r,.,~,~\~,I:,}:") ,..a"l:r;.:'..1~1.,;i::.;..:.,:.-...i~~,,t~''1ll:" ;'r~:.,ml"'6.:.,,.-p::";,""~iIJ'\H~",I,,',,:,",,'~,"L'l~l:,'I',',;',',',d':~/::1''
. . . ''''~f?~T'' 1;t:~'i~!5~C:! 'j}. ' t:L.· .'. :.i:*~ W1W..
'.I, f;,,"T!, '\)SJ, .':,;.tJ. ',1, "1 ,r:"J\'J.'
".11'.""1'>', •• '·r.t-.~:I:I, '.t:""

RETUR{\J ~fO SENDER

O.S:SO:S@.24.20

'~'1: 'X"l:'t;!

'~''7~ ~~e ''1

eo "l'rt!:M!~'1'!:!.

RETURN TO SENDER NOT CELZVERASLE AS ADDRESSED
UNASLE TO FORWARD

ElO : o.'S~O~!24!20::?,O

*a663-~a6e9-16-42

IIII1I 11,1,1, "1 111111111 " I 1, '11,,1,,11111111111111111"" III

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 46 of 61
~ison Legal Ne-w-s

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights

P.O. Box 2420;W Brattleboro, VT 05303 ** ph: (802) 257-1342 fax: (866) 735-7136

I
www.prisonlegalnews.org

PLN@prisonlegalnews.org

06-Jun-l1

59579 **PLC** Expires: 7/2011 Shane Mcnutt 2011000193 Columbia Co Jail 901 Port Ave St Helens, Oregon 97051

RE: Your PLN subscription expires with the July 2011 issue.
Dear Subscriber:
We are letting you know that one more issue remains to be mailed on your subscription to Prison Legal News. We hope you are pleased with the information that PLN is providing you on a monthly basis and hope you intend to renew your subscription. Renew now and take advantage of our 2, 3 or 4-year SUbscription specials!

• Renew for one year.at $24 and you will receive 12,issues... .

........ '.

'; '; '·:R~'iie~VfoV2.'y~'afs at $48 and you will receive our 2-ye~r special of24 issues PLUS 2 extra

, ,-" jS.SQ~s,.for:atot~lpf26issuys~..':c .•. ,c'.',::"; :. , :,"

......... oe

•••••••

:n " " ' c . :::'

• .Ren~w for three years at.$72 and you will receive 4 extra issues (10issues total)·QR-your· choice

'" ofProtecting Your Health and Sqfety (a $10 value!). Please seePLN's bobk brochure for a

description of this book.

...

..

• Renew for four years at $96 and you will receive 6 extra issues (54 issues total) OR your choice of With Libertyfor Some (an $18.95 value!), or Prison Profiteers (a $24.95 value!). Please see PLN's book brochure for a description of these books.

We hope you decide to renew now so that your PLN subscription will not be interrupted. We look forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,

Paul Wright Executive Director
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• The following form can be used to pay by credit card

Print Name on Card: _ _ _ _ _ _ _-,-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-:-.......,...,:--_-,-_ _ _ __

Visa j Me: .

-

__ ~ _',- __. _. _ Expir~~io~ Date:

~, ,;;'.~' " - ' , -. ,'--:-.---:-:- ~"-:. ' - . - ,

'.

-

. ".' . .; ,; . _..

:,.,.,-,-'-.-':""""":""'-":--"""';"-

I auth()r:ize;·P~iso!1 Legal~N~wstQ,charge a total of$_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _t,0 my credit card.

Carcih~i~f~rs§iin~h{~e·: fl.:.:; ,i)/: '!'i! j'!i : :.;:: ,: " ...' i3iiHngZIP:'_''_<_'_i_.'_""_' 'Date:'_'_.'_"_:"_"_"'_ _

Mail this form to: Prison Legal News, P.O. Box 2420, W Brattleboro, VT 05303 ph: (802) 257-1342 fax: (866) 735-7136. Prison Legal News is a 501(c)(3) non-profit and donations are deductible in accordance with tax laws.

Page 3P7L9NCOL-00026

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 47 of 61 Page 3P8L0NCOL-00027

Order Form
All purchases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books, no singles) or
pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed by prison policies.

Book Title / Number

Qty Total Cost

(attach another page if you are ordering more hooks)
Subtotal: Add 6% sales tax for VT residents only: Add $6.00 S/R to orders UNDER $50: Total Order Amount:
Send to:
Name: DOC#: Agency/lnst: Address: City/State/Zip:
MAIL PAYMENT AND THIS FORi'\{ TO: Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303
Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

FREE SHIPPING
On book and index OlUel'S OVER $50.00! A $6 shipping charge applies to all other book and index orders.
(Free shipping policy in elrect from Jalll, :lOla lUltil further notice)

MOl'e Books for Sale!

Prisoners' Self-Help Litigation Manual, updated 4th ed. (2010), by John

Boston and Daniel Manville, Oxford Univ. Press, 1500 pages. $39.95. The

premiere, must-have "Bible" of prison litigation for current and aspiring jail-

house lawyers. If you plan to litigate a prison or jail civil suit, I I

I

this book is a must-have.

1077

Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the U.S.

and Canada, updated 3rd ed. by Jon Marc Taylor, Ph.D. and edited by Susan

Schwartzkopf, published by PLN, 221 pages. $49.95. Written by !'vIissourl

prisoner Jon Marc Taylor, who obtained a B.S. degree, an M.A. degree and a

Doctorate, dle Glferrilla Hal1dbook contains contact information and descrip-

I I tions of high school, vocational, paralegal and college courses available
through correspondence study. Great resource for prisoners

who want to furdler their education.

1057 L._....i._ _ _.J

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by Robert E. Toone, Southern Poverty

Law Center, 325 pages. $10.00. TIus book explains basic rights that prisoners have in a jail or prison in the U.S..lt deals mainly with rights related to health and safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by prison officials; it also

explains how you can enforce your rights widun dle facility I I

I

and, if necessary, in court through litigation.

1060

Starting Out! The Complete Re-Entry Handbook, edited by William H.

Foster, Ph.D. & Carl E. Horn, Ph.D., Starting Out Inc., 446 pages. $22.95.

Complete do-it-yourself re-entry manual and workbook for prisoners who

want to develop their own re-entry plan to increase their chances of success

after dley are released. Includes °a wide variety of resources, including a user

~ode to the Starting Out website dmt can be accessed fOllOW-I I

I

mg release.

1074

Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners v. the U.S.A, by

Murnia Abu Jamal, City Ughts Publishers, 280 pages. $16.95. In Jailhollse LOlll-

yers, Prison Legal News columnist, award-winning journalist and death-row

prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal presents the stories and reflections of fellow pris-

oners-turned-advocates who have learned to use the court system to represent

other prisoners, and in some cases have won their freedom. I I

I

Must-read for jailhouse lawyers!

1073

How to Win Your Personal Injury Clainl, by Atty. Joseph Matdlews, 7th

edition, NOLO Press, 304 pages. $34.99. While not specifically for prison-

related personal injury cases, this book prO\~des comprehensive information

I on how to handle personal injury and property damage claims arising from
~ccidents - including dealing with doctors, attorneys and I I

Insurance comparues.

1075

All prices m'e effective as of 9-15-10 (Plices subject to change without notice)
* No l'efunds after ordel'S have been placed. *

PRlsONjtEGAL NEWS

./ '

/,"

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center

2010 PLN BOOK LIST
Prices Subject to Change Without Notice
Gral,hic from: Books 2 Prisoners, Vancouver, BC
P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.pl·isonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 48 of 61 Page 3P8L1NCOL-00028

Check the box of the books you want to buy and use the Order Form on the other side of this brochure to add up the cost of your order. FREE SIDPPING for book and index orders OVER $50. There is a $6 shipping charge for all other book and index orders.

Prison Profiteers, edited by Paul Wright and Tara HeriveI, 323 pages. $24.95. This is d,e

thitd and L,test book in a series ofPrison Legal News anthologies that examines d,e reality of

mass imprisonment in Americn. (TIle odler tides are The Cellil!?, ofAJllenro & PmollNatioll,

see below). PJiroIl Proj/eer.r is unique from odler books becnuse it ""poses and disOlSSes

who profits and benefits from mass imprisonment, rnther than who is I

I

hrumed by it and how.

1063 LI_ _' - - _ - - - - '

I I I Prison Nation: The Warehousing ofAmerica's Poor, edited by Tara Herivel and Paul
Wright, 332 pages. $35.95. PIN anthology ""-poses d,e d1rk side of the

1ock-em-up'politiall agend1and legal climate in the u.s.

1041· L._ - ' - " . --_...J.

The Celling of Ametica, edited by Daniel Burton Rose, Dan Pens and Paul Wright, 264

pages. $22.95. PIN anthology presents a detailed "inside" look at the I 1

1

workings ofd,e American alminaI justice system.

1001..

.

Everyday Letters for Busy People, by Debra Hart May, 287 pages. $18.99.

Hundreds of sample letters that can be adapted for most any purpose, including

letters to government agencies and officials. Has numerous

tips for writing effective letters.

1048

The Criminal Law Handbook Know Your Rights, Survive the System, by
Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sam J. Berman-Barrett, Nolo Press, 608 pages. $39.99.

S:plains what happens in a criminal case from being arrested to sentencing, and what

your tights are at each stage of the process. Uses an easy to under-I

stand question-and-answer format.

1038 ...J L._ - ' -_ _ _

Represent Yourself in Court: How to Prepare & Try a Winning Case, by

Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sam J. Berman-Barrett, Nolo Press, 528 pages. $39.99.
I I I Breaks down the civil trial process in easy-to-understand ~teps so you can effectively
represent yoursel~ in court 11,e audlors explain what to say in

coutt, how to say It, etc.

1037...

Law Dictionary, Random House Webster's, 525 pages. $19.95. Comprellensive

man to-date law dictionary e.'-plains more

8,500 legal terms.'

,

Covers civil, criminal, commercial & intemationallaw.

1036 ....J LI_ - - - ' ' -_ _

I I I The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, by Jane Straus, 110 pages.
$14.95. A guide to grammar and punctuation by an educator

with e"-perience teaching English to prisoners.

1046 . .

.

Legal Research: How to Find and Understand the Law, by Stephen Elias and

I I I Susan Levinkind, 568 pages. $49.99. Comprehensive and easy to understand guide
on researching d,e law. R,-plains case law, statutes and digests,

and much more. Includes pmctice e.,ercises.

1059 L.._ - ' ._ _ _-'.

Deposition Handbook, by Paul Bergman and ·A1bert Moore, Nolo Press, 352

pages. $34.99. How:ti) handbook for anyone who conducts a 1 1

deposition or is going to be deposed.

1054 ...J L._ - ' - ._ _ _

Spanish-English/English-Spanish Dictionary, Random House. $8.95. Two

sections, Spanish-English and English-Spanish. 60,000+ entries 1 1

from A to Z; includes Westem Hemisphere usage.

1034 L._---'.'--_ _....J

Please Note: All book and index orders are mailed via the U.S. Postal Service with Delivery Confumation. PLN does not assmne any responsibility to replace book or in'dex orders once their delivery to the destination address (facility) isconfirmed by-the U.S. Postal Service.

Wtithlg to Wm: The Legal Writer, by Steven D. Stacl" Broadway Books/Random

House, 283 pages. $19.95. R,"plains the wtiting ofeffective compl1ints, I 1

1

responses, briefs, motions and other legal papers.

1035 L.._ - ' - ._ _----'.

Actual Innocence: When Justice Goes Wrong and How to Make it Right, updated

paperback eel., by Barry Selleck, Peter. Neufeld and Jim Dwyer; 403 pages. $16.00.

Founders of d,e Innocence Project ""-plain how alminaI defend1nts are wrongly con-

victed on a regular basis. &-plains DNA testing·and how it works to free d,e innocent

Devastating critique of police and prosecutori,J! misconduct and d,e I I

1

system dmt ensure.q such abuses. continue.

1030 L._...J._ _ _-'.

Roget's Thesaurus, 717 pages. $8.95. Helps you find the right word for what

you want to say. 11,000 words listed alphabetically with over 200,000 synonyms

and antonyms. Sample sentences and parts of speech shown for every main

I I word. Covers all levels of vocabulary and identifies informal

1

and slang words.

1045 . .

.

Webster's English Dictionary, Newly re\~sed and updated, Random House..

$8.95. 75,000+ ent!"ies. Includes tips on writing 'and word usage, and has up-

dated geographical and biographical entries: Includes recent 1 1

1

business and computer terms.

1033...

I I I Capital Crinles, by George Winslow, Monduy Review, 360 pages. $19.00.
Explains how economic policies create and foster crime, and how corporate & government crime is rarely punished. 1024

With Uberty for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America, by Scott

Christianson, Nordleastern University Press, 372 pages. $18.95. The best

overall history of d,e American prison system from 1492 through d,e 20d,

I I I Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how litde
dungs have ·changed as far as prisons go in the U.S. over

hundreds of years.

. 1026..

.

Ten Men Dead: The story of the 1981 Irish hunger strike, by David Beres-

ford, Adantic Monthly Press, 334 pages. $16.95. Inside story of 1 1

1

IRA prisoners at Belfast's Long Kesh prison.

1006 . .

.

Finding the Right Lawyer, by Jay Foonberg, ABA, 256 pages. $19.95. Ex-

plains how to detemline your legal needs, how to evaluate a 1 1

1

lawyer's qualifications, fee payments, and more.

1015..

.

Seize the Day! 7 Steps to Achieving the Extraordinary in an Ordinary

World, by Danny Cox and John Hoover, 256 pages. $15.99. PrO\~des 7 steps

to changing your expectations and em~sioning yourself as being a successful

and respected person-wluell is essential to changing d,e 1 1

I

course of one's life.

1052

Women Behind Bars, The Crisis of Women in the U.S. Prison System, by
Silja J.A. Talvi, Seal Press, 295 pages. $15.95. Best book available that covers

issues related to imprisoned women, based on ~tervie\Vs with

hundreds of women behind bars.

1066

10 Insider Secrets to a Wintring Job Search, by Todd Bermont, 216 pages. $15.99. Roadmap on how to get a job even under adverse circumstances-like being an ex-con. Includes how to develop a winning atritude, write attentiongrabbing resumes, prepare for intef\~ews, networking, how to present your strengths to an employer, and much more! 1056

The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, 2003

Ed. by Alfred McCoy, 734 pages. $34.95. Documented e.'pose I 1

1

of d,e government's involvement in drug trafficking.

1014 ....J. L._ - ' - ._ _ _

Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis, by Chtisti.1n Parenti,

290 pages. $19.00. Analyzes d,e war on ·d,e poor via d,e·cciminaI justice system. Well

dOcunlented and includes first-hand repotting. Covers ptisons, P=-I

militarypolicing,SWATteamsandd,elNS.

1002 L._ . . I -_ _...J

Hepatitis and Liver Disease: What You Need to Know, by Melissa Palmer, lVID,

457 pages. $17.95. Describes symptoms & treatments of hepatitis B & C and other

liver diseases. Includes medications to avoid, wlmt diet to follow, I 1

I

e.,ercises to perform, and a bibliogtaphy.

1031" .

.

Crime and Punishment In America, by Elliott Cutrie, 230 pages. $16.95. Effective

rebuttnl to right-wing proponents of prison building. Fact-based argument shows dmt

ccime is driven by poverty. Debunks prison myths and discusses 1 1

1

proven, effective means ofccime prevention.

1019...

Prison Madness: The Mental Health Ctisis Behind Bars and What We

Must Do About It, by Terry Kupers, Jossey-Bass, 245 pages. Hardback only,

prisoners please include any required authorization form. $32.95. Psychia-

triSt wtites about the mental health crisis in U.S. prisons and jails. Covers all

aspects of mental illness, prison mpe, negative effects of l o n g - I I I

term isolation in control units, and more.

1003...

Prison Writing in 20th Century America, by H. Bruce Franklin, Penguin

Books, 368 pages. $16.00. From Jack London to George Jackson, dus

andlOlogy provides a selection of some of d,e best writing 1 1

describing life behind bars in America.

1022 L._..1._ _----'

pr I Soledad Brother: The Prison Letters of George Jackson, by George Jackson,
Lawrence Hill Books, 339 pages. $18.95. Lucid e.'-planation of je litiCS of

prison by a well-known ptison acti\~st More relevant now d,an

when it first appeared 40 years ago.

1016

Marijuana Law, by Ricllard Boire, Ronin, 271 pages. $17.95. Rxamines how to

reduce d,e probability of arrest and prosecution for people accused of d,e use, sale or

possession of-marijuana. Infu on legal defenses, search & seizures,

surveillance, asset furfeiture and drug testing.

1008 '---'-_ _

Worse Than Slavery: Parchman Farm and the Ordeal ofJim CrowJustice, by

Da\~d OShinSh:y, 306 pages. $16.00. Analysis of prison labor's roots in. slavery.

Focuses on prison plantations and self-sustaining prisons dmt use 1 1

1

prison bbor.

1007..

.

No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the American Criminal Justice

System, by Da\~d Cole, The New Press, 218 pages. $19.95. &-plains how the

criminal justice system perpetuates mce and class inequality, I 1

1

creating a two-tiered system of justice.

1028 L._..l._ _--'.

The Prison and the Gallows: The Politics of Mass Incarceration in

America, by Marie Gottschalk, Cambridge University Press, 451 pages.

$29.99. Great political analysis of d,e confluence of events I

1

leading to 2.3 million people behind bars in the U.S. 1069.

.

The Habeas Citebook Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, by Brandon

Sample, PLN Publishing, 200 pages. $49.95. Tlus is PLN's second published

book, which exclusively covers ineffective assistance of counsel-related

issues in federal habeas petitions. Great resource for habeas I 1

I

litigation, and contains hundreds of case citesl

1078

Factor 8 (DVD), a film by Kelly Duda, Concrete Films. $21.95. MO\~e

about d,e Arkansas prison blood scandal, in which prison officials sold

infected blood harvested from prisoners. Note: This is a

DVD and cannot be shipped to prison.

1076

PLN Cumulative Index. $22.50 each. PLN Article Indexes provide detailed information about all PLN articles, including tide, audlor, issue, page number, topics covered, citations, and if it is state, BOP Qr jail specific. Can be searched on over 500 subjects such as medical neglect or sexual assault. Circle d,e index(es) you are ordering: 1990-1995, 1996-1998, 1999-1 2001, 2002-2004. (more recent indexes not yet available)

All books are soft cover except Prison Madness

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 49 of 61 Page 3P8L2NCOL-00029

Order Form
All purchases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new stamps (strips or books) or pre-stamped envelopes.

Books (3 & 4 yr Subscription Specials: CIRCLE
one book ill: bonus issues, and DO NOT add SIH)
Protecting Your Health and Safety ill: 4 Bonus Issues (3-yr subscription offer)

$Amt.
Free

Prison Profiteers or With Liberty for Sonte

ill: 6 Bonus Issues (4-yr subscription offer)

Free

Book Total (inc. all books bought separately)

Add 6% sales tax for Vermont residents only

ADD $6.00 S/H to book orders UNDER $50

PLN Subscriptions
6-month Subscription (Prisoners only) 1 yr Subscription (12 issues) 2 yr Subscription (24 plus 2 Bonus issues) 3 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above ill: 4 Bonus issues) 4 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above ill: 6 Bonus issues) Sample Issue - $3.50 each
TOTAL Amount Enclosed:

Send to:
Name:
DOC#: Agency/Inst: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Address:

City/State/Zip: _ _ _- - - - - - - - - -

MAlL PAYlUENT AND TillS FORM TO:

~

Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303

Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

PLN Subscliption Rates
I

Subscription Rates lyr 2 yrs 3 yrs

Prisoners *

$24 $ 48 $ 72

4yrs $ 96

Individuals

$30 $ 60 $ 90 $120

Professionals

$80 $160 $240 $320

(Lawyers, govt. & professional agencies, libraries, etc.)

Sample issue for anyone - $3.50 each*

Six-month prisoner subscription for $12*

* Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books only) or pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed by prison policies.

:- - - - - - - - - S;ilis-c;ipti~~ ·io~~;;s! - - - - - - - - -
I
I 2 years - 2 bonus issues, for 26 monthly issues total. : 3 years - 4 bonus issues (40 total) OR Protecting Your Health and I Safety (see book description on the other side of this brochure). : 4 years - 6 bonus issues (54 total) OR your choice of Wid! Libertyfor
!..S..?~e_!!!.~~o~!,r~e:::.(~~d:s~ri2~0~..o~ ~~o.:.h~r~i~e~ _____I

New 3 or 4-Year Subscription Book Offers!

Subscribe or renew for three years at the regular price ($72 for prisoners & $90 forindividuals); and receive as a FREE bonus, Protecting· Your Health and Safety or four bonus issues of PLN! (40 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice ori the Order Form.
Subscribe or renew for four years ·at the regular price ($96 for prisoners & $120 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Prison Profiteer~ or With Liberty for Some, or 6 bonus issues of PLN! (54 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.

NO shipping charge for subscription bonus books!

NOTE: If you want the bonus issues of PLN instead of the free book offer, please indicate that on the Order Form.

:- -----Co;'ta~tiT;io; PiN;s-Bo:'kiis;!- -----~

1

1

1 You can buy dozens of legal, social commentary, self- 1

1 help books, and legal and regular dictionaries directly:

1
: from

PL~'s

boo~

store!

Ask

us

for

a

book

list,

or

view:

1 our selectIOn online at:

1

1

www.prisonlegalnews.org/store.aspx

:

~---------------------------------

AU subSCliptionrates & bonus offers are effective as of 5-1-10
and valid through 12-31-10
* No refunds after orders have heen placed *

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
Eastern State Penitential-Y 1829-1971
Charles Dickens visited Philadelphia's Eastern State Penitentiary in 1842 and he later wrote: "The System is rigid, strict and hopeless ... and I believe it to be cruel and wrong....1 hold this slow and daily tampering with the mysteries of the brain to be immeasurably worse than any torture of the body." The prison remained open for 129 years after Dickens condemned it as being barbaric, and some of its inhumane practices continue to be used in prisons nationwide.
P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.prisonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 50 of 61 Page 3P8L3NCOL-00030

"if!J,

[11
11

P l'ison Legal News is an independent, non-profit 56-page monthly publication that l'epmts, reviews and analyzes court rulings and news related to
prisoners' rights and prison issues. PLN has a national
(U.S.) focus on state, federal and private prison issues, with some mternational coverage as well.
PLN's many thousands of subscribers and readers include civil and crinIinal trial and appellate attorneys, judges, public defenders, journalists; academics, paralegals, prisonel's' rights activists, students, family members of pI'isoners, concerned individuals, politicians, other government'officials, and numerous .local, state and federal prisoners nationWide.
PLN is a vitallirut for prispners who otherwise don't have access to current legal imd prison-related news and information. '
"Invaluable resource.ior~y~ne'Wanting 'user' friendly'
information about current legaJ developments affecting .. ,prisoners in the United States~"
"" Human.Rights Watch, a long-time PLN subscriber
P LN's coverage of pI'ison'issues includes ~edical neglect, disciplinary hearings, nutrition, living conditions, excessive force, court access, censorship, jail litigation, visiting, telephones, religious freedom, free speech" pI'isonrape, mental health, attorney/ client access, sexual abuse of women prisoners, re-
taliation; the PLRA, HIV and hep C,' control units,
the death penalty, attorney fees and much more.
PLN Subscription Rates
Prisonel's: $12 for 6 months, $24 per year *
Non-incarcerated individuals: $30 per year Law firms, govt. agencies and libraries: $80 per year Sample issue for anyone: $3.50 each* * Prisonerscan pay with new stamps or pre-stamped envelopes

E ach monthly issue of PLN includes' three different

types of reporting:

.. ,

• A cover story on a prison-related issue.

o Reports on 'individual and class-action prison and jailrelated lawsuits when they are filed, when ajudgment is entered or the case settles, and when an appellate court decision is issued. We also have prison-related ne,~s articles.

• A "News In Brief' section that summarizes interesting,
news stories across the u.s. and intei·nationally.

Each issue of PLN also 'contains numerous advertisements from businesses' that provide prison-related personal and, legal services and books. PLN further sells dozens of selfhelp, social commentary and legal books.

PLN also has cumulative subject and mise cite indexes for all PLN issues from 1990 through 2004. Write for info.

Special3-year Subscription Offel'!

Free with a 3-yeal' PLN subscription! Foll' bonus issues of PLN (40 issues total) m: a free book, Protecting Your
Health and Safety! Circle your bonus choice on the.form on the other side of this brochure,' (3~year subscription
rates: prisoners $72, 'individuals $90, professionals $240).

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by ",,--.,...-,,---1 Robert E. Toone. Published by the Southern Poverty Law Center, 325' pages (2009): $10.00 (free with a 3-year sub!). This book explains some basic rights that prisoners
,-@----. I hilVe in a jail or prison ill the U.S. It deals
mainly with rights related to health and Ii
safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by prison 'officials; it also explains how you can enforce your rights to health and safety within the facility .and, if necessary, in court through litigation. Buy separately: ___

,------------------------------------------,

,: You Can Buy These Books Sepru'ately!

,

'

, : '.

.: If you don't mint to purchase a 3 or 4-year subscription:

: to PLN, you can still purchase any of the bonus books:

: at the regular price. Just indicate which books you want:

: to buy on this page, then enter the total cost on the other:

: side of this brochure on the "Book Total" line of the Or- :

: del' Form. Shipping is $6 per order (not per book), and we :

: offer FREE shipping on book orders of $50 or more! To:

.: place a phone order, please call 802c257-1342. We also:

: accept book orders 'oriline, at ,,,",vw.prisonlegahlews.org. :
L _________________________________________ J

D onations: PLN'is a project of the non-profit Human, , . Rights Defense Cent~r. Your tax-deductible donations support our advocacy, frcespeech and First Amendment litigation efforts on behalf of prisoners and publishers. PLN not only provides uncensored prison-related news, but actively contests prison' censorship that interferes with the delivery of our puhlication or any otlier PLN materials sent to prisoners. All donations further our goal of advocat-, ing for people imprisoned in U.S. detention facilities.
"Great source of information, especially in states such as Arizona where the law libraries have been taken from the inmates and replaced with paralegals." - SB, Arizona prisoner
SpeciaI4-yeru' subsci'iption Offel'!
Free with a 4-yeal' PLN suhscl'iption! Six bonus issues of PLN (54 issues total) or one fi'ee book, With Liberty for Some or Prison Profiteers! Circle yOill' bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (4-year subscription rates: prisoners $96, individuals $120, professionals $320). Note: Free book option is for one book.
With Liberty for Some: SO,() Years of Imprisonment in America, 'by Scott Christianson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages (1998). $18.95 (fi'ee With a 4-yeal' sub!). A classic book and the best overall history of the American prison system from 1492 to the 20th Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read. for understanding how little things have changed as far as prisons go in the U.S. over hundreds of years. Buy separately: _'_ __
or
Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money from Mass Incarceration, edited by Paul Wright & Tara Herivel, New Press (2007). $24.95 (free with a 4-year sub!). This the third in a series of PLN anthologies that examines the reality of mass imprison~ ment in the U.S. Prison Profiteers is unique from othe;rbooks on the market because it .exposes and discusses who profits and benefits from mass' imprisonment, rather than who is harmed by the. prison industrial complex and our nation's reJiance on .over-incarceration. Buy separately: _ __

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 51 of 61

T he Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel is the first in a series of books by Prison Legal New:s Publishing designed to help pro-se prisoner litigants identify and raise viable claims for potential habeas corpus relief. This book is an invaluable resource that identifies hundreds of cases where the federal courts have granted habeas relief to prisoners whose attorneys provided ineffective assistance of counsel.
It will save litigants
thousands of hours of research and it focuses on the
WINNING cases criminal defendants need to
successfully challenge their convictions.
Well organized into 52 concise chapters, this easy to use book puts the law at the reader's fingertips. The Appendix includes pleadings and forms from successful habeas corpus cases that

"

The Habeas Citebook is a

nifty and concise self-help

guide for prisoners seeldng

habeas relief based on claims of .

ineffective assistance of counsel.

Navigating the complex and

treacherous terrain of habeas

law is never easy; but claim-

ing that your lawyer screwed up

is even more difficult - espe-

cially from the confines of an

demonstrate formatting .and show ill-equipped prison law library.

how to frame a winning argu-

"Brandon Sample has pro-

ment that will persuade a court

vided an amazing and much-

to grant habeas relief. The Habeas

needed tool for prisoners who

Citebook explains the proce-

are forced to seek relief on their

dural and substantive complexi-

own. The book is thorough; but

ties of federal habeas corpus lit-

simple and readable. It starts

igation with the goal of identify-

with a wonderfully well-orga-

ing and litigating claims involving nized listing of hundreds of dif-

ineffective assistance of counsel.

ferent types of ineffective assis-

Brandon Sample is a success-

tance of counsel, set forth in the

ful jailhouse lawyer litigant incar-

form of citations to court rul-

cerated in the Bureau of Prisons.

ings - a novel approach that

He is a Prison Legal News contrib- not only acts as a springboard

uting writer and a member of the

for further research but also

National Lawyer's Guild. Editor

saves the prisoner countless

Susan Schwartzkopf has a mas-

hours of preliminary research:'

ter's degree in education and is .

the director and editor in chief of

PETER SCHMIDT

Prison Legal News Publishing.

Publisher, Punch & Jurists

THE HABEAS CITEBOOK: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

By Brandon Sample 8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages
ISBN 978-0-9819385-1-6
$49·95
3 or niore copies ordered
at once $39.95 each

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed _ _ _ __
By: D check D new postage stamps D credit card D money order I
I Name _______________________________~--------I DOC/BOP Number _________________---'-_______-'-_____
Institution/Agency _________________________________

FREE Shipping & Handling Order by mail, phone, or on-line.
PUBLISHED BY

Address_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

City _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ State

ZIP

IPRISON LEGAL NEWS P.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 3P8L4NCOL-00031

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 52 of 61

" - - - - - - - Copies ofthis very usable and useful gUide should be available in every prison library-to help incarcerated people give positive diret- . tion to their energies while making constructive use of their time. It is a well-established fact that people who have taken college courses in prison have a dramatically reduced rate of recidivism."

-BELL GALE CHEVICiNY, PEN Prison Writing Program,

~-----

Editor Doing Time: 25 Years ofPrison Writing. -----~

HIGH SCHOOL. VOCATIONAL • PARALEGAL • UNDERGRADUATE. GRADUATE COURSES

HE GREATLY anticipated and newly updated third edition of the Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the United States and Canada has finally arrived! Author Jon Marc Taylor's brand new version is the latest in this unique and highly successful gUidebook for the prisoner-student. This invaluable tool and how-to handbook prOVides the reader with step-by-step instructions to find the appropriate educational program for high school, vocational, paralegal, undergraduate, and graduate courses offered in the U.S. and Canada today.
Invaluable re-entry tool
It presents more than 160 program outlines and offers an easy-to-use format for the student to determine which program best suits their needs. It is ideal for the incarcerated student who does not have Internet access or the ability to attend education classes in person. This resource is indispensable

for the individual and beneficial for use in all prison libraries and education departments.
The Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook is the only book on the market for the non-traditional prisoner-student. It includes detailed listings of the quality, cost, and course offerings for all correspondence programs available to prisoners. In a time when so many academic opportunities in prisons have been eliminated, this book is an invaluable re-entry tool for prisoners who seek to further their education while incarcerated and to help them prepare for life and work follOWing their release.
Jon Marc Taylor has more than 25 years experience as an incarcerated student, advocate for prisoner education, and author. He has successfully earned a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and a doctorate via correspondence courses while incarcerated. Editor Susan Schwartzkopf has a master's degree in education and 12 years experience teaching immigrants English language skills.

~--------------------~ f!il
f.I

PRISONERS' GUERRILLA HANDBOOK TO CORRESPONDENCE PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA I

By Jon Marc Taylor PHD

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount endosed _________

8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages

By: 0 check 0 new postage stamps 0 credit card 0 money order I

ISBN 978-0-9819385-0-9

Name __________________________________________~

$49·95
3 or more copies ordered

DOC/BOP Number ___________________________-'--___

at once $39.95 each

Institution/Agency ________________________________

I

FREE Shipping & Hanelling Oreler by mail, phone, or on-line.

Address---------------------------------------
City ______________________ State ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

I PRISON LEGAL NEWS P.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 3P8L5NCOL-00032

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 53 of 61

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBITHHH
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRlGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 386

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 54 of 61
·1

!fI
!fI

i'l
'\t

I

~ - ,..,
- ~

Q
(iilJl

10 -
Tl
I II) ~

- "
SJ

(iJ
W

I"
IX)

- @ 11:0 rl

n:OI1:
- WO<r

I iT)

----

- 0([3 Ii)

Z It: Ii)
-- W(iJO ~ - f/J([IL ~ --- frI o ill 0

IJ
- ;,t1)

1-.m.11Z<rW

0

-

-- :1)tw:1mt-l
I-><r
~ - WHZ

~
0
~ ;f

: --

--- il:..I;) W

~ iT)

0 0

iT)

- l- I/)

.. -- ~

0 Z

0 -

;i2Hz<.

U ill

o M

.:::

-M
It)
o os:::

E

i..

~

I,
,,'t " ,~,' ,

Page 3P8L7NCOL-00290

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 55 of 61

Prison Legal NeTtTs

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights

P.O. Box 2420, W Brattleboro, VT 05303 ** ph: (802) 257-1342 fax: (866) 735-7136

www.prisonlegalnews.org

PLN@prisonlegalnews.org

06-Jun-ll

59590 **PLC** Expires: 7/2011 Andrew Plumber 2010001809 Columbia Co Jail 901 Port Ave 8t Helens, Oregon 97051

RE: Your PLN subscription expires with the July 2011 issue.

Dear Subscriber:

We are letting you know that one more issue remains to be mailed on your subscription to Prison Legal News. We hope you are pleased with the information that PLN is providing you on a monthly basis and hope you intend to renew your subscription. Renew now and take advantage of our 2, 3 or 4-year subscription specials!

.":Renew for one year at $24 and you will receiveJ2 issues.

"., ".,' .! ,",.• : '.: .,' Ir 1- '.' . ~-'.~ ", ':'

" . _. .

• Renew for 2 years at $48 and you will receive our 2-yearspecial of24 issues PLUS 2 extra

,isSues, fot iiltotalof.26 issues~

C"',

• ,Renew for three years,at $72 and youwillreceiveA extra issues (40 issues total) OR you~ choice

of Protecting Your Health and Safety (a $10 vahie!). Please see PLN's book brochure for a

description of this book.'

.

., , , ,

• Renew for four years at $96 and you will receive 6 extra issues (54 issues total) OR your choice of With Libertyfor Some (an $18.95 value!), or Prison Profiteers (a $24.95 value!). Please see PLN's book brochure for a description of these books.

We hope you decide to renew now so that your PLN subscription will not be interrupted. We look forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,

Paul Wright Executive Director
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• The following ~orm can be used to pay by credit card

Print Name on Card:

-L~ ~.~ _,':~,_.. ,~_',_Exp~ration ~~--------~---------------------------------------------

Visa,IM<:: _.,~_.

Date:"""•.,..".--,-.,-----,-,,.-...,.-,__. _,,_,, _

I authorize P,tison' Legal News to.charge a total of $__________________________tomy'credit card.

Mail this form to: Prison Legal News, P.O. Box 2420, W Brattleboro, VT 05303 ph: (802) 257-1342 fax: (866) 735-7136. Prison Legal News is a 501(c)(3) non-profit and donations are deductible in accordance with tax laws.

Page 3P8L8NCOL-00291

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 56 of 61 Page 3P8L9NCOL-00292

Order Form
All purchases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books, no singles) or
pre-stamped envelopes, if allowed by prison policies.

Book Title / Number

Qty Total Cost

(attach another page if you are ordering more books)
Subtotal: Add 6% sales tax for VT residents only: Add $6.00 SIH to orders UNDER $50: Total Order Amount:
Send to:
Name: DOC#: Agency/lnst: Address: City/State/Zip: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
MAIL PAYl\iENT M'D TillS FORM TO: Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303
Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

FREE SHIPPING On hook and index ol'del's OVER $50.001
A $6 shipping charge applies to all other hook amI index onlcl's.
(Free shipping policy in eJIcct frOIIl Jan 1, 2010 llIltil further notice)

MOl'e Books for Sale!

Prisoners' Self-Help Litigation Manual, updated 4th ed. (2010), by John

Boston and Daniel Manv:ille, Oxford Univ. Press, 1500 pages. $39.95. The
I I I premiere, must-have "Bible" of prison litigation for current and aspiring jail-
house lawyers. If you plan to litigate a prison or jail civil suit,

this book is a must-have.

1077

Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the U.S. and Canada, updated 3rd ed. by Jon Marc Taylor, Ph.D. and edited by Susan Schwartzkopf, published by PLN, 221 pages. $49.95. Written by lvlissouri prisoner Jon Marc Taylor, who obtained a B.S. degree, an M.A. degree and a Doctorate, the Gllmilla HalJdbook contains contact information and descriptions of high school, vocational, paralegal and college courses available

through correspondence study. Great resource for prisoners , ,

who want to further their education.

1057
'----'----'

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by Robert E. Toone, Southern Poverty Law Center, 325 pages. $10.00. TIus book explains basic rights that prisoners

have in a jailor prison in the U.S. It deals mainly with rights related to health

I I I and safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by prison officials; it also
explains how you can enforce your rights within the facility

and, if necessary, in court through litigation.

1060 ' .

.

Starting Out! The Complete Re-Entty Handbook, edited by William H.

Foster, Ph.D. & Carl E. Horn, Ph.D., Starting Out Inc., 446 pages. $22.95.

Complete do-it-yourself re-entty manual and workbook for prisoners who

want to develop their own re-entty plan to increase dleir chances of success

after dley are released. Includes a wide variety of resources, including a user

~ode to dle Starting Out website that can be accessed fOllOW-"

,

mg release.

1074 . .

.

Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners v. the U.S.A., by

Mumia Abu Jamal, City Lights Publishers, 280 pages. $16.95. In Jailhol/se LaIP-

),ers, Prison Legal News columuist, award-winuing journalist and death-row

prisoner Muruia Abu-Jamal presents dle stories and reflections of fellow pris-

I oners-turned-advocates who have learned to use the court system to represent
odler prisoners, and in some cases have won dleir freedom.,

Must-read for jailhouse lawyers!

1073 ..J. L._ - ' -_ _ _

How to Win Your Personal Injury Claim, by Atty. Joseph Matthews, 7th

edition, NOLO Press, 304 pages. $34.99. While not specifically for prison-

related personal injury cases, dus book provides comprehensive information

on how to handle personal injury and property damage claims arising from

~ccidents - incl~ding dealing with doctors, attorneys and"

,

msurance comparues.

1075 . .

.

All prices al'e effective as of9-15-10 (Plices subject to change without notice)
* No refunds after ~rdel'S have been placed *

:'7

-

"-. ,"~"":' ,','-

~

- '"

PRIsON,;t.EGAL NEWS

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center

2010 PLN BOOK LIST
Prices Subject to Change Without Notice Graphic from: Books 2 Prisoners, Vancouver, Be
P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.prisonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 57 of 61 Page 3P9L0NCOL-00293

Check the box of the ,books you want to buy and use the Order Funn on the other side of this brochure to add up the cost of your order. FREE SIDPPINGJor.book and index orders OVER $50. There is a $6 shipping charge for all other book and index orders.

Prison Profiteen;, edited by Paul Wright and Tam Herivel, 323 pages. $24.95. This is d,e

d1ird and latest book in a series ofPriSon I.egal News anthologies that examines the reality of
mass imprisonment in Amerirn. (The odler tides me The Cellill!, ifAII/erica & PWIINalioll,

I I I see below),. PrisOIl Projkers is unique from other books because it ""-poses and discusses
who profits and benefits' from tn.'ISS imprisonment, radler than who is

hannedbyitandhow.

1063 L..._ _. ' - - _ - - - ' .

I I I Prison Nation: The Warehousing of America's Poor, edited by Tam Herivel and Paul
Wright, 332 pages. $35.95. PIN anthology e.'1'oses the d'lrk side ofthe

~ock,em-up'politicliagendaandleg.llclimateintheU.s. '

1041 . .

.

The CeIling of America, edited hy Daniel Burton Rose, Dan Pens and Paul Wright; 264

pageS, $22.95. PIN' antholog)' presents a demiled ''inside'' look at the,

,

I

workings ofthe American crimin,u justice sysrem.

1001 . .

.

Everyday Letters for Busy People, by Debra Hart May, 287 pages. $18.99.

I Hundreds of sample letters that can be adapted for most any purpose, including
letters to government agencies and officials. Has numerous

tips for writing effective letters.

1048 L._ - - '_ _- - '

The Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System, by

Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sara]. Berman-Barrett; Nolo Press, 608 pages. $39.99.

R'1'L'lins what happens in a criminal case from being arrested to sentencing, and what
stage your rights are at each of d,e process. Uses an easy to under-,

stand question-and-answer fonnat

, 1 0 3 8 L _ ... --1._ _ _- '

Represent Yourself in Court: How ,to Prepare & Try a Winning Case, by

Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sara J Bennan-Barrett; Nolo Press, 528 pages. $39.99.

I I I Breaks down me civil trial process in easy-to-understand steps so you can effectively
represent yours~ in court. TI,e aumors e.'1'lain what to say in

court, how to sa)'lt, etc.

1037...

I I Law Dictionary, R'lI1dom House Webster's, 525 pages, $19.95. Comprel1ensive u1-
to-date law dictionary e.'<plains more than 8,500 legal tenus,

Covers ci\oj!, criminal, commercial & international law.

1036 L..._ _. ' - -_ _- - '

I I I The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, by Jane Sttaus, 110 pages.
$14.95. A guide to grammar and punctuation by an educator

wim experience teaching English to prisoners.

1046

Legal Research: How to Find and Understand the Law, by Stephen Elias and

I I I Susan Levinkind, 568 pages. $49.99, Comprehensive and easy to understand guide
on researcl1ing me 11w. &1'lains case 11w, statutes and digests,

and mucl, more. Includes practice e.'tercises.

1059 ..J. L..._ - - - ' . ._ _ _

I I I Deposition Handbook, by Paul Bergman and Albert Moore, Nolo Press, 352
pages. $34.99, How-to handbook for anyone· who conducts a

deposition oris going to be deposed..

1054 L._---'.._ _ _...1.

I I Spattish-English/English-Spattish Dictionary, Random House, $8.95. Two
sections, Sparrish-English and English-Sparrish. 60,000+ entries

from A to Z; includes Western Hemisphere usage.

1034 L._.....J.'-_ _...1

Please Note: All book and index orders are mailed via the U.S. Postal
Service with Deliv~ Co~ation: PLN does not ~e anyrespon-
sibility to replace book or index orders once their deliv~ to the desti-
nation address (facility) is confirined by the U.S. Postal Service.

I I I Writing to Wm: The Legal Writer; by Steven D. Siatk, Broadway Books/Random
House, 283 pages. $19.95. R,1'lains the writing of effCcrive'compL'lints,

responses, btiefS, motions and other leg.ll papers,

1035 L..._ - ' ._ _- - ' .

Actual Innocence: WhenJustice Goes Wrong and How to Make it Right, updated

paperback ed., by Barry Scheck, Peter Nenfeld and Jim Dwyer; 403 pages. $16.00.

Founders of the Innocence Project e.'1'L'lin ho\v crimirull defendants are wrongly con-

I I I victed on a regubr basis. R,1'lains DNA testing and how it works to free me innocent
Devastating critique of police and prosecutorial misconduct and d,e

system tlmt ensures such abuses continue, , ' "

. 1030 L._--'-._ _ _..I.

Roger's Thesaurus, 717 pages. $8.95. Helps you find me right word for what

you want to say, 11,000 words listed alphabetically \vim over 200,000 synonyms

I I I and antonyms. Sample sentences and parts of speech shown for every main
word. Covers all levels of vocabulary and identifies informal

and slang words.

1045..

'

Webster's English Dictionary, Newly re\~sedand updated, Random House.

I I I $8.95. 75,000+ entries. Includes tips on writing and word usage, and has up-
dated geographical and biographical entries. Includes recent

business and computer termS.

.

1033 . .

.

I I I Capital Crimes, by George Winslow, Monthly Review, 360 pages. $19.00.
E"plains how economic policies create and foster crin1e, and how corporate & government crime is rarely punished. 1024 .

With Liberty for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America, by Scott

Christianson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages. $18.95. The best

overall history of the American prison system from 1492 through the 20m

I I I Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how little
things have changed as far as' prisons go in the U ,So over

hundreds of years.

1026..

.

Ten Men Dead: The story of the 1981 Irish hunger strike, by David Beres-

ford, Atlantic Monthly Press, 334 pages. $16.95. Inside story of 1 I

I

IRA prisoners at Belfast's Long Kesh prison.

1006 . .

.

Finding the Right Lawyer, by Jay Foonberg, ABA, 256 pages. $19.95. Ex-

plains how to determine your legal n.eeds, how to evaluate a "

, '

lawyer's qualifications, fee payments, and more.

1015..

.

Seize the Day! 7 Steps to Achieving the Extraordinary in an Ordinary

World, by Danny Cox and John Hoover, 256 pages. $15.99. Provides 7 steps

I I to changing your e'q,ectations and envisioning yourself as being a successful
and respected person-whim is essential to changing the,

course of one's life.

1052

Women Behind Bars, The Crisis of Women in the U.S. Prison System, by
Silja JA. Talvi, Seal Press, 295 pages, $15.95. Best book available tlmt covers

issues related to imprisoned wom.en, based on interviews with 1

hundreds of women behind bars.

1066 L..._ - ' -_ _- - '

10 Insider Secrets to a Winning Job Search, by Todd Bermont; 216 pages.

$15.99. Roadmap on how to get a job even under adverse circumstances-like
I I I being an ex-con. Includes how to develop a \vinning attitude, write attention-
grabbing resumes, prepare for inte[\~ews, networking, how to

present your strengtlls to an employer, and much more! 1056..

.

I ' ,. The Politics of Heroin: CIA Compliciry in the Global Drug Trade, 2003
Ed. by Alfred McCoy, 734 pages. $34.95. Documented expose of the government's involvement in drug trafficking. 1014 ...._-'-._ _ _-'.

Lockdown Ametica: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis, by 01tistian Parenti,

290 pages. $19.00, AnalyZes m~ war on dle poor via d,e crimirial justice system Well

para-I documented and includes first-hand reporting. Covers prisons,

I'

military policing, SWAT teams and d,e INS. .

1002 L..._ - ' -_ _- ' .

Hepatitis and Liver Disease: What You Need to Know, by Melissa Palmer, lYID,

457 pages. $17.95. Describes symptoms & tteatments ofhepatiris B & C and other
liver diseases. Includes medications to a~oid, ,,;hat diet to follow,

exercises to perform, and a bibliography.

1031

Crime and Punishment In America, by Elliott Currie, 230 pages, $16.95. Efre.:tive

I I I rebuttal to right-wing proponents of prison building. Fact-based argument shows that
crime is driven by poverty. Debunks prison myths and discusses

proven,eflecrive means ofcrimepreventioO:

1019

Prison Madness: The Mental Health Crisis Behind' Bars and What We

Must Do About It, by Terty Kupers, Jossey-Bass, 245 pages. Hardback only,

prisoners please include any required authorization form. $32.95. Psychia-
I I trist writes about the mental healtll crisis in U.S. prisons and jails. Covers all
aspects of mental illness, prison rape, negative effects of long-I

term isolation in conttol units, and more.

1003

Prison Writing in 20th Century America, by H. Bruce Franklin, Penguin

Books, 368 pages. $16.00. From Jack London to George Jackson, tills

anthology provides a selection of some of me best writing 1 I

describing life behind bars in America,

1022

L . . ._ - ' ._ _- - '

r I Soledad Brother: The Prison Letters of George Jackson, by GeorgeJackson,
Lawrence Hill Books, 339 pages. $18.95. Lucid ""l'bnation of e TliticS of

prison by a well-known prison activist More relevant now than

when it first appeared 40 years ago,

1016

Marijuana Law, by Richard Boke, Ronin,' 271 pages. $17.95. Exan1ines how to

I I I reduce tI,e probability of arrest and prosecution for people accused of tI,e use, sale or
possession of matijuana. Infu on .Ieg.ll defenses, searcll & seizures,

surveillance, asset furfeiture and drug testing.

1008 L..._ - ' ._ _- - ' .

Worse Than Slavery: Parchman Farm and the Ordeal ofJim CrowJustice, by

I I I David OShinSk)" 306 pages. $16.00. Analysis of prison 11bor's roots in slavery.
Focuses on ptison pL'lI1tations and self-Sustaining prisons tImt use

prison 11bor.

1007..

.

No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the American Criminal Justice

I I I System, by David Cole, The New Press, 218 pages. $1?95. &1'lains how the
criminal justice system perpetuates race and d.ss inequ,ilit:y,

creating a two-tiered system of justice,

1028 L..._ ' - ' ._ _- - ' .

The Prison and the Gallows: The Politics of Mass Incarceration 'in

I I America, by Marie Gottschalk, Cambridge University Press, 451 pages.
$29.99. Great polirical analysis of ti,e confluence of events

leading to 2.3 million people behind bars in ti,e U.S. 1069.

.

The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, by Brandon

Sample, PLN Publishing, 200 pages, $49.95. TIlls is PLN's second published

I I I book, whicll exclusively covers ineffective assistance of counsel-related
issues in fedecli habeas petirions. Great resource for habeas

litigation, and contains hundreds of case cites!

1078 _~ L..,

• •_ _- - ' .

Factor 8 (DVD), a fihn by Kelly Duda, Concrete Films. $21.95. MO\~e

about the Arkansas prison blood scandal, in whicll prison officials sold

infected blood harvested from prisoners. Note: This is a.1

DVD and cannot be shipped to prison.

1076 ~ L..._ - ' -_ _

PLN Cumu1ative Index. $22.50 each. PLN Article Ind~xes pro\~de detailed information about all PLN articles, including title, author, issue, page number, topics covered, citations, and if it is state, BOP or. jail specific. Can be se":ched on over 500 subjects such as medical n~glect or se.,-ual assault. Circl~ the i;'dex(es) you are ordeeing: 1990-1995,; 1996-1?98, 1999-1 2001, 2002-2004. (more recent indexes not yet available)

All books are soft cover except Prison Madness

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 58 of 61 Page 3P9L1NCOL-00294

Order Form
All purchases must he pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new stamps (strips or hooks) or pre-stamped envelopes.

Books (3 & 4yr Subscription Specials: CIRCLE
one book Qr bonus issues, and DO NOT add S/H)
Protecting Your Health and Safety or 4 Bonus Issues (3-yr subscription offer)

$Amt.
Free

Prison Profiteers m: With Liberty for Some

m: 6 Bonus Issues (4-yr subscription offer)

Free

Book Total (inc. all books bought separately)

Add 6% sales tax for Vermont residents only

ADD $6.00 StH to book orders UNDER $50

PLN SubSC1'iptions
6-month Subscription (Prisoners only) 1 yr Subscription (12 issues) 2 yr Subscription (24 plus 2 Bonus issues) 3 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above Qr 4 Bonus issues) 4 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above Qr 6 Bonus issues) Sample Issue - $3.50 each
TOTAL Amount Enclosed:

Send to:
Name: DOC#: Agency/lnst: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Address:
City/State/Zip: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
MAn.. PAYlUENT AND TillS FORM TO:
I ,
Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303

Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

PLN Subscl"iption Rates

Subscription Rates
Prisoners *
Individuals

lyr 2 yrs 3yrs 4yrs
$24 $ 48 $ 72 $ 96 $30 $ 60 $ 90 $120

Professionals

$80 $160 $240 $320

(Lawyers, govt. & professional agencies, libraries, etc.)
Sample issue for anyone - $3.50 each*

Six-month prisoner subscription for $12* * Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books
only) or pre-stamped envelopes, ifallawed byprison policies.

,:- - - - - - - - - S~s-c;ipti;~ B-o~~;;s! - - - - - - - - -
, 2 years - 2 bonus issues, for 26 monthly issues total. : 3 years - 4 bonus issues (40 total) OR Protecting Your Health and I Safety (see book description on the other side of this brochure). : 4 years - 6 bonus issues (54 total) OR your choice of With Libertyfor
!..~~e_f!!..z:.~o~ ~r~e:.r~(~~d:s~rig~o~..?~ ~~o~:r~i~e~ _____,

New 301' 4-Yeru.' Subsc1'iption Book Offe1's!

Subscribe or renew for three years at the regular price ($72 for prisoners & $90 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Protecting Your Health and Safety or four bonus issues of PLN! (40 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice On the Order Form.
Subscribe or renew for four years at the regular price ($96 for prisoners & $120 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Prison. Profiteers or With Liberty for Some, or 6 bonus issues of PLN! (54 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.

NO shipping charge for subscription bonus books!

NOTE: If you want the honus issues ofPLN instead ofthe free hook offer, please indicate that on the Order Form.

:- ----- iT; -C-o;';a~; fo; PiN;-s-i;"k iis~!- ---- - ~ , ' I You can buy dozens of legal, social commentary, self-'

: help books, and legal and regular dictionaries directly:

: from PL~'s boo!>: store! Ask us for a book list, or view:

I our selectIOn online at:

,

IL ______w_w_w_.p_ri_so_n_le_ga_l_ne_w_s._o_rg_/s_to_re_.a_s_px______ _:

All subscription mtes & bonus offers are effective as of5-1-10
and valid through 12-31-10
* No locfunds after oroers have been placed *

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
Eastern State Penitentiary 1829-1971
Charles Dickens visited Philadelphia's Eastern State Penitential·y in 1842 and he later wrote: "The System is rigid, strict and hopeless ... and I believe it to be cruel and wrong....1 hold this slow and daily tampering with the mysteries of the brain to be immeasurably worse than any torture of the body." The prison remained open for 129 years after Dickens condemned it as being barbaric, and some of its inhumane practices continue to be used in prisons nationwide.
P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.prisonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 59 of 61 Page 3P9L2NCOL-00295

,c,!ri; rIj.J
P rison Legal News is an independent, non-pl"Ofit 56-page monthly publication that reports, reviews and analyzes COUl·t rulings and news related to
prisoners' rights and pI'ison issues. PLN has a national
(U.S.) focus on state, fedeml and private prison issues, with some international coverage as well.
PLN's many thousands of subscribers and readers include civil and criminal trial and appellate attorneys, judges, public defenders, jOUl'nalists, academics, paralegals, prisoners' rights activists, students, family membeI's of prisoners, concerned individuals, politicians, other g()vernment officials, .and numerolis local, state and federal prisoneI's nationwide.
PLN is a vitai link for prisoners who otherwise don't have access to current legal and prison-related n'ews and information.
"Invaluable resource for anyone;wanting'user friendly' infonnation about current legal developments affecting
prisoners in the United. States." - Human Rights Watch, a long-time PLN subscriber
P LN's coverage of prison issues includes medical neglect, disciplinary hearings, nutrition, living conditions, excessive force, court access, censorship, jail litigation, visiting, telephones, religious freedom, free speech, pl'ison rape, mental health, attorney/ client access, sexual abuse of women prisoners, retaliation, the PLRA, HIV and hep C, control units, the d!'!ath penalty, attorney fees and much more.
PLN Subscription Rates
Prisoners: $12 for 6months, $24 per year *
N on-incarcerated individuals: $30 per year Law firms, govt. agencies and libraries: $80 per year
Sample issue for anyone:'$3.50 each*
* Prisoners can pay with new stamps or pre-stamped envelopes

E ach monthly issue of PLN includes three different types of reporting: .. A cover story on a prison-related issue. .. Reports on individual and class-action prison and jail-
related lawsuits when they are filed, when a judgment is entered or the case settles, and when an appellate court decision is issued. We also have prison~related news articles. .. A "News In Brief" section that sU!~marizes interesting news stories across the U:S. and internationally.
Each issue of PLN also contains numerous advertisements from businesses that provide prison-related personal and·' legal services and books. PLN further sells dozens of self'help, social commentary and legal books.
PLN also has cumulative subject and case cite indexes for all PLN issues from 1990 through 2004·. Write for info.
Special 3-yeal' Subscription Offer!

Free with a 3-year PLN subscription! Foll' bonus issues of PLN (40 issues total) or a free book, Protecting Your Health and Safety! Circle Y0ll' bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (3-year subscription rates: prisoners $72, individuals $90, professionals $24.0).

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by 1'\"6-----1 Robert E. Toone. Published by the Southeni Poverty La,v Center, 325 pages (2009).
a: $10.00 (n'ee with 3-yem' sub!). This book
explains some basic rights that' prisoners
--@---- I have in a jail or prison in the U.S. It deals;
mainly with rights related to' health and Ii .
safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by prison officials; it also explains how you can enforce your rights to health and safety within the facility and; if necessary, in court through litigation. Buy separately: ___

,------------------------------------------,
You Cau Buy These Books Separately! ,:

I,

'.

I

: If you don't want to purchase a 3 or 4-year subscription:

: to PLN, you can still purchase any of the bonus books:

: at the regular price. Just indicate which: books you want:

: to buy on this page; then enter the total cost on the other:

: side of this brochure on the "Book Total" line of the 01'- :

: del' Form. Shipping is $6 pe; order (not per book), and we :

: offer FREE shipping on book orders' of $50 or morel To :

: place a phone order, please call 862-257-1342. We also:

: accept book orders ouline, at www.prisonlegalnews.org. :
L _________________________________________ J

D onations: PLN is a project 'of the non-profit Human
. Rights Defense Center. Your tax-deductible donations support our advocacy, free speech and First Amendment litigation efforts on behalf of prisoners and publishers. PLN not only provides uncensored prison-related news, but actively contests prison censorship that interferes with the delivery of our publication or any other PLN materials sent to prisoners. All donations further our goal of advocating for people imprisoned in U.S. detention facilities.
"Great source of information, especially in states such as Arizona where the law libraries have been taken from the inmates and replaced with paralegals." - SB, Arizona prisoner
[S;~~ial 4-;~aI' Subsc~i;tion Offel'!
FI'ee with a 4-yem' PLN subscription! .Sixbonus issues of PLN (54 issues total) or one fi.·ee book, With Liberty for Some or Prison Profiteers! Circle your bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (4-year subscription rates: prisoners $96, individuals $120, professionals $320). Note: Free book option is for one boole
With Liberty for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America, by Scott Christianson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages (1998). $18.95 (free witli a 4-year sub!). A classic book and the best overall history of the American prison system from 1492 to the 20th Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how little things have changed as far as prisons go in the U.S. over hundreds of years. Buy separately: ___
or
Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money from Mass Incarceration, edited by Paul Wright & Tara Herivel, New Press (2007). $24·.95 (n'ee with a, 4-year sub!). This is the third in a series of PLN anthologies that examines the reality of mass imprisonment in the U.S. 'Prison Profiteers is Unique from other books on the market because it exposes and discusses who profits and .benefits from mass imprisonment, rather than who is.harmed by the prison industrial complex and our nation's reliance on over-incarceration. Buy separately: ___ ,

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 60 of 61
• t r.

T he Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel is the first in a series of books by Prison Legal News Publishing designed to help pro-se prisoner litigants identify and raise viable claims for potential habeas corpus relief. This book is an invaluable resource that identifies hundreds of cases where the federal courts have granted habeas relief to prisoners whose attorneys provided ineffective assistance of counsel.
It will save litigants thousands of hours
of research and it focuses on the WINNING cases criminal defendants need to successfully challenge their convictions.
Well organized into 52 concise chapters, this easy to use book puts the law at the reader's fingertips. The Appendix includes pleadings and forms from successful habeas corpus cases that

"

The Habeas Citebook is a

nifty and concise self-help

guide for prisoners seeking

habeas relief based on claims of

ineffective assistance of counsel.

Navigating the complex and

treacherous terrain of habeas

law is never easy; but claim-

ing that your lawyer screwed up

is even more difficult espe-

cially from the confines of an

demonstrate formatting and show ill-equipped prison law library.

how to frame a winning argu-

"Brandon Sample has pro-

ment that will persuade a court

vided an amazing and much-

to grant habeas relief. The Habeas

needed tool for prisoners who

Citebook explains the proce-

are forced to seek relief on their

dural and substantive complexi-

own. The book is thorough; but

ties of federal habeas corpus lit-

simple and readable. It starts

igation with the goal of identify-

with a wonderfully well-orga-

ing and litigating claims involving nized listing of hundreds of dif-

ineffective assistance of counsel.

ferent types of ineffective assis-

Brandon Sample is a success-

tance of counsel, set forth in the

ful jailhouse lawyer litigant incar-

form of citations to court rul-

cerated in the Bureau of Prisons.

ings - a novel approach that

He is a Prison Legal News contrib- not only acts as a springboard

uting writer and a member of the

for further research but also

National Lawyer's Guild. Editor

saves the prisoner countless

Susan Schwartzkopf has a mas-

hours of preliminary research:'

ter's degree in education and is

the director and editor in chief of

PETER SCHMIDT

Prison Legal News Publishing.

Publisher, Punch & Jurists

THE HABEAS CITEBOOK: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

By Brandon Sample 8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed _ _ _ __
By: 0 check 0 new postage stamps 0 credit card 0 money order I

ISBN 978-0-9819385-1-6
$49·95 3 or more copies ordered
at OIice $39.95 each

Name _____________________________________________ I
DOc/BOP Number __________________________________
I
Institution/Agency ____________________~__...:..__________

FREE Shipping & Handling Address______________________

Order by mail, phone, or on-line. City _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ State

ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

PRISON LEGAL NEWS P.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 wwW.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 3P9L3NCOL-00296

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-6 Filed 01/31/12 Page 61 of 61
" - - - - - -,-. " ;" Copies of this very usable and useful gUide should be available in·every prison library-to help incarcerated people give positive direction to their energies while making constructive' use of their time. It is a well-established fact that people who have taken college courses in prison have a dramatically reduced rate of recidivism."
'---_ _ _ -BELL GALE CHEVICiNY, PEN Prison Writing Program, Editor DOing Time: 25 Years ofPrison Writing. - - - - '

HIGH SCHOOL. VOCATIONAL • PARALEGAL • UNDERGRADUATE. GRADUATE COURSES

~IIIIIIHE GREATLY anticipated and newly updated third edition of the Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the
United States and Canada has finally arrived! Author Jon'Marc Taylor's brand new version is the latest in this unique and highly successful gUidebook for the prisoner-student. This invaluable tool and how-to handbook provides the reader with step-by-step instructions to find the appropriate educational program for high school, vocational, paralegal, undergraduate, arid graduate courses offered in the U.S. and Canada today.
Invaluable re-entry tool
It presents more than 160 program outlines and offers an easy-to-use format for the student to determine which program best suits their needs. It is ideal for the incarcerated student who does not have Internet access or the ability to attend education classes in person. This resource is indispensable

for the individual and beneficial for use in all prison libraries and education departments.
The Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook is the only book on the market for the non-traditional prisoner-student. It includes detailed listings of the quality, cost, and course offerings for all correspondence programs available to prisoners. In a time when so many academic opportunities in prisons have been eliminated, this book is an invaluable re-entry tool for prisoners who seek to further their education while incarcerated and to help them prepare for life and work following their release.
Jon Marc Taylor has more than 25 years experience as an incarcerated student, advocate for prisoner education, and author. He has successfully earned a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and a doctorate via correspondence courses while incarcerated. Editor Susan Schwartzkopf has a master's degree in education and 12 years experience teaching immigrants English language skills.

I PRISONERS' GUERRILLA HANDBOOK TO CORRESPONDENCE PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA I

By Jon Marc Taylor PHD

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed _ _ _ __

I

8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages

By: D check D new postage stamps D credit card D money order I

I

ISBN 978-0-9819385-0-9 $49.95

Name __________________________________________

3 or more copies ordered DOC/BOP Number ...'-:.-__-'--________________________-'-'-___

atonce $39.95 each

Institution/Agency _______________________________-'-_

FREE Shipping & Handling Address,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

I Order by mail, phone, or on-line. City _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ State

ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

PRISON lEGAL NEWS I P.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 3P9L4NCOL-00297

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-7 Filed 01/31/12 Page 1 of 27

9870.05 fa246305

EXHIBIT III
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 395

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-7 Filed 01/31/12 Page 2 of 27 Page 3P9L6NCOL-00001

Prison L(~gal News

P.O. Box 2420

West . ',,'.

Brattleboro, "

Vermont

05303

t, ~,'?

l':>C ',\.

Or:.l ('''~;,/2r:,1 :U,

l'l 1.><:t I:.'.

FlE': -r\,.\};,/N TO Sf..';J>,\t:f£·:;if

)\lO'T t,-e-\:'J>.l.'1~AVF.El\F•.ilIA;: l3"l•1•E'0: Ar't~S)Ci)~e\.\A)*',O:)~4rf-J;?ROOE::'S:lS4]e;';l,+t,-?:1. - :SF,>

£-:JC: O.S$CI'$~'4~(''.<lO

II \1111111 Jlllllllllllllllllll It 111111 II 1111 JIll It IIII JI \ II III

RETURn 10 SENDER

II
' -\~
'-~

As of April 1, 2010

The Columbia County Jail

ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS

\)TF-'

This applies to ALL

incoming and out going mail

~::)71J.5 j :Jl:'~il1fl:!l(£I·'4?4.~O

n1I11 \1111II1I1111 \11 'I n..n,1\111I1I1 \\1'\,1\ 111111\\'\'\'\

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-7 Filed 01/31/12 Page 3 of 27
Prison Legal Ne~s

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights

p.d Box 2420, W Brattleboro, VT 05303 ** ph: (802) 257-1342 fax: (866) 735-7136

wwWprisonregalnews.org

PLN@prisonlegalnews.org

09-May-ll
58004 **PE** ~xpired: 5/2011 Jason C QuadJ 51479 Columbia Co Jail 901 Port Ave St Helens, Oregon 97051

Dear Subscriber: J

We are alerting yPu that your subscription to Prison Legal News expires with the current issue. Take advantage of our 2, 3 or 4-year special, and ensure that your subscription to PLN is not interrupted!

0*I
• Renew for year at $24 and you will receive 12 issues.

• Renew for 2 years at $48 and you will receive our 2-year special of24 issues PLUS 2 extra

issues, for a total of 26 issues.

• Renew for three years at $72 and you will receive 4 extra issues (40 issues total) OR your choice

of Protecting Your Health and Safety (a $10 value!). Please see PLN's book brochure for a

.. descriptio:q of this book., " ,

, .

• Renew for four years at $96 and you will receive 6' extnl issues (54 issue's tcital) OR your choice

of With Ljbertyfor Some (an $18.95 value!), or Prison Profiteers (a $24.95 value!). Please see PLN's

book brochure for a description of these books.

We look forward to h~aring from you very soon!

Sincerely,

PLN Staff
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• The following form can be used to pay by credit card

Print Name on Card: -----------------------------------------------------------

Visa/MC:

Expiration Date: _______________

I authorize Prison Legal News to charge a total ~____________________________-- my credit card.

Cardholders i~i~ature:
" "' )

Billing ZIP:

.

""

. Date: - - - - -

Mail this form to: Prison Legal News, P.O. Box.2420, W Brattleboro, VT ()5303 ph: (802) 257-1342

fax: '(866) 735-713~. Prison Legal News is a 501(c)(3) non-profit and donations are deductible i~ ~ccordancewith taX laws.

. -. ."

Page 3P9L7NCOL-00002

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-7 Filed 01/31/12 Page 4 of 27 Page 3P9L8NCOL-00003

Order Form
All purchases must he pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new stamps (strips or hooks) or pre-stamped envelopes.

Books,(3 & 4 yr Subscription Specials: CIRCLE
one book ill: bonus issues, and DO NOT add SIH)
Protecting Your Health and Safety or 4 Bonus Issues (3-yr subscription offer)

$Amt.
Free

Prison Profiteers.!!! With Liberty for Some.

.!!! 6 Bonus Issues (4-yr subscription offer)

Free

Book Total (inc. all books bought separately)

Add 6% sales tax for Vermont residents only

ADD $6.00 S/H to book orders UNDER $50

PLN Subscriptions
6-monthSubscription (Prisoners only) 1 yr Subscription (12 issues) 2 yr Subscription (24, plus 2 Bonus issues) 3 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above ill: 4. Bonus issues) 4 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above ill: 6 Bonus issues) Sample Issue - $3.50 each
TOTAL Amount Enclosed:

Send to:
Name:
DOC#: Agency/Inst: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Address: City/State/Zip: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

MAlL PAYl\'IENT AND TIDS FORM TO:

~

Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303

Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

PLN Subscription Rates

Subscription Rates
Prisoners *

1yr 2yrs 3 yrs 4yrs $24 $ 48 $ 72 $ 96

Individuals

$30 $ 60 $ 90 $120

Professionals

$80 $160 $240 $320

(Lawyers, govt. & professional agencies, libraries, etc.)
Sample issue for anyone - $3.50 each*

Six-month prisoner subscription for $12*
* Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books
only) or pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed byprison policies.

:- - - - - - - - - S~s-c;ip;i~~ B-o~~;s! - - - - - - - - -
1
1 2 years - 2 bonus issues, for 26 monthly issues total. : 3 years - 4 bonus issues (40 total) OR Protecting Your Health and 1 Safety (see book description on the other side of this brochure). : 4 years - 6 bonus issues (54 total) OR your choice of With Libertyfor
0:. !.S!~eJ!.~~o~ ~rp~e:::.(~:.d.:s~riE~o~..?~ o~h.:r~i~e~ _____I

New 3 or 4-Year Subscription Book Offers!

Subscribe or renew for three years at the regular price ($72 for prisoners '& $90 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Protecting Your Health and Safety or four bonus issues of PLN! (40 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.
Subscribe or renew for four years at the regular price ($96 for prisoners & $120 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Prison Profiteers or With Libertyfor Some, or 6 bonus issues of PLN! (54 .monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.

NO shipping charge for subscription bonus books!

NOTE: H you want the bonus issues of PLN instead of the free hook offer, please indicate that on the Order Form.

:- - - - - - -C-o;';a~;iT; Co; piN;-s-io~k iis~!- - - - - - ~

1

1

1 You can buy dozens of legal, social commentary, self-I

: help books, and legal and regular dictionaries directly: : from PL~'s boo:!: store! Ask us for a book list, or view:

1 our selectIOn online at:

1

1

www.prisonlegalnews.org/store.aspx

:

1______ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

All subscription rates & bonus offers are effective as of 5-1-10
and valid through 12-31-10
* * . No refunds after Ol-del'S have heen placed

PFHSONEEGAl NEWS '.
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
Eastern State Penitentiary 1829-1971
Charles Dickens visited Philadelphia's Eastern State Penitentiary in 1842 and he later wrote: "The System is rigid, strict and hopeless ... and I believe it to be cruel and wrong....1 hold this slow and daily tampering with the mysteries of the brain to be immeasurably worse than any torture of the body." The prison remained open for 129 years after Dickens condemned it as being barbaric, and some of its inhumane practices continue to be used in prisons nationwide.
P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.prisonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-7 Filed 01/31/12 Page 5 of 27 Page 3P9L9NCOL-00004

I t; II

I

H;;
il

l;

P rison Legal News is 'an' independent, non-profit 56-page monthly publication that reports, reviews and analyzes court rulings and news related to prisoners' rights andprison issues. PLNhas a uational (U.S.) focus on state, federal and private prison issues, with some international coverage as well.
PLN's many thousands, of subscribers and readers include civil and criminal trial and appellate attorneys, judges, public defenders, journalists, academics, paralegals, prisoners' rights activists, students, family members of prisoners, concerned individuals, politicians, other government officials, and numerous, local, state and federalprisollers nationwide.
PLN is a vital link for ,prisoners who otherwise don't have access to ,current legi:tl and prison-related news and information.
"Invaluable resource for atiyone wanting 'user friendly' information aiJoutcimerit legal d"velopments affecting
prisoners in the United States."
- Human Rights Watch, a )ong-tiine PLN subscriber
P LN's coverage of prison issues includes medical neglect, disciplinary hearings, nutrition, living conditions, excessive force, court access, censorship, jail litigation, visiting, telephones, religious freedom, free speech, prison rape, mental health, attorney/ client access, sexual abuse of women prisoners; retaliation, the PLRA, HIV and hep C, control units, the death penalty, attorney fees and much more.
PLN Subscription Rates
Prisoners: $12 for 6 months, $24 per year ., 'l"on-incarcerated individuals: $30 per year Law firms, govt. agencies and libraries: $80 per year
,ample issue for anyone: $3.50 each*
• Prisoners can pay with new:stamps or, pre-stamped envelopes

E ach monthly issue of PLN includes three different

types of reporting:

, '

• A cover story on a prison-related issue.

• Reports on individual and class-action prison and jailrelated lawsuits when they are fIled, when a judgment is entered or the case settles, and when an appellate court decision is issued. We 'als~ have prison-related news articles.
• A "News In Brlef' section that summarizes inter~sting news stories across the U.S. and internationally.

, Each issue of ,PLN also ,contains numerous advertisements from businesses that provide 'prison-related personal and legal services and 'books. PLN further sells dozens of selfhelp, social commentary and legal books.

PLN also has cumulative subject and case cite indexes for all PLN issues from 1990 through 2004. Write for info.

Special,3-yeal" SubscriptionOffel"!

Free with a 3-year PLN subscription! Four bonus issues of PLN (40 issues total) 'or a free book, Protecting Your Health and Safety! Circle your, bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (3-year subscription rates: prisoners $72, 'individuals $90, professionals $240). ,

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by w".-----;

Robert E. Toone. Published by the South-

ern Poverty Law Center, 325 pages (2009).

$10.00 (nee with a 3-year sub!). This book

,. I explains some basic rights that prisoners
have in a jail or prison in the U.S. It deals ~J

®____

mainly with rights related to health and··

'.

safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by

prison officials; it also explains how you can ellforce your

rights to health and safety within the facility and, if nec-

essary, in court through litigation. Buy separately: ___

,------------------------------------------,
, You Can Buy These Books Separately!
If you don't want to purchase a 3 or 4-year subscription to PLN, you can still purchase any of the bonus books at the regular price. Just indicate which books' you want to buy on this page, then enter the ·total cost on the other side of this brochure on the "Book Total" line of the Order Form. Shipping is $6 per order (not per book), and we offer FREE shippmg on book orders of $50 or more! To place a phone order, please· call 802-257-1342. We also accept book orders online, at www.prisonlegahlews.org.

D onations: PLN is' a project of the' non-profit Human Rights Defense Center. Your tax-deductible donations s~pportour advocacy, free speech and First Amendment litigation efforts on behalf of prisoners and publishers. PLN not only provides uncensored prison-related news, but actively contests' prison censorship that uiterferes with the delivery of our publication or any other PLN materials sent to prisoners. All donations further our goal of advocat" ing for people unprisoned in U.S. detention facilities.
"Great source of information, especially in states such as Arizona where the law libraries have been taken from the inmates and replaced with paralegals." - SB, Arizona prisoner
SpeciaI4-yeal" Subscription Offel"!
Free with a 4-year PLN subscription! Six bonus issues of PLN (54 issues total) or one fi·ee book, With Liberty for Some m,: Prison Profiteers! Circle your bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (4-year subscription rates: prisoners $96, individuals $120, professionals $320). Note: Free book option is for Q!1ll. book.
With Liberty fo~ Some: 500 Years Imprisonment in America, by Scott Christianson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages (1998). $18.95 (fi·ee with a 4-year sub!). A classic book and the best overall history of the American prison system from 1492 to the 20th Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how little things have changed as far as prisons go in the U.S. over hundreds of years. Buy separately: ___
or
Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money Mass Incarceration, edited by Paul
Wright & Tara Herivel, New Press (2007). $24.95 (fi·ee with a 4-year sub!). This is the third in a series of PLN anthologies that examines the reality of m~ss imprisonment in the U.S. Prison Profiteers is unique from other books on the market because it exposes and discusses who profits and benefits from mass imprisonment, rather than who is harmed by the prison industrial complex and our, nation's reliance on over-incarceration. Buy separately: _ __

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-7 Filed 01/31/12 Page 6 of 27 Page 4P0L0NCOL-00005

Order Form
All purchases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books, no singles) or
pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed by prison policies.

Book Title / Number

Qty Total Cost

(attach another page if you are ordering more books)
Subtotal: Add 6% sales tax for VT residents only: Add $6.00 S/R to orders UNDER $50: Total Order Amount:
Send to:
Name: DOC#: Agency/lnst: Address: City/State/Zip:
MAIL PAYl\1ENT AND TillS FORlU TO:
Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303
Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

FREE SIDPPING
On hook and index ordel's OVER $50.00! A $6 Shipping charge applies to all other hook amI index ordel's.
(Free shipping policy in effect from Jan 1, :l010 until further notice)

More Books for Sale!

Prisoners' Self-Help Litigation Manual, updated 4th ed (2010), by John

Boston and Daniel Manville, Oxford Univ. Press, 1500 pages. $39.95. TIle
I I I premiere, must-have "Bible" of prison litigation for current and aspiring jail-
house lawyers. If you plan to litigate a prison or jail civil suit,

this book is a must-have.

1077

Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the U.S.

and Canada, updated 3rd ed. by Jon Marc Taylor, Ph.D. and edited by Susan

Schwartzkopf, published by PLN, 221 pages. $49.95. Written by Missouri

prisoner Jon Marc Taylor, who obtained a B.S. degree, an M.A. degree and a

Doctorate, the GlIenilla Handbook contains contact information and descrip-

tions of high school, vocational, paralegal and college courses available

through correspondence study. Great resource for prisoners , ,

who want to further their education.,

1057 L,_ - , - ,_ _ _-'

Protecting Your Health and Saf'Ory, by RobertE. Toone, Southern Poverty

Law Center, 325 pages. $10.00. TIusbook e)'plains basic rights that prisoners

have in a jailor prison in the U.S. It deals mainly with rights related to health

I I I and safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by prison: officials; it also
explains how you can enforce your rights within the facility

and, if necessary, in court through litigatio?

1060 , .

,

Starting Out! The Complete Re"Entry Handbook, edited by William H.

Foster, Ph.D. & Carl E. Horn, Ph.D., Starting Out Inc., 446 pages. $22.95.

Complete do-it-yourself re-entry, manual and workbook for prisoners who

want to develop dleir own re-entry plan to increase their chances of success

I after they are released. Includes a wide variety of resources, including a user
~ode to dle Starting Out website that can be accessed follOW-I'

mg release.

,1074 . ,

,

Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defendirig Prisoners v. the U.S.A., by

Mumia Abu Jamal, City Lights Publishers, 280 pages. $16.95. In Jailbollse Law-

yers, Prison Legal News columnist, award-winning journalist and death-row

prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal presents the stories and reflections of fellow pris-

oners-turned-advocates who have learned to use dle court system to represent

other prisoners, and in some cases have won d,eir freedom.,

,

Must-read for jailhouse lawyers!

1073 ,

,

How to Win Your Personal Injury Clain1, by Atty. Joseph Matdlews, 7th

edition, NOLO Press, 304 pages. $34.99. While not specificaliy for prison-

related personal injury cases, dlis book provides comprehensive information

I I on how to handie personal injury and property damage claims arising from
~ccidents - including dealing \vith doctors, attorneys and,

msurance companIes.

1075 , .

.

AD prices are effective as of 9-15-10
(plices subject to change without notice)
* No refunds after orders have been placed *

PRIsOl\LI£EGAL NEWS

:

,J

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center

2010 PLN BOOK LIST
Prices Subject to Change Without Notice
Grapbic from: Books 2 Prisoners, Vancouver, Be
P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 802.257.1342 • www.pl.isonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-7 Filed 01/31/12 Page 7 of 27 Page 4P0L1NCOL-00006

Check the box of the books you want to buy and use the Order Form on the other side oftrus brochure to add up the cost of your order. FREE SHIPPING for book and index orders OVER $50. There is a $6 shipping charge for all other book and index orders.

Prison Profiteers, edited by Paul Wright aod Tara Herivel, 323 pages. $24.95. TIUs is the

third aod Iarest book in a series ofPrison I...egal News aodlOlogies that examines the reality of

mass imprisonment in America. (The other tides are The Cellillg qfAl/JeJica & PTirOIl Natioll,

I I I see below). Pmoll Pro}lee/J is unique from odler books beolUse it ""poses aod disrusses
who profits aod benefits from mass imprisonmen~ radler thao who is

hanned by it aod how.

1063 L._ - - - ' - ._ _--'.

I I I Prison Nation: The Warehousing of America's Poor, edited by Tara Herivel aod Paul
Wright, 332 pages. $35.95. PLN aothology ""poses the d-u:k side ofthe

1ock-em-up' politiall age<lda aod legal climate in the U.s.

1041 . .

.

The CeIling of America, edited by Daniel Burton Rose, Dan Pens aod Paul Wrigh~ 264

pages. $22.95. PLN aothology presents a demiled "inside" look at the , . ,

,

workings ofd,e American crimirllll justice system.

1001 . .

.

Everyday Letters for Busy People, by Debra Hart May, 287 pages. $18.99.

Hundreds of sample letters dmt can be adapted for most any purpose, including

letters to government agencies and officials. Has numerous ,

tips for writing effective letters.

1048 L._ _' -_ _-'

The Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System, by
Attorneys Paul Bergmao & Sara J. Bermao-Barre~ Nolo Press, 608 pages. $39.99.

Explains what happens in a criminal case from being arrested to sentencing, and what

your tights are at eacll stage of the process. Uses an easy to under-,

staod question-aod-answer fo=t.

1038 ..._ - '_ _ _--'

Represent Yourself in Court: How to Prepare & Try a Winning Case, by
Attorneys Paul Bergman & J. Sara 'Bermao-Barie~ Nolo Press, 528 pages. $39.99.

I I I Breaks down the civil trial process in easy-to-understaod steps so you cao effectively
represent yourse~ in court. The authors """plain what to say in

co~ how to say It, etc.

.

1037..

.

Law Dictionary, Random House Webster's, 525 pages. $19.95. ~oml"'j"'~'OH~ _~

to-date law dicrionary e.'"plains more than 8,500 legal terms.

Covers civil, criminal, commercial & international law.

1036 1'-_--'-_ _---'

I I I The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, by Jane Straus, 110 pages.
$14.95. A guide to grammar and punctuation by an educator

wim experience teaching English to prisoners.

1046

Legal Research: How to Find and Understand the Law, by Stephen Elias aod

I I I Susan Levinkind, 568 pages. $49.99. Comprehensive and easy to understaod guide
on researcl1ing the law. lli"plains case law, statutes and digests,

and mucll more. Includes practice e.xercises.

1059 ~. L._ - ' - ._ _ _

I I I Deposition Handbook, by Paul Bergman and Albert Moore, Nolo Press, 352
pages. $34.99. How-to handbook for anyone who conducts a

deposition or is going to be deposed.

1054 ~. L._ - ' - ._ _ _

I I Spattish-English/English-Spattish . Dictionary, Random House. $8.95. Two
sections, Spanish-English and English-Spanish. 60,000+ entries

)m A to Z; includes Western Hemisphere usage.

1034 ~ L.._ - ' ._ _ _

'lease Note: All book and index orders are mailed via the U.S. Postal
iervice with Delivery Confirmation. PLN does not assume any respon-
ibility to replace book or index orders once their delivery to the desti-
lation address (facility) is confirmed by the U.S. Postal Service.

I I I Writing to Wm: The Legal Wtiter, by Steven D. Stark, Broadway Books/R1I1dom
House, 283 pages. $19.95. R,"plains d,e writing of effective complaints,

responses, briefS, motions aod other legal papers.

1035 L.._-.L._ _---'.

Actual Innocence: When Justice Goes Wrong and How to Make it Right, updated

paperback ed" by Barry Scheck, Peter Neufeld and Jim Dwyer; 403 pages. $16.00.

Founders of d,e Innocence Project """plain hO\v ctiminal defend111ts are wrongly con-

I I I ,,~cted on a regulllr basis. lli"plains DNA testing aod how it works to free d,e innocent.
Devastating critique of police aod prosecutorial misconduct aod the

system that ensure.' such abuses continue.

. .

1030 L _ . -L._ _ _.J.

Roget's Thesaurus, 717 pages. $8.95. Helps you find the right word for what

you want to say. 11,000 words listed alphabetically with over 200,000 synonyms
I I I and antonyms. Sample sentences and parts of speech shown for every main
word. Covers all levels of vocabulary and identifies informal

and slang words.

1045 L._ - ' - ._ _ _-'.

Webster's English Dictionary, Newly revised and updated, Random House.

I I I $8.95. 75,000+ entries. Includes tips on writing and word usage, and has up-
dated geographical and biographical entries. Includes recent

business and computer terms.

1033...

I I I Capital Crinles, by George Winslow, Monduy Review, 360 pages. $19.00.
Explains how economic policies create and foster ccin1e, and how corporate & government crime is rarely punished. 1024

With Liberty for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America, by Scott

Christianson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages. $18.95. The best

overall history of the American prison system from 1492 dlrough d,e 20th
I I I Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how litde
dungs have changed as far as prisons go in d,e U.S. over

hundreds of years.

1026..

.

I I I Ten Men Dead: The story of the 1981 Irish hunger strike, by David Beres-
ford, Adantic Mondlly Press, 334 pages. $16.95. Inside story of

IRA prisoners at Belfast's Long Kesh prison.

1006 . .

.

I I I Finding the Right Lawyer, by Jay Foonberg, ABA, 256 pages. $19.95. Ex-
pL'rins how to determine your legal needs, how to evaluate a

lawyer's qualifications, fee payments, and more.

1015 . .

.

Seize me Day! 7 Steps to Achieving the Extraordinary in an Ordinary

World, by Danny Cox and John Hoover, 256 pages. $15.99. Provides 7 steps

I I I to changing your e""pectations and envisioning yourself as being a successful
and respected person-whiclJ is essential to changing d,e

course of one's life.

1052

Women Behind Bars, The Ctisis of Women in the U.S. Prison System, by

I Silja J.A. Talvi, Seal Press, 295 pages. $15.95. Best book available that covers
issues related to imprisoned women, based on interviews with

hundreds of women behind bars.

1066 '-._--'--_ _---'

10 Insider Secrets to a Winning Job Search, by Todd Bermont, 216 pages.

$15.99. Roadrnap on how to get a job even under adverse circumstances-like

I I I being an ex-con. Includes how to develop a \vinning attitude, write attention-
grabbing resumes, prepare for inte[\~ews, networking, how to

present your strengths to an employer, and much morel 1056..

.

I ' I The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, 2003
e Ed. by Alfred McCoy, 734 pages. $34.95. Documented e.'"pos

of d,e government's involvement in drug trafficking.

1014 L.._ - ' - ._ _ _--'.

Lockdown Ametica: Police and Prisons in me Age of Crisis, by Omsti.1I1 Parenti,

290 pages. $19.00. Analyzes the war on d,e poor via the ctiminal juscice system. Well
para-I documented and includes first-haod repotting. Covers ptisons,

military policing, SWAT teams aod d,e INS.

1002 L._ - ' -_ _...J

Hepatiris and Liver Disease: What You Need to Know, by Melissa Palmer, l'vlD,

I I I 457 pages. $17.95. Describes symptoms & treatments of hepatitis B & C and odler
liver diseases. Includes medications to avoid, what diet to follow,

e.xercises to permrm, and a bibliography.

1031. .

.

Crime and Pwtishment In America, by Elliott Curtie, 230 pages. $16.95. Ef!ecrive

reburial to right-wing proponents of prison building. Fact-based argument shows dmt

crime is driven by poverty. Debunks prison myths aod disrusses"

,

proven, effective means ofcrime prevention.

1019...

Ptison Madness: The Mental Healm Crisis Behind Bars and What We

Must Do About It, by Ten:y Kupers, Jossey-Bass, 245 pages. Hardback only,

prisoners please include any required authorization form. $32.95. Psycllia-

I I trist wtites about d,e mental healdl crisis in U.S. prisons aod jails. Covers all
aspects of mental illness, prison rape, negative effects of long-,

term isolation in control units, and more.

1003...

Prison Writing in 20th Century America, by H. Bruce Franklin, Penguin

I I Books, 368 pages. $16.00. From Jack London to George Jackson, this
anthology provides a selection of some of d,e best writing

describing life behind bars in America.

1022 '-._ ......_ _---'

T I Soledad Bromer: The Prison Letters of George Jackson, by George Jackson,
Lawrence Hill Books, 339 pages. $18.95. Lucid e.'"planation of ('e litiCS of

prison by a well-known prison activist. More relevant now than

when it fi:tst appeared 40 years ago.

1016

Marijuana Law, by RiclJard Boire, Ronin, 271 pages. $17.95. Rx."1ITlines how to

I I I reduce d,e probability ofarrest aod prosecution for people acrused of d,e use, sale or
possession of rnatijuaoa. Inm on legal defenses, search & seizures,

surveillance, asset forfeiture aod drug testing.

1008 L.._ - - ' ._ _- ' .

Worse Than Slavery: Parchman Fann and me Ordeal ofJin! Crow Justice, by

I I I Da\~d Oshinsky, 306 pages. $16.00. Analysis of ptison L,bor's roots in slavery.
Focuses on prison pL1I1tations and self-sustaining prisons d",t use

prison labor.

1007..

.

No Equal Justice: Race and Class in me American Criminal Justice

I I I System, by David Cole, TI,e New Press, 218 pages. $19.95. R'"plains how d,e
criminal justice system perpetuates race and class inequality,

creating a two-tiered system of justice.

1028 L._...J._ _---'.

The Prison and the Gallows: The Politics of Mass Incarceration in

I I America, by Marie Gottschalk, Cambridge University Press, 451 pages.
$29.99. Great political analysis of d,e confluence of events

leading to 2.3 million people behind bars in d,e U.S. 1069.

.

The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, by Brandon

Sample, PLN Pnblishing, 200 pages. $49.95. Tllis is PLN's second published

I I I book, which exclusively covers ineffective assistance of counsel-related
issues in federal habeas petitions. Great resource for habeas

litigation, and contains hundreds of case cites!

1078

Factor 8 (DVD), a film by Kelly Duda, Concrete Films. $21.95. MO\~e

I I about d,e Arkansas prison blood scandal, in wluch prison officials sold
infected blood harvested from prisoners. Note: This is a

DVD and cannot be shipped to prison.

1076 L.._...J._ _- - '

PLN Cumulative Index. $22.50 each. PLN Article Indexes pro\~de detailed information about all PLN articles, including tide, author, issue, page number, topics covered, citations, and if it is state, BOP or jail specific. Can be searched on over 500 subjects such as medical neglect or se.'mal assault. Circle the index(es) you are ordering: 1990-1995, 1996-1998, 1999-1 2001, 2002-2004. (more recent indexes not yet available)

All books are soft cover except Prison Madness

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-7 Filed 01/31/12 Page 8 of 27

T he Habeas Citeboolc: Ineffective Assistance oj Counsel is the first in a series of books by Prison Legal News Publishing designed to help pro-se prisoner litigants identify and raise viable claims for potential habeas corpus relief. This book is an invaluable resource that identifies hundreds of cases where the federal courts have granted habeas relief to prisoners whose attorneys provided ineffective assistance of counsel.
It will save litigants
thousands of hours of research and it focuses on the
WINNING cases criminal defendants need to
successfully challenge their convictions.
Well organized into 52 concise chapters, this easy to use book puts the law at the reader's fingertips. The Appendix includes pleadings and forms from successful habeas corpus cases that

"

The Habeas Citeboolc is a

nifty and concise self-help

guide for prisoners seeking

habeas relief based on claims of

ineffective assistance of counsel.

Navigating the complex and

treacherous terrain of habeas

law is never easy; but claim-

ing that your lawyer screwed up

is even more difficult - espe-

cially from the confines of an

demonstrate formatting and show ill-equipped prison law library.

how to frame a winning argu-

"Brandon Sample has pro-

ment that will persuade a court

vided an amazing and much-

to grant habeas relief. The Habeas

needed tool for prisoners who

Citeboolc explains the proce-

are forced to seek relief on their

dural and substantive complexi-

own. The book is thorough; but

ties of federal habeas corpus lit-

simple and readable. It starts

igation with the goal of identify-

with a wonderfully well-orga-

ing and litigating claims involving nized listing of hundreds of dif-

ineffective assistance of counsel.

ferent types of ineffective assis-

Brandon Sample is a success-

tance of counsel, set forth in the

ful jailhouse lawyer litigant incar-

form of citations to court rul-

cerated in the Bureau of Prisons.

ings - a novel approach that

He is a Prison Legal News contrib- not only acts as a springboard

uting writer and a member of the

for further research but also

National Lawyer's Guild. Editor

saves the prisoner countless

Susan Schwartzkopf has a mas-

hours of preliminary research:'

ter's degree in education and is

the director and editor in chief of

PETER SCHMIDT

Prison Legal News Publishing.

Publisher, Punch & Jurists

THE HABEAS CITEBOOK: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

By Brcmdon Sample 8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages
ISBN 978-0-9819385-1-6
$49·95 3 or more copies ordered
at once $39.95 each

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed _ _ _ __
I By: D check D new postage stamps D credit card D money order
Name ---------------------------------------------
DOC/BOP Number _____________________________
. Institution/Agency _______________________

FREE Shipping & HandUng Order by mail, phone, or on-line.
PUBLISHED BY

Address-----------------~-----------------

City _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ State

ZIP

PRISON lEGAL NEWS P.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 4P0L2NCOL-00007

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-7 Filed 01/31/12 Page 9 of 27
,,----------.

Copies of this very usable and useful gUide

should be available in every prison library-to

help incarcerated people give positive direc-

tion to their energies while making constructive

use of their time. It is a well-established fact that

people who have taken college courses in prison

have a dramatically reduced rate of recidivism."

-BELL GALE CHEVICNY, PEN Prison Writing Program,

~--~-

Editor Doing Time: 25 Years ofPrison Writing. ~----~

HIGH SCHOOL • VOCATIONAL • PARALEGAL • UNDERGRADUATE. GRADUATE COURSES

THE GREATLY anticipated and newly updated third edition of the Prisoner's Guerrilla· Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the United States and Canada has finally arrived! Author Jon Marc Taylor's brand new version is the latest in this unique and highly successful gUidebook for the prisoner-student. This invaluable tool and how-to handbook provides the reader with step-by-step instructions to find the appropriate educational program for highschool, vocational, paralegal, undergraduate, and graduate courses offered in the U.S. and Canada today.
Invaluable re-entry tool
It presents more than 160 program outlines and offers an easy-to-use format for the student to determine which program best suits their needs. It is ideal for the incarcerated student who does not have Internet access or the ability to attend education classes in person. This resource is indispensable

for the individual and beneficial for use in all prison libraries and education departments.
The Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook is the only book on the market for the non-traditional prisoner-student It includes detailed listings of the quality, cost, and course offerings for all correspondence programs available to prisoners. In a time when so many academic opportunities in prisons have been eliminated, this book is an invaluable re-entry tool for prisoners who seek to further their education while incarcerated and to help them. prepare for life and work following their release.
Jon Marc Taylor has more than 25 years experience as an incarcerated student, advocate for prisoner education, and author. He has successfully earned a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and a doctorate via correspondence courses while incar. cerated. Editor Susan Schwartzkopf has a master's degree in education and 12 years experience teaching immigrants English language skills.

r~~---~~~------------~
; PRISONERS' GUERRILLA HANDBOOK TO CORRESPONDENCE PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA m

By Jon Marc Taylor PHD

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed ________

8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages ISBN 978-0-9819385-0-9

By: 0 check 0 new postage stamps 0 credit card 0 money order R Name _________________________________________

$49·95
3 or more copies ordered

DOC/BOP Number ______________________________

at once $39.95 each

Institution/Agency ~__________________________

FREE Shipping & Handling Address_____________________________________

I Order by mail, phone, or on-line. City _______________________ State

ZIP

I PUBLISHED BY
PRISON LEGAL NEWS P.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 4P0L3NCOL-00008

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-7 Filed 01/31/12 Page 10 of 27

9870.05 fa246305

EXHIBIT JJJ
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 404

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-7 Filed 01/31/12 Page 11 of 27 Page 4P0L5NCOL-00033

Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 West Brattleboro, Vermont 05303

;o',fl.:~')~.':;.~t·'.~It·{-;....,..·.·.i~·· ;t::i.:l'

1\ 'i' J
M:o, >:,..:\,1

l.~~'';:~.~.~~";"~" ......)o'.:,1':l~~."1~U:";'..:,~;'$:·'h('',:~.'··'·''j?.",·.·,~it'{.·I..·.'S·,~Al:~i..<t::(l

..
...

~:...i.~;~j;Y~J,?il>~~~l.._Il1~'\').A.~,~.W,y"'.

'

:l. ·...::,,~r~r' 'lr~,f:l~~i~~~

·'tC:' :'

").1\\ ··'JUN. ::';;"(1 'J. "1 FYI'>:'!.

... ~11"'\''''''':'''

RETURN TO SENDER

i :;:r~;:(::!:; ..~ ::::i:~: iOi:SE :SO:S@:2420

').r.t-X!'t: NOT

'~"'~ .. ~'t!'1

i ':~(:!l""O!'I!;,,~t!J':.,.'1~'!.

RETURN TO SENDER t)ELIVERAElLE AS AODF~E1:SSED
UNAElLE TO FORWARD

Ele:: 05303242020

*2SS3-~967e-~6-42

JJ1""1,1",11,1111",11",1,1,/"/,,/,//1,,,,,1, J//111/'/'1/

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-7 Filed 01/31/12 Page 12 of 27
Prison Legal N e-w-s

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights

P.O. Box 2420, WBrattleboro, VT 05303 ** ph: (802) 257-1342 fax: (866) 735-7136

www.prisonlegalnews. org

PLN@prisonlegalnews.org

06-Jun-ll

59582 **PLC** Expires: 7/2011 Ezra St Helen 2010000397 Columbia Co Jail 901 Port Ave St Helens, Oregon 97051

RE: Your PLN sUbscription expires with the July 2011 issue.

Dear Subscriber:

We are letting you know that one more issue remains to be mailed on your subscription to Prison Legal News. We hope you are pleased with the information that PLN is providing you on a monthly basis and hope you intend to renew your subscription. Renew now and take advantage of our 2, 3 or 4-year subscription specials!

• Renew for one yel:lr ~t $2A and~ou will receive 12 i~sues. _ . ' ..... ....

':."::Re'fiew tdf2'Yeats at $48 and you will receive our 2.:year ~pecial of24 issues'PLUS 2 extra

j~slles, for. I:!- totalof 26;issues. " - . , , , ' " -_.,_...

. '.'; ..

• 'Rene", for three years ~t $72 and you will receiveA extra issues (40 issues total) ORyour choice

OfProtecting Your Health and Safety (a $10 value!). Please see PLN'sbook brochure for a

description ofthis book. -

• Renew for four years at $96 and you will receive 6 extra issues (54 issues total) OR your choice

of With Libertyfor Some (an $18.95 value!), or Prison Profiteers (a $24.95 value!). Please see PLN's

book brochure for a description of these books.

We hope you decide to renew now so that your PLN subscription will not be interrupted. We look forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,

Paul Wright Executive Director
••••••••••••••••• +••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
The following form can be used to pay by credit card

Print Name on Card:

--~-------------------------------------------------------

Visa fMC:

~ _:- -,-,- ~ - ~_.'_ ~ - ~ _ _ -,-Expiration Date: ~__-'--;--_____"':'"

I autQ9~lz~,PriS,O~ ~~~~l,~ew; tp cll~ge a total o[$_________________________to my credit card.

Cardnolders Sigi)atute:'; "/ ,'<; . :,'~ j'

" ", (,r -B'it'nilgZIP:·___,,_.__"'_'_ Date: _ _ _ __

Mail this form to: Prison Legal News, P.O. Box 2420, W Brattleboro, VT 05303 ph: (802) 257-1342 fax: (866) 735-7136. Prison Legal News is a 501 (c)(3) non-profit and donations are deductible in accordance with tax laws.

Page 4P0L6NCOL-00034

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-7 Filed 01/31/12 Page 13 of 27 Page 4P0L7NCOL-00035

Order Form
All purchases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books, no singles) or
pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed by prison policies.

Book Title / Number

Qty Total Cost

(attach another page if you are ordering more books)
Subtotal: Add 6% sales tax for VT residents only: Add $6.00 S/R to orders UNDER $50: Total Order Amount:
Send to: Name: DOC#:
Agency/lnst: Address:
City/State/Zip: MAn, p ADiENT AND TillS FORM TO: Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303
Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

FREE SIDPPING On hook and index ol'ders OVER $50.00!
A $6 shipping charge applies to all other book a11l1 index onlel's.
(Free shipping policy in clfccl frolU Jan 1,2010 tlUtii further notice)

More Books fOI' Sale!

Prisoners' Self-Help Litigation Manual, updated 4th ed. (2010), by John

Boston and Daniel Manville, Oxford Univ. Press, 1500 pages. $39.95. The
I I I premiere, must-have "Bible" of prison litigation for current and aspiring jail-
house lawyers. If you plan to litigate a prison or jail civil suit,

this book is a must-have.

1077

Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the U.S.

and Canada, updated 3rd ed. by Jon Marc Taylor, Ph.D. and edited by Susan

Schwartzkopf, published by PI.N, 221 pages. $49.95. Written by Missouri

prisoner Jon Marc Taylor, who obtained a B.S. degree, an M.A. degree and a

Doctorate, d'e GI/milla Halldbook contains contact information and descrip-

tions of high school, vocational, paralegal and college courses available

dtrough correspondence study. Great resource for prisoners , ,

who want to further d,eir education.

1057 ' - - - - '_ _........J

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by Robert E. Toone, Southern Poverty

Law Center, 325 pages. $10.00. TIus book e"plains basic rights that prisoners

have in a jail or prison in the U.S. It deals mainly widl rights related to health
I I I and safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by prison officials; it also
explains how you can enforce your rights within the facility

and, if necessary, in court through Htigation.

1060

Starting Out! The Complete Re-Entry Handbook, edited by William H.

Foster, Ph.D. & Carl E. Horn, Ph.D., Starting Out Inc., 446 pages. $22.95.

Complete do-it-yourself re-entry manual and workbook for prisoners who

want to develop their own re-entry plan to increase d,eir chances of success
I I after they are released. Includes·n wide variety of resources, including a user
~ode to the Starting Out website that can be .accessed fOllOW-I

mg release.

1074

Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners v. the U.S.A., by

Mumia Abu Jamal, City Lights Publishers, 280 pages. $16.95. In Jailhol/se LOlIJ-

yers, Prison Legal News columnist, award-winning journalist and deadl-row

prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal presents d,e stories and reflections of fellow pris-

I oners-turned-advocates who have learned to use the court system to represent
other prisoners, and in some cases have won their freedom."

Must-read for jaill,ouse lawyersl .

1073 ' .

.

How to Win Your Personal Injury Clain1, by Atty. Joseph Matd,ews, 7d,

edition, NOLO Press, 304 pages. $34.99. While not specifically for prison-

related personal injury cases, this book provides comprehensive information

I I I on how to handle personal injuty and property damage claims arising from
~ccidents - incl~ding dealing with doctors, attorneys and

tnsurance comparues.

1075 _ L. .....J.'-_ _.....J.

All prices are effective as of9-15-10 (Plices subject to change without notice)
* No refunds after orders have been placed *

PR'·SON.:rI1:EGAl NEWS
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
2010 PLN BOOK LIST
Prices Subject to Change Without Notice
Graphic from: Books 2 Prisoners, Vancouver, Be
P.O. Box 2420, Bl'attleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.prisonlegalnews.ol.g

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-7 Filed 01/31/12 Page 14 of 27 Page 4P0L8NCOL-00036

Check the box of the .books you want to buy and use the Order Form on the other side of this brochure to add up the cost of your order. FREE SHIPPING for book and index orders OVER $50. There is a $6 shipping charge for all other book and index orders.

Prison Profiteers, edired by Paul Wright and Tam Herivel, 323 pages. $24.95. TIlls is d,e

d1ird and latestboDkin a series ofPrison l.egnI News and1Dlogies dmt examines d,e reality of

mass imprisonment in Amerim (The od1er tides are The Cellillg ofAlJJerica & Prisoll Natioll,

see below). Prisoll Pnjiteer.r is unique from od1er books because it ""'Poses and discusses

who profits and benefits from mass imprisonmen~ rad1er d1an who is 1

1

1

hanned by it and how.

1063 L._ _L._ _-'.

I I I Prison Nation: The Warehousing of America's Poor, edired by Tam Herivel and Paul
Wright, 332 pages. $35.95. PIN and1Dlogy exposes the d1lk side ofthe

1ock-em-up' politic:d agenda and legal climate in d,e U.s.

1041 . t...._ - ' - ._ _- ' .

The Ce1Iing of America, edired by Daniel Burton Rose, Dan Pens and Paul Wright, 264

pages. $22.95. PIN anthology pi:esents a detniJed "inside" look at the I

I

I

workings ofd,e Ameriam criminal justice system.

lool . .

.

Everyday Letters for Busy People, by Debra Hart May, 287 pages. $18.99.

Hundreds of sample letters that can be adapted for most any purpose, including

letters to government agencies and officials. Has numerous I

tips for writing effective letters.

104S L._ _' -_ _-'

The Crin1inal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System, by

Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sam]. Bennan-Bartett, Nolo Press, 608 pages. $39.99.

R''Plains what happens in a criminal case from being artested to sentencing, and what

your rights are at earn stage of d,e process. Uses an easy to under-I

stand question-and-answer fo=t. .

1038 L._ - - '_ _ _- '

Represent Yourself in Court: How to Prepare & Try a Winning Case, by

Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sara ]. Berman-Bartett, Nolo Press, 528 pages. $39.99.

I I I Breaks down d,e civil trial process in easy-to-understand steps so you can effectively
represent yoursel~ in court. The auiliors e.''Pbin what to say in

coutt, how to sa)'lt, etc.

.

1037...

Law Dicrionary, Rnndom House Webster's, 525 pages. $19.95. Comprel1ensive , -

to-date bw dictionary e.''Plains more ilian 8,500 legal tenns'l

I

Covers civil, crimioal, commercial & international bw.

1036 L._ _t...._ _- - '

The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, by Jane Straus, 110 pages.

$14.95. A guide to grammar and punctuation by· an educator "

,

with experience teacl1ing English to prisoners.

1046 LI_ - - '_ _ _- '

Legal Research: How to Find and Understand the Law, by Stephen Elias and

I I I Susan Levinkind, 568 pages. $49.99. Comprel1ensive and easy to understand guide
on researcl1ing ilie l~w. R''Plains case law, statutes and digests,

and mucl1 more. Includes practice exercises.

1059 ....J. L._ - ' - ._ _ _

Deposirion Handbook, by Paul Bergman and Albert Moore, Nolo Press, 352

pages. $34.99. How-to handbook for anyone who conducts a I I

I

deposition or is going to be deposed.

1054 L._...J.._ _ _--'.

Spartish-English/English-Spartish Dicrionary, Rnndom House. $8.95. Two

sections, Spanish-English and English-Spanish. 60,000+ entries I I

from A to Z; includes Western Hemisphere usage.

1034 L._ - - ' ._ _ _--'

Please Note: All book and index orders are mailed via the U.S. Postal Service with. Delivery Co~ation. PLN does not assume any responsibility to replace book or index oi:ders once their delivery to the destination address (facility) is confirmed by the U.S. Postal Service.

I I Writing to Win: The Legal Writer, by Steven D. Stru:k; Broadway Books/R~dom
House, 283 pages. $19:95. E,'P1ains the wtiting of effective compbints, I

responses, briefS, motions and other legal papers.

1035 L.._ - ' - ._ _- - ' .

Actual Innocence: When Justice Goes Wrong and How to Make it Right, updated

paperback ed., by Barry Scheck, Peter Neufeld and Jim Dwyer; 403 pages. $16.00.

Founders of the Innocence Project e.''Pbio how criminal defendants are wrongly con-

victed on a regular basis. fu'Plains DNA testing and how it works to free the.innocent

DevllSlnting critique of police and prosecutotill misconduct and d,e I I

I

system that ensures sum abuses continue.

1030 L.._....J._ _ _....J.

Rogel's Thesaurus, 717 pages. $8.95. Helps you find d,e right word for what

you want to say. 11,000 ;'vords listed alphabetically with over 200,000 synonyms

I and antonyms. Sample sentences and parts of speech shown for every main

word. Covers all levels of vocabulary and identifies informal

I

I

and slang words.

.

1045 . .

.

Webster's English Dictionary, Newly revised and updated, Random House.

$8.95. 75,000+ entries.' Includes tips on writing and word usage, and has up-

dated geographical and biographical entries. Includes recent ' ,

business and computer terms.

1033

I I Capital Crimes, by George Winslow, Mond1ly Review, 360 pages. $19.00.
Explains how economic policies create and foster crime, ·and

how corporate & government crime is rarely punished. 1024

.

'---'-----'

With Liberty for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America, hy Scott

Christianson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages.· $18.95. The best

overall history of the American prison system from 1492 through d,e 20th

I I I Century. Well written and f.~ctfilled. A must-read for understanding how litde
d1ings have changed as far as prisons go ·in the U.S. over

hundreds of years.

1026..

.

Ten Men Dead: The story of the 1981 Irish hunger strike, by David Beres-

ford, Adantic Monthly Press, 334 pages. $16.95. Inside story of I

I

IRA prisoners at Belfast's Long Kesh prison.

1006 .

.

Finding the Right Lawyer, by Jay Foonberg, ABA, 256 pages. $19.95. Ex-

plains how to detern1ine your legal needs, how to evaluate a

lawyer's qualifications, fee payments, and more.

1015

Seize the Day! 7 Steps to Achieving the Extraordinary in an Ordinary

World, by Darmy Cox and John Hoover, 256 pages. $15.99. Pro\~des 7 steps

to changing your expectations and em~sioning yourself as being a successful

and respected person-which is essential to changing the I I

I

course of one's life.

1052..

.

Women Behind Bars, The Crisis of Women in the U.S. Prison System, by

Silja J.A. Tal\~, Seal Press, 295 pages. $15.95. Best book available d,at covers

issues rebted to imprisoned women, based on interviews wiili I

hundreds of women behind bars.

1066 L._ - ' -_ _ _- '

10 Insider Secrets to a Winning Job Search, by Todd Bermont, 216 pages.

$15.99. Roadmap on how to get a job even under adverse circumstances-like

being an ex-con. Includes how to develop·a winning atritude, write attention-

grabbing resumes, prepare for interviews, networking, how to I I

I

present your strengths to an employer, and much more! 1056..

.

The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, 2003

Ed. by Alfred McCoy, 734 pages. $34.95. Documented e.'pose I I

I

of the government's involvement in drug trafficking.

1014 ....J. t...._ - ' . ' - -_ _

Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis, by Christian Parenti,

290 pages. $19.00. Analyzes d,e war on d,e poor ,cia ilie criminal justice system. Well

documented and includes first-hand fLl'0rting. Covers prisons, para-I

military policing, SWAT teams and the INS.

1002 ....J L._ - ' -_ _

Hepatitis and Liver Disease: What You Need to Know, by Melissa Palmer, tvID,

I 457 pages. $17.95. Describes symptoms & treatmeilts of hepatitis B & C and otl1er

liver diseases. Includes medications to avoid, what diet to follow, 1

1

exercises to perform, and a bibliography.

.

1031

Crime and Punishment In America, by Elliott Cuttie, 230 pages. $16.95. Effu:tive

I rebuttnl to tighr-wing proponents of prison building. Fact-based argument shows dmt

crime is driven by poverty. Debunks prison myths and discusses 1

1

proven, eflective means ofcrime ptevention.

1019

Prison Madness: The Mental Health Crisis Behind ·Bars and What We

Must Do About It, by Terry Kupers,Jossey-Bass, 245 pages. Hardback only,

prisoners please include any required authorization form. $3295. Psycllla-

I trist writes about the mental heald, crisis in U.S. prisons and jails. Covers all

aspects of mental illness, prison rape, negative effects of long-I

1

tenn isolation in control units, and more.

1003

Prison Writing in 20th Century America, by H. Bruce Franklin, Penguin

Books, 368 pages. $16.00. From Jack London to George Jackson, this

and1OIogy provides a selection of some of d,e best writing I I

t describing life bel1ind bars in America.

1022 _ t.... ..1.._ _- - '

Soledad Brother: The Prison Letters of George Jackson, by GeorgeJackson, Lawrence Hill Books, 339 pages. $18.95. Lucid e.''Planation of e Pllities of 1

prison by a well-known prison acti\~st. More relevant now than

when it first appeared 40 years ago.

1016

Marijuana Law, by Ricl1ard Boire, Ronin, 271 pages. $17.95. Elmmines how to

reduce the ptobability ofarrest and prosecution for people accused of d,e use, sale or

.possession of marijuana. Info. on legal defenses, searcl1 & seizures, I I

I

surveillance, asset forfeitute and drug testing.

1008 L.._..l.._ _--'.

Worse Than Slavery: Parchman Fann and the Ordeal ofJim CrowJustice, by

Da\~d Oshinsky, 306 pages. $16.00. Analysis of prison bbor's roots in sbvery.

Focuses on prison pl~tations and self-sustnining prisons tl1at use I I

I

prison bbor.

1007..

.

No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the American Crin1inal Justice

System, by David Cole, TI,e New Press, 218 pages. $19.95. fu'Plains how the

criminal justice. system perpe~tes race and class ineqlmlity, I I

I

creatlng a two-l1ered system of Jusl1ce.

. 1028..

.

The Prison and the Gallows: The Politics of Mass Incarceration in

America, by Marie Gottschalk, Cambridge University Press, 451 pages.

$29.99. Great political analysis of d,e confluence of events I I

I

leading to 2.3 million people behind bars in the U.S.

1069 L._ _. ' - - _ - - - - ' .

The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, by Brandon

Sample, PLN Publisl1ing, 200 pages. $49.95. This is PLN's second published

book, whicl1 exclusively covers ineffective assistance of counsel-relmed

issues in federal habeas petitions. Great resource for habeas I I

I

litigation, and contains hundreds of case cites!

1078

Factor 8 (DVD), a film by Kelly Duda, Concrete Films. $21.95. Movie

about d,e Arkansas prison blood scandal, in which prison officials sold

infected blood harvested from prisoners. Note: This is a I

DVD and cannot be shipped to prison.

1076 L._ - ' -_ _- '

PLN Cumulative Index. $22.50 each. PLN Article Indexes provide detailed information about all PLN articles, including tide, author, issue, page number, topics covered, citations, .and if it is state, BOP or jail specific. Can be searched on over 500 subjects such as medical neglect or se.,'Ual assault. Circle the index(es) you are ordering: 1990-1995, 1996-1998, 1999-1 2001, 2002-2004. (more recent inde.,es not yet available)

All books are soft cover except Prison Madness

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-7 Filed 01/31/12 Page 15 of 27 Page 4P0L9NCOL-00037

Order Form
.All pm'chases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new stamps (strips or books) or pre-stamped envelopes.

Books (3 & 4 yr Subscription Specials: CIRCLE
one book ill: bonus issues, and DO NOT add S/H)
Protecting Your Health and Safety ill: 4 Bonus Issues (3-yr subscription offer)

$Amt.
Free

Prison Profiteers ill: With Liberty for Some

ill: 6 Bonus Issues (4-yr subscription offer)

Free

Book Total (inc. all books bought separately)

Add 6% sales tax for Vermont residents only

ADD $6.00 StH to book orders UNDER $50

PLN Subscriptions
6-month Subscription (Prisoners only) 1 yr Subscription (12 issues) 2 yr Subscription (24 plus 2 Bonus issues) 3 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above ill: 4 Bonus issues) 4 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above ill: 6 Bonus issues) Sample Issue - $3.50 each
TOTAL Amount Enclosed:

Send to:
Name: DOC#: Agency/lnst: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Address:
City/State/Zip: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
MAIL PAYlUENT AND TillS FORM TO:
I •
Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303

Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

PLN SubsCl'iption Rates

Subscription Rates
Prisoners *

1yr 2 yrs 3 yrs 4yrs $24 $ 48 $ 72 $ 96

Individuals

$30 $ 60 $ 90 $120

Professionals

$80 $160 $240 $320

(Lawyers, govt. & professional agencies, libraries, etc.)

Sample issue for anyone - $3.50 each*

Six-month prisoner subscription for $12*

* Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books only) or pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed byprison policies.

:- - - - - - - - - S~s-c;ipti~~ Bo-;'~;;s! - - - - - - - - -
1
1 2 years - 2 bonus issues, for 26 monthly issues total. : 3 years - 4 bonus issues (40 total) OR Protecting Your Health and 1 Safety (see book description on the other side of this brochure). : 4 years - 6 bonus issues (54. total) OR your choice of With Libertyfor
!..~~e_~~n:o~ ~rp~e.:r:.(~':.d:s~ri.r~o~..?~ ~':.o~h:r~i~e~ _____I

New 301' 4-Year Subscription Book Offers!

Subscribe or renew for three years at the regular price ($72 for prisoners & $90 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Protecting Your Health and Safety or four bonus issues of PLN! (40 montl1.J.y issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.
Subscribe or renew for four years at the regular price ($96 for prisoners & $120 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Prison Profiteers or With Liberty for Some, or 6 bonus issues of PLN! (54 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.

NO shipping charge for subscription bonus books!

NOTE: If you want the bonus issues of PLN instead of the free book offer, please indicate that on the Order Form.

iT; iis;!- - - - - - :- - - - - - -C-o;';a~; io; PiN;-s-Bo~k

~

1

1

1 You can buy dozens of legal, social commentary, self- 1

: help books, and legal and regular dictionaries directly: : from PL~'s boo~( store! Ask us for a book list, or view:

1 our selectIOn online at:

1

1

www.prisonlegalnews.org/store.aspx

:

1______ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

All subscription rates & bonus offers are effective as of5-1-IO
and valid through 12-31-10
* No refunds after ordel"S have been placed *

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
Eastern State Penitentiary 1829-1971
Charles Dickens visited Philadelphia's Eastern State Penitentiary in 1842 and he later wrote: "The System is rigid, strict and hopeless ... and I believe it to be cruel and wrong....I hold this slow and daily tampering with the mysteries of the brain to be immeasurably worse than any torture of the body." The prison remained open for 129 years after Dickens condemned it as being barbaric, and some of its inhumane practices continue to be used in prisons nationwide.
P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.prisonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-7 Filed 01/31/12 Page 16 of 27 Page 4P1L0NCOL-00038

-IT U11

P rison Legal News is an independent, non-profit 56-page monthly publication that reports, reviews and analyzes com·t rulings and news related to
prisoners' rights and prison issues. PLN has a national (U.S.) focus on state, federal and private pI'ison issues,
with some international coverage as well.

PLN's many thousands of subscribeI's and readers

include civil and crinIinal trial and appellate attorneys,

judges, public defenders, jom'nalists, academics, para-

legals, prisoners' rights activists, students, family

members of prisoners, concerned individuals, politi-

cians, other goveI'nment officials, and numerous local,

state and federalprisoners nationwide.

,

,

PLN is a vital link for prisoners who othenVise don't

have access to current legal and prison-related news

and information.

~'Invaluable resourcef()r, anyorici:wanting 'user .friendly'

informatiqn about cutrent legal developments affecting

.

prisoners in the ,United States."
-'

,

- Human Right~ Watch, a l~ng-time PLN subscriber

P LN's coverage ~f prison issues includes medical neglect, disciplinary hearings, nutrition, living conditions, excessive fOl'ce, 'court access, censorship, jail litigation,' visiting, telephones, religious freedom, free spet<ch; prison 'rape, mental health, attorney/ client access, sexual ab~se of women prisoners, retaliation, the PLRA, HIV and hep C, control units, the death penalty, attorney fees and much more.

, PLNSnbscription Rates
Prisoners: $12 for 6 months, $24 pel' year *
Non-incarcerated individuals: $30 pel' year Law firms, govt. agencies and libraries: $80 pel' year
Sample issue for anyone: $3.50 each*
* Prisoners can pay with new stamps or pre-stamped envelopes

E ach monthly' issue of PLN includes, three different types of reporting:
III A covel' story on a prison-related issue. III Reports on individual and class-action prison and jail-
related lawsuits when they are filed, when a judgment is entered or the case settles, and when an appellate COl)J:t decision is issued. We also have prison-related news articles. III A "News In Brief' section that summarizes interesting news stories across the U.S. and internationaHy.
Each issue of PLN also contains numerous advertisements from businesses that provide' prison-related personal and legal services and books. PLN further sells dozens of selfhelp, social commentary andlegal 'books;
PLN also has cumulative subject and case cite indexes for all PLN issues from 1990 through 2004. Write for info.
,rSp;~i~l ~y~;S~~l'iptio~Off~rCl

Free with a 3-year PLN subscription! Four bonus issues of PLN (40issues total) or a free book, Protecting Your Health and Safety! Circle your bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (3-year subscription rates: prisoners $72, individuals $90, professionals $240).

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by l'rll-:'---:-:--'-;

Robert E. Toone. Published by the South-

ern Poverty Law Center, 325 pages (2009).

$10.00 (fi:ee with a 3-year sub!). This book

explains some basic rights that prisoners

have in 'a jail or prison in the U.S. It deals I
mainly with rights related to health and Ii

' I ~@____

safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by

prison officials; it also explains how you can enforce your

rights to health and safety within the facility and, if nec-

essary, in court through litigation. Buy separately: ___

r----------------~--~~----------~---------,

You Can Buy These Books Sepal'ately! :

I'

I

1

, .

I

: If you don't want to purchas,e a 3 or 4-year subscription:

: to PLN, you can still purchase any of the bonus books:

: at the regular price. Just indicate which books you want:

: to buy on this page, then enter the total cost on the other :

: side of this brochure on "the "Book Total" line of the Or- : : del' Form. Shipping is $6 per~rder (not per book), and we:

: offer FREE shipping on book cirders' of $50 or more! To :

: place a phone order, please call 802-257-1342. We also:

: accept book orders online, at www.prisoulegalnews.org. :
L _________________________________________ J

D onations: PLN is ~ project of the non-profit Human , Rights Defense Center. Your tax-deductible donationssupport our advocacy, free speech and First Amend;ment litigation effo'rts on behalf of p~isoners and publishers. PLN not only provides uncensored prison-related news, but actively contests pi-ison censorship that interferes with the delivery of our publication or any other PLN materials sent to prisoners. All donations further our goal of advocating for people imprisoned in U.S. detention facilities.
"Great source of information, especially in states such as Arizona where the law libraries have been taken from the inmates and replaced with paralegals." -'SB, Arizona 'prisoner
---------1 ~---------
SpeciaI4-yeru' Stiliscription Offer! ,
Free with a 4-year PLN subscription! Six bonus issues PLN (54 issues total) 01' one free book, With Liberty for Some or Prison Profiteers! Circle your bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (4-year subscription rates: prisoners $96, individuals $120, professionals $320). Note: Free book option is for ~ book.
With Liberty for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America, by Scott Christianson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages (1998). $18.95 (free with. a 4-year sub!). A classic book and the best overall history of the American prison system from 1492 to the 20th Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how little things have changed as far as prisons go in the U.S. over hundreds of years. Buy separately: ___
or
Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money, from Mass Incarceration, edited by Paul Wright & Tara Herivel, New Press (2007). $24.95 (free with a 4-year sub!). This is the third in a series OfPLN anthologies that examines the reality of mass imprisonment in the U.S. Prison Profiteers is unique
other books on the market because it exposes and discusses who. profits and' benefits from ~ass imprisonment, rather than who.is harmed by the prison industrial complex and our nation's,reliance on over-incarceration. Buy separately: _'____

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-7 Filed 01/31/12 Page 17 of 27

T he Habeas Citeboolc: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel is the first in a series of books by Prison Legal News Publishing designed to help pro-se prisoner litigants identify and raise viable claims for potential habeas corpus relief. This book is an invaluable resource that identifies hundreds of cases where the federal courts have granted habeas relief to prisoners whose attorneys provided ineffective assistance of counsel.
It willsave litigants thousands of hours
of research and it focuses on the WINNING cases criminal defendants need to successfully challenge their convictions.
Well organized into 52 concise chapters, this easy to use book puts the law at the reader's fingertips. The Appendix includes pleadings and forms from successful habeas corpus cases that

"

The Habeas Citeboolc is a

nifty and concise self-help

guide for prisoners seeldng

habeas relief based on claims of

ineffective assistance of counsel.

Navigating the complex and

treacherous terrain of habeas

law is never easy; but claim-

ing that your lawyer screwed up

is even more difficult - espe-

cially from the confines of an

demonstrate formatting and show ill-equipped prison law library.

how to frame a winning argu-

"Brandon Sample has pro-

ment that will persuade a court

vided an amazing and much-

to grant habeas relief. The Habeas

needed tool for prisoners who

Citeboolc explains the proce-

are forced to seek relief on their

dural and substantive complexi-

own. The book is thorough; but

ties of federal habeas corpus lit-

simple and readable. It starts

igation with the goal of identify-

with a wonderfully well-orga-

ing and litigating claims involving nized listing of hundreds of dif-

ineffective assistance of counsel.

ferent types of ineffective assis-

Brandon Sample is a success-

tance ofcounsel, set forth in the

ful jailhouse lawyer litigant incar-

form of citations to court rul-

cerated in the Bureau of Prisons.

ings - a novel approach that

He is a Prison Legal News contrib- not only acts as a springboard

uting writer and a member of the

for further research but also

National Lawyer's Guild. Editor

saves the prisoner countless

Susan Schwartzkopf has a mas-

hours of preliminary research:'

ter's degree in education and is

the director and editor in chief of

PETER SCHMIDT

Prison Legal News Publishing.

Publisher, Punch & Jurists

THE HABEAS CITEBOOK: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

By Brandon Sample 8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed ______
I By: 0 check 0 new postage stamps 0 credit card 0 money order

ISBN 978-0-9819385-1-6
$49·95
3 or more copies ordered
at once $39.95 each FREE Shipping & Handling

Name _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~------ E
I DOc/BOP Number _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _--'---'-_________
Institution/Agency ________--'_ _ _'--_______
I Address,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Order by mail, phone, or on-line. City _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ State

ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

I

PIUSON lEGAL NEWS P.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 4P1L1NCOL-00039

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-7 Filed 01/31/12 Page 18 of 27
,,----------. Copies of this very usable and useful guide should be available in every prison library-to help incarcerated people give positive direction to their energies while making constructive use oftheir thne. It is a well-established fact that people who have taken college courses in prison have a dramatically reduced rate of recidivism."
L-~___ -BELL GALE CHEVIGNY, PEN Prison Writing Program, _ ____~ Editor Doing Time: 25 Years ofPrison Writing.

HIGH SCHOOL • VOCATIONAL • PARALEGAL • UNDERGRADUATE. GRADUATE COURSES

.!IIi-HE GREATLY anticipated and newly updated
third edition of the Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the United States and Canada has finally arrived! Author
Jon Marc Taylor's brand new version is the latest in this unique and highly successful gUidebook for the
prisoner-student. This invaluable tool and how-to handbook provides the reader with step-by-step instructions to find the appropriate educational program for high school, vocational, paralegal, undergraduate, and graduate courses offered in
the U.S. and Canada today.
Invaluable re-entry tool
It presents more than 160 program outlines and
offers an easy-to-use format for the student to
determine which program best suits their needs. It is ideal for the incarcerated student who does not have Internet access or the ability to attend education classes in person. This resource is indispensable

for the individual and beneficial for use in all prison libraries and education departments.
The Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook is the only book
on the market for the non-traditional prisoner-student. It includes detailed listings of the quality, cost, and course offerings for all correspondence programs available to prisoners. In a time when so many academic opportunities in prisons have been eliminated, this book is an invaluable re-entry tool for prisoners who seek to further their education while incarcerated and to help them prepare for life and work following their release.
Jon Marc Taylor has more than 25 years experi-
ence as an incarcerated student, advocate for prisoner education, and author. He has successfully earned a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and a doctorate via correspondence courses while incar-
cerated. Editor Susan Schwartzkopf has a master's
degree in education and 12 years experience teaching immigrants English language skills.

r--------------------~ I I PRISONERS' GUERRILLA HANDBOOK TO CORRESPONDENCE PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA

ByJon Marc Taylor PHD 8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed __________
I By: 0 check 0 new postage stamps 0 credit card 0 money order

ISBN 978-0-9819385-0-9
$49·95
3 or more copies ordered

I Name ______________~___________________________
DOC/BOP Number ______________________________

at once $39.95 each

Institution/Agency -=_ . ___________________________

FREE Shipping & Handling Address_____________________________________

R Order by mail, phone, or on-line. City ________________ State

ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

PRISON LEGAL NEWS I P.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 4P1L2NCOL-00040

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-7 Filed 01/31/12 Page 19 of 27

9870.05 [a246305

E HIBITK K
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 413

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-7 Filed 01/31/12 Page 20 of 27 Page 4P1L4NCOL-00041

pri§drtlL~~t;I! INU~~ II! II! "I! Iq 11111111111111111!'II
P.O. Box 2420 WesfBrattleboro, Vermont 05303

j-

':,J

i
_

_ Cl.!.'l{).;~l;>:\,1,1~~·.t~;1,;Q: .1~,~r·:Afi;;£.~*~~.;:-:~.:l7!;1,..;~}'~t<.>;;:':.:t:~·,.~,.s.~.~·?".l.:~J.r;!t't.;l~~·n:~K~:·"·..-'!·l''j1:~.'v.:t1;,;,r-;·,'I.'J.~:'~:~'",.,

'~~i!W.:':::~~!~~*1:t: ~~~. ~~~,~.

1~~~.:r~~. .. ~;lj'~'wf?J,;'i;~' 'J"~?~~;?[~~:::~~I' '!;,:?'i3~~ij,~:: .:

RETURi\, TO SEr,JDER

OSSO:S@!:24!:20

''l~l':tx'1tl!

~.~ "'"g~ "1

'w "~"!!~'"!."1

NOT

RE"rURN oro
OEL.IVERAElL_E

SAESNDADEDRRESlS~:D

,

UNAElL-F- TO FORWARD

e c : O,~>:S0:3:2420~O

*266$-1a67$-16-4~

lilli, ,I, I, " II, III" ,,1111,1 J1,\ " I" IJ111,11 II IJIII JII IJIII I

'j

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-7 Filed 01/31/12 Page 21 of 27

Prison Legal NeftTs

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights

P.O. Box 2420, W Brattleboro, VT 05303 ** ph: (802) 257-1342 fax: (866) 735-7136

www.prisonlegalnews.org

PLN@prisonlegalnews.org

06-Jun-ll

59584 **PLC** Expires: 7/2011 Alisha Vandolah 2010002105 Columbia Co Jail 901 Port Ave St Helens, Oregon 97051

RE: Your PLN subscription expires with the July 2011 issue.

Dear Subscriber:

We are letting you know that one more issue remains to be mailed on your subscription to Prison Legal News. We hope you are pleased with the information that PLN is providing you on a monthly basis and hope you intend to renew your subscription. Renew now and take advantage of our 2, 3 or 4-year subscription specials!

years . " Ren~w Jor Qn~yearat$24 and you will receive 12 iS~l1e~... ...

~ . Re~ew fo~ 2

at $48 and you will receive our 2-year '~pecial of 24 issues PLUS 2 extra

>:- " ~'issues,fonitbtal'of~6issues." "r:.',·

.' ------. - - - - - - - - - - - - , _'"

"

• Renew for three years at -$72--andyou will receive 4 extra-issu~s(40 issuestotal)_OR.your choice.'

of Protecting Yourlfealth and Safety (a $10 value!). Please seePLN's book brochure for a

description ofthis book.

-. ...

--

• Renew for four years at $96 and you will receive 6 extra issues (54 issues total) OR your choice of With Libertyfor Some (an $18.95 value!), or Prison Profiteers (a $24.95 value!). Please see PLN's book brochure for a description ofthese books.

We hope you decide to renew now so that your PLN subscription will not be interrupted. We look forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,

Paul Wright Executive Director
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• The following form can be used to pay by credit card
Print Name on Card:
Vis~..:/-l\1C:, ~_. '~- --'~~-- _-.'- . - ~-_-:----~ ~-~--~--_-_-<-+-_-'- :- _.-:-~-p- ~- pi-r-a-t-i- (- )~-D-a-t-~- :-_-_-~-- :-- :-- -'- -o- --:-;--:--:-- ~~- ::- ::- --
I authorize' PtisohEegal)N~w~ to charge a total of $.__________________________to my credit card.
';-;' ~t3'l1lil~gZip: _,:-._:___ Date:_"_-_'_-_'_"___
Mail this form to: Prison Legal News, P.O. Box 2420, W Brattleboro, VT 05303 ph: (802) 257-1342 fax: (866) 735-7136. Prison Legal News is a 501(c)(3) non-profit and donations are deductible in accordance with tax laws.

Page 4P1L5NCOL-00042

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-7 Filed 01/31/12 Page 22 of 27 Page 4P1L6NCOL-00043

Order Form
All purchases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books, no singles) or pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed by prison policies.

Book Title / Number

Qty Total Cost

(attach another page if you are ordering more books)
Subtotal: Add 6% sales tax for VT residents only: Add $6.00 S/R to orders UNDER $50: Total Order Amount:
Send to: Name: DOC#:
Agency/lnst: Address:
City/State/Zip: MAIL PAYl\iENT AND TillS FORM TO: Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303
Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

FREE SIllPPING On hook and index orders OVER $50.00!
A $6 shipping charge applies to all other hook anll inllex onlel's.
(Free shipping policy in effect from Jalll, :l010 until fluther notice)

More Books fOl' Sale!

Prisoners' Self-Help Litigation Manual, updated 4th ed. (2010), by John

Boston and Daniel Manville, Oxford Univ. Press, 1500 pages. $39.95. The
I I I premiere, must-have "Bible" of ptison litigation for current and aspiring jail-
house lawyers. If you plan to litigate a prison or jail civil suit,

tlus book is a must-have.

1077

Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the U.S. and Canada, updated 3rd ed. by Jon Marc Taylor, Ph.D. and edited by Susan

Schwartzkopf, published by PLN, 221 pages. $49.95. Written by !llfissouri

prisoner Jon Marc Taylor, who obtained a B.S. degree, an !liLA. degree and a

Doctorate, the Gllerrilla HaJ1dbook contains contact information and descrip-

I I tions of lugh school, vocational, paralegal and college courses available
through correspondence srudy. Great resource for prisoners

who want to further their education.

1057.
'-----'----'

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by Robert E. Toone, SoutllernPoverty

Law Center, 325 pages. $10.00. This book e"plains basic rights that prisoners

have in a jailor prison in ti,e U.S. It deals mainly with rights related to healtll

I I I and safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by prison officials; it also
explains how you can enforce your rights within the facility

and, if necessary, in court through litigation.

1060

Starting Out! The Complete Re~Entty Handbook, edited by William H.

Foster, Ph.D. & Carl E. Horn, Ph.D., St,rrting Out Inc., 446 pages. $22.95.

Complete do-it-yourself re-entryman)lal and workbook for prisoners who

want to develop their own re-enb:yplan to Increase their chances of success

I after tlley are released. Includes a wide variety of resources, including a user
~ode to the Starting Out website tI,at can be accessed fOllOW-I I

mg release.

. .

1074

Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners v. the U.S.A., by

Mumia Abu Jamal, City Lights Publishers, 280 pages. $16.95. In jdl'lbol/se LOJP-

yen, Prison Legal News columnist, award-winning journalist and death-row

prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal presents ti,e stories and reflections of fellow pris-
I I I oners-turned-advocates who have learned to use the court system to represent
other prisoners, and in some cases have won tI,eir freedom.

Must-read for jailliouse lawyers!

1073

How to Win Your Personal Injury Clainl, by Atty. Joseph lvfattl,ews, 7t1l

edition, NOLO Press, 304 pages. $34.99. While not specifically for prison-

related personal injury cases, tlus book prm~des comprehensive information
I I I on how to handle personal injury and property damage claims arising from
~ccidents - incl~ding dealing with doctors, attorneys and

msurance comparues.

1075

All prices m'e effective as of9-15-10
(PIices subject to change without notice)
* No l'efunds after orders have been placed *

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
2010 PLN BOOK LIST
Prices Subject to Change Without Notice
Graphic from: Books 2 Prisoners, Vancouver, Be
P.O, Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.prisonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-7 Filed 01/31/12 Page 23 of 27 Page 4P1L7NCOL-00044

Check the box of the books you want to buy and use the Order Form on the other side of this brochure to add up the cost of your order. FREE SHIPPING for book and index orders OVER $50. There is a $6 shipping charge for all other book and index orders.

Prison Profiteers, edited by Paul Wright and Tam Herivel, 323 pages. $24.95. This is the

third and latest book in a series ofPrison Legal News anthologies dmt examines d,e reality of
nmss imprisonment in Amerim (The other tides are The Ceflill!, ifA/lJenll1 & PrisOIlNatioll,

see below). Pasoll Projleers is unique from other books bealuse it ""poses and discusses

wh~ profits and benefits from nmss imprisonment; mther dmn who is I

1

1

hrumed by it and how.

1063 -I. L._ _L._ _

Prison Nation: The Warehousing of America's Poor, edited by Tam Herivel and Paul

Wright; 332 pages. $35.95. PIN andlOlogy ""poses the d1tk side ofd,e 1 I

1

~ock-ern-up'politiaUagendaandlegal climate in the U.s.

1041 . .

.

I I I The CeIling of America, edited by Daniel BurtOn Rose, Dan Pens and Paul Wright; 264
pages. $22.95. PIN anthology pi:esents a demiled "inside" look at th~

workings ofd,e Ameriam criminal justice system.

1001 . .

.

Everyday Letters for Busy People, by Debra Hart May, 287 pages. $18.99.

Hundreds of sample letters that can be adapted for most any purpose, including

letters to government agencies and officials. Has numerous I

I

rips for writing effecrive letters.

1048 .

.

The Criminal Law Handboolc Know Your RightS, Survive the System, by
Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sam J. Berman-Barrett; Nolo Press, 608 pages. $39.99.

El-.plains what happens in a criminal case from being arrested to sentencing, and what

your rights are at each stl!ge of the process. Uses an easy to under-I

stand question-and-answer format

1038 L._ - ' -_ _ _- '

Represent Yourself in Court: How to Prepare & Try a Winning Case, by Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sara J~ Berman-Barrett; Nolo Press, 528 pages. $39.99.

Breaks down d,e civil trial process in easy-to-understand steps so you can effectively

represent yoursel~ in court The authors e..p. lain what to say in 1 1

1

court; how to sal' It, etc.

1037...

Law Dictionary, Random House Webster's, 525 pages. $19.95. Comprehensive , -

to-date law dictionary e..p. lains more d,an 8,500 legal terms. 1 1

Covers civil, criminal, commercial & international law.

1036 -1 L._ - - ' . ' - -_ _

I I I The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, by Jane Straus, 110 pages.
$14.95. A guide to grammar and punctuation by an educator

with experience teaching English to prisoners.

1046

Legal Research: How to Find and Understand the Law, by Stephen Elias and

Susan Levinkind, 568 pages. $49.99. Comprehensive and easy to understand guide

on researching the law. E..p. lains case law, statutes and digests, I 1

1

and much more. Includes pmctice exercises.

1059 L.._ - ' - ._ _ _-'.

Deposition Handbook, by Paul Bergman and Albert Moore, Nolo Press, 352

pages.. $34.99: How-to handbook for anyone who conducts a I I

I

deposltlon or IS gomg to be deposed.·

1054 -1. L._ - ' - ._ _ _

Spatrish-English/English-Spatrish Dictionary, Random House. $8.95. Two

sections, Spanish-English and English-Spanish. 60,000+ entries I I

from A to Z; includes Western Hemisphere usage.

1034 L.._ - - - ' ._ _ _- '

Please Note: All book and index·orders ~ mailed via the U.S. Postal
Service with Delivery Confu.-ination. PLN does not assume any respon-
sibility to replace book or index orders once their delivery to the desti-
nation address (facility) is confinn~ by the U.S. Postal Service.

I Writing to Wm: The Legal Wtiier, by Steven D. Stark, Broadway Books/Random

House, 283 pages. $19.95. E..p. lains d,e writing of effective complaints,

I

I

responses, briefu, motions and od,er legal papers.

1035 ~._-'-._ _---'.

Actual Innocence: WhenJustice Goes Wrong and How to Make it Right, updated

paperback ed, by Barry Sclleck, Peter Neufeld and Jim Dwyer; 403 pages. $16.00.

Founders of the Innocence Project e..p. lain how criminal defend'lIlts are wrongly convicted on a regular basis. El-.plains DNA testing and how it works to free d,e innocent

Devastlting critique of police and prosecutotill misconduct and d,e I I

I

system dmt ensures sncll abuses continue.

1030 L._ - ' - ._ _ _--'.

Roger's Thesaurus, 717 pages. $8.95. Helps you find the right word for what

you want to say. 11,000 ;'vords listed alphabetically widl over 200,000 synonyms

I and antonyms. Sample sentences .and parts of speech shown for every main

word. Covers all levels of vocabUlary and identifies infoIDlal

I

I

and slang words.

1045 . .

.

Webster's English Dictionary, Newly revised and updated, R.~ndom House.

$8.95. 75,000+ entries. Includes tips on writing and \vord usage, and has up-

dated geographical and biographical entries. Includes recent I I

I

business and computer teIDlS.

1033...

I Capital Crimes, by George Winslow, Mondlly R~view, 360 pages. $19.00.
Explains how economic policies create and foster crime, and how corporate & government crime is rarely punished. 1024 ~_-'-_ _ _-'

With Liberry for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America, by Scott

Christianson, Nordleastern Urtiversity Press, 372 pages.· $18.95. The best

overall history of d,e American prison system from 1492 dtrough d,e 20th

Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how lirde

dlings have changed as far as prisons go.in the U.S. over I I

1

hundreds ofyears.'

1026...

Ten Men Dead: The story of the 1981 Irish hunger strike, by David Beres-

ford, Adantic Mondlly Press, 334 pages. $16.95. Inside story of I I

IRA prisoners at Belfast's Long Kesh prison.

1006

L . . ._ - - - ' ._ _ _- '

Finding the Right Lawyer, by Jay Foonberg, ABA, 256 pages. $19.95. Ex-

plains how to deternline your legal needs, how to evaluate a I I

I

lawyer's qualifications, fee payments, and more.

1015 . .

.

Seize the Day! 7 Steps to Achieving the Extraordinary in an Ordinary

World, by Danny Cox and John Hoover, 256 pages. $15.99. Provides 7 steps

to cllanging your expectations and envisioning yourself as being a successful

and respected person-which is essential to changing d,e I I

I

course of one's life.

1052

Women Behind Bars, The Crisis of Women in the U.S. Prison Sys\em, by

Silja J.A. Talvi, Seal Press, 295 pages. $15.95. Best book available d,at covers
I issues relat~d to imprisoned women, based on internews Witl1

hundreds ofwomen behind bars..

1066 L._ - ' L_ _- - '

10 Insider Secrets to a Winning Job Search, by Todd Bermont, 216 pages.

$15.99. Roadmap on how to get a job even under adverse circumstances-like

being an ex-con. Includes how to develop a winning atritude, write attenrion-

grabbing resumes, prepare for intet\~ews, networkin.g, how to I I

I

present your strengths to an employer, and much more! 1056..

.

The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, 2003

Ed. by Alfred McCoy, 734 pages. $34.95. Documented e.xpose I I

I

of the government's involvement in drug trafficking.

1014 -I. L.._ - ' - ._ _ _

Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis, by Clrtistian Parenti,

290 pages. $19.00. Analyzes the war on d,e poor via the criminal justice system. Well

documented and includes fitst-h,'lIld repotring. Covers prisons, pam-I

military policing, SWAT teams and the INS.

1002 - I L.._ - ' -_ _

Hepatiris and Liver Disease: What You Need to Know, by Melissa Palmer, IvID,

457 pages. $17.95. Describes symptoms & treatments of hepatitis B & C and odler

liver diseases. Includes medications to avoid, what diet to follow,

e.,ercises to perfonTI, and a bibliography.

1031

Crime and Punishment In America, by Elliotr Cutrie, 230 pages. $16.95. Ef!ective

rebuttlll·to right-wing proponents of prison building. Fact-based argument shows·dmt

crime is driven by poverty. Debunks prison myths and discusses I 1

1

proven, effective means ofcrime prevention.

1019

Ptison Madness: The Mental Health Crisis Behind Bars and What We

Must Do About It, by Terry Kupers,Jossey-Bass, 245 pages. Hardback only,

prisoners please include any required authorization fonn. $32.95. Psychia-

trist writes about d,e mental healdl crisis in U.S. ptisons and jails. Covers all

aspects of mental illness, prison mpe, negative effects of long-I I

1

term isolation in control units, and more.

1003

Prison Writing in 20th Century America, by H. Bruce Franklin, Penguin

Books, 368 pages. $16.00. From Jack London to George Jackson, dus

andlology provides a· selection of some of the best writing I I

describing life behind bars in America.

1022 L._.1._ _- - '

i er Soledad Brother: The Prison Letters of George Jackson, by George Jackson,
Lawrence Hill Books, 339 pages. $18.95. Lucid e..p. lanation of ,e litiCS of 1

prison by a well-known prison acti\~st More relevant now than

when it fitst appeared 40 years ago.

1016

Marijuana Law, by Riclmrd Boire, Ronin, 271 pages. $17.95. E.",'UTIines how to

reduce d,e probability of arrest and prosecUtion for people accused of d,e use, sale or

possession of marijuana. Info on legal defenses, Searcll & seizures, I I

I

surveillance, asset forfeiture and drug testing.

1008 L.._ - ' - ._ _- - ' .

Worse Than Slavery: Parchman Farm and the Ordeal ofJim Crow Justice, by Da\~d Oshinsh:y, 306 pages. $16.00. Analysis of prison labor's roots in slavery.

Focuse., on prison ph'lIltations and self-sustaining prisons dillt use I I

I

prison labor.

1007..

.

No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the American Criminal Justice

System, by David Cole, The New Press, 218 pages. $19.95. E.'plains how the

criminal justice system perpetuates race and class inequality, ' ,

creating a two-tiered system of justice.

1028 L.'_ - ' -_ _- '

The Prison and the Gallows: The Politics of Mass Incarceration in

America, by Marie Gottschalk, Cambridge University Press, 451 pages.

$29.99. Great political analysis of the confluence of events I

I

leading to 2.3 million people behind bars in the U.S. 1069.

.

The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, by Brandon

Sample, PLN Publishing, 200 pages. $49.95. This is PLN's second published

book, wluch exclusively covers ineffective assistance of counsel-related

issues in federal habeas petitions. Great resource for habeas I I

I

litigation, and contains hundreds of case cites!

1078..

.

Factor 8 (DVD), a film by Kelly Duda, Concrete Films. $21.95. Movie

about d,e Arkansas prison blood scandal, in which prison officials sold

infected blood harvested from prisoners. Note: This is a '

DVD and cannot be shipped to prison.

1076 )'---,L----'

PLN Cumulative Index. $22.50 each. PLN Article Indexes provide detailed infoIDlation about all PLN articles, including tide, audlOr, issue, page number, topics covered, citations, and if it is state, BOP or jail specific. Can be searched on over 500 subjects such as medical neglect or se>.-ual assault. Circle d,e index(es) you are ordecing: 1990-1995, 1996-1998, 1999-1 2001, 2002-2004. (more recent indexes not yet available)

All books are soft cover except Prison Madness

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-7 Filed 01/31/12 Page 24 of 27 Page 4P1L8NCOL-00045

Order Form
All purchases must he pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new stamps (strips 01' hooks) or pre-stamped envelopes.

Books (3 & 4 yr Subscription Specials: CffiCLE
one book m: bonus issues, and DO NOT add S/H)
Protecting Your Health and Safety or 4 Bonus Issues (3-yr subscription offer)

$Amt.
Free

Prison Profiteers ill: With Liberty for Some

or 6 Bonus Issues (4-yr subscription offer)

Free

Book Total (inc. all books bought separately)

Add 6% sales tax for Vermont residents only

ADD $6.00 SIR to book orders UNDER $50

PLN Subscriptions
6-month Subscription (Prisoners only) 1 yr Subscription (12 issues) 2 yr Subscription (24 plus 2 Bonus issues) 3 yr Sub (Circle bonus book abovem:4°Bonus issues) 4 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above m: 6 Bonus issues) Sample Issue - $3.50 each
TOTAL Amount Enclosed:

Send to:
Name: DOC#: Agency/lnst: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Address:
City/State/Zip:
MAIL PAYlUENT AND TillS FORM TO:
I ,
Prison Legal News oP.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303

Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

PLN Subscription Rates

Subscription Rates 1yr 2 yrs 3yrs 4yrs

Prisoners *

$24 $ 48 $ 72 $ 96

Individuals

$30 $ 60 $ 90 $120

Professionals

$80 $160 $240 $320

(Lawyers, govt. & professional agencies, libraries, etc.)
Sample issue for anyone - $3.50 each*

Six-month prisoner subscription for $12*

* Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books only) or pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed byprison policies.

:- - - - - - - - - S~;c;ip;i~~B-o~~~;s!- - - - - - - --
1
1 2 years - 2 bonus issues, for 26 monthly issues total. : 3 years - 4 bonus issues (40 total) OR Protecting Your Health and 1 Safety (see book description on the other side of this brochure).
I : 4 years - 6 bonus issues (54 total) OR your choice of With Libertyfor 1
!..~~e_~~n.:0~ ~r~~e~-:.(~~d:s~rif~o~.?~ ~~o~h:r~i~e~ _____

New 3 or 4-Yeru.' Subscription Book Offers!

Subscribe or renew for three years at the regular price
($72 for prisoners & $90 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Protecting Your Health and Safety or
four bonus issues of PLN! (40 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.
Subscribe or renew for four years at the regular price
($96 for prisoners & $120 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Prison Profiteers 01' With Liberty for Some, or 6 bonus issues of PLN! (54 monthly issues
total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.

NO shipping charge for subscription bonus books!

NOTE: If you want the bonus issues of PLN instead of the free hook offer, please indicate that on the Order Form,

:- ------C-";";a~;U;{o; PiN;-s-io~k iis;!- --- -- ~

1

1

1 You can buy dozens of legal, social commentary, self- 1

: help books, and legal and regular dictionaries directly:

1from PLN's book store! Ask us for a book list, or view:

: our selection online at:

1

1

0

www.prisonIegalnews.org/store.aspx

:

1______ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

AIl subscription rates & bonus offers are effective as of5-1-10
and valid through 12-31-10
* No refunds after orders have heen placed *

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
Eastern State Penitentiary 1829-1971
Charles Dickens visited Philadelphia's Eastern State Penitentiary in 1842 and he later wrote: "The System is rigid, strict and hopeless ... and I believe it to be cruel and wrong....I hold this slow and daily tampering with the mysteries of the brain to be immeasurably worse than any torture of the body." The pI'ison remained open for 129 years after Dickens condemned it as being barbaric, and some of its inhumane practices continue to be used in prisons nationwide.
P.O. Box 2420, Bl·attleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.prisonIegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-7 Filed 01/31/12 Page 25 of 27 Page 4P1L9NCOL-00046

I n
11

inl

,Ii

P rison Legal News is an independent, non-profit 56-page monthly publication that reports, l·eviews and analyzes court rulings and news related to
prisoners' rights and p~ison issues. PLN has a national
(U.S.) focus on state, federal and private prison issues, 'with some international coverage as well.
PLN's many thousands of subscribers and readel·s include civil and criminal trial and appellate attorneys, judges, public defenders, jourmilists, academics, paralegals, prisoners' rights activists, students, family members of prisoners, concerned individuals, politicians, other government officials; and numerous local, state and federal prisoners nationwide.
PLN is a vital link for prisoners who otherwise don't have access to current legal and prison-related news and information.
"Invaluable resource fo~ anyorie wimting 'user friendly'
information about current, legal developments affecting prisoners in the United States.""
- Human' Right~ Watch, a long-time PLN subscriber
P LN's coverage of prison issues includes medical neglect, disciplinary hearings, nutrition, living coriditions, excessive force, court access, censorship, jail litigation, visiting, telephones, religious freedom, free speech, prison rape, 'mental health, attorney/ client access, sexual' abuse' of women prisoners, re-
taliation, the PLRA, HIV and hep C, control uirits,
the death penalty, attorney fees and much more.
PLN SuhscriptionRates
Prisoners: $12 for 6 months, $24 per yeal· *
Non-incarcerated individuals: $30 per year Law firms, govt. agencies and libraries: $80 per year Sample issue for anyone: $3.50 each* * Prisoners can pay with new stamps, or pre-stamped envelopes

E ach monthly issue of PLN includes three different types of reporting: • A cover story on a prison-related issue. , • Reports on individual and class-action prison and jail-
related lawsuits when they are filed, when a judgment is entered or the case settles, and when an appellate court decision is issued. We also h~lVe prison-related news articles. , • A "News In Brief" section that summarizes interesting news stories across the U.S. and internatiOlially.
Each issue of PLN also contains numerous advertisements from businesses that provide prison-related, personal and legal services and books. PLN further sells dozens of selfhelp, social commentary and legal books.
PLN also has cumulative subject and case citeindexes for all PLN issues fro~ 1990 tl~ough 2004·. Write for info.
Special 3-year Subscription Offel'!

Free with a 3-yeru: PLN subsCl·iption! Four honus issues ,of PLN (40 issues total) 01· a free hook, Protecting Your Health and Safety! Circle your bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (3-year subscription rates: prisoners $72, individuals $90, professionals $240).

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by ..,.,,-----l
Robert E. Toone. Published by the Southern Poverty Law Center, 325' pages (2009). $10.00 (free with a 3-year suh!). This' book explains some basic rights that prisoners
I have in a jail or prison in the U.S. It deals,
mainly with rights related to health and Ii ··9----
safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by prison officials; it also explains how you can enforce your rights to health and safety within the facility and, if necessary, in court through litigation. Buy separately: ___

,------------------------------------------,

,: You Can Buy These Books Sepamtely! : "

I

."

I

: I f you don't want to purchase a 3 or 4.-year subscription:

: to PLN, you min still purchase any of the bonus books:

: at the regular price. Just indicate which books you want:

: to buy on this page, then enter the total cost on the other :

: side of this brochure on the "Book Total" line of the Or- : : der Form. Shipping is $6 per order (not per bo~k), and we :

: offer FREE shipping on book orders of $50 or more! To :

: place a phone order, please call 802-257-134·2. We also:

:~a_c_c_e p_t_b_o_o_k_,o_r_d_er_s_'o_n_li_n_e,_a_t_w_w_ _w_.p_r_is_o_n_le_g_a_ln_e_w_s_.o.r-g-.- - J:

D onations: PLN is a project <lfthe non~profit Human Rights Defense Center., Your tax-deductible donations support our advocacy, £I'ee speech and First Amendment litigation efforts m:l behalf of prisoners and publishers. PLN not only provides uncensored prison-related news, but actively contests prison cens~rship that interferes with' the delivery of our publication or any other PLN materials sent to prisoners. All donations further our goal of advocat-" ing for people imprisoned in U.S. detention facilities.
"Great source of information, especially in states such as Arizona where the hiw libraries have been taken from the inmates and replaced with paralegals." - SB,' Arizona prisoner
Special4-year Subscription Offer! \
Free with a 4-year PLN subscription! Six bonus issues of PLN (54, issues total) or one £I·ee hook, With Liberty for Some or Prison Profiteers! Circle yom· bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (4-year subscription rates: prisoners $96, individuals $120, professionals $320). Note: Free book option is for one book.
With Liberty for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America, by Scott Christianson, Northeastern Univtlrsity Press, 372 pages (1998).$18.95 (£I·ee with a 4-yeru: sub!). A classic book and the best overall history of the American prison system from 14·92 to the 20th Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how little things have changed as far as prisons go in the U.S. over hundreds of years. Buy separately: _ __
or
Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money from Mass Incarceration, edited by Paul Wright & Tara Herivel, New Press (2007). $24.95 (£I·ee with a 4-year sub!). This is the third in a series of PLN anthologies that examines the reality of mass imprisonment in the U.S. Prison Profiteers is unique from other books on the market because it exposes and discusses who profits and ben~fits from mass imprisonment, rather than who is harmed by the prison industrial complex and our nation's reliance on over-incarceration. Buy separately: _ __

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-7 Filed 01/31/12 Page 26 of 27

T he Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel is the first in a series of books by Prison Legal News Publishing designed to help pro-se prisoner litigants identify and raise viable claims for potential habeas corpus relief. This· book is an invaluable resource that identifies hundreds of cases where the federal courts have granted habeas relief to prisoners whose attorneys provided ineffective assistance of counsel.
It will save litigants
thousands of hours of research and it focuses on the
WINNING cases criminal defendants need to
successfully challenge their convictions.
Well organized into 52 concise chapters, this easy to use book puts the law at the reader's fingertips. The Appendix includes pleadings and forms from successful habeas corpus cases that

"

The Habeas Citebook is a

nifty and concise self-help

guide for prisoners seeking

habeas relief based on claims of

ineffective assistance of counsel.

Navigating the complex and

treacherous terrain of habeas

law is never easy; but claim-

ing that your lawyer screwed up

is even more difficult - espe-

cially from the confines of an

demonstrate formatting and show ill-equipped prison law library.

how to frame a winning argu-

"Brandon Sample has pro-

ment that will persuade a court

vided an amazing and much-

to grant habeas relief. The Habeas

needed tool for prisoners who

Citebook explains the proce-

are forced to seek relief on their

dural and substantive complexi-

own. The book is thorough; but

ties of federal habeas corpus lit-

simple and readable. It starts

igation with the goal of identify-

with a wonderfully well-orga-

ing and litigating claims involving nized listing of hundreds of dif-

ineffective assistance of counsel.

ferent types of ineffective assis-

Brandon Sample is a success-

tance of counsel, set forth in the

ful jailhouse lawyer litigant incar-

form of citations to court rul-

cerated in the Bureau of Prisons.

ings - a novel approach that

He is a Prison Legal News contrib- not only acts as a springboard

uting writer and a member of the

for further research but also

National Lawyer's Guild. Editor

saves the prisoner countless

Susan Schwartzkopf has a mas-

hours of preliminary research:'

ter's degree in education and is

the director and editor in chief of

PETER SCHMIDT

Prison Legal News Publishing.

Publisher, Punch & Jurists

THE HABEAS CITEBOOK: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

By Brandon Sample 8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed ______
I By: 0 check 0 new postage stamps 0 credit card 0 money order

ISBN 978-0-9819385-1-6

Name __________________________

$49·95 3 ·or niore copies ordered

DOC/BOP Number ____________________

at once $39.95 each

Institution/Agency _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-'--_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

FRim Shipping & Handling Address,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Order by mail, phone, or on-line. City _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ State

ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

PRISON lEGAL NEWS p.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 4P2L0NCOL-00047

" Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-7 Filed 01/31/12 Page 27 of 27 ------------, Copies of this very usable and useful gUide

should be available in every prison library-to

help incarcerated people give positive direction to theIr energies while making constructive use of their 'time. It is a well-established fact that

people who have taken college courses.in prison have a dramatically reduced rate of recidivism."

-BELL GALE CHEVICNY, PEN Prison Writing Program,

'-----

Editor Doing Time: 25 Years ofPrison Writing. - - - - '

HIGH SCHOOL. VOCATIONAL • PARALEGAL • UNDERGRADUATE. GRADUATE COURSES

.IIIIl11HE GREATLY anticipated and newly updated
third edition of the Prisoner's Guerrilla
Handbook to Correspondence Programs in tHe .
United States and Canada has finally arrived! Author
Jon Marc Taylor's brand new version is the latest in this unique and highly successful gUidebook for the
prisoner-student. This invaluable tool and how-to handbook provides the reader with step-by-step instructions to find the appropriate educational program for high school, vocational, paralegal, undergraduate, and graduate courses offered in
the U.S. and Canada today.
Invaluable re-entry tool
It presents more than 160 program outlines and
offers an easy-to-use format for the student to
determine which program best suits their needs. It is ideal for the incarcerated student who does not have Internet access or the ability to attend education classes in person. This resource is indispensable

for the individual and beneficial for use in all prison libraries and education departments.
------Th-e Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook is the only book
on the market for the non-traditional prisoner-student. It includes detailed listings of the quality, cost, and course offerings for all correspondence programs available to prisoners. In a time when so many academic opportunities in prisons have been eliminated, this book is an invaluable re-entry tool for prisoners who seek to further their education while incarcerated and to help them prepare for life and work following their release.
Jon Marc Taylor has more than 25 years experi-
ence as an incarcerated student, advocate for prisoner education, and author. He has successfully earned a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and a doctorate via correspondence courses while incar-
cerated. Editor Susan Schwartzkopf has a master's
degree in education and 12 years experience teaching immigrants English language skills.

I PRISONERS' GUERRILLA HANDBOOK TO CORRESPONDENCE PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA

ByJon Marc Taylor PHD 8.25/1 x 10.75/1 • 224 pages

Number of copies ordered __ Amount enclosed
I By: D check D new postage stamps D credit card D money order

ISBN 978-0-9819385-0-9
$49·95
3 or more copies ordered

Name _ _ _ _ _ _ _~_____________~_ _ _ __ DOC/BOP Number ________________~_________~_

at once $39.95 each

Institution/Agency ____________________________

FREE Shipping & Handling Address_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

e Order by mail/ phone/ or on-line. City _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ State

ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

PRISON LEGAL NEWS I P.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 0530 3
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 4P2L1NCOL-00048

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-8 Filed 01/31/12 Page 1 of 28

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBIT LLL
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 422

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-8 Filed 01/31/12 Page 2 of 28

VOL. 22 No.3
ISSN 1075-7678

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights

March 2011

LegaCY·9f·Corruption: GEO Buys Off the Florida, Political Establishment

I::.
by Beau Hodai .

us.. Senator Marco Rubio's unsettling gations conducted by the FBI and the Florida Republican Party contributor

history of extremely close ties to private Florida Department of Law Enforcement Jay Odom.

prison operator GEO Group and the pos- (FDLE) into improper use of credit cards

Indicted on charges of lying to a

sible federal investigation into florida's issued by the Republican Party of Florida, grand jury, official misconduct, grand

private prison giv.eaway of more than as well as tax evasion and improper bud- ,theft and conspiracy in connection with

$120 million

getary appropriations.

the.Odom case, Sansom is currently await-

One such set of appropriations and ing trial.

ewly minted U.S. Senator Marco legislative actions reportedly being invesRubio (R-FL) was sworn in on ' tigated by federal authorities are those

Cash that Rings the Till .

January 5, 2011 with unfinished business which led to the development of the state's

On March 30, 2010, Elva McCaig,

back home.,

largest private prison, the Blackwater a nurse employed at the Florida Depart-

Rubio, as former speaker of the Flor- River Correctional Facility (Blackwater ment of Corrections' (FDOC) Santa Rosa

ida House of Representatives (R-Miami, CF), which op~ned its gates for business in Correctional Institute,and treasurer of

2006-2008) - as well as other state GOP November 2010. The prison was designed Nurses Behind .the Gate, an advocacy

lawmakers and party contributors - are and is operated by Florida-based GEO, group for prison nurses, wrote a letter cUl:rently the likely subjects of mUltiple Gl~OUp, Inc., the nation's second-largest addressed to both U.S. Attorney for the'

wide-ranging> state and federal investi- private prison' firm.

Northern, District of Florida' Thomas

,To date, investigations into members Kirwin and State Attorney for Florida's

of the Florida Republican Party, and into Second Judicial District Willie Meggs.

party donors, have resulted in multiple

In essence, the letter laid out M'c-

Florida Sex Offenders

indictments. And on November 2, 2010 Caig's concerns that the development 13 - election day - federal investigators sub-' of Blackwater CF was yet another

From the Editor

14' poenaed the party's financial records.

legislatively-mandated handout to' yet

Pr:isoner Rights Lawyer Speaks

Perhaps the most notable individual another prominent Florida Republican 16 ' charged to date is former Rep. Ray San- Party contributor, GEO Group. GEO

Supreme Court Prison Rape Ruling

18 som (R-Destin), who, while serving as consistently reports annual revenue in Rubio's budget chief, inserted languag~ excess'of one billion dollars all of which

. Virgini?l Censorship Ruling,
Arizona Private Prison Escape
. Cellphone Surgical Sea'rch "
PHS Doctor Scandal Continues

22 into the state's 2008-2009 budget for what' it 'earns through state; county and federal

24 was to become Blackwater CF.

contracts for the detention of both crimi-

While Sansom has not yet been nal offeriders and immigrant detainees.

26 indicted or officially charged with any

Indeed, ,GEO is a top' Florida Re-

30

wrongdoing relative t'o the development ,of Blackwater CF, in February 2010,

publican Party contributor; through two political action committees (PACs),

Prisoners Clean Up BP Oil Spili

32 Sansom, while serving as successor to "Florida GEO,Group, Inc. PAC and GEO

Prison and Jail Bond Defaults

Speaker Rubio, resigned amid criminal Group, Inc. PAC, the corporation gave 34 and ethics investigations - chief of which $85,000 to the Republican Party of Flor-

P~N Settles Jail Suit Supreme Court California Lifer Case

36 is the allegation that he falsified the 2007- ida from 2006 through 2009, along with 2008 budget by inserting a $6 million tens of thousands of dollars in additionfll
40 appropriation into the state spending bill contributions to other state Republican

News in Brief

50

for theconstruction of an aircraft hangar 'for Destin busirressman an~ prominent

Party PACs arid campa!gns of individual Republican candidates.

Prison LegalNews

1

March 2011

Page 4P2L3NCOL-00361

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-8 Filed 01/31/12 Page 3 of 28
The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistahce of Counsel Brandon Sample,
'ISBN: 978-0-9819385~1-6 Paperback, 224 pages
The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistanceqf Counsel is the first in a series of books by Prison Legal News Publishing designed to.help pro-se prisoner litigants identify and raise viable claims for potential habeas corpus relief.'This,book is an invaluable resource that identifies hundreds of cases ~herethe federal courts· have granted Dabeas relief to prisoners whose attorneys provided ineffective assistance of counseL

.

,

Prisoners' , Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs

j'n the United Sta~es and Canada, 3rd Edition

John Marc Taylor
ISBN: 978-0~9819385-0-9

Paperback, 2.24 Pages

The greatly anticipated and newly updated t~irdedition of the Prisoner'sGuerrilla Handbookto Correspondence Programs in the United States and Canada has ,finally arrived! AuthofJohn Marc Taylor's brand new version is the latestin this unique and highly successful guidebook for the prisoner-student. This invaluable ' tool and how-to handbook provides the reader with step-by-step instructions to find the appropriate education program for correspondence high school, vocational, paralegal, undergraduate, and graduate courses offered in the U.S. and Canada today.

Prisoners' Self Help Litigation ry1anua'l, 4th Edition John Boston' & Dan Manville
ISBN: 978-0-1953744-0-7 Paperback, 960 pages
Prisoners' Self~Help Litigation Manual, in its much-anticipated fourth edition, is an indispensable guide for prisoner litigants and prisoner advo~tes seeking to understand the rights guaranteed to prisoners by law and how to protect those rights. Clear,colJlprehensive, practical.advice provides prisoners with everything they need to know on conditions of confinement, ciyil liberties in prison, procedural due'process, .the legal. system, how to actually litigate, ',conducting effective legal research, and Writing legal do~uments. It is a roadmap on how to win lawsuits.

I

D . Habeas Citebook,. ,
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Order. by maill phonel or on-line. :Amount enclosed ______

I

$49.95
D Prisoners' Guerrilla Guide to

By: 0 check D new p~st.age stamps D credit card D .mon<:y on:Jer

Correspondence Programs

3hi ftdWon .

.

Name ------------------~--------~----~--------------

$49.95

Num ber DOC/BOP

-..!.-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _---'_ _~-'---___'___'_ _

D Prisoners' Self-Help
Litigation Manual

Institution/Agency _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _---'---------'-~-

4th00iti::m
$45.95

Address_ _ _ _ _ _--'-_ _-.-:...._--'-_ _ _ _----...,.,-------'-

Shipping included in all prices City _____________~_ _ _ _ State

I
ZIP

March 2011

PO'Box 2420 " West Brattleboro, VT 05303 Tel [802J 257-1342 .. www.prisonlegalnews.org

2

Prison Legal News

Page 4P2L4NCOL-00362

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-8 Filed 01/31/12 Page 4 of 28

PUBLISHER Rollin Wright
EDITOR Paul Wright
,ASSOCIATE EDITOR Alex Friedmann
COLUMNISTS Michael Cohen, Kent Russell,
Mumia Abu Jamal
CONTRIBUTING WRITERS Mike Brodheim, Matthew Clarke, John Dannenberg, Derek Gilna,
Gary ,Hunter, David Reutter, Mike Rigby, Brand,on Sample, Jimmy Franks, Mark Wilson
RESEARCH ASSOCIATE Sam Rutherford
ADVERTISING DIRECTOR Susan Schwartzkopf
LAYOUT Lansing ScottI . Catalytic Communications "
HRDC GENERAL COUNSEL Lance Weber
PLN is a'Monthly·Publication.
A one year subscription is $24 for prisoners, $30 for individuals, and $80 for lawyers and institutions. Prisoner dona- , tions of less than $24 will be pro-rated at $2.00/issue. Do not send less than '$12.00 at a time. All foreign subscriptions are $100 sent via airmail. PLN accepts Visa and Mast~rcard orders by phone. New subscribers please allow four to six weeks for the deliveryof your first issue. Confirmation of receipt of donations cannot be made without an SASE. PLN is a section 501 (c)(3) nonprofit organization. Donations are tax deductible. Send contributions to:
Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420
West Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342
info@prisonlegalnews.org www.prisonlegalnews.org
'Please do not mail PLNpaperwork for an ongoing case or request legal advice. PLN is not a legal service provider and cannot give legal advice.. PLN reports on legal c~ses and news stories related to prisoner rights and prison cOBditions of confiriement. PLN welcomes all news clippings, legal summaries and leads on people to contact related to th9se issues.
Article ,submissions should, be sent to - The Editor - at the above address. , We cannot return submissions without a SASE. Check our website or send a SASE for writers guidelines.
Advertising offers are void where prohibited by law and constitutional detention facility rules.
PLNisindexed bythe Alternative Press Index, Criminal Justice Periodicals Index and the Department of Justice Index,

top beneficiaries.

GEO Legacy of Corruption (cont.)

One example of GEO showing its

appreciation to a .Democt:at is that of

It is .also worth noting that from 2005 former U.S. Congressman Ciro Rodriguez

through 2010, GEO, through its PACs~ (D.:TX), who, on March 16,2009, received

dispensed an additional $15,000 to the nearly $10,000 when several senior GEO

National Republican Congression'al executives, lobbyists and regional ad-

Coriunittee, an additional $32,000 to the ministrators decided to co~tribute to his

National Republican Senatorial Commit- campaign. Rodriguez's district, Texas'

tee, and an additional $10,000 over 2009 23rd Congressjonal District,contains the

and 2010 directly to the Marco Rubio for longest stretch of U.S.-Mexico border of

U.S. Senate PAC.

any district in the U.S. GEO is the nation's

GEO's PAC spending, however, is not second-largest private immigrant deten-

the limit of the appreciation the company tion center operator.

has shown to Rubio.

GEO also supports independent '

On September 13, 2010, several top candidates.. On June 19, 2009, George \

GEO corporate executives, along with , Zoley and his wife, Donna, both gave two

GEOlobbyistsand subcontractors, ,gave checks for $2,400 each - the maximum

a total of $33,500 iriindividual contribu- individual contribution to a federal can-

tions to the Florida Victory Committee, didate allowable by law":" tQ independent

a PAC created for the benefit of three U.S. Senatoi:ial candidate, former Florida

other PACS: Marco Rubio for U.S. Sen- governor (and former Republican) Charlie

ate, the National Republican Senatorial Crist. The grand total of this combined

Committee and the Republican Party of contribution was $9,600.

Florida..

Prison nurse Elva, McCaig's letter

All-in-all, the Florida Victory Com- went on to layout points of the legisla-

mittee received $113,500 - all on September tive history and perceived "backroom

13,,2010 - during ~ts most active period transactions" behind the de~lopment of

(August 20 through September 30, 2010). Blackwater CF, as well as the odd "rela-

Of that amount, $51,735.90 was disbursed tionships and conflicts" in the proximity of

to the National Republican Senatorial both Rubio's economic consultant; Donl).a

Committee (which, in turn, contributed, Arduin, and former Senate President Jeff an amazing $2~509,644 to Rubio's cam~ Atwater's Chief of Staff Robert "Budd"

paignthroughout the 2010 election cycle);' Kneip to lawmqkers working to push the

further, $13,305 was.,disbursed to, the Re- development of Blackwater CF.

publican Party of Florid,a and $31,458.15

Both Arduin and Kneip have deep

was disbursed to the Rubio PAC.

ties to the GEO, Group and its parent

In addition, GEO Chief Executive company, Wackenhut Corporation.

Officer and founder Georg€ Zoley'gave

Without going into too much detail

Ruqio $4,800 in personal contributions on the claims and concerns outlined in

over the course of 2009' and 2010 - half of McCaig's letter (for all of the factual back;-

which Zoley gave to the Rubio campaign ground provided in the letter, it contained

on September 13,2010 - putting his own a number of errors - including erroneous

personal disbursements to the Rubio cam- claims that Xe Services, LLC/Blackwater

paign for that single day at $7,400.

USA were involved in the deal), the point

Notably, GEO was the mo'st gener- was essentially that budgetary provisos

ous single-interest/corporate d,onor I,to , which called for $110 millionto be appro-

contribute to the Florida Victory Com- priated as a giveaway to the GEO Group

mittee during this period. It is also worth were inserted into the state budget under

noting that, of the $33,500 contributed by very questionable circumstances.

GEO and its affiliates to this particular

The letter 'apparently contained

PAC, $10,000 came directly from Guy and enough salient, solid information that it

. Neel White, owners and chief executive sparked the interest of federal investiga- '

officers of White Construction Company, tors.

the GEO',subcontractor awarded a $114'

According to multiple sources, federal

million contract for· the construction of investigators began making house calls in

Blackwater CF.

and around Santa Rosa County (home of

It should also be noted that GEO Blackwater CF) and around the capitol

largesse is not, by any means, restricted '. buildings of Tallahassee during the sum'-,

to the Republican Party, though.Repub- merof2010, asking questions about the

licans are by and large the corporation's ,origins of the Blackwater prison project.

Prison Legal News

,3

March 2011'

Page 4P2L5NCOL-00363

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-8 Filed 01/31/12 Page 5 of 28

At the time of Arduin's initial con-

On February 19,2008, GEO Group

GEO Legacy of Corruption (cont.) . . tract under Rubio, as well as during her Vice Chairman, President and Chief Op-

work over the course' of 2006 on the 'erating Officer' Wayne Calabrese, along

FBI spokesman Special Agent Jeff Florida Property Tax Reforrri Commit- with GEO Senior Vice President of North

Westcott declined to either confirm or tee, she was' also a compensated trustee ' American Operations John Hurley, GEO

deny reports of the agency's interest in of Correctional Properties Trust (AKA Vice President of Business Development

Blackwater CF.

CentaCore Properties Trust, CPT), a real . Cloid Shuler, and GEO lobbyist Damon

Origins of Blackwater in the Florida

estate investment trust (REIT) established Smith, delivered a presentation before the

by Wackenhut Corrections in 1998.

Florida Seriate Committee on Criminal

House of Representatives .

Wackenhut Corrections, a subsidiary and -Civil Justice Appropriations.

In November 2006, Donna Arduin; of Wackenhut Corporation, spun off as

The presentation was stI;aightforward,

president of Arduin, Laffer and Moore a separate entity (GEO Group) following with two primary objectives: 1) GEO

Econometrics (ALME, incorporated in the purchase of Wackenhut by Denmark- would take on more prisoners and would

Florida, February 2005), as well as of based Group 4 Falck (currently G4S) in discount per diem rates of incarceration

Arduin Associates, Inc. (incorporated in .2003.

of state prisoners in exchange for longer

Florida, January 2005), was hired as -an

It is worth noting that Arduin's contracts with the state, and 2) GEO

economic consultant by former Florida ALME partners, Arthur Laffer and sought appropriations for two expansions

House Speaker Allen Bense (R-P~mama Stephen Moore, were both economic advi- to one' of their existing private facilitieS,

City) for work on the 2007-2008 House sors to President Ronald Reagan; Moore Graceville CF, in the form of a 384-bed

General Appropriations Bill under incom- served on Reagan's Commission on Priva- expansion coupled with the development

ing Speaker'Marco Rubio (Bense signed tization' which established policy resulting of a I,SOO-bed "special needs annex" (for

this contract in his last days as speaker~ in the rebirt,h of the .American private . the "chronically mentally ill").

'

while Rubio was ·speaker-designate). The prison industry in the 1980s. Additionally,

To illustrate the scope of this pro-

contract commenced on December 1, 2006 both Laffer and Moore are members of posal, the GEO executives were essentially

and expired in May 2007 with the finaliza- the American Legislative Exchange Coun- seeking to sell the Florida legislature on

tion of the appropriations bill. Under this cil's (ALEC) board of scholars.

an expansion of the existing Graceville

contract, Arduin's rate of pay was $10,000

Both GEO Group and Corrections CF (which contained 1,884 beds at that

, per month.

Corporation of America (eCA) are time) by up to 1,884 additional beds. In

Arduin was again contracted in Sep- ALEC corporate members. [Ed. Note: exchange for this concession -: as well as

tember 2007 as an economic consultant ALEC and private prison companies have increased contract lengths at other exist-

for work on the 2008-2009 House General been tied to legislation that resulted in the ing facilities -GEO would offer the state

Appropriations Bill under Speaker Rubio. expansion of prison populations in the a "discounted rate."

. .

The contract again ran through May of u.s., and more recently to a controversial

Then-House Policy and Budget Chief

. the following year, terminating with the Arizona law that would increase the num- Ray Sansom' did not seem like a man

.finalization of the appropriations bill. ber of immigrant detainees, which would happy in his work. Reports filed with the

Her rate of pay was again $10,000 per benefit private prison firms. See: PLN, . Florida House of Representatives for trav-

month.

.

Nov. 2010, p.1].

el and other. expense reimbursements by .

Sansom during this period are marked at

~qN:YE~T.Y(l(J~

the outset of each legislative session with the foreboding words "session subsistence

POSTAGE'··STAMPS j()~9~~X.ORP~~S, \VIltE ;FIM-NS):fERS,PACKAGJtS'

begins," scrawled in Sansom's hand over travel reports detailing his commutes from Destin to Tallahassee. A Florida state representative doesn't make much -less than

.~·• J.l.t\.Y.···.T:IIE·.•·Bl~HES'f
REIMBJJRSEMENT.RAT.ES

Effective immediately
.please direct all .

$30,000 per year. As such, Sansom ,filed meticulous reports seeking reimbursement for travel, copier toner and other office expenses.

~~~.g2~~~"~.l'.D·ls'r~~g...2~R,•.·.(l)!IiI.\,R·.STIIIJ!A:.1LtTS
§'2~4~~~HJt(S)1IJ.i\IJRVTIil!J~R1N,A99R~OPU1NJ~DP. , ....... : .... , . ' . . . .' .• ii·i.ii·i.·•.ii· •..•..•..•.•.•..•.•...••.••. .·. \i'

communications
to PLN at:'
Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420

One such report shows Sansom
embarking, on March 27, 2008, on' a
rare trip out of his district In the Florida Panhandle (or outside of the capital) to. , Boca Raton, nearly 400 miles away at the southern tip of Florida, for "personal

See.{)urAd.on.BackC()ver
·~~N;~O~•··.~$1,·•·\\T~lllllt·•.~X··.·9.~7&8
. • . ~t ~~~~~ ·~··~.t·.~··~~~~.~:.
~·~~IJ~.9r~t}l.mpS.".() Irl

West B.rattleboro, VT05303 802257-1342 prisonlegalnews0 org

business." Boca Raton is home to GEO Group's corporate headquarters.
Notably,this single trip to Boca Ra-· ton is the only one of its kind found on travel reimbursement forms filed by San-. som (for himself or his staff) from 2007 to

his resignation in February 2010.

March 2011

4

Prison. Legal News

Page 4P2L6NCOL-00364

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-8 Filed 01/31/12 Page 6 of 28

Neither Sansom nor any representa- of land outside of Milton, Santa Rosa

tive of GEO Group responded to requests County, for $2.65 million 59 acres of

for comment.

which G EO would later resell to the state

. While· it is unclear what business of Florida through the Florida Correc-

Sansomhad in Boca Raton, it is clear that tional Finance· Corporation (FCFC, an

he returned to Tallahassee and inserted instrumentality of DMS) for $1.6 million·

a proviso in the initial draft of the 2008- on March 24, 2009, as the site of what

2009 House General Appropriations Bill . would become Blackwater CF - after be-

(filed with the Policy and Budget Com- ing awarded the development contract by

mittee on April 4, 2008) which called for DMS on March 18,2009.

"$110,000,000 in non-recurring generar'

It is worth noting that while DMS

revenue ... for the planning, design, per- had issued a "notice of intent" to award

mitting, equipping and construction of the development contract to GEO on

a state-owned, privately operated 2,000 October 21,2008, GEO had apparently

bed correctional institution ... 'for the selected the prospective Blackwater acre-

housing of 2,000 medium and close cus- age prior to the issuance of the ITN on

tody inmates as a stand-alone annex to July 15,2008.

the Graceville Correctional Facility in

According to documents submitted to

Graceville, Florida."

DMS as part of GEO's ITN response, the

. On April 7, following the insertion corporation had already assessed the fea-

of this proviso - which was never run by sibility of using the selected land as early

any committee for approval- Representa- as July 7, 2008. The following month, the

tive Curtis Richardson (D-Tallahassee) S;;mta Rosa Board of County Commis-

amended the budget to strike the proviso, sioners approved a resolution to provide

as it was obviously a legislatively-mandat- $1.8 million in funding for additional

ed giveaway to GEO Group.

infrastructure for, the proposed facility.

Sansom responded on April 8, 2008

Under the terms of the design/

with a rev.ised proviso stripped of all build agreement entered into between

Graceville-specific language. In other DMS and GEO, the corporation was

respects the new proviso was identical: awarded $115,364,828 in state project

$110 million for a new 2,000-bed private

prison to be constructed somewhere in

the state.

On June 11,2008, the budget was ap-

proved by then-Governor Charlie Crist.

The following month, on July 15,

the Florida Department of Management

Services (DMS) issued an "Invitation to'

Negotiate" (ITN) for the development of

the proposed private prison. Responses to

the ITN were du~ by September 9,2008.

Interestingly, although no binding

agreement had been reached between

GEO Group and DMS, on November 26,

2008, GEO Group purchased 126 acres

financing, along with another $2,081,984 for payment to Georgia-based "program manager" Carter qoble Lee.
Following the contract award to GEO, construction began on the facility -·slated for completion in July 2010.
Further exacerbating the appearance that the Blackwater deal had been sewn up long before the 2008-2009 General Appropriations Bill had been passed -let alone the issuance of the DMS ITN according to documents released by TEAM Santa Rosa,' the economic development arm of Santa Rosa County, Sansom and Senator Don Gaetz (R-Destin) had been discussing the idea of a new prison as a means of economic development (code name "Project Justice") with TEAM members as early as February 2008. Santa Rosa County was partially represented by both Sansom and Gaetz.
Strangely, Arduin denies that she ever worked with Sansom or his Policy and Budget Committee staff during the formation of the 2008-2009 budget, insisting that she only worked with Rubio.
Work invoices filed by Arduin pursuant to the terms of her September 2007 through May 2008 contract with the House tell a different story.

TYPING
SERVICES
Provided since 1998
Specifically designe~ with special rates for the incarcerated person.
BI~ck I Color Printing and Copying
SEND A SASE FOR A "FREE" PRICE LIST AND MORE INFORMATION TO:
LET MY FINGERS DO YOUR TYPING Sandra Z. Thomas (dba) POBox 4178
Winter Park, Florida 32793·4178 Phone: 407·579·5563
Special Offer: $2.00 off first order. Special offer void after: 12/31/2011

Prison Legal News

5

March 2011

Page 4P2L7NCOL-00365

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-8 Filed 01/31/12 Page 7 of 28

GEO Legacy of Corruption (cont.)
"ALME provided consulting services to the House as directed by the Speaker relating to property tax reform, economic development and budget issues," reads tIfe invoice for April 2008. "Those services included participating in meetings, planning sessions and conferences with Legislators and staff of the Speaker's Office and Policy and Budget Committee on economic development initiatives, spending reductions -and policy development ,for the 2008 Florida Legislative session.... ALME continues to provide ongoing economic ~nd policy advice to the staff of the'Speaker's Office and Policy and Budget Committee on Florida's budget and econon1y."
Or, as stated by the "scope of services" section of Arduin's contract with the House, "services include advisory services to the House, as directed by the Speaker I of the. House, to the Policy aI~d Budget COlID11ittee, as directed by the Chairman of the Committee [Sansom], or as directed by the Chief of Staff."
Nevertheless, public records requests submitted t9 the Florida House of Representatives for reports authored or submitted by Arduin, as well as for written communications between Arduin and her employers, Rubio and Sansom, turned up empty.
According to then-Florida House of Representatives Communications Dii-ector Jill Chamberlin (who retired in September 2010), there simply are no records of work perfo'rmed by Arduin - no reports, no audits, no presentations, no memos ... nothing - during her time in the House under Rubio.
And Chamberlin, who served as spokeswoman for both Speaker Rubio and later for Speaker Sansom, says th,!-t it is not likely Arduin ever filed any re~ ports of any kind as she was hired on as a consultapt more 'for her connections in both the public and private sector. As such, said Chamberljn, most of Arduin's consultations took the form of face time with those in her immediate circle.
Rubio aid not respond to multiple requests for comment.
Consummating Blackwater in the Senate, 2010
In early 2010, Arduin was contracted for work as an economic consultant in the Florida Senate under the 'purview of

the office of then-Senate President Jeff , cember 31, 2005.

Atwater (R-North Palm Beach), tasked

To further illustrate the cycle of influ-

with "providing analytical review of state ence between Wackenhut/GEO and the

government agency operations, including Florida Senate, it is important to note

overlapping agency jurisdictions and func- that nearly all of the Wackenhut subsid-

tions, the financial structure of agencies, iarycorporations over which Kneip had

sources and uses of agency revenue, and control were offshoots of King Employee

agency expenditure patterns that will aid Services, Inc., as well as related companies

in economic and budgetary decisions asso- King Staffing and King Benefits, which

ciated with the development of Florida's were purchased in 1997 from former Flor-

budget."

'~da Senate President Jim King (2002-2004)

This laundry list was broken down by Wackenhut for $16 million. King's

into three key functions, as itemized, personal cut of this deal was reportedly

in the 2010 contract: 1) work with and $5 million; he died in July 2009 while still

advise the chair of the Senate Ways and serving in the Senate.

Means Committee, Senator J.D. Alexan-

In May 2010, during the last week

der (R-Lake Wales); 2) coordinate with of the Florida Legislature's conference

staff during devdopment of the budget to finalize the state budget bill, Ways and

and during the conference committee on, Means Chair Alexander slipped a proviso

appropriations; and 3) serve as otherwise into the spending bill's section on criminal

directed by Chairman Alexander and Sen- justice and corrections appropriations.

ate President Atwater.

The proviso called for a cut of over

As such, Arduin was contracted for $24 million to FDOC's budget to close an

employment in the Senate from Febru~ unspecified number of state facilities in

ary 4 through June 30, 2010, not through order to open and fill Blackwater. '

ALME but through Laffer Associates (a

This $24 million cut to FDOC was

Tennessee corporation founded by partner essentially written in as compensation, or

Arthur Lafferin October 2006). The rate displacement of funds, for an additional

of pay for the duration of this contract $22 million written into the budget for

was $7,000 per month.

the sole purpose of "the operation [of]

As a private consultant under con- 2,224 adult male beds at Blackwater River

tract with the office of Senate President Correctional Facility to be operational by

Atwater, Arduin worked under Atwater's November 1,2010."

Chief of Staff, Robert "Budd" Kneip.

The state budget bill also called for

Over the course of the past two de- FDOC to identify some 1,350 male adult

cades, prior to becoming a public servant, custody psychological and medical care

Kneip served as "senior vice president of beds for potential privatization. Addition-

corporate planning and development" for ally, the budget bill stated that FDOC was

Wackenhut Corporation, and as president required to develop a plan to reduce the

and chief executive officer of several operating costs of 6,400 additional prison

Wackenhut subsidiaries: Oasis Outsourc- beds by five percent - using private beds,

ing, Oasis Outsourcing II, III, IV, V, VI, if necessary.

VII, VIII and IX, Oasis Outsourcing of

And,just as the 2010-2011 budget bill

Colorado, Oasis Ol:ltsourcing of Georgia, was gellerous in its cuts to the state's pub-

Oasis Outsourcing of Ohio, and of several lic prison system, it was equally generolls

other corporations operating under the ip handouts for private prison operators.

banners of Oasis Outsourcing Benefits,

All-in-all the 2010-2011 budget bill

Workforce Alternative and Wackenhut contained over $1.2 million in state funds

Resources, Incorporated (WRI).

to be paid to local government taxing

While Kniep had been employed ~s authorities in lieu of property taxes for

chief of staff for the Office of the Florida the state's six existing private correctional

Senate President from 2007 through 2010 facilities.

(following Atwater's election to the of-

As such, the criminal justice correc-

fice of Florida's Chief Financial Officer .tions section of the 2010-2011 budget bill

in November 2010, Atwater appointed was met by stiff criticism - most audibly

Kneip as chief of staff for the CFO office), from FDOC officials and the Florida

incorporation papers for Oasis Outsourc- Police Benevolent Association (Florida

ing II on file with the New Mexico Public PBA, the state's prison guard union), and

Regulation Commission show that Kneip from Sen. Paula Dockery (R-Lakeland),

had been acting as president of that chair of the Senate Criminal Justice Com-

Wackenhut subsidiary as recently as De- mittee.

March 2011

6

Prison Legal News

Page 4P2L8NCOL-00366

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-8 Filed 01/31/12 Page 8 of 28

Dockery noted in her criticism of the Blackwater-related provisions that, as was the case with Sansom's 2008 proviso, the appropriations and mandates concerning FDOC and Blackwater had never been, discussed or approved in any committee.
According to PDOC Communications Director Gretl J>lessinger, the issue most difficult to reconcile with the 20 I0·2011 budget was the fact that the state's prison system was actually running under capacity. Put simply, there was no need to push through the opening ·of Blackwater,
CF.
Whereas state prisoner growth projections in 2008 had actually suggested that there may be a need for the facility by 2010, Plessinger said prison population growth had slowed to the point where construction/expansion, projects underway at state-owned and operated facilities had ceased.
Regardless of the fact that there was no need on the part of the state to ~pen Blackwater at the time, or the fact that by mandating the facility's opening by November 2010 through tlW closure of existing state facilities, lawmakers were in effect mandating the possible loss of thousands of statejobs, there was a very real need on the part of GEO Group/to have Blackwater CF opened as soon as possible.
In April 2010, DMS announced that ·it had awarded contracts for the maI).age~ ment of both Moore Haven CF (985 beds) and Graceville CF (1,884 beds) - both of which had been operated by GEO up to that point - to CCA, thereby reduc:ing GEO's holdings in its home state to 1,861 beds at South Bay CF by the end · of the year, unless Blackwater CF could be filled.
For her part, Arduinsays that the idea of opening or building a private prison

was never run by her in the House or the she left .the administration of Govemor

Senate in either 2008 or 2010.

Jeb Bush. What's more,. the state of

When asked about the facility and the Florida disbursed an additional $25,913

provisions in the 2010-2011 budget bill to' Arduin for 438 hours of vacatio:l pay

which called for its immediate operiing, on December 8, 2003 - at.which time she

Arduin, who was paid $7,000 per month was employed as director of the California

by the Senate as an economic consultant Department of Finance.

.

- and who, as stated by the terms of her

Other sets of monetary disbursements,

contract, was to know the business of the surrounding the commencement of Ar-

state of Florida inside and out, down to duin's work under Gov. Schwarz:enegger

the last dime - responded, "was that some- are equally interesting.

thing that was in the 2010 budget?"

On October 10, 2003, three days fol-

Ghosts of Private Prisons Past (Cash that Rings the Till, Part 2)

lowing Schwarzenegger's election and a littie more than a month prior to Arduin's appointment to the Schwarzenegger ad-

Beginning in January of 1999 through

November 2003, Arduin served as director.

of the Office of Policy and Budget under

Florida Governor Jeb Bush. Prior to her

appointment under Bush, Arduin had

served. in similar roles under Michigan

Governor John Engler and New York

Governor George Pataki. From November 17, 2003 through
October 15, 2004,. 'Arduinserved as

Save on Pres~ripti9n Eyeglasses & Shades

director of the California Department of Finance l,lnder Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. As director of finance,

Send -for a FREE Catalog Money Back Guarantee

Arduin was Gov.. Shwarzenegger's chief fiscal.advisor - with purview over 70 state boards and governmental authorities.

Prism Optical, Inc.
10992 NW 7th Ave

It is worth noting that, while Arduin

Dept: LN0311

has earned a reputation for herself as

Miami, FL 331~8

being a tough opponent of government spending - even referred to as an "ogre" by

Inquiries from Friends

a California state lawmaker fur her cuts to .

and 'Family We1come

the state's public health care system - this tough posture on governmental spending does not seem to apply to Arduin's rate of pay.

1-800-637 -4104 www.prismoptical.com contact@prismoptical.com

. For example, just as Arduin was paid

$10,000 per month by the Florida House

under Rubio, and $7,000per month in

the Florida Senate under Atwater, she'

was paid $10,248 per month at the time.

MARILEE MARSHALL & ASSOCIATES, ATTORNEYS AT LAW

California St~te ~ar Board of Specialization.
Certified Criminal Law and . Appellate Law Specialist
If you have a California case you need a' California lawyer!
(213) 4;89~7715

~tate a~d Federal Appeals and Writs, Lifer Parole Hearings and Related Writs .29 years' of success
523 West Sixth Street, Suite 11 09 Los Angeles, CA. 90014 marileemarshallandassociates.com

Prison Legal News

7

March 2011

Page 4P2L9NCOL-00367

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-8 Filed 01/31/12 Page 9 of 28

As a REIT, CPT was essentially the there were indeed conflicts of interest on

GEO Legacy of Corruption (cont.) entity which held all of Wackenhut/GEO's the part of Civigenics in that the company'

real estate holdings.

. did not report that two of its employees in

· min'jstration, Wackenhut Corrections

.While CPT was technically a separate the state were former high-ranking Cali-

paid 011t $5,000 to the Californians for independent entity outside the purview fornia Department of Corrections and

Schwarzenegger 2003 PAC.

of Wackenhut/GEO, at the time of its Rehabilitation (CDCR) employees who

On November 17, 2003, Arduin as- creation the REIT's holdings consisted were still receiving arinuities from CDCR.

sumed her role as director of finance.

solely of Wackenhut properties. When it [See: PLN, July 2Q06,p.23].

Three days later, Wackenhut Cor- was eventually merged back into GEO

However, the report found no evidence

· rections paid out an additional $16,200 Group in 2007 (at which time it became of wrongdoing on the part of Arduin as
to the Californians for Schwarzenegger GEO Acquisition II, a Delaware corpo- per the odd timing of her appointmellt to

2003 PAC. Also on November 20,2003, ration governed by Zoley, Calabrese and CPT, because "since the former finance

Wackenhut Corrections paid out$36,800 GEO General Counsel John Bulfin), the director is associated with the trust [CPT]

to. Schwarzenegger's "Total Recall Com- REIT owned 13 properties, 11 of which and not with GEO, it does not appear that

miftee, Vote Yes to Recall Gray Davis," a . it "leased" to GEO.

.

, she has a conflict of interest in regards to

PAC established by the Schwarzenegger

Due to this extremely close relation':' the McFarland contract."

-

campaign in 2003 that remained acti-ve ship to. Wackenhut/GEO, Securities and

The report made no mentio.n of the

through 2005, which was intendetlto Exchange Commission (SEC) auditors , business relationship between CPT and

drive the 2003 ballot initiative to recall the . had questioned on at least one occasion Civigenics, or of the fact that CPT was

election of former California Governor whether CPT was in' fact an entity inde- an offshoot of GEO.

Gray Davis.

pendent of Wackenhut/GEO.

What's more, the report stated that

During Arduin's tenure as Califonlia's

In 2006, following the announcement the California State Auditor could find

director of finance, two private prisons that CPT was. set to merge with GEO (ef- no evidence that Arduin had influenced

which had been decommissioned in 2003 . fective January 2007), CPT shareholders CDCR's. decision to reopen the facilities.

· by Governor Dayis, McFarland Com-filed class action suits seeking injunctions

However, the report failed to note that

munity Correctional Facility (CF) and against the merger in Maryland and Flor- just prior to her appointment as director

Mesa Verde CF,w,ere re-appropriated and ida courts, alleging that the merger was an of finance, Arduin had been commissioned

reopened' with no-bid contracts issued inside deal beneficial to CPT trustees and by the Schwarzenegger administration to

to the GEO .Group and another private GEO executives and that there were.irrec- perform an audit of California's governprison company, Civigenics, for 'operation oncilableconflicts of interest betwe~n the ment and state finances.

of the facilities.

two. As such, the shareholders alleged that , Whether or not that audit recom-'

On October 28, 2004, 13 days. after the merger was in essence GEO bringing' mended reopening the private prison

her resignation from the Schwarzenegger its real estate holdings back in-house - al- facilities is unkJ;lOwn, as there are no audit

administration, Arduin was elected to legations which Arduin flatly denies.

reports authored by Arduin on file w.ith

replace George Wackenhut (co-founder of

Both shareholder suits were settled either the Department of Finance or with

Wackenhut Corp. and Wackenhut Correc:- . out of court in 2008 under undisclosed the Officeof GovernorSchwarzenegger.

tions, who had died earlier that year) on terms.

While written communications in

the board of trustees of CentraCore Prop-

At the time of Arduin's appointment the form of emails. and memos do exist

ertiesTrust (AKA Correctional Properties to the CPT board, as well as during her between Arduin and Schwarzenegger, the

Trust, CPT), the real estate investment service under Schwarzenegger, McFar- administration refused (in July 2010) to

tiust (REIT) of Wackenhut/GEO.

land CF was owned by CPT and leased release any of those documents for'public

CPT was founded i1) 1998 by Rich- to GEO.

inspection.

. ' ard and Geo"rge Wackenhut, along with'

In January. 2006, CPT finalized its

When asked specifically for any

several other Wackenhut Corrections purchase of Mesa Verde CF, operated by written communications between Ar-

directors and executives, including current Civigenics, another CPT customer, which duin and the Governor from the month

GEO Group director and then-mayor of also operated (l CPT-owned minimum prior to Arduin's sudden resignatio.n

South Bay, Florida (which incidentally is security prison in New Jersey.

. and appointment to CPT, Deputy Legal

the site of GEO's South Bay CF), Clar- . Following Arduin's appointment Affairs Secretary to. the Office of the

ence Anthony. ' .

Jo CPT, the California State Auditor Governor Dan Maguire responQed that

Additionally, GEO Group/Wacken- launched an investigation into the ap- while such documents do exist, any and hut Corrections pr~sident and CEO pearance of conflicts of interest in the all communication$ between Arduin and

George Zoley was a founding CPT trustee,McFarland/Mesa Verde deals.

. Schwarzenegger are exempt from public'

· holding several tens of thousands of shares

According to the California State disclosure' under executive and delibera-

of common stock inthecorripany.

Auditor's investigative report,' issued on tive process exemptions to the state's open

'Over the course of the REIT's exis- September l3, 2005, the Schwarzenegger records laws.

tence, CharlesR. Jones served as CPT administration had relied on a misleading

When asked that the administra-

President and CEO. According to court' cost-benefit analysis which did not factor tion waive its legal right to withhold

documents, Jones CPT founding trustee in other potential cost saving measures in executive communications between Ar:':

along with Zoley - was Wackenhut's "in- awarding the no-bid contracts to Civigen- duin and Schwarzenegger in the spirit of

vestment banker" at the time 'of CPT's ics and GEO.

transparency and open government -in

inception. .

Additionally, the state found that that there is a definite public interest in

March 2011-

8

Prison Legal News

Page 4P3L0NCOL-00368

•

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-8 Filed 01/31/12 Page 10 of 28

, knowing whether or not Al~d.uin advo- Wachovia, which in 2008 merged with FDOC employees in regard to a wide ar-

cated for the Mesa Verde or McFarland Wells Fargo. As of January20, 2011, Wells ray of charges including assault, steroids

, CF fe-appropriations, or whether Gov. Fargo and Compariy owned 3,623,603 distribution, misappropriation of state

Schwarzenegger had knowledge of Ardu- shares, or 5.62 percent, of GEO Group. funds/resources, and a kickback scheme

in'~ imminent appointment to 'CPT - the

Arduin says she has no knowledge' involving two private pris.on canteen

administration refused, stating, " ...there of any personal financial interest in First service providers, Keefe Commissary Net-

are strong policy reasons to protect the Clearing Corporation or in Corestates and ' work and American Institutional Services

confidentiality ofcommunications to and does not know why that entry was made (AIS). [See: PLN, Feb. '2:011, pA2].

from the Governor's Office.. Disclosure on her 2000 financial disclosure statement

According to FDLE records, Crosby

of such communications could chill the - outside the possibility of clerical error continued in his threat, putting a fine point

candid discussion of critical iss].les, and on the part of her assistant.

on his demands after Brad Tunnell stated

deprive the Governor of information he needs to discharge his duties.... Therefore we are not producing these documents

Strange Appearances and Strange Bedfellows

that he didn't understand what Crosby was getting at: "AC [Alle'n Clark], they need ,to layoff AC. They need to leave.

,'to you.",

J

On the, evening of Monday, August him the fuck alone. You need to tell your

It is unclear at what point Arduin ' 22,2005, a party of high-ranking Florida dad."

became involved in the private prison Department of Corrections officials met

Tunnell claimed that he responded

business, though a statement of financial up at a bar in Tallahassee. The bar was by stating he could not tell his father

interests filed with the Florida Commis- Clyde and Costello's, an establishment 'how·to do his job, to which Crosby alleg-

sion on Ethics in 2000 may shed some known to cater to the Tallahassee lobby- edly responded by threatening to open an

light on that history. The document lists ist/mover,.arid-shaker crowd. The party administrative investigation into a brawl

Arduin's primary source' of income as that night consisted of FDOC Secretary Tunnell had reportedly been a party to at

being First Clearing Corporation, simply James Crosby, Washington Correctional an FDOC event earlier that year.

described as a "brokerage."

Institution Warden Rick Anglin, Gulf

Su~sequent event~ '-, namely the

Documents on file with the Flor- Correctional Institution Warden Dale

ida Secretary of State, Division 'Of Hughes, and FDOC Region 1 Correction-

Corporations, reflect that First Clearing Corporation (a North Carolina company doing business in Florida) merged into Corestates Securities Corp. (a Pennsylvania corporation) in 1998.

al Services Consultant Brad Tunnell. According to documents obtained'
from the Florida bepartment of Law Enforcement (FDLE), sometime toward the end of the evening, Crosby took Tunnell ,

S
In Pro Per any State or Federal
(9 Appeals (9 Writs

SEC documents show that in i 996
Corestates Financial Corp. (a corporate relative of Corestates Securities Corp.) purchased 12,000,200 shares; or 54.7055

to the side and told him, "You know, you need to talk to your dad. You need to get him off my boys."
Brad Tunnell's father, Guy Tunnell,

(9 Petitions • Placement • Forfeitures'· Crack Law • Immigration Removal

percent, ofWackenhut Corrections. Un- was FDLE Commissioner at that time.

der this ownership class; Corestates was

At the time of tlie August 2005 meet-

considered to be a "parent holding com;. ing at Clyde and Costello's, FDLE was

Jeffrey S. Blanck, Esq. 485 West 5th St., Reno, NV 89503

pany" of Wackenhut Corrections; •

investigat~ng Crosby, FDOC Regio"!l 1 775 324·6640

Corestates subsequently merged With Director ,Allen Clark and several other ,jblanck@jeffreyblancklaw.com

U1C~Dc:'r1: Prison L al News

with

beautiful gifts!

, CALL 802":'25'1-"11342, MAIL ORDER OR USE WEB FORM

HTTP://WWW.PRISON LEGALN EWS.ORG/

'.

\

Hand Embroidere~ Greeting Cards

Made by women prisoners in Cochabamba, Bolivia. Each card is indiVidually made, no two are identical. The p'risoners are paid a fair wage for each card and keep 100% of, the pay to support themselves and their families. Local fair trade non-profits in Bolivia supply the materials for the card~. $6.

HandMade Hemp Tote Bag All natural h~mp tote bag hand made in Vermont with the Prison Legal News logo on both sides, .in red and black. Great for carrying books, groceries, and more! Stamped on the inside that no sweatshop, prison or child labor was used in its manufacture. $12.
56 shipping and handling for orders under 550.

PrisdnLegal News

9

Match 2011

Page 4P3L1NCOL-00369

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-8 Filed 01/31/12 Page 11 of 28

of a Keefe executive's $5,000 credit card there to meet us, he might have been he

GEO Legacy of Corruption (cont.) bill in October 2005; about a month after and Dave [Ericks] 'might have had some-

the Clyde and Costello's meeting.

thing to talk about, but I never had a

f~deral indictments and convictions of

Furthermore, a federal civil case meeting with him," said Arduin."I never

both Allen Clark and James Crosby in '(seekingforfeiture of criminally-obtained had any business with him after I left

2006 and 2007 shed some light on why revenue) based on the testimony of FBI the state of Florida. We were- we both

Crosby was so ,eager that the FDLE ,Special Agent Jannet Pellicciotti, which worked for the same administration for a

investigation iilt0 Clark end. [See: PLN, has been stayed pending the outcome of while. I was consulting for Speaker Ru- .

Dec. 2007, p.32].

the Deese and Dugger prosecutions, al- bio, but I never did any work for Sp'eaker

~ . Both Clark and Crosby had been leg'es that Keefe Commissary, along with ' Rubio that would have had me have a

involved in a kickback scheme in which' AIS, Crosby and Clark, is guilty of mail meeting with a corrections secretary.... But two, Gain~svi11e area, businessmen, Ed- fraud because the U.S. Postal Service was obviously, he had reasons to be meeting

ward Lee .Dugger and Joseph Arthur used to deliver ,the criminally-obtained with Dave."

Deese, proprietors of AIS, paid out ap- proceeds of the canteen partnership to

Interestingly, perhaps indicative of

proximately $130,.000 to Clark and Crosby Keefe's corporate Qffices in St. Louis, some shared business growth strate,gy,.

from October 2003 through February Missouri. ,

just as Ericks represented the interests

2006 in exchange for Crosby and Clark's

During the FDLE interview follow- of Keefe, GEO 'Group and ALME (at

facilitating and arranging a p.artnership ing Crosby's threat to Tunnell at Clyde a time when Arduin was a trustee of

between AIS and Keefe Commissary' and Costello's, Crosby stated that he, CPT) in Florida in 2005, this pattern of

wherein AIS provided visitor canteen EIicks and Arduin had spent a substantial mutual representation was replicated the

services at FDOC Region 1 facilities as ~ amount of time that evening speaking following year in Texas when Keefe, CPT,

, Keefe subcontractor.

privately outside the bar about an undis-' Atlantic Shores Healtbcare (the entity

Crosby stated under oath toFDLE closed subject. '

which would becom,e GEO Group's prison

in,vestigators looking into his alleged

Oddly enough, while FDLE investiga- medical service arm, G EO Care) were

hethreat to Tunnell on August 22; 2005 that tors had interviewed every person from all represented by Texas lobbyist Scott had gone to Clyde and Costello's that Ericks to. an off-duty cocktail 'waitress Gilmore, the former chi~f of staff to Texas

evening to meet with the bar's owner, Da- who had been drinking with the men re- State Rep. Ray Allen.

vid ;Ericks, and Ericks' longtime girlfriend, garding the events of the night of August

Crosby, who is currently incarcerated

Donna Arduin.

22,2005, they never interviewed Arduin. at a federal prison camp in Pensacola,

Ericks, aside from being the owner of

Further, it appears that then-Gover- turned down a request for an interview.

Clyde and Costello's, is' owner of Ericks nor Jeb Bush recognized the significance

Ericks did not return multiple phone

Consultants, a lobbying firm which, has of Clyde and Costello's as the setting ,calls and emails requesting comment.

represented Wackenhut/GEO Group for for this particular meeting. Accord- , It is also worth noting that every sin-

over a decade. Ericks was also the chief ing to FPLE transcripts, then-FDLE gle federal campaign contribution - except

lobbyist for Keefe Commissary in Florida Commissioner Guy Tunnell recalled for one - recorded by the Federal Election

from March 2005 through 2009. What's Bush's dismay during his briefing on the Commission (FEC) for Arduin over the,

more, Ericks represented Arduin, Laffer investigation following the threats made past decade lists her place of residence

and Moore Econometrics (ALME) in· by C r o s b y . ,

as either Ft. Lauderdale or Tallahassee.

2005.

, "The Governor was upset Crosby was The .exception is a $1,000 contribution

Additionally, Ericks paid the bar tab back at Clyde's again," recalled Tunnell to to then-Missouri Senator James Talent,

of $143.25 for the 31 drinks cons~med investigators, -suggesting that C'rosby had credited to Arduin in 2005, which lists her

by the FDOC officials that evening. It is ongoing business at Ericks' bar of which" place of residence as St. Louis, Missouri,

important to note that -all of the FDOC Bush Was aware.

, h o m e of Keefe Commissary and its parent

employees presentat the b~r that-evening,

Tunnell declined repeated requests . company, Centric Group.

with the exception. of FDOC Secretary for an interview, stating only, "I'm not

Arduin says that she has no recollec-

Crosby, wer~ high-ranking officials in interested in opening that painful chapt~r tion of any such contribution or any idea

FDOC Region 1 - the region for which of my family's life again."

\ why her address would be listed as being

all of the AIS/Keefe bribes were intended

Former Governor Bush could not be in St. Louis.

to facilitate business. .

.

reached for comment.

And while Arduin claims that she

Court documents filed with the mys-

For her part, Arduiri, who, was ap- never had any involverrient with Keefe,

teriously late indiqtments of Deese arid pointed by Bush to the Florida Property FEC records show tnat Senator Talent was
Dugger in June 20i 0 (given the fact that Tax Reform Committee the following year , the top pick above and beyond all other

both Crosby and Clark had already been (2006, while still serving as a CPT trustee), candidates for Keefe anq Centric Group

convicted and sentenced for their roles in denies the meeting ever took place, or 'during the 2006 election cycle - with at

, , the kickback scheme) indicate that Keefe that she ever had occasion to meet with least $35,950 in campaign contributions

was also a recipient of the kickbacks , Crosby outside of her role as an agency' from Keefe and Cen'tric Group execu-

reaped through the AIS/Crosby arrange- head of the Bush administration. Nor, tives and employees going to Talent from

ment in that Deese and Dugger would pay says Arduln, 'did she ever have any busi- October 2005 to June 2006.

both tp.C?netary and lion-monetary bribes' ness with Keefe.

Of this nearly $36,000 influx of cam-

to unnamed Keefe executives and repre-

"I 'never had a meeting with James paign cash, $20,000 wa~ paid directly into

. sentatives - most significantly the payment Crosby. I mean, if he sai~ he went over Talent's two 'political action committees

March 2011

10

Prison LegaJ News

Page 4P3L2NCOL-00370

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-8 Filed 01/31/12 Page 12 of 28

($10,000 to each) by Keefe and Centric conjunction with the June 2010 indict- proposal for presentation to the legisla~

Group President Douglas Albrecht. Al- ments of Deese and Dugger.

ture.

brecht retired from his post at the helm

Steve Cole, spokesman for the U.S.

Thus, ,not surpris\ngly, the Scott ,

of Keefe and Centric Group following the Attorney's Office in Jacksonville, the office. budget proposal takes heavy aim at the

Crosby and Clark indictments. He could which had prosecuted and whichcontin- state's prison system. Prior to revealing

not be reached for comment.

ues to prosecute all cases involving the the full proposa,l, Scott's "7-7-7" budget

Arduin was not alone in her sudden Crosby/AIS kic~back scheme, declined plan advertised a reduction in co'rrectional

interest in Missouri lawmakers 'in 2005. to comment on any aspect of any related costs Iby $1. billion simply by "payin'g

Ericks - who, ~ccording to data compiled cases - past or present - or whether further competitive market-based salaries for

by the National Institute on Money in indictments are fqrthcomi~g:

correction's staff, utilizing inmate labor

State Politics, has restricted his campaign

As for Arduin, she says she does not to grow prison food, and competitively

finance spending solely to florida law- know whether or not she cu,rrently has any bidding health care' contracts resulting

makers from 1998 to present - also broke financial interest in the GEO Group or in public prison costs that are as low. as

with his pattern of generosity in 2005 with any other private corrections interests. private prisons..:." ,

a gift of $600 to the campaign of Mi~souri 0

"My investment guys have me In so

In reality, as indicate,d by the Febru-

State Senator Brad Lager.,

. many different mutual funds, I can't .. : ary7 unveiling of the full budget proposal,

, While Ericks and Arduin are no lon- 1. have no idea," said Arduin. "I' don't· ,the plan calls for the elimination of nearly

ger romantically involved, it seems that know."

8,700 state g'overnment job positions -

their business relationship is alive and

Over the course of the 20 10 mid- 1,690 of which would be eliminated from

well; Arduin's residential property in Ft. term election year, Arduin worked as an the FDOC through $82 million in bu~get

Lauderdale is Jointly owned by herself advisor to the campaign or' U.S. Senator cuts.

and Ericks.

.

Rubio, as well as to the campaign of

the cuts are to be made in favor of

Incorporation pap,~rs on file with the' newly-elected Florida Governor Rick increased utilization of services offered by

Florida Secretary of State, Division of' Scott. She currently heads Scott's budget private companies, sucll' as GEO Group.

Corporations from 2005 to present for advisory team.

' In fact, the budget proposal calls for the

ALME, and for Ardriin Associates, list

placement of up to 1,500 state prisoners in

Arduin's business address as 205 S. Ad-

Subsequent Events

privately-run facilities, the closure of two

ams in Tallahassee. 205 S. Adams is also

On February 7, 2011, Governor Scott. yet-to-benamed 'public prisons and an-

the address for Ericks Consultants. The unveiled his budget proposal to cut ap- other $32.5 million to be set aside for the

building located at 205 S. Adams is owned proximately $5 biliion in state spending. express purpose of renegotiating existing

by Ericks Consultants. In fact, Arduin's The proposal is the actuation of Scott's private prison contracts with the goal of

'office is the office of Ericks Consultants "7.:.7-7 Jobs" plan ("seven steps, seven . maximizing private prison capacity.

- the two share the same phone and fax years, 700,000 jobs"), which was much

Additionally, the budget plan calls for

numbers. The receptionist who picks up , touted by the Scott camp over the course the privatization of all three of Florida's the phone when you call 'looking for Ar- of the 2010 campaign as the only real solu- . public mental hospit,als ~ which seems ide-

duin says, "Ericks Consultants, how may' tion for Florida's deep fiscal woes.,

ally suited forGEO Group's correctional

I help you?"

, The plan was Donna Arduin's key and mental health care subsidiary, GEO

FBI Special Agent Rick Dent de- contribution to the Scott campaign as Care (already the largest private provider

clined to confirm or deny whether the head of Scott's budget advisory team, of such services in the state).

FBI is investigating any other parties in tasked with assembling the full budget

These proposed budg~t measures

CALIFORNIA LIFER NEWSLETTER

CLN: A comprehensive newsletter mailed every 6S weeks. State and federal cases, parole board new's, statistics, legislation and articles on prison, parole and correctional issues of interest to inmates and their families.
~
CLN also provides services such as copying and forwarding federal and state cases, articles 'and news and materials available on the Internet.
SUBSCRIPTIONS: Prisoners: $25 (or SO stamps) per year (6 issues minimum)..' Free persons: $90.,
CLN, Box,687, Walnut, CA 91788

The ONLY social network site specifically for prison inmat~s!

Connect like Never Before: The over 500 million Facebook and MySp.1ce users can connect and share with your PriSonlnmates.com profile with the simple click of a button,
Member for Life! Refer one new member who loins Prlsonlnmates.com and your profile will be extended until your release.

The Best Prices & Services Period! $25 - One Year Annual Ad Ad extended Indefinitely with one referral! $15 - Annual Messaging Service,
Got Corr/inks? So Do We! We email all the eOlTespondence sent to your < proRle usually the same day as we receive thein, , Send us a request to connect on Corrllnks. Info@Prlsonlnmates.com '

Messaging Service: Messages mailed to you twice each month along with the senders contact
Information. * Must sign up for our
Annual Messaging Service to get this.
GetA Free Brochure: Send a self addressed stamped Legal Size envelope (4'')(9'') to the address below for Information & application.

We're NOT a Pen Pal Service! PrIson pen pal sites are so year 2000. A profile with Prlsonlnmates Is your connection th3t you keep with the oUtside world for as long as you are Incarcerated,
We Connect Friends. Family & More! We help connect Inmates with friends, family • and those who wish to correspond with For Inmates seeking new friends & relationships there Is simply no petter place,

ffinis'0nimrnates.C0rn - 8® I3®X 8560,- ffianl7um N\z 8804i-E58©

Prison Legal News

11

March 2011

Page 4P3L3NCOL-00371

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-8 Filed 01/31/12 Page 13 of 28

legislative services David Mud"ell said of

This article was originally published by

GEOLegacy of Corruption (cont.) .Scott's proposed budget plan. "It's .very DBA Press onFebruary 1, 2011 (ht,tps.'//

political. The private corporations have dbapress.com/archives/655) and.is reprinted

have not gone unopposed, however. The been very helpful to the' gov.ernor and with permission of the author, who provided

Florida Police Benevolent Association his people." "

.

this updated version

CPBA) , which represents state prison

-guards, has' strongly objected to. the job cuts, while a series of heated pre-legislative

Summary Judgment for Illinois Jai.l

session exchanges has played out since the revelation of Scott's budget plan.

Nurse Reversed in Wrongful De~th Suit

Sen. Mike Fasano (R-New Port Richey), chairman of the Senate Civil and Criminal Justice Budget Subcommittee, has been the most outspoken legisla-

by Brandon Sample. .
T he u.s. Court of Appeals for the Dr. Corey Weinstein; attributed Taylor's Seventh Circuit reversed, a grant death to the conduct of jail medical staff.

tive critic of the plan, questioning why of summary judgment in favor of a ,Specifically; Dr. Weinstein concluded that

thti: Governor would push for increased nurse at Illinois' Peoria County Jail Taylor'S vomiting in combination with tak-

spending on prison privatization when (PCJ) w~o was accused of providing. ing diuretics may have contributed to her

existing state facilities have thousands of deliberately indifferent medical care heart failure. Dr. Weinstein alsoosuggested

unoccupied beds.

to a prisoner.

that had acceptable medical standards been

"Private prisons make a profit on

India Taylor was arrested and taken followed, Taylor's d'eath could have been

the New York Stock Exchange," Fasano to the PCJ on October IS, 2003. Taylqr, prevented.

noted. "Government should not be in the who suffered from congestive heart fail-

The district court, however, e.xcluded_

business of helping companies make a ure, did not feel well during the booking . Dr. Weinstein's testimony and granted st.Im-

profit, and that's what we're doing here." process. She complained of chest pain mary judgment to the defendants. Taylor's

As such, Sen. Fasano sharply ques- and told guards the next .morning that estate appealed and the Seventh Circuit

tioned two Scott administration officials , she was vomiting and suffering from affirmed in"partand reversed in part.

about the governor's proposed budget heroin withdrawal.

Concerning the exclusion of Dr. Wein-:-

plan to cut FDOC job positions. Conse- . Around 9 A.M., Taylor'saw Pam stein's testimony, the Court of Appeals

quently, a Scott spokesman suggested that Hibbert, a contract'nurse at PCI Taylor's held that the district court erred i1). deem-

the governor's staff would boycott future blood pressure was up and she continued . ing the doctor's testimony unreliable. "Dr.

subcommittee hearings, though Scottlater to complain of nausea. Hibbert, however, Weinstein, based on his medical experience,

denied that was the case..

sent Taylor back to her cell. Later, during provid~d a sufficient scientific basis for his

Nevertheless, Fasano and others seek- . a video bond hearing, Taylor vomited position that, among other things, Taylor's

ing answers regarding Florida's continued violently. Guards present during the vomiting could have exacerbated her heart

unprecedented slide towards wholesale hearing collected Taylor's vomit and condition and hastened her death," the ap-

prison privatization need look no further notified Nurse Hibbert.

pellate court wrote. And while the 'district

than February 6, 2011, Superbowl Sunday,

Rather than see Taylor, Hibbert court was critical of Dr. Weinstein's fail-

to get an idea of Scott's cozy relationship told guards to have her fill out a sick· ure to provide another possible'cause of

with the private prison industry.

call request and she would be seen in Taylor's heart failure, the Seventh Circuit

As reported by the Orlando Sentinel, the morning. Hibbert was getting off in. emphasized that "an expert need not testify ,

Scott attended a Superbowl party held 'at a few minutes and d~d not want to take with complete certainty about the.cause of

the home-of lobbyist Brian Ballard the time to deal with Taylor. Besides, Hibbert an injury; rather he may testify that one fac-

day before the unveiling of the budget . thought Taylor was faking her illness in tor could have been a contributing' factor

proposal. Florida lobbying disclosure order to obtain drugs.

.

tO,a given outcome."

records indicate that Ballard is a longtime

Guards helped Taylor fill out the , Finally, the Court of Appeals held

state l~gislative lobbyist for Corrections request,and she was scheduled to see the that the district court had erred in grant-

Corporation of America (CCA) and, as jail's doctor the next morning. Howeyer, ing summary judgment to Hibbert. "Given

of January 14, 2011, an executive branch Taylor did not make it through the night; that Nurse Hibbert refused to treat or even

lobbyist for GEO 'Group.

she died around 3:40 A.M.

see Taylor in spite of her serious medical

According to the Sentinel,Ballard

One of the guards who tried to 'get condition, a jury could easily find that

helped raise mor~ than $3 million for Nurse Hibbert to see Taylor was so both- her actions surpassed mere negligence

Scott's inaugural celebration. Addition- ered by Hibbert's brush off thatshe filed and entered the realm of deliberate indif-

ally, GEO. Group beyond donating a "jail incident report" against Hibbert, feren€e."

more than $400,000 to' the Republican. accusing her of ignoring a significant

The judgment of the district court

Party of Florida during the 2010 election medical problem. Taylor's estate sued granting summary judgment to Nurse Hib-

cycle contributed $25,000 to Scott's Hibbert and other jail staff, arguing that bert was therefore. reversed. The Seventh

inauguration.

Taylor received deliberately indifferent Circuit affirmed the grant of summary

Presumably, based on Scott's recently medical care.

I

judgment to the remainder of the defen-

unveiled budget bill, G EO is getting what . All of the medical experts in the case dants. The case settled following remand.

it's paid for. "It's really just a gift to the agreed that' Taylor had died from heart See: Gayton v. McCoy,'S93 F.3d 610 (7th private prison industry," PBA director of failure. However, the plaintiff's .expert, Ci~. 20 I0), rehearing denied. "

March 2011

Prison Legal News

Page 4P3L4NCOL-00372

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-8 Filed 01/31/12 Page 14 of 28

Band--aid ~ppl~ed to Florida's Homeless, Sex Offender C,olony Falls Off,

UNGER & HERSHKOWITZ Attorneys at Law

by David M. Reutter

W hen FI~rida'sMiami-Dade County complied with the residency restrictions,
. adopted an ordinance that extended apd to pay their rent .and utilities for six

the 1,600-foo't state law residency restric- months. However, the temporary leases

tionsfor sex offenders to 2,500 feet, the began.expiring in July 2010 and most of

estimated 100 sex offenders who return the offenders remain unemployed. "If

to Miami-Dade each year after being they can't afford rent, we may be back to

released from prison. were'left with few square one," said Levenson..

options as to where they could live.

Ironically, the Homeless Trust's

One of the few places they could re- chairman, Ron Book, had successfully

side was under the Julia Tuttle Causeway lobbied to increase sex offender residency

bridge. PLN has previously. reported on restrictions. He realizes the future is bleak

,this situation apdthe squalor that released for sex offenders in Miami.;.Dade. "I have,

sex offenders had to live in under the deep concerns that these people, who have

bridge to avoid violating conditions of somehow assumed,we are a welfare agency

their supervised release. [See: PLN, June and that we have deep pockets, are going

2008, p.l;'July 2009, p.36; Dec. 2009, to end up back somewhere on the streets," .

p.14].

said Book. "We just don't know where."

In July 2009, as many ~s 140 people

Book is firm in his belief that the

were living under the Julia Tuttle bridge. dilemma of homeless sex offenders is not

They had erected rickety shanties and due to residency requirements but rather

installed a generator to provide electric- their inability to find a job. In any event,

ity - for living necessities and to power they can expect no more assistance from

their GPS monitors but qid not have the Homeless Trust. "As far as we're

running water.

.

concerned, our help for people under the

Once the sex offender colony grew . bridge is done," Book stated~

and began expanding from under the

Upon their temporary leases expir-

bridge into the public view, an uproar ing, the sex offenders from the bridge

resulted with concerns about public colony wili either have to pay rent or move

safety and the impact of the county's sex ' back onto the streets. They cannot go to

offender resideilcy ordinance. Several' homeless shelters because the shelters

lawsuits wer~ filed, to no avail.

in Miami-Dade County are all in areas

In October 2009, the 'Miami-Dade restricted to sex offenders.

County Homeless Trust awarded an

,Finding a job as an ex-convict is '

$818,000 contract to Tampa Bay Lutheran already tough; experts estimate the un-

Services to locate available housing,'offer employment rate among former prisoners

employment assIstance and pay· tempo- is 80%. Being without housing or other

rary rent and utilities for 92 sex offenders support makes it virtually impossible to

who were still living under the bridge.

find work, plus there is the added stigma

Afterthree years of effectively forCing of a sex offense conviction.

sex. offenders to form a homeless colony

The Florida Department of Correc-

under the Julia Tuttle Causeway, officials tions is providing released sex offender$ put up '~No Trespassing" signs and tore with a map that depicts places they can

down the shanties. By March 2010 the , sleep. "If it's a parking lot or a street cor-

entrance to the bridge colony was sealed ner or a wooded area, we have to make

, off and the former re~idents were moved sure they stay there/' said FDOC spokes-

" to alternative housing 'such as apartments, woman Gretl Plessinger.

motels and trailer parks.

In the typical pass-the-buck mentality

"The problem with this 'solution, it of government agencies, the state created was only temporary; a band-aid," ~aid Jill the sex Dffender residency restrictions and

Levenson, a professor at Lynn University the county expanded ,those restrictions,

in Boca Raton, 'Florida who is studying the ,but neither wants to take responsibility

impact of sex offender residency laws.

for the resulting problem of homeless of-

, The cqunty's solution was to move' fenders living on the streets. ,.

homeless sex offenders from under the

bridge'into a few neighborhoods that, Source: Miami 1ierald

CPS Defense C~iminal Appeals & Writs
Fighting to ,Keep Texas Families Together
510 Bering Dr. Ste. 300 Houston, TX 77057 (713) 917-6878
TexasLegalProblems.com Free Con'sultation
We Take All Credit Cards
"What all victims of medical
malpractice, in or out ofprison, need to know to vindicate their rights."
V.ictim's guid~ to secrets of malpractice lawsuits
by Lewis Laska, J.D., Ph.D•.
$39.95
+ $6 S&H for orders under·$50
Order by mail, phone, or on-line from
PRISON LEGAL NEWS
Dedicated to Proteding Human Righ~s P.O. Box 2420 • West Brattleboro VT 05303 Tel [802]257-1342 ·www.PrlsonLegaINews.org

Prison Legal News

13

March 2011

Page 4P3L5NCOL-00373

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-8 Filed 01/31/12 Page 15 of 28

From the Editor

by Pilul Wright

On an 011goingbasis PLN conducts quires extensive resou'rces and we rely On corporate masters, then please take this sample mailings to the mailing reader support to be able to undertake opportunity to support our work by send-

lists of other organizations and puplica- these censorship cases. If you like our ing a donation. ,

tions as part of our efforts to reach new news coverage and believe in the notiop

Enjoy this issue of PLN and please

potential subscribers who may not be of a free press that is not censored and encourage others to subscribe and doaware of us and to encourage them to contrQIled by the, government and its nate. ~ \

subscribe. Occasionally this causes some

confusion when existing subscribers receive sample copies of PLN in addition

Nevad·a Agrees to Settle Class Action Lawsuit"

to their sUbscriptiori copy. If you have 'Over Medical Treatment at Ely State Prison.
received multiple copies of PLN simply

I look at the address label; the GOpy that is
part of your PLN subscription will have

n July 2010, Nevada officials agreed to claim for 'monetary damages; thus, ac- " settle a federal class action lawsuit filed cording to the 'notice approved by Jhe

an expiration date for your subscription by the ACLU pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 19S3 court, the settlement will not preclude

on the line above your address. Sample" that alleged constitutionally "inadequate damage claims by individual Ely prison-

copies will not. If you are already a PLN medical care at Ely State Prison. "

ers. On the other hand, there may be a

subscriber and receive additional copies

The ACLU initiated the lawsuit after preclusive effect with respect to medical

please pass them along to friends who commissioning a medical report to inves- care-related claims for declaratory or

may be interested in subscribing. One tigate conditions at Ely. The investigation, injunctive relief filed before - although,

way to keep costs down is to increase our conducted by "Dr. William Noel, found depending on the specific circumstances ""

readership, as the "more subscribers we ""a pattern of gross medical abuse" that of the individual prisoner, possibly not

have the lower our per issue costs. You threatened the health and safety of the after - the lawsuit is dismissed following

can help in this process by encouraging" 1,000 prisoners housed at the facility. approval of the settlement.

others to subscribe to PLN.

According to Dr.Noel, "the medic'.ll care

The terms of the settlement agreement

This month's cover story is"about the "provided at Ely State Prison amounts to will be implemented via a plan of action

ongoing corruption that permeates the the grossest possible m~dical malpractice, based" in part on standards established by

private prison industry in general and and the most shocking and callous disre- the Natiomil Commission on Correctional

the private prison industry in Florida In gard for human life and human suff~ring, Health Care as set forth in the Commis-

!) particular; sadly, Florida prisoners will that I have ever encountered in tl).e medical sion's 200S publication, "Standards for

not be able to read this article because for profession in my thirty-five years of prac- Health Services in Prison."

the past eight months or so the Florida tice." [See: PLN, June 200S, p.1S].

' In the area of medications, the"plan

DOC has censored c:tll copies of PLN by

Under the" terms of the proposed of action calls for the monitor to evalu-

claiming"that our ads for pel) pals, phone settlement agreement, the State of NeY§.Lda ate and propose any necessary changes to

services and postage sti;l.mps"are somehow \ and all named defendants denied having the timely dispensing and administration a threat to prison security. Longtime read- eng~ged in any culpable conduct but of medications at Ely, The monItor will

ers may recall the Florida DOC" did the agreed to the appointment of a neutral, <!onsider, for example, whether and to

. same thing in 2003 and when we sued, on expert medical monitor, Dr. Ronald Shan- what extent increased oversight and ac-

the morning of trial, they rescinded their sky, for a period of not less than two years. countability mechanisms may be needed

policy claiming they would never again do The monitor will evaluate the state's corri- . to "ensure the safe and timely adminissuch a thing~ Alas, the district court and pliance with the terms of the settlement in tration of medication. In consultation

appeal'S COUft fell for the lie and declared six areas:rhedications, chronic care, sick with the monitor, the defendants will set

the case moot and a few years later they do ca1.l, intra-system transfers, off-site medi-" up a medication dispensing system that

the same thing again.l'believe that this is a cal services and infirmary care.

\ ' complies with the monitor's recommenda-:-

pretext for the fact that they simply dislike

The monitor will review pertinent tions. They shall develop and implement

PLN's content which tells it like it is.

documents related to medical treatment, "" written protocols to help ensure there are

The New York prison system has and will interview staff and a sufficient no lapses in medication, whether due to a

als"o banned PLN by claiming that our number of prisoners to assess ongoing l prisoner's transfer, a rieed to refill or renew

acceptance of postage stamps as payment" conditions at Ely. "

a prescription,or other reasons,

violates their policies even though we have

The monitoring will end after two

The defendants will ensure thaLpa"

done so since. 1990. All books distributed years, but only if t,he state has achieved tients refusinK medication are provided

by PLN as, well as PLN the magazine are substantial compliance in each of the six in-person counseling regarding the con-
being banned by New York state prisons. areas cited in the settiement. Disputes sequences of-incomplete adherence to a

Even the free diabetes manual which regarding the extent of c0mpliance and prescribed course of treatment. They will

we distribute free of charge to diabetic the need for continued monitoring will develop protocols for the treatment of

prisoners! "

"

be subject to binding mediation' before a acute pa"in that do not involve placement

We are preparing to challenge tllese mediator agreed "to by both parties.

of the patient in the infirmary, and shall.

statewide censorship attacks but this re-

The ACLU's lawsuit involvecl no ensure that medication is administered at a

March 2011

14

Prison "L~gal News

Page 4P3L6NCOL-00374

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-8 Filed 01/31/12 Page 16 of 28

medically approptiate time and in'a medi- unit and triaged no later than 24 hours

cally appropriate manner, taking dietary after receipt. '

considerations into account.

, For intra-system transfers, the plan of

In'terms of chronic, care, the plan,of .qction calls for all prisoners entering Ely

action calls for th~ defendants, in consul- to be medically screened by a registered

tation with the monitor, to ensure that a nurse or higher-level medical practitioner

health care treatment plan is developed within' 12 to 24 hours of admission. The

for each chronically ill patient. The treat- screening will take place in a confidential

"ri1ent plan will include, at a minimum, a setting and ensure that a patient's HIV

written initial evaluation with' a plan to status i~ not inadvertently disclosed.

achieve good disease control, short and

Concerning off-site services, the de-

long-range goals that are reviewed and fendants will ensure that, whennecess.ary,

updated at least annually via a face..:to- patients are provided timely access to an

face assessment, regular check-ups at outside specialist. '

least onc,e every three months, a yearly

With regard to infirmary care, the'

check~up with a physician if nece~sary, defendants shall'ensure that all infirmary

and laboratory work or other diagnostics patients are within sight or sound of

as appropriate for the prisoner's medical health care staff at al1 times" and that

condition. .

security staff do not provide any toutine

In the area of sick call, the plan medical care.

of action calls for the defendants to

Following a fairness hearing, the set-

implement any changes proposed by the tlement was approved by the district court

monitor. Nurses and other practitioners on ,October 28, 2010, and the plaintiffs

will be properly supervised and perform , were awarded $325,000 in attorney fees

only functions within the scope of their and costs. See: Riker v.Gibbons, U.S.D.C.

licenses, a medical doctor WIll be avail- ' (D. Nev.), Case No. 3:08-cv-00115-LRHable at leCl;st two days a week, sick call will VPC.'~

be available every day of the week in all

areas of the prison, and medical kites will Additional'source: www.nevadaappeal.

be pioked ul? 01). a daily basis from each com

YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO • Adequate medical care • Protection from assault • Humane living conditions • Safety from officer abuse
Learn how to defend your basic human rights with the comprehensive litiga-
tion guide, Protecting YOUI'
Health and Safety" 2nd edition, written specifically for prisoners who are unable to receive help from a lawyer.
\!yritten by ROber't E. Toone Edited by Dan Manville A Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center*
COST $16 total
($10 + $6 shipping/handling)
FREE shippingjhandli'ng for orders from Prison Legal News over $50
ORDER A COpy Send a check or money order to: Prison legal News PO Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303 (802) 257-1342
Be sure to include ypur name, identificatiol7 number (if any), and mailing address. We also accept
, VISA and Mastercard. If using a
credit card, please incluqe the type of card (VISA or Mastercard), card number, and expiration date.

This book does not deal with legal defenSE;) against criminal charges or challenges to convictions that are on appeal. Edition last revised in 2009.
*Please do not send orders to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Prison Legal News

15

March 2011

Page 4P3L7NCOL-00375

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-8 Filed 01/31/12 Page 17 of 28

Safety' Concerns of a Prisoner Rights Lawyer

by Jane Kahn i

'As part of the small talk that happens unless you are a psychiatrist or psy- neys to checkin with them after a prison

during holiday gatherings and at oth- chologist working within the California visit. We have encouraged advocates leav;,.

er events during the year, people ask me prison system where this is now standard. ing a prison to call a "buddy" after the

what I do. My work involves representing practic,e. I recall a prison visit where I visit to discuss anything that comes to

California prisoners'with severe mental observed suicidal prisoners meeting with mind in a version of "downloading" im-

illness. I am frequently asked whether their treatment team in the mental health ages. We have held several meetings where

I feel safe going inside of the prisons. crisis unit. One patient qfter another wa-s' advocates can talk about their feelings

Sometimes, I am asked how I dress to' meet brought into the small room wearing around the prison tours. And finally,

with my clients. Images of Attica seem to nothing but a blanket wrapped around in the midst of the preparation, for .the

hover overthe conversations. Since I am at his naked body. When the first patient, overcrowding trial (we recently conducted

a party, I give the qu'ick answer. I explain who was sitting within inches of me, kept extensive prison inspections with expert that I feel safe beca'use.I am visiting ,my his eyes av~rted during the "interview," he men~al health witnes~es as part of the dis-

clients and the prisons are well-guarded. . was finally asked why he would not look covery phase in the federal overcrowding .

If someone insists, I might tell a story. But up, and he haltingly replied: "lam naked, trial, Colen1anlPlata v. Schwarzenegger,

I keep it simple. It is not simple.

I'm embarrassed to sit here like this." N.D. CaUE.D. Cal.), when the tours and

Many of the attorneys and paralegals Noone responded, and when he left, the visits were extensive, we had a psychiatric

in our office have traveled regularly to see next naked prisoner was b,rought into the expert. provide training for the trial team

our clients housed in the 33 California' treatment session. Obviously, any harm on'mental health issues, on spotting sui-

, prisons scattered around the state. The at- to advocates observing these conditions cidal ideation in our clients during visits,

torneys also conduct monitoringtours of pales in comparison to the harm suffered' and, on coping with prison tours. Most

the prisons. The risk of harm to advocates by our clients as a result of these practices importantly, we stress to all staff that

entering California prisons to see their" and conditions'.

entering California prisons is not to be

clients is primarily the risk of continueq

There is a body of literature that taken lightlY., Simply by aCknpwledging

exposure to' the horrific conditions of discusses "secondary trauma," which the impact of these tours and the prisoner '

confinement that our clients must endure can occur among disaster relief workers, mail helps attorneys and paralegals know

every day. The severe overcrowding in the firefighters and mental health profession- that there is an open dOQr if they need to

California prisons, which was declared als who provide assistance, to those who talk. Sometimes family an<;l friend~ simply

'a state of emergency by Goy.' Arn.old have experienced trauma: Although "sec- cannot or do not want to hear the actual Schwarzenegger in 2006, has created ondary trauma" is accepted as a risk to, details of these prison vi~its or mail, but

extreme conditions that are degrading, those working in these fields, advocates colleagues involved in similar work can

dangerous and inhumane. Touripg prisons such as attorneys and paralegals can also provid~ significant support.

and observing the conditions which our experience secondary trauma responses· . At the socialevents when I am asked

clients must endure, while remaining in- and symptoms of b~rnout. (Andrew P. whether I feel 'safe i~ my work, the simple

capable .of remedying these conditions, or Levin and Scott Greisberg, "Vicarious answer is yes because correctional officers

rescuing our clients fr9m their: suffering, Trauma in Attorneys," 24 Pace L. Rev. accompany me inside the prison, and be-

can be painful and intolerable.

245 (2003), available at: http://digital- cause the prisoners know that I am their

It is 'especially difficult 'for plain- commons. pace. edu/plrIvol24/iss 1I 11). advocate. I rarely, if ever, talk about what

tiffs' counsel if the particular shocking When the advocates in our office tepeat- makes me feel unsafe: the shocking images

prison practice or conditiori is routine .edly tour the prisons and talk with our that remain with me from my many prisOIl

and acceptable' to' pri'son officials and clients about their lives inside, and then visits. No, then I would have to 'discuss the

fully defended by defense counsel. For .observe the conditions of confinement real risk of this prison reform work, and example, the ~idespread use of cages to (triple bunks in crowded gymnasiums .it would take all night. ~

hold' prisoners waiting for admissio,n to where prisoners are jammed with little

. suicide watch unJts, a practice initiated personal space; cages in hallways where' Jane Kahn is of counsel at Rosen, Bien &

system-wide due to overcrowding and prisoners waiting for a bed are placed; Galvan LLP, a San Francisco civil1iti-

bed shortages,is often not even noticed or suicide watch cells where patients are gation finn that is, also class counsel in

by,local clinician~ who have become forced to sleep naked on the floor" in severalprison civil rights actions. Photos of

inured to the prac'tice. Similarly, the locked down housing units with no pro- California prison conditions introduced as

observation of patients on suicide watch gramming), and then return to work to evidence in ihe overcrowding trial are avail-

sleeping naked on the floor i~ jarring. read letters from other pTisons detailing able at http://tinyurt:com/Coleman;'Trial.

.Hepatitis & Liver Disease
A Guide to Treating & Living wjth Hepatitis & Liver Disease. Revised .Ed.
By Dr. Melissa Palmer' . See page 53 for oreter information

the same or worse problems, the impact c:an be overwhelming. . In our office, we have experimented with various strategies for addressing the stress that· the prison tours and prisoner mail has on the attorneys and paralegals. We have assigned mentors to new attor-

[Ed. Note: Rosen, Bien & GalvanLLP has
represented PLN in several cases1
This article was originallypublished by the Daily Journal (wlvw.dailyjournal. com), and is reprinted with the permission of Daily JournarCorp. (2011)

March 2011

16

Prison Legal News

Page 4P3L8NCOL-00376

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-8 Filed 01/31/12 Page 18 of 28

Second Circuit: -New York's Persistent Felony Offender Statute' HeldC~nstitutional in En Banc Ruli~g

by Matt Clarke

T he Second Circuit Court of Appeals sentence often exceeds the maximum sen- Besser's petition was upheld.

found that New York's Persistent Fel- tence that could. be imposed if the PFOS

The petitioners were represented by New

ony Offender Statute (PFOS), N.Y Penal was not used to enhance the sentence. ' York City attorneys Richard M. Greenberg

Law § 70.10 , which allows enhancement

Defendants sentenced pnder the PFOS (Besser); Martin M. Locente of the Legal

of sentences for prior felony convictions, may appeal the sentence enhancement. The Aid Society (Phillips); Joshua Michael Levine

violated the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. state court of appeals may modify the sen- (Portalatin); Andrew C. Fine of the Legal

Constitution. However, that finding was tence "in the interest of justice."

Aid Society (Morris); and Jonathan M. Kir-

later'reversed by an en banc ruling.

The Second Circuit held tliat making shbaum (Washington). See: Bessler v. Wals/z,

James Besser, William Phillips, Carlos sentencing enhancement dependent upon a 601 F.3d 163 (2nd Cir. 2010).

Portalatin, Vance. Morris and William ruling by the judge on facts' other than the

. Upon rehearing en banc, however, the

Washington (petitioners), New York state simple existence of previous convictions was Second Circuit reversed the panel.decision

prisoners, filed separate federal habeas contrary to Blakely, which requir~s thatajury on October 18,2010. The en banc Court of

corpus petitions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § make any findings of fact that could result Appeals held that the state cQurts' rejection.

2254 that challenged the constitutionality in a sentence enhancement. However, prior' of the petitioners' argument that the sentenc-

of the PFOS. They alleged that the PFOS to Blakely, the law was unsettled on whether .ing courts had engaged in impermissible

violated the Sixth Amendment as clarified this violated the Sixth Amendment.

fact-finding when determining whether

and controlled by Blakely v. Washington,

Because Besser's conviction became imposition of a PFOS se.ntence was war~

542 U.S. 296 (2004) [fLN, Aug. 2004, p.14]. final before the Supreme Court decided ranted, and rejection of arguments that the

The district courts granted relief for Porta- Blakely, he could not receive relief due to PFOS statute requited sentencing courts to

latin and Washington but denied relief to the doctrine of nonretroactjvity set forth engage in impermissible fact-finding before

the other three petitioners. All five habeas in Teague .v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1988). imposing a PFOS sentence, did not consti-

cases were appealed, then consolidated. However, the other petitioners' were eli- tute an objectively unreasonable application

The Second Circuit held that appli- gible for relief.

of clearly established federal law.

cation of the PFOS woulci increase the

Yet this type of -issue was subject to

Therefore, New York's PFOS was

sentences of the petitioners. The PFOS . harmless error analysis pur~uant to Brecht v. not unconstitutionally applied and the

requIres that the state trial. judge find a Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993). Be~ause grant of. habeas relief to Portalatin was

defendant has. two priorofelony convictions, none of the district courts had conducted reversed, while the denials of habeas re- . .

and that "the history and character of an adequate harmless analysis and the issue lief to Phillips and Morrts were affirmed.

the defendant and the nature and Circum- had not been adequately briefed on appeal, Washington's case was not addressed in

stances of his criminal conduct" make it in the Second .Circuit vacated. the judgments. the en banc ruling, as he had died while

the public interest to enhance the sentence. of the' district courts in the Portalatin, the appeal was pending and his petition

If such facts are found by the court, the de:- Washington, Morris and Phillips cases , was thus rendered moot. See: Portalatin

fendant is given an' indeterminate sentence and remanded those cases for a harmless v. Graham, 624 F.3d 69 (2nd Ck 2010),

of 15 'years to life. The minimum PFOS . error analysis. The district court's denial of petition for cert filed."

REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS (BPH)
Rober.t L. S. Angres, Esq., Attorney at Law
PERSONALIZED SERVICE at reasonable rates with office'conveniently located in the central . valley near several California state prisons. '
~ Parolesuidbility hearings for life prisoners ~ ·Petitions for writ of h~bea~ corpus , following denials by BPH or the
Governor's office..
~ 14 years of experience in .
, criminal law
4781 E. GETTYSBURG AVE., SUITE 14 . FRESNO CA 93726 Tel (559)348'1918
CALIFORNIA CASES ONLY
Pris~n Legal News

PAROLE AND POST-CONVICTION LAWYER SCOTT DII HANDLEMAN
II California parole suitability and rescission hearings II Federal prisoner thirty-year hearings II Habe,as petitions fighting denial of parole II Felony appeals and misdemeanor trial defense. II Top-notch, affordable, zealous representation II Ove~ six y~ars experience
Law Office of Seott D.. Randleman
115 Y2 Bartlett Street San Francisco, CA 94110 . Tel: (415) 285:"6004 California state andfederal cases only

17 .'

March 2011

Page 4P3L9NCOL-00377

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-8 Filed 01/31/12 Page 19 of 28

U.S. Supreme Court Upholds $625,000 Judgment for Female Prisoner Molested by Ohio Prison Guard.

, by -John E. Dannenberg

On January 24, 2011,'theU.S. Supreme procedural defense when it no longer had dants, Jordan and Bright, shamelessly

Court (USSC), ruling on a relatively jurisdiction to do so.

.tried to shield themselves from liability

minor procedural issue regarding the timing

However, the USSC's decision, while by claiming their conduct "did not violate

of a defense motion for summary judgnlent, restoring Ortiz's well-deserved monetary clearly established statutory orconsthu-

upheld a $625,000 jury verdict awarded to judgment, is not the highlight of this tional rights of which a reasonable person

a female prisoner who was sexually abused case. The real story is that an Ohio prison would have known,"'by asserting a quali-

by an Ohio state prison guard.

guard, while performing his official duties, fied immunity defense.

'

Michelle Ortiz was assaulted by prison sexually assaulted a female prisoner -

Such is the sad state of justice for pris-

guard Douglas Schultz, who walked up twice - and that the prisoner was subjected oners who are victimized ,by prison staff

behind her in the washroom of her living to retaliation for reporting the assaults and then try to hold them accountable in

quarters and grabbed one of her breasts. and no discipline was t'aken agairist, the court. See: Ortiz v. Jordan, 131 S Ct. 884, When Ortiz reported this to her case man- .guard. Even more e'gregious, the defen- 562 U.S. (2011). ~

. ager, Paula Jordal1, Jordan suggested that

while Ortiz had a right to file a complaint, she counseled against it because it was Schultz's

Federal BOP's Exclusions from Early

last day working at the facility. Jordan advised Ortiz to simply stay in the company of other

Release Incentive for Substance Abuse

prisoners to avoid further sexual assaults. However, after Ortiz fell asleep ill her dorm, '

Program Completion, Struck DQw·n

she awoke ·to find' SChultz fondling her left

by Stephen G. Yagman '

breast with one hand while fingering her

vagina with the other.

The u.s. Ninth Circuit Court of'Ap~

The Court of Appeals' unanimous

When Ortiz further complained,peals has. invalidated the federal opinion chronicles the history of Con-

prison investigator Rebecca Bright put Bureau of Prisons' (BOP), policy state- gress's directives "to require the BOP to

her in solitary confinement, allegedly ment, 28 C.P.R. § 550.58(a)(1)(iv)(2000), 'make available appropriate substance

'to prevellt her from talking about the see 65 Fed.'Reg. 80745-01 (bec. 22, 2000), abuse treatment for each prisoner the

investigation with other prisoners. Qrtiz that denies prisoners who have been Bureau detennines has a treatable condi-

claimed she was segregated in retaliation convicted' of .the categorical . crimes of tion of substance addiction or abuse[,]'''

for her complaint.

homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggra- and the later provision of incentives for

Ortiz sued Jordan and Bright under 'vated assault and sexual abuse of a minor, . successful completion of the program, so

42 U.S.C. § 1983 for-failure to protect her .'one year off their sentences for successful tha,t "the BOP may reduce the sentence by

from Schultz's repeated assaults. Schultz completion of the BOP's substance abuse up to one year for an inmate who succeSs-

had resigned and fled to avoid service treatment program.

fully completes the program. 18 U.S.C. §

of process in the suit. The. case went to

JerryCrickonwasservingal51-month 3621(e)(2)(B)."

a jury trial, where Ortiz won verdicts of sentence at the feden1-1 prison camp in

Beginning in 1995, the BOP promul-

$350,000 against Jordan and $275,000 ' Sheridan, Oregon for conspiracy to possess gated rules to implementthe early release'

against Bright.

' ,

with intent to distribute methamphetamine. incentive and continued to do so until it is- I

On appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court In March 2Q07, he received notice that he ' sued a final rule in 2000. However, the final

of Appeals, the' defendants renewed an qualified for participation in the BOP's rule categorically ,excluded from eligibility

'earlier unsuccessful motion for summary Residential Drug Abuse Program, but was for the early release incentive all prison-

judgment that raised a qualified immunity- also informed that he was not eligible forers who had been convicted of homicide,'

defense. The Sixt\l Circuit reversed, find- the incentive offered in 18 U.S.C. § 3621 (e)', forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault

ing the district court should have granted which ordinarily provides one year's early 'and sexual abuse of a minor, no matter

qualified immunity to the defendants; the' release for successful completion of the how stale the convictions. ,

appellate court abo held the jury verdict nine-month program. The only reason·

In 2008 the Ninth Circuit struck

was "against the weight of the evidence." cited for Crickon's ineligibility for the early down the categorical exclusion from

[See: PLN, Sept. 2009, p.46].

release incentive was ~is 1970 conviction the early release incentive of prisoners

The USSC reversed the Sixth Circuit for voluntary manslaughter.

,convicted of offenses involving firearms,

on' the narrow question of the proper

The U. S. District Court denied because the BOP's policy violated the

be timing for such a motion, holding the .Crickon's § 2241 habeas corpus petition federal Administrative Procedure Act
defendants had waived their rights by :for an order that he allowed to receive ,(APA), which required the BOP t9 havean'

failing to bring the motion in a timely, the early release incentive, despite the fact "administrative record [that] cqntains [a]

procedurally correct manner, and that the' . that his manslaughter conviction was 38 rationale explaining the Bureau's decision

Sixth Circuit had erred in repairing this years old, and Crickon appealed to the, to categorically 'ex-dude prisoners with

failure by permitting resurrection of the Ninth Circuit.,

convictions invol~ing firearms from eli-

March 2011

18

Prison Legal News

Page 4P4L0NCOL-00378

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-8 Filed 01/31/12 Page 20 of 28

gibility for early release under § 3621(e)." See: Arrington v. Daniels, 516 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2008) [PLN, June 2009, p.44].
With the BOP having learned nothing from Arrington, it followed the same . path and practice with respect to oth<;!r categorically excluded convictions; and contended on appeal that it had its reasons for doing 'so. But the Ninth Circuit found those reasons mu~t have appeared in the administrative ree.ord during the tiIlfe the implementing regulations were being promulgated, not offered'afterwards as post hoc rationalizati6n~.
The appellate court's reasoning was simple: "The APA provides that a 'reviewing court shall hold ~nlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law.' 5 U:S.C. § 706(2)(A)[,]" and since the BOP had made no findings, "we may 'not supply a reasoned basis for the agency's action that the agency itself has not' given[,]'" or "'infer an agency's reasoning from mere silence.'" . The Ninth Circuit held that as the BOP had not articulated any reason at all for. counting "stale" convictions against prisoners, or for the categorical exclu-

sion of certain convictions from the early. cal exclusion of inmat~s with specific prior

release incentive, all such exclusions were convictions', we conclude that the BOP's

illegal.' The "BOP rule encompassed in . promulgation of the categorical exclusion .

28 C.ER. 550.58(a)(l )(iv)(2000) is invalid in § 550.58(a)(I)(iv) did not comply with

because the BOP failed ;to provide any the APA." .

rationale for the categorical exclusion

The district court's denial of Crickon's

generally, and because the rationale pro- habeas corpus petition was r~versed and

vided for considering any prior conviction, the case remanded for further proceed-

regardless of age, is premised upon a .ings, including for ~'the BOP to reconsider

mistake of law."

Crickon's eligibility for early release under

The Court of Appeals also found § 3621(e)(20)(B) without regard to' his

that "[b]eyondexplaining that it decided prior conviction for voluntary manslaugh-

upon the four identified categories of ter." See: Crickon v. Thomas, 579 F.3d 978

convictions because of the variation in (9th Cir. 2009)."

violence level that may be found.in state

convictions, .,. the BOP provided no e,x-

planation for its decision to look to prior

convictions as the appropriate basis to

determine categorical exclusions."

Further, "the BOP's expressed belief

that it was 'acting in accordance with

Congressional intent' is difficlllt to square

with Congress's expressed intent to pro-

vide an ,incentive to encourage rriaximmh

participationin the BOP's·substance abuse treatment programs." .
The Ni~th Circuit summed up by stating, ~'Because the BOP failed to articulate in the administrative record the rationale underlying its decision to adopt a categori-

CONNECTIONSJ:om'
&. ConvictPenPals. com!
465 tiE lSil~ #3OS Dept P.UIPGrl~rniOR 91230
Sbte 200Z...;. 'ltrn&lQf fRfEb~h-ur&!

HAVE YOU GIVEN UP HOPE ON MEETING NEW PEOPL.E WHILE INCARCERATE,
Contact WriteAPrisoner.com &
king Forward
~~~;~~~~C~N'~' '... ,.. Mail Call!

riteAPrisoner.com ...

Simply the largest, highest ranked, &

. most visited website of its kind!

• Affordably priced at $40 for the first year, $30 for renewing year

• Features a comprehe~sive search that allows viewers to find ·your profil.e by age, race, keywords, &more - 32 search options in all

• Your new friends can email their first message to you along with a photo

• Advertises non-stop on every major search engine with thousands

of websites linking back to us

.

• Features free online. re~umeposting

• Translated into 51 la~guages & geared for international search engines

• Viewers can "subscribe" to your profile to be notified when your profile

is updated, a blog is added, new artwork is posted, & more

.

• Pen-pals have the option of helping you with a broad range of topics usi WriteAPrisoner.com's free Self-H Series
0P~~=p~~~~>1

tSBti: 91~H}-9191599·0·9

Dlscomn scbedule available for bulk orders To omet vIsit www.lblnkoulSidelbecell.com
make cbecks or money orders payable 10: Resilience Mullimedia. Dept PI,.
511 Avenue 01 me Americas, Suite 525
New York NY 10011·8436 QueslionsiD
Email resmencemuIUmedia@Verize:BD.nel Or caBllol1 free 811-261-2303

Prison Legal News

19

Proud member of the BeUer BUSines.s Bureau of Cential Florida & the Southeast Volusia Chamber of commerce../.·• '.',\:'\

- . . We can be verified at any chapter or online at www.BBB.org.

~~

March 2011

Page 4P4L1NCOL-00379

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-8 Filed 01/31/12 Page 21 of 28
"
Sixth,Circuit Holds'Pre-1992 Michigan Lifers Not Entitled to Ex Post Facto Relief

I n what may prove to be a major blow to parole in Michigan, from a steady 5-15 of the Board's legitimate exercise of its parole-eligible life-sentenced prisoners percent between 1942 and 1984 to just discretion from the effect of statutory

in Michigan, the Sixth Circuit has rejected 0.15% between 1995 and 2004.

changes to the parole process. Relying on

an as-applied ex post facto' challenge to

To the Sixth Circuit, however, the Garner v. Jones, 529 U.S. 244, 253 (2000)

the retroactive application of changes in data effectively skipped over by the district , [PLN, June 2000, p.5], the Sixth Circuit

Michigan's parole laws.

'

court - covering the period from 1985 to held that regardless of cause or motiya- '

The prisoners, a class of "parolable , 1994 - were just as significant as the data tion, "If the Parole Board decided within

lifers" who committed certain non-drug the district court considered relevant. The, its discretion to get tougher, that would

offenses before October 1, 1992, filed suit numhers from that period revealed aver- hardly amount toan'ex post facto viola-

in federal district court pursuant ,to 42 age annual parole rates ranging between tion as long as it was within the Parole

U.S.C. '§ 1983, alleging that changes to 0.18% and 0.6% - not significantly dif- Board's discretion to get tougher."

Michigan's parole laws in 1992 and 1999, ferent from the 0.15% rate of subsequent

The case was'remanded to the district

as implemented and applied retroactively, years.

, court to enter judgment in favor of the

violated the due process and ex post fa~to

Moreover, the appellate court con- defendantsl See: Foster v, Booker, 595 F.3d

clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

cluded, it could not distingyish the effect 353 (6th Cir. 2010), cert. denied."

Relying on Sweeton v. BrOlVl~, 27 F.3d

1162 (6th Cir. 1994) (enbanc) [PLN, Nov. 1994, p.13], the district court dismissed

California Prison System Lays Off

the due process claim on the grotmd that Michigan prisoners lack a constitution-

Teachers,' Vocational Instructors

ally protected federal liberty interest in

parole.

'

by MichaelBrodheiln

D The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dis-
missal on appeal.

ue to a $60 billion budget deficit in job skills to prisoners that they can utilize , fiscal year 2009-2010, CaJifornia upon their release. Most significantly, per-

The bulk of the Sixth Circuit's opin- prison officials decided to slash funding , haps, prisoners who learn' a trade are less ion, however, focused on the district for rehabilitative prog~ams for prisoners. likelyto reoffend. Also, when prisoners are

court's ex post facto analysis. As a pre- And while state employees affected by the occupied, prisons tend to be safer. Lasny,

liminary matter, the district court had r~sulting layoffs 'cried foul, (and fraud), much of the work done by prisoners' in

held that Shabazz v. Garry, 123 F.3d 909 pris'on officials claimed the cutbacks, vocational programs can actually save the'

(6th Cir. 1997) [PLN; June 1998, p.19], did, would promote efficiency and ul~imately. state money, such as by reducing prison

not preclude the prisoners' ex post facto reduce crime.

costs associated with landscaping, print-

challenge~In Shabazz, the Sixth' Circuft

The California Dept. of Corrections ing and janitorial services.

had rejected a faCial Challenge to the and Rehabilitation (CDCR) announced

"These programs give inmates hope,

constitutionality of a 1992 change whiCh , in late 2009 that it planned to', layoff and inqlates with hope are more easily

reduced the frequency of parole reviews. 850' ~eaqhers and vocational instructors, managed," Kern said. "We don?t change

Because the Michigan legislature made including prison s(aff who run substance every glly,'but we change enough to make

additional changes to the parole laws in abuse and anger management programs. , it worth it."

,

1999, the cumulative effect of the 1992 and As a result, the state will save $250 million

CDCR graphic arts teacher Cindie

1999 changes, the district court reasoned, in direct costs.

Fonesca; who received a layoff notice,

could not have been resolved by the 1997

In the long run, however, the indirect agreed. "They're going to learn from

ruling in 'Shabazz,.

costs to the state - in terms of increased their 'cellies'" if academic arid vocational

As the district court put it, a "state prison violence and recidivism - may ex., classes are cut, she stated. "That's what

cannot continuously make changes in the ceed the short term savings. Prior t<D the they're going to do, which is how to be

parole process that, taken together, create cuts, about '57,000, or one-third of Cali- better criminals."

a sufficient risk of an increased penalty; fornia's 170;000 prisoners, were enrolled . Lending support to Kern and Fo-

but, when looked at alone, would not in educational or vocational programs. nesca, former San Francisco District,

violate the Ex POSt Facto Clause."

About 12,000 (r<:mghly 7 percent of the Attorney Kamala Harris, now California's

Examining the record before it, the state prison population) were taking Attorney General, opined that cuts to re-

district court concluded that th~ combined substance abuse classes; Those ,numbers habilitative programs would only increase effect of all the statutory changes - which will be reduced by approximately thirty the state's recidivism rate ~ which, at 70%, ,

had induced the Board to adopt a "life percent as a result of the budget cuts and is alieady the highest in the nation.

means life" policy ,- had sufficiently dis- 'layoffs:

Further, the budget cuts and layoffs

advantaged the plaintiff class to constitute

The wisdom, behind the cuts was seem hypocritical in light of the addi-

an ex post facto violation.

questioned by those who teach the tion of "Rehabilitation" to the CDCR's

In arriving at its conclusion, the programs. John Kern, a landscape horti- nal11t! ~nly five 'years ago - a point made

district court relied largely on statistical culture instructor at Soledad State Prison by California Assemblyman Ted Lieu,

evidence showing a decline in the rate of since 1984, noted the benefits of providing an unsuccessful candidate for Attorney

March 2011

20 ,I

Prison Legal News

Page 4P4L2NCOL-00380

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-8 Filed 01/31/12 Page 22 of 28

GeneraL "I believe the best way to reduce other concerning the layoffs.

prison costs is to inject money into reha- ' In regard to the former suit, the state

bilitation programs. .. ~ If it works for a claimed that only prisoners had standing certain percentage of people, that's really to challenge cuts to reh~bilitative pro-

all we need," he observed.

grams. However, the SEIU argued that

Responding to CDCR Secretary the "CDCR has a mandate to provide a

Matthew Cate's curious assertion that certain level, of education in the prisons

the cuts in rehabilitative services would and that by laying-off teachers CDCR is

, somehow reduce crime, Lieu said bluntly, failing to meet this mandate."

"It's false."

. In regard to the second lawsuit, the

Not only is the premise of less crime SEIU argued that under Government

resulting from fewer rehabilitative pro- Code 1281.8, employees can'file for a'tem-

grams false, but the CDCR's process of' porary restrqining order if an employer's

laying off prison teachers and vocational actions - in this case action by.the state

,instructors was alleged to be fraudulent. - results in irreparable harm. The case

On January 8, 2010, .cOCR voca- settled in October 2010. See: SEIU Local

iooo tionalinstructor Don' Wiley, employed

v. Depal·tment of Personnel Admin-

at the Chuckawalla Valley State Prison, istration, San Francisco Superior Court

received a 30-day layoff'notice. The notice (CA), Case No. CGC-IO-497156.

was dated December 31, 2009, and Wiley

According to SEIU spokesman Jim

wondered why it took so long to a,rrive. Zamora, "A number of [prison staff]

Postal authorities determined that while did lose. their j.obs/~ but "a number·of

the notice - qnd hundreds of other layoff people were able to land in other positions,

notices mailed by the CDCR - had been 'transferred to other positions or took de':'

metered on December 31, they weren't motions .... " Additionally, other CDCR

, actually mailed until Jarmary 6, 2010 in employees took early retirement. The cuts'

violation of postal rules.

to the state prison system's educational

"It was pretty obviolJs what they had and vocational programs, however, will

done - they screwed up and they tried to have a lasting impact.

cover it up," said Wiley. "I'm convinced

P LN has previously reported on

that someone in CDCR ordered their California's closure of parolee residential

staff to pre-gate all of these envelopes centers [PLN, Nov. 2009, p~35], reduc-

, even though they couldn't mail them for tion in funding for treatment programs

another week."

.

for drug offenders under Prop 36 [PLN,

Wiley notified hisJunion~ SEIU Local March 2010, p: 19], and slaShing of CDCR

100,0, which represents professional educa- .rehabilitative services due to budget cuts

tors employed by the state, including those [PLN, June,2010, p.26]. , .

in the state prison system. Over 200 SEJU

Apparently, state officials are deter-

members then filed grievances protesting mined to keep the recidivism rate as high

the pre-d,ated layoff notices, and as a result as possible by denying prisoners rehabili-

the layoffs were postponed for a" month. ' tative and re-entry programs.

Meanwhile, SEIU Local 1000 pur-

sued two lawsuits filed against the state Sources: San Francisco Chronicle, https://

- one related to budget cuts affecting prisonmovelnent. wordpress. com, http://

prison rehabilitation programs and an- abclocal. go. com, www.seiul000. org

THE LEGA.L HELP FOUNDA.TION
l<-- Learn 'How To Write A 1983 Prison Lawsuit And How To Write A Motion For Pro-Bono Counsel" or We Can Write Them For You.
r. Obtain Paralegal Courses.
For A FREE 45 Page Legal Info' Catalog
Put 5 Stamps on 1 Self Addressed Envelope To
P.O. Box 52:4 Main Ave Ocean Grove NJ 07756
A Jailhouse Lawyer's Manuaf
(8th ed.) and Immigration &
Consu./ar Access Supplement
The JLM explains your rights, and helps you navigate the justice system to protect them using federal, state, and New York law. It can help you: .. Learn the law and go to court " Appeal your conviction or sentence .' Get conditional or early release ' II Receive adequate medical care " Protect your civil liberties a Enforce your right to religious freedom The Supplement explains the immigration law consequences of your conviction, and your right to contact your consulate.
Prisoners: The JLM is $30. The Supplement is $5. Prices include first class shipping.
Institutions & Lawyers: The JLM is $100 . The Supplement is $20. Prices exclude shipprng.
We accept checks and money orders only. We cannot accept stamps or credit cards. We accept purchase orders from institutions only. Send orders and questions to:
Columbia Human Rights Law Review ATTN: JLM ORDER
435 West 116th Street New York, NY 100~7
The JLM is published by the Columbia Human Rights Law Review at Columbia University School of Law. Visit us online at: www3.law.columbia.edu/hrlr/indexjlm.php

Prison Legal News

It ~orrespondence Courses via ma~l

It Degree options available - Associate of Arts or Science, Business Administration, Interdisciplinary Studies, Paralegal Certificate Program

~ Affordable tuition ~ $150/semester hour for correspondence :courses

It Accredited by the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools

It Years of experience serving. incarcerated stu~ents '

• FREE unofficial evaluation of previously earned credits
(all or writ~ to receive a free copy of our ca~alog - 800-548-6679

Great Stories Begin Here
' EXTENDED STUDIES

Office of Extended Studies, Box (( • Adams State (ollege • 208 Edgemont Blvd. • Alamosa, (0 81102

21

March 2011

Page 4P4L3NCOL-00381

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-8 Filed 01/31/12 Page 23 of 28

Virgir~ia Federal Court Invalidates DOC Ban, .on Sexually Explicit Boo.ks

by David M. Reutter

A u.S. District Court has held that a Chatterley's Lover could have any' effect

As such, the district court held the

.Virginia Department of Corrections on the security, disGipline, and good order "regulation does not possess. the consti-

(VDOC) policy which prohibits "worl<:~ of the prison," wrote the district .court. tutionally required rational connection

, of literature which include an explicit "Likewise, it would be patently incredible to between the regulation and the legitimate

description of a sexual act or intercourse" assert [James] Joyce's Ulysses will somehow governmental.objective." Further, the court

is unconstitutional, both facially and as . threaten the rehabilitation of a prisoner." found the regulation was not reasonable

applied.

The court held it "would be irrational~ but was an exaggerated response to the

The court's ruling was entered on cross- if not utterly incomprehensible" that such .concerns of prison officials. As the policy

motions for summary judgment filed in a . books and a list of dozens of "highly re- was unconstitutional, the district court held .

lawsuit brought by VDOC prisoner Wil- garded works of literature which include that injunctive relief. was appropriate but

liam R. Couch. Couch claimed that VDOC an explicit description of a sexual act or declined to award punitive damages.

operating policy 803.2,. which was used to intercourse" could be banned by prison

The VDOC was enjoined from enforc-

exclude Ulysses and Lady Chatterley's Lover officials, "while permitting Playboy."

ing and applying Qperating Procedure

from the.prison library and prevented him

The VDOC was aware that the Holy , 803.2, \yhile the court afforded Virginia

. from ordering those books from a private Bible has descriptions of in:cest yet is not prison officials "an opportunity to amend,

vender, violated his rights under the First banned. "When regl~lations are not strictly' revise, or modify" the regulation, or to draft

and Fourteenth Amendments.

enforced in prison contexts, the regula- a constitutional policy. The court granted

A publication can be banned under' tions can rightly be subjected to criticism Couch's motion for costs and expenses on

VDOC's "specific criteria for publication as arbitrary," the court noted. "The broad . November 18, 2010, t~xing Couch's $350

.disapproval" if it contains" ...explicit Of' reach of the regulation merely provides an filing fee to the defendants. Couch repre-

graphic depictions or descriptions of sexual opportunity for arbitrary enforcement of sented himself pro se..see: Couch v. Jabe,

acts, including but not limited to: a. Actual this regulation on the basis of the VDOC U.S.D.C. (WD. Vir.), Case No. 7:09-cv-

sexual intercourse, normal or perverted, chaplain's moral judgment."

00434-jct-mfu; 2010 WL3433630. ~

anal or oral; b. Secretion or excretion of bodily fluids or s~bstances in the context of sexual activity; c. Lewd exhibitions of

State·Inspections Compel Changes at·

uncovered genitals in the context of sexual activity; d:Bondage, sadistic, masochistic

Abusive Michigan Juvenile Facility

or other violent acts in the context of sexual activity; e. Any sexual acts in violation of

by David- M. Reutter

I ,state or federal law. "

.

.

The district court noted that the "vio-

nspection repo~ts by Michigan's De- had no· choice but to' use· "physical manpartment of Human Services (DHS) agement" and long-term· se.clusionfor the

lation of state or federal law" provision concerning conditions at the Muskeg- safety of both .employees and residents.

"would ban any book describing rape, on County Juvenile Detention Center When Ragsdale made an unannounced

statutorY'rap,e, attempted rape, incest, (MCJDC) found an abusive environment visit to MCJDC on June 7, 2010, he got

adultery, polygamy, sexual abuse, and caused by understaffing. On the verge of a first-hand glimpse of the chaos' that

prostitution." .

losing the state license to operate M CJDC, reigned at the juvenile facility.

Without providing scientific or expert county officials agreed to make reforms.

He observed one resident tip over a

testimony, theVDOC contended its policy

Located in the northern area of bookcase. Two others ptcked up chairs

was constitutional because it had a logical Michigan, MCJDC houses up to 22 mid- and mimicked throwing them~ Ragsdale

connection to the penological. goals of . dle-school and high-school-aged juveniles. asked a shift supervisor about the 'staff's

rehabilitation alld p'rotecting the security, They end up at the facility. by order of'a scheduling while advising her that he was

discipline and good order of the prison family court overseeing criminal .charges going to cite the facility for being "dapger-

system. In so doing, the VDOC listed the ' against them. MCJDC's superintendent ously underst~ffed." .

usual panoply of goq.ls that prison officials reports to the county administrator rather

"She WilS advised that she needed

use to support such regulations, That list 'than to officials associated with the courts, to do whatever was necessary to ensure

included stopping bartering or disputes DHS or the sheriff's office.

resident and staff safety, including placing

over sexually explicit material, protecting

After several inspections revealed seri- residents in seclusion, if that Were the best

prisoners and staff from the violence or ous problems at MCJD,C, Steve Ragsdale, alternative," wrote Ragsdale.

harassment such material would cause if a .child welfare licensing consultant with

."There were not sufficient employees to

allowed, and ensuring that rehabilitation DHS, began interviewing former MCJDC complete a staffing schedule at the facility. It

efforts we~e not undermined.

residents. Ragsdale issued five reports was necessary to place residents in seclusion

The court flatly rejected the VDOC's . between December 15, 2009 and June 24, in order to'insure resident and staff safety,"

arguments. "It strains credulity to believe 2010, finding systemic abuse at MCJDC. Ragsdale no~ed in his final analysis.

that limiting a prisoner's access to Lady' Facility staff told Ragsdale that they

Most often, staff used "physical

March 2011

22

Prison Legal News

Page 4P4L4NCOL-00382

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-8 Filed 01/31/12 Page 24 of 28

management.. on residents when they

Various interviews led Ragsdale to a by Muskegon County's deputy family

weren't imposing long-tei"m seclusion. 12-year-old boy who had been strapped in court administrator, Paul Wishka.

As one staff member put it, "I did not the chair, Ragsdale was advised by staff

Wishka said MCJDC had a "strong

survive two wars to be taken out by some that the chair was used because the youth core of committed employees." It was a·

13-year-old."

was trying to bite and repeatedly strike small core, though, with one staff member

During his inspections, Ragsdale staff members.'

.

for every eight residents. On July 13,2010,

viewed a video thaticaptured a staff mem-

When interviewing the boy, "it was- the county hired seven more staff mem-

ber "dropping" a youth, whose arms were noted that he had multiple bruises, strap bers, putting 'at least one more employee

shackled behind his back, "face first from marks, shackle marks, and bite marks on on each shift. Overlap allows up to six

a height of 2 feet."

his arms, legs, shoulders, wrists, .ankle, staff during peak need times.

After viewing more videos and in- chest, and groin area," wrote Ragsdale.

An action plan prohibits the use of

terviewing staff, Ragsdale learned that The youth reported that he had been re- the restraint chair and short shackling.

"bending a residents' arm behind his back strained in the chair for nearly two hours, The plan also calls for "daily review on

was referred to by residents and staff as part of which time staff was not in the the use. of behavior management rooms;

'chicken winging,' which was commonly room, allowing him to bite himself.

training for staff members in nonabusive

used as· an inappropriate restraint tech-

County administrator Bonnie Ham- physical and psychological interven-

nique by MCJDC employees.

mersley said she was unaware the restraInt tion; immediately notifying the state if

Another improper restraint was chair was being used at MCJDC. "When a resident is injured during restraint by

"short shackling," which involves hand- I heard we had it, I asked for it to be staff; conducting an internal investiga-

cuffing a youth's hands and feet. Another removed immediately," she said. Com- tion of complaints about staff using

set of shackles then connects the hand- menting on problems at the facility, excessive force; and allocating mental

cuffs, and foot shackles. A staff member Hammersley stateg, "I ,attribute it to the health resources through Muskegon

admitted to Ragsdale that he once short change we're seei'ng in the youth we're County Community Mtmtal Health" at

shackled a YOllth for nearly five weeks. dealing with. Their needs are greater.'" MCJDC.

When MCJDC staff were really frus-

Ragsdale, however, attributed the

The juvenile facility was allowed to

trated with a youth's behavior, tliey used a problems to understaffing and lack of . continue operating under a provisional

tool obtained from the Muskegon County training. He found that three employees license, which permits state officials to Jail- a device called the "AEDEC Pros- had a "lack of ability" to deal with ju- make random visits. ~

traint Prisoner Restraint Chair," which is veniles at MCJDC, including two who

a collapsible chair on wheels. Straps on used excessive physical force. While not Source: Muskegon Chronicle

the chair secure the wrists, ankles, upper providing names, county officials fired

arms, legs and chest. An additional two three MCJDC staff members following

straps cross through the crotch. PLN has the release of Ragsdale's reports.

r~ported several incidents of positional-

Matthew Kaley, 54, MCJDC's su-

asphyxiation deaths that have resulted perintendent since 2007 and an assistant

from the use of such restraint chairs.

superintendent for 12 years prior to that

There was no fOlmal training or train- time, resigned in July 20 IO. He was replaced

ing manual for the

restraint chair at

MCJDC; instruction was passed on

'GTI VOICE

verbally. According . to the manufacturer,' people placed in the chair should never be

Spending too much money on calls?
Like to call MORE for LESS?
Save up t.o 95% Send a Self Addressed Stamped.Envelope:

left unattended and should be unrestrained at least every hour.

GTIVOICE.com
PO Box 178171, Nashville, TN 37217 (615) 250-2477

~ ~"..~~"

BUY SINGLE COPIES OF MAGAZINES MYMAGSTORE.COM
4212 University Way NE Suite 201 Seattle, WA 98105

• 1000 single copy mags • Books

•

• 1200 subscriptions

• Custom CDs •

• 600 newspapers

• Hot Pix

•

SEND FOR ,OUR NEWCATALOG
10 STAtvlPS OR $3.00 ($3 discount coupon included)

Payment with stamps Prepaid accounts Newsletter
info@mymagstore.com
206~324-7323

Prison Legal News

23

March 2011

Page 4P4L5NCOL-00383

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-8 Filed 01/31/12 Page 25 of 28

Report Faults Private Prison Company for Deadly Arizona Prison Break

by Matt ,Clarke

On August 19, 2010, the Arizona Mexico. Soon thereafter, Province was Department of Corrections (ADC) spotted in a Wyoming church on August

issued a' report concerning the July 30 8, 2010 and taken into custody without

escape of three prisoners from a privately- resistance.

operated prison in Kingman, Ariz;ona.

McClusky and Welch remained on

The report was highly critical of Manage- the lam: until August 19, when a forest

ment and Training Corporation (MTC), ranger went to investigate an unattended

the for-profit firm that runs the Kingman campfire in Arizona's Apache-Sitgreaves

,facility.

National Forest. The ranger spoke briefly

On the same day the ADC report was with a nervous McClusky, then left and

released, the last of the three escapees was called in a SWAT team, which swarmed

captured along with an accomplice. Unfortu- the campground when McClusky was in

nately, the escapees left behind a deadly trail a sleeping bag outside a tent. Both Mc-

of crime that included hijacking 18-wheelers, Clusky and Welch surrendered without

kidnapping, two murders, aggravated as- firing a shot, though both expressed a

saults and a shootout ~th police.

desire to shqot it out had they been able to

The escape f;rom the MTC-operated get to their weapons. McClusky also said

facility also temporarily suspended he wished he had killed the ranger.

Arizona's efforts to privatize 5,000 more

Federal and state charges of murder,

prison beds in the state. [See: PLN, Sept. carjacking, kidnapping, armed robbery,

2010, pA2].

aggravated assault and conspiracy have

John' Charles McCluskey, 45, was a since been filed against McClusky, Welch

year into,a 15-yearsentence for attempted and Province. They may face the death

second-degree murder when he convinced penalty. McClusky's mother, Claudia

his cousin and fiancee, Casslyn Mae Welch, Washburn, 68, was prosecuted for helping.

44, to aid in the escape. Welch approached her son by sending him money after he

the prison unnoticed and tossed a pair of escaped; she pleaded guilty and was sen-

'bolt cutters over the perimeter fence. Mc- tenced in 'January 2011 to seven months

Clusky and two other prisoners - Tracy in prison.

Allen Province, who had served seven years

The dramatic course of the deadly

of a life sentence for murder and robbery, crime spree kept the escape in the news

and Daniel Renwick, who had served eight for weeks. The resulting public attention

years for murder - used the bolt cutters to demanded an investigation into how the

make a hole in the fence, then tied back the escape happened and whether it could

fencing with a dog leash.

have been prevented. The ADC was quick

Welch had parked a car with weap- to investigate, largely placing the blame on

ons, cash and false identification nearby, the poor quality of MTC's operations at

but the escapees became disoriented and the Kingman prison. ,

split up to look for the vehicle. Renwick

ADC Director Charles L. Ryan

found the car first and drove off, leaving ordered all prisoners with life sent~nces,

the others to fend for themselves. Taking murder convictions, a history of escapes or

advantage of McClusky and Welch's prior more than 20 years left on their sentences

experience as big-rig truck drivers, Mc;- removed from Kingman until the MTC-

Clusky, Welch and Province hijacked the run prison was brought into compliance

first of two tractqr-trailers used to flee the with ADC guidelines. This resulted in the

area. Ironically, Renwick, who had taken transfer of 148 prisoners. Arizona Gov-

all of the group's supplies, was the first ernor Jan Brewer, seeking political cover,

to be caught. He was arrested two days said the classification system that allowed

later in Rifle, Colorado following a brief those prisoners to be assigned to medium

shootout with police.

security at Kingman was in place before

Forensic evidence later link,ed the ~ she was elected.

other escapees to the murder of an Okla-

"It is something that maybe should

homa couple, Gary and Linda Haas, be reviewed," Brewer stated, though she

whose' charred remains were found in noted that "that classification is used

their burned-out camper in eastern New across America."

The ADC report did not mince words. "Human error and security lapses directly led to an escape of three inmates," said Ryan. "The security at the prison did not meet ADC standards." Further, Ryan noted that state officials had "grave concerns that there was laxness on the part of security staff."
MTC accepted responsibility for the escape and pledged to do better. "We are in agreement wi~h the report and are committed as a company to make the corrections necessary to provide the level of security expected of all professionals in our business," said MTC senior vice president Odie Washington. At the same time, Washington claimed the company was not at fault because its Kingman employees never informed corporate headquarters of security problems at the prison.
Regardless, the ADC was charged with oversight of private prisons in the' state and the problems at Kingman were so fundamental that they should have been caught. The ADC's monitor at Kingman was reassigned on August 13, 2010. Wade Woolsey,_ the ADC official charged with oversight of private prison contracts, resigned.
According to the ADC report, the main flaws that facilitated the escape were false alarms from the intrUSIon zone alarm system inside the perimeter fence. The alarms were so frequent that MTC guards largely ignored them, taking 20 minutes or longer to check and clear the zone. This left the fence area without a zone alarm until it was cleared. Staff considered clearing the alarms less important than "answering the telephone, issuing keys, [and] checking staff in," the report stated.
Further, prisoners had easy and direct access to the perimeter fence via the dog yard, which was part of a newlydiscontinued program designed to use prisoners to habilitate dogs prior to their adoption. Additionally, an outside access door from a housing unit was apparently left propped open with a rock.
A shift change occurred around 9:00 p.m. During that time, and at every other shift change, there was a window of fifteen minutes or more when there were no perimeter guards because they were going off duty and had to check in

March 2011

24

Prison Legal News

Page 4P4L6NCOL-00384

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-8 Filed 01/31/12 Page 26 of 28

their weapons, while guards coming on . the perimeter security road, which provided didate Tom Horne said prisoners with

duty waited to check out the weapons. access to another prison.

murder convictions should be banned

Further; mobile perimeter patrols always

MTC's once-a-day fence checks were from medium-security facilities. "1 think

came from the same direction at the same insufficient and the investigation team, the Attorney General should be monitor-

intervals, making them easy to predict. went uncha11enged by the static and mo- ing that sort of thing, maintaining stats, After ~he escape, it took MTC staff two bile perimeter guards even when intruding keeping track," he observed.

hours to notify the ADC.

. into the area between the inner and outer , Governor Jan Brewer, a strong pro-

Guards and supervisors at the MTC fences. ,Problems in the prison's armory in- ponent of private prisons, put a different

prison.were poorly trained and had little cluded missing ammunition and weapons spin on the ADC report, saying it revealed

experience, with 80% being neWly hired or being placed in storage while loadeci. , the escape,was the result of human error

newly promoted. There was also a lack of

MTC agreed to a plan to correct all and' not due to problems inherent with

respect for guards among the prisoners, the deficiencies noted in the ADC report. private prisons.

who flaunted regulations by growing long Further, county and state officials have

,ADC Director Ryan said he was con-

hair and facial hair, and. not displaying asked MTC to pay more than $100,000 vinced there is a role, for private prisons

,their identification cards.

:

for expenses related to responding to the in Arizona. Around 6,400 of the state's

"The inmate attitude appeared to be , escape. And in September 2010, the Haas, 40,000 prisoners are incarcerated in

poor," ADC' investigators wrote. "One family filed a $10 million notice'9f claim privately-operated facilities. inmate spoke in a disrespectful manner against Arizona am! a wrongful death suit , Arizona's Republican-controlled leg~

to the Warden when she questioned his against MTC. See: Haas v. Management & islature is also very much in favor of prison

lack of identification, another called out Training Corporation, U.S.D.C. (D. Ariz.), privatization. In 2009, the state took the

'Fuck Abc' as we approached."

Case No. 2:10-cv-02043-JAT.-

unprecedented step of offering $100 mil-

Among many other ,problems, ADC

The high-pI;ofile escape from theMTC lion annually for a private company to

investigators found that sand in the area facility rekindled debate over' Arizona's . operate all but Ol1e ADC prison complex.

around the perimeter fence wasn't being ,controversial use -of private prisons. "If The, bill was signed into law by Governor

replaced so that easily discernible tracks we're going to,give these private companies Brewer, but the language about privatiz-

, could be spotted in the event of an escape. ,,oversight over our inmates, we need to make , ing most of the state's prison system was,

The investigators also found large'amounts sure we're holding them accountable," said later repealed after no suitable contractor

of cardboard materials, piles of dirt and a David Lujan, a Democratic candidate for came forward. As of February 2011, the

sweat lodge between' the inner a'rid outer Arizona Attorney General.

state was seeking bids from private prison

fences, plus excessive vehicular traffic on

Republican attorney general can- companies to build and operate facilities

When it's'time/or a change call the
Criminal Center'
Admitted in and Filed App~als
io h,- ~ 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8t 9th, t\
11 th, &. D.C.lCircuit Courts, ' ,~ United States Supreme Court
National Practice ,Federal Criminal Law Center Attorney Marcia G. Shein ,2392 N. Decatur Rd Decatur, ,GA 30033
www.federalcriminallawcenter.com
Prison Legal News

Lea I
, It can., be a powerful influence in your life.
Whether you want to enhance your knowledge of the law, help others, or acquire a new skill - choosing Blackstone's independent study courses will put you on the road to a brighter future.

II Learn Civil & Criminal Law II Learn Legal Research
III 120 Years of LegaJ Training Experience
II Study in Your Spare Time II 'Affordabre Tuition, Easy Payment Plan

II you have'a sponsor they must contact us by phone at: 1.800.826.9228 ~---~-------1-----------------------------------

Yes! lId like to learn more "0

'Please rush me FREE course information.

Paralegal Course

Advanced Name _ _-'--_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Paralegal Course

Address _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
City_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _State_'__Zip__, _

• Civil Litigation • Wills:Trusts/Estates • Personal Injury!
Thrts
• FamilyLaw • Criminal Law

Blackstone

career SINCB 1890

Institute

Your tuition cost covers your.entlre 'Program including all textbooks. study guilip,s, exain and homework evaluation
selVices, and your certificate.

25

March 2011

Page 4P4L7NCOL-00385

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-8 Filed 01/31/12 Page 27 of 28

I '

stated criminal justice professor Stan Kingman prison has revived efforts

AZ Private Prison Faulted (cont.)

Stojkovic, at the Helen Bader School of to hold private prison companies ac-

Social Welfare at the University of Wis- countable. Unsuccessful Democratic

with an additional 5,000 beds.

, consin-Milwaukee. "They're there to make gubernatorial candidate Terry Goddard

Arizona politicians -have faceq criti- money and any way they can cut corners said he would push to revive the 2008 bill,

cism for being unduly influenced by the means they make more money." ,

and called fOf an overview of prisoner

private prison industry. Corrections

In 2008, then-Arizona Governor Ja- classification policies.

Corporation of America (eCA), the na- net Napolitano and state Senator Robert

Perhaps the silver lining in the tragic

tion's largest private prison firm, operates Blendu drafted and introduced legislation outcome of the MTC escape will be that

six facilities in Arizona - three of which' to require that private prison companies it slows Arizopa's headlong rush into.

house immigration detainees. Governor build their facilities to state prison con- wholesale prison privatization. Given the'

Brewer has aides with tie's to CCA, and structjon standards; share information political influence and deep pockets' of

Paul Senseman, Brewer's spokesman, was' about prisoners and their employees with private prison companies, though, it is

formerly a CCA lobbyist. Phoenix-based state officials; and stop importing danger-' unlikely that the push towards privatizaconsulting and lobbying firm Highground ous, violent felons from other states. The tion will be slowed for very long. ~

manages Brewer's campaign and also lob-" bill was defeated.

bies for CCA. Critics claim that Governor

"The private prison industry iobbied Sources: ,ADC report, Associated Press,

Brewer signed the bill to privatize most heavily against that' bill, and' they were Arizona Republlc, www.azcentral.c.om.

of the state's prison system,as well as successful," said then-Napolitano lobbyist www. azstarnet. com, www.foxnews. com,

controversial legislation to crack down on Michael Haener.

'

www.ctv.ca. www. abe15. com, www.aol-

illegal immigrants (SB 1070), in an effort

The July 30, 2010 escape from, the news.com, Phoenix New Times

to benefit the private prison industry. [See:

PLN, Nov. 2010, p.1]. Whatever the reasoning, Brewer was

Have a Cell Phone in Your ,Rectum?

wrong when she said the Kingman escape was caused by prbb1ems not endemic to

,Body Cavity Searches OK'd in First Circuit,

private prisons. The ADC investigation revealed poor training, improper pe;.

but Surgical Searches Are Not

rimeterconstruction, failure to properly install, calibrate and monitor the fence

by Brandon Sample

alarm system, and a general laxness that It is okay to look for contraband ina like a cell phone. Sanchez denied having a

presumably is not present in ADC facili- prisoner's rectum so long as the search cell phone and again defecated in front of

'ties. These types of short'cuts are drivel) is done by medical,staff in a no'n-abusive the guards. Although no cell phone came

by companies trying to trim co~ts soas to manner, according to the U.S. Court of out, the guards were not satisfied.

increase profits.

Appeals for the First Circuit. Prison of-

Sanchez was taken to an emergency

, Private prison firms win contracts by ficials, however, cannot force prisoners room where a rectal exam was performed

claiming it is cheaper to house prisoners to undergo surgery in order to search for by a doctor in order to recover the elusive

in privately-operated facilities, but that prohibited items.

cell phone. The first search of Sanchez's

, too is a lie. A September ·2010 study by' While incarcerated at Puerto Rico's, rectum came up empty. A second digital

Arizona's Auditor General found that it Bayamon 501 prison, Angel Luis Sanchez examination revealed no cell phone, either.

costs almost $8.00 more per prisoner per was subjected to a series of increasingly However; the guards and medical staff still

day to house a medium-security prisoner intrusive searches as part of a quest to find' were not convinced.

in a private prison thanin a state prison a cell ph'one that guards thought he had

Next, doctors scheduled Sanchez for

($55.89 per diem in a private prison versus hidden inside his body.

,exploratory surgery of his abdominal cav-

$48'.13 in a private prison).

The incident began after a handheld ,ity.' Prior to the surgery, another X-ray was

Arizona StateUniversity criminol- , metal detector went off while Sanchez ;was taken which revealed no foreign objects in

ogy and' criminal justice professor Travis being searched. A subsequent strip-sea:rch Sanchez's body. Nevertheless, the surgery

Pratt found no evtdence to support pri-' revealed nothing, as did another scan with went forward after the surgeon coerced

vate prison companies' claims that they the metal detec,tor, but that was'not.good Sanchez to consent by promising to do an-

save money up-front. Instead, he found enough for the guards.

other rectal exam while Sanchez was under

they often cut baqk on staffing, wages

They asked a doctor to take X-rays 'anesthesia in lieu of performing surgery.

and services in order to boost their profit of Sanchez's abdominal cavity. While

But another rectal ex'am did not

'- margins.

the results from the X-rays were pend- , occur; instead, the surgeon performed

"Cost savirigs like that don't, come ing, Sanchez was placed under constant the exploratory surgery anyway. No cell

without consequences," said Pratt. "And (' .surveillance and guards instructed him to phone was discovered. Sanchez was dis-

that can present a' security risk that is defecate on the floor. Sanchez did so; but charged from the hospital and returned to

elevated." Asecurity risk-such as allow- rio cell phone was found. \'

the Bayamon prison two days later.

ing three prisoners to escape and go on a

Shortly thereafter the results from the

Sanchez then sued the' guards and

deadly crime spree, for example. '

X-r'ays came in. According to the doctor medical staff, claiming Fourth, Amend-

"The general issue is the quality of who examined the X-rays, Sanchez had a ment violations. The district court

service - and security is a part of thai," foreign object in his Tectum that looked dismissed Sanchez's lawsuit for failure to

March 2011

, 26

Prison Legal News

Page 4P4L8NCOL-00386

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-8 Filed 01/31/12 Page 28 of 28

state a claim. Sanchez appealed, and the . and two rectal examinations." "Society is court held. The judgment of the district

First Circuit reversed in pCl;rt.

prepared to. recognize that a prisoner has court was accordingly affirmed in parUmd

Although the Fourth Amendment a reasonable expectation that he will not reversed in part. See: Sanchez v. Pereira-

applied to the searches, the Court of Ap- .be forced to undergo abdominal surgery Castillo, 590 F.3d 31 (lst Cir. 2009) .

peals upheld the district court'sdis~ssal of for the purposes of finding contraband, at

Following remand, the case settled in

Sanchez's claims related to the digital rectal least iil these circumstances," the appellate January 2011 under undisclosed terms. ~

exams. While rectal examinations.may be

"highly. intrusive and humiiiating," they are not necessarily prohibited, the appellate court held. Rather, the touchstone of whether such searches violate the'Fourth

'~ro:bation May Not'Be CO'nditioned On O~erly Broad Court Access Restrictions

Amendment is if they are "reasonable.'.' ACalifqrnia Court of Appeal has con-

.On appeal, the Court noted that while

In Sanchez:s case, the Court of Ap-

du~ed ,that a probation conditio,n , trial courts have brdad discretion to impose

peals· found that the' digital rectal exams. prohibiting:a defendant from being within cOriditions which foster rehabilitation and

were reasonable because they were "car- 500 feet of any courthouse is unconstitu- protect the public, nonetheless a cond~tion' .

ried out by medical professionals in 'the tionallyoverbroad.

prohibiting non-criminal co~duct must be

relatively private, sanitary 'environment ot

Alejandro Perez pleaded guilty to reasonably related either to the crime of

a hospital, upon suspicion that plaintiff second degree robbery after forcibly tak- . c('mviction or to future criminality. Here,the

had contraband in his rectum; and with ing a '$29 pair of pants from' a person:he 500-foofrestriction on access to courts was

no abusive or humiliating conduct on the . believed had previously vandalized his neither reasonably related to Perez's crime

part of the. law enforcement officers or . brother) property. the trial court placed nor to the possibility of future criminality.

the doctors."

him on 36 montps oLformal feIo:ny pro- Additionally, it potentially infringed upon

The surgery conducted on Sanchez's bation. Consistent with the probation Perez's constitutional right of access t6 abdominal cavity, however, stepped over >officer's~.report and the request of the the courts, as wen. as his First Amendment

the line. "The surgery described in the prosecutor, the court imposed 36 proba-. right of access to government complexes

complaint was ... anunreasotlable,un'.,., tion terms and conditions, including one in which, aside from a courthouse, public constitutional search," th~ First Circuit. prohibiting perez from attending any , agencies (such a~ a city council, tax collector,

wrote; given "several indications'or'the tourt'hea:'rlrig 6rbeingwithin 500 feet of or health department) may also be located;

absence of contraband, including the re- any courthouse unless he is either a defen- See: Peoplev. Perez,176 Cal.App.4th 380, 97

suIts of two monitored bowel movements '. 'datlt or under subpoena there.

Cal.Rptr.3d 632 (C~. App. 2009).

Prison Legal News

~ PLN's website offers all issues of pLN in both searchable database and PDF formats. Issues are indexed and . posted as soon as they go to press.
~ Publications section has numerous downIqadable government reports, audits and, investigation'sfrom around the country.
~ Full text decisions of thousands of court cases, published and unpublished.

~ Brief bank with a wide assortment of winning motions, briefs; complaints and settlements.
~ Links to thousands of prison, jail, criminal justiFe and legal websites around the world.
~Thousands of articles and cases, all fully indexed by more than 500 subjects, searchable by case name, case year, state of origin, court, author, location, case outcome, PLN issue.and key word search.

~ All content is easy to print for down-

'~.Search free, pay only if you find it!

loadfng and mailing to prisoners. ~ Most complete collection of prison and jail
related verdicts and settlements anywhere.

~ The highest quality, most comprehensive prison litigation news and research site in the world.

~ Order books, prfnt subscriptions .and make donations on line.

Affordable rates to meet yourbudg~t
$19.95 pell' month· $149.95 pell'year

Subscribe to Prison Legal News Online! http://www.pris~nlegalnews.org

27

March 2011

Page 4P4L9NCOL-00387

q
Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-9 Filed 01/31/12 Page 1 of 29

Social Security Audit Criticizes Prisoners' Access to Personal Data; Federal Legislation .Passed

by Matt Clarke
'OIl March 12,2010, the Office of the one each in Alabama, Arkansas and South SSNs and personal information was a

Inspector .General (OIG) 'of the Dakota, two in Oklahoma, four in Ten- goodjdea.

Social Security Administration (SSA) re- nessee and five in Kansas. Additionally,

"It is essential that we rein in the

leased' an audit rep~rt on prisoners' access ' some prisoners in Kansas, Tennessee and widespread use and display of these num-

to Social Security numbers (SSNs). The West Virginia have access ,to SSNs while bers and keep them. out of the hands of

report criticized eight states for providing employed in work release programs.

criminals and organized crime groups that

prisoners with acc~ss t'q SSNs as part of

The OIG recommended that prisons now sell stolen Social Security"numbers as

their institutional jobs.

stop aJlowing prisoners access to SSNs. a source of income'," remarked U.S. Sena-

The purpose of the report was to "Although we recognize there'may be tor Dianne Feinstein, who sponsored the

follow,..up on an August 2"006 audit in benefits in allowing prisoners to work Social Security Number Protection Act

which the OIG determined'that prisons ,while incarcerated, we question whether (S. 3789), which prohibits prisoners from

in 13 states allowed prisoners' to access, prisoners have a need to know other in- having access to SSNs.

SSNs through a variety of slave labor dividuals' Social Security numbers;" the

The Act was signed into law in De-

work programs. That earlier audit noted audit stated/''Allowing pri.soners access to' cember 2010 as Public Law No. 111-318,

the potential threat to SSN integrity, and Social Security numbers increases the risk and will phase in restrictiol1s on allowing recommended that the SSA and prisons that indiviq,uals ,may. improperly obtain ' prisoners access to SSNs over a one-yeaF

work together to limit prisoners' access to and misu~e SSNs."

period. The Act states, "No Federal,

SSNs. [See: PLN, April 2007, p.24].

, Kansas Department of Corrections State, or local agency may employ, or

The 2010 report found that the SSA, spokesman Bill Miskell defended· the enter irito a contract for the use or em-

had taken some steps to educate prison practice. "We're extremely sensitive to ployment of, prisoners in any capacity

~. officials about the risks associated with al- the potential for any kind of access to that would allow such prisoners access to

lowing prisoners access to SSNs. However,' personal identifying information and have the Social Security account ·numbers of

prisonsin eight states coritinued to provide policies to limit an inmate's apility to write other individuals." However, it does not

prisoners with access to SSNs. Generally; down any of this information," he said,. appear to specify' a remedy for violatiOlis

prisoners, en.countered. SSNs and other Miskell noted that attempts to circumvent 0f the law and a right without a remedy

personally identifiable information when security policies had been isolated and, so is meaningless. ~

.

they performed data entry, encoding, far as he knew, unsuccessful.

digital imaging or records conversion. The

Others were' not cbnvinced that al- Sources: SSA OIG Report No. A-08-10':.

types of documents they worked with in- lowing prisoners access to, other pe~ples' 11042, USA Today cluded criminal background checks, police

.. ,

reports, health records,student transcripts, tax forms, employee wage statements,and

Georgia Eases Sex Offender Restrictions in

Department of Labor forms. Some security contrQls were in place. -

Face ofFe~eral ,Court Challenge

These included preventing prisoners from

L yiewing names associ~ted with SSNs, '
. banning writing and copying in the work

aws t~at restrict where sex o~end~rs had to make changes before the entire law can hve have been popular III legIS- was scraped by the federal courts. "The bot-

area, searching prisoners leaving the work latures throughout the U.S. With much tom line was that the hammer was about-

area, and requiring prisoners to sign a fanfare and hoopla, .Georgia'passed one to fall on us; and I was·de.eply concerned

confidentiality agreement. However, some of the nation'stoughest sex offender resi-' that the entire statute was injeopardy,'~ said

prisoners attempted to circurrivent the dency statutes on July 1, 2006. '\

state Senator Seth Harp; who helped push

security precautions.

That law prohibited sex offenders through a revision to the law.

. In May 2009: a Kansas state prisoner from living within 1,000 feet of. schools,

One of those 4ammers was a federal

was found to be in possession of person- parks, churches, school bus stops and. lawsuit challenging Georgia's sex offender,

ally identifiable jnformation following other places where children gather. In ef- residency restrictions as being unconstitu-

a routine strip search and mail search. fect, the law served to drive sex offenders tionally vague, which is presently pending

The prisoner was removed from the work into des0late areas or out of the state. cross-motions for summary judgment.

program and disciplined. In December

At one pqint, a.s reported in PLN, a See: Whitaker v. Perdue, U.S.D.C. (N~D.

2006, a Connecticut pris0l1er was discov- group of homeless sex offenders set up Georgia), Case .No. 4:06-cv-00140-CC.

ered with a file in· her cell that contained a tent city on state land behind an office

According to the complaint in Whi-

personally identifiable information. A ~park in suburban Atlanta until they were , taker, which was filed by the ,ACLU of

routine audit had determined that the file evicted. [See: PLN, May 2010, p;20].

Georgia and the Southern Center, for"

was missing.

,

Before Georgia's law eyen went into : Human Rights, "Thousands of people

The OIG audit found 15 prisons that ,effect, however, civil liberties groups Qegan on Georgia's sex offender registry will be allow prisoners ·access to SSNs, including filing lawsuits;' as a result, state legish,ltors , forced to evacuate their ~onies, leave their

Mftrch 2011

28

Prison Legal News

Page 4P5L0NCOL-00388

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-9 Filed 01/31/12 Page 2 of 29

jobs. cease attending church services, and fenders to petition to be removed from the great~st contributing factors to whether

be required, by legislative fiat, to abandon state's sex offender registry, and exempts relea,sed prisoners fe-offend. When re-

court-mandated 'treatment programs." the disabled and elderly from the residency strictionsare placed on sex offenders that Now,. following the recent statutory requirements. Further, sex offenders, are make it hard~r for them to reintegrate into

revisions, even law enforcement officials no longer required to provide their Inter- society, the risk of recidivism increases.

are perplexed about the state's sex offe~der net passwords to state officials.

Residency restrictions for 'sex offend,.

laws. "Our deputies are trying their best to

While at least five other states have ers have been controversial since their

enforce this law," said Tonia Welch, train- tightened their sex offender residency inception. '~It's something states are ,still

ing coordinator for the Georgia Sheriffs' restrictions, Iowa joined Georgia in eas~ struggling with," said Jill Levenson, a

Association. "And the way the changes ing up a bit: Prompted by iobbying from Lynn University professor who speCial-

have been, it has caused confusion. Every the Iowa County Attorney's Association, izes in sex .offender policies. "One side
time they got situated, the laws change, a state legislators reduced 2,000,.foot sex , argues the. laws aren~t punitive, but the

and then they have to shift gears."

offender exclusion, zone aromid 'schools other. side of the argument is that once

The revised statute, which was signed and other areas. That restriction· still ap- people enter into a plea and agree -to

, into law in May 2010by Governor SO,nny , plies for the highest-level offenders, such something, you can't come back years

Perdue, allows' the 13,OOO,.plus registered' as those who committed crimes involving lateran,.d change it." ,

sex offenders who committed their of.:.' a child, and a 300.:.foot "no loiter" io'ne

Another problem is that some defen-

fences before June 2003 to live wherever applie~ to all sex offenders.

dants accused of sex-l=elated crimes do

, they want. That date was selected because

"It's better than what we had, but not realize the long-term cons~quences of

it is when Georgia's first sex offenderresi,. it still fosters a false sense of security," pleading guilty, which may subject them

dency law became effective.

said the association's executive direc- to registration requirements and residency

Sex offender restrictions' after that , tor, Corwin Ritcl)ie. '~lt does target the restrictions for the rest of their lives. '

date vary depending on when the offense predator-type, who might be sitting within

Several states,' such as Florida, con-

was committed. Offenders who committed sight of a school, but we have so many sex tinue to experience difficulties with their

their crimes from June 4, 2003 to June' 30, offenses going on within people's homes, sex offender residency restrictions, includ-

2006 can live near a church or swiinming we forget those types of victims.;' ' ing creating a population of homeless sex

pool, but those convicted after July 1,2006

Also forgotten are the hazards inher- offenders that is hard to monitor. [See

are barred from residing within-a 1,000- ent in ostracizing sex offenders after they' related article in this issue of PLN]. ~'

foot radius· of those facilities.

complete their prison sentences. Research

Georgia's revised sex offender law shows that lack of social support, unem- Sources: Associated Press, Atlantalournal

eases other restrictions. It allows'some of- ploymt:mt and housing instability are the' Constitution

WiLLIAM :L~ SCH'MIDT
~ttorney at~w

i'

Have YOll becllseriouslyinjured?

rongly convicted? Denied parole?

Acci~ents § Appeals § Police Brutality

Ii

Federal 11\ State II Local

(

J'

Civil Rights, Writs, Parole Hearings, Transfers, Classification, Visiting, Medical

!i

ProvidingJustice Throughout California by Plane'

377 W FAL~BROOK, SUITE 207, FRESNO, CA 937II P.O. Box 25001, fRESNO, CA 93729-5001 legaLs~hmidt@gmail.com
559.26I. 222.2

Prison Legal News

29

March· 2011 Page 4P5L1NCOL-00389

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-9 Filed 01/31/12 Page 3 of 29

Kentucky Jail Guards' Convictions Affirmed in .Sexual Abuse of ,Young Prisoner'

.by David ~. Reutter

T he Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has pleas for help were ignor~d by the guards. until he was ren10ved from the cell the next affirmed the convictions and prison IS. was then taken to the shower where mqrning. Sydnor, Lanham and Freeman

sentences of two guards who were found hot water was turned Oli and his head was then conspired to create false reports to

guilty of violat{ng a prisoner's civilrights. beaten against the wall. He "'felt a strong justify placing IS. in 26 !{allway.

The guards' actions resulted in the sexual ' pain in his buttocks and believed he was

The three guards were subsequently

assault of an 18-year-old prisoner.

being anally raped."

charged with violating J,S.'s civil rights

When IS. was arrested for speeding

Eventually, IS. got out of the shower and making a faI'se entry. Sydnor pieaded

and eluding police on February 14, 2003, but fell as he tried to nm towards the door. guilty to conspiracy,. but the indictment

he was taken to Kentucky's Gquit County Prisoner Victor Zipp told IS. he had two was dismissed and he cooperated in the

Detention .Center. ,At the time, IS. was choices: "Either get fucked in the ass or suck prosecution of Lanham and Freeman,

18 years old, six feet tall and weighed 125 my dick." When IS. refused either choice, 'who were later convicted. Lanham was

. pounds. He had blonde highlights in his another prisoner punched him in the back sentenced to 15 years in federal ptison and

hair, wore a bright shirt and had heart of the head. Zipp then grabbed IS by the Freeman received a l4-year sentence:. The

shapes on his underwear. SgL Shawn hair and forced his penis into IS. 's mouth. Sixth Circuit affirmed their convictions

Sydnor described IS. as a "scared little IS. bit down as hard as he could and Zipp and sentenceson August 24, 2010. See:

kid" who' was "s~ssy looking."

withdrew. Another prisoner hit him in the United States v. Lanham, 617 F.3d 873 (6th

, His clothing and looks caused guards back, of the head again, but he was left alone Cir. 2010), petition for cert. filed.

to' tease him about being cute, and one

said he would make "a good girlfriend

for theinmates. " Sgt. Sydnor told guards Wesley Lanham and Shawn Freeman that . IS. "needed to be scared."

Prison Health Ser.vices Doctors Caught in Scandals

To do so, Sydnor said IS. should be

I placed in a general population cell.:Lana.;
ham stated he "knew a guy, down in 26

n a two-week period In July 2010, two by a reporter, city health officials,whd doctors employed by Prison Health oversee the PHS contract, were unaware:'

flaIl," which was kJiown as the "hallway Servjces (PHS) were involved in scandals that Parks' board certification was in

from helL" It housed prisoners convicted that led one to resign while the other was question.

of'misdemeanors and felonies..

. arrested.

.

In an unrelated incident" PHS Dr.

Detention center staff 'were aware

PHS regional medical director Dr.' Franck Leve,ille, 60, a 12-year employee-

of 26 Hallway's violent reputation., Syd- Trevor P. Parks was accused of not be- at Rikers Island, was arrested in the early

nor testified that he knew of instances ing certified to provide healthcare ~or the morning hours of July 28, 2010,for sexu-

of prisoners expressing co'ncern about 12,000 prisoners covered by a $123 million ally abusing a female .prisoner. '.Leveille

sexual assault; that sexually predatory contract between PHS and the City of was charged with criminal sexualconduct

behavior occurred in the prison; arid that . New York to supply medical treatment at ' for an incident that occurred in March 26 Hanway had more incidents of sexu- Rikers Island and the Manhattan Deten- 2010; under New York l~w, it is illegal for

ally'predatory conduct than other areas tion Center.

staff to have any sexual relations with a

of the facility.

.,

In light of questions concerning his prisoner.

Despite this knowledge, Sydnor board certification for internal medicine,

In addition to his position with PHS,

informed a female guard who told him Parks resigned on Julyl4, 2010. PLNhad Leveille also works as a family specialist at

not to put IS. in 26 Hallway "that it was previously reported that Dr. Parks; oper- .the Brooklyn Medical Plaza. If convicted

none of her business and that he wore . ated a PHS subsidiary called PHS Medical he faces more than four years in prisqn..

the sergeant's strjpes." Lanham and Free- Services P. C. that. provided heahhcare'

"This physician is charged with ex-

'man then went to 26 Hallway totalk with services at Rikers Island- an arrangement ploiting an inmate in his care, according to

prisoner Bobby Wright, telling him theY' that state officials called a sham.. [See: the criminal complaint, and violating his

wanted him to "fuck with" IS.

PLN, Nov. 2006, p.6]. 'Dr. Parks saidhe fund3;mental professional responsibility,"

Once-Lanham and Freeman told Sgt. had resigned to concentrate on his appeal said Department of Investigations Com-

Sydnor that things had been "taken care of a recommendation by the American missioner Rose Gill Hearn. ,. ,

of," they .took IS. to 26 Hallway. One of Board of Internal Medicine to suspend

them said, "Here you go boys. I have some his certification.

Sources: www.nbcnewyork.,com, http://

fresh meat for yo·u." IS. was then pushed

,"They're just concerned with some- abclocal.go.com, New York Times

into the cell and the door was closed.. ; thing that I got caught up in, and I'd

He was.promptly grabbed by the ann and led to a, bed where several prisoners petted him, began taking his clothes off, and slapped him with their tIip-flops. His.

really rather not go into it," he stated. PHS's contract with the city requires the company's'medical director to be board certified. Until they were notified

Dictionary of the Law
Thousands' of clear concise definitions See page 53 for ordering information

March 2011

30

Prison Legal News

Page 4P5L2NCOL-00390

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-9 Filed 01/31/12 Page 4 of 29

Buyariy'~
subscriptions of. $20 or mO,re, get 2 subscriptions of $10 ,Absolutely
FREE!!!

,Our Company Specializes,·in. Magazine Sales to Inmates, Friends, and their Families. Send a request for a complete list orover hundreds, of
Magazines.

Max Fitness

6rldofPuzzles(J Nat. health, '8,

Circle Track

"'-'''''''\J~U Rod's , 12~uper street12 Swap Meet

IF Harp.Ezar

Pop Hot Rod 12 Bassin -

Mag, . 51 <Classic tiuck 12 AC01.1S. OUitr 12 About beer

12 'bttina

Esquire

11 ATV Rider

Pop-Meehan. 12'Smartmoney12 Inked Girls 4 Car Craft 12.

12 Eritrepreneur 12 Vegetarian tim 9 Mad Mag ".

I"C:"0,~",C-,,",-::"""'''',7' 12 HofBike

12 CesarsWay 6 Vogue

Word Search 6Sudoku ' 6 Herb Comp '6 Rugby

12

VJordPtlzzles 6 Nick Games 6 MotherEarth 6 Skin & fuk' 9

10'R611ingStone 26 Eurb Tuner 12 'Street Bike

Dhi Rag

7:CrOsswords 6 Newsweek 54'Alr&Space 6c

IISlam·lQ GolfWorld

PQgamei 12 Science IlL 6 Superman 12 Horoscope 13

I§H1B~f~211~1vy 12Elle

12 ".L>l''''''hl

.H~rb Quarter 4Vette

12 Hulk

12 Wolverine 12

10

Street Rod 12 Honda Tune 9 BlackMen 6 Fight!

12.

It (]Iamour , " 12 12Field&Stream 12

6 Bowhunting 6 Camaroper£

Mopat¥usc. '12 CookbkDgst 6 The 'Ring 12 Nat Geo 12

Discover 12 Games

10 Ult MMA 9 Gun World 12

Many more in complete list

................. ~

•

• •

::Name-','-'--_ _ _ _~_ _ _ __
: Inmate : Addfess---'-_ _----:-_ _ _ _ _ __
• •.~~---~---~--~

M·agazines

QTY___/_ _--'---'-_--'-.Total_ __

QTY_/
QTY_ J

Total._ _-,-Total_____

QTY_'/

Total'_.._ _

~MVI.ScA

.

'Final ' $

Total

/ .

Che~k or Money Order: " pn.nt 1egl'bly ' ; ' .'.

Disc. , FTW is not l~~ble if we ~annot read:

Am. Ex.yourhandwntmg. We w1ll do our :

.

. best to fulfill every order,:. ' :

•.~-~~------~~---

QTY_/

. Total~--,-_ Credit Card Info:;exp date_'_I._cvc_",_ :

. ............................... .. ..... .. ............•........ ,... .. . .~"-,-~,~"~,'-,~,-,~.--~-~---
: SpeciallnstlUctions_'_----.--'----'-"--_ _
•.~-~~~---------~

QTY ! QTY_<I

Total_ _-::-

Total---,_ _

~

~.~

~

~

Name

on

C-ar-d\-·~-

----

-~--"----

•
:

--~----~~--~--~

~.~.~

~~~.

Prison Legal News

31

'March 2011 Page 4P5L3NCOL-00391

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-9 Filed 01/31/12 Page 5 of 29

P.risoner' Labor Used to Clean Up BP Oil Spill

' n April 29, 2010., an ,explosion on 0 Deepwater Honzon, an offshore

by Matt Clarke
take the hot, dirty, exhausting and dangerous 12-hour-a-day jobs at the $10 per

refuses the cleanup assigriment~ he forfeits "good time" credits towards his sentence

drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico, hour BP was offering. One work release and is returned to prison.

killed 11 workers. The accident resulted in center operator noted that the Louisiana

Some local officials have acknowledged

an oil spill that leaked oil iritothe gulf for Workforce Commission might field 400 ' using prisoner labor for oil cleanup. A

three months, damaging both the ecology new non-prisoner employees on any given Plaquemines Parish Sheriff's Offic~ lieuten-

and economy of coastal states'- particu- Monday and only have 200 show up for ant admitted having three unpaid prisoner

larly Louisiana. Deepwater Horizon was 'work the following day.

crews sandbagging to block the spread of

owned by acorporation calledTransocean

After ,local residents complained; ,oil in Buras, Louisiana. The warden of

and leased to oil company BP (formerly workers with scarlet pants and "In- ,LPWRC said he had 18 prisoners assigned

British Petroleum).

' m a t e Labor" T-shirts disappeared from to oil cleanup work, noting thatthe number

Ehrly)n BP's effort to clean up oil- 'Louisiana beach cleanup crews. BP and changed on a'daily basis. Louisiana Gov-

soaked beaches in Louisiana, cleanup, government officials 'Claimed, they didn't emor Bobby Jindal's office issued a press

workers wearing scarlet pants and T-shirts 'know if prisoners were stillibe,ing used for release praising the. training of 8Q state

emblazoned with the words "Inmate cleanup efforts. Does that mean prisoners prisoners in the "cleaning of oil-impacted

Labor" were easy to spot. Local resi- were no longer working on the crews? Not wildlife recovered from coastal areas." The

dents, many of whom had been rendered at all. Rather, the prisoners were 'issued prison system later denied thatwas the case,

destitute by the oil spill, which had de- oil-resistapt coveralls and shirts with BP but the media reported that "more than 80

stroyed the fishing industry in the region, logos. Prisoner work crews in just such prisoners wearing green jumpsuits were

expressed outrage. Why was BP hir'ing attire were observed returning to the searching for wildlife affected by the spili."

prisoners when the beepwaterHorizon Lafourche Parish Work Release Center

The situation is similar in Alabama,

accident had forced so many 'coastal resi- (LPWRC) in unmarked white vans.

where SG & S Oil Recovery Product, LLC

dents into unemployment? '

But BP's attempt to <:;onceal the fact. hired over 200 state prisoners to assist

The first and most obvious answer to thatlt was using prisoners to clean up the with the oil cleanup effort. Most of those

that question is to save money. Louisiana oil 'spill was largely ineffective, as 70% of prisoners were trained for three days in

has 39,000 prisoners, but only enough Louisiana's prisoners and almost all of J Hazardous Waste Operations (;lnd Emer-

space in its state prisons .to incarcerate the prisoner workers on the cleanup crews ' gency Response, while some were used to

19,000. The other 20',000 are housed in pti- are black while 90% of the local coastal manufacture oil containm.ent booms at a

vate prisons, parish jails and work-release residents are white. The obvious racial work-release center in Loxley.

centers. This decentralized incarceration disparity in the cleanup crewsled NAACP

SG &' S owner Jay Gr.addick said

scheme makes if difficult to 'oversee, .or president Ben T. Jealous to ask"why black he prefers prisoner labor. "It's almost

/ even understand,' the statewide practice people were over-represented in the most impossible for them to steal anything,"

of prisoner labor. Parish jails, under the physically difficult, lowest payingjobs, with he said. "They're not walking around

direction of local sheriffs, are' allowed to the'most exposure to toxins."·The answer is talking em cell phones. They're orderly,

contract out prisoners to work for private because black people are ,overrepresented' because repercussions are harsh. I've had

businesses. The prisoners receive between in the prison system, which is where many less problems with these guys than when

zero and forty cents 'al1 hour for their labor of the cleanup crews came from.

I've hired just normal people."

plus an opportunity to earn extra credits

Prisoner workers are l?ound by BP's

Further, prisoners will do work that

("good time") off their sentences.

notorious gag rule and thus cannot speak "normal people" won't do, according.

The businesses get a sober, drug-free, about the cleahup. Most prison and gov- to Graddick, who put an ad in the 10-

cheap workforce, supervised by guards, ernment officials refuse to comment on or cal paper offering $8' to $10 an hour for

that shows up on'time ready to work - feign ignorance about the 'use of prisoners cleanup work and "didn't get a single

even if the assignment is dangerous to in the cleanup effort. 'However, it is. known phone call from somebody looking for the prison~rs' health, such as cleaning up that beach cleanup 'crews work 12 hours ajob." Nonetheless, "if a guys walks up,

a toxic oil spill.

a day. They are dressed in high-density and he's looking to do the work, I'llliire

"If you talk to people around here, it is polyethylene coveralls that are taped to him," Graddick said. Of course, cleanup

jokingly referred to as rent-a:"convict," said their plastic~covered steeL-toed boots. companies would rather hire prisoners

Michael Brewer, ,a former public defender, Under OSHA rules, they work 20 minutes who have little choice abo~lt showing up

who was quoted in a JuJy 2006 Ne,w York followed by a 40~minute rest due to the for work or being exposed to toxic oil

Times article on prisoner labor in Louisi- oppressive heat that builds up in their pro- fumes while on the job.,

,

ana. "There's something'offensive about tective suits under the hot sun. Between

Nor are officials' in Louisiana and

a that. It's almost like form of slavery.'" 'their 6 a.m. starting time a~d the end of Alabama the only ones who recognize the

Just getting a workforce that win the work day at 6 p.m., they will have benefits of prisonep labor for oil cleanup.

show up is a big plus for BP. Although clocked 3-4 hours of back-breaking labor In Dade County, FIQrida, where no. oil

the appearance of prisoner laborers and 12 hours of exposure to noxious, pos- has come ashore, county commissioners

sparked outrage,BP ¢laiin~d it c()uld hot sibly toxic oil fum~s. If 'a prisoner decides considered a proposal to use prisoners to

find enough 10caiemploY,ees, who Would that the risk to his health is too great and "rehabilitate". the shoreline in the event

March 2011

32

Prison Legal News

Page 4P5L4NCOL-00392

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-9 Filed 01/31/12 Page 6 of 29

the spill reaches the Miami area.
It's a dirty job cleaning up BP's oil
spill, but apparently prisoners are the ones who have to do it. ~

Sources: The Nation, http://blog.al.com, www.cbs4.com. The Daily Mail (UK), DailyKos, www.aolnews.com. New York Times

Former Orange County Jail Detainee Paid

$750,000 to Settle Guard Tasering Suit

I n March 201 O,Orange County, Califor- U.S.D.C. (CD Cal.y~ Case No. 8:07-cvnia paid $750,000 to settle a civil rights 00803-AG-AN.

suit filed by Matthew Fleuret, a former

Since then, however, the department's

jail prisoner who alleged he was subjected . policy regarding use of force has changed

to excessive force following his arrest in dramatically, at least according to Assis-

March 2006 on suspicion of obstructing tant Sheriff Tim Board, who attributes

a deputy in the performance of his duties, the turnaround to the appointment of

after Fleuret got into a bar fight on St. Sandra Hutchens as Orange County Sher-

Patrick's Day.

iff in 2008. Hutchens' predecessor, former

Fleuret was never prosecuted, but the Sheriff Michael S. Carona, resigned after

incident that gave rise to his lawsuit was being indicted on corruption charges;

videotaped and made public after he sued he was later convicted and sentenced to

the c,ounty for $47.5 million. The video 66 months in federal prison. [See: PLN,

showed Fleuret being placed in a holding Feb. 2009, p.l; Nov. 2009, p.38]. During

cell, then being held down by at least five Carona's tenure, two prisoners died after

guards. Over a period of some 13 minutes, being Tasered while a third was beaten to

Fleuret's arms were pulied back while he death by other prisoners within sight of

was shocked with a Taser 11 times.

the guards' glass-enclosed booth.

According to internal records from

The ACLU has called on the sheriff's

the sheriff's department, Fleuret was department to limit the use of Tasers to

intoxicated and uncooperative at the situations where there is a threat of death time of the incident. The county did not or serious injury. ~

admit fault when agreeing to the settle-

ment. See: Fleuret v. County of Orange, Additional source: Los Angeles Times

Massac'husetts: Wrongful Conviction Suit.Settled for '$3.25 Million

The City of Boston has agreed to pay right$lawsuit pending against the Boston $3.25 million to settle a lawsuit filed Police Department, though, that sought

by a man who 'was wrongfully convicted millions of dollars in damages for police

and imprisoned for 18 years for a series misconduct in connection with his wrong-

of rapes he did not commit.

ful conviction.

Ulysses Charles was convicted in 1984

In December 2009, the City of Boston

of raping three women at an apartment agreed to settle the federal suit for $3.25

complex near the General Dynamics .million. William Sinnott, counsel for the

. shipyard where he worked as a welder city, said that lawyers for both parties had

building Navy ships. ,

"engaged in long and thoughtful delibera-

His convictions and 80-year sentence tions," and that both sides were "satisfied"

were overturned in 2001 after DNA with the settlement.

evidence revealed that se1l1en found at the , "There are five victims in this case,"

crime scene belonged to two' other men. said Frank C. Corso, Charles' attorney.

Charles' defense attorneys alleged that "There are the three women who were

police and prosecutors had deliberately raped. There is the man who spent 18

withheld exculpatory evidence.

years in prison for a crime he did not

In April 2009, a civil jury found by commit. And there's society, which is pay-

"clear and convincing" evidence. that ing money and not solving a crime." See:

Charles was innocent of the 1980 rapes Charles v. City of Boston,U.S.D.C. (D.

and awarded him $500,000 under Mas- Mass.), Case No. 1:04-cv-l0986-NG."

sachusetts' wrongful conviction,statute.

Charles had a separate federal civil Additional source: Boston Globe

Prison Legal News

33

ite
• locate We have an on-site
inmate locator.
• Educate Locate any area
educational institution in the United States, which, serves prisoners. Find colleges, universities, auto, barbering, paralegal " and so much more...
• Integrate New search
feature: 3 clicks and you are there. Thousands of help agencies throughout the United States and growing fast... ...No other prisoner pen pal site compares to:

Prisoners

Networ

w. P,rMdeFOurProfile
auHalptkms:

1. bmSubseription Plan
$SO.00/6 month 1 PiHure/ZSO words 2. P,..mtum Subscription Plan $40.00/12 months
aPicture$/500 word$
i. Lel.tAds $40.00/12 months 1 Pictur./550 words
4. Personltiled Websitel8fo"er) $125.00 per year . 1 t...../5 piCture carouset 500 words per month $75.00"newal per year
$80.00 renewal fee tasle, Pr~mtuml Leg.' Subscribe now and the first 20 requests
receive a 6 month paid Basic Subscription Plan for ~.
(§ooa u.nI:i£ ~ 30, 2011)
At prisonersnetwork.com we take
our coml1)itnient to our members
seriously. We provide profile
members with an international
pen-pal audience. Our search
capability is second to none when
searching for help. Be it for you,
your family orloved ones, our site
provides you with a live person.
Only 3 clicks and you're there!!

Prisoners Network P.O. Box 147 Hughesville, PA 17737

Toll Free: 1-888-402-2011 1-570-584-2088

Prisonersnetwork.com
March 2011

Page 4P5L5NCOL-00393

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-9 Filed 01/31/12 Page 7 of 29

Class Action Certified in California Federal Civil Rights Suit Against TransCor

On February 16,2010, a California U.S. exhaust administrative remedies at all. prisoners satisfied the Act's "coercion"

District Court certified a class action

The district court held that the requirement.

lawsuit against Nashville, Tennessee- named plaintiffs showed more than

The court thus granted the plaintiffs'

based private prison transport company de minimus physical injuries and class motion for class certification and certified

TransCor America for transporting pris- members were not required to separately the class as described above. Attorneys

oners more than 24 continuous hou~s do so. The clas\; met the Federal Rule Andl:ew C. Schwartz, Karen L. Snell and

without giving them an opportunity to ' of Civil Procedure 23(a) requirements Mark E. Merin were appointed as class

rest overnight in a bed.

' of numerosity, commonality, typical- counsel, and the class notification' was

The class action suit was brought ity and adequacy. Further, the pendent. approved by the court on March 16,2010.

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleged state claims raised under the, Tom Bane The case remains pending, and PLN has

that TransCor subjected prisoners to Civil Rights Act could be certified as published several notices regarding the

cruel and unusual punishment during a class action because the Act'did not class certification in this suit: See: Schil-

long journeys exceeding 24 hours by prohibit class actions and the use of ling v. Trans Cor America, U.S.D.C. (N.D.

keeping them shackled and in a cage handcuffs and shackles on transported Cal.), Case No. 3:08-cv-00941-SI. ~

.

\

while depriving them of access to regular

food, water or toilet facilities, and for failing to allow them to sleep overnight

Towns Defaulting on, Prison and Jail Bonds

in a bunk. The lawsuit also raises claims under California's Tom Bane Civil Rights,

by Matt Clarke.

M Act, Cal. Civil Code § 52.1. The plaintiffs
filed a motion for class certification, which

unicipal bonds have long been con-

According to Matt. Fabian, director

sidered a safe investment. However, of research for Municipal Market Advi-

TransCor opposed.

recent defaults on bonds used to pay for sors, Baker County as well as Central

Accepting as true any substantive alle- the construction of pdvately-run' prisons Falls, Rhode Island and Hardin, Montana

gations ma9.e in the complaint, the district and jails have investors worried about los- have debt troubles due to jail construction

cour~ held that the requested class of "all ing their capital, and towns worried about that didn't work out as planned.

. pretrial detainees who were transported their abilityto raise money through future

In 2005, $99 million in bonds was

by TransCor America, LLC, its ,agents, bond issues.

issuc:d at par with a 7.25% yield to 'pay

or employees, and forced to r,emain in the

. As far back as 2005, bonds used to for the Central Falls Detention Facility.

transport van for more than 24 hours" was finance the West Alabama Youth Services After the bonds entered technical default

too broad. The court limited the claims to detention facility went into default. Those in 2009, they were trading at 85.3 cents on

pretrial detainees and prisoners who were bonds, which were originally issued at par the dollar and yielding 8.63%.

transported for more than 24 hours from and yielded a 7.25% return, are currently

The Two Rivers Detention Center

February 14,2006 to the present date, even trading at 9'cents on the dollar.

in Hardin defaulted on $27 million in

if transferred from one vehicle to another

However, such defaults were rare until revenue bonds in May 2008 after the city

with each individual transport being less recent years. Driving the current wave could not find prisoners to fill its vacant

than 24 hours, and a subclass for prison- of bond defaults are unscrupulous busi- prison. [See: PLN, Dec. 2009, p.1].

ers who' were transported by the prison nesses that sold small towns on the idea

Further, in April 2010, the Texas

system and TransCor combinedfor more of building privately-opel:ated jails while panhandle town of Littlefield had to dip

than 24 hours.

'

overstating the need for jail bed space into its reserves to cover interest on $1.2

The district court specifically ex- and the potential revenue stream. Some million in debt used to finance the Bill

cluded prisoners who were transported of these private detention facilities were Clayton Detention Center. Following the

earlier than February 14; 2006, but had able to buck the recent trend of reductions, technical default, Fitch Ratings dropped

the legal right to toll their claims due to in state prisoner popUlations by switch- the town's bond rating from BB to BBB -

insanity or their .status as minors. The ing to immigration detention. However, essentially junk bond status.

court refused to exclude federal prison- a speedier deportation process and more

According to Littlefield city manager

ers, but excluded prisoners and pretrial stringent standards for immigration facili- Danny Davis, the city had to cut fire and

detainees transported on behalf of federal ties have resulted in complications.

police services and may raise property

officials because a § 1983 action could not, For exaJTIple, the Baker County De- taxes in an effort to avoid completely

be brought against federal authorities and velopment Corporation was' created to defaulting. on its $780,000 annual bond

their agents.

finance a jail and immigration detention service payments. The city is also explor-

The court found that TransCor had center in north Florida. In 2008, $105 ing selling the jailor having the state tah~

not shown it had in adequate administra- ,.million worth of bonds were issued to it over. The latter option seems unlikely,

tive remedy that prisoners were required 'finance the facility. The county technically as Texas is faced with a huge budget defi-

to exhaust under the Prison Litigation defaulted in August 2010 by using reserves cit and has cut the state prison system's

Reform Act, and, that onenameCl plain- to pay the interest; the bonds dropped to budget by 5% in FY 2010 with another

,tiff, who was no longer a prisoner when 71.25 cents on the dollar with a yield of 10% cut announced for FY 2011.

the lawsuit was filed, was not required to 20.73%.

Littlefield's problems originated in

March 2011

34

Prison Legal News

Page 4P5L6NCOL-00394

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-9 Filed 01/31/12 Page 8 of 29

August 2008 when Idaho prisoner Ran- .those bonds are backed by the. taxing markets but no indictments have been

dall McCullough committed suicide at authority of the government. For the issued yet.

the Bill Clayton Detention Center, which past several years there h,as been a large,

focused attention on deplorable condi- ongoing, federal investigation into cor- Sources: Smartlvloney, Lubbock Ava-

tions at the GEOGroup-run facility. [See: ruption in the state and municipal bond lanche-Journal

PLN, June 2009, p.l]. GEO lost its con-

tract to house out-of-state prjsoners' and

terminated its operating agreement with the city in 2009, leaving Littl~field with a prison emp.ty of everything except debt.

$100,000 Settlement in Nebraska Jail P~isoner Suicide Suit

The city is now hoping to conti-act with

Avalon Correctional Services to operate the detention center as an Intermediate

a heridan Coupty, Nebraska has agreed 2005 unsuccessfully attempted suicide.
to pay$l 00,000 to the estate of pris- The case' settled just four day.s before go-

Sanction Facility;

oner who committed suicide while at the ing to trial.

Bob Libal, the rexas coordinator of Sheridan COlinty JaiL

'The terms of the settlement require

Grassroots Leadership, a non-profit ad- . Jay Spotted Elk hung himself'with Sheridan County to institute several

vocacy organization that opposes private a belt in his cell after being· arrested on policy changes to reduce the incidence

prisons, said many small towns agreed to a misdemeanor' charge of failure to ap- of prisoner suicides at the jail. An jail

use risky debt to fund "speculative pris- pear. Spotted Elk was intoxicated and, staff are now required to undergo man-

ons~' managed by private companies.

distraught at the time, and allegedlymade datory suicide training. Furthei', since

"They go after a lot of towns without numerous suicidal statements to Ray Native Americans are particularly prone

a lot of sophistication and resources to do . Heath, a sheriff's dep'ilty who took hini to to jail suicide" the settlement requires,

the due diligence," said Libal. "If they let jail. Spotted Elk also injured himself while jail employees to notify tribal suicide

the bonds go under, it is very difficult for in the patrol car, repeatedly banging his prevention staff at the nearby Pine

them to issue any more debt." I

head against the frame of the car, causing Ridge Oglala and Rosebud reservations

This problem will continlie so long as a gash in his head.

'

whenever a Native American prisoner

towns look at private prisons as a way to

Heath did not seek medical attention

exhibits

suicidal

tendenc.ies.

The

suicide '

generate revenue and jobs - but perhaps for Spotted Elk's head injury nor did he' prevention staff, in turn, can then speak

they are simply getting what they deserve inform jail staff that Spotted Elk had with the prisQner via telephone or face

for trying to profit off of other people's made suicidal comments, according to the to face. The settlement' also includes

incarceration and misery,

, lawsuit filed by Sp'otted Elk's estate. Levi a five-year monitoring period until

a PLN 'previously. ran a comprehen- McKillip, guard working in the jail's 2015 - to ensure compliance with the

sive article on back-door prison finance booking area, allegedly did not aS'k Spot- settlement terms.

through the use of municipal revenue ted Elk or Heath about Spotted Elk's head

Spotted Elk's estate was represented

,bonds and other types of government wound. McKillip also' failed to remove by Maren L. Chaloupka of Chaloupka,

securities. [See: PLN, Nov. 2008, p.l]. Spotted Elk's belt before putting him in a Holyoke, Hofmeister, Snyder & Chaloup-:

The impact on state and county gov- "drunk tank."

ka, a Scottsbluff, Nebraska law firm. See:

ernments' ability. to raise money to

Spotted Elk's suicide was the fourth Eastman v.County oj,Sheridan,U.S.D.C.

build government-run prisons and jails at the Sheridan County Jail since 1998. (D. Neb.), Case No. 7:07-cv-05004~JFB-

. by selling bonds remains' unGlear .since Another eight prisoners from 1998 to TDT.

'

Prison Legal Ne,:"s

35

March 2011 Page 4P5L7NCOL-00395

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-9 Filed 01/31/12 Page 9 of 29

PLN' and' HRDC Win Consent Judgment Against Louisiana Sheriff in Censorship Case

On May 18,2019, Prison Legal News to prisoners at the St. Bernard Parish sented by New Orleans attorneys Mary (PLN) and its parent organiza- Prison. In addition to the extensive in- E. Howell and Liz Cummings and former

tion, the Human Rights Defense Center junctive relief, the jail also paid $10,000 HRDC general counsel Dan Manville.

(HRDC), won another battle against in damages and $30,418 in attorney fees See: Prison LegalNews v. Stephens,

censorship by prison and jail officials. and costs.'

, U.S.p.C. (E.D. La.), Case No. 2:'09-cv-

In 2009, PLN and HRDC sued Jack

PLN andHRDC were ably repre- 075l5-JCZ-SS. ~

A. Stephens, Sheriff of St. Bernard Par-

ish in Louisiana, after staff at the St. Bernard Pa\ish, Prison refused to deliver

Florida: Cost Savings and Benefits of

to prisoners issues o'f PLN and Protecting Your Health and Safety, a prisoners'

Prison Privatization on-Existent

rights handbook distributed by PLN. The failure to deliver these publications, PLN

by David M~ Reutter

and HRDC argued, was a violation of the , , Flol:ida's'ex~erience .withprivat.ized supervision and custody that the newly

First Amendment.

pnsons raIses senous, questIOns constrllc1ed privately operated prisons

,

,

'

Separately, PLN and HRDC con- about whether the taxpayers are getting have that lower operational costs."

tended that the prison's failure to provid~ their money's worth,';? concludes an April

Florida's oversight of its prison system

PLN with notification of rejected publica- 20 IO· policy ,briefr r,eport' released by the ,:is unique among states that use private

tionsviolated due process.

, Florida Center for Fiscal and Economic prisons; The Department of Management

PLN and HRDC moved for a prelimi- Policy. The report questions methods used Services (DMS), handles the procurement

nary injunction in January 2010, but the to determine whether private prisons cost process and contract management, which

district court delayed ruling on the motion less to operate or are more' effective' at includes a daily on-site presence. To ensure

while the parties engaged in settlement reducing recidivism.

that security standards are maintained, the

negotiations. On May 18, 2010, with the

"Between 1989 a,nd 2008, the rate of Florida Department of Corrections con-

assistance and oversight of the court, the crinie in Florida significantly decreased," ducts random inspections at private prisons.

parties agreed to resolve PLN and HRDC's the report states., Vi6lent crime dropped While this dual oversight system ccim be

requests for injunctive relief thrqugh the by 41 %, pi'operty crimes by 46% and the effective, "in many cases, it causes coordina-

entry of a consent judgment.

total crime index declined by 46%. Yet the tion and accountability problems." .

The conseD:t judgment requires St. number of Florida's prisoners grewl 08%

The report found no support for the

Bernard Parish to deliver all withheld in comparison to the average 78% rate of rationale to·use private prisons, as "[t]here

issues of PLN to prisoners. Previously prison population growth nationwide Over is no compelling evidence that the priva-

rejected copies of Protecting Your Health the same time period.'

, tization of prisons has actually resultec;l

and Safety must also be delivered.

State policymakers, swayed,by the in [the statutorily required 7%] savings."

The sheriff, agreed to adopt" a new potential to save money and reduce recidi- As to recidivism reduction, "the contracts

policy related to incoming publications vism through prison privatization, allowed and contract mOJ;litoring are focused on

as part of the consent judgment. Under private companies to manage correctional, inputs (e.g., inmate program participation

the new policy, a publication will be re- ' facilities in Florida. The authorizing stat- requirements) and do not include any pro-

jected only if it contains materials that ute require,s private prisons to operate at visions to ensure the desired outComes of

would "threaten security, good order, or a 7% savings over state-run facilities. See: reduced recidivism." In fact, syveral stud-

discipline of the institution or that may Florida Statutes § 957.07(1).

facilitate criminal activity, or are other-

By 2008, ,six of Florida's prisons

ies have found that prisoners released from pri~ate prisons may have higher recidivism

wise p1:ohibited by law:"

Bay, Gadsden, Graceville,Lake iCity, rates. [See: PLN, Dec. 2009, p.11].

In making this assessme'nt, staff can- Moore Haven ~nd South Bay ->\were

To ensure that taxpayers receive

.t;lot reject a publication "solely because operated either by the GEO Group or the ,desired result from prison privatiza-

its c'ontent is religious, philosophical, oCorrections Corporation of ,America tion, the Florida Center for Fiscal and

political, social, or sexual, or because its (CCA), holding 7,725 state prisoners.

Economic Policy recomn1ended that the

content is unpoplltlar or repugnant." Fur-

On their face, private prisons appear Department of Corrections'have primary

, ther, a .list of banned publications cannot to save taxpayers'money. In 2008, private responsibility for procurement and con-

be established.

prisons cost $17,216 annually per prisoner traCt management. Private prison firms

If a publication is rejected, both compared to $18,980 per prisoner at state- that bid on state contracts should be re-

the prisoner and sender must receive run facilities.

'

quired to make their best and final dffer

notifiGation of the rejection and be given

However, the report notes, this is rather than being advised of a per diem

an opportunity to file an administrative , deceptive. Prisoners in public prisons are rate, and bids over the per diem estab-

appeal. The :!lew incoming publica- more, costly due to their higher 'security lished by the state should be considered

tions policy is not limited to PLN' and levels and expensive medical care. Ad- non-responsive and rejected.

.

HRDC, but applies to all publishers and ditionally, older public prisons "do not

Additionally, the Office of Program

distributors that send reading materia1. offer the architectural advantages to Policy AnalY$i~ and Government Account-

March 2011

J6

Prison Legal News

Page 4P5L8NCOL-00396

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-9 Filed 01/31/12 Page 10 of 29

ability should conduct studies todetermine

if the state or a private company can best

realize construction and operational sav-

ings in newly-built prisons. The Auditor

General should conduct annual audits to

ensure that the statutorily-req'uired 7%

savings actually occur. Finally, the report

recommends that the 'Prison' Per-Diem

Workgroup meet regularly..

Some issues not addressed in the re-

port include fra'ud, mismanagement and

lack of meaningful oversight of privately-

operated prisons: For exampl,e, Florida's

Office of Program PolicY,Analysis and

Government Accountability issued a

report in December 200S that found the

DMS' oversight of private prisons had

significantweaknesses. (See: PLN, Alig.

2009, p.1S].

Further, prior state audits revealed

that Florida had overpaidGEO Group

and CCA more than $4.5 million for va-

cant job positions and maintenan~ce thCl:t

was never performed. [See: PLN, Nov.

2007; p3S; June 2007, p.32]. ~

,

So:urce: "Are Florida's Private Prisons .Keeping Their Promise?" Policy Brief, Florida Center for Fiscal and 'Economic Policy (Api'U20IO)

Tennessee: Private 'Prison· Guards Considered' "Public Servants"

Employees of Corrections Corporation ally entrusted to the government."

of America (CCA), the nation's larg-

The Court of Criminal Appeals found

est for-profit prison company, are public that the stat~'s Private Prison Contracting

servants within the meaning of Tennes- Act "specifically extends the provisions of

see's criminal code. \

Code sections 39-16-402 and -403 to em-

In July 200S, CCA giIards David Gil- ployees of private pdson contractors," and

liam and Joe Edward McCown III~ who that th~ statute was "unambiguous."

worked at the Hamilton County Work-

The Court also agreed "with the

house in Chattanoo'ga, were charged court of appeals [in Friedmann] that by

with official misconduct and official- operating a correctional facility, a func-

oppression under T.C.A. §§ 39-1'6-402 tion traditionally performed by the State,

and 39-16-403. However, the trial court ·CCA and its employees were engaged in

granted'the guards' motions to dismiss ·a governmental function. ,,' The ,ruling in

the charges, agreeing ttIat CCA employ- ·Friedmann resulted after PLN associaJe

ees wete not "public servants;' under editor Alex Friedman'n sued CCA nnder

Tennessee law..

Tennessee's public- records statute. [See:

The state appealed and the Court of PLN, Oct. 200S, p~24].

Criminal Appeals" noted that the issue

Therefore, the Cqurt of Criminal

was one of first impression. "The State" Appeals agreed that private prison guards

citing Ah:x Friedmann v. Correctioi1s qualified as public servants under Ten-

Corporation of America, 'No. M~OOS- nessee's criminal code, and reversed the

0199S-COA-,R3-CV (Tenn.CLApp., trial Gourt's dismissal of. the c'harges

Nashville, Sept. 16, 2009), perm. app. against Gilliam and McCown. See: State

denied (Tenn, 2010), contends that the v. Gilliam, Case No. E2009-01079-CCA-

defendants are public servants because . R3-CD (Tenn. Crim.App. 2010), 2010 WL

they are performing a service tradition- 2670S22.

How to

\:

WjnPers nal

Injury Claim

• Avoid inaurCIIlt::E$ eonlpt'l,n;t runruuwwa • Snvf) 00 lilwyor foos • 0(.1 Q f<l.ir $~cment

Order from Prison legal News
Add $6 shipping for orders under $50
Prison Legal Ne,ws P.O'. Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303 Phone: 802 579-1309 www.prisonlegainews.org

How to Win Your Personal Injury

Claim

.

, $34.99

How t(i,Win YC?ur Personal Injury Claim shows 'you how to handle almost every accident situation, and gurdes you through the insurance 'claim process, step by step. Learn how to:

• protect your rights aft!3r an accident III determine what your claim is worth CD handle a property-damage claim CD dea:! with uncooperative doctdrs, lawyers
and insurance companies III counter the speci~i tactics insurance
companies use CD prepare a claim for compensation CD negotiate a full and fair settlement III stay on top of your case ifyou hire a lawyer

The Crim'inal Law Handbook $39.99
Legal Research $49,99

Represent Yourself in Court $39.99
Nolo.'s Deposition Handbook· $34.99

NOLO YOUR LEGAL COMPANION

Prison Legal News

37

March 2011 Page 4P5L9NCOL-00397

,

l

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-9 Filed 01/31/12 Page 11 of 29

Texas Audits Private Prison and Substance Abuse Treatment Contract Monitoring

by Matt Clarke

. In March 2010, the Texas State Audi- the Parole Division and the Rehabilitation ptisoners. Some former contractor empl6yees

tor's Office released a repo(t on a Programs Division without clear definitions continued to have such access, which could performance audit of the Private Facili- of the diVIsions' r~sponsibilities. This callsed compromise the secutity of the ptison system.

ties Contract Monitoring and Oyersight lapses in oversight functions.

The PFCMOD was improperly designated as

Division (PFCMOD).

The TDCJ further failed to main- having primary responsibility for managing

The PFCMOD monitors private pris- tain documentation to justify contract . security and user access to the computer-

. ons and private substance abuse treatment renewal.s, and some contractors failed. ized payment Authorization Management

programs under. contract with the· Texas to document the qualifications of their System. This should have been assigned to

Department of Criminal Justice (TDGJ). employees. The PFCMOD did not docu-· the Information Technology Division. Also,

' . Texas has more prisoners in private prisons ment all of its monitoring visits t9 halfway contractor workers were not required to sign

than any other state. The audited private houses and substance abuse programs. secutityagreements.

contractors were responsible fb'r, 26,798

Additionally, the audit noted some

The PFCMOD agreed with the

prisoners in a variety of settings in~lud- security problems. The TDCJ had no audit's recomm~ndations to correct the

.ing 13 private prisons, 5 private state jails, - documented policies and procedures for identified deficiencies. See: The Depart-

4 private Intermediate Sanctions Facilities, processing contractor payments, which ment of Criminal Justice's Oversight of

9 private Substance Abuse Felony Punish- . resulted in some payment irregulatities and Selected Providers that Deliver Residential

ment Facilities, two In-Prison Therapeutic improper payment documentation. Many Services and Substance Abuse Treatlnent

Communities, a Multiple Program Treat- contractor employees unnecessarily had ac- Programs, Texas State Auditor Report No..

ment Facility, 19 private Substance Abuse cess to and the ability to change reports that 10-025 (available at www.sao.state.tx.us

Treatment Facilities, one In-Prison Driving track the arrival, departure and transfer of and on PLN's website). ,.

While Intoxicated Treatment Program, two

County Jaii Work Release Programs and 8 private halfway houses.
The contracts for those. services ex-

Short-Lived Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Global Tel*Link in California,

ceeded $255 million in FY 2009, up from, around $235 million in FY 2008. The

Then Se~retly Settled

audit covered the PFCMOD's activities for FY 2008 and 2009.

, by Mike Brodheim .

S The Texas Board of Criminal Justice

ick and tired of being gouged by high tion on behalf of consumers..

approved the creation of the PFCMOD . prison phone rates, Nadia Alvarez

. In their complaint, Alvarez and Fish~

. in 2007. In FY 2009, the PFCMOD had a and Rachel Fishenfeld, two California enfeld stated that GTL is an "exclusive

budget of around $53 million and a staff residents, filed a consumer class action suit provider" at the facilities where it operates

of 40 contract monitors to oversee 68 -against Global Tel*Link (GTL) in August and thus is "able to exploit its customers contract~ with 33 different companies. The 2010. GTL, a major telecommunications by charging them exorbitant, undisClosed

2009 contracts were for a total of 20,722 company that contracts with prisons and 'per-minute rates (often in excess of $1.00/

beds and 6,855 treatment slots.

jails throughout the country to provide .minute) and excessive serVice charges."GTL

The state auditors noted a lack of phone services, was accused of engaging allegedly requires its customers to establish

performance standards in some contracts in unfair business practices in violation of and maintain an advance pay balance that

that would make it impossible for the both federal law and California state law. is used to pay for calls made to the customer

TDCJ to hold companies accountable for

Alvarez and Fishenfeld soughtcerti- by someone who is incarcerated, with such

non-compliance. The report found that the fication of a class-consisting of all Urlited calls incurring varying per-minute rates that

TDCJ did not consistently include financial States residents who, within two years of are not disclosed to the customer.

reporting· requirements in its contracts for the filing of the suit, paid for GTL's services

The suit further claims that GTL fails

substance abuse treatment programs and so they could receive phone calls from to inform its customers that they will be

did not include allbf the essential contract someone in a jailor prison. The plaintiffs charged a service fee of $4.75 for each

provisions required by the State of Texas also sought to certify a subclass of Cali- $25.00 prepayment they make towards an

Contract Management Guide in all of its forp.ia residents only, consisting of those advance pay account. Nor does GTL notify

contracts. The TDCJ also allowed some who paidJor GTL's services during the four its customers that this service fee will be

contractors to conduct their oWn criminal years· prior to the filing of the lawsuit..

deducted from their advance pay balance. _

background checks ori their employees . The plaintiffs were represented by 1.

GTL is contractually obligated to "vali-

without controls to ensure that the checks Paul Gignac, a partner at Arias Ozzello & date" the phone number of each call made

were properly performed.

Gignac LLP of Santa Barbara, as well as by aprisoner. It does this, unbeknownst to

The audit noted that responsibility for Steven S. Derelian of Pasadena and Eugene. its customers, by placing a holq or freeze on

the private contracts for substance abuse pro- Feldman of Hermosa Beach - counsel with a portiol} of the advance pay -balance of a

grams was divided between the PFCMOD, experience in handling class action litiga- customer's account each time they receive a

March 2011

38

Prison Legal News

Page 4P6L0NCOL-00398

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-9 Filed 01/31/12 Page 12 of 29

call from someone who is incarcerated. The amount held or frozen ranges from $14.71 to $2L62, and the hold lasts for 30 to 60 minutes - until the call is "validated." .

Kentucky Guards Sentenced to Federal Prison in Detaine~ Abuse Prosecution

A The hold thus has the effect of re-
ducing the amount of the advance pay

Kentucky. federal court has sen- intervene in the abuse; and Cpl. Scott , tenced five guards .from the Fayette Tyree pleaded guilty to a civil rights

balance available to' pay for incoming , County Detention Center (FCDC) who conspiracy charge.

calls and forces GTL customers to make were prosecuted in connection with

"The poirer granted to correctional

additional pre-payments, even before ex- systematic abuse of, prisoners at' the officers so that they can perform their

hausting an existing advance pay balance, facility.

.

critical public safety duties does not give

in order to continue to receive phone calls

FCDC Sgt.' John McQueen, 33, and them free reign to abuse the civil and con-

from prisoners.

.

Cpl. Clarence McCoy, 31, were convicted stitutional rights of inmates under their

The lawsuit enumerated five claims by a federal jury on May 13,2010. It was supervision," said U.S. Assistant Attorney.

for relief,' including violations of the established at trial that they, and other General Thomas E. Perez. "Those officers

Federal Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. FCDC guards had'conspired to ,deprive who abuse their power and the public trust

§ 201, and California's Unfair Competi- detainees of their constitutional rights by in this way will be prosecuted to the fullest

tion Law, Business and Professions Code physically abusing them and by creating extent of the law."

§ 17200, et seq. The suit sought damages, false and misleading incident reports to

McQueen and McCoy were sentenced

, restitution, declaratory relief, injunctive conceal the abuse. The conspiracy charge ' in September 2010; both received 120

relief apd other equitable relief.

identified multiple incidents of abuse months in federal prison plus·two years'

On January 31, 2011 the parties filed that occurred between January 1 and supervised release. Previously, Lafoe re-

an agreed stipulation dismissing the suit October 1,2006. Other charges described ceived a 12..;month sentence and two years'

- presumably pursuant to a confidential specific incidents of abuse and "acts of .supervised release, Estep was sentenced

settlement agreement, though one 'of the obstruction of justice. [See: PLN, Dec. to 12 months arid 1 day plus one year on

plaintiffs' attorneys declined to comment. 2008, p.50].

supervised release, and Tyree received

The lawsuit had not reached the class cer-

Before trial, FCDC Lt. Christine 18 months plus two years' supervised

tification stage 8:t the time of the stipulated Lafoe pleaded guilty, to conspiring to release. ,.

dismissal. See:, Alvarez v: Global Tel*Link obstruct justice; Sgt. An~hony Estep
us. Corporation, U.S.D.C. (C.D. Cal.), Case pleaded guilty to a civil rights charge Source: Department of Justice press

No. 2:10-cv-06288-RGK:..JC."

and an obstruction charge for failing to.' release

'Do you have diabetes? Is your diabetes under control?

Living with diabetes in prison is very'difficult. Order your FREE copy ofPrisoner Diabetes Handbook: A Guide to

Managing Diabetes - for Prisoners, by Pris.oners. .

.

This handbook, written by prisoners, 'will explain:

• Facts about diabetes

'

• How to help yourself when you have diabetes

• Complications of diabetes

• The medical treatment you need to manage your health

UWheY\ dt." dit\bet',c pt\tjeV\t ~'s seV"loV\s ~hd iY\toV'W\ed t\bo~t

.

.

•his cnselAse, he~\tk.s+~{tht\l/e +0 be OV\ theiV'toes. They

pt\y, W\oV'e, t\tfeY\+ioY\/" -JAMES,A PRISONER trVING WITHD~BETES

.IIIIIIIIIIII~IIIIIIII~IIIIIII.I.

B

•

ORDERFORM .

B B

B
Fill out the information below, B

B

and send this order form to: B

Prison Legal News
PO Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303

.

'

Order your FREE copy 'and start managing,

your diabetes and your health. Quantity is limited,

so order ~oday.

ID number Address

SPlC

Southern Poverty law Center .
Handbook made possible by the Southern Poverty Law Center

Prison Legal, News

39

B City

State Zip

B
.IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII~IIIIII

,March 2011

Page 4P6L1NCOL-00399

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-9 Filed 01/31/12 Page 13 of 29

Ohio Governor Spares Death Row Prisoner, ,Cites Problems with Evidence

.

,

K evin Keith, 46, on Ohio's death row for murdering two.\yomen and a

by Derek Gilna

nor Strickland's actions today warrant,

Keith remains incarcerated, ~QW serv:

a new, fair trial for Mr. Keith, including ing life withou,t parole, while his attorneys

4-year-old child, and scheduled for execu- the existence of l1ewly discovered evidence consider their strategy to obtain a new trial

tion on ,September 15, 2010, was spared withheld by the'state, and the develop- , in an attempt to prove his innocence. ,.

by Ohio Governor Ted Strickland. In ment of new science behind eyewitness

commuting the death penalty portion' of identification, all of which point to Mr. Sources: New York Times, Columbu~ Dis-

Keith's sentence on September: 2, Gover- Keith's innocence."

patch, www. kevinkeith. org

norStrickland stated, "This case is clearly

one in which a' full, fair analysis of all of the unanswered questions sh~:>uld be

u.S. Supreme Court: No'Federal Habeas

considered by a court." Commutation was the last resort for

Relief for California Lifer Parole Denials

Keith, who had exhausted his state court appeals and whose petition was rejected

by John E. Dannenberg

I by the U.S~ Supreme Court. The Ohio
Parole Board had unanimously recom-

n a unqnimous p,er curiam opinion, the ability hearing but California's Governor U.S. Supreme Cburt (USSC) summar-:- reversed, asserting that evidence in the

mended the denial of Keith's clemency. ily reversed rulings by the Ninth Circuit Board's record supported the reasons for

request. Before granting the commutation, Court of Appeals in two California parole' his decision. Clay unsuccessfully peti-

Gov. Strickland listened to,the appeals of cases in which the Ninth Circuit had over- tioned all of the state courts, which denied

a diverse group of individuals from both. ruled state court denials of habeas corpus relief upon finding "some evidence" to

political parties, attorneys general, judges relief from challenged parole denials by support the Governor's denial. The U.S.

and prosecutors, after Keith's attorneys life-sentenced prisoners ("lifers"), and District Court disagreed, granting Clay's

uncovered evidence that they argued cast had invoked authority under 28 U,S.C. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition based on

doubt on his guilt.

' -§ 2254 to grant federal habeas corpus an "unreasonable determination of the

Defense lawyers had raised various relief;

facts," and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

issues, including that the assault that re-

Damon.Cooke had been sel).tenced See: Clay v. Kane, 384'Fed.Appx. 544 (9th

sulted in the murders Keith was co'nvicted to 7 years to life for a 1991 atte~pted Cir; 2010). ' '

,

of committingwas actually carried out by first-degree murder. He. was denied parole

The USSC granted certiorari in both

another man, who said he hadbeen hirea at his 2002 suitability hearing. Cooke cases and consolidated them. The Cour"t

for $15,000 to carry out the crime. They 'petitioned the state Superior Court, observed that the Ninth Circuit had tried

also maintained that the police photo which denied relief when it found "some to sweep into § 2254's reach the enforce-

lineup was prejudicial because it included 'evidence" to support the Board's denial. ment of a state law:-created liberty interest

a larger pict.ure, of Keith than other sus- His petitions to the California Court of in parole, under the guise that California's

pects. No physica1 evidence connected, Appeal and California Supreme Court "some evidence" state court review stan-

K~ith to the crime; his conviction was were .rejected.

dard was "a component" of a state liberty

based on circumstantial evidence. ' .

The U.S. District Court denied interest that was subject to federal due

In a statement, Gov, Strickland Cooke's subsequent 28 U.S.C. § 2254 process protection.

.

said, "It is my view, after a thorough habeas petition but the Ninth Circuit

However, the USSC held that the

review of the information and evidence reversed, holding that California's pa- federal cQurts' review of the state court

available to me at this time, that it is far role statute created a liberty interest findings (that there was "some evidence"

'more likely that Mr. Keith committed protected by the Due Process Clause, of lifers' current dangerousness if released

these murders than it is likely that he and that "California's 'some evidence' on parole), to determine" whether such

did not. Yet, despite the evidence sup- requirement" was a "component" of that findings were unreasonable in light of the

porting his guil~ and the substantial federally-protected liberty interest. The evidence, amounted, to a redetermination
legal review of Mr. Keith's conviction, Ninth Circuit then concluded that the of the merits of the state court rulings,

many legitimate questions have been state courts had made an "unreasonable which is prohibited: "Federal habeas cor-

raised regarding the evidence in support determination of the facts in light of the pus relief does not.1ie for errors of state

of the conviction and the investigation evidence" urider§2254(d)(2) by finding law;" the Court wrote. Also, "[a] mere

which led toit. ... ,Under these circum- any evidence that Cooke wouid pose a error of state law is not a denial of due

stances, I cannot allow Mr. Keith to be ;threat to public safety if released.' See: process."

,

executed."

Cooke v~ Solis, 606 F.3d' 1206 (9th Cir.

The USSC agreed that California law

Keith's attorneys were pleased',by 2010).,

does create a liberty interest in parole,

.the commutation but asked that the

Elijah Clay had been sentenced to 7 -much like that found in Board of Pardons'

governor set him free, stating, "The same years to life for a 1978 first-degree murder. ' 'v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369 (1987) and Greenholz

compelling reasons that, support Gover- He was granted parole at his 2003 suit~ v. Inmates of Neb. Penal and Correctional

March 2011

40

Prison Legal News

Page 4P6L2NCOL-00400

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-9 Filed 01/31/12 Page 14 of 29

Complex. 442 U.S. 1 (1979). But in those what process 'Cooke and Clay received,

cases, the USSC held ·that all that was' not whether the state court decided

protected by the Due Process Clause were the case correctly. The Ninth Cir.cuit's

the.procedures used by the state; e.g.,·the questionable finding that there was no

opportunity to be heard, or a statement evidence in the record supportIng the

of reasons why parole was denied. "The parole denials is irrelevant unless there

Constitution does not requi're more," the is a federal right at stake, as § 2254

Court said, finding that Coqke and Clay requires."

had received more than this minimally-

Voicing its obvious frustration with

required due process.

the Ninth Circuit, the USSC concluded,

Sharpening its criticism of the Ninth "The short of the matter is that the

Circuit, the USSC wrote, "No opinion· responsibility for assuring that the consti-

of ours supports converting California's tutionally adequate procedures governing

"some evidence" rule into a substantive California's parole system are properly

federal requirement." The Court held applied rests with the' California courts,

, that "the minimum procedures adequate and is no part of the Ninth Circuit's busi-

for due process protectiop. of [Califor- ness." The appellate court's rulings were

nia's liberty] interest are thos'e set forth therefore .reversed.

,

in Greenholz." Indeed, the USSC call~d

This decision will have a profound

California's "someevidence" standard "a impact on the estimated 400-500 Califor-

procedure beyond what the Constitution nia lifer petitions currently,pending before

demands."

U.S. District Courts, {he Ninth Circuit and

The Supreme Court continued, on petition for certiorari before the USSC.

"Because the only-federal right at issue See: Swarthout v, Cooke, 13l S Ct. 859,562

is procedural, the relevant inquiry is U.S._(2011)." .

$373,000 Settlement in :New.York City Juvenile Facility "Building Tenders" Suit

WINNNG WRIT WRITERS

Your Freedo'm 'Is Priceless. Choose
The Writ Writing Team With A
Record Of Wins Against The U.S.
Here Are AFew Of oUr Victories:

Morrow v. Federal Bureau of Prisons,
2010 U.S. App. Lexis 1371.7 (11tIl Cir.);

Morrow v. Federal Bureau of Prisons.

255 Fed. Appx. 378 (11th Cir. 2007);
'Jones v. Zenk, 495 F.Supp.2d 1289

(N.D.Ga.2007);

.

Rivera v. United States, 1:03-CR-

00558 (N.D.Ga. '2007).

SERVICES OFFERED

• Petitions: 2255; 2241; 1983; • Direct Appeals; • . FTCA Representation; • Typing Service: $4.00 per page;
Legal Research; C:ase Law Lookup, And Printing.

We Accept Pre-Paid Calls From Federal Prisons
7 AM to 7 PM ,EST Call (229) 344 3838 Contact: Winning Writ Writers
P.O. Box 848, Richmond Hill, GA 31324
winningwritwriters@yahoo.com
FAX (850)727 7633

.by Bralid"on Sal'llple

Echoing the, violence of the' Texas ers, though, it was the.guards thern.selves .prison system during the 1970s yvhere who attacked Shuford. That 'violent

prisoners guarded othe.r prisoners under ' assault was. also unprovoked. Shuford

an abusive practice known as the "build- suffered multiple nasal bone fractures, a .

ing tenders" system; the City of New left orbital fracture, a deptessed zygomatic

York has agreed to pay $373,000 to settle . fracture, and multiple cuts and bruises t<;>

a lawsuit involving similar. practices at his face and b09y.

the city's Robert .N. Davoren Complex . . Shuford brought suit under 42 U.S.C.

(RNDC). ' .

§ 1983, arguing that the defendants used

Using a system known as "The excessive force against him and failed to

Program," corrupt RNDC guards gave protect him from assault. Shuford also

selected juvenile prisoners free reign alleged municipal liability against the city

to exact violence against other prison-:- based on a pattern of abuse and violence

ers in order to maintain order at the atRNDC..

facility. The guards, too lazy to do their

.In ·settling the case, New York City

jobs, often stood by and watched while agreed to pay Shuford $373,000. Defen-

prisoners were beaten. [See: PLN, Feb. dant Darlene SaIiders, a guard at RNDC,

2010, p.28f

paid Shuford $200. Defendant James Da-

Tyreek Shuford was one such prison- vis, another RNDC guard, agreed to pay

er. In March 2007, Shuford was assaulted $1,500, with the district court entering a

by several other prisoners who had been judgment to that effect on April 2, 2010.

given "authority" to maintain O1;der at Disciplinary action was taken agaiJ.lst

.RNDC. The attack was unprovoked and both Davis, and Sanders.

guardsmerely st90d by and watched while

Shuford was represented. by attorneys

the assault took place~ Shuford asked for with the New York law firm of Emery,

. medical attention for his injuries, but the Celli, Brinckerhoff.& Abady LLP, and.by

.guards refused. .

the Legal Aid Society; See: Shuford v.. City

Almost a month Ulter, Shuford was ofNew York, U.S,D.C. (S.D. NY), Case

. assaulted again. Instead of other prison-' No. 1:09-cv-00945-PKC."

New 2010 Revised 2"d Edition
"'Winning Habeas Corpus .& Post Conviction Relief"
[Soft Cover 7xlO]
Over 500 pages! More than twice our competitors! Table of Contents of 29 pages! .
.. Focus on' Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, Sixth Amendment
Ell Habeas corpus practice Ell Federal Cases through Vol. 546 F.3d e Prepare briefs with verbatim quotes \ from the case. Ell Easy reference with M'apid coding.
This book is geared to help those in prison prepare post conviction petitions; It is an up-to-date micro law library of federal cases.
. Price $58.50, includes S & H.
Money orders or institutional checks only.
Fast Law Publishing Associates P.O. Box 577
Upland, CA 91785 e-mail: flpa@clearwire.net On-line ordering available at:
www.fastlaw.org ,

.Prison Legal News

March 2011

Page 4P6L3NCOL-00401

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-9 Filed 01/31/12 Page 15 of 29

Disgraced Doctor Good Enough for.Texas rrisoners
by Matt Clarke

I n 2006, Anita Goodman lost her 31- addictive drugs in large quantities to

Indeed, when disciplining Hamoudi,

year-old· son Aaron to an overdose people like my SOIl.' ... He needs to be held the Board found t1!at he had failed "to

of prescription medication as a wave of accountable' for all the pain and misery practice medicine in an acceptable, pro-

similar deaths rolled through Harris, Jef- he has brought 011 countless families," fessional manner consistent with public

ferson and Orange Counties in Southeast Goodmansaid.

health and welfare." Apparently, though,

Texas;

Unfortunately, cases like Hamoudi's his professional manner was consistel'lt

Aaron picked up a prescription drug are not uncommon in Texas.·Doctors who withJ2roviding medical care to prison-

habit in college and had been fighting ,!lis abuse their positions are' not sentenced ,ers. Jt~

.

addiction to the nai'cotic hydrocodone, the to incarceration in prison, but are some-

anti-depressant Xanax and a muscle relax- times allowed to continue treatil~g state Sources: Houston Chronicle, Austin

ant called Soma- the combination of which pnSO)lers.

American-Statesman

produces an effect similar to heroin. He had

delivered signed statements to pain clinics he frequented stating he was a recoveling dlUg addict and did not want to be presclibed any further medication. 'However, he relapsed

New l\Iexico Corrections Secretary Lets Private Prison Firms Skate. on Understaffing,

and a Texas pain clinic gave him the drugs that led to his overdose.
Goodman, a nurse, filed formal complaints with the Texas Medical Board

Forgoes $18~6 Million i..n Fines
.by Matt Clarke

F and criminal justice authorities. In 2007,

ormer New Mexico Corrections Sec- also prevalent in the state prjson system.

Dr. Walid Hamad Hamoudi's pain clinic, . retary Joe R. Williams did'not pursue However, whereas the $7.2 million over-

which had given Aaron the drugs that contractual penalties agains(Corrections time budget for state prison employees

resulted in hisdeath, was raided..

Corporation of America (CCA) or GEO from July 2009 through June 2010 was

In late 2008, the Texas Medical Board Group 'despite chronic understaffing. by made public, the private prison companies

held a hea~ing over multiple allegations . the two private prison companies, which refused to release' their overtime figures.

of "non-therapeutic prescriptions," operate four facilities in New Mexico.

Williams also said CCA and GEO

inadequate. records and misdiagnoses

.GEO'and CCAmanage prisons for, were doing ali "outstanding" job. "There

involving ten of Hamoudi's patients. the New Mexico Corrections Department have been no escapes. There are no sub-

Following secretive mediation, the Board (NMCD) in Hobbs, Grants, Clayton and stailtial problems," he' stated. "If there

announced its decision on June 4, 2010: Santa Rosa. The original decision to allow were a problem, I would be down there

Hanloudi could retain his medical license , private firms to operate.state prisons was penalizing them." .

, by paying a $5,000 fine, passing an exam, controversial, and recent revelations that . Williams further said he didn't-want

completing 20 hours of training, and lim.: the privately-run facilities are chronically the companies to rush into hiring more

iting his medical practice to the treatment undel~staffed have reigilited the debate staff. "I would rather i-un a prison with ten

of state prisoners for three years. See: In over privatization.

quality correctional officers than abunch

the Matter of the Complaint Against Walid

The NMCD's contracts call for of bad apples introducing 'contraband,"

Hamad H amoudi, M. D., Texas Medical penalties when staffing vacancies i-each he remarked. "I would rather they be in a

Board, LiCense No. K-7027.

- 10% for 30 consecutive days. In '2007, the 'penalty phase [of the contract] ~han they

Ironically, within a few months fol- Legislative Finance COlnmittee (LFC), have to meet a contracttml obligation" by

lowing the Board's decision, Hamoudi the budget arm of the state legislature, hiring unqualified staff.

left his job where he treated state prison- reported 37% understaffing at tlle Lea

Lawmakers, however, citing the fact

ers. The reason for his departure was not County Correctional Facility in Bobbs, that the state was foregoing millions of

revealed, but budgetary problems at the angering lawmakers. The staff vacancy d'ollars worth of fines for understaffing

time were resulting in the firing of many rate for.July 2010 was 22%.at Hobbs and, at the private prisons, disagreed. State

employees ,at tpe Unlvei-sity of Texas, 17%, 14% and 13% at the other privately.. Senator Cisco McSorley wondered "how

. Medical Branch, which provides health operated facilities.

'

. much penalty money New Mexico taxpay-

care for the state prison system.

. However, Williams declined to seek ers had lost."

Although the Texas Medical Board fines for such cOlltractual noncompli-

"I think we need to see th:e magnitude

disCiplined,Hamoudi, he was not brought ance, instead making excuses for GEO of the payments that haven't been made,"

up on criminaL charges and still, retains andCCA.

, added State Senator Peter Wirth. "If we

his medical license. Goodman's story and ;., Williams' said. th~ private prisons are talking about millions of dolla'rs, then

advocacy inspired the Texas legislature to were located in rural areas or small towns absolutely I am concerned about it fiscally

pass and the governor to sign legislation where recruiting and retailfing .staff is and policy-wise. I can assure you that the

creating a pain clinic registry.

difficult. He also claimed the compariies. private 'operators wouldn't stand idly by

"I fCl;ult doctors like Walid Hamqudi , were. offsetting the vacanqies by having ifthe state wasn't meethlg its contractual

for prescribing,lmnecessary and highly their employees work overtime, which vyas obligatipns. "

March 20.11

42

Prison Legal News

Page 4P6L4NCOL-00402

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-9 Filed 01/31/12 Page 16 of 29

Williams disagreed. He criticized th"e. work in the private prison industry. Prior Sources: New Mexico Independent,http://

idea of trying "to balance the corrections to serving as New Mexico's Secretary of newmexico. watchdog.org, New Mexico

budget throilgh penalties." The state's Corrections,'Williams was employed as a Legislative Finance Committee Memoran-

corrections budget has been cut by $10 warden by GEO Group.

- dum (Sept. 7, 2010)

million over the past two years.

In a memm'andurn released in September 2010, the LFC estimated the state had forgone $18.6 million in penalties for understaffing over a four-year period; that

California Prison Officials Pay $10,000 to Settle Prisoper's Retaliation, Conditions Suit

is, had Williams enforced penalties against,

I CCA and GEOfor failing to meet their
contractual obligations, the state may not

n April 2010, California state pr,isoner remaineq in 'that cell without footwear for Charles Chatman accepted an-offer 15 days, and became seriously ill.

have had t.o cut its corrections budget. " of judgment from the defendant prison

Chatman filed suit in 2003, alleging that

The $18.6millioil estimate was based on officials he had sued in federal court for the sole reason for his place~ent in admin-

salaries the companies did not have to pay allegedlY retaliating against him in viola-' istrative segregation was to retaliate against'

due to chronic understaffing.

'tion of the First Amendment because he him for filing grievances and contacting

The LFC also found that the NMCD filed grievances about prison conditions, government officials to complain about

, "does not regularly compile vacancy rates, and for allegedly subjecting him to con- prison conditions. He further argued that

contractor staff pay rates, contractor va- ditions of confinement violative of the exposing him to freezing temperatures and

.- cancy savings or review potential penalty Eighth Amendment. Under the terms of then placing him in a flooded cell violated

amount in its central office, but should do so the offer, Chatman received $10,000 and his rights under the Eighth Amendment.

immediately." State prison officials "should his suit was dismissed"witli prejudice.

The defendants moved for summary

have been performing this compilation to

On December 9, 2002, while housed judgment. In 2009, the magistrate judge

assist in decision making about whether at the California Correctional Institution made findings and recomme~ndations,

the Secretary should enforce contractually, in Tehachapi, a lock-up order was issued later accepted by the district courtjudge,

required staffing patterns ,and associated for Chatman and a dozen ,other prison- requiring at least one defendanlto answer

penalties, or rationale for why not to enforce ers due to their glleged participation in a each of Chatman's claims. The offer of

agreed upon contractual provisions."

disturbance three days earlier.

judgment followed a year later. See: Chat-

Had fines been imposed onCCA

All of the prisoners except Chat- man v. Tynel~, U.S.D.C. (E.D. Cal.), Case

and GEO, that would have served as',an man received disciplinary reports. Prior No. 'J :03-cv-06636-AWI-SMS.

incentive for the companies to. properly. t6 being rehoused in

staff their facilities per their contractual administrative seg-

obligations. Understaffed prisons are dan., regation, Chatman, gerous for both prisoners arid employees; along with the other excessive overtime call't cure the problem, prisoners, was forced

Select Legal Topics'

as it leaves prison staff stressed, tired and to stand outside for

Civil) Crim'inal, Federal, ,

inefficient. Further, what is the point of 30 minutes in the

having contractual penalties fOF noncom- wind' and freezing

pliance if they are not enforced?

temperatures while

Evidentiary) Procedural, and Labor
J. By ANDREW SC~ATKIN

Williams was replaced as Secretary of Corrections by Lupe Martinez in December 2010 following an administtation change. Given his lax oversight of the state's contracts with ,CCA and GEO, one mlist wond~r if he now plans to again

wearing only boxer shorts. Subsequently, Chatman was housed in a cell that was flooded from a leak in the toilet. He

N TJ;-IIS LANDMARK WORK summing up the wis-
dom, experience· and knowledge of more than 25
years as one of New York's most effective criminal
and civil lawyers, Andrew J. Schatkin takes you step,by
step through the key decisions and crucial ele,ments. of legal practice you n~ed to win against aU odds.

"A gold mine of informa-

"Any person~who takes

tion.... a great choice for law the time to read this well

:......

:"

: ....,:.

Oil'~eI1~ric~lle~IIC!iO~ ,,'thrQugh '

schools for students:' -RobertB. Pollack
(NYLAWYER), Amazon

researched and well writ-
ten book will stand to benefit in a practical ~nd

Exe(1utiyeCI~me;ll~.Y:
NAjIO~{\~ CLt¥~NC1(~l~q~JL~l'" ,'~~24c:~~r,·Cp:LU~BP~R9AJl "',,1I1~~Q~;,'T¥iN"~ES$iE;37~4~
,(4~3)" S.43~~~q~ ,

"The array and yersatil-. ity of his subject matter is breathtaking:' -:-Howard L. Wieder, BOOKS ATTHE "BAR' Queens Bar Bulletin

theoretical fashion." -:-Thomas F. Liotti, past
president. N. Y. State Associationof Criminal Defense Lawyers'

$69.95 ( +$5 S/H) 638 PP + UNIVERSITY PRE~S OF AMERICA
P.O. BOX,I9I,BLUE RIDGE SUMMIT PA I7214-0I9I

WWW.R.oWMANLITTLEFIELD.COMI-800-462-6420

AVAILABLE ON AMAZON.COM ISBN 0:-76i8-4644-I

Prison Legal News

43

·March 2011 Page 4P6L5NCOL-00403

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-9 Filed 01/31/12 Page 17 of 29

BOP's Furlough Notific~tion Policy Not to be Addressed for Seven Years

.by Derek Gilna

A September 2010 report by the Of- possible," Lowry stated.

found that the BOP could not readily

fice of the Inspector General of the

There was no response to requests for provide data associated with. furlough-.

U.S. Department of Justice cast light on . comment from the BOP's press office or related escapes or information it received

deficiencies with the Bu'reau of Prisons' other federal phson officials. According about crimes committed by furloughed

CBOP) furlough policy, andin doing so to a statement by the Inspector General's inmates or inmates who escaped while on inadvertently highlighted the power of the office; "There has been excessive delay in furlough," ,among other deficiencies. ~

federal prison employees' union to delay implementing the BOP's revised furlough

changes in BOP policies.

. policy, which affects victims'· rights· and Sources: "Audit of the Federal Bureau of

In 2003, the BOP drafted a proposed hinders' the BOP from addressing weak- Prisons' Furlough Progral1'z," DO] Office

policy thaJ would have required BOP nesses in the furlough program."

of the Inspector General Audit Division,

officials to notify crime victims and wit-

The Inspector General's report "also Audit Report 10-44; New York Times

nesses when a prisoner was temponirily

released on rlulough or transferred to another institution. Seven years later, hO\yev~r, the BOP has yet to implement that policy. Citing the requirements of

Continuing 'Violation Doctrine Applies to Deliberate Indifference in ew York

a collective bargaining agreement. witl1

the Natioi1al Council of Prison Locals, The Second Circuit Court of Appeals Shomo's. claims against all other defen-

an arm of the American Federation of

has held that the continuing violation ~ants with prejudice for failure to' state

Government Employees (AFGE), a policy doctrine applies to a New York prisoner's' a claim. It also held that "Shomo clearly

. change that could have an effect on condi- deliberate indifference claim under the lacks a cause of action 'under either" the

tions ofemployment for AFGE members Eighth Amendment.

ADA or the Rehabilitation Act.

must be negotiated.

Jose 1. Shomo was confined by the

Shomo filed an amended complaint,

According to a September 2, 2010 New York City Department of Correc- . but the district court found that the claims

New York Times article, ."Agen.cy and tions (NYCDOC) from September 20, against Drs. Nawaz and· Seegobin. were

union officials meet for three days each 1999 until January 4,2001. The day Sho- time-barred, and the claims against Dr.

month to discuss such issues, one at a rna entered custody, he "was diagnosed Myer~ "should be dismissed because 'no

time and usually· in the order in which with right arm paralysis and limited use facts in the record' showed deliberate .they were proposed ... the agency now of his left arm." His treating physicians ,indifferenc~ to Shomo's serious· medIcal

says that it may not be able ·to fix the' "ordered that he receive assistance with needs." Shomo appealed.

[furlough notification pqlicy] problem activities of daily living (ADLs),'be trans-

The Sec'ond Circuit .noted that it

until 2017 - a time frame called 'excessive ferred to specialized infirmary housing had "not before explicitly held th9-t the

and unacceptable' in a new report by the and receive various treatments." However, continuing violation doctrine can delay

Justice Department's inspector ge.neraJ, NYCPOC staff repeatedly ignored those accrual of an Eighth Amendment claIm

Glenn A. Fine."

treatment recommendations.

. alleging a policy of deliberate indif-

The Inspector General's ,report indi-

Shomo filed suit in federal court al- ference to serious medIcal needs." The

cated that from 20'07 to 2009, the BOP leging deliberate indifference to his serious. appellate court then agreed with the

, granted non-tr'ansfer furloughs to about' medical needs. He also alleged violations· Seventh Circuit "that the continuing
2,000 prisoners a year for reasons that .of the Americans with Disabilities and violation doctrine can apply when a

included receiving medical treatment, Rehabilitation Acts, municipallia4ility, 'prisoner challenges a series of acts that

visiting dying relatives, .attending funer- assault and destruction of property. \

together comprise an Eighth Amend-

aJs, appearing in court, and participating , The defendants moved to dismiss for me~t claim of deliberate indifference to

in educational, religious or work-related failure to filethe suit within the three-year serious medical needs." HoweVer, the fact

activities. Only certain security-eligible statute oflimitations under New York law. that the doctrine "can' apply. ~ .. does not

. prisoners.were al1<bwed fllrloughs.

"While Shomo did n'ot explicitly allege mean it must."

The head of the National Council of any acts of deliberate indifference within

Rather, the plaintiff must allege an

Prison Locals, Bryan Lowry, said the delay the three-year statute of limitations' ... , ongoing policy of deliberate indifference

in developillg the furlough notification the district court-held that the continuing . and some non-time-barred acts taken

policy was not the result of any action violation doctrine applied to Shomo's in furtherance of that policy, the Court

by the union, pointing out that the BOP Eighth Amendment claims."

.of Appeals held. :'This test screens out

could have accelerated the process at any

The district court dismissed the com- Eighth Amendment claims that challenge

time and "moved it to the front of the plaint with leave to replead claims against discrete acts of unconstitutional conduct

line," but never did so. ,,'We would have doctors Joy Myers, Rameen Seegobin and or that fail to allege acts within the rel-

moved that straight to the top and tried Shahid Nawaz, based on the continuing evant statutbry period that are traceable

to negotiate that and get it out as soon as .violation doctrine. The court dismissed to a policy of deliberate indifference."

March 2011

44

Prison Legal News

Page 4P6L6NCOL-00404

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-9 Filed 01/31/12 Page 18 of 29

The appellate court found that the district court properly applied this test to Shomo's ~laims and correctly granted him leave to amend his complaint.
The Second Circuit reversed the lower court's dismissal with prejudice of Shomo's claims against supervisory defendants, concluding that he shoul4 v have been granted leave to replead 1Jecause "it is possible that Shomo could remedy the inadequacies identified by the district court." The Court of Appeals 'also con-

cluded that Shomo should be allowed to replead his municipal liability claim because he "could support application ofthe continuing violation doctrine with allegations that policy-making officials were aware that medical recommendations 'were deliberately ignored.'"
The appellate court further found that the district court had erred in dismissing Shomo's ADA and'Rehabilitation Act claims, as he "set forth facts thatsuggest he could have viable claims under

the ADA and Rehabilitation Act.~' The district court was directed to consider the application of the continuing violation doctrine on rem'and.
The Chief Judge for the Second Circuit wrote a separate concurring opinion "to emphasize that Shomo's claims would be deemed frivolous and suitable for dis- ' missal underany standard but'the one we apply to pro se·litigants." See: $homov. City of New York,579 F.3d 176 (2d Cir. 2009), ,.

Fifth Circuit Holds Texas ,Parole Revocation Witness Denial Violates Due Process

T he Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles (BPP) failed to comport with the due.process requirements of Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 V.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593 (1972) when, it revoked a parolee for a crime for, which he had been acquitted while refusing to let him call several witnesses because they were in jail.
Michael Williams, a Texas state prisoner, was released on parole after serving 21 years of a 99-year sentence. Several months after his release, a 'woman claiming to be his daughter accused: him of assaulting her. Williams said he was fishing with two friends, Samuel Oakley and Allen Nugent, 30 miles from the place of ,the alleged assault at' the time it supp'osedly occurred. He also said the' woman had demanded financial help from him and fabric:ated the' charges when he refused to slipport her.
Williams was acquitted of the criminal charges, but the BPP, revoked his parole based on the alleged assault. During'the revocation hearing the hearing ,officer refused to allow Williams to call several of the witnesses he requested, including Oakley and Nugent, because they were incarcerated -,-- in a jail located in the same building where the hearing took. place. The hearing, office~ told Williams that he di4n:t have the power t9 subpoena pnsoners.
Williams filed an unsuccessful, state habeas action challenging the revocation. He thenfiled a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 V.S.C. '§ 2254 in federal district court. The court dismissed the petition, and Williams appealed.
The Fifth Circuit held that under Texas law theBPP could subpoena prison-

ers, which was conceded by the state. The witness credibility; thus the due process

appellate court also held that Morrissey violations had a substcmtial and injuri-

requires an "opportunity to be heard in ous effect, and Williams was entitled to

person and to present witness and docu- relief in the forin of a new revocation

mentary evidence" at a parole revocation hearing.

.

hearing. Thus, Williams was entitled to

The Fifth Circuit reversed the judg-

call his witnesses.

ment of the district court and remanded

The Court of Appeals rejected the the case for' further proceedings. V pon

state's contention that short letters remand the district court provisionally

submitted by Williams in support of granted the writ of habeas corpus, and

his subp0ena request, which described ordere4 that' Williams be released from

the witnesses' potential testimony, were custody if he did not receive 'a new parole

sufficient to put their testimony before , revocation hearing' within 180 days that

the hearing officer. The appellate court allowed him to call the witnesses who were

found that sucb- statements were insuf- precluded from his original hearing. See:

ficient as substitutes for live testimony as Williams v. Quarterman, 307 Fed.Appx.

they did not allow for the assessment of 790 (5th Cir. 2009) (unpublished). ,.

credibility.

The Fifth Circuit also rejected the

state's claim that prisoners' testimony was "per se incredible." Finally; the Court rejected the state's argument that there was no evidence that the witnesses would have' actually testified, the same way as the letters they signed. That is the reason why live, sworn testimony was required. Further, the case hinged on

, Actual Innocence
Explains how the innocent are convicted by faulty ,eyewitness testimony; police perjury, expert witnesses, prosecutorial misconduct, etc., and how DNA testing is used to free the innocent.
$16.00 from PLN's Book Store! See page 53 for more information~ ,

HAVE A CIVIL RIGHTS OR TORT CLAIM AGAINST STATE OR PRISON OFFICIALS?
WE CAN HELP!
We are til paralegal firm that provides services to
law firms in civil rights and related actions.

If you have a claim, write us and we will provide you 'information by return mail.

SASE Required. Reasonable rates

' ,

TR&R, Inc
Legal Services ,PMB20
16625 Redmond Way, Suite M Redmond, WA 98052

, Prison Legal News

45

March 2011

Page 4P6L7NCOL-00405

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-9 Filed 01/31/12 Page 19 of 29

Dismissal for Failure to Effect Service Reversed in Florida,Failure to Protect Suit

T he Eleventh Circuit:Court of Appeals tain information through governmental could have obtained the new address of the has held that as long as a court- channels and needless attendant delays prison-guard defendant with reasonable

appointed agent to serve summons for a in litigating a case result."

effort, "good cause" is shown. The matter

prisoner-litigant acting pro se can locate , The Court held that it is "unreasonable was rem~nded to determine if McNealy

the prison guard-defendant with reason- to expect incarcerated and unrepresented can be located with reasonable effort. In

'able effort, prisoner-litigants who provide prisoner-litigants to provide the current ad- all other respects, the district court was

enough information to iqeritify the prison dresses of prison-guard defendants who no affirmed.. See: Richardson v. Johnson, 598

guard-defendant have established gqod longer work at the prison.?' If the Marshals F.3d 734 (11 th Cir. 2010). ,.

cause for the failure to effect service within

120 days. . ,That ruling came ~n a lawsuit filed by

Terminally III Maryla~d Prisoner May

Florida prisoner Larry D. Richardson" who filed a civil rights complaint alleging

Refuse Treatment; State's Highest

violation of his Eighth Amendment rights at Charlotte Correctional Instit,ution

Court Denies Forced Treatment

by assigning hini to a cell with another prisoner who was known to be dangerous

by Mark Jfilson,

T and who later attacked him, by refusing
'him medical treatment for 15 hours after

he Maryl~nd C~)Urt of Appeals held lllJunction. See: Stouffer v. ,Reid, 184 that prison officials cannot force 'a Md. App. 268, 965 A.2d 96 (2009). The

the attack, and by denying his numerous terminally ill prisoner to undergo ki,dney Commissioner sought'a second writ of

grievances and requests. '

dialysis treatment.

certiorari. The Court of Appeals granted

The district court dismissed the claims

In 1995, Troy Reid was sentenced to the petition. See: Stouffer v. Reid, 409 Md.

against Secretary Jelmes McDonough, Mr. 40 years in the custody of the Maryland 44, 972 A.2d 859 (2009).

Adams, Inspector Laughlin, and Warden Department of Corrections (DOC). In

The Court noted, that it had recog-

Johnson for faihire to connect them to the July 2007, Reid was diagnosecl'with end~ nized in Mack v. Mack, 329 Md. 188,618

violation. the Eleventh Circuit affir.med stage renal disease, meaning his "kidneys A.2d·744 (1993), that mentally competent

that ruling.,

"

are no longer able to function or the kid- adults have a common law right to refuse

At issue was the failure to timely serve neys completely fail to function, remove medical treatment linder non-emergency,

summons on guard MeNealy. The district waste, ,or concentrate urine and regulate circumstances. 'It also recognized "that

court ordered the U. S. Marshals to serve electrolytes." He'also, suffers from high there is considered decisional case law in summons on McNealy b);'having them, blood pn~~sure and human immunodefi- other jurisdictions holding that a person?s '

mailed to guard Shirley Matthew. She' ciency virus.

right to refuse treatment is" a constitution-

informed the Court that she was unable

Reid required kidney dialysis treat- al right. Yet, Mack wa.s deCided "under

to serve McNealy because there was "no ment - "an artificial process to replace the the Maryland common.:.iaw .right of a

such person at this institution."

kidney function of removing waste and competent adult to refuse treatment."

,The district court dismissed the action unwanted water from the blood" - three

Still, the Court recognized that Mack

against McNealy for Richardson's failure times per week. He initially consented, ,held that the right is not absolute, but

to serve him within 120 days as required by , to dialysis treatment but later chose to rather may be overridden by countervail-

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 (m). terminate all treatment, "even though he ing state interests. Therefore, the question

The Eleventh Circuit found that understood the medical consequences of for the Court WaS whether the· Commis:-

dismissal was an abuse of discretion: Its ceasing dialysis (serious bodily injury and sioner presented sufficient evidence of

previous precedent holds that "the failure even death)."

countervailing state interests overriding

of the United States Marshal to effectuate

DOC Commissioner J. MicI1ael Reid's decision to refuse treatment. "May

service on behalf of an in forma pauperis Stouffer fought to compel life saving treat-, the Commissioner of Correction admin-

plaintiff through no fault of that plaintiff ment for ,Reid, seeking an injunction from. ister.life-sustaining medical treatment or

constitutes 'good cause' for the plaintiff's the Baltimore City Circuit Court. Thp, nutrition to an inmate over the inmate's

failure to effect timely 'service within the court denied the injunction and the Com- objection, where the lack of treatment

meaning of Rule 4 (m)."

missioner appealed to the Court of Special may cause the inmate's death or serious

The Court, citing Graham v. Satkoski, Appeals. The court granted a temporary injury and threaten prison safety, security,

51 F.3d 710, 713 (7th Cir. 1995), said "that injunction requiring continuing dialysis and good order?" asked the certiorari

use of marshals to effect service allevi- pending appeal. The Commissioner then petition.

, ates two concerns' that pervade prisoner petitioned Maryland's highest court, the

The Commissioner advanced several

litigation, state or feder~l: '1) the security , Court of Appeals, for a writ of certiorari state interests, including: preservation of

risks inherentiri providing the addresses and for an injunction. The Court denied life~' maintaining' prison security, order,

of prison employees to prisoners; and 2)' both requests.

;

and discipline; maintaining the integrity

the reality that priso,ners often get the

The Court of Special Appeals af· of the medical profession; and interests

'runaround' when they attempt to' ob- firmed the circuit court's denial of an of third parties and prevention of sui-

Marc\1 ,2011

46

Prison Legal News

Page 4P6L8NCOL-00406

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-9 Filed 01/31/12 Page 20 of 29

cide, each of which had been rejected by

the lower courts. The Commissioner's

arguments that "preservation of life" is a

function of the DOC seems at best ironic

and at worst hypocritical given that the

only state agency officially vested with

committing state -murder via the death

penalty is the DOC.

After an e4Ctensive analysis, the Court

rejected the Commissioner's invitation

to follow Polk County Sheriff v. Iowa

District Court for Polk County, 594 NW,

2d 421 (Iowa 1999) and Commissioner

of Coirections v. Myers, 399 NE.2d 452

(Mass 1979) and "conclude that the

State's intere~t in the preservation orlife

outweighs the inmate's right to refuse

medical treatment."

•

Concerning the State's inte(est in

maintaining prison security and discipiine,

the Court distinguished Polk and Myers,

finding that "the evidence presented was

merely speculative" and"did not persuade

th~ court that correctional officials' con-

clusions were reasonable and supported

by the evidence."

The Court also rejected the Commis-

sioner's "claim that the ethical integrity of

the medicalprofession has been impaired

by Reid's refusal to submit to. kidney

dialysis.?'

"

, Finally, the Court rejected the Com-

missioner's "interests of innocent third

parties" and "the prevention of suicide."

In short, "the Commissioner's non-specific

claim of preservation of life, safety and se-

curity was insufficient to demonstrate that Reid's refusal of medical treatment would cause a disruption or impact safety in the institution, or endanger the ethics of-the medical profession," and "the State has
a not shown valid penological interest in
compelling Reid to submit to dialysis." Reid's attorney, Stewart Simms, who
is a former Public S,afety and Correctional Services Secretary, explains that Reid does not need dialysis. Reid has been advised that his decision is risky, says Simms, but he is prepared to accept the consequences. As this'issue of P LN goes -to press, Reid is alive. See: Stouffer v. Reid, 993 A.2d 104 (2010). ~ ,
Source: Associated Press

Iowa Supreme Court Holds Inmate Assault. Statute Only Requires Bodily Fluids from Another for Conviction

T he S~preme Court of Iowa held that Harper, Bracelin and Purscell came into against Rodish, however, was vacated
- -for a prisoner to be convicted of "in- contact with another person's bodily fluids because there W£;tS no proof that the blood

mate q.ssault" in violation.or'Iowa Code - even if was blood from another guard on Rodish was -from, anyone other than

§ 708.3B (2005), there need only be proof McCullah's convictions were affirmed.

himself See: State of Iowa v. McCullah,

a that the prisoner caused corrections em-

McCullah's conviction for assault 787 N.W2d 90 (Iowa 2010). ~

ployee to come into contact with another

person's blood, seminal fluid, urine or feces. The court rejected the argument that' such bodily fluids had to come from the prisoner who was charged with assaulting

,Second Circuit Holds Costs May be
on Denied to p'revailing Party ~pp~al

T , ' the employee. Before the court was the appeal of

he prevailing party on appeal may be

In exercising that discretion the ap-

denied costs when, in a court's di~cre­ pellate court considered a non-exhaustive

Jody Nolan McCullah, who was challeng- tion, taxing costs is deemed inequitable, list of factors, inclu.ding "misconduct by

ing his four-.count conviction for assault the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second a prevailing party, the public, importance

under § 708.3B. McCullah was at the Circuit held on November 2, 2009.

of the case, the difficulty of the issues

Polk County Jail on April 20, 2007 when

New York resident Richard Moore presented," and the losing party's "limited

he snuck upb~hind a jail guard named sued two Delaware County Deputy Shel~­ finapcial resources."

Harper, striking her on the side of the iffs following a search of his' home -that

In'this case, the Second Circuit con-

head. He then began pushing buttons turned up drugs and drug paraphernalia. cluded that "equitable considerations"

on tlie control panel in the second floor Cril1)inal charges flgainst Moore were warranted denying costs to the deputies.

control room.

dropped after a state court suppressed .The Court pointed to Moore's "meager

An altercation ensued between -Mc- the evidence found duTing the search. ;financial resources" and his "good faith

Cullah and jail guards Harper, Rodish, Ultimately, the Second C~rcuit determined :prosecution of [his] claim( as reasons for

. Bracelin, 'Purscell and Vandepol. All of that while the deputies had violated its decision to deny costs.

the guards except Vandepol were exposed Moore's constitutional rights thelaw was

Prisoners who lose on appeal and face

to blood from cuts received by McCallah not "clearly established" at the time of assessment of costs should use similar

and Rodish.At trial, the district court the incident, thus, entitling the deputies (easoning to argue for the denial' of a

denied McCullah's motidn for acquittal to qualified immunity.

cost award to the defendants. See: Moore

which argued there was no proof that the

Foliowing another successful appeal v, The County of Delaware, 586 F.3d 219

,blood the guards came into contact with by the defendants, the deputies moved for (2d Cir. 2009). ~ , '

came from him.

costs pursuant to Rule 39 of the Feder'al

The state Supreme Court held that "a Rules of Appellate Procedure.

.

conviction under section 708.3B requires

Reeognizing that "an award of costs,

proofbeyo.nd a reasonable doubt that an to a prevailing party is the norm and 'not

employee came into contact with another ' the exception," the Second Circuit held it

person's blood, seminal fluid, urine, or feces still had the "discretion to deny costs even

as a result of an assault by an il1p1ate." Since if otherwise taxable."

Roget's Thesaurus
Can't think of the right word? Let Roget's help you! Over 11,000
words listed alphabetically. $8.95 see page 53 for more details

Prison Legal News

47

March 2011

Page 4P6L9NCOL-00407

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-9 Filed 01/31/12 Page 21 of 29

Ninth Circuit Rules Prisoners Not Required to Include Legal Theories in GrievanceS'

T he Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

The Nin~h Circuit adopted the Strong However, because Griffin failed to provide

has held that a prisoner need not standard, holding that a "grievance need notice of the jail employees' disregard of

use legal terminology nor present legal riot contain every fact necessary to prove' the nurse's order, he failed to exhaust ad-

theories when exhausting admiilistrative each element of an .eventuallegal Claim. ministrq.tive remedies because he did not

remedies before filing a civil rights suit. The 'primary purpose of a grievance is to provide enough information to, alert jail

,Jermaine Donte Griffin, an Arizona alert the prison to a problem and facilitate officials to the nature of his problem. The

state prisoner housed at the Madison Street its resolution, not to lay groundwork for 'Ninth Circuit thus affirmed the dismi'ssal

Jail in Maricopa County, Arizona, filed a litigation.," 'l

. of his lawsuit on that alternative basis.

civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

Thus, the district court's reli~rice on See: Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117 (9th

§ 1983 against Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the Eleventh Circuit standard was in error. Cir. 2009). ~ ,

'

various jail employee's alleging deliberate '

indifference to his serious medical needs.

, Griffin claimed he was taking medication that "impaired his vision and ,depth perception, making it difficult for him to

Second Circuit Reverses' Denial' ofRLUIPA Dietary Claim

access upper bunks." As a result, he fell

T from the upper bunk. He "obtained an
order for a lower bunk assignment froin a

he Second Circuit Court of Appeals 'book, had c<;mtacted a self-publishing reversed !l district court's dismissal of company." Both prisoners were disci-

prison nlJ.fse," but jail employees ignored the religious diet claims of two New York plined for violating rules that prohibited

the order and again assigned him to an prisoners who practiced a religious faith contraband, unauthorized organization,

upper bunk.

called "Tulukeesh."

solicitation of goods, practicing martial

Griffin grieved the upper bunk assign-

In 2003, New Y0rk prisoner Tyheem arts and spalTing. Keesh' was told that

ment. Jail' officials denied the grievance, Keesh sought peri:nission to practice his Directive 4202 prohibits proselytizing,

noting the nurse's order had resolved the r~ligion~ Tulukeesh. Prison officials said and that "his actions were tantamount to

problem. Qriffin appealed the denial but he could practice in his cell. He then in- proselytization. "

failed to mention that the nurse's order formed the chaplain "that the dictates of

Keesh and Jova continued to file

was being ignored. He lostthe appeal and Tulukeesh were set forth in the book 'Holy grievances and request the return of

then file~ a civil rights lawsuit. .

Blackness,' which imposed various dietary their copies of "Holy Blackness." After

The district court dismissed the suit, obligations .... Tulukeesh also requires ... another cell search; Keesh again alleged

stating that Griffin had failed to exh,aust members to engage in sparring" and pro- retaliation.

administrative remedies because he had hibits them from appearing nude in 'front

Prison officials refused to. return

not alleged deliberate indifference to his of non-members."

"Holy Blackness," deciding that "the book

serious medical needs - the legal basis

Pursuant to DOC Directive 4202, would remain with the prison chaplain

of his claims in his grievance.' Griffin prison officials prohibited Keesh from and Keesh, Jova, and any other adherent

appealed.

practicing in a group setting. He pro- [to Tulukeesh] could seek permission to '

The Ninth Circuit noted that the jail's tested, claiming that the ban on group read it."

grievance forms do not require a pris- services violated the rules of "Holy Black-,

Keesh and Jova again claimed "that

onerto state a: legal'basis for a grievance; ness" and 'deprived him of the right to the tenets'of Tulukeesh required that they

instead, the forms instruct prisoners to practice his religion. Keesh was allowed eat only a complex, highly regimented

give a brief description of the complaint to eat a "religious alternative',' diet, which non-soybean-based vegan diet; and that,

and proposed resolution. In dismissing included "non-red-meat and nori-pork- because the Defendants had not provided

Griffin's suit, 'the district court used an based meals."

one, they continued to experience health

Eleventh Circuit standard requiring the

Fellow prisoner Jesus Jovaalso problems."

inclusion in a grievance of all relevant "requested to change his religious designa-

Jova and Keesh sued in federal court

information about a prisoner's, claims. tion to Tulukeesh, and demanded that the alleging several violations of their rights

However, the Second, Fifth; Sixth Defendants accommodate his practice ... under the Constitution and the Religious

and Tenth Circuit~ all use the standard set in the same mailner as Keesh .... "

Land Use and Institutionalized Persons

forth in Strong v. David, 297 F.3d 646 (7th

Between January and July 2004, Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, et seq. '

Cir. 2002) [PLN, Oct. 2003, p.l9]. Strong Keesh and Jova wrote letters and filed The district court granted summary judg-

held that "when a prison's grievance grievances concerning the cJenial of their cment to the defendants on all claims., On

procedures are silent or inco.mplete as to religious practices by prison officials. They appeal, the Secon~ Circuit reversed as to

factual specifiCity; ~a grievance suffices if also alleged that they wer.e subjected to ' the plaintiffs' RLUIPA dietary claims.

it alerts the prison to the nature of the ~retaliation. , "

The appellate court first found that

wrong for which redress is sought. ", This

In July 2004, prison officials searched Jova and Keesh were not provided the

aligns with the Supreme Court's holding 'their cells and "confiscated copies, of propeJ; summary judgment notice, but

"that a prison's own procedures define the 'Holy Blackness' and materials show"" that such error was harmless because "the

,contours of proper exhaustion."

ing that Keesh, seeking to, distribute the record indicates that Plaintiffs were fully

March 2011

48

Prison Legal News

Page 4P7L0NCOL-00408

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-9 Filed 01/31/12 Page 22 of 29

aware of the requirements of summary do not. serve as proxies for gang recruit- a more complex issue." Since "the record

.judgment." .

.

.

.

ment or organization." The denial pf the fails to show that the religious alternative

The Court of Appeals concluded "that "demand to spar and receive professional menu ... is the least restrictive means of

the majority of Defendants'practices satisfy martial arts training is the least restrictive furtherillg the Defendants' compelling'

the 'least restrictive means' standard" of means of furthering Defendants' compel- . interests," the appellate court determined

RLUIPA. "Directive 4202 strikes a delicate ling interests of safety and institutional that "the district court's grantof summary

balance between respecting inmates' de- . security," the Court continued.

judgment to the Defendants as to this is-

mands to participate in congregational

The Second Circuit found,however, sue was incorrect." See: Jova v. Smith, 582

activities while ensuring that those meetings .that "Plaintiffs' dietary demands present F.3d 410 (2d Cir. 2009), cert. denied. ~

North Carol.' ina Prisont:~ Prevails in Claim Related to Paruresis, AKA "Shy Bladder"

he North Carolina Department of Plaintiff's own pleas for accommodation" his civil rights action. The NDOC agreed.

T Correction (NDOC) has agreed to <If his medical condition. To receive ac- to pay Ollis $10,000 plus $5,000 in attor-

settle a prisoner's lawsuit that accused commodatjon whikat Nash Correctional n.ey fees, amend its "Prisons Drug Testing

NDOC officials and guards of exhibit- Institution, Ollis intentionally disobeyed Policy" to ,allow two 'hours in a private

ing deliberate indifference to his mediCal guards' orders so he could be placed jn cell.when a prisoner has paruresis, and

diagnosis of "paruresis." The settlement segregation where he would have aprivat~ ensure that Ollis is housed in a single cell

includes a monetary payment, attorney toilet.

/

except in emergency situations. See: Ollis

. fees, and a guarantee of accommodat-

In a settlement reached on January 7, v. Byrd, U.S.D.C. (WD. NC), Case No.

ing the prisoner's condition during the 2010; Ollis agreed to voluntar~ly dismiss 1:08-cv-00549-GCM. ~

remainder of his incarceration.

While at Scotland Correctional Insti-

tution (SCI), prisoner JohmlY Ollis was diagnosed with paruresis, also known as "shy bladder," which is when "the suf-

Wisconsin Civil Commitment Patients Denied Minimum Wage

ferer is unable to urinate in the real or

imaginary presence of others. " Due to The WiSC01~sin Court of Appeals held FLSA." The Seventh Circuit had noted in

this diagriosis, S'CI guards were' ordered' on March 31,2010 that civilly commit- Hayden that "The reason the FLSA con-

to .accommodate Ollis' medi-cal condi- ted patients are not entitled to minimum tains no express exception for prisoners'is

tion during drug. testing procedures by .wageJor the work they perform.

probably that, the idea was tob outlandish

allowing him to use a drycell to produce

Hung Nam Tran and Eric L,. to occnr to anyone when the legislation was

a urine siunple.

Fankhauser are.civilly committed patients under consideration by Congress," citing

Things went downhill when Ollis was confined at the Wisconsin Resource Cen- Bennett v. Frank, 395 F.3d 409 (7th Cir.

subsequently transferred to Marion Cor- ter (WRC) as "sexually violent persons" 2005) [PLN, April 2006, pAO].

rectional Institution (MCI). There, guards . pursuant to Wisc. Stat., ch. 980.

Additionally, the appellate 'court

ignored OIIi's' requests t<;:> produce a m'ine

In 2005, it was WRC policy to found the legislative history of Wisconsin's

sample in a single. cell,and "even threat- compensate patients for the work they statut<:(s defeated the plaintiffs' arguments,

ened him with punishment" ifhe could performed, "consistent with current . -and "Tran and Fankhauser point to noth-

not provide a sample ·on demand.

,Federal Minimum Wage" (FLSA) laws. ing that demonstrates that Warden ~peech

The fa,ilure of MCI guards to ac-' Following a January 31, 2007 memonin- could not act in his capacjty C1yS warden to

comrriodate Ollis' paruresis "caused pain dum, however,WRC Warden Thomas change policy and procedure." Finally, the

.in his bladder by straining to produce a 'Speech reduced the WRC patient wage cqurt denied the plaintiffs' substantive due ..

urine sample. This mental and physical rates to .below minimum '\Vage, effective pi:ocess claim, concluding that they failed

state would last for th~ duration of the March 4, 2007.

to establish the deprIvation of a protected

drug test (two hours) and would not sub-

On October 26, 2007, Tran and liberty or property interest. See: State of'

side until hours after Plaintiff returned to Fankhauser challenged the new pay policy Wisconsin ex reI Hung Nam Tran and Eric'

his cell," wrote Ollis' attornJey, Mindy L. by filing a petition for a writ of certiorari L. Fankhauser v. Speech, 324 Wis.2d 567, Vervais. "The two hours' 01 abuse while in state court. On April 21, 2009, the trial 782 N.W2d 106 (Wis.App. 2010). ~

trying to submit to a drug test, and the court issued an order quashing the writ

'hours it would take Plaintiff to calm down following the test,. did not occur just once, but on four (4) ,separate occasions while Plaintiff was incarcerated at
Marion.'~
This conduct occurred despite "a court order, a warning from the Attorney General's office, doctoi's' orders, and

and dismissing their petition. . The Wisconsin Court of Appeals af-' firmed. Noting that the Seventh Circuit had resolved the same issue in Sanders v. Hayden, 544 F.3d 812 (7th Cir. 2008),. the court agreed "with ~he Seventh Circuit: persons civilly committed because they were sexually violent are not covered by t~e

. Writing to Win
Need to Write better? Writing to Win will teach you tbe basics ofhow to compose' clear and convincing written and oral legal arguments! 270 pages packed with solid, practical advice and tips.
$19.95 from PLN's Book Store!

Prison Legal News

49

March 2011

Page 4P7L1NCOL-00409

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-9 Filed 01/31/12 Page 23 of 29

News Brief:

Arizona: Corrections Corp. of Amer- on; prisoner Miguel Jimenez was stabbed with a small bag of suspected cocaine in

ica officials announced on December 24, to death in the recreation yard of USP I at , his under~ear during a pat::.down search

,2010 that they hC}d id~ntified 43 prison~rs Coleman on December 18, 2QI0. '

following his arrest on drug charges. A

who were involved in a riot a day earlier at

Illinois: Franesiour B. Kemache- subsequent strip search revealed another

CCA's Red Rock Correctional Facility nea1" Webster, incarcerated at the federal prison small bag of crack cocaine hidden in his

E,oy, The prisoners, all from 'California, in Marion, has been accused of using foreskin. Banks is now facing additional

were placed in administrative segregation the Bureau of Prisons' email system' for charges of trafficking a controlled sub-

'pending an investigation. Ten prisoners prisoners, known as TRULINCS, to have stance and promoting contraband. .

were injured during the riot and sevenwere , inappropriate conversations with an un-

Maryland: Hannah Wheeling, 65, a

taken to outside hospitals for medical treat- derage, girl. Kemache-vVebster, 50, used teacher qt the Cheltenham Youth Facil-

ment. CCA employees used pepper spray emails to shat:e sexually-oriented messages , jty in Prince George's County, was found

to regain control during the disturbance; . with the girl and said he planned to im- dead at the juvenile detention center in

no staff members were injured.

pregnate her ,after he was released. Emails February20l0. She had been choked,

California:, Former San Diego jail sent via TRULINCS are monitored by beaten and sexually assaulted. Accord- '

guard Matthew Gutierrez, 34, who worked .prison staff, and Kemache-Webster was ' ing to a 27-page report by the Maryland

at the Metropolitan Correctional Center, indicted in September 2010 on a felony Juvenile Justice Monitoring Unit released

was sentenced on January 18, 2011 to .15 charge of enticement of a minor to engage in October 2010, "multipIe systemic

months in federal prison. Gutierrez had . in sexual activity. He also was prohibited security failures" resulted in Wheeling's

arranged to purchase around 11 ounces from contacting the girl after he reportedly death. The report cited confusing poli-

of cocaine from a confidential informant. "threatened,her with harm" if she did not cies, lack of security equipment, chronic

He had pleaded guilty to the charge last deny the allegations in the indictment.. staffillg shortages and fatigue among'

November.

.

lndia~a: When Dontas R.Marshall, over~6rked employees as contributing

California: On January 24,20'11, about 41, reported to jail after he was sentenced factors to "a dangerous envirQnment" at

1,000 prisoners at the' California Men's to 10 years for'possession of cocaine, he Cheltenham. Two employees were fired, '

Colony protested prison policies by refusing brought something with him to make his two were suspended, one administrator

to eat nieals served at the facility. Reportedly, time behind bars more bearable. Guards was demoted and other staff members 90% of the prisoners in a housing unit ~efused found 15 marijuana joints sewn into Mar-' were r'eprimanded. A 13-year~01d boy

to go to the chow hall to eat, though they, shall's underwear when he turned himself held at the facility has been charged with

were still buying food from the plison com- in at the Clade County Jail on January 5, homicide and attempted rape in connec-

missary. The policies that led, to the peaceftil' 2011. "He checked in here to serve a sen- tion with Wheeling's murder.

no-meals protest included the implementa- tence, so l?e knew he was going to be here

Mexico: Continuing a trend of deadly

tion of "rolling lockdowns," where prisoners for a while," said Clai'k County Sheriff incidents in Mexican prisons, 1( plisoners

are confined to their cells for 8 hours every Danny Rodden. Marshall now faces new were killed during a riotat a facility in the city other day, ~md visitation policies. The rolling charges of felony trafficking and misde- of Gomez Palacio in Durango on January

lockdowns resulted from a statewide effort meanor marijuana possession.

11, 2011. Also, according to news reports,-

to reduce prison staff ov:ertime costs due to

Indiana: On January 27,2011, Wayne two attorneys who worked at the prison were

California's budget crisis.

County j~il guard Steven M. Frame, 31, found shot to death,though it was unclearif

Florida:. A federal ,prison guard was jailed on felony charges of sexual· the incidents were related.' Mexico's plisons

employed at the Coleman Federal Cor- misconduct and official misconduc.t,. are severely overcrowded due to a govern-

rectionai Complex in Sumter County was . stemmil1g from clain1s that he had sex ment craykdown on drug cartels, which had

jailed:;in January 2011 after thousands of ' with two female prisoners in August and led to high levels of violence.

child porn images and videos were found, September 2010. Frame, who worked third

. Montana: On January 2,8, 2011,

on his home computer. Ronnie Young, shift, allegedly entered a cell shared by the Cascade County detention officer Steven

43, was charged with 50 counts, of pos- prisoners and had sex with them; lJ,e also Patrick was arrested on a felony charge of

session of child pornography with intent allegedly asked them to flash their Breasts using excessive force 011 a prisoner. "It's one

( to distribute aft~r detectives traced child while he was making rounds at the jail. 'incident where it's alleged that he assaulted

, porn file transfers to his IP address. Young One o(the prisoners said the sex acts were an inmate;" ,stated Sheriff's Office Com-

was held at the Marion County Jail on in exchange for Frame bringing in contra- mander Dan O'Fallon. Patrick is accused

$500,000 bond.;

band, thougp he did not do so. The two of punching prisoner William Anderson in

Florida: In January 2011, federal female prisoners later informed transport 'the face in November 2010. Anderson al-

prisoner 'Wb 'Se Piankhi-Spabaka was guards about the sexual encounters when legedly spafon Patrick, which precipitated

killed by another prisoner in the USP they were being transferred to another the punching incident. It reportedly took

II at the Coleman Federal Correctional facility. Fram'e, the son of Wayne County five guards and a stun gun to subdue An-

Complex. Piankhi-Shabaka was serving, Chief Deputy Mike Frame, was released derson, who was described as "unruly."

a life"sentence; the other prisoner accused; on $10,000 bond.

Montana: A former Aramark con-

of murdering him was not identified. The

Kentucky: The arrest of Antoine tract employee at the Cascade County

facility was placed on lockdown while the 'Banks in February 2011 explains why Detention Center pleaded not guilty FBI investigated the i~cident. This was the some guards inspect priso.ners' foreskins on January' 27, 2011 to charges that she

second death in a month at the federal pris- during strip searches. Banks was fOl111d , had sex with a prisoner. Rebecca Rose

March 2011

50

Prison Legal News

Page 4P7L2NCOL-00410

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-9 Filed 01/31/12 Page 24 of 29

. Pfeifle, 44, admitted to having five sexual encounters with an unidentified prisoner when she was employed as an Aramark food service worker at the jail. Pfeifle is scheduled to go to trial on the felony charges in May 2011.
Netherlands:. Bas Marttfns, a Dutch attorney, filed an appeal to keep his client out of jail by claiming he is too large to be incarcerated. "He is a giant of a man, there's no way you cannot realize that as soon as you see him," Martens stated. His .client, identified as Angelo MacD, was described as being 6'9" and weighing 500 lbs. - too big for his prison cell, where he. is serving an 18-month sentence for fraud. Martens sought. to have his client placed

on house arrest with electronic monitoring, arguing that keeping him in prison violates European human rights laws. A . Dutch court rejected Martens' request in February 2011, noting that while prison conditions may be "somewhat cramped" for Angelo, they were not inhumane.
New York: On January 12,2011, state prison guard Joshua Davison, 2S, was charged with five counts of endangering the welfare of a child for trying to lure underage girls into his vehicle. Davison is accused of stopping seven girls, ages 13 to '17, and inquiring if they needed a ride; he asked at l~ast one of them for sex. Davison worked at the Great Meadow Correcti0nal Facil~ ity and was reportedly wearing his pnson

uniform when he accosted the girls. New York: Tony Simmons, 47, con-
victed of sexually abusing teens at a New York City courthouse when he was a juvenile justice worker, was sentenced to four years in prison on February 1, 2011. Simmons was found guilty in January 2011 of having sexual encounters with two teenage girls in the Manhattan Family Court building; he was a~quitted of raping another girl. The victims, juvenile offenders, were 15 and 16 years old. The court had initially approved a deal where Simmons would plead guilty and get probation, but rescinded the plea bargain due . to 9PPosition from the district attorney and women's rights groups.

Are You Looking for Pen Pals? Convict / DR / Lifer Pen Friends Exclusive Lifetime Membership
Why pay more than $40.00? Info: Send SASE DRI / PMB 154 3298 N Glassford Hill Rd Ste 104
Prescott Valley AZ 86314 www.DeathRowInmate.org
Inmate Calls Breaking the Bank? Save up to 80% on Inmate Calls Connecting You to'Loved Ones
www.Inmatecallsavings.com Call 305-454-1165 l1a-8p EST.
Full House Typing & Editing, LLC Type Manuscripts & Papers Format Paragraphs Format Chapters Edit Grammar/Punctuation
Send SASE for FREE price list: S. Louise Sanders P. O. Box 361402
Decatur, GA 30036
www.christopherzoukis.com Blogs, Book Reviews, Articles, and More, all Written by a Prisoner
,.
Sexy / Erotic Glossy Photos SASE Gets Free Gatalog:Urben LifePO Box 752 Renton WA 98057
Prison Legal News

Specialty PP's c/o R Wagner POB 3304 Kingman AZ 86402 FreeWorld
PP Lists Updated! MenlWomen and
Women who will write IIMS! Lists $7 Ea Cks pay to Kim~GOR Enterp.
Prison Connection - Pen-Pal Serv Where Real Connections are made $20/year-more info send SASE to Prison Connection P.O. Box 18489
Cleveland Heights OH 44118
ELITE PRISONER SERVICES , (FKA Elite Paralegal Services)
Legal Research & Forms, Internet, People Searches, Books, MySpace, Facebook, Penpals, Erotic Photos, Special Requests. Send SASE for Brochure to: EPS, PO Box 2131,
Appleton, WI 54912
OWN PIX OF YOUR FAVORITE • STAR.
MindEscapePix.com Famous Photos! Order catalog-$4.00 money order
or 10-1 5t class stamps + SASE
Send To: Mind Escape Pix,LLC . 1800N. Bristol St. #C605
Santa Ana, CA 92706 or email INFO@MINDESCAPEPIX.COM
The VOICES.CON Newsletter - Free Written by lifers for lifers. For info on how to receive Voices.Con monthly, send SASE to: PO Box 5425, Sonora, CA ' 95370. On the web at: VoicesDotCon.org; Email: Publisher@VoicesDotCon.org
51

We guarantee you've never been on a Pen Pal sit~ like ExcIusivePrisoner.com. Get more 'with blogs, Social Media, e~ail, birthday banner, compatibility finder, plus
more. For a free brochure, send S.A.S. E. to
ExcIusiveprisoner.com PO Box 533
Madison, AL 35758
LOVE TO TYPE MANUSCRIPTS! Ne Legal Documents.
Will type, design & layout pages Accurate and dependable Reasonable Rates! .
Ambler Document Processing P.O. Box 938, Norwalk, CT 06852
~r~endlyConnections offers pen , pal services, internet searches,
publications, photo/document copies and so much more at the absolute lowest price possible! Send SASE to receive brochure.
Friendly Connections PO BOX 5845 Aloha, OR 97006
LEGAL TECH I paralegal Legal/personal assistance
PO Box 2182 Oakdale CA 95361 Legal tech 1@gmail.com
a Don't just send a card!
Send someone you love gift ba~ket! Request a catalog.
Shasto Baskets & Gifts 360 Connecticut Ave Ste 118, Norwalk, CT 06854
March 2011
Page 4P7L3NCOL-00411

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-9 Filed 01/31/12 Page 25 of 29

of the Kardashian sisters in their shows

News in Brief (conj.)

"Keeping Up with the Kardashians"

and "Kourtney & Khloe Take Miami"

Oregon: Amanda M. Colmenero, 22, . caused him "extreme emotional distress;"

was found unconscious in a holding cell However, the appellate court held that the

at the Coos County Jail on September 21; Kardashians' conduct was "simply not

2010. She was transported to a local hospital sufficiently outrageous" to support Good-

where two containers of a substance believed son's claims of negligence and intentional

to be methamphetamine were found in her infliction of emotional distress.

vagina. One of the containers had apparently

United Kingdom: In January 2011,

ruptured, leading to an overdose. Colmenero three prison guards at HMP Downview,

was hospitalized in critical condition.

a women's facility in Surrey, were charged

Pennsylvania: On January 20, 2011 with having sex with nine prisoners between

the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2006 and 2010. Guards Russell Thome, Si-

against prisoner Daniel Goodson, who mon Dykes and Christopher Bevan pleaded

had appealed the dismissal of his lawsuit not guilty to charges Qf misconduct in public

against Kim, Kourtney and Khloe Kar- office. They were suspended from duty, and

dashian, socialites and T.V. personalities. are scheduled to go to trial in June 2011.

Goodson had claimed that the behavior The Guildford Crown Court suppressed the

names of the prisoners whom the guards are accused of victimizing.
Utah: According tp an online booking record, complete with photo, the cartoon character Yogi Bear was busted in Provo, Utah on February 22, 2011. The fictional bear was apparently arrested on charges that included fishing without a license and an immIgration offense. The arrest record and mug shot of Yogi were the result of a training or testing exercise involving the online booking site maintained by the Utah County Sheriff's Office. The previ-, ou,s week, the Escambia County Sheriff's Office in: Florida had posted a mugshot of a KFC doubledown sandwich on its booking page, with a description of "Dummy Inmate" also apparently for
testing purposes. ,"

Other Resources

ACLU National Prison Project
Handles state and federal conditions of confinement claims affecting large numbers of prisoners, as well as sexual assaults against prisoners; Publishes the bi-annual NPP Journal and the online Prisoners' Assistance Directory. Contact: ACLU NPP, 915 15th St. NW, 7th Fl., Washington, DC 20005 (202) 393-4930. www. aclu.org/prisons

Amnesty International
Compiles information about prisoner torture, beatings, rape, etc. to include in reports about U.S, prison conditions; also W9rks on death penalty issues. Contact: Amnesty International, 5 Penn Plaza, New York NY 10001 (212) 8078400. www.arnnestyusa.org

Center for Health Justice

Porme~ly CorrectHELP. Provides information

related to HIV - contact them if you are not

receiving proper HIV medication or are denied

access to programs due to HIV status. Contact:

CHJ, 8235 Santa Monica Blvd. #214, West

Hollywood, CA 90046. HIV Hotline: (323)

822-3838 (collect calls from prisoners OK).

www.healthjustice.net

'

Children ofIncarcerated Parents
Works to stop intetgenerational incarceration. Provides resources in three areas: education, family reunification, and services for incarcerated parents and thFir children. Contact: CCIP, P.O. Box 41-286, Eagle Rock, CA 90041 (626) 449-2470. www.e-ccip.org

Critical Resistance
Seeks to builg an international movement to abolish the Prison Industrial Complex, with offices·in California, New York and New Orleans. Publishes The Abolitionist newsletter. Contact: Critical Resistance, 1904 Franklin Street #504, Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 444-0484. www. criticalresistance.org

Family & Corrections Network
Primarily provides online resources for families of prisoners related to parenting, children of prisoners, prison visitation, mothers and fathers in prison, etc. Contact: F&CN, 93 Old York Road, , Suite 1 #510, Jenkintown, PA 19046 (215) 5761110. www.fcnetwork.org
FAMM-gram
Quarterly magazine ofFAMM (Families Against Mandatory Minimums), which includes info about injustices resulting from mandatory minimum laws with an emphasis on federal laws. $10 yr for prisoners. Contact: FAMM, 1612 K Street NW #700, Wa&hington, DC 20006 (202) 8226700). www.famm.org
The Fortune Society
Provides post-release servIces and programs for prisoners in the New York City area and publishes Fortune News, a free publication for prisoners that deals with criminal justice issues.Contact: The Fortune Society, 29-76 Northern Blvd., Long Island City, NY 11101 (212) 6917554. www.fortunesociety.org
Innocence Project
Provides advocacy for wrongly convicted pnsoners whose cases involve DNA evidence and ~re at the post-conyiction appeal stage. Maintains an online list of state-by-state innocence projects. Contact: Innocence Project, 100 Fifth Avenue, 3rd Fl., New York, NY 10011 (212) 364-5340. www.innocenceproject.org
Just Detention International (formerly Stop Prisoner Rape)
Seeks to end sexual violence against prisoners. Provides counseling resources for imprisoned :~ and released rape survivors and activists for almost every state. Specify state with request. Contact: Stop Prisoner Rape, 3325 Wilshire Blvd. #340, Los Angeles, CA 90010 (213) 3841400. www.justdetention.org

Justice Denied
Although no longer publishing a print magazine, Justice Denied continues to provide the most comprehensive coverage of wrongful convictions and how a,nd why they occur. Their content is available online at www. justicedenied.org, and includes all back issues of the Justice Denied magazine and a database of more than 3,000 wrongly convicted people. Contact: Justice Denied, P.O. Box 68911, Seattle, WA 98168.

National CURE

Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants (CURE) is a national organization with state

and special interest chapters that advocates for rehabilitative ,opportunities for prisoners

and less reliance on incarceration. Publishes

the CURE Newsletter. Contact: CURE, P.O.

Box 2310, National Capitol Station, Wash-

'ing10n, DC 20013 (202) 789-2126. www.

curenationa1.org

.

November Coalition

Publishes the Razor Wire newsletter four times a year, which reports on drug war-related issues, releasing prisoners of the drug war, and restoring civil rights. Yr sub: $6 for prisoners,

$25 all others. Contact: November Coalition,

282 West Astor, Colville, WA 99114 (509) 684-

1550. www.november.org

-

Partnership for Safety and Justice
Publishes Justice Matters, a quarterly newsletter that reports on criminal justice issues in OR, WA, ID, MT, UT, NY and WY. $7 yr prisoner, $15 all others. Contact: PSJ, P.O. Box 40085, Portland, OR 97240 (503) 335-8449. www. safetyandjustice.org

March 2011

52

Prison Legal News

Page 4P7L4NCOL-00412

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-9 Filed 01/31/12 Page 26 of 29

Prison Legal News· Book Store

Fill in the boxes next to each book you want to order, indicating the quantity and price. Enter the Total on the Order Fonn on thE; next page. FREE SIllPPING on all book/ index orders OVER $50.(effective May 1,2010 until further notice). $6.()O SIH applies to all other book orders.

.:................................................................. , SUBSC~BE TO PLN FOR 4 YEARS AND CHOOSE ONE BONUS!

.. ..........• I·······························~····················· ~
: SUBSCRIBE TO PLN FOR 3 YEARS AND CHOOSE ONE BONUS!

~ ,

1. SIX (6) FREE ISSUES FOR 54 TOTAL! QB

: 1. FOUR (4) FREE ISSUES FOR 40 TOTAL! OR

2. PRISON PROFITEERS (A $24.95 YALUE!) OR

: 2. PROTECTING YOUR HEALTH AND SAFETY (A $10.00,YALUE!)

3. WITH LiBERTY FOR SOME (AN $18.95 YALUE!)
,

. ~'P~otecting You~ Health and ·Safety,;by .RobertE. Toone, Southern:

: Prison Profiteers, edited by Paul Wright and Tara Herivel, 323 pages. : : Poverty Law Center,J25 pages. $1Q.00. This book explains b~sic rights:

: $24.95. This is the third book in a series of Prison Legal News antholo- : : that prisoners have in fl jail Dr prison in the U.s. It; deals mainly with :

: gies that examines the reality of mass imprisonment in' America. P,isotl : : rights related to health, and sa(ety,. such, as.cQmmunicable ,dise,ases and:

. . - ...... ....... :.Profiteers is unique from 9ther 'books because it exposes, and discusses : : abuse by prison officials; it' ~lso, ex,plair:s how to enfor~e I I ' 1:

: who profits and benefits from mass imprisonment, rat~er

: than who is harmed by it and how. .

1063

: •

: .y.o.u.r.r.i.g.h.ts.,.i.n.c.lu..d.in.g~ .th..ro.u..g.h.l.it~igation~."

'~,.1..0..6..0.. .............•:

,

'

I I I : With Uberty for Some: 500 Years of hnprisonment in America, by' Scott : Spanish-English/English-Spanish·Di<;tionary, Random House. $8.95. Two
: Christianson, Northeastern University Pre.ss, 372 pages. $18.95. The best overall : sections, Spa~sh-English ,and Englis.h-SParu,·'s? 60,000t entries

I I: : history of the American prison system from 1492 through the 20th Century. A : from A to Z; mcludesWestern Henusphere usage.
: must-read for understanding how little things have changed in U.S.,

. 1034

: prisons over hundreds ofyears.

I

1026..

.: Writing to Win: The Legal Writer, by StevenD. Stark, Broadway Books/Random

', ........................................................... • •• • • • •• House, 283 pages. $19.9.5. Explains the writing of effective com-

, .

plaints~responses, briefs, motions and·otheilegaIpapers.' , 1035

Prison Nation: The Warehousing of America's Poor, edited by Tara /' ' .

"

Herivel and Paul Wright, 332 pages. $35.95. PLN's second anthology' Actual Irlnocence: When Justice Goes Wrong and How to Make it Right,

exposes the dark side of the 'lock-ern-up' political agenda· and , , '

I updated pape,rback ed., by Bany Scheck, Pete,r N~ufeld and Jim Dwyer; 403 pages.

legal climate in the U.S.

.

1 0 4 1 , . , $16.00. Describes how criminal defendants are wrongly convicted. E}"-plains DNA

The CeIling of America, An InsideLook at the U.S. Prison Industry,
I I I edited by Daniel Burton Rose, Dan Pens and' Paul Wright, 264 pages.
$22.95. ,PLN's first anthology presents a detailed "inside"

testin~ and how it work~ to ~ee the innocent. Devastating critique 1 1

1

of police and proseClitonal nusconduct..

1030..,

Webster's Engli~h Dictionary; Newly revised and updated, Random

look at the workings of the American justice system. 1001.
Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the U.S. and Canada, updated 3:rd ed. by Jon Marc Taylor, Ph.D. and edited

I I I House. $8.95. 75,000+ entries. Includes tips -on writing and word usage, and
has updated geographical an'dbiographical entries. Includes

recent business and compute,r terms. '

1033

by Susan Schwartzkopf, PLN Publishing, 221 pages. $49.95. Written by Everyday Letters for Busy'People, by Debra Hart May, 287 pages.

Missouri prisoner Jon Marc Tflylor, the Gllel7i/la Handbook contains contact information and descriptions of high s~hool, vocational, para-

legal and college correspondence courses. ,

1057

I I I $18.99. Hundreds of sample letters that can be adapted for most any-pur-
pose, including l~tters to government agencies and officials.

Has nut?erous tips for writing effective letters.

1048 ,L._ - ' - ._ _---'.

The Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System, by
Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sara J. Betmin-Barrett, Nolo Press, 608 pages.

$39.99. Explains what happens in a criminal case from being arrested to sentenc-

ing, and what your rights are at each stage of the process. Uses an

easy to understand question-and-answer format.

1038

Roget's Thesaurus,' 717 pages. $8.95. Helps you find the right word for'

whflt you want to say. 11,000 words listed alphabetically with over 200,000

synonyms and antonyms. Sample sentences and parts of speech shown for

eve? main word. Covers all levels of vocabulary and identi- 1 I'

I

fies mformal and slang words.

, .

1045 . .

'

Represent Yourself in· Court: How to Prepare & Try a Winning Case, by Starting Out! The Complete Re-Entry Handbook, edited by William H.
Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sara J. Berman-Barrett, Nolo Press, 528 pages. Foster, Ph.D. & Carl E. Horn, Ph,D.; Starting Out Inc." 446 pages. $22.95.

I I I $39.99. Breaks down the ciVil trial process in easy-to-understand steps so you Complete do-it-yourself re-entry manual and workbook for prisoners woo

can effectively represent yourself in court. The authors explain

want to develop their own re-entry plan to increase their chances of success

what to say in court, how to say it, etc. . ,

1037..

, after they are released. Includes a variety of resources, in-

I I I Law Dictionary, Random House Webster's, 525 pages. ,$19.95. Comprehensive
up-to-date law dictionary explains more than' 8,500 legal terms.

Covers civil, criminal, commercial and intemationallaw. 1036,.

,

cluding a user code to the Starting Out website.

1074 '-------'_ _---'

Jailhouse ,La~ers: Prisoners Defending.Prisoners v. the U.S.A., by , Mumia Abu Jamal, City Li@ltS Publishers, 280 pages. $16.95. In Jailhotlse

I I I The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, by Jane Straus, 110
pages. $14.95. A guide to grammar and punctuation by an ed~ ucator with experience teaching English to p~isoners. 1046

Legal Research: How to Find,and Understand the Law, by Stephen Elias

I I I and Susan Levinkind, 568 pages. $49.99. Comprehensive and easy to under-
stand gWde on researching the law. Explains case law, statutes

and digests, etc. Inc!udes practice exercises.

1059,.,

Deposition Handbook, by Pa~ Be~gman and Albert Moore, N,--ol_o--,-_ _--.

pages. $34.99. How.,.to handbook. for anyone who conducts a

deposition or is go~g to be deposed.

1054

Lal1!)'ers, Prison Legal News columnist, award-winning journalist and death-

row prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal presents the stories

reflections of

fellow prisoners-turned-advocates who have learned to use

the court system to represent other prisoners.

'1073

Prison Madness: The Mental Health Crisis Behind Bars and What We M~st Do About It, by Terry Kupers, Jossey-Bass, 245 pages. Hardback omy,

prisoners please include any required authorjzation fonn. $32.95. Psychia-

trist writes about the mental health crisis in U.S. prisons and jails. Covers all

1 aspec~s of .me~tal illness, p~son rape, negative effects of long- . I·

I

' term Isolation In control uruts, and 'more;

, 1003..

,

. The Habeas Citebo9k: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, by Brandon

I I ' I Finding the Right Lawyer, by Jay Foonbetg, ABA, 256 pages. $19.95. Sample, PLN Publishing, 200 pgs. $49.95. This is PLN's second published.

, Explains how to determine your legal needs, how to evaluate

book, which covers in,effective assistance of counsel issues

a lawyer's qualifidltions, fee payments, and more.

1015

in federaI'habeas petitions. Hundreds of case cites! 1078

* * ALL BOOKS ARE. SOFfCOVER EXCEPT PRISON MADNESS

Pr~son Legal News

53

March 2011

Page 4P7L5NCOL-00413

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-9 Filed 01/31/12 Page 27 of 29

Hepatitis and Liver DiseaSe: What You ,Need to Know, by Melissa'Palmer, 10 Insider Secrets to a Winning Job Search, by Todd Bermont, 216

TvID, 457 pages, $17.95. Describes symptoms & treatments of hepatitis B & C and pages. $15.99. Roadmap on how to get a job even under adverse circum-

other liver diseases. Includes medications to avoid, what diet to

stances-like being an ex-con. Includes how to develop a winning attitude,

follow; exercises to petform, and a bibliography.

1031

'write, attention-grabbing resumes,' prepare for ,interviews,

networking and much more! Crime and Punishment·In America, by Elliott Cw:rie, 230, pages; $16.95. Effective

1056

I I I rebuttal to right-\,,1ng proponents of prison building. Fact-based argument' shows The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity' in the Global Drug Trade,

that Crime is driven by poverty. Debunks prison myths and discusses

, 2003 Ed. by A,lfred McCoy: 734 pages. $3~.95. Expose of the

proven, effective means ofcrime preveption.

1019

government's lllvolvement III drug trafficking.

1014, '-.---1,' --'--_---1,

Prison Writing in 20th Century America, by H. Bruce Franldin, Penguin Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis, by Christian

Books, 368 pages. $16.00. From Jack London, Malcolm X and Jack 'Henry Parenti, 290 pages. $19.00. Analyzes tlle war on the poor via the criminal justice

I I ' I Abbott to George Jackson and Edward Bunker, this anthology provides a
I selec~on of ~ome of the best writing describing life behind

, system. Well documented and has first-hand reporting. Covers prisons, paramilitary policing, SWAT teams and the INS. 1002.,

,

bars III Amenca, from those :who have been there.

1022 '-.---'_ _---' The Prison and the Gallows: The Politics of Mass Incarceration in

I I I America, by Marie Gottschalk, Cambridge University Press, 451 p;ges.
Soledad Brother: The Prison Letters of George Jackson, by George $28.99. Great r:olitical an~lysis of the confluence of events

Jackson, Lawrence Hill Books, 339 pages. $18.95. Lucid explanation 'of the. leading to 2.3 million people be,hind bars in the U.S. 1069"

.

politics of prison by a well-known prison activist. More relevant

, now than when itfust appeared 40 years ago:

1016

Women Behind Bars, The Crisis of Women in the U.S. Prison System,

271 Marijuana Law, by Richard Boire, Ronin,

pages. $17.95; Examines· hO\~ to

by Silja J.A. Talvi, Seal Press, 295 pages. $15.95. Best book available that cov-
ers issues related to imprisoned women, based on interviews

reduce the probability of arrest and prosecutioq for people accused of the use, sale with hundreds ofwomenbepind 'bars.

1066

or possession of marijuana. Info 'on legal defenses, search & seizures,

surveillance, asset forfeiture and drug testing.

1008

How to Win Your Personal Injury Claim, by Atty. Joseph Matthews, 7th edition, NOLO Press, 304 p~ges. $34.99. While not specifically for prison-

Prisoners' Self-Help Litigation Manual, updated 4th e<:l, (2010)'; by John related personal injury cases, this book provides comprehensive informa-

Boston and Daniel Manville, Oxford Univ. P.ress,960 page,s. $39.95. The tion on how to handle personal i'njury an0 property damage

premiere, must-have "Bible" of prison litigation for current and aspiring claims arising from accidents.

1075

jail-house lawyers. If you plan to litigate a prison or jail civil s'uit, this book is a must-have. Highly recommended!. 1077

PLN Cumulative Index. $22.50 each. PLN· Article Indexes provide detailTd information about all PLN articles, including title, author, issue, page

Ten Men Dead: The Story of the 1981 Irish Hunger ~trike, by David

Beresford, Atlantic Monthly Press, 334 pages. $16.95. Story ,------,-----,

ofIRA prisoners at Belfast's Long I~esh prison,

1006

number, topics covered, citations, and if it is state, BOP or jail.specific. Can be ~earched on over 500 subjects such as medical neglect or sexual assault. Circle the index(es) you are ordering: 1990-1995, 1996-1998, 1999-2001, 2002-2004 (more recent indexes not yet available)

Subscription Rates

Subscription Bonuses

Prisoners Individuals Professionals
(Attorneys, agencies, libraries)

l.year $24 $30 $80

2 years $ 48 $ 60 $160,

3 years
$ 72 $ 90 $240,

4 years
$ 96 $120 $320

2 years - 2 bonus issues for 26 total issues 3 years - 4 bonus issues (40 total) QI a bonus book as listed on pg. 53 4 years - 6 bo~us issues (54 total) QI,a bonus book as listed on pg. 53
(All subscription rates and bonus offers are validthrough 12~31-20 10)

Purchase with Visa, Maste~Card, AllEx or Discover by phone: 802-257-1342 Or buy books and subscriptions opline: www.prisonlegalnews.org

M~il Payment and Ol'del' to:

Pris,on Legal N,ews P.O. Box 2420 W. Brattleboro,VT 05303

All purchases must be pl'e-paid. Prisoners can pay with new first-class s.tamps (strips or boo~s only, no loose stamps) or
. pre-stamped envelopes, if allowed byprison policies.
D , Please Change my Address to what is entered below
1: Mail Ol'del' T
Name: ______~------------------~--____--__--_ DOC#: _______________________________

SUbSCl'ibe to Pl'i~on Legal News
6 month subs,cription (prisoners only) - $12 1 yr subscription (12 issues) 2 yr subscription (2 bonus issues for 26 total!) 3 yr ~ub (ivrite below which FREE book yoltwant)
ill: 4 bonus issues for 40 issues total! 4 yr sub (write below which FREE book you want)
ill: 6 ThOlluS issues for 54 issues total! Sample issue of Prison LegalNews - $3.50 each
Books·ol' Index Ol'del's (No S/H charge on
S& 4-year sub free books OR book orders OVER $501) Qty.

$ Amount

Suite/Cell: _ _ _ _ _- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Agency/lnst: ___________________________________ Address:
City/State/Zip: _ _ _ _ _ _ _~_ _ _ _ _ _ _~___

Add $6.00 S/R to Book Orders UNDER $50 VT residents ONLY add 6% to Total Book Cost Total Aniount Enclosed:

* No refunds on PLN subscription o~ book / index orders after orders have been placed *

March 2011

54

Prison Legal News

Page 4P7L6NCOL-00414

*

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-9 Filed 01/31/12 Page 28 of 29

Stampsfor.
SOLin RATES You CAN COUNT ON! $ RATgS THAT DON'T CHANGE lVIONTHLY!
Great Goods lvill buy)!our stalnps!
OJ: of Face Value: Complete .' 70 books or sheets ofForever Stamps,
O~ of Face Value: Complete books, rolls, or
, 19strips of44-cent stamps (10 stamps min.) .
W E 'WILL SEND your funds ,as a n10pey ord.er; electronic payment to anyv"here you designate. Great Goods can also se~dpayment to an approved package vendor. Please provide complete nalTIe and address of.·where to send your funds. Also include any required forms " ,' or special instructions.
, Paynlent sent,vithin 24 hohrs of receipt.
. lVIinimum lTIoneyorder of $20. e; No quantity of stamps too big.. eNo taped or stapled stan1ps. $ Used, damaged, torn stalTIpS not
on accepted and cannot be returned. G Stamps MUST be orIginal
postal backing. 0 Only ne\v stamps accepted. 0 No singles or partials will be accepted and they cannot be returned.

Prison Legal News

PO BOX-399,West Chesterfield NH 03466

.55 "

March 2011'

Page 4P7L7NCOL-00415

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-9 Filed 01/31/12 Page 29 of 29
Prison Legal News
P.O. B()x 2420 West .Brattleboro, VT 05303 .

Non-Proot Org. U.S..Postage PAID .Portland OR
Permit No. 3142

Subscription Renewal. Subscriptions expire after the isslle shown on the label is mailed. For example, if the label says: EXPIRES 02/2006, then the subscription expires after the February 2006 issues is mailed. Please -renew at l~ast 2l)1onths before· the expiJ;ation· date. IF THE LABEL SAYS EXPIRES: 03/2011 THIS IS YOUR LAST ISSUE.. Please renew irrimediately to avoid missing any issues.

Change of Address
If you move or are transfered, please notify PLN·as soon as possible so your issues can be mailed to your new ad-. ~
dress! PLN only accepts responsibility .
for sending an issue to the address pro-
vided at the time an issue is mailed!

.FO· OUR
Get the HIGHEST REIMBURSEMENT RATES for ALL of your stpmps from the ONLY stamp service continuously serving inmates for 9 years.

. WE BUY COMPLETE AND.PARTIAL BOOKS, SHEETS, STRIPS

AND ROLLS OF ALL DENOMINATIONS AND QUANTITIES OF

POSTAGE STAMPS IN GOOD 'CONDITION

.r.,

•

'"

. Within 24 Hours we will send a Money Order, Cashier's Check, or Electronic Payme~t

to wherever you designate, or we will pay an approved vendor for a package or gift.

~*
of Face Value (33¢ per stamp) fQr Forever Stamps in complete books or sheets

65~
of Face Value for 44¢ ~tamps in complete books, sheets, strips or rolls .

~

of Face Value for 44¢ Stamps in partial books, sheets or. strips (minimum 4 each)

,

.

of Face Value for all other denominations or stamp~d envelopes
* SPECIAL RATES FOR PLN SUBSCRIBERS· CLIP & SEND THIS AD TO:

SEND FOR (T~.'S~oRffEerEvoBidRWOheCreHPUroRhibEited
by state regulations)

CLN, P.O. Box 687·PN, Walnut, CA 91789

Or visit OUR Website: www.cash4urStamps.com

Page 4P7L8NCOL-00416

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 1 of 45

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBITM
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRlGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 479

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 2 of 45 Page 4P8L0NCOL-00432

Order. Form
All purchases must he pre-p~id. Prisoners can pay with new stamps (strips or hoo~) or pre-stamped envelopes.

Books (3 & 4 yr Subscription Specials: Cffi.CLE
one bookm: bonus issues, and DO NOT add SIH)
Protecting Your Health and Safety ill: 4 Bonus Issues (3-yr subscription offer)

$Amt.
Free

Prison Profiteers ill: With,Liberty for Some

ill: 6 Bonus Issues (4-yr subscription offer)

Free

Book Total (inc. all books bought separately)

Add 6% sales tax for Vermont 'residents only

ADD $6.00 SIR to hook orders UNDER $50

PLN Subscriptions
6-month Subscription (Prisoners only) 1 yr Subscription (12 issues) 2 yr Subscription (24 plus 2 Bonus issues) 3 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above m: 4 Bonus issues) 4 yr Sub (Circle bonus hook abovem: 6 Bonus issues) Sample Issue - $3.50 each
TOTAL Amount Enclosed:

Send to:
Name: DOC#: Agency/lnst: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Address: City/State/Zip: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
MAIL PADIENT AND TIDS FORM TO:
Prison Legal News P. o.~ ,Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303

Purchase by phone with, a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.pri~onlegalnews.org

PLN Subscription Rates

Subscription Rates 1 yr 2yrs 3 yrs 4yrs

Prisoners *

. $24 $ 48 $ 72 $ 96

Individuals

$30 $ 60 $ 90 $120

Professionals

$80 $160 $240 $320

(Lawyers, govt. & professional agencies, libraries, etc.)

Sample issue for anyone - $3.50 each*

Six-month prisoner subscription fOl' $12*
* Prisoners can pay with new fust..;class stamps (strips or books
only) or pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed byprison policies.

--------- :- - - - - - - - - S;ilis-c;ipti~~ B-o~~;;s!
I
I 2 years - 2 bonus issues, for 26 monthly issues total. : 3 years - 4· bonus issues (40 total) OR Protecting Your Health and I Safety (see book description on the other side of this brochure). : 4years - 6 bonus issues (54 total) OR your choice of WitkLibertyfor
~~~e_2!.~o~ ~r~e:;.~(~~d,:;:ng~o~_o~~~o~l~r~i~e~ _, ____:
···.1.

New 3 or 4-Year Sribs,c:dption 'Book Offers!
Subscribe or renew for' thre~ :years at the regular price ($72 for prisoners & $90 for:individti;Us), and receive as a FREE bonus, Prote~tin,g Your He~lth and 'Safety QI four bonus issues of,PLN! '(40"monthly issues total). Indicate yOUI choice on'the Order Forni.
Subscribe or renew f01' 'four yem's 'at the regular price ($96 for prisoners & $120'for'indiVl'duals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Prison' PrJjiteers 'or With Liberty for Some, or 6 bonus issues of PLN! (54 monthly issues total). Indicate yOUI choice on the Orde; Form.

NO shipping charge for subscription bonus books!
NOTE: H you want the honus'issues ofPLN instead of the free hook offer, please indicate that on the Order Form.

~ I ------C-o-n-ta-c-t -U-s -fo~r-P-L-N-'s-B-o-o-k-L-is-t!------~I

I

I

I You can buy dozens of legal, social commentary, self- I

: help books, and legal and regular dictionaries directly:

I from PLN's book store! Ask us for a book list, or view:

: OUI selection online at:

I

I

www.prisonlegalnews.org/store.aspx

:

~---------------------------------

;~i~~;~~~tr;~=~l.lO.

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a proj,?ct ofthe Hl£nLan Rights Defense Center
Eastern State Penitentiary 1829-1971
Charles Dickens visited Philadelphia's Eastern State Penitentiary in 1842 and he later ''lrote: "The System is rigid, strict and hopeless ... and I believe it to he cruel ~nd wrong....1 hold this slow and daily tampering with the mysteries of the' brain to be immeasurably' worse than ~ny torture of the body." The prison remained open for 129 years after Dickens condemned it as being barbaric, and some oLjts inhumane practices continue to be used in prisons nationwide.
P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 302·257·1342 • www.prisonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 3 of 45 Page 4P8L1NCOL-00433

I I~II fi ~

P rison Legal News' i~" an' independent, non-profit 56-page monthly "publication that reports, re-
views and analyzes court rulings and news I'elated to prisoners' 'rights and piis'on issues. PLNhas a national (U.S.) focus on state, federal and private prison issues, with some internation~coyerage as well.

PLN's many thous,ands of subscribers and readers

include civil and criminal trial and appellate attorneys,

judges, public defenders, "joUrnalists, academics, para-

legals, prisoners' rights activists, students, family members of prisoners, concer~ed individuals, politi-

cians, o~her, government officials; ,and numerous 'local,

state a~d federal'pr~soners nation"wide;'

' '

PLN'is a, vital'link ~~r,~i;~~~ners who otherwise d~n't

'and hav.e ~ccess to c:uneilt 'legal prison-related 'news

arid information. :", .., ',: ;" "

":~~Invaluable i¢sourte:Jbr,apy6n~~w~ti~g',;~sei "friendly' ,
-': :mr9i:mlltlqn"~b.out:~cut:r~n~,~~g~f:4~v~lopment$ affecting
:;(JJ~':~~::t;:i~~~e~~~:!eia;~~Zb'Cr1ber

P LN's coverage of pris~n: 'issues includes medical neglect, disciplin'ary 'l~ea:rings, nU,trition, liv:ing
conditiolis, excessive force, 'court access, censorship, jail Htigation, visitmg, telephones~' religious freedt;>m,
free speech" prison rape, mental health, attorney! client access, sexual ~buse' of women prisoners, retaliation, the PLRA" HIY 'a~dhep C, control units, th~: death perialty, attorney fees and much more.

PLN SuhSCl'iption'Rates

Prisoners:

$12

for
"

6

months;'$2~

. .

'"

pe. r y'ear

:t-

Non-incarcer,ated individuals: $30 per year

Law firms, govt. agen~i,es: and libraries: $80 per year
Sample issue'forany~~e:"$3~'50 each*
* Prisoners can pay witJ.! n,c~::~~~mR~, ~rpre-~tamped envelopes

E ach monthly issue,.of ,P.LN)llcl'tides', tlu-ee different

tJPes o~ reporting:

,',

, 8 A coyer st~ry on a prison-related issue.

Ci) Reports on individual and clas,s-action prison and Jail-
related lawsuits wIlen they are'fIled, when a judgment is entered or the' case :settles, ~d; when an appellate' com.'t decision is issued. We also ha,\;e prison-related ~ews ~·ticles. , Ci) A "News In Brief' se'ction that summarize~' interestmg
news stories' across the U.S. and internationally. '

, Each issue of PLN ~so contains numerous advertisements from husinesses that provide ':prison-related personal and" legal services and hooks. ':!?LN further sells' dozens' of selfhelp, social commeIitary ana legal books.

PLN also has cumulative subject' and case cite indexes for
r -- ----------- --I all PLN issues £rom'1990 tlrrough 2004. Write for info.' Sp4?cial'3-ye~' S~scr~ptio~'O:£f~rI '

Free with a 3-year PLN s~scription! Fo~ bonus issues ,of
m: PLN' (40 issues tot~d) ~ 1ree 'book~ P~otecting Your
He~l.l~h,and Safety! C~cl~ your bonus choice on the form on' the other side ~f th~s hr~,?hure (3~year subscr~ption rates: prisoners $72, individuals, $90, p!ofessi~l1als ~$2~'0). '
Protecting Your Jtealth and Safety" , by A~--"--.,...-l Rohert E. Toone. Published hy the, Southern Poverty L~w Center;' 325 'pages '(2009).' $10.00 (free with a 3-year sub!). 'This hook explains 'some basic right's thai prisoners have in 'a jail or prison in the'U.S. 'It deals mainly with rights related to health and ."...-"-'-'----I safety', such as communicable diseases and abuse by prison officials; it also explains h~w you can enforce your rights to health and safety within'the facility and, if nec~ essary, in c6ur~ tlu-ough litigation. Buy separately: '_ _

! 'r-----------------~-----------~-----------l
: You Can Buy These Books Separately!

I
: If

you

don't

,"
want to purchase

a

3'

or

A,-year

I
subscription:

: to PLN, you can stili purchase' any of the honus hooks:

: at the regular price. Just indicate which books you want:

: to buy on this page, then enter the total cost on the other: : side of this brochure on the "Book Total" line of tlie Or- : : del.' Fo~m. Shipping is $6 per orde~'(not pe~ book), and we:

: offer FREE shipping' on book orders of. $50' or more! To :

.: place a phone order, please call 802-257-1342. We also:
, : accept bo,ol~ orders ,onlin~, at ww'\v.pris,on1~galnews.org. :
L_________ ~_~----------------------------~J

D onations; PLN is a'pr'oje'ctof the n~n~profit ~uman , Rights D~fense Center., Your, tax-deductible donatio~s suPpq~t o'ur advocacy, fI:ee speech, and First Amendment litigation efforts on.. behalf of p;i~oners and publi~h~ ers. PLN not only provides uncensored prison-related news, but actively contests prison censorship that interferes with the delivery of our publication'or any other PLN materials sent to prisoners. All donations, further o~ goal of advoca~-, ing for people imprisoned in U.S.· detention facilities.
"Great source of infonnation, especially in states such as Arizona where the law libraries' have been taken from the inmates aud replaced with paralegals."
~'SB; Arizoll:l prisoner
Special 4-year S~~~'i,;ti~;-~He;;!--I
Free with a 4-year PLN s~sCL'iption! Six bonus issues,o( PLN (54 issues total) ill:,one n'ee book, With Liberty for Some ill: Prison Profiteers! Circlt" youi' bonus choice on the form on the other side of,this brochme, (4-year subscription rates: prisoners $96; individuals $120, professionals $320). Note: Free h?ok option is for Q.;!;!&boolt:.
With Liberty for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America" hy Scott Christianson, Nol,theastern, University
,Press~ 372 ,page~ (1998). $1~.95 (n'~'e ,wi':h
a 4-yea1' sub!). A classic book, and the best" overall history of the American prison system £rom 1492 to the 20th Century. Well,l; vvrittell and fact filled. A, must-read for understanding how little things have ~hanged as far as prisons go in the U.S. over hundreds of years. Buy separately: ___ '
m:
Prison Profiteers: Who Mal~es Money~ from Mass Incarceration, ,edited by Paul Wright & Tara Herivel,.New"Pres~ '(2007). $24.95 (n'ee with a 4-ye31' sUb!)."This is the third in a series' of PLNanthologies that examines tp,e reality of mass'imprisonment in the U.S. Prison Profiteers,is unique from other hooks on t;he :mark~t be,?ause it exposes and discusses who profits and henefits from mass, imprisqnment, rather than 'i,,:,ho'is harmed by the prison industrial complex, and our nation~s l'eliance o:p. over-inc,arceration. Buy separately::_,_,__,,'

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 4 of 45

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBIT
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 482

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 5 of 45 Page 4P8L3NCOL-00428

Order'Form
AIl purchases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books, no singles) or
pre-stamped envelopes, if al!.~"';;ed by prison policies.

Book Titl~ I Number

Qty Total Cost

(attach another page if you are ordering more books)
Subtotal: Add 6% sales tax for VT residents only:
Add $6.00 SIH to orders UNDER $50:
Total Order Amount:
Send to:
Name: DOC #:' _ _ _ _"'--_ _ _ _ __
Agency/lnst: Address:
City/State/Zip: MAE PAYl\1ENT AND TillS FORM TO: Prison., Legal, News P.O.' Box 2420 Bratt!eboro, VT 05303
Purchase by phone'.\Nith ,a Visa or MasterCard
80,2-25.7-1342
Or buy books and,subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

FREE SmPPING
On hook and index ordel'S OVER $50.001
to A $6 shipping cbarge applies ail other hook and index onlel.'s.
(Free shipping policy in offr.ct frOlU J Ull 1, 2010 until furlher notice)

More Books for Sale!

Prisoners' Self-Help Litigation Manual, updated 4th ed. (2010), b}' John

Boston and Daniel Manville, Oxford Uni". Press, 1500 pages. $39.95. The
I I I premiere, must-have "Bible" of prison litigation for curtent and aspiring jail-
h~use lawrers. If }'ou plan to litigate a prison or jail civil suit,

'thIS book IS a must-have.

1077

Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook' to Correspondence Programs in the U.S.

and Canada, updated 3rd ed. by Jon Marc Taylor, Ph.D. and edited by Susan

Schwartzkopf.; published by PLN, 221 pages. $49.95. Written by IYfissouri
prisoner Jon Marc Taylor, who obtained a B.s. degree, an l\'I.A. degree and a

Doctorate, the Gllcnilla Halldbook contains contact information and descrip-

I I tions of high school, vocational, paralegal and college courses available
through correspondence study. Great resource for prisoners

who want to further their education.

1057 1...---'_ _--'

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by Robert E. Toone, Southern Pover!:}'

L'1.W Center, 325 pages. $10.00. This book e...-. plains basic rights that prisoners

have in a jail or prison in the U.S. It deals mainl}',with rights related to health

I " I and safety, such as communicable:: diseases and abuse by prison officials; it also
explains how you can enforce',Y9ur '.rights within dle facility

and, if necessary, in court through;',¥:ti~tion.

1060 , .

'

Starting Out! The Complete ,R~-En:Uy Handbook, edited by William H.

Foster, Ph.D. & Carl E. HOFri;' Php., Starting Out Inc., 446 pages. $22.95.

Complete do-it-yourself re-eritr}"mruiual and workbook for prisoners who

want to develop their own re-enti:(plan,tb increase their chances of success

I after dley are released. Indude~ rI, ,vide:vapety of resources, including a user
~ode to the Starting Out web.si~e that card~e,~ccessed' follOW-I'

Illg release.

"

' . -'::

"

"

"

1074 "

,

., '---'-----'

Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners. Defending Prisoners v. the U.S.A., by

Mumia Abu Jamal, Cit)' Lights Publishers, 280 pages. $16.95. In jail/JolfJC UIIJ-

yerI, Prison Legal News columnist, award-\vinning journalist and death-row

prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal presents the stories and reflections of fellow pris-

I , oners-turned-advocates who have learned to use the court system to represent
odler prisoners, and in some cases ~lave won their freedom.,

Must-read for jailhouse lawyersl

"

1073 1- _ , -I-._ _---l.

How to Win Your Personal Injury Claim, by Atty. Joseph Matthews, 7dl

edition, NOLO Press, 304 pages. $34.99. While not specifically for prison-

related personal injury cases, this book provides comprehensive information

I I I on how to handle personal injury and property damage claims arising from
?ccidents - incl~ding dealing with doctors, attorneys and

msurnnce compnrues.

'

1075 ,-._-'-._ _--J,

, AUpnces ru.:e,eff~e:asof9-15-10'
'(plices sUbject to ~~e Without notice)'
* ::"* No refiiiids der~rd~ts'hav~ beeI(placed

Dedicated" to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Hum,an Rights Defense Center
2010 PLN BOOK LIST
Prices Subj~ct to Change Without Notice Graphic from: Boolts 2 Prisoners, Vancouver, Be
P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 802~257-1342 D www.prisonlegainews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 6 of 45 Page 4P8L4NCOL-00429

Check the box of the .b.oo~::you want to buy and use the Order Fonn on the other side ofthis brochure to add up the cost of your order. FREE SHIPPINO for book and index orders OVER $50. There is a $6 shipping chargt? fOJ: ~ other book and index orders.

Prison Profiteers, edi;W by Pa;U wrigl1t and Tara HeciveI, 323 pages. $24.95. This is the

third and latest bookin a series ofPrison i.eg.ii News anthologies that examines the reality of

.rna5S imprisonment in America. (The other tides are Tbc CelulJgojAmmrn & PdroIJNatioll,

I I I see below). PrisOlI Prrjtem is unique from other books because it e.-pDses anel discusses
who profits and benefits from m.1SS imprisonment, mtiler than who is

hrumed by it and how.

1063 ....._--'-._ _-'.

I I I Prison Nation: The WarehouSing ofAmerica's Poor, edited by Tara Herivel and P.1ul
Wright, 332 pages. $35.95. PLN anthology ~-poses ti,e d,1Ik side ofthe

~ock--em.up' poliucd agenda and legal climate in tile U.s.

1041 . .

.

I I I The Celling ofAmerica, edited by Daniel Burton Rose, Dan Pens and Paul Wright, 264
pages. $22.95. PIN nnthology 'presents a detailed "inSide" look at the

walkings oftile Arneri= o:imin:u jUsiice system

1001 . .

.

Everyday Letters for Busy peQP~e, by Debra 'Hart May, 287 pages. $18.99.

I I I Hundreds of sample letters that cnn be adapted fo~ most any pmpose, including
letters to goyernment agencies nnd officials. Has numerous

tips for writing effective lettc~s. '.' . '. ' .

1048 ...._ _.'--_---'.

The Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System, by
Attomeys Paul Bergman .& S~ J~' B~nn-Barrett, Nolo Press, 60B pages. $39.99.

E:·;plains what happens'in a criminal Cllse from being arrested ro sentencing, nnd what

your rights are at each stage of the process. Uses an easy to under-,

stand question-nnd-nnswer. format.·. .... . ..

1038 ...._--'--_ _--'

Represent Yourself in CoUrt: .HQw· to Prepare & Try a Winning Case, by
Attomeys Paul Bergman & S~ J. B~-Barr~tt, Nolo Press, 528 pages. $39.99.

I I I BrealtS down dle civil trial process in easy-to:-un~,eIStand steps so you cnn effectively
represent yoursel: in court. TIle authprs i!A.pI~ what, to say in

court, how to say It, etc. . . .~'-..

. 1037 ...._--'-._ _ _.

Law Dictionary, RlUldom House Webster's, 525 pages. $19.95. Comprel1ensive u,-

to-date 1'lw dictionary e."\-plains more than 8,500 legal terms.,

,

Covers civil, criminal, commercial,& inteJ;I1fitionallaw.

1036 ...._---'._ _ _-'

I I I The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, by Jane Straus, 110 pages.
$14.95. A guide to grammar and punctuation by an' e~ucator

with e.'(perience teaching Eng~sh to prisoners.

1046 l..._ - - ' - ._ _ _.....

Legal Research: How to Fwd and Unders~d the Law, by Stephen Elias and

I I I Susnn Levinkind, 568 pages..$49.99. Comprellensive and easy to understand guide
on researching the law. E."-plains case law, statutes nnd digests,

and mucll more. Includes practice e.'(ercises.

1059 '-._-'-._ _---'.

I I· I Deposition Handbook, by Paul Bergmnn' nnd Albert Moore, Nolo Press, 352
pages..$34.99. How-to handbook. for nnyone who conducts a

deposition oris going to be deposed. ...... .

1054 1-._ - ' - ._ _- - ' .

I I I Spanish-English/English-Spanish: Dictionary, Random House. $8.95. Two
sections, Spanish-English and Englis.I~-.~P.aniSI? 60,000+ entries

from A to Z; includes Western ~~s.f:!here llsage:

1034 ...._--'-._ _---'.

Please Note: All book and indro(ordffi:s' are mailed via the 'U.S. Postal
PiN Service with Delivery 'Co~~ti~n. does not ~e any respon-
sibility to replace book or index:orilerSonce theit delivery to the destination address (fa~ty) ,is ~~nfirmed.hy:the U.S. Postal Service.

I I I Writing to Wm: The Legal Writer; by S~I!\'en u; Stnrk, Broadway Books/R:ll1i:1om
House, 2B3 pages. $19.95. fu-plains the writing of effecti~ie c,omplaints,

responses, briefs, motions nnd other legal papers.

1035 l..._---'-._ _.......J.

Actual Innocence: When Justice Goes Wrong ~d How to Malte it Right, Upd.1~
paperback ed, by Ball), Scheck, Peter Neufeld arid Jinl Dwyer; 403 pages. $16.00.

Founders of tile Innocence Project e.-pL1in how criminal defendants are wrongly con-

I -I: I victed on a regular basis. ExpL'1ins DNA testing and how itworks ro free the innocent. .
Devnstnting critique of police and prosecutorial misconduct and dle

system dmt ensures SUcll abuses contin1,le.. , _

1030 ....__.'--_ _-'.

Rogel's Thesaurus, 717 pages. $8.95. Helps.you find the right word for what you want to say. 11,000 words listed alphabetic~V\~th' over 200,000 synonyms

I I I and antonyms. Sample sentences and parts 'of speech shown for every main
word•. Covers all levels of vocabulary and identifies informal

and slang words.

.

1045 '-._-I.._ _---I.

Webster's English Dictionary, Newly re\':ised and updated, Rnndom House.

I I:' ,. $B.95. 75,000+ entries: Includes tips on' writirig nnd word usage, and has up-
dated geographicitJ and biographkal entries. Includes J:ecent

business and computer terms.

1033 l...- - - , - ' - ._ _---'.

I . I Capital Crimes, by George Winslow, Monthly Review, 360 pages: $19.00.
Explains how economic policies create ·nnd foster crime, and

~lOW corporate & government crime is rarely punished. 1024

.

With Liberty for Some: 500 Years ofImprisonment in America, by Scott

Christinnson, Northeastern Universit}' Press,' 372' pages. $18.95. ·The 'best

overall history of the American prison' system from 1492 through the 20th
I I' I Century. Well written nnd fact filled. A must-read for understnnding how little
tllings have dianged as far as prisons go .in tlle ·U.S. over

hundreds ofyears.

.

1026..

I I I Ten Men Dead: The story of the 1981ldsh hunger strike, by Da\':id Beres-
ford, Atlnntic Monthly Press, 334 pages. $16.95. Inside story of

IRA prisoners at Belfast's Long Kesh prison.

1006..

.

I I I Finding the Right Lawyer,by Jal' Foonberg, ABA, 256 pages. $19.95. Ex-
.1 plains how to detem1ine your legal needs, 10W to: evaluate a

lawyer's qualifications, fee payments, nnd more.

1015 "

.

Seize the Dayl 7 Steps to Achieving the Extraordinary in an Ordinary

World; by Danny Cox and John Hoover, 256 pages. $15.99. Provides 7 steps

to changing your e."\-pectations and en'yisioning yourself as being a suc<;essful

and respected. person-wluch is essential to changing the I I

1

course of one's life.

1052

Women Behind Bars, The Crisis of Women ~ the U.S. Prison System, by

I Silja J.A. Talvi, Seal Press, 295 pages. $15.95. Best book available that covers
issues related to imprisoned women, based ~n inten':iews with

hundreds of women bellind bars.

.

1066 ...._-'-_ _--'

10 Insider Secrets to a Winning Job Search, by Todd Bermont, 216 pages.

$15.99. Roadmap on how to get a job even under adverse circumstances-like

I I I being an ex-con. Includes how to de\'elop a winning attitude, write attention-
grabbing resumes, prepare for intenriews, networking, how to

present your strengths to an employer, and mUcll morel 1056..

.

I I I The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, 2003
Ed. by Alfred McCoy, 734 pages. $34.95."Documented ex-pose of the government's involvement in drug trafficking. 1014 '-._-'-._ _--'.

Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis, bl' Christian Parenti,

290 pages. $19.00. J\nalyzes the war oil the poor "\~a the criminal justice system. Well

. documented and includes first-hand. reporting: ~overs prisons, pnra-I

militar}, policing, SWAT teams nnd the lNS.

.' -.

. 1002 L. _ .. - 1 -_ _-1

Hepatitis and Liver Disease: What You Need to Know, by "tI'JeJissa T·

NID,

I I I 457 pages. $17.95. Describes symptoms & treatments of hepatitis B & C and odler
liver diseases. Includes medications to a~oid, what di~t to follow,

e..ercises to perfonn, and a bibliographl!·

.

1031 L._--L._ _-I.

Crime and PUnishment In America, 'by"Elliolt Currie, 230 pages. $16.95. Effi:ctive

I I I rebuttal to right-wing proponents of pris~n building. Fact-based,rugumenr shows· that
crime is driven by poverty. Debunks. prison myrllS an~ discusses

proven, eB.ective means ofcrime prevention.'

1019. .

Prison Madness: The Mental Health Crisis Behind Bars and'What We

Must Do About It, by Terry Kupers,Jossey-Bass, 245 pages. Hardback only; prisoners please include any required au~o.ri:i:ation form. $32.95. Psyclua-

I trist writes about the mental healdl crisis in U.S.· prisons nnd jails. Covers all
aspects of mental illness, prison rape, negaiive effects of long-I I

term isolation in control units, nnd more.

1003...

Prison Writing in 20th Century America, by H. Bruce Franklin, Penguin

I I Books, 368 pages. $16.00. From Jack London to George Jackson, dus
andlology pro,':ides a selection of some of dle best writing

describing life bellind bars in America.

1022 1..._..1._ _---1

'"'1''''''.00.°T' I Soledad Brother: The Prison Letters of George Jackson, by GeorgeJackson,

"''''''''' prison by

aHwillelBl-okon.o.w. n3p3r'isPo'n<a"c.ti$v1is8t..9M5,oJr,eUcriedlevnnt

now

dlnn

r·~ of

when it first appeared 40 years ago.

1016

Marijuana Law, by Ridlllrd Boire, Roruri, 271 pages. $17.95. Examines how to

I I I reduce the probability ofarrest and prosecution for people accused of dle use, sale or
possession of marijuana. Info on legal defenses.,search & seizures,

surveillance, asset forfeiture and drug testinlS:. ..

100B 1..._..1._ _---'.

Worse Than Slavery: Parchman Fann and the Ordeal ofJim CrowJustice, by

I I I David Oshinsky, 306 pages. $16.00. J\nalysis of prison labor's roots in slayery.
Focuses on prison pL'IIltations nnd self-sustaining prisons that use

prison L'lbor.

.

1007...

No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the American Criminal Justice

I I I System, by David Cole, TIle New Press, 218 pages. $19.9&. E."-plains how the
criminal justice system perpetuates race ~d class inequality,

creating a two-tiered system of justice. .

,

102B 1..._.---l._ _---I.

The Prison and the Gallows: The Politics' of Mass Incarceration ·in .
I I I America, by Marie Gottschalk, Cambridge UniYersit}' Press, 451 pages.
$29.99. Great political analysis of the confluence of e\'ents leading to 2.3 million people behind bars in the U.S. 1069 L.._-I..._ _-'.

The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, by Brandon

Sample, PLN Publislling, 200 pages. $49.95. This is PLN's second published

I I I book., whicll exclusively co,'ers ineffective assistance of counsel-related
issues in federal habeas petitions. Great resource for habeas

litigation, and contains hundreds of case citesl

1078 L._'_1..._ _-I.

Factor 8 (DVD), a film by Kelly Duda, Concrete Films. $21.95. Movie

I about dle Arknnsas prison blood scandal, in which prison officials sold
infected blood harvested from priso~ers. No'te: TillS is a

DVD and cannot be shipped to prison.

1076. 1...:..,._ l . . - _ - - l

PLN Cumulative Index. $22.50 each. PLN Article Indexes pro,':ide detailed information about all PLN articles, iricludirig tide, author, issue, pag~ number, topics covered, citations, nnd jf it is st:;lte, BOP Qr jail specific. Cnn be
searched on over 500 subjects such as. medical neglect or se.,,-ual assault. Circle
dle index(es) you are ordering: 1990-1995, '1996-1998; 1999-1 2001, 2002-2004. (more recent indexes·not y~t available)

. All books are soft cover except ·Prison Madness

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 7 of 45

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBIT 000
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRlGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 485

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 8 of 45

T he Habeas Citeboo!c.: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel is the first in a series of books by Prison Legal News ,Publishing designed t6 help pro-se prisoner litigants identify and raise viable claims for potential habeas corpus relief. TPis book is an invaluable resource that identifies hundreds of cases where the federal courts have granted habeas relief to prisonersw~ose attorn~y~ provided ineffective assistance of counsel.
It will save litigants thousands ofhours
of research and it focuses on the WINNING cases criminal defendants need to successfully challenge their convictions.
Well organized into 52 concise chapters, this easy to use book puts the law at the readees fingertips. Th~ Appendix includes pleadings and forms from sticcessfulhabeascorpus cases that

demonstrate formatting and show how to frame a winning argu-
ment that will persuade a: court
to grant habeas relief. The Habeas Citeboolc explains the procedural and substantive complexities of federal habeas corpus litigation with the goal of identifying and litigating claims involVing ineffective assistance of counsel.
Brandon Sample is a successful jailhouse lawyer litigant incarcerated in the Bureau of Prisons. He is a Prison Legal News contributing'writer and a member of the National Lawyees Guild. Editor Susan Schwartzkopf has a master's degree in education and is the director and editor in chief of Prison Legal News Publishing.

, The Habeas Citebook is a nifty and concise self-help
guide for prisoners see1dng habeas reliefbased on claims of ineffective' assistance of counsel. , Navigating the complex and treacherous terrain ofhabeas law is never easy; but claiming that your lawyer screwed up is even more difficult - especially from the confines of an ill-equipped prison law library.
"Brandon Sampie has provided an amaZing and much~ needed tool for prisoners who are forced to seek relief on their own. The book is thorough; but Simple and readable. It starts with a wonderfully well-organized listing of hundreds of different types of ineffective assistance of counsel, set forth in the form of citations to court rulings - a novel approach that not only acts as a springboard for further research but also saves the prisoner countless hours ofpreliminary research:'
PETER SCHMIDT
Publisher,.Punch & Jurists

THE HABEAS CITEBOOK: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

By Brandon Sample

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed _ _ _ _ __

8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages

ISBN 978-0-9819385-1-6

.

$49~95

, at3'<ir more 'copies ordered onc~ $39'.95 'each '

By: 0 check 0 new postage stamps 0 credit card 0 money order m Name ___________________________ _ ~------ ____ DOC/BOP Number _____-'-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _--,--.:.-_ _ Institution/Agency _________"---,-:-________

FREE Shipping ~ Handling' Order by mail, phone, or on-line.
PUBLISHED BY

Address -----------------------------------~--
City ______________ State. ZIP

PRNSON LEGAL NEWS p.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 4P8L6NCOL-00430

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 9 of 45

, --------'-------,

Copies of this very usable and useful gUide

should be available in every prison library-to

help incarcerated people give positive direc-
tion to their-ene.rgie~. while m~king ~qnstructive use of their time. It is a, well-estabH~hed fa~t 'that people who have t~ken college co'ursesin prison

have a dramatically reduced rate of recidivism."

~BELL GALE CHEVIGNY, PEN Prison Writing Program,

~~~-

Editor DOIng Time: 25 Years ofPrison Writing, -----~

,

,

HICH SCHOOL" VOCATIONAL • PARALECAL • UNDERCRADUATE· GRADUATE COURSES

- - HE GREATLY anticipated and newly updated

to third 'edition of the Prisoner's Guerrilla
Handbook Correspondence Programs in the

United States and Ccmada has finally arrived! Author'

Jon Marc Taylor's brand new version is the latest in

this unique and highly successful guidebook for the prisoner-s~udent. This invaluable tool and how-to

handbook prOVides the reader with step-by-step

instructions to find the appropriate" educational

program for high school, vocational, paralegal,

undergraduate, and graduate courses offered in

the U.S. and Canada today.

'

. '

:

Invaluab~e re-entry tool

It presents more than 160 program outlines and offers an easy-to-use format for the student to determine which program best suits their needs. It is ideal 'for the incarcerated student who does not have Internet access or the ability to attend education cla'sses in person. This resource is indispensable

for the individual and beneficial for use in all prison libraries and education departments.
The ~risoner's Guerrilla Handbook is the only book on the market for the non-traditional prisoner-student. It includes.detailed listings of the quality, cost, and course offerings for all correspondence pro- , grams available to prisoners. In a time when so many academic opportunities in prisons have been eliminated, this book is an invaluable re-entry tool for prisoners who seek to further their education while , incarcerated and to help them prepare for life and work folloWing their release. , Jon' Marc Taylor has more than 25 years experience as an incarcerated student, advocate for prisoner education, and author. He has successfully earned a bachelor's degree, a master's 'degree, and "a doctorate via correspond,ence courses while incarcerated. Editor Susan Schwartzkopf,has a master's degree in education and 12 years experience teaching immigrants English language skills.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

m PRISONERS' GUERRILLA HANDBOOK TO CORRESPONDENCE PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA m

ByJon Marc Taylor PHD
8.~5",X 10.75" • 224 pages
ISBN 978-0-9819385-0-9 $49-95

Number of copies ordered ___ Amount enclosed ______
By: 0 check 0 new postage stamps 0 credit card 0 money order 9
Name ----------------------------------------

3 or more copies ordered DOC/BOP Number ------'-'-----..:..-----"'----------: -, at once $39-9'5 each, ' ' Institution!~gency ____________________

FREE Shipping & Ha.ndling , Address------------------------------
m Oreler by mail, phone, or on-line. City ________________ State ZIP
PU8L1SHED BY
PRiSON lEGAL NtEW§ I P.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org ,

Page 4P8L7NCOL-00431

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 10 of 45

9870.05 [3146305

E HIBIT PPP
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 488

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 11 of 45 Page 4P8L9NCOL-00454

Prison .Legal News P.O. Box 2420 West Brattleboro, Vermont 05303

NbN~PROFIT ORG.
u.s. Postage Paid
Prisoners Legal News
Permit No.1 047

: '" ~;

..~.,

1111.1111111111.111111111.1.11111111.11111.1.111118111181.1111111

William Temple 2011000529

Columbia Co Jail

.

901 Port Ave

St Helens OR Q7n~1_qn1 A

N::r.x :te:

~1a-?O

D£~:L

(J(':) :1. ::1. I :1. 4 / ;I, ;j,

RETURN TO SENDER

.'"

NOT CELXVERAaLE AS ADDRESSEO

UNABLE TO FORWARD

I~C : ('S~O::;:3.24.2020

*2929-03305-~4-45

O.s303(~~420

111,1,11,1) 1111, JJ 111 J ,11111) 11,1) II Jil, f11,,11111 JJ1111 J,1,,1

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 12 of 45

Prison Legal News
DEDICATED TO PROTECTING HUMAN RIGHTS

October 23,2011

Dear PLN Supporter,

You recently received a PLN fundraising letter, however, the printer made a mistake and did not print the entire letter so you only received half of it. This is the entire letter which also includes a picture of Nelly, our beloved office mascot. For the sake of human rights in America, and Nelly, please read the entire letter and make a donation to support our cause because human rights can't defend themselves.
This month marks the 40th anniversary of the 1971 uprising and massacre at Attica State Prison in New York. Until the massacre of the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas in 1993, Attica held the dubious distinction of being the bloodiest confrontation on American soil between civilians and government forces since the Wounded Knee massacre in 1890. The Attica rebellion ushered in the modern era of prison reform which has seen extensive changes in the American gulag, including its massive expansion to the largest prison system the world has ever seen.

When I started Prison Legal News in 1990, there were a million prisoners nationwide and the hard-won reforms of the post-Attica era were already in decline. Today there are more than 2.5 million prisoners in America and while much has changed since 1971, a lot has not. Brutality, medical neglect, overcrowding, lengthy prison sentences and isolation of prisoners remain a constant part of the prison experience. Other developments, like the rise of the private prison industry, the control unit isolation of tens of thousands of prisoners, the immigration gulag and the mass proliferation of torture devices like Tasers and restraint chairs have been anything but good.

After Attica there was a vibrant prisoners' rights movement that demanded change and recognition that everyone had basic human rights, even people in prison. Today we live in a country where citizens are scooped off the street and tortured and held indefinitely as "enemy combatants," where American government death squads roam the planet hunting down, kidnapping, torturing and/or killing anyone deemed a "suspected terrorist," and where the U.S. government openly runs concentration camps at Bagram, Guantanamo and other "undisclosed locations." To suggest that international law and basic human decency should bar murder and torture is apparently a radical notion.

Just as Attica occurred against the backdrop of the American genocide in Southeast Asia, today's evisceration of human rights in American jails and prisons occurs against a

P.O. Box 2420, West Brattleboro, VT 05303 Phone: 802-257-1342
Email: pln@prisonlegalnews.org

Page 4P9L0NCOL-00455

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 13 of 45
backdrop of perpetual war and aggression both domestically and overseas. This amply illustrates Martin Luther King, Jr.'s observation that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
Today, Prison Legal News is the only publication in existence dedicated to reporting on the human rights of those imprisoned in the American gulag. Thus far this year PLN has published cover stories on the litigation involving California's severely overcrowded prison system, the ongoing outrage of the American death penalty, corruption and mayhem caused by the private prison industry, the gouging of consumers by the prison phone industry, control units, shoddy forensic examiners and much more.
We believe that to effect positive change we must inform people about the failures and shortcomings of the American criminal justice system and the inherent conflicts that make our justice system unjust. We do that by reporting corruption and misconduct by corrections officials in PLN's monthly publication, read by tens of thousands of prisoners and non-prisoners alike. We also report legal decisions related to prisoners' rights, so they will be inspired and can learn how to vindicate their few remaining rights in court.
But PLN does much more than provide information about criminal justice-related news and legal rulings.
PLN engages in litigation to protect our First Amendment rights and thereby the rights of our subscribers to receive our monthly publication and the books we distribute. It is no exaggeration to say that PLN is the primary bulwark against government censorship of books and magazines in America today. So far, in 2011 alone, we settled censorship suits against the Galveston jail in Texas and the Spokane jail in Washington, requiring them to modify their mail policies. We also filed suit against a jail in Kansas, two jails in Michigan, the New York state prison system, the Sacramento jail in California and the New Orleans jail due to bans on reading material. PLN is the only publication in the United States that regularly challenges censorship by prison and jail officials - a sad commentary on the mainstream media's respect for the First Amendment.
Further, as part of our efforts to ensure public accountability and obtain source documents for our news reporting, PLN files public records requests - with government agencies and the private companies with which they contract - and litigates when those requests are arbitrarily denied. We have public records lawsuits pending against Corrections Corporation of America in Tennessee, Prison Health Services in Vermont, the Bureau of Prisons in Washington, D.C. and the U.S. Department of Justice in Colorado.
As part of PLN's larger strategy to inform the public and policy makers about problems in our justice system, PLN staff speak at conferences and network with other media agencies, which often quote PLN in their news reporting. In 2011, PLN editor Paul Wright and associate editor Alex Friedmann were quoted or mentioned in articles in the Seattle Weekly, Reason, WaShington Times, Huffington Post, Spokesman Review, The Nation, the Tennessean, Truthout, National Public Radio, Business Week, the Associated Press and many others, on topics ranging from prison journalism and postcardonly mail rules in jails to prison slave labor, prison privatization, censorship and prison medical care. Additionally, we are regular guests on radio shows around
Page 4P9L1NCOL-00456

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 14 of 45
the country on criminal justice topics. PLN is also online, where readers can access every article that PLN has ever published as well as many other articles and case summaries, a brief bank for litigators and jailhouse lawyers, a publications database and much more; Visit www.prisonlegalnews.org. We offer a free listserv and have an online bookstore, too. PLN has the most prison- and jail-related content on the 'Net, period. and we upload new content on an ongoing basis.
We further distribute a number of books for prisoners, including legal reference and selfhelp books. Three PLN anthologies are now in print, most recently Prison Profiteers: Who Profits from Mass Incarceration, and we recently began publishing our own books, including the Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the U.S. and Canada, 3rd ed., by Missouri prisoner Jon Marc Taylor, and The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, by PLN writer and federal prisoner Brandon Sample. Both books were edited by PLN's Susan Schwartzkopf. Our goal is to provide prisoners with non-fiction reference books they can use to improve and help themselves while in prison.
In summary, for the past 21 years PLN has been distributing our monthly publication as well as books of interest to prisoners and their supporters; we have litigated numerous censorship cases to ensure prisoners can receive our publications, in addition to public records cases; PLN staff have served as a source of information and research for the mainstream news media; we maintain a website with extensive information about criminal justice-related issues; and we have started publishing our own self-help books for prisoners.
All of this takes money, because nothing - and no one - is free in America.
PLN's subscriptions and book sales do not cover our overhead; thus, we rely heavily on donations and grant funding to make up the shortfall. Donations and grants alike have dropped due to the frigid economic climate. Alas, the need for the work we do has only increased. Prison and jail populations nationally continue to grow exponentially, and President Obama is seeking money for more cops, more prosecutors and more prisons. Your support is vital to the work we do. Unlike many non-profits, we do concrete things that actually can be measured: we publish a magazine; we publish and distribute books; we successfully sue prisons and jails to ensure they do not engage in unconstitutional censorship; we advocate on behalf of prisoners in the media, before legislatures and administrative agencies, and in public forums. For the full scope of the depth and breadth of our activities, review our annual reports on our website. We run a lean operation and, having consolidated our Vermont and Washington offices last year, cannot cut additional costs without limiting our operational capabilities.
In contrast to other non-profits, PLN does not bombard its supporters with fundraising requests throughout the year. We conduct one fundraiser at the end of the year and this is it. If you are familiar with PLN and our work, then you know we do a lot with little funding. But continued funding is necessary if PLN is to continue operating, and we can't keep doing what we do without your support!
Page 4P9L2NCOL-00457

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 15 of 45
So when you decide where to donate this holiday season, please think about PLN. Consider the work we do - and have been doing for more than two decades - and also consider there isn't much grant funding available for prisoners' human rights and criminal justice reform in the U.S., which are not popular issues. So please make a tax deductible donation to PLN or encourage your family and friends to do so. PLN subscriptions make great gifts, as do the many books we distribute. Your donation will make a difference and go farther than a donation almost anywhere else. We also offer a number of "premiums" for donations above certain amounts (see the enclosed flyer). Feel free to forward this fundraiser request to others who may be interested in supporting PLN's work, and thank you for keeping us in mind this holiday season. Our office mascot, Nelly, a 12-year-old golden retriever, pictured below, comes to work every day to support our efforts to protect human rights. If she can support PLN, you can too!
rIn Struggle,
Paul Wright Editor, PLN P.S. - You can also order the much-awaited Prisoners' Self-Help Litigation Manual, 4th edition, from PLN for $45.95 or The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel for $49.95, postpaid. P.P.S. - Even if you can't afford to make a donation, subscribe or buy a book yourself, please encourage others to do so. Every purchase and donation is a huge help!
Page 4P9L3NCOL-00458

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 16 of 45
ws
Gift Option 1
To show our appreciation for your support, we are providing a Prison Legal News card when you make a donation of at least $50.00. The card is hand embroidered by women prisoners in Bolivia who are paid a fair wage for the cards to help support their families.

Gift Option 2
To show our appreciation for your support, we are providing the Prison Legal News hemp tote bag when you make a donation of at least $75.00. Handmade in Vermont using hemp fiber. Carry books and groceries in style and help end the war on drugs!

Gift Option 3
To show our appreciation for your suppoli, we are providing the following selection of books for you to choose from when you make a donation of at least $100.00. Donations of $100.00 or more can choose one free book title. Each $100 donation entitles you to another free book; i.e., donate $500 and you get five books! Donate $1,000 and you get everything on this page! Please circle the books you want and put the corresponding donation on the next page.

Gift Option 4
To show our appreciation for your support, we are providing the entire Prison Legal News anthology of three critically acclaimed books on mass imprisonment signed by editor Paul Wright! (The CeIling of Amercia, Prison Nation and Prison Profiteers), plus the Prison Legal News hemp tote bag to carry the books in when you make a donation of $250.00.
P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 .. (802) 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 4P9L4NCOL-00459

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 17 of 45

You can mail a check or money order to:

Prison Legal News, P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303

Or call PLN's office at 802-257-1342 and use your credit card, Or visit PLN's website at www.prisonlegalnews.org and click on the donation link.

Remember - PLN is a project of the Human Rights Defense Center, which is a Section 501 (c)(3) non-profit organization, and donations are tax deductible!
Yes! I want to help support PLN - here is my special donation of:

- -$25 _ _$50 _ _$100 _ _$250 _$500 _ _$1,000 $_ _ Other
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Credit card donors please fill out the following form

o I want to make a one time contribution of $_ _ _ _ _ _ _ to PLN, charged to my credit card!

o I want to contribute a fixed amount to PLN each month! I authorize Prison Legal News to charge

$_______ on my credit card every month until I give notice to stop, or until my total donation

amount of $

has been charged to my card, whichever comes first.

Print Name on Card: ----------------------------------------
Card Number:

Expiration Date: _ _1_ _1

Billing Zip Code for Card: _______

I authorize Prison Legal News to charge a total of$_ _ _ _ _ _to my credit card, which matches the instructions marked above.

Cardholder Signature: _________________________ Date: ____________

Prison Legal News is a 501(c)(3) non-profit; your donation is tax deductible to the extent allowed by law.
PLN protects the privacy of its donors, and their names are not reported in our publication or on our website.
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Please complete all applicable information to ensure delivery of any donation gifts. Thank you!

Name ------------------------------------ Title ----------
Organization ________________________________________________
Address ------------------------------- Suite - - - - - - - - -
Address ------------------------------------------------
City _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ State - - - - - Zip ____________

P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 • (802) 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 4P9L5NCOL-00460

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 18 of 45 Page 4P9L6NCOL-00461

Order Form
All purchases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books, no singles) or pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed by prison policies.

Book Title / Number

Qty Total Cost

(attach another page if you are ordering more books)
Subtotal: Add 6% sales tax for VT residents only: Add $6.00 S/R to orders UNDER $50: Total Order Amount:
Send to:
Name: DOC#: Agency/lnst: Address: C!ty/State/Zip:
MAIL PAYMENT AND THIS FORM TO:
Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303
Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegainews.org

FREE SmPPING
On book and index orders OVER $50.001
A $6 shipping charge applies to all other book and index orders.
(Free shipping policy in effect from Jan 1, 2010 llltil fm-ther notice)

MOI'e Books for Sale!

Prisoners' Self-Help Litigation Manual, updated 4th ed. (2010), by John

Boston and Daniel Manville, Oxford Univ. Press, 1500 Pages. $39.95. The

I I I premier, must-have "Bible" of prison litigation for current and aspiring jail-
house lawyers. If you plan to litigate a prison or jail civil

lawsuit, this book is a must-have.

1077

Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the U.S.

and Canada, updated 3rd ed. by Jon Marc Taylor, Ph.D. and edited by Susan

Schwartzkopf, published by PLN, 221 pages. $49.95. Written by NIissouri

prisoner Jon Marc Taylor, who obtained a B.S. degree, an M.A. degree and a

Doctorate, the Gllenilla Halldbook contains contact information and descrip-

tions of high school, vocational, paralegal and college courses available

through correspondence study. Great resource for prisoners I

who want to further their education.

1071

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by Robert E. Toone, Southern Poverty

Law Center, 325 pages. $10.00. Tlus book explains basic rights that prisoners

have in a jail or prison in the U.S. It deals mainly with rights related to health

and safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by prison officials; it also

explains how you can enforce your rights within the facility

and, if necessary, in court through litigation.

1060
'----'-----'

community.

Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners v. the U.S.A., by

Mumia Abu Jamal, City Lights Publishers, 280 pages. $16.95. In Jailhollse LaIlJ-

)lers, Prison Legal News columnist, award-winning journalist and death-row

prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal presents the stories and reflections of fellow pris-

I I I oners-turned-advocates who have learned to use the court system to represent
other prisoners, and in some cases have won their freedom.

A must-read for jail-house lawyers!

1073

How to Win Your Personal Injury Claim, by Atty. Joseph Matthews, 7th

edition, NOLO Press, 304 pages. $34.99. While not specifically for prison-

related personal injury cases, tlus book provides comprehensive information

I I I on how to handle personal injury and property damage claims arising from
accidents - including dealing with doctors, attorneys and

insurance companies.

1075

All prices are effective as of 7-1-11
* No refunds after orders have heen placed *

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
2011 PLN BOOK LIST
Prices Subject to Change Without Notice
Graphic from: Books 2 Prisoners, Vancouver, Be
P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 e www.prisonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 19 of 45 Page 4P9L7NCOL-00462

Check the box of the books you want to buy and use the Order Fonn on the other side of this brochure to add up the cost of your order. FREE SHIPPING for book and index orders OVER $50. There is a $6 shipping charge for all other book and index orders.

Prison Profiteers, edited by Paul Wright and Tara Herivel, 323 pages. $24.95. This is the

third and latest book in a series ofPrison Legal News anthologies that examines the reality of
mass imprisonment in America. (The other tities are The Ceiling ifAJJlerica & Piisoll Natioll,

see below). Prison Pn!fitee/J is unique from other books because it exposes and discusses

I who profits and benefits from mass imprisonment, rather than who is

I

I

banned by it and how.

1063

Prison Nation: The Warehousing of America's Poor, edited by Tara Herivel and Paul

I Wright, 332 pages. $35.95. PiN's 2nd anthology exposes the dark side

I

I

ofthe ~ock-em-up' political agenda and legal climate in the U.S. 1041

The Celling of America, edited by Daniel Burton Rose, Dan Pens and Paul Wright, 264

I pages. $22.95. PiN first anthology presents a detailed "inside" look at

I

I

tile workings oftile American criminal justice systen1.

1001

Everyday Letters for Busy People, by Debra Hart May, 287 pages. $18.99.

Hundreds of sample letters that can be adapted for most any purpose, including

letters to government agencies and officials. Has numerous

tips for writing effective letters.

1048

The Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System, by

Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sara]. Bennan-Barrett, Nolo Press, 608 pages. $39.99.

Explains what happens in a criminal case from being arrested to ~"~~.::::~~~:::'

your rights are at each stage of the process. Uses an easy to under-

stand question-and-answer fonnat.

1038 '----_-'-_ __

Represent Yourself in Court: How to Prepare & Try a Winning Case, by

Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sara]. Bennan-Barrett, Nolo Press, 528 pages. $39.99.

Breaks down the civil trial process in easy-to-understand steps so you can effectively

represent yourself in court. The authors explain what to say

court, how to say it, etc.

1037

Law Dicrionary, Random House Webster's, 525 pages. $19.95. Comprehensive Uh -

to-date law dictionary e},:plains more than 8,500 legal tenns.'

,

Covers civil, criminal, commercial & international law.

1036 L'_ - - - '_ _ _- '

The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, by Jane Straus, 110 pages.

$14.95. A guide to grammar and punctuation by an educator' ,

with experience teaching English to prisoners.

1046 L'_ - - ' -_ _ _- '

Legal Research: How to Find and Understand the Law, by Stephen Elias and

Susan Levinkind, 568 pages. $49.99. Comprehensive and easy to understand guide

I I on researching the law. EJ...-plains case law, statutes and digests,

I

and much more. Includes practice exercises.

1059 . .

.

Deposition Handbook, by Paul Bergman and Albert Moore, Nolo Press, 352

pages. $34.99. How-to handbook for anyone who conducts a 1 1

1

deposition or is going to be deposed.

1054 . .

.

Spanish-English/English-Spanish Dictionary, Random House. $8.95. Two

sections, Spanish-English and English-Spanish. 60,000+ entries 1 1

from A to Z; includes Western Hemisphere usage.

1034 ....J L._ - - ' - ._ _ _

Please Note: All book and index orders are mailed via the U.S. Postal Service with delivery confirmation. PLN does not assume any responsibility to replace book or index orders once then' delivery to the destination address (facility) is confirmed by the U.S. Postal Service.

Writing to Win: The Legal Writer, by Steven D. Stark., Broadway Books/Random

House, 283 pages. $19.95. Explains the writing of effective complaints, 1 1

1

responses, briefS, motions and other legal papers.

1035 . .

.

Actual Innocence: WhenJustice Goes Wrong and How to Make it Right, updated

paperback edition by Barry Scheck:., Peter Neufeld and Jim Dwyer; 403 pages. $16.00.

Founders of the Innocence Project explain how criminal defendants are wrongly con-

victed on a regular basis. &-plains DNA testing and how it works to free the innocent.

Devastating critique of police and prosecutorial misconduct and the I 1

1

syst= that ensures such abuses continue.

1030 L._ - ' - ._ _ _.....J.

Roget's Thesaurus, 717 pages. $8.95. Helps you find the right word for what

you want to say. 11,000 words listed alphabetically \vith over 200,000 synonyms

and antonyms. Sample sentences and parts of speech shown for every main

word. Covers all levels of vocabulary and identifies informal 1 1

1

and slang words.

1045 _ L. --L.._ _ _-'.

Webster's English Dicrionary, Newly revised and updated, Random House.

$8.95. 75,000+ entries. Includes tips on writing and word

and has

dated geographical and biographical entries. Includes recent

business and computer terms.

1033

Sue the Doctor and Win! Victim's Guide to Secrets of Malpractice Law-

suits, by Le\vis L. Laska, $39.95. Written for victims of medi- '

cal malpractice/neglect, to prepare for litigation.

1079

With Liberty for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America, by Scott

Christianson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages. $18.95. The best

overall history of the American prison system from 1492 through the 20th

I I I Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how little
things have changed as far as prisons go in the U.S. over

hundreds of years.

1026

Ten Men Dead: The story of the 1981 Irish hunger strike, by David Beresford, Atlantic Monthly Press, 334 pages. $16.95. Inside story of IRA prisoners at Belfast's infamous Long Kesh prison. 1006 l......._-'-_ __

Finding the Right Lawyer, by Jay Foonberg, ABA, 256 pages. $19.95. Ex-

plains how to deteffi1ine your legal needs, how to evaluate a I

lawyer's qualifications, fee payments and more.

1015

Seize the Day! 7 Steps to Achieving the Extraordinary in an Ordinary

World, by Danny Cox and John Hoover, 256 pages. $15.99. Provides 7 steps

to changing your expectations and envisioning yourself as being a successful

and respected person-which is essential to changing the 1 1

1

course of one's life.

1052 . .

.

'----'-----'

Women Behind Bars, The Crisis of Women in the U.S. Prison System, by
Silja J.A. Talvi, Seal Press, 295 pages. $15.95. Best book available that covers

issues related to imprisoned women, based on interviews \vith '

hundreds of women behind bars.

1066 '----_"'--_ _--'

10 Insider Secrets to a Winning Job Search, by Todd Bermont, 216 pages. $15.99. Roadmap on how to get a job even under adverse circumstances-like
I I I being an ex-con. Includes how to develop a winning attitude, write attention-
grabbing resumes, prepare for interviews, networking, how to present your strengtlls to an employer, and much more! 1056

The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, 2003

Ed. by Alfred McCoy, 734 pages. $34.95. Documented expose 1 I

1

of the government's involvement in drug trafficking.

1014 ....J. L._ - ' - ._ _ _

Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis, by Christian Parenti.,

290 pages. $21.95. Analyzes the war on the poor via the criminal justice system. Well

documented and includes first-hand reporting. Covers prisons, para-II

-I

military policing, SWAT tean1S and the INS.

1002 _ L. -L...._ _--'.

Hepatitis and Liver Disease: What You Need to Know, by Melissa Palmer Ivlp,

457 pages. $17.95. Describes symptoms & treatments of hepatitis B & C and other

liver diseases. Includes medications to avoid., what diet to follow,

exercises to perfonn and a bibliography.

1031

Crime and Punishment In America, by Elliott Currie, 230 pages. $16.95. Effective

rebuttal to right-wing proponents of prison building. Fact-based argument shows that

I I crime is driven by poverty. Debunks prison myths and discusses

I

proven., effective means ofcrime prevention.

1019

Prison Madness: The Mental Health Crisis Behind Bars and What We

Must Do About It, by Terry Kupers, Jossey-Bass, 245 pages. Hardback only,

prisoners please include any required authorization form. $38.00. Psychia-

trist writes about the mental health crisis in U.S. prisons and jails. Covers all

aspects of mental illness, prison rape, negative effects of long-

tenn isolation in control units and more.

1003

Prison Writing in 20th Century America, by H. Bruce Franklin, Penguin

Books, 368 pages. $17.00. From Jack London to George Jackson, this

anthology provides a selection of some of the best writing I 1

describing life behind bars in America.

1022 _ L. ....J._ __

Soledad Brother: The Prison Letters of George Jackson., by GeorgeJackson,

Lawrence Hill Books, 339 pages. $18.95. Lucid explanation of the politics of

prison by a well-known prison activist. More relevant now than I 1

1

when it first appeared 40 years ago.

1016 _ L. ....J.._ _--'.

Marijuana Law, by Richard Boire, RoDin., 271 pages. $17.95. Examines how to

reduce the probability of arrest and prosecution for people accused of the use, sale or

possession of marijuana. Info on legal defenses, search & seizures, 1 1

1

surveillance, asset forfeiture and drug testing.

1008 L _. .....l._ _ _.

Worse Than Slavery: Parchman Farm and the Ordeal ofJim Crow Justice, by

David Oshinsky, 306 pages. $16.00. Analysis of prison labor's ro~o_ts_m~·r----'--

Focuses on prison plantations and self-sustaining prisons that use

prison labor.

1007

No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the American Criminal Jusrice

System, by David Cole, The New Press, 218 pages. $19.95. Explains how the

I I criminal justice system perpetuates race and class inequality,

I

creating a two-tiered system of justice.

1028

The Prison and the Gallows: The Politics of Mass Incarceration in America, by Marie Gottschalk, Cambridge University Press~,_--,-.::.......:,,---~ $28.99. Excellent political analysis of the confluence of events leading to 2.3 million people behind bars in the U.S. 1069

The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, by Brandon

Sample, PLN Publishing, 200 pages, $49.95. This is PLN's second published

book, which exclusively covers ineffective assistance of counsel-related

issues in federal habeas petitions. Great resource for habeas ' ,

litigation, with hundreds of case cites!

1078

PLN Cumulative Index. $22.50 each. PLN Article Indexes provide detailed information about all PLN articles, including title, author, issue, page number, topics covered, citations, and if it is state, BOP or jail specific. Can be searched on over 500 subjects such as medical neglect or sexual assault. Circle the index(es) you are ordering: 1990-1995, 1996-1998, 1999- I 2001, 2002-2004. (more recent indexes are not yet available)
All books are soft cover except Prison Madness

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 20 of 45 Page 4P9L8NCOL-00463

Order Form
All purchases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new stamps (su'ips or books) or pre-stamped envelopes.

Books (3 & 4 yr subscription specials: CIRCLE
one book.ill: bonus issues, and DO NOT add SIH)
Protecting Your Health and Safety Q! 4 Bonus Issues (3-yr subsCl'iption offer)

$ Amt, Free

Prison Profiteers Q! With Liberty for Some

Q! 6 Bonus Issues (4-yr subscription offer)

FI'ee

Book Total (inc, all books bought separately)

Add 6% sales tax for Vermont residents only

ADD $6,00 SIH to book Ol'ders UNDER $50

PLN Subscriptions
6-month Subscription (Prisoners only) 1 yr Subscription (12 issues) 2 yr Subscription (24 plus 2 Bonus issues)
3 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above .ill: 4 Bonus issues) 4 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above.ill: 6 Bonus issues) Sample Issue - $3.50 each
TOTAL Amount Enclosed:

Send to:
Name: DOC#:
Agency/lnst: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Address:
City/State/Zip:
MAIL PAYMENT AND THIS FORM TO:
Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303

Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

PLN Subscription Rates

Subscription Rates 1 yr 2 yrs 3 yrs 4yrs

Prisoners *

$30 $ 60 $ 90 $120

Individuals

$35 $ 70 $105 $140

Professionals

$90 $180 $270 $360

(Lawyers, govt. & professional agencies, libraries, etc.)
Sample issue for anyone - $3.50 each*

Six-month prisoner subscription for $18* * Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books

only) or pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed byprison policies

:- - - - - - - - - S~hs-c;ip;i~~ B-o~~;e~! - - - - - - - - -
1
1 2 years - 2 bonus issues, for 26 monthly issues total. : 3 Yeal'S - 4 bonus issues (40 total) OR Protecting Your Health and 1 Safety (see book description on the other side of this brochure). : 4 Yeal'S - 6 bonus issues (54 total) OR your choice of With Libertyfor 1 ~~1~e_~~ri!O~ ~r1i~e~sJ~e..b~o~,- ~e~c~~~~ ~n!~e ~t~e.: ~d~):.. __I

3 or 4-Year Subscription Book Offers!

SubscI'ibe or renew for· tm'ee years at the I'egular pI'ice ($90 for prisoners & $105 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Protecting Your Health and Safety or four bonus issues of PLN! (40 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.
Subscribe or renew for fom' years at the regular price ($120 for prisoners & $140 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Plison Profiteers or With Liberty for Some or 6 bonus issues of PLN! (54 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.

NO shipping charge for subscription bonus books!

NOTE: If you want the bonus issues of PLN instead of the free book offer, please indicate that on the Order Form.

:- ------C~~;a~;U;£0; PLN;-s-io~k iis;!- -----~

1

1

1 You can buy dozens of legal, social commentary, self- 1

: help books, and legal and regular dictionaries directly:

1from PLN's book store! Ask us for a book list, or view:

: our selection online at:

1

1

www.prisonlegalnews.org/store.aspx

:

1______ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

All subscription rates. & bonus offel's are effective as of7-1-11
* No refunds after orders have been placed *

LNEWS
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
Eastern State Penitentiary 1829-1971
Charles Dickens visited Philadelphia's Eastern State Penitentiary in 1842 and he later wrote: "The System is rigid, strict and hopeless ... and I believe it to be cruel and wrong....I hold this slow and daily tampering with the mysteries of the brain to be immeasurably worse than any torture of the body." The prison remained open for 129 years after Dickens condemned it as being barbaric, and some of its inhumane practices still continue to be used in prisons nationwide.
P.O. Box 2420, BrattlebOl'o, VT 05303 802-257-1342 It www.pdsonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 21 of 45 Page 4P9L9NCOL-00464

P rison Legal News is an independent, non-profit 56-page monthly publication that reports, reviews and analyzes court rulings and news related to
pl'isoners' rights and prison issues, PLN has a national
(U.S.) focus on state, federal and private prison issues, with some international coverage as well.
PLN's many thousands of subscribers and readers include civil and criminal trial and appellate attorneys, judges, public defenders, journalists, academics, paralegals, prisoners' rights activists, students, family members of prisoners, concerned individuals, politicians, other government officials, and numerous local, state and federal prisoners nationwide.
PLN is a vitallinlc for prisoners who otherwise don't have access to current legal and prison-related news and information.
"Invaluable resource for anyone wanting 'user friendly' information about current legal developments affecting
prisoners in the United States."
~ Human Rights Watch, a long-time PLN subscriber
P LN's coverage of prison issues includes medical neglect, disciplinary hearings, nutrition, living conditions, excessive force, court access, censorship, jail litigation, visiting, telephones, religious freedom, free speech, prison rape, mental health, attorney/ client access, sexual abuse of women prisoners, retaliation, the PLRA, HIV and hep C, control units, the death penalty, attorney fees and much more.
PLN Subscription Rates
Prisoners: $18 for 6 months or $30 per year *
N on-incarcerated individuals: $35 per year Law firms, govt. agencies and libraries: $90 per year
Sample issue for anyone: $3.50 each* * Prisoners can pay with new stamps 01' pre-stamped envelopes

E ach monthly issue of PLN includes three different types of reporting: • A cover story on a criminal justice-related issue. • Reports on individual and class-action prison and jail-
related lawsuits when they are filed, when a judgment is entered or the case settles, and when an appellate court decision is issued. We also have prison-related news articles. • A '"News In Brief' section that summarizes interesting news stories across the U.S. and internationally.
Each issue of PLN also contains numerous advertisements from businesses that provide prison-related pel'sonal and legal services and books. PLN further sells dozens of selfhelp, social commentary and legal books.
PLN also has cumulative subject and case cite indexes for all PLN issues from 1990 through 2004. Write for details.
Special 3-year Subscription Offet,!

Free with a 3-year PLN subscription! Forn' bonus issues of PLN (40 issues total) or a free book, Protecting Your Health and Safety! Cu'cle your bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (3-year subscription rates: prisoners $90, individuals $105, professionals $270).

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by ...-.- - - - - I

Robert E. Toone. Published by the South-

ern Poverty Law Center, 325 pages (2009).

$10.00 (free with a 3-year sub!). This book

explains some basic rights that prisoners

have in a jail or prison in the U.S. It deals
mainly with rights related to health and I

,me--~-I

safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by

prison officials; it also explains how you can enforce your

rights to health and safety within the facility and, if nec-

essary, in court through litigation. Buy separately: ___

------------------------------------------,
You Can Buy These Books Separately! I I I
If you don't want to purchase a 3 or 4-year subscription: to PLN, you can still purchase any of the bonus books: at the regular price. Just indicate which books you want:
to buy on this page, then enter the total cost on the other: side of this brochure on the '"Book Total" line of the:
Order Form. Shipping is $6 per order (not per book), and: we offer FREE shipping on book orders of $50 or more! : To place a phone order, please call 802-257-1342. We also: accept book orders online, at www.prisonlegalnews.org. : ------------------------------------------~

D onations: PLN is a project of the non-profit Human Rights Defense Center. Your tax-deductible donations support our advocacy, free speech and Fn-st Amendment litigation efforts on behalf of prisoners and publishers. PLN not only provides uncensored prison-related news, but actively contests prison censorship that ulterferes with the delivery of our publication or any other PLN materials sent to prisoners. All donations further our goal of advocating for people ilnprisoned in U.S. detention facilities.
"Great source of information, especially in states such as Arizona where the law libraries have been taken from the imnates and replaced with paralegals." ~ SB, Arizona prisoner
Special4-year Subscription Offer!
Free with a 4-ye3.l' PLN subscription! Six bonus issues of
PLN (54 issues total) m: one free book, With Liberty for Some m: Prison Profiteers! Cn-cle your bonus choice on
the form on the other side of this brochure (4-year subscription rates: prisoners $120, individuals $140, professionals $360). Note: Free book option is for one book.
With Liberty for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America, by Scott Christianson, Northeastern V niversity Press, 372 pages (1998). $18.95 (fi'ee with a 4-year sub!). A classic book and the best overall history of the American prison system from 1492 to the 20th Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how little things have changed as far as prisons go in the V.S. over hundreds of years. Buy separately: ___
OR
Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money from Mass Incarceration, edited by Paul Wright & Tara Herivel, New Press (2007). $24.95 (free with a 4-year sub!). This is the thu'd in a series of PLN anthologies that examines the reality of mass imprisonment in the V.S. Prison Profiteers is unique from other books on the market because it exposes and discusses who profits and benefits from mass imprisonment, rather than who is harmed by the prison industrial complex and our nation's reliance on over-incarceration. Buy separately: _ __

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 22 of 45

~""liI!IfIfhe Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel is the first in a
series of books by Prison Legal News Publishing designed to help pro-se prisoner litigants identify and raise viable claims for potential habeas corpus relief. This book is an invaluable resource that identifies hundreds of cases where the federal courts have granted habeas relief to prisoners whose attorneys provided ineffective assistance of counsel.
It will save litigants thousands of hours
of research and it focuses on the WINNING cases criminal defendants need to successfully challenge their convictions.
Well organized into 52 concise chapters, this easy to use book puts the law at the reader's fingertips. The Appendix includes pleadings and forms from successful habeas corpus cases that

demonstrate formatting and show how to frame a winning argument that will persuade a court to grant habeas relief. The Habeas Citebook explains the procedural and substantive complexities of federal habeas corpus litigation with the goal of identifying and litigating claims involving ineffective assistance of counsel.
Brandon Sample is a successful jailhouse lawyer litigant incarcerated in the Bureau of Prisons. He is a Prison Legal News contributing writer and a member of the National Lawyer's Guild. Editor Susan Schwartzkopf has a master's degree in education and is the director and editor in chief of Prison Legal News Publishing.

The Habeas Citebook is a nifty and concise self-help guide for prisoners seeking habeas relief based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Navigating the complex and treacherous terrain of habeas law is never easy; but claiming that your lawyer screwed up is even more difficult - especially from the confines of an ill-equipped prison law library. "Brandon Sample has provided an amazing and muchneeded tool for prisoners who are forced to seek relief on their own. The book is thorough; but simple and readable. It starts with a wonderfully well-organized listing of hundreds of different types of ineffective assistance of counsel, set forth in the form of citations to court rulings - a novel approach that not only acts as a springboard for further research but also saves the prisoner countless hours of preliminary research:'
PETER SCHMIDT
Publisher, Punch & Jurists

THE HABEAS CITEBOOK: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

By Brandon Sample 8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages ISBN 978-0-9819385-1-6
$49·95 3 or more copies ordered
at once $39.95 each FREE Shipping & Handling Order by mail, phone, or on-line.

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed ______ By: D check D new postage stamps D credit card D money order Name ________________________

DOC/BOP Number ---------------------

Institution/Agency ___________________

Address

I

City _______________ State

ZIP

P.O. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303
Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 5P0L0NCOL-00465

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 23 of 45

Copies of this very usable and useful gUide

should be available in every prison library-to

help incarcerated people give positive direc-

tion to their energies while making constructive

use of their time. It is a well-established fact that

people who have taken co11ege courses in prison

have a dramatically reduced rate of recidivism."

-BELL GALE CHEVICNY, PEN Prison Writing Program,

~-----

Editor Doing Time: 25 Years of Prison Writing. -----~

HIGH SCHOOL. VOCATIONAL. PARALEGAL • UNDERGRADUATE. GRADUATE COURSES

. . . . HE GREATLY anticipated and newly updated
third edition of the Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the United States and Canada has finally arrived! Author
Jon Marc Taylor's brand new version is the latest in this unique and highly successful gUidebook for the
prisoner-student. This invaluable tool and how-to handbook provides the reader with step-by-step instructions to find the appropriate educational program for high school, vocational, paralegal, undergraduate, and graduate courses offered in
the U.S. and Canada today.
Invaluable re-entry tool
It presents more than 160 program outlines and
offers an easy-to-use format for the student to
determine which program best suits their needs. It is ideal for the incarcerated student who does not have Internet access or the ability to attend education classes in person. This resource is indispensable

for the individual and beneficial for use in all prison libraries and education departments.
The Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook is the only book
on the market for the non-traditional prisoner-student. It includes detailed listings of the qualitYI costl and course offerings for all correspondence programs available to prisoners. In a time when so many academic opportunities in prisons have been e1iminatedl this book is an invaluable re-entry tool for prisoners who seek to further their education while incarcerated and to help them prepare for life and work following their release.
Jon Marc Taylor has more than 25 years experi-
ence as an incarcerated studentl advocate for prisoner educationl and author. He has successfully earned a bachelor's degreel a master's degreel and a doctorate via correspondence courses while incar-
cerated. Editor Susan Schwartzkopf has a master's
degree in education and 12 years experience teaching immigrants English language skills.

PRISONERS' GUERRILLA HANDBOOK TO CORRESPONDENCE PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA

By Jon Marc Taylor PHD

Number of copies ordered

Amount enclosed __________

8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages

By: D check D new postage stamps D credit card D money order

ISBN 978-0-9819385-0-9

Name ____________________________________________

$49895

I

3 or more copies ordered DOC/BOP Number ________________________________

at once $39895 each

Institution/Agency ________________________________

I FREE Shipping & Handling
Order by mail, phone, or on-line.

A d d r e s s- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

City ___________________________ State

ZIP

EWS I P.O. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303
Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 5P0L1NCOL-00466

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 24 of 45

9870.05 f3146305

E
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 502

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 25 of 45 Page 5P0L3NCOL-00441

t'r's'~.J..ega' Ne'tN§.

Bd~;2420

""~:.;:,~

Bratt~~boro, VerlTIPnt 05303

'~~

,~:..t

\'
'"1,

\\t\ , ' "

NON-PROFIT ORG, U.S, Postage Paid Prisoners legal News Permit No, 1047

B''a'r'r'y'1Sh1a1ft/..'21011/1'0'0''0'6/112''''11'' .1I1',II'h"III""
Columbia Co Jail 901 Port Ave St Helens

hI :tx:t e:

!~'?() 4£;;:1

Ff!E'tilJRN 10 S~NI~E:R ()::l, :1"1/ J.-~>.I11

NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSEe

sc : o.s:~('=3.l)~Nt4A.~Sol...~to;; it;. f!-C'RkJARO

*2&2S- 03306-14_4S
111 ""1,1",11,11",,,11.,,1,1,1,,1,,1,111"",1,111",1,1,,1

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 26 of 45

Prison Legal News
DEDICATED TO PROTECTING HUMAN RIGHTS

October 23, 2011

Dear PLN Supporter,

You recently received a PLN fundraising letter, however, the printer made a mistake and did not print the entire letter so you only received half of it. This is the entire letter which also includes a picture of Nelly, our beloved office mascot. For the sake of human rights in America, and Nelly, please read the entire letter and make a donation to support our cause because human rights can't defend themselves.
This month marks the 40th anniversary of the 1971 uprising and massacre at Attica State Prison in New York. Until the massacre of the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas in 1993, Attica held the dubious distinction of being the bloodiest confrontation on American soil between civilians and government forces since the Wounded Knee massacre in 1890. The Attica rebellion ushered in the modern era of prison reform which has seen extensive changes in the American gulag, including its massive expansion to the largest prison system the world has ever seen.

When I started Prison Legal News in 1990, there were a million prisoners nationwide and the hard-won reforms of the post-Attica era were already in decline. Today there are more than 2.5 million prisoners in America and while much has changed since 1971, a lot has not. Brutality, medical neglect, overcrowding, lengthy prison sentences and isolation of prisoners remain a constant part of the prison experience. Other developments, like the rise of the private prison industry, the control unit isolation of tens of thousands of prisoners, the immigration gulag and the mass proliferation of torture devices like Tasers and restraint chairs have been anything but good.

After Attica there was a vibrant prisoners' rights movement that demanded change and recognition that everyone had basic human rights, even people in prison. Today we live in a country where citizens are scooped off the street and tortured and held indefinitely as "enemy combatants," where American government death squads roam the planet hunting down, kidnapping, torturing and/or killing anyone deemed a "suspected terrorist," and where the U.S. government openly runs concentration camps at Bagram, Guantanamo and other "undisclosed locations." To suggest that international law and basic human decency should bar murder and torture is apparently a radical notion.

Just as Attica occurred against the backdrop of the American genocide in Southeast Asia, today's evisceration of human rights in American jails and prisons occurs against a

P.O. Box 2420, West Brattleboro, VT 05303 Phone: 802-257-1342
Email: pln@prisonlegalnews.org

Page 5P0L4NCOL-00442

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 27 of 45
backdrop of perpetual war and aggression both domestically and overseas. This amply illustrates Martin Luther King, Jr.'s observation that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
Today, Prison Legal News is the only publication in existence dedicated to reporting on the human rights of those imprisoned in the American gulag. Thus far this year PLN has published cover stories on the litigation involving California's severely overcrowded prison system, the ongoing outrage of the American death penalty, corruption and mayhem caused by the private prison industry, the gouging of consumers by the prison phone industry, control units, shoddy forensic examiners and much more.
We believe that to effect positive change we must inform people about the failures and shortcomings of the American criminal justice system and the inherent conflicts that make our justice system unjust. We do that by reporting corruption and misconduct by corrections officials in PLN's monthly publication, read by tens of thousands of prisoners and non-prisoners alike. We also report legal decisions related to prisoners' rights, so they will be inspired and can learn how to vindicate their few remaining rights in court.
But PLN does much more than provide information about criminal justice-related news and legal rulings.
PLN engages in litigation to protect our First Amendment rights and thereby the rights of our subscribers to receive our monthly publication and the books we distribute. It is no exaggeration to say that PLN is the primary bulwark against government censorship of books and magazines in America today. So far, in 2011 alone, we settled censorship suits against the Galveston jail in Texas and the Spokane jail in Washington, requiring them to modify their mail policies. We also filed suit against a jail in Kansas, two jails in Michigan, the New York state prison system, the Sacramento jail in California and the New Orleans jail due to bans on reading material. PLN is the only publication in the United States that regularly challenges censorship by prison and jail officials - a sad commentary on the mainstream media's respect for the First Amendment.
Further, as part of our efforts to ensure public accountability and obtain source documents for our news reporting, PLN files public records requests - with government agencies and the private companies with which they contract - and litigates when those requests are arbitrarily denied. We have public records lawsuits pending against Corrections Corporation of America in Tennessee, Prison Health Services in Vermont, the Bureau of Prisons in Washington, D.C. and the U.S. Department of Justice in Colorado.
As part of PLN's larger strategy to inform the public and policy makers about problems in our justice system, PLN staff speak at conferences and network with other media agencies, which often quote PLN in their news reporting. In 2011, PLN editor Paul Wright and associate editor Alex Friedmann were quoted or mentioned in articles in the Seattle Weekly, Reason, Washington Times, Huffington Post, Spokesman Review, The Nation, the Tennessean, Truthout, National Public Radio, Business Week, the Associated Press and many others, on topics ranging from prison journalism and postcardonly mail rules in jails to prison slave labor, prison privatization, censorship and prison medical care. Additionally, we are regular guests on radio shows around
Page 5P0L5NCOL-00443

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 28 of 45
the country on criminal justice topics. PLN is also online, where readers can access every article that PLN has ever published as well as many other articles and case summaries, a brief bank for litigators and jailhouse lawyers, a publications database and much more. Visit www.prisonlegalnews.org. We offer a free listserv and have an online bookstore, too. PLN has the most prison- and jail-related content on the 'Net, period, and we upload new content on an ongoing basis.
We further distribute a number of books for prisoners, including legal reference and selfhelp books. Three PLN anthologies are now in print, most recently Prison Profiteers: Who Profits from Mass Incarceration, and we recently began publishing our own books, including the Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the U.S. and Canada, 3rd ed., by Missouri prisoner Jon Marc Taylor, and The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, by PLN writer and federal prisoner Brandon Sample. Both books were edited by PLN's Susan Schwartzkopf. Our goal is to provide prisoners with non-fiction reference books they can use to improve and help themselves while in prison.
In summary, for the past 21 years PLN has been distributing our monthly publication as well as books of interest to prisoners and their supporters; we have litigated numerous censorship cases to ensure prisoners can receive our publications, in addition to public records cases; PLN staff have served as a source of information and research for the mainstream news media; we maintain a website with extensive information about criminal justice-related issues; and we have started publishing our own self-help books for prisoners.
All of this takes money, because nothing - and no one - is free in America.
PLN's subscriptions and book sales do not cover our overhead; thus, we rely heavily on donations and grant funding to make up the shortfall. Donations and grants alike have dropped due to the frigid economic climate. Alas, the need for the work we do has only increased. Prison and jail populations nationally continue to grow exponentially, and President Obama is seeking money for more cops, more prosecutors and more prisons. Your support is vital to the work we do. Unlike many non-profits, we do concrete things that actually can be measured: we publish a magazine; we publish and distribute books; we successfully sue prisons and jails to ensure they do not engage in unconstitutional censorship; we advocate on behalf of prisoners in the media, before legislatures and administrative agencies, and in public forums. For the full scope of the depth and breadth of our activities, review our annual reports on our website. We run a lean operation and, having consolidated our Vermont and Washington offices last year, cannot cut additional costs without limiting our operational capabilities.
In contrast to other non-profits, PLN does not bombard its supporters with fundraising requests throughout the year. We conduct one fundraiser at the end of the year and this is it. If you are familiar with PLN and our work, then you know we do a lot with little funding. But continued funding is necessary if PLN is to continue operating, and we can't keep doing what we do without your support!
Page 5P0L6NCOL-00444

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 29 of 45
So when you decide where to donate this holiday season, please think about PLN. Consider the work we do - and have been doing for more than two decades - and also consider there isn't much grant funding available for prisoners' human rights and criminal justice reform in the U.S., which are not popular issues. So please make a tax deductible donation to PLN or encourage your family and friends to do so. PLN subscriptions make great gifts, as do the many books we distribute. Your donation will make a difference and go farther than a donation almost anywhere else. We also offer a number of "premiums" for donations above certain amounts (see the enclosed flyer). Feel free to forward this fundraiser request to others who may be interested in supporting PLN's work, and thank you for keeping us in mind this holiday season. Our office mascot, Nelly, a 12-year-old golden retriever, pictured below, comes to work every day to support our efforts to protect human rights. If she can support PLN, you can too!
rIn Struggle,
Paul Wright Editor, PLN P.S. - You can also order the much-awaited Prisoners' Self-Help Litigation Manual, 4th edition, from PLN for $45.95 or The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel for $49.95, postpaid. P.P.S. - Even if you can't afford to make a donation, subscribe or buy a book yourself, please encourage others to do so. Every purchase and donation is a huge help!
Page 5P0L7NCOL-00445

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 30 of 45
w
Gift Option 1
To show our appreciation for your support, we are providing a Prison Legal News card when you make a donation of at least $50.00. The card is hand embroidered by women prisoners in Bolivia who are paid a fair wage for the cards to help support their families.

Gift Option 2
To show our appreciation for your support, we are providing the Prison Legal News hemp tote bag when you make a donation of at least $75.00. Handmade in Vermont using hemp fiber. Carry books and groceries in style and help end the war on drugs!

Gift Option 3
To show our appreciation for your support, we are providing the following selection of books for you to choose from when you make a donation of at least $100.00. Donations of $100.00 or more can choose one free book title. Each $100 donation entitles you to another free book; i.e., donate $500 and you get five books! Donate $1,000 and you get everything on this page! Please circle the books you want and put the corresponding donation on the next page.

Gift Option 4
To show our appreciation for your support, we are providing the entire Prison Legal News anthology of three critically acclaimed books on mass imprisonment signed by editor Paul Wright! (The CeIling of Amercia, Prison Nation and Prison Profiteers), plus the Prison Legal News hemp tote bag to carry the books in when you make a donation of $250.00.
P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 I) (802) 257-1342 www.prisonlegrunews.org

Page 5P0L8NCOL-00446

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 31 of 45

You can mail a check or money order to:

Prison Legal News, P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303

Or call PLN's office at 802-257-1342 and use your credit card, Or visit PLN's website at www.prisonlegalnews.org and click on the donation link.

Remember - PLN is a project of the Human Rights Defense Center, which is a Section 501 (c)(3) non-profit organization, and donations are tax deductible!
Yes! I want to help support PLN - here is my special donation of:

- - -$25 _ _$50 _ _$100 _ _$250 _$500 _ _$1,000 $_ _ Other
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Credit card donors please fill out the following form

D I want to make a one time contribution of $________ to PLN, charged to my credit card!

D I want to contribute a fixed amount to PLN each month! I authorize Prison Legal News to charge

$_________ on my credit card every month until I give notice to stop, or until my total donation

amount of $

has been charged to my card, whichever comes first.

Print Name on Card: -------------------------------------

Card Number:

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Expiration Date: ___1___1____ Billing Zip Code for Card: __________

I authorize Prison Legal News to charge a total of $________to my credit card, which matches the instructions marked above.

Prison Legal News is a 501(c)(3) non-profit; your donation is tax deductible to the extent allowed by law.
PLN protects the privacy of its donors, and their names are not reported in our pUblication or on our website.
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Please complete all applicable information to ensure delivery of any donation gifts. Thank you!

Name ------------------------------- Title ------------
Organization __________________________________________________
Address ---------------------------------- Suite ---------------Address ------------------------------------------------------
City _______________________ State - - - - - - - Zip ______________

P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 • (802) 257-1342
www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 5P0L9NCOL-00447

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 32 of 45 Page 5P1L0NCOL-00448

Order Form
All purchases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books, no singles) or
pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed by prison policies.

Book Title / Number

Qty Total Cost

(attach another page if you are ordering more hooks)
Subtotal: Add 6% sales tax for VT residents only: Add $6.00 S/R to orders UNDER $50: Total Order Amount:
Send to:
Name: DOC#: Agency/lnst: Address: City/State/Zip:
MAIL PAYMENT AND THIS FORM TO:
Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303
Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

FREE SHIPPING On hook and index orders OVER $50.00!
A $6 shipping charge applies to all other book and index ollIel'S.
(Free shipping policy in effect from Jan 1, 2010 lmtil further notice)

More Books for Sale!

Prisoners' Self-Help Litigation Manual, updated 4th ed. (2010), by John

Boston and Daniel Manville, Oxford Univ. Press, 1500 Pages. $39.95. The

I I I premier, must-have "Bible" of prison litigation for current and aspiring jail-
house lawyers. If you plan to litigate a prison or jail civil

lawsuit, this book is a must-have.

1077

Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the U.S.

and Canada, updated 3rd ed. by Jon Marc Taylor, Ph.D. and edited by Susan

Schwartzkopf, published by PLN, 221 pages. $49.95. Written by lVIissouri

prisoner J on Marc Taylor, who obtained a B.S. degree, an M.A. degree and a

Doctorate, the Glleni//a Handbook contains contact information and descrip-

I I tions of high school, vocational, paralegal and college courses available
through correspondence study. Great resource for prisoners

who want to further their education.

1071

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by Robert E. Toone, Southern Poverty

Law Center, 325 pages. $10.00. This book explains basic rights that prisoners

have in a jail or prison in the U.S. It deals mainly with rights related to health

I I I and safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by prison officials; it also
explains how you can enforce your rights within the facility

and, if necessary, in court through litigation.

1060

'----'-----'

Beyond Bars: Successful Community Reentry after Prison, by Jeffery Ian

Ross and Stephen C. Richards, 240 pages. $14.95. Complete guidebook on

how to prepare for release from prison while still incarcerated. This is the

I I I most current, practical and comprehensive guide for ex-prisoners and their
families ::elated to managing successful reentry into the

commuruty.

1080 . .

.

Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners v. the U.S.A., by

Murnia Abu Jamal, City Lights Publishers, 280 pages. $16.95. In Jailhollse LaIJ!-

yers, Prison Legal News columnist, award-winning journalist and death-row

prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal presents d1e stories and reflections of fellow pris-

I I I oners-turned-advocates who have learned to use the court system to represent
other prisoners, and in some cases have won their freedom.

A must-read for jail-house lawyers!

1073 . '

.

How to Win Your Personal Injury Claim, by Atty. Joseph Matthews, 7th

edition, NOLO Press, 304 pages. $34.99. \Vhile not specifically for prison-

related personal injury cases, this book provides comprehensive information

on how to handle personal injury and property damage claims

from

accidents - including dealing wid1 doctors, attorneys and

insurance companies.

1075

All prices are effective as of 7-1..11
* No refunds after orders have heen placed *

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
2011 PLN BOOK LIST
Prices Subject to Change Without Notice
Graphic from: Books 2 Prisoners, Vancouver, Be
P.O. Box 2420, BrattlebOl'o, VT 05303 802.257-1342 e www.prisonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 33 of 45 Page 5P1L1NCOL-00449

Check the box of the books you want to buy and use the Order Form on the other side of this brochure to add up the cost of your order. FREE SHIPPING for book and index orders OVER $50. There is a $6 shipping charge for all other book and index orders.

Prison Profiteers, edited by Paul Wright and Tara Herive!, 323 pages. $24.95. This is rl1e

third and latest book in a series ofPrison Legal News anrl1ologies rl1at examines rl1e reality of
mass imprisonment in America. (TIle odler tides are The Ceiling ifAllIelita & Piison Nation,

see below). P,ison Pro/iteelJ is unique from orl1er books because it exposes and discusses

who profits and benefits from mass imprisonment, radler rl1an who is I

I

I

hanned by it and how.

1063

Prison Nation: The Warehousing of America's Poor, edited by Tara Herivel and Paul

Wright, 332 ~oes. $35.95. PIN's 2nd anrl1ology e:l..-poses rl1e dark side I

I

I

ofrl1e ~ock-em-up' political agenda and legal climate in rl1e U.S. 1041

The Celling of America, edited by Daniel Burton Rose, Dan Pens and Paul Wri",aht, 264

pages. $22.95. PIN first anrl1ology presents a detailed "inside" look at I I

I

dle workings ofrl1e American criminal justice sySten1.

1001

Everyday Letters for Busy People, by Debra Hart May, 287 pages. $18.99.

Hundreds of sample letters that can be adapted for most any purpose, including

letters to government agencies and officials. Has numerous '

tips for writing effective letters.

1048

The Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System, by
Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sara J. Bennan-Barrett, Nolo Press, 608 pages. $39.99.

Explains what happens in a criminal case from being arrested to sentencing, and what

your rights are at each stage of rl1e process. Uses an easy to under-I

I

I

stand question-and-answer fonnat.

1038 L._ - - - ' . ._ _ _-'.

Represent Yourself in Court: How to Prepare & Try a Winning Case, by
Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sara J. Bennan-Barrett, Nolo Press, 528 pages. $39.99.

Breaks down rl1e civil trial process in easy-to-understand steps so you can effectively

represent yourself in court. The authors explain what to say in

court, how to say it, etc.

1037

Law Dictionary, Random House Webster's, 525 pages. $19.95. Comprehensive un-

to-date law dictionary e:&-plains more rl1an 8,500 legal tenns.'

I

Covers civil, criminal, commercial & international law.

1036 L'_ - - - '_ _ _--'

The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, by Jane Straus, 110 pages.

$14.95. A guide to grammar and punctuation by an educator I I

I

with experience teaching English to prisoners.

1046

Legal Research: How to Find and Understand the Law, by Stephen Elias and

Susan Levinkind, 568 pages. $49.99. Comprehensive and easy to understand

on researching the law. Explains case law, statutes and digests,

and much more. Includes practice exercises.

1059 '--_-'-_ _----'

Deposition Handbook, by Paul Bergman and Albett Moore, Nolo Press, 352

pages. $34.99. How-to handbook for anyone who conducts a I I

I

deposition or is going to be deposed.

1054 . .

.

Spanish-English/English-Spanish Dictionary, Random House. $8.95. Two

sections, Spanish-English and English-Spanish. 60,000+ entries

from A to Z; includes Western Hemisphere usage.

1034 '--_-'-_ _----'

Please Note: All book and index orders are mailed via the U.S. Postal Service 'with delivery confirmation. PLN does not assume any responsibility to replace book or index orders once their delivelY to the destination address (facility) is confu:med by the U.S. Postal Service.

Writing to Win: The Legal Writer, by Steven D. Stark, Broadway Books/Random

House, 283 pages. $19.95. &-plains rl1e writing of effective complaints, I I

I

responses, briefS, motions and orl1er legal papers.

1035 . .

.

Actual Innocence: WhenJustice Goes Wrong and How to Make it Right, updated

paperback edition by Barry Scheck, Peter Neufeld and Jim Dwyer; 403 pages. $16.00.

Founders of rl1e Innocence Project explain how criminal defendants are wrongly con-

victed on a regular basis. R"-plains DNA testing and how it works to free rl1e innocent

Devastating critique of police and prosecutorial misconduct and tIle

system rl1at ensures such abuses continue.

1030 '--_-'--_ _--'

Roget's Thesaurus, 717 pages. $8.95. Helps you find the right word for what

you want to say. 11,000 words listed alphabetically \vith over 200,000 synonyms

and antonyms. Sample sentences and parts of speech shown for every main

word. Covers all levels of vocabulary and identifies informal I I

I

and slang words.

1045 . .

.

Webster's English Dictionary, Newly revised and updated, Random House.

$8.95. 75,000+ entries. Includes tips on writing and word usage, and has up-

dated geographical and biographical entries. Includes recent I I

I

business and computer terms.

1033 . .

.

Sue the Doctor and Win! Victim's Guide to Secrets of Malpractice Law-

suits, by Lewis L. Laska, $39.95. Written for victims of medi-I

cal malpractice/neglect, to prepare for litigation.

1079 " - - - - '_ _ _....1

With Liberty for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America, by Scott

Christianson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages. $18.95. The best

overall history of the American prison system from 1492 through the 20th

Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how little

tlungs have changed as far as prisons go in the U.S. over I I

I

hundreds of years.

1026 . .

.

Ten Men Dead: The story of the 1981 Irish hunger strike, by David Beres-

ford, Atlantic Monthly Press, 334 pages. $16.95. Inside story of I I

I

IRA prisoners at Belfast's infamous Long Kesh prison. 1006 L._---'._ _ _--'.

Finding the Right Lawyer, by Jay Foonberg, ABA, 256 pages. $19.95. Ex-

plains how to determine your legal needs, how to evaluate a

lawyer's qualifications, fee payments and more.

1015

Seize the Day! 7 Steps to Achieving the Extraordinary in an Ordinary

World, by Danny Cox and John Hoover, 256 pages. $15.99. Provides 7 steps

to changing your expectations and envisioning yourself as

a successful

and respected person-which is essential to changing the

course of one's life.

1052 '----'------'

Women Behind Bars, The Crisis of Women in the U.S. Prison System, by
Silja J.A. Talvi, Seal Press, 295 pages. $15.95. Best book available that covers

issues related to imprisoned women, based on interviews \vitIl I

hundreds of women behind bars.

1066 '----'------'

10 Insider Secrets to a Winning Job Search, by Todd Bermont, 216 pages.

$15.99. Roadmap on how to get a job even under adverse circumstances-like

being an ex-con. Includes how to develop a winning attitude, write attention-

I I grabbing resumes, prepare for interviews, networking, how to

I

present your strengths to an employer, and much more! 1056

The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, 2003 Ed. by Alfred McCoy, 734 pages. $34.95. Documented expose ' , of the government's involvement in drug trafficking. 1014 '--_-'--_ _---'

Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis, by Christian Parenti,

290 pages. $21.95. Analyzes tIle war on tIle poor via the criminal justice system. Well

dOCUll1ented and includes first-hand repotting. Covers prisons, para-I I

I

military policing, SWAT teams and rl1e INS.

1002 L..._ - ' ._ _ _-'.

Hepatitis and Liver Disease: What You Need to Know, by Melissa Palmer MD,

457 pages. $17.95. Describes symptoms & treatments of hepatitis B & C and other

liver diseases. Includes medications to avoid, what diet to follow,

exercises to perfonn and a bibliography.

1031

Crime and Punishment In America, by Elliott Cutrie, 230 pages. $16.95. Effective

rebuttal to right-wing proponents of prison building. Fact-based argument shows rl1at

crime is driven by poverty. Debunks prison myrl1s and discusses I I

I

proven, effective means ofcrime prevention.

1019

Prison Madness: The Mental Health Crisis Behind Bars and What We

Must Do About It, by Terry Kupers,Jossey-Bass, 245 pages. Hardback only,

prisoners please include any required authorization form. $38.00. PsyclUa-

trist writes about the mental health crisis in U.S. prisons and jails. Covers all

aspects of mental illness, prison rape, negative effects of long-I I

I

tenn isolation in control units and more.

1003

Prison Writing in 20th Century America, by H. Bruce Franklin, Penguin

Books, 368 pages. $17.00. From Jack London to George Jackson, this

anthology provides a selection of some of the best writing I I

describing life behind bars in America.

1022 L._ - ' - ._ __

Soledad Brother: The Prison Letters of George Jackson, by George Jackson,

Lawrence Hill Books, 339 pages. $18.95. Lucid explanation of the politics of

prison by a well-known prison activist. More relevant now than I I

I

when it first appeared 40 years ago.

1016 L._...l.._ _--'.

Marijuana Law, by Richard Boire, Ronin, 271 pages. $17.95. Examines how to

reduce the probability of arrest and prosecution for people accused of the use, sale or

possession of marijuana. Info on legal defenses, search & seizures, I I

I

surveillance, asset forfeiture and drug testing.

1008 L._ - ' - ._ _----'.

Worse Than Slavery: Parchman Farm and the Ordeal ofJim Crow Justice, by

David Oshinsky, 306 pages. $16.00. Analysis of prison labor's roots in

Focuses on prison plantations and self-sustaining prisons rl1at use ,-----,---'---,

prison labor.

1007

No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the American Criminal Justice

System, by David Cole, The New Press, 218 pages. $19.95. Explains how the

criminal justice system perpetuates race and class inequality,

creating a two-tiered system of justice.

1028

The Prison and the Gallows: The Politics of Mass Incarceration in

America, by Marie Gottschalk, Cambridge University Press,

$28.99. Excellent political analysis of the confluence of events " -...,-----'---,

leading to 2.3 million people behind bars in the U.S.

1069 ....I L'_ - - ' -_ _

The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, by Brandon

Sample, PLN Publishing, 200 pages, $49.95. This is PLN's second published

book, which exclusively covers ineffective assistance of counsel-related

I issues in federal habeas petitions. Great resource for habeas I

1

litigation, with hundreds of case cites!

1078

PLN Cumulative Index. $22.50 each. PLN Article Indexes provide detailed information about all PLN articles, including title, author, issue, page number, topics covered, citations, and if it is state, BOP or jail specific. Can be searched on over 500 subjects such as medical neglect or sexual assault. Circle the index(es) you are ordering: 1990-1995, 1996-1998, 1999- ' 2001, 2002-2004. (more recent indexes are not yet available)
All books are soft cover except Prison Madness

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 34 of 45 Page 5P1L2NCOL-00450

Order Form
All purchases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new stamps (strips or books) or pre-stamped envelopes.

Books (3 &4 yr subscription specials: CffiCLE
one book Q! bonus issues, and DO NOT add S/H)
Protecting Your Health and Safety ill: 4 Bonus Issues (3-yt· suhscription offer)

$Amt.
Free

Prison Profiteers ill: With Liberty for Some

ill: 6 Bonus Issues (4-yr suhscription offer)

Free

Book Total (inc. all books bought separately)

Add 6% sales tax for Vermont residents only

ADD $6.00 S/H to book orders UNDER $50

PLN Subscriptions
6-month Subscription (Prisoners only) 1 yr Subscription (12 issues) 2 yr Subscription (24 plus 2 Bonus issues) 3 yl' Sub (Circle bonus book above Q! 4 Bonus issues) 4 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above Q! 6 Bonus issues) Sample Issue - $3.50 each
TOTAL Amount Enclosed:

Send to:
Name: DOC#: Agency/lnst: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Address:
City/State/Zip:
MAIL PAYMENT AND THIS FORM TO:
Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303

Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard
802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at
www.prisonlegalnews.org

PLN Subscription Rates

Subscription Rates
Prisoners *

1 yr 2 yrs 3 yrs 4 yrs $30 $ 60 $ 90 $120

Individuals

$35 $ 70 $105 $140

Professionals

$90 $180 $270

(Lawyers, govt. & professional agencies, libraries, etc.)

Sample issue for anyone - $3.50 each*

$360

Six-month prisoner subscription for $18*
* Prisoners can pay with new fu'st-class stamps (strips or books only) or pre-stamped envelopes, ifallawed byprison policies

:- - - - - - - - - S~bs-c;ip~i~~ B-o;'~~;s! - - - - - - - --
1
1 2 years - 2 bonus issues, for 26 monthly issues total. : 3 years - 4. bonus issues (40 total) OR Protecting Your Health and 1 Safety (see book description on the other side of this brochure). : 4 years - 6 bonus issues (54 total) OR your choice of With Libertyfor 1 ~S..?~e_~r:..ri!O~ ~rp'!'e~sj~:b~o~,- ~e~c~~i~~ ~n!I:e ~t~e.: ~d~):. __I

3 01' 4-Year Subscription Book Offers!

Subscribe or renew for· three yeal's at the regular price ($90 for prisoners & $105 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, Protecting Your Health and Safety or four bonus issues of PLN! (40 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.
Subscribe or l'enew for foUl' years at the regular price ($120 for prisoners & $140 for individuals), and receive as a FREE bonus, P,ison Profiteers or With Liberty for Some or 6 bonus issues of PLN! (54 monthly issues total), Indicate your choice on the Order Form.

NO shipping charge for subscription bonus books!

NOTE: If you want the bonus issues of PLN instead of the free book offer, please indicate that on the Order Form.

:- ----- -0; -C-o~;a~; io; piN~-io~k iis;!- - -- - - ~

1

1

I You can buy dozens of legal, social commental'y, self- 1

1 help books, and legal and regular dictionaries directly:
1
: from PL~'s boo!\. store! Ask us for a book list, or view:

IOUI' selectIOn online at:

1

1

www.prisonlegalnews.org/store.aspx

:

1______ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

All subscliption rates. & bonus offel'S al'e effective as of7-1-11
* No refunds after orders have been placed *

N E W S : , I L & : ; U I - \ . L
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center
Eastern State Penitentiary 1829-1971
Charles Dickens visited Philadelphia's Eastern State Penitentiary in 1842 and he later wrote: ""The System is rigid, strict and hopeless ... and I believe it to be cruel and wTong....I hold this slow and daily tampering with the mysteries of the brain to be immeasurably worse than any torture of the body." The prison remained open for 129 yeaTS after Dickens condemned it as being barbaric, and some of its inhumane practices still continue to be used in prisons nationwide.
P.O. Box 2420, BI'attleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342 • www.prisonlegalnews.org

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 35 of 45 Page 5P1L3NCOL-00451

P l'ison Legal News is an independent, non-profit 56-page monthly publication that reports, reviews and analyzes court rulings and news related to
prisoners' rights and prison issues. PLN has a national
(U.S.) focus on state, federal and private prison issues, with some international coverage as well.
PLN's many thousands of subscribers and readers include civil and criminal trial and appellate attorneys, judges, public defenders, journalists, academics, paralegals, prisoners' rights activists, students, family members of prisoners, concerned individuals, politicians, other government officials, and numerous local, state and federal prisoners nationwide.
PLN is a vital link for prisoners who otherwise don't have access to current legal and prison-related news and information.
"Invaluable resource for anyone wanting 'user friendly' infonnation about current legal developments affecting
prisoners in the United States."
~ Human Rights Watch, a long-time PLN subscriber
LN's coverage of prison issues includes medical neglect, disciplinary hearings, nutrition, living conditions, excessive force, court access, censorship, jail litigation, visiting, telephones, religious freedom, free speech, prison rape, mental health, attorney/ client access, sexual abuse of women prisoners, retaliation, the PLRA, HIV and hep C, control units, the death penalty, attorney fees and much more.
PLN Subscl"iption Rates Prisoners: $18 for 6 months or $30 per year * Non-incarcerated individuals: $35 per year Law firms, govt. agencies and libraries: $90 per year Sample issue for anyone: $3.50 each* * Prisoners can pay with new stamps or pre-stamped envelopes

E ach monthly issue of PLN includes t11Tee different types of reporting: GIl A cover story on a criminal justice-related issue. • Reports on individual and class-action prison and jail-
related lawsuits when they are filed, when a judgment is entered or the case settles, and when an appellate court decision is issued. We also have prison-related news articles. GIl A "'News In Brief' section that summarizes interesting news stories across the U.S. and internationally.
Each issue of PLN also contains numerous advertisements from businesses that provide prison-related personal and legal services and books. PLN further sells dozens of selfhelp, social commentary and legal books.
PLN also has cumulative subject and case cite indexes for all PLN issues from 1990 tllTough 2004. Write for details.
Special 3-year Subscription Offer!

Free with a 3-year PLN subscription! FoUl" bonus issues of PLN (40 issues total) or a free book, Protecting Your Health and Safety! Circle yoUl" bonus choice on the form on the other side of this bTOchUl"e (3-year subscription rates: prisoners $90, individuals $105, professionals $270).

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by 111""'-----1

Robert E. Toone. Published by the South-

ern Poverty Law Center, 325 pages (2009).

$10.00 (ft'ee with a 3-year sub!). This book

explains some basic rights that prisoners

I have in a jail or prison in the U.S. It deals

.m@ _ _ ~_1

mainly with rights related to health and ._. ____--1.

safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by

prison officials; it also explains how you can enforce yoUl"

rights to health and safety within the facility and, if nec-

essary, in court through litigation. Buy separately: ___

------------------------------------------,
You Can Buy These Books Separately! : I I
If you don't want to purchase a 3 or 4-year subscription: to PLN, you can still purchase any of the bonus books : at the regular price. Just indicate which books you want: to buy on this page, then enter the total cost on the other: side of this brochure on the "'Book Total" line of the: Order Form. Shipping is $6 per order (not per book), and: we offer FREE shipping on book orders of $50 or more! : To place a phone order, please call 802-257-1342. We also: _a_c_c_ep_t_b_o_o_k_o_r_d_er_s_o_n_li_n_e,_a_t_w_w__w_.p_r_is_o_n_le_g_a_ln_e_w_s_.o_r_g.__ J:

D onations: PLN is a pTOject of the non-profit Human Rights Defense Center. Your tax-deductible donations support our advocacy, free speech and First Amendment litigation efforts on behalf of prisoners and publishers. PLN not only provides uncensored prison-related news, but actively contests prison censorship that intelferes with the delivery of our publication or any other PLN materials sent to prisoners. All donations further our goal of advocating for people imprisoned in U.S. detention facilities.
"Great source of infonnation, especially in states such as Arizona where the law libraries have been taken from the inmates and replaced with paralegals." ~ SB, Arizona prisoner
Special4-year Subscription Offer!
Free with a 4-yeru: PLN subscription! Six bonus issues of PLN (54 issues total) Q! one ft'ee book, With Liberty for Some or Prison Profiteers! Circle your bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (4-year subscription rates: prisoners $120, individuals $140, professionals $360). Note: Free book option is for one book.
With Liberty for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America, by Scott Christianson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages (1998). $18.95 (ftoee with a 4-yeruo sub!). A classic book and the best overall history of the American prison system from 1492 to the 20th CentUl"Y. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how little things have changed as far as prisons go in the U.S. over hundreds of years. Buy separately: ___
OR
Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money from Mass Incarceration, edited by Paul Wright & Tara Herivel, New Press (2007). $24.95 (free with a 4-year sub!). This is the third in a series of PLN anthologies that examines the reality of mass imprisonment in the U.S. Prison Profiteers is unique from other books on the market because it exposes and discusses who profits and benefits from mass imprisonment, rather than who is harmed by the prison industrial complex and our nation's reliance on over-incarceration. Buy separately: _ __

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 36 of 45

he Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel is the first in a series of books by Prison Legal News Publishing designed to help pro-se prisoner litigants identify and raise viable claims for potential habeas corpus relief. This book is an invaluable resource that identifies hundreds of cases where the federal courts have granted habeas relief to prisoners whose attorneys provided ineffective assistance of counsel.
It will save litigants thousands of hours
of research and it focuses on the WINNING cases criminal defendants need to successfully challenge their convictions.
Well organized into 52 concise chapters, this easy to use book puts the law at the reader's fingertips. The Appendix includes pleadings and forms from successful habeas corpus cases that

demonstrate formatting and show how to frame a winning argument that will persuade a court to grant habeas relief. The Habeas Citebook explains the procedural and substantive complexities of federal habeas corpus litigation with the goal of identifying and litigating claims involving ineffective assistance of counsel.
Brandon Sample is a successful jailhouse lawyer litigant incarcerated in the Bureau of Prisons. He is a Prison Legal News contributing writer and a member of the National Lawyer's Guild. Editor Susan Schwartzkopf has a master's degree in education and is the director and editor in chief of Prison Legal News Publishing.

The Habeas Citebook is a nifty and concise self-help guide for prisoners seeking habeas relief based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Navigating the complex and treacherous terrain of habeas law is never easy; but claiming that your lawyer screwed up is even more difficult - especially from the confines of an ill-equipped prison law library. "Brandon Sample has provided an amazing and muchneeded tool for prisoners who are forced to seek relief on their own. The book is thorough; but simple and readable. It starts with a wonderfully well-organized listing of hundreds of different types of ineffective assistance of counsel, set forth in the form of citations to court rulings - a novel approach that not only acts as a springboard for further research but also saves the prisoner countless hours of preliminary research:'
PETER SCHMIDT
Publisher, Punch & Jurists

THE HABEAS CITEBOOK: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

By Brandon Sample

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed ______

8.25" x 10.75" III 224 pages ISBN 978-0-9819385-1-6
$49·95 3 or more copies ordered

By: D check D new postage stamps D credit card D money order

Name

I

DOC/BOP Number ------------------------

at once $39.95 each

Institution/Agency __________________..,....-______

I

FREE Shipping & Handling Order by mail, phone, or on-line.

Address- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

City ________________ State

ZIP

P.O. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303 Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 5P1L4NCOL-00452

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 37 of 45

Copies of this very usable and useful gUide

should be avallable in every prison library-to

help incarcerated people give positive direc-

tion to their energies while making constructive

use of their time. It is a well-established fact that

people who have taken college courses in prison

have a dramatically reduced rate of recidivism."

-BELL GALE CHEVIGNY, PEN Prison Writing Program,

~-----

Editor Doing Time: 25 Years of Prison Writing. -----~

HIGH SCHOOL e VOCATIONAL e PARALEGAL e UNDERGRADUATE. GRADUATE COURSES

~"IIHE GREATLY anticipated and newly updated
third edition of the Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the United States and Canada has finally arrived! Author
Jon Marc Taylor's brand new version is the latest in this unique and highly successful gUidebook for the
prisoner-student. This invaluable tool and how-to handbook provides the reader with step-by-step instructions to find the appropriate educational program for high school, vocational, paralegal, undergraduate, and graduate courses offered in
the u.s. and Canada today.
Invaluable re-entry tool
It presents more than 160 program outlines and
offers an easy-to-use format for the student to
determine which program best suits their needs. It is ideal for the incarcerated student who does not have Internet access or the ability to attend education classes in person. This resource is indispensable

for the individual and beneficial for use in all prison libraries and education departments.
The Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook is the only book
on the market for the non-traditional prisoner-student. It includes detailed listings of the quality, cost, and course offerings for all correspondence programs available to prisoners. In a time when so many academic opportunities in prisons have been eliminated, this book is an invaluable re-entry tool for prisoners who seek to further their education while incarcerated and to help them prepare for life and work following their release.
Jon Marc Taylor has more than 25 years experi-
ence as an incarcerated student, advocate for prisoner education, and author. He has successfully earned a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and a doctorate via correspondence courses while incar-
cerated. Editor Susan Schwartzkopf has a master's
degree in education and 12 years experience teaching immigrants English language skills.

PRISONERS' GUERRILLA HANDBOOK TO CORRESPONDENCE PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA

By Jon Marc Taylor PHD

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount enclosed __________

8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages

By: D check D new postage stamps D credit card D money order

I

ISBN 978-0-9819385-0-9 $49095

Name ___________________________________________

I

3 or more copies ordered

DOC/BOP Number _________________________________

at once $39095 each

Institution/Agency ____________________________

FREE Shipping & Handling

I Order by mail, phone, or on-line. City _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ State

ZIP

PUBLISHED BY

P.O. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 0530 3
I Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page 5P1L5NCOL-00453

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 38 of 45

9870.05 fa246305

E HIBITRRR
TO DECLARATION OF PAUL WRIGHT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Page 516

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 39 of 45

1/25/12
HOME 800k. Review

Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

ErnaH

I II I Member Login Help

SE!\RCH PLhl

ADVERT!SE

SUBSCRIBE

DONATIONS

CONTACT US

V!EfifCART

List Serv Messages

Wednesday, January 25,2012 2:55 PM The Failed Prom ise of Prison Privatization

[Please visit our advertiser above] BREAKING NEWS

byRichard Culp, Ph.D.
We have been experimenting with prison privatization in the U.S. now for over twenty-five years. The privatization idea originated out of a notion that the private sector, with its com petition-driven efficiency and innovation, could operate prisons of higher quality and lower cost than the public sector. Create a market for incarceration services, the argument ran, and the market will work its magic, improving prison conditions and rehabilitative outcomes while saving the taxpayers millions of dollars. That market has effectively been created over the past quarter century and we have now arrived at a place where prison privatization has been studied extensively and evaluated rigorously.

Judicial Conference Committee Disciplines Federal Judge for Membership in Discrirninatory Country Club by Alex Friedmann In May 2011. PLN reported that the Sixth ...
Nationw ide PLN Survey Examines Prison Phone ~, Contracts, Kickbacks by John E. Dannenberg An
exhaustive analysis of prison phone contracts nationw ide has revealed that ...

,AJthough hyperbole continues to propel prison privatization policy along, research findings are incontrovertible: even in the best private prisons, quality of prisoner care is no better than in public prisons and the cost advantage of privatization, which initially accounted for minimal savings, is steadilyeroding as the private prison industry matures. The big prom ises of prison privatization -less cost, higher quality- have sim ply not materialized. Despite these disappointing results, prison privatization advocacy maintains traction in diverse jurisdictions as policymakers from Ohio to Florida and from Maine to California seek expedient solutions to budget shortfalls triggered by a lingering great recession.

Prison Legal New s Interview s Former Prisoner and
t· Farrous Actor Danny Trejo Danny Trejo is one of the
best-know n American actors living today ....
Remembering Attica Forty Years Later by Dennis ;,. Cunningham. Michae! Deutsch & Bizabeth Fink This
year, September 9 IN ill mark the 40th anniversary ...

In retrospect, it should come as no surprise that prison privatization would fail to live up to its promises. There are several reasons for this. First, free market solutions to social problems like crime assume, after all, that there are "free" markets for appropriate services. However, there is no such thing as a natural marketforthe services provided by private prison companies. On the contrary, the marketplace for incarceration services is created by the government, for the government. It is an artificial market. Manyofthe services that have been privatized bygovernment (e.g., custodial services, food preparation, medical care) are provided by the private sector independently of the government's decision to privatize or not. There is a free market analogue for many kinds of services that governments routinely provide. Other fields such as education and health care, for exam pie, have an active market of existing nonprofit and for-profit providers willing to sell educational and healthcare services to a huge market of potential buyers that includes both individuals and governments.
The prison business is fundamentally different in that no one can freely purchase incarceration services as a private individual. There is no natural market for incarceration services. The power to incarcerate someone - to hold a person against his or her will- is a defining characteristic of the state. The government holds a monopoly over the

The History of Prison Legal New s by Paul Wright In ~ I\ilay 1990, the first issue of Prisoners' Lega! New s
(PLN) was published. It ...
Twenty Years of PLN in l-curt Since PLN was ~ founded in 1990 we have been censored in prisons
and jails around ...
Appalling Prison and Jail Food Leaves Prisoners ~, Hungry for Justice by David M. Reutter, Gary Hunter
& Brandon Sarrpie Prison food. The very ...
Sexual Abuse by Prison and Jail Staff Proves Persistent, Pandemic by Gary Hunter Sexual assault,

legitimate use of physical force and the power to incarcerate. Only the government has the legitimate power to restrict a citizen's liberty; individuals are prohibited bylaw from incarcerating another person under "false imprisonment" statutes. The government can delegate this power on a limited basis - for example, "shopkeeper's privilege" allows merchants to temporarilydetain suspected shoplifters. But long-term incarceration is a different matter. The only potential buyers who can legally purchase incarceration services are the government jurisdictions that have custody over indicted, convicted or detained persons. In order to privatize its incarceration function, the government has had to create a market since one does not and cannot exist without its direct intervention.

rape, indecency, deviance. 111ese terms represent reprehensible behavior ...
- --------------·-------1
Judge Not: Judges Benched for Personal Misconduct ~ by Gary Hunter & Alex Friedmann They decide hot-
button topics ranging from abortion and racial discrimination ...

https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/23838_displayArticle.aspx

1/7

Page 5P1L7NCOL-00434

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 40 of 45

1/25/12

Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

Secondly, the development of the private prison industryhas resulted in a highly concentrated producer market where only four com panies control over 90% of the incarceration services business. Economic theory tells us that when production is highly concentrated in very few companies, the market becomes an oligopoly, a market situation that is inherently less competitive and innovative than a market with more broad-based representation. An oligopoly is characterized by interdependence, avoidance of competition and a rigid attachment to the status quo among the leading firms.
Athird part of the story is that government itself unwittingly stiftes innovation in the private prison industry. Since the only legitimate customers of prison companies are the jurisdictions that can indict, convict or otherwise detain people, the potential customer base for incarceration services is very limited. In practice, this has led to a situation where onlya handful of customers, an oligopsony in economic terms, has come to dominate the customer base. The limited number of customers serves to dissuade private prison companies from conducting research and development into innovative correctional programming, as the tiny customer base tends to demand only those services that mimic what the governments themselves are accustomed to providing.
Origins of the Artificial Market

The Graying of America's Prisons by James ~ Ridgeway Frank Soffen, now 70 years old, has lived
rrore than half his life in prison, ...
Secret Justice: Criminal Informants and America's t; Underground Legal System by Alexandra Natapoff I.
Introduction Although it is alrrost invisible to the public, ...
Thou Shalt Not: Sexual Msconduct by Prison and Jail ~ Chaplains by David M. Reutter Traditionally, the role
of a chaplain in the correctional ...
Celebrity Justice: Prison Lifestyles of the Rich and J. Farrous by Matt Clarke There are tw a criminal justice
systems in the United States. One ...

Contracting out of noncustodial prison services such as medical care, food service, maintenance, education and mental health services has been practiced for a long time and with little controversy. Contracting out of custody services, for which there is no free market analogue, is much more controversial. The deinstitutionalization movement in juvenile corrections during the 1970s initiated a number of experiments in privatized services and custodyfor juveniles. A major step toward contracted custodyof adults occurred when the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the forerunner to today's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), decided in 1983 to partiallyoutsource the detention of undocumented immigrants in its custody. In the summer of 1983, the INS issued a requestfor proposals and the newly-formed Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) submitted the winning bid.
Likewise, the com m unity corrections movement in the adult system involved contracting out of the custody function in many low-security adult facilities. Minnesota passed the Community Corrections Act in 1971, and 25 states followed suit with similar legislation over the next 12 years. Community corrections legislation transferred funding from statelevel departments of correction to local governments which, in turn, used the funds for halfway house programs and other services for lower-level offenders. Many jurisdictions turned to private contractors to operate these facilities.
In 1986, Management and Training Corporation (MTC) secured a contractto operate a community corrections facility in Eagle Mountain, California. Also in 1986, the State of Kentucky contracted out the development and operation ofa 200-bed minimum-security facility in Marion County. Another newly-formed company, the U.S. Corrections Corporation, was awarded the contract. Sim ilarly, the U.S. Bureau of Prisons (BOP) began contracting out the operation of low-security halfway house programs to the private sector during this time. Another early private prison company, Correctional Services Corporation, originally Esmor Correctional Corp., began business in 1989 with two contracts from the BOP to operate halfway houses in New York City.
These early entrants to the incarceration services market found a political climate supportive of privatization in several states, including Kentucky, Tennessee, Texas, Florida, Arizona, New Mexico and Louisiana. By 1994 there were approximately 20 companies actively seeking contracts to either build and manage company-owned prisons or manage existing facilities owned byfederal, state and local jurisdictions.
The Supply Side of the Incarceration Services Industry
The traditional industrial life cycle model suggests that new markets move through a process marked byfour stages: fragmentation, shakeout, maturity and decline. The fragmentation period occurs when the industryis new, manyentrepreneuFs enter the market, and they operate at low volume and tend to serve narrow geographic areas. Eventually, a shakeout period occurs as some companies become more efficient and the less efficient ones fail to stay in business. Growth and competition are strongest during this period, as are the profits of the largest companies. The industry reaches maturity when growth slows and surviving companies try to solidify their positions in the industry. At some later time, the industry moves into decline as the demand for the product or service drops and companies seek new ways to recover profitability.

Crime Labs in Crisis: Shoddy Forensics Used to } Secure Convictions by Matt Clarke To millions of
people w hose know ledge of crime labs comes ...
Private Prison Companies Behind the Scenes of t> Arizona's Immigration Law by Beau Hodai "Beside my
brothers and my sisters, I'll proudly take a ...
Madical Examiners Lack Qualifications, Competence, f~ Oversight by Matt Clarke I\/Iost people w ill only have
direct contact with a medical examiner, also know n as ...
40% of Criminal Jurisprudence bills boost crirrJnal ~ penalties As has probably been the case every
legislative session in living merrolY, bills ...
Texas Increasingly out of Step on Death Penalty By }> David Fathi Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle May
23,2009, 3:44PM Barring unexpected events, in the next ...
Some Agencies Balk at Releasing Prison Phone Data ;. by Mike PJgby It is common know ledge among R...N
readers that prison and jail phone ...
The Failed Promise of Prison Privatization by Richard }> Culp, Al.D. We have been experimenting with prison
privatization in the U.S. now for over .. ,
The Resistab!e Rise and Predictable Fall of the U.S. ~; Supermax Stephen F. Eisenman In a recent article
entitled "111e Penal State in an ...
Prison Sexual Abuse Survivor Speaks Out by Alan jl Prendergast In January 2010, Scott Howard. a 39-
year-old federal prisoner, made his way briskly into
...

The decade of the 1990s witnessed the rapid growth of prison privatization, consolidation https:llwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23838_displayArticle .aspx

2/7
Page 5P1L8NCOL-00435

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 41 of 45

1/25/12

Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

otthe Industryand the COOling ottotgrowth rates as the decade ended. Ihe Industry

moved through the traditional life cycle stages offragmentation to maturity during this

period. The industry experienced tremendous growth from 1992 to 1998, averaging an

increase in capacity of 36% each year. But from 1999 to 2006, growth declined to an

average rate of under 4% per year. As marketmaturity is commonly defined as reaching a

state of equilibrium marked by the absence of significant growth or innovation, the industry

reached maturity as the new millennium began.

The shakeout stage of the industry is reflected in the difference between the companies doing business in 1996 and those doing business in 2011.ln 1996, there were 14 companies with private prison contracts in the United States. Table 1 lists these companies, their rated capacity and their market share of U.S. private prison business. A common measure of the dominance ofcompanies in a given market is the market concentration ratio (CR), or the percentage of total industry sales (or capacity, or employment, or value added or physical output) contributed by the four leading firms ranked in order of market share. A market is considered to have a high CR when the four leading firms control over two-thirds of market share, a moderate concentration when the ratio falls between one-third and two-thirds, and a low concentration when the top four companies control less than a third of total market share.

The four-firm market concentration ratio of the private prison industry was 86% in 1996, a significantly high level of concentration. But by the end of 2011 only seven companies remained in the private prison business, and the market share of the top four firms increased to 92% (see Table 2).

Acquisitions and Ethical Challenges

The rise in concentration ratio means thatthe industry as a whole has become less competitive. Five of the companies that disappeared between 1996 and 2011 (U.S. Corrections Corporation, Correctional Services Corporation, Cornell Corrections, Inc., Fenton Security, Inc. and Correctional Systems, Inc.) were acquired by larger companies. Four other firms went out of business (Bobby Ross Group, Capital Correctional Resources, Dove Development Corporation and Maranatha Production Company, LLC). Three newcomers, LaSalle Southwest Corrections, Louisiana Corrections Services and Emerald Companies, are small and regionally-based in Texas and Louisiana. A review of the ongoing concentration in the market is illustrative of shakeouts in the industry and of some of the ethically-challenged behavior that can attend to the process of profit seeking. The largest company- Corrections Corporation of America - acquired the third-ranked company, U.S. Corrections Corporation, in 1998. U.S. Corrections, based in Kentucky, had much in common with Tennessee-based CCA Both companies were founded by entrepreneurs who were well connected with the political establishment in their state. One of CCA's founders, Thomas W. Beasley, was a former chair of the state Republican Party
and managed the succes sful 1978 gubernatorial cam paign of Lam ar Alexander. Honey Alexander, the governor's wife, was an early investor in CCA U.S. Corrections Corporation, based in neighboring Louisville, did all of its business in Kentucky prior to 1995. Executives of the com pany contributed over $77 ,000 to political cam paigns in the state between 1987 and 1993, including $23,QOO to Governor Wallace G. Wilkinson and his wife Martha.

Clifford Todd, the CEO of U.S. Corrections, was implicated in a payoff scandal involving the company's contract to run the county jail in Louisville. He was arrested by the FBI in 1994, pleaded guilty to mail fraud and was sentenced to 6 months in jail and fined $250,000. He sold his stake in the companyfor $15 million in 1994. At the time of the buyout by CCA U.S. Corrections owned a total of four facilities in Kentucky, Ohio and North Carolina with a capacity of 5,275 beds, and had contracts to manage publicly-owned facilities in Kentucky, Florida and North Carolina with a capacity of 5,743 beds.

The second-largest company in 1996, Wackenhut Corrections Corporation (WCC), was formed in 1984 as a subsidiary to securityfirm WackenhutCorporation, which was founded by George Wackenhut, a former FBI agent. Over the ensuing years, WCC grew to become one of the largest private prison companies in the world. The company began providing res idential services for at-ris k juveniles and young adults under the Job Corps program. WCC went public in 1994 (with Wackenhut Corporation as the majority shareholder). In 2002, the Danish company Group 4 Falck merged with the Wackenhut Corporation and, indirectly, became the owner of 57% of WCe's stock. In 2003, WCC bought out Group 4 Falck's interest in the company and changed its name to the GEO Group, Inc. The GEO Group acquired the industry's seventh-largest company, Correctional Services Corporation (CSC), in 2005 and Cornell Corrections, the fifth-largest com pany, in 2010.

Founded in 1989, CSC operated under several different names, including Esmor https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/23838_displayArticle.aspx

3/7
Page 5P1L9NCOL-00436

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 42 of 45

1/25/12

Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

Correctional Services, Inc. The companywas founded by the owners ofa welfare hotel in New York City and began its prison business operating halfway houses under contract with the BOP. CSC also managed the INS Detention Center in Elizabeth, New Jersey, remem bered best for a June 1995 riot in which 300 detainees took over the facility in protest of poor conditions of confinement. Esmor staff fled from the detention center, leaving order to be restored byfederal, state and local law enforcement officers. The INS closed the facility after the riot, noting that CSC guards had abused detainees, gave them spoiled food and deprived them of sleep. The facility was reopened in 1997.

Later, in 2003, CSC was fined $300,000 by the New York State Lobbying Commission for failing to report free transportation, meals and gifts given to a dozen state legislators from Brooklyn and the Bronx. The fine was the largest the state had ever imposed on a com pany for violating the state's lobbying laws. In May 2008, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed charges against three Fort Lauderdale, Florida physicians, alleging insider trading in GEO Group's 2005 acquisition of CSC. According to the complaint, one of the three worked as a consultant to GEO and had a son who worked in GEO's finance department, where he allegedly learned of the pending deal. The three were charged with iJlegallypurchasing $390,000 in CSC stock before the acquisition. Two of the defendants entered into settlement agreements while the third was cleared ofthe charges.

Another GEO acquisition, Cornell Corrections, Inc., had been the third-largest private prison companyin 2006, with 8% of industry markets hare. Incorporated in 1994, the company built its business primarilywith youth services and community-based rehabilitation programs for adults. Pirate Capital, LLC, a hedge fund firm, acquired a 13% interest in Cornell in 2004, becom ing the com pany's largest shareholder, and replaced several board members and the company's CEO with financiers more oriented toward short-term growth. Pirate Capital unloaded its shares of Cornell in 2006 in the midst of an SEC investigation over its stock sales practices, several bad investment decisions and companydownsizing. The company warned its stockholders in 2009 of looming problems in managing indebtedness of some $303 million. GEO Group bought Cornell, along with its debt, in 2010.

Management and Training Corporation (MTC) is the third-largest company currently proViding incarceration services. MTC is a privately-11eld Utah-registered company that gained expertise in working with at-risk young people as a major provider of Job Corps programs. The companyfirst entered the private prison market in 1987 when it received a contractto manage the Eagle Mountain Community Correctional FaCility in Desert Center, California (which experienced a major riot that resulted in the deaths of two prisoners in 2003). MTC expanded slowly and steadily since 1987 and now runs a total of 20 correctional facilities in Arizona, California, Florida, Idaho, New Mexico, Ohio and Texas.

The company's generally positive reputation as a job training provider has been tarnished by its corrections experience. In 1997, MTC hired the former director of the Utah Department of Corrections, Lane McCotter, as Director of Corrections Business Development. McCotter was well connected in pro-privatization states, having served as director of both the Texas Department of Crim inal Justice and the New Mexico Corrections Department before serving as the corrections head in Utah. He left the Utah DOC job in the midst of an investigation over the death of a prisoner with schizophrenia who had been shackled to a hard plastic chair for the final sixteen hours of his life.

In 2003, MTC's Santa Fe, New Mexico facility was under investigation by the U.S. Justice Department for unsafe conditions and poor quality prisoner medical care while McCotter was employed with the company. Nonetheless, that same year he was appointed by Attorney General John Ashcroft to serve on a U.S. Department of Justice team commissioned to assess and implement a plan for rebuilding Iraq's criminal justice system. The team's final act before leaving Iraq was to conduct a ribbon cutting ceremony atthe refurbished Abu Ghraib prison, a centerpiece of their corrections planning. Although the facility was emptywhen McCotter left Iraq, the work of the committee of experts was indelibly stained by the infamous events that subsequently occurred atthe prison and from on-going human rights abuse allegations in prisons under the direct supervision of other committee members.

MTC was also involved in a failed experiment in prison privatization in Canada. In 2001, the companywon a five-year contract to operate the Central North Correctional Centre (CNCC) in Ontario as part of a pilot project to compare operations ofthe CNCC facility with a similar publicly-run prison, the Central East Correctional Centre. The government hired PricewaterhouseCoopers to evaluate the two prisons across a varietyofdimensions. The evaluation found that the public prison outperformed the MTC facility overall. While the MTC prison was cheaper to operate and provided a greater variety of programming than
thp nn\lprnmpntf::lr.iliiv thp nllhlir. nric::nn r::ltprl c::irmifir.::lntllfhpttpr nn c::pr.llrit\f rpr.irlhlic::m
https:llwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23838_displayArticle.aspx

4/7
Page 5P2L0NCOL-00437

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 43 of 45

1/25/12

Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

1'-4'-""'I.Y, ........ 1' 1.11 ...... ~_""_rl.III_.'\.

" 1 _ t"U"-I'IIV ~It""'-'Il 1'-4'1,....., .... ...,,~I"

'-t"l.ll J..J'\Ju.....,. 'JII ...., ........... - 1 ' ..

,....,v' .... 'V'....,111

rates, health care and community impact. Based on the results of the experiment, Ontario

decided to turn management of the privatized facility over to the public sector.

Community Education Centers (CEC), incorporated in 1996, rounds outthe quartet of companies that control 92% of the current incarceration services market. Like MTC, CEC is a privately-held companywhose finances and governance structure are much less transparent than is the case with publicly-held companies. Until a few years ago, CEC's business was concentrated in providing community-based residential, re-entry and rehabilitative services to offenders, mostly in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, but the company moved into the secure incarceration services business with its acquisition of CiviGenics in 2007.

CiviGenics was founded in 1995 in Marlboro, MA by Roy Ross, the former president of Spectrum Health Systems, Inc., a nonprofit company that provided drug and alcohol treatment services for prisoners in the Massachusetts Department of Corrections. Ross arranged a contract for CiviGenics to provide management of Spectrum's Massachusetts in-prison treatment programs. In 1996, CiviGenics acquired Fenton Security, Inc., a small com pany that had m anagem ent contracts to operate two county jails in Colorado. Tom Rapone, a former Secretary of Public Safety in Massachusetts, joined CiviGenics as the firm's Chief Operating Officer. CiviGenics expanded its secure custody operations and by 1998 operated several small jail facilities, employed more than 1,000 staff and had revenues of more than $30 million.

In July 1999, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) awarded CiviGenics a $14.9 million contract to operate the newly-built North Coas t Correctional Treatment Facility (NCCTF) in Grafton. However, the ODRC elected not to renew its contract with CiviGenics when the contract expired in July 2001, citing problems with high staff turnover (including five different wardens in its first 18 months), repeated failure to maintain minimum staffing levels and problems with over-billing the state for positions that remained uncovered. The ODRC subsequently awarded the contract to MTC, which continues to operate the NCCTF facility.

In 2004, the Massachusetts State Auditor com pleted an audit that found Spectrum Health Systems had misused $17.4 million in state money, with $10.2 million of the total amount involving excessive payments to CiviGenics. The matter was settled in January2007 in an agreement that required CiviGenics to repay the state $3.4 million and Roy Ross to repay $650,000. With its acquisition ofCiviGenics in 2007, CEC became the fourth largest private prison com pany in the U.S.

The Demand Side of the Incarceration Services Industry

The demand side of prison privatization, like the oligopoly of private prison companies, is also highly concentrated. The potential customers in the private prison market are government agencies at the federal, state and local level that operate jail, prison and detention programs. At the federal level, the Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Marshals Service and Immigration and Customs Enforcement all manage a variety of custody facilities. The four branches ofthe military also operate facilities for military personnel sentenced under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Of course, the 50 sta.tes and the District of Colum bia each have departments of correction.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there are some 1,821 state and federal correctional facilities, not counting facilities operated by the U.S. Marshals Service and ICE. At the local level, counties and cities operate about 2,875 jail facilities in the United States. In sum, the potential consumer base of the private prison industry numbers somewhere in the area of 4,700 facilities.

After over 25 years of correctional privatization, there are fewer than 200 private correctional facilities in the United States - only about 4% of all facilities. The federal government is the most actively involved in privatization, with 16.3% of federal prisoners serving time in private facilities. State governments are next, with 6.6% of state prisoners in private facilities. However, whereas 60% of all correctional facilities in the United States are at the local level, only about two dozen city and county jurisdictions (1.7% of the total) contract with private companies to operate their jails and detention centers. In practice there are very few buyers of privatized incarceration services, and the federal government is the largest single customer. Between 2000 and 2008, the num ber of state prisoners placed in private prisons increased by about 25%, from 75,018 to 93,537. In tile federal system, however, the number increased from 15,525 to 32,712, or about 110%. During the same period, the number of states placing some portion of their prisoners in private facilities actually declined from 30 states to 27.

https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/23838_displayArticle.aspx

5/7
Page 5P2L1NCOL-00438

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 44 of 45

1/25/12

Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

I here are In practice onlytltty-tour "customers" bUYIng incarceration services trom the

private prison industry- the three federal agencies, twenty-seven state departments of

correction and two dozen local jurisdictions. Within this small customer base, the federal

government plus eight states (Texas, Florida, Arizona, Oklahoma, Colorado, Tennessee,

California and Mississippi) collectively account for more than 70% of all private prison

business. In effect, the market of buyers constitutes an oligopsony, or a market form in which onlya few customers buya certain good and therefore possess the power to affect

pricing. The two largest publicly-traded private prison companies recognize their dependency on a limited number of governmental customers as a threatto their

profitability and include a warning to stockholders to that effect in their annual reports.

At CCA, just three federal government agencies, the BOP, ICE and the U.S. Marshals, accounted for 43% of the company's total revenue for fiscal year 2010, or $717.8 million. The state of California, which is placing thousands of prisoners out-of-state in an effort to

reduce in-state prison populations, provided 13% of CCA's total revenue for fiscal year

2010, or $214 million. GEO Group reports that while they have a total of 45 governmental clients (custom ers), 4 of those clients accounted for over 60% oftheir U.S.-based revenue (BOP, ICE, U.S. Marshals and the State of Florida). Among those, the three federal agencies combined are responsible for 53% of GEO Group's total U.S. revenue.

The oligopsonyofgovernmental consumers serves to discourage innovation. In practice, government purchasers of incarceration services have required that private prison companies simply duplicate policies and procedures practiced in public prisons, to the effect that the standard operating procedures of most private prison programs closely mirror those of public prisons in the same state. Notably, none of the companies have distinct and viable research and development departments as would be expected in an industry that values innovation. Private prison companies encourage the adoption of public prison practice, rather than the development of innovative practice, by actively recruiting management-level staff from within the public sector.

As a case in point, a review of the background of eCA's facility management staff suggests a widespread practice of mining the public corrections system for managers. Among the wardens of 63 of the com pany's correctional facilities, nearly two-thirds formerly worked in state departments of correction (36 wardens) or the federal BOP (5 wardens). The most warden-rich jurisdiction was the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, from whence 28% of all CCA wardens were recruited. These experienced staffers bring a degree of order and control to the com pany's private prisons, but they are not likely to be hired for their spirit of experimentation and innovation.

Arguably, private prisons are not looking to be innovative unless itis a way of cutting costs. The most common wayforthese companies to make moneyfrom government contracts is by reducing personnel expenses. Because labor represents about 80% of the operating costofa prison, much of the cost savings in private prisons results from paying private correctional officers less than com parable public correctional officers. But this advantage begins to erode in a market where private companies are dependent upon contract renewals (with more experienced staff) rather than new facilities (with new, entrylevel staff). Even as labor rates vary among the states, public sector correctional officer starting salaries average $28,000 across all states with a (one standard deviation) range between $23,000 and $34,200. By comparison, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports a mean annual salary of $42,270 for all occupations in the United States (in May2008). Public sector prison staff salaries are very low already, suggesting that it is not easy for the private sector to continue to undercut the government in personnel costs.

Conclusion

The increasing concentration of market share among the top four companies and the declining number of companies in the incarceration services market mean that governments considering the privatization option will find a decreasing com petitive environmentwhen seeking contract bids. In 1995, for example, a total of seven companies submitted bids in response to a Arkansas Department of Corrections request for proposals for two new privately-operated prisons .In contrast, a 2006 request for proposals to manage a private prison in Pennsyivania yielded only two bidders. With market maturation and increased concentration, it is increasingly difficult for new companies to get into the business and for marginal performers to stay afloat.

Oligopoly theory and industry life cycle theory suggest that the remaining companies will be less competitive overall, seeking interdependent relationships with their competitors to help secure their position now that industry growth rates have cooled. As this scenario continues to unfold, any possibility of meaningful costsavings from privatization will decline over time. A recent study of private prison costs in Arizona found that this has already occurred, as the cost of incarcerating minimum-security prisoners has reached parity between state prisons and private prisons while the cost of housing medium-
https:/lwww.prisonlegalnews.org/23838_displayArticle.aspx

6/7
Page 5P2L2NCOL-00439

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 45 of 45

1/25/12

Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions

security prisoners is now actually lower in state prisons than in private facilities.

The private prison industry bears a fair share of the responsibilityfor not registering a
better showing in research results. Despite the fact that it has hired away from the public sector many "best and brightest" correctional staff, the industry's penchant for financially rewarding its executives and top managers has drained resources that could have been devoted to program research and development.

Governments have also played a role in the failure of private prisons to perform better, particularly in the area of program quality. P>s an oligopsony, governments hold the power to be more demanding in the area of performance yet have systematicallyfailed to do so. In the main, contracting governments have simply abdicated demand for increasing program quality, settling for an illusory decrease in program costs. Given the history of "iron triangle" relationships that intertwine the private prison industry and government officials, this failure is perhaps not surprising.

One of the more depressing statistics to emerge in criminal justice in recent years is the fact that two-thirds of released prisoners are re-arrested within three years. Enlightened government officials around the country have realized that they can reduce correctional expenditures only by focusing their efforts on reducing recidivism, not by building or contracting for more prison space. Government jurisdictions that are having the greatest success in reducing correctional expenditures are those that are turning to evidencebased practice to guide sentencing decisions and devoting correctional resources toward programs proven to reduce recidivism. Prison is not one of them. In enlightened jurisdictions, incarceration rates are beginning to decline.

P>s this trend continues, the private prison industrywill eventually enter the fourth stage of the industrial life cycle - decline - and will begin shedding some of its capacity. Some companies have alreadysighted this trend on the horizon and have begun developing alternative business opportunities in areas such as electronic monitoring and prisoner health care. For those government agencies with heavy reliance on private prisons, decline in the industrywill pose new problems as companies shed unprofitable contracts and simplywalk away. Albert Einstein suggested that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. If a quarter century of experience with prison privatization has not led to better quality and cost outcomes, it is time to take a more sane approach.

Richard Culp is an Associate Professor of Public Administration at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City and the Coordinator of the Bachelor of Science in Crim inal Justice Management program. He is also a mem ber oftlle doctoral faculty in Crim inal Justice at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York and serves as Deputy Executive Officer of tile CU NY Crim inal Justice Doctoral Program. Professor Culp's research has been published in Justice Quarterly, Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, Criminal Justice Policy Review, The Prison Journal and the Journal of Public Affairs Education.

This article includes new and expanded research findings previously publis hed in "Prison. Privatization Turns Twenty-five." In K.lsmaili (Ed.) U.S. Criminal Justice Policy: A Contem porary Reader (pp.183-209). Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publis hers (2010).

[Secure Website] Home

Book Store

Printed Issues ! Advertise ! Subscribe to PLN ! Contact us ! View Cart! Terms

https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/23838_displayArticle.aspx

7/7
Page 5P2L3NCOL-00440

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 86 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 3
Katherine C. Chamberlain, OSB #042580 katherinec@mhb.com Jesse A. Wing, pro hac vice jessew@mhb.com Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News MacDonald Hoague & Bayless 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104-1745 (206) 622-1604
Marc D. Blackman, OSB #730338 marc@ransomblackman.com Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Ransom Blackman LLP 1001 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1400 Portland, OR 97204 (503) 228-0487
Lance Weber, pro hac vice lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Human Rights Defense Center 1037 Western Ave., 2nd Floor West Brattleboro, VT 05303 (802) 257-1342

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,
Defendants.

No. 3: 12-CV-71-SI
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS' FAILURE TO MITIGATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Request for Oral Argument

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS' FAILURE TO MITIGATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (CV 12-71-SI) - 1
9870.05 fil20904

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Te1206.622.l604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 86 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 3
COMES NOW Prison Legal News and respectfully moves for an order granting summary judgment against Defendants on their affirmative defense of failure to mitigate damages.
Pursuant to Local Rule 7-1, Plaintiff has made a good faith effort to resolve the issues identified in this motion and has been unable to do so. See Declaration Jesse Wing, ~I.
Submitted in support of this Motion are Plaintiffs Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendants' Failure to Mitigate Affirmative Defenses, the Declaration of Jesse Wing, a~d the Dec,aratioI?- of Katherine Chamberlain, filed with this motion. .Plaintiff also relies on the declarations and exhibits previously filed in support of its Motion for Preliminary Injunction, (Dkts. 7 through 15, 34 through 40, and 44 though 46) and its Response to Defendants' Motion for Leave to Amend Answer (Dkts. 74 and 75).
DATED this 13th day of September, 2012.
RANSOM BLACKMAN LLP lsi Marc D. Blackman
MARC D. BLACKMAN OSB #730338 (503) 228-0487 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS
lsi Katherine C. Chamberlain KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN OSB #042580 JESSE WING,pro hac vice (206) 622-1604 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS' FAILURE TO MITIGATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (CV 12-71-SI) - 2
9870.05 fil20904

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 86 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on September 13, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing to the
Clerk of the Court using the CMlECF system which will send notification of such filing to the
following:
• Marc D. Blackman marc@ransomblackman.com,pat@ransomblackman.com
• Steven A. Kraemer sak@hartwagner.com,rcd@hartwagner.com
• Gregory R. Roberson grr@hartwagner.com,cej@hartwagner.com
• Lynn S. Walsh walsh@europa.com
• Lance Weber lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org,ahull@humanrightsdefensecenter.org
MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS
lsi Katherine C. Chamberlain KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN OSB #042580 (206) 622-1604 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS' FAILURE TO MITIGATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (CV 12-71-SI) - 3
9870.05 fi120904

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
TeI206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 87 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 11
Katherine C. Chamberlain, OSB #042580 katherinec@mhb.com Jesse A. Wing, pro hac vice jessew@mhb.com Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News MacDonald Hoague & Bayless 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104-1745 (206) 622-1604
Marc D. Blackman, OSB #730338 marc@ransomblackman.com Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Ransom Blackman LLP 1001 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1400 Portland, OR 97204 (503) 228-0487
Lance Weber, pro hac vice lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Human Rights Defense Center 1037 Western Ave., 2nd Floor West Brattleboro, VT 05303 (802) 257-1342

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,
Defendants.

No.3:12-CV-71-SI
DECLARATION OF KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

DECLARATION OF KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN IN SUPPORT OF PLF'S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (CV 12-71-SI)-1
9870.05 fi072201

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 87 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 11

I, Katherine Chamberlain, declare as follows: I am one of the attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News. I am over the age of 18, and am competent to testify. 1. Exhibit 1 is a true copy of a postcard obtained from the Columbia County Jail during the Site Inspection and FRCP 30(b)(6) Deposition of Sergeant Raquel Miller, taken by Plaintiff on May 8 and 9,2012. This document is Deposition Exhibit 4. 2. Exhibit 2 is a true copy of the Columbia County Sheriffs Office's Memorandum of Understanding, dated March 23,2010, titled "Mail Procedure Changes." This memorandum is on letterhead and is signed by Sergeant Bryan L. Cutright, Sr. This is Deposition Exhibit 102. 3. Exhibit 3 is a true copy of the Columbia County Sheriffs Office's Memorandum of Understanding, dated March 23,2010, titled "Mail Procedure Changes." This memorandum is not on letterhead and is not signed. This document is Deposition Exhibit 11. 4. Exhibit 4 is a true copy of the imprint of a stamp titled "Inspected by Columbia County Jail" that Plaintiff obtained during the May 9,2012, Jail Inspection and FRCP 30(b)(6) Deposition of Sergeant Raquel Miller. This document is Deposition Exhibit 2. 5. Exhibit 5 is a true copy of email correspondence between Columbia County Jail Sergeant Bryan Cutright and Undersheriff Andrew Moyer, dated July 11, 2011. This document is Deposition Exhibit 129. 6. Exhibit 6 is a true copy of email correspondence between Columbia County Jail Sergeant Bryan Cutright and Jeff Mansheim, dated March 17 and 18,2010. This document is an excerpt from Deposition Exhibit 95. 7. Exhibit 7 is a true copy of copy of information on the Columbia County Sheriffs Office website (www.co.columbia.or.us/sheriff)onJanuaryI9.2012.This document is Deposition Exhibit 12. 8. Exhibit 8 is a true copy of information on the Columbia County Sheriffs Office website (www.co.columbia.or.us/sheriff)onMay7.2012.This document is Deposition Exhibit 96.

DECLARATION OF KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN IN SUPPORT OF PLF'S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (CV 12-71-SI) - 2
9870.05 fi072201

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 87 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 11

9. Exhibit 9 is a true copy of information on the Columbia County Sheriffs Office website (www.co.columbia.or.us/sheriff)onMay21.2012.This document is Deposition Exhibit 97.
10. Exhibit 10 is a true copy of information on the Columbia County Sheriffs Office website (www.co.columbia.or.us/sheriff)onJune7.2012.This document is a Deposition Exhibit 98.
11. Exhibit 11 is a true copy of information on the Columbia County Sheriffs Office website (www.co.columbia.or.us/sheriff) on June 13,2012.
12. Exhibit 12 is a true copy of information on the Columbia County Sheriffs Office website (www.co.columbia.or.us/sheriff)onJuly3.2012.This document is Deposition Exhibit 99.
13. Exhibit 13 is a true copy of Columbia County Sheriffs Office Inmate Grievance Form 000408 by James Bennett, received by the Jail on November 2,2011, and the Jail's response dated November 21,2011. This document is Deposition Exhibit 126.
14. Exhibit 14 is a true copy of Columbia County Sheriffs Office Inmate Grievance Form No. 00210 by prisoner James Bennett, received by the Jail on April 20, 2011, and the Jail's response. This document is Deposition Exhibit 93.
15. Exhibit 15 is a true copy of email correspondence between Sergeant Rocky Miller and Sheriff Jeffrey Dickerson regarding prisoner Brad Berg's Grievance, dated December 22,2011; Columbia County Sheriffs Office Inmate Grievance Form No. 00414, received by the .Jail on November 22, 2011, and the Jail's response; and a Columbia County Jail Inmate Request form by Mr. Berg dated December 11,2011, and the Jail's response. These documents are excerpts from Deposition Exhibit 152.
16. Exhibit 16 is a true copy of a memorandum titled "Postcard Grievance Response Template" from Deputy Lautt to prisoner Reynold Chapin, dated May 5,2011. This document is Deposition Exhibit 92.

DECLARATION OF KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN IN SUPPORT OF PLF'S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (CV 12-71-SI) - 3
9870.05 fi072201

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 87 Filed 09/13/12 Page 4 of 11

17. Exhibit 17 is a true copy of Columbia County Sheriff s Office Inmate Grievance Form 000438 by Steven Lee Adams, received by the Jail in January 2012, and the Jail's response dated January 18, 2012. This document is Deposition Exhibit 42.
18. Exhibit 18 is a true copy of Columbia County Sheriffs Office Inmate Grievance Form 000439 by prisoner James Gonzalez, received by the Jail on January 14,2012. This document is Deposition Exhibit 125.
19. Exhibit 19 is a true copy of Columbia County Sheriffs Office Inmate Request Form by prisoner Robert Clement, received by the Jail on December 15,2011, and the Jail's response. This document is Deposition Exhib,it 61.
20. Exhibit 20 is a true copy of Columbia County Jail Inmate Request Form by prisoner Brad Berg, received by the Jail on December 23,2011, and the Jail's response dated December 25,2011. This document is Deposition Exhibit No. 27.
21. Exhibit 21 is a true copy of a Columbia County Sheriffs Office Mail Violation Notice regarding mail addressed to prisoner John Weisenberger, dated October 24,2011. This document is Deposition Exhibit 26.
22. Exhibit 22 is a true copy of a Columbia County Sheriffs Office Mail Violation Notice regarding mail addressed to prisoner John Weisenberger, dated October 31, 2011. This document is Deposition Exhibit 25.
23. Exhibit 23 is a true copy ofa Columbia County Jail Inmate Request Form by prisoner David Spann, received by the Jail on November 11,2010, and the Jail's response dated November 11,2010. This document is Deposition Exhibit 29.
24. Exhibit 24 is a true copy a Columbia County Jail Inmate Request Form by prisoner Eric Wilcoxson, received by the Jail on September 11, 2011, and the Jail's response dated September 19,2011. This document is Deposition Exhibit 32.
25. Exhibit 25 is a true copy ofa Columbia County Jail Inmate Request Form by prisoner Anthony Deherrera, received by the Jail, and the Jail's response dated September 5, 2011. This document is Deposition Exhibit 30.

DECLARATION OF KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN IN SUPPORT OF PLF'S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (CV 12-71-SI) - 4
9870.05 fi072201

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 87 Filed 09/13/12 Page 5 of 11

26. Exhibit 26 is a true copy ofa Columbia County Jail Inmate Request Form by prisoner Martin Kay, received by the Jail on August 7, 2010, and the Jail's response on that date. This document is Deposition Exhibit 31.
27. Exhibit 27 is a true copy of Columbia County Jail Inmate Grievance Form 000307 by Tunis Donald, received by the Jail on January 29,2010, and the Jail's response. This document is Deposition Exhibit 60.
28. Exhibit 28 is a true copy of a Columbia County Jail Inmate Request Form by prisoner Brad Berg, received by the Jail, and the Jail's response dated February 8,2012. This document is Deposition Exhibit 67.
29. Exhibit 29 is a true copy of a Columbia County Sheriffs Office Incident Report dated June 25, 2011. This document is Deposition Exhibit 41.
30. Exhibit 30 is a true copy of a Columbia County Sheriffs Office Incident Report dated February 10,2012. This document is Deposition Exhibit 64.
31. Exhibit 31 is a true copy of an envelope sent by Prison Legal News to prisoner Robert Westmoreland on July 20, 2011, which the Columbia County Jail censored and returned, and the front and back pages of the May 2009 issue of Prison Legal News contained in the envelope. This document is Exhibit 00 to the Declaration of Paul Wright, Dkt. 8-5, and Deposition Exhibit 21.
32. Exhibit 32 is a true copy of an envelope sent by Prison Legal News to prisoner Robert Beckwith on January 31, 2011, which the Columbia County Jail censored and returned, and the front and back of the three brochures contained in the envelope. This document is Exhibit A to the Declaration of Paul Wright, Dkt. 8-1, and Deposition Exhibit 22.
33. Exhibit 33 is a true copy of an envelope sent by Prison Legal News to prisoner Mark Gift on July 20,2011, which the Columbia County Jail censored and returned, and the front and back of the three brochures contained in the envelope. This document is Exhibit E to the Declaration of Paul Wright, Dkt. 8-1, and Deposition Exhibit 23.

DECLARATION OF KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN IN SUPPORT OF PLF'S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (CV 12-71-SI) - 5
9870.05 fi072201

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Te1206.622.l604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 87 Filed 09/13/12 Page 6 of 11

34. Exhibit 34 is a true copy of an envelope sent by Prison Legal News to prisoner William Temple in or about November 2011, which the Columbia County Jail censored and returned, and the fundraising materials contained in the envelope. This document is Exhibit PPP to the Declaration of Paul Wright, Dkt. 8-10, and Deposition Exhibit 24.
35. Exhibit 35 is a true copy of an envelope sent by the Columbia County Sheriffs Office to Lucy Lennox, and the Prohibited Mail Notice enclosed in the envelope. This document is Exhibit E to the Declaration of Lucy Lennox, Dkt. 34, and Deposition Exhibit 66.
36. Exhibit 36 is a true copy of the Course Attendance Roster for the Columbia County Jail's "Mail Policy Training" held on February 1,2012. This document is Deposition Exhibit 7.
37. Exhibit 37 is a true copy of the Course Attendance Roster for the Columbia County Jail's "Corrections Training-Other" held on July 3, 2012 and August 8, 2012. This document is Deposition Exhibit 143.
38. Exhibit 38 is a true copy of email correspondence to the Columbia County Sheriffs Office Corrections Staff, titled "Pass Down Dayshift 010712", dated January 7, 2012. This document is Deposition Exhibit 17.
39. Exhibit 39 is a true copy of email correspondence from Marie Tyler, the General Manager of the Washington County Sheriffs Office, titled "Mail policy issues," received by Columbia County Jail Sergeant Bryan Cutright on January 23,2012. This document is Deposition Exhibit 36.
40. Exhibit 40 is a true copy of email correspondence from Tony Lewis, Captain of the Jefferson County Sheriffs Office, titled "Prison Legal News," received by Columbia County Jail Sergeant Bryan Cutright, on February 6, 2012. This document is Deposition Exhibit 37.
41. Exhibit 41 is a true copy of email correspondence from Columbia County Sheriffs Office Deputy Marti Kyles, titled "Reminder of Mail Policy," dated February 17,2012. This document is Deposition Exhibit 162.

DECLARATION OF KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN IN SUPPORT OF PLF'S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (CV 12-71-SI) - 6
9870.05 fi072201

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Te1206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 87 Filed 09/13/12 Page 7 of 11

42. Exhibit 42 is a true copy of email correspondence and attachment from Elmer Dickens, attorney for the Washington County Sheriffs Office, titled "model j ail mail policy," received by Columbia County Jail Sergeant Bryan Cutright on March 13,2012. This document is Deposition Exhibit 15.
43. Exhibit 43 is a true copy of email correspondence from Columbia County Sheriffs Deputy Sophie Frazier, titled "Pass Down 050712," dated May 7, 2012. This document is Deposition Exhibit 132.
44. Exhibit 44 is a true copy of email correspondence from Columbia County Sheriffs Deputy Marcia Rush, titled "passdown," dated May 6,2012. This document is Deposition Exhibit 131.
45. Exhibit 45 is a true copy of email correspondence from Columbia County Sheriffs Deputy Watkins, titled "Dealing with stamps in the mail," dated June 19,2012. This document is Deposition Exhibit 136.
46. Exhibit 46 is a true copy of email correspondence from Columbia County Sheriff Jeff Dickerson to all corrections staff, dated June 19,2012, and the Columbia County Jail Inmate Mail Policy effective June 18, 2012, attached to the Sheriffs email. This document is Deposition Exhibit 110.
47. Exhibit 47 is a true copy of email correspondence from Columbia County Sheriffs Deputy B. McDowall, dated July 19, 2012. This document is Deposition Exhibit 138.
48. Exhibit 48 is a true copy of email correspondence from Columbia County Sheriffs Office's Bryan Cutright to corrections staff, titled "Standard Answer for Grievances on the Post Card Issue," dated May 5,2011. This document is Deposition Exhibit 159.
49. Exhibit 49 is a true copy of email correspondence from Columbia County Sheriffs Deputy Marcia Rush, titled "passdown on New Year's," dated January 1,2012. This document is Deposition Exhibit 137.
50. Exhibit 50 is a true copy of a Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual dated 2009. This document is Deposition Exhibit 46.

DECLARATION OF KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN IN SUPPORT OF PLF'S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (CV 12-71-SI)-7
9870.05 fi072201

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Te1206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 87 Filed 09/13/12 Page 8 of 11

51. Exhibit 51 is a true copy of a Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual dated July 8, 2010. This document is Deposition Exhibit 47.
52. Exhibit 52 is a true copy of a Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual dated July 23, 2010. This document is Deposition Exhibit 48.
53. Exhibit 53 is a true copy of a Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual dated September 30,2010. This document is Deposition Exhibit 49.
54. Exhibit 54 is a true copy of a Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual that was and approved on November 18,2010 by Columbia County Sheriff Jeffrey M.
Dickerson, and bears his signature. This document is Deposition Exhibit 5. 55. Exhibit 55 is a true copy ofa Spanish version of the Columbia County Jail
Inmate Mail dated November 18,2010("18/11110"). This document is Deposition Exhibit 147. 56. Exhibit 56 is a true copy of a Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual "effective"
May 16, 2012. This document is Deposition Exhibit 113. 57. Exhibit 57 is a true copy ofa Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual "effective"
May 25,2012. This document is Deposition Exhibit 114. 58. Exhibit 58 is a true copy of a redlined version of a Columbia County Jail Inmate
Manual "effective" May 25, 2012. This document is Deposition Exhibit 115. 59. Exhibit 59 is a true copy of a Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual "effective"
June 18,2012. This document is Deposition Exhibit 148. 60. Exhibit 60 is a true copy of a Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual "effective"
July 3, 2012. This document is Deposition Exhibit 149. 61. Exhibit 61 is a true copy of the Columbia County Jail Inmate Mail Policy dated
January 2, 2008. This document is Deposition Exhibit 51. 62. Exhibit 62 is a true copy of Columbia County Jail Inmate Mail Policy J603-R05
"effective" October 21,2011. The document states: "Supersedes: Inmate Mail Policy Revised July 19, 2011."

DECLARATION OF KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN IN SUPPORT OF PLF'S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (CV 12-71-SI) - 8
9870.05 fi072201

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 87 Filed 09/13/12 Page 9 of 11

63. Exhibit 63 is a true copy of Columbia County Jail Inmate Mail Policy J603-R08 "effective" May 25, 2012. The document states: "Supersedes Inmate Mail Policy Revised February 10,2012." This document is Deposition Exhibit 104.
64. Exhibit 64 is a true copy of Columbia County Jail Inmate Mail Policy J603-R08 "effective" May 25, 2012. The document states: "Supersedes Inmate Mail Policy Revised May 25, 2012." This document is Deposition Exhibit 105.
65. Exhibit 65 is a true copy of Columbia County Jail Inmate Mail Policy J603-R10 "effective" July 5, 2012. The document states: "Supersedes Inmate Mail Policy Revised June 18, 2012."
66. Exhibit 66 is a true copy of the Columbia County Jail "Inmate Mail Guide." This document is Deposition Exhibit 101.
67. Exhibit 67 is a true copy of Plaintiffs Notice of Deposition of30(b)(6) Designee of the Columbia County Sheriffs Office Re: Processing of Prisoner Mail and Mail Policy. This deposition took place on May 8 and May 9, 2012.
68. Exhibit 68 is a true copy of excerpts from Defendant Jeff Dickerson's Third Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs First Interrogatories and Requests for Production, dated August 31,2012.
69. Exhibit 69 is a true copy of excerpts from Defendants' Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs Second Interrogatories and Requests for Production to All Defendants, dated August 17, 2012.
70. Exhibit 70 is a true copy of Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs First Requests for Admissions to All Defendants, dated August 14, 2012.
71. Exhibit 71 is a true copy of a still shot from the video recording taken at the Columbia County Jail during Plaintiffs Site Inspection and FRCP 30(b)(6) Deposition regarding mail processing, taken on May 9,2012. The individual shown is the Sheriffs Office's FRCP 30(b)(6) designee Sergeant Raquel Miller. As explained in Plaintiffs memorandum and Sergeant Miller's testimony, the basket shown contains the Jail's incoming mail for one day, and

DECLARATION OF KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN IN SUPPORT OF PLF'S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (CV 12-71-SI) - 9
9870.05 fi072201

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 87 Filed 09/13/12 Page 10 of 11
the postcards held by Sergeant Miller and in front of her, on the desk, are the Jail's outgoing mail for one day.
72. Exhibit 72 is a true copy of photograph taken at the Columbia County Jail during Plaintiffs Site Inspection taken on May 8 or 9,2012. This is a photograph of one side of the Jail's "Law Library" which is three-shelf cart.
73. Exhibit 73 is a true copy of photograph taken at the Columbia County Jail during Plaintiffs Site Inspection taken on May 8 or 9,2012. This is a photograph of the other side of the Jail's "Law Library."
74. Exhibit 74 is a true copy of a Columbia County Sheriffs Office Inmate Grievance Form by prisoner Joshua Cartrette and the Jail's response dated January 30, 2010.
75. Exhibit 75 is a true copy of a Columbia County Sheriffs Office Inmate Grievance Form by prisoner Donald Vanmeter dated January 14,2012, and the Jail's response.
76. Exhibit 76 is a true copy of the August 2012 Issue of Prison Legal News. 77. Plaintiff made a good faith effort through letter, phone, and email communications with Defendants, to resolve the issues presented in Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, but the parties were unable to do so. I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States and State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. DATED this 13th day of September, 2012, at Seattle, Washington.
IslKatherine C. Chamberlain Katherine C. Chamberlain

DECLARATION OF KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN IN SUPPORT OF PLF'S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (CV 12-71-SI) -10
9870.05 fi072201

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 87 Filed 09/13/12 Page 11 of 11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on September 13, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing to the
Clerk of the Court using the CMlECF system which will send notification of such filing to the
following: • Marc D. Blackman marc@ransomblackman.com,pat@ransomblackman.com • Steven A. Kraemer sak@hartwagner.com,rcd@hartwagner.com • Gregory R. Roberson grr@hartwagner.com,cej@hartwagner.com • Lynn S. Walsh walsh@europa.com • Lance Weber lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org,ahull@humanrightsdefensecenter.org
MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS
lsi Katherine C. Chamberlain KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN OSB #042580 (206) 622-1604 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

DECLARATION OF KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN IN SUPPORT OF PLF'S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY ruDGMENT (CV 12-71-SI) -11
9870.05 fi072201

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 87-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT 1
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY mDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 1; Page 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 87-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 2
NAME __________________ BOOKING NO. _ _ _ _ _ __ MAIL STOP 33
I"r"ll ,",-r'\J
COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF 901 PORT AVENUE
ST.HELENS,OREGON 97051
To:

Joe Meek - Oregon's First Sheriff(ca. 1865)

_..,.-. __... .,----..,-.,......,.,....,_._...,=-_---0-----.- --P._-- __ .__
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 1; Page 2 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 87-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 2
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY mDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 2; Page 1 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 87-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 3
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 3; Page 1 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 87-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT 4
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 4; Page 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 87-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 2
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 4; Page 2 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 87-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 3

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERlFF

Date:

March 23,2010

To:

Corrections Division!All Inmates ofthe Columbia County Jail

From:

Bryan L. Cutright Sr.lSergeant

Subject: Mail Procedure Changes.

Effective April 1) 2010, the Columbia County Jail will be changing the manner in which we handle inmate mail. All mail to and from the inmates of the Columbia County Jail will be in the form of a postcard. Ifmail is received at the jail for any inmate in any form. other than a
postcard it will be returned to sender. The only exceptions to this new procedural change are er
Attorney and Official mail. For a complete copy ofthe entire mail roles please read the mail
section in the Columbia County Jail inmate manual has been provided to you.

The below information has been posted to the Columbia County web site and is available for all to view. In addition to the website we have flyers available for your family and friends to pick up at the Columbia County Sheriff's Office.

Columbia County Jail Mail Procedures: Effective Aprill, 2010 the Columbia County Sheriff's Office is changing the procedures that apply to inmate mail.

MAIL VIOLATIONS: (Will result in the post card(s) being returned to sender)

*

No Inmate Name

*

Incomplete Return Address

*

Stickers of any kind (Includes address labels)

**'

Rubber Inked Stamps Tape

*

Lipstick

*

Colored Pencils

*

Paperclips / Staples etc.

*

Correction Tape / Fluid

*

Crayon

* Paint

*

Watercolor

*

Food I Beverage Stains

S:\MEMOS\201O\MAlL2010

cc 000192

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 3; Page 2 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 87-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 3

* . Perfume / Cologne

Anything.that would threaten or be detrimental to'the safety, security and orderly operation of

the Jail, anything gang

or any sexual conduct will be considered a mail violation and

placed in the Inmate's property.

Legal/Professional Mail Rilles: Inmate legal mail and professional mail rules have not changed.

Mail Definitions and Frequently Asked Questions:

Incomplete return address: Return address is missing either part of the address OJ; first and last name of sender. No Inmate Name: Inmate's first and last names are NOT on the post card.

Dead Mailed: There is no return address. In this case the postcard is returned to the Post Office.

What happens to the postcard I send to an inmate when it arrives at the Facility? After the post card has been cleared through administration, it is reviewed for mail violations. If a violation is found, the Deputy will complete a Mail Violation Form and the mail will either be .returned to sender or placed in the inmate's property until their release. The inmate will receive a copy ofthe violation form that will explain the violation.

Can I send a care package to an Inmate? Care packages may be purchased through www.columbia.lcaredirect.com. That website is also available on the Sheriff's Office website. Only those care packages will be allowed for the inmate.

Can Inmates have access to Books, Magazines, and Newspapers? The Columbia County Jail has Books and/or periodicals available fOF inmates while they are incarcerated, if family members wish to mail any book, hardbound or otherwise, must be directly from the publisher or bookstore via the U.S. Mail. These items must either be religious OJ:' educational in nature and·determined by the facility admiirlstration. Newspaper subscriptions may be purchased to be delivered by the newspaper to the facility at regular delivery times methods. Magazines are not allowed inside the facility. .

Religious Materials: Inmates can request a Bible from the Law Library. Inmates can also attend a religious program and receive religious materials from the Columbia County Sheriff's Office Volunteer who facilitates that particular program.

Bryan L. Cutright, Sr. 30771 Sergeant

S:\MEMOS\201O\MAJL 2010

CC 000193
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 3; Page 3 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 87-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 3

Date: To:

OIL I
E. Iff'
Jeffrey M. DffcDu!;rsc)l11J, SG1Jerffffff

AdldlJress: 901 PortAve., St. Helens, OR 97051 J?lI1lone: (503) 366-4611 JFax: (503) 366-4644 Web Address: www.co.columbia.or.us/sheriff
. . =--=====:S:::===:;J

MEMORANDUM OF UN]])).lElRS1rANIDlING COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF

March 23,2010 Corrections Division/All Inmates ofthe Columbia County Jail Bryan,L. Cutright Sr.lSergeant

Effective April!, 2010, the Columbia County Jail will be changing the manner in which we handle inmate mail. All mail to and from the inmates ofthe Columbia County Jail will be in the form of a postcard. Ifmail is received at the jail for any inmate in any form other than a postcard it will be returned to sender. The only exceptions to this new procedural change are er Attorney and Official mail. For a complete copy ofthe entire mail rules please read the mail section in the Columbia County Jail inmate manual that has been provided to you.

The below information has been posted to the Coltunbia County web site and is available for all to view. In addition to the website we have flyers available for your family and friends to pick up at the Columbia County Sheriffs Office.

Cob.llmlbia COUlll1ty Jain MaiJl ProcedlUllres: Effective Aprill, 2010 the Columbia County Sheriff's Office is changing the procedures that apply to inmate mail.

MAIL VIOLATIONS: (Will result in the post card(s) being returned to sender)

* No Inmate Name

* Incomplete Return Address

* Stickers of any kind (Includes address labels)

Rubber Inked Stamps

.

* Tape * Lipstick * Colored Pencils * Paperclips / Staples etc. * Correction Tape I Fluid * Crayon * Paint * Watercolor * Food I Beverage Stains

S:\MEMOS\2010\MA1L 2010

liEXHIBIT •..........
i········<I'Dl..;
iall.

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 2; Page 2 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 87-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 3

*' Perfume I Cologne

Anything that would threaten or be detrimental to the safety, security and orderly operation of the Jail, anything gang related, or any sexual conduct will be considered a mail violation and placed in the Imnate's property.

lLegallll?roft'essnonaR Maim Runes: Inmate legal mail and professional mail rules have not changed.

Mail Definitions and Frequently Asked Questions:

JIncompHete ret1llllJ."llU ad!d!ress: Return address is missing either part ofthe address or first and last

name of sender.

'

No Inmate Name: Inmate's first and last names are NOT on the post card.

Dead! Mailed!: There is no return address. In this case the postcard is returned to the Post

Office.

I,

What lInappen:s to the postcardJI send to an inmate wlhten lit aJrrives at the JFacftHiity? After the post card has been cleared through administration, it is reviewed for mail violations. If a violation is found, the Deputy will complete a Mail Violation Form and the mail will either be returned to sender or placed in the inmate's property until their release. The inmate will receive a copy of the violation form that will explain the violation.

CanJI send a care package to an Inmate? Care packages may be purchased through www.colulnbia.Icaredirect.com. That website is also available on the Sheriff's Office website. Only those care packages will be allowed for the inmate.

Can Inmates lIlave access to Books,

and Newspapers? The Columbia County Jail

has Books and/or periodicals available for inmates while they are incarcerated, if family members wish to

mail any book, hardbound or otherwise, must be sent directly from the publisher or bookstore via'the U.S.

Mail. These items mUllst eB.ther be religions or educatfiona! illll mlltanre alllld determ!.ned by the fadJIity

administration. Newspaper subscriptions may be purchased to be delivered by the newspaper to the

facility at regular delivery times and methods. Magazines are not allowed inside the facility.

JRelJiglio1lJls Materials: Inmates can request a Bible from the Law Library. Inmates can also

attend a religious

and receive religious materials from the Columbia County Sheriff's

Office Volunteer facilitates that particular program.

,;II!

rQQ£'"-Bryan L. Cudtrlight, Sr. 30771 Sergeant

S:\MEMOS\201O\MAIL 2010

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 2; Page 3 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 87-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT 5
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 5; Page 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 87-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 2

Origin: Exported on 2012/05/30 10:59:47 AM with GWAVA Reveal From: "Andy Moyer" <andy. moyer> Subject Re: Mail Ink Stamp To: "Cutright. Bryant! <Bryan.Cutright@co.columbia.oLus> Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 11 :29:29 -0700 ;<.-Priority: 3
Indy 9.00.10

'{es I'll get it taken care of

Andy Moyer, Undersheriff

Columbia County Sheriffs Office

901 Port Avenue
st. Helens, OR 97051

Office *

Fax -

503-366-4644

Dispatch * 503*397-1521

On Jul 1"1,2011, at 10:47 AM, "Bryan Cutright" <Bryan.Cutright@co.columbia.oLus>wrote:

> Andy, > > VVould it be possible to get a stamp for the Mail that is similar to the format below: > > INSPECTED BY COLUMBI COUNTY :> CORRECTIONAL FACILITY > > RETURN TO SENDER
> NOT HERE > CONTRABAND > INTER FACILITY > REFUSE AND > ViOLATES SECURITY
>
> This would speed up the mail handling process substantially.
>
> Thank You
> > '
> Sergeant Cutright

CC 001833
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 5; Page 2 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 87-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 5
EXHIBIT 6
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY mDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 6; Page 1 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 87-7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 7
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY mDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 7; Page 1 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 87-7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 3

Inmate Mail

COlU 81A COUNTY'
SHERIFf'S OFfiCE
Jeffrey M. Dickerson, Sheriff

Inmate Mail

)';'J <21 E.i : Recent Headlines

: r Mission /' Contact LIs
; r Columbia County Website , Press Releases , f· CUlTent Inmate Ust

i Divisions

Enforcement

'. t Patrol

. t·1erine

, Criminal

: ,.. Animal Control

Corrections , r Inmate Visiting

. • Inmate Mail

1 Inmate Phones : !. Inmate Money Accounts

, • Inmate Housing Fees

• Inmate Property

t .Request for Proposals

Support Services

j. Civil and Records Processing

:.. ..

....

: Get Involved

.... f

I VIPS " • Search and Rescue , !' Mounted Posse

: .

__ .......... .

Information • Jail Inmate Census

Facilities ,. Firing Range

Incoming Mail:

•

Thwart

Incoming Mail will be only accepted In the form of commercially-produced postcards Dr a photograph used as a postcard. The mall is delivered to the Sheriffs Office Monday through Saturday, excluding holidays.

Daytime Robberv near
ScaI2rlllos.e.
It CCSO remresl's public q!;sjc;tance jn identjfying

Address Inmate's Name (Booking Number) Columbia County Jail

robberY sJJspect .,. CCSO Search and ResClIe ;
locates Body of MIS<;jog !

901 Port Avenue St. Helens, Oregon 97051

• COLUMB1A CO!JNTY SHERIFf REQUESTING

Prohibited Mail

pllBI IC'S HEI P TO fIND

Effective April 1, 2010 the Columbia County Sheriff's Office is changing the

... MISSING WOJ:1AN .

procedures that apply to inmate mail.

Your Personal SaFety

MAIL VIOLATIONS:

(Will result In the post card(s) being returned to sender)

. • CCSO for Kids

* No Inmate Name

.

.. .

'" Incomplete Return Address
* Stickers of any kind (Includes address labels) * Rubber Inked Stamps * Tape * lipstick * Colored Pencils *' Paperclips I Staples etc.
:I< Correction Tape I Fluid * Crayon

"ceso is on' facebookl.
ceso UP CLOSE
Informational VideQ 00 your ShetiFrs Office

:I< Paint
* Watercolor or colored markers * Food I Beverage Sta1l1s
* Perfume I Cologne
* Any unidentifiable substance

The following mail will not be received or sent from the facility and will be returned to the sender.

1. Mail from one inmate to another at this facility requires a supervisor's approval. 2. Mail that threatens blackmail or extortion. 3. Mail that concerns sending contraband Into or out of our jail. 4. Mail that concerns escape plans. 5. Mail that concerns plans for activities in violation of the jail rules. 6. Mail that concerns plans for criminal activity. 7. Mall that contains informatIon which, if communicated, would create a danger of violence or physical harm to a person 8. Mall that is sensational. Sensationalism Is writing or other printed material that poses a threat to the security, safety, or good order of the jail. 9. Mail that contains any contraband materials. 10. No personal packages will be accepted through the mail or by the Sheriffs Office Clerks. 11. Polaroid or other instant developing photographs. 12. Picture frames or picture folders. 13. Photographs larger than 5" x 7". 14. Postage stampsi blank writing paper, or blank envelopes.
is. Mall that contains gang-related writings, drawings, or symbols on the outside of the
envelope or letter. 16. Mall that contains a foreign substance, bodily fluid, perfume or cologne. 17. Mail written In code or suspected code. 18. Sexually explicit materials.

http://www.co.columbia.or.us/sheriff/index.php?option=com_content&view:earticle&ld=5&1temid=2S[1/19/2012 2:12:49 PM]
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 7; Page 2 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 87-7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 3

· 1,1lnate"Maii

19. Mall that encourages or instructs In a commission of a crime. 20. Mail falsely labeled "Official Mail," 21. Photographs that are not printed by a professional commercial source (photo labs or kiosks) will not be accepted. (home printer produced pictures on regular paper are not allowed.) 22. Stickers, tape, and return address labels.
Legal Professional Mail Rules: Inmate legal mail and professional mall rules have not changed.
Publications:
We do not accept magazines. Books must be sent directly from the publisher or bookstore. An inmate may receive no more than three books per month.
Mail Definitions and Frequently Asked Questions:
Incomplete return address: Return address is missing either part of the address or first and last name of sender.
No Inmate Name: Inmate's first and last names are NOT on the post card.
Dead Mailed: There is no return address. In this case the postcard is returned to the Post Office.
What happens to the postcard I send to an inmate when it arrives at the Facility? After the post card has' been cleared through administration, It is reviewed for mail Violations. If a violation js found, the Deputy will complete a Mail Violation Form and the mail will be placed in the inmate's property until their release, or It will be returned to the sender.
Can I send a care package to an Inmate? Inmates housed in the Jail cannot receive care packages of any kind through the mall. Care packages which are not mall In can be purchased through www.columbia.jcaredirect.com. We only accept care packages by this method.
Can Inmates have access to Books, Magazines, and Newspapers? The Columbia County Jail has certain legal publications as well as books for entertainment, and some faith-based materials. Books may be procured from outside the jail, however any such book, hardbound or otherwise, must be sent directly from the publisher or bookstore via the U.S. Mail. Newspapers may be subscribed to in the inmate's name for delivery to the jail.
Magazines: Are not allowed inside the faCility.
Religious Materials: Inmates can request a Bible from the Law Ubrary. Inmates can also attend a religious program and receive religious materials from the Columbia County Sheriff's Office Volunteer who facilitates that particular program.
Last Updated on Friday, 06 August 2010 16:48

Columbia County Sheriff's Office 901 Port Ave., St. Helens, OR 97051
(503) 366-4611 I Emergencies: Dial 911
© 2009 Columbia County Sheriff's Office

Valid WIML and kSS..

http://www.co.columbia.or.us/sherlff/index.php?option=com_content&view=artlcle&id=5&1temid=25[1/19/2012 2:12:49 PM]
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 7; Page 3 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 87-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 5

Subject: Fwd: Internet (County Email)

Fro m:

Jeff Mansheim (Jeff.Mansheim(Cilco.columbia.or.us)

To:

jeff_mansheim(glyahoo.com;

Date:

Wednesday, March 17,2010 3:55 PM

----- Forwarded Message ----Jeff, Can you add this info1111ation to the Jail side ofthe S.O. \Veb site? TIm is a change to the ll1ail policy. Thank you
Sgt. Cutright

qSEXHIBIT
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 6; Page 2 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 87-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 5

Inmate Mail Procedures

Columbia County Jail Mail Procedures

Effective March 1,20] 0 the Columbia County Sheriffs Office is changing the procedures that
apply to inmate mail.

MAIL VIOLATIONS: (Will resu1t in the post card(s) being returned to sender)

*

No Inmate Name

*

Incomplete Return Address

*

Stickers of any king (Includes address labels)

*

Rubber Inked Stamps

*

Tape

*

Lipstick

*

Colored Pencils

*

Paperclips / Staples etc.

*

Correction Tape / Fluid

*

Crayon

*

Paint

*

Watercolor

*

Food / Beverage Stains

*

Perfume / Cologne

Anything that would threaten or be detrimental to the safety, security and orderly operation of the

Jail, a,nything gang

or any sexual conduct will be considered a mail violation and placed

in the

s property.

Legal Professional Mail Rules:

Inmate legal mail and professional mail rules have not changed.

Mail Definitions and Frequently Asked Questions:

Incomplete return address: RetU111 address is missing either part of the address or first and last name of sender.

No Inmate Name: Inmate's firs and last names are NOT on the post card.

Dead Mailed: There is no return address. In this case the postcard is retumed to the Post Office.

What happens to the postcard 1 send to an inmate when it arrives at the Facility? After the post card has been cleared through administration, it is reviewed for mail violations. If a violation is found, the Deputy wil1 complete a Mail Violation Form and the mail will be

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 6; Page 3 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 87-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 4 of 5

placed in the inmate' s property unti I their release. The inmate \vill receive a copy of the violation form that will explain the violation.

Can I send a care package to an Inmate?

Inmates housed in the Jail cannot receive care packages of any kind.

Can Inmates have access to

Magazines, and Newspapers?

The Columhia Count)' Jail Books and/or periodicals may be procured from outsidL' the jail. however, any such book, hardhound or otherwise, must hL'

sent directly from the pl1blisher or hookstore I'ia the U.S.

These items mllst either he religiolls or educational in nature and determined hy the

facility administration.

rV1agazines: Are not allowed inside the facility.

Religious Materials: Inmates can request a Bible from the Law Library. Inmates can also attend a religious program and receive religious materials from the Columbia County Sheriffs Office Volunteer \vho facilitates that particular program.

1
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 6; Page 4 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 87-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 5 of 5

Subject: Re: Internet

Fro m:

Jeff Mansheim Ueff_mansheim<a;yahoo.com)

To:

bryan.cutright(l}'co.columbia.or.us;

Date:

Thursday. March 18. 2010 9:45 PM

Done

Internet
Wednesday, March 17, 2010 3:55:02 PM From:
nBryan Cutright" < Bl!"yarfl.Cultlf"oght@Co.columbia.or.us> To:
"Jeff Mlansheim" <.Jeff.Mansheim@Z;o.columbia.or.us> Jeff,
Can yOU! add this information to the Jail side of the s.o. Web site?
This is a change to the maiD policy.
Thank you
Sgt. Cutright

4
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 6; Page 5 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 87-7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 7
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY mDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 7; Page 1 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 87-7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 3

Inmate Mail

COlU 81A COUNTY'
SHERIFf'S OFfiCE
Jeffrey M. Dickerson, Sheriff

Inmate Mail

)';'J <21 E.i : Recent Headlines

: r Mission /' Contact LIs
; r Columbia County Website , Press Releases , f· CUlTent Inmate Ust

i Divisions

Enforcement

'. t Patrol

. t·1erine

, Criminal

: ,.. Animal Control

Corrections , r Inmate Visiting

. • Inmate Mail

1 Inmate Phones : !. Inmate Money Accounts

, • Inmate Housing Fees

• Inmate Property

t .Request for Proposals

Support Services j. Civil and Records Processing

:.. ..

....

: Get Involved

.... f

I VIPS " • Search and Rescue , !' Mounted Posse

: .

__ .......... .

Information • Jail Inmate Census

Facilities ,. Firing Range

Incoming Mail:

•

Thwart

Incoming Mail will be only accepted In the form of commercially-produced postcards Dr a photograph used as a postcard. The mall is delivered to the Sheriffs Office Monday through Saturday, excluding holidays.

Daytime Robberv near
ScaI2rlllos.e.
It CCSO remresl's public q!;sjc;tance jn identjfying

Address Inmate's Name (Booking Number) Columbia County Jail

robberY sJJspect .,. CCSO Search and ResClIe ;
locates Body of MIS<;jog !

901 Port Avenue St. Helens, Oregon 97051

• COLUMB1A CO!JNTY SHERIFf REQUESTING

Prohibited Mail

pllBI IC'S HEI P TO fIND

Effective April 1, 2010 the Columbia County Sheriff's Office is changing the

... MISSING WOJ:1AN .

procedures that apply to inmate mail.

Your Personal SaFety

MAIL VIOLATIONS:

(Will result In the post card(s) being returned to sender)

. • CCSO for Kids

* No Inmate Name

.

.. .

'" Incomplete Return Address
* Stickers of any kind (Includes address labels) * Rubber Inked Stamps * Tape * lipstick * Colored Pencils *' Paperclips I Staples etc.
:I< Correction Tape I Fluid * Crayon

"ceso is on' facebookl.
ceso UP CLOSE
Informational VideQ 00 your ShetiFrs Office

:I< Paint
* Watercolor or colored markers * Food I Beverage Sta1l1s
* Perfume I Cologne
* Any unidentifiable substance

The following mail will not be received or sent from the facility and will be returned to the sender.

1. Mail from one inmate to another at this facility requires a supervisor's approval. 2. Mail that threatens blackmail or extortion. 3. Mail that concerns sending contraband Into or out of our jail. 4. Mail that concerns escape plans. 5. Mail that concerns plans for activities in violation of the jail rules. 6. Mail that concerns plans for criminal activity. 7. Mall that contains informatIon which, if communicated, would create a danger of violence or physical harm to a person 8. Mall that is sensational. Sensationalism Is writing or other printed material that poses a threat to the security, safety, or good order of the jail. 9. Mail that contains any contraband materials. 10. No personal packages will be accepted through the mail or by the Sheriffs Office Clerks. 11. Polaroid or other instant developing photographs. 12. Picture frames or picture folders. 13. Photographs larger than 5" x 7". 14. Postage stampsi blank writing paper, or blank envelopes.
is. Mall that contains gang-related writings, drawings, or symbols on the outside of the
envelope or letter. 16. Mall that contains a foreign substance, bodily fluid, perfume or cologne. 17. Mail written In code or suspected code. 18. Sexually explicit materials.

http://www.co.columbia.or.us/sheriff/index.php?option=com_content&view:earticle&ld=5&1temid=2S[1/19/2012 2:12:49 PM]
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 7; Page 2 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 87-7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 3

· 1,1lnate"Maii

19. Mall that encourages or instructs In a commission of a crime. 20. Mail falsely labeled "Official Mail," 21. Photographs that are not printed by a professional commercial source (photo labs or kiosks) will not be accepted. (home printer produced pictures on regular paper are not allowed.) 22. Stickers, tape, and return address labels.
Legal Professional Mail Rules: Inmate legal mail and professional mall rules have not changed.
Publications:
We do not accept magazines. Books must be sent directly from the publisher or bookstore. An inmate may receive no more than three books per month.
Mail Definitions and Frequently Asked Questions:
Incomplete return address: Return address is missing either part of the address or first and last name of sender.
No Inmate Name: Inmate's first and last names are NOT on the post card.
Dead Mailed: There is no return address. In this case the postcard is returned to the Post Office.
What happens to the postcard I send to an inmate when it arrives at the Facility? After the post card has' been cleared through administration, It is reviewed for mail Violations. If a violation js found, the Deputy will complete a Mail Violation Form and the mail will be placed in the inmate's property until their release, or It will be returned to the sender.
Can I send a care package to an Inmate? Inmates housed in the Jail cannot receive care packages of any kind through the mall. Care packages which are not mall In can be purchased through www.columbia.jcaredirect.com. We only accept care packages by this method.
Can Inmates have access to Books, Magazines, and Newspapers? The Columbia County Jail has certain legal publications as well as books for entertainment, and some faith-based materials. Books may be procured from outside the jail, however any such book, hardbound or otherwise, must be sent directly from the publisher or bookstore via the U.S. Mail. Newspapers may be subscribed to in the inmate's name for delivery to the jail.
Magazines: Are not allowed inside the faCility.
Religious Materials: Inmates can request a Bible from the Law Ubrary. Inmates can also attend a religious program and receive religious materials from the Columbia County Sheriff's Office Volunteer who facilitates that particular program.
Last Updated on Friday, 06 August 2010 16:48

Columbia County Sheriff's Office 901 Port Ave., St. Helens, OR 97051
(503) 366-4611 I Emergencies: Dial 911
© 2009 Columbia County Sheriff's Office

Valid WIML and kSS..

http://www.co.columbia.or.us/sherlff/index.php?option=com_content&view=artlcle&id=5&1temid=25[1/19/2012 2:12:49 PM]
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 7; Page 3 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 87-8 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT 8
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 8; Page 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 87-8 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 2
Inmate Mail
gfJ:L.U ... I.:IA,:llO'UlrV
E" If:F'S· ·'f.ICE

..........-:-_m....._i

. .' . ,;

i

..

i· . '.' . . . . . '. .

I} Mounted Posse

i

. '". _._._,_,,_,.,._.,1

• I'1an Drowns Resclling
Son frOm Cold Columbia
Ehret
'. Deputies Arrest Child
Rape Suspect

• Sheriffs Office Releases

2011 Annual Report

• , Neighbors Thwart

:

B!lrglary near

. " . . . ".,

'.

'I

y..''''"'....

.. .•.

"'1

! '':'C<:50 for Kids
! ..... '. '.

!,; .

...

..J't

. '''C¢SOison' i ..._. :.....!

Columbia County Sheriff's Office 901 Port Ave., St. Helens, OR 97051
(503) 366-4611 I Emergendes: Dial 911
© 2009 Columbia County Sheriff's Office

Valid X!:!IML and cs.s..
EXHIBIT

http://www.co.columbia.or.us/sheriffjindex.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=S&ltemld=25[Sj7j2012 5:29:00 PM]
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 8; Page 2 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 87-9 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 9
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERlNE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 9; Page 1 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 87-9 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 3

Inmate Mail

Page 1 Qf.2

... I'il\le

CIJt\lUIb'.3COUI:ty W!ilYil:'l-

It

p,(t;*

e'nferb\ment
"atrol
·t:4tll'Hi.
CO:';!.iCtions Ij,sll:fn'\l
)llmnle'<l1:;JlI)yJ;,T.'(lIj(\t!;.
iruVr.Ahl
..ii:cfu
eMI a\l!1

:;lI;,llt.tliil1ll,Rerow
, t:'.oo'IL(i<!
tnfurl'l1£liiol'l
,/:'o It

IllIl,1nteMail ?OLICY

Jallln!lli·tlandfu'l'J

SiJppott CIl\ it'l.'llatt!'1; Il!."ed to commttllit:.:1iu In

to c.arry

out

Jlmf(1!t1lt1 l('1rnll,' and ccmmunlty lies. The

31$.0) CMf!t

Jall's iHW,d,

OPllfbtklos pl'e<..erJu Ih;: 9o:xi

and !k.<.ul'l!yof OW

facilitv,

and ,stafr.,

Qntl, Uill':rol!ovlm9

1\0$ bt."'!.!i\

\0

Inrilate

public

",;j/h o\ir

'The
(;bit
Miiii"Guida, bekli..••

WIley or tl'ta i.s thilt jillllllllt
IQ ilrN! i'nt
'

SUlI!!f<
to'ulq restrldJolls in -Cur]'nmtite

• Hi)Jl, SOalr!lrtl CQ1uml:)i3

..

co

'

r,iear

Y¢\lr

Si.lf'Oty

(,(;110 ti!1'

lIllUflt\.'S may !;C(lU ar reCi!fv<: .J)C"f'JlJlliilmall an r.oSICllrd!i an!, Cl<Olpt' ill S\leGlrlc, tircumstanCI15

.

!lli'llt;. Pcr!'.O(llil

Ij!.illl to,OJ' frolt\ fiimily,

l!tail

Ii:l9Wl;if(ll;llll

Qr 111111:,

mall//:i\Il!t tlm!l.

Is.

Jf.i il.ll!, U,S.,

ville; a.

,H/,2'" tilll i {H/2'" \'110&. inmate$ j1.Ul'i f1:itcive fXJ!.t<;,ards:

with IlhoWgrilphf.; 0(1 g,lle Side oS Gflol.'lt.a,e'iine USJ l'cst£!1

cc:so 1$.001

mll!1lt&s:cellt-lot

dj:c-r;l1y (!'om,

3 'cn

l'riaillli!II'lefy,da';'.

lniuate: "iall

'lnlOlllt!' 1l11lil ,:lust hove 'the ·Iom'/lic's. bocmiJ)Q ,mlnlblJ( (IS part, of 1hf!tK!drcssee Informlltlon.

Itlllil 1I11l!il ililVll1l return

to iJ)Cltldt! HH! "Ioma ani!. lIdufessor,thli t(lnI:Jer.

firo/limt'l!r;f

I. Con\lIfns-

A. "'t'e<Jls or physkallmttn/ lJlac\(riWlI, e:"lOrtiOJI, tit oIhor i:.rhuln<il iiC.Uvfty;

c.B; lili)ilS f9r

Zlctivity, Cr

iulc.s;'

D. !tlr"rnlatlon that, it conw!ye(l, !;ouk! resuilin

harm to

E. S(!K'U;)\!Y ll'<'Prl'clt matl..'(la\s;

f,

U.

bmnpl.!!llill!,'d lO

as;

(t) '{Z)

i.16re"tMh

t!l(lti

fiy

1
iii

i
iI

sirlola

p;eWooi,l!I:llltJtIUIiS/iliIiC.qr

lnj)t(lll>fritllng:;'

<")(3)' C(i;)trclltif1 fCtd\lJl

u!!ilileii by OilS 'i75:S25': such £is: '

Ca) aO(lily flulu's'

(II)

(Il) Gllie'cr.paliil, .

(I)

$\aTr'l t)r i'Xlcr:\hiltinClI<:<1ii!,!l'{I"qi<l!gilsu/}5tlihcd

'2. Is wnlte:1 in code C( 'llJ.5jl«tCll:tr.odlt

.

..,: :5/2-1/2012,

1,1t
CC001545
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 9; Page 2 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 87-9 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 3

Inmate Mail

Page 2 of2

3. Was a fonn of wrltteo communtatlOn not sent throullh the USPS or other approved systemj
4. Is to or from I!I vidlm of a aime for whidl the Inmate Is 11'1 custody In either prelrial oc sentenced status;
S. Would vIolate a court order:
6. May produce a hostile work environment, sudl as sexual harassment;
7. 15 a credit or deferred billing transaction, such as "bill me later" suhscrlptions or merchandise bought on credit or coIlect·on-delwery t!!i'mSi
8. Is fraiJdulentiy marked as legal or affldal mall.

Appeals
Both the Inmate anrl an outslde persotI have the right tD appeal a dedslon 10 retum or confiscate Inmate maD. With Ye!Y limited exceptions, the JaU will p.!Ovide a Hotlt:e of Prohibited Mall to both the sender and addressee when Inmate Inccmlng mall is returned or confISCated. The Helice of Prohibited Mall will explain the reason why ahe Inmate mall was retumed or ccnfiscated. Tbe appeal process (or outgOIng Inmate maU follows .he jail's normal grievanCe process. The appeal pnx:ess for everyone else requires a letter explaining the reason ror the appeal. "nd provldin9 c:ontact information. The Jail will respond wlthirl 15 days of receipt of the letter.

US( Updalt:d on

16 201 16:55

Columbia County Sheriff's Office 901 Port Ave., St. Helens, OR 97051 (503) 366-'1611 I Emergendes: Dial 911
2009 Columbia County Slterllrs Office

Valid XHTML and CSS.

http://www.co.columbia.or.uslsherifflindex.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5... 5/21/2012
CC001546·
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 9; Page 3 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 87-10 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT 10
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 10; Page 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 87-10 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 2

himate··Mail

Page 1. oJ:- 1.

Off.';:.fr N7;;<il-':l
{,<jLlUty Wt:b1::t:i!'
J.iltniJ;:,&
r..mCt'::l:.Illel'lr
Ct'!ntrol Corr.c,CilotlS
lcttn;tte \Iwll¢-l!

IJlOm\.e· kait

Nan Pbl1c:y

TIle Calut'11\'lI,l COllllty l.oillille l'i1J11

i!l. lJrldel'9oing

t.ld:;U!d s..'\On. In {I(muri'll•.any

r.ti!lm)rl'!() tT7'

Clelr((;:O(l to !lnd

t:'f InltllltC1s. S\lbloct to

Wi<li;l nmt':pt.bi1$

to

llrd;1

1\i:)Vt al'",Wed:

Ill,d

will 00

IJIJiiM

G-,:I\'ioQ

00

for

Illl.:f.

to.

of ·t.ne ·iliJotiC.

}.(J!t

;;. mati

S,dri

/.i[.4It

.Qi!iJ

Cclumi:l(l
I

..

Ci'Hl:i

..

Of Ike

l\i.u ..

..

J1h'liArl

!j?"r1!i";.:t

'YUUI' f'lm:;oMI Sl'ff,)t'{
c{:ror..'n
CCS:O 15

5er,litCt: .
lft1lS,

l(lililllitllre

C(1tfilt}' $o\'!'(iWt QI1ir:.e

•.

OR U105·!,

t

l',)lil1911

!i?

D:-.J!>ty

GO IUlnbh1..or

ex. php'?6 i?ti

ew-=articie&icfps.·'it..; 6/7/2012

.,1.,

Jh Wi

Ii 1

CC001547
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 10; Page 2 of 2

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 88 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT 11
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 11; Page 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 88 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 2

Inmate Mail

Page 1 of 1

Search

Main Nenu
Shentfs OffICe Home Page Mission . Contact Us Columbia County Website Press Releases Current Inmate List 2011 Annual Report

Divisions

Enf()l"Q!ment

Patrol

Marine

Criminal

Animal Control

Correctlons

Inmate Visiting

InmatE Mail

InmatE Phones

Inmate

Aa:oIJnts

inmatE Housmg Fees

Inmare Property

Request for Proposals

Support Services G1il and Remrds Processing

CHL and Fingerprinting

Get Involved
VIPS Search and Rescue MountEd POS5e Reserve Program

Information
Jail Inmate Census 2011 Annual Report

Facilities Firing Range

Inmate Mail

J,,:; ii:iI Recent Headlines

Mail Policy Undergoing Extensive Changes The Columbia County Inmate Mall Policy is undergoing extensive changes and revisions will be posted soon .
Last Updated on Tuesday, 12 June 2012 10:17

Deemed "HUM Success" •
S<lnJfQflLCold_CQJ!l(l1D.ia
• Deouties Arrest Child

•

Be.\eaSJ:s

2011 AnnyaJ...BgppJ:t

Your Personal Safety
ceso for Kids
Resourceful Links
I M I ' ceso is on facebook!

Columbia County Sheriff's Office 901 Port Ave., 5t. Helens, OR 97051
(503) 366-4611 I Emergendes: Dial 911
© 2009 Columbia county Sheriff's Office

Vaiid XtlIMJ.. and CS5.

CC 00.1898 http://www.co.columbia.or.us/sherifflindex.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5... 611312012
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 11; Page 2 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 88-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 12
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY mDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 12; Page 1 of 3

Inmate Mail

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 88-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 3
http://www.co.columbia.or.us/sherifflindex.php?option=com_content. ..

Search
Main Menu
Sheriff's Office Home Page Mission Contact Us Columbia County Website Press Releases Current Inmate Ust 2011 Annual Report
Divisions
Enforcement Patrol Marine Criminal Animal Control
Corrections Inmate Visiting Inmate Mall Inmate Phones Inmate Money Accounts Inmate Housing Fees Inmate Property Request for Proposals
Support Services Ovll and Records Processing CHL and Fingerprinting
Get Involved
VIPS Search and Rescue Mounted Posse Reserve Program
Information
Jail Inmate Census 2011 Annual Report
Facilities
Fhing Range

Inmate Mail

INMATE MAIL GUIDE
ThIs Guide Is Intended to be a summary of some of the provIsIons In the Inmate Mall Polley that may be of most Interest to members of the publIc. The Guide IS NOT Intended to be a complete descriptIon of all policIes related to Inmate Mal/, For detail please see the IoJniJle...MpjJ EalIJ:;y.
Policy
Jail mali-handling procedures support both the Inmates' and the public's need to communicate In writing, to carry out legal and official bUSiness, and maintain family and community ties. Procedures also meet the Jail's need for efficient operations that preserve the good order, safety, and security of the facility, Inmates, and staff. To that end, the following guide has been prepared to assist the public In complying with the Inmate Mall Policy.
The Jail's general Policy Is that It will not limit, censor, or restrict the volume, language, content, format or source of Inmate mall. However, some limitations are necessary for the security of Inmates, jail staff, and the public, as well as for the. efficient operation of the Jail.
Inmate Mail. Inmates may generally send and receive mall In any form delivered by the U.S. Postal Service. Personal property such as food, beverages, clothing and similar Items are not allowed to be mailed to and from Inmates and will be confiscated. Photographs are allowed provided they don't otherwise Violate the Policy.

" Sheriff's Office Announces SJ.lIDmer Self Defens.e Classes for Women
" Resclle Training EYeot Deemed "Huge Success"
.. Moo Drowns ReSCl.llng..5an from Cold Columbia Rlyer
.. D.s:putles Arrest Child Rape SUspect
Your Personal Safety
CCSO for Kids Resourceful Unks Women's Self Defense Classes
CCSO Is on facebookl

Publications. Inmates may receive publications, Including but not limited to, books, magazines, newsletters and newspapers. However, the publication must be mailed directly from the publisher, book club or a bookstore.
Addressing Inmate Mail. Inmate mall must have the Inmate's booking name as part of the addressee Information (booking number Is encouraged but not required). Incoming mall must have a retum address Including the name and address of the sender.

Prohibited Mail. Jail staff will not allow an Inmate to receive or send mall that1. Contains-
A. Threats of physical harm, blackmail, extortion, or other criminal activity; B. Plans for escape, criminal activity, or activity that violates jail rules; C. Gang-related material; D. Information that, If conveyed, could result In physical harm to someone; E. Sexually explicit materials; F. Inflammatory material; G. Contraband materials Including but not limited to such commonly mailed Items as:
(1) Books larger than 9 by 12 Inches or with plastiC or metal bindings; (2) Controlled substances as defined by ORS 475.005(6); (3) Foreign substances, such as: a) bodily fluids; b) lipstick or perfume; c) glue or paint; d) anything with an unusual stain or odor that Indicates a foreign substance may be present;

2. Is written In code or suspected code;

3. Was a form of written communication not sent through the USPS or other approved system;

4. Is to or from a victim of a crime that the Inmate Is In custody for In either pretrial or sentenced status;

5. Would violate a court order;

6. May produce a hostile work enVironment, such as sexual harassment;

7. Is a credit or deferred billing transaction, such as "bill me later" subscriptions or merchandise bought on credit or collect-on-delivery terms;

B. Is fraudulently marked as legal or official mall.

For more specific Information about prohibited mall please review

10f2

7/3/2012 10:20 PM

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 12; Page 2 of 3

Inmate Mail

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 88-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 3
http://www.co.columbia.or.us/sheriffi.index.php?option=com_content. ..

Appeals. Both the inmate and an outside person have the right to appeal a decision to

confiscate inmate mall. With very limited exceptions, the Jail will provide a Notice of Prohibited

Mall to both the sender and addressee when Inmate mall Is retumkjlumIDafriaJtaly Sliierffdl\$:.Gffice

of Prohibited Mall will explain the reason why the Inmate mall wiOOlefclmlEAl/llIr

will explain the appeals process. The appeal process for an

911

grievance process. The appeal process for everyone else requires a letter explaining the reason

for the appeal, and providing contact Information. The letter riWil.06fA

Office

from the date of the Prohibited Mall Notice. The Jail will respond within 15 days of receipt of the

letter.

Last Updated on Tuesday, 03 July 2012 15:16

Valid XJ:IIMJ. and

2of2

7/3/2012 10:20 PM

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 12; Page 3 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 88-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 13
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY·JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 13; Page 1 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 88-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT 14
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 14; Page 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 88-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 2

EXHIBIT
·... ..".
COLUlVffiIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
rnSTITUTION'S DMSION
, KI'fMAl'E GruEVANCE FORM[
INSTRlUCTIONS: Follow the rules 'in the Jrunate Handbook regarding the facility's grievance procedures. Fill in the blanks in the first two sections. If you need more room, use additional sheets ofpaper, but not fOI11l!3. If you want to grieve more than one issue, use a separate form for each issue.

Reason for Grievance (check one):
t ] conditions of cO,nfmement [ ] medical care [ ] general classification procedures

[ ] general discipline procedures [] participation in inmate programs

[ ] religious practices

telephone, mail and visitihg procedures [ ] other (be specific)

I*n*m**a*te*'*s*********0*.*m**-*t5***\?*'{*J.*,,*J)*}'*)e*,.*.t·*,\,,***********S*I*D*:******************C*e*l*l*: **3**-**\*q**,***********

Grievance: ::L r\.'iYl oC'(--e)J\ \"'\0

DUIODjilU! (\'\011 G\o\ic \1 ±}-)-a.l..=1

r',(1S- f \"'(i:

NJ\\·,· -\\':".\1 'n-'.ft:\ '-",Y-. t')\-\·\.c" V\(\n"\-;" J \1

Inma e S-l,gnaLml.r.e: t..............J \

(1"

f I -

v. inateITl'IDe: \- . -\\ 'i.' \D:oD f\,\

Recei'ving Deputy SigrIiture: - [Jill, r7ia2q

DPSST# S;;;/UJ/q

Date/Time:

\'

I, I

tJ . - . . J ' ,

J

Deputy's Signature:

. .

DPSST# 5il?IOJ

Date/Time: ...v jjl .i-s CD

Inmate's signature accepting deputy's resolution of grievance: ' I!

Date/Time:

/

*****************************************************************************************

upervisor's Signature:

':

Inmate's signature acceptin s.upervisor's resolution of grievance:

Administrators Review:

Date/Time

Date/Time:,¢144/i1 23kJ""
Date/Time:
cd6::dl' b<? bo

j 1ministrator's Signature

J.p., h

DP

Date/Time:

f It iSoc

--,-nate's signature accepting

resolution of grievanc .

*************************.*.*************************

Date/Time: .6) 'k .3'.;;,jq 1\Il)
*************************f ,

Distribution: White - Administrator's Copy Can ry - Inmate File Pink - Inmate Copy

S:\Programs\PI1?gram

County Inmate Grievance fonn.wpd

CC 000333

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 14; Page 2 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 88-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 3

COLUMBIA CO'uNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE INSTITUTION'S DIVISION
Jl:NM.A.1rE GlUEVANCE FORM

IN'S'fRUCl'IONS: Follow the rules in the Inmate Handbook regarding the facility's grievance procedures.

Fill in the blanks in the first two sections. If you need more room, use additional sheets of paper, but not

additional forms. If you want to grieve more than one

use a separate fOl:m for each issue.

Reason for Grievance (check one):

[ ] conditions of confinement [ ] medical care [ ] general classification procedures

[ ] general discipline procedures [] participation in inmate programs

[ ] religious practices

telephone, mail and visiting procedures [ ] other (be specific)

*****************************************************************************************

Inmate's Name: Jo,\,iW.. S' V.J\l...nf·jf";2-.'

SID:

Cell:_.J=-_-_\...::;3:---_ _ _ __

Grievance:..\.. r_

- 't\\ I DD\i,C- e.-=:.

\D iife. '\"f"'\\f \r-s"'\

\'\-o.'n-\-s

('Ic:.. l..l1-e..\\ os '.l'\\L f\O\.¢rS D-t ()Dn- \\t)CQ.('-cc\o-\-e..& re..c..\o·\-:t,r<ts IJ)ho

J Inmate Signature:

QI"I1."';c.b J$.f:'r.',,\/,Y'i...d.1:l

Date/Time: \\\ Cd>.\ \\ <[, 00 0.. rn..

'7L-Htl i I

DPSST# 4116 77

·Date/Time:' I( /0'2. /2e;.I, 'Z-Jc..c-

******************************r ***********************************************************
T)eputy's
iesponse:_----:5;:...·-e--e..--4-.A-.!....rTJ--T_A_C/-_7-'_-i-..::.....=;O_ fJ_ _ 1 _--e_f_1IIO..:::;;.15_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Signature: (/l5' C-r/-tfl

DPSST# l-( or; 'f'7

Date/Time:., {/ Z 10 7.... 'L((jc-

Inmate's signature accepting deputy's resolution of grievance:

Date/Time:

**************************************************************************-*-*-*-*-*-**-*-.*-*-*-*-*-*-*

.

Date/Time Received: / 1/2..1 / II

10

J

1

Supervisor's Signature: _ _+-.::!l!W:..+"P4=-"'"I.:t-_ _ _--i=-=-=-:;:::;;...::..:;"'-----'"'--':;;.-L.........- Inmate's sigJ;.lature accepting supe sor's resolution of grievance:_ _ _ _ _ _.....:
***************************

Administrators Review:

Rc c.

f 0'1:"'

He. . c\r. .rcj,.

Date/Time Received:

i l \2...-L.-i t (

Cf'lCJ(..

Administrator'S Signature

DPSST# :?". (.)l t f

T"llIlate's signature accepting de'f5lity's resolution of grievance:

Date/Time: II Date/Time:

Distribution:

White - Administrator's Copy Canary - Inmate File Pink - Inmate Copy
S:\Programs\Program Fonns\Columbia County Inmate Grievance fOlm. wpd·

CC 000363 CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 13; Page 2 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 88-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 3

Date:

November 21,2011

To: From:

James Bennett 11a County Jail .•
//...- /J .
Correcfuns Division

Subject: . Postcard GneV211Jl£e Response

Thank: you for expressing your concern about the Columbia County Jail mail procedures. As you

are aware, there are multiple ways for inmates to cominunicate with friends, family and others

outside the jail. You may send and receive postcards, as well as personal visits and use the

telephone. You are also allowed to communicate with your attorney, and correspond ·with othyr

I •

officials, by writing letters using paper and envelopes to ensure your privacy. Our postcard policy

was enacted after a good deal ofreview, and we believe that the policy decreases the opportunity

for contraband to be introduced into the jail, which enhances jail safety and security. In addition,

the use of postcards saves significant public resources as staff do not need to spend nearly as

much time searching for contrabaild or for communications that threatenjail safety and security.

In light ofthe clear be.nepts to j ail safety and security, the reduced stafftime required to process

inmate mail, and the alternative methods available to inmates to communicate with the outside,

we believe that our policy of requiring postcards for personal mail is appropriate and, reasonable.

Your grievance is denied.

CC 000364
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 13; Page 3 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 88-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 7
EXHIBIT 15
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY mDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 15; Page 1 of 7

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 88-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 7

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Jeff Dickerson (Jeff, Dickerson@co.columbia.or.us) Wednesday, July 11.2012 12:48 PM Gregory Roberson Fwd: Letter re:mail policy from Inmate Serg, Bradley

Jeffrey M. Dickerson Columbia County Sheriff 901 Port Avenue St. Helens, OR 97051 Office Phone: (503) 366M 4600
»> Rocky Miller 12/22/2011 8:16 PM »>
Ok thank you Sir.
»> jeff Dickerson 12/22/20111:45 Pf-1 »>
Nothing changes, so, ye.s. it is denied.
JeffreyM. DIckerson
Columbia County Sheriff
901 Port Avenue St. HelensJ OR 97051 Office Phone: (503) 366-4600
»> Rocky Miller 12/20/20116:46 PM »>
Hello, Inmate Berg claims he sent a fetter to you awhile ago and is wondering what your thoughts are regarding the mail policy, He has been answered last by Sergeant: Cutright on November 2.3rd. If you like 1"..iII teU Inmate Berg that when no reply is coming after 10 days, the issue is denied.
111ank you Sergeant Miller

CC002066
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 15; Page 2 of 7

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 88-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 7

COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE INSTITUTION'S DIVISION
. INMATE GRJ[]EVANCJE ]FORM

000414

INSTRUCTIONS: Follow the rules in the Inmate Handbook regarding the facility's grievance procedures. Fill in the blanks in the first two sections. If you need more room, use additional sheets of paper, but not additional. forms. If you want to grieve more than one issue, use a separate form for each issue.
***********I ***************************•***************************************************

Inmate Signature:-'

'--:r .

Receiving Deputy Signature:

Date/Time: J1.--'> d.d. - /

...,.,.."

DPSST#

f

. Date/Time: Jll;ilflf 21 r($...:

IDeputy's R1 .
Response:

/' .

___ -
.

// t,;A
.

Deputy's Signature:

DPSST# :$/13' (

Inmate's signature accepting deputy's resolution of grievance:

Date/Time:_ _ _ _ _ __

*****************************************************************************************

Supervisor's Review:

/GLr. $.:}-pf ;

. Date/Time Received:

I

0-'77..£)0

Supervisor's

-

_

-== ·_D.PS8T#/

Date/Time: /1/'2-7.-.#/ 2_'2-i /..)

Inmate's signature acceptfng\sup'rvisor's resolution of grievance:'

Date/Time:_ _ _ _ __

I,ll :;. *****************************************************************************************

Administrators Review:

Date/Time Received: I u

ss

Administrator's Signature /;l}:f.-..

DPSST# _it.;;..,! \

Date/Time: ·nl "lJ: f q r

Inmate's signature accepting

resolution of grievance:

..

.. ..__ Date/Time: \l \%310' (·Yt1

*****************************************************************************************

Distribution: White - Administrator's Copy Canary - Inmate File Pink - Inmate Copy

S;\Programs\Program Forms\Columbia C?unty Inmate Grievance form.wpd

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 15; Page 3 PoLfN7COL-01409

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 88-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 4 of 7

Date: To:

November 22,2011

From:

Rigdon, Ralph Lee, Sgt. 31831 Corrections Division

Subject: Postcard Grievance Response

Thank you for expressing your concern about the Columbia County Jail mail procedures. As you are aware, there are multiple ways for inmates to communicate with friends, family and others outside the jail. You may send and receive postcards, as well as have personal visits and use the telephone. You are also allowed to communicate with your attorney, and correspond with other officials, by writing letters using paper and envelopes to ensure your privacy. Our postcard policy was enacted after a good deal of review, and we believe that the policy decreases the opportunity
for contraband to be introduced into the jail, which enhances jail safety and security. In addition,
the use of postcards saves significant public resources as staff do not need to spend nearly as much time searching for contraband or for communications that threaten jail safety and security. In light of the clear benefits to jail safety and security, the reduced staff time required to process inmate mail, and the alternative methods available to inmates to communicate with the outside, we believe that our policy of requiring postcards for personal mail is appropriate and reasonable. Your grievance is denied.

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 15; Page 4PoLfNC7OL-01410

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 88-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 5 of 7

Date:

November 23,2011

To: From:

Bradley L. Berg /;./':;'
Columbia Count.t'Jail jfi.l': ;ft- 3.2J7' (
Cutrigl);Lf'Bryan L. Sr. 30771
Corrections Division

Subject: Pos1l:c:ailrdl GJr]eV2lmCe Respolmse

Thank you for expressing your concern about the Columbia County Jail mail procedures. As you are aware, there are multiple ways for inmates to communicate with friends, family and others outside the jail. You may send and receive postcards, as well as have personal visits and use the' telephone. You are also allowed to communicate with your attorney, and correspond with other officials, by writing letters using paper and envelopes to ensure your privacy. Our postcard policy was enacted after a good deal of review, and we believe that the policy decreases the opportunity for contraband to be introduced into the jail, which enhances jail safety and security. In addition, the use of postc?lIds saves significant public resources as staff do not need to spend nearly as much time searching for contraband or for communications that threaten jail safety and security. In light of the clear benefits to jail safety and security, the reduced stafftime required to process inmate mail, and the alternative methods available to inmates to communicate with the outside, we believe that our policy of requiring postcards for personal mail is appropriate and reasonable. Your grievance is denied.
Mr. Berg the policy of the Columbia County Sheriffs Office in regards to the mail procedures has been reviewed and approved by Columbia County Counsel and is in affect as written. In an effort to control contraband and ensure the safety and security of the Columbia County Jail it was determined that this was the best practice. As stated above your grievance is denied.

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 15; Page 5PoLNf C7OL-01412

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 88-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 6 of 7

COILlUM1B5JIA COUNTY JAJIJL IINMATJE UQ1f.JIESJr FOlRM

Inmates Full Name: /<),f'Qd"B"f""/rQ" DOB:

J /- (f

NUmber(;)cated on ID Card):

p O D / c e l l : _ - - - C J = "_ _ _ _ __
I {0003S"15

Law Library

Date Requested for use: Law Library:

Law Computer: ____________________________

Visitin 1. Visitor Name:

Sign-Up

Children:

Remove/ Add

Visitor 2. Visitor Name:

Change

List

Remove/ Add

3. Visitor Name:

Children:

Remove/ Add

Approved/ Denied Approved/ Denied Approved/ Denied

DOB: _________________________ Relationship: ________________
DOB: ___________________________ Relationship: _______________
DOB: ___________________________ Relationship! ________________

4. Visitor Name: Children: Remove/ Add

Approved/ Denied

DOB: ___________________________ Relationship: __________________

5. Visitor Name: Children:

DOB: __________________________ Relatioship: __________________

Remove/ Add

Approved/ Denied

******Need t9 read pages 16-17 of the Inmate Manual for Visiting Information******

other

Date/ Time Recieved: _____
Ev .!!.

I-VI,

COLUMBIA COUI\ffV

Deputy: ___ _______________________

Date/

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 15; Page 6 of 7

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 88-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 7 of 7

Pe-. -l-he- t'lIrno-t-e.-I'I'ICtJ/\().d 1:::( )uhf11(f{ed -Hu's

to

I1!J CL f'e6fofl:5e--ra

of' opfW(

G1J'-/'eUan08--#' Lf(I(_

ihe-

+0 p nd if'e5 o -{-o Id/-er

,J -l-he--dem'oJ if CtL-tn(fAt-,

--(he-- o{c. cott-ku+ed -fhe--1"ke,f't'.ff C<.n d he:.- denl'a::}

c*e-,+ m ('/'

E:....; CLYl d f ttuGkd -fke--

0

k&-fe. tor r-it'ft17 +6 -1-/;/5

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 15; Page 7PoLNf C7OL-01414

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 88-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT 16
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY WDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 16; Page 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 88-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 2
;18

Date:

May 5, 2011

To:.

Reynold

Columbia County Jail

From:

Deputy Lautt, 49829 Corrections Division

Subject: PosicatJrd Grievance Response Template

Thank you for expressing your concern about the Columbia County Jail mail procedures. As you are aware, there are multiple ways for inmates to communicate with friends, family and others outside the You may send and receive postcards, as well as have personal visits and use the telephone. You are also allowed to communicate with your attorney, and correspoil.d with other officials, by writing letters using paper and envelopes to ensure your privacy. Our postcard policy was enacted after a good deal ofreview, and we believe that the policy decreases the opportunity for contraband to be introduced into the jail, which enhances jail safety and security. In addition, the use of postcards sayes significant public' resources as staff do not need to spend nearly as much time searching for contraband or for communications that threaten jail safety and security. In light of the clear benefits to jail safety and security, the reduced staff time required to process inmate mail, and the 'alternative methods available to inmates to communicate with the outside, we believe that our policy of requiring postcards for personal mail is appropriate and reasonable. Your grievance is .denied.

EXHIBIT
02-

cC 000335
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 16; Page 2 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 88-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 17
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY mDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 17; Page 1 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 88-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 3

COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFIOE
mSTITUTION'S DMSION

,

,

JINSTRUCJr][ONS: Follow the rules in the Inmate Handbook

'the facility's

procedures.

Fill in the blanks in the first two sections. If yC!u need more room, use additional sheets ofpaper, but not

.additional forms. If you want to grieve more than one issue) use a separate form for each issue.

I

Reason for Grieva.nce

one):

[J conditions of confinement [ ] medical care [ ] general 'classification procedures

T] general discipline procedures· [] participation in inmate programs

[] religious practices

mail and visiting

[ ] other (be specific)

I*n*m**a*te*'s**N*a*m**e*:**S**rE**V*f*E*r*\!.*L**E*S*-**{*1***********S*I*D*:***O**D**0'*5*,*3********C**el*l*: **E***-***Q*.'*:\*, *********

\' \0."'" r . r . . Grievance: :rDe.

- D'{\\\I

'rf\\/

c \ \'5

I
D:r {\ D'\('\ - \ {'\. C (), \' C '1Lr.:' 0, \

t:\

S' 'S.

... C'\ \

e

l-
D \S

\

r

J

\. I 1"\

D

\

L

l.rJ \ S i\ T D {'

-

Inmate Signature: . (-Yi?/r,b4-&9;

Date/rime: 0\ \ \ \ \ \ ' ,

Q.. V \ .

Deputy Signature:"

DPSST#

1

Date/Time:_,:...!;,/t:::::..3-b:::::....:::.._ __

. ***************************************************************************************** .

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

...

1: '

Deputy's Signature: ,;;c#....

DPSST#

Inmate's signature accepting deputy's resolution of grievance:

Date/Time: }-Jr1-J2 !1} :g'
Date/Time:_ _ _ _ __

Supervisor's Review:

Date/Time Reoeived: i

Supervisor's Signature:

DP8ST# 3/ I

DatelTime: Z4re... /720

Inmate's signature accepting supervisor's resolution ofgrievance:

DatelTime:._ _ _ _ __

*****************************************************************************************

Admi.niStrators Review:

Date/Time Received:------------------

Administrator'S Signat-ure

DPSST#

Date/Time:_ _ _ __

Inmate's signature accepting deputy's resolution of grievance:

DatelTime=_ _ _ __

*****************************************************************************************

Distribution: White - Administrator's Copy Canary - Inmate File Pink - Inmate Copy

S:\Progulfns\Program Forms\Columbia County Inmate Grievance fonn,wpd

CC 000371
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 17; Page 2 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 88-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 3

Date:

January 18,2012

To:

Steven Lee Adams

Columbia County Jail

From:

Sgt. Ralph Lee Rigdon, 31831 Corrections Division

8ubjed:

GrievaDlce Re§pomse to form llllIlmbeIr 00043.8

Thank for
are· aware, there..are:

your

the Columbia County Jail mail procedures.. As you

ways for inmates to communicate with friends, family and others

outside

You nlay send and receive postcards, as well as have personal visits and use the

telephone. You are also allowed to cOm.J;l1unicate withyour attorney, and correspond with other

officials, by writing letters using paper and

to

your privacy. Our -postcard policy

was enacted after a good deal ofreview, and we believe that the policy decreases the opportunitY

for contraband to be introduced into the jail, which enhances jail safety and security. In addition,

the use ofpostcards saves significant public resources as staff do not need to spend nearly as

much time searching for contraband or for communications that tbreatenjail safety and security.

In light ofthe clear benefits to jail safety and

the reduced stafftime required to process

inmate mail, and the aiternative methods available to inmates to comniunicate with the outside,

we believe that our policy ofrequiring postcards for personal mail is appropriate and reasonable.

Your .grievance is denied.

CC 000372
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 17; Page 3 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 88-7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT 18
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY mDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 18; Page 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 88-7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 2

·COLUIVlBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE INSTITUTION'S DMSION

JINS1'RlUCTl!:ON§: Follow the rules in

Handbook regarding the facility's

procedures.

Fill in the blanks in the first two sections. If you need more room, use additionaJ sheets of paper, but not

additional forms. If you want to grieve more than one issue, use a separate form for each issue.

Inmate Receiving Deputy
.
•

4....-ytf{:-

____=:;;:;.....____ Date/Time: ! .... /o/ ... !'t- ;J.; f?r11'£ 'i' ,'r5;." P41

DPSST# q

Date/Time: J..;r1-17.. if/ 1'?

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _..:-
j"

Deputy's Signature: ;;t.f/.#¥

.

DPSST# EfA:f!.y4

Inmate"s signature accepting deputy's resolutiC?n of

Date/Time: J-ft!- z,7t7- iBJr:f)
.Date/Time: l-i <-f. ---@i 1_

Supervisor's Review:

Date/Time Received:__________

Signature:

DPSST#

Date/Time:_ _ _ __

. Inmate's signature

supervisor's resolution qfgrievance:

Date/Time:_ _ _ _ __

*****************************************************************************************

Administrators Review:

Date/Time Received:

Administrator's Signature

DPSST#

Date/Time:_ _ _ __

mate's signature accepting deputy's resolution of grievance:

Date/Time:_ _ _ __

****************************************************************************************

Distribution: White - Administrator's Copy Canary" Inmate File Pink - Inmate

S:\Programs\Program Fonns\Columbia County Inmate Grievance form.wpd

CC 000373
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 18; Page 2 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 88-8 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT 19
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 19; Page 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 88-8 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 2

Inmates Full Date: 16-11.{- II Booking

___ on ID Card)

________

_ __

Law

Date Requested for use:

Library Law Library:

Law Computer:

Visitin Sign,-Up
Visitor Change List

1. Visitor Name: Chil.dren: Remove! Add
2. Visitor Name: Children: ReTnove/ Add
3. Vis:i..tor Name: Children: Rem,?vel Add

Approved! Denied Approvedl Denied Approved! Denied

DOB: Relationship:
DOB: Relationship:
DOB: Relationship:

4.

Name:

Children:

Removel Add

Approved! Denied

DOB: Relationship:

5. Visitor

DOB:

Children:

Relatioship:

Removel Add

Approved/ Denied

'lr'lr'lr'lr''lr'lrNeed to read pages :1.6-17 of the Inmate Manual for Visiting Information'lr*'lr'lr'lr'lr

Other

*****staff Use Only Below

'3 Datel Time Recieved: )7.1 }'i::;11271/

V Receiving Deputy:

Line'lr****
_ _ _ _ _ _ __

Datel Time 1\nsWered:'_ _ _

C&f2..-::
CC 000713
!!, ..... ::.(. /•.' .·.·(·i,'
g.,." y
a,,'!,',
CHAMBERLAIN DEC.....'. L; Exhibit 19; Page 2 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 88-9 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT 20
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 20; Page 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 88-9 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 2

Inmates Full Name: f\fVJ 0. Gf":.-rq

DOB: _________________ PODlcell =__:T...:..-_ _ _--,.

Date:

•

...J

II Booking 1-7umber(located on ID Card) \\.,.t_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Law

Date Requested for use:

Library Law Ll.:?rary:

Law CDmputer:

Visitin Sign-Up
Visitor Change List

J.. Visitor Name: Children: Remove! Add
2. Visitor Name:
Removel Add 30 Visitor Name:
Children: Removel Add

Approvedl Denied Approvedl Denied Approved! Denied

DOB: Relationship:
DOB: Relationship:
DOB:

4. Visitor Name: ______________________________ DOB: _______________________________ Children:__________________ __________________ Relationship: ________________

Removel Add

5. Visitor Name; ______________________

DOB: __________________________

Children:______________________________________ Relatioship:_________________

Removel Add

. Approved! Denied

******Need to read pages 16-17 of the Inmate Manual for Visiting Information******

other

taff Use Only :Below 'l'his Line***'**

Datel Time Recieved:

__ Receiving Deputy:

COWMBIP. eOUNlY .
JAit...

CC 000678

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 20; Page 2 of 2

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT 21
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 21; Page 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 2

MAIL VIOLATION NOTICE

INMATE NAME: WEISENBERGER, JOHN HII.;LJ:1U.l

DATE: 10/24/2011

!.NNATE POD: d-l'OD lS

The mail that is

ot sent by the above inmate is in violation of the facility mail policy. The Post Card has oeeh

returned to sender or placed into the imnates pl:'operlyfor the foUo\vihg reaso.n(s):

No :tmnate Name Stickers of any KJ.nd (Ino:lu.des Address Labels)
Tanoel GOlue
Pencil's C!orrection Tans .f Fluid 'Paint Food I Bever_acre Sta.ins
X Do not: accent neriodicalso
I"naorooriate'ContentlPOSTCARD)

Incomplete Return Address
Rubber Linstick
,:I ins / Stanles etc .
C!r::l:trbn:
WacArc:olor' Perfume I Coloane I"naoronriate Con'tene (BOOK} No

II

. ',

JOHN I>iCNILLER.

CC 000998
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 21; Page 2 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT 22
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERlNE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY mDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 22; Page 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 2

MAIL VIOLATION NOTICE

INMATE

WEISENBERGER, JOHI>T

DATE: 10/31/2011

pori:J"POD 15

The mail that is addressed or sent by the above inmate is in violatiOIl' of the facility mail polley. The Post Card has been returned to sender or placed into the inmates property for the following .reasoo(s):

lncom lece Return Addtess

Ta e Glue Colored Pencil

Li tick etc

JOHN l-fCMILLER: Mail inspected by

CC 000999
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 22; Page 2 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT 23
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 23; Page 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 2

,.... '

'Inmates Full

Davlc/SPaAIII/

DOB: 01-r1=6'1

Date: 11- la-to Booking

(located on 'ID Card) Ow·

Law Library . Law Library:

Visitill Sign-Up
"ITi.sitor Change List

1. Visitor Name: Children: Iiemove/ Add
2.
3 •
Children;

4. visi

-a.. POD/Cell:·c..-i-
_ _ _ _ _ _ __

5.

DOB,

__

Relatioship :____________

Remove/ Add

Approved/ Denied

******Need to read pages 1.6-J.7 of the Inmate Manual. for Visiti.ng :In£ormation******

Other

Date/

Time

Answered

:,_

Ll\\\
____

\_l{?_

_

_

Answering

Deputy "<;:---'rr1\f-VJJ=:..-----==-----

001162

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 23; Page 2 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 24
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 24; Page 1 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 3

Inmat:es Full
Date: 1/"/0/"fI

",I?vp;,

DOB: :;;:-/?S/r.3

Booki.ng Numbe:r{located· on ID Card) ·t,..t

POD!Cell:..;!1:....:...,:T:......=:/:...-_ _ __
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

La:v;.·

Date Requested for use:

Library Law Lib.rary:

Law Computer: _______________________________

Visiting l. Visitor Name:

Sign-Up

Children;

'Remove! Add

visitor 2. visitor Name:

Change

Children:

List

Removel Add

3. visitor Name:

Children:

Remove/ Add

Approvedl Denied Approved/ Denied Approved/

DOB: ______ ____________________
_______________
DOB: _____________________________ Relationship, ___________________
DOB: _____________________________ Relationship: ___________________

4. Visitor Name: Children: Removel Add

Approved/ Denied

_________________________ Relationship: ____________________

5. visi tor Name: Children:

DOB: ___________________________ Relatioship: ____________ _____

Remove! Add

Denied

******Need to

pages

of the Inmate Manual for Visiting Inforrnation******

E).."Plain your issue: I

-J.

I

Ott/! I;'Ir("i II'I,..JI,...:;,"11

.

ClhJ rJ I.JI-'p[{

(,£.,11 ,.,;d\,\':

-

I

J

',"I?,,1r;.";P o-nri

j\r:;o.r.trr:;.rJtl [\'71-

I nflC. I\(>J ".)

...J

1'/"'i::;'6

Other

.I\. ];. (-VII

•

Date/ Time Recieved: ______________

OOLUMBtA.,cOUN [

1 J...,q],
Deputy! __
(j

___________

4' I . .y,/ 'C ......./"'-. C- J

e 1'\

I
IOf\ J

C

\/I

J
i- Wr

l_,'3)1\

I
T

CC 001021

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 24; Page 2 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 3
CC 001022
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 24; Page 3 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT 25
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 25; Page 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 2

· COLUMBIA

JAIL INMATE

1 Name =.! 4)4\0 "-'\{ kt-l'EFc-e.PA DOB: ll· ;t·,O .. l .r

I I

Booking Number (located on In Card) :.....'''''''L:Jo.:{):;;....\..1.:....:1

FORM

l?OD/cell

.::..l _ _ __

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Date Requested for use: Law Library:

Law Computer: ___________________________

Sign-Up
Visitor Change

Visitor Name: _______________________________ POB: _______________________ Children:___________________________________ Relationship= _______________

Remove/ Add

Approve4/ Denied

2. Visitor Name = ________________ DOB: _______________________ ____

children:__________________________________ Relationship: ____________________

List

Remove/ Add

Approvedl Denied

3. Visitor Namet ________________________________ DOB: ________________________

Children: _____________________________________ Relationship: _____________________

Remove/ Add

Approved/ Deriied

4. Visitor Name: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ DOB: _____________________________________ Children: __________________________________________ Relationship: ______________________

.Removel Add

Approved! Denied

5. Visitor Name: ________________

DOB: ______________________________

Children:_____________________________________ Relatioship:____________________

Removel Add

Approved/ Denied

******Need to read pages 16-17 of the Xnmate

for Visiting Information******

Other

Datel Time Recieved.
CJl..chl,"Cs,s

*****Staff Use Only

s Line*****

b\.:

Receiving Deputy: ______________________________________
be. ACC

't " Datel Time Answered: b9/o::(/u

CC 000727

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 25; Page 2 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT 26
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY mDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 26; Page 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 2

COLUMBIA CO-r1TY JAIL INMATE

J:nmates Full Name

Date;

-I ()

____DOB: .3 .. 2 .. 8" 7
(located on J:D Card)

FORM
POD/Cell: /5-T(./ I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Law Library
Visit sign-up
Visitor Change List

Date Requested for use; Law Library;

Law computer: ____________________________

1. Visitor Name: _________________________________ DOB: _______________________

Children:_____________________________________ Relationship: _________________

Removel Add

Approvedl Denied

2. Visitor Name: ______________________________ DOB: ____________________________

Children: __________________

Relationship; ___________________

Removel Add

Approvedl Denied'

3. Visitor Name: ______________________________

_ _ _ _- -_ _- -_ _ _ _ _ _- - - - - - - -

Children:__________________________________ Relationahip: ___________________

Removel Add

Approved/ Denied

4. Visitor Name: ______________________________ DOB: __________ ______--------__________________________________ Relationship: ___________________

Remove! 'Add

Approved! Denied

5. Visitor Name: _______________________________ DOB: __________________--______ children:__________________________________ Relatioship: ___________________

Remove! Add

Approved! Denied

to read pages 16-17 of the Inmate M«nual

Xnformation******

. AUG 07 2010
GOLUMBI.'\ , JAIL
Datel Time

Deputy: _ _ _ _ _ _ _---._ __

Deputy: __

_____

CC 000793

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 26; Page 2 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT 27
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 27; Page 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 2

COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERlFF'S OFFICE INSTITUTION'S DIVISION
JINMATE GRJOEVANCE FORM

m
!
;!fe,· .,...,..--.------------

INSTR.UCTIONS: Follow the rules in the Inmate Handbook regarding the facility's grievance procedures. Fill in the blanks in the first two sections. If you need more room, use additional sheets of paper, but not additional forms. If you want to grieve more than one issue, use a separate fonn for each issue.

I.JSV-f.<, "

'

. OJ

, •

Deputy's Signature:

--

DPSST#

DatelTime: I 7_1

1runate's signature accepting deputy's resolution of grievance:

Date/Time: '

"**************************************************************************-*-**-*-*-*-*-*-**-*-.*-*-*-* .

Supervisor's Review:
I·
\

upervisor's Signature:

DPSST# '- :.I :>

Inmate's signature acceptin I uperVisor's resolution of grievance:,_ _ _ _ _ _---:

I, () Administrators Review:

I Date/Time Received: O:{ C;I'"i

ror Lot:.

S!!)CC.i'cL\ oc..c.c.·\..l'c=--l Levels

!;C1..\e. 0 1, {he.

·ftc:.y CO..h '\or..... "i" n,P. \' \ l..... u".!> tl =\he.

d.S. b () \
\;65--+ C,.., ..

L) t:.v-.

,r

.. .:...q7--.

• DPSST#

Inmate's SIgnature acceptmg depu.t1 s resolutIOn of gnevanceh"<

tIC) IltOo
- Date/TIme: 06 J reA 1;0 t '-toe

Distribution:

'White - Administrator's Copy Canary - Inmate File Pink - Inmate Copy
S:\Programs\Program Fonns\Columbia County Inmate Grievance form.wpd

CC 000323
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 27; Page 2 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT 28
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 28; Page 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 2

·COLUMBIA COrNTY JAIL

FORM

6e{'t{ Inmates Full 'Name: hfO; Q..

DOE: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ POD/Cell :_ l _--:.-_ _\.";::"---.J- _

Date; d.,'" 1-

'd Soaking NUmber(lodJed on ID Card) :

0 J {GOO

Law

Date Requested for use:

Library Law Library:

Law Computer: _____________________________

Visitin Sign-Up
Visitor Change List

1. Visitor Name: Children: Removel Add
2. Visitor Name: Children: Removel Add
3. Visitor Name: Children: Remove/ Add

Approved/ Denied Approved! Denied Approvedi Denied

DOB: _____________________________ Relationship: ________________
DOE: ___________________ _______ Relationship: ______________________
DOB: ________________________________ Relationship: ____________________

4. Visitor Name: ' Children: Removel Add

Approved! Denied

DOB: ____________________________ Relationship: ________________

5. Visitor Name: Children:

DOB: ____________________________ Relatioship: ____________________

Remove! Add

Approved/ Denied

to read pages 16-17 of the Inmate Manual for Visiting rnformation******

Other

Date! Time Recieved:

CC 000679
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 28; Page 2 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-8 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT 29
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERlNE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 29; Page 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-8 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 2

Date: 03/28/2012
2011000628
INCIDENT DATe 06/25/2011

fjAlllNCIDENT REPORT '1
COLUMBIA COUN1Y SHERIFF'S OFFICE
TIMe: 22:00 OEse.INMATE WESTMORELAND ASKING FOR A GRIEVANCe

Page: 2

WHeRE DID INCIDENT OCCUR?:J POD CAuse OF INCloeNT: HE SAID THAT HE WANTED TO GRIEVE THE MAIL PROCESS AT THE JAt
EVIDENCE COLLECTED: WHEN ASKED WHY HE EXPLAINED THAT IN ORDER TO JOIN THE LAWSUI HE WOULD NEED TO FILE A GRIEVANCE FIRST

On 06-25-11 at

2200 Inmate Westmoreland asked me for a grievance for the

process. When I asked

he wanted to grieve the process he eKplained that in order to join the "lawsuit" he

need co go throught

the correct steps by filing a grievance first. I explained to him

geting a grievance just to become ,a part of

a lawsuit was not a legitimate need for one, however if he truely had an issue that needed to be resolved I would

qet him a grievance. On the next round another inmate in the same pod as Inmate Westmoreland asked him for a

9rievance on the Sdme issue.

ACTION(S)
On 06-26-11 at approximately 2015 I talked with Inmate Westmoreland in booking about him asking for a grievance from the night before. ,He explained to me that his issue was that he feels that he should be able to write someone a letter if he feels to as opposed to writing a postcud. I explained tO',him. again that if he had an issue with the
mail process that he wanted to try and get resolved r would be more than happy to get him a grievance and answer it for him when he was done. Inmate westmoreland said that he would like some time to think about the issue because be

INMATE NAME WESTMORELANDa ROBERT EUGENE

HOW INVOLVED?

CELJ...ASSlGNMeNT

Participant

J·POD

OFFICER{S) INVOLVED MOORE,SEAN

ENTERED BY: JON KERNUTT

x
OFFICER MAKING REPORT
x
OPERATlONS MANAGER'S SIGNATURE

DATE
OAre

x
SUPERVISOR'S SIGNATURe

DATe
CC 001009

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 29; Page 2 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-9 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT 30
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY mDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 30; Page 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-9 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 2

Date: 03/26/2012
2012000130
INCIDENT DATE 02/10/2012

TIME:

INCIDENT
COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
15:30 osse.RETURNED ENVELOPES FROM LUCY LENUOX PRISON NEWS

WHERE DID INCIDENT OCCUR? :COLUMBIA COUNTY JAIL CAUSE OF INCIDENT: ENVELOPE NOT ADDRESSED PRIVIDGED MAIL PER POLICY
EVIDENCE COLLECTeO: EIGHT ENVELOPS

FACTS OF INCIDENT On 02.10":12 at shift change Sst. McMiller advised eight Inmates of their returned envel

Page: 2

ACnON(S) TAKENIRECCOMENDA110N Right envelopes from lisced Inmates placed in Sgt_'s Office by Sgt. Rigdon.

INMATE(S) INVOLVED
INMATE NAMe SHAFT. BARRY DEVON BERTASSO, TONIALYSE DEHERRERA. ANTHONY MICHAEL CLEMENT, ROBERT CHARLES HAYNES,KENNALEANN OeSTERt SAMUEL THOMAS ADAMS. STEVEN lEE TEMPLE, WIU.tAM MATHEW
OFFICER{S) INVOLVED

HOW INVOLVEO? Participant Participant Participant Pllrtictpant PartIcipant PartIclpant Participant Participant

CELL ASSIGNMENT J-POO G·POO
B-POOMAX G·POD J-POD E·POO J-POD

ENTERED BY: MARTI KYLES

x
OFFICER MAKING REPORT
x
OPERATIONS MANAGER'S SIGNATURE

DATE
DATE

x
SUPERVISOR'S SIGNATURE

DATe
CC000639

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 30; Page 2 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-10 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT 31
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY mDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 31; Page 1 of 4

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-10 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 4 Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 18 of 60 Page 10#: 338

.l', ·l·"C ..... •
.,w· • o . ; : : ; ; :

.. ...'....

I,.,

I

Of.

M 0

M
tn 0

en :<!-

>f-4-

z

.0...
0

td 0

.0
4)

N

·a1:1
0

X 0 t:Q
0'-

I.=.e'.Q-n..'
4)

P..

..

n:

III

@ ill

, ro:,0. Q
I u(.s) f

!tJ III
f2
:::
II: ::J III) II:

:t: I-
0 z z
I"I)
un.J.

0 ::t:
.:( .!)
",-
J0-1!
5
(.)

?:
:::J iJ
."( h ..
r.I::
IU-1

fl'J

t.::N

PLNCOL-00342..

Page 291

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 31; Page 2 of 4

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-10 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 4
Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI' Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 19 of 60 Page ID#: 339

VOL. 20 ·No. 5
ISSN 1075-7678

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights , '

May 2909

S.exual Abuse by Prison and Jail Staff Proves Persistent, Pandemic

by Gary Hunter

Sexual assault, rape, indecency, nation's prisons and jails. The

re- of nothing but substantiated reports of

deviance.. These terms represent ports found that over 60% of allegations the sexual assault of prisoners by their

reprehensible behavior· ill". our society. of sexual abuse involved staff members captors. It also illustrates the shortcom-

They also represent recurrulg' themes in rather than othet prisoners.

. ings of the PREA which contains no

our nation's prisons - not only by prison-

What has not-changed in the past sev- enforcementmechanism to stop or deter

ers, but also by guards and other staff eral years is the-.continued rape and sexual . sexual· assaults, merely the collection .of

members.

exploitation of' pr:isoners by prison and data self reported by the agencies holding

PLN's August 2006 cover story, jail employees who'are supposed -to ensure the prisoners. But one result. is we may

Guards Rape of Prisoners Rampan.t, No , their safety. All 50 states enacted laws now have slightly better data than we did

Solution in Sight, profiled examples of criminalizing sex between prisoners and" before in a central location.

sexual abuse by prison guards and other prison staff; thus, employees who engage employees in 26 states. Since that time the in sexual misconduct can no longer claim

Arizona

National Pl;son Rape Elimination Com- consent as a defense.

Former prison guard Elsa Gutierrez,

mission has issued proposed standards to

Due to the nature of prisons as "total 33, was booked into the

County Jail

reduce sexual abuse behind bars, and the institutions," it is impossible for prisonerS on October 1, 2008 after being charged

Bureau of Justice Statistics has released to voluntarily consent to sexual advances with unlawful sexual conduct with a male

reports on sexual victimization in our by staff members who exert complete prisoner: She had been employed at the

control over their lives - and in some cas'es Arizona State Prison Complex.

over their release from prison.

On November 7, 2008, Steve Edward

Past issues of PLN have pushed. this Hiser was anested and charged with six

Califomia Parole'"lZaw Passes

12

significant problem to the forefront. We . would like to report that exposure of this

counts of sex crimes involving female prisoners. He was a maintenance worker

Maryland Prison Problems Persist

14 issue-has eased thE? problem. It hasn't. We . at the Eddie Warrior

Center

Kids Jailed by Bribed Judges

would like to say our continued coverage when incidents occurred; the charges 20 on this subject has deterred sexual abuse include sexual battery, indecentexposure,

Texas Youth Prisons Grow

24 by prison staff. It didn't.

.....

forcible oral sodomy, sexual battery and·

Prison and jail employees are more rape by instrumentation: Hiser posted a

Phoenix Jail Still Unconstitutional

28 out of control than ever. From state to $15,000 bond; his case is still pending.

Hawaii Trust Fund Ruling

29

state, north to south, east to west, sexual misconduct by guards and other staff

Arkansas

I I

Prisoners Get Out the Vote

34 "members continues to weave its way . Former Arkansas DOC psychologist

f.r.,'

f.

Prison Television Switchover

I'

37

through the fabric of our nation's prisons. A common thread of rape, debauchery

Anna Clark, 57, was convicted of ,thirdsexual assault after being caught

Missouri Abortion Ban Illegal

40 and even sexual torture is present in deten- in the act of sexual intercourse with pris-

Bivens Suits Barred Against CCA

tion facilities nationwide.

oner Dan Burns. In a' taped confession

46

This time we bring you recent reports Clark admitted that she had sex several

Unicor Wins Copyright Suit News in Brief

48 from 39 states, which constitute only a times with Burns, who was diagnosed as fraction of the tragic truth about rape depressed and suicidal. Shewas sentenced
50 and sexual abuse by prison and jail work- in August 2007 to three years in prison and

BOP Guards

in Beating

52 ers. Indeed, it would easily be possible to her conviction was upheld by the state Supublish a monthly magazine consisting preme Court on Sept. 25, 2008 [See: Clark

Priso,n Legal News

1

May 2009

(_._._ _•..... .......-....:.................

...-'"--...-....."...__ .. ..

P

..=..

....=._..=.._.=._..=...,--,._.".,.,,,-

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 31; Page 3 of 4

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-10 Filed 09/13/12 Page 4 of 4

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI' Document 8-5 Filed 01/31/12 Page 20 of 60 Page 10#: 340

Prison Legal News
2400 NW 80th Street #148 Seattle, WA 98117
Change Service.Requested

Non-Profit Org. U.S. Postage PAID Portland OR
Permit No. 3142

•

Subscription Renewal Subscriptions expire after the issue shown on the label is mailed. For example, if the label says: EXPIRES 02/2000-, thyn the subscription expires after the February 2006 issues is mailed. Please renew at least 2 months before the expiration date. IF THE LA-" BEL SAYS EXPIRES: 04/2009 THIS IS YOUR LAST ISSUE. Please'renew immediately to avoid inissing any issues.

Change of Address If you move or are transfered, please notify PLN as soon as possible so your issues can be mailed to your new ad, dress! PLN only accepts responsibility . for sending an issue to the address pro. vided at the time an issue is mailed!

.. PLN's website offers all issues of PLN in both searchable database a':ld PDF formats. Issues are indexed and posted as soon as they go to press.
.. Publications section has numerous downloadable g<?vernment reports, audits and investigations from around the country.
.. FuU text gecisions of thousands of court cases, published and unpublished.
All content is easy to print for downloading and mailing to prisoners.
.. Most complete collection of prison and jail related verdicts and settlements anywhere.
.. Order books, print subscriptions and make donations on line.

Brief bank with a wide assortment of winning motions, briefs, complaints and settlements.
Links to thousands of prison, jail, crimina I justice and legal websites around the world.
Thousands of articles and cases, all fully indexed by more than 500 subjects, searchable by case name, case year, state of origin, court, author, location, case outcome, PLN issue and key word search.
Search free, pay only if you find it!
.. The highest quality, most comprehensive prison litigation news and research site in the world.
Affordable rates to meet your budget
$14095 per month" $99.95 per year

Subscribe to Prison Legal News Online! http://www.prisonlegalnews.org

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 31; Page 4 of 4

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-11 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 8
EXHIBIT 32
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 32; Page 1 of 8

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-11 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 8

t
'"d
(1Q (")
oc;-
o o
->.
--.J CD

()

Prison Legal News

West P.O. Box 2420

t

Brattiebor<?,

Verm..ont 05303 ,

.. ..

<# . ' ..

C1>

.._.........._-;::.._....... ,"':;:__.w_.

......

....... ......-.... _..-.... I

_ ....... ....- ........ _ ... -

f..':1

1-1

N r

1 J I.·.·

lCX: '. t

. •' 1 ) ..... ',

'i,...'.C:lt,)..,l.

'\, ··•...

..'.

.. ..•.

. ...
3:.1: N 2t::rl.t Pt,'1- 1: •...:

:"

o o o
"1-1
en

o o
(c':):

RE1UHN TO SENOER

3
C1> ::J
t-I-

c,o

j-l
59588 ** EXFIRES: 7/2.01 1

ROBERT BECKWITH 2011000082 COLUMBIA Co JAIl.

Irol

As of April 1, 2010 The Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS

901 PORT AVE ST HELENS. OREGON 97051

N:I:>CtE-:
NOT SCI

517,1

51?::!.

00 02/0S/;J,:1.

TO SENCEN AS ADDRESSED
TO FORWARD

0.
--o
1-1 W P 1-\ N

__ __ __ __ _-_._---- This applies to ALL
incolI.1ing and out going mail

970/S·) :QiS6!$@24.20

J!},w Jd) IJIJ I HIJJ I dJn )'J) JilJJ J, JJ, jJJ) 11))1 JJJJn) ,) JuJ

'.....-.__._._.-..---.-._---_. . _.----.--_.-...... -.._-_.-._--_.-. .__.._..._.-_...-. .__.:__.---_. ..

lJ

P>

.

troo

N

-o n

en

U1

"U
(j)
o
:t1=
(J) (0

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 32; Page 2 of 8

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-11 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 8

Order Form

All pw:chases must he prc"paid.·Prisonel·s can pay with

new stamps (sb:ips

or

envelopes. '

Books (3 & 4yr

Specials: CIRCLE

Protecting Your Health and Safety Qr 4 Bonus Issues (3-yr subscription offer)

$ Amt.

Prison Profiteers ru: With

for Some

Q.t 6 Bonus Issues (4-yr subscription offer)

Free

Book Total (inc. all books hought separately)

Add 6% sales tax for Vermont residents only

ADD $6.00 SIR to hook orders UNDER $50

PLN Subscriptions
6-month Subscription (Prisoners only) 1 yr Subscription. (12 issues) 2 yr Suhscription (24 plus 2 Bonus issues)
3 yr Sub (Circle bonus hook above ill: 4 Bonus issues) 4 yr Sub (Circle bonus book above m::? Bonus issues) Sample Issue - $3.50 each
TOTAL Amount Enclosed:

Send to:
Name:
DOC#:
Agency/lnst: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Address: City/State/Zip: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

MAIL PAThlENT.AND THIS FORM TO:

i-O

n'.. Prison Legal News

It'...."

P.O. -Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303

('tI

Purchase by phone with· a Visa or MasterCard

6 o Or buy books and subscriptions online at

www.prisonlegalnews.org

-....j

'I-

-....j

PLN.Subscription Rates

Subscription Rates 1 yr 2 yrs 3 yrs 4yrs

Prisoners *

$24 $ 48 $ 72 $ 96

Individuals

$30 $ 60 $ 90 $120

Professionals

$80 $160 $240 $320

(Lawyers, govt·. &

agencies, libraries, etc.)

Sample issue for anyone - $3.50 each* .

Six-month prisoner subscription for $12*
* Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books only) or pre-stamped envelopes, ifallawed byprisonpolicies.

:- --------

--------:

I

I 2 years - 2 bonus issues, for 26 monthly issues total.

:

: 3 years - 4

issues (4.'() total) OR Protecting Your Health and I

I SafeLy (see book description onthe other side ofthis hrochure).

:

: 4years - 6 bonus issueS (54 total) OR your choice of WirhLibertyfor I

_____:

New 3 01'.4.Year Subscription Book Offers!

Subscribe or renew for three years at the regular price ($72 for prisoners & $90 for individuals), and receive as. a FREE bonus, Protecting Your Health and Safety m: four bonus issues of PLN!. (40 monthly issues total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.

Subscribe or renew for

years at the regular price

($96 for prisoners & $120 for individuals), and receive

as a FREE bonus, Prison Profiteers m: With Liberty for

Some, m: 6 bonus issues of f'LN! (54 monthly issues

total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.

NO shippfug charge for subscription bonus books!

NOTE: Ifyou want the bonus issues ofPLN instead of the free hook offer, please indicate that on the Order Form.

:- ----- U;fo;

iis;!- -----

I

.

I

I You can buy dozens of legal, social commentary, self-t

: help books, and legal and regular dictionaries

t from PLN's book store! Ask us for a book list, or view:

: our selection online at:

I

1I - ______-w_w_w_._ pr_is_on_le_g_al_ne_w_s._o_ rg_ls_to_re_.a_sp_K______ _:

. ': .

have

;

(): Pl·
(fJ
(D

N I
(")
'ooof
-.....I
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights· en·

PLN. is a project ofthe

o

Hum,an Rights Defense Center

0: (c") ·

3·

(D.

.:.:.:.:.l..

co I

Il rc0.-
-o
cW ·
N.

Eastern State Penitentiary 1829-1971

PlJl·

tel :

Charles Dickens visited Philadelphia's Eastern State Penitentiary in 1842 and he later wrote: "The System is rigid, strict and hopeless ... and I

(D:
w:
s,:

believe it to be cruel and -wrong....I hold this slow

(j) .
m·

and daily tampering ·with the mysteries of the

brain to be immeasurably worse than any torture of the body." The prison remained open for

lJ cP.cl!:
(D:

129 years after Dickens condemned it as being

barbaric, and some of its inhumane practices

o

continue to he used in prisons nationwide.
o-.J .

P.O. Box 2420,

VT 05303

802-257-1342 0 www.prisonlegaInews.org

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 32; Page 3 of 8

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-11 Filed 09/13/12 Page 4 of 8

III

.

If! i!
I

Itijii

P rison Legal News an independent, non-profit 56-page monthly publication that reports, reviews and analyzes court rulings and news related to prisoners' rights and prison issues: PLN has a national (U.S.) focus on sta1;e, federal and private prison issues, with some international oqverage as well.

PLN's many thousanq.s of subscribers. and readers

include civil and criminal trial and appellate

judges, public

academlcs; para-

legals, prisoners' rights activists, students, family

members of prisoners,

individuals, politi-

cians, other

numerous' local,

staie and

'. ".:' i.; .'

PLN is'a have access to: and information.

prison-related'!news

..

about

".::":- . ":

. . .::.

Rights W .·n

'user ':.friendlY'

affecting
. j. ,

PLN

.

P LN's coverage of prison issues includes medical neglect, disciplinary hearings, nutrition, living

conditions, excessive force, court access,

jail litigation, visiting, telephones,'religicius

free speech, prison rape,' m:ental health,

client access, sexual B;huse of women

re-

taliation, the PLRA, ElY 'and liep C, cop.troT uruts,

the death penalty, attorney fee,S and much

PLN Subscription Rates

$12 fOJ; 6. month$.; $24 per year *

Non-incarcerated individuals: $30 per year

Ro Law firms, govt:. agen'C.ies and'l.ibraries: $80 per year

r Sample issue for anYOIie: $3.50

.2.I.5.. Prisoners can pay

"
.new. .stamps !Jr pre-stamped envelopes

""-l CXl

E ach mOllthly

of.'PLN)ncludes· three different

. types of reporting:

. ,

<;I A cover story on a

issue.

G Rep.orts 011 individual and

prison.

related lawsuits

they fIled, when

entered or the case setlle?, and

an

decision is issued. We

Jailis
court. ..

. II A "News III Brief' section that su;nmarizes'interesting news stories across the 'U.S. and Illtermltionalljr: .

Each. issue of PLN .also contains numer9us advertisements from businesses that· provide prison-related personal and legal services and books.' PLN further dozens of selfhelp, social commentary aiiii legal boolG: .

PLN also bas cumulative subject arid case 'cite indexes for

1--- - ------- - .- - I all

PLN

issues.

from

1990

tbIough

2004. ,

Write

for

info.

3-year

.

Free with a

PLN subscriptionl1four bonus issues of

PLN (40 issues' total) m: a free hook,' Protecting Your

Health If-nd Safety!

y,ou1' bOIlUS ch9ice on the form

Qn the'. other side. of this brochure

subscription

,rates: prisoners $.72, 4tdiYidpals professionals $24.0).

Protecting

Health.and Safety, by .A..--..,......,...--,.--!

Robert ;E..

Published

ern Pov:erty La,,, Center, 325 pages (2009).

$10.00 (free with a a-year sribl). This' book

explains some ba!?ic rights that 'prisoners

have in a jail or prison in the U.S. It deals

mainly with rights related to health and"

,'.. I

safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by

prison officials; it also explains ho,y. 'you' can enfOl'ce your

rights to health and safety within the. facility and, if ne'c-

essary, in court through litigation.. Buy separately: _ _

:

Can Buy These Books Separatelyl I

I

.

,I

: If you don't want to .purchase 3 or

subscrip.tion:

: to PLN, you can still'purchase any of the bonus books:

: at the regular price. Just indicate which books you want:

: to buy on this page, then enter the total on the other :

': side of this brochure on the "Book Total" mie of the Or- :

: del' Form. Shipping is $6 per order (11ot per book). and we' :

: offer FREE shipping on"book' orders of $50 or more! To:

: place a phone order, please, call 802-257-1342. We also:

:La_c_c_ep_t_b_o_o_k_o_r_d_er_s_o_n_lin_e_"_a_t_____________________ J:

D onations: PLN is a

the non-profit Human

Rights Defense Center. Your tax-deductible dona-

tions SUppOl't our

free speech and First Amend-

ment litigation efforts <?n behalf of

and publish-

ers. PLN 110t only p!ovides uncensored prison-related news, ()

but actively contests .prIson

that

with

the delivery of our publication' or any other PLN materials CD

sent to prisoners. All dona,tions further our goal of advocat- f-l

ing for people imprisoned in U.S. detention facilities.

N

I

(j

"Great source of infonnatioIJ" especially in states such as

Arizona where the law libraries'have been taken'from

the inmates aJ?d

with paralegals."

....,BB; Arizona p'i"isoner .

oo'of
"'-l f-l

I

1----- -- -- -- ---I

Subscription

:

o

o

(j

t::

Free with a 4-year PLN sUbscriptionl,Six bonus'issues of 3

PLN (54 issues total) m: one u:ee JJook, ,Wlth Liberty jo; I'D

So;"'e m: Prison Profiteersl' Circle your bonus choice on

:::l
r-I-

the form on the other side of this brochure (4-year sub-

CO I

rates: prisoners $96, individuals. $120,. profes- f-l

sionals $320).

Free book option for .Q.Il&

:D.

With Liberty for Some:

Years

Imprisonment in America, by' Scott

Christianson, Northeastern University

Press, 372 pages (1998).

(free With

a 4-year subl). A classic book and the best

or0.-.
--o
f-l W f-l f-l

overall history of the American prison sys-

N

tem from 14..92 to the 20th Cen1;ury. Well

written and fact filled. A

for understanding

-0

how li'ttle things have changed as far as prisons' go in the CD U.S. over hundreds of years. Buy separately: _ __

.QI.

o-n

0)

Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money

<J1

from Mass Incarceratio.n,

by. Paul

Wright & Tara Herivel, New' Press (2007).

-0

$24.95 (fl.-ee with a 4.-year sub!). This is

PJ
tel

the third ill a series of, PLN anthologies

CD

that examines the reaiity of m,ass ilI:lprison-

o

ment in the U.S. Prison Profiteers is unique

froIIl other books on t!J.e

because it eJql,?ses and "'-l

discusses who profits and benefits from mass imprison- f-l

ment, rather than 1'(ho

by the prison industrial

complex and our :nation's

on over-incarceration.

Buy

_ __

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 32; Page 4 of 8

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-11 Filed 09/13/12 Page 5 of 8

Order Fo.rm
All purchases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books, no singles) or
pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed by prison policies.

Book Title / Number

Qty Total Cost

(attach another page if you axe ordering mOre books)

Subtotal: A.dd 6 % sales tax for VT residents only: Add $6.00 S/R to orders UNDER $50: Total Order Amount:.

Send to:

Name:

DOC#:

Agency/Inst:

Address:

City/State/Zip:

MAIL PAYMENT AND TillS FORM TO:

Prison Legal News

'til, 11'\\

P.O. Box 2420

l'-....., Brattleboro, VT 05303

Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard

o(')
r

802-257-1342.
Or buy books 'and subscriptions onlinE? at

o I

www.prisonlegalnews.org

h

--.j
<0

FREE SHIPPING
On hook and index orders OVER $50.00!
A$6 shipping charge applies to otherhook am1 index: Ol'(lel's.
(Free shipping policy in effect rromJa1l1, 2010 \Ullil further notice)

More Books for Sale!

Prisoners' Self-Help Litigation Manual, updated 4th ed. (2010), by John

Boston and Daniel Manville, Oxfol:d Univ. Pl:ess, 1500 pages. $39.95. The

I I pl:emiere, must-have "Bible" of prison litigation for current and aspiring jail-
house lawyers. If you plan to litigate a prison or jail civil suit, I

this book is a must-have.

.

1077..

.

Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the U.S.

and Canada, updated 3rd ed.:b}'Jon Marc Taylor, Ph.D. and edited by Susan

Schwam:kopf; published by PLN, 221 pages. $49.95. Written by Missouri

prisoner Jon Marc Taylor, who obtained a B.S. degree, nn M.A. degree arid a

Doctomte, the Glferrilla HOlldbook contnins contact infol:IDation and descrip-

I I tions of high school, vm:ational, parnlegal and college comses availnble
thtough correspondence study. Gl:ent l:esource for prisonetS

who want to futther their education.

1057 I..-.--J._ _---'

Protecting Your Health and·Safc;ty, by Robert E. Toone, Southern Poverty

Law Center, 325 pages. $10.00.:.This book explnins basic Jjghts that prisonetS

have in a jail or prison in tiie·.u.S. denls mainl}' Witil rights related to healtil

I ' I and safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by prison officirus; it ruso
explnins how l'oU can enforce' yom rights within the facility

.and, if necessru:y. in court through

1060 1-._-1._ _---'.

Starting Outl

Handbook, edited b)' Willirun H.

Foster, Ph.D. & Carl·E.

:rh..D:. S.tarting·Out Inc., 446 pages. $22.95.

Complete do-it-yourself

mnhl;l:d 'and workbook for prisoners who

want to develop their o\vn re-entq; pllin to' increase ,their chances of success

after the}' are released. Includes· to the Swting Out

I me!:)' of resomces, including a user accessed fOlloW-I:'

mgtelease.

.' .. ' : "::: . .;'.'

....._-"._ _---'.

Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners'

.Prisoners v. the U.S.A., by

Mumia Abu Jamal, City Lights

280 pages. $16.95. In Jailhoffse L:r1P-

YerJ, Prison Legal News columnist; ·award-winning jomnnlist and death-row

prisoner Mumia Abu-:Jnmnl presents tile stories and reflections of fellow pris-

I I oners-turned-advocates who have learned to use the court system to represent
other prisoners, and in some cases have won tileir freedom"

Must-read for jailhouse lawyersl'

1073 ---J. L..._ - ' ._ _

How to Win Your Personal Injury Claim, by Atty. Joseph Matthews, 7th

edition, NOLO Press, 304 pages. $34.99. While not speclficnlly for prison-

related personnl injury cases, this book provjdes comprehensive infol:IDntion

I I I on' how to handle personal injury nnd proper!:)' damage claims arising from

-

denling widl doctors, attorneys and

msurance compnrues.

1075 1-._-1._ _---'.

() (0

N I
C")
<ooof
-.....I
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights en

PLN is a project ofthe Hum,an Rights Defense Center

ooC").
c:

3

(0

.--t-
CO I

Irol
Q..
a
-w
N·

'"0. r.P.C!J:.
(0:
CJ1
o-n
OJ· CJ1.

'"0:

PJ'

2010 PLN 'BOOK LIST

r..C! .

(0:

Prices Subject to Change Without Notice

- 0::

Graphic from: Books 2 Prisoners, VaDcouvcr, Be

7!:;

-.....I N

P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257..1342 • www.pl.isonlegalnews.org

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 32; Page 5 of 8

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-11 Filed 09/13/12 Page 6 of 8

Check the box of the books you want to buy and use .the. Order Fonn on the other side ofthis brochure to add up the cost of your order. FREE SBlPPlNG for book and index orders OVER $50. There is a $6 shipping cbarge all other book and index orders.

Prison Profiteers, edited br Paul Wright and Tam HeriveI, 323 pages. $24.95. TIUs is dlC

third and L1test bookin a series ofPrison Legnl News anlhologies that e.=nmes dle ren1ity of

mass imprisonment in America. (The olher titles are The Glfill!, ojAlllerit:l1 & Pm(m Natioll,

I I see below). PrisUll Proj'ce:s.is unique from olher, books bCClusc it el>fses nod discusses
who profits and bene/i1S from mass imprisonment; mdler than who is

hrumed. by it and how.

1063 '--_......_ _.....

I I I Prison Nation: The Warehousing ofAmerica's Poor, edited by Tam Hetivel and Paul
Wright, 332 pages. $35.95. PIN anlhology o:pose:' dle drnk side of!he

climatein Ihe u.s.

1041 . .

..

The Celling ofAmepca, edited by Daniel Bll}:tOn Rose, Dan Pens and Paul Wright, 264

pages. $22.95. PIN anlilo\og]' preseOts a detniled. "inside" look at !he /' _I

I

wodcings oftheAmeciClll a:imirL11 justice system.

1001 . .

.

Everyday Letters Busy People, b}, Debra Hnrt May, 287 pages. $18.99.

I I \ Hundreds of sample'letters that can be adapted for most any purpose, including
letters to government agencles and officials. Has numerous

tips for writing effective ler+ers. '.

1048 1 _ ... -.I..._ _-'.

The Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your RighlS, Survive the System, by

Attomeys Paul Bergman & Snra J. Berman-Barrett; Nolo Press, 608 pngcs. $39.99.

Explains what happens in 11.·o:irn.inal case from being arrested to sentencing, and what

your righlS \lIe at each stage of the process. Uses an easy to under-,

stand question-and-answer. format. ' . . .

. .

1038

L . . ._ - - ' -_ _- - '

Represent Yourself in Court: How to Prepare & Tty a Winning Case, by

Attorneys Paul Bergman & Snrn J. Berman-Barrett, Nolo Press, 528 pages. $39.99.

I I I Breaks down the civil trial process in easy-to-understand:steps so you can effectivel}'

represent

in court TIle au!hoJ:S e.\'Pln!n what to say in

court, how to sa)' 11:, etc.

.

1037

L . . . ._ - ' ._ _- - - ' .

Law Dictionary, R.1ndom House Webster's, 525. pages. $19.95. Comprehensive u,-

to-date law dictionary e.\-plains more !han 8,500 legal terms.,

,

Covers civil, o:irn.inal,

&intemationallaw.

1036

L . . . ._ - - ' - ._ _- - ' .

I I I The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, by Jane Strous, 110 pages.
$14.95. A guide to grnrn.mnr and punctuation by an educator

with el.-perience teacl1ing English to prisoners.

1046 . '

.

Legal Resenrcb: How to Find and Understand the Law, 'by Stephen Elias and

I I Susan Levinkind, 568 pages. $49.99.' Comprehensive and easy to understand guide
on resenrclling the L1W. Explains case law, statutes and digeslS, ,

and much more. Includes practice e.'(ercises.

1059 ....._-'-._ _---'.

Deposition Handbook, by P:iul'BergDlan and Al(jert Mnore, Nolo Press, 352

pages. $34.99. How-to handbook for anyone who conducts .11 I

1

deposition or is going to be deposed.

1054 L..._ - ' - ._ _- - ' .

I I I i-O

Dictionary, Random House. $B.95. Two

sections, Spanish-English and English-Spanish. 60,000+ entries

£rom A to

1034 1..._ - - ' - ._ _- - ' .

and me Pleasc.Note:..All hook index: orders mailed via the U.S. Postal

()

iLN' doeS not

sihility to

index:

their delivery to the dcsti-

6o nation. add.resS.(fa. cility.-)'jg, 'con:fi:i:t:nedhy·the. U.S' . Postal.S.er.vi.ce..:.

....l.
OoJ ·

I I I Writing to W.tru The Legal Writer, br SieI'en D. Stark, Broadway Books/Random
House, 283 pages. $19.95. :&;p\ains Ihe writing ofeffectiv:e complaints,

fesponses, briefS, motions aqd other legal papers.

1035 1•.•,;_ - , ._ _- '

'Actual Innocence: WIlen Justice Goes Wrong and How to Make it Rigpt:,}lpdated

paperback ed., by BruIY' Sdleck, Peter Neufeld and jim Dwyer; 403 pages. $16.00.

Founders of dle Innocence Project c.'Plain how a:irn.inar'defendnnts are wrongly con-

victed on 11. regular basis. El.p\ains DNA testing nod how it works to free the innocent.
I' .\ DCVliStnting a:ilique of police and prosecutorial misconduct and the . .\

system dlllt ensures such abuses continue. .

. 1030 \..._.L._ _---'.

Roget's Thesaurus, 717 pages. $8.95. Helps you find the rigl}tword for what

.you want to say. 11,000 words listed alphnbetica).!y with over 200,000 synonyms'
I. and antonyms. Sample sentences and pnrts speech shown for eveI}' main'
word. Covers all levels of vocnbulary nod identifies infotmall \

and slang words.

1045 L.._

. . . . ._ _- '

Webster's English Dictionary, Newl}' revised nnd updated, Random House.

I I I $8.95. 75,000+ entries. Includes tips on writing and word usage; and has up-
dated geogtaphical and biographical entries. Includes recent

business and computer terms.

1033 . ' .

. .

I .I I Capital Crimes, by George Winslow, Monthly Review, 360' pages. $19.00.
Explnins how economic policies create and foster crime, and

how corporate & government crime is rnrcly punished. 1024

.

'----'----'

With Liberty for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America, by Scott

Christianson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages. $18.95. The best

ovemll histot}' of 'the American prison system from 1492 through the 20th

I I I .Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how little
things have chnoged ns fnr as prisons go in the U.S. over

hundreds of yenrs.

1026..

.

. Ten Men Dead: The story of the 1981 Irish hunger strike, by David Beres-

ford, Atlantic Monthly Press, 334 pages. $16.95. Inside story nf I I

' 1

IRA prisoners at Belfast's Long Kesh prison.

1006 . .

..

I I I Finding the Right Lawyer, b}' Jay Foonberg, ABA, 256 pages. $19.95. Ex-
plains how to determine your legal needs, how to evaluate a

qualifications, fee payments, and more.

1015..

.

Seize the Dayl 7 Steps to Achieving the Extraordinary in an Ordinary

World, by Danny Cox nnd john Hoover, 256 pages. $15.99. Ptovides 7 steps

to cllanging }'our l!."pecmtions and envisioning yourself as being n

and respected person-which is essential to changing .the I 1

I

.

of one's life.

'..

1052...

Women Behind Bars, The Crisis of Women in the U.S. Prison. System, b}'

Silja J.A. Talvi, Seal P.tess, 295 pages. $15.95. Best book avnilable that covers

issues related to imprisoned women, based on interviews \vith 1

. I

hundreds ofwomen behind bars.

1066 \-._ - ' -_ _...I.

10 Insider Secrets to a Winning Job Search, by :rodd Berrn.ont, 216 pages.
$.15.99. Roadmap on how to get a job even under nd,'erse circumstnnces-:-like
I I I' being an e.'C-con. Includes how to develop a winning attitude, write attention-
grabbing resumes, prepnre for interviews, networking, how to present your strengths to an employer, and much morel 1056 _ l.... .J-._ _--'.

I The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity;in the Global Drug Trade, 2003

·Ed. by Alfred McCo)', 734 pages. $34.95. Documented eJ..-pose

1

\

of the government's involvement in drug tmfficldng.

1014 l...._ - ' ._ _- - - - ' .

Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis, b}' Christian Parenti,

I. 290 pages. $19.00. 'Arinl}'Zes the:wnr on Ihe poor via dle a:iminnI justice system. Well

documented and

first-hand reporting. Covers prisons, pam-,

mililnt)'pnlicing;SWAT teams and theINS.·

.

·1002 l....'_.1-._ _...I

Hepatitis and Liver Disease: What Yo:u

to Know, by Melissa Palmer, IvlD,

457 pages. $17.95. DesOlbes syniptomir&

ofhepatitis B & C and odler

liver diseases. Includes medications to :rvoid, wllnt diet to follow, \ 1

I

exen::ises to perform, and a bibliogmphy. '"

. _

1031 l... _ . ..I._ _...J.

Crime and Punisbment In America, D}t Elliott Cumc; 230 pages. $16.95. Effuctive

I I rebuttal to right-wing ptoponents of-prison buil9ing. Fact-based rugument shows Ihnt

oime is dtiven by pm>erqt. Debunks prison m)ttl1S and discusses

1

pJ:O\=,e£fectivemcansofoime·prevencion. . . "

1019..

()
rffoi

w Prison Madness: The Mental Health Crisis Behind Bars and What We

Must Do About It, b}' Terry Kupers,J05Se},-Bass, 245 pages. Hardback only, p

prisoners please include any required authorization foen. $32.95. Psychia- N

trist writes about the mental health crisis in U.S. prisons and jails. Covers all

I
(j

aspeclS of mental illness, prison rape, negative effeclS of long-I' I

1 <

term isolation in control units, and more.

1003...

Prison Writing in 20th Century America, by H. Bruce Franklin, Penguin

oooI

Books, 368

$16.00. From jack London to George Jackson, this

I I I antllOlog}' provides a selection of some of tlle best writing

p--J

en describing life bellind bnrs in America.

1022...

T I Soledad Brother: The Prison Letters of George Jackson, by George]ackson,
Lawrence H1II Bonks, 339 pages. $18.95. Lucid e...'.Plnnation of jle IiDCS of prison by 11. well-known prison activist. More relevant now than

o o

when it first appeared 40 years ago.

1016

(j

t:

Marijuana Law, by Richard Boke, Ronin, 271 pages. $17.95. Exnmines how to
I reduce Ihe probability ofru:rest and prosecution fot people accused of tbe use, sale Ot
possession· of mruiju.wa. Info on legal defenses, search & seizures, \ \

:r3o
:.-:+i

surveillnnce, asset forfeiture and drug resting.

100B L.. _ . .I.._ _.J.

CO

Worse Than Slavery: Parchman Farm and the Ordeal ofJim CrowJustice, by

I
P

I I I David Oshinsky, 306 pages. $16.00..AnaI}osis. of prison Iabot's !!lots in slnvery.
Focuses on prison plnntntions and self-sustaining prisons that use

prison labor.

1007..

.

No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the American Criminal Justice

Il rc0.-

I I I System, by David Cole, TIle New Press, 218 pages. $19.95. li>plains how the'
o:irn.inaI justice system perpetuates race and cl.1SS inequality,

creating a t\vo-tiered system ofjustice: . .'

. '102B,

The Prison and the Gallows: The Politics of Mass Incarceration in
I America, b}, Marie GOttscllnlk, Cambridge Universit.y Press, 451 pages.
$29.99. Great political analysis of tlle confluence of events.\ \

--o
p
W P P N

leading to 2.3 million people bellind bnr5 in the U.s.

1069 L._.I..._ _..J.

u

The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, by Brandon

ro Sample, PLN Publislling, 200 pnges. $49.95. Tlus is PLN's second published

I I I book, wlucll e.'(clusively covers ineffective assistance of counsel-related
issues in federal habeas petitions. Great resource for habeas

lirignrion, and contains hundreds of cnse cites!

1078 L._.I..._ _..J.

0'>
o-n

Factor 8 (DVD), a film by Kell}' Duda, Concrete

0'> $21.95. Movie (J1

I I I u about the Arkansas prison blood scandal, in which prison officials sold
infected blood harvested from prisoners. Note: This is a

DVD and cannot be shipped to poson.

1.076' ......--!.,...;.._ _-'.

ro

PLN Cumulative Index. $22.50 eacll:PLN Article Inde.'Ces provide detniled information about all PLN articles, including title, author, issue, page number,

o

covered, citations, and if it 'is

or jail specific. Cp.n be :t=!=

I I: senrci1ed on over 500 subjects such as medical

or seJ..-uaI nssnclt. qrcle --J

th.e index(es) you nre

.1996.1998? 1999-1

W

2001, 2002-2004. (morerecentIDde.,es notyet.avnilable)

....._ .......,..._---'.

All books 'are soft cover except Prison Madness

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 32; Page 6 of 8

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-11 Filed 09/13/12 Page 7 of 8

Case 3:'12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 7 of 65 Page 10#: 74

T he Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel is the first in a

series of books by Prison Legal

News Publishing designed to help

pro-se prisoner litigants identify

and raise viable claims for poten-

tial habeas corpus relief. This

book is an invaluable resource

that identifies hundreds of cases

where the federal courts have

granted

relief to prison-

ers whose attorneys provided inef-

fective assistance of counsel.

It will save litigants
thousands,ofhours of research and it focuses on the
WINNING cases ,criminal defendants' need to
successfully challenge their convictions.

Well organized into 52 concise chapters, this easy to use book puts the law at the readees fingertips. The Ap.pendix includes pleadings andJorms from successful habeas corpus cases that

"

The Habeas' Citebook is a

nifty and concise self-help

guide for prisoners seeking

habeas'reliefbased on claims of

ineffective assistance of counsel

Navigating the complex and

treacherous terrain ofhabeas

law is never easy; but claim-

ing that your lawyer screwed up

is even more difficult - espe-

dally from'the confines of an

demonstrate fo"rmatting and show ill-equipped prison law library.

how to frame a winning argu-

ccBrandon Sample has pro-

ment that will persuade a court

vided an amazing and much-

to grant habeas relief. The Habeas , needed tool for prisoners who

Citebook explains the proce-

are forced to seek relief on their

dural and substantive complexi-

own. The book is thorough; but'

ties of federal habeas corpus lit-

simple and readable. It starts

igation with the goal ofidentify-

with a wonderfully well-orga-

ing and litigating claims involving, nized listi,ng ofhundreds of dif-

ineffective assistance of counsel.

ferent types of ineffective assis-

Brandon Sample is a success-

tance of counsel, set forth in the

ful jailhouse lawyer ,litigant incar-' form of citations to court rul-

cerated in the l?ureau of Prisons.

ings - a novel

that

He is a Prison Legal News contrib- not only acts as a springboard

l,1ting writer and a member of the

for further research but also

Lawyer's Guild. Editor

saves the prisoner countless

Susan Schwartzkopf has a mas-

hours of preliminary research:'

ter's degree in education and is

the director and editor in chief of

PETER

ErisonJ.,egal News Publishing."

Publisher,. Punch & Jurists

THE HABEAS CITEBOOK: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

By Brandon Sample 8.25" X,Io.75" D 224 pages
ISBN 978-0-9819385-1-6
$49·95 or more copies ordered

Number of copies ordered '_'__ Amount enclosed _______

By: 0 check 0' new postage stamps 0 credit card 0 money order I

Name

I

DOC/BOP Number ___________________

, at once $39.95 each

Institution/Agency _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-=--.:..._ _ _ _ __

FREE'Shipping (& Handling

Order by mail, phone, or on-line.
PUl'ILlSHEDDY

_______________________ Stffie

ZIP

PlfU§ON LEGAL NEWS P.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 0530 3
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org ,

P P.LNCOL-00181
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 32; Page 7 of 8

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-11 Filed 09/13/12 Page 8 of 8

Case 3: 12-cv-U0071-SI

Page 8 of 65 Page 10#:'75 ""....-"."."------""---",,

"COPies of this very usable and useful gUide

. shoulq be available in every prison library-to

help

people give' positive

tionto

while making constructiye

lise of their.. It is·a wen-established fact that

.pe<?ple

in'

have dramatiCally reduced rate .of recidivism."

.-BELL:GALE CHEVIGNY, PEN Prison Writing Program, . Editor Doing Time: 25 Years ofPrison Writing.

HIGH SCHOOL VOCATIONAL .. PARALECAL It UNDERGRADUATE 0 GRADUATE COURSES

GREATLY anticipated and newly updated

third

of the Prisoner's Guerrilla

Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the

United States and Canada has finally arrived! Author

Jon Marc'Taylor's brand new version is the latest in

this unique and highly successful gUidebook for the

This invaluable tool and how-to

handbook provides the reader with step-by-step

instructions to find the apprbpriate 'educational

program for high school, vocational,· paralegal,'

undergraduate, and graduate courses offered in
the u.s: and Canada today. .

Invaluable re-entry toel

It presents more than '160 program outlines' and
offers an easy-to-use format for the student to
determine which program best suits their needs. It is ideal for the incarcerated student who does. not have Internet access or the ability to attend educa-
in tion classes person. This 'resource is indispensable

for the indIvidual and beneficial for use in all prison

libraries and education departments.

The Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook is the only book

on the market for the non-traditional 'prisoner-stu-

dent. It indudes detailed listings of the quaHty, cost,

and course offerings for all correspondence pro-

'grams available to prisoners. In a time when so many

academic opportunities in prisons have been elim-

.inated, thi.s book is an itwaluable re-entry ,for

prisoners who seek to

their educatipn while

and to help them

for life ancl

work following their·release.

.

Jon Marc Taylor has more than 25' years experi-

ence as an incarcerated student, advocate for pris-

oner education, and author. He has

. earned a bachelor's degree, a master's degreel and a doctorate via correspondence courses while incar-

cerated. Editor Susan Schwartzkopf a master's

degree in education and years experience teach-'

ing' immigrants Englishh:mguag"e skills.

PRISONERS' GUERRILLA HANDBOOK TO· CORRESPONDENCE PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA g

ByJon Marc Taylor PHD

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount endosed ____--'-_

8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages

By: 0 check 0 new postage stamps 0 credit card 0 money order M

ISBN 978-0"9819385"0-9

Name ____________________________________

$49·95 3 or more

DOC/BOP Number ___--'-______-'----,--______-'--_ _ __

at once $39095 each

InstitutionlAgency ______________--'--'--___________

I' . FR.EE Shipping & Handling

Order by mail, phon,e, or on-lirie. City ____________________ State

m

PUBLISHED BY

ZIP

I PRI§ON lEGAL NEWS P.o. Box 24 20 West Brattleboro VT 0530 3

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

P ageP2L9NCOL..00182
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 32; Page 8 of 8

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-12 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 8
EXHIBIT 33
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 33; Page 1 of 8

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-12 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 8

o

ro

I

-i.

(.oJ
J-l N

I

I

1·

Prison Legal News

P.O. Box 2420

.. -

:+. . .;r:ri::r

II, ___ ., ••;,:

,,1 ," ..ii, ':'

. .UlLWt.:_

.... to1'.1,·. t.,) - I'.
.. "·.Uh.,·-.. .. ,

aaaI
-....j
J-l

West Brattleboro, VT . -..

....

en

-.-,. 63<08** G

INf:"o

**

'. '. - .

< iF/"'

COl..tfrrra

01 00

' -...--.._-'

. . '., .:. • •. ' - ......- ..

INSPECTED BY

RETURN TO SENDEE

PERSON NOT !'IEHE CONTRABAND

901 S7" H ..

JJA CO
7" 4 \l'E;

J

All..

0041 0

tv 9'70S f - 'L

__

----.

....n.''(

o o
c("') :3
CD ::J
..-t-
co I
J-l
Irol

INTER-FACILITY __

'NIX:!:I:: N(:.rl'

\!I'('()

'.'
('0

'TO SSNDSR •• XVt::rtA6Le:
TO FORWARO

(;l'f I

0..
--a
J-l
(.oJ
J-l
J-l N

SO :

97JJ.5j 0.5:3t03

.

. 1111 II d,111111,111111 dIll II, JII, lillI/ JIf /11111,111,1,111 J,I

u
c§

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _._

._--_._------_._--............ -.--_. - ..-._.

ro

(.oJ

,.!:::.

Q,

Q) (Jl

U PJ
troo
'"'0

(J'(:I

(';/-0

oJ-l

(')

J-l

o

r

ow6

I\.)

":'L

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 33; Page 2 of 8

,--------

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-12 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 8
._----_.-_...._... _.

,'O ..

All purchase's must"be

can pay with

new

stamps

(.striP!!i

....

hooks):or
:.".

pre-stamped
.

env. elopes.

Books (3 &4yrSuhscrip'UonSpecials: ciRCLE

$ Amt.

Protecting Your

Safe,ty

Q.[ 4, Bonus Issues

offer)

Free

Prison Profiteers:SE. With,Liberty for Some

Q.[ 6 Bonus Issues (4-yr subp.cription offer)

Free

Book Total (inc. all books

separately)

Add 6% sales tax for Yerinont'residents only

ADD $6.00 SIR to hook orders UNDER $50

PLN

,

'6-month 1 yr Subscription (.12 il?sues),

only.) ,

2 yr Subscription (24 plus 2 Bonus issues)

3 yr Sub (Circle l,lonushook abovem: 4 Bonus issues)

4 yr Sub (Circle honus book above.QI 6Bonu5 issues)

Sample Issue - $3.5.0 :each

TOTAL Amount

Send to:
Name:
DOC#:
Agencyllnst: _ _.....,...--:--_ _ _ _ _ _ __

Addxess: City/State/Zip: _________--'-_ _ __

MAIL PAYMENT AND Tins FORM TO:

_I Prisol1' Legal News

P.O";:Box 2420

(JQ

Brattleboro, VT 05303,

(D""(j

Purchase by
o

'-':'lith, i? Visa or MasterCard

:; Or buy books arid subscriptions online at

8

www.prisonleg.alnews.org

OJ

PLN. SUhSCl;iption Rates

Subscription Rates 1 'jrr 2yrs . 3 yrs 4 irs

Prisoners *

'$24 $' 48 $ 72 $ 96

Individuals

$3'0 $,60 $ 90 $120

Professionals

$80, $160 $240 $320

(Law:y!)rs, govt. &
Sample issue for

etc.)
- $3.50..each*

Six-month prisoner subscription for $12*

:[< Prisoners can pay new'

stamps (strips or books

only) or pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed. byprisonpolicies.

:- --------

--------:

I

'

I 2 years - 2 bonus issues, for 26 monthly issuef;l totaL

:

I I

3 years

-

4 bonus

issues

("40 '\:otal)

OR Protecting

Your

Hea,lth

and

I

I Safety (see book description on the other side ofthis brochure).

:

: 4 years - 6 bonus issues (54 total) OR your choice of With Libertyfor I

!..

_ _ _ _ _:

, New 3 or 4.Year Subscription nook Offers!

Subscribe or renew, for three years at the regular price' ($72 for prisoners & $90 for individuals), and receive as a FREE honus, Protecting Your Health and Safety or foUl' bonus issues of PLN! (40 monthly issues total). Indicate yOUl' choice OJ?- the Order Form.

Subscribe or renew for four years at the regular price

($96 for prisoners & $120 for

a1:!-d receive

as a FREE bonus, Prison Profiteers m: Wi,tlt Libertyfor

Some, m: 6

issues 'of 'PLN! (54 monthly issues

total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.

NO shipping charge for subscription bonus books!

NOTE: Ifyou want the bonus issues, of PLN instead of the free book offer, please indicate that on the Order Form.

:- ----"" ir;£0; pUis iis;!- -----

,',

I

: You can buy dozens· of legal., social commentary, self-I

I help books, and legal and regular dictionaries directly:

: from PLN's book store!. Ask,us for a book. list, or view:

I selection online at: ., . ', '

I

.

I

IL ___ "" __w_w_w_.p_r_isonlegalnews.org/s_to_re-.a_sp_x- - - - - - -I

'. :., ':All

.!.::i' o..nr'r"a1't:.e;..s<'

:&1..1b. >onus'of't.'.e.;:,r•s..

.... ·I. :":"
art;"effeetiVe

: .. ', 35:0£

i : <..:, .
5.;1-10'

o
rn
ID eN
N
I'
<,(") 0ooI :
--.J'
Dedicated,to Protecting Human Rights

PLN,is a project ofthe

0o ,

("),

Hl£nLan Rights Defense Center

c:

:3

ID

::l
r-t-

00,

I

It
(5": 0..
o
eN
--'N'

Eastern State

p"0)::

(O:

ID:

Charles Dickens visited Philadelphia's Eastern

W:

State Penitentiary in 1842 and he later wrote:

01'
0:

"The System is rigid, st,rict and hopeless ... and I

-+.

believe it to be cruel and wrong....! hold this slow

OJ
01;

and daily tampering with the mysteries of the

brain to be immeasurahly worse than any tor-

p);

ture of the hody." The prison remained open for

{O,

ID
129 years after Dickens condemned it as being

barbaric, and some of its inhumane practices

0:

continue to he used in prisons nationwide.

j---:.;'

N;

P.O. Box 242,0, Brattleboro, VT 05303

802-257-1342 0 www.prisonlegaInews.org

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 33; Page 3 of 8

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-12 Filed 09/13/12 Page 4 of 8

n I

P rison Legal

non-profit

56-page monthly publicatlon that reports, re-

views and analyzes court rulings and news related to

prisoners"iights 'aiid'priSon iSsues. PLNhas a natiomil

fitS.) focus, on state, federal and private prison issues,

with some international.coverage as well.

PLN's many

of subscribers and readers

include civil arid criminal trial and appellate attorneys,

judges, public defenders', 'journausts, academics, paxa-

legals, prisoners' rights activists, students, family

members of prisoners, concerned individuals, politi-

cians, 'other ,governmep.:\: 'offiCia1s';, and n:umerous,19Qal,

state and

ptisonersnatiimvnde.," " ,

PLN, is a vital have access to and information.

whootherwis'e and' prison-related news ,"; .. ,

P LN's coverage of

issues

neglect, disciplinax)( hearings, nutrition, living

conditions, excessive force, court'

censorship,

jail litigation, visiting, 'telephones, religious freedom,

free speech, prison 'r''';'pe, 'mtmtal health, attorney/

client

sexual abuse, of women prisoners, re-

taliation, the

,HIV hep C, control units,

the death penalty, attorney and much more.

Rates '

Prisoners: $12 for 6 moIitliS,',$24 per yeax *

('l)

"

','

Non-:incarcerated

year

, () Law firms, govt.

?2 Sample issue 'for

8I *

.
can pay

W

N CD

.

I

••••

...

$80 per year '
envelopes

E ach monthly, iss:ue: of ,types of,:l,'eporting;

includes tlll'ee different ,, '"

GI A cover story on a pI:ison-related issue.

G Rf!ports OIl individJlal and class-action prison., jaU- '

related lawsuits when tlley are,;filed, when a judgment is,

entered or the ,case settles, and,

appqllate COUI't

decision is issued. We also,have prison-related

III A "News 1::0. Brief' section

illterestilig

news storie,S across the U.S. and interriat,iolially. '

Each issue of PLN also 'contains :numerous advertisements from businesses that provide prison-related personal' and legal services and books.' PLN 'furtJ:ter sells dozens of 8el£help, social conmientar)T and legal books.. "

PLN also has cumulative subject 'and case cite indexes for

all PLN issues'from 1990

2004.: Write for info.

,I'

a Free, with a 3-yew:: PLN

Four bonus issues of

PLN' (40 issues total) QI free hoole, Protecting Your

He,a,lth and Safety! Circle yOUI' bonus

on the for:m

,. ,on the otlier side of this

,(3-y'ear

rates: prisoners $72, indi,?duals, $90, professionals $240).

Protecting Your fIealth and -Safety', by ."--..--.,,.---\

Robert E. Toone. Published by the South-

Pov,erty Law: Center, '325 p'iges (2009).

$10.00 (n'ee with a 3-year solil): This book

explains

basic rights that' prisoners

have in a jail 'or prison in the U:S. It deals Ii

I

mainly with rights

to health

.

"

safety, such as commuuic!ilile' diseases and abuse by

prison officials; it explafus ll?'V you can enfOl'ce'your

rights to health, and' safety within the facility and, if nec-

essar.y, in.COU. I't through litigation... Buy separately: _'__

: You Can Buy These

! s.eparately!

a I

"

,,"

: If you don't want to pUI'chase' 3 or

'

, I

'subs,cription: '

: to PLN, you can still pUl:cihasci any of the bonus books:

: at the regular price. Just indicate which hooks' you ,'rant:

: to buy on this page, then enter'the total cost on the other:

: side ofthis

on'the "Book Total" line of the 01'- ':

: der

Shipping is $6 per'

'(not per'book), we':

: offer FREE shipping clii

orders 'of'$50 'or more! To':

: place a phone order; 'please call 802-257-134.2. We also:

:La_c_c_ep_t_b_o_o_k_o_r_de_r_s_o_n_li_n_e,_a_t_w_w__w_.p_r_is_o_n_le_g_a_ln_e_w_s_.o_r_g.__ :

D r onations: PLN is' a ,project..'of tlie non-profit Human

, Rights Defense

OUI'

dona-

tions support C!1l! advocacy, free speeoh ll;l1d Fil'J?t Amend-

ment litigation,' efforts, on

of pris9ners and publish- (')

ers. PLN not only provides uncensored prisoll-relateC!

but actively contests 'prison

that interferes with ro

the delivery of OUI' publication or any' other PLN materials

sent to prisoners. All

further ,our goal of

f-\

ing for people imprisoned in U.S. detention facilities.

N I

("')

c:;:

"Great source of infonnation, especially in states such as Arizona where the law libraries nave been taken: from

o o o

the inmates and replaced with para,legals." ,

---.J

- SB, AriZona 'pris'oner

'

f-\
en

Special

Offer! f :

o
o

("')
c

Free with a 4-year PLN

bonus' issues of :r3o

PLN (54- issnes total) !!!: one D:ee book" With Liberty for ::::l .-t-

Some QI Prison Profiteersl Circle yOUI' bonus choice on OJ

the form on the other side of bl;OchUI'e{

sub-

I
f-\

s<?ription rates: prisoners $96,

$120, profes-

sionals $320). Note: Free book option is for

IroI

With Liberty for Some: ' 500 Years

Imprisonment in America;,

'Scott

Christianson, Northeastern ,Uuiyer/lity,

Press, pages (19?8).

a 4-year snb!). A classic book ap.d the best

Q..
-eo .
eN f-\
f-\ N

overall history of the American, prison sys-

g tem from 1492 to,the 20tll Century. Well

'1J

written and fact f"illed. A

for understanding

how little things have

as far as prisons go in the ro

U,S. over hundreds of years. Buy separately: ___ ' '

ewn

m:

o
-h

Prison Profiteers: Who Ma1£es Money

en
U1

from Mass

by Paul

Wright & Tara Herivel, New Pres's '(2007).

'1J

$24.95 (frce with a 4-year,

This is

tlle third in a series of pr;.:N anthologies

pj
CrOo

tl1at examines the ref!-lity ment in the U.S. Prison from qt4er, books ,on th,e, 'discusses who profits'and ment, rather than who is

o

unique

:tt

it mass,imprisqnl;Jy:th!l prison industrial

of-\
W

complex and our nation',s. relia:nce on over-incarceration.

Buy separately:,___ ,:"

.. ' "

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 33; Page 4 of 8

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-12 Filed 09/13/12 Page 5 of 8

Order Form
All purchases must he pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or hoolts, no singles) or pre-stamped envelopes, ·i/"allowed by prison policies.

Book Title / Number

Qty Total Cost

(attach another page if you are ordering more books)

Subtotal: Add 6% sales tax for VT residents only: Add $6.00 SIR to orders UNDER $50: Total Order Amount:

S·end to:
Name: DOC#: AgencylInst: Address:
City/State/Zip: MAIL PAYMENT AND TIDS FORM TO: Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 Brattleboro, VT 05303

8 Purchase by phonE? witQ.a· Visa or MasterCard 802-257:-1342

r;- Or buy books and.subscriptions online at

g

www.prisonlegalnews.org

o

FREE SHIPPING On hook and index orders OVER $50.00!
A$6 shipping cbargeapplies to all other hook aUll index: ol'(lcl'S.
(Free shipping policy in effect frO·ill Jnil 1,2010 uutil fl.lrLhcl· notice)

More Books £01' Sale!

Prisoners' Self-Help Litigation Manual, updated 4th ed. (2010), by John

Boston and Dnniel Manville, Oxford Univ. Press. 1500 pages. $39.95. The

I premiere, must-have "Bible'; of prison litigation for current·and Bspiring jail-

house lawyers. If you plan to litigate a prison or jail ch'il suit, I

I

thls book is a must-have.

1077...

Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the U.S.

and Canada, updated 3rd ed. by Jon Marc TaylQr, Ph.D. and edited b}' Susan

Schwartzkopf, published b}' PLN, 221 pages. $49.95. Written by Missouri

prisoner Jon Marc Taylor, who obtnined n B.S. degree, an M.A. degree and a

Doctorate, the Gllerrilla Halldbook contains contact informacion and descrip-

I I tions of high

vocational, paralegnl and college courses avnilable

through couespondencc study. Great resource for prisoners

who want to furdlcr their education.

1057 L..---'-_ _- '

Protecting Your Health and Safety, b)' Robert E. Toone, Soudlern Poverty

Law Center, 325 pagcs. $10.00. TIus bC?ok explnins basic rights that prisoners

have in a jnil or prison in the U.S. It deals mainl}' widl rights related to healdl

I I and safet)" such as communicable disenses and abuse b)' prison officials; it also

exp11ins how you can cnforce your rights ,vidun dle facility

I

nnd, if necessary, in court through litigation.

1060 '-._ ....._ _---'.

Starting Out! The Complete Re-Entry Handbook, edited by Willianl H.

Foster, Ph.D. & Cad E. Horn, Ph.D., Starting Out Inc., 446 pages. $22.95.

Complete do-it-yourself re-entry manual and

for prisoners who

want to develop their own re-entry plan to increase dleir chances of success

I I after they are released. Includes a.,vide "ariet}' of resources, including a user to the Starting Out website that can accessed fOllOW-I

109 r e l e n s e . l 0 7 4 ,-._ ......_ _---'.

Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners v. the U.S.A., b)f

Murnia Abu Jamal, City Lights Publishers, 2BO pages. $16.95. In

UP-

yer.r, Prison Legnl News columnist, award-winning journnlist and denth-row

prisoner Mumin Abu-Jnmal presents the stones and reflections of fellow pris-

I I I oners-rumed-ndvocates who have learned to use the court system to represent
odler prisoners, and in some cases have won their freedom.

Must-read for jailhouse lawyersl

1073 L._--1..._'_ _..J.

How to Win Your Personal Injury Claim, b}f Att)'. Joseph Matthews, 7th

edition, NOLO Press, 304 pages. $34.99. While not specifically for prison-

related personal injury cases, this book provides comprehensh·e information

I on how to handle personal injury and propert}· damage claims arising from

-

dealing wid, doctors, attorneys and I \

insurance compnrues.

1075 L._ - ' - _ _ _- - ' .

1:.· .•

.•'

()
frfoi
w
N

aoI·
d.

I;
(Jj
Dedicated to Protectmg· Human Rights l

PLN is a project ofthe

C1
0;

(");

Huntan Rights

Center

C:i

.'

' : ' . M"

•

:::J:

cd 1 :
p

oJJr
Q.;
d
-Hw...
t::
N

'"0
p)
t(o'I)::
w
0--!:
-t;
oi Ui

U

P):

2010 PLN BOOK LIST

(0:
(1);

Prices Subject to Change Without Notice

d

GrDI'bic froml Boolte 21'risoncfa, VDncouver, Be

.:j:j:!

o H

P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 302-257-1342 0 www.prisonlegalnews.ol·g

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 33; Page 5 of 8

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-12 Filed 09/13/12 Page 6 of 8

Check the box of the

buy and use the Order

Form on the other side ofthls brochure to add up the cost of your

order. FREE SlIIfPING for bopk and index orders OVER $50.

There is a $6 shipping charge for.all other book and index orders.

.Prlson Profiteers, edired by PaulWrig!lt and Tara Herlvcl, 323 pages. $24.95. 'Ihis is tile

third nnd latestbookin a series

L:g.;I anthologies tlmt =mines tile mWt}' of

mllSS inlprisonment in Americ:n. (TIle other titles are.TbeOlliugrjAl/Is7Q1 & PlimllNatioll,

I I I see below). Plimll Projlem is. unique from other books because it Cl>pDses and disc:usses

who profits and benefits from m.1SS imprisonment;

tlmn who is

hrumedbyitandhow.

1063 '-._-""._ _-'.

I I I Prlson Nation: The Warehousing of.Ameclca's Poor, edited b), Tnm Heclvel and Paul

Wrig!1t; 332pnges. $35.95. PIN antholog}'

tire d'lIk side of the

1ock-em-up' politid ngendnand legal climatein the U.s. "

1041 ....J. L..._ - - ' - ._ _

The Celling of America, edited by Daniel Burton Rose, Dan Pens and PauloWrig!1t; 264

I '1 pages: $22.95. PIN anthology presents a detniled ''inside'' look at tile

I

worl;iogsofdleAmecic:anc:iminaljustices),stem.

1001

1...._ - - ' - ._ _- - ' .

Everyday Letters for Busy People, by Dcbra Hnrt May. 287 pnges. $18.99.

I I I Hundreds of sample letters that can be adapted for most any purpose, including
letters to government agencies and .officials. Has numerous

tips for writing effective letters. . '

1048 L. _ .. -..1..._ _

The Criminal Law Handboolc Know Your Rights, Survive the System, b),

Attomeys Paul Bergman &

Nolo Press, 608 pages. $39.99.

E.'qllains what happens in.n c:rlrilinal. case from being ru:rested to sentenclng,lUld what

your rights are nt each smge of the process. Uses an easy to under-I

stand question-and-answer f o r m a t . .

1038

1 . . ._ - - ' -_ _- - '

Represent Yourself in Court: How to Prepare & Try a Winning Case, by

Attomeys Paul Bergman & Sam].

Nolo Press, 528 pnges. $39.99.

I I I Breaks down dle civil trial process in easy-to-understand steps so you can effectively

represent

in court. TIle audlors e.\-plain what to say in

court, how to say It; etc.

'. .

. 1037 _ L... ....J._ _---".

Law Dictionary, Rnndom House Webster's, 525 pnges. $19.95. Comprehensive un.

to-date law dictionary e.\-plnins. more than 8,500 legal terms. i

i

Covers civil, criminnl,

1036,...._--'-_ _---'

I I I The Blue Boolt of Grammar and Punctuation, by Jane Straus, 110 pages.
$14.95. A guide to grnmmru: and punctuation by an educator

widl e."-perience teaching English to prisoners.

1046

Legal Research: How to Find and Understand the Law, b), Stephen Elins and

I I Susan Levinkind, 568 pnges. $49.99. Comprehensive and ensy to understand guide
on researching the law. E."-plains cnse law, stntutes and digests"

and mudl more. Includes pmctice e."ercises.

1059 ....._-'-._ _---'.

I I I Deposition Handbook, by Paul·Bergman and' Albert Moore, Nolo Press, 352

pnges. $34.99. How-to handbook for

WilO conducts a

deposition or is going to be deposed. . . '

.

1054 L..._ - ' - ._ _- - - ' .

sections, Spanish-English nnd

I I I RlUldorn House. $8.95. Two
60.000+ entries

-a . . . (J'Q from A to Z; includes Westem Hemisphere usage.
("D

1034 . '--" -'------'.

v.ia the 'O.S. Postal

() Service wi$ Delivery: Coi:rlirinaHoli ;PLN·does assume anyrespon-
?2 sibility to replace book or :index' ordm-s 'once then: delivery to the desti-

6o nation

.

. .U.. S. Pos. ta;l !?ervice.

VJ
.V...J..

I I Writing to' Wlil: The Legal Writer, ·by Stci'en D. Struk, Broadway Books/R:Uldom
House, 283 pages. $19.95. EA-plnins the ,vritiI:g ofeffective comphtints,\

responses, briefs, motions nod other legal papers.

1035 ....._ ......_ _--'.

Actual Innocence! WhenJustice Goes Wrong and How to Malre:it Right; updated
Jim papetback ed., b)' Ba.tI}r Scheck, Peter .Neufcld· and Dwyer; 403 pages. $16.00.

Founders of dle

ProjeCt

how c:d!ninaJ. defendants are wrongly con-

on a regulnr basis. E."-phtins DNA testing and how it works to free the innocent.

De\'lIStnting critique of police and prosecurorilu misconduct and dle 1 1

I

system dmt ensures such abuses continue. :

1030 ......_...t.._ _---'.

Rogel'S Thesaurus, 717 pages.

Helps you find dle right word for what

you want to sa)'. 11,000 words listed ruphabeticn11y widl over 200,000 synonyms

I I 1 and antonyms. Sample sentences and parts of speedl shown for every main
word. Covers n11 Jevels of vocabulary and identifies informal

an d slang words.

1045 . .

.

Webster's English Dictionary, Ne\vly revised and updated, RlUldom House.

I I I $8.95. 75,000+ entries. Includes tips o'n writing and word usage, and has up-
dated geographical and biogtnphicn1 entries. Includes recent

business and computet terms.

1033...

Capital Crimes, by George Winslow, l\,[onthly Review, 360 pages. $19.00.

Explains how economic poUcies create and foster crime, and 1 I

1

how cOIpornte & government crime is rarely punished. 1024 ......_ ......_ _---'.

With Liberty for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America, b}' Scott

Christianson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages. $18.95. The best

overn11 history of the American prison system from 1492 through the 20th

I I C;entur),. Well written and fact filled. A must-rend for understanding how little
things have dlanged as fru: as prisons go in' the U.S. over!

hundreds ofyears.

.

1026...

! Ten Men Dead: The story of the 1981 Irish hunger strike, by David Beres-
ford, Atlantic Montlu)' Press, 334 pages. $16.95. Inside st0t}' of. 1 I

IRA prisoners at Belfnst's Long Kesh prison.

1006 _ L.. ..J."--_---1.

I I 1 Finding the Right

b)' Jay Foonberg, ABA, 256 pages. $.19.95. Ex-

plnins how to determine your legal needs, how to evaluate a

lawyer's qualifications, fee payments, and more.

1015 L. _ .. --I..._ __

S!!ize the Dayl 7 Steps to Achieving Extraordinary in an Ordinary

World, by Danny Cox and John Hoover, 256 polies. $15.99. Provides 7 steps

to changing your expectations and envisioning yourself as being a successful

and respected pcrson-whicll is essential to cllanging the I 1

I

course of one's life.

. .

1052

Women Behind Bars, The Crisis of WoIiten in the U.S. Prison System, by

I Silja J.A. Talvi, Seal Press, 295 pages. $15.95. Best book avnilnble tllnt covers
issues related to imprisoned 'Women, based on interviews with

hundreds of women bel'lind bars.

1066 L.._ - ' -_ _- '

10 Insider Secrets to a Winning Job Search, by Todd Bermont, 216 pages.

$15.99. Rondmap on how to get a job even under adverse circumstances-like

I I '1' being an e..'i:-con. lndudes how to develop a winning attitude, write attention-
grabbing resumes, prepru:e for interviews, networking, how to

present your

to an employer, and much morel 1056..

.

I I I The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, 2003

Ed. by Alfred McCo)" 734- pages.

Documented expose

of the government's involvement in drug trafficking.

1014 1.. _ . ..l.._ _-.J.

. Lockdown America: PoUce and Prisons in the ·Age of Crisis, b)'

Parenti,

. 290 pages. $19.00. Analyzes tile \Vat· on the' poor via die o:iminnl justice system. Well

documented nnd includes fust-hand reporting. Covers prisons, pam-!

mllitn.t:ypolicing,SWATteamsnndthelNS.· .. . . . 1002 L.. _ . .1..-_---'

Hepatitis and Liver Disease: What You Need to Know, by Melissa Palmer, MD,

457 pages. $17.95. Describes

?k treatmen.ts of hepatitis B & C and other

liver diseases. Includes medications to avoid, what diet to follow, 1 1

1

exercises to perfOIIl1, and 1l.bibliogmph)'. .

.

1031..

.

Ctime and Punishment In .America, b}; Elliott Cur:rie, 230 pages. $16.95. Effective

I I I ffi rebuttnl to rig!lt-wing proponents of prisqn building. Fnct-based argument shows tlmt ()
aime is dclven by poverty. Debupks .prison myths and discusses

proven,effi!ctivemeansofalmeprevention. . . .

1019..

. (l)

Prison Madness: The Mental Health Crisis Behind Bars and What We

Must Do About It, by Ten:)' Kupers,Josse),-Bass, 245 pnges. HBI'dback only,

prisoners please include any required authorization form. $32.95. Psycllia-

N I

I triSt \vrites about dle mentnl health crisis in U.S. prisons nnd jails. Covers nil
aspeclE of menml illness, prison mpe, negati\'e effects of 10ng-\ . \ .

term isolation in control units, and more.

1003...

Prison Writing in 20th Century America, by H. Bruce Frahklin; Pengilin

I I I Books, 368 pages. $16.00. From Jack London to George Jackson, this
andlOlogy provides n selection of some of best writing

describing life bcl'lind bars in America.

1022...

('i
< aaaI
-..J
I
(J)

r T I o Soledad Brother: The Prison Letters of George Jackson, b)' GeorgeJackson,

Lnwrence Hill Books, 339 pages.

Lucid eA-planation of le UtiCS of

prison bl' a well-known prison activist. Mqre relevant now thnn

a
('i

when it first appeared 40 years ago.'

1016

c::

Marijuana Law, by

Boice, Ronin, 271

$17.95. E.\!lIIlines how to

3
(1)

reduce tile probability of rurest nnd prosecution for people accused ofdle use, sale or

possession ·of marijuana. Infu on legal· defenses, senrch & seizutes, 1 I'

I r-T

surveillance, asset fotfeiture nnd drug testing.

1008 ....._ ......_ _-'.

Q:l
I

Worse Than Slavery: Parchman Farm and the Ordeal oQim CrowJustice, by

Oshinsky, 306 pages. $16.00. 1\nlllysis of prison labor's

in slavet)'.

I I I II Focuses on prison pL'Ultntions and
ro prison labor.

prisons thllt use

1007..

.

Cl..

No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the American Criminal Justice
I I I System, by David Cole, TIle New Press, 218 pages; $19.5'5. Er.'Elnins how dle
criminal justice system perpetuntes mce Ilfld 'class inequlllity,
creating a two-tiered system of justice. . . . ., 1028....._ ......._ _-'.
The Prison and the Gallows: The p'alitics of Mass Incarceration in
I I I America, by Marie Gottschalk, Cambridge Univetsity Press, 451 pages.
$29.99. Great political analysis of the corifluence of events

o
-W
N

leading to 2.3 million people bel'lind bari in' dle U.S. 1069 ....._ ......_ _-'. lJ

The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, by Brandon Sample, PLN Publishing, 200 pages. $49.95. This is PLN's second published (1)

I I I book, which eltclusively covers ineffective nssistance of counsel-related
issues in federal habeas petitions. Great resoutce for habeas

litigation, and contains hundreds of case citesl

1078..

.

Factor 8 (DVD), a film by Kelly Duda, Concrete Films. $21.95. Movie

W
-Q:l
a
Q)
CJ1

I I I about dle Arkans1l5 prison blood scandal; 'in which prison officials sold

infected blood h::u:vested from prisoners. Note: This is a

lJ

DVD and cannot be shipped to prison. .

1.076 ..... Pl _ _...J.

(.Q

(1)

PLN Cumulative Index. S22.S0 ea'dl:PLN Article Indc."es

detniled

information nbout all PLN articles,

o rltl!!, lluthor: issue, page number,

:t!= and if it is state, BOP or jnil specific. Can be

senrched on over 500 subjects as medical neglect or se.,,-un1

tlle inde.'i:(es) you are ordering: 1990,1995,

1999-1

2001, 2002-2004. (more

indexes not }'et avnilable)

I Circle ra:. CJ1 .

All books are soft cover' except Prison Madness

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 33; Page 6 of 8

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-12 Filed 09/13/12 Page 7 of 8

.

.

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 39 of 65 Page 10#: 106

T he Habeas Citebook:

Assistance :of

.

is the first in a

series ofbooks..by Prison Legal

News Pu"QlJ{lhii1g designed to help

pro'-se

identify

and

daiins

tial habeas coqJUS relief. This .

book is an invaluable resource

that identifies hundreds of cases

where the federal courts have

granted habeas relief to prison-

ers whose attorneys provided inef-

fective assistance of counsel.

.

It will save litigants
thousands ofhours . of research and it focuses on the
WINNING cases criminal defendants need to
successfully challenge ' their convictions.

Well organized into 52 conchapters, this easy to use book
puts the law at the reader's fingertips. The Appendix includes pleadings and forms from successful habeas corpus cases that

"
.
demonstrate formatting and show how to frame a winning argu-
ment that will persuade a court to grant habeas relief. The Habeas Citebook explains the proce-
dural and substantive complexities of federal habeas corpus litigation with the goal ofidentifying and litigating claims involving ineffective assistance of counsel.
Brandon Sample is a successful jailhouse lawyer litigant incarcerated in the Bureau of Prisons. He is a Prison Legal News contributing writer and a member ofthe National Lawyer's Guild. Editor Susan Schwartzkopfhas a mastels degree in education and is the director and editor in chief of Prison Legal News Publishing.

The Habeas Citebook is a

llifty:and

self-help

gmde prisoners seeking

hab.eas relief-based on claims: of

of

N:aY,iga,tmg the

and :

terrain 6fhabeas

law is never easy; but claim-

ing that your lawyer screwed up

is even more difficult - espe-

cially from the confines of an .

ill-equipped prison law library.

ccBrandon Sample has pro-

vided an amazing and much-

needed tool for prisoners

.

are forced to seek relief on their

own. The book is thorough; but

simple and readable. It starts

with a' wonderfully well-orga-

nized listing ofhundreds of dif-

ferent types of ineffective assis-

tance of counsel, set forth in the

form of citations to court rul-

ings - a novel approach that

not only acts as a springboard

for further research but also

saves the prisoner countless

hours ofpreliminary research:'

PETER SCHMIDT
Publisher, Punch & Jurists

THE HABEAS CITEBOOK: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

g

. By Brandon Sample 8.25" x 10.75" v 224 pages
ISBN 978-0-9819385-1-6
$49·95 3 or more copies ordered
mice $39.95 each· ........ .

Number of copies ordered

Amount enclosed _ _ _ _ __

i By: 0 check 0 new postage stamps 0 credit card 0 money order

Nrune _____________ __________ __ _______ §

DOC/BOP Number' ____________----'______

Institution/Agency _____________

Shipping & Handling .

Order by mail, phone, or on-line..
PUBLISHED BY

______________________________ Stffie

ZIP

PRiSON LEGAL NEWS P.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Paglk&COL-00332
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 33; Page 7 of 8

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-12 Filed 09/13/12 Page 8 of 8

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI

.,'----------, Document 8-1 Filed 01/31/12 Page 40 of 65 Page ID#: 107' Copies of this very usable and useful gUide

.should be available in every prison library-to

help inc;arcerated people give positive direc-

tion to

.es,whi1e

- use oftheit time.Jt is·a wel1-e'stabHshed fad: that who'

have a dramatically

rate of reddivism.""

'--_---:..".:-"" --=-BELL GALE CHEVICNY, PEN Prison Writing Program, _ _ _--'
·.Editor Doing Time: 25 Years ofPrison Writing.

HIGH SCHOOL e VOCATIONAL II PARALECAL 0 UNDERCRADUATE G CRADUATE COURSES

._!lHE GREATLY anticipated and newly updated third edition of the Prisoners Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the
United States and Canada has finally arrived! Author Jon Marc Taylor's brand new version is the latest in this unique and highly successful gUidebook for the prisoner-student. This invaluable tool and how-to handbook provides the reader with step-by-step instructions to find. the. appropriate educational program lor high school, vocational," paralegal,
undergraduate, arid graduate courses" off€!redin
the U.S. and Canada today... ,
invaluable re=entry tool
It presents 'm6re than" 160 program outlines and offers an easy-to-use format for the student to determin"e which program best suits their n"eeds. It is ideal. for the incarcerated student who does not have Internet"'access or the ability to attend educa-
tion classes iIi person. This" resource is indispensable

for the individual and beneficial for use in an prison

libraries and education departments.

The Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook is the only book

on the market for the non-traditional prisoner-stu-

dent. It includes detailed listings of the quality, cost,

and course. offerings for an correspondence pro-

grams available to prisoners. In a time when so many

academiC opportunitie's in prisons have been e!im-

inated, this book is an invaluable re-entry tool for

prisoners 'who seek to further their

while

iifcarcei'ated and to' help'them

life and

work follOWing their release.

"." "

Jon Marc Taylor has more than 25 years experi-

enc;:e as an incarcerated student, advocate for pris-

oner' education, and author. H"e has successfully

earned a bachelor's

a master's degree, and

"a doctorate via correspondence courses while incar-

cerated. Editor Susan Schwartzkopf has a' master's

degree in education and 12 years experience teach-

ing immigrants English language skills.

I m PRISONERS' GUERRillA HANDBOOK TO CORRESPONDENCE PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED" STATES AND CANADA

ByJon Marc Taylor PHD

Number of copies ordered _ _ Amount endosed _ _ _ __

8.25" x.10.75" • 224 pages "By: D check 0 new postage stamps 0 credit card 0 money order

I" " ISBN 978-0-9819385-0-9 $49-95 3 or more copies ordered

Name DOC/BOP Number

H
_ _ _ _ _---=,_ _ _ _-,:":,,_-,--:,,,,-_

"" at pnce $39-,95 each. ""
I· ": FREE Shipping & Handling
I Order by mail, phone, or on-line.

Agency -'---"':-".c.:'.'':-""--'-_ _' - - _ - ' -_ _-'--_ _-'--_ _ Address_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ City _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _--;-_ State" ZIP

PUBUSHEDBY
I PIUSON llE6Al NEW§ P.O; Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 05303

to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342·www.prisonlegalnews.org

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 33; Page 8 of 8

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-13 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 14
EXHIBIT 34
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 34; Page 1 of 14

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-13 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 14

()
p)
ro(,f)
w
J--l N

,.Legal News

'. ,
<",','.1.'"".,,',,

'" • _ "7". ,.'

"t'.,/>

ORG.

aaot

u.s. Postage Paid

-....J
j-lo

P.O. Box-'2420

Prisoners Legal News

West Brattleboro, Vermont 05303

Permit No. 1047

o

a

a ' f ,." ;". il

I• ......... r, Ii ,I.J

. , . .....\ ., ..... 'r'"

: ',.. '" Ii 11",/)

" • • ••.• I,

& II

",

'

o c
3ro
:::l c-+
co

I

oJ--l

;"

: ...... ;

It 1IIIIIIIIIIIIullllllll.IIIIIII'1IIII11 1.1.11111111111111111111

Il

William Temple 2011000529

CD

Columbia Co Jail

0..

....'"
",

901· Port Ave

.

st Helens OR Q7r\Fi1_

NeT

'.
970 PE 1
l'lE-rU}1;IN TO
A$
UNAal...E TO

O() 1 ::1./ :i 4/ ;1, ::I,

--o
W J--l
j-lo
N

\; .. "
. .:;

.", i ' /"

. ,:'"

..

lac I

ID.29-

-:14 -

Ifill , ,I JIJIll JdJ, I , II Ji, JJI,I, II rl /I JJHI" III JJIJi'lll ,III I

g-0
ro

J--l
j-lo

"
S-

U1

-0

P>

(Q

""d

ro

(J'Q

o

U1

W

(')
o

01

o o
.j::o.
01
.j::o.

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 34; Page 2 of 14

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-13 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 14
Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 12 of 45 Page 10#: 537

Prison "Legal News
DEDICATED TO PROTECTING HUMAN RIGHTS

October 23, 2011

Dear PLN Supporter,

You recently received a PLN fundraising letter, however, the printer made a mistake and did not print the entire letter so you only received half of it. This is the entire letter which also includes a picture of Nelly, our beloved office mascot. For the sake of human rights in America, and Nelly, please read the entire letter and make a donation to support our cause " because human rights can't defend themselves.
This month marks the 40th anniversary of the 1971" uprising and massacre at Attica State Prison in New York. Until the massacre of the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas in 1993, Attica the dubious distinction of being the bloodiest" confrontation on American soil between civilians and government forces since the Wounded Knee massacre in 1890. The Attica rebellion ushered in the modern era of prison reform which has seen extensive changes in .the American gulag, including its massive expansion to the largest prison system the world has ever seen.

When I started Prison Legal News in 1990, there were a million prisoners nationwide and the hard-won reforms of the post-Attica era were already in decline. Today there are more than 2.5 million prisoners in America and while much has changed since 1971, a lot has not. Brutality, medical neglect, overcrowding, lengthy prison sentences and isolation of prisoners remain a constant part of the prison experience. Other developments, like the rise of the private prison industry, the control unit isolation of tens of thousands of prisoners, the immigration gulag and the mass proliferation of torture devices like Tasers and restraint chairs have been anything but good.

After Attica there was a vibrant prisoners' rights movement that demanded change and

recognition that everyone had basic hUman rights, even people in prison. Today we live in

a country where citizens are scooped off the street and tortured and held indefinitely as

"enemy combatants," where American government death squads roam the planet hunting

down, kidnapping, torturing "and/or killing anyone deemed a "suspected "terrorist," and

where Uie U.S. government openly runs concentration camps at Bagram, Guantanamo

and other "undisClosed

To suggest that international-Iaw-"and basic hOman "

decency should bar murder and torture is apparently" a radical notion. "- ""

""

Just as Attica occurred against the backdrop of the American genocide in Southeast Asia, today's evisceration of human rights in American jails and prisons occurs against a

P.O. Box 2420, West Brattleboro, VT 05303 Phone: 802-257-1342
Email: p1n@prisonlegalnews.org

Page

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 34; Page 3 of 14

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-13 Filed 09/13/12 Page 4 of 14
Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 13 of 45 Page 10#: 538
backdrop of perpetual war and aggression both domestically and overseas. This amply illustrates Martin Luther King, Jr.'s observation that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
Today, Prison Legal News is the only publication in existence dedicated to reporting on the human rights of those imprisoned in the American gulag. Thus far this year PLN has published cover stories on the litigation involving California's severely ove'rcrowded prison system, the ongoing outrage of the American death penalty, corruption and mayhem caused by the private prison industry, the gouging of consumers by the prison phone industry, control units, shoddy forensic examiners and much more.
We believe that to effect positive change we must inform people about the failures and shortcomings of the American criminal justice system and the inherent conflicts that make our justice system unjust. We do that by reporting corruption and misconduct by corrections officials in PLN's monthly publication, read by tens of thousands of prisoners and non-prisoners alike. We also report legal decisions related to prisoners' rights, so they will be inspired and can learn how to vindicate their few remaining rights in court.
But PLN does much more than provide information about criminal justice-related news and legal rulings.
PLN engages in litigation to protect our First Amendment rights and thereby the rights of our subscribers to receive our monthly publication and the books we distribute. It is no exaggeration to say that PLN is the primary bulwark against government censorship of books and magazines in America today. So far, in 2011 alone, we settled censorship suits against the Galveston jail in Texas and the Spokane jail in Washington, requiring them to , modify their mail policies. We also filed suit against a jail in Kansas, two jails in Michigan, the New York state prison system, the Sacramento jail in California and the New Orleans jail due to bans on reading material. PLN is the only publication in the United States that regularly challenges censorship by prison and jail officials - a sad commentary on the mainstream media's respect for the First Amendment.
Further, as part of our efforts to ensure public accountability and obtain source documents for our news reporting, PLN files public records requests - yv-ith government agencies 'and the private companies with which they contract - and litigates when those requests are arbitrarily denied. We have public records lawsuits pending 'against Corrections Corporation of America in Tennessee, Prison Health Services in Vermont, the Bureau of Prisons in Washington, D.C. and the U.S. Department of Justice in Colorado.
As part of PLN's larger strategy to inform the public and policy makers about problems in our justice system, PLN staff speak at conferences and network with other media agencies, which often quote PLN in their news reporting. In 2011, PLN editor Paul Wright and associate editor Alex Friedmann were quoted or mentioned in articles in the Seattle Weekly, Reason, Washington Times, Huffington Post, Spokesman Review, The Nation, the Tennessean, Truthout, National Public Radio, Business Week, the Associated Press and many others, on topics ranging from prison journalism and postcardonly mail rules in jails to prison slave labor, prison privatizatioh, censorship and prison medical care. Additionally, we are regular guests on radio shows around
Page
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 34; Page 4 of 14

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-13 Filed 09/13/12 Page 5 of 14
Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 14 of 45 Page 10#: 539
the country on criminal justice topics. PLN is also online, where readers can access every article that PLN has ever ,published ,as well as many other articles and case summaries" a brief bank for litigators and jailhouse lawyers, a publications database and ml)ch more: '
Visit www.prisonlegalnews.org. We offer a. free listserv and have an online bookstore, too.
PLN has the most prison- and jail-related content on the 'Net, period, and we upload new content on an ongoing basis.
We further distribute a number of books for prisoners, including legal reference and selfhelp books. Three PLN anthologies are now in print, most recently Prison Profiteers: Who Profits from Mass Incarceration, and we recently began publishing our own books, including the Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the U.S. and Canada, 3rd ed., by Missouri prisoner Jon Marc Taylor, and The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, by PLN writer and federal prisoner Brandon Sample. Both books were edited by PLN's Susan Schwartzkopf. Our goal is to provide prisoners with non-fiction reference books they can use to improve and help themselves while in prison.
In summary, for the past 21 years PLN has been distributing our monthly publication as well as books of interest to prisoners and their supporters; we have litigated numerous censorship cases to ensure prisoners can receive our publications, in addition to public records cases; PLN staff have served as a source of information and research for the mainstream lJeW$ media; we maint,ain a website with extensive information about criminal justice-related issues; and we have started publishing our own self-help books for prisoners.
All of this takes money, because nothing - and no one - is free in America.
PLN's subscriptions and book sales do not cover our overhead; thus, we rely heavily on donations and grant funding to make up the shortfall. Donations and grants alike have dropped due to the frigid economic climate. Alas, the need for the work we do has only increased. Prison and jail populations nationally continue to grow exponentially, and President Obama is seeking ,money for more cops, niore prosecutors and more prisons. Your support is vital to the work we do. Unlike many non-profits, we do concrete things that actually can be measured: we publish a magazine; we publish and distribute books; we successfully sue prisons and jails to ensure they do not engage in unconstitutional censorship; we advocate on behalf of prisoners in the media, before legislatures and administrative agencies, and in public forums. For the full scope of the depth and breadth of our activities, review our annual reports on our website. We run a lean operation and, having consolidated our Vermont and Washington offices last year, cannot cut additional costs without limiting our operational capabilities.
In contrast to other non-profits, PLN does'not bombard its'supporters with fundraising requests throughout the year. We- conduct one fundraiser at the end of the year and this is it. If you are familiar with PLN and our work, then you know we do a lot with little funding. But continued funding is necessary if PLN is to continue ope'rating, and'we can't keep doing what we do without your support!
Page 49fCOL-00457
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 34; Page 5 of 14

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-13 Filed 09/13/12 Page 6 of 14
Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 15 of 45 Page 10#: 540
So when you decide where to donate this holiday season, please think about PLN. Consider the work we do - and have been doing for more than two decades - and also consider there isn't much grant funding available for prisoners' human rights and criminal justice reform in the U.S., which are not popular issues. So please make a tax deductible donation to PLN or encourage your family and friends to do so. PLN subscriptions make great gifts, as do the many books we distribute. Your .donation will make a difference and go farther than a donation almost anywhere else. We also offer a number of "premiums" for donations above certain amounts (see the enclosed flyer). Feel free to forward this fundraiser request to others who may be interested in supporting PLN's work, and thank you for keeping us in mind this holiday season. Our office mascot, Nelly, a 12-year-old golden retriever, pictured below, comes to work every day to support our efforts to protect human rights. If she can support PLN, you can too! In Struggle,
T
Paul Wright Editor, PLN P.S. - You can also order the much-awaited Prisoners' Self-Help Litigation Manual, 4th edition, from PLN for $45.95 or The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel for $49.95, postpaid. P.P.S. - Even if you can't affo'rd to make a donation, subscribe or buy a book yourself, please encourage others to do so. Every purchase and donation is a huge help!
Page
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 34; Page 6 of 14

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-13 Filed 09/13/12 Page 7 of 14

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 16 of 45 Page ID#: 541
Prison Le al ews Gifts
Gift Option 1
To show our appreciation for your support,we are providing a P.rison Legal News card when you make a donation of at least $50.00. The card is hand embroidered by women prisoners in Bolivia who are paid a fair wage for the cards to help support their families.

Gift Option 2
. To show our appreciation for your support, we are providing the Prison Legal News hemp tote bag when you make a donation of at least $75.00. Handmade in Vermont using hemp fiber. Carry books and groceries m style and help end the war on drugs!

\
THK:m:·· ..
SLAv:ElIl!:1tVf.
PARCDMMI AnD tHE '.': ..
Of JIM CROW JUsilW l

Gift Option 3
To show our appreciation for your support, we are providing the following selection of books for you to choose from when you make a donation of at least $100.00. Donations of $100.00 or more can choose one free book title. Each $100 donation entitles you to another free book; i.e., donate $500 and you get five books! Donate $1,000 and you get everything on this page! please circle the
books you want and put the corre-
sponding donation on' the next page.

Gift Option 4
To show our appreciation for your support, we are providing the entire Prison Legal News anthology of three critically acclaimed books on mass imprisonment signed by editor Paul Wright! (The CeIling of Amercia, Prison Nation and Prison Profiteers), plus the Prison Legal News hemp tote bag to carry the books in when you make a donation of $250.00.
P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 • (802) 257-1342
www.pl"isonlegalnews·.org
Page
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 34; Page 7 of 14

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-13 Filed 09/13/12 Page 8 of 14

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 8-10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 17 of 45 Page 10#: 542

You can mail a check or money order to:
Prison Legal News, P.Oa Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303
Or call- PLN's office at 802-257-1342 and use your credit card, Or visit PLN's website at .www.prisonlegalnews.org and click on the donation link.
Remember - PLN is a project of the Human Rights Defense Center, which is.a .Section 501 (c)(3) non-profit organization, and donations are tax deductible! .
Yes! I want to help support PLN - here is my special donation of:
- - -$25 _ _$50 _ _$100 _ _$250 _ _$500 _ _$1,000 $_ _ Other
.++ ••• +.+ •• •••• +••••• •••
\!iilI Credit card donors please fill out the fonowing form
o I want to make a one time contribution of $_______ to PLN, charged to my credit card! o I want to contribute a fixed amount to PLN each month! I authorize Prison Legal News to charge
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ on my credit card every month until I give notice to stop, or until my total donation amount of $_ _ _ _ _ _ _ has been charged to my card, whichever comes first.
Print Name on Card: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
CardNumber: _ _ _ _ - - - - -- - - - - - - -
Expiration Date: ___-___-____ Billing Zip Code for Card: _ _ _ __ I authorize Prison Legal News to charge a total of $_ _ _ _ _ _to my credit card, which matches the instructions marked above.
Cardholder Signature: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date: _________
Prison Legal News is a 501(c)(3) non-profit; your donation is tax deductible to the extent allowed by law. PLN protects the privacy of its donors, and their names are not reported in our publication or on our website.

Please complete all applicable information to ensure delivery of any donation gifts. Thank you!
Name ______________________________________ Title - - - - - - - - - - -
Organization ______________________________________________________
Address ------------------------------------ Suite --------------
Address __________________________________________________ City _______________ State _ _ _ __ Zip _____________

P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303 • (802) 257-1342 wwW.prisonlegalnews.org

Page

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 34; Page 8 of 14

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-13 Filed 09/13/12 Page 9 of 14

Order Form

All purchases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay "With

new first-class

(strips or books, no singles) or

pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed by prison policies.

Book Title I Number

Qty Total Cost

(attach another page if you are ordering more books)

Subtotal: Add 6% sales tax for VT residents only: Add $6.00 SIR to orders UNDER $50: Total Order Amount:

Send to:

Name:

DOC#:

Agency/lnst:

Address:

C!ty/State/Zip:

MAIL PAYMENT AND THIS FORM TO:

Prison Legal News

i-d

P,O,' Box 2420

Brattleboro, VT 05303 ,

"'1J
Purchase by phone with.a Visa or MasterCard

a

802-257-1342

8 Or buy books and subscriptions online at www.prisonlegainews.org

./::0.
CJ) ....lo.

FREE SHIPPING
On hook and illdex orders OVER $50.00! A $6 shipping charge applies to all other book and index orders.
(Free shipping policy in effect from Jan I, 2010 until further notice)

More Books for Sale!

Prisoners' Self-Help Litigation Manual, updated 4th ed. (2010), by John

Boston and Daniel Manville,. Oxford Uolv. Press, 1500 Pages. $39.95. The

I I I premier, must-have "Bible" of prison litigation for current and aspiring juil-
house lawyers. If you plan to litigate a prison or juil civil

lawsuit, this book is a must-have.

1077 _ 1-. .J.._ _--'.

Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the U.S.

and Canada, updated 3rd ed. by Jon Marc Taylor, Ph.D. and edited by Susan

Schwartzkopf, published by PLN, 221 pages. $49.95. Written by iYIissouri

prisoner J on Marc Taylor, who obtained a B.S. degree, an M.A. degree and a

Doctorate, the Glleni/fa Halldbook contains contact information and descrip-

I I tions of high school, vocational, paralegal and college courses available
through correspondence study. Great resource for prisoners

who want to further their education.

1071 L--1_ _- 1

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by Robert E. Toone, Southern Poverty

Law Center, 325 pages. $10.00. This book explains basic rights that prisoners

have in a jail or prison in the U.S. It deals mainly with rights related to health
I I I and safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by prison officials; it also
explains how you can enforce your rights within the facility

and, if necessary, In COurt through litigation.

1060
'-----'----'

Beyond Bars: Successful Community Reentry after Prison, by Jeffery Ian

Ross and Stephen C. Richards, 240 pages. $14.95. Complete guidebook on

how to prepare for release from prison while still Incarcerated. This is the

I I I most current, practical and comprehensive guide for ex-prisoners and their

families

to managing successful reentry Into the

commuruty.

1080 l..._ - ' - ._ _- - ' .

Jailhouse Lawyers! Prisoners Defending Prisoners v. the U.S.A., b)'

Mumia Abu Jamal, Cit)' Lights Publishers, 280 pages. $16.95. In jai/bo/lse Law-

)'ers, Prison Legal News collunnist, award-winning journalist and death-row

prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal presents the stories and reflections of fellow pris-

I I I oners-turned-advocates who have learned to use the court system to represent
other prisoners, and in some cases have won their freedom.

A must-read for jail-house lawyersI

1073 L.._..J.._ _-1.

How to Win Your Personal Injury Claim, by Atty. Joseph Matthews, 7th

edition, NOLO Press, 304 pages. $34.99. While not specifically for prison-

related personal injury cases, this book provides comprehensive information

I I I on how to handle personal injury and property damage daims arising from

-

dealing with doctors, attorneys and

msurance comparues.

.

1075 L.._..J.._ _-1.

All plices are effective as of7-1-11
*No refunds aftel' orders have heen placed *

()

CD

.,

W
f-\

N

oooI

f-\
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights en

PLN is a project ofthe

o o

(')

Human Rights'Defense Center

c:
:3

CD

:::l'

r-T

rp

of-\

Ir1o.
0.
--o
f-\ Wf-\ .
f-\ N

lJ PJ ta
CD
f-\ CO
a
-1-1
.p:.
CJl

lJ
2011 PLN BOOK LIST

CD

Prices Subject to Change Without Notice

o

Graphic from: Boolte 2 Prisoners, Vancouver, Be

.CpJ:l.
W
P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303

802·257-1342 to www.prisonlegalnews.org

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 34; Page 9 of 14

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-13 Filed 09/13/12 Page 10 of 14

Check the box of the books you want to buy and use the Order Fonn on the other side of this brochure to add up the cost of your order. FREE SHIPPlNG for book and index orders OVER $50. There is a $6 shipping cbarge for all other book and index orders.

Prison Profiteers, edited by Paul Wright and Tam Herivel, 323 pages. $24.95. This is the

third andlatl:St book in a ofPrison Legal NcIVs anthologies that examines the reality of

mass imprisonment in America. (The other tides ate The CeI/illgojAlJJe/ira & PlisollNalioll,

see below). Prisoll Ptujteers is unique from other books because it e.xposes and discusses

who profits and benefits from mass imprisonment, rather than who is I

I

1

harmed by it and how.

1063 ....._--'-._-'--'.

I I I Prison Nation: The Warehousing ofAmerica's Poor, edited by Tam Herivel and Paul
Wright, 332 pages. $35.95. PIN's 2nd anthology exposes the dllIk side

u.s. ofd1e 10ck-em-up' political agenda and legal climate in the

1041.

.

.

I The Celling of America, edited by Daniel Burton Rose, Dan Pens and Paul Wright, 264
pages. $22.95. PIN first anthology presents a detailo:! "inside" look at 1 1

theworlcirJgs of theAmeriam a:imioaI justice system.

1001 .

.

.

Everyday Letters for Busy People, b)' Debra Hart May, 287 pages. $18.99.

I Hundreds of sru:nple letters that CllI1 be adapted for most any purpose, including
letters to government agencies and officials. Has numerous 1

tips for writing effective letters.

1048 '-._--'-._ _-'

The Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System, by
J. Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sara B=an-Batrett, Nolo Press, 608 pages. $39.99.

I E;,pIains what happens in a criminal' case from being arrested to sentencing, and what

your rights ate at eam stage of the process. Uses an caS)' to under-I

I

stand question-and-answer fonnat

1038 L.._ - ' - ._ _- - ' .

Represent Yourself in Court: How to Prepare & Try a Winning Case, by

Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sara]. Berman-Barrett, Nolo Press, 528 pages. $39.99.

I I Breaks down the civil trial process in easy-to-understand steps so you can effectivel)'
represent yourself in court The authors explain what to say in

court, how to say it, etc.

1037 '-._-'._ _--'

Law Dictionary, Random House Webster's, 525 pages.

Comprehensive un -

to·date law dictionary explains more than 8,500 legal t=s. I

I

CoveJ."s civil, criminal, commercial & intemntionallaw.

1036 ,-'_--'-_ _--'

The Blue Book or Grammar and Punctuation, by Jme Straus, 110 pages.

$14.95. A guide to grammar and punctuation by an educator I I

I

with e)',"perience teacl1ing English to prisoners.

1046 - - I . l...._ - ' - ._ _

Legal Research: How to Find and Understand the Law, by Stephen Elias and

I I I Susan Levinkind, 568 pages.

Comprehensive and easy to understand guide

on researclUng the law. E."\'PIains case law, statutes and digests,

and much more. Includes practice exercises.

1059 '-._-'-._ _--'.

Deposition Handbook, by Paul Bergman and Albert Moore, Nolo Press, 352

pages. $34.99. How-to handbook for anyone who conducts a I I

I

deposition or is going to be deposed.
>-0

.

1054 - - J . L..._ - ' - ._ _

I 'Spanish-English!English-Spanish Dictionary, Random House. $8.95. Two
sections, Spanish-English and English:.spanish. 60,000+ entries

from A to Z; includes Western Hemisphere usage.

1034 '-._-'-_ _--'

.Please Note: All book and index order'S are mailed via the U.S. Postal

o(') Service 'with delivery·confuInatiop.. 'PLN does not assume any respon-

b sibility to replace book or index orders once their delivery to the desti-

a nation address (facility) is

by-the U.S. Postal Ser-vice.

0)
N

Writing to Win: The Legal Writer, by Steven D. Stark, Broadway Books/Random

House, 283 pages. $19.95. Explains the writing ofeffective complaints, 1 1

1

responses, briern, motions and other legal papers.

1035 '-._ ....._ _--'.

Actual Innocence: WhenJustice Goes Wrong and How to MaIre it Right, updated

paperback edition by Barry Scheck, Peter Neufeld and Jim Dwyer; 403 pages. $16.00. Founders of the Innocence Project explain how a:iminal defendants are wrongly con-

I victed on a regular basis. Ei.plains DNA testing and how it works to free the innocent

Devastating critique of police and prosecutotial misconduct and the

I

I

system that ensures such abuses continue.

1030 L.._...L.._ _---'.

Roger's Thesaurus, 717 pages. $8.95. Helps you find the right word for what

you want to say. 11,000 words listed alphabetically with over 200,000 synonyms

I I md antonyms. Sru:nple sentences lII1d parts of speech shown for every main

word. Covers all levels of vocabulary and identifies informal

1

and slang words.

1045 L.._.l.._ _--".

Webster's English Dictionary, Newly revised and updated, Random House.

$8.95. 75,000+ entries. Includes tips on writing and word usage, and has up-

dated geographical lII1d biographical entries. Includes recent I 1

1

business and computer terms.

1033...

I Sue the Doctor and Winl Victim's Guide to Secrets of Malpractice Law-
suits, by Lewis L. Laska, $39.95. Written for victims of medi-I I

cal malpractice/neglect, to prepare for litigation.

1079 1-._..I-._ _--I.

With Liberty for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America, by Scott

Christimson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages. $18.95. The best

overall history of the AmericllI1 prison system from 1492 through the 20th

I Century. Well written and fact filled. A must-read for understanding how little

things have changed as far as prisons go in the U.S. over

1

1

hundreds ofyears.

1026 L.._...L.._ _--".

Ten Men Dead: The story of the 1981 Irish hunger strike, by David Beres-

ford, Atlantic Monthly Press, 334 pages. $16.95. Inside story of 1 1

1

IRA prisoners at Belfast's infru:nous Long Kesh prison. 1006 l... _. ...J.L--_--".

I Finding the Right Lawyer, by Jay Foonberg, ABA, 256 pages. $19.95. Ex-

plains how to determine your legal needs, how to evaluate a 1

1

lawyer's qualifications, fee payments and more.

1015 l... _. ...J.L--_--".

Seize the Day! 7 Steps to Achieving the Extraordinary in an Ordinary

World, by Danny Cox and John Hoover, 256 pages. $15.99. Provides 7 steps

I to manging your e.'l:pectations and envisioning yourself as being a successful
and respected person-which is essential to' chmging the 1 1

course of one's life.

1052
L..--''--_---'

Women Behind Bars, The Crisis of Women in the U.S. Prison System, by
Silja JA. Talvi, Seal Press, 295 pages. $15.95. Best book available dlat covers

issues related to imprisoned women, based on interviews with I

hundreds of women behind bars.

1066 L.._ - ' -_ _- '

10 Insider Secrets to a Winning Job Search, by Todd Bermont, 216 pages.
$15.99. Roadmap on how to get a job even under adverse circumstances-like
I being an ex-con. Includes how to develop a winning attitude, write attention-
grabbing resumes, prepare for interviews, networking, how to 1 1 present your strengths to lII1 employer, and much morel 1056 L.._ ....._ _---'.

I The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the' Global Drug Trade, 2003

Ed. by Alfred McCoy, 734 pages.

Documented exposci

1

of the government's involvement in drug trafficking.

1014 L.._.l.._ _---l.

Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Cclsis, by Christian Parenti,

I 290 pages.

Analyzes the war on d1e poor ,>ia the criminal justice sltem. Well

documented and includes first-hand reporting. Covers prisons, para-I

military policing, SWAT teams and d1e lNS.

1002 L.._ - ' -_ _- ' .

Hepatitis and I..iver Disease: What You Need to Know, by Melissa PalmerMp,

I I I 457 pages. $17.95. Describes symptoms & treatments ofhepatitis B & C and other
liver diseases. Includes medications to avoid, what diet to follow,

exercises to perform and a bibliography. .

. 1031 L _. ..J.'--_ _.

Q Crime and Punishmeot In America, by Elliott Currie, 230 pages. $16.95. Effective

I I I w rebuttal to right-wing proponents of prison building, Fact-based axgument shows that
crime is driven by poverty. Debunks prison myths and discusses

proven, effective means ofcrime prevention

1019

Prison Madness: The Mental Health Crisis Behind Bars and What We N

Must Do About It, by Terry Kupers,Jossey-Bass, 245 pages. Hardba.ck only,

prisoners please include any required authorization form. $38.00. Psychiatrist writes about the mental health crisis in U.S. prisons and jails. Covers all aspects of mental illness, prison rape, negative effects of l o n g - I I I

oooI
-.J

term isolation in control units and more.

1003

en Prison Writing in 20th Century America, by H. Bruce Franklin, Penguin

Books, 368 pages. $17.00. From Jack London to George Jackson, this

anthology provides a selection of some of the best writing I 1

I· 0

describing life behind bars in America.

1022

0

(")
c Soledad Brother: The Prison Letters of George Jackson, by GeorgeJackson,

Lawrence Hill Books, 339 pages. $18.95. Lucid explanation of the politics of

I :3 prison by a well-known prisoo activist. More relevant now than 1

1

\D ::l

when it first appeared 40 years ago.

1016 L _ .. .1.._ _-'. .-r

co
Marijuana Law, by Richard Boke, Ronin, 271 pages. $17.95. Examines how to I

o reduce the probabilit}' ofarrest and prosecution for people accused of the use, sale or

possession of marijuana. Info on legal defenses, search & seizures, 1 I

1

ro survcillan.ce, asset forfeiture and drug testing.

.

1008 . .

. TI

Worse Than Slavery: Parchman Farm and the Ordeal ofJim CrowJustice, by

David Oshinsky, 306 pages.

Analysis of prison labot's roots in slavct}'. D..

Focuses on prison plantations and self:.sustaining prisons that use 1 1

1

prison labor.

1007..

.

No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the American Criminal Justice

-0
W

I I I System, by David Cole, The New Press, 218 pages. $19.95. Explains how the
criminal justice system perpetuates. l'BCe and class inequality,

creating a two-tiered system of justice.

1028 l... _ . ..I-._ _...J.

lJ
The Prison and the Gallows: The Politics of Mass Incarceration in

I I America, by Marie Gottschalit, Cru:nbridge University Press, 451 pages. \D

$28.99. Excellent political analysis of the confluence of events

1

leading to 2.3 million people behind bars in the U.S.

t o 1069 L.._...L.._ _...J.

o

The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, by Brandon -;,

Sample, PLN Publishing, 200 pages, $49.95. This is PLN's second published

I book, which exclusively covers ineffective assistance of counsel-related

issues in federal habeas petitions. Great resource for habeas I

I

.j:::.. CJ1

litigation, \vith hundreds of case citesl

1078 l J _ l.... ..l.._ _-'. PJ

CO

\D

PLN Cumulative Index. $22.50 each. PLN Article Indexes provide detalled
o information about all PLN articles, including title, author, issue, page number,

topics covered, citations, and if it is state, BOP or jail specific. Can be

t searcl1ed on over 500 subjects SUcll as medical neglect or sexual assault. Circle CJ1

the index(es) you are ordering: 1990-1995, 1996-1998, 1999-1

_ I

2001, 2002-2004. (more recent indexes are not yet available)

All books are soft cover except Pdson Madness

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 34; Page 10 of 14

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-13 Filed 09/13/12 Page 11 of 14

Order Form
All purchases must he.pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with neW.stamps (strips or hooks) or pre-stamped envelopes.

Books (3

CIRCLE

one book m;: honus issues, amiDO.NO:r SIH)

Protecting Your: Health and Safety m,: 4 Bonus Issues (3-yr suhscriptio.n offer)

$ Amt.

Prison Profiteers m,: With Liberty for Some

m,: 6 Bonus Issues (4-J'!= sUbscription offer)

Book Total (inc. all books bought separately)

Add 6% sales tax for V

residents only

ADD $q.OO S/H to hook orders UNDER $50

PLN Subscriptions
6-month Subscription (Prisoners only) 1 yr Subscription (12 issues) 2 yr Subscription (24 plus 2 Bonus issues)
3 )11: Sub (Circle bonus book abovem: 4 Bonus issues) 4 J1.' Sub (Circle bonus book above m: 6 Bonus issues) Sample Issue $3.50 each
TOTAL Amount Enclosed:

Send to:
Name:
DOC#: Agencyllnst: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Address: City/State/Zip: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

MAIL PAYMENT AND TElS FORM TO:

Prison Legal News

(J'Q

P.O. Box 2420

Brattleboro, VT 05303

....-0

Purchase by phone with a Visa or MasterCard

rob

...802-257-1342
Or buy books and subscriptions online at

www.prisonlegalnews.org

0')

..

<.V

PLN SuhsCl'iption Rates

Subscription Rates 1 J1.' 2 J1.'s 3 J1.'s 4 J1.'S

Prisoners *

$30 $ 60 $ 90 $120

Individuals

$35 $ 70 $105 $140

Professionals

$90 $180 $270 $360

(Lawyers, govt. & professional agencies, libraries, etc.)
Sample issue for anyone - $3.50 each*

Six-monthprisoner subscription for $18*
* Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or hooks only) or pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed byprison policies

:- 7" - - - - - - -

---------

I
I 2 years .. 2 bonus issues, for 26 monthly issues total.

: 3 years - 4 bonus issues (40 total) OR Protecting Your Health and

1 Safety (see book description on the other side ofthis brochure).

: 4 years - 6 honus issues (54 total) OR your choice of With Libertyfor

S..

(s;e..h.202"

_11:.e

__:

3 or 4-Yeru.'

Book Offel's!

Subscribe or renew

at the regular price

($90 for prisoners .&

ind1:viduals), and receive

as a FREE bonus;

Your Health and Safety

ill: four bonus issues' of PLN!'(40 monthly issues total).

Indicate your choke on the (hder Form.

Subscribe or renew fot four

at the regular price

($120 for prisoners &

fo:dndiVic;iuals), and receive

as a FREE bonus, P,ison Pi'ofiteers' or With Liberty for

Some ill: 6 bonus issues of PLN! (54 monthly issues

total). Indicate your choice on the Order Form.

NO shipping chru:ge for subscription bonus books!

NOTE: H you want the bonus issues of PLN instead of the
free hook offer, please indicate that on the Order Form.

:- ----- U;{o;

iis;!- - - - - -

I

I

1 You can buy dozens of legal, social commentru:y, self- 1

: help books, and legal and l'egular dictionaries directly:

I from PLN's book store! Ask us for a book list, or view:

: our selection onJ,ine at:

I

: 1I - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

AllsubsCl.iption l·atel'.

are effective as of7-1-11

* No refunds after orders have been placed *

()

CD W

N I
<(.) oooI
-..J
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights ifJ

PLN is a project ofthe Human Rights Defense Center

oooc
:3

CD

::)
.-r

OJ I

o

Irol
Cl.
--o
W
N

Eastern State Penitentiary 1829-1971

lJ

CD

Charles Dickens visited Philadelphia's Eastern State Penitentiary in 1842 and he later wrote: "The System is rigid, strict and hopeless ... and I believe it to be cruel and wrong....I hold this slow

-N o
o
..j::l. U1

and daily tampering with the mysteries of the

brain to be immeasurably worse than any tOl"-

lJ

ture of the body," The prison remained open for

!ll
(Q

129 years after Dickens condemned it as being

(1)

barbaric, and some of its inhumane practices still

o

continue to be used in prisons nationwide.
U1 ..j::l. U1

P.O. Box 2420, Brattleboro, VT 05303

802-257-1342 0 www.prisonlegalnews.org

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 34; Page 11 of 14

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-13 Filed 09/13/12 Page 12 of 14

iiHili

P rison Legal News is

non-profit

56-page mOllthly publicatlOn that' reports, re-

views and analyzes court rulings and news related to

prisoners' l'ights and prison issues. PLN has a national

(U.S.) focus on state, federal and private prison issues,

with some international coverage as well.

PLN's many thousands of subscribers and readers include civil and criminal trial and appellate attorneys, judges, public defenders, journalists, academics, paralegals, , prisoners' rights activists, students, family members of prisoners, concel'lled individuals, politicians, other government officials, and numerous local, state and federal prisoners nationwide.

PLN is a vitallW\: for prisoners who otherwise don't have access to current legal and prison-related news and information.

"Invaluable resource for anyone wanting 'user' friendly' information about current legal developments affecting
prisoners in the United States."
- Human Rights Watch, a long-time PLN subscriber

P s coverage of prison issues includes medical neglect, disciplinary hearings, nutrition, living conditions, excessive force, court access, censorship, jail litigation, visiting, telephones, religious fr'eedom, fr'ee speech, prison rape, mental health, attorney/ client access, sexual abuse of women prisoners, retaliation, the PLRA, HIT and hep C, control units, the death penalty, attorney fees and much more.

l"d

PLN Subscription Rates

Prisoners: $18 for 6 months or $30 pel' year *
+:0.""0 Non-incarcel'ated individuals: $35 per year

() Law firms, govt. agencies and libraries: $90 per year
or Sample issue for anyone: $3.50 each* 6o * Prisoners can pay with new st,amps or pre-stamped envelopes

0>

E ach monthly issue of PLN includes three different

types of reporting:

,

II A cover story on a criminal justice-related issue.

CI Reports on individual and class-action prison and jailrelated lawsuits when they are flled, when a judgment is entered or the case settles, and when an appellate court decision is issued. We also have prison-related news articles.

III A "News In Brief" section that

interesting

news stories across the U.S. and intel·nationally.

Each issue of PLN also contains numerous advertisements from businesses that provide prison-related personal and legal services and books. PLN further sells dozens of selfhelp, social commentary and legal books.

PLN also has cumulative subject and case cite indexes for all PLN issues from 1990 through 2004. Write for details.

CS;cial 3-year

.

Free with a 3-year PLN subscdption! Fow' honus issues of
PLN (40 issues total) m.: a free book, Protecting Your
Health and Safety! Circle your bonus choice on the form on the other side of this brochure (3-year subscription rates: prisoners $90, individuals $105, professionals $270).

Protecting Your Health and Safety, by ,...,..,.,..,..,.........,....,-,-,-1 Robert E. Toone. Published by the Southern Poverty Law Center, 325 pages (2009). $10.00 (free with a 3-yeal' subl). This book explains some basic rights that prisoners have in a jail or prison in the U.S. It deals mainly with rights related to health and safety, such as communicable diseases and abuse by prison officials; it also explains how you can enforce your rights to health and safety within the facility and, if necessary, in court through litigation. Buy separately: _ _

1------------------------------------------,

: You Can Buy These Books Separatelyl :

1

I

1

I

: If you don't want to pUI'chase a 3 01' 4-year subscription:

: to PLN, you can still purchase any of the bonus books:

: at the regular price. Just indicate which books you want:

: to buy on this page, then enter the total cost on the other:

: side of this brochure on the "Book Total" line of the:

: Order Form. Shipping is $6 per order (not per book), and:

: we offer FREE shipping on book O1'ders of $50 or more! :

: To place a phone order, please call 802-257-1342. We also:

:l a_c_c_ep_t_b_o_o_k_o_r_de_r_s_o_n_li_n_e,_a_t_w_w__w_.p_r_is_o_n_le_g_a_ln_e_w_s_.o_r_g.__ J:

D onations: PLN is a projectofthe non-profit Human Rights Defense Center. Your tax-deductible dona-

tions support our advocacy, free speech and First Amendment litigation efforts on behalf of prisoners and publish-

o

ers. PLN not only provides uncensored prison-related news, but actively contests prison censorship' that interferes 'with CD the delivery of our publication or any other PLN materials W

sent to prisoners. All donations further OUI' goal of advocat- N

ing for people imprisoned in U.S. detention facilities.

I

"Great source of information, especially in states such as Arizona where the law libraries have been taken from

oooI
-.j

the inmates and replaced with paralegals."

,... SB, Arizona prisoner

en

o

I· Specia14-year Subscription Offer!

o
(")

c

:3

Free with a 4-year PLN subscription! Six bonus issues of CD,

PLN (54 issues total) m: one free hook, With Liberty for

:::l
r-+

Some m.: Prison Profiteers! Cil'ole your bonus choice on 00

the form on the other side of this brochure (4-year sub- o
scription rates: prisoners $120, individuals $140, pI'ofes-

sionals $360). Note: Free book option is for one book.

rJoJ

With Liberty for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America, by Scott Christianson, Northeastern University Press,

0..
-o
w

372 pages (1998). $18.95 (fi.'ee with a 4-year

t:

subl). A classic book and the best overall

N

history of the American prison system from

14,92 to the 20th CentUlY. Well Wl'itten and

"0

fact £lied. A must-I'ead for understanding how little

things have changed as far as prisons go in the U.S. over CD

hundreds of years. Buy separately: _ __

N

OR

S,

Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money

+::.
U1

from Mass Incarceration, edited by Paul

Wright & Tara Herivel, New Press (2007).

"0

$24.95 (free with a 4-yeal' subl). This is

PJ

the third in a series of PLN anthologies

<.0 CD

that examines the reality of mass imprisonment in the U.S. Prison Profiteers. is unique

o
;=l=!:

from other books on the ma:rket because it exposes and

discusses who profits and benefits from mass imprisonment, rather than who is harmed by the prison industrial

mU+:1:.

complex and our nation's reliance on over-incal'ceration.

Buy separately: _ __

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 34; Page 12 of 14

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-13 Filed 09/13/12 Page 13 of 14

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI he Habeas Citebook:

Document 8-10

, Filed 01/31/12, Page 22 of 45

Page 10#: 547

Ineffective Assistance of

The Habeas Citebook is a

Counsel is the first in a

nifty and concise self-help

series of books by Prison Legal

guide for prisoners seeking

News Publishing designed to help

habeas relief based on claims of

pro-se prlsoner litigants identify

ineffective assistance of counseL

and raise viable claims for poten-

Navigating the complex and

tial habeas corpus relief.'This

treacherous terrain of habeas

book is an invaluable resource

law is never easy; but claim-

that identifies hundreds of cases

ing that your lawyer screwed up

where the federal courts have

is even more difficult - espe-

granted habeas relief to prison-

cially from the confines of an

ers whose attorneys provided inef- demonstrate formatting and show ill-equipped prison law library.

fective assistance of counsel.

how to frame a winning argu-

"Brandon Sample has pro-

It will save litigants

ment that will persuade a court to grant habeas relief. The Habeas

vided an amazing and muchneeded tool for prisoners who

thousands ofhours of research and it focuses on the

Citebook explains the procedural and substantive complexities of federal habeas corpus litigation with the goal of identify-

are forced to seek relief on their own. The book is thorough; but simple and readable. It starts with a wonderfully well-orga-

WINNING cases criminal defendants need to

ing and litigating claims involving ineffective assistance of counsel.
Brandon Sample is a success-

nized listing of hundreds of different types of ineffective assistance of counsel, set forth in the

successfully challenge ful jailhouse lawyer litigant incar- form of citations to court rul-

their convictions.

cerated in the Bureau of Prisons. He is a Prison Legal News contrib-

ings - a novel approach that not only acts as a springboard

Well organized into 52 con-

uting writer and a member ofthe

for further research but also

cise chapters, this easy to use book National Lawyer's Guild. Editor

saves the prisoner countless

puts the law at the reader's fin-

Susan Schwartzkopf has a mas-

hours of preliminary research:'

gertips. The Appendix includes

ter's degree in education and is

pleadings and forms from suc-

the director and editor in chief of

PETER SCHMIDJ:

cessful habeas corpus cases that

Prison Legal News Publishing.,

Publisher, Punch & Jurists

THE HABEAS CITEBOOK: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

By Brandon Sample 8.25" x 10.75" e 224 pages
ISBN 978-0-9819385-1-6
$49·95 3 or more copies ordered
at once $39-95 each

Number of copies ordered

Amount enclosed ______

By: 0 check 0 new postage stamps 0 credit card 0 money order m
Name __________________________________________ I I DOC/BOP Number __________-'--_ _ _ _ _ _ __
Institution/Agency __________----,_ _ _ _ _ ___

FREE Shipping & Handling

Order by

or on-line.
PUBLISHED BY

_________________________ Stme

ZIP

PR.ISON LEGAL NEWS P.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 0530 3
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Tel 802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page SM,'COL-00465
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 34; Page 13 of 14

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-13 Filed 09/13/12 Page 14 of 14

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI

Document 8-10 Filed 01/31/12 Page 23 of 45 Page 10#: 548
" - - - - - - Copies ofthis very usable and useful guide should be available in every prison' library-to help incarcerated people give positive direction to their energies while making constructive use of their time. It is a wen-established fact that people who have taken college courses in prison have a dramatical1y reduced rate of recidivism."
'---_ _ _ -BELL GALE CHEVIGNY, PEN Prison Writing Program, _ _ _--' Editor Doing Time: 25 Years ofPrison Writing.

HICH SCHOOL VOCATIONAL G PARALECAl e UNDERCRADUATE e CRADUATE COURSES

GREATLY anticipated and newly updated third edition of the Prisoner's Guerrilla Han dbook to Correspondence Programs in the United States and Canada has finally arrived! Author Jon Marc Taylor's brand new version is the latest in this unique and highly successful gUidebook for the
prisoner-student. This invaluable tool and how-to handbook provides the reader with step-by-step instructions to find the appropriate educational program for high school, vocational, paralegal, undergraduateg and graduate courses offered in
the U.S. and Canada today.
Invaluable re-entry tool
It presents more than 160 program outlines and offers an easy-to-use format for the student to determine which program best suits their needs. It is ideal for the incarcerated student who does not have Internet access or the ability to attend education classes in person. This resource is indispensable

for the individual and beneficial for use in all prison

libraries and education departments.

The Prisoner's Guerrilla Handbook is the only book

on the

for the non-traditional prisoner-stu-

dent. It includes detailed listings of the quality, cost,

and course offerings for all correspondence pro-

grams available to prisoners. In a time when so many

academic opportunities in prisons have been elim-

inated, this book is an invaluable re-entry tool for

prisoners who seek to further their education while

incarcerated and to help them prepare for life and

work following their release.

Jon Marc Taylor has more than 25 years experi-

ence as an incarcerated student, advocate for pris-

oner educ;ation, and author. He has successfully

earned a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and

a doctorate via correspondence courses while incar-

cerated.

Susan Schwartzkopf has a master's

degree in education and 12 years experience teach-

ing immigrants English language skills.

I I PRISONERS' GUERRILLA HANDBOOK TO CORRESPONDENCE PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA

ByJon Marc Taylor PHD 8.25" x 10.75" • 224 pages ISBN 978-0-9819385-0-9
$49..95 3 or more copies ordered

Number of copies ordered __ Amount enclosed
I By: D check 0 new postage stamps D credit card 0 money order
Name ___________________________________________
DOC/BOP Number ____________________

at once $39,,95 each

InstitutionlAgency _________________________

,FRIEE SMpping & Handling

Order by mail, phone, or on-line. City _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ State

ZIP

PUBUSHED BY

PfUSON lEGAL NEWS I P.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro VT 0530 3

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights Te1802 257-1342 www.prisonlegalnews.org

Page
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 34; Page 14 of 14

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-14 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT 35
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 35; Page 1 of 4

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-14 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 4

.-.
.S

€,i

()
ffi

CD

N I

COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OffiCE
Jeffrey M. Dickerson; Sheriff

Address: 90 I Port Ave.• St. Helens, OR 97051 Phone: (SOl) 366-4611 Fa,;: (503) 366-4644 Web Address: www.co.columbia.or.us/shcriff

" '1-;

Lucy Lennox 4128 S Hatch Spokane, WA 99203

016H16501628

a o

.0

QJ $00.45Q-

-....I

I

:x::

021'14/20'12
From 97051

(f)

US POSTAGE

o

ooc:

3
CD ::J
.-t-

W

.mx
m
,o.:.,. .
r-
CD ::J ::J O. X
o- zr
- C1
<- 0O0r
Nlr 0(1)
10 o
....l.

I PENGADOOt}ii3Hi9B9

. .

'.

. .

... . .

...... ...::. " . ,
:.•::: : :: •••• •.

: : ..•...••. .•..•..................•.............•......•..........•.....••.•••••

.•

...: .;:.:iij

: ..............=i

I!

CD

0.

--o
W
a
(J')

N

c:::ri2: 11iii iJIiIIIIJ1JIImuHli HliiI Jil; ill111.ll]ul,nil;nn ill

-0

'.

cP.aJ
CD

N a

o
-+>

N

-0 cP.aJ CD
o
:*!=
N
to

---------------_._-------''-------_. ---------- .-..-.-C_._H.'-' AMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 35; Page 2 of 4

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-14 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 4

Case 3:12.,cv-00071-SI Document 34 Filed 03/06/12 Page 21 of 24 Page 10#: 1220

••:: ';:1
J603-R07

February 10, 2012

Address: 901 Port Ave. St Helens, OR 97,051 Phone: (503) 366-4611 Fax: (503) 366-4644
PROHIBITED MAJL NOTICE

#

7

Because of rules contained in the Coluinbia County Jail Inmate Mail Policy,

we are D remrDJliIDlg or D

the D [etten- or.D pubHic31tfioIDl

sLr.vrJ/, you.sem to inmate

w.s;s/l7/ . LJI

S " Booking # ,;;>0/LOOOS

The mail was denied for the following reason(s):

)sfIt is deemed personal mail and not on a post card. o It contains sexually explicit material at page(s):...;.'---_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ o It contains prohibited material or a foreign substance: _________...---______

o It did not come directly from a publisher; book club, or

o It contains plans for escape, criminal activity, or activity that violates jail rules.

o It contains inflammatory

such as advocating violence against a group based upon

their religion, race, gender or· ethnicity.
o Other -----------------------------------------------------------------

The reverse side ofthis letter is an InnlateMail Guide which contains guidance on mail rules and complaint

information. You may also go to the jail's web page at www.co.columbia.or.us/sheriffto find the'information. The

inmate was also notified of this denial and can appeal this decision as well.

APPEALS: Ifyou believe that your correspondence/publication was improperly denied, you may appeal the decision

by sending in a written letter stating the reasons you believe that the decision was wrong within 15 days from the date

ofthis letter.

should identifY specifically why you believe that our decision to deny the mail was wrong

and include your name and return address. You are not required to provide a phone number, but it may be useful if

we need further clarification. We will send you a decision on your appeal within fifteen days ofreceiving it. Please

direct your written appeal to;

Jail Commander ATTN; Denied Mail Appeal
Columbia County Sheriffs Office
901 port Ave.
st. Helens, OR 97051

I
I
I I I ;

White-Sender .Yeilow-Tnmates Jail File Pink-Inmate
16
PLNCOL Lennox 00130
Ex E to Lennox Decl, Pg-3 of 4 -
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 35; Page 3 of 4

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 89-14 Filed 09/13/12 Page 4 of 4

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 34 Filed 03106112 Page 22 of 24 Page 10#: 1221

...

J603-R07

February 10, 2012

UN-MIATIE

GUIDE

Personal Mail

Inmates may send or receive personal mail from

family, or associates on postcards

Inmates

may receive postcards in any size that is delivered by the U.S. Postal Service up to a maximum size of 51/2u tall x 8-1/2" wide. Inmates may receive postcards with photographs on one side as allowed by the U.S.

Postal Service. The jail does not permit any other form of personal mail for Inmates.

I

I ,

Addressillllg Dll1lmalte

.!

Inmate mail

the Inmate's booking number as part of the

information.

mail

must have a return address to include the name and address of the sender.

Prolhibit1:edl ManU

Jail staff will not allow an inmate to receive or send mail that-

1. Contains-

a. Threats of

harm, blackmail, extortion, or other criminal activity.

. b. Plans for escape, crimfual activity, or activity that violates jail rules.

c. Gang-related material.

d. Information that, ifconveyed, could result in physical harm. to someone.

e. Sexually explicit materials

f. Inflammatory material

g. Contraband materials including but not limited to such commo,nly mailed items as:

(1) Books larger than 9 by 12 inches or with plastic or metal bindings (2) More than three books in a single piece of mail (3) Controlled substances as defined by DRS 475.525 (4) Foreign substances, such as:

(a) Bodily fluids (b) Lipstick or perfume .(c) Glue or paint (d) Anything with an unusual stain or odor that indicates a foreign substance may be present

2. Is written in code or suspected code

_

3. Was a form of written communication not sent through the USPS or other approved system

4. Is to or from a victim of a crime that the inmate is in custody for in either pretrial or sentenced
status.

-5. Would violate a court order.
6. May produce a.hostile work

<#" . . . .

,.

".....

such

harassment.

7. Is a credit or deferred billing transaction, such as "bill me later" subscriptIons or merchandise
bought on credit or collect-on-delivery terms.

8. Is fraudulently marked as legal or official mail.

17
PLNCOL Lennox 00131
Ex E to Lennox Dec!; Pg 4. of 4 - I

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 35; Page 4 of 4

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 36
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 36; Page 1 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 3

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF' PUBLIC SAFETY STANDARDS AND TRAINING

npSST

C,QURSE ATTENDANC'E ROSTER

F-6

to (Please Refer Instrllctlons' for Completion. Avallable':at www.dpsst.state.or..us)

omIv Co.urse Tit e andCourse Numbe( from "StandardI'zed Course List Will Be Acccpted-

1.

Title: Man Policy. Training

2. Course Number:

3. Start bate: 02/01/2012

4. Ending Date: 02/01/201.2

5. Tota', Course

6. eourse
Mail policy

e training for the ,staff

o 1. Subject'Area.: (Check·subJect:area as identified on StandrardizedC'ourse List)

Firearm'sl Use:.of

0 r1rst Ald' Ex.plratIon Date: _ _

O· f,.:eadershfp

0 CPR Expiration Date: _ _

12w 07"56 1

8. Columbia County

at Entity al"!d Addres.s: Office 901 Port Ave. 81. Helens Or 97051

9. Location of. Training, City: Sl. Helens

J 10. Locatiorl of Training, County: Columbia

11. Instructor Name, Address.. Phone Number and Ernaif Address: Undersheriff Andy Mtwer' 901 Port Ave. St. Helens OR 97051 503.366.4630 andy.moyer@co.columbia.or.us

12.,Attendee .Informatio A (only t lose Wllh DPSST numbers identified WI'II reoeive DPSST traInlnQ credit):

DPSST#

Attendee Name,I".

Did you

Agency.lDepartment Hou.rs

First)

Instruct?

..( here

1 49829,

Lautt, ArnGIQ

C01umbia County Sheriffs Office

Attended
1

2 30771

:Cutright. Bryan'

X

Columbia County Sheriffs Office

1

3 31831 4 26754

Rigd.on, R VI/astfall, Sheryl

Columbia County Sheriff's Office

1

I

Columbia County Sheriffs Office

1

5 40293 6 ·.38847

Miller. Raquel John

Columbla'County

Office

t

Columbia County Shetiffs omce

1

7 50583 8 2679'3 9 '51226 10 5058411 38689

Vveav6;r, Tony
l:HibbS,. Derek Yon, Brandon
Kernult. Jdnathan
I\Natkihs. Mitohell

I
-1

Columbiq County Sheriffs Office

1

Columbla County Sheriffs Office

1

Columbfa Gounty Sheriff's Office

1

Coiumbla County Sheriff's Office

1

ColLlmbla County Sheriffs Office

1

1"2' 35661
I i3 516.1:g

'Sean
Ivan

Columbia .county Sheriff's Office

1

County Sheriffs Office

1

14 40677 "Scholl r Ryan

Columbia Oounty Sheriffs Office·

1

13. Illstructol;/Agency ,Hen dfL'rn in ing

or Designee: AS:m lIuthorizetilnstrllctor,

helld. u'uluing of£iccr.

or designee, I ,have rcvic'\\'cd ttlfs rostl'r ror

ami ,,{'cllrney, ·llIodt.mmmd Ihi1! fhlsjOclltTon or:tnfQnm!l!gI.l.2!L!hls dUCUll1:!UI. is

to pennhy, undr:r 0RS

ill :md'

Iil:U1J5 Mil il'l

tl'l dell" (It revoke puhHe :;n!!;JY,&C:rtjiici1lic,m.

Signature:,

"qhA . .

PrintcdNrune: $gt. 8ryan L. Cutright Sr. 30771

Address: (rf same

Agency. in S above; may indicate

flS above" or ':sce above")

J

02/04120"12

Day 'Phone.: 5,03.366.4638

··Bv submitting hislher name, for inclusion.on 'this roster. ,the Identified particioant(s) understand thai falsification of informalion on this document is sublecfto·.p'enalty under.· DRS ·1"62.055, etal. and·,DRS 162,305 C1nd Is causa .Io·deny nr revoke gertiflt'.ation.

In Failure to·complate.ALL fialds.,WILL. rasult officers not'racolvlng crcdlt on thqlr OPSST TrainIng Records .(11" rosIer being tatum!!".to ogonc;y.

J.: ,. Return to: OPSST. Attn: Trainlnu Records, 419(}

Hwy. SEt Salern-OR 97317

.... '_ •. .'

F"x: 503·.37B-4GOO·Phone! 503·373·03B9

&

f: ..

Revised {)1:.14·a9

EXHrBIT ___
__1_ OF

rill previous vorolOIlG
CC 000080

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 36; Page 2 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 3

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY STANDARDS AND TRAINING

DPSST

COURSE ATTENDANCE ROSTER wConfmuation page-

F...6

.14. Course Title: Mail Policy TrainIng

15. Course Number: 12-0756

16. Sponsoring Agency or Entity:
Columbia Counly Sheriffs Olllce SOl Port Ave. St. Helens Or 97051

17. Course
02i01/2012

18.

Attendee Information continued DPSST# Attendee Name

(only those with (Last, First)'"

DPSST numbers identified will receive Old you Agency/Department

DPS." S....T...-training

credit): Hours

Instruct?

Attended

II' here

15 34755

Ritchie, Michelle

Columbia County Sherirrs Office

1

16

31899·

Moyer. Andrew

X

Columbia County Sheriffs Office

1

17 51621

Townsend. Carolyn

Columbia County Sheriff's Office

1

18 42769

Rush. Marcia

Columbia County Sheriffs Office

1

19 42436

McDowall. Brooke

Columbia County Sheriff's Office

1

20 46980

Frazier, Sophie

Columbia County Sheriff's Office

1

21

22

23

24

-

25

26 27 28
29 30 3:1 32 33

34

3!i 36 37 38 39 40

19. Lend Instructor!Agency Hct}dfrrnining Officer or Designee: As nn Iluthorized instructor, ogency head, training officer,

or designee, I have reviewed lhis ro?er (or comilleteness and accuracy. ! underslnnd rhal fabHiculio" o[jnforma!jon on this document is subject

10 [!!malo: Ulld!.1r ORS 1§2 c!

lQ orI9.V.2};c Imillie

ccrtificntioll·

;,f..3t>7 7 I

Printed Name: 5gt. Bryan L. Cutright Sr 30771

Address: (If snme as SpoJ1g6ring Agency in 8 above. may indicate ''same as above" or "sec above")

Date: 02/04/2012

Day Phone: 503.366.4638

··Bv submlUlng hlslh6'f name (or inclUSIon on this rosIer, the Ideopfied partlclpanlls) understand that falSification of Infonnatson on Ihls document Is sublect to penalty under ORS 162.055. et al. and ORS 162,305 and Is cause 10 deny Qr revoke certification.

.,Fallure to

r bern

CC 000081
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 36; Page 3 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 37
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 37; Page 1 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT 38
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 38; Page 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 2

Page 1 ofl

From:

"Sophie II

Date:'

Saturday, January 07, 2012 3:50 PM

To:

IICorrections Staff"

Subject: Pass Down Dayshift 010712

U8M: 82

ICE: 0 ,

Total Population: 146

Butts given a shower and his smock was washed and given back. He wasn't listening on his.way back to Safety cell and tried to go into H6. Deputy Yon stopped him.

Booking shower overflowed into the main booking area-work ordered put in

Inmate work schedule redone--took guys off floor since there was a special project. If you know something I dont and they need to work still on floors let me know. III change it tomorrow

Phone cards were sold and billed

Money Balanced

Thometz write up??? She has not been served.

Baier is worked up again---upset he got a mail violation due to receiving a letter in an envelope .

. Cooper and Lavelle moved to AL6-toilet problems

Cooper and Simmons made phone calls for medications

B-Pod will need the chance to use the cleaning supplies that have not had time out yet.

5/7/2012
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 38; Page 2 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 3

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF PUBUC SAFETY STANDARDS AND TRAINING

DPSST

COURSE ATTENDANCE ROSTER

F-6

fElease Refe-r to Instructions for Comgletion. Available a.t V','vofW.dpsst.state.of.usl

13. Lead hu:truClOrfAgency Headrrmining Officer or Designee! AS:II} :lUlhnri2.\!d ;I}SlrllcloT! llS\!OC)' hl;'ild, tf:lininE;.uffict:r, m

Lichigncc,l have reviewed lilis roster for

lind

subject (",!tenial fl." n:,v(Jcatiofl. IHider OR.:) H:l1.662 lHld

J undllT!'il:md Umt· 25!h()08.(}O?O..

or Ibi> d(lflllllllill makrs

I t,:;':.:; r:nnture; _ Add,,,,, (I

.

r't'inlcu Nllml!:

Sp"",,,d,,,, Age"", in &.boy'. may ",die,,, -"mo '" .bove" "' ",,0 • oow")

iUflC.Kt

I r

l

/g.-=- _ _ _ _ _, _.___

J>h£!!.::.....J_':...t:...,...

.. __.,_. _..

.• _ _ _;.._ .•..,w••

-:_"w'__ ..

S!10mltifng hlsfher name for inclusion on this roster. the idenllfied particip;'lfll(s) unders(ano Ina! falsdicClnol1 o( thIs dQcumliml

makes their cerlWcatiOI1(S) stJbject to denial or revocatlon. urder ORS '81.662 and OAR2S9·00!l-0070... •

Failure to camplot!! ALL fields WIH result in Qffh::tlm r)Qlmc:s:!.UpgcredU on their Roturtl ttl: DPSST, Attn: Tra.ining fti;Corc!S. 4190 I\tlmsvilla- HW'J. SE,
Fu, SO;l·37S04600 PhOno; S03·37:H!JSS

OR 97317

10 i)!i'tn£r'".

...

"

,"

CC001928
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 37; Page 2 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 3

DPSST

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY STANDARDS AND TRAINING
COURSE ATTENDANCE ROSTER
(Please Refer to Instructions for Completion, Available at www.dpssLstate.or.us)

F-6,

omlyeourse TItle andeourse Nurnber rom Stand arefIzed Course L1' st WiIII Be Accepted- Ref er to DPSST Website

1. Course Title: Corrections Training-Other

2. Course Number: 11-0769

,3. Start Date: 08/08/2012

4. Ending Date: OBfOBI2012

S. Total Course Hours: 2

6. Course DescriptionfTopics: Mail Policy,

7. Subject Area: (Check subject area as identified on Standardized Course Ust)

o o Firearmsl Use of Force

First Aid Expiration Date: __

o Leadership

DCPR Expiration Date: __

Other

8. Sponsoring Agency or Entity and Address:

Columbia County Sheriffs Office, 901 Port Avenue, St' Helens, Oregon 97051

9. Location of Training, City: Sl.

I 10. Location of Training, County: Columbia

11. Instructor Name, DPSST #, Address, Phone Number and Email Address: McDowall. Brooke J, 42436, 901.Port Avenue, St. Helens, Oregon 97051, broC!ke.mcdowall@co.columbia.or.us

12. Attendee Information (only those with DPSST numbers identified will receive DPSST training credit):

DPSST#

Attendee Name"'''

Did you

Agency

(Last, First)

Instruct?

.,/ here

1

35661

Moore, Sean

CCSO

2

31831

Rigdon, Ralph

CCSO

3

26754

Westfall, Sheryl

CCSO

4

42436

McDowall, Brooke

X

CCSO

5

6

7

8

9 10 ,

11

12

13

Hours Attended (Yz hr minimum)

2

2

2

i

2

I
I

14

13. Lead Instructor/Agency Headffraining Omcer or Designee: As an authorized instructor, agency head, training officer. or

designee. ,I have reviewed this roster for completeness and accuracy. I umlersla"d that falsification of this document mnke.s my cenification(s)

sub"ecl to denial

dcr ORS 181.662 and OAR 259-008-OU70.

(/.

,

Printed Name: a@t...J4 Ii I

same as Sponsoring Agency in 8 above, may indicate "same as above" or "see above') ,

Date:

ry

Day Phone:

"·...By sub tting his/her name for inclusion on this roster, the identified partidpant(s) understand that falsification of this document makes their certification{s) subject to denial or revocation under QRS 181.662 and OAR 259-OOB-0070."n

Failure to complete ALL fields W1LL result in offlcors not rgcglving credit on their DPSST TrainIng Records or roster being returned to agency.

Return to: DPSST, Attn: Training Records, 4190 Aumsville Hwy. SE, Salem OR 97317

'

Fu: 503·378-4600 Phone: 503·373-0389

Revised 9·9-11

Discard all previous versions

CC001929
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 37; Page 3 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 5
EXHIBIT 39
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY mDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 39; Page 1 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 5

Page 1 of2

From: Date: To:
Subject:

tl8ryan 11
Monday, January 23, 20124:40 PM <cutrightb@vzw.blackberry.net> Fwd: Mail policy issues

»> Marie Tyler <Marie Tyler@CO.WASHINGTON.OR.US> 01/23/12 16:39 »>
Hello everyone,
I learned today from Cptn Ron in Yamhill that Columbia. Co was being sued by Prison Legal News. I asked Elmer Dickens to see if he could find out the is!?ues, and with permission of Columbia County's attorney, via Elmer, I am sending this out to everyone. Based on Elmer's input, we are 9nce again reviewing our policy as well to make sure we have our bases covered. His email message foUows, emphases in bold are mine:
Yes! Columbia County has been contacted by Prison Legal News, and they have been sued in US District Court. They have not been formally served, but expect to soon. They have not paid any money out at this point.
PLN is suing because the jail was not allowing in magazines like Prison Legal News, and because of the postcard policy. It appears that Prison Legal News has been reviewing jail policies on the web, and they are targeting those that don't seem up to snuff.
Every jail should review their mail policy - if you are not allowing_ bulk or junk mail in (either solicited or unsolicited) - you might want to get it fixed. The 9th Circuit ruled that prohibition doesn't pass
the Turner test in 2005 (Prison legal News v. lehman.) In short, if you
are prohibiting Prison Legal News, or Crime Justice and America, you may get sued over it.
If you are prohibiting other publications - for example Hustler magazine' - you should do so on an issue by issue basis - the courts have said that a blanket prohibition "we will not let any Hustler magazine in" is not ok. Each issue should be reviewed to determine whether-it is objectionable.
Finally, if you refuse to anow a specific issue in .. because it is inflammatory, contains sexually explicit content, or Whatever, you need to notify the inmate and the sender, and provide an opportunity for an informal appeal.
elmer
Hope everyone is well. Marie '

5/7/2012
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 39; Page 2 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 5

K Marie Tyler Commander Washington County Jail (503) 846-6366 marie ty\er@co.washington.or.us Graduate FBINA #219

Page 2 o{2

5/7/2012
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 39; Page 3 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 4 of 5

Page, 1 of2

From:

"Marie Tyler" <Marie_Tyler@CO.WASHINGTON.OR.US>

Date:

Monday, January 23,20124:39 PM

,

To:

"Association, Oregon Jail Managers" <OJMA@LlSTSERV.CO.MARION.OR.US>

Subject: Mail policy issues

Hello everyone,

I learned today from Cptn Ron in Yamhill that Columbia Co was being sued by Prison Legal News. I asked Elmer Dickens to see if he could find out the issues, and with permission of Columbia County's attorney, via Elmer, I am sending this out to everyone. Based on Elmer's input, we are once again reviewing our policy as well to make sure we have our bases c.overed. His email message follows, emphases in bold are mine:

Yes, Columbia County has been contacted by Prison Legal News, and they have been sued in US District Court. They have not been formally served, but expect to soon. They have not paid any money out at this point.

PLN is suing because the jail was not

in magazines like Prison

Legal News, and because of the postcard policy. It appears that Prison

Legal News has been reviewing jail policies on the web, and they are

targeting those that don't

up to snuff.

Every jail should review their mail policy - if you are not allowing bulk or junk mail in (either solicited or unsolicited) - you might want to get it fixed. The 9th Circuit ruled that prohibition doesn't pass the Turner test in 2005 (Prison Legal News v. Lehman.) In short, if you are prohibiting Prison Legal News, or Crime Justice and America, you may get sued over it.

If you are prohibiting other publications - for example Hustler magazine - you should do so on an issue by issue basi.s - the courts have said that a blanket prohibition "we will not let any 'Hustler magazine in" is not ok. Each issue should be reviewed to determine whether it is objectionable.

Finally, if you refuse to allow a specific issue in - because it is
inflammatory, contains sexually explicit content, or Whatever, you need to notify the inmate and the sender, and provide an opportunity for an
informal appeal"

elmer

Hope everyone is well. Marie

KMarie Tyler
Commander
Washington County Jail

I 1,
5/7/2012
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 39; Page 4 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 5 of 5

(503) 846-6366 marie tvler@co.washington.or.us Graduate FBINA #219

Page 2 of2

5/7/2012
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 39; Page 5 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT 40
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY mDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 40; Page 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 2

Page 1 ofl

From:
Date:
To: Subject:

IIBryan ..
Monday, February 06, 2012 1:33 PM ·<cutrightb@vzw.blackberry.net:> Fwd: Prison Legal News

»> Tony Lewis <Tony.Lewis@CO.JEFFERSON.OR.US> 02/06/12 13:33 »> Good afternoon Everyone.

I saw the e-mail regarding Columbia County being sued over the Prison Legal News. I had not seen this publication previously. Four copies arrived today. It appears that they selected four inmates at random and sent them a copy of the publication along with subscription materials. Are any facilities allowing this publication into their facility? .If not - what criteria are you using to deny it?

Any advice that can be offered would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Tony Lewis, Captain Jefferson County Sheriffs Office
i .

I .
!.
5/7/2012
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 40; Page 2 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 5
EXHIBIT 41
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 41; Page 1 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 5

Grego!},.!!oberson
From: Sent: Subject: Attachments:

Marti Kyles [MartLKyles@co.colurnbia.oLusj Friday, February 17,2012 11:18 PM Reminder of Malt Policy McNutt 021712.doc

Good morning all,
Please when processing incoming mail, remember to peel off postage stamps not cut them off. If any sticky labels are on the post card ie address labels and or recipient labels, peel them off, be sure to document the return address.
On the prohibited mail pape;work, t'fere is an area on the upper left to write in the s;enders addre::.:;, pJease make sure to fut that in. Be sure to give the Inmate and the sender a copy of the slip! a.nd place an additional prohibited mail
slip in the file.
Examples of what not to do with the incoming mail, please see attached.
'Thank you for your attention in this matter, Kylesm 37085

CC002115
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 41; Page 2 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 5
CC002116
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 41; Page 3 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 4 of 5

Gregory Roberson
From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:

Andy Moyer [Andy.Moyer@co.columbia.or.us] Tuesday, June 19,201212:55 PM Gregory Roberson
Fwd: Please critique Mail Policy reminder McNutt 021712.doc

6/20/20125:11 PM

Andy Moyer, Undersheriff

Columbia County SherifFs Office

901 Port Avenue

st. Helens, OR 97051

Office (503) 366-4600

Fax

(503) 366-4644

Dispatch (503) 397-1521

»> Marti Kyles 2/17/2012 3:35 PM »> Good morning all,
Please when processing incoming mail, remember to peel off postage stamps not cut them off. If any sticky labels are on the post card ie address labels and or recipient labels, that is reason for prohibited mail. On the prohibited mail
paperwork, there is an area on the upper left to write in the senders address, please make sure to fill that in. Be sure to
give the Inmate and the sender a copy of the slip, and place one in the file.
Examples of mail, please see attached.
Thank you for your attention in this matter, Kylesm 37085

CC002260
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 41; Page 4 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 5 of 5
CC002261 CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 41; Page 5 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 16
EXHIBIT 42
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 42; Page 1 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 16

FW: n10deljail mail policy

Page 1 of 1

From: Sent: To: Subject: Attach:

Marie Tyler <:Marie_Tyler@CO.WASIDNGTON.OR.US> Tuesday, March 13,2012 1:04 PM Association) Oregon Jail Managers <OJMA@LISTSERV.CO.MARION.OR.US> FW: model jail mail policy model policy maiLdoc

Good Tuesday to you all- Elmer asked I send out this policy and a beads up reference PLN seeking an .injunction on postcards only policy.
More news as it breaks .. right now, I plan no changes.

From: Elmer Dickens Sent: Tuesday. March 13,201212:59 PM To: Marie Tyler Subject model jail mail policy

Marie,

Can you forward this to the jail list serve? You may also want to share that PLN is aggressively pursuing an injunction against the postcard only policy in the Coluinbia County case. Ifthe court were to grant that mjunction, jails would probably want to dmnp the postcard only policy until there is a decision from the 9th Circuit settling the issue. PLN obviously sees this as a statewide issue .. ifthey prevail in getting an injunction .. they can pretty much make the rest of us get in line as well. Keeping our fingers crossed. elmer

file:I/C:\Documents·and Settings\carriew\LocaI Settings\Temp\Temporary Directory"49 for ... 517/2012
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 42; Page 2 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 16

Inmate Communication
INMATE MAIL

POLICY
Jail mail handling procedures must support the inmate's need to communicate in writing to carry out legal business and maintain family and community ties. The procedures must also meet the jail's need for efficient operations that preserve the good order, safety and security ofthe facility, inmates, and staff.

DEFINITIONS
Contraband. 1) Controlled substances as defmed in ORS 475.005. 2) Drug paraphernalia as defmed by ORS 475.525. 3) Any currency possessed by or under the control ofan inmate confined in a correctional facility, except for an authorized amount for an inmate at the Community Corrections Center. 4) Any item that a person in a correctional facility is prohibited by statute, rule, or order from obtaining or possessing, 5) An unauthorized item in
an inmate's possession or in a cell, bunk, or comnion area. 6) An authorized item altered in
any way. 7) More than the authorized number of an item.

Indigent. A [mancial condition when an inmate has less than $5 in his or her inmate account for a period of at least seven days.

Inflammatory material. Writings or other printed materials that pose a threat to the security,

safety, or good order of the jail because it may incite or advocate physical violence against others.

This includes material that advocates that any group is inferior based on national origin, race;

ethnicity, color, religion, age, gender, marital status or status as a state registered domestic

partner, sexual orientation, status as a Vietnam Era Veteran, Wartime Veteran, or Disabled

Veteran, or the presence of a physical, mental, or sensory impairment and makes such group the

object of ridicule and scorn,. and may reasonably be thought to precipitate a violent confrontation

between the

a·member(s) ofthe target grqup. (}Vote: Crjticism ofjail ope:r:ations,

programs, or staff, on its oWn, is

material. lithe

mvolves an"illegal act

or violates ajail rule, staffwill handle it in accordance withjall rules.)

.

Legal mail. Correspondence to or from courts and court staff, attorneys, a public defender, prosecuting attorney, American Civil Liberties Union, and Disability Rights Oregon. Legal mail must be clearly marked as "Legal Mail."

Mail handler. A staff member who picks up, transports, sorts, delivers, inspeCts, reads, or performs other duties related to processing inmate maiL

Negotiable instrument. A written document that represents an unconditional promise to pay a specified amount of money upon the demand of its owner. Examples include checks and promissory notes. Negotiable instruments can be transferred from one person to another, as when a person writes "pay to the order of' on the back of a check in order to tum it over to someone else.

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 42; Page 3 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 4 of 16

Official mail. Incoming or outgoing nlail addressed to or from the sheriff, jail command staff, C01ffity administrator, probation authorities, district attorney, state attorney general, Governor, court, a court official, and other confIning authorities that is clearly marked "official mail" on the address side ofthe envelope.

Personal business mail. Transactions of personal concern that an inmate may be allowed to send or receive as mail to conduct personal business. Examples include renewing a driver's license, signing a power of attorney, adding a signatory to a bank account, using a retmn envelope to return signed docume1;lts, signing a check over to a third party in order to pay rent or a car payment.

Personal mail.

mailed to or from family, acquaintances or friends ..

Sexually explicit. The term sexually explicit refers to any pictorial representation that is intended for sexual gratifIcation and shows male or female genitalia, full frontal nUdity, or depicts any of the following sexual behaviors: 1) One or more of the participants appears to be:
a. Non-consenting, b. A minor depicted in a sexually suggestive way, c. Acting in a forceful, threatening, or violent manner, d. Dominating one or more of the other participants, e. In a submissive role, or f. Degraded or humiliated, or appears to willingly engage in behavior that is degrading
or humiliating. 2) Bodily excretory behavior that appears to be sexual in nature; 3) Bestiality, sadomasochistic behavior, andlor bondage; or 4) Sexual acts including, but not limited to, intercourse/penetration, sodomy, fellatio, cunnilingus, analingus, or masturbation.. (Note: Whether the material is commercially produced or is personally made or written has no bearing on this defInition.)

Two-party check. A check that the payee endorses so that another person may cash it.

PROCEDURES

INMATE MAIL OVERVIEW

1. Mail Limits and Restrictions
Staff will normally not limit, censor, or restrict the volume, language, content, or source of mail or publications, except as necessary to maintain safety, security, good order and discipline, or for other legitimate penological reasons. Mail may also be limited if the am01ffits of mail place on unreasonable burden on mail handlers, pursuant to a court order, or the inmate has a disciplinary sanction that restricts personal mail.

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 42; Page 4 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 5 of 16

2. Sources of Incoming Mail
Jail staff will only accept written correspondence, notes, parcels, or documents for inmates that have been delivered by the U.S. Postal Service.

3. Postcards for Personal Mail (OPTIONAL FOR JAILS WITH POSTCARD-ONLY

POLICy)

"

Inmates may send postcards they receive in their lodging pack or through j ail commissary. Inmates may receive postcards in any size delivered by the U.S. Postal Service up to a maximum size of 5-112" tall x 8-1/2" wide. The jail does not permit any other form of personal mail for inmates. Imnates are not limited to a specific number of postcards they may receive or send. Lodged inmates receive an initial supply ofpostcards in their lodgipg pack, and may purchase additional postcards tbroughjail commissary. Policy J-7-6, Discipline, sets limits on the number of personal mail items allowed in an inmate's cel1. Provisions for legal and official mail begin at paragraph 10, below.

4. Exception to Postcards for Inmates (OPTIONAL FOR JAILS WITH POSTCARDONLY POLICy)
The Programs Manager may allow an inmate who is continuously involved in rehabilitation" programs permission to send letters to a specific person. The Program Manager must document that corresponding with the person is in the best interest of an inmate's
A suitable example might include a letter sent to reconnect with family prior to release. The jail commander must approve any exceptions.

S. Photographs or Photocopies on Postcards (OPTIONAL FOR JAILS WITH POSTCARD-ONLY POLICy)
Inmates may receive postcards with photographs on one side as allowed by the U.S. Postal Service and jail rules. No other photographs are allowed. Senders who wish to share articles, news clippings or" other information may photocopy the i¢'ormation onto one or more postcards.

6. Indigent Inmate Mail
Indigent inmates may use their weekly indigent allowance to purchase.an indigent writing" pack through j ail commissary. The pack will consist of two postage prepaid postcards, a pencil, and an eraser. Indigent inmates must submit an Inmate Request form to obtain legal or official mail supplies; the legal or official mail will not count as part of the inmate's weekly allowance.

7. Postage-Due Mail The jail will not accept or pay for any inmate mail with postage due.

8. Personal Business Mail
Ajail sergeant or the programs director may approve mail that needs special handling so an inmate can conduct personal business. For example, the use of a business reply envelope to send a document back to the originating firm or signing a mailed-in personal checK. to make a rent or car payment or renew a driver's license. Such a check must not have a blank payee line.

3

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 42; Page 5 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 6 of 16
The inmate must act to add a cosigner to a checking account or make other arrangements to prevent reoccurrence of this need. Supporting documents, such as payment coupons or rent contracts, must accompany any personal business mail. Inmates·may not request the post office to forward their personal mail to the jail, and they may not run a personal business, commercial business or non-profit organization from jail.
LEGAL AND OFFICIAL MAll. 9. Legal and. Official Mail
Jail staff must protect the rights of inmates to privileged, confidential communication with their attorneys, the courts, and confining authorities. a. The sender is responsible for legitimately, properly, and clearly marking and addressing legal
and official mail so that jail staff recognize it and treat it as confidential. (1) The return address on all incoming legal and official mail must have the sender's job,
agency, or finn title an,d address either commercially'preprinted on the envelope or a label, or as an ink stamp. The sender's name should be handwritten if not preprinted. Staff will treat all mail with return addresses that are completely handwritten as personal mail. (2) The words "Legal Mail," "Official Mail," or similar designation must appear on the address side of the envelope. Jail staff will not assume the contents of any letter from an attorney, law firm, or government official is legal or official mail if it is not clearly marked as such. (3) Jail staffwill treat mail that is not marked as "Legal Mail" or "Official Mail" as personal mail. b. Staff must not open recognized legal or official mail outside the presence of the inmate. They may open it in the presence of the inmate to inspectit for contraband, but they must not read its contents. c. A staff member must write a Jail Incident Report if he or she inadvertently opens a piece of recognizable legal or official mail outside the presence of the inmate. d. Before the .letter leaves the pod, pod deputies must verify that any letter marked as legal or official mail is addressed to a person that qualifies as legal or official mail. Pod deputies will contact a shift sergeant if they suspect fraud. e. .Jail staff will pursue administrative, criminal, and disciplinary actions, as fitting, against all those involved in the fraudulent use of legal or official mail designations.
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 42; Page 6 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 7 of 16
10. Contents of Envelopes and Parcels (Legal and Official Mail Only) An envelope may only contain written correspondence that meets the definition of legal or official mail. A parcel nlay only contain up to three books or three periodicals. Mail handlers will consider any other item in the envelope or parcel as contraband and treat it as prohibited mail.
11. Pre-Stamped Envelopes Jail staffwill make pre-stamped First Class business size or manila envelopes available for inmates to buy from the commissary for legal or official mail. Indigent inmates may obtain envelopes for legal or official mail per paragraph 6. Misrepresentation of legal or official mail is strictly prohibited and may result in disciplinary action against the inmate sender. An inmate may ask to mail an oversize or overweight envelope using special postal serVices procedures listed below.
12. Requests for Certified Mail An inmate who needs to send a letter using certified mail must fill out a Request for Certified Mail form. Only a pod sergeant or a programs director can approve this request and only to send legal or official mail or materials related to an inmate's rehabilitation program that have been screened and approved by the programs director. The pod sergeant or programs director
will ensure that the inmate's correspondence is ready to mail at the time of the request. If
approved, the pod sergeant or programs director will forward the request to Jail Administration.
a. Jail administrative staff will verify the inmate has sufficient funds in his or account before processing any request. Staff will send requests from indigent inmates to the jail . administrative corporal. Jail administration staff will fill out the necessary U.S. Postal Service forms-Receipt for Certified Mail (pS Form 3800) and Domestic Return Receipt (pS Form 3811). They will give the letter and the forms to jail accounting staff; accounting staff will mail the letter and charge the inmate for the postal fees for these special services. The request form will be the source document authorizing the charge.
b. Staff will pass the receipt on to the irimate when it returns in incoming mail. They will return the Domestic Return Receipt postcard to the post office ifthe inmate is no longer in jailor at the CCC.
13. Other Special Postal Services An inmate will use an Inmate Request form to request permission to mail oversize or overweight items or for other special postal services. If a jail sergeant or command officer approves such a request, j ail administration staff will coordinate with j ail accounting staff to mail the item and charge the inmate the postal fees.
5
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 42; Page 7 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 8 of 16

PUBLICATIONS
14. Publications An inmate must have someone outside the jail prepay for any publication he or she receives. An inmate may not engage in any delayed payment or credit ordering of pUblications while' inside the jaiL Publications may include sUbscription or non-subscription newspapers, magazines, newsletters, brochures, pamphlets or catalogs. Publications must be new and be delivered directly from the publisher. An inmate may receive up to (insert number here) publications per day_
15. Books An inmate may receive up to three books on a single mail delivery day. Books must come directly from the publisher, a book club, or a bookstore. Books may be new or used. They may not be larger than 9 inches by 12 inches. They may not have plastic or metal bindings. Either hardback or paperback books are acceptable for general population inmates. Inmates in segregation, including medical segregation, may only receive paperback books from recognized sources. Mail handlers will consider any other item in the envelope or parcel as contraband and treat it as prohibited maiL

16. Prohibited Publications or Books The jail must determine whether a specific publication or book violates jail rules. Jail staff must-make this determination on an issue-by-issue basis; it is unacceptable to put a blan1cet prohibition on all issues of a certain publication. If a specific issue of a publication or a book is determined to violate jail rules, jail staff should confiscate it as prohibited item (see section 32).

MONEY-BY-MAIL

17. Cashier's Check and Money Order Limits
Jail staff will only accept, with limits, cashier checks, money orders, and government checks, payable only to the inmate, for credit to an inmate's account. Staff will call the issuer to verify the amount if they suspect forgery or the inmate or sender has a history .pf forgery. All checks and money orders must be signed properly. Acceptable sources and amount limits are the following:

a. For money orders from merchants: $20 per sender per day.

b. For cashier checks or money orders from banks or the USPS: $100 per sender per day.

c. For

checks: No limit, but the check is subject to verification that the inmate is

eligible to receive it. (Jail accounting staff will do the verifying.)

18. Processing Money
The primary mail handler will open all incoming mail and remove any cash and negotiable instruments. Themail handler will return to sender any written correspondence of a personal nature that ·accompanies those items. a For cash and acceptable negotiable instruments within limit-

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 42; Page 8 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 9 of 16

(l) The primary mail handler will-

(a) Fill out a Money-by-Mail Receipt for the total received for deposit to eac];l inmate's account
(b) Place all money orders and checks iIi one Cash Envelope. List the money order or check number and amount on'the outside of the envelope. Total the amounts of all enclosed items.
. (c) Check to see if any bill of $10 or more is counterfeit. (d) Place all currency in a separate Cash Envelope. Account for the denominations on the face of the envelope. Total the amounts of all enclosed items. (e) Take both Cash Envelopes to the intake area and drop them in the safe. (f) Distribute the Money-by-Mail Receipts: yellow copy to the property room, white copy to the booking file, and pink copy to the inmate.

(2) Property room staff will credit the inmate's account with the runount listed on the

Money-by-Mail Receipt and send the inmate a copy of the credit receipt. (The inmate

does not have to sign the credit receipt. The clerk should write "mailed in" on the

. signature line.)

.

b. The primary mail handler will return

instruments to the sender that exceed

limits, are from unacceptable sources, or are otherwise unauthorized, such as payroll,

personal, o'r two-party checks. To return the instrument, the mail handler will-

(1) Send a Returned Mail form letter to the sender along with the instrument being returned. Note on the letter the amount, number, and issuing institution of the check. Note the payee's name if it was not the inmate..

(2) Include a copy ofthe Inmate Mail Guide in the letter returning the instrument.

Send the inmate a copy of the form letter and keep a copy ofthe letter and check in the mail file fo'r reference.

REGULATING INMATE MAlL

19. Restrictions on Outgoing Mail Recipients
Inmates who are prohibited from sending mail to a specific recipient pursuant to a valid court order will not be allowed to send mail to that recipient and may be disciplined for attempting to do so.

20. Correspondence with Victims
Inmates may not correspond with a victim of a crime for which they are currently in custody in either pretrial or sentenced status. A jail command officer may make exceptions.

7
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 42; Page 9 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 10 of 16

21. Regulating Inmate Mail Written in a Foreign Language
Prior to delivery a translator will read all incoming mail written in a language other than English; outgoing mail written in a foreign language will be read as time and resources permit, at the discretion of the jail commander. A full translation is not required.

Any jail staff member who receives bilingual incentive pay will nOIDlally review mail wi.-itten in Spanish during shift briefmg (no later than the end of shift). Staff will write their DPSST number, the date, and mark the words "approve" or "do not deliver" on each item. Ifthe item is marked as "do not deliver", the staff member will also include a short explanation of why the mail is prohibited. The supervisor will return all reviewed items to the mail handlers in Jail Administration.

Any Sheriff's Office or police agency staff, or approved volunteer fluent in the language or a designated translation service approved by command staffmay read mail in a language other than English or Spanish.

Mail handlers should deliver approved mail to the inmate within three business days of receipt

from the post

they will document time that the delivery takes longer.

22. Mail with Health Care Appointment Information (OPTIONAL)

To ensure transport security, a mail handler will confiscate any mail with information about

upcoming health care appointments. The mail handler should inform heath care staff of the

letter.

.

23. Gang-Related and Security Threat Group Materials in Mail (OPTIONAL)

A mail handler will photocopy incoming or outgoing mail with gang-related or security threat

group material and send the copy to the Security Threat Group (STG) team: The mail handler

will confiscate the mail as a prohibited

and notify the sender per paragraph 32. A jail

STG team member will act according to procedures.

24. Mail Monitoring (OPTIONAL)
Inmate mail maybe:ri:lOmtored for any legitimate penological or public safety reason. This includes, but is not limited to, the welfare and safety or the inmates or staff, good order or security of the facility, to protect property, to prevent the commission of additional crimes or conspiracy to commit a crime, to thwart attempts to destroy or tamper with evidence of crimes or to harass or intimidate witnesses. The requester from outside the jail must complete a Request for Inmate Mail Monitoring, all requests will be reviewed by a jail command officer. Approved request will expire 30 days after its approval date. The requester must submit a new request to continue monitoring. Jail staff will read the inmate's mail, decide if any of it applies to the request, and will only forward copies of mail that does apply. The requester must pick up the copies. in person if from an agency within the county. The senior administrative assistant in Jail Administration will coordinate the mail-monitoring program.

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 42; Page 10 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 11 of 16
PROCESSING INCOlVlING MAIL
25. Addressing Incoming Inmate Mail Incoming mail must have the inmate's booking name and sh9uld have the inmate's booking number as part of the addressee information. Incoming mail must have the name and address of the sender. The return address on legal and official mail must have the sender's job, agency, or firm title and address commercially preprinted or stamped.
26. Incoming Mail Without Return Address a. If the inmate is in custody, a mail handler will confiscate any mail without a return name and address. He or she will open it to both identify a sender's name and to see if it contains negotiable instruments or other items that need to be listed on the confiscation notice.
b. If the inmate is no longer in custody, the mail handler will open the mail to check for negotiable instruments, stamps, official documents, or similar items of monetary or official value.
(l) Ifthere are no valuables and the sender cannot be identified, the mail handler will throw the mail away. Ifthe sender can be identified, the mail will be returned.
(2) Ifthe mail contains valuables, the mail handler will take steps to identify the sender and return the mail to the sender. If a sender's name and address is not found, the mail handler will send the mail to the inmate's last known address. A mail handler will destroy any mail, along with its valuables, that is returned to the j ail after sending it to the original sender or former inmate.
27. ConfIScating and Returning Mail Normally, mail handlers confiscate prohibited items. They may return prohibited mail to a sender if it is in the best interest of the jail not to store it, such as perishables.
a. Confiscation. Mail handlers will confiscate postcards, letters, cards, and publications that violate jail rules in whole'rather than removing or obliterating individual pages, passages, or words with prohibited content. Jail staff will place confiscated items or those
exceeding limits ill the inmate's property storage, unless it is seized as evidence in a jail
disciplinary action or a crime. If the item is seized as evidence, a property / evidence receipt will be placed in the inmate's property.
b. Returning Mail. To return unopened mail, a mail handler will use a sticker or stamp. marked "rehrrn to sender," note the reason for refusal on the stamp, obliterate any mailsorting bar code, and return it to the post office. To return mail that was opened, a mail handler must repackage it and send it at the expense ofthe jail to the sender.
c. Notifying the Inmate of Confiscation or Return. Mail handlers' will use a Returned or Confiscated Mail Notice to inform the inmate ofthe confiscation or return.
9
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 42; Page 11 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 12 of 16

d. Notifying the Sender of Confiscation or Return. Mail handlers must notify the sender in writing that mail they sent was returned or confiscated, ifthe sender's return address is available using a Returned or Confiscated Publication or Mail Notice. Any notice will clearly identify the mail or p:ublication, give the specific reason(s) the mail was denied and explain how the sender can appeal the decision If the inmate is no longer in custody, the mail or pUblication will be returned to the sender with notice that the inmate not in custody. For publications that are returned or confiscated when the inmate is still in custody, the mail handler will specifically identify the reason the Ip.ail was denied and note . one or more page numbers which violated mail policies. Mail handlers will photocopy the pages of the pUblication that violate jail mles,and attach·them to the jail copy of the Retmned of Confiscated Mail Notice so that jail command staff can review them as part of the appeals process. The Returned or Confiscated Mail Notice will lay out the appeal procedure to challenge the decision to confiscate or return the item.

28. General Mail Rules for Inmates Imnates-

a May only use graphite 'or colored pencils to write correspondence. (OPTIONAL)

b.. May only use postcards sold through the commissary or issued by the jail. (O}>TIONAL)

c. Must send legal, official or approved letters, notes, or other written materials using the USPS

or other

system.

d. May not draw or write anything on the outside of an envelope other than name and

address information and "legal" or "official" mail designations.

e. May not send out jail forms for others to fill out on behalf of the inmate.

f. May not send mail to another inmate at a correctional facility or one on electronic home

detention.

g. May not send prohibited mail. They are subject to disciplinary action for doing so.

h. Should pass on prohibited mail rules to people and businesses with whom they correspond.

29. Inspection of Outgoing Envelopes
Before legal or official mail leaves the pod, pod deputies will verify the contents are legal or official mail before sealing the envelope, but should not read the contents of the legal or official mail. The inspecting deputy will initial and write their DPSST number on the flap to show this verification. As appropriate, the deputy will return it to the inmate, confiscate it as evidence in disciplinary proceedings, or contact ajail sergeant or jail command officer if-

a. The return name, booking number, and address are incomplete or false. b. There is drawing or non-address-related writing on the envelope. c. There is prohibited material on the envelope. d. Addressee information is missing that could cause the letter to be undeliverable and
returned to the jail. e. It is a manila envelope whose addressee does not meet the criteria for being legal or
official mail or being a prognim-related certificate or diploma.

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 42; Page 12 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 13 of 16
f. They believe the envelope should be opened for a legitimate reason.
30. Opening and Inspecting Contents of Outgoing Mail Staff will not read outgoing legal or official mail.
a. Ajail sergeant or jail command officer may have staffread outgoing personal mail at any time and for any reason. This authorization may be by housing areC4 class of inmate, individual inmate, or other basis. It may also be on an ongoing or a random basis and for any length of time.
b. Mail handlers will notify a jail sergeant or jail command officer if-
(l) They suspect outgoing mail contains contraband. (2) It may present a safety or security issue based on the addressee. (3) They have reasonable suspicion the mail may contain other contents oflegitimate jail
interest.
31. Posting Outgoing Mail Outgoing mail should be posted as soon as reasonable, normally within (XXXX) hours.
32. Mail Delivery, Staff should deliver mail to inmates withln,24 hours of receipt at the jaiL Reasonable 'exceptions are allowed when special processing is required, such as for mail delivered late in the day, needing translation, or items held as evidence in a criminal or disciplinary investigation, etc.
ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES· 33. Appealing a Returned or Confiscated Mail Notice - Sender. An appeal of returned or
confi:;;catedmail nlust made, in writmg, witllln fifteen days from the date the notice is sent to the sender. Appeals wili normally be decided by'a jail command officer, and will not be heard by the same person who issued the Notice of Returned or Confiscated Mail. The appeal must state specifically why the sender believes that the mail or publication does not violate the jail rule as alleged. A decision on the appeal will normally be made within fifteen days from the date the appeal is delivered to the jail command officer. Specific information about the appeals process will be included in the Returned or Confiscated Mail Notice.
34. Appealing a Returned or Confiscated Mail Notice - Inmate. Inmates who wish to challenge a Notice of Confiscated or Returned Mail must use the nonnal inmate grievance process.
35. Destroying Mailed Items that Pose a Risk. A mail handler may destroy any item in mail that presents a health or safety risk if it were to be stored in the jail or returned to sender, and notify the sender by sending a Returned or Confiscated Mail Notice. The reasons for the
11
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 42; Page 13 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 14 of 16
destruction must be documented by the Inail handler. The inmate recipient must also be notified of the destruction 36. Mail as Nuisance Contraband. Inmates are responsible for getting rid of any mailed item that puts them over the property limits for nuisance contraband. An inmate may transfer items to their bin in the property room. Property room staff willJollow procedures ifthe volume of mail an inmate transfers to his or her property bin exceeds the remaining storage capacity of the bin.
37. Mail Rules. Jail staffwill ensure mail rules are a part of inmate orientation and the Inmate Manual. Civilian staff members who discover apparent misconduct as a result of reading inmate mail will report it via the chain of command.
38. Handler Supervision and Training Staff who initially handle or open incoming inmate mail should attend training on the safe handling of strange or suspicious packages or receive similar training from another source. Those who open mail should also receive training on recognizing gang and security threat group symbols and signs.
39. Change of Address Responsibilities and Forwarding Mail
Inmates are responsible for submitting change of address requests to the publishers of the periodicals they receive and to other,s that send them mall at the jail. Mail handlers will normally not forward mail for inmates who are no longer in jail custody. They will return correspondence, publications and packages unopened to the sender.
40. Holding Mail Mail handlers will nOrp1ally not hold mail for inmates released or temporarily transferred to another facility. Ajail command officer may make exceptions.
40. Mail Records Mail staffwill be responsible for maintaining a continuous chronological written record of the following types of hlcom.iiJ.g and outgoing inmate mail: ' " 1. Legal or official mail, and 2. Items of monetary value (e.g., money orders, cashier's checks, etc.). Staffwill document: 1. Sender and Recipient, 2. Date received/sent, 4. Brief Description (legal mail, official mail, check for rent) 5. Printed name and initials of staff person handling the mail.
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 42; Page 14 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 15 of 16
Appendix 1: Prohibited Mail Jail staffwill not allow an imnate to receive or send mail that1. Contains-
. a. Threats of physical harm, blackmail, extortion, or other criminal activity b. Plans for escape, criminal activity, or activity that violates jail rules 13 .
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 42; Page 15 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 16 of 16

c. Security threat related material
d. Information that, if conveyed, could result in physical harm to someone
e. Sexually explicit materials
f. Inflammatory material
g. Contraband materials (see definition on page 1 and paragraphs 31-34), including but not limited to such commonly mailed items as:
(1) Books larger than 9 by 12 inches or with plastic or metal bindings (2) More than three books in a single piece of mail (3) Foreign substances, such as:

(a) Bodily fluids

(b) Lipstick or perfume

(c) Glue or paint

(d) Anything with an unusual stain or odor that indicates a foreign substance may be present

2. Is written in code or suspected code

3. Was a form of written communication not sent through the USPS or other approved system

4. Is incoming mail and comes from an inmate lodged in another corrections facility.

(OPTIONAL)

.

5. Is to or from an inmate on electronic home detention. (OPTIONAL)
a 6. Is to or from a victim of crime that the inmate is in custody for in either pretrial or
sentenced status.

7. Would violate a court order.

8.' May produce a hostile work

such as sexual,harassment.

. 9. Is .not an approved commercial business or government service transaction.

10. Is a credit or deferred billing transaction, such as "bill me later" SUbscriptions or merchandise bought on credit or collect-on-delivery terms.

11. Violates negotiable instrument limits on sources and maximum dollar amount.

12. Is fraudulently marked as legal or official mail. .

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 42; Page 16 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 43
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 43; Page 1 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 3

Jesse Wing
.t1
From: Sent: To:
Subject:

Sophie Frazier (Sophie,Frazier@co.co!urnbia.or.us]
Monday, May 07,20126:04 PM
Andy Moyer; Arnie Lautt; Brandon Yon; Brooke McDowall; Bryan Cutright; Carolyn Townsend; Derel< Hibbs; Facillties Jim; Ivan Johnson; Jeff Dickerson; John Kernutt; Lee Rigdon; Marcia
Rush; Marti Kyles; Medcon1; MedCon2; Michelle Ritchie; Mike Feakin; Millie \tVagner; Mitch \Natkins; Rocky Miller; Ryan SchoH; Sean Moore; Security; Sheryl VVestfall; Sophie Frazier; Tony Weaver
Pass Dovm 050712

ICE: 1 USfV1: 72 TOTAL: 139

UA in the basket needs to be sent out for Campo. Undersheriff f'.1oyer decided to not have him booked but he needs to get his paper'vvork here ASAP and come in on Wednesday. He has been warned.

5 Releases 2 Booked 1 Book and Release

1. Inlnate Huck really does have a medical condition which causes his arms to swell. Medical is working with him. Hovvever if 11e says he needs to see the nurse he really does need to see the nurse.

2. Schneider has requested and wiH try to get housed with Inmate McCormick. Schneider had two adjudications today.

3. McCormick was adjudicated today

4. Hansen has been doing ok in the Safety Cell today--more like the old Hansen

5. Need to try and get a big enough DOC jumpsuit for Gardner··he will be taking a deal 3x or 4x

6. Undersheriff talked to D-Pod about water containers in outdoor rec. It will be thought about but nothing determined yet. Sgt Mmer found a bottle in outdoor rec on her first round after D-Pod

7. Clement cleaned H3

8. Both outside workers Temple and Fisk were given UA-"They passed HORRA,YY

9. Williams needs papen-vork looked at.

10. 1 ICE Female brought in

11. Lytsell was informed today his victim passed and he now had the charge of murder added. Keep an eye on him. Chaplain Gott will be in tomorrow

12. 'Nilson needs a phone call to check on his brother

13. D-Pod needs a stand by for outdoor ree change. They are parading when femates go back.

14. There is a nevlJ add on to the appt confirmation for medical you need to put in the return and depart time.

15. Grievance for food for i'-1osquera done and taken care

signed off

16. Grievance for ree with Barbosa and f'vlartinez are signed off they are ok with the answer given

17. Gonzalez(E) is asking about his release from the USfv1!s
1

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 43; Page 2 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 3
18. Per Undersheriff Moyer the outdated mail memo need to be pulled if found 19. There are so far no USM transports or outbounds--Magnuson was called and a message left in regards to this but I did tell him we have 6 inbound for 2 different trips tomorrow.
CHAMBE2 RLAIN DECL; Exhibit 43; Page 3 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-8 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 44
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 44; Page 1 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-8 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 3

Origin: Exported on 2012/05130 11 :00:49 AM with GWAVA Reveal
From: "MarcIa" <> Subject: passdown To: "Miller, Rockyll <Rocky.Milter@co,columbia.or.us> Dale: Sun, 6 May 2012 16:08:15 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-Library: Indy 9.00.10
May 6, 2012 Days to nights;
Population: 141 USM: 72 ICE: 0 LOCAL: 69

Re: Food matters: There were grievances filed that Jeft over food would not be used by the kitchen the next day unless absolutely necessary: If anyone mentions that their special diet, or other othervvise has leftover food we can mention it to AramarkllsraeL
releases: LOHMAN, NICOLE @ 1730 G 22 $-0- 146

MASTERS, JIMMY DALE will be @ 1849 K08

003

Deputy Magnuson: Will NOT be coming in Monday unless someone calls him to come in: home is 543-3824.

Inmate Bahr tried really haJd to come into booking to drop treats off for the sewing ladies......

Just FYI.

.

If someone tries to deliver underwear for DeAvaios it should be refused. She has a surplus of it
in her property. Memo sent out front.

D Pod is trying to steal extra trays. Either by distraction or utilizing their coming out of thelr cells at the last minute. Be aware.

Click, Patty now has Fixodent She will begin receiving a regular tray,

was seen by Medical. Complains about extreme pain in his chest and has been seen several times by MedicaL His vitals are stable. Echo does not feel he is in any danger and does not need togo to the hospital.

H-5 is LystelL Detoxing from Math. When he sobers upa bit he can go back. One of his victims mayor may not live.

Rec yard '11a5t call." After we give three calls to rec yard and we give a "Iast call" we are not obligated to send any other person to ree yard from that pod.

CC 001792
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 44; Page 2 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-8 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 3
The mail memo in the pods has to be in the pods. It's the old memo, we just need it there.
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 44; Page 3 of 3 CC 001793

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-9 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT 45
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY mDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 45; Page 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-9 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 2

From:
Sent: To: Subject:

6/20i2012 5:37 Pt-i
__•______..._"".,.......P . _ " ' _ " "_._____•_ _ _ _ _ _......____
Andy Moyer fAndy.Moyer@co,Cofumbia.oLusl Tuesday, June 19.2012 1:00 PM Gregory Roberson Fwd: Dealing ;,vlth stamps in the mail

Andy f\1oyer, Undersheriff

Columbia County Sheriff's Office

901. Port Avenue

St. Helens, OR 97051

Office (50.3)

Fax'

(503) 366-4644

Dispatch (503) 397-1521

»> tv1itch VJatkins 2/24/2012 3:14 Atli »>

Over the past i,veek \\'e have been doing the mail, there has been one change that seems to be rather counter-

productive to the goals of instating this policy, Previously, we had been cutting off the stamps and address stickers. Now

we are told that we have to peel the stamps and address stickers off.

I understand the point of not wanting any foreign substances placed in the

of the stkkers and stampSI etc,/

but I'm noticing that it IS downright impossible to peel these stickers off as a whole, They generally do not peel off in

one piece, leavIng you with numerous tiny little pieces to pick at} or tear the envelope so badly we might as well cut

them off 10 the first place. And no matter how hard you ttY{ the adhesive always gets left behind on the envelope any

ways. Besides having gross finger nails from pICking at ftfty some odd stamps at the point we are done 'Nith it, vv'€'re still

not abJe to remove the part that is the issue. The adhesive is generaliy gOing to have the foreign

In/on it.

Plus the fact that all this is very time consuming, is the reason r wanb:d to bring t,is to your attention. I am looking fer

alternatives to remedy this. If I'm tctel!y off base here, tell mer I know this has been a pain to everyone involved. Just
thought rd throw it out there for something to look at down the road.

Deputy VVatkins

CC002264
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 45; Page 2 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-10 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 18
EXHIBIT 46
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 46; Page 1 of 18

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-10 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 18

Gregory
Sent:
To: ' A#achmeritS:

Al1dy MOYi5:f [AndyJvloyer@J:;p.99Iumbia.pcu.s] Fri9$Y; June?2;'?91?1 AM G.regory
Fwg:: NeW)lJ.m.aXe:J0ail Polity:
;.Mail.pdf

, 6/28/20129:52 AN

AOc:ly'Moyerj Undersheriff
Columbia County Sheriff's Office
901 Port Avenue
St.H.elens, OR 97051

Fax

(503) 3.66"'4644,

Dispatch (503) 397-1521

»>

iJ:ftAM »>

To AIlCorrectionsSfaff:

Effectlveyesterday, there is:a new '(another new) Inmate mail policy (see atiqched). The highlights qfthe poiiCy are'

,

" .

poUcy:

The;:JaWs'gelieral Policy is thatit:WiIl notlimiti censor;

'conte.ot, fOrri)ator

mail; Hov.iever;sdrrie IimJtatiCms are necessary for thes'ecurity,of; inmatesl ,

effi,deiil

of WeJail.,

'

and 'the

Inmate:M'aiL 'ENVELOPES, ARE:NOW,

Inmates:maygel1erally:send ,and receive'r.nailin any form deliverepby

,Post<:il

food; beverages"Ctofhing and simllar'items :are not:allqwed tQ> be

b,e,Copfis@.te(t

i:i.fe,:a,lloWed provided they:dontj:: 'otherwise.vi61ate

:Per$onat

Inmates rec.eiye

Jfmit¢ci,to" b09ks[ ,:

Q¢Wsletters

and ''newspapers., Howeverj' the publication

'malled,:cnrectlyfrorn, t.he;: PlJbl,isheri ,

bookstore;

ifsorneone:wishes to:.send ali'jnmate'a' photoqjpiedartlcle'{or. even a.n:entire

by'pa,gekthafWilI 'b'e:'alI6Wedih;

"

'

not AddresSing inmate Mail..

mail must have the iornate'sb?OKihg nameas'partof the a'ddressee

inf6rmatioir(booking' nUtnber is desired, but

Incoming mail imJsf

return address ihcluding

theliame and address'ofthe sender.

80th . jftmate'lj1ajl was
the normalgrieva:nc;e, the Teason 'for the,appeal, the date 'of thePr6hibited ,Mail,

the:tighttbappeal a: dedsio'l1'to confiscate inmate mail.

pt6YJdea 'NqtiC¢.:qrPfo.hibite.d fv1ail, to' bot1:lthe,sehder ahd",'addressee

pi'9n'ibl,ti.':c:!,

\vht the'

will

TfW:'!::appe?1

a.n i,fiini:lte

if}formation,.Jhe

be

withio')$,days :fro:ri1

'TiieJail wiii: respond within is;days'pf reC6tpt;of theietter.

1 CC001706
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 46; Page 2 of 18

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-10 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 18

6/28/2012 9:52 AM
THAT ANY CONFISCATED MAIL (GOING OUT OR COMING IN) MUST BE CLEARED BY A SUPERVISOR AND HAVE A
PROHIBITED MAIL NOTICE SENT TO BOTH THE INTENDED RECEIVER AND SENDER OF ANY CONASCATED MAIL.

WILL BEFORE CONFISCATING ANY MAIL, SUPERVISORS

VERIFY THAT THE CONTENT OF THE MAIL PIECE IS IN

VIOlATION OF POUCY J603.

ON l Y YOU MUST DESTROY ANY PRIOR PRINTED VERSIONS OF POUCY"J603, AND REFER

TO THE

MOST CURRENT REVISED POUCE1 WHICH IS J603-R09.

If you have any questions, ask.

One last thought:
We are about to enter into a temporary injunction from the federal court in regard to our mail policy. Failure to follow the policy as it is set forth in this attachment can leave individual employees liable for federal dvil rights violations, so it
behooves us all to get this right.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey M. Dickerson
Columbia County Sheriff
901 Port Avenue St. Helens, OR 97051 Office Phone: (503) 366-4600

2
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 46; PagCCe03017o0f718

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-10 Filed 09/13/12 Page 4 of 18

COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
JAIL OPERATIONS JEFF DICKERSON, SHERIFF
INMATE MAlL POLICY J603-R09 (06118/12)

EFFECTWE:JUNE18.2012
SUPERSEDES tNMATEMAIL POLICY
REVISED MAY 25. 2012
OJS: D-IOITHRU D-117, D-I05, D-212, D-302, F-I 01 THRU F-) 03
ACA: 3-ALDF-3D-16 THRU SD-08

Applies to all staff.
POLICY
Jail mail handling procedures must support an inmate's need to communicate in writing to carry out legal business and maintain family and community ties. The procedures must also meet the Jail's need for efficient operations that preserve the good order, safety, and security of the facility. inmates, and staff.
DEFINITIONS
Book. A printed composition bound in a volume.
Contraband. 1) Controlled substances as defined in ORS 475.005(6). 2) Drug paraphemalia as defined by ORS 475.525(2}. 3) Any currency or negotiable instrument. 4) Any item that a person in a correctional facility is prohibited by statute, rule, or order from obtaining or possessing, and whose use would endanger the safety or security of the facility or person
in the facility. 5) An unauthoriied item in an inmate's possession or in a cell, bunk, or
common area. 6) An authorized item altered in any way. 7) More than the authorized number of an item.
Inmate Mail. Written correspondence to or from an inmate in the Columbia County Jail.
Indigent An inmate who has less than $5 in his or her inmate account and has not had more
than that amount for seven days.
Inflammatory material. Written or printed materials that pose a threat to the security. safety, or good order of the jail because it may incite or advocate physical violence against others. This includes material that advocates the supremacy or hatred of a racial, religious, national, or other group of people. (Note: Crilicism of jail operations, programs, or staff, on its own, is not inflammatory material. If the criticism involves an illegal act or violates a jail rule. staff will handle it as that type of prohibited mail.)
Jail Commander. The Columbia County Jail Commander or his/her designee.
Jail Supervisor. Any Corrections Deputy designated at the rank of sergeant or higher.
Junk mail/Bulk mail. Printed materials, often sent as mass mailings. such as catalog advertisements. brochures, circulars, newsletters, and pamphlets whose primary purpose is to sell, promote or solicit for, a product or service. Junk mail/bUlk mail may come using a variety of postage rates, including but not limited to bulk mail rates. Junk Mail/Bulk Mail

CC001708
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 46; Page 4 of 18

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-10 Filed 09/13/12 Page 5 of 18

J603-R09 may be solicited or unsolicited.

JUDe 18. 2012

Legal mail. Incoming or outgoing mail addressed to or from an attorney.

Negotiable instrument. A written document that represents an unconditional promise to pay
a specified amount of money upon the demand of its owner. Examples include checks and
promissory notes. Negotiable instruments can be transferred from one person to another,
as when a person writes "pay to the order of" on the back of a check in order to turn it over
to someone else.

Official Mail. Incoming or outgoing mail addressed to or from the sheriff, jail command staff. probation authorities, district attorney. state attorney general. Governor, court, a court official, and other confining authorities, or addressed to or from the inmate's medical provider, or addressed to or from the inmate's religious leader, or addressed to or from the news media.

Periodical. A magazine, newspaper, newsletter, or other publication formed of printed sheets
that is issued at regular, specified intervals by a publisher.

Prohibited Mail Notice. A written notice that is: A. mailed to the sender or intended receiver of inmate mail who is not incarcerated in the Columbia County Jail; and B. is also provided (by jail staff) to the current inmate who is a sender or intended receiver of inmate mail. when said mail has been confiscated by the jail for any reason (See Prohibited Mail Notice at the end of this chapter). A Prohibited Mail Notice MUST be provided to the sender AND intended receiver of all incoming and outgoing mail that is confiscated by the jail.

Publication. Periodicals and books.

Sexually explicit: 1) A pictorial depiction of any of the following: actual or simulated sexual acts (including sexual intercourse, oral sex, anal sex, or masturbation); sexual penetration; bestiality; sexual violence; sadomasochistic behavior; excretory functions; and exposed genitalia (to include pubic hair). anus or female nipple or areola, unless the exposure is for legitimate medical, religiOUS. or anthropological reasons. 2) Sex acts involving children. 3) Materials that violate state and local ol;Jscenity laws. (Note: Whether the material is commercially produced or is personally made or written has no bearing on this definition.)

PROCEDURES

INMATE MAIL

1. Inmate Mail Limits and Restrictions/Overview

The Columbia County Jail will normally not limit, censor, or restrict the volume, language, content, format or source of inmate mail. However, some limitations are necessary to
assure the safety. and security of inmates, jail staff, and the public, as well as to assure the efficient operation of the Jail.

2. Specific Limitations on Inmate Mail

A. Publications. Publications are permitted in the Jail, subject to the following 2

CC001709
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 46; Page 5 of 18

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-10 Filed 09/13/12 Page 6 of 18

J603-R09
B.

requirements:

June 18,20]2

(1) An inmate must have someone outside the jail prepay for any publication he
or she receives. An inmate may not engage in any delayed payment or
credit ordering of publications while inside the jail.

(2) Books. Books must come direcUy from the publisher, a book club, or a bookstore. Books may be new or used. Books may not be larger than 9 inches by 12 inches. Books may not have plastic or metal bindings. Either hardback or paperback books are acceptable.

(3) Periodicals. Periodicals must be new and be mailed direcUy from the publisher or bookstore.

(4) No blanket prohibition. Mail handlers will determine whether a specific publication violates jail rules. However, this determination must be made on a case by case basis. There shall be no blanket prohibition on any publication.

Legal and Official Mail.

(1) Jail staff must protect the rights of inmates to privileged, confidential communication with their attorneys, the courts, and confining authorities.

(2) A sender of legal or official mail is responsible for legitimately. properly. and clearly marking and addressing legal and official mail so that jail staff recognize it and treat it as being confidential. as follows:

(a) The return address on all incoming legal and officialmail must have

the sender's job,· agency, or firm title and address either

commercially preprinted on the envelope or a label, or as an ink

stamp. The sender's name should be handwritten if not preprinted.

(b) The words "Legal Mail." "Official Mail," or similar designation must

appear on the address side of the envelope. Jail staff will not

assume the contents of any letter from an attorney, law firm, or

government official is· legal or official mail without the deSignation of

"Legal Mail" or "Official Mail" on the

side of the envelope.

(3) Staff must not open recognizable le9·al or official mail outside the presence of the inmate. They may only open it in the presence of the inmate to inspect it for contraband, but they must not read its contents.

(4) A staff member must write iii Jail Incident Report if he or she inadvertently opens a piece of recognizable legal or official mail outside the presence of the inmate. If such inadvertent reading of legal or official mail occurs, the staff member responsible will also notify a supervisor as soon as . practicable.

(5) Before legal or official mail leaves the pod, staff must verify that any letter marked as legal or official mail is addressed to a person that qualifies for that privacy protection. Deputies will contact a Jail Supervisor if they suspect fraud.
3

CC001710·
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 46; Page 6 of 18

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-10 Filed 09/13/12 Page 7 of 18

J603-R09

June 18,2012

(6) Jail staff will pursue administrative, criminal, and disciplinary actions, as fitting, against all those involved in the fraudulent use of legal or official mail designations.
c. Other Prohibited Content/Contraband

(1) An inmate may not receive or send inmate mail that contains:

(a) Threats of physical harm. blackmail. extortion, or other criminal activity;

(b) Plans for escape. criminal activity, or activity that violates jail rules;

(c) Gang-related material;

(d) Information that, if conveyed. could result In physical harm to someone;

(e) Sexually explicit materials;

(f) Inflammatory material;

(g) Contraband including but not limited to such commonly mailed items as:

i.

Books larger than 9 by 12 inches or with plastic or metal

bindings;

ii.

Controlled substances as defined by ORS 475.005(6);

iii. Foreign substances, such as bodily fluids. lipstick or perfume. glue or paint or anything with an unusual stain or odor that indicates a foreign substance may be present;

(h) Cash or negotiable instruments;

(i) Food or beverages, electronic devices, clothing or similar personal property.

(2) An inmate may not send or receive inmate mail that:

(a) is written in code or suspected code;

(b) Was not sent through the United States Postal Service or other approved system;

(e) Is to or from a person with whom the inmate is prohibited from communicating;

(d) Would violate a court order;

4

CC001711·
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 46; Page 7 of 18

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-10 Filed 09/13/12 Page 8 of 18

J603-R09

June IUt 2012

(e) May produce a hostile work environment by sexual harassment or
otherwise;

(f) Is a credit or deferred billing transaction, such as "bill me later" subscriptions or merchandise bought on credit or collect-on-delivery terms;

(g) Is fraudulently marked as legal or official mail;

(h) Includes logistical information about an inmate's upcoming health care appointment(s}.

D. Sources of Incoming Mail. Jail Staff will only accept incoming inmate mail that has been delivered by the U.S. Postal Service unless otherwise specifically authorized by the Jail Commander.

E. Postage-Due Mail. The jail will not accept or pay for incoming inmate mail with
postage due.

3.

General Limitations on Inmate Mail

In addition to the specific limitations on inmate mail set forth above, additional limitations may apply in the following circumstances:

A. There is reason to believe that such correspondence would jeopardize personal
safety, jail security or good order, inmate treatment, or would facilitate violation of the law.

B. Inmates may receive a disciplinary sanction that restricts non-legal and/or non
official mail. (See Policy J212, Rules and Discipline.)

4. General Provisions for Inmate Mail

A. Indigent Inmate Mail. Indigent inmates may obtain an indigent hygiene kit through the commissary program once per week. No Inmate will be denied a weekly indigent hygiene kit based on an inability to pay. The indigent hygiene kit consists of 2 sheets of paper and two postage prepaid envelopes, a pencil and hygiene items. Additional paper and envelopes are available for purchase in accordance with Policy J605(Commissary).

B. Addressing Inmate Mail. Incoming mail must have the inmate's booking name as part of the addressee information.

c.

Return Address. Incoming mail must have the name and address of the sender.

The return address on legal and officia1 mail must have the sender's job, agency, or

firm title and address commercially preprinted or stamped.

D. Certified Mail/Special mail services.
5

CC001712
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 46; Page 8 of 18

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-10 Filed 09/13/12 Page 9 of 18

J603-R09

June 18,2012

(1) The inmate must have sufficient funds in his or her account to pay for all special mail services. A Jail Supervisor may approve credit to allow an indigent inmate to send certified mail.
(2) An inmate who needs to send a letter using certified mail must fill out an Inmate Request Form. Any Corrections Deputy or Supervisor can process the request in the following manner:
(a) Jail staff will verify if the inmate has sufficient funds in his or her
account before processing any request. They will forward requests from indigent inmates to a supervisor. The inmate will fill out the necessary U.S. Postal Service forms-Receipt for Certified Mail (PS Form 3800) and Domestic Return Receipt (PS Form 3811). The letter and the forms will be forwarded to front office staff who will mail the letter and charge the inmate for the postal fees for these special services. The inmate request form will be the source document authorizing the charge.
(b) Jail Staff will provide the Domestic Return Receipt to the inmate
when it returns in incoming mail. They will return the Domestic
Return Receipt postcard to the post office if the inmate is no longer
in Jail when it returns in the mail.
E. Inmate Request Form. An inmate shall use an Inmate Request Form to request to mail oversize or overweight items, or for other special postal services. Funds will be drawn from the inmate's account to cover the costs.
F. Junk/Bulk Mail. Jail staff will accept solicited and unsolicited junk mail and solicited and unsolicited bulk mail for inmates, unless it violates other mail restrictions (such as containing sexually explicit content).
G. Pre-5tamped Envelopes. Jail staff will make pre-stamped First Class business size or manila envelopes available for inmates to buy from the commissary. Indigent inmates may obtain envelopes per paragraph 4.A.
H. Inmate Mail Written in a Foreign Language. Incoming and outgoing mail written
in a language other than English may be interpreted prior to delivery to determine whether the mail violates these rules.

PROCESSING INMATE MAIL INCOMING INMATE MAIL
1. Mail Intake.
A. Incoming Inmate Mail will be processed by night shift Corrections Deputies. B. Night Shift Corrections Deputies will confiscate unopened mail when:
6

CC001713
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 46; Page 9 of 18

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-10 Filed 09/13/12 Page 10 of 18

J603-R09
C. D. E.
F.

June 18,1012
(1) The addressee cannot be identified because of missing or incomplete information;

(2) Prohibited items are affixed to the mail;
(3) Foreign substances or stains are on the mail;
(4) Odors, Including perfume, are coming from the mail;
(5) The mail can otherwise be identified as being or containing prohibited mail before it is opened;

(6) The inmate is no longer in the jail.

Night Shift Corrections Deputies will look up the inmate's name on the inmate list and write the inmate's pod number on the mail.

Night Shift Corrections Deputies will review all inmate mail for prohibited content/contraband, and will remove loose postage stamps. loose flap-sealing tape, and loose gummed and adhesive address labels, leaving labels on legal and official mail. Deputies need not remove stamps, tape or labels that are firmly affixed to the mail.

Night Shift Corrections Deputies will determine whether mail includes the

name and return address of the sender. If the mail does not have the name

and return address, the Corrections Deputy will confiscate the mail. The

Deputy will open any envelopes without the sender's name and return

address to attempt to identify the sender's name and address and to inspect

the mail for prohibited content/contraband. If the senders address can be

identified, the mail will be returned to

If the sender's name and

address still cannot be identified, the mail will be stored for the inmate,

unless the inmate is no longer in jail in which case the mail will be returned

to the post office and marked, "undeliverable.n However, in the event an

inmate is no longer in jail and the mail contains negotiable instruments or

other valuables, and no sender can be" identified, any written material inside"

the envelope will be returned "to the post office and marked "undeliverable"

but the valuables will be retained as abandoned prop"erty in the Sheriffs

Office main property rooni to be disposed of according to law. The

corrections staff member proceSSing the abandoned property will fill out a

property room property form and submit the property in the temporary

evidence lockers. Beforemail is returned, stored. forwarded, or destroyed

under this section, the Corrections Deputy will get approval of a Jail

Supervisor.

Night Shift Corrections Deputies will open all inmate mail (except for legal and official mail) to inspect for prohibited content/contraband. Upon a determination that prohibited content/contraband is present, Night Shift
Corrections Deputies will confiscate the mail.

7

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 46; PagCeC100017o14f 18

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-10 Filed 09/13/12 Page 11 of 18

J603-R09
G.

June 187 2012
If cash or negotiable instruments are found in inmate mail, the mail and funds will be confiscated and returned to sender. The Prohibited Mail Notice shall include the amount of funds, number, and issuing institution of any negotiable instrument as well as the payee·s name if it was not the inmate's.

H. Night Shift Corrections Deputies will remove publications from their mailing parcels.

I.

Night Shift Corrections Deputies will place inmate mail written in a foreign

language in the "translation required" box and will take steps to locate a staff

member who speaks that language. If such mail cannot be translated within

a reasonable time by a staff member, the Corrections Deputy will forward

the mail to a Jail Supervisor for direction.

J. Night Shift Corrections Deputies will sort inmate mail by pod and place it in
the pod folders in booking before 0800 hours (8:00 a.m.).
K. Before mail is returned, stored, forwarded, or destroyed under this section,
the Corrections Deputy will get approval of a Jail Supervisor. Night Shift Corrections Deputies will fill out a Prohibited Mail Notice for each item of confiscated mail and place it in the "Needs Review" box for a Jail Supervisor's review. A Jail Supervisor will review each Prohibited Mail Notice. If the Jail Supervisor does not agree with the Prohibited Mail Notice, the mail will be delivered. If the Jail Supervisor does agree with the Prohibited Mail Notice, the Jail Supervisor will sign the Prohibited Mail Notice. The Prohibited Mail Notice will then be sent to the sender of the mail (if known). A copy of the Prohibited Mail Notice wm also be provided to the inmate (if known and still in jail). A copy of the Prohibited Maii Notice will be retained in the inmate's file.

L. Day Shift Corrections Deputies will pick up the mail for their pods when

coming on duty. They. or other staff if appropriate. will process the inmate

mail for their pods as follows:

..

(1) Open recognizable legal and official mail in front of the inmate and inspect it only for contraband - not content (staff shall not read the contents);

(2) Deliver the mail as soon as practical upon receipt. Passing inmate mail under an inmate's door and placing books by the door is acceptable, except for legal and official mail;

2. Grievances/Appeals. Corrections Deputies will forward any grievances and/or appeals related to inmate mail to the Jail Commander for a determination of compliance with the Inmate Mail Policy and applicable legal requirements.

8

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 46; PagCeC100117o1f5 18

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-10 Filed 09/13/12 Page 12 of 18

JUDe 18,2012
3. Return to Sender. Corrections Deputies will place mail to return to sender in the booking pickup box.
4. Mail Delivery. Staff should deliver mail to inmates within 24 hours of receipt at the
Jail. Reasonable exceptions are allowed when special processing is required, such as for mail delivered late in the day, mail needing translation, or mail held as evidence in a criminal or disciplinary investigation, etc.

OUTGOING INMATE MAIL

1. General Mail Rules for Inmates

Inmates-

A. May only use lead or colored pencils to write correspondence.

B. Must send inmate mail through the USPS or other approved system.

C. Must put their first and last name, booking number, and the jail address as the return address.

D. May not draw or write anything on the outside of an envelope other than name and address information and "legal" or "official" mail designations.

E. May not send out jail forms for others to fill out on behalf of the inmate.

F. May not send prohibited content or disciplinary action for doing so.

Inmates are subject to

2. Posting· Outgoing Mail. Inmates will place outgoing inmate mail, unsealed. in the designated mailbox located inside of their pod (except for the case of legal or official mail).
3. Processing Outgoing legal/Official Mail. Outgoing legal or official mail shall be processed in this manner:
A. Inmates must obtain a correction· deputy's verification that any legal or official mail complies with this Policy prior to the mail being sealed and placed in the designated mailbox in their pod.
B. The corrections deputy shall inspect the inmate's legal and/or official mail in the presence of the inmate for contraband only. The deputy shall not review or tead the content of legal or official mail.
9

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 46; PagCeC100217o16f 18

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-10 Filed 09/13/12 Page 13 of 18

J603-R09
c.
D.

June IS, 2012
After inspecting the legal or official mail for compliance with this Policy, the
corrections deputy will have the inmate seal the envelope and deliver it to
the deputy. The deputy will then initial and write his or her OPSST number on the flap to show this verification.
After verifying that the legal or official mail complies with this Policy and writing his or her initials and DPSST number on the flap, the deputy shall place this sealed envelope of legal or official mail in the outgoing mail box within the pod.

The Night Shift Corrections Deputies will pick up the mail out of the mailboxes in the pods and deliver it to the booking area to be processed.

4. Processing, Opening and Inspecting Contents of Outgoing Mail

A. Corrections Deputies will not read outgoing legal or official mail unless they have the approval of the Jail Commander.

B. Corrections deputies may read outgoing mail at any time and for any reason, except for legal or official mail. This may be by housing area, class of inmate, individual inmate, or other basis. It may also be on an ongoing or a random basis and for any length of time. However, the Jail Commander must approve any ongoing monitoring of a specific inmate.

C. Corrections Deputies processing the outgoing mail will inspect the contents for contraband and/or other safety or security threats.
a D. Corrections Deputies will notify Jail Supervisor if-

(1) They suspect outgoing mail contains contraband or otherwise violates this Policy.

(2) They suspect that the mail may present a safety or security issue based on the addressee.

(3) They have reasonable suspicion the mail may contain other contents of legitimate jail interest.

E. A Jail Supervisor will determine whether inmate mail contains contraband or is otherwise prohibited by this Policy. If mail is deemed to be prohibited, a Jail Supervisor will notify the inmate and may give the inmate an opportunity to correct the problem(s). If the inmate refuses to correct the mail. the mail will be confiscated. If an inmate corrects the problem(s). the mail will be included in outgoing mail.

F. Mail may be confiscated immediately if appropriate in the discretion of the
Jail SLJpervisor.

10

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 46; PagCeC010317o17f 18

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-10 Filed 09/13/12 Page 14 of 18

J603-R09

June 18,2012

G. Outgoing Inmate Mail will be sealed by the corrections deputy or deputies
processing the outgoing mail and then placed in the outgoing mail basket and delivered to the front office for the regularly scheduled morning pickup on that same day as long as it is not a weekend or holiday. Outgoing mail should be processed within one business day after being received from the inmate.
H. An inmate and addressee will be provided with a Prohibited Mail Notice
whenever outgoing inmate mail is not mailed due to a violation of this Policy. However, if the inmate is allowed to correct a problem with the mail, the inmate will be notified, but a Prohibited Mail Notice is not required unless the inmate declines to correct the problem.

CONFISCATED MAIL

1. Disposition. Unless otherwise specified in this Policy, any inmate mail that is

confiscated pursuant to this Policy may either be returned to the sender, or stored

with the inmate's belongings in the Jail's sole discretion based on the best interest

of the Jail. A Jail

may authorize the destruction of any item that

presents a health or safety risk if stored in the jail, or return it to sender, or as

otherwise authorized by this Policy.

2. Prohibited Mail Notice Required. If a Jail Supervisor signs a Prohibited Mail Notice, the sender and addressee of the confiscated inmate mail must be notified of the confiscation whether the disposition was to return the mail, store it, or destroy it. However, if the mail is evidence in a criminal investigation, no notification will be given. Notice will be given through delivery of a Prohibited Mail Notice in the form attached to this Policy. The Prohibited Mail Notice will give the reason for the confiscation and explain the appeal process.

3. . . Confiscation in whole. Corrections Deputies will confiscate inmate mail in whole
rather than removing contraband or obliterating individual pages. passages, or words of prohibited content.

4. Stored Inmate Mail. Corrections Deputies will use a Prohibited Mail Notice to
inform the inmate of the confiscation and use a copy as a tag for the items placed
in storage.

ADMINISTRATION
1. Mail as Nuisance Contraband. Inmates are responsible for getting rid of any mailed item exceeding the number of items allowed in their cells as nuisance
contraband under Policy J212t Rules and Discipline. An inmate may transfer items to their bin in the property room using procedures in Policy J208, Secure Storage
11

. CC001718
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 46; Page 14 of 18

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-10 Filed 09/13/12 Page 15 of 18

J603-R09 .
of Inmate Property.

June 18.2012

2. Gang-Related and Security Threat Group Materials in Mail. Corrections Deputies will photocopy incoming or outgoing inmate mail with gang-related material and send a copy to the Gang Deputy.

3. Mail Monitoring. This section does not apply to legal or official mail.

A. The Jail may monitor an inmate's mail for investigatory purposes as follows:

(1) Upon receipt of a warrant; or

(2) When there is a legitimate penological or public safety reason to do . so. Examples of legitimate penological interest include but are not limited to, the welfare and safety of the inmates or staff, the good order or security of the facility, the protection of property, the prevention of the commission of a crime or conspiracy to commit a crime. the prevention of the destruction or tampering with evidence, and the prevention of harassment or intimidation of witnesses.

B. If a request to monitor inmate mail comes from another law enforcement
agency, the agency must complete a Request for Inmate Mail Monitoring.
An approved request will expire 30 days after its approval date. The requester must submit a new request to continue monitoring. Jail staff will
the read inmatets mail and decide if any of it applies to the request and will
only forward copies of mail that does apply. The requester must pick up the
copies in person if from an agency within Columbia County. The Jail
Commander will coordinate the mail-monitoring program. The Jail
Commander must approve the request.

4. Mail Rules. The Jail Commander will ensure mail rules are a part of inmate orientation and the Inmate Manual and will make copies of the Inmate Mail Guide
available to the public.

5. Mail Complaints. Staff members will direct mail complaints from the public to a Jail Supervisor. The Jail Supervisor should attempt to respond to the complainant within two business days. Appeals related to receipt of Prohibited Mail Notices shall be addressed pursuant to paragraph 10, below.

6. Mail Handler Supervision and Training. A Jail Supervisor will supervise the dayto-day handling of inmate mail. He or she will assign staff to perform primary inmate mail duties. Staff who initially handle or open incoming inmate mail should attend training on the safe handling of strange or suspicious packages or receive similar training from another source. Those who open mail should also receive training on recognizing gang and security threat group symbols and signs.

12

CC001719
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 46; Page 15 of 18

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-10 Filed 09/13/12 Page 16 of 18

J603-R09

June 18, 2012

7. Change of Address Responsibilities and Forwarding Mail. Inmates are responsible for submitting change of address requests to the publishers of publications they receive and to others that send them mail at the Jail. Corrections Deputies will normally not forward mail for inmates who are no longer in Jail custody. They will return correspondence and packages unopened to the sender and throw publications away.

8. Holding Mail. Corrections Deputies will normally not hold mail for inmates
released or temporarily transferred to another facility. The Jail Commander may make exceptions.

9. Returning Mail to Sender. Before mail is returned to its sender, Corrections
Deputies will obliterate any mail sorting bar code and wHl mark the mail "Return to Sender". A Prohibited Mail Notice will be mailed separately from mail that is returned unopened

To return mail that was opened, a Corrections Deputy must repackage it and send it at the expense of the Jail to the sender. The Corrections Deputy will include a copy of the Prohibited Mail Notice with repackaged mail.

10. Appeals.

A.· By Inmates. Inmates wishing to appeal a decision to deny delivery of incoming inmate mail or the mailing of outgoing inmate mail must follow the normal grievance procedure set forth· in the Inmate Manual and Policy J207,
Inmate Rights.

B. By Others. If a person believes that any incoming or outgoing inmate mail was improperly confiscated by the Jail, they may appeal the action to the Jail Commander by sending a written letter stating the specific reason(s) why the action was improper. The letter must be received within 15 days from the date of the Prohibited Mail Notice. Or, if no Prohibited Mail Notice was received, the letter must be received within 15 days from the date the person knew or should have known of the appealed action. The letter shall include the sender's name and return address. The Jail Commander will consider the appeal and will issue a decision on the appeal within 15 days of receiving the letter. However, if the Jail Commander made the initial decision regarding the mail in question, the Sheriff will consider the appeal and issue the decision. The appeal process will be set forth in the Prohibited Mail Notice.

13
CC001720
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 46; Page 16 of 18

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-10 Filed 09/13/12 Page 17 of 18

JllJl.C ls, 2012

Adqress: 901 Pori

OR 97051

Phone:"(503)'366-4611 Fax:' (503) 366-4644,

Web Addres,s:

PROHIBITED MAlt NonCE D'ate: ._ _ _ _ _ _, . . . _ - - - - - -

of rulescontajned in the Columbia County JalllnmateMail PoliCY.

we are 0 returning or a storing or OdestroYing the 0 ie1teror 0 publication or o other

.described as':_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __'__ _ _ _

sent 0 to·O from

_ _.,..-_ _ _ _ _ _ _-,--_ _, Booking#_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

The"mail\oVasconfiscatedfor thef61iovJillg
o If containssexuallye>tplicit O1ater1al at page'{s); ____ ____________

o

content ot contraband, __________________

tll1:didnot c6me 'directly from a publisher, b6tiltclLib, or bookstbte.

o ()1her _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Thifreversesh:feofthis letter is arilnmale'Mail Guide

guidance orr mail

You'mayal?o go

fihd:the"informati6ri'., ,The' inmate has also'receivedth!s

through

ManUal.

APPEALS:,

c,o.nf:lscate'.mailthraugh, 'lhelnm'ate

Procedure':set forth in

,:thelnrrtate Manual Others V/ho belieVe

,by

,awriU.en letter stating the reasons)ti.s believed thiifthe decisi6i1>v/ssi:ii'on'g \vithir'i1S

leUer'Shooid

W,Fl.S

dalrie and,return

address Of the appealing'party. ApI:fealirfg ,parties
if we need furlherclarification.wli/wl1I ser'id lhe'appealiri'g'party,a

phqne number, built may On ttle a'ppeal Wittlir'i16 days of our

receipt pfthe appeal. Please direct appeals to;

JaUGomma,nder
ATTN: Confiscated Mail Appeal
C6hJmbia County Sheriffs Office
901 Port Ave" .
SL Helens, OR'97051

J..fail Handler and OPSST #

,JallSup¢rvisorand [},P,S.ST # 14

CC001721
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 46; Page 17 of 18

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-10 Filed 09/13/12 Page 18 of 18

J603-R09

June 18,2012

This Guide Is Intended to be a summary of some of the provisions In 'he Inmate Mall Policy that may be of most interest to members ofthe public. The Guida !.§. NOTIntended to be a complete description ofall policies related to Inmate Mall. For detail plesse see the Inmate Mail Polley.

Policy

INMATE MAIL GUIDE

Jail mail-handling procedures support both the Inmates' and the public's need to communicate In writing, 10 carry out legal and official business, and maintain family and community ties. Procedures also meet the Jail's need for efficient operations that preserve the good order, safety, and security of the facility, inmates, and staff. To that end, the following guide has been prepared to assist the public in complying with the Inmate Mail Policy.
The Jail's general Policy is that It will not limit, censor, or restrict the volume, language, content, format or source of Inmate mati. However, some limitations are necessary for the security of Inmates, jail staff, and the public, as well as for the efficient operation of the Jail.

Inmate Mail. Inmates may generally send and receive mail In any form delivered by the U.S. Postal Service. Personal property such as food, beverages, clothing and Similar items are not allowed to be mailed to and from inmates and will be confIScated. Photographs are allowed provided they don't otherwise violate the Policy.
Publications. Inmates may receive pubJicatjons,lncluding but not limited to. books, magazines, newsletters and However, the publication must be mailed directly from the publisher. book club or a bookstore.
Addressing Inmate Mail. Inmale mail must have the Inmate's booking name as part of the addressee informalion. Incoming mail must have a return address including the name and address of the sender.
Prohibited Mail. Jail staff will not allow an inmate to receive or send mail that-
1. ContainsA. Threats of physical harm. blackmail, extortion, or other criminal activity; B. Plans for escape. criminal activity. or activity that violates jail rules; C. Gang-related material; D. Information that, if conveyed, could result in physical harm to someone; E. Sexually explicit materials; F. Inflammatory malerial; G. Contraband materials including but not limited to such commonly mailed items as: (1) Books larger than 9 by 12 inches or with pla.stic or metal bindings; (2) More than three books in a single piece of mall; (3) Controlled substances as defined by DRS 475.005(6); (4) Foreign substances, such as: a) bodily flurds; b) lipstick or perfume: c) glue or paint; d) anything wlth an unusual slain or odor that Indicates a foreign SUbstance may be present;
2. Is wriHen in code or suspected code; 3. Was a form of written communlcaUon: not. sent through the USPS or other approved system; 4. Is to or from a victim of a crime that the inmate is in custody for in either pretrial or sentenced status: 5. Would violate a court order; 6. May produce a hostile work environment, such as sexual harassment; 7. Is a credit or deferred billing transaction, such 9S -bill me later" subSCriptions or merchandise bought on
credit or collect-an-delivery terms;
. a. Is fraudulently marked as legal or official mail.
For more specific information about prohibited mail please review the full Inmate Jail Policy J603-.
Appeals. Both the inmate and an outside person have the right to appeal a decision to confiscate inmate mall. With very limited exceptions, the Jail will provide a Notice of Prohibited Mall to both the sender and addressee when inmate maills returned or confiscated. The Notice of Prohibited Mall will explain the reason why the Inmate mail was returned or confiscated and will explain the appeals process. The appeal process for an inmate follows the Jail's nonnal grievance process. The appeal process for everyone else requires a leller explaining the reason for the appeal, and providing contact Infonnation. The letter must be received within 15 days from the date of the Prohibited Mail Notice. The Jail will respond wilhln 15 days of receipt of the letter.

]S

CC001722
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 46; Page 18 of 18

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-11 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT 47
TO
DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 47; Page 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-11 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 2

From: Sent: To: SUbject:
Attachments:

Jeff Dickerson [Jeff.Dickerson@co.columbia.nr.us]
Thursday, July 19. 20121 t01 AM GiegOry Roberson .
Fwd: Inmate Mail McDowall, Brooke,vef

Jeffrey M. Dickersoo Columbia County Sheriff 901 Port Avenue St Helens, OR 97051 Office Phone: (503) 366·4600

»> Brooke McDowall 7/19/2012 11;00 AM »>

Howdy everyone

'

During Booking time we need to advise all inmates coming into the jail that the mail policy has changed and they should read the section in the inmate manual about mail.

111anl<s for your time

B. McDowall,42436 Columbia County Jail brooke.nlcdowall@co.columbia.or.us Phone 503.366.4699 Fax 503.366.4631

CC002070
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 47; Page 2 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-12 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 48
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 48; Page 1 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-12 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 3

Chrysty Johnston
From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:

Raquel Miller [raqmil121 O@gmail.com] Monday, August 13, 2012 11:22 AM Gregory Roberson
Fwd: Standard Answer for Grievances on the Post Card Issue (mall fO£vJard) Postcard. \vpd

____ ___ Forwarded message ----------
, Front: Rocky I\1illcr <RQsJs£MiHer@co.coluU1b@.:QL.!!P Date; TIm, May St 2011 at 8:23 Alvl . Subject: Fwd: Standard Answer for Grievances 011 the Post Card Issue (mail forward) To: raqrnil. ll,U}(a}gmail.com

P{}rwllrded message w ____w ____

From; "Bryan Cutright'!

To: "Arnie Lautel

IIBrandon Yon"

"Brooke lvlcDowall"

UCarolyn Townsend"

<Carolvn.TO\\>11sendrlrtco.columbin.or.us>.' HDerek Hibbs" <Dr;rekJ-libbsfil2C.o.columbia.or.us>, !lIven Johnson"

Kernuttl '

McMHler"

<.lohnJ'v1cM,ilIert@.co.co!umbia.or.us>, "Lee Rigdonll

"Marcia RushH

tfi\1arti Kyles"

!lMichelle RitchieH

<M,ichelle.Ritchle(cl)co.columbia.or. us>, "Mike FenIcinl! <.Mike.Feakin(ako.columbia.or.us» !'Mitch \Vatkms,j

v.,i

nRocky Miller"

"Ryan Scholl!!

<B-van.Schollfo/co,coJumbin.or.us>, 'ISean Moore" <Sean.Moore@co.co)umbia.or.us>, "Sheryl \\'estfall"

"Sophie Frazier"

..[p, "Tony Weaver"

<'roo".

Cc:

Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 08:23:50 -0700

Standard Answer for C'rrievances on the Post Card Issue

The altad1ed letter will be the standard answer for the. Columbia County Jail on all postcard grievances. So please make sure that when you are answering a grievance dealing with postcards that you change the letter to indicate the proper
date, the inmate narnel and your infonnation. On the grievance for the response you wlll write see letter attached. '

The postcard response will be saved in the S:IICCSO/Corrections/PQst Card Grlevancf./Postcard.

If you have any question please contact me.

Thank You

Lieutenant Cutright

CC002161
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 48; Page 2 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-12 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 3

Date:

May 2, 2011

To:

James Bennett

Columbia County Jail

From:

Cutright, Bryan L. Sr. Lt. 30771 Corrections Division

Subject: Postcard Grievance Response Template

Thank you for expressing your concern about the Columbia County Jail mail procedures. As you are aware, there are multiple ways for inmates to communicate with friends, family and others outside the jail. You may send and receive postcards, as well as have personal visits and use the telephone. You are also allowed to communicate with your attorney, and correspond with other officials, by VwTIting letters using paper- and envelopes to ensure your privacy. Our postcard policy was enacted after a good deal of review, and we believe that the policy decreases the opportunity for contraband to be introduced into the jail, which enhances jail safety and security. In addition, the use of postcards saves significant public resources as staff do not need to spend nearly as much time searching for contraband or for communications that threaten j ail safety and security. In light of the clear benefits to jail safety and security, the reduced staff time required to process inmate mail, and the alternative methods available to inmates to communicate with the outside, we believe that our policy of requiring postcards for personal mail is appropriate and reasonable. Your grievance is denied.

CC002162
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 48; Page 3 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-13 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 49
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY WDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 49; Page 1 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-13 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 3

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Raquel Miller [raqmil1210@gmaiLcom)
Monday, August 13, 2012 11:29 At\'1 Gregof1 Roberson Fwd: passdown on New Year's (mail fo!vl"ard)

Fon-varded message ---------From: Rocky MUler <I-Zockv.MilJer(iiic.o.columbia.oLlls> Date: Jan 1,2012 at 7:58 AM "
Fwd: passdo\\'1l on New Year's (mail forward) To: rrmmil] 2.L0.{l11!21l1aiLqQJJl

--------- Forwarded message ----------

from: "Marcia Rush" <Marcia..Rush(ai.co.columbja.or.us>

To: "Andy Moyer" <AJldvJvlovcr(cl)co.colwnbia.or.us>, 1!Amie Lautttl <L\Xuie:1dgn1@l£.9&Qhm)bia.oLus>,

"Brandon Yon" <Brru1don.Yon({!:!co.colulllbia.os.us>, '!Brooke McDowall"

<Brooke.McDo\i:?J1@co.co!UtQ.bJa.of:l!$.>, "Bryan

UCarolyn

Townsend"

ltDerek Hibbs"

"Facilities Jim*'

"Ivan Johnson" <fvanJohn.c;onlcl1s;o.colum!!if!.!.(ls:.1,1tr>., "Jeff

Dickerson" <.leff.Dickersont.mco.colurnbia.or.us>. ItJohn Kemutl" <J.Q.Lm..

"John

l\1cMillerH

"Lee Rigdonl! <Lee.RigtioOltpco,&Qinn1jl..i1t.or.tls>, IIMarcia

Rush" <lvi.arcia.RtjsbwlCQ,columhia.or.us>1 1I1v1arti Kyles" <M;1rl.LKvles(c/)cCl:£91umbia.0l'.us>, IIMedconl ll

<M.edcon I((iko.col umbi a..Ql'.us>I uMedCon2tl

us>, "lvfichel1e Ritchie"

"Mike J"eakin" <Mike.Feakinrilko.cQlombia..or.us>, I'Millie WagnerU

<f'v1.i1lie. WagnerCi'ilco.£o}umhia.or.uS» IIMitchWatkinsll <Mitch.Watkins(mco.columbla.&r.us>, "Rocky lvIillcr'l

<J{ockv.MUlcrfiUco.coltlJ.n.hm.or.l!s>, "Ryan SchoU I1

,jSean Moore"

<Sean.Moore({Ueo.colutllNa,or.l1s>, "Securitt' <Securitv({ikg.cohm1p..!§..or..tts>, !lSheryl Westfalll!

<SheryL \VestfaHra)co,coltllilbia.or.us» "Sophie Frazier'l

t IITony \\leaver'!

<' ronv. \Veaverfi..l.1-·c-.o".'columbia.or.us>

Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2012 07;58:35
Subject: passdown. on New Year1s
January 1, 2012 graveyard to days

HAPPY NEW YEAR !!
Population; 158 USto1: 85 Booked: 7 ReJeased 3 book and release people. Released 1 EOS/EOweekend.
There will be a couple of 48 hour releases this evening.
H-4, Sweesy is. a book and release who blew .15 at 0700. There may be someone coming to pick her up.
Fingerprints ....

CC002148
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 49; Page 2 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-13 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 3
H-6, Williams. Ready to be dressed in. Here on a PV. He feels he may have a lot of haters in "general population"
because his mom and step-dad are in the juvenile department. Turner, Tim: wrote a kite wanting contraband post cards delivered to him. The kite and several answers already given to him by deputies is "No." He doesn't need to keep asking. If you are the "other deputy" whom he says gives him contraband, please stop it so we can be consistent. Clothing pulled and in the circle for F and G. G pod is requesting a blanket exchange today. Please. Attorney booth 2 has a faulty window. It needs caulking; appears that people have tried to damage the window casing enough to pass things through. Deputy Kernutt found a match on the attorney side of the window. Deputy Kernutt got several classifications done. There are more on the list. Don't worry about the population until Monday: as in, it's over our matrix cap.
2
CC002149
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 49; Page 3 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-14 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 25
EXHIBIT 50
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 50; Page 1 of 25

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-14 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 25
INMATE MANUAL' .COLUMBIA 'COUNTY JAIL
All rules in this manual may be amended or suspended at any time by order of the Sheriff or designee.
The Columbia County Inmate Manual has been reviewed and approved on _ _ _ _ _- ' 2009 by Jeff Dickerson, Sheriff, Columbia County_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
CC 000082
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 50; Page 2 of 25

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-14 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 25

Rights and Privileges

Responsibilities and Behavior

Inmate

Forms

Property Transfers

County Issued Items

Dress Code

Housing Unit Operation

Intercom System

Cell In Command

Identification Cards

Self-Escort

Wake Up and Lock Down

Inmate Counts

Meals

Beds and Bedding

Sanitary Practices

Sanitary mspections

Hair Care and Grooming

Commissary

Money Accounts

Outdoor Recreation

Medical

. Medi'cation

Mental Health Services

Health Appraisals

Special Diets

Iv!edical'Grievances

Library

Law Library

PrOgrain Services

Voluntary Activities

Inmate Worker Activities

Transfer to Work Release Center

Inmate Grievance Procedure

Court Conduct

Searches

Classification

Clothing Exchange

Fire and Emergency Safety

Mail

Telephone Privileges

Visiting

Special Visits

Attorney Visits

Clergy Visits .

ProcedureslIvIinor Ru1e Violations

Minor Ru1e Violation Sanctions

Minor Ru1e Violations

ProceduresiMajor Ru1e Violations

1 1 2 2 2-3 3 3-4 4 4 .
4 4 4-5 5 5 5 5-6
6
6
6 6 7
7
7 7
8 . 8' ....
8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 11-12 12 13 14 14 14 14 15 15-16 16-17-

Major Rule Sanctions Major-Ru1e Violations Appeals Process Billing Fees Telephone Service Number Sexual Assault Awareness (PREA) Sexual Assault Sexual Assau1t Avoidance

17 18-19
19
19 20 20 20-21 21-22

CC 000083
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 50; Page 3 of 25

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-14 Filed 09/13/12 Page 4 of 25

YOURIUGHTS AND PRIVILEGES

We want you to mow exactly what is expected ofyou while yon. are in this j ail. We will let you know what you can expect from us by explaining our rules, procedures and schedules to you. While at this jail, you will be provided with:

1. Three meals served at reasonable intervals

2. Clean bedding and clothing at least twice weekly

3. 11:te opportunity to shower at least twice weekly

4. Regular exercise

'

5. Opportunities to exercise your religion

6. Basic hygiene items

7. Access to the library

8. Access to counsel

9. Emergency medical and dental treatment

10. A safe and secure environment

If you

jill rules and sanitation practices, you may receive

privileges:

1. Use of televison 2. Use of library services 3. Use of outdoor recreation 4. Use 5. 'Having social visits 6. Making commissary purchases 7. Sending and receiving mail 8. Voluntary participation in jail programs

Remember that these are not rights. Jail staff can limit or snspend these privileges at any time in order to maintain the safety, security, good order or sanitation of the jail.

This manual does not cover every situation that may arise, but .it will serve as a basic guide for your conduct and facility procedures.

YOUR

AND EXPECTED HERAVIOR

Read this manual to know what is expected of you. The excuse "I did not know that" is not acceptable. It is your resp0Il$ibility to follow all laws, jail rules, schedules, and staff requests. You must respect jail property and the property of others. This would include staying out of other inmate's cells and off of their bunks. You are expected to keep your sleeping area the day room' and outdoor recreation areas clean and orderly. Unacceptable behavior will be dealt with firmly, but fairly. Misbehavior may result in a change of your custody status which can directly affect your privileges in the jail.

This manual is an accountable item and is issued to you for your use while you are in this

facijity. It must be retu.rned in good order. Do not tear apart, write on or damage this in any

manner. Ifthe manual is damaged, please report it to a staffmember to have it replaced

immediately.

.

Page 1 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual
CC 000084
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 50; Page 4 of 25

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-14 Filed 09/13/12 Page 5 of 25

The best control of your behavior is by you practicing self-discipline and respect for others.

Inmates, are not allowed to become personally familiar with corrections' staff. Be considerate

aiJ.d respectful toward all officials. We will expect you to address uniformed staff as "Deputy or

" and non-uniformed staff as "Mr.

" or "Ms._ _"

Here are some basic rules for when you first enter the facility.

1. The ID card is to be put into the window facing out so that it can be seen and

scanned during your stay.

,

2. When you are out of your room, the ID card is to be in your pocket.

3. When'you are in the day room, you are to be completely dressed.

4. When you are in your room, you are to have the T shirt and boxers on at all times

Including while you are sleeping, no exceptions.

,

5. When you come out of the pod and into the circle, you are to stay on the colored

squares. The squares form. a line that you walk on. You stay on that line with the'

exception' to go around an obstacle. You are to stay in a single file.

6. When you are in any other hallway, you are to walk on the right side, of the hall and in a

single file. You are not to touch anything. Do not speak, yell or signal at anyone. Keep

your hands to yourself.

The Inmate Request Forms (also known as kites) are available upon request. There are two of them. One will be for general questions, Law Library aJ?d visiting. The other form will be a , Medical Request Form. This is only for the medical staff and doctor to answer and will be
forwarded to,them. There are separate forms to correspond with Columbia County Community 'Corrections or with DHSlImmigration.

PROPERTY TRANSFERS

You must follow these guidelines regarding your property:

1. You may release your personal property to any adult outside the facility on an "all or nothing" basis. The adult must present a state driver's license, state ID card, passport or military ID to j ail staff, to ensUre property is released to the proper individual. A signed inmate request form from you is required.

2. Release ofproperty is available Monday through Friday from 3:00 P.M. until 4:00 P.M.

ONLY.

,

"

3. ,The following exception applies when:

,

An Inmate is committed to a state prison and must release all personal property including their

clotJllng prior to being transported to a state facility.

If the property is not picked up prior to the inmate's departure,
it will be forwarded to ODOe with the inmate.

4. We do not allow for personal property to be dropped off except for medical items which will be checked and approved by medical staff first Clothes may be brought in if the situation calls

Page 2 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual
CC 000085
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 50; Page 5 of 25

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-14 Filed 09/13/12 Page 6 of 25

for it. This will be at the discretion of the j ail staff.

COUNTY ISSUED ITEMS

All inmates who are dressed into the Columbia County jail will be issued jail clothing after :intake, and in the clothing change/shower room.' You will be issued a plastic b:in containing a hygiene kit, bed linen, towel, clothing, cup and spork . Other issued items include a mattress (1 each) and this manual. You will be responsible for the condition of all items issued to you. The gray property box or totes are to be used specifically for storage of your personal and issued belongings. They are not to be used for chairs or any other use other than what has been mentioned above. They are to remain under your bunk at all times.

1. One inmate uniform .top. 2. One inmate uniform pants 3. Two T-Shirts 4. Two pair of gym 5. One pair ofjail sandals. 6. One mattress

7. Two sheets 8. Two Blankets 9. One Towel 10. One Cup 11. One Spork 12. One Rule Book

Female inmates may be allowed to' retain the following:

1. Personal underwear, ifi:J.eeded for hygiene reasons. 2. Personal bras, with no metal stays or under wires. A sports style bra is preferred.

. During the winter months you will be issued a sweatshirt to be worn in your cell, day room area.. the out door recreation yard or under the striped shirt going to court.

DRESS CODE

You are expected to remain fully dressed at all times except when you are on your bunk and
covered. During that time you must wear the T-shirt and shorts issued by this facility. Any
ti..me you leave your sleeping area and room, you must wear a fhll set of clotbjng. During lights out, you may go to use the restroom in your t-shirt and shorts if you live in an open dorm.

Your T-shirt must be tucked in at all times and not hanging loosely. Rolling your pant legs up if

1;hey are too long, but not above the ankles,. is allowed. Do not alter the appearance of your

clothes.

.

You may not roll your sleeves, tuck your pants into your socks, or pull your pants down below the hips. It is not allowed to wear clothes that are too large or too small.
You will be allowed to take your outer striped shirt offwhile exercising in the recreation area.

HOUSING UNIT OPERATIONS

The daily operation in the pods will be as follows.

You will be allowed to come out ofyour cell for a short period of time during the morning at breakfast. You will then be instructed to return to your cell until lunch time. After lunch, you will then have three hours out of your cell. At the end ofthat period, you will return to your cell.
The next period out, will be after dinner for two hours.

Cleaning gear will be provided during the day. We require you to use it daily to clean your cell, bunk area and the pod a whole on a daily basis.

Page 3 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual
CC 000086
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 50; Page 6 of 25

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-14 Filed 09/13/12 Page 7 of 25

Noone is allowed to sit, stand or loiter on the stairs or catwalks (upper tier floors) at any time. This will include walking or pacing off laps upstairs. There is to be no sitting on the table tops.

Details for pod are outlined below: .

A - POD is a Multi-Purpose area.and may be used as current needs of the facility dictate. A - POD will also be the Male Intake and Classification Cell area for the Jail. B - POD. The upper tier is used as current needs ofthe facility dictate. B - POD Special, BLI - BL4 will be Maximum Security/Close Custody and Disciplinary Lock-
.
C, D and E Pods will be considered Male Medium Security. WRM and WRF will be considered Male Minimum Security. .I - POD is a Minimum Security Ppd and will be used as current needs dictate. F - POD will be considered Female Maximum/Classification & Intake and may be used as
current needs of the facility dictate. G - POD will be considered Female Medium/General Population.

TIme out of the ·cells for each of the pods will be set as necessary to fulfill the needs of the

facility.

.

. INTERCOM SYSTEM

The call buttons in the cells are to be used for emergency purposes only. They are not to be

used for any

communication. Ifthe call buttons are misused, the inmate violating this rule

will be written up for failure to abide by the rules of the Columbia County Jail.

CELL IN COMMAND

The command "cell;,.in"or "bunk-up" means you need to stop what you are doing and go· directly
to your cell.or bunk. You must follow this command without question or hesitation. Ifyou do
not, it vvill directly affect your classification and custody status and also will result in
disciplinary actions against you.

IDENTIFICATION CARDS

You must keep your inmate ID card on your person any time you are out of your cell. Do. not let
anyone use your ID card. :r'he best place to keep this card is in your shirt pocket. When you are in your cell, place your ID card, right side up, in the window of your door with the picture facing out so the Deputy can see your name and picture. You must surrender your ill card to any staff member upon request. .

SELF-ESCORT

Most inmate movement within the jail, including visiting, medical, programs, work assignments Etc., will be unescorted unless you abuse the privilege. You are expected to conduct yourself in an orderly fashion at all times. Inmates moving unescorted through the facility may not talk to other inmates, may not touch the walls or the glass, loiter or detour while en route to
their destination.. When leaving an area, you need to state your name and where you are going
to Central Control. Any inmate who abuses these rules will be subject to disciplinary action and
may lose their opportunity for unescorted movement. The .exception will be any inmate who is .classified.as maximum security and who needs to be escorted in the facility at all times.

WAKE UP AND LOCK DOWN

Page 4 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual
CC 000087
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 50; Page 7 of 25

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-14 Filed 09/13/12 Page 8 of 25

Day room and cell lights will be turned on at 6:00 A.M. daily. Make your bed and dress for

breakfast. Breakfast service will begin at approy.imately 6:30 A.M. daily. Day room lights and

television will be turned off at about 10:15 P.M. and the cell lights will be turned off at 10:30

P.M.. All

must be on their bunks at "lights out" and are required to remain quiet.

Each inmate is expected to completely clean your room and area, make your bed, dump trash

cans, etc. when the cleaning supplies are available to you. Be aware that there are usually some

cleaning materials available at all times.

.

INMATE COUNTS

There will be at least six "Formal Counts" per day. At the beginning of each "formal count" you will be instructed to· "cell in or bunk up." At that time you must:

1. Go into your cell and close the door or get onto your bunk depending on the pod you are in.
2. Correctly place your LD. card in the window ofyour door or on your bunk. If you are on a bunk or otherwise not in your room or pod, having the ID card in your hand and presenting it to the deputy doing the count is acceptable.

until There will be numerous informal counts per day, therefore, whenever a Deputy enters your cell,
remain where you are, do not move the deputy leaves or instructs you to move.

:MEALS

Meals will'be served three times daily at approximately 6:30 A.M., 12:00 P.M. and 5:00 P.M.

Pre-classification and disciplinary inmates may be required to eat in their cells. All others will

eat at the tables provided in the day rooms. Televisions will be off during the serving of meals.

Once the meals have been served and the Deputy leaves the pod, the television may be turned

back on.

.

BEDS AND BEDDING

.Bedding .will consist of two sheets and twq blankets. Blankets and sheets may not be removed from your cell or bunk:, nor may they be placed on the floor for any reason. You are not to take the mattress off the bunk: and place it on the floor of your cell or in the day room of the pod. Your mattress may only be used for sleeping purposes. The bunk area must be left in an orderly
fashion throughout the day.

SANITARY PRACTICES

It is your responsibility to keep your cell clean and uncluttered. It is also the responsibility of each member ofthe housing unit to keep the day room, shower and outside recreation area clean. You will be provided with cleaning supplies and are expected to use the cleaning supplies as much as necessary to ensure you live in a clean environment.

You are to follow these rules for a clean and healthy housing unit:

Clean your cells, including the sink, toilet, floors and door windows daily. Pod Porters will clean day room areas dailY. Pod Porters will clean the following, but not limited to: Tables, floors, stairs, walls,
showers, bathroom areas, railings, and windows. Keep the walls clean and free of graffiti or marks of any kind.

Page 5 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual

CC 000088

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 50; Page 8 of 25

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-14 Filed 09/13/12 Page 9 of 25

Place all garbage in'the trash cans in the housing units. Keep all pictures and papers off the walls, bunks, bottom of bunks. Do not hang, stick, or paste pictures or papers to the walls, bunks or any where else in the facility Keep commissary food items in your property container. (Gray totes) Do not save food from meal service.
Wash your hands frequently. Participate in laundry exchange twice weekly. Shower at least twice weekly, but we strongly encourage you to shower daily. Keep the showers 'clean, and free of excess soap and shampoo pottIes.
your gray bin or tote clean Any other duties that Corrections Staffmay assign. Keep your room or bunk area uncluttered of excess items. This, fuc1udes legal papers. Ask staff for assistance if you have a large amount of legal papers to store. Vents for air circulation should be kept clean and-obstruction

SANITARY INSPECTIONS

Deputies will

each housing unit daily to ensure it is a safe and clean environment. You

will need to follow basic sanitary practices, to ensure your cell area meets the sanitation

, requirements and to pass the sanitation inspections. Ifyour cell does not meet sanitation

, ;'-requirements, you will lose privileges and be instructed to clean the area. If the day room,

shower area and outside recreation areas do not meet sanitation requirements, the entire

'unit may lose privileges. These privileges are those listed at the beginning ofthis manual. If

you or your housing unit lose privileges, they will be reinstated if you pass the next regularly

scheduled inspection.

HAIR CARE AND PERSONAL GROOMING

We encoUrage you to shower daily. We hand out razors three times a week. Once a week a list

will be put into your respective pod and you must sign up on that list to receive a haircut. 'Hair

cuts can be done when a person is available to be the

There is a $5.00 charge for the

haircut. Haircuts will be' done on Saturdays and Sundays only. You will be allowed to have one

haircut per month. Haircuts other than a trim or a complete removal to a short stubble are

not allowed. No other styles will be tolerated.

COlVlMISSARY

The Columbia CoUnty Jail has a well-appointed commissary list from which inmates with funds
may purchase various items. Inmates without funds may order indigent hygiene kits once per
, week, as needed.. Indigent items will be posted to the inmate's account creating a negative balance. Commissary sheets will be handed out once a week. H you did not get funds ,in
before the commissary sheets were made up to be passed out, you will have to wait until the
week to order.

MONEY ACCOUNTS

Each inmate in the Columbia County Jail will have a "money account" established during the
boo1cing procedure. Funds may be deposited 24 hours per day seven days per week, via Visa or
Mastercard by a toll-free phone call to 1-866-232-1899, via internet at: www.touchpavdirect.com
or by depositing cash into a kiosk in the Sheriff's Office lobby. The depositor needs the inmate's name, booking number, and Facility Locator No., which is 297001. All purchases will be deducted from the account. Funds deposited to an account showing a negative balance will
be deducted from that balance. The positive balance, if any, is available for the inmate's use. The balance will be refunded to the inmate upon discharge.

Page 6 - Columbia COtnlty Jail Inmate Manual
CC 000089 '
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 50; Page 9 of 25

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-14 Filed 09/13/12 Page 10 of 25

OUTDOOR RECREATION

An open air recreation area is provided in the jail for your use as scheduled throughout the day.

Central Control will notify each of you of your recreation time. When you are called for outdoor

recreation, you need to be ready to go. Noone will be allowed to depart the Pod late for

recreation.

.

. The following rules apply while using the open air recreation area: 1. Do not yell or attempt to communicate in any way with the people outside the
recreation area, except for Corrections Staff. 2. Do not engage in "horseplay." We do not want people to get injured. 3. You must wear a minimum of aT-shirt, pants and shoes. Movement to or from
outdoor recreation will require the complete uniform, including your ID card. 4. You are not to take anything extra with you to outdoor recreation. This includes papers,
candy, food items and anything that can be used to write or color with. If you are found with these items, disciplinary action .may be taken.

MEDICAL SERVICES

The Columbia County Jail will provide emergency medical, dental, and mental health care to all
inmates regardless of their ability to pay for such services. No inmate will be denied care for serious health care needs based on the cost ofmedical services or the inmate's inability to pay for health care. All medical visits initiated by you will be assessed a fee which will be charged to .
your personal money account. You will be fmancially responsible for any elective surgery or other treatment you may request from your personal physician, dentist or other provider.

Prescription medications: You will be charged for all prescription medication prescribed for you purchased by the jail on your behalf.
Over the counter medications such as; Tylenol, Aspirin, antacid etc., will be available from our medical department for a small charge.

:MEDICATION
Health care staffmay fill prescriptions at their discretion. Health care staff may discontinue prescribed medication as directed by the jail health care supervisor or physicians. If you came from another correctional facility and had your medjcation transferred with you, the transporting Deputy will give your medication to the health care staff. Ifyou are leaving our j ail and going to anotherjail, the transporting Deputy will get your medication from the health care staff and trahsport it with you.
As a warning, any abuse of your medication may result in the discontinuation of your receiving the medicine.
lVlENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Page 7 Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual

CC 000090

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 50; Page 10 of 25

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-14 Filed 09/13/12 Page 11 of 25

Community Mental Health is the provider ofthese services for the facility. Ifyou feel the need to see a mental health professional, contact a Deputy or the health care staff.

HEALTH APPRAISALS

health appraisal must be done before an inmate can be considered for "worker" status.

SPECIAL DIETS

. You must direct all requests for medical diets to the heath care staff for approval. Ifyou need a

special diet for medical reasons, please submit a request slip to the health care staff. If you need

a special diet for religious reasons, please submit a request form. A Deputy will pick up the

form from you and give it to a supervisor for approval. If

the

diet will

remam in effect for the length ofyour incarceration. Be aware that there may be a charge

assessed for the extra cost associated for the special meal.

In case of any unresolved problem regarding medical, dental or infirmary care, you may follow grievance procedures outlined in this manual on page 9.

LmRARY

All inmates of the Columbia County Jail will be afforded ample opportunity to have access to library books within the jail library. The books may be delivered by a cart. You may have up to
three books at a time. All books must be returned to the library or the cart, prior to checking out more. If a search ofyour person or cell reveals that you have more than three books in your possession, you will be subjected to disciplinary action. Damaged books must be returned to a Deputy, immediately. Possession of damaged books may be grounds for disciplinary. action.

LAW LffiRARY

All inmates of the Columbia Counrj Jail will be given access to one hour ill the law library per

.

Use ofthe law library will be limited only by time and the need to maintain the safety

and security of the facility. To gain access, you muSt submit a request form at least twenty-four

(24) hours in advance. You will be expected to take a note pad and pencil with. you to the law

library to assist you in your research. All law books, reference material and other articles must

remain in the law library to ensure equal access for all inmates. There will be very limited

copying capabilities available to you for which your account will be charged a fee per copy. No

inniate will be denied this service based on an inability to pay.

...

When you finish, you are required to leave the law library orderly and neat. Please be aware that .corrections staff cannot provide you with legal advice or legal assistance. Ifyou have any questions, please consult your attorney.

PROGRAM SERVICES

If and when available, you have the opportunity to participate in a variety .of program activities.
Recommended programs assist you in making constructive use ofyour time and to make positive changes in your life. We have grouped these into two main categories:

Voluntary activities

Inmate worker activities

You may participate in activities in one or all ofthese categories depending on your:

Sentencing status Length of sentence

Assessments results Classification

Page 8 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual

CC 000091

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 50; Page 11 of 25

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-14 Filed 09/13/12 Page 12 of 25

VOLUNTARY ACTnnTIES

All general population inmates may have access to voluntary activities. These activities include

but may not be

to:

Religious services
Narcotics Anonymous (NA) and Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) groups Religious based life skills classes Individual educational tutoring (21 and under) . Recreational h'brary Law library

A sign up sheet for the voluntary activities will be posted in your housing unit. You must sign up on the provided list to be·able to participate. Remember that participation in these activities is
a privilege. Participation is dependent on your continued cooperation and responsible behavior.

INMATE WORKER ACTIVITIES

Ifyou want to work in the jail, you will need to request and fill out an Inmate Worker Labor Agreement and submit it.

Staffwill select various inmates to do kitchen, custodial or maintenance jobs in the facility.

Health care staff must clear you before you can participate in the worker activities especially in

the kitchen.

.

You may 1;"eceive work time credit only ifyou are sentenced and your sentence order authorizes

it.

change of a job description or shift must be approved by a Supervisor.

TRANSFER TO WORK RELEASE CENTER

The Courts and/or Supervisory Authority may consider you for transfer to the Work Release if authorized on your sentence order. These transfers are not automatic. Jail staffmust
approve all transfers.

Factors considered in transfer decisions will include: .Judge's approval Length of sentence. Individual needs. Available Classification. Demonstration of Compliance with jail rules, expectations and

behavior.

If you are interested in participating in any programs, you must submit a request on an Inmate Request Form. Misbehavior or administrative concerns may prevent access to these programs.. Disciplinary write-ups or actions will affect program

INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE

You may submit a grievance about a condition in the jail ifyou think it is a problem 'or is unfair. You cannot grieve: disciplinary actions ( there is an appeal process for that), classification decisions, incidents or problems which you were not party to, a collection ofunrelated complaints, and no group grievances.

To 'file a grievance, you must follow the

below in the order shown. You cannot skip one.

1. An inmate may request a Grievance Form from any Corrections Deputy at any time to

bring to attention any perceived problems and proposed solutions. The Deputy will

any

Page 9 - Columbia County Jail Inmate

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 50; PagCeC1200o0f09225

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-14 Filed 09/13/12 Page 13 of 25

grievance within the scope of their authority and document any action taken regarding the request within five (5) working days.
. 2. The inmate may redirect the grievance to the Shift Supervisor for any complaint which cannot be reasonably resolved by the Deputy. The Supervisor will address any grievance within the scope ofhislher authority and document any action taken on the form within five (5) working days; .
3. If the complaint is not resolved to the inmates satisfaction by the Supervisor, the inmate may send the Grievance Form to the Facility Supervisor or his designee. The Facility Supervisor or designee will address the complaint and document any action taken on the form within five (5) working days.
4. If the complaint is not resolved to the inmate's satisfaction by the Facility Supervisor, the inmate may send a sealed Grievance Form to the Sheriff. The Sheriffwill address the complaint and. document his decision on the form withln ten (10) working days. The Sheriff's decision will be final!

COURT CONDUCT

Your arraignment will be your first court appearance in jail. During your arraignment, a judge will teU you what you are charged with and your rights with regard to those charges. The judge
inay appoint an attorney at this time if you qualify.

During any court appearance you will not have contact with any person other than your lawyer

or the court officials.

includes talking, signaling, or passing notes to people.

. Video arraignment is considered a court room setting and the above rules apply.
SEARCHES

J staffmay conduct random unannounced searches ofyour person or of items in your possession, and in any area of the j ail at any time. Your personal property and!or living area may be searched without your permission and whether or not you are present.

CLASSIFICATION

All newly arrested ininates who are not released prior to movement from the booking area will

be aSsigned housing in a Pre-Classification unit They will be . .

status

"'''''""CTl"...,hcTwo

for"

CLOTHING EXCHANGE

Clean clothing will be provided twice weekly. You must turn. in all of your soiled clothing

.during clothing

In return. you will receive 1 T-shirt, 1 pair shorts,· 1 towel, 1· striped

shirt and 1 pair striped pants. On every other exchange you will receive clean sheets. Blankets

may be exchanged every 30 days. Each housing unit will have a different laundry schedule.

Jail staffwill make every effort to ensure clothing is in good repair. You are responsible for all clothing and bedding issued to you. You should check the condition of the clothing you receive and immediately inform a staff member and exchange any ·clbthing or bedding that has a tear or

Page 10 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual.

CC 000093

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 50; Page 13 of 25

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-14 Filed 09/13/12 Page 14 of 25

graffiti written on it. If you are found to be in possession of damaged items, you will be subject

to disciplinary action. This may include payment for the

clothing.

FIRE AND EMERGENCY SAFETY

In case of any type of emergency or evacuation, you are to follow any direct order of a Deputy. There are emergency evacuation procedures in place and you will be evacuated in an orderly manner to a safe place.

If you are asked to evacuate an area by a Deputy;you are to form a straight line at your Pod " door and wait for directions from a Deputy or the Control Room staff. A Deputy will direct you "to a safe

The mail is delivered to the Sheriff's Office Monday through Saturday, excluding holidays".

General Rules: You may send and receive correspondence through the U.S. Mail. Hand delivered mail, messages and notes will not be accepted or forwarded to you.

Except for unusual circumstances, such as on holidays or weekends, incoming mail will be forwarded to you within 24 hours ofits receipt. Outgoing mail will be placed in a pickup box
within 24 hours of receiving it from you. If we receive mail for you after your departure, it will
be rettm:led to the sender. You must notify the post office of your forwarding address when you
leave the jail.

Except for "Official or Legal and Confidential mail," staff may scan and inspect all incoming and outgoing mail. Do not seal any mail that is not legal mail.

"Official or Legal and Confidential mail" is all mail to or from your attorney, government "officials, the jail administrator, the Sheriff, the courts or the media. We may open and inspect this mail in front ofyou to ensure it does not contain contraband.

Outgoing Mail: Inmates will place all outgoing mail in the mail drop located in the day room of each housing unit. You are not to seal your letters unless it is Official Mail as mentioned above. You are expected to legibly address your envelope and use the proper postage. All outgoing
" letters must list the following return address:

Your name Columbia County Jail 901 Port Avenue St. Helens Or.egon 97051

Incoming Mail: Incoming mail should have a complete return address. This is for the protection of you and your loved ones since mail marked-"ReturntoSender"doesnothaveaproperreturnaddress, it is placed in the "Dead Letter" box by the postal service. We reserve the right to return mail that is not properlv addressed.

Publications: We do not accept magazines. Books must be sent directly from the publisher or book store. These books can only be religious or educational in nature.

Prohibited Mail:

The following mail will not be received or sent from the

"

1. Mail from one inmate to another at this facility requires a supervisor's approval.

2. Mail that threatens blackmail or extortion.

Page 11 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual

CC 000094

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 50; Page 14 of 25

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-14 Filed 09/13/12 Page 15 of 25

3. Mail that concerns sending contr(;).band into or out of our jail.

4. Mail that concerns escape plans.

5. Mail that concerns plans for activities in violation of the jail rules.

6. Mail that concerns plans for criminal activity.

7. Mail that contains information which, if communicated, would create a danger of

.violence or physical harm to a person

.

8. Mail that is sensational. Sensationalism is writ4J.g or other printed material that poses a

threat to the security, safetY, or good order of the jail.

9. Mail that contains any contraband materials.

10. No personal packages will be accepted through the mail or by the Sheriff's Office

Clerks.

II. Polaroid or other instant developing photographs.

12. Picture frames or picture folders. .

13. Photographs larger than 4" x 6".

14. More than three photographs in one piece of mail. (A reminder that you are not allowed

to display more than three photographs at anyone time.)

15. Postage stamps, blank writing paper, or blank envelopes.

16. Mail that contains gang-related writings, drawings, or symbols on the outside of the

envelope or letter.

.

17. Mail that contains a forejgn substance or bodily fluid.

"18. Mail written in code or suspected code.

19. Sexually explicit materials.

20. Mail that encourages or instructs ill a commission of a crime.

2l. Mail falsely labeled "Official Mail."

22. Photographs that are not printed by a professional commercial source (photo labs or

kiosks) will not be accepted. (Home printer produced pictures on regular paper not

allowed.)

Mail confiscation: You will be provided a written notice of any of your mail not sent out or delivered to you and if
it was sent back to the sender or placed into your property. You may submit a grievance if you . want to ask for the return of the confiscated items.

Your use ofjail telephones is a privilege. Jail staffmay limit your telephone use for reasons of safety, security, good order, or sanitation of the jail. Inmates classified to housing units will be allowed to use telephones from 0800 hrs to approximately 2200 hrs, based on the operations of the housing unit you are in. Conversations on any telephone in the jail may be monitored and/or recorded without further notice. You are consenting to this monitoring when you use the j ail telephones.
There are some local attorney's phone numbers that have been setup as non collect so you can
call them directly from the telephones in the pods. Confirmed attorney phone numbers are blocked from the monitoring system.

All telephone calls from a housing unit are a collect call or by the phone cards that you purchase here. The phone cards are able to be used upon release from the Columbia County Jail. Telephone calls are limited to15 minutes each. The telephone system will warn you before the
15 minute time period is up so you can end your conversation.

Inmates are not allowed to receive incoming telephone calls. Jail staff will deliver verifiable

emergency messages to you.

.

REMINDER: TELEPHONES ARE A PRIVILEGE. DO NOT ABUSE THE SYSTEM. ANY DAMAGE TO THE PHONE WILL RESULT 1N A DISCIPLINARY HEARING AND-A CRIMINAL CHARGE BEING

.Page 12 - Colum. bia Cc>unty Jail Inmate Manual

CC 000095

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 50; Page 15 of 25

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-14 Filed 09/13/12 Page 16 of 25

. FILED AGAlNST THE INMATE.

VISITING

All public visits will be scheduled by the Inmate requesting the visit. The inmate must contact

prospective visitors by phone or mail, and detennine an acceptable visitirig date. Time slots

maybe used on a fIrst come, first serve basis. Visitors are encouraged to arrive 10 to 15

minutes early to sign in. If all ofthe slots are taken for that time frame they can either wait till

the next times start for that pod, if it is available, or return. on another day. Visits will start on the

hour and

.

Authorized visitors shall be members from the inmate's family, and friends age 18 and older.

Visitors under the age of 18 must be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian. Attorneys

clergy are not considered public visitors.

.

.

Inmate visitation is a privilege and while the Columbia County Sheriff's Office encourages

visitation, that privilege must be regulated to protect the needs ofthe entire jail operation. The

amount of time allotted for visitation is based upon the classification and status of each inmate.

Classification is based upon the inmate's current charges, criminal history and current demeanor. All inmates will be allowed a maximum of two thirty (30) ID.llute visits per seven (7) day period
(Sunday through Saturday), as time an4 space allows.

Inmates assigned to Disciplinary Segregation will not be allowed visitation privileges.

Inmates not yet assigned to a housing unit or who are housed in the pre-classification unit, will not be allowed public visitation.

Inmates serving a sentence of seventy-two hours(72) or less will not be allowed public visitation.

Due space limitations, acceptable visiting combinations are limited to:

1. .One Adult 2. Two Adults 3. . One Adult and One Child
4. One Adult and Two Children 5. Two Adults and One Child

Inmates have the right to refuse any visit, however that nght should be exercised prior to visiting time.

All inmates wishing to receive public visits must establish a visiting list of not more than five (5) people. Persons not on the approved list will not be allowed to visit. You are able to change your visiting list once every 30 days from the time you establish your list. You need to fill out the visitation part ofthe request form to make the changes. The minimum information required for each person will be:

1. Visitor's full name 2. Date ofbirth 3. Relationship 4. The name of any child who may be in the company of bis/her parent or guardian.

The schedule for visiting will be as follows:

Page 13 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual

·CC 000096

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 50; Page 16 of 25

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-14 Filed 09/13/12 Page 17 of 25

Sunday: A-Pod 0930-1100 G-Pod 1400-1530 WRlv[ 1830-1900
Monday: C-Pod 0900-1030 B-Pod 1430-1500 F-Pod 1830-1900
Tuesday: D-Pod 0900-1030 A-Pod 1430-1500 E-Pod 1800-2000
Wednesday: I-Pod 0900-1030 E-Pod 1300-1530 G-Pod 1830-2000.
Thursday: D-Pod 0900-1030 C-Pod 1330-1530 WRM 1830-2000
Friday: No Visiting Saturday: F-Pod 0900-1000
I-Pod 1400-1530 B-Pod 1530-1600
THIS SCHEDULE IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE; ANY CHANGES SHALL
ALLOW 11l\1E FOR INMATES TO RESCHEI?ULE AFFECTED VISITS.
SPECIAL VISITS
Special considerations maybe given for emergency and/or special situations where normal visiting procedures may not be practical. Such situations as the death of a family member or .close friend, serious injury of a family member or-visitors traveling great distances, who have arrived unexpectedly may be considered on a case-by-case basis by J:he. Supervisor or Corporal on duty. All special visits will be subject to the same rules and requirements as regular visitation. Special visits may be conducted in the Attorney Visiting Rooms ifavailable and necessary due to other visitation which may be in progress.
ATTORNEY VISITS
Inmates shall be given the opportunity to visit their attorneys at reaSonable times, consistent with .the safety and security ofthe facility. All visits will be scheduled by the attorney.
CLERGY VISITS
Clergy Visits will be handled as aTegular visit. The member ofthe Clergy you want to have a
visit with will be added like a normal visitor ju,st like it is described in the regular visiting rules.
They will be allowed to visit you on :the regular date and time for the pod you are assigned to. The Clergy member will not count against you for the five people you are allowed to have on your visiting list.

PROCEDURES FOR:MINORRULE VIOLATIONS

Page 14 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual

CC 000097

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 50; Page 17 of 25

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-14 Filed 09/13/12 Page 18 of 25

1. The accused inmate shall be served with a minor rule citation by the citing Deputy as quickly

as is practical, after the violation is discovered, but in no case shall it be longer than 24 hours

after the

is complete.

.

.

2. The inmate will sign the misconduct report and acknowledge receipt of alleged' violation(s) and the right to appeal. The inmate may enter a plea of "Guilty" or "Not Guilty".

A. Upon entry of a "Guilty" plea, a Deputy will schedule an informal hearing for

possible sanctions to be imposed.

.

B. Upon entry of a "Not Guilty" plea on the misconduct rep'ort or upon request for a formal hearing the incident will be handled the same as a ¥ajor Violation.

lVilNOR RULE VIOLATION SANCTIONS

resulting from a guilty plea on a Minor Misconduct Report may include:

a. Verbal warning.

b. Creative sanction appropriate to the offense (i.e. extra work detail, etc.).

c. Housing Unit lock down not to exceed 24 hours.

d. Disciplinary segregation not to exceed five (5) calender days for a single violation. Inmates may receive separate lock down time for each marked violation. This should not exceed a total of fourteen (14) calender days.

e. Re-Classification

f. Probation for up to 30 days.

. . g.

in disciplinary segregation there is no access to programs.

Inmates get one hour out each 24 hours. Telephone (except legal) and television use may not be pemritted. Commissary choices are restricted. Personal visits are suspended for the duration of . the segregation. Book cart or library access is permitted; however, this privilege may be taken away as a sanction.

l\11NORRULE VIOLATIONS
.1. Possession of"nuisance contraband.
Nuisance Contraband: Any authorized item found in an inmates possession that has been altered or is in excess of the authorized amount

2. Arguing: Any disagreement which bec01;nes disruptive, loud or obnoxious.

3. Possession of another inmates property.

4. Unauthorized use of facility property or equipment (i.e. washers/dryers, barber equipment,

5. Acting as a lookout
6. Being ill an unauthorized area without corrections staffpresent.

Page 15 - Columbia

Jail Inmate Manual

CC 000098

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 50; Page 18 of 25

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-14 Filed 09/13/12 Page 19 of 25

7. Purposefully obstructing the view of Corrections Staff.

8. Inappropriate remarks or.misuse of the inmate request forms or any of the forms or paperwork handed out or used in the facility.

9. Unwarranted emergency calls.

10. Horse Playing: Any

or faked aggressive actions, which may lead to or be

mistaken for a physical altercation.

11. Disrespect to other inmates (i.e. name calling, profanity or accusations directed at another inmate).

12. Cursing, uncontrolled use of profanity or obscenities that may be considered offensive to others.

13. Excessive noise.

14. Failure to properly maintaiD.living area.

15. Hanging paper, linen, clothlng, etc. on light fixtures, walls, ceilings etc.

16. Failure to maintain personal hygiene.

17.

attire (i.e. not following the dress code stated in the manual).

18. Displaying or demonstrating gang affiliations (i.e. hand gestures, hand in pants, low riding trousers, etc.).

19. Graffiti: writing, drawing or marking on any of the surfaces of the facility.

20. Posting any 1ype ofpicture, drawing or any other material on the 'walls, b1JnY-p or any the surfaces of the facility.

21. Misuse of the intercom system.

22 Disrespect towards any StaffMember or Sheriff's Office Employee

23' Pisruptive Behavior

24. Unauthorized use of the typewriter. (Law Library)

25. Lying to StaffMembers.

26. Other

PROCEDURE FOR MAJOR RULE VIOLATION

All Major Rule Violations will be handled through a formal disciplinary process, and require a . formal hearing.

1. When an inmate commits, or is believed to have committed a Major Rule Violation, the
inmate will be immediately placed on pre-hearing segregation status pending the outcome of the
disciplinary hearing, regardless the nature of the alleged conduct. This can cause some restriction in your priVileges.

Page 16 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual

CC 000099

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 50; Page 19 of 25

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-14 Filed 09/13/12 Page 20 of 25

2. The accused inmate shall be served with a Major Rule Citation and the Inmate Rights form by the citing Deputy as quickly as is practical, after the violation is discovered, but in no case
shall it be longer than 24 hours after the investigation is complete.

3. The inmate will have a hearing before a hearings officer withln five (5) days of the

incident excluding Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays. The inmate will be notified at least 24

hours prior to the hearing.

.

4. After the hearing, the hearings officer can render a decision immediately or within 72 hours.

.A. Ifthe inmate is found "Not Guilty", the inmate will be restored to the same status and privileges as before charged.

, B. Ifthe inmate is found "Guilty", the Hearings Officer will impose an appropriate sanction from the Major Rule Violation Sanction list.

MAJOR RULE VIOLATION SANCTIONS

Sanctions resulting from a finding of "Guilty" in a hearing for a Major Violation may include the following:

1. Temporary orpennanent change in programming to include:

A. Change in housing assignments. (i.e. re-classification)

B. Change custody status.

C. Removal from work status with concurrent suspension of credit for work, as directed by O.R.S. 169.120

2. Reclassification to DisciplinarY Segregation for no more than sixty (60) days for all (multiple) violations arising out of one incident (only 30 days maximum on a single violation) and giving credit for time served as appropriate.

3. Loss of Statutory Good time and modification of release date in accordance with O.R.S. 169.110.

4. Suspension of any part, (or all of the above if appropriate), along with information of expected conduct to avoid imposition.

5. Any combination of one (1) through four (4), listed above.

6. Unless medically or psychiatrically required, no segregated inmate shall be denied clothing or bedding that is allowed to general population inmates.

7. Segregated inmates shall be provided the same food as general population inmates.

8. Personal hygiene items and shower facilities will be provided regularly to segregated inmates, unless there are documented security reasons which would prohibit them.

9.' While ill disciplinary segregation there is no access to programs. Inmates get one hour out each 24 hours. Telephone ( except legal) and television use is not permitted.

Page 17 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual
cc 00Q100
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 50; Page 20 of 25

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-14 Filed 09/13/12 Page 21 of 25

Commissary choices are restricted to hygiene items only. Personal visits are suspended for the duration of the segregation. Book cart or library access is peIJ?rltted; however tbis privilege may be taken away as a condition ofthe sanction.

MAJOR RULE VIOLATIONS

1. Habitual Misconduct: 3 or more separate minor rule violations within 30 days.

2. Refusing to

with a Deputy's/ Staff! Kitchen Staff directives.

3. Tampering with or destruction of Identification Card

4. Refusing to lock down on command, or during a disturbance.

5. Refusing to'go to court.

6. Tampering with security devices/ facility equipment.

7. Threatening or strong arming another inmate.

8. Giying false information to a

9. Creating a disturbance while on lock down (i.e. banging doors, excessive noise, flooding the cell, etc).

10. Threatening staff members

11. .Smoking, or possession of smoking paraphernalia.

. 12. Possession of unauthorized beverages (i.e. pruno).

13. Indecent exposure.

14. Theft.

15.. Extortion.

16. Destruction of, or Defacing County property.

17. Possession of illegal drugs or prescription medications belonging to another or misuse of prescribed medications.

18. Participation in organizing or recruiting for gang related activities.

19. Sexual misconduct! homosexual activities

20. Fighting.

21. Assault on another inmate.

22. Assisting a suicide

23. Possession of a weapon.

Page 18 - Columbia,. County Jail hnnate Manual

CC 000101

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 50; Page 21 of 25

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-14 Filed 09/13/12 Page 22 of 25

24. Assault on a staff member.

25. Attempted or actual escape, or possession-of escape plan.

26. Participating in or inciting a riot.

27. Taking a hostage

28. Arson

29. - Rape or Sodomy.

30. Homicide.

31

of any Criminal Code

32 Other.

APPEALS PROCESS

All appeals must be submitted to the Facility Supervisor or their designee within 72 hours, following the decision.- The Facility Supervisor or designee will review the recommendations and return the appeal form to the inmate within five (5) working days ofthe appeal. The _ response time may be extended due to extenuating circumstancef? or further investigation, with written notice to the inmate ofthe reason(s) for the delay.

BILLING FEES
As authorized in ORS 169.150 and 169.15, Local Correctional Facilities are allowed to bill Inmates for items and services that are provided to them while incarcerated in Correctional Facilities.
Every Sentenced Inmate will be charged a boarding fee of $10.00 per day. The Inmate will a bill when he or she is released from the jail. The Inmate will have 30 days to pay the
bill or set up a payment plan.-
An initial hygiene kit is $2.15 and the Inmate ID card is $1.00. All over the counter medications -as well as prescription medications will be billed through the inmates commissary account. When the Inmate is released from jail and his or her commissary account is in the negative, that amount will also show up on the release billing. When 30 days have passed, with no payment received on _the release billing, the account will be turned over to a collection agency for collection.
- Other charges are listed below:

Page 19 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual

CC 000102

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 50; Page 22 of 25

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-14 Filed 09/13/12 Page 23 of 25

1) Wqrk Release Inmate·s are charged a minimum of $15.00 per day or ·two hrs ofpay if the

... inmates hourly rate of pay is higher than $7.50 per hour.

2) .Hygiene Kits

$2.15 each

3) -Hair Cuts

$5.00

4) . MedicaJ/Nurse visits

$5.00

5) Replacement ID Cards

$5.00

6) Razors

$0.15

7) Copies of legal materials· . $0.25

8) Feminine Hygiene Products $0.20

All fees are subject to change at any time

TELEPHONE SERVICE NlJM:BER

If you or your family have any questions about billing or connection problems concerning the inmate phones, please call the service provider at 1-866-230-7761. We have a brochure available to answer more q:nestions if you need it, please ask and we will provide it.

SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS

DID YOU KNOW?

Rape and sexual assault happens to females and males of all ages, from infancy to senior years.

98% of males who have raped boys reported they are heterosexual. Most males who assault men or women are :married or report having girlfriends.

Sexual assault had nothing to do with the victim's present orfuture sexual orientation.·Victims

may be either heterosexual or homosexual.

.

A sutvivor is not at fault for the rape, even if shelhe was in a secluded area, or had previous consensual sex with the attacker.

The fact a male victim ofsexual assault ejaculated or became sexually aroused does not mean they were not raped or that they gave consent These are normal, involuntary physiological reactions.

It is common for survivors of sexual assault to have feeling of anger embarrassment, panic, depression, guilt, and fear after the attack. Other common reactions include loss of appetite, nausea or stomachaches, headaches, loss ofmemory andlor trouble concentrating and changes in sleep patterns.

FACTS FOR THE INMATE THAT SEXUALLY ASSAULTOTHERlNMATES:

All cases ofsexual assault will be referred to the Enforcement Branch or Major Crimes Team (MCT) for criminal investigation. You may be prosecuted and iffound guilty ofa felony, you may be sentenced to prison time (up to 100 months for each Rape I or Sodomy I conviction). Any sex offense conviction will automatically add sex offender conditions when you release, which may require you to register as .a sex offender per ORS 181.594. This registration requirement is for life. You also be deemed as a "Predatory Sex Offender"', which would require community notification upon your release.

Page 20 - Columbia CoUnty Jail Inmate Manual

CC 000103

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 50; Page 23 of 25

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-14 Filed 09/13/12 Page 24 of 25

Regardless of how you choose to characterize it, any sexual activity will increase your risk ofIllV infection, along with exposing you to other sexually transmitted diseases.

Ifyou have trouble controlling your actions seek help from mental health staffand!or consider

participating in programs designed to control anger or reduce stress. To reduce immediate

feelings of anger or aggression, try talking to or writing a friend, meditate or do breathing

exercises to

work on a hobby, or engage in some type of exercise.

SEXUAL ASSAULT

Sexual assault as defined by Columbia County Jail policy is "Sexual conduct where force or threat of force is used, or when the person is unable to consent because of age or incapacitation (mental defect, mental incapacitation, or physical helplessness). Sexual conductincludes: vaginal penetrationby a penis; contact between the genitals ofa person and the mouth or anus of another person; penetration of the vagina, anus, or penis of another person with any object other than the penis or mouth; touching ofthe sexual or intimate parts of someone or causing someone to touch the sexual or intimate parts of another for the pmpose of sexual gratification." Any behavior or act of a sexual nature directed toward an inmate by an inmate, employee, volunteer, visitor, contract employee or other agency representatives. This includes acts or any attempts to commit such acts incluCling, but not limited to, sexual contact, inappropriate behavior ·of a sexual nature, unreasonable invasion ofprivacy, conversations or correspondence that suggests a romantic relationship between an inmate and any party referenced above.

Sexual assault affects everyone, either directly or through the experienc.e of those we care about It is not only a women's issue as it can affect persons of any gender, age, race, ethnic
group, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, or disability.

The statistics are proof of this problem: According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), in 2002 there were 247,730 victims of rape (This number does not include victims 12 or younger), seven out 9f every eight rape victims were female, and one in every eight rape victims was male. A 1998 stUdy indicates that about 2.78 minion American men have experienced an attempted or completed rape and one out of six American women have experienced an attempted or completed rape.

SEXUAL ASSAULT AVOIDANCE

The only rape that can be prevented is when a potential rapist chooses NOT to rape. However, you may avoid an attack by keeping the following safety guidelines in mind:

Be aware of situations that make you feel uncomfortable. Trust your instincts. If it feels wrong, LEAVE.

Don't let man;ners get in the way of keeping yourself safe. Don't be afraid to say ''NO'' or "STOP IT NOW".

Walk and stand with confidence. Many rapists choose back or are emotionally weak.

who look like they won't fight :

Avoid talking about sex, and casual nullity. These things may be considered a come on, or make another inmate believe that you have an interest in a sexual relationship..

Do not accept canteen items or other gifts from other inmates. Placing yourself in debt to another inmate can lead to sexual favors.

Page 21 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual

CC 000104

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 50; Page 24 of 25

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 90-14 Filed 09/13/12 Page 25 of 25

Avoid secluded areas; Position yourself in plain view of staff members. If you are being pressured for sex., report it to a supervisor immediately.
WHAT TO DO IF YOU ARE SEXUALLY ASSAULTED

IT the attack has just happened.......

Get to a safe place. REPORT THE ATTACK TO A STAFF ME:M:BER II.VIMEDIATELY.
The longeryou wait to report the attack the more difficult it is to obtain the evidence necessary for criminal and/or administrative investigation.

Request immediate medical attention. You may have serious injuries that you are not aware or, and any sexual contact can expose you to seXually transmitted diseases.

Do not shower, brush your teeth, use the restroom, or change your clothes. You may destroy important evidence.
Ifyou have been attacked or wi1ness an attack, but you are unwilling to report it in person to a CCSO uniformed staff member, then you may speak with a counselor, chaplain, medical staff, write a sealed letter to any command staffmember, or contact a CCSO Detective at 503366-4650. ....

Later on.....

.

Seekthe support of a trusted friend, family member or staffmember, such as the Chaplain·or

the counseling staff. The days ahead can be traumatic and it helps to have people who care

about you supporting you.

Seek professional help_ Mental Health staff are available for crisis care 365 days a year, to listen and offer support.

Page 22 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual

CC 000105

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 50; Page 25 of 25

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 31
EXHIBIT 51
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 51; Page 1 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 31
INMATE MANUAL
COLUMBIA COUNTY JAIL
All ruIes in this manual mavbe amended or suspended at any time by order ofthe Sheriff or designee.
The Cofumbia County Inmate Manual has been reviewed and approved on _ _ _ _ _ _--' 2010 by Jeff Dickerson, Sheriff, Columbia County_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~-----
CC 000131
.'
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 51; Page 2 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 31

CO~:;AL TABLE OF

GRIEVANCES ...................... 10

TABLE OF CONTENTS ....•....••...............

YOUR RIGHTS AND PR.IVILEGES ....•.......... 1

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ....•............. 10

YOUR RESPONSlBILITIES AND EXPECTED BEHAVIOR ........••............ , .. 1-2
BEDS AND BEDDIN.G ......................... . 2

BILLING FEES ................................ 2

CELL IN COMMAND .......................... 3

CLASSIFICATION ............................. 3

CLOTHING EXCHANGE ........................ 3

COJ\.1J'v1ISSARY ..•.... : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3

. CON1'RABAND .....•......................... 4

COUNTY ISSUED ITEMS ....................... 4

COURT CONDUCT ............................ 4

CUP AND SPORK EXCHANGE ................... 4

DRESS CODE •. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4-5

FIRE AND EMERGENCY SAFETY ................ 5

HAIR. CARE AND PERSONAL GROOMING ...... " 5

HEALTH APPRAISALS. , ...... , '.' ......... , .... 5

. '.

.

56

HOUSING UNIT OPERATIONS ........ ,....... -

ICE CONTACT INFORMATION .................. 6

IDENTIFICATION CARDS ...................... 6

C~UNTS INMATE

•.....•........... ; ....•...•. 6

INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE ........... 6-7

INMATE REQUEST FORMS ..................... 7

INMATE WORKER ACTNITIES ................. 7

INTERCOM SYSTEM .......................... 7

LAW LlBRARY ...................•......... 7-8
~IBRARY ....... , ................... , ........ 8

MAlI.. .................................... . 8-9

:f\1EALS .......................................................................... . 9

:f\1EDICAL SERVI9ES ....................... 9-10 :f\1ED.ICATION .... '.' ..........•....•........•. 10

CC 000132

MONEY ACCOUNTS .......................... 10

OUTDOOR RECREATION ....• ; ............ 10-11

PERSONAL PROPERTY ............... ~ ....... 11

PROGRAM SERVICES ........................ 11

PROPERTY TRANSFERS ...................... 11

SELF-ESCORT ............................... 11

SANITARY PRACTICES ....................... 12

SANITARY INSPECTIONS ..................... 12

SICK CALL .................................. 12

SPEGIAL DIETS .....................'......... 12

SEARCIIES ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

TELEPHONE PRIVILEGES ..................... 13

TRANSFER TO WORK RELEASE CENTER ....... 13

VISITING .............................. 13-14-15

SPECIAL VISITS ...................... : ...... 15

VISITS WITH ATTORNEY' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 15

VISITS BY CLERGY .......................... 15

VOLUNTARY ACTIVITIES .................... 15

WAKE UP AND LOCK DOym .. .. .. . .. . . . ... 15-16

PROCEDURES FO~ MINOR RULE VIOLATIONS .. 16

MlNOR RULE VIOLATION SANCTIONS ......... 1~

MINOR RULE VIOLATIONS ............... . 16-17

MAJOR RULE VIOLATION PROCEDURES ...... ;. 18

MAJOR RULE VIOLATION SANCTIONS. . . . .. 18-19

MAJOR RULE VIOLATIONS

19-20

VIOLATIONS APPEALS PROCESS .............. 20 .

SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS ........... 20-21

SEXUAL ASSAULT ......'..................... 21

SEXUAL ASSAULT AVOIDANCE. . . . . . . . . . .. 21-22

TELEPHONE SERVICE NUMBER .........•.•... 22

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 51; Page 3 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91 Filed 09/13/12 Page 4 of 31

YOUR RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES

We want you to know exactly what is expected of you while you are in this j ail. We will let you
know what you can expect from us by explaining our rules, procedures and schedules to you. Wbile
at this j ail, you will be provided with:

1. Three meals served at reasonable intervals 2. Clean bedding and clothing at least twice weekly 3. The opportunity to shower at least twice we~kly 4. Re'gu1ar exercise 5. 'Opportunities to exercise your religion 6. Basic hygiene items 7. Access to the law library 8. Access to counsel 9. Emergency medical and dental treatment 10. A safe and secure environment

Ifyou follow Jail rules and sanitation practices, you may receive these privileges:

I.' Use of televison 2. Use of library services 3. Use of outdoor recreation 4. Use oftelephones 5. Having social visits
6. Making commissary purchases 7. Sending and receiving mail 8. Voluntary participation in j ail programs

Remember that these are not rights. Jail staff can. limit or suspend these privileges

at any time in order to maintain the safety, secnrjty, good order or sanitation of the

jail.

'

This manual does not cover every situation that may arise, but it will serve as a basic guide for your conduct and facility
p~~cedures.

Columbia County Jail has a no smoking policy_

YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES AND EXPECTED BERAVIOR

Read this manual to know what is expected of you. The excuse "1 did not know'that" is not acceptable. ' It is your responsibility to follow all laws, jail rules, schedules, and staff requests.
You must respect jail property and the property of others. This would include staying out of
other inmate's cells and off of their bunks. You are expected to keep your sleeping area, the

Page 3 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 07/08/10

CC 000133

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 51; Page 4 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91 Filed 09/13/12 Page 5 of 31

day room and outdoor recreation areas clean and orderly. Unacceptable behavior will be dealt with :firJnly, but fairly. Misbehavior may result in a change ofyour custody status which can directly affect your privileges in the jail.

This manual is an accountable item and is issued to you for your use while you are in this facility. You are responsible for the condition ofthis manual and you will be billed for any damage, graffiti, or unusable condition when returned. Ifthe manual is damaged, please report it to a staffmember to have it replaced immediately.

The best control of your behavior is by you practicjng self-discipline and respect for oth~rs.

Inmates are not'allowed to become personally familiar with corrections' staff. Be considerate and

respectful toward all officials. We will expect you to address uniformed staff as "Deputy or

Sergeant

" and non-uniformed staff as "Mr.

"or "Ms.

" Central

Control personnel will be addressed as "Control."

Inmate basic rules for the Columbia County Jail:

1. The ID card is to be put into the window facing out so that it can be seen and scanned

during your stay.

. '.

2. When you are out of your room, the ID card is to be in your pocket.

3. When you are in the day room, you are to be completely dressed with T shirt tucked

in.

4. When you are in your room, you are to have the T shirt and boxers on at all times

including while you are sleeping, no exceptions.

5. When you come out of the pod and into the circle, you are to stay on the colored

squares. The squares form a line that you walk on. You stay on that line with the exception

. to .go around an obstacle. You are to stay in a single file line•

., ., . 6. When you are in any other halJ,way, you are to walk on the right side of the hall and in

a single fIle. You are not to touch anything. Do not speak, yell or signal at anyone. Keep your

hands to yourself.

7. When in the hallway, there should be only six (6) inmates at one time.

8. DO NOT cover the ventilation units·in the cells.

BEDS AND BEDDING

Bedding will consist of two sheets and two blankets. Blankets and sheets may not be removed from
your cell or bunk, nor may they be placed on the floor for any reason. You are not to take the mattress off the bunk and place it on the floor of your cell or in the day room of the pod. Your mattress may only be used for sleeping purposes. The bunk area must be left in an orderly fashion through ou~ the day.

BlLLING FEES
As authorized in pRS 169.150 and 169.151, Local Correctional Facilities are allowed to bill
Inmates for items and services that are provided to them while incarcerated in Correctional Facilities.

Every Sentenced Inmate will be charged a boarding fee of$10.00 per day. The Inmate will receive a bill when he or she is released from the jail. The Inmate will have 30 days to pay ·the bill or set up

Page 4 - Columbia County Jan Inmate Manual 07/08/10

CC 000134 .

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 51; Page 5 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91 Filed 09/13/12 Page 6 of 31

a payment plan.

An initial hygiene kit is $2.15 and the Inmate ID card is $1.00. All over the count~ medications as well as prescription medications will be billed through the inmate's commissary account. When the Inmate is released from j ail and his or her commissary account is in the negative, that amount will also show up on the release billing. When 30 days have passyd with no payment received on the
release billing, the account will be tuIned over to the Oregon Department of Revenue for collection.

Other charges are listed below:

1) Work Release Inmates are charged a minimum of $15.00 per day or two hrs ofpay if the

inmate's hourly rate of pay is higher than $7.50 per hour.

2) Hygiene Kits

$ 2.15 each 12) Cups

$ 0.75

3) Hair Cuts

$ 5.00

13) Sporks

$0.25

4) MedicallNurselNP visits $ 5.00

14) Sandals

$2.49

5) .Medical Kytes

$ .50

15) Socks (If Appl.) $ 0.85

5) Replacement ID Cards

$ 5.00

16) Towels

$ 0.75

6) Razors

$ 0.15

17) Striped Shirt

$ 6.55 - $ 12.75

7) Copies of legal m~terials . $ 0.25

18) Striped Pants

$ 8.75 - $ 14.95

8) Feminine Hygiene Products $ 0.20

9) Tote .

$44.95 .

19) T-Shirts 20) Shorts

$ 3.99 - $ 7.30
$2.32 - $ 2.74

10) Tote Lid

$26.9~

21) Medications:

. 11) Personal Preference Diets $ 1.00 (per meal) 1 to 14 doses: $ 2.00

15 and more Doses: $ 4.00

Ail fees are subject to change at any time

CELL IN COMMAND

The command "cell-i.n"or ."bu:n)r.:..up" means you need to stop what you are doing and go directly to
your cell or bunk. You must follow this command without question or hesitation. If you do not, it will directly affect your classification and custody status and also will result in disciplinary actions .against you.

CLASSIFICATION
All newly arrested inmate~ who are not released prior to movement from the booking area will be assigned housing in a Pre-Classification unit. They will be maintained on lock-down status for up to the first seventy-Two (72) hours, for classification purposes. The Columbia County Jail has three classifications which are minimum, mediuril and maximum security. All inmates are assigned a classification according to their status. Inmates may request a classification review in writing on an Inmate Request Form at any time.

CLOTHING EXCHANGE

Clean clothing will be provided twice weekly. You must tum in all of your soiled clothing dtJring clothing exchange. In return you will receive 1 T-shirt, 1 pair of shorts, 1towel, 1 striped shirt and

Page 5 - Columbia County Jan Inmate Manual 07/08/10

CC 000135

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 51; Page 6 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91 Filed 09/13/12 Page 7 of 31

1 pair' ~triped pants. On every other exchange you will receive clean sheets. Blankets may be exchanged every 30 days. Each housing unit will have a different laundry s~hedule.

Jail staff will make every effort to ensure clothing is in good repair. You are responsible for all
clothing and bedding issued to you. You 'should check the condition of the clothing you receive
and immediately inform a staffmember and exchange any clothing or bedding that has a tear or
graffiti written on it. If you are found to be in possession of damaged items; you will be subject to
disciplinarj action. This may include payment for the damaged clothlng.

COM:MISSARY

The Columbia County Jail has a well-appointed commissary list from which inmates with funds may purchase various items. Inmates without funds may order mdigent hygiene kits once per week, if needed. Indigent items will be posted to the inmates account creating a negative balance. Commissary sheets will be handed out once a week. If you did not get funds in before the commissary sh~ets were made up to be passed out, you will have to wait until the following week to order.

CONTRABAND

Any authorized item found in a~ inmate's possession that has been altered or is not being used for it's original purpo'se, or any items in excess of the issued quantity as stated within this manual.

COUNTY ISSUED ITEMS

All inmates who are dressed into the Columbia County jail will be issuedjalI clothing after intake, ,and in the clothing change/shower room. You will be issued a plastic bin containing a hygiene kit, bed linen, towel, clothing, cup and spork . Other issued items include a mattress (1 each) and this manual. You will be responsible for the condition of all items issued to you. The gray property box or totes are to be 'used specifically for storage of your personal and issued belongings. They are not to be used for chairs or any other use other than what has been mentioned above. They are to remain under your bunk: at all times.

1. One inmate uniform top.

7.

2. One inmate uniform pants

8.

3. Two T-Shirt~

9.

4. Two pair of gym shortslUnderwear 10.

5. One pair ofjail sandals.

11.

6. One mattress

12.

Two sheets Two Blankets One Towel One Cup One Spork One Rule Book

Female inmates may be allowed to retain the following:

1. Personal underwear, if needed for hygiene reasons. 2. Personal bras, with no metal fasteners or under wires. A sports style bra is preferred.

. During the winter months.voll will be issued a sweatshirt to be worn in your cell, day room area, the outdoor recreation yard or under the striped shirt when going to court.

'. Rage 6 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 07/08/10

CC 000136

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 51; Page 7 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91 Filed 09/13/12 Page 8 of 31

COURT CONDUCT
YoUr arraignment will be your first court appearance injail. During your arraignment, ajudge will tell you what you are charged with and yoUr rights with regard to those charges. The judge may appoint an attorney at this time ifyou qualify.
During any court appearance you will not have contact with any person other than your lawyer or the court officials. Contact includes taIking, signaling, or p~ssing notes to people.
Video ~aignment is considered a court room setting and the above rules apply.
CUP AND SPORK EXCHANGE
Cups and sporks will be issued with every meal. InID:ates will come up to the food cart pick up a ~lean and sanitized rubber cup a~d a sp.ork. All cups and sporks will be returned .at the end of each meal when trays are b~ing picked up from the pod.
For those individuals who wish to purchase a their own personal cup and spork they are available on the commissary order form. The cups and sporks that are available for purchase will be different than those issued for use during the meal times.
DRESS CODE
You are expected to remain fully dressed at all times except when you are on your bunk and covered. During that time you must wear the T-shirt and shorts issued by this facility. Any . time you leave your sleeping area and room, you must wear a full set of clothing. During lights out, you may go to use the restroom in your t-shirt and shorts if you live in an open dorm.
Your T-shirt must be tucked in at all times and not hanging loosely. Rolling your pant legs up if they are t~o long, but not above the ankles, is allowed. Do not alter the appearance of your clothes.
You may not roll your sleeves, tuck your pants into your socks, or pull your pants down below the hips. It is not allowed to wear clothes that are too large or too small.
You will be all~wed to take your outer striped shirt off while exercising in the recreation area.
FIRE AND ElVIERGENCY SAFETY
In case of any type of emergency or evacuation, you are to follow any direct order of a Deputy. There are emergency evacu~tion procedures in place and you will be evacuated in an orderly manner to a safe place.
If you are. asked to evacuate an area by a Deputy, you are to form a straight line at your Pod cloor and wait for directions from a Deputy or the Control Room staff. A Deputy will direct you to a safe area
HAIR CARE AND PERSONAL GROO:MING

Page 7 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 07/08/10

CC 000137

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 51; Page 8 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91 Filed 09/13/12 Page 9 of 31

We encourage you to shower daily. We hand out razors three times a week. If an individual has a court appearance they will be allowed to use a razor prior to their court appearance. Once a week a . list will be put into your respective pod and you must sign up on that list to receive a haircut. Hair cuts can be done when a person is available to be the barber. There is a $5.00 charge for the haircut. Haircuts will be done on Saturdays and Sundays only. You will be allowed to have one haircut per month. Haircuts other than a trim or a complete removal to a short stubble are not allowed. No other styles will be tolerated. Only kit9hen and floor workers are allowed one free haircut per month.

HEALTH APPRAISALS

A health appraisal must be done before an inmate can be considered for "worker" status.

HOUSING UNIT OPERATIONS

. The daily operation in the pods will be as follows.

You will be allowed to come out of your cell for a short period of time during the morning at breakfast. You will then be instructed to return to your cell until hinch time.. After lunch, you will
then have three hours out ofyour cell. At the end of that period, you will return to your cell. The next period out, will be after dinner for two hour~.

Cleaning gear will be provided during the day. We require you to use it daily to clean your cell, bunk area and the pod as a whole on a daily basis.

Noone is allowed to sit, stand or loiter on the stairs or catwalks (upper tier floors) at any time. This will include walking or pacing offlaps upstairs, or on the stairs. There is to be no sitting on the table tops. Inmates are not allowed to enter rooms or sit on bunks that are not assigned to . theJP..

Details for each pod are outlined below:

A - POD is a Multi-Purpose area and may be used as current needs of the facility

dictate.

A - POD will also be the Male Intake and Classification Cell area for the Jail.

B - POD. The upper tier is used as curreD:t needs of the facility dictate.

B - POD Special, BLI - BL4 will be Maximum Security/Close Custody and Disciplinary

Lock-down.

.

C, D and E Pods will be considered Male Medium Security.

J (MWR) and K (WRF) will be considered Male Minimum Security.

I - POD is a Minimum Security Pod and will be used as current needs dictate.

F - POD will be considered Female Maximum/Classification & Intake and may be used as

current needs ofthe facility dictate.

G - POD will be considered Female Medium/General Population.

Inmate time ont of cells for each pod will be set as necessary to fulfill the needs of the facility.

Page 8 - Columbia. County Jail Inmate Manual 07/08/10

CC 000138

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 51; Page 9 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91 Filed 09/13/12 Page 10 of 31

ICE CONTACT INFORMATION

Inmates who are housed in the Columbia County Jail for Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) may contact ICE via the use of an ICE inmate request form.

ICE inmates may contact ICE Pro Bono Attorneys by calling (800) 646-6283. In each Pod located on the mail boxes, there is a list of all Pro Bono calls for use by all ICE detain~es. ICE agents make
scheduled visits to the Columbia County Jail on Wednesday's of every week.

IDENTIFICATION CARDS

You must keep your inmate ID card on your person any time you are out ofyour cell. Do not let anyone use your ID card. The best place to keep this card is in your shirt pocket When you are in your cell, place your ID card, right side up, in the window of your door with the picture facing out so the Deputy can see your name and picture. You must surrender your ID card to any staff member upon request

INMATE COUNTS

There will be at least six "Formal Counts" per day. At the beginning of each "formal count" you
will be.instructed to "cell in or bunk up." At that ~e you must:

1. 0:0 into your cell and close the door or get onto your bunk depending on the pod you are
in. 2. Correctly place your I.D. card in the window of your door or on your bunk. Ifyou are on
a bunk or otherwise not in your room or pod, having the ID card in your hand and
presenting it to the deputy doing the count is acceptable.

Prior to lock-down at 10:00 pm each mght a final formal head count will be conducted in the

following manner.

.

1. Go to your bunk: area and stand next to your bunk with your ID card in hand if in an open dorm Pod. If in a Pod that has rooms you will go to your room stand with one individual on each side of the door, ID card in hand, ready for the count. All inmates will remain in this manner until a Deputy scans your identification card and instructs you to bunk up.

There will be numerous informal counts per day, therefore, whenever a Deputy enters your cell, remain where you are, do not move until the deputy leaves or instructs you to move.

INMATE'GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE

You may submit a grievance about a condition in the jail if you think it is a problem or is unfair. You cannot grieve: disciplinary actions (there is an appeal process for that), classification dec;;isions, incidents or problems which you were not party to, a collection ofunrelated complaints, and no group gric:vances.

To file a grievance, you must follow the steps below in the order shown. You cannot skip one.

Page 9 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 07/08/10

CC 000139

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 51; Page 10 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91 Filed 09/13/12 Page 11 of 31

-1. An inmate may request a Grievance Form from any Corrections Deputy at any time to bring to attention any perceived problems and proposed solutions. 'The Deputy will address any grievance witllin the scope ofhislher authority and document any action taken regarding the request witlPn five (5) working days.
-2. The inmat~ may redirect the grievance to the Shift Supervisor for any complaint which cannot be reasonably resolved by the Deputy. 'The SuperVisor will address any grievance within the scope ofhislher authority and document any action taken on the form within five (5) working days.
3. Ifthe complaint is not resolved to the inmate's satisfaction by the Supervisor, the inmate may send the Grievance Form to the Facility Supervisor or his designee. The Facility Supervisor or designee will address the complaint and document any action taken on the form within fiye (5) working days.
4. Ifthe complaint is not resolved to the inmat~'-s ~atisfaction by the Facility Supervisor, the inmate may send a sealed Grievance Form to the Sheriff. The Sheriffwill address the compla~t and document his decision on the form within ten (10) worldng days. The Sheriff's decision will be final!
Inmates may file an Emergency Grievance in the event that circumstances exist to warrant one.
This w.ilJ. be filed directly to the Jail Commander in a sealed envelope, utilizing- the same inmate
grievance form.
INMATE REQUEST FORMS
The Inmate Request Forms (also known as kites) are available upon request. There are two of them. One will be for general questions~ law library and visiting. The other form will be a Medical - Request Form.. This is only for the medical staff and doctor to answer and will be forwarded to them. There are separate forms to correspond with Columbia County Community Corrections or with DHSlImmigration.
INl\f.ATE WORKER ACTIVITIES
If you want to work in the j ail, you will need to request and fill out an Inmate Worker Labor Agreement, then submit it.
Staff will select various inmates to do kitchen, custodial or maintenance jobs in the facility. Health care staff must clear you before you can participate in the worker activities especially in the kitchen.
You may" receive work time credit only if you are sentenced and your sentence order authorizes it. Any change of a job description or shift must be approved by a Supervisor.
INTERCOM SYSTEM
The call buttons in the cells are to be used for emergency purposes only. They are not to be used for any other communication. Ifthe call buttons are misused, the inmate violating this rule will be

Page 10 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 07/08/10

CC 000140

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 51; Page 11 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91 Filed 09/13/12 Page 12 of 31

, written'up for failure to abide by the rules of the Columbia ~ounty Jail.

LAW LmRARY

,All inmates of the Columbia County Jail will be given access to one hour in the law library per
request. Vse of the law library will be limited only by time and 'the need to maintain the safety and
, security of the facility. To gain access, you must submit a request form at least twenty-four (24) ,
hours in advance. You will be expected to take a note pad and pencil with you to the law library to assist you in your research. All law bo,oks;, reference material and other artiCles must remain in the law library to ensure equal access for all inmates. There will be very limited copying capabilities ' available to you for which your account will be charged a fee per copy. No inmate will be denied
this service based on an inability to pay.

When you finish, you are required to leave the law library orderly and neat; Please be aware that corrections staff cannot provide you with legal advice or legal assistance. If you have any questions, please consult your attorney.

LffiRARY

All inmates of the Columbia County Jail will be afforded ample opportunity to have access to library books within the jail library. The books may be delivered by a cart. You may have up to three books at a time. All books must be'returned to the library or the cart, prior to chec1cing out more. If a search of your person or cell reveals that you have more than three books in your. possession, you may be subjected to disciplinary action. Damaged books must be returned to a Deputy, immediately. Possession of damaged books may be grounds for disciplinary action. The three books do not include religious or educational. Discretion ofCorrections Staffwill determine whether $e books are in fact religious or educational.

MAIL

The mail is delivered to the Sheriff's Office per U.S. Postal Service guidelines, excluding holidays.

General Rules: You may send and receive correspondence through the U.S. Mail. Hand delivered mail, messages and notes will not be accepted or forwarded to y~n.

Except for unusual circumstances, such as on holidays or weekends, incoming mail will be forwarded to yon within 24 hours of its receipt. Outgoing mail will be placed in a pickup box within 24 hours of receivillg it from you. Ifwe receiv~ mail for you after your departure, it will be returned to the sender. You must notify the post office ofyour forwarding address when you leave the jail.

Except for "Official or Legal ~d Coirlideiltial mail," staff may scan and inspect all incoming and

outgoing mail:

'

"Official or Legal and Confidential mail" is all mail to or from your attorney, government officials, the jail adrninj.strator, the Sherift: the courts, to your doctor or medical, verifiable religious contacts or the media. We may open and inspect this mail in front of you to ensure it does not contain contraband.

Page 11- Columbia County JaU Inmate Manual 07/08/10

CC 000141

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 51; Page 12 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91 Filed 09/13/12 Page 13 of 31

General Mail Rules

We may place limits on your mail because ofits volume, its affect on your rehabilitation or

treatment, or for the safety, security~ and good order of the jail. We may open and inspect all·mail for

. contraband and may read all person~ mail.

.

We will pr~vide an Inmate Mail Guide for members pf the public. It explains mail rules and what they can and cannot send you. Ask your pod deputy for copies. People may also call (503) 3664630 to get the infolmation found in the guide or read it on the jail's web site at: www.co.columbia.or.us/sheriff

"Do" Mail Rules for Inmates For mail, you must do the following:

1. Use only lead or pencils to write letters.

2. Use only j ail-approved postcards sold through the commissary or issued by staff for social

mail.

3. Keep the weight of legal or official correspondence in a pre-stamped envelope below 1

ounce (28 gm). To keep a business envelope to one.ounce or less means the contents cannot

be more that four 8-1/2" x 11" sheets of standard weight paper.

4.

Keep your friends and family informed ifyou received books, periodicals, and money they

sent to you.

5. When you are released or transferred from the jail, send change-of-address notifications to

those that send you postcards and periodicals.

6. Put the retuln address noted on the sample postcard below on all your: outgoing mail. Tell

.people sending you postcards or other acceptable mail to use it to address mail to you. Write th~ recipient's full name and complete address legibly on any mail you send.

"Don't'; ·Mail Rules for Inmates You may not do any of:the following: .

1. Draw or write anything on a postcard in the address area or on the picture of the postcard

other than name and address information.

2.

Send out jail fonns for Otht:{fS to fill out on your behalf

3.

Send prohibited mail.

4. Send out jail property.

5. Order publications on credit or delayed billing from the jail.

6.

Operate a commercial h~siness or nonprofit organization from the jail.

7.

Orde~ correspondence courses unless you have a jail command offi:cer's approval.

8. Conduct commercial or personal business transactions or request services from a

government agency unless you have a jail command officer's approval.

Page 12 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 07/08/10

CC 000142

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 51; Page 13 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91 Filed 09/13/12 Page 14 of 31

Sending and Receiving Mail
You may send and receive correspondence only through the U. S. Postal Service, or the jail internal mail system for communicating only with jail staff..Any transfer of written communication on your part that <:;loes not comply with mail rules and procedures is a rule violation that subjects you to discipline. This includes sending notes to other inmates or notes, postcards or mail to anyone by way of a contact visit, court appearance, or transpoli. People may not leaye mail, messages, or notes for you at the jail. Personal mail must come·on a commercially produced postcard which does not
exceed 5 Vz by 8 liz inches in size.

. E:~i.Cept in unusual circumstances and on holidays or weekends, we will deliver incoming mail to
you within 24 hours of its receipt. We will put outgoing mail in a pickup box within 24 hours of receiving it from you. There is no pickup from the box on weekends and h~lidays.

It is important that you use a person's. complete and COlrect address when sending mail. If someone says he or she did not receive something you sent and you did·not receive a confiscation notice from us, it is a matter for you to resolve with the post office-not the jail. For your convenience, the . addresses of commonly contacted govelnment agencies are in appendix 2, Goyernment Pages.

We do npt forward mail. Ifwe receive mail for you and you are not here, we will return it to the sender. (please tell those sending you mail to put on return addresses. We confiscate mail without return addresses or destroy it if you are no longer in jail.)

Legal and Official Mail
Legal mail is mail addressed to your attorney or comes from your attOlney and is clearly marked "legal mail". Official mail is to or from confming authorities, like ajail command officer, the sheriff, the county administrator, probation authorities, district attorney, state attorney general, Govemor~ court, or a court official.
We will open and inspect legal and official mail in front of you to make sure·it does not contain
contraband. If you send this type of mail, you must label it on the front of the envelope as "legal mail" or "official mail" or we will treat it as personal mail. We will treat mail from your attorney not marked as '-'legal mail" as personal mail. You are subject to disciplinary action and crinrinal . prosecution for fraudulently labeling an envelope as legal or official mail.

Books
You may receive up to three new or used books per month~ which may be paperback or hardback. Hardback books are not allowed in male or female segregation. Inmates in segregation may only receive new paperback books. A person from outside the jail must pay for and order books directly from the publisher, a book club, or a reputable bookstore for you. Books may not be larger than 9 by 12 inches (228 by 305 mm) or have plastic or metal bindings.

Periodicals We do not aCgept any periodicals.

Acceptable Mail
We only accept packages that contain publications from an approved source. An incoming or outgoing envelope may only cont~ these types of items, and with the noted limits and restrictions:

Page 13 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 07/0S/10

CC 000143

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 51; Page 14 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91 Filed 09/13/12 Page 15 of 31

Acceptable Personal Mail

Type ofMail Item

Ljrnits and Restrictions

Written correspondence Must be a postcard or legal or official mail. Excludes junk mail.

Pictures

Only photographs printed on the reverse" side of a postcard delivered via the U.S. Postal Service.

Checks and money orders We do not accept checks or money orders. Touch pay is available in the lobby

and can be accessed by phone or the Internet.

Personal business documents None, unless general mail rules would apply.

If it is not listed on the previous page, it is contraband and we will return the item to the sender, confiscate it, or destroy it if it presents a health or safety risk.

Prohibited Mail We will not deliver or send mail that

1. Contains threats of physical harm, blackmail, extortion, or other criminal aetivity.

2. Concelns plans for escape, criminal activity, or activity that violates jail rules.

3. Is contraband material.

4. Is an item that could bide contraband.

5. Concerns sending or receiving contraband.

6. Encourages or instructs in how to commit a crime.

7. Contains gang-related or security threat group material.

8. Contains information that, if communicated, would create a danger of violence or physical

harm to a person.

9. Is written in code or suspected code. (Tills may include a foreign language if we cannot fmd

a

translator in a reasonable period oftime.)

10. Contains sexually explicit material, pictures or written language.

1L May CFeate a sensation. (A threat to the safety, security, or good order of the jail or disrupts . your progress in a rehabilItative program~)

12. "Contaihs a foreign substance or bodily fluid.

13. Is fi.·om or addressed to an inmate in this con-ectional facility or on electronic home detention.

14. Is addressed to or from a victim of a crime that you are in custody for, either in pretrial or

sentenced status.

15. Is from or to an inmate by way of a third party.

16. . Is an item that exceeds size or number limits.

17. Is a publication that did not come directly from the publisher, bookstore, or book club.

18. Is an unacceptable check or money order.

19. Is unsolicited junk maiL

.Page 14 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 07/08/10

CC"000144

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 51; Page 15 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91 Filed 09/13/12 Page 16 of 31

Mail Confiscation
We will give you a confiscation notice for mail we confiscate. When we confiscate items because they exceed a numb~ limit, such as books or magazines, we will confiscate all of them rather than selecting some to bring the number' down to the limit amount. We will return. stored confiscated mail to you when you are released if it was not disposed of for health or safety reasons. You may submit a grievance to ask for its return before then. We will notify you if we return mail to the sender.

Use of Envelopes You may use an envelope, sold through the commissary, to send these types' of letters:

A legal and official mail letter. " A legal and official mail letter that should not "or CanD.ot be folded or that is more than one ounce. With staff approval, a personal letter that contains a program-related diploma or certificate that " should not or cannot be folded. You must have a deputy confirm that you are sending a diploma or certificate before you seal the envelope.

You may not use these envelopes for aJ?y type ofmail that does not meet one of the three criteria

listed above. We will deduct the cost of the postage from your inmate account for acceptable manila

envelopes.

'

Sendirig Certified Legal or Official Mail
You may send a legal or official letter uSing U. S. Postal Service Certified Mail and Return Receipt mail services. You will get receipts that you sent the letter and that the letter was received by the addressee. We will charge you the standard postal rates for these services. You must have money in your inmate account to pay the postal rates or ~ave appropriate approval if you are indigent and are
"sending legal or official mail. A deputy wJl supply you with a request for Certified tv1ail form that
you need to fill out and submit along with the letter. Y0ll:"may only send 2 certified-mail letters in a 30-day period.

Outgoing Mail: Inmates will place all outgoing mail in the mail drop located in the day room of each housing unit. You are expected to legibly address your envelope and use the proper postage. All outgoing must list the following return address:

Your name: Columbia County Jail 901 Port Avenue St Helens Oregon 97051

MEALS

Meals will be served three times daily at approximately 6:30 A.M., 12:00 P.M. and 5:00 P.M. inmates on disciplinary lock-down are required to eat in their cells. All others will eat at the tables provided in the day rooms. Televisions will be off during the serving ofmeals. Once the meals have been served and the Deputy ~eaves the pod, the television may be turned back on.
All special personal pref~ence diet requests such as v~getarian meals must be pre-approved b~ the jail

Page 15 - Columbia County Jan Inmate Manual 07/08/10

CC 000145

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 51; Page 16 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91 Filed 09/13/12 Page 17 of 31

supervisors. All inmates on a personal preference diet will be charged a fee of $ 1.00 per meal to be taken directly out of their individual inmate trust account this is to cover the additional cost of these meals. ~digent inmates-will not be eligible to receive this type of special diet. Do not save food from meal service.

lVIEDICAL SERVICES

The Columbia County Jail will provide emergency medical, dental, and mental health care to all inmates regardless of their ability to pay for such services. No inmate will be denied care for serious health care
needs based on the cost of medical serVices or the inmate's inability to pay for health care. All medical visits initiated by you will be assessed a fee which will be charged to your personal money account~ You will be fmancially responsible for any elective surgery or other treatment you may request from your personal
physician, dentist or other provider.

Medical screening or appraisals at intake, or for inmate workers will be provided at no cost to you. All -Detamees will receive a medical evaluation within their first 14 days of mcarceration.

Prescription medications: You will be charged for all prescription medication prescribed for you and purchased by the jail on your behalf.

Over the counter medications such as; Tylenol, Aspirin, antacid etc., will be available from our medical

department for a small charge.

-

I
:MEDICATION'

Health care staff may fill prescriptions at their discretion. Health care staff may discontinue prescribed medication as directed by the jail health care supervisor or physicians. If you came from another-
correctional facility and had your medication transferred with you, the transporting Deputy will give your medication to the health care staff. If you are leaving our jail and going to another jail, the transporting Deputy will get your medication from ~e health care staff and transport it with you.

As a warning, any abuse of your medication may result in the discontinuation of your receiving the medicine.

MEDICAL GRIEVANCES

In case of any unresolved problem regarding medical, dental or infirmary care, you may follow the grievance procedures outlined in this manual.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Columbia Community Mental Health is the provider of these services for the facility. Ifyou feel the need to see a mental health professional, contact a Deputy or the health care staff.

MONEY ACCOUNTS _

Each inmate in the Columbia County Jill will have a "money account" established during the booking _ procedure. Funds may be deposited 24 hours per day seven days per week, via Visa or Mastercard by a to11-
free phone call to 1-866-232-1899, via internet at: www.touchpaydirect.comorby depositing caSh into a kiosk in the Sheriff's Office lobby. The depositor needs the inmate's name, booking number, and Facility
Locator No., which is 297001. All purchases will be deducted from the account. Funds deposited to an
account sho~g a negative balance will be deducted from that balance. The positive balance, i f any, is

Page 16 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 07/08/10

CC 000146

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 51; Page 17 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91 Filed 09/13/12 Page 18 of 31

available for the inmate's use; The balance will be refunded to the inmate upon discharge. Inmates who possess a negative b~ance on their acco~t will not be denied their basic medical needs such as medical care
and hygiene items. With a negative balance an inmate may request to participate in the 50/50 program at which time 50 % of any funds placed into the mmate account will go towards the negative balance and the other 50 % will be placed on the inmates account available for use ~n individual items in the Jail.

OUTDOOR RECREATION
An open air recreation area is provided in the jail for your use as scheduled throughout the day. Central
Control will notify each of you ofyour recreation time. When you are called for outdoor recreation, you need to be ready to go. You will leave the Pod in groups of six. No one will be allowed to depart the Pod late for recreation.

The following rules apply while using the open air recreation area; 1. Do not yell or attempt to communicate in any way with the people outside the recreation area,
except for Corrections Staff. 2. Do not engage in ''horseplay.'' We do not want people to get injured.
3. You must wear a minimum of aT-shirt, pants and shoes. Movement to or from outdoor recreation will require the complete uniform, including your ID card.
4. You are not to take anything other than your ID card with you to outdoor recreation. This includes papers, candy, food items and anything that can be used to write or color with. Ifyou are found with these items, disciplinary action may be taken.

PERSONAL PROPERTY

All personal property items will be stored in the secure storage area of the Columbia County Jail. No personal items will be allowed to be kept on an inmate unless approved by the Jail Commander in writing.

If you would lilce an item, address or phone number out of your property you need to request it before you leave booking. Requests for these items -will not be granted after the booking process is complete.

PROGRAM SERVICES

If and when available, you have the opportunity to participate in a variety of program activities. Recommended programs assist you in making constructive use ofyour time and to make positive changes in your life. We have grouped these into two main categories:

Voluntary activities

Inmate worker activities

You may participate in activities in one or all of these categories depending on your:

Sentencing status -Length of sentence

Assess~ents results Classification

PROPERTY TRANSFERS

You must follow these guidelines regarding your property:
an 1. You may release your personal property to any adult outside the facility on "all or nothlng" basis. The
adult must present a state driver's license, state ID card, passport or inilitary ill to jail sta.ft to ensure property is released to the proper individual. A signed inmate request fol1IJ. froID: you is required.

2. Release ofproperty is available Monday through Friday from 3:00 P.M. until 4:00 P.M. ONLY.

Page 17 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 07/08/10

CC 000147

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 51; Page 18 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91 Filed 09/13/12 Page 19 of 31

3. The folloWing exception applies when: An Inmate·is committed to a state prison and must release all .personal property inCluding their clothing poor to being transported t6 a state facility.
If the propertY is not picked up prior to the inmate's departnr~, it will be forwarded to ODOC with the inmate.
4. We do not allow personal property to be dropped off for inmates, except for medical items which will be checked and approved by medical stafffirst. Clothes may be brought in if the situation calls for it This will be at the discretion o~the jail Supervisors.

SELF-ESCORT

Most inmate movement within the jail, including visiting, medical, programs, work assignments Etc., will be unescorted unless you abuse the privilege. You are expected to conduct yourself in an orderly fasmon at all
times. Inmates moving nnescorted through the facility may not talk to other inmates, may not touch the walls or the glass, loiter or detour while en ro~te to their destination. When leaving an area, you need to state your name and where you are going to Central Control. Any inmate who abuses these rules will be subject to disciplinary action and may lose their opportunity for unescorted movement The exception will be any inmate who is classified as maximum security and who needs to be escorted in the facility·at all time~.

SANITARY PRACTICES

It is your responsibility to keep your cell clean and uncluttered. It is also the responsibility of each member

of the housing unit to keep the day room, shower and outside recreation area clean. You will be provided

with cleaDmg supplies and are expected to use the cleaning supplies as much as necessary to ensure you live

in a clean enviro~ent

.

You are to follow these rules for a clean and healthy housing unit:

Clean your cells, including the sink, toilet, floors and door windows daily.

Pod Porters will clean day room areas daily.

.

Pod Porters will clean the following, but not limited to: Tables, floors, stairs, walls, showers,

bathroom areas, railings, and windows.

.

Keep the walls clean and free of graffiti or marks of any kind.

Place all garbage in the trash cans in the housing units.

Keep all pictures and papers off the walls, bunks, bottom of bunks. Do not hang, stick, or paste

pictures or papers to the walls, bunks or any where else in the facility.

Keep commissary food items in your property container. (Gray totes)

Do Dot save food from meal service.

Wash your hands frequently.

Participate in laundry exchange twice weekly.

.. Shower at least twice weekly, but we strongly encourage you to shower daily.

Keep the showers clean, and free of excess soap and shampoo bottles.

.Keep your gray bin or tote cleffll:

Perform any ·other duties that Corrections Staffmay assign.

Keep your room or bunk area uncluttered of excess items. This includes legal papers. Ask staff

for assistance if you have a large amount of legal papers to .store.

Page 18 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 07/08/10

CC 000148

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 51; Page 19 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91 Filed 09/13/12 Page 20 of 31

Vents for air circulation should be kept clean and obstruction free.

SANITARY INSPECTIONS

Deputies will inspect ~ach housing unit daily to ensure it is a safe and clean environment You will need to

follow basic sanitary practices to ensure your cell area meets the sanitation requirements and pass the

sanitation inspections. Ifyour cell does not meet sanitation requirements, you will lose privileges and be

instructed to clean the area. If the day room, shower area and outside recreation areas do not meet sanitation

requirements, the entire housing unit may lose privileges. These privileges are those listed at the beginning of

this manual. Ifyou or your housing unit lose privileges, they will be reinstated ifyou pass the next regularly

,scheduled ~ection.

'

SICK CALL

Ifyou need to see medical personnel, fill out t4e appropriate Inmate Medical Request form. Each day the Medical Staffwill address these issues upon receipt of the Request forms.

SPECIAL DIETS

You must direct all requests for medical diets to the heath care staff for approval. If you need a special diet for medical reasons, please submit a request slip to the health care staff Ifyou need a special diet for religious reasons, please submit a request form.. A Deputy will pick up the form from you and give it to a supervisor for approval. If approved, the religious diet will remain in effect for the length of your
incarceration. Be aware that there may be a charge assessed for the extra cost associated for the special , meal

'SEARCHES
Jail staff may conduct random unannounced searches of your person or ofitems in your possession, and in any area of the jail at any time. Your personal propewJ andlor living area may be searched "without your permission and whether or not you are present.
TELEPHONEPRnnLEGES
, Your use ofjail telephones is a privilege. Jail staffmay limit your telephone use for reasons of safety, security, good order, or sanitation of the jail. Inmates classified to housing units will be allowed to use telephones from 0800 hrs to approximately 2200 hrs, based, on the operations of the housing unit you are in.
Conversations on any telephone in the jail may be, monitored and/or recorded without further notice. You are consenting to this monitoring when you uS,e the j ail telephones.
There are some local, attorney's phone numbers that have been set up as non collect so you can call them
directly from the-telephones in the pods. ConfIrmed attorney phone numbers are blocked from the monitoring system.

All telephone calls from a housing unit are a collect call or by the phone cards that you purchase here. The phone cards are able to be used upon release from the Columbia County Jail. Telephone calls are limited to15 minutes each. The telephone system will warn you before the 15 minute time period is up so you can end your conversation.
Inmates'are not allowed to receive incoming telephone calls. Jail staffwill deliver verifiable emergency messages to you.

~ge 19 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 07/08/10

GC 000149

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 51; Page 20 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91 Filed 09/13/12 Page 21 of 31

REl\.1INDER: TELEPHONES ARE A P~EGE. DO NOT ABUSE THE SYSTEM. ANY DAMAGE TO THE PHONE WILL RESULT IN A DISCIPLINARY HEARING AND A CRIMINAL CHARGE BEING FILED AGAINST THE INMATE.

TRANSFER TO WORK RELEASE CENTER

The Courts andlor Supervisory Au1hority may consider you for transfer to the Work Release Center if authorized on your sentence order. These transfers are not automatic. _Jail staff must approve all transfers.

Factors considered in transfer decisions will include: Judge's approval Length of sentence. Individual needs. _Available space. Classification. Demonstration of compliance withjail rules, expectations and responsible behavior.
Ifyou are interested in participating in any programs, you must submit ~ request on an Inmate Request Form.
Misbehavior or administrative concerns may prevent access to these programs. Disciplinary write-ups or act~ons will affect program eligibility.

VISITING

All public visitS will be scheduled by the Inmate requesting the visit. The inmate must contact prospective
visitors by phone or mail, and determine an acceptable visiting date. Time slots may be used on a first come, first serve basis. Visitors are encouraged to arrive 10 to 15 minutes early to sign. in. If all of the slots are taken for that time frame they can ei1her wait till the next times start for that pod, if it is available, or return on another day. Visits will start on 1he hour and half hour.

Authorized visitors shall be-members. from the inm~te"s family, and friends age 18 and older. Visitors under

the age of 18 must be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian. Attorneys and clergy are not considered

public visitors.

-

Inmate visi4ttion is a privilege and while the Columbia County Sheriff's Office encourages visitation, that privilege must be regulated to protect the needs of the entire jail operation. The amount of time allotted for visitation is based upon the classification and status of each inmate.

two Classification is based upon the inmate's current charges, criminal history and cmrent demeanor. All inmates
will be allowed a maximum of thirty (30) minute visits per seven (7) day period (Sunday through S':lturday), as time and space allows.

Inmates assigned to Disciplinary Segregation will not be allowed visitation priVileges.

Inmates not yet assigned to a housing unit or who are housed in 1he pre-classification unit, will not be allowed

public visitation.

-

Inmates serving a sentence of seventy-two hours(72) or less will not be allowed public visitation.

Due to space limitaljons, acceptable visiting combinations are limited to:

1.

One Adult

2. Two Adults

Page 20 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 07/08/10 -

CC-000150

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 51; Page 21 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91 Filed 09/13/12 Page 22 of 31

3.

One Adult and One Child

4.

One Adult and Two Children

5.

Two Adults and One Child

Inmates have the right to refuse any visit, however that right should be exercised prior to visiting time.

All inmates wishing to receive public visits must establish a visiting list of not more than five (5) people. Persons not on the approved list will not be allowed to visil You are able to change your visiting list once every 30 days from the time you establish your list. You need to fill out the visitation part of the request form" to make the changes. The minimum information"required for each person will be: "

1.

Visitor's full name

2.

Date ofbirth

3.

Relationship

A.

The mnTIe of any child who may be in the company ofhislher parent or guardian.

The schedule for visiting will be as follows:

Sunday: A-Pod 0900-1000

G-Pod 1000-1130

J-Pod 1330-1500 (WRM)

Monday: C-Pod 0900-1030

B-Pod 1430-1500

F-Pod 1500-1530

Tuesday: D-Pod 0900-1030

A-Pod 1030-1130

E-Pod 1300-1500

Wednesday: I-Pod" 0830-1000

",

G-Pod 1000-1130

Thursday: D-Pod 0830-1000

C-Pod 1000-1130

J-Pod 1300-1430 (WRM)

FrIday:

No Visiting

Saturday: F-Pod 0830-0900

E-Pod 0900-1100

I-Pod 1400-1530

B-Pod 1530-1600

TillS "SCHEDULE IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE. ANY CHANGES SHALL
ALLOW 11MB FOR INMATES TO RESCHEDULE AFFECTED VlSITS.

SPECIAL VISITS

Special considerations may be given for emergency and/or special situations where normal visitillg
procedures may not be practical. Such situations as the death of a family member" or close friend, serious
injury of a family member or visitors traveling great distances, who have arrived unexpectedly may be considered on a case-by-case basis by the Sup~or or Corporal on duty. All special visits will be subject to the same rules and requirements as regular visitation. Special visits may. be conducted in the Attorney Visiting Rooms if available and necessary due to other visitation which may be in progress.

Page 21 - CQlu~bia "County Jail Inmate Manual 07/08/10

CC 000151

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 51; Page 22 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91 Filed 09/13/12 Page 23 of 31

VISITS WITH ATTORNEY

Inmates shall be given the opportunity to visit their attorneys at reasonable times, consistent with the safety
. and security of the facility. All visits will be scheduled by the attorney.

VISITS BY CLERGY

Clergy Visits will be handled as a regular visit. The member of the Clergy you want to have a visit with will be added lilce a normal visitor just like it is described in the regular visiting rules. They will be allowed to visit you on the regmar date and time for the pod you are assigned to. The Clergy member will not count against you for the five people you' are allowed to have on your visiting list. The Columbia County Jail provides non denominational religious services once per week and individual bible study twice per week.

VOLUNTARY ACTnnTIES

All general population inmates may have access to voluntary activities. These activities include but may not be J.iJ;nited to:

Religious services Narcotics Anonymous (NA) and Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) groups Religious based life skills classes Individual educational tutoring (21 and under) Recreational horary Law library
A sign up sheet for the voluntary activities will be posted in your housing unit. You must sign up on the provided list to be able to participate. Remember that participation in these activities is a privilege. Participation is dependent on -YOl:lf continued cooperation and responsible behavior.

WA.-KE UP AND LOCK DOWN

Day room and cell lights will be turned on at 6:00 A.M. daily. Make your bed and dress for breakfast. Breakfast service will begin at approximately 6:30 A.M. daily. Day room lights and television will be turned offby about 10:00 P.M. and the cell lights will be turned off at 10:00 P.M.. All inmates must be on their bunks at "lights·out" and are required to remain quiet.

Each inmate is expected to completely clean your room and area, make your bed, dump trash cans, etc. when the cleaning supplies. are available to you. Be aware that there are usually some cleaning materials available at all times.

MINOR RULE VIOLATIONS PROCEDURES

1. The accused inmate shall be served with a minor rule citation by the citing Deputy as quickly as is

practical, after the violation is discovered, but in no case shall it be longer than 24 hours after the

investigation is complete.

.

2. The inmate will sign the misconduct report and acknowledge receipt of alleged violation(s) and the right to appeal. The inmate may enter a plea of "Guilty" or "Not Guilty".

A. Upon entry of a "Guilty" plea, a Deputy will schedule an informal hearing for possible sanctions to be imposed.

Page 22 - Columbia.County Jail Inmate Manual 07/08/10

CC 000152

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 51; Page 23 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91 Filed 09/13/12 Page 24 of 31

.

B. Upon entry of a ''Not GuiltY' plea on the misconduct report or upon request for a formal hearing

the incident will be handled the same as a Major Violation.

MINOR RULE VIOLATION SANCTIONS

Sanctions resulting from a guilty plea on a Minor Misconduct Report may include:

a. Verbal warning.

b. Creative sanction appropriate to the offense (i.e. extra work detail, etc.)..

c. Housing Unit lock dovvn not to exceed 24 hours.

d. Disciplinary segregation not to exceed five (5)·calender days for a single violatioh. Inmates may receive separate lock down time for each marked violation. This should not exceed a total of fourteen (14) calender days.

e. Re-Classification

f. Probation for up to 30 days.

g. While in disciplinary segregation there is no access to programs.

Inmates get one hour out each 24 ho.urs. Telephone (except legal) and television use may not be permitted. Commissary choices are restricted. Personal visits are suspended for the duration of the segregation. Book cart or library access is permitted; however, this privilege may be taken away as a sanction.

l\11NOR RULE VIOLATIONS

01 Possession ofNuisance Contraband: AJlY authmized item found in an inmates possession that has . been altered or is in excess of the authorized amount

02 Arguing: Any disagreement which becomes disruptive, loud or obnoxious.

03 Posse~sion of another inmates property.

. 04 Unauthorized use of facility property or equipment (i.e. washersldryers, b~ber equipment etc.)

05 Acting as a lookout

06 Being in an unauthorized area without corrections staffpresent

07 Purposefully obstructing the view of Corrections Staff.

08 Inappropriate remarks or misuse of the inmate request forms or any of the forms or paperwork handed out or used in the facility.

09 Unwarranted emergency calls.

10 Horse Playing: Any aggressive or faked aggressive actions, which may lead to or be mistaken for a physical altercation.

11 Disrespect to other inmates (i.e. name calling, profanity or accusations directed at another inmate).

Page 23 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 07/08/10

CC 000153

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 51; Page 24 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91 Filed 09/13/12 Page 25 of 31

12 Cursing, uncontrolled use ofprofamty or obscenities that may be considered offensive to others.

13 Ex~essive noise.

14 Failure to properly :maintain living area.

15 Hanging paper, linen, clothing, etc. on light fIXtures, walls, ceilings etc.

16 Failure to maintain personal hygiene.

17 Improper attire (i.e. not following the dress code stated in the manual).

18 Displaying or demonstrating gang affiliations (i.e. hand gestures; hand in pants, low riding trousers, _etc.).

19 Graffiti: writIDg, drawing or marking on any of the surfaces of the facility.

20 Posting any type of picture, drawing or any other material on the walls, bunks or any the surfaces of the facility.

21 Misuse of the intercom system.

22 Di~respect towards any Staff Member or Sheriff's Office Employee

23 Dismptive Behavior

24 Unauthorized use of the typewriter. (Law Library)

25 Lying to StaffMembers.

26 Other

MAJOR RULE VIOLATION PROCEDURES

a All Major Rule-ViolatioIlB will be handled through a formal disciplinary process, and require formal

herucing.

.

1. When an inmate commits, or is believed to have committed a Major Rule Violation, the inmate will be immediately placed on pre-hearing segregation status pending the outcome of the disciplinary hearing, regardless the nature ofthe alleged conduct. This can cause restriction in your privileges.

2. The accused inmate shall be served with a Major Rule Citation and the Inmate Rights form by the citing Deputy as quickly as is practical, after the violation is discovered, but in no cB;se shall it be longer than 24 hours after the investigation is complete.

3. The inmate will have a hearing before a herucings officer within five (5) days of the incident excluding
Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays. The inmate will be notified at least 24 hours prior to the hearing.

4. After the hearing, the hearings officer can render a decision immediately or within 72 hours.
A. Ifthe inmate is found ''Not Guilty", the inmate will be restored to the scune status and privileges
as before charged.

Page 24 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 07/08/10

CC 000154

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 51; Page 25 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91 Filed 09/13/12 Page 26 of 31

B. If the inmate is found "Guilty", the Hearings Officer will impose an appropriate sanction from the Major Rule Violation Sanction list..

MAJOR RULE VIOLATION SANCTIONS

Sanctions resulting from a :findin~ of~'Guilty" in a hearing for a Major Violation may include the following:

1. Temporary or permanent change in programming to include:

A. Change in housing assignments. (i.e. r~-c1assification)

B. Change in custody status.
c. Removal from work status with concurrent suspension of credit for work, as directed by O.R-S.
169.120

. 2. Reclassification to Disciplinary Segregation for no more than sixty (60) days for all (mUltiple) violations arising out of one incident (only 30 days maximum on a sincle violation) and giving credit for time served as appropriate.

3. Loss of Statutory Good time and modification of release date in accordance with O.R-S. 169.110.

4. Suspension of any part, (or all of the above if ~ppropriate), along with information of expected conduct to avoid imposition.

5. Any combination of one (1) through four (4), ~sted above.

6. Unless medically or psychiatrically required, no segregated inmate shall be denied
or bedding that is allowed to g~eral population inmates.

clothing

7. Segregated inmates shall be provided the same food as general population inmates.

8. Personal hygiene items and shower facilities will be provided regular~y to segregated inmates, unless there are documented security·reasons which would probibit them.

9. While in disciplinary segregation there is no access to programs. Inmates get one hour out each 24 hours. Telephone ( except legal) and television use is not permitted. Commissary choices are restricteci to hygiene items only. Personal visits are suspended for the duration of the segregation. . Book cart or librarY access is permitted; however this privilege may be taken away as a condition of the sanction.

MAJOR RULE VIOLATIONS

40 Habitual Misconduct: 3 or more separate minor rille violations within 30 days.

41 Refusing to comply with a Deputy'sf Staff! Kitchen Staff directives.

42 Tampering with or destruction ofIdentification Card

43 Refusing to lock down on command, or during a disturbance.

44 Refusing to go to court.

Page 25 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 07/08/10

CC 000155

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 51; Page 26 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91 Filed 09/13/12 Page 27 of 31

45 Tampering with security devices/ facility equipment.

46 Threat~ning or strong arming another inmate.

47 Giving false information to a Deputy.

48 Creating a disturbance while on lock down (i.e. banging doors, excessive noise, flooding the cell, etc).

49 Threatening staffmembers

50 S~oking, or possession of smoking paraphernalia.

51 Possession ofunauthorized beverages (i.e. pruno).

52 Indecent exposure.

53 Theft.

54 Extortion.

55 Destruction of, or Defa~g County ptoperty.

56 Possession of illegal drugs or prescription medications belonging to another or misuse ofprescribed . medications.

57 Participation in organizing or recruiting for gang related activities.

58 Sexuat" misconduct! homosexual activities

59 Fighting.

59 Assault on another inmate.

60 Assisting a suicide

61 Possession of a weapon.

62 Assault on a staff member.

63 Attempted or actual escape, or possession of an escape plan.

64 Participating in or inciting a riot.

65 Taking a hostage

66 Arson

67 ~pe or Sodomy.

68 Homicide.

69 Violation of any Criminal Code
Page. 26 - Cofumbia County Jail Inmate Man'ual 07/0B/1O

CC 000156

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 51; Page 27 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91 Filed 09/13/12 Page 28 of 31

70 Other.

VIOLATIONS APPEALS PROCESS

All appeals must be submitted to the Facility Supervisor or their designee within 72 hours, following the decision. The Facility Supervisor or designee will review the recommendations and retu;rrJ, the appeal form to the inmate within :five (5) working days of the appeal. The response time may be ~xtended due to extenuating circumstances or further investigation, with written notice to the inmate ofthe reason(s) for the delay. You may us~ an IllI~late Request Form for your appeal.

SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS

DID YOU KNOW?

Rape and sexual assault happens to females and males of all ages, from IDfancy to senior years.

98% ofmales who have raped boys reported they are heterosexual. Most males who assault men or women are married or report liaving girlfriends.

Sexual assault had nothing to do with the victim's present or future sexual orientation. Victims niay be either heterosexual or homosexual.

A survivor is not at fault for the rape, even ifshelhe was in a secluded area, or had previous consensual sex

with the a t t a c k e r . '

.

The fact a male victim of sexual assault ejaculat~d ·orbecame sexually aroused does not mean they were not raped or that they gave consent. These are norm,al, l?voluntary physiological reactions.

'.

.

It is common for survivors of sexual assault to have feeling of anger embarrassment, panj.c, depression,

guilt, and fear after the attack. Other common reactions include loss of appetite, nausea or stomachaches,

headaches, loss ofmemory.andlor trouble concentrating and ch~ges in sleep patterns.

FACTS FOR THE lNMATETHAT SEXUALLY ASSAULTS OTBERJNMATES:

All cases ofsexual assault will be referred to the Enforcement Branch or Major Crimes Team (MeT) for criminal investigation. You may be prosecuted and if found guilty of a felony, you may be sentenced to . prison time (up to 100 months for each Rape I or Sodomy I conviction). Any sex offense conviction will automatically add sex offender conditions when you release, which may require you to register as a' ~ex offender per ORS 18 I .594. This registration requirement is for life. You also be deemed as a "Predatory Sex Offender," which would require community notification upon your release.

Regardle~s of how you choose to characterize it, any sexual activity will increase your risk of HIV infection, along with exposing you to other sexually transmitted diseases.

Ifyouhave trouble controlling your actions seekhelp from mental health staffandlor considerparticipating

in programs designed to control anger or reduce stress. To reduce immediate feelings of anger or

aggression, try talking to or writing a friend, meditate or do breathing exercises to relax, work on a hobby,

or engage in some type of exercise.

'

Page 27 ~ Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 07/08/10

CC 000157

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 51; Page 28 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91 Filed 09/13/12 Page 29 of 31
SEXUAL ASSAULT

Page 28 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 07/08/10

CC 000158

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 51; Page 29 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91 Filed 09/13/12 Page 30 of 31

Sexual assault as defined by Columbia County Jail policy is "Sexual conduct where force or threat offorce is used, or when the person is unable to consent because of age or incapacitation (mental defect, mental incapacitation, orphysicalhelplessness). Sexual conduct includes: vaginal penetrationby a penis; contact between the genitals ofa person and the mouth or anus ofanother person; penetration of the vagina, anus, or penis ofanother person with any object other than the penis or mouth; touching ofthe sexual or intimate parts of someone or causing someone to touch the sexual or intimate parts of another for the purpose of sexual gratification." Any behavior or act of a sexual nature directed toward an inmate by an inmate, employee, volunteer, visitor, contract employee or other agencyrepresentatives. This includes acts or any attempts to commit such acts including, but not limited to, sexual contact, inappropriate behavior of a sexual nature, unreasonable invasion ofprivacy, conversations or correspondence that suggests a romantic relationship between an inmate and any party referenced above.

Sexual assault mects everyone, eitper directly or through the experience ofthose we care about It is not only a woman's issue as it can affect persons ofany gender, age, race, ethnic group, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, or disability.

The statistics are proof of this problem: Accordingto the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS),

in 2002 there were 247,730 victims ofrape (This number does not include victims 12 or younger), seve!?-

out of every eight rape viptims were female, and one in every eight rape victims was male. A 1998 study

indicates that about 2.78 million American men have experienced an attempted or completed rape and one

out of six American women have experienced an attempted or completed rape.

.

.

SEXUAL ASSAULT AVOIDANCE

The only rape that can be prevented is when a potential rapist chooses NOT to rape. However, you may avoid an attack by keeping the following safety.guidelines in :mind:

Be aware of situations that make you feel uncomfortable. Trust your instincts. Ifit feels wrong, LEAVB.
Don't let manners' get in the way of keeping yourself safe. Don't be afraid to say '~O" or "STOP IT NOW".

Walk.and stand with confidence. Many rapists choose victims who looklike they won't fight back or are emotionally weak.

Avoid talking about sex and.casual nudity. These things may be considered a come on, or make another inmate believe that you have an interest in a sexual relationship.

Do not accept canteen items or other gifts from other inmates. Placing yourselfin debt to another inmate can lead to sexual favors.

Avoid secluded areas; position yourselfin plain view ofstaffmembers. Ifyou are beingpressured for sex, report it to a supervisor immediately.

WHAT TO DO IF YOU ARE SEXUALLY ASSAULTED

Ifthe attack has just happened.•.....

Get to a safe place. REPORT THE ATTACK TO A STAFF MEMBER IMMEDIATELY.

The longer you wait to report the attack the more difficultit is to obtain the evidence necessary for criminal

and/or administrative investigation.

.

Page 29 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 07/08/10

CC 000159

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 51; Page 30 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91 Filed 09/13/12 Page 31 of 31

Request immediate "medical attention. You may have serious injuries that you are not aware or, and any sexual contact can exppse you to sexually transmitted diseases.

Do not shower, brush your teeth, use the restroom, or change your clothes. You may destroy important evidence.

If you have been attacked or witness an attack, but you are un:willing to report it in person to a CCSO uniformed staffmember, then you may speak with a counselor, chaplain, medical staff, write a sealed letter to any command staff member, or contact a CCSO Detective at 503-366-4650.

Later on..... Seek the support ofa trusted friend, family member or staffmember, such as the Chapla4I or the counseling staff. The days ahead can be traumatic and it helps to have people who care about you supporting you.

Seek professional help. Mental Health staffare available for crisis care 365 days a year, to listen and offer

support.

"

TELEPHONE SERVICE NUl\1BER

If you or your family have any quespons about billing or connection problems concerning the ~mate phones, please call the servic~ provider at 1-866.,.230-7761. We have a brochure available
to answer more questions if you need it, please ask and we will pt:ovide it.

Page 30 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 07/08/10

CC 000160

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 51; Page 31 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 32
EXHIBIT 52
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 52; Page 1 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 32
INMATE MANUAL COLUMBIA COUNTY JAIL
All rules in this manual may be amended or suspended at any time by order of the Sheriff or designee.
The Columbia County Inmate Manual has been reviewed and approved on _ _ _ _ _ _-1 2010 by Jeff Dickerson, Sheriff, Columbia Countv_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
CC 000161
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 52; Page 2 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 32

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABL:E OF CONTENTS .....................•....
YOUR RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES .............•. 3
YOUR RESPONSffiILITIES AND EXPECTED BEHAVIOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3-4
BEDS AND BEDDING ........................•. 4

MEDICAL GRIEVANCES ...................... 16· MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES .................. 16 MONEY ACCOUNTS ....................... 16-17 OUTDOOR RECREATION ...................•. 17 PERSONAL PROPERTY ......................• 17

BILLING FEES ... . . . • . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4-5 CELL IN COMMAND .......................... 5

PROGRAM SERVICES ........................ 17 PROPERTY TRANSFERS ...................... ] 8

CLASSIFICATION ............................. 5 CLOTHlNG EXCHANGE ...•................. , 5-6 COMMISSARY ..............................• : 6 CONTRABAND ........... : ................... 6 COUNTY ISSUED ITEMS ....................... 6 COURT CONDUCT ..•......................... 7

SANITARY INSPECTIONS ..................... 18 SANITARY PRACTICES .................... 18-19 . SEARClIES ............. :.................... 19 SELF-ESCORT ............................... 19 SICK. CALL ......................" .•........ , 19 SPECIALDIETS .............................. 19

CUP AND SPORK EXCHANGE ................... 7 DRESS CODE .....' ............................ 7 FIRE AND EMERGENCY SAFETY ............... 7 HAIR CARE AND PERSONAL GROOMING ........ 8

TELEPHONE PRIVILEGES ...........•...•...•. 20 TRANSFER TO WORK RELEASE CENTER ....... 20 VISUING ................................ 20-22 SPECIAL VISITS ..........~ ................... 22

HEALlli APPRAISALS ......................... 8 HOUSING UNIT OPERATIONS .................. 8 ICE CONTACT INFORMATION .................. 9

VISITS WITH ATTORNEY ................•.•.. 22 VISITS BY CLERGY ...........•............... 22 VOLUNTARY ACTIVITIES .................... 22

IDENTIFICATION CARDS ...................... 9

WARE UP AND LOCK DOWN ............... '... 2.3

mMA.TECOUNTS ............................. 9 INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE .......... 9-10 INMATE REQUEST FORMS .................... 10 lNMATEWORKERACTIVITIES ............. 10-11

MINOR RULE. VIOLATIONS PROCEDURES ...... 23 MINOR RULE VIOLATION SANCTIONS ......... 24 MINOR RULE VIOLATIONS ................ 24-25 MAJOR RULE VIOLATION PROCEDURES ....... 25

INTERCOM SYSTEM ......................... 11 LAWLffiRARY .............................. 11 LffiRARY..... : .............................. 11 MAlL .........................•........... 11-15 MEALS ..............•....................•. 15
MEDICAL SERVICES ............... !...... 15-16
MEDICATION ........•..................•...• 16

MAJOR RULE VIOLATION SANCTIONS. . . . .. 25-26 MAJOR-RULE VIOLATIONS ................ 26-27 VIOLATIONS APPEALS PROCESS .............. 27 SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS ........... 27-28 SEXUAL ASSAULT.. .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. . .. . . .. 28-29 SEXUAL ASSAULT AVOIDANCE. . . . . . . . . . .• 29-30 TELEPHONE SERVICE NUMBER ...........••.. 30

CC 000162
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 52; Page 3 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 4 of 32

YOUR RIGHTS AND PRIVlLEGES
We want you to mow exactly what is expected of you while you are in this jail. We will let you know what you can expect from us by explaining our rules, procedures and schedules to you. While at this j ail, you will be provided with:
1. Three meals served at reasonable intervals 2. CI~an bedding and clothing at least twice weekly 3. The opportunity to shower at least twice weekly 4. Regular exercise 5. Opportunities to exercise your religion 6. Basic hygiene items 7. Access to the law library - 8. Access to counsel 9. Emergency medical and dental treatment 10. A safe and secure environment
If you follow jail rules and sanitation practices, you may receive these privileges:
-I. Use oftelevison 2. - Use of library services 3. Use of outdoor recreati01i 4. Use of telephones 5. Having social visits 6. Making commissary purchases 7. S~mding and receiving mail 8. Voluntary participation injail programs
.Remember that these are not rights. Jail staff can limit or suspend these privilegesat ~ny time in_order to maintain the safety, security, good order or sanitation of the jail.
This manual does not cover every situation that may arise, but it will serve as a basic guide for your co~duct and facility procedures.
Columbia County Jail has a no smoldng policy.
YOUR RESPONSm~ITIES AND EXPECTED BERAVIOR
Read this manual to know what is expected of you. The excuse "I did not know that"-is not acceptable. It is your responsibility to follow all laws, jail rules, schedules, and staff requests. You must respect jail property and the property of o~ers. This would include staying out of other inmate's cells and off of their bunks. You are expected to keep your sleeping area, the day rooD?- and outdoor recreation areas clean and orderly. Unacceptable behavior will be dealt

Page 3 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 07123/10 rev3

CC 000163

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 52; Page 4 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 5 of 32

with firmly, but fairly. Misbehavior may result in a change of your custody status which can directly affect your privileges in the jail.

This manual is an accountable item and is issued to you for your use while you are in this facility. 'You are responsible for the condition ofthis manual and you will be billed for any damage, graffiti, or unusable condition when returned. Ifthe manual is damaged, please report it to a staffmember
to have it replaced immediately.

The best control of your behavior is by you practicing self-discipline and respect for others.

Inmates are not allowed to become personally familiar with corrections' staff. Be considerate and

respectful toward all officials. We will expect you to address uniformed staff as "Deputy or

Sergeant

"and non-uniformed staff as "Mr.

"or "Ms.

". Central

Control personnel will be addressed as "Control."

Inmate basic rules for the Columbia County Jail: 1.. The ID card is to be put into the window facing out so that it can be seen and scanned
during your stay. 2. When you are out of your room, the ID card is to be in your pocket. 3. When you are in the day room, you are to be completely dressed with T shirt tucked
in. 4. When you are in your room, you are to have the T shirt and boxers on at all times
including while you are sleeping, no ~xceptions. 5. When you come out of the p~d and into the circle, you are to stay on the colored
squares. The squares form a line that you walk on. You ~tay on that line with the exception to go around an obstacle. You are to stay in a single file line.
6. When you are in any other hallway, you are to walk on the right side of the hall and in a single file. You are not to touch anything. Do not speak, yell or signal at anyone. Keep your . hands to yourself.
7. When in the hallway, there should be only six (6) inmates at one time. S. DO NOT cover the ventilation units in the cells.

BEDS AND BEDDING

Bedding will consist 9ftwo sheets and two blankets. Blankets and sheets may not be removed from your gell or b~ nor may they be placed on the floor for any reason. You are not to take the mattress offthe bunk and place it on the floor ofyour cell or in the day room ofthe pod. Your mattress may only be used for sleeping purposes. The bunk area m~t be left in an orderly fashion
.. through out the day.

B~LINGFEES

As authorized in ORS 169.150 and 169.151, Local Correctional Facilities are allowed to bill Inmates for items and services that are provided to them while incarcerated in Correctio~l
Facilities.

Every Sentenced Inmate will be charged a boarding fee of $10.00 per day. The Inmate will receive a bill when he or she is released from the jail. The Inmate will have 30 days to pay the bill or set up
a payment plan.

Page 4 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 07/23/10 rev3

CC 000164

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 52; Page 5 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 6 of 32

.fill initial hygiene kit is $2.15 and the Inmate ID card is $1.00. All over the counter medications as
well as prescription medications -will be billed through the inmate's commissary a,?count. When the - Inmate is released from j ail and his or her commissary account is in the negative, that amount will
also show up on the release billing. When 30 days have passed with no payment received on the r~lease billing, the account will be turned over to the Oregon Deparlment of Revenue for collection.

Other charges are listed below:

1) Work Release Inmates are charged a minllnum of $15.00 per day or two hrs of pay ifthe

irimate's hourly rate ofpay is higher than $7.50 per hour.

2) Hygiene Kits

$ 2.15 each 12) Cups

$-0.75

3) Hair Cuts

$ 5.00

13) Sporks

$ 0.25

4) -MedicallNurselNP visits $ 5.00

14) Sandals

$ 2.49

5) Medical Kytes

$. ~50

15) Socks (If Appl.) $ 0.85

5) Replacement ill Cards

$ 5.00

16) Towels

$ 0.75

6) Razors

.$ 0.15

17) Striped Shirt

$ 6.55 - $ 12.75

7) -C9pie~ of~egal materials $ 0.25

18) Striped Pants

$ 8.75 - $ 14.95

8) Feminine Hygiene Products $ 0.20

19) T-Shirts

$ 3.99 - $ 7.30

9) Tote

$44.95

20) Shorts

$ 2.32 - $ 2.74

10) Tote Lid

$26.95

21) Medications: 1 to 14 doses: $ 2.00

11) Personal Preference Diets $ 1.00 (per meal)

15 and more Doses: $ 4.00

All fees are subject to change at any time
CELL IN colVllVlANi>

The command "ceIl-in"or "hunk-up" means you need to stop what you are doing and go directly to your cen or bunk. You must follow this command without question or hesitation. Ifyou do not, it will directly affect your classification and custody status and also will result in disciplinary actions
against you.

CLASSIFICATION

All newly arrested inmates who are not released prior to movement from the booking area will be assigned housing in a Pre-Classification unit. They will be maintained on lock-down status for up to the first seventy-Two (72) hours, for classification pmposes. The Columbia County Jail has· three classifications which are minllnum, medium and maximum security. All inmates are assigned a classification according to their status. Inmates may request a classification review in writing on an Inmate Request Form at any time.

CLASSIFICATION LEVELS
Minimum Security: Those inmates assigned to a minimum security level:
A. May be sentenced misdemeanant or selected sentenced felons, excepting those who have been convicted of assaultive felony crimes:

Page 5 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 07/23/10 rev3

CC 000165

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 52; Page 6 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 7 of 32

1.

Must have no ho'ids ,or, other pending court action against them.

2.

Must dispiay a cooperative attitude toward staff and the rules and regulations

of the facility.

3.

Will not be considered an escape risk.

4.

Will be eligible for consideration for the Inmate Worker program and Work

Release.

5.

Will be allowed a maximum amount of out-af-cell recreation time.

Medium Security: Inmates assigned to the medium security level:

A. Will include those sentenced misdemeanants and felons who do not qualify for minimum security and do not require a highe'r level of security.

. B. Will include those inmates awaiting trial or sentencing who do not require a higher

level of security.

.

C. Should be considered an escape risk.

D. May be allowed to participate in most in-house programs including Outdoor Recreation and in-house Inmate Worker assignments if they display an exemplary attitude toward staff and facility rules.

.

.

E. May be expected to be slightly uncooperative or resistant to jail rules, but may NOT

display a significant disciplinary problem. Uncooperative inmates will NOT be

awarded Inmate Worker assignments and any Inmate Worker who be~omes

uncooperative will be terminated from the Worker Program.

Maximum Security: Inmates assigned to the maximum security level:

A. Will be those who are charged with extremely serious felony crimes and/or have holds or other pending court action concerning such types of crimes.

B. Will be those who have desp~ayed a significant disciplinary problem within the facility and/or display a need of maximum amount of sup~rvision.

C. May be allowed only a very limited amount of out-of-cell activity time and that activity must be under the direct ~upervision of two officers.

D. Will be limited in program participation to those programs which are conducted within the security of the faciiity.

E. Will be housed in a selected area of the facility and will not be allowed to associate , with the general inmate population.

Close .custody: Inmates assigned to the close custody security level: A. Meets the same requirements as maximum security with the following exceptions:

Page 6 - Columbia County Jan Inmate Manual 07/23/10 rev3

CC 000166

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 52; Page 7 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 8 of 32

1. The Inmate will be housed in B-Pod Lower level.

2. When movement is needed to any place other than their pod area they will be in full

restraints.

.

a. BeHy chain.

b. Hand Cuffs with black box.

c. Leg Irons.

d. Any movement will require an escort with at least two Deputies, one of the Deputies will be armed with a Taser.

3. Inmates in this classification are to be considered dangerous and musfbe .with the utmost caution
CLOTHING EXCHANGE

approached

Clean clothing will be provided twice weekly. You must turn in all of your soiled clothing during clothing exchange. In return you will receive l' T-shirt, 1 pair of shorts, 1 towel, 1 stIjped shirt and · 1 pair striped pants. On every other exchange you will receive clean sheets. Blankets may be exchanged every 30 days. Each housing unit will have a different laundry schedule.
Jail staff will make every effort to ensure clothing is in good repair. You are responsible for all clothing and bedding issued to you. You should check the condition of the clothing you receive and immediately inform a staff member and exchange any clothing or bedding that has a tear or graffiti written on it..Ifyou are found to be in possession of damaged items, you will be subject to disciplinary action. This may include payment for the damaged clothing.

COMJ.\1ISSARY

The Columbia County Jail has a well-appointed commissary list from which inmates with funds

·may purchase various items. Inmates without funds may order indigent hygiene kits once per week,

if needed. Indigent items will be posted to the ~ate's account creating a negative balance.

Commissary sheets will be handed out once a week. Ifyou did not get fuiuls in before the

commissary s~eets were made up to be passed out, you will have to wait until the following

. week to order.

.

CONTRABAND

· Any"authorized item found in an inmate's possession tQ.at has been altered or is not being used for it's original.purpose, or any items in excess of the issued quantity as stated within this manual.

COUNTY ISSUED ITEMS

All inmates who are dressed into the Columbia County jail will be issued jail clothing after intake, and ip. the clothlng change/shower room. You will be issued a plastic bin containing a hygiene kit, bed linen, towel, clothing, cup and spork . Other issued items include a mattress (1 each) and this manual. You will be responsible for the condition of all items issued to you. The gray property box

Page 7 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 07/23/10 rev3

CC 000167

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 52; Page 8 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 9 of 32

or totes are to be used specifically for storage of your personal and issued belongings. They are not to be used for chairs or any other use other than what has been mentioned above. They are to remain under your bunk at all times.

1. One inmate uniform top.

7.

2. One inmate uniform pants

8.

3. Two T-Shirts

9.

4. Two pair of gym shortslUnderwear 10.

5. One pair ofjail sandals.

6. One mattress

Two sheets Two Blankets One Towel One Rule Book

Female inmates may be allowed to retain the following:

1. Personal underwear, ifneeded for hygiene reasons. 2. Personal bras, with no metal fasteners or under wires. A sports style bra is preferred.

During the winter mon~s you ~ be issued a sweatshirt to be worn in your cell, day room area, the outdoor recreation yard or under the striped shirt when going to court.

COURT CONDUCT

Your arraignment will be your first court appearance injail. During your arraignment, ajudge will tell you what you are charged with and your rights with regard to those charges. The judge may appoint an attorney at this time if you qualify.

During any court appearance you will not have contact with any person other than your lawyer or the court officials: Contact :includes tallcing, signa.1i.llg, or passing notes to people.

Video arraignm~nt is considered a court room setting and the above rules apply.
CUPANDSPORKEXCHANG~

Cups and sporks will be issued with every meal. Inmates will come up to the food cart pi.ck up a clean and sanitized rubber cup and a spork. All cups and sporks will be returned at the end of each meal when trays are being picked up from the pod.

For those individuals who wish to purchase a their own personal cup and spork they are available on the commissary order form. The cups and sporlq; that are available for purchase will be different than those issued for use during the meal times.
DRESS CODE

You are expected to remain fully dressed at all times except when you are on your bunk and covered. During that time you must wear the T-shirt and shorts issued by this facility. Any 1;ime you leave your sleeping area and room, you mUst wear a full set of clothing. During lights out, you may go to use the ~estroom in your t-shirt and shorts if you live in an open dorm.

Your T-shirt m~t be tucked in at all times and not hanging loosely. Rolling your pant legs up if

Page 8 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 07/'23/10 rev3

CC 000168

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 52; Page 9 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 10 of 32

. they are too· long, but not above the ankles, is allowed. Do not alter the appearance of your clothes.

You may not roll your sleeves, tuck your pants into your socks, or pull your pants down below the hips. You are not allowed to wear clothes that are too large or too small (at a Deputy's discretion).
You will be allowed to take your outer striped shirt off while exerCising ill. the recreati0n area.
FIRE AND EMERGENcY S~TY

In case of any type of emergency or evacuation, you are to follow any direct order of a Deputy. ~here are emergency evacuation procedures in place and you will be evacuated in an orde:r;ly
manner to a safe place.

staff. If you are asked to evacuate an area by a Deputy, you are to form a straight line at your Pod door

and wait for directions from a Deputy or the Control Room

A Deputy will direct you to a safe

area.

HAJR CARE AND PERSONAL GROO:MJNG

We encourage you to shower daily. We hand out razors three times a week. If an individual has a

court aPpearance they may be allowed to use it razor prior to their court appearance. Once a week a

list will be put into your respective pod and you must sign up on that list to receive a hair cut. :aair

cuts can be done :wh~n a person is available to be the barber. There is a $5.00 charge for the hair . cut. H~ cuts will be done o~ Saturdays and Sundays only. You will be allowed to have one hair

cut per month. Haircuts ·other than a trim or a complete removal to a short stubble are not

allowed. No other styles will be tolerated. Only kitchen and floor workers are allowed one free

hair cut per month.

.

HEALTH APPRAISALS

A health appraisal must be done before an inm~te can be c<;lnsidered for "worker" status.

HOUSING UNIT OPERATIONS

The daily operation in the pods will be as follows.

You will be allowed to come out ofyour cell for a short period of time during the morning at breakfast. You will then be instructed to return to your cell until lunch time. After lunch, you will
then have three hours out of your cell. At the end ofthat period, you will return to your cell. The next period out, will be after dinner for two hours.

Cleaning gear will be provided during the day. We require you to use it daily to clean your cell, bunk area and the pod as a whole on a daily basis.

N a one is allowed to sit, stand or loiter on the stairs or catwalks (upper tier floors) at any time. This will include walldng or pacing off laps upstairs, or on the stairs. There is to be no sitting on the table tops. Inmates are not allowed to enter rooms or sit on bunks that are not assigned to them.

Page 9 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 07/23/10 rev3

CC 000169

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 52; Page 10 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 11 of 32

Details for each pod ·are outlined below, however temporary changes may be made to accommodate , the needs of the facility:
A - POD is a Multi-Purpose area and may be used as current needs of the facility dictate. A - POD will also be the Male Intake ~d Classification Cell area for the Jail. B - POD. The upper tier is used as current needs of the facility dictate. B - POD Special, BL1 - BL4 will be Maximum Security/Close Custody and Disciplinary Lock-down. C, D andE Pods will be considered Male Medium Security. J (MWR) and K (WRF) will be considered Male Minimum Security. " I - POD is a Minimum Security Pod and will be used as current needs dictate. F - POD will be considered Female Maximum/Classification & Intake and may be used as current needs of the facility dictate. G - POD will be considered Female Medium/General Population. Inmate time out of cells for each pod will be set as necessary to fulfill the needs of the facility.
ICE CONTACT INFORMATION
Inmates who are housed in the Columbia County Jail for Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) may contact ICE via the use of an ICE inmate request form.
ICE inmates may contact ICE Pro Bono Attorneys by calling (800) '646-6283. In each Pod located on the mail boxes, there is a list of all Pro Bono calls for use by all ICE detainees. ICE agents make scheduled visits' to the Col~bia County Jail on Wednesday of every week.
IDENTIFICATION CARDS
You must keep your inmate ID card on your person any time you are out of your cell. Do not let anyone use your ID card. The best place to keep this card is in your shirt pocket. When you are in your cell, place your ill card, right side up, in the window of your door with the picture facing out so the Deputy can see your name and picture. You must surrender your ID card to any staff . member upon request.
INMATE COUNTS
There will be at least six "Formal Counts" per day. At the beginning of each "formal count" you will be instructed to "cell in or bunk up." At that time you must:
1. Go into your cell and close the door or get onto your bunk depending on the pod you are m.
2. Correctly place your LD. card in the window of your door or on your bunk. If you are on a b~ or otherwise not in your room or pod, having the ID card in your hand and presenting it to the deputy doing the count is acceptable.
Prior to lock-down at 10:00 pm each night a final formal head count will be conducted in the
following manner:

Page 10 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 07/23/10 rev3

CC 000170

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 52; Page 11 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 12 of 32

1. In Pods that have rooms you will go to your room stand with one individual <?n each side of the door, ID card in hand, ready for the count.

2. .In Pods which are open dorms, you will go to your bunk: area and stand next to your bunk with your ID card in hand, ready for the count.

All inmates will remain in this manner until a Deputy scans your identification card and instructs you to bunk up:
There will be numerous informal counts pe~ day, therefore, whenever a Deputy enters your cell, remain where you are, do not move until the Deputy leaves or instructs you to move.

INMATE GRJEVANCE PROCEDURE

You may submit a grievance about a condition in the jail uyou think it is a problem or is unfair. You cannot grieve: disciplinary actions (there is an appeal process for that), classification decisions, incidents or problems which you were not party to, a collection of unrelated complaints, and no group grievances.

To file a grievance, you must follow the steps below in the order shown. You cannot skip one.

1. An inmate may request a Grievance Form from any Corrections Deputy at any time to bring to attention any perceived problems and proposed solutions. The Deputy will address any grievance within the scope ofhis/her authority and document any action taken regarding the request within five (5) working days.

2. The inmate may redirect the grievance to the Shift Supervisor for any complaint \YIDch cannot be reasonably resolved by the Deputy. The Supervisor will address any grievance within the scope ofhislher authority and document any action taken on the form within five (5) working days.

3. If the complaint is not resolved to the inmate's satisfaction by the Supervisor, the inmate may send the Grievance Form to the Jail Commander or rus designee. The Jail Commander or designee will address the complaint and document any action taken on the form within five (5) .working days.

4. Ifthe complaint is not resolved to the inmate's satisfaction by the Jail Commander, the
inmate may send a sealed Grievance Form to the Sheriff. The Sheriffwill address the complaint ,~d document his decision on the form within ten (10) working days. The Sheriffs decision will be final!

Inmates may file an Emergency Grievance in the event that circumstances exist to warrant one.

This will be' filed directly to the Jail Commander in a sealed envelope, utilizing the same inmate

grievance form.

.

INMATE REQUEST FORMS

The Inmate Request Forms (also known as kites) are available upon request. There are: 1. White request forms f~r general questions, law library and visiting;
Page 11 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 07/23/10 rev3

CC 000171

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 52; Page 12 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 13 of 32

2. Pink are Medical Request Forms. These are only for the medical staff or doctor to answer and will be forwarded to them. There is a 50 cent charge for each medical kite submitted.
3. Goldenrod forms are to correspond with Columbia County Community Corrections; and
4. Separate fOfms to correspond with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

INMATE WORKER ACTIVITIES
If you want to work ill the jail, you will need to request and fill out an Inmate Worker Labor
Agrt?ement, then submit it into the mail box. .It may take sev:eral days to get your copy back.

Staffwill select various inmates to do kitchen, custodial or maintenance jobs in the facility. This

selection will be based upon your behavior and attitude. Health care staff must clear you before

you can participate in the worker activities especially in the kitchen.

'

You may receive work time credit only ifyou are sentenced and your sentence order authorizes it. ,Any change 'of a job description or shift must be approved by a Supervisor.

INTERCOM SYSTEM

Th~ call buttons in the cells are to be used for emergency purposes only. They are not to be used for any other communication. Ifthe call buttons are misused, the inmate violating this rule will be written up for failure to abide by the rules of the Columbia County Jail.

LAW LIBRARY

All inmates of the Columbia County Jail will be given access to one, hour in the law library per request. Use ofthe law library will be limited onlyby time and the need to maintain the safety and security' of the facility. To gain access, you must submit a request form at least twenty-four (24)
hours in advance. You will be expected to take a note pad and pencil with you to the law hbrary to assist you in your research. All law books, reference material and other articles must remain in the law library to ensure equal access for all inmates. There will be very limited copying capabilities available to you for which your account will be charged a fee per copy. No inmate will be denied this service based on an mability to pay.

When you :finish, you are required to leave the law hbrary orderly and neat. Please be aware that corrections staff cannot provide you with legal advice or legal assistance. Ifyou have any questions, please consult your attorney.

LmRARY

All inmates of the Columbia County Jail will be afforded ample opportunity to have access to library books within the jail library. The books may be delivered by a cart. All books must be returned to the library or the cart, prior to checking out more. If a search ofyour person or cell ,reveals that you have more than six books in your possession, you- may be subjected to disciplinary action. Damaged books must be returned to a Deputy, immediate1y~ Possession of damaged books max be grounds for disciplinary action.

You may have six (6) books in your possession/cell at any time. The six books may be any

Page 12 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 07/23/10 rev3

CC 000172

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 52; Page 13 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 14 of 32

combination of novels, personal books, religiQus or educational materials.

MAIL

The mail is delivered to the Sheriff's Office per U.S. Postal Service guidelines, excluding holidays.

General Rules: You may send and receive correspondence through the U.S. Mail. Hand delivered mail, messages and notes will not be accepted or forwarded to yon.

Except for unusual circumstances, such as on holidays or weekends, incoming mail will be fonyarded to you within 24 hours ofits receipt. Outgoing mail will be placed in a pickup box within 24 hours of receiving it from you. If we receive mail for you after your departure, it will be returned to the sender. You must notify the post office of your forwarding address when you leave the jail.

Except for "Official or Legal and Confidential mail," staff may scan and inspect all incoming and outgoing mail.

"Official or Legal and Confidential mail" is all mail to or from your attorney, government officials, Jail Commander, Sheriff, courts, your doctor or medical facility, verifiable religious contacts, or the media. We may open and inspect this mail in front ofyou to ensure it does not cqntain contraband.

General Mail Rules:
We may place limits on your mail because of its volume, its affect on your rehabilitation or . treatment, or for the safety, security, and good order of the jail. We may open and inspect all mail for contraband and m~y read all personal mail.

We will provide aJ,1 Inmate Mail Guide for members of the public. It explains mail rules and 'Yhat they can

and cannot send you. Ask a Deputy for copies. People may also call (503) 366-4630 to get the information

found in the guide or read it on the jail's web site at:

.

www.co.columbia.or.us/sheriff

"Do" Mail Rilles for Inmates For mail, you mlist do the following:

1. Use only lead or pencils to write letters. 2. Use only jail-approved postcards sold through the commissary or issued by staff for social
mail. 3. Keep the weight oflegal or official correspondence in a pre-stamped envelope below 1
ounce (28 gm). To keep a business envelope to one ounce or less means the contents cannot be more that four 8-1/2" x 11" sheets ,?f standard weight paper. 4. Keep your friends and family informed if you received books, newspapers, or money they have provided for you. S. Vlhen you are released or transferred from the jail, send change-of-address notifications to those that send you postcards and periqdicals. 6. Put the return address noted on the sample postcard below on all your outgoing mail. Tell people sending you postcards or other acceptable mail to use it to address mail to you. Write the recipient's full name and complete address legibly on any mail you send.

'Page 13 - Q)lumbia County Jail Inmate Manual 07/23/10 rev3

CC'000173

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 52; Page 14 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 15 of 32

."Don't" Ivtail Rules for Inmates You may not do any of the following:

1. . Draw or write anything on a postcard in the address area or on the p'ictur~ of the postcard other than

name and address information.

2.

Send out jail forms for others to fill out on your behalf.

3.

Send prohibited mail.

4.

Send out jail property.

5.

Order pUblications on credit or delayed billing froP1 the jail.

6.

Operate a commercial business or nonprofit organization from the jail.

7.

Order correspondence courses unless youh;:lVe a jail command officer's approval.

8.

Conduct commercial or personal business transactions or request services from a government agency

unless you have a jail command officer's approval.

9 .

You may not send mail to another inmate in this facility without prior written permission.

Sending and Receiving Mail
You may send and receive correspondence only through the U. S. Postal Service. The jail internal mail system for communicating only with jail staff. Any transfer of written communication on your part that does not comply with mail rules and procedures is a rule violation that subjects you to
discipline. This includes sending notes to other inmates or notes, postcards or mail to anyone by way of a contact visit, court appearance, or transport. People may not leave mail,.messages, or notes for . you at the jail. Personal mail must come on a commercially produced postcard which does not
exceed .5 ~ by 8 'is. inches.
Except in unusual circumstances and on holidays or weekends, we will deliver incoming mail to you within 24 hours of its receipt. We will put outgoing mail in a pickup box witbiD. 24 hours of receiving it from you. . There is no pickup by the post office on weekends and holidays.
It is important that you use a person's complete and correct address when f?ending mail. If someone says he or she did not receive something you sent and you did not receive a confiscation notice from us, it is a matter for yo1,l to resolve with the post office-not the jail. For your convenience, the addresses of commonly contacted government agencies are in appendix 2, Government Pages.
We do not forward mail. Ifwe receive mail for you and you are not here, we will return it to the sender. (please tell those sencllng you mail to put on return addresses. We confiscate mail without return addresses or destroy it if you are no longer in jail.)

Legal and Official Mail
Legal mail is mail addressed to your attorney or comes from your attorney and is clearly marked "legal mail". Official mail is to or from confining authorities, like a jail command officer, the sheriff, the county administrator, probation authorities, district attorney, state attorney general, Governor, court, or a court official. .

We will open and inspect legal and official mail in front of you to make sure it does not contain contraband. If you send this type of mail, you must label it on the front of the envelope as "legal mail" or "offici~ mail" or we wp1 treat it as personal mail. We will treat mail from your attorney not marked as "legal mail" as personal mail. You are .subject to disciplinary action and criminal prosecution for fraudulently labeling an
envelope as legal or official mail.

Page 14 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 07/23/10 rev3

CC 000174

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 52; Page 15 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 16 of 32

Books
.You may receive up to three new or used books per month, which may be paperback or hardback. Hardb.ack books are not allowed in male or female segregation. Inmates in segregation may only receive new paperback books. A person from outside the jail must pay for and order books directly from the publisher, a book club, or a reputable bookstore for you. Books may not be larger than 9 by 12 inches (228 by 305 mm). They may not have plastic or metal.bindings.

.p eriodicals We do not accept any periodicals.

Acceptable Mail
We only accept packages that contain publications from an approved source. An incprrring or outgoing
envelope may only contain these types of items, and with the noted limits and restrictions:

Acceptable Personal Mail

Type ofMail Item

Limits and Restrictions

Written correspondence

Must be a commercially produced postcard or legal or official mail. Excludes j~ mail.

Pictures

Only photographs printed on photo paper and used as a postcard, delivered via the U.S. Postal Service.

Checks and money orders We do not accept checks or money orders. Touchpay is available in

.

the lobby and can be accessed by phone or the Intem~t.

Personal business documents None, unless general mail rules would apply.

Ifit if? not listed in this section, it is contraband and we will retum the item to the sender, confiscate it, or destroy it ifit presents a health or safety risk.

Prohibited Mail ~
We will not deliver or send mail that:

1. Contains threats ofphysical harm, blackmail, extortion, or other crinllnal activity.

2. Concerns plans for escape, criminal activity, or activity that violates jail rules.

3. Is contraband material (tape, stickers, markers, crayons, foreign substances, etc.)

4. Is an item that could hide contraband.

5. Concerns sending or receiving contraband.

6. Encourages or instructs in how to commit a crime.

7. Contains gang-related or security threat group material.

8. Contains information that, if communicated, would create a danger of violence or physical

harm to a person.

.9. Is written in code or suspected code. (This may include a foreign language if we cannot :find a

translator in a reasonable period of time.)

10. Contains sexually explicit material, pictures or written language.

11. May create a sensation. (A threat to the safety, security, or good order of the jail or disrupts

your progress in a rehabilitative program.)

.

12. Contains a foreign substance or bodily fluid.

13. Is from or addressed to an inmate in this correctional facility or on electronic home detention.

Page 15 - Columbia County Jan Inmate Manual' 07/23/1Q rev3

CC 000175

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 52; Page 16 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 17 of 32

14. Is addressed to or from a victim of a crime that you are in custody for, either in pretrial or sentenced status, or in any other no contact order.
15. Is from or to an inmate by way of a third party. 16. Is an item that exceeds size or number limits. 17. Is a publication that did not come directly from the publisher, bookstore, or book club. 18. Is an unacceptable check or money order. 19. Is unsolicited junk mail.
Mail Confiscation: We will give you a confiscation notice for mail we confiscate. When we confiscate items because they' exceed a number limit, such as books or magazines, we will confiscate all of them rather than selecting some to bring the number down to the limit amount. We will return stored confiscated mail to you when you are released, if it was not disposed of for health or safety reasons. You may submit a grievance to ask for its return before then. We will return to sender any form of prohibited mail. You may not get a notice ~at we have returned contraband to th~ sender.
Use of Envelopes You may use an envelope sold through the commissary to send·these types of letters: 1. Legal or official mail. 2. A legal or official mail letter that should not or cannot be folded or that is mbre than one ounce. 3. With staff approval, a personal letter that contains a program-related diploma or certificate that should not or can not be folded. You must have a Deputy confirm that you are sending a diploma or certificate before you seal the envelope.
You may not 'use these envelopes for any type ofmail that does not meet one of the three criteria listed above. We will deduct the cost of the postage from your inmate account for acceptable manila envelopes.

Sending Certified Legal or Official Mail . You may send a legal or official letter using U. S. Postal Service Certified Mail and Return Receipt mail services. You will get receipts that you sent the letter and that the letter was received by the . addressee. We will charge you the standard postal rates for these services. You must have money in yoUr inmate account to pay the postal rates or have appropriate approval if you are indigent. A deputy will supply you with a request for Certified :tvfail form that you need to fill out and submit along with the..1etier. You may only send 2 certified-mail letters in a 3D-day period.
Outgoing Mail Inmates will place all outgoing mail in the mail drop located in the day room of each housing unit. You are expected to legibly address your correspondence and use the proper postage. All outgoing mail must list the following return address:
Your full name Columbia County Jail 901 Port Avenue S1. Helens Oregon 97051
MEALS

Page 16 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 07/23/10 rev3

CC 000176

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 52; Page 17 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 18 of 32

Meals will be served three times daily at approximately 6:30 A.M., 12:00 P.M. and 5:00 P.M. Inmates on disciplinary lock-down are required to eat in their cells. All others will eat at the tables provided in the day rooDIS. Televisions will be off during the serving of meals. Once the meals . have been served and the Deputy leaves the pod, the television may be turned back on.

All special personal preference diet requests such as vegetarian meals must be pre-approved by the jail supervisors. All inmates on a personal preference diet will be·.charged a fee of$ 1.00 per meal. to be taken directly out of their individual inmate trust account to cover the additional cost of these meals.' Indigent inmates will not be eligible to receive this type of special met. 'Do not save food from meal service.

:MEDICAL SERVICES

The Columbia County Jail wUl provide emergency medical,·dental, and mental health care to all
inmates regardless of their ability to·pay for such services. No inmate will be denied care for serious health care needs based on the cost ofmedical services or the inmate's inability to pay for health care. All medical visits. initiated by you will be assessed a fee which will b~ charged to your personal money account. You will be financially responsible for any elective surgery or other treatment you may request from your personal physician, dentist or other provider.

Medical screening or appraisals at intake, or for inmate workers will be provided at no cost to you. All Detainees will receive a medical evaluation within their first 14 days of inparceration.
Prescription medications: You will be charg~d for all prescription medication pre~cribed for you
a,nd purchased by the j ail on your behalf.

Over the counter medications such as; Tylenol, Aspirin, antacid etc., will be available from our medical department for a small charge.

:MEDICATION

Health care staffmay :fill prescriptions at their discretion. Health care staff may discontinue prescribed medication as directed by ·thejail health care supervisor or physicians. Ifyou came from
an<;>ther correctional facility and had your.medication transferred with you, the transporting Deputy will give your medication to the health care staff. If you are leaving our j ail and going to another jail, the transporting Deputy will get your medication from the health care staff and transport it with
you.

As a warning, any abuse of your medication may result in the discontinuation of your

receiving the medicine.

.

MEDICAL GruEVANCES

In case of any unresolved problem regarding medical, dental or infirmary care, you may follow the grievance procedures outlined.in this manual.

lVIENTAL REALm SERVICES

. Page'17 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 07/23/10 rev3

CC 000177

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 52; Page 18 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 19 of 32

Columbia Community Mental Health is the provider of these services for the facility. Ifyou feel the need to see a mental health professional, contact a Dep~ty or the health care staff.

MONEY ACCOUNTS

Each inmate in the Columbia County Jail will have a "money account" established during the
booking procedure.. Funds may be deposited 24 hours per day seven days per week, via Visa or
Mastercard by a toll-free phone call to 1-866-232-1899, via internet at: www.touchpaydirect.com or
by depositing cash into a kiosk in the Sheriff's Office lobby. The depositor needs the inmate's' name, booking number, and Facility Locator No., which is 297001. All purchases will be deducted from the account. Funds deposited to an accoimt showiJ?g a negative balance will be applied to the amount owing. The positive bal~ce, if any, is. available for the inmate's use. The balance will be refunded to the inmate upon discharge. Inmates who possess a negative b~ance on their account
will not be denied their basic medical needs such as medical care and hygiene items. With a negative balance an inmate may request to participate in the SO/50 program at which time 50 % of
any funds placed into the inmate account will go towards the negative balance and the other 50 %
.will be' placed on the inmate's account available for use on individual items in the Jail.

OUTDOOR RECREATION

An open air recreation area is provided in the jail for your use as scheduled throughout the day. Central Control will notify each ofyou ofyour recreation time. When you are called for outdoor recreation, you need to be ready to go. You will leave the Pod in groups of six. No one will be .allowed to depart the Pod late for recreation.

TheJollowing rules apply willie using the open air recreation area:

1. Do not yell or attempt to comm~cate in any way with the people outside the recreation

area, except for Corrections Staff.

2. Do not engage in "horseplay." We do not want people to get injured.

3. You must wear a :minimum of aT-shirt, pants and shoes. Movement to or from outdoor

recreation will require the complete unifonn, including your ID card.

.

4. You are NOT to take anything other than your ID card with you to outdo.or recreation.

Do not take papers, candy, food items and anything that can be used to write or color with. Ifyou

are .found with these items, disciplinary action may be taken.

PERSONAL PROPERTY

All personal property items will be stored in the secure storage area of the Columbia County Jail. No personal items will be allowed to be kept on an inmate unless approved by the Jail Commander in"writing.

If you would like an item, address or phone number out of your property you need to request it .before you leave booking. Requests for these items will not be granted after the booking process is complete.
PROGRAM SERVICES

If and when available, you have the opportunity to participate in a variety ofprogram activities.

. Page 18 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 07/23/10 rev3"

CC 000178

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 52; Page 19 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 20 of 32

Recommended programs assist you in making-constructive use of your time and to make positive changes in your life. We h~ve grouped these into two main categories:

Voluntary activities

Inmate worker activities

You may participate in activities in one or all of these categories depending on ymIi.-:

Sentencmg status Length of ~entence

Assessments results Classification

PROPERTY TRANSFERS

You must follow these guidelines regarding your property:

1. You may release your personal property to any adult outside the facility on an "all or nothing" basis. The adult must present a state driver's license, state ID card, passport or military ID to jail staff, to ensure property is released to the proper individual. A signed inmate request form from you is required. That request form should state that you want to release your ~mall property to: _ (Full name ofperson) We should have your written permission in booking before the person comes to pick it up.

2. Release of property is available Monday through Friday from 3:00 P.M. until 4:00 P.M. ONLY.

3. The following exception applies when: An Inmate is committed to a sta~e prison and must release all personal property, including their clothing, prior to being transported to a state facility.

If the property is not picked up prior to the inmate's departure, it will be forwarded to ODOC with the inmate.
4. We do not allow personal property to be dropped off for inmates, except for medical items which
will be checked and approved by medical staff first. Clothes may be brought in ifthe situation calls for it; at the discretion ofjail Supervisors.

SANITARY INSPECTIONS

. Deputies will inspect each housing unit daily to ensure it is a safe and clean environment. You will need to follow basic sanitary practices to ensure your cell area meets the sanitation requirements and pass the sanitation inspections. If your cell does not meet sanitation requirements, you will lose privileges and be instructed to clean the area. If the day room, shower area and outside recreation areas do not meet sanitation requirements, the entire housing unit may lose privileges. These privileges are those listed at the beginning of this manuaL If you or your housing unit lose privileges, they will be reinstated ifyou pass the next regularly sche.duled inspection.

SANITARY PP.....ACTICES

It is your responsibility to keep your cell clean and uncluttered. It is also the responsibility of each member
of the housing unit ~o keep the day room, shower and outside recreation area clean. You will be provided with ~leaning supplies and are expected to use the cleaning supplies as much as necessary to ensure you live

Page 19 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 07/23/10 rev3

CC 000179

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 52; Page 20 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 21 of 32

in a clean environment.

You are to follow these rules for a clean and healthy housing unit:

Clean your cells, including the sink, toilet, floors and door windows dailv•

.Pod Porters will clean day room areas daily.

Pod Porters will clean the following, but not limited to: Tables, floors, stairs, walls, showers,

bathroom areas, railings, and windows. .

.

Keep the walls clean and free of graffiti or marks of any kind.

Place all garbage in the trash cans in the housing units.

Keep all pictures and papers off the. walls, bunks, bottom of bunks. Do not hang, stick, or paste

pictures or papers to the walls, bu,nks or any where else in the facility.

Keep commissary food items in your property container. (Gray totes)

Do not save food from meal service.

Wash your hands frequently.

Participate in laundry exchange twice weekly.

Shower at least twice weekly, but we strongly encourage you to shower daily.

Keep the showers clean, and free of excess soap, shampoo bottles and hair.

Keep your gray bin or tote clean

Pet10rm any other duties that Corrections Staffmay assign.

Keep your room or bunk area uncluttered of excess items. This includes legal papers. Ask staff

for assistance ifyou have a large amount of legal papers to store.

Vents for air circulation should·be kept clean and obstruction free.

Speakers by yours door should be kept clean and obstruction free.

SEARCHES
Jail staff may conduct random unannounced searches of your person or of items iri. your possession, and in any area of the jail at any time. Your personal property and/or living area may be searched without your perrp.ission and whether or not you are present.

SELF-ESCORT

Most inmate movement within the j ail, including visiting, medical, programs, work assignments Etc., will be unescorted unless you abuse the priVilege. You are expected to conduct yourself in an orderly fashion at all times. Inmates moving unescorted through the facility may not talk to other inmates, may not touch the walls or the glass, loiter or detour while en route to their destination. When leaving an area, you need to state your name and where you are going to Central Control. Any inmate who abuses these rules will be subject to disciplinary action and may lose their opportunity for unescorted movement. The exception will be any inmate who is classified as maximum s.ecurity and who needs to be escorted in the facility at all:times.

SICK CALL

If you need to see medical personnel, fill out the appropriate Inmate Medical Request form. Each day the Medical Staff wiJi address these issues upon receipt of the Request forms.

SPECIAL D1ETS

You must direct all requests for medical diets to the heath care staff for approval. Ifyou need a special diet for medical reasons, please submit a reque~t slip to the health care staff. If you need a

Page 20 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 07/23/10 rev3

CC 000180

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 52; Page 21 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 22 of 32

special diet for religious reasons, please submit a request form. A Deputy ~ pick up the form from you and give it to a supervisor for approval. If approved, the religious diet will remain in effect for the length ofyour incarceration. Be aware that there may be a charge assessed for the extra cost associated ~or the special meal.

TELEPHONEPRnnLEGES

Your'use ofjail telephones is a privilege. Jail staff may limit your telephone use for reasons of safety, security, good order, or sanitation of the jail. Inmates classified to housing units will be allowed to use telephones from 0800 brs to approximately 2200 brs, based on the operations of the housing. unit you are in. Conversations on any telephone in the jail may be monitored and/or recorded without further notice. You are consenting to this monitoring when
you use the jail telephones.

There are some local attorneys' phone numbers that have been set up as non-collect so you can call them
directly from the telephones in the pods. Confirmed attorney phone numbers are blocked from the monitoring system.

All telephone calls from a housing unit are a collect call or by the phone cards that you purchase here. The phonecards are able to be used upon release from the Columbia County Jail. Telephone calls are limited to
15 minutes each. The telephone system will warn you before the 15 minute time period is up so you can end
. your conversation. Ifthere is a malfunction by the phone or a "cut off' of your conversation, submit an Inmate Request Form describing the incident, the number called, date and time. This will help the phone company determine where the 'problem is.

Inmates are not allowed to receive incoming telephone calls. Jail staffwill deliver verifiable emergency messages to you.

REMINDER: TELEPHONES ARE A P~EGE. DO NOT ABUSE THE SYSTEM. ANY DAMAGE TO THE PHONE WILL RESULT IN A DISCIPLINARY HEARING AND A CRIMlNAL CHARGE BEING FILED AGAINST THE INMATE.

TRANSFER TO WORK RELEASE CENTER

The Courts and/or Supemsory Authority may consider you for transfer to the Work Release Center if authorized on your sentence order. These transfers are not automatic. Jail staff must approve all transfers.

Factors considered in transfer decisions will include: Judge's approval Length of sentence. Individual needs. Available space. Classification. Demonstration of compliance with jail rules, expectations and responsible behavior.

Ifyou are interested in participating in any programs, you must submit a request on an Inmate Request Form.

Misbehavior or administrative concerns may prevent access to these programs. Disciplinary write-ups or

actions will affect program eligibility.

.

Page 21 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual· 07/23/10 rev3

CC 000181

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 52; Page 22 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 23 of 32

VISITING

All public visits will be schednied by the Inmate requesting the visit The inmate must contact prospective
visitors by phone or mail, and determine an acceptable visiting date. Time slots may ·be used on it first.
come. first serve basis. Visitors are encouraged to arrive 10 to 15 minutes early to sign in. If all of the slots
are taken for that time frame they can either wait till the next times start for that pod, if it is available, or
return on another day. Visits will start on the hour and ha1fhour.

Authorized visitors sh~l be members from the inmate's family, and friends age 18 and older. Visitors under the age of 18 must be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian. Attorneys and clergy are not considered . public visitors.

Inmate visitation is a privilege and while the Columbia County Sheriff's Office encourages visitation, that privilege must be regulated to protect the needs of the entire jail operation. The amount of time allotted for visitation is based upon the classification and status of each inmate.

Classification is based upon the inmate's current charges, criminal history and current demeanor. All inmates will be allowed a maximum of two thirty (30) minute visits per seven (7) day period (Sunday through Saturday), as time and space allows.

~tes assigned to Disciplinary Segregation will not be allowed visitatio~ privileges.

Inmates not yet assigned to a housing unit or who are housed in the pre..:C1assification unit, will not be allowed public visitation.

Inmates serving a sentence of seventy-two hours(72) or less will not be allowed public visitation.

Due to space limitations, acceptable visiting combinations are limited to:

1.

bneAdult

2.

Two Adults

3.

One Adult and One Child

.4.

One Adult and Two Children

5.

Two Adults and One Child

Inmates have the right to refuse any visit, however that right should be exercised D~ior to visiting time.

All inmates wishing to receive public visits must establish a visiting list of not more than five (5) people·. Persons not on the approved list will not be allowed to visit. You are able to change your visiting list once every 30 days from the time you establish your list. You need to fill out the visitation part of the request form to make the changes. The minimum information required for each person will be:

1. Visitor's full name

2. .Date ofbirth

3. Relationship

.

4.

The name of any child who may be in the company ofhislher parent or guardian.

The schedule for visiting will be as follows:

Sunday: Monday:

A-Pod G-Pod J-Pod C-Pod

0900..)000 1000-1130 133.0-1500 (WRM) 0900-1030

Page 22 - Columbia Cou~ty Jail Inmate Manual 07f23/l0 rev3

CC 000182

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 52; Page 23 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 24 of 32

B-Pod 1430-1500

F-Pod 1500-1530

TuesdljlY: D-Pod 0900-1030

A-Pod 1030-1130

E-Pod 1300-1500

Wednesday: I-Pod 08~0-1000

G-Pod 1000-1130

Thursday: D-Pod 0830-1000

C-Pod 1000-1130

J-Pod 1300-1430 (WRM)

Friday:

No Visiting

Saturday: F-Pod 0830-0900

E-Pod 0900-1100

I-Pod 1400-1530

B-Pod 1530-1600

THIS SCHEDULE IS SUBJECT TO' CHANGE.. ANY CHANGES SHALL ALLOW TlME FOR INMATES TO RESCHEDm.,E AFFECTED VISITS.

SPECIAL VISITS

Special co~iderations may be given for emergency and/or special situations where normal visiting
procedures may not be practical. Such situations as the death of a family member or close friend., serious
injury of a family member or visitors traveling great distances, who have arrived unexpectedly may be considered on a case-by-case baSis by the Supervisor or Corporal on duty. All ~pecial visits will be subject to the same rules and requirements as regular visitation. Special :visits may be conducted in the Attorney Visiting Rooms if available and necessary due to other visitation which may be in progress.

VISITS 'WITH ATTORNEY

Inmates shall be given the opportunity to visit their attorneys·atreasonable times, consistent with the safety . and security of the facility. All visits will be scheduled by the attorney.

VISITS BY CLERGY

'Clergy Visits will be handled as a regular visit The member of the Clergy you want to have a visit with will
be added like a normal visitor as described ill the regular visiting rules. They will be allowed to visit you on
the regular date and time for the pod you are assigned to. The Clergy member will not count a!!ainst you for
the five people you are allowed to have on your visiting list. The Columbia County Jail provides non denominational religious services once p~ week and individual bible study twice per week.

VOLUNTARY ACTIVITIES

All general population inmates may have access to voluntary activities. These activities include but may not be limited to:

Religious services Narcotics Anonymous (NA) and Alcoholics Allonymous (M) groups Religious based life skills classes Individual educational tutoring (21 and under) Recreational library Law library

Page 23 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 07/23/10 r~v3

cc 000183

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 52; Page 24 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 25 of 32

A sign up sheet for the voluntary activities will be posted in your housing unit. You must sign up on the . provided list to be able to participate. Remember that participation in these activities is a privilege. Participation is dependent on your continued cooperation and responsible behavior.

WAKE UP AND LOCK DOWN

Day room and cell lights will be turned on at 6:00 A.M. daily_ Make your bed and dress for breakfast.
Breakfast service will begin at approximately 6:30 A.M. daily_ Day room lights and television will be turned offby about 10:00 P.M. and the cell lights will be turned off at 10:00 P.M.. All inmates must be on their bunks at "lights out" and are required to remain quiet.

Each inmate is expected to completely clean your room and area, make your bed., dump trash cans, etc. when the cleaning SlWplies are available to you. Be aware that there are usually some cleaning materials available at all times.'

lVllNOR RULE VIOLATIONS PROCEDURES

1. The accused inmate shall be served with a minor rule citation by the citing Deputy as quickly as is

practical, after the violation is discovered., but in no case shall it be longer than 24 hours after the

investigation is complete.

.

2. The inmate will sign the misconduct report and acknowledge receipt of alleged violation(s) and the right to appeal. ':Qle inmate may enter a plea of "Guilty" or "Not Guilty".

A. Upon entry of a "Guilty" plea, a Deputy will schedule an informal hearing for possible sanctions to be imposed.

B. Upon entry of a "Not Guilty" plea on the misconduct report or upon request for a formal hearing the incident will be handled the same as a Major Violation.

lVIlNOR RULE VIOLATION SANCTIONS

Sanctions resulting from a guilty plea on a Minor Misconduct Repo~ may include:

a. Verbal warning.. '.'

b. Creative sanction appropriate to the offense (i.e.. extra work detail, etc.).

c. Ho~ing Unit lock down not to exceed 24 hours.

d. Disciplinary segregation not to exceed five (5) calender days for a single violation. Inmates may . receive separate lock down time for each marked violation. Jbis should not exceed a total of fourteen (14) calender days.

e. Re-Classification

f: Probation for up to 30 days.

g. Wbile in disciplinary segregation there is no access to programs.

Inmates get one hour out each 24 hours. Telephone (except legal) and television use may not be permitted. Commissary choices are restricted. Personal visits are suspended for the duration of the segregation. Book cart or library access is permitted; however, this privilege may be taken away as a sanction.

Page 24 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 07/23/10 rev3

cc 000184

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 52; Page 25 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 26 of 32

MINOR RULE VIOLATIONS

01 Possession ofNuisance Contraband: Any authorized item found in an inmate's possession that has been altered or is in excess of the authorized amount.

02 Arguing: Any disagreement which becomes disruptive, loud or obnoxious.

03 Possession of another inmate's property.

04 Unauthorized use of facility property or equipment (i.e. washers/dryers, barber equipment etc.).

05 Acting as a lookout.

06 Bemg in an unauthorized area without corrections staff present..

07 Purposefully obstructing the view of Corrections Staff..

08 Inappropriate remarks or misuse of the inmate request forms or any of the forms or paperwork handed out or used in the facility.

09 Unwarranted emergency calls.

10 Horse Playing: Any aggressive or faked aggressive actions, which may lead to or be mistaken for a physical altercation.

11 Disrespect t6 other inmates (i.e. name calling, profanity or accusations directed at another inmate).

12 Cur~ing, uncontrolled use ofprofanity or obscenities that may be considered offensive to others.

13 Excessive noise.

14 Failure to properly maintain living area.

15 Hanging paper, linen, clothing, etc. on light fixtures, walls, ceilings etc.

16 Failure to maintain personal hygiene.

17 Improper attire (i.e. not following the dress code stated in the manual).

18 Displaying or demonstrating gang affiliations (i.e. hand gestures, hand :in pants, low riding trousers, etc.).

19 Graffiti: writing, drawing or marking on any of the surfaces of the facilitY.

20 posting any type of picture, drawing or any other material on the walls, bunks or any other surfac~s

of the facility.

.

21 Misuse of the intercom system.

22 Disrespect towards any Staff Member or Sheriff's Office Employee.

23 Disruptive Behavior.

Page 25 -: Columbi.a County Jail Inmate Manual 07/23/10 rev3

CC 000185

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 52; Page 26 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 27 of 32

24 Unauthorized use of the typewriter. (Law Library)

25 Lying to StaffMembers.

26 Other.

MAJOR RULE VIOLATION PROCEDURES
All Major Rule Vi.olations will be handled through a formal disc~plinary process, and require ~ formal hearing.

1. When an inmate commits, or is believed to have committed a Major Rule Violation, the inmate will be irrimediately placed on pre-hearing segregation status pending the outcome of the disciplinary hearing, regardless the nature of the alleged conduct. This can cause restriction in your privileges.

2. The accused inmate shall be served with a Major Rule Citation and the Inmate Rights form by the citing Deputy as quickly as is practica4 after the violation is discovered, but in no case shall it be longer than 24 hours after the investigation is complete.

3. The inmate will have a hearing before a hearings officer within five (5) days of the incident excluding
Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays. The inmate will be notified at least 24 hours prior to the hearing.

4. After the hearing, the hearings ofP-cer can render a decision immediately, or within 72 hours.

A.. ffthe inmate is found ''Not Guilty", the inmate will be restored to the same status and privileges as before charged.

B. Ifthe inmate is found "Guilty", the Hearings Officer will impose an appropriate sanction from the Major Rule Violation Sanction list.

MAJOR RULE VIOLATION SANCTIONS

Sanctions resulting from a finding of "Guilty" in a hearing for a Major Violation may include the following:

1. Temporary or permanent change in programming to include: _

A.. Change in housing assignments. (i.e. re-classification)

B. Change-in custody status.
c. Removal from work status with concurrent suspension of credit for work, as directed by O.R.S.
169.120

2. Reclassification to Disciplinary Segregation for no more than sixty (60) days for all (multiple) violations arising out of one incident (only 30 days maximum on a single violation) and credit for time served as appropriate.

3. Loss of Statutory Good time and modi?cation "of release date in accordance with O.R.S. 169.110.

4. Suspension of any part, (or all of the above if appropriate), along with information of expected conduct to avoid imposition.

5. Any combination of one (1) t1rr~ugh four (4), listed above.
Page 26 - Columbia County Jan Inmate Manual 07/23/10 rev3

CC 000186

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 52; Page 27 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 28 of 32

6. Unless medically or psychiatrically required, no segregated inmate shall be denied the clothing or bedding that is allowed to general population inmates.

7. Segregated inmates shall be provided the same food as general population inmates, unless otherwise

deemed necessary by a corrections supervisor.

.

8. Personal hygiene items and shower facilities will be provided regularly to segregated inmates, unless there are do~ented security reasons which would prohibit them.

9. While in disciplinary segregation there is no access to programs. Inmates get one hour out each 24

hours. Telephone ( except legal) and television use is not permitted. Commissary choices are

restricted to hygiene items only.. Personal visits are suspended for the duration of the segregation.

Book cart or library access is permitted; however this privilege may be taken away as a condition of

the sanction.

.

MAJOR RULE VIOLATIONS

40 Habitual Miscondl1:ct: 3 or more separate minor rule violations within 30 days.

41 Refusing to comply with a Deputy's/ Staff! Kitchen Staff directives.

42 Tampering with or .destruction of Identification Card.

43 Refusing to lock doWn on command, or during a disturbance.

44 Refusing to go to court.

45 Tampering with security devices/ facility equipment.

46 Threatening or strong arming another inmate.

47 Giving false information to a Deputy.

48 Creating a disturbance while on lock down (i.e. banging doors, excessive noise, flooding the cell, etc).

49 Threatening staff members

50 Smoking, or possession of smoking paraphernalia.

51 Possession ofunauthorized beverages (i.e. pruno).

52 Indecent exposure.

53 Theft.

54 Extortion.

55 Destruction of, or Defacing County property.

56 Possession of illegal drugs or prescription medications belonging to another, or misuse of prescribed medications.

Page 27 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 07/23/10 rev3

CC 000187

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 52; Page 28 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 29 of 32

57 Participation in organizing or recruiting for gang related activities.

58 Sexual p:risconductl homosexual activities.

59 Fighting.

59, Assault on another inmate.

60 Assisting a suicide.

61 Possession of a weapon.'

62 Assault on a staffmember.

63 Attempted or actual escape, or possession of an es~ape plan.

64 Participating in or inciting a riot

,65 Taking a hostage.
66 " 'Arson. '

67 Rape or Sodomy.

68 Homicide.

69 Violation of any Crirrrinal Code

70 Other.

VIOLATIO:N"S APPEALS PROCESS

All appeals must be submitted to the Jail Corrimander or their designee within 72 hours, after the' decision. The Jail Commander or designee will review the recommendatioiis and return the appeal form to the inmate within five (5) w9rking days of the appeal. The response time may be extended due to extenuating circumstances or further investigation, with written notice to the inmate of the reason(s) for the delay. There is an Appeals form for yout use.

SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS

DID YOU KNOW? Rape and sexual ~sault happens to females and males of all ages, from infancy to senior years.

98% ofmales who have raped boys reported they are heterosexual. Most males who assault men or women are married or report having girlfriends.

Sexual assault had nothing to do with the victim's present or future sexual, orientation. Victims may be

either heterosexual or homosexual.

'

A survivor is not at fault for the rape, even if shelhe was in a secluded area, or had previous consensual sex with the attacker.

Page 28 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 07/23/10 rev3

CC 000188

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 52; Page 29 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 30 of 32

The fact a male victim of sexual assault ejaculated or became sexually aroused does not mean they were not raped or that they gave consent. These are normal, involuntary physiological :.reactions.

It is commOn. for survivors of sexual assault to have feelings of anger embarrassment, panic, depression, guilt, and fear after the attack. Other common reactions inciude loss of appetite, nausea or stomach aches, headaches, loss of memory and/or trouble concentrating and changes in sleep patterns.

FACTS FOR THE lNMATE THAT SEXUALLY ASSAULTS OTBERINMATES:

All cases of sexual assault will be referred to the Enforcement Branch or Major Crimes Team (MeT)

for criminal investigation. You may be prosecuted and iffound guilty of a felony, you may be

sentenced to prison time (up to 100 months for each Rape lor Sodomy I conviction). Any sex offense

conviction will automatically add sex offender conditions to your probation when you are released,

which may require you to register as a sex offender per ORS 181.594. This registration requirement is

for life. You may also be deemed as a "Predatory Sex Offender," which would require community

notification upon your release.

'

Regardless ofhow you choose to chara,cterize it, any sexual activity will increase your risk ofIDV infection, along with exposing you to other sexually transmitted diseases.

If you have trouble controlling your actions seek help from mental health staff and!or consider , participating in programs designed to control anger or reduce stress. To reduce immediate feelings of
a anger or aggressIOn, try talking to or writing a friend, meditate or do breathing exercises to relax, work
on hobby, or engage in some type of exercise.

SEXUAL ASSAULT'
SeXual assault as defined by Columbia County Jail policy is "Sexual conduct where force or threat of
force is used, or when the person is unable to consent because of age or incapacitation (mental defec~ mental incapacitation, or physical helplessness). Sexual conduct includes: vaginal penetration by a penis; contact between the genitals of a person and the mouth or anus of another person; penetration of the vagina, anus, or penis of another person with any object other than the penis or mouth; touching of the sexual or intimate parts of someone or causing someone to touch the sexual or intimate parts of another for the purpose of sexual gratification." Any behavior or act of a sexual nature directed toward an inmate by an inmate, employee, volunteer, visitor, contract employee or other agency representatives. This includes acts or any attempts to commit such acts including, but not limited to, sexual contact, inappropriate behavior of a sexual nature, unreasonable invasion of privacy, conversations or correspondence that suggests a romantic relationship between an inmate and any party referenced above.

Sexual assault affects everyone, either directly or through the experience of those we care about. It is not only a woman's issue as it can affect persons of any gender, age, race, ethnic group, socioeconomic status~ sexual orientation, or disability.

The statistics are proof of this problem: According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), in 2002 there were 247,730 victims of rape (This number does not include victims 12 or younger), seven out of every eight rape victims were female, and one in every eight rape victims was male. A 1998 study indicates that about 2.78 million American men have experienced an attempted or completed rape and one out of six 'American women have experienced an attempted'or completed rape.

SEXUAL ASSAULT AVOIDANCE

Page 29:- Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 07/23/10 rev3

cc 000189

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 52; Page 30 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 31 of 32

The only rape that can be prevented is when a potential rapist chooses NOT to rape. However, you may avoid an attack by keeping the following saf~ty guidelines in miiJ.d:

Be aware of situations that make you feel uncomfortable. Trust yo~ instincts. Ifit feels wrong, LEAVE.

Don't let manners get in the way of keeping yourself safe. Don't be afraid to say ''NO'' or "STOP IT NOW".

Walk and stand with confidence. Many rapists choose victims who look like they won't fight back or are emotionally weak.

Avoid talking about sex and casual nudity. These tWngs may be considered a come on, or make another inmate believe that you have an interest in a sexual relationship.

Do not accept canteen items or other gifts from other inmates. Placing yourself in debt to another inmate can lead to sexual favors.

Avoid secluded are~; position yourself in plain view of staff members. Ifyou are being pressured for sex, report it to a supervisor immediately.

WHAT TO DO IF YOU ARE SEXUALLY ASSAULTED

If the attack has just happened•......

Get to a safe place.

REPORT THE ATTACK TO A STAFF MEl\ffiER IlVI.MEDIATELY.

:The longer you wait to report the attack the more difficult it is to obtain the evidence necessary for criminal and/or administrative investigation.

Request immediate medical attention. You may have serious injuries that you. are not aware or, and any sexual contact can expose you to sexually transmitted diseases.

Do not shower, brush your teeth, use the restroom, or change your clothes. You may destroy important evidence.

Ifyou have been attacked or witness an attack, but you are unwilling to report it in person to a CCSO

uniformed staff member, then you may speak with a counselor, chaplain, medical staff, write a sealed

letter to any command staff member, or contact a CCSO Detective at 503-366-4650.

.

Later on••..• Seek the support of a trusted friend, family member or staff member, such as the Chaplain or the counseling staff. The days ahead can be traumatic and it helps to have people who care about you .supporting you.

Seek professional help. Mental Health staff are available for crisis care 365 days a year, to listen and offer support.

Page 30 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 07/23/10 rev3

·cc 000190

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 52; Page 31 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 32 of 32
TELEPHONE SERVICE NUlWBER If you or your family have any questions about billing or cOllnection problems concerning the inmate phones, please call the service provider at 1-866-230-7761. We have a brochure available to answer more questions if you need it, please ask and we will provide it.

Page 31 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual O~/23/10 rev3

cc 000191

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 52; Page 32 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 26
EXHIBIT 53
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 53; Page 1 of 26

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 26
INMATE MANUAL COLUMBIA COUNTY JAIL
AIl rules in this manna; may be amended or suspended at any time by order of the Sheriff or designee. As an" Inmate in the Columbia County JaiL you are partially responsible for your own safety. You are in lail and you must be aware ofyour sU1Toundings.
The Columbia County Inmate Manual has been reviewed and approved on October _ _ _--' 2010 by Jeff Dickerson, Sheriff, Columbia County, Oregon.
CC 000106
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 53; Page 2 of 26

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 26

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CON1ENTS ............•........•..•.

yOuR RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES ....... : ....... 1

yOUR RESPON~ffiIT..ITlES AND EXPECTED

.

BEllAVIOR .••. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . •. 1-2

BEDS AND BEDDING . : .. :'....•.• , .............. 2

BIT..LING FEES .. , ............•..........•...•. 2'

CELL IN COMMAND .•....................•... 3

CLASSIFICATION ...•.•................... : ... 3

CLOTInNG EXCHANGE ........................ 3

COMMISSARY ................................ 3

CONrRABAND ., .............................. 4

COUNTY ISSUED ITEMS ....................... 4

COURT CONDUCT .... _....................... 4

DRESS CODE ........ : ...................... '4-5

.

.

.:... '. . ' 5

FIRE AND EMERGENCY SAFl?TY .............. .

HAJR CARE AND PERSONAL GROOMING ........ 5
HEAL~ APPRAlSA.LS ......... : ............•.. 5
HOU~ING UN1T OPERATIONS ......•.. :....... 5-6

ICE CONTACT lNFORMATION .................. 6

. IDENTIFICATION CARDS ...................... 6

INMATE COUNTS.. ;. .......•............. : ...•• 6
~TE GRlEVANCE PROCEDURE ........... 6-7.

INMATE REQuEsT FORMS ...................... 7
INMATE WORKER ACTIVITIES ............. ~ .. ~ 7

INTERCOM SYSTEM .......................... 7

LAWLffiRARY ............................ . 7-8

LIDRARY .................................... 8

MAlL ..................................... 8-9
MEALs ...................................... 9

MEDICAL SERVICES ....................... 9-10 MED.ICATION .....•..........•............... 10

MEDICAL GRIEVANCES ...................... 10

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES .................. 10

MONEY ACCOUNTS .......................... 10

OUIDOOR RECREATION' • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10-11

PERSONAL PROPERTY ..•...........•........ 11 PROGRAM SERVICES ......................... 11 PROPERTY TRANSFERS ...................... 11 SELF-ESCORT ......•..................•..... 11 SANITARY PRAc:r:ICES •.... ~ ................. 12 SANITARY IN"SPECTIONS ..................... 12 SICK. CALL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 SPECIALDrETS .............................. 12 SEARCIIES .................................. 13 TELEPHONE PRIVILEGES ..................... 13 TRANSFER TO WORK RELEASE CENTER ....... 13 VISITING ................. : ............ 13-14-15 SPECIAL VISITS .......................••.... 15 VISITS WITH ATTORNEY ..................... 1"5 VISITS BY CLERGY .........................• 15 VOLUNTARY ACTMTIES .................... 15 WAKEUP AND LOCK DOWN ............... 15-16 PROCEDURES FOR MINOR RULE VIOLATIONS .. 16 MINOR RULE VIOLATION SANCTIONS .: ....... 16 MINOR RULE ViOLATIONS •............... 16-17 MAJOR RULE VIOLATION PROCEDURES ....... 18 MAJOR RULE VIOLATION SANCTIONS .....• 18-19 MAJOR RULE VIOLATIONS ..•............. 19-20 VIOLATIONS APPEALS PROCESS .............. 20 SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS ........... 20-21 SEXUAL ASSAULT ........................... 21 SEXUAL ASSAULT AVOIDANCE. . . . . . . . . . .. 21-22 TELEPHONE SERVICE NUMBER ............... 22

CC 000107
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 53; Page 3 of 26

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 4 of 26

YOUR RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES

We want you to know exactly what is expected ofyou while you are in this jail. We will let you know what you can expect from us by explaining our rules, procedures and schedules to you. While at this jail, you will
be provided with:

1. Three meals served at reasonable intervals
2. Clean bedding and clothing at least twice weekly. 3. The opportunity to shower at least twice weekly 4. . Regular exercise
5. Opportunities to exercise your religion 6. Basic hygiene items 7. Access to the law library 8. Access to counsel 9. Emergency medical and dental treatment 10.. A safe and secure environment

If you follow jail rules and sanitation practices, you may receive these privileges:

1. Use oftelevison 2. Use oflibrary services 3. Use of outdoor recreation 4. Use of telephones 5. Having social visits 6. . Making commissary purchases
7. Sending and receiving mail 8. Voluntary participation injail programs

Remember that these are not rights. Jail staff can limit or suspend these privileges at any time in order to maintain the safety, security, good order or sanitation of the jail.

This manual does not cover every situation that may arise, but it will serve as a basic guide for your conduct and facility procedures.

Columbia County Jail has a no smoking policy.

YOUR RESPONSmILITIES AND EXPECTED BEllAVIOR

Reild this manual to know what is expected of you. The excuse "I did not know that" is not acceptable. It
is your responsibility to follow all laws, jail rules, schedules, and staff requests. You must respect jail property and the property of others. This would include staying out of other inmate's cells and off of their bunks. You are expected to keep your sleeping area, the day room and outdoor recreation areas dean and orderly. Unacceptable behavior will be dealt with :firmly, but fairly. Misbehavior may result in a change of your custody status whjch can directly affect your privileges in the jail.

This manual is an accountable item and is issued to you for your use while you are in this facility. You are responsible for the condition of this manual and you will be billed for any damage, graffiti, or unusable . condition when returned. If the manual is damaged, please report it to a staffmember to have it replaced immediately_

The best control ofyour behavior is by you practicing self-discipline and respect for others. Inmates are not

allowed to become personally familiar with corrections' staff. Be considerate and respectful toward all

officials. We will expect you to address uniformed staff as ''Deputy or Sergeant

" and non-

uniformed staff as "Mr. . " or "Ms.

". Central Control personnel will be address.ed as

"Control."

Inmatf! basic rules for the Columbia County Jail:

Page 1 - Columbia County Jail Inm~te Manual 09/30/10
CC 000108
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 53; Page 4 of 26

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 5 of 26

1. The ID card is to be put into the window facing out so that it can be seen and scanned during
your stay. 2. , When you are out of your room, the ID card is to be in your pocket. ' 3. When you are in the day room, you are to be completely dressed with T shirt tucked in. 4. When' you are in your roo'm, you are to have the T shirt and boxers on at all times including
while you are sleeping, no exceptions.
5. %en you come out of the pod and into the circle, you are to stay on the colored squares. The squares form a line that you w~1k on. You stay on that line with the exception to go around an obstacle. You are to stay in,a single file line.
6. When you are in any other hallway, you are to walk on the right side of the ,hall and in a single file. You are not to touch anything. Do not speak, yell or signal at anyone. Keep your hands to yourself.
7. When i1i the hallway, there should be only six (6) inmates at one time. 8. DO NOT cover the ventilation units in the cells.

BEDS AND BEDDING

Bedding will consist of two sheets and two blankets. Blankets and sheets may not be removed from your cell or bunk, nor may they be placed on the floor for any reason. You are not to take the mattress off the bunk and place it on the floor of your cell or in the day room of the pod. Your, mattress may only be used for sleeping purposes. The bunk area must be left in an orderly fashion through out the day.

BILLING FEES

As authorized in ORS 169.150 and 169.151, Loclil Correctional Facilities are allowed to bill Inmates for items and services that are provided to them while incarcerated in Correctional Facilities.

Every Se11.tenced"rnmate will be charged a boarding fee of $10.00 per day. The Inmate will receive a bill when he or she is released from the jail. The Inmate will have 30 days to pay the bill or set up a payment plan.
An initial hygiene kit is $2.15 and the Inmate ID card is $1.00. All over the counter medications a~ well as prescription medications will be billed through the inmate's commissary account When the Inmate is released from jail and his or her commissary account is in the negative, that amount will also show up on the release bjlling. When 30 days have passed with no payment received on the release billing, the account will be ~ed over to the Oregon Department of Revenue for collection.

Other charges are listed below:

1) Work Release Inmates are charged a minimum of $15.00 per day or two hours of pay if the inmate's

hourly rate ofpay is higher than $7.50 per hour.

2) Hygiene Kits

$ 2.15 each 11) Cups

$ 0.75

3) Hair Cuts

$ 5.00

12) Sporks

$ 0.25

4) Medica1JNurse visits

$ 5.00

' 13) Sandals

$ 2.49

5) Medical visit for OTC meds $ 1.00

14) Socks (If Appl.)

$ 0.85

5) Replacement ID Cards

$ 5.00

15) Towels

$ 0.75

6) Razors Cifmore than 1)

$ 0.15

.16) Striped Shirt

$ 6.55-$12.75

7) Copies of legal materials

$ 0.25

17) Striped Pants

$ 8.75-$14.95

8) Feminine Hygiene Products $ 0.20

18) T-Shirts

$ 3.99 - $ 7.30

9) Tote

$44.95

19) Shorts

$ 2.32 - $ 2.74

10) Tote Lid

$26.95

20) Postcard

$ 0.50

All fees are subject to change at any time

CELL IN COM1VIAND '

The command "ceII-in"or "bunk-up" means you need to stop what you are doing and go directly to your cell or bunk. You must follow this command without question or hesitation. If you do not, it will directly
affect your classification'and custody status and also will result in disciplinary actions against you.

Page 2 ~ Columbia County Jail Inmate'Manual 09/30/10
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 53;CPCa0g0e01509of 26

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 6 of 26

CLASSIFICATION
All newly arrested inmates who are not released prior to movement from the booking area will be assigned
housing in a Pre~Classification unit. They may be maintained on lock-down status for up to the first seventyTwo (72) hours, for classification purposes. The Columbia County Jail has three classifications which are minim~ medium and maximum security. All inmates are assigned a classification according to their status. Inmates may request a classification review in writing on an Inmate Request Form ~t any time.

CLOTBINGEXCHANGE

Clean clothing will be provided twice weekly. You must tum in all of your soiled clothing during clothing exchange. In returri. you will receive 1 T-shirt, 1 pair of shorts, 1 towel, 1 striped shirt and 1 pair striped pants. On every other exchange you will receive clean sheets. Blankets may be exchanged every 30 days. Each housing unit will have a diff~ent laundry schedule.

Jail staffwill make every effort to ensure clothing is in good repair. You are responsible for all clothing and
bedding issued to you. You should check the condition ofthe clothing you receive and immediately inform a staffmember and exchange any clothing or bedding that has a tear or graffiti written on it Ifyou are found
to be in possession ofdamaged items, you will be subject to disciplinary action. This may include payment for the damaged ~lothing.

COMlVIISSARY

The Columbia County Jail has a 'well-appointed commissary list from which inmates with funds may
purchase various items. InInates without.funds may order indigent hygiene kits once per week, if needed. Indigent items will be posted to the inmate's account creating a negative balance. Commissary sheets will be handed out once a week. If you did not get funds in before the commissary sheets were made up to be passed out, you:will have to wait until the following week to order. Commissary purchases are limited
to no more than $75.00 per week. Inmates may have no more than two (2) lead pencils in their possession at any given time. In addition each inmate will be allowed to have one pack of colored pencils.

CONTRABAND

Jl.ny authorized item found in an inmate's possession that has been altered or is not being used for it's original purpose, or any items in excess of the issued quantity as stated within this manual.

COUNTY ISSUED ITEMS

All inmates who are dressed into the Columbia County jail will be issued jail clothing after intake, and in the clothing change/shower room. You will be issued a plastic bin containing a hygiene kit, bed linen, towel, and clothing and this Inmate Manual. You will be responsible for the condition of all items issued to you. The gray property box or totes are to be used specifically for storage of your personal and issued belongings.
They are not to be used for chairs or any other use other than what has been mentioned above. They are to remain under your bunk: at all times.

1. One inmate uniform top.

7.

2. One inmate uniform P?llts

8.

3. Two T-Shirts

9.

4. Two pair of gym shortslUnderwear

10.

5. One pair ofjail sandals.

6. Ol}e mattress

Two sheets Two Blankets One Towel One Ru1e Book

Female inmates may be allowed to retain the following:

1. Personal underwear, ifneeded for hygiene reasons. 2. Personal bras, with no metal fasteners or under wires. A sports style bra is preferred.

Page 3 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 09/30/10
CC 000110
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 53; Page 6 of 26

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 7 of 26
During the winter months vou will be issued a sweatshirt to be" worn in vour cell. dav room area. the outdoor recreation vard or under the striped shirt when going to court.
COURT CONDUCT Your arraignment will be your first court appearance in jail. During your arraignment, a judge will tell you what you are charged with and your rights with regard to those charges. The judge may appoint an attorney at this time ifyou qualify. During any court appearance you will not have contact with any person other than your lawyer or the court officials. Contact includes talking, signaling, or passing notes to people. Video arraignment is considered a court room setting and the above rules apply.
DRESS CODE
You are expected to remain fully dressed at all times except when you are on your bunk and covered. During that time you must wear the T-shirt and shorts issued by this facility. Any time you leave your sleeping area and room, you must wear a full set of clothing. During lights out, you may go to use the restroom in your t-shirt and shorts ifyou live in an open dorm. "Your T-shirt must be tucked in at all times and not hanging loosely. Rolling your pant legs up if they are too long, but not above the ankles, is allowed. Do not alter the appearance of your clothes. You may not roll your sleeves, tuck your pants into your socks, or pull your pants down below the hips. It is not allowed to wear clothes that are too large or too small. You will be" allowed to take your outer striped shirt off while exercising in the recreation area.
F1RE AND EMERGENCY SAFETY In case of any type of emergency or evacuation, you are to follow any direct order of a Deputy. There are emergency evacuation procedures in place and you will be evacuated in an orderly manner to a safe place. If you are ~C!ked to evacuate an area by a Deputy, you are to form a straight line at your Pod door and wait for directions from a Deputy or the Control Room staff. A Deputy will direct you to a safe area.
HAIR. CARE AND PERSONAL GROOMING We encourage you to shower daily. We hand out razors three times a week. If an individual has a court appearance they will be allowed to use a raz;or prior to their court appearance. Once a week a list will be put into your respective pod and you must sign up on that list to receive a haircut. Hair cuts can be done when a person is available to be the barber. There is a $5.00 charge for the haircut. Haircuts will be done on Saturdays and Sundays only. You will be allowed to have one haircut per month. Haircuts other than a trim or a complete removal to a short stubble are not allowed. No other styles will be tolerated. Only kitchen and floor workers are allowed one free haircut per month.
HEALTH APPRAISALS
A health appraisal must be done before an inmate can be considered for "worker" status. HOUSING UNIT OPERATIONS
The daily operation in the pods will be as follows. You will be allowed to come out of your cell for a short period of time during the morning at breakfast. You will then be instructed to return to your cell until lunch time. After lunch, you will then have three hours out of your cell. At the end of that period, you will return to your cell. The next period out, will be after dinner for two hours.
" Page 4 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 09/30/10
CC 000111
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 53; Page 7 of 26

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 8 of 26

Cleaning gear will be provided during the day. We require you to use it daily to clean your cell, bunk area and the pod as a whole on a daily basis.

Noone is allowed to sit, stand or loiter on the stairs or catwalks (upper tier floors) at any time. 'This will include walking or pacing off laps upstairs, or on the stairs. There is to be no sitting on the table tops.

Details for each pod are outlined below:

A - POD is a Multi-Purpose area and may be used as current needs of the facility dictate. A - POD will also be the Male Intake and Classification Cell area for the Jail.
B - POD. The upper tier is used as current needs of the facility dictate. B - POD Special, BLI - BL4 will be Maximum Security/Close Custody and Disciplinary Lock-down. C, D and E Pods will be considered Male Medium Security. J (MWR) andK (WRF) will be considered Male Minimum Security. I - POD is a Minimum Security Pod and will be used as current needs dictate. F - POD will be considered Female Maximum/Classification & Intake and may be used as current needs of the facility dictate. G - POD will be considered Female Medium/General Population.

I~ate time out of cells for each pod will be set as necessary to fulfill the needs of the facility.

ICE CONTACT INFORMATION

Irimates who are housed'in the Columbia County Jail for Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) may

contact ICE via the use of an ICE inmate request form.

.

ICE inmates may contact ICE Pro Bono Attorneys by calling (800) 646-6283. In each Pod located on the mail boxes, there is a list of all Pro Bono calls for use by all ICE det~ees. ICE agents make scheduled visits to the Columbia Coimty Jail on Wednesday's of every week.

IDENTIFICATION CARDS

You must keep your inmate ID card on your person any time you are. out of your ·cell. Do not let anyone use "your ID card. The best place to keep this card is in your shirt pocket. Wb.en you are in. your cell, place your ID card, right side up., in the window of your door with the picture facing out so the Deputy can see your
name and picture. You must surrender your ID card to any staff member upon request-

INMATE COUNTS

There will be at least six "Formal Counts" per day. At the beginning of each "formal count" you will be instructed to "cell in or bunk up." At that time you must:

1. Go into your cell and close the door or get onto your bunk depending on·the pod you are in. 2. Correctly place your I.D. card in the window of your door or on your bunk. Ifyou are on a bunk
or otherwise not in your room or pod, having the ID card in your hand and presenting it to the deputy doing the coun~ is acceptable.

Prior to lock-down at 10:00 pm each night a final formal head count will be conducted in the following manner.

1. Go to your bunk area and stand next to your bunk with yoUr ID card in hand if in an open dorm Pod. If in a Pod that. has rooms you will go to your room stand with one individual on each side of the door, ID card in hand, ready for the count. All inmates will remain in this manner until a Deputy scans your identification card and instructs you to bunk up.

There -y;rill be mnnerous informal counts per day, therefore, whenever a Deputy enters.your cell, remain .where you are, do not move until the deputy leaves or instructs you to move.

Page 5 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 09{30/10
CC 000112
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 53; Page 8 of 26

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 9 of 26

INMATE.GRIEVANCEPROCEDURE
You may submit a grievance about a conditipn in the jail ifyou think it is a problem or is unfair. You cannot . grieve: disciplinary actions (there is an appeal process for that), classification decisions, incidents or
probleD;lS which you were not party to, a collection of unrelated complaints, and no group grievances.
To file a grievance, you must follow the steps below in the order shown. You cannot skip one.
1. An inmate may request a Grievance Form from any Corrections Deputy at any time to bring to attention any perceived problems and proposed solutions. The Deputy will address any grievance within the scope ofhislher authority and document any action taken regarding the request within five (5) working days.
2. 'The inmate may redirect the grievance to the Shift Supervisor for any complaint which cannot be reasonably resolved by the Deputy. The Supervisor will address any grievance within the scope ofhislher authority and document any action taken on the form within five (5) worlcing days.
: 3. If the complaint is not resolved to the inmate's satisfaction by the Supervisor, the inmate may send the Grievance Form to the Facility Supervisor or his designee. The Facility Supervisor or designee will address the complaint and document any action taken on the form within five (5) working days.
4. If the complaint is not resolved to the inmate's satisfaction by the Facility Supervisor, the inmate may send a sealed Grievance Form to the Sheriff. The Sheriffwill address the complaint and document his decision on the form within ten (10) wor~g days. The Sheriff's decision will be final!
Inmates may file an Emergency Grievance in the event that circumstances exist to warrant one. This will be
'filed directly to the Jail Commander in a sealed envelope, utilizing the same inmate grievance form.

~TEREQUESTFORMS

The Inmate Request Forms (also known as kites) are available upon request There are two of them.. One will be for general questions, law library and visiting. The other form will be a Medical Request Form.. This is only for the medical staff and doctor to answer and will be forwarded to them. There are separate forms to correspond with Columbia County Community Corrections or with Immigration Customs Enforcement
(ICE)/Immigration.

INMATE WORKER ACTIVITIES

Ifyou want to work in the jail, you will need to request and fill out an Inmate Worker Labor Agreement, then submit it

Staff will select various inmates to do kitchen, custodial or maintenance jobs in the facility. Health care staff must clear you before you can participate in the worker activities especially in the kitchen.

You may receive work time credit only if you are sentenced and your sentence order authorizes it. Any

change of a job description or shift must be approved by a Supervisor.

.

INTERCOM SYSTEM

The call buttons in the cells are to be used for emergency purposes only. They are not to be used for any other communication. Ifthe call buttons are misused, the inmate violating this rule will be written up for failure t~ abide by the rules of the Columbia County Jail.

LAW LffiRARY

All inmates of the Columbia County Jail will 'be given access to one hour in the law library per request. Use of the law library will be limited only by time and the need to maintain the safety and security of the facility. To gain access, you must submit a request form at least twenty-four (24) hours :in advance. You will be expected to take a note pad and pencil 'Yith you to the law library to assist you :in yqur research. Alllaw

Page 6 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 09/30/10

CC 000113

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 53; Page 9 of 26

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 10 of 26

books, reference material and other articles must remain in the law library to ensure equal access for all inmates. There will be very limited copying capabilities available to you for which your account will be charged a fee per copy. No inmate will be denied this service based on an inability to pay.

When you finish, you are required to leave the law library orderly and neat. Please be aware that corrections staff cannot provide vou with legal advice or legal assistance. Ifyou have any questions, please consult
your attorney.

LmRARY

All inmates of the Columbia County Jail will be afforded ample opportunity to have access to library books
within the jail library. The books may be delivered by a cart. You may have up to three books at a time. All books must be returned to the library or the cart, prior to checking out more. If a search of your person or cell reveals that you have more than three books in yo:ur possession, you may be subjected to disciplinary
action. Damaged books must be returned to a Deputy, immediately. Possession of damaged books may be grounds for disqiplinary action. The three books do not include religious or educational. Discretion of Corrections Staff will determine whether the books are in fact religious or educational.

M.A.a

The mail is delivered to the Sheriff's Office per U.S. Postal Service guidelines, Sundays and excluding holidays.

General Rilles: You may send and receive correspondence through the U. S. Mail. Hand delivered mail, messages and notes will not be accepted or forwarded to you. Personal Mail may be ONLY on post cards. Inmate post cards may be purchased from commissary and may have only the addressee and return addresses on the front ofthe card. Incoming post cards must be on commercially produced post cards. Mail rules for incoming mail can be found at: www.co.columbia.or.us under the Jail portion of the Sheriff's website. .

Except for unusual circumstances, such as on holidays or weekends, incoming mail will be forwarded to
you within 24 hours of its receipt Outgoing mail will be placed in a pickup box within 24 hours of
receiving it from you. Ifwe receive mail for you after your departure, it will be returned to the sender. You must notify the post office ofyour forwarding address when you leave the jail.

Except for "Official or Legal and Confidential mail," staff may scan and inspect all incoming and outgoing mail. Do not seal any mail that is not clearly marked and legal mail.

"Official or Legal and Confidential mail" is all mail to or from your attorney, government officials, the jail administrator, the Sheriff, the c~)Urts or the media. We may open and inspect this mail in front of you to ensure it does not contain contraband.

Outgoing Mail: Inmates will place all outgoing mail in the mail drop located ill the day room of each bousing unit. You map OIUV seal Legal or Official Mail as m.entioned above. You are expected to legibly address your
envelope or post card. All outgoing mail must list the following return address:

Your name Columbia County Jail 901 Port Avenue St Helens Oregon 97051

Incoming Mail:

.

IncanTIng mail should have·a complete return address. This is for the protection of you and your loved

ones since mail marked"ReturntoSender"doesnothaveaproperreturnaddress, it is placed in the "Dead

Letter" box by the postal service. We reserve the right to return mail that is not properZv addressed.

There will be NO fragrance of any kind, NO smears, stickers, lipstick, NO SUBSTANCE OF ANY KIND

applied to the envelope or correspondence or the mail will be returned to sender.'

.

Page 7 - Columbia County Jajl.Inmate Manual 09/30/10
CC 000114
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 53; Page 10 of 26

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 11 of 26

Publications:
We do not accept magazines. Books must be sent directly from the publisher or book store. These books can only be, religious or educational in nature.

Prohibited Mail:

The following mail will not be received or sent from the facility.

1. Mail from one inmate to another at this facility requires it supervisor's approval.

2. Mail that threatens blackmail or extortion.'

,

3. ' Mail that concerns sending contraband into or out of our jail.

4. Mail that concerns escape planB.

,'5. Mail that concerns planB for activities in violation ofthe jail rules.

6. Mail that concerns plans for criminal activity.

7. Mail that contains information whi,?h, if communicated" would create a danger of violence or

physical harm to a person.

,

8. Mail that is sensational. Sensationalism is writing or other printed material that poses a threat to

the security, safety, or good order of the jail.

9. Mail that contains any contraband materials.

10. No personal packages will be accepted through the mail or by the Sherif:Ps Office Clerks.

11. Polaroid or other instant developing photographs.

12. Picture frames or picture folders.

13. Photographs larger than 4" x 6".

14. More than three photographs in one piece of mail. (A reminder that you are not allowed to display

more than three photographs at anyone time.)

15., Postage stamps, blank writing paper, or blank envelopes.

16. Mail that contains gang-related writings, drawings, or symbols on the outside of the envelope or

letter.

17. Mail that contains a foreign, substance or bodily fluid.

18. Mailwritten in code or suspected code.

19. Sexually explicit materials.

20. Mail that encourages or instructs in a colDlIliBsion of a crime.

21. Mail falsely labeled ··OfficialMail."

22. Photographs that are not printed by a professional commercial source (photo labs or kiosks) will

not be accepted. (Home printer produced pictures on regular paper are not allowed.)

Mail confiscation: You will be provided a written notice of any of your mail I!-ot sent out or delivered to you and if it was sent back to the sender or placed into your property. You may submit a grievance ifyou want to ask for the return of the confiscated items.

MEALS

Meals will be served three times daily at approximately 6:30 A.M., 12:00 P.M. and 5:00 P.M. Preclassification and disciplinary inmates may be required to eat in their cells. All others will eat at the tables provided in the day rooms. Televisions will be off during the serving of meals. Once the meals have been served and the Deputy leaves the pod, the television may'be 1:un?-ed back on.
Do not save food from meal service.

l\1EDICAL SERVICES

The Columbia County Jail will provide emergency medical, dental, and mental health care to ail inmates

regardless of their ability to pay for such services. No inmate will be denied care for serious health care

needs based on the cost ofmecllcal services or the inmate's inability to pay for health care. All medical visits

initiated by you will be assessed a fee which will be charged to your personal moneY'account. You will be

financially responsible for any elective surgery or other treatment you may request from your personal

physician, dentist or other provider.

,

Medical screening or appraisals at intake, or for inmate workers will be provided at no cost to you. All Detainees will receive a medical evaluation within their first 14 days of mcarceration.

Prescription medications: You will be charged for all prescription medication prescribed for you and purchased by the jail on your behalf.

CC 000115
Page 8 - Columbia County Jail IRmate Manual C09H/30A/1M0 BERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 53; Page 11 of 26

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 12 of 26

Over the counter medications such as; Tylenol, Aspirin, antacid etc., will be available from our medical department for a small charge.

MEDICATION

Health care staffmay fill prescriptions at their discretion. Health care staff may discontinue prescribed medication as directed by the jail health care supervisor or physicifUlS. If you came from another
correctional facility and had your medication transferred with you, the transporting Deputy will give your medication' to the health care staff. Ifyou are leavillg our jail and going to another jail, the transporting Deputy will get your medication from the health care staff and transport it with you.

As a warning, any abuse of your medication may result in the discontinuation of your receiving the medicine.

:MEDICAL GRIEVANCES

In case of any unresolved problem regarding medical, dental or infinnary care, you may follow the grievance

procedures o~tlined in this manual.

.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Columbia Community Mental Health is the provider of these services for the facility. Ifyou feel the need to see a mental health professional, contact a Deputy or the health care staff.

MONEY ACCOUNTS

Each inmate in the Colunibia County Jail will have a "money ~ccount" established during the booking·
proceq.ure. Funds may be deposited 24 hours per day seven days per week, via Visa or Mastercard by a toll. ·itee phone call to 1-866-232-1899, via internet at: wwW.touchpavdirect.com or by depositing cash into a
kiosk in the Sheriff's Office lobby. The depositor needs the inmate's name, booking number, and Facility Locator No., which is 297001. All purchases will be deducted from the account. Funds deposited to an account showing a negative balance will be deducted from that balance. The positive balance, if any, is available for the inmate's use. The balance will be refunded to the inmate upon qischarge. Inmates who possess a negative balance on ~eir account will not be denied their basic medical needs such as medical care and hygiene items. With a negative balance an inmate may request to participate in the 50150 program at which time 50 % of any funds placed into the inmate account will go towards the negative balance and the other 50 % win be placed on the inmates acco1lnt available for use on i.l1dividual items in the Jail.

OUTDOOR RECREATION

An open air recreation area is provided in the jail for your use as scheduled tb.roughout the day. Central Control will notify each of you ofyour recreation time. When you are called for outdoor recreation, you need to be ready to go. You will leave the Pod in groups of six. No one will be allowed to depart the Pod late for recreation.

The following rules apply while using the open air recreation area: 1. Do not yell or attempt to communicate in any way with the people outside the recreation area, except
for Corrections Staff.
2. Do not engage in "liorseplay." We do not want people to get injured.
3. You must wear a minimum of aT-shirt, pants and shoes. Movement to or from outdoor recreation will require the complete uniform, including your ID card.
4. You are not to take anything other than your ID card with you to outdoor recreation. This includes papers, candy, food items and anything that can be used to write or color with. Ifyou are found with these items, disciplinary action may be taken.

PERSONAL PROPERTY

All personal property items will be stored in the secure storage area of the Columbia County Jail. No personal items will be allowed to be kept on an inmate unless approved by the Jail Commander in writing.

PROGRAM SERVICES

cc 000116
Page 9 - Columbia county Jai.1 Inmate Manual C09H/30A/10MBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 53; Page 12 of 26

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 13 of 26

Ifand when available, you have the opportunity to participate in a variety pf program activities. Recommended programs assist you in making constructive use of your time and to make positive changes in your life. We have grouped these into two main categories:

Voluntary activities

Inmate worker activities

You may participate in activities in one or all of these categories depending on your:

Sentencing status Length of sentence

Assessments results Classification

PROPERTY TRANSFERS

You must follow these guidelines regarding your property:

1. You may release your personal property to any adult outside the facility on an "all or nothing" basis. The
adult must present a state driver's license, state ID card, passport or military ID to jail staff, to ensure property is released' to the proper individual. A signed inmate request form from you is required.

2. Release ofproperty is available Monday through Friday from 3:00 P.M. until 4:00 P.M. ONLY.

3. The following exception applies when: An Inmate is committed to a state prison and must release all

personal property inCluding their clothing prior to being transported to a state facility.

'

If the property is not picked up prior to the inmate's departure, it will be forwarded to ODOC with the inmate.

4. We do not allow personal property to be dropped off for inmates, except for medical items which will be yhecked and approved by medical staff first. Clothes may be brought in if the situation calls for it. This will
be at the discretion of the jail Supervisors.

SELF-ESCORT

Most inmC:Lte movement within the jail, including visiting, medical, programs, work assignments Etc., will be
unescorted unless you abuse the privilege. You are expected to conduct yourself Wan orderly fashion at all

times. Inmates movi..ng nnescorted throngh the facility may not talk to other !n..Tllates, may not tonch

the walls or the glass, loiter or detour while en route to their destination. When leaving an area, you

need to state your name and where you are going to Central Control. Any inmate who abuses these rules

will be subject to disciplinary action and may lose their opportunity for unescorted movement. The

exception will be any inmate who is classified as maximum security and who needs to be escorted in the

facility' at all times.

'

SANITARY PRACTICES

It is your responsibility to keep your cell clean and uncluttered. It is ,also the,responsibility of each member of the housing unit to keep the day roorb., shower and outside recreation area clean. You'will be provided
with cleaning supplies and are expected to use the cleaning supplies as much as necessary to ensure you live in a clean environment.

You are to follow these rules for a ~lean and healthy housing unit:

Clean your cells, including the sink, toilet, floors and door windows daily. Pod Porters will clean day room areas daily. Pod Porters will clean the following, but not limited to: Tables, floors, stairs, wails, showers, bathroom areas, railings, and windows. Keep the walls clean and free of graffiti or marks of any kind. Place all garbage in'the trash cans in the housing units. Keep all pictures and papers off the walls, bunks, bottom of bunks. Do not hang, stick, or paste pictures or papers to the walls, bunks or any where else in the facility. Keep commissary food items in your property container. (Gray totes) Do not save food from meal service. Wash your hands frequently_
CC 000117
Page 10 - Columbia County Jail Inmate ManualC0H9/3A0/M10 BERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 53; Page 13 of 26

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 14 of 26

Participate in laundry exchange twice weekly. Shower at least twice weekly, but we strongly encourage you to shower daily.
Keep the showers clean, and free of excess soap and shampoo bottles.
Keep your gray bin or tote clean , Perform any other duties that Corrections Staff may assign.
Keep your room or bunk area uncluttered of excess items. This includes legal papers. Ask staff for
assistance ifyou have a large amount oflega! papers to store.
Vents for air circulation should be kept clean and obstruction free.

SANITARY INSPECTIONS

Deputies will inspect each housing unit daily to ensure it is a safe and clean environment. You will need to
follow basic sanitary practices to ensure your cell area meets the sanitation requirements and 'pass the sanitation inspections. Ifyour cell does not meet sanitation requirements, you will lose privileges and be instructed to clean the area. If the day room, shower area and outside recreation areas do' not meet sanitation requirements, the entire housing unit may lose privileges. These privileges are those listed at the beginning of this manual. Ifyou or Y9ur housing unit lose privileges, they will be reinstated if you pass the next regularly scheduled inspection.

SICK CALL

Ifyou need to see medical personnel, fill out tJ:1e appropriate Inmate Medical Request form. Each day the Medical Staff will address these issues upon rec~ipt of the Request forms.

SPECIAL DIETS

You must direct all requests for medical diets to the heath care staff for approval. If you need a special diet

for medical reasons, please submit a request slip to the health care staff. If you need a special diet for

religious reasons, please submit a request form. A Deputy will pick up the form from you and give it to a

supervisor for approval. If approved, the religious diet will remain in effect for the length ,of your

incarceration. Be aware that there may be a charge assessed for the extra cost associated for the special

~~

,

SE),...R,t:HES

.Jail staff may conduct random unannounced searches of your person or of items in your possession, and in any area of the jail at any time. Your personal property andlor living area may be searched without your
permission and whether or not you are present.

TELEPHONEPRnnLEGES

Your use ofjail telephones is a privilege. Jail staffmay limit your telephone use for reasons ofsafety,
security, good order, or ,sanitation of the jail. Inmates classified to housing units will be allowed to use telephones from 0800 hrs to approximately 2200 hrs, based on the operations of the housing unit you are in. Conversations on any telephone in the jail may be monitored andJor recorded without further notice.
You are consenting to this monitoring when you use the jail telephones.

There are som~ local attorney's phone numbers that have been set up as non collect so you can call ,them directly from the telephones in the podS. Confirmed attorney phone numbers are blocked from the
monitoring system.

All telephone calls from a housing unit are a collect call or by the phone cards that you purchase here. TIle

phone cards are able to be used upon release from the Columbia County Jail. Telephone calls are limited to15

minutes each. 'The telephone system will warn you before the 15 minute time period is up so you can end

your conversation.

'

'Inmates are not allowed to receive incoming telephone calls. Jail 'staff will deliver verifiable emergency messages to you.

REMlNDER: TELEPHONES ARE A PRIVILEGE. DO NOT ABUSE

Page

11

-

Columbia

County Jail

Inmate

Manual C0H9/3A0/1M0 BERLAIN

DECL;

Exhibit

53;

CC 000118
Page 14 of 26

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 15 of 26

THE SYSTEM. ANY DAMAGE TO THE PHONE WILL RESULT IN

A DISCIPLINARY HEARING AND A CRIM1NAL CHARGE BEING

FILED AGAINST THE INMATE.

'

TRANSFER TO WORK RELEASE CENTER

The Courts and/or Supervisory Authority may consider you for transfer to the Work Release Center if' authorized on your sentence order. These tr~sfers are not automatic. Jail staff must approve all transfers.

Factors considered in transfer decisions will include: Judge's approval Length of sentence. Individual needs. Available space.
Classification. Demonstration of compliance with jail rules, expectations and responsible behavior.

If YOll. are interested in participating in any programs, you must submit a request on an Inmate Request Form. Misbehavior or administrative concerns may prevent access to these programs. Disciplinary write-ups or
actions will affect program eligibility.

VISITING

All public visits will be scheduled by the Inmate requesting th~ visit The inmate must contact prospective
visitors by phone or mail, and determine an acceptable visiting date. Time slots may be used on a first come, first serve basis. Visitors are encouraged to arrive 10 to 15 minutes early to sign in. If all of the slots are taken for that time frame they can either wait till the next times start for that pod, if it is available, or return on another day. Visits will start on the hour and half hour.

Authorized visitors shall be members from the inmate's family, and friends age 18 and older. Visitor:? under the age of 18 must be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian. Attorneys and clergy are not considered public visitors.

Inmate visitation is a privilege and while the Columbia County Sheriff's Office encourages visitation, that privilege must be regulated to 'protect the needs of the entire jail operation. The amount of time allotted for visitation is based upon the c1assificaf:ion and status of each inmate.

Classification is based upon the :inmate's current charges, criminal history and current demeanor. All :inmates will be allowed a maximum of two thirty (30) minute visits per seven (7) day period (Sunday through Saturday), as time and space allows.

Inmates assigned to Disciplinary Segregation will not be allowed visitation privileges.

Ininates not yet assigned to a housing unit or who are housed in the pre-ciassification unit, will not be allowed public visitation. .

Inmates serving a sentence of seventy-two hours(72) or less will not be allowed public visitation.

Due to space limitations, acceptable visiting combinations are limited to:

1. 2.
3,.
,'·4. 5.

One Adult Two Adults One Adult and One Child One Adult and Two Children Two Adults and One Child

Inmates have the right to refuse any visit, however that right should be exercised prior to visiting time.

All inmates wishing to receive public visits must establish a visiting list of not more than five (5) people. Persons not on the approved list will not be allowed to visit. You are able to change your visiting list oncy every 30 days from the time you establish your list. .You need to fill out the visitation part of the request form to make the changes. The minimum information required for each person will be:

Page 12 - Columbia County Jail Inmate ManualC0H9/3A0/M10 BERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 53; PaCgCe 010501o1f926

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 16 of 26

1. VISitor's full name 2. . Date ofbirth
3. Relationship 4. . The name of any child who may be in the company ofbislher parent <;>r guardian.

The schedule for visiting will be as follows:

Sunday: A-Pod 0900-1000
G-Pod 1000-1130 J-Pod 1330-1500 (WRM) Monday: C-Pod 0900-1030 B-Pod 1430-1500 F-Pod 1500-1530 Tuesday: D-Pod 0900-1030
A-Pod 1030-1130
E-Pod 1300-1500 Wednesday: I-Pod 0830-1000
G-Pod 1000-1130
Thursday: D-Pod 0830-1000 C-Pod 1000-1130 J-Pod 1300-1430 (WRM)
Friday: No Visiting Saturday: F-Pod 0830-0900
E-Pod 0900-1100 I-Pod 1400-1530
B-Pod 1530-1600

TIllS SCHEDULE IS. SUBJECT TO CHANGE. ANY CHANGES SHALL ALLOW TIME FOR INMATES TO RESCHEDULE AFFECTED VISITS.

SPECIAL VISITS

Special considerations may be given for emergency andlor special situations where normal visiting procedw::es may not be practical. Such situations as the death of a family member or close friend, serious injury of a family member or visitors traveling great distances, who have arrived unexpectedly may be considered on a case-by-case basis by the Supervisor or Corporal on duty. All special visits will be subject to the same rules and requirements as regular visitation. Special visits may be conducted in the Attorney Visiting Rooms if availa~le and necessary due to other visitation which may be in progress.

VISITS WITH ATTORNEY

Inmat~s shall be given the opportunity to visit their attorneys at reasonable times, consistent with the safety and security of the facility. All visits will be scheduled by the attorney.

VISITS BY CLERGY

Clergy Visits will be handled as a regular visit. The member of the Clergy you want to have a visit with will be added like a normal visitor just like it is descnbed in the regular visiting rules. They will be allowed to visit
you on the regular date and time for the pod you are assigned to. The Clergy member will not count against you for the five people you are allowed to have on your visiting list. The Columbia County Jail provides non denominational religious services once per week and individual bible study twice per week.

VOLUNTARY ACTIVITIES

All general population inmates may have access to voluntary activities. These activities include but may not be limited to:

Religious services

. Narcotics Anonymous (NA) and Alcoholics Anonymous eAA) groups

ReligioUs based life skills classes

.

Individual educatj.onal tutoring (21 and under)

Recreational library

Law library

Page

13.-

Columbia

County

Jail

Inmate

ManualC0H9/3A0/M10 BERLAIN

DECL;

Exhibit

53;

CC 000120
Page 16 of 26

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 17 of 26

A sign up sheet for the voluntary activities will be posted in your housing unit. You must sign up on the provided list to be able to participate. Remember that participation in these activities is· a privilege. Participation is dependent on your continued cooperation and responsible behavior.

WAKE UP AND LOCK DOWN

Day room and cell lights will be turned on at 6:00 A.M. daily. Make your bed ·and dress for breakfast. Breakfast service will begin at approximately 6:30 A.M. daily. Day room lights and television will be turned offby about 10:00 P.M. and the cell lights will be turned off at 10:00 P.M.. All inmates must be on their bunks at "lights out" and are required to remain quiet.

Each inmate is expected to completely clean your room and area, make your bed, dump trash cans, etc. when . the cleaning supplies are available to you. Be aware that there are uSually some cleaning materials available
at all times.

lVIINOR RULE VIOLATIONS PROCEDURES

1. The accused inmate shall be served with a minor rule citation by the citing Deputy as quickly as is

practical, after the violation is discovered, but in no case shall it be longer than 24 hours after the .

investigation is complete.

.

2. The inmate will sign the misconduct report and acknowledge receipt of alleged violation(s) and the right to

appeal. The inmate may enter a plea of "Guilty" or "Not Guilty".

.

A Upon entry of a "Guilty" plea, a Deputy will schedule an informal hearing for possible sanctions to be imposed.

B. Upon entry of a ''Not Guilty" plea on the misconduct report or upon request for a formal hearing the incident will be handled the same as a Major Violation.

lVIINOR RULE VIOLATION SANCTIONS .

SanctionS resulting from a guilty plea on a Minor Misconduct Report may include:

a. Verbal warning.

b. Creative sanction appropriate to the offense (i.e. extra work detail, etc.).

c. Housing Unit lock down not to exceed 24 hours.

d. Disciplinary segregation not to exceed five (5) calender days for a single violation. Inmates may receive separate lock down time for each marked violation. This should not exceed a total of fourteen (14) calender days.

e. Re-Classification

f. Probation for up to 30 days.

g. While in disciplinary segregation there is no access to programs.

Inmates get one hour out each 24 hours. Telephone (except legal) and television use may not be permitted. Commissary choices are restricted. Personal visits are suspended for the duration of the segregation.. Book cart or library access is permitted; however, this privilege may be tak~n away as a sanction.. .

lVIINOR RULE VIOLATIONS

100 Possession ofNuisance Contraband: Any authorized item found in an inmates possession that has been altered or is in excess of the authorized amount.

191 Arguing: Any disagreement which becomes disruptive, loud or obnoxious.

102 Possession of another inmates property.

CC 000121
Page 14 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual C0H9/3A0/1M0 BERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 53; Page 17 of 26

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 18 of 26

103 Unauthorized use of facility property or equipment (i.e. washersldryers, barber equipment etc.)

104 Acting as a lookout

105 Being in an unauthorized area without corrections staffpresent.

106 Purposefully obstructing the view of Corrections Staff.

107 Inappropriate remarks or misuse of the inmate request forms or any of the forms or paperwork handed out or used in the facility.

108 Unwarranted emergency calls.

109 Horse Playing: Any aggressive or faked aggressive actions, which may lead to or be mistaken for a physical altercation.

110 Disrespect to other inmates (Le. name calling, profanity or accusations directed at another inmate).

111 Cursing, uncontrolled use of profanity or obscenities that may be considered offensive to others.

112 Excessive noise.

113 Failure to properly mainta.U:t living area. 114 Hanging paper, lin~ clothing, etc. on light fixtures, walls, .ceilings etc.

115 Failure to maintain personal hygiene.

116 Improper attire (Le. not following the dress code stated in the manual).

117 Displaying or demonstrating gang affiliations (i.e. hand gestures, hand in pants, low riding trousers, etc.) ..

118 Graffiti: .writing, drawing or marking on any of the surfaces of the facility.

119 Posting any type ofpicture, drawing or any other material on the walls, bunks or any the surfaces of

the facility.

.

120 Misuse of the intercom system.

121 Disrespect towards any Staff Member or Sheriff's Office Employee

122 Disruptive Behavior

123 Unauthorized use of the typewriter. (Law Library)

124 Lying·to StaffMembers.

125 . Other

MAJOR RULE VIOLATION PROCEDURES

All Major Rule·Violations will be bandIed through a formal disciplinary process, and require a formal hearing.

1. When an inmate commits, or is believed to have committed a Major Rule Violation, the inmate will be immediately placed on pre-hearing segregation status pending the outcome of the disciplinary hearing,
regardless the nature of the alleged conduct. This can cause restriction in your privileges.

Page 15 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 09/30/10

CC 000122

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 53; Page 18 of 26

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 19 of 26

2. The ac~used inmate shall·be served with a Major Ru1e Citation and the Inmate Rights form by the citing Deputy as quickly as is practical, after the violation is discovered, but in no case shall it be longer than 24
hours after the investigation is complete.

3. The inmate will have a hearing before a hearings officer within five (5) days ofthe incident excluding Saturdays, Sunday~ and Holidays. The inmate will be notified at least 24 hours prior to the h€?aring.

4. .A.f1:er the hearing, the hearings officer can render a decision immediately or within 72 hours.

A. If the inmate is found ''Not Guilty", the inmate will be restored to the same status and privileges

as before charged.

.

B. If the inmate is found "Guilty", the Hearings Officer will impose an appropriate sanction from the Major Rule Violation Sanction list.

MAJOR RULE VIOLATION SANCTIONS

Sanctions resulting from a finding of "Guilty" in a hearing for a Major Violation may include the following:

1. Temporary or permanent change in programming to include:
A. Change ill housing assignments.. (Le. re-classification)

B. Change in custody status.

C. Rem6va,1 from work status with concurrent suspension of credit for work, as directed by O.R.S. 169.120

2. Reclassification to Disciplinary Segregation for no more than sixty (60) days for all (mu1tiple) violations arising out of one incident (only 30 days maximum on a single violation) and giving Credit for time served as appropriate.

3. Loss of Statutory Good time and modification ofrelease date in accordance with O.R.S. 169.110.

4. Suspension of any pa..Ti:, (or all of the above if appropriate), along vlith information of expected conduct to avoid imposition.

5. Any combination of one (1) through four (4), listed above.

6. Unless.medically or p~ychiatrically required, no segregated inmate shall be denied
or bedding that is allowed to general popu1ation inmates.

clothing

7. Segregaterl: inmates shall be provided the same food as general popu1ation inmates.

8. Personal hygiene items and shower facilities will be provided regu1arly to segregated inmates, unless there are documented security reasons which would prohibit them.

9. While in disciplinary segregation there is no access to programs. Inmates get one hour out each 24 hours. Telephone ( except legal) and television use is not permitted. Commissary choices are
restricted to hygiene items only. Personal visits are suspended for the duration of the segregation. Book cart or library access is permitted; however this privilege may be taken away as a condition of the sanction.

MAJOR RULE VIOLATIONS

200 Habitual Misconduct 3 or more separate minor rille violations within 30 days.

201 Refusing to comply with a Deputy'sf Staff! Kitchen Staff directives.

202 Tampering with or destruction of Identification Card

Page 16 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 09/30/10
CC 000123
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 53; Page 19 of 26

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 20 of 26

203 Refusing to lock down on command, or during a disturbance.

204 Refusing to go to court

205 Tampering with security devices/ facility equipment.

206 Threatening or strong arming another inmate.

207 Giving faIse information to a Deputy.

208 Creating a disturbance while on lock down (i.e. banging doors, excessive noise, flooding the cell,

etc).

.

.

209 Threatenmg staff members 21 0 ~moking, or possession of smoking paraphernalia.

211 Possession of unauthorized beverages (i.e. pruno).

212 Indecent exposure.

213 Theft.

214 Extortion.

215 Destruction of, or Defacing County property.

216+ Possession of illegal drugs or prescription medications belonging to another or misuse of prescribed medications.

217 Participation in organizing or recruiting for gang related actiVities.

218 Sexual misconduct! homosexual activities

219 Fighting. 220 Assault on another inmate.

221 Assisting a suicide

222 Possession of a weapon.

223 Assault on a staffmember. 224 Attempted or actual escape, or possession of an escape plan.

225 ParticipatIDg in or inciting a riot.

226 TakiJ;lg a hostage

227 Arson

228· Rape or Sodomy.

329 Homicide.

330 Violation of any Criminal Code

Page 17 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 09/30/10
CC 000124
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 53; Page 20 of 26

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 21 of 26

331 Other.

VIOLATIONS APPEALS PROCESS

All appeals must be submitted to the Facility Supervisor or their designee within 72 hours, following the decision. The Facility Supervisor or designee will review the recommendations and return the appeal form to the inmate within five (5) working days of the appeal. The response time may be extended due to extenuating circumstances or further investigation, with written notice to the inmate of the reason(s) for the delay. See Attachment A

SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS

DID YOU KNOW?

Rape and sexual assault happens to females and males of all ages, from infancy to senior years.

98% ofmales who have raped boys reported they are heterosexual. Most males who assault men or women are married or report having girlfriends.

Sexual assault had nothing to do with the victim's present or future sexual orientation. Victims may be either heterosexual or homosexual.

A survivor is not-at fault for the rape, .even ifshelhe was in a secluded area, or had previous consens.ua1 sex

with the attacker.

.

The fact a male ~ctim of sexual assaUlt ejaculated or became sexually aroused does not mean they were .not raped or that they gave consent. These are normal, involuntary physiological reactions.

It is common for survivors of sexual assault to have feeling of anger embarrassment, panic, depression, guilt, and fear after the attack. Other common reactions include loss of appetite, nausea or stomachaches, headaches, loss of memory and/or troubl~ concentrating and changes in sleep patterns.

FACTS FOR THE INMATE THAT SEXiJALLY ASSAULTS OTHER INMATES:
A 11 cases of sexual assault win be referred to the Enforcement Branch or Major Crimes Te~nll· (MCT) for criminal investigation. You may be prosecuted and if found guilty of a felony, you may be sentenced to prison time (up to 100 months for each Rape I or Sodomy I conviction). Any sex offense conviction will
automatically add sex offender conditions when you release, which may require you to register as a sex offender per ORS 181.594. This registration requirement is for life. You also be deemed as a "Predatory Sex Offender," which would require community notification upon your release.

Regardless of how you choose to characterize it, any sexual activity will increase your risk of HIV infection, along with exposing you to other sexually transinitted diseases.

Ifyouhave trouble controlling your actions seekhelp from mental health staffand/or considerparticipating in programs designed to control anger or reduce stress. To reduce immediate feelings of anger or aggression, try talking to or writing a friend, meditate or do breathing exercises to relax, work on a hobby, or e~gage -in some type of exercise.

SEXUAL ASSAULT

Sexual assault as defined by Columbia County Jail policy is "Sexual conduct where force or threat offorce
is used, or when the person is unable to consent because of age or incapacitation (mental <Iefect, mental incapacitation, or physical helplessness). Sexual conduct includes: vaginal penet:ration by a penis; contact between the genitals of a person and the mouth or anus ofanother person; penetration of the vagina, anus,
or penis ofanother person with any object other than the penis or mouth; touching ofthe sexual or intimate parts of someone or causing someone to touch the sexual or intimate parts of another for the purpose of _sexual gratification." Any behavior or act of a sexual nature directed toward an inmate by an inmate, employee, volunteer, visitor, contract employee or other agency representatives. This includes acts or any

Page 18 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manu?J1 09/30/10
CC 000125
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 53; Page 21 of 26

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 22 of 26
attempts to commit such acts including, but npt limited to, sexual contact, inappropriate behavior of a sexuaJ nature, unreasonable invasion ofprivacy, conversations or correspondence that suggests a romantic relationship between an inmate and any party referenced above.
Sexual assault affects everyone, either directly or through the experience ofthose we care about. It is not only a woman's issue as it can affect persons ofany gender, age, race, ethnic group, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, or disability.
The statistics are proofof this problem: According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), . in 2002 there were 247~730 victims ofrape (This number does not include victims 12 or younger), seven
out of every eight rape victims were female, and one in every eight rape victims was male. A 1998 study indicates that about 2.78 million American men have experienced an attempted or completed rape and one out of six American women have experienced an attempted or completed rape.
SE:A.rrJALASSAULT AVOIDANCE
The only rape that can be prevented is when a potential rapist chooses NOT to rape. However, you may avoid an attack by keeping the following safety guidelines in mind:
Be aware of situations that make you feel uncomfortable. Trust your instincts. Ifit feels wrong, LEAVB. Don't let manners get in the way of keeping yourself safe. Don't be afraid to say"'NO" or "STOP IT NOW". '.
Wa1k arid stand with confidence. Many rapists choose victims who look 1i1ce they won't fight back or are en;totionally weak.
Avoid talking about sex and casual nudity. These things may be. cOllBidered a come on, or make another inmate believe that you have an interest in a sexual relatiollB~p.
Do not accept canteen items or other gifts from other inmates. Placing yourselfin debt to another inmate can lead to sexUal favors.
Avoid secluded areas; position yourselfin plain view ofstaffmembers. Ifyou are being pressured for sex, report it to a supervisor immediately.
WHAT TO DO IF YOU ARE SEXUALLY ASSAULTED
IT the attack has just happened.••....
Get to' a safe place. REPORT THE ATTACKTO A STAFF MElVIBER IMMEDIATELY.
The longer you wait to report the attack the more difficult it is to obtain the evidence necessmy for criminal and/or administrative investigation.
Request immediate medical attention. You .may have serious injuries that you are not aware or, and any sexual contact can expose you to sexually transmitted diseases.
Do not shower, brush your teeth, use the restroom, or change your clothes. You may destroy important evidence.
If you have been attacked or witness an attack, but you are unwilling to report it in person to a CCSO .uniformed staffmember, then you may speak with a counselor, chaplain, medical staff, write a sealed letter to any command staff member, or contact a CCSO Detective at 503-366-4650.
Later on••••• Seek the support ofa trusted friend, family member or staffmember, such as the Chaplain or the counseling staff. The days ahead can be traumatic. and it helps to have people who care about you supporting you:
. Page 19 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 09/30/10
CC 000126
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 53; Page 22 of 26

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 23 of 26

Seek professional help. Mental Health staffare available for crisis care 365 days a year, to listen and offer support.
TELEPHONESERVICENLmdBER
If you or your family have any questions about billing or connection problems concerning the inmate phones, please call the service provider at 1-866-230-7761. We have a brochure available to answer more questions if you need it, please ask and we will provide it.

MAIL

General Mail Rules

.

We may place limits on your mail because of its volume, its affect on your rehabilitation or treatment,

.or for the safety, security, and good order of the jail. We may open and inspect all mail for contraband

and may read all personal mail.

We will provide an Inmate Mail Guide for members of the public. It explains mail rules and what they can and cannot send you. Ask a deputy for copies. People may also call (503) 366-4630 to get the
information found in the guide, or read it on the jail's web site at: wivW.co.columbia.or.us/sheriff.

"Do" Mail rules for Inmates

For mail, you must do the following:

1. Use only. lead pencils to write letters. 2. Use only jail-approved postcards sold through the commissary or issued by staff for social mail.
3. Keep the weight oflega! or official correspondence in a pre-stamped envelope below 1 ounce (28 . gm). To keep a business envelope to one ounce or less means the contents cannot be more than
four 8-112" x 11" sheets of standard weight paper. 4. Keep your friends and family informed ifyou received books they sent to you. 5. When you are released or transferred from the jail, send change-of-address notifications to those
that send you postcards. 6. Put the return address noted on the sample postcard below on all your outgoing mail. Tell people
sending you postcards or other ac~eptablemail to use it to address mail to you. Write the recipient's full name and complete address legibly on any mail you send.

"Don't" Mail Rules for inmates You may not do any of the following:

1. Draw or write anything on a postcard in the address area other than name and address information

and ''legal'' or "official" mail designations.

2. Send out jill forms for others to fill out on your behalf.

3. Send prohibited mail.

4. Send out jail property.

.

5. Order pUblications on credit or delayed billing rom the jail.

6. Operate a commercial business or nonprofit organization from the jail.

7. Order correspondence courses unless you have a jail command officer's approval.

Page 20 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 09/30/10

CC 000127

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 53; Page 23 of 26

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 24 of 26

8. ,Conduct commercial or personal business transactions or request services from a government agency unless you have a jail command officer's approval.

Sending and Receiving Mail You may send and receive correspondence only through the U.S. Postal Service, or the jail internal mail system for communicating only with jail staff. Any transfer ofwritten communication on your part that does not comply with mail rules and procedures is a rule violation that subjects you to discipline. 1bis includes sending notes to other inmates or notes or postcards or mail to anyone by way of a contact visit, court appearance, or transport. Pe~ple may not leave mail, messages, or notes for you at the jail.

Except in unusual circumstances and on holidays or weekends, we will deliver incoming mail to you with 24 hours ofits receipt We will put outgoing mail in a pickup box within 24 hours of receiving it from you. There is ~o pickup from the box on weekends and holidays.

It is important that you use a person's complete and correct address when sending mail. If someone

says he or she did not receive something you sent and you did not receive a confiscation "Prohibited

Mail" notice ~~~ence,

from us, it is a the' address of

matter for you to resolve with the commonly contacted government

post offi agencies

ce-not are in

~thpe~ja~i~l.~F~oG~~~ojuKre~t~\_t_

E£lE~l~

We do not forward mail. Ifwe receive mail for you and you are not here, we will return it to the sender.
(please tell those ,sending you mail to put on return addresses. We confiscate mail without return addresses or destroy it if you are no longer in jail.)

Legal and Official Mail Legal mail is mail addressed to your attorney or that comes from your attorney and is clearly marked "legal mail." Official mail is to or from confining authorities, like a jail command officer, the sheriff, county administration, probation authorities, district attorney, state attorney general, Governor, court, or
a court official.

We will open and inspect legal and official mail in front of you to make Sure it does not contain

contraband. If you send this type of mail, you must label it on the front of the envelope as "legal mail"

or "official mail" or we will treat it as personal mail. We will treat mail from your attorney not marked

as "legal mail" as personal mail. You are subject to disciplinary action and criminal prosecution for

fraudulently labeling an envelope as legal or official mail.

.

Books You may receive up to three new or used books of a religious or educational nature. These books may be paperback or hardback. Hardback books are not allowed in male or female segregation., A person from outside the jail must pay for and order books directly from the pUblisher, a book club, or a reputable bookstore, to be sent directly to you. Books may not be larger than 9 by 12 inches (228 by305 mm) or have plastic or metal bindings.

Periodicals . We do not accept any periodicals.

Acceptable Mail

We only accept packages that contain publicati9llS from a source you have had previously approved.

Incoming our outgoing mail may only contain these types of items, and with the noted limits and

restrictions:

'

IType ofMaiI

Limits and Restrictions

Written Correspondence Pictures .

Must be a post card or legal or official mail. Excludes junk mail.
0IiiVphotmrraphs printed on the reverse side of a postcard delivered
via the

Pag~ 21 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 09/30/10

CC 000128

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 53; Page 24 of 26

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 25 of 26

Checks, cash. and money orders Personal business documents

U.S. Postal Service. We do NOT accept checks, money orders~ or cash. None, uiiIess general mail rules would apply.

If it is not listed on the previous pages, it is contraband and we will return the item to the sender, confiscate it, or destroy it if it presents a health or safety risk:.

Prohibited Mail We will not deriver or send mail that:

1. Contains threats ofphysical harm, blackmail, extortion, or other criminal activity. 2. G~:mcerns plans for escape, criminal activity, or activity that violates jail rules. 3. Is contraband material. 4. Is an item that could hide contraband. 5. Concerns sending or receiving contraband. 6. Encourages or instructs in how to comIirit a crime. 7. Contains gang related or security threat group materiaL 8. Contains information that, if communicated, would create a danger of violence or physical harm to
a person. 9. Is written in code or suspected code. (This may include a foreign language ifwe cannot find a
translator in a reasonable period of time.) 10. Contains sexually explicit material. 11. May create a sensation. (A threat ~o the safety, security, or good order of the jail, or disrupts your
progress in a rehabilitative program.) 12. Contains a foreign substance or bodily fluid. 13. Is from or addressed to an inmate in a correctional facility or on electronic home detention.
14. Is addressed to or'from a victim of a crime that you are in: custody for, either in pretrial or
sentenced status. 15. Is from or to an Inmate by way of a third party.
16. Is an item that exceeds size or numQer limits. , 17. Is a publication that did not come directly from the publisher, bookstore, or book club. 18. Check, cash, or money order. 19. Is unsolicited junk mail.

Mail Confiscation

We will give you a confiscation (ProJn"bited Mail) notice for mail we confiscate. We will also send a

notice to the sender of the mail ifit was not you; When we confiscate items because they exceed a

number limit, such as books, we will confiscate all of them rather than selecting',some tQ bring the

number down to the limit amount. We will return stored confiscated mail to you when you are released

ifit was not disposed offor health or safety reasons. You may submit a grievance to ask for its return

before then. We will notify you if we return mail to the sender.

'

Use of Envelopes You may use an envelope, sold through commissary or booking, to send 1:h,ese types of letters:

1. A legal and official mail letter. 2. A legal and official mail letter that should not or cannot be folded or that is more than one ounce. 3. With staff approval, a personal letter that contains a program-related diploma or certificate that
should not or cannot be folded. You must have a deputy confirm that you ar:e sending a diploma or certificate befor~ you seal the envelope.

You may not use these envelopes for any type of mail that does not.meet one ofthe three criteria listed
above. We will deduct the cost of the postage from your inmate account for acceptable manila
envelopes.

Sending Certified Legal or Official Mail

,Page 22 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 09/30/10

CC 000129

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 53; Page 25 of 26

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 26 of 26

You may send a legal or official letter using U.S. Postal Service Certified Mail and Return Receipt mail

services. You'will get receipts that you sent the letter and that the letter was received by the addressee.

We will charge you the standard postal rates for these services. You must have money in your inmate

account to pay the postal rates or have appropriate approval ifyou are indigent and are sending legal or

official mail. You may submit an Inmate Request form to request a Certified Mail form that you need

to fill out and submit along with the letter. You may only send two certified mail letters in a 30 day

period.

.

Page 23 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 09/30/10

cc 000130

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 53; Page 26 of 26

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 25
EXHIBIT 54
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 54; Page 1 of 25

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 25
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 54; Page 2 of 25

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 25

'fABlLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................... .

PERSONAL PROPERTY ................................. 12

YOUR RIGHTS AND PRlVILEGES ............... 1

PROGRAM SERVICES .................................. 12

YOUR RESPONSIDILITIES AND EXPECTED

1-2

PROPERTY TRANSFERS ................................ 12

---'-"-'-'-----BE~~~BEDD~G ~~- BEHAVIOR ... ~....:._~:_ ~ ~:..:._:.: :_:.::..:..:_ :,,_.----s:ANff-i\:R:Y-ffiSPEel'-I8NS .................-;-;--;--;-0'...-;-;-0...-;--;.-12._.,

......... , .............. 2

SANITARY PRACTICES· ................................ 13

BILLINGFEES .............................. 2-3 CELL IN COMMAND ........................... 3 CLASSIFICATION ............................. 3 CLOTHJ.}fG EXCHANGE ........................ 3 COJ\.1MISSARY ................................ 3 CONTR.ABAND .............................. . 3 COUNTY ISSUED I1EMS ....................... 4 COURT CONDUCT ............................ 4 DRESS CODE ..................•.......,........ . 4 FIRE AND EMERGENCY SAFETY ............... 4 HAIR CARE AND PERSONAL GROOMING ........ 5
HEALrn APPRAISALS ......................... 5
HOUSING UNIT OPERATIONS .................. 5 ICE CONTACT INFORMATION .................. 5 IDENTIFICATION CARDS - ...................... 5 lNMAlE COUNTS ........................... 5-6 lNMAlE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE ....,......... 6 , INMAlE REQUEST FORMS ..................... 6 INMAlE WORKER ACTIVITIES ................. 6 INTERCOM SYSTEM .......................... 7 LAWLffiRARY ............................... 7 LffiRARY ................................... . 7 MAlI. .................................. 7-8-9-10 MEALS .................................. . 10-11

SEARCHES

.................. 13

. . . . . . . . . . . . \I \I \I \I \I • • • • • • • • • •

SELF..Esc'oRn'T ••••••.•••••••••••...••• , ................ 13

SICK CALL ............................................ 13

SPECIAL DIETS ................. •

. . , • • • \I • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • "

13

TELEPHONE PRIVILEGES ............................... 14

rELEPHONE SERVICE NUMBER .........•............... 14

TRANSFER TO WORl<. RELEASE CENTER .•............... 14

VISITING ........ ~ ................................. 14-15

SPECIAL VISITS ..•.................................... 15

VISITS WITH ATTORNEY ...............•............... 15

VISITS BY CLERGY .................................... 15

VOLUNTARY ACTIVITIES ..............•............... 16

WAKEUP AND LOCK DOWN ............•............... 16

MlNOR RULE VIOLATIONS PROCEDURES ................ 16

MlNORRULE VIOLATION SANCTIONS ........ : ....... 16-17

MlNORRULE VIOLATIONS .............•............ 17-18

MAJOR RULE VIOLATION PROCEDURES ................. 18

MAJOR RULE VIOLATION SANCTIONS .........,.. : .... 18-19

MAJOR RULE VIOLATIONS .......................... 19-20

VIOLATIONS AP~EALS PROCESS ........................ 20

SEXUAL ASSAULT AW.AirnNESS .. : .................. 20-21

SEXUAL ASSAULT ...................................... 21

SEXUALASSAULTAVOIDANCE ...................... 21-22

MEDICAL SERVICES ......................... 11

MEDICATION ......... ~ ...................... 11

MEDICAL GRIEVANCES ...................... 11

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES .................. 11

MONEY ACCOUNTS .......... : ............... 11

OUTDOOR RECREATION .................. 11-12

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 54; Page 3 of 25

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 4 of 25

YOUR RJrGHr§ ANJ])l Pruv:HLEGES

We want you to know exactly what is expected ofyou while you are in this jail. We will let you know what you can expect from us by explaining Ol,lf rules, procedures and schedules to you. While at this jail, you will be provided with:

1. Three daily meals served at reasonable intervals - _ . _ _ ..._ _ . ---"2:--Clean l5edUlng anclclutmu-g-atieasttwice-weekiy------ - --.-.--..--------------.------- ..-_.
3. The opportunity to shower at least twice weekly 4. Regular exercise 5. Opportunities to exercise your religion 6. Basic hygiene items 7. Access to th---e-ntw-Hbrary 8. Access to counsel' 9. Emergency medical and dental treatment 10. A safe and secure environment

Ifyou follow jail rules and sanitation practices, you may receive these privileges:

1. Use 6ftelevison 2. Use of library services 3. Use of outdoor recreation 4. Use oftelephones 5. Having social visits 6. Making commissary purchases 7. Sending and receiving mail 8. Voluntruy participation in jail programs

Remember tJl:ud these are not rights. JaW! staff C~llllll limit or suspend these privileges at any time in order to maintain the s~fety, security, good order and .sa:nitatimJl of the jail.

This manual does not cover every situation that may arise, but it willI serve as a basic guude for your conduct and facility procedures.

Columbia County Jail has a no smoking policy.

YOUR RESPONSmllJLITIES AND EXPECTED SERAVIOR

Read this manual to know what is expected of you. The excuse "I did not know that" is not acceptable. It
is your responsibility to follow all Kmws~ jail rules, schedules, 3t~d staff requests. You must respect Jain
propell"11:y and! the property of others. This would include staying out of other inmate~s cells and off of their buunlks. You are expected to keep your sleeping area, the day room and outd!oor recreation areas clean and orderly. Unacceptable behavior will be dealt with fnmly, but fairly. Misbehavior may result in a change ofyour custody status which can directly affect your p~ivileges in the jail.

This manual is an accountable item and is issued to you for your use while you are in this facility. You are
responsible for the condition ofthis manual and you will be billed for any damage, graffiti, or unusable condition when returned. Ifthe manual is damaged, please report it to a staff member to have it replaced immediately.

The best control ofyour behavior is by you practicing self-discipline and respect for others. Inmates are not

allowed to become personally" familiar with corrections' staff. Be considerate and respectful toward all

officials. We will expect you to address uniformed staff as "Deputy or Sergeant

'.' and non-

unifonned staff as "Mr.

" or "Ms.

". Central Control personnel will be addressed as

"Control."

P::Ina 1 - rnh Imhia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 54; Page 4 of 25

I

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 5 of 25

fum2Jte basBc Irlilli~s fmr the Coll1!llmlbli21 Cmllll1lty Jalili:
J!.. The ID carill is 11:0 JOe PlUlt i~1l:o tlhle wbndIow· f2.c!DJlg 01l1l1c so tlht8Jr iit caIDl. !he se~m and! ~c3lDJll!ledl dlillIrhng
ymlllrst2Y·
20 Whell1l YOlUl2.re 01l1l! ofymu lroom, the ID C3l:rrn is to lbe JiHll ymlllr pOICKet. 3. WheJlJl youll2.re JiHll illie day room, Y01l1! are to be completely d:ressed with T shirt·tudkedl. in. _. ___ ......______ ._._ .__4_0 .__When.Y-0JllUll.lLe.Jl1l.-Y-0.illl.Jr.Jr.oDm,_y-on.areJtoJ:nav.c.ihe.T-sllliIrLaniLboxer.s-Olll-at-aUtimes-JirndudillJl.g_ ------- _- .-
while Y01l1! are sReeping, no exceptions. 50 When YOlll! come Oilll1l: of the pod! amrn mio tJrne clln-cie, YOil! are to stay mIl the colon-edt sqUllan-es. The
squares form a Rime ltllna1l: YOlU! walk OIDl. YOill S1tmy Oll1l that l]JlM~ w!tlm the exceptiolill to go a:roillRltd aIDl obstade. ¥OlUl a!l"e 11:0 stay lDJl a §mglle fine llRJl1Ie. 6. When you are RIDl amy otlbten- hallway, YOllll awe to walk on the right side of the hall and in a §illllgie rue. Yon 3lJfe llllot tOl touch allllytb.iJrng. Do not speak, yeU or signa! at 31l!llyone. Keep your Ihm.Jt!ds to YOlI!ll:self.
7. yvhen m the hallway, then-e ShOllllXdl be oJmJly six (6) inmates at Olne time.
8. DO NOT cover the ventilation 1lllnits or speaker mthe cells.

BEDS AND BEDDING

Bedding will consist oftwo sheets and two blankets. Blankets and sheets may not be removed from your cell or bunk, nor may they be placed on the floor or table for any reason. You are not to take the mattress off the bunk and place it on the floor of your ceIl or in the day room ofthe pod. Your mattress may only be used for sleeping purposes. The bunk area must be left in an orderly fashiontbrough out the day.

BJlLLING FEES

As authorized in ORS 169.150 and 169.151, Local Correctional Facilities are allowed to bill Inmates for items and services that are provided to them while incarcerated in Correctional Facilities.

Every Sentenced Inmate will be charged a boarding fee of $10.00 per day. The Inmate will receive a bill

when he or she is released from the j ail. The Inmate will have 30 days to pay the bill or set up a payment

~an.

.

An initial hygiene kit is $2.15 and the Inmate ID card is '$1.00. All over the counter medications as well as prescription medications will be billed through the inmate's commissary account. When the Inmate is released from jail and his or her commissary account is in the negative, that amount will also show up on the r~lease billing. When 30 days have passed with no payment received on the release billing, the account will
be turned over to the Oregon Department ofRevenue for collection.

Other charges are listed below:

1) Work Release Inmates are charged a minimum of $15.00 per day or two hours ofpay ifthe inmate's

hourly rate ofpay is higher than $7.50 per hour.

If any of the fol1owing items are damaged or

destroyed you will be bil1ed as follows:December

2,2010

2) Hygiene Kits

$ 2.15 each 11) Tote

$44.95

3) Postcard

$ 0.50

12) Tote Lid

$26.95

4) Hair Cuts

$ 5.00

13) Sporks

$0.25

5) MedicallNurse visits

$ 5.00

14) Sandals

$2.49

6) Medical visit for OTC meds $ 1.00

15) Cups

$ 0.75

7) Medical kites submitted

$ .50

16) Socks (IfAppl.) $ 0.85

Page 2 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Man~al Revised 11/18/10
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 54; Page 5 of 25

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 6 of 25

8) Feminine Hygiene Products 9) Razors (ifmore than 1) 10) Copies of legal materials

$ 0.20 $ 0.15 $ 0.25

17) Towels

$ 0.75

18) Striped Shirt

$ 6.55-$12.75

19) Striped Pants

$ 8.75-$14.95

20) T-Shirts

$ 3.99 - $ 7.30

21) Shorts

$ 2.32 - $ 2.74

22) Replacement ID Card $ 5.00

All fees are subj ect to change at any time

CELL:lIN CO:MJ:MAN[)

The command "celiR-m"or "lllllll]]lk.-1l1lP" means you need to stop what you are doing and go directly to your cell or bunk. Yau must follow this command without question or hesitation. Ifyou do not, it will directly affect your classification and custody status and also will result in disciplinary actions against you.
CLASS]]FJ[CATION

All newly arrested inmates who are not released prior to movement from the booking area will be assigned
housing in a Pre-Classification 1ll1it. They may be maintained-on lock-down status for up to the first
Seventy-Two (72) hours, for classification purposes.. The Coluinbia County Jail has thre~ classifications
which are minimum, medium and maximum security. All inmates are assigned a classification according to
their status. Inmates may request a classification review in writing on an Inmate Request Form at any time.

Most inmates involved in tbe Inmate Worker Program and Alternative Programs must qualify for and maintain a minimum custody status.

ACTMTIES MAY DIFFER BASED ON YOUR LEVEL OF CLASSIFICATION. CLOTHING EXCHANGE

Clean clothing will be provided twice weekly. You must turn in all ofyour soiled clothing during clothing exchange. In return you will receive 1 T-shirt, 1 pair of shorts, 1 towel, 1 striped shirt and 1 pair striped
pants. On every other exchange you will receive clean sheets. Blankets may be exchanged every 30 days. Each housing unit will have a different laundry schedule.

Jail staffwill make every effort to ensure clothing is in good repair. You are responsible for all clothing and
bedding·issued to you. You should check the condition ofthe clothing you receive and immediately inform a staff member and exchange any clothing or bedding that has a tear or graffiti written on it. Ifyou are found to be in possession of damaged items, you will be subject to disciplinary action. This may include
payment for the damaged clothing.

COJ.V[MIS§ARY

The Columbia County Jail has a well-appointed commissary list from which inmates with funds may
purchase various items. Inmates without funds may order indigent hygiene kits once per week, ifneeded.
Indigent items will be posted to the inmate's account creating a negative balance. Commissary sheets wiU
be haIllded out once a week. If YOG didllllot get funds in before the commissary sheets were made up to

be passed out, you will have to wait until the following week to order. Commissary purchases are limited to no more than $75.00 per week. Inmates may have no more than two (2) lead pencils in their

I

possession at any given time. In addition each inmate will be allowed to purchase one pack of colored pencils.

. iI

CONTRABAND

Any authorized item found in an inmate's possession that has been altered or is not being used for it's original purpose, or any items in excess ofthe issued quantity as stated within this manual.

·1

-//'
I
Page 3 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 54; Page 6 of 25

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 7 of 25

COUNTY ][§§UEID ][TlEMS

All inmates who are dressed into the Columbia County jail will be issued jail clothing after intake, and in the clothing change/shower room. You will be issued a plastic bin containing a hygiene kit, bed linen, towel, and clothing and this Inmate Manual. Another issued item will include a mattress. You will be responsible for the condition of all items issued to you. The gray property box (totes) are to be used specifically for storage of your personal and issued belongings. Totes are not to be used for chairs or any use other than what has been mentioned above. Totes are to remain under your bunk at all times.

1. One inmate uniform top.

7.

2. One inmate uniform pants

8.

3. Two T-Shirts

9.

4. Two pair of gym shortslUnderwear

10.

5. One pair ofjail sandals.

6. One mattress

Two sheets Two Blankets
One Towel One Rule Book

Female inmates may be allowed to retain the following:

1. Personal underwear, if needed for hygiene reasons, if determined appropriate by staff. 2. Personal bras, with no metal fasteners or under wires. A sports style bra is preferred.

Durin.g" the winter months YOllll will be issued! a sweatshirt to be worn in your cel!, day room area. the outdoor recreation yard or under the striped shirt when going to court.

COURT CONDUCT

Your arraignment will be your first court appearance in j ail. During your arraignment, a judge will tell you what you are charged with and your rights with regard to those charges. The judge may appoint an attorney
at this time if you qualify.

During any court appearance you will not have contact with any person other than your lawyer or the court officials. Contact includes talking, signaling, or passing notes to people.

Video arraignment is considered a court room setting and the above rules apply.

DRESS CODE

You are expected to remain fully dressed at all times except when you are on your bunk. When you are in your assigned bunk area you must wear at least the T-shirt and shorts issued by this facility. Any time you leave your sleeping area or room, you must be fully clothed. Fully clothed consists of your shorts, T-
shirt, striped shirt and striped pants or shorts, T-shirt, gray sweatshirt and striped pants. During lights out, you may go to use the restroom in your t-shirt and shorts if you live in an open dorm.

y our T-shirt must be tucked in at all times and not hanging loosely. Rolling your pant legs up if they are too
long, but not above the ankles, is allowed. Do not alter the appearance ofyour clothes.

You may not roll your sleeves, tuck your pants into your socks, or pull your pants down below the hips. It is not allowed to wear clothes that are too large or too small.

You will be allowed to take your outer striped shirt off while exercising in the recreation area.

FIRE AND EMERGENCY SAFETY

In case of any type of emergency or evacuation, you are to follow any direct order of a Deputy. There are emergency evacuation procedures in place and you will be evacuated in an orderly m~nner to a safe place.

If you are asked to evacuate an area by a Deputy, you are to form a straight line at your Pod door and wait for directions from a Deputy or the Control Room staff. A Deputy will direct you to a safe area.

Page 4 - Columbia COunty Jail Inmate Manual 11/12/10
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 54; Page 7 of 25

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 8 of 25
We encourage you to shower daily. We hand out razors three times a week. If an individual has a court appearance they will be allowed to use a razor prior to their court appearance. Once a week a list will be put into your respective pod and you must sign up on that list to receive a haircut. Hair cuts can be done when a person is available to be the barber. There is a $5.00 charge for the haircut. Haircuts will be done on Saturdays and Sundays only. You will be allowed to have one haircut per month. Haircuts other than ffi trim or a complete removaR to a short stubble are not alllowedl. No other styles win be toneratedl. Only kitchen and floor workers are allowed one free haircut per month.
mALTH AJPPRAlSAlLS A health appraisal must be done before an inmate can be considered for "worker" status.
HOUSJlNG UNIT OPERATIONS The daily operation in the pods will be as follows. .You will be allowed to come out of your cell for a short period of time during the morning at breakfast. You will then be instructed to return to your cell until lunch time. After lunch, you will then have three hours out ofyour cell. At the end of that period, you will return to your cell. The next period out, will be after dinner for two hours. Inmate time out of ceiKs for each pod will be set as necessary to fulfill the needs of tile facility. Cleaning gear will be provided during the day. We require you to use it daily to clean your cell, bunk area and the pod as a whole on a daily basis. No one is allowed to sit, stand or loiter on the stairs or catwalks (upper tier floors) at any time. This will include walking or pacing off laps upstairs, or on the stairs. There is to be no sitting on the table tops.
ICE CONTACT XNFORMATION Inmates who are housed in the Columbia County Jail for Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) may contact ICE via the use of an ICE inmate request form. ICE inmates may contact ICE Pro Bono Attorneys by calling (800) 646-6283. In each Pod located on the mail boxes, there is a list of all Pro Bono calls for use by all ICE detainees. ICE agents make scheduled visits to the Columbia County Jail on Wednesdays of every week.
IDENTIFICATION CARDS You must keep your inmate ID card on your person any time you are out ofyour cell. Do not let anyone use your ID card. The best place to keep this card is in your shirt pocket. When you are in your cell, place your ID card, right side up, in the window of your door with the picture facing out so the Deputy can see your name and picture. You must surrender your ID card to any staff member upon request.
INMATE COUNTS
. There will be at least six "Formal Counts" per .day. At the beginning of each "fonnal count" you will be instructed to "cell in or bunk up." Televisons wiII be turned off. At that time you must:
1. Go into your cell and close the door or get onto your bunk depending on the pod you are in. 2. Correctly place your I.D. card in the window ofyour door or on your bunk. If you are on a bunk,
or otherwise not in your room or pod, having the ID card in your hand and presenting it to the deputy doing the count is acceptable. Prior to lock-down each night a [mal formal head count will be conducted in the following manner.
Page 5 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 11/12/10
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 54; Page 8 of 25

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 9 of 25
1. In Pods with cells you will go to your room, close the door stand with one individual on each side of the door, ID card in hand, ready for the count. All inmates will remain in this manner until a Deputy scans your identification card.
2. In an open donn go to your bunk and stand next to your bunk with your ID card in hand, until a Deputy scans your card. After fonnal you should bu~ up for the night and remain quiet.
There will be numerous informal counts per day, therefore, whenever 8; Deputy enters your cell, remain where you are, do not move until the deputy leaves or instructs you to move.
~TEGRIEVANCEPROCEDURE
You may submit a grievance about a condition in the jail if you think it is a problem or is unfair. You cannot grieve: disciplinary actions (there is an appeal process for that), classification decisions, incidents or problems which you were not party to, a collection of unrelated complaints, and no group grievances.
To file a grievance, you must follow the steps below in the on-diell" shown. You cannot skip one.
1. An inmate may request a Grievance Form from any Corrections Deputy at any time to bring to attention any perceived problems and proposed solutions. The Deputy will address any grievance within the scope of hislher authority and document any action taken regarding the request within five (5) working days.
2. The inmate may redirect the grievat''1ce to the Shift Supervisor for any complaint which cannot pe reasonably resolved by the Deputy. The Supervisor will address any grievance within the scope of his/her authority and document any action taken on the form within five (5) working days.
3. Ifthe complaint is not resolved to the inmate's satisfaction by the Supervisor, the inmate may send the Grievance Form to the Facility Supervisor or his designee. The Facility Supervisor or designee will address the complaint and document any action taken on the fonn within five (5) working days.
4. Ifthe complaint is not resolved to the inmate's satisfaction by the Facility Supervisor!! the inmate may send a sealed Grievance Form to the Sheriff. The Sheriffwill address the complaint and document his decision on the form within ten (10) working days. The Sheriffs decision will be final!
Inmates may file. an Emergency Grievance in the event that circumstances exist to warrant one. This will be filed directly to the Jail Commander in a sealed envelope, utilizing the same inmate grievance form.
~TEREQUESTFORM§
The Inmate Request Forms (also known as kites) are available upon request. There are two of them. One will be for general questions, law library and visiting. The other form will be a Medical Request Form. This is only for the medical staff and doctor to answer and will be forwarded to them. There are separate forms to correspond with Columbia County Community Corrections or with Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE)/Immigration.
:!INMATE WORKER ACTIVITIES
If you want to work in the jail, you will need to request and fill out an Inmate Worker Labor Agreement, then submit it into the mailbox. It may take several days to receive your copy.
Staffwill select various inmates to do kitchen, custodial or maintenance jobs in the facility. Health care staff must clear you before you can participate in the worker activities, especially in the kitchen.
You may receive work time credit only ifyou are sentenced and your sentence order authorizes it. Any change of a job description or shift must be approved by a Supervisor.
Page 6 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 11/12/10
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 54; Page 9 of 25

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 10 of 25
JIN'fERCOM SYS'JI1EM The call buttons in the cells are to be used for emeJr'geJmcy )!l1lll!"jf)Oses onlly. They are not to be used for any other communication. lfthe call buttons are misused) the inmate violating this rule will be written up for failure to abide by the rules of the Columbia County Jail.
JLAWLffiRARY
All inmates of the Columbia County Jail will be given access to one hour in the law library per request. Use of the law library will be limited only by time and the need to maintain the safety and security of the facility. To gain access, you must submit a request fonn at least twenty-four (24) hours in advance. You will be expected to take a note pad and pencil with you to the law librarY to assist you in your research. All law books, reference material and other articles must remain in the law library to ensure equal access for all inmates. There will be very limited copying capabilities available to you for which your account will be charged a fee per copy. No inmate will be denied this service based on an inability to pay.
When you finish, you are required to leave the law library orderly and neat. Please be aware that corrections staff cannot provide you with legal advDce or legal assistance. If you have any questions, please consult your attorney.
LmRARY
All inmates of the Columbia County Jail will be afforded ample opportunity to have access to IibralY books within the jail library. The books may be delivered by a cart. You may have up to six books at a time. All books must be returned to the library or the cart, prior to checking out more~ If a search ofyour person or cell reveals that you have more than six books in your possession, you may be subjected to disciplinary action. Damaged books must be returned to a Deputy, immediately. Possession of damaged books may be grounds for disciplinary action. The six books do not include religious or educational. Discretion of
Corrections Staff will determine whether the books are in fact religious or educational.
The mail is delivered to the Sheriffs Office per U.S. Postal Service guidelines, excluding holidays.
General Rules: You may send and receive correspondence through the U.S. Mail. Hand. delivered! mail, messages and! notes win not be accepted or forwarded to you.
Except for unusual circumstances, such as on holidays or weekends, incoming mail will be forwarded to YOll within 24 hours of its receipt. Outgoing mail will be placed in a pickup box within 24 hours of receiving it from you. If we receive mail for you after your departure, it will be returned to the sender. You must notifY the post office of your forwarding address when you leave the jail.
Except for "Official or Legal and Confidential mail," staff may scan and inspect all incoming and outgoing mail.
"Official or Legal and Confidential mail" is all mail to or from your attorney, government officials, Jail Commander, Sheriff, courts, your doctor or medical facility, verifiable religious contacts, or the media. We may open and inspect this mail in front of you to ensure it does not contain contraband.
General Mail Rules: We may place limits on your mail because of its volume, its affect on your rehabilitation or treatment, or for the safety, security, and good order of the jail. We may open and inspect all mail for contraband and may read all personal mail.
Page 7 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 11/12/10
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 54; Page 10 of 25

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 11 of 25

We will provide an Inmate Mail Guide for members ofthe public. It explains mail rules and what they can and cannot send you. Ask a Deputy for copies. People may also call (503) 366-4630 to get the information found in the guide or read it on the jail's web site at:
\\'WW.co. columbia. or.us/sheriff

6'ID>0" Maiili Rlllllies :for JhllmalCes
For mail, you must do the following:

1. Use only lead pencils to write letters.

2. Use only jail-approved postcards sold through the commissary or issued by stafffor social

mail.

.

3. Keep the weight of legal or official correspondence in a pre-stamped envelope below 1 ounce

(28 gm). To keep a business envelope to one ounce or less means the contents cannot be more than four 8- ~" x 11" sheets of standard weight paper.

4. Keep your friends and family informed if you received books, newspapers, or money they

have provided for you.

.

5. When you are released or transferred from the jail, send change-of-address notifications to

those that send you postcards and periodicals.

6. Put the return address noted on the sample postcard below on all your outgoing mail. Tell

people sending you postcards or other acceptable mail to use it to address mail to you. Write

the recipient's full name and complete address legibly on any mail you send.

6'D0Jl1 ~f" Mail Rules for Inmates You may not do any of the following:

1. Draw or write anything on a postcard in the address area or on the picture of the postcard other than name and address information.
2. Send out jail forms for others to fill out on your behalf. 3. Send prohibited mail. 4. Send out jail property. 5. Order publications on credit or delayed billing from the jail. 6. Operate a commercial business or nonprofit organization from the jail. 7. Order correspondence courses unless you have ajail command officer's approval. 8. Conduct commercial or personal business transactions or request services from a government
agency unless you have a jail command officer's approval. 9. You may not send mail to another inmate in this facility without prior written permission.

Sending and! Receiving Mail
You may send and receive correspondence only through the :0. S. Postal Service. The jail internal
mail system for communicating only with j ail staff. Any transfer of written communication on your part that does not comply with mail rules and procedures is a rule violation that subjects you to discipline. This includes sending notes to other inmates or notes, postcards or mail to anyone by way of a contact visit, court appearance, or transport. People may not leave mail, messages, or notes for you at the jail. Personal mail must come on a commercially produced postcard which does not exceed 5 Yz by 8 ~ inches.

Except in unusual circumstances and on holidays or weekends, we will deliver incoming mail to you within 24 hours of its receipt. We will put outgoing mail in a pickup box within 24 hours ofreceiving it from you. There is no pickup by the post office on weekends and holidays.

It is important that you use a person's complete and correct address when sending mail. If someone says he or she did not receive something you sent and you did not receive a confiscation notice from us, it is a matter for you to resolve with the post office-not the jail. For your convenience, the addresses of commonly contacted government agencies are at the back of this manual and entitled "Government Pages."

We do not forward mail. If we receive mail for you and you are not here, we will return it to the sender.
(please tell those sending you mail to put on return addresses. We confiscate mail without return addresses or destroy it if you are no longer in jail.)

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 54; Page 11 of 25

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 12 of 25

Legan 3l11Hlj Officnali Man
Legal mail is mail addressed to your attorney or comes from your attorney and is clearly marked "legal mail". Official mail is to or from confining authorities, like a jail command officer, the sheriff, the county administrator, probation authorities, district attorney, state attorney general, Governor, court, or a court official.

We will open and inspect legal and official mail in front ofyou to make sure it does not contain contraband. If you send this type of mail, you must label it on the front of the envelope as "legal mail" or "official mail" or we will treat it as personal mail. We will treat mail from your attorney not marked as "legal mail" as personal mail. You are subject to disciplinary action and criminal prosecution for fraudulently labeling an envelope as legal or official mail.

Books
You may receive up to three neW or used books per month, which may be paperback or hardback. Hardback books are not allowed in male or female segregation. Inmates in segregation may only receive new paperback books. A person from outside the jail must pay for and order books directly from the publisher, a book club, or a reputable bookstore for you. Books may not be larger than 9 by 12 inches (228 by 305 rom). They may not have plastic or metal bindings.
:r eIr'iodicmls
We do not accept any periodicals.

Acceptable Mail
We only accept packages that contain publications from an approved source. An incoming or outgoing
envelope may only contain these types of items,_ and with the noted limits and restrictions:

Acceptable Personal Mail

Type of Mail Item

Limits and Restrictions

Written correspondence
Pictures
Checks and money orders
Personal business documents

Must be a commercially produced postcard or legal or official mail.

Excludes junk mail.

-

Only photographs printed on photo paper and used as a postcard, delivered via the U.S. Postal Service.

We do not accept checks or money orders. Touchpay is available in the lobby and can be accessed by phone or the Internet.

None, unless general mail rules would apply.

If it is not listed in this section, it is contraband and we will return the item to the sender, confiscate it, or destroy it if it presents a health or safety risk.

Prohibited Mail
We will not deliver or send mail that:

1. Contains threats of physical harm, blackmail, extortion, or other criminal activity. 2. Concerns plans for escape, criminal activity, or activity that violates jail rules.
3. Is contraband material (tape, stickers, markers, crayons, foreign substances, fragrances, etc.) 4. Is an item that could hide contraband. 5. Concerns sending or receiving contraband. 6. Encourages or instructs in how to commit a crime. 7. Contains gang-related or security threat group material.
8. Contains information that, if communicated, would create a danger of violence or physical harm to a person.
9. Is written in code or suspected code. (This may include a foreign language if we cannot fmd a translator in a reasonable period of time.)
10. Contains sexually explicit material, pictures or written language.

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 54; Page 12 of 25

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 13 of 25

11. May create a sensation. (A threat to the safety, security, or good order of the jailor disrupts

your progress in a rehabilitative program.)

12. Contains a foreign substance or bodily fluid.

13. Is from or addressed to an inmate in this correctional facility or on electronic home detention.

14. Is addressed to or from a victim of a crime that you are in custody for, either in pretrial or

sentenced status, or in any other no contact order.

.

15. Is from or to an inmate by way of a third party.

16. Is an item that exceeds size or number limits.

17. Is a publication that did not come directly from the publisher, bookstore" or book club.

18. Is an unacceptable check or money order.

19. Is unsolicited junk mail.

Maill COl!lfiscatioJm: We will give you a confiscation notice for mail we confiscate. When we confiscate items because they exceed a number limit, such as books or magazines, we will confiscate (or return) all of them rather than selecting some to bring the number down to the limit amount. We will return stored confiscated mail to you when you are released, if it was not disposed of for health or safety reasons. You may submit a grievance to. ask for its return before then. We will return to sender any fonn of prohibited mail. You may not get a notice that we have returned contraband.to the sender.

Use of Ellll.vclopes

You may use an envelope sold through the commissary to sendthese types of letters:

1. Legal or official mail.

.

2. A legal or official mail letter that should not or cannot be folded or that is more than one ounce.

3. With staff approval, a personal letter that contains a program-related diploma or certificate that should not or can not be folded. You must have a Deputy confmn that you are sending a diploma or certificate before you seal the envelope.

You may not use these envelopes for any type of ~ail that does not meet one of the three criteria listed above. We will deduct the cost ofthe postage from your inmate account for acceptable manila envelopes.

Sending Certified Legal or Official Mail You may send a legal or official letter using U. S. Postal Service Certified Mail and Return Receipt mail services. You will get receipts that you sent the letter and that the letter was received by the addressee. We will charge you the standard postal rates for these services. You must have money in your inmate account to pay the postal rates or have appropriate approval ifyou are indigent. A deputy will supply you with a request for Certified Mail form that you need to fill out and submit along with the letter. You may only send 2 certified-mail letters in a 30-day period.
Outgoing Mail Inmates will place aJU outgoing mail in the mail drop located in the day room of each housing unit You are expected to legibly address your correspondence and use the proper postage. All outgoing mail must list the following return address:
Your full name Columbia County Jail 901 Port Avenue St. Helens Oregon 97051
MEALS
Meals will be served three times daily at approximately 6:30 A.M., 12:00 P.M. and 5:00 P.M. Preclassification and disciplinary inmates may be required to eat in their cells. All others will line up for service, and will eat at the tables provided in the day rooms. If you choose not to eat, please advise the deputy. Televisions will be off during the serving of meals. Once the meals have been served and the Deputy leaves the pod, the television may be turned back on. Do not save food f.rom meal service.
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 54; Page 13 of 25

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 14 of 25
All special personal preference diet requests, such as vegetarian meals, must be pre-approved by the jail supervisors. All inmates on a personal preference diet will be charged a fee of $ 1.00 per meal, to be taken directiy out oftheir individual inmate trust account to cover the additional cost of these meals. Indigent inmates will not be eligible to receive this type of special diet.
MEJIHCAlL §ERVlICES
The Columbia County Jail will provide emergency medical, dental, and mental health care to all inmates regardless of their ability to pay for such services. No inmate will be denied care for seriolis health care needs based on the cost of medical services or the inmate's inability to pay for health care. All medical visits initiated by you will be assessed a fee which will be charged to your personal money account. You will be fmancially responsible for any elective surgery or other treatment you may request from your personal physician, dentist or other provider.
Medical screening or appraisals at intake, or for inmate workers will be provided at no cost to you. All Detainees will receive a medical evaluation within their first 14 days of incarceration.
Prescription medications: You will be charged for all prescription medication prescribed for you and purchased by the jail on your behalf.
Over the counter medications such as; Tylenol, Aspirin, antacid etc., will be available from our medical department for a small charge.
MEDICATION
Health care staff may fill prescriptions at their discretion. Health care staff may discontinue prescribed medication as directed by the jail health care supervisor or physicians. Ifyou came from another correctional facility and had your medication transferred with you, the transporting Deputy will give your medication to the health care staff. If you are leaving our jail and going to another jail, the transporting Deputy will get your medication from the health care staff and transport it with you.
As a WaJl"DJlRDJlg9 any ml:mse of ym.llJl" m.edlkatnoDJl may JreslllHt nDJl tlble dinsICOlrnnnmatim:D. ofymllJl" receiviIllg the medicine.
MrEDICAL GRIEVANCES
In case of any unresolved problem regarding medical, dental or infirmary care, you may follow the grievance procedures outlined in this manual.
m MENTAL HEAL SERVICES
Columbia Community Mental Health is the provider of these services for the faciJity. If you feel the need to see a mental health professional, contact a Deputy or the health care staff.
MONEY ACCOUNTS
Each inmate in the Columbia County Jail will have a "money account" established during the booking procedure. Funds may be deposited 24 hours per day seven days per week, via Visa or Mastercard by a tollfree phone call to 1-866-232-1899, via internet at: www.touchpaydirect.com or by depositing cash into a kiosk in the Sheriff's Office lobby. The depositor needs the inmate's name, booking number, and Facility Locator No., which is 297001. All purchases will be deducted from the account. Funds deposited to an account showing a negative balance will be deducted from that balance. The positive balance, if any, is available for the inmate's use. The balance will be refunded to the inmate upon discharge. Inmates who possess a negative balance on their account will not be denied their basic medical needs such as medical care and hygiene items. With a negative balance an inmate may request to participate in the 50/50 program at which time 50 % of any funds placed into the inmate account wiIl go towards the negative balance and the other 50 % wiI1 be placed on the inmate's account ,available for use on individual items in the Jail.
OUTDOOR RECREATION
An open air recreation area is provided in the jail for your use as scheduled throughout the day. Central Control will notify each of you of your recreation time. When you are called for outdoor recreation, you
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 54; Page 14 of 25

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 15 of 25

need to be ready to go. You will leave the Pod in groups of six. No one will be allowed to depart the Pod late for recreation.

The following rules apply while using the open air recreation area:
1. Do not yeII Of attempt to communicate in any way with the people outside the recreation area, except for Corrections Staff.
2. Do not engage in "horseplay." We do not want people to get injured. 3. You must wear a minimum of a T-shirt, pants and shoes. Movement to or from outdoor recreation will require the complete unifonn, including your ID card. 4. DO NOT take anything other than your ID card with you to outdoor recreation. This includes papers, candy, food items and anything that can be used to write or color with. Ifyou are found with these items, disciplinary action may be taken.

PERSONAL PROPERTY

All personal property items will be stored in the secure storage area of the Columbia County Jail. No personal items will be allowed to be kept on an inmate unless approved by the Jail Commander in writing.

PROGRAM SJERVJ[CES

If and when available, you have the opportunity to participate in a variety of program activities. Recommended programs assist you in making constructive use of your time and to make positIve changes in your life. We have grouped these into two main categories:

Voluntary activities

Inmate worker activities

You may participate in activities in one or aU ofthese categories depending on your:

Sentencing status Length of sentence

Assessments results Classification

PROPERTY JrRANSlFERS

You must follow these guidelines regarding your property:

1. You may release your personal property to any adult outside the facility on an "all or nothing" basis. The adult must present a state driver's license, state ID card, passport or military ID to jail staff, to ensure . property is released to the proper individual. A signed inmate request form from you is required.

2. Release of property is available Monday through Friday from 3:00 P.M. until 4:00 P.M. ONLY.

3. The following exception applies when: An Inmate is committed to a state prison and must release all personal property including their clothing prior to being transported to a state facility.
If the property is nolt picked 1ll1p prim." to the hllmate's dleparbne. it win be fOJrW2wdiedl to ODOC with the inmate.
4. We do not allow personal property to be dropped off for ipmates, except for medical items which will be checked and approved by medical staff first. Clothes may be brought in if the situation calls for it. This will be at the discretion of the jail Supervisors.
SANITARY INSPECTIONS
Deputies will inspect each housing unit daily to ensure it is a safe and clean environment. You will need to follow basic sanitary practices to ensure your cell area meets the sanitation requirements and pass the sanitation inspections. Ifyour cell does not meet sanitation requirements, you will lose privileges and be instructed to clean the area. Ifthe day room, shower area and outside recreation areas do not meet sanitation requirements, the entire housing unit may lose privileges. These privileges are those listed at the beginning of this manual. If you or your housing unit lose privileges, they will be reinstated ifyou pass the next regularly scheduled inspection.
SANITARY PRACTICES

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 54; Page 15 of 25

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 16 of 25

It is your responsibility to keep your cell clean and uncluttered. It is also the responsibility of eaclht member of the housing unit to keep the day room, shower and outside recreation area clean. You will be provided
with cleaning supplies and are expected to use the cleaning supplies as much as necessary to ensure you live in a clean environment.

You are to follow these rules for a clean and healthy housing unit:

Clean your cells, including the sink, toilet, floors and door windows daiRy.

Pod Porters will clean day room areas daily.

Pod Porters will clean the following, but not limited to: Tables, floors, stairs, walls, showers,

bathroom areas, railings, and windows.

It(eep tlhte waUs de-an and! free of graffiti or m311rks of aDllY IkilIldi.

Place all garbage in the trash cans in the housing units.

.

Keep mllllpictlll11reS amdlpapers off the waHs, I!:rlll1llllks, !bottom of ll>lillDllIks. ]))c Ellot 11l2lJrng, stJidk, 0)]" paste

plicmres or papers to tJlie wallns, lblillJrnks or amy wlffiere eHse in the fadllity0

Keep commissary food items in your property container. (Gray totes)

]1)0 not save food! from meal! senrice.

Wash your hands frequently.

Participate in laundry exchange twice weekly.

Shower at least twice weekly, but we strongly encourage you to shower daily.

Keep the showers clean, and free of excess soap and shampoo bottles.

Keep your gray bin or tote clean ..

Perform any other duties that Corrections Staff may assign.

Keep your room or bunk aJrea umduttered of excess items. This includes legal papers. Ask staff

for assistance ifyou have a large amount of legal papers to store.

Vents for air circulation should be kept clean and obstruction free.

SEARCJBlJES

Jail staffmay conduct random unannounced searches ofyour person or of items in your possession, and in any area of the jail at any time. Your personal property and/or living area may be searched without your pennission and whether or not you are present.

SELF-ESCORT

Most inmate movement within the jail, including visiting, medical, programs, work assignments Etc., will be
unescorted unless you abuse the privilege. You are expected to conduct yourself in an orderly fashion at all times. Inmates moving unescorted. through the facility may not talk to other inmates, may not touch the walls or the glass, loiter or detour while en route to their destination. When leavi~g an area, you
need to state your name and where you are going to Central Control. Any inmate who abuses these rules will
be subject to disciplinary action and may lose their opportunity for unescorted movement. The exception
will be any inmate who is classified as maximum security and who needs to be escorted in the facility at all
times.

SICKCALlL

If you need to see medical personnel, fill out the appropriate Inmate Medical Request form. Each day the Medical Staffwill address these issues upon receipt ofthe Request fonns.

SPECIAL DIETS

You must direct all requests for medical diets to the heath care staff for approval. Ifyou need a special diet for medical reasons, please submit a request slip to the health care staff. If you need a special diet for
religious reasons, please submit a request form. A Deputy will pick up the form from you and give it to a supervisor for approval. If approved, the religious diet will remain in effect for the length ofyour incarceration. Be aware that there may be a charge assessed for the extra cost associated for the special meal. .

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 54; Page 16 of 25

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 17 of 25
Your use ofjail telephones is a privilege. Jail staff may limit your telephone use for reasons of safety, security, good order; or sanitation of the jail. Inmates classified to housing units will be allowed to use . telephones from 0800 hrs to approximately 2200 hrs, based on the operations of the housing unit you are in. COlffiVeIT'Samions OJrn 3Jrny teRephollle RHl the jauH may be mOIDlitOlredl 2Jrndl/OJr recOJrrllerll wfttlblmnt fmn1:lbler IDlotnce. You 2Jre cOllllsellltillllg to tlltJis mORlln1l:oriiJmg wlhellll ym.n llllse the jan telephones.
There are some local attorney's phone numbers that have been set up as non collect so you can call them directly from the telephones in the pods. Confirmed attorney phone numbers are bKoclkedl from the monitoring system.
All telephone calls from a housing unit are a collect call or by the phone cards that you purchase here. The
phone cards are able to be used upon release from the Columbia County Jail. Telephone calls are limited to 15 minutes each. The telephone system will warn you before the 15 minute time period is up so you can end your conversation.
Inmates are not allowed to receive incoming telephone calls. Jail staffwill deliver verifiable emergellllcy messages to you.
)REMINDER: TELEPHONES.A.RE A PruvJ[JLJEGE. DO NOT ABUSE THE SYSTEM. ANY DAMAGE 'I'0 'fHE PHONE WIDLJL lRE§UL'f IN A D][SCIPLllNARY BEARING AND A CRIMINAL CIlfARGE BE:DNG FILED AGAINST THE INMATE.
TELEPHONESERVICE~ER
lIJyou or your family have any questions about billing or connection problems concerning the inmate phones, please call the service provider at 1-866-230-7761. We have a brochure available to answer
more questions if you need it, please ask and we win provide it.
TRANSFER 'I'0 WORK RELEASE CEN'JIlER
The Courts and/or Supervisory Authority may consider you for transfer to the Work Release Center if authorized on your sentence order. These transfers are not automatic. Jail staffmust approve all transfers.
Factors considered in transfer decisions wiIl include: Judge's approval Length of sentence. Individual needs. Available space. Classification. Demonstration of compliance with jail rules, expectations and responsible behavior.
If you are interested in participating in any programs, you must submit a request on an Inmate Request Form. Misbehavior or administrative concerns may prevent access to these programs. Disciplinary write-ups or actions will affect program eligibility.
VISITING
All public visits will be scheduled by the Inmate requesting the visit. The inmate must contact prospective visitors by phone or mail, and determine an acceptable visiting date. Time slots may be 'Used OR a first come, first serve basis. Visitors are encouraged to arrive 10 to 15 minutes early to sign in. If all of the slots are taken for that time frame they can either wait till the next times start for that pod, if it is available, or return on another day. Visits will start.on the hour and half hour.
Authorized visitors shall be members from the inmate's family, and friends age 18 and older. Visitors under the age of 18 must be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian. Attorneys and clergy are not considered public visitors.
Inmate visitation is a privilege and while the Columbia County Sheriffs Office encourages visitation, that privilege must be regulated to protect the needs of the entire jail operation. The amount of time allotted for visitation is based upon the classification and status of each inmate.
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 54; Page 17 of 25

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 18 of 25
g. While in disciplinary segregation there is no access to programs. Inmates get one hour out each 24 hours. Telephone (except legal) and television use may not be permitted. Commissary choices are restricted. Personal visits are suspended for the duration of the segregation. Book cart or library access is pennitted; however, this privilege may be taken away as a sanction.
MOINOR RUJLE VJIOlLA'flION§
01 Possession of Nuisance Contraband: Any authorized item found in an inmates possession that has been altered or is in excess of the authorized amount.
02 Arguing: Any disagreement which becomes disruptive, loud or obnoxious. 03 Possession of another inmates property. 04 Unauthorized use of facility property or equipment (i.e. washers/dryers, barber equipment etc.) 05 Acting as a lookout 06 Being in an unauthorized area without corrections staff present. 07 Purposefully obstructing the view of Corrections Staff. 08 mappropriate remarks or misuse ofthe inmate request fonns or any ofthe fOnDS or papelwork
handed out or used in the facility. 09 Unwarranted emergency calls. 10 Horse Playing: Any aggressive or faked aggressive actions, which may lead to or be mistaken for a
physical altercation. 11 Disrespect to other inmates (i.e. name calling, profanity or accusations directed at another inmate). 12 Cursing, uncontrolled use of profanity or obscenities that may be considered offensive to others. 13 Excessive noise. 14 Failure to properly maintain living area. 15 Hanging paper, linen, clothing, etc. on light fixtures, walls~ ceilings etc. 16 Failure to maintain personal hygiene. 17 Improper attire (i.e. not following the dress code stated in the manual). 18 Displaying or demonstrating gang affiliations (i.e. hand gestures, hand in pants, low riding trousers,
etc.). 19 Graffiti: writing, drawing or marking on any of the surfaces of the facility. 20 Posting any type of picture, drawing or any other material on the walls, bunks or any the surfaces of
the facility. 21 Misuse ofthe intercom system. 22 Disrespect towards any Staff Member or Sheriff's Office Employee 23 Disruptive Behavior
Page 17 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 11/12/10
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 54; Page 18 of 25

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 19 of 25

24 Unauthorized use of the typewriter. (Law Library)

25 Lying to Staff Members.

26 Other

MAJOR R1IJLE VJIOlLA'fION PROCEIDlDRIE§

All Major Rule Violations will be handled through a formal disciplinary process, and require a fonnal

hearing.

'

1. When an inmate commits, or is believed to have committed a Major Rule Violation, the inmate will be immediately placed on pre-hearing segregation status pending the outcome of the disciplinary hearing, regardless the nature of the alleged conduct. This can cause restriction in your privileges.

2. The accused inmate shall be served with 'a Major Rule Citation and the Inmate Rights form by the citing Deputy as quickly as is practical, after the violation is discovered, but in no case shall it be longer than 24
hours after the investigation is complete.

3. The inmate will have a hearing before a hearings officer within five (5) days of the incident excluding Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays. The inmate will be notified at least 24 hours prior to the hearing.

4. After the hearing, the hearings officer can render a decision immediately or within 72 hours.

A. If the inmate is found ''Not Guilty", the inmate will be restored to the same status and privileges as before charged.
B. If the inmate is found "Guilty", the Hearings Officer will impose an appropriate sanction from the Major Rule Violation Sanction list.

MAJOR RULE VIOlLATION SANCTIONS

Sanctions resulting from a finding of "Guilty" in a hearing for a Major Violation may include the following:

1. Temporary or permanent change in programming to include:

A. Change in housing assignments. (i.e. re-classification)

B. Change in custody status.

C. Removal from work status with concurrent suspension of credit for work, as directed by O.R.S. 169.120

2. Reclassification to Disciplinary Segregation for no more than sixty (60) days for all (multiple)
violations arising out of one incident Conly 30 days maximum on a single violation) and giving
credit for time served as appropriate.

3. Loss of Statutory Good time and modification of release date in accordance with O.R.S. 169.110.

4. Suspension of any part, (or all of the above if appropriate), along with information of expected conduct to avoid imposition.

5. Any combination of one (1) through four (4), listed above.

6. Unless medically or psychiatrically required, no segregated inmate shall be denied clothing or bedding that is allowed to general popUlation inmates.

7. Segregated inmates shall be provided the same food as general population inmates.

Page 18 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 11/12/10
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 54; Page 19 of 25

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 20 of 25
8. Personal hygiene items and shower facilities will be provided regularly to segregated inmates, unless there are documented security reasons which would prohibit them.
9. While in disciplinary segregation there is no access to programs. Inmates get one hour out each 24 hours. Telephone ( except legal) and television use is not permitted. Commissary choices are restricted to hygiene items only. Personal visits are suspended for the duration of the segregation. Book cart or library access is permitted; however this privilege may be taken away as a condition of the sanction. MAJOR RULE VJ[OLAJrJIONS
40 Habitual Misconduct: 3 or more separate minor rule violations within 30 days. 41 Refusing to comply with a Deputy's/ Staff! Kitchen Staff directives. 42 Tampering with or destruction of Identification Card 43 Refusing to lock down on command, or during a disturbance. 44 Refusing to go to court. 45 Tampering with security devices/ facility equipment. 46 Threatening or strong arming another inmate. 47 Giving false infonnation to a Deputy. 48 Creating a disturbance while on lock down (i.e. banging doors, excessive noise, flooding the cell,
. etc). 50 Threatening staff members 51 Smoking, or possession of smoking paraphernalia. 52 Possession of unauthorized beverages (i.e. pruno). 53 Indecent exposure. 54 Theft. 55 Extortion. 56 Destruction of, or Defacing County property. 57 Possession of illegal drugs or prescription medications belonging to another or misuse of prescribed
medications. 58 Participation in organizing or recruiting for gang related activities. 59 Sexual misconduct! homosexual activities 60 Fighting. 61 Assault on another inmate. 62 Assisting a suicide 63 Possession ofa weapon.
Page 19 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 11/12/10
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 54; Page 20 of 25

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 21 of 25
64 Assault on a staff member. 65 Attempted or actual escape, or possession of an escape plan. 66 Participating in or inciting a riot. 67 Taking a hostage 68 Arson 69 Rape or Sodomy. 70 Homicide. 71 Violation of any Criminal Code 72 Tampering with or altering any other person's food. 73 Other.
'VJ(OLAT][ONS APPEALS PROCESS All appeals must be submitted to the Facility Supervisor or their designee within 72 hours, fo11owing the decision. The Facility Supervisor or designee will review the recommendations and return the appeal form to the inmate within five (5) working days of the appeal. The response time may be extended due to extenuating circumstances or further investigation, with written notice to the inmate of the reason(s) for the delay. Ask a deputy if you need a form.
SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS DID YOU :KNOW? Rape and sexual assault happens to females and males of all ages, from infancy to senior years. 98% of males who have raped boys reported they are heterosexual. Most males who assault men or women are married or report having girlfriends. Sexual assault had nothing to do with the victim's present or future sexual orientation. Victims may be either heterosexual or homosexual. A survivor is not at fault for the rape, even if she/he was in a secluded area, or had previous consensual sex with the attacker. The fact a male victim of sexual assault ej aculated or became sexually aroused does not mean they were not raped or that they gave consent. These are normal, involuntary physiological reactions. It is common for survivors of sexual assault to have feeling of anger embarrassment, panic, depression, guilt, and fear after the attack. Other common reactions include loss of appetite, nausea or stomachaches, headaches, loss of memory andlor trouble concentrating and changes in sleep patterns. FACTS FOR THE INMATE THAT SEXUALLY ASSAULTS OTHER INMATES: All cases of sexual assault will be referred to the Enforcement Branch or Major Crimes Team (MeT) for criminal investigation. You may be prosecuted and if found guilty of a felony, you may be sentenced to prison time (up to 100 months for each Rape I or Sodomy I conviction). Any sex offense conviction will automatically add sex offender conditions when you release, which may require you to register as a sex offender per ORS 181.594. This registration requirement is for life. You also be deemed as a "Predatory Sex Offender," which would require community notification upon your release.
Page 20 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual 11/12/10
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 54; Page 21 of 25

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 22 of 25

GOVERNMENT LISTINGS:
Clackamas County State Courts 807 Main St., # 7 Oregon City, OR 97045
Clatska nie Municipal Court PO Box 9 Clatskanie, OR 97016
Clatsop County Circuit Court PO Box 35 Astoria, OR 97103
Clatsop County. Community Corrections PO Box 540 Astoria, OR 97103
Columbia County State Courts 230 Strand Street
st. Helens, OR 97051
(We hand deliver)
Columbia County Justice Court PO Box 128 Vernonia, OR 97064
Columbia City Municipal Court 1840 Second Street Columbia City, OR 97018
Rainier Municipal Court PO Box 100 Rainier, OR 97048
St. Helens Municipal Court PO Box 278
st. Helens, OR 97051
(We hand deliver)
Scappoose Municipal Court PO Box P Scappoose, OR 97056

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Public Phone No.: 503-326-3302
(for your family)
Multnomah County Circuit Court 1021 SW 4th Port/and, OR 97204
Multnomah County Dept. Of Com. Corrections 501 SE Hawthorne Blvd, Suite 250 Portland, OR 97214-3514
Washington County Community Corrections 150 N. First Ave., Suite 200 Hillsboro, OR 97124
Washington County Circuit Court 150 North 1st Ave. Hillsboro, OR 97124

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 54; Page 22 of 25

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 23 of 25

Inmate/Your full, legible, name "Columbia County Jail £t~~k'l ¥=f~ 901 Port Ave.
St. Helens, OR 97051

1st Class Postage Required

TO: Addressee's full name
Street Address or PO Box City, State, Zip

Joe Meek - Oregon's First Sheriff
Picture taken circa 1865
---------- --- ---- --

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 54; Page 23 of 25

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 24 of 25
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 54; Page 24 of 25

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 25 of 25
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 54; Page 25 of 25

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 31
EXHIBIT 55
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 55; Page 1 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 31
r'
!
MANUAL DE RECLUSOS CARCEL DEL CONDADO DE
COLUMBIA

A ordenes del Sheriff 0 persona nombrada, todas las reglas dentro de este manual

pueden ser enmendadas 0 suspendidas a cualguier momento"

.

Como recluso de la carcel del Condado de Columbia, uno es parcialmente responsable de su propia seguridact. Esta en la carcel y tiene que estar consciente de su entomo.

EI manual de reclusos del Condado de Columbia ha sido examinado y aprobado el

de

Noviembre, 2010 por Jeffrey M. Dickerson, Sheriff, Condado de Columbia, Oregon.

Jeffrey M. Dickerson, Sheriff Pagina 1- Manual de reclusos de la careel del Condado de Columbia

Modifieado el 18111/10

CC001962
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 55; Page 2 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 31

iNDICE
TABLA DE CONTENIDOS ........................................................... .. DERECHOS Y PRIVILEGIOS ......................................................... 1 RESPONSAB1LlDADES V EXPECTATIVAS EN
CUANTO A SU CONDUCTA................................... 1- 2 CAMAS Y ROPA DE CAM A.......................................................... 2 CARGOS DE LAS TASAS.......................................................... 2- 3 ORDEN "CELL IN"..;.......... ,........................................................... 3 CLASIFICACION ............................................................................ 3 INTERCAMBIO DE ROPA. ............................................................ 4 "COMMISSARY" (ALMACEN).................................................... ~ CONTRABANOO........................................................................... 4 ARTicULOS OTORGADOS POR EL CON DADO..................... 4-5 CONDUCTA ANTE UN TRIBUNAL........................................... 5 REGLAS DE VESTUARIO............................................................. 5 SEGURIDAD CONTRA rNCENDIOS V EMERGENCIAS .......... 5 CUIDADO DEL CABELLO E HIGIENE PERSONAL................ 6 EVALUACION DE SALUD MEDlCA............................................ 6 OPERACIONES DE VIVIENDAS PENITENCIARIAS ................. 6 EL SERVICIO DE INMIGRACION Y CONTROL
DE ADUANAS................................................................ 6 TARJETAS DE IDENTIFICACION ............................................. 6-7 CONTEO DE RECLUSOS............................................................... 7 SISTEMA DETRAMITE DE QUEJAS
PARA RECLUSOS...................................................... 7-8 FORMULARIOS DE SOLICITUD PARA RECLUSOS ................. 8 ACTIVIDADES DEL TRABAJADOR INTERNO.......................... 8 SISTEMA ALTOPARLANTES........................................................ 8 BIBLIOTECA JURiDlCA DE DERECHOS................................. 8-9 BIBLIOTECA.................................................................................... 9 CORRESPONDENCIA................................................................ 9-13 COMIDAS...................................................................................... 13 SERVICIOS MEDICOS............................................................. 13-14 MEDICAMENTOS......................................................................... 14 QUEJAS MEDICAS ....................................................................... 14 SERVICIOS DE SALUD MENTAL............................................ 14

CUENTAS DE DINERO................................................................ 14 RECREO AL AIRE L1BRE....................................................... 14-15 BIENES PERSONALES................................................................. 15 SERVICIOS DE PROGRAMAS ..................................................... 15 TRANSFERENCIA DE PROPIEDAD ...................................... 15-16 INSPECCIONES DE CONDICIONES SAN ITARIAS.................. 16 pRACTICAS SANITARIAS ........................................................... 16 REGISTRO CORPORAL................................................................ 17 AUTO-ESCOLTA...............,........................................................... 17 COLA DlARIA DE ENFERMOS .................................................. ·17 REGIMEN DE DIETAS ESPECIALES..........:............................... 17 PRIVILEGIOS TELEFONICOS................................................ 17-18 NUMERO DE SERVICIOTELEFONICO...........:...~................,.... 18 TRASLADO AL CENTRO DE TRABAJO
A SEMI-LIBERTAD..................................................... 18 VISITAS ..................................................................................... 18-19 VIS/TAS ESPECIALES .................................................................. 19 VIS/TAS CON ABOGADOS ........................................................... 19 VISITAS DE CLERIGOS............................................................... 20 ACTIVIDADES A VOLUNTAD PROPIA.............:...................... 20 "WAKE UP" Y "LOCK DOWN": .................................................. 20 PROCEDIMIENTOS PARA EL INCUMPLIMIENTO DE
REGLA MENOR.......................................................... 2 I SANCIONES PARA EL INCUMPLlMIENTO DE UNA
UNA REGLA MENOR ................................................ :21
INFRACCIONES DE REGl-AS MENORES ............................ 21-22 PROCEDIMIENTOS PARA EL INCUMPLIMIENTO DE
UNA REGLA MA YOR ........................................... 22·23 SANCIONES PARA EL INCUMPLIMIENTO DE UNA
REGLA MA YOR.................................................... 23-24 INFRACCIONES DE REGLAS MA YORES ............................ 24-25 PROCEDIMIENTO PARA LA APELACl6N DE UNA
INFRACCI6N............................................................... 25 CONSCIENTIZACI6N SOBRE AGRESION SEXUAL......... 25-26 AGRESION SEXUAL....,.......................................................... 26-27 PREVENCION DE AGRESI6N SEXUAL. .............................. 27·28

Pagina 2- Manual de recJusos de la carcel del Condado de Columbia

Modificado el 1811 111 0

CC001963
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 55; Page 3 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 4 of 31

DERECHOS Y PRIVILEGIOS

Durante su estada en esta carcel, queremos que sepan exactamente cuales son nuestras expectativas. AI explicarles las reglas, procedimientos y horarios, sabran que pueden esperar de parte nuestra. Durante su estada en esta carcel, se les proveera con 10 siguiente:

1.

Se serviran tres comidas diarias a intervalos razonables

2.

Recibiran ropa de cama y vestuario limpio, por 10 menDs dos veces a la semana

3.

La oportunidad de ducharse por 10 menos dos veces ala semana

4.

Ejercicio fisico con regularidad

.

5.

Oportunidades para ejercer su religi6n

·6.

Articulos basicos para la higiene propia

7.

Accesibilidad a la bibliotecajuridica de derechos

8.

Accesibilidad a abogados

9.

Tratamiento para emergencia medica y dental

lO. Un ambiente seguro y protegido

Si siguen las reglas y las costumbres sanitarias al pie de la letra, podran recibir los siguientes privilegios:

1.

Uso de la televisi6n

2.

Uso de servicios ofrecidos por]a biblioteca

3.

US!) de actividades recreativas aI aire Iibre

4.

Uso del telefono .

5.

Re.cibir visitas de tipo social

6.

If de compras at "commissary" ("c6miseri" 0 almacen de la carcel)

7.

Mandar y recibir correo

8.

Participacion a voluntad propia en los prograrnas que ofrece la careel

Recuerden que estos ill!. son sus derecbos. El personal de la carcel puede limitar 0 suspender estos privilegios a eualquier momento a fin de mantener seguridad, proteccion, orden y la salubridad de la carcel.

Este manual no cubre cada situacion que podria'suceder, pero les servira como una guia basica para su propia conducta y procedimientos de esta instalacion.

La carcel del Condado de Colurn bia tiene una politica anti-tabaco.

RESPONSABILIDADES Y EXPECTATIVAS EN CUANTO A SU CONDUCTA

Lea este manual para saber cuales son las expectativas. No es admisible poner la excusa "yo no sabia." La responsabilidad es suya de seguir todas las leyes, reglas de la carcel, horarios, y peticiones del personal. Tiene que respetar la propiedad publica de la carcel y los bienes personales de otros. Esto incluye que se mantengan fuera de las ceJdas de otros reclusos y fuera de sus literas. Exigimos que mantengan Iimpia y ordenada su zona de alojamiento, la sala de dia y zonas de recreacion al aire libre. Mala conducta se tratara con firmeza, pero de manerajusta. Mala conducta puede resultar en un cambio de su situaci6n jurfdica en cuanto a su libertad que pudiese afectar sus privilegios dentro de la carce\.

Este manual se Ie hara cumplir y se Ie otorga para su uso mientras se encuentre en este establecimiento. Se Ie hara responsable por la condidon fisica de este manual y se Ie cobrarn por cualquier dano, grafitti, 0

Pagina 1- Manual de reclusos de 1a careel del Condado de Columbia

Modificado el 18111 II 0

CC001964 CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 55; Page 4 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 5 of 31

condici6n inutilizable cuando 10 devuelvan. Por favor inf6rmele a un miembro del personal si su manual esta dafiado para que sea repuesto inmediatarnente.

La mejor manera de controlar su conducta es por medio de la practica de disciplina propia y respeto a

otres. No es permisible que reclusos se dirijan en terminos familiares con el personal correccionaL

Dirfjase de manera considerada y respetuosa hacia oficiales. Exigimos que se dirija hacia el personal

unifonnado tal como "Deputy" (deputi) 0 Sergeant (sarllent)

"y a personal

sin uniforme·tal como "Mr. (mister)

" 0 "Ms.

" AI personal

del Centro de Control se Ie dirigini la palabra tal como "ControL"

Reglas basicas para los reclusos de la carcel del Condado de Columbia:

1. Pongan la tarjeta de identificacion contra la ventana mirando hacia afuera para que se yea y puedaser registrada durante su confinam~ento.
2. Porten la tarjeta de identificacion en sus bolsillos cuando esten ruera de sus dormitorios. 3. Vistan el vestuario completo con la camiseta dentro de sus pantalones cuando esten en la sala de dia. 4. Traigan sus camisetas y boxers puestos a toda bora, cUando esten en sus dormitorios, incluso cuando duermen, sin excepciones. . 5. Cuando salgan del "pod" (modulo) hacia el circulo central, quedense sobre los cuadrados
coloreados. Los cuadrados forman una linea por la cual se camina. Mantenganse sobre esa linea a menos que haya un obstaculo, en ese caso, evitelo. Mantenganse a fila de a uno. 6. Cuando se encuentren en cualquier otro pasiIlo, caminen allado derecbo del pasillo y en fila de a uno. No toquen nada. No hablen, no griten 0 no Ie senalen a nadie. Mantengan las manos quietas cerca de si mismos. 7. Solo pueden haber seis (6) reclusosa Ia vez cuando esten en el pasillo. . 8. NO cubran el sistema de ventilaci6n 0 los parlantes dentro de las celdas.

CAMAS Y ROPA DE CAMA

La ropa de cama consistini de dos sabanas y dos cobijas. No pueden sacar las sabanas y cobijas de las celdas 0 literas, ni tampoco ponerlas en el piso 0 sobre la mesa por cualguier rawn. No pueden sacar el colch6n de la litera y ponerla en el piso de su celda 0 en la sala de dia deJ"pod." Los colchones son solo para el simple uso de dormir. La zona de literas tiene que quedar ordenada durante el dia.

CARGOS DE LAS TASAS

Tal como autoriza ORS 169.150 Y 169.15 J, Instalaciones Penitenciarios Locales pueden facturar a reclusos por artfculos y servicios provistos durante su encarcelamiento en una Instalacion Penitenciaria.

A cada recluso condenado se Ie cobranl una tasa de pension completa de $10.00 por dia. El recluso recibini una factura cuando sea puesto en libertad. EI recluso tendni 30 dfas para pagar la factura 0 establecer un plan de pago.

El primer botiquin de higiene propio es $2.15 y la tarjeta de identificaci6n de reclusos es $1.00. Todo medicamento sin receta y tarribien medicamentos recetados se cobraran a traves de la cuenta del "commissary" (c6miseri) del recluso. Cuando el recluso sea puesto en llbertad y si su cuenta del "c6miseri" es negativa, esa cantidad tambien apareceni en la factura. Si pasan mas de 30 dias sin que se realice un pago ala factura, la cuenta se entregani para cobro al Departamento de Ingresos de Oregon.

Lista de cobras adicionales:

Pagina 2- Manual de reclusos de la caree! del Condado de Columbia

Modificado e) \8/11/ I0

CC001965
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 55; Page 5 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 6 of 31

I) Para reclusos que tienen semi-libertad para trabajar, se les cobrara $15 diarios a 10 minimo, 6 dos horas de paga si el pago es sobre $7.50. por h~ra.

2) Estuche de higiene

$ 2.15 cada uno

3) Postal

$ 0..50.

4) Cortes de pelo

$ 5.0.0

5) Visitas al medico/enfennero

$ 5.0.0.

6) Visitas al medico para medicamentos sin receta $1.0.0.

7) Botiquines medicos entregados

$ 0..50.

8) Productos de higiene femeninos

$ 0..20.

9) Razuradoras (si es mas de una)

$ 0..15

10) Copias de materiales legales

$ 0..25

Si los siguientes artfculos se encuentran dafiados 0 destruidos, se Ie cobrara: .

II) Recipiente

$ 44.95

12) Tapa del recipiente

$ 26.95

13) Tenedor-cuchara

$ 0..25

14) Sandalias

$ 2.49

15) Tazas

$ 0..75

16) Calcetines (S1 aplica)

$ 0..85

17) Toallas

$ 0..75

18) Camisa a rayas

$ 6.55 -.$12.75

19) Pantalones a rayas

$ 8.75 - $14.95

20) Camisetas

$ 3.99 - $ 7.30.

21) Pantalones cortos

$ 2.32 - $ 2.75

22) Tarjeta de identificaci6n de repuesto

$ 5.0.0. .

Todos los cobros son sujetos a cambios

ORDEN "CELL IN" ("CEL IN" - DENTRO CELDAS)

La orden "cell in" ("cell-in" - entre a la celda) 0 "bunk up" ("bank ap" - a las literas), se refiere a que deben dejar 10 que esten haciendo e ir directamente a sus celdas 0 literas. Deben seguir esta orden sin cuestionar a vacilar. Si no se hace, podrea afectar su clasificacion y su situaci6n juridica y tambien resultara en aeciones disciplinarias en su contra.

CLASlFICACI6N

Todos los reclusos recien detenidos que no son puestos en Iibertad antes de ser trasladados de la zona de fichamiento, se les asignani una vjvienda en una unidad de pre clasificaci6n. Dado a razones de clasificaci6n, pueden que se mantengan en un estado de "lock-down~' ("Joe daun - bajo Have) por un maximo de setenta y dos (72) horas. La careel del Condado de Columbia tiene tres c1asificaeiones que consisten de minima, media y maxima seguridad. A todos los reclusos se les asignara una clasificaci6n de acuerdo a su situaci6n juridica. Los reclusos pueden solicitar una revision de su clasificaci6n por escrito por media de un formulario de Solicitud del Recluso a cualquier momento.

La mayoria de los reclusos que participan en el Programa de Trabajadores internos y los Programas alternativos deben de calificar para aquel y mantener un estado de custodia minima.

LAS ACTIVIDADES PUEDEN VARIAR EN CUANTO A SU N[VEL DE CLASIFlCACION.

Pagina 3- Manual de reclusos de la careel del Condado de Columbia

Modifieado el 1811111 0

CC001966
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 55; Page 6 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 7 of 31

INTERCAMBIO DE ROPA

Se proveeni ropa limpia dos veces por semana. Tienen que entregar toda su ropa sucia durante el intercambio de ropa. A cambio, recibiran una camiseta, un par de pantalones cortos, una toalIa, una camisa a rayas y un par de pantalones a rayas. A cada otro intercambio recibiran sabanas limpias. Cobijas pueden ser intercambiadas cada 30 dras. Cada unidad de vivienda tendra un horario diferente de lavanderia.

Personal de la carcel han! todo 10 posible para garantizar que la ropa este en buen estado. Reclusos senin

responsabJes par toda la ropa y ropa de cama que sea distribuida a sunombre. Deben revisar el estado de

la ropa que reciben, e informarle inmediatamente a un miembro del personal e intercambiar cualquier

prenda de vestir 0 ropa de cama que tenga un desgarro 0 graffiti escrito sobre 61. Si se les encuentra en

posesion de articulos danados, seran sujetos a medidas disciplinarias. Esto puede incluir que tengan que

pagar por )a ropa danada.

.

COMISSARY (HCOMISERl" - At.MACEN)

La carcel del Condado de Columbia tiene una lista buen provista de los articulos del "comissary", por la cual reclusos con fondos pueden comprar diversos articulos. Si es necesario, reclusos sin fondos pueden pedir un botiqufn.de higiene indigentes una vez por semana. Articulos indigentes se pondran en la cuenta del rec]uso dejandolo con una cuenta negativa. Formuhirios de pedido para el "commissary" se repartiran una vez por semana. Si no han recibido fondos antes de que se repartan los formularios, tend ran que esperar h,asta la semana siguiente para hacer un pedido. Compras del "commissary" se limitan a un maximo de $75.00 por semana. Reclusos no pueden tener mas de dos (2) lapices bajo su posesion en un momenta dado. Ademas, a cada recluso se Ie permitini un paquete de lapices de color.

CONTRABANDO

Se refiere a cualquier art;iculo autonzado que este bajo la posesi6n de un recluso que ha sido alterado 0 no utilizado de acuerdo a su proposito original, 0 cualquier articulo que exceda la cantidad emitida, tal como se indica en este manual.

ARTicULOS OTORGADOS POR EL CONDADO

Todos los reclusos que sean ingresados a la carcel del Condado de Columbia, en el camerino a bano, se les otorgara ropa de carcel despues de ser admitidos. Se Ie otorgara un recipiente plastico que contiene un botiquin de higiene, ropa de cama, toallas, ropa y este manual para reclusos. Otro articulo otorgado sera un colchon. Seran responsables por fa condicion de todos los artfculos que se les otorguen. EI recipiente (caja) gris se utHizara especificamente para el almacenamiento de sus pertenencias personales y otorgadas. Los recipientes no pueden ser utilizados como sillas 0 para cualquier otro usa que no sea tal como 10 ante-mencionado. Recipientes deben pennanecer bajo su litera en tada momento.

1. Una camisa de uniforme de recluso 2. Un pantalon de uniforme de recluso 3. Dos camisetas 4. Dos pares de pantalones cortos/calzones 5. Un par de sandalias de carcel

6. Un coJchon 7. Dos sabanas 8. Dos cobijas 9. Una toalla 10. Un \ibro de reglas

Pagina 4- Manual de reclusos de la eareel del Condado de Columbia

Modificado e[ 1811111 0

CC001967
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 55; Page 7 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 8 of 31

Para reclusos del sexo femenino puede que se les permtta mantener 10 siguiente:
]. Su propia ropa interior si se necesita por razones de higiene, y si 10 determina apropiado el personal.
2. Su propio brasierlsosten, sin broches metalicos 0 aros. Se prefiere un s05ten deportivo .
Durante los meses de invierno se les otorgara una sudadera para ser usada dentro de la eelda, sala de dia, el patio de reereo al aire libre 0 debajo de la eamisa a rayas cuando comparecen en la corte.
CONDUCTA ANTE UN TRIBUNAL
Durante su estada en la carce!, su primera comparecencia ante el tribunal sera para la lectura de cargos. Durante la lectura de cargos, eljuez Ie dinl de 10 que se Ie ilcusa y sus derechos en cuanto a esos cargos. El juez puede nombrar a un abogado en este momenta si califica.
Durante cualquier comparecencia ante ei tribunal~ no tendni contacto con ninguna persona que no sea su abogado 0 funcionarios del tribunal. Tener contacto se refiere a hablar, sefializar, 0 pasar notas a gente.
La lectu'ra de cargos por medio de video se considera tal como la sala del tribunal, y las reglas ante mencionadas aplican.
REGLAS DE VESTUARIO
Se exige que permanezcan completamente vestidos en todo momenta, excepto cuando estan en su litera. Cuando' esten en sus literas asignadas deben por 10 menDS traer puesta la camiseta y pantalones eortos otorgados por esta instalaci6n. Deben estar completamente vestidos a cada momento que saJgan del zona de alojamiento 0 dormitorio. El acto de estar completamente vestido consiste en traer puestos pantalones cortos, camiseta, camisa a rayas y pantalones a rayas 0 pantalones cortos a rayas, camiseta, sudadera gris y pantalones a rayas. Se puede usar el bafiQ en su camiseta y pantalones cortos durante las "lights out" (,,'lai15 aut" - luces apagadas), si viven en un dormitorio abierto.
La camiseta debe ir por dentro de los pantalones en todo momento y no colgando. Se permite doblar los pantalones si son demasiados largos, pero no mas arriba de los tohillos. No altere la apariencia de su ropa
No se pueden arremangar las camisas, meter los pantalones dentro de los calcetines, 0 traer los panta(ones debajo las caderas. No se permite usar ropa que sea demasiado grande 0 demasiado chica.
Se permite traer la camisa exterior a rayas fuera del pantal6n durante ejercicio en la zona recreativa.
SEGURIDAD CONTRA INCENDIOS Y EMERGENCIAS
En caso de cualquier tipo de emergencia 0 evacuaci6n. deben seguir la orden directa del "Deputy" (agente del sheriff). Hay procedimientos de evacuaci6n de emergencia puestos en lugar y senin evacuados de manera ordenada a un lugar seguro.
Si un "Deputy" pide la evacuaci6n de una zona, formen una fila recta a la puerta de su "pod" yesperen las direcciones del "Deputy" 0 del persona) de la sala de control. Un "Deputy" les dirigira a una zona segura.

Pagina 5- Manual de reclusos de la eareel del Condado de Columbia

Modifieado el 18111/10

CC001968
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 55; Page 8 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 9 of 31

CUIDADO DEL CABELLO E HIGIENE PERSONAL
Les animamos a que se duchen a diario. Repartimos razuradoras tres veces a la semana. Si algUn individuo tiene que ir al tribunal, se Ie permitini el usa de una razuradora antes de su comparecencia ante el tribunal. Una vez ala semana se pondra una lista dentro de su "pod" respectivo donde debe inscribirse para recibir un corte de pelo. Se pueden hacer cortes de pelo cuando haya una persona disponible para ser peluquero. Hay un cobro de $5.00 par corte de pelo. Cortes de pelo se Ilevaran a cabo solo los Sabados y Domingos. Se les permitira tener un corte de pelo al meso No se permiten cortes de pelo que no sean un recorte 0 fa eliminaci6n completa a una barba corta. Ningun otro estilo sera tolerado. S610 se permite un corte de pelo gratis por mes para trabajadores de la cocina y del piso.
EVALUACION DE SALUD MEDICA
EI recluso necesita realizar una evaluaci6n de salud medica antes de poder ser consideredo bajo la categoria de "trabajador."
OPERAClONES DE VIVIENDAS PENITENCIARIAS
La operaci6n diaria de los ~'pods" penitenciarios sera la siguiente:
Tendriin permiso para salir de sus celdas par un plazo corto durante el desayuno en la manana. Recibiran instrucciones para volver a sus celdas hasta la hora de almuerzo. Despues del almuerzo, tendnln tres horns fuera de sus celdas. Al termino de este plazo, volvenin a sus celdas. El siguiente plazo fuera de sus celdas, sera despues de cenar por dos horas. .
Plazos filera de las celdas para reclusos de cada "pod" sera determinado como sea necesario para cu·mplir las necesidades de)a instalacion.
Materiales para la limpieza seran provistos durante el dia. Se requiere que hagan uso de eUos al diario .para limpiar sus celdas, rona de literas y los "pods" enteros a manera diaria.
No se pennite a nadie sentarse. pararse, 0 merodear en las escaleras 0 pasarelas (de los pisos de arriba) a ninguna h~ra. Esto incluye el caminar 0 caminar a vueltas en los pisos de arriba 0 escaJeras. No se pennite sentarse sobre las mesas.
EL SERVlCIO DE INMIGRACION Y CONTROL DE ADUANAS
Reclusos localizados en la carcel del Condado de Columbia por El Servicio de Inmigraci6n y Control de Aduanas (ICE) se puede poner en contacto con ellos por medio de un formulario de petici6n de reclusos de ICE.
Reclusos de ICE se pueden pOller en contacto con los abogados gratis de ICE al Hamar (800) 646-6283. Una !ista de todas las lIamadas gratis para el uso de los detenidos de ICE, se localiza en cada "pod" sobre los buzones de corree. Agentes de ICE hacen visitas previstas ala carcel del Condado de Columbia los mi6rcoles de cada semana.
TARJETAS DE IDENTIFICACION
Deben portar sus tarjetas de identificaci6n de reclusos en su persona cada momenta que esten fuera de sus celdas. No dejen que nillguna otra persona use sus tarjetas de identificaci6n. Cuando esten en sus celdas, coloquen sus tarjetas boca arriba en contra la ventana de sus puertas con la foto mirando hacia afuera para

Pagina 6- Manual de reclusos de la caree\ del Condado de Columbia

Modifieado e118/IIIlO

CC001969
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 55; Page 9 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 10 of 31

que el "Deputy" pueda ver sus nombres y fotos. Deberan entregar sus tarjetas a cualquier miembro del personal si se los piden ver.

EL CONTEO DE RECLUSOS

Habran por 10 menos seis "Conteos de Protocolo" por dia. Al comienzo de cada "conteo de protoco}o" les diran "cell in 0 bunk up" (a sus celdas). Apagaran las televisiones. En ese momento deberan:

1. Entrar a sus celdas y cerrar las puertas 0 subirse a sus literas. depende del "pod" en que

esten.

2. Coloquen sus taIjetas de identificaci6n correctamente en contra la ventanas de sus puertas 0

en sus literas. Si estin en literas. 0 si no estan en sus dormitorios 0 "pods'" es permitido

que tegan

las tarjetas de identificaci6n en sus manos y 10 muestren al "Deputy" haciendo el conteo.

Antes de "lock-down" carla noche, un conteo de protocolo final se !levani a cabo de la siguiente manera.

1. Dentro de "pods" con celdas, vayan a sus dormitorios, cierren la puerta, parense con un

individuo a cada lade de la puerta, tarjetas de identificaci6n en mano, listos para el conteo.

Todos los reclusos permaneceran de esta manera hasta que el ·'Deputy" registre sus tarjetas

de

identificaci6n.

2. Dentro de un dormitorio abierto, vayan a sus literas y parense allado de sus Jiteras con sus tarjetas de identificaci6n en mano, hasta que el "Deputy" registre sus tarjetas. Despues del conteo de protocolo, deben acostarse y pennanecer callados.

Habnin varios conteos de protocolo por dia, por tanto, cuando un «Deputy" entre a sus ceJdas, permanezcan donde esten, no se muevan hasta que el Agente se retire 0 les de perrniso para moverse.

SISTEMA DE TRAMITE DE QUEJAS PARA RECLUSOS

Reclusos pueden presentar una queja en cuanto ala condicion de fa carcel si encuentran que hay un problema 0 una inj usticia. No pueden quejarse en contra de: acciones disciplinarias (hay un proceso de apelaci6n para eso), decisiones en cuanto a clasificaci6n, incidentes 0 problemas del cual no fue parte, una colecci6n de quejas sin relaci6n entre si mismas, y queja~ como grupo.

Para presentar una queja, d~ben de seguir los siguientes pasos al orden siguiente. No pueden saltarse ningun paso.

I. Reclusos podran pedir un Formulario de tramite de quejas de cualquier Agente de

Correcciones a cualquier momento para Hamar la atenci6n hacia problemas observados 0

soluciones propuestas. El Agente tomara acci6n en cuanto a cualquier queja dentro del

alcance de

su autoridad y documentara cualquier acci6n que se tome en cuanto al pedido

dentro de cinco (5)

dias laborales.

2. Reclusos podran volver a dirigir el reclamo al Supervisor de la jornada para reclamos que no puedan resolverse razonablemente por el "Deputy." EI Supervisor tomara acci6n en cuanto a cualquier queja dentro del alcance de su autoridad y documentara en el forrnulario la acci6n tomada dentro de cinco (5) dias laborales.

3. Si el Supervisor no resuelve la queja al gusto del recluso, el recluso puede mandar el Formulario de tnimite de quejas al Supervisor de la instalaci6n 0 quien designe.

Pagina 7- Manual de reclusos de Ja caree! del Condado de Columbia

Modificado el 18/1 111 0

CC001970
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 55; Page 10 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 11 of 31

El Supervisor de la instalacian 0 quien designe, tomara acci6n en cuanto a la queja y documentara en e] formulario la accian tomada dentro de cinco (5) dias.
4. Si el Supervisor de la instalaci6n no resuelve la queja al gusto del recluso, el recluso puede mandar el'Fonnulario de trAmite de quejas selJado al sheriff. EI sherifftomara accl6n en cuanto a la queja y documentani en el formulario su decisi6n dentro de diez (10) dias laborales. jLa decisi6n tomada por el sheriff sera inapelable!
Reclusos pueden presentar una Queja de urgencia en el caso de que existan las circunstancias para justificar tal acci6n. Este sera presentado directamente al Comandante de la eareel dentro de un sobre sellado, utilizando el mismo Formulario de tnimite de quejas para reclusos.
FORMULARIOS DE SOLICITUD PARA RECLUSOS
Los Fonnularios de solicitud para reclusos (tambi6n se les conoce como kites) estan disponibles solo bajo pedido. Hay dos formularios. Uno es para preguntas de tipo general, bibliotecajuridica de derechos, y visitaciones. El otro fonnulario es et Formulario de solicitud medica. Esta es solameote para que responda el personal medico 0 et doctor y estas se les mandara a ellos. Hay formularios distintos y separados para ponerse en contacto con 1a Comunidad Penitenciaria del Condado de Columbia 0 con el Servicio de Inmigraci6n y Control de Aduanas (lCE). '
ACTIVIDADES DEL TRABAJADOR INTERNO
Si reclusos quieren trabajar dentro de la careeJ, deben pedir y rellenar un Contrato laboral del trabajador interno, y ponerlo dentro del buz6n de correo. Puede que tome varios dfas antes de recibir el ejemplar.
Varios reclusos 'seran elegidos por e( personal para trabajos de cocina, de limpieza, 0 de manutenci6n dentro de la instalaci6n. El personal de medico tiene que darle el visto bueno al recluso antes de poder participar en actividades de trabajador interno, especialmente en cuanto a trabajos de cocina.
Solamente pueden recibir eredito por tiempo de trabajo si recibieron condena y si la orden de condena se 10 permite. Cualquier cambio en la descripcian de un trabajo 0 de jornada tiene que ser aprobado por el Supervisor.
SISTEMA ALTOPARLANTES
Los botones para el sistema de altoparlantes dentro de las celdas se usan solamente para propositos de emergencia. No pueden usarse para ningun otro tipo de comunicaci6n. Si los botones son mal empleados, el recluso que quiebre esta regIa se Ie escribini un informe (negativo) por falta de atenerse a las reglas de la carcel del Condado de Columbia.
BmLIOTECA JURiDICA DE DERECHOS
Por cada vez que pida el recluso, la careel del Condado de Columbia Ie dara aceeso a la biblioteca juridica por una hora. Los unicos limites al uso de la biblioteca seran impuestos por la hora Y POf la necesidad de mantener la seguridad y protecci6n de la instalacion. Para tener acceso, el recluso tiene que presentar un formulario de soHcitud con por 10 menos veinticuatro (24) horas de avanzo. La expectativa es que el recluso lIeve consigo a la biblioteea un bloc de papel Y lapiz de grafito para asistirle en su investigacian. Todo libro jurfdico, material de referencia y otros articulos han de permanecer en la biblioteca para asegurar el acceso equitativo a todos los reclusos. EI recluso tendra opciones muy limitadas para hacer

Pagina 8- Manual de rec\usos de la circel del Condado de Columbia

Modificado el 18111 /] 0

CC001971
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 55; Page 11 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 12 of 31

fotocopias, de las cuales se Ie cobrani par fotocopia. A ningun recluso se Ie negara este servicio basado en su imposibilidad de pagar.

Cuando tennine, se requiere que deje la biblioteca ordenada y arreglada. Por favor tenga consciente que el personal penitenciario no puede darle cOilsejo legal 0 asistencia legal. Si tiene preguntas, por favor consillte con su abogado.

BlBLIOTECA

A todos los reclusos de la carcel del Condado de Columbia, se les dara ampJia 6portunidad al acceso de libros de la biblioteca de la carcel. Puede que los libros sean repartidos por un carrito. Se puede tener hasta seis libros a la vez. Todos los libros tienen que ser devueltos a la biblioteca 0 al carrito, antes de registrar la salida de m~s libros. Si en el registro de su persona 0 celda encuentran que hay mas de seis Iibros bajo su posesi'6n, puede que 10 sometan a accion disciplinaria. Libros dafiados deben devolverse inmediatamente a un ·'Deputy." Tener libros daiiados bajo su posesion puede tenninar en aceion disciplinaria. Los seis libros no incluyen libros de tipo religioso 0 educativos. Ala discreci6n del personal penitenciario, se determinara si los Iibros son en cierto religiosos 0 educativos.

CORRESPONDENCIA

La correspondencia es entregada a la oficina del sheriff de acuerdo a las indicaciones al Servicio Postal de E.E.U.U., excluyendo dias feriados.

Reglas generales: Pueden mandar y recibir correspondencia a traves del Correo de E.E.U.U. Correspondencia, mensajes y notas entregadas a mano no se aceptaran y no se las entregaran. Con la excepei6n de circunstancias poco corriente, como dfas feriados 0 fines de semana, correspondencia que se recibe, se les entregani dentro de 24 horas de haber sido recibida. Correspondencia que se manda sera puesta en un buzon para ser recogida dentro de 24 horas de haber sido entregada por el recluso. Si recibimos correspondencia para ustedes despues de su salida, esta sera devuelta al que la mando. Tendra que notificarle a la oficina postal de su direcci6n destinaria cuando salga de la carcel.

Con la excepci6n de "Correspondencia formal 0 legal y confidenciaJ," el personal puede registrar e inspeccionar toda correspondencia que entre y salga.

·'Correspondencia formal 0 leg~1 y confidencial" es toda correspondencia entre el recluso y su abogado, agentes de gobiemo, comandantes de la ca..rcel, sheriffs; tribunaJes, su doctor 0 instalaci6n medica, contactos religiosos que han sidq verificados, 0 la prensa. Podemos abrir e inspeccionar esta correspondencia ante el recluso para aseguramos que no contiene contrabando.

Reglas generales en cuanto a la correspondencia: Podemos poner Iimites sobre la correspondencia del recluso por razones de: cantidad, el efecto que tiene en cuanto a su rehabilitacion 0 tratamiento, 0 por la seguridad, proteccion y buen orden de la carcel. Podemos abrir e inspeccionar toda correspondencia para contrabando y podemos leer toda correspondencia particular.

Facilitaremos una Guia de correspondencia de reclusos para miembros del pUblico. Esta explicara las reglas de correspondencia y que es 10 que pueden y no pueden mandar. Pidale copias al "Deputy." EI publico tambien puede Hamar a1 (503) 366-4630 para recibir la informacion que se encuentra en la guia 0
pueden leerlo en el sitio de web de la careel: www.co.columbla.or.us/sheriff

RegIas de correspondencia de reclusos "Que se puede hacer"

,-

Pagina 9- Manual de rec1usos de la carcel del Condado de Columbia

Modificado el 18f1 1/10

CC001972 CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 55; Page 12 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 13 of 31

Para mandar correspondencia tiene que hacer 10 siguiente:

1.

Solamente usar lapiz de graftto para escribir cartas.

2.

Solamente usar postales aprobadas par la carcel que vende el "commissary" a que han sido

repartidas por el personal para correspondencia de tipo social.

3.

Mantengan el peso de correspondencia legal 0 formal, en un sobre que viene con estampilla, bajo 1

onza (28 gm). Pam mantener el sobre a una onza 0 menos, los contenidos tjenen que ser menos de

cuatro hojas de 8-1/2" x. 11" de papel de peso estandar.

"

4.

Mantengan notificados a sus amigos y familia cuando reciban libros, peri6dicos de prensa, 0 dinero

que ellos les han mandado.

5.

Cuando salgan a sean trasladados de la carcel, manden una notiftcaci6n de cambio-de-direccion a

aquellos que les mandan postales 0 peri6dicos a revistas.

6.

Escriban la direcci6n del remitente tal como se indica en la postal de muestra en toda

Ocorrespondencia que manden. Inf6rmenles a las personas que les mandan postales u otros tipos de

corresp6ndencia aprobada, que usen esa direcci6n para mandarles correa.

Reglas de correspondencia de reclusos "Que no se puede hacer" No pueden hacer ninguno de 10 siguiente:

1.

(No se puede) Dibujar a escribir "nada en 1a poret6n reservada para la direcci6n de la postal 0 en la

foto 0 di~ujo de la postal que no sea la informacion de su nombre y la direccion.

2.

(No se puede) Mandar formularios de la carcel para que otrDS se la lIenen de parte suya.

3.

(No se puede) Mandar correspondencia prohibida.

4.

(No se puede) Mandar propiedad de la carcel.

5.

(No se puede) Pedir pubIicaciones (revistas, etc.) a credito a facturaci6n aplazada desde la carcel.

6.

(No se puede) Operar un negocio comercial 0 una organizacion sin fines de lucro desde la carcel.

7.

(No se puede) Pedir clases por correspondencia a menos que tengan permiso del Agente del

comando de la carcel.

8.

(No se puede) Dirigir transacciones de negocio comercial 0 personal, 0 pedir servicios de una

agencia de gobierno a menos de que tengan permiso del Agente del comando de la careel.

9.

"(No se puede) Mandar correspondencia a otro recluso de esta instalaci6n sin tener de antemano un

permiso escrito.

Como mandar y recibir correspondencia Solamente pueden mandar y recibir correspondencia a traves del Servicio Postal de E.E.U.U. EI sistema
interno de correspondencia de la carcel es solo para comunicarse con el personal de la carcel. Cualquier intercambio de comunicaci6n escrita de parte del recluso que no cumpIa con las reglas y procedimientos de correspondencia, esta en incumplimiento de las reglas y esta sujeto a acci6n disciplinaria. Esto iIicluye el mandar de notas a otros reclusos, 0 notas, postales 0 correspondencia a cualquiera por via de una visitaci6n, cornparecencia al tribunal, 0 traslado. Personas no pueden dejar correspondencia, rnensajes, 0 notas al recluso con la carcel. Correspondencia particular tiene que ser en una postal producida comercialmente que no exceda las medidas de 5 112 par 8 112 pulgadas.

Can la excepcion de circunstancias poco corriente y en dias feriados 0 fines de semana, repartiremos correspondencia a los reclusos dentro de 24 horas de recibirlas. La oficina posta) no recoge correo los fines de semana y dias feriados.

Es importante que eI recluso use la direcci6n correcta y completa de e) recipiente cuando mande correspondencia. Si a!guien Ie dice al recluso que el a ella no recibi6 alga que se mand6 y el recluso no recibi6 un aviso de incautaci6n de parte nuestr'd, es un asunto que e) recluso tiene que aclamr can la

Pagina 10- Manual de reclusos de la carcel del Condado de Columbia 1&/1111 0

Modificado el

CC001973
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 55; Page 13 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 14 of 31

oficina postal - no la carcel. Para su facilidad, las direcciones de agencias gubemamentales comunmente contactadas estan al posterior de este manual, tituladas "Paginas Gubemamentales."

No reenviamos correspondencia. Si recibimos correspondencia para un recluso y ya no esta aqui, se la devolveremos aJ que Ja mand6. (Por favor inf6rmele a los que les mandan correspondencia que incluyan la direcci6n de remitente. Confiscamos correspondencia sin direcci6n de remitente 0 la destruimos si ya no se encuentra el recluso en estacarcel.)

Correspondencia Legal y Oficial

.

Correspondencia legal es correspondencia dirigida al abogado del recluso 0 viene de parte del abogado y

esta marcada claramente "correspondencia legal.".Correspondencia oficial es para, 0 viene de parte de

autoridades, tal como del agente del comando de la carcel, el sheriff, el administrador del condado,

autoridades de Iibertad vigilada, fiscal del distrito, procurador geneJ?l1 del estado, Gobemador, tribunal, 0

agente del tribunal.

Abriremos e inspeccionaremos correspondencia legal y oficial delante del recluso para aseguramos que no coritiene contrabando. Si el recluso manda este tipo de correspondencia, debera denotar en la parte del frente del sobre "correspondencia legal" 0 "correspondencia oficial" 0 la trataremos como si fuera correspondencia particular. Trataremos correspondencia de parte de su abogado que no est6 marcada "correspondencia legal" como correspondencia particular. EI recluso esta sujeto a acci6n disciplinaria y a un proceso criminal por marcar un sobre de manera fraudulenta como correspondencia legal u' oficial.

Libros El recluso puede recibir hasta tres Iibros usados 0 nuevos por mes, del cual pueden seT de tapa blanda 0 tapa dura. Libros de tapa dura no se permiten en segregaciones de hombres 0 mujeres. Reclusos bajo segregacion solamente pueden recibir libros nuevos de tapa blanda. Personas fuera de la carcel tienen que pagar y mandar a pedir libr6s directamente de la editorial, club de libros, 0 una libreria acreditada para el recluso. Libros no pueden ser mas grande que 9 por 12 pulgadas (228 por 305 mm). No pueden venir con ribetes de plastico 0 metal.

Publicaciones peri6dicas No aceptamos ninguna publicaci6n peri6dica (peri6dicos, revtstas, etc.)
Correspondencia aceptable Solo aceptamos paquetes que contienen publicaciones de una fuente aprobada. Un sobre, sea de entrada 0 salida, solo puede contener estos tipos de artfculos, y con los siguientes Iimites y restricciones:

Correspondencia particular que es aceptable Tipo de articulo de correspondencia Limites y restricciones

Correspondencia escrita

Tiene que ser una postal producida comercialmente 0 correspondencia legal u oficial. Excluye correo basura.

Fotografias

Solo fotografias que han sido imprimidas en papel de fotografia y usada como postal, entregada por el servicio postal.

Cheques y giros postales esta

No aceptamos cheques/giros postales. "Touchpay" (tochpey) disponibJe en el vestibulo y se accede por telefono 0 internet.

Documentos de negocio personal

Ningun tipo. A menos que las reglas generales de

correspondencia si aplican.

Pagina 11- Manual de reclusos de la carcel del Condado de Columbia 18/1111 0

Modificado el

CC001974
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 55; Page 14 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 15 of 31

Si no se encuentra en la lista de esta secci6n, el articulo es contrabando y sera devuelto a quien 10 mand6, sera confiscado 0 destruido S1 plantea un riesgo a la protecci6n 0 la salud.

Correspondencia prohibida No entregaremos 0 enviaremos correspondencia que:

1.

Contiene amenazas contra la integridad fisica, chantaje, extorsi6n, u otra actividad delincuente.

2.

Contiene planes de escape, actividad delincuente, 0 actividad que no cumple las reglas de la carce!.

3.

Contiene articulos de contrabando (cinta adhesiva, autoadhesivos, marcadores, crayones, sustancias

extrafias, perfumes, etc.)

4.

Si es un articulo que puede esconder contrabando.

5.

Se trata de informacion para mandar 0 recibir contrabando.

6.

Anima 0 da instruccion de como corneter un delito.

7.

Contiene informacion relacionada a pandillas 0 de grupos de amenaza ala protecci6n.

8.

Contiene informacion que, si comunicada, pondria en peligro de violencia 0 en dano la integridad

f'isica de una persona.

9.

Si esta escrita en c6digo 0 se sospecha un codigo. (Esto puede incluir idiomas extranjeros si no

podemos encontrar a un interprete en un plazo razonable)

10.

Contiene materialsexualmente explicito, dibujos/fotos 0 Jengua escrito.

11.

Pueda causar una conmoci6n. (Una amenaza a la seguridad, prateccion, 0 buen orden de la circel 0

si perturba el progreso del recluso en un programa de rehabilitacion.)

12.

Contiene sustancias extrafias 0 liquidos corporales.

13.

Viene de parte de 0 esta dirigido a un recluso de esta instalaci6n penitenciaria,' 0 algUien de recluso

en casa bajo monitoreo electronico.

14.

Viene de parte de 0 esta dirigido a una victima de un delito por la cual el recluso esta bajo arresto,

sea que este en prisi6n preventiva 0 ya se Ie haya impuesto una pena, 0 bajo cualquier orden de

estar sin contacto.

1S.

Viene de parte de 0 esta dirigido hacia un recluso via una tercera parte.

16.

Si un articulo sobrepasa los Iimites de tamano 0 cantidad.

17.

Si es una publicacion que no vino directarnente del editor, Iibreria, 0 club de Iibras.

18.

Si es un cheque 0 giro postal que no se acepta.

19.

Si e5 correo de basura, no solicitada

Incautacion de correspondencia

Le daremos un aviso de incautaci6n por la correspondencia que incautemos. Cuando incautamos artfculos por razones de sobrepaso del numero Iimitado, tal como libros 0 revistas, incautarem05 (0 devo!veremos) la cantidad entera, en vez de seleccionar algunos para reducir el numero de la cantidad limitada. Le devolveremos al recluso toda correspondencia incautada cuando sea puesto en libertad, si es que fue guardada y no desechada por razones de salud y proteccion. Puede presentar una queja para pedir que se 10 devuelvan antes de ser puesto libertad. Cualquier tipo de correspondencia prohibida sera devuelta a quien la envi6. Puede que no reciba un aviso de que el contrabando ha sido devuelto a qUlen 10 envio.

Uso de so bres

EI recluso puede usar sobres que vende el "commissary" para enviar los siguientes tipos de carta: 1. Correspondencia legal u oficial 2. Una carta legal U oficial que no puede 0 no debe ser doblada, 0 5i pesa mas de una onza. 3. Con eI permiso del personal, una carta particular que contiene un diploma 0 certificado de un algun

Pagina 12- Manual de reclusos de la careel del Condado de Columbia \8/11110

Modificado el

CC001975
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 55; Page 15 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 16 of 31

programa que no puede 0 no debe ser doblado. El "Deputy" tiene que confirmar que el
E' .recluso esta mandando un diploma 0 certificado antes de poder sellar el sobre. recluso no puede usar estos sobres para ningun tipo de correspondencia que no cumpla uno de los tres criterios ante mencionados. Se Ie restanin de su cuenta de reclusos el precio de las estampillas para los sobres de manila aceptables'.

Como mandar correspondencia legal u oficial certificada

EI recluso puede mandar una carta legal 0 formal haciendo uso de servicios como Correspondencia certificada del servicio postal y Acuse de recibo. Le lIeganin recibos de que la carta fue enviada y que ha sido recibida por la persona a quien se envi6. Se Ie cobrara al recluso por estos servicios la tasa postal normal. Tiene que tener el dinero en su cuenta de reclusos para pagar las tasas postales 0 de tener Iii aprobaci6n apropiada si el recluso es iTi.digente. Un "deputy" Ie suplini con un forrnulario de solicitud para Correspondencia certificada que puede Ilenar y presentar junto Cbn la carta. Solo pueden mandar 2 cartas de correspondencia certificada dentro de un plazo de 30 dras.

Correo de envio

Los reclusos pondran toda correspondencia para ser enviada en el buzon, localizada en la sala de dia de cada unidad. Se les exige que escriban clararnente la direcci6n en su correspondencia y que usen la correcta cantidad de estampillas. Toda correspondencia para ser enviada ha de tener la siguiente direcci6n de remitente:

Su nombre completo Columbia County Jail 901 Port Avenue St. Helens Oregon 97051

C Ol\1ID AS

La comida se servini tres veces al dia aproximadamente a las 6:30 A.M., 12:00 P.M., y 5:00 P.M. Puede que sea requerido que reclusos pre clasificados y disciplinados coman en sus celdas. EI resto forrnara una fila para recibir servicio, y comenin en las mesas provistas en las salas de dia. Si el recluso elige no comer, por favor avisele al "deputy." Las televisiones perrnaneceran apagadas mientras se sirve la comida. Una vez que servida la comida y el "deputy" se retire del "pod," la television puede volver a prenderse.

No guarde comida del servicio de comidas.

Toda solicitud para dietas especiaJes de preferencia personal, tal como comidas vegetarianas, tienen que ser aprobadas de antemano por los supervisores de la careel. Todos los reclusos bajo una dieta de preferencia personal se les cobrara una tasa de $1.00 por comida, restada directamente de su fondo particular de inversiones de reclusos, para cubrir el costa adicional de estas comidas. Reclusos indigentes no reline los requisitos para recibir este tipo de dieta especial.

SERVICIOS MEDICOS

La carcel del Condado de Columbia proveera servicios de emergencia medica, dental. y salud mental a todo recluso a pesar de tener 0 no tener la manera de pagar por tales servicios. A ningun recluso se Ie negara asistencia para necesidades de salud grave basado en el costa de servicios medicos 0 la incapacidad del recluso para pagar por tales servicios medicos. Toda visita medica inieiada por el recluso,

Pagina 13- Manual de reclusos de la careel del Condado de Columbia 18/11/10

Modifieado el

CC001976
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 55; Page 16 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 17 of 31

se Ie estableceni un cobro que sera restadb de su cuenta particular de dinero. Sera responsable financieramente por cualquier cirugia programada u otro tratamiento que pida el recluso de su medico personal~ dentista u otro proveedor de servicios para la salud.

La revision 0 evaluaci6n medica aJ ser admitido, 0 para trabajadores intemos,-sera gratis. Todos los detenidos recibiran una evaluacion medica dentro de los primeros 14 dias de ser encarcdados.

Medicamentos recetados: Se Ie cobrara por todo medicamento con receta que se receten para el recluso y compradas por la carcel·en su parte.

Medicamentos sin receta tal como; tylenol, aspirina, antiacido, etc., estanin disponibles en nuestro departamento medico por un cobro minimo.

MEDICAMENTOS

EI personal de salud medica puede surtir recetas a su discreci6n. Ese mismo personal puede discontinuar

medicamentos recetados como dirija el supervisor medico 0 el medico de la carcel. S1 el recluso vino de

otro·establecimiento penitenciario y sus medicamentos trasladados, el "Deputy" a cargo del traslado Ie

entregara el medicamento al personal de salud medica. Si el rec·luso es puesto en libertad 0 trasladado a
otra carcel, el "Deputy" a cargo del traslado recogera el medicamento del personal de salud medica y 10

trasladanijunto aI recluso.

.

Se advierte, cualquier abuso en cuanto a su medicamento puede resultar en Ia terminacion de poder

recibir ese medicamento.

.

QUEJAS MEDICAS
En caso de cualquier problema no resuelto en cuanto a servicios medicos, dentales~ 0 de la enfennerfa, el recluso puede poner en uso el sistema de tramite de quejas como se explica en este manual.

SERVICIOS DE SALUD MENTAL
Salud Mental d~ la Comunidad de Columbia es quien provee estos servicios para Ja instalacion. Si siente que necesitan ver a un profesional de salud mental, pongase en contacto con un "deputy" 0 el personal de salud medica.

CUENTAS DE DINERO

Cada recluso de la carcel del Condado de Columbia recibinl una "cuenta de dinero" que se establecenl . durante su ficharniento. Fondos pueden sei· depositados 24 horas al dia, siete dias ala semana, con Visa 0
Mastercard al numero gratuito de 1-866-232-1899,0 a traves del internet al: www.touchpaydirect.com o con dep6sitos de efectivo en un quiosco dentro del vestibulo de la oficina del sheriff. La persona haciendo el dep6sito necesita eI nombre del recluso, numero de proceso, y el numero locaJizador de Ja instalaci6n, 1a cual es 297001. Todas las compras seran restadas de ese balance. EJ balance positivo, si queda alguna, queda disponible para el uso del recluso. El balance se Ie reembolsara al recluso al ser puesto en Iibertad. Reclusos que poseen un balance negativo, no se les neganl servicios medicos basicos tal como ayuda medica y articulos de higiene. Con un balance negativo, el recluso puede participar en el programa 50/50donde el cual 50% de los fond os ingresados a la cuenta del recluso pagan el balance negativo y el otro 50% ingresa ala cuenta del rec!uso, disponible para el uso de articulos particulares en la carceL

,..

Pagina 14- Manual de reclusos de la carcel del Condado de Columbia 18111110

Modificado el

CC001977
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 55; Page 17 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 18 of 31

ACTIVIDADES RECREATIVAS AL AIRE LIBRE

Una zona para reereo al aire libre es provisto en la eareel para el uso del reeluso tal como este programado durante el dia. EI Control central Ie notifiearit. a eada uno de su hora de reereo. Cuando los Ilamen para el reereo, neeesitan estar listos para saHr. Saldran de sus "pods" en grupos de a seis. No podran salir tarde del "pod" para el reereo. Puede que apaguen la television mientras Control haga el anuneio de reereo y . mientras salgan las personas.

Las siguientes reglas aplican mientras estfui en la zona de reereaci6n al aire libre:

1. No griten 0 hagan el intento de comunicarse de eualquier manera con personas que esten

fuera de la zona de reereo, con la exeepei6n del Personal peniteneiario.

.

2. No tomen parte en juegos brutos. No queremos que personas se lastimen.

3. Tienen que vestir por 10 menos una eamjset~ pantalones y zapatos. Desplazamiento haeia 0

fuera de la zona, requiere el uniforme completo que ine]uye sus tarjetas de identifieaci6n.

4. NO lIeven nada consigo la zona de reereo, fuera de sus tarjetas de identifieaei6n. Esto ineluye

papeles, du\ces, articulos de com ida y cualquier cosa que pueda ser usada para escribir 0

pintar.Si los encuentran en posesi6n de estos articulos, puede que tomen accion disciplinaria.

BIENES PE~SONALES

Todos bienes personaJes se guardaran en una zona de deposito protegido por la carcel del Condado de Columbia. Ningun articulo personal puede permitirse que quede con el recluso, a menos de que este aprobado por escrito por el Comandante de la carcel.

SERVICIOS DE PROGRAMAS

Si, Ycuando sean disponibles, el recluse tiene la oportunidad de participar en una variedad de actividades programadas. Programas que han side recomendados, ayuda a que hagan buen uso de su tiempo y hagan cambios positivos en sus vidas. Los hemos agrupado en dos categorias:

Actividades de voluntario

Actividades de trabajador interno

Puede participar en actividades de una 0 todas estas categorias segim 10 siguiente:

Situaci6njuridica en cuanto a su condena Duraci6n de su condena

Resultados judiciales Clasificaci6n

TRANSFERENCIA DE PROPIEDAD

Deben seguir las siguientes nOllTlativas en cuanto a su propiedad:

1. Pueden entregar sus bienes personales a cualquier aduIto que este fuera de esta instalaci6n en una capacidad de "todo 0 nada." El adulto tiene que presentar al personal de la carcel su licencia de conducir del estado, taljeta de identificaci6n del estado, pasaporte 0 identifieacion militar, para asegurar que los bienes son entregados a1 individuo correcto. Se requiere un fonnulario de solicitud del recluso firmado.

2. La entrega de bienes esta disponible de Lunes a Viernes de 3:00 P.M. hasta las 4:00 P.M. SOLAMENTE.

3. La siguiente excepci6n aplica si: Un recluso 10 trasladan a una prisi6n del estado y tiene que entregar

Pagina 15- Manual de reclusos de Ja careel del Condado de Columbia 18111110

Modifieado el

CC001978
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 55; Page 18 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 19 of 31

todos sus bienes personales inc1uyendo su ropa, antes de ser trasladado a la instalaci6n del estado.

Si los bienes no son recogidos antes del traslado del recluso, las cosas seran enviadas al ODOe (Departamento Penitenciario de Oregon) iunto at recluso.

4. Noaceptamos que bienes personales sean depositados para reclusos, excepto a artfculos medicos
que primero senin registrados y aprobados por el personal de salud medica. Si la situaci6n 1a requiere, se puede traer ropa. Esto ser~ a la discreci6n de los Supervisores de la carcet.

INSPECCIONES DE CONDICIONES SANITARIAS

"Deputies" hamn una inspecci6n diaria de cada unidad de vivienda para asegurarun ambiente limpio y de salubridad. Sigan estas practicas sanitarias para asegurarse que la zona de sus celdas satisfacen los requisitos para pasar la inspecci6n sanitaria. Si sus celdas no satisfacen los requisitos, pierden sus privilegios y tienen que Iimpiar la zona. Si la sala de dia, duchas y las zonas de recreaci6n no satisfacen los requisitos sanitari05, Ja unidad entera de vivienda puede perder sus privilegios. Estos privilegios son los que estan nombrados al comienzo de este manual. Si el recluso 0 1a unidad de vivienda pierde sus privilegios, estos seran restituidos si pasan la siguiente inspecci6n regulannente programada.

PMCTICAS SANITARIAS

Es la responsabilidad del recluso a mantener su celda limpia y ordenada. Tambien la responsabilidad es de cada miembro de la unidad de vivienda de mantener limpia la sala de dia, duchas y la zoria de reereo al aire libre. Les abasteeeran con materiales de limpieza y exigen que los usen tal cuanto los necesiten para asegurar que vivan en un ambiente limpio.

Deben de seguir las siguientes reglas para una unidad de vivienda Iimpia y sanitaria:

Limpien sus celdas a diario, inclusive el lavamanos, taza de bano, pisos y ventanas de la puerta.

Portero de "pods" limpian a diario las salas de dia.

Portero de "pods" limpian 10 siguiente, pero no limitado a: mesas, pisos, escaleras, paredes,

duchas, zona del ban~, barandillas y ventanas.

Mantengan las paredes Iimpias y sin graffiti 0 marcas de cualquier tipo.

Pongan toda la basura en los basureros de las unidades de vivienda.

No pongan fotos y papeles en la pared, Iiteras, 0 debajo las literas. No cuelguen, pegnen

nada, con adhesivos 0 pegamento, sean fotos 0 papeles, cn la pared, Iiteras 0 en cualquier

otro Ingar de la instalaci6n.

Mantengan comida del almacen en su recipiente de bienes. (Recipientes grises)

No guarden comida del servicio de comidas

Laven sus manos con frecuencia.

Tomen parteel intercambio de ropa sucia dos veces por semana.

Tomen duchas al menDs dos veces por semana, pero leanimamos que se duchen a diario.

Mantengan las duchas limpias, y sin un exceso de botelJas de jab6n y champu.

Mantengan limpio su recipiente gris.

Hagan cada otro de sus deberes que les asigne el Personal penitenciario.

Mantengan su dormitorio 0 zona de literas despejada del exceso de articulos. IncIuso

papeles

legales. Pfdanle ayuda al personal si tiene una gran cantidad de papeles legales que

guardar.

Rejillas de ventilaci6n para la circulaci6n del aire deben mantenerse limpio y libre de

obstrucci6n.

Pagina 16- Manual de reclusos de Ja eareel del Condado de Columbia 18/11110

Modificado el

CC001979
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 55; Page 19 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 20 of 31

REGISTRO CORPORAL

El personal de la carce! puede realizar registros corporales 0 de articulos bajo su posesion de manera
aleatoria y sin previo· aviso, yen cualquier lugar de la carcel a cualquier hora. Los bienes personales del reclu~o y/o la zona de convivencia puede ser registrada sin su pennisoy sin importar 51 esta presente.

AUTO-ESCOLTA

La mayoria de la movilidad del recluso dentro de la carce!, inClusive cuando van a visitas, clinka medica, programas, deberes de trabajo, etc., no necesitan escolta a menos que abusen este privilegio. Esperamos que el recluso se comporte de manera ordenada atoda hora. Redusos con movilidad por la instalacion sin escolta no puedenhablar con otros reclusos, no·pueden tocar las paredes 0 vidrios, no pueden rnerodear 0 desviarse rnientras se dirigen allugar destin!ldo. Cuando salende una zona, deben decide al Control central su nombre y a donde van. Cualquier recluso que abuse de estasreglas esta sujeto a accion disciplinaria y puede perder la oportunidad de movilidad sin escolta. La excepcion a esta regIa es para cualquier recluso clasificado bajo seguridad maxima y necesita ser escoltado a toda hora dentro de la instalacion.

COLA DIARlA DE ENFERMOS

Si el recluso necesita visitar al personal medico, tiene que rellenar el fonnulario apropiado de Solicitud medica para reclusos. El personal medico se dedicara a estos problemas diariamente a como l1eguen los fonnulanos de solicitud.

REGIMEN DE DIETAS ESPECIALES

El recluso tiene que dirigir toda solicitud para dietas medicas al personal de salud medica para que 10 aprueben. Si por razones medicas necesita una dieta especial. por favor presente una solicitud en pape\ al personal de salud medica. Si por razones religiosas necesita una. dieta especial, por favor presente un formulario de solicitud. EI "Deputy" recoge el fonnulano y se 10 entrega al supervisor para que 10 apruebe. Si es aprobado, la dieta por razones de religion pennaneceni en efecto durante su encarcelamiento completa. Este informado que pueden h·aber cobros por elcosto adicional de las comidas especiales.

PRnnLEGIOSTELEFON1COS

EI uso de telefonos de la carcel es un privilegio. EI uso de telefonos puede ser Iimitado por el personal de Ia carcel por razones de seguridad, proteccion, buen orden, 0 salubridad de la carcel. Los reclusos clasificados en unidades de viviendas pueden usar el telefono desde las 08:00 horas hasta aproximadamente las 22:00 haras, dependiendo en como opera La unidad de vivienda en donde se encuentran. Conversaciones desde cualquier telHono en Ja carcel son supervisadas y/o grabadas sin aviso adicional. EI recluso accede a esta supervision cuando usa el telefono.

Hay ciertos numeros telefonicos de abogados en la zona que estan configurados a sin cobro revertido para que puedan Hamar directo desde los telefonos en los «pods." Niimeros telefonicos de abogados que son aprobados estan bloqueados del sistema de supervision.

Todas las llamadas telefonicas desde la unidad de vivienda, son lIainadas por cobro revertido 0 a tarjeta telef6nica que pueden comprar aquL Las tarjetas telefonicas pueden usarse al ser puesto en libertad de la

Pagina 17- Manual de reclusos de la carcel del Condado de Columbia \8/11/10

Modificado el

CC001980
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 55; Page 20 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 21 of 31

carcel del Condado de Columbia. L1amadas telefonicas estan limitadas a 15 minutos cada una. EI sistema telefonico les avisara antes de que se terminen los 15 minutos para que puedan terminar su conversacion. Reclusos no tienen permiso para recibir Ilamadas telefonieas. EI personal de la carcel les relatani mensajes que comprueben ser de emergencia.
RECORDATORIO: TELEFONOS SON UN PRIVILEGIO. NO ABUSE DEL SISTEMA. CUALQUIER DANO AL TELEFONO RESULTA EN UNA AUDIENCIA DISCIPLINARIA Y UNA ACUSACION PENAL EN CONTRA DEL RECLUSO.
NllMERO DE SERVICIO TELEFONICO
Si el recluso 0 su familia tiene preguntas sobre problemas de facturacion 0 conectividad en cuanto a los telefonos de recIusos, por favor de lIamar al proveedor del servicio aI 1-866-230-7761. Tenemos disponible un folleto que responde mas preguntas si es necesario, por favor de pedirlo y se 10 daremos.
TRASLADO AL CENTRO DE TRABAJO A SEMI-LIBERTAD Puede que los tribunales 0 Autoridades supervisoras consideren a un recluso para un traslado al centro de
trabajo a semi-libertad si Su condena 10 permite. Estbs traslados no son automaticos. EI personal de la
caree! tiene que aprobar todo trasJado.
Factores considerados para una decision de traslado incluye: EI visto bueno del Juez. Duracion de la condemi. Necesidades individuales. Espacio disponible. Clasificacion. Mostrar que cumple las reglas de la careel, las expectativas y con comportamiento responsable.
8i tiene interes de participar en cualquier programa, tiene que presentar una solicitud en un Fonnulario de
solicitud para reclusos. Mala eonducta de parte del recluso 0 inquietudes de parte de la administraci6n
previene el acceso a estos programas. Informes escritos (negativos) disciplinarioso acciones disciplinarias comprometenel cumplimiento de los requisitos necesarios para los programas.
VISITAS
Todas visitas publicas seran programadas por el recluso pidiendo la visita. EI recluso debe ponerse en contacto con el propuesto visitante por telefono 0 correspondencia, y determinar una fecha aceptable para la visita. Los intervalos de tiempo se usan por orden de IIcgada basta gastar disponibilidad. 8e les pide a los visitantes que lIeguen lOa 15 minutos temprano para registrar su lIegada. Si todos los intervalos estan lIenos durante esa hora, pueden esperar hasta el comienzo del siguiente plaza de ese "pod," si hay disponibiJidad, 0 volver otro dia. Visitas comienzan a la hora y a la media hora.
Visitantes autorizados son los miembros de familia del recluso, y amigos sobre la edad de 18 ailos. Visitantes menor de 18 alios de edad tienen que ser acompaii.ados por uno de los padres 0 tutor legal. Visitas al recluso es un privilegio y aunque la oficina del sheriff del Condado de Columbia anima la visitaci6n, ese privilegio es regulado para proteger las neeesidades de la operacion de 1a eareel entera. EI plazo de tiempo detenninado para visitas esm basado en cuanto a la clasificaci6n y situaci6n legal de cada recluso.

Pagina 18- Manual de reclusos de la cared del Condado de Columbia 18111110

Modificado el

CC001981
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 55; Page 21 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 22 of 31

La clasificaei6n esta basado en cuanto a las acusaciones aetuaJes, antecedentes penales y comportamiento

actual. Se Ie pennite a todos los reclusos un maximo de dos visitas de treinta (30) minutos par cada stete

(7) dias (Domingo a Sabado) tal como 10 pennita el tiempo y cupo.

.

No se permiticin privilegios de visita a los reclusos bajo segregacion disciplinaria.

No se penniticin visitas publicas a reclusos que no han sido asignados a una vivienda 0 a una unidad preclasificada.

No se permitinin visitas publicas a reclusos cumpliendo una eondena de setenta y dos (72) horas 0 menos.

Debido a limitaciones en cuanto a espacio, combinaciones aeeptables de visitas son lirnitadas a:

1.

Un adulto

2.

Dos adultos

3.

Un adulto y un nino

4.

Un adulto y dos ninos

5.

Dos adultos y un nino

Reclusos tienen eJ derecho a rechazar cualquier visita, sin embargo ese derecho tiene que ser realizado

antes de la eita.

.

Reclusos que desean recibir visitas publicas deben establecer una lista de visitantes de no mas de cinco (5) personas. Personas que no se encuentran en la lista aprobada no seran permitidos visitar. Pueden cambiar sus listas de visitantes una vez cada 30 dias del dia que establecen su Hsta. Tienen que rellenar la porcion de visitaciones en el formulario de solicitud para hacer los cambios. La informacion minima requerida de cada persona seni:

1.

Nomhre completo del visitante

2.

Fecha de nacimiento

3.

Parentesco

4.

El nombre del nino que este acompanado de uno de los padres 0 tutor legal.

EI horario de visitacion esta fijado en las unidades de vivienda. Horas de visitaci6n y dias estan sujetos a cambios peri6dicos, asi que por favor consulte el horario cuando Ie hable a sus seres queridos.

VISITAS ESPECIALES

Puede que den consideracion especial en caso de emergencias y/o situaciones espeCiales cuando procedimientos comunes de visitacion no son prlkticas. Tales situaciones come el fallecer de un pariente o amigo cercano, parientes heridos gravemente 0 visitq.ntes viajando una distancia larga, que lIegan inesperados, pueden ser considerados de caso a caso por el Supervisor 0 el Cabo a cargo. Todas visitas especiales son sujetas a las mismas reglas y requisitos de visitaci6n corriente. Visitas especial pueden tomar a cabo en cumos de visita de abogados si estan disponibles y si es necesario dado a otras visitaciones que esten ocurriendo al mismo tiempo.

VISITAS CON ABOGADOS

Reclusos tendran la oportunidad de visitar sus abogados a horas razonables, de acuerdo con la seguridad y proteccion de la instalaci6n. Todas las visitas seran prograrnadas par parte ~el abogado.·

VISITAS DE CLERIGOS
Pagina 19- Manual de rec1usos de la carcel del Condado de Columbia 18/11110

Modificado el

CC001982
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 55; Page 22 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 23 of 31

Visitas de clerigos son tratadas como una visitaci6n corriente. E1 miernbro clerigo que el recluso quiera traer es agregado a la !ista como un visitante comun tal como se describe en las reglas de visitas comunes. Tienen penniso para visitarlo a la fecha y hora regular que Ie asigne el "pod." EI clerigo no cuenta como una de las cinco personas que se"Ie permiten tener en su lista de visitantes. La carcel del Condado de Columbia provee servicios religiosos sin denominaci6n una vez ala semana y estudios bfblicos individuales dos veces a la semana.

ACTIVIDADES A VOLUNTAD PROPIA

Todos los reclusos de pOpulo cornun tienen acceso a actividades a voluntad propia. Estas actividades incluyen pero no estan Iimitadas a:

Servicios religiosos Grupos de Narc6ticos an6nimos (NA) y Alcoh61icos anonimos (AA) Clases basados sabre religion para habilidades sociales Clases particulares de educaci6n basica (21 ailos y menor) Biblioteca de recreaci6n Bibliotecajuridica de derechos

La unidad de vivienda tiene fljada una lista de inscripci6n para las actividades a voluntad propia. Tiene que inscribirse ala lista provista para poder participar. Recuerden que la participacion de estas actividades son un privilegio. La participaci6n depende de la cooperaci6n continua y conducta responsable de parte del recluso.

"WAKE UP" (GUEIK AP) Y "LOCK DOWN" (LAK DAUN) APERTliRA Y CIERRE DE SEGURIDAD

Las luces de la sala de dia y de las celdas se aprenden diariamente a las 6:00 A.M. Los reclusos hacen las camas y se visten para el desayuno. EI servicio de desayuno comienza al diario aproximadamente a las " 6:30 A.M. Las luces y televisiones de la sala de dia se apagan como a las 10:00 P.M. y las luces de las celdas se apagan a las 10:00 P.M. Todos los reclusos deben de estar en sus literas al tiempo del ~~lights out" (Jaits aut - apague de luees) y tienen que permanecer callados.

Se espera que cada recluso limpie su dormitorio y zona de vivienda comp)etamente~ haga su cama, deseche los basureros~ etc. cuando los materiaJes de Iimpieza esten disponibles. Tenga en cuenta que usualmente hay materiales de limpieza disponibles a toda h~ra.

PROCEDIMIENTOS PARA EL INCUMPLIMIENTO DE UNA REGLA MENOR

1. AI recluso acusado se Ie presentara con la infracci6n de una regIa menor por el Agente impartiendo la infraccion, 10 mas luego que sea practico, despues de haberse descubierto la infracci6n~ pero en
ningun caso tardara mas de 24 horas despues de completarse la investigaci6n.

2. EI recluso tendra que firmar un infonne de mala conducta y admitir que recibi6 la(s) infracci6n(es) imputada(s) y el derecho a apelar. EJ"recluso puede hacer una declaraci6n de "Culpable" 0 "No culpable."

A. Al hacer una declaraci6n de "Culpable)" el Agente programani una audiencia informal para

las sanciones que puedan imponerse.

"

Pagina 20- Manual de reclusos de la carcel del Condado de Columbia 18111110

Modificado el

CC001983
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 55; Page 23 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 24 of 31

B. Al hacer una declaraci6n de "No culpable" en el infonne de mala conducta 0 al solicitar una audiencia fomlal, el incidente se tratara igual al incumplimiento de una regia mayor.

SANCIONES PARA EL INCUMPLIMIENTO DE UNA REGLA MENOR

Sanciones que resulten de una declaraci6n de culpable en el informe de una infracci6n menor, incluye:

a.

Advertencia verbal.

b.

Una sanci6n creative/alternativa de acuerdo con el delito (ej., trabajo extra, etc.)

c.

Unidad de vivienda bajo confinamiento sin sobrepasar 24 horas.

d.

Segregaci6n disciplinana sin sobrepasar cinco (5) dias del calendario por una infracci6n.

Puede que reclusos reciban tiempo a confinamiento por separado por cada infracci6n.

No puede sobrepasar un total de catorce (14) dias del calendario.

e.

Re-c1asificaci6n

f.

Libertad a prueba por hasta 30 dias.

g.

No hay acceso a programas mientras este en segregacion disciplinaria,

Reclusos tienen una hora fuera por cada 24 horas. No se pennite el uso de teJ6fono (excepto a llamadas . legales) y la televisi6n, Las opciones del "commissary" so restringidas. Visitas particuiares son
suspendidas mientras dure la segregacion. Se permite el acceso a la carreta de libros ala biblioteca, sin embargo, este privilegio se puede quitar como parte de la sancion.

INFRACCIONES DE REGLAS MENORES

01 Posesion de contrabando que no posa peligro. Cualquier articulo que se encuentre bajo la posesion de un recluso que ha sido alterado 0 esta en exceso de la cantidad autonzada.

02 Discusi6n argurnentativa: Cualquier desacuerdo que sea perjudicial, a voz muy alta a molestosa.

03 En posesi6n de los bienes de otro recluso.

04 Uso no autorizado de propiedad a equipo de la instalacion (ej. lavadoras/secadoras, equipo pe[uquero, etc.)

05 Tomando la funci6n de vigilante.

06 Si esta en una zona no autorizada sin que este presente el personal penitenciario.

07 Bloqueando a proposito la vista del personal penitenciario.

08 Comentarios no apropiados 0 el mal usa de fonnulanos de solicitud para reclusqs a cualquier otro formulario a papeieo repartido a usado en esta instalaci6n.

09 Uamadas de emergencia sin justificacion.

Pagina 21- Manual de reclusos de la carcel del Condado de Columbia 18/11110

Modificado el

CC001984
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 55; Page 24 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 25 of 31

.. :..'---'-"

10 Juegos brutos: Cualquier comportamiento agresivo 0 aceian agresiva que es fingida, que puede

tenninar en una altercado fisico 0 ser confundido y tomado como un altercado fisico.

11

Falta de respeto a otros reclusos (ej. insultos, malas palabras 0 acusas dirjgidos a otro recluso).

12 Uso de paJabrotas, uso incontrolado de grocerias u obscenidades que ofendan a otros.

13 Demasiado ruido.

14 Falta de mantener limpia la zona de vivir.

15 Colgar papel,ropa de cama, prendas de vestir, etc. sobre aparatos de luz, paredes, cielo, etc.

16 Falta de mantener la higiene personal.

l7 Vestuario incorrecto (ej. falta de seguir las reglas de vestuario tal como se indica en este manual).

18 Luciendo 0 manifestando afiliaciones a pandillas (ej. gestos con las manos, manos dentro de pantalones, pantalones rebajados 0 colgando mas abajo, etc.)

19 Graffiti: escribir, dibujar, 0 marcar sobre cualquier superficie de esta instalaci6n.

20 Colgando cualquier foto, dibujo u otro material en las paredes, !iteras 0 cualquier otra superficie de esta instalaci6n.

21

Mal uso del sistema altoparlantes.

22 Falta de respeto hacia cualquier miembro del personal 0 empleado de 1a oficina del sheriff.

23 Conducta perjudicial.

24 Uso sin autorizaci6n de la maquina de escribir (Bibliotecajuridica de derechos).

25

Diciendo mentiras a miembros del personal.

26 Otras casas.

PROCEDIMlENTOS PARA INCUMPLIMIENTO DE UNA REGLA MAYOR

Todos incumplimiento de reglas mayores se trataran a traves de un proceso formal de disciplina, y requiere una audiencia formal.

1. Cuando el recluso comete, 0 se cree que ha cometido un incumplimiento de una regia mayor, el recluso sera puesto inmediatamente bajo segregaci6n de pre.:.audiencia, pendiente al resultado del audiencia disciplinaria, sin tener en cuenta el tipo de conducta presunto. Esto puede causar restricciones de sus privilegios.

2. AI recluso acusado se Ie presentara con la infracci6n de una regIa mayor y con el fonnulario de Derechos de reclusos por el Agente impartiendo la infracci6n, 10 mas luego que sea practico, despues de haberse descubierto Ja infracci6n, pero in ning~n caso tamara mas de 24 horas despues de completarse la investigaci6n.

Pagina 22- Manual de reclusos de la carcel del Condado de Columbia 18f11110

Modificada el

CC001985
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 55; Page 25 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 26 of 31

3. EI recluso tendra una audiencia ante un agente de audiencias dentro de cinco (5) dias despues del incidente, sin incluir sabados, domingos y dfas feriados. Se Ie notifica.ra aI recluso por 10 menos 24 horas antes de la audiencia.

4. Despues de la audiencia, el agente de audiencias puede tomar una decision inmediatamente 0 dentro de 72 horas.

A. Si al recluso se Ie encuentra "no culpable", el recluso tendnlla misma situacion legal y privilegio tal como antes de haber sido acusado.

B. Si al recluso se Ie encuentra "culpable", el agente de audiencias impondni una sancion apropiada de la Jista de Sanciones para incumplimiento de reglas mayores.

SANCIONES PARA INCUMPLIMIENTO DE UNA REGLA MAYOR

Sanciones que resulten de una declaraci6n de "culpable" ante una audiencia para una infracci6n mayor puede incluir 10 siguiente:

1.

Cambios temporarios 0 permanentes de programaci6n que incluya:

A. Cambios en la asignaci6n de vivienda (ej. re-clasificaci,6n)

B. Cambios de su situaci6n juridica en euanto a su detenci6n.

C. Perdida de su permiso para trabajar con suspension simllitanea de credito para trabajar, como man,da O.R.S. 169.120

2.

Re-clasificaci6n a segregaci6n disciplinaria sin sobrepasar mas de sesenta (60) dfas par todas

(multiples) infraeciones cometidas en un solo incidente (solo 30 dias maximo cuando es solo una

inti-aeci6n) y recibir eredito por el tiempo servido como sea apropiado.

3.

Perdida de tiempo reglamentado por buena conducta y modificacion a la fecha de liberaci6n de

acuerdo con O.R.S. 169.110.

4.

Suspension de cualquier parte (0 todas Jas ante mencionadas,si aplica), junto con informacion en

cuanto a conducta para evitar imposici6n.

5.

Cualquier combinaci6n del uno (I) al cuatro (4), mencionados en esta lista.

6.

A menos de que sea requerido por parte medica 0 psiquiatrica, a ningun recluso segregado se Ie

negani ropa 0 ropa de cama que se Ie permite a los reclusos de tipo general.

7.

A reclusos segregados se les proveera la misma comida ofrecida a los reclusos de tipo general.

8.

Articulos de higiene personal e instalaciones de ducha, seran provistas regularmente a reclusos

segregados, a menos que hayan razones documentadas de protecci6n que 10 prohiba.

Pagina 23- Manual de ree)usos de la careeJ del Condado de Columbia J 8/11/10

Modificado el

CC001986
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 55; Page 26 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 27 of 31

9.

Mientras esten en segregacion disciplinaria no hay acceso a programas. Reclusos tienen una hora

fuera cada 24 horas. Uso de tel6fono (excepto a llamadas legales) y television no se penniten. Las

opciones del almacen so restringidas. Visitas particulares son suspendidas mientras dure la

segregaci6n. Se pennite el acceso a Ja carreta de libros 0 la biblioteca, sin embargo, este

privilegio se puede quitar como parte de la sanci6n.

INFRACCIONES DE REGLAS MAYORES

40

Incumplimiento habitual de reglas: 3 0 mas inti-acciones de reglas menores dentro de 30 dias.

41

Negar a cumplir una orden que viene del agente, personal de la carcel, 0 personal de la cocina.

42

Alteracion 0 destruccion de la taIjeta de identificaci6n.

43

Negar a hacer "Jock down" (cierre de seguridad) cuando ordenen 0 durante un alboroto.

44 Negara comparecer al tribunal.

45

Alteraci6n de aparatos de proteccion 0 equipo de la circe!'

46

Amenazas 0 intimidaCi6n a otro recluso.

47

Dando informaci6n falsa a un Agente.

48

Hacer un alboroto 0 alteraci6n durante "lock down" (ej. golpetazos a la puerta, fuido

excesivo, inundando la celda, etc.)

50 Amenazas a miembros del personal.

51

Fumar 0 tener parafemalia de fumar bajo posesion.

52 Posesi6n de bebidas no autorizadas (ej. pruno).

53

Exhibicionismo.

54. Hurto.

55

Extorsi6n/chantaje

56

Destrucci6n de, 0 pintarrajear la propiedad del condado.

57

Tener bajo su posesi6n drogas ilegales 0 medicamentos con receta que pertenecen a otro, 0 el mal

uso de medicamentos recetados.

58

Participacion en organizar y reclutar personas para actividades relacionadas con pandillas.

59 Conducta sexual inapropiadaJ actividades homosexuales.

60

Pelear.

61

Agresion en contra otro recluso.

Pagina 24- Manual de rec1usos de la careel del Condado de Columbia l8f11110

Moditicado el

CC001987
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 55; Page 27 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 28 of 31

62 Asistencia a1 suicidio.
63 Posesion de un anna.
64 Agresi6n en contra un miembro del personal.
65 lntento de fugarse 0 fuga actual, 0 tener un plan de fuga bajo su posesi6n.
66 Participaci6n 0 instigacion de un motin.
67 Tomar aIguien como rehen.
68 Incendiarismo.
69 Violaci6n sexual 0 sodomia.
70 Homicidio.
71 Infracci6n de cualquier c6digo penal.
72 Alteraci6n ala comida de cualquier otra persona.
73 Otras cosas.
PROCEDIMIENTO PARA LA APELACION DE UNA INFRACCION
Toda apelaci6n debe ser presentado al superVisor de la instaJaci6n 0 quien designe dentro de 72. horas, despues de la decisi6n. EI supervisor de la instalaci6n 0 quien designe r~pasanllas recomendaciones y regresani el formulario de apelaciones al recluso dentro de cinco (5) dfas laborales desde que se present6 la apelaci6n. El tiempo para recibir una respuesta puede ser aplazado debido a circunstancias atenuantes 0 investigaci6n adicional, que sera acompanado por un aviso escrito informandole al recluso la(s) raz6n(es) par el aplazamiento. Preguntenle al agente si necesita un formulario.
CONSCIENTIZACION SOBRE AGRESION SEXUAL
;,SABIA LO SIGUIENTE?
Violaci6n y agresi6n sexual ocurre a mujeres y hombres de cada edad, desde infancia hasta personas mayores de tercera edad.
98% de los hombres que han violado a varones de menor edad, inforrnan que son heterosexuales. La mayoria de varones que han agredido a hombres 0 mujeres estan casados 0 informan tener :novias.
Agresi6n sexual no tiene nada que veT con la orientaci6n sexual actual 0 futura de la vfctima. Puede que las victimas sean heterosexuales u homosexuales.
EI sobreviviente no tiene la culpa por la violaci6n, aunque ella/et hubiese estado en una zona solitaria, 0 si hubiese tenido previas relaciones sexuales de mutuo acuerdo con el agresor.

Pagina 25- Manual de reclusos de la caree! del Condado de Columbia 18/11/10

Modificado el

CC001988
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 55; Page 28 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 29 of 31

EI hecho de que una victima del sexo masculino haya eyaculado 0 se haya excitado sexualmente no significa que no fue violado 0 que fue de mutuo acuerdo. Estas son reacciones fisiol6gicas involuntarias y naturales.

Es cornun que los sobrevivientes de agresi6n sexual tengan sentimientos de ira, verguenza, panico,

depresi6n, culpabilidad, y temor despues de Ia agresion. Otras reacciones comunes incluyen perdida de

apetito, nausea 0 dolores de estomago, dolores de cabeza, perdida de memoria y/o problemas de

concentraci6n y cambios en los habitos de dortnir.

.

HECHOS PARA AQUEL QUE USA AGRESION SEXUAL EN CONTRA DE OTROS RECLUSOS:

Todas las acusaciones de agresi6n sexual se entregaran a la Agencia de polida 0 a1 Equipo de delitos de mayor gravedad (MCT) para una investigacion criminal. Puede que sea procesado y si 10 encuentran culpable del delito grave, puede que tenga que cumplir una condena en prision (no mas de 100 meses por cada condena de violacion sexual de primer grado 0 sodomia de primer grad0 ). Cualquier condena de delito sexual Ie imp~ndra condiciones de agresor sexual inmediatamente cuando salga en libertad, y puede requerir que se registre comoagresor sexual de acuerdo con ORS 181.594. Este requerimiento de
registro es por vida. Tarnbien se Ie considerarn com "agresor sexual acosador," 10 cual requiere una
notificaci6n a la comunidad cuando salga en Iibertad.

Sin tomar en cuanto como el recluso 10 clasifique, cualquier actividad sexual aumentara eI riesgo de contraer 1a infeccion VIH (SIDA), junto con la exposicion a otras enferrnedades transmitidas sexual mente.

Si tiene problemas controlando sus acciones, pida ayuda del personal de salud mental y/o considere ser parte de los programas designados para controlar la ira 0 reducir el estres. Para reducir sentimientos de ira 0 agresion inmediatamente, trate de hablarle 0 escribirle a un amigo, medite 0 haga ejercicios de reJajacion, busque un trabajo, ·una atlcion 0 pasatiempos, 0 incorpore algun tipo de ejercicio.

AGRESION SEXUAL

La poliza de la carcel del Condado de Columbia define agresion sexual como: "Conducta sexual donde se utiliza la fuerza 0 la amenaza de fuerza, 0 cuando una persona es incapaz de consentir por razones de edad o incapacidad (defecto mental, incapacidad mental, 0 fisicamente indefenso). Conducta sexual incluye: penetraci6n vaginal por medio del pene; contacto entre los genitales de una persona y la boca 0 e1 anD de otm persona; penetracion a la vagina, ano, 0 pene de otra persona por medio de cualquier otro objeto que no es el pene 0 la boca; tocando las partes sexuales 0 intimas de una persona 0 causando que una persona toque las partes sexuales 0 intimas de otro con el prop6sito de gratificacion sexual." Cualquier comportamiento 0 acci6n de tipo sexual dirigido hacia un recluso por parte de otro recluso', empleado, voluntario, visitante, empleado contratado U otro representativo de agencia. Esto incluye actos 0 intentos de cometer tal actos que incluyen, pero no son limitados a, contacto sexual, conducta inapropiada de tipo sexual, unainv~sion inaceptable de la privacidad, conversaciones 0 correspondencias que sugieren una relaci6n romantica entre un recluso y cualquiera de las partes ante mencionadas.

La agresi6n sexual afecta a todos, directamente 0 por las experiencias de aquellos que nos importan. No es solo un problema de mujeres, como puede afectar a personas de cualquier sexo, edad, raza, grupo etnico, estatus socioecon6mico, orientaci6n sexual, 0 discapacidad.

Las estadisticas comprueban el problema: De acuerdo a la Encuesta nacional de delitos victimizantes (NCVS), en 2002 hubieron 247,730 vfctimas de violacion sexual (este numero no incluye victimas menor

Pagina 26- Manual de reclusos de la carceJ del Condado de Columbia 18111/10

Modificado el

CC001989
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 55; Page 29 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 30 of 31

de 12 afios), siete de cada ocho victimas de violacion eran mujeres, y un de cada ocho victimas eran hombres. Un estudio del 1998 indica que mas 0 menos 2.78 millones de hombres Americanos han sufrido un intento de violaci6n 0 una violaci6n actual y uno de cada seis mujeres Americanas han sufrido un intento de violacion 0 una violacion actual
PREVENCION DE AGRESION SEXUAL
La (mica violacion sexual que se puede prevenir es cuando el agresor sexual decide NO violar. Sin embargo, el recluso puede prevenir una agresion al mantener las siguientes pautas de proteccion:
Este consciente de situaciones que 10 hagan sentir incomodo. Confie en sus instintos. Si se siente que algo no esta bien, VAYASE.
No deje que buenos modales impidan su proteccion. No tenga miedo de decir "NO" 0 "PARE AHORA."
Carnine y parese con confianza. Muchos agresoressexuales eligen a victimas que parecen que no peleanln de vuelta 0 que se yen emocionalmente debil.
Evite conversaciones sobre relaciones sexuales y la desnudez. Esto puede ser tornado como un adelanto sexual, 0 que otro recluso crea que usted tiene interes en una relaci6n sexual.
No acepte articulos del "commissary" u otros regalos de parte de reclusos. Quedando en deuda con otro recluso puede terminar en favores sexuales.
Evite zonas aisladas; pongase a plena vista de los miembros del personal. Si )0 estan presionando a tener relaciones sexuales, inf6rmeselo al supervisor inmediatamente.
QUE RACER SI LO AGREDIEREN SEXUALMENTE
Si la agresi6n acaba de suceder......
Vaya a un lugar segura y protegido.
INFORME EL ATAQUE A UN MIEMBRO DEL PERSONAL INMEDIATAMENTE.
La mas tiempo que espere para informar el ataque, 10 mas dificil sera obtener las pruebas necesarias para una investigacion criminal y/o una investigaci6n administrativa.
Pida atenci6n medica inmediatamente. Puede que tenga danos serios de los cuales no esta consciente, y cualquier contacto sexual puede dejarlo expuesto a enfermedades de transmisi6n sexuaL
No se duche, no se cepil1e los dientes, no use el bano, 0 cambie de ropa. Puede destruir pruebas importantes.
Si 10 han atacado 0 es testigo de un ataque, pero no esta dispuesto a reportarlo en persona a un miembro uniformado del personal de la oficina del sheriff del Condado de Columbia (OSeC) puede hablar con un consejero, capellan, personal de salud medica, escribir una carta sellada a cualquier miembro del personal en c.omando,o contactar a un agente de policia de la osce aI503-366-4650
Dcspues de que haya pas,ado tiempo••...

Pagina 27- Manual de reclusos de 1a careel del Condado de Columbia

18/11110

'

Modificado el

CC001990
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 55; Page 30 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 31 of 31
Busque ayuda de un amigo en quien confia, miembro de su familia 0 miembro del personal, tal como el Capellan 0 el personal de consejeros, Los dias delante suyo pueden ser traumatizantes y es de mucha ayuda tener personas a quienes les importas y. que Ie apoyen. S·usque ayuda profesional. Personal de salud mental esta disponible para eJ cuidado de crisis 365 dfas aJ ano, para escucharle y ofrecerle apoyo.

Pagina 28- Manual de reclusos de la carcel del Condado de Columbia 18111110

Modificado el

CC001991
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 55; Page 31 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 30
EXHIBIT 56
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 56; Page 1 of 30

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 30
· .
INMATE MANUAL COLUMBIA COUNTY JAIL
All niles in this manual may be amended. or suspended at anytimebv
order of the Sheriff or designee.
As an Inmate in the Columbia County Jail, you are partially responsible for your O\\ln safety. You are in jail and YOU must be aware ofyour surroundings.
Incorporating Revised Inmate Mall Guidelines (See Pages 7 through 16)
Effective NIay 16,2012
CC001412
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 56; Page 2 of 30

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 30

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS .. ; ...................... .

PERSONAL PROPERTY .•.................•.............. 18

YOUR RIGHI'S AND PRIVILEGES ............... 1

PROGRAM SERVICES .................................. 18

YOUR RE8PONSIBILXTIES AND EXPECTED

PROPERTY TRANSFERS ......'......... ~ ................ 18

BEHAVIOR. .. .. .. . . .. .. . . .. . .. . . ... J-2

BEDS AND .BEDDlNG ................. , ........ 2

SA."NITARY INSPECTIONS ...... ; .. ....... ............................ . 18

SA.!'lITARY PRACTICES ...•................•........... 19

BILLING FEES ., ..... ; •............. :......... 2-3

SEARCIffiS .............................................. 19

CELL IN COMMAND ............. ; ............. 3

SELF-ES~ORT ...................... , ...•.............. 19

CLASSTFICATION ............................. 3

SICK CALL ............................................ 19

CLOTHING EXCHANGE ........................ 3

SPECiAL DIETS ........................................ 19

CO~1ISSARY ....••... , ........ ; ............. 3

TELEPHONE PRIVILEGES .............•................. 20

CONTRABAND ..•............................. 3

TELEPHONE SERVICE 1\TUMBER ......................... 20

COUNtY ISSUED ITEMS .... , ....•... , ......... 4

TRANSFER TO WORK RELEASE CENTER ................. 20

COURT CONDUCT ....•.•..........•......•.. , 4

VISITING ......... '.......•.....'............ , ...... '. . .. 20"21

DRESS CODE ................ '.' ... '.' .......... ·4

SPECIAL VISITS .; .......•............. _...................... . 21

FIRE AND ElVIERGENCYSAFETY .......: ........ 4

HAIR·cARE AND PERsONAL GROOMING ........ 5

VISITS WITII ATTORNEY ............................... 21

VISITS BY CLERGY ................................. 21-22

HEALTaAP",PRAlSALS ............... ; ...... ;;.5

VOLlJNTARY ACTIVITIES ..•......•............... , ..... ?_'"k'

HOUSING UN1T OPERATIONS .................. 5

VIAKE UP AND LOCK DOWN ..... '" .................... 22

ICE CONTACT INFORMATION ...... :.. ,., ........ 5

'MINO:R. RULE VIOLATIONS PROCEDURES ................ .22

IDENTIFICATION CARDS ............... ; ..... . 5

MINOR RULE VIOLATION SANCTIONS .. , .... '" ...... 22-23

INMATECOUNTS ........................ _.. 5-6

INMATE G~EVANCE PROCEDURE .............. 6

MINOR RULE VIOLATIONS , •. , .... , •.. , .•.....•....... 23'-24

MAJOR RULE VIOLATION.PROCEDURES .................,24

INMATEREQUJ?,ST FORl\t~S .; ... , ...•. , , ...•••.. 6

MAJOR RULE VIOLATION SANCTIONS ................ 24-25

IN1V1A1E WORrzER ACTIVITIES ..... , .......•. '.. 6

MAJOR RULE .VIOL..ATIONS ............. " ........... . ~~

INTERCOM SYSTEM ........................... 7

LAW LIBRARY ............................... 7 LIBRARY .................................... 7

VIOLATIONS APPEALS PROCESS •..•. , .................. 26 SEXUALASSAULT'AWARENESS ........................ 26

f

SEXUAL ASSAULT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26-27

MAIL ............... ; •........ ; ........ , ..... 7-16

SEXUAL ASSAULT AVOlDANCE ............ , ............ 27

MEALS ........................................ . 16 l\1EDICAL SERVICES , ........................ 1T

I

MEDICATION .. ;.,., .... ,..... , ........:, .•.•..•. 17

I\,1EDICAL GRIEVANCES ,........ ; '.. . .• . . . • . . . .17

MENTAL HEALTII SERVICES ............... ; .. 17

MONEY ACCOlIi'ITS . . .. . . . ... ..... . . . .. ...... 17

t
I

OUTDOOR RECREATION •................. I'7-18

j

I

CC001413
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 56; Page 3 of 30

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 4 of 30

YOUR RIGHTS AN]) PRlVTI.-EGES

\Ve want you'to know exactly \\lhat is expected ofyau while you are in tbis jaiL We will let youknQw what you can expect from us by explaining OUT rules, procedures and schedules to you. While at this jail, you will be provided with:
1. Three daily meals .served at reasonable' intervaJs 2. Clean bedding and clothing at least twice weekly 3. The opportunityto shower at least twice weekly 4. Regular exercise 5. Opportunities to exercise your religion 6. Basic hygiene items 7. Access' to the law library 8. Access to counsel 9. Emergency medical and dental treatment 10. A safe and secure environment
If you follow jail rules and sanitation practices, yourriay receive these privileges:
1. Use of television 2. Use of library services 3. Use of outdoor recreation 4. Use oftelephones 5. Having social, visits
6. Making .commissary plirchases
7. Sendipg and' receiving mail 8~ Voluntary participation in jail programs
Remember that these are liot tights. Jail staff can limit or suspend these privileges at ~:nY time in .order to maintain the safety, security, gOQd· order and sanitation offhe jail.
This manllal dQesnot cover every situation that may arise;. but it will ~erve as'a b;:tsic guide fQr yourcQnduct and facility.procedures.

Columbia County Jail has a nosnioking policy.

YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES.AND EXPECTED BEHAVIOR

Read this mariual to mow what is expected ofyou. The excuse "1 did riQt kno"'. that" is· tipt acceptable. It is yom" responsibility·to follow all laws, jail rules, sched.ules, and staff requests. YOJI:must respect Jail propet1:y and the property of others. This wo~ld include staJ7iilg· out of other inmate's .cells .arid off Qf their bunks. YQU are expe.cted fukeep your·sleeping.area, the day room and outdoQr r~creation areas clean and otderly. Unacceptable behavior will be dealt with frrrtily, but fairly. :Misbehavior may result in a change of your custody status which can directly affect ypur privileges in the jail.

This manual is an accountable item and is issued to you for your use\vhile. you are in this facility. You are
responsible for the condition of this. manilal and you will be billed for any damage, graffiti, or unusable
condition when returned. If the manual is 'damaged, please report.it to a staff member to have it repla()ed
i.riunediately.

The best control of yonr behavior is by you practictug self;.disCipline and. respect for Qthe:r~, fi.j.ni.ates ate not

allo\ved to become personally familiar with cOlTections' staff, Becoi,isidef'ate and tespectfultoward all

afficial~. We will expect you to addre~s uniformed staff as «Deputy or Sergeant

"and non-

uniformed staff as "lvIr.

" or "Ms._ _ _" Central Control personnel wil1be addte~$ed as

"ControL';

.

.

. Pi3ge·l.:.. CQliJmbiaCounty Jail Inrnate M13nual Revised 05/16/12
CC001414
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 56; Page 4 of 30

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 5 of 30

Inmate basic rules for the Columbia County Jail: 1. The ID card is to be put into the window faCing' outso tliat it can be seen and s~anned duri~g yoursfay. 2~ When you are out ofyour room, the ill card is to be in your pocket. 3. When you are in the day room, you are to be completely dressed with T shirt.tucked in. 4. \Vhen you are in your room, you are to have the T shirt and boxers on at all times including
'while you are sleeping, no exceptions.
5. When you come out of the pod and into tbe circle, you are to stay on the colored squares. The squares form a line that you walk on. You stay on that line with the exception to go around an obstacle. You are to stay in a single file line.
6. When you are in any other hallway, you are to walk on the right side of the hall and in a single file. You are not to touch anything. Do not speak, yell or signal at anyone. Keep your hands to yourse)f~
7. When ilJ; the hallway, there. should be only six (6) inmates at one tim.e. 8. DO NOT cover the ventilation units or speaker in the cells.

BEDS AND BEDDING
Bedding will consist of two sheets and two blankets. Blankets and sheets may not be removed from your cell or bunk, nor may they be placed on the floor or table·forany re8,sQn. You·are 110t to take the mattress offthe bunk and place it on the floor ofyour cell or in the day room of the pod. Your mattress ll1ay only be' used for sleeping; purposes. The bunk area must be.left in an orderly fashioil through out the day.

BILLING FEES

As authorized in ORS 169.150 and 169.151, Local Correctional Facilities are allowed to bill h1mates for items and services that are provided to them while incarcerated hi Correctional Facilities,

Ev¢ry Sentenced Inniate wiU be charged a'boarding fee of$10~Od per day. The ItJ.mate will receive abill

when he or she is released fTom the jail. The. Inmate will have 30 days to pay the bill or set up a payment

plan.

. .

.

An initial hygiene kit is $2.15 and the Inmate ID card is $1.00. Allover the counter medications as well as prescription rnediCationswill be 'billed through the inmate? s commissary account.. When tlie, ItuTIate is released from jail and his or her commissary &ccount-is in the negative, that amount V/jll'also show up on the release billing. When..30. days have passed with no payment received on the releasebiUing, the account will be turned over to the Oregon Departmel'it of ReveIiue for collection.

Other charges are listed below:

1) \Vork Release Inma:t~s are charged a minimum of$15.00 per day or hvo hours of pay if the inmate's

hOUl:ly rate of pay is higher than $7.50 per:hOl.lf.

If any ofthe following items are damaged or

destroyed you will. be billed as follovvs:DecelJlber

2,.2010

2) Hygiene Kits

$ 2.15 each 11) Tote:

$44.95

3) .pos.tcard 4) HairCuts

$ 0.5'0 $ 5.00

12}Tote Lid 13)Sporks

$26.95-
$ 0.25

5) MedicailNurse visits

$ 5.00

14) Sandals

$ 2.49

6) Medical visit for aTe meds $ 1.00

15) Cups

$0.75

7) Medical kites submitted" . $ .50

16) Socks (If AppL)

$0.8'5

j

Page 2 - Cbiunibia County jail uUilate Manual ReVised 05/):6/12
I

CC001415
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 56; Page 5 of 30

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 6 of 30

8) Feminine Hygiene Products
9) Razors (if more than 1) 10) Copies of legal materials

$ 0.20
$ 0.15 $ 025

17) Towels

$ 0.75

18) Striped Shirt

$ 655-$12.75

19) Striped Pants

$ 8.75-$14.95

20) T-Shuis

$3,99 - $:7.30

21) Shorts

$ 2.32 - $2.74

22) Replacement ID Card $ 5.00

All fees are subject to chan~e at any time

CELL IN COMl\'IAND

The command "ceU-in"or'''bunk-up'' mearis ybu need to stop \vhat you are doing and go directly to your
cell or bunk. You must follow this command without question or hesitation. If you do not, it will directly affect your classification and custody status and also will result in disciplinary actions against you.

CLASSIFICATION

AU newly arrested inmates who are not released prior to movement fi.·om the booking area will be assigned ,housing b::t a Pre-Classification unit They may be maint(ilned on lock-down status for up to the first Seventy-Two (72) hours, for classification purposes. The Columbia County Jail has three classifications which are minimum, medium and maximum security. All inmates are assigned a classification aCQording to their status. Inmates may 'request a classification review in writing on an Inm~te Request F01TIl at any time;

Most inmates involved in the Inmate Worker Program and Alternative Programs must qualify for and maintain a 'minimum ,custody status.

ACTIVITIES MA'y DIFFER BASB}) ON YOUR LEVEL OF CLASSIFICATION.

CLOTIIlNGEXCHANGE
Clean clothing will be provided twice weekly. You must turn in all ofY6ursoiIed clothing during clothing
excbange. Iil.tetilin you will recel\ie 1 T-shirt, 1 pair of shorts, 1 to"\ve), 1 striped shirt ~nd 1 pair striped pants. On every other exchange: you will receivec1ean sheets. B1ankets may be exchangedevel), 30 days.
Each housing unit will have a different laundry schedule.

Jail staffwiH make every effOlito enSUl"e c10thirtgis 'in good repair. YOll are responsible for all clothing,and bedding issued to yo).].. You,shov.ld check the condition of the clothing you receive and immediately:inform a staff member and exchange any clothing or bedding that has a tear or graffiti "'vTitten on it. Ifyou are fOllIid to be in possessioil of damaged items, you will be subject to discipJiriarY actio'Ii.. 'rhis may inthlde payment for the darnaged clothing.
COlVIlVrtSSARY

The Columbia County Jail has a well-appointed commissaIY list fTom which inmates with funds may purchase various items. Inmates withOllt funds rriay order indigent hygiene kits once per week, if needed. Indigent items will be posted to the il1mate's account creating a negative balance. Commissary sheets will be handed out once a week. . Ifyou did -not get fund,s in ,before the commissary sheets were made up to
be passed out, lTOU will have to wait until the following week to ordel'.. COilimissary purchases are limited to no :more than $75.00 perweek. llU)lates may have no more than two (2) lead pencil? in. their possession. at aI1Y given time. In addition each inmate will be al1O\ved to purchase one pack of colored pencils.

CONTRABAl',1J)

AnyauthO'rized item found in an inmate's possession that has been altered or is not being \lsed for it's origin,al purpose, or any items i~ excess of the iss4ed quantity a,c; stated within this ll1anl]a1.

PagE! 3 .: Colum,bla County Jail Inma~e NanlJ~1 ReVised 05/16/12

CC001416
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 56; Page 6 of 30

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 7 of 30

COUNTY ISSUE}) lTElV[S

a All inmates who are dressed into the Columbia County jail will be issued jailc10thing after intake, and in
the clothing change/shower room. You will be issued plastic bin containing a hygiene kit, bed linen: towel,

i
.\

and Clothing and this Inmate Manual. Another·issued item will irtclu.de a mattress. You will be responsible

1

forthe condition of all items issued to you. The gray property box (totes) are to be used specifically for storage ofyour personal and issued belongings. Totes are not to be used for chairs ot any use other than what has been mentioned above. Totes are to remain under your'bunk at all times.

I
·1

!

1. One inmate uniform top.

7.

Two sheets

2. One imnate UllifoIm pants

8.

Two Blankets

3. Two T~Shirts

9.

One Towel

4. T\vo pair of gym shortstUnderwear

10.

One Rule Book

5. One pair ofjail sandals.

6. One mattress

I

i

Female inmates may be allowed to retain the following:

\

1. Persoual ullden'Vear, if needed for .hygiene reasons, if determined appropriat~ by staff.

I

2. Personal bras, with no metal fasteners or under ,Vires. A sports style 'bra:is preferred.

During the winter months you will be issued a swea.tshirt to be worn in your cell. dav room aJrea. the
outdoor recreation yard or under the .striped shirt when going to court.

I I

COURT CONDUCT Your arraignment will be your first court.appearance injail. During your arraignment, a judge will tel1 you

: I

whatyoll are charged. with and your rights with regard to those charges. The judge may appoint an attorney

at this time if you qualify.

During arty court appearance you will'not have contaQt with allY person other than your lawyer or the court

I

officials. Contact includes talking~ signaling, or passing notes to people.

Video arraignment is considered a court room setting alldthe above flJles app.ly.

I

DRESS CODE

I

You are expected to remain ftilly dressed at all times except when you are on your bunk. 'When you ate.in
your assigned. bunk are~.you must wear at least the T-shirt and shorts issued by this facility. MY time you leave your sleeping area or room, you must be fully ¢lbthed.Fy.lly clothed qonsists of your shorts, T-

I

shirt, striped shirt and stiiped pants or shorts; T-shirt: gray sweatshili and stl:iped pants. Dilring lights out,

you rn~y go to use the restroom in your t-shirt and shorts if you live in an open donn.

Your T-shirt must be nicked in at all times. and not hanging loosely. Rolling your pant legs up if they are too long, but not above the ankles, is allowed. Do not alter the appearance of your clothes.

You may not roll your sleeves, tuck your pants into your socks, or pull your pants down below the hips. it is not allowed. to wear clothes that are too large or too smalL

You will be allowed to take your outer striped shirt off whjle, e.xercising in the recreation area.

FIRE AND EMERGENCY SAFETY

In caSe of any type of emergency or evacuation~ you are. to follow any direct order of a Deputy. There are
emergency evac1.lation procedures in place, and you will be evacuated ir~ em orderly manner to a safe place.

Ifyoli are.asked to evacuate an area bya Deputy, you are to form. a straight line at your Pod door and wait

for dire:ctions from a Deputy or the Contro1.Room statC A Deputy will direGt you to a safe area.

r

Page 4 - columbIa County Jail Inmate Manual R,evistld 05/16/12
I
!

CC001417
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 56; Page 7 of 30

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 8 of 30

HAIR CARE AND PERSONAL GROOMING

Vle encourage you to shower .daily. We hand out razors three times a week. If an individu.al has a court
appearance they will be allowed. to use arazor prior to their court appearance.. Once a week a list will be put
into your respective pod alld yoti must sign upon·that list t6 receive a haircut. Hair cuts can be done when a
person is available. to be the barbeL There is a $5.00 chatge for the haircut. Haircuts wjll be <lO·he on
,,,ill Saturdays and Sundays only. You will be allowed to have one haircut per month. Haircuts other than a
friril or a complete removal·to a short stubble are not allowed. No other styles be tolerated. Only
kitchen and floor workers ·are allowed one free haircut pet month.

HEALTH APPRAISALS

A health appraisal rilust be done before an inmate can be considered for '<worker" status.

HOUSING "UNIT OPER4.TIONS

The daily operation .in the pods will be as follows,

You will be allowed to come out ofyour cell for a short period oftiine during the morning at breakfast. You will theIX b~ instructed to return to your cell until lunch time. After lunch, you willthen have three hours out of your. GelL At the end ofthat peliod, you will return to yourcel1. The next period out, will be after dhmer for two hours.
Inmate time out of cells for each pod will be set as necessary to fulfill the needs of the facility.

Cleaning gear Will he provided dtirillg the day. We require you to use it daily to clean your cell. bunk area and the pod as a whole on a da.ily basis.

No one is allowed 1.0 sit, stand or loiter 011 the stairs or catwalks (upper tier floors) at any time. This will
include walking otpacing; oiOaps upstairs, or on the stairs. There is to be no sitting 011 the table tops.

ICE CONTACT·INFORl\1ATION
Inmates who. are housed iIi-the Colu.IJibia County Jail for·Immigration Customs E:rifor~el11eht (ICE) may COi1tact ICE via the use of an ICE inmate request fOIlU.

ICE inmates maycon,.tact ICEPto BOilO AttQnieys by calling (800) 646-6283. In each Pod 1ocated:.on the mail hoxes. there. is a list ofall Pro J3onocalls for use by all ICE detainees. ICE agents make scheduled visits
to the Columbia CountyJaiI on \Vednesdays of every week.

IDENTIFICATION CARDS

You mustkeep your inmate]I) card on your·person any time you are out ofyour celL Do not let anyone use your ID card. The best place to keep this card is in your shirt pocket When you are in your cell, place your ID card, right side up, in the vvindow of your door with the picture facing out so the Deputy can see your nartie ahd picture~ You rriust surrender your ID card to any staffmember upon request.

INMATE COUNTS
There will be at least six "Fonnal Counts" pet day. At the begiJiJiing of each "formal count;' you will be
instructed to "cell in or 'bunk up." Televisons will be turned off. At that time you must:

1. Go into your cell and close the door or get onto your bunk depending on the pod you are in.

2. Correctly place yourLD. cal~d in the·window .ofyour door or ortyout bunk. If you are on a bunk,

or otherwise 110t in your room or pod, having the ID card in your hand and presenting it to the

deputy doing: the count is· acceptable.

. .

Prior to lock..doVv."l1. each night a final: formal head count wilf be conducted in the following manner.

Page.s - Coiumbia c:ounty Jail Inmat\,! Manual Revised 05/16112

CC001418
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 56; Page 8 of 30

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 9 of 30

1. In Pods with cells you will go to your room~ close the door stand \Vith one individual on each side

I

of the door, ID card in hand, ready for the count. All inmates will remain in this manner until a

j

Deputy scans yoUr identification card.

.2. In ail open dorm go to your bunk ~d stand next to your bLink with your ill card in hand, until a

-1

Deputy scans yoUr card. After fonl1al you should bunk up for the night arld remain quiet.

- -I

There \-vili be. ntlmerous informal counts per day, therefore, whenever a Deputy enters your cell, remaIn
where you are, do notmovetmtil the deputy leaves or instructs you to move.

fflIVL4.TE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
You may submit a grievarice about a condition in the jail If you think it is a problem or is unfalr. You cannot grieve: 'disciplinary actions (there is an appeal process for that), classification decisiO:hS~ incidents or problems which you were not party to, a collection of unrelated complaints. and no group grievances:

I
I

To file a grievance, you must follow the steps below in the order shown. You cannot skip one.

I

i. An inmate may request a Gtievance Form froni. any Corrections Deputy at any time to bring to attention any perceived problems alld proposed solutions. The Deputy ,vi1l address any grievance within the scope of 11islher authority and document any action taken regarding the request within
five (5) working days.

2. The inmate may re<,lirect the grievance to the Shift Supervisor for arty complaint which cannot be
reasonably resolved by the Deputy. The Supervisor will address lll1ygl"ieyanoe within the scope of
his/her authority and document any action taken on the form within five(5) working days.

3. If the complaint is not resolved fo the inmate)s satisfaction by th~ Supervisor, the inmate may send the Grievance Form to the .Facility Supervisor or his designee. The Facility Supervisor or designee w.illaddress the complaint and document any action taken on the fonn within five (5) working days.

4. Ifth~ complflint is not resolved to the inmate's satisfaction by the Facility Supervisor, the inmate may send asealeci Grievance·form to the Sheriff. The. Sheriffwill address thecomplaiht and document his decision on' the form within ten (10) working days.: nle Sherjffs decision will be
final!

Inmates may file an Emergency Grieyance in the 'eve11t that circumstan.:;.es exist to warrant one. Tbis \vill be'
filed directly-to the. Jail Commanderina sealed envelope, utilizingthe same inmate grievance form:~

INl\1ATE REQUEST FORMS

The Inmate Request FOrins (also known ask~tes) are available upon request. Thete.ate two bfthe;rt. One will be for general questions, law library and visiting. The other form will be a Medical Request Fornl. This is only for the medical staff and doctor to answer and will be forw~rded to them. There are separate f01TIlS to cOlTespondwith Columbia County Community Corrections or with Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE)lhnmigration.

JNl\rlATE \VORKER ACTIVITIES

If you wantio work in thejail~ you will need to request and filloutari Inma~e Worker Laoor Agr¢ement, then submit it-into th~ mailbox. It may take several days to receive your copy.

I

i

Staff\v.illselect various inmates to do kitchen, cListbdial or maintenance jobs in the facility. Health care staff I1lUSt clear you before you can participate in the' \vorkel' actiVities, especially in the kitchen.

I

1

YOil may receive \-vork time credit ojIly ifyo:uare sentenced and your sentence Qrder authorizes it. Any

change of ajob des¢tiptiol1 or shift must be approved by a Supervisor.

I

Page 6. - Columbia County Jaii inmate Manuai Revised 05/16/12

I

.\
I

CC001419
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 56; Page 9 of 30

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 10 of 30

INTERCOl\1 SYSTElVI
The call buttons in the cens are to be used foremergency purposes onl)'~ They are not to be used for allY other communication. If the call buttons are misused. the inmate violating this rule \vill be written up for failure to abide by the rules ofthe Columbia County Jail.

LA\V LIBRARY

All inmates of the ColumlJia,County Jail vvill be given accesS to Olie hour in the law library per request. .Us~ ofthe law library \vill be limited only by time'and the;need to maintain the safety and security of the facility.
To gain ?ccess, Y0l,l must submit a request fonn at least twenty-four (24) hours iIi adv@ce. You will be e}."Pected to take a note pad and pencil with you to the law libraIY to assist you in your research. All law books: reference material and other articles must remain in the law library to ensure equal access for all inmates. There will be very limited copying capabilities available to you for which your accotmt wi1l be
chaI'ged a fee per copy. No inmate will be denied this service based on an inability to pay.

\\1hen you finish; you are required to leave the law library orderly and neat. Please be aware that corrections

stafr-cannot provide you.with legal advice:or le?;!al assistance. If you have any questions, please consult

your attorney.

"

LIBRARY
All inmates of the Columbia County Jail will be afforded ample opportUhity to have acc~ssto library books within the jail library. TIle books may be delivered by a CaIto You may'have up to six books at a time~ All books must be returned to the library .or the c/:irt, prior to checking outmof(~. If a search of your person or cell reveals that you have more than six books in your possession, you may be subjected to disciplinary action. Damaged, books must be returned to a Deputy, immediately~ Possession of damagef} books may be grounds for disciplinary actio~i.. TIle ~ix bookS do not include religious or educational. Discretion of Corrections Staffwill determine whether the books ate iIi fact religious or educational.

MAIL

POLICY
Jail rriail-bar"dling proc.edures support an il~mate's need to communic?te in writing tdcarryout legal business and maintain family and COmniiitlity ties. 'The procedures also meet the Jail's need for efficient operations that preserve the good order, safety, and security of the facility, iImiates, and staff.
The general irnuatemail policy of the jall IS thafal1 mail that is de'iivered by the United: States Postal Service
can be delivered to and senfby inmates, subjt?ctto the restrictions in our hnnate 1\1ai1 Guide, on page 14, below. ,

DEFINITIONS

Book. A'printed composition bound in a volume.

Contraband'. 1) Controlled substances as defined in DRS 475.005(6). 2) Drug paraphernalia as

de,fined by ORS 475.525(2). 3) Any currency or negotiable instrument. 4) Any item that a person in,a

correctional. facility is prohibited by statute, rule, or order from obtaining or possessing, Clnd whose use

wO)lId endanger the safety or seGuri1Yofthe facility or person in the facility. 5) An unauthorized item in

anil1l'l.1aty'spossessioh or in ace11, bunk, or common area. 6) An authorized item altered in anyway. 7)

More than, the alithorlzed number of ail. Item.

'

Inmate lVIail. Written correspondence to or from, an mmate in tilt} Columbia County Jail.

Indigent. An inmate who has less than $5, inhis or he'f inmate account and has not had more than that amount for seven days.

Inflammatory materiaL \Vritteli or prhlted materials that pose a threat to theseGurity, safety, 01'

Page 7 - C6lumbiC! County Jail Inmate fvlanual Revised OS/16i12

, CC001420
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 56; Page 10 of 30

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 11 of 30

good order ofthe jail because it may incite or advocate· physical violence against others. This includes
material that advocates the supremacy or hatred of a racial, religious, national, or other group of people. (Note: Criticism ofjail operations, programs, or staff, on its own, is not inflammatory m~teriC).1. Ifthe criticism involves an illegal act or violates ajail rule, staffwill handle it as that type of prohibited·mail.)

Jail Commander. The Columbia County Jail Commander or his/her designee.

Junk mail I Bnlkmail. Printed materials, often sent as mass mailings, such as catalogs,

advertisements, brochures, circulars, and pamphlets whos~ primary purpose is to s~l1,promote or solicit

for, a product or service. Junk mail/bulk mail may come using a variety ofpostage tate$, including but

not limited to bulk mail rates. Junk MaiIIBulkIv1ail may be solicited or unsolicited.

.

Legal mail. Incoming or outgoing mail addressed to or fi'om a licensed attorney.

Negotiable instrnment. A written document that represents an unconditional promise to pay a specified amount of money upon the demand of its owner. Examples include checks and promissory notes. Negotiable instruments can be transferred from one person to another, as when a person writes "pay to the order of" on the back ofa check in order to turn it over to someone else.

Official Mail. Incoming or outgoing mail addressed to or from the sherift:jail command staff, probation authorities, distTict attorney, state attorney general. Governor, court, a court official, and other confining a~thorities~ or addressed to or from the inmate's medical provider.

Periodical. A magazine, newspaper, newsletter, or other publication formed .ofprinted sheets that is issued at regular, specified intervals by a publisher,

PersoIlaI business. Business necessary to meet ordinary personal obligations, inCluding but not limited to, paying taxes, maki11g mQrtgag;e or other 10aIl. payments, renewing licenses, and makirig rent or lease payments.

Personal mail. Mail to or from family, friellds,or for person;}l business. Personal mail does not include legal mail, official mail, publication~, or junk maillbulkmail.

Publication. Periodicals and books.

Sexually explicit;· 1) A pictorial depiction of any of the following: actual or simulated sexual acts (including sexual intercourse, oral se.~, anal sex, ormasturbation)~ sexual pei1t~tration; bestiality; sexual violence; sadomasochistic behavior; excretOlY fun:ctions; and eXPQsed genitalia,. ariUs, or the nipple or
of nipples (to include areolas) offemale breasts, unless the exposure is for legitimate medical, religious, or
ant1u:opological reasons. 2) A written or-pictorial depiction lewdness, licel1tiouslless~ or graphic erotic
behavior designed to cause sexual exci~el1lent . 3) Sex acts involving chlldren. 4) M~t~rial!) :tbatviolate
state and local obscenity laws. (Note: \Vhether the material is commercially produced or is personally made or writteli has· no bearing on this defmition.)

I
I I
I .. j
I
I
I
I
I

Page 8 - ColOmbia. COy[lty Jail llimcite. Manual Revls~q05116112
CC001421
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 56; Page 11 of 30

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 12 of 30

INMATE l\r1..t\.fi.;

1. Inmate Mail Limits and Restrictions/Overview

The Columbia County Jail will nonually not limit, censor, or restrict the volume, language, content,
fOI1T)at or soUrce of inmate mail. HoWever,someHmitationsarenecesslirytoassurethesafety,ai.ld security of inmates, jail staff, and the public, as well as to assure the efficient operation of the Jail

2. Specific Lindtations on Inmate Mail.

a. PetsoIlall\tlail. Except asothen¥ise provided below~ personal mail may be' sent and received by inmates only in postcard form. The following exceptions apply to this policy:

i. A Jail Supervisor may allow an inmate who is continuously iliVolved in rehabilitation programs permission to correspond with a specific person in non-post c?rd form (both sending and receiving). A supervisor must document that correspondence with the person is in the best interest of an inmate's rehabilitation. A suitable example might include a letter
sellt to reconnect with family prior to release.

ii. A Jail Supervisor may approve incoming and outgoing mail in non-postcard fonn so that an inmate can conduct necessary personal business. Examples ofthis exception include, but are not limited to the use of a business reply envelope to send a docUinent hack to the originating fiml or signing a mailed-in personal·check to make a rent or car payment or renew a driver's license. Xf it appears to theSupervisor that the inmate has no other reasonably available means to take care of personal business, and thatthe personal busiIless cannot n~asoilably wait until the inmate is released, the Supervisor shall allow the exception, subjectto the follow irig:

(1)

Checks must not have a blank payee line.

(2)

If reasonably possible, the inmate must act to add a cosigner to a checking account

or make other 8lTangements to prevent reoccurrence of this need.

(3)

Supporting docUments, such as payment coupons or rerit contracts, must ac.c6rilpany

personal business mai1.

.

b. Publications. Publications arepermiited in tile Jan, subject to the following requirements:

i. r\n inmate must have someone. outside the jail prepay for any publication he or.she teceives~ An inmate may not engage in any delayed payment or credit ordering of publications while inside the jail.

ii. Books..An inmate may receive up to three books on a single mail delivery day. Books must come directly-from the publisher; a bookclub, ora bookstore~ B(joks may bl{ new or used. Books m·ay not be larger than 9 inches by 12 inches. Books may not have plastic or metal
bindings. Either hardback or paperback books are acceptable for general popUlation inmates. Inmates iIi segregation, including uledi,cal segregation, may only receive paperback books. Mail handlers will consider any other item in the envelope or parcel as contraband and treat the parcel as prohibited mail.

iii. Periodicals. An inmate may.receive up to three periodicals on a single mail delivery day. Periodicals must be new and be mailed directly from the. publisher or bookstore.
iv. No blanket prohibition. Mail. hartdlets \:vill detel'minewhether a specific publicatiOliviolates
jail rules. However; this determination must be made on a case by case basis. There shall be no bl8nketprohibition on any publication.

c. Legal and Ofticiall\rlail.

(1) Jail staff must protect the rights of inmates·to privileged, confidential communiCation with their attorneys, the courts, and confining authorities.

Page 9- c6lliri"ibla CountY Jail Inmate .Manual Revised OS/16/1'l.
CC001422
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 56; Page 12 of 30

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 13 of 30

r
r

(2) A sender of legal or offlcial.mail is responsible for legitimately, properly, and clearly marking anda:dd-ressinglegal and official mail so that jail staff recognize it and treat it as

I
i

being confidential, as. follows:.

(1) The. return address on all incoming legal and official mail must have the

I
I

sender's job, agency, or fIrm title and address either commercially preprinted

- -r

all the envelope or aJabel, or as·an .ink stamp. The sender's name should be

handwritten if not preprinted. Staffwill treat all mail with return addresses that.are completely handwritten as personal mail.
(2) Thewords "Legal Mail," "Official Mail," or similar designation mJj~tap·pe:::rr

-.l I

on the address side ofthe envelope. Jail staffwiU not assume the contents of

any letter from an attorney, law fIrm, or government official is legal or

official mail. Jail Staffwill tTeatall mail without the legal or official mail

mark as personal maiL

(3) Jail staff will treat improperly marked or addressed mail as personal mail.

(3) Staffwi11 not open recognized legal or official mail outside the presence of the inmate. They w.i1l open it in the presence of the inmate to inspect it fOT cotitraba:nd~ but they will· not read its contents.

(4) Before ·legal or official mail leaves the pod, staff must verify that any letter marked as legal or official mail is ad.dressed. to a person th~t qualifies for that privacy protection. Deputies will contact a shift sergeant if they suspect fraud.·

(5) Jail staffwiH pursue administrative: criminal, and disciplinary actions, as fitting, against all those involved in the fraudulent use of legal or oft1cial mail designations.

d.

Other Prohibited Mail/Contraband.

L

An inmate may not receive or send inmate mail that contains:

(1) Tl)reats of physical harm, blackmail, extortion) or other criminal activity;

(2) Plans for escape, criminal activity, or activity that violates jail rules;

(3) Gang-related material;

(4) Ipf()mlation that, if conveyed, coo.Id result in physicaL harm ~o someone;

(5) Sexually explicit materials;

(6) Inflammatory material;

I
I

(7) Contraband including but not limited to such commonly mailed .items as: (a) Books larger than 9 by 12 inches at with plastic or metal bindings; (b) :More than three books in a single piece of mail;

I

(c) Controlled substances as defined by ORS 475.005(6)

(8) Foreign substances, such as bodily fluids, lipstick or perfume, glue or paint

or anything with an unusual stain or odor that indicates a foreign substance

may be present;

. . ..

.

I

(9) Cash Or negotiable instl11ments unless specifically allowed to conduct

·1

personall:Jus in ess.

ii. An inmate may not send or receive inmate mal.1 that:

I

(1) is written in code or suspected code;

(2) 'vVas not.sent through the USPS or other approved system;

I

1

PaQe·l0 - Columbia County Jail Initiate Manual Revised OS/16/1"2,

I
j
1

CC001423
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 56; Page 13 of 30

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 14 of 30

(3) Is to ot from a person with whom the inmate is prohibited from communicating;

(4) Would violate a court order;

(5) May produce a hostile work environment by sexual harassment or otherwise;
(6) Is a crydit or deferred bilIingtransactioll, such as <"bill me Iater'~ sUbscriptions or merchandise bought 011 credit or collect:-on-deHvery terms;

(7) Is fraudulently mm."ked as legal or official mail;

(8) Includes information about upcoming healfu care appointments. ,

e.

Sources of Incoming l\lail. Jail Staff will only accept incoming inmate mail that has been

delivered by the U.S. Postal Service unless othelWise specifically authorized by the Jail

Commander.

'

f.

Postage-Due MaiL The jail will not accept or pay for incoming inmate mail with postage

due.

g.

Parcels. Incoming parcels are allowed if they contain books or periodicals from a publisher

or bookstore. A parcel may only contain up to three books or three periodicals. Mail

hm.1dlers will consider any other item in a parcel as contraband and treat such a parcel as

prohibited mail. Parcels are also allowed to 'and from inmates for legal or official mail, orfor

personal business wllen an exception is authorized.

,h.

Commercial Business 'transactions and Government Services by l\1ail.

L

Except as provided in (li), belOW, inmates may not conduct commercial business

transactions or request services from govenimeilt agencies threi.lgh inmate maiL

11.

A Jail. Supervisor may approve personal business mail. as described in paragraph 2.a

(above under Personal l\1ail).

m. Examp1es9fcommercial business transactions and gbveh'lment agency requests
inClude, but are not limited to:

(i) Buyh,gor selling ;m..item, real property, or service;

(2) Applying for a credit card;

(3) Applying for a C()lmnetcial or student loan;

(4)

Openingabatlk account~

(5) Enrolling in a college course;

(6) App lying for food stamps;

(7) Any obligation of funds to which the inmate does not have access.

3. Generai Limitations on Inmate Mall.

111 addition to the specific limitations on inmate mail set forth above, additionallimitatiolls may: &PpJy

iii thefolloWiIlg cirCilrristanees:

.

A. Thete is reason to believ¢ that S:uch c.OlTespondence would jeopardize personals,afety, jail
security or good order, inrnllte'treatmel1t~ or would f~Ci1.it:rte violation of the law~

B.

There is reason to helie:v~ that a seIiteIic~d.ilunate iri rehabilitative programs would benefit

frein limited contacts andlorinmate mail

P(:1ge it. - Columbi~ COuntY Jail InmatefVlanuaJ Revised' 05/16/12
CC001424
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 56; Page 14 of 30

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 15 of 30

C. Inmates may receive a discipiinary sanction that restricts personal maiL (See policy J212, Rules andDiscipline.)

4.

Gen~ralProvisions for Inmate Mail

a.Postcards. Inmates may $end postcards they receive in their initial inmate hygiene kit or
thtoughjail commissary. Inmates may receive postcards in any size that is delivered by the
U.S. Postal SerVice up to a maximum size of5-l!2'~ tall x 8.. 1/2" wide. Postcards may have
phQtographson one side.as allowed by the U.S. Postal Service andjail rules. No other
photographs ru'e all.owed on postcards. Inmates' ate not limited to a specific number of pos~cards .that they may receive or ?~nd. Lodged inmates re~e!ve two postca:rds i~ their hygu;nekl~ and may purchase addItional postcards thtoughJad comlTIlssary. Pohcy212, Rules and Discipline, sets limits on the number ofpersonal mail items allowed iri an inmate's cell.

b.

Indigent Inm'ate Mail. Indigent inmates may purchase an indigent hygiene kit through the

commissary program once per week. Hygiene kits are taken to the pods and offered to all

inmates. The indigent hygiene kit consists oftwo postage prepaid postcards, a pencil and

hygiene items.

c.

Addressing Inmate Mail. Incoming mail must have the inmate.'s booking name and should

have the inmate's booking number as prutofthe addressee infonnation.

d.

Rerurn Address. Incoming mail must have thei name and address of the sender. The retilrn

address on legal and official mail must have the sender~s job, agency, or firm title and

address commercially preprinted or stamped.

e.

Certified MaiIlSpecial mail services. This section applies to legal and official mail as well

as to personal business mail when authorized.

L

An inmate may send lip to nyo letters as certified mail in a 3O-dayperiod. The

inmate must have sufficient funds in his or her account to pay for the service. A jail

supervisqr may make ex.ceptions to the volume ofcertified mail an in.rnate sends and

may approve credit to allow an indigent inmate to send certified mail. .,

ii.

An inmate that needs to.$end a letter using eertified mail must fill Qutan Inmate

Request Form. Only the jail commander can approve such a J;eques:t. The Jail

Commander Will ensure that the inmate's correspondence is rE;adyto mail at the time

of the request. If an inm.ate's request fo~ certified mail is approved, th.ejail

commander will forviard th~ request to the front office staff.

(1) Jail staff will verifY ifthe inmate hassufficiefit funcis in his ·or h~r account
before processing any request. They will forward requests from indigent inmates tQ·asupervisor. The inmate wj11fill O.utthe nec~~sary U.S. Postal
Service fofm$-:--Recei.pt f01;Certitied Mail (pS Form ~ 800) and Dome$tic . Retum Receipt (pS Fonn 3811). The letter ai1q.·the forms \vIIl be forwarded to fro;nt office staff who will mail the letter and charge. the inmate for the
postal fees for these speciallieniices. The in'mate request fonn will be the source document authorizing the charge.

(2) Jail Staff will fOlward the Domestic Return Receipt on to the inmate wheI'l it returns in incoming mail. Th~y will return the Domestic Return Receipt postcard to. the post office if the inmate is no longer injail when it returns in
the mail.

f.

Inmate Request Forqt. Ail imnate shall use ail Inmate Request Form to request p~rmissi()n

to thail oversize. or ovenveight items, or for other $pecial postal services, when allowed. If

the Jail COIl1II).ander approves such a request, funds' will be drawn from the inll1ate's accoi.mt

to cover the costs.

g.

JunlUBulk 1Hail. Jail staffwill accept ~olicited or unsolicitedjunk mailorbtilk mail for

inmates,. unless it violates other mail restrictions (such ,as containing sexually explicit

content).

I
I·
I
1
I
.. 1.
I
I
I ~
I I

pag!= 12 - Cbh.imbra CblintyJail"Inmate Manl1a! Revised 05/16/12 CC001425
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 56; Page 15 of 30

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 16 of 30

h.

Pte-Stamped Envelopes. Jail staff will make pre-stamped First Class bU$iness size Or

ll1aJ,lila ~nvelopes available for inmates to buy from the commissary for legal or official mail.

Indigent inmates may obtain pre-~taIIlped envelopes for legal or official mail per paragraph 6.

i.

lnmate Man Written In a Foreign Language. Incoming and outgoing mail written in a

language other than English must be interpreted prior to delivery to detennine whether the

mail violates these .rules.

5. Appeals.

a.

By Inmates. Inmates wishing to appeal a dec.ision to deny delivery of incoming inmate mail

or the mailing of outgoing inmate niail mustfollow the normal grievance procedure set forth

in the inmate manual and Policy J207, Inmate Rights.

b.

By Others. If a person believes that any incoming or outgoing inmate mail \vas improperly

confi.scated by the Jail, they may appeal the action to the JaIl Commander by sending a

written letter stating the specific reason(s) why the action was improper. The letter must be

received within. 15 days from the date of the Prohibited Mail Notice. Or, ifno Prohibited

:MailNotice was received, :within 15 days from the date the persoll knew or should have

knoWn of the appealed action.. The letter shall include the sender~s name and return address.

The Jail Commander Will consider the appeal and wi11 issue a decision on the appeal within

fifteen days of receiving the letter. However, if the Jail Commander made the initial deCision

regarding the mail in question, the Sheriff will consider the appeal and issue the decision.

The appeal process will beset forth in the Prohibited Mail Notice.

Page 13 -Columbia <:;outity')ail Inmate Manual Revised:OS/16jli
CC001426
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 56; Page 16 of 30

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 17 of 30

I
I
I
I'
INlYIATE1VlAIL GUIDE
P el*sonaJ Mail
I
Inmates.may send or receive personal mail on postcards only except in specific cirCtlinstance.s which must be approved. by jail staff. Additional infonnatiQll about the exceptions is available in the Inmate Mail Policy J603..R-08..Personalmail is mail to or from family, friends, or for personal business. Personal mail does notinclude legal mail, official inail, publications, or junk maillbty.k mail. frimates may send and receive postcards in any size that is delivered by the U.S. Postal Service up to a maximum size of 5::.:112" tall x 8-1/2" wide. Inmates may receive postcards with photographs on one side as allowed by the U.S. Postal Service.

Addressing Inmate IV1ail

Inmate mail must have the inrilate's booki.ng number as part of the addressee information. Incoming mail must have a return address to include the name and address of the sender.

Prohibited lVIaiI

Jail staff will not allow an inmate to receive or send mail that-

1.

Contains-

a.

Threats of physical harm, blackm'aU, extortion, or other crirnmal activity;

b.

Plans for escape; criminal ~ctivity, or activity that violates jail rules;

c. d.

in Gang-related material;.

.

Information that,. if c;qnveyed.. could result physical harm. to someone;

e.Sexually expliCit materials;

f.

Inflammatory m.ateria];

.

g.

Coutraband materials incI.1Jding but not limited to. such commonly.mailed items a~:

i.

Booksiarger than.9 by 12 jnc!1~s orwith plastic .or metalbindings

ii.

More than three. books ih a single piece ofmail

iii.

Contro"Iledsubstances as defined by ORS 475.525

iv.

Foreignsubstanyes,such as:

(1)

Bodilyt1u~ds

(2)

Lipstick brperjiJrne

(3)

Glue or paint

..

(4)

Anything with an unusual stall). or: .Qdot thaI jndicates a foreign substance may be present

2.

Is writtel~ in code or suspected code

3~

W~ a fonn ohvritten com.il1unication ·notsent through the USPS or other approved system~

4.

Is to or from a victim of a crime that the inrtui.te is in custody for in either pretrial or sentenced status~

5.

Wquld violate. a court order;

6.

May produce a hostiJewotk,envirohment, such as sexual harassment;

7.

Is a credit or deferred. billing transp.ctjon. such as "bill me later" subscriptions or merchandise bought on credit or

collect-on-delivery t~rms;

8.

Is fraudulentiy marked as legal or official maiL

Fat mote specific information aboutprohibited. mail please review the full Inmate Jail Policy J603-R08

Appeals
J?oth the iDJ1iate arid an outside person·have the right to appeal a decision to return or confiscate inmate maiL With very limited exceptio~s> the Jail will Iirovide a Notice of Prohibited Mail tq both the senderandad4ressee When imiiate incoming mail is retumed or confiscated. The Notice of Prohibited Nfail will explain the reason why the inmate mail was refurriedorconfiscated·. The appeal proc'ess for outgoing inmate mail follows the JaiPs normal grievance ·process. The appeal proces$ for evetydne else requires a letter explaining the reason for the appeal. and providing contact information. The Jail viiU respond within 15 days' bfteceipt of the letter.
GeneraIM~il Rules:

Page.14''''' CO.lumbiaCounty Jail. Irimate Manual Revised 05/16/12

CC001427
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 56; Page 17 of 30

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 18 of 30

\lIe may place limits on your mail because of its volulne, its affect on your rehabHit(ition or treatment, or for the safety, secm'ity, and good order of the jail. \Ve may open and inspe,ct all mail for contraband and Inay read all personal mail.

We will provide an, Inmate Mail Guidy forinembersoftl1epublic.It.explains It~ail rules and what they c~n and
cannot send you. Ask a Deputy for copies', People may also call (503) 366..4630 to getthe infonllation found in the guide or read it on the jail's web site at:
v·'/Vvw~co.coll1n:ibia,6r.us/sheriff

~'Do" MaiLRules' for Inmates For mail, you must do the following:

1. Use only lead pencils to write letters.

2. Use only jail-approved postcards sold through the commissary or issued by staff for social mail.

3. Keep the weight of legal or official cOlTespondence in a pre-stamped envelope belo'W' 1 ounce (28

gll1), To keep a business envelqpe to one ounce or less means the contents cannot be moretban

four 8- Yz II x 11'~ sheets of ~tandard \veight paper,

4.

Keep yom' friends and family informed ifyou received books, newspapers, or ~noney they have

provided for you.

5. When you are released or ti·alisferredfi.om the jail, send change-of-address notifications to those

that send you postcards and periodicals.

6.

Put the retum address noted on the sample postcard below 011 all your outgoing mail. Tell people

sendu1.g you postcards or other acceptable mailto use it to address mail to you. ,\Vrite the

recipient's,full name and complete address legibty on any mail you .send.

"Don't~' Mail Rules for Inmates
You niaynot do any ofthe following:

1. Draw or write anything on a postcard in the address. area or on the picture ofthe postcard other

than name and address infOlTIlation.

.

2.

Send out jail forms for others to f111 out on yoUr behalf.

"')
.:J.

Send, prohibited mail.

4.

Send Qutjail property,

5.

Order publications 011 credit or de1ay~d hilling from the jail.

6.

Operate aconimercial busii-}.es8' or nOllprofit organization: fi'o,ln thej ail.

7.

Ordef correspondence courses unless you have· a Jail conimand officer's approval.

8.

Conduct commercial or personal business transaction:s ororequest services from a govemment

agency unless you have a jail command officer's approval.

9. You may not send mail to anbther ininate in this facility without prior 'Nritten permission.

Sending and Receiving lVlaiJ
You may send and receive cQrrespondence only through the U. S. ,Posta1 Service. The jail internal mail system for corrununicating 0111y with jail staff. Any transfer of vn:itten communication on your palt that does not comply with mail rrues aIid procedures is a rule violation tbat subjects you to discipline. This
includes sending notes to other unnates or notes, postcards or maiUo anyone by way ora contact visit,
court appearance, or transport. People may not leave mail, messages; 'or notes for you atthejaiL Personal
l1lail must come on~ commercially produced postcard which does not exceed 5' yj by8 .% 'inches.

]3xcept in. Unusual circumstances and on holidaY$ ()r weekends, we, will deliver incomiIig mail to you withiIl 24 hours ofits receipt. \Vewill put outgoing mail in a pickup box within 24 hours of receiving it from you. There is 110 pickup by the post office on we~kends and holidays.. ,

It is 'important that you use a person's complete al1d correct addresswheq sendingmaU. If someone says he or'she

did not rece,ive something you sentand you did 'not receive a confiscation l}Otice from us, it is a: matter for you to

resolve with the post office--n()t thejail. ,For your convenience,: the addresses of{;;oml11only contacted government

agencies are at the back of this manual al1d eutiUed "Goveri1ment Pages,~'

,

Page ~5: .. <:;:oluml;Jia County jail Inmate fv1aniJai R¢vised 05/16/12

CC001428
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 56; Page 18 of 30

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 19 of 30

I
I

We do not forward mail. If we receIve mail for you and you are .not here, we will return it to the sencfer. (Ple~se tell those sending you mail to put on retul'n addresses. '''Ie confiscate mail withoutreturn addresses or destroy it if

I

you an~ rio Iongerinjail.)

1-

NIall Confiscation:

I
.. i-

We vv1.11 give you a Prohibited J\1ail Notice for 'mail we confiscate. When we confiscate items because they exceed a number limit, stlCh as books or tnagazines,we wiU confiscate (9f return) all of them rather

I

than selecting some to bring the nuniber down to the limit amount. We will return stored confiscated

mail to you when you are released, if it was not disposed offor health or· safety reas·ons. You may subinit
a grievance to ask for its return before then. We will return to sender any form of pmhibited mail. You

\
I

may not get a notice that we have returned contraband to the sender~

Use of Envelopes

You may use an envelope sold through the commissruy to send these types of letters:

1. Legal pr official mail. 2. A legal Of official mail letter that should not or cannot be folded or that is more than one ounce. 3. \Vithstaff approval, a personal letter that'contains a program-related diplQma or certificate that should

I

not or can not be folded. You must have a Deputy coIifirm that you are sending a diploma or certificate

before you seal the envelope.

You may not use these envelopes for any type of mail that does not meet one of the three criteria listed above. We will deduct the cost ofthe postage from your inmate account for acceptable mani.laenvelopes.

Sending Certified. Legal ~!' Official Mail

. .

You may send a legal. or officia11etter using U. S. Postal Service Certified Mail. and Retuin Receipt.mail

serviCes. You will get receipts that YOll sent the letter and that the letter was received by theaddtessee.

We will charge you the standard postal rates for these s~ryices~ You rn:liSt have money in YOllf inmate

account to pay the postal rates or.. have appropriate approval if you are indigent A deputy will supply you

with a request for Celiified.1vlail form that you need to fill out and submit along with the lettet~ You may

only send 2 certified~mailletters in a 30-day period.

Outgoing Mail

lnniateswill place all outgoing mail in the mail drop located in the day room of each housing, ullit.

You are expected to legibly address your cOlTespondence and use the ptoperpostage. All outgolllg mail

must list the following ret'l1rn address:

r

Your full mlllle Columbia County Jail 90 L Polt Ayem~e

I.~

St. Heli:ms Oregon 97051

IVlEALS

I

Meals will be served three times daily at approximately 6:30 A.M., 12:00 P..M. and 5:00 P.lYt. Pre-classification and disciplinary inmates may be required to eat in their-cells. All others will line up for service, alid will eat atthe tables provided in the day rooms. If you choose not to eat, please advise the dej)uty. Televisions will ~~ qff during the serving of meals. Once the meals .have been served. 'and tile Deputy leaves the pod, the teleVlSIon may
be turned back on. Do not save food from meal service.

All special personal preference diet requests, such as vegetarian meals, must be pI;e~approved bythe jail supervisors. All inmates on a personal preference diet will be charged a'fee of$ 1.00 per meal> to be taken directly out of their individ.ual inmate trm;t acco-qnt to cover the additiollal cost of these mea1s. Indigent inmates
will not be eligible to receive this' type of special diet.

Page 16 - Coiurn,ola County JaIl Itll:n.ate Manual Revised. 05/16/12
CC001429
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 56; Page 19 of 30

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 20 of 30

:lVIEDICAL SERVICES

The Columbia County Jail will provide emergency medical~ dental; and mental health care to all inmates

regardless of their ability to pay for such services. No inmate will be denied care for serious health care l1eeds

based on the cost of medical services or the 'inmate's inability to pay for health care, All medical visits. j.IJ.i~iatedby

you will be assessed a fee which will be charged to your personal money account You will be financially

responsible for any elective surgery or other treatment you may request from your pel"sonal physician, denti$t or

other provider.

.

Ivfedical screening or appraisals at intake, or for inmate workers will be provided at no cost to you. All Detainees
will receive a medical evaluation within theit first 14 days of incarceration.

Prescription medications: You will be chargedfor·all prescription medication prescribed for you and purchased by the jail on your behalf.

Over the counter medications such as; Tylenol, Aspirin, antacid etc., will be available from our medical department for a small charge.

IVlEDICATION

Health care staffmay fill prescriptiOl'iS at tI:ieir discretion. Health care stm may discontinue prescribed medication as directed by thejail he~l1l1 car~ supervisor or physicians. If you came from another correctional facility and had your medication transferred with you, the transporting Deputy will give your medication to the health·care staff; If you are leaving our jail and going to another jail, the transporting Deputy will get your
medication from. the health care staff and tran,sport it with you.

As a warning, any abuse of your medication may result in the djscoI;ltinuation ofyour receiving the medicine.

MEDICAL ·GRIEVANCES

In case of any unresolved problem regarding medical, dental or infmnruy care, you may fo How tbe grievance

procedures outlined in this manual.

.

lVIENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Columbia COlmnunity MentaLHeaith is tIle provlder of these services for the facility. If you feel the need to see a mental health professional~ contact a Deputy or the health care staff.

MONEY ACCOUNTS

Each inmate in the Columbia County Jaii will have a :'money accounf'·established during the booking procedure.
Funds may be deposited 24 hours per day seven days per week, viaViSil or Mastercard by a toll-free:phorte c<:l.ll to
1-866-232-1899" via internet at: v>:vV\v.tollchpavdirect.com or by depositing cash into a kiosk ill the Sheriffs
Office lobby~ The depositor needs the inmate's name, booking number, and Facility Locator' No., which is
297001. All purchases \vill be deducted from the account. Funds d9posited to an account showing ~ negative balance will be deducted from that bala~ce. The positive bahmce, if any, is available for the inmate's use. The
balance will bexefunded to the imnate upon discharge, Inmates who possess a negativeI:mlal1ce 0:0. their account will not be denied their basic medical needs such a~ medical Cl:g'C and hygien~ items. With a negative balance an
iU1l1ate may req1.lestto partipipatein the 50/50 program .at whichiline 50 % ofallyfl;llids placed into the inmate .
account will go towards the negative balruice and the other 50 % will be·placed on the inmate's account ,available
fOT use on individual. items in the JaIl.

OUTDOOR RECREATION
:wmAn opell air recreation area is provided in the jail for your usc as scheduled throughout-fhe day. Central Control notifY each ofyoti,ofyour recreation time. \Vhen you are c!llh;~d for outdoor recreation, you need to be ready to·go. You will leavethePqd in groups of six. Noone will be allowed to ;~depart the Pod late for recreation. The
TV may be tumed off while Control is callingforrec,·and while people are leavlllg.

page 17 - Columbia County. Jail inmate. Manual Revised 05/1f)/12

CC001430
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 56; Page 20 of 30

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 21 of 30

I

I

The following rules apply while using the open air recreation area:

I

1. Do not yell or attempt to communicate in any way with the people outside therecreatibn area,. except

for Corrections Staff.

\

2. Do not engage in ;'horseplay/' We do not want people to get injured. 3. You miIstwear amll1imum of a T-shirt, pants and shoes. Movement to or from outdoor recreation

ir·.-

will require the·complete uniforrrl, illchtding your ID card.

.

4. DO NOT take anyt11ing other than your ID card with you to outdoor recreation. This includes papers~

candy, food items Illid anythil1g that can be used to wTite or color with. If you are found with these items, discipUnary·action may be taken.

PERSONAL PROPERTY

m All personal property items will be stored the secure storage area of the Columbia County JaIl. No personal

I

items will be allowed to be kept on an inmate unless approved by the Jail Commander in writing.

j

PROGRAlVI SERVICES

I

If and when avai1able~ you have the opportunity to palticipate in a variety of program activities. Recommended programs assist you in making constructive use ofyour tiille and to make positive chruiges in your life. We have grouped these .into two main categories:

Voluntary activities

Inmate worker activities

I

You may participate in activIties hi one or all ofthese categories depending on your:

Senteilcing status Length of sentence

Assessments results Classification

I

PROPERTY TRANSFERS

You must follow these guidelines regardin~ your property:

I

1. You may release your personal property to any adult outside the fadlityon an "all or nothing" basis. The adult ·must present a state driver's license, state ID card, passp01t or military. ID tojail staff, to ensure property is
released. to the proper individual. A signed inmate request form from you is requireq.

I

2. Release of propertyis avaiiable Monday through Friday from 3:(H}P.~ ulltil4.:00 P~l\1.0NLY.

\ 3. The following exception applies when: An.Inmate is committed to astate·prison and must release all personal property il)cludii1g their clothing prior to being transported to a state facility.

lithe ·property·is not picl{ed up prior to the inmate;s.departnre. itwln be fonvarded to ODOC with the.

inmate.

I-

4. \Ve do not allow personal property to be dropped off for inmates, except for medical items which will be checked and approved by medical. stafffirst~ Clothes may be brought in if the situation calls for it. This will be at

I

the discretion of the jail Supervisors.

SAJ,\iTIARY INSPECTIONS

I

Deputies will inspect each housing unit daily to ensure it is a safe and clean e'Ilvironment. You will need. to follow

basic. sanita.ry practices to ensure. your ceILarea meets the sanitation requirements and pass the sanitation. inspections. Ifyout cell does: 110tmeetsanitatiol1 requitements~ you 'Will lose privileges and be instructed to clean the area. If the day room, '~howerarea·an(f.outside reQreationareasdo llQtmeet sanita.tionrequirem~nts, the· entire

I
j

housing unit may lose privileges. These. privileges a:re those listed at the beginning of this mariual. If you oryour

housing unit lose privileges) they \vill be reinstated if you pa.ss the next regularly scheduled. inspection.

.

Page 18 -" CCilumblaCounty )aU 'Inmgte Manual Revis~d 05j16/12

CC001431
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 56; Page 21 of 30

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 22 of 30

SANITARY PRACTICES

It is;your responsibility to keep your cell clean and uncluttered. It is also the responsibility of each member of the housing unit to keep the day room, shower and outside ,recreation area, clean. You will be provided with cleaning
supplies and are expected to use the cleaning .supplies as much as necessalY to ensure you Hve in a clean
environment.

You are to follow these lUles for a clean .and healthy housing unit:·

Clean your cells,including the sink~ toilet, floors and door windows dailv•.

P'od Porters will clean day roOlIl areas daily.

Pod Porters will clean the fonowIl1g, but not limited to: Tables: floors; stairs, walls, showers, bathroom

areas, tailings, and windows.

Keep the walls clea.n and free of graffiti or marks of any kind.

Place all garbage ill the trash cans in the housing units.

.

Keep all pictures and papers off the walls, 'bunks, bottom of bunks. Do not hang, stick~ or paste

pictures or papers to the walls, bunks or any wh.ere else in the facility.

Keep cOlIlmissary food items in your property 'container. (Gray totes)

Do not save food from meal service.

\Vash your hands frequently.

Participate' in laundry exchailge twice weekly~

Shower at least twice weekly, but we strongly encourage you to shower daily.
Keep the showers clean~ and tree of excess soap and shampoo bottles.

Keep your gray bin or tote clean

Perform any other duties that Corrections Staff may assign.
Keep your room or bunk area uncluttered ofexcess items. This includes legal papers. AsJ.<. staff for

assistance ifyo'!l have a large amount of legal papers to store.

Vents for air circulation should be kept clean and obstmction free.

SEARCHES

Jail staff:may conduct randoinunanriounced searches of your person or of items ill ),ourpossession, and in any area ofthejaiI at any time. YOllI" personal property and/or living area may be searched.williOtityourpermission
and whether or not you are present.

SEI..IF-ESCORT
:Most inmate lllovementwithin the jail, including visiting; niedical~ programs, work assignments Etc., will'be llhescor.ted unless you abuse the privilege. Yo~ :are expected tQ90nduct yours~lf.inan ordedy fashion at all times. Inmates'moving unescdrted through the facility may not talk to other inmates, may not touch the w~Us or the glass, Ioitel" or detour whUeen route to their d'estination. When leaving an area, you need to state your nanieand where you are going to Central Control. Any inmate who abu;;es,these ,.uI~:s will be subject to', disciplinary action, and may lose their opportunity for unescorted movement. The exception will be any inmate who is classified as maximum security and who needs to be escorted in the facility at a11 times.

SIcK CALL

If you need to see medical personnel', fIll out the appropriate Inmate Medical Request form. Each day the Medical Staffwill address these issues upon receipt of the Request. forms.

SPECIAL DIETS
You must d'irect all requests for medical dIets'to the heath care staff for approval, Ifyou ne~d a special djet for medical reasons, please submit a request slip to the health care staff~ If you need a special diet for religious
reasons, please submit a request form. A DeputY will pick up the form from you and give it to a supervisor for
~ppr9val. If approved, the i-eligiotls diet will remain ill effect for the length of your incarceration; Be awa~'e that there may be a charge assessed for the extra cost associated for the special meal.

Page,19 - Columbia County Jail Inmate fVlanual ReVised 05/16111..,
CC001432
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 56; Page 22 of 30

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 23 of 30

I
!

TELEPHOl'~ PRIVILEGES
Your use ofjail telephones is a privilege. Jail staff may .limit your telephone use for reasons of safety, security, good order, or sanitation of the jail. Ir.rrrtates clas:sifie4 to housing units will be allowed to use telephones from 0800 ills' .to approximately 220.0 hrs, based on the operations of the houshlgunityou are in. Conversations on any telephone in the jail may be monitored and/or recorded without further notice. Yon are consenting tq this ·monitoring wilen you llse the jail telephones.
There are some local attorney's phone numbers that have been set UIJaS .non collect so you can call them directly fr:om the telephdnesin tho pods. Confirmed attorney phone numbers are bl(}ckedfi"om the IrionitoriJig system.
All telephone calls from a housing unit are a collect call or by the phone cards that you purchase here. The phone cards are able to be used upon release from the Columbia County Jail. Telephone calls are limited to15 minutes each. The telephone system will warn you before the 15 minute time period is up so you canend your cOllversation.
Inmates are not allowed to receive incoming telephone calls. Jail staffwill deliver verifiable emergency messages' toyou.
RElVIINDER: TELEPHONES ARE A PRIVILEGE•.DO NOT ABUSE
THE SYSTEIVr. At'fY DAMAGE TO THE PHONE WiLL RESULT IN Mi~::JZ:~YT~~XT1F A CIDlVITNAJ-! CHARGE BEING

TELEPHONE SERVICE NUMBER
ifyou.or your family have a,ilY questions :a,hout hUiblgor connection problems concerning the inmate
phones, please call the senice provider at 1-866-230:-7761. \Ve have a bro~hure ava.ilable. to answer more
q,uestions if you need it, please ask a~d ,ve will provide it.

TRANSFE.R TO WORK.RELEASE CENTER

111eCoUltsand!or Supervisory AuthoritYlp.ay to'Ilsid:er'You fortrartsfef to the. WorkReleaseCenter ifauthorlzed
on your' sentence order. These transfers are not automatic. Jail staff must approve;:;in transfers.

Factors considered.in transfer decisions will include:

Judge's approval . .

.

Length of sentence.

Individual needs.

Availilble space.

Classification.·

.

Demonstration of compliance with jail ruies, expectations 'and responsiblebehaviot.

Tfyou are interested in participaiLllg in any programs, you lilust submit a request on an InI1)ate ReqilestForm. :Misbehavior or administrative concerns may prevent access to these programs. Disciplinary write-ups or actions will affect program eligibility~

VISiTING

All pubiic visits wilibe scheduled by the Inmate requesting the visit: The inmate must contact pro.spective
visitors by phone or mail, and cletetmhie an acceptable·visitirtg date. Time slots may be used on afirsi come.
first serve basis. Visitors are encouraged to arrive 1.0 to 1S minutes early to sign in. If all of th~ slots :;ire taken
for that time fL'iUT.ie they can either wait tiU the next times start for tha.t pod, if it is available, or return on another
day. Visits will st!:i.tt on the hour and half hour.
Authorized visitors shall be members froin the inmate~s family, and friends .age 18 and older. Visitors ilnder the age of 18 must be accomp'anied by a parent or legal guardian. Attorneys and clergy are not considered public
visitors.

Page 20- Columbia County Jail Inmate fl.1anual Revised 05/16/12

I
i
I'
r..i! ! i I I !
i
I
[
I
I
I
I
r
I
I
!

CC001433
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 56; Page 23 of 30

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 24 of 30

Imrtate visitation is a privilege and while the Columbia County Sheriffs Office encourages visitation, that priyiIegc' must be regu.lated to protect the needs ofthe entirejail operation. The a,inountoftime allotted for visitation is based upon the classification and status ofeach inmate.

Classificatior~ is based UpOll the inrilate's current charges, criminal history and current demeanor. All inmates will be allowed a maximum of two thirty (30) minute visits per seven (7) day period (Sunday through Satu:i'day)~ as titne and space allows.

Inmates assigned to. Disciplinary Segregation will not be al1m:i,l ed visitation privileges.
Inmates not yet assigned to a housing unit or who are housed in the pre-classification unit~ will not be allowed public visitation.

Inmates ·serving a sentence of seventy-two hours(72) or' less will not be allowed public visitation.

Due to space limitations, acceptable visiting combinations are limited to:

1.

One Adult

2. Two Adults

3.

One Adult and One Child

4.

Due Adult and Two Children

5.

Two·Ad.ults and One Child

Inmates have the right to refilseany Visit, however that right should be exercised prior to visiting time.
to All irrrn~tes wishing to receive public vlshs must establish a Ylsiting list ofnQt more than five (5) people. Persons
not on the approvecllist will not be allowed to visit You are able change your visiting list once ~very 3.0 days
from the time you establish your list. You p.eed to fill out the visitation part of the request fonn.tomake the changes. The minimum ii:rformation required Jbr·each person Will. be:

1.

Visitor's full name

2.

Date ofbirth

3.

Relationship

. .

.

.

4.

The name ofany child who may be in the compapy ofhislher parent or guardian.

The visiting schedule will be posted in. the hOW;iI}g l,lnits. Visiting times an.d days are subject to change periodically, so please refer to the schedule when talking to your loved ones.

SPE'CIAL VISITS

Specialconsif;lerations J;11ay begjvenfor emergency and/or special sItuations where nqn;nalyisiting procedures
may not be practical. Such sitUations as the death. of a family membet or close friend! serious injury of a f(imily member or·visitors traveling great distances, who have alTived UIlexpecteqly maybe consideredona case-by-case basis by the. Supervisor or Corporal on duty. All special visit') will be subject to the sanie rules and re(fi.Iire.Q1e~ts as regular visitation. Special visits may be conducted in the Attorney Visiting Rooms ifavailable and necessary due to other visitation which may be in progress.

VISITS. WITH ATTORNE¥

Inm,;;I.tes shall be given.the opportunity to visit their attomeY$ at reasonable times, consistent \viththe safety and security of the facility. Allvisits will be scheduled bythe attorney.

VISITS BY CLERGY

Clergy Vishs will be handled as a regular visit. The member of the Clergy you want to. have a: visit with will be

added like a ll0r:tnal Yisitorjust like it is described in the reguJru: visiting fules. They·will:be allowed to visit you.

on the regular d?-te and time ·fQr the pod you ate assigned to. The Clergy membet will mjt C01ll1tagrunst you for the

five people you are allowed to have 911 YQurvi~iting list. The Columbia County Jail provides non deilolilii'ialiQnal

religious services once per week and individual. bible study twice per week

.

page;!i -·Columbia .county Jail Inmate Manual Revised 05/16/12

CC001434
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 56; Page 24 of 30

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 25 of 30

VOLUNTARY ACTIVITIES

Ali general population inmat.es may have access to voluntary activities. These activities include but may not be limited to:
Religious services

I
l

NarcQtics Anonymous (NA) and Alcoholics AnQnymous(AA) groups Religious based life skills classes

I

Individual educational tutoring (21 and under)

Recreational library

Law libnll),

A sign up sheet for the voluntmy acthrities will beposted in your honsing unit. You must sign up on the provided list to be able to participate. Remember that participation in these activities isa privilege. Participation is
dependent on your continued cooperation and responsible behavior.

I

\VAKE UP AND LOCK DOWN

Day room and ceUlights will be tumed on at 6:00 A.M. daily. Make your bed and dress for breakfast. Breakfast service will begin at approx.imately 6:30A.lVI. daily. Day room lights and television will betiImed off by about 10:00 ·~P.IVL and the cell lights wiHbe turned offat 10:00 P.M.. All in;mates must be on their bunl{S at "lights out" and are required to remain quiet.

Each inmate is expected to completely clean your room and mea, make your·bed, dump trash cans, etc. when.the
cleaning supplies are available to you. Be aware that there are usually some cleaning materials available at all times.

MINOR RULEVIOLATIONS PROCEDURES 1. The accused inmate shall be served with a minor rule citation by tile citing Deputy as quickly as is·practical~

I

after the violation is discovered, but in no case shall it be 10nger than 24 hours after tbe investjgation,is complete.

2. The inmate will sign the inisconduct report and acknowledge receipt of alleged violation(s) and the rIght to

Elppeal, The inmate may enter a plea of "Guilty" or '~ot Guilty'~.

.

I

A. Upon entry of a "Guilty ,~, plea. a beputy will schedule an informal hearing for possib1e san.ctions to

be imposed.

I

B. Upon entry of a «Not Guilty~' plea on the miscoilduct report·or upon request for a formaL heari~lg the

incid~nt will be hanqled the same as a Major Violation:.

MINOR RULE VIOLATION SA.:l~CtIONS

I

Sanctions resulting from a gUllty plea on a Kiinor Misconduct Report may·in~lude: a. Verbal warning.

I
I

b. Creative sanction a.ppropriate to the offense (Le. extra work detail, etc.).

c. Housing Unit.lock dmvn not to exceed 24 hours.

d. Disciplinary segregation not to exceed five (5) calender days for a single violation. Inm~tes may receive separElte lockdoWIl time for each marked v~olation: This should not exceed a total of fourteen (14) calender days.

c. Re-Classification

f. Probation for up to.30 days.

g. While in disciplinary segregation there is no access to programs.

I

Page 22 - columbia County Jail inmate 1'1anual RevisedOS/16!12

I
I

I

CC001435
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 56; Page 25 of 30

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 26 of 30

Inmates get one hour out each 2.4 hours; Telephone (except legal) and television use TI'laynot be permitted..
be Commissary choices are restricted. Personal visits are suspended for·the duration of the segregation. Book cart or
library access is permitted; however, this privHege may taken away as a sanction.

l\flNOR RULE VIOLATIONS
01 Possession ofNui~ance Contraband:. Any .authorizeditem found in an Inmates possession that has been altered or is in. excess of the authorized amoU11t,

02 Arguing: Any disagreement which becomes disruptive, loud or obnoxious.

03 Possession of another inmates property.

04 Unauthorized use of facility property or equipment (Le. washers/dryers, barber equipment etc.)

05 Acting as a lookout

06 Being in an unauthorized area without corrections staffpresent.

01 Purposefully obstJ.ucting t1;l.e view of CorrectioilS Staff.

08 Inappropriate remarks· or misuse of the inmate request forms or any of the forms or paperwork handed

out or used in the facility.

.

09 Unwarranted emergency calls.
10 Horse Playing: Any aggressive or faked aggressive actions, which may lead to or be mistaken for a
physical altercation..

11 Disrespect to other iiunates (Le. name caliing, profanity or accusations directed at another inmate} 12 Cursing~ uncontrolled use ofprofanity or obscenitIes that may be considered offensive to others.

13 ,Excessive noise.
14 Failure to properly rnai11tainliving area.

~ 5 Hanging paper, linen, clothing;. etc. on light :fixtures~ walls, ceilings etc.

16 Faihrreto maintain personal h~giene. .

17 Improper ilttire,(i.e. 110t following the dress code stated in the manual).

18 Displaying or deni.onstrating gan.g affiliations (Le. hand gestures, hand in pru.ltS, 16w riding trousers, etc.).

19 Graffiti: writing, drawing or marking on. any ofthe surfaces of the facility.

20 Posting any type of picture, drawing or any other. material on the walls, bunks or any the sUrfaces of the facility .

.21 Misu.se of the inletcom system',

22 Disrespect towards any Staff Member or Sheriff's: Office Employee

23 Disruptive Behavior

24 UnaLltllorized u.se ofthe. typewriter. (Law Library)

25' Lying to Staffl\.1embers.

Pag~ 23· Ql,ll,.lmbfa'COl,l[lty jail inmal:e'Manual Revised 05/16/1.2

CC001436
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 56; Page 26 of 30

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 27 of 30

26 Other

MAJOR IfULE VIOLATION PROCEDURES

All Major Rule Violations will be handled through a fonnal discipHnary process, and require a formal hearing.

1. When an irunate commits, or is believed to have committed a Major Ruie Violation~ th~ inmate will be
-immediately placed on pre-hearing segregation status pending the 'outcome of the disCiplinary hearing, regardless the nature of the alleged conduct; This can cause restriction in your privileges.

2. The acc~sed mmate shall be servedwitl1 a Major Rule Cit;ltiPll and the Inmate Rights fomi. by the citing Deputy as quickly as is practical,. after the violation is discovered, but in no case shall it be. longer than 24 hours after the investigation is complete.

3. The inmate will have a hearing before a heatings officer within five (5) days of the incident excluding
Saturdays, Sundays and HoUdays. The 'inmatewill be notified at least24 hours prior to the hearing.

4. After the hearing, the hearings officer can render a decision immediately or wjthin 72 hours.

A. If the inmate is found "Not Guilty'': the inmate will be restored to the same status and privileges as before charged.

B. Ifthe inmate is found "Guilty"~ the Hearings Officer will impose an appropriate sanction from the
Major Rule Violation Sanction list.

l\1AJORRULE VIOLATION SANCTIONS

Sanctions resulting from a finding of "Guilty') in 'a hearing for a Major Violation may includ.e the foliowing:

L Temporary or permanent change in programming to includ.e:
A. Change in hous'jng assignments. (I.e. re-classification) B. Change in custody status.

C. Removal from work status with cOncuttent susfjension of credit for work, as directed by C.R.S.
169.120

2. Reclruisification to Disciplinary Segregation for lib more than.sixty (60) days for all (multipl~) violatLons

arising out of one incident (only 30 days maximum on a single violation} and giving credit fOi" time

served as appropriate.

.

3. Loss of Statuto:ry Good time and modification' of release date in accordance with O.R.S. 169.110.

4. Suspension of any part, (or;lil of the above ifapproptiate),along with information ofexpected conduct to avoid imposition.

5. Any combination of one (1) through four (4), listedabove.

6. Unless medically or psychiatrically required, no segregated inmate shall be denied Clothil'lg or bedding
that is allO\ved to general population irunates.

7. Segregated inmates shall be provided the same food as g~neral population irunates.
8.PerSOlial hygiene items ai1dshower facilities will be provided regularly to. segregated il1ri'ia.tes~ Uliless
tilere are documented security reasons which would prohibit them.

9. \Vhile in disciplinary segregation thete. is no access to programs. IInUa.tes g¢t one hout oirt each 24 houts. Tel~pho~e ( except legal) and t~l~vi'sion. use 1SDot l?ermitte.d.. C?mm~ssary choice~ are restricted to hYgIene ltems only. Personal VISIts are suspended for the duratIOn of the segregatIOn. Bo.ok cart or library a~cess is permitted; however this privilege may be·taJcen away as' a condi.tion of the sanction,

t'tlAJOR RULE VIOLATIONS

40 Habitual Misconduct: 3 or more separate minor rule violations wlthin 30 days. Page 24 :.. Columbia County JpH Inl11ClteManual Revised 05/16/12

I
1·
\
I
I
-I
I
f
i

CC001437
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 56; Page 27 of 30

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 28 of 30
41 Refusing to comply with. a D~Pllty'sl Staff! Kitchen Staff directives.
42 Tarn:perio.g with or destruction ofIdentification Card
43 Refusing to lock down on command, or during a disturbance. 44 Refusing to go to court. 45 TaI11pering with security devicesl facifity equipment. 46 Threateningor strong arming another inmate·. 47 Giving false infomlation.to a Deputy. 48 Creating a disturbance while On lock down (Le. bangirtgdoors, excessive noise, flooding the cell, etc). 50 Threatening staffmembers 51 Snioking, or possession of smoking paraphemalia. 52 Possession of unauthorized beverages (I.e. pruno). 53 fudecentexposure. 54 Theft. 55 Extortion. 56 Destruction of, or Defacing Coulltyproperty. 57 Eossession of illegal drugs or prescription medications belonging to another or misuse of prescribed
medications. 58 Participation in organizing or recruiting for gang related activities; 59 Sexual misconduct! homosexual activities 60 Fighting.
61 Assault c:m another inmate. 62 Assisting a suicide
63 Possession of a weapon. 64 Assault ona staff member. 65 Attempted or actual escape, or possession ofan escape plan. 66 Participating in or inciting a riot. 67 'raking a hostage
68 Arson
69 Rape or Sodomy. 70 Homicide. 71 Vioiation of any Criminal Code 72 Tampering with or altering any other person's food. 73 Other.
VIOLATIONS APPEALS PROCESS
Page: 25 ~ Columbla COUl1ty J.aillnm:at~ Manual' ReVIsed 05/16/12
CC001438
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 56; Page 28 of 30

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 29 of 30

I

All appeaIsll1ustbe submitted. tq the Facility Supervisor orth~irdesigne;~ within 72holirs, fo1Iowing the decision.

I·

The Facility Supervisor or designee will revi"e"w the recommendations and return the appeal fonn to the inmate

within five (5) working days oHhe appeal. The response time may be extended due to extenuating circumstances

1

or ul1iher investigation, with wi"itiell iiotice taihe inmate ofthe reason(s) for the delay. Aska deputy if you need a form.

I

SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS

I.

DID YOU KNOW?

Rape and sexual assault happens to females and males of all ages, from infancy to senior years.

98% of rrtaJes \-vho have rapecl.boys reported they are heterosexual. Mpst males who assault men or women are married or report having girlfriends.

Sexual assault had nothing to do with the victim's present or future sexual orientation. Victhns may be
either heterosexual or homosexual

A survivor is not at fault for the rape, even if she/he was in a secluded area, or had previous consensual sex with the attacker.

The fact a male victim of sexual assault ejaculated or became sexually aroused does not mean they were not raped or that they gave consent. These are n():rma1, lllYolU).1truy physiological reaqtions.
It is cOmmon for survivors of sexual assault to have feeling. of anger emb~.rrassment,. panic, depression,
guilt, and fear aftet the attack, Other common reactiql1s include loss of appetite; ·nausea or stomachaches, headaches, loss of memory and/or trouble concentrating and changes in sleep patterns.

FACTS FOR THE INMATE TsAr SEXUALLY ASSAULTS OTHER INMATES:

All cases of sexual assault will be referred to the EnforcemelitBrahch or Major Crimes Team (tviCT) for
criminalirtvestigat.iOri. Youmay be proseCuted and iffOltnd guilty of a felony, you may be sentenced. to

prison tUne (up to LOO months for each Rape·! or Sodomy fconviction). Any sex offense conviction wi11

\

automatically add sex offender conditions when yourelease~ which may require you to register as a sex

offender pet" ORS 181.594f This registration requirement is for life. You also be deemed as·a "Predatory

Sex Offender," which would require community notification upon your release.

I

R.egardless of how you ~hoose to characterIze It, any sexual activity will ,increase your risk ofI-llV
infection, along with exposing you to other sexually transmitted diset:iSes.
Ifyou have trouble" cbntrolli~gyour' actions seek help from mental health staffand/ol' .coI1siderpruiicipatin.g

I'
I
I
I

in programs designed to :control anger or reduce. stress. TO reduce immediate feelings Qf anger .c>r
to aggres·sion~ trY talking or writing a.fiiend~ rnectitEtteot ctQl:?reathini~fexetcises to relax., workon a hobby,

I

or engage in sOi1i.etype ofexercise~

SEXUAL ASSAULT

SexuaLassaultas defmed by Columbia County Jail policy is ';S~xual conduct w4ere force or threat :of force

is used, 01' "\-vheil the person is uilable to cOilsentbecause·of age or incapacitation (mental defect, mental incapacitation, or physical helplessness). Sexual conduct in:~ludes: vaginal penetration by a penis; contact

between the genitals of a person and the mou1;h or anus ofanother person; penetration of the vagina, anus)

or penis of another person with any object other than the penis or·mouth; tOuching of the se~ua.1 or, intimate
parts of someone or causing someoile to touch the se.xual or intimate parts of another for the purpose of

sexual gratiti¢atioll." Any behavior or act of a sexual nature ,directed toward an inmate by an, inmate,

employee, volunteer, visitor,contract employee or other agency r"epres¢",.tatives. This includes acts or any

attempts to commit such acts including, but not limited to, sexual contac4 inappropriate behavior .of a
sexual iiatUre, un(~as91ia.ble invasion of privacy, conversations or correspondence that suggests a romantic relatiollship between an inmate and any party t¢ferenced above,
Sexual assault affects evetyone, either directly or through the experience ofthos~ we care about It is not

I
I

only a womru1's issue as it can affeCipersons of any ge.:t;lder, age, "race, ethnic group, socioeconomic status,

sexual orientation,. or disabiHty. .

.

I

The statistics are proof ofthis problem: According tethe National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), in

!

2002 there were 247,730:victirilS ofrllpe (This mlm1;Jer d~e:s not include victims 12 or younger), seven. out

Page ?6 ~ Columbia COunty Jaii Inmate M·ahua! Revised ·05/16/12

I

CC001439
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 56; Page 29 of 30

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 30 of 30

ofevery~ight rape victims \Vere ferriale,andone in every eight rape victims was male~ A 1998· study
indicates thata.hout 2.78 million AmeI'iC8,ll mel1 have expedeiJ.ced an attempted or cOlllpleted rape and one
out of six American women have experienced an attempted or completed rape.

SEXUAL ASSAULT AVOIDANCE

The onty rape that can be prevented is when a potentialrapist chposes NOT to rape. However, you may avoid aD. attack by keeping the following safety guidelines in mind:
Be aware of situations that make you feel uncomfortable. Trust your "instincts. If it feels wrong, LEAVE.

pon't let manners get in the way of keeping yourself sa.fe. DOll't be afraid to say ''NO'' or ,eSTOP IT NOW".

Walk and stand with confidence. Ivfany rapists choose victims who look like they won't fight back or are en10tionally weak.

Avoid talking about sex and casual nudity. These things may be considered a come 011, or make another imrtate believe that you have an interest in a sexual relationship.

Do not accept canteen items or other gifts from other inmates. Placing yourself in debtto another inmate can lead to sexual favors.

Avoid s.ecIuded area.<;; pas ition yourself in plai.n view of staff menibers. If you are being pressured for sex, report itto a supervisor immediately.

WlLL\.T TO DO IF YOU ARE SEXUALLY ASSAULTED

If the attack has.just happened.•.....

Getto a safe place. REPORT THE ATTACKTO A STAFF ]}1EMI3ER ThiME])IATELY.

The longer you wait to report the attack the more difficult it is to obtain the evidence necessary for criminal

i .

and/or administrative investigation.

Request immediate medical atteiltiol1. You may hai.ie serious injuries that yoti are not aware or, and any
se;<.ual contact can exposeYQu to sexually tra,tlsnlitteddiseases.

Do not shower, brush yourteeth, use the -restroom, or change your ciothes. You may destroy important
evidence.
If you have been. attacked at witness an attack, but yoti are um\rilIing to report it hi person to a CCSO
uniformed staff member, then :yo~ may .spea1~ With a ct;"llliselor, chaplain, "tIledicalstaff, wdte a sealed letter to any command staffmember, or contact a CCSO Detective at 503-366-4650.

Later on..•..
Seek the support ofa trusted fHend, family member or staff member, such as the Chaplain or thecoul1seIing staff. The days ahea,d can be traumatic i;!nd it helps to hav.e' pe.ople·Whpcare about yousupportifig you. . Seek professional help. Mental Health staff are available for clisis care 365, days a year, to listen and offer support.

Pagell ~ Columbia CountY jail Inmate Manual Revlse.d05/~.9/12
CC001440
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 56; Page 30 of 30

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 32
EXHIBIT 57
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 57; Page 1 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 32
INMATE MANUAL COLUMBIA COUNTY JAIL

All rules in this manual may be amended or suspended at any time by order of the Sheriff or designee.

As an Inmate in the Columbia County Jail, you are partially responsible for your own safety. You are in jail and you must be aware of your surroundings.

Incorporating Revised Inmate Mail Guidelines (See Pages 7 through 16)

Effective May 25,2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS............... . YOUR RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES.. . . .. 1 YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES AND
EXPECTED BEHAVIOR....... 1-2 BEDS AND BEDDING. .............. 2 BILLING FEES.................... 2-3 CELL IN COMMAND................. 3 CLASSIFICATION................... 3" CLOTHING EXCHANGE............. 3 COMMISSARY..................... 3

CONTRABAND.. . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 COUNTY ISSUED ITEMS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 COURT CONDUCT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 DRESS CODE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 FIRE AND EMERGENCY SAFETY.. . . . . . . . . . .. 4 HAIR CARE AND PERSONAL GROOMING.. . . .. 5 HEALTH APPRAISALS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 HOUSING UNIT OPERATIONS............... 5 ICE CONTACT INFORMATION............... 5

CC001441
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 57; Page 2 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 32

IDENTIFICATION CARDS............ 5 INMATE COUNTS................. 5-6 INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE.... 6 INMATE REQUEST FORMS.......... 6 INMATE WORKER ACTIVITIES........ 6 INTERCOM SYSTEM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 ' LAW LIBRARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 LIBRARY......................... 7 MAIL........................... 7-16 MEALS.. ',' ...................... 16 MEDICAL SERVICES............... 17 MEDICATION..................... 17 MEDICAL GRIEVANCES............ 17 MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES........ 17 MONEY ACCOUNTS............... 17 , OUTDOOR RECREATION......... 17-18 , PERSONAL PROPERTY............ 18 PROGRAM SERVICES............. 18 PROPERTY TRANSFERS........... 18 SANITARY INSPECTIONS.......... 18 SANITARY PRACTICES............ 19 SEARCHES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19 SELF-ESCORT.................... 19 SICK CALL. ...................... 19 SPECIAL DIETS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19 TELEPHONE PRIVILEGES.......... 20 TELEPHONE SERVICE NUMBER. . . .. 20 TRANSFER TO WORK RELEASE
CENTER................... 20 VISITING...................... 20-21

SPECIAL VISITS. ........................ 21 VISITS WITH ATTORNEY ................. , 21 VISITS BY CLERGY........'............. 21-22 VOLUNTARY ACTIVITIES.................. 22 WAKE UP AND LOCK DOWN.. " ........... 22 MINOR RULE VIOLATIONS PROCEDURES.... 22 MINOR RULE VIOLATION SANCTIONS..... 22-23 MINOR RULE VIOLATIONS............... 23-24 MAJOR RULE VIOLATION PROCEDURES..... 24 MAJOR RULE VIOLATION SANCTIONS..... 24-25 MAJOR RULE VIOLATIONS............... 25-26 VIOLATIONS APPEALS PROCESS........... 26 SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS............ 26 SEXUAL ASSAULT...................... 26-27 SEXUAL ASSAULT AVOIDANCE.. . . . .. . . . . .. 27

CC001442
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 57; Page 3 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 4 of 32

YOUR RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES

We want you to know exactly what is expected of you while you are in this jail. We will let you know what you can expect from us by explaining our rules, procedures and schedules to you. While at this jail, you will b.e provided with:

1. Three daily meals served at reasonable intervals 2. Clean bedding and clothing at least.twice weekly 3. The opportunity to shower at least twice weekly 4. Regular exercise 5. Opportunities to exercise your religion 6. Basic hygiene items 7. Access to the law library 8. Access to counsel 9. Emergency medical and dental treatment 10. A safe and secure environment

If you follow jail rules and sanitation practices, you may receive these privileges:

1. Use of television 2. Use of library services 3. Use of outdoor recreation 4. Use of telephones 5. Having social visits 6. Making commissary purchases 7. Sending and receiving mail 8. Voluntary participation in jail programs

Remember that these are not rights. Jail staff can limit or suspend these privileges at any time in order to maintain the safety, security, good order and sanitation of the jail.

this manual does not cover every situation that may arise, but it will serve as a basic guide for your conduct and facility procedures.

Columbia County Jail has a no smoking policy.

YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES AND EXPECTED BEHAVIOR

Read this manual to know what is expected of you. The excuse "I did not know that" is not acceptable. It is your responsibility to follow all laws, jail rules, schedules, and staff requests. You must respect jail property ~nd the property of others. This would include staying out of other inmate's cells and off of their bunJ<s. You are expected to keep your
sleeping area, the day room and outdoor recreation areas clean and orderly. Unacceptable behavior will be dealt with firmly, but fairly. Misbehavior may result in a change of your custody status which can directly affect your privileges in the jail.

This manual is an accountable item and is issued to you for your use while you are in this facility. You are responsible for the condition of this manual and you will be billed for any damage, graffiti, or unusable condition when returned. If the manual is damaged, please report it to a staff member to have it replaced immediately.

The best control of your behavior is by you practicing self-discipline and respect for others.

Inmates are not allowed to become personally familiar with corrections' staff.. Be considerate and

respectful toward all officials. We will expect you to address uniformed staff as "Deputy or

Sergeant

" and non-uniformed staff as "Mr.

" or "Ms.

II. Central

Control personnel will be addressed as "Control."

Page 1 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10

CC001443
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 57; Page 4 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 5 of 32

Inmate basic rules for the Columbia County Jail: 1. The 10 card is to be put into the window facing out so that it can be seen and scanned during your stay. 2. When you are out of your room, the 10 card is to be in your pocket. 3. When you are in the day room, you are to be completely dressed with T shirt tucked in. 4. When you are in your room, you are to have the T shirt and boxers on at all times including while you are sleeping, no exceptions. 5. When you come out of the pod and into the circle, you are to stay on the colored squares. The squares form a line that you walk on. You stay on that line with the exception to go around an obstacle. You are to stay in a single file line. 6. When you are in any other hallway, you are to walk on the right side of the hall and in a single file. You are not to touch anything. Do not speak, yell or signal at anyone. Keep your hands to yourself. 7. When in the hallway, there should be only six (6) inmates at one time. 8. DO NOT cover the ventilation units or speaker in the cells.

BEDS AND BEDDING

Bedding will consist of two sheets and two blankets. Blankets and sheets may not be removed from your cell or bunk, nor may they be placed on the floor or table for any reason. You are not to' take the mattress off the bunk and place it on the floor of your cell or in the day room of the pod. Your mattress may only be used for sleeping purposes. The bunk area must be left in an orderly fashion through out the day.

BILLING FEES

As authorized in DRS 169.150 and 169.151, Local Correctional Facilities are allowed to bill Inmates for items and services that are provided to them while incarcerated in Correctional Facilities.

Every Sentenced Inmate will be charged a boarding fee of $10.00 per day. The Inmate will
receive a bill when he or she is released from the jail. The Inmate will have 30 days to pay the bill or set up a payment plan.

An initial hygiene kit is $2.15 and the Inmate ID card is $1.00. All over the counter medications as well as prescription medications will be billed through the inmate's commissary account. When the Inmate is released from jail and his or her commissary account is in the negative, that amount will also show up on the release billing. When 30 days have passed with no payment received on the release billing, the account will be turned over to the Oregon Department of Revenue for collection.

Other charges are listed below:

1) Work Release Inmates are charged a minimum of $15.00 per day or two hours of pay if the

inmate's hourly rate of pay is higher than $7.50 per hour.

If any of the following items are damaged or

destroyed you will be billed as

follows:December 2, 2010

2) Hygiene Kits

$ 2.15 each 11) Tote

$44.95

3) Postcard

$ 0.50

12) Tote Lid

$26.95

Page 2 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10

CC001444
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 57; Page 5 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 6 of 32

4~l HMaeidriCcault/sNurse visits

$ 5.00 $ 5.00

Medical visit for OTC meds $ 1.00

7) Medical kites submitted

$ .50

8) Feminine Hygiene Products $ 0.20

9) Razors (if more than 1)

$ 0.15

10) Copies of legal materials $ 0.25

13) Sporks

$ 0.25

14) Sandals

$ 2.49

15) Cups

$ 0.75

16) Socks (If Appl.)

$ 0.85

17) Towels

. $ 0.75

18) Striped Shirt

$ 6.55-$12.75

19) Striped Pants

$ 8.75-$14.95

20) T-Shirts

$ 3.99 - $ 7.30

21) Shorts

$ 2.32 - $ 2.74

22) Replacement 10 Card $ 5.00

All fees are subject to change at any time

CELL IN COMMAND

The command "cell-in"or "bunk-up" means you need to stop what you are doing and go directly to your cell or bunk. You must follow this command without que$tion or hesitation. If you do not, it will directly affect your classification and custody status and also will result in disciplinary actions against you.

CLASSIFICATION

All newly arrested inmates who are not released prior to movement from the booking area will be assigned housing in a Pre-Classification unit. They may be maintained on lock-down status for up to the first Seventy-Two (72) hours, for classification purposes. The Columbia County Jail has three classifications which are minimum, medium and maximum security. All inmates are assigned a classification according to their status. Inmates may request a classification review in writing on an Inmate Request Form at any time.

Most inmates involved in the Inmate Worker Program and Alternative Programs must qualify for and maintain a minimum custody status.

ACTIVITIES MAY DIFFER BASED ON YOUR LEVEL OF CLASSIFICATION.

CLOTHING EXCHANGE

Clean clothing will be provided twice weekly. You must turn in all of your soiled clothing during clothing exchange. In return you will receive 1 T-shirt, 1 pair of shorts, 1 towel, 1 striped shirt and 1 pair striped pants. On every other exchange you will receive clean sheets. Blankets may be exchanged every 30 days. Each housing unit will have a different laundry schedule.

Jail staff will make every effort to ensure clothing is in good repair. You are responsible for all clothing and bedding issued to you. You should check the condition of the clothing you receive and immediately inform a staff member and exchange any clothing or bedding that has a tear or graffiti written on it. If you are found to be in possession of damaged items, you will be subject to disciplinary action. This may include payment for the damaged clothing.

COMMISSARY

The Columbia County Jail has a well-appointed commissary list from which inmates with funds may purchase various items. Inmates without funds may order indigent hygiene kits once per week, if needed. Indigent items will be P9sted to the inmate's account creating a negative
balance. Commissary sheets will be handed out once a week. If you did not get funds in
before the commissary sheets were made up to be passed out, you will have to wait until the following week to order. Commissary purchases are limited to no more than $75.00 per . week. Inmates may have no more than two (2) lead pencils in their possession at any given time. In addition each inmate will be allowed to purchase one pack of colored pencils.

Page 3 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10
CC001445
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 57; Page 6 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 7 of 32

CONTRABAND

Any authorized item found in an inmate's possession that has been altered or is not being used for it's original purpose, or any items in excess of the issued quantity as stated within this manual.
COUNTY ISSUED ITEMS

All inmates who are dressed into the Columbia County jail will be issued jail clothing after intake,

and in the clothing change/shower room. You will be issued a plastic bin containing a hygiene kit,

bed linen, towel, and clothing and this Inmate Manual. Another -issued item will include a mattress.

You will be responsible for the condition of all items issued to you. The gray property box (totes)

are to be used specifically for storage of your personal and issued belongings. Totes are not to be

used for chairs or any use other than what has been mentioned above. Totes are to remain under

your bunk at all times.

-

1. One inmate uniform top.

7.

2. One inmate uniform pants

8.

3. Two T-Shirts

9.

4. Two pair of gym shorts/Underwear 10.

5. One pair of jail sandals.

6. One mattress

Two sheets Two Blankets One Towel One Rule Book

Female inmates may be allowed to retain the following:

1. Personal underwear, if needed for hygiene reasons, if determined appropriate by staff. 2. Personal bras, with no metal fasteners or under wires. A sports style bra is preferred.

During the winter months you will be issued a sweatshirt to be worn in your cell, day room area, the outdoor recreation yard or under the striped shirt when going to court.

COURT CONDUCT

Your arraignment will be your first court appearance in jail. During your arraignment, a judge will tell you what you are charged with and your rights with regard to those charges. The judge may appoint an attorney at this time if you qualify.

During any court appearance you will not have contact with any person other than your lawyer or the court officials. Contact includes talking, signaling, or passing notes to people.

Video arraignment is considered a court room setting and the above rules apply.

DRESS CODE

You are expected to remain fully dressed at all times except when you are on your bunk. When you are in your assigned bunk area you must wear at least the T-shirt and shorts issued by this facility. Any time you leave your sleeping area or room, you must be fully clothed. Fully clothed consists of your shorts, T-shirt, striped shirt and striped pants or shorts, T-shirt, gray sweatshirt and striped pants. During lights out, you may go to use the restroom in your t-shirt and shorts if you live in an open dorm.

Your T-shirt must be tucked in at all times and not hanging loosely. Rolling your pant legs up if they are too long, but not above the ankles, is allowed. Do not alter the appearance of your clothes.

You may not roll your sleeves, tuck your pants into your socks, or pull your pants down below the hips. It is not allowed to wear clothes that are too large or too small.

You will be allowed to take your outer striped shirt off while exercising in the recreation area.

Page 4 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10

CC001446
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 57; Page 7 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 8 of 32

FIRE AND EMERGENCY SAFETY

In case of any type of emergency or evacuation, you are to follow any direct order of a Deputy. There are emergency evacuation procedures in place and you will be evacuated in an orderly manner to a safe place.

If you are asked to evacuate an area by a Deputy, you are to form a straight line at your Pod door and wait for directions from a Deputy or the Control Room staff. A Deputy will direct you to a safe area.

HAIR CARE AND PERSONAL GROOMING

We encourage you to shower daily. We hand out razors three timesa week. If an individual has

a court appearance they will be allowed to use a razor prior to their court appearance. Once a

week a list will be put into your respective pod and you must sign up on that list to receive a

haircut. Hair cuts can be done when a person is available to be the barber. There is a $5.00

charge for the haircut. Haircuts will be done on Saturdays and Sundays only. You will be allowed

to have one haircut per month. Haircuts other than a trim or a complete removal to a short

stubble are not allowed. No other styles will be tolerated. Only kitchen and floor workers are

allowed one free 'haircut per month.

'

HEALTH APPRAISALS

A health appraisal must be done before an inmate can be considered for "worker" status.

HOUSING UNIT OPERATIONS

The daily operation in the pods will be as follows.

You will be allowed to come out of your cell for a short period of time during the morning at breakfast. You will then be instructed to return to your cell until lunch time. After lunch, you will then have three hours out of your cell. At the end of that period, you will return to your cell. The next period out, will be after dinner for two hours.

Inmate time out of cells for each pod will be set as necessary to fulfill the needs of the facility.

Cleaning gear will be provided during the day. We require you to use it daily to clean your cell, bunk area and the pod as a whole on a daily basis. .

No one is allowed to sit, stand or loiter on the stairs or catwalks (upper tier floors) at any time. This will include walking or pacing off laps upstairs, or on the stairs. There is to be no sitting on the table tops.

ICE CONTACT INFORMATION

Inmates who are housed in the Columbia County Jail for Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) may contact ICE via the use of an ICE inmate request form.

ICE inmates may contact ICE Pro Bono Attorneys by calling (800) 646-6283. In each Pod located on the mail boxes, there is a list of all Pro Bono calls for use by all ICE detainees. ICE agents make scheduled visits to the Columbia County Jail on Wednesdays of every week.

IDENTIFICATION CARDS

You must keep your inmate 10 card on your person any time you are out of your cell. Do not let anyone use your 10 card. The best place to keep this card is in your shirt pocket. When you are in your cell, place your ID card, right side up, in the window of your door with the picture facing out so

Page 5 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10

CC001447
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 57; Page 8 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 9 of 32
the Deputy can see your name and picture. You must surrender your ID card to any staff·member upon request.
INMATE COUNTS
There will be· at least six "Formal Counts" per day. At the beginning of each "formal count" you will . be instructed to "cell in or bunk up." Televisons will be turned off. At that time you must:
1. Go into your cell and close the door or get onto your bunk depending on the pod you are
in~
2. Correctly place your 1.0; card in the window of your door or on your bunk. If you are on a bunk, or otherwise not in your room or pod, having the ID card in your hand and presenting it to the deputy doing the count is acceptable.
Prior to lock-down each night a final formal head count will be conducted in the following manner.
1. In Pods with cells you will go to your room, close the door stand with one individual on each side of the door, ID card in hand, ready for the count. All inmates will remain in this manner until a Deputy scans your identification card.
2. In an open dorm go to your bunk and stand next to your bunk with your 10 card in hand, until a Deputy scans your card. After formal you should bunk up for the night and remain quiet.
There will be numerous informal counts per day, therefore, whenever a Deputy enters your cell, remain where you are, do not move until the deputy leaves or instructs you to move.
INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
You may submit a grievance about a condition in the' jail if you think it is a problem or is unfair. You cannot grieve: disciplinary actions (there is an appeal process for that), classification decisions, incidents or problems which you were not party to, a collection of unrelated complaints, and no group grievances.
To file a grievance, you must follow the steps below in the order shown. You cannot skip one.
1. An inmate may request a Grievance Form from any Corrections Deputy at any time to bring to attention any perceived problems and proposed solutions. The Deputy will address any grievance within the scope of his/her authority and document any action taken regarding the request within five (5) working days.
2. .The inmate may redirect the grievance to the Shift Superviso( for any complaint.which cannot be reasonably resolved by the Deputy. The Supervisor will address any grievance within the scope of his/her authority and document any action taken on the form within five (5) working days.
3. If the complaint is not resolved to the inmate's satisfaction by the Supervisor, the inmate may send the Grievance Form to the Facility Supervisor or his designee. The Facility Supervisor or designee will address the complaint and document any action taken on the form within five (5) working days.
4. If the complaint is not resolved to the inmate's satisfaction by the Facility Supervisor, the inmate may send a sealed Grievance Form to the Sheriff. The Sheriff will address the complaint and document his decision on the form within ten (10) working days. The Sheriff's decision will be final!
Inmates may file an Emergency Grievance in the event that circumstances exist to warrant one. This will be filed directly to the Jail Commander in a sealed envelope, utilizing the same inmate grievance form.
Page 6 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10
CC001448
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 57; Page 9 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 10 of 32
INMATE REQUEST FORMS The Inmate Request Forms (also known as kites) are available upon request. There are two of them. One will be for general questions, law library and visiting. The other form will be a Medical Request Form. This is only for the medical staff and doctor to answer and will be forwarded to them. There are separate forms to correspond with Columbia County Community Corrections or with Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE)/lmmigration~
INMATE WORKER ACTIVITIES If you want to work in the jail, you will need to request and fill out an Inmate Worker Labor Agreement, then submit it into the mailbox. It may take several days to receive your copy. Staff will select various inmates to do kitchen, custodial or maintenance jobs in the facility. Health care staff must clear you before you can participate in the worker activities, especially in the kitchen. You may receive work time credit only if you are sentenced and your sentence order authorizes it. Any change of a job description or shift must be approved by a Supervisor.
INTERCOM SYSTEM The call buttons in the cells are to be used for emergency purposes only. They are not to be used for any other communication. If the call buttons are misused, the inmate violating this rule will be written up for failure to abide by the rules·of the Columbia County Jail.
lAWUBRARY All inmates of the Columbia County Jail will be given access to one hour in the law library per request. Use of the law library will be limited only by time and the need to maintain the safetyand security of the facility. To gain access, you must submit a request form at least twenty-four (24) hours in advance. You will be expected to take a note pad and pencil with you to the law library to assist you in your research. All law books, reference material and other articles must remain in the law library to ensure equal access for all inmates. There will be very limited copying capabilities available to you for which your account will be charged a fee per copy. No inmate will be denied this service based on an inability to pay. When you finish, you are required to leave the law library orderly and neat. Please be aware that corrections staff cannot provide you with legal advice or legal assistance. If you have any questions, please consult your attorney.
LIBRARY All inmates of the Columbia County Jail will be afforded ample opportunity to have access to library books within the jail library. The books may be delivered by a cart. You may have up to six books at a time. All books must be returned to the library or the cart, prior to checking out more~ If a search of your person or cell reveals that you have more than six books in your possession, you may be subjected to disciplinary action. Damaged books must be returned to a Deputy, immediately. Possession of damaged books may be grounds for disciplinary action. The six books do not include religious or educational. Discretion of Corrections Staff will determine whether the books are in fact religious or educational.
MAIL POLICY Jail mail handling procedures must support an inmate's and the public's need to communicate in writing to carry out legal business and maintain family and community ties. The procedures must
Page 7 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10
CC001449
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 57; Page 10 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 11 of 32
also meet the Jail's need for efficient operations that preserve the good order, safety, and security of the facility, inmates, and staff.
The Jail's general Inmate Policy is that all mail that is delivered by the United States Postal Service can be delivered to and sent by inmates, subject to the restrictions in the Inmate Mail Policy, as described in this manual. The Policy and an Inmate Mail Guide is available on the Jail's website. You are responsible for making sure people you communicate with via mail are aware of the Jail's policies on inmate mail. Please direct them to the Policy and/or guide on the County's website. They may als0 call the Jail at 503-366-4630 to obtain the information. You may ask a Deputy for a copy of the Inmate Mail Guide.
DEFINITIONS
Book. A printed composition bound in a volume.
Contraband. 1) Controlled substances as defined in ORS 475.005(6). 2) Drug paraphernalia as defined by ORS 475.525(2).3) Any currency or negotiable instrument. 4) Any item that a person in a correctional facility is prohibited by statute, rule, or order from obtaining or possessing, and whose use would endanger the safety or security of the facility or person in the facility. 5) An unauthorized item in an inmate's possession or in a cell, bunk, or common area. 6) An authorized item altered in any way. 7) More than the authorized number of an item.
Inmate Mail. Written correspondence to or from an inmate in the Columbia County Jail.
Indigent. An inmate who has less than $5 in his or her inmate account and has not had more than that amount for seven days.
Inflammatory material. Written or printed materials that pose a threat to the security, safety, or good order of the jail because it may incite or advocate physical violence against others. This includes material that advocates the supremacy or hatred of a racial, religious, national, or other group of people. (Note: Criticism of jail operations, programs, or staff, on its own·, is not inflammatory material. If the criticism involves an illegal act or violates a jail rule, staff will handle it as that type of prohibited mail.)
Jail Commander. The Columbia County Jail Commander or his/her designee.
Jail Supervisor. Any Corrections Deputy designated at the rank of sergeant or higher. Junk mail I Bulk mail. Printed materials, often sent as mass mailings, such as catalogs,
advertisements, brochures, circulars, newsletters, and pamphlets whose primary purpose is to sell, promote or solicit for, a product or service. Junk mail/bulk mail may come using a variety of postage rates, including but not limited to bulk mail rates. Junk Mail/Bulk Mail may be solicited or unsolicited.
Legal mail. Incoming or outgoing mail addressed to or from an attorney.
Negotiable instrument. A written document that represents an unconditional promise to pay a specified amount of money upon the demand of its owner. Examples include checks and promissory notes. Negotiable instruments can be transferred from one person to another, as when a person writes "pay to the order of" on the back of a check in order to turn it over to someone else.
Official Mail. Incoming or outgoing mail addressed to or from the sheriff, jail command staff, probation authorities, district attorney, state attorney general, Governor, court, a court official, and other confining authorities, or addressed to or from the inmate's medical provider, or addressed to or from the inmate's religious clergy or other leader, or addressed to or from the news media
Periodical. A magazine, newspaper, newsletter, or other publication formed of printed sheets that is issued at regular, specified intervals by a publisher.
Personal business. Business necessary to meet ordinary personal obligations, including but not
Page 8 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10
CC001450
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 57; Page 11 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 12 of 32

limited to, paying taxes, making mortgage or other loan payments, renewing licenses, and making rent or lease payments.

Personal mail. Mail to or from family, friends, or for personal business. Personal mail does not include legal mail, official mail, publications, or junk mail/bulk mail.

Publication. Periodicals and books.

Sexually explicit: 1) A pictorial depiction of any of the following: actual or simulated sexual acts

(including sexual intercourse, oral sex, anal sex, or masturbation); sexual penetration;

bestiality; sexual violence; sadomasochistic behavior; excretory functions; and exposed

genitalia, anus, or female nipple or areola, unless the exposure is for legitimate medical,

religious, or anthropological reasons. 2) Sex acts involving children. 3) Materials that violate

state and local obscenity laws. (Note: Whether the material is commercially produced or is

personally made or written has no bearing on this definition.)

.

INMATE MAIL

1. Inmate Mail limits and Restrictions/Overview

The Columbia County Jail will normally not limit, censor, or restrict the volume, language, content, format or source of inmate mail. However, some limitations are necessary to assure the safety, and security of inmates, jail staff, and the public, as well as to assure the efficient operation of the Jail.

2. Specific Limitations on Inmate Mail.

a. Personal Mail. Except as otherwise provided below, personal mail may be sent and received by inmates only in postcard form. The following exceptions apply to this policy:

i. A Jail Supervisor may allow an inmate who is continuously involved in rehabilitation programs permission to correspond with a specific person in non-post card form (both sending and receiving). A supervisor must document that correspondence with the person is in the best interest of an inmate's rehabilitation. A suitable example mightinclude a letter sent to reconnect with family prior to release.

ii. A Jail Supervisor may approve'incoming and outgoing mail in non-postcard form so that an inmate can conduct necessary personal business. Examples of this exception include, but are not limited-to the use of a business reply envelope to send a document back to the originating firm or signing a mailed-in personal check to make a rent or car payment or renew adriver's license. If it appears to the Supervisor that the inmate has no other reasonably available means to take care of personal business, and that the personal business cannot reasonably wait until the inmate is released, the Supervisor shall allow the exception, subject to the following:

(1)

Checks must not have a blank payee line.

(2)

If reasonably possible, the inmate must act to add a cosigner to a checking

account or make other arrangements to prevent reoccurrence of this need.

(3)

Supporting documents, such as payment coupons or rent contracts, must

accompany personal business mail.

b. Publications. Publications are permitted in the Jail, subject to the following requirements:

i. An inmate must have someone outside the j<;lil prepay for any publication he or she
receives. An inmate may not engage in any delayed payment or credit ordering of publications while inside the jail.

ii. Books. An inmate may receive up to three books on a single mail delivery day. Books mustcome directly from the publisher, a book club, or a bookstore. Books may be new or used. Books may not be larger than 9 inches by 12 inches. Books

Page 9 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10
CC001451
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 57; Page 12 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 13 of 32

may not have plastic or metal bindings. Either hardback or paperback books are acceptable for general population inmates. Inmates in segregation, including medical segregation, may only receive paperback books. Mail handlers will consider any
other item in the envelope or parcel as contraband and treat the parcel as prohibited mail.

iii. Periodicals. An inmate may receive up to three periodicals on a single mail delivery day. Periodicals must be new and be mailed directly from the publisher or bookstore.

iv. No blanket prohibition. Mail handlers will determine whether a specific publication
violates jail rules. However, this determination must be made on'a case by case basis. There shall be no blanket prohibition on any publication.

c. Legal and Official Mail.

(1 ) Jail staff must protect the rights of inmates to privileged, confidential communication with their attorneys,· the courts, and confining authorities.

(2) A sender of legal or official mail is responsible for legitimately, properly, and clearly marking and addressing legal and official mail so that jail staff recognize it and treat it as being confidential, as follows:.

(1 ) The return address on all incoming legal and official mail must have the sender's job, agency, or firm title and address either commercially preprinted on the envelope or a label, or as an ink stamp. The sender's name should be handwritten if not preprinted. Staff will treat
all mail with return addresses that are completely handwritten as personal mail.

(2) The words "Legal Mail," "Official Mail," or similar designation must.
appear on the address side of the envelope. Jail staff will not assume
. the contents of any letter from an attorney, law firm, or government official is legal or official mail. Jail Staff will treat all mail without the legal or official mail mark as personal mail.

(3) .Jail staff will treat improperly marked or addressed mail as personal mail.

(3) Staff must not open recognized legal or official mail outside the presence of the inmate. They shall only open it in the presence of the inmate to inspect it for contraband, but they must not read its contents.

(4) A staff member must write a Jail Incident Report if he or she inadvertently opens a piece of recognizable legal or official mail outside the presence of the inmate. .

(5) Before legal or official mail leaves the pod, staff must verify that any letter marked as legal or official mail is addressed to a person that qualifies for that privacy protection. Deputies will contact a Jail Supervisor if they suspect
fraud.

(6) Jail staff will pursue administrative, criminal, and disciplinary actions, as fitting, against all those involved in the fraudulent use of legal or official mail desig nations.

d. Other Prohibited Mail/Contraband.

i.

An inmate may not receive or send inmate mail that contains:

(1 ) Threats of physical harm, blackmail, extortion, or other criminal activity;

(2) Plans for escape, criminal activity, or activity that violates jail rules;

Page 10 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10
CC001452
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 57; Page 13 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 14 of 32

(3) .Gang-related material;

(4) Information that, if conveyed, could result in physical harm to someone;

(5) Sexually explicit materials;

(6) inflammatory material;

(7) Contraband including but not limited to such commonly mailed items as: (a) Books larger than 9 by 12 inches or with plastic or metal bindings; More than three books or publications in a single piece of mail; Controlled substances as defined by ORS 475.005(6);(d) Foreign substances, such as bodily fluids, lipstick or perfume, glue or paint or anything with an unusual stain or odor that indicates a foreign sUbstance may be present.

(8) Cash or negotiable instruments unless specifically allowed to conduct personal business.

ii. . An inmate may not send or receive inmate mail that:

(1 ) is written in code or suspected code;

(2) Was not sent through the USPS or other approved system;

(3) Is to or from a person with whom the inmate is prohibited from communicating;

(4) Would violate a court order;

(5) May produce a hostile work environment by sexual harassment or otherwise;

(6) Is a credit or deferred billing transaction, such as "bill me later" subscriptions or merchandise bought on credit or cOllect-on-delivery terms;

(7) Is fraudulently marked as legal or official mail;

(8) Includes logistical information about an inmate's upcoming health care appointment(s).

e.

Sources of Incoming Mail. Jail Staff will only accept incoming inmate mail that has

been delivered by the U.S. Postal Service unless otherwise specifically authorized by

the Jail Commander.

f.

Postage-Due Mail. The jail will not accept or pay for incoming inmate mail with

postage due.

g.

Parcels. Incoming parcels are allowed if they contain books or periodicals from a

publisher or bookstore. A parcel may only contain up to three books or three

periodicals. Mail handlers will consider any other item in a parcel as contraband and

treat such a parcel as prohibited mail. Parcels are also allowed to and from inmates

for legal or official mail, or for personal business when an exception is authorized.

h.

Commercial Business Transactions and Gcivernment Services by Mail.

i.

Except as provided in (2). below, inmates may not conduct commercial

business transactions or request services from government agencies through

inmate mail.

Page 11 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10
CC001453
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 57; Page 14 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 15 of 32

ii.

A Jail Supervisor may approve personal business mail as described in

paragraph 2.A.

iii. Examples of commercial business transactions and government agency requests include, but are not limited to:

(1) Buying or selling an item, real property, or service;

(2) Applying for a credit card;

(3) Applying for a commercial or student loan;

(4) Opening a bank account;

(5) Enrolling in a college course;

(6) Applying for food stamps;

(7) Any obligation of funds to which the inmate does not have access.

3. General Limitations on Inmate Mail.

In addition to the specific limitations on inmate mail set forth above, additional limitations may apply in the following circumstances:

A. There is reason to believe that such correspondence would jeopardize personal

safety, jail security or good order, inmate treatment, or would facilitate violation of

the law.

.

B. There is reason to believe that a sentenced inmate in rehabilitative programs would . benefit from limited contacts and/or inmate mail.

C. Inmates may receive a disciplinary sanction that restricts personal mail. (See policy

J212, Rules and Discipline.)

.

4. General Provisions for Inmate Mail

a.

Postcards. Inmates may send postcards they receive in their initial inmate hygiene

kit or through jail commissary. Inmates may receive postcards in any size that is

delivered by the U.S. Postal Service up to a maximum size of 5-1/2" tall x 8,;,1/2"

wide. Postcards may have photographs on one side as allowed by the U.S. Postal

Service and jail rules. No other photographs are allowed on postcards. Inmates

are not limited to a specific number of postcards that they may receiye or send.

Lodged inmate's receive two postcards in their hygiene kit, and may purchase

additional postcards through jail commissary. Policy 212, Rules and Discipline, sets

limits on the number of personal mail items allowed in an inmate's cell.

b.

Indigent Inmate Mail. Indigent inmates may purchase an indigent hygiene kit

through the commissary program once per week. Hygiene kits are taken to the pods

and offered to all inmates. The indigent hygiene kit consists of two postage prepaid

postcards, a pencil and hygiene items.

c.

Addressing Inmate Mail. Incoming mail must have the inmate's booking name and

should have the inmate's booking number as part of the addressee information.

d.

Return Address. Incoming mail must have the name and address of the sender.

The return address on legal and official mail must have the sender's job, agency, or

firm title and address commercially preprinted or stamped.

e.

Certified Mail/Special mail services. This section applies to legal and official mail

as well as to personal business mail when authorized.

i.

An inmate may send up to two letters as certified mail in a 3D-day period.

The inmate must have sufficient funds in his or her account to pay for the

Page 12 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10
. 'CC001454
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 57; Page 15 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 16 of 32

service. A Jail Supervisor may make exceptions to the volume of certified

mail an inmate sends and may approve credit to allow an indigent inmate to

send certified mail.

.

ii.

An inmate that needs to send a letter using certified mail must fill out an

Inmate Request Form. Only the Jail Supervisor can approve such a request.

The Jail Commander will ensure that the inmate's correspondence is ready to

mail at the time of the request. If an inmate's request for certified mail is

approved, the Jail Supervisor will forward the request to the front office staff.

(1 ) Jail staff will verify if the inmate has sufficient funds in his or her account before processing any request. They will forward requests from indigent inmates to a supervisor. The inmate will fill out the necessary U.S. Postal Service forms..-:...Receipt for Certified Mail (PS Form 3800) and Domestic Return Receipt (PS Form 3811). The letter and the forms will be forwarded to front office staff who will mail the letter and charge the inmate for the postal fees for these special services. The inmate request form will be the source document authorizing the charge.

(2) Jail Staff will forward the Domestic Return Receipt on to the inmate when it returns in incoming mail. They will return the Domestic Return Receipt postcard to the post office if the inmate is no longer in jail when It returns in the mail.

f.

Inmate Request Form. An inmate shall use an Inmate Request Form to request

permission to mail oversize or overweight items, or for other special postal services,

when allowed. If the Jail Commander approves such a request, funds will be drawn

from the inmate's account to cover the costs.

g.

Junk/Bulk Mail. Jail staff will accept solicited and unsolicited junk mail and solicited

and unsolicited bulk mail for inmates, unless it violates other mail restrictions (such

as containing sexually explicit content).

h.

Pre-Stamped Envelopes. Jail staff will make pre-stamped First Class business

size or manila envelopes available for inmates to buy from the commissary for legal

or official mail. Indigent inmates may obtain pre-stamped envelopes for legal or

official mail and approved personal business upon request. .

i.

Inmate Mail Written in a Foreign Language. Incoming and outgoing mail written

in a language other than English may be interpreted prior to delivery to determine

whether the mail violates these rules.

5. Appeals.

a.

By Inmates. Inmates wishing to appeal a decision to deny delivery of incoming

inmate mail or the mailing of outgoing inmate mail must follow the normal grievance

procedure set forth in the inmate manual and Policy J207, Inmate Rights.

b.

By Others. If a person believes that any incoming or outgoing inmate mail was

improperly confiscated by the Jail, they may appeal the action to the Jail

Commander by sending a written letter stating the specific reason(s) why the action

was improper. The letter must be received within 15 days from the date of the

prohibited Mail Notice. Or, if no Prohibited Mail Notice was received, within 15 days

from the date the person knew or should have known of the appealed action. The

letter shall include the sender's name and return address. The Jail Commander will

consider the appeal and will issue a decision on the appeal within fifteen days of

receiving the letter. However, if the Jail Commander made the initial decision

regarding the mail in question, the Sheriff will consider the appeal ahd issue the

decision. The appeal process will be set forth in the prohibited Mail Notice.

,
6. General Mail Rules.

Page 13 - COlumbia COunty Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10
CC001455
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 57; Page 16 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 17 of 32

We may place limits on your mail because of its volume, its affect on your rehabilitation or treatment, or for the safety, security, and good order of the jail. We may open and inspect all mail for contraband and may read all personal mail.

7.

"Do" Mail Rules for Inmates.

For mail, you must do the following:

a.

Use only lead or pencils.

b.

Use only jail commissary postcards for personal mail..

c.

Keep the weight of legal or official correspondence in a pre-stamped envelope below 1

ounce (28 gm). To keep a business envelope to one ounce or less means the contents

cannot be more that four 8-1/2" x 11" sheets of standard weight paper. Other envelopes

may be purchased through the commissary.

d.

When you are released or transferred from the jail, send change-of-address notifications to

those that send you mail.

e.

Put the correct return address on all your outgoing mail. Tell people sending you mail to

use your correct . Write the recipient's full name and complete address legibly on' any mail

you send.

,

8. "Don't" Mail Rules for Inmates.

You may not do any of the following:

a.

Draw or write anything on a postcard in the address area or on the picture of the postcard

other than name and address information.

.

b.

Send out jail forms for others to fill out on your behalf.

c.

Send prohibited mail.

d.

Send out jail property

,

e.

Order publications on credit or delayed billing from the jail.

f.

Operate a commercial business or nonprofit organization from the jail.

g.

Order correspondence courses unless you have a jail supervisor's approval.

h.

Conduct commercial or personal business transactions or request services from a

government agency unless you have a jail supervisor's approval.

I.

You may not send mail to another inmate in this facility without prior written permission.

9. Sending and Receiving Mail .

a. You may send and receive mail only through the U. S. Postal Service. The jail internal mail system is for communicating only with jail staff. Any transfer of written communication on your part that does not comply with mail rules and procedures is a rule violation that subjects you to discipline. This includes sending notes to other inmates or notes, postcards or mail to"anyone by way of a contact visit, court appearance, or transport. People may not leave mail, messages, or notes for you at the jail. Personal mail must come on a commercially produced postcard which does not exceed 5 % by 8 % inches unless a jail supervisor authorizes use of an envelope. b. Except in unusual circumstances and on holidays or weekends, we will deliver incoming mail to you within 24 hours of its receipt. We will put outgoing mail in a pickup box within 24 hours of receiving it from you. There is no pickup by the post office on weekends an~ holidays.

c. It is important that you use a person's complete and correct address when sending mail. If someone says he or she did not receive something you sent and you did not receive a confiscation notice from us, it is a matter for you to resolve with the post office-not the jail. For yo'ur convenience, the addresses of commonly contacted government agencies are in appendix 2, Government Pages.
d. We do not forward mail. If we receive mail for you and you are not here, we will return it to the sender. Please tell those sending you mail to put on return address on their mail. We confiscate mail without a return addresses or destroy it if you are no longer in jail.

10. Mail Confiscation:

Page 14 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual ' Revised 11/18/10 CC001456
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 57; Page 17 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 18 of 32

We will give you a Prohibited Mail Notice for incoming and outgoing mail we pull and hold from delivery. When we pull parcels because they exceed a number limit, such as books or periodicals, we will confiscate all of the items in the parcel rather than selecting some to bring the number down to the limit amount. We will return stored confiscated mail to you when you are released, if it was not disposed of for health or safety reasons. You may submit a grievance to ask for its return before then. We will return to sender any form of prohibited mail, along with a prohibited mail slip and notice of appeal. You will also get a notice that we have returned prohibited mail to the sender if it is evidence in a criminal investigation. We may provide you with
an opportunity to correct violations with mail you send. In that case, you will not receive a
Prohibited Mail Notice unless you refuse to correct the violation.
11. Sending Certified Legal or Official Mail'.
You may send a legal or officialletler using U. S. Postal Service Certified Mail and Return Receipt mail services. You may send approved personal business mail using Certified Mail and Return Request mail services. You will get receipts that you sent the letter and that the letter was received by the addressee. We will charge you the standard postal rates for these services. You must have money in your inmate account to pay the postal rates or have appropriate approval if you are indigent. A deputy will supply you with a request for Certified Mail form that you need to fill out and submit along with the letter. You may only send 2 certified-mail letters in a 30-day period.
12. Outgoing Mail.
Inmates will place all outgoing mail in the mail drop located in the day room of each housing unit. You are expected to legibly address your correspondence and use the proper postage. All outgoing mall must list the following return address:
Your full name and Inmate Number Columbia County Jail 901 Port Avenue St. Helens Oregon 97051

MEALS

Meals will be served three times daily at approximately 6,:30 A.M., 12:00 P.M. and 5:00 P.M. Pre-

classification and disciplinary inmates may be required to eat in their cells. All others will line up

for service, and will eat at the tables provided in the day rooms. If you choose not to eat, please

advise the deputy. Televisions will be off during the serving of. meals. Once the meals have been

served and the Deputy leaves the pod, the television may be turned back on.

'

Do not save food from meal service.

All special personal preference diet requests, such as vegetarian meals, must be pre-approved by the jail supervisors. All inmates on a personal preference diet will be charged a fee of $ 1.00 per meal, to be taken directly out of their individual inmate trust account to cover the additional cost of these meals. Indigent inmates will not be eligible to receive this type of special diet.

MEDICAL SERVICES

The Columbia County Jail will provide emergency medical, dental, and mental health care to al\ inmates regardless of their ability to pay for such services. No inmate will be denied care for ' serious health care needs based on the cost of medical services or the inmate's inability to pay for health care. All medical visits initiated by you will be assessed a fee which will be charged to your personal money account. You will be financially responsible for any elective surgery or other treatment you may request f~om your personal physician, dentist or other provider.

Page 15 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10
, CC001457
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 57; Page 18 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 19 of 32

Medical screening or appraisals at intake, or for inmate workers will be provided at no cost to you. All Detainees will receive a medical evaluation within their first 14 days of incarceration.

Prescription medications: You will be charged for all prescription medication prescribed for you and purchased by the jail on your behalf.

Over the counter medications such as; Tylenol, Aspirin, antacid etc., will be available from our medical department for a small charge.

MEDICATION

Health care staff may fill prescriptions at their discretion.. Health care staff may discontinue prescribed medication as directed by the jail health care supervisor or physicians. If you came . from another correctional facility and had your medication transferred with you, the transporting Deputy will give your medication to the health care staff. If you are leaving our jail and going to another jail, the transporting Deputy will get your medication from the health care staff and transport it with you.

As a warning, any abuse of your medication may result in the discontinuation of your receiving the medicine.

MEDICAL GRIEVANCES

In case of any unresolved problem regarding medical, dental or infirmary care, you may follow the

grievance procedures outlined in this manual.

.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Columbia Community Mental Health is the provider of these services for the facility. If you feel the need to see a mental health professional, contact a Deputy or the health care staff.

MONEY ACCOUNTS

Each inmate in the Columbia County Jail will have a "money account" established during the booking procedure. Funds may be deposited 24 hours per day seven days per week, via Visa or Mastercard by a toll-free phone call to 1-866-232-1899, via internet at: www.touchpaydirect.com or by depositing cash into a kiosk in the Sheriff's Office lobby. The depositor needs the inmate's
name, booking number, and Facility Locator No., which is 297001. All purchases will be deducted
from the account. Funds deposited to an account showing a negative balance will be deducted from that balance. The positive balance, if any, is available for the inmate's us.e. The balance· will be refunded to the inmate upon discharge. Inmates who possess a negative balance on their account will not be denied their basic medical needs such as medical care and hygiene items. With a negative balance an inmate may request to participate in the 50/50 program at which time
50 % of any funds placed into the inmate account will go towards the negative balance and the other 50 % will be placed on the inmate's account ,available for use on individual items in the Jail.

OUTDOOR RECREATION

An open air recreation area is provided in the jail for your use as scheduled throughout the day. Central Control will notify each of you of your recreation time. When you are called for outdoor recreation, you need to be ready to go. You will leave the Pod in groups of six. No one will be allowed to depart the Poq late for recreation. The TV may be turned off while Control is calling for rec, and while people are leaving.

Page 16 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10
CC001458
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 57; Page 19 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 20 of 32

The following rules apply while using the open air recreation area: 1. Do not yell or attempt to communicate in any way with. the people outside the recreation area, except for Corrections Staff. 2. Do not engage in "horseplay." We do not want people to get injured. 3. You must wear a minimum of a T-shirt, pants and shoes . Movement to or from outdoor recreation will require the complete uniform, including your 10 card. 4. DO NOT take anything other than your 10 card with you to outdoor recreation. This includes papers, candy, food items and anything that can be used to write or color with. If you are found with these items, disciplinary action may be taken.
PERSONAL PROPERTY
All personal property items will be stored in the secure storage area of the Columbia County Jail. No personal items will be allowed to be kept on an inmate unless approved by the Jail Commander in writing.

PROGRAM SERVICES

If and when available, you have the opportunity to participate in a variety of program activities. Recommended programs assist you in making constructive use of your time and to make positive changes in your life. We have grouped these into two main categories:

Voluntary activities

Inmate worker activities

You may participate in activities in one or all of these categories depending on your:'

Sentencing status Length of sentence

Assessments results Classification

PROPERTY TRANSFERS

You must follow these guidelines regarding your property:

1. You may release your personal property. to any adult outside the facility on an "all or nothing" basis. The adult must present.a state driver's .license, state 10 card, passport or military 10 to jail staff, to ensure property is released to the proper individual. A signed inmate request form from you is required.

2. Release of property is available Monday through Friday from 3:00 P.M. until 4:00 P.M. ONLY.

3. The following exception applies when: An Inmate is committed to a state prison and must release all personal property including their clothing prior to being transported to a state facility.

If the property is not picked up prior to the inmate's departure, it will be forwarded to OOOC with the inmate.

Page 17 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10
CC001459
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 57; Page 20 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 21 of 32

4. We do not allow personal property to be dropped off for inmates; except for medical items

which will be checked and approved by medical staff first. Clothes may be brought in if the

situation calls for it. This will be at the discretion of the jail Supervisors.

.

SANITARY INSPECTIONS

Deputies will inspect each housing unit daily to ensure it is a safe and clean environment. You will need to follow basic sanitary practices to ensure your cell area meets the sanitation requirements and pass the sanitation inspections. If your cell does not meet sanitation requirements, you will lose privileges and be instructed to clean the area. If the day room, shower area and outside recreation areas do not meet sanitation requirements, the entire housing unit may lose privileges. These privileges are those listed at the beginning of this manual. If you or your hou~ing unit lose privileges, they will be reinstated if you pass the next regularly scheduled inspection.

SANITARY PRACTICES

It is your responsibility to keep your cell clean and uncluttered. It is also the responsibility of each member of the housing unit to keep the day room, shower and outside recreation area clean. You will be provided with cleaning supplies and are expected to use the cleaning supplies as much as necessary to ensure you live in a clean environment.

You are to follow these rules for a clean and healthy housing unit:

Clean your cells, including the sink, toilet, floors and door windows daily. Pod Porters will clean day room areas daily. Pod Porters will clean the following, but not limited to: Tables, floors, stairs, walls, showers, bathroom areas, railings, and windows. Keep the walls clean and free of graffiti or marks of any kind. Place all garbage in the trash cans in the housing units. Keep all pictures and papers off the walls, bunks, bottom of bunks. Do not hang, stick, or paste pictures or papers to the walls, bunks or any where else in the facility. Keep commissary food items in your property container. (Gray totes) Do not save food from meal service. Wash your hands frequently. Participate in laundry exchange twice weekly. Shower at least twice weekly, but we strongly encourage you to shower daily. Keep the showers clean, and free of excess soap and shampoo bottles. Keep your gray bin or tote clean . Perform any other duties that Corrections Staff may assign. Keep your room or bunk area uncluttered of excess items. This includes legal papers. Ask staff for assistance if you have a large amount of legal papers to store. Vents for air circulation should be kept clean and obstruction free.

SEARCHES

Jail staff may conduct random unannounced searches of your person or of items in your possession, and in any area of the jail at any time. Your personal property and/or living area may be searched without your permission and whether or not you are present.

SELF-ESCORT

Page 18 ~ Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10
CC001460
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 57; Page 21 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 22 of 32
Most inmate movement within the jail, including visiting, medical, programs, work assignments Etc., will be unescorted unless you abuse the privilege. You "are expected to conduct yourself in an orderly fashion at all times. Inmates moving unescorted through the facility may not talk to other inmates, may not touch the walls or the glass, loiter or detour while en route to their destination. When leaving an area, you need to state your name and where you are going to Central Control. Any inmate who abuses these rules will be subject to disciplinary action and may lose their opportunity for unescorted movement. The exception will be any inmate who is classified as maximum security and who needs to be escorted in the facility at all times.
SICK CALL If you need to see medical personnel, fill out the appropriate Inmate Medical Request form. Each day the Medical Staff will address these issues upon receipt of the Request forms.
SPECIAL DIETS You must direct all requests for medical diets to the heath care staff for approval. If you need a special diet for medical reasons, please submit a request slip to the health care staff. If you need a special diet for religious reasons, please submit a request form. A Deputy will pick up the form from you and give it to a supervisor for approval. If approved, the religious diet will remain in effect for the length of your incarceration. Be aware that there may be a charge assessed for the extra cost associated for the special meal.
TELEPHONE PRIVILEGES Your use of jail telephones is a privilege. Jail staff may limit your telephone use for reasons of safety, security, good order, or sanitation of the jail. Inmates classified to housing units will be allowed to use telephones from 0800 hrs to approximately 2200 hrs, based on the operations of the housing unit you are in. Conversations on any telephone in the jail may be monitored and/or recorded without further notice. You are consenting to this monitoring when you use the jail telephones. There are some local attorney's phone numbers that have been set up as non collect so you can call them directly from the telephones in the pods. Confirmed attorney phone numbers are blocked from the monitoring system. All telephone calls from a housing unit are a collect call or by the phone cards that you purchase here. The phone cards are able to be used upon release from the Columbia County Jail. Telephone calls are limited to15 minutes each. The telephone system will warn you before the "15 minute time period is up so you can end your conversation. Inmates are not allowed to receive incoming telephone calls. Jail staff will deliver verifiable emergency messages to you. REMINDER: TELEPHONES ARE A PRIVILEGE. DO NOT ABUSE THE SYSTEM. ANY DAMAGE TO THE PHONE WILL RESULT IN A DISCIPLINARY HEARING AND A CRIMINAL CHARGE BEING FILED AGAINST THE INMATE.
TELEPHONE SERVICE NUMBER
Page 19 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10
CC001461
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 57; Page 22 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 23 of 32
If youor your family have any questions about billing or connection problems concerning the inmate phones, please call the service provider at 1-866-230-7761. We have a brochure available to answer more questions if you need it, please ask and we will provide it.
TRANSFER TO WORK RELEASE CENTER The Courts and/or Supervisory Authority may consider you for transfer to the Work Release Center if authorized on your sentence order. These transfers are not automatic. Jail staff must approve all transfers. Factors considered in transfer decisions will include: Judge's approval Length of sentence. Individual needs. Available space. Classification. Demonstration of compliance with jail rules, expectations and responsible behavior. If you are interested in participating in any programs, you must submit a request on an Inmate Request Form. Misbehavior or administrative concerns may prevent access to these programs. Disciplinary write-ups or actions will affect program eligibility.
VISITING All public visits will be scheduled by the Inmate requesting the visit. The inmate must contact prospective visitors by phone or mail, and determine an acceptable visiting date. Time slots may be used on a first come, first serve basis. Visitors are encouraged to arrive 10 to 15 minutes early to sign in. If all of the slots are taken for that time frame they can either wait till the next times start for that pod, if it is available, or return on another day. Visits will start on the hour and half hour. Authorized visitors shall be members from the inmate's family, and friends age 18 and older. Visitors under the age of 18 must be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian. Attorneys and clergy are not considered public visitors. Inmate visitation is a privilege and while the Columbia County Sheriff's Office encourages visitation, that privilege must be regulated to protect the needs of the entire jail operation. The amount of time allotted for visitation is based upon the classification' and status of each inmate. Classification is based upon the inmate's current charges, criminal history and current demeanor. All inmates will be allowed a maximum of two thirty (30) minute visits per seven (7) day period (Sunday through Saturday), as time and space allows. Inmates assigned to Disciplinary Segregation will not be allowed visitation privileges. Inmates not yet assigned to a housing unit or who are housed in the pre-classification unit, will not be allowed public visitation. Inmates serving a sentence of seventy-two hours(72) or less will not be allowed public visitation. Due to space limitations, acceptable visiting combinations are limited to:
Page 20 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10
CC001462
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 57; Page 23 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 24 of 32

1. One Adult 2. Two Adults 3. One Adult and One Child 4. One Adult and Two Children 5. Two Adults and One Child

Inmates have the right to refuse any visit, however that right should be exercised prior to visiting time.

All inmates wishing to receive public visits must establish a visiting list of not more than five (5) people. Persons not on the approved list will not be allowed to visit. You are able to change your visiting list once every 30 days from the time you establish your list. You need to fill out the visitation part of the request form to make the changes. The minimum information required for each person will be:

1. Visitor's full name

2.

Date of birth

3.

Relationship

4. The name of any child who may be in the company of his/her parent or guardian.

The visiting schedule will be posted in the housing units. Visiting times and days are subject to change periodically, so please refer to the schedule when talking to your loved ones.

SPECIAL VISITS

Special considerations may be given for emergency and/or special situations where normal visiting procedures may not be practical. Such situations as the death of a family member or close friend, serious injury of a family member or visitors traveling great distances, who have arrived unexpectedly may be considered on a case-by-case basis by the Supervisor or Corporal on duty. All special visits will be subject to the same rules and requirements as regular visitation. Special visits may be conducted in the Attorney Visiting Rooms if available and necessary due to other visitation which may be in progress.

VISITS WITH ATTORNEY

Inmates shall be given the opportunity to visit their attorneys at reasonable times, consistent with the safety and security of the f~cility. All visits will be scheduled by the attorney.

VISITS BY CLERGY

Clergy Visits will be handled as a regular visit. The member of the Clergy you want to have a visit with will be added like a normal visitor just like it is described in the regular visiting rules. They will be allowed to visit you on the regular date and time for the pod you are assigned to. The Clergy member will not count against you for the five people you are allowed to have on your visiting list. The Columbia County Jail provides non denominational religious services once per week and individual bible study twice per week.

VOLUNTARY ACTIVITIES

All general population inmates may have access to voluntary activities. These activities include but may not be limited to:

Page 21 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10

CC001463
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 57; Page 24 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 25 of 32
Religious services Narcotics Anonymous (NA) and Alcoholics Anonymous (M) groups Religious based life skills classes Individual educational tutoring (21 and under) Recreational library Law library A sign up sheet for the voluntary activities will be posted in your housing unit. You must sign up on the provided list to be able to participate. Remember that participation in these activities is a privilege. Participation is dependent on your continued cooperation and responsible behavior.
WAKE UP AND LOCK DOWN Day room and cell lights will be turned on at 6:00 A.M. daily. Make your bed and dress for breakfast. Breakfast service will begin at approximately 6:30 A.M. daily. Day room lights and television will be turned off by about 10:00 P.M. and the cell lights will be turned off at 10:00 P.M.. All inmates must be on their bunks at "lights out" and are required to remain quiet. Each inmate is expected to completely clean your room and area, make your bed, dump trash cans, etc. when the cleaning supplies are available to you. Be aware that there are usually some cleaning materials available at all times.
MINOR RULE VIOLATIONS PROCEDURES 1. The accused inmate shall be served with a minor rule citation by the citing Deputy as quickly as is practical, after the violation is discovered, but in no case shall it be longer than 24 hours after the investigation is complete. 2. The inmate will sign the misconduct report and acknowledge receipt of alleged violation(s} and the right to appeal. The inmate may enter a plea of "Guilty" or "Not Guilty".
A. Upon entry of a "Guilty·" plea, a Deputy will schedule an informal hearing for possible sanctions to be imposed.
B. Upon entry of a "Not Guilty" plea on the misconduct report or upon request for a formal hearing the incident will be handled the same as a Major Violation.
MINOR RULE VIOLATION SANCTIONS Sanctions resulting from a guilty plea on a Minor Misconduct Report may include: a. Verbal warning. b. Creative sanction appropriate to the offense (Le. extra work detail, etc.). c. Housing Unit lock down not to exceed 24 hours. d. Disciplinary segregation not to exceed five (5) calender days for a single violation. Inmates may
receive separate lock down time for each marked violation. This should not exceed a total of fourteen (14) calender days.
Page 22 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised. 11/18/10
CC001464
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 57; Page 25 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 26 of 32
e. Re-Classification f. Probation for up to 30 days. g. While in disciplinary segregation there is no access to programs. Inmates get one hour out each 24 hours. Telephone (except legal) and television use may not be permitted. Commissary choices are restricted. Personal visits are suspended for the duration of the segregation. Book cart or library access is permitted; however, this privilege may be taken away as a sanction.
MINOR RULE VIOLATIONS
01 Possession of Nuisance Contraband: Any authorized item found in an inmates possession that has been altered or is in excess of the authorized amount.
02Arguing: Any disagreement which becomes disruptive, loud or obnoxious. 03 Possession of another inmates property. 04 Unauthorized use of facility property or equipment (Le. washers/dryers, barber equipment etc.) 05Acting as a lookout 06 Being in an unauthorized area without corrections staff present. 07 Purposefully obstructing the view of Corrections Staff. 08 Inappropriate remarks or misuse of the inmate request forms or any of the forms.or paperwork
handed out or used in the facility. 09 Unwarranted emergency calls. 10 Horse Playing: Any aggressive or faked aggressive actions, which may lead to or be mistaken
for a physical altercation. 11 Disrespect to other inmates (Le. name calling, profanity or accusations directed at another
inmate). 12 Cursing, uncontrolled use of profanity or obscenities that may be considered offensive to
others. 13 Excessive noise. 14 Failure to properly maintain living area. 15 Hanging paper, linen, clothing, etc. on light fixtures, walls, ceilings etc.
Page 23 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10
CC001465
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 57; Page 26 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 27 of 32

16 Failure to maintain personal hygiene.

17 Improper attire (Le. not following the dress code stated in the manual).

18 Displaying or demonstrating gang affiliations (Le. hand gestures, hand in pants, low riding trousers, etc.).

19 Graffiti: writing, drawing or marking on any of the surfaces of the facility.

20 Posting any type of picture, drawing or any other material on the walls, bunks or any the surfaces of the facility.

21 Misuse of the intercom system.

22 Disrespect towards any Staff Member or Sheriff's Office Employee

23 Disruptive Behavior

24 Unauthorized use of the typewriter. (Law Library)

25 Lying to Staff Members.

260ther

MAJOR RULE VIOLATION PROCEDURES

All Major Rule Violations will be handled through a formal disciplinary process, and require a

formal hearing.

.

1. When an inmate commits, or is believed to have committed a Major Rule Violation, the inmate will be immediately placed on pre-hearing segregation status pending the outcome of the disciplinary hearing, regardless the nature of the alleged conduct. This can cause restriction in your privileges.

2. The accused inmate shall be served with a Major Rule Citation and the Inmate' Rights form by the citing Deputy as quickly as is practical, after the violation is discovered, but in no case shall it be longer than 24 hours after the investigation is complete.

3. The inmate will have a hearing before a hearings officer within five (5) days of the incident excluding Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays. The inmate will be notified at least 24 hours prior to the hearing.

4. After the hearing, the hearings officer can render a deCision immediately or within 72 hours.

A. If the inmate is found "Not Guilty", the inmate will be restored to the same status and privileges as before charged.

B. If the inmate is found "Guilty", the Hearings Officer will impose an appropriate sanction from the Major Rule Violation Sanction list.

MAJOR RULE VIOLATION SANCTIONS

Sanctions resulting from a finding of "Guilty" in a hearing for a Major Violation may inClude the following:

Page 24 ~ Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10 CC001466
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 57; Page 27 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 28 of 32

1. Temporary or permanent change in programming to include:

A. ,Change in housing assignments. (I.e. re-classification)

B. Change in custody status.

C. Removal from work status with concurrent suspension of credit for work, as directed by O.R.S.169.120

2. Reclassification to Disciplinary Segregation for no more than sixty (60) days for all (multiple) violations arising out of one incident (only 30 days maximum on a single violation) and giving credit for time served as appropriate.

3. Loss of Statutory Good time and modification of release date in accordance with O.R.S. 169.110.

4. Suspension of any part, (or all of the above if appropriate), along with information of expected conduct to avoid imposition.

5. Any combination of one (1) through four (4), listed above.

6. Unless medically or psychiatrically required, no segregated inmate shall be denied clothing or

bedding that is allowed to general population inmates.

'

7. Segregated inmates shall be provided the same food as general population inmates.

8. Personal hygiene items and shower facilities will be provided regularly to segregated inmates, unless there are documented security reasons which would prohibit them.

9. While in disciplinary segregation there is no access to programs. Inmates get one hour out each 24 hours. Telephone ( except legal) and television use is not permitted. Commissary choices are restricted to hygiene items only. Personal visits are suspended for the duration of the segregation. Book cart or library access is permitted; however this privilege may be taken
away as a condition of the sanction.

MAJOR RULE VIOLATIONS

40 Habitual Misconduct: 3 or more separate minor rule violations within 30 days.

41 Refusing to comply' with a Deputy's! Staff! Kitchen Staff directives.

42Tampering with or destruction of Identification Card

43 Refusing to lock down on command, or during a disturbance.

44 Refusing to go to court.

45Tampering with security devices! facility equipment.

46Threatening or strong arming another inmate.

47 Giving' false information to a Deputy:

48Creating a disturbance while on lock down (I.e. banging doors, excessive noise, flooding the cell, etc).
Page 25 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10
CC001467
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 57; Page 28 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 29 of 32
50Threatening staff members 51 Smoking, or possession of smoking paraphernalia. 52 Possession of unauthorized beverages (i.e. pruno). 53 Indecent exposure. 54 Theft. 55 Extortion. 56 Destruction of, or Defacing County property. 57 Possession of illegal drugs or prescription medications belonging to another or misuse of
prescribed medications. 58 Participation in organizing or recruiting for gang related activities. 59 Sexual misconduct! homosexual activities 60 Fighting. 61 Assault on another inmate. 62Assisting a suicide 63 Possession of a weapon. 64Assault on a staff member. 65Attempted or actual escape, or possession of an escape plan. 66 Participating in or inciting a riot. 67Taking a hostage 68Arson 69Rape or Sodomy. 70 Homicide. 71 Violation of any Criminal Code 72Tampering with or altering any other person's food. 73 Other.
VIOLATIONS APPEALS PROCESS
Page 26 - Columbia eounty Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10 CC001468
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 57; Page 29 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 30 of 32

All appeals must be submitted to the Facility Supervisor or their designee within 72 hours, following the decision. The Facility Supervisor or designee will review the recommendations and return the appeal form to the inmate within five (5) working days of the appeal. The response time may be extended due to extenuating circumstances or further investigation, with written notice to the inmate of the reason(s) for the delay. Ask a deputy if you need a form.

SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS

DID YOU KNOW?

Rape and sexual assault happens to females and males of all ages, from infancy to senior years.

98% of males who have raped boys reported they are heterosexual. Most males who assault·

men or women are married or report having girlfriends.

.

Sexual assault had nothing to do with the victim's present or future sexual orientation. Victims may be either heterosexual or homosexual.

A survivor is not at fault for the rape, even if she/he was in a secluded area, or had previous consensual sex with the attacker.

The fact a male victim of sexual assault ejaculated or became sexually aroused does not mean they were not raped or that they gave consent. These are normal, involuntary physiological reactions.
,
It is common for survivors of sexual assault to have feeling of anger embarrassment, panic, depression, .guilt, and fear after the attack. Other common reactions include loss of appetite, nausea or stomachaches, headaches, loss of memory and/or trouble concentrating and changes in sleep patterns.

FACTS FOR THE INMATE THAT SEXUALLY ASSAULTS OTHER INMATES:

All caSes of sexual assault will be referred to the Enforcement Branch or Major Crimes Team (MCT) for criminal investigation. You may be prosecuted and if found guilty of a felony, you may be sentenced to prison time (up to 100 months for each Rape I or Sodomy I conviction). Any sex offense conviction will automatically add sex offender conditions when you release, which may require you to register as a sex offender per ORS 181.594. This registration requirement is for life. You also be deemed as a "Predatory Sex Offender," which would require community notification upon your release.

Regardless of how you choose to characterize it, any sexual activity will increase your risk of HIV infection, along with exposing you to other sexually transmitted diseases.

If you have trouble controlling your actions seek help from mental health staff and/or consider participating in programs designed to control anger or reduce stress. To reduce· immediate feelings of anger or aggression, try talking to or writing a friend, meditate or do breathing exercises to relax, work on a hobby, or engage in some type of exercise.

SEXUAL ASSAULT

Sexual assault as defined by Columbia County Jail policy is "Sexual conduct where force or threat of force is used, or when the person is unable to consent because of age or incapacitation (mental defect, mental incapacitation, or physical helplessness). Sexual conduct includes: vaginal penetration by a penis; contaGt between the genitals of a person and the mouth or anus of another person; penetration of thevagina, anus, or penis of . another person with any object other than the penis or mouth; touching of the sexual or intimate parts of someone or causing someone to touch the sexual or intimate parts of another for the purpose of sexual gratification." Any behavior or act of a sexual nature .
. Page 27 - Columbi,a County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10
CC001469
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 57; Page 30 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 31 of 32
directed toward an inmate by an inmate, employee, volunteer, visitor, contract employee or other agency representatives. This includes acts or any attempts to commit such acts including, but not limited to, sexual contact, inappropriate behavior of a sexual nature, unreasonable invasion of privacy, conversations or correspondence that suggests a romantic relationship between an inmate and any party referenced above. Sexual assault affects everyone, either directly or through the experience of those we care about. It is not only a woman's issue as it can affect persons of any gender, age, race, ethnic group, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, or disability. The statistics are proof of this problem: According to the National Crime Victimization . Survey (NCVS), in 2002 there were 247,730 victims of rape (This number does not include victims 12 or younger), seven out ofevery eight rape victims were female, and one in every eight rape victims was male. A 1998 study indicates that about 2.78 million American men have experienced an attempted or completed rape and one out of six American women have experienced an attempted or completed rape.
SEXUAL ASSAULT AVOIDANCE The only rape that can be prevented is when a potential rapist chooses NOT to rape. However, you may avoid an attack by keeping the following safety guidelines in mind: Be aware of situations that make you feel uncomfortable. Trust your instincts. If it feels wrong, LEAVE. Don't let manners get in the way of keeping yourself safe. Don't be afraid to say "NO" or
"STOP iT NOW",
Walk and stand with confidence. Many rapists choose victims who look like they won't fight back or are emotionally weak. Avoid talking about sex and casual nudity. These things may be considered a come on, or make another inmate believe that you have an interest in a sexual relationship. Do not accept canteen items or other gifts from other inmates. Placing yourself in debt to another inmate can lead to sexual favors. Avoi<;l secluded areas; positi.on yourself in plain view of staff .members. If you are being pressu·red for sex, report it to a supervisor immediately. WHAT TO DO IF YOU ARE SEXUALLY ASSAULTED If the attack has just happened....... Get to a safe place. REPORT THE ATTACK TO A STAFF MEMBER IMMEDIATELY. The longer you wait to report the attack the more difficult it is to obtain the evidence necessary for criminal and/or administrative investigation. Request immediate medical attention. You may have serious injuries that you are not aware or, and any sexual contact can expose you to sexually transmitted diseases.
Page 28 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10 CC001470
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 57; Page 31 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 32 of 32
Do not shower, brush your teeth, use the restroom, or change your clothes. You may destroy important evidence. ·If you have been attacked or witness an attack, but you are unwilling to report it in person to a CCSO uniformed staff member, then you may speak with a counselor, chaplain, medical staff, write a sealed letter to any command staff member, or contact a CCSO Detective at 503-366-4650. Later on ..... Seek the support of a trusted friend, family member or staff member, such as the Chaplain or the counseling staff. The days ahead can be traumatic and it helps to have people who care about you supporting you. Seek professional help. Mental Health staff are available for crisis care 365 days a year, to listen and offer support.
Page 29 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10 CC001471
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 57; Page 32 of 32

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 35
EXHIBIT 58
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 58; Page 1 of 35

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 35
.. ~,
INMATE MANUAL COLUMBIA COUNTY JAIL
All rules in this manual may be amended or suspended at any time by order of the Sheriff or designee. As an Inmate in the Columbia County Jail, you are partially responsible for youi own safety. You are in jail and you must be aware of your surroundings.
Incorporating Revised Iml1ateMail Guidelines (See Pages 7 through 16) Effective Ivlay 25t6, 2012 . The COltllltbic.l County bmhitc :Pvfc.\l1uc.l1 hc.1.~ been J.c;,vievvcd and t1.pprov~d on ?iOvvlUbcl 20101J), Jeffrey fyL Dickerson, Sllcr;ff, Cohltnbia County, 01cgou.
CC001472
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 58; Page 2 of 35

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 35
Jeffrey Iv!. Dickerson, Sheriff
CC001473
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 58; Page 3 of 35

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 4 of 35

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS.......................... . YOUR RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES................ 1 YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES AND EXPECTED
BEHAVIOR.......................... 1-2 BEDS AND BEDDING......................... " 2 BILLING FEES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-3 CELL IN COMMAND............................ 3 CLASSIFICATION............................ " 3 CLOTHING EXCHANGE......................... 3 COMMISSARY................................. 3 . CONTRABAND................................ 3 COUNTY ISSUED ITEMS........................ 4 COURT CONDUCT............................. 4 DRESS CODE.................................. 4 FIRE AND EMERGENCY SAFETY................ 4 HAIR CARE AND PERSONAL GROOMING....... " 5 HEALTH APPRAISALS.......................... 5
I
. HOUSING UNIT OPERATIONS................... 5 ICE CONTACT INFORMATION................... 5 IDENTIFICATION CARDS....................... 5 INMATE COUNTS......................... '" 5-6 INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE.............. 6 INMATE REQUEST FORMS...................... 6 INMATE WORKERACTIVITIES.................. 6 INTERCOM SYSTEM........................... 7. LAW LIBRARY................................ 7 LIBRARY..................................... 7 MAIL............................... 7-16~ MEALS. ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16+ft.+t MEDICAL SERVICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17++ MEDICATION............................... 171+ MEDICAL GRIEVANCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17t+ MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES................. tt17 MONEY ACCOUNTS......................... 17++ OUTDOOR RECREATION............... 17-18-f+.tZ-

PERSONAL PROPERTY. ............................... 18B PROGRAM SERVICES................................. 18H PROPERTY TRANSFERS............................... ISHSANITARY INSPECTIONS...... : ...................... ] 81.% SANITARY PRACTICES............................... 19+3SEARCHES........................................... 19+3SELF-ESCORT........................................ 19+3SICK CALL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ] 9+3SPECIAL DIETS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19+3TELEPHONE PRIVILEGES.............................. 20M TELEPHONE SERVICE NUMBER........................ 20M TRANSFER TO WORK RELEASE CENTER. ............... 20M VISITING. ..................................... 20-21.~ SPECIAL VISITS. . .................................... 21+5VISITS WITH ATTORNEY .............................. 21+5VISITS BY CLERGY................................ 21-22+5VOLUNTARY ACTIVITIES............................. 22+6WAKE UP AND LOCK DOWN........................... 22+6MINOR RULE VIOLATIONS PROCEDURES............... 22+6MINOR RULE VIOLATION SANCTIONS. . . . . . . . . . .. 22-23~ MINOR RULE VIOLATIONS. ........ . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23-24~ MAJOR RULE VIOLATION PROCEDURES................ 24+8MAJOR RULE VIOLATION SANCTIONS. . . . . . . . . . .. +&-+9-24-25 MAJOR RULE VIOLATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25-26~ VIOLATIONS APPEALS PROCESS....................... 26~ SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS.................... 2620·11 SEXUAL ASSAULT................................. 26-27* SEXUAL ASSAULT AVOIDANCE..................... 27£+.:E-

CC001474
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 58; Page 4 of 35

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 5 of 35

YOUR RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES

We want you to know exactly what is expected of you while you are in this jail. We will let you know what you can expect from us by explaining our rules, procedures and schedules to you. While at this jail, you will 'be provided with:

1. Three daily meals served at reasonable intervals 2. Clean bedding and clothing at least twice weekly 3. The opportunity to shower at least twice weekly 4. Regular exercise 5. Opportunities to exercise your religion 6. Basic hygiene items 7. Access to the law library 8. Access to counsel 9. Emergency medical and dental treatment 10. A safe and secure environment

If you follow jail rules and sanitation practices, you may receive these privileges:

1. Use of television 2. Use of library services 3. Use of outdoor recreation 4. Use of telephones 5. Having social visits 6. Malcing commissary purchases 7. Sending and receiving mail 8. Voluntaryparticipation in jail programs

Remember that these are not rights. Jail staff can limit or suspend these privileges , at any time in order to maintain the safety, security, good order and sanitation of the jail.

This manual does not cover every situation that may arise, but it will serve as a basic guide for your conduct and facility procedures.

Columbia County Jail has a no smoking policy.

YOUR RESPONSIB~ITIES AND EXPECTED BEHAVIOR

Read this manual to know what is expected of you. The excuse "I did not know that" is not acceptable. It is your responsibility to follow all laws, jail rules, schedules, and staff requests. You must respect jail
property and the property of others. This would include staying out of other inmate's cells and off of their bunks. You are expected to keep your sleeping area, the day room and outdoor recreation areas
clean and orderly. Unacceptable behavior will be dealt with firmly, but fairly. Misbehavior may result in a change of your custody status which can directly affect your privileges in the jail.

This manual is an accountable item and is issued to you for your use while you are in this facility. You are responsible for the condition of this manual and you will be billed for any damage, graffiti, or unusable condition when returned. If the manual is damaged, please report it to a staff member to have it replaced immediately.

The best control of your behavior is by you practicing self-discipline and respect for others. Inmates are not

allowed to become personally familiar with corrections' staff. Be considerate and respectful toward all

officials. We will expect you to address uniformed staff as "Deputy or Sergeant

" and non-

uniformed staff as "Mr.

"or "Ms.

". Central Control personnel will be addressed as

"Contro1."

Page 2 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10 ' CC001475
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 58; Page 5 of 35

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 6 of 35

Inmate basic rules for the Columbia County Jail: 1. The ID card is to be put into the window facing out so that it can be seen and scanned during your stay. 2. When you are out of your room, the ID card is to be in your pocket. 3. When you are in the day room, you are to be completely dressed with T shirt tucked in. 4. When you are in your room, you are to have the T shirt and boxers on at all times including While you are sleeping, no exceptions. 5. When you come out of the pod and into the circle, you are to stay on the colored squares. The squares form a line that you walk on. You stay on that line with the exception to go around an obstacle. You are to stay in a single IIle line. 6. When you are in any other hallway, you are to walk on the right side of the hall and in a single rile. You are not to touch anything. Do not speak, yell or signal at anyone. Keep your hands to yourself. 7. When in the hallway, there should be only six (6) inmates at one time. 8. DO NOT cover the ventilation units or speaker in the cells.

BEDS AND BEDDING

Bedding will consist of two sheets and two blankets. Blankets and sheets may not be removed from your cell or bunk, nor may they be placed on the floor or table for any reason. You are not to take the mattress off the bunk and place it on the floor of your cell or in the day room of the pod. Your mattress may only be used for sleeping purposes. The bunk area must be left in an orderly fashion through out the day.

BILLING FEES

As authorized in ORS 169.150 and 169.151, Local Correctional Facilities are allowed to bill Inmates for items and services that are provided to them while incarcerated in Correctional Facilities.

Every Sentenced Inmate will be charged a boarding fee of$10.00 per day. The Inmate will receive a bill when he or she is released from the jail. The Inmate will have 30 days to pay the bill or set up a payment plan.

An initial hygiene kit is $2.15 and the Inmate ID card is $1.00. All over'the counter·medications as well as prescription medications will be billed through the inmate's commissary account. When the Inmate is released from jail and his or her commissary 'account is in the negative, that amount will also show up on the release billing. When 30 days have passed with no payment received on the release billing, the account will be turned over to the Oregon Department of Revenue for collection.

Other charges are listed below:

1) Work Release Inmates are charged a minimum of $15.00 per day or two hours of pay if the inmate's

hourly rate of pay is higher than $7.50 per hour.

If any of the following items are damaged or

destroyed you will be billed as follows:December

2,2010

2) Hygiene Kits

$ 2.15 each 11) Tote

$44.95

3) Postcard

$ 0.50

12) Tote Lid

$26.95

4) Hair Cuts

$ 5.00

13) Sporks

$ 0.25

5) MedicallNurse visits

$ 5.00

14) Sandals

$ 2.49

6) Medical visit for OTC meds $ 1.00

15) Cups

$ 0.75

7) Medical kites submitted

$ .50

16) Socks (If Appl.) '$ 0.85

Page 3 ~ Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10

CC001476
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 58; Page 6 of 35

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 7 of 35

8) Feminine Hygiene Products 9) Razors (if more than 1) 10) Copies of legal materials

$ 0.20 $ 0.15 $ 0.25

17) Towels

$ 0.75

18) Striped Shirt

$ 6.55-$12.75

19) Striped Pants

$ 8.75-$14.95

20) T-Shirts

$ 3.99 - $ 7.30

21) Shorts

$ 2.32 - $ 2.74

22) Replacement ID Card $ 5.00

All fees are subj ect to change at any time

CELL IN COMMAND

The command "cell-in"or "bunk-up" means you need to stop what you are doing and go directly to your cell or bunk. You must follow this command without question or hesitation. If you do not, it will directly
affect your classification and custody status and also will result in disciplinary actions against you.

CLASSIFICATION

All newly arrested inmates who are not released prior to movement from the booking area will be assigned housing in a Pre-Classification unit. They may be maintained on lock-down status for up to the flIst
Seventy-Two (72) hours, for classification purposes. The Columbia Comity Jail has three classifications which are minimum, medium and maximum security. All inmates are assigned a classification according to
their status. Inmates may request a classification review in writing on an Inmate Request Form at any time.

Most inmates involved in the Inmate Worker Program and Alternative Programs must qualify for and maintain a minimum custody status.

ACTIVITIES MAY DIFFER BASED ON YOUR LEVEL OF CLASSIFICATION.

CLOTHING EXCHANGE

Clean clothing will be provided twice weekly. You must turn in all of your soiled clothing during clothing exchange. In return you will receive 1 T-shirt, 1 pair of shorts, 1 towel, 1 striped shirt and 1 pair striped
pants. On every other exchange you will receive clean sheets. Blankets may be exchanged every 30 days. Each housing unit will have a different laundry schedule.

Jail staff will make every effort to ensure clothing is in good repair. You are responsible for all clothing and bedding issued to you. You should check the condition of the clothing you receive and immediately inform a staff member and exchange any clothing or bedding that has a tear or graffiti written on it. If you are found to be in possession of damaged items, you will be subject to disciplinary action. This may include payment for the damaged clothing.

COMMISSARY

The Columbia County Jail has a well-appointed commissary list from which inmates with funds may purchase various items. Inmates without funds may order indigent hygiene kits once per week, if needed. Indigent items will be posted to the inmate's account creating a negative balance. Commissary sheets will be handed out once a week. If you did not get funds in before the commissary sheets were made up to be passed out, you will have to wait until the following week to order. Commissary purchases are limited to no more than $75.00 per week. Inmates may have no more than two (2) lead pencils in their possession at any given time. In addition each inmate will be allowed to purchase one pack of colored pencils.

CONTRABAND

Any authorized item found in an inmate's possession that has been altered or is not being used for it's original purpose, or any items in excess of the issued quantity as stated within this manual.

Page 4 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10 CC001477
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 58; Page 7 of 35

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 8 of 35

COUNTY ISSUED ITEMS

All inmates who are dressed into the Columbia County jail will be issued jail clothing after intake, and in the clothing change/shower room. You will.be issued a plastic bin containing a hygiene kit, bed linen, towel, and clothing and this Inmate ManuaL Another issued item will include a mattress. You will be responsible for the condition of all items issued to you. The gray property box (totes) are to be used specifically for storage of your personal and issued belongings. Totes are not to be used for chairs or any use other than what has been mentioned above. Totes are to remain under your bunk at all times.

1. One inmate uniform top.

7.

2. One inmate uniform pants

8.

3. Two T-Shirts

9.

4. Two pair of gym shortslUnderwear

10.

5. One pair ofjail sandals.

6. One mattress

Two sheets Two Blankets One Towel One Rule Book

Female inmates may be allowed to retain the following:

1. Personal underwear, if needed for hygiene reasons, if determined appropriate by staff. 2. Personal bras, with no metal fasteners or under wires. A sports style bra is preferred.

During the winter months you will be issued a sweatshirt to be worn in your cell, day room area, the outdoor recreation yard or under the striped shirt when going to court.

COURT CONDUCT

Your arraignment will be your first court appearance injail. During your arraignment, ajudge will tell you what you are charged with and your rights with regard to those charges. The judge may appoint an attorney at this time if you qualify.

During any court appearance you will not have contact with any person other than your lawyer or the court officials. Contact includes talking, signaling, or passing notes to people.

Video arraignment is considered a court room setting and the above rules apply.

DRESS CODE

You are expected to remain fully dressed at all times except when you are on your bunk. When you are in your assigned bunk area you must wear at least the T-shirt and shorts issued by this facility. Any time you leave your sleeping area or room, you must be fully clothed. Fully clothed consists of your shorts, Tshirt, striped shirt and striped pants or sho~s, T-shirt, gray sweatshirt and striped pants. During lights out, you may go to use the restroom in your t-shirt and shorts if you live in an' open dorm'. .

Your T-shirt must be tucked in at all times and not hanging loosely. Rolling your pant legs up if they are too long, but not above the ankles, is allowed. Do not alter the appearance of your clothes.

You may not roll your sleeves, tuck your pants into your socks, or pull your pants down below the hips. It is not allowed to wear clothes that are too large or too small.

You will be allowed to take your outer striped shirt off while exercising in the recreation area.

FIRE AND EMERGENCY SAFETY

In case of any type of emergency or evacuation, you are to follow any direct order of a Deputy. There are emergency evacuation procedures in place and you will be evacuated in an orderly manner to a safe place.

Ifyou are asked to evacuate an area by a Deputy, you are to form a straight line at your Pod door and wait for directions from a Deputy or the Control Room staff. A Deputy will direct you to a safe area.

Page 5 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10 CC001478
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 58; Page 8 of 35

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 9 of 35
HAIR CARE AND·PERSONAL GROOMING
We encourage you to shower daily. We hand out razors three times a week. If an individual has a court appearance they will be allowed to use a razor prior to their court appearance. Once a week a list will be put into your respective pod and you must sign up on that list to receive a haircut. Hair cuts can be done when a person is available to be the barber. There is a $5.00 charge for the haircut. Haircuts will be done on Saturdays and Sundays only. You will be allowed to have one haircut per month. Haircuts other than a trim or a complete removal to a short stubble are not allowed. No other styles will be tolerated. Only kitchen and floor workers are allowed one free haircut per month.
HEALTH APPRAISALS A health appraisal must be done before an inmate can be considered for "worker" status~
HOUSING UNIT OPERATIONS
The daily operation in the pods will be as follows.
You will be allowed to come out of your cell for a short period of time during the morning at breakfast. You will then be instructed to return to your cell until lunch time. After lunch, you will then have three hours out of your cell. At the end of that period, you will return to your cell. The next period out, will be after dinner for two hours.
Inmate time out of cells for each pod will be set as necessary to fulf"ill the needs of the facility.
Cleaning gear will be provided during the day. We require you to use it daily to clean your cell, bunk area and the pod as a whole on a daily basis.
No one is allowed to sit, stand or loiter on the stairs or catwalks (upper tier floors) at any time. This will include walking or pacing off laps upstairs, or on the stairs. There is to be no sitting on the table tops.
ICE CONTACT INFORMATION
Inmates who are housed in the Columbia County Jail for Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) may contact ICE via the use of an ICE inmate request form.
ICE inmates may contact ICE Pro Bono Attorneys by calling (800) 646-6283. In each Pod located on the mail boxes, there is a list of all Pro Bono calls for use by all ICE detainees. ICE agents make scheduled visits to the Columbia County Jail on Wednesdays of every week.
IDENTIFICATION CARDS
You must keep your inmate ID card on your person any time you are out of your cell. Do not let anyone use your ID card. The best place to keep this card is in your shirt pocket. When you are in your cell, place your ID card, right side up, in the window of your door with the picture facing out so the Deputy can see your . name and picture. You must surrender your ID card to any staff member upon request.
INMATE COUNTS
There will be at least six "Formal Counts" per day. At the beginning of each "formal count" you will be instructed to "cell in or bunk up." Televisons will be turned off. At that time you must:
1. Go into your cell and close the door or get onto your bunk depending on the pod you are in. 2. Correctly place your J.D. card in the window of your door or on your bunk. If you are on a bunk,
or otherwise not in your room or pod, having the ID card in your hand and presenting it to the . deputy doing the count is accept~ble.
Prior to lock-down each night a final formal head count will be conducted in the following Inanner.
Page 6 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10
CC001479
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 58; Page 9 of 35

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 10 of 35
1. In Pods with cells you will go to your room, close the door stand with one individual on each side of the door, ID card in hand, ready for the count. All inmates will remain in this manner until a Deputy scans your identification card.
2. In an open dorm go to your bunk and stand next to your bunk with your ID card in hand, until a Deputy scans your card. After formal you should bunk up for the night and remain quiet.
There will be numerous informal counts per day, therefore, whenever a Deputy enters your cell, remain where you are, do not move until the deputy leaves or instructs you to move.
~TEGRffiVANCEPROCEDURE
You may submit a grievance about a condition in the j ail if you think it is a problem or is unfair. You cannot grieve: disciplinary actions (there is an appeal process for that), classification decisions, incidents or problems which youwere not party to, a collection of unrelated complaints, and no group grievances.
To file a grievance, you must follow the steps below' in the order shown. You cannot skip one.
1. An inmate may request a Grievance Form from any Corrections Deputy at any time to bring to attention any perceived problems and proposed solutions. The Deputy will address any grievance within the scope of his/her authority and document any action taken regarding the request within five (5) working days.
2. The inmate may redirect the grievance to the Shift Supervisor for any complaint which cannot be reasonably resolved by the Deputy. The Supervisor will address any grievance within the scope of hislher authority and document any action taken on the form within five (5) working days.
3. If the complaint is not resolved to the inmate's satisfaction by the Supervisor, the inmate may send the Grievance Form to the Facility Supervisor or his designee. The Facility Supervisor or designee will address the complaint and document any action taken on the form within five (5) working days.
4. Ifthe complaint is not resolved to the inmate's satisfaction by the Facility Supervisor, the inmate may send a sealed Grievance Form to the Sheriff. The Sheriff will address the complaint and document his decision on the form within ten (10) working days. The Sheriff's decision will be fmal!
Inmates may file an Emergency Grievance in the event that circumstances exist to warrant one. This will be filed directly to the Jail Commander in a sealed envelope, utilizing the same inmate grievance form.
~TEREQUESTFORMS
The Inmate Request Forms (also known as kites) are available upon request. There are two of them. One will be for general questions, law library and visiting. The other form will be a Medical Request Form. This is only for the medical staff and doctor to answer and will be forwarded to them. There are separate forms to correspond with Columbia County Community Corrections or with Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE)/Immigration.
~TE WORKER ACTIVITIES
If you want to work in the j ail, you will need to request and fill out an Inmate Worker Labor Agreement, then submit it into the mailbox. It may take several days to receive your copy.
Staffwill select various inmates to do kitchen, custodial or maintenance jobs in the facility. Health care staff must clear you before you can participate in the worker activities, especially in the kitchen.
You may receive work time credit only if you are sentenced and your sentence order authorizes it. Any change of ajob description or shift must be approved by a Supervisor.
Page 7 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10
CC001480
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 58; Page 10 of 35

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 11 of 35

INTERCOM SYSTEM
The call buttons in the cells are to be used for emergency purposes only. They are not to be used for any other communication. If the call buttons are misused, the inmate violating this rule will be written up for failure to abide by the rules of the Columbia County Jail.
LAW LIBRARY
All inmates of the Columbia County Jail will be given access to one hour in the law library per request. Use of the law library will be limited only by time and the'need to maintain the safety and security of the facility. To gain access, you must submit a request form at least twenty-four (24) hours in advance. You will be expected to take a note pad and pencil with you to the law library to assist you in your research. All law books, reference material and other articles must remain in th~ law library to ensure equal access for all :imitates. There will be very limited copying capabilities available to you for which your account will be charged a fee per copy. No inmate will be denied this service based on an inability to pay.
When you finish, you are required to leave the law library orderly and neat. Please be aware that corrections staff cannot provide you with legal advice or legal assistance. Ifyou have any questions, please consult your attorney.
LffiRARY
All inmates of the Columbia County Jail will be afforded ample opportunity to have access to library books within the jail library. The books may be delivered by a cart. You may have up to six books at a time. All books must be returned to the library or the cart, prior to checking out more. If a search of your person or cell reveals that you have more than six books in your possession, you may be subj ected to disciplinary action. Damaged books must be returned to a Deputy, immediately. Possession of damaged books may be grounds for disciplinary action. The six books do not include religious or educational. Discretion of Corrections Staffwill determine whether the books are in fact religious or educational.

POLICY
Jail mail handling procedures must SUppOlt an inmate's and the public's need to communicate in \vriting to carry out legal business and maintain family and community ties. The procedures must also meet the Jail's need for efficient operations that preserve the good order, safety, and security oftlle facility, inrn,ates, and staff.
The Jail's general Inmate Policy is that all mail that is delivered by the United States Postal Service can be , delivered to and sent by im1lates, subject to the restrictions In the Inmate Mail Policy, as described in this manual. The Policy and an Inmate Mail Guide is available on the Jail's website. You are responsible for making sure people you communicate with via matI are av~ral"e of t):le Jail's pol.icies on innlat:e ll,1~il. Please direct them to the Policy and/or guide on the County's website. TheY'l11ayalso call the Jail'at 503-366-4630 to obtain the inf011.natiOli. You may ask a Deputy for a copy of the Inmate Mail Guide.
DEFINITIONS
Book. A printed composition bound in a volume.
Contraband. 1) Controlled substances as defined in ORS 475.005(6). 2) Drug paraphernalia as defined by ORS 475.525(2).3) Any cun'el1cy or negotiable instIull1ent. 4) Any itelTI that a person in a correctional facility is prohibited by statute, rule, or order from obtaining or possessing, and whose use would endanger the safety or secul"ity of the facility or person in the facility. 5) An unauthorized item in an inmate's possession or in a cell, bunk, or common area. 6) An authorized item altered in any way. 7) }\tiore than the authorized number of an item.
Inmate Mail. Vvritten correspondence to or fTom an inmate in the Columbia County Jail.
Indigent. ,An inmate wh.o has less than $5 in his or her inmate account and has not had 1l10re than that amount for seven days.

, Page 8 '- Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10

CC001481

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 58; Page 11 of 35

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 12 of 35

Infiam.matory materiaL Written or printed materials that pose a threat to the security, safety, or

good order of the jail because it may incite or advocate pbysical violence against others. This includes

material that advocates the supremacy or hatred of a raciaI, religious, national., or other group of people.

(Note: CriticislTI ofjail operations, programs, or staff, on its own, is not infiaDlfnatory material. Tfthe

. i

criticism involves an illegal act or violates a j ailmle, staff \\fill handle it as that type of prohibited mail.)

Jail Commander. The Columbia County Jail Connnander or his/her designee.

Jail Supervisor. Any Corrections Deputy designated at the rank of sergeant or higher.

Junk mail / Bulk mail. Printed materials, often sent as mass mailings, such as catalogs~ advertisements~ biochures~ circulars, newsletters, and pamphlets whose primary purpose is to sell,
promote or solicit for, a product or service. Jllilk mai1'bulk mail may come using a variety ofpostage rates, including but not limited to bulle mail rates. Junk IvfailfBulle 11ai1 may be solicited or unsolicited.

Legal mail. Incoming or outgoing mail addressed to or from an licensed attorney.

lvlail hcmd1eL A staff membCI <;'11110 picks tlP, trcmspolt3, 30rt15, deliv C15, illspeets, [cuds, OJ perfonm atht.]. dtltics related to pro\...cssnlg imnak mail.

Negotiable instrument. A \vritten doclffilent that represents an unconditional promise to pay a specified amount of money upon the demand of its owner. Examples include checks and promissory notes. Negotiable instmments can be transferred from one person to another, as when a person \vrites !lpay to the order of' on the back of a check in order to turn it over to someone else.

Offi.cial1\-1ail. Incoming or outgoing mail addressed to or from the sheriff,jail command staff, probation authorities, district attorney, state attOlney general, Govelnor, court, a court official, and other contining authorities, or addressed to or from the inmate's medical provider, or addressed to or from the inmate's religious clergy or other leader, or addressed to or from. the news media:-

Periodical. A magazine, newspaper, newsletter, or other publication formed ofprinted sheets that is issued at regular, specified intervals by a publisher.

Personal business. Business necessary to meet ordinruy personal obligations, including but not limited to, paying taxes, making moiigage or other loan payments, renewing licenses, and makll1g rent or lease payments.

Personal mail. Mail to or from family, friends, or for personal business. Personal mail does not include legal mail, official nlail, publications, or junk mail/bulk mail.

Publication. Periodicals and books.

Raving Deputy. A Deputy PCl fUlIning 10 \ling dtities its d..£mcd tlt~.del post Olciel s dtiring au assigned shift.

Sexually explicit: 1) A pictorial depiction of any of the following: actual or simulated sexual acts (including sexual intercourse, oral sex, anal sex, or masturbation); sexual penetration; bestiality; sexual
violence; sadomasochistic behavior; excretOlY functions; and exposed genitalia, anus, or femailthe
nipple or ru'eolaOi nipples (to inelode rueold3) of fctnclle bleasts, unless the exposure is tor legitllllate
medical, religious, or anthropological reasons. 22) A ~\i!iHcn 01 f)ict01ial depiction oflcwdltcss, livcntiollsnes5, 01 gldphic crotie behavior d.e3igned to cClose scxtlill cxcitement . 3) Sex acts involving children. 4) 1v1aterials that violate state and local obscenity laws. (Note: \Vhether the material is
commercially produced or is personally made or written has no bearing on this definition.)

The Inail is deHY'e1cel to the Shc;tiff's Offivc pe1 U.S. P05tai Service guidelines, excluding holidays. Sellc!'ll Rules. ~{ou nUl.)' E>e.tld and 1eceive eOIIcsp01ldenee. through the U.S. ~vfa.iL Hand. d.elivercd tndil, me,,$dges aad notes ~viJI not tIc accepted or to! willded to you. E..<:c...pt for Ullt~St.1al eitcunlstanee3, such as 01.1 hol;~lctys or v''V'eek.cnd~, in.\.;Oulillg 1i1.<lil·~\iill be for ~v-atded to you vv-ithin. 24 honrs of its recc.~pt. Outgoing 1I.rail vviU be placed ht d pickup box "dthin
24 hour,:, Ofl12.CC; trillg it froth you. If we rc.cci\fc nlail for you ctfkr yOt~r de.pmtmc, it ~'V at be retur!le.d

Page 9 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10

CC001482

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 58; Page 12 of 35

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 13 of 35
I

EAcept fell "Offici.dJ or Legal and. Confideutialrnail," st.aff lllZCY 5Ghl aud inspect all ~llconlihg and

OUCgO;J.lg m.a:il. "Official or Legal L1.nd Corrfide.hti,tl nidi}" is aU Inail to OJ. 110111 yOriI ZtttOlll.Cj,

l!Qvelll1UCllt officiab.
oi ;cligious COlJiilCt6,

.faa C.olunraUJ.ct, Sheliff, the rnct1ia. 'Ne may- open

cOuri5, v-mu dOCtOl or mediv('ll and inspect this I.nail in fi01l.t o

ffay.oc.u]ittv~,

evtrC6"litfuicabitledoe~

not c.ontain contraband..

Page 10 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10

CC001483

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 58; Page 13 of 35

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 14 of 35

I
ThTIVIATE }VIAlL

1. I.nmate }\tIail Limits and Restrictions/Overview

Thf;; Colunlbia County Jail will nOlTIlaUy not limit, censor, or restrict the volume, lallgllage~ content, format or source of inmate mail. However, some lim.itatiol1S are necessary to assure the safety, and security of inmates, j ail staff~ and the public, as well as to aSSUl"e the efficient operation of the Ja1 L

2. Specific Limitations on Inmate l\tlail.

a. PersonallVlail. Except as otherwise provided below, personal mail may be sent and received by imnates only in postcard form. The following exceptions apply to this policy:

1. A Jail Supervisor may allow an inmate who is continuously involved in rehabilitation programs permission to correspond with a specific person in non-post card fonn (both sending and receiving). A supervisor must document that correspondence with the person is in the best interest of an inm,ate's rehabilitation. A suitable example 111igbt include a letter sent to reconnect with family prior to release.

11. A Jail Supervisor may approve incoming and outgoing mail in non-postcard fenID so that an inmate can conduct necessary personal business. Examples of this exception include, but are not linlited to the use of a business reply envelope to send a document back to the originating fum or sif,rning a mailed-in personal check to make a rent or car payment or renew a driver's
license. If it appears to theSupervisor that the imnate has no other reasonably available means to take care of personal business, and that the personal business cannot reasonably wait until the inmate is released~ the Supervisor shall allow the exception, subject to the
following:

(1)

Checks must not have a blank payee line.

(2)

If reasonably possible, the inmate must act to add a cosigner to a checking account

or make other arrangements to prevent reoccurrence of this need.

(3)

Supporting documents, such as payment coupons or rent contracts, must accompany

personal business mail.

b. Publications. Publications are pelnlltted in the Jail, su~ject to the follm:ving requirements:

i. .t..t\n inmate ll1ust have someone outside the jail prepay for any publication he or she receives. An inmate may not engage in any delayed payment or credit ordering of pUblications while
inside the jail.

11. Books. An inmate may receive up to three books on a single mail delivery day. Books must
come directly from the publisher, a book club;or a bool)Btore. Books lnay be new or used.
Books may not be larger than 9 inches by 12 inches. Books may not have plastic or metal bindings. Either hardback or paperback books are acceptable for general popUlation inmates. Inmates in segregation, incl.uding medical segregation, may only receive paperback books. Ivlail handlers v-rill consider any other item jn the envelope or parcel as contraband and treat the parcel as prohibited mail.

iii. Periodicals. An inmate may receive up to three periodicals on a single mail delivery day. Periodicals nlUst be new and be mailed directly from the publisher or bookstore.

iv. No blanket prohibition. ,1\1ail hand1ers will determine whether a specific publication violates jail rules. However, this detennination must be lJlade on a case by case basis. There shall be no blanket prohibition on any publication.

c. Legal and Officiall\1aiL

(1) Jail stafflJlust protect the rights of inmates to ptivileged, confidential communication \vith their attorneys, the courts~ and confining authorities.

(2) A sender of legal or official mail is responsible for legitimately, properly~ and clearly

Page '11 -Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10

CC001484

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 58; Page 14 of 35

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 15 of 35

marking and addressing legal and official mail so that jail staff recogriize it and treat it as being confidential, as tollows:.

(1) The retunl address on all incoming legal and official mail must have the sender's job, agency, or firm title and address either cOll1mercially preprinted
on Ole envelope or a label, or as an ink stamp. The sender's name should be handwritten if not preprinted. Staff \vi11 treat all mail with return addresses that are completely hand\~iritten as personal maiL

(2) The words "Legal Mail/' '~Official11ail/' or similar designation must appear on Ole address side of the envelope. Jail staff will not assume the contents of any letter fi'om an attorney~ law firm, or government official is legal or ofJicial maiL Jail Staff will treat all mail without the legal or official mail mark as personal mail.

(3) Jail statlwill treat improperly marked or addressed mail as personal mail.

(3) Staff must not open recognized legal or official mail outside the presence of the

inmate. They shall only open it in the presence of the inmate to inspect it for

contraband, but they must not read its contents.

.

(4) A staff member must write a Jail Incident Report ifhe or she inadvertently opens a piece of recognizable legal or official mail outside the presence of the inmate.

(5) Before legal or offi.cial mail leaves the pod, staff must verify that any letter marked as legal or official mail is addressed to a person that qualifies for that privacy protection. Deputies willwili contact a Jail Supervisorshift sergeant if they suspect fraud.

(6) Jail staff\'I\rill pursue administrative, criminal, and disciplinary actions, as fitting, against all those involved in the fraudulent use of legal or official mail designations.

d.

Other Prohibited Mail/Contraband.

1.

An imnate may not receive or send iml1atemail that contaiJ1s:

(1) Threats of physical harm, blackmail, extortion, or other criminal activity;

(2) Plans for escape, criminal activity, or activity that violates jail rules;

(3) Gang-related material;

(4) Information that, if conveyed, could result in physical hann to someone;

(5) Sexually explicit materials;

(6) Inflanunatory material;

(7) Contraband including but not limited to such COIDl110nly mailed items as: (a) Books larger than 9 by 12 inches or with plastic or metal bindings; (b) Jvlore than three books or publications in a single piece of mail; (c) Controlled substances as defined by ORS 475.005(6); (d) Foreign substances, such as bodily fluids, lipstick or perfume, glue or paint or anything \vith an unusual stain or odor that indicates a
foreign substance lnay be present.;

(8) Cash or negotiable instrUlllents unless specifically allowed to conduct personal business.

ii.

An inmate may not send or receive inmate mail that:

(1) is "written in code or suspected code;

(2) \Vas not sent through the USPS or other approved system;

Page 12 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10

CC001485

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 58; Page 15 of 35

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 16 of 35

(3) Is to or from a person with whonl the inmate is prohibited from communicating;

(4) V\'ould violate a cOUlt order;

(5) 11ay produce a hostile work environment by sexual harassment or otherwise;

(6) Is a credit or defelTed billing transaction, such as '"bill me later" subscriptions or merchandise bought on credit or collect-on-delivery tenus;

(7) Is fraudulently marked as legal or official mail;

(8) Includes logistical infOlmation about an inmate's upcoluing healtll care appointrnent(s}s.

e.

Sources of Incorning lVlail. Jail Staffwill only ace-ept incoming inmate mail that has been

delivered by the U.S. Postal Service unless otherwise specifically authorized by the Jail

Commander.

f.

Postage-Due 1\1ail. The jail wiilnot accept or pay for incoming inmate mail v'vith postage

due.

g.

Parcels. Incoming parcels are allowed if they contain books or periodicals frOlTI a publisher

or bookstore. A parcel may only contain up to three books or three periodicals. Mail

handlers will consider any other item ill a parcel as contraband and treat such a parcel as

prohibited mail. Parcels are also allowed to and fl.-om iml1ates for legal or official mail, or for

personal business vlhen an exception is authorized.

h.

Commercial Business Transactions and Government Services by Mail

1.

Except as provided in (2)~ below, inmates may not conduct cormnereial business

transactions or request services from government agencies through inmate m.aiL

11.

A Jail Supervisor luay approve personal business luail as described in paraf,rraph 2.A.

111. Examples of commercial business transactions and government agency requests include, but are not limited to:

(l) Buying or selling an item, real property, or service;

(2) Applying for a credit card;

(3) Applying for a commercial or student loan;

(4) Opening a ballie account;

(5) Enrolling in a college course;

(6) Applying for tood stamps;

(7) Any obligation of funds to which the inmate does not have access.

3.

General Limitations on Inmate Mail.

In addition to the specific limitations on inmate mail set forth above, additional limitations may apply

in the following circUDlstances:

-

A. There is reason to believe that such correspondence would jeopardize personal safety~ j aU security or good order, inm.ate treatment, or would facilitate violation of the law.

B. There is reason to believe that a sentenced inmate in rehabilitative programs wOlild benefit from limited contacts and/or inmate maiL

Page 13 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10

CC001486

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 58; Page 16 of 35

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 17 of 35

C. Inmates may receive a disciplinary sanction that restri.cts personal mail. (See policy J212, Rules and Discipline.)

4.

General Provisions for Inmate I\:lail

a.

Postcards. Inmates may send postcards they receive in their initial imnate hygiene kit or

.through jail commissary. Inmates may receive postcards in any size that is delivered by the

U.S. Postal Service up to a lnaximum size of 5-112" tall x 8-l/2~' wide. Postcards may have

photographs on one side as allowed by the U.S. Postal Service and jail rules. No other

photographs are allowed on postcards. Inmates are not limited to a specific number of

postcards that they may receive or send. Lodged imnates receive t\~.ro postcards in their

hygiene kit, and may purchase additional postcards throughjail commissary. Policy 212,

Rules and Disdpline, sets limits on the number ofpersonal mail items allowed in an inmate's

cell.

b.

I.ndigent Inmate MaiL Indigent inmates may purchase an indigent hygiene kit through the'

commissary program once per week. Hygiene kits are taken to the pods and offered to all

inmates. The indigent hygiene kit consists of two postage prepaid postcards, a pencil and

hygiene items.

c.

Addressing Inmate }\trail. Incoming mail must have the inmate's booking name and should

have the' im:nate' s booking nunlber as part .of the addressee information.

d.

Return Address. InCOl1Jing mail must have the name and address of the sender. The retmn

address on legal and official mail must have the sender's job, agency, or fi.rm title and

address cOIDnlercially preprinted or staJ.llped.

e.

Cert.ified l\laillSpecial mail services. This section applies to legal and official mail as well

as to personal business mail when authorized.

1.

An inmate may send up to two letters as certified mail in a 30-day peri.od. The

inmate must have suffi.cient funds in his or her account to pay for the service. A Jjail

Ssupervisor may make exceptions to the vohune of certitied mail an iml1ate sends

and may approve credit to allow an. indigent inmate to send certified maiL

ii.

An inmate that needs to send a letter using certified mail must fill out an Inmate

Request Form. Only the Jjail SupervisoreOnldlC!:Jlcicr can approve such a request. The

Jail Commander will ensure that the inmate's correspondence is ready to mail at the

tilne of the request. If an inmate's request for certified mail is approved, the Jjail

SuperviSOICOlllnlallcicr will forward the request to the front office staff.

(1) Jail staff will verify lithe inmate has sufficient funds in his or her account before processing any request. They Virill ±<.:nward requests from indigent inmates to a supervisor. The inmate will fill out the necessary U.S. Postal
Service forms-Receipt for Certified Mail CPS Form 3800) and Domestic RetmTI Receipt (PS Form 3811). The letter and the fornls will be forwarded to front office staff. who 'will mail the letter and charge the inmate for the postal fees for these special services. The inmate request fonn will be the source document authorizing the charge.

(2) Jail Staffwill fOlward the Domestic Return Receipt on to the illmate when it returns in incoming mail. They will return the DOll1estic Return Receipt postcard to the post office if the inmate is no longer in jail when it returns·in the mail.

f.

Inmate Request Form. An inmate shall use an hlmate Request Form to request permission

to mail oversize or ovenveight items, or for other special postal services, when allowed. If

the Jail Commander approves such a request, funds will be drawn from the inmate's account

to cover the costs.

g.

Junk/Bulk )\tlail. Jail staffwill accept solicited and or-unsolic.ited junk mail and solicited

and unsolicitedor-bulk mail for irunates, unless it violates other mail restrictions (such as

containing sexually explicit content). .

h.

Pre-Stamped :Envelopes. Jail staffwiJ.1 make pre-stamped First Class business size or

manila envelopes available for inmates to buy from the commissary for legal or official mail.

Page 14 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10

CC001487

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 58; Page 17 of 35

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 18 of 35

Indigent inmates may obtain pre-stamped envelopes for legal or official mail and approved personal business upon request.!)':'I paragraph 6.

1.

Inmate 1\1ail Written i.n a Forei.gn. Language. Incoming and outgoing mail iNTltten in a

language other than English maym:ttSt be inte111Teted prior to delivery to determine whether

the mail violates these rules.

5.

Appeals.

a.

By Inmates. Inmates wishing to appeal. a decision to deny delivery of incoming inmate mail

or the mailing of outgoing inmate mail must follow' the nonnal grievance procedUTertte set

forth in the inmate manual and Policy J207, Imnate Rights.

h.

By Others. If a person believes that any incoming or outgoing inmate 111.ail ",vas iluproperly

confiscated by the Jail, they may appeal the action to the Jail Commander by sending a

written letter stating the specific reason(s) why the action was improper. The letter must be

received within 15 days from the date oftlle prohibited Mail Notice. Or, ifno Prohibited

Mail Notice was received, within 15 days fl.-om. the date the person knew or should have

kno\1\'l1. of the appealed action. The letter shaH include the sender's name and reU1Tn address.

The Jail Commander will consider the appeal and will issue a decision on the appeal 'within

fift.een days of receiving the letter. However, if the Jail COTIIDlander made the initial decision

regarding the mail in question, the Sheriff will consider the appeal and issue the decision.

The appeal process will be set forth in the prohibited 11ail Nolie-e.

Ge.net at rviail Rttlcs. \...fe loa), place linlit5 on yonr ntail bC\..a'ttSc of its voitl1ne, its affect on yom rehabilitation or tlcatnle.tlt,o.r £01 the sdfety, s0vnrit)', and good oIde! of the jaiL VvTe m'ljJ ope1.i dnd U:lsped all n.t~,il £01 contraband and fi1a)' read nU personal iuaiL J.,Ve ~vill prc/vid\.- an Inmate rvfdil Guide for mernbe15 of the public. The guide, printed in its entirety berow explains luail ttl.iv5 and ~·ha.t they Clln and cannot send you. People loa), also Can (503) 3664630 to gvt the infOn.L1ati.O.ll fOtllld ill the guide 01 1ead it Oll tbe jail's vveb site dt. t;!\'-W w.co.columbia.vI •tis/sheriff

Page 15 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10 CC001488
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 58; Page 18 of 35

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 19 of 35
INJ:\fATE J\;IAIL GUIDE
Pel sonall'flail Innlatc5 may send or rceeiv-e per50nal Inail flom fiicnds, fanlily, or associates on p05tcruds only.
Inmates may- reeci"e p05tcatds ill ally size thai i5 delivc1ed by the D'.S. Postal S6viec tip to a Inaximmn 5i.6C of 5-1/2" [,tIL x 8-112" ~fide. huni'rtcs may receiv-e p05tcruds with photographs 011 one side as allo~-ed by the U.S. Postal Service. The jail d.oes not pertuit any other form of personal mail
fo1 imuates.
Addressing lmuate ~fail Imnatc mail must ha V'e the irmlatc'[) booking Utlmbel as pat t of the addt ossee itlfolmation. Incotning
hlail nlttst have a letil[n dddtcss to include the name and addtess of the sender. Plohibited tvfail
}'l.il staff will not aHo~ an imnate to receivc or send mail that Contains Threats of physical harm, blackrnail. cxtortion. or other critninal activitY.Plans for escape,
crilninal acthritf. or acti;;ity that 9iolatesjail rulcs.Gang-related InateriaLInfornlation that, if c01n.eyed, eotlld lestllt in physical harm. to 50nlCo.ne.Scxtlc.tlly explicit matetials.fn:fimnma.ror y
material such as advocating violen.ee against a grOtlp based upon religion, race, gender or cthn~city.ContI aband lnate.t ia!s including bttt not Litnited to such con11.nonl y luailed rtenls a.s.Books largCl tildl1 9 by 12 inches or with plastic 01 metal binditlgs.t.viore tha.n three books in a single piece
ofmail.Cont101led substallcCS 215 defIned bY' ORS 475.525Foreign substances, such as. Bodily fItlidsLipstick Of perfum:cGlue or paintAn ything with an Ulltlsual stain or odor that indicates a
foreign substance nra2 bc present-Is wlittell itl code or suspected code.
Was a form of vIiI itten communication not sent tiuough the USPS or other appro v-cd sY5tem.Is to or
frotn a victiin ofct critne that the itrmate i5 in custody fu1 ill either menial 01 sentenced status.\Votlld violette a court order'!vfay procitlce a hostile work envir01ttncnt. stIch as sCAtlal hmassment.Is it credit 01 deferred billing ttansaction; stlch as "bill me lateI" subscriptions 01 Ine[cllc.tt1dise bought on credit
01. coHect-on-delivery ternls. Is frattdulentl y luarked as legal 01 official mail. Fill more specific information about prohibited rnail piea.se review the full Inmate Jail Po1ic1 J603-
ROO Appcah, Both the itlttlatc and all otltside peIson have the li~ht to apped} a decisiol1 to [ehun or confiscate irmlc.lte inai!. "SvVith ver y Hilt1ited exceptions, the. Jail will pro vide aliotice of Pr ohibited '?viall to both the sender aI1d c.lddw5See when irrunate incom.ill.g m.ail is rettullcd or confiscated. The Notice of Prohibited rvfail will c,(plian the reason why the IDnlatc lnail ~~a5 rettl!lled or confiscated. The appcal process fOt OtltgOtllg inmate umi! follOy\1 5 tile Jail's normal gtievallce pIocess. The appeal process for ev-e.t~one else requires a ktter explaining the rCaSOll for the appcal, dnd p10viding contdct infonnation. The Jailwili respond within 15 days ofrcccipt of the letter.
6. GenerallVla.H Rules: \,Ve may place lhnits on your Inail because of its vohune, its affect on your rehabilitation or treatnlent, or for the safety, security, and good order of the jail. We n1ay open and inspect allnlail for contraband and Inay read all personal mail.
Page 16 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10
CC001489
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 58; Page 19 of 35

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 20 of 35
¥/e will plov-ide all Inmate Mail Gllidcf01H.lCmbc150fthepu-b-li-e.Thcguide.pr~rited in its viltir\.-tj below explaius mail rules and v-vh':lt they Cdn and cannot send )fOLI. People moL'ty also call (503) 366-4630 to get th:e
infonuatiofi found in the guide or read it all the jail's 'Ncb site at: W ww .co.Colru,ilbia.01.tlsh5hcriff
7. "Do',' Mail Rules for Inmates
For mail, you must do the following:
a-l-. Use only lead or pencils. to write letters. 82. Use only jail COlnn1.1Ssarv-approved postcards-for personal1uaiLsold through the cornmissru: y
01 issued by staff for social mail. d. Keep the weight of legal or official correspondence in a pre-stamped envelope below 1
ounce (28 gm). To keep a business envelope to one ounce or less means the contents cannot be more that four 8-1/2" x 11" sheets of standard weight paper. Other envelopes may be purchased through the comlnissary. 4. Keep yom friends and family informed if yon recei \:-ed books. newspapers. O! money they hal,ie provided fur yot!.
ro. When you are released or transferred from the jail, send change-of-address notifications to
those that send you Inailpostcards and periodicals. e6. Put the correct return address noted Oli the 5ampk postcard belovv on all your outgoing mail.
Tell people sending you 111allpostcru:cis or either acceptable mail to use your correct- it to address mail to yOU. Write the recipient's full name and complete address legibly on any mail you send.
8. ------..,;::;..:, "Don't" Mail Rules for Inmates
You may not do any of the following:
a-l-. Draw or write anything on a postcard in the address area or on the picture of the postcard other than name and address information.
b2. Send out jail forms for others to fill out on your behalf. d. Send prohibited mail. d4.--Send out jail propert).'Y': e5. Order pUblications on credit or delayed billing from the jail. f6. Operate a commercial business or nonprofit organization from the jail.
t1:. Order correspondence courses unless you have a jail supervisor'scornmand offivel. '5
approvaL h£-. Conduct commercial or personal business transactions or request services from a
government agency unless you have a jail supervisor'scomnland officer'5 approval. i9. You may not send mail to another inmate in this facility without prior written permission.
9. Sending and Receiving Mail
a. You may send and receive maileoncspond:ence only through the U. S. Postal Service. The jail internal mail system is for communicating only with jail staff. Any transfer of written communication on your part that does not comply with mail rules and procedures is a rule violation that subjects you to discipline. This includes sending notes to other inmates or notes, postcards or mail to anyone by way of a contact visit, court appearance, or transport. People may not leave mail, messages, or notes for you at the jaiL Personal mail must come on a commercially produced postcard which does not exceed 5 liz by 8 liz inches unless a jail supervisor authoIizes use of an envelope.
L Except in unusual circumstances and on holidays or weekends, we will deliver incoming mail to you
within 24 hours of its receipt. We will put outgoing mail in a pickup box within 24 hours of receiving it from you. There is no pickup by the post office on weekends and holidays.
Page 17 ..; Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10
CC001490
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 58; Page 20 of 35

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 21 of 35

c. It is important that you use a person's complete and correct address when sending mail. If someone says he or she did not receive something you sent and you did not receive a confiscation notice from us, it is a matter for you to resolve with the post office-not the jail. For your convenience, the addresses of commonly contacted government agencies are in appendix 2, Government Pages.
~ We do not forward mail. Ifwe receive mail for you and you are not here, we will return it to the sender. fPlease tell those sending you mail to put on return address on their mailes. We confiscate mail without a return addresses or destroy it if you are no longer in jail.t
Legal 5:H.d Offidall't:iail Lvgal.mail is Inail address~d to Y-OU1 attorney OI COlnes t~onl rom attolltey airel is dearh Inad..ed "'kgal nlait".
Officialll1ail is to or frvl1t cOltfining ,ttltho.titics, like d i,till-ohllhtttld office!, the I5h~J.iff, the vOttaty a.cinlinistutt01. Q1obcttion autllo:ritie~, ,Jisttiet cLt~oLiley, 5tatc attvrncf gel1vraL Gvvernor. COurl. or a vomt officiC:l1.

V{C ~~jll opvn and inspect legal and ofii.:..ial mail ~n flont crfson to make ;:IlliC ~t do\;.) M'lt ...,O.Llta~J..l. I....onh'lband. If yntl

. 1 II

.. _ ;:, t.

(".

.L

Q.

V

.I.. 1

.. A

I.

(

v

.......

v \.J

''"
L1!

1.•• t"

I.. " _ .r.: • 1 ,1

~ .,.., ,.

"...-ill treat it as pC.Lbdnl31 mail. Vie w~ll trea.t mail fldffi 'yom altO.lhCY not .LIlClrkcd cb "leg811hciir' as pv!50md

Inail. You C'l.i.e 5ubjed to disciplinilry' adion and Cli1.1llnal PI05CCtltioa fm :fi:atldulcntiy Itrbd~g anci!\,dop\.J

a1) legal or offieial.Lnail.

Beeks
Yon firay lcceivc up to tluce new or used bool...~ per TIlOnth, wh~dl rna.? be pa.pelb,l,ch. 01 hart.H)ack. Hdrdback bool~s rue not dllo\'Ved in male 01 fe.tnalc s\.Jgicgatioll. Il11natcs in scgregation nHl.V only receive new pupcrbGt\.Jk beloks. A per50n from ottti:!ide the jail must pay for cUld vIder bOOhi:! dileetly £:0111 the publisher, d bool... cltib, or ,t rcputabk bookst:vlC fur yon. Books .lnay not be tat.gel tha119 by 12 inches (228 by 305 fil.m). TIley nlay not havc plastic 01 tuecal bil.ldings.

Jailstaff'Vvill accept solicited or tlnsoHeited itmk ma.il or hulk rnd~l fo ri.llllates u!1lvss ~t violates vthCl t.na~I. le6trictioliS.

A(.ceptable 1vfail
VVe onlv accept packages that contain publiCations froI I; em approved source. An
incoming or outgoing 811velope may on:v contain these type~ of items, and 'v'vith tile noted
limits and restrictions: A",ceptable ;rel50nal Mail Type of rVlailltclnLinrits cui!] Rest1 iction:t

V{rittcll concspondencdvltlst b", (.\ eonnJ.lc.rciaHy produced postcard or legal or official m:ail.

Excludes junk: n.wiL Picturcs Only ph.otographs minted on photo papc.t al1d u~ed as a. postvdtd,

\.kli9cred

via

the

U.s.

Postal

Senf~ee'Chceks

nd
(J

rooney

or \.1""'1. SJnFe

do

n 0 t

ace cp t

eh cc.kt;

0 !

nlvi!C y

01. del;:,. TOtld.m'l-Y i5 ,rvdilablc itl the lobby mill can be ,icces5ed hy phone 01 the 11lteU.1ct. PC1501lal

business d.oCtllHehti:!tfolie, tllt1CSS general ll.lail rules ,,"'"QuId apply.

If it i5 not listed in [hi6 scct.ion. it is COllt.tabdhd dnd vve will rctcull the itcl.J..l to 11.1.c 5e.ndel. confisc'lte it, 01 dcstro y ~t if it pI CSbltS a health or s,\fet y 1~5k.

10. Mail Confiscation: We will give you a Prohibited Mail Noticecon:fiscation nctive for incoming and outgoing mail we pull
Page 18 - Columbia CountY Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10
CC001491
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 58; Page 21 of 35

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 22 of 35

and hold fron) de1iverycon.:fiscate. When we pull parcels confisca:te items because they exceed a number limit, such as books or periodicals, we will confiscate all of the itenls ill the parcelthem rather than selecting some to bring the number down to the limit amount. We will return stored confiscated. mail to you when you are released, if it was not disposed of for health or safety reasons. You may submit a grievance to ask for its return before then. We will return to sender any form ofprohibited mail, along with a prohibited mail slip and notice of appeaL You will also get a notice that we have returned prohibited mail to the sender if it is evidence in a criminal investigation. We Inay provide you with an opportunity to correct violations with Inail you send. In that case, you will not receive a Prohibited Mail Notice unless you refuse to correct the violation.
Use ofEtrrelopcs You may use all env-e1ope sold through the conlmi55alY to senti these tv"pes of letters. 1. Lega.lor official. nlaiL2. A legal or officia.l m:ailletter tha.t should not or 1..-a:1l110t be folded or thd.t is more thall one onnce. 3. 'vVith staff apPfQv at a pel sonalletter that contains a p1ogralu-lc1ated diploilla. or ~,-,rtificat~ that 5hould not or can not be folded. You nUlS! have a Deputy COnfi.llll that rOll a/.e Sell:dillg a diploma 01 certificate before yon seal the:, envelope. ¥Otllnay not use these en.velopes for all y tv pe of 1nail that does not rneet one of the till ee (,1 itelia. listc-d above. We will dednct the cost of the postage from yom imnate account fOf acceptable manila
el1~velope5.
lL Sending Certified Legal or Official Mail
You may send a legal or official letter using U. S. Postal Service Certified Mail and Return Receipt mail services. You Inay send approved personal business nlail using Certified Mail and Retmn Request mail services. You will get receipts that you sent the letter and that the letter was received by the addressee. We will charge you the standard postal rates for these services. You must have money in your inmate account to pay the postal rates or have appropriate approval if you are indigent. A deputy will supply you with a request for Certified Mail form that you need to fill out and submit along with the letter. You may only send 2 certified-mail letters in a 30-day period.
12. Outgoing Mail Inmates will place all outgoing mail in the mail drop located in the day room of each housing unit. You are expected to legibly address your correspondence and use the proper postage. All outgoing mail must list the following return address:
Your full name and Innlate Number Columbia County Jail 901 Port Avenue· St. Helens Oregon 97051
MEALS
Meals will be served three times daily at approximately 6:30 A.M., 12:00 P.M. and 5:00 P.M. Preclassification and disciplinary inmates may be required to eat in their cells. All others will line up for service, and will eat at the tables provided in the day rooms. If you choose not to eat, please advise the deputy. Televisions will be off during the serving of meals. Once the meals have been served and the Deputy leaves the pod, the television may be turned back on. Do not save ·food from meal service.

i .

. Page 19 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10

CC001492
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 58; Page 22 of 35

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 23 of 35

meal, to be taken directly out of their individual inmate trust account to cover the additional cost of these meals. Indigent inmates will-not be eligible to receive this type of special diet.

MEDICAL SERVICES

The Columbia County Jail will provide emergency medical, dental, and mental health care to all inmates regardless of their ability to pay for such services. No inmate will be denied care for serious health care needs based on the cost of medical services or the inmate's inability to pay for health care. All medical visits initiated by you will be assessed a fee which will be charged to your personal money account. You will be financially responsible for any elective surgery or other treatment you may request from your personal physician, dentist or other provider.

Medical screening or appraisals at intake, or for inmate workers will be provided at no cost to you. All Detainees will receive a medical evaluation within their first 14 days of incarceration.

Prescription medications: You will be charged for all prescription medication prescribed for you and purchased by the jail on your behalf.

Over the counter medications such as; Tylenol, Aspirin, antacid etc., will be available from our medical department for a small charge.

MEDICATION

Health care staff may fill prescriptions at their discretion. Health care staff may discontinue prescribed medication as directed by the jail health care supervisor or physicians. If you came' from another correctional facility and had your medication transferred with you, the transporting Deputy will give your medication to the health care staff. If you are leaving our jail and going to another jail, the transporting Deputy will get your medication from the health care staff and transport it with you.

As a warning, any abuse of your medication may result in the discontinuation of your receiving the medicine.

MEDICAL GRIEVANCES

In case of any unresolved problem regarding medical, dental or infirmary care, you may follow'the grievance procedures outlined in this manual.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Columbia Community Mental Health is the provider of these services for the facility. If you feel the need to see a mental health professional, contact a Deputy or the health care staff.

MONEY ACCOUNTS

Each inmate in the Columbia County Jail will have a "money account" established during the booking

procedure. Funds may be deposited 24 hours per day seven days per week, via Visa or Mastercard

by a toll-free phone call to 1-866-232-1899, via internet at: www.touchpaydirect.com or by depositing

cash into a kiosk in the Sheriff's Office lobby. The depositor needs the inmate's name, booking

number, and Facility Locator No., which is 297001. All purchases will be deducted from the

account. Funds deposited to an account showing a negative balance will be deducted from that

balance. The positive balance, if any, is available for the inmate's use. The balance will be

,

refunded to the inmate upon discharge. Inmates who possess a negative balance on their account

will not be denied their basic medical needs such as medical care and hygiene items. With a

negative balance an inmate may request to participate in the 50/50 program at which time 50 % of

any funds placed into the inmate account will go towards the negative balance and the other 50 %

will be placed on the inmate's account ,available for use on individual items in the Jail.

OUTDOOR RECREATION

An open air recreation area is provided in the jail for your use as scheduled throughout the day.

Page 20 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10 CC001493
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 58; Page 23 of 35

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 24 of 35

Central Control will notify each of you of your recreation time. When you are ca'lIed for outdoor recreation, you need to be ready to go. You will leave the Pod in groups of six. No one will be allowed to depart the Pod late for recreation. The TV may be turned off while Control is calling for rec, and while people are leaving.

The following rules apply while using the open air recreation area:

1. Do not yell or attempt to communicate in any way with the people outside the recreation

area, except for Corrections Staff.

2. Do not engage in "horseplay." We do not want people to get injured.

3. You must wear a minimum of aT-shirt, pants and shoes . Movement to or from outdoor

recreation will require the complete uniform, including your 10 card.

,

4. DO NOT take anything other than your 10 card with you to outdoor recreation. This

includes papers, candy, food items and anything that can be used to write or color with. If you are

found with these items, disciplinary action may be taken.

PERSONAL PROPERTY

All personal property items will be stored in the secure storage area of the Columbia County Jail. No personal items will be allowed to be kept on an inmate unless approved by the Jail Commander in writing.

PROGRAM SERVICES

If and when available, you have the opportunity to participate in a variety of program activities. Recommended programs assist you in making constructive use of your time and to make positive changes in your life. We have grouped these into two main categories:

Voluntary activities

Inmate worker activities

You may participate in activities in one or all of these categories depending on your:

Sentencing status Length of sentence

Assessments results Classification

PROPERTY TRANSFERS

You must follow these guidelines regarding your property:

1. You may release your personal property to any adult outside the facility on an "all or nothing" basis. The adult must present a state driver's license, state 10 card, passport or military 10 to jail staff, to ensure property is released to the proper individual. A signed inmate request form from you is required.

2. Release of property is available Monday through Friday from 3:00 P.M. until 4:00 P.M. ONLY.

3. The following exception applies when: An Inmate is committed to a state prison and must release all personal property including their clothing prior to being transported to a state facility. If the property is not picked up prior to the inmate's departure, it will be forwarded to OOOC with the inmate. 4. We do not allow personal property to be dropped off for inmates, except for medical items which will be checked and approVed by medical staff first. Clothes may be brought in if the situation calls for it. This will be at the discretion of the jail Supervisors.
SANITARY INSPECTIONS Deputies will inspect each housing unit daily to ensure it is a safe and clean environment. You will need to follow basic sanitary practices to ensure your cell area meets the sanitation requirements

Page 21 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10 CC001494
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 58; Page 24 of 35

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 25 of 35

and pass the sanitation inspections. If your cell does not meet sanitation requirements, you will lose privileges and be instructed to clean the area. If the day room, shower area and outside recreation areas do not meet sanitation requirements, the entire housing unit may lose privileges. These privileges are those listed at the beginning of this manual. If you or your housing unit lose privileges, they will be reinstated if you pass the next regularly scheduled inspection.

SANITARY PRACTICES

It is your responsibility to keep your cell clean and uncluttered. It is also the responsibility of each member of the housing unit to keep the day room, shower and outside recreation area·clean. You will be provided with cleaning supplies and are expected to use the cleaning supplies as much as necessary to ensure you live in a clean environment.

You are to follow these rules for a clean and healthy housing unit:

Clean your cells, including the sink, toilet, floors and door windows daily.

Pod Porters will clean day room areas daily.

Pod Porters will clean the following, but not limited to: Tables, floors, stairs, walls, showers,

bathroom areas, railings, and windows.

Keep the walls clean and free of graffiti or marks of any kind.

Place all garbage in the trash cans in the housing units.

Keep all pictures and papers off the walls, bunks, bottom of bunks. Do not hang,

stick, or paste pictures or papers to the walls, bunks or any where else in the facility.

Keep commissary food items in your property container. (Gray totes)

Do not save food from meal service.

Wash your hands frequently.

. Participate in laundry exchange twice weekly.

.

Shower at least twice weekly, but we strongly encourage you to shower daily.

Keep the showers clean, and free of excess soap and shampoo bottles.

Keep your gray bin or tote clean

Perform any other duties that Corrections Staff may assign.

Keep your room or bunk area uncluttered of excess items. This includes legal papers.

Ask staff for assistance if you have a large amount of legal papers to store.

Vents for air circulation should be kept clean and obstruction free.

SEARCHES

Jail staff may conduct random unannounced searches of your person or of items in your possession, and in any area of the jail at any time. Your personal property and/or living area may be searched without your permission and whether or not you are present.

SELF-ESCORT

Most inmate movement within the jail, including visiting, medical, programs, work assignments Etc., will be unescorted unless you abuse the privilege. You are expected to conduct yourself in an orderly fashion at all times. Inmates moving unescorted through the facility may not talk to other inmates, may not touch the walls or the glass, loiter or detour while en route to their destination. When leaving an area, you need to state your name and where you are going to Central Control. Any inmate who abuses these rules will be subject to disciplinary action and may lose their opportunity for unescorted movement. The exception will be any inmate who is classified as maximum security and who needs to be escorted in the facility at all times.

SICK CALL

If you need to see medical personnel, fill out the appropriate Inmate Medical Request form. Each day the Medical Staff will address these issues upon receipt of the Request forms.

Page 22 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10 CC001495
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 58; Page 25 of 35

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 26 of 35
SPECIAL DIETS You must direct all requests for medical diets to the heath care staff for approval. If you need a special diet for medical reasons, please submit a request slip to the health care staff. If you need a special diet for religious reasons, please submit a request form. A Deputy will pick up the form from you and give it to a supervisor for approval. If approved, the religious diet will remain in effect for the length of your incarceration. Be aware that there may be a charge assessed for the extra cost associated for the special meal.
TELEPHONE PRIVILEGES Your use of jail telephones is a privilege. Jail staff may limit your telephone use for reasons of safety, security, good order, or sanitation of the jail. Inmates classified to housing units will be allowed to use telephones from 0800 hrs to approximately 2200 hrs, based on the operations of the housing unit you are in. Conversations on any telephone in the jail may be monitored and/or recorded without further notice. You are consenting to this monitoring when you use the jail telephones. There are some local attorney's phone numbers that have been set up as non collect so you can . call them directly from the telephones in the pods. Confirmed attorney phone numbers are .blocked from the monitoring system. All telephone calls from a housing unit are a collect call or by the phone cards that you purchase here. The phone cards are able to be used upon release from the Columbia County Jail. Telephone calls are limited t015 minutes each. The telephone system will warn you before the 15 minute time period is up so you can end your conversation. Inmates are not allowed to receive incoming telephone calls. Jail staff will deliver verifiable emergency messages to you.
REMINDER: TELEPHONES ARE A PRIVILEGE. DO NOT ABUSE THE SYSTEM. ANY DAMAGE TO THE PHONE WILL RESULT IN A DISCIPLINARY HEARING AND A CRIMINAL CHARGE BEING FILED AGAINST THE INMATE.
TELEPHONE SERVICE NUMBER If you or your family have any questions about billing or connection problems concerning the inmate phones, please call the service provider at 1-866-230-7761. We have a brochure available to answer more questions if you need it, please ask and we will provide it.
TRANSFER TO WORK RELEASE CENTER The Courts and/or Supervisory Authority may consider you for transfer to the Work Release Center if authorized on your sentence order. These transfers are not automatic. Jail staff must approve all transfers.
Factors considered in transfer decisions will include: Judge's approval Length of sentence. Individual needs. Available space. Classification. Demonstration of compliance with jail rules, expectations and responsible behavior. If you are interested in participating in any programs, you must submit a request on an Inmate Request Form. Misbehavior or administrative concerns may prevent access to these programs. Disciplinary write-ups or actions will affect program eligibility.
Page 23 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10 CC001496
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 58; Page 26 of 35

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 27 of 35
Page 24 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10
CC001497
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 58; Page 27 of 35

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 28 of 35

VISITING All public visits will be scheduled by the Inmate requesting the visit. The inmate must contact prospective visitors by phone or mail, and determine an acceptable visiting date. Time slots may be used on a first come, first serve basis. Visitors are encouraged to arrive 10 to 15 minutes early to sign in. If all of the slots are taken for that time frame they can either wait till the next times start for that pod, if it is available, or return on another day. Visits will start on the hour and half hour. Authorized visitors shall be members from the inmate's family, and friends age 18 and older. Visitors under the age of 18 must be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian. Attorneys and clergy are not considered public visitors. Inmate visitation is a privilege and while the Columbia County Sheriff's Office encourages visitation, that privilege must be regulated to protect the needs of the entire jail operation. The amount of time allotted for visitation is based upon the classification and status of each inmate.

Inmates assigned to Disciplinary Segregation will not be allowed visitation privileges.

Inmates not yet assigned to a housing unit or who are housed in the pre-classification unit, will not be allowed public visitation.

Inmates serving a sentence of seventy-two hours(72) or less will not be allowed public visitation.

Due to space limitations, acceptable visiting combinations are limited to:

1. One Adult

2. Tvi/o Adults

3.

One Adult and One Child

4.

One Adult and Two Children

5. Two Adults and One Child

Inmates have the right to refuse any visit, however that right should be exercised prior to visiting time.

All inmates wishing to receive public visits must establish a visiting list of not more than five (5) people. Persons not on the approved list will not be allowed to visit. You are able to change your visiting list once every 30 days from the time you establish your list. You need to fill out the visitation part of the request form to make the changes. The minimum information required for each person will be:

1. Visitor's full name

2.

Date of birth

3.

Relationship

4. The name of. any child who may be in the company of his/her parent or guardian.

The Visiting schedule will be posted in the housing units. Visiting times and days are subject to change periodically, so please refer to the schedule when talking to your loved ones.

SPECIAL VISITS

Special considerations may be given for emergency and/or special situations where normal visiting procedures may not be practical. Such situations as the death of a family member or close friend, serious injury of a family member or visitors traveling great distances, who have arrived unexpectedly may be considered on a case-by-case basis by the Supervisor or Corporal on duty. All special visits will be subject to the same rules and requirements as regular visitation. Special visits may be conducted in the Attorney Visiting Rooms if available and necessary due to other visitation which may be in progress.

VISITS WITH ATTORNEY

Inmates shall be given the opportunity to visit their attorneys at reasonable times, consistent with the

safety and security of the facility. All visits will be scheduled by the attorney..

.

Page 25 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10

CC001498

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 58; Page 28 of 35

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 29 of 35

VISITS BY CLERGY . Clergy Visits will be handled as a regular visit. The member of the Clergy you want to have a visit with will be added like a normal visitor just like it is described in the regular visiting rules. They will be allowed to visit you on the regular date and time for the pod you are assigned to. The Clergy member will not count against you for the five people you are allowed to have on your visiting list. The Columbia County Jail provides non denominational religiOUS services once per week and individual bible study twice per week.
VOLUNTARY ACTIVITIES All general population inmates may have access to voluntary activities. These activities include but may not be limited to:
Religious services Narcotics Anonymous (NA) and Alcoholics Anonymous (M) groups Reli ious based life skills classes Individual educational tutorin 21 and under Recreational library Law library A sign up sheet for the voluntary activities will be posted in your housing unit. You must sign up on the provided list to be able to participate. Remember that participation in these activities is a privilege. Participation is dependent on your continued cooperation and responsible behavior.
WAKE UP AND LOCK DOWN Day room and cell lights will be turned on at 6:00 A.M. daily. Make your bed and dress for breakfast. Breakfast service will begin at approximately 6:30 A.M. daily. Day room lights and television will be turned off by about 10:00 P.M. and the cell lights will be turned off at 10:00 P.M.. All inmates must be on their bunks at "lights out" and are required to remain quiet. Each inmate is expected to completely clean your room and area, make your bed, dump trash cans, etc. when the cleaning supplies are available to you. Be aware that there are usually some cleaning materials available at all times.
MINOR RULE VIOLATIONS PROCEDURES

2. The inmate will sign the misconduct report and acknowledge receipt of alleged violation(s) and
the right to appeaL . The inmate may enter a plea of "Guilty" or "Not Guilty". A. Upon entry of a "Guilty" plea, a Deputy will schedule an informal hearing for possible
sanctions to be imposed. B. Upon entry of a "Not Guilty" plea on the misconduct report or upon request for a formal
hearing the incident will be handled the same as a Major Violation. MINOR RULE VIOLATION SANCTIONS
Sanctions resulting from a guilty plea on a Minor Misconduct Report may include: a. Verbal warning. b. Creative sanction appropriate to the offense (i.e. extra work detail, etc.). c. Housing Unit lock down not to exceed 24 hours. d.

e. Re-Classification
Page 26 - Columbia County Jaii Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10.

CC001499

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 58; Page 29 of 35

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 30 of 35

f. .Probation for up to 30 days.

~ While in disciplinary segregation there is no access to programs.

Inmates get one hour out each 24 hours. Telephone (except legal) and television use may not be permitted. Commissary choices are restricted. Personal visits are suspended for the duration of the segregation. Book cart or library access is permitted; however, this privilege may be taken away as a sanction.

MINOR RULE VIOLATIONS

01 Possession of Nuisance Contraband: Any authorized item found in an inmates possession

that has been altered or is in excess of the authorized amount.

.

02 Arguing: Any disagreement which becomes disruptive, loud or obnoxious.

03 Possession of another inmates property.

04 Unauthorized use of facility property or equipment (Le. washers/dryers, barber equipment etc.)

05 Acting as a lookout

06 Being in an unauthorized area without corrections staff present.

07 Purposefully obstructing the view of Corrections Staff.

08 Inappropriate remarks or misuse of the inmate request forms or any of the forms or
paperwork handed out or used in the facility.

09 Unwarranted emergency calls.

10 Horse Playing: Any aggressive or faked aggressive actions, which may lead to or be mistaken for a physical altercation.

11 Disrespect to other inmates (Le. name calling, profanity or accusations directed at another inmate).

12 Cursing, uncontrolled use of profanity or obscenities that may be considered offensive to others.

13 Excessive noise.

14 Failure to properly maintain living area.

.1§... Hanging paper, linen, clothing, etc.' on light fixtures, walls, ceilings etc.

16 Failure to maintain personal hygiene.

17 Improper attire (Le. not following the dress code stated in the manual).

18 Displaying or demonstrating gang affiliations (Le. hand gestures, hand in pants, low riding trousers, etc.).

19 Graffiti: writing, drawing or marking on any of the surfaces of the facility.

20 Posting any type of picture, drawing or any other material on the walls, bunks or any the surfaces of the facility.

21 Misuse of the intercom system.

22 Disrespect towards any Staff Member or Sheriff's Office Employee

23 Disruptive Behavior

Page 27 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10

CC001500

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 58; Page 30 of 35

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 31 of 35

24 Unauthorized use of the typewriter. (Law Library)

25 Lying to Staff Members.

26 Other

MAJOR RULE VIOLATION PROCEDURES

All Major Rule Violations will be handled through a formal disciplinary process, and require a formal

hearing.

'

1. When an inmate commits, or.is believed to have committed a Major Rule Violation, the inmate will be immediately placed on pre-hearing segregation status pending the outcome of the disciplinary hearing, regardless the nature of the alleged conduct. This can cause restriction in your privileges.

2. The accused inmate shall be served with a Major Rule Citation and the Inmate Rights form by the citing Deputy as quickly as is practical, after the violation is discovered, but in no case shall it be longer than 24 hours after the investigation is complete.

3. The inmate will have a hearing before a hearings officer within five (5) days of the incident excluding Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays. The inmate will be notified at least 24 hours prior to the hearing.

4. After the hearing, the hearings officer can render a decision immediately or within 72 hours.

A. If the inmate is found "Not Guilty", the inmate will be restored to the same status and privileges as before charged.

B. If the inmate is found "Guilty", the Hearings Officer will impose an appropriate sanction from the Major Rule Violation Sanction list.

MAJOR RULE VIOLATION SANCTIONS

Sanctions resulting from a finding of "Guilty" in a hearing for a Major Violation may include the following:

1. Temporary or permanent change in programming to include:

A. Change in housing assignments. (Le. re-classification)

B. Change in custody status.

C. Removal from work status with concurrent suspension of credit for work, as directed by O.R.S.169.'120

2. Reclassification to Disciplinary Segregation for no more than sixty (60) days for all (multiple) violations arising out of one incident (only 30 days maximum on a single violation) and giving credit for time served as appropriate.

3. Loss of Statutory Good time and modification of release date in accordance with O.R.S. 169.110.

4. Suspension of any part, (or all of the above if appropriate), along with information of expected conduct to avoid imposition.

5. Any combination of oile (1) through four (4), listed above.

6. Unless medically or psychiatrically required, no segregated inmate shall be denied clothing or bedding that is allowed to general population inmates.

7. Segregated inmates shall be provided the same food as general population inmates.

8. Personal hygiene items and shower facilities will be provided regularly to segregated

Page 28 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10

CC001501

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 58; Page 31 of 35

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 32 of 35
inmates, unless there are documented security reasons which would prohibit them.
JL While in disciplinary segregation there is no access to programs. Inmates get one hour out
each 24 hours. Telephone ( except legal) and television use is not permitted. Commissary choices are restricted to hygiene items only. Personal visits are suspended for the duration of the segregation. Book cart or library access is permitted; however this privilege may be taken away as a condition of the sanction.
MAJOR RULE VIOLATIONS 40 Habitual Misconduct: 3 or more separate minor rule violations within 30 days. 41 Refusing to comply with a Deputy's! Staff! Kitchen Staff directives. 42 Tampering with or destruction of Identification Card 43 Refusing to lock down on command, or during a disturbance. 44 Refusing to go to court. 45 Tampering with security devices! facility equipment. 46 Threatening or strong arming another inmate. 47 Giving false information to a Deputy. 48 Creating a disturbance while on lock down (Le. banging doors, excessive noise, flooding the
cell, etc).
50 Threatening staff members 51 Smoking, or possession of smoking paraphernalia. 52 Possession of unauthorized beverages (Le. pruno). 53 Indecent exposure. 54 Theft. 55 Extortion.
56 Destruction of, or Defacing County property. 57 Possession of illegal drugs or prescription medications belonging to another or misuse of
prescribed medications. 58 Participation in organizing or recruiting for gang related activities. 59 Sexual misconduct! homosexual activities 60 Fighting. 61 Assault on another inmate. 62 Assisting a suicide 63 Possession of a weapon. 64 Assault on a staff member. 65 Attempted or actual escape, or possession of an escape plan. 66 Participating in or inciting a riot.
Page 29 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10 CC001502
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 58; Page 32 of 35

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 33 of 35
67 Taking a hostage 68 Arson 69 Rape or Sodomy. 70 Homicide. 71 Violation of any Criminal Code 72 Tampering with or altering any other person's food. 73 Other.
VIOLATIONS APPEALS PROCESS All appeals must be submitted to the Facility Supervisor or their designee within 72 hours, following the decision. The Facility Supervisor or designee will review the recommendations and return the appeal form to the inmate within five (5) working days of the appeal. The response time may be extended due to extenuating circumstances or further investigation, with written notice to the inmate of the reason(s) for the delay. Ask a deputy if you need a form.
SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS DID YOU KNOW? Rape and sexual assault happens to females and males of all ages, from infancy to senior years. 980/0 of males who have raped boys reported they are heterosexual. Most males who assault men or women are married or report having girlfriends. Sexual assault had nothing to do with the victim's present or future sexual orientation. Victims may be either heterosexual or homosexual. A survivor is not at fault for the rape, even if she/he was in a secluded area, or had previous consensual sex with the attacker. The fact a male victim of sexual assault ejaculated or became sexually aroused does not mean they were not raped or that they gave consent. These are normal, involuntary physiological reactions. It is common for survivors of sexual assault to have feeling of anger embarrassment, panic, depression, guilt. and fear after the attack. Other common reactions include loss of appetite, nausea or stomachaches, headaches, loss of memory and/or trouble concentrating and changes in sleep patterns. .FACTS FOR THE INMATE THAT SEXUALLY ASSAULTS OTHER INMATES:
Regardless of hoW you choose to characterize it, any sexual activity will increase your risk of HIV infection, along with exposing you to other sexuaUy transmitted diseases. If you have trouble controlling your actions seek help. from mental health staff and/or consider participating in programs designed to control anger or reduce stress. To reduce
Page 30 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10 CC001503
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 58; Page 33 of 35

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 34 of 35
immediate feelings of anger or aggression, try talking to or writing a friend, meditate or do breathing exercises to relax, work on a hobby, or engage in some type of exercise.
SEXUAL ASSAULT Sexual assault as defined by Columbia County Jail policy is "Sexual conduct where force or threat of force is used, or when the person is unable to consent because of age or incapacitation (mental defect, mental incapacitation, or physical helplessness). Sexual conduct includes: vaginal penetration by a penis; contact between the genitals of a person and the mouth or anus of another person; penetration of the vagina, anus, or penis of another person with any object other than the penis or mouth; touching of the sexual or intimate parts of someone or causing someone to touch the sexual or intimate parts of another for the purpose of sexual gratification." Any behavior or act of a sexual nature directed toward an inmate by an inmate, employee, volunteer, visitor, contract employee or other agency representatives. This includes acts or any attempts to commit such acts including, but not limited to, sexual contact, inappropriate behavior of a sexual nature, unreasonable invasion of privacy, conversations or correspondence that suggests a romantic relationship between an inmate and any party referenced above. Sexual assault affects everyone, either directly or through the experience of those we care about. It is not only a woman's issue as it can affect persons of any gender, age, race, ethnic group, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, or disability.

SEXUAL ASSAULT AVOIDANCE

The only rape that can be prevented is when a potential rapist chooses NOT to rape.. However, you may avoid an attack by keeping the following safety guidelines in mind:

Be aware of situations that make you feel uncomfortable. Trust your instincts. If it feels wrong, LEAVE.

Don't let manners get in the way of keeping yourself safe. Don't be afraid to say "NO" or "STOP .IT NOW".

Walk and stand with confidence. Many rapists choose victims who look like they won't fight

back or are emotionally weak.

.

Avoid talking about sex and casual nudity. These things may be considered a come on, or make another inmate believe that you have an interest in a sexual relationship.

Do not accept canteen items or other gifts from other inmates. Placing yourself in debt to another inmate can lead to sexual favors.

Avoid secluded areas; position yourself in plain view of staff members. If you are being pressured for sex, report it to a supervisor immediately.

WHAT TO DO IF YOU ARE SEXUALLY ASSAULTED

If the attack has just happened.......

Get to a safe. place. REPORT THE ATTACK TO A STAFF MEMBER IMMEDIATELY.

The longer you wait to report the attack the more difficult it is to obtain the evidence necessary for criminal and/or administrative investigation.

Page 31 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10

CC001504

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 58; Page 34 of 35

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-7 Filed 09/13/12 Page 35 of 35
"
Request immediate medical attention. You may have serious injuries that you are not aware or, and any sexual contact can expose you to sexually transmitted diseases. Do not shower, brush your teeth, use the restroom, or change your' clothes. You may destroy important evidence. If you have been attacked or witness an attack, but you are unwilling to report it in person to a CCSO uniformed staff member, then you may speak with a counselor, chaplain, medical staff, write a sealed letter to any command staff member, or contact a CCSO Detective at 503-366-4650. Later on ..... Seek the support of a trusted friend, family member or staff member, such as the Chaplain or the counseling staff. The days ahead can be traumatic and it helps to have people who care about you supporting you. Seek professional help. Mental Health staff are available for crisis care 365 days a year, to listen and offer support.

Page 32 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 11/18/10

CC001505

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 58; Page 35 of 35

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-8 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 38
EXHIBIT 59
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 59; Page 1 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-8 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 38
INMATE MANUAL COLUMBIA COUNTY JAIL
All rules. in this manual may be amended or suspended at any time by order of the Sheriff or designee. As an Inmate in the Columbia County Jail, you are partially responsible for your own safety. You are in jail and you must be aware of your surroundings.
Incorporating Revised Inmate Mail Guidelines (See Pages 7 through 16) Effective June 18, 2012
CC001992
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 59; Page 2 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-8 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 38

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS.......................... . YOUR RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. I YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES AND EXPECTED
BEHAVIOR. .. .. . . .. .. . . .. .. . . .. . . ... 1-2 BEDS AND BEDDING........................... 2 BILLING FEES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-3 CELL IN COMMAND............................ 3 CLASSIFICATION.............................. 3 CLOTHING EXCHANGE......................... 4 COMMISSARY................................. 4 CONTRABAND............... ; ................ 3 COUNTY ISSUED ITEMS.. .. .. . .. . . . .. . .. . . ... 4-5 COURT CONDUCf............................. 5 DRESS CODE...........................'....... 5 FIRE AND EMERGENCY SAFETY............... , 6 HAIR CARE AND PERSONAL GROOMING......... 6 HEALTH APPRAISALS.......................... 6 HOUSING UNIT OPERATIONS................... 6 ICE CONTACT INFORMATION................... 6 IDENTIFICATION CARDS....................... 6 INMATE COUNTS.............................. 7 INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE............ 7-8 INMATE REQUEST FORMS............. ~ ........ 8 INMATE WORKER ACTIVITIES.................. 8 INTERCOM SYSTEM........................... 8 LAW LIBRARY................................ 8 LIBRARY..................................... 8 MAIL...................................... 9-18 , MAIL GUIDE ............................... 19-20 MEALS...................................... 21 MEDICAL SERVICES.......................... 21 MEDICATION................................. 21

MEDICAL GRIEVANCES................................. 22 MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES............... " ............ 22 MONEY ACCOUNTS..................................... 22 OUTDOOR RECREATION................................ 22 PERSONAL PROPERTY.................................. 23 PROGRAM SERVICES................................... 23 PROPERTY TRANSFERS................................. 23 SANITARY INSPECTIONS............................ 23-24 SANITARY PRACTICES................................. 24 SEARCHES............................................. 24 SELF-ESCORT...................................... ; ... 24 SICK CALL............................................. 25 SPECIAL DIETS...................................... '.' .. 25 TELEPHONE PRIVILEGES................................ 25 TELEPHONE SERVICE NUMBER. ......................... 25 TRANSFER TO WORK RELEASE CENTER. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25-26 VISITING. .......................................... 26-27 SPECIAL VISITS........................................ 27 VISITS WITH ATIORNEY ................................ 27 VISITS BY CLERGY.................................. 21-27 VOLUNTARY ACTIVITIES............................ 27-28 WAKE ill AND LOCK DOWN............................. 28 MINOR RULE VIOLATIONS PROCEDURES................. 28 MINOR RULE VIOLATION SANCfIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28-29 MINOR RULE VIOLATIONS........................... 29-30 MAJOR RULE VIOLATION PROCEDURES.................. 30 MAJOR RULE VIOLATION SANCfIONS................. 30-31 MAJOR RULE VIOLATIONS........................... 31-33 V]OLATIONS APPEALS PROCESS......................... 33 SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS......................... 33 SEXUAL ASSAULT...................................... 34 SEXUAL ASSAULT AVOIDANCE....................... 34-35

CC001993
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 59; Page 3 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-8 Filed 09/13/12 Page 4 of 38
YOUR RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES We want you to know exactly what is expected of you while you are in this jail. We will let you know what you can expect from us by explaining our rules, procedures and schedules to you. While at this jail, you will be provided with:
1. Three daily meals served at reasonable intervals 2. Clean bedding and clothing at least twice weekly 3. The opportunity to shower at least twice weekly 4. Regular exercise. 5. Opportunities to exercise your religion 6. Basic hygiene items 7. Access to the law library 8. Access to counsel 9. Emergency medical and dental treatment 10. A safe and secure environment If you follow jail rules and sanitation practices, you may receive these privileges: 1. Use of television 2. Use of library services 3. Use of outdoor recreation 4. Use of telephones 5. Having social visits 6. Making commissary purchases 7. Sending and receiving mail 8. Voluntary participation in jail programs Remember tbat these are not rights. J ail staff can limit or suspend tbese privileges at any time in order to maintain the safety, security, good order and sanitation of the jail. This manual does not cover every situation that may arise, but it wiIl serve as a basic guide for your conduct and facility procedures. C01umbia County Jail has a no smoking policy.
YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES AND EXPECTED BEHAVIOR Read this manual to know what is expected of you. The excuse "I did not know that" is not acceptable. It is your responsibility to follow all laws, jail rules, schedules, and staff requests. You must respect jail property and the property of others. This would include staying out of other inmate's cells and off of their bunks. You are expected to keep your sleeping area, the day room and outdoor recreation areas clean and orderly. Unacceptable behavior will be dealt with firmly, but fairly. Misbehavior may result in a change of your custody status which can directly affect your privileges in the jail.
Page 1 - COlumbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12
CC001994
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 59; Page 4 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-8 Filed 09/13/12 Page 5 of 38

This manual is an accountable item and is issued to you for your use while you are in this facility. You are responsible for the condition of this manual and you will be billed for any damage, graffiti, or unusable condition when returned. If the manual is damaged, please report it to a staff member to have it replaced immediately.

The best control of your behavior is by you practicing self-discipline and respect for others. Inmates are not

allowed to become personally familiar with corrections' staff. Be considerate and respectful toward all

. officials. We will expect you to address uniformed staff as "Deputy or Sergeant

" and non-

uniformed staff as "Mr.

" or "Ms._ _ _". Central Control personnel will be addressed as

"Control."

Inmate basic rules for the Columbia County Jail: 1. The ID card is to be put into the window facing out so that it can be seen and scanned during your stay. 2. When you are out of your room, the ID card is to be in your pocket. 3. When you are in the day room, you are to be completely dressed with T shirt tucked in. 4. When you are in your room, you are to have the T shirt and boxers on at all times including while you are sleeping, no exceptions. 5. When you come out of the pod and into the circle, you are to stay on the colored squares. The squares form a line that you walk on. You stay on that line with the exception to go around an obstacle. You are to stay in a single file line. 6. When you are in any other hallway, you are to walk on the right side of the hali and in a single file. You are not to touch anything. Do not speak, yell or signal at anyone. Keep your hands to yourself. 7. When in the hallway, tbere should be only six (6) inmates at one time. 8. DO NOT cover the ventilation units or speaker in the cells.

BEDS AND BEDDING
Bedding will consist of two sheets and two blankets. Blankets and sheets may not be removed from your cell or bunk, nor may they be placed on the floor or table for!!!y reason. You are not to take the mattress off the bunk and place it on the floor of your cell or in the day room of the pod. Your mattress may only be used for sleeping purposes. The bunk area must be left in an orderly fashion through out the day.
BILLING FEES
As authorized in ORS 169.150 and 169.151, Local Correctional Facilities are allowed to bl11Inmates for items and services that are provided to them while incarcerated in Correctional Facilities.
Every Sentenced Inmate will be charged a boarding fee of$1O.00 per day. The Inmate will receive a bilI when he or she is released from the jail. The Inmate will have 30 days to pay the bill or set up a payment plan.

Page 2 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12

CC001995
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 59; Page 5 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-8 Filed 09/13/12 Page 6 of 38

An initial hygiene kit is $2.15 and the inmate ID card is $1.00. All over the counter medications as well as
prescription medications will be billed through the inmate's commissary account. When the Inmate is released fromjail and his or her commissary account is in the negative, that amount will also show up on the
release billing. When 30 days have passed with no payment received on the release billing, the account will
be turned over to the Oregon Department of Revenue for collection.

Other charges are listed below:

. 1) Work Release Inmates are charged a minimum of $15.00 per day or two hours of pay jf the inmate's

hourly rate of pay is higher than $7.50 per hour.

If any of the following items are damaged or

destroyed you will be billed as foIlows:December

2,2010

2) Hygiene Kits

$ 2.l5 each 11) Tote

$44.95

3) Postcard

$ 0.50

12) Tote Lid

$26.95

4) Hair Cuts

$ 5.00

13) Sporks

$ 0.25

5) MedicallNurse visits

$ 5.00

14) Sandals

$ 2.49

6) Medical visit for OTC meds $ 1.00

15) Cups

$0.75

7) Medical kites submitted

$ .50

16) Socks (If Appl.)

$ 0.85

8) Feminine Hygiene Products $ 0.20

17) Towels

$ 0.75

9) Razors (if more than 1)

$ 0.15

18) Striped Shirt

$ 6.55-$12.75

10) Copies of legal materials

$ 0.25

19) Striped Pants

$ 8.75-$14.95

20) T-Shirts

$ 3.99 - $ 7.30

21) Shorts

$ 2.32 - $ 2.74

22) Replacement ID Card $ 5.00

All fees are subject to change at any time

CELL IN COMMAND
The command "cell-in"or "bunk-up" means you need to stop what you are doing and go directly to your cell or bunk. You must follow this command without question or hesitation. If you do not, it will directly
affect your classification and custody status and also will result in disciplinary actions against you.

CLASSIFICATION
All newly arrested inmates who are not released prior to movement from the booking area will be assigned housing in a Pre-Classification unit. They may be maintained on lock-down status for up to the first Seventy-Two (72) hours, for classification purposes. The Columbia County Jail has three classifications which are minimum, medium and maximum security.. All inmates are assigned a classification according to their status. Inmates may request a classification review in writing on an Inmate Request Form at any time.

Most inmates involved in the Inmate Worker Program and Alternative Programs must qualify for and maintain a minimum custody status.

ACTIVITlliS MAY DIFFER BASED ON YOUR LEVEL OF CLASSIFICATION.

Page 3 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12

CC001996
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 59; Page 6 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-8 Filed 09/13/12 Page 7 of 38

:."-'

CLOTHING EXCHANGE
Clean clothing will be provided twice weekly. You must tum in all of your soiled clothing during clothing exchange. In return you will receive I T-shirt, I pair of shorts, 1 towel, 1 striped shirt and 1 pair striped pants. On every other exchange you will receive clean sheets. Blankets may be exchanged every 30 days. Each housing unit will have a different laundry schedule.
Jail staffwill make every effort to ensure clothing is in good repair. You are responsible for all clothing and bedding issued to you. You should check the condition of the clothing you receive and immediately inform a staff member and exchange any clothing or bedding that has a tear or graffiti written on it. If you are found to be in possession of damaged items, you will be subject to disciplinary action. This may include payment for the damaged clothing.
COMMISSARY
The Columbia County Jail has a well-appointed commissary list from which inmates with funds may purchase various items. Inmates without funds may order indigent hygiene kits once per week, if needed. Indigent items will be posted to the inmate's account creating a negative balance. Commissary sheets will be handed out once a week. If you did not get funds in before the commissary sheets were made up to be passed out, you will have to wait until the following week to order. Commissary purchases are limited to no more than $75.00 per week. Inmates may have no more than two (2) lead pencils in their possession at any given time. In addition each inmate will be allowed to purchase one pack of colored pencils.
CONTRABAND
Any authorized item found in an inmate's possession that has been altered or is not being used for it's original purpose, or any items in excess of the issued quantity' as stated within this manual, to include:
1) Controlled substances as defined in DRS 475.005(6). 2) Drug paraphernalia as defined by ORS 475.525(2). 3) Any currency or negotiable instrurnent. 4) Any item that a person in a correctional facility is prohibited by statute, rule, or order from
obtaining or possessing, and whose use would endanger the safety or security ofthe facility or person in the facility. 5) An unauthorized item in an inmate's possession or in a cell, bunk, or common area. 6) An authorized item altered in any way. 7) More than the authorized number of an item
COUNTY ISSUED ITEMS
All inmates who are dressed into the Columbia County jail will be issued jail clothing after intake, and in the clothing change/shower room. You will be issued a plastic bin containing a hygiene kit, bed linen, towel, and clothing and this Inmate Manual. Another issued item will include a mattress. You will be responsible for the condition of all items issued to you. The gray property box (totes) are to be used specifically for storage of your personal and issued belongings. Totes are not to be used for chairs or any use other than what has been mentioned above. Totes are to remain under your bunk at all times.
Page 4 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12
CC001997
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 59; Page 7 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-8 Filed 09/13/12 Page 8 of 38

1. One inmate uniform top.

7.

2. One inmate uniform pants

8.

3. Two T-Shirts

9.

4. Two pair of gym shorts/Underwear

10.

5. One pair ofjail sandals.

6. One mattress

Two sheets Two Blankets One Towel One Rule Book

Female inmates may be allowed to retain the following:

1. Personal underwear, if needed for hygiene reasons, if determined appropriate by staff. 2. Personal bras, with no metal fasteners or under wires. A sports style bra is preferred.

During the winter months you will be issued a sweatshirt to be worn in your cell, day room area, the outdoor recreation yard or under the striped shirt when going to court

COURT CONDUCT

Your arraignment will be your flrst court appearance in jail. During your arraignment, a judge will tell you what you are charged with and your rights with regard to those charges. The judge may appoint an attorney at this time if you qualify.

During any court appearance you will not have contact with any person other than your lawyer or the court officials. Contact includes talking, signaling, or passing notes to people.

Video arraignment is considered a court room setting and the above rules apply.

DRESS CODE

You are expected to remain fully dressed at all times except when you are on your bunk. When you are in your assigned bunk area you must wear at least the T-shirt and shorts issued by this facility. Any time you leave your sleeping area or room, you must be fully clothed. Fully clothed consists of your shorts, Tshirt, striped shirt and striped pants or shorts, T-shirt, gray sweatshirt and striped pants. During lights out, you may go to use the restroom in your t-shirt and shorts if you live in an open dorm.

You'r T-shirt must be tucked in at all times and not hanging loosely. Rolling your pant legs up if they are too long, but not above the ankles, is allowed. Do not alter the appearance of your clothes.

You may not roll your sleeves, tuck your pants into your socks, or pull your pants down below the hips. It is not allowed to wear clothes that are too large or too small.

You will be allowed to take your outer striped shirt off while exercising in the recreation area.

FIRE AND EMERGENCY SAFETY

In case of any type of emergency or evacuation, you are to follow any direct order of a Deputy. There are emergency evacuation procedures in place and you will be evacuated in an orderly manner to a safe place.

If you are asked to evacuate an area by a Deputy, you are to fonn a straight line at your Pod door and wait for directions from a Deputy or the Control Room staff.' A Deputy will direct you to a safe area.

Page 5 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12

CC001998
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 59; Page 8 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-8 Filed 09/13/12 Page 9 of 38
HAIR CARE AND PERSONAL GROOMING We encourage you to shower daily. We hand out razors three times a weelc If an individual has a court appearance they will be allowed to use a rawr prior to their court appearance. Once a week a list will be put into your respective pod and you must sign up on that list to receive a haircut. Hair cuts can be done when a person is available to be the barber. There is a $5.00 charge for the haircut. Haircuts will be done on Saturdays and Sundays only. You will be allowed to have one haircut per month. Haircuts other than a trim or a complete removal to a short stubble are not allowed. No other styles will be tolerated. Only kitchen and floor workers are allowed one free haircut per month.
HEALTH APPRAISALS A health appraisal must be done before an inmate can be considered for "worker" status.
HOUSING UNIT OPERATIONS The daily operation in the pods will be as follows. You will be allowed to come out of your cell for a short period of time during the morning at breakfast. You will then be instructed to return to your cell until lunch time. After lunch, you will then have three hours out of your cell. At the end of that period, you will return to your cell. The next period out, will be after dinner for two hours. I nmate time out of cells for each pod will be set as necessary to fulfill the needs of the facility. Cleaning gear will be provided during the day. We require you to use it daily to clean your cell, bunk area and the pod as a whole on a daily basis. No one is allowed to sit, stand or loiter on the stairs or catwalks (upper tier floors) at any time. This will include walking or pacing off laps upstairs, or on the stairs. There is to be no sitting on the table tops.
ICE CONTACT INFORMATION Inmates who are housed in the Columbia County Jail for hnmigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) may contact ICE via the use of an ICE inmate request form. ICE inmates may contact TCE Pro Bono Attorneys by calling (800) 646-6283. In each Pod located on the mail boxes, there is a list of all Pro Bono calls for use by all ICE detainees. ICE agents make scheduled visits to the Columbia County Jail on Wednesdays of every week.
IDENTIFICATION CARDS You must keep your inmate ID card on your person any time you are out of your cell. Do not lel anyone use your ID card. The best place to keep this card is in your shirt pocket. When you are in your cell, place your ID card, right side up, in the window of your door with the picture facing out so the Deputy can see your name and picture. You must surrender your ID card to any staff member upon request.
Page 6 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12
CC001999
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 59; Page 9 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-8 Filed 09/13/12 Page 10 of 38
INMATE COUNTS There will be at least six "Formal Counts" per day. At the beginning of each "formal count" you will be instructed to "cell in or bunk up." Televisons will be turned off. At that time you must:
1. Go into your cell and close the door or get onto your bunk depending on the pod you are in. 2. Correctly place your LD. card in the window of your door or on your bunk. If you are on a bunk,
or otherwise not in your room or pod, having the ID card in your hand and presenting it to the deputy doing the count is acceptable. Prior to lock-down each night a final formal head count will be conducted in the following manner. I. In Pods with cells you will go to your room, close the door stand with one individual on each side of the door, ID card in hand, ready for the count. All inmates will remain in this manner until a Deputy scans your identification card. 2. In an open dorm go to your bunk and stand next to your bunk with your ID card in hand, until a Deputy scans your card. After formal you should bunk up for the night and remain quiet. There will be numerous informal counts per day, therefore, whenever a Deputy enters your cell, remain where you are, do not move until the deputy leaves or instructs you to move.
INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE You may submit a grievance about a condition in the jail if you think it is a problem or is unfair. You cannot .grieve: disciplinary actions (there is an appeal process for that), classification de'cisions, incidents or problems which you were not party to, a collection of unrelated complaints, and no group grievances. To file a grievance, you must follow the steps below in the order shown. You cannot skip one.
1. An inmate may request a Grievance Form from any Corrections Deputy at any time to bring to attention any perceived problems and proposed solutions. The Deputy will address any grievance within the scope of hislber authority and document any action taken regarding the request within five (5) working days.
2. The inmate may redirect the grievance to the Shift Supervisor for any complaint which cannot be reasonably resolved by the Deputy. The Supervisor will address any grievance within the scope of his/her authority and document any action taken on the form within five (5) working days.
3. If the complaint is not resolved to the inmate's satisfaction by the Supervisor, the inmate may send the Grievance Form to the Facility Supervisor or his designee. The Facility Supervisor or designee will address the complaint and document any action taken on the form within five (5) working days.
4. If the complaint is not resolved to the inmate's satisfaction by the Facility Supervisor, the inmate may send a sealed Grievance Form to the Sheriff. The Sheriff will address the complaint and document his decision on the form within ten (10) wO),:"king days. The Sheriff's decision will be final!
Page 7 • Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12
CC002000
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 59; Page 10 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-8 Filed 09/13/12 Page 11 of 38

Inmates may file an Emergency Grievance in the event that circumstances exist to warrant one. This will be . filed directly to the Jail Commander in a sealed envelope, utilizing the same inmate grievance form.

INMATE REQUEST FORMS

The Inmate Request Forms (also known as kites) are available upon request. There are two of them. One will be for general questions, law library and visiting. The other form will be a Medical Request Form. This is only for the medical staff and doctor to answer and will be forwarded to them. There are separate fonus to correspond with Columbia· County Community Corrections or with Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE)lImmigration. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

INMATE WORKER ACTIVITIES
If you want to work in the jail, you will need to request and fill out an Inmate Worker Labor Agreement, then submit it into the mailbox. It may take several days to receive your copy.

Staff will select various inmates to do kitchen, custodial or maintenance jobs in the facility. Health care staff must clear you before you can I?articipate in the worker activities, especially in the kitchen.·
You may receive work time credit only if you are sentenced and your sentence order authorizes it. Any change ofa job description or shift must be approved by a Supervisor.

INTERCOM SYSTEM

The call buttons in the cells are to be used for emergency purposes onlv. They are not to be used for any

other communication. If the call buttons are misused, the inmate violating this rule will be written up for

failure to abide by the rules of the Columbia County Jail.

.

LAW LIBRARY
AU inmates of the Columbia County Jail will be given ~ccess to one hour in the law library per request. Use ofthe law library will be limited only by timeand the need to maintain the safety and security of the facility. To gain access, you must submit a request form at least twenty-four (24) hours in advance. You will be expected to take a note pad and pencil with you to the law library to assist you in your research. All law books, reference material and other articles must remain in the law library to ensure equal access for all inmates. There will be very limited copying capabilities available to you for which your account will be . charged a fee per copy. No inmate will be denied this service based on an inability to pay.

When you finish, you are required to leave the law library orderly and neat. Please be aware that corrections staff cannot provide you with legal advice or legal assistance. If you have any questions, please consult your attorney.

LIBRARY

All inmates of the Columbia County Jail will be afforded ample opportunity to have access to library books within the jail library. The books may be delivered by a cart. You may have up to six books at a time. All books must be returned to the library or the cart, prior to checking out more. If a search of your person or cell reveals that you have more than six books in your possession, you may be subjected to disciplinary action. Damaged books must be returned to a Deputy, immediately. Possession of damaged books may be grounds for disciplinary action. The six books do not include religious or educationaL Discretion of Corrections Staff will determine whether the books are in fact religious or educational.

Page 8 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/113/12

CC002001
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 59; Page 11 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-8 Filed 09/13/12 Page 12 of 38
MAIL
POLICY Jail mail handling procedures must support an inmate's need to communicate in writing to carry out legal business and maintain family and community ties. The procedures must also meet the Jail's need for efficient operations that preserve the good order, safety, and security of the facility, inmates~ and staff. DEFINITIONS Book. A printed composition bound in a volume. Contraband.. 1) Controlled substances as defined in ORS 475.005(6). 2) Drug paraphernalia as
defined by ORS 475.525(2). 3) Any currency or negotiable instrument. 4) Any item that a person in a correctional facility is prohibited by statute, rule, or order from obtaining or possessing, and whose use would endanger the safety or security of the facility or person in the facility. 5) An unauthorized item in an inmate's possession or in a cell, bunk, or common area. 6) An authorized item altered in any way. 7) More than the authorized number of an item.
Inmate Mail. Written correspondence to or from an inmate in the Columbia County Jail.
Indigent. An inmate who has less than $5 in his or her inmate account and has not had more than that amount for seven days.
Inflammatory material. Written or printed materials that pose a threat to the security, safety, . or good order of the jail because it may incite or advocate physical violence against others. This includes material that advocates the supremacy or hatred of a racial, religious, national, or other group of people. (Note: Criticism ofjail operations, programs, or staff, o.n its own, is not inflammatory material. If the criticism involves an illegal act or violates a jail rule, staff will handle it as that type of prohibited mail.)
Jail Commander. The Columbia County Jail Commander or his/her designee. Jail Supervisor. Any Corrections Deputy designated at the rank of sergeant or higher. Junk mail/Bulk mail. Printed materials, often sent as mass mailings, such as catalog
advertisements, brochures, circulars, newsletters, and pamphlets whose primary purpose is to sell, promote or solicit for, a product or service. Junk maiLIbulk mail may come using a variety of postage rates, including but not limited to bulk mail rates. Junk Mail/Bulk Mail may be solicited or unsolicited. Legal mail. Incoming or outgoing mail addressed to or from an attorney. Negotiable instrument. A written document that represents an unconditional promise to pay a specified amount of money upon the demand of its owner. Examples include checks and promissory notes. Negotiable instruments can be transferred from one person to another, as when a person writes Itpay to the order of' on the back of a check in order to tum it over to someone .else. Official Mail. Incoming or outgoing mail addressed to or from the sheriff, jail command staff, probation authorities, district attorney, state attorney general, Governor, court, a court official, and other confining authorities, or addressed to or from the inmate's medical provider, or addressed to or from the inmate's religious \eader, or addressed to or from the news media.
Page 9 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12
CC002002
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 59; Page 12 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-8 Filed 09/13/12 Page 13 of 38
Periodical. A magazine, newspaper, newsletter, or other publication formed ofprinted sheets that is issued at regular, specified intervals by a publisher.
Prohibited Mail Notice A written notice toat is: A. mailed to the sender or intended receiver of inmate niail who is not incarcerated in the Columbia County Jail; and B. is also provided (by jail staff) to the current inmate who is a sender or intended receiver of inmate mail, when said mail has been confiscated by the jail for any reason (See Prohibited Mail Notice at the end of this chapter). A Prohibited Mail Notice MUST be provided to the sender AND intended receiver of all incoming and outgoing mail that is confiscated by the jail.
Publication. Periodicals and books.
Sexually explicit: I) A pictorial depiction of any of the following: actual or simulated sexual acts (induding sexual intercourse, oral sex, anal sex, or masturbation); sexual penetration; bestiality; sexual violence; sadomasochistic behavior; excretory functions; and exposed genitalia (to include pubic hair), anus or female nipple or areola, unless the exposure is for legitimate medical, religious, or anthropological reasons. 2) Sex acts involving children. 3) Materials that violate state and local obscenity laws. (Note: Whether the material is commercially produced or is personally made or written has no bearing on this definition.)
INMATE MAIL
Inmate Mail Limits and Restrictions/Overview
The Columbia County Jail will normally not limit, censor, or restrict the volume, language, content, format or source of inmate mail. However, some limitations are necessary to assure the safety, and security of inmates, jail staff, and the public, as well as to assure the efficient operation of the Jai I.
1. Specific Limitations on Inmate Mail.
in A. Publications. Publications are permitted the Jail, subject to the following requirements:
1. An inmate must have someOne outside the jail prepay for any publication he or she receives. An inmate may not engage in any delayed payment or credit ordering of pUblications while inside the jail.
2. . Books.. Books must come directly from the publisher, a book club, or a bookstore. Books may be new or used. Books may not be larger than 9 inches by 12 inches. Books may not have plastic or metal bindings. Either hardback or paperback books are acceptable.
3. Periodicals.. Periodicals must be new and be mailed directly from the publisher or bookstore.
4. No blanket prohibition. Mail handlers will determine whether a specific publication violates jail rules. However, this determination must be made on a case by case basis. There shall be no blanket prohibition on any publication.
B. Legal and Official Mail.
I. A sender of legal or official mail is responsible for legitimately, properly, and clearly marking and addressing legal and official mail so that jail staff recognize it and treat it as being confidential, as follows:
Page 10 - Columbia County Jan Inmate Manual ReVised 06/13/12
CC002003
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 59; Page 13 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-8 Filed 09/13/12 Page 14 of 38

(a)

The return address on all incoming legal and official mail must have the sender 7s

job, agency, or finn title and address either commercially preprinted on the
envelope or a label, or as an iDk stamp. The sender's name should be handwritten if

not preprinted.

(b)

The words "Legal Mail," "Official Mail," or similar designation must appear on the

address side of the envelope. Jail staff will not assume the contents of any letter

from an attorney, law firm, or government official is legal or official mail without

the designation of"Legal Mail" or "Official Mail" on the address side ofthe

envelope.

2. Staff will not open recognizable legal or official mail outside the presence of the inmate. They may only open if in the presence of the inmate to inspect it for contraband, but they will not read its contents.

3. Before legal or official mail leaves the pod, jail staffwill verify that any letter marked as legal or official mail is addressed to a person that qualifies for that privacy protection.

4. Jail staff will pursue administrative, criminal, and disciplinary actions, as fitting, against all tbose involved in the fraudulent use of legal or official mail designations.

C. Other Prohibited Content/Contraband.

1. An inmate may not receive or send inmate mail that contains:

(a) . Threats of physical harm, blackmail, extortion, or other criminal activity;

(b)

Plans for escape, criminal activity, or activity that violates jail rules;

(c)

Gang-related material;

(d)

Information that, if conveyed, could result in physical hann to someone;

(e)

Sexually explicit materials;

(f)

Inflammatory material;

(g)

Contraband including but not limited to such commonly mailed items as:

1. Books larger than 9 by 12 inches or with plastic or metal bindings;

2. Controlled substances as defined by ORS 475.005(6);

3. Foreign substances, such as bodily fluids, lipstick or perfume, glue or paint or anything with an unusual stain or odor that indicates a foreign substance may be present;

(b)

Cash or negotiable instruments;

(i)

Food or beverages, electronic devices, clothing or similar personal property_

2. An inmate may not send or receive inmate mail that:

Page 11 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12

CC002004
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 59; Page 14 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-8 Filed 09/13/12 Page 15 of 38

(a)

is written in code or suspected code;

(b)

was not sent through the United States Postal Service or other approved system;

(c)

is to or from a person with whom the inmate is prohibited from communicating;

(d)

would violate a court order;

(e)

may produce a hostile work environment by sexual harassment or otherwise;

(f)

is a credit or deferred billing transaction, such as "bill me later" SUbscriptions or

merchandise Qought on credit or collect-on-delivery terms;

(g)

is fraudulently marked as legal or official mail;

(h)

includes logistical inforn1ation about an inmate's upcoming health care

appointment(s).

D. Sources of Incoming Mail. Jail Staff will only accept incoming inmate mail that has been

delivered by the U.S. Postal Service unless otherwise specifically authorized by the Jail

Commander.

.

E. Postage-Due Mail. The jail will not accept or pay for incoming inmate mail with postage due.

3. General Limitations on Inmate Mail.

In addition to the specific limitations on inmate mail set forth above, additional limitations may apply in the following circumstances:

A. There is reason to believe that such correspondence would jeopardize personal safety, jail security or good order, inmate treatment, or would facilitate violation of the law.

B. Inmates may receive a disciplinary sanction that restricts non-legal and/or non official mail.

4. General Provisions for Inmate Mail

A. Indigent Inmate Mail. Indigent inmates may obtainan indigent hygiene kit through the commissary program once per week. No inmate will be denied a weekly indigent hygiene kit based on an inability to pay. The indigent hygiene kit consists of 2 sheets of paper and two postage prepaid envelopes, a pencil and hygiene items. Additional paper and envelopes are available for purchase through the commissary.

B. Addressing Inmate Mail. Incoming mail must have the inmate's booking name as part of the addressee information. Inclusion ofthe inmate's booking number is encouraged, but not required.

C. Return Address. Incoming mail must have the name and address of the sender. The return address on legal and official mail must have the sender's job, agency, or firm title and address commercially preprinted or stamped.

D. Certified Mail/Special mail services.

1. The inmate must have sufficient funds in his or her account to pay for all special mail services. A Jail Supervisor may approve credit to allow an indigent inmate to send certified mai, on a case-by-case basis. An inmate who needs to send a letter using certified mail must

Page 12 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12

CC002005 CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 59; Page 15 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-8 Filed 09/13/12 Page 16 of 38
fill out an Inmate Request Fonn. Any Corrections Deputy or Supervisor can process the request. You will receive proof of delivery from the post office when it returns.
E. Inmate Request Form. An inmate shall use an Irunate Request FQnn to request to mail oversize or overweight items, or for other special postal services. Funds will be drawn from the inmate's account to cover the costs.
F. JunklBulk Mail. Jail staffwill accept solicited and unsolicited junk mail and solicited and unsolicited bulk mail for inmates, unless it violates other mail restrictions (such as containing sexually explicit content).
G. Pre-Stamped Envelopes. Jail staffwi11 make pre-stamped First Class business size or manila envelopes available for inmates t.o buy from the commissary. Indigent inmates may obtain envelopes per paragraph 4.A.
H. Inmate Mail Written in a .Foreign Language. incoming and outgoing mail written in a language other than English may be interpreted prior to delivery to determine whether the mail violates these rules.
INCOMING INMATE MAIL I. Mail Intake.
A. Incoming Inmate Mail will be processed at night. B. Deputies will confiscate unopened mail when:
1. The addressee cannot be identified because of missing or incomplete information; 2. Prohibited items are affixed to the mail; 3. Foreign substances or stains are on the mail; 4. Odors, including perfume, are coming from the mail; 5. The mail can otherwise be identified as being or containing prohibited" mail before it is
opened; 6. The inmate is no longer in the jail.
C. If cash or negotiable instruments are found in inmate mail, the mail and funds will be confiscated and returned to sender. The Prohibited Mail Notice shall include the amount of funds, number, and issuing institution of any negotiable instrument as well as the payee's name ifit was not the inmate's.
D. Day Shift Corrections Deputies wlll deliver mail to their pods after inspecting the mail for compliance with the Inmate Mail policy. Mail will be delivered as soon as practical, and
may be delivered by passing it under the i.n,mate's cell door. The only exception to this is
for legal a..rl{:l/or official mail, which must be opened in the inmate's presence. The deputy
Page 13 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12
CC002006
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 59; Page 16 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-8 Filed 09/13/12 Page 17 of 38
opening the mail in the inmate's presence will be careful not to read the content of the letter, and only verify that no contraband is inside the letter.2. Grievances/Appeals. Inmates will use the Inmate Grievance procedure (found on page 6 of this Inmate Manual) to file grievances and appeals in regard to confiscated inmate mail.
3. Mail Delivery. Staff will norman deliver mail to inmates within 24 hours of receipt at the Jail. Reasonable exceptions are allowed when special processing is required, such as for mail delivered late in the day, mail needing translation, or mail held as evidence ina criminal or disciplinary investigation, etc,
OUTGOING INMATE MAIL 1. General Mail Rules for Inmates
lnmatesA. May only use lead or colored pencils to write correspondence. B. Must send inmate mail through the uSPS or other approved system. -C. Must put their first and last name, booking number, and thejail address as the return
address. D. May not draw or write anything on the outside of an envelope other than name and address
_information and "legal" or "official" mail designations. E. May not send out jail forms for others to fin out on behalf of the inmate. F. May not send prohibited content or contraband. Inmates are subject to disciplinary action
for doing so. 2. Posting Outgoing Mail. Inmates will place outgoing inmate mail, unsealed, in the designated
mailbox located inside of their pod (except for the case of1egal or official mail). 3. Outgoing legal or official mail shall be processed in this manner:
A. Inmates must obtain a correction deputy's verification that any legal or official mail complies with this Policy prior to the mail being sealed and placed in the designated mailbox in their pod.
B. The corrections deputy shall inspect the inmate's legal and/or official mail in the presence of the inmate for contraband only. The deputy shall not review or read the content of legal or official mail.
C. After inspecting the legal or official mail for compliance with this Policy, the corrections deputy will have the inmate seal the envelope and deliver it to the deputy for processing.
Page 14 - Coiumbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12
CC002007
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 59; Page 17 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-8 Filed 09/13/12 Page 18 of 38
CONFISCATED MAIL 1. Disposition. Unless otherwise specified in the Inmate Mail Policy, any inmate mail that is
confiscated pursuant to this Policy may either be returned to the sender, or stored with the inmate's belongings in the Jail's sole discretion based on the best interest of the Jail. A Jail Supervisor may authorize the destruction of any item that presents a health or safety risk if stored in the jail~ or return it to sender, or as otherwise authorized by this Policy. 2. Prohibited Mail Notice Required. If a Jail Supervisor signs a Prohibited Mail Notice, the sender and addressee of the confiscated inmate mail must be notified of the confiscation whether the disposition was to return.the mail, store it, or destroy it. However, if the mail is evidence in a criminal investigation, no notification will be given. Notice will be given through delivery of a Prohibited Mail Notice in the form attached to this Policy. The Prohibited Mail Notice will give the reason for the confiscation and explain the appeal process. 3.' Confiscation in whole. Corrections Deputies will confiscate inmate mail in whole rather than removing contraband or obliterating individual pages, passages, or words of prohibited content. 4. Stored Inmate Mail. Corrections Deputies will use a Prohibited Mail Notice to infonn the inmate of the confiscation and use a copy as a tag for the items placed in storage. ADMINISTRATION 1~ Mail as Nuisance Contraband. Inmates are responsible for getting rid of any mailed item exceeding the number of items allowed in their cells as nuisance contraband as defined on Page 3 of this Manual. An inmate may also transfer items to their bin in the property room. 2. Mail Monitoring. This section does not apply to legal or official mail. Inmate mail (other than iegal or official mail) may be monitored for investigative purposes.
Page 15 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12
CC002008
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 59; Page 18 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-8 Filed 09/13/12 Page 19 of 38
3. Mail Complaints. Staff members will direct mail complaints from the public to a Jail Supervisor. The Jail Supervisor should attempt to respond to the complainant within two business days. Appeals related to receipt of Prohibited Mail Notices shall be addressed pursuant to the following processes:
A. Appeals by inmates. Inmates wishing to appeal a decision to deny delivery of incoming inmate mail or the mailing of outgoing inmate mail must follow the normal grievance procedure set fo'rtb in the Inmate Manual and Policy J207, Inmate Rights.
B, Appeals by others. If a person believes that any incoming or outgoing inmate mail was improperly confiscated by the Jail, they may appeal the action to the Jail Commander by sending a written letter stating the specific reason(s) why the action was improper. The letter must be received within 15 days from the date of the Prohibited Mail Notice. Or, if
no Prohibited Mail Notice was received, the letter must be received within i5 days from the
date the person knew or should have known of the appealed action. The letter shall include the sender's name and return address. The Jail Commander will consider the appeal and will issue a decision on the appeal within 15 days of receiving the letter. However, if the Jail Commander made the initial decision regarding the mail in question, the Sheriff will consider the appeal and issue the decision. The appeal process will be set forth in the Prohibited Mail Notice.
4. Change of Address Responsibilities and Forwarding Mail. Inmates are responsible for submitting change of address requests to the publishers of publications they receive and to others that send them mail at the Jail. Corrections Deputies will normally not forward mail for inmates who are no longer in Jail custody_ They will return correspondence and packages unopened to the sender and throw publications away.
5. Holding Mail. Corrections Deputies will normally not hold mail for inmates released or temporarily transferred to another facility. The Jail Commander may make exceptions.
6. Returning Mail to Sender. Beforemail is returned to its sender, Corrections Deputies wil1 obliterate any mail sorting bar code and will mark the mail "Return to Sender". A Prohibited Mail Notice will be mailed separately from mail that is returned unopened
To return mail that was opened, a Corrections Deputy must repackage it and send it at the .expense of the Jail to the sender. The Corrections Deputy will include a copy of the Prohibited Iy1ail Notice with repackaged maiL
General Mail Rules: We may open and inspect all mail for contraband and may read all personal maiL
We will provide an Inmate Mail Guide for members of the public. The guide, printed in its entirety below explains mail rules and what they can and cannot send you. People may also call (503) 366-4630 to get the information found in the guide or read it on the jail's web site at: www.co.columbia.or.us/sheriff
Page 16 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12
CC002009
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 59; Page 19 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-8 Filed 09/13/12 Page 20 of 38
____"Do" Mail Rules for Inmates For mail, you must do the following:
1. Use only lead or pencils to write letters. 2. Keep the weight of correspondence in a pre-stamped envelope below 1 ounce (28 gm). To
keep a business envelope to one ounce. or less means the contents cannot be more that four 81/2" x 11" sheets of standard weight paper.:. 3. Keep your friends and family informed if you received periodicals they have pUrchased or subscribed for you. 4. When you are released or transferred from the jail, send change-of-address notifications to those that send you mail. . 5. Put the return address noted on the sample envelope below on all your outgoing mail. Tell people sending you mail to use it to address mail to you. Write the recipient's full name and complete address legibly on any mail you send.
"Don't" Mail Rules for Inmates You may not do any of the following:
1. Draw or write anything on an envelope or postcard in the address area other than name and address information.
2. Send out jail forms for others to fill out on your behalf. 3. Send prohibited mail. 4. Send out jail property. 5. Order publications on credit or delayed billing from the jail. 6. Operate a commercial business or nonprofit organization from the jail. 7. Order correspondence courses unless you have a jail command officer's approval. 8. Conduct commercial or personal business transactions or request services from a government
agency unless you have ajail command officer's approval.
Sending and Receiving Mail You may send and receive correspondence only through the U. S. Postal Service. Any type of mail that is delivered by the U.S. Postal Service will be accepted in the jail subject to restrictions designed to protect the safety and security of the jaiL The jail internal mail system is for communicating only with jail staff. Any transfer of written communication on your part that does not comply with mail rules and procedures is a rule violation that subjects you to discipline. This includes sending notes to other irunates or notes, postcards or mail to anyone by way of a contact visit, court appearance, or transport. People may not leave mail, messages, or notes for you at the jail.
Except in unusual circumstances and on holidays or weekends, we will deliver incoming mail to you within 24 hours of its receipt. We will put outgoing mail in a pickup box within 24 hours of receiving it from you. There is no pickup by the post office on weekends and holidays.
It is important that you use a person's complete and correct address when sending mail. If someone says he or she did not receive something you sent and you did not receive a confiscation notice from us, it is a matter for you to resolve with the post office-not the jail. For your convenience, the addresses of commonly contacted government agencies are in appendix 2, Government Pages.
Page 17 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12
CC002010
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 59; Page 20 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-8 Filed 09/13/12 Page 21 of 38
We do not forward mail. If we receive mail for you and you are not here, we will return it to the sender. (Please tell those sending you mail to put on return addresses. We confiscate mail without return addresses or return it to the post office if you are no longer in jail.)
Mail Confiscation: We will give you a confiscation notice for mail we confiscate. We will return stored confiscated mail to you when you are released, ifit was not disposed of for health or safety reasons. You may submit a grievance to ask for its return before then. We will return to sender any form of prohibited mail, along with a prohibited mail notice and notice of appeal. You will also get a notice that we have returned prohibited mail to the sender.
Use of Envelopes You may use an envelope sold through the commissary to send all types of mail.
Sending Certified Mail You may send a letter using U. S. Postal Service Certified Mail and Return Receipt mail services. You will get receipts that you sent the letter and that the letter was rec~ived by the addressee. We will charge you the standard postal rates for these services. You must have money in your inmate account to pay the postal rates or have appropriate approval if you are indigent. A deputy will supply you with a request for Certified Mail form that you need to fill out and submit along with the letter. Outgoing Mail Inmates will place all outgoing mail (that is not legal or official mail) in unsealed envelopes or postcards in the mail drop located in the day room of each housing unit. Outgoing mail that is either Legal or Official Mail shall be. presented unsealed to a deputy prior to evening mai1 collection. The deputy will not read the Legal or official mail, but shall inspect the contents for contraband. After the deputY is sure the Legal or Official Mai] complies with policy, the mail will be handed back to the inmate to be.sealed. The inmate will then return the sealed envelope containing Legal or Official Mail to the deputy, who will process the mail with the other outgoing mail. You are expected to legibly address your correspondence and use the proper postage. All outgoing mail must list the following return address:
Your full name Columbia County Jail 901 Port Avenue St. Helens Oregon 97051 For a summary of the inmate mail rules, refer to the guide printed below:
Page 18 • Columbia COunty Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12
CC002011
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 59; Page 21 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-8 Filed 09/13/12 Page 22 of 38
: ..... '
INMATE MAIL GUIDE
This Guide is intended to be a summary of some of the provisions in the Inmate Mail Policy that may be of most interest to members of the public. The Guide IS NOT intended to be a complete description of all policies related to Inmate MaiL For detai1 please see the Inmate Mail Policy.
Jail Policy
Jail mail-handling procedures support both the inmates'·and the public's need to communicate in writing, to carry out legal and official business, and maintain family and community ties. Procedures also meet the Jail's need for efficient operations that preserve the good order, safety, and security of the facility, inmates,and staff. To that end, the following guide has been prepared to assist the public in complying with the Inmate Mail Policy.
The Jail's general Policy is that it will not limit, censor, or restrict the volume, language, content, format or source of inmate mail. However, some limitations are necessary for the security of inmates, jail staf4 and the public, as well as for the efficient operation of the Jail.
Inmate Mail. Inmates may generally.send and receive mail in any form delivered by the U.S. Postal Service. Personal property such as food, beverages, clothing and similar items are not allowed to be mailed to and from inmates and will be confiscated. Photographs are allowed provided they don't otherwise violate the Policy.
Publications. Inmates may receive publications, including but not limited to, books, magazines, newsletters and newspapers. However, the pUblication must be mailed directly from the publisher, book club or a bookstore.
Addressing Inmate Mail. Inmate mail must have the inmate's booking name as part of the addressee information (booking number is encouraged but not required). Incoming mail must have a return address including the name and address of the sender.
Prohibited Mail. Jail staffwill not allow an inmate to receive or send mail that-
1. ContainsA. Threats of physical harm, blackmail, extortion, or other criminal activity; B. Plans for escape, criminal activity, or activity that violates jail rules; C. Gang-related material; D. Information that, if conveyed, could result in physical harm to someone; E. Sexually explicit materials; F. Inflammatory material; G. Contraband materials including but not limited to such commonly mailed items
as:
Page 19 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12
CC002012
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 59; Page 22 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-8 Filed 09/13/12 Page 23 of 38
(I) Books larger than 9 by 12 inches or with plastic or metal bindings; (2) More than three books in a single piece of mail; (3) Controlled substances as defined by ORS 47?005(6); (4) Foreign substances, such as; a) bodily fluids; b) lipstick or perfume; c) glue or paint; d) anything with an unusual stain or odor that indicates a foreign substance may be present; 2. Is written in code or suspected code; 3. Was a form of written communication not sent through the USPS or other approved system; 4. Is to or from a victim of a crime that the inmate is in custody for in either pretrial or sentenced status; 5. Would violate a court order; 6. May produce a hostile work environment, such as sexual harassment; 7. Is a credit or deferred billing transaction, such as "bill me later" subscriptions or merchandise bought on credit or collect-on-delivery terms; 8. Is fraudulently marked as legal or official mail. For more specific information about prohibited mail please review the full Inmate Jail Policy J603.
Appeals. Both the inmate and an outside person have the right to appeal a decision to confiscate inmate mail. With very limited exceptions, the Jail will provide a Notice of Prohibited Mail to both the sender and addressee when inmate mail is returned or confiscated. The Notice of Prohibited Mail will explain the reason why the inmate mail was returned or confiscated and will ex,plain the appeals process. The appeal process for an inmate follows the Jail's normal grievance process. The appeal process for everyone else requires a letter explaining the reason for the appeal, and providing contact information. The letter must be received within 15 days from the date of the Prohibited Mail Notice. The Jail will respond within 15 days of receipt of the letter.
Page 20 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12
CC002013
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 59; Page 23 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-8 Filed 09/13/12 Page 24 of 38
MEALS Meals will be served three times daily at approximately 6:30 A.M., 12:00 P.M. and 5:00 P.M. Pre.classification and disciplinary inmates may be required to eat in their cells. All others will line up for servi'ce, and will eat at the tables provided in the day rooms. If you choose not to eat, please advise the deputy. Televisions will be off during the serving of meals. Once the meals have been served and the Deputy leaves the pod, the television may be turned back on. Do not save food from meal service. All special personal preference diet requests, such as vegetarian meals, must be pre-approved by the jail supervisors. All inmates on a personal preference diet wili be charged a fee of $ 1.00 per meal, to be taken directly out of their individual inmate trust account to cover the additional cost of these meals. Indigent inmates will not be eligible to receive this type of special diet. MEDICAL SERVICES The Columbia County Jail will provide emergency medical, dental, and mental health care to all inmates regardless of their ability to pay for such services. No inmate will be denied care for serious health care needs based on the cost of medical services or the inmate's inability to pay for health care. All medical visits initiated by you will be assessed a fee which will be charged to your personal money account. You will be fmancially responsible for any elective surgery or other treatment you may request from your personal physician, dentist or other provider. Medical screening or appraisals at intake, or for inmate workers will be provided at no cost to you. Al1 Detainees will receive a medical evaluation within their first 14 days of incarceration. Prescription medications: You wil1 be charged for all prescription medication prescribed for you and purchased by the jail on your behalf. Over the counter medications such as; Tylenol, Aspirin, antacid etc., will be available from our medical department for a small charge. MEDICATION Health care staff may fill prescriptions at their discretion. Hea1th care staff may discontinue prescribed medication as directed by the jail health care supervisor or physicians. If you came from another correctional facility and had your medication transferred with you, the transporting Deputy w11l give your medication to the health care staff. Ifyou are leaving our jail and going to another jail, the transporting Deputy will get your medication from the health care staff and transport it with you. As a warning, any abuse of your medication may result in the discontinuation of your receiving the medicine.
Page 21 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12
CC002014
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 59; Page 24 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-8 Filed 09/13/12 Page 25 of 38

~ ..

MEDICAL GRIEVANCES

In case of any unresolved problem regarding medical, dental or infirmary care, you may follow the grievance procedures outlined in this manual.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Columbia Community Mental Health is the provider of these services for the facility. lfyou feel the

need to see a mental health professional, contact a Deputy or the health care staff. Once Staff refers the

inmate to Columbia Community Mental Health, the decision on whether or not to provide services is

at the sole discretion of C.olumbia Community Mental Health.-

.

MONEY ACCOUNTS

Each inmate in the Columbia County Jail will have a "money account" establisbed during the booking procedure. Funds may be deposited 24 bours per day seven days per week, via· Visa or Mastercard by a toll-free phone can to 1-866-232-1899, via internet at: www.touchpaydirect.com_orby depositing cash into a kiosk in the Sheriffs Office lobby. The depositor needs the inmate's name, booking number, and Facility Locator No., which is 297001. All purchases will be deducted from the account. Funds deposited to an account showing a negative balance will be deducted from that balance. The positive balance, if any, is available for the inmate's use. The balance will be refunded to the inmate upon discharge. Inmates who possess a negative balance on their account will not be denied their basic medical needs such as medical care and hygiene items. With a negative balance an inmate may request to participate in the 50/50 program at which time 50 % of any funds placed into the inmate account will go towards the negative balance and the other 50 % will be placed on the inmate's account ,available for use on individual items in the JaiL

OUTDOOR RECREATION An open air recreation area is provided in the jail for your use as scheduled throughout the day. Central Control will notify each of you of your recreation time. When you are called foi outdoor recreation, you need to be ready to go. You will leave the Pod in groups of six. No one will be allowed to depart the Pod late for recreation. The TV may be turned off while Control is calling for rec, and while people are leaving.
The following rules apply while using the open air recreation area:
1. Do not yell or attempt to communicate in any way with the people outside the recreation area, except for Corrections Staff.
2. Do not engage in "horseplay." We do not want people to get injured. 3. You must wear a minimum of a T-shirt, pants and shoes. Movement to or from outdoor recreation will require the complete uniform, including your ID card. 4. DO NOT take anything other than your ill card with you to outdoor recreation. This includes papers, candy, food items and anything that can be used to write or color with. If you are found with these items, disciplinary action may be taken.

Page 22 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12

CC002015
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 59; Page 25 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-8 Filed 09/13/12 Page 26 of 38

PERSONAL PROPERTY

All personal property items will be stored in the secure storage area of the Columbia County Jail. No personal items will be allowed to be kept on an inmate unless approved by the Jail Commander in writing.

PROGRAM SERVICES

If and when available, you have the opportunity to participate in a variety of program activities. Recommended programs assist you in making constructive use ofy-our time and to make positive changes in your life. We have grouped these into two main categories:

Voluntary activities

Inmate worker activities

You may participate in activities in one or all of these categories depending on your:

Sentencing status Length of sentence

Assessments results Classification

PROPERTY TRANSFERS

You must follow these guidelines regarding your property:
1. You may release your personal property to any adult outside the facility on an "a11 or nothing"
basis. The adult must present a state driver's license, state ill card, passport or military ID to jail staff, to ensure property is released to the proper individual. A signed inmate request form from you is required.

2. Release of property is available Monday through Friday from 3:00 P.M. until 4:00 P.M. ONLY.

3. The following exception appJjes when: An Inmate is committed to a state prison and must release all personal property including their clothing prior to being transported to a state facility.
If the property is not picked up prior to the inmate's departure, it will be forwarded to ODOC with the inmate.
4. We do not allow personal property to be dropped off for inmates, except for medical items which will be checked and approved by medical staff first. Clothes may be brought in if the situation calls for it. This will be at the discretion of the jail Supervisors.
SANITARY lNSPECTIONS
Deputies will inspect each housing unit daily to ensure it is a safe and clean environment. You will need to follow basic sanitary practices to ensure your cell area meets the sanitation requirements and pass the sanitation inspections. If your cell does not meet sanitation requirements, you will lose
Page 23 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12

CC002016
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 59; Page 26 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-8 Filed 09/13/12 Page 27 of 38
privileges and be instructed to clean the area. If the day room, shower area and outside recreation areas do not meet sanitation requirements, the entire housing unit may lose privileges. These privileges are those,listed at the beginning of this manual. If you or your housing unit lose privileges, they will be reinstated if you pass the next regularly scheduled inspection.
SANITARY PRACTICES
it is your responsibility to keep your cell clean and uncluttered. It is also the responsibility of each member of the housing unit to keep the day room, shower and outside recreation area clean. You will , be provided with cleaning supplies and are expected to use the cleaning supplies as much as necessary to ensure you live in a clean environment. '
You are to follow these rules for a clean and healthy housing unit:
Clean your cells, including the sink, toilet, floors and door windows daily. Pod Porters will dean day room areas daily. Pod Porters wi]] clean the following, but not limited to: Tables, floors, stairs, walls, showers, bathroom areas, railings, and windows. Keep the ,walls clean and free of graffiti or marks of any kind. Place all garbage in the trash cans in the housing units. Keep all pictures and papers off the walls, bunks, bottom of bunks. Do not hang, stick, or paste pictures or papers to the walls, bunks or any where else in the facility. Keep commissary food items in your property container. (Gray totes) Do not save food from meal service. Wash your hands frequently. P'1rticipate in laundry exchange twice weekly. Shower at least twice weekly, but we strongly encourage you to shower daiJy. Keep the showers clean, and free of excess- soap and shampoo bottles. Keep your gray bin or tote clean Perfonn any other duties that Corrections Staff may assign. Keep your room or bunk area uncluttered of excess items. This includes legal papers. Ask staff for assistance if you have a large amount of legal papers to store. Vents for air circulation should be kept clean and obstruction free.
SEARCHES
Jail staff may conduct random unannounced searches of your person or of items in your possession, and in any area of the jail at any time. Your personal property and/or living area may be searched without your permission and whether or not you are present.
SELF-ESCORT
Most inmate movement within the jail, including visiting, medical, programs, work assignments Etc., will be unescorted unless you abuse the privilege. You are expected to conduct yourself in an orderly fashion at all times. Inmates moving unescorted through the facility may not talk to other inmates, may not touch the walls or the glass, loiter or detour while en route to their destination. When leaving an area, you need to state your name and where you are going to Central Control. Any inmate who abuses these rules will be subject to disciplinary action and may lose their opportunity for unescorted movement. The exception will be any inmate who is classified as maximum security and who needs to be escorted in the facility at all times.
Page 24 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12
CC002017
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 59; Page 27 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-8 Filed 09/13/12 Page 28 of 38
SICK CALL
If you need to see medical personnel, fill out the appropriate Inmate Medical Request form. Each day the Medical Staffwill address these issues upon receipt of the Request forms.
SPECIAL DIETS
You must direct all requests for medical diets to the heath care staff for approval. If you rieed a special diet for medical reasons, please submit a request slip to the health care staff. lfyou need a special diet for religious reasons, please submit a request fonn. A Deputy will pick up the form from you and give it to a supervisor for approval. If approved, the religious diet will remain in effect for ~e length of your incarceration. Be aware that there may be a charge assessed for the extra cost associated for the special meal.
TELEPHONE PRIVILEGES
Your use of jail telephones is a privilege. Jail staff may limit your telephone use for reasons of safety, security, good order, or sanitation of the jail. Inmates classified to housing units will be allowed to use telephones from 0800 hrs to approximately 2200 hrs, based on the operations of the housing unit you are in. Conversations on any telephone in the jail may be monitored and/or recorded without further notice. You are consenting to this monitoring when you use the jail telephones.
There are some local attorney's phone numbers that have been set up as non coHect so you can" call them directly from the telephones in the pods. Confirmed attorney phone numbers are blocked from the monitoring system.
All telephone calls from a housing unit are a Gollect call or by the phone cards that you purchase here. The"phone cards are able to be used upon release from the Columbia County Jail. Telephone calls are limited to15 minutes each. The telephone system will warn you before the 15 minute time period is up so you can end your conversation.
Inmates are not allowed to receive incoming telephone calls. Jail staff will deliver verifiable emergency messages to you.
REMINDER: TELEPHONES ARE A PRIVILEGE. DO NOT ABUSE THE SYSTEM. ANY DAMAGE TO THE PHONE WILL RESULT IN A DISCIPLINARY HEARlNG AND A CRiMINAL CHARGE BEING FILED AGAINST THE INMATE.
TELEPHONE SERVICE NUMBER
If you or your family have any questions about billing or connection problems concerning the inmate phones, please call the service provider at 1-866-230-7761. We have a brochure available to answer more questions if you need it, please ask and we will provide it.
TRANSFER TO WORK RELEASE CENTER
The Courts andlor Supervisory Authority may consider you for transfer to the Work Release Center if authorized on your sentence order. These transfers are not automatic. Jail staff must approve all transfers.
Page 25 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12
CC002018
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 59; Page 28 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-8 Filed 09/13/12 Page 29 of 38
Factors considered in transfer decisions will include: Judge's approval Length of sentence. Individual needs. Available space. Classification. Demonstration of compliance with jail rules, expectations and responsible behavior.
If you are interested in participating in any programs, you must submit a request on an Inmate Request Form. Misbehavior or administrative concerns may prevent access to these programs. ·Disciplinary write-ups or actions will affect program eligibility.
VISITING
All public visits will be scheduled by the Inmate requesting the visit. The inmate must contact prospective visitors by phone or mail, and determine an acceptable visiting date. Time slots may be used on a first come, first serve basis. Visitors are encouraged to arrive 10 to 15 minutes early to sign in. If all of the slots are taken for tha~ time frame they can either wait till the next times start for that pod, if it is available, or return on another day. Visits will start on the hour and half hour.
Authorized visitors shall be members from the inmate's family; and friends age 18 and older. Visitors under the age of 18 must be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian. Attorneys and clergy· are not considered public visitors.
Inmate visitation is a privilege and while the Columbia County Sheriffs Office encourages visitation, that privilege must be regulated to protect the needs of the entire j ail operation. The amount of time allotted for visitation is based upon the classification and status of each inmate.
Classificatiort is based upon the inmate's current charges, criminal history and current demeanor. An inmates will be allowed a maximum of two thirty (30) minute visits per seven (7) day period (Sunday through Saturday). as time and space allows.
Inmates assigned to Disciplinary Segregation will not be allowed visitation privileges.
Inmates not yet assigned to a housing unit or who are housed in the pre-classification unit, will not be allowed public visitation.
Inmates serving a sentence of seventy-two hours(72) or less will not be allowed public visitation.
Due to space limitations, acceptable visiting combinations are limited to:
1. One Adult 2. Two Adults 3. One Adult and One Child 4. One Adult and Two Children 5. Two Adults and One Child
Inmates have the right to refuse any visit, however that right should be exercised prior to visiting time.
All inmates wishing to receive public visits must establish a visiting list of not more than five (5)
Page 26 - Columbia County Jail lnmate Manual Revised 06/18/12
CC002019
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 59; Page 29 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-8 Filed 09/13/12 Page 30 of 38
people. Persons not on the approved list will not be allowed to visit. You are able to change your visiting list once every 30 days from the time you establish your list. You need to fill out the visitation part of the request form to make the changes. The minimum information required for each person will be:
1. Visitor's full name 2. Date of birth 3. Relationship 4. The name of any child who may be in the company ofhislher parent or guardian.
The visiting schedule will be posted in the housing units.· Visiting times and days are subject to change periodically, so please refer to the schedule when talking to your loved ones.
SPECIAL VISITS
Special considerations may be given for emergency and/or special situations where nonnal visiting procedures may not be practical. Such situations as the death of a family member or close friend, serious injury of a family member or visitors traveling great distances, who have arrived unexpectedly may be considered on a case-by-case basis by the Supervisor or Corporal on duty. All special visits will be subject to the same rules and requirements as regular visitation. Special visits may be conducted in the Attorney Visiting Rooms if available and necessary due to other visitation which may be in progress.
VISITS WITH ATTORNEY
Inmates shall be given the opportunity to visit their attorneys at reasonable times, consistent with the
safety and security of the facility. Ail visits will be scheduled by the attorney.
VISITS BY CLERGY
Clergy Visits will be handled as a regular visit. The member of the Clergy you wantto have a visit with will be added like a normal visitor just like it is described in the regular visiting rules. They will be allowed to visit you on the regular date and time for the pod you are assigned to. The Clergy member will not count against you for the five people you are allowed to have on your visiting list. The Columbia County Jail provides non denominational religious services once per week and individual bible study twice per week.
VOLUNTARY ACTIVITIES
All general population inmates may have access to voluntary activities. These activities include but may not be limited to:
Religious services Narcotics Anonymous (NA) and Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) groups Religious based life skills classes Individual educational tutoring (21 and under) Recreational library Law library
A sign up sheet for the voluntary activities will be posted in your housing unit. You must sign up on
Page 27 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual ReviSed 06/18/12
CC002020
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 59; Page 30 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-8 Filed 09/13/12 Page 31 of 38

the provided list to be able to participate. Remember that participation in these activities is a privilege. Participation is dependent on your continued cooperation and responsible behavior.

WAKE UP AND LOCK DOWN.

Day room and cell lights will be turned on at 6:00 A.M. daily. Make your bed and dress for breakfast. Breakfast service will begin at approximately 6:30 A.M. daily. Day room lights and television will be
turned offby about 10:00 P.M. and the cell lights will be turned off at 10:00 P.M.. All inmates must
be on their bunks at "lights out" and are required to remain quiet.

Each inmate is expected to completely clean your room and area, make your bed, dump trash cans, etc. when the cleaning supplies are available to you. Be aware that there are usually some cleaning materials available at all times.

MINOR RULE VIOLATIONS PROCEDURES

·1. The accused inmate shall be served with a minor rule citation by the citing Deputy as quickly as is practical, after the violation is discovered, but in no case shall it be longer than 24 hours after the investigation is complete.

2. The inmate will sign the misconduct report and acknowledge receipt of alleged violation(s) and the

right to appeal. The inmate may enter a plea of "Guilty" or "Not Guilty".

'

A. Upon entry of a "Guilty" plea, a Deputy will schedule an informal hearing for possible sanctions to be imposed.

B. Upon entry"of a "Not Guilty" plea on the misconduct report or upon request for a formal hearing the incident will be handled the same as a Major Violation.

MINOR RULE VIOLATION SANCTIONS

. Sanctions resulting from a guilty plea on a Minor Misconduct Report may include:

a. Verbal warning.

b. Creative sanction appropriate to the offense (i.e. extra work detail, etc.).

c. Housing Unit lock down not to exceed 24 hours.

d. Disciplinary segregation not to exceed five (5) calender days for a single violation. Inmates may receive separate lock down time for each marked violation. This should not exceed a total of fourteen (14) calender days.

e. Re-Classification

f.Probation for up to 30 days.

g. While in disciplinary segregation there is no access to programs.
Page 28 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12

CC002021
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 59; Page 31 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-8 Filed 09/13/12 Page 32 of 38
Inmates get one hour out each 24 hours. Telephone (except legal) and television use may not be permitted. Commissary choices are restricted. Personal visits are suspended for the duration of the segregation. Book cart or library access is permitted; however; this privilege may be taken away'as a sanction. MINOR RULE VIOLATIONS
01 Possession of Nuisance Contraband: Any authorized item found in an inmates possession that has been altered or is in excess of the authorized amount.
02 Arguing: Any disagreement which becomes disruptive, loud or obnoxious. 03 Possession of another inmates property. 04 Unauthorized use of facility property or equipment (i.e. washers/dryers, barber equipment etc.) 05 Acting as a lookout 06 Being in an unauthorized area without corrections staff present. 07 Purposefully obstructing the view of Corrections Staff. 08 Inappropriate remarks or misuse of the inmate request forms or any of the forms or
paperwork handed out or used in the facility. 09 Unwarranted emergency calls. 10 Horse Playing: Any aggressive or faked aggressive actions, which may lead to or be mistaken
for a physical altercation. 11 Disrespect to other inmates (i.e. name calling, profanity or accusations directed at another
inmate). 12 Cursing, uncontrolled use of profanity or obscenities that may be considered offensive to
otbers. 13 Excessive noise. 14 Failure to properly maintain living area. 15 Hanging paper, linen, clothing, etc. on light fixtures, walls, ceilings etc. 16 Failure to maintain personal hygiene. 17 Improper attire (i.e. not following the dress code stated in the manual). 18 Displaying or demonstrating gang affiliations (i.e. hand gestures, hand in pants, low riding
Page 29 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12
CC002022
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 59; Page 32 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-8 Filed 09/13/12 Page 33 of 38
trousers, etc.). "19 Graffiti: writing, drawing or marking on any of the surfaces of the facility. 20 Posting any type of picture, drawing or any other material on the walls, bunks or any the
surfaces of the facility. 21 Misuse of the intercom system. 22 Disrespect towards any Staff Member or Sheriffs Office Employee 23 Disruptive Behavior 24 Unauthorized use of the typewriter. (Law Library) 25 Lying to Staff Members. 26 Other MAJOR RULE VIOLATION PROCEDURES All Major Rule Violations will be handled through a formal disciplinary process, and require a formal hearing. 1. When an inmate commits, or is believed to havecommitted a Major Rule Violation, the inmate will be immediately placed on pre-hearing segregation status pending the outcome of the disciplinary hearing, regardless the nature of the alleged conduct. This can cause restriction in your privileges. 2. The accu~ed inmate shall be served with a Major Rule Citation and the Inmate Rights form by the citing Deputy as quickly as is practical, after the violation is discovered, but in no case shall it be longer than 24 hours after the investigation is complete; 3. The inmate will have a hearing before a hearings officer within five (5) days of the incident excluding Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays. The inmate will be notified at least 24 hours prior tathe hearing. 4. After the hearing, the hearings officer can render a decision immediately or within 72 hours.
A. Ifthe inmate is found "Not Guilty", the inmate will be restored to the same sta"tus and privileges as before charged.
B. lfthe inmate is found "Guilty", the Hearings Officer will impose an appropriate sanction from the Major Rule Violation Sanction list. MAJOR RULE VIOLATION SANCTIONS Sanctions resulting from a finding of "Guilty" in a hearing for a Major Violation may include the following:
Page 30 - Columbia County JaO Inmate Manual Revised 06{lB/12
CC002023
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 59; Page 33 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-8 Filed 09/13/12 Page 34 of 38
I. Temporary or pennanent change in programming to include: A. Change in housing assignments. (i.e. re-classification) B. Change in custody status. C. Removal from work status with concurrent suspension of credit for work, as directed by O.R.S. 169.120
2. Reclassification to Disciplinary Segregation for no more than sixty (60) days for all (multiple) violations arising out of one incident (only 30 days maximum on a single violation) and giving credit for time served as appropriate.
3. Loss of Statutory Good time and modification of release date in accordance with O.R.S. 169.110.
4. Suspension of any part, (or aU of the above if appropriate), along with information of expected conduct to avoid imposition.
5. Any combination of one (1) through four (4), listed above. 6. Unless medically or psychiatrically required, no segregated inmate shall be denied- clothing or
bedding that is allowed to general population inmates. 7. Segregated inmates shall be provided the same food as general population inmates. 8. Personal hygiene items and shower facilities will be provided regularly to segregated inmates,
unless there are docurpented security reasons which would prohibit them. 9. While in disciplinary segregation there is no access to programs. Inmates get one hour out
each 24 hours. Telephone ( except legal) and televisiqn use is not permitted. Commissary choices are restricted to hygiene items only. Personal visits are suspended for the duration of the segregation. Book cart or library access is permitted; however this privilege may be taken away as a condition of the sanction. MAJOR RULE VIOLATIONS 40 Habitual Misconduct: 3 or more separate minor rule violations within 30 days. 41 Refusing to comply with a Deputy's/ Staff! Kitchen Staff directives. 42 Tampering with or destruction of Identification Card 43 Refusing to lock down on command, or during a disturbance. 44 Refusing to go to court. 45 Tampering with security devices/ facility equipment
Page 31 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12
CC002024
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 59; Page 34 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-8 Filed 09/13/12 Page 35 of 38
46 Threatening or strong arming another inmate. 47 Giving false information to a Deputy. 48 Creating a disturbance while on lock down (i.e. bfu"1ging doors, excessive noise, flooding the
cell, .etc). 50 Threatening staff members 51 Smoking, or possession of smoking paraphernalia. 52 Possession of unauthorized beverages (i.e. pruno). 53 Iridecent exposure. 54 Theft.
55 Extortion.
56 Destruction of, or Defacing County property. 57 Possession of megal drugs or prescription medications belonging to another or misuse of
prescribed medications. 58 Participation in organizing or recruiting for gang related activities. 59 Sexual misconduct! homosexual activities 60 Fighting. 61 Assault on another inmate. 62 Assisting a suicide 63 Possession of a weapon. 64 Assault on a staff member. 65 Attempted or actual escape, or possession of an escape plan. 66 Participating in or inciting a riot. 67 Taking a hostage 68 Arson 69 Rape or Sodomy.
. Page 32 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12
CC002025
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 59; Page 35 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-8 Filed 09/13/12 Page 36 of 38
70 Homicide. 71 Violation of any Criminal Code 72 Tampering with or altering any other person's food. TJ Other. VIOLATIONS APPEALS PROCESS All appeals must be submitted to the Facility Supervisor or their designee within 72 hours, following the decision. The Facility Supervisor or designee will review the recommendations and return the appeal form to the inmate within five (5) working days of the appeal.· The response time may be extended due to extenuating circumstances or further investigation, with written notice to the inmate of the reason(s) for the delay. Ask a deputy if you need a form. SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS DID YOU KNOW? Rape andsexuaI assault happens to females and males of aU ages, from infancy to senior years. 98% of males who have raped boys reported they are heterosexual. Most males who assauh men or women are married or report having girlfriends. Sexual assault had nothing to do with the victim's present or future sexual orientation. Victims may be either heterosexual or homosexual. A survivor is not at fault for the rape, even if she/he was in a secluded area, or had previous consensual sex with the attacker. The fact a male victim of sexual assault ejaculated or became sexually aroused does not mean they were not raped or that they gave consent. These are normal, involuntary physiological reactions. It is common for survivors of sexual assault to have feeling of anger embarrassment, panic, depression, guilt, and fear after the attack. Other common reactions include loss of appetite, nausea or stomachaches, headaches, loss of memory and/or trouble concentrating and changes in sleep patterns.
FACTS FOR THE INMATE THAT SEXUALLY ASSAULTS OTHER INMATES: All cases of sexual assault will be referred to the Enforcement Branch or Major Crimes Team (MCT) for criminal investigation. You may be prosecuted and if found guilty of a felony, you may be sentenced to prison time (up to 100 months for each Rape lor Sodomy I conviction). Any sex offense conviction will automatically add sex offender conditions when you release, which may require you to register as a sex offender per ORS 181.594. This registration requirement is for life. You also be deemed as a "Predatory Sex Offender," which would require community notification upon your release. Regardless of how you choose to characterize it, any sexual activity will increase your risk ofHIV infection, along with exposing you to other sexually transmitted diseases. If you have trouble controlling your actions seek help from mental health staff and/or consider participating in programs designed to control anger or reduce stress. To reduce immediate feelings of
Page 33 - ColumbIa County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12
CC002026
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 59; Page 36 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-8 Filed 09/13/12 Page 37 of 38
anger or aggression, try talking to or writing a friend, meditate or do breathing exercises to relax, work on a hobby, or engage in some type of exercise. SEXUAL ASSAULT Sexual assault as defined by Columbia County Jail policy is "Sexual conduct where force or threat of force is used, or when the person is unable to consent because of age or incapacitation (mental defect, mental incapacitation, or physical helplessness). Sexual conduct includes: vaginal penetration by a penis; contact between the genitals of a person and the mouth or anus of another person; penetration of the vagina, anus, or penis of another person with any object other than the penis or mouth; touching of the sexual or intimate parts ofsomeone or causing someone to touch the sexual or intimate parts of another for the purpose of sexual gratification." Any behavior or act of a sexual nature directed toward an inmate by an inmate, employee, volunteer, visitor, contract employee or other agency representatives. This incIudBs acts or any attempts to commit such acts including, but not limited to, sexual contact, inappropriate behavior ofa sexual nature, unreasonable invasion of privacy, conversations or correspondence that suggests a romantic relationship between an inmate and any party referenced above. Sexual assault affects everyone, either directly or through the experience of those we care about. It is not only a woman's issue as it can affect persons of any gender, age, race, ethnic group, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, or disability. The statistics are proof of this problem: According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), in 2002 there were 247,730 victims of rape (This number does not include victims 12 or younger), seven out of every eight rape victims were female, and one in every eight nipe victims was male. A 1998 study indicates that about 2.78 million American men have experienced an attempted or completed rape and one out of six American women have experienced an attempted or completed rape. SEXUAL ASSAULT AVOIDANCE The only rape that can be prevented is when a potential rapist chooses NOT to rape. However, you may avoid an attack by keeping the following safety guidelines in mind: Be aware of situ'ations that make you feel uncomfortable. Trust your instincts. If it feels wrong, LEAVE. Don't let manners get in the way of keeping yourself safe. Don't be afraid to say "NO" or "STOP IT NOW". Walk and stand with confidence. Many rapists choose victims who look like they won't fight back or are emotionally weak. Avoid talking about sex and casual nudity. These things may be considered a come on, or make another inmate believe that you have an interest in a sexual relationship. Do not accept canteen items or other gifts from other inmates. Placing yourself in debt to another inmate can lead to sexual favors. Avoid secluded areas; position yourself in plain view of staff members. If you are being pressured for sex, report it to a supervisor immediately.
Page 34 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12
CC002027
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 59; Page 37 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-8 Filed 09/13/12 Page 38 of 38

WHAT TO PO IF YOU ARE SEXUALLY ASSAULTED

If the attack has just happened...... .

Get to a safe place. REPORT THE ATTACK TO A STAFF MEMBER lMMEDIATELY.

The longer you wait to report the attack the more difficult it is to obtain the evidence necessary for'

criminal and/or administrative investigation.

.

Request immediate medical attention. You may have serious injUries that you are not aware or, and any sexual contact can expose you to sexually transmitted diseases.

Do not shower, brush your teeth, use the restroom, or change your clothes. You may destroy important evidence.

If you have been attacked or witness an attack, but"you are unwilling to report it in person to a CCSO uniformed staff member, then you may speak with a counselor, chaplain, medical staff, write a sealed Jetter to any command staff member, or contact" a CCSO Detective at 503-366-4650.

Later on..... Seek the support of a trusted friend, family member or staff member, such as the Chaplain or the counseling staff. The days ~head can be traumatic and it helps to have people who care about you .supporting you.

Seek professional help. Mental Health staff are available for crisis care 365 days a year, to listen and offer support.

Page 35 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12
CC002028
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 59; Page 38 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-9 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 38
EXHIBIT 60
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 60; Page 1 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-9 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 38
INMATE MANUAL COLUMBIA COUNTY JAIL
All rules in this manual may be amended or suspended at any time by order of the Sheriff or designee. As an Inmate in the Columbia County Jail. you are partially responsible for your own safety. You are in jail and you must be aware of your sUITmmdings.
Incorporating Revised Inmate Mail Guidelines (See Pages 9 through 20) Effective July 3, 2012
CC002029
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 60; Page 2 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-9 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 38

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS.......................... . YOUR RIGHTS AND PRJVlLEGES................ 1 YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES AND EXPECTED
BEHAVIOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1-2 BEDS AND BEDDING........................... 2 BILLING FEES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-3 CELL IN COMMAND............................ 3 CLASSIFICATION.............................. 3 CLOTHING EXCHANGE......................... 4 COMMlSSARY................................. 4 CONTRABAND................................. 3 COUNTY ISSUED ITEMS...................... 4-5 COURT CONDUCT............................. 5 DRESS CODE.................................. 5 FiRE AND EMERGENCY SAFETY................ 6 HAIR CARE AND PERSONAL GROOMING. ........ 6 HEALTH APPRAISALS.......... '" ............. 6 HOUSING UNIT OPERATIONS................... 6 ICE CONTACT INFORMATION................... 6 IDENTIFICAnON CARDS....................... 6 INMATE COUNTS.............................. 7 INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE............ 7-8 INMATE REQUEST FORMS..................... , 8 INMATE WORKER ACTIVITIES.....•............. 8 INTERCOM SYSTEM........................... 8 LAW LIBRARY................................ 8 LIBRARY..................................... 8 MAIL...................................... 9-18 MAIL GUIDE ............................... 19-20 MEALS...................................... 21 MEDICAL SERVICES.......................... 21 MEDICATION................................. 21

MEDICAL GRIEVANCES................................. 22 MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES............................. 22 MONEY ACCOUNTS.......................•............. 22 OUTDOOR RECREATION................................ 22 PERSONAL PROPERTY.................................. 23 PROGRAM SERVICES................................... 23 PROPERTY TRANSFERS................................. 23 SANITARY INSPECTIONS............................ 23-24 SANITARY PRACTICES. . ............................... 24 SEARCHES............................................. 24 SELF-ESCORT........................................... 24 SICK·CALL............................................. 25 SPECIAL DIETS................. : ....................... 25 TELEPHONE PRIVILEGES................................ 25 TELEPHONE SERVICE NUMBER. ......................... 25 TRANSFER TO WORK RELEASE CENTER. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25-26 VISITING. ........................................... 26-27 SPECIAL V1SITS...... .' ................................. 27 VISITS WITH ATIORNEY ................................ 27 VISITS BY CLERGY.................................. 21-27 VOLUNTARY ACTIVITIES............................ 27-28 WAKE UP AND LOCK DOWN. . . .. . . . ... . ................ 28 MINOR RULE VIOLATIONS PROCEDURES................. 28 MINOR RULE VIOLATION SANCTIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28-29 MINOR RULE VlOLATIONS........................... 29-30 MAJOR RULE VIOLATION PROCEDURES............ " .... 30 MAJOR RULE VIOLATION SANCTIONS................. 30-31 MAJOR RULE VIOLATIONS........................... 31-33 VIOLATIONS APPEALS PROCESS......................... 33 SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS......................... 33 SEXUAL ASSAULT...................................... 34 SEXUAL ASSAULT AVOIDANCE....................... 34-35

CC002030
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 60; Page 3 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-9 Filed 09/13/12 Page 4 of 38
YOUR-RIGHTS A.ND PRIVILEGES We want you to know exactly what is expected of you while you are in this jail. We will let you know what you can expect from us by explaining our rules, procedures and schedules to you. While at this jail, you will be provided with:
1. Three daily meals served at reasonable intervals 2. Clean bedding and clothing at least twice weekly 3. The opportunity to shower at least twice weekJy 4. Regular exercise 5. Opportunities to exercise your religion 6. Basic hygiene items 7. Access to the law library 8. Access to counsel 9. Emergency medical and dental treatment 10. A safe and secure environment If you follow jail rules and sanitation practices, you may receive these privileges: 1. Use of television 2. Use oflibrary services 3. Use of outdoor recreation 4. Use of telephones 5. Having social visits 6. Making commissary purchases 7. Sending and receiving mail 8. Voluntary participation in jail programs Remember that these are not rights. Jail staff can limit or suspend these privileges at any time in order to maintain the safety, security, good order and sanitation of ttie jail. This manual does not cover every situation that may arise, but it will serve as a basic guide for your conduct and facility procedures. Columbia County Jail has a no smoking policy.
YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES AND EXPECTED BEBAVIOR Read this manual to know what is expected of you. The excuse "I did not know that" is not acceptable. It is your responsibility to foJlow all Jaws, jail rules, schedules, and staff requests. You must respect jail property and the property of otbers. This would include staying out of other inmate's cells and off of their bunks. You are expected to keep your sleeping area, the day room and outdoor recreation areas clean and orderly. Unacceptable behavior will be dealt with finnly, but fairly, Misbehavior may result in a change of your custody status which can directly affect your privileges in the jail.
Page 1 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12
CC002031
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 60; Page 4 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-9 Filed 09/13/12 Page 5 of 38

This manual is an accountable item and is issued to you for your use while you are in this facility. You are responsible for the condition of this manual and you will be billed for any damage, graffiti, or unusable condition when returned. If the manual is damaged, please report it to a staff member to have it replaced immediately.

The best control of your behavior is by you practicing self-discipline and respect for others. Inmates are not

allowed to become personally familiar with corrections' staff. Be considerate and respectful toward all

officials. We will expect you to address unifonned staff as "Deputy or Sergeant

" and non-

uniformed staff as "Mr.

" or ·'Ms.

" Central Control personnel will be addressed as

"ControL"

Inmate basic rules for the Columbia County Jail:

1. The ID card is to be put into the window facing out so that it can be seen and scanned during

your stay.

2. When you are out of your room, the ID card is to be in your pocket.

3. When you are in the day room, you are to be completely dressed with T shirt tucked in.

4. When you are in your room, you are to have the T shirt and boxers on at all times including

while you are sleeping, no exceptions.

S. When you come out of the pod and into the circle, you are to stay on the colored squares. The

squares form a line that you walk on. You stay on that line with the exception to go around an

obstacle. You are to stay in a si~gle file line.

6. When you are in any other hallway, you are to walk on the right side of the hall and in a single

file. You are not to touch anything. Do not speak, yell or signal at anyone. Keep your hands

to yourself.

. 7. When in the hallway, there should be only six (6) inmates at one time.

no 8.

NOT cover the ventilation units or speaker in the cells.

BEDS AND BEDDING
Bedding will consist of two sheets and two blankets. Blankets and sheets may not be removed from your cell or bunk, nor may they be placed on the floor or table for !!IT. reason. You are not to take the mattress off the bunk and place it on the floor of your cell or in the day room of the pod. Your mattress may only be used for sleeping purposes. The bunk area must be Jeft in an orderly fashion through out the day.
BILLING FEES
As authorized in DRS 169.150 and 169.151, Local Correctional Facilities are allowed to bill Inmates for items and services that are provided to them while incarcerated in Correctional Facilities.
Every Sentenced Inmate will be charged a boarding fee of$1O.00 per day. The lnmate will receive a bill when he or she is released from the jail. The Inmate will have 30 days to pay the bill or set up a payment plan.

Page 2 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12

CC002032
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 60; Page 5 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-9 Filed 09/13/12 Page 6 of 38

An initial hygiene kit is $2.15 and the Inmate ID card is $1.00. All over the counter medications as \veH as prescription medications will be billed through the inmate's commissary account. When the Inmate is released from jail and his or her commissary account is in the negative, that amount will also show up on the release billing. When 30 days have passed with no payment received on the release billing, the account will be turned over to the Oregon Department of Revenu.e for collection.
Other charges are listed below:

1) Work Release Inmates are charged a minimum of $15.00 per day or two hours of pay if the inmate's

hourly rate of pay is higher than $7.50 per hour.

If any of the following items are damaged or

. destroyed you will be billed as follows:December

2,2010

2) Hygiene Kits

$ 2.15 each 11) Tote

$44.95

3) Postcard

$ 0.50

12) Tote Lid

$26.95

4) HairCuts'

$ 5.00

13) Sporks

$ 0.25

5) MedicalfNurse visits

$ 5.00·

14) Sandals

$ 2:49

6) Medical visit for OTC meds $ 1.00

15) Cups

$ 0.75

7) Medical kites submitted

$ .50

16) Socks (If App!.)

$ 0.85

8) Feminine Hygiene Products $ 0.20

17) Towels

$ 0.75

9) Razors (if more than 1)

$ 0.15

18) Striped Shirt

$ 6.55-$12.75

10) Copies of legal materials'

$ 0.25

19) Striped Pants

$ 8.75-$14.95

20) T-Shlrts

$ 3.99 -.$ 7.30

21) Shorts

$ 2.32 - $ 2.74

22) Replacement ID Card $ 5.00

All fees are subject to change at any time

CELL IN COMMAND

The command "cell-in"or "bunk-up" means you need to stop what you are doing and go directly to your cell or bunk. You must follow this command without question or hesitation. If you do not, it will directly affect your classification and custody status and also will result in disciplinary actions against you.

CLASSIFICATION
. All newly arrested inmates who are not released prior to movement from the booking area will be assigned housing in a Pre-Classification unit. They may be maintained on lock-down status for up to the first Seventy-Two (72) hours, for classification purposes. The Columbia County Jail has three classifications which are minimum, medium and maximum security. All inmates are assigned a classification according to their status. Inmates roay request a classification review in writing on an Inmate Request Form at any time.

Most inmates involved in the Inmate Worker Program and Alternative Programs must qualify for and maintain a minimum custody status.

ACTIVITIES MAY DIFFER BASED ON YOUR LEVEL OF CLASSIFICATION.

Page 3 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12

CC002033
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 60; Page 6 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-9 Filed 09/13/12 Page 7 of 38
CLOTHING EXCHANGE
Clean clothing will be provided twice weekly. You must tum in all of your soiled clothing during clothing exchange. In return you will receive 1 T-shirt, 1 pair of shorts, 1 towel, I striped shirt and 1 pair striped pants. On every other exchange you will receive clean sheets. Blankets may be exchanged every 30 days. Each housing unit will have a different laundry schedule. j ail staff will make every effort to ensure clothing is in good repair. You are responsible for all clothing and bedding issued to you. You should check the condition of the clothing you receive and immediately inform a staff member and exchange any clothing or bedding that has a tear or graffiti written on it. If you are found to be in possession of damaged items, you will be subject to disciplinary action. This may include payment for the damaged clothing.
COMMISSARY
The Columbia County Jail has a well-appointed commissary list from which inmates with funds may purchase various items. Inmates without funds may order indigent hygiene kits once per week, if needed. Indigent items will be posted to the inmate's account creating a negative balance. Commissary sheets will be handed out once a week. If you did not get funds in before the commissary sheets were made up to be pa.ssed out, you will have to wait until the following week to order. Commissary purchases are limited to no more than $75.00 per week. Inmates may have no more than two (2) lead pencils in their possession at any given time. In addition each inmate will be allowed to purchase one pack of colored
pen~ils.
CONTRABAND Any authorized item found in an inmate's possession that has been altered or is not being used for it's original purpose, or any items in excess of the issued quantity as stated within this manual, to include:
1) Controlled substances as defined in ORS 475.005(6). 2) Drug paraphernalia as defined by ORS 475.525(2). 3) Any currency or negotiable instrument 4) Any item that a person in a correctional facility is prohibited by statute, rule, or order from
obtaining or possessing, and whose use would endanger the safety or security of the facility or
person in the facility. 5) An unauthorized item in an inmate's possession or in a cell, bunk, or common area. 6) An authorized item altered in any way. 7) More than the authorized number of an item
COUNTY ISSUED ITEMS
All inmates who are dressed into the Columbia County jail will be issued jail clothing after intake, and in the clothing change/shower room. You will be issued a plastic bin containing a hygiene kit, bed linen, towel, and clothing and this Inmate Manual. Another issued item will include a mattress. You will be responsible for the condition of all items issued to you. The gray property box (totes) are to be used specifically for storage of your personal and issued belongings. Totes are not to be used for chairs or any use other than what has been mentioned above. Totes are to remain under your bunk at all times.
Page.q • Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual RevIsed 06/18/12.
CC002034
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 60; Page 7 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-9 Filed 09/13/12 Page 8 of 38

1. One inmate uniform top.

7.

2. One inmate uniform pants

8.

3. Two T-Shirts

9.

4. Two pair of gym shorts/Underwear

10.

5. One pair ofjail sandals.

6. One mattress

Two sheets Two Blankets One Towel One Rule Book

Female inmates may be allowed to retain the following:

1. Personal underwear, if needed for hygiene reasons, if determined appropriate by staff.
2. Personal bras, with no metal fasteners Or under wires. A sports style bra is preferred.

During the winter months you will be issued a sweatshirt to be worn' in your cell, day room area, the outdoor recreation yard or under the striped shirt when going to court.

COURT CONDUCT

Your arraignment will be your first court appearance in jaiL During your arraignment, a judge will tell you what you are charged with and your rights with regard to those charges. The judge may appoint anattomey at this time if you qualify.

During any court appearance you will not have contact with any person other than your lawyer or the court officials. Contact includes talking, signaling, or passing notes to people.

Video arraignment is considered a court room setting and the above rules apply.

DRESS CODE

You are expected to remain fully dressed at all times except when you are on your bunk. When you are in your assigned bunk area you must wear at least the T-shirt and shorts issued by this facility. Any time you leave your sleeping area or room, you must be fully clothed. Fully clothed consists of your shorts, Tshirt, striped shirt and striped pants or shorts, T-shirt, gray sweatshirt and striped pants. During lights out, you may go to use the restroom in your ~-shirt and shorts if you live in an open dorm.

Your T-shirt must be tucked in at all times and not hanging loosely. Rolling your pant legs up if they are too long, but not above the ankles, is allowed. 00 not alter the appearance of your clothes.

pants You may not roll your sleeves, tuck your

into your socks, or pull your pants down below the hips. 1t is

not allowed to wear clothes that are too large or too small.

You will be allowed to take your outer striped shirt off while exercising in the recreation area.

FIRE AND EMERGENCY SAFETY

In case of any type of emergency or evacuation, you are to foHow any direct order of a Deputy. There are emergency evacuation procedures in place and you will be evacuated in an orderly manner to a safe place.

If you are asked to evacuate an area by a Deputy, you are to form a straight line at your Pod door and wait for directions from a Deputy or the Control Room staff. A Deputy will direct you to a safe area.

Page 5 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12

CC002035
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 60; Page 8 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-9 Filed 09/13/12 Page 9 of 38

HAIR CARE AND PERSONAL GROOMING

We encourage you to shower daily. We hand out razors three times a week. If an individual bas a court appearance they will be allowed to use a razor prior to their court appearance. Once a week a list will be put into your respective pod and you must sign up on that list to receive a haircut. Hair cuts can be done when a person is av~ilable to be the barber. There is a $5.00 charge for the haircut. Haircuts will be done on Saturdays and Sundays only. You will be allowed to have one haircut per month. Haircuts other than a trim or a complete removal to a short stubble are not allowed. No other styles wiJI be tolerated. Only kitchen and floor workers are allowed one free haircut per month.

HEALTH APPRAISALS

A health appraisal must be done before an inmate can be considered for "worker" status.

HOUSING UNIT OPERATIONS

The daily operation in the pods will be as follows.

You will be allowed to come out of your cell for a short period of time during the morning at breakfast. You will then be instructed to return to your cell until lunch time. After lunch, you will then have three hours out of your cell. At the end of that period, you will return to your cell. The next period out, will be after dinner for two hours.

- Inmate time out of cells for each pod will be set as necessary to fulfill the needs of the facility.

- Cleaning gear wiH be provided during the day. We require you to use it daily to clean your cell, bunk area and the pod as a whole on a daily basis.

No one is allowed to sit, stand or loiter on the stairs or catwalks (upper tier floors) at any time. This will include walking or pacing off laps upstairs, or on the stairs. There is to be no sitting on the table-tops.

ICE CONTACT INFORMATION

Inmates who are housed in the Columbia County Jail for Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) may

contact ICE via the use of an ICE inmate request form.

.

ICE inmates may contact ICE Pro Bono Attorneys by calling (800) 646-6283. In each Pod located on the mail boxes, there is a list of all Pro Bono calls for use by all ICE detainees. ICE agents make scheduled visits to the Columbia County Jail on Wednesdays of every week.

IDENTIFICATION CARDS

You must keep your inmate ID card on your person any time you are out of your cell. Do not let anyone use your ill card. The best place to keep this card is in your shirt pocket. When you are in your cell, place your ID card, right side up, in the window of your door with the picture facing out so the Deputy can see your name and picture. You must surrender your ID card to any staff member upon request.

Page 6 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12

CC002036
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 60; Page 9 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-9 Filed 09/13/12 Page 10 of 38

INMATE COUNTS
There wiiI be at least six "Fonnal Counts." per day. At the beginning of each "fonnal count" you will be instructed to "cell in or bunk up." Televisons will be turned off. At that time you must:

1. Go into your cell and close the door or get onto your bunk depending on the pod you are in.
2. Correctly place your I.D. card in the window of your door or on your bunk. It you are on a bunk,
or otherwise not in your room or pod, having the ID card in your hand and presenting it to the
deputy doing the count is acceptable.

Prior to lock-down each night a final formal head count will be conducted in the following manner.

1. In Pods with cells you will go to your room, close the door stand with one individual on each side of the door, ID card in hand, ready for the count. All inmates will remain in this manner until a Deputy scans your identification card.

2. In an open dorm go to your bunk and stand next to your bunk with your ID card in hand, until a Deputy scans your card. After fonnal you should bunk up for the night and remain quiet.

There will be numerous informal counts per day, therefore, whenever a Deputy enters your cell; remain where you are, do not move until the deputy leaves or instructs you to move.

INMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
Yo~ may submit a grievance about a condition in the jail if you think it is a problem or is unfair. You cannot grieve: disciplinary actions (there is an appeal process for that), classification decisions, incidents or problems whi~h you were not party to, a collection of unrelated complaints, and no group grievances.

To file a grievance, you must follow the steps below in the order shown. You cannot skip one.

1. An inmate may request a Grievance Form from any Corrections Deputy at any time to bring to attention any perceived problems and proposed solutions: The Deputy will address any grievance within the scope of his/her authority and document any action taken regarding the request within five (5) working days.

2. The inmate may redirect the grievance to the Shift Supervisor for any complaint which cannot be reasonably resolved by the Deputy. The Supervisor will address any grievance within the scope of hislher authority and document any action taken on the form within five (5) working days.

3. lfthe complaint is not resolved to the inmate's satisfaction by the Supervisor, the inmate may send

the Grievance Form to the Facility Supervisor or his designee. The Facility Supervisor or designee

will address the complaint and document any action taken on the fonn within five (5) working

days.

.

4. If the complaint is not resolved to the inmate's satisfaction by the Facility Supervisor, the inmate may send a sealed Grievance Form to the Sheriff. The Sheriff will address the complaint and document his decision on the fonn within ten (10) working days. The Sheriffs decision wiIJ be final!

Page 7 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12

CC002037
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 60; Page 10 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-9 Filed 09/13/12 Page 11 of 38

1-:' .
Inmates may file an Emergency Grievance in the event that circumstances exist to warrant one. This will be filed directly to the Jail Commander in a sealed envelope, utilizing the same inmate grievance form.

INMATE REQUEST FORMS

The Inmate Request Forms (also known as kites) are available.upon request. There are two of them. One will be for general questions, law library and visiting. The other form will be a Medical Request Form. This is only for the medical staff and doctor to answer and will be forwarded to them. There·are separate forms to correspond with Columbia County Community Corrections or with Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE)/Immigration.

INMATE WORKER ACTIVITIES

If you want to work in the jail, you will need to request and fill out an Inmate Worker Labor Agreement, then

submit it into the mailbox. It may take several days to receive your copy.

.

Staff will select various inmates to do kitchen, custodial or maintenance jobs in the facility. Health care staff must clear you before you can participate in the worker activities, especially in the kitchen.

You may receive work time credit only if you ate sentenced and your sentence order authorizes it. Any change of ajob description or shift must be approved by a Supervisor.

INTERCOM SYSTEM

The call buttons in the cells are to be used for emergency purposes only. They are not to be used for any other communication. lfthe call buttons are misused, the inrn.ate violating this rule will be written up for failure to abide by the rules of the Columbia County Jail.

LAW LIBRARY

All inmates of the Columbia County Jail will be given access to one hour in the law library per request. Use of the law library will be limited only by time and the need to maintain the safety and security of the facility. To gain access, you must submit a request form at least twenty-four (24) hours in advance. You will be expected to take a note pad and pencil with you to the law library to assist you in your research. All law books, reference material and other articles must remain in the law library to ensure equal access for all inmates. There will be very limited copying capabilities available to you for which your account will be charged a fee per copy. No inmate wi1l be denied this service based on an inability to pay.

When you finish, you are required to leave the law library orderly and neat. Please be aware that corrections staff cannot provide you with legal advice or legal assistance. If you have any questions, please consult your attorney.

LIBRARY

All inmates of the Columbia County Jail will be afforded ample opportunity to have access to library books within the jail library. The books may be delivered by a cart. You may have up to six books at a time. All books must be returned to the library or the cart, prior to checking out more. If a search of your person or cell reveals that you have more than six books in your possession, you may be subjected to disciplinary action. Damaged books must be returned to a Deputy, immediately. Possession of damaged books may be grounds for disciplinary action. The six books do not include religious or educational. Discretion of Corrections Staff will determine whether the books are in fact religious or educational.

Page 8 - Columbia County Jail inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12

CC002038
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 60; Page 11 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-9 Filed 09/13/12 Page 12 of 38
MAIL
POLICY Jail mail handling procedures must support an inmate's need to communicate in writing to carry out legal business and maintain family and community ties. The procedures must also meet the Jail's need for efficient operations that preserve the good order, safety, and security of the facility, inmates, and staff DEFINITIONS Book. A printed composition bound in a volume. Contraband. 1) Controlled substances as defined in ORS 475.005(6). 2) Drug paraphernalia as
defined by DRS 475.525(2). 3) Any currency or negotiable instrument. 4) Any item that a person in a correctional facility is prohibited by statute, rule, or order from obtaining or possessing, and whose use would endanger the safety or security of the facility or person in the facility. 5) An unauthoriZed item in an inmate's possession or in a cell, bunk, or common area. 6) An authorized item altered in any way. 7) More than the authorized number of an item. Inmate Mail. Written correspondence to or from an inmate in the Columbia County Jail. Indigent. An inmate who has less than $5 in his or her inmate account and has not had more than that amount for seven days. lnfla"mmatory material. Written or printed materials that pose a threat to the security, safety, or good order of the jail because it may incite or advocate physical violence against others. This includes material that advocates the supremacy or hatred of a racial, religious, national, or other group of people. (Note: Criticism ofjail operations, programs, or staff, on its own, is not inflammatory material. If the criticism involves an illegal act or violates ajail rule, staff will handle it as that type of prohibited mail.) Jail Commander. The Columbia County Jail Commander or his/her designee. Jail Supervisor. Any Corrections Deputy designated at the rank of sergeant or higher. Junk maillBulk mail. Printed materials, often sent as mass mailings, such as catalog advertisements, brochures, circulars, newsletters, and pamphlets whose primary purpose is to sell, . promote or solicit for, a product or service. Jurik maillbulk mail may corne using a variety of postage rates, including but not limited to bulk mail rates. Junk MaillBulk Mail may be solicited or unsolicited. Legal mail. Incoming or outgoing mail addressed to or from an attorney. Negotiable instrument. A written document that represents an unconditional promise to pay a specified amount of money upon the demand of its owner. Examples include checks and promissory notes. Negotiable instruments can be transferred from one person to another, as when a person writes "pay to the order of' on the back of a check in order to turn it over to someone else. Official Mail. Incoming or outgoing mail addressed to or from the sheriff, jail command staff, probation authorities, district attorney, state attorney general, Governor, court, a court official, and other confining authorities, or addressed to or from the inmate's medical provider, or addressed to or from the inmate's religious leader, or addressed to or from the news media.
Page 9 - Columbia County Jail Inmate t-ianual Revised 06/18/12
CC002039
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 60; Page 12 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-9 Filed 09/13/12 Page 13 of 38

Periodical. A magazine, newspaper, newsletter, or 9ther publication formed of printed sheets that is issued at regular, specified intervals by a publisher.

Prohibited Mail Notice A written notice that is: A. mailed to the sender or intended receiver of inmate mail who is not incarcerated in the Columbia

County Jail; and

B. is also provided (by jail staff) to the current inmate who is a sender or intended receiver of inmate

mail,

.

when said mail has been confiscated by the jail for any reason (See Prohibited Mail Notice at the end of this chapter). A Prohibited Mail Notice MUST be provided to the sender AND

intended receiver of all incoming and outgoing mail that is confiscated by the jail.

Publication. Periodicals and books.

Sexually explicit: I) A pictorial depiction of any of the following: actual or simulated sexual acts (including sexual intercourse, oral sex, anal sex, or masturbation); sexual penetration; bestiality; sexual violence; sadomasochistic behavior; excretory functions; and exposed genitalia (to incl ude pubic hair), anus or female nipple or areola, unless the exposure is for legitimate medical, religious, or anthropological reasons. 2) Sex acts involving children. 3) Materials that violate state and local obscenity Jaws. (Note: Whether the material is commercially produced or is personally made or written has no bearing on this definition.)

INMATE MAIL

Inmate Mail Limits and Restrictions/Overview

The Columbia County Jail will normally not limit, censor~ or restrict the volume, language, content, format or source of inmate mail. However, some limitations are necessary to assure the safety, and security of inmates, jail staff, and the public, as well as to assure the efficient operation of the Jail.

1. Specific Limitations on Inmate Mail.

A. Publications. Publications are permitted in the Jail, subject to the following requirements:

1. An inmate must have someone outside the jail prepay for any publication he or she receives. An inmate may not engage in any delayed payment or credit ordering of publications while inside the jail.

2. Books.. Books must come directly from the publisher, a book club, or a bookstore. Books may be new or used. Books may not be larger than 9 inches by 12 inches. Books may not have plastic or metal bindings. Either hardback or paperback books ~re acceptable.

3. Periodicals.. Periodicals must be new and be mailed directly from the publisher or bookstore.

4. No hlanket prorubition. Mail handlers will determine whether a specific publication violates jail rules. However, this determination must be made on a case by case basis. There shall be no blanket prohibition on any publication.

B. Legal and Official Mail.

1. A sender oflegal or official mail is responsible for legitimately, properly, and clearly marking and addressing legal and official mail so that jail staff recognize it and treat it as being confidential, as fonows:

Page 10 • Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 05/18/12

CC002040
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 60; Page 13 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-9 Filed 09/13/12 Page 14 of 38

(a)

The return address on all incoming legal and official mail must have the sender's

job, agency, or firm title and address either commercially preprinted on the

envelope or a label, or as an ink stamp. The sender's name should be handwritten if

not preprinted.

(b)

The words "Legal Mail," "Official Mail," or similar designation must appear on the

address side of the envelope. Jail staff will not assume the contents of any letter

from an attorney, law firm, or government official is legal or official mail without

the designation of ilLegal Mail" or "Official MailII on the address side of the

envelope.

2. StaffwilI not open recognizable legal or official mail outside the presence of the inmate. They may only open it in the presence of the inmate to inspect it for contraband, but they will not read its contents.

3. Before legal or official mail leaves the pod, jail staff will verify that any letter marked as legal or official mail is addressed to a person that qualifies for that privacy protection.

4. Jail staffwilI pursue administrative, criminal, and disciplinary actions, as fitting, against all those involVed in the fraudulent use of legal or official mail designations.

C. Other Prohibited Content/Contraband.

l. An inmate may not receive or send inmate mail that contains:

(a)

Threats of physical harm, blackmail, extortion, or other criminal activity;

(b)

Plans for escape, criminal activity, or activity that violates jail rules;

(c)

Gang-related material;

(d)

Information that, if conveyed, could result in physical harm to someone;

(e)

Sexually explicit materials;

(f)

Inflammatory material;

(g)

Contraband· including but not limited to such commonly mailed iteITis as:

I. Books larger than 9 by 12 inches or with plastic or metal bindings;

2. Controlled substances as defined by ORS 475.005(6);

3. Foreign substances, such as bodily fluids, lipstick or perfume, glue, or paint or anything with an unusual stain or odor that indicates a foreign substance may be present;

(h)

Cash or negotiable instruments;

(i)

Food or beverages, electronic devices, clothing or similar personal property.

2. An inmate may not send or receive inmate mail that:

Page 11 • Columb!a County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12

CC002041
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 60; Page 14 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-9 Filed 09/13/12 Page 15 of 38

(a)

is written in code or suspected code;

(b)

was not sent through the United States Postal Service or other approved system;

(c)

is to or from a person with whom the inmate is prohibited from communicating;

(d)

would violate a court order;

(e)

may produce a hostile work environment by sexual harassment or otherwise;

(f)

is a credit or deferred billing transaction, such as "bill me later" subscriptions or

merchandise bought on credit or collect-on-delivery terms;

(g)

is fraudulently marked as legal or official mail;

(h)

incluces logistical information about an inmate's upcoming health care

appointment( s).

D. Sources of Incoming Mail. Jail Staffwill only accept incoming inmate mail that has been

delivered by the U.S. Postal Service unless otherwise specifically authorized by the Jail

Commander.

.

E. Postage-Due Mail. The jail will not accept or pay for incoming inmate mail with postage due.

3. General Limitations on Inmate Mail.

In addition to the specific limitations on inmate mail set forth above, additional limitations may apply in the following Circumstances:

A. There is reason to believe that such correspondence would jeopardize personal safety, jail security or good order, inmate treatment, or would facilitate violation of the law.

B. Inmates may receive a disciplinary sanction that restricts non-legal andlor non official mail.

4. General Provisions for Inmate Mail

A. Indigent Inmate Mail. Indigent inmates may obtain an indigent hygiene kit through the commissary program once per week. No inmate will be denied a weekly indigent hygiene kit based on an inability to pay. The indigent hygiene kit consists of. 2 sheets of paper and two postage prepaid envelopes, a pencil and hygiene items. Additional paper and envelopes are available for purchase through the commissary.

B. Addressing Inmate Mail. Incoming mail must have the inmate's booking name as part of the addressee information. Inclusion of the inmate's booking number is encouraged, but not required.
c. Return Address. Incoming mail must have the name and address of the sender. The return address
on legal and official mail must have the sender's job, agency, or firm title and address commercially preprinted or stamped.

D. Certified Mail/Special mail services.

1. The inmate must have sufficient funds in his or her account to pay for all special mail services. A Jail Supervisor may approve credit to allow an indigent inmate to send certified mai, on a case-by-case basis. An inmate who needs to send a letter using certified mail must

Page 12 - ColumbIa County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12

CC002042
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 60; Page 15 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-9 Filed 09/13/12 Page 16 of 38
fill out an Inmate Request Form. Any Corrections Deputy or Supervisor can process the request. You will receive proof of delivery from the post office when it returns.
E. Inmate Request Form. An inmate shall use an Inmate Request Form to request to mail oversize or overweight items, or for other special postal services. Funds will be drawn from the in.mate's account to cover the costs.
F. Junk/Bulk MaiL Jail staff will accept solicited and unsolicited junk mail and solicited and unsolicited bulk 'mail for inmates, unless it violates other mail restrictions (such as containing sexually explicit content).
G. Pre-Stamped Envelopes. Jail staff will make pre-stamped First Class business size or manila envelopes available for inmates to buy from the commissary. Indigent inmates may obtain envelopes per paragraph 4.A.
H. InmateMail Written in a Foreign L~nguage. Incoming and outgoing mail written in a language other than English may be interpreted prior to delivery to determine whether the mail violates these rules.
INCO:MING INMATE MAIL 1. Mail Intake.
A. IncoIJ?ing Inmate Mail will be processed at night. B. Deputies will confiscate unopened mail'when:
1. The addressee cannot be identified because of missing or incomplete information; 2. Prohibited items are affixed to the mail; . 3. Foreign substances or stains are on the mail; 4. Odors, including perfume, are coming from the mail; 5. The mail can otherwise be identified as being or containing prohibited mail before it is
opened; 6. The inmate is no longer in the jail.
c. If cash or negotiable instruments are found in inmate mail, the mail and funds will be
confiscated and returned to sender. The Prohibited Mail Notice shall include the amount of funds, number, and issuing institution of any negotiable instrument as well as the payee's name if it was not the inmate's. D. Day Shift Corrections Deputies will deliver mail to their pods after inspecting the mail for compliance with the Inmate Mail policy. Mail will be delivered as soon as practical, and may be deUvered by passing it under the inmate's cell door. The only exception to this is for legaJ andior official mail, which must be opened in the inmate's presence. The deputy
Page 13 • Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12
CC002043
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 60; Page 16 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-9 Filed 09/13/12 Page 17 of 38
opening the mail in the inmate's presence will be careful not to read the content of the letter, and only verify that no contraband is inside the letter. 2. Grievances/Appeals. Inmates will use the Inmate Grievance procedure (found on page 6 of this Inmate Manual) to file grievances and appeals in regard to confiscated inmate mail.
3. Mail Delivery. Staffwill normall deliver mail to inmates within 24 hours pf receipt at the Jail. Reasonable exceptions are allowed when special processing is required, such as for mail delivered late in the day, mail needing ·translation, or mail held as evidence in a criminal or disciplinary investigation, etc.
OUTGOING INMATE MAIL 1. General Mail Rules for Inmates
lnmatesA. May only use lead or colored pencils to write correspondence. B. Must send inmate mail through the USPS or other approved system. C. Must put their first and last name, booking number, and the jail address as the return
address. D. May not draw or write anything on the outside of an envelope other than name and address
infoID1ation and "legal" or "official" mail designations. E. May not send out jail forms for others to fill out on behalf of the inmate. F. May not send prohibited content or contraband. Inmates are subject to disciplinary action
for doing so. 2. Posting Outgoing Mail. Inmates will place outgoing inmate mail, unsealed, in the designated
mailbox located inside of their pod (except for the case oflegal or official mail). 3. Outgoing legal or official mail shall be processed in tbis manner:
A. Inmates must obtain a correction deputy's verification that any legal or official mail complies with this Policy prior to the mail being sealed and placed in the designated mailbox in their pod.
B. The corrections deputy shall inspect the inmate's legal andlor official mail in the presence of the inmate for contraband only. The deputy shall not review or read the content of legal or official mail.
C. After inspecting the legal or official mail for compliance with this Policy, the corrections deputy will have the inmate seal the envelope and deliver it to the deputy for processing.
page 14 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12
CC002044
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 60; Page 17 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-9 Filed 09/13/12 Page 18 of 38
CONFISCATED MAIL 1. Disposition. Unless otherwise specified in the Inmate Ma~l Policy, any inmate mail that is
be confiscated pursuant to this Policy may either returned to the sender, or stored with the
inmate's belongings in the Jail's sole discretion based on the best interest of the Jail. A Jail Supervisor may authorize the destruction of any item that presents a health or safety risk if stored in the jail, or return it to sender, or as otherwise authorized by this Policy. 2. Prohibited Mail Notice Required. If a Jail Supervisor signs a Prohibited Mail Notice, the sender and addressee of the confiscated inmate mail must be notified of the confiscation whether the disposition was to return the mail, store it, or destroy it. However, if the mail is evidence in a criminal investigation, no notification will be given. Notice will be given through delivery of a Prohibited Mail Notice in the form attached to this Policy. The Prohibited Mail Notice wi11 give the reason for the confiscation and explain the appeal process. 3. Confiscation in whole. Corrections Deputies will confiscate inmate mail in whole rather than removing contraband or obliterating individual pages, passages, or words of prohibited content. 4. Stored Inmate Mail. Corrections Deputies will use a Prohibited Mail Notice to inform the inmate of the confiscation and use a copy as a tag for the items placed in storage. ADMlNISTRATION 1. Mail as Nuisance Contraband. Inmates are responsible for getting rid of any mailed item exceeding the number of items allowed in their cells as nuisance contraband as defined on Page 3 of this Manual. An inmate may also transfer items to their bin in the property room. 2. Mail Monitoring. This section does not apply to legal or official mail. Inmate mail (other than legal or official mail) may be monitored for investigative purposes.
Page 15 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12
CC002045
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 60; Page 18 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-9 Filed 09/13/12 Page 19 of 38
3. Mail Complaints. Staff members will direct mail complaints from the public to a Jail Supervisor. The Jail Supervisor should attempt to respond to the complainant within two business days. Appeals related to receipt of Prohibited Mail Notices shall be addressed pursuant to the following processes:
A. Appeals by inmates. Inmates wishing to appeal a decision to deny delivery of incoming inmate mail or the mailing of outgoing inri1ate mail must follow the normal grievance procedure set forth in the Inmate Manual and Policy J207, Inmate Rights.
B. Appeals by others. If a person believes that any incoming or outgoing inmate mail was improperly confiscated by the Jail, tbey may appeal tbe action to tbe Jail Commander by sending a written letter stating the specific reason(s) why the action was improper. The letter must be received within 15 days from tbe date oftbe Prohibited Mail Notice. Or, if no Prohibited Mail Notice was received, the letter must be received within 15 days from the date the person knew or should have known of the appealed action. The letter shaH include the sender's name and return address. The Jail Commander will consider the appeal and will issue a decision on the appeal within 15 days of receiving the letter. However, if the Jail Commander made the initial decision regarding the mail ih question, the Sheriff will consider the appeal and issue the decision. The appeal process will be set forth in the Prohibited Mail Notice.
4. Change of Address Responsibilities and Forwarding Mail. Inmates are responsible for
submitting change of address requests to the publishers of publications they receive and to others that send them mail at the JaiL Corrections Deputies will normally not forward mail for inmates who are no longer in Jail custody. They will return correspondence and packages unopened to the sender and throw publications away.
5. Holding Mail. Corrections Deputies will normally not hold mail for inmates released or temporarily transferred to another facility. The Jail Commander may make exceptions.
6. Returning Mail to Sender. Beforemail is returned to its sender, Corrections Deputies will obliterate any mail sorting bar code and will mark the mail "Return to Sender". A Prohibited Mail Notice will be mailed separately from mail that is returned unopened
To return mail that was opened, a Corrections Deputy must repackage it and send it at the expense of the Jail to the sender. The Corrections Deputy will include a copy of the Prohibited Mail Notice with repackaged mail.
General Mail Rules: We may open and inspect all mail for contraband and may read all personal mail.
We will provide an Inmate Mail Guide for members of the public. The guide, printed in its entirety below explains mail rules and what they can and cannot send you. People may also call (503) 366-4630 to get the information found in the guide or read it on the jail's web site at: www.co.columbia.or.us/sheriff
Page 16 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18f12
CC002046
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 60; Page 19 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-9 Filed 09/13/12 Page 20 of 38
____"Do" Mail Rules for Inmates
For mail, you must do the following:
1. Use only lead or pencils to write letters. 2. Keep the weight of correspondence in a pre-stamped envelope below 1 ounce (28 gm). To
keep a business envelope to one ounce or less means the contents cannot be more that four 81/2" x 11" sheets of standard weight paper:. 3. Keep your friends and family informed if you received periodicals they have purchased or subscribed for you. 4. When you are released or transferred from the jail, send change-of-address notifications to those that send you mail. 5. Put the return address noted on the sample envelope below on all your outgoing mail. Tell people sending you mail to use it to address mail to you. Write the recipient's full name and complete address legibly on. any mail you send.
"Don't" Mail Rules for inmates You may not do any of the fo Howing:
I. Draw or write anything on an envelope or postcard in the address area other than name and address information.
2. Send out jail forms for others to fill out on your behalf. 3. Send prohibited mail. 4. Send out jail property. 5. Order publications on credit or delayed billing from the jail. 6. Operate a commercial business or nonprofit organization from the jail. 7. Order correspondence courses unless you have ajail command officer's approval. 8. Conduct commercial or personal business transactions or request services from a government
agency unless you have a jail command officer's approval.
Sending and Receiving Mail
You may send and receive correspondence only through the U. S. Postal Service. Any type of mail that is delivered by the U.S. Postal Service will be accepted in the jail subject to restrictions designed to protect the safety and security of the jail. The jail internal mail system is for communicating only with jail staff. Any transfer of written communication on your part that does not comply with mail rules and procedures is a rule violation that subjects you to discipline. This includes sending notes to other inmates or notes, postcards or mail to anyone by way of a contact visit, court appearance, or transport. People may not leave mail, messages, or notes for you at tbe jail.
Except in unusual circumstances and on holidays or weekends, we will deliver incoming mail to you within 24 hours of its receipt. We will put outgoing mail in a pickup box within 24 hours of receiving it from you. There is no pickup by the post office on weekends and holidays.
It is important that you use a person's complete and correct address when sending mail. If someone says he or she did not receive something you sent and you did not receive a confiscation notice from us, it is a matter for you to resolve with the post officer-not the jaiL For your convenience, the addresses of commonly contacted government agencies are in appendix 2, Government Pages.
Page 17 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12
CC002047
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 60; Page 20 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-9 Filed 09/13/12 Page 21 of 38
We do not forward mail. Ifwe receive mail for you and you are not here, we will return it to the sender. (Please tell those sending you mail to put on return addresses. We confiscate mail without return addresses or return it to the post office if you are no longer in jail.)
Mail Confiscation: We will give you a confiscation notice for mail we confiscate. We will return stored confiscated mail to you when you are released, if it was not disposed of for health or safety reasons. You may submit a grievance to ask for its return before then. We will return to sender any form ofprohibited mail, along with a prohibited mail notice and notice of appeal. You will also get a notice that we have returned prohibited mail to the sender.
Use of Envelopes You may use an envelope sold through the commissary to send all types of mail.
Sending Certified Mail You may send a letter using U. S. Postal Service Certified Mail and Return Receipt mail services. You will get receipts that you sent the letter and that the letter was received by the addressee. We will charge you the standard postal rates for these services. You must have money in your inmate account to pay the postal rates or have appropriate approval if you are indigent. A deputy will supply you with a request for Certified Mail form that you need to fill out and submit along with the letter. Outgoing Mail Inmates will place all outgoing mail (that is not legal or official mail) in unsealed envelopes or postcards in the mail drop located in the day room of each housing unit. Outgoing mail that is either Legal or Official Mail shaH be presented unsealed to a deputy prior to evening mail collection. The deputy will not read the Legal or official mail, but shall inspect the contents for contraband. After the deputy is sure the Legal or Official Mail complies with policy, the mail will be handed back to the inmate to be sealed. The inmate will then return the sealed envelope containing Legal or Official Mail to the deputy, who will process the mail with the other outgoing mail. You are expected to legibly
address your correspondence and use the proper postage. An outgoing mail must list the following
. return address: Your full name Columbia County Jail 901 Port Avenue St. Helens Oregon 97051
For a summary of the inmate mail rules, refer to the guide printed below:
Page 18 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12
CC002048
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 60; Page 21 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-9 Filed 09/13/12 Page 22 of 38
INMATE MAIL GUIDE
This Guide is intended to be a summary of some of the provisions in the Inmate Mail Policy that may be of most interest to members of the pUblic. The Guide IS NOT intended to be a complete description of all policies related to lnmate Mail. For detail please see the lnmateMail Policy.
Jail Policy
Jail mail-handling procedures support both the inmates' and the public's need to communicate in w:riting, to carry out legal and official busines·s, and maintain family and community ties. Procedures also meet the Jail's need for efficient operations that preserve the good order, safety, and security of the facility, inmates, and staff. To that end, the following guide has been prepared La assist the public in complying with the lnmateMail Policy.
The Jail's general Policy is that it will not limit, censor, or restrict the volurrie, language, content~ format or source of inmate mail. However, some limitations are necessary for the security of inmates, jail staff, and the public, as well as for the efficient operation of the Jail.
Inmate MaiL Inmates may generally send and receive mail in any form delivered by the U.S. Postal Service. Personal property such as food, beverages, clothing and similar items are not allowed to be mailed to and from inmates and will be confiscated. Photographs are allowed provided they don't otherwise violate the Policy.
Publications. Imriates may receive publications, including but not limited to, books, magazines, newsletters and newspapers. However, the publication must be mailed directly from the publisher, book club or a bookstore.
Addressing Inmate Mail. Inmate mail must have the inmate's booking name as part" of the addressee information (booking number is encouraged but not required). Incoming mail must have a return address including the name and address of the sender.
Prohibited Mail. Jail staff will not allow an inmate to receive or send mail that1. Contains-
A. Threats of physical harm, blackmail, extortion, or other criminal activity; B. . Plans for escape, criminal activity, or activity that violates jail rules; C. Gang-related material; D. Information that, if conveyed, could result in physical harm to someone; E. Sexua]]y explicit materials; F. Inflammatory material; G. Contraband materials including but not limited to such commonly mailed items as:
Page 19 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12
CC002049
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 60; Page 22 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-9 Filed 09/13/12 Page 23 of 38
(1) Books larger than 9 by 12 inches or with plastic or metal bindings; (2) More than three books in a single piece ofmai1; (3) Controlled substances as defined by ORS 475.005(6); (4) Foreign substances, such as: a) bodily fluids; b) lipstick or perfume; c) glue or
be paint; d) anything with an unusual stain or odor that indicates a foreign substance may
present; 2. Is written in code or suspected code; 3. Was a form of written communication not sent through the USPS or other approved system; 4. Is to or from a victim of a crime that the inmate is in custody for in either pretrial or sentenced status; 5. Would violate a court order; 6. May produce ahostile work environment, such as sexual harassment;
7. Is a credit or deferred billing transaction, such as "bill me later" SUbscriptions or
merchandise bought on credit or collect-on-delivery terms; 8. Is fraudulently marked as legal or official mail. For more specific information about prohibited mail please review the full Inmate Jail Policy J603.
Appeals. Both the inmate and an outside person have the right to appeal a decision to confiscate inmate mail. With very limited exceptions, the Jail will provide a Notice of Prohibited Mail to both the sender and addressee when inmate mail is returned or confiscated. The Notice of Prohibited Mail will explain the reason why the inmate mail was returned or confiscated and will explain the appeals process. The appeal process for an inmate follows the Jail's normal grievance process. The appeal process for everyone else requires a letter explaining the reason for the appeal, and providing contact information. The letter must be received within 15 days from the date of the Prohibited Mail Notice. The Jail will respond within 15 days of receipt of the letter.
Page 20 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12
CC002050
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 60; Page 23 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-9 Filed 09/13/12 Page 24 of 38
MEALS Meals will be served three times daily at approximately 6:30 A.M., 12:00 P.M. and 5:00 P.M. Preclassification and disciplinary inmates may be required to eat in their cells. All others will line up for service, and will eat at the tables provided in the day rooms. If you choose not to eat, please advise the deputy. Televisions will be off during the serving of meals. Once the meals have been served and the Deputy leaves tbe pod, the television may be turned back on. Do not save food from meal service. All special personal preference diet requests, such as vegetarian meals, must be pre-approved by the jail supervisors. All inmates on a personal preference diet will be charged a fee of $ 1.00 per meal, to be taken directly out of their individual inmate trust account to cover the additional cost of these meals. Indigent inmates will not be eligible to receive this type of special diet. M.EDICAL SERVICES The Columbia County Jail will provide emergency medical, dental, .and mental health care to all inmates regardless of their ability to pay for such services. No inmate will be denied care for serious health care needs based on the cost of medical services or the inmate's inability to pay for health care. All medical visits initiated by you will be assessed a fee which will be charged to your personal money account. You will be financially responsible for any elective surgery or other treatment you may request from your personal physician, dentist or other provider. Medical screening or appraisals at intake, or for inmate workers will be provided at no cost to you. All Detainees will receive a medical evaluation within their first 14 days of incarceration. Prescription medications: You will be charged for all prescription medication prescribed for you and purchased by the jail on your behalf. Over the counter medications such as; Tylenol, Aspirin, antacid etc., will be available from our medical department for a small charge. MEDICATION Health care staff may·fill prescriptions at their discretion. Health care staff may discontinue prescribed med1cation as directed by the jail health care supervisor or physicians. If you came from another correctional facility and had your medication transferred with you, the transporting Deputy will give your medication to the health care staff. If you are leaving our jail and going to another jail, the transporting Deputy will get your medication from the health care staff and transport it with you. As a warning, any abuse of your medication may result in the discontinuation of your receiving the medicine.
Page 21 • Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12
CC002051
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 60; Page 24 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-9 Filed 09/13/12 Page 25 of 38
MEDICAL GRlEVANCES
.In case of any unresolved problem regarding medical, dental or infirmary care, you may follow the grievance procedures outlined in this manual.
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
Columbia Community Mental Health is the provider of these services for the facility. If you feel the need to see a mental health professional, contact a Deputy or the health care staff. Once Staff refers the inmate to Columbia Community Mental Health, the decision on whether or not to provide services is at the sale discretion of Columbia Community Mental Health:.
MONEY ACCOUNTS
Each inmate in the Columbia County Jail will have a t'money account" established during the booking procedUre. Funds may be deposited 24 hours per day seven days per week, via 'Visa or Mastercard by a toll-free phone call to 1-866-232-1899, via internet at: www.touchpaydirect.com_orbydepositing cash into a kiosk in the Sheriffs Office lobby. The depositor needs the inmate's name, booking number, and Facility Locator No., which is 297001. All purchases will be deducted from the account. Funds deposited to an account showing a negative balance will be deducted from that balance. The positive balance, if any, is available for the inmate's use. The balance will be refunded to the inmate upon discharge. Inmates who possess a negative balance on their account will not be denied their basic medical needs such as medical care and hygiene items. With a negative balance an inmate may request to participate in the 50/50 program at which time SO % of any funds placed into the inmate account will go towards the negative balance and the other 50 % will be placed on the inmate's
account ,available for use on individual items in the JaiL
OUTDOOR RECREATION An open air recreation area is provided in the jail for your use as scheduled throughout the day. Central Control will notify each of you of your recreation time. When you are called for outdoor recreation, you need to be ready to go. You will leave the Pod in groups of six. No one will be allowed to depart the Pod late for recreation. The TV may be turned off while Control is calling for rec, and while people are leaving. .
The following rules apply while using the open air recreation area: 1. Do not yeH or attempt to communic:;tte in any way with the people outside the recreation
area, except for Corrections Staff 2. Do not engage in "horseplay." We do not want people to get injured. 3. You must wear a minimum of a T-shirt, pants and shoes. Movement to or from outdoor
recreation will require the complete unifonn, including your ID card. 4. DO NOT take anything other than your ID card with you to outdoor recreation. This
includes papers, candy, food items and anything that can be used to write or color with. If you are found with these items, disciplinary action may be taken.
Page 22 • COlumbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12
CC002052
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 60; Page 25 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-9 Filed 09/13/12 Page 26 of 38

t.
;,..-~

PERSONAL PROPERTY

All personal property items will be stored in the secure storage area of the Columbia County Jail. No personal items will be allowed to be kept on an inmate unless approved by the] ail Commander in writing.

PROGRAM SERVICES

If and when available, you have the opportunity to participate in a variety of program activities. Recommended programs assist you in making constructive use of your time and to make positive changes in your life. We have grouped these into two main categories:

Voluntary activities

Inmate worker activities

You may participate in activities in one or all of these categories depending on your:

Sentencing status Length of sentence

Assessments results Classification·

PROPERTY TRANSFERS

You must follow these guidelines regarding your property:

1. You may release your personal property to any adult outside the facility on an "all or nothing" basis. The adult must present astate driver's license, state ID card, passport or military lD to jail staff, to ensure property is released to the proper individual. A signed inmate request form from you is required.

2. Release of property is available Monday through Friday from 3:00 P.M. until 4:00 P.M. ONLY.

3. The following exception applies when: An Inmate is committed to a state prison and must release all personal property including their clothing prior to being transported to a state facility.
If the property is not picked up prior to the inmate's departure, it will be forwarded to ODOC with the inmate.
4. We do not allow personal property to be dropped off for inmates, except for medical items which will be checked and approved by medical staff first. Clothes may be brought in if the situation calls for it. This will be at the discretion of the jail Supervisors.
SANITARY INSPECTIONS
Deputies will inspect each housing unit daily to ensure it is a safe and clean environment. You will need to follow basic sanitary practices to ensure your cell area meets the sanitation requirements and pass the sanitation inspections. If your cell does not meet sanitation requirements, you will lose
Page 23 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12

CC002053 CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 60; Page 26 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-9 Filed 09/13/12 Page 27 of 38
privileges and be instructed to clean the area. If the day room, shower area and outside recreation areas do not meet sanitation requirements, the entire housing unit may lose privileges. These privileges are those listed at the beginning of this manual. If you or your housing unit lose privileges, they will be reinstated if you pass the next regularly scheduled inspection.
SANITARY PRACTICES
It is your responsibi1ity to keep your cell dean and uncluttered. It is also the responsibility of each member of the housing unit to keep the day room, shower and outside recreation area clean. You will be provided with cleaning suppljes and are expected to use the cleaning supplies as much as necessary to ensure you live in a clean environment.
You are to follow these rules for a clean and healthy housing unit:
Clean your cells, including the sink, toilet, floors and door windows daily. Pod Porters will clean day room areas daily. Pod Porters will clean the foHowing, but not limited to: Tables, floors, stairs, wans, showers, bathroom areas, railings, and windows. Keep the walls clean and free of graffiti or marks of any kind. Place all garbage in the trash cans in the housing units. Keep all pictures and papers off the walls, bunks, bottom of bunks. Do not hang, stick, or paste pictures or papers to the walls, bunks or any where else in the facility. Keep commissary food items in your property container. (Gray totes) Do not save food from meal service. Wash your hands frequently. Participate in laundry exchange twice weekly. Shower at least twice weekly, but we strongly encourage you to shower daily. Keep the showers clean, and free of exc"ess soap and shampoo bottles. Keep your gray bin or tote clean Perform any other duties that Corrections Staff may assign. Keep your room or bunk area uncluttered of excess items. This includes legal papers. Ask staff for assistance if you have a large amount of legal papers to store. Vents for air circulation should be kept clean and obstruction free.
SEARCHES
Jail staff may conduct random unannounced searches of your person or of items in your possession, and in any area of the jail at any time. Your personal property and/or living area may be searched without your permission and whether or not you are present.
SELF-ESCORT
Most inmate movement within the jail, including visiting, medical, programs, work assjgnments Etc., will be unescorted unless you abuse the privilege. You are expected to conduct yourself in an orderly fashion at all times. Inmates moving unescorted through the facility may not talk to other inmates, may not touch the walls or the glass, loiter or detour while en route to their destination. When leaving an area, you nc:ed to state your name and where you are going to Central Control. Any inmate who ahuses these rules will be subject to disciplinary action and may lose their opportunity for unescorted movement. The exception will be any inmate who is classified as maximum security and who needs to be escorted in the facility at all times.
Page 24 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12
CC002054
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 60; Page 27 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-9 Filed 09/13/12 Page 28 of 38
SICK CALL
If you need to see merucal personnel, fill out the appropriate Inmate Medical Request fonn. Each day the Medical Staffwill address these issues upon receipt of the Request fonus.
SPECIAL DIETS
You must direct all requests for medical diets to the heath care staff for approval.. If you need a special diet for medical reasons, please submit a r~quest slip to the health care staff. If you need a special diet for religious reasons, please submit a request form. A Deputy will pick up the fonn from you and give it to a supervisor for approval. If approved, the religious diet will remain in effect for the length of your incarceration. Be aware that there may be a charge assessed for the extra cost associated for the special meal.
TELEPHONE PRIVILEGES
Your use ofjail telephones is a privilege. Jail staff may limit your telephone use for reasons of safety, security, good order, or sanitation of the jail. Inmates classified to housing units will be allowed to use telephones from 0800 hrs to approxin;1ately 2200 hrs, based on the operations of the housing unit you are in. Conversations on any telephone in the jail may be monitored andlorrecorded without further notice. You are consenting to this monitoring when you use the jail telephones.
There are some local attorney's phone numbers thafhave been set up as non collect so you can call them directly from the telephones in the pods. Confinned attorney phone numbers are blocked from the monitoring system.
All telephone calls from a housing unit are a collect call or by the phone cards that you purchase here. The phone cards are able to be used upon release from the Columbia County Jail. Telephone calls are limited to 15 minutes each. The telephone system will warn you before the 15 minute time period is up so you can end your conversation.
Inmates are not al10wed to receive incoming telephone calls. Jail staff will deliver verifiable emergency messages to you.
REMINDER: TELEPHONES ARE A PRIVILEGE. DO NOT ABUSE THE SYSTEM. ANY DAMAGE TO THE PHONEWILL RESULT IN A DISCIPLlNARY HEARING AND A CRIMINAL CHARGE BEING FILED AGAINST THE INMATE.
TELEPHONE SERVICE NUMBER
If you or your family have any questions about billing or connection problems concerning the inmate phones, please call the service provider at 1-866-230-7761. We have a brochure available to answer more questions if you need it, please ask and we will provide it.
TRANSFER TO WORK RELEASE CENTER
The Courts and/or Supervisory Authority may consider you for transfer to the Work Release Center if authorized on your sentence order. These transfers are not automatic. Jail staff must approve all transfers.
Page 25 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12
CC002055
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 60; Page 28 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-9 Filed 09/13/12 Page 29 of 38

Factors considered in tranSfer decisiOI:js will include: Judge's approval Length of sentence. Individual needs. Available space. Classification. Demonstration of compliance with jail rules, expectations and responsible behavior.

If you are interested in participating in any programs, you must submit a request on an Inmate Request Form. Misbehavior or administrative concerns may prevent access to these programs. Disciplinary write-ups or actions will affect program eligibility.

VISITING

All public visits will be scheduled by the Inmate requesting the visit. The inmate must contact prospective visitors by phone or mail, and detennine an acceptable visiting date, Time slots may be used on a first come, first serve basis. Visitors are encouraged to arrive 10 to 15 minutes early to sign in. If all of the slots are taken for that time' frame they can either wait till the next times start for that pod, if it is available, or return on another day. Visits will start on the hour and halfhour.

Authorized visitors shall be members from the inmate's family, and friends age 18 and older. Visitors under the age of 18 must be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian. Attorneys and clergy are not considered public visitors.

lhmate visitation is a privilege and while the Columbia County Sheriffs Office encourages visitation,

that privilege must be regulated to protect the needs of the entire jail operatioll. The amount of time

'allotted for visitatiqn is based upon the classific'ation and status of each inmate.

.

Classification is based upon the inmate's current charges, criminal history and current demeanor. All inmates will be allowed a maximum of two thirty (30) minute visits per seven (7) day period (Sunday through Saturday), as time and'space allows.

Inmates assigned to Disciplinary Segregation will not be allowed visitation privileges.

Inmates not yet assigned to a housing unit or who are housed in the pre':'classification unit, will not be allowed public visitation.

Inmates serving a sentence of seventy-two hours(72) or less will not be allowed public visitation.

Due to space limitations, acceptable visiting combinations are limited to:

1. One Adult 2. Two Adults 3. One Adult and One Child 4. One Aduh and Two Children 5. Two Adults and One Child

Inmates have the right to refuse any visit, however that right should be exercised prior to visiting time.

All inmates wishing to receive public visits must establish a visiting list of not more than five (5)

Page 26 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12

CC002056
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 60; Page 29 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-9 Filed 09/13/12 Page 30 of 38
people. Persons not on the approved list will not be allowed to visit. You are able to change your visiting list once every 30 days from the time you establjsh your list. You need to fill out the visitation part of the request form to make the changes. The minimum information required for each person will be:
1. Visitor's full name 2: Date of birth
3. Relationship 4. The name of any child who may be in the company ofhislher parent or guardian.
The visiting schedule will be posted in the housing units. Visiting times and days are subject to change periodically, so please refer to the schedule when talking to your loved ones.
SPECIAL VISITS
Special considerations may be given for emergency andlor special situations where normal visiting procedures may not be practical. Such situations as the death of a family member or close friend, serious injury of a family member or visitors traveling great distances, who have arrived unexpected1y may be considered on a case.,by-case basis by the Supervisor or Corporal on duty. All special visits will be subject to the same rules and requirements as regular visitation. Special visits may be conducted in the Attorney Visiting Rooms if availab1e and necessary due to other visitation which may be in progress.
VISITS WITH ATTORNEY
Inmates shall be given the opportunity to visit their attorneys at reasonable times, consistent with the safety and security of the facility. All visits will be scheduled by the attorney.
VISITS BY CLERGY
Clergy Visits will be handl~d as a regular visit. The member of the Clergy you want to have a visit with wil1 be added like a nonnal visitor just like it is described in the regular visiting rules. They will be allowed to visit you on the regular date and time for the pod you are assigned to. The Clergy
member will not count against you for the five people you are allowed to have on your visiting list.
The Columbia County Jail provides non denominational religious services once per week and individual bible study twice per week.
VOLUNTARY ACTIVITIES
All general population inmates may have access to voluntary activities. These activities include but may not be limited to:
Religious services Narcotics Anonymous (NA) and Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) groups Religious based life skills classes Individual educational tutoring (21 and under) Recreational library Law library
A sign up sheet for the voluntary activities will be posted in your housing unit. You must sign up on
Page 27 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12
CC002057
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 60; Page 30 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-9 Filed 09/13/12 Page 31 of 38
the provided list to be able to participate. Remember that participation in these activities is a privilege. Participation is dependent on your continued cooperation and responsible behavior. WAKE UP AND LOCK DOWN . Day room and cell lights will be turned on at 6:00 A.M. daily. Make your bed and dress for breakfast. Breakfast service will begin at approximately 6:30 A.M. daily. Day room lights and television will be turned offby about 10:00 P.M, and the cell lights will be turned off at 10:00 P.M.. All inmates must be on their bunks at "lights out" and are required to remain quiet. Each inmate is expected to completely clean your room and area, make your bed, dump trash cans, etc. when the cleaning supplies are available to you. Be aware that there are usually some cleaning materials available at all times. MINOR RULE VIOLATIONS PROCEDURES 1. The accused inmate shall be served with a minor rule citation by the citing Deputy as quickly as is practical, after the violation is discovered, but in no case shall it be longer than 24 hours after the investigation is complete. 2. The inmate will sign the misconduct report and acknowledge receipt ofalkged violation(s) and the right to appeal. The inmate may enter a plea of "Guilty" or "Not Guilty".
A. Upon entry of a "Guilty" plea, a Deputy will schedule an informal hearing for possible sanctions to be imposed. .
B. Upon entry of a "Not Guilty" plea on the misconduct report or upon request for a formal hearing the incident will be handled the same as a Major Violation. MIJ.~OR RULE VIOLATION SANCTIONS Sanctions resulting from a guilty plea on a Minor Misconduct Report may include:
a. Verbal warning. b. Creative sanction appropriate to the offense (i.e. extra work detail, etc.). c. Housing Unit lock down not to exceed 24 hours. d. Disciplinary segregation not to exceed five (5) calender days for a single violation. lrunates
may receive separate lock down time for each marked violation. This should not exceed a total of fourteen (14) calender days. e. Re-Classification f. Probation for up to 30 days. g. While in disciplinary segregation there is no access to programs.
Page 2B - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12
CC002058
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 60; Page 31 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-9 Filed 09/13/12 Page 32 of 38
Inmates get one hour out each 24 hours. Telephone (except legal) and television use may not be permitted. Commissary choices are restricted. Personal visits are suspended for the duration of the segregation. Book cart or library access is permitted; however, this privilege may be taken away as a sanction. MINOR RULE VIOLATIONS
01 Possession of Nuisance Contraband: Any authorized item found in an inmates possession that has been altered or is in excess of the authorized amount.
02 Arguing: Any disagreement which becomes disruptive, loud or obnoxious. 03 Possession of another inmates property. 04 Unauthorized use of facility property or equipment (i.e. washers/dryers, barber equipment etc.) 05 Acting as a lookout· 06 Being in an unauthorized area without corrections staff pre~ent. 07 Purposefully obstructing the view of Corrections Staff 08 Inappropriate remarks or misuse of the inmate request forms or any of the forms or
. paperwork handed out or used in the facility. 09 Unwarranted emergency calls. 10 Horse Playing: Any aggressive or faked aggressive actions, which may lead to or be mistaken
for a physical altercation. 11 Disrespect to other inmates (i.e. name calling, profanity or accusations directed at another
inmate). 12 Cursing, uncontrolled use of profanity or obscenities that may be considered offensive to
others. 13 Excessive noise. 14 Failure to properly maintain living area. 15 Hanging paper, linen, clothing, etc. on light fixtures, walls, ceilings etc. 16 Failure to maintain personal hygiene. 17 Improper attire (i.e. not following the dress code stated in the manual). 18 Displaying or demonstrating gang affiliations (i.e. hand gestures, hand in pants, low riding
Page 29 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12
CC002059
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 60; Page 32 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-9 Filed 09/13/12 Page 33 of 38
trousers, etc.). 19 Graffiti: writing, drawing or marking on any of the surfaces of the facility. 20 Posting any type of picture, drawing or any other material on the walls, bunks or any the
surfaces of the facility. 21 Misuse of the intercom system. 22 Disrespect towards any Staff Member or Sheriffs Office Employee 23 Disruptive Behavior 24 Unauthorized use of the typewriter. (Law Library) 25 Lying to Staff Members. 26 Other MAJOR RULE VIOLATION PROCEDURES All Major Rule Violations will be handled through a formal disciplinary process, and require a fonnal hearing. 1. When an inmate commits, or is believed to have committed a Major Rule Violation, the inmate will be"immediately placed on pre-hearing segregation status pending the outcome of the disciplinary hearing, regardless the nature of the alleged conduct. This can cause restriction in your privileges. 2. The accused inmate shall be served with a Major Rule Citation and the Inmate Rights form by the citing Deputy as quickly as is practical, after the violation is discovered, but in no case shall it be longer than 24 hours after the investigation is complete. 3. The inmate will have a hearing before a hearings officer within five (5) days of the incident excluding Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays. The inmate will be notified at least 24 hours prior to the hearing. 4. After the hearing, ,the hearings officer can render a decision immediately or within 72 hours.
A. lfthe inmate is found "Not Guilty", the inmate will be restored to the same status and privileges as before charged.
B. lfthe inmate is found "Guilty", the Hearings Officer will impose an appropriate sanction from the Major Rule Violation Sanction list. MAJOR RULE VIOLATION SANCTIONS Sanctions resulting from a finding of "Guilty" in a hearing for a Major Violation may include the following:
Page 30 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12
CC002060
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 60; Page 33 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-9 Filed 09/13/12 Page 34 of 38
1. Temporary or pennanent change in programming to include: A. Change in housing assignments. (i.e. re-classification) B. Change in custody status. C. Removal from work status with concurrent suspension of credit for work, as directed by O.R.S. 169.l20
2. Reclassification to Disciplinary Segregation for no more than sixty (60) days for all (multiple) violations arising out of one incident (only 30 days maximum on a single violation) and giving credit for tim~ served as appropriate.
3. Loss of Statutory Good time and modification of release date in accordance with O.R.S. 169.1 ]0.
4. Suspension of any part, (or all of the above if appropriate), along with information of expected conduct to avoid imposition.
5. Any combination of one (1) through four (4), listed above. 6. Unless medically or psychiatrically required, no segregated inmate shall be denied clothing or
bedding that is allowed to general population inmates. 7. Segregated inmates shall be provided the same food as general population inmates. 8. Personal hygiene items and shower facilities will be provided regularly to segregated inmat~s,
unless there are documented security reasons which would prohibit them. 9. While in disciplinary segregation there is no access to programs. Inmates get one hour out
each 24 hours. Telephone ( except legal) and television use is not permitted. Commissary choices are restricted to hygiene items only. Personal visits are suspended for the duration of the segregation. Book cart or library access is permitted; however this privilege may be taken away as a condition of the sanction. MAJOR RULE VIOLATIONS 40 Habitual Misconduct: 3 or more separate minor rule violations within 30 days. 41 Refusing to comply with a Deputy's/ Staff/ Kitchen Staff directives. 42 Tampering with or destruction of Identification Card 43 Refusing to lock down on command, or during a disturbance. 44 Refusing to go to court. 45 Tampering with security devices/ facility equipment.
Page 31 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12
CC002061
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 60; Page 34 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-9 Filed 09/13/12 Page 35 of 38
46 Threatening or strong arming another inmate.
47 Giving false information to a Deputy. 48 Creating a disturbance while on lock down (i.e. banging doors, ex~essive noise, flooding the
cell, etc). 50 Threatening staffmembers 51 Smoking, or possession of smoking paraphernalia. 52 Possession of unauthorized beverages (i.e. prono). 53 Indecent exposure. 54 Theft. 55 Extortion. 56 Destruction of, or Defacing County property. 57 Possession of illegal drugs or prescription medications belonging to another or misuse of
prescribed medications. 58 Participation in organizing or recruiting for gang related activities. 59 Sexual misconduct! homosexual activities 60 Fighting. 61 Assault on another inmate. 62 Assisting a suicide 63 Possession of a weapon. 64 Assault on a staff member. 65 Attempted or actual escape, or possession of an escape plan. 66 Participating in or inciting a riot. 67 Taking a hostage 68 Arson 69 Rape or Sodomy.
Page 32 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06/18/12
CC002062
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 60; Page 35 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-9 Filed 09/13/12 Page 36 of 38
70 Homicide. 71 Violation of any Criminal Code 72 Tampering with or altering any other person's food.
73 Other. VIOLATIONS APPEALS PROCESS All appeals must be submitted to the Facility Supervisor or their designee within 72 hours, following the decision. The Facility Supervisor or designee will review the recommendations and return the appeal fonn to the inmate within five (5) working days of the appeaL The response time may be extended due to extenuating circumstances or further investigation, with written notice to the inmate of the reason(s) for the delay. Ask a deputy if you need a form.. SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS DID YOU KNOW? Rape and sexual assault happens to females and males of all ages, from infancy to senior years. 98% of males who have raped boys reported they are heterosexuaL Most males who assault men or women are married or report having girlfriends. Sexual assault had nothing to do with the victim's present or future sexual orientation. Victims may be either heterosexual or homosexual. A survivor is not at fault for the rape, even if she/he was in a secluded area, or had previous consensual sex with the attacker. The fact a male victim of sexual assault ejaculated or became sexually aroused does not mean they were not raped or that they gave consent. These are normaJ, involuntary physiological reactions. It is common for survivors of sexual assault to have feeling of anger embarrassment, panic, depression, guilt. and fear after the attack. Other common reactions include loss of appetite, nausea or stomachaches, headaches, loss of memory andlor trouble concentrating and changes in sleep patterns.
FACTS FOR THE INMATE THAT SEXUALLY ASSAULTS OTHER INMATES: . All cases of sexual assault will be referred to the Enforcement Branch or Major Crimes Team (MeT) for
criminal investigation. You may be prosecuted and if found guilty of a felony, you may be sentenced to prison time (up to 100 months for each Rape I or Sodomy I conviction). Any sex offense conviction will automatically add sex offender conditions when you release, which may require you to register as a sex offender per ORS 181.594. This registration requirement is for life. You also be deemed as a "Predatory Sex Offender," which would require community notification upon your release. Regardless of how you choose to characterize it, any sexual activity will increase your risk ofHIV infection, along with exposing you to other sexually transmitted diseases. If you have trouble controlling your actions seek help from mental health staff and/or consider participating in programs designed to control anger or reduce stress. To reduce immediate feelings of
Page 33 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 05/18/12.
CC002063
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 60; Page 36 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-9 Filed 09/13/12 Page 37 of 38
anger or aggression, try talking to or writing a friend, meditate or do breathing exercises to relax, work on a hobby, or engage in some type of exercise. SEXUAL ASSAULT Sexual assault as defined by Columbia County Jail policy is "Sexual conduct where force or threat of force is used, or when the person is unable to consent because of age or incapaci tation (mental defect, mental incapacitation, or physical helplessness). Sexual conduct includes: vaginal penetration by a penis; contact between the genitals of a person and the mouth or anus of another person; penetration of the vagina, anus, or penis of another person with any object other than the penis or mouth; touching of the sexual or intimate parts of someone or causing someone to touch the sexual or intimate parts of another for the purpose of sexual gratification." Any behavior or act of a sexual nature directed toward an inmate by an inmate, employee, volunteer, visitor, contract employee or other agency representatives. This includes acts or any attempts to commit such acts including, but not limited to, sexual contact, inappropriate behavior of a sexual nature, unreasonable invasion ofpnvacy, conv~rsations or correspondence that suggests a romantic relationship between an inmate and any party referenced above. Sexual assault affects everyone, either directly or through the experience of those we care about. It is not only a woman's issue as it can affect persons of any gender, age, race, ethnic group, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, or disability. The statistics are proof of this problem: According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), in 2002 there were 247,730 victims of rape (This number does not include victims 12 or younger), seven out of every eight rape victims were female, and one in every eight rape victims was male. A 1998 study indicates that about 2.78 million American men have experienced an attempted or completed rape and one out of six American women have experienced an attempted or completed rape. SEXUAL ASSAULT AVOIDANCE The only rape that can be prevented is when a potential rapist chooses NOT to rape. However, you may avoid an attack by keeping the following safety guidelines in mind: Be aware of situations that make you feel uncomfortable. Trust your instincts. If it feels wrong, LEAVE. Don't let manners get in the way of keeping yourself safe. Don't be afraid to say "NO" or "STOP IT NOW". Walk and stand with confidence. Many rapists choose victims who look like they won't fight back or are emotionally weak. Avoid talking about sex and casual nudity. These things may be considered a come on, or make another inmate believe that you have an interest in a sexual relationship. Do not accept canteen items or other gifts from other inmates. Placing yourself in debt to another inmate can lead to sexual favors. Avoid secluded areas; position yourself in plain view of staff members. 1f you are being pressured for sex, report it to a supervisor immediately.
Page 34 - Columbia County Jaillnmate Manual Revised 06/18/12
CC002064
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 60; Page 37 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-9 Filed 09/13/12 Page 38 of 38
WHAT TO DO IF YOU ARE SEXUALLY ASSAULTED If the attack has just happened... ,... Get to a safe place. REPORT THE ATTACK TO A STAFF MEMBER IMMEDIATELY. The longer you wait to report the attack the more difficult it is to obtain the evidence necessary for criminal andlor administrative investigation. Request immediate medical attention. You may have serious injuries that you are not aware or, and any sexual contact can expose you to sexually transmitted diseases. Do not shower, brush your teeth, use the restroom, or change your clothes. You may destroy important evidence. If you have been attacked or witness an attack, but you are unwilling to report it in person to a CCSO uniformed staff member, then you may speak with a counselor, chaplain~ medical staff, write a sealed letter to any command staff member, or contact a CCSO Detective at 503-366-4650. Later on ..... Seek the support of a trusted friend, family member or staff member, such as the Chaplain or the counseling staff. The days ahead can be traumatic and it helps to have people" who care about you supporting you. Seek professional help. Mental Health staff are available for crisis care 365 days a year, to listen and offer support.
Page 35 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 06{18/12
CC002065
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 60; Page 38 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-10 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 8
EXHIBIT 61
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY ruDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 61; Page 1 of 8

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-10 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 8

INMATE MAIL

Jari~ary 2, 2008

PURPOSE

The purpose of this procedure is to describe how the inmate mail system works within the Columbia County Jail and, to explain the allowances and restrictions therein.

POLICY

It is the policy of the Columbia County Sheriffs Office to provide for and encourage the maintenance of important ties with families, friends, attorneys and the community by use of the U.S. Mail.

I.

GENERAL INFORMATION

A.

Regulati,ons

1.

Inm.atemail will' be picked up and delivered on a daily basis excluding

weekends and holidays.

.

2.

The volume of mail an inmate may send or receive will be limited only to

a reasonable amount as it impacts the ability of jail staff to process it.

3.

Writing material and stamped envelopes yViIJ. be available for purchase

through commissary for all inmates with funds.

4.

Indigent inmates will be provided writing material and postage for a

maximum of two (2) personal letters per week. Legal mail will be iimited

to a reasonable amount, and may be sent in addition to personal mail.

Legal mail must be clearly marked and appropriately addressed. Legal

mail is defined as correspondence to or from;

a.

Governor

b.

Attorney General

c.

Attorneys

d.

Courts

e.

Department of Corrections

f.

Facility Supervisor

! 1 i

CC 000001

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 61; Page 2 of 8

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-10 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 8

January 2, 2008

g.

Civil Rights Organizations

h.

Editor of any newspaper

5.

Inmate mail will not be limited as to the number of pages in an outgoing

correspondence, however;

a. The letter must fit in a standard 4" X g" business envelope and,

b. The weight of a letter must not exceed one ounce, unless specifically approved by jail officials. Exceptions to the lengih and weight restrictions may be considered;

1) If the inmate can demonstrate a legitimate and adequate need to be exempted from the policy; or

2) To accommodate the special requirements involved with legal mail.

6.

Corrections staff will not hold or censor incoming inmate mail unless

there is convincing evidence that such corre&pondence poses a clear

threat to the safety and security of the facility, public officials or the

general public.

a. Any correspondence or publication which is rejected, will be rejected in it's entirety.

b.

If mail is rejected, the inmate/addressee will be notified in writing

of the rejection and the reason for the rejection. A copy of the

notification will be placed in the inmate's file.

7. Inmates may correspond with anyone n,ot specifically prohibited by' court order except, no mail will be sent or received be.tween inmates in the Columbia County Jail, without the express written consent of the Facility Lieutenant or his designee.

a.

On a case by case bases an inmate in the Columbia County Jail

can request in writing to send and receive one letter per week to

blood relative, husband or wife that are housed in the Columbia

County Jail at the same time. This request must be approved by

a Supervisor in writing.

8. Sexually explicit publications or materials will not be accepted. Sexually explicit material is any material that;

a. Would violate state obscenity laws;

2

CC 000002 CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 61; Page 3 of 8

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-10 Filed 09/13/12 Page 4 of 8

January 2, 2008

b.

By their nature or content would pose a threat to the security,

good order, treatment goals, the discipline of the jail or would

facilitate criminal activity;

c. ·Would exacerbate tensions and lead directly or indirectly to disorder, even if they did not lead directly to violence; or

d.

Promote a hostile work environment.

. 9.

Inflammatory publications or material will not be accepted. Inflammatory

material is any material that;

a.

Would violate state law

b.

By nature or content would pose a threat to the security, good

order or discipline of the jail, or would facilitate criminal activity,

c.

Would exacerbate tensions and lead direqtly or indirectly to

di~order, ev~n if they did not lead directly to violence.

10. Books and/or periodicals may be procured from outside the jail, however, any such book, hardbound or otherwise, must be sent directly from the publisher or bookstore via the U.S. Mail.

11. No personal packages will be accepted through the mail or by the

Sheriff's Office Clerks.

.

II.

INCOMING MAIL

A. The mail is delivered to the Sheriffs Office between 0900 hours and 1100 hours, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays.

B. Sheriff's Office Staff will sort the mail and place it in the "Jail" basket by 1200 hours on mail delivery days.

C. Mail received for inmates who are no longer incarcerated in the Columbia County Jail will be returned to sender.

D. Any non-privileged mail will be retrieved, opened and inspected for contraband, cash or money orders, and scanned for content by day shift.

1. Mail may be withheld if it could interfere with the good order and security of the facility, i.e. escape or riot plans or any ·other plans for disorder.

a.

Any correspondence rejected for content ~iII be rejected in it's

entirety.

3
cc 000003
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 61; Page 4 of 8

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-10 Filed 09/13/12 Page 5 of 8

January 2, 2008

b.

If mail is rejected the inmate/addressee will receive written

notification,

1.) The correspondence has been rejected,

2.) The reason it was rejected,

3.) The process to informally appeal the rejection to the Facility Supervisor.

A copy of the notification will be placed in the inmate's file.

2.

Cash and money orders will be processed in accordance with the Inmate

Money Accounts Policy and Procedure.

3.

Any contraband will be handled in accordance with the Contraband

Control Policy and Procedure.

.

4.

Legal mail must be clearly marked as such. Such mail may be opened

and inspected in the presence of the inmate to whom it is addressed.

Legal mail shall not be read by jail staff.

.

5.

If legal mail is inadvertently opened, jail staff will;

a. Advise the inmate of the incident and the circumstances involved,

b.

Prepare an incident report to document the event and place a

copy in the inmate's file.

D. . The officer charged with mail duty will log all mail'into the Inmate Management Computer and note the inmate's housing assignment on the outside of the envelope..

E. The Shift Supervisor will ensure that all mail is delivered by 1900 hours on the day of receipt if possible, but in all cases within twenty-four (24) hours of receipt.

F, The Deputy delivering the mail will;

1.

Enter each housing unit and call the name of each inmate receiving mail;

2.

Hand the mail personally to the inmate.

3.

If the inmate is not present in the housing unit, i.e. out.to court, on work

assignment, medical appointment, etc., the Deputy will leave the mail with

Central Control for delivery upon the inmate's return.

4 CC 000004
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 61; Page 5 of 8

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-10 Filed 09/13/12 Page 6 of 8

January 2, 2008

III. OUTGOING MAIL

A.

Inmates will place all outgoing mail in the ~ail drop located in the day room of

each housing unit.

1.

All personal mail will be unsealed to accommodate inspection;

2.

All legal mail must be clearly marked and appropriately addressed. Legal

mail may be sealed because it shall not be read by jail staff unless so

authorized by a court order. Legal mail is defined as correspondence to

or from;

a.

Governor

b. Attorney General

c.

Attorneys

d.

Courts

e.

Department of Corrections

f. . . Facility Supervisor

g.

Civil Rights Organizations

3.

All mail will be picked up by the Rove Deputy after 2200 hours and be

logg~d accordingly.

4.

Graveyard shift will log all outgoing mail in the Inmate Management

Computer and ma'y inspect and/or scan all personal mail for contraband

and to protect the good .order and security of the facility.

5.

All outgoing mail will be delivered to the Mail/Records Room in the

Sheriff's Office, and placed in the I~Out Basket" by 0800 hours each mail

day.

6.

Sheriff's Office Staff will' sort and meter all outgoing mail prior to 0900

hours each mail day to ensure it is ready for pickup by the Postal Service.

5
CC 000005
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 61; Page 6 of 8

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-10 Filed 09/13/12 Page 7 of 8

INMATE MAIL

January 2, 2008

PURPOSE
The purpose of this procedure is to describe how the inmate mail system works within the Columbia County Jail and to explain the allowances an.d restrictions therein.

POLICY
It is the policy of the Columbia County Sheriff's Office to provide for and encourage the maintenance of important ties with families, friends, attorneys and the community by use of the U.S.. Mail.
I. . GENERAL INFORMATION

A.

Regulations

1.

Inmate mail will be picked up and delivered on a daily basis excluding weekends and

holidays.

2.

The volume of mail an inmate may send or receive will be limited only to a reasonable

amount as it impac~s the ability of jail staff to process it.

.

.

3.

Writing material and stamped envelopes will be available for purchase through

commi$sary for all inmates with funds.

4.

Indigent inmates will be provided writing material and postage for a maximum of two (2)

personal letters per week. Legal mail will be limited to a reasonable amount, and may be sent

in addition to personal mail. Legal mail must be clearly marked and appropriately addressed.

Legal mail is defined as correspondence to or from;

a.

Governor

b.

Attorney General

c.

Attorneys

d.

Courts

e.

Department of Co~rections

f.

Facility Supervisor

g.

Civil Rights Organizations

h.

Editor of any newspaper

1

CC 000006

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 61; Page 7 of 8

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-10 Filed 09/13/12 Page 8 of 8

January 2, 2008

5. ' Inmate mail will not be limited as to the number of pages in an outgoing correspondence, however;

a.

The letter must fit in a standard 4" X 9" business envelope and,

b.

The weight of a letter must not exceed one ounce, unless specifically approved by jail

officials. Exceptions to the length and weight restrictions may be considered;

1) If the inmate can demonstrate a legitimate and adequate need to be exempted from the policy; or
2) To accommodate'the special requirements involved with legal mail.

6.

Corrections staff will not hold or censor incoming inmate mail unless there is convincing

evidence that such correspondence poses a clear threat to the safety and security of the facility,

public officials or the general public.

a.

AflY correspondence or publication wh,ich is rejected, will be r~jected in it's entirety.

b.

If mail is rejected, the inmate/addressee will be notified !ri writing of the rejection and the

reason for the rejection. A copy of the notification will be placed in the inmate's file.

7.

Inmates may correspond with anyone not specifically prohibited by court order except,

no mail will be sent or received between inmates in the Columbia County Jail, without the

express written consent of the Facility Lieutenant or his ~esignee.

,

a.

On a case by case bases an inmate in the Columbia County Jail

can request in writing to send and receive one Jetter per week to blood relative, husband or wife

that are housed in the Columbia County Jail at the same time. This request must be approved

by a Supervisor in writing,

8.' Sexually explicit publications or materials will not be accepted. Sexually explicit material is any "material that;

a.

Would violate state obscenity laws;

b.

By their nature or content would pose a threat to the security, good order, treatment

goals. the discipline of the jail or would facilitate criminal activity;

c.

Would exacerbate tensions and lead directly or indirectly to disorder, even if they did not

lead directly to violence; or

d.

Promote a hostile work environment.

9.

Inflammatory publications or material will not be accepted. Inflammatory material is any

material that;

1

CC'000007
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 61; Page 8 of 8

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-11 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 8
EXHIBIT 62
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 62; Page 1 of 8

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-11 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 8

Jan. 19. 2012 4:36PM county counsel

No. 0503 P. 2

COLlJMn1A COUNTY SHERO!l"'S OFFICE
Jail Operations Jeff Dickerson, Shariff
JNMATEMAIL
Policy J603-R05 (10121111)

Effective: October 21, 2011
Supe;rsedes; lrunat~ Mail Policy Revised July 19, 20"11
OJ3: DI-AOI tlnllDI-C04, DI-A05, P2-D01. D3-A02, Fl..AOI tlull FI-A03
ACA: 3-ALDF-3D-16 thru 5D-08

Applies to all staff

POLICY'

It is the policy of the Columbia County Sheriffs Office to provide for and encourage the
maintenance of important ties of inmates with families, friends and the community. The Sheriff's
Office reserves the lnmates rights to communicate with the courts and their attorneys by use of
the U.S, Mall. All incoming and outgoing mail is subject to search and/or scanning for the
purpose of safety and security of the jail, All correspondence to and from inmates of the
Columbia County jail will be in the form of a post card unless it Is privileged or official mall.

Limits may be placed on the mail inmates receive based on volume. its affect on the inmate's rehabilitation or treatment, or on the safety, security and good order of the jail. Corrections staff may open and inspect all mail for contraband and may read all personal mail.

An Inmate Mail GuIde will be made available to the public explaIning mail rules and what can and cannot be sent through the man to inmates. Copies of the Inmate Mail Guide wlll also be made
available to inmates upon request. Mail policy shall also be available to the public through the
sheriff's office website at www.co.columbia.or.us/sheriff. or by calling the Sheriff's Office at (503)
366-4630,

I.

GENERAL INFORMATION

A. Regulations

1.

Inmate mail will be picked up and delivered on a daily basis excluding

Sundays and holidays.

2.

The volume of mail an inmate may send or receive will be limited only to a

reasonable amount as it impacts the ability of jail staff to process it.

3.

Writing material and postage-paid envelopes (for Privileged maler;al only),

special occasion cards, and/or postcards will be available for purchase

through commissary for aU inmates with funds.

4,

Indigent inmates will be provided writing material and postage for a

maximum of two (2) personal mall pieces per week. PrlvHeged mail wiH be

limited to a reasonable amount and may be sent in addition·to personal

mail. Privileged mail must be clearly marked and appropriately addressed.

Privileged mall is defined as correspondence to or from:

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 62; Page 2 of 8

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-11 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 8

Jan. 19. 2012 4: 3.6 PM county counsel

No. 0503 P. 3

J603-R05

October 21, 2011

a.

Governor

b. Attorney General

c.

Attorneys

d.

Courts

e.

Department of Corrections

f.

Facility Supervisor

g. Civil Rights Organizations

h.

Editor of any newspaper

L

Jail Staff will not obstruct the use of privilege mail between court

and council.

5. .Inmates in disciplinary or administrative segregation are not restricted from the use of mail to communicate with the courts and counsel in a manner consistent with that available to other inmates.

6. . Inmate privileged or official mail will not be limited as to the number of pages in an outgoing correspondence, however:

8.

The fetter must fit in a standard 411 X. 911 business envelope and,

b. The weight of a letter must not exceed one ounce, unless specifically approved by jail officials. Exceptfons to the length and weight restrictions may be considered:

i.

If the inmate can demonstrate a legitimate and adequate

need to be exempted from the policy; or

ii.

To accommodate the special requirements involved with

privileged mail.

7.

Corrections staff will not hord or censor incoming inmate mail unless there

is convincing evidence that such correspondence poses a clear threat to

the safety and security of the facility, public officials or the general public.

a. Any correspondence or publication whJch is rejected, will be rejected in it's entirety.

b.. If mail is rejected, the Inmate/addressee will be notified in writing of
the rejection and the reason for the rejection. A copy of the notifioatlon will be placed In the inmate's file.

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 62; Page 3 of 8

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-11 Filed 09/13/12 Page 4 of 8

Jan. 19. 2012 4:36PM county counsel

No. 0503 P. 4

J603-ROS

October 21, 2011

8, Inmates may correspond with anyone not specifically prohibited by court order. Inmates may also have no correspondence (verbal, written or third
party) with a no-contact directive issued by the court. probation or the
arresting officer. Inmates in administrative or disciplinary segregation will not be restricted from the use for communication between courts and council in a manner consistent with other inmates.

a. On a case by case bases an inmate in the Columbla County Jail can request in wrlting to send and receive one letter per week to blood relative, husband or wife who Is housed in the Columbia County Jail at the same time. This request must be approved by a Supervisor in wrltlng.

9. Sexually explicit publications or materials will not be accepted. Sexually explicit materiar is any material that:

a. Would violate state obscenity laws;

b. By their nature or content would pose a threat to the securily, good order. treatment goals, the discipline of the jailor wourd facilitate criminar activity;

c. Would exacerbale tensions and lead directly or indirectly to disorder, even if they did not lead directly to violence; or

d. Promote a hostile work environment. \
10. Inflammatory publications or material will not be accepted. Inflammatory
material is any material that:

B. Would violate state law;

b.

to By nature or content would pose a threat the security, good

order or discipline of the jail. or would facilitate criminal activity; or

c. Would exacerbate tensions and lead directly or indirectly to disorder. even if they did not lead directly to violence.

11. Books and/or periodicals may be procured from outside the jaiL however,
any such book, hardbound or otherwise. must be sent directly from the publisher or bookstore via the U.S. Mail.

12. No p.ersonal packages will be accepted through the mail or by the Sheriff's Office Clerks.

13, Availability of paper, envelopes, postage and post cards' ara done through the Columbia County Commissary Program. All inmates housed in the

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 62; Page 4 of 8

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-11 Filed 09/13/12 Page 5 of 8

Jan. 19. 2012 4:36PM county counsel

No. 0503 P. 5

J603-ROS

October 21, 2011
Columbia County Jail are able to obtain writing material regardless of their custody status are permitted this opportunity Including inmates housed in segregation. This Is subject to limitations to accommodate safety, security, or other legitimate interests.

II.

fNCOMrNG MAIL

A. The mail is delivered to the Sheriff's Office between 0900 hours and 1100 hours, Monday through Friday. excluding holidays.

B. Sheriff's Office Staff will sort the mail and place it in the "Jail" basket by 1600 hours on mail derlvery days.

C. Mail received for inmates who are no longer Incarcerated in the Columbia County Jail will be returned to sender.

D. Any non-privileged mail will be retrieved, opened and inspected for contraband.
cash or money orders, and scanned for content. The day shift Supervisor will assign the Booking Deputy the responsibility of screening inmate may in an effort
to reduce the number of authorized persons participating in the mail process. This will protect the inmates rights to

1. Maif may be withheld if it could interfere with the good order and security of the facllitYI i.e. escape or riot plans or any other plans for disorder.

a. Any correspondence rejected for content will be rejected in it's
entirety.

b. If mall is rejected the inmate/addressee will receive written
notification explaining:

i.

The correspondence has been rejected.

ii.

The reason It was rejected,

iii. The process to informally appeal the rejection to the jail
commander

A copy of the notification will be placed in the inmate's fire.

2. Cash and money orders are not accepted. All inmates funds must be added to the inmate trust account via the TouchPay system.

3. Any contraband will be handled In accordance with the Contraband Control Policy and Procedure (J501)

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 62; Page 5 of 8

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-11 Filed 09/13/12 Page 6 of 8

Jan. 19. 2012 4:36PM county counsel

No. 0503 P. 6

October 2l, lOll

4.

Privileged mail must be clearly marked as such. Such mail may be

opened aod inspected in the presence of the inmate to whom it is addressed~ Privileged mail is prohibited from being read by jail officials

shall not be read by jail staff.

5.

If Privileged mail is inadvertently opened, jail staff will:

a.

Advise the Inmate of the incident and the circumstances Involved,

b.

Prepare an incident report to document the event and place a copy

in the Inmate's file.

E.

The deputy charged with mail duty will log all mail into the Inmate Management

Computer and note the (nmate's housing assignment on the outside of the post

card or envelope.

F.

The Shift Supervisor will ensure that all maills delivered by 1900 hours on the day

of receipt [f possible, but in all cases within twenty-four (24) hours of receipt.

G. . The Deputy delivering the mail will:

1.

Enter each hOllsing unit and calJ the name of each inmate receiving mail.

2.

Hand the mail personally to the inmate.

3.

If the inmate Is not present in the housing unit, I.e. out to court, on work

assignment. medical appointment, etc., the Deputy will leave the mall with

Central Control for delivery upon the inmate's return.

3.

OUTGOING MAIL

A. All outgoing mall from inmates to their family and friends will be in the form of a
postcard os special occasion card that has been purchased from the Columbia
County commissary account. Inmates will place all outgoing mafl in the mail drop located in the day room of each housing unit.

1.

All personal mail win be unsealed to accommodate inspection;

2.

All Privileged mail must be clearly marked and appropriately addressed.

Privileged maH may be sealed because it shall not be read by jail staff

unless so authorized by a court order. Privileged mail is defined as

correspondence to or from:

a.

Governor

b.

Attorney General

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 62; Page 6 of 8

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-11 Filed 09/13/12 Page 7 of 8

Jan. 19. 2012 4:36PM county counsel

No. 0503 P. 7

J603-R05
B. C.

October 21, 2011

c.

Attorneys

d.

Courts

e.

Department of Corrections

f.

Facility Supervisor

g.

Civil Rights Organizations

3.

AU mail will be picked up by the Rove Deputy after 2200 hours and be

logged accordingly.

4.

Graveyard shift will log all outgoing mail in the Inmate Management

Computer and may inspect and/or scan all personal mail for contraband

and to protect the good order and security of the facUity.

5. All outgoing mall will be delivered to the Mail/Records Room in the Sheriff's Office, and placed in the "Out Basket" by 0800 hours each mail
day.

Use of Envelopes

Inmates may use an envelope, sold through the commissary, to send the following types of letters: .

1.

A privileged and official mail letter

2.

A privileged and official mail letter that should not or cannot be folded or

that is more than one ounce,

3.

With staff approval, a personal letter that contains a program..related

diploma or certificate that should nor or cannot be folded. The inmate

must have a deputy confirm the contents of such an envelope before it is

sealed.

4.

Inmates may not use envelopes for any type of mail that does not meet

one of the three criterIa listed above. Corrections staff will deduct the cost

of the postage from the inmate!s account for acceptabJe manila

envelopes.

Sending Certified Privileged or Official Mail
Inmates may send a privileged or official letter using u.s. Postal Service Certified
and Return Receipt mail services. Inmates will be receipted for the mailing and receiving of such mail. The Jail will charge standard postal rates for these services to the Inmate. Any inmate sending certified privileged or official mail

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 62; Page 7 of 8

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 91-11 Filed 09/13/12 Page 8 of 8

Jan. 19. 2012 4:36PM county counsel

No. 0503 P. 8

J603-R05

October- 21, 2011
must have money in his/her inmate account to pay these postal rates or have appropriate approval from corrections staff if he or she is indigent. A deputy will supply inmates with a "Request for Certified Mail" form that the inmate will be required to fill out and submit with the mail. Inmates shall be limited to two (2) cartified-mailletters in any 30-day period.

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 62; Page 8 of 8

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 16
EXHIBIT 63
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 63; Page 1 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 16

COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
JAIL OPERATIONS JEFF DICKERSON, SHERIFF
INMATE MAIL POLICY J603-R08 (05/25/12)

EFFECTIVE: MAY 25,2012
SUPERSEDES INMATE MAIL POLICY
REVISED FEBRUARY 10bI?;Ql;Z'

OJ8: D1-A01 THRU

DI-A05, D2-D01,

D3-A02, F1-A01 THRU F1-A03

ACA: 3-ALDF-3D-16 THRU 5D-08

Applies to all staff.

POLICY

Jail mail handling procedures must support an inmate's need to communicate in writing to carry out legal business and maintain family and community ties. The procedures must also meet the Jail's need for efficient operations that preserve the good order, safety, and security of the facility, inmates, and staff.

DEFINITIONS

Book.

A printed composition bound in a volume.

Contraband. 1) Controlled substances as defined in DRS 475.005(6). 2) Drug paraphernalia as

defined by DRS 475.525(2). 3) Any currency or negotiable instrument. 4) Any item that a

person in a correctional facility is prohibited by statute, rule, or order from obtaining or

possessing, and whose use would endanger the safety or security of the facility or person

in the facility. 5) An unauthorized item in an inmate's possession or in a cell, bunk, or

common area. 6) An authorized item altered in any way. 7) More than the authorized

number of an item.

'

Inmate Mail. Written correspondence to or from an inmate in the Columbia County Jail.

Indigent.

An inmate who has less than $5 in his or her inmate account and has not had more

than

amount for seven days.

Inflammatory material.

Written or printed materials that pose a threat to the security, safety,

or good order of the jail because it may incite or advocate physical violence against others.

This includes material that advocates the supremacy or hatred of a racial, religious,

national, or other group of people. (Note: Criticism of jail operations, programs, or staff, on

its own, is not inflammatory material. If the criticism involves an illegal act or violates a jail

rule, staff will handle it as that type of prohibited mail.)

Jail Commander. The Columbia County Jail Commander or his/her designee.

Jail Supervisor.

Any Corrections Deputy designated at the rank of sergeant or higher.

Junk mail I Bulk mail. Printed materials, often sent as mass mailings, such as catalogs, advertisements, brochures, circulars, newsletters, and pamphlets whose primary purpose is to sell, promote or solicit for, a product or service. Junk mail/bulk mail may come using a variety of postage

Page 1
CC001548
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 63; Page 2 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 16

J603-R08

May 25,2012

rates, including but not limited to bulk mail rates. Junk Mail/Bulk Mail may be solicited or unsolicited.

Legal mail. Incoming or outgoing mail addressed to or from an attorney.

Negotiable instrument.

A written document that represents an unconditional promise to pay

a specified amount of money upon the demand of its owner. Examples include checks and

promissory notes. Negotiable instruments can be transferred from one person to another,

as when a person writes "pay to the order of" on the back of a check in order to turn it over

to someone else.

Official Mail. Incoming or outgoing mail addressed to or from the sheriff, jail command staff, probation authorities, district attorney, state attorney general, Governor, court, a court official, and other confining authorities, or addressed to or from the inmate's medical provider, or addressed to or from the inmate's religious leader, or addressed to or from the news media.

Periodical. A magazine, newspaper, newsletter, or other publication formed of printed sheets that is issued at regular, specified intervals by a publisher.

Personal business. Business necessary to meet ordinary personal obligations, including but not limited to, paying taxes, making mortgage or other loan payments, renewing licenses, and making rent or lease payments.

Personal mail.

Mail to or from family, friends, or for personal business. Personal mail does

not include legal mail, official mail, publications, or junk mail/bulk mail.

Publication. Periodicals and books.

Roving Deputy.

A deputy performing roving deputies as defined under post orders during an

assigned shift.

Sexually explicit: 1) A pictorial depiction of any of the following: actual or simulated sexual acts (including sexual intercourse, oral sex, anal sex, or masturbation); sexual penetration; bestiality; sexual vio.lence; sadomasochistic behavior; excretory functions; and exposed genitalia, anus or female nipple or areola, unless the exposure is for legitimate medical, religious, or anthropological reasons. 2) Sex acts involving children. 3) Materials that violate state and local obscenity laws. (Note: Whether the material is commercially produced or is personally made or written has no bearing on this definition.)

PROCEDURES

INMATE MAIL

1.

Inmate Mail Limits and Restrictions/Overview

The Columbia County Jail will normally not limit, censor, or restrict the volume, language, content, format or source of inmate mail. However, some limitations are necessary to assure the safety, and security of inmates, jail staff, and the public, as well as to assure the efficient operation of the Jail.

Page 2
CC001549
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 63; Page 3 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92 Filed 09/13/12 Page 4 of 16

J603-R08

May 25,2012

2.

Specific Limitations on Inmate Mail.

A.

Personal Mail. Except as otherwise provided below, personal mail may be sent

and received by inmates only in postcard form. The following exceptions apply to

this policy:

(1) A Jail Supervisor may allow an inmate who is continuously involved in rehabilitation programs permission to correspond with a specific person in non-post card form (both sending and receiving). A supervisor must document that correspondence with the person is in the best interest of an inmate's rehabilitation. A suitable example might include a letter sent to reconnect with family prior to release.

(2) A Jail Supervisor may approve incoming and outgoing mail in non-postcard form so that an inmate can conduct necessary personal business. Examples of this exception include, but are not limited to the use of a business reply envelope to send a document back to the originating firm or signing a mailed-in personal check to make a rent or car payment or renew a driver's license. If it appears to the Jail Supervisor that the inmate has no other reasonably available means to take care of personal business, and that the personal business cannot reasonably wait until the inmate is released, the Jail Supervisor shall allow the exception, subject to the following:

(a) Checks must not have a blank payee line.

(b) If reasonably possible, the inmate must act to add a cosigner to a checking account or make other arrangements to prevent reoccurrence of this need.

(c) Supporting documents, such as payment coupons or rent contracts, must accompany personal business mail.

B.

Publications. Publications are permitted in the Jail, subject to the following

requirements:

(1) An inmate must have someone outside the jail prepay for any publication he or she receives. An inmate may not engage in any delayed payment or credit ordering of publications while inside the jail.

(2) Books. An inmate may receive up to three books on a single mail delivery day. Books must come directly from the publisher, a book club, or a bookstore. Books may be new or used. Books may not be larger than 9 inches by 12 inches. Books may not have plastic or metal bindings. Either hardback or paperback books are acceptable for general population inmates. Inmates in segregation, including medical segregation, may only receive paperback books. Mail handlers will consider any other item in the envelope or parcel as contraband and treat the parcel as prohibited mail.

(3) Periodicals. An inmate may receive up to three periodicals on a single mail delivery day. Periodicals must be new and be mailed directly from the publisher or bookstore.

Page 3 CC001550
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 63; Page 4 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92 Filed 09/13/12 Page 5 of 16

J603-R08 (4)

May 25,2012
No blanket prohibition. Mail handlers will determine whether a specific publication violates jail rules. However, this determination must be made on a case by case basis. There shall be no blanket prohibition on any publication.

C.

Legal and Official Mail.

(1) Jail staff must protect the rights of inmates to privileged, confidential communication with their attorneys, the courts, and confining authorities.

(2) A sender of legal or official mail is responsible for legitimately, properly, and clearly marking and addressing legal and official mail so that jail staff recognize it and treat it as being confidential, as follows:

(a)' The return address on all incoming legal and official mail must have the sender's job, agency, or firm title and address either commercially preprinted on the envelope or a label, or as an ink stamp. The sender's name should be handwritten if not preprinted. Staff will treat all mail with return addresses that are completely handwritten as personal mail.

(b) The words "Legal Mail," "Official Mail," or similar designation must appear on the address side of the envelope. Jail staff will not assume the contents of any letter from an attorney, law firm, or government official is legal or official mail. Jail Staff will treat all mail without the legal or official mail mark as personal mail.

(c) Jail staff will treat improperly marked or addressed mail as personal mail.

(3) Staff must not open recognized legal or official mail outside the presence of the inmate. They may only open it in the presence of the inmate to inspect it for contraband, but they must not read its contents.

(4) A staff mem ber must write a Jail Incident Report if he or she inadvertently opens a .piece of recognizable legal or official mail outside the presence of the inmate:

(5) Before legal or official mail leaves the pod, staff must verify that any letter
marked as legal or official mail is addressed to a person that qualifies for
that privacy protection. Deputies will contact a Jail Supervisor if they suspect fraud.

(6) Jail staff will pursue administrative, criminal, and disciplinary.actions, as fitting, against all those involved in the fraudulent use of legal or official mail designations.

D.

Other Prohibited Mail/Contraband.

(1) An inmate may not receive or send inmate mail that contains:

(a) Threats of physical harm, blackmail, extortion, or other criminal activity;

Page 4
CC001551
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 63; Page 5 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92 Filed 09/13/12 Page 6 of 16

J603-R08

May 25,2012

(b) Plans for escape, criminal activity, or activity that violates jail rules;

(c) Gang-related material;

(d) Information that, if conveyed,could result in physical harm to someone;

(e) Sexually explicit materials;

(f)

Inflammatory material;

(g) Contraband including but not limited to such commonly mailed items as:

i.

Books larger than 9 by 12 inches or with plastic or metal

bindings;

ii.

More than three books or publications in a single piece of

mail;

iii.

Controlled substances as defined by ORS 475.005(6);

iv.

Foreign substances, such as bodily fluids, lipstick or perfume,

glue or paint or anything with an unusual stain or odor that

indicates a foreign substance may be present.

(h) Cash or negotiable instruments unless specifically allowed to conduct personal business.

(2) An inmate may not send or receive inmate mail that:

(a) is written in code or suspected code;

(b) Was not sent through the USPS or other approved system;

(c) Is to or from a person with whom the inmate is prohibited from com municating;

(d) Would violate a court order;

(e) May produce a hostile work environment by sexual harassment or otherwise;

(f)

Is a credit or deferred billing transaction, such as "bill me later"

subscriptions or merchandise bought on credit or cOllect-on-delivery

terms;

(g) Is fraudulently marked as legal or official mail;

(h) Includes logistical information about an inmate's upcoming health care appointment(s).

Page 5
CC001552
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 63; Page 6 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92 Filed 09/13/12 Page 7 of 16

J603"R08

May 25,2012

E.

Sources of Incoming Mail. Jail Staff will only accept incoming inmate mail that

has been delivered by the U.S. Postal Service unless otherwise specifically

authorized by the Jail Commander.

F.

Postage-Due Mail. The jail will not accept or pay for incoming inmate mail with

postage due.

G.

Parcels. Incoming parcels are allowed if they contain books or periodicals from a

publisher or bookstore. A parcel may only contain up to three books or three

periodicals. Mail handlers will

any other item in a parcel as contraband

and treat such a parcel asprohibited mail.· Parcels are also allowed to and from

inmates for legal or official mail, or for personal business when an exception is

authorized.

H.

Commercial Business Transactions and Government Services by Mail.

(1) Except as provided in (2), below, inmates may not conduct commercial business transactions or request services from government agencies through inmate mail.

(2) The Jail Commander may approve personal business mail as described in paragraph 2.A.

(3) Examples of commercial business transactions and government agency requests include, but are not limited to:

(a) Buying or selling an item, real property, or service;

(b) Applying for a credit card;

(c) Applying for a commercial or student loan;

(d) Opening a bank account;

(e) Enrolling in a college course;

(f)

Applying for food stamps;

(g) Any obligation of funds to which the inmate does not have access.

3.

General Limitations on Inmate Mail.

In addition to the specific limitations on inmate mail set forth above, additional limitations may apply in the following circumstances:

A.

There is reason to believe that such correspondence would jeopardize personal

safety, jail security or good order, inmate treatment, or would facilitate violation of

the law.

B.

There is reason to believe that a sentenced inmate in rehabilitative programs would

benefit from limited contacts and/or inmate mail.

Page 6
CC001553
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 63; Page 7 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92 Filed 09/13/12 Page 8 of 16

J603·R08

May 25, 2012

C.

Inmates may receive a disciplinary sanction that restricts personal mail. (See policy

J212, Rules and Discipline.)

4.

General Provisions for Inmate Mail

A.

Postcards. Inmates may send postcards they receive in their initial inmate hygiene

kit or through jail commissary. Inmates may receive postcards in any size that is

delivered by the U.S. Postal Service up to a maximum size of 5-1/2" tall x 8-1/2"

wide. Postcards may have photographs on one side as allowed by the U.S. Postal

Service and jail rules. No other photographs are allowed on postcards. Inmates

are not limited to a specific number of postcards that they may receive or send.

Lodged inmates receive two postcards in their hygiene kit. and may purchase

additional postcards through jail commissary. Policy 212. Rules and Discipline,

sets limits on the number of personal mail items allowed in an inmate's cell.

B.

Indigent Inmate Mail. Indigent inmates may purchase an indigent hygiene kit

through the commissary program once per week. Hygiene kits are taken to the

pods and offered to all inmates. The indigent hygiene kit consists of two postage

prepaid postcards, a pencil and hygiene items.

C.

Addressing Inmate Mail. Incoming mail must have the inmate's booking name

and should have the inmate's booking number as part of the addressee information.

D.

Return Address. Incoming mail must have the name and address of the sender.

The return address on legal and official mail must have the sender's job, agency, or

firm title and address commercially preprinted or stamped.

E.

Certified Mail/Special mail services. This section applies to legal and official

mail as well as to personal business mail when authorized.

(1) An inmate may send up to two letters as certified mail in a 30-day period. The inmate must have sufficient funds in his or her account to pay for the service. A Jail Supervisor may make exceptions to the volume of certified mail an inmate sends and may approve credit to allow an indigent inmate to send certified mail.

(2) An inmate that needs to send a letter using certified mail must fill out an Inmate Request Form. Only the Jail Commander can approve such a request. The Jail Supervisor will ensure that the inmate's correspondence is ready to mail at the time of the request. If an inmate's request for certified mail is approved, a Jail Supervisor will forward the request to the front office staff.

(a) Jail staff will verify if the inmate has sufficient funds in his or her account before processing any request. They will forward requests from indigent inmates to a supervisor. The inmate will fill out the necessary U.S. Postal Service forms-Receipt for Certified Mail (PS Form 3800) and Domestic Return Receipt (PS Form 3811). The letter and the forms will be forwarded to front office staff who will mail the letter and charge the· inmate for the postal fees for these special services. The inmate request form will be the source document authorizing the charge.

Page 7
CC001554
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 63; Page 8 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92 Filed 09/13/12 Page 9 of 16

J603 ..R08

May 25,2012

(b) Jail Staff will provide the Domestic Return Receipt on to the inmate when it returns in incoming mail. They will return the Domestic Return Receipt postcard to the post office if the inmate is no longer in jail when it returns in the mail. Other Special Postal Services

F.

Inmate Request Form. An inmate shall use an Inmate Request Form to request

permission to mail oversize or overweight items, or for otherspecial postal services,

when allowed. If the Jail Commander approves such a request, funds will be drawn

from the inmate's account to cover the costs.

G.

Junk/Bulk Mail. Jail staff will accept solicited and unsolicited junk mail and

solicited and unsolicited bulk mail for inmates, unless it violates other mail

restrictions (such as containing. sexually explicit content).

H.

Pre-Stamped Envelopes. Jail staff will make pre-stamped First Class business

size or manila envelopes available for inmates to buy from the commissary for legal

or official mail. Indigent inmates may obtain pre-stamped envelopes for legal or

official mail per paragraph 6.

I.

Inmate Mail Written in a Foreign language. Incoming and outgoing mail written

in a language other than English may be interpreted prior to delivery to determine

whether the mail violates these rules.

PROCESSING INMATE MAil

INCOMING INMATE MAil

1.

Mail Intake.

A. . Incoming Inmate Mail will be processed by night shift Corrections Deputies.

B.

Night Shift Corrections Deputies will pull and hold from delivery unopened mail

when:

(1) The addressee cannot be identified because of missing or incomplete information;

(2) Prohibited items are affixed to the mail;

(3) Foreign SUbstances or stains are on the mail;

(4) Odors, including perfume, are coming from the mail;

(5) The mail can otherwise be identified as being or containing prohibited mail before it is opened;

(6) The inmate is no longer in the jail.

C.

Night Shift Corrections Deputies will look up the inmate's name on the inmate list

and write the inmate's pod number or "CCJ" on the mail.

D.

Night Shift Corrections Deputies will review all postcards, publications and junk

mail/bulk mail for prohibited content, and will remove loose postage stamps, flap-

Page 8'
CC001555
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 63; Page 9 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92 Filed 09/13/12 Page 10 of 16

J603-R08

May 25,2012

sealing tape, and gummed and adhesive address labels, leaving labels on legal and official mail;

E.

Night Shift Corrections Deputies will determine whether mail includes the name and

return address of the sender. If the mail does not have the name and return

address, the Corrections Deputy will pull and hold the mail and will then open any

envelopes without the sender's name and return address to both identify the

sender's name and address and to see if the mail contains negotiable instruments

or other valuables that should be listed on a Prohibited Mail Notice. If the sender's

address can be identified, the mail will be returned to sender. If the sender's name

and address still cannot be identified, the mail will be stored for the inmate, unless

the inmate is no longer in jail in which case the mail will be destroyed. However, in

the event an inmate is no longer in jail, the mail contains negotiable instruments or

other valuables, and no sender can be identified, the the mail will be sent to the

inmate's last known address. If the mail is returned to the Jail after being sent to

the inmate's last known address, the mail will be destroyed. Before mail is

returned, stored, forwarded, or destroyed under this section, the Corrections

Deputy will get approval of a Jail Supervisor.

F.

Night Shift Corrections Deputies will separate legal and official mail from other

inmate mail.

G.

Night Shift Corrections Deputies will open all inmate mail (except for legal and

official mail) to inspect for contraband. Upon a determination that contraband is

present, Night Shift Corrections Deputies will pull and hold the mail.

H.

If cash or negotiable instruments are found in inmate mail, the mail and funds will

be returned to sender. The Prohibited Mail Notice shall include the amount of

funds, number, and issuing institution of any negotiable instrument as well as the

payee's name if it was not the inmate. Before mail is returned, stored, forwarded, or

destroyed under this section, the Corrections Deputy will get approval of a Jail

Supervisor.

I.

Night Shift Corrections Deputies will pull and hold personal business mail received

in non-postcard form for a Jail Supervisor's review. If a Jail Supervisor does not

approve the personal business mail in non-postcard form, the mail will be returned

to sender.

J.

Night Shift Corrections Deputies will remove publications from their mailing parcels.

K.

Night Shift Corrections Deputies will place inmate mail written in a foreign language

in the "translation required" box and will take steps to locate a staff member who

speaks that language. If such mail cannot be translated within a reasonable time

by a staff member, the Corrections Deputy will forward the mail to a Jail Supervisor

for direction.

L.

Night Shift Corrections Deputies will sort inmate mail by pod and place it in the pod

folders in booking before 0800 hours (8:00 a.m.).

M.

Night Shift Corrections Deputies will fill out a a Prohibited Mail Notice for each item

of confiscated mail and place it in the "Needs Review" box for a Jail Supervisor's

review. A Jail Supervisor will review each Prohibited Mail Notice. If the Jail

Supervisor does not agree with the Prohibited Mail Notice, the Mail will be

delivered. If the Jail Supervisor does agree with the Prohibited Mail Notice, the Jail

Page 9
CC001556
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 63; Page 10 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92 Filed 09/13/12 Page 11 of 16

J603-R08

May 25,2012

Supervisor will sign the Notice. The Prohibited Mail Notice will then be sent with returned mail or to the sender of confiscated mail (if known). A copy of a Prohibited Mail Notice will be provided to the inmate (if known and still in jail). A copy of the Prohibited Mail Notice will be retained in the inmate's file. Corrections Deputies will place mail to return to the post office in the booking pickup box.

N.

Day Shift Corrections Deputies will pick up the mail for their pods when coming on

duty. They, or other staff if appropriate, will process the inmate mail for their pods as

follows:

(i)

Open recognizable legal and official mail in front of the inmate and inspect it

only for contraband - riot content (staff shall not read the contents);

(ii)

Deliver the mail as soon as practical upon receipt. Passing inmate mail under

an inmate's door and placing books by the door is acceptable, except for

legal and official mail;

(iii) Have the inmate write his or her name and booking number on the inside flap of books. For magazines without mailing labels directly attached, have the inmate write his or her name and booking number on the cover. Newspapers do not need marking;

2.

Corrections Deputies will forward any grievances and/or appeals related to inmate mail to

the Jail Commander for a determination of compliance with the Mail Policy and applicable

legal requirements.

3.

Corrections Deputies will place mail to return to the post office in the booking pickup box.

4.

Mail Delivery. Staff should deliver mail to inmates within 24 hours of receipt at the Jail.

Reasonable exceptions are allowed when special processing is required, such as for mail

delivered late in the day, needing translation, or items held as evidence in a criminal or

disciplinary investigation, etc.

OUTGOING INMATE MAIL

1.

General Mail Rules for Inmates

Inmates-

A.

May only use lead or colored pencils to write correspondence.

B.

May only use postcards sold through the commissary or issued by the jail, if post

cards are required to be used under this Policy.

C.

Must send inmate mail through the USPS or other approved system.

D.

Must put their first and last name, booking number, and the jail address as the return

address.

E.

May not draw or write anything on the outside of an envelope other than name and

address information and "legal" or "official" mail designations.

F.

May not send out jail forms for others to fill out on behalf of the inmate.

Page 10
CC001557
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 63; Page 11 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92 Filed 09/13/12 Page 12 of 16

J603-R08

May 25,2012

G.

May not send prohibited mail. They are subject to disciplinary action for doing so.

H.

Should pass on inmate mail rules to people and businesses with whom they

correspond.

2.

Posting Outgoing Mail. Inmates will place outgoing inmate mail in the designated

mailbox located inside of their pod. The Night Shift Corrections Deputy will pick up the

mail out of the mailbox and deliver it to the booking area to be processed.

A.

Processing of inmate mail will consist of:

(1) Sorting the mail;

(2) Scanning the inmates name and appropriate bar code to reflect the proper disposition of the mail:

(a) Outgoing

Mail;

(b) Outgoing Official or Legal

(c) Mail Returned (Prohibited Mail Notice to follow);

(d) Confiscated Mail (Report to Follow);

(e) Outgoing Package;

(f)

Outgoing Certified Mail.

3.

of Inspection Outgoing Envelopes

Before an envelope leaves a pod, a Corrections Deputy will verify the contents are legal or official mail, or authorized personal mail, and that the mail otherwise complies with this Policy. The Corrections Deputy will then seal the envelope and will initial and write their DPSST number on the flap to show this verification. As appropriate, the Corrections Deputy will return maii to the inmate, confiscate it as evidence in disciplinary proceedings, or contact the Jail Supervisor if:

A.

The return name, booking number, and address are incomplete or false;

B.

There is drawing or non-address-related writing on the envelope;

C.

There is prohibited material on the envelope;

D.

Addressee information is missing that could cause the letter to be undeliverable

and returned to the jail;

E.

The mail does not qualify to be sent via envelope;

F.

They reasonably believe the envelope should be re-opened for any legitimate

reason.

Page 11
CC001558
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 63; Page 12 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92 Filed 09/13/12 Page 13 of 16

J603-R08

May 25,2012

4.

Opening and Inspecting Contents of Outgoing Mail

A.

Mail ha'ndling staff will not read outgoing legal or official mail unless they have the

approval of a Jail Commander.

B.

A Jail Supervisor may have staff read outgoing mail'at any time and for any reason,

except for legal or official mail. This authorization may be by housing area, class of

inmate, individual inmate, or other basis. It may also be on an ongoing or a random

basis and for any length of time. However, the Jail Commander must approve any

ongoing monitoring of a specific inmate.

C.

Corrections Deputies will notify a Jail Supervisor if-

(1) They suspect outgoing mail contains contraband or violates this Policy.

(2) It may present a safety or s.ecurity issue based on the addressee.

(3) They have reasonable suspicion the mail may contain other contents of legitimate jail interest.

A Jail Supervisor will determine whether inmate mail contains contraband or is otherwise prohibited by this Policy. If mail is deemed to be prohibited a Jail Supervisor will notify the jr,tmate and may give the inmate an opportunity to correct the problem(s). If the inmate refuses to correct the mail, the mail will be confiscated. If an inmate corrects the problem(s), the mail will be included in outgoing mail.

(4) Mail may be confiscated immediately if appropriate in the discretion of the Jail Supervisor.

(5) The mail will be placed in the outgoing mail basket and delivered to the front office for the regularly scheduled morning pickup on that same day as long as it is not a weekend or holiday. Outgoing mail should be processed within one business day after being received from the inmate.

(6) An inmate will be provided with a Prohibited Mail Notice whenever their outgoing mail is not mailed due to a violation of this Policy. However, if the inmate is allowed to correct a problem with the mail, the inmate will be notified, but Prohibited Mail Notice is not required unless the inmate declines to correct the problem.

CONFISCATED MAIL.

A.

Disposition. Any inmate mail that is confiscated pursuant to this Policy may either

be returned to the sender, or stored with the inmate's belongings in the Jail's sole

discretion based on the best interest of the Jail. A Jail Supervisor may authorize

the destruction of any item that presents a health or safety risk if stored in the jail or

returned to sender.

B.

Prohibited Mail Notice Required. The sender and addressee of confiscated

inmate mail must be notified of the confiscation whether the disposition was to

return the mail, store it, or destroy it. However, if the mail is evidence in a criminal

investigation, no notification will be given. Notice will be given through delivery of a

Page 12
CC001559
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 63; Page 13 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92 Filed 09/13/12 Page 14 of 16

J603-R08

May 25,2012

Prohibited Mail Notice whiCh is' attached to this Policy. The Prohibited Mail Notice will give the reason for the confiscation and explain the appeal process.

C.

Confiscation in whole. Corrections Deputies will confiscate inmate mail in whole

rather than removing or obliterating individual pages, passages, or words with

prohibited content. They will confiscate items that exceed a number limit as an

entire set rather than passing on a selection that would meet the maximum number

allowed.

D.

Stored Inmate Mail. Corrections Deputies will use a Prohibited Mail Notice to

inform the inmate of the confiscation and use a copy as a tag for the items placed in

storage.

ADMINISTRATION

1.

Mail as Nuisance Contraband.

Inmates are responsible for getting rid of any mailed item exceeding the number of items allowed in their cells as nuisance contraband under policy J212, Rules and Discipline. An inmate may transfer items to their bin in the property room using procedures in policy J208, Secure Storage of Inmate Property.

2.

Gang-Related and Security Threat Group Materials in Mail. A mail handler will

photocopy incoming or outgoing inmate mail with gang-related material and send a copy to

the Gang

3.

Mail Monitoring

A.

The Jail may monitor an inmate's mail for investigatory purposes as follows:

(1) Upon receipt of a warrant; or

(2) When there is a legitimate penological or public safety reason to do so. Examples of legitimate penological interest include but are not limited to, the welfare and safety of the ,inmates or staff. the good order or security Gf the facility, the protectio'n of property, the prevention of the commission of a crime or conspiracy to commit a crime, the prevention of the destruction or tampering with evidence, and the prevention harassment or intimidation of witnesses.

B.

If a request to monitor inmate mail comes from another law enforcement agency,

the agency must complete a Request for Inmate Mail Monitoring. An approved

request will expire 30 days after its approval date. The requester must submit a

new request to continue monitoring. Jail staff will read the inmate's mail and decide

if any of it applies to the request and will only forward copies of mail that does

apply. The requester must pick up the copies in person if from an agency within

Columbia County. The Jail Commander will coordinate the mail-monitoring

program. The Jail Commander must approve the request.

4.

Mail Rules. The Jail Commander will ensure mail rules are a part of inmate orientation

and the Inmate Manual and will make copies of the Inmate Mail Guide available to the

public. Civilian staff members who discover apparent misconduct as a result of reading

inmate mail will report it via the chain of command.

Page 13
CC001560
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 63; Page 14 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92 Filed 09/13/12 Page 15 of 16

J603-R08

May 25,2012

5.

Mail Complaints. Staff members will direct mail complaints from the public to a Jail

Supervisor. The Jail Supervisor should attempt to respond to the complainant within two

business days. Appeals related to receipt of Prohibited Mail Notice shall be addressed

pursuant to paragraph 10, below.

6.

Mail Handler Supervision and Training. A Jail Supervisor will supervise the day-to-day

handling of inmate mail. He or she will assign staff to perform primary inmate mail duties.

Staff who initially handle or open incoming inmate mail should attend training on the safe

handling of strange or suspicious packages or receive similar training from another source.

Those who open mail should also receive training on recognizing gang and security threat

group symbols and signs.

7.

Change of Address Responsibilities and Forwarding Mail. Inmates are responsible for

submitting change of address requests to the publishers of publications they receive and to

others that send them mail at the Jail. Corrections Deputies will normally not forward mail

for inmates who are no longer in Jail custody. They will return correspondence and

packages unopened to the sender and throw publications away.

8.

Holding Mail. Corrections Deputies will normally not hold mail for inmates released or

temporarily transferred to another facility. The Jail Commander may make exceptions.

9.

Returning Mail to Sender. To return postcards, a mail handler will use a sticker or stamp

marked "return to sender," note the reason for refusal on the stamp, obliterate any mail-

sorting bar code, and return it to the post office. To return unopened mail (other than

postcards), a mail handler will use the "return to sender" stamp in place of the sticker. A

Prohibited Mail Notice will be mailed separately.

To return mail that was opened, a Corrections Deputy must repackage it and send it at the expense of the Jail to the sender. The Corrections Deputy will include a copy of the Prohibited Mail Notice and the Inmate Mail Guide if he or she repackages the inmate mail.

10. Appeals.

A.

By Inmates. Inmates wishing to appeal a decision to deny delivery of incoming

inmate mail or the mailing of outgoing inmate mail must follow the normal grievance

procedure set forth in the inmate manual and Policy J207, Inmate Rights.

B.

By Others. If a person believes that any incoming or outgoing inmate mail was

improperly confiscated by the Jail, they may appeal the action to the Jail

Commander by sending a written letter stating the specific reason(s) why the action

was improper. The letter must be received within 15 days from the date of the

Prohibited Mail Notice. Or, if no Prohibited Mail Notice was received, within 15

days from the date the person knew or should have known of the appealed action.

The letter shall include the sender's name and return address. The Jail

Commander will consider the appeal and will issue a decision on the appeal within

fifteen days of receiving the letter. However, if the Jail Commander made the initial

decision regarding the mail in question, the Sheriff will consider the appeal and

issue the decision. The appeal process will be set forth in the Prohibited Mail

Notice.

Page 14
CC001561
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 63; Page 15 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92 Filed 09/13/12 Page 16 of 16

J603-R08

May 25,2012
Address: 901 Port Ave. St. Helens,OR 97051 Phone: (503) 366-4611 Fax: (503) 366-4644 Web Address: www.co.columbia.or.us/sheriff
PROHIBITED MAIL NOTICE TO INMATES AND SENDERS
Oate: _______________________

Because of rules contained in the Columbia County Jail Inmate Mail Policy,

we are 0 returning or 0 confiscating the 0 letter or 0 publication as:.___________________ _________________

sent 0 to 0 from inmate _____________________, Booking

The mail was denied for the following reason(s):
o It is deemed personal mail and not on a post card. o It contains sexually explicit material at page(s):______________________________

o It contains prohibited material or a foreign substance:

o It did not come directly from a publisher, book club, or bookstore.

o It contains plans for escape, criminal activity, or activity that violates jail rules.
o It contains inflammatory materials, such as advocating violence against a group based upon their religion,
race, gender or ethnicity.

o

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____

The reverse side of this letter is an Inmate Mail Guide which contains guidance on mail rules and complaint information. You may also go to the Jail's web page at www.co.columbia.or.us/sheriff to find the information. The inmate has been notified of this decision and can appeal this decision through the Inmate Grievance Procedure set forth in the Inmate Manual.
APPEALS: Inmates can appeal decisions to prohibit mail through the Inmate Grievance Procedure set forth in the Inmate Manual. Others who believe that their correspondence/publication was improperly denied, may appeal the decision by sending in a written letter stating the reasons it is believed that the decision was wrong within 15 days from the date of this Notice. The letter should identify specifically how our action was improper, and include the name and return address of the appealing party. Appealing parties are not required to provide a phone number, but it may be useful if we need further clarification. We will send the appealing party a decision on the appeal within fifteen days of our receipt of the appeal. Please direct written denied mail appeals to:
Jail Commander ATTN: Denied Mail Appeal Columbia County Sheriff's Office 901 Port Ave. St. Helens, OR 97051

Mail Handler and DPSST #

Jail Supervisor and DPSST #

Page 15 CC001562
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 63; Page 16 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 16
EXHIBIT 64
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 64; Page 1 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 16

COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
JAIL OPERATIONS JEFF DICKERSON, SHERIFF

EFFECTIVE: MAY 25,2012 .
SUPERSEDES INMATE MAIL POLICY

lNMATEMAIL POLICY J603-R08 (05/25/12)

OJS: DI-AOI THRU DI-C04, DI-A05, D2-DOl, D3-A02, FI-AOI THRU FI-A03
ACA: 3-ALDF-3D-16THRU SD-08

Applies to all staff.

POLICY

Jail mail handling procedures must support an inmate's need to communicate in writing to carry out legal business and maintain family and community ties. The procedures must also meet the Jail's need for efficient operations that preserve the good order, safety, and security of the facility, inmates, and staff.

DEFINITIONS

Book.

A printed composition bound in a volume.

Contraband. 1) Controlled substances as defined in ORS 475.005(6). 2) Drug paraphernalia as defined by ORS 475.525(2). 3) Any currency or negotiable instrument. 4) Any item that a person in a correctional facility is prohibited by statute, rule, or order from obtaining or possessing, and whose use would endanger the safety or security of the facility or person in the facility. 5} An unauthorized item in an inmate's possession or in a cell, bunk, or common area. 6} An authorized item altered in any way. 7} More than the authorized number of an item.

Inmate Mail. Written correspondence to or from an inmate in the Columbia County Jail.

Indigent.

An inmate who has less than $5 in his or her inmate account and has not had more

than that amount for seven days.

Inflammatory material.

Written or printed materials that pose a threat to the security, safety,

or good order of the jail because it may incite or advocate physical violence against others.

This includes material that advocates the supremacy or hatred of a racial, religious,

national, or other group of people. (Note: Criticism of jail operations, programs, or staff, on

its own, is not inflammatory material. If the criticism involves an illegal act or violates a jail

rule, staff will handle it as that type of prohibited mail.)

Jail Commander. The Columbia County Jail Commander or his/her designee.

Jail Supervisor.

Any Corrections Deputy designated at the rank of sergeant or higher.

Junk mail I Bulk mail. Printed materials, often sent as mass mailings, such as catalogs, advertisements, brochures, circulars, newsletters, and pamphlets whose primary purpose is to sell, promote or solicit for, a product or service. Junk mail/bulk mail may come using a variety of postage

INMATE MAIL POLICY J603-R08 (Rev'd 05.25.12)

Page 1

CC001507
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 64; Page 2 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 16

05.25.2012

rates, including but not limited to bulk mail rates. Junk Mail/Bulk Mail may be solicited or unsolicited.

Legal mail. Incoming or outgoing mail addressed to or from an attorney.

Negotiable instrument.

A written document that represents an unconditional promise to pay

a specified amount of money upon the demand of its owner. Examples include checks and

promissory notes. Negotiable instruments can be transferred from one person to another,

as when a person writes "pay to the order of" on the back of a check in order to turn it over

to someone else.

Official Mail. Incoming or outgoing mail addressed to or from the sheriff, jail command staff, probation authorities, district attorney, state attorney general, Governor, court, a court official, and other confining authorities, or addressed to or from the inmate's medical provider, or addressed to or from the inmate's religious leader, or addressed to or from the news media.

Periodical. A magazine, newspaper, newsletter, or other publication formed of printed sheets that is issued at regular, specified intervals by a publisher.

Personal business. Business necessary to meet ordinary personal obligations, including but not limited to, paying taxes, making mortgage or other loan payments, renewing licenses, and making rent or lease payments.

Personal mail.

Mail to or from family, friends, or for personal business. Personal mail does

not include legal mail, official mail, publications, or junk mail/bulk mail.

Publication. Periodicals and books.

Roving Deputy.

A deputy performing roving deputies as defined under post orders during an

assigned shift.

Sexually explicit: 1} A pictorial depiction of any of the following: actual or simulated sexual acts (including sexual intercourse, oral sex, anal sex, or masturbation); sexual penetration; bestiality; sexual violence; sadomasochistic behavior; excretory functions; and exposed genitalia, anus or female nipple or areola, unless the exposure is.for legitimate medical, religious, or anthropological reasons. 2} Sex acts involving children. 3} Materials that violate state and local obscenity laws. (Note: Whether the material is commercially produced or is personally made or written has no bearing on this definition.)

PROCEDURES

INMATE MAIL

1.

Inmate Mail Limits and Restrictions/Overview

The Columbia County Jail will normally not limit, censor, or restrict the volume, language, c'ontent, format or source of inmate mail. However, some limitations are necessary to assure the safety, and security of inmates, jail staff, and the public, as well as to assure the efficient operation of the Jail.

INMATE MAIL POLICY J603-R08 (Rev'd 05.25.12)

Page 2

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 64; PageCC300o15f0816

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 4 of 16

J603-R08

05.25.2012

2.

Specific Limitations on Inmate Mail.

A.

Personal Mail. Except as otherwise provided below, personal mail may be sent

and received by inmates only in postcard form. The following exceptions apply to

this policy:

(1) A Jail Supervisor may allow an inmate who is continuously involved in rehabilitation programs permission to correspond with a specific person in non-post card form (both sending and receiving). A supervisor must document that correspondence with the person is in the best interest of an inmate's rehabilitation. A suitable example might include a letter sent to reconnect with family prior to release.

(2) A Jail Supervisor may approve incoming and outgoing mail in non-postcard form so that an inmate can conduct necessary personal business. Examples of this exception include, but are not limited to the use of a business reply envelope to send a document back to the originating firm or signing a mailed-in personal check to make a rent or car payment or renew a driver's license. If it appears to the Jail Supervisor that the inmate has no other reasonably available means to take care of personal business, and that the personal business cannot reasonably wait until the inmate is released, the Jail Supervisor shall allow the exception, subject to the following:

(a) Checks must not have a blank payee line.

(b) If reasonably possible, the inmate must act,to add a cosigner to a checking account or make other arrangements to prevent reoccurrence of this need.

(c) Supporting documents, such as payment coupons or rent contracts, must accompany personal business mail.

B.

Publications. Publications are permitted in the Jail, subject to the following

requirements:

(1) An inmate must have someone outside the jail prepay for any publication he or she receives. An inmate may not engage in any delayed payment or credit ordering of publications while inside the jail.

(2) Books. An inmate may receive up to three books on a single mail delivery day. Books must come directly from the publisher, a book club, or a .bookstore. Books may be new or used. Books may not be larger than 9 inches by 12 inches. Books may not have plastic or metal bindings. Either hardback or paperback books are acceptable for general population inmates. Inmates in segregation, including medical segregation, may only receive paperback books. Mail handlers will consider any other item in the envelope or parcel as contraband and treat the parcel as prohibited mail.

(3) Periodicals. An inmate may receive up to three periodicals on a single mail delivery day. 'Periodicals must be new and be mailed directly from the publisher or bookstore.

INMATEMAIL POLICY J603-R08 (Rev'd 05.25.12)

Page 3

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 64; PageC4C00o1f5019 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 5 of 16

J603-R08

05.25.2012
(4 ) No blanket prohibition. Mail handlers will determine whether a specific publication violates jail rules. However, this determination must be made on a case by case basis. There shall be no blanket prohibition on any publication.

C.

Legal and Official Mail.

(1) Jail staff must protect the rights of inmates to privileged, confidential communication with their attorneys, the courts, and confining authorities.

(2) A sender of legal or official mail is responsible for legitimately, properly, and clearly marking and addressing legal and official mail so that jail staff recognize it and treat it as being confidential, as follows:

(a) The return address on all incoming legal and official mail must have the sender's job, agency, or firm title and address either commercially preprinted on the envelope or a label, or as an ink stamp. The sender's name should be handwritten if not preprinted. Staff will treat all mail with return addresses that are completely handwritten as personal mail..

(b) The words "Legal Mail," "Official Mail," or similar designation must appear on the address side of the envelope. Jail staff will not assume the contents of any letter from an attorney, law firm, or government official is legal or official mail. Jail Staff will treat all mail without the legal or official mail mark as personal mail.

(c) Jail staff will treat improperly marked or addressed mail as personal mail.

(3) Staff must not open recognized legal or official mail outside the presence of the inmate. They may only open it in the presence of the inmate to inspect it for contraband, but they must not read its contents.

(4) A staff member must write a Jail Incident Report if he or she inadvertently opens a piece of recognizable legal or official mail outside the presence of the inmate.

(5) Before legal or official mail leaves the pod, staff must verify that any letter marked as legal or official mail is addressed to a person that qualifies for that privacy protection. Deputies will contact a Jail Supervisor if they suspect fraud.

(6) Jail staff will pursue administrative, criminal, and disciplinary actions, as fitting, against all those involved in the fraudulent use of legal or official mail designations.

D.

Other Prohibited Mail/Contraband.

(1) An inmate may not receive or send inmate mail that contains:

(a) Threats of physical harm, blackmail, extortion, or other criminal activity;

INMATE MAIL POLICY J603:':R08 (Rev'd 05.25.12)

Page 4

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 64; PageC5C00o15f1016

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 6 of 16

J603-R08

05.25.2012

(b) Plans for escape, criminal activity, or activity that violates jail rules;

(c) Gang-related material;

Cd) Information that, if conveyed, could result in physical harm to someone;

(e) Sexually explicit materials;

(f)

Inflammatory material;

(g) Contraband including but not limited to such commonly mailed items as:

i.

Books larger than 9 by 12 inches or with plastic or metal

bindings;

ii.

More than three books or publications in a single piece of

mail;

iii.

Controlled substances as defined by ORS 475.005(6);

iv.

Foreign substances, such as bodily fluids, lipstick or perfume,

glue or paint or anything with an unusual stain or odor that

indicates a foreign substance may be present.

(h) Cash or negotiable instruments unless specifically allowed to conduct personal business.

(2) An inmate may not send or receive inmate mail that:

(a) is written in code or suspected code;

(b) Was not sent through the USPS or other approved system;

(c) Is to or from a person with whom the inmate is prohibited from

communicating;

.

(d) Would violate a court order;

(e) May produce a hostile work environment by sexual harassment or otherwise;

(f)

Is a credit or deferred billing transaction, such as "bill me later"

subscriptions or merchandise bought on credit or collect-on-delivery

terms;

(g) Is fraudulently marked as legal or official mail;

(h) Includes logistical information about an inmate's upcoming health care appointment(s).

INMATE MAIL POLICY J603-R08 (Rev'd 05.25.12)

Page 5

CC001511
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 64; Page 6 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 7 of 16

J603-R08

05.25.2012

E.

Sources of Incoming Mail. Jail Staff will only accept incoming inmate mail that

has been delivered by the U.S. Postal Service unless otherwise specifically

authorized by the Jail Commander.

F.

Postage-Due Mail. The jail will not accept or pay for incoming inmate mail with

postage due.

G.

Parcels. Incoming parcels are allowed if they contain books or periodicals from a

publisher or bookstore. A parcel may only contain up to three books or three

periodicals. Mail handlers will consider any other item in a parcel as contraband

and treat such a parcel as prohibited mail. Parcels are also allowed to and from

inmates for legal or official mail, or for personal business when an exception is

authorized.

H.

Commercial Business Transactions and Government Services by Mail.

(1) Except as provided in (2), below, inmates may not conduct commercial business transactions or request services from government agencies through inmate mail.

(2) The Jail Commander may approve personal business mail as described in paragraph 2.A.

(3) Examples of commercial business transactions and government agency requests include, but are not limited to:

(a) Buying or selling an item, real property, or service;

(b) Applying for a credit card;

(c) Applying for a commercial or student loan;

(d) Opening a bank account;

(e) Enrolling in a college course;

(f)

Applying for food stamps;

(g) Any obligation of funds to which the inmate does not have access.

3.

General Limitations on Inmate Mail.

In addition to the specific limitations on inmate mail set forth above, additional limitations may apply in the following circumstances:

A.

There is reason to believe that such correspondence would jeopardize personal

safety, jail security or good order, inmate treatment, or would facilitate violation of

the law.

B.

There is re'ason to believe that a sentenced inmate in rehabilitative programs would

benefit from limited contacts and/or inmate mail.

INMATE MAIL POLICY J603-R08 (Rev'd 05.25.12)

Page 6

i·

CC001512

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 64; Page 7 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 8 of 16

J603-R08

05.25.2012

C.

Inmates may receive a disciplinary sanction that restricts personal mail. (See policy

J212, Rules and Discipline.)

4.

General Provisions for Inmate Mail

A.

Postcards. Inmates may send postcards they receive in their initial inmate hygiene

kit or through jail commissary. Inmates may receive postcards in any size that is

delivered by the U.S. Postal Service up to a maximum size of 5-112" tall x 8-112"

wide. Postcards may have photographs on one side as allowed by the U.S. Postal

Service and jail rules. No other photographs are allowed on postcards, Inmates

are not limited to a specific number of postcards that they may receive or send.

Lodged inmates receive two postcards in their hygiene kit, and may purchase

additional postcards through jail commissary. Policy 212, Rules and Discipline,

sets limits on the number of personal mail items allowed in an inmate's cell.

B.

Indigent Inmate Mail. Indigent inmates may purchase an indigent hygiene kit

through the commissary program once per week. Hygiene kits are taken to the

pods and offered to all inmates. The indigent hygiene kit consists of two postage

prepaid postcards, a pencil and hygiene items.

C.

Addressing Inmate Mail. Incoming mail must have the inmate's booking name

and should have the inmate's booking number as part of the addressee information.

D.

Return Address. Incoming mail must have the name and address of the sender.

The return address on legal and official mail must have the sender's job, agency, or

firm title and address commercially preprinted or stamped.

E.

Certified Mail/Special mail services. This section applies to legal and official

mail as well as to personal business mail when authorized.

(1) An inmate may send up to two letters as certified mail in a 30-day period. The inmate must have sufficient funds in his or her account to pay for the service. A Jail Supervisor may make exceptions to the volume of certified mail an inmate sends and may approve credit to allow an indigent inmate to send certified mail.

(2) An inmate that needs to send a letter using certified mail must fill out an Inmate Request Form. Only the Jail Commander can approve such a request. The Jail Supervisor will ensure that the inmate's correspondence is ready to mail at the time of the request. If an inmate's request for certified mail is approved, a Jail Supervisor will forward the request to the front office staff.

(a) Jail staff will verify if the inmate has sufficient funds in his or her account before processing any request. They will forward requests from indigent inmates to a supervisor. The inmate will fill out the necessary U.S. Postal Service forms-Receipt for Certified Mail (PS Form 3800) and Domestic Return Receipt (PS Form 3811). The letter and the forms will be forwarded to front office staff who will mail the letter and charge the inmate for the postal fees for these special services. The inmate request form will be the source document authorizing the charge.

IN MATE MAIL PO LlCY J603-R08 (Rev'd 05.25.12)

Page 7

CC001513
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 64; Page 8 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 9 of 16

J603-R08
F. G. H. I.

05.25.2012
(b) Jail Staff will provide the Domestic Return Receipt on to the inmate when it returns in incoming mail. They will return the Domestic Return Receipt postcard to the post office if the inmate is no longer in jail when it returns in the mail. Other Special Postal Services
Inmate Request Form. An inmate shall use an Inmate Request Form to request permission to mail oversize or overweight items, or for other special postal services, when allowed. If the Jail Commander approves such a request, funds will be drawn from the inmate's account to cover the· costs.
Junk/Bulk Mail. Jail staff will accept solicited and unsolicited junk mail and solicited and unsolicited bulk mail for inmates, unless it violates other mail restrictions (such as containing sexually explicit content).
Pre-Stamped Envelopes. Jail staff will make pre-stamped First Class business size or manila envelopes available for inmates to buy from the commissary for legal or official mail. Indigent inmates may obtain pre-stamped envelopes for legal or official mail per paragraph 6.
Inmate Mail Written in a Foreign Language. Incoming and outgoing mail written in a language other than English may be interpreted prior to delivery to determine whether the mail violates these rules.

PROCESSING INMATE MAIL

INCOMING INMATE MAIL

1.

Mail Intake.

A.

Incoming Inmate Mail will be processed by night shift Corrections Deputies .

. B.

Night Shift Corrections Deputies will pull and hold from delivery unopened mail

when:

(1) The addressee cannot be identified because of missing or incomplete information;

(2) Prohibited items are affixed to the mail;

(3) Foreign substances or stains are on the mail;

(4) Odors, including perfume, are coming from the mail;

(5) The mail can otherwise be identified as being or containing prohibited mail before it is opened;

(6) The inmate is no longer in the jail.

C.

Night Shift Corrections Deputies will look up the inmate's name on the inmate list

and write the inmate's pod number or "CCJ" on the mail.

D.

Night Shift Corrections Deputies will review all postcards, publications and junk

mail/bulk mail for prohibited content, and will remove loose postage stamps, flap-

INMATE MAIL POLICY J603-R08 (Rev'd 05.25.12)

Page 8

CC001514

I.

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 64; Page 9 of 16

I

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 10 of 16

J603':R08 E.
F. G. H.
I. J. K. L. M.

05.25.2012
sealing tape, and gummed and adhesive address labels, leaving labels on legal and official mail;
Night Shift Corrections Deputies will determine whether mail includes the name and return address of the sender. If the mail does not have the name and return address, the Corrections Deputy will pull and hold the mail and will then open any envelopes without the sender's name and return address to both identify the sender's name and address and to see if the mail contains negotiable instruments or other valuables that should be listed on a Prohibited Mail Notice. If the sender's address can be identified, the mail will be returned to sender. If the sender's name and address still cannot be identified, the mail will be stored for the inmate, unless the inmate is no longer in jail in which case the mall will be destroyed. However, in the event an inmate is no longer in jail, the mail contains negotiable instruments or other valuables, and no sender can be identified, the the mail will be sent to the inmate's last known address. If the mail is returned to the Jail after being sent to the inmate's last known address, the mail will be destroyed. Before mail is returned, stored, forwarded, or destroyed under this section, the Corrections Deputy will get approval of a Jail Supervisor.
Night Shift Corrections Deputies will separate legal and official mail from other inmate mail.
Night Shift Corrections Deputies will open all inmate mail (except for legal and official ma"i!) to inspect for contraband. Upon a determination that contraband is present, Night Shift Corrections Deputies will pull and hold the mail.
If cash or negotiable instruments are found in inmate mail, the mail and funds will be returned to sender. The Prohibited Mail Notice shall include the amount of funds, number, and issuing institution of any negotiable instrument as well as the payee's name if it was not the inmate. Before mail is returned, stored, forwarded, or destroyed under this section, the Corrections Deputy will get approval of a Jail Supervisor.
Night Shift Corrections Deputies will pull and hold personal business mail received in non-postcard form for a Jail Supervisor's review. If a Jail Supervisor does not approve the personal business mail in non-postcard form, the mail will be returned to sender.
Night Shift Corrections Deputies will remove publications from their mailing parcels.
Night Shift Corrections Deputies will place inmate mail written in a foreign language in the "translation required" box and will take steps to locate a staff member who speaks that language. If such mail cannot be translated within a reasonable time by a staff member, the Corrections Deputy will forward the mail to a Jail Supervisor for direction.
Night Shift Corrections Deputies will sort inmate mail by pod and place it in the pod folders in booking before 0800 hours (8:00 a.m .).
Night Shift Corrections Deputies will fill out a a Prohibited Mail Notice for each item of confiscated mail and place it in the "Needs Review" box for a Jail Supervisor's review. A Jail Supervisor will review each Prohibited Mail Notice. If the Jail Supervisor does not agree with the Prohibited Mail Notice, the Mail will be delivered. If the Jail Supervisor does agree with the Prohibited Mail Notice, the Jail

INMATE MAIL POLlCYJ603-R08(Rev.d05.25.12)

Page 9

CC001515
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 64; Page 10 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 11 of 16

J603-R08

05.25.2012

Supervisor will sign the Notice. The Prohibited Mail Notice will then be sent with returned mail or to the sender of confiscated mail (if known). A copy of a Prohibited Mail Notice will be provided to the inmate (if known and still in jail). A copy of the Prohibited Mail Notice will be retained in the inmate's file. Corrections Deputies will place mail to return to the post office in the booking pickup box.

N.

Day Shift Corrections Deputies will pick up the mail for their pods when coming on

duty. They, or other staff if appropriate, will process the inmate mail for their pods as

follows:

(i)

Open recognizable legal and official mail in front of the inmate and inspect it

only for contraband - not content (staff shall not read the contents);

(ii) Deliver the mail as soon as practical upon receipt. Passing inmate mail under an inmate's door and placing books by the door is acceptable, except for legal and official mail;

(iii) Have the inmate write his or her name and booking number on the inside flap of books. For magazines without mailing labels directly attached, have the inmate write his or her name and booking number on the cover. Newspapers do not need marking;

2.

Corrections Deputies will forward any grievances and/or appeals related to inmate mail to

the Jail Commander for a determination of compliance with the Mail Policy and applicable

legal requirements.

3.

Corrections Deputies will place mail to return to the post office in the booking pickup box.

4.

Mail Delivery. Staff should deliver mail to inmates within 24 hours of receipt at the Jail.

Reasonable exceptions are allowed when special processing is required, such as for mail

delivered late in the day, needing translation, or items held as evidence in a criminal or

disciplinary investigation, etc.

OUTGOING INMATE MAIL

1.

General Mail Rules for Inmates

Inmates-

A.

May only use lead or colored pencils to write correspondence.

B.

May only use postcards sold through the commissary or issued by the jail, if post

cards are required to be used under this Policy.

C.

Must send inmate mail through the USPS or other approved system.

D.

Must put their first and last name, booking number, and the jail address as the return

address.

E.

May not draw or write anything on the outside of an envelope other than name and

address information and "legal" or "official" mail designations.

F.

May not send out jail forms for others to fill out on behalf of the inmate.

INMATE MAIL POLICY J603-R08 (Rev'd 05.25.12)

Page 10

CC001516
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 64; Page 11 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 12 of 16

05.25.2012

G.

May not send prohibited mail. They are subject to disciplinary action for doing so.

H.

Should pass on inmate mail rules to people and businesses with whom they

correspond.

2.

Posting Outgoing Mail. Inmates will place outgoing inmate mail in the designated

mailbox located inside of their pod. The Night Shift Corrections Deputy will pick up the

mail out of the mailbox and deliver it to the booking area to be processed.

A.

Processing of inmate mail will consist of:

(1) Sorting the mail;

(2) Scanning the inmates name and appropriate bar code to reflect the proper disposition of the mail:

(a) Outgoing Personal Mail;

(b) Outgoing Official or Legal

(c) Mail Returned (Prohibited Mail Notice to follow);

(d) Confiscated Mail (Report to Follow);

(e) Outgoing Package;

(f)

Outgoing Certified Mail.

3.

Inspection of Outgoing Envelopes

Before an envelope leaves a pod, a Corrections Deputy will verify the contents are legal or official mail, or authorized personal mail, and that the mail otherwise complies with this Policy. The Corrections Deputy will then seal the envelope and will initial and write their DPSST number on the flap to show this verification. As appropriate, the Corrections Deputy will return "mail to the inmate, confiscate it as evidence in disciplinary proceedings, or contact the Jail Supe"rvisor if:

A.

The return name, booking number, and address are incomplete or false;

B.

There is drawing or non-address-related writing on the envelope;

C.

There is prohibited material on the envelope;

D.

Addressee information is missing that could cause the letter to be undeliverable

and returned to the jail;

E.

The mail does not qualify to be sent via envelope;

. F.

They reasonably believe the envelope should be re-opened for any legitimate

reason.

INMATE MAIL POLICY J603-R08 (Rev'd 05.25.12)

Page 11

CC001517

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 64; Page 12 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 13 of 16

J603-R08

05.25.2012

4.

Opening and Inspecting Contents of Outgoing Mail

A.

Mail handling staff will not read outgoing legal or official mail unless they have the

approval of a Jail Commander.

B.

A Jail Supervisor may have staff read outgoing mail at any time and for any reason,

except for legal or official mail. This authorization may be by housing area, class of

inmate, individual inmate, or other basis. It may also be on an ongoing or a random

basis and for any length of time. However, the Jail Commander must approve any

ongoing monitoring of a specific inmate.

C.

Corrections Deputies will notify a Jail Supervisor if-

(1) They suspect outgoing mail contains contraband or violates this Policy.

(2) It may present a safety or security issue based on the addressee.

(3) They have reasonable suspicion the mail may contain other contents of legitimate jail interest.

A Jail Supervisor will determine whether inmate mail contains contraband or is otherwise prohibited by this Policy. If mail is deemed to be prohibited a Jail Supervisor will notify the inmate and may give the inmate an opportunity to correct the problem(s). If the inmate refuses to correct the mail, the mail will be confiscated. If an inmate corrects the problem(s), the mail will be included in outgoing mail.

(4) Mail may be confiscated immediately if appropriate in the discretion of the Jail Supervisor.

(5) The mail will be placed in the outgoing mail basket and delivered to the front office for the regularly scheduled morning pickup on that same day as long as it is not a weekend or holiday. Outgoing mail should be processed within one business day after being received from the inmate.

(6) An inmate will be provided with a Prohibited Mail Notice whenever their outgoing mail is not mailed due to a violation of this Policy. However, if the inmate is allowed to correct a problem with the mail, the inmate will be notified, but Prohibited Mail Notice is not required unless the inmate declines to correct the problem.

CONFISCATED MAIL.

A.

Disposition. Any inmate mail that is confiscated pursuant to this Policy may either

be returned to the sender, or stored with the inmate's belongings in the Jail's sole

discretion based on the best interest of the Jail. A Jail Supervisor may authorize

the destruction of any item that presents a health or safety risk if stored in the jailor

returned to sender.

B.

Prohibited Mail Notice Required. The sender and addressee of confiscated

inmate mail must be notified of the confiscation Whether the disposition was to

return the mail, store it, or destroy it. However, if the mail is evidence in a criminal
will investigation, no notification will be given. Notice be given through delivery of a

IN MATE MAIL PO LlCY J603-R08 (Rev'd 05.25.12)

Page 12

CC001518
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 64; Page 13 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 14 of 16

J603-R08 C. D.

05.25.2012
Prohibited Mail Notice which is attached to this Policy. The Prohibited Mail Notice will give the reason for the confiscation and explain the appeal process.
Confiscation in whole. Corrections Deputies will confiscate inmate mail in whole rather than removing or obliterating individual pages, passages, or words with prohibited content. They will confiscate items that exceed a number limit as an entire set rather than passing on a selection that would meet the maximum number allowed.
Stored Inmate Mail. Corrections Deputies will use a Prohibited Mail Notice to inform the inmate of the confiscation and use a copy as a tag for the items placed in storage.

ADMINISTRATION

1.

Mail as Nuisance Contraband.

Inmates are responsible for getting rid of any mailed item exceeding the number of items

allowed in their cells as nuisance contraband

policy J212, Rules and Discipline. An

inmate may transfer items to their bin in the property room using procedures in policy J208,

Secure Storage of Inmate Property.

2.

Gang-Related and Security Threat Group Materials in Mail. A mail handler will

photocopy incoming or outgoing inmate mail with gang-related material and send a copy to

the Gang Deputy.

3.

Mail Monitoring

A.

The Jail may monitor an inmate's mail for investigatory purposes as follows:

(1) Upon receipt of a warrant; or

(2) When there is a legitimate penological or public safety reason to do so.

Examples of legitimate penological interest include but are not limited to, the

welfare and safety of the inmates or staff, the

0rder or security of the

facility, the protection of property, the prevention of the commission of a

crime or conspiracy to commit a crime, the prevention of the destruction or

tampering with evidence, and the prevention harassment or intimidation of

witnesses.

B.

If a request to monitor inmate mail comes from another law enforcement agency,

the agency must complete a Request for Inmate Mail Monitoring. An approved

request will expire 30 days after its approval date. The requester must submit a

new request to continue monitoring. Jail staff will read the inmate's mail and decide

if any of it applies to the request and will only forward copies of mail that does

apply. The requester must pick up the copies in person If from an agency within

Columbia County. The Jail Commander will coordinate the mail-monitoring

program. The Jail Commander must approve the request.

4.

Mail Rules. The Jail Commander will ensure mail rules are a part of i'nmate orientation

and the Inmate Manual and will make copies of the Inmate Mail Guide available to the

public. Civilian staff members who discover apparent misconduct as a result of reading

inmate mail will report it via the chain of command.

INMATE MAIL POLICY J603-R08 (Rev'd 05.25.12)

Page 13

CC001519
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 64; Page 14 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 15 of 16

J603-R08

. 05.25.2012

5.

Mail Complaints. Staff members will direct mail complaints from the public to a Jail

Supervisor. The Jail Supervisor should attempt to respond to the complainant within two

business days. Appeals related to receipt of Prohibited Mail Notice shall be addressed

pursuant to paragraph 10, below.

6.

Mail Handler Supervision and Training. A Jail Supervisor will supervise the day-to-day

handling of inmate mail. He or she will assign staff to perform primary inmate mail duties.

Staff who initially handle or open incoming inmate mail should attend training on the safe

handling of strange or suspicious packages or receive similar training from another source.

Those who open mail should also receive training on recognizing gang and security threat

group symbols and signs.

7.

Change of Address Responsibilities and Forwarding Mail. Inmates are responsible for

submitting cha.nge of address requests to the publishers of publications they receive and to

others that send them mail at the Jail. Corrections Deputies will normally not forward mail

for inmates who are no longer in Jail custody. They will return correspondence and

packages unopened to the sender and throw publications away.

S.

Holding Mail. Corrections Deputies will normally not hold mail for inmates released or

temporarily transferred to another facility. The Jail Commander may make exceptions.

9.

Returning Mail to Sender. To return postcards, a mail handler will use a sticker or stamp

marked "return to sender," note the reason for refusal on the stamp, obliterate any mail-

sorting bar code, and return it to the post office. To return unopened mail (other than

postcards), a mail handler will use the "return to sender" stamp in place of the sticker. A

Prohibited Mail Notice will be mailed separately.

To return mail that was opened, a Corrections Deputy must repackage it and send it at the expense of the Jail to the sender. The Corrections Deputy will include a copy of the Prohibited Mail Notice and the Inmate Mail Guide if he or she repackages the inmate mail.

10. Appeals.

A.

By Inmates. Inmates wishing to appeal a decision to deny delivery of incoming

inmate mail or the mailing of outgoing inmate mail must follow the normal grievance

procedure set forth in the inmate manual and Policy J207, Inmate Rights.

B.

By Others. If a person believes that any incoming or outgoing inmate mail was

improperly confiscated by the Jail, they may appeal the action to the Jail

Commander by sending a written letter stating the specific reason(s) why the action

was improper. The letter must be received within 15 days from the date of the

Prohibited Mail Notice. Or, if no Prohibited Mail Notice was received, within 15

days from the date the person knew or should have known of the appealed action.

The letter shall include the sender's name and return address. The Jail

Commander will consider the appeal and will issue a decision on the appeal within

fifteen days of receiving the letter. However, if the Jail Commander made the initial

decision regarding the mail in question, the Sheriff will consider the appeal and

issue the decision. The appeal process will be set forth in the Prohibited Mail

Notice.

INMATE MAIL POLICY J603-ROS (Rev'd 05.25.12)

Page 14

CC001520 .

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 64; Page 15 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 16 of 16

J603-R08

05.25.2012
Address: 901 Port Ave. S1. Helens, OR 97051
Phone: (503) 366-4611 Fax: (503) 366-4644
Web Address: www.co.columbia.or.us/sheriff
PROHIBITED MAIL NOTICE TO INMATES AND SENDERS
Date: ______________________

Because of rules contained in the Columbia County Jail Inmate Mail Policy,
we are 0 returning or 0 confiscating the 0 letter or 0 publication described as:_______________________________ sent 0 to 0 from inmate _____________, Booking #_________
The mail was denied for the following reason(s):
o It is deemed personal mail and not on a post card. o It contains sexually explicit material at page(s):_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _---'-_ _ _ __ o It contains prohibited material or a foreign substance: ________________ o It did not come directly from a publisher, book club, or bookstore. o It contains plans for escape, criminal activity, or activity that violates jail rules. o It contains inflammatory materials, such as advocating violence against a group based upon their religion,
race, gender or ethnicity.
o Other _________________________________________

The reverse side of this letter is an Inmate Mail Guide which contains guidance on mail rules and complaint information. You may also go to the Jail's web page at www.co.columbia.or.us/sheriffto find the information. The inmate has been notified of this decision and can appeal this decision through the Inmate Grievance Procedure set forth in the Inmate Manual.

APPEALS: Inmates can appeal decisions to prohibit mail through the Inmate Grievance Procedure set forth in the Inmate Manual. Others who believe that their correspondence/publication was improperly denied, may appeal the decision by sending in a written letter stating the reasons it is believed that the decision was wrong within 15 days from the date of this Notice. The letter should identify specifically how our action was improper, and include the name and return address of the appealing party. Appealing parties are not required to provide a phone number, but it may be useful if we need further clarification. We will send the appealing party a decision on the appeal within fifteen days of our receipt of the appeal. Please direct written denied mail appeals to:

Jail Commander

ATTN: Denied Mail Appeal

Columbia County Sheriff's Office

901 Port Ave.

St.

OR 97051

Mail Handler and DPSST #

Jail Supervisor and DPSST #

INMATE MAIL POLlCYJ603:.R08 (Rev'd 05.25.12)

Page 15

CC001521

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 64; Page 16 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 16
EXHIBIT 65
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 65; Page 1 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 16

COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
JAIL OPERATIONS JEFF DICKERSON, SHERIFF
INMATE MAIL
POLlCY J603-RI0 (07/05112)

EFFECTIVE: JULY 5 ,2012
SUPERSEDES INMATE MAIL POLICY
REVISED JUNE 18,2012
OJS: D-IOITHRU D-117, D-I05, D-212, D-302, F-lOl THRU F-I03
ACA: 3-ALDF-3D-16 THRU 5D-08

Applies to all staff.

POLICY

Jail mail handling procedures must support an inmate's need to communicate in writing to carry out legal business and maintain family and community ties. The procedures must also meet the Jail's need for efficient operations that preserve the good order, safety, and security of the facility, inmates, and staff.

DEFINITIONS

Book. A printed composition bound in a volume.

Contraband. 1) Controlled substances as defined in DRS 475.005(6). 2) Drug paraphernalia as defined by DRS 475.525(2). 3) Any currency or negotiable instrument. 4) Any item that a person in a correctional facility is prohibited by statute, rule, or order from obtaining or possessing, and whose use would endanger the safety or security of the facility or person in the facility. 5) An unauthorized item in an inmate's possession or in a cell, bunk, or common area. 6) An authorized item altered in any way. 7) More than the authorized number of an item.

Inmate Mail. Written correspondence to or from an inmate in the Columbia County Jail.

Indigent. An inmate who has less than $5 in his or her inmate account and has not had more than that amount for seven days.

Inflammatory material. Written or printed materials that pose a threat to the security, safety,

or good order of the jail because it may incite or advocate physical violence against others.

This includes material that advocates the supremacy or hatred of a racial, religious,

national, or other group of

(Note: Criticism of jail operations, programs, or staff, on

its own, is not inflammatory material. If the criticism involves an illegal act or violates a jail

rule, staff will handle it as that type of prohibited mail.)

Jail Commander. The Columbia County Jail Commander or his/her designee.

Jail Supervisor. Any Corrections Deputy designated at the rank of sergeant or higher.

Junk maillBulk mail. Printed materials, often sent as mass mailings, such as catalog advertisements, brochures, circulars, newsletters, and pamphlets whose primary purpose is to sell, promote or solicit for, a product or service. Junk mail/bulk mail may come using a variety of postage rates, including but not limited to bulk mail rates. Junk Mail/Bulk Mail

CC 001911

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 65; Page 2 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 16

J603-RIO

may be solicited or unsolicited.

July 5, 2012

Legal mail. Incoming or outgoing mail addressed to or from an attorney.

Negotiable instrument. A written document that represents an unconditional promise to pay a specified amount of money upon the demand of its owner. Examples include checks and promissory notes. Negotiable instruments can be transferred from one person to another, as when a person writes "pay to the order ofn on the back of a check in order to turn it over to someone else.

Official Mail. Incoming or outgoing mail addressed to or from the sheriff, jail command staff, probation authorities, district attorney, state attorney general, Governor, court, a court official, and other confining authorities, or addressed to or from the inmate's medical provider, or addressed to or from the inmate's religious leader, or addressed to or from the news media.

Periodical. A magazine, newspaper, newsletter, or other publication formed of printed sheets that is issued at regular, specified intervals by a publisher.

Prohibited Mail Notice A written notice that is:

A.

mailed to the sender or intended receiver of inmate mail who is not incarcerated in

the Columbia County Jail; and

B.

is also provided (by jail staff) to the current inmate who is a sender or intended

receiver of inmate mail,

when said mail has been confiscated by the jail for any reason (See Prohibited Mail Notice

at the end of this chapter). A Prohibited Mail Notice MUST be provided to the sender AND

intended receiver of all incoming and outgoing mail that is confiscated by the jail.

Publication. Periodicals and books.

Sexually explicit: 1) A pictorial depiction of any of the following: actual or simulated sexual acts (including sexual intercourse, oral sex, anal sex, or masturbation); sexual penetration; bestiality; sexual violence; sadomasochistic behavior; excretory functions; and exposed genitalia (to include pubic hair), anus or female nipple or areola, unless the exposure is for legitimate medical, religious, or anthropological reasons. 2) Sex acts involving children. 3) Materials that violate state and local obscenity laws. (Note: Whether the material is commercially produced or is personally made or written has no bearing on this definition.)

PROCEDURES

INMATE MAil

1.

Inmate Mail limits and Restrictions/Overview

The Columbia County Jail will normally not limit, censor, or restrict the volume, language, content, format or source of inmate mail. However, some limitations are necessary to assure the safety, and security of inmates, jail staff, and the public, as well as to assure the efficient operation of the Jail.

2.

Specific Limitations on Inmate Mail.

A.

Publications. Publications are permitted in the Jail, subject to the following

2
CC 001912

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 65; Page 3 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 4 of 16

J603-RIO B.

requirements:

July 5, 2012

(1) An inmate must have someone outside the jail prepay for any publication he or she receives. An inmate may not engage in any delayed payment or credit ordering of publications while inside the jail.

(2) Books.. Books must come directly from the publisher, a book club, or a bookstore. Books may be new or used. Books may not be larger than 9 inches by 12 inches. Books may not have plastic or metal bindings. Either hardback or paperback books are acceptable.

(3) Periodicals .. Periodicals must be new and be mailed directly from the publisher or bookstore.

(4) No blanket prohibition. Mail handlers will determine whether a specific publication violates jail rules. However, this determination must be made on a case by case basis. There shall be no blanket prohibition on any publication.

Legal and Official Mail.

(1) Jail staff must protect the rights of inmates to privileged, confidential communication with their attorneys, the courts, and confining authorities.

(2) A sender of legal or official mail is responsible for legitimately, properly, and clearly marking and addressing legal and official mail so that jail staff
. recognize it and treat it as being confidential, as follows:

(a) The return address on all incoming legal and official mail must have the sender's job, agency, or firm title and address either commercially preprinted on the envelope or a label, or as an ink stamp. The sender's name should be handwritten if not preprinted.
(b) The words "Legal Mail," "Official Mail," or similar designation must appear on the address side of the envelope. Jail staff will not assume the contents of any letter from an attorney, law firm, or government official is legal or official mail without the designation of "Legal Mail" or "Official Mail" on the address side of the envelope.

(3) Staff must not open recognizable legal or official mail outside the presence of the inmate. They may only open it in the presence of the inmate to inspect it for contraband, but they must not read its contents.

(4) A staff member must write a Jail Incident Report if he or she inadvertently opens a piece of recognizable legal or official mail outside the presence of the inmate. If such inadvertent reading of legal or official mail occurs, the staff member responsible will also notify a supervisor as soon as practica ble.

(5) Before legal or official mail leaves the pod, staff must verify that any letter marked as legal or official mail is addressed to a person that qualifies for that privacy protection. Deputies will contact a Jail Supervisor if they suspect fraud.

3 CC 001913

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 65; Page 4 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 5 of 16

J603-RIO C.

July 5, 2012
(6) Jail staff will pursue administrative, criminal, and disciplinary actions, as fitting, against all those involved in the fraudulent use of legal or official mail designations.

Other Prohibited Content/Contraband.

(1) An inmate may not receive or send inmate mail that contains:

(a) Threats of physical harm. blackmail. extortion. or other criminal activity;

(b) Plans for escape, criminal activity, or activity that violates jail rules;

(c) Gang-related material;

(d) Information that, if conveyed, could result in physical harm to someone;

(e) Sexually explicit materials;

(f)

Inflammatory material;

(g) Contraband including but not limited to such commonly mailed items as:

i.

Books larger than 9 by 12 inches or with plastic or metal

bindings;

ii.

Controlled substances as defined by DRS 475.005(6);

iii.

Foreign substances, such as bodily fluids, lipstick or perfume.

glue or paint or anything with an unusual stain or odor that

indicates a foreign substance may be present;

(h) Cash or negotiable instruments;

(i)

Food or beverages, electronic devices, clothing or similar personal

property.

(2) An inmate may not send or receive inmate mail that:

(a) is written in code or suspected code;

(b) Was not sent through the United States Postal Service or other approved system;

(c) Is to or from a person with whom the inmate is prohibited from communicating;

(d) Would violate a court order;

(e) May produce a hostile work environment by sexual harassment or

4
CC 001914

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 65; Page 5 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 6 of 16

J603-RIO

otherwise;

July 5,2012

(f)

Is a credit or deferred billing transaction, such as ubill me later"

subscriptions or merchandise bought on credit or collect-on-delivery

terms;

(g) Is fraudulently marked as legal or official mail;

(h) Includes logistical information about an inmate's upcoming health care appointment(s).

D.

Sources of Incoming Mail. Jail Staff will only accept incoming inmate mail that

has been delivered by the U.S. Postal Service unless otherwise specifically

authorized by the Jail Commander.

E.

Postage-Due Mail. The jail will not accept or pay for incoming inmate mail with

postage due.

3.

General Limitations on Inmate Mail.

In addition to the specific limitations on inmate mail set forth above, additional limitations may apply in the following circumstances:

A.

There is reason to believe that such correspondence would jeopardize personal

safety, jail security or good order, inmate treatment, or would facilitate violation of

the law.

B.

Inmates may receive a disciplinary sanction that restricts non-legal and/or non

official mail. (See PoliCY J212, Rules and Discipline.)

4.

General Provisions for Inmate Mail

A.

Indigent Inmate Mail. Indigent inmates may obtainan indigent hygiene kit through

the commissary program once per week. No inmate will be denied a weekly

indigent hygiene kit based on an inability to pay. The indigent hygiene kit consists

of 2 sheets of paper and two postage prepaid envelopes, a pencil and hygiene

items. Additional paper and envelopes are available for purchasein accordance

with Policy J605(Commissary).

B.

Addressing Inmate Mail. Incoming mail must have the inmate's booking name

as part of the addressee information.

C.

Return Address. Incoming mail must have the name and address of the sender.

The return address on legal and official mail must have the sender's job, agency, or

firm title and address commercially preprinted or stamped.

D.

Certified Mail/Special mail services.

(1) The inmate must have sufficient funds in his or her account to pay for all special mail services. A Jail Supervisormay approve credit to allow anindigent inmate to' send certified mail. An inmate who needs to send a

5
CC 001915

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 65; Page 6 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 7 of 16

J603-R10
E. F. G. H.

July 5, 2012
letter using certified mail must fill out an Inmate Request Form. Any Corrections Deputy or Supervisor can process the request in the following manner: .
(a) Jail staff will verify if the inmate has sufficient funds in his or her account before processing any request. They will forward requests from indigent inmates to a supervisor. The inmate will fill out the necessary U.S. Postal Service forms-Receipt for Certified Mail (PS Form 3800) and Domestic Return Receipt (PS Form 3811). The letter and the forms will be font/ardad to front office staff who will mail the letter and charge the inmate for the postal fees for these special services. The inmate request form will be the source document authorizing the charge.
(b) Jail Staff will provide the Domestic Return Receipt to the inmate when it returns in incoming mail. They will return the Domestic Return Receipt postcard to the post office if the inmate is no longer in Jail when it returns in the mail.
Inmate Request Form. An inmate shall use an Inmate Request Form to request to mail oversize or overweight items, or for other special postal services. Funds will be drawn from the inmate's account to cover the costs.
Junk/Bulk Mail. Jail staff will accept solicited and unsolicited junk mail and solicited and unsolicited bulk mail for inmates, unless it violates other mail restrictions (such as containing sexually explicit content).
Pre-Stamped Envelopes. Jail staffwiJI make pre-stamped First Class business size or manila envelopes available for inmates to buy from the commissary. Indigent inmates may obtain envelopes per paragraph 4.A.
Inmate Mail Written in a Foreign Language. Incoming and outgoing mail written in a language other than English may be interpreted prior to delivery to determine whether the mail violates these rules.

PROCESSING INMATE MAIL

INCOMING INMATE MAIL

1.

Mail Intake.

A.

Incoming Inmate Mail will be processed by night shift Corrections Deputies.

B.

Night Shift Corrections Deputies will confiscate unopened mail when:

(1) The addressee cannot be identified because of missing or incomplete

information;

.

(2) Prohibited items are affixed to the mail;

(3) Foreign SUbstances or stains are on the mail;

CC 001916

6

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 65; Page 7 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 8 of 16

J603-RIO
C. D.
E.

July 5, 2012

(4) Odors, including perfume, are coming from the mail;

(5) The mail can otherwise be identified as before it is opened;

or containing prohibited mail

(6) The inmate is no longer in the jail.

Night Shift Corrections Deputies will look up the inmate's name on the inmate list and write the inmate's pod number on the mail.

Night Shift Corrections Deputies will review all inmate mail for prohibited
content/contraband, and will remove loose postage stamps, loose flap-sealing tape, and loose gummed and adhesive address labels, leaving labels on legal and official mail. Deputies need not remove stamps, tape or labels that are firmly affixed to the mail.

Night Shift Corrections Deputies will determine whether mail includes the name and return address of the sender. If the mail does not have the name and return address, the Corrections Deputy will confiscate the mail. The Deputy will open any envelopes without the sender's name and return address to attempt to identify the sender's name and address and to inspect the mail for prohibited content/contraband. If the sender's address can be identified, the mail will be returned to sender. If the sender's name and address still cannot be identified, the mail will be stored for the inmate, unless the inmate is no longer in jail in which case the mail will be returned to the post office and marked, "undeliverable." However, in the event an inmate is no longer in jail and the mail contains negotiable instruments or other valuables, and no sender can be identified, any written material inside the envelope will be returned to the post office and marked "undeliverable" but the valuables will be retained as abandoned property in the Sheriffs Office main property room to be disposed of according to law. The corrections staff member processing the abandoned property will fill out a property room property form and submit the property in the temporary evidence lockers... Before mail is returned, stored, forwarded, or destroyed under this section I the Corrections Deputy will get approval of a Jail Supervisor.

F. Night Shift Corrections Deputies will open all inmate mail (except for legal and official mail) to inspect for prohibited contenUcontraband. Upon a determination that prohibited content/contraband is present, Night Shift Corrections Deputies will confiscate the mail.
G. If cash or negotiable instruments are found in inmate mail, the mail and funds will be confiscated and returned to sender. The Prohibited Mail Notice shall include the amount of funds, number, and issuing institution of any negotiable instrument as well as the payee's name if it was not the inmate's.

7
CC 001917

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 65; Page 8 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 9 of 16

J603-RIO

July 5,2012

H. Night Shift Corrections Deputies will remove publications from their mailing parcels.

I. Night Shift Corrections Deputies will place inmate mail written in a foreign language in the "translation required" box and will take steps to locate a staff member who speaks that language. If such mail cannot be translated within a reasonable time by a staff member, the Corrections Deputy will forward the mail to a Jail Supervisor for direction.

J. Night Shift Corrections Deputies will sort inmate mail by pod and place it in the pod folders in booking before 0800 hours (8:00 a.m.).
K. Before mail is returned, stored, forwarded, or destroyed under this section,
the Corrections Deputy will get approval of a Jail Supervisor. Night Shift Corrections Deputies will fill out a Prohibited Mail Notice for each item of confiscated mail and place it in the IINeeds Review" box for a Jail Supervisor's review. A Jail Supervisor will review each Prohibited Mail Notice. If the Jail Supervisor does not agree with the Prohibited Mail Notice, the mail will be delivered. If the Jail Supervisor does agree with the Prohibited Mail Notice, the Jail Supervisor will sign the Prohibited Mail Notice. The Prohibited Mail Notice will then be sent to the sender of the mail (if known). A copy of the Prohibited Mail Notice will also be provided to the inmate (if known and still in jail). A copy of the Prohibited Mail Notice will be retained in the inmate's file.

L. Day Shift Corrections Deputies will pick up the mail for their pods when coming on duty. They, or other staff if appropriate, will process the inmate mail for their pods as follows:

(1) Open recognizable legal and official mail in front of the inmate and inspect it only for contraband - not content (staff shall not read the contents);

(2) Deliver the mail as soon as practical upon receipt. Passing inmate mail under an inmate's door and placing books by the door is acceptable, except for legal and official mail;

2. Grievances/Appeals. Corrections Deputies will forward any grievances and/or appeals related to inmate mail to the Jail Commander for a detennination of compliance with the Inmate Mail Policy and applicable legal requirements.

3. Return to Sender. Corrections Deputies will place mail to return to sender in the booking pickup box.

4. Mail Delivery. Staff should deliver mail to inmates within 24 hours of receipt at the Jail. Reasonable exceptions are allowed when special processing is required, such as for mail delivered late in the day, mail needing translation, or mail held as evidence in a criminal or disciplinary investigation, etc.

CC 001918

8

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 65; Page 9 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 10 of 16

J603-RIO

July 5, 2012

OUTGOiNG iNMATE MAil
1. General Mail Rules for Inmates
Inmates-
A. May only use lead or colored pencils to write correspondence.
B. Must send inmate mail through the USPS or other approved system.
C. Must put their first and last name, booking number, and the jail address as the return address.
D. May not draw or write anything on the outside of an envelope other than name and address information and "legal" or "official" mail designations.
E. May not send out jail forms for others to fill out on behalf of the inmate.
F. May not send prohibited content or contraband. Inmates are subject to disciplinary action for doing so.

2. Posting Outgoing Mail. Inmates will place outgoing inmate mail, unsealed, in the designated mailbox located inside of their pod (except for the case of legal or official mail).
3. Outgoing legal or official mail shall be processed in this manner:
A. Inmates must obtain a correction deputy's verification that any legal or official mail complies with this Policy prior to the mail being sealed and placed in the designated mailbox in their pod.
B. The corrections deputy shall inspect the inmate's legal and/or official mail in the presence of the inmate for contraband only. The deputy shall not review or read the content of legal or official mail.
C. After inspecting the lega/ or official mail for compliance with this Policy, the corrections deputy will have the inmate seal the envelope and deliver it to the deputy. The deputy will then initial and write his or her DPSST number on the flap to show this verification.
D. After verifying that the legal or official mail complies with this Policy and writing his or her initials and DPSST number on the flap, the deputy shall place this sealed envelope of legal or official mail in the outgoing mail box within the pod.

CC 001919

9

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 65; Page 10 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 11 of 16

J603-RIO

July 5, 2012

The Night Shift Corrections Deputies will pick up the mail out of the mailboxes in the pods and deliver it to the booking area to be processed.

4. Processing, Opening and Inspecting Contents of Outgoing Mail
A. Corrections Deputies will not read outgoing legal or official mail unless they have the approval of the Jail Commander.
B. Corrections deputies mayread outgoing mail at any time and for any reason, except for legal or official mail. This may be by housing area, class of inmate, individual inmate, or other basis. It may also be on an ongoing or a random basis and for any length of time. However, the Jail Commander must approve any ongoing monitoring of a specific inmate.
C. Corrections Deputies processing the outgoing mail will inspect the contents for contraband and/or other safety or security threats.
D. Corrections Deputies will notify a Jail Supervisor if-
(1) They suspect outgoing mail contains contraband or otherwise violates this Policy.
(2)" They suspect that the mail may present a safety or security issue based on the addressee.
(3) They have reasonable suspicion the mail may contain other contents of legitimate jail interest.
E. A Jail Supervisor will determine whether inmate mail contains contraband or is otherwise prohibited by this Policy. If mail is deemed to be prohibited, a Jail Supervisor will notify the inmate and may give the inmate an opportunity to correct the problem(s). If the inmate refuses to correct the mail, the mail will be confiscated. If an inmate corrects the problem(s), the mail will be included in outgoing mail.
F. Mail may be confiscated immediately if appropriate in the discretion of the Jail Supervisor.
G. Outgoing Inmate Mail will be sealed by the corrections deputy or deputies processing the outgoing mail and then placed in the outgoing mail basket and delivered to the front office for the regularly scheduled morning pickup on that same day as long as it is not a weekend or holiday. Outgoing mail should be processed within one business day after being received from the inmate.
H. An inmate and addressee will be provided with a Prohibited Mail Notice
10
CC 001920

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 65; Page 11 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 12 of 16

J603-RIO

July 5, 2012
whenever outgoing inmate mail is not mailed due to a violation of this Policy. However, if the inmate is allowed to correct a problem with the mail, the inmate will be notified, but a Prohibited Mail Noiice is not required unless the inmate declines to correct the problem.

CONFISCATED MAIL
1. Disposition. Unless otheiVv'ise specified in this Policy, any inmate mail that is confiscated pursuant to this Policy may either be returned to the sender, or stored with the inmate's belongings in the Jail's sole discretion based on the best interest of the Jail. A Jail Supervisor may authorize the destruction of any item that
presents a health or safety risk if stored in the jail, or return it to sender, or as
otherwise authorized by this Policy.
2. Prohibited Mail Notice Required. If a Jail Supervisor signs a Prohibited Mail Notice, the sender and addressee of the confiscated inmate mail must be notified of the confiscation whether the disposition was to return the mail, store it, or destroy it. However, if the mail is evidence in a criminal investigation, no notification will be given. Notice will be given through delivery of a Prohibited Mail Notice in the form attached to this Policy. The Prohibited Mail Notice will give the reason for the confiscation and explain the appeal process.
3. Confiscation in whole. Corrections Deputies will confiscate inmate mail in whole rather than removing contraband or obliterating individual pages, passages, or words of prohibited content.
4. Stored Inmate Mail. Corrections Deputies will use a Prohibited Mail Notice to inform the inmate of the confiscation and use a copy as a tag for the items placed in storage.

ADMINISTRATION
1. Mail as Nuisance Contraband. Inmates are responsible for getting rid of any mailed item exceeding the number of items allowed in their cells as nuisance contraband under Policy J212, Rules and Discipline. An inmate may transfer items to their bin in the property room using procedures in Policy J208, Secure Storage of Inmate Property.
2. Gang-Related and Security Threat Group Materials in Mail. Corrections Deputies will photocopy incoming or outgoing inmate mail with gang-related material and send a copy to the Gang Deputy.
3, Mail Monitoring. This section does not apply to legal or official mail.
A. The Jail may monitor an inmate's mail for investigatory purposes as follows:
(1) Upon receipt of a warrant; or

CC 001921

11

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 65; Page 12 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 13 of 16

J603-RI0

July 5,2012

(2) When there is a legitimate penological or public safety reason to do so. Examples of iegitimate penological interest inciude but are not limited to, the welfare and safety of the inmates or staff, the good order or security of the facility, the protection of property, the prevention of the commission of a crime or conspiracy to commit a crime, the prevention of the destruction or tampering with evidence, and the prevention of harassment or intimidation of witnesses.
B. If a request to monitor inmate mail comes from another law enforcement agency, the agency must complete a Request for Inmate Mail Monitoring. An approved request will expire 30 days after its approval date. The requester must submit a new request to continue monitoring. Jail staff will read the inmate's mail and decide if any of it applies to the request and will only forward copies of mail that does apply. The requester must pick up the copies in person if from an agency within Columbia County. The Jail Commander will coordinate the mail-monitoring program. The Jail Commander must approve the request.
4. Mail Rules. The Jail Commander will ensure mail rules are a part of inmate orientation and the Inmate Manual and will make copies of the Inmate Mail Guide available to the public.
5. Mail Complaints. Staff members will direct mail complaints from the public to a Jail.Supervisor. The Jail Supervisor should attempt to respond to the complainant within two business days. Appeals related to receipt of Prohibited Mail Notices shall be addressed pursuant to paragraph 10, below.
6. Mail Handler Supervision and Training. A Jail Supervisor will supervise the dayto-day handling of inmate mail. He or she will assign staff to perform primary inmate mail duties. Staff who initially handle or open incoming inmate mail should attend training on the safe handling of strange or suspicious packages or receive similar training from another source. Those who open mail should also receive training on recognizing gang and security threat group symbols and signs.
7. Change of Address Responsibilities and Forwarding Mail. Inmates are responsible for submitting change of address requests to the publishers of publications they receive and to others that send them mail at the Jail. Corrections Deputies will normally not forward mail for inmates· who are no longer in Jail custody. They will return correspondence and packages unopened to the sender and throw publications away.
8. Holding Mail. Corrections Deputies will normally not hold mail for inmates released or temporarily transferred to another facility. The Jail Commander may make exceptions.
9. Returning Mail to Sender. Before mail is returned to its sender, Corrections Deputies will obliterate any mail sorting bar code and will mark the mail "Return to Sender". A Prohibited Mail Notice will be mailed separately from mail that is
12
CC 001922

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 65; Page 13 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 14 of 16

J603-RIO

July 5, 2012

returned unopened

To·return maii that was opened, a Corrections Deputy must repackage it and send it at the expense of the Jail to the sender. The Corrections Deputy will include a copy of the Prohibited Mail Notice with repackaged mail.

10. Appeals.

A. By Inmates. Inmates wishing to appeal a decision to deny delivery of incoming inmate mail or the mailing of outgoing inmate mail must follow the normal grievance procedure set forth in the Inmate Manual and Policy J207, Inmate Rights.

B. By Others. If a person believes that any incoming or outgoing inmate mail was improperly confiscated by the Jail, they may appeal the action to the Jail Commander by sending a written letter stating the specific reason(s) why the action was improper. The letter must be received within 15 days from the date of the Prohibited Mail Notice. Or, if no Prohibited Mail Notice was received, the letter must be received within 15 days from the date the person knew or should have known of the appealed action. The letter shall include the sender's name and return address. The Jail Commander will consider the appeal and will issue a decision on the appeal within 15 days of receiving the letter. However, if the Jail Commander made the initial decision regarding the mail in question, the Sheriff will consider the appeal and issue the decision. The appeal process will be set forth in the Prohibited Mail Notice.

CC 001923

13

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 65; Page 14 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 15 of 16

J603-R10

July 5, 2012

Jeffrey M. Dickerson, Sheriff

Address: 901 Port Ave. St. Helens, OR 97051 Phone: (503) 366-4611 Fax: (503) 366-4644 Web Address: www.co.columbia.or.us/sheriff

PROHIBITED MAIL NOTICE Oate: __________________________

Because of rules contained in the Columbia County Jail Inmate Mail Policy,
we are 0 returning or 0 storing or Odestroying the 0 letter or 0 publication or 0 other
described as:_________________________________________
sent 0 to 0 from inmate ___________________, Booking #___________
The mail was confiscated for the following reason(s):
o It contains sexually explicit material at page(s): ___________________________ o It contains prohibited content or contraband: o It did not come directly from a publisher, book club, or bookstore. o Oiher ________________________________________________________________
The reverse side of this letier is an Inmate Mail Guide which contains guidance on mail rules and appeal information. You may also go to the Jail's web page to find the information. The inmate has also received this notice and can appeal this decision through the Inmate Grievance Procedure set forth in the Inmate Manual.
APPEALS: Inmates can appeal decisions to confiscate mail through the Inmate Grievance Procedure set forth in the Inmate Manual. Others who believe that mail was Improperly confiscated may appeal the decision by sending in a written letter stating the reasons it is believed that the decision was wrong within 15 days from the date of this Notice. The letier should identify specifically how our action was improper, and include the name and return address of the appealing party. Appealing parties are not required to provide a phone nurn ber, but it may be useful if we need further clarification. We will send the appealing party a decision on the appeal within 15 days of our receipt of the appeal. Please direct appeals to:
Jail Commander ATTN: Confiscated Mail Appeal Columbia County Sheriffs Office 901 Port Ave. St. Helens, OR 97051

Mail Handler and OPSST #

Jail Supervisor and DPSST #

CC 001924

14

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 65; Page 15 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 16 of 16

J603-RIO

July 5, 20lZ

This Guide is intended to be a summary of some of the provisions in the Inmate Mail Policy that may be of most interest to members of the public. The Guide!§. NOT Intended to be a complete description of all policies related to Inmate Mall. For detail please see the Inmate Mail Policy.
INMATE MAIL GUIDE
Policy
Jail mail-handling procedures support both the inmates' and the public's need to communicate in writing, to carry out legal and official business. and maintain family and community ties. Procedures also meet the Jail's need for efficient operations that pieserlle the good order, safety, and security of the facility, inmates, and staff. To that end, the following guide has been prepared to assist the public in complying with the Inmate Mail Policy.
The Jail's general Policy is that it will not limit. censor, or restrict the volume, language, content, format or source of inmate mail. However, some limitations are necessary for the security of inmates, jail staff, and the public, as well as for the efficient operation of the Jail.
Inmate Mail. Inmates may generally send and receive mail in any form delivered by the U.S. Postal Service. Personal property such as food, beverages, clothing and similar items are not allowed to be mailed to and from inmates and will be confiscated. Photographs are allowed provided they-don't otherwise violate the Policy.
Publications. Inmates may receive pUblications, including but not limited to, books, magazines, newsletters and newspapers. However, the publication must be mailed directly from the publisher, book club or a bookstore. Addressing Inmate Mail. Inmate mail must have the inmate's booking name as part of the addressee information. Incoming mail must have a return address including the name and address of the sender.
Prohibited Mail. Jail staff will not allow an inmate to receive or send mail that-
1. ContainsA. Threats of physical harm, blackmail, extortion, or other criminal activity; B. Plans for escape, criminal activity, or activity that violates jail rules; C. Gang-related material; D. lriformation that, if conveyed, could result in physical harm to someone; E. Sexually explicit materials; F. Inflammatory material; G. Contraband materials including but not limited to such commonly mailed items as: (1) Books larger than 9 by 12 inches or with plastic or metal bindings; (2) Controlled substances as defined by ORS 475.005(6); (3) Foreign substances, such as: a) bodily fluids; b) lipstick or perfume; c} glue or paint; d) anything with an unusual stain or odor that indicates a foreign substance may be present;
2. Is written in code or suspected code; 3. Was a form of written comm unication not sent through the USPS or other approved system; 4. Is to or from a victim of a crime that the inmate is in custody for in either pretrial or sentenced status; 5. Would violate a court order; 6. May produce a hostile work environment, such as sexual harassment; 7. Is a credit or deferred billing transaction, such as "bill me later" subscriptions or merchandise bought on credit
or collect-on-delivery term s; 8. Is fraudulently marked as legal or official mail.
For more specific information about prohibited mail please review the full Inmate Jail Policy J603-.
Appeals. Both the inmate and an outside person have the right to appeal a decision to confiscate inmate mail. With very limited exceptions, the Jail will provide a Notice of Prohibited Mail to both the sender and addressee when inmate mail is returned or confiscated. The Notice of Prohibited Mail will explain the reason why the inmate mail was returned or confiscated and will explain the appeals process. The appeal process for an inmate follows the Jail's normal grievance process. The appeal process for everyone else requires a letter explaining the reason for the appeal, and providing contact Information. The letter must be received within 15 days from the date ofthe Prohibited Mail Notice. The Jail will respond within 15 days of receipt of the letter.

CC 001925

15

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 65; Page 16 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT 66
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 66; Page 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 2

HINlMATE· MAIL

Personal Mail

Inmates may send or receive personal mail from friends; family, or associates on postcards only. Inmates

may receive postcards in any size that is delivered by the U.S. Postal Service up to a maximum size of 5-

1/2" tall x 8-1/2" wide. Inmates may receive

with photographs on one side as allowed by the

U.S. Postal Service. The jail does not permit any other form of persona) mail for inmates.

Addressing Hrnmatte Manl

Inmate mail must have the inmate's booking number as part of Hie addressee information. incoming mail must have a return address to include the name and address of the sender.

Jail staffwill not allow an inmate to receive or send mail that-

1. Contains-

a. Threats of physical harm, blackmail, extortion, or other criminal activity.

b. Plans for escape, criminal activity, or activity that violates jail rules.

c. Gang-related material.

d. Information that, if conveyed, could result in physical harm to someone.

e. Sexually explicit materials.

f. Inflammatory material.

/

g. Contraband materials including but not limited to such commonly mailed items as:

(1) Books larger than by 12 inches or with plastic or m.etaJ bindings. (2) More than three books in a single piece of mail. (3) Controlled substances as defined by DRS 475.525 (4) Foreign substances, such as:

(a) Bodily fluids (b) Lipstick or perfume (c) Glue or paint (d) Anything with an unusual s-tain or odor that indicates a foreign substance may be present.

2. Is written in code or suspected code.

3. Was a form of written communication not sent through the USPS or other approved system.

'4. Is to or from a victim of a crime that the inmate is in custody.for in either pretrial or sentenced stalus.

5. Would violate a court order.

6. May produce a hostile work environment, such as sexual harassment.

7. Is a credit or deferred billing transaction) such as "bill me later" subscriptions or merchandise bought
on credit or collect-on-delivery terms.

8. Is

limn . . . . . marked as legal or official m a i l . , > , ' >,EXHIBIT';"'>:

I:':·>::······ ....

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 66; Page 2 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 5
EXHIBIT 67
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY mDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 67; Page 1 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 5

Katherine C. Chamberlain, OSB #042580 katherinec@mhb.com Jesse A. Wing,pro hac vice jessevv@mhb.coll1 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal Nevvs MacDonald Hoague & Bayless 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104-1745 (206) 622-1604
Marc D. Blackman, OSB #730338 marc@ransomblackman.com Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal Nevvs Ransom Blackman LLP 1001 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1400 Portland, OR 97204 (503) 228-0487
Lance Weber, pro hac vice lvveber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal Nevvs Human Rights Defense Center 1037 Western Ave., 2nd Floor West Brattleboro, VT 05303 (802) 257-1342

UNlTED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DNISION

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,
Defendants.

No.3:12-CV-71-SI
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF 30(b)(6) DESIGNEE OF THE COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE RE: PROCESSING OF PRISONER MAIL AND MAIL POLICY

NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF 30(b)(6) DESIGNEE OF THE COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE RE: PROCESSING OF PRISONER MAlL AND MAlL POLICY (CV 12-71-SI) - 1
9870.05 fdO 12203

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 67; Page 2 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 5

PLEASE TAKE NOTE that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), the Columbia County Sheriffs Office is required to designate the person(s) to testify on its behalf most knowledgeable about the Jail's handling and processing of prisoner mail and the Jail Mail Policy, including but not limited to:
a) the mail handler's duties and performance of sorting, inspecting, reading, stamping, and censorship of incoming and outgoing prisoner mail, and performance of other duties related to the processing of prisoner mail;
b) the Jail Supervisor's duties and performance of supervising the day-to-day handling of prisoner mail;
c) creation, modification, interpretation, and implementation of the Jail's Mail Policy since January 1,2009;
d) training of staff and supervisors about the Jail's Mail Policy since January 1, 2009; and
e) all documents responsive to Plaintiffs Request for Production No.3, 11, 12, 15, 20, and 23.
The Deposition related to topics identified above as (a) and (b) is to commence in combination with the Plaintiff s Rule 34 Inspection so that the deposition takes place during the mail processing and supervision of the processing, and in the location where the mail processing and supervision is taking place so those activities can be observed during the deposition, and continue thereafter as needed.
The Deposition will commence at lOAM on Tuesday, May 8,2012, or other date and time mutually agreed to by the parties, at the Columbia County Jail, 901 Port Ave., St. Helens, OR 97051, to facilitate the purposes described above, before a person authorized by law to administer oaths. The deposition at the time and place indicated above is subject to continuation or adjournment from time to time or place to place until completed. This deposition, which may be used at trial, will be taken on the ground and for the reason that the witness will give evidence material to the establishment of Plaintiffs case.

. NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF 30(b)(6) DESIGNEE OF THE COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE RE: PROCESSING OF PRISONER MAIL AND MAlL POLICY (CV 12-71-SI) - 2
9870.05 fdOl2203

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 67; Page 3 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 4 of 5
DATED this 2nd day of April, 2012. MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS lsi Katherine C. Chamberlain KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN OSB #042580 (206) 622-1604 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF 30(b)(6) DESIGNEE OF THE COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE RE: PROCESSING OF PRISONER MAIL AND MAIL POLICY (CV 12-71-SI) - 3
9870.05 fdO 12203

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Te1206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 67; Page 4 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 5 of 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies under penalty of perjury according to the laws of the United States and the State of Washington that on this date I caused to be served in the manner noted below a copy of this document entitled NOTICE OFDEPOSITION OF 30(b)(6) DESIGNEE OF THE COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE RE: PROCESSING OF PRISONER MAIL AND MAIL POLICY on the following individual(s):
Counsel for Defendant(s) Greg R. Roberson Steven Kraemer Hart Wagner LLP 1000 SW Broadway Ste 2000 Portland OR 97205 Phone: 503222-4499, x 1214 Fax: 503 222-2301 Email: grr@hartwagner.com
[ ] Via Facsimile [X] Via First Class Mail [X] Via Email [ ] Via Messenger [ ] Via Overnight Delivery
DATED this 2nd day of April, 2012, at Seattle, Washington.

NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF 30(b)(6) DESIGNEE OF THE COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE RE: PROCESSING OF PRISONER MAIL AND MAIL POLICY (CV 12-71-SI) - 4
9870.05 fdO 12203

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 67; Page 5 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 11
EXHIBIT 68
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERlNE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 68; Page 1 of 11

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 11

Steven A. Kraemer, OSB No. 882476 E-mail: sak(a2hartwagner.COln Gregory R. Roberson, OSB No. 064847 E-mail: grr@hartwagner.com HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301
Of Attorneys for Defendants

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,

No. 3: 12-cv-0071-SI

Plaintiff,

v.
COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,

DEFENDANT JEFF DICKERSON'S THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

Defendants.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

Defendant Jeff Dickerson ("defendant") generally objects to the production ofprivileged

communications, work product or materials prepared in anticipation of litigation. Defendant also

objects to any request for production ofany document which exceeds the scope ofthe Federal Rules

ofCivil Procedure, or any request which is vague, general, or outside the scope of discovery.

Without waiving these objections, and specifically incorporating these objections by reference,

defendant responds to plaintiff's specific production requests.

/1/

/1/

/1/

Page 1- DEFENDANT JEFF DICKERSON'S THIRD

HART WAGNER LLP

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO

1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES

Portland, Oregon 97205

AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

Telephone: (503) 222-4499

CHAMBERLAIN DECLF;acsEimxileh: i(b50i3t) 26228-2;301Page 2 of 11

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 11

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.5: Please produce all documents

pertaining to or reflecting the reasons that Defendants implemented a Postcard-Only Mail

Policy for outgoing mail, including but not limited to all documents that that [sic] you

considered or relied upon, all documents that state or imply data or information that

supported or refuted the assumptions, stereotypes, or assertions of fact on which you

based your decision to adopt the policy, and including all correspondence, investigations,

contraband data compilations, summaries, memos, and reports.

RESPONSE: Objection, vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, not reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence, and subject to attorney-client

privilege, work product and materials prepared in anticipation of litigation. Without waiving

these objections, defendant responds as follows:

Defendant is not in possession, custody or control of documents responsive to this

request.

INTERROGATORY NO.3: Please state with specificity every reason that Defendants

implemented a ban on incoming magazines andperiodicals, the date(s) that each such policy

was implemented, the names and job titles of each person who participated in the process of

deciding to implement the policy, every alternative considered but rejected, and identify every

document considered or relied upon by Defendants in reaching the decision to implement the

policy.

RESPONSE: Objection. This interrogatory is unduly burdensome and overly broad

because it requires Defendant Sheriff Dickerson to identify "every reason" with "specificity."

Defendant further objects to this interrogatory because it violates LR 33-1 (d). CCSO did not

have a policy that banned .incoming magazines and periodicals. Defs. Resp., Dickerson Decl.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.6: Please produce all documents pertaining to

or reflecting the reasons that Defendants implemented a ban on incoming magazines and

periodicals, including but not limited to all documents that that [sic] you considered or relied

upon, all documents that state or imply data or information that supported or refuted the

Page 5 - DEFENDANT JEFF DICKERSON'S THIRD

HART WAGNER LLP

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO

1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES

Portland, Oregon 97205

AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

Telephone: (503) 222-4499

CHAMBERLAIN DECLF;acEsimxilhe: i(b50i3t) 26228-2;30P1 age 3 of 11

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 4 of 11

assumptions, stereotypes, or assertions of fact on which you based your decision to adopt the

policy, and including all correspondence, investigations, contraband data compilations,

summaries, memos, and reports.

RESPONSE: Objection, vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, not reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and subject to attorney-client

privilege, work product and materials prepared in anticipation of litigation. Without waiving

these objections, defendant responds as follows:

Defendant is not in possession, custody or control of documents responsive to this

request.

INTERROGATORY NO.4: If Defendants contend that they have lifted their bans on

all incoming magazines and periodicals, please state with specificity every reason Defendants

lifted the bans, the date the bans were lifted, the names and job titles of each person who

participated in the process of deciding to lift the bans, and every document considered or relied

upon by Defendants in reaching the decision to lift the bans.

RESPONSE: Objection. This interrogatory is unduly burdensome and overly broad

because it requires Defendant Sheriff Dickerson to identify "every reason" with "specificity."

Defendant further objects to this interrogatory because it violates LR 33-1 (d). CCSO did not

have a policy that banned incoming magazines and periodicals. See Defs. Resp., Dickerson

Decl. In response to PLN's lawsuit which notified Sheriff Dickerson that mail was improperly

rejected, CCSO clarified its policy and practices with respect to incoming magazines and

periodicals on January 26,2012 by implementing a new inmate mail policy and training its staff

who handle mail on February 1,2012. See Defs. Resp., Dickerson Dec!.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.7: Please produce all documents pertaining to

or reflecting the reasons that Defendants lifted the bans on incoming magazines and periodicals,

including but not limited to all documents that that [sic] you considered or relied upon, all

documents that state or imply data or information that supported or refuted the assumptions,

stereotypes, or assertions of fact on which you based your decision to adopt the policy, and

Page 6 - DEFENDANT JEFF DICKERSON'S THIRD

HART WAGNER LLP

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO

1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES

Portland, Oregon 97205

AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

Telephone: (503) 222-4499

CHAMBERLAIN DECLF;acEsimxilhe: i(b50i3t) 26228-2;30P1 age 4 of 11

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 5 of 11

including all correspondence, investigations, contraband data compilations, summaries, memos,

reports, complaints, grievances, kites and appeals.

RESPONSE: Objection, vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, not reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and subject to attorney-client

privilege, work product and materials prepared in anticipation of litigation. Without waiving

these objections, defendant responds as follows:

Defendant is not in possession, custody or control of documents responsive to this

request.

INTERROGATORY NO.5: If Defendants contend that the Jail's current Mail Policy

requires the Jail to provide written notice when the Jail censors incoming or outgoing mail,

please state with specificity every reason that Defendants modified the mail policy to require

written notice to (a) prisoners and (b) non-prisoners, the names and job titles of each person who

participated in the process of deciding the [sic] modify the policy, and every document

considered or relied upon by Defendants in reaching the decision to modify the policy.

RESPONSE: Objection. This interrogatory is unduly burdensome and overly broad

because it requires Defendant Sheriff Dickerson to identify "every reason" with "specificity."

Defendant further objects to this interrogatory because it violates LR 33-1(d). CCSO's current

inmate mail policy was adopted February 10,2012. Defs. Resp., Dickerson Decl. Ex. F. The

policy requires written notice to the sender and receiver of rejected mail that states the reason for

the non-delivery of mail and provides a right to appeal the decision to the jail commander. Id.

Ex. F, pp. 15-17. The policy modified the inmate mail policy adopted on January 26, 2012 in

non-substantive ways. Id. Exs. E, F. The policies effective prior to January 26, 2012 did not

comport with Due Process. Defs. Resp., Dickerson Decl. Exs. A-D. The reason to modify the

policy was to comport with Due Process. Defendant objects on the basis of attorney-client

privileged to identifying ail persons who participated in the decision. Without waving that

objection, the persons involved in the decision to modify the policy to comport with Due Process

are: Columbia County Counsel Sarah Hanson, Sheriff Jeff Dickerson, Undersheriff Andy Moyer,

Page 7 - DEFENDANT JEFF DICKERSON'S THIRD

HART WAGNER LLP

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO

1000 S.W. Broadway. Twentieth Floor

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES

Portland. Oregon 97205

AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

Telepbone: (503) 222-4499

CHAMBERLAIN DECLF;acsEimxileh: i(b50i3t) 26228-2;30P1 age 5 of 11

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 6 of 11

Sergeant Bryan Cutright, and Sergeant Lee Rigdon. Documents subject to attorney-client

privilege were relied upon to modify the policy. Non-privileged documents relied upon are

Washington County's inmate mail policy, as well as notes from Sergeants Cutright and Rigdon

that were not kept.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.8: . Please produce all documents pertaining to

or reflecting the reasons for requiring written notice to (a) prisoners and (b) non-prisoners,

including but not limited to all documents that that [sic] you considered or relied upon, all

documents that state or imply data or information that supported or refuted the assumptions,

stereotypes, or assertions of fact on which you based your decision to adopt the policy, and

including all correspondence, investigations, contraband data compilations, summaries, memos,

reports, complaints, grievances, kites and appeals.

RESPONSE: Objection, vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, not reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and subject to attorney-client

privilege, work product and materials prepared in anticipation of litigation. Without waiving

these objections, see CC000195-CC000261.

Defendant is not in possession, custody or control of documents responsive to this

request.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.9: Please produce all documents that you relied

on as a basis for the statements of fact and opinion made in your declaration (Dkt. 32).

RESPONSE: Objection, vague and overbroad. The documents relied upon are attached

to the declaration.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Please produce all documents that Sergeant

Cutright relied on as a basis for the statements of fact and opinion made in his declaration (Dkt.

32).

RESPONSE: Objection, this request is directed to Sergeant Bryan Cutright. Defendant

further objects because the request is vague and overbroad. Without waiving these objections,

defendant responds as follows:

Page 8 - DEFENDANT JEFF DICKERSON'S THIRD

HART WAGNER LLP

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO

1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES

Pordand, Oregon 97205

AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

Telephone: (503) 222-4499

CHAMBERLAIN DECLF;acEsimxilhe: i(b50i3t) 26228-2;30P1 age 6 of 11

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 7 of 11

Defendant is not in possession, custody or control of documents responsive to this

request.

INTERROGATORY NO.6: Please state with specificity each modification that you

made to the Columbia County Jail Mail Policy on January 26,2012, and the reason for each

modification.

RESPONSE: Objection. This interrogatory is unduly burdensome and overly broad

because it requires Defendant Sheriff Dickerson to identify "each modification" with

"specificity." Defendant further objects to this interrogatory because it violates LR 33-1(d).

PLN is in possession of the January 26,2012 inmate mail policy, and the version effective prior

to January 26, 2012, and can compare the versions to identify each modification made. (Defs.

Resp., Dickerson Decl. Exs. D, E.) The primary modifications made were to allow the types of

correspondence mailed by plaintiff to inmates and mentioned in the Complaint to be delivered to

inmates, and to comply with the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Please produce all documents that you

considered or relied upon in deciding to make the modifications that you made to the Columbia

County Jail Mail Policy on January 26, 2012.

.RESPONSE: Objection, attorney-client privilege, work product, and materials prepared

in anticipation of litigation. Defendant objects because the documents sought are not reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, see

CCOOO195-CC000261, CC000613-CC000631.

INTERROGATORY NO.7: Please state with specificity whether and how you

notified prisoners and the public of the modifications that you made to the Jail's Inmate Mail

Policy effective on the dates listed below:

(a) August 15, 2009

(b) March 3, 2010

(c) July 19, 2011

(d) October 21,2011

Page 9 - DEFENDANT JEFF DICKERSON'S THIRD

HART WAGNER LLP

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO

1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentielh Floor

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES

Portland, Oregon 9720S

AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

Telephone: (503) 222-4499

CHAMBERLAIN DECLF;acEsimxilhe:ib(50i3t) 26228-2;30P1 age 7 of 11

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 8 of 11

(e) January 26, 2012

(t) February 10,2012

(g) Any other mail policy in effect during any portion of the period from January 1,2009

to the present.

RESPONSE:

(a) August 15,2009: No notice to the public or inmates.

(b) March 3, 2010: Themail policy was announced on CCSO's website and there was at

least one news article regarding the new mail policy. See Plf. Mot., Chamberlain

Decl. Exs. 2-3. An inmate mail guide was available on CCSO's website that,

subsequent to PLN's lawsuit, Sheriff Dickerson discovered was not compliant with

the mail policy. Defs. Resp., Dickerson Decl. Inmates were notified in person and

the inmate manual was updated.

(c) July 19,2011: No notice to the public or inmates.

(d) October 21,2011: No notice to the public or inmates.

(e) January 26,2012: Themail procedures available on CCSO's website were removed

because they did not comply with the mail policy. Defs.Resp.,DickersonDecl.No

notice to the public was given. Inmates were told the mail policy was under review.

(t) February 10,2012: No notice to the public or inmates.

(g) Any other mail policy in effect during any portion of the period from January 1, 2009

to the present: None.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO 7 (g) (06/12/2012): For the mail policy effective

May 25, 2012, mail guidelines were placed on the Columbia County Sheriffs Office's website

(removed after the Court's Order on May 29, 2012) and a revised Inmate Manual was issued.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO 7(g) (08/3112012): See Answer to Interrogatory

No. 19.

11/

III

Page 10- DEFENDANT JEFF DICKERSON'S THIRD

HART WAGNER LLP

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO

1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES

Portland, Oregon 97205

AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

Telephone: (503) 222-4499

CHAMBERLAIN DECLF;acsEimxileh: i(b50i3t) 26228-2;30P1 age 8 of 11

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 9 of 11

INTERROGATORY NO.9: Please state with specificity all facts on which Sheriff

Dickerson based these two statements in his declaration: "Envelopes containing mUltiple pieces

of paper can hide contraband such as needles, blades, similar weapons, and handcuff keys" and

"Contraband, which includes bodily fluids, lipstick, perfume, glue, paint, and unidentifiable

substances ... are bio-hazards and can contain bio-hazards ..." (Dkt. 32).

(a) The identity of each piece of contraband (e.g., glue, weapons, etc.) that arrived at

the Jail by mail or that a prisoner attempted to send out of the Jail by mail;

(b) The date each piece of contraband was detected;

(c) All records kept of the piece of contraband;

(d) The type of mail the contraband was affixed to or contained in (envelope,

postcard, magazine, etc.) and if concealed, where it was concealed;

(e) Whether the contraband was dangerous and if so in what way, and to whom; and

(f) The number of times a Jail staff person, prisoner, or any other person was harmed

. by the alleged contraband, and for each instance state the date, identity ofthe person and the

harm caused.

RESPONSE: Objection. This interrogatory is unduly burdensome and overly broad

because it requires Defendant Sheriff Dickerson to identify "all facts" with "specificity."

Defendant further objects to this interrogatory because it violates LR 33-1 (d). Further, CCSO

does not keep statistics on when and how much contraband the Columbia County Jail receives or

that inmates attempt to send out through the mail. Defendant relied on well-known facts of what

constitutes contraband.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: For the period January 1, 2009, through the

present, please produce all documents pertaining to or reflecting that any bio-hazards contained

or concealed in the forms listed below arrived at the Columbia County Jail or that a prisoner

attempted to send out of the Jail by mail:

(a) bodily fluids

(b) lipstick

Page 14 - DEFENDANT JEFF DICKERSON'S THIRD

HART WAGNER LLP

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO

1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES

Portland, Oregon 97205

AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

Telephone: (503) 222-4499

CHAMBERLAIN DECLF;acsEimxileh: i(bSOilt) 26228-2;30P1 age 9 of 11

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 10 of 11

see CC000389-CC000396. There are no dOCU1llents relating to COIU111bia County Jail l11ail

policies contained within the personnel files of Sheriff Dickerson and Sergeant Cutright. Respectfully submitted this 31st day of August, 2012.

-z HART WAGNER LLP

\

/'\

. \

f !

By:

Steven A. Kr bner, OSB No. 882476 Gregory R.\..Roberson, OSB No. 064847
Of Attorneys for Defendants

Page 23 - DEFENDANT JEFF DICKERSON'S TI-lIRD

HARTWA(;NER LLP

SUPPLEA1E1VTAL RESPONSES TO

1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES

Portland, Oregon 97205

AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

Telephone: (503) 222-4499

CHAMBERLAIN DECL;FEacsximhilieb: (i5t036) 2822;-2P301age 10 of 11

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 11 of 11

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 31 st day of

2012, I served the foregoing

DEFENDANT JEFF DICKERSON'S THIRD SUPPLEl\fENTAL RESPONSES TO

PLAINTIFF;S FIRS'r INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, on the

foHoVv'ing patties at the following addresses:

Marc D Blackman
Ransom Blackman LLl> 100 I 5th Ave Ste 1400 POltland OR 97204

Katherine C ChaIl1berlain Jesse Wing MacDonald Hoague & Bayless 705 Second Ave Ste 1500 Seattle \VA 98104

e-mailing to them a true and coneet copy thereof.

Page 1 - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

HART WAGNER LLP Attorneys nt Lnw

[000 S.W. Uroadwny, Twentieth Floor

Portland, Oregon 97205

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; ExhibTietlep6ho8n;e (P503a) 2g22e-441991 of 11

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 5
EXHIBIT 69
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY mDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 69; Page 1 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 5

Steven A. Kraemer, OSB No. 882476 E-mail: sak@,hartwagner.colll Gregory R. Roberson, OSB No. 064847 E-mail: HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301
Of Attorneys for Defendants

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,

No.3:12-cv-0071-SI

Plaintiff,

v.
COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS
FOR PRODUCTION TO ALL DEFENDANTS

Defendants.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

Defendants generally object to the production ofprivileged communications, work product

or materials prepared in anticipation of litigation. Defendants also object to any request for

production of any document which exceeds the scope of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or

any request which is vague, general, or outside the scope of discovery.

Without waiving these objections, and specifically incorporating these objections by

reference, defendants respond to plaintiffs specific production requests.

III

III

Page I-DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL

HART WAGNER LLP

RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND

1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor

INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR

Portland, Oregon 97205

PRODUCTION TO ALL DEFENDANTS

Telephone: (503) 222-4499

CHAMBERLAIN DECFaLcs;imEile:x(h50i3b) 2i2t2-623901; Page 2 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 5

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION AND INTERROGATORIES

INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Please state with specificity all steps taken by Defendants

to comply with the Court's Order dated May 29,2012, and identify all persons with knowledge

of those actions and state their role(s).

ANSWER: Objection, vague, overbroad and seeks information not reasonably

calculated to the discovery of admissible evidence. If plaintiff contends that defendants have not

complied with the Court's Order, then defendants will consider revising this answer. Defendants

further object because this interrogatory violates LR 33-1(d).

In response to the Court's Order, the Jail complied with it by disregarding the postcard

policy.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: Please produce all documents supporting,

refuting or relating to the facts set forth in your answer to Interrogatory No. 14.

RESPONSE: Objection, vague, overbroad and seeks information not reasonably

calculated to the discovery of admissible evidence. If plaintiff contends defendants have not

complied with the Court's Order, then defendants will consider revising this response.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33: Please produce all communications tolfrom

Defendants and jail staff about the Court's Order dated May 29, 2012, including, but not limited

to, emails, memos, notices and instructions.

RESPONSE: Objection, vague, overbroad and seeks information not reasonably

calculated to the discovery of admissible evidence. If plaintiff sets forth with specificity how

defendants have not complied with the Court's Order, then defendants will consider revising this

response.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34: Please produce a copy of the Columbia

County Jail Mail Policy effective on June 29, 2012.

RESPONSE: CC001622-CCOOI636.

III

III

Page2-DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL

HART WAGNER LLP

RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND

1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor

INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR

Portland, Oregon 97205

PRODUCTION TO ALL DEFENDANTS

Telephone: (503) 222-4499

Facsimile: (503) 222-2301
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 69; Page 3 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 4 of 5

RESPONSE: Objection, overbroad, vague, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants further object on the basis that the request seeks documents protected by attorney-client privilege, work product, and materials prepared in anticipation of litigation.
Respectfully submitted this 17th day of August, 2012.

.. G•:. (ErRI'LLP

By: U{Z·t

Steven A.

OSB No. 882476

Gregory R. Roberson, OSB No. 064847

Leslie A. Edenhofer OSB No. 093380

Of Attornevs for Defendants

Page 6 - DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL

HART WAGNER LLP

RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND

1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor

INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR

Portland, Oregon 97205

PRODUCTION TO ALL DEFENDANTS

Telephone: (503) 222-4499

Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 69; Page 4 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 92-6 Filed 09/13/12 Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 1i h day of August, 2012, I served the foregoing

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND

INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO ALL DEFENDANTS, on

the following parties at the following addresses:

Marc D Blackman Ransom Blackman LLP 1001 SW 5th Ave Ste 1400 Portland OR 97204

Katherine C Chamberlain Jesse Wing MacDonald Hoague & Bayless 705 Second Ave Ste 1500 Seattle WA 98104
e-mailing to them a true and correct copy thereof.

li\. f

Page 1 - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

HART WAGNER LLP Attorneys at Law
1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor Portland, Oregon 97205
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; ExTheleipbhointe 6(5093);22P2-a44g99e 5 of 5

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 93 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 8
EXHIBIT 70
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 70; Page 1 of 8

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 93 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 8

Steven A. Kraemer, OSB No. 882476 E-mail: sak(lv.hartwagner.cOln Gregory R. Roberson, OSB No. 064847 E-mail: grr(£i)hartvvagner.COIn HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301
Of Attorneys for Defendants

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,

No.3:12-cv-0071-SI

Plaintiff,

v.
COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,

DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS TO ALL DEFENDANTS

Defendants.

Defendants answer Plaintiff's First Request for Admissions to All Defendants as follows:

REQUESTS

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.1: Deposition Exhibit 12 is a genuine copy of

information on the Columbia County Sheriff's Office website (www.co.columbia.or.us/sheriff) on

January 19,2012.
.y Admit

_ _ Deny

III

III

III

Page 1 - DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS TO ALL DEFENDANTS

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499

Facsimile: (503) 222-2301
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 70; Page 2 of 8

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 93 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 8

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.2: Deposition Exhibit 96 is a genuine copy of

information on the Columbia County Sheriff's Office website (www.co.columbia.or.us/sheriff) on

May 7, 2012.

_ _ Deny

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.3: Deposition Exhibit 77 is a genuine copy of

'information on the Columbia County Sheriffs Office website (www.co.columbia.or.us/sheriff) on

January 10,2012.

Defendants do not have a copy of this exhibit. Based on plaintiff's representation that

Deposition Ex. 77 is Ex.! to the Declaration of Katie Chamberlain (Dkt# 9-1) then,

Admit

_ _ Deny

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.4: Deposition Exhibit 97 is a genuine copy of

information on the Columbia County Sheriffs Office website (www.co.columbia.or.us/sheriff) on

May 21,2012.

Admit

_ _ Deny

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.5: Deposition Exhibit 98 is a genuine copy of

information on the Columbia County Sheriff's Office website (www.co.columbia.or.us/sheriff) on

June 7, 2012.

_ _ Deny

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.6: Deposition Exhibit 98 is a genuine copy of

information on the Columbia County Sheriffs Office website (www.co.columbia.or.us/sheriff) on

July 3, 2012.

Admit

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.7: Deposition Exhibit 25 is a genuine copy of a

Columbia COlmty Jail Violation Notice dated October 31, 2011.

_ _ Deny

III

III

Page 2 - DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS TO ALL DEFENDANTS

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499

Facsimile: (503) 222-2301
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 70; Page 3 of 8

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 93 Filed 09/13/12 Page 4 of 8

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.8: Deposition Exhibit 26 is a genuine copy of a

Columbia County Jail Mail Violation Notice dated October 24, 2011. _ _ Deny

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.9: Deposition Exhibit 27 is a genuine copy of a

Columbia County Jail Inmate Request Form received by the Jail on December 23,2011, and the

Jail's response dated December 25, 2011.

_ _ Deny

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.1 0: Deposition Exhibit 29 is a genuine copy of a

Columbia County Jail Inmate Request Form received by the Jail on November 11,2010, and the

Jail's response dated November 11,2010.

Admit

_ _ Deny

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11: Deposition Exhibit 30 is a genuine copy of a

Columbia County Jail Inmate Request Form received by the Jail, and the Jail's response dated

September 5,2011.

_ _ Deny

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12: Deposition Exhibit 31 is a genuine copy of a

Columbia County Jail Inmate Request Form received by the Jail on August 7,2010, and the Jail's

response on that date.

_ _ Deny

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13: Deposition Exhibit 32 is a genuine copy ofa

Columbia County Jail Inmate Request Fonn received by the Jail on September 11,2011, and the

Jail's response dated September 19, 2011.

_ _ Deny

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14: Deposition Exhibit 42 is a genuine copy of a

Columbia County Jail Inmate Grievance Fonn received by the Jail in January 2012, and the Jail's

response dated January 18,2012.

Admit

_ _ Deny

Page 3 - DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS TO ALL DEFENDANTS

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499

Facsimile: (503) 222-2301
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 70; Page 4 of 8

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 93 Filed 09/13/12 Page 5 of 8

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15: Deposition Exhibit 43 is a genuine copy of a

Columbia County Jail Inmate Grievance Form received by the Jail on in November 2011, the Jail's

responses dated November 22 and 23,2011, and a Columbia County Jail Inmate Request form

received by the Jail on December 17, 2011, and the Jail's response dated December 22,2011.

_..J_Admit

_._Deny

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16: Deposition Exhibits 44 and 45 are genuine copies

ofa Columbia County Jail Inmate Grievance Form received by the Jail in February 2012, and the

Jail's response dated March 14,2012, respectively.

_ _ Deny

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17: Deposition Exhibit 60 is a genuine copy of a

Columbia County Jail Inmate Grievance Form received by the Jail on January 29,2010, and the

Jail's response.

__ Deny

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18: Deposition Exhibit 61 is a genuine copy of a

Columbia County Jail Inmate Request Form received bytbe Jail received on December 15,2011,

and the Jail's response.

_-V_Admit

__ Deny

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19: Deposition Exhibit 63 is a genuine copy of a

Columbia COlUlty Jail Prohibited Mail Notification form dated February 10,2012.

_-V_Admit

__ Deny

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20: Deposition Exhibit 67 is a genuine copy of a

Columbia COlUlty Jail Inmate Request Form received by the Jail, and the Jail's response dated

February 8, 2012.

_..J_Admit

_ _ Deny

III

III

III

Page 4 - DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS TO ALL DEFENDANTS

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499

Facsimile: (503) 222-2301
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 70; Page 5 of 8

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 93 Filed 09/13/12 Page 6 of 8

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21: Pages 1 through 4 of Deposition Exhibit 95 is a

genuine copy of email correspondence between Columbia County Sheriff's Office Sergeant Bryan

Cutright and Jeff Mansheim on March 17,2010.

_ _ Deny

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22: Pages 10 and 11 of Deposition Exhibit 95 is a

genuine copy of email correspondence between Columbia County Sheriff's Office Sergeant Bryan

Cutright and JeffMansheim on May 5-6,2010.

_ _ Deny

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 23: Deposition Exhibit 102 is a genuine copy of a

Columbia County Jail Inmate Mail Guide that was available to inmates in the PODs from March

2010 until May 2012.

_-.J_Admit

_ _ Deny

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 24: Deposition Exhibit 101 is a genuine copy ofa

Columbia County Jail Inmate Mail Guide that the Jail placed in the inmate PODs on or about May

8,2012.

_ _ Deny

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 25: Deposition Exhibit 125 is a genuine copy of a

Columbia County Jail Inmate Grievance Form received by the Jail on January 14,2012.

_-.J_Admit

_ _ Deny

III

III

III

III

III

III

III

III

Page 5 - DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS TO ALL DEFENDANTS

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499

Facsimile: (503) 222-2301
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 70; Page 6 of 8

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 93 Filed 09/13/12 Page 7 of 8
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 26: Deposition Exhibit 126 is a genuine copy of a Columbia County Jail Inmate Grievance Form received by the Jail on November 2,2011, and the Jail's response dated November 21, 2011.
_ _ Deny
11 Respectfully submitted this day of August, 2012.
By: Steveri A. mer, OSB No. 882476 Gregory R. Roberson, OSB No. 064847 Leslie A. Edenhofer OSB No. 093380 Of Attorneys for Defendants

Page 6 - DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS TO ALL DEFENDANTS

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499

Facsimile: (503) 222-2301
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 70; Page 7 of 8

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 93 Filed 09/13/12 Page 8 of 8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certifY that on the day of August, 2012, I served the foregoing DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS TO ALL DEFENDANTS, on the following parties at the following addresses: Marc D Blackman Ransom Blackman LLP 1001 SW 5th Ave Ste 1400 Portland OR 97204 Katherine C Chamberlain Jesse Wing MacDonald Hoague & Bayless 705 Second Ave Ste 1500 Seattle WA 98104 e-mailing to them a true and correct copy thereof.

Page 1- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

HART WAGNER LLP Attorneys at Law
1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone (503) 222-4499
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 70; Page 8 of 8

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 93-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT 71
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 71; Page 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 93-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 2
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 71; Page 2 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 93-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT 72
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 72; Page 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 93-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 2
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 72; Page 2 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 93-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT 73
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 73; Page 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 93-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 2
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 73; Page 2 of 2

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 94 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT 74
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 74; Page 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 94 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 2
COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE INSTITUTION'S DMSION
. ][J~TJE G1RJ[EVANCE ]FORM
INSTRUCTIONS: Follow the rules in the Inmate Handbook regarding the facility's grievance procedures. Fill in the blanks in the frrst two sections. If you need more room, use additional sheets ofpaper, but not additional forms. Ifyou want to grieve more than one issue, use a separate form for each issue.
**********r******************************************************************************

-.
o

17 ,lY.

...' I

·1,.i.L
1 (;: IL;/

,.,
OJ Hi.

If'; D

1

e:" t:::.""}.:..;..~... If.rt1

Deputy"s Signature: t~~/ ' ' /

_. DPSST# !.Itflf::;:q'

Date/Time: J-~tz7,i QmJf

Inmate's signature accepting deputy's resolution of grievance:

Date/Time: . -

.,

******************************************************************~**********************

Supervisor's Review:

r"\c

\
lol"\';'..e/ 1'"'\

cJ

DatelTime Received:--------------------
/

Supervisor's Signature:

DPSST#

Date/Time:_ _ _ _ __

Inmate's signature accepting supervisor's resolution of grievance:

Date/Time:_ _ _ _ __

*****************************************************************************************

Administrators Review:

Date/Time Received:--------------------

Administrator's Signature '

DPSST#

Date/Time:_ _ _ __

Inmate's signature accepting deputy's resollltion of grievance:

Date/Time:_ _ _ __

*****************************************************************************************

Distribution: White - Administrator's Copy Canary - Inmate File Pink - Inmate Copy

s:\Progrnms\Program Forms\Columbia County Inmate Grievance form. wpd

CC 000322
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 74; Page 2 of 2

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 95 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT 75
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 75; Page 1 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 95 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 3

1832

COLillVffiIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE ThfSTlTUTION'S DIVISION

INMATE GliUEVANCE. ]FORM

][NS'fRUCT][ONS: Follow the rules in the Inmate Handbook regarding 'the facility' ~ grievance procedures. Fill in the blanks in the first two sections. If you need more room, use additional sheets of paper, but not additional forms. If you want to grieve more than one issue, use a separate form for each issue.

***********I **************************~****************~**********************************

Reason for Grievance (check one):

[ ] conditions of confinement [ ] medical care [ ] general classification procedures

[ ] general discipline procedures [] participation ill inmate programs

[] religious practices

f)l telephone, mail and visiting procedures [ ] other (be specific)

*****************************************************************************************

Inmate's Name: ~'//(:i:Jli; if !I(''::; I'"j;l, .r'/d·{~;:lL:.lc

SID: .:20 {t

{

...., I
/-f-i .::::'-

.

Cell:"'':. .! ~~..-

l

..: Gn·evance·.

r~-""' ...,/fJ

'-('

i L

/". :.~ ~ L~-/ij7(Lt".,-'-·'

I'

_.

,

.

("".'".If..
•.. '

. 1

/1f

-)

! .

1'.>,; ,~~!! I·.J ..'...... 'l·.',:.·...

<-

"

i '-.r·'· • .(/,.',!",t't::' ,"1""'b"'-l/l(I'll-\~..

/;','IILI' /',.\=-\ ;J\t... rI.( r<,' ,.

\ .

I

( , \ I,~
Inmate Signature: l:::J~A:;<.7"

/"

I I

Date/Time: r! f:.,t / I ~ 7,.'S'/) p~Nl

Receiving Deputy Signature: fj;.f~

DPSST# ;-)11Jz4 . { , .Date/Time: .LpJ-J2 .z.o;;J

**********************************~******************************************************

Deputy;s Signature: "J~f7 '

. ,

DPSST# ~/lfPq

Inmate's signature acc~ptll:{g deputy's resolution of grievance:

Date/Time: 1~/.r./-/2 '"A;..:,;/i Date/Time: '

k 4e S**u*p*e*r*v*i*sJ*o*;r;*'(s*!*R.*e*~v*~*ie*&w**/:*.**J***********/***4**$**~**.***~****(*"*;t*t*/.*lV*D*A*aV*teV*l*.Te*£i*m"*,*e*R*e*c*§ e*i*v*e*d*:-**1-/*.t-*Y-~*?-*.--*-*-1*--*7-/*S-*- -*-*-*

DPSST# .$'/nr

Distribution:

White - Administrator's Copy Canary - Inmate File Pink - Inmate Copy
S:\Prograrils\Program Forms\Columbia County Inmate Grievance fonn.wpd

CC 000377
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 75; Page 2 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 95 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 3 -1833

·Date:

January 18,2012

To: From:

Donald Vanmeter Columbia County Jail
Sgt. Ralph Lee Rigdon, 31831 Corrections Division

Subject: Postcard Grievance Resporue to form Jrn.umber 000444

Thank you for expressing your concern about the Columbia County Jail mail procedures. As you are aware). there are multiple ways for inmates to. communicate with friends, family and others outsIde the jail. You may send and receive post~ards, as well as have personal visits and use the telephone. You are also allowed to communicate with your attorney, and correspond with other officials, by writing letters using paper and envelopes to ensure your privacy. Our postcard policy was enacted after a good deal of review, and we believe that the policy decreases the opportunity
.for contraband to be' introduced into the jail, ·which enhances jail safety-and security. In addition,
the use ofpostcards saves significant public resources as staff do not need to spend nearly as much time searching for contraband or for communications that threaten jail safety and security. In light ofthe clear benefits to jail safety and security, the reduced staff time required to process inmate mail, and the alternative methods available to inmates to communicate with the outside, we believe that our policy of requiring postcards for personal mail is appropriate and reasonable. Your grievance is denied.. -

CC 000378
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 75; Page 3 of 3

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 25
EXHIBIT 76
TO DECLARATION OF KATHERINE CHAMBERLAIN
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY TIJDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 1 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 25

e I

VOL. 23 No.8
ISSN 1075-7678

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights

August 2012

Federal Sex Offender Civil Commitment Process Under Fire

by Derek GUlla

Among other provisions, the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 allows the federal government to indefinitely detain "sexually dangerous" offenders through a civil commitment process, which requires mandatory court hearings after such offenders have been certified by the u.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) as eligible for commitment. The Adam Walsh Act was named for the kidnapped and murdered son of America's Most Wanted host John Walsh. [See: PLN, June 1996, p.12].
Under 18 U.S.c. § 4248, the federal government must obtain a "Certification of a Sexually Dangerous Person" before it can proceed in a civil commitment action.

From the Editor

9

Hawaii Restitution Rarely Paid

12

California Lifer Parole Ruling

16

PLN Sacramento Jail Suit Settled

20

Florida Pen Pal Ban Upheld

22

$3.5 Million NY Death Settlement

25

BOP RDAP Program Problems

28

Immunity for Lockdowns

38

Sex Offense Not Parental Neglect

40

Child Killed in Texas Prison

42

Immigration Prison Slavery

46

Vermont Advisory Group Disbanded 48

News in Brief

50

Under §4247(a)(5), a "sexually dangerous person" is defined as one who has engaged or attempted to engage in sexually violent conduct or child molestation, and who is "sexually dangerous to others" or suffers from a serious mental illness, abnormality or disorder, as a result of which he would have "serious difficulty in refraining from sexually violent conduct or child molestation if released."
To order civil commitment, a federal district court must find at an evidentiary hearing (no jury trial is required) that the government has met its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that an offender is a sexually dangerous person. If so, he may be confined in a suitable facility for mental health treatment until it is determined that he is no longer a danger to others. 18 U.S.C. § 4248(d). The standard of "clear and convincing evidence" is lower than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard required in criminal prosecutions, and when certifying prisoners for civil commitment the DOJ can consider conduct that did not result in an arrest, prosecution or conviction. In fact, offenders can be certified for civil commitment even if they have no prior criminal record of sex offenses.
According to investigative reporting by USA Today, the DOJ has certified 136 federal prisoners over the past six years but only 15 have been civilly committed following court hearings. The "Justice Department has either lost or dropped its cases against 61 of the 136 men" who have been certified since 2006. Of the prisoners certified as eligible for civil commitment who were eventually freed, some had been detained for more than four years pending a hearing.

"Things take time," stated former U.S. Attorney George Holding. "These men are accused of being a threat to society, and the system has to play itself out."
Often, though, offenders certified by the DOJ are ultimately determined not to be a threat to society deserving of civil commitment. Ironically, one of the prisoners who was released because he did not meet the civil commitment criteria was Graydon Comstock. His case previously had been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which upheld the constitutionality of the federal civil commitment process. See: United States v. Comstock, 130 S.Ct. 1949 (2010) [PLN, July 2011, p.31; Dec. 2010, p.44]. Comstock was freed in November 2011.
In addition to the federal government, around 20 states have civil commitment statutes for sex offenders. Notably, civil commitment is not imposed for past crimes, as prisoners have been convicted and sentenced for prior offenses before being certified for civil commitment proceedings. Indefinite civil commitment is instead intended to prevent crimes they might commit in the future - a disturbing concept reminiscent of the "thought police" from Orwell's novel 1984 or the movie Minority Report.
While civil commitment is not supposed to be a form of punishment, the DOJ's civil commitment unit is located within the federal prison complex in Butner, North Carolina - and prison by any other name is still prison. "Detainees are not prisoners, yet we are treated just like if not worse than criminals convicted of crimes," observed Gerald Timms, who was certified for civil commitment.

Prison Legal News

1

August 2012

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 2 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 25

WHAT
IS PASS?
SELF
EL
THROUGH THE
I
PASS provides educational materials nationally to prisoners in state and federal prisons and jails. PASS is the only nationally recognized program of its kind, and is assisted by a wide array of lawyers, educators, and mental health experts who have worked with prisoners for over 25 years. Prisoners who successfully complete the PASS program earn a degree in Personal Psychological Development which can be used as evidence of rehabilitation before parole boards and with prison officials.
August 2012

2

Prison Legal News

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 3 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96 Filed 09/13/12 Page 4 of 25

PUBLISHER Rollin Wright
EDITOR Paul Wright
ASSOCIATE EDITOR Alex Friedmann
COLUMNISTS Michael Cohen, Kent Russell,
Mumia Abu Jamal
CONTRIBUTING WRITERS Mike Brodheim, Matthew Clarke, John Dannenberg, Derek Gilna,
Gary Hunter, David Reutter, Mike Rigby, Brandon Sample,
Mark Wilson, Joe Watson
RESEARCH ASSOCIATE Sam Rutherford
ADVERTISING DIRECTOR Susan Schwartzkopf
LAYOUT Lansing Scotti Catalytic Communications
HRDC LITIGATION PROJECT Lance Weber-Chief Counsel Alissa Hull-Staff Attorney
PLN is a Monthly Publication
A one year subscription is $30 for prisoners, $35 for individuals, and $90 for lawyers and institutions. Prisoner donations of less than $30 will be pro-rated at $3.00/issue. Do not send less than $18.00 at a time. All foreign subscriptions are $100 sent via airmail. PLN accepts Visa and Mastercard orders by phone. New subscribers please allow four to six weeks for the delivery of your first issue. Confirmation of receipt of donations cannot be made without an SASE. PLN is a section 501 (c)(3) nonprofit organization. Donations are tax deductible. Send contributions to:
Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420
West Brattleboro, VT 05303 802-257-1342
info@prisonlegalnews.org www.prisonlegalnews.org
PLN repOlts on legal cases and news stories related to prisoner rights and prison conditions of confinement. PLN welcomes all news clippings, legal summaries and leads on people to contact related to those issues.
Article submissions should be sent to - The Editor - at the above address. We cannot return submissions without an SASE. Check our website or send an SASE for writer guidelines.
Advertising offers are void where prohibited by law and constitutional detention facility rules.
PLNis indexed by the Alternative Press Index, Criminal Justice Periodicals Index and the Department of Justice Index.
Prison Legal News

Sex Offender Law Problems (cont.)
Unsurprisingly, the DOJ has released no public statements concerning its singular lack of success in civilly committing prisoners the department has certified as sexually dangerous. Of the certified offenders who have had commitment hearings thus far, 15 have been committed and 17 ordered freed; thus, the DOJ has a less-than-impressive 47% success rate in cases that result in hearings - not counting other cases that the DOJ has voluntarily dismissed. Nor have DOJ officials issued any explanations regarding the defects and delays in a process that has kept offenders - who have usually finished their prison sentences - incarcerated for many years while awaiting civil commitment hearings.
Some outside observers, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, have described the lengthy delays in civil commitment proceedings as "troUbling" (though not troubling enough to constitute a due process violation, according to the appellate court). See: United States v. Timms, 664 F.3d 436 (4th Cir.2012).
Fred Berlin, Director of the Sexual Behaviors Consultation Unit at Johns Hopkins Hospital, stated in reference to the DOl's civil commitment process, "If it's going to be done, it has to be done in a just and fair manner." However, an examination of hearing transcripts and court pleadings in cases where federal prisoners facing civil commitment have eventually won their freedom reveals problems indicative of a systemic lack of justice and fairness.
Government experts, including many Bureau of Prisons (BOP) psychologists, almost always find that prisoners certified under the Adam Walsh Act are sexually dangerous - but such certification typically does not occur until offenders are close to completing their sentences and nearing release. These delays result in extending prisoners' terms of incarceration when, had they been certified earlier, they presumably could have been receiving sex offender treatment while serving their prison sentences.
Conversely, most private (non-government) psychologists hired by defense attorneys find that offenders certified by the DOJ as sexually dangerous do not require indefinite civil commitment. Private psychologists appear in court transcripts

to be more objective, thorough and nuanced in their observations and findings than their BOP counterparts. Although readily acknowledging that prisoners who face civil commitment possess some measure of dysfunction in matters of a sexual nature, almost none of the private psychologists agreed with the DOl's conclusions that such offenders were dangerous enough to warrant continued confinement after serving their prison sentences.
Increasingly, federal judges are agreeing with the findings of private psychologists and defense experts in civil commitment cases, which has put the DOJ in the unusual position of losing more contested hearings than it wins. Courts have repeatedly found that the federal government failed to meet its burden of proof that prisoners certified for civil commitment are sexually dangerous or have a high risk of reoffending, as required by § 4248.
It is uncontroverted that many federal prisoners have been convicted of serious sex-related crimes. But the broadness of some federal criminal statutes - which, for example, make simple possession (or downloading) of child pornography a crime that results in a lengthy sentence
means that numerous prisoners are not guilty of a "hands-on" offense such as sexual assault or rape. That, and the fact that most of the crimes occurred years before and offenders have usually completed their prison sentences, make judges reluctant to order indefinite civil confinement.
Many of the federal prisoners certified by the DOJ for the civil commitment process end up in the Commitment and Treatment Program at Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) Butner in North Carolina. This includes both offenders sent to Butner by the BOP and others who have volunteered for sex offender treatment programs offered at the facility. Under the skewed reality of life behind bars, some prisoners volunteer for the programs in order to avoid harassment, physical violence and even rape in other federal prisons due to the nature of their crimes.
Thus, prisoners may exaggerate their sexual deviancies to obtain a transfer to FCI Butner, which is perceived to be a safer environment for sex offenders. Ironically this puts them at greater risk of being "Adam Walshed," or certified for civil commitment, after they complete their

3

August 2012

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 4 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96 Filed 09/13/12 Page 5 of 25

Sex Offender Law Problems (cont.)
sentences. Prisoners at Butner and other facilities have also discovered that statements they made to gain admittance to a sex offender treatment program (SOTP), and issues they discuss in treatment, are not treated as confidential and can be used against them in civil commitment hearings.
Further, the quality and thoroughness of reports prepared by BOP psychologists that the DOJ relies upon to prove its case in civil commitment proceedings are sometimes questionable. It appears that the government feels obligated to proceed in cases where proof may be less than substantial, perhaps due to perceived public hostility toward sex offenders and media coverage of heinous sex crimes. Judges in civil commitment proceedings, though, have shown a willingness to carefully sift through the facts before rendering decisions based on applicable legal standards.
According to records in two cases discussed below, federal district courts declined to impose civil commitment and ordered the defendants freed under strict conditions of supervised release or probation. The DOJ simply could not present enough proof to justify the courts finding otherwise. In one case the judge noted that the defendant had not committed a "hands-on" crime in decades, had undergone extensive treatment and was at an
P()S1'AGE\ST.AMPS···· t8·•. .
.. :'.:/:.:.::': r.:,':::.::: .::;:: :,::.:.::\ .: :::.:.:
. . . REIMBURSEMENT RATE8

age where reoffending was unlikely. In the other case, the district court cast doubt on psychological tests used by the BOP in the initial screening process to determine whether an offender should be certified for civil commitment.
Responding to such judicial criticism of the BOP's certification methodology, BOP spokesman Chris Burke said that prisoners are only certified as sexually dangerous after "careful assessments by mental health professionals." However, the BOP reportedly suffers from a shortage of experienced psychologists, especially those qualified in the area of civil commitment. Often unable to attract sufficient experienced mental health staff, the BOP maintains a psychology predoctoral internship program in an effort to find potential candidates to hire.
Anthony Jimenez, a psychologist who ran the BOP's civil commitment program from 2007 to 2008, acknowledged the inadequacy of the BOP's expertise in this area and said that some prison psychologists had no experience in performing civil commitment certifications. "It was rushed, and initially," he stated, "I believe, quality probably suffered."
Jimenez also admitted that public pressure sometimes entered into the certification process. Although noting that the BOP consulted with staff attorneys before certifying an offender as sexually dangerous, he conceded that some prisoners were certified even though the evaluation might not have held up in court. According to Jimenez, "It's not a willy-nilly, 'this guy looks like a bad guy' process. If we thought someone was really dangerous but there wasn't a strong legal case, we might very well still push it for the public interest. Hopefully justice is served in the end."
This admission comes as no surprise to defendants and their supporters who

have claimed the government delays cases it doesn't think it will win, just to keep prisoners incarcerated for as long as possible. More recently, though, the DOJ has begun voluntarily dismissing civil commitment cases - including 40 of the 136 cases brought since 2006. When questioned, DOJ spokesman Charles Miller said the dismissals were due to "the totality of circumstances ... age, health status, change of circumstances, supervised release terms, family support and the opinions of all of the forensic experts."
One private psychologist, Amy Phenix, offered her own analysis of the DOl's difficulty in making proper psychological determinations in civil commitment cases, noting that they "just didn't have the same expertise" as outside mental health professionals. Which is an interesting statement considering that Phenix had helped train some of the government experts involved in the civil commitment certification process. "There were differences of opinion, and in some cases it was left up to the U.S. Attorney to make decisions about what to do," she added.
Cases that have resulted in favorable rulings for the defendants serve as a chilling reminder of the power of the DOJ to arbitrarily deprive prisoners of their freedom for years after they have completed their sentences, by keeping them confined pending civil commitment hearings. The case of federal prisoner Sean Robert Francis, including the outcome of his § 4248 hearing before Judge Terrence W Boyle, a federal judge in the Eastern District of North Carolina, is instructive.
In Francis' case, a DOJ expert said he had testified in 150 to 200 trials involving sexually violent predators and sexually dangerous persons, and had been asked to render opinions about whether offenders certified by the government met the criteria under §4248 "fifteen or sixteen times."

.

24.JBOIJRTURNAROIIND
r;i:ii([iii:iiii·
. See ()ur.Ad on Back €over

,.," :,";,:':!::';"::';'::::.;)"::

.:·:·:;:.·::·;··:.:·:··:;·::::::·::'::. ,::,:>....:.:::.::.:<: ::.::'.:\:.:-::;

•. . ·w.• •.·•·.•·.•·.·••·. •.· 8.•·•.·.••. ·.·:·•..·.T•.•··.•.· .o.·..·.·.·.. s.·.··.•·. ··...·.·.r·•.·.·•.·. r.·..•.•.•·••.·•.•:.•.•. ·.·.u•••..•.··•.•·. , ...... , 0.•·.•.•.·.••..•.•.·.·•.·.·•·.•. ... .... ... ," .l..·..•·..•........ , :

" ¥ ..••·.•.•••.•.·••.•.. .••·••.•· •. ••.

··.l.·.··.·.·..t·.·.·,·.·.·••••.•.·.. •. .

··..•.·.•.·E·•..·•.·.•·.·.·..••B.·.•.•·.•·..•·.•·..···•.•. ·.·..•1.·.•.· ·E.••.••.·•.·.·.•·•..••·.•••.•.•:.•.•..•.. ,

August 2012

law Ilffice of
TIM[]THV C. CHIANG-LIN, PLLC
Representing All Individuals Who Suffered Childhood Sex Abuse in Washington & Oregon
2155 112th Ave NE, Bellevue, WA 98004 tim@chiang-lin.com

4

Prison Legal News

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 5 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96 Filed 09/13/12 Page 6 of 25

Of those 15 or 16 cases, he concluded that "nine or ten" met the criteria for sexual dangerousness. The expert stated that Francis had been "convicted of crimes of a sexual nature, of obscene phone calls on multiple occasions ... which involved the use of force or the threatened use of force ... [and there were] "multiple ... offenses [which] involved specific threats of rape or murder...."
Judge Boyle noted that "None of these convictions were hands-on crimes ... none of the threats were made in physically present context. They were all telephone threats." The government expert agreed that Francis' offenses were limited to threats made over the phone. "And you think that that established the type of predicate that is contemplated by child molestation or serious sexual crimes?" the court inquired. The expert indicated that was his "understanding" of the law.
The DOJ expert said that in this case, "several of the victims were identifiable victims and [Francis] had personal knowledge of and made specific threats that could certainly be ... perceived by the victims as real, material threats for their safety... ," which satisfied the first part of

the required criteria under §4248 because Francis was guilty of "threatened use of force."
The court then asked the expert to address the second part of the criteria, regarding whether Francis suffered from a serious mental illness, abnormality or disorder. The government expert stated that Francis' repeated pattern of making obscene telephone calls showed he had such a condition, based upon his self-confessions and various criminal investigations.
Judge Boyle acknowledged Francis' penchant for obscene phone calls but stated, "[H]ere you have a person whose criminal history, if any, is all reliant on his own self-confession during therapy, when he had no foreseeable expectation that he would be Adam Walshed and detained civilly." The court then addressed one of the major weaknesses of many civil commitment proceedings - the fact that some sex offenders confess to crimes they did not commit in order to be accepted into a treatment program. "If you don't admit that you're a sexual predator or sexual deviant, they don't want you in the program because the program's only for people who admit it."
Under cross examination by Francis'

attorney, the same DOJ expert acknowledged that previous mental examinations performed at other prison medical facilities failed to find sufficient evidence that would require Francis to be certified as a sexually dangerous offender.
The defense expert attacked the very basis of the prosecution's case - the appropriateness of the civil commitment certification process. He stated that "there's no tool, no actuarial or statistical risk assessment tool that would be appropriate in this particular case with this type of [hands-oft] offenses ... for which Mr. Francis has been adjudicated.... There's no contact-based offenses." He then argued that the "Static-99R" test generally relied upon in such cases was invalid because "It violates the most fundamental assumption of test use.... So it's not appropriate in this case with Mr. Sean Francis to use any actuarial tool. It's misleading at its most charitable."
At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Boyle found the DOJ had failed to meet its burden of proof that Francis had "engaged in or attempted to engage in sexually violent conduct or child molestation" and suffered "from a serious mental illness, abnormality, or disorder as a result

Learn & Understand the Law
It can be a powerful influence in your life.

II Learn Civil &. Criminal laIN III Learn Legal Research II 120 Years of Legal Training Experience III Study in Your Spare TIme II Affordable TUition, Easy Payment Plan
II you have a sponsor they mllst contact us by phone at 1.300.826.9226

ClVes! I'd like to learn more
a please rush me fREE course information. 0
Name Address
City.._.............................................._.._..........................S1ate.......__.........Zip.........._..........

Paralegal Course
Advanced
Paralegal Course

• Civil Litigati(JJ'I

• WillsiTnn,(siEsiates

•

1I1jmyi

1i)rts

• Ft1mi!yLaw

• Crlzllli1<l1,Ltl\:"Il

Blackstone
Career Institute

Prison Legal News

5

August 2012

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 6 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96 Filed 09/13/12 Page 7 of 25

Sex Offender Law Problems (cont.)
of which he would have serious difficulty in refraining from sexually violent conduct or child molestation if released." The court noted Francis' history of making obscene phone calls but said it was not persuaded by the government's expert witness, and instead adopted the findings of the defense expert. The BOP was thus ordered "to release the Respondent to the custody of the appropriate United States Probation Office." The DOJ appealed the court's ruling. See: United States v. Francis, U.S.D.C. (B.D. N.C.), Case No. 5:1O-HC-2013-BO; 2012 WL 174590 (Jan. 20,2012).
Although most prisoners certified by the DOJ for civil commitment have been convicted of some form of sex-related crime, the certification process falters in the area of determining their probability of reoffending. Notably, the tests used in the certification process provide data related to the likelihood of recidivism by groups of offenders with similar characteristics, but not necessarily the individual probability of reoffending for the person being tested. Further, widely-varying scores given by psychologists who administer the same tests indicate that the process is far from an exact science.
As one appellate court put it, "The question of whether a person is 'sexually dangerous' is 'by no means an easy one,' and 'there is no crystal ball that an examining expert or court might consult to predict conclusively whether a past offender will recidivate. '" See: United States v. Shields, 649 F.3d 78,89 (15t Cir. 2011).
Most experts agree that released sex offenders are rarely convicted of another sex crime. For example, a 2003 study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that
Awesome Deal
7photo pk.+ free cat. For 7.50 or 20 stamps
For cat. Only send 2.75 or 9 stamps to: Picture Entertainment,
PO Box 54806, L.A., CA 90054 We also buy stamps
at .31 each

only 5.3% of sex offenders committed another sex-related offense within three years after their release from prison. Other studies dating from the 1980s maintain that many of the psychological methods used to predict who may be a dangerous offender can not be substantiated by any recognized scientific method. Despite that fact, psychologists have spent years sifting through the records of thousands of sex offenders to develop tests to determine which are likely to reoffend. Those tests, however, have been subject to criticism.
A Hawaii federal district court, after reviewing the government's evidence and making specific findings as to the quality of the diagnostic tests used, found in favor of prisoner Jed Abregana at a civil commitment hearing. Abregana had a history of sex-related crimes that included exposing his genitals to a 12-year-old boy in a movie theater in 2000. That charge was dismissed without prejudice, but in 2001 he was arrested by U.S. postal inspectors for possession of child pornography. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 44 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release.
Abregana was transferred to FCI Butner but expelled from the SOTP program, and was released from BOP custody in 2004. He was rearrested for violations of his conditions of release, re-released, and subsequently rearrested for lewd emails. He was certified as a "sexually dangerous person" just prior to his completion of a new prison sentence in 2007.
DOJ experts used many of the same tests utilized in Francis' case to contend that Abregana met the criteria for civil commitment under § 4248, including the Static-99 test, the Rapid Risk Assessment for Sexual Offense Recidivism (RRASOR) and the Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool-Revised (MnSOST-R). According to the court, "RRASOR consists of four items concerning a person's prior sex offenses, his age, whether he has had a male victim, and whether he has had a victim outside of his family ... Static-99 is a brief actuarial instrument designed to estimate the probability of sexual and violent recidivism among adult males who have been convicted of at least one sexual offense against a child or non-consenting adult. ... The MnSOST-R was developed in Minnesota to provide for a formal and uniform process to identify high-risk offenders at the time of their release from prison...."
The government and defense experts came up with widely-varied scores on the

tests, which led the judge to comment that "the difference among the experts [was] reflective of the difficulty of psychiatric diagnosis." As the U.s. Supreme Court stated in Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 1811 (1979), "Psychiatric diagnosis ... is to a large extent based on medical 'impressions' drawn from subjective analysis and filtered through the experience of the diagnostician ... [which] makes it very difficult for the expert physician to offer definite conclusions about any particular patient."
The district court further noted that while Abregana had committed a sex-related crime, "neither of the other [non-government] experts, Dr. Rosell and Dr. Barbaree, consider Abregana to suffer from a serious mental disorder.... The U.S. Supreme Court precedent makes clear that the 'serious difficulty' language does not require total or complete lack of control, but does require that it must be difficult, if not impossible, for the person to control his dangerous behavior. See Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407, 411 (2002) (citing Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 358 (1997)).... These are difficult questions that require clearer and more convincing proof than is available in the circumstances before the Court." Abregana was therefore ordered released. See: United States v. Abregana, 574 F.Supp.2d 1145 (D. Hawaii 2008).
The DOl's case against another federal prisoner, Markis Revland, also collapsed for lack of "clear and convincing evidence." According to the district court, Revland's "only convictions, which conceivably could be labeled as somehow involving child molestation, were two incidents of indecent exposure," both in 1999, one of which involved public urination. "The government does not suggest that [this] incident involved 'exploitation' of minors, ... [and] the government did not prove that respondent engaged in conduct of a sexual nature with them ... or touched other children."
The DOJ relied heavily on "selfreported" incidents from Revland when he was enrolled in the SOTP program at FCIButner, where he admitted to 149 incidents of "hands-on" child sexual abuse. The district court, however, "having considered the matter carefully ... concludes that the government has failed to prove" that any of those incidents actually occurred.
"The court finds that respondent invented the 149 incidents because he was desperate to remain in the SOTP at

August 2012

6

Prison Legal News

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 7 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96 Filed 09/13/12 Page 8 of 25

FCI-Butner. Respondent testified, quite convincingly, that he had been beaten and raped at knifepoint by fellow inmates while incarcerated at the federal prison in Leavenworth, Kansas; that he feared for his life if he remained at Leavenworth; that he sought and obtained admission to FCI-Butner's SOTP in order to be transferred away from Leavenworth; that once in the SOTP he was encouraged by SOTP staff to 'get it all out,' i.e., 'confess' everything; and that he felt compelled to make up a long list of sex offenses, lest he be deemed 'uncooperative' and returned to the institution from which he had come."
Revland "would be the Charles Manson of child molesters if even a small portion of the 149 incidents had actually happened," the court wrote, quoting one of the experts in the case, adding that Revland had "no documented history of ever committ[ing] a 'hands-on' sexual offense" and that "the government offered no evidence to independently verify that any of these incidents occurred or that any of them - even one - ever resulted in investigation or prosecution." Consequently, the DOJ's petition for civil commitment was denied. See: United States v. Revland, U.S.D.C. (E.D. N.C.), Case No. 5:06-HC-02212; 2011 WL 6749814 (Dec. 23, 2011).
In January 2012, Judge Terrence W Boyle ruled against the DOJ in a civil commitment hearing for prisoner Jeffrey Neuhauser, who had a history of sexrelated offenses. The DOJ contended that Neuhauser suffered from a mental disorder of "hebephilia'" - a primary sexual preference for adolescents undergoing pUberty. Judge Boyle rejected the

government's argument. "Although hebephilia has been proposed to be included as a mental disorder in the revision of the DSM [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders], it has been rejected as a proper mental disorder by numerous psychologists...," he stated. "The Court finds that it would be inappropriate to predicate civil commitment on a diagnosis that a large number of clinical psychologists believe is not a diagnosis at all, at least for forensic purposes."
The DOJ's own expert had admitted that hebephilia was controversial. Regardless, the district court held that even if hebephilia was considered a legitimate diagnosis, the DOJhad still failed to prove that Neuhauser was at high risk of reoffending. He was therefore ordered freed on supervised release with conditions that included polygraph testing and participation in a sex offender treatment program. See: United States v. Neuhauser, U.S.D.C. (E.D. N.C.), Case No. 5:07-HC-2101-BO; 2012 WL 174363 (Jan. 20, 2012).
The Eastern District of North Carolina is the epicenter of federal civil commitment cases, since FCI Butner is located in that district. As a result the Fourth Circuit, which has jurisdiction over federal courts in North Carolina, hears numerous appeals of civil commitment decisions (the Supreme Court's Comstock opinion originated from a Fourth Circuit ruling).
On January 9,

2012, the Fourth Circuit rejected the government's appeal of an adverse decision in a civil commitment hearing involving prisoner Clyde Hall. Although the Court of Appeals found that Hall hadpreviously engaged in "past acts of child molestation" in the 1980s and 90s, and suffered from "a serious mental illness, abnormality, or disorder," it agreed with the district court's finding that the DOJ had failed to .prove "by clear and convincing evidence, that Hall, as a result of these disorders, 'would have serious difficulty in refraining from ... child molestation if released. '"
The appellate court noted that the government and defense experts in the case had "arrived at conflicting opinions," but affirmed the lower court's decision to credit the testimony of the defense expert and Hall, who testified in his own behalf. One contributing factor cited by the Fourth Circuit was that Hall had spent 28 months in the community after completing a sex offender treatment program and had not committed another sex crime during that time. See: United States v. Hall, 664 F.3d 456 (4th Cir. 2012).
Although it appears from the cases cited above that manyjudges arejustifiably skeptical of the federal civil commitment

Prison Legal News

7

August 2012

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 8 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96 Filed 09/13/12 Page 9 of 25

Sex Offender Law Problems (cont.)
process, that has not dissuaded the DOJ from continuing to certify prisoners as sexually dangerous who mayor may not eventually be found eligible for civil commitment under § 4248, including those who have committed "hands-off" sex offenses. Judge Boyle complained during a court hearing in 2011 about the lengthy, indefinite civil commitment process once a prisoner is certified by the 001 "There's no horizon. It's just darkness," he said.
Another issue that has yet to be addressed by the DOJ is preparing offenders awaiting civil commitment hearings for their eventual release back into the community. Such prisoners are often prevented from participating in educational and rehabilitative programs available to those in the general prison population. As a result, offenders whose civil commitment cases are ultimately dismissed, or who prevail at their court hearings, are unprepared in terms of their post-release employment, housing and treatment requirements.
Clearly the entire federal civil commitment process is in need of serious improvement. If the government intends to civilly commit certain offenders after they have completed their prison sentences, not for what they have done but for what they might do in the future, then changes are necessary to ensure that our justice system lives up to its name.
The DOJ should seek to certify only those convicted sex offenders who meet the applicable criteria and are likely to reoffend. If prisoners require sex offender treatment, they should receive it while serving their prison terms; the DOJ should not wait until they have almost finished their sentences before certifying them for civil commitment proceedings. The civil commitment process needs to be expeditious, to ensure it is not used as a means to improperly detain offenders after they complete their prison sentences. Further, the certification process should be based on objective, scientific methodology that evaluates the individual dangerousness and probability of reoffense of the person being tested.
As of March 2012, 59 federal prisoners were awaiting civil commitment hearings. The DOJ has since argued in its appeal to the Fourth Circuit in Sean Francis' case that the courts should approve civil commitment for offenders who engage in "hands-off" non-contact crimes

- such as making obscene phone calls, exhibitionism and, presumably, soliciting sex from law enforcement officers posing as minors on the Internet. This would, of course, greatly increase the potential pool of federal prisoners eligible for civil commitment proceedings.
The Fourth Circuit rejected the DOl's argument on July 16, 2012, finding that the district court had "appropriately considered the evidence as a whole using the framework provided in the Act and concluded that Francis was not sexually dangerous to others, within the meaning of the Act, because the government failed to meet its burden of proof regarding this required component for civil commitment under the Act." The district

court's judgment in favor of Francis was therefore affirmed. See: United States v. Francis, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Case No. 12-1205; 2012 WL 2877668.
Despite yet another adverse ruling, the DOJ will most likely continue to certify offenders for civil commitment whether they meet the necessary criteria or not, in order to keep them in prison for as long as possible. That, apparently, is what passes for "justice" in the federal civil commitment process.
Sources: www. usatoday. com, www.newsobserver. com, www.raleighpublicrecord. org, http://forensicpsychologist. blogspot. com, lvww.nacdl.org, www.bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov

Ethics Complaint Against Former Oregon Prison Official Dismissed

As previously reported in PLN, Michael Taaffe, 56, retired from his $91 ,020-per-year position with the Oregon Department of Corrections (ODOC) in March 2011. He had been employed as an assistant administrator with the ODOC's Health Services Division, and served on a three-member panel in 2009 that recommended Correctional Health Partners (CHP) as a contractor to manage the prison system's medical care. CHP was awarded the contract, worth approximately $1.2 million annually.
Three days before his retirement Taaffe went to work for CHP, which resulted in an ethics complaint filed against him. Under Oregon state law, public employees are prohibited from having a "direct beneficial financial interest" in a contract awarded by an agency with the employee's participation. This prohibition "continues for two years after the employee leaves public service." [See: PLN, Feb. 2012, p.46].
Although Taaffe was not solely responsible for granting the contract to CHP, he worked closely with the company while employed by the ODOe. "Michael Taaffe did work directly with CHP, as did many other staff in Health Services," state prison officials noted. "His role was to analyze CHP reports and to track DOC costs based on those reports." Moreover, after Taaffe went to work for CHP, ODOC director Max Williams acknowledged that "some of the contractor's employees are embedded with DOC Health Services

staff in our offices, and Mr. Taaffe is one of those."
In an August 19, 2011 report, an investigator for the Oregon Government Ethics Commission found cause to proceed with a full investigation. "Information for this preliminary review appears to indicate that Mr. Taaffe may have had a direct beneficial financial interest in a public contract in which he participated in the authorization of while acting in his former official capacity as a public official representing DOC," the report stated. "Information also appears to indicate that Mr. Taaffe may have been met with conflicts of interest while participating in official actions, decisions or recommendations that could or would have been to his private pecuniary benefit and may have failed to comply with disclosure requirements ... and may have used or attempted to use his official position to obtain prohibited financial benefits."
On February 24, 2012, however, the Ethics Commission unanimously voted to dismiss the complaint against Taaffe after finding that the evidence against him was "insufficient to infer a violation of ORS Chapter 244 or warrant further investigation." Taaffe did not testify before the Commission, and no other explanation was provided for the dismissal of the complaint.
Sources: Oregon Government Ethics Commission, The Oregonian, Statesman Journal

August 2012

8

Prison Legal News

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 9 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96 Filed 09/13/12 Page 10 of 25

&?:
Stay in touch with a good Magazine! .
Get 5 Full One Year Subscriptions - ONLY

,
'fHfi POUIIDff"

o 4 Wheel & Off Road (12) o Allure (12) o American Photo (6) o Arthritis Today (6) o Automobile (12) o Backpacker (9) o Boating (10) o Bon Appetit (12) o Bowhunt America (9) o Bridal Guide (6) o Cabelas Outfitter Journal (6) o Car & Driver (12) o Charisma (12) o Complex Magazine (6) o Conde Nast Traveler (12) o Country (7) o Cruising World (12) o Cycle World (12) o Detroit Home (6) o Digital Photo (7) o Dirt Rider (12) o Ebony (11) o Eile (12) o Eile Decor (10) o Entrepreneur (12) o ESPN (26) o Esquire (11) o Family Circle (15) o Family Fun (10) o Fast Company (10) o Field & Stream (12) o Fitness (10) o Florida Sport Fishing (6) o Fly Fishing in Salt Water (6) o Flying (12) o Four Wheeler (12) o Freeskier (6) o Garden & Gun (6)

o Golf Digest (12) o Golf Tips (7) o Glamour (12) o Golf Week (45) o Heart & Soul (6) o Hispanic Business(10) o Hot Bike (12) o Hot Bike Baggers (12) o Hour Detroit (12) o Inc Magazine (12) o Jet (26) o Ladies Home Journal (11) o Latina (10) o Log Home Living (9) o Los Angeles Magazine (12) o Lucky (12) o Marie Claire (12) o Men's Fitness (10) o Men's Journal (12) o Motor Trend (12) o Ministry Today (6) o Midwest Living (6) o Motorcyclist (12) o Muscle & Fitness (12) o Muscle Mustangs & Fast Fords (12) o Nylon (10)
DOff-Road (12)
o Old House Journal (6) o Orange Coast Magazine (12) o Outdoor Life (12) o Outdoor Photographer (11) No Renewal o Outside (12) o Parent & Child(9) o Parenting Early Years (11) o Parenting School Years (11) o Parents (12) o Plane & Pilot (12) No Renewal o Popular Photography (12)

o Popular Science (12) o Predator Xtreme (6) o Prevention (12) o Reader's Digest (11) o Road & Track (12) o Rolling Stone (26) o Self(12) o Shape (12) o Siempre Mujer (6) o Ski (7) o Slam (10) o Snowboard (6) o Snowboarder (7) o Sound & Vision (8) o Spa (6) o Sport Rider (10) o Super Chevy (12) o Surfer (12) o Surfing (12) o Taste of Home (8) No Renewal o Teen Vogue (10) o Texas Monthly (12) o The Atlantic (10) o Timber Home Living (6) o Transworld Motocross (12) o Transworld Skateboarding (12) o Transworld Snowboarding (9) o TransworldSurf(12) o Urban Farm (6) o Vibe (6) o Waterfowl & Retriever (2) o Weight Watchers (6) o Whitetail Journal (6) o Whole Living (10) o Wired (12) o Wood (7) o Working Mother (8) o Yoga Journal (9)

Send as many "5 for $20" orders as you like!

Tell your Friends and Families!

Send a copy of this page to us. Please make your address as short as possible. Current customers - Please update your address! Allow 6-8 weeks for delivery. Pay by check, money order or order online and use credit card or PayPal.

Name and Inmate # (please print, maximum 24 characters):

Address: City:

State:

Zip:

¢,flnmaie asaljne Ser,jce;
P.O. Box 2063, Fort Walton Beach, FL 32549 www.InmateMagazineService.com

Prison Legal News

9

August 2012

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 10 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96 Filed 09/13/12 Page 11 of 25

From the Editor

by Paul Wright

W hen Prison Legal News published its first issue in May 1990, it was less than one month after Washington state became the first in the nation to enact a civil commitment law for sex offenders. PLN has reported on this issue ever since as such laws have spread around the country, and as the court system has for the most part duly upheld civil commitment statutes in a results-oriented effort to imprison people based on crimes they might commit in the future.
When the federal government first announced plans to hold suspected terrorists and "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo Bay without charge or trial for essentially the rest of their lives, the mainstream media largely ignored the fact that the U.S. has been detaining CItIzens mostly sex offenders - on a similar basis since 1990.
As this month's cover story indicates, once the mechanism for repression is put in place it needs to be used, and having a civil commitment law creates a need to commit people whether they meet the applicable criteria or not. The federal civil commitment process has received relatively little attention compared to that of various states, and to date there has been a dearth of litigation challenging the conditions of the DOl's civil commitment program, which operates in a relative shroud of secrecy.
Like other aspects of the government's repressive penal machinery over the past three decades, the federal civil commitment program continues to grow. To their credit at least some members of the federal judiciary have been skeptical and, as the cover story notes, have declined to commit many of the defendants whose cases result in hearings. Unlike, say, Minnesota's civil commitment program; to date, not a single person has been deemed eligible for release since the program was enacted in 1994. The only 24 people released from Minnesota's civil commitment facility left in body bags after they died.
The good news is that a majority of states (30) have resisted enacting civil commitment laws. Several years ago, the Human Rights Defense Center was among a number of organizations that worked to stop the Vermont legislature from adopting a civil commitment statute. The bad news is that none of the 20 states

and the federal government that use civil commitment have recognized it for the expensive failure that it is, and maintain their programs despite enormous societal, fiscal and human costs.
As reported in this issue of PLN, we recently settled our lawsuit against the Sacramento County jail, which had censored PLN under the pretext that our pUblication is bound with staples and has address labels. The case was hard-fought but we prevailed, obtaining a preliminary injunction and then a consent decree, damages and attorney fees thanks to excellent legal representation from the San Francisco-based law firm of Rosen, Bien, Galvan & Grunfeld LLP, and our inhouse litigation director Lance Weber and staff attorney Alissa Hull. We are grateful to our legal team for winning the case and ensuring that the 2,000+ prisoners in the Sacramento County jail system can now receive PLN and other publications with staples and address labels.
As part of the overall decimation of civil liberties and free speech in the U.S., efforts at censoring publications like Prison Legal News, and mail to and from prisoners and detainees in general, are

increasing. We have had to dedicate a significant portion of our meager resources to combat these efforts at unlawful censorship. Despite the win in Sacramento, we still have censorship cases pending against the state prison systems in Florida and New York, and against jails in Oregon, Arizona, Louisiana and Michigan. We are strongly committed to ensuring that prisoners can receive P LN and the books we distribute.
In the latter regard, we have added a number of new titles to our book list, including several on criminal law and procedure which many PLN readers had requested. Please review our book catalog on pages 53 and 54 for the latest additions. We will be running reviews of the new books in upcoming issues of PLN.
If you can make a donation to help support our news reporting, litigation and advocacy efforts, please do so. Every donation, no matter how small, helps; the cost of a subscription to PLN does not cover all of our operating costs. Donations are tax deductible for those who pay taxes.
Please enjoy this issue of PLN, and
encourage others to subscribe. In

Maryland Women Prisoners Sew Commemorative 1812 Flags

I n July 2011, prisoners at the Maryland Correctional Institution for Women in Jessup were busy sewing 1812-style flags to be flown at Maryland public buildings.
The plan was to replace the state's old flags with the 1812-style flags, which have 15 stars and 15 stripes, in time for the bicentennial of the War of 1812. The women prisoners engaged in that task are employed with Maryland Correctional Enterprises (MCE).
According to MCE public relations officer Renata Seergae, "The goal is to train [prisoners] ... so when they are released they don't wind up back in here." According to Seergae, the women who work in the sewing program produce approximately 700 state and U.S. flags a year, and are paid between $1.25 and $3.85 per hour.
Prisoners who were interviewed indicated they were proud of their work.

One, Julia Applegate, said she had been sewing flags for three years and enjoyed the fact that they would be flown in front of Maryland state buildings.
Another, Natasha Fowlkes, was responsible for supervising and training the other prisoners. She said she had no prior sewing experience before she came to prison, but now appreciates the technical beauty inherent in flags. She mentioned that she hoped to be a "professional flag lady" one day.
There are, however, relatively few freeworld businesses that manufacture flags. While prison industry programs purportedly teach prisoners job skills to assist with their reentry to society following their release, the MCE's flag program appears to benefit the state - which receives low-cost flags - more than the women prisoners who produce them. ,.
Source: Baltimore Sun

August 2012

10

Prison Legal News

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 11 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96 Filed 09/13/12 Page 12 of 25

The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Brandon Sample
978 .. 0 .. 9819385 .. 1M6 Paperback, 224 pages
The Habeas Citebook: ineffective Assistance of Counsel is the first in a series of books by Prison legal News Publishing designed to help pn.)*se prisoner litigants identify and raise viable ctaimsfor potential habeas corpus reliet This book isan invaluable resource that identifies hundreds of cases where the federal courts have granted habeas relief to prisoners whose attorneys provided ineffective assistance of counsel.

Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the United States and Canada, 3rd Edition Jon Marc Taylor ISBN: 978..0..9819385,,0·9 Paperback, 224 Pages

The greaUy anticipated and newl'y updated third edition of the Prisoner's Guerrilla

Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the United States and Canada has

finally arrived! Author Jon Marc Taylor's brand new version is the latest in this

unique and highly successful guidebooK for the prisoner-student This Invaluab1e

tool and

handbook provides the reader with

instructions to

find the appropriate education program for correspondence high schooL vocahonal1

paralegal, undergraduate, and

courses offered in the U.S. and Canada today.

Prisonerst Self-Help Litigation Manual! 4th Edition

John 'Boston &: Dan Manvi1le

ISBN:

..1

PaperbaCKI 960 pages

Prisoners" Setf-Help Litigation Manual. in its much-artticipated fourth editionj
is an indispensable guide for prisoner litiganisand prisoner advocates seeking to
understand the rights guaranteed to prisoners by law $iod how to protect those rights. Ciear.comprehensive, practical advice provides prisoners wlth everything
they need to know on cooditi()os of confinement. civil liberties in prison, procedural due process, the legal system, how to actually litigate, conducling
effective legal research. and wdting legal documents, It is a. roadmap on hO\N
to win lawsuits.

I

o Habeas Cltebook.

Order by mail, phc:me, or on-line. Amount enclosed

I

Assistance of Counsel

I

$49,95
o Prisoners' Guerrilla Guide to

By: 0 check 0 new postage stamps o credit card 0 money order I

Correspondence Programs

Name ___ __"__

I

'Jr4"

I

o 'Prisoners' Utigation Manual

DOC/80'1> Number ___ __ __"..._._.___ ___.. .._".__ ___"_____.".._._.",,". I

InstitutionlAgency _"""""._."_"'___._""__'.__..

.._'''............""""._...".__..................."."......_. I

I

$45.,95

Address;

Shipping included In all prices

____

____

_.. ZIP

Prison Legal News

PO Box 2420 • West Brattleborol VT 05303 Tel [802]257-t342- www.prisonlegainews.org

11

August 2012

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 12 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96 Filed 09/13/12 Page 13 of 25

Hawaii Audit Finds Offenders Rarely Pay Restitution Owed

T hirteen years after the Hawaii Office of the Auditor issued a report critical of the state jUdiciary's efforts to collect restitution payments from offenders, only a small fraction of tens of millions of dollars in restitution has been collected, which has left crime victims upset at what they perceive as a continuing injustice.
According to a series of articles published in the Star-Advertiser in June 2011, Hawaii had approximately 6,000 prisoners, 1,800 parolees and 20,000 people on probation or other court-ordered supervision who collectively owed around $25.5 million in restitution as of June 30, 2010. Prisoners and parolees were responsible for $15 million of that amount, of which at least $800,000 has been collected - though an "antiquated" computer management system has prevented officials from tracking the actual collection rate.
Restitution is based on a victim's losses, but the amount an offender is ordered to pay depends on his or her financial resources and ability to make payments, which can be as little as $10 a month. Because ex-offenders are often unemployed and have few assets, however,
A Jailhouse Lawyer's Manual (9th ed.) and Immigration &
Consular Access Supplement
The JLM released its new 9th edition in April 2011. The JLM explains prisoners' rights, and helps them to navigate the justice system using federal, state, and New York law. It can help prisoners: • Learn the law and go to court • Appeal their conviction or sentence • Get conditional or early release • Receive adequate medical care • Protect their civil liberties • Enforce their right to religious freedom The Supplement explains the immigration law consequences of prisoners' convictions, and their right to contact their consulate.
Prisoners: The JLM is $30. The Supplement is $5. Prices include first class shipping.
Institutions & Lawyers: The JLM is $100. The Supplement is $20. Prices exclude shipping.
We accept checks and money orders only. We ' cannot accept stamps or credit cards. We accept purchase orders from institutions only. Send orders and questions to:
Columbia Human Rights Law Review ATTN: JLM ORDER 435 West 116th Street New York, NY 10027
Or email: jlm.board.mail@gmail.com
The JLM is published by the Columbia Human Rights Law Review at Columbia University School of Law. Visit us online at: http://www3.law.columbia.edu/hrlr/ejlm.php

even that small amount may go unpaid. And while probation officers have the authority to revoke probation for nonpayment of restitution, such sanctions are rarely imposed.
Rather, probation officials tend to work with probationers to help them complete drug or anger management programs, find jobs, make progress in their rehabilitative efforts and become productive citizens. A major public safety goal is to help offenders reintegrate into society without committing future crimes, and that goal supersedes restitution payments. Additionally, if probationers are incarcerated for failing to pay restitution, they still would be unable to pay while sitting in prison or jail.
Prisoners who owe restitution have 10 percent of their wages collected by the Hawaii Department of Public Safety. As prison wages are just 25 cents per hour, that does not amount to much. Legislation signed into law on June 21, 2012 (SB 2776) will increase the percentage collected for restitution payments to 25 percent "of the total of all moneys earned, new deposits, and credits to the inmate's individual account." For parolees, typically 10 to 20 percent of their wages are collected by parole officers for restitution payments.
Stakeholders involved in the restitution issue fall into three general groups: 1) victim advocates, 2) those concerned with offender reintegration and 3) those in charge of overseeing collection efforts. A fourth group - the offenders who owe restitution - typically have no voice in the matter.
To victim advocates, the criminal justice system is not placing enough emphasis on justice for victims. Pamela Ferguson-Brey, executive director of the Crime Victim Compensation Commission, said the system should be "more victim-driven."
"There's not enough concern about the impact of the crime, the financial, physical and emotional impact on the victim, and how we are going to make sure they become whole again," she stated.
The majority of victims have not received full restitution; according to the Crime Victim Compensation Commission, only 22% of the prisoners and parolees the Commission has monitored since 2003 have paid the full amount of restitution owed.
Deputy public defender Susan Arnett has a different perspective on the restitution issue. She noted that her office's clients are often indigent and unable to

find employment due to the stigma of their

criminal convictions.

"I honestly don't think the problem is

people out there with a significant ability

to pay who aren't paying," she said. In

her view, the idea that the courts should

be functioning as a collection agency

working on behalf of victims, without

taking into account the larger problem of

ex-offenders having difficulty finding jobs,

is "a little too simplistic."

As mentioned above, probation of-

ficials seek a middle ground, trying to

balance the goal of reintegrating offend-

ers into the community with the goal of

collecting court-ordered restitution. Pro-

bation officials have noted that by finding

employers willing to hire ex-prisoners,

both goals can be achieved.

On the administrative side, the in-

ability of Hawaii's existing computer

management system to generate accurate

statistical reports makes it nearly impos-

sible to assess the success or failure of

restitution collection efforts. According

to Susan Howley, public policy director of

the National Center for Victims of Crime,

Hawaii, like other states, needs to do a

better job of monitoring restitution.

"Until you start tracking what's out-

standing, it's hard to get agencies to focus

their attention on the problem, and see the

scope of the problem," Howley observed.

"The judge's sentence, the recognition

that the defendant should pay, is often

disregarded with no consequences, and

that causes crime victims to lose faith in

the criminal justice system."

Ferguson-Brey agreed, stating, "Many

victims feel betrayed." At the same time,

though, she acknowledged that very few

offenders have adequate assets at their

disposal to pay the restitution they owe.

Responding to a 1998 state audit that

was critical of the restitution collection

process, Hawaii's judiciary established the

position of victims assistance coordinator

to address the concerns of victims. Noreen

Kishimoto, who has occupied that posi-

tion for around a decade, estimates that

she receives 200 to 300 calls a year from

victims, many of whom are frustrated by

nonpayment of restitution.

Kishimoto's role,

is limited.

She follows up on complaints about res-

titution with calls to probation officers,

who in turn contact the offenders. She also

sends out 500-600 delinquency notices

each year directly to offenders when their

August 2012

12

Prison Legal News

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 13 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96 Filed 09/13/12 Page 14 of 25

payments are 120 days overdue. Roughly one-third of those who receive the notices eventually comply, she said.
When victims question why they are not receiving higher amounts of restitution, or why the payments decrease, all Kishimoto can do is explain that the payments are based on an offender's ability to pay, which fluctuates.
Victims can also turn to the Crime Victim Compensation Commission for monetary compensation. Established in 1967, the Commission awards from $600,000 to more than $1 million annually to victims of violent crime.
Civil lawsuits are another option for crime victims seeking compensation. While it's relatively easy under Hawaii state law to get a civil judgment for the amount of outstanding restitution, enforcing the judgment is an entirely different matter. In fact it's extremely difficult because attorneys are rarely willing to take such cases; the amount of restitution is usually very small, thus many lawyers feel it's not worth their time and effort.
Plus there's the fact that most offenders have few assets or income to satisfy a civil judgment which goes back to the need for offenders to receive resources and services to help them obtain stable employment. Indeed, if victims' advocates truly want to ensure that victims receive the restitution they are owed, then they should support programs that reintegrate ex-prisoners into the community and help them find jobs.

Sources: hawaii.gov

www.capitol.

Prisoner Lacked Standing to Challenge Georgia's Failure to Send Absentee Ballot to Jail

T he Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held on February 2, 2012 that a former Georgia jail prisoner lacked standing to complain that state and local officials had failed to mail his absentee ballot to the jail, which prevented him from voting.
In anticipation of the November 4, 2008 presidential election, staff at the DeKalb County Jail held voter registration drives and encouraged prisoners to register to vote and apply for absentee ballots. Prisoner Hassan Swann was among those who completed an applica-
for an absentee ballot. He wrote his home address in DeKalb County on the line labeled "address as registered," but left blank the space for "address ballot to be mailed" because he didn't know the jail's address.
On September 29, 2008, Maxine Daniels, DeKalb County's assistant director of registrations and elections, informed jail officials she would not mail absentee ballots to the jail. She said state law prohibited such ballots for non-disabled voters to be mailed to another address within the same county.
Swann's absentee ballot was sent to his registered home address, but he never received it and was thus unable to vote. Jail officials had set up a drop box for relatives to leave prisoners' absentee ballots. Swann said he was unaware of the drop box. He and another prisoner, David A. Hartfield, filed a complaint in federal court arguing

that the state law that prohibited them from receiving a ballot at the jail was unconstitutional. They also alleged due process violations.
The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding no constitutional violation. On appeal the Eleventh Circuit said the district court should have determined if Swann had standing to bring the lawsuit. The appellate court held it did not need to decide if Swann had suffered an injury, because his non-receipt of an absentee ballot was not fairly traceable to the challenged actions of the defendants.
"Swann's lawsuit is based on an imaginary set of facts: an imaginary request to send his ballot to the jail and an imaginary refusal on the ballot clerk's part to send a ballot to him," the Court of Appeals wrote. "Swann asked the ballot clerk to mail Swann's absentee ballot to Swann's house - no other address was given in the application for the ballot and the clerk says a ballot was sent to Swann's house. Nothing wrongful can arise from those facts."
Swann's contention that even if he had provided the jail's address on his application the ballot would not have been sent to the jail was speculative, the appellate court found. The Eleventh Circuit therefore vacated the district court's judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See: Swann v. Secretary, State of Georgia, 668 F.3d 1285 (11 til Cir. 2012).

Prison Legal News

13

August 2012

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 14 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96 Filed 09/13/12 Page 15 of 25

Federal BOP to Let Prisoners Have MP3 Players

T he u.s. Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has announced that it will allow federal prisoners to purchase MP3 music players, which were first tested at Federal Prison Camp Alderson, a women's facility in West Virginia. The policy change, expected to be implemented throughout the BOP system in 2012, was hailed as a "positive step" by prisoners' rights groups.
Various studies have indicated that keeping prisoners occupied with positive leisure-time activities is to everyone's benefit. David Fathi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's National Prison Project, stated that providing prisoners with access to music "allows for an important connection [to life on the outside] that assists with their eventual re-entry" to society.
Initial reaction was mixed, however, with Republican U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley, who serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee, saying it was "difficult to see how all of the necessary safeguards can be put into place to stop prisoners from using MP3 players as bargaining chips or other malicious devices.... It appears to be a risky endeavor and raises a lot of questions that need to be answered."
Senator Grassley did not provide details as to what could be risky or what questions should be answered. Similarly, the president of the Council of Prison Locals, Dale Deshotel, indicated that unionized prison employees had reservations about the program, though he didn't specify what those concerns were.
The MP3 players will not be connected to the Internet, but instead will download approved songs through the BOP's secure computer system, TRULINCS, which has filtering software and records all emails and services accessed by prisoners. MP3 players will be sold in prison commissaries and prisoners can load them with songs from a playlist of about one million titles, stated BOP spokeswoman Traci Billingsley.
According to Billingsley, after startup expenses are paid, revenue from the MP3 sales will go to the BOP's Inmate Trust Fund, which pays for recreational services for prisoners. "The MP3 program is intended to help inmates deal with issues such as idleness, stress and boredom associated with incarceration," she said. MP3 players sold to prisoners at FPC Alderson during the testing period cost around $70,

plus $.80 to $1.55 per song. The MP3 devices that will be made
available to federal prisoners will be supplied by Advanced Technologies Group, Inc., which has a two-year, $5.15 million contract with the BOP. Certain songs will not be allowed, including those with explicit, obscene or racist lyrics.
MP3 players and music downloads are also available in several state prison

systems, such as Michigan, Alaska, Idaho, Mississippi, Ohio and Oklahoma, and are provided through Access Corrections, a division of Keefe Group. Prisoners can buy MP3 players from the commissary and then load them with songs through special kiosks. ,.
Sources: USA Today, Wl'VW. correctionsone. com, www.keefegroup.com

$975,000 Award to Former Prisoner Who Gave Birth in Seattle, Washington Jail

A federal jury in Washington State has awarded $975,000 to a mentally ill woman who gave birth in a cell at the King County Correctional Facility (KCCF). The jury found both the county and jail staff liable on federal constitutional and state law negligence claims.
Imka Pope was sleeping in a city bus shelter when she was arrested for criminal trespass on November 15, 1997 and booked into KCCF. It was immediately apparent that she was not only pregnant, but also suffering from mental illness. Her initial jail assessment disclosed she was exhibiting such illogical and disorganized thought processes that staff were unable to communicate with her or determine her name.
Several KCCF staff members screened Pope. Jail employee Vicki Shumaker performed an intake screening, registered nurse (RN) Sean Dumas performed a medical screening and RN James Ilika conducted a psychological intake screening. None of them noted on their respective forms that Pope was pregnant, nor did they refer her for additional evaluation or treatment.
The day after her arrest, RN Paul Jerksey saw Pope for a "psychiatric housing initial assessment." He noted that she was mentally ill and talked to herself "constantly." Following that assessment Pope was placed in an isolation cell, where she neglected her personal hygiene and refused to leave. Jail employees observed that she "decompensated" but provided no care other than having medical and security staff check on her periodically.
Guard Todd McComas conducted fifteen-minute checks on Pope on November 21, 1997. She informed him that she was pregnant and going into labor. "McComas walked away without even telling

Ms. Pope that he would get help for her, and he did nothing for her until after she had given birth alone in her cell," according to an amended complaint in a lawsuit filed on Pope's behalf.
The county's own jail-practices expert concluded that KCCF staff "probably did this because they believe she's just mentally ill, she's just pretending to have a baby."
The lawsuit was not filed until 2007, but because Pope was incompetent or disabled to such a degree that she could not understand the nature of the legal claims, the statute of limitations was tolled.
On February 3, 2012, a U.S. District Court jury found that Pope's right to adequate medical treatment had been violated, and McComas, Jerksey, Dumas, guard Doyle Hustead and nurse Marieclaire Healy were liable under constitutional or negligence claims. McComas and Hustead were also held liable on a claim of outrage, while Ilika was found not liable. King County was held liable for failing to adequately train and supervise staff at the jail.
The jury awarded $850,000 in compensatory damages for pain, suffering and emotional distress, plus punitive damages of $50,000 against McComas and $75,000 against Hustead, for a total of $975,000. The awards will be paid from the county's risk-management fund.
Pope was homeless and had been living in California, but her attorneys brought her to Seattle prior to the trial. Before the verdict was entered, she was begging for change. See: Pope v. McComas, U.S.D.C. (W.D. Wash.), Case No. 2:07-cv-01191-RSM. ,.
Additional sources: Seattle Times, Huffington Post

August 2012

14

Prison Legal News

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 15 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96 Filed 09/13/12 Page 16 of 25

California Pays $295,000 to Settle Religious Discrimination Lawsuit by Sikh Barred from Employment as Prison Guard

I n August 2011, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) settled a religious discrimination suit filed by Trilochan Oberoi, a Sikh, who was barred from becoming a prison guard because he refused to shave his beard, which was required by his religion.
In exchange for dismissal of the lawsuit, the CDCR agreed to pay Oberoi $295,000 and hire him as a manager in a $61,000-a-year job in the department's Regulation and Policy Management Branch.
Under the terms of the settlement agreement, prison officials admitted no liability and did not have to change their policy requiring most male employees to be free of facial hair so they can be fitted with gas masks.
In March 2005, Oberoi, 59, applied for a position as a guard at Folsom State Prison. Roughly one year later he reported for a pre-employment examination where he was to be fitted for a gas mask. Since 2004, CDCR policy has required gas masks to fit tightly to protect guards from tear gas and pepper spray used when responding to disturbances.
When he appeared for his examination, however, Oberoi was not clean-shaven and thus could not be fitted with a gas mask. Consequently, the CDCR refused to hire him.
"The wearing of the beard, keeping hair, is part of my religion," Oberoi said. In 2009 he filed a complaint in Sacramento County Superior Court alleging religious discrimination. He

argued that, insofar as the CDCR had adopted a grooming policy that allowed employees with certain medical conditions to wear beards up to one inch in length, it should make similar allowances for Sikhs, Muslims, Orthodox Jews and others whose religion requires that they keep their facial hair.
"Why should those who cannot shave for religious reasons be treated differently from those who cannot shave for medical reasons?" asked a group of organizations, including the ACLU of Northern California, Asian Law Caucus, Council on American Islamic Relations-California, Sikh Coalition, Asian American Bar Association and Bay Area Association of Muslim Lawyers, in a letter sent to Attorney General Kamala Harris.
In June 2011, the superior court denied the CDCR's motion for summary judgment and allowed Oberoi's claims of disparate treatment and disparate impact to proceed. The settlement agreement followed two months later, on August 10, 2011, after state officials learned that the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division was investigating the way the CDCR was handling the case. Oberoi was represented by the San Francisco law firm of Dhillon & Smith. See: Oberoi v. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Sacramento County Superior Court (CA), Case No. 34-2009-00054595.
Additional sources: Associated Press, www.msnbc.msn. COIn, www.abclocal. go. com

I T
CONNECTIONS,com
Ii ConvidPenPals.com!
465 nE 181:.;=308 Oe:ptPUi Portland OR 97230
Sin<:e2002 - Write for fREf!:mx:tA.l!eI

..,

I

I,OURSELVES Our Bodies, [• • • •jlJJ• • Ourselves

. -€ is a highly

••

praised

8.$.&O:-ii •.:;/'. . . .t • "8<i

classic and vital

resource

for women of all ages with important

information about every aspect of

their health and well-being. This

newly revised edition gives women

everything they need for making key

decisions about their health - from

definitive information from today's

leading experts to personal stories

from other women just like them.

$26 + $6 S&H for all orders under $50.
Order by mail, phone, or on-line from
Prison Legal News PO Box 2420
West Brattleboro, VT 05303 Tel (802) 257-1342
www.prisonlegalnews.org

Prison Legal News

• Correspondence Courses via mail • No internet access required

• Degree options available - Associate of Arts or Science, Bachelor degrees in Accounting, Business Administration, Government, History, Interdisciplinary Studies, Legal Studies, Management, Marketing, Sociology, Paralegal Certificate Program

• Affordable tuition - $16s/semester hour for correspondence courses Payment options include cashiers check, credit card, money order or verified personal check
• Accredited by the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools

Great Stmies Begin Here EXTENDED STUDIES
Call or write to receive additional information - 800-548-6679 Adams State University

• 16+ years of experience serving incarcerated students • FREE unofficial evaluation of previously earned credits

Office of Extended Studies, Suite 3000 208 Edgemont Blvd. Alamosa, CO 81101

15

August 2012

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 16 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96 Filed 09/13/12 Page 17 of 25

California Supreme Court Restricts Lifer Parole Challenges

I n its second review in three years of a state prisoner's habeas corpus petition seeking review of an adverse parole decision, on December 29,2011 the California Supreme Court again reversed the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Div. 1, which had ordered a new hearing after finding that the Board of Parole's decision to deny parole was not supported by "some evidence."
Richard Shaputis was sentenced to 17 years to life for second-degree murder in the 1987 shooting death of his wife. He was found suitable for parole in 2006, after a state appellate court ordered a new parole hearing with restrictions on the Board of Paroles' (Board) exercise of discretion. Former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger reversed the Board, which was subsequently overturned by the appellate court. On the state's petition for review, the California Supreme Court reversed, thus upholding the Governor's decision. See: In re Shaputis, 44 Cal.4th 1241, 190 P.3d 573 (Cal. 2008) (Shaputis l) [PLN, April 2009, p.30].
Shaputis had a new Board hearing in 2009, wherein he was denied parole. The appellate court, finding no evidence in the record to support the Board's decision, again granted his habeas petition and ordered the Board to conduct yet another hearing. The California Supreme Court granted the state's petition for review of this latest appellate ruling and again reversed leaving Shaputis, 75 years old and medically infirm, to wait three years for another parole hearing.
The unanimous Supreme Court made several significant holdings in its December 29,2011 ruling. The Court asserted that while Shaputis' decision to not speak to either the Board's psychologist or the Board itself could not per se be held against him, the absence of such information and testimony could not be used as a shield to prevent the Board, in rendering an unsuitability decision, from relying on older evidence in the record.
The Supreme Court emphatically held that a candidate for parole can not evade the Board's inquiry into his current dangerousness by hiring a private psychologist to prepare a favorable report, while refusing to cooperate with a Board psychologist who might issue adverse findings. Ironically, Shaputis hired a private expert only after he had asked the Board for a new psych evaluation and they responded that he didn't need one. Thus, his

use of a private psychologist was neither evasive nor manipulative. The Court clarified that the Board is not bound by the most recent evidence in the record (e.g., a current psych evaluation) and may, upon finding reason to discredit newer reports, rely on older ones.
The Supreme Court further settled an ongoing complaint in recent California lifer habeas petitions regarding the Board's use of the parole denial factor "lack of insight" subsequent to the Court's 2008 ruling in Shaputis I, which had crafted that language. Lifers thereafter found that their parole denials were routinely being grounded in the talismanic factor "lack of insight," notwithstanding that the Board's regulations do not mention that term.
The Court explained that the concept of "lack of insight" fits within the Board's existing regulatory factors of "past and present attitude toward the crime" and "understands the nature and magnitUde of the offense." The Supreme Court stated that "the regulatory suitability and unsuitability factors are not intended to function as comprehensive objective standards." Observing that "a finding on insight is no more SUbjective or conclusory than a finding on the inmate's 'past and present mental state,'" the Court wrote that "the inmate's insight into not just the commitment offense, but also his or her other antisocial behavior, is a proper consideration."
Reaffirming the "some evidence" standard of judicial review of lifer parole decisions that it established in In re Rosenkrantz, 29 Cal.4th 616, 59 P.3d 174 (Cal. 2002) [PLN, July 2003, p.30], and followed in In re Lawrence, 44 Cal.4th 1181, 190 P.3d 535 (Cal. 2008) [PLN, April 2009, p.30], the Supreme Court emphasized that the proper role of the judiciary in such matters was limited to reviewing whether the Board's decision was arbitrary, capricious or procedurally defective. The question of which evidence the Board (or Governor) relied upon, or the credibility of that evidence, or the weight given to the evidence, was solely the function of the executive branch and beyond the scope of judicial reevaluation.
Thus, the existence of a mere "modicum" of evidence in the record is sufficient to bar the judiciary from reviewing the merits of parole decisions by the executive branch. Moreover, the Court explained, judicial deference to the executive branch permitted such a "modicum" to be present

anywhere within the entire record before the Board (or the Governor) - not just within the evidence expressly cited in the parole decision statement.
Reviewing the record that had been before the Board in Shaputis' 2009 parole hearing, the Supreme Court found (as it did in Shaputis I) that the record still provided the requisite "some evidence" to support the Board's finding of parole' unsuitability. The Court held that the Board had acted well within its discretion to reject the conclusions of the private psychologist hired by Shaputis, where the Board found those conclusions to be inconsistent with the record. Likewise, the Court determined that the Board had acted within its discretion to give little credibility to Shaputis' prepared written statement of remorse and insight after he declined to speak at his parole hearing.
To guide future judicial reviews of parole decisions, after noting that California Courts of Appeal had been "confused" about the proper scope of review, the Supreme Court set forth five "relevant considerations" :
1. The essential question in deciding whether to grant parole is whether the prisoner currently poses a threat to public safety.
2. That question is posed first to the Board and then to the Governor, who draw their answers from the entire record, including the facts of the offense, the prisoner's progress during incarceration and the insight he or she has achieved into past behavior.
3. The prisoner has a right to decline to participate in psychological evaluation and in the parole hearing itself. That decision may not be held against the prisoner. Equally, however, it may not limit the Board or the Governor in their evaluation of all the evidence.
4. Judicial review is conducted under the highly deferential "some evidence" standard. The executive decision of the Board or the Governor is to be upheld unless it is arbitrary or procedurally flawed. The court must review the entire record to determine whether a modicum of evidence supports the parole suitability decision.
5. The reviewing court does not ask whether the prisoner is currently dangerous. That question is reserved for the executive branch. Rather, the court considers whether there is a rational nexus between the evidence and the ultimate determination

August 2012

16

Prison Legal News

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 17 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96 Filed 09/13/12 Page 18 of 25

of current dangerousness. The court is not empowered to reweigh the evidence.
In summary, with this second decision in Shaputis' case the California Supreme Court has elevated "lack of insight" into a central factor for the Board to consider when determining parole suitability. The Court also substantially reduced the "wig-

gle room" for California courts to review challenges to lifer parole denials, except those without a "modicum" of supporting evidence anywhere in the record.
Pending its resolution of this case, the Supreme Court had granted "review and hold" on four other appellate rulings in lifer parole challenges (In re Macias,

S189107; In re Adamar, S190226; In re Loveless, S190625; and In re Russo, S193197). Following its decision, the Court remanded those cases for reconsideration consistent with this ruling. See: In re Shaputis, 53 Ca1.4th 192, 265 P.3d 253 (Cal. 2011) (Shaputis II), rehearing denied.

CA Court of Appeal: Documents Identifying Suppliers of Execution Drug are Public Records

On December 20, 2011, a California Court of Appeal held that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) may not withhold the names of pharmaceutical companies and other sources from which it sought to acquire a drug used in the state's lethal injection protocol, when a request for that information is made pursuant to the California Public Records Act (CPRA), Government Code § 6250 et seq.
In October 2010, the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California (ACLU) submitted a CPRA request for documents related to the CDCR's acquisition and use of sodium thiopental, the first of three drugs administered to condemned prisoners when they are executed. The CDCR declined to tum over the requested records and the ACLU filed a petition for writ of mandamus in San Francisco Superior Court.
In February 2011, relying on its perception of a "potential problem with boycott and business interests," the Superior Court allowed the CDCR to withhold, among other information, the names of pharmaceutical companies and other businesses and individuals the CDCR had contacted in order to acquire sodium thiopental.
The ACLU appealed, and the 1st District Court of Appeal found that "the

passionate nature of the death penalty debate ... heightens public interest" in the requested documents and "justifies nondisclosure only to the extent [the CDCR] may show that disclosure of that information would pose a potential security threat of some sort" to the pharmaceutical companies or other entities from which the CDCR tried to obtain the drug.
On the merits, the Court of Appeal held that no evidence in the record supported the trial court's determination that the requested records would pose a potential security threat. With respect to the possibility of an economic boycott of the companies involved, the appellate court noted that the CDCR had explicitly disassociated itself from that argument, and thus concluded that the Superior Court's ruling was "based, at least in part, on a judicially perceived threat not credited by CDCR." See: A CLU v. Superior Court, 202 Cal. AppAth 55,134 Cal. Rptr.3d 472 (Cal. App. 1 Dist. 2011).
States have

been scrambling to find new supplies of execution drugs after the overseas companies that produce them have increasingly banned them for use in lethal injections. [See: PLN, June 2011, p.1]. Several states are turning to different execution protocols, including Arizona, Ohio, South Dakota, Idaho, Texas and Washington. On July 18, 2012, Texas used a single dose of pentobarbital to execute prisoner Yokamon Hearn, 33. Other states, such as Missouri, have switched to a different drug
propofol- for lethal injections. "
Additional sources: Metropolitan NewsEnterprise, www. timesonline. com, www. abcnews.go. com

.
,.......

E;ecutiyeClemen¢y:
. ':",. .:" .\;:;::-:'> .:;> >:. ," ,": .", .. ::;:.. ".:" ....... '. :.>

.• ·.;

..

'" .

,·,.·.· .. " .. · · · · · · · . · · ' i · · · · · · ·

.

(Transfers

Int'l£risonerTreaty)

,';; .: . . . . . . . . . . . .' .;. . . . :

.. "

.

"

',. . · .. ·,.;:1'

Prison Legal News

17

August 2012

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 18 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96 Filed 09/13/12 Page 19 of 25

Florida Town Rallies to Stop CCA Immigration Detention Facility

by David M. Reutter

R esidents in a South Florida community near a proposed 1,500-bed privately-operated iriunigration detention center waged a successful yearlong opposition campaign that culminated in the cancellation of the project in June 2012.
Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) purchased a 24-acre plot in the town of Southwest Ranches 15 years ago, with the intention of eventually building a prison or detention facility on the property. The land was located just outside the city of Pembroke Pines near an existing state women's prison, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) preliminarily selected the site for a detention center in 20 IO. ICE contracts with CCA to operate 13 facilities nationwide that hold immigration detainees.
Documents filed in Broward County by Southwest Ranches officials described ICE's intention. "ICE requires approximately 1,500 to 2,000 new detention beds to meet local demand in the Miami Metropolitan area. Ideally, this demand would be met by one 1,000-1,500 bed facility, with the capacity to expand to 2,000 beds."
The proposed CCA-run facility, the Southwest Ranches Detention Center, would be almost three times the size of the Krome Detention Center in Miami, making it the largest such facility in South Florida. CCA said the $75 million prison would create 300 "stable, well-paying local jobs and careers," and would be "community friendly."
Residents in Pembroke Pines, however, didn't buy the company's PR pitch. "We are concerned about an increase in crline, and increases in traffic," said Ryann Greenberg, a member of Residents Against SW Ranches ICE Detention Center, who noted the facility would be located near residential areas and several schools.
Residents envisioned seeing armed guards watching busloads of prisoners and escapees prowling local neighborhoods. They also were concerned about the negative impact on property values, liability issues and the burden on the city's public services as a result of the proposed detention center.
Greenberg and other citizens opposed to the CCA facility formed a Facebook page, staged public protests, put up "no prison" signs, distributed fliers, filed

public records requests, circulated a petition and packed city hall to express their concerns.
At the behest of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, local officials were encouraged to say little about the immigration detention center project. "The less we say, the better off we will be," Southwest Ranches attorney Keith Poliakoff said in an email to town leaders. Southwest Ranches stood to benefit financially from the CCA facility - the company indicated it would pay the town $1.5 million a year, including $350,000 in property taxes.
A contract signed with Southwest Ranches in 2005 gave CCA the right to build whatever it wanted on the property it owned. "Legally, this facility can be built today as of right," said Poliakoff. "If the owner came in for a building permit to develop the site tomorrow, the town would legally have to issue the permit and construction could immediately commence."
There were reportedly 27 public hearings on the matter before the contract was signed, though they apparently were not well publicized, as local residents caught off guard when CCA and ICE began moving ahead with the detention center. Protestors attended an October 2011 hearing on Pembroke Pine's contract with Southwest Ranches to provide water, sewer, fire and emergency medical services for the proposed CCA facility.
"We want them to rescind the contract so it doesn't include water and fire/ EMS services for the detention center," Greenberg said. "If this detention center doesn't have water and sewer, it can't exist. In the agreement, [the contract language specifies], 'the willingness to provide these services,' and Pembroke Pines residents are not willing to provide this service, because we don't want [the facility] near our homes, schools or even our community."
U.S. Representative Debbie Wasserman entered the fray by issuing a letter in support of the proposed detention center, but criticized town officials for their silence on the issue. Broward County's property appraiser, Lori Parrish, also issued a statement about the property owned by CCA in Southwest Ranches.
Parrish cited potential tax evasion by the company. CCA had purchased the

land for $5 million while it was appraised at $3 million, resulting in a property tax bill of approximately $60,000. However, CCA was only paying $3,000 because it used a loophole in Florida law that allows agricultural tax' exemptions when cows are on the property. CCA leased the land for $10 a year to the Green Glades Cattle Co., a business owned by property developer Ron Bergeron, who had sold the property to CCA. The company's use of Bergeron's "rent-a-cow" business let it exploit the tax loophole.
"They don't make money on the lease. It's not to have the property make money on [the agricultural exemption]. In my opinion, it's tax avoidance," said Parrish.
County appraiser photos from December 2010 showed no cows on the site, but CCA spokesman Steve Owen attributed that to rotation of the cows from property to property. The tax exemption applies even if cows are on the land for only one day per year.
Beyond the property tax issue, the fight against the CCA detention center heated up in early 2011 as residents petitioned city officials in Pembroke Pines to take action against the facility. "They're selling our towns to lobbyists and special interests," said Greenberg.
They were joined by other activists, including the Florida Immigrant Coalition (FLIC), which was at the forefront of the issue and organized meetings and protests, set up a website (www.ccagoaway. org) and advocated against the proposed immigration detention center. They also learned that ICE had not conducted an environmental impact study when selecting the Southwest Ranches site.
"Some residents wanted to push the message that criminals were coming into their community and that they would lose their safety, but the facts showed that the enemy was CCA and that the detainees were victims of a profit-driven system that puts their health, safety, their very lives at risk so CCA could make more money," FLIC stated.
The city commissioners for Pembroke Pines listened, and on March 7, 2012 voted to withdraw from their agreement with Southwest Ranches to provide water, sewer, fire and emergency medical services to the proposed CCA facility, despite having received conflicting legal opinions as

August 2012

18

Prison Legal News

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 19 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96 Filed 09/13/12 Page 20 of 25

to whether they were obligated to honor the contract.
CCA filed a federal lawsuit against Pembroke Pines the very next day, arguing that the city was interfering with the company's plans to build the detention center. See: CCA v. City of Pembroke Pines, U.S.D.C. (S.D. Fla.), Case No. 0: 12-cv-60427-WJZ.
The city in turn sued CCA in state court, seeking a declaratory judgment as to whether it was within its rights to withdraw from the agreement with Southwest Ranches, which included a nine-month termination for convenience provision. Further, CCA was not a party to that contract, which expressly disclaimed third-party beneficiaries. See: City of Pembroke Pines v. CCA, Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit for Broward County (FL), Case No. 12-7337.
Officials in Southwest Ranches and Pembroke Pines also engaged in a series of conflict resolution discussions, though little progress was made, with the former accusing the latter of breach of contract. "If you provide water and sewer to CCA, then this issue will go away," Southwest Ranches Mayor Jeff Nelson said to city commissioners for Pembroke Pines.
Ultimately, though, it was the federal government that decided the issue. On June 15, 2012, ICE announced it no longer needed a detention center in the area, effectively killing the proposed CCA prison. "ICE has reevaluated its need for an additional detention facility in South Florida and has decided that it will no longer pursue a facility in the Town of Southwest Ranches," the agency said in a written statement.
"It's a great day!" exclaimed Pembroke Pines resident Heidi Jones. "We're just very, very grateful. It was a very long fight. It's been a yearlong battle and there was always doubt [that we'd win.] I just knew there had to be some voice of reason somewhere and we just had to keep throwing everything at it we could."
"Having ICE walk away from this detention center is definitely a step in the right direction," added Kathy Bird, an organizer for the Florida Immigrant Coalition. "This shows that our government is listening to us, finally. That's at least how I feel today."
Despite CCA's claims of being "community friendly," it is still proceeding with its lawsuit against Pembroke Pines, which has spent at least $125,000 in legal fees in connection with the proposed immigra-
Prison Legal News

tion detention center. According to Pembroke Pines com-
missioner Angelo Castillo, defending against the suit is part of the price the city has to pay for standing up against CCA. "The cost of doing the business of government can't be an excuse for government not to do its job," he said. "We are doing the job we're supposed to do.""
Sources: Tampa Tribune, www.floridaindependent. com, www.locallO. com, www. ccagoaway.org, www.noprisonswr. org, www.sun-sentinel.com. Miami Herald

TYPING
SERVICES Provided since 1998
Specifically designed, with special rates for the incarcerated person.
Black I Color Printing and Copying
SEND A SASE FOR A "FREE" PRICE LIST AND MORE INFORMATION TO:
LET MY FINGERS DO YOUR TYPING ' Sandra Z. Thomas (dba) PO Box 4178
Winter Park, Florida 32793-4178 Phone: 407-579-5563
Special Offer: $2.00 off first order. Special offer void after: 12/31/2012

Criminal Law in a Nutshell, by Arnold H. Loewy, 5th edition, 387 pages. $38.00
Criminal Procedure: Constitutional Limitations, by Jerold H. Israel and Wayne R. laFave, 7th edition, 603 pages. $38.00
The Redbook: A Manual on Legal Style, by Bryan A. Garner; 2nd edition, 544 pages. $48.00

Advanced Criminal Procedure in a Nutshell, by Mark E. Cammack and Norman M. Garland, 2nd edition, 505 pages. $38.00
A Dictionary of Criminal Law Terms (81ack's Law Dictionary@ Series), by Bryan A. Garner; 768 pages. $29.00
Arrest-Proof Yourself, by Dale Carson andWes Denham, 288 pages. $14.95

High Court Case Summaries on Criminal Law, Keyed to Johnson, 7th edition. $38.00

Arrested: What to Do When Your Loved One's in Jail, by Wes Denham, 240 pages. $16.95

r
o Criminal Law in a Nutshell 0 Advanced Criminal Procedures in a Nutshell 0 Criminal Procedure o Dictionary of Criminal Law Terms 0 Redbook 0 Arrest-ProofYourself 0 High Court Case Summaries 0 Arrested
Order by mail, phone, or on-line. Amount enclosed (prices include shipping) _ _ __ By 0 check 0 new postage stamps 0 credit card 0 money order
Name _______________________________________________________

DOC!BOP Number _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Institution!Agency _______________________________________________ Address ______________________________________________________ City ____________________________ State _ _ _ _ Zip _ _ _ _ __

"

I PO Box 2420 • West Brattleboro,VT 05303
PRISON LEGAL NEWS Tel [802] 257-1342 • www.prisonlegalnews.org

L

.J

19

August 2012

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 20 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96 Filed 09/13/12 Page 21 of 25

PLN Settles Censorship Suit Against
Sacramento County, California Jail

On July 17, 2012, Prison Legal News settled a lawsuit against Sacramento County, California and Sheriff Scott R. Jones for $300,000 plus policy changes in the county's jail system.
The suit was filed in federal court in April 2011 after Sacramento County jail staff refused to deliver PLN's monthly pUblication to prisoners and failed to notify PLN of that censorship in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The publications were rejected because they included small staples (used to hold the magazine together) and had mailing labels or stickers, which jail officials said posed a security risk.
The federal court granted PLN's motion for a preliminary injunction on March 7, 2012, with U.S. District Court Judge John A. Mendez finding that the jail's censorship of publications sent to prisoners was "an exaggerated response to any security concerns posed by PLN."
The court further held that PLN had "demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its First Amendment claim," and that the defendants' "policies and practices including refusing to deliver PLN publications and mailings to prisoners because they contained staples and/ or a mailing label are not supported by a legitimate penological interest and do not leave open alternative means for PLN to exercise its First Amendment rights."
A settlement agreement followed four months later.
In addition to the $300,000 payment to PLN for damages and attorney fees, the jail agreed to change its mail policies to allow. prisoners to receive publications that have staples or mailing labels, provided that staff may remove the staples and labels. The jail also will supply "adequate written notice and an administrative review process" to PLN and other publishers when any publication, correspondence or documents sent to prisoners are rejected. Finally, the county agreed to purchase four 5-year subscriptions to PLN for each jail library.
The settlement, in the form of a consent decree, specifies "that providing prisoners with access to reading materials promotes positive contact with the communities into which prisoners will eventually be released and is therefore consistent with

the Defendants' public safety mission." "We are pleased that Sacramento
County has agreed to adopt lawful mail policies for its jails and stop engaging in unconstitutional censorship," said PLN editor Paul Wright. "But we would have been more pleased had the jail not censored our publication to begin with, which necessitated our filing a lawsuit to protect our First Amendment rights."
"There has been an unfortunate trend recently for local jails to adopt all kinds of restrictions on reading materials," added Ernest Galvan, one of the attorneys who represented PLN. "Reading materials are

not a threat to safety. On the contrary, access to a wide range of reading materials helps people learn that there are lawful non-violent ways to solve .the problems that they will inevitably face when they return to the community."
PLN was represented by attorneys Sanford Jay Rosen, Ernest Galvan, Kenneth Walczak and Blake Thompson of Rosen, Bien, Galvan & Grunfeld LLP, a San Francisco law firm, and by Human Rights Defense Center chief counsel Lance Weber. See: Prison Legal News v. County of Sacrmnento, U.S.D.C. (E.D. Ca1.), Case No. 2:II-cv-00907. .

u.S. Supreme Court Holds AG Rules Required Before SORNA Sex Offender
Law is Applied Retroactively

by Derek Gilna

O n January 23,2012 the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision written by Justice Stephen Breyer, reversed the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which had held that the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (Act) applied retroactively even in the absence of a rule by the U.S. Attorney General setting forth specifics as to registration requirements for previously-adjudicated sex offenders.
The Supreme Court found in favor of plaintiff Billy Joe Reynolds, who had challenged federal district and appellate court decisions that he had violated the Act, which requires people convicted of certain sex crimes to give state governments information such as their names and current addresses for registration purposes.
The Act also states that "[t]he Attorney General shall have the authority to specify the applicability of the [registration] requirements ... to sex offenders convicted before the enactment of this chapter...," § 16913(d). According to the Court, "In our view, these provisions, read together, mean that the Act's registration requirements do not apply to pre-Act offenders until the Attorney General specifies that they do apply."
The Act became law on July 27,2006, and on February 28,2007 the U.S. Attor-

ney General promUlgated an Interim Rule which indicated that the Act applied to "sex offenders convicted of the offense for which registration is required prior to the enactment" of the law. 72 Fed.Reg. 8897 (codified at 28 CFR § 72.3). Additional rules were promulgated by the Attorney General in 2008, 2010 and 2011, but the case before the Court concerned the time period between July 27, 2006 and February 28,2007.
Reynolds was a pre-Act offender who was indicted after moving from Missouri, where he was registered as a sex offender, to Pennsylvania, where he did not register. He filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, claiming that the Interim Rule was invalid because it violated both the Constitution's "non-delegation" doctrine and the Administrative Procedure Act's requirement for "good cause" to promulgate a rule without "notice and comment," as the Attorney General admittedly had done. Reynolds argued that sitice the Interim Rule was invalid, he must be treated as a "pre-Act offender who traveled interstate and violated the Act's registration requirements before the Attorney General specified their applicability."
The district court rejected Reynold's challenge to the Interim Rule but the Third Circuit did not reach the merits of that argument on appeal, rather focusing

August 2012

20

Prison Legal News

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 21 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96 Filed 09/13/12 Page 22 of 25

on its view that the Act's registration requirements applied to pre-Act offenders like Reynolds from the date of the law's enactment without the issuance of any rules by the Attorney General. Under that reasoning, any defects regarding the Interim Rule would be immaterial.
The Supreme Court noted a conflict between the various Circuits regarding

when the Act could be applied retroactively, and observed that the government's legal arguments "overstated the need for instantaneous registration of preAct offenders...." The Court concluded "that the Act's registration requirements do not apply to pre-Act offenders until the Attorney General so specifies." The Third Circuit's ruling to the contrary was

accordingly reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Ginsberg, dissented, finding the Attorney General's power to immediately enforce the Act was "little more than a formalized version of the time-honored practice of prosecutorial discretion." See: Reynolds v. United States, 132 S.Ct. 975 (2012). ,.

New Mexico Sheriff Sentenced for Selling County Property on eBay

On July 20, 2011, former Santa Fe County, New Mexico Sheriff Greg Solano, 47, pleaded guilty to five counts of third-degree fraud for selling county property on eBay and keeping the proceeds. The property, which was reportedly worth over $75,000, included everything from cell phone chargers, printer cartridges and blank CDs to bulletproof vests, holsters and other law enforcement equipment.
Originally charged with 252 counts of embezzlement and fraud, and facing up to 100 years in prison, Solano entered into a plea bargain to reduce his maximum potential sentence to eight years.
"Solano was elected to protect and serve, not steal and profit," said special prosecutor Matt Chandler. "In an era where public trust has become the topic of the day, I believe it is time to send a message that gross misconduct by public officials will be strictly punished, and I believe an eight-year prison sentence will send that message."
Solano, free on $25,000 bail, said financial problems, including back mortgage payments, led him to embezzle from the county. However, there were also allegations that he was gambling at casinos in Nevada and New Mexico. Solano resigned in November 2010 after admitting to his misconduct; he had

served as sheriff since 2002. In September 2011, Solano was sen-
tenced to 120 days in the Santa Fe County jail and four years of probation. He will also have to pay $25,000 in restitution, though he was not required to repay the $64,200 cost of an audit 'conducted by the county to determine the extent of the fraud. At his sentencing hearing he said,

"I was desperate, and I was stupid." Solano was released from jail in Oc-
tober 2011 after serving 6 weeks of his three-month sentence, which was reduced for good behavior. He spent his jail time in protective custody.
Sources: Reuters, www.correctionsone.com. Santa Fe New Mexican, wl-t'w. kobo com

Do you have diabetes? Is your diabetes under control?

Living with diabetes in prison is very difficult. Order your FREE copy ofPrisoner Diabetes

Handbook: A Guide to Managing Diabetes for Prisoners, by Prisoners.

.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

This handbook, written by prisoners, will explain: • Facts about diabetes • How to help yourselfwhen you have diabetes • Complications of diabetes • The medical treatment you need to manage
your health

ORDER FORM
Fill out the information below, and send this order form to:
Prison Legal News PO Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303

.•

.•

•

...

... ve

+hei ..

They

: Name
•

DIJ\llETES

• ID number

Order your FREE copy and start managing your diabetes and your health. Quantity is limited, so order today.

Facility Address

...City ...........State ...Z.ip..

MARILEE MARSHALL & ASSOCIATES, ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Califomia State Bar Board of Specialization
Certified Criminal Law and Appellate Law Specialist
If you have a California case you need a California lawyer!
(213) 489-7715

State and Federal Appeals and Writs, Lifer Parole Hearings and Related Writs
29 years of success 523 West Sixth Street, Suite1109 Los Angeles, CA. 90014 marileemarshallandassociates.com

Prison Legal News

21

August 2012

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 22 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96 Filed 09/13/12 Page 23 of 25

Eleventh Circuit Upholds Florida DOC's Ban on Pen Pal Solicitations

by David M. Reutter

T he Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC) may ban all pen pal solicitations between pen pal services and Florida prisoners, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held on December 22, 2011. The appellate decision affirms a federal district court's January 2011 summary judgment order that found the FDOC's Pen Pal Solicitation Rule, EA.C. Chapter 33-210.101(9), does not violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments. [See: PLN, Oct. 2011, p.ll].
The challenge to the FDOC's pen pal rule was brought by Joy Perry, who operates Freedom through Christ Prison Ministry and Prison Pen Pals, and by WriteAPrisoner.com (WAP). Each service solicits pen pals for prisoners and non-prisoners by providing them with a list of pen pals or placing pen pal ads online. WAP charges a fee to put prisoners' ads for pen pals on its website; it also provides other services for prisoners, such as access to educational programs, an online resume posting service and a program that grants scholarships to prisoners' children or victims of crimes. Perry does not charge any fees for her pen pal services.
The FDOC said it enacted its ban on pen pal solicitation to prevent prisoners from using pen pal services to defraud people. "Although the FDOC does not cite any specific instances of fraud within Florida, the district court found the testimony of a former FDOC employee and anecdotal evidence from newspaper reports throughout the country persuasive evidence of this fraudulent activity," the Eleventh Circuit wrote.
That finding proved to be dispositive, as the court applied a "rational basis review." The Court of Appeals acknowledged that ordinarily outgoing prison mail is reviewed under the higher standard set forth in Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974). But James Upchurch, Chief of Security Operations for the FDOC, had submitted an affidavit that stated "outgoing correspondence poses a direct threat to internal prison security because pen pals might give money to prisoners who will then use it to bribe officials and order hits on other inmates"; thus, the four-prong test of Turner v. Safely, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) applied rather than Martinez.
The Eleventh Circuit found that requiring prisoners to obtain "pen pals through personal associates and not pen pal compa-

nies" was rationally related to the legitimate penological interests of protecting the public from fraud and ensuring internal prison security. An alternative for WAP was to advertise its non-pen pal services to prisoners. As for prisoners, they could still correspond with pen pals and use services that provide "one-to-one matching" rather than blanket solicitations or ads for pen pals.
Allowing mail from pen pal services, the appellate court held, would cause a significant increase in the "roughly 50,000 pieces of mail" the FDOC receives daily, requiring it to reassign guards to review the increased volume of correspondence and to "shift inspectors to investigate possible pen pal scams." Finally, the Court

of Appeals found the FDOC's pen pal solicitation ban was not an exaggerated response by prison officials.
After deciding there was no First Amendment violation, the Eleventh Circuit held the plaintiffs had received all the process they were due to challenge the denial of their pen pal advertisements. The district court's summary judgment order was therefore affirmed. See: Perry v. Secretmy, Florida Department of Corrections, 664 E3d 1359 (1 ph Cir. 2011).
Another federal appellate court - the Seventh Circuit - has upheld a similar ban on prisoners' pen pal ads, in Indiana's prison system. [See: PLN, May 2012, p.24].

Former Florida Sheriff Cleared in Theft Investigation and PHS Contract Fraud Suit

F ollowing a two-year investigation and a jury verdict in a civil suit, a special prosecutor announced in June 2011 that criminal charges would not be forthcoming against Bill Balkwill, former sheriff of Sarasota County, Florida.
The jury verdict was entered in a lawsuit filed by Prison Health Services (PHS) that alleged Balkwill had improperly awarded a contract to another company to provide medical care for jail prisoners. The criminal investigation focused on Sheriff's Office property that was found in Balkwill's possession months after he retired.
PHS's lawsuit, filed in circuit court, claimed that Balkwill awarded a $9 million jail medical contract to Armor Correctional Health Services in August 2006 after he received gifts and perks from Armor officials. One of those perks involved a fishing trip on Lake Okeechobee. Armor's CEO and lobbyist also took Balkwill and his wife to expensive dinners prior to the contract being awarded. [See: PLN, Dec. 2009, p.22; Jan. 2009, p.36; March 2008, p.44].
In an attempt to prove that Balkwill had communicated with Armor executives before awarding the contract, PHS sought to examine his laptop for emails and other evidence.
The Sheriff's Office began an investigation in April 2009. It found that Balkwill had pressured the department's former Information Technology Director,

Jeff Feathers, to fill out a form claiming the laptop was worth only $10. The form designated the laptop as junk to be recycled.
The laptop, however, was later found during a search of Balkwill's home; he then "scrubbed" it of certain files before turning it over. He claimed the 11,000 files he deleted were personal photographs and files that contained national security information, though the judge in PHS's lawsuit held that Balkwill had destroyed the files despite a court order not to tamper with the computer. Former Armor CEO Doyle Moore had also deleted files from his laptop before surrendering it as evidence in the case.
"The destruction of files subject to production and inspection, both by Balkwill and Moore, cannot be excused," the court wrote. "The deletions were intentional and must be viewed as attempts to thwart discovery."
PHS had hoped to find communications between Armor's CEO and Balkwill, his "good friend." A Florida Department of Law Enforcement forensic review of Balkwill's laptop revealed nine emails pertaining to the disputed jail medical contract; most of the deleted messages and files could not be recovered.
During the search of Balkwill's home, investigators also found a leather office chair with an engraved eagle and three pistols. The $650 chair had been purchased

August 2012

22

Prison Legal News

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 23 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96 Filed 09/13/12 Page 24 of 25

with a Sheriff's Office credit card. Sarasota County prosecutors rejected potential theft charges related to the chair, advising detectives that it "did not rise to the level worthy of criminal prosecution."
Two of the guns belonged to the Sheriff's Office prior to Balkwill writing a check to buy them for $200, which was far below their market value. As to the purchase of the guns, Sheriff's Captain Jeff Bell wrote, "This seemingly skirts the application of criminal laws but certainly gives rise to ethical concerns."
Detectives believed that Balkwill's possession of the laptop constituted criminal theft, as the $2,600 computer would normally be replaced after five years but Balkwill had it valued at $10 and slated for recycling before he took it home. Sarasota County prosecutors recused themselves

due to a conflict of interest, as they had worked with the former sheriff during his eight years in office.
A special prosecutor, Wayne Chalu, was assigned to the case. In a ten-page memo issued in June 2011, Chalu announced that no charges would be filed because as sheriff, Balkwill had the authority to decide when Sheriff's Office property should be destroyed. Chalu also determined that Balkwill had a "legitimate concern" that confidential files on his laptop would become public before he could destroy them. Thus, he did not face any criminal prosecution.
Previously, in November 2010, the jury in PHS's civil lawsuit held that the county and Ba1kwill had done nothing wrong when awarding the jail medical contract to Armor. The jurors found that

the Sheriff's Office had exercised its "honest discretion in awarding the jail contract to Armor, Balkwill was not improperly or corruptly influenced by Armor in awarding the contract, Balkwill did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in awarding the jail contract and Armor did not use unfair methods of competition or trade." See: Prison Health Services v. Balkwill, Circuit Court of the 12th Judicial District for Sarasota County (FL), Case No. 2007CA-10652 NC.
Armor CEO Bruce Teal reportedly cried when the jury ruled against PHS and in Armor's favor following the hardfought litigation. Balkwill did not testify during the trial. ,.
Sources: www.heraldtribune. com, www. yoursun. com

CALIFORNIA LIFER NEWSLETTER
CLN: A comprehensive newsletter mailed every 68 weeks. State and federal cases, parole board news, statistics, legislation and articles on prison, parole and correctional issues of interest to inmates and their families.
CLN also provides services such as copying and forwarding federal and state cases, articles and news and materials available on the Internet.
SUBSCRIPTIONS: Prisoners: $25 (or 80 stamps) per year (6 issues minimum). Free persons: $90.
CLN, Box 687, Walnut, CA 91788

2012 Fourth Edition "JVINNING HABEAS CORPUS & POST CONVICTION RELIEF", over 620 pages Cases cited through 638 F.3d. Simply the best book for prisoners who are researching post conviction relief and Ineffective Assistance of Counsel. Habeas Hints, writer & Attorney, Kent Russell writes: Now that I've been turned on to 'Winning Habeas Corpus', 1 always make sure that it's close at hand.
• A virtua11aw library in a single book, actual case quotes. • Habeas Procedures & Prac. § 2254, 2255 & Rule 60(b).
• Sixth Amendment & IAC, pretrial duty to investigate.
• Recognized defenses, plea bargain process. • Jury Instructions, sentencing, time bar, & tolling.
• Over 1500 cases cited; 7" x 10" size & 10 pt. font. Price for Prisoners only $58.50
Send money order or institutional check to: Fast Law Publishing Associates P.O. Box 577, Upland, CA 91785 On-Line Orders: www.fastlaw.org

Support Prison Legal News with these beautiful gifts!
CALL 802-257-1342, MAIL ORDER OR USE WEB FORM HTTP://WWW.PRISONLEGALN EWS.ORG/

Hand Embroidered Greeting Cards
Made by women prisoners in Cochabamba/ Bolivia. Each card is individually made/ no two are identical. The prisoners are paid a fair wage for each card and keep 100% of the pay to support themselves and their families. Local fair trade non-profits in Bolivia supply the materials for the cards. $6.
Hand Made Hemp Tote Bag All natural hemp tote bag
hand made in Vermont with the Prison Legal News logo on both sides/ in red and black. Great for carrying books/ groceries/ and more! Stamped on the inside that no sweatshop/ prison or child labor was used in its manufacture. $12.
56 shipping and handling for orders under S50.

Prison Legal News

23

August 2012

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 24 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96 Filed 09/13/12 Page 25 of 25

Pro Se Virginia Prisoner Settles Religious Exercise Suit

Virginia state prisoner Rashid Qawi AI-Amin, proceeding pro se, reached a settlement with prison officials that requires them to purchase Islamic reading materials, CDs and DVDs for the prison chaplain's library. The state also agreed to pay him $2,000.
AI-Amin, a prisoner at Greensville Correctional Center (GCC), filed a lawsuit under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) in 2004. In 2005, U.S. District Court Judge Raymond A. Jackson dismissed the case on procedural grounds, but it was reinstated by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals two years later. See: Al-Amin v. Shear, 218 Fed.Appx. 270 (4th Cir. 2007).
Judge Jackson dismissed the suit again in 2008, citing a lack of merit. The Fourth Circuit again reversed. See: AlAmin v. Shear, 325 Fed.Appx. 190 (4th Cir. 2009). AI-Amin rejected an offer of counsel, and discovery ensued over the next two years. When Jackson set the matter for trial he asked the parties to try to settle the case.
The May 2011 settlement agreement requires prison officials to "purchase up to $2,500" of "new library materials which have been selected by the Muslim Chaplain Services as being appropriate and adequate to assist Muslim inmates in the study of their religion." AI-Amin was allowed to submit a list of proposed materials to be purchased for the library.
The settlement also requires prison officials to "hire and maintain a Muslim inmate" to work in the prison chaplain's library at GCe. The duties of the Muslim Chaplain's clerks will include performing "an annual inventory of the Muslim contents of the Chaplain's library." Further, prison officials will implement a process that allows prisoners to make donations to the library.
When he first arrived in prison, AIAmin was known as Donald Tracey Jones. Shortly after he began serving a 52-year sentence for a drug-related murder, he converted to Islam and changed his name. Prison officials refused to acknowledge his Muslim name. The settlement changes that policy, and requires prison officials to amend their records "to permit Plaintiff to use the name Rashid Qawi AI-Amin in conjunction with his offender number to access services and property generally available to inmates."
In addition to posting notices on

GCC bulletin boards that list approved religions, plus "a statement that there shall be no discrimination by staff or prisoners based on their religious beliefs or practices," prison officials must also include Muslim prisoners in the preparation of religious meals. Finally, the state agreed to pay AI-Amin $2,000 to cover the costs he incurred in litigating the case.
A prison chaplain's association was not pleased with the outcome. "That's a terrible settlement. It sets a very bad

precedent," said Gary Friedman, communications director for the American Correctional Chaplains Association. "Public funds should not be used to purchase sectarian materials."
Prison officials and the state Attorney General's Office had no comment on the terms of the settlement agreement. See: Al-Amin v. Johnson, U.S.D.C. (B.D. Vir.), Case No. 2:04-cv-00346-RAJ-FBS.
Additional source: www.hamptonroads.com

$50 Million in Grants Targets mv

in the Criminal Justice System

T he National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), a division of the National Institutes of Health, is awarding almost $50 million in grants to fund research projects that target HIV among prisoners, parolees and probationers.
The grants will be distributed over a five-year period to 12 research teams, which will conduct studies in locations that include the Los Angeles County Jail; the jail system in Cook County, Illinois; Rikers Island in New York; prisons in North Carolina, Illinois, Texas, Wisconsin and Rhode Island; and jails in the District of Columbia.
"These important and wide reaching research grants will focus on identifying individuals with HIV within the criminal justice system and linking them to highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) during periods of incarceration and after community re-entry," stated NIDA Director Dr. Nora D. Volkow. "We hope this effort will lead to decreased HIV/ AIDS-related illness and death among those in the criminal justice system, as well as decrease HIV transmission in the community at-large, making an important impact on public health."
Illinois will receive $7 million in grants. Researchers from the University of Illinois at Chicago will focus on prisoners in the Cook County Jail and more than two dozen state prisons.
The researchers plan three phases. The first will allocate money to implement HIV testing for all prisoners upon their entry into the prison system, unless they refuse. That policy change conforms to recommended guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and will hopefully reduce the number of prisoners

who are unaware of their HIV status. Researchers will also examine wheth-
er linking prisoners to HIV care via te1emedicine results in better treatment. "Prisoners have typically been managed by prison physicians who are generalists, not sub-specialists, so they don't really have access to specialist care," said Dr. Jeremy Young, one of the lead researchers. Telemedicine will connect prisoners with medical specialists and save the cost of having doctors drive across the state to see HIV+ prisoners.
While telemedicine may be better than no medical treatment, it should be noted that patients in the freeworld, under the community standard of care, see doctors in person and not via long-distance telemedicine video.
The third part of the NIDA-funded project in Illinois will track HIV+ prisoners after they are released. "In the past, prisoners have gotten two weeks of meds and an appointment [for follow-up care] in the city," said Dr. Young. "The problem is, when prisoners go out into the community, many of them start taking drugs and hanging out with old friends, and they don't show up for appointments and get lost in the follow-up."
Additional case managers will be hired with the NIDA grant; they will contact newly-released prisoners and connect them with mental health services, drug counseling and the state's AIDS Drug Assistance Program.
Researchers at the University of North Carolina will use the grant funding to study whether prisoners contract HIV while incarcerated or if they mainly enter the prison system with pre-existing infections. "I think HIV spreading in

August 2012

24

Prison Legal News

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 25 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 32

prison is so blown out of proportion," stated UNC School of Medicine professor David Wohl.
It is estimated that one in seven people who are HIV+ passes through the

criminal justice system each year, which presents an opportunity for interdiction and treatment. Approximately 2 percent of prisoners have HIV - which is around six times higher than the infection rate in

the general population. -[See: PLN, July 2010, pp.28, 43].
Sources: Sun Times, www.nih.gov, www. dailytarheel. com

$3.5 Million Settlement in Teen's Death at New York Juvenile Facility

A$3.5 million settlement has been reached in a lawsuit over the death of a juvenile offender who was restrained by two staffers at the Tryon Boys Residential Center in Fulton County, New York.
The suit claimed that the civil rights of Darryl Anthony Thompson, 15, were violated as a result of excessive force used by Tryon employees in November 2006. The incident that led to Thompson's death began after he was denied recreation and engaged in a shouting match with Tryon aide John P. Johnson. After being pushed by Thompson, Johnson and another aide, Robert Murphy, restrained him facedown on the floor.
Johnson put his weight on Thompson's torso and raised his arms behind his back as Murphy sat on his legs. Thompson said he couldn't breathe, but Johnson and Murphycontinued to restrain him until he

stopped struggling and was unconscious, according to the complaint. Several minutes elapsed before anyone tried to revive him.
"You have a child lying on the floor that you know is in distress, and you do nothing. It's unforgivable," said Elmer R. Keach III, the attorney who represented Thompson's family in their federal lawsuit.
The medical examiner ruled Thompson's death a homicide because the force that was used on him led to stress that caused a heart arrhythmia. Yet, as typically occurs in prisoners' deaths, Johnson and Murphy did not face criminal charges
though they reportedly no longer work for the state.
A settlement agreement in the suit was finalized in November 2011. Thompson's mother, Anntwanisha Thompson, will receive approximately $2.28 million

of the settlement, with the rest going to attorney fees and costs. "No amount of money will bring this young man back to life; no amount of money can compensate his loved ones for his absence," Keach remarked. See: Thompson v. Johnson, U.S.D.C. (N.D. NY), Case No. 6:08-cv-
o1241-DNH-ATB.
The Tryon facility was closed in 2010 as part of a statewide effort to downsize· juvenile prisons in favor of day treatment centers closer to youths' homes. A 2009 federal investigation found that employees at four New York juvenile facilities, including Tryon, had used force as a primary means of restraining youths, causing serious injuries. [See: PLN, Nov. 2011, p.32].
Sources: Associated Press, Times Union, http://wnyt.com

'Exyeriencecf Ca{ifornia Post-Conviction Attorneys
Gr{y .:A.lirony & 13ruce Zucker .:A.ttorne at Law

NEW FRIENDS, HIGHER EDUCATION, AND EMPLOYMENT &HOUSING UPON RELEASE THROUGH WRITEAPRISONERCOM PROFilE

&

.ASSEENON>To Mail Call!

CNN, 20/20, F6xNews,

Dr. Phil, 0 M a g a Z i n e , W r i t e A P r i s o n e r . C O m ••• E! True HollyWood,

and hundreds more!

Simply the largest, highest ranked, &

most visited website of its kind!*

• Pen-pal Profiles are affordably priced at $40 for the first year, $30 for renewing year
• Features a comprehensive search that allows viewers to find your profile by age, race, location, keywords, & more - 32 search options in all
• Your new friends can email their first message to you along with a photo • Advertises non-stop on every major search engine with thousands of websites
linking back to us • Offers free Reintegration Profiles for inmates seeking employment and housing
upon release and education during incarceration • Translated into 51 languages & geared for international search engines • Viewers can "subscribe" to your profile to be notified when your profile is updated,
blog is added, artwork is posted, poetry is added, your release is near & much more • Pen-pals have the option of helping you with a broad range of topics using
WriteAPrisoner.com's free Self-Help Series

• Ayyeafs (State andJ'ederaO • Writs (:}-{a6eas Coryus &
:Mandamus) • Lifer and'Revocation :}-{earinBs • Prison andParo{e Issues

818-625-0807
Post Office 'Box 436
.Jtfloura :Jfi[fsJ C.Jt 91376
Prison Legal News

Proud member of the Better Business Bureau of Central Florida & the Southeast Votusia Chamber of Commerce. ·Our website traffic can be independently verified at W'NW guantcasi.comlwOteaprisoner com

25

August 2012

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 26 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 32

Texas: Helping HIV+ Prisoners Receive Post-Release Meds

by Matt Clarke

W hen Diana Harris was released from a Texas prison more than a decade ago, she received no information on how to continue her regimen of HIV medication. The prison issued her a 10day supply of meds and when that ran out she basically ignored the problem for the next two years.
"I didn't want to tell my family that I [was HIV+], so I couldn't ask them for help," said Harris. "I was on my own and didn't really know where I should go to keep myself healthy."
Harris now works to address problems with continuity of care for newly-released Texas prisoners who are HIV+. She is a peer advocate with the AIDS Outreach Center in Fort Worth, and meets with releasees in Tarrant County to help them understand the medical system in the free world.
"Navigating a hospital system is daunting if you have been incarcerated since 19 and never had to deal with it," noted Shannon Hilgart, associate executive director of the AIDS Outreach Center. "Getting into a clinic, getting through the paperwork. ... It's a whole new learning process. "
Fortunately, the system is vastly improved compared to what was in place when Harris was released from prison.
"We can get same-day approval" for a releasee's HIV meds, said Austin HIV medication program worker Brenda Herndon Johnston. "They have it working without delays so, when the client comes in, we get the process rolling as quickly as possible."
That is good news for prisoners who are released to Austin, Fort Worth and other Texas cities with HIV medication support systems in place. Why, then, did a 2009 study headed by Dr. Jacques Baillargeon at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston (UTMB) find that only 17.7 percent of 2,115 HIV+ prisoners had received post-release medication within 30 days of their release from Texas prisons between January 2004 and December 2007? Some medical officials place the blame squarely on the prisoners.
"Once they leave prison, we no longer have any control over what they do," stated Owen Murray, vice president for prisoner health services at UTMB, which provides about 80% of the medical care

in Texas' prison system. "We can't drive to their houses and make sure they go to the clinic. I really think the state is doing everything it can."
Instead of criticism, however, what newly-released HIV+ prisoners need is practical help with obtaining their medication - such as reminders about medical appointments, help with transportation to clinics, and assistance in filling out paperwork and dealing with the health care system bureaucracy.
Janina Davis is the re-entry coordinator for the Texas HIV Medication Program, which provides HIV meds to low-income Texans. She said state officials held a summit to discuss the problem of continuity of HIV medication for released prisoners, and decided to pursue several strategies to connect prison health care

services with services available from various community organizations. While not as effective as the state providing HIV medication to releasees directly, it is a way to make efficient use of existing resources.
"Prisoners receive such good [HIV medicine] regimens in prison that most are released with undetectable viral loads," said Davis. "If they lapse, that is such a waste of what was expensive medication."
Which is all the more reason for prison officials to ensure that HIV+ prisoners receive the resources and support they need to continue their meds once they are released. ,.
Sources: Fort Worth Star- Telegram, www. thebody. com, www.jama.com

Texas Legislator Uses Prisoner-Made Goods as Gifts for Campaign Contributors

by Matt Clarke

W hen Republican Texas State Representative Debbie Riddle scheduled her "Riddle Executive Leadership Summit" at the Lanier Theological Library in August 2011, the agenda mentioned several "esteemed discussion leaders," a buffet reception and special gifts for large campaign donors. According to an article in the Houston Chronicle, those gifts which were produced by state prisoners - included heirloom-quality furniture and other items made in Texas Correctional Industries (TCI) programs.
The invitations Riddle sent to her supporters included a request for campaign donations at several "participation levels," ranging from $1,000 to $20,000. Each participation level had a corresponding gift, such as prisoner-made replicas of furniture from the Capitol, a hand-tooled leather-topped coffee table with matching chair, a hand-tooled leather duffel bag, a Lone Star flag cutting board, a hand-tooled leather rifle case and a hand-carved rocking horse with leather saddle.
The furniture included hand-carved Capitol benches, constitutional chairs, judge's chairs and desks. "Please note that the donor gifts are exclusive and can-

not be purchased on the open market," the invitation stated. "The descriptions seem inadequate for most of these items, and you will find an enclosure with photographs to show their beauty."
Outside the Texas prison system, the only individuals who can purchase goods made in TCI programs are lawmakers. When questioned about giving gifts to campaign donors that were obtained by virtue of her legislative position, and whether that was uncomfortably close to using an elected office to raise campaign funds, Rep. Riddle demurred.
"It's no different than 'if you donate that you get a T-shirt and a coffee mug,'" she said. "We can purchase these items from the prison system as gifts. We can buy them, but we cannot sell them. I am not selling these any more than I am selling a T-shirt" given to someone who makes a donation.
The difference, of course, is that there no restriction on who can purchase and then give away T-shirts or mugs. But items produced in TCI programs are not available to the general public and can only be acquired by government agencies and lawmakers.
Riddle was candid about her actions.

August 2012

26

Prison Legal News

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 27 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 32

"It is not at all uncommon for elected officials, way, way long before 1 got here, if they have a donor who has been very generous to them, to give them a constitutional chair or a judge's chair [the styles of chairs used in the Capitol] or something like that," she said. "1 am an open book. I'm not doing anything different than anyone else has done, except maybe I've been a little less subtle. Maybe I'd be a better politician if 1 learned how to play tricks."
State Rep. Charlie Green, who chairs the House Administrative Committee, when asked about rules for the purchase of TC1-made items by state legislators, said it was "up to the individual member" so long as they did not resell what they bought. Asked about using such purchases as gifts for campaign contributors, he said he had never heard of that practice before and would not do it personally.
State ethics laws expert Buck Wood, an Austin attorney, added that while there was no specific prohibition against using TCl products as donor gifts, it didn't pass his smell test. "You can't use the prison system as a manufacturer to attract campaign dollars," said Woods. "I'm sure there are instances where as a

token of their appreciation - not necessarily in connection with a fundraiser - that legislators have [given gifts]. 1 find that very different from what you have described here. This is 'give me money and 1 will reward you by using my access to prison industry materials to get you things. '"
Rep. Riddle continued to defend her position, saying she could have had the gifts made elsewhere but "this is my way of helping those guys behind bars earn some money. There are some really fine craftsmen that have made bad decisions. "
The only problem with that reasoning is that most prisoners employed in TCl

programs receive no pay for their work - a fact that any Texas legislator should know. Thus, all that Riddle accomplished was to exploit the prison slave labor of those "really fine craftsmen" while using her elected office to reward campaign donors with prisoner-made gifts. ,.
Source: Houston Chronicle
Roget's Thesaurus
Can't think of the right word? Let Roget's help you! Over 11,000
words listed alphabetically. $8.95 see page 53 for more details

Buy 1200SINGL,lfCopiesof Magazines .. 1200

1eoo

Payment

;:;'Nid U or 10 $;tdfl1fjS ft<j'50+ Page fuRCatalog. ($S Qis¢Qunt

"VIPService
!hciud&d)

inmateMAGS.eom 420S Univl$fSH\f yyBY,NE
$I,)OU!'). vVA

Mymag store. com •. (;(>m

www.lnm1rteMAGS.com

Prison Legal News

www.ln TollBusters.com

'1:

....... '.'•••.•,... iI·..

m1!: •.• . '. .•••. ..' .I:i

.;1 ...; . .

. J!,r

II;

International Call SehficesAvaiiable.

,K

."

:\:.'

For

Se

If

fl!:k I?

. [11ff'

IfF

27

August 2012

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 28 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 4 of 32

BOP's RDAP Program Unevenly Administered and Unnecessarily Costly

by Brandon Sample and Derek Gilna

Acomprehensive review of the federal Bureau of Prisons' (BOP) Residential Orug Abuse Program (ROAP), enacted by Congress in 1994, indicates that almost 20 years after its creation ROAP has yet to fulfill its full potential and is unnecessarily expensive.
The enactment of 18 U.S.c. § 3621, which authorized ROAP, was originally designed to provide not only substance abuse treatment to a large number of BOP prisoners but also to instill lifestyle changes that would reduce recidivism. The program was formulated by Congress to help decrease the rapidly escalating federal prison population by addressirig behaviors that result in prisoners committing new crimes after they are released.
Unfortunately, although a positive initiative, ROAP was not initially embraced by BOP prisoners, who objected to the more difficult aspects of the program. As a result enrollment was low and many prisoners accepted into ROAP failed to complete it.
This low level of participation continued until the BOP elected to follow Congress' legislative mandate in its entirety, specifically § 3621 (e)(2), which provides that non-violent prisoners who successfully complete ROAP are eligible for a sentence reduction of "not more than one year." Paragraph (e)(5)(A) of the same statute additionally provides that the program must be "at least 6 months" in duration.
Simply put, any eligible federal prisoner who puts in the time and effort necessary to complete ROAP will receive up to an additional year off their sentence, along with the usual 15% sentence reduction for "good time" plus placement in a halfway house that further reduces time spent in prison with the latter being subject to availability and BOP policy. For example, a non-violent prisoner with a seventy-eight month (6Yz year) sentence could conceivably be released from prison in just under five years if he received the maximum allowable credits, completed the ROAP program and was released to a halfway house for 6 months.
However, the BOP's implementation of ROAP has failed to substantially reduce the federal prison popUlation, which continues to expand. The BOP, like many federal agencies, has the authority

to formulate rules to execute laws enacted by Congress, and there is a set period of time for public comment regarding that process. After the public comment period expires, the rule is incorporated into BOP Program Statements and has the force of law unless specifically abrogated by subsequent Congressional action. Unfortunately the BOP has a history of watering down Congress' legislative intent, as demonstrated by its implementation of both ROAP and the Second Chance Act.
The Second Chance Act was designed to address the growing BOP prison population, now approximately 217,800, by providing funding to programs to help prisoners transition back into society - with the ultimate goal of reducing recidivism. However, the Second Chance Act has not made a dent in the BOP's prison popUlation, which stands at record levels. Further, a recent examination of Oepartment of Justice data indicates that a large amount of the limited funding for the Second Chance Act goes to state and local governments, including corrections and law enforcement agencies, rather than to community-based programs that assist released prisoners. [See: PLN, July 2012, p.46].
Further, the Second Chance Act specifies that prisoners may be assigned to a halfway house for up to 12 months - doubling the previous length of a halfway house stay. Yet while the average amount of time prisoners are assigned to halfway houses has reportedly increased, in the vast majority of cases the BOP is not providing a full year of halfway house placement for prisoners nearing release, and federal prison officials have indicated that most prisoners will receive a maximum of six months at a halfway house.
Sadly, it appears that ROAP has also fallen victim to the BOP's practice of implementing rules that may not coincide with Congressional intent. The BOP, via its rule-making authority, has established ROAP as a 9- to 12-month program even though Congress set the minimum duration at six months. BOP Program Statement 5330.11 specifies that ROAP has a "duration of 9 to 12 months," plus a Transitional Orug Abuse Treatment (TOAT) component of up to six months - which all prisoners who successfully

complete ROAP's in-prison program must finish after they are released to a halfway house.
This lengthy and somewhat arbitrary amount of time necessary to complete the ROAP program costs taxpayers millions of dollars a year. Keeping in mind that most community-based substance abuse treatment programs are generally 30 to 60 days in duration, with some extending up to 6 months, an in-prison ROAP program of 9 to 12 months appears to be excessive. It is also expensive.
Based upon an estimated 18,000 prisoners graduating from ROAP each year, and the average cost of incarceration for federal prisoners running about $28,000 annually (based upon BOP data), requiring an ROAP duration of 9 rather than six months costs approximately $126 million in additional annual incarceration costs. For a 12-month ROAP program the extra cost is around $252 million. Lengthening the ROAP duration also limits the number of prisoners who can enroll in the program and reap its benefits.
In the past, the BOP has been criticized for failing to ensure that all eligible prisoners can participate in ROAP; in 2007, for example, only 80% of federal prisoners eligible for ROAP were enrolled in the program. The BOP's Annual Report on Substance Abuse Treatment Programs for Fiscal Year 2008 stated, "Without additional funding, the agency will [be] unable to meet [Congress's goal] of treating 100 percent of eligible" prisoners. [See: PLN, Jan. 2010, p.45].
According to the BOP's 2013 budget request, the department intends to expand ROAP to "all eligible inmates" as required by § 3621, assuming it receives funding to do so. Whether the BOP will in fact provide all eligible prisoners with access to ROAP, and whether federal prison officials will administer that program in a more efficient and cost-effective manner in the future, remains to be seen."
Sources: OJP Awards by Solicitation and State, Bureau ofJustice Assistance Grants for Fiscal Year2011 (as of Sept. 30,2011); Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons, report on cost of prisoners (Dec. 28, 2011); 18 Us.c. § 3621; BOP Program Statements 5331.02 and 5330.11; www. famm.org

August 2012

28

Prison Legal News

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 29 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 5 of 32

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER
Dedicated to Protecting Human RJghts
www.HUmanRfghtsDefenseCenter.Ol'g

JOIN THE PRISON PHONE JUSTICE CAMPAIGN!
Anational coalition of media and criminal justice activists, led by the Human Rights Defense Center, Working Narratives and the Center for Media Justice, invite you to join a campaign to fight the high cost of prison phone calls.
We need those inside our nation's jails, prisons and detention centers to speak up about the impact of the cost of prison phone calls on you and your family. With your support we will advance astate-by-state legislative challenge, while also pushing the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) to take action.
WHAT YOU CAN DO
Send a brief letter to the Federal Communications Commission explaining the impact the high costs of prison phone calls have had on you and your family. Address the letter"Dear Chairman Genachowski;' and please speak from your own personal experience. You must state the following at the top of the letter: "Th is is a public comment for the Wright Petition (CC Docket #96-128):'Your letters will be made part ofthe public docket in the case.
Write to: Chairman Julius Genachowski . Federal Communications Commission Public Comments 445 12th Street, SW Washington, DC 20554
Our goal is to gather thousands of powerful stories. The prison facility which registers the most letters will be highlighted on the campaign website and will get a co-producer credit on our national radio program addressing the high cost of prison phone calls.
We also need your help organizing on the outside. Ask your family members to sign up for the campaign at www.phonejustice.org and invite them to share their story about the high costs of prison phone calls. They can also register their comments online, directly with the FCC, at: http://apps.fcc.gov/ ecfs/upload/display.action ?z=whn8 (enter docket #96-128).
Only with your support will we end the abusive cost of prison phone calls. Encourage others to join us in this struggle!
For more information: www.prisonphonejustice.org and www.phonejustice.org

Prison Legal News

29

August 2012

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 30 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 6 of 32

Tenth Circuit Holds Sex Offenders Who Leave U.S. Must Still Register

T he Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held on December 23, 2011 that a Utah sex offender must register in his home state even if he intends to permanently leave the U.S. to live in another country. Kevin Daniel Murphy, convicted of aggravated sexual assault and aggravated sexual abuse of a child, absconded from the Bonneville Community Correction Center in Salt Lake City in 2007 before fleeing to California, Mexico and then to Belize.
Murphy moved to Belize under an assumed name because he erroneously thought that Belize's government would not extradite him. However, he was deported to the United States because he lacked proper immigration papers, and was subsequently prosecuted and convicted in federal court for violating the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 48 U.S.c. § 2250. Murphy appealed his conviction and two-year sentence.
The Tenth Circuit found that Murphy's intention to leave the country did not relieve him of his obligation to register. "For [registration] purposes, a sex offender continues to reside in a state even after a change in residence or employment, both of which trigger reporting obligations, even if the offender eventually leaves the state," the appellate court wrote. "Therefore, even if an offender abandons his current residence and job with the intention of moving out of the country, he must update his registration to reflect his new status. Although SORNA does not require sex offenders living abroad to continually return to the United States to update their registrations, Murphy violated SORNA by failing to notify Utah of a change of status - specifically, his escape from Bonneville - that occurred while he was still residing in that state."
Based on the ruling in this case, sex offenders must notify the jurisdiction in which they live and are registered of any change in address or status, which includes permanently moving out of the state or country. According to SORNA, and following the appellate ruling in United States v. Van Buren, 599 F.3d 170 (2d Cir. 2010), cert. denied, a "permanent abandonment of an abode constitutes a change of residence ... Congress's goal in enacting SORNA was to ensure that sex offenders could not avoid registration

by Derek Gilna
requirements by moving out of state ... the record demonstrates Murphy knowingly violated SORNA by failing to update his registration .... "
Judge Carlos F. Lucero dissented, saying that "these facts are not in dispute, but their legal implication is...." He noted that after absconding, Murphy was in Utah "mere hours" while leaving the state on a bus, and that the court must first accept an "absurd premise" that a moving bus constitutes a "home or other place where [an] individual habitually lives" in order to

invoke penalties under SORNA. "We should look to the statutory
definition of the term and begin with the ordinary meaning ... of the term ['resides']," Lucero wrote, citing Hackwell v. United States, 491 F.3d 1229 (lOth Cir. 2007). He disagreed that Van Buren applied and concluded by stating, "Our duty as a court is to apply SORNA's plain language and leave it to Congress to change the statute if it desires to do so." See: United States v. Murphy, 664 F.3d 798 (10th Cir. 2011). ,.

Florida Reports Indicate Restoration of Civil Rights Reduces Recidivism

by David M. Reutter

Advocates of automatic restoration of civil rights for ex-offenders have long maintained that such a policy helps former prisoners reintegrate into society and therefore reduces recidivism. Two reports by the Florida Parole Commission (FPC), released in 2011 and 2012, lend support to that argument.
Since the end of the Civil War, Florida has banned the restoration of civil rights for ex-felons unless their rights are restored by the state clemency board. Historically, the restoration process has been laborious and prolonged.
Former Florida Governor Charlie Crist pushed for full restoration of rights for offenders after they completed their sentences or terms of supervised release. He greatly streamlined the restoration process in 2007, but also had to compromIse.
Objections from Crist's cabinet forced him to exclude certain violent offenders and sex offenders, but the less restrictive process still resulted in over 154,000 exfelons regaining their rights. [See: PLN, Jan. 2009, p.26].
When Governor Rick Scott took office in January 2011, however, he and Attorney General Pam Bondi moved to rescind the Crist policies. They decided that ex-offenders must wait five years without committing another offense and then apply to have their civil rights restored. [See: P LN, Sept. 2011, p.28].
As a result of this regression to Jim Crow-era laws, 60,000 ex-felons were

ineligible for restoration of their rights: They were prohibited from voting, holding public office, sitting on a jury and obtaining certain state licenses. Governor Scott's new policy also required studies of those whose rights were restored under the Crist administration.
The first report, issued by the FPC on July 1, 2011, found that 30,672 offenders had their civil rights restored in calendar years 2009 and 2010 combined (including restoration of alien status for a small number of non-citizens). Of those, only 3,406 had committed offenses by May 31, 2011 that resulted in a return to prison or community supervision by the Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC).
This equates to a 11.1% recidivism rate for ex-felons whose rights were restored under Crist's policies, which contrasts with a 2010 FDOC report that found 33.1% of all state prisoners released from 2001 to 2008 reoffended within three years.
Scott and his cabinet have argued that the more restrictive restoration of rights process, including the five-year waiting period, is necessary to protect the public. "It's all window dressing to support an antiquated system of voter suppression," countered Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida.
Attorney General Bondi applauded the FPC study. "1 am pleased with the Parole Commission's report, which clearly demonstrates their hard work to ensure a smooth and expeditious application process for the

August 2012

30

Prison Legal News

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 31 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 7 of 32

restoration of civil rights," she said. Of course, under Governor Crist, the
"application process" was full restoration of rights for most non-violent offenders that, according to the FPC study, led to a reduction in recidivism rates by almost two-thirds.
The FPC's report on restoration of civil rights for 2010 and 2011 (which

included some overlapping data from the 2009-2010 report), issued on July 1, 2012, had similar findings. Only 5,771 ex-felons had their rights restored in calendar years 2010 and 2011 combined - including a mere 52 people in 2011 under Scott's new policy. During that same period of time 651 reoffended, for a recidivism rate of 11.3%.

Which is a good argument for expanding - not limiting - the restoration of civil rights, if only Governor Scott would pay attention to the recidivism data rather than rely on political rhetoric. ,.
Sources: Herald Tribune; Florida Parole Commission, Clemency Action Reportsfor FY 2009-2010 and 2010-2011

Tainted Chicken Sickens Hundreds of Prisoners, Staff at Pennsylvania BOP Facility

I n late June 2011, around 320 prisoners and employees at USP Canaan in Pennsylvania, north of Philadelphia, became sick due to salmonella poisoning after eating "tainted chicken" used to make fajitas.
a Four prisoners were ill enough to require
treatment at local emergency room for dehydration.
According to Bureau of Prisons (BOP) spokesperson Lamine N'diaye, the facility's kitchen was closed for cleaning following the outbreak but reopened after a BOP inspector deemed it safe. Neither N'diaye nor Russell Reuthe, USP Canaan's human resource manager, would comment on the food or its source, but Reuthe confirmed it was all "wholesale food, prepared on site."
A Pennsylvania Department of Health official said they were investigating the incident, adding that "we did provide assistance to the facility by taking stool samples and food testing." According to the same official, all of the food in the kitchen was disposed of following the outbreak.
Salmonella is rarely fatal but can be serious if it spreads to the blood stream or the intestines, where it can cause a form of arthritis. The Associated Press first learned about the outbreak at USP Canaan from 'the Seattle-based law firm of Marler Clark, which specializes in cases involving food-borne illnesses. Two attorneys from the firm confirmed that families of multiple prisoners had contacted them to report the outbreak.
USP Canaan houses approximately 1,400 prisoners, and includes a 125-bed minimum-security satellite camp. During the salmonella outbreak, meals for the USP were prepared in the satellite camp's kitchen until the cleanup was complete.
It is not unusual for the BOP to purchase meat such as hamburger and chicken in bulk, then distribute it system-wide to various prisons indicating that the tainted food may have been sent

to other facilities, too. According to Christine Cronkright of
the Pennsylvania Department of Health, no new illnesses were reported after the initial outbreak at UPS Canaan and 90% of the prisoners who became sick had eaten the chicken fajitas. There were no reports of salmonella outside the facility

or in the greater Philadelphia area. By July 20, 2011, operations at USP
Canaan were back to normal. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is reportedly looking into the incident. "
Sources: Associated Press, www. wayneindependent. com

ATE"

Blogs ·Websites iI Girls • Mags Gifts .. Music . Copies . Email

15.

100 Contests . Typing • Stamps Deals" Art

Send Check or .0. made payable too: Tia TormenProductions

Order Today or Send SASE for More Info.
Inmate Shopper C/o Tia Tannen Productions P.O. Box 8069 • Pittsburgh, PA 15216

,

?

"N!1

,

anow
2:3 ""veeKs for

o

PdfQI) Pen-Ral

Buy The Book Get The Ads For FREE!

Prison Legal News

31

August 2012

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 32 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 8 of 32

ACLU Challenges "Jail or Church" Program in Alabama

On September 26, 2011 the American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama (ACLU) sent a cease-and-desist letter to the City of Bay Minette, demanding that city officials "immediately end Operation Restore Our Community (ROC), which requires first-time, non-violent misdemeanor offenders to choose between jail time or attending church once a week for a year."
While the ACLU said it supported alternative sentencing programs, it condemned Operation ROC because its use of the city's "police power to mandate and enforce church attendance flagrantly violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution," as well as Section 3 of the Alabama Constitution.
"The government is not supposed to serve as a conduit for church recruitment," noted ACLU of Alabama legal director Allison Neal.
The ACLU's letter addressed three specific points. First, that Operation ROC violates the Establishment Clause's anti-coercion principle, which prohibits government officials from compelling church attendance or other participation in religious exercise. The letter cited numerous legal precedents which had "consistently held that the government may not condition offenders' sentencing, probation, parole or release on their refusal or willingness to attend church or engage in other religious exercise."
The ACLU contended that Operation ROC is coercive, as it presents defendants with a "choice" between "(1) going to jail, paying a fine, and developing a criminal record; or (2) going to church and having the charges eventually dismissed...."
Even Bay Minette's Chief of Police, Michael E. Rowland, who championed the program, acknowledged that it provided no real option. "It's an easy choice for me," he said. "If I was given the choice of going to jail and paying a heavy fine or just going to church, I'd certainly select church."
The second point of the ACLU's letter asserted that Operation ROC violates the neutrality principle - another core tenant of the Establishment Clause. Local churches were solicited to participate in the program, and those that agreed "intend to proselytize the offenders and attempt to convert them into devout Christians." Media reports also indicated that defendants

who participate in Operation ROC would be required to answer questions about the church services they attended.
"These actions (1) favor religion generally and Christianity in particular, (2) convey an impermissible message of religious endorsement, and (3) unconstitutionally entangle the court and police department with religious matters and entities," the ACLU stated.
Finally, the demand letter urged the city to pursue constitutional alternatives to incarceration. The ACLU said it had advised and assisted government agencies in that regard in the past, and would be willing to help the city develop "law-

ful" sentencing alternatives. The letter concluded with a public records request seeking information related to the city's development of Operation ROC.
In response, the Bay Minette City Council decided to delay the implementation of the alternative sentencing program, and voted in October 2011 to seek an opinion from the state Attorney General's Office concerning the constitutionality of Operation ROC. As of mid-July 2012, the Attorney General had not issued an advisory opinion. ,.
Sources: Reuters; ACLU letter dated Sept. 26,2011; www.al.com

"Fusion Centers" Gather Intelligence on U.S. Citizens

by Derek Gilna

H omeland Security-financed agencies called "fusion centers," ostensibly formed to collect information to prevent 9111-type terrorist attacks, have expanded their scope of operations to include ordinary street-level crime. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) recently expressed concerns about a fusion center in Cleveland, Ohio, claiming the center's secrecy and data-mining practices pose a threat to privacy.
"It really is an unprecedented amount of surveillance of Americans," stated Mike Brickner, communications and public policy director for the ACLU of Ohio. "That's a very big jump in my mind from where the mission started to where they are now."
Julia Shearson, executive director of the Cleveland chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, agreed, saying, "at minimum, we join those requesting that fusion centers be held accountable to taxpayers through increased oversight and transparency."
The Department of Homeland Security describes fusion centers as "focal points within the state and local environment for the receipt, analysis, gathering, and sharing of threat-related information...."
William Schenkelberg, director of the Cleveland-based Northeast Ohio Regional Fusion Center, said the centers arose from the perceived failure of law enforcement agencies, pre-9/11, to share intelligence data. According to Schenkelberg, fusion

centers share criminal trends, tips and information among police agencies which might disclose potential national security threats.
"You get criticized for doing that level of crime analysis," said Schenkelberg, "but you don't know who it's connected to.... We work on a local felony level. We get the region talking together, so that if something does happen, we have that communication. "
The ACLU, however, has countered that the secrecy and data-mining practices of fusion centers, as well as their use of subcontractors with little public accountability, reduces transparency and threatens people's privacy. For example, some centers have issued bulletins that advocate the surveillance of political activists and racial and religious minorities. Many Islamic organizations have objected to fusion centers collecting information about citizens who are simply exercising their First Amendment rights.
Housed on the ninth floor of the Cleveland police headquarters, the Northeast Ohio Regional Fusion Center was founded in 2008. It now has a full-time staff of six and receives about $1 million annually in Homeland Security grants. It is among 72 state and regional fusion centers nationwide.
Schenkelberg said the center has had a positive effect on controlling local crimes, including flash mobs. He cited several other fusion center success stories,

August 2012

32

Prison Legal News

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 33 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 9 of 32

such as helping to crack a take-ID ring with connections to China, obtaining information on criminal Gypsy gangs and assisting with the recovery of stolen firearms.
Schenkelberg claimed that the center does not access private messages or web pages, and collects online information that is available to anyone searching the Internet. He also said the fusion center answers to a governing board of city, county, state and federal officials.
The center revamped its counterterrorism mission two years ago after criticism from law enforcement officials. "Is it hitting the core of what the mission is, as far as terrorism prevention? I don't think yet it's doing that," Cuyahoga County Sheriff Bob Reid said at the time.
Since 2010, fusion centers have been required by the Department of Homeland Security to follow federal privacy and civil rights policies, though there is little way

to verify such compliance. Further, the centers reportedly partner with the military and with private-sector companies to collect information.
The question remains as to whether the increased surveillance provided by fusion centers results in increased safety, and if so, whether that is accomplished at the expense of further erosion of people's privacy and civil rights.
As noted by the ACLU, "The lack of proper legal limits on the new fusion centers not only threatens to undermine fundamental American values, but also threatens to turn them into wasteful and misdirected bureaucracies that, like our federal security agencies before 9111, won't succeed in their ultimate mission of stopping terrorism and other crime." ,..
Sources: Cleveland Plain Dealer, www.dhs. gov, www.ne01jc. us, www. wkyc. com, www. aclu.org

Kentucky Supreme Court Adopts Mailbox Rule Retrospectively

T he Supreme Court of Kentucky, in a modified ruling, adopted the "mailbox rule," allowing notices of appeal in criminal cases to be considered filed when they are placed in the prison's internal mail system.
Joe B. Jones and Michael Allen Hallum, Kentucky state prisoners, each filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to RCr 11.42. Both motions were denied and Jones and Hallum separately filed notices of appeal and motions to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court of Appeals dismissed the motions because they and the notices of appeal arrived at the court and were filed more than 30 days after entry of the judgment being appealed, in contravention of RCr 12.04(3).
Both men had placed their pleadings . in the prison's internal mail system several days before the 30-day period had expired, but they were not received and filed by the Court of Appeals until after the expiration date had passed. Jones and Hallum appealed to the Kentucky Supreme Court, which consolidated the cases.
While the cases were pending on appeal, the Supreme Court changed RCr 12.04(5) to read, "If an inmate files a notice of appeal in a criminal case, the notice shall be considered filed if its envelope is officially marked as having been deposited in the institution's internal

mail system on or before the last day for filing with sufficient First Class postage prepaid."
Although the rule change would normally apply only prospectively, the Kentucky Supreme Court held that it should apply retrospectively to cases still pending when the rule was modified. Therefore, the decisions of the Court of Appeals were reversed and the cases returned to the trial courts for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. Jones and Hallum were represented by Frankfort Assistant Public Advocate Brandon Neil Jewell. See: Hallum v. Commonwealth, 347 S.W.3d 55 (Ky. 2011). ,..

Prison Legal News

33

YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO • Adequate medical care • Protection from assault • Humane living conditions • Safety from officer abuse
Learn how to defend your basic human rights with the comprehensive litigation guide, Protecting Your Health and Safety, 2nd edition, written specifically for prisoners who are unable to receive help from a lawyer.
Written by Robert E. Toone Edited by Dan Manville A Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center*
COST $16 total
($10 + $6 shipping/handling)
FREE shipping/handling for orders from Prison Legal News over $50
ORDER A COPY Send a check or money order to: Prison Legal News PO Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303 (802) 257-1342
Be sure to include your name, identification number (if any), and mailing address. We also accept
VISA and Mastercard. If using a
credit card, please include the type of card (VISA or Mastercard), card number, and expiration date.
This book does not deal with legal defense against criminal charges or challenges to convictions that are on appeal. Edition last revised in 2009.
*Please do not send orders to the Southern Poverty Law Center.
August 2012

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 34 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 10 of 32

Termination from Drug Treatment Program Fails to State Liberty Interest Claim

T he Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that the decision of prison officials to remove a prisoner from a drug treatment program, which made him ineligible for a probated sentence, was insufficient to confer a liberty interest for due process purposes.
Missouri state prisoner Michael Louis Persechini brought a 42 U.S.c. § 1983 action against five officials at the Ozark Correctional Center (OCC), alleging they had violated his federal due process rights by terminating him from a long-term substance abuse treatment program. He sought damages and re-entry into the program. The district court dismissed his suit for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
After being convicted of seconddegree burglary, Persechini was sentenced to fifteen years in prison. Following applicable state law, the court obtained permission from the Missouri Department of Corrections to sentence him as a chronic nonviolent offender with a serious drug addiction to oce's long-term substance abuse treatment program. Successful completion of the program would make Persechini eligible for probation.
Persechini, however, was subsequently charged with violating a "cardinal rule" of the program. He was found guilty of theft and disobeying an order by taking a new towel from the property room. It was recommended, and approved by prison officials, that he be restricted to his living area for ten days and referred to the Program Review Committee. The Committee terminated Persechini from the substance abuse program, which resulted in his transfer to another facility to serve his IS-year sentence.
On appeal, the Eighth Circuit focused first on the disciplinary hearing. It held that "Persechini does not claim, and could not plausibly claim," that the sanctions of room confinement for ten days and referral to the Committee were hardships that were either atypical or significant. As such, there was "no protected liberty interest in the outcome of this routine disciplinary proceeding."
Turning to the more serious consequences that resulted from the separate action taken by the Program Review Committee, the appellate court noted that the Committee could have imposed "no fewer

than eight alternative recommendations," and that its decision to remove Persechini from the program was "not a mere ministerial action." Nonetheless, the Court of Appeals disagreed that the Committee's decision to impose the most severe sanction - termination from the program - created a plausible liberty interest that caused an atypical and significant hardship, as required under Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995).
The Eighth Circuit cited precedents that had established there is no protected liberty interest in a sentence reduction that may be granted for completing a substance abuse treatment program, in half-way house placement after completing a drug treatment program, in remaining in a work release program, in participating in drug treatment to qualify for early release, in remaining in a "shock incarceration program," or in participating in a sex offender treatment program.
A state statute mandated that Persechini was ineligible for probation upon his termination from the substance abuse program, thus the appellate court found he did not have a protected liberty interest in the discretionary probated sentence he

could have received had he successfully completed the program.
The Eighth Circuit did "acknowledge that the Supreme Court might conclude it is enough to confer a liberty interest in the Program Review Committee's decision to recommend termination from the program, rather than imposition of a sanction with less dire potential consequences on Persechini's term of incarceration."
However, "Persechini's failure to successfully complete the treatment program and, more importantly, the ensuing execution of his fifteen-year sentence were nonetheless consequences 'within the sentence [initially] imposed,'" the Court of Appeals found. "Thus, like a Bureau of Prisons decision to deny a sentence reduction after an inmate successfully completes its drug treatment program, we conclude that program termination did not confer a liberty interest because it 'mean[t] only that [Persechini] will serve the remainder of his original sentence under typical circumstances. '"
Accordingly, the district court's order dismissing Persechini's suit was affirmed. See: Persechini v. Callaway, 651 F.3d 802 (8th Cir. 2011), rehearing denied. "

California: ADA Protections Again Extended to Disabled State Prisoners
Held in County Jails

On January 13, 2012, sixteen months following remand from the Ninth Circuit in the case of Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger, U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken issued an order that again extended the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.c. § 12131 et seq., to disabled state prisoners housed in county jails.
The order requires California officials with responsibility over the state's corrections and parole systems to track and accommodate the needs of disabled state prisoners and parolees (referred to as Armstrong class members) who, for various reasons, are held in county jails, and to ensure that those class members have access to a workable grievance procedure. Similar protections had previously been ordered, and largely been in effect, since 1996 with respect to disabled prisoners

housed in state prisons (including segregation units and reception centers). See: Armstrong v. Wilson, 124 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 1997) [PLN, Sept. 1998, p.13].
On any given day, California houses a significant number of state prisoners and parolees facing revocation hearings in county jails - a number that is increasing due to the state's recent "realignment" initiative in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Brown v. Plata. [See: PLN, July 2011, p.l].
In 2009, this included daily averages of 480 prisoners or parolees in the San Mateo County Jail, 1,000 prisoners or parolees in the Sacramento County Jail and 770 individuals in In-Custody Drug Treatment Program placements in jails throughout the state. Approximately 7 percent of this population is deemed to have mobility, sight, hearing and kidney

August 2012

34

Prison Legal News

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 35 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 11 of 32

disabilities covered by Armstrong. In September 2009, the district court
held there was sufficient evidence to find that Armstrong class members housed in county jails were not receiving the ADA accommodations to which they were entitled, and ordered system-wide relief See: An1'lstrong v. Scllwarzenegger, 261 ER.D. 173 (N.D. Cal. 2009).
The state appealed the order, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part, remanding the case for further proceedings. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's finding that the state has the legal responsibiiity to ensure ADA-compliant conditions for Armstrong class members housed in county jails. The Court of Appeals found the record in the case insufficient, however, to justify the system-wide relief ordered by the district court. Finding that "not much more evidence" was needed, the case was remanded for the taking of "such additional evidence as may be necessary." See: Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger, 622 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2010) [PLN, Nov. 2011, p.28].
On remand, the state no longer disputed that California state prisoners and parolees with mobility, sight, learning and developmental disabilities were not being provided proper ADA accommodations while housed at county jails, that they did not have access to a proper grievance system or that they were suffering as a result. Instead, they primarily argued that, under recent state legislation authorizing the realignment initiative, state parolees, when held in county jails, should no longer be considered members of the Armstrong class. The district court rejected this argument, finding that while parolees may be in the simultaneous custody and control of the county and state, they "do not cease being state parolees while they are also county jail inmates." Thus, as before realignment, the state remains obligated to ensure ADA-compliant conditions for the prisoners and parolees they choose to house in county jails.
While its task was simplified by the state's failure to dispute what the district court characterized as "overwhelming and disturbing evidence" that Armstrong class members in jails throughout the state were being injured and denied access to programs and services due to failures· to accommodate their needs, the court complied with the Ninth Circuit's instructions on remand by making additional findings before re-imposing system-wide relief

.On April 11, 2012, the district court ruled on the state's motion to correct or modify its January 13 order. The court made minor modifications to its previous order but no substantive changes. The district court also denied the state's request to stay its prior order pending another appeal, stating, "Defendants have not demonstrated a likelihood of success in overturning this Court's order finding that system-wide relief is necessary." See: Armstrong v. Brown, U.S.D.C. (N.D. Cal.), Case No. C 94-2307 CW; 2012 WL 1222928 (modified order)."

Tell your friends and family to go to www.myjailbird.com to create a FREE support community just for you!

Profile Displays inmate name,IDand exact contact
communication easy for everyone.

Communication Center Family and friends can easily send cards, wire money, get low-cost phone service or order books and

news to keep everyone involved.

How MJB Works:

My Jailbird is a free, private, social network that makes it easy for family and friends to stay connected to you during your incarceration. It is not a pen pal service. We do not sell anything directly to inmates, and there are no monthly fees. Call or write your family and friends and ask them to go to www.myjailbird.com to sign up today!

Sponsors Can:
• Create a support page for you
• Invite other people to join
• Post accurate inmate contact information
• Send cards, money and books
• Purchase low-cost phone service

51 Harvey Road, Unit C Londonderry, NH 03053
www.myjailbird.com

Prison Legal News

35

August 2012

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 36 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 12 of 32

State Awarded Statutory Attorney Fees,

Costs for Dismissed

PRPs

by Mark Wilson

T he Washington State Court of Appeals has held that the state is entitled to statutory attorney fees following the dismissal of a personal restraint petition (PRP).
After pleading guilty to witness tampering and burglary, Gregory Scott Bailey filed a PRP challenging the voluntariness of his plea. The petition was dismissed on October 7, 2010 and five days later the state filed a cost bill, seeking statutory attorney fees of $200 plus $206 for preparation of the 103-page response brief at $2.00 per page - for a total of $406. On November 1,2010, Bailey objected to the cost bill.
The Court of Appeals refused to dismiss Bailey's objection as untimely. Any purported untimeliness was waived because "the State's entitlement to statutory attorney fees in the costs for dismissed PRPs is an issue of first impression," and given "the number of PRPs the court considers each year, a decision on the merits would serve the ends of justice."
Washington law establishes the statutory attorney fee as $200 for judgments entered by the Court of Appeals. Bailey argued, however, that RCW 10.73.160(2) prohibits such fees because attorney fees are "expenditures to maintain and operate government agencies."
The appellate court agreed that "RCW 10.73.160(2) should ... be understood to disallow inclusion of prosecuting attorney salaries in the costs imposed on an unsuccessful personal restraint petitioner. Such costs are public expenditures made irrespective of specific violations of the law."
The Court of Appeals determined, however, that "statutory attorney fees do not represent prosecuting attorney salaries that are paid irrespective of a particular case and are not intended to recoup 'expenditures to maintain and operate government agencies. '" Therefore, such fees are not prohibited by RCW 10.73.160(2), and the appellate court concluded that "the State is entitled to statutory attorney fees in its award of costs under RAP 14.3(a)."
The Court of Appeals also rejected Bailey's argument that $2.00 per page was excessive, finding that "under RAP

14.3(b), the amount awarded per page is fixed by the Supreme Court" at $2.00 per page. See: In the Matter of the Amount Per Pagefor Original Documents, No. 25700B-367 (Wash. June 16, 1999).
The appellate court further rejected Bailey's argument that the state's 103page response brief was unreasonably

lengthy. The court found that "the State's response was not excessively long. RAP 10.4(b). The State is entitled to costs of $2.00 per page for 103 pages," plus the $200 statutory attorney fee. See: In re PRP of Gregory Scott Bailey, 162 Wash. App. 215, 252 P.3d 924 (Wash.App. Div.3 2011). ,.

Fifth Circuit Rules on Prisoner's ADA Claim; Issues Superseding Opinion

On October 14,2010, the Fifth Circuit the Fourteenth Amendment.'" In this Court of Appeals found that Title case, the parties agreed that "none of the

II of the Americans with Disabilities Act defendants' alleged misconduct violates

(ADA), 42 U.S.c. § 12132, does not ab- the Fourteenth Amendment."

rogate a state's sovereign immunity when

The Fifth Circuit noted that the ori-

the misconduct complained of does not gin of Congress's power to abrogate state

violate the Fourteenth Amendment. In a . sovereign immunity in the ADA was § 5

May 2011 superseding opinion following of the Fourteenth Amendment. However,

rehearing, however, the appellate court "Congress's § 5 powers do not extend

did not reach that question, instead find- to creating causes of action for ADA

ing the plaintiff had failed to adequately violations that are not 'congruent and

plead an ADA claim.

proportional' to violations of the Four-

John Hale, a Mississippi state pris- teenth Amendment." Although legislation

oner, filed a pro se federal civil rights "which deters or remedies constitutional

action against prison officials under the violations can fall within the sweep of

ADA, 42 U.S.c. §§ 12131-12165, alleging Congress's enforcement power even if in

that he was prevented from using com- the process it prohibits conduct which

munity work centers, accessing satellite is not itself unconstitutional," its power

and regional prison facilities, working in under § 5 "is not unlimited."

the kitchen or attending school because he

Hale's claim implicated Title II's

suffered from Hepatitis C, post-traumatic intent of enforcing the prohibition on

stress disorder, chronic depression, inter- irrational disability discrimination in

mittent explosive disorder and antisocial the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal

personality disorder. The district court Protection Clause. "Under that clause,

dismissed his lawsuit pursuant to 28 disabled individuals are not a suspect or

U.S.c. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) after finding the quasi-suspect classification commanding

defendants were entitled to state sovereign heightened review of laws discriminating

immunity. Hale appealed.

against them." Therefore, such discrimi-

The Fifth Circuit appointed counsel nation is constitutionally permissible if

to brief the issue of "whether Title II of the "there is a rational relationship between

ADA validly abrogates Eleventh Amend- the disparity of treatment and some legiti-

ment sovereign immunity for claims that mate government purpose."

violate Title II but are not actual viola-

In Hale's case there were rational

tions of the Fourteenth Amendment." relationships with legitimate purposes,

The Court of Appeals held that Congress such as protecting the health of a disabled

has the right to abrogate state sovereign prisoner, avoiding an "undue burden"

immunity, but only if it acts "pursuant to or preventing a fundamental alteration

a valid grant of constitutional authority." in a program. Therefore, the exercise of

The ADA "validly abrogates sovereign Congress's authority in this case was not

immunity insofar as it 'creates a private congruent and proportional, and state

cause of action for damages against the sovereignty was not abrogated by Title II

States for conduct that actually violates for this type of claim. The judgment of

August 2012

36

Prison Legal News

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 37 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 13 of 32

the district court was affirmed. See: Hale

Accordingly, the Court of Appeals amend his complaint to adequately plead

v. King, 624 F.3d 178 (5th Cir. 2010).

reversed the district court and remanded an ADA claim. See: Hale v. King, 642 F.3d

The u.S. government moved for the case to allow Hale an opportunity to 492 (5th Cir. 2011).

rehearing as an intervenor, which was

granted by the Court of Appeals. On May 26, 2011 the Fifth Circuit issued a

Fourth Circuit: Where Offer of

superseding opinion that took a different approach to the case, and withdrew its prior decision.
The appellate court first addressed .

Judgment is Silent as to Costs, Prevailing Party Entitled to Recover Attorney's Fees

T whether Hale had sufficiently pleaded an
.ADA claim, and held he had not. While

he Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Bosley an offer of judgment pursuant to has held that "in an action brought Fed.R.Civ.P. 68(a) for $30,000 "as full

Hale may have had an "impairment," that under 42 U.S.c. § 1983, an offer of judg- and complete satisfaction of [Bosley's]

did not necessarily mean he had a disabil- ment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 68(a) claim against ... Defendants." After

ity as that term is defined by the ADA. "It which makes no mention of costs or at- accepting the offer, Bosley moved for

is well established that '[m]erely having an torney's fees cannot be interpreted, after attorney's fees; the officials opposed the

impairment ... does not make one disabled the fact, to have included those costs and motion on the ground that their $30,000

for purposes of the ADA,'" the Court of fees. Rather, in such a case, the prevailing offer was inclusive of attorney's fees and

Appeals wrote. "Hale failed to allege facts party is entitled to recover costs and fees costs.

from which we can reasonably infer that pursuant to 42 U.S.c. § 1988."

The district court determined that the

Hale's medical conditions substantially

Brend·a Bosley filed suit against law settled judicial interpretations of Rule 68

limited a major life activity."

enforcement officials of Mineral County, required it to award costs and attorney's

As Hale had failed to state a viola- West Virginia after her estranged husband, fees - over and above the $30,000 offer

tion of Title II of the ADA, the Fifth Dr. James Bosley, killed himself while the of judgment - to Bosley, who was the

Circuit vacated "the portions of the dis- officials, alerted by a complaint from Mrs. prevailing party.

trict court's decision below that address Bosley attesting to her husband's insta-

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the dis-

whether Hale's allegations established bility, were attempting to take him into trict court, finding no merit to any of the

violations of the Fourteenth Amendment custody for a psychiatric examination. defendants' arguments to the contrary.

and whether Title II validly abrogates state

After removing the case to federal See: Bosley v. Mineral County Commis-

sovereign immunity.... "

court, the defendants served on Brenda sion, 650 F.3d 408 (4th Cir. 2011). ,.

Stamps/or CASH!
Great Goods will buy your stamps!
70 01 of Face Value: Complete books or sheets of -10 Forever Stamps
65 01 of Face Value: Complete books, sheets, or -10 rolls of 4S-cent stamps
60 01 of Face Value: Complete books or sheets of -10 high denomination stamps above 4S-cent
Payment sent within 24 hours of receipt.

W E WILL SEND your funds as a money order, electronic payment to anywhere you designate. Great Goods can also send payment to an approved package vendor. Please provide complete name and address of where to send your funds. Also include any required forms or special instructions.

Minimum money order of $20. • No quantity of stamps too big. • No taped or stapled stamps. • Used, damaged, torn stamps not accepted and cannot be returned. • Stamps MUST be on original postal backing. • Only new stamps accepted.
• No singles or partials will be accepted and they cannot be returned.

Prison Legal News

GREAT GOODS
PO Box 399, West Chesterfield NH 03466 www.greatgoods.org
37

STAMPS © USPS. All RIGHTS RESERVED.
August 2012

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 38 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 14 of 32

Ninth Circuit Grants Qualified Immunity to California Prison Officials for Denial of Outdoor Exercise During Lengthy Lockdown

On March 17,2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted qualified immunity to California prison officials who had denied a prisoner outdoor exercise during a 15-month lockdown precipitated by a "particularly violent armed riot ... against staff."
Steve Joseph Noble IV was incarcerated in Facility "C" at the Substance Abuse Treatment Center at Corcoran State Prison. A former Crip gang member, he was classified as Level IV, the highest security level.
On January 9, 2002, Corcoran staff members were attacked by Crips and other prisoners on the Facility "C" exercise yard. The riot, which included an attempt to kill a prison guard, left more than 20 other officers with injuries. The incident led to a formal declaration of a state of emergency and the imposition of another in a long series of lockdowns at Corcoran.
During that lockdown, prison officials conducted an investigation into the immediate causes of the riot. The investigation ended on January 30, 2002 but was not conclusive. Over the following months, prison officials gradually restored privileges, including visitation in April, modified day room access in June, full day room access in July and, finally, limited outdoor exercise on August 1, 2002. The next day, however, another riot occurred - this time involving Hispanic prisoners. Another lockdown ensued and full exercise privileges were not restored until April 1, 2003.
Noble, who undisputedly was not involved in the January 2002 riot, filed suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1983, alleging violations of his Eighth Amendment right to outdoor exercise from January 9, 2002 to April 1, 2003, during the lockdowns.
The district court granted qualified immunity to prison officials for the second lockdown period commencing August 1, 2002, but denied it - "counterintuitively," in the view of the Ninth Circuit - for the period in the immediate aftermath of the riot, faulting the officials for not justifying with "specific facts" the extension of lockdown restrictions following completion of their investigation on January 30,2002.
The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the district court's order, with

instructions to enter judgment on behalf of the prison officials. Relying principally on Norwood v. Vance, 591 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2010), the appellate court held that a prisoner's right to outdoor exercise during a lockdown imposed in the aftermath of a prison riot was not clearly established in 2002.
"[I]t would not have been clear to a reasonable officer that his or her conduct
vis avis the declaration of an emergency,
the lockdown, or the curtailment of use of the exercise yard was unlawful in the

situation he or she confronted," the Ninth Circuit wrote. "If anything, the record demonstrates that the officials were continuously, prudently, and successfully looking out for the safety, security, and welfare of all involved, staff and prisoners alike." See: Noble v. Adams, 636 F.3d 525 (9th Cir. 2011).
The Court of Appeals entered an amended, superseding opinion on August 2, 2011, which did not change the outcome of the rUling. See: Noble v. Adams, 646 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied. ,.

Tenth Circuit Affirms Denial of Qualified Immunity to Oklahoma Jail Official Who Failed to Follow Prescribed Medical Instructions

On October 14, 2011 the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's denial of summary judgment, on the ground of qualified immunity, to Payne County, Oklahoma jail administrator Brandon Myers. The appellate court held that a reasonable jury could find that Myers was deliberately indifferent to pretrial detainee John David Palmer's serious need for medical treatment, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. PLN readers should note that deliberate indifference claims for pretrial detainees are brought under the Fourteenth Amendment while similar claims involving convicted prisoners are brought under the Eighth Amendment.
In August 2007, while being held pending trial at the Payne County Jail, Palmer suffered from a serious infection commonly known as MRSA. He was transported to an outside doctor, who administered an injection of an antibiotic. The doctor instructed Palmer to return for a follow-up visit in two days, but warned that if he developed a fever or reported increased pain, he should be taken to a hospital immediately. It was undisputed that this information was conveyed to Myers.
Upon his return to the jail, Palmer's level of pain increased to the point that he was vomiting and crying. He reported this to Myers, along with the outside doctor's instructions, and requested that he be taken to an emergency room. According

to Palmer, Myers told him to "shut the fuck up or go back to the main jail where you got the disease."
Palmer was eventually transported to the emergency room, but only after a delay of about a day. He underwent surgery for the MRSA infection and claimed to suffer both nerve damage and scarring. Additionally, he reported incurring over $24,000 in medical costs.
The Tenth Circuit had little trouble dispensing with Myers' arguments on appeal that he did not know or appreciate the seriousness of Palmer's condition and, in particular, did not know that Palmer was suffering from MRSA. As the Court of Appeals put it, "such lay ignorance of medical matters is precisely the reason for the rule ... that noncompliance with the treatment prescribed by medical professionals is one form of deliberate indifference. "
Moreover, the appellate court noted, there was no support for Myers' argument that a jail official could ignore a prisoner's complaints of pain merely because those complaints were subjective. See: Palmer v. Board of Commissioners/or Payne County, Oklahoma, 441 Fed.Appx. 582 (10th Cir. 2011) (unpublished).
Hepatitis & Liver Disease
A Guide to Treating & Living with Hepatitis & Liver Disease. Revised Ed.
By Dr. Melissa Palmer See page 53 for order information

August 2012

38

Prison Legal News

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 39 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 15 of 32

First Circuit Holds that Delay in Treating HIV May Constitute Deliberate Indifference

T he First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the grant of summary judgment to a physician assistant at the York County Jail (YCJ) in Maine, concluding that a material dispute existed as to whether the physician assistant acted with deliberate iIidifference to the serious medical needs of an HIV-positive detainee.
In April 2008, Raymond D. Leavitt, a Maine state prisoner, filed suit pursuant to 42 U.S.c. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), seeking injunctive relief and monetary damages against various correctional officials and healthcare providers. He alleged that he was denied HIV treatment for the entirety of his 167-day stay at YCJ and for the first 17 months of his incarceration at the Maine State Prison (MSP), where medical care was provided by Correctional Medical Services (CMS).
Leavitt, who had been taking HIV medications before he was incarcerated, claimed that the delay in reinitiating his antiretroviral therapy for HIV resulted in short- and long-term negative conse-

quences to his health. Initially proceeding pro se, Leavitt
eventually obtained the services of an attorney. In March 2010, the district court granted summaryjudgment in favor of the defendants, finding insufficient evidence that they had acted with deliberate indifference to Leavitt's serious medical needs.
On appeal, Leavitt dropped his ADA claim. With respect to the 17-month delay in reinitiating Leavitt's antiretroviral therapy at MSP, the Court of Appeals noted an acknowledgement by MSP's healthcare providers that "the care [Leavitt] received ultimately fell short of the mark," and the Court therefore urged "[t]hose responsible for the operation of the Maine correctional healthcare system ... [to] focus on the troubling implications of that acknowledgment."
The First Circuit concluded, however, that because the medical department at MSP operates on a clinic model where no particular healthcare provider is charged with following any particular patient, Leavitt could not carry his burden of dem-

onstrating that any individual provider was sufficiently aware of his circumstances to actually draw the inference that he faced a substantial risk of serious harm. Thus, the grant of summary judgment to the MSP and CMS defendants was affirmed.
By contrast, with respect to Leavitt's treatment at YCJ, the First Circuit observed that physician assistant Alfred Cichon was the president of ARCH, the corporation that provided healthcare services at the jail, and that, as its largest shareholder, a jury could infer that Cichon had a financial incentive to keep treatment costs low. Such an incentive could explain Cichon's "unfortunate" overlooking of a medical report that would have alerted him to the need to "precipitously" refer Leavitt to an infectious disease specialist.
The Court of Appeals therefore reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Cichon, and remanded the case for further proceedings. See: Leavitt v. Correctional Medical Services, Inc., 645
F.3d 484 (1st Cir. 2011). "

High Quality Hot Erotic Paperback Novels and Literature
**Lockdown Specia/**
Order all 4 for only $59.99 includes FREE shipping and handling.

Lesbian Cowboy Erotic Fantasies
5112 x 8, 224 pages
$15.99 + $2.99 S/H

The Sweetest Kiss Hot Vampire Erotica
5112 x 8,264 pages
$15.99 + $2.99 S/H

Peep Show -Tales of Voyeurs & Exhibitionists
5 1/2 x 8, 208 pages
$15.99 + $2.99 S/H

Say Please Lesbian 8D5M Erotica
5112 x 8, 232 pages
$15.99 + $2.99 S/H

Send a SASE with 3 first class U.S. Stamps, for a FREE full color catalog of over 100 erotic books sure to give you hours of reading pleasure.
Order by phone with credit card, or institutional check or money order by mail.
888.858.2676
Allow 4 to 6 weeks for delivery

The Lock Down Book store - P.O. Box 215, Moorpark, CA 93020
Publications are Picture Free and Meet All Requirements of Federal Bureau of Prisons Program Statement 52.6610 and Most State Departments of Corrections

Prison Legal News

39

August 2012

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 40 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 16 of 32

New York Court of Appeals Holds Sex Offense Does Not Prove Parental Neglect

T he New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, has held that the fact that a defendant was convicted of a sex offense against a minor, was a levelthree registered sex offender and had not received any sex offender treatment was insufficient to prove that he or the mother who allowed him to continue living with her and his minor children were guilty of parental neglect.
In this case brought against an anonymous defendant, a New York father had pleaded guilty to charges related to his having sex with a prostitute under the age of 15. He was released on time served and not required to participate in sex offender treatment. The state Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) required him to register as an untreated level-three sex offender. He returned home to live with his wife and five children, who were between the ages of four and fourteen.
The Dutchess County Department of Social Services (DSS) filed neglect petitions against both the father and mother pursuant to Article 10 of the Family Court Act. The DSS's theory was that, because the father was an "untreated" sex offender whose crimes involved minors, he was a danger to his children and the mother had "failed to protect the children" from their father by allowing him to live with them.
At a fact-finding hearing, the DSS caseworker testified that he filed the petition based upon the father's SORA registration, without any specific knowledge about the crimes or any evidence that the father had been sexually inappropriate with his own children. The father testified that he had pleaded guilty to the prostitution charge based on the advice of his attorney and alleged that he had sex with the prostitute only after she was 18, but exercised his Fifth Amendment rights when asked whether he had ever had sex with minors. The Family Court drew a negative inference from the father's denial of the crimes and his failure to testify, concluding that both parents had neglected their children. The parents then appealed.
The Appellate Division reversed the Family Court, denied the neglect petitions and dismissed the proceedings, holding that "the mere fact that a designated sex offender resides in the home is not sufficient to establish neglect absent a showing of actual danger to the children." It also

held that "the evidence was insufficient to establish that the father posed an imminent danger to the children." The DSS appealed.
The Court of Appeals upheld the decision of the Appellate Division, rejecting "any presumption that an untreated sex offender residing with his or her children is a neglectful parent," even when the sex offender's victim was a minor. The DSS

had failed to prove that there was an actual danger to the children caused by a parent's failure to exercise a minimum degree of parental care. Since the father had not been shown to pose an actual danger to his children, the neglect petition against the mother for allowing the father to live with his children also failed. See: In the Matter
of Afton c., 17 N.y'3d 1,950 N.E.2d 101
(N.Y. 2011). ,.

New Jersey Appellate Court Holds Attorneys for Female Prisoners Temporarily Transferred to All-Male Facility May be Entitled to Fees

T he Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey has held that the attorneys who represented a class of female prisoners temporarily transferred to the all-male New Jersey State Prison (NJSP) may qualify for an award of attorney's fees.
The answer will hinge on whether the prisoners are ultimately deemed to be "prevailing parties" in the litigation despite the fact that there was no trial court ruling on the merits of their claims. Instead, the underlying action was dismissed as moot after the female prisoners were transferred back to the Edna Mahan Correctional Facility (EMCF), from which they had been sent to NJSP.
The trial court had denied the prisoners' motion for attorney's fees on the ground that, in its view, there was no factual nexus between their lawsuit and the decision by prison officials to return the women to EMCF. In the court's words, the latter was simply "an operational decision made independent of this suit."
The Appellate Division reversed the denial of the prisoners' motion for attorney's fees and remanded for reconsideration in light of legal principles articulated by the New Jersey Supreme Court in Mason v. City of Hoboken, 951 A.2d 1017 (N.I 2008).
Between March and September 2007, in an effort to alleviate overcrowding at EMCF (the state's sole women's facility), the New Jersey Department of Corrections (DOC) transferred approximately 40 female prisoners to NJSP, a maximumsecurity men's prison. In December 2007, four of those prisoners filed suit alleging

illegal confinement, discrimination, cruel and unusual punishment, and unconscionable violations of their privacy rights in association with their transfer to NJSP.
Over the objections of the defendant prison officials, the trial court certified the case as a class-action and granted preliminary injunctive relief, ordering the DOC not to send any other women to NJSP. Then, in December 2008, the DOC transferred all of the female prisoners at NJSP back to EMCF. It did so, it claimed, due to a determination that the popUlation at EMCF had dropped sufficiently to allow their return. [See: PLN, Jan. 1, 2009, p.46].
The,Appellate Division held that the trial court had misapplied the standards in Mason. Under the so-called catalyst theory adopted in Mason, a plaintiff can be awarded attorney's fees even without a final judgment on the merits, so long as 1) there is a factual causal nexus between the litigation and the relief ultimately achieved, and 2) the relief ultimately secured has a "basis in law."
The Appellate Division found that the "basis in law" prong had been satisfied because the prisoners' litigation was neither frivolous nor harassing. As to the "causal nexus" prong, the trial court erred, the Appellate Division held, in simply accepting the defendant prison officials' self-serving representations that the transfer of the women to NJSP had been intended, from the very outset, to be only "temporary." Rather, this "fact sensitive determination" required an evidentiary hearing for proper resolution of the prisoners' motion for attorney fees.

August 2012

40

Prison Legal News

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 41 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 17 of 32

Further, even if the trial court finds "shall then determine whether plaintiffs preliminary injunctive relief." See: Jones v. no "causal nexus" that would result in a are otherwise entitled to a partial award Hayman, 418 N.ISuper. 291, 13 A.3d 416 grant of fees under the catalyst theory, it of attorneys' fees for successfully securing (N.ISuper.A.D. 2011)."

Single Incident of Deliberate Indifference Insufficient to Establish Policy or Custom

T he Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a district court's grant of summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiff's evidence, which indicated a single case of a constitutional violation, did not prove a private medical provider had a policy, practice or custom of deliberate indifference.
The appellate ruling was entered in a civil rights action that alleged an Eighth Amendment violation for deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of Henry Craig, who was approached by a police officer in Rome, Georgia on July 4, 2006. Craig had consumed methamphetamine hours earlier, was acting erratically and told the officer to shoot him.
Two other police officers arrived and one used a Taser on Craig. When he fell, a puddle of blood formed on the ground beside his head. He was transported to a hospital and examined. A doctor cleared him to be taken to the Floyd County Jail (FCJ), where he was placed under the care of the jail's medical provider, Georgia Correctional Health, LLC.
The next day, nurse practitioner Susan Hatfield determined that the dried blood around Craig's right ear was from a ruptured eardrum. He was coherent and expressed no other complaints about his health. Over the following nine days, Craig received sixteen evaluations by nine different Georgia Correctional Health employees, including nurses, nurse practitioners, a psychologist and a physician.
During some of those evaluations Craig did not complain about his medical condition, but during others he complained about not eating for five days, having urinated only once while in jail, and experiencing severe headaches, neck pain and a lack of hearing in his right ear. He received "acetaminophen, ibuprofen, other pain relievers and muscle relaxants" for the headaches.
Hatfield ordered a tomography scan of Craig's head on July 13, 2006, which indicated he had air and bleeding in his skull along with several fractures. He was taken to a hospital where he received neurological surgery.
Craig filed a federal civil rights

complaint that alleged three "persistent and widespread practices" to support his deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim against Georgia Correctional Health. He argued the company had a practice of not referring detainees to physicians, of erroneously relying on hospital clearance forms rather than doing its own diagnostic tests, and of using the least costly means to treat detainees. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants and Craig appealed.
The Eleventh Circuit held that even if it assumed the practices cited by Craig represented constitutional violations, the evidence he had presented was insufficient to prove a widespread policy or custom by Georgia Correctional Health (the applicable legal standard under Monell v. Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978)). Craig had only addressed issues related to his own medical care and presented

the testimony of Dr. Jimmy Graham, who stated he did not have any knowledge of the FCJ or Georgia Correctional Health. His testimony relied solely on his experiences with other jails.
Since a single incident of an alleged constitutional violation was insufficient to prove a custom, policy or practice, the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defendants was affirmed. See: Craig v. FloydCounfy, Georgia, 643 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2011).
Actual Innocence
Explains how the innocent are convicted by faulty eyewitness testimony, police perjury, expert witnesses, prosecutorial misconduct, etc., and how DNA testing is used to free the innocent. $16.00 from PLN's Book Store! See page 53 for more information.

482 Summit Wind Drive - Suite 704 - Lake Harmony, PA - 18624-0704 prisonerassistant.com - info@prisonerassistant.com (570)-722-5800
Prisoner Assistant has designed the only financial concierge service available to prisoners. We help enrich your life while in prison and give you the tools to help prepare for reentry. We only serve our clients, so join us by opening an account today. It is impossible to explain the scope of our services here. If you want more information, please send $4.50 or 1 book of forever stamps with a request for a complete Application Package, which includes the July 2012, 56 page catalog (money orders made out to Prisoner Assistant - no personal checks accepted). It is only by reading through the package that you can understand the depth of our commitment and the limitless possibilities that exist. We will send a brochure, application and POA to those that only send us an SASE or $.45.
You must send a minimum of $200 to open an account and always maintain a balance of $150 or more. Our fee is $40 to open an account and email address. You will have to sign and notarize a limited Power of Attorney (POA) and pay for a monthly Membership, which is $5 per month. We send our clients newsletters and bank statements each month. If you do not have the ability to replenish your account or are just looking to save money, this is not the service for you. Our service fees start at $.40 per minute. We provide you with a professional Executive Assistant and unlimited access to the most dynamic service ever offered to prisoners. We create a presence for you that exists outside of your prison cell, we bring hope and change, we bring the world to your finger tips.

Prison Legal News

41

August 2012

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 42 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 18 of 32

Texas Teenager Killed at Private Juvenile Detention Center

by Matt Clarke

On October 10,2011, 14-year-old Jordan Adams was found unconscious on the floor of his isolation cell at the Granbury Regional Juvenile Justice Center (GRJJC) in Granbury, Texas. A sheet was wrapped around his neck. He died six days later at the Cook Children's Medical Center in Fort Worth without regaining consciousness, after being removed from life support. The cause of his death was manual strangulation.
The GRnC is a 96-bed facility that houses juvenile offenders from various Texas counties; it is operated by 4M Granbury Youth Services, a for-profit company. Jordan's death at GRJJC was the first of a juvenile prisoner in Texas since 2003, according to Lisa Capers, deputy executive director and general counsel of the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission (TJPC). The TJPC and local police launched investigations.
"The sheet was around his neck," noted Granbury Police Captain Alan Hines. "We are investigating to determine whether this was an accident or there needs to be criminal charges for homicide."
The mystery is how someone could kill a child held in a locked isolation cell. Tanya Hernandez, 37, Jordan's mother, struggled with that question. "We've heard several different stories," she said. "I don't know what to believe at this point."
According to Hernandez, a ''juvenile director" told her that Jordan had been engaging in the "choking game," a dangerous attempt to get high through oxygen deprivation.
"I'd never, ever heard of kids doing that, but now I hear that all over the United States, kids have been doing this," said Hernandez, who believes that Jordan's fragile mental condition might have made him susceptible to participating in the choking game.
"I'm just speculating, but I believe someone had talked him into doing that and Jordan had no idea of the consequences," she said. "The doctor told us all the ligaments and his main artery in his neck were so damaged that we don't really know if it was actually a game or if the [other] boy actually [purposely] did it. Everything on his neck was tom except his spinal cord. He must have pulled so hard."
But asphyxiation to get high is not the only explanation GRJJC officials have provided for Jordan's death. The first reason given to Hernandez, the press and

the TJPC was that Jordan was involved in a game of tug-of-war with anotherjuvenile in a neighboring cell. According to that version of events, prisoners who grow bored with being locked in isolation cells combat the boredom by passing a sheet under their door and the door of a neighboring cell, then playing tug-of-war with the sheet. V nder this theory, Jordan played tug-of-war with another prisoner but, for some inexplicable reason, wrapped the sheet around his neck so that his neighbor inadvertently choked him to death.
GRJJC facility administrator Ted Cooley stated he had never heard of prisoners playing tug-of-war and that such behavior would be strictly prohibited. He said structural changes were being discussed that would prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future.
Not only should such games be prohibited, they also should be known to GRnC staff. Sheets passed between two neighboring cell doors would have to pass along the hallway, and guards are supposed to walk through the hallways. when periodically checking the isolation cells. However, TJPC records indicate that GRnC has a history of failing to comply with routine cell monitoring requirements.
A May 2011 compliance audit at GRJJC reported a failure to make the mandatory once-every-fifteen-minute cell checks in four of the 10 medical isolation cases reviewed. A failure to make required ten-minute checks of four juveniles who were determined to be moderate suicide risks also was noted. The state compliance officers further found that GRnC logs indicated violations of routine cell checks.
Similar findings had been noted in a 2008 state inspection, when around half of the required cell checks were not performed. Additionally, a state inspection in 2009 reported "numerous unsanitary and unhealthy living conditions" at GRne.
Slacking by GRJJC staff may extend beyond cell checks and hygiene issues. In June 2011, the facility was cited for failing to promptly report a detainee's allegation of staff sexual abuse. Further, almost 200 complaints and serious incidents have been reported at GRnC from late 2007 through October 2011, including assaults, physical abuse and suicide attempts.
Jordan had been diagnosed with

attention-deficit, hyperactivity and mood disorders. He had spent 10 days at the G RJJC earlier in 2011 after pulling a knife during a fight with his 17-year-old brother.
"They told him if he didn't get into any trouble for six months, they would drop the charge," said Hernandez. "It was kind of brothers being brothers that got out of hand."
But Jordan didn't make it through six months without getting into trouble. He was returned to the GRnC after hitting another boy on a school bus - an incident that was captured on video tape.
Hernandez tried to get professional help for her son. He had been a mental health patient for six years and she had convinced GRJJC officials to transfer him to a mental health facility. The transfer was scheduled for October 13,2011- three days after Jordan was found unconscious in his cell.
This tragic incident underscores how inappropriate it is for private companies to manage detention facilities. For-profit corporations are primarily concerned about profit, not about the wellbeing of the prisoners under their custody and control. One way to increase profits is to cut personnel, which reduces payroll costs. When staffing levels decline, however, routine tasks,. such as cell checks are delayed or ignored - sometimes with fatal results.
"The only way they can make a profit is to decrease the salary or staff or reduce services," noted Ana Correa, director of the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition.
In January 2012, an unidentified 14year-old juvenile at GRnC pleaded guilty to the equivalent of criminally negligent homicide in connection with Jordan's death. No details were reported as to the nature of the charge or how Jordan had died.
Jordan's father, Kenneth Grant, who was incarcerated in a Texas state prison unit at the time of his son's death, has since filed a federal lawsuit against GRJJC, 4M Granbury Youth Services and other defendants. The case remains pending. See: Grant v. Granbury Regional Juvenile Justice Center, V.S.D.e. (N.D. Tex.), Case No. 4: 12-cv-00357-A. ,.,
Sources: Fort Worth Star- Telegram, www. ktxs. com, Reuters

August 2012

42

Prison Legal News

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 43 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 19 of 32

Ninth Circuit Holds BOP Individual RDAP Determinations Not SUbject to Judicial Review

I ndividualized decisions related to the federal Bureau of Prisons' (BOP) Residential Drug Abuse Program (RDAP) are not subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held.
Philip T. Reeb sought habeas relief after he was expelled from the RDAP at FCI Sheridan in Oregon in 2008 for "exhibiting disruptive behavior in group counseling sessions on several occasions." In response to Reeb's petition, the government argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear his claims because 18 U.S.C. § 3625 bars judicial review under the APA of "any determination, decision, or order under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3621-3625."
The district court disagreed that it lacked jurisdiction, but nonetheless found no error in the BOP's decision to remove Reeb from the RDAP. Reeb appealed and the government reasserted its jurisdictional argument before the Ninth Circuit.
Finding "no ambiguity" in § 3625, the Court of Appeals determined that "any substantive decision by the BOP to admit a particularprisoner into RDAP, or to grant or deny a sentence reduction for completion of the program is not reviewable by the district court." Further, the appellate court wrote, "the BOP's substantive decisions to remove particular inmates from the RDAP program are likewise not subject to judicial review." Reeb attempted to get around § 3625 by arguing that the BOP had violated its own program statement when expelling him from the RDAP, but the Ninth Circuit flatly rejected that argument: "A habeas claim cannot be sustained solely upon the BOP's purported violation of its own program statement because noncompliance with a BOP program statement is not a violation of federal law."
While § 3625 bars review of individualized determinations under the APA, the Court of Appeals noted that "judicial review remains available for allegations that BOP action is contrary to established federal law, violates the United States Constitution, or exceeds its statutory authority." See: Reeb v. Thomas, 636 F.3d 1224 (9th Cir. 2011).
Previously, the Ninth Circuit had held that the BOP's categorical exclusion from the RDAP of prisoners convicted of offenses involving possession, carrying or use of

firearms violated the APA, as the BOP had failed to adequately explain its rationale for excluding such offenders from the program. See: Arrington Daniels, 516 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2008) [PLN, June 2009, p.44].
Arrington, however, involved a general exclusionary rule, not an individualized determination to remove a prisoner from the RDAP as in Reeb's case. Breaking

with the Arrington ruling, the Third and Eighth Circuits held in 2009 that the BOP did not violate the APA by categorically excluding from the RDAP's early release provision certain prisoners whose sentences included firearms enhancements. See: Gardner v. Grandolsky, 585 F.3d 786 (3d Cir. 2009) and Gatewood v. Outlaw, 560 F.3d 843 (8th Cir. 2009). ,.

No Good Time for Time Spent in State Custody before Imposition of Federal Sentence

G ood conduct time (GCT) may not be awarded to a federal prisoner for time spent in state custody before receiving his federal sentence, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held.
Russell Schleining was arrested in 2003 for burglary and attempted burglary. At the time of his arrest, he was discovered with a firearm. He was sentenced to ten years in state prison on the burglary charges; while serving his state sentence, Schleining was indicted in federal court for being a felon in possession of a firearm.
He pleaded guilty to the firearms charge, received his federal time and was returned to state custody for completion of his state sentence. After finishing his state time, Schleining was transferred to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to begin his federal sentence.

While at FCI Sheridan, Schleining complained to the BOP that he had been improperly denied good conduct time for the time he spent in state custody before receiving his federal sentence. He eventually filed a habeas corpus petition over the matter, which was denied. Schleining appealed.
Affirming thejudgment of the district court, the Ninth Circuit held that "a prisoner can receive GCT only on time served on his federal sentence, and his federal sentence does not 'commence' until after he has been sentenced in federal court." As such, the appellate court concluded, "Schleining [was] not eligible for GCT credit for the 21 months he spent in state custody - serving a state sentence - before imposition of his federal sentence." See: Schleining v. Thomas, 642 F.3d 1242 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied. ,.

WILLIAM L. SCHMIDT
Attorney at Law
Have you been seriously injured? Wrongly convicted? Denied parole?
Accidents § Appeals § Police Brutality Federal- State - Local
Civil Rights, Writs, Parole Hearings, Transfers, Classification, Visiting, Medical
Providing Justice Througl10ut California by Plane
377 W FALLBROOK, SUITE 207, FRESNO, CA 93711 P.O. Box 25001, FRESNO, CA 93729-5001 legal. sc/Jmidt@gmail.com 559.261.2222

Prison Legal News

43

August 2012

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 44 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 20 of 32

Washington State Court of Appeals Holds Payments to Class II Prison Workers Are "Wages" for Time-Loss Compensation Calculations

by Matt Clarke

On April 13, 2011, a Washington state Court of Appeals held that money paid to Class II prison workers counted as "wages" for purposes of calculating time-loss compensation.
James B. Hill, a former Washington state prisoner, was injured while performing a Class II prisonjob for which he was paid $0.85 per hour. After his release from prison, Hill applied for time-loss compensation from the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries (L&I). L&I allowed compensation, calculating that Hill worked 7.5 hours per day for six days a week at $0.85 per hour.
Hill appealed the order to the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals, claiming that the money paid to Class II prison workers was a gratuity, not wages. The Department of Corrections (DOC) answered interrogatories stating that it did not pay wages to prisoners and did not report the gratuities to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Therefore, Hill moved for summary judgment. L&I filed a cross-motion for summary judgment and the DOC filed a brief supporting L&I.
The industrial appeals judge (IAJ) denied Hill's motion and granted summary judgment to L&I. Hill unsuccessfully petitioned the Board for review of the IArs decision. He then appealed the Board's order in superior court. The superior court granted L&I's motion for summary judgment, and Hill again appealed.
The Court of Appeals conducted a de novo review. It noted that statutory law required L&I to base time-loss compensation on the monthly wages the worker was receiving at the time of the injury, disallowing gratuities not reported to the IRS (former RCW 51.08.178). The appellate court also noted that the legislature classified money paid to prisoners for their Class II labor as a "gratuity" (RCW 72.09.100(2)(e)).
Further, if Hill's wages could not be reasonably and fairly determined for any reason, L&I would be required to calculate a monthly wage based upon "the usual wage paid other employees engaged in like or similar occupations where the wages are fixed. "
The Court of Appeals looked to L&I regulations to determine whether Hill's payments were a gratuity. It determined

that the money the DOC paid to Hill was for his labor and therefore qualified as wages, not a gratuity. The Court rejected Hill's argument that the payments could not be wages as they were lower than the minimum wage set by law. The appellate court noted the fact that the legislature had specifically exempted prisoners from the Washington state minimum wage act (RCW 49.46.010(5)(k)), which would create problems in calculating time-loss compensation, but assumed the legislature

had to be aware of the problem and had failed to correct it because lawmakers decided that compensation based on prison wages was fair and reasonable.
Therefore, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to L&I. The Washington Supreme Court declined to hear Hill's appeal in September 2011. See: Hill v. Department of Labor and Industries, 161 Wash.App. 286, 253 P.3d 430 (Wash.App. Div.2 2011), review denied. "

Georgia Court Clerk Liable for Failure to Inform Prison Officials of Sentence Reduction

T he Georgia Supreme Court has held that a court clerk is not entitled to official immunity in a lawsuit claiming negligent performance of a ministerial duty. At the heart of the case was the clerk's failure to inform prison officials about a court order that reduced a prisoner's sentence.
Calvin McGee filed suit against Juanita Hicks and Geneva Blanton, in their respective capacities as clerk of the Superior Court of Fulton County and an employee of that office, for negligence for failing to perform their ministerial duty under OCGA §42-5-50(a), which requires the court clerk to notify the commissioner of the Department of Corrections within 30 working days following receipt of a prisoner's sentence.
The trial judge had signed a one-page "amended order" that changed McGee's sentence to provide for a May 27, 2001 maximum release date rather than a previously-ordered release date of June 27, 2003. Blanton received the order on July 20,2000; she placed it in processing to be filed and took no other action. McGee was not released from prison until March 2003 - 22 months after his amended release date.
Blanton and Hicks moved to dismiss the claim against them in their individual capacity, which was denied by the trial court. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The trial court subsequently granted their motion for summary judgment on the basis that they were entitled to official immunity because the court order contained

no language that it was a reduction or modification of sentence, was not accompanied by a final disposition form and did not instruct the clerk to notify prison officials of a sentence reduction.
McGee appealed, the Court of Appeals reversed and the Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari on two questions. As to the first, the Supreme Court held the appellate court had correctly found the trial court erred in deciding that Blanton and Hicks did not breach the ministerial duty imposed upon them by OCGA § 42-5-50(a).
The Supreme Court disagreed that the trial court's' order was a "type of non-sentencing order," as the record directly contradicted a finding that it did not contain language that reduced or modified a sentence. Additionally, state law does not excuse the clerk from completing ministerial duties merely because the judge did not include a final disposition form or specifically order the clerk to take action.
"The amended order unambiguously involved a criminal defendant's sentence whether or not appellants recognized it as such," the Supreme Court wrote. The lack of that recognition may evidence "negligent performance of the simple, absolute, and definite act" required by OCGA § 42-5-50(a).
As to the second question, the Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals had erred in its application of the "law of the case" rule, as the appellate court's first opinion in McGee's

August 2012

44

Prison Legal News

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 45 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 21 of 32

case did not resolve the issue of whether the defendants were entitled to official immunity. Regardless, the Court of Appeal's judgment was affirmed and the case

remanded for further proceedings against Hicks and Blanton. See: Hicks v. McGee, 289 Ga. 573, 713 S.E.2d 841 (Ga. 2011), reconsideration denied. ,.

Former Mississippi Mayor Charged with Sexually Assaulting Prisoner

F ederal prosecutors have charged the former mayor of Walnut Grove, Mississippi with sexually assaulting a prisoner while acting under color of law. He also was charged with telling the prisoner to lie during an investigation into the incident. [See: PLN, April 2012, p.1].
William Grady Sims, 61, was first elected mayor of Walnut Grove in 1981. He was accused of sexually assaulting a female prisoner held at the Walnut Grove Transition Center (WGTC) operated by GEO Group, the nation's second-largest private prison company.
WGTC houses prisoners from the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Ironically, Sims was employed as WGTC's warden in 2009 when he took the prisoner to a motel room and had sex with her.
Separately, state auditors found that Sims' relationship with private prison firms was illegally costing local taxpayers. On October 25, 2011, State Auditor Stacey Pickering ordered Sims to repay $31,150 for ordering private prisons in the area to be

serviced by city employees and equipment. "The demand against Mayor Sims
represents multiple instances where city employees were directed by the mayor to do work at a private prison facility in Walnut Grove," Pickering said in a news release. "Taxpayers of Walnut Grove have been paying for equipment and labor to do work at these facilities that are for-profit, private prisons. In addition, town equipment and labor have been used on private property at taxpayer expense."
Sims pleaded guilty to a federal witness tampering charge in February 2012, and was sentenced on April 24, 2012 to seven months in prison and six months of home confinement, plus two years on supervised release. He also agreed to resign as mayor and not to run for public office or seek government employment in the future. See: United States v. Sims, U.S.D.C. (S.D. Miss.), Case No. 3:11-cr00090-DCB-LRA. ,.
Sources: Associated Press, www.fbi.gov

Florida Death Row Prisoners Cannot Challenge Sentence Pro Se

Citing its "constitutional responsibility to ensure the death penalty is administered in a fair, consistent and reliable manner, as well as having an administrative responsibility to work to minimize the delays inherent in the post-conviction process," the Florida Supreme Court held on October 6, 2011 that prisoners sentenced to death do not have a constitutional right to act pro se in post-conviction proceedings.
That ruling came in a case involving death row prisoner Robert Gordon. The trial court had granted Gordon leave to file a successive post-conviction petition in a pro se capacity. When the court summarily denied the petition, Gordon filed a pro se notice of appeal with the Florida Supreme Court.
The Court temporarily relinquished jurisdiction so the trial court could offer Gordon appointed counsel, and an at-

torney was ultimately appointed for the appeal.
Before briefs were filed, Gordon and his appointed counsel filed separate motions to discharge or withdraw counsel. The Supreme Court then held that death-sentenced prisoners have no federal constitutional right to act pro se in direct appeals of post-conviction proceedings under U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
The Supreme Court in Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California, 538 U.S. 152 (2000) left the determination of a right of self-representation on appeal to the states under their respective state constitutions. The Florida Supreme Court found that no such right existed, and the decision in this case extended that finding to post-conviction proceedings by deathsentenced prisoners. See: Gordon v. State, 75 So.3d 200 (Fla. 2011)."

Federal Writs
• • •
Texas Parole • • •
Texas Writs
We will fight endlessly for your rights and to secure your freedom.
Time is of the essence for many remedies, so please contact our office today.
You do not have· to accept this. You CAN keep fightmg.
Is your freedom worth it?
Surprisingly affordable.

Law Office of
David Rushing 723 Main st. Ste. 816
Houston, TX 77002
713-8770;.1300

ADVER11SEMENT

SMITH'S GUIDE to

HABEAS CORPUS RELIEf

fot-State Prisoners under 28 U.S.Co

Examplepfeadings from initial

COlpUS p<;1ition tn thefi

petition for .1 writ of

tet Smith guide you

through!h!.?

COUtts \vilh

3aO pages,

Send n.1nw,

:¢., ,md

R(!hcrts CompanYf15412 Elcctrnniclanc

Huntington BCdChJCA 92649

Alw •

Oil AmUOO.COOl

Prison Legal News

45

August 2012

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 46 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 22 of 32

"Voluntary" Work Program in Private Detention Centers Pays Detained Immigrants $1 a Day
by Yalla KUllichoff

I n the Stewart Detention Center in rural Lumpkin, Georgia, Pedro Guzman cleaned the communal areas, cooked, painted walls, ran paperwork and buffed floors. But Guzman was not brought into Stewart as an employee he was a detained immigrant taking part in the detention center's "voluntary" work program.
"I didn't go more than a month without a job," said Guzman, who spent almost 20 months waiting, and working, inside Stewart while his immigration case was resolved.
In private prisons around the country, immigrants languishing in detention centers are being put to work by profitmaking companies like the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) for far below the minimum wage. For doing a range of manual labor in the facility, the immigrants, many of whom are not legally permitted to work in the United States, are paid between $1-$3 a day.
The Obama administration's move away from the workplace raids of the Bush years and toward an increasing reliance on Secure Communities, which critics say has functioned as a dragnet for immigrants who have committed low-level crimes or none at all, has flooded detention centers across the country.
Between 1996 and 2011, deportations increased by 400 percent and the Department of Homeland Security now has a daily detention capacity of 34,000 beds Along with this trend has come the widespread privatization of the federal detention centers.
Guzman was paid only $1 a day for cleaning communal areas in the detention center. When he moved to working in the kitchen - "an 8 hour job and you do get your full 30 minute break" - his pay shifted to $3 a day.
Most of the work in Stewart was done by detainees, said Guzman, who was placed into deportation proceedings when a letter about his asylum case was sent to the wrong address. "Ninety percent of the jobs in CCA are run by detainees," he said of Stewart.
Immigrant rights advocates have called the voluntary work program another dehumanizing avenue for companies

like CCA to profit from immigrants already in a vulnerable position.
"The whole nature of this program is problematic," said Azadeh Shahshahani, director of the National Security/Immigrants' Rights Project at the ACLU of Georgia. "At the end of the day, they are getting the detainees to work for a wage that is far below minimum wage and for the work that they would have had to hire personnel. Obviously they are deriving a profit whatever way you look at it."
"The detainees need the money, the phone cards are expensive ... and the food that they get is not enough to sustain themselves," said Shahshahani, editor of a "Prisoners of Profit" report about immigration detention centers in Georgia. "They really need the money to eke out somewhat of a normal existence."
If undocumented workers, the people who pick America's produce, mow its lawns, do its laundry, build its houses and cook in its restaurants, are not allowed to work legally in the United States, what are their labor protections when employed by a private detention company?
"megal" Workers Legalized in Detention
According to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by Jacqueline Stevens, a professor of political science at Northwestern University, detainees in detention centers work in five main areas - recreation, processing, housing units, main hallway/traverse areas and the library.
At the facilities reviewed in the documents - Florence Correctional Center in Florence, Arizona; EI Centro Service Processing Center in EI Centro, California; Stewart Detention Center and Varick Detention Center in New York City - the maximum wage under the voluntary work program was $1 a day.
"Detainees that participate in the volunteer work program are required to work according to an assigned work schedule and to participate in all work related training," the response to the FOIA request noted. The maximum amount of work detainees were allowed to do was eight hours a day, 40 hours a week.
Immigration and Customs Enforce-

ment (ICE) calls the voluntary work program "one method of managing detained aliens to give them an opportunity to be gainfully occupied on a voluntary basis." The program also contributes to the deportation program's "ability to successfully perform its detention mission."
Is there a loophole that allows CCA to use undocumented labor at below minimum wage to help run their detention centers, and what are the immigrants' rights as workers?
In response to the question above, a spokesperson at the Department of Labor directed questions about workers in immigration detention centers to ICE. ICE did not directly address the question of what their labor position was. Instead, ICE said that the workers were not employees:
"The Voluntary Work Program, under conditions of confinement, does not constitute employment and is done by detainees on a voluntary basis for a small stipend."
But some advocates say that this legal gray area covers something more sinister. Stevens, the Northwestern professor, said the voluntary work program is consistent with slave labor: "Forced to work at wages they can't negotiate and far below the wages Congress set."
"In any other context," she continued, "these private companies would be penalized for hiring people who don't have legal documents and paying them below the federal minimum wage."
The ICE spokesperson said a federally mandated precedent makes it legal for undocumented workers in detention centers to be paid. The average rate of pay for immigrants - $1 a day - was first set in the appropriations act for fiscal year 1979 and has held steady since. ICE considers the payment for work done by immigrants "allowances," according to a section of the U.S. Code Classification tables, despite their undocumented status.
ICE Caps Its Payment for Detained Workers at $1
The amount ICE pays the contracting company for the immigrants it employs is capped at $1 even though "contract companies such as CCA may choose to provide a higher level of compensation."

August 2012

46

Prison Legal News

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 47 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 23 of 32

At Stewart, CCA's payment to Guzman of $3 a day for kitchen work makes it triple the ICE-mandated daily wage.
This payment was challenged in a 1990 lawsuit under the Fair Labor Standards Act, which "establishes minimum wage, overtime pay, recordkeeping and youth employment standards affecting employees in the private sector and in Federal, State and local governments," and says that workers are entitled to a current minimum wage of $7.25 an hour.
In the lawsuit, 16 immigrants at a detention center in Texas sued the thenImmigration and Naturalization Services (INS), arguing that only being paid $1 a day violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The final ruling in the case by the u.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld INS's right to pay detained workers only $1 a day. The court noted that "alien detainees are not government 'employees'" and "the federal government usually authorizes the employment of aliens only under limited circumstances, none of which apply here."
Therefore, the ruling said, the detainees couldn't claim protection under the act because "alien detainees whose work is described by no statute authorizing use of taxpayers' money to pay government employees cannot claim such status." [See:
Alvarado Guevara v. 1. N s., 902 F.2d 394
(5th Cir. 1990)]. There are several treaties that try to
govern the use of labor in detention. One is the Inter-American Principles on Detention, cited in a 2012 report on private prisons by the ACLU of Georgia as say-

ing: "All persons deprived of liberty shall have the right to work."
"This includes the right 'to receive a fair and equitable remuneration,'" the report noted.
Then there is the 13th Amendment, which has been used as a basis for the allowance of prison labor - with an average pay that ranges from $0.93 a day to $1.25 an hour though the fairness of this has also been challenged.
But Stevens noted that even within the context of a corrections environment, an immigration offense is a civil one, and therefore the detention should not be punitive.
"Detention centers are not legal punishment," said Stevens. "They are for people who are trying to pursue their civil right to remain in the country."
The Money Earned by Detainees Makes Its Way Back to CCA
Guzman said the work he did while detained at Stewart broke up the tedium of being locked up and the stress of dealing with his constantly delayed appeals. But he said there was another incentive to continue making the meager wage he was paid for working a 40-hour week in the kitchen.
"You would get paid once a week and it would go directly into your canteen money," said Guzman. And with that "you bought food, a calling card, a bar of soap, shampoo, toothbrush" - from the CCA-run store inside the detention center.
Stevens said her research has shown that the primary reasons for detainees to

take part in the voluntary work programs is "so that they can buy food and hygiene products. If they don't have relatives on the outside to pump up their commissary .accounts then they'll buff floors."
If some of the money being paid to undocumented workers taking part in the voluntary work program goes back to CCA, how much are private prison companies earning from these workers?
Companies like CCA are paid a lump sum by ICE for housing detainees - and then from whatever costs they can cut on food, labor or facilities, comes their profits. CCA, "the nation's largest owner and operator of partnership correction and detention facilities and one of the largest prison operators in the United States, behind only the federal government and three states," had net income of $31.7 million for the first quarter of 2012.
"The colossal 'savings' from paying people a small fraction of the legal wage makes possible these centers," wrote Stevens in a blog post on the voluntary work program in private detention centers. "How much exactly is being saved?"
According to Stevens' analysis of figures in her FOIA requests, the monthly payments from just one detention center break down like this:
"Each dollar is a day's payment's to
one detainee, so July 2009 at 5,815 =5815
individual days or shifts of labor. Not all of the shifts are 8 hours but they go up to that. If the range of hours worked for this example is 4-8 hours [a] day, then the payments that should have been made for July 2009 under federal minimum wage laws

I
Prison Legal News

I

I •

Send self,.addressed,starnped envelope to ·addf€Hj;S beio\'/

and receive 1 FREE ... 1 YEAR roagazine

Quarterly dra\ying 'WINS $'1001 (Void in New York)

(Last Qu,arter!s \f/innerf'roro Raiford, Florida.)

TEll YOUR FRIENDSIACT NOWII

PO Bo,x2Q63 .. Fort Walton Beach FL,,32549 InmateMagazineService"com

•....
liliiii

47

August 2012

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 48 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 24 of 32

Immigrant Work Program (cont.)
would be $168,635 to $337,000. Again, what actually was paid was $5,815."
"In brief," said Stevens, "the ICE jails are paying people $lIday for work that minimum wage laws would require compensated at $29-$58/day."
This is only a small window on the earnings from this program. Among the questions CCA declined to answer, despite repeated requests for comment over a period of several weeks, was how widespread the voluntary work program was and how many immigrants were involved in it nationally.
Abuse?
ICE and CCA descriptions of the program stress the term "voluntary," but a recently released ACLU report shows otherwise, detailing instances of detained immigrants being forced to work at Stewart Detention Center:
"Omar Ponce was subjected to disciplinary action for refusing to work and for organizing a work strike in 2010. He was in the segregation unit for a week before he had his disciplinary review hearing. Another detainee was threatened with segregation if he refused to work less than eight hours per day. This is not atypical. "
In response, CCA representative Mike Machak said: "The incident described in the ACLU report was reported to CCA staff, was dealt with appropriately and was reported to ICE in accordance with detention standards and contract requirements."
Oversight, said Machak, is provided by "our longstanding government partner [ICE], including on-site ICE staff."
The Irony
Critics of private detention like Bob Libal, a Texas organizer for Grassroots Leadership focusing on the expansion of the private federal detention system, stress the unfairness of people criminalized as workers detained and then made to work.
"I think it's pretty disturbing that private prison corporations are padding their bottom line by exploiting undocumented labor in their facilities," said Libal, "when it would be much more humane and beneficial for the sort of country as a whole to allow people to live and work outside of detention facilities while their immigration cases are processed."

It's an irony not lost on Guzman. "You will boot them out of the country because they don't have papers to work in the U.S.," he said when asked about the issue, "but then you give them a job and you underpay them. Why are you under-

paying them?" ,.
This article originally appeared on Truthout on July 27, 2012; it is reprinted with permission, }vith minor corrections by PLN. Copyright, www. truthout. org.

Vermont DOC Disbands Citizens' Advisory Group that Critics Called "Window Dressing" for Transparency

by Ken Picard

Andy Pallito was on the hot seat on July 19, 2012 at a meeting of the Joint Legislative Corrections Oversight Committee. Vermont's commissioner of corrections had failed to notify lawmakers that he had disbanded a citizen panel charged with advising his department.
Sen. Dick Sears, who chairs the Legislative Corrections Oversight Committee, first learned of Pallito's decision via an Associated Press story that ran on July 16.
"I apologize for catching you offguard," Pallito told Sears and other lawmakers on the committee. "Frankly, in the realm of things I usually call you on, postponing the Corrections Citizens' Advisory Group for 60 days didn't seem like it rose to that level."
Pallito explained: After he canceled its quarterly meeting scheduled for July 13, a CCAG member accused him of not taking the group seriously and "wasting his time."
"That's not the first time I've heard a member say 'It's a waste of my time,'" Pallito told legislators. "Those are pretty serious comments..so, I decided to put the group
a on hold, take step back and see how the
department has been utilizing it." Current and former CCAG members
have complained for years that the group has delivered on few, if any, of its initial promises for more transparency and openness into DOC operations.
Evidently, the frustration runs both ways. Pallito told lawmakers that attendance at CCAG meetings dropped off once the DOC moved its operations from Waterbury to Williston after Tropical Storm Irene. "Frankly, I've spent more time managing the media on this issue than really being able to step back and contemplate its overall mission," he added.
The CCAG was created in 2005 in response to widespread criticism of the DOC. In December 2003, the Agency

of Human Services hired Montpelier attorney Michael Marks and former New Hampshire attorney general Philip McLaughlin to investigate the deaths of seven Vermont prisoners as well as other problems in the correctional system.
In their March 2004 report, Marks and McLaughlin voiced criticism of "a culture within the Department that fails to embrace accountability."
In its response, the DOC proposed the creation of the CCAG, which, among other things, would be granted "scheduled access to selected correctional facilities and the opportunity to speak to inmates or staff members in the facilities...."
In her email to lawmakers, former CCAG member Laura Ziegler said she participated in CCAG for about three years in the hope of gaining that "special access" to Vermont's prisoners, facilities and records.
"This did not occur. Very little occurred," Ziegler said. "The Department ran the meetings; there would occasionally be some meaningful dialogue, but the group's primary purpose seemed to be window dressing."
Robert Appel, executive director of the Vermont Human Rights Commission, concurred with Ziegler's assessment. Also a founding member of the CCAG, Appel resigned from the group early on largely due to personal concerns about potential conflicts of interest. Appel heads an independent agency that occasionally sues the DOC over issues such as racial discrimination, sexual harassment and failure to allow prisoners access to religious observances and diets.
Appel found the few meetings he attended to be "less than meaningful. In other words, it was bullshit."
"It's institutional. Government officials, for whatever reason, want to be left alone to do their work," Appel added.

August 2012

48

Prison Legal News

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 49 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 25 of 32

..It always amazes me that, despite the rhetoric that 'We're open and transparent,' allowing everyday citizens to review governmental actions in a formal setting with some authority is resisted."
CCAG member Gordon Bock of Northfield is a former prisoner and an activist with CURE Vermont, the local affiliate of Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants. He said the advisory group's breakup is especially ill-timed given the number of problems at the DOC that have come to light in recent months.
Among them, Bock pointed to the Vermont Parole Board's falsification of an arrest warrant that resulted in convicted murderer Douglas Mason being released from prison three years early. Bock also noted the cancellation, in June, of Vermont's contract with the Greenfield Jail & House of Detention, which went undisclosed by the DOC until Bock learned of it and alerted the media. And there was the "white paper" documenting substandard living conditions for women in the Chittenden Regional Correctional Facility in South Burlington.
"Is this really the time," Bock asked lawmakers on the joint oversight committee, "for your esteemed committee to be the sole watchdog over DOC?" But not everyone blames the current commissioner for the CCAG's shortcomings. Sarah Kenney, associate director for public policy for the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, has been a member from the beginning. She said the group's effectiveness has always "ebbed and flowed over the years" but has become increasingly dysfunctional.
"In recent years it's become less a forum for productive conversation about trends within the department and more a place for individuals to come and air their personal grievances with the department," Kenney said.
At last week's committee meeting, Sears invited current and former CCAG members to offer suggestions on what a newly constituted CCAG should look like. He also called on DOC staffers to research effective models in other states and get back to him for the committee's next meeting in September.
Bock knows what he wants the new CCAG to look like. He points to the Vermont State Police Advisory Committee, which has both independence and oversight authority established in law. Better yet, Bock suggested a model similar to the New York City Civilian Complaint Review Board, the independent agency

empowered to investigate, mediate, make findings and recommend actions about complaints against NYPD cops.
Another possible model for Vermont's commissioner to consider is in Colorado. In 1995, Dianne Tramutola-Lawson, president of International CURE, helped Colorado's corrections director create quarterly "citizen advocate meetings" to discuss systemic problems in that state's prison system.
Unlike Vermont's CCAG, Colorado's citizen advocate meetings have no formal membership, Tramutola-Lawson noted. The meetings, which are attended by the director of corrections as well as much of his staff, are open to the public, with agenda items warned in advance. Individual grievances cannot be aired; instead, the group addresses systemic problems only.
How effective are the citizen advocate meetings? Very, Tramutola-Lawson asserted. Just this year, for example, her group convinced the Colorado Department of Corrections to reduce its phone rates for prisoners.
"I just think the lines of communication for all of our families and people with loved ones incarcerated have really been streamlined," she added.
For his part, the HRC's Appel suggested that an open and effective model for feedback to the DOC is doable in Vermont, too. There's a delicate balance, he said, between a citizens' committee that informs policy and provides general direction and guidance, and one that "tries to run the organization. "
"It's tricky," he added, "but I don't think it's unattainable." ,.
This article originally appeared in Seven Days, an independent Vermont publication, on July 25, 2012. It is reprinted with permission.

Prison Legal News

49

Save on Prescription Eyeglasses & Shades
Send for a FREE Catalog Money Back Guarantee
Prism Optical, Inc.
10954 NW 7th Ave Dept: LN0812
Miami, FL 33168 Inquiries from Friends and Family Welcome
1-800-637 -4104 www.prismoptical.com contact@prismoptical.com
Since 1959
August 2012

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 50 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 26 of 32

Arizona: ASPC Florence prison guard Jeffrey Williams, 46, was' arrested and booked into the Pinal County jail on April 20, 2012 after child pornography was found on his computer. Williams had taken the computer to a repair shop, which notified the sheriff's office about the child porn. He reportedly confessed to having downloaded the illicit images and videos, and was charged with ten counts of sexual exploitation of a minor.
Australia: Sean Stephen Hatten, 29, serving a 13-year sentence at the Capricornia Correctional Centre for attempted murder, slashed another prisoner's throat with a prison-issued razor on April 13, 2011. In court for that offense in May 2012, prosecutors said he told guards at the time that he was "having a bad day." Hatten received a 15-year prison term for the "calculated and premeditated attack" on the other prisoner, which occurred while he was standing in line to make a hot drink.
California: Anthony "Chopper" Garcia was in the news in 2011 when he was arrested for and convicted of murder, partly because he had had a picture of the crime scene tattooed on his chest. In March 2012, it was reported that Garcia

News in Brief
received over $30,000 in unemployment benefits while in jail awaiting trial from 2008 to 2010. His father and two girlfriends were accused of cashing the unemployment checks and depositing them in his jail account and those of other gang members. Garcia's father, Juan Garcia, and his girlfriends, Sandra Jaimez and Cynthia Limas, were arrested on charges that included grand theft.
Colorado: In Apri12012, the Arapahoe County Commission voted to change the name of the Patrick J. Sullivan Detention Center. The jail, named for the former sheriff, will now be called the Arapahoe County Detention Center. Sullivan, 69, was arrested in November 2011 and pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine and soliciting prostitution following an undercover sting involving his gay lover. He was sentenced to 30 days in jail, two years probation and a $1,100 fine, and was released on April 21 , 2012 after serving 17 days.
Florida: The Pinellas County Jail uses a video visitation system, which apparently is closely monitored by jail staff. Mitchell Thomas, 46, learned that the hard way when he visited his wife, who was incarcerated at the jail, and exposed

his genitals to her during their video visit on May 1, 2012. He was arrested on a misdemeanor charge for exposing himself Such incidents evidently are not very commOTI. "This is the first I've heard of it," said Pinellas County Sheriff's Office spokeswoman Cecilia Barreda.
Georgia: Clayton County prisoner Kevin Garard Guerrier, 26, was in court on April 6, 2012 for a hearing on child support and a temporary protective order when he became disruptive, was ordered removed from the courtroom and struggled with deputies. He was rendered unconscious and hospitalized, then died 10 days later. The sheriff's office and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation are investigating his death.
Israel: A majority of the 4,699 Palestinian prisoners held in Israelijails refused to eat on Prisoners' Day, April 17, 2012. Around 1,200 prisoners said they would continue to fast in protest of unfair conditions, according to news reports. Most of the Palestinian prisoners (3,864) are from the West Bank; over 300 are being held under Israeli's policy of "administrative detention," in which suspects are imprisoned for an indefinite period of time without being charged. Palestinian

INCARCERATED BACHELORSPENPALS
4 those w/ style & swagger! 1 Yr $30 SASE POB 1432 Dixon CA 95620

IF YOU WANT THE BEST TRY EPS! Legal Research & Forms, Internet & People Searches, Amazon Books, Erotic Photos, PenPals, Special Requests and More. Send SASE to: Elite Paralegal & Prisoner Services PO Box 2131, Appleton, WI 54912

Let us help w/your Parole Review With over 12 years' experience, we focus on showing you to be a Favorable Candidate for Parole! D&D Worldwide Services, LLC. 12337 Jones RD #408 Houston, TX 77070 Office: (281) 580-8844
Website: www.myparole.info

LOCAL PHONE NUMBERS $2.50/MO. USA anywhere 5¢/min. To MX 15¢ Great rates all over the world! No signup fee, no hidden fees! Refer new cust, 300 free mins! www.FreedomLine.net to sign up or write FreedomLine, Box 7-WCB C'ville IN 47331. Save BIG $$$!

LOVE TO TYPE MANUSCRIPTS! No Legal Documents.
Will type, design & layout pages Accurate and dependable Reasonable Rates!
Ambler Document Processing P.O. Box 938, Norwalk, CT 06852
KRASNYA SPRING HAS SPRUNG SALE! FREE CATALOG FROM KRASNYA! '120 BABES IN EACH CATALOG ENCLOSE ONE SASE WITH 2 FIRST CLASS STAMPS! KRASNYA L.L.c. PO Box 32082 BALTIMORE MD 21282
PLEASE SPECIFY MALE OR FEMALE BABES

Penpals I Inmate Art Gallery Meet Others & Sell Your Talents
Send SASE for Application Non-Prisoners Welcomed www.deathrowinmate.org 3298 North Glassford Hill Road
Suite #104/ PMB#154 Prescott Valley, Arizona 86314
August 2012

Ptisonerinmatefamilyservice.com Send a SASE for a free catalog; PO Box 1852 Pismo Beach,Ca 93448 We buy stamps- 7.25 a book; Single stamps .25 cents; Amazon Orders, copies of photos/artwork
And SO much more! Family InmateSev@aol.com

InfoLINCS, LLC Daily sports lines & updates Photo Forwarding- family to you Gifts & Flowers- sent from you Daily stock quotes - 5stocks FREE Horoscopes & Quotes
FREE Legal news
SIGN UP NOW INFO@INFOLINCS.COM

50

Prison Legal News

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 51 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 27 of 32

prisoner Khader Adnan, 33, who was held in administrative detention and had previously staged a 66-day hunger strike, was released on April 17.
Maine: Cumberland County jail prisoner Arien L'ltalien, 23, was caught on March 10, 2012 as he tried to crawl back to his unit after visiting a female prisoner and having consensual sex with her in her cell. Both L'ltalien and his imprisoned paramour, Karla Wilson, 25, hadjammed the locks on their cell doors to facilitate the late-night rendezvous.
Maine: In April 2012, the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention reported that one prisoner had died and around 40 other prisoners and several staff members at another prison were sick due to a flu outbreak. "Correctional Medical Services, which provides health services to both facilities reported that influenza vaccination coverage among inmates was very low (less than 10 percent), and coverage among staff members was unknown but believed to be low," according to the Center. Both prisoners and employees were offered vaccinations following the outbreak.
Maine: State prison guard Randall Carl, 46, was convicted of animal cruelty on April 23, 2012 for tying a captured bobcat to a pole and allowing hunting

dogs to attack and kill it. The February 2009 incident was videotaped as part of a "training exercise." After being convicted at a jury trial in Waldo County Superior Court, Carl received a 15-month sentence, suspended except for 10 days, and was fined more than $1,300.
In a bizarre incident, a woman who didn't want to meet with her probation officer asked two friends to stab her so she could go to the hospital instead. Jessalyn A. Stierwalt, 22, had been drinking heavily and wanted time to sober up before meeting with her probation officer, who was going to install an alcohol-monitoring device. She therefore had two friends, Scott Roberson-Turman and Kerry L. Duke II, stab her in the shoulder and stomach. All three were charged with various offenses and pleaded no contest to misdemeanor obstruction of government operations. Stierwalt and Roberson-Turman were sentenced on April 18, 2012 to 12 months in prison. "It takes stupidity to a new extreme," noted Gage County District Judge Paul Korslund.
North Carolina: Mountain View Correctional Facility guard William Wright, 31, died on April 11, 2012 after falling down a metal staircase while on duty. He was taken to a hospital after the accident

and was released the following day, but died several days later due to complications from a head injury. His death is being investigated by state and federal authorities.
Oregon: Prison guard Michael Wilson Yann, 39, was arrested on April 15, 2012 after he shot at police officers with a 9mm pistol during a standoff at his home. Police had responded to a report of an intoxicated man in the street. Yann was booked into the Marion County jail on charges of aggravated attempted murder, attempted murder and disorderly conduct, and held without bond. He was placed on administrative leave by the Department of Corrections, where he worked as a transportation officer.
Pakistan: On April 15, 2012,384 prisoners, including one sentenced to death, escaped from the Bannu Central Jail after the facility was attacked by members of the Taliban, who used assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenades. "There were huge explosions. Plaster from the ceilings fell on us," stated prisoner Malik Nazeef. "Then there was gunfire. We didn't know what was happening." The jail's metal gates were blown open and the attackers shot locks off doors. One of the escapees, Adnan Rasheed, was under a death sentence for trying to assassinate Pakistan

Build YOUR OWN Law Library & get Your own Mighty Inmate Manual. Pricing, send 3 stamps or 3 stamped envelopes. Continental Caselaw, PO Box 4101 Greenville, SC 29608-4101
WORDSTATION Manuscript Typing Friendly service since 1989.
Any subject. Handwritten okay. Free sample pages; spelling!
grammar/punctuation corrections. Brochure sent upon request. 526 Main St., Avon, NJ 07717
Inmate CRAFfERS AUTHORS ARTISTS Free display ad space. Sell your
Items in INMATE SHOPPER No Fee Do Not Send item or ad now. Send Only SASE 4 details & directions.
Tia Productions - FREE AD PO Box 8069, Pittsburgh PA 15216-8069 info@inmateshopper.com

In-Cell Connections, LLC (PLN) PO Box 3631, Wichita, KS 67201 We're a vendor for many resources Magazines, gifts, many services
4- 1st Class stamps for catalog
Real Girls Pose for You! Real Pictures. No copies.
Write to: EO.S. PO BOX 42922 Phoenix, AZ 85080 Requested info must include SASE
HotFlixx- Prison Friendly Photos Free Catalog Through August 31 st
Specify Male or Female Models SASE to PO Box 137481 Fort Worth TX, 76136
The VOICES.CON Newsletter - Free Written by lifers for lifers. For info on how to receive Voices.Con monthly, send SASE to: PO Box 5425, Sonora, CA 95370. On the web at: VoicesDotCon.org; Email: Publisher@VoicesDotCon.org

Surrogate Sisters Services to the Incarcerated. No games. In business 14+ years. We sell photos of sexy women, gifts for loved ones, & other services. For more info send a SASE to:
Surrogate Sisters - PN PO Box 95043, Las Vegas NV 89193
-- Just your Type -Manuscript Typing &
Internet Research Send SASE for rates and info
PO Box 432 Bernardston, MA 01337-0432
EARN A COLLEGE DEGREE lHROUGH CORRESPONDENCE COURSES VIA MAIL INT'L CHRISTIAN COLLEGE&SEMINARY
PO Box 530212 Debary, PI 32753 Associates thm PhD credit for
Life Experience Se Habla Espanol Tuition as low as $59.00 a month Send SASE for *PREE* Evaluation

Prison Legal News

51

August 2012

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 52 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 28 of 32

News in Brief (cont.)
president Pervez Musharraf Pennsylvania: A federal criminal
information was filed on March 23,2012 against BOP guard Donald E. Lykon, 30, who was accused of smuggling cellphones, tobacco and marijuana into USP Canaan over a four-month period in 2011. Lykon allegedly accepted over $5,000 in bribes from prisoners to deliver the contraband. Concurrently with the filing of the criminal information, he pleaded guilty to felony charges of accepting bribes and distributing marijuana.
Pennsylvania: On April 2, 2012, a

Monroe County jury imposed a death sentence on former prison guard Michael Parrish, 26, who was convicted of firstdegree murder for killing his girlfriend, Victoria Adams, and infant son, Sidney. Formerly a white supremacist, Parrish had converted to Islam; he shot Adams and his son a dozen times in July 2009, then told police the next day that he didn't deserve to live. The jury apparently agreed.
Tennessee: Court of Criminal Appeals judge Jerry L. Smith was arrested in Knoxville on April 23, 2012 on a misdemeanor DUI charge. He was pulled over because he was driving a car with the back hatch open; according to the arresting officers he smelled of alcohol, had slurred speech and

failed a sobriety test. Smith pleaded guilty to the DUI charge on June 23,2012 - his license was suspended and he was sentenced to 48 hours injail. He later returned to work. The Tennessee legislature has not removed a judge from office in 18 years.
Texas: The Crain Unit near Gatesville, which houses female prisoners, has become overrun by feral cats. According to an April 16, 2012 Associated Press article, a local non-profit group, Kathy's Kitties, volunteered to have the estimated 150 to 175 cats at the prison neutered at no cost to the state. The felines would also be treated for fleas and ticks, and receive rabies shots. Prison officials had been trapping the cats and euthanizing them. ,.

Criminal Justice Resources

ACLU National Prison Project
Handles state and federal conditions of confinement claims affecting large numbers of prisoners. Publishes the NPP Journal (available online at: www.aclu.orglnationalprison-project-journal-fall-2011) and the Prisoners' Assistance Directory (write for more information). Contact: ACLU NPP, 915 15th St. NW, 7th Fl., Washington, DC 20005 (202) 393-4930. www.aclu.orglprisons
Amnesty International
Compiles information about prisoner torture, beatings, rape, etc. to include in reports about U.S. prison conditions; also works on death penalty issues. Contact: Amnesty International, 5 Penn Plaza, New York NY 10001 (212) 807-8400.
Center for Health Justice
Formerly CorrectHELP. Provides information related to HIV in prison - contact them if you are not receiving proper HIV medication or are denied access to programs due to HIV status. Contact: CHJ, 900 Avila Street, Suite 102, Los Angeles, CA 90012. HIV Hotline: (214) 229-0979 (collect calls from prisoners OK). www.centerforhealthjustice. org
Critical Resistance
Seeks to build an international movement to abolish the Prison Industrial Complex, with offices in Florida, California, New York, Texas and Louisiana. Publishes The Abolitionist newsletter. Contact: Critical Resistance, 1904 Franklin Street #504, Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 444-0484. www.criticalresistance.org
Family & Corrections Network
Primarily provides online resources for families of prisoners related to parenting, children of prisoners, prison visitation, mothers and fathers in prison, etc. Contact: F&CN, 93 Old York Road, Suite 1 #510, Jenkintown, PA 19046 (215) 576-1110. www.fcnetwork.org

FAMM
FAMM (Families Against Mandatory Minimums) publishes the FAMMGram three times a year, which includes information about injustices resulting from mandatory minimum laws with an emphasis on federal laws. Recommended donation of $10 for a subscription. Contact: FAMM, 1612 K Street NW #700, Washington, DC 20006 (202) 822-6700). www.famm.org
The Fortune Society
Provides post-release services and programs for prisoners in the New York City area and occasionally publishes Fortune News, a free publication for prisoners that deals with criminal justice issues, primarily in New York. Contact: The Fortune Society, 29-76 Northern Blvd., Long Island City, NY 11101 (212) 6917554. www.fortunesociety.org
Innocence Project
Provides advocacy for wrongly convicted prisoners whose cases involve DNA evidence and are at the post-conviction appeal stage. Maintains an online list of state-by-state innocence projects. Contact: Innocence Project, 40 Worth St., Suite 701, New York, NY 10013 (212) 364-5340. www.innocenceproject.org
Just Detention International
Formerly Stop Prisoner Rape, JDI seeks to end sexual violence against prisoners. Provides counseling resources for imprisoned and released rape survivors and activists for almost every state. Contact: Stop Prisoner Rape, 3325 Wilshire Blvd. #340, Los Angeles, CA 90010 (213) 384-1400. www.justdetention.org
Justice Denied
Although no longer publishing a print magazine, Justice Denied continues to provide the most comprehensive coverage of wrongful convictions and how and why they occur. Their content is available online, and includes all back issues of the Justice Denied magazine

and a database of more than 3,000 wrongly convicted people. Contact: Justice Denied, P.O. Box 68911, Seattle, WA 98168 (206) 3354254. www.justicedenied.org

National CURE

Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants

(CURE) is a national organization with state

and special interest chapters that advocates for

rehabilitative opportunities for prisoners and

less reliance on incarceration. Publishes the

CURE Newsletter. $2 annual membership for

prisoners. Contact: CURE, P.O. Box 2310, Na-

tional

Station, Washington, DC 20013

(202) 789-2126. www.curenational.org

November Coalition
Publishes the Razor Wire, a bi-annual newsletter that reports on drug war-related issues, releasing prisoners of the drug war and restoring civil rights. A SUbscription is $10 for prisoners and $30 for non-prisoners. Contact: November Coalition, 282 West Astor, Colville, WA 99114 (509) 684-1550. www.november.org

Partners/zip for Safety and Justice
Publishes Justice Matters three times a year, which reports on criminal justice issues in Oregon. Free to Oregon prisoners, $7 for other prisoners and $25 for non-prisoners. Contact: PS&J, 825 NE 20th Avenue #250, Portland, OR 97232 (503) 335-8449. www.safetyandjustice.org

The Sentencing Project
The Sentencing Project is a national policy research and advocacy organization that works for a fair and effective criminal justice system by promoting sentencing reform and alternatives to incarceration. They produce excellent reports on topics related to sentencing policy, racial disparities, drug policy, juvenile justice and voting rights/disenfranchisement, which are available online. Contact: The Sentencing Project, 1705 DeSales St. NW, 8th Fl., Washington, DC 20036 (202) 628-0871. www. sentencingproject. org

August 2012

52

Prison Legal News

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 53 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 29 of 32

Prison Legal News Book Store

Fill in the boxes next to each book you want to order, indicating the quantity and price. Enter the Total on the Order Fonn on the next page. FREE SIDPPING on all book/ index orders OVER $50 (effective May 1,2012 until further notice). $6.00 SIR applies to all other book orders.

.••..••.•....•.....•.............•......•••.•.•••••.•••••....... ,
SUBSCRIBE TO PLN FOR 4 YEARS AND CHOOSE ONE BONUS! 1. SIX (6) FREE IsSUES FOR 54 TOTAL! OR 2. PRISON PROFITEERS (A $24.95 VALUE!) QB 3. WITH LmERTY FOR SOME (AN $18.95 VALUE!)

Prison Profiteers, edited by Paul Wright and Tara Herivel, 323 pages.

$24.95. This is the third book in a series of Prison Legal News antholo-

gies that examines the reality of mass imprisonment in America. Prison

Profiteers is unique from other books because it exposes and discusses

who profits and benefits from mass imprisonment, rather"

,

than who is harmed by it and how.

1063...

•.................................................................
SUBSCRIBE TO PLN FOR 3 YEARS AND CHOOSE ONE BONUS! : 1. FOUR (4) FREE IsSUES FOR 40 TOTAL! OR : 2. PROTECTING YOUR HEALTH AND SAFETY (A $10.00 VALUE!)

: Protecting Your Health and Safety, by Robert E. Toone, Southern

: Poverty Law Center, 325 pages. $10.00. This book explains basic rights

: that prisoners have in a jail or prison in the U.S. It deals mainly with

: rights related to health and safety, such as communicable diseases and

: abuse by prison officials; it also explains how to enforce

: your rights, including through litigation.

1060

WIth Uberty for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America, by Scott

Christianson, Northeastern University Press, 372 pages. $18.95. The best overnll

history of 1he American prison system from 1492 through 1he 201h Century. A

: must-read fur understanding how little things have changed in U.s."

,

: .p.r•is.o•ns•o•v.e•r.h•u.n•dr.e.d.s..o.f.y.e.a.rs...................•..•••••1••0•2. •6••......•......

Prison Nation: The Warehousing of America's Poor, edited by Tara

I I I Herivel and Paul Wright, 332 pages. $35.95. PLN's second anthology
exposes the dark side of the 'lock-ern-up' political agenda and

legal climate in the U.S.

1041..

.

WrighiZT pagel The Celling of America, An Inside Look at the U.S. Prison Industry,
edited by D"ue! Burton Rose, Dm Pens md Paul $22.95. PLN's first anthology presents a detailed "inside"
look at the workings of the American justice systern. 1001

Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the

U.S. and Canada, updated 3rd ed. by Jon Marc Taylor, PhD. and edited

by Susan Schwartzkopf, PLN Publishing, 221 pages. $49.95. Written by

Missouri prisoner Jon Marc Taylor, the Guerrilla Handbook contains contact

information and descriptions of high school, vocational, para-"

,

legal and college correspondence courses.

1071

L . .- - - ' . ' - _ - - - ' .

The Criminal Law Handbook Know Your Rights, Survive the System, by
Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sara J. Berman-Barrett, Nolo Press, 608 pages.

$39.99. Explains what happens in a criminal case from being arrested to sentenc-

ing, and what your rights are at each stage of the process. Uses an "

,

easy to understand question-and-answer format

1038...

Spanish-English/English-Spanish Dictionary, Random House. $8.95. Two

sections, Spanish-English and English-Spanish. 60,000+ entries

from A to Z; includes Western Hemisphere usage.

1034

Writing to Win: The Legal Writer, by Steven D. Stark., Broadway Books/Random House, 283 pages. $19.95. Explains 1he writing of effective complaints, responses, briefS, motions and o1her legal papers. 1035

Actual Innocence: When Justice Goes Wrong and How to Make it Right,

updated paperback ed., by Barry Scheck, Peter Neufeld and Jim Dwyer; 403 pages.

I I I $16.00. Describes how criminal defendants are wrongly convicted. Explains DNA
testing and how it works to free 1he innocent Devastating critique

ofpolice and prosecutorial misconduct

1030...

Webster's English Dictionary, Newly revised and updated,

House. $8.95. 75,000+ entries. Includes tips on writing and wo,r_d-y----"'--=----,

has updated geographical and biographical entries. Includes

recent business and computer terms.

1033

Everyday Letters for Busy People, by Debra Hart May, 287 pages.

$18.99. Hundreds of sample letters that can be adapted for most any pur-

pose, including letters to government agencies and officials."

,

Has numerous tips for writing effective letters.

1048..

.

Roget's Thesaurus, 717 pages. $8.95. Helps you find the right word for

what you want to say. 11,000 words listed alphabetically with over 200,000

I I I synonyms and antonyms. Sample sentences and parts of speech shown for
every main word. Covers all levels of vocabulary and identi-

fies informal and slang words.

1045

L - ._ - ' - ._ _- - - ' .

Represent Yourself in Court: How to Prepare & Try a Winning Case, by
Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sara J. Berman-Barrett, Nolo Press, 528 pages.

$39.99. Breaks down the civil trial process in easy-to-understand steps so you

can effectively represent yourself in court The authors explain"

,

what to say in court, how to say it, etc.

1037...

Law Dictionary, Random House Webster's, 525 pages. $19.95. Comprehensive

up-to-date law dictionary explains more than 8,500 legal terms."

,

Covers civil, criminal, commercial and international law. 1036..

.

The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, by Jane Straus, 110

pages. $14.95. A guide to grammar and punctuation by an ed-,

,

ucator with experience teaching English to prisoners. 1046

Legal Research: How to Find and Understand the Law, by Stephen Elias

and Susan Levinkind, 568 pages. $49.99. Comprehensive and easy to under-

stand guide on researching the law. Explains case law, statutes"

,

and digests, etc. Includes practice exercises.

1059...

Deposition Handbook, by Paul Bergman and Albert Moore, Nolo Press, 352

pages. $34.99. How-to handbook for anyone who conducts a"

,

deposition or is going to be deposed

1054...

Finding the Right Lawyer, by Jay Foonberg, ABA, 256 pages. $19.95.

Explains how to determine your legal needs, how to evaluate

a lawyer's qualifications, fee payments and more.

1015

Beyond Bars, Rejoining Society After Prison, by Jeffrey Ian Ross, Ph.D.

and Stephen C. Richards, Ph.D., Alpha., 240 pages. $14.95. Bryond Bars is a

practical and comprehensive guide for ex-convicts and their families for

I I I managing successful re-entry into the community, and includes information
about budgets, job searches, family issues, preparing for

release while still incarcerated, and more.

1080...

Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners v. the U.S.A., by

Mumia Abu Jamal, City Lights Publishers, 280 pages. $16.95. In Jailbouse

Lmryers, Prison Legal News columnist, award-winning journalist and death-

row prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal presents the stories and reflections of

fellow prisoners-turned-advocates who have leamed to use

the court system to represent other prisoners.

1073

A Dictionary of Criminal Law Terms (Black's Law Dictionary® Se-

ries), by Bryan A. Gamer, 768 pages. $29.00. This handbook contains po-

lice terms such as preventive detention and protective sweep, and phrases

I I I from judicial-created law such as independent-source rule and open-fields
doctrine. A good resource to navigate your way through the

maze of legal language in criminal cases.

1088...

The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel., by Brandon

I I I Sample, PLN Publishing, 200 pgs. $49.95. This is PLN's second published
book, which covers ineffective assistance of counsel issues

in federal habeas petitions. Hundreds of case cites! 1 0 7 8 . .

.

* * ALL BOOKS ARE SOFfCOVER / PAPERBACK

Prison Legal News

53

August 2012

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 54 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 30 of 32

Hepatitis and Liver Disease: What You Need to Know, by Melissa PaJrner,

MD, 457 pages. $17.95. Describes symptoms & treatments of hepatitis B & C and

other liver diseases. Includes medications to avoid, what diet to

follow and exercises to perform, plus a bibliography.

1031

10 Insider Secrets to a Winning Job Search, by Todd Bermont, 216

pages. $15.99. Roadmap on how to get a job even under adverse circum-

stances-like being an ex-con. Includes how to develop a winning attitude,

write attention-grabbing resumes, prepare for interviews, net-I

working and much more!

1056

L . . . .- - ' -_ _- '

Arrest-Proof Yourself, by Dale Carson and Wes Denham, 288 pages.

$14.95. This essential "how not to" guide written by an ex-cop explains

how to act and what to say when confronted by the police to minimize the

chances of being arrested and

additional charges. Includes informa-

tion on basic tricks that police use to get people to incrimi-

nate themselves.

1083

Arrested: What to Do When Your Loved One's in Jail, by Wes Den-

ham, 240 pages. $16.95. Whether a defendant is charged with misdemeanor

disorderly conduct or :first-degree murder, this is an indispensable guide for

those who want to support family members, partners

friends facing criminal charges.

1084

Prisoners' Self-Help Litigation Manual, updated 4th ed. (2010), by John Boston and Daniel Manville, Oxford Univ. Press, 960 pages. $39.95. The premiere, must-have "Bible" of prison litigation for current and aspiring
I jail-house lawyers. If you plan to litigate a prison or jail civil
suit, this book is a must-have. Highly recommended! 1077 '---'-_ _-'

How to Win Your Personal Injury Claim, by Atty. Joseph Matthews, 7th

edition, NOLO Press, 304 pages. $34.99. While not specifically for prison-

related personal injury cases, this book provides comprehensive informa-

tion on how to handle personal injury and property damage

claims arising from accidents.

1075

The Redbook: A Manual on Legal Style, by Bryan A. Garner, 2nd edi-

I I tion, 544 pages. $48.00. This book provides a comprehensive guide to the

essential elements of legal writing, including grammar and

I

style, with a discussion of writing rules and exceptions. 1089

Criminal Law in a Nutshell, by Arnold H. Loewy, 5th edition, 387 pages.

$38.00. This guide provides an overview of criminal law. Expert discussion

explores punishment, specific crimes, special defenses, the

burden of proof and much more.

1086

Advanced Criminal Procedure in a Nutshell, by Mark E. Cammack and

Norman M. Garland, 2nd edition, 505 pages. $38.00. This text is designed

for supplemental reading in an advanced criminal procedure course on the

post-investigation processing of a criminal case, including I

prosecution and adjudication.

1090

L . . . .- - ' -_ _- '

Criminal Procedure: Constitutional Limitations, by Jerold H. Israel and

I Wayne R. LaFave, 7th edition, 603 pages. $38.00. Intended for use by law

students, this is a succinct analysis of constitutional standards I

I

of major significance in the area of criminal procedure. 1085..

.

High Court Case Summaries on Criminal Law, Keyed to Johnson, 7th

edition. $38.00. Extensive criminal case law analyses, includ-

ing procedural basis, facts, decision and rationale.

1087

Soledad Brother: The Prison Letters of George Jackson, by George

Jackson, Lawrence Hill Books, 339 pages. $18.95. Lucid explanation of the

politics of prison by a well-known prison activist More relevant I

now than when it first appeared 40 years ago.

1016 '-.--'-_ _-'

PLN Cumulative Index. $22.50 each. PLN Article Indexes provide detailed information about all PLN articles, including title, author, issue, page number, topics covered, citations, and if it is state, BOP or jail specific. Can
I I I be searched on over 500 subjects such as medical neglect or sexual assault.
Circle the index(es) you are ordering: 1990-1995, 1996-1998, 1999-2001, 2002-2004 (more recent indexes not yet available)

Subscription Rates

1 year

Prisoners

$30

Individuals

$35

Professionals

$90

(Attorneys, agencies, libraries)

2 years $ 60 $ 70 $180

3 years
$ 90 $105 $270

4 years $120 $140 $360

Subscription Bonuses
2 years - 2 bonus issues for 26 total issues 3 years - 4 bonus issues (40 total) QI a bonus book as listed on pg. 53 4 years - 6 bonus issues (54 total) QI a bonus book as listed on pg. 53
(All subscription rates and bonus offers are valid as of7-31-2011)

Purchase with Visa, MasterCard, AmEx or Discover by phone: 802-257-1342 Or buy books and subscriptions online: www.prisonlegalnews.org

Mail Payment and Order to:

Prison Legal News P.O. Box 2420 W. Brattleboro, VT 05303

All purchases must be pre-paid. Prisoners can pay with new first-class stamps (strips or books only, no loose stamps) or
pre-stamped envelopes, ifallowed by prison policies.
0 Please Change my Address to what is entered below
Mail Order To:
Name: _______________________________________

Subscribe to Prison Legal News
6 m.onth subscription (prisoners only) - $18 1 yr subscription (12 issues) 2 yr subscription (2 bonus issues for 26 total!) 3 yr sub (write below which FREE book you want)
ill: 4 bonus issues for 40 issues total! 4 yr sub (write below which FREE book you want)
ill: 6 bonus issues for 54 issues total! Sam.ple issue of Prison Legal News - $3.50 each
Books or Index Orders (No SIH charge on
3 & 4-year sub free books OR book orders OVER $50!) Qty.

$ Amount

DOC#: ______________________________

Suite/Cell: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___

Agency/lnst: ______________________________________ Add $6.00 SIH to Book Orders UNDER $50

Address:

VT residents ONLY add 6% to Total Book Cost

City/State/Zip: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-'--_ Total Amount Enclosed:

* No refunds on PLN subscription or book/ index orders after orders have been placed *

August 2012

54

Prison Legal News

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 55 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 31 of 32

ARE PRISON PHONE RATES KEEPING YOU LOCKED DOWN?

We guarantee savings of up to 900/0 on your
long distance, out-of-state, and international calls from all Federal prisons, county jails and State prisons.

Garantizamos ahorro de hasta el 900/0 en tus
lIamadas de larga distancia inter-estales e internacionales desde todas las carceles federales, locales yestatales.

Call, write, e-mail or have your loved ones check out our website for more information!

Para contactar con nosotros: Llame, escriba 0 entre en nuestra pagina web para mas informaci6n.

WE'RE OFFERING TWO SPECIAL PROMOTIONS

ESTAMOS OFRECIENDO DOS PROMOCIONES

TO PLN SUBSCRIBERS: ONE FREE MONTH OF

ESPECIALES PARA SUSCRIPTORES PLN: SERVICIO

SERVICE TO ALL NEW SUSCRIBERS TO OUR US

GRATIS POR UN MEZ A TODOS LOS NUEVOS CLI-

DOMESTIC PLANS - (PROMO CODE: PLNUSA) -

ENTES QUE SE SUSCRIBANA NUESTRO PLAN 00-

OR 100 FREE INTERNATIONAL MINUTES FOR

MESTICO - ( CODIGO DE PROMOClON: PLNUSA)

NEW INTERNATIONAL SUBSCRIBERS - (PROMO

- 0 100 MINUTOS INTERNACIONALES GRATIS

CODE: PLNINTL). Some restrictions apply.

PARA NUEVOS CLiENTES QUE SUSCRIBAN EL

Spain Telecom, Inc. 1220 Broadway - #803

PLAN INTERNACIONAL - (PROMO CODE: PLNINTL)
Se aplican restricciones!

New York, NY 10001 www.inmatefone.com

Start Saving Today!

clients@inmatefone.com Call: 1(845)326-5300 Espanol: 1(845)342-8110

Inmatefone You In Touch:

Prison Legal News

PLN's website offers all issues of PLN in both searchable database and pDF formats. Issues are indexed and posted as soon as they go to press.
Publications section has numerous downloadable government reports, audits and investigations from around the country.
Full text decisions of thousands of court cases, published and unpublished.
All content is easy to print for downloading and mailing to prisoners.
Most complete collection of prison and jail related verdicts and settlements anywhere.
Order books, print subscriptions and make donations on line.

Brief bank with a wide assortment of winning motions, briefs, complaints and settlements.
Links to thousands of prison, jail, criminal justice and legal websites around the world.
Thousands of articles and cases, all fully indexed by more than 500 subjects, searchable by case name, case year, state of origin, court, author, location, case outcome, PLN issue and key word search.
Search free, pay only if you find it!
The highest quality, most comprehensive prison litigation news and research site in the world.
Affordable rates to meet your budget
$19.95 per month· $149.95 per year

Subscribe to Prison Legal News Online! http://www.prisonlegalnews.org

55

August 2012

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 56 of 57

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 96-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 32 of 32

Prison Legal News
P.o. Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303
Change Service Requested

Non-Profit Org. U.S. Postage PAID
Portland OR Permit No. 3142

Subscription Renewal
Subscriptions expire after the issue shown on the label is mailed. For example, if the label says: EXPIRES 02/2006, then the sub-
scription expires after the February 2006 issue is mailed. Please renew at least 2 months before the expiration date. IF THE LABEL SAYS EXPIRES: 08/2012 THIS IS YOUR LAST ISSUE. Please renew immediately to avoid missing any issues.

Change of Address If you move or are transfered, please notify PLN as soon as possible so your issues can be mailed to your new address! PLN only accepts responsibility for sending an issue to the address provided at the time an issue is mailed!

CA$H FOR YOUR STAMPS Get the HIGHEST REIMBURSEMENT RATES for ALL of your stamps from the ONLY stamp service continuously serving inmates for 10 years.
WE BUY COMPLETE AND PARTIAL BOOKS, SHEETS, STRIPS AND ROLLS OF ALL DENOMINATIONS AND QUANTITIES OF
POSTAGE STAMPS IN GOOD CONDITION
Within 24 Hours we will send a Money Order (minimum $15.00), Cashier's Check, or Electronic Payment to wherever you designate, or we will pay an approved vendor for a package or gift.*
* We will submit money order to the vendor, but you must submit your order forms to the vendor and deal with the vendor directly.

70% of FACE VALUE
For Complete Sheets, Books, or Rolls of "Forever" Stamps
In new or excellent (unfolded, unmarked, original) condition

60% of FACE VALUE

For Complete Sheets, Books, or Rolls of All Other Stamp Denominations

In new or excellent (unfolded, unmarked, original) condition

50% of FACE VALUE
For All Other Stamps Including Partial Books, Sheets, Rolls, or Strips, and Single Stamps of All Denominations, and Stamped Envelopes
Single stamps must have adequate peel-off borders

SEND SELF-ADDRESSED STAMPED ENVELOPE FOR
FREE BROCHURE
(This offer void Where Prohibited by state regulations)

Envelopes must have current first-class rate postage and no prison markings

CFS, P.O. Box 687, Walnut, CA 91789

Or visit OUR Website: www.cash4urStamps.com

CHAMBERLAIN DECL; Exhibit 76; Page 57 of 57

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 97 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 5

1 Katherine C. Chamberlain, OSB #042580
katherinec@mhb.com
2 Jesse A. Wing, pro hac vice
jessew@mhb.com
3 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News
MacDonald Hoague & Bayless
4 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500
Seattle, Washington 98104-1745
5 (206) 622-1604

6

Marc D. Blackman, OSB #730338 marc@ransomblackman.com

7

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Ransom Blackman LLP

8

1001 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1400 Portland, OR 97204

9 (503) 228-0487

Lance Weber,pro hac vice

10 lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

11 Human Rights Defense Center
1037 Western Ave., 2nd Floor

12 West Brattleboro, VT 05303

(802) 257-1342

13

14

15

16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
17
DISTRICT OF OREGON
18
PORTLAND DIVISION
19

20

21 PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,

22

Plaintiff,

23

v.

24

COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF

25

DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,

26

Defendants.

No. 3: 12-CV-71-SI
SECOND DECLARATION OF BRADLEY BERG

OF BRADLEY BERG (CV 12-71-81) - 1

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 97 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 5

_.... .J,.. S.f."C<.

· .., .... ,.
de..c.b.v-;e....

. .....

..

..__ .__ ._....... ..... .

PLNCOL-02109

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 97 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 5

-

...

......................- -....

..

..

___ ", ___

7 f!..JQe;{+fo ({

-____ Jkt_t'tlmat:es:-a.a.+heJc-d_Q,,-

---..1ntna±e--

______

.I I /

R'l \

I

{l I /1

____

P,-=-,LUn

.

17:::"-'---

U

i

.. d .. ( ....1 "..

PLNCOL-02110

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 97 Filed 09/13/12 Page 4 of 5
- - - - - 1 _ _ _ _- - - ' -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 00 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
PLNCOL-02111

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 97 Filed 09/13/12 Page 5 of 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on September 13,2012, I electronically filed the foregoing to the
Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the
following:
• Marc D. Blackman marc@ransomblackman.com,pat@ransomblackman.com
• Steven A. Kraemer sak@hartwagner.com,rcd@hartwagner.com
• Gregory R. Roberson grr@hartwagner.com,cej@hartwagner.com
• Lynn S. Walsh walsh@europa.com
• Lance Weber lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org,ahull@humanrightsdefensecenter.org
MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS
lsi Katherine Chamberlain JESSE WING Admitted pro hac vice KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN OSB #042580 (206) 622-1604 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

DECLARATION OF BRADLEY BERG (CV 12-71-SI) - 5
9870.05 fi120901

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 97-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT A
TO DECLARATION OF BRADLEY BERG
BERG DECL; Exhibit A; Page 1 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 97-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 3

III Jeffrey M. DickersoffDp Sheriff

Address: 901 PorlAve., St Helens, OR 97051 JP'h<me: (503) 366-4611 JFIDl:: (503) 366-4644 Web Addre§s: www.co.columbia.or.us/sheriff

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF

Date:

March 23, 2010

To:

Corrections Division/All Inmates ofthe C9lumbia County.Jail

From;

Bryan.L. Cutright Sr./Sergeant

Subject: Mail ProceduJr'e Ch.aJllge§.

Effective Aprill, 2010, the Columbia County Jail will be changing the manner in which we
handle inmate m;ril. All mail to and from the inmates ofthe Columbia County Jail Win be in the
form ofa postcard, Ifmail is received at the jail for any inmate in any form other than a postcard it will be returned to sender. -The only exceptions to this new procedural change are er
Attorney and Official mail. For a complete copy ofthe entire mail rules please read the mail section in the Columbia County Jail inmate manual that has been provided to you.

The below information has been posted to the Columbia County web site- and is available for all

to view. In addition to the website we have flyers available for your family and friends to pick

up at the Columbia County

s Office.

Columbia County Jail Mail Procedure§: Effective Aprill, 2010 the Columbia County Sheriffs Office is changing the procedures that apply to inmate mail.

VIOLATiONS: (Will result in the post-cardes)

returned: to sender)

*

No Inmate Name

*

Incomplete Retun:,. Address

*

Stickers of any kind (Includes address labels)

Rubber Inked Stamps

.

* Tape

*

Lipstick

*

Colored Pencils

*

Paperclips / Staples etc.

* . Correction Tape / Fluid

*

Crayon

* Paint

*

Watercolor

*

Food / Beverage Stains

S;\MEMOS\201O\MA1L 2010

PLNCOL-02112
BERG DECL; Exhibit A; Page 2 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 97-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 3

Perfume / Cologne

Ariythlng that wowd threaten or be detrimental to the safety, secUrity and orderly operation of

the Jail, anything gang

or any sexual conduct will be considered a mail violation and

placed in the Innlate's property.

LegaYProfe§sional Mail Rule§: Inmate legal mail and professional mail rules have not changed.

Mail Definitions and Frequently Asked Questions:

rerum address: Return address. is missing either part of the address or :first and last name ofsender. No Inmate Name: l?mate's first and last names are NOT on the post card.

Dead Mailed: There is no return address. In this case the postcard is

Office.

//

to the Post

What happem to the postcard ][ send to an inmate when it arrives at the Facility? After the

post card has been cleared through administration, it is reviewed for mail violations. Ifa

violation is

the Deputy will complete a Mail Violation Form and the mail will either be

retumed to sender or placed in the inmate's property until their release. The inmate will receive

a copy ofthe violation form that will explain the violation.

Calm I send a care package to an Inmate? Care packages may be purchased through www.columbia.lcaredirect.com. That website is also available on the Sheri:Efs Office website. Only those care packages will be allowed for the illmate.

em mmates have access to Books, Magazines, and Newspapers?' The Columbia County Jail

has Books and/or periodicals available for inmates while they are

iffamily members wish to

mail any book, hardbound or otherwise, must be sent directly from the publisher or bookstore via the U.S.

Mail. These items mIDist either be religiouB or

in Dai1!!re and

by the facility'

the admixnistration. Newspaper sUbscriptions may'be purchased to be delivered by the' newspaper to

faci;lity at regular delivery times and methods. Magazines are not allowed inside the facility.

Rtelligftam,§ Ma1l:eriaJl§: Inmates can request a Bible from the Law Library. Inmates can also

attend a religious

and receive religious

from the Columbia County Sheriff's

Office Volunteer w7 facilitates that particular program.

I

dP'

Bryan L. CUlB.ght, Sr. 30771

Sergeant

S:\MEMOS\201O\MAIL 2010

PLNCOL-02113
BERG DECL; Exhibit A; Page 3 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 97-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 2
EXHIBITB
TO DECLARATION OF BRADLEY BERG
BERG DECL; Exhibit B; Page 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 97-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 2

Personal Mail

Inmates may send or receive personal mail from friends, family, or associates on postcards only. Inmates

may receive postcards in any size that is delivered by the U.S. Postal Service up to a maximum size of 5-

112" tall x 8-1/2", wide. Inmates may receive postcards with photographs on one side as allowed by the

U.S. Postal Service. The jail does not permit any

form of personal mail for inmates.

Addrressing Hnmate M81fiD

Inmate mail must have the inmate's booking number as part oftlie addressee information. Incoming mail must have a return address to include the name and address of the sender.

Jail staffwill not allow an inmate to receive or send mail that-

1. Contains-

a. Threats of physical harm, blackmail, extortion, or other criminal activity.

b. Plans for escape,

activity, or activity that violates jail rules.

c. Gang-related material.

d. Information

if conveyed, could result in physical harm to someone.

e. Sexually explicit materials.
£ Inflammatory material.

g. Contraband materials including but not limited to such commonly mailed items as:

(1) Books larger than 9 by 12 inches or with plastic or m.etal bindings. (2) More than three books in a single piece of mail. (3) Controlled SUbstances as defined by DRS 475.525 (4) Foreign substances, such as:

(a) Bodily fluids
(b) Lipstick or perfume
(c) Glus' or paint
(d) Anything with an unusual stain or odor that indicates a foreign SUbstance may be present.

2. Is written in code or suspected code.

3. Was a form of written communication not sent through the USPS or other approved system.

4. Is to or from a victim of a crime that the inmate is in custody for in either pretrial or sentenced status.

5. Would violate a court order.

6. May produce a hostile work environment, such as sexual harassment

7. Is a credit or deferred billing transaction, such as "bill me later" subscriptions or merchandise bought
on credit or collect-on-dellvery terms.

8. Is

marked as legal or official mail.

Ex. ,B.

PLNCOL-02114 '
BERG DECL; Exhibit B; Page 2 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 97-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 31
EXHIBIT C
TO
DECLARATION OF BRADLEY BERG
BERG DECL; Exhibit C; Page 1 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 97-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 31

INMATE MANUAL COLUMBIA COUNTY. JAIL

All rules in this manual may be amended or suspended at any time by order of the Sheriff or designee.

As an Inmate in the Columbia County Jail, you are partially responsible for your own safety. You are in jail and you must be aware ofyour surroundings.
Illcorporating Revised Inmate Mail Guidelines (See Pages 7 through 16)

Effective May 16, 2012

11
PLNCOL-02115
BERG DECL; Exhibit C; Page 2 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 97-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 31

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OF C.ONTEI:rrS ....•.........•....•..•....

YOUR RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . 1

YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES AND EXPECTED BEHAVIOR. . . . . . . . . • . . . . . • . . . .. . . .. 1-2

AND BEDDING .......................... 2

BILLING FEES ............................... 2-3

CELL iN COMMAND ........................... 3

CLASSIFICATION ............................. 3

CLOTHING EXCHANGE ........................ 3

COMlY.1lSSARY ................................ 3

CONTRABAND ..•.•'..............•......•.... 3

COUNTY ISSUED ITEMS ......•....•......•.... 4

COURT CONDUCT ............................ 4

DRESS CODE ..........•..•................... 4

F1RE AND EMERGENCY SAFETY ............... 4

HAIR CARE AND PERSONAL GROOMING ..•..... 5

HEALTH APPRAISALS ........•.•..••.......... 5

HOUSING UNIT OPERATIONS ......•........... 5

ICE CONTACT INFORMATION ...........•...... 5

IDENTIFICATION CARDS ....•.•..........•.... 5

INMA.TE COUNTS ............•.............. 5-6

INMATE

ANCE PROCEDURE .•..•.... •.. 6

INMATE REQUEST FORMS ..................... 6

INMA'IE WORKER ACTIVITIES ..•.............. 6

INTERCOM SYSTEM .......................•.. 7.

.-.-.--.-.- ...._......,

7

LAW LIBRARY .............................. .

LIBRARY .................................... 7

MAIL .............................•....... 7-16

·MEALS .•........... : .... ·; .......: ... : ........ 16

MEDICAL SERVICES ......................... 17

MEDICATION ................................ 17

MEDICAL GRIEVANCES ........." ............. 17

MENTALHEALTIISERVICES .................. 17

MONEY ACCOtmS .......................... 17

OUTDOOR RECREATION .............•.... 17-18

.P.ERSONAL PRepER,T·nV .. ; .. '. : .'.. ........... ................. . 18 PROGRAM SERVICES .......................•.......... 18 PROPERTY TRANSFERS ................................. 18 SANITARY INSPECTIONS ...............•.............. ]8 SANITARY PRACTICES ............•.....•............. 19 SEARCHES ....•...................................... , 19 SELF-ESCORT ..................................•...... 19 SICK CALL ..... _.................................................................................. . 19 SPECIAL DIETS ........................................ 19 TELEPHONE PRIVILEGES ............................... 20 'IELEPHONE SERVICE NUMBER ....•.................... 20 TRANSFER TO WORK RELEASE CEN1ER ................. 20 VISITING .......•.................................. 20-21 SPECIAL VISITS ........................................ 21
WITH ATTORNEY •............•........•.•...... 21 VISITS BY CLERGY ................................ . 21-22 VOLUNTARY ACTIVITIES ............•..............••. 22 WAKE UP AND LOCK DOWN ............................ 22 :MINOR RULE VIOLATIONS PROCEDURES .•... •.......• , 22 MINOR RULE VIOLATION SANCTIONS ..•.....•....... 22-23 MINOR RULE VIOLATIONS ......•.................•• 23-24 MAJOR RULE VIOLATION PROCEDURES • . . . . . . • . . . . . . . • . 24 MAJOR RULE VIOLATION SANCTIONS ..............•• 24-25 MAJOR RULE VIOLATIONS ....•..................... 25-26 VIOLATIONS'APPEALS PROCESS ........................ 26 SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS ...................... .. 26 SEXUAL ASSAULT ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • .. 26-27 SEXUAL ASSAUJ.-T AVOIDANCE .•....................... 27

PLNCOL-02116
BERG DECL; Exhibit C; Page 3 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 97-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 4 of 31

YOUR RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES "

We want you to know exactly what is expected of you while you are in this jail. We will let you know what you can expect from us by explaining our rules, procedures and schedules to you. While at this jail, you will be provided with:

1. Three daily meals served at reasonable intervals 2. Clean beddingand clothing at least twice weekly 3. The opportunity t6 shower at least twice weekly 4. Regular exercise 5. Opportunities to exercise your religion 6. Basic hygiene items 7. Access to the law library 8. Access to counsel 9. Emergency medical and dental treatment 10. A safe and secure environment
Ifyou follow jail rules and sanitation practices, you may receive these priVileges:

1. Use oftelevision 2. Use of library services 3. Use ofoutdoor recreation 4. Use oftelephones 5. Having s<;)cial visits 6. Making commissary purchases 7. Sending and receiving mail
8. "Voluntary participation injail programs

Remember that these are not rights. .Tail staff can limit or suspend these privileges at any time in order to maintain" the safety, security, good order and sanitation of the jail.
will This manual does not cover every situation that may arise, but it serve as a basic guide for
yonr conduct and facility procedures.

Columbia County .Tail has a n"o smoking policy.

YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES AND EXPECTED BEHAVIOR

Read this manual to

what expected ofyou. The excuse ''I did not Imow that" is not acceptable. It

is your responsibility to follow alllaws,j.ail rules, schedules, and" staff requests.

respect jail

property and the property of others. This would include staying out of other inmate's cells and off of

their bunks. You are expected to keep your sleeping area, the day room and outdoor recreation areas

clean and orderly. Unacceptable behavior will be dealt with firmly, but fairly. Misbehavior may result in a

change ofyour custody status which can directly affect your privileges in the jail.

This manual is an accountable item and is issued to you for your use while you are in this facility. You are

responsible for the condition of this manual and you will be billed for any damage, graffiti, or unusable

condition when returned. If the manual is damaged, please report it to a staff member to have it replaced

immediately.

"

The best control of your behavior is by you practicing self-discipline and respect for others. Inmates are not

allowed to become personally familiar with corrections' staff. Be considerate and respectful toward all

officials. We will expect you to address uniformed staff as

or Sergeant

Ct and non-

-q.niforrned staff as "Mr.

" or "Ms._ _ _cc Central Control personnel will be addressed as

"Control."

Page 1 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 05/16/12
PLNCOL-02117
BERG DECL; Exhibit C; Page 4 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 97-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 5 of 31

Inmate basic rules for the Columbia County Jail:

1. The ID card is to be put into the window facing out so that it can be seen and scanned during

your stay.- ......'.....-.

2. When you are out ofyour room, the ID card is to be iu your pocket.

3. When you are in the day

you are to be completely dressed with t shirt tucked in.

4. When you are in your room, you are to have the T shirt and boxers on at all times including

while you are sleeping, no exceptions.

5. When you come out of the pod and into the circle, you are to stay on the colored squares. The

squares form a line that you walk on. You stay on that line with the exception to go around an

obstacle. You are to stay in a single file line.

6. When you are in any other hallway, you are to walk on the right side of the hall and in a single

file. You are not to touch anything. Do not speak, yell or signal at anyone. Keep your hands

to yourself.

7. When in the hallway, there should be only six (6) inmates at one time.

8. DO NOT cover the ventilation units or speaker in the cells.

BEDS AND BEDDING

Bedding will consist oftwo sheets and two blankets. Blankets and sheets may not be removed from your

cell or bunk, nor may they be placed on the floor or table for IDlY

You are not to take the mattress

offthe bunk and place it on the floor ofyour cell or in the day room ofthe pod. Your mattress may only be

used for sleeping purposes. The bunk area must be left in an orderly fashion through out the day.

BILLING FEES

Asauthorized in ORS 169.150 and 169.151, Local Correctional Facilities are allowed to bill Inmates for items and services that are provided to them while incarcerated in Correctional Facilities.

Every Sentenced Inmate will be charged a boarding fee of$10.00 per day. The Inmate will receive a bill when he or she is released from the jail. The Inmate will have 30 days to pay the bill or set up a payment
plan.

An initial hygiene kit is $4.15. and.the

ID card is $1.00. All over counter medications as well as

prescription medications will be billed through the inmate's commissary account When the Inmate is

released from jail and his or her commissary account is in the- negative, that amount will also show uE on the
.felease' bilIfug.wIlen JOaayslliivepassed·Witllnopayment received' on ilie-release Dining, the account wilr·· .

be turned over to the Oregon Department ofRevenue for collection.

. Other charges are listed below:

1) Work Release·-Inmates are charged·a minimum of $15.00 per day or two·hours ofpay if the inmate's

hourly rate ofpay is bigher than $7.50 per hour.

.

Ifany ofthe following items are damaged or

destroyed you will be billed as follows:December

2,2010

2) Hygiene Kits

$ 2.15 each 11) Tote

$44.95

3) Postcard

$ 0.50

12) Tote Lid

$26.95

4) HairCuts

$ 5.00

13) Sporks

$025

5) Medica1lNurse visits

$ 5.00

14) Sandals

$ 2.49

6) Medical visit for OTC meds $ 1.00

15) Cups

$ 0.75

7) Medical kites submitted

$ .50

16) Socks (If Appl.)

$ 0.85

Page 2 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 05/16/12

PLNCOL-02118
BERG DECL; Exhibit C; Page 5 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 97-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 6 of 31

8) Feminine Hygiene Products 9) Razors (ifmore than 1) 10) Copies of legal materials

$ 0.20 $ 0.15 $ 0.25

17) Towels

$ 0.75

18) Striped Shirt

$ 6.55-$12.75

19) Striped Pants

$ 8.75-$14.95

20) T-Shirts

$ 3.99 - $ 7.30

21) Shorts

$ 2.32 - $ 2.74

22) Replacement ID Card $ 5.00

All fees are subject to change at any time

CEU IN COMMAND

The command "cell-in"or

means you need to stop what you are doing and go directly to your

cell or bunk. You must follow this command without question or hesitation. Ifyou do not, it will directly

affect your classification and custody status and also will result in disciplinary actions against you.

CLASSIFICATION

All newly arrested inmates who are not released prior to movement from the booking area will be assigned

housing in a Pre-Classification unit They may be maintained on lock-down status for up to the first

Seventy-Two (72)

for classification purposes. The Columbia County Jail has three classifications

which are minimum, medium and maximum security. All inmates are assigIied a classification according to

their status. Inmates may request a classification review in writing on an Inmate Request Form at any time.

Most inmates involved in the Inmate Worker Program and Alternative Programs must qualify for , and maintain a minimum custody status.

ACTIVITIES MAY DIFFER BASED ON YOUR LEVEL OF CLASSIFICATION.

CLOTBINGEXCHANGE

Clean clothing will be provided twice weekly. You must turn in all of your soiled clothing during clothing exchange. In return you will receive 1 T-shirt, 1 pair of shorts, 1 towel, 1 striped shirt and 1 pair striped pants. On every other exchange you will receive clean sheets. Blankets may be exchanged every 30 days. Each housing unit will have a different laundry schedule.

Jail staff will make every effort to ensure clothing is in good repair. You are responsible for aU clothing and

bedding issued to you. You should check the condition of the clothing you receive and immediately inform

a staffmember and exchange any clothing or bedding that has a tear or graffiti written on it. Ifyou are

found'to be in possession ofdamaged items, you will be subject to disciplinary action., This may include

payment for the damaged clothing.

.

,

COMMlSSARY

The Columbia County Jail has a well-appointed commissary list from which inmates with funds may purchase various items. Inmates without funds may order indigent hygiene kits once per week, if needed. Indigent,items will be posted to the inmate's account creating a negative balance. Commissary sheets will be handed out once a week. .Ifyou did not get funds in before the commissary sheets were made up to
be passed out, you will have to wait until the following week to order. Commissary purchases are
limited to no more than $75.00 per week. Inmates may have no more than two (2) lead pencils in their
possession at any given time. In addition each inmate will be allowed to purchase one pack of colored
pencils.

CONTRABAND

Any authorized item found in an inmate's possession that has been altered or is not being used for it's original purpose, or any items in excess ofthe issued quantity as stated within this manual.

Page 3 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 05/16/12
PLNCOL-02119
BERG DECL; Exhibit C; Page 6 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 97-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 7 of 31

COUNTY ISSUED ITEMS

All inmates who are dressed into the Columbia County jail will be issued jail clothing after iptake, and in

the clothing

room..Y ou wUl he ·jssued a plastic bin containing a hygiene kit, 'bed-linen, towel,

and clothing and this lmilate Manual. Another issued item will include a mattress. You will be responsible

for the condition of all items issued to you. The gray property box (totes) are to be used specifically for

storage ofyour personal and issuea belongings. Totes are not to be used for chairs or any use other than

what has been mentioned above. Totes are to remain under your bunk. at all times.

1. One inmate uniform top. 2. One inmate uniform pants 3. Two T-Shirts 4. Two pair of gym shortslUnderwear 5. One pair ofjail sandals. 6. One mattress

7. "
8. 9. 10.

Two sheets Two Blankets One Towel One Rule Book

Female inmates may be allowed to retain the following:

1. Personal underwear, .if needed for hygiene reasons, if detennined

by staff.

2. Personal bras, with no metal fasteners or under wires. A sports style 'bra: is preferred. ..

During the winter months you will be issued a sweatshirt to be worn in your cell, day room area. the outdoor recreation yard or under the striped shirt when going to court.

COURT CONDUCT

Your arraignment will be your first court appearance in jail. During your arraignmeil't., a judge will tell you what you are charged with and your rights with regard to those charges. The judge may appoint an attorney
at this time ifyou qualify.

During any court appearance you will not have contact with any person other than your lawyer or the court officials. Contact includes talking, signaling, or passing notes to people.

Video arraignment is considered a court room setting and the above rules apply.

DRESS CODE

You are expected to remain fully dressed at all times except when you are on your bunk. .When you are in your assigned bunk area you must wear at least the T-shirt and shorts issued by this facility. Any time you leave your sleeping area or room, you must be fully clothed. Fully clothed consists ofyour shorts, T-
shirt, striped shirt and striped pants or shorts, T-shirt., gray sweatshirt and striped pants. During lights out, you may go to use the restroom in your t-shirt and shorts ifyou live in an open dorn'l.

Your T-sliirt must be tucked in at all times and not hanging loosely_ Rolling your pant legs up if they are too long, but not above the ankles, is allowed. Do not alter the appearance ofyour clothes.

You may not roll your sleeves, tuck your pants into your socks, or pull your pants down below the hips. It is

.

fl.rn.t.are

QI

.._____ ........:........ '......................_.._ .................... .

You will be allowed to take your outer striped shirt offwhile exercising in the recreation area.

FIRE AND EMERGENCY SAFETY

In case of any type of emergency or evacuation, you are to follow any direct order of a Deputy. There are emergency evacuation procedures in place and you will be evacuated in an orderly manner to a safe place.

If you are asked to evacuate an area by a Deputy, you are to form a straight line at your Pod door and wait for directions from a Deputy or the Control Room staff.. A Deputy will direct you to a safe area.

Page 4 .. Columbia County Jan Inmate Manual Revised 05/16/12

PLNCOL-02120
BERG DECL; Exhibit C; Page 7 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 97-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 8 of 31
HAIR CARE AND PERSONAL GROOMING We encourage you to shower daily_ We hand out razors three times a week. Ifan individual has a court appearance they will be allowed to use a razor prior to their court appearance. Once a week a list will be put into your respective pod and you must sign up on that list to receive a haircut. Hair cuts can be done when a person is available to be the barber. There is a $5.00 charge for the haircut. Haircuts will be done on Saturdays and Sundays only. You will be allowed to have one haircut per month. Haircuts other than a trim or a complete removal to a short stubble are not allowed. No other styles will be tolerated. Only kitchen and floor workers are allowed one free haircut month.
HEALTH APPRAISALS A health appraisal must be done before an inmate can be considered for "worker" status.
HOUSING UNIT OPERATIONS
The daily operation in the pods will be as follows.
You will be allowed to come out of your cell for a short period oftime during the morning at breakfast. You will then be instructed to return to your cell until lunch time. After lunch, you will then have three hours outofyour cell. At the end ofthat period, you will return to your cell. The next period out, will be after dinner for two hours. Inmate time ont of cells for each pod will be set as necessary to fulfill the needs of the facUity. Cleaning gear will be provided during the day. We require you to use it daily to clean your cell, bunk area
.and the pod as a whole on a daily basis.
No one is allowed to sit, stand or loiter on the stairs or catwalks (upper tier floors) at any time. This will include walking or pacing off laps upstairs, or on the stairs. There is to be no sitting on the table tops.
ICE CONTACT INFORMATION Inmates who are housed in the Columbia County Jail for Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) may contact ICE via the use of an ICE inmate request form. ICE inmates may contact ICE Pro Bono Attorneys by calling (800) 646-6283. In each Pod located on the mail boxes, there is a list of aU Pro Bono caUs for use by all ICE detainees. ICE agents make scheduled visits to the Columbia County Jail on Wednesdays every week.
IDENTIFICATION CARDS You must keep your inmate ID card on your person any time you are out of your cell. Do not let anyone use your ID card. The best place to keep this card is in your shirt pocket. When you are in your cell, place your ID card, right side up, in the window of your door with the picture facing out so the Deputy can see your name and picture. You must surrender your ID card to any staff member upon request.
INMATE COUNTS There will be at least six tCFormal Counts" per day. At the beginning of each C'formal counf' you will be instructed to "cell in or bunk up." Televisons will be turned off.- At that time you must:
1. Go into your cell and close the door or get onto your bunk depending on the pod you are in. . 2. Correctly place your J.D. card in the window ofyour door or op. your bunk. Ifyou are on a bunk,
or otherwise not in your room or pod, having the ID card in your hand and presenting it to the deputy doing the count is acceptable..
Prior to lock-down each night afinal fonnal head count will be conducted in the following manner.
. Page 5 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 05/16/12
PLNCOL-02121
BERG DECL; Exhibit C; Page 8 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 97-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 9 of 31

1. In Pods with cells you will go to your room, close the door stand with one individual on each side

of the door, ID card in

ready for the count. All inmates will remain in this manner until a

Deputy scans your identification card.

go "2. In an open'dorm to your'bunk and stand next to your bunk with

ID card in haneL until a

Deputy scans your card. After fonnal you should bunk up for the night and remain quiet.

There Vl!ill be numerous infonnal counts per day, therefore, whenever a Deputy enters your cell, remain where you are, do not move until deputy leaves or instructs you to move.

lNMATE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE

You may submit a grievance about a condition in the jail ifyou think it is a problem or is unfair. You cannot grieve: disciplinary actions (there is an appeal process for that), classification decisions, incidents or problems which you were not party to, a collection of unrelated complaints, and no group grievances.

To fIle a grievance, you must follow the steps below in the order shown. You cannot skip one.

1. An inmate may request a Grievance Form. from' any Corrections Deputy at any time to bring to

attention any perceived problems and proposed'solutions. The Deputy will-addtess'anygnevmce

within the scope ofWs/her authority and document any action taken regarding the request within

five (5) working days.

.

2. The inmate may redirect the grievance to the Shift Supervisor for any complaint which cannot be
reasonably resolved by the Deputy. The Supervisor will address any grievance within the scope of Ws/her authority and document any action taken on the form within five (5) working days.

3. Ifthe complaint is not resolved to the inmate's satisfaction by the Supervisor, the inmate may send the Grievance Form to the Facility Supervisor or Ws designee. The Facility Supervisor or designee will address the complaint and document any action taken on the form. within five (5) working days.

Ifthe complaint is not resolved to the inmate's satisfaction by the Facility Supervisor, the inmate may send a sealed Grievance Form to the Sheriff. The Sheriffwill address the complaint and document his decision on the form within ten (10) working days. The Sheriff's decision will be' final!

Inmates may file an Emergency Grievance in the event that circumstances exist to warrant one. This will be filed directly to the Jail Commander in a sealed envelope, utilizing the same inmate grievance form.

INMATE REQUEST FORMS
The Inmate Request Forms (also lmown as kites) are available upon request. There are two ofthem. One will be for general questions, law library and visiting. The other form will be a Medical Request Form. This is only for the medical staff and doctor to answer and will be forwarded to them. There are separate forms to correspond with Columbia County Community Corrections or with Immigration Customs Enforcement

INMATE WORKER ACTIVITIES
Ifyou want to work in the jail, you will need to request and fill out an Inmate Worker Labor Agreement, then submit itinto the mailbox.. It may take several days to receive your copy.
Staffwill select various inmates to do kitchen, custodial or maintenance jobs in the facility. Health care staff must clear you before you can participate in the worker activities, especially in the kitchen.
You may receive work time.credit only if you are sentenced and your sentence order authorizes it. Any change of a job description or shift must be approved by a Supervisor.
Page 6 - Columbia CoiJnty Jail Inmate Manual Revised 05/16/12

PLNCOL-02122
BERG DECL; Exhibit C; Page 9 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 97-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 10 of 31

lNTERCOM SYSTEM

The call buttons in the cells are to be used for emergency purposes only. They are not to be used for any other commurucation. Ifthe call buttons are misused, the inmate violating this rule will be written up for
failure to abide by the rules ofthe Columbia County Jail.

LAW LIBRARY

All inmates ofthe Columbia County Jail will be given access to one hour in the law library per request. Use ofthe law library will be limited only by time and the need to maintain the safety and security ofthe facility. To gain access, you must submit a request form at least twenty-four (24) hours in advance. You will be
expected to take a note pad and pencil with you to the law library to assist you in your research. All law books, reference material and other articles must remain in the law library to ensure equal access for all inmates. There will be very limited copying capabilities available to you for which your account will be
charged a fee per copy. No inmate will be denied this service based on an inability to pay. '

'When you finish, you are required to leave the law library orderly and neat. Please be aware that corrections staff cannot provide you with legal advice or legal assistance. Ifyou have any questions, please consult
your attorney.

LffiRARY

All inmates ofthe Columbia County Jail will be afforded ample opportunity to have access to library books
within the jail library. The books may be delivered by a cart You may have up to six books at a time. All books must be returned to the library or the cart, prior to checking out more. If a search ofyour person or cell reveals that you have more than six books in your possession, you may be subjected to disciplinary action. Damaged books must be returned to a Deputy, irinnediately. Possession of damaged books may be
grounds for disciplinary action. The six books do not include religious or educational. Discretion of Corrections Staff will determine whether the books are in fact religious or educational.

MAIL

POLICY

Jail mail-handling procedures support an inmate's need to communicate in writing to carry out legal business and maintain family and community ties. The procedures also meet the Jail's need for efficient operations that preserve the good order, safety, and security of the facility, inmates, and staff.

The general inmate mail policy ofthe jail that all mail that is delivered by the United States Postal Service

can be delivered to and s,ent.by inmates, subject to the restrictions in our IniTIate Mail Guide, on page 14,

below.'

,

DEFINITIONS

Book. A printed composition bound in a volume.

Contraband. I) Controlled substances as defined in ORS 475.005(6). 2) Drug paraphernalia as defined by ORS 475.525(2). 3) Any currency or negotiable instrument 4) Any item that a person in a
correctional facility is prohibited by statute, rule, or order from obtaining or possessing, and whose use would endanger the safety or security ofthe facility or person in the facility. 5) An unauthorized item in an inmate's possession or in a cell, bunk, or common area. 6) An authorized item altered in ai:J.y way. 7)
More than the authorized number of an item.

Inmate Mail. Written correspondence to or from an inmate in the Columbia County Jail.

Indigent. An inmate who has less than $5 in his or her inmate account and has not had more than that amount for seven -days.

Inflammatory material. Writter.l' or printed

that pose a threat to the security, safety, or

Page 7 -: Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 05/16/12

PLNCOL-02123
BERG DECL; Exhibit C; Page 10 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 97-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 11 of 31

good order ofthe jail because it may incite or advocate physical violence against others. This includes
material that advocates the supremacy or hatred of a racial, religious, national, or other group of people.
(Note: Criticism ofjail operations, programs, or sta£t: on its owh, is not inflammatory material. Ifthe
criticism involves an illegal act or violates ajail rule, staff'will handle it as that type ofprohibited maiL)

Jail Commander. The

C0unty Jail Commander or his/her gesignee.

Junk mail! Bulk mail. Printed materials, often sent as mass mailings, such as catalogs, advertisements, brochures, circulars, and pamphlets whose primary purpose is to sell, promote or solicit for, a product or service. Junk. maillbulk mail may come using a variety of postage rates, including but
not limited to bulk mail rates. Junk MaillBulk Mail may be solicited or unsolicited.

Legal mail. Incoming or outgoing mail addressed to or from a licensed attorney.

Negotiable instrument. A written document that represents an unconditional promise to pay a specified amount of money upon the demand of its owner. Examples include checks and promissory notes. Negotiable instruments can be transferred from one person to another, as when a person writes '''pay to the order of' on the back of a check in order to tum it over to someone else.

Official Mail. Inc!Jming or outgping mail addressed to or from the sheriff, jail command sta£t:
probation authorities, district attorney, state attorney general, Governor, court, a court official, and other
confining al{thorities, or addressed to or from the inmate's medical provider.

Periodical. A magazine, newspaper, newsletter, or other publication formed of printed sheets that is issued at regular, specified intervals by a publisher.

Personal business. Business necessary to meet ordinary personal obligations, including but not limited to, paying taxes, making mortgage or other loan payments, renewing licenses, and making rent or lease payments.

Personal mail. Mail to or from family, friends, or for personal business. Personal mail does not
include legal mai..l, official mail, publications., or junk mail/bulk mail.
Publication. Periodicals and books.

Sexually explicit: 1) A pictorial depiction of any of the following: actual or simulated sexual acts (including sexual intercourse, oral sex, anal sex, or masturbation); sexual penetration; bestiality; sexual violence; sadomasochistic behavior, excretory functions; and exposed genitalia, anus, or the nipple or nipples (to include areolas) offemale breasts, unless the exposure is for legitimate medical, religious, or anthropological reasons. 2) A written or pictorial depiction of lewdness, licentiousness, or graphic erotic behavior designed to cause sexual excitement. 3) Sex acts involving children. 4) Materials that violate state and local obscenity laws. (Note: Whether the material is commercially produced or is personally made or written has no bearing on this defmition.)

Page 8 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 05/16/12

PLNCOL-02124

BERG DECL; Exhibit C; Page 11 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 97-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 12 of 31

INMATE MAIL

1. Inmate Mail Limits and Restrictions/Overview

The Columbia County Jail will normally not limit, censor, or restrict the volume, language, content, format or source of inmate mail. However, some limitations are necessary to assure the safety, and security of inmates, jail sta.ft: and the public, as well as to assure the efficient operation of the Jail.

2. Specific Limitations on Inmate Mail.

a. Personal Mail. Except as otherwise provided below, personal mail may be sent and received by
inmates only in postcard form. The following exceptiQns apply to this policy:

i. A Jail Supervisor may allow an inmate who is continuously involved in rehabilitation programs permission to correspond with a specific person in non-post card form (both sending and receiving). A supervisor must document that correspondence with the person is in the best interest of an inmate's rehabilitation. A suitable example might include a letter sent to reconnect with family prior to release.

ii. A Jail Supervisor may approve incoming and outgoing mail in non-postcard form so that an inmate can conduct necessary personal business. Examples of this exception include, but are
not limited to the use of a business reply envelope to send a document back to the originating finn or signing a mailed-in personal check to make a rent or car payment or renew a driver's license. If it appears to theSupervisor that the inmate has no other reasonably available means to take care of personal business, and that the personal business cannot reasonably
wait until the inmate is released, the Supervisor shall allow the exception, subject to the
following:

(1)

Checks must not have a blank payee line.

(2) Ifreasonably possible, the inmate must act to add a cosigner to a checking account or make other arrangements to prevent reoccurrence ofthis need.

(3)

Supporting documents, such as payment coupons or rent contracts, must accompany

personal business mail.

'.

b. . Publications. Publications are permitted in the Jail, subject to the following requirements:

i. An inmate must have someone outside the jail prepay for any pUblication he or she receives. An inmate may not engage in any delayed payment or credit ordering ofpUblications while inside the jail.
it Books.. Ali inmate may receive up to three books on a single mail delivery day. Books must
come directly from the publisher, a book club, or a bookstore. Books may be new or used. Books may not be larger than 9 inches by 12 inches. Books may not have plastic or metal bindings. Either hardback or paperback books are acceptable for general popUlation inmates. Inmates in segregation, including medical segregation, may only receive paperback books. Mail handlers will consider any other item in the envelope or parcel as contraband and treat the parcel as prohibited mail.

iii. Periodicals. An inmate may receive up to three periodicals on a single mail delivery day.

Periodicals must be new and be mailed

from the publisher or bookstore.

iv. No blanket prohibition. Mail handlers will determine whether a specific publication violates
jail rules. However, this determination must be made on a case by case basis. There shall be
no blanket prohibition mi. any publication.

c. Legal and Official Mail.

(1) Jail staf{must protect the rights of inmates to privileged, confidential communication with their attorneys, the courts, and confming authorities.

. Page 9 Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 05/16/12

PLNCOL-02125

BERG DECL; Exhibit C; Page 12 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 97-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 13 of 31

(2) A sender oflegal or official mail

for legitima,tely, properly, and clearly

marking and addressing legal and official mail so that jail staffrecognize it and treat it as

being confidential, as follows;.

(1) .The return address on all incoming legal and official mail must have the
'::' _. , .sender's job,. agency, or flrm ,title and-address·either commercially preprinted
on the envelope or a label, or as an ink stamp. The sender's name should be handwritten if not preprinted. Staffwill treat all mail with return addresses that are completely handwritten as personal mail.

(2) The words '"Legal Mail," "Official Mail," or similar designation must appear
on the address side ofthe envelope. Jail staffwiII not assume the contents of any letter from an attorney, law fum, or government official is legal or
official mail Jail Staff will treat all mail without the legal or official mail
mark as personal mail.

(3) J3il staff will treat improperly marked or addressed mail as personal mail.

(3) Staffwill not open recognized legal or official mail outside the presence of the inmate. They will open it in the presence ofthe inmate to inspect it for contraband,
but they will not read its contents.

(4) Before legal or official mail leaves the pod, staffmust verify that any letter marked
as legal or official mail is addressed to a person that qualifies for that privacy protection. Deputies will contact a shift sergeant ifthey suspect fraud.

(5) Jail staff will pursue administrative, criminal, and disciplinary actions, as fitting, against all those involved in the fraudulent use of legal or official mail designations.

d. Other Prohibited Mail/Contraband.

i.

An inmate may not receive or send inmate mail that contains:

(1) Threats of physical harm, blackmail, extortion, or other criminal activity;

(2) Plans for escape, criminal activity, or activity that violates jail rules;

(3) Gang-related material;

(4) Information that, ifconveyed, could result in physical harm to someone;

(5) Sexually explicit IIlll:terials;,

.. _. _.. _.. __ ._.
(7)

..

.

Contraband including but not limited to such commonly mailed items as: (a) Books larger than 9 by 12 inches or with plastic or metal bindings; (b) More than three books in a single piece of mail; (c) Controlled substances as defmed by ORS 475.005(6)

(8) Foreign substances, such as bodily fluids, lipstick or perfume, glue 'or paint or anything with an unusual stain or odor that indicates a foreign substance may be present;
(9) Cash or negotiable instruments unless specifically allowed to conduct personal business.

ii.

An inmate may not send or receive inmate mail that:

i(1

is written in code or suspected code;

(2) Was not sent through the USPS or other approved system;

Page.l0 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual, Revised 05/16/12
BERG DECL; Exhibit C; Page 13 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 97-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 14 of 31

(3) Is to or from a person with whom the inmate is prohibited from· communicating;

(4) Would violate a court order;

(5) May produce a hostile work environment by sexual harassment or otherwise;

(6) Is a credit or deferred billing

such as '"bill me later"

SUbscriptions or merchandise bought on credit or collect-on-delivery terms;

(7) Is fraudulently marked as legal or official mail;

(8) . Includes infonnation about upcoming health care appointments.

e.

Sources of mcoming Mail. Jail Staffwill only accept incoming inmate mail that has been

delivered by the U.S. Postal Service unless otherwise specifically authorized by the Jail

Commander.

.

f.

Postage-Due Mail. The jail will not accept or pay for incoming inmate mail with postage

due.

g.

Parcels. Incoming parcels are allowed ifthey contain books or periodicals from a publisher

or bookstore. A parcel. may only contain up to three books or three periodicals. Mail

handlers will consider any other item in a parce1 as contraband and treat such a parcel as

prohibited mail. Parcels are also allowed to and from iDmates for legal or official mail, or for

personal business when an exception is authorized.

h. Commercial Business Transactions and Government Services by Mail.

i.

Except as provided in (ii), below, inmates may not conduct commercial business

transactions or request services from government agencies through inmate mail.

ii. A Jail Supervisor may approve personal business mail as described in paragraph 2.a (above under Personal Mail).

iii. Examples of commercial business transactions and government agency requests include, put az:e not limited to:

(I) Buying or selling an item, real property, or service;

(2) Applying for a credit

(3) Applying for a commercial or student loan;

.(4) Opening a bank account;

(5) Enrolling in a college course;

(6) Applying for food stamps;

(7) Any obligation of funds to which the inmate does not have access.

3. General Limitations on Inmate Mail.

In addition to the specific limitations on inmate mail set forth above, additional limitations may apply
in the following circumstances:

A. There is reason to believe that such correspondence would jeopardize personal safety, jail security or good order, inmate treatment, or would facilitate violation ofthe law.

B. There is reason to believe that a sentenced inmate in rehabilitative programs would benefit from limited contacts and/or inmate mail.

Page 11 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 05/16/12
BERG DECL; Exhibit C; Page 14 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 97-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 15 of 31

C.

disciplip.w:y sanction that restricts personal mail. (See policy 1212,

Rules and Discipline.)

4.

General Provisions for Inmate Mail

a.

Postcards. Inmates.may.send postcards they..receive.iutheir..initial inmate hygiene kit or

through jail commissary. Inmates may receive postcards in' any size that is delivered by the

. U.S. Postal Service up to a maximum size of 5-112" tall x 8-112" wide. Postcards may have

photographs on one side as allowed by the V.S. Postal Service and jail rules. No other

photographs are allowed on postcards. Inmates are not limited to a specific number of

postcards that they may receive or send. Lodged inmates receive two postcards in their

hygiene. kit, and may purchase additional postcards through jail commissary. Policy 212,

Rules and Discipline, sets limits on the number of personal mail items allowed in an inmate's

cell.

b. Indigent Inmate Mail. Indigent inmates may purchase an indigent hygiene kit through the commissary prograqI. once per week. Hygiene kits are taken to the pods and offered to all inmates. The indigent hygiene kit consists of two postage prepaid postcards, a pencil and hygiene items.

c.

Addressing Inmate Mail. Incoming mail must have the inmate's booking name and should

have the

booldng

as part of$e

iufolJllation.

d. Return Address. Incoming mail must have the name and address ofthe

The return

address on legal and official mail must have the sender's job, agency, or firm title and

address commercially preprinted or stamped.

e.

Certified MaiJ/SpeciaI mail services. This section applies to legal and official mail as well

as to personal business mail when authorized.

i.

An inmate may send up to two letters as certified mail in a 30-day period. The

.inmate must have sufficient funds in his or her account to pay for the service. A jail

supervisor may make exceptions to the volume of certified mail an inmate sends and

may approve credit to allow an indigent inmate to send certified mail.

ii. An inmate that needs to send a letter using certified mail must fill out an Inmate Request Form. Only the jail commander can approve such a request. The Jail
Commander will ensure that the inmate's correspondence is ready to mail at the time ofthe request. Ifan inmate's request for certified mail is approved, the jail
commander will forward the request to the front office staff.

(1) Jail staff will verify ifthe inmate has sufficient funds in his or her account before processing any request They will forward requests from indigent
inmates·to a sup.ervisor. The inmate will :fill o1,1t. the necessary U.S. Postal
Serviceforms-Receipt for Certified Mail (pS Form 3800) and Domestic Return Receipt (pS Form 3811). The letter and the forms will be forwarded .to front office .staff who. will-mail-the-Ietter-and-charge-the-inmate·forthe -...
postal fees for these special services. The inmate request form will be the source document authorizing the charge.

(2) Jail Staffwill forward the Domestic Return Receipt on to the inmate when it
returns in incoming mail. They will poStcard to"tDci"i:ioSt office ifthe iimuite is no longer in jail when it retums in the mail.

f.

Inmate Request Form. An inmate shall use an Inmate Request Form to request permission

to mail oversize or overweight items, or for other special postal services, when allowed. If

the Jail Commander approves such a request, funds will be drawn from the inmate's account

to cover the costs.

.

g.

JunkIBulk Mail. Jail staffwiII accept so1icited or unsolicited junk mail or bulk mail for

inmates, unless it violates other mail restrictions (such as containing sexually explicit

content).

Page 12 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 05/16/12

PLNCOL·02128

BERG DECL; Exhibit C; Page 15 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 97-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 16 of 31

h. Pre-Stamped Envelopes. Jail staff will make pre-stamped First Class business size or
manila envelopes available for inmates to buy from the commissary for legal or official mail. Indigent inmates may obtain pre-stamped envelopes for legal or official mail per paragraph 6.

i.

Inmate Mail Written in a Foreign Language. Incoming and outgoing mail written in a

language other than English must be interpreted prior to delivery to determine whefuer the

mail violates

rules.

5. Appeals.

a

By Inmates. Inmates wishing to appeal a decision to deny delivery of incoming inmate mail

or the mailing of outgoing inmate mail must follow the normal grievance procedure set forth

in the inmate manual and Policy J207.lnmate Rights.

b. By Others. If a person believes that any incoming or outgoing inmate mail was improperly confiscated by the Jail, fuey may appeal the action to the Jail Commander by sending a . written letter stating the specific reason(s) why the action was improper. The letter must be received within 15 days from the date of the Prohibited Mail Notice. Or, if no Prohibited
Mail Notice was received, within 15 days from the date the person knew or should have known of the appealed action. The letter shall include the sender's name and return address. The Jail Commander will consider the appeal and will issue a decision on the appeal within fifteen days of receiving the letter. However, ifthe Jail Commander made the initial decision regarding the mail in question, the Sheriffwill consider the appeal and issue the decision. The appeal process will be set forth in the Prom'bited Mail Notice.

Page 13 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 05/16/12

PLNCOL-02129

BERG DECL; Exhibit C; Page 16 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 97-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 17 of 31

INMATE MAIL GUIDl;

Personal Mail

Inmates may send or reoeh.ie persoiiari:iiail oii"postcards oilly except ill specific circUmstance's whlch mimt be'approved by jail

staff. Additional information about the exceptions is available in the Inmate Mail Policy J603-&-08. Personal mail is mail to

or from family. friends, or for personal business. Personal mail does not include legal mail, official mail, publications, or junk

mailIbulk mail Inmates may send and receive postcards in any size that is delivered by the U.S. Postal Service up to a

maximum size of5-1/2" tall x 8-1/2"' wide. Inmates may receive postcards with photographs OD. one side as allowed by the

U.S. Postal Service.

.

Addressing Inmate Mail

Inmate mail must have the inmate's booking number as part of the addressee information. Incoming mail must have a return address to include the name and address ofthe sender.

Prohibited Mail

Jail staffwill not allow an inmate to receive or send mail that--

1.

Contlin&--

a. ..-. "Threats ofphysical"harm; b1aclanaa 'extortion:, ot oilier ciiniliialactiVity;' ......

b.

Plans for escape, criminal activity, or activity that violates jail rules;

c.

Gang-related material;

d.

Information that, ifconveyed, could result in physical harm to someone;

e.

Sexually explicit materials;

f.

Inflammatory material;

g.

Contraband materials including but not limited to such commonly mailed items as:

i

Books larger than 9 by 12 inches or with plastic or metal bindings

ii

More than three books in a single piece ofmail

iii.

Controlled substances as defined by ORS 475.525

iv.

Foreign substances, such as:

(1)

Bodily fluids

(2)

Lipstick or perfume

(3)

Glue or paint

(4)

Anything with an unusual stain or odor that indicates a foreign substance may be present

2.

Is written in code or suspected code

3.

Was a form ofwritten communication not sent throt¢ the USPS or other approved system;

4.

Is to or from a victim ofa crime that the inmate is in custody for in either pretrial or sentenced status;

5.

Would violate a colJ!l: orqer;

6.

- May

produce

a

h

o

st .,

i.l

e--

wo
.....

r

k

..e.nv,. ir.o...nm_e..n.t.,.s_u.c..h.

a.s..s..e.x.u..a.l..har...a...s..s_m_ ..e...n...t.;

7.

Is a credit or deferred billing transaction, such as "bill me later" subscriptions or merchandise bought on credit or

collect-on-delivery terms;

8.

Is fraudulently marked as legal or official mail.

For more specific information about prohibited mail please review the full Inmate Jail Policy J603-R08

Appeals
Both the inmate and an outside person have the right to appeal a decision to return or confiscate inmate mail. With very limited exceptions, the Jail will provide a Notice ofProhibited Mail to both the sender and addressee when inmate incoming mail is returned or confiscated. The Notice of Prohibited Mail will explain the reason why the inmate mail was returned or confiscated. The appeal process for outgoing inmate mail follows the Jail's normal grievance process. The appeal process for everyone else requires a letter explaining the reason for the
and providing contact infonnation. The Jail will respond within 15 days of receipt ofthe letter.
Generai Mail Rules:

Page 14 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 05/16/P

PLNCOL-02130

BERG DECL; Exhibit C; Page 17 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 97-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 18 of 31

We may place limits on your mail because ofits volume, its affect on your rehabilitation or treabnent, or for the safety, security, and good order of the jail. We may open and inspect all mail for contraband and
may read all personal mail.

We will provide an Inmate Mail Guide for members ofthe public. It explains mail rules and what they can and cannot send you. Ask a Deputy for copies. People may also call (503) 366-4630 to get the information found in the guide or read it on the jail's web site at
www.co.colurnbia.of.us/sheriff

"Do" Mail Rules for Inmates For mail, you must do the following:

1. Use only lead pencils to write letters.

2. Use onlyjail-approved postcards sold through the commissary or issued by stafffor social mail.

3. Keep the weight of legal or official correspondence in a pre-stamped envelope below 1 ounce (28

gm). To keep a business envelope to one ounce or less means the contents cannot be more than

four 8- Yz" x 11" sheets of standard weight paper.

4. Keep your friends and family informed ifyou received books, newspapers, or money they have

provided for you.

.

5. When you are released or transferred from the jail, send change-of-address notifications to those

that send you postcards and periodicals.

6. Put the return address noted on the sample postcard below on all your outgoing mail. Tell people

sending you postcards or other acceptable mail to use it to address mail to you. Write the

recipient's full name and complete address legibly on any mail you send.

''Don't'' Mail Rules for Inmates You may not do any ofthe

1. Draw or write anything on a postcard in the address area or on the picture of the postcard other

than name and address information.

2. Send alit jail forms for others to fill out on your behalf.

3. Send prohibited mail.

4.

Send out jail property.

5. Order publications on credit or delayed billing from the jail.

6. Operate a commercial business or nonprofit organization from the jail.

7. Order correspondence courses unless you have ajail command officer's approval.

8. , Conduct commercial or pt:?rsonal

transactions or request services :f;!om a government

agency uruess you haye ,a jail command officer's approval.

.'

9. You may not send mail to another inmate in this facility without prior written permission.

Sending and Receiving Mail
You may send and receive correspondence only through the U. S. Postal Service. The jail internal mail system for coriilllllQicating only with jail staff. Any transfer of written communication on your part that does not comply with mail rules and procedures is a rule violation that subjects you to discipline. This includes sending notes to other inmates or notes, postcards or mail to anyone by way ofa contact visit, court appearance, or transport. People may not leave mail, messages, or notes for you at the jail. Personal
mail must come oil a commercially produced postcard which does not exc,eed 5 Yz by 8 Yz inches.

Except in unusual circumstances and on holidays or weekends) we will deliver incoming mail to you within 24 hours ofits receipt We will put outgoing mail in a pickup box within 24 hours of receiving it from you. There is
no pickup by the post office on weekends and holidays.

It is important that you use a person's complete and correct address when sending mail. Ifsomeone says he or she

did not receive something you sent and you did not receive a confiscation notice from us, it is a matter for you to

resolve with the post office-not the jail. For your convenience, addresses of commonly contacted government

agencies are at back ofthis manual and entitled "Government Pages."

"

. Page 15- Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised05/16j12

PLNCOL-02131

BERG DECL; Exhibit C; Page 18 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 97-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 19 of 31

We do not forward mail. Ifwe receive mail for you and you are not here, we will return it to the sender. (please tell those sending you mail to put on return addresses. We confiscate mail without return addresses or destroy it if you are no longer injaiL)

Mail Confiscation: We will give you a Prohibited Mail Notice for mail we confil:!cate. When we confiscate items because
they exceed a number limit, such as books or magazines, we will confiscate (or return) all ofthem rather
than selecting some to bring the number down to the limit amount. We will return stored confiscated mail to you when you are released, ifit was not disposed offor health or safety reasons. You may submit
a grievance to ask for its retmn before then. We will return to sender any form ofprohibited mail. You
may not get a notice that we have returned contraband to the sender.

Use of Envelopes

,

You may use an envelope sold through the commissary to send these types of letters:

1. Legal or official mail.

2. A legal or official mail letter that should not or cannot be folded or that is more than one ounce.

3. With staff approval, a personal letter that contains a program-related diploma or certificate that should

not or can nbt 'beffolded. You rrlllst have a Deputy confirm that you are sendirig a diploma or certificate

, before you seal the envelope.

'

You may not use these envelopes for any type ofmail that does'not meet one ofthe three criteria listed above. We will deduct the cost ofthe postage from your inmate account for acceptable manila envelopes.

Sending Certified Legal or Official Mail
and You send a legal or official letter using U. S. Postal Service Certified Mail and Return Receipt mail
services. You will get receipts that you sent the letter that the letter was received by the addressee. We will charge you the standard postal rates for these serVices. You must have money in your inmate account to pay the postal rates or have appropriate approval ifyou are indigent. A deputy will supply you with a request for Certified Mail form that you need,to fill out and submit along with the letter. You may
only send 2 certified-mai1letters in a 30-day period.

Outgoing Mail Inmates will place all ontgoing mail in the mail drop located in the day. room of each housing unit.
You are expected to legibly address your correspondence and use the proper postage. All outgoing mail must list the following return. address:

Your full name , ' Columbia COUIity Jail 901 Port Avenue
81. HeleDi"Oregoii 91051

MEALS

Meals will be served three tim.es daily at approximately 6:30 A.M., 12:00 P.M. and 5:00 P.M. Pre-classification

and clisciplinary inmates may' be-required,to"eat in therr cells.' All others willlirre up for

and will 'eat at tb-e

tables provided in the day rooms. Ifyou choose not to eat, please advise the deputy. Televisions will be off

during the serving ofmeals. Once the meals have been served and the Deputy leaves the pod, the television may

be turned back on.

Do not save food from meal service.

All special personal preference diet requests, such as vegetarian meals, must be pre-approved by the jail supervisors. All inmates on a personal preference diet will be charged a fee of $ 1.00 per. meal, to be taken directly out oftheir individual inmate trust account to cover the additional cost ofthese meals. Indigent inmates will not be eligible to receive tbis type of special diet.

" Page 16 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manilal Revised 05/16/12
PLNCOL-02132
BERG DECL; Exhibit C; Page 19 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 97-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 20 of 31

MEDICAL SERVICES

The Columbia County Jail will provide emergency medical, dental, and mental health care to all inmates

regardless oftheir ability to pay for such services. No inmate will be denied care for serious health care needs

based on the cost ofmedical services or the inmate's inability to pay for health care. All medical visits initiated by

you will be assessed a fee which wi],I be charged to your personal money account. You will be financially

responsible for any elective surgery or other treatment you may request from your personal physician, dentist or

other provider.

.

Medical screening or appraisals at intake, or for :inniate workers will be provided at no cost to you. All Detainees

will receive a medical evaluation within their first 14 days ofincarceration.

.

Prescription medications: You will be charged for all prescription medication prescribed for you and purchased by the jail on your behalf.

Over the counter medications such as; Tylenol, Aspirin, antacid etc., will be available from our medical department for a small charge.

MEDICATION

Health care staff may fill prescriptions at their discretion. Health care staff may discontinue prescribed medication as directed by the jail health care supervisor or physicians. Ifyou came from another correctional
facility and had your medication transferred with you, the transporting Deputy will give your medication to the health care staff. Ifyou are leaving our jail and going to another jail, the transporting Deputy will get your
medication from the health care staff and transport it with you.

As a warning, any abuse ofyour medication may result in the discontinuation ofyour receiving the medicine.

:MEDICAL GRIEVANCES

In case of any unresolved problem regardIng medical, dental or infirmary care, you may follow the grievance procedures outlined in this manual.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

ColumJJia Community Mental Health is the provider ofthese services for the facility. Ifyou feel the need to see a mental health professional, contact a Deputy or the health care staff.

MONEY ACCOUNTS

Each inmate in the Columbia County Jail will have a "money account" established during the booking procedure.
Funds may be deposited 24 hours per day seven days per week, via Visa or Mastercard by a toll-free phone call to 1-866-232-1899, via internet at: www.tollchpaydirect.com or by depositing cash into a kiosk in the Sheriff's Office lobby. The depositor needs the inmate's name, booking number, and Facility Locator No., which is
297001. All purchases will be deducted from the account. Funds deposited to an account showing a negative
balance will be deducted from that balance. The positive balance, if any, is available for the inmate's use. The
balance will be refunded to the inmate upon discharge. Inmates who possess a negative balance on their account will not be denied their basic medical needs such as medical care and hygiene items. With a negative balance an inmate may request to participate in the 50/50 program at which time 50 % of any funds placed into the inmate account will go towards the negative balance and the other 50 % will be placed on the inmate's account ,available for use on individual items in the Jail.

OUTDOOR RECREATION

An open air recreation area is provided in the jail for your use as scheduled throughout the day. Central Control
will notify each of you ofyour recreation time.' When you are called for outdoor recreation, you need to be ready to go. You will leave the Pod in groups of six. No one will be allowed to depart the Pod late for recreation. The TV may be turned offwhile Control is calling for rec, and while people are leaving.

Page 17 - Columbia County Jan Inmate Manual Revised 05/16/12
PLNCOL-02133
BERG DECL; Exhibit C; Page 20 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 97-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 21 of 31

The following rules apply while using the open air recreation area: ,

1. Do not yell or attempt to communicate in any way with the people Dutside the recreatiDn area, except

for Corrections Staff.

. Do n9t

'We do not want people to get-injured; , ..-..- ':.::-:

..

3. You must wear a minimum Df a T-shirt, pants and shoes. Movement to or from outdoor recreation

will require the complete uniform, including your ID card.

.

4. DO NOT take anything other than your ID card with you to outdoor recreation. Tbis includes papers,

candy, food items and anything that can be used tD write or color with.

are found with these items,

disciplinary action may be taken.

PERSQNALPROPERTY

All persDnal property items will be stored in the secure storage area ofthe Columbia County Jail. No personal items will be aUow.ed to be kept on an inmate unless apprDved by the Jail Commander in writing.

PROGRAM SERVICES

If and when available, you have the opportunity to participate in a variety ofprogram activities. RecDmmended programs assist you in making constructive lise ofyour time and to make positive changes in your life. We have grouped these into two main categories:

Voluntary activities

Inmate worker activities

You may participate in activities in one or all of these categDries depending on your:

status Length ofsentence

Assessments results Classification

PROPERTY TRANSFERS

You must follow these guidelines regarding YDur property:

1. You may release your personal property to any adult outside the facility on an "all or nothing" basis. The adult

must present a state driver's license, state ID card, passport or military ID to jail

to ensure property is

released tD the proper individual. A signed inmate request form from you is required.

.

2. Release ofproperty is available Monday through Friday from 3:00 P.M. until 4:00 P.M. ONLY.

3. The follOWing exception applies when: An Inmate is committed to a state prison and must release all personal

property including. their clothipg to .being transported to a state facility. . . . '

..

If the property is not-picked up 'prior to the inmate's departure, it will.be. foi"lYard.ed.to..Ono.C :w.ith.the ..___ .__ . . . inmate.

4. We do not allow personal property to be drDpped offfor inmates, except for medical items which will be checked and approved by medical staff trrst. Clothes may be brought in if the situation calls for it. This will be at
the discretion ofthe jail SupervisDrs.

SANITARY lNSPECTIONS

Deputies will inspect each housing unit daily to ensure it is a safe and clean environment. You will need to follow basic sanitary practices to ensure your cell area meets the sanitation requirements and pass the sanitation inspections. Ifyour cell does not meet sanitation requirements, you will lose privileges and be instructed to clean the' area. Ifthe day roDm, shower area and outside recreation areas do not meet sanitation requirements, the entire
housing unit may lose privileges. These privileges are those listed at the beginning of this manual. Ifyou or your housing unit lose privileges, they will be reinstated if you pass the next regularly scheduled inspection.

Page 18 - Columbia Courity Jail Inmate Manual Revised 05/16/12 PLNCOL-02134
BERG DECL; Exhibit C; Page 21 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 97-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 22 of 31

SANITARY PRACTICES

It is your responsibility to keep your cell clean and uncluttered. It is also the responsibility of each member ofthe
housing unit to keep the day room, shower and outside recreation area clean. You will be provided with cleaning supplies and are expected to use the cleaning supplies as much as Decessary to ensure you live in a clean
environment

You are to follow these rules for a clean and healthy housing unit:

Clean your cells, including the sin1\, toilet, floors and door windows daily. Pod Porters will clean day room areas daily. Pod Porters will clean the following, but not limited to: Tables, floors, stairs, walls, showers, bathroom areas, railings, and windows. Keep the walls clean and free of graffiti or marks of any kind. Place all garbage in the trash cans in the housing units. Keep all pictures and papers off the walls, bunks, bottom of bunks. Do not hang9 stick, or paste pictures or papers to the walls, bunks or any where else in the facility. Keep commissary food items in your property container. (Gray totes) Do not save food from meal service. Wash your l;.1ands frequently. Participate in laundry exchange twice weekly. Shower at least twice weekly, but we strongly encourage you to shower daily.
Keep the showers clean, and free of excess soap and shampoo bottles. Keep your gray bin or tote clean Perform any other duties that Corrections Staff may assign. Keep your room or bunk area uncluttered of excess items. This includes legal papers. Ask stafffor assistance ifyou have a large amount of legal papers to store. Vents for air circulation should be kept clean and obstruction free.

SEARCHES

Jail staffmay conduct random unannounced searches ofyour person or ofitems in your possession, and in any area of the jail at any time. Your personal property and/or living area may be searched without your permission and whether or not you are present.

SELF-ESCORT

Most inmate movement within the jail, including visiting, medical, programs, work assignments Etc., will be

unescorted unless you abuse the privilege. You are expected to conduct yourself in an orderly fashion at all times.

Inmates moving

through the:facility may not talk to other inmates, not

the walls or

the glass, loiter or detour while en route to their des:tination. When leaving an area, you need to state your

riame and where you are going to Central Control. Any inmate who abuses these rules wiII be subject to

disciplinary action and may lose their opportunity for unescorted movement. The exception will be any inmate

who is classified as maximum security and who needs to be escorted in the facility at all times.

SICK CALL

If you need to see medical personnel, fill out the appropriate Inmate Medical Request form. Each day the Medical Staff will address these issues upon receipt of the Request forms.

SPECIAL DIETS

You must direct all requests for medical diets to the heath care stafffor approval. Ifyou need a special diet for medical reasons, please submit a request slip to the health care staff. Ifyou need a special diet for religious
reasons, please submit a request form. A Deputy wil1 pick up the fonn from you and give it to a supervisor for approval. Ifapproved, the religious diet will remain in effect for the length of your incarceration. Be aware that
there may be a.charge assessed for the extra cost associated for the special meal.

Page ·19 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 05/16/12

PLNCOL-02135

BERG DECL; Exhibit C; Page 22 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 97-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 23 of 31

TELEPHONEPRnnLEGES

Your use ofjail telephones is a privilege. Jail staff may limit your telephone use for reasons of

security,

good 0800

order, hrs to

oarppsaronxitfautiicoitneloyf2t2h0e0jahilr.s;

"based

on

the

to housing unit!? will·beallowed-to· use- telephones from operations of the housing unit you are in. Conversations on

any telephone in the jail may be monitored and/or recorded withont further notice. You are consenting to

this monitoring when you use the jail telephones.

.

,

There are some local attorney's phone numbers that have been set up as non collect so you can call them directly from the telephones in the pods. Confirmed attorney phone numbers are blocked from the monitoring
system.

All telephone calls from a housing unit are a collect call or by the phone cards that you pUJchase here. The phone cards are able to be used upon release from the Columbia County Jail. Telephone calls are limited to15 minutes each. The telephone system will warn you before the 15 minute time period is up so you can end your
conversation.

Inmates are not allowed to receive incoming·telephone calls. Jail staff will deliver verifiable emergency messages' to you.

REMINDER: .TELEPHONES ARE A PRIVTI.,EGE. DO NOT ABUSE
THE SYSTEM. ANY DAMAGE TO THE PHONE WllsL RESULT IN A DISCIPLINARY HEARING AND A CRIMINAL CHARGE BEING FILED AGAINST THE INMATE.

TELEPHONE SERVICE NUMBER

Ifyou or your family have any questions about billing or connection problems concerning the inmate

phones, please call the service provider at

We have a brochure available to answer more

questions ifyou need it, please ask and we will provide it. .

TRANSFER TO WORK RELEASE CENTER

The Courts andlor Supervisory Authority may consider you for transfer to the Work Release Center if authorized on your sentence order. These transfers are not automatic. Jail staff must approve all transfers.

Factors considered in transfer decisions will include: Judge's approval Length ofsentence. Individual needs. Available space. Classification. ..

. :

..

Ifyoii are interested in participating in any programs, you must submit a request on an Inmate Request Form. Misbehavior or administrative concerns may prevent access to these programs. Disciplinary write-ups or actions will affect program eligibility.

VISITING

All public visits will be scheduled by the Inmate requesting the visit. The inmate must contact prospective visitors by phone or mail, and determine an aCceptable visiting date. Time slots may be used on a first come, first serve basis. Visitors are encouraged to arrive 10 to 15 minutes early to sign in. If all ofthe slots are taken for that time frame they can either wait till the next times start for that pod, if it is available, or return on another day. Visits will start on the hour and half hour.

Authorized visitors shall be members from the inmate's family, and friends ,age 18 and older. Visitors under the age of 18 must be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian. Attorneys and clergy are not considered public visitors.

Page 20 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 05/16/12
PLNCOL-02136
BERG DECL; Exhibit C; Page 23 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 97-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 24 of 31

Inmate visitation is a privilege and while the Columbia County Sheriffs Office encourages visitation, that

privilege must be regulated to protect the needs ofthe entire jail'operation. 'The amount of time allotted for

visitation is based upon the classification and status of each inmate.

'- F

'

Classification is based upon the inmate's current charges, criminal history and current demeanor. All inmates will be allowed a maximum oftwo thirty (30) minute visits per seven (7) day period (Sunday through Saturday), as time ,and space allows.

Inmates assigned to Disciplinary Segregation will not be allowed visitation privileges.

Inmates not yet assigned to a housing unit or who are housed in the pre-classification unit, will not be allowed public visitation.

Inmates serving a sentence of seventy-two hours(72) or less will not be allowed public visitation.

Due to space limitations, acceptable visiting combinations are limited to:

1. One Adult

2. Two Adults

3. One Adult and One Child

4.

One Adult and Two Children

5. Two Adults and One Child

Inmates have the to refuse any visit, however that right should be exercised prior to visiting time.

All inmates wishing to receive public visits must establish a visiting list of not more than five (5) people. Persons not on the approved list will not be allowed to visit. You are able to change your visiting list once every 30 days from the time you establish your list. You need to fill out the visitation part of the request form to make the changes. The minimum information required for each person will be:

1.

Visitor's full name

2.

Date of birth

3. Relationship

, 4.

The name of any child who may be in the compaily ofhis/her parent or·guardian.

The visiting schedule will be posted in the housing units. Visiting times and days are slibject to change periodically,. so please refer to the schedule when talking to your loved ones.

SPECIAL VISITS

Special considerations may be given for emergency and/or special situations where normal visiting procedures may not be practical. Such situations as the death of a family member or close friend, serious injury of a family member or visitors traveling great distances, who have arrived unexpectedly may be considered on a case-by-case basis by the Supervisor or Corporal on duty. All special visits will be subject to the same rules and requirements as regular visitation. Special visits may be conducted in the Attorney Visiting Rooms if available and necessary due to other visitation which may be in progress.

VISITS WITH ATTORNEY

Inmates shall be given the opportunity to visit their attorneys at reasonable times, consistent with the safety and security ofthe facility. All visits will be scheduled by the attorney.

VISITS BY CLERGY

Clergy Visits will be handled as a regular visit The member ofthe Clergy you want to have a visit with will be added like a normal visitor just like it is described in the regular visiting rules. They will be allowed to visit you on the regular date and time for the pod you are assigned to. The Clergy member will not count against you for the five people you are allowed to have on your visiting list The Columbia County Jail provides non denominational religious services once per week and individual bible study twice per week.

Page 21 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 05/16/12
PLNCOL-02137
BERG DECL; Exhibit C; Page 24 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 97-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 25 of 31

VOLUNTARY ACTIVITIES

All general population inmates may have access to voluntiuy activities. These activities include but may not be

limited to:

.

Religious services Narcotics Anonymous (NA) and Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) groups Religious based life skills classes Individual educational tutoring (21 and under) Recreational library Law library

A sign up sheet for the voluntary activities will be posted in your housing unit. You must sign up on the provided list to be able to participate. Remember that participation in these activities is a privilege. Participation is dependent on your continued cooperation and responsible behavior.

WAKE UP AND LOCK DOWN

Day room and cell lights will be turned on at 6:00 A.M. daily. Make your bed and dress for breakfast. Breakfast

service will begin at approximately 6:30 A.M. daily. Day room lights and televisionwill.be.tumed.offby about

10:00 P.M. and the cell lights will be turned off at 10:00 P.M.. All inmates must be on their bunks at ''lights

out" and are required to remain q u i e t . '

"

Each ipmate is expected to completely clean your room and area, make your bed., dump trash cans, etc. when the cleaning supplies are available to you. Be aware that there are usually some cleaning .materials available at all times.

MINOR RULE VIOLATIONS

1. The accused inmate shall be served with a minor rule citation by the citing Deputy as qnickly as is practical, after the violation is discovered., but in no case shall it be longer than 24 hours after the investigation is complete.

2. The inmate will sign the misconduct report and acknowledge receipt of alleged violation(s) and the right to

appeal. The inmate may enter a plea of "Guilty" or "Not Guilty".

.

A. Upon entry of a cCGuilty " plea, a Deputy will schedule an informal hearing for possible sanctions to be imposed.

B. Upon entry of a "Not Guilty" plea on the misconduct report or upon request for a formal hearing the incident will be handled the same as a Major Violation.

MlNOR RULE VIOLATION SANCTIONS
Sanctions resiilfiiiifrrom aguilty"plea on aMillO! MiscondiICt Report may mcliIde:

a. Verbal waming.

b. Creative sanction appropriate to the offense (i.e. extra work detail, etc.).

c. Housing Unit lock down not to exceed 24 hours.

d. Disciplinary segregation not to exceed five (5) calender days for a single violation. Inmates may receive separate lock down time for each marked violation. This should not exceed a total of fourteen (14) calender days..

e. Re-Classification

f. . Probation for up to 30 days.

g. While in disciplinary segregation there is no access to programs.

Page 22 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 05/16/12

PLNCOL-02138
BERG DECL; Exhibit C; Page 25 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 97-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 26 of 31

Inmates get one hour out each 24 hours. Telephone (except legal) and television use may not be permitted. . Commissary choices are restricted. Personal visits are suspended for the duration ofthe segregation. Book cart or library access is permitted; however, this privilege may be taken away as a sanction.

MINOR RULE VIOLATIONS

01 Possession ofNuisance Contraband: Any authorized item found in an inmates possession that has been altered or is in excess ofthe authorized amount.

. 02 Arguing: Any disagreement which becomes disruptive, loud or obnoxious.

03 Possession of another inmates property.

04 Unauthorized use of facility property or equipment (i.e. washers/dryers, barber equipment etc.)

05 Acting as a lookout

06 Being in an unauthorized area without corrections staff present

07. Purposefully obstructing the view of Corrections Staff.

08 Inappropriate remarks or misuse ofthe inmate request fonDS or any ofthe forms or p'aperwork handed out or used in the facility.

09 Unwarranted emergency calls.

10 Horse Playing: Any aggressive or faked aggressive actions, which may lead to or be mistaken for a

physical altercation.

.

11 Disrespect to other inmates (Le. name calling, profanity or accusations directed at another inmate).

12 Cursing, uncontrolled use ofprofanity or obscenities that may be con.sidered offensive to others.

13 Excessive noise.

14 Failure to properly maintain living area.

15 Hanging paper, linen, clqthing, etc. on light fixtures, walls, ceilings etc.

16 Failure to maintain personal hygiene.

17 Improper attire (Le. not following the dress code stated in the manual).

18 Displaying or demonstrating gang affiliations (i.e. hand gestures, hand in pants, low riding trousers, etc.).

19 Graffiti: writing, drawing or marking on any ofthe surfaces of the facility.

20 Posting any type of picture, drawing or any other material on the walls, bunks or any the surfaces ofthe facility.

21 Misuse of the intercom system.

22 Disrespect towards any StaffMember or Sheriff's Office Employee

23 Disruptive Behavior

24 Unauthorized use ofthe typewriter. (Law Library)

25 Lying to StaffMembers.

Page 23 - ColumbIa County Jan Inmate Manual ReVised 05/16/12

PLNCOL-02139

BERG DECL; Exhibit C; Page 26 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 97-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 27 of 31

26 Other

MAJOR RULE VIOLATION PROCEDURES

All Major Rule Violations will be handled through a formal disc!plinary process, and require a formal hearing.

1. When an inmate commits, or is believed to have committed. a Major Rule Violation, the inmate will be immediately placed on pre-hearing. segregation status pending the outcome of·the disciplinarY"hearing,-regardless" the nature of the alleged conduct. This can cause restriction in your privileges.

2. The accused inmate shall be served with a Major Rule Citation and the Inmate Rights form by the citing Deputy as quickly as is practical, after the violation is discovere<4 but in no case shall it be longer than 24 hours after the investigation is complete.

3. The inmate will have a hearing before a hearings officer within five (5) days of the incident excluding Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays. The inmate will be notified at least 24 hours prior to the hearing.

4. After the hearing, the hearings officer can render a decision immediately or within 72 hours.

A. If the inmate is found "Not Guilty", the inmate will be restored to the same status and privileges as

before charged..

.

B. Ifthe

is found «Guilty", the Hearings Officer will impose an appropriate sanction from the

Major Rule Violation Sanction list.

MAJOR RULE VIOLATION SANCTIONS

Sanctions resulting from a finding of «Guilty" in a hearing for a Major Violation may include the following:

1. Temporary or permanent change in programming to include:

A. Change in housing assignments. (i.e. re-classification)

B. Change in custody status.

C. Removal from work status with concurrent suspension of credit for work, as directed by O.R.S.

169.120'

'

2. Reclassification to Disciplinary Segregation for no more than sixty (60) days for all (multiple) violations
arising out of one incident (only 30 days maximum on a single violation) and giving credit for time
served as appropriate.

3. Loss of Statutory Good time and modification ofrelease date in accordance 'Yith O.R.S. 169.110.

4. Suspension of any part, (or all ofthe above if appropriate), along with information of expected conduct to avoid irilposition.

5. Any combination of one (1) thi-ough four' (4), listed above.

6. Unless medically or psychiatrically required, no segregated inmate shall be denied clothing or bedding that is allowed to general population inmates.
i, .. -Segregated inmates'shaU'beprovided,the-same food' as'general population' inmates: ......... - ... ---- ... .

8. Personal hygiene items and shower facilities will be provided regularly to segregated inmates, unless there are documented security reasons which would prohibit them.

9. While in: disciplinary segregation there is no access to programs. Inmates get one hour out each 24 hours. Telephone ( except legal) and television use is not permitted. Commissary choices are restricted to
hygiene items only. Personal visits are suspended for the duration ofthe segregation. Book cart or library access is permitted; however this privilege may be taken away as a condition ofthe sanCTIon.

MAJOR RULE VIOLATIONS

40 Habitual Misconduct: 3 or more separate minor rule violations within 30 ,days.
Page 24 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 05/16/12

PLNCOL-02140'.
BERG DECL; Exhibit C; Page 27 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 97-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 28 of 31
41 Refusing to comply with a Deputy's/ Staff! IGtchen Staff directives.· . 42 Tampering with or destruction ofIdentification Card 43 Refusing to lock down on command, or during a disturbance. 44 Refusing to go to court. 45 Tampering with security devicesl facility equipment 46 Threatening or strong arming another inmate. 47 Giving false information to a Deputy. 48 Creating a disturbance while on lock down (Le. banging doors, excessive noise, flooding the cell, etc). 50 Threatening staffmembers 51 Smoking, or possession of smoking paraphernalia 52 Possession of unauthorized beverages (i.e. pruno). 53 Indecent exposure. 54 Theft. 55 Extortion. 56 Destruction ot: or Defacing County property. 57 Possession of illegal drugs or prescription medications belonging to another Of misuse ofprescribed
medications. 58 Participation in organizing or recruiting for gang related activities. 59 Sexual misconduct! homosexual activities 60 Fighting. 61 Assault on another inmate. 62· Assisting a suicide 63 Possession of a weapon. 64 Assault on a staff member. 65 Attempted or actual escape, or possession of an escape plan. 66 Participating in or inciting a riot. 67 Taking a hostage 68 Arson 69 Rape or Sodomy. 70 Homicide. 71 Violation of any Criminal Code
72 Tampering with or altering any other person s food.
73 Other. viOLATIONS APPEALS PROCESS
.Page 25 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 05/16/12
PLNCOL-02141
BERG DECL; Exhibit C; Page 28 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 97-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 29 of 31

..

.

All appeals mUst be submitted to the Facility Supervisor or their designee within 72 hours, following the decision.

The Facility Supervisor or designee will review the recommendations and return the appeal form to the inmate

five (5) working days ofthe appeal. The response time may extended due to extenuating circumstances
or further investigation, with written notice to the inmate of the reason(s) for the delay. Ask a deputy ifyou need

a form.

SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS

DID YOU KNOW?

Rape and sexual assault happens to females and. males of all ages, from infancy to senior years.

98% ofmales who have raped boys reported they are heterosexual. Most males who assault men or women are married or report having girlfriends.

Sexual assault had nothing to do with the victim's present or future sexual orientation. Victims may be either heterosexual or homosexual.

A survivor is not at fault for the rape, even if she/he was in a secluded area, or had previous consensual sex with the attacker.

The fact a male victim of sexual assault ejaculated or became sexually aroused does not mean they were not raped or that they gave consent. These are normal, involuntary physiological reactions.

It is common for survivors ofsexual assault to have feeling ofanger embarrassment, panic, depression, . guilt, and fear after the attack. Other common reactions include loss ofappetite, nausea or stomachaches, headaches, loss ofmemory andlor trouble concentrating and changes in sleep patterns.

FACTS FOR THE INMATE THAT SEXUALLY ASSAULTS OTHER INMATES:

All cases ofsexual assault will be referred to the Enforcement Branch or Major Crimes Team (MC'T) for criminal investigation. You may be prosecuted and iffound guilty of a felony, you may be sentenced to prison time (up to 100 months for each Rape lor Sodomy I conviction). Any sex offense conviction will automatically add sex offender conditions when you release, which may require you to register as a sex offender per DRS 181.594. This registration requirement is for life. You also be deemed as a "Predatory Sex Dffender/' which would require community notification upon your release.
mv Regardless of how you choose to characterize it, any sexual activity will increase your risk of
infection, along with exposing you to other sexually transmitted diseases.

Ifyou have trouble controlling your actions seek help from mental health staffandlor consider participating in programs designed to control anger or reduce stress. To reduce immediate feelings of anger or aggression, try talking to or writing a friend, meditate or do breathing exercises to relax, work on a hobby,
or eI1gage in some type of exercise. '

SEXUAL ASSAULT

Sexual aSsault as·defued "by Columbia-coiiritj·iaifpoIlcY·is "Sexual conduct where force or

of force

is used, or when the person is unable to consent because of age or incapacitation (mental defect, mental

incapacitation, or physical helplessness). Sexual conduct includes: vaginal penetration by a penis; contact

between the genitals ofa person and the mouth or anus ofanother person; penetration of the vagina, anus, .

or penis ofanother person with any object other than the penis or mouth; touching of the sexual or intimate

parts of someone or causing someone to touch the sexual or intimate parts of another for the purpose of" " .

sexual gratification." Any behavior or act of a sexual nature directed toward an inmate by an inmate,

employee, volunteer, visitor, contract employee or other agency representatives. This includes acts or any

attempts to commit such acts including, but not limited to, sexual contact, inappropriate behavior ofa

sexual nature, unreasonable invasion ofprivacy, conversations or correspondence that suggests a romantic

relationship between an inmate and any party referenced above..

Sexual assault affects everyone, either directly or through the experience of those we care about. It is not

only a woman's issue as it can affect persons ofany gender, age, race, ethnic group, socioeconomic status,

sexual

or disability.

The statistics are proof ofthis problem: According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), in 2002 there were 247,730 victims of rape. (This number does not include victims 12 or younger), seven out
Page 26 - Columbia County Jail Inmate Manual Revised 05/16{12

PLNCOL-02142
BERG DECL; Exhibit C; Page 29 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 97-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 30 of 31

. of e.very eight rape victims were female, and one in every eight rape victims was male.' A 1998 study indicates that about 2.78 million American men have experienced an' attempted or completed rape and one out ofsix American women have experienced an attempted or completed rape.

SEXUAL ASSAULT AVOIDANCE

The only rape that can be prevented is when a potential rapist chooses NOT to rape. However, you may avoid an attack bykeeping the following safety guidelines in mind:

Be aware of situations that make you feel uncomfortable. Trust your instincts. If it feels wrong, LEAVB.

Don't let manners get in the way of keeping yourselfsafe. Don't be afraid to say NOW".

or "STOP IT

Walk and stand with confidence. Many rapists choose victims who look like they won't fight back or are emotionally weak.

Avoid talking about sex and casual nudity. These things may be considered a come on, or make another inmate believe that you have an interest in a sexual relationship.

Do not accept canteen items or other gifts from other inmates. Placing yourself in debt to another inmate can to sexual favors.

A void s.ecluded areas; position yourself in plain view of staff members. Ifyou are being pressured for sex, report it to a supervisor immediately.

WHAT TO DO JF YOU ARE SEXUALLY ASSAULTED

If the attaCK has just happened.....•.

Get to a safe place. REPORT THE ATTACK TO A STAFF J.v.rEMBER IMMEDIATELY.

The longer you wait to report the attack the more difficult it is to obtain the evidence necessary for criminal

administrative investigation.

.

Request immediate medical attention. You may have serious injuries that you are not aware or, and any sexual contact can expose you to sexually transmitted diseases.

.Do not shower, brush your teeth, use the evidence.

or change your clothes. You may destroy important .

Ifyou have been attacked or witness an attack, but you are unwilling to report it in person to a CCSO uniformed staffmember, then you may speak with a counselor, chaplain, medical sta:f:4 write a sealed letter to any command staffmember, or contact a CCSO Detective at 503-366-4650.

Later on.•..• .Seek the support ofa trusted friend, family member or staffmember, such as the Chaplain or the counseling staff. The days ahead can be traumatic and it helps to have people who care about you supporting you. Seek professional help. Mental Health staff are available for crisis care 365 days a year, to listen and offer support.

Page 27 - Columbia County Jan Inmate Manual Revised 05/16/12
PLNCOL-02143
BERG DECL; Exhibit C; Page 30 of 31

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 97-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 31 of 31
PLNCOL-02144
BERG DECL; Exhibit C; Page 31 of 31

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 98 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 41
Katherine C. Chamberlain, OSB #042580 katherinec@mhb.com Jesse A. Wing, pro hac vice jessew@mhb.com Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News MacDonald Hoague & Bayless 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104-1745 (206) 622-1604
Marc D. Blackman, OSB #730338 marc@ransomblackman.com Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Ransom Blackman LLP 1001 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1400 Portland, OR 97204 (503) 228-0487
Lance Weber, pro hac vice lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Human Rights Defense Center 1037 Western Ave., 2nd Floor West Brattleboro, VT 05303 (802) 257-1342

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,
Defendants.

No.3:12-CV-71-SI
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

9870.05 fi120905

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 98 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 41

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1

II. FACTS ................................................................................................................................. 2

III. STANDING ......................................................................................................................... 2

IV. DECLARATORY RELIEF ................................................................................................. 3

A. Defendants' Policies Violated the United States Constitution ..............................;.. 3

1. Defendants' Postcard-Only Policy for Incoming Mail Violated the First Amendment ......................................................................................... 3

a. Rational Relationship Factor: Defendants' Policy is Not Rationally-Related to a Legitimate Penological Objective.............. 4

(1) The Sheriff Adopted His Postcard-Only Policy Primarily to Copy Other Sheriffs, Not to Reduce Contraband or Save Limited Resources............................... 4

(2) The Jail Did Not Have a Mail Contraband Problem............ 5

(3) Any Time-Saving Results from Suppressing Speech and is Too Modest................................................................ 7

(4) The Policy Also Resulted in Censorship of Book Catalogs and News Articles from the Internet, Which Are Protected Speech ............................................... 9

b. Alternative Avenues Factor: Prisoners and Their Correspondents Have No Reasonable Alternative Way to Exercise Their Free Speech Rights ................................................ 10

c. Effect on Staff, Prisoners, and Resources Factor: the Effect, if Any, is Minimal .......................................................................... 11

d. Easy and Obvious Alternatives Factor: There Were Easy and Obvious Alternatives, Which Defendants Failed to Even Consider, Suggesting an Exaggerated Response by Prison Officials .............................................................................. 12

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY mDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INmNCTIVE RELIEF - i
9870.05 fi120905

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 98 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 41
2. Defendant's Postcard-Only Policy for Outgoing Mail Violated the First Amendment ....................................................................................... 13
3. Defendants' No Magazines Policy Violated the First Amendment. .......... 14
a. The Sheriffs Office Told Corrections Staff, Prisoners, and the Public, that It Bans Magazines ................................................. 15
b. Defendants' Magazine Ban Resulted in a Near Absolute Chill of Speech............................................................................... 16
4. Defendant's Due Process Policies Violated the Fourteenth Amendment ................................................................................................ 17
B. Defendants Violated the First and Fourteenth Amendment Rights of Prisoners and Their Correspondents ...................................................................... 19
C. Defendants Violated PLN's First and Fourteenth Amendment Rights by Censoring PLN's Mail, for which Defendants Must Pay Damages ...................... 20
V. PERMANENT INJUNCTION .......................................................................................... 21
A. Legal Standard ....................................................................................................... 21
B. The Sheriff Has Not Shown He Has "Irrevocably Eradicated" His Prior Policies ................................................................................................................... 22
1. Defendants Denied Their Postcard-Only Policy Was Illegal, and Still Do ....................................................................................................... 23
2. Defendants Disregarded Multiple Complaints that Their Policy Violated the Constitution, While Reaping No Appreciable Benefit for the Jail.................................................................................................. 24
3. The Sheriff s History of Ignoring Constitutional Duties Overshadows and Undercuts his Claim that He will Now Respect First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment Rights .............................. 24
4. The Sheriffs Near Monthly Change to His Mail Policy and His Upcoming Election Contest Fail to Support His Assertion of Permanent Change ..................................................................................... 26
5. The Sheriffs Training and Supervision after PLN Filed this Lawsuit Have Been Sorely Lacking .......................................................... 27

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - ii
9870.05 fi120905

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 98 Filed 09/13/12 Page 4 of 41
6. The Sheriff Knowingly Withheld the Alleged Change in his Mail Policies from the Public and He Continued to Issue His Inmate Manual Stating Unconstitutional Policies to Prisoners on a Daily Basis ........................................................................................................... 28
7. The Sheriffs Office Misled the Plaintiff During the Inspection of Jail Premises that was the Subject of an Order of the Court (Dkt. 60).............................................................................................................. 29
8. The Sheriff Misrepresented to the Court that He was Investigating How His Website Stated an Unconstitutional Mail Policy to the Public for Two Years................................................................................. 30
9. The Sheriff Violated His Oath to Uphold the United States Constitution................................................................................................ 31
10. The Sheriff Utterly Disregarded His Promise, and His Duty, to Hold Himself and His Staff Accountable .................................................. 31
11. Undersheriff Moyer, the Person the Sheriff Still Entrusts to Serve as Jail Commander, Has Shown a Lack of Interest and Judgment in Attention to His Duties.............................................................................. 32
12. The Sheriff Disposed of Evidence after Knowing this Lawsuit was Filed ........................................................................................................... 33
13. The Sheriffs Behavior and Stated Intentions Fail to Demonstrate that the Defendants Will Never Return to Their Old Ways....................... 33
14. An Injunction Will Likely Lead Other Oregon Jails to Correct their Unconstitutional Policies, Which is in the Public Interest......................... 34
VI. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 35

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY WDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INmNCTIVE RELIEF - iii
9870.05 fi120905

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 98 Filed 09/13/12 Page 5 of 41

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES Amoco Prod Co. v. Vill. o/Gambell, 480 U.S. 531 (1987).......................................................... 22 Barrett v. Belleque, 544 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2008) ...................................................................... 13 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) ............................................................................... 1 Clement v. California Dept. o/Corr., 364 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2004) .......................................... 10 eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006)............................................................ 21
Friends 0/the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528
U.S. 167 (2000) ....................................................................................................................... 22 Martin v. Kelley, 803 F.2d 236 (6th Cir. 1986) ............................................................................ 20 Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) ...................................................................................... 10 Montcalm Pub. Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105 (4th Cir. 1996) ......................................................... 17 Norman-Bloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, 135 F.3d 1260 (9th Cir.
1998) ....................................................................................................................................... 22 Prison Legal News v. Cook, 238 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2001) ......................................................... 15 Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2005) ........................................ 3, 9, 10, 17 Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974) .................................................................... 13, 14, 17 Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452 (1974) ...................................................................................... 3 Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) ........................................................................... 13, 17 Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) ........................................................................................ 3, 14 Winter v. Natural Res. De! Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) .............................................................. 24 Witherow v. Paff, 52 F.3d 264 (9th Cir. 1995) ............................................................................. 14 Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S. 241 (1967) ......................................................................................... 3
STATUTES
28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02 ..................................................................................................................... 3

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - iv
9870.05 fi120905

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 98 Filed 09/13/12 Page 6 of 41

I. INTRODUCTION In January 2012, PLN filed this action challenging Defendants' lnail policies and practices that unconstitutionally restrict correspondence to and from prisoners to postcards, prohibit delivery of lnagazines, and do not afford due process. Dkt. 1. Plaintiff sought danlages, declaratory relief, and a prelilninary and pennanent injunction. Id. In May 2012, the Court found that "under the free speech clause of [the] First Amendment ... Defendants' policy is likely to violate the free speech rights of both inmates and their correspondents" and preliminarily enjoined Defendants from "enforcing those portions of the inlnate lnail policy that restrict all incoming and outgoing inmate personal mail to postcards only." Dkt. 64 at 3. Remarkable facts leanled in the course of discovery only strengthen the bases for the Court's findings and for a Couli declaration that Defendants' Postcard-Only Policy actually violated the First Amendment. And, as detailed below, Defendants' behavior learned of in discovery requires a permanent injunction to prevent future violations of free speech and to ensure the due process rights of prisoners, ofPLN, and of other correspondents. Prison Legal News seeks an order on summary judgtnent that: (A) declares: (1) PLN has organizational standing to challenge Defendants' mail policies and practices; (2) Defendants' Postcard-Only, No-Magazine, and inadequate Due Process policies violated the First and Fourteenth Alnendments; (3) Defendants' enforcelnent of those policies violated the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of prisoners and their correspondents; (4) Defendants censored PLN's mail in violation of the First and Fourteenth Alnendlnents, for which Defendants lnust pay damages to Plaintiff; and (B) enjoins Defendants pennanently froln: (1) rejecting or otherwise censoring lnail on the ground that (a) it is not in the form of a postcard, or (b) it is a lnagazine or periodical; and (2) denying due process to prisoners and their correspondents when censoring mail. The lnaterial facts are uncontested and as a matter of law PLN has established its claims, so is entitled to summary judgtnent. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 326 (1986). The Court should declare Defendants' policies and practices unconstitutional, and enjoin theln.

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 1
9870.05 fil20905

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Te1206.622.l604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 98 Filed 09/13/12 Page 7 of 41

II. FACTS A detailed description of Defendants' censorship of Plaintiff s lnail and Defendants' policies and practices that gave rise to this lawsuit is found in the Melnoranduln in Suppoli of Plaintiff s Motion for Prelilninary Injunction, Dkt. 15 at 2-13. The evidence supporting those facts is found at Dkts. 8 through 14. To avoid duplication, they are incorporated herein. hl this lnemo, PLN summarizes those facts and provides an update on what has been discovered since. Defendants admit that they have violated the Constitution dozens of tilnes. hl addition to these admitted violations of the First and Fourteenth Alnendlnents, the Court held it is likely that Defendants violated the Constitution when they ilnpleInented the Sheriffs Postcard-Only Policy throughout the past 2Yz years. Dkt. 64 at 3. The facts discovered since the Court's preliminary injunction show that the Sheriffs policy indeed violates the First Alnendlnent. The facts also show that Defendants had a long-standing ban on magazines that they enforced to censor lnagazines and periodicals, that Defendants lacked an adequate Due Process Policy, and that Defendants routinely failed to provide due process and an 0ppoliunity to be heard for prisoners and their con-espondents. Section V.B. sets forth undisputed facts supporting the need for a penllanent injunction.
III. STANDING PLN is enforcing and protecting its own constitutional rights as well as the constitutional rights of prisoners and their correspondents, including but not lilnited to fatnily lnembers, friends, Lucy Le1111ox, and other publishers and organizations. This Couli has already determined that Plaintiff has standing in its own right, and third-party or "overbreadth standing," to challenge Defendants' lnail policies and practices. See Dkt. 64 at 10-12. Plaintiff respectfully asks the Court to hold that PLN also has organizational standing. A plaintiff has "organizational standing" when it suffers injury by frustration of its lnission and diversion of its resources, there is a causal cOlmection between its injury and the challenged conduct, and the relief sought would redress those injuries. See Dkt. 46 at 19-21,

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 2
9870.05 fil20905

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 98 Filed 09/13/12 Page 8 of 41

Plaintiff's Reply In Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffhas shown that it Ineets the elements of organizational standing, see id., and incorporates that briefing herein.
IV. DECLARATORY RELIEF Trial courts are vested with broad discretion to fashion equitable relief. In accordance with the Declaratory Judgtnent Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02, the court has a '''duty to decide the appropriateness and the merits of the declaratory request irrespective of its conclusion as to the propriety of the issuance of the injunction.'" Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 468 (1974) (quoting Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S. 241, 254 (1967)). Here, declaratory judgtnent is necessary. A. Defendants' Policies Violated the United States Constitution
1. Defendants' Postcard-Only Policy for Incoming Mail Violated the 1st Amendment In Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987), the Suprelne Couli set forth the legal standard that applies to governmental restrictions on incoming mail. hl short, Defendants have the burden of showing that their policy is "reasonably related to legitilnate penological interests" under the four Turner factors: (1) whether the regulation is rationally related to a legitilnate and neutral govenunental objective, (2) whether there are altenlative avenues that remain open to the imnates to exercise the right, (3) the impact that accolmnodating the asserted right will have on other guards and prisoners, and on the allocation of prison resources; and (4) whether the existence of easy and obvious altenlatives indicates that the regulation is an exaggerated response by prison officials. Prison Legal News v. LeJl1nan, 397 F.3d 692, 699 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Turner). The first of these factors can be dispositive. Id. hl its Memoranduln and Reply brief in support of its Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Plaintiff set forth the applicable legal standards and cOlnpelling argument that the Sheriff's Postcard-Only Policy for incoming mail is irrational and that all four factors of the Turner test establish that the Policy violates the First Atnendlnent. See Dkt. 15, at 14-27; Dkt. 46, at 28-32, and declarations sublnitted in support. Plaintiff incorporates its prior briefing and declarations rather than repeating and sublnitting theln here. Discovery has only reinforced the Court's preliminary injunction ruling.

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 3
9870.05 fi120905

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 98 Filed 09/13/12 Page 9 of 41

a. Rational Relationship Factor: Defendants' Policy is Not RationallyRelated to a Legitimate Penological Objective
In response to PLN's Preliminary Injunction motion, Defendants offered two objectives for their Postcard-Only Policy, which the Court found legitimate-"safety and security of the Jail's inmates and staff and the efficient use of the Jail's limited resources." Dkt. 64 at 16.
In its Order, the Court honed in on the key question: whether the Postcard-Only Policy is "rationally related to enhancing security and improving efficiency." Id. at 17. Defendants contend that the policy is rationally related to those objectives because it prevents the introduction of contraband into the jaiL Dkt. 29 at 15. But the Court was unconvinced and held that "Defendants have failed to offer evidence or even an intuitive, common-sense reason why the post-card only mail policy more effectively prevents the introduction of contraband than opening and inspecting letters." Dkt. 64 at 17. And, the Court noted that while inspecting postcards is faster than inspecting a letter, it held that "[t]he speed at which a mail handling staff can inspect mail, however, does not establish a rational link between the policy and reducing contraband." Id. at 17-18; see, also, id. at 19 ("the time-savings is too modest to demonstrate a significant rational relationship between the postcard-only policy and improving the Jail's efficiency.") Indeed, discovery in this case has strongly confirmed the Court's conclusions.
(1) The SheriffAdopted His Postcard-Only Policy Primarily to Copy Other Sheriffs, Not to Reduce Contraband or Save Limited Resources
When asked to explain why he adopted the policy, the Sheriff offered two reasons. The first, his primary explanation, was that he wanted to be in sync with other jails in Oregon. In his words, he adopted the policy to achieve "standardization" with what he thought other sheriffs might do. See Ex. I at 89:22-90:2. 1 After attending an Oregon Sheriffs Meeting in December 2009 where the idea of restricting mail to postcards was discussed, the Sheriff asked his Jail Commander, Jim Carpenter, to review the concept with this jail staff, and then decided to implement a Postcard-Only Policy. Id. at 80:19-81 :12, 83:17-86:22. But following the crowd is

1 All roman numeral exhibits are deposition transcripts, attached to Declaration of Jesse Wing.

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 4
9870.05 fi120905

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 98 Filed 09/13/12 Page 10 of 41

not a rational justification. And it is telling that this is the Sheriff s primary reason. He adopted the challenged policy because someone running another facility thought it was a good idea, not because of his own experience running the Columbia County Jail. Id. at 90:3-92:12.
(2) The Jail Did Not Have a Mail Contraband Problem Sheriff Dickerson's second stated reason for adopting the Postcard-Only Policy was jail security. Ex. I at 90: 18-91 :1. In response to Plaintiff s motion for preliminary injunction, the Sheriff listed a variety of prohibited contraband including "bodily fluids, lipstick, perfume, glue, paint, and unidentifiable substances" that can contain hazardous or illegal materials. Dkt.32 ~11. He said that envelopes can hide contraband such as "needles, blades, similar weapons, and handcuff keys." Id. at ~~13-14. He also told the Court that mail must be inspected for "threats of physical harm, blackmail, extortion, other criminal activity, sexually explicit material, gangrelated material, and plans for escape." Id. at ~12. And he asserted that postcards are "easier and quicker to inspect for contraband and prohibited content" and "the risk of contraband being present in mail from an inmate's family or friends is greater than the risk of contraband being present in mail that comes from legal or publisher sources." Id. at ~~16, 18. But the Sheriff failed to identify a single circumstance in which something harmful was actually concealed or sent to a prisoner at the Jail in an envelope, and did not describe a single event that led the Jail to adopt the Postcard-Only Policy. Id. There is good reason for his silence. When questioned about whether there was a legitimate reason to believe his policy would increase security the Sheriff offered none. For example, when asked whether he has ever "seen any of the things you've described in your declaration in the Columbia County Jail" he said "No." Ex. I at 259:17-19. And, the Sheriff admitted that he has never heard of any problem with threats or contraband entering his Jail through the mail before, or after, adopting his policy:
Q. Are you aware of problems with threats being made through the mail? A. No. Q. Are you aware of efforts to contact people that prisoners are not allowed
to have contact with through the mail? A. No.

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 5
9870.05 fi120905

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 98 Filed 09/13/12 Page 11 of 41

Q. Are you aware of plans for escape being communicated through the mail? A. No. Q. SO is it fair to say that you were not trying to solve a problem that you
knew existed with regard to the management of security-related information? That's correct? A. In our jail. Q. Is that correct, in your jail? A. I'd say yes. Q. Okay. And you have described, I think, that you were not aware of a problem with introduction of contraband into your jail at that time; is that correct, too? A. Yes. Q. SO you're not trying to solve a known problem at your jail regarding introduction of contraband; is that right? A. Correct.
Ex. I at 91: 12-92-12.
PLN also deposed Sergeant Cutright, the Sheriffs Office's FRCP 30(b)(6) designee on
"interpretation, and implementation of the Jail's Mail Policy since January 1, 2009." Ex. 67?
He too testified that the Sheriffs Office adopted the Postcard-Only Policy to "standardize" their
procedures and because contraband could be hidden in envelopes. Ex. II at 51: 19-52:24, 54:22-
55: 1. But during Sergeant Cutright's 17 years at the Columbia County Jail, he has seen or heard
of "contraband" entering the Jail only four times. He testified that "semen" arrived in the mail a
"couple" of times, that the Jail did not test the alleged substance relying instead on letters saying
semen was being transmitted. Id. at 53:19-54:10. Sergeant Cutright also claimed that eight years
ago he found methamphetamines in the seal of an incoming envelope. Id. at 55:2-57:4. And
finally, on one occasion an attorney sent a document to his client with a paperclip on it. Id. at
59:2-9. Sergeant Cutright searched for documents relating to contraband being transmitted by
mail by searching for the word "contraband" in the Jail's Golden Eagle database, which contains
reports from 2000 to the present. Id. at 57:22-58:20. He found "nothing" related to the mail.
Id.
When considering whether to adopt a Postcard-Only Policy in December 2009, the
Sheriff asked his Jail Commander, Jim Carpenter, to look into it. Ex. I at 83:17-25. Carpenter

2 Exhibits Nos. 1 -76 are attached to Declaration of Katherine C. Chamberlain, filed herewith.

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 6
9870.05 fi120905

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 98 Filed 09/13/12 Page 12 of 41

was the Sheriffs Jail Commander from 2009 until he retired in June 2011. Ex. IV at 9:11-15, 8:2-9:15. He worked at the Jail for 22 years. Id. When asked if there was ever a problem with contraband coming through the mail during his tenure, he responded "there was talk about drugs coming in once" under a stamp or in the "glue part" of the envelope. Id. at 26:23-27:19.
(3) Any Time-Saving Results from Suppressing Speech and is Too Modest
The Sheriff s Postcard-Only Policy is logistically and financially burdensome, resulting in suppression of speech. The Policy burdens prisoners and their correspondents, forcing them to prepare and pay for multiple postcards, instead of writing one complete communication by letter.
In his deposition, Sergeant Cutright acknowledged that in telling the Court it takes less time to process postcards than letters, Dkt. 30 ~4, he was comparing one letter to one postcard: "there's just way more [scanning] to do on a four-page letter than there is on a one-page postcard." Ex. II at 109:9-110:17. He also testified there has been "more" outgoing mail since the Postcard-Only Policy because prisoners try to fit the same message they would have written in a four-page letter on four postcards, id. at 112:5-11, but conceded he could only think of one instance, id. at 112:12-113:7, showing that the policy has indeed suppressed speech.
The Postcard-Only Policy places a financial burden on the prisoners and their correspondents. Contrary to Sergeant Cutright's testimony erroneously implying that a prisoner can write the same message in 4 postcards as a 4-page letter, a prisoner must write 16 postcards: the Sheriffs postcards measure 5.5 by 8.5 inches, Dkt. 32 at ~17, or "half the size of a standard piece of paper," Dkt. 29 at 16; Ex. I? And, for indigent prisoners, the Sheriff s Postcard-Only Policy sharply cut the space on which a prisoner could communicate-from the front and back of 4 pieces of paper to the back of2 postcards. Ex. II at 184:4-13; 22:1-10, 110:18-111:1.
The Sheriff admitted that he has significantly reduced the amount of space on which an indigent prisoner can write, Ex. I at 190:7-11, from 8 front-and-back pages to the back of2 half-

3 Prisoners cannot write text to the left of the addresses because the Jail-issued postcard filled that space with a photograph of Oregon's first sheriff, armed-which one prisoner felt was not appropriate to send his young children, especially for a birthday. Ex. 27.

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 7
9870.05 fi120905

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 98 Filed 09/13/12 Page 13 of 41

pages-a reduction to one-sixteenth of the space previously available for communication. And the financial burden of purchasing multiple stamps--one for each postcard, can be significant for prisoners' friends and family as well. See, e.g., Ex. 24. Although Sergeant Cutright initially denied that the Postcard-Only Policy makes it more expensive for prisoners to send mail, when pressed he admitted that "if they send more than one postcard" they have to buy more stamps. See Ex. II at 190: 15-191:7. Likewise, the Sheriff admitted that it is much more expensive to send the same amount of content on postcards than in a letter. Ex. I at 192:21-193:6.
Any time-savings attributed to the Policy is too modest to be rationally related to efficiency. Defendants' initial statements are not reliable. Sergeant Cutright told the Court that "the time it took the booking deputy to inspect incoming and outgoing mail was reduced by onethird," but this was based on his claimed memory of data collected three or four years ago on little sheets of paper, that have been shredded. Ex. II at 116:17-117:18.
Sergeant Rigdon's testimony establishes the alleged "time savings" is exaggerated. He testified it takes him a "little longer" to process a single letter than a single postcard. Ex. X at 3:8-15. He identified the following actions: the processer must open the envelope, which takes a "few moments, seconds"; pull the letter out, which takes a "second or two"; and make sure there is nothing in the envelope, which takes "a few seconds." Id. at 3:20-5:10. They both take the same amount time to scan. Id. at 5: 11-19. Even stretching his estimates in the light most favorable to Defendants, it could be up to an additional 10 seconds per letter.4 That's 8.3 additional minutes to process 50 pieces of mails per day (50 pieces x 10 seconds, divided by 60 seconds).

4 This calculation does not take into account that the Sheriff s policy required removing stamps, Dkt. 32-6 at 11, ~32.b.; there are more stamps on multiple postcards than on a single envelope.

5 Sergeant Cutright estimated 50 pieces of incoming mail per day, Dkt. 30~2, but at the site inspection, Sergeant Miller counted 37 pieces. Ex. III at 26:25-27:1; 30:6-25 (Pod A); 34:9-20 (Pod B); 35:22-36:10 (Pod C); 37:22-24 (Pod D); 38:6-10 (Pod E); 38:19-20 (Pod F); 38:24-39:5 (Pod G); 39:9-12 (no Pod H); 39:7-8, 13-20 (Pod I); 41:2-42:13 (Pod J). Sgt. Miller testified that 37 pieces is the daily average mail the Jail has received since "forever," at least during the eleven

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 8
9870.05 fi120905

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 98 Filed 09/13/12 Page 14 of 41

The Sheriff acknowledged that he was relying on Sergeant Cutright, Ex. I at 253:11-17 when he told the court that "[w]ithout the postcard mail policy, the time spent inspecting incoming and outgoing personal mail would greatly increase, reducing the time available to staff for other tasks that are just as essential ..." Dkt. 32 ~25. Sheriff Dickerson admitted it is possible that it took less time to process the mail because there have been fewer prisoners6 and therefore less mail, or because the mail is now processed in the middle of the night instead of day shift when there are more distractions, or because the Postcard-Only Policy has caused there to be less mail to process. Ex. I at 253:11-255:6. The Sheriff did not do anything to investigate how long it takes to process the mail or the reason for any reduction in that time. Id.at 255: 1922. Significantly, the Sheriff testified that he does not know how long it takes the Jail to process the mail now, since the Court's Preliminary Injunction Order took effect, and he has not attempted to find out. Ex. VIII at 325:14-326:2. Ifhe genuinely believed that allowing letters substantially increased the time it takes to process the mail, he would be tracking that data.
The government's failure to show a rational relationship is fatal under Turner, since that is sine qua non for constitutionality. Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692, 699 (9th Cir. 2005). The Court need not evaluate the remaining factors, each of which favors PLN.
(4) The Policy Also Resulted in Censorship ofBook Catalogs and News Articles from the Internet, Which Are Protected Speech
The Sheriff's Postcard-Only Policy also swept into his unconstitutional ban speech that the Ninth Circuit has unequivocally held prison officials may not censor: catalogs and intemetgenerated mail. The Jail censored PLN's book catalogs and subscription flyers, which are neither magazines nor postcards, but are plainly protected against censorship by the Jail. See Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692, 697 (9th Cir. 2005).

years she has worked there. Id. at 57:4-18. A still photograph taken of her processing; the mail during the inspection shows just how little mail the jail receives. Id.at13 :7-19; Ex. 71.

6 In 2010, the year the Sheriff implemented the Postcard-Only Policy, the prisoner population was 206; in May 2012 it had dropped to 130. Ex. II at 79:10-80:5.

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 9
9870.05 fi120905

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BA¥LESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 98 Filed 09/13/12 Page 15 of 41

The Sheriffs policy permitted only "junk mail," which he defined as the third prong of the Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 39 (1973), obscenity test: "when taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, educational, religious, or scientific value." Dkt. 32-6, at 1. Under that definition, PLN's book catalogs, subscription flyers, and book offers were not junk mail so were excluded by policy, in plain violation of Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d at 697. Meanwhile, the Sheriff s Inmate Manual contradicted his alleged policy by prohibiting "junk mail." Ex. 54, at 13. And contrary to the Sheriffs claim that PLN's mailings would be delivered under his policy because it allowed bulk mail, PLN mails its book catalogs via firstclass mail, so the catalogs do not qualify as bulk mail. Dkts. 8 and 11. The Ninth Circuit has repeatedly ruled that distinctions based on postal rate are an irrational basis for prison censorship. Prison Legal News v. Cook, 238 at 1149; PLNv. Lehman, 397 F.3d at 700.
Similarly, the Jail censored PLN's online news articles mailed by Lucy Lennox to prisoners at the Jail in an envelope, Dkts. 10, 34, and told the Court that the Jail would censor those same mailings again: "If Ms. Lennox were to send PLN's web article today, it would be rejected because it was not sent directly from the publisher and because it was personal mail not on a postcard." Dkt. 29 at 18. These news articles could not meaningfully have been reduced to a series of postcards, nor does the Ninth Circuit permit prison officials to censor materials because they were generated from the internet rather than mailed directly by the publisher. Clement v. California Dept. o/Corr., 364 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2004).
b. Alternative Avenues Factor: Prisoners and Their Correspondents Have No Reasonable Alternative Way to Exercise Their Free Speech Rights
Defendants contend that prisoners and their correspondents may exercise their First Amendment rights by visiting, calling, or by sending multiple postcards. Dkt. 29 at 18-19. The Court rejected Defendants' position, concluding that no reasonable alternatives exist:
[The] postcard-only mail policy drastically restricts an inmate's ability to communicate with the outside world. It prevents an inmate's family from sending items such as photographs, children's report cards and drawings, and copies of bills, doctor reports, and spiritual and religious tracts . . . It prevents an inmate's friends and other correspondents from sending printed copies of articles published

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF -10
9870.05 fil20905

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 98 Filed 09/13/12 Page 16 of 41

in newspapers, magazines, or the internet. It prevents educational, community and religious organizations from sending lessons, book and periodical offers, and fundraising appeals... Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the postcard-only mail policy creates a hurdle to thoughtful and constructive written communication between an inmate and his or her unincarcerated family and friends ... These are not insignificant considerations. The limits imposed by the IMP's postcard-only mail policy not only restrain PLN and inmate's First Amendment rights, they inhibit rehabilitation ... Dkt. 64 at 20-21.
The evidence obtained in discovery only strengthens the Court's conclusion. Columbia
County prisoners may receive visitors only twice a week, on two set days, for a maximum of 30
minutes per visit. Ex. II at 213:4-19. Prisoners can make outgoing calls only during times when
they are out of their cells. Id. at 211:13-212:19. Outgoing local calls cost $2.35 for 15 minutes.
Id. The Jail does not permit incoming calls for prisoners except in exceptional circumstances
(e.g. a prisoner's attorney needs to reach him or a death in the prisoner's family). Id at 212:22-
25. And, as discussed above, it is also undisputed that sending multiple postcards is substantially
more costly than sending a single letter. PLN has no practical way to reach its intended audience
at the Columbia County Jail except through the mail. And notably, the resources in what the Jail calls its "law library," which is merely a library cart, are scarce. Dkt. 36, ~~ 9, 11, 12; Exs. 72-
73.
So, for prisoners, PLN, and other correspondents, there are no practical alternative ways
for them to communicate. See, also, Dkt. 15 at 22-23; and Dkt. 46 at 33.
c. Effect on Staff, Prisoners, and Resources Factor: the Effect, ifAny,
is Minimal Defendants contend "the unfettered ability of persons to send inmates materials in any
form ... would greatly increase the risks of contraband entering the Jail, along with the time
required for screening personal mail." Dkt. 29 at 19 (emphasis added). The Court disagreed,
concluding that "accommodating letters and periodicals is unlikely to have a 'significant ripple
effect' on inmates and staff ... [and] the time-savings afforded to the Jail by the postcard-only
mail policy is modest, at best." Dkt. 64 at 21-22.

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 11
9870.05 fil20905

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 98 Filed 09/13/12 Page 17 of 41

As explained above, Defendants have admitted they did not have a contraband problem before adopting the Postcard-Only Policy, so any argument that going back will "greatly increase" the risks of contraband entering the jail is without basis. And any alleged time-savings is much smaller than the Defendants represented to the Court.
d. Easy and Obvious Alternatives Factor: There Were Easy and Obvious Alternatives, Which Defendants Failed to Even Consider, Suggesting an Exaggerated Response by Prison Officials
The Court has already held that an easy and obvious alternative to the Postcard-Only Policy was for the Defendants to open and inspect letters, which according to Sergeant Cutright, required only 30 to 60 additional minutes each day. Dkt. 64 at 22. The evidence uncovered since then only strengthens the Court's conclusion.
First, the time it takes to open and inspect the contents of envelopes is far less than Sergeant Cutright estimated in February 2012. Dkt. 30 ~4. See Section A.1.a.(3).
Second, Defendants claim that the mail processing takes them away from other tasks so they adopted the policy at issue. Dkt. 32 ~25. But they did not disclose to the Court that they have switched from processing the mail in the middle of the day to the middle of the night when the Jail was much less busy. Ex. II at 122:11-123:21. This did not require removing any tasks from the night shift. Id
Third, the Jail used to require its deputies to scrape off every stamp from incoming mail. Ex. III at 92:12-93:10; Ex. 41. Yet, the Jail has now given up that policy. Id. This choice reveals that the time-consuming process of removing stamps, see Ex. 45, unchallenged by PLN, was not that important to protect the security interests of the Jail.
Finally, the Sheriff never tried to determine whether, let alone how, contraband actually enters the jail so as to target any response. Ex. I at 74:22-75:2. Indeed, the Jail did not adopt its Postcard-Only Policy to address an actual problem, because contraband was not arriving by mail. See Section A.1.a.(2), above. The Sheriff acknowledged that contraband can get into the Jail through outside workers, jail staff, or maintenance persons, but the Jail does not check their bags and relies on "trust" alone to prevent jail staff from bringing in contraband. Ex. I at 62: 17-69: 11.

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 12
9870.05 fi120905

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 98 Filed 09/13/12 Page 18 of 41

And when a deputy is alleged to be giving prisoners contraband, the issue is ignored. Ex. 49, at 2; Ex. VII at 286:6-287:4.
Thus, there were easy and obvious alternatives to a Postcard-Only Policy to achieve Defendants' purported objective to enhance security and save time (and consistent with many other Sheriffs who didn't adopt such a policy). Defendants could have investigated whether, and if so how, contraband actually enters the Jail tailoring a plan to control it, moved the mail processing to the night shift, re-evaluated how they process the mail to make it more efficient, and stopped removing stamps. Or, they could have kept processing mail the same way they had since there was no problem they actually sought to solve (modified, of course, to comply with the Constitution). But Defendants did not even explore any of these alternatives in lieu of adopting their unconstitutional policy.
2. Defendant's Postcard-Only Policy for Outgoing Mail Violated the First Amendment
Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent make clear that governmental restrictions on outgoing mail are analyzed under Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396,408 (1974), overruled in part on other grounds by Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401,413-14 (1989) (recognizing that Procunier still applies to regulations concerning outgoing mail). See Barrett v. Belleque, 544 F.3d 1060, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008) ("Procunier is controlling law in the Ninth Circuit and elsewhere as applied to claims involving outgoing prisoner maiL").
Under Procunier, a government restriction on outgoing mail is justified only if "the regulation or practice in question ... further[s] an important or substantial governmental interest unrelated to the suppression of expression.... [and] the limitation of First Amendment freedoms ... [is] no greater than is necessary or essential to the protection of the particular governmental interest involved." 416 U.S. at 413-14. (Emphasis added). "When a prison regulation affects outgoing mail as opposed to incoming mail, there must be a 'closer fit between the regulation and the purpose it serves. '" Witherow v. PafJ, 52 F.3d 264, 265 (9th Cir. 1995).

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 13
9870.05 fi120905

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax: 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 98 Filed 09/13/12 Page 19 of 41

PLN's prior briefing explains why the Procunier standard, not Turner, governs outgoing mail. And that briefing provides compelling argument that the Sheriff s Postcard-Only Policy for outgoing mail does not further an important or substantial governmental interest and is greater than necessary or essential to protect the governmental interest involved. Therefore, Defendants' policy fails under Procunier. See Dkt. 15 at 21-22; Dkt. 46 at 38-39; Dkt. 71.
Defendants concede that outgoing mail is less likely to contain contraband, so it takes them less time to process outgoing mail. Ex. II at 119:3-120:5. In his 17-year tenure, Sergeant Cutright has never encountered contraband being sent out of the Jail. Id. And, when asked to ' identify the reasons for adopting a Postcard-Only Policy for outgoing mail, as Defendants' FRCP 3O(b)(6) designee, Sergeant Cutright testified that "it wasn't even addressed" and Defendants did not even consider whether to adopt such a policy for outgoing mail, they just decided to adopt one for all inmate mail "in general." Id.atI20:20-121:5.
Since Defendants cannot meet the lower Turner standard for incoming mail, as set forth in the sections above, they also fail to meet the higher Procunier standard for outgoing mail.
Defendants contend that Turner, not Procunier, applies to outgoing mail. Dkt.76. However, nothing in the Supreme Court or Ninth Circuit case law supports Defendants' position. See Dkt. 71. The Court should apply the Procunier standard and hold that Defendants fail to meet it, or make clear that it is not deciding which standard applies because Defendants fail to meet the lower Turner standard anyway. Either way, the Court should declare that Defendants' outgoing Postcard-Only Policy is unconstitutional.
3. Defendants' No Magazines Policy Violated the First Amendment The Sheriff told this Court that the Jail's mail policies have "always" allowed inmates to receive magazines. Dkt. 29 at 3. Although the written "mail policies" that the Sheriff filed with the Court do not explicitly prohibit magazines, discovery has revealed that these "policies" have been meaningless. In practice, the Jail has not permitted magazines at any time in recent

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 14
9870.05 fi120905

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Te1206.622J604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 98 Filed 09/13/12 Page 20 of 41

memory; that is, for a least the past 22 years. And for years, the Sheriff told the public and his prisoners-in writing-that the Jail prohibited magazines and periodicals, as shown below.
a. The Sheriff's Office Told Corrections Staff, Prisoners, and the Public, that It Bans Magazines
For years, the Jail distributed Inmate Manuals to its prisoners that explicitly prohibited magazines or periodicals: "Periodicals: We do not accept any periodicals." Ex. 54 at 12 (November 18,2010).7 And between 2009 and November 2010, while Defendants considered several modifications to their Inmate Manual, each time they affirmed their bans:
• "Publications: We do not accept magazines." Ex. 50 at 14 (2009). • "Periodicals: We do not accept any periodicals." Ex. 51 at 14 (July 8, 2010). • "Periodicals: We do not accept any periodicals." Ex. 52 at 16 (July 23,2010). •. "Publications: We do not accept magazines." Ex. 53 at 11 (September 30,2010).
And, Defendants widely communicated the same prohibition in March 2010 when Sergeant Cutright wrote a Memorandum titled "Mail Procedure Changes," which was distributed to the entire Corrections Division, to all prisoners, and was published on the Sheriff s website. Exs. 2, 3, and 6; Ex. II at 66:4-68:9. The Memo stated: "Magazines are not allowed inside the facility," Exs. 2, at 2; 3, at 2, and remained in the prisoner living areas until Plaintiff inspected the Jail on May 8, 2012. See Second Declaration of Brad Berg, ~~ 2-5 submitted herewith. Jail supervisors reviewed the content before the Memo was distributed. Ex II at 68:12-14. Sergeant Cutright, who testified as the Sheriff s Office's FRCP 3O(b)(6) designee on the interpretation, and implementation of the Jail's Mail Policy since January 1,2009, described the Memo as a "summary of the mail policy... id.at 68:15-18, and testified that the purpose of writing the memo was to:
[H]ighlight some changes made to the policy in 2010. It was also written, the biggest point was so we could add this information to the internet so the public

7 The Sheriff notified Spanish-speakers of this prohibition: "Publicaciones periodicas: No aceptamos ninguna publicacion periodica (periodicos, revistas, etc.)" Ex. 55. at 14 (Nov. 2010).

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 15
9870.05 fi120905

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 98 Filed 09/13/12 Page 21 of 41

would know what the change to the policy was or what the mail policy ofthe Columbia County Sheriffs Office at that time was." Id. at 66:9-19 (emphasis added). The Sheriff's Office posted a similar notice on its website on March 18,2010, that stated "Magazines: Are not allowed inside the facility." Ex. 6, at 2; Ex. VI at 14:21-15:8, 17:12-15,21 :7-11. Prior to January 19,2012, the Sheriffs Office added additional information about its prohibition on magazines: "Publications: We do not accept magazines." See Ex. 7; Ex. 70, at Admission 1. So, at the time that PLN filed this action, the Sheriff's website stated in two places, that the Jail prohibits magazines. Id. Despite authoring his widely publicized 2010 Memo, at his deposition Sergeant Cutright denied knowing whether the Jail's policy actually prohibited magazines. Ex. II at 72:24-25. And, while admitting that he cut and pasted the content of his Memo from the Inmate Manual he suggested he did so "without particularly reading the whole entirety of it." Id. at 76:17-77:3. But despite his efforts to backpedal, the undisputed facts are: Defendants communicated to their staff, the public, and to the prisoners in their custody, repeatedly, that magazines are not allowed.
b. Defendants' Magazine Ban Resulted in a Near Absolute Chill ofSpeech The undisputed evidence establishes that the Sheriff's j ail staff read and blindly followed the Sheriffs Office's directive that the Jail banned magazines. In Sergeant Cutright's 17 years with the Sheriffs Office, including many years processing the mail and supervising the mail processing, he testified that he has "never" seen a magazine arrive for an inmate at the facility. Ex. II at 75:8-19. Captain Jim Carpenter, who worked for the Jail for 22 years and was the Jail Commander from 2009-2011, Ex. IV at 9:11-15, 8:9-9:15, testified that throughout his tenure, the practice and custom of the Jail was to prohibit magazines and periodicals, id at 75:7-20, 75:21-76:12. He could not remember what the policy was, but it was the Jail's "procedure" to ban magazines. Id. He testified that "As long as I worked at the jail, that I can remember, we never accepted magazines." Id. at 75:18-20. In Captain Carpenter's 22 years at the Columbia County Jail, he has only seen one magazine at the Jail and it was rejected. Id. at 76:13-77:6.

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 16
9870.05 fi120905

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 98 Filed 09/13/12 Page 22 of 41

Indeed, corrections deputies told prisoners that magazines were not permitted. When a prisoner asked whether there are any restrictions on the number or type of magazines that can be delivered, the Jail responded "We Do Not Allow Magazines." Ex. 20. And, as documents from prisoner files reveal, corrections deputies censored magazines because they were not permitted by the Jail. See, e.g., Exs. 21-22. In fact, the Sheriff's Office's rarely-used Mail Violation Notice form has a checkbox for "Do not accept periodicals." Exs. 21-22. In short, Defendants' complete ban effectuated.an arctic chill on prisoners receiving magazines that was near absolute.
If the Sheriff is accurately reporting that the Jail's mail policy "always" permitted magazines then the Jail's custom and practice is to violate its written policy, as well as the Constitution. If, contrary to the Sheriff s representation, the Jail's longstanding policy was to ban magazines then his word is unreliable and the Jail's policy has been to violate the Constitution for as long as anyone can remember. Under either scenario, the undisputed facts establish that Defendants told their staff, inmates, and the public, that their mail policy prohibited magazines, and the Jail censored magazines. This likely suppressed most attempts to obtain magazines, and when they were sent the Jail censored them accordingly.
4. Defendant's Due Process Policies Violated the Fourteenth Amendment "[T]he decision to censor or withhold delivery of a particular letter must be accompanied by minimum procedural safeguards." Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396,417-418 (1974), overruled in part on other grounds by Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401,408 (1989). Thus, the Fourteenth Amendment requires that prison officials provide notice and an opportunity to appeal their censorship decisions to prisoners and their correspondents. See, e.g., Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692, 701 (9th Cir. 2005); Martin v. Kelley, 803 F.2d 236, 243-44 (6th Cir. 1986); Montcalm Pub. Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 109 (4th Cir. 1996). Although the Constitution mandated that Defendants afford both prisoners and their correspondents due process when censoring mail, Defendants' mail policy plainly failed to provide for constitutionally adequate due process. At the time this lawsuit was filed (January 13,

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 17
9870.05 fil20905

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 98 Filed 09/13/12 Page 23 of 41

2012), the Inmate Mail Policy posted on the Sheriffs website was devoid of any provision for due process. See Ex. 7. The March 23, 2010 Memo available to prisoners and jail staff also contained no due process rights or requirements. Exs. 2, 3. And the Inmate Manual distributed to prisoners failed to provide for due process, except for "notice" to the prisoner if the Jail confiscated mail but at the same time stated, "We will return to sender any form of prohibited mail" for which "You may not get a notice..." Ex. 54 at 10 ("Mail Confiscation") (emphasis added).
After this lawsuit was filed, Defendants provided PLN with the Jail's Mail Policy dated October 21,2011, which was never publicly available. See Dkt. 9 ~18; Dkt. 9-4, Ex. 62; Ex. 68 at ROG 7(d). This policy also failed to require constitutionally adequate due process to prisoners and their correspondents. While it required the Jail to provide the prisoner-addressee notice when the Jail censored incoming mail (which the Jail routinely failed to do, see Dkt. 12 at ~~4, 6; Dkt. 11 at ~~4, 6, 7; Dkt. 14 ~~4, 6, 7; Dkt. 13 at ~~4, 6, 7), the policy failed to require any notice to or opportunity to appeal for the publisher or other sender of incoming mail, or to the prisoner or intended recipient of rejected outgoing mail. See Dkt. 9-4; Ex. 62 at 6, H.D.l.b.
After PLN filed its lawsuit, Defendants revised their mail policies on January 26 and February 10,2012. Dkts. 32-5 and 32-6. The Court recognized the notice provisions in these policies were "not a model of clarity" and the due process provisions did "not expressly apply to outgoing mail." Dkt. 64 at 25. Indeed, the due process provisions were scattered and confusing. Dkt. 15 at 16-17. It is no surprise that the corrections staff continued to fail to provide adequate due process when censoring inmate mail. See, e.g., Dkt. 34; Ex. I at 209:21-210:8.
For these reasons, the Court should declare the following policies violated the Fourteenth Amendment: (1) Defendants' publicly available mail policy posted on their website on January 13,2012, Ex.7, which failed to provide for any due process rights; (2) the March 23, 2010 Memo, Ex. 2, which failed to provide for any due process rights; (3) Defendants' October 21,2011 mail policy, Ex. 62, which failed to require any notice or opportunity to appeal to the

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 18
9870.05 fi120905

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 98 Filed 09/13/12 Page 24 of 41

sender of incoming mail or to the prisoner or intended recipient of rejected outgoing mail; and (4) Defendants' January 26, 2012, and February 10, 2012, mail policies, Dkt. 32-5 and -6, which failed to require the Jail to provide due process to prisoners and intended-recipients of outgoing mail.
B. Defendants Violated the First and Fourteenth Amendment Rights of Prisoners and Their Correspondents Defendants admit in their Answer that they censored the 73 pieces of mail identified in
Plaintiff's Complaint, addressed to prisoners at the Columbia County Jail. Compare Dkt. 1 with Dkt. 25 ~~4.4 through 4.4.6. They also admit that they failed to provide the prisoner-addressees due process notice or an opportunity to appeal the censorship decisions when they censored PLN's mail. Compare Dkt. 1 with Dkt. 25 at ~~4.27, 4.41, 4.51, and 4.61. Defendants admit that they censored the PLN news articles that Lucy Lennox sent to prisoners, and that they failed to provide Ms. Lennox and the prisoner-addresses due process notice or an opportunity to appeal the censorship decisions. Compare Dkt. 1 with Dkt. 25 at ~~4.70 and 4.71. The evidence also establishes that Defendants censored other prisoner mail without due process and unconstitutionally chilled protected speech. See, e.g., Ex. 19 (Christmas card, no notice); Dkt. 53~~2-10 (tort claim); Dkt. 39 ~5 (postcards, no notice); Ex. 20 ("We Do Not Allow Magazines"); Ex. 21 ("Magazines not accepted"); Ex. 26 (letters to probation officer); Dkt. 53 (personal letters), Dkt. 40 ~~2-4 (personal letters); Dkt. 39 ~~3-4 (children's drawings).
Despite these admissions, Defendants denied violating the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of prisoners and correspondents. Compare Dkt. 1 with Dkt. 25 at ~~5.2, 5.6.
But the First Amendment required Defendants to deliver PLN's mail addressed to prisoners, Lucy Lennox's mail addressed to prisoners, and the prisoner mail described in the exhibits identified above. And the undisputed facts establish that Defendants failed to do so. Therefore, Defendants violated the free speech rights of prisoners and their correspondents, including PLN, Ms. Lennox, and prisoners' friends and family. And since the Fourteenth Amendment required Defendants to provide due process to prisoners and their correspondents

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 19
9870.05 fil20905

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax: 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 98 Filed 09/13/12 Page 25 of 41

when the Jail censored their mail, and the undisputed facts establish that Defendants failed to do so, Defendants violated the due process rights of prisoners and their correspondents, including PLN, Ms. Lennox, and prisoners' friends and family. The Court should so declare.
C. Defendants Violated PLN's First and Fourteenth Amendment Rights by Censoring PLN's Mail, for which Defendants Must Pay Damages In its Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants used their mail policies to censor 37
Prison Legal News journals, 27 sets of informational subscription brochures and book catalogs and offers, 8 subscription renewal letters and brochures, and 2 fundraising letters-a total of 74 items. See Dkt. 1 at ~~4.4 through 4.4.6. In their Answer, with one exception,8 Defendants admitted that they censored and rejected each piece of mail identified in PLN's Complaint and that they did not provide Plaintiff due process notice or an opportunity to appeal the censorship decision. Compare Dkt. 1 at ~~4.4 through 4.4.6 with Dkt. 25 at ~~4.5 through 4.27, 4.36, 4.37, 4.45 through 4.51, and 4.55 through 4.61. Defendants also admitted that "some of its past mail policies violated some of Plaintiffs constitutional rights," Dkt. 25 at ~~4.74.3-4.74.4, 5.2, 5.6.
As explained above in Section IV. A., Defendants' Postcard-Only, No-Magazines, and Due Process Policies in effect when PLN filed this lawsuit (January 13,2012) are unconstitutional. Although Defendants' Answer denies they used their Postcard-Only and NoMagazines Policies to censor and reject Plaintiffs mail, compare Dkt. 1 with Dkt. 25 at ~~4.73.3 and 4.74.1, this is contradicted by all of the evidence: Defendants' mail policies, Inmate Manuals, website, and the Cutright memo stated that the Jail accepts only postcards and prohibits magazines, and Defendants censored PLN non-postcards and magazines. Moreover, the stickers that Defendants placed on most of the mail they returned to PLN stated "As of April 1, 2010 the Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS, This applies to ALL incoming and out going mail"-facts admitted by Defendants. Compare Dkt. 1 with Dkt. 25 at ~~4.25, 4.39, 4.49.

8 Defendants denied that Prisoner Myers was incarcerated at the Jail when PLN sent him an informational brochure pack. Compare Dkt. 1 at ~~4.36-4.37 with Dkt. 25 at ~~4.26-4.37.

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 20
9870.05 fi120905

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 98 Filed 09/13/12 Page 26 of 41

And there is no dispute that Defendants did indeed censor Plaintiff s mail. Each piece of

mail sent by PLN to prisoners at the Columbia County Jail, and rejected by Defendants,

constitutes speech protected by the First Amendment. The Sheriff has admitted the same. Ex. I

at 164:12-165:1, 167:14-169:16, 170:21-172:10; Exs. 31-34. The Sheriff also admitted in his

deposition that Defendants violated the First Amendment. Ex. I at 164:12-165:7, 166:2-167:3,

167:14-169:19, 170:7-9. And the Sheriff admitted that Defendants violated the Fourteenth

Amendment by failing to provide adequate due process to PLN when they censored PLN's mail.

Ex. I at 167:4-13, 167:14-170:2, 170:21-172:16.

Thus, the Court should enter an order declaring that Defendants violated PLN's First and

Fourteenth Amendment rights by censoring PLN's mail, and that Defendants must pay damages

as determined at trial.

v. PERMANENT INJUNCTION

Prison Legal News seeks an order permanently enjoining Defendants from rejecting or

otherwise censoring mail on the ground that it is not in the form of a postcard, or on the ground

that it is a magazine or periodical; and permanently enjoining Defendants from denying due

process to prisoners and their correspondents when rej ecting or otherwise censoring mail.

A. Legal Standard

A party seeking a permanent injunction must show: "(1) that it has suffered an irreparable

injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to

compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff

and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be

disserved by a permanent injunction." eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391

(2006).

In granting Plaintiff s request for preliminary injunction, the Court held that PLN is likely

to meet each of these elements. See Dkt. 64, at 23-24 (applying standards for preliminary

injunction under Winter v. Natural Res. De! Council, 555 U.S. 7,22, (2008)). Although the

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 21
9870.05 fi120905

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 98 Filed 09/13/12 Page 27 of 41

elements are framed somewhat differently, "The standard for a preliminary injunction is essentially the same as for a permanent injunction with the exception that the plaintiff must show a likelihood of success on the merits rather than actual success." Amoco Prod. Co. v. Vill. of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531,546, n. 12 (1987).
Since the evidence has now established that the Defendants' Postcard-Only Policy does in fact violate the First Amendment and Defendants have admitted that they have repeatedly violated the Constitution in several other respects, Plaintiff has shown actual success on the merits and the remaining elements remain in favor of Plaintiff so PLN has satisfied the test for a permanent injunction. Likewise, PLN has shown actual success on its other claims so an injunction on all claims is warranted.
The only question for the Court is whether the Sheriff, the Sheriff s Department, and Columbia County can prove they will never violate the Constitution again so as to moot the need for an injunction. The burden on the Defendants is extraordinary, a burden they cannot meet. B. The Sheriff Has Not Shown He Has "Irrevocably Eradicated" His Prior Policies
The Sheriffbears "'[t]he heavy burden ofpersua[ding]' the court that the challenged conduct cannot reasonably be expected to start up again." Friends ofthe Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 170, 189 (2000) (burden of proof "lies with the party asserting mootness.") The Supreme Court has explained the Sheriff must meet a very high threshold:
[T]he standard we have announced for determining whether a case has been mooted by the defendant's voluntary conduct is stringent: "A case might become moot if subsequent events made it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur." Id. at 189 (emphasis added) (citation omitted). The Sheriff must show the Court that "interim relief or events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation." Norman-Bloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, 135 F.3d 1260, 1274 (9th Cir. 1998) (emphasis added) (citation omitted). "Irrevocable" means "not to be revoked or recalled; unable to be repealed or annulled; unalterable." See www.dictionary.com. "Eradicate" means "to

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 22
9870.05 fi120905

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 98 Filed 09/13/12 Page 28 of 41

remove or destroy utterly; extirpate." Id. So, his burden is indeed heavy. 1. Defendants Denied Their Postcard-Only Policy Was Illegal, and Still Do The Court's analysis must begin with Defendants' avid defense of their Postcard-Only
Policy and refusal to stop implementing the Policy in the absence of a preliminary injunction. In opposition to Plaintiff s motion for a preliminary injunction, the Sheriff argued vigorously to the Court that his censorship is not only constitutional but also a good idea. See Dkts. 29, 32. He articulated to the Court that his policy is important to the proper functioning of the Jail and that he stands by his policy. Before the Court issued the preliminary injunction, the Sherifftestified at his deposition that the Postcard-Only Policy met his expectations, and that it accomplished what he set out to achieve. Ex. I at 252:25-253:7. He testified, "It has saved us time and it has enabled us to have greater confidence in our security." Id. at 253:7-10. Similarly, Undersheriff Moyer testified, "Before the judge issued a preliminary injunction, sheriffs department decided not to give up its postcard-only policy" "for safety and security reasons and didn't believe we were violating anybody's constitutional rights by keeping that part." Ex. Vat 179:10-17.
Nothing the Defendants can say now, after being told they were wrong, should dissuade the Court from entering a permanent injunction to prevent the Sheriff or his successors from again censoring incoming or outgoing mail just because it is not a postcard.
After the Court's injunction, on advice of his lawyer, Sheriff Dickerson refused to answer questions about the need for a permanent injunction. Ex. VIII at 379:15-19. Undersheriff Moyer testified that the Postcard-Only Policy did not violate anyone's constitutional rights and that complying with the Court's injunction by giving up that policy creates an increased safety risk for his employees. Ex. V at 176:17-177:20. But, he claims that nevertheless he and the Sheriff will not to return to their old ways because they want to "err on the side of caution" and "constantly changing" policies would be "harder for [our staff] to remember." Id.
In writing, the Sheriff s stated commitment is to avoiding liability in the face of the Court's order. To his staff, he wrote: "We are about to enter into a temporary injunction from

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 23
9870.05 fi120905

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 98 Filed 09/13/12 Page 29 of 41

the federal court in regard to our mail policy. Failure to follow the policy as it is set forth in this attachment can leave individual employees liable for federal civil rights violations, so it behooves us all to get this right." Ex. 46, at 2. Noting the injunction is "temporary" does not help the Sheriff s claim that he will refrain from his old policies. And, in emphasizing that liability can result from failing to comply with the injunction, the Sheriffs admonition misses the main point: Had he taken the rights guaranteed by the Constitution as seriously as he claims to be taking this Court's order, he would be in a better position to say a court order is not needed.
But instead, his words and deeds all point to the need for a permanent order from the Court. So, if the Sheriff has complied with the preliminary injunction, then that is evidence that an injunction is required to force his hand for good. He did not comply with the Constitution on his own but will do so only if ordered by the Court. The Court should so order, permanently.
2. Defendants Disregarded Multiple Complaints that Their Policy Violated the Constitution, While Reaping No Appreciable Benefit for the Jail.
Prisoners wrote numerous grievances, and complained orally, that the Jail's PostcardOnly Policy was harmful to them and their correspondents outside the jail, and that it was unconstitutional. See, e.g., Exs. 13-20, 29, 38. The complaints began "the day the policy changed." Ex. II, at 145:3-15. At a meeting of the Sheriff, the Undersheriff, and supervisors, the Jail decided to deny all complaints about the Postcard-Only Policy, instructing staff to print off a "Your grievance is denied" template from the computer, individualizing the responses only by listing the date and the prisoner's name. Id. at 145:16-146:9; Ex. 48 ("The attached letter will be the standard answer for the Columbia County Jail on all postcard grievances."); Exs. 13-20,29. When indigent prisoners complained that they could not send sufficient information on the two postcards the Jail allotted to them in a week (as compared with multiple pieces of paper they had. received in the past), their requests for more postcards were denied. See, e.g., Exs. 23-24. When prisoners asked for exceptions, such as to receive their legal papers from home, or to send a letter to their probation officer, the Jail denied them. See, e.g., Exs. 25-26.
3. The Sheriff's History of Ignoring Constitutional Duties Overshadows and Undercuts his Claim He will Now Respect 1st and 14th Amendment Rights.

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 24
9870.05 fi120905

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 98 Filed 09/13/12 Page 30 of 41

When the Sheriff adopted his Postcard-Only Policy he could see "no cons or downsides." Ex. I at 92:25-93 :8. And, even after being sued by PLN for the harm the policy caused and reading PLN's explanations in its motion for preliminary injunction, the Sheriff testified "I can't, I can't think of any at this time." Id. The Sheriff s failure to recognize any negative impact on prisoners and their correspondents speaks ill of his conception of First Amendment rights.
But this is not the first time. The Sheriff admitted that he read the Inmate Manual when he first became Sheriff "cover to cover" but saw nothing "that needed to be changed." Id. at 123:13-25. And, he conceded that this was the same Inmate Manual that banned magazines and failed to afford due process rights, but that he did not correct for three years. Id. at 124:1-125:22. Tellingly, his explanation for overlooking this Constitutional violation has nothing to do with the Constitution: "I did not catch the differences between our policy and what our manual said, the inmate manual said." Id at 124:14-18. It is then remarkable that the Sheriff denied the Jail ever had a ban on magazines while at the same time admitted that he never tried to find out why his Inmate Manual prohibited them. Id. at 124:19-125:3.
And, as recently as December 2011, the ,Sheriff revealed his approach to due process appeals when he is not being monitored by a court. A prisoner, Bradley Berg, had filed a grievance the previous month (November) asserting that "the Jails outgoing mail policy that requires me to use Postcards for outgoing maiL .. violates my constitutional rights." Ex. 15, at 2. After Sergeants Rigdon and Cutright denied his grievance using template responses, id. at 3-4, prisoner Berg appealed his grievance to Sheriff Dickerson, see id. at 5. But the Sheriff failed to respond, see id. at 1, 6, so prisoner Berg raised the issue with Sergeant Miller who suggested to Sheriff Dickerson that she could "tell Inmate Berg that when no reply is coming after 10 days, the issue is denied," id. at 1. After not responding to Berg's appeal for a month, Sheriff Dickerson concurred: "Nothing changes, so, yes it is denied." Id.; Dkt. 36, ~~13-16.
To hold any water, the Sheriffs promise of future respect for Constitutional rights would have to break free from the lack of respect he has shown for them in the past, from his weak

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 25
9870.05 fi120905

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 98 Filed 09/13/12 Page 31 of 41

explanations for how he overlooked serious longstanding violations, and from his lack of interest and diligence in investigating how he and his staff caused them.
4. The Sheriff's Near Monthly Change to His Mail Policy and His Upcoming Election Contest Fail to Support His Assertion of Permanent Change.
Since PLN filed its lawsuit, the Sheriff has changed his mail policy five times.9 See Dkt. 32-5 and -6; Exs. 63-65 While he might claim he has been trying to get it right, this is evidence that he has in a hurried fashion thrown together a new policy for the sake of expedience because of this lawsuit, which he has then had to change, repeatedly. After the Sheriff adopted his January 26,2012 policy in resporise to this lawsuit, he made corrections on February 10. But in its Motion for Preliminary Injunction and at oral argument, Plaintiff showed the policy, even as modified in February, was rife with problems. Then, the Sheriff made more and more changes, which is consistent with his stated intent: "Well, the plan is ongoing policy review on all the policies."lo Ex. I at 256:10-12. Nothing about his approach suggests any measure of permanence.
Even if the Sheriff could somehow be counted on to maintain a constitutional mail policy, there is no reliable measure of how long he will serve as Sheriff. He has only been in office for one four-year term. And, soon after taking office he adopted the unconstitutional Postcard-Only Policy and presided over unconstitutional mail practices throughout his tenure. His successor could do as much damage in as short of a time span. The Sheriff is facing a contested election this Fall. He admits that he has no idea whether his opponent, who is employed by the Sheriff as a deputy, will reinstate the Postcard-Only Policy if elected. Id. at 300:24-302:12. This is a failure on the Sheriffs part to make the case that the Jail will have a constitutional mail policy even until 2013, in the absence of a permanent injunction.

9 The revision number ("R") of the Sheriff s policy is identified on the left hand column of the caption under the policy name ("INMATE MAIL") after the policy number ("J603"). So, for example, Dkt. 32-5 purports to be the sixth revision ("R06"), and Dkt. 32-6 is the seventh ("ROT'). The most recent is RIO. See Ex. 65.

10 Additionally, Exhibits 10 through 12, and 46 show changes to the Sheriffs "Inmate Mail" portion of his website in June and July; and Exhibits 56 through 60 are Inmate Manuals dated from May through July 2012.

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 26
9870.05 fi120905

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 98 Filed 09/13/12 Page 32 of 41

5. The Sheriff's Training and Supervision after PLN Filed this Lawsuit Have Been Sorely Lacking.
After the Sheriff adopted his new mail policy in January 2012, the Jail held a one-hour training in which the staff did nothing more than read the 16-page policy out loud. Ex. II at 40:4-41 :23,45:7-11. And, the training involved reading large sections of the policy that had nothing to do with correcting the unconstitutional practices at issue in this lawsuit. The lack of emphasis on complying with the Constitution substantially diminished the significance of the training. Indeed, that can hardly be called "training." Training involves teaching. And, effective training involves practicing, but the Sheriff never challenged his staff to actually apply the policy while someone already familiar with it (such as himself) watched, answered questions, gave pointers, and made corrections. But that never happened. In fact, the Sheriff did not even bother to attend this training. Ex. I at 269:3-9; Ex. 36.
Just a couple of weeks after the training, the Jail unconstitutionally censored numerous mailings of PLN news articles without affording due process notice or an appeal to Lucy Lennox, who had sent them. See Dkt. 34. Undersheriff Moyer has admitted that the Jail should have delivered these mailings. Ex. V at 193:16-21; Ex. 35.
Similarly, during the same month but after the training, the Jail staff was having other troubles implementing the mail policy and found it confusing. See Ex. Vat 148:19-150:8. But rather than arranging for more effective training or simplifying the Sheriff s convoluted mail policy, the frustrated Undersheriff instructed them that "if the mail sorters need to, then they need to review our mail policy every time they sort every individual piece ofmail." Id. (emphasis added). It seems unlikely that supposedly busy deputies who found the policy confusing and the training insufficient would heed this advice; instead they would stop asking questions.
Incredibly, as of the date of his deposition (May 9, 2012), five months after PLN filed its lawsuit against him, Sheriff Dickerson, had never bothered to look at the PLN mail that his Jail had censored, without due process notice and an opportunity to be heard-which PLN had filed with this Court on January 31, 2012. See, e.g., Ex. I at 154:3-156:14; 167:14-23.

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 27
9870.05 fiI20905

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
TeI206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 98 Filed 09/13/12 Page 33 of 41

The Sheriff identified Sergeant Cutright as among the most knowledgeable of his employees about Jail policies, and the Sergeant conducted the February 2012 mail policy training. Id. at 139:25-140:5; Ex. 36; Ex. II, at 44:4-11. And, Sergeant Cutright was responsible not only for processing prisoner mail at times but also for overseeing deputies who process the mail to ensure compliance with the mail policies. Id.at 25:3-26:1. In light of his role and responsibilities, it is very troubling-and telling-that at his deposition on May 9, 2012, Sergeant Cutright could not identify anything about the First Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Id. at 136:4-13. This was five months after PLN filed its lawsuit, after the Sheriff asked for his suggestions on a new mail policy, several months after the Sergeant conducted the new mail policy training, and long after he submitted a declaration in opposition to PLN's motion for preliminary injunction (Dkt. 30).
6. The Sheriff Knowingly Withheld the Alleged Change in his Mail Policies from the Public and He Continued to Issue His Inmate Manual Stating Unconstitutional Policies to Prisoners on a Daily Basis.
The Sheriff claimed to the Court that he adopted a new mail policy in January 2012. But he kept that from the public at large and from the prisoners for many months.
As of January 24, 2012, his website said merely that the mail policy is under review. Ex. 8. And it stayed that way for the next four months. Ex. I at 107:8-108:4. At his May 9, deposition, he testified that he had not posted his mail policy on his website due to his "confidence level" and could not identify what he was waiting for or when he would post his policy. Id. at 107:23-109:5. Finally, two weeks later, the Sheriff posted a summary of his new policy, but it included his unconstitutional Postcard-Only Policy. Ex. 9.
Similarly, at the time of the Sheriffs deposition in May 2012 and the Inspection of the Jail Premises, the Sheriff was still routinely, and daily, issuing an Inmate Manual containing what Defendants concede was an unconstitutional ban on magazines and an unconstitutional failure to provide for due process. Ex. III at 101:11-103:4; Ex. I, at 125:24-126:9. The Manual also included the unconstitutional Postcard-Only Policy. See Ex. 55, at 11. Defendants did not produce a new Manual for about five (5) months after Plaintiff filed suit in January 2012, and

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 28
9870.05 fi120905

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 98 Filed 09/13/12 Page 34 of 41

Defendant has failed to revise the Spanish-language Manual so staff are supposed to give Spanish-speaking prisoners the English version. Ex.VIII at 320:5-321:15; 322:18-25.
Indeed, until the day before his deposition, the Sheriff maintained in the dayroom of every Jail pod a memo that stated unconstitutional mail policies. The memo, written by Sergeant Cutright (dated March 23, 2010), and addressed to "Corrections Division!All Inmates of the Columbia County Jail" had not only announced the implementation of a new Postcard-Only Policy, but stated "Magazines are not allowed inside the facility" and did not provide for any due process notice or appeals. See Exs. 2 and 3; Ex. V at 75:15-78:12. When prisoners asked for the mail policy itself in February 2012, they were told to wait: "When the policy is finalized the inmate portion will be made available via a Pod memo and Placed in the new upcoming inmate manual." Ex. 28. But, as explained below, the Sheriff made them wait for several months.
The Sheriff s behavior, claiming to have adopted a new mail policy but knowingly not notifying the public or the prisoners for many months, casts serious doubt on his representation that he has moved forward to now respect the rights of prisoners and their correspondents. His conduct after PLN filed its lawsuit shows otherwise.
7. The Sheriff's Office Misled the Plaintiff During the Inspection of the Jail Premises that was the Subject of an Order of the Court (Dkt. 60).
As mentioned above, until PLN's inspection, the Sheriff maintained in every pod the March 23,2010 Cutright memo that stated unconstitutional mail policies. Without telling PLN, the Undersheriff instructed staff to finally remove the memo just the day before PLN's lawyers inspected the Jail premises (May 8, 2012). This was four months after this lawsuit was filed.
At his deposition, the Undersheriff admitted that he instructed his staff to make this switch, yet he denied it was so close to PLN's inspection. Ex. Vat 75:15-78:12. But emails from his staff, which Defendants subsequently produced, undermined his denial. See Ex. 44, at 2 (email dated May 6: ..Themail memo in the pods has to be in the pods. It' s the old memo, we just need it there") and Ex. 43, at 2 (email dated the next day, May 7: "Per Undersheriff Moyer the outdated mail memo need to be pulled if found."). The Jail actually replaced the Cutright

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR nECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 29
9870.05 fi120905

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 98 Filed 09/13/12 Page 35 of 41

Memo with its Inmate Mail Guide, Ex. 66, only hours before PLN inspected the Jail (May 8) at 11pm. Second Declaration of Brad Berg, ~~ 2-5, filed herewith; Ex. Vat 75:15-78:12.
In short, Defendant's removal of the Cutright memo was neither timely, nor honest. 8. The Sheriff Misrepresented to the Court He was Investigating How His
Website Stated an Unconstitutional Mail Policy to the Public for Two Years. In his brief responding to the Plaintiff s motion for a preliminary injunction, the Sheriff told the Court that he was in the midst of investigating how his website posted a description of his mail policy that he says was never his policy. See Dkt. 29 at 3 n. 1. But, after that show of good faith representing that he was trying to get to the bottom of what happened, he dropped his investigation without any meaningful effort. At his deposition, the Sheriff claimed that he asked a handful of people who should know but claimed that they didn't, but he admits he never asked the one person (besides himself) who posts items on his website. Ex. 1 at 115:8-120:2. When asked why he did not ask this reserve deputy, Jeff Mansheim, who instructed him to post the wrong information on the website, the Sheriffjust responded: "I just haven't done it."ll Id. at 116:3-9. Plainly, the Sheriff cannot be counted on to investigate and police his own department. Indeed, when asked where he thinks the text of his faulty website was taken from, the Sheriff identified his faulty Inmate Manual as the likely source, but has failed to get to the bottom of who wrote that either. Id at 120:3-10. Moreover, he told the Court that "Following the filing of plaintiff's lawsuit, 1 learned that the front office employees sometimes rej ected mailings before sending them to the corrections staff' and "sometimes a sticker and other notations were put on rej ected mail referring to the incorrect mail procedures then on the website...." Dkt. 32 ,-r9. But, when asked at his deposition, "Do the volunteers at the front desk sort the mail?" he responded "I don't know." Ex. I Dickerson Dep. at 77:1-3. And to the question, "Do you know who sorts themail?.. heresponded...No... Id.at 77:4-5. The Sheriff likewise admitted that he has not done anything "to investigate whether, what stickers and

11 In discovery, PLN learned that Sergeant Cutright had instructed Deputy Mansheim to post the text on the website, which the Sergeant had denied any knowledge of. Ex. IX at 2:7-8:12.

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 30
9870.05 fil20905

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 98 Filed 09/13/12 Page 36 of 41

stamps the jail uses when responding or returning mail." Id. at 163:14-21. As a law enforcement official, the Sheriff has shown no inclination to use his skills,
training, and authority to investigate the causes of his own department's long-standing violations of the Constitution. In sum, the Sheriff s level of inquiry has been a proverbial shrug of his shoulders, reflecting no interest in accountability and commitment to change.
9. The Sheriff Violated his Oath to Uphold the United States Constitution. When Sheriff Dickerson was elected Sheriff of Columbia County, he promised to uphold the Constitution of the United States. See ORS 204.020 ("Before entering upon any elective office listed in ORS 204.005, the person elected must qualify... with an oath of office indorsed thereon, and subscribed by the elected person, to the effect that the person will support the Constitution of the United States"); ORS 204.005(1)(a) ("A sheriff."). Now, nearly three years later, he has admitted that under his command his Jail has been violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments, repeatedly, contrary to his oath. See, e.g., Ex. I at 163:24-172:16. When asked about this at his deposition last month, on the instruction of his lawyer the Sheriff refused to answer questions. Ex. VIII at 344:9-17; 384:18-20. If his oath of office means anything, the Sheriff has a high burden to prove he will not violate his oath again after having presided over so many violations throughout his 4-year tenure. Since he refused to answer questions at his deposition, he should not be heard to explain now. 10. The Sheriff Utterly Disregarded His Promise, and His Duty, to Hold Himself
and His Staff Accountable. The Sheriff told his constituents to vote for him because "there wasn't a lot of accountability in the prior sheriffs office." Ex. I at 10:6-11:9. He explained at his deposition that "there was not a lot of accountability for misdeeds. When we came in we, we began to hold people accountable ...." (Emphasis added). Id. at 11:4-12:6. And, he testified that he has "corrective measures" to investigate "any misdeed by any employee" and if sustained go through the disciplinary process. Id. at 61: 13-21. But the Sheriff has failed to live up to his word. Accountability is sorely lacking here.

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 31
9870.05 fi120905

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 98 Filed 09/13/12 Page 37 of 41

Despite admitting that his jail staff repeatedly violated his claimed mail policies and that he was committed to accountability, the Sheriff testified in May that his investigation into how violations occurred has been "suspended for now" "to move forward from the incident." Ex. I at 121 :4-11. By July 2012, the Undersheriff testified the Sheriff has decided not to discipline any of his employees for violating his policies or the Constitution. See Ex. V at 96:5-10 ("There are no consequences for them.") When asked about his failure to discipline his employees, the Sheriff responded weakly, "I don't know if we've done everything we could." Ex. VIn at 388:814.
Finally, when asked if the Sheriffs department harmed anyone "by having unconstitutional practices for the past three years" he responded "I don't know" and he similarly said "I don't know" when asked if the sheriffs department should "be accountable for compensating whoever it harmed." Id. at 355:6-17. The right answer to both these questions for a public official who takes responsibility for his conduct had to be "yes." The top law enforcement official of Columbia County is uncertain whether he has any responsibility to remedy practices that violated the constitutional rights of thousands of prisoners and their correspondents over three and a half years. This does not speak well for this Sheriff s ability to meet his burden that he has irrevocably eradicated his illegal practices.
11. Undersheriff Moyer, the Person the Sheriff Still Entrusts to Serve as Jail Commander, Has Shown a Lack of Interest and Judgment in Attention to His Duties.
In July 2011, the Sheriff assigned his Undersheriff to serve as the Jail Commander in charge of enforcing the mail policies. Ex. V at 40:3-41 :22; 44:5-10. But more than six months later, the Undersheriff had never even read the Sheriffs mail policy. Id. at 50:8-10 ("Q. Had you ever read the mail policy before January of2012? A. No."). Likewise, he had never read the inmate mail provisions in the Inmate Manual. Id.at 50:11-51 :3. And, he has never processed the mail or ever observed anyone process the inmate mail. Id.at 46: 16-21. Remarkably, the Undersheriff thoughtlessly approved and arranged for the Jail to stamp censored mail, providing wholly inadequate notice that mail was censored. See Ex. 5; Exs. 4, 31, 33 (stamp on censored

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 32
9870.05 fi120905

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 98 Filed 09/13/12 Page 38 of 41

PLN mail). He admitted that he did not look into what due process required before approving the stamp and when asked why, remarked simply "1 don't know." Ex. VII at 259:9-260:15.
Similarly, as of the date of his deposition, July 8, 2012, Undersheriff Moyer had no idea what mail sent by PLN his Jail had censored. Ex. Vat 55:16-22. So, six months after PLN filed its lawsuit against his Jail, five months after he helped conduct the February mail "training," and six weeks after the Court issued a preliminary injunction, the Commander of the Columbia County Jail still had no idea what the staff under his command had illegally censored, repeatedly.
12. The Sheriff Disposed of Evidence after Knowing this Lawsuit was Filed. The Sheriff changed his mail policy in January, in response to PLN's lawsuit. He gave his draft new mail policy to Corrections Sergeants Cutright and Rigdon, and to Undersheriff Moyer for review. Ex. V at 66:17-69:24. The Undersheriff then gave the Sheriff their handwritten comments on a hard-copy draft. Id. The Sheriff then destroyed their written notes and suggestions, knowing at the time that PLN had a pending lawsuit against him. Id.; Ex. 68, at 8 (ROG 5); Ex. 1, at 142:15-143:12. It is impossible to divine the significance of their comments since the Sheriff threw them out. But whether harmless or provocative, it is one more strike against the Sheriff's credibility that he either knowingly or recklessly destroyed evidence-an act that he admits any law enforcement officer should know not to do. Id. at 143:13-145.7 (he would have disciplined any deputy who disposed of evidence). And, it is ironic since the Sheriff claimed that one aspect of holding employees "accountable" that he brought to the Department was implementing procedures to preserve evidence. Ex. 1 at 12:7-13:5. 13. The Sheriff's Behavior and Stated Intentions Fail to Demonstrate that the
Defendants Will Never Return to Their Old Ways. To avoid duplication, PLN incorporates its thorough discussion of the applicable precedent, submitted in its Reply in support of its motion for preliminary injunction. Dkt. 46, 613. In its Reply brief, PLN showed that Defendants failed to meet their "heavy" burden to show that Plaintiff's request for a permanent injunction is moot once they stopped their unconstitutional conduct. Defendants did not show mootness then, and that was before Plaintiff

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 33
9870.05 fi120905

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 98 Filed 09/13/12 Page 39 of 41

learned all the very troubling evidence set forth above. The precedent for mootness analysis is premised on voluntary cessation, which by itself
is insufficient. But here, Defendants did not stop their Postcard-Only Policy voluntarily. The Sheriff vigorously defended his policy until ordered to halt it. The Defense claims it promptly adopted a new mail policy allowing delivery of magazines and due process. But the Sheriff withheld the policy from the public (the mail policy was "under review") and from the prisoners for many months continuing to issue the November 2010 Inmate Manual and maintaining the March 2010 Cutright memo in their pods. In doing so, the Sheriff deprived them of their ability to exercise their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. As explained in Plaintiff s motion for a preliminary injunction and at oral argument, the new mail policy was a confusing mess, the training was plainly inadequate, and the staff found it difficult to implement but were admonished simply to read it again when handling every piece of mail, if needed.
For these and the reasons explained above and in Plaintiffs Reply, Dkt. 46, the Court should find Defendants have not met their burden to show they have "irrevocably eradicated" their Postcard-Only Policy, their magazine ban, and their lack of due process procedures.
14. An Injunction Will Likely Lead Other Oregon Jails to Correct their Unconstitutional Policies, Which is in the Public Interest.
The top law enforcement officials at many jails communicate on a listserve of the Oregon State Sheriffs Association. Ex. I at 96:12-97:6. This lawsuit and the policies challenged by PLN here have been a topic of conversation on this listserve. Id. at 97:3-8; Ex. 39; Ex. II. at _ 196:20-22. A permanent injunction could have a wide impact among those jails, as one listserve correspondent wrote: "If the court were to grant that injunction, jails would probably want to dump the postcard only policy until there is a decision from the 9th Circuit settling the issues. PLN obviously sees this as a statewide issue if they prevail in getting an injunction - they can pretty much make the rest of us get in line as well." Id. at 141:8-142:2; Ex. 42.
Additionally, the public will benefit from a permanent injunction educating those Oregon jails on the listserve that are still confused about what the First Amendment requires when they

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 34
9870.05 fi120905

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 98 Filed 09/13/12 Page 40 of 41
receive a publication like PLN that they don't care for. See, e.g., Ex. 40 (OSSA listserve correspondent asks: "Are any facilities allowing this publication into their facility? If not what criteria are you using to deny it?").
VI. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, PLN asks the Court to declare that PLN has organizational standing; that Defendants' Postcard-Only, No-Magazines and Due Process Policies violated the First and Fourteenth Amendment; that Defendant violated the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of prisoners and their correspondents; and that Defendants censored PLN's mail in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, for which Defendants must pay damages to Plaintiff. Additionally, PLN respectfully asks that the Court permanently enjoin Defendants from rejecting or otherwise censoring mail on the grounds that it is not in postcard form or is a magazine or periodical, and require Defendants to afford due process to prisoners and their correspondents whenever they rej ect or otherwise censor mail. DATED this 13th day of September, 2012.
MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS /s/ Katherine C. Chamberlain
KATHERlNE C. CHAMBERLAIN OSB #042580 JESSE WING,pro hac vice (206) 622-1604 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 35
9870.05 fi120905

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 98 Filed 09/13/12 Page 41 of 41
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on September 13,2012, I electronically filed the foregoing to the
Clerk of the Court using the CMlECF system which will send notification of such filing to the
following: • Marc D. Blackman marc@ransomblackman.com,pat@ransomblackman.com • Steven A. Kraemer sak@hartwagner.com,rcd@hartwagner.com • Gregory R. Roberson grr@hartwagner.com,cej@hartwagner.com • Lynn S. Walsh walsh@europa.com • Lance Weber lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org,ahull@humanrightsdefensecenter.org
MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS
lsi Katherine C. Chamberlain KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN OSB #042580 (206) 622-1604 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 36
9870.05 fi120905

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 4
Katherine C. Chamberlain, OSB #042580 katherinec@mhb.com Jesse A. Wing, pro hac vice jessew@mhb.com Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News MacDonald Hoague & Bayless 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104-1745 (206) 622-1604
Marc D. Blackman, OSB #730338 marc@ransomblackman.com Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Ransom Blackman LLP 1001 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1400 Portland, OR 97204 (503) 228-0487
Lance Weber, pro hac vice lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Human Rights Defense Center 1037 Western Ave., 2nd Floor West Brattleboro, VT 05303 (802) 257-1342

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,
Defendants.

No. 3: 12-CV-71-SI
DECLARATION OF JESSE WING IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

DECLARATION OF JESSE WING IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (CV 12-71-SI) - 1
9870.05 fi072204

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 4

I, Jesse Wing, declare as follows: I am one of the attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News. I am over the age of 18, and am competent to testify. I. Exhibit I is a true copy of excerpts from the deposition transcript of Columbia County Sheriff Jeffrey Dickerson, taken on May 10, 2012 (Volume 1). II. Exhibit II is a true copy of excerpts from the deposition transcript of Defendants' FRCP 30(b)(6) designee, Sergeant Bryan Cutright, taken on May 9,2012 (Volume 1). ill. Exhibit III is a true copy of excerpts from the deposition transcript of Defendants' FRCP 30(b)(6) designee, Sergeant Raquel Miller, taken on May 9,2012. N. Exhibit IV is a true copy of excerpts from the deposition transcript of former Columbia County Jail Commander Jim Carpenter, taken on July 5, 2012. V. Exhibit V is a true copy of excerpts from the deposition transcript of Columbia County Undersheriff Andrew Moyer, taken on July 6,2012 (Volume 1). VI. Exhibit VI is a true copy of excerpts from the deposition transcript of Jeff Mansheim, taken on July 6, 2012. VII. Exhibit VII is a true copy of excerpts from the deposition transcript of Undersheriff Andrew Moyer, taken on August 28,2012 (Volume 2). Vill. Exhibit VIII is a true copy of excerpts from the deposition transcript of Sheriff Jeffrey Dickerson, taken on August 28,2012 (Volume 2). IX. Exhibit IX is a true copy of excerpts from a partial deposition transcript of Sergeant Bryan Cutright, taken on August 28,2012 (Volume 2). X. Exhibit X is a true copy of excerpts from a partial deposition transcript of Sergeant Lee Rigdon, taken on August 28,2012. XI. Plaintiff made a good faith effort to confer with Defendants to resolve the issues presented in Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment but was unable to do so. I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States and State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

DECLARATION OF JESSE WING IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (CV 12-71-SI) - 2
9870.05 fi072204

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 4 DATED this 13th day of September, 2012, at Seattle, Washington.

DECLARATION OF JESSE WING IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (CV 12-71-SI) - 3
9870.05 fi072204

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99 Filed 09/13/12 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on September 13, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing to the
Clerk of the Court using the CMlECF system which will send notification of such filing to the
following: • Marc D. Blackman marc@ransomblackman.com,pat@ransomblackman.com • Steven A. Kraemer sak@hartwagner.com,rcd@hartwagner.com • Gregory R. Roberson grr@hartwagner.com,cej@hartwagner.com • Lynn S. Walsh walsh@europa.com • Lance Weber lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org,ahull@humanrightsdefensecenter. org
MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS
lsi Katherine C. Chamberlain KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN OSB #042580 (206) 622-1604 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

DECLARATION OF JESSE WING IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (CV 12-71-SI) - 4
9870.05 fi072204

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 37
EXHIBIT I
TO DECLARATION OF JESSE WING IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
WING DECL; Exhibit I; Page 1 of 37

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 37

Dickerson, Jeffrey

May 10, 2012

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF OREGON

3

PORTLAND DIVISION

4

5 PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project

6 of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE

7 CENTER,

No. 3:12-CV-71-SI

8

Plaintiff,

9

v.

10 COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA

11 COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF

12 DICKERSON, individually and

13 in his capacity as Columbia

14 County Sheriff,

15

Defendants.

16

17

18

19

20

DEPOSITION OF JEFFREY M. DICKERSON

21

Taken in behalf of Plaintiff

22

May 10, 2012

23

24

25

Page 1
.

Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit I; Page 2 of 37

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 37

Dickerson, Jeffrey

May 10, 2012

Page 6

Page 8

1 A. 'Okay.
2 Q. If you go ahead and answer a question, I will

1 Q. Okay. There's not a Columbia County document

2

that reflects those duties, is there?

3

assume you understood it. Is that fair?

3 A. There might be something that's been

4 A. Yes.

4

5 Q. Okay. How long have you served as the sheriff 5

communicated, say, to, through the budgetary process primarily, I think, that encapsulates a

6

of Columbia County?

6

lot of those duties. And then various

7 A. Since January of 2009.
8 Q. You are elected; is that correct?

7

publications that might be out there. Certainly

8

something that might be on the internet might

9 A. That's correct.

9

have that.

10 Q. When you ran for sheriff last time, did you have 10 Q. Okay. You are running again?

11

any opponents?

11 A. I am.

12 A. Yes.
13 Q. How many?

12 Q. Why do you want to be sheriff?
13 A. I believe I'm the most qualified person in our

14 A. Two.
15 Q. Are any of them running again?

14

county to run the sheriff's office.

15 Q. Do you enjoy your job?

16 A. No.
17 Q. You are up for re-election; is that right?

16 A. It's a double-edged sword. Sure. There's parts

17

I truly enjoy and then there's parts that are

18 A. Yes.

18

difficult and excruciating sometimes.

19 Q. And there's a primary coming up?

19 Q. What are the parts that you enjoy?

20 A. The primary is coming up, but I'm not in the

20 A. The parts that I enjoy are to be part of the

21

primary.

22 Q. Why is that?

21

community, to be able to go before our citizens

22

and represent them. Only 36 people in Oregon

23 A. There's only one opponent.

23

have that opportunity to actually do something

24 Q. Okay. So your opponent is not in the primary 24

in a profession that they love and be elected to

25

either?

25

it when it comes to law enforcement. Most, most

Page 7

Page 9

1 A. That's correct.
2 Q. There's an election in the fall?

1

chiefs, all chiefs of police are not elected.

2

They're selected by an appointing process. But

3 A. In the fall. Correct.

3

4 Q. Okay. Could you tell me when you're asked to 4

in this case you answer directly to the people. And to me that's a huge honor, privilege to be

5

describe what your duties as sheriff are, what

5

able to do that in a profession that I love.

6

do you say?

6

I enjoy solving problems. I look at myself

7 A. I say I'm the chief conservator of the peace of

7

as a problem solver. How good I am, I don't

8

Columbia County. In doing so, I have various

8

know. But I enjoy the process. And those parts

9

responsibilities, first and foremost is to

10

arrest and to commit to prison all those who

9

of it are tremendously gratifying.

10 Q. You used the word "excruciating" to talk about

11

break the peace or commit offenses in Columbia 11

some aspects of your job. What is excruciating

12

County; secondly is to serve as a ministerial

12

about being sheriff of Columbia County?

13

officer of the courts. That's actually my

13 A. It's, there's a tremendous burden that comes

14

Constitutional duty, according to the Oregon

14

with an elected office that no one really

15

Constitution. I manage the warrants that, that 15

understands until you have it. Probably the

16

come before my office. I mean, I manage,

16

most difficult part of what the job entails is

17

meaning I oversee the people who cause that to 17

to do things, to be given a mission, a varied

18

happen, search and rescue and we do animal

18

and wide mission with very few resources. And

19

control and we run the Columbia County Jail.

19

20 Q. Okay. Those duties that you've just described, 20

that is the most difficult thing. Because there's a lot of expectation. And of course

21

some of them are found, as you pOinted out in 21

when you're running for office, you, you think

22

the Oregon Constitution. Are any, are those

22

that you have a great way of, and you put it out

23

duties encapsulated in some document as you

23

there that you're going to do this job and these

24

understand it?

24

are the results that you expect to happen. And

25 A. Oregon law. Oregon Revised Statute.

25

in the process your budget gets cut by

3 (Pages 6 to 9) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit I; Page 3 of 37

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 4 of 37

Dickerson, Jeffrey

May 10, 2012

Page 10

Page 12

1

40 percent in four years and then you start to

1 going forward we would hold ourselves, including

2

wonder, you know, is it worth it? Because the

2 the sheriff, accountable for results. And so

3

expectation is still there, but the resources to

3 we, that's what we began to do as far as the

4

get it done are shrinking. And that's probably

4 accountability factor was probably the biggest,

5

the most difficult part of the job.

5 biggest thing that has changed the way the

6 Q. What is the summary of what you told the

6 sheriffs office does business.

7

electorate in 2008 when you asked them to elect 7 Q. Can you give me some examples when you say

8

you as to why you should be elected? You know, 8

holding the sheriffs office accountable, you

9

your short version of your stump speech.

9 mentioned misdeeds. What did you mean by using

10 A. I believe that the sheriffs office needed

10 the word "misdeeds"?

11

improvement in professionalism and service to 11

MR. KRAEMER: And I want to make it clear I

12 the community and to be more of a expression of 12 am going to object and instruct him not to

13 the people of the county. And the only way to 13 answer any employment-related matters. And I'm

14 do that is through relationships and building

14 not saying there will be, I have no idea, but

15 relationships and again, through the

15 that would relate to discipline or anything like

16 problem-solving process, looking at the

16 that. Again, I'm not saying there. I'm just

17 resources you have and making sure that you're 17 making that objection.

18 as efficient and effective as you possibly can

18

MR. WING: Well, are you objecting to him

19

be. And we said that we could put people out

19

describing things in general or are you

20

longer and make them more effective in their

20 objecting to him identifying employees?

21

approach to crime solving in the community and 21

MR. KRAEMER: Identifying employees.

22

that the processes that we were going to bring 22

MR. WING: Okay.

23

forward would make the sheriff's office a more 23

THE WITNESS: I'll start in a nonemployee

24

efficient use of public funds. That was the

24 example. When, just before I took office, the

25

basic stump speech.

25 sheriffs office was burglarized. And it

Page 11

1 Q. Okay. And the professionalism, what did you

1

2

mean by that?

2

3 A. Well--

3

4 Q. You need more professionalism, what did you

4

5 mean?

5

6 A. In general we looked at, I mean, I came from the 6

7

state police and there were a lot of, in our

7

8 contacts with deputies there wasn't a lot of

8

9

accountability in the prior sheriffs office.

9

10 And the left hand didn't know what the right

10

11 hand was doing. When I say that, what I mean is 11

12 there wasn't a lot of, there wasn't a cohesive

12

13 mission of the sheriffs office no matter what

13

14 division you were working in. In fact, I don't

14

15 even know if they had divisions. They didn't

15

16 have a concept of we do this and we do this and 16

17 we do this. It was more of a, just a

17

18 conglomeration of individuals that there was not 18

19 a lot of accountability for misdeeds. When we

19

20 came in we, we began to hold people accountable 20

21 to what we said, what we believed was the vision 21

22 that I was elected to and that was, that we have 22

23 a unified mission together, all of us, to

23

24 conserve the peace in Columbia County, no matter 24

25 what division you were in. And with our mission 25

Page 13
shouldn't be before I took office, just before the election in May of 2008, the sheriffs office was burglarized and evidence was stolen. And it was a result of shoddy evidentiary practices.
We got in there and immediately established new protocols for handling evidence. We built a more secure facility for long-term evidence, holding, the sheriffs office had a state-of-the-art evidence room, but it overflowed because they didn't have a good process for getting rid of old evidence. And so old evidence, new evidence had all ended up just gathering like in a, not as a river, as a pond, if you will, and just continued to build up to the place where the overflow became areas where evidence could more easily be burglarized, for example.
And so we -- It was twofold. We turned evidence into the procedure that it was supposed to be, that it is a stream, comes in, it goes out. We keep it as long as it's needed and then it goes.
Secondly, there's some evidence we do have to keep for longer. And so we built a facility

4 (Pages 10 to 13) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit I; Page 4 of 37

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 5 of 37

Dickerson, Jeffrey

May 10, 2012

Page 14

Page 16 .••

1 that would be far more secure than the semi

1 Q. And --

2 trailer in the back lot. And so those, those

2 A. -- in regard to employee performance review.

3

kinds of processes we began to institute.

3 Q. Okay. The person who reports directly to you is

4

There were issues with employees in regard 4 Andrew Moyer; is that correct?

5

to in general just taking advantage of being

5 A. That's one person who reports directly to me. I

6

there and being in the union and not producing. 6 Q. Who else reports directly to you?

7 And we raised the standard, raised the bar, so

7 A. Currently the under, the sergeants in the

8

to speak, and said you have to perform. And if 8

enforcement division report directly to me as

9 you're not performing, then we have to find out 9 well as the animal control officer reports

10 what, why is it that you're not performing,

10 directly to me. We also have a administrative

11 corrective measures if we can institute those.

11 assistant who reports directly to me.

12 And when, we instituted corrective measures,

12 Q. As you use the title administrative assistant,

13 there were times where the corrective measures 13 is that like a secretary or is that somebody

14 did not take effect or the conduct was so

14 with more substantive responsibilities?

15 egregious that they were put on a path toward 15 A. More substantive.

16 termination. We have never terminated anybody 16 Q. can you give me a general sense of what those

17 because they, people who have left resigned or 17 duties are?

18 retired prior to that. And some of it, and some 18 A. She manages the financial liaison between the

19 of it wasn't even, some of it was physical

19 county and the sheriff's office, both the jail

20 conditions as well, unable to perform the duty. 20 and enforcement and civil process.

21 And so they would, they would need to, they

21 Q. Is she kind of like a comptroller?

22 decided it was better just to move on than to go 22 A. Kind of like that, sure. Timecards, purchase

23

through that whole process of fitness for duty

23

orders, in addition to takes my phone calls,

24 type processes that prior to the sheriff's,

24 takes the undersheriff's phone calls.

25

prior to me coming to the sheriff's office did

25 Q. Okay. As compared to other sheriff's offices

Page 15

Page 17

1

not exist, these protocols. People just were

1 that you are familiar with, would you say that

2 there and it was almost a right of being there.

2 yours is smaller, larger, somewhere in the

3 They have been there. And that process

3 middle?

4

continues.

4 A. I think we're probably somewhere in the middle

5 Q. Okay. Thank you. How are deputies evaluated 5 when it comes to the state of Oregon.

6

for their performance? Is there a regular

6 Q. Okay. So a medium-sized sheriff's office?

7

period of time that they're evaluated? Is there

7 A. Yes. I think so.

8

written documentation?

8

(Exhibit 52 marked for identification.)

9 A. Yes. It's approximately one year, every year,

9 Q. BY MR. WING: Sheriff, I've handed you what's

10 except for probationary employees receive one 10 been marked as Exhibit 52. Do you recognize

11

regularly from their FTO, field training

11 that document?

12 officer. And then when it comes to the point

12 A. I do.

13 where they're ready to go from probationary

13 Q. What is it?

14 employee to regular employee, there's a formal 14 A. It is our first ever annual report.

15

evaluation, performance review that takes place. 15 Q. Okay. So you anticipate submitting one for

16 Q. And then do they get annual evaluations after 16 2012?

17 that?

17 A. I do.

18 A. Yes.

18 Q. Okay. Who wrote it?

19 Q. And who does the annual evaluations?

19 A. Primarily me.

20 A. Supervisor.

20 Q. How do you go about writing something? Do you

21 Q. And does the term "supervisor" have a specific 21

sit down and type it up yourself? Do you

22

meaning in the sheriff's department?

22 dictate it? Do you write it longhand?

23 A. Just means you're the next one up line --

23 A. I write and design at the same time.

24 Q. Okay.

24 Q. On the computer?

25 A. -- for the most part --

25 A. Yes.

5 (Pages 14 to 17) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit I; Page 5 of 37

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 6 of 37

Dickerson, Jeffrey

May 10, 2012

Page 18

Page 20

1 Q.. Okay. So where there are pictures in here, is

1 Q. Okay. So if we look at this chart, the chart

2

that the kind of thing that you dropped in

2

suggests that everybody reports up to the

3 yourself or did you ask --

3

undersheriff but, as you've just testified a few

4 A. I am responsible for every photograph in this,

4

minutes ago, the sergeants in the enforcement

5

I'm pretty sure, as far as dropping it in.

5 division report directly to you?

6 Q. Okay. What do you use? What sort of software 6 A. That's correct.

7

product do you use to put together the annual

7 Q. Okay. So would you say that the enforcement

8

report?

8

division sheriffs still have maybe a dotted line

9 A. This was just done with Microsoft Word.

9

reporting to the undersheriff? That is, they

10 Q. Okay. So on the, this document has front and 10 take direction when he tells them what to do --

11

back pages, that is, there is content on the

11 A. Absolutely.

12 front and back of each page; right?

12 Q. -- but they report directly to you?

13 A. Except for the final page, correct.

13 A. Absolutely. As far as review, employee review.

14 Q. And the first two pages -- Sorry. They do have 14 When we did the, in performance review for the

15 numbers. Page 3 there is a section entitled

15 sergeants, that was done by me. I did consult

16 Sheriff Dickerson biography.

16 with the undersheriff in the process.

17 A. Yes.

17 Q. And when you're referring to those sergeants,

18 Q. You wrote that?

18 you mean the sergeants in the enforcement

19 A. I did.

19 division?

20 Q. SO would you say it's accurate?

20 A. Yes.

21 A. Yes.

21 Q. All of the jail functions are handled by the

22 Q. Okay. And you also wrote the biography of

22 corrections division; is that true?

23

undersheriff Andy Moyer; is that right?

23 A. Yes.

24 A. No. He wrote that.

24 Q. Okay. So anybody who works in the corrections

25 Q. SO far as you understand; is it accurate?

25 division reports through the undersheriff to

Page 19

Page 21

1 A. Yes.

1 you?

2 Q. Okay. The page 4 contains an organizational

2 A. Yes. I have an open-door policy. Anyone can

3

chart. Is that something you prepared?

3 come in. But yes, that's the chain of command.

4 A. Yes.

4 Q. And so the, when it's time for Sheriff

5 Q. And do you think that's accurate as of today?

5 Cutright's (sic) performance evaluation, for

6 A. Relatively.

6 example, the undersheriff Andy Moyer does that

7 Q. What changes, if any, would you say would more 7 evaluation?

8

accurately capture the current organizational

8 A. That's correct.

9

chart?

9 Q. Okay.

10 A. Well, the support services division is less

10 A. But he'll consult with me in the process.

11

defined and, because the administrative

11 Q. Okay. And is that standard that those who are

12 assistant used to be the manager of the support 12 writing performance evaluations for folks who

13 services division, she took a reduction in pay

13 are two steps down from you will consult with

14 and was removed from the management of all of 14 you when they're writing them?

15 the employees and volunteer services that were 15 A. You know, it's, it's, I don't think it's

16 in there. The sergeants basically divvy up a

16 necessarily a standard practice other than we,

17 lot of the processes that are in here and help

17 we conSUlt, when we're doing our employee

18 oversee that as well as the undersheriff and I

18 performance reviews, we always consult with

19 both, these are all things that were actually,

19 others. We don't want it to be just a single

20

we've kind of gone back to the way the sheriff'S 20 viewpoint. But we try to reach out to people,

21

office was as far as organizationally prior to

21 when, who are affected or have an opportunity to

22

us having, prior to this being, being, prior to

22 have some comment on a person's performance. We

23

this chart being generated. However, it still

23 have, like, for example, we have a person who is

24

reflects all of the services and so we've kept

24 employed by the, I mean, directed by the

25

the chart as it is.

25 county's building services and he's our building

6 (Pages 18 to 21) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit I; Page 6 of 37

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 7 of 37

Dickerson, Jeffrey

May 10, 2012

Page 46

Page 48

1 understood your line of question, who were the

1 Q. BY MR. WING: Who wrote these post orders?

2

sergeants, who are the deputies? But we do have 2 A. I don't know.

3

part-time people who help in the control room at

3 Q. The, you seem relatively computer savvy. Would

4

this point.

4

you describe yourself that way?

5 Q. Okay. I'm trying to be exhaustive about this.

5 A. Relatively. Okay. Yes.

6 A. I understand.

6 Q. Okay. The bottom right-hand side of this first

7 Q. Okay. So the two part-time technicians, do they 7

page of Exhibit 55 (sic), above the number it

8

work certain days or only when called?

8

has what looks like an 5 drive colon?

9 A. When called.

9 A. Yes.

I

10 Q. Okay. Are there any other employees who work in 10 Q. Do you re~ognize that as a path name on a

11

the corrections division?

11

computer?

12 A. I can't think of any others.

12 A. I do.

13 Q. If you think of any, will you please volunteer

13 Q. And you'll see in the path name it says "inmate

14 them?

14

manual." Do you see that?

15 A. Absolutely.

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Thank you. So on a given shift, if you have

16 Q. What does that suggest to you?

17 four persons who are assigned to that shift, one 17 A. I don't know.

18 would be a roving deputy. One would always have 18 Q. Is there such a thing called an inmate manual in

19 to be in control; is that right?

19

the sheriff's department?

20 A. Yes.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. One would be in booking?

21 Q. What is the purpose of the inmate manual?

22 A. Yes.

22 A. It's a guide for inmates in understanding the

23 Q. And if you had four, then sergeant could be a

23

processes in the jail that affect them.

24 supervisory post but also would have to do some 24 Q. And is it a document that is given to the

25

of these other responsibilities?

25

prisoners?

Page 47

Page 49

1 A. No. The roving deputy usually has two deputies 1 A. Yes.

2

assigned to it.

2 Q. When in the course of their incarceration?

3 Q. Okay.

3 A. I believe it's, I believe it is when they're

4 A. And purely a management of people issue.

4

housed officially.

5 Q. SO two roving deputies; one control, one

5 Q. Near the beginning of their --

6

boo~ng?

6 A. Yes.

7 A. Yes.

7 Q. -- incarceration?

8 Q. Okay. And there's always going to be a sergeant 8 A. Yes.

9

on every shift?

9 Q. And I understand we may not be using the same

10 A. Yes. Well, no. I shouldn't say that. That's

10

term. Some of them are pretrial detainees and

11

the goal, but it doesn't always happen.

11

some of them are serving time; correct?

12 Q. How often would you say that happens?

12 A. Correct.

13 A. I mean, on occasion if the sergeant is sick or

13 Q. But whether they're serving time or pretrial

14

goes on vacation and we don't have a replacement 14

detainee, near the beginning of their housing in

15

sergeant, then we have a deputy who assumes the 15

your jail they would receive a copy of the

16

officer-in-charge role.

16

inmate manual?

17 Q. Okay. The job description, excuse me, the jail 17 A. Yes.

18

post orders that is Exhibit 56, page 1, does it

18 Q. Okay. Do you see that the top of each of the

19

appear to be an accurate description of the job

19

three pages that are Exhibit 56 there's a

20

duties either they routinely perform or

20

different designation of the shift?

21

occasionally perform?

21 A. Yes.

22 A. I can only assume on that. I do not review the 22 Q. Page 1 says "days." Page 2 says "swing."

23

post orders.

23

Page 3 says "grave."

24

MR. KRAEMER: Don't speculate.

24 A. Yes.

25

THE WITNESS: I don't know.

25 Q. Are those the three names of the shifts?

13 (Pages 46 to 49) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit I; Page 7 of 37

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 8 of 37

Dickerson, Jeffrey

May 10, 2012

Page 58

Page 60

1

Did you write that?

1 Q. Okay. So it's possible you did not read it; is

2 A. Yes.

2

that correct?

3 Q. Do you think that's accurate?

3 A. Very possible.

4 A. Yes.

4 Q. Sheriff, do you have a philosophy for managing

5 Q. SO the largest source of revenue to run the

5

people, for managing your staff?

6

sheriff's department is payment by the federal

6 A. Yes.

7

government; is that right?

7 Q. What is that philosophy?

8 A. Yes.

8 A. The basic philosophy is that I believe people

9 Q. And that's more than a third of the revenue for

9

have the inherent capacity to solve problems on

10

your office; is that right?

10

their own and that they need, they need to be

11 A. That's correct.

11

given adequate flexibility from those who

12 Q. Okay. This increased prison population requires

12

oversee them to be able to solve problems before

13

that you hire more people; is that right?

13

having to come directly to their manager and

14 A. The more people we have, the more people we need 14

say, how do I do this? How do I do that?

15

to manage them.

15

When it comes to the sheriffs office in the

16 Q. And just because you used the word "people"

16

wide variety of tasks that are involved, it's

17

twice, I want to clarify.

17

absolutely necessary to have that view that you

18 A. Okay. More people we have in custody, the more

18

empower people to be the problem solvers at the

19

people in staff we need to manage those people

19

point where the delivery of the service takes

20

in custody.

20

place so that you have more people getting more

21 Q. Okay. And is it also true that the more people

21

done. And that is something that continues to

22

in custody you have, the more mail you have?

22

be a work in progress at the sheriffs office,

23 A. I don't know.

23

but that's something that I firmly believe in.

24 Q. Do you think there's a correlation or would that

24 Q. Would you agree that sheriffs deputies and

25

be guessing on your part?

25

sergeants wield a certain measure of power?

Page 59

Page 61

1 A. It would be guessing.

1 A. They have authority, yes.

2 Q. Do you know what the policies are of the Federal 2 Q. And that power, as you say, could be used to

3

Bureau of Prisons regarding mail?

3

problem solve and come up with reasonable

4 A. I do not know.

4

solutions to the problems they face; is that

5 Q. SO do you know whether federal prisoners who are 5

right?

6

detained in your jail have the same or different

7

rights regarding their mail if they're in

6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Okay. Would you agree that it's also possible

8

federal prison or federal detention center as

8

that they could abuse that power?

9

compared with your jail?

10 A. I don't know for sure the answer to that.

9 A. Certainly.
10 Q. How do you manage that risk that they, some of

11 Q. You said you don't know for sure. Do you have

11

your people who report to you might abuse their

12

an opinion?

12

power?

13 A. I assume they're the same.

13 A. We have a corrective measures procedure set up

14 Q. In the course of this lawsuit did you receive a

14

to, first of all, investigate any accusation of

15

copy of the plaintiffs motion for preliminary

15

either an abuse of power or any misdeed by any

16

injunction?

16

employee. And it goes from the point of

17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Did you read it?

17

investigation to either confirmation or

18

clearance of the accusation. If we sustain

19 A. Yes.

19

allegations of wrongdoing, we then go through

20 Q. And there were also some documents attached to 20

the disciplinary process. And it's designed to

21

declarations that were filed by our office. Do

21

be corrective in nature.

22

you remember seeing a copy of the Federal Bureau 22 Q. Corrective as opposed to punitive. Okay. Is

23

of Prisons policy regarding mail submitted with

23

there somebody who's in charge of such

24

our motion for preliminary injunction?

24

investigations?

25 A. I don't recall seeing that.

25 A. It starts with the immediate supervisor. It's

16 (Pages 58 to 61)
Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit I; Page 8 of 37

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 9 of 37

Dickerson, Jeffrey

May 10, 2012

Page 62

Page 64

1

monitored by the management team, which includes 1 Q. Okay. Is that like a paying job of sorts?

2

our human resources director for the county.

2 A. No.

3 Q. Who else is on the management team?

3 Q. And do the inmates volunteer for this?

4 A. The undersheriff. Right now it's just the

4 A. Yes.

5

undersheriff and I and then the human resources

5 Q. And they are supervised outside?

6

director.

6 A. No.

7 Q. Okay. Who is the HR director?

7 Q. Okay. So they'll say, I'm happy to go out and

8 A. Jean Ripa.

8

do maintenance. And the deputy will say, go

9 Q. R I PA?

9

wash the car or pull weeds or something like

10 A. Yes.

10

that?

11 Q. One of your tasks is to keep order and security

11 A. Yes.

12 in the jail; is that right?

12 Q. And are they given utensils or tools to do these

13 A. Absolutely.

13

things?

14 Q. And toward that end, duty is to keep contraband 14 A. Yes.

15 out of the jail; is that right?

15 Q. And then when they come back in, what, if

16 A. Yes.

16 anything, is done to see if there's contraband?

17 Q. What are the ways that contraband gets into the 17 A. Patted down and searched.

18 jail?

18 Q. Okay. Strip searched or just --

19 A. There are many ways.

19 A. No. They're not strip searched.

20 Q. And what ways are you aware of?

20 Q. Are you aware of any circumstances in which an

21 A. Well, the inmates can bring it in themselves

21

outside worker, as you've used the term, has

22

either, well, generally on their person.

22

been found to be bringing in contraband?

23

Outside workers can do the same, on their

23 A. Yes.

24

person. If there's -- They can do it through

24 Q. How many times?

25 the mail.

25 A. I'm aware of one time.

1 Q. Through the what?

Page 63
1 Q. How long ago was that?

Page 65

2 A. Mail, postage, posted mail.

2 A. I don't -- Couple of years ago maybe. I don't

3 Q. Any other ways?

3 recall exact time.

4 A. I'm not, nothing else comes to mind right at

4 Q. What was the nature of the contraband?

5 this moment.

5 A. I think it was chewing tobacco.

6 Q. I want to recap. So you talked about inmates

6 Q. And did you or the jail investigate how this

7 bringing in contraband when they arrive at the

7

outside worker got ahold of tobacco?

8 jail?

8 A. The jail attempted to. I don't recall what the

9 A. They can bring it in when they arrive. Yes.

9

results were.

10 Q. SO that's when they're first arrested?

10 Q. Then you also mentioned that inmates might bring

11 A. Yes.

11 in contraband when they're first arrested;

12 Q. Is there another time when they can bring it in?

12 right?

13 A. Yes. If they're outside workers.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And by that you mean somebody who's not employed 14 Q. And it's very possible that they're not planning

15 by the county or somebody who's employed by the 15 on being arrested; right?

16 county, but not by the sheriffs office?

16 A. Correct.

17 A. No. They're not employed at all. An outside

17 Q. SO they have on their body whatever they have on

18 worker is an inmate who goes out into the yard

18 their body; right?

19 to work and then comes back into the jail at

19 A. Yes.

20 night.

20 Q. They're not necessarily trying to introduce it

21 Q. Okay. Thank you. What do they do out in the

21

into the jail?

22 yard?

22 A. I don't know. Not necessarily.

23 A. Maintenance of either the yard or washing

23 Q. Okay. So it's possible that what they have on

24 vehicles or whatever they're assigned to do by

24 their body be considered contraband in the jail

25 the deputy who's managing them.

25 but it's not contraband in the outside world;

17 (Pages 62 to 65) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit I; Page 9 of 37

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 10 of 37

Dickerson, Jeffrey

May 10, 2012

Page 66

Page 68

1 right? In other words, they might have a

1 A. That's correct.

2

pocketknife on them, which is not allowed in the 2 Q. Have there ever been allegations that you are

3 jail, but in the outside jail it's a perfectly

3 aware of that an employee of the sheriff's

4

fine thing to have on your body; is that right?

4

department has brought contraband into the jail?

5 A. That's a true statement.

5 A. I'm not aware of any.

6 Q. Okay. And then, so the options you've described 6 Q. If there were such allegations, would you expect

7 for how the contraband can get in the jail is,

7 to be informed of it?

8

one, an inmate could bring it in when he or she 8 A. Yes.

9

is arrested. Two, when an inmate goes out to do 9 Q. And if outside workers were accused of bringing

10 work in the yard around the jail, they're called 10 in contraband, is that something that you would

11 outside workers, they could bring it in, and the 11 be informed of?

12 third, they could get it through the mail?

12 A. Sometimes.

13 A. Yes.

13 Q. Are there people who are brought to the jail

14 Q. You cannot, as you sit here, think of any other 14 ever for maintenance who are not employees of

15 way --

15 the sheriff's department?

16 A. Oh, there are other ways.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. What are other ways?

17 Q. And are those all people employed by Columbia

18 A. One of our own staff can bring it.

18 County?

19 Q. Has that ever happened?

19 A. No.

20 A. Not that I'm aware of.

20 Q. And do they go through some sort of check?

21 Q. Is there some sort of protocol to make sure that 21 A. They're escorted.

22 doesn't happen?

22 Q. Okay. Escort's different than having all their

23 A. Just trust.

23

belongings checked; right?

24 Q. SO there's no protocol in place to check staff

24 A. That's correct.

25

members when they come in; is that true?

25 Q. SO their belongings are not checked?

Page 67

Page 69

1 A. Well, there is when, it's, the only protocol is

1 A. They -- No. A lot of times when they're coming

2 staff, every time they enter the jail, is

2 in, they're bringing in tools and things like

3 supposed to be asked by control through the

3 that and we know they're coming. And they bring

4

intercom, do you have any weapons or are you all 4

in a bag of tools. We don't go through their

5 clear? Is there anything that you're carrying?

5 tools.

6 So that that's the only protocol we have.

6 Q. And are there, let's take a minute and can you

7 Q. We experienced that when we went in to inspect 7

describe to me what kind of maintenance is done

8 the jail; right?

8

in the jail by people who are not employed by

9 A. Yes.

9 the sheriff's department?

10 Q. And so the person in the control room is talking 10 A. Electricians, plumbers, locksmiths, computer

11 through an intercom speaker to the person --

11 technicians. Those are generally...

12 A. Yes.

12 Q. Is your office negotiating a new telecom system

13 Q. -- who wants to enter the jail?

13 for the jail?

14 A. Yes.

14 A. We went out for proposals on a new inmate

15 Q. And they simply ask a question over the

15 telephone system.

16 intercom, are you armed or do you have a weapon? 16 Q. And where does that stand right now?

17 A. Yes.

17 A. I believe they have identified the vendor and

18 Q. And there are other kinds of contraband besides 18 are in negotiations with the vendor.

19 weapons; right?

19 Q. What was your understanding of the bid or the

20 A. Yes.

20 amount that the sheriff's office was going to

21 Q. And is it fair to say then when an employee of

21

spend on that?

22 the jail or of the sheriff's office enters the

22 A. I don't know.

23 jail itself, no one is physically checking to

23 Q. It's millions of dollars; right?

24 see whether they have any kind of contraband; is 24 A. I doubt that.

25 that true?

25 Q. Hundreds of thousands of dollars?

18 (Pages 66 to 69) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit I; Page 10 of 37

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 11 of 37

Dickerson, Jeffrey

May 10, 2012

Page 74

Page 76

1 A. ·Well, office help temp is not quite --

1

How would you describe their

2 Q. What you think of Jim Carpenter?

2

responsibilities? When the volunteers serve at

3 A. Yeah.

3 the front desk, what are their tasks?

4 Q. You've described what you think about him,

4 A. They will answer phones. They will greet people

5 right, that he does --

5

as they approach the front desk.

6 A. Facilities.

6 Q. And is their job to answer questions on the

7 Q. Facilities.

7

phone?

8 A. Yeah.

8 A. Sometimes.

9 Q. Okay. Any of the other titles you think do not

9 Q. Would they be tasked with, for example,

10 accurately capture what they do for you?

10 answering questions about if somebody wants to

11 A. These are accurate.

11

send in mail to the jail, what the mail policy

12 Q. Okay. Thank you. And a couple of followup

12 is?

13

questions. We were discussing before, because

13 A. No.

14 the U.S. Marshal detainees and the ICE detainees 14 Q. If they were to receive a call asking for that

15 are housed in your jail, they're subject to your

15 type of information, what are the volunteers at

16 policies; right?

16 the front desk expected to do?

17 A. Yes.

17 A. Forward that to the jail.

18 Q. Okay. And they would get a copy of the same

18 Q. And who would answer at the jail?

19 inmate manual that the rest of your detainees or 19 A. Generally booking.

20 prisoners receive?

20 Q. Okay. And during the course of your

I.

21 A. Yes.

21

investigating in response to PLN filing a

22 Q. Okay. Also we were talking about how contraband 22

lawsuit, did you find out that any of the

23 gets in. And I wonder if you've ever done an

23 volunteers at the front desk had been in any way

24 assessment or the sheriff'S department has ever 24 managing the mail?

25 done an assessment of how contraband gets in the 25 A. No.

Page 75

Page 77

1 jail, an audit?

1 Q. Do the volunteers at the front desk sort the

2 A. I have not.

2

mail?

3 Q. Have your officers found contraband themselves? 3 A. I don't know.

4 A. I don't know.

4 Q. Do you know who sorts the mail?

5 Q. Have you ever tried to find out?

5 A. No.

6 A. No.

6 Q. Okay. Let's go back to Exhibit 51, the

7 Q. Has anyone told you that it's a problem?

7

January 2nd, 2008, mail policy. You have that

8 A. No.

8

in front of you; is that right?

9 Q. And to your knowledge, has anyone ever

9 A. Yes, I do.

10

investigated how contraband gets into the jail? 10 Q. Did you say that the sheriff's association had

11 A. Not to my knowledge.

11

done an audit of your mail policy?

12 Q. I have heard the term "front desk employees." 12 A. No, I did not.

13

Is that a phrase that you use or your staff use? 13 Q. Okay. Has anyone done an audit of your mail

14 A. Yes.

14 policy, to your knowledge?

15 Q. And who does that refer to?

15 A. I don't, I don't, I don't know.

16 A. Whoever is operating the front desk.

16 Q. Did I understand you to say that you or someone

17 Q. And are there people who are not deputies or 17 from your staff is a member of the command

18 sergeants who work at the front desk?

18 council of the Oregon Sheriffs' Association?

19 A. Yes.

19 A. I'm sorry.

20 Q. Are they what you would call civilian employees? 20 Q. Did I understand you correctly to say that you

21 A. Or volunteers.

21

or somebody on your staff is a member of the

22 Q. Volunteers. How often do you have volunteers 22

command council of the Oregon Sheriffs'

23

working there?

23 Association?

24 A. Regularly.

24 A. No. That's not correct.

25 Q. And do those volunteers -- Strike that.

25 Q. Is there such a thing called a command council?

20 (Pages 74 to 77) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit I; Page 11 of 37

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 12 of 37

Dickerson, Jeffrey

May 10, 2012

Page 78

Page 80

1 A. There are different command councils for the

1 A. We discuss certain command council ideas that

2 jail, for enforcement, for civil, even for

2

come across or he might share an e-mail with me.

3

parole and probation. And, so ...

3 Q. Okay. Have you ever attended a function of the

4 Q. And when you say there are different command

4

Oregon Sheriffs' Association?

5

councils, do you mean that are part of the

5 A. Yes.

6

Oregon Sheriffs' Association?

6 Q. What functions?

7 A. Yes.

7 A. Conferences.

8 Q. Okay. And what is the, what is a command

8 Q. How many?

9

council for that association?

9 A. I don't know for sure.

10 A. It is a group appointed by sheriffs to make

10 Q. Can you estimate?

11

recommendations in regard to, to sheriffs in

11 A. Half a dozen maybe.

12 regard to that, whatever discipline we're

12 Q. All of them since you've been sheriff of

13 talking about.

13 Columbia County?

14 Q. And when you say make recommendations, do you 14 A. No. I went to one prior.

15 mean generally?

15 Q. And the rest of them have been since?

16 A. For policies, procedures, ideas for changes and

16 A. Yes.

17 all kinds of different things.

17 Q. Okay. How often do they have these conferences?

18 Q. SO it's not that they'd make a recommendation to 18 A. Quarterly.

19 your jail. They would make general proposals

19 Q. Did you attend any conference of the Oregon

20

for what a jail should or could do?

20 Sheriffs' Association in which mail of prisoners

21 A. That's correct.

21

was discussed?

22 Q. And I might have missed this when you were

22 A. Yes.

23

describing different types of command councils.

23 Q. Which one?

24 Is there one for corrections?

24 A. I believe it was December 2009.

25 A. Yes. There is.

25 Q. And you had been in office for just under a year

Page 79

Page 81

1 Q. Okay. And do you know who sits on that command 1 at that pOint?

2 council?

2 A. Yes.

3 A. I do not.

3 Q. What do you recall the topic being regarding

4 Q. Do you know how many individuals serve on a

4 prisoner mail?

5 command council?

5 A. Postcards.

6 A. No.

6 Q. And what do you remember hearing about postcards

7 Q. Have any idea? Is it five? 15?

7 at that conference?

8 A. I don't think it's 15, but I don't know.

8 A. We were hearing -- It was just a discussion at

9 Q. Okay. Have you ever served on a command council 9 that point as far as the possibility of adopting

10 for the Oregon Sheriffs' Association?

10 a statewide or as many sheriffs around the state

11 A. No.

11 that cared to, a postcard for personal inmate

12 Q. Has anybody on your staff done so?

12 mail policy.

13 A. Yes.

13 Q. Could we call that a postcard-only policy? Is

14 Q. Who?

14 that how you've heard it termed?

15 A. Undersheriff Moyer.

15 A. I don't recall.

16 Q. Which command council?

16 Q. I mean, if we discuss it in that term today--

17 A. Enforcement command council.

17 A. If you want to, I'll understand what you're

18 Q. And for what period of time?

18 talking about.

19 A. Two years.

19 Q. -- so that we don't have to keep using a long

20 Q. Do you recall when those two years were?

20 description of it.

21 A. This would have been the one preceding.

21 A. Yeah. It's fine. I'll understand.

22 Q. SO he currently is on the command council?

22 Q. And do you have some idea of how many people

23 A. Yes.

23 were attending this conference who were having

24 Q. Does he discuss with you the things that he is

24 this discussion?

25 learning from serving on the command council?

25 A. I don't know how many sheriffs were there.

21 (Pages 78 to 81) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit I; Page 12 of 37

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 13 of 37

Dickerson, Jeffrey

May 10, 2012

Page 82

Page 84

1 Q. .Was it all in one big room?

1 Q. Okay. When you say gave reference from the

2 A. Yes.

2

OSSA, do you mean --

3 Q. Okay. And do you think there were more than 50 3 A. I referred the jail commander -- I can't recall

4

people there?

4

if he was there or not. So he may have already

5 A. I don't know. I don't think so.

5

known the information anyway. But he was

6 Q. Somewhere between 25 and 50?

6

referred to the Washington County Sheriff's

7 A. That could be that number.

7

Office via the OSSA as being the ones who knew

8 Q. And is this meeting, could it have included

8

kind of the direction that this was going to go

9 employees of sheriffs, not just sheriffs

9

in. And I asked him to check into it to see if

10 themselves?

10 that would work for our facility.

11 A. Yes.

11 Q. Did the Washington County Sheriff's Office do

12 Q. Okay. How long was this discussion, as you

12 the presenting on this topic at the

13 recall?

13

December 2009 OSSA meeting?

14 A. I don't recall.

14 A. I believe that they were part of the

15 Q. Did you make any notes of that discussion?

15

presentation. I don't know if they were the

i
.

16 A. I did not.

16 sole providers of the information. I can't

17 Q. Have you checked?

17 recall that.

•••••

18 A. I have a file of OSSA. I checked the file and

18 Q. Do you have any recollection of anyone else

19 there's no notes.

19 talking about it?

20 Q. SO you have checked that file?

20 A. Yes.

21 A. Yes.

21 Q. Who do you recall?

22 Q. Were there any handouts about this?

22 A. I don't recall individuals. I just recall there

23 A. I don't recall.

23

were a number of sheriffs talking about it.

24 Q. Did you find any in your file?

24 Q. Do you know who at the Washington County

25 A. No.

25

Sheriff's Office presented on this topic?

Page 83

Page 85

1 Q. Did you check for those?

1 A. Both the Sheriff Rob Gordon, former sheriff now,

2 A. Yes. I checked the file.

2 and Marie Tyler, his jail commander.

3 Q. Okay. And you did not find any handouts

3 Q. Ray?

4

regarding that?

4 A. Marie.

5 A. No.

5 Q. Oh, thank you. Marie Tyler. And who is the

6 Q. Is that correct?

6 current sheriff for Washington County?

7 A. That's correct.

7 A. Pat.

8 Q. Thank you. Was there an agenda or any

8 Q. Garrett?

9

documentation that this discussion or this topic

9 A. Garrett. Yes.

10 was going to be discussed or was discussed in

10 Q. Marie Tyler, is she still there, to your

11 the December 2009 OSSA meeting?

11 knowledge?

12 A. I don't recall any agenda.

12 A. I believe so, but I can't for sure say.

13 Q. Did you have, did you attend any other OSSA

13 Q. And the jail commander of whom you were speaking

14 conferences or meetings about whether to adopt a 14 was Jim Carpenter?

15 postcard-only policy?

15 A. Yes.

16 A. No.

16 Q. What was the next thing you recall hearing about

17 Q. What, if anything, did you do in response to

17 the postcard-only upon September after you asked

18 that discussion of the December 2009 OSSA

18 Jim Carpenter to look into it?

19 meeting about postcard-only policies?

19 A. That it was something that we thought we could

20 A. I don't recall everything, but what I do recall

20 on do and that they would start to write up the

21

is asking the jail commander to review the

21 policies necessary to make that happen.

22

concept with our jail staff and gave for

22 Q. You said "they WOUld." Who do you mean?

23

reference the information that I received that

23 A. The jail staff.

24

came primarily through the Washington County

24 Q. SO you left that in commander Carpenter's hands

25 Sheriff's Office.

25 to either do it himself or assign it to

22 (Pages 82 to 85) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit I; Page 13 of 37

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 14 of 37

Dickerson, Jeffrey

May 10, 2012

Page 86

Page 88

1

somebody?

1

modified it, how it got to you?

2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Do you know who did the drafting?

2 A. No.
3 Q. Where would you look?

4 A. I do not.

4 A. I'd have to ask for an archivist to review all

5 Q. What is the next thing you recall about the

5

of our e-mails. And I don't even know if it is,

6

development of policy regarding postcard-only

6

if they can find it, if it's back that far.

7

for your jail?

7 Q. And do you think that's something that would be

8 A. I believe we decided that, what I did was I

8

in hard copy or electronic?

9

caused a notice to go out to the public through

9 A. Electronic.

10

the, through our website that gave notice that

10 Q. SO it would have been done bye-mail?

11

in the future we would be going to postcard

11 A. Yes.

12

policy.

12 Q. Do you know where that information is kept?

13 Q. Had you, at the time that you caused that notice 13 A. No.

14

to go out to the public, already decided that

14 Q. Who would be the person most knowledgeable about

15

you would be adopting a postcard-only policy?

15

where those electronic documents would be?

16 A. Yes.

16 A. I don't know.

17 Q. Had that policy already been finalized?

17 Q. Would that be somebody in the sheriff's

18 A. I don't know.

18

department or elsewhere?

19 Q. Do you recall when policy regarding the

20

postcard-only policy was finalized?

19 A. Elsewhere.
20 Q. Have you ever had to ask that somebody locate

21 A. It was in March, I believe. Yes. It was in

21

e-mail or other electronic documents that were

22

March.

22

in the archives?

23 Q. I guess to be clear, I would like to make a

23 A. No.

24

distinction between when it became effective and 24 Q. At the time that you were attending the

25

when the final version of the policy was

25

December 2009 OSSA conference, how long was the

Page 87

Page 89

1

written.

1

discussion regarding postcard-only policy?

2 A. I don't know.
3 Q. Do you understand the distinction I'm making? 4 A. I do now. Yes. I don't know. 5 Q. Okay. And so was your answer as of the time

2 A. I don't remember.
3 Q. Do you think it was a half an hour or more?
4 A. I don't, I don't remember.
5 Q. Okay. I guess I'm looking for a ballpark. Was

6

that you notified the public through the website

6

it longer than 10 minutes?

7

that a postcard policy would be in effect in the

8

future, do you know whether or not you had

7 A. I don't know.
8 Q. Was it your recollection that there was some

9

finalized a version of the postcard-only policy

9

kind of written agenda for that conference?

10

at that point?

11 A. I don't know.

12 Q. Is it accurate to say that somebody else wrote

13

the mail policy that included the postcards-only

10 A. That's not my recollection. I don't, I don't

11

recall if there was an agenda or how long we

12

talked about it.

13 Q. Did you, from the comments or questions, get a

14

policy and that you may have given directions to 14

sense of whether your fellow sheriffs or their

15

change it, but somebody else presented you with 15

employees supported the idea of a postcard-only

16

an initial draft?

16

policy?

17 A. Yes.

17 A. I remember coming back with the idea that, in my

18 Q. Okay. Do you remember who gave you that draft? 18

mind, that it was generally accepted.

19 A. No.

19 Q. And what was your perception of it when you

20 Q. Would it have gone through Jim Carpenter's hands 20

listened to the presentation?

21

before it got to you?

22 A. I don't know if it did or not.

23 Q. Okay. Have you searched to find any records you

21 A. Seemed like a good idea to me.

22 Q. What were you thinking was the benefit or

23

benefits of the postcard-only policy?

24

have, whether on the computer or in hard copy,

24 A. Standardization probably was key in my mind. As

25

that shows who drafted the policy, who may have 25

a new sheriff, wanting to standardize our

23 (Pages 86 to 89) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit I; Page 14 of 37

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 15 of 37

Dickerson, Jeffrey

May 10, 2012

Page 90

Page 92

1

policies with what other sheriffs were doing was

1 A. In our jail.

2

probably a key part of that.

3 Q. What appealed to you about standardizing with

2 Q. Is that correct, in your jail?
3 A. I'd say yes.

4

other sheriffs?

4 Q. Okay. And you have described, I think, that you

5 A. Well, it goes back to what I said in the

5

were not aware of a problem with introduction of

6

beginning about trying to modernize our

6

contraband into your jail at that time; is that

7

sheriff's office and make us more professional.

7

correct, too?

8

And I believe that there were sheriff's offices

9

out there that were well or very, had good

8 A. Yes.
9 Q. SO you're not trying to solve a known problem at

10

reputations and even accredited nationally. And 10

your jail regarding introduction of contraband;

11

we looked to them as models.

11

is that right?

12 Q. Was Washington County Sheriff's Department one 12 A. Correct.

13

of those, in your opinion?

13 Q. Was there any other benefit that you saw to

14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Accredited nationally by who?

14

adopting postcard-only policy?

15 A. Those were the big two. I can't think of

16 A. They are accredited nationally by, I don't know

16

anything else right now.

17

the name of it. I can't remember.

17 Q. Was there any downside or con to adopting

18 Q. Was there any other aspect of the postcard-only 18

postcard-only policy that you thought about when

19

policy that caused you to think that it would

19

in December 2009?

20

provide a benefit to your jail, other than the

20 A. No.

21

standardization with other sheriff'S

21 Q. Okay. And as time has gone by, do those two

22

departments?

22

major benefits remain the two major benefits

23 A. I believed it would also help us be more

23

that you still see?

24

efficient in the management of our safety and

24 A. Yes.

25

security issues regarding mail processes in our

25 Q. And have you thought about any cons or downsides

Page 91

Page 93

1

jail.

2 Q. Why? Or strike that. In what way?

1

to adopting a postcard-only policy that you did

2

not originally think of?

3 A. Both in the, with the introduction of contraband

4

into a secure facility as well as the management

3 A. I can't, I can't think of any at this time.
4 Q. Okay. So your opinion about a postcard-only

5

of security-related information that either

5

policy, both pro and con, remain the same today

6

would come in or go out of the jail.

7 Q. Could you describe what you mean by

6

as they did when you first heard about the

7

possibility of adopting that policy?

8

security-related information?

9 A. Threats, people you're not supposed to be in

8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. You used the term, I think, when you

10

contact with, plans for escape, issues like

10

first discussed what a postcard-only policy

11

that.

11

would look like is applying to personal mail.

12 Q. Are you aware of problems with threats being

12

Is that the term you used?

13

made through the mail?

14 A. No.

15 Q. Are you aware of efforts to contact people that

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And as you used that phrase "personal mail,"

15

what did you mean?

16

prisoners are not allowed to have contact with

16 A. Mail directed to inmates that is not either bulk

17

through the mail?

17

mail or junk mail or legal mail or privileged

18 A. No.
19 Q. Are you aware of plans for escape being

18

mail.

19 Q. Is your description complete?

20

communicated through the mail?

21 A. No.
22 Q. SO is it fair to say that you were not trying to

20 A. No.
21 Q. What else--
22 A. There's other things. I'd have to look at our

23

solve a problem that you knew existed with

23

policy to see it all.

24

regard to the management of security-related

24 Q. Okay. What I understood you to say is that if

25

information? That's correct?

25

it's not junk mail, if it's not bulk mail and if

24 (Pages 90 to 93) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit I; Page 15 of 37

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 16 of 37

Dickerson, Jeffrey

May 10, 2012

Page 94

Page 96

1 it's not legal mail and it's not privileged

1 their postcard-only policy?

2

mail, your memory right now is that it would

2 A. I don't know.

3

constitute personal mail and, therefore, need to 3 Q. SO is it your idea that the Washington County

4

be on a postcard if sent to a prisoner?

4

Sheriff's Department uses the same postcard for

5 A. And other things that would be in the policy

5

their prisoners as you do?

6

that I'd have to review. I don't know for sure

6 A. Yes.

7

everything without looking at the policy.

7 Q. Okay. And do you know if they do?

8 Q. Okay. Was your first conception of this that it 8 A. I don't.

9

was only incoming mail then?

9 Q. Okay. There is a, do you know the term

10 A. Personal mail?

10 LISTSERV?

11 Q. Yes.

11 A. Yes.

12 A. No.

12 Q. What is your understanding of a LISTSERV?

13 Q. SO the way you just described it was addressed 13 A. There's a central place where, that manages a

14 to a prisoner. But you're also meaning anything 14 post so that if a post goes to a LISTSERV, it

15 that's sent from a prisoner out of the jail

15 goes out to everybody on the list, on the

16 would also be personal mail if it was not legal

16 e-mail.

17 mail or privileged mail and they don't get to

17 Q. Are you a member of a LISTSERV?

18 send out junk mail or bulk mail, do they?

18 A. Yes.

19 A. Correct.

19 Q. Which LISTSERV?

20 Q. Okay. So there may be other exceptions, but 20 A. State Sheriffs' Association.

21

generally speaking it's legal mail and

21 Q. And is that on all topics or are they broken

22 privileged mail that would not be privileged

22 down LISTSERVS for different councils or

23

mail sent by prisoners; is that right?

23

different disCiplines, as I think you described?

24 A. Correct.

24 A. They have different LISTSERVS.

25 Q. And as you've conceived of a postcard-only

25 Q. What LISTSERVS are you on?

Page 95

Page 97

1 policy in your jail, it would apply to both

1 A. Just the State Sheriffs' Association LISTSERV.

2 incoming and outgoing mail; is that right?

2 Q. Okay. So does that have a particular type of

3 A. Yes.

3 topiC that gets discussed?

4 Q. And where did the idea come up that your jail

4 A. Just sheriffs.

5 would stock the postcards that you have stocked

5 Q. I see. So it's just among sheriffs itself?

6 in your commissary?

6 A. Sheriffs and a few others, I believe. Yes.

7 A. Through the State Sheriffs' Association.

7 There's a few other people, but I don't know how

8 Q. Is that the same postcard that other sheriffs

8

many.

9 use?

9 Q. Okay. Is Sergeant Cutright on that LISTSERV,

10 A. I don't know.

10 same LISTSERV as you?

11 Q. Okay. So did you obtain a model or a template

11 A. No.

12 postcard from the Oregon State Sheriffs'

12 Q. Does he get messages from that LISTSERV?

13 Association?

13 A. Potentia lIy, I don't know.

14 A. I don't know.

14 Q. Is there anybody else from your department who

15 Q. Do you have any idea where the current postcard 15

is on the same LISTSERV as you, the Oregon State

16 that you use came from?

16 Sheriffs' Association?

17 A. I have an idea.

17 A. No.

18 Q. What is your idea?

18 Q. SO if Sergeant Cutright said that he receives

19 A. Washington County.

19 messages from the LISTSERV but he can't

20 Q. Have you had personal conversations with anybody 20

communicate to the LISTSERV, do you have

21 from Washington County about their postcard-only 21 knowledge whether that's accurate or not?

22 policy?

22 A. I'm sure it's accurate from his perspective.

23 A. No.

23 Q. I'm trying to find --

24 Q. Has anyone from your staff, that you know, of

24 A. There are multiple LISTSERVS.

25 communicated directly to Washington County about 25 Q. Okay.

25 (Pages 94 to 97) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit I; Page 16 of 37

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 17 of 37

Dickerson, Jeffrey

May 10, 2012

Page 102

Page 104

1 Q. .And in 2009 who would it have been?

1 Q. When did you do that?

2 A. Jail commander.

2 A. Once I realized that our policy might be in

3 Q. It would have been Jim carpenter?

3

conflict with due process.

4 A. Yes.

4 Q. And when was that?

5 Q. Do you know what Mr. Moyer, excuse me,

5 A. I don't recall exactly. I remember coming back

6

Undersheriff Moyer does with them?

6

from vacation and finding out about it.

7 A. I do not.

7 Q. And we are talking about your notification of

8 Q. Are they installed on some system that the

8

Prison Legal News' lawsuit; is that right?

9

computer, that the sheriff's department has?

9 A. Actually the first notice I received was from

10 A. I don't know.

10 counsel.

11 Q. And do you know what Jim carpenter used to do 11 Q. You mean county counsel?

12 with them when he was the jail commander?

12 A. County counsel, yes.

13 A. I do not.

13 Q. Okay. And was that notice that you had been

14 Q. Would you please turn to page 64 of Exhibit 58. 14 sued?

15 You'll see there's also a CC number at the

15 A. No. What I recall first was that there was a

16 bottom. But do you see where it says policy

16 conflict between what was on our website and

17 Dl-Al0?

17 what was in our policies.

18 A. Yes.

18 Q. Was that in January of 2012?

19 Q. "Process for rejecting mail."

19 A. I believe so.

20 A. Yes.

20 Q. And were you informed that this conflict was

21 Q. It says, "Process for rejecting mail: If any

21

pOinted out through a lawsuit by Prison Legal

22 publication or other mail is rejected, the

22 News?

23

sender, if known, and the addressee must be

23 A. At some point I became aware of that, yes.

24 notified in writing of the, A, rejection of the

24 Q. Okay. And did you go look at your website?

25 correspondence. " Do you see that?

25 A. Yes. Yes, I did.

Page 103

Page 105

1 A. Yes.

1 Q. And was -- Did you agree that what was stated on

2 Q. And do you believe that that was happening in

2 the website conflicted with due process?

3 your jail as of April 1st, 2011?

3 A. I agreed at first blush that it, because I had a

4 A. I don't know.

4 policy with me, and it disagreed with our own

5 Q. And the second item there says that "The sender, 5 policy. And so I asked for it to be removed

6

if known, and the addressee must be notified in

6

until we could get it straightened out.

7 writing of the reasons the correspondence was

7 Q. And it has been -- Strike that.

8 rejected." Do you see that?

8

Your website, since the time that that

9 A. Yes.

9 information was on your website, it's been

10 Q. Was that happening in your jail as of April 1st, 10 removed, you have not posted anything else about

11 2011?

11 the mail; is that right?

12 A. I don't know.

12 A. That is true.

13 Q. And C, "Process for informally appealing the

13 Q. And do you think that you removed from the

14 rejection to the jail commander." Do you see

14 website policy that you thought was incorrect

15 where it says that?

15 back in January?

16 A. Yes, I do.

16

MR. KRAEMER: Object to the form. It's

17 Q. Okay. And this standard says that "The sender, 17 vague and confusing. What was in January? I'm

18 if known, and the addressee must be notified in 18 sorry.

19 writing of the process for informally appealing

19

MR. WING: All right. I'll try again.

20 a rejection to the mail commander." Was that

20

MR. KRAEMER: It may be my fault. I wasn't

21 happening in your jail as of April 1st, 2011?

21 sure if January was the policy or what.

22 A. I don't know.

22

MR. WING: Doesn't matter. Doesn't matter.

23 Q. What, if anything, have you done to find out?

23 Q. BY MR. WING: Sometime in January, Sheriff, you

24 A. I asked the undersheriff and two sergeants to

24 were notified that your website contained a

25 look into it.

25 policy you looked at and said, boy, that's

27 (Pages 102 to 105) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit I; Page 17 of 37

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 18 of 37

Dickerson, Jeffrey

May 10, 2012

Page 106

Page 108

1 wrong. That sound correct?

1 April and part of May, four-plus months, you've

2 A. Yes, in comparing the two.

2

had mail policy but you've not posted it for the

3 Q. And you removed it?

3

public to see; is that right?

4 A. Yes.

4 A. That's correct.

5 Q. And did you remove it in January? Your best

5 Q. And why are you not ready to post it?

6

recollection.

6 A. We wanted to make sure that we have it

7 A. Yes.

7

100 percent right.

8 Q. And since then you have not posted anything

8 Q. And what are you waiting for to determine that?

9

about your mail on your website; is that

9 A. Just our own confidence level.

10 correct?

10 Q. Okay. And when do you think your confidence

11 A. That is correct.

11

level regarding this issue is going to reach the

12

(Exhibit 59 marked for identification.)

12 point where you are ready to post your mail

13 Q. BY MR. WING: Handing you Exhibit 59, do you 13

policy?

14 recognize that?

14

MR. KRAEMER: Object to form.

15 A. Yes.

15

THE WITNESS: We -- I don't know.

16 Q. And is that what your inmate policy -- Strike

16 Q. BY MR. WING: Are you waiting for a ruling in

17 that. Is that what your website said regarding 17 this lawsuit?

I

18 the Columbia County Sheriff's inmate policy as 18 A. No.

19 of January 24th, 2012?

19 Q. Do you have a plan in place to learn something

20 A. As far as the date, I don't know.

20 or obtain more information that would give you

21 Q. Any reason to think that's inaccurate?

21

the confidence to put your new policy up on the

22 A. This date here?

22 website?

23 Q. Yes.

23 A. It's the same as many of our other efforts on

24 A. No.

24 the website. The website is the last thing we

25 Q. rAnd if you look at the bottom of the page, from 25

worry about getting, making sure we get

Page 107

Page 109

1 what you know of the way the internet works and 1 everything exactly the way it is because the

2 documents printed from the internet, when does

2 website is a service to the public that, that we

3 this indicate to you that Exhibit 59 was

3 try to do our best with. But it's, we're not,

4 printed?

4 we're focusing our energy right now on getting

5 A. April 3.

5 our processes right internally.

6 Q. Of 2012?

6 Q. How did you get your inmate mail policy posting

7 A. Yes.

7 on the sheriff's website removed?

8 Q. Does it appear to you from this document that

8 A. I went in and deleted it.

9 your website removed any description of the

9 Q. Yourself?

10 inmate mail policy as of January 4th, 2012, and

10 A. Yes.

11 that as of April 3rd, 2012, the only thing that

11 Q. Are you the one who posted it in the first

12 the website said about your policy was the

12 place?

13 inmate mail policy is under review at this time?

13 A. No.

14 A. Yes.

14 Q. Who posted it in the first place?

15 Q. And is that what your website still says?

15 A. I don't know.

16 A. Yes.

16 Q. How did you get it posted in the first place?

17 Q. Why have you not posted anything on your website 17 A. We have -- I don't know how it got posted.

18 about what the mail policy is?

18 Q. It was posted -- Let's go back in time to

19 A. We're just not ready to put it on the internet

19 something you said earlier, which is I think you

20 yet.

20 said you caused notice to go out to the public

21 Q. Do you have a current inmate mail policy?

21 that you were going to be adopting a

22 A. Yes.

22 postcard-only policy; right?

23 Q. When did that policy go into effect?

23 A. Yes.

24 A. In January sometime.

24 Q. And you said that was accomplished through your

25 Q. SO in the rest of January, February, March,

25 website; right?

28 (Pages 106 to 109) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit I; Page 18 of 37

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 19 of 37

Dickerson, Jeffrey

May 10, 2012

Page 114

Page 116

1 Q. '16?

1 Q. Yes.

2 A. Yes.

2 A. No.

3 Q. Okay. So the individuals who have the authority 3 Q. Who did?

4 to approve content that's placed on the Columbia 4 A. Actually posted, it would almost have to be Jeff

5 County Sheriff's website are Dorothea Jirka,

5

Mansheim.

6 Andy Moyer, any sergeant, you, and limited to

6 Q. Did you ask him who told him to put that up?

7 the children's page only, the volunteer whose

7 A. No.

8 name you cannot recall. Is that accurate?

8 Q. Why not?

9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Anyone else?

9 A. I just haven't done it.
10 Q. Is there a reason you have not done it?

11 A. Well, and Jeff Mansheim can.

11 A. No.

12 Q. Can he decide what to post?

12 Q. Has anybody told you that they have asked

13 A. Yes. He's given, on certain, in certain areas

13 Mr. Mansheim?

14 he has the ability to post what's needed to be

14 A. No.

15 posted.

15 Q. Has Mr. Mansheim told you himself who told him

16 Q. What areas?

16 to do that?

17 A. Crime reports.

17 A. No.

18 Q. Any other areas?

18 Q. What do you think happened?

19 A. As far as content, no.

19

MR. KRAEMER: Object to the form,

20 Q. SO he could post what somebody else who has the 20

speculation.

21 authority gives him --

21

THE WITNESS: I have no idea.

22 A. Yes.

22 Q. BY MR. WING: Have you investigated what

23 Q. -- but he can't decide what to post?

23 happened?

24 A. Yes.

24 A. I have tried to find out, yes.

25 Q. Is there anything in writing that talks about

25 Q. How did you go about trying to find out?

Page 115

Page 117

1

who has the authority to post what on your

1 A. Interviewed the jail commander.

2

website?

2 Q. That's Jim Carpenter?

3 A. No.

3 A. Yes. And Sergeant Cutright.

4 Q. Is there any protocol that even identifies Jeff

4 Q. When did you do this?

5

Mansheim as the person who will do posting on 5 A. Sometime between January and now.

6

the website?

6 Q. Can you shorten the time frame?

7 A. Just common knowledge.

7 A. It's probably a couple months ago now.

8 Q. Do any of the individuals you've identified,

8 Q. Did you interview them on the same day?

9

Dorothea Jirka, Andy Moyer, the sergeant or the 9 A. I don't recall.

10 volunteer, ever do the posting themselves?

10 Q. Within a close proximity of the time of each

11 A. No. The only posting that I'm aware of is by me 11 other?

12 or Jeff Mansheim.

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Did you do the posting of your notice to the

13 Q. Who did you interview first?

14 public that you would be adopting a

14 A. I don't remember.

15 postcard-only policy?

15 Q. Did you take notes?

16 A. No.

16 A. No.

17 Q. SO it should have been Mr. Mansheim?

17 Q. Why not?

18 A. Yes.

18 A. I just didn't take notes.

19 Q. Did you do posting of the website policy about 19 Q. What did Jim Carpenter tell you in that

20

the inmate mail that you found in January 2012 20

interview?

21

to be wrong?

21 A. He said he didn't know.

22 A. Did I do the posting?

22 Q. SO he did not know who posted the wrong policy?

23 Q. Yes. Did you put it up on the website?

23 A. Right.

24 A. I'm sorry. Did I put the one that I found to be 24 Q. How long did you interview Mr. Carpenter for?

25

wrong on the --

25 A. Not for very long.

30 (Pages 114 to 117) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit I; Page 19 of 37

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 20 of 37

Dickerson, Jeffrey

May 10, 2012

Page 118

Page 120

1 Q.. Five minutes? 15 minutes?

1

this?

2 A. Maybe five minutes. Wasn't that long.

2 A. No reason. No.

3 Q. What did you ask him?

3 Q. Do you have an opinion of where the information

4 A. How did that get posted on the website?

4

came from that was posted on the website?

5 Q. Did you believe him?

5 A. Yes.

6 A. I didn't disbelieve him.

6 Q. Where?

7 Q. SO you don't know whether to believe him?

7 A. From our inmate manual.

8 A. I don't know, I never got the answer from anyone 8 Q. And who wrote your inmate manual?

9

I asked. So I don't know.

9 A. I have not gotten a good answer to that as far

10 Q. What did Sergeant Cutright say when you asked 10

as most recent versions.

11

him?

11 Q. Who have you asked?

12 A. He did not know either.

12 A. I've asked Sergeant Cutright.

13 Q. SO you believe he said. Are you confident that 13 Q. What did he tell you?

14

he said that?

14 A. I believe he said, well, no. He said the most

15 A. I don't recall anyone telling me that they knew

15

recent versions were done by two individuals,

16

how it happened.

16

one of whom I believe -- I can't remember

17 Q. How long did you interview Sergeant Cutright

17

exactly who those two people were, but they were

18

for?

18

corrections individuals.

19 A. Very short amount of time.

19 Q. Who are still employed by you?

20 Q. Maybe five minutes?

20 A. Yes.

21 A. Maybe.

21 Q. Did you go talk to them and ask them?

22 Q. Did you do any further investigation? 23 A. Talked with Dorothea and Timmie Sue.

22 A. No. No.
23 Q. Why not?

24 Q. Sorry. Who?

24 A. I'm, our energy right now is focused on moving

25 A. And Timmie Sue. She's another, she's the

25

forward from this incident, not necessarily

Page 119

Page 121

1

record's clerk.

1

looking back at how it happened, but to move

2 Q. For the jail?

2

forward so that we get the good information in

3 A. Well--

3

place.

4 Q. She's the part-time jail employee?

4 Q. SO is it fair to say that you stopped

5 A. Part-time jail, part time --

5

investigating how the inmate manual that you

6 Q. Could you spell her first name?

6

currently use and the website that was posted

7 A. Timmie, TIM M I E.

7

with the wrong information first got created?

8 Q. And her last name?

8 A. At least it's suspended for now.

9 A. Timmie Sue is her first name. And her last name 9 Q. What are you waiting for?

10

is Hald, HAL D.

10 A. As I mentioned, we're working on trying to get,

11 Q. And does Timmie Sue, is that all one word or is 11

move forward from the incident right now.

12

there a dash or do you know?

12 Q. Do you have an intention of resuming your

13 A. I don't know.

13

investigation?

14 Q. Okay. But Sue is part of the name, SUE?

14 A. Potentially.

15 A. I can look at her name right now and tell you.

15 Q. What would sway you one way or the other?

16

Oh, no, I can't. It says T. Hald. Sorry.

16 A. Personnel decisions.

17 Q. And what did Dorothea Jirka tell you?

17 Q. Can you be more specific?

18 A. I don't recall what she told me.

18 A. No.

19 Q. What did Timmie Sue Hald tell you?

19 Q. Decisions that you intend to make or are you

20 A. Again, I don't recall.

20

saying that if somebody's not doing a good job,

21 Q. Did you do anything else to investigate who

21

the fact that they might have screwed this up

22

posted the wrong policy on your website?

22

would also be a factor?

23 A. No.

23 A. We're, we're looking at layoffs. It could be

24 Q. Is there some reason why you didn't go to

24

that anyone who made this decision is no longer

25

Mr. Mansheim himself and say, who told you to do 25

with us and it would be a moot point.

31 (Pages 118 to 121) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit I; Page 20 of 37

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 21 of 37

Dickerson, Jeffrey

May 10, 2012

Page 122

Page 124

1 Q. 'I see. Who's in charge of what goes in the

1 Q. When you read it within the past month, did you

2 inmate manual?

2

see anything in the inmate manual that needed to

3 A. Staff is assigned to write the inmate manual.

3

be changed?

4 Q. By whom?

4 A. Yes.

5 A. By the jail commander.

5 Q. What needed to be changed?

6 Q. The jail commander was Jim Carpenter; right?

6 A. The provisions regarding inmate mail.

7 A. Right. But the inmate manual had already been

7 Q. Specifically which provisions?

8 written when he was made jail commander.

8 A. There's, there is a provision in there that

9 Q. Okay. And has it stayed substantially the same

9

precludes the delivery of magazines to inmates.

10 since then?

10 Q. Sheriff, that was in the same inmate manual that

11 A. I think so.

11 you read when you first became the sheriff;

12 Q. SO it was written at least by mid 2009; is that

12 right?

13 right?

13 A. Yes.

14 A. Yes. The inmate manual was in place when I got 14 Q. SO why did you not think that that needed to be

15 there.

15 corrected back then?

16 Q. Okay. And it stayed substantially the same

16 A. I did not catch the differences between our

17 since?

17 policy and what our manual said, the inmate

18 A. Since then, yes.

18 manual said.

19 Q. SO any changes that were made since you became 19 Q. SO did you have an understanding that at some

20 sheriff were made at the direction of Jim

20 pOint in the past that Columbia County Jail had

21 Carpenter, that is any changes to the inmate

21

a policy that prohibited magazines?

22 manual?

22 A. No.

23 A. I don't know.

23 Q. How would it have ended up in an inmate manual

24 Q. Were they at your direction?

24 then?

25 A. No.

25

MR. KRAEMER: Object to form.

Page 123

Page 125

1 Q. Can you think of -- Strike that.

1

THE WITNESS: I don't know.

2

When is the last time, if ever, you read the

2 Q. BY MR. WING: Did you ever try to find that out?

3

inmate manual?

3 A. No.

4 A. Within the last month.

4 Q. Was there anything else in the inmate manual

5 Q. You read it cover to cover?

5 that you read a month ago that you thought

6 A. I don't know that it was cover to cover, but it

6

needed to be changed regarding inmate mail?

7

was extensive. It was several different aspects

7 A. Yes.

8

of inmate relations.

8 Q. What else?

9 Q. Why did you read the inmate manual within the 9 A. The part about, addresses due process rights.

10 past month?

10 Q. What do you think your current inmate mail,

11 A. Just as a normal course of different things that 11 inmate manual says about due process rights?

12 have come up, including our mail policy.

12 A. I can't recall exactly what it says.

13 Q. Had you ever read the inmate manual before?

13 Q. It is deficient, in your opinion?

14 A. Yes.

14 A. My recollection is that it is, but I don't have

15 Q. In what context?

15 the exact piece of how it is.

16 A. Familiarization when I first became sheriff.

16 Q. That same language regarding due process rights

17 Q. Do you think you read it cover to cover then?

17 was in the inmate manual that you read when you

18 A. Yes.

18 first became sheriff; right?

19 Q. That would have been in the first few months of 19 A. Yes.

20 your tenure as sheriff?

20 Q. And you did not think it was a problem then; is

21 A. Yes.

21 that correct?

22 Q. Did you see anything in that inmate manual when 22 A. I didn't see the conflict between the two.

23 you first read it that you felt needed to be

23 Q. Is it fair to say -- Well, strike that.

24 changed?

24

If somebody was booked into the jail last

25 A. No.

25 night or within the past week, what inmate

32 (Pages 122 to 125) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit I; Page 21 of 37

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 22 of 37

Dickerson, Jeffrey

May 10, 2012

Page 126

Page 128

1 manual would they receive?

1 A. Yes.

2 A. The same one that we have.

2 Q. What is that?

3 Q. SO it includes the language that says no

3 A. That is the inmate mail guide that goes on the

4 magazines are allowed; right?

4

backside, I believe, of our notice.

5 A. They do get notice -- It does, yes.

5 Q. Is that the document that you believe is the

6 Q. And it also states whatever the due process

6

notice to prisoners you've just been testifying

7 provision is in the current inmate manual that

7

about?

8 you think is deficient; is that right?

8 A. Yes.

9 A. Yes.

9 Q. And could you point to where on that page, this

10 Q. Okay. Do you make any efforts to notify

10 is page 2 of Exhibit H, excuse me, let's call it

11 prisoners that this, these aspects of the inmate

11

tab for ease of reference. So it's tab H of

12 manual they receive are incorrect?

12 Exhibit 3 to this deposition, second page, where

13 A. That is the directive that has been given at the

13

on that page does it notify prisoners that they

14 jail, yes.

14 may receive magazines?

15 Q. Since when?

15 A. It doesn't.

16 A. Since we changed our policy.

16 Q. Where on this page does it notify inmates of

17 Q. Which was when?

17 their due process rights?

18 A. In January.

18 A. It doesn't.

19 Q. And when you say that's been given to the jail,

19 Q. SO is it accurate to say that prisoners have not

20 who specifically?

20

been notified of their due process rights or

21 A. I believe the undersheriff. The undersheriff.

21

that they may receive magazines since you

22 Q. And in what form did you give this directive to

22 adopted your new policy in January 2012?

23 the undersheriff?

23 A. My reaction is no, not accurate, but I don't

24 A. I don't remember.

24

know.

25 Q. Have you ever heard from him or anyone else how 25 Q. Okay.

Page 127

Page 129

1

the jail notifies the inmates that at least

1 A. As far as what we've done.

2

these two aspects of the inmate manual are

2 Q. Would you please look at Exhibit 5 and tell me

3

wrong?

3

if you think that is your current inmate manual.

4 A. I know there are notices that are given to the

4

I will represent to you that document was

5

inmates. I do not know in what form.

5

provided by Sergeant Miller during her

6 Q. Have you ever seen them?

6

deposition and the mail inspection.

7 A. Yes.

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. They're in writing?

8 Q. You think that's the current one?

9 A. There are some in writing. I don't know if

9 A. Yes.

10 there's others.

10 Q. Okay. Did you understand that you would be

11 Q. And what do you recall about those notices?

11 testifying today not only as the sheriff, but

12 A. The notice advises what is a, it's a corrected

12 also on behalf of the sheriff'S department about

13

version of what we prohibit and the process of

13

any notices that were given to inmates of the

14 appeal.

14 mail policy?

15 Q. Sheriff, do you recall, this has been marked as 15 A. I don't remember that I was, but I am sure I

16

Exhibit 3. Do ,you recognize this document?

16 was. I don't know.

17 A. Yes.

17 Q. What, if anything, did you do to prepare for

18 Q. That's your declaration you filed with the court 18 today's deposition?

19

in this matter; is that true?

19 A. Just nothing.

20 A. Yes.

20 Q. Okay. Handing you Exhibit 6, do you recognize

21 Q. And I'm going to show you what was attached as 21

that?

22

Exhibit H. Do you recognize that document?

22 A. Yes.

23 A. Yes.

23 Q. You recognize that as your responses to Prison

24 Q. And if you flip the page, second page, do you

24

Legal News' discovery requests?

25

see that?

25 A. Yes.

33 (Pages 126 to 129) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit I; Page 22 of 37

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 23 of 37

Dickerson, Jeffrey

May 10, 2012

Page 138

Page 140

1 Q. .Of a new mail policy?

1

and Rigdon?

2 A. Yes.

2 A. Because I believe that they were the most

3 Q. And did you have discussions with her about that 3

conversant with our policies in the jail and

4

draft?

4

would know how a change to, well, any policy

5

MR. KRAEMER: Well, wait a second. Wouldn't 5

would affect other policies and vice versa.

6

that be privileged? You're asking if he had

6 Q. Did you have a single meeting in which you met

7

discussions with counsel.

7

with the three of them?

8

MR. WING: Well, I'm not asking what the-- 8 A. No.

9

MR. KRAEMER: Yeah. You're asking the

9 Q. Did you meet with them independently, each of

10

subject matter of the discussions. I think

10

them?

11

that's privileged.

11 A. No.

12

MR. WING: Well, just like I can ask whether 12 Q. Please describe the process.

13

the two of you met in preparation for this

13 A. Somehow I sent them the work that I had done on

14

deposition. So I don't think whether you,

14

the document that I had received from our, from

15

whether something was a topic is privileged.

15

Sarah Hanson and forwarded that to them for

16

MR. KRAEMER: Well, I think the topic is. I

16

their comment.

17

think you've asked -- Here's what I'm trying to

17 Q. And did you include Ms. Hanson on those

18

get at: You can ask him if he met with me to

18

communications?

19

prepare for the depositions, but you can't say,

19 A. I don't think so.

20

well, did you discuss this interrogatory with

20 Q. SO do you think you sent a single e-mail to all

21

him? Did you discuss this with him? I think

21

three of them, you know, together --

22

that's getting too close to the conversation.

23

MR. WING: I agree with you.

22 A. I don't know.
23 Q. -- and said --

24

MR. KRAEMER: And that's where I'm

25

concerned.

24 A. I don't know. I'm not sure.
25 Q. Do you think you communicated the draft policy

Page 139

Page 141

1

MR. WING: So I'd like to know whether they

1

to them via e-mail?

2

had meetings about this policy.

3

MR. KRAEMER: That's a fair question.

4 Q. BY MR. WING: Did you have meetings about the

5

policy that she provided to you?

2 A. I believe, I think I did.
3 Q. And have you looked for those e-mails?
4 A. I think I did.
5 Q. Where did you look?

6 A. Maybe one, but mostly it was phone

7

conversations.

8 Q. Okay. How many times do you think you talked to

9

her on the phone about this?

6 A. In my sent mail.
7 Q. Did you find them?
8 A. I don't recall.
9 Q. Do you have a policy, something in place that

10 A. I don't know. A dozen times maybe.
11 Q. Did you make changes to what she sent you? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Okay. And was it your final deCision, your sole

10

deletes your sent mail after a certain amount of

11

time?

12 A. It's the same, it's the county's policy that

13

does that automatically after six months, I

14

decision, to adopt a new policy that became the

14

believe.

15

January 26, 2012, policy?

15 Q. And these e-mails would have been in late

16 A. To adopt it?

17 Q. Yeah.

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Did you consult with anyone else besides

20

Ms. Hanson?

16

January, is that right, mid to late January?

17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Of this year?

19 A. Yes.
20 Q. SO they should not automatically be deleted yet;

21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Who? 23 A. Undersheriff Moyer, Sergeant Cutright, Sergeant

21

right?

22 A. No.

23 Q. Is that correct?

24

Rigdon.

25 Q. And why did you consult with Sergeant Cutright

24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. Did you ask Sergeant Cutright whether he had

36 (Pages 138 to 141) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit I; Page 23 of 37

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 24 of 37

Dickerson, Jeffrey

May 10, 2012

Page 142

Page 144

1 that e-mail?

1 Q. Have you been in charge of evidence during the

2 A. No.

2

course of your career?

3 Q. Did you ask Sergeant Rigdon whether he had that 3 A. Yes.

4 e-mail?

4 Q. Countless times; right?

5 A. No.

5 A. Countless times.

6 Q. Did you ask Undersheriff Moyer whether he had

6 Q. And you understand the concept of chain of

7 that e-mail?

7

custody?

8 A. No.

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Why not?

9 Q. And you testified earlier in this deposition

10 A. Didn't cross my mind to ask.

10 that you revamped the sheriff's department

11 Q. Do you intend to do that?

11

because the retention of evidence in the

12 A. Sure. Yes.

12 evidence room was not being properly handled;

13 Q. Ask each one of them; right?

13 right?

14 A. Yes.

14 A. That's correct.

15 Q. Undersheriff Moyer gave you written comments on 15 Q. Okay. If you had been notified by one of your

16 the draft that you gave him; right?

16 deputies that there was evidence in a lawsuit or

17 A. I don't recall Undersheriff Moyer doing so. He

17 criminal matter that they had disposed of, what

18 may have.

18 would have been your reaction?

19 Q. And Sergeant Cutright, he gave you written

19 A. Well, there would have been discipline.

20 comments; right?

20 Q. What kind of disCipline?

21 A. Yes.

21 A. Depending on the nature of the offense, letter

22 Q. And where is the document with his written

22 in the file or something like that.

23 comments on them?

23 Q. Letter in the file like a reprimand, is that

24 A. No longer exists.

24 what you mean?

25 Q. Why? What happened to them?

25 A. Reprimand. Yeah.

Page 143

Page 145

1 A. I'm sure it either went in the trash or was

1 Q. Okay. Have you had to reprimand any of your

2

shredded.

2 officers because they disposed of evidence?

3 Q. SO you disposed of them?

3 A. No.

4 A. Yes.

4 Q. Is it the kind of thing that you would expect

5 Q. Why did you dispose of them?

5 your deputies and sheriffs know, not to dispose

6 A. Normal practice.

6 of evidence?

7 Q. Why do you dispose of notes?

7 A. Absolutely.

8 A. I get way too many of them.

8 Q. Can you explain how it was that you disposed of

9 Q. You knew at the time you disposed of these that 9

these notes?

10 you were in litigation with Prison Legal News

10 A. Yes. I did not view them as evidence.

11 over your mail policy; right?

11 Q. Have you ever been notified by anyone to retain

12 A. Yes.

12 your communications or notes or other documents

13 Q. Did you not understand that those notes were 13

regarding your mail policies?

14 evidence?

14 A. I don't recall. I mean, yes, as far as, I've

15 A. I did not understand that.

15 received notice in the past to, to provide all

16 Q. You have been a law enforcement official since 16 notes or something like that.

17 how long?

17 Q. SO there have been, that was in previous

18 A. For 23 years.

18 lawsuits?

19 Q. 23 years?

19 A. Yes. Yes.

20 A. 23 years. Yes.

20 Q. And in this matter have you been notified to

21 Q. And you have testified in court as a law

21 retain all possible relevant documents?

22 enforcement official?

22 A. I don't recall receiving that notice.

23 A. Yes.

23 Q. Interrogatory number eight, if you look on page

24 Q. How many times?

24 11, asks, among other things, for all employees,

25 A. Many times.

25 officials, agents, volunteers or consultants who

37 (Pages 142 to 145) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit I; Page 24 of 37

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 25 of 37

Dickerson, Jeffrey

May 10, 2012

Page 150

Page 152

1 A. Basically talked about that way.
2 Q. All right. So I'd like to make a distinction

1 A. 14th Amendment.

2

MR. KRAEMER: How much longer?

3

between them, you learning information from them 3

MR. WING: You mean overall?

4

and them participating in a decision. Did they

4

MR. KRAEMER: No.

5

in any way--

5

MR. WING: Before lunch?

6 A. No.

6

7 Q. -- have a meeting or discussion with them where

7

MR. KRAEMER: It's ten to 2:00 right now. MR. WING: Okay. Why don't we break at

8

they participated in your decision?

8

2:00.

9 A. No.

9 Q. BY MR. WING: At the bottom of the page your

10 Q. Okay. And did Washington County Jail commander 10

answer says, "Nonprivileged documents relied

11

Marie Tyler participate in your decision, other

11

upon are Washington County's inmate mail policy

12

than you might have gotten the information from

12

as well as notes from Sergeants Cutright and

13

her?

13

Rigdon that were not kept."

14 A. No.
15 Q. Your answer also says that the Oregon State

14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Did Sergeant Rigdon also give you written notes?

16

Sheriffs' Association and/or Washington County

17

Sheriffs Office may be in possession of

16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And you disposed of them?

18

materials relating to the reasons for adopting

19

the postcard restriction. They don't possess

18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And you disposed them about the same time you

20

materials regarding the reason that you adopted

20

disposed of Sergeant Cutright's notes?

21

a postcard-only policy, do they?

22 A. No.

23 Q. It might be why they thought a postcard policy

21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Do you know what the 1st Amendment to the U.S.

23

Constitution is?

24

is a good idea, but they don't possess materials

24 A. It's a guaranteed right to free speech, freedom

25

about why you chose to; is that correct?

25

of religion.

Page 151

Page 153

1 A. That's correct.

1 Q. How did you learn about that? How did you learn

2 Q. And Washington County has a postcard-only

2

what the 1st Amendment essentially provides for?

3

policy; is that right?

3 A. My gosh. High school maybe, grade school.

4 A. I don't know.

4 Q. Okay. And the 14th Amendment, same thing?

5 Q. Would you please look at interrogatory number 5 A. 14th Amendment as far as my knowledge of it,

6

five on page 7. This is back to the question of

6

probably was a little bit later in life.

7

written notice if the defendants contend that

7 Q. Did you, as a law enforcement officer, receive

8

the jail's current mail policy requires the jail

8

any training or education on the 1st or

9

to provide written notice when the jail sensors

9

14th Amendment?

10

incoming or outgoing mail. Do you see that?

10 A. Definitely the 1st Amendment, yes. I don't

11 A. Yes.

11

recall on the 14th as far as enforcement and due

12 Q. Okay. And then it asks, "Why did you adopt that 12

process.

13

requirement policy?" And halfway down the page 13 Q. Do you provide either directly or indirectly any

14

your statement says, "The policies effective

14

training to your law enforcement officers who

15

prior to January 26, 2012, did not comport with 15

you supervise or employ about the Constitutional

16

due process." Is that what you signed?

16

rights of citizens or those who are arrested or

17 A. Yes.

17

detained by you?

18 Q. You believe that to be true?

18 A. Do I as the sheriffs office provide that

19 A. Yes.

19

training or do I rely on it that they've had the

20 Q. You believe that the sheriffs department

21

violated the U.S. Constitution by not providing

20

training?

21 Q. That's why I said directly or indirectly.

22

due process notice before January 26, 2012?

23 A. Yes.

22 A. Indirectly, yeah.
23 Q. I guess what I mean is they have received that

24 Q. Do you know what part of the U.S. Constitution 24

training at some point in their career, but do

25

is violated by that?

25

you either speak about it at a staff meeting or

39 (Pages 150 to 153)
Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit I; Page 25 of 37

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 26 of 37

Dickerson, Jeffrey

May 10, 2012

Page 154

Page 156

1

provide them written materials or send them to a 1 A. No.

2

conference? Are you responsible for giving them 2 Q. -- in your office?

3 this information in some fashion?

3 A. No.

4 A. In some fashion, yes.

4 Q. And for the court reporter's sake, I want to

5 Q. In what fashion?

5 just describe these things so that the record is

6 A. The fashion mostly in just an overall statement

6

really clear what we're looking at.

7

that our, we have to make, there's a reliance

7 A. It's fine.

8

upon an understanding that they have an

8 Q. Do you agree with me in all capital letters

9

understanding of constitutional rights and then

9

there's a marking "return to sender"?

10 we reinforce the concept that that's our primary 10 A. Yes.

11

responsibility in executing our duties, is to

11 Q. And you have not seen that before?

12 make sure that the rights of all people are

12 A. No.

13

protected.

13 Q. Is that correct?

14 Q. Is there more detail than that or do you simply 14 A. That's correct.

15

say, of course, remember, people, we've got to, 15 Q. Thank you. Below that there is language that

16 you know, respect the rights of everybody?

16 begins, "as of April 1st, 2010." Do you see

17 A. It's more like that.

17 that?

18 Q. More like the latter?

18 A. Yes.

19 A. Yes.

19 Q. Have you seen that language in your jail?

20 Q. You have got to respect the rights of everybody? 20 A. I have not. I'm sorry. Yes, I have. Not in my

21 A. Yeah.

21 jail, but I've seen it.

22

MR. WING: If you want, we can go ahead and 22 Q. Where have you seen it?

23

break now.

23 A. I saw it on a sticker that was in a drawer in

24

(Break taken from 1:52 to 2:41.)

24 the front office.

25 Q. BY MR. WING: Sheriff, for simplicity sake I am 25 Q. In the front office of the sheriff's department?

Page 155

Page 157

1 going to ask you to stack that stuff up and move 1 A. Yes.

2

it from your purview there so I can show you

2 Q. And so when we came to the sheriff's department

3

some other things. Thank you. I show you

3 the other night for the mail inspection, we came

4

what's been previously marked as Exhibit 20. Do 4

into a lobby and that's where we first saw you.

5 you think you've seen that before?

5 A. Yes.

6 A. This exhibit?

6 Q. Is that the front desk that you were standing

7 Q. Yes.

7 next to?

8 A. No.

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Okay. If you take a moment, orient yourself to 9 Q. And there's a security metal detector that We

10 the first page. Does it look like a photocopy

10 had to walk through. Was that next to the

11 of an envelope from Prison Legal News to an

11 office?

12 inmate at Columbia County Jail?

12 A. That's next to the office. Yes.

13 A. That's what it looks like. Yes.

13 Q. And the people who sit at the front desk in that

14 Q. I'll let you know that the numbers across the

14 office include the volunteers that you've

15 top, the insignia shows that this was filed with 15 testified about?

16 the court. 17 A. Okay.

16 A. Yes.
17 ' Q. And those people who sit at that front desk have

18 Q. And there appear to be three different stamps or 18 a drawer in which you found these stickers.

19 stickers regarding how this mail was handled.

19 A. Correct.

20

Do you see those?

20 Q. And did you investigate why those stickers were

21 A. One, two, well, I see two.

21 found at the drawer?

22 Q. Okay. So let's start with this, it says return
23 to sender?

22 A. Yes.
23 Q. How did you go about investigating that?

24 A. Okay. Yeah. Sorry.

24 A. I asked what this was dOing here and they said

25 Q. Is that a stamp you've seen --

25 someone, I believe it was Timmie Sue, told me

40 (Pages 154 to 157) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit I; Page 26 of 37

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 27 of 37

Dickerson, Jeffrey

May 10, 2012

Page 162

Page 164

1 A. I do agree with that.
2 Q. And as you sit here today, you have no idea

1

and one sticker?

2 A. Yes.

3

who's responsible for creating, obtaining or

3 Q. Apart from the address label. Would you agree?

4

using these stickers?

5 A. I have an idea.
6 Q. What is your idea?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Okay. And the return to sender stamp that's in

6

capital letters you've already testified about

7 A. I believe it was Jim Carpenter. That's what I

7

and the sticker you've already testified about.

8

believe, although I don't know.

9 Q. And it says on the sticker, "this applies to

8

We're now looking at a stamp with a hand and a

9

finger pointing that is partially covering the

10

all" and "all" is in capital letters; is that

10

addressee label; right?

11

right?

11 A. Yes.

12 A. Yes.
13 Q. "This applies to all incoming and outgoing

12 Q. Okay. If you turn to the second page of

13

Exhibit 20, you'll see that appears to be the

14

mail." That's what it says; right?

14

first page of Prison Legal News magazine or

15 A. Yes.

15

journal. Do you see that?

16 Q. Is that true?

16 A. Yes.

17 A. That's what it says. Yes.

17 Q. Have you ever read any portion of Prison Legal

18 Q. Is that true, that Columbia County Jail only

18

News?

19

accepts postcards and that that policy applies

20

to all incoming and outgoing mail?

19 A. No.
20 Q. Any issue?

21 A. No.

22

MR. ROBERSON: Object to form.

21 A. No.
22 Q. Why not?

23 Q. BY MR. WING: Okay. There is also what appears 23 A. I don't have -- I just haven't.

24

to be a stamp that's partially covering the

24 Q. Okay. Do you believe that this document is

25

addressee's information on this Exhibit 20;

25

protected under the 1st Amendment?

Page 163

Page 165

1

right?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Have you seen that stamp before?

4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Is that used by the jail?

1 A. Absolutely.

2 Q. And should it have been delivered to your jail?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And you believe that the censorship of this

5

item, the rejection of Exhibit 20 violated the

6 A. No.
7 Q. Where did you see it?
8 A. Mail I've sent out personally. It seems to be a

6

1st Amendment?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Thank you. If you please look at Exhibit 21.

9

post office stamp.

10 Q. You think that's from the post office?

9

Oh, let's go back for one minute. Excuse me.

10

Looking at Exhibit 20, can you tell from any

11 A. That's what I believe, but I don't know. That's 11

portion of Exhibit 20 why Exhibit 20 was

12

the only place I've ever seen anything like this

12

rejected by your jail?

13

before.

13 A. I don't know that it was rejected by our jail,

14 Q. Okay. So are you saying you don't know whether 14

but I don't know other than, I don't know why it

15

the jail has that stamp or your answer is the

16

jail does not have that stamp?

15

was rejected.

16 Q. Okay. Does the postcard-only policy apply to

17 A. I don't know that the jail has this stamp.

18 Q. Have you done anything to investigate whether,

19

what stickers and stamps the jail uses when

17

magazines?

18 A. No.

19 Q. Did it ever?

20

responding or returning mail?

21 A. No.

20 A. Not according to policy, no.
21 Q. And the only information that you see on the

22

MR. ROBERSON: Can we specify for the record 22

cover of Exhibit 20 as to why the jail might

23

what stamp you're referring to?

23

have rejected this item is the sticker?

24 Q. BY MR. WING: So I think we've agreed that there 24 A. Yes.

25

are two stamps on the front page of Exhibit 20

25 Q. Is that true?

42 (Pages 162 to 165) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit I; Page 27 of 37

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 28 of 37

Dickerson, Jeffrey

May 10, 2012

Page 166

Page 168

1 A. Yes.

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Let's go to Exhibit 21. There is a, appears to

2 Q. Okay. And if this was rejected by the jail --

3

be a stamp that says inspected by Columbia

3 Before we get there, why don't you look at the

4

County Jail at the top. Do you see that?

4 second page. Do you see this is an order form

5 A. Yes.

5 for subscription to Prison Legal News?

6 Q. Is that a stamp you've seen before at your jail? 6 A. Yes.

7 A. No.

7 Q. Have you ever seen that before?

8 Q. And there are three reasons why this was

8 A. No.

9

returned, according to this stamp, would you

9 Q. If you look, the page after that is the reverse

10 agree?

10 side of that, different subscription rates and

11 A. Yes.

11 time periods. Do you see that?

12 Q. It says first, "Return to sender." And then it

12 A. Yes.

13 says, "Contraband." And then it says,

13 Q. And the page after that you see is a front and

14 "Refuse/violates security." Do you see that?

14 back of a order form for books to be sold by

15 A. Yes.

15 Prison Legal News. Do you see that?

16 Q. Would you please take a minute and look at the 16 A. Yes.

17 second page of this document. Again it is a

17 Q. And then finally there's a book offer with a

18 magazine, Prison Legal News; right?

18 habeas cite book. Do you see that?

19 A. Yes.

19 A. Oh, yes.

20 Q. And do you have any reason to believe that this 20 Q. Okay. What is habeas?

21

contains contraband?

21 A. It's, has to do with the demand for the, habeas

22 A. No.

22 corpus is demand for body. So it's some sort of

23 Q. Do you have any reason to believe that it

23 demand, request to show something.

24 violates security at the jail?

24 Q. Okay. Do you think it has to do with prisoners'

25 A. No.

25 rights?

Page 167

Page 169

1 Q. Do you think that the censorship of this Prison

1 A. I would -- Yes.

2

Legal News journal violated the 1st Amendment? 2 Q. And then the last page, something called

3 A. Yes.

3

Prisoner's Guerilla Handbook. Do you see that?

4 Q. And do you think that any, there's any

4 A. Yes.

5

indication on the first page of Exhibit 21 to

5 Q. And you see the subheading there, high school,

6

the person who received this back, what was

6 vocational, paralegal, undergraduate, graduate

7

wrong with this piece of mail so it violates

7 courses?

8

policy?

8 A. Yes.

9 A. No.

9 Q. Do you see it?

10 Q. SO it also would be a violation of the

10 A. Yes.

11

14th Amendment due process requirement; is that 11 Q. Okay. Are these materials that the jail should

12 true?

12 be censoring?

13 A. Yes.

13 A. No.

14 Q. Let's look at Exhibit 22. Have you seen this

14 Q. Do you think they're protected by the 1st

15

before?

15 Amendment?

16 A. No.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Okay. Do you see that the first page is an

17 Q. And in rejecting this mail do you think the jail

18 envelope from Prison Legal News to a prisoner at 18 violated the 1st Amendment?

19 Columbia County Jail?

19 A. Yes.

20 A. Yes.

20 Q. And do you think the first page provides due

21 Q. And you see the sticker that we discussed that 21

process notice --

22

begins, as of April 1st, 2010?

22 A. No.

23 A. Yes.

23 Q. -- to the sender?

24 Q. And it says, it's got the return to sender

24 A. No.

25 stamp; right?

25 Q. And, therefore, would be a violation of the

43 (Pages 166 to 169) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit I; Page 28 of 37

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 29 of 37

Dickerson, Jeffrey

May 10, 2012

Page 170

Page 172

1

14th Amendment?

1 Q. Okay. And they included gift options and

2 A. Yes, I do.

2

subscription forms and book catalogs like we

3 Q. If you please look at Exhibit 23. Flip through

3

looked at before?

4

the pages. I think the contents of the envelope 4 A. Yes.

5

are the same. Let me know if you agree.

5 Q. And you think all of that's protected under the

6 A. I do.

6

1st Amendment?

7 Q. Okay. And Similarly, do you think in rejecting

7 A. Yes.

8

Exhibit 23 the jail violated the 1st Amendment? 8 Q. And so in rejecting Exhibit 24, the jail

9 A. Yes.

9

violated the 1st Amendment?

10 Q. And the front page of Exhibit 23 has a different 10 A. Yes.

11

stamp, one that's not found on Exhibit 22; is

11 Q. And the first page did not give due process

12

that right?

12

notice to the sender; correct?

13 A. Yes.

13 A. Correct.

14 Q. And that's a jail stamp that gave as reasons,

14 Q. Therefore, that would be a violation of the

15

return to sender but review/violates security;

15

14th Amendment; is that right?

16

right?

16 A. Yes.

17 A. Yes.

17 Q. I'd like to show you Exhibit 25. Have you ever

18 Q. And you do not see anything in Exhibit 23 that 18

seen this before?

19

violates security, do you?

19 A. No.

20 A. No.

20 Q. What is a mail violation notice?

21 Q. Okay. Would you please look at Exhibit 24. Do 21 A. It's one of the jail's notices, apparently. Has

22

you see the first page is an envelope from

22

my badge on it.

23

Prison Legal News to a prisoner at Columbia

23 Q. Have you ever seen this kind of notice before?

24

County Jail?

24 A. I have not seen this notice.

25 A. Yes.

25 Q. And would you agree with me that this document

Page 171

Page 173

1 Q. And second page, do you see that's on Prison

1

as a form itself does not provide information

2

Legal News letterhead and it says, "Dear PLN

2

about what type of mail is -- There's a

3

supporter."

3

violation -- I'm not doing a good job with this

4

Do you see that?

4

question. I'm going to strike it.

5 A. Yes.

5

Can you determine from looking at this mail

6 Q. And it says, "You recently received a PLN

6

violation notice what was found to be in

7

fundraising letter, however, the printer made a

7

violation?

8

mistake and did not print the entire letter, so

8 A. Just the one box that's checked.

9

you only received half of it. This is the

9 Q. What does that state?

10

entire letter."

10 A. It says, "Do not accept periodicals."

11

Do you see that?

11 Q. What is a periodical?

12 A. Yes.

12 A. It's a publication that's published

13 Q. Okay. If you take as much time as you need to 13

periodically.

14

look through the rest of the letter and tell me

14 Q. Can you tell from this document what the

15

if you think that this letter is protected under

15

periodical is that was found in violation?

16

the 1st Amendment?

16 A. I cannot.

17 A. No, I do not.

17 Q. And would you agree that this particular form

18 Q. Just to be clear, I asked you whether you

18

says that the jail does not accept periodicals?

19

thought this letter was protected by the

19

Is that what it says?

20

1st Amendment?

20 A. That's what it says.

21 A. I'm sorry.

21 Q. Does it appear to you that this is a form, in

22 Q. That's okay.

22

other words, this isn't typed in just to deal

23 A. Yes, it is protected by the 1st Amendment.

23

with this one instance, but rather it appears to

24 Q. And you looked through the rest of the pages? 24

be a form of the jail that would be used, if

25 A. Yes.

25

you'll excuse the pun, periodically?

44 (Pages 170 to 173) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit I; Page 29 of 37

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 30 of 37

Dickerson, Jeffrey

May 10, 2012

1 Q. .So it's a few months after that?

Page 190
1 A. No.

Page 192

2 A. Yes.

2 Q. SO how would a person, an inmate who wants to

3 Q. Do you know what used to be in the hygiene kits 3

write what they used to write in a four-page

4

for inmates to write before your postcard-only

4

letter on a postcard, how would they go about

5

policy?

5 doing that?

6 A. I do not.

6 A. Well, if they want to communicate as much, as

7 Q. SO if they used to receive four pieces of paper

7

many words as they did on four-page letter, then

8

and now receive two postcards, have you

8

you'd have to buy four postcards.

9

significantly reduced the amount of space in

9 Q. Are you sure it's just four?

10 which they can write --

10 A. Probably eight if you write front to back.

11 A. Yes.

11 Q. Because you can't write on the front of a

12 Q. -- content? Okay.

12 postcard, can you?

13

Would that be a con or a negative reason for 13 A. No.

14 adopting the postcard-only policy?

14 Q. Is that right?

15 A. It certainly could be construed that way by

15 A. Not very -- No.

16 some, sure.

16 Q. It is not right or it is right?

17 Q. Do you construe it that way?

17 A. That's right, you cannot.

18 A. It's -- Potentially, sure.

18 Q. And you'd have to buy postage for each one of

19 Q. Did you consider that when you adopted the

19 those postcards; right?

20

postcard-only policy?

20 A. Yes.

21 A. I did not consider what was in the inmates'

21 Q. SO isn't it actually true that it's much more

22

indigent kits before we implemented that.

22

expensive for an inmate to send the same amount

23 Q. Did you consider the impact of adopting the

23

of content on a postcard as it is to send in the

24

postcard-only policy on the inmates?

24 letter?

25 A. Yes.

25 A. Absolutely.

Page 191

Page 193

1 Q. What did you consider about that?

1 Q. Okay. And the same would be true of those

2 A. I believed, my thoughts were that the inmates

2

people who are sending, used to send letters to

3

would get used to this, that we were, that it

3 inmates via letter, they now have to use

4

was not an effort to infringe on their right to

4 postcards and so they'd have the increased cost

5

communicate, but rather a means for us to make 5

as well; right?

6

sure that the opportunity to communicate could 6 A. Yes.

7

continue by making it more effiCient, not

7 Q. How much, can you compare what the difference in

8

continue versus -- Let me resay that.

8 cost is to the jail in purchasing a postcard

9

It gave us the opportunity to make sure that 9 that you give to inmates versus a piece of white

10 the process of inmates being able to communicate 10 paper?

11

through the mail would not be hampered by our 11 A. I don't know. I do not know the cost.

12

inability to process the mail, that with

12 Q. SO let's say you go to any office supply store

13

everything that we were trying to do with the

13 and you buy a package of 500 sheets of white

14

number of staff that we have, I believe that it

14 paper that you use in your printer; right?

15

was a way for, for inmate communication to be 15 A. Yes.

16

standardized and improved as far as efficiency

16 Q. If we were to compare that with 1,000 postcards

17

so that the mail went out when it was supposed 17

that have the picture of the first sheriff on

18

to go out, got delivered when it was supposed to 18

them that your office buys and gives to inmates,

19

be delivered.

19 do you have an opinion which would be more

20 Q. Do you think it is more expensive for inmates to 20 expensive?

21

communicate by postcard than by letter?

21 A. I really don't know because I don't know how

22 A. No.

22 much the postcards cost us.

23 Q. Do you think that you can include on a single

23 Q. And when somebody writes a letter, there's also

24

postcard what you can include in a four-page

24 the cost of the envelope; right?

25

letter?

25 A. Yes.

49 (Pages 190 to 193) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit I; Page 30 of 37

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 31 of 37

Dickerson, Jeffrey

May 10, 2012

Page 206

Page 208

1

and finding out what's inside.

2 Q. Okay. So would it be your opinion that the

1

(Exhibit 66 marked for identification.)

2 Q. BY MR. WING: Here is Exhibit 66. Do you

3

deputies don't need to open it and look inside

3

recognize the first page of Exhibit 66 as a

4

since it appears to be not privileged and not

4

photocopy of an envelope from your office?

5

legal mail or should they open it up and see

6

what's inside?

5 A. Yes.
6 Q. To Lucy Lenuox?

7 A. I think currently our policy is that they don't

8

open the, these pieces of mail.

9 Q. SO is there anything here that causes you to

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. We've just been looking at correspondence from

9

Lucy Lenuox; right?

10

think that it is contraband or is it contraband

11

in the sense that it's not a postcard?

10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And enclosed in this envelope was a prohibited

12 A. Right. The latter.

12

13 Q. SO in your understanding, does the mail policy 13

mail notice that's the second page of Exhibit 66. And it's addressed to her; is that

14

call letters, by virtue of the fact that they

14

right?

15

are not postcards, contraband?

16 A. No. That's not my understanding.

17 Q. SO this would be a mislabeled reason by calling

18

it contraband. But do you think it would be

15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And the date is 2-11-12; is that right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And can you tell from this notice what it was

19

rejected because it's not a postcard?

19

that was rejected?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Okay. Thank you. And for that reason, it

22

doesn't really matter what is contained in the

20 A. It says it was deemed personal mail and not on a

21

postcard.

22 Q. There are some boxes above that; right?

23

personal mail envelope. It's only supposed to

23 A. Yes.

24

be a postcard, so it gets rejected because it's

24 Q. Do any of those apply?

25

not a postcard?

25 A. Yes.

Page 207

Page 209

1

MR. ROBERSON: Object to form.

1 Q. And which one do you think applies?

2 Q. BY MR. WING: Is that true?

2 A. I would say two, returning the letter.

3 A. If it comes in the form of a personal letter,

3 Q. Okay. Those are not checked; is that right?

4

yes.

4 A. That's correct.

5 Q. Well, what you were looking at in Exhibit 65

5 Q. Okay. And can you tell who the mail handler

6

wasn't really a letter; right? It was in an

6

was?

7

envelope?

7 A. No.

8 A. What I mean is if it comes the way a personal

8 Q. What is your DPSST number?

9

letter would come, with an address handwritten, 9 A. Mine?

10

a return address and handwritten address with no 10 Q. Yes.

11

indication that it's coming from a publisher, no 11 A. 22325.

12

sense it's a periodical, there's no, there's no

12 Q. To your knowledge, are they all five digits?

13

sense that it's even bulk mail, if there's any

13 A. No. They're not all five digits. People who

14

indication that it's coming from a publisher, it

14

have been around longer have short, smaller

15

would be a different story. But if it's coming

15

numbers.

16

as private mail, then right now our policy would 16 Q. Okay. The date on the prohibited mail notice we

17

say that you, it doesn't go through.

17

were just looking at, 2-11-12, is that before or

18 Q. No matter what's in it?

18

after your February 1st training of your staff

19 A. We don't know what's in it.

19

about the new mail policy?

20 Q. But I'm saying it doesn't matter what's in it;

21

right?

20 A. Would be after.
21 Q. If Ms. Lenuox sent the same envelope that you

22 A. Right. Right.

22

saw in Exhibit 66, excuse me, 65, the same

23 Q. According to your policy?

23

enclosure to 11 different prisoners, would you

24 A. Yes.

24

expect her to receive 11 prohibited mail notices

25 Q. Okay. All right.

25

all saying the same thing?

53 (Pages 206 to 209) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit I; Page 31 of 37

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 32 of 37

Dickerson, Jeffrey

May 10, 2012

Page 210

Page 212

1

MR. ROBERSON: Under the policy, Counsel?

1

new policy did not change how incoming and

2

MR. WING: No.

2

outgoing mail is treated?

3

MR. ROBERSON: Object to form.

3

MR. ROBERSON: Form.

4

Go ahead. You can answer.

4

THE WITNESS: That's not how I read this.

5

THE WITNESS: I would expect it. Sure.

5 Q. BY MR. WING: How do you read it?

6 Q. BY MR. WING: Would there be any reason not, for 6 A. This inmate is asking for a copy of the new mail

7

that not to happen?

7

policy. "We were told that the recent changes

8 A. No. No good reason.

8

would be posted." So he knows that there have

9 Q. Okay. Do you know what actually happened?

9

been changes. They just haven't been posted

10 A. No.
11 Q. Okay.

10

yet. What I believe the sergeant is saying is

11

what we told you is still in effect. We will

12

(Exhibit 67 marked for identification.)

13 Q. BY MR. WING: Just look at Exhibit 67. This

12

get it out to you in written form as soon as we

13

can, but there are still changes being made to

14

prisoner through the inmate request form says,

14

the actual wording of the policy. Therefore, to

15

"Could you provide me a copy of CO's new mail

15

put it in writing in some sort of final form for

16

policy, please?" Do you see that?

16

the inmates hasn't happened yet.

17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And do you see the date that this is being

17 Q. BY MR. WING: Okay. That's your interpretation

18

of --

19

requested?

19 A. That's my interpretation of what was written

20 A. Yes.
21 Q. He then writes -- And the date is when, please?

20

here.

21 Q. Okay. Then later the answering deputy writes,

22 A. February 7, 2012.

22

"When the policy is finalized, the inmate

23 Q. That's after you adopted your January 26th

23

portion will be made available via a pod memo."

24

policy; is that right?

24

Is that right? Did I read it correctly?

25 A. Yes.

25 A. Yes.

Page 211

Page 213

1 Q. He then writes, "We were told that the recent

1 Q. Has that happened?

2

changes would be posted in the units, but that

2 A. Has it happened?

3

has not happened." Then the answer at the

3 Q. Yes.

4

bottom says, "The mail policy is changing and

5

the information that affects inmates' mail as

4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And that's the inmate...

6

far as outgoing and incoming mail remains the

6 A. Mail guide.

7

same."

7 Q. Inmate mail guide?

8

Is that true?

8 A. Yes.

9 A. It's what he wrote. I'm not sure what you mean 9 Q. And we've talked about the fact that that

10

by "is that true."

10

doesn't include information about due process;

11 Q. Is it true that the new policy did not affect

11

right?

12

the incoming or outgoing mail?

12 A. That's correct.

13

MR. ROBERSON: Object to form.

13 Q. And it does not include a clarification that

14

THE WITNESS: If you're asking me -- I'm

14

magazines are allowed; right?

15

trying to figure out what you're asking me. I'm 15 A. Right. But it doesn't prohibit the magazine.

16

sorry.

16 Q. And then it says, the deputy says, "After the

17 Q. BY MR. WING: I'm trying to be as direct as I

17

policy is finalized, that will be placed in the

18

can be. This prisoner has asked for a copy of

18

new upcoming inmate manual"; is that right?

19

the new policy; would you agree?

20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And the response says, as far as the incoming,

19 A. That's correct.
20 Q. When will the new inmate manual be coming out?
21 A. It is in the hands of legal counsel. I'm

22

outgoing mail goes, the policy is the same.

23

Isn't that what he wrote?

22

waiting.

23 Q. Okay. And this inmate was told this back on

24 A. That's what he wrote.
25 Q. And I'm asking you whether it's true that the

24

February 8th, 2012; right?

25 A. Yes.

54 (Pages 210 to 213) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit I; Page 32 of 37

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 33 of 37

Dickerson, Jeffrey

May 10, 2012

Page 250

Page 252

1 Q.' Okay. And do you have the same computer that 1

the Columbia County Jail soon will limit

2

you had --

2

incoming and outgoing inmate mail to postcards

3 A. Yes.

3

only, Sheriff Jeff Dickerson announced Tuesday."

4 Q. -- throughout?

4

Did I read that correctly?

5 A. Yes.

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Okay. Do you have a place on your computer, a 6 Q. And was this the notice you were talking about

7

folder where you keep things regarding policies? 7

earlier in your deposition that you notified the

8 A. Yes. Not on the computer -- Well, on our

8

public this policy was coming?

9

various drives which are on the network, we have 9 A. Yes.

10

all of our superseded policies.

10 Q. Did you send a press release to the Daily News?

11 Q. Okay. In final form?

11

Did you hold a press conference?

12 A. Yes.

12 A. No, I didn't hold a press conference.

13 Q. Do you have, track changes that you've made? 13 Q. Did you speak directly to a reporter?

14 A. No.

14 A. I may have.

15 Q. You know what that term means?

15 Q. Okay. The second paragraph begins, "The

16 A. Yes.

16

processing of inmate mail is very time-consuming

17 Q. And do you have a folder or a binder or a

17

and labor-intensive, Dickerson said in a

18

Red Well or something of changes that you've

18

prepared statement."

19

made to policies?

19

Do you think that's something you read or

20 A. No.

20

that you handed out?

21 Q. Sheriff, would you please look at Exhibit 50.

21 A. Well, I, wouldn't have been something I read.

22

It's a copy of the inmate manual --

22

It either was handed out or was part of our,

23 A. Yes.

23

what we had on our website. I don't know. I'd

24 Q. -- dated November 18, 2010. That's the current 24

have to look at the website one and see.

25

one; is that right?

25 Q. Okay. Has the postcard-only policy met your

Page 251

Page 253

1 A. Yes.

1

expectations?

2 Q. Is that your signature?

2 A. I think so.

3 A. It is.

3 Q. That's yes?

4 Q. And just confirm that this is the same first

4 A. Yes.

5

page as Exhibit 5.

5 Q. Did it achieve what you set out to achieve with

6 A. Yes.

6

it?

7 Q. Okay. So that's your Signature on both of

7 A. Yes.

8

those?

8 Q. What did it achieve?

9 A. Yes.

9 A. It has saved us time and it has enabled us to

10 Q. Okay. Sheriff, was there a Oregon State

10

have greater confidence in our security.

11

Sheriffs' Association conference on or about

11 Q. How has it saved you time?

12

April 3rd of this year that you attended?

12 A. Based on reports that I receive from our, the

13 A. No. I don't -- No.

13

leadership in the jail, it's cut it by about

14 Q. Did you attend --

14

half.

15 A. They might have had one, but I didn't attend it. 15 Q. Who told you that?

16 Q. Did you attend any conferences in which there 16 A. I believe it's Sergeant Cutright. Sergeant

17

was a discussion about modifying sheriff

17

Cutright told me.

18

department's policies because of this lawsuit?

18 Q. When did he tell you this?

19 A. No.

19 A. I don't remember.

20

(Exhibit 68 marked for identification.)

20 Q. Did he tell you how he came to that conclusion?

21 Q. BY MR. WING: Let's look at Exhibit 68. Do you 21 A. No.

22

see this is a news article from the Daily News

22 Q. Did he tell you this year or sometime before

23

dated December 22nd, 2009? Do you see that? 23

that?

24 A. Yes, I do.

24 A. I don't recall.

25 Q. And it says, "To save time and improve security, 25 Q. Do you believe there's a correlation between how

64 (Pages 250 to 253) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit I; Page 33 of 37

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 34 of 37

Dickerson, Jeffrey

May 10, 2012

Page 254

Page 256

1 much mail the jail gets and how many prisoners 1 A. I don't know. I have never processed the mail,

2

it houses?

2 so I can't comment on that.

3 A. I don't know.

3 Q. Okay. Do you plan to keep the policy you have,

4 Q. Is it possible that it takes less time to

4

the mail policy?

5 process the mail because you have fewer

5 A. You asked me if I planned on never changing it?

6 prisoners?

6

And we always are reevaluating, trying to make

7 A. I don't know.

7

sure our policies are the most efficient and

8 Q. Is it possible that it takes less time to

8

effective and clear as they possibly can be.

9

process the mail because it's being done in the

9 Q. Okay. So you don't know what your plans are?

10 middle of the night when there's a lot less

10 A. Well, the plan is ongoing policy review on all

11 going on in the jail?

11 the policies.

12 A. I don't know.

12 Q. Have you included in anybody's performance

13 Q. Is it possible that it takes less time to

13 evaluation failure to comply with the mail

14 process the mail because the amount of mail

14 policies?

15 that's being sent is far less since you adopted

15 A. No.

16 a postcard-only policy?

16 Q. Have you disciplined any employee for failing to

17

MR. ROBERSON: Object to form.

17 comply with the mail policies?

18

THE WITNESS: Anything is possible, but I

18 A. No.

19 don't, I don't know.

19 Q. Are you aware of anybody who has been

20 Q. BY MR. WING: Well, you seem to have attributed 20 disciplined for that reason?

21 the amount of time it takes to process the mail 21 A. No.

22 to the postcard policy; right?

22 Q. Do you have any intention of disciplining

23 A. Yes.

23 anybody for failing to comply with the mail

24 Q. SO I am asking you why couldn't it be due to

24 policies?

25 something else? And it sounds like you don't

25 A. I don't have any intent at this time, no.

Page 255

Page 257

1 know.

1 Q. During the course of the past two years, have

2 A. Well, it could be, like anything. Sure.

2 you ever looked at your website?

3 Q. SO what caused you to conclude that it was

3 A. The front page always jumps up on my, it's the

4

because of the merits of the postcard-only

4

home page.

5

policy?

5 Q. Okay.

6 A. Subjected belief.

6 A. When I go on the internet.

7 Q. And what is your subjected belief based on?

7 Q. And do you go on the internet?

8 A. The understanding that based on what I've heard 8 A. Regularly.

9

is that the mail has not necessarily decreased

9 Q. Regularly. Several times a week?

10 all that much from the time, over time and that 10 A. Yes.

11

could be for a number of reasons. But that I'm 11 Q. And are there parts of your website that you go

12 not going to speculate on. But just based on

12 and check?

13 that and then based on the fact that we are, no 13 A. Yes, from time to time.

14

matter how many, what time of day it happens, 14 Q. What parts?

15 it, the amount of work is going to be the same. 15 A. Well, mostly the press releases when I'm

16 So it's not necessarily the time of day that it

16 doing -- When I, when I first started out the

17 happens. And there's always going to be

17 first couple years I didn't do anything on the

18 interruptions in the process, even on graveyard. 18 website. Jeff Mansheim is part time and I got

19 Q. Okay. Have you done anything to investigate

19

him to teach me how to do some of the basic

20

whether the, how long it takes to process the

20 stuff. So I, mostly I do press releases.

21

mail and what any reduction is the result of?

21 Q. How often would you say you put together a new

22 A. No.

22

press release for your website?

23 Q. Okay. Do you think that it would take more or 23 A. I'd say it varies, really does. I could go

24 less time to process 16 postcards or four pages 24 weeks where they have three or four or five and

25

in a letter?

25

then maybe more weeks where I don't do any.

65 (Pages 254 to 257) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit I; Page 34 of 37

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 35 of 37

Dickerson, Jeffrey

May 10, 2012

Page 258

Page 260

1

Just depends on what's happening and how much 1

formal count. They could be booking in someone

2

time we have.

2

3 Q. Okay. Your declaration, Exhibit 3, paragraph 9,

3

who's been brought in by a police agency or ICE. They could be doing lS-minute checks on a

4

third sentence you wrote, "Following the filing

4

suicidal subject. They could be, have to

5

of plaintiff's lawsuit, I learned that the front

5

prepare a six-pack for an agency. It's a photo

6

office employees sometime rejected mailings

6

line-up for an agency requesting assistance,

7

before sending them to corrections staff." Who

7

emergency assistance from our jail, doing a

8

did you find out actually rejected mailings?

8

photo line-up. Those are just some of the

9 A. I don't, I don't have the names of the people.
10 Q. Is it your testimony that somebody in the front

9

things that come to mind.

10 Q. Is it generally pretty quiet during graveyard

11

office actually rejected Prison Legal News?

11

shift?

12 A. That's, that's what I believe.

12 A. It's more quiet than it is during day shift.

13 Q. Have you asked Jim Carpenter whether he trained 13 Q. SO is there downtime when there's not much to

14

anybody who sits at the front desk to make

14

do?

15

decisions about whether mail is permitted or

15 A. I imagine so. I don't know.

16

should be rejected?

16 Q. Do you have a law library at the jail?

17 A. I asked Jim Carpenter about what happened. I 17 A. I know we have law books.

18

don't know if it was put exactly in those terms.

18 Q. Where do you keep them?

19 Q. And what did he say regarding that?
20 A. He was unsure.

19 A. They're kept in the jail.
20 Q. Are they kept on a library cart?

21 Q. SO he might have told the front desk employees 21 A. Yes. Yes.

22

that they could make decisions about whether

22 Q. And they all fit on that library cart on both

23

mail is permitted or rejected?

23

sides; is that right?

24 A. He might have. I don't know.

24 A. I don't know the extent of the law library or

25 Q. Okay. Regarding your description of contraband 25

the books in the law --

Page 259

Page 261

1

in your declaration, is that information that

1 Q. You were present during the mail inspection?

2

you have personally or is it just something

2 A. Yeah. Part of it, yes.

3

you've been told by somebody else?

3 Q. Okay. And that cart was brought out--

4 A. It's a combination of both.
5 Q. Have you ever seen contraband that included

4 A. Yes.
5 Q. -- for our inspection --

6

bodily fluids?

7 A. Yes.

6 A. Yes.
7 Q. -- in the hallway; right?

8 Q. Where?
9 A. I believe it was in the Washington County Jail.

8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And you sawall of those books on the cart?

10 Q. When were you in the Washington County Jail? 10 A. Yes.

11 A. In my 23 years of law enforcement I've been in a 11 Q. And do you know what those books are comprised

12

lot of jails and that was one where I believe I

12

of?

13

saw it.

14 Q. SO you were there as a state trooper; is that

13 A. They looked like legal reference books.
14 Q. Oregon statutes?

15

correct?

15 A. I believe. Yes. I saw some that said Oregon on

16 A. Yeah, as a detective with the state police.

16

them.

17 Q. Have you seen any of the things you've described 17 Q. And is that the extent of the legal books that

18

in your declaration in the Columbia County Jail? 18

are available to prisoners at Columbia County

19 A. No.

19

Jail?

20 Q. If a deputy or sergeant was not processing the 20 A. I don't know.

21

mail at 1:00 in the morning or thereabouts, what 21 Q. Was there ever a computer available to

22

would that official be doing?

22

prisoners?

23 A. If they were not doing it?

23 A. There was and I don't know if there still is or

24 Q. Yes.
25 A. Wide variety of thi!lgs. They could be doing a

24

not.

25 Q. SO you don't know whether that was changed for

66 (Pages 258 to 261) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit I; Page 35 of 37

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 36 of 37

Dickerson, Jeffrey

May 10, 2012

1 Q. .Would you endorse such a thing?

Page 266
1

prisoner?

Page 268

2 A. Potentially.
3 Q. When prisoners complained about the

2 A. Yes. Or, or any sender of mail.
3 Q. Okay.

4

postcard-only policy, you expected that the

4 A. We have to know what we have done, not just that

5

sheriff deputies would respond, maybe politely,

5

we're violating their rights.

6

but nevertheless, well, that's the policy;

6 Q. Okay. So today you have acknowledged that the

7

right? I mean, in effect saying this is the

7

Columbia County Jail violated Prison Legal

8

policy we have and we're not going to change it, 8

News's rights, the 1st Amendment and the

9

at least not right now.

9

14th Amendment and several publications. What,

10 A. There's a grievance procedure that the inmates 10

if any, corrective action have you taken

11

can follow. And it should be written. And if

11

regarding that?

12

there was a template that was added to that,

12 A. Well, we instituted a, an effort to establish a

13

that is informational and accurate, then I think

13

due process for senders of mail and receivers of

14

that would be helpful.

15 Q. In essence, the grievance that you shouldn't

14

mail. Well, the receivers have had somewhat of

15

a due process. But, so we've, we're working on

16

have a postcard-only policy, you would expect

16

the due process part. We have changed the

17

would be responded to by saying, but we do have 17

policy to reflect that. We've also notified our

18

a postcard-only policy and it's going to be

18

staff that you have to err on the side of the

19

applied. I mean, some verbiage maybe more

19

inmate and of the sender. And if there's a

20

politely than that, but that would be the

20

question, it either comes in or it, it has to

21

outcome; right?

21

be, it has to be checked through a supervisor if

22 A. I really don't know what they're doing back

22

they're going to deny a final, you know, denial

23

there or how it's going to be perceived or how

23

of a, of anything.

24

they're going to present it to the inmates.

24 Q. And when you say your staff has been notified of

25 Q. SO what I'm saying is the outcome of a grievance 25

that, when and where has your staff been

Page 267

Page 269

1

about the postcard-only policy is a foregone

1

notified of that?

2

conclusion; right? Like a change in

2 A. Well, through the training process.

3

postcard-only policy because an inmate grieved

3 Q. Did you attend the training?

4

it; right?

5 A. It could.

6 Q. But you haven't?

7 A. Every time there's a grievance, we evaluate it.

4 A. I did not.
5 Q. SO how do you know?
6 A. Just what I've been told by my staff.
7 Q. Is this the one-hour training on February 1st,

8

We're evaluating a grievance right now. We

8

2012?

9

evaluate grievances.

10 Q. Can anybody bring a grievance about the

9 A. I believe so. Yes.
10 Q. And who told you that that's what your staff

11

postcard-only policy to you?

11

were notified?

12 A. No. I'm just saying overall policy. I'm sorry.

13

No one's brought a postcard-only policy

12 A. Undersheriff Moyer.
13 Q. You talked to him in a break during this

14

grievance to me.

14

deposition; right?

15 Q. And if they said I think you're violating my

15 A. Yes.

16

1st Amendment rights, then you would have done 16 Q. What did you talk to him about?

17

what with that?

17 A. Mostly about one of our inmates.

18 A. I would expect a, a detailed explanation on how 18 Q. Did you talk about the mail policy?

19

we are violating the individual's 1st Amendment 19 A. Only asked him one question and that was in

20

rights and to see if, and certainly check to see

20

regard to the notification of inmates on our

21

that we're standing up to Constitutional muster

22

on that.

23 Q. And when you say you'd expect someone to, to

21

mail policy.

22 Q. Does the jail remove the staples from

23

publications that it admits?

24

present a detailed argument for why you're

24 A. I don't know.

25

violating the 1st Amendment rights, you mean the 25 Q. Do you know why they would?

68 (Pages 266 to 269) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit I; Page 36 of 37

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 37 of 37

Dickerson, Jefiiey

~1ay 10,2012

Paqe 284

1

C E R T I FIe ATE

..L

2

3

4

h.ereby certify tha.t .1EFFREYJ>.L DTCKEHBON

p.e..r.s.ona.·.·,"'4 1..·.·y··· ta,; ·..p•...p. l.~..a.r"·e·.<'".l b·.e·.·. ·r".o'o.·:·r·.·:e~. ·.JI·.I·"\e··· a:·t·· t·.h_ ,e··r. .··· '·-I.i.·.rne, aneL

6

plqcemention.ed In the \::aption herein; that th(~

7

witnesS was by me fIrst duly sworn on oath, and

8

examined upon oral interrogatories propounded by

9

c.ounsel; thr3tt sa.i.d exarnitlatioI"l, together ~~li.t,h

10

11

me in ster~otype and thl~re<afte:t reduced to

12

typewriting; and that the foregoing tran.s.cript,

13

Pages 1 to 283, both. inclusive, constitutes a

14

full, t rtle and acc.utate record of said

15

16

witness; and ofallotherpt'oceedi11gs ha.d during

17

the. takirrg of sa i.d deposi tioniC3nd of the i,..;rhol e

18

thereof, to the best of rely abili ty .

19

vvitness my hand at Portland, Oregon, this

20

5th

f 2012.

21

23

A,leshia K.Macom

24

CSR No. 94-0296

25

BeovichWalt.er & Friend

WING DECL; Exhibit I; Page 37 of 37

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 28
EXHIBIT II
TO DECLARATION OF JESSE WING IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
WING DECL; Exhibit II; Page 1 of 28

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 28
Cutright, Bryan

May 9,2012

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF OREGON

3

PORTLAND DIVISION

4

5 PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project

6 of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE

7 CENTER,

No. 3:12-CV-71-SI

8

Plaintiff,

9

v.

10 COLUMBIA COUNTY; Columbia

11 County Sheriff's Office; JEFF

12 DICKERSON, individually and

13 in his capacity as Columbia

14 County Sheriff,

15

Defendants.

16

17

18

19

20

30(b) (6) DEPOSITION OF BRYAN CUTRIGHT

21

Taken in behalf of Plaintiff

22

May 9, 2012

23

24

25

Page 1
I

Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit II; Page 2 of 28

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 28

Cutright, Bryan

May 9, 2012

Page 22

Page 24

1 Q. .You mentioned the one con of the postcard-only 1 Q. And has that changed since the beginning of

2

policy that you could remember as a topic of

2

2010?

3

discussion was that there's less room for

3 A. Has, I'm not sure, what changed?

4

inmates to write.

4 Q. That mail is typically received in envelope.

II '

5 A. Correct.

5 A. Yeah. The only mail we accept is postcards.

6 Q. And why is that a con?

6 Q. SO we did a jail inspection last night and we

7 A. Inmates usually typically wrote letters on

7 saw quite a few postcards come into the jail and

8

notebook paper and they would write on front and 8

very few envelopes.

9

back. And they could send usually roughly about 9 A. Correct.

10 four pieces of paper per stamp.

10 Q. Was that an immediate change or did that come

11 Q. SO that was before the postcard-only policy?

11 over time?

12 A. Correct.

12 A. When we changed to actually the postcard policy,

13 Q. And was it typical for an inmate to write a

13

we let the inmates, we gave them a certain

14 four-page, front-and-back letter?

14 amount of time from the initiating this to the

,

15 A. I don't recall. I never counted all of them.

15 end of this so that they could have a chance to

16

But they got two sheets of paper and two

16 notify their families. And then we said this is

17 envelopes, or four sheets of paper and two

17 the drop dead, this is when postcards only will

18 envelopes every time they got hygiene kits.

18 be accepted. I don't know what the dates were.

19 Q. And prior to the postcard-only policy, could an 19 Q. Sometime in 2010?

20

inmate obtain more than four sheets of paper at 20 A. Yes.

21

a time?

21 Q. Did it still take some time before people

22 A. They could buy tablets of paper.

22 outside the jail learned of the policy?

23 Q. How many tablets?

23 A. I don't recall. It was fairly, pretty quick

24 A. There was no limit on it. Whenever commissary 24 catching on.

25

went, they could buy, I don't know if there was 25 Q. But did the jail continue to receive incoming

Page 23

Page 25

1 an actual limit for the commissary itself, but

1 mail in an envelope?

2 they could buy whatever money they had on their 2 A. I'm sure we still do, I would assume.

3

books basically.

3 Q. Do you currently process the mail?

4 Q. SO when you say they could have four sheets of 4 A. Not at this moment because I'm not on graveyard.

5

paper, do you mean, are you referring to

5 Q. When is the last time you did process the mail?

6

indigent inmates?

6 A. Would have been December 2011.

7 A. Yeah. Indigent hygiene kits came out with four 7 Q. Do you currently supervise the processing of the

8

sheets of paper and two envelopes.

8 mail?

9 Q. What else is in a hygiene kit?

9 A. No.

10 A. Shampoo, toothpaste, toothbrush, pencil, a comb. 10 Q. Have you ever?

11 I believe that's it, plus the paper. Now it's

11 A. Have I ever supervised processing?

12 postcards, but it was paper and envelopes.

12 Q. Yes.

13 Q. Prior to the postcard-only policy, did inmates

13 A. Yes.

14 send postcards in outgoing mail?

14 Q. When was that?

15 A. We didn't have postcards for them to send.

15 A. I would say December of 2011.

16 Q. Prior to the postcard-only policy did inmates

16 Q. And can you describe for me, how does that work

17 receive postcards in the mail?

17 when you supervise the processing of the mail?

18 A. On occasions.

18 A. I basically watch the deputy processing the mail

19 Q. Was that typical?

19 and answer any questions they may have. If they

20 A. Not typical, but every now and then they'd come 20 have a question that may arise about whether

21

in if their family is on vacation you would see

21 this piece of mail should be accepted or

22 one from Florida or wherever they would possibly 22 rejected, then I would give them the answer per

23 be.

23 the policy, yes it can come in or no, it's not.

24 Q. Do most of the mail come in by envelope?

24 Q. Does that mean you're in the same room as the

25 A. Yes.

25 deputy --

7 (Pages 22 to 25) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit II; Page 3 of 28

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 4 of 28

Cutright, Bryan

May 9,2012

Page 26

Page 28

1 A. Yes.

1 A. It would either be Sergeant Miller or Sergeant

2 Q. -- when the mail is being processed? Yes?

2

Rigdon.

3 A. Yes.

3 Q. Does that mean that typically a deputy is

4 Q. Just to make sure we don't have a confusing

4

processing the mail and either Sergeant Miller,

5 record, it's important that I finish asking you

5

Sergeant Rigdon is supervising that activity?

6

my question before you answer even if you think

6 A. Not at this time. There's usually only three

7 you know what I'm asking. Okay?

7

people on the shift at that time of the night.

8 A. Okay.

8

And typically it would be the sergeant

9 Q. Great. So in December 2011 when you supervised 9

processing the mail, I would assume.

10 the mail processing, what shift was that on?

10 Q. SO in December 2011 you're working day shift; is

11 A. Day shift.

11

that right?

12 Q. Day shift?

12 A. Correct.

13 A. Yes.

13 Q. And do you work day shift that whole year?

14 Q. And I understand that now the mail is processed 14 A. Yes.

15 graveyard; is that right?

15 Q. And does that mean that each time that you

16 A. Yes.
17 Q. When was that changed?

16

worked you were dealing with mail issues and

17

supervising the deputy that was processing the

18 A. I don't know the exact date.

18

mail?

19 Q. After, shortly after December 2011?

19 A. No.

20 A. Well, it's sometime between December, or

20 Q. How often were you dealing with those issues?

21 January 1, 2011 -- or 2012 and today's date. I

21 A. Whenever they came up. I couldn't give you an

22 was on swing shift prior to this, so I didn't

22

exact number.

23 process the mail.

23 Q. At least once a week?

24 Q. Okay. So in December 2011, was supervising the 24 A. Yes.

25

mail processing one of your regular duties on

25 Q. At least once a shift?

Page 27

Page 29

1 every shift?

1 A. No.

2 A. My duties was a supervisor on the shift. So

2 Q. When you were supervising the mail processing,

3

everything on the shift was my duty.

3 what room was the mail being processed in?

4 Q. And how often did an issue requiring your 5 attention regarding the mail come up?

4 A. What was the what?
5 Q. What room was the mail being processed in?

6 A. Quite frequently because of the postcard policy,

6 A. Typically just in the booking area itself.

7

making sure that we don't, you know, making sure 7 Q. We went to the jail last night but we saw a lot

8 things don't get rejected that shouldn't be or

8 different pieces of it. Can you describe for me

9 things that, items may come in that had writing

9 what you're terming the booking area?

10 on both sides or something and policy says it

10 A. Where the mail was processed, is being processed

11 can only be on one or reviewing some of the

11 at this time is the, is an office in the booking

12 photographs that some people may think are

12 area. The booking area is right in front of

13 sexually explicit to determine whether they are

13 that where the three stations are and the three

14 or not.

14 computers. That's the actual booking area.

15 Q. You mentioned sometimes writing comes in on both 15 Q. In 2011 when you were supervising the processing

16 sides. Do you mean both sides of a postcard?

16 of the mail, did any events occur regarding the

17 A. Both sides of a postcard, yes.

17 mail that prompted you to suggest changes in the

18 Q. And is that prohibited?

18 mail policy?

19 A. Yes.

19 A. No.

20 Q. Why is that?

20

(Exhibit 6 marked for identification.)

21 A. I'm not sure.

21 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Sergeant, the court

22 Q. Do you have any idea?

22 reporter's just handed to you what's been marked

23 A. No.

23 as Exhibit 6. Have you seen Exhibit 6 before?

24 Q. And who supervises the processing of the mail

24 A. Yes.

25 now that it's done on graveyard?

25 Q. And Exhibit 6 is titled Defendant Jeff

8 (Pages 26 to 29) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit II; Page 4 of 28

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 5 of 28

Cutright, Bryan

May 9,2012

Page 38

Page 40

1 one goes to the inmate, one goes in the file.

1 A. The new ones? No.

2

At that time we weren't sending them back to the 2 Q. Have you heard any complaints about them?

3

initial person, but just to make sure they were

3 A. No.

4

in the two proper places.

4 Q. There was training this year on the new mail

5 Q. When you say they were not being sent back to 5

policy; is that right?

6 the initial person, what do you mean by that?

6 A. Yes.

7 A. Whoever sent the mail in, there was no

7 Q. Were you involved in that in any way?

8

prohibited mail slip being sent with the

8 A. Yes.

9

rejected mail back to the individual who sent

9 Q. How were you involved?

10 the item.

10 A. Basically conducted the training with the

11 Q. SO if someone from outside the jail sent a

11

Undersheriff Andy Moyer.

12 letter or some other correspondence to an inmate 12 Q. Who attended the training?

13 and it was rejected, the person who sent the

13 A. All corrections staff.

14 mail in was not getting notice that the mail was 14 Q. All corrections staff from all shifts?

15 rejected?

15 A. Yes.

16 A. They were receiving their mail back with a stamp 16 Q. When you say "corrections staff," do you mean

17 on there that said contraband or something.

17 deputies and sergeants?

18 It's a little stamp. I don't remember exactly

18 A. Yes.

19 what it says. It has three or four little

19 Q. Anyone else?

20 checkboxes you can check and then stamp it on 20 A. No.

21 the envelope or whatever the item was and send 21

(Exhibit 7 marked for identification.)

22 it back.

22 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Sergeant, you've been

23 Q. Okay. So the sender outside the jail -- Strike

23

handed Exhibit 7. Is this the course attendance

24 that.

24

roster from the training you've just described?

25

The jail would return to sender the rejected 25 A. Yes.

Page 39

Page 41

1 mail; correct?

1 Q. How long was that training?

2 A. Correct.

2 A. It indicates it was one hour.

3 Q. But did not send the sender a prohibited mail

3 Q. Were you in charge of it?

4

notice or mail rejection form?

4 A. I was co-facilitating with the undersheriff.

5 A. Correct.

5 Q. Did the two of you share responsibility equally?

6 Q. SO who at that time that that was the procedure, 6 A. No. He, we, the way training was conducted was

7 who did receive the prohibited mail notice or

7 we gave everybody a copy of the new policy and

8

mail rejection form?

8 we went down and read the entire policy to staff

9 A. It was supposed to be one given to the inmate 9 and stopped at every one of them just to ask,

10 and one placed in the inmate's file.

10 make sure no one had any questions or concerns.

11 Q. Is that a carbon copy?

11 And that was how we conducted the training.

12 A. It's just a copy off the copy machine.

12 Q. SO you handed out the new policy to all staff?

13 Q. SO the deputy processing the mail would fill one 13 A. Yes.

14 out and then make a copy in the copy machine? 14 Q. Each of them had their own copy?

15 A. Correct.

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. When's the last time you processed the mail

16 Q. And someone read it out loud?

17 yourself?

17 A. Yes. We went around the room and each person

18 A. I would say December 2011.

18 read a certain portion of it.

19 Q. Were you involved in any way in drafting the new 19 Q. And were there questions?

20 mail rejection notices?

20 A. There was a couple. I don't know what they

21 A. No.

21 were.

22 Q. Who did that?

22 Q. And how long did you say the training lasted?

23 A. Either the sheriff or the undersheriff. I

23 A. It indicates it was one hour.

24 couldn't tell you.

24 Q. Does that sound right to you?

25 Q. Have you used one?

25 A. Yeah. The meeting was, the meeting was actually

11 (Pages 38 to 41) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit II; Page 5 of 28

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 6 of 28

Cutright, Bryan

May 9,2012

Page 42

Page 44

1

four hours and there were several other things

1

template?

2

discussed and other things trained on. But

2 A. Yes.

3

yeah, it was about an hour for the mail itself.

3 Q. You mentioned that the February 1st, 2012,

4 Q. Handing to you what's previously been marked as 4

training was a one-hour training but was part of

5

Exhibit 3. Exhibit 3 is the declaration of

5

a mUlti-hour meeting; is that right?

6

Sheriff Dickerson, including exhibits. Can you

6 A. Yes.

7

let me know which, let me know if the policy

7 Q. Would you call it a staff meeting?

8

that was handed out in the training you've just

8 A. It was a staff meeting and then training

9

described is attached to the sheriff's

9

involved with it, yes.

10 declaration and which one it is.

10 Q. And when a staff meeting and training occurs,

11 A. I couldn't tell you for sure which one it is. I

11

does someone take minutes of those meetings?

12 would assume since the, looking at the policies, 12 A. No.

13

looking at the training, the training was

13 Q. Did you take notes during the staff training?

14 conducted on February 1st and the policy got

14 A. No.

15 written on January 26th, which would be the one 15 Q. Do you know if anyone else did?

16 closest to that time frame.

16 A. Not that I recall.

17 Q. Are you looking at Exhibit E?

17 Q. Was anyone in charge of taking note of what

18 A. Which would be Exhibit E, correct.

18

questions or issues were raised during the

19 Q. SO based on the date of the training, which was 19

training?

20

February 1st, you believe that Exhibit E to the

20 A. No. The only thing that would have been, the

21

sheriff's declaration is the policy that was

21

undersheriff would have made the notes on the

22

handed out and read aloud?

22 actual policy that he had if there was any

23 A. Yes.

23

changes that needed to be made, like I said,

24 Q. As you can see, there's a later policy dated

24

spelling ones or things like that that came up.

25

February 10th, 2012. It's Exhibit F to the

25

But other than that, no.

Page 43

Page 45

1 sheriff's declaration. Do you see that?

1 Q. Do you believe Undersheriff Moyer took notes on

2 A. Yes.

2

his policy, is that what you're saying?

3 Q. And were you involved in any way in drafting the

3 A. He took notes for corrections on his policy,

4 modifications between those two poliCies?

4 yes.

5 A. Not that I recall.

5 Q. You did not take notes?

6 Q. Do you know what prompted the sheriff'S

6 A. No.

7 department to issue another policy on

7 Q. SO other than the reading of the policy aloud

8 February 10th?

8 and answering the questions that arose, did

9 A. I, from my recollection I believe that there was

9 anything else occur during the February 1st,

10 a few changes that had came up during the

10 2012, training?

11 training session.

11 A. Not that I recall.

12 Q. What were those?

12 Q. Was, during the February 1st, 2012, training,

13 A. I have no idea. I don't recall what they were.

13 was this lawsuit discussed?

14 Most of them were, I believe were like typos,

14 A. No.

15 things that needed to be corrected as far as

15 Q. Has there been a meeting with jail staff

16 spelling goes. I do know there was a couple

16 regarding this lawsuit?

17 Washington County items left in the policy that

17 A. Not that I've attended.

18 had to be taken out and changed to Columbia

18 Q. Do you know if there's been a meeting with jail

19 County. But other than that, I have no idea

19 staff regarding this lawsuit?

20 what the rest of them would be.

20 A. Not that I'm aware of.

21 Q. Do you know why Washington County's name was in 21

(Exhibit 8 marked for identification.)

22 the Columbia County Jail mail policy?

22

MR. KRAEMER: You know, we've been going for

23 A. Because the policy was drafted off of a

23

probably an hour and a half, I think.

24 Washington County policy.

24

MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Oh, sure. I'm just going

25 Q. SO Washington County policy was used as a

25 to ask one question on Exhibit 7 and let's take

12 (Pages 42 to 45) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit II; Page 6 of 28

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 7 of 28

Cutright, Bryan

May 9, 2012

Page 50

Page 52

1

policy had been changed?

1

not allow them to hide contraband in envelopes,

2 A. No. I think enough people had heard the rumor 2

put substance inside there, paperclips, you

3

that there was a lawsuit pending. But the

3

know, different contraband items.

4

policy was changed because when the lawsuit was 4 Q. You mentioned the first reason for the suggested

5

actually filed, after reviewing our policy,

5

change, you mentioned standardized to keep

6

there was several issues that we thought we

6

things going. What do you mean by that?

7

could improve upon and that needed to be

7 A. The jail standards which we've already talked

8

changed. So that's what we moved forward with. 8

9 Q. SO was the jail's mail policy changed in

9

about are a set of standards that are throughout the state of Oregon. Those standards are set,

10

response to the issues raised in this lawsuit?

10

they're not a requirement, but they're a

11 A. Yes.

11

12 Q. Other than what you've just described, did you 12

recommended way of operating the facility. So the OSSA decided as a group, I would assume,

13

do anything else in the training --

13

that some, as a group they decided that. I

14 A. No.
15 Q. -- on February 1, 2012?

14

don't know for sure who decided that. Like I

15

said, I just got the results back from our jail

16 A. No.
17 Q. You've also been handed Exhibit 8. Can you

16

commander. And then so part of the jail

17

standards was heading toward going to postcards

18

describe this for us.

18

only. And so to keep things standard within the

19 A. It is another DPSST F-6 form for a training for

19

jail standards, that we were thinking about

20

March 18, 2010.

21 Q. And were you the instructor --

20

making the shift as well.

21 Q. And, but that was voluntary, not a requirement;

22 A. Yes.
23 Q. -- of that training?

22

is that correct?

23 A. Correct. None of the jail standards are a

24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And what was this training about?

24

requirement.

25 Q. And did you explain during this training why the

Page 51

Page 53

1 A. This was, I do believe, about the policy change 1

postcard-only policy was a good idea for the

2

when we went to the postcards.

3 Q. And does Exhibit 8 accurately reflect who

4

attended that training?

2

Columbia County Jail itself?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Why is that?

5 A. As far as I can tell, yes.
6 Q. Did the sheriff attend that training?

5 A. The same things I said earlier about their not

6

being able to hide contraband inside the

7 A. He's not on the roster. I would assume that he 7

envelopes, inside the paper, not being able to

8

did not attend.

9 Q. And what occurred in this training?

8

stick things along the, I guess the glue strip

9

along the sealing of the envelopes, not being

10 A. Basically the same thing as this policy here

10

able to put -- With the thinner paper it's

11

except for in the 2010 policy we discussed the

11

easier to put a substance on there. They have

12

postcards themselves went into a little detail

12

ways of putting liquid on there, then drying it

13

on why we were suggesting a change to going to 13

back out. With the postcards being thicker, it,

14

postcards only. We let them, staff discuss it a

14

it expands more. You can see a big mark on it

15

little bit, tell us what they, if they had any

15

if it's wet. With the paper, it's harder to see

16

concerns, what their questions might be and then 16

a mark.

17

we went through and read the policy the same as 17 Q. And how do you know that?

18

this one here.

19 Q. And what did you tell jail staff about why the

18 A. I've seen it in different cases.
19 Q. And so what have you seen on thinner paper that

20

suggested change?

20

you were just describing?

21 A. The same thing I mentioned earlier about it was 21 A. Semen. Guys will send it in to girls, girls

22

a standardized thing that the state dealt with,

22

will send it in to guys and they'll put it on

23

SA was trying to go to to keep things going and 23

pieces of paper. At the time we had notebook

24

explain to them the time saving, how long it

24

paper and they would put it in that way. And

25

takes to process mail and also the ability to

25

then once you start to read the letter further

14 (Pages 50 to 53) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit II; Page 7 of 28

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 8 of 28

Cutright, Bryan

May 9,2012

Page 54

Page 56

1

down you realize that it says that's what that

1

for us?

2

is on there. And you're like, eww, okay.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And how did you make a determination that it was 3 Q. And when was that incident?

4

semen that was on the paper?

5 A. Because it said it in the letter.
6 Q. And how many times did that happen?

4 A. June, June 8th of 2004.
5 Q. And what occurred?
6 A. An inmate received an envelope, a manila

7 A. I couldn't tell you. At least a couple for sure

7

envelope addressed to Lundy, received at the

8

that I know of, but. ..

9 Q. What years were those?

8

Columbia County Jail. The letter, this letter

9

and opened it to search for contraband. Inside

10 A. I couldn't tell you.
11 Q. You also mentioned glue strips.

10

the birthday card of Lundy, some pictures and a

11

letter. I noticed the seal of the envelope

12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Did you ever find contraband in glue strips?

12

looked different. It looked like it was sealed

13

with some sort of foreign substance. I put the

14 A. Not personally.
15 Q. When you say glue strips, what do you mean?

14

manila envelope in my locker until I was able to

15

test the seal for drugs. It says the envelope

16 A. On the envelope, the sealing portion of it, the

17

flap comes over, it has the, I guess it's a glue

16

tested positive for amphetamines.

17 Q. What jail staff was involved in that incident?

18

strip there.

19 Q. Do you know of other jail staff that found

18 A. Deputy Cleary, Deputy Kyles. Looks like those

19

two were the ones who did the...

20

things in the glue strips?

20 Q. Were you involved in this incident in any way?

21 A. No.
22 Q. You mentioned one of the reasons for the

21 A. I was, I was involved only by being aware of the

22

situation and knowing that there was expected to

23

postcard-only policy was regarding, I guess,

23

have a piece of mail come in.

24

envelopes and the ability to hide contraband in

24 Q. And the mail was tested a second time; is that

25

those items; is that right?

25

right?

Page 55

Page 57

1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Okay. And during your tenure at the Columbia

1 A. I don't see where it was tested a second time.
2 Q. It's your understanding it was tested once and

3

County Jail did you find contraband in

3

it came back positive?

4

envelopes?

5 A. I have found contraband, yes.

6 Q. What have you found?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Okay. Did the jail determine how much

6

amphetamines was found?

7 A. I believe it was methamphetamines. I don't

8

recall the report for sure. But it was either

7 A. No.
8 Q. Were you involved in locating that document

9

meth or heroin.

10 Q. And when was that?

9

that's Exhibit 9?

10 A. Producing this document, I printed it out of our

11 A. I don't recall the date. I do believe that it

12

was one of the documents provided as evidence.

13 Q. And was it in the last year?

11

system, yes.

12 Q. How did you find it?

13 A. I went in there and hit "search" and typed in

14 A. No.
15 Q. Was it in 2004?

14

the person's name and it popped up the report.

15 Q. And what caused you to search for this?

16 A. I don't know.

16 A. We were, myself and the, I think it was Greg

17

(Exhibit 9 marked for identification.)

18 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Sergeant, the court

17

from --

18

MR. KRAEMER: Wait a second. Don't discuss

19

reporter's handed you what's been marked as

19

conversations with any attorneys.

20

Exhibit 9. Can you identify Exhibit 9 for us.

20

THE WITNESS: The attorney asked if there

21 A. It's a report written for supplying contraband

22

of an inmate, Ms. Lundy.

23 Q. Have you seen Exhibit 9 before?

21

was any, if this had ever happened before.

22 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: And in searching for

23

documents, did you search for any other document

24 A. Yes.

24

other than Exhibit 9?

25 Q. Is this the incident you were just describing

25 A. I searched the entire Golden Eagle system for

15 (Pages 54 to 57) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit II; Page 8 of 28

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 9 of 28

Cutright, Bryan

May 9,2012

Page 58

Page 60

1

contraband in mail items.

1

all 20 jail staff attend the training and who

2 Q. What did you find?

2

and how the jail's run during that one-hour

3 A. None at the time until I remembered this

3

training. Does that make sense?

4

person's name about a week later.

5 Q. And when you say you searched for contraband

4 A. We take breaks for rounds and we have civilian

5

staff answer the phones.

6

items in the Golden Eagle system, what do you

6 Q. When you say "civilian staff," what do you mean?

7

mean by that?

7 A. Front office personnel.

8 A. When reports are written, they're stored in our

8 Q. Are those volunteers?

9

inmate management system, which is Golden Eagle. 9 A. No. They're our front office personnel, civil

10

And you, there's an incident type. On this one

11

here it says "supplying contraband." So you

10

people.

11 Q. But they're not considered jail staff?

12

type in the name, the type of the inCident and

12 A. They're not jail staff at all. They're, they're

13

you can search every report that has that title.

13

part of the sheriffs office but not part of the

14 Q. SO you search for the word "contraband"?
15 A. Yes.

14

jail.

15 Q. How many front office personnel are there

,

16 Q. And you found nothing?

16

currently?

••••

17 A. I found nothing related to mail, yes.

17 A. There are four.

18 Q. And how far back does the Golden Eagle system

18 Q. And do the front office personnel handle the

19

go?

19

mail in any way?

20 A. 2000.

20 A. No, not the jail mail.

21 Q. And then, so you separately searched for what is 21 Q. Other kinds of mail?

22

Exhibit 9?

22 A. That's where the mail comes in at. So they sort

23 A. No. I was, like I said, a week later I was

23

the mail into two piles, one for sheriffs

24

talking to my wife and this name came up,

25

Ms. Lundy, and I remembered that's the person

24

office, one for jail.

25 Q. Is that the extent of their involvement?

Page 59

Page 61

1

who this report was written on.

2 Q. In your search for documents did you find any

1 A. That's their involvement. Well, as far as I

2

know. For the jail mail that's their

3

other documents related to contraband coming in 3

involvement.

4

through the mail?

4 Q. Do volunteers work at the jail?

5 A. Other than an attorney sending in a document

6

with a paperclip in it, I don't believe so.

7 Q. Do you mean an attorney sent something to his

5 A. Some do.
6 Q. What do they do there?
7 A. There's one volunteer that works in the front

8

client at the jail with a paperclip?

8

dealing with clients as they come in and taking

9 A. Yes.
10 Q. SO other than the incident you've just described

9

phone calls.

10 Q. Do volunteers at the jail have any role in the

11

that's summarized in Exhibit 9 and the incident

11

mail processing?

12

where an attorney mailed in a paperclip, are

12 A. They don't work in the jail. They work in front

13

there any other incidences you're aware of which 13

office. I'm sorry. Not in the jail.

14

contraband was sent through the mail?

14 Q. Do they have any involvement --

15 A. Not that I'm aware of.

16

MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Let's take a five-minute

15 A. No.
16 Q. -- in the mail?

17

break.

17 A. No.

18

(Break taken from 12:08 to 12:19.)

18 Q. SO during the one-hour training on February 1st,

19 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Okay. We're back on the 19

2012, am I correct that all 20 jail staff were

20

record. Sergeant, how many jail staff are there 20

at that training and breaks were taken so that

21

currently at the jail?

21

they could do rounds?

22 A. Currently there are 20.
23 Q. And I see on Exhibit 7, the course attendance

22 A. There, at that time there was 21 jail staff. So

23

obviously they're not all here. One of these

24

roster for the February 1st, 2012, training,

24

Was Undersheriff Moyer. So there were two not

25

there are 20 names. Can you explain to us how 25

at this training listed here.

16 (Pages 58 to 61) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit II; Page 9 of 28

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 10 of 28

Cutright, Bryan

May 9, 2012

Page 66

Page 68

1 Washington County Jail about their mail policy?

1 A. Yes.

2 A. No.

2 Q. And why did you do that?

3

(Exhibit 11 marked for identification.)

3 A. So that the public would have access to the,

4 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Sergeant Cutright, you have 4

yeah, the policy that pertains to them insofar

5 been handed Exhibit 11. Can you identify this

5 as sending mail in to the inmates of the

6 document for us.

6 Columbia County Jail.

7 A. This is a memorandum of understanding that I

7 Q. And was this the text of this memorandum posted

8 wrote on March 23rd, 2010.

8 on the website?

9 Q. Okay. For the record, it's a two-page document

9 A. Yes.

10 CC 000192 to 193. Why did you write this memo? 10 Q. Who did that?

11 A. This letter or this memo was written to

11 A. I don't know.

12 highlight some changes made to the policy in

12 Q. Did you draft this by yourself?

13 2010. It was also written, the biggest point

13 A. I drafted it by myself, but it was reviewed by

14 was so we could add this information to the

14 other supervisors for content.

15 internet so the public would know what the

15 Q. And is the content of Exhibit 11, the memorandum

16 change to the policy was or what the mail policy

16 of understanding the mail policy or is it a

17 of the Columbia County Sheriffs Office at that

17 summary?

18 time was. And this was drafted directly and cut

18 A. It's a summary of the mail policy.

19 and pasted out of our inmate manual.

19 Q. How did you create it?

20 Q. And why did you, am I correct then that one of

20 A. How did I create it?

21 the purposes of drafting this was to inform the

21 Q. How did you create the summary?

22 public of the changes that were being made?

22 A. I copied and pasted the sections out of the

23 A. Yes.

23

inmate manual that pertain to the inmates and

24 Q. Okay. And it's written to the corrections

24 posted, and put it with this so that we could

25 division, all inmates of the Columbia County

25 post it on the website so that there would be

Page 67

Page 69

1

Jail. Was it also your purpose to inform the

1 conSistency between what the inmates have and

2

corrections division and the inmates of the

2

know and what their families have and know

3

changes?

3

pertains to the inmate policy.

4 A. Yes."

4 Q. SO who drafted the inmate manual language?

5 Q. Okay. So how, who was this distributed to?

5 A. I don't know who did the last policy change on

6 A. Corrections division, all corrections divisions

6 the inmate manual.

7

and the inmates of the jail. And the content

7 Q. Who's in charge of the inmate manual?

8

was actually also published on the internet.

8 A. Well, sheriff's ultimately responsible for the

9 Q. How was it distributed to the inmates?

9

inmate manual. But it kind of just depends on

10 A. It was, I believe it was laminated and put in

10 what supervisor's assigned to it. The last time

11

the pods at that time.

11 it was done was done by Deputy Rush and Sergeant

12 Q. Where is it put in the pods?

12 Rigdon.

13 A. On the mailboxes.

13 Q. What was the first name?

14 Q. One per pod?

14 A. Deputy Rush.

15 A. Yes.

15 Q. When was that?

16 Q. And there are ten pods in the jail; is that

16 A. This one's dated November 18, 2010.

17

right?

17 Q. And what are you looking at?

18 A. Correct.

18 A. Inmate manual.

19 Q. And was this memorandum distributed as you've 19 Q. That is Exhibit 5?

20

just described on or about March 23rd, 2010?

21 A. Somewhere around that date, yes.

20 A. Correct.
21 Q. And is it your understanding that the last time

22 Q. Okay. And you also mentioned that one of the 22

the inmate manual was updated was November 18,

23

purposes was to add information to the internet. 23

2010?

24 A. Correct.
25 Q. Do you mean the jail's website?

24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Have you ever been responsible for updating the

18 (Pages 66 to 69) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit II; Page 10 of 28

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 11 of 28

Cutright, Bryan

May 9, 2012

Page 70

Page 72

1

inmate manual?

1 A. I don't typically print from the internet. So I

2 A. Not for solely updating the inmate manual, no.
3 Q. Am I correct that in creating Exhibit 11, you

2

don't know.

3 Q. Okay.

4

took the exact language from the inmate manual 4 A. I don't recaII.

5

regarding a summary of the inmate mail policy

5 Q. Is Exhibit 12 an, contain an accurate

6

and cut and pasted it into this memo --

6

description of the jail's mail policy as of

7 A. Yes.
8 Q. -- and distributed it?

7

January 19, 2012?

8 A. Without reading the entire policy, I would say

9 A. Yes.

9

yes, other than the part where it says do not

10

(Exhibit 12 marked for identification.)

10

accept magazines.

11 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Sergeant Cutright, you've 11 Q. And where do you see that? At the bottom of the

12

been handed Exhibit 12. Do you recognize

12

second page?

13

Exhibit 12?

13 A. Yeah.

14 A. It appears to be what is on the sheriffs office

14 Q. Okay. Are you looking at the portion that

15

website.

16 Q. And when you testified earlier that you drafted

17

Exhibit 11 in part so the information could go

15

reads, "magazines" --

16 A. "Are not allowed inside the facility," yeah.
17 Q. And you say that's not accurate as of

18

onto the internet, did you mean the website that 18

January 19, 2012?

19

is shown here in Exhibit 12?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And how do you refer to that website, the

19 A. No.
20 Q. What is inaccurate about that?
21 A. That's not, the policy doesn't say, the policy

22

Columbia County Sheriffs website? The jail's

22

does not state that we do not accept magazines

23

website?

24 A. It's on the Columbia County Sheriffs Office

23

in the Columbia County Jail.

24 Q. And did the jail ever prohibit magazines?

25

website.

25 A. It's never been an issue. So I don't know.

Page 71

Page 73

1 Q. And who's responsible for maintaining the

1 Q. Let's take a look at the second page of your

2

content on the website?

2

Exhibit 11. Towards the bottom, just above

3 A. I have no idea.
4 Q. Looking at Exhibit 11, is the content of

3

religious materials there is a section called,

4

"Can inmates have access to books, magazines and

5

Exhibit 11 an accurate description of the jail's

5

newspapers?" Do you see that?

6

mail policy as of March 23rd, 2010?

7 A. At that time I would assume, yes.

6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Okay. And the last sentence of that paragraph

8 Q. And I'll represent to you that the Exhibit 12

8

states, "Magazines are not allowed inside this

9

was printed from the Columbia County Sheriffs

9

facility"; is that correct?

10

Office website January 19, 2012. Assuming that 10 A. It's what it states. Yes.

11

is true, is the content of Exhibit 12 an

11 Q. Okay. And you prepared this memorandum; is that

12

accurate description of the Columbia County

12

right?

13

Sheriffs Office mail policy as of that date?

13 A. Yes.

14

MR. KRAEMER: I am going to object. The

14 Q. And as of March 23rd, 2010, was that an accurate

15

documents speak for themselves.

15

statement?

16

THE WITNESS: What was your question?

16 A. No.

17 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: My question is -- Let me 17 Q. It was not accurate?

18

back up here actually. Let's look at the bottom 18 A. No.

19

of Exhibit 12. See that line at the bottom of

19 Q. Why was it in your memo?

20

the first page, the end it says 1/19/2012.

20 A. Because it was copied out of the inmate manual.

21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Do you know what that indicates?

21

Inmate manual's obviously not correct.

22 Q. When did you become aware of that?

23 A. I have no idea.

23 A. I became aware that that statement was in there

24 Q. You ever seen a line like that before from

25

something printed from the internet?

24

actually a couple weeks ago.

25 Q. How did you become aware of that?

19 (Pages 70 to 73) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit II; Page 11 of 28

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 12 of 28

Cutright, Bryan

May 9,2012

Page 74

Page 76

1 A. It was brought to my attention.

1 A. It's a magazine that was marked prohibited mail.

2 Q. By who?

2 Q. And what magazine is that?

3 A. By legal counsel.
4 Q. What did you do to respond to learning that?

3 A. I don't know the name of it.
4 Q. Can you describe it for me?

5

MR. KRAEMER: Well, respond, don't discuss

6

anything that was said.

5 A. It has a lot of women that are barely dressed.
6 Q. And it was not permitted into the jail?

7

And I'm not sure that's what you're asking.

7 A. Correct.

8

You're not asking what he said to the lawyer.

8 Q. Why is that?

9

You're asking if he took some action after the

10

conversation.

9 A. Because of nUdity.
10 Q. And nudity is prohibited?

11

MS. CHAMBERLAIN: I'm happy to restate it

11 A. Yes.

12

that way.

12 Q. Other than that one magazine that recently

13 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Did you take any action in 13

arrived, are you aware of any other magazines

14

response to learning that the inmate manual was 14

that have arrived addressed to inmates at the

15

incorrect?

15

Columbia County Jail?

16 A. The inmate manual is in revision.

16 A. Not that I recall.

17 Q. What do you mean it's in revision?

17 Q. At the time that you drafted or you prepared the

18 A. It's being prepared for changes.

18

March 23, 2010, memorandum which is Exhibit 11,

19 Q. Who's preparing that?

19

at that time did you believe that this statement

20 A. At this point I don't know if it's been assigned

20

"Magazines are not allowed inside this facility"

21

to a sergeant yet. I know the sheriff has been

21

was an accurate statement?

22

making some changes to it.

23 Q. Currently?

22 A. I never even got that it was even in there. I

23

cut and pasted off the inmate manual, put it in

24 A. Yes.
25 Q. What changes are being made?

24

that document without particularly reading the

25

whole entirety of it because that's what was

Page 75

Page 77

1 A. I have no idea. The sheriff is doing that.

1

2 Q. Do you have reason to believe that the change is 2

being given to the inmates. So to keep things the same between the public and the inmates, I

3

being made to correct this misstatement?

4 A. It would definitely correct that statement, yes.
5 Q. Did the Columbia County Jail ever prohibit

3

just did exactly that, copy and paste.

4 Q. SO do you mean at the time you prepared the

5

Exhibit 11 you were not aware that this

6

magazines from the facility?

6

statement was in your memo?

7 A. Not that I recall. Not in policy.
8 Q. When you process or supervise the mail

7 A. Correct.
8 Q. And --

9

processing during your tenure at the Columbia

10

County Jail, did you see magazines arrive at

9 A. Or in the inmate manual.
10 Q. And if you had read the memorandum completely,

11

that facility?

11

would you have removed that?

12 A. I have never declined or seen a magazine come to 12 A. Yes.

13

any inmate at the facility.

13 Q. At any time did you become aware that

14 Q. SO, Sergeant, do you mean you've, in your

14

corrections staff at the jail believed that the

15

17 years at the Columbia County Jail, you've

15

jail prohibited magazines?

16

never observed a magazine arrive in the incoming 16 A. I believe that's their assumption because we've

17

mail?

18 A. Never seen a magazine arrive for an inmate at

17

never had magazines come thr9ugh.

18 Q. SO what is your assumption based on?

19

the Columbia County Jail.

19 A. Just the fact that just like, for example, this

20 Q. Have you heard of magazines arriving at the

20

last one's been prohibited. And in the past

21

Columbia County Jail?

21

there's been not magazines addressed to

22 A. Yes.

22

individual inmates, but bulk mail type things

23 Q. What do you know about that?

23

come in that we've rejected bulk mail. So those

24 A. Well, there's one there right now.
25 Q. What's that?

24

have been disposed of. So I assumed that meant,

25

I believe their assumption was we don't accept

20 (Pages 74 to 77) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit II; Page 12 of 28

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 13 of 28

Cutright, Bryan

May 9, 2012

Page 78

Page 80

1 magazines because we don't have any there and we 1 A. Changed in 2011. 2010 the population was around

2 don't accept bulk mail magazines.

2

206. So between the years 2010 we were running

3 Q. I understand that a few weeks ago you became

3

an average of about 200, 205, 206, and 2011 went

4

aware that the statement that magazines are not

4

down to about 180 and now it's down to about

5 allowed in the facility is in the inmate manual.

5

130.

6 And that is incorrect; is that right?

6 Q. What about 2009?

7 A. Yes.

7 A. 2009, average population was roughly 160.

8 Q. And prior to a few weeks ago when you learned

8 Q. SO am I correct in assuming you -- Strike that.

9 that, were you aware that magazines were being

9

Did you observe a change in the mail volume

10 rejected by jail staff?

10 between 2009 and the present?

11 A. No.

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Have you spoken to any jail staff about that?

12 Q. And can you describe for me how the volume

13 A. I haven't. It's in the new policy that, it's

13 changed?

14 clarified in the new policy that periodicals are

14 A. There's less mail now than there was in 2000,

15 acceptable.

15 back then.

16 Q. I've seen both the term "periodicals" used and

16 Q. "Back then" being 2009?

17 the term "magazines." What's your understanding 17 A. Yes.

18 of the difference?

18 Q. How much less mail?

19 A. My understanding, it's pretty much the same

19 A. I couldn't tell you. I didn't count them

20 thing.

20

specifically.

21 Q. What about the term "newspapers," do you

21 Q. What is it that you've observed?

22

differentiate newspapers from periodicals or

22 A. That there's less mail.

23 magazines?

23 Q. Can you describe with any more description or

24 A. Newspapers are specifically mentioned as

24 specificity what you mean?

25 acceptable.

25 A. I can't give you exact numbers.

Page 79

Page 81

1 Q. Do you use the word "newspapers" and

1 Q. For example, is the mail pile half as thick as

2

"periodicals" interchangeably?

2 it used to be?

3 A. I don't personally.

3 A. I can't say that with certainty.

4 Q. Do you know if the jail does?

4 Q. SO how do you know that the volume has changed?

5 A. No, I don't know.

5 A. Just there's less inmates and there's less

6 Q. Since the jail adopted its postcard-only policy

6 people writing them. And obviously when there's

7

in 2010, has the jail experienced any change in

7

more people, there's more letters coming in.

8

mail volume of incoming mail?

8 Q. And that's been your experience?

9 A. I couldn't tell you.

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. You've supervised the mail processing at least 10 Q. That the more inmates you have, the more mail

11

in 2011; is that right?

11 you have?

12 A. Yes.

12 A. Correct.

13 Q. And you also supervised the mail processing in 13 Q. Okay. And why the decrease in inmates since

14

2010?

14 2010?

15 A. Yes.

15 A. Staffing.

16 Q. And based on your experience observing,

16 Q. What do you mean?

17

supervising the mail processing, did you observe 17 A. Budgeted staffing.

18

any change in the volume of incoming mail?

18 Q. Do you mean there were budget cuts?

19 A. Not due to the postcard change.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Due to what?

20 Q. How did that affect the number of staff?

21 A. Population change.

21 A. Less money you have, less staff we have.

22 Q. What was the population change?

22 Q. Did you have layoffs?

23 A. Average daily population was 180. Now it's down 23 A. Yes.

24

to 130.

24 Q. How many?

25 Q. When did that change occur?

25 A. Since 2009, about six.

21 (Pages 78 to 81) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit II; Page 13 of 28

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 14 of 28

Cutright, Bryan

May 9, 2012

Page 106

Page 108

1 Q. .And is that normal part of mail processing for

1 Q. And did you search for documents responsive to

2

the corrections staff to use the inmate head

2 this request?

3

count document to hand mark the total number of 3 A. I searched for multiple documents. I'm not sure

4

incoming, outgoing mail?

4 about this one specifically.

5 A. I can't speak for the other staff. I don't

5 Q. Did you search for communications regarding any

6

know.

6 announcements or comments on the modifications

7 Q. Have you seen other staff do that?

7 to the mail policy?

8 A. Yes.

8 A. No, I didn't.

9 Q. Do you do that?

9 Q. Do you know if someone else did?

10 A. No.

10 A. I don't.

11 Q. When's the last time you processed mail

11 Q. Do you know if any were found?

12 yourself?

12 A. I don't.

13 A. December 2011.

13 Q. Do you know whether or not the sheriff's

14 Q. And how did you keep track of who sent and

14 department announced to prisoners the changes to

15

received mail?

15 the mail policy from January, February this

16 A. I scan the individual item as I have the piece

16 year?

17 of mail in front of me so I have no reason to

17 A. I don't.

18

mark on my head count because I already have it. 18 Q. Do you know whether the sheriff's department

19 If John Smith has a piece of mail, I scan John

19 announced or commented on the modifications to

20 Smith has a piece of mail. I don't mark it.

20 the inmate mail policies of this year to the

21 Q. I'd like to turn your attention to Exhibit 6 you

21

public?

22

have got in front of you. It's the, Sheriff

22 A. I don't.

23

Dickerson supplemental responses, defendant's 23 Q. What about to the press?

24 first interrogatories and request for

24 A. I don't.

25

production. Before we get to that, following up 25 Q. You don't know?

Page 107

Page 109

1

on my last question, the process you just

1 A. I don't know.

2

described, when you process mail yourself in the 2 Q. Who do you believe would be qualified to answer

3

way that you do so without using the inmate head 3

those questions?

4

count, is that process quicker than using the

4 A. Sheriff Dickerson.

5

sheets and handwriting?

5 Q. Has the volume of outgoing mail changed since

6 A. I didn't say that I didn't use the head count.

6

the sheriff's department adopted the

7

I said I don't mark on the head count.

7

postcard-only policy?

8 Q. SO is your process quicker?

8 A. I can't tell you. I don't know.

9 A. For me it is.

9 Q. Has the time it takes the corrections staff to

10 Q. How much quicker?

10

process the mail changed since the sheriff

11 A. I don't know. I've never done it the other way, 11

adopted the postcard-only policy?

12 so I don't know.

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. I'd like to turn your attention to page 17 of

13 Q. How has it changed?

14

Exhibit 6, request for production 23.

14 A. It just takes less time to process postcards

15 A. Okay.

15 than it does to process letters.

16 Q. States, "Please produce all communications to 16 Q. Why is that?

17 prisoners, the public or the press announcing or 17 A. Because when you're searching, when you're

18

commenting on the modifications to the inmate 18

looking at a postcard, you have basically two

19 mail policy dated January 26, 2012, or

19 sides. You hold it in your hand, flip it over.

20

February 10, 2012."

20 You can scan through it real quickly to make

21

You've been designated as the sheriffs

21

sure there's no keywords of assaults, escapes

22

department's designee for any d,ocuments

22

threat of any kind and you're done with that

23

responsive to this request for production; is

23

piece of postcard. If you have a letter, you

24 that right?

24

have to open up the letter. You have to take

25 A. I believe so.

25

each page. You have to scan all the way down,

28 (Pages 106 to 109) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit II; Page 14 of 28

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 15 of 28

Cutright, Bryan

May 9,2012

Page 110

Page 112

1

front, back, all the pages, make sure there's

1 Q. SO since the sheriff's department adopted the

2

no, on the outgoing mail you're basically just

2

postcard-only policy, has there been less

3

scanning for threats or anything they're not

3

content to review?

4

supposed to be doing, contact with known victims 4 A. Per item, yes.

5

or other things like that, sending out plans of

5 Q. Okay. Have there been more items or less items

6

escape or maps of the jail layout or things of

6 or the same?

7

that that would violate our safety or security.

7 A. Outgoing mail I would say there would be more

8

And the incoming mail, you're searching for

8

items because they still try to fit in four

9

items on the paper. You're searching, you have 9

pages to their family to get the same message

10 got to check the seal or sticky tape or whatever 10 across. So they'll write four postcards instead

11 you want to call it, glue. You have got the

11

of four pieces of paper in one envelope.

12 postcard. You have got the stamp. You have got 12 Q. How often have you seen an inmate write four

13 to cut it off so they don't get that. You have

13

postcards at one time to one person?

14 to search each piece of paper front and back for 14 A. I couldn't tell you.

15 stains, for marks, for keywords. And there's

15 Q. Every day?

16 just way more to do on a four-page letter than 16 A. I couldn't tell you.

17 there is on a one-page postcard.

17 Q. Are you thinking of a particular event that you

18 Q. And you mention looking at the two sides of the 18 observed?

19 postcard. But the jail only permits one side of 19 A. Yeah.

20 the postcard to be written on; is that correct?

20 Q. What's that?

21 A. One side for the, the front side is for the

21 A. One inmate wrote four postcards to his family

22 address. Inmate has to have his name and

22 because he couldn't get it. It just said page 1

23

address and where it's going to so just in case

23

or postcard one, postcard two, well, one of

24 it's returned to sender we know where to send 24 two -- one of four, one of -- two of two, all

25

it. And on the other side is for him to write a

25

the way down, and sent them out that way.

Page 111

Page 113

1 message or her to write a message.

1 Q. And when did you see that?

2 Q. And you mention scanning the content for threats 2 A. That was probably back in 2010 when we first

3 and escape plans and other content; is that

3 started doing it.

4

right?

4 Q. How many times have you ever seen something like

5 A. Yes.

5 that?

6 Q. And you had to do that same type of scanning

6 A. That's the only time it comes to mind, because I

7

when inmates were permitted to receive letters;

7

know the inmate.

8

is that right?

8 Q. SO how much less time do jail staff -- Strike

9 A. Correct.

9 that.

10 Q. And when inmates were also permitted to send 10

How has the time required to process the

11 letters?

11 mail changed since the adoption of postcard-only

12 A. Correct.

12 policy?

13 Q. And I think you've described for us before that 13 A. Takes about a third of the time to do it now

14 inmates could send a letter in an envelope with 14 than it used to.

15 four pieces of paper written on the front and

15 Q. Does it take a third of the time or has it been

16 back; is that right?

16 reduced by a third of the time?

17 A. Correct.

17 A. Takes about a third of the time to do it.

18 Q. SO preceding the postcard-only policy, an inmate 18 Q. And what is your testimony based on?

19 could write substantially more in one piece of

19 A. Me doing it personally.

20 communication; is that accurate?

20 Q. SO how long did it used to take you?

21 A. Correct.

21 A. It could take sometimes anywhere between an hour

22 Q. And that also required the jail staff to review

22 and a half, three hours to process incoming and

23

significantly more content when reviewing it for 23

outgoing mail. And that's between your normal

24 threats and escape plans; is that right?

24 job. So the mail handler doesn't have time to

25 A. Yes.

25 sit down and just specifically do that.

29 (Pages 110 to 113) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit II; Page 15 of 28

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 16 of 28

Cutright, Bryan

May 9,2012

Page 114
1 Q. 'So when you say between one-and-a-half hours to 1

that was hidden under a stamp?

Page 116

2

three hours, are you referring only to the mail

2 A. Not that I'm aware of. We throw the stamps

3

processing or are you referring to beginning the

4

mail processing and ending --

5 A. The mail processing itself.

6 Q. -- including distractions?

3

away.

4 Q. When you describe mail processing taking between

5

1.5 and 3 hours, what period of time are you

6

talking about?

7 A. No. Just the mail, processing the mail.
8 Q. And since the postcard-only policy was adopted

7 A. I don't understand the question.
8 Q. Are you talking about in, average in 2009

9

PIP by the Columbia County Sheriff's Office, how

9

preceding the postcard-only policy?

10

much time does it take you to process the mail?

10 A. Yes.

11 A. I would say between a half an hour and an hour, 11 Q. And that was also when the inmate population was

12

depending on the volume.

12

Significantly higher?

13 Q. SO you mentioned that it takes less time because 13 A. In 2009 it was a little higher but not

14

correspondence can be scanned more quickly; is

14

Significantly, correct.

15

that right?

15 Q. In 2009 about 160?

16 A. That is true.
17 Q. And any other basis for your testimony that it

16 A. Correct. And now it's about 130.
17 Q. And will you describe the mail processing as

18

takes less time?

18

formerly taking between 1.5 and 3 hours, what is

19 A. No. I think that's pretty much it.

19

your statement based on?

20 Q. You mentioned stamps. Do you, are you required 20 A. Same thing I just mentioned, me personally doing

21

to remove stamps that come in in incoming mail?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And do you do that for each item of mail?

21

it.

22 Q. Just your memory?

23 A. Of me actually seeing -- We did some studies on

24 A. Unless it's legal mail.
25 Q. And why do you do that?

24

what we spent time doing. So we logged how much

25

time we do every single thing so we could divide

Page 115

Page 117

1 A. Because there's a potential, it's a potential

1

up the tasks between our shifts. So at that

2

spot somebody can hide some type of foreign

2

time we were doing mail, we were doing

3

substance.

4 Q. Do you also remove address labels?

3

everything else, we wanted to see what the

4

average time was, how much time was spent on

5 A. They're not supposed to come in with them. But 5

each individual task.

6

if it did, they would be removed as well. We

6 Q. And who was in charge of conducting those

7

used to remove them and write in their address 7

studies?

8

by hand.

9 Q. How do you remove the stamps?

8 A. Me.
9 Q. And was that study done in writing?

10 A. Currently you're supposed to peel them off the 10 A. It was done just on, we had little sheets of

11

postcards.

12 Q. Is that what you have done?

11

paper we did.

12 Q. And where are those sheets now?

13 A. What I have done?
14 Q. Yes.

13 A. In the recycling bin.
14 Q. Are they in the recycling bin?

15 A. With the postcards, yeah. I use actually a pair 15 A. Well, they're probably shredded by now. It's

16

of scissors and kind of scrape it off.

17 Q. And you do that with each stamp that arrives?

16

been years ago.

17 Q. When was that?

18 A. With each stamp.

18 A. 2008, 2009, right around there.

19 Q. And have you trained corrections staff to do the 19 Q. And has the sheriff's department done such a

20

same?

20

study --

21 A. To remove the post stamp? I haven't

22

specifically shown them how to do it, but they,

21 A. No.
22 Q. -- since then? No?

23

it's part of the policy to remove them.

24 Q. Has the jail ever received anything that's a

23 A. No.
24 Q. SO as we sit here today, do you recall the

25

threat to the safety or security of the jail

25

outcome of the study done in 2008 or 2009

30 (Pages 114 to 117) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit II; Page 16 of 28

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 17 of 28

Cutright, Bryan

May 9, 2012

Page 118

Page 120

1

regarding the time jail staff spent doing

1 A. Not contraband, just sending stuff to victims

2

various tasks?

2 and things like that.

3 A. Do I recall the time? You have to tell me what 3 Q. Do you mean prohibited content?

4

tasks. There's multitude of tasks that we do.

4 A. Prohibited content and contact with other

5 Q. SO mail processing.

5

people.

6 A. Mail processing was averaging 1.5 to 3 hours.

6 Q. Why did the jail adopt a postcard-only policy

7 Q. And did you determine that by looking at

7 for outgoing mail?

8

something or by your own memory of the study? 8

MR. KRAEMER: Objection, speculation.

9 A. By me doing it and by other people, by

9

THE WITNESS: I couldn't tell you. It's

10

everybody's combined. We had several people 10

part of the policy.

11

doing different tasks. So we took the average

11 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: One of the topics you're

12

of what it took the group of people to do it.

12 here to testify about today is the reasons for

13

So if there was five people that did mail, we

13 the modifications to the jail mail policy; is

14 divided -- Put the hours in, divided it by five.·

14 that right?

15 That's what we came out with.

15 A. Correct.

16 Q. And your statement that it was between 1.5 and 16 Q. Do you know the reason for the sheriff's

17

3 hours, is that based on your own memory of the 17

department adopting the postcard-only policy for ....

18

study --

18 outgoing mail?

19 A. That's my own memory of it. Because we went 19 A. We adopted it for all inmate mail.

20

through some process when we switched over to 20 Q. Did the reasons for adopting it for outgoing

21

the postcards because I wanted to see what kind 21

mail differ in any way from the reasons for

22

of time savings it would be.

22 adopting in general?

23 Q. Are there any documents related to that study in 23 A. It wasn't even addressed. It was all inmate

24

existence?

24 mail in general.

25 A. No.

25 Q. SO the topic of whether there should be a

Page 119

Page 121

1 Q. No?

1

postcard-only policy for outgoing mail was not

2 A. No.

2 addressed?

3 Q. Prior to the postcard-only policy, what amount

3 A. No.

4 of time was spent specifically for processing

4 Q. Is that correct?

5 incoming mail?

5 A. Correct.

6 A. I couldn't tell you. It was all done together.

6 Q. SO prior to the postcard-only policy, what shift

7 Q. Same answer for outgoing mail?

7

was the mail processed during?

8 A. Yeah. I do them both at the same time.

8 A. Day shift.

9 Q. Based on your experience, did it take longer to

9 Q. Any particular time of day?

10 process incoming mail or longer to process

10 A. When the mail came in.

11 outgoing mail?

11 Q. Is that in the morning or in the afternoon?

12 A. I'd say process incoming mail.

12 A. It depends on the mailman.

13 Q. Took longer?

13 Q. And that changed sometime in late 2011; is that

14 A. Yes.

14

right?

15 Q. Why is that?

15 A. Not sure if it changed in '11 or early 2012, but

16 A. Because you have more mail to scan and you know 16 sometime around there.

17 when the inmates are sending mail out you don't 17 Q. What was the reason for that change?

18 have to scan for certain items. They're not

18 A. Less staff.

19 going to have drugs in the jail. If they do,

19 Q. What do you mean?

20 they're not going to be send them out. So the

20 A. Just task moved from day shift to graveyard

21 items going out of the jail are less likely to

21

because there's, we have less personnel to do

22 be contraband than the ones coming in.

22 the day shift function. So mail was moved to a

23 Q. During your tenure at the Columbia County

23

different time frame.

24 Sheriff's Office, did you ever encounter

24 Q. How many staff are on duty during the day shift?

25 contraband being sent out of the jail?

25 A. Four.

31 (Pages 118 to 121) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit II; Page 17 of 28

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 18 of 28

Cutright, Bryan

May 9,2012

Page 122

Page 124

1

MR. KRAEMER: Is this a good time for a

1 between start time and the end of the processing

2

break?

2 the mail, including all the interruptions?

3 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Just one more question. 3 A. Eight hours per shift.

4

How many staff on shift during graveyard?

4 Q. And do you know now what the total time is,

5 A. Three.

5 including disruptions?

6 Q. How about swing?

6 A. During your shift. I don't know. I'm not doing

7 A. Four.

7

the mail right now, so I couldn't tell you.

8

MS. CHAMBERLAIN: We can take a break.

8 Q. And have you, yourself, ever processed the mail

9

Wait. can you hang on one second?

9

since it was moved into the night shift?

10

MR. KRAEMER: Sure.

10 A. No.

11 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Just a couple more

11 Q. Have you, yourself, ever supervised the mail

12 questions, then we'll take a break, Sergeant.

12 processing since it was moved into the night

13 You testified that there was a change sometime 13 shift?

14 either late 2011 or early 2012 from the mail

14 A. No.

15 being processed during the day shift to the

15 Q. You mentioned that the mail policy requires you

16 night shift; correct?

16 to remove stamps on incoming mail?

17 A. Correct.

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Okay. And that was because there was less staff 18 Q. And where in the mail policy does it require you

19 during the day shift?

19 to do that?

20 A. Correct.

20 A. Is there a policy here somewhere?

21 Q. Okay. And did it help operations to move the 21 Q. Yeah. The one with the tabs there. You are

22

mail processing to middle of the night?

22 looking at Exhibit F to, yeah, Exhibit F to

23 A. Yes.

23 Exhibit 3?

24 Q. How did it help?

24 A. What's that?

25 A. There's less staff on day shift to perform the

25 Q. That's Exhibit 3; correct?

Page 123

Page 125

1 day shift functions than we need to do the job.

1 A. Yes.

2 So we moved that function to a time where

2 Q. You are looking at tab F; correct?

3

there's no inmate movement. There's no courts.

3 A. Yes. Tab F, current policy. Page 11, top of

4 There's no nothing. So it's a better time for

4 the page, subparagraph B, "Remove postage

5 staff to be able to conduct that function than

5 stamps, flaps, sealing tape and gummed and

6 it would be in the middle of day where we're

6 adhesive address labels. Remove labels only on

7 overloaded with tasks to do.

7 personal mail, leave labels on legal and

8 Q. When that change happened, did the sheriff's

8 official mail."

9 department need to remove any functions from the 9

MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Okay. Time for a break.

10 duties of the night shift corrections staff?

10

(Break taken from 1:48 to 2:28.)

11 A. Not that I'm aware of.

11 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: We're back on the record

12 Q. What did the corrections staff used to do during 12 after a lunch break. Sergeant, I'd like to turn

13 the time they now process the mail?

13 your attention to Exhibit 6, page 7.

14 A. Rounds and other, other functions, whatever

14 Interrogatory number five asked for -- You can

15 they're currently doing as well. But their

15 just read that to yourself.

16 inmate, there's no inmate movement during that 16

Sergeant, have you had an opportunity to

17 time.

17 read interrogatory number five?

18 Q. SO the night shift staff were able to

18 A. Yes.

19 incorporate the mail processing into the duties

19 Q. In Sheriff Dickerson's response, the last

20 without removing any?

20 sentence states, "Non privileged documents relied

21 A. Correct.

21 upon are Washington County's inmate mail policy

22 Q. And when you determined it took an average of 22 as well as notes from Sergeant Cutright and

23 between one-and-a-half and three hours to

23 Rigdon that were not kept." Do you know what

24 process the mail preceding the postcard-only

24 notes the sheriff is referring to there?

25 policy, what was the average total duration

25 A. I am aware of the notes. That's what I was

32 (Pages 122 to 125) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit II; Page 18 of 28

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 19 of 28

Cutright, Bryan

May 9,2012

Page 134

Page 136

1

last year; is that right?

1 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Sheriff, do you know what

2 A. Yes.

2 the 1st and the 14th Amendment are?

3 Q. Okay. Can you explain to me how those changes, 3 A. Sheriff is not here.

4

what brought about those changes.

4 Q. Sergeant, do you know what the 1st and 14th

5 A. Disciplinary action.

5 Amendment are?

6

MR. KRAEMER: You are not to say anything

6 A. Top of my head I can't think of it right now.

7

more about that.

7 Q. I will reask those questions. Do you know

8

MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Are you instructing your 8 anything at all about what the 1st Amendment of

9

client not to answer?

:

9

the Constitution says?

10

MR. KRAEMER: Yes. I just instructed him

10 A. I can't think of it right this second.

11

not to answer.

11 Q. Do you know anything at all about what the

12

MS. CHAMBERLAIN: What's the basis for that? 12 14th Amendment of the Constitution says?

13

MR. KRAEMER: Basis is it has nothing to do 13 A. I can't think of it right this second.

14 with this lawsuit. It's a personnel matter.

14

MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Okay. Steve, a couple

15 It's a private matter. Has nothing to do with

15 other questions along those lines.

...

16 truthfulness, honesty or any of the issues in

16 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Has there been a finding or

17 this case. You can file a motion with the

17 conclusion to an investigation against you?

I

18 court. We'll file a response with a sealed copy

18

MR. KRAEMER: Don't answer that.

';

... :

19

of everything. The judge can make a decision if 19 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Is the, are the allegations

20

you think that's necessary.

20 or the investigative findings, if any, a matter

21

MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Steve, we might avoid a 21 of public record?

22

motion if I could ask a few follow-up questions. 22

MR. KRAEMER: Don't answer that.

23

Of course you can object to him answering them, 23 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Who demoted you?

24 but it might be helpful.

24

MR. KRAEMER: Don't answer that.

25

MR. KRAEMER: You're not to answer any

25 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Who promoted you?

Page 135

Page 137

1 question until I tell you whether or not to

1

MR. KRAEMER: You can answer that.

2

answer.

2

MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Was that a no, don't

3

THE WITNESS: Okay.

3

answer?

4

MR. KRAEMER: Okay go ahead.

4

MR. KRAEMER: You can answer that.

5 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Okay. Sergeant, did the 5

THE WITNESS: Sheriff.

6 disciplinary matter that precipitated the change

6 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: I have seen a number of

7

in your employment position relate in any way to

7

inmate manuals produced in this litigation, are

8

an allegation that you violated the

8

those something, the ones that were created in

9

1st Amendment?

9

the last two years, are you familiar with those?

10

MR. KRAEMER: You can answer that.

10 A. I'm familiar with our inmate manuals, yes.

11

THE WITNESS: No, it did not.

11 Q. In your 17 years at the sheriffs department,

12 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Or the 14th --

12

has there always been an inmate manual?

13

MR. KRAEMER: Don't say no, I did not. Just 13 A. Yes.

14 say yes or no. Okay.

14 Q. Do you have a work e-mail?

15

Go ahead. Next.

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Okay. Did the disciplinary 16 Q. What's the address?

17 matter involve an allegation that you violated 18 the 14th Amendment?

17 A. Bryan.Cutright@CO.Columbia.or.us.
18 Q. Are you familiar with the Oregon Jail Managers'

19

MR. KRAEMER: You can answer that.

19

Association e-mail LISTSERV?

20

THE WITNESS: No.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Did the diSciplinary matter 21 Q. Are you on it?

22

relate in any way to the mail policy or

22 A. I'm cc'd on it.

23

processing at the Columbia County Jail?

23 Q. When you say you're cc'd on it, do you mean

24

MR. KRAEMER: You can answer that.

24

you're a member of the LISTSERV?

25

THE WITNESS: No.

25 A. I get a copy of the LISTSERV. I'm not actually

35 (Pages 134 to 137) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit II; Page 19 of 28

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 20 of 28

Cutright, Bryan

May 9,2012

Page 138

Page 140

1

a member of it. I get copy of their stuff. So

1 Q. Has the postcard-only policy been a topic on the

2

I can't communicate with them.

2 Oregon Jail Managers' Association LISTSERV?

3 Q. Okay. Who else from the Columbia County Jail is 3 A. Yes.

4

a member?

4 Q. Starting when?

5 A. I, I'm not sure.

5 A. I don't know.

6 Q. The sheriff?

6 Q. What's been discussed?

7 A. I'm not sure. I assume he's with the state --

7 A. The last thing that I seen on there was that

8

MR. KRAEMER: Don't assume anything.

8 Columbia County's in a lawsuit and you might

9 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: How often do you get

9

want to review your mail policy.

10

e-mails from the Oregon Jail Managers'

10 Q. Did you discuss the postcard-only policy with

11

Association?

11 people from other jails in Oregon off the

12 A. Weekly.

12 LISTSERV?

13 Q. What is the Oregon Jail Managers' Association? 13 A. I have not.

14 A. It's the association of all the Oregon jail

14 Q. Do you know whether Columbia County counsel is a

15

managers in the state of Oregon.

15 member of that LISTSERV?

16 Q. Is there a representative from each of the

16 A. I do not.

17

Oregon jails in the association?

17 Q. Do you know who Marie Tyler is?

18 A. Yes.

18 A. Yes, I do.

19 Q. Do you know?

19 Q. Who is that?

20 A. I don't know. I'm, I've been there but I

20 A. She's general manager of Washington County

21

haven't seen every single one.

21

Sheriff's Office.

22 Q. When you say you've been there, what do you 22 Q. Have you had any conversations with her about

23

mean?

23 the postcard-only policy?

24 A. I've been to their meetings, but I haven't seen 24 A. No.

25

36 jail managers there.

25 Q. Do you know who Elmer Dickens is?

Page 139

Page 141

1 Q. Are those the quarterly meetings that you talked 1 A. I know who he is. I've never met him.

2

about earlier?

2 Q. Who is he?

3 A. Yes.

3 A. He's an attorney for Washington County Sheriff's

4 Q. Where do those occur?

4 Office.

5 A. Various places.

5 Q. Have you ever spoken with him?

6 Q. Has the Columbia County Jail ever hosted?

6 A. No.

7 A. Not that I'm aware of.

7

(Exhibit 15 marked for identification.)

8 Q. Okay. Has postcard-only policy been a topic at

8 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Sergeant, do you recognize

9

those meetings?

9 Exhibit 15?

10 A. Again, I can't say yes or no. No, not that I

10 A. Yes.

11

have been there before.

11 Q. What is it?

12 Q. SO none of the Oregon jail manager meetings that 12 A. It's an e-mail from Marie Tyler, Washington

13

you've attended have included as a topiC

13 County Sheriff's Office, to the Association of

14 postcard-only policy?

14 Oregon Jail Managers.

15 A. . None have.

15 Q. And did you receive this?

16 Q. Is the Oregon Jail Managers' Association

16 A. Yes.

17

connected in any way with the Oregon Sheriffs'

17 Q. With the attachment?

18

Association?

18 A. I'm not sure.

19 A. Yes.

19 Q. Did you receive this e-mail on or about

20 Q. How are they related?

20 March 13, 2012?

21 A. It's a, it's a sub-association of the state,

21 A. If that's the date, I would have got it the same

22

Oregon State Sheriffs' Organization.

22 date it was sent out.

23 Q. Have you posted e-mails to the Oregon Jail

23 Q. And did you read this e-mail when you received

24

Managers' Association LISTSERV?

24 it?

25 A. No.

25 A. No, I did not.

36 (Pages 138 to 141) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit II; Page 20 of 28

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 21 of 28

Cutright, Bryan

May 9, 2012

Page 142

Page 144

1 Q. . But you do recall receiving it?

1 A. It's an e-mail from, it originated from Marie

2 A. I recall receiving the e-mail, yes.

2 Tyler, Washington County Sheriff's Office, to

3 Q. And have you ever read this e-mail?

3 the jail LISTSERV about a unified response to

4 A. I've read the e-mail itself, not the attachment.

4 the postcard policy or the postcard change.

5 Q. Okay. When did you read the e-mail itself?

5 Q. When you say "a unified response" what do you

6 A. I would assume on March 13, 2012.

6

mean?

7 Q. But is today the first time you've seen the

7 A. It's a response that their attorney had

8

attachment?

8 suggested that we, other counties could use in

9 A. Yeah. I never opened the attachment.

9 response to inmate-filed grievances.

10 Q. Do you routinely not open attachments or you 10 Q. Do you mean inmates filing grievances regarding

11

just didn't open this one?

11 the postcard-only policy?

12 A. I didn't open this one because it was concerning 12 A. Yes.

13

the mail policy and we were already working on 13 Q. And is this a postcard grievance response

14 our mail policy.

14 template that you adopted?

15 Q. And who was working on your mail policy?

15 A. One very similar to this and it might be exact.

16 A. The sheriff.

16 I'm not sure.

17 Q. Anyone else?

17 Q. And were you involved in determining that this

18 A. He's the only one, the undersheriff was

18 would be an appropriate response to any postcard

19

involved, but the sheriff was the one actually

19 grievance?

20

doing the typing.

20

MR. KRAEMER: Object to form.

21 Q. How did you first become aware of the Columbia 21 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: You can answer.

22

County Sheriff's Department had been sued by 22

MR. KRAEMER: Yeah. You can answer. Sorry.

23

Prison Legal News?

23

THE WITNESS: We, I typed up the, cut and

24 A. I don't recall.

24 pasted this section onto a response for our

25 Q. Do you recall when approximately you found out? 25

staff, yes.

Page 143

Page 145

1 A. I don't. Sometime around when it first started.

1 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: And have you received --

2 It was either the undersheriff or the sheriff

2

Strike that.

3 brought it up.

3

Has the Columbia County Sheriff's Department

4 Q. Is Columbia County Sheriff's Department

4

received grievances regarding the postcard

5 currently working with any other sheriff's

5

policy?

6 departments on reviewing the mail policy?

6 A. Yes.

7 A. I have no idea.

7 Q. When did that start?

8 Q. Do you also have a personal e-mail account on a

8 A. When did the grievances start?

9 Blackberry?

9 Q. Yes.

10 A. Yes.

10 A. The day the policy changed.

11 Q. And some of the e-mails that we received from

11 Q. You immediately started receiving grievances?

12 sheriff's department appear to include e-mails

12 A. Yes.

13 that you forwarded to yourself from your --

13 Q. What kind of complaints did you receive?

14 A. My e-mails are forwarded from my work account to 14 A. That it violates their right to send mail or to

15 my Blackberry.

15 communicate.

16 Q. That's automatically done?

16 Q. And did you, were you personally involved in

17 A. Yes.

17

~esponding to those grievances?

18 Q. All of your e-mails?

18 A. I have responded to those grievances, some of

19 A. All of my work e-mails, yes.

19 them.

20 Q. Okay.

20 Q. You have?

21

(Exhibit 16 marked for identification.)

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Sergeant, do you recognize 22 Q. And in your response did you use this postcard

23 Exhibit 16?

23

grievance response template that's found in

24 A. Yes.

24 Exhibit 16?

25 Q. What is it?

25 A. Yes.

37 (Pages 142 to 145) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit II; Page 21 of 28

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 22 of 28

Cutright, Bryan

May 9, 2012

Page 146
1 Q. .Did you have any discussions with anyone at the 1

passed down?

Page 148

2

sheriffs department about whether this postcard 2 A. Events that happen throughout your shift that

3

grievance response template was an appropriate 3

the other shift should be aware of.

I'

4

way for the Columbia County Sheriffs Department 4 Q. And how is a corrections staff supposed to

5

to respond?

5

determine what events should be passed down?

6 A. The supervisors, we had a meeting with the

6 A. Whatever they feel that needs to be passed on to

7

sheriff and undersheriff, agreed that would be

7

the next shift.

8

the response that we would give, a standard

8 Q. Is there policy on that?

9

response we would give to grievances.

10 Q. Who was at that supervisors' meeting?

9 A. No.
10 Q. What's at the top, USM?

11 A. I couldn't tell you. It was passed on to all

12

supervisors.

13 Q. And all supervisors are all sergeants,

11 A. United States Marshals.
12 Q. 82, what does that mean?
13 A. 82 inmates.

14

lieutenants, first sergeants and the sheriff?

14 Q. 82 inmates are from the U.S. Marshal Service?

15 A. All the sergeants and the undersheriff and the

15 A. Yes.

16

sheriff, yes.

17 Q. Why did you forward Exhibit 16?

16 Q. ICE, zero. So zero ICE inmates?
17 A. Yes.

18 A. Why did I forward it?
19 Q. Yeah.
20 A. I just answered that, that all my e-mails are

18 Q. And a total population 146?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. SO the U.S. Marshal Service 82, does that mean

21

forwarded to my Blackberry.

21

federal inmates?

22 Q. This e-mail you forwarded to Sarah Hanson and 22 A. Means 82 marshal inmates, yes, in marshal

23

Cynthia --

23

custody.

24 A. Oh, that's our county attorneys.

24 Q. I see about two-thirds of the way down this

25 Q. Cynthia is an attorney?

25

e-mail says, "Baier," B A I E R, "is worked up

Page 147

Page 149

1 A. She works with our attorney's office, one of

1

again, upset he got a mail violation due to

2

them. I think Sarah's the attorney and

2

receiving a letter in an envelope." Do you see

3

Cynthia's her clerk, I believe.

3

that?

4 Q. And why did you forward that?

4 A. Yes.

5 A. Because I was asked to forward it to the county

5 Q. Did you read this e-mail when you received it?

6

counsel.

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. By whom?

7 Q. Okay. What do you understand Sophie to be

8 A. Undersheriff Moyer.

8

communicating to corrections staff there?

9

(Exhibit 17 marked for identification.)

9 A. That Inmate Baier was upset because he didn't

10 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Sergeant, do you recognize 10

get a letter.

11

Exhibit 17?

11 Q. Do you know why he didn't get a letter?

12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Who's Sophie?

12 A. Because it was in an envelope.
13 Q. SO it was rejected?

14 A. She is Deputy Frazier.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. What shift does she work?

15 Q. Do you know how this was responded to?

16 A. Currently she's on day shift.

16 A. I have no idea.

17 Q. And what is Exhibit 17?

17 Q. Do you know how this inmate exhibited his being

18 A. 17 is what we call a pass-down from each, at the

18

upset?

19

end of each shift we conduct, we type out a

20

pass-down so we can pass down any needed

19 A. I have no idea.
20 Q. Are communications from inmates to corrections

21

information to the next shift.

21

staff about censorship of mail something that

22 Q. When you say pass down information, what do you 22

corrections staff are supposed to pass down to

23

mean?

23

the next shift?

24 A. Pass it on from one shift to the next.

24 A. They do pass that down if they felt the next

25 Q. And what type of information is supposed to be

25

shift needed to know that. Yes.

38 (Pages 146 to 149) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit II; Page 22 of 28

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 23 of 28

Cutright, Bryan

May 9, 2012

Page 182

Page 184

1 Q. And why is that?

1 Q. If this request had been forwarded to you, would

2 A. Because that's what's in the policy.

2

you have responded approximately the same way?

3 Q. Do you know what the basis for that policy is?

3 A. Yes.

4 A. I do not.

4 Q. Okay. Prior to the postcard-only policy, what

5 Q. Has that always been the policy of the jail as

5

was the indigent policy regarding mail

6 far as you've been there?

6

materials, writing materials?

7 A. Yes.

7 A. Same as I stated earlier, two envelopes and

8 Q. And who was the mail handler that wrote this

8

four pieces of paper.

9 notice?

9 Q. Per week?

10 A. I don't recognize the signature.

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. In this pile of exhibits, have you seen a

11 Q. And how often is the indigent kit with the two

12 postcard. Is Exhibit 4 a copy of the postcard

12

postcards available?

13 used by the Columbia County Jail distributed to

13 A. Once a week.

14 inmates?

14 Q. What day of the week?

15 A. Yes.

15 A. It depends on when the earmarked staff has the

16 Q. And has the Columbia County Jail ever used any

16

availability to do them.

17 other postcards, that is made available any

17 Q. Has the what?

18 postcards other than Exhibit 4 to inmates?

18 A. Availability to do them.

19 A. Not to my knowledge.

19 Q. And does the inmate get a indigent kit

20

(Exhibit 29 marked for identification.)

20

immediately upon their first day in the jail as

21 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Sergeant, do you recognize 21

well?

22 Exhibit 29?

22 A. Yes.

23 A. Yes.

23

(Exhibit 30 marked for identification.)

24 Q. What is it?

24 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Sergeant, you have

25 A. It's Columbia County Jail inmate request form.

25

Exhibit 30?

Page 183

Page 185

1 Q. Have you seen this particular form before?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Written in big handwritten letters, first half

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Is this inmate request form that you responded

3

to?

4

of the page, it appears to say "Attention

4 A. Yes.

5 Sergeant Cutright." Do you see that?

5 Q. What was the issue raised by the inmate?

6 A. Yes.

6 A. Wanted somebody to mail in an address book or

7 Q. Was this inmate request form forwarded to you? 7

have somebody bring it in.

8 A. No.

8 Q. And he also had mail at home about his legal

9 Q. If an inmate writes a request form specifically

9

case that he wanted to be sent in; is that

10 directed to you, do you expect a corrections

10

right?

11 staff to actually guard it to you?

11 A. Yes.

12 A. It depends on if it's something they can answer 12 Q. Okay. And you responded by saying "Just have

13 or not.

13

your family get it to the attorney and they can

14 Q. If it's something they can answer?

14

mail it to you"?

15 A. If it's a specific question that has to be

15 A. Correct.

16

answered by me, then they forward it to me. If

16 Q. Okay. And if the inmate's family had mailed in

17 it's a question that's answered in general, then

17

his legal materials directly to the inmate,

18 it's answered by a deputy or a sergeant or

18 would those have been permitted?

19 whoever picks up the kyte.

19 A. No. The envelope would have been returned to

20 Q. Take a moment to read the request and answer to 20

sender.

21 yourself.

21 Q. Why?

22 A. Okay.

22 A. Because it was in an envelope, not a postcard.

23 Q. Did you have a chance to read to yourself the

23 Q. Do you know what happened after this?

24 request and the response? 25 A. Yes.

24 A. In this case?
25 Q. Yeah.

47 (Pages 182 to 185) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit II; Page 23 of 28

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 24 of 28

Cutright, Bryan

May 9, 2012

Page 190

Page 192

1 Q.' Okay. So what was the inmate requesting?

1

15 pieces of mail are legal mail." Where did

2 A. He was requesting to have more than two

2

you get those numbers?

3

postcards because he is an indigent inmate, per 3 A. Off the legal mail and official mail that I

4

week. And it's a financial burden on him and

4

counted for those two days.

5

his family to have to send postcards in.

5 Q. Then you state, "The rest of the mail is

6 Q. Okay. And he explained the financial burden and 6

primarily personal mail from an inmate's family

7

that his family needs to use more stamps to send 7

or friends." Is that based on your review of

8

in communications by postcard and that otherwise 8

mail for two days?

9

could have sent in one letter; is that right?

9 A. Yes.

10 A. Yes.

10 Q. The last page of that -- Excuse me. Strike

11 Q. And did you have any discussions with anyone at 11

that.

12

the jail about the concern raised by this

12

On the last sentence of that paragraph 2 you

13

indigent inmate?

13

state, "I estimate that inmates send about 40

14 A. No.

14

pieces of mail per day to whomever they wish."

15 Q. Do you agree that a postcard-only policy makes 15

Where did you get that number?

16

it more expensive for inmates to send and

16 A. Same thing, after counting the mail for a little

17

receive mail?

17

over 40 pieces each day for those couple days.

18 A. No.

18 Q. How did you count the mail?

19 Q. You don't?

19 A. One piece at a time.

20 A. No.

20 Q. You hand count?

21 Q. You disagree with what's stated here by this

21 A. Yes.

22

inmate?

22 Q. Okay. Now, your declaration was signed on

23 A. If they want to send in more than, I mean, if

23

February 20th, 2012. Is that right?

24

they send in a postcard, they can send in a

24 A. Yes.

25

postcard. How much they write on it, that's not 25 Q. Okay. And so which days did you count the mail?

Page 191

Page 193

1

my decision. Still going to send one postcard.

1 A. If I had to guess, I don't know. It would be

2 Q. Would you agree that a family member who could 2

sometime in February.

3

previously send in a four-page letter using one

3 Q. But am I correct that the last time that you

4

stamp and had to send in multiple postcards,

4

processed or supervised the processing of mail

5

since letters are no longer allowed, will spend

5

was in December 2011?

6

more money on stamps than they would otherwise? 6 A. Yes.

7 A. If they sent more than one postcard, they would. 7 Q. Okay. So can you explain how it was that you

8

MR. KRAEMER: Take a break.

8

ended up counting mail in February 2012?

9

MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Sure.

9 A. Because I was asked to estimate how much mail we

10

(Break taken from 4:04 to 4:14.)

10

receive and send out per day.

11

(Exhibit 34 marked for identification.)

11 Q. SO what time of day did you do the counting?

12 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Back on the record.

12 A. I was on swing shift. So sometime between

13

Sergeant, handing you Exhibit 34. Handing

13 4:00 p.m. and midnight.

14 you Exhibit 34, is this your declaration?

14 Q. SO did you process the mail those days?

15 A. Yes.

15 A. No.

16 Q. And in exhibit, excuse me, in this Exhibit 34,

16 Q. Did someone else?

17

your declaration, paragraph 2 you state, "I

17 A. Yes.

18

estimate that we receive about 50 pieces of mail

18 Q. Who was that?

19

per day addressed to inmates." Where did you

19 A. I have no idea. Somebody on graveyard. I was

20

get that number from?

20

on swing shift.

21 A. From the two days in a row that I counted over

21 Q. And so did you count the mail before or after it

22

50 pieces of mail.

22

was processed?

23 Q. When were those two days?

23 A. I counted the mail that came in and then I

24 A. Sometime right around this declaration.

24 counted the mail that was picked up. So before

25 Q. And you then state, "Approximately 10 to

25

it was processed.

49 (Pages 190 to 193) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit II; Page 24 of 28

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 25 of 28

Cutright, Bryan

May 9, 2012

Page 194

1 Q. .I am going to go through some e-mails and my

1

Page 196
(Exhibit 37 marked for identification.)

2

primary question for most of these is going to

2 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Handing you Exhibit 37.

3

be whether you received these. I am first going

3 This is two-page document, 1341 and 1340. Are

4

to hand you what we are marking as Exhibit 33.

4

these e-mails you received?

5

(Exhibit 33 marked for identification.)

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Did you receive Exhibit 33? 6

MR. KRAEMER: That's 37?

7 A. Yes.

7

THE WITNESS: Yes.

8 Q. And then did you then forward Exhibit 33, the

8

MR. KRAEMER: Which was 36? I'm missing

9

text of it to your Hotmail account?

9 something. Oh, I see what happened. Thanks.

10 A. I don't know. Did I? I can't see a Hotmail

10

(Exhibit 38 marked for identification.)

11

account there. I have no idea. It says my

11 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Exhibit 38, it's a

12

Blackberry account.

12 mUlti-page document Bates CC 1344 through 1349.

13 Q. Can I see your Exhibit 33, make sure we are

13 Are these e-mails you received?

14 looking at the same page. I want to check and

14 A. Yes.

15

make sure I handed you the right one too, Steve. 15 Q. Was there a business meeting on April 3rd, 2012?

16

MR. KRAEMER: Sure.

16 A. I have no idea.

17 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: I did not. Just a minute. 17 Q. You did not attend one?

18

Okay. I am going to remark Exhibit 33. For the

18 A. No.

19 record, Exhibit 33 is Bates stamped 1312, 1313

19

(Exhibit 39 marked for identification.)

20

and 1314. Now handing Exhibit 33 back to you.

20 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: There's 39. This is 1335

21

Am I correct that Exhibit 13 contains multiple

21

through CC 1355. It's an e-mail you received?

22

copies of the same e-mail?

22 A. Yes.

23 A. Yes.

23 Q. Who's Michelle?

24 Q. One of which the last one you forwarded to

24 A. Deputy Ritchie.

25

yourself at the Hotmail address?

25 Q. In the, these are pass-down notes; correct?

Page 195

Page 197

1 A. Yes.

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Why was it that you forwarded that to yourself?

2 Q. February 10, 2012?

3 A. Because I had been forwarding all my e-mails

3 A. Yes.

4

from work to both my home e-mail address and my

4 Q. The last pass-down note is, "We need a memo

5 work e-mail address.
6 Q. SO everything was automatically forwarded --

5

explaining law library so control is not getting

6

bombarded with questions." Had you seen that

7 A. Automatic.
8 Q. -- everything was automatically forwarded?

7

before?

8 A. Yes.

9

Okay. I am now handing you Exhibit 35,

9 Q. Okay. And do you know what Michelle is talking

10 which is Bates stamped 1336 through CC 1339.

10

about?

11

(Exhibit 35 marked for identification.)

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: And did you receive this

12 Q. What is she talking about?

13 e-mail?

13 A. She's referring to the fact that we switched our

14 A. Yes.

14

law library from the, where we have our library

15 Q. Who is Rachel Reyna?

15

books to a cart and they're down in the booking

16 A. I don't know her personally, but reading this,

16

area.

17 she's a jail manager of Malheur County.

17 Q. SO where did the law library books used to be

18 Q. It's on the east side of the state; right?

18

before they got put on the cart?

19 A. Yes.

19 A. They were in our library.

20

(Exhibit 36 marked for identification.)

20 Q. In the library with the novels?

21 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Exhibit 36, CC 1334 through 21 A. Yes.

22 13, it's a little bit out of order. We have got

22 Q. And why did that change? Why was that change

23 1334, 1335, 1332 and 1333. Are these e-mails

23

made?

24 that you received?

24 A. Convenience for staff, lack of staffing.

25 A. Yes.

25

They're supervised. You can put them in a spot.

50 (Pages 194 to 197) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit II; Page 25 of 28

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 26 of 28

Cutright, Bryan

May 9,2012

Page 210

Page 212 .•.

1 A. ·Enough to get 100, that one was 100. No. That 1 for some reason their phone privilege is

,

2

one is 60 because it's semester instead of

2

revoked.

3

quarter.

3 Q. Is the phone free?

4 Q. Were any of those courses related to your job? 4 A. No.

5 A. In the, those were supervisory ones, yes. And 5 Q. Is it free for local calls?

6

the criminal justice obviously.

6 A. No.

7 Q. SO the general studies was a supervisory course? 7 Q. What does it cost?

8 A. No. PCC is supervisory management.

8 A. What's that?

9 Q. SO the general studies courses that you took,

9 Q. What does it cost?

10 did any of those relate to your work?

10 A. I believe it's $2.35.

11 A. Not particularly.

11 Q. For one call?

12 Q. Prior to getting hired at the sheriffs

12 A. For one 15-minute phone call.

13

department what was your highest level of, your 13 Q. $2.35?

14 highest grade completed?

14 A. Yes.

15 A. 12th.

15 Q. Is that for a local call?

16 Q. Where was that?

16 A. That's for a local call.

17 A. Vernonia High School.

17 Q. Do you know what it costs for long distance

18 Q. Where is that?

18 calls?

19 A. Vernonia, Oregon.

19 A. I have no idea.

20 Q. What's the jail's current policy on inmate

20 Q. What about incoming calls, how does that work?

21

outgoing phone calls?

21 A. Inmates can't receive incoming phone calls.

22 A. Inmate what?

22 Q. Are there any exceptions?

23 Q. Outgoing phone calls.

23 A. If an attorney calls and needs to get ahold of

24

MR. KRAEMER: Object to form. Are you

24 them, there's a death in the family, things of

25

asking him that as a designated representative 25

that nature.

Page 211

Page 213

1 or just as a sergeant? I didn't see that in the

1 Q. What about visitation, are you familiar with the

2 declaration, but I missed a lot of things.

2

rule on in-person visitation?

3

MS. CHAMBERLAIN: It certainly talks about

3 A. In-person visitation? Define "in-person."

4 this in his --

4 Q. Are inmates permitted to receive visitors?

5

MR. KRAEMER: My only question is are you

5 A. Yes.

6 asking him this as his capacity as a 3(b)

6 Q. When?

7 representative or as a sergeant?

7 A. Each pod has a different visiting date. They

8 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: I will just ask you as a

8

have a schedule set per their pods.

9 sergeant?

9 Q. SO for each particular pod, how many days of the

10

MR. KRAEMER: I am still going to object to

10 week are they allowed to receive visitors?

11 the form.

11 A. Twice.

12

But you can answer if you understand.

12 Q. Twice a week?

13 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Sergeant, are you familiar 13 A. Yes.

14 with the jail's policy on inmate calls?

14 Q. And is there hour or time limitations?

15 A. Yes.

15 A. Two 30-minute visits a week.

16 Q. What is it?

16 Q. Do you have any information about your current

17 A. They're allowed to use the phone and make calls. 17 inmate population and where their primary place

18 Q. Anytime they want?

18 of residence is in the state?

19 A. As long as they're out of their cell.

19 A. I have no idea.

20 Q. What do you mean as long as they're out of their 20 Q. How many visitor rooms -- Or strike that.

21 cell?

21

Where do the inmates visit with outsiders?

22 A. At certain times of the day inmates are locked

22 A. In the visiting area.

23 in their cells. Other times when they come out

23 Q. Okay. Is there, can they have contact with each

24 in the day area, there's phones in there.

24 other, physical contact?

25 They're privileged of using the phones, unless

25 A. No.

54 (Pages 210 to 213) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit II; Page 26 of 28

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 27 of 28

Cutright, Bryan

May 9,2012

Page 214

Page 216

1 Q. .Is there glass between them?

1 is Exhibit 46 .

2 A. Yes.

2

MR. KRAEMER: So are you asking a question

3 Q. And how many people can fit in the visiting

3 as we go along? You just want him to say they

4

area?

4 are what--

5 A. There's seven booths. Six or seven. I'm not

5 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: So for now I'm just handing

6

sure.

6 them to you. Yeah.

7 Q. SO does that mean approximately six or seven 7

(Exhibits 47 through 50 marked for

8 - . inmates at one time? There's one per booth;

8

identification. )

9

correct?

9

MR. KRAEMER: So we have a loose page on

10 A. Right.

10 this one; is that --

11 Q. And one external visitor per booth?

11

MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Yeah. It needs to be put

12 A. They can have up to three on the outside.

12 in there. Yeah.

13 Q. Is there ever a problem with too many visitors 13

THE WITNESS: This one is already in this

14 coming and the jail not being able to

14 one.

15

accommodate all of those visits?

15 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Okay. I hand you the wrong

16 A. No.

16 one here. Sergeant Cutright, we've handed you

17 Q. That's never been a problem?

17 Exhibits 46 through 50. And my question for you

18 A. No.

18 is I'd like you to go through each, starting

19 Q. Are you a colleague or a supervisor of Sergeant 19 with 46, and let me know if that is a Columbia

20

Miller?

20 County Sheriff's Department inmate manual and

21 A. Colleague.

21 the effective date of the inmate manual if you

22 Q. Is she as experienced as you or less

22 know.

23

experienced?

23 A. It is a Columbia County inmate manual.

24 A. She's been there 10 years or so.

24 Q. 46 is?

25 Q. Do you consider her a pretty experienced

25 A. Yes.

Page 215

Page 217

1 sergeant?

1 Q. And what's the date that was effective?

2 A. Yes.

2 A. It's not approved. There's nothing on here, so

3 Q. And she knows what she's doing when it comes to 3

I have no idea. I would assume that it's, I

4

processing the mail?

4

mean, it's --

5

MR. KRAEMER: Object to form.

5

MR. KRAEMER: I object to you assuming.

6

THE WITNESS: I have no idea. I don't talk

6

THE WITNESS: No assuming. It's 2009.

7 to her about it.

7

That's what's typed in there. So I have no idea

8 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: You've never spoken to

8

what the actual date is.

9 Sergeant Miller about processing the mail?

9 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: So you're unsure of the

10 A. No.

10 actual date, but you can confirm that 46 is a

11 Q. Have you ever supervised her processing the

11

Columbia County Sheriff's Department inmate

12 mail?

12 manual?

13 A. No.
14 Q. Ever consulted with her regarding anything with

13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And 47, is this a Columbia County Sheriff's

15 the mail?

15

Department inmate manual?

16 A. Not that I can think of.

16 A. Yes.

17

MS. CHAMBERLAIN: I think we're almost done. 17 Q. And is that the 2010 manual?

18 I'm just going to look at my notes here. We are 18 A. It is a 2010 inmate manual. It appears to be a

19 going to be off the record for a few minutes.

19 draft manual.

20

(Break taken from 4:48 to 4:58.)

20 Q. Okay. If you flip into the middle of that

21

(Exhibit 46 marked for identification.)

21

Exhibit 47, for example, if you look at, well,

22 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Okay. I'm going to hand 22

just a few pages in, page 134, CC 134, at the

23

you some inmate manuals, Sergeant, and just have 23

bottom it says July 8, 2010; is that right?

24 you take a look at them. I am just going to ask 24 A. That's what it says.

25 you if these are what they appear to be. This

25 Q. Okay. So does that mean that this was effective

55 (Pages 214 to 217) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit II; Page 27 of 28

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 28 of 28

Cutright,E3ryan

lV1ay9, 2012

:1

C E R T I FIe A ~ E

2

3

I I Al e sh i a I< • 1'10. Co1'CI. , CSRNo. 94··- 02 98 , de

hereby certify that BRYj\N GOTRTGHTpersona.l1y

5

a.ppeared before.me a.t C.h.e time crnd pla.ce

6

mentioned in the caption hereJ.ni that the

\i-Ji tness f.vas by me first duly Svlorn on oath, and

8

examined upon oral interrogatories propc'unded by

9

counsel; that said e>,a.nti.hatioJ1,together wi t.h

10

tli etestirnony of saidwlt118SS I w.~~st (::t kef1 dow}') by

11

me in stenotype and thereafter: reduced to

12

typewri-ting; andthattfle fo.regoinc;r transcript I

13

Pages 1 to 224, both inclusive, constitutes a

14

full, true and aCCl.1T8.te ,:c·ecord of s<aid

15

exa.mination of andtest.imony given by said

16

wit116SS,and of aJl other proceeding's had dur.:Lng

17

the taking of said deposition, ando£ the vvbole

18

thereof, to the bes·t of myabfli:ty.

19

vJitnesstny hand at Fortlan.d, Oregon, this

20

21

22

23

24

Beovich Walter & Friend

WING DECL; Exhibit II; Page 28 of 28

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 15
EXHIBIT III
TO DECLARATION OF JESSE WING IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
WING DECL; Exhibit III; Page 1 of 15

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 15

Miller, Raquel

May 9,2012'

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF OREGON

3

PORTLAND DIVISION

4

5 PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project

6 of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE

7 CENTER,

No. 3:12-CV-71-SI

8

Plaintiff,

9

v.

10 COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA

11 COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF

12 DICKERSON, individually and

13 in his capacity as Columbia

14 County Sheriff,

15

Defendants.

16

17

18

19

20

30(b) (6) VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF RAQUEL MILLER

21

Taken in behalf of Plaintiff

22

May 9, 2012

23

24

25

Page 1 I
,

Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit III; Page 2 of 15

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 15

Miller, Raquel

May 9, 2012

Page 10

Page 12

1

to be needing somebody to count the money, maybe 1

two minutes. Okay. I think I'm going to bring

2 I'll call it the money room, come do the camera,

2

it in here next time.

3 the back booking office.

3 Q. Okay. Can you explain what that is?

4 Q. SO it serves a lot of functions?

4 A. The timer I'll be getting up for is a check of

5 A. Right.

5

someone who is in a suicide watch.

6 Q. Okay. All right. Did you review any documents

6 Q. I see. And how frequently--

7

related to this lawsuit in preparation for

7 A. 15 minutes.

8 today, tonight's deposition?

8 Q. Okay. And how frequently would you say on

9 A. The one that you just handed me.

9

average you have a suicide watch here?

10 Q. SO you have seen the deposition notice before?

10

MR. KRAEMER: Well, wait a minute. That's

11 A. Yes.

11

far beyond the scope of why she's here.

12 Q. Okay. Exhibit 1?

12

MR. WING: Well, I'll explain.

13 A. Yes. Which is right here.

13

MR. KRAEMER: So we're not going there

14 Q. Did you review any other documents in

14

unless you have some very good reason for what

15 preparation for this deposition?

15

that has to do with the mail policy.

16 A. I did review an e-mail.

16

MR. WING: Well, I do.

17 Q. Okay. And who was that e-mail from?

17 Q. BY MR. WING: If you were not doing the mail,

18 A. From my sheriff.

18

what would you be doing?

19 Q. And what was the nature of that e-mail?

19 A. Well, I would be booking and I would be sitting

20 A. It just said the exact thing that this said,

20

there. When I'm not doing the mail, I would be

21

what rooms would be seen.

21

out there --

22 Q. Okay. So that had to do with the inspection?

22 Q. SO there's --

23 A. Yes. Yeah.

23 A. -- doing booking stuff. There's a whole bunch

24 Q. Okay. And you showed us around earlier.

24

of other stuff to do.

25 A. Yes.

25 Q. There's a booking area right outside this

Page 11

Page 13

1 Q. Okay. I'm going to have some questions about 1

office?

2

that, but we can do the inspection of the mail

2 A. Yes.

3

first.

3 Q. Okay. And when you're doing the mail, typically

4

Now, have you read a declaration that was

4

are you interrupted to do other things?

5

submitted in this lawsuit by anybody?

5 A. Yes.

6 A. A declaration?

6 Q. Okay. And that's where the question comes about

7 Q. Statement under oath.

7

the suicide watch. Is that a common

8 A. No.

8

interruption or is this infrequent?

9 Q. Have you seen any statement under oath by

9 A. It's an interruption at this time. But it could

10

Sergeant Cutright?

10 be various things. It could be a fight, floor

11 A. No.

11

workers dreSSing, booking, release.

12 Q. Have you seen a statement under oath by the 12 Q. And do those kind of activities frequently

13

sheriff?

13 happen?

14 A. No.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Okay. And do you know what, if anything, either 15 Q. Okay. So in a typical night when you're doing

16

of those declarations say?

16 the mail, you are frequently interrupted?

17 A. No.

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Okay. You indicated that a timer would go

18 Q. Okay. All right. Let's proceed. Can you

19

off --

19 explain, there's a basket of mail; is that

20 A. Yes.

20

right?

21 Q. -- and you had to do something else?

21 A. Uh-huh.

22 A. I hear it beeping. I kind of want to go check

22 Q. Can you say yes or no or --

23

it.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. That's fine.

24 Q. Okay. Thank you. And then there's some what

25 A. It's not beeping normal. Oh, I have

25

looks like postcards in front of them. Is that

4 (Pages 10 to 13) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit III; Page 3 of 15

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 4 of 15

Miller, Raquel

May 9,2012

Page 14

Page 16

1

right?

1

normally handle the mail.

2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Okay. And combined, is that the mail, the

2

THE WITNESS: Okay. Thank you.

3 Q. BY MR. WING: can you describe what you're

4

incoming mail that came into the Columbia County 4

doing?

5

Jail today?

5 A. I am pulling an alphabetical head count.

6 A. No.

6 Q. can you tell me what that will inform you of?

7 Q. Okay. Please explain what you have in front of 7 A. It will allow me to scan the barcodes of the

8

you.

8

people who get the mail.

9 A. This is the incoming mail. This is the outgoing

9 Q. Okay. This is the Golden Eagle program on the

10

mail.

10

computer?

11 Q. I see. And for the court reporter, what's in

11 A. Yes.

12

the basket is the incoming mail and the stack of 12 Q. Okay. And you are accessing that right now?

13

postcards that are in front of that are outgoing 13 A. Yes. It won't let me do that here.

14

mail?

14 Q. Sergeant, if we see an e-mail from Rocky Miller,

15 A. Yes.

15

is that you?

16 Q. Okay. And for what period of time is this mail

16 A. Yes. You see an e-mail?

17

that's in front of you? Just today's mail or is

17 Q. If I see an e-mail. I notice Rocky Miller was

18

it more than one day's mail?

18

listed on the computer there.

19 A. It's today's mail this time.

19 A. Oh. Do you need this back?

20 Q. Thank you. Do you need to--

20 Q. That becomes the court reporter's.

21 A. Yes, I do.

21 A. Oh. can I change it up because I don't, I like

22

Sorry about that.

22

to do the outbound first.

23 Q. That's quite all right. Okay. Thank you. Do

23 Q. Certainly.

I

24

you know how many pieces of incoming mail you 24 A. Okay.

25

received today at the jail?

25 Q. We can move this out of the way for you. What

Page 15

Page 17

1 A. Everything that's in the basket. I don't know

1

are you doing right now, please?

2

specifically.

3 Q. Okay. I will ask you either to count it now or

2 A. I'm just getting everything faCing the same way.
3 Q. And you're doing the postcards first; is that

4

as you're going or when we're done.

4

right?

5 A. Okay. I'll count it, I guess I would need to

5 A. I'm doing the outgoing mail, yeah. So I have

6

know what the purpose of counting it is because 6

separated everything right now.

7

at this pOint I could count it but it hasn't

7 Q. Okay. Have you now sorted everything so it is

8

been sorted yet. Some of the mail may not be

8

facing the same way?

9

inmate mail.

10 Q. Okay.

9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Can you explain to me what you're looking at

11 A. Some of it may be directed toward medical.
12 Q. Okay.
13 A. And some of it --
14 Q. SO as you sort, it will go into different piles?

11

now?

12 A. The alphabetical head count.

13 Q. You are looking at several sheets of paper with

14

names of prisoners on it?

15 A. It's going to go to different piles based on

16

where it is and where it's going.

17 Q. Okay.

18 A. So to count it at this point WOUldn't be...

19 Q. Okay. So once you've sorted it, I'll ask you to

20

describe how many in each pile.

15 A. Yes.
16 Q. I hope you're not waiting for me.
17 A. Okay. I was.
18 Q. I will ask you if there's --
19 A. You just stood up.
20 Q. I just want to see what you're doing.

21 A. Okay. Okay.
22 Q. Please proceed.

21 A. I am just putting marks by their names.
22 Q. Okay. There were three what might be called

23 A. Okay.

23

letters that were in the outgoing mail; is that

24

MR. KRAEMER: Wait a minute. How do you 24

right?

25

normally do it? Proceed with the way you

25 A. Right.

5 (Pages 14 to 17) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit III; Page 4 of 15

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 5 of 15

Miller, Raquel

May 9, 2012

1 Q. .Okay. And those are in envelopes?

Page 18
1

Page 20
prisoners or are those cards specially sold by

2 A. Right. I'm going to look at those in a minute.

2

the prisoners?

3

Because they say "privileged," but that's not

4

attorneys, from what I see. Oh, but they're

3 A. They're by the prisoners.
4 Q. And those are allowed?

5

actually good because they were signed and

6

sealed by a deputy.

7 Q. That's what those marks are on the back?

8 A. Yes. Yeah.

9 Q. SO those are two letters and then there's

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. How many cards did you set aside?

7 A. Four.

8 Q. can you tell me generally why you set them

9

aside?

10

another document. Okay.

11

(Brief interruption.)

12 Q. BY MR. WING: You've just received some

13

additional, three, four postcards from

10 A. Because they're in Spanish.
11 Q. All four of them?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. What are you doing now, please?

14

prisoners; is that correct?

15 A. Yes.

14 A. I'm double-checking for no known contacts.
15 Q. To look for the conflicts, is that what you

16

Will you hand me one of those labels?

16

said?

17

DEPUTY MOORE: Sure.

18

(Discussion held off the record.)

17 A. Yes.
18 Q. No contact?

19

THE WITNESS: I set this one over here

20

because it needs a sticker. It doesn't say

19 A. Right.
20 Q. Where do you look? Is it the to, the addressee

21

Washington County Jail on it.

21

and the--

22 Q. BY MR. WING: I see. So you are now putting a 22 A. Right.

23

sticker on the --

23 Q. -- addressor?

24 A. Yes.
25 Q. -- postcard?

24 A. Right.
25 Q. Okay.

Page 19

Page 21

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Some of the photos of the first sheriff are

3

smaller than others. There are two different

1 A. And this one I'm going to double-check on real

2

quick.

3 Q. You took one postcard out?

4

types of postcards that you provide to the

5

prisoners?

4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Okay. Have you just returned from checking?

6 A. It's probably a different shipment. We order

6 A. Yes.

7

the same size.

8 Q. The postcard is the same size; right?

9 A. Yeah.

10 Q. Just the photo is a different size; is that

7

MR. WING: The sergeant has just left the

8

room to respond to a beeping sound.

9 Q. BY MR. WING: Okay. Sergeant is back.

10

So you just checked the no contact for one

11

right?

11

of the prisoners?

12 A. I imagine. I didn't really notice. Oh, yeah.
13 Q. Have you now checked off all of the prisoners'

12 A. It actually wasn't a no contact. It's just that

13

they try to contact. So I want to make sure

14

names for the outgoing mail?

14

there wasn't anything that said they couldn't

15 A. Yes, I have.
16 Q. Okay. What are you about to do now?

15

write each other.

16 Q. Okay. What are you going to do next?

17 A. I'm going to add this person's booking number.
18 Q. To the postcard?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Explain what you're doing now.

17 A. Next I'm going to put these out here and put

18

these out here as well.

19 Q. Okay. Could you say, you've got the stack of

20

Spanish cards?

21 A. I'm scanning.
22 Q. SO kind of briefly reading the postcards?

21 A. Right.
22 Q. And I need you to count these, please, first,

23 A. Right. And I'm separating again.

24 Q. Okay. There are some Mother's Day pictures or

25

insignias, drawings. Are those drawings by

23

before you do this.

24 A. There were four of these.

25 Q. Four Spanish. Right. And then the rest of

6 (Pages 18 to 21) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit III; Page 5 of 15

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 6 of 15

Miller, Raquel

May 9, 2012

1 Q. .From the U.S. Postal Service?

Page 26
1

from the prison?

Page 28

2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Okay. And do these have anything to do with

2 A. It was actually sent from us and returned to her

3

because it's not authorized for her to write

4

inmate mail?

4

him. They denied him.

5 A. Yes. It's an inmate who sent it out. He's

5 Q. Okay. I'm sorry. Could you explain that again.

6

requesting his certified receipt back.

7 Q. I see. There's two of those; is that right?

6 A. It looks like it's no inmate to inmate. They're

7

not authorized to or she's not authorized to

8 A. Yes.

8

write him.

9 Q. You also had a business card that you were, can 9 Q. SO this was from somebody in this jail to

10

you explain what that is?

10

somebody else in this jail?

11 A. Yes. An attorney dropped it off for his client.

12

He just wants her to have it.

13 Q. I see. So it's not even mail really --

14 A. No.

15 Q. Is that correct?

11 A. Yes. No. To somebody somewhere else.
12 Q. I see. So it's return mail?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And what are you going to do with that?
15 A. With what?

16 A. Yes. But we will ...

17 Q. You've created kind of a different pile. can

18

you explain --

16 Q. With that piece of mail that's returned.
17 A. I am going to give it to the sender.
18 Q. Who is a prisoner here?

19 A. Well, I'm trying to go by pod. And then this is

20

interpretation. Actually this, I'll have to

19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay.

21

investigate that one.

22 Q. Okay. As you organize the mail, you're writing

21 A. I'm going to go set this over here because it's

22

not --

23

the pod letter?

23 Q. SO that's not prisoner mail?

24 A. Yeah.
25 Q. Okay. How many different pods are there?

24 A. No. This is library. Goes to the library.
25 Q. Okay. And the things that you were taking to

Page 27

Page 29

1 A. Ten.
2 Q. Explain what you just did.

1

the library was five documents?

2 A. I didn't take them to the library though. I put

3 A. She's not here, so I stamped it.
4 Q. Okay. And what are you going to do with that?

3

them over here.

4 Q. Okay. But there were five of them?

5 A. I'm going to put it back in the outgoing mail to

6

be returned to sender.

7 Q. That's a postcard?

8 A. Yes.

5 A. I believe.
6 Q. Okay.
7 A. I'll count them again.
8 Q. Okay. The sergeant has left the room to go deal

9 Q. And you have a big stamp, trying to think of a

9

with the beeper.

10

rubber -- What do you call that, that you put on 10 A. Excuse me. I forgot something.

11

the mail, then you check a box or check a line; 11 Q. Sure.

12

is that correct?

12

Okay. Have you now completed the sorting of

13 A. Yes.
14 Q. You just used your big stamp again.
15 A. Yes. He's also not here.

13

the incoming mail?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And you've sorted it by pods?

16 Q. Okay. Hard to find a place to put that stamp.

17

So there's a prisoner who's no longer here?

16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Okay. What are you going to do next?

18 A. It's the same person.
19 Q. I see.

18 A. Next I'm going to, well, I kind of usually do it

19

a multi-tasking way, but I'll go ahead and pull

20 A. I just wanted...

20

each pod and scan it and mark them.

21 Q. And does that mean you don't even have to look 21 Q. How would you normally do it?

22

at that mail, those three postcards?

22 A. I would normally scan it, mark them and put them

23 A. Right.
24 Q. Is that it? Can you explain what you just

23

in the files.

24 Q. Oh. And can you explain what you mean by "the

25

handled. It's a postcard that's typically sent

25

files"?

8 (Pages 26 to 29) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit III; Page 6 of 15

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 7 of 15

Miller, Raquel

May 9, 2012

Page 30

Page 32

1 A. Yeah. These files are the outgoing mail.

1 A. Because it's a, probably something they printed

2

Actually I'll just do it the way I usually do

3

it. And this is how the day shift people will,

2

at home.

3 Q. SO are address labels prohibited?

4

you know, it's already sorted. The mail's ready

5

to go out.

6 Q. SO there is a manila folder for each pod?

7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And you'll put the mail that goes to that pod in

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Okay.

6 A. I am just going to take it off.

7 Q. SO you're using your fingernail to pull off the

8

address label?

9

that particular folder?

9 A. Right. Otherwise you can use something too

10 A. Yes.

10

destructive. This way I can kind of get a feel

11 Q. Okay. Before you put them in, would you please 11

for it.

12

tell us how many?

12 Q. And is there something that you believe you're

13 A. How many per pod?
14 Q. Yes.

13

taking the address label off to prevent from

14

getting into the prison, to the jail?

15 A. Okay.
16 Q. And you can do it as you're working.

15 A. Yes.
16 Q. What is that?

17 A. I will tell you after I scan them because some

17 A. It could be a drug or something hidden

18

may be rejected for some reason.

19 Q. Okay. So there were three for pod A?

18

underneath here.

19 Q. Do you see anything that causes you to believe

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Three postcards. Is that correct? They're all

22

postcards?

20

that there is something?

21 A. No. No.

22 Q. Do you think you'd be able to tell?

23 A. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. I thought you were making 23 A. No.

24

a statement. Actually there's only two. I put

24 Q. Have you now completed taking off the address

25

him in the wrong pod.

25

label?

Page 31

Page 33

1 Q. Okay. And those are smaller than the postcards 1 A. Yes. This guy's not here.

2

that you sell here; is that right?

2 Q. You're now opening up an envelope; is that

3 A. Right.

3

right?

4 Q. Both of those?
5 A. Yeah. Those were pretty small.

4 A. Uh-huh.
5 Q. Is that for somebody who's here or not?

6 Q. Okay. Now you are rescanning the cards --

6 A. He's here.

7 A. I'm scanning them the first time, yeah. I

7 Q. Okay. What is the purpose of opening up the

8

thought you said rescanning. I'm scanning them 8

envelope?

9

for the first time.

10 Q. I'm sorry. For pod B now?

9 A. It's just to see what's inside.
10 Q. Okay.

11 A. Yes.

11 A. I need to go get something.

12 Q. You've completed pod A?

12 Q. Sergeant's leaving the room.

13 A. Yes.

13

What you are getting, please?

14 Q. And what are you doing now, please?

14 A. Staple remover.

15 A. The stamp was not all the way on there, so just 15 Q. For what purpose?

16

making sure there's nothing hidden underneath. 16 A. Take staples out.

17

I did the rest of that.

17 Q. What did the prisoner receive that you take the

18 Q. What are you doing now, please?

18

staples out of?

19 A. I'm taking off...
20 Q. Is that an address label?

19 A. He received Daily Bread.
20 Q. Is that like a pamphlet?

21 A. Yes. I'm going to write it on there.
22 Q. I'm sorry. You're going to write --

21 A. It is a pamphlet, religious.
22 Q. And you just completed the staples, taking them

23 A. I'm going to write the address on here, probably 23

out for one of them?

24

before I break it.

25 Q. Why are you going to do that?

24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And there's another pamphlet?

9 (Pages 30 to 33)
Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit III; Page 7 of 15

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 8 of 15

Miller, Raquel

May 9, 2012

Page 34

Page 36

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Okay. You are putting them back in the

3

envelope?

1

two other er.welopes?

2 A. There are two legal papers. Two legal--

3 Q. Two legal mail, two envelopes?

4 A. Yes.

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And what will you do with those?

5 Q. Okay. And you're not opening those up; correct?

6 A. Put those in the file to go back to him.
7 Q. Okay. So he's allowed to get those?

6 A. No.
7 Q. Those remain sealed?

8 A. Yes.
9 Q. I'm sorry. Could you count the number for us,

8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And that's everything for pod C?

10

please?

11 A. Oh, there were four.

12 Q. SO there was --

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. You're done with pod C?

...

12 A. Yes. Kind of got me distracted. I need to

13 A. Three postcards and one of those.

14 Q. And "one of those" being the envelope with the

15

two religious pamphlets in them?

13

double-check and make sure I marked to make

14

sure.

15 Q. You are now starting on pod D?

16 A. Yes.

16 A. Yes.

• •••

17 Q. And the postcards again were smaller than the 17 Q. And what are you doing there, please?

!

18

ones you sell here?

18 A. There was just part of a stamp lifted. So I was

19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. And that's everything in pod B?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Please continue.
23 A. I left my timer out there.
24 Q. You're now on pod C?
25 A. Yes.

19

just seeing if there was something underneath

20

it.

21 Q. On a postcard?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And did you find anything underneath it?

24 A. No.

25 Q. And you're scanning --

Page 35

Page 37

1 Q. And there's another envelope with the two

2

religious pamphlets, the same as you just

1 A. Yes.
2 Q. -- as you go?

3

finished for someone in pod B?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Okay. And you are taking out the staples?

3 A. Yes. Want me to keep that separate?

4 Q. Yes, please. How many postcards did you just

5

scan, please?

6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And why do you take out the staples?
8 A. Could be used as a weapon.
9 Q. And are they prohibited contraband?

6 A. Well, I didn't mark them. So let me just go

7

ahead and do this while I do that.

8 Q. Can you just take a minute and tell me how many

9

you scanned.

10 A. Yes, unless -- Yes.
11 Q. Unless what?

10 A. Ten.
11 Q. Ten postcards?

12 A. I was going to say except that the big staples

12 A. Yes.

13

that, that we have that, not from something that 13 Q. Okay. That's for pod D?

14

comes in like that, no. We take it out.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. I'm sorry. Could you explain that again. When 15 Q. And now you're marking them alphabetical?

16

do you leave in the staples, when do you leave 16 A. Yes.

17

them out?

17 Q. Okay. And you just included a letter; is that

18 A. Like in an inmate manual, something we give

18

right?

19

them. We just don't want them to have a bunch 19 A. Yes.

20

of extra staples that we know about. We're

20 Q. Is that a privileged letter?

21

going to have those.

22 Q. You just handled all the mail for pod C?

21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Okay. So for pod D there were ten postcards and

23 A. I'm sorry. Yes.

24 Q. Please explain what there is besides the

25

religious pamphlets in one envelope, there are

23

one privileged letter?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Thank you.

10 (Pages 34 to 37) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit III; Page 8 of 15

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 9 of 15

Miller, Raquel

May 9,2012

Page 38

Page 40

1 A. Two minutes.

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Until your beeper. Okay.

2 Q. Okay.

3 A. Continue?

3 A. We actually, when they want pictures of their

4 Q. Please.

4 family, we tell them this is a good way to do

5 A. Okay.

5

it.

6 Q. You are now starting on pod E?

6 Q. And are all those photos for the same prisoner?

7 A. Yes.

7 A. These ones are, yes.

8 Q. And you're scanning the postcards?

8 Q. There's three of them?

9 A. Yes. There's only one postcard, two certified

9 A. Yes.

10 mails.

10 Q. Is that a fourth postcard with a picture for the

11 Q. Okay. Are you done scanning?

11 same prisoner?

12 A. Yes.

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. You're marking on the alphabetical?

13 Q. The sergeant is stepping out to deal with the

14 A. Yes.

14 beeper.

15 Q. And now done with pod E?

15

Okay. You're back.

16 A. Yes.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Are you starting on pod G?

17 Q. Okay. And you are continuing to scan the

18 A. Yes.

18 postcards for pod J?

19 Q. What happened to pod F?

19 A. Yes.

20 A. They didn't have any mail.

20 Q. You set aside one postcard. Why?

21 Q. Okay. Please continue. You are starting to

21 A. Because it has a smudge, some kind of foreign

22 scan?

22

material on it.

23 A. Yes.

23 Q. Okay. What will you do with that?

24 Q. Okay. One postcard and one manila envelope -- 24 A. I'm going to have to send it back to the sender

25 A. Yes.

25 with the prohibited mail slip explaining to them

Page 39

Page 41

1 Q. -- for pod G?

1 what's on it.

2 A. This is legal mail.

2 Q. Okay. And before you put those in there, please

3 Q. SO you're not going to open that; is that right?

3

tell me how many there are.

4 A. Right.

4 A. There's one periodical.

5 Q. Are you done with pod G?

5 Q. Okay.

6 A. Yes-.

6 A. Ten.

7 Q. What's next?

7 Q. SO ten -- Please wait one second. So there are

8 A. Nobody for I.

8

ten postcards that you're sending in to J pod

9 Q. Okay. What about H?

9

for delivery. One that you are sending back to

10 A. We don't have H.

10 the sender --

11 Q. There's no H?

11 A. Yes.

12 A. No.

12 Q. -- because it has a smudge?

13 Q. Okay. And you said there was no mail for pod I? 13 A. Yes.

14 A. No.

14 Q. Plus one periodical?

15 Q. Is that correct?

15 A. Yes.

16 A. Yes.

16 Q. Can you tell what that periodical is?

17 Q. And you are now on pod J?

17 A. It is a, yeah. Actually it's Mr. Malamon.

18 A. Uh-huh.

18 Q. It's what, please?

19 Q. Could you say yes or no?

19 A. I can just see who it's for. But--

20 A. Yes. Sorry.

20 Q. It's in a foreign language, isn't it?

21 Q. All right. You are looking at looked like

21 A. Yeah. I just noticed that. I'll just set that

22

postcards with photographs on the back; is that 22

aside just to see if he's got one already and we

23 right?

23

know what it is. I can type it up online real

24 A. Yes.

24 quick.

25 Q. Is that allowed?

25 Q. And there are --

11 (Pages 38 to 41) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit III; Page 9 of 15

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 10 of 15

Miller, Raquel

May 9,2012

Page 42

Page 44

1 A. Ten.

1 Q. Okay. When you say "this," you mean the

2 Q. Before you put those away. Yes. And then there 2

postcard that you're returning?

3

are several photographed postcards from, are

4

they from the same person --

3 A. I'm sorry. Yes.
4 Q. Could you just hold up the postcard so we could

5 A. Yes.
6 Q. -- to the same prisoner?

5

see. There's a little -- The camera's over

6

there. There's a little smudge. can you point

7 A. Yes.
8 Q. How many of those, please?

7

to that? Is that it right there?

8 A. Yes.

9 A. There are six.
10 Q. Okay. Thank you.

9 Q. Okay. It's just a little brown, is that what it

10

is?

11 A. You're welcome.
12 Q. Have you completed pod J's mail?

11 A. It's brown and it doesn't look the same as the

12

postcard.

13 A. Yes.

13 Q. Okay. Thank you.

14

(Brief interruption.)

14 A. You're welcome.

15

MR. WING: Sergeant has just left the room. 15 Q. And then there are two more copies of the

16

Now is a good time. Why don't we, we're going 16

prohibited mail slip?

17

to change a tape. So go off the record.

18

(Break taken from 1:58 to 1:59.)

17 A. Yes.
18 Q. What are you going to do with those? Oh,

19

THE WITNESS: A was two postcards, B was 19

there's three more.

20

three postcards and one Bible envelope. I don't 20 A. This is the next one.

21

know how you want to call that.

21 Q. Oh, I see.

22 Q. BY MR. WING: That was the two periodicals?

22 A. So the yellow one goes to the inmate file and

23 A. Yes. And pod C was the two legal and the

23

the pink one goes to the inmate. So this one

24

ministry ones again, two.

25 Q. There were two of those?

24

will go in here.

25 Q. To the, in the pod folder?

Page 43

Page 45

1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Thank you.

1 A. Yes. In the mail.
2 Q. Now, on the prohibited mail notice, is there any

3 A. You're welcome.
4 Q. SO, Sergeant, have you finished all of the

3

indication to the prisoner as to what it was

4

that was being returned, the one that you just

5

incoming mail sorting?

5

wrote?

6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Okay. And what are you about to do now?

6 A. The one that I just wrote?
7 Q. Yes.

8 A. I'm contemplating that actually. I'm going to

9

go ahead and do a prohibited mail -- I just

8 A. What do you mean "what it was"?
9 Q. Well, a letter, a postcard, a publication, is

10

wasn't sure which one to do first. I am going

10

there any indication on there what it is that's

11

to do a prohibited mail slip for this, have them

11

being returned?

12

send it back. And just because of that foreign

13

substance, we don't know what that is.

14 Q. Okay.

12 A. There's no indication, no.

13 Q. Okay. Is there a reason not, why you didn't

14

indicate what it is that's being returned?

15 A. And I'll mark on here that it contains a foreign 15 A. No.

16

substance, prohibited material, don't know what 16 Q. Do you typically identify whether something,

17

it is.

18 Q. Okay.

19 A. 5th 11th Street.

20 Q. Have you just completed filling out the

17

what the item is that's being returned?

18 A. No.

19 Q. Why not?

20 A. Because my guess is he's going to see that and

21

prohibited mail notice?

21

he's going to give her a call right away and

22 A. Yes, although sloppy.
23 Q. And what are you going to do with it?

22

find out what it was. And she's going to tell

23

him what it was. And he's going to say, oh,

24 A. I'm going to put this one, the white one with

24

okay, that makes sense or whatever they, their

25

this and send it back to the sender.

25

conversation goes.

12 (Pages 42 to 45) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit III; Page 10 of 15

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 11 of 15

Miller, Raquel

May 9, 2012

Page 54

Page 56

1

it differently. So you have to look, takes a

1

that begin?

2

little bit of time looking at the policy and --

3 Q. Okay. Now, I note that there are some binders

2 A. It began with this, with the new Sheriff

3

Dickerson.

4

in the office that say "Columbia County

4 Q. Okay. And before Sheriff Dickerson started in

5

Sheriff's Office Policies and Procedures."

5

January 2009, does that sound right?

6

There's a couple of binders behind me that say

6 A. Sounds right.

7

that. Do you see those?

7 Q. Approximately. Where would you look to the mail

8 A. Uh-huh.

8

policy?

9 Q. Is that a yes?

9 A. Then we had, you know, hard copy binders.

10 A. Yes.

10 Q. Binders?

11 Q. Okay. Do you refer to those for the mail

12

policy?

11 A. Yeah.
12 Q. Okay. Thank you.

13 A. I do not.

13 A. In centrally located places.

14 Q. Did you in the past?

14 Q. One of the things that you did was you used this

15 A. Not those.

15

big stamp. And I ask if you could please stamp

16 Q. Not those binders?

16

this on this white piece of paper. Is that an

17 A. No.

17

accurate reflection of the stamp that you put on

18 Q. Before the most recent mail policy was adopted,

18

some of the postcards --

19

where did you go to look for the mail policy

20

when you needed it?

19 A. Yes.
20 Q. -- when you were going to return them?

21 A. The S drive.

21 A. Uh-huh.

22 Q. Is that on the computer?

22 Q. Is that a yes?

23 A. Yes.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Okay. And has that been true since you've been 24 Q. We're going to mark that Exhibit 2. Okay. And

25

here, you looked on the computer when you needed 25

you said Exhibit 2 is an accurate rendition of

Page 55

Page 57

1

to look at the mail policy?

1

the stamp--

2 A. Since I've been here for, what do you mean "been 2 A. Yes.

3

here"?

3 Q. -- is that right?

4 Q. Well, when did you first --

4

Okay. Was the amount of mail that you

5 A. Because things have changed in 11 years.

5

received, that the jail received and you

6

MR. KRAEMER: Wait a second. Where does it 6

processed tonight typical?

7

say in here that she's going to be questioned

8

about where deputies go to look at poliCies? I

7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Okay.

9

thought she was handling A. I'm just reading it

9 A. Average. Let's say average.

10

wrong because I don't see it. So show me where 10 Q. Average. Okay. And how long has that been

11

I'm mistaken.

11

true?

12

MR. WING: Well, during the course of

13

performing her job I'm asking her if she has

12 A. Forever.
13 Q. This is average forever?

14

questions where does she go to look for them.

14 A. Yeah.

15

MR. KRAEMER: She's answered that.

15 Q. Okay. And when you say "forever" --

16

MR. WING: Well, right now. And I'm asking 16 A. As long as I've been here.

17

before the current policy where did she look.

17 Q. Which is 11 years?

18

MR. KRAEMER: She answered that.

19

MR. WING: Well, not --

18 A. Yeah.
19 Q. Okay. And do you have the same number of

20

THE WITNESS: The S drive.

20

prisoners now as you did when you started,

21

MR. KRAEMER: She did answer that. She told 21

approximately?

22

you where she went. She went back on the

22 A. Probably, yes.

23

computer.

23 Q. I had understood, perhaps mistakenly, that there

24 Q. BY MR. WING: And when did you start looking at 24

are fewer prisoners now because of budget cuts?

25

the computer to see the mail policy? When did

25 A. That's why I said probably, because I don't

15 (Pages 54 to 57)
Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit III; Page 11 of 15

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 12 of 15

Miller, Raquel

May 9,2012

Page 90

1

on. You know, this is going to your mom or

1 Q. But it's been quite some time?

Page 92 1\;

2

whoever. Just cover it up.

3 Q. This notice, Exhibit H to --

2 A. Yeah.
3 Q. SO you typically do not receive letters coming

4 A. This is a new notice, too, by the way.

5 Q. That's what I was going to say. Before you had

6

that notice, what did you use?

4

into the jail now unless --

5 A. Typically not.

6 Q. -- unless they're legal mail; is that right?

7 A. We had another form, but it wasn't as nice as

7 A. Right.

8

this.

8

MS. CHAMBERLAIN: For the record, we're just

9 Q. Did it only have like four options on it?

9

about out of tape.

10 A. Sounds familiar.

10

MR. WING: That's okay. I don't think we

11 Q. Okay. Maybe kind of half a page?
12 A. Yeah.

11

need the tape to finish this up.

12 Q. BY MR. WING: You do not do not typically take

13 Q. Okay. That was the --

13

stamps off of the mail that comes in; is that

14 A. But I, I would fill in the blanks and tell them,

14

correct?

15

so thank you for clarifying. I meant in the

15 A. Uh-huh.

16

whole duration of my being here. So you're

16 Q. Is that true?

17

talking about this particular notice, and I'm

17 A. Yes.

18

sorry I didn't catch that when I first answered

18 Q. Was there a time that you did take stamps off? I

19

it.

19 A. Yes. When it was envelopes.

...

20 Q. Okay. So before this current mail notice which 20 Q. Why?

21

is new as of January or February of this year;

21 A. That was just how we did at the time.

22

right?

22 Q. What were you instructed was the reason?

23 A. February.

23 A. Could be something hidden underneath it.

24 Q. Okay. The previous one was this like half-page 24 Q. Wouldn't that be true on --

25

document which had maybe four different

25 A. Yeah.

Page 91

Page 93

1

things --

1 Q. -- postcards, too?

2 A. I believe so.
3 Q. -- to check off? And that's the only other one

2 A. Yes.
3 Q. SO what have you been told about why that

4

you've had since you've been here; right?

4

process has changed and you no longer take the

5 A. That's the only one I remember.

6 Q. Okay. Tonight you did not reject any mail based

7

on the fact that it was not a postcard; is that

5

stamps off?

6 A. Nothing.

7 Q. And did that happen when you, did you no longer

8

right?

8

take the stamps off once they were just

9 A. Right.
10 Q. Is that typical?
11 A. Yeah.

9

postcards?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. When prisoners were allowed to receive

12 Q. And how long has that been typical?

12

letters --

13 A. That we haven't rejected it because it's not a

13 A. Because, frankly, a lot of times they're getting

14

postcard?

15 Q. Yes.

14

photographs and we're not really going to cut

15

off the corner of a photograph or we're not

16 A. I guess I don't understand the question.

16

going to mangle it unless it looks like there

17 Q. Well, there was a time when you got more items 17

may be a reason to.

18

that were, you had to reject them because they 18 Q. Before the postcard-only policy was in place,

19

weren't on a postcard. At least when you had

19

did you take the stamps off of both letters and

20

the policy, postcard-only policy was new; right? 20

postcards?

21 A. Uh-huh.
22 Q. Is that true?

21 A. I believe it was just letters at the time, too.
22 Q. SO the postcards could have stamps on them and

23 A. Right.

23

24 Q. Okay. How long did that transition period last? 24

you would not take them off when letters were allowed also, is that your recollection?

25 A. I'm not a good judge of that.

25 A. I don't really have a recollection of anything

24 (Pages 90 to 93)
Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit III; Page 12 of 15

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 13 of 15

Miller, Raquel

May 9,2012

Page 98

Page 100

1

Eagle if you thought somebody was violating the 1 A. Well, we have two guys who are the Golden Eagle

2

law?

2 experts.

3 A. No. If, if somebody was violating the law and I 3 Q. And who are they?

4

had questions, I would double-check with my

4 A. Sergeant Cutright and Deputy McDowall. So there

5

supervisor and then I would go ahead and say,

5

is a way to pull up type. Here we go. The

6

okay, yeah, it sounds like they might be. If--

6 mail.

7

Let me back up a little bit.

7 Q. Okay.

8 Q. Okay.

8 A. That would be it.

9 A. If I thought they were violating the law, I

9 Q. And so if you click that, what happens?

10 would write a report in Golden Eagle and then I 10 A. Well, that's not going to show me anything

11

would refer it to the DA. And then they could

11

there. So I'd have to come out here.

12 make that call. If it was a blatant, you know,

12 Q. And did you click something that indicates this

13

we test-stripped it and it was, you know, heroin 13

is all having to do with mail?

14 or something on incoming mail, then that would 14 A. Yes. But it looks like a couple of them are

15

go into evidence and you could take the same

15

possibly something else.

16 process.

16 Q. SO some of them are just --

17 Q. Okay.

17 A. And some of them are just requesting permission.

18 A. Sorry.

18 Some of them they're writing them and we're not

19 Q. It's okay. We're just about done here.

19 sure they're in trouble. Some of them were

20

So you would also write an incident report

20

disrespectful. So there's so many different

21

if somebody committed a crime here?

21 things here.

22 A. Yes.

22 Q. Okay. And all those, you know what period of

23 Q. An assault·on somebody?

23 time?

24 A. It would be in a different section of the

24 A. And it's not in order. Looks like 2009 was the,

25 computer.

25 oh, you know what? Now we're just going up.

Page 99

Page 101

1 Q. SO you have a section of the computer that's

1 These are all different things. These aren't

2

dedicated just to mail violations --

2

even mail anymore.

3 A. No.

3 Q. Okay. All right. I think during the inspection

4 Q. -- violations of the law?

4

we looked at some places where there was

5 A. No. Just to any behavioral, well, any general

5 information about mail. One of them was the day

6

incident. But if it's a known violation and

6

room; is that right?

7

we're going to be pressing charges because

7 A. Yes.

8 they've destroyed a cell or we've got videotape

8 Q. And do you know what was in the day room

9 of them assaulting another inmate, then we're

9

regarding mail?

10 going to put it under case files.

10 A. Yeah. The inmate mail guide.

11 Q. Okay. So you have incident reports and then

11 Q. Okay. And besides that, is there an inmate

12 somewhere else you have case files?

12 manual?

13 A. Right.

13 A. There is, and it's being revised at this time --

14 Q. And do you know whether you have any incidents 14 Q. When was the last time --

15 regarding prisoners misusing the mail?

15 A. -- to reflect that.

16 A. I'd have to see if we had a code for it. We've

16 Q. -- it was revised?

17 changed the codes a couple times.

17 A. I would have to look at the inmate manual to see

18 Q. Okay. So you think there might be a specific

18 that.

19 code for that?

19 Q. And where is one kept?

20 A. There could be.

20 A. In the property room. There might be one

21 Q. Can you check, please?

21

actually sitting out. November 18th, 2010, was

22 A. Again, this isn't my level of expertise, so

22 the last revision.

23

somebody might know a better way to pull it up. 23 Q. And do inmates receive copies of these?

24

But I will try to find it for you here.

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Is there somebody here who has that expertise? 25 Q. When?

26 (Pages 98 to 101) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit III; Page 13 of 15

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 14 of 15

Miller, Raquel

May 9, 2012

Page 102

Page 104

1 A. 'When they come in. We give them to them in 1 things. To ask us, we'll help you. Well, for

2 their tote and it's the inmate rules.

2 silly things, to ask for a postcard, just ask

3 Q. Okay. And this particular one, what, what's it

3

one of us to get you a postcard instead of

4 serving its purpose where you found it?

4

putting it on writing that you need a postcard.

5 A. I think somebody just got released and I left

5 That is just another step and takes longer to

6

it.

6 get your postcard.

7 Q. Okay. So you got this back?

7 Q. I think the word she said was kyte.

8 A. Yes.

8 A. Kyte.

9 Q. SO an inmate who was arrested today--

9 Q. Okay. Apart from you as being a resource and

10 A. Uh-huh.

10 the inmate guide that's found in the day room,

11 Q. -- would that inmate have received this inmate 11

is there any other, and the inmate manual that

12 manual?

12 they get when they come into the jail, is there

13 A. Yes.

13 any other written resource for prisoners about

14 Q. Okay.

14 what the mail policy is?

15 A. We're making several changes, dress codes and 15 A. No.

16 whatnot.

16 Q. Okay. And the staff who need to look at the

17 Q. Okay.

17 mail policy look on the computer?

18 A. Some people need us to be more specific.

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Okay. I'd like that to get marked as Exhibit 5. 19 Q. Okay. Anywhere else that they look at?

20 A. Would you like a clean one?

20 A. They can print one out like I did if it's easier

21 Q. Do you have a clean one?

21 to read that way.

22 A. Yeah.

22 Q. And if the public -- What's available to the

23 Q. That would be fine. Okay. So you are handing 23

public?

24 me a clean copy of what, the inmate manual that 24 A. Right now it's under construction in the

25 prisoners are given today, yesterday, last week; 25 website. That's not the word that's used.

Page 103

Page 105

1 is that correct?

1 Q. Okay. And so if the public asks what the mail

2 A. Yes.

2

policy is, what does the jail tell them?

3 Q. Okay. We will mark that as Exhibit 5.

3 A. Well, we tell them to, well, we tell them that

4

(Exhibit 5 marked for identification.)

4

it's under, that it's in the process of being

5

THE WITNESS: There's a Spanish version.

5 changed. Is that what you mean?

6 Q. BY MR. WING: Okay. And do you know whether 6 Q. I'm asking if somebody calls up and says, I need

7 it's the same?

7 to know what the mail policy is so I can comply

8 A. Yes.

8 with it, what does the jail tell the member of

9 Q. It is the same?

9 the public?

10 A. Yeah. We had it translated.

10 A. Oh, I just tell them just send in a postcard of

11 Q. Okay. And I don't know if you already answered 11

any, any kind. Make sure that there's no

12 this question, but in the day room it's the

12 stickers or glitter, no glue, no, you know,

13 inmate mail guide.

13 shiny pens and no lipstick, no perfume.

14 A. Yes.

14 Q. And this is all oral; is that right?

15 Q. Is there anything else in the day room regarding 15 A. Yeah.

16 the mail that you know of?

16 Q. Okay. So you don't provide them with pamphlet

17 A. No.

17 or a copy of the mail policy or the inmate

18 Q. Is there anywhere else in the jail that anything

18

manuals --

19 regarding the mail policies is posted or made

19 A. We're in the jail, so we don't see the public.

20 available to staff or prisoners?

20 I mean, it's only over the phone. 50--

21 A. Us. We come around constantly. They can ask us 21 Q. Is there a recording ever of what the mail

22 questions.

22 policy is, telephone recording?

23 Q. Okay.

23 A. I'm not aware of one, but there could be.

24 A. We're a good resource for all their questions.

24 Q. If you would for clarification, this is the last

25 And we tell them don't write kytes for silly

25 thing, could you just tell us where you took us

27 (Pages 102 to 105) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit III; Page 14 of 15

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 15 of 15

J -. . -

..- ..- . .- . - .- . --~-

Miller, ftaquei
.'---""-'"''--'''''

1

C E R T I FIe ATE

1\IJay 9, 2.012 Pa.qe 108

2

3

I/Alc~shiaK. MacoID, C.S,RNo. 94-0296, do

4

hereby certify that RAQUELtvIILLER personally

5

appeared before lUeat: t::.he tirr18 and place

mentioned in the caption herein; that th.e

7

witness was by me fi.rst du.ly sworn on oath, and.

\

\

8

examined upon oral interrogat.o:ries propounded by

9

counsel; th.at said examination f toget:he r \tJ ith

10

tbe testirto.ny of said vii tness, lfJastaJ<. en dOhirJ by

11

me in st.enotype and thereafter reduced t.o

12

t.yp€!wri bing; aI)d. tha tthe fo reg-o.i.ng. transcript,

13

Pages 1 to 107, both inclusive, constitutes a

14

frill, true and ~dbu~at~ r~oord of s~id

examirra.t.i.Ofl of ahdt.est.iffibny giVen by said

16

witness, and Qfall otner proceeqings bad du'rin9

17

the taking of said deposi.tioD,and of the whole

1.8

the.reof,to the best of my ability.

19

t:VitnesSIrty ha'nd at Po.t'tland, OreqoDr this

20

5th

2012.

21

22

23

AIE~.shia K. Maconi

2l.j

GSR No. 9A-0296

2. . .5. ."'-'- 1.....-_--"-'-_"__.......-.............

.....;....c.._ _ _ _-'"'"'-...:....-o.__--'-'-'''''"o...-_ _...:...__ ._

~ ..,,-_._._._ .. _ _ ... _ _ _ _ _c_•.____'--'--'-'--_ _ _ _ _ _ _' - - -...

Bcovich Walter & Ftiend

WING DECL; Exhibit III; Page 15 of 15

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 6
EXHIBIT IV
TO DECLARATION OF JESSE WING IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
WING DECL; Exhibit IV; Page 1 of 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 6
Carpenter, Jim

July 5, 2012

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF OREGON

3

PORTLAND DIVISION

4

5 PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project

6 of the Human Rights Defense

7 Center,

No. 3:12-CV-71-SI

8

Plaintiff,

9

v.

10 COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA

11 COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF

12 DICKERSON, individually and

13 in his capacity as Columbia

14 County Sheriff,

15

Defendants.

16

17

18

19

20

DEPOSITION OF JIM CARPENTER

21

Taken in behalf of Plaintiff

22

July 5, 2012

23

24

25

I
Page 1 I

Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit IV; Page 2 of 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 6

Carpenter, Jim

July 5, 2012

Page 6

Page 8:

1

proceeding regarding the Columbia County Jail's

2

mail practices?

1 A. Between five and 10 hours a week.
2 Q. When did you first start working for the

3 A. No.

4 Q. What about censorship of mail at Columbia County

5

Jail?

3

Columbia County Sheriffs Office?

4 A. I believe it was, well, it was 22 years ago.

5 Q. Okay.

6 A. No.
7 Q. In preparation for your deposition did you speak

6 A. I know it was in December.
7 Q. It was in the '80s or the '90s?

8

with the sheriff?

9 A. No.

10 Q. In preparation for your deposition did you speak

8 A. It was in the '80s, I believe.

9 Q. Okay. Have you been consistently employed by

10

the Columbia County Sheriffs Office since you

11

with Sergeant Carpenter?

11

first started working there 22 years ago?

12 A. That's me.

13 Q. You're right. In preparation for your

14

deposition did you speak with Sergeant Cutright?

12 A. No. I retired in June of, June 30th of a year

13

ago.

14 Q. 2011?

15 A. No.
16 Q. What about Undersheriff Moyer?

15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Okay. So between the time that you started

17 A. No.

17

working for the Columbia County Sheriffs Office

18

MR. KRAEMER: Well, wait a minute. I met

18

and when you retired in June 2011 did you

19

with him and Undersheriff Moyer. And I'm

19

conSistently work there?

20

assuming you're not asking for attorney-client

21

privi leged information.

20 A. Yes.
21 Q. can you briefly describe for me your career

22

MS. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not asking for

22

before you started working for the Columbia

23

attorney-client privileged information.

23

County Sheriffs Office?

24 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Outside -- Is Mr. Kraemer 24 A. Before?

25

your attorney?

25 Q. Yes.

Page 7

Page 9

1 A. Yes.

1 A. I worked in the restaurant business. I worked

2 Q. Okay. And outSide, other than any meetings you 2

in the exhaust business and I, I think that's

3

had with your lawyer, did you speak with the

4

sheriff --

3

about it.

4 Q. What about your career in law enforcement, did

5 A. No.
6 Q. -- in preparation for your deposition?

5

that begin at the Columbia County Sheriffs

6

Office?

7 A. No.
8 Q. Did you speak with Sergeant Cutright in

7 A. Yes.
8 Q. SO when did you go to the academy?

9

preparation?

9 A. Shortly after I started the sheriffs office

10 A. No.
11 Q. Did you speak with Undersheriff Moyer?

10

full time.

11 Q. And when did you become the Columbia County

12 A. No.

13 Q. Did you speak with anyone in preparation for

14

your deposition other than your lawyer?

12

Sheriffs Office jail commander?

13 A. About two years before I retired.

14 Q. SO in 2009?

15 A. Other than my lawyer, no.

15 A. Yeah.

16 Q. Did you look at any documents in preparation for 16 Q. Okay. I believe the sheriff, Sheriff Dickerson

17

your deposition?

17

took office in January 2009?

18 A. No.
19 Q. Who is your current employer?

18 A. Uh-huh.
19 Q. Was it sometime after that?

20 A. Pardon me?
21 Q. Who's your current employer?
22 A. Well, I have a current part-time employer.
23 Q. Who's that?

20 A. Sometime after that, yes.

21 Q. Would you please briefly describe for me your

22

career at the Columbia County Sheriffs Office

23

prior to becoming jail commander in 2009.

24 A. Would be Columbia County Sheriffs Office.

24 A. Wow. I started off as a deputy. I worked as a

25 Q. How part time are you?

25

deputy for many years. When we, when we built a

3 (Pages 6 to 9)
Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit IV; Page 3 of 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 4 of 6

Carpenter, Jim

July 5, 2012

Page 26

Page 28

1 Q. .What about when you were sergeant?

1 it if it was on the glue part of the envelope,

2 A. I don't remember.

2 but on the stamp, we at the time tore the stamps

3 Q. can you tell me whether you inspected the mail 3 off of all the envelopes before we gave them to

4

in the last five years?

4 the inmate.

5 A. No.

5 Q. And then did the jail do any testing of any

6 Q. You have not?

6 residue that was left under the stamp?

7 A. No.

7 A. No.

8 Q. Okay. So I was asking you about when you first 8 Q. Okay. You mentioned this one instance where

9

learned of a jail adopting a postcard-only

9 there was talk about drugs coming in. Do you

10 policy in Arizona and asked you what you thought 10 know whether there was any investigation or

11 about that. And you said you thought it might 11 conclusion?

12 be a safe thing to do because of the anthrax

12 A. I don't know.

13 scare in 2002.

13 Q. You don't know whether drugs actually came in?

14 A. Just because of the safety and security of the 14 A. No.

15 jail.

15 Q. Other than that one instance, can you think of

16 Q. Tell me about that.

16 any other instances where contraband came in

17 A. Well, I guess, let me see. Over the years

17 through the mail or alleged contraband came in

18 there's always been discussion about what could 18 through the mail?

19 come into the jail in mail. That's why we

19 A. No.

20

inspect it. And so the discussion about

20 Q. SO why did you think that a postcard-only policy

21

postcards was a discussion about less chance of 21

would be -- Strike that. Why did you think a

22 contraband coming into the jail.

22 postcard-only policy would help with safety and

23 Q. During your 22 years with Columbia County

23 security of the jail?

24 Sheriff's Office, was there ever a problem with 24 A. Because we felt that or I felt that if a person

25 contraband coming in through the mail?

25 doesn't have a place to hide a contraband, it

Page 27

Page 29

1 A. There was talk about drugs coming in once.

1 makes it less likely that it would come into the

2 Q. What do you know about that?

2 jail through the mail.

3 A. Just that the talk was it came under a stamp.

3 Q. SO can you describe for me, how is using

4 Q. What kind of drugs?

4

postcards and not envelopes, how was there less

5 A. I don't remember.

5 place to hide contraband?

6 Q. When was that?

6 A. Well, a postcard is flat and doesn't have any

7 A. I don't remember.

7 seams or anyplace to hide contraband.

8 Q. Okay. When you say there was talk about drugs, 8 Q. Stamps were also used to send postcards; is that

9 what do you mean by that?

9

right?

10 A. Well, when we had, when we had training with our 10 A. To send postcards, when I was a jail commander

11 employees, we would always talk about the

11 we took the postcards without stamps and the,

12 possibility of contraband coming into the jail.

12 our mail person at the courthouse ran them

13 And through that conversation there was talk

13 through a machine. So there were no stamps on

14 about illegal drug coming in underneath the

14 them.

15 stamp or on the glue part of an envelope. And

15 Q. Do you mean the outgoing postcards?

16 so we always told, we were always told and we

16 A. Yes. That's what you asked me, I think.

17 passed that along to people that we trained that 17 Q. Assuming the postcards that the jail made

18 that was always a possibility. You had to be

18 available for purchase by the --

19 very cognizant of that.

19 A. Correct.

20 Q. SO when you trained the jail staff that

20 Q. -- inmates?

21 processed the mail, how did you train them to

21 A. Correct.

22 look out for or discover drugs that might be

22 Q. What about incoming postcards, did those have

23 under a stamp or in the sealed part of an

23 stamps?

24 envelope?

24 A. Some did. Some were prestamped.

25 A. There really wasn't any good way of discovering 25 Q. SO the jail staff would process the mail, they

8 (Pages 26 to 29) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit IV; Page 4 of 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 5 of 6

Carpenter, Jim

July 5, 2012

Page 74

Page 76

1 this is one that you reviewed?

1 Q. And you were hired in approximately 1989, is

2 A. I can't.

2 that correct?

3 Q. I'll just note on the first page, CC82 is in the

3 A. That's correct.

4

bottom right corner there. In the bottom left

4 Q. Okay. So do you mean that between 1989 and

5

it says 2009.

5 2009, the date on this inmate manual, the jail

6 A. Uh-huh.

6

had never accepted magazines?

7 Q. You were the jail commander in 2009; is that

7

MR. KRAEMER: Object to form.

8

right?

8

THE WITNESS: Pardon me?

9 A. Yes.

9

MR. KRAEMER: I'm just making an objection

10 Q. Okay. And does identifying that year refresh

10

to the form of the question.

11 your recollection about whether or not this is

11

THE WITNESS: Oh. As far as I know. As far

12 an inmate manual that you reviewed?

12 as I can remember.

13 A. Yes.

13 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Had you ever seen a

14 Q. It is?

14 magazine in the jail?

15 A. Yes.

15 A. I remember a specific magazine in the old jail

16 Q. Okay. I'd like to direct your attention to

16 when I first started that was a motorcycle

17 page 11. The page numbers are in the bottom 17 magazine and it had sexually explicit material

18 left corner.

18 in it and we didn't accept it. It's the only

19 A. Okay.

19 one I can remember.

20 Q. SO you previously testified that the mail policy 20 Q. Do you mean you saw it coming in through the

21

is something you reviewed in the manual; is that 21

mail?

22 right?

22 A. Yes.

23 A. I'm sorry. What?

23 Q. And it got rejected?

24 Q. The mail policy is something you reviewed in the 24 A. Yes.

25

manual; is that correct?

25 Q. And other than that, you never saw a magazine in

Page 75

Page 77

1 A. Yes.

1 the jail?

2 Q. And here we're looking at the part of the inmate 2 A. No.

3 manual that addresses the mail; is that correct?

3 Q. Okay. Is that correct?

4 A. Uh-huh.

4 A. That's correct.

5 Q. Yes?

5 Q. We had a double negative there.

6 A. Yes.

6 A. Yes. That's correct.

7 Q. Okay. Now, I see towards the bottom of the

7 Q. Okay. And when you say it was your procedure,

8 page, do you see where it says "publications" in

8

you don't know if it was your practice, what do

9 bold?

9

you mean, you don't know--

10 A. Yes.

10 A. It was our practice.

11 Q. It says, "we do not accept magazines" right

11 Q. Excuse me. Strike that. I think you testified

12 under --

12 it was your procedure, you don't know if it was

13 A. Yes.

13 your policy?

14 Q. Was that the policy of the Columbia County Jail 14 A. That's correct.

15 when you were jail commander?

15 Q. Okay. What do you mean by that?

16 A. It was the procedure. I don't know that it was

16 A. Well, I don't remember if it was in our policy

17 the policy.

17 or not. I do remember that that was our

18 Q. What do you mean it was the procedure?

18 procedure.

19 A. As long as I worked at the jail, that I can

19 Q. Okay.

20 remember, we never accepted magazines.
21 Q. Why is that?

. 20 A. That we didn't accept them.
21 Q. And did you ever get questions from inmates

22 A. Because, well, one of the reasons was because we 22 about whether or not they could receive

23 didn't accept sexually explicit material and I

23

magazines in the jail?

24 think at the old jail it was because we didn't

24 A. Did I get a request from? Not that I can

25 accept staples in magazines.

25

remember.

20 (Pages 74 to 77) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit IV; Page 5 of 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 6 of 6

Cal1Jenter~ Jim

July 5, 2012

Pdge 144

1

C E R T I FIe ATE

2

I I A.leshiaK.Macoro, CSR No.. 94- 02 9 6 , do

4

herr:::by cHtt'ify that JII\j .CAR·PEhlT8.R personally

5

appeared before rn.e .at the tirtleancl place

6

rnentioned in the caption herein; that the

'/

witness was by me first dlJly sworn on oath, and

oc·

exarnined upon oral intc::rrogatories propounded by

9

counsel; that said examination, togethel~ wi th

10

the testimony of said witness, was taken down by

11

me in stenotype and thereaft·er reduced to

12

typewriting- i< ·(;l.hd. bhatthe fO'regoingtranscript·,

13

Pages Ito 143, both inclusive,cons'titutes a

14

fl1ll, true and a.ccuraterecordof said

15

examination ()f and testlrftony giVE;n by said

16

wit.ness, and of all. other pr.oceedings had during

17

the taking· of said deposl'tion,and of the whole

1 •0J

thereof, to the best of my a.bility .

19

WfLtnessmy hand at Portlcrnd, Oregon, this

20

21

22

2.3

14:1eshi.a K,. Macam

24

CSRNo. 94-0296

25

_---....:....o....-;._~ ~ ----'-_""'~ '---__________..0...-__'_-'---' _ _ _ _ .....

__________.._:.;.. _ ' - -_ _ _ _...-......;._____-:.....____ _ _

B'co v i c h W a l t e r & F r i e n d

WING DECL; Exhibit IV; Page 6 of 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 16
EXHIBIT V
TO DECLARATION OF JESSE WING IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY WDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
WING DECL; Exhibit V; Page 1 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 16

Moyer, Andrew

July 6, 2012

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF OREGON

3

PORTLAND DIVISION

4

5 PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project

6 of the Human Rights Defense

7 Center,

No. 3:12-CV-71-SI

8

Plaintiff,

9

v.

10 COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA

11 COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF

12 DICKERSON, individually and

13 in his capacity as Columbia

14 County Sheriff,

15

Defendants.

16

17

18

19

20

DEPOSITION OF ANDREW MOYER

21

Taken in behalf of Plaintiff

22

July 6, 2012

23

24

25

Page 1 i
I

Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit V; Page 2 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 16

Moyer, Andrew

July 6, 2012

Page 38

Page 40

1

legislation of, for example, the crime of DUI,

1 A. Not the day-to-day duties of a deputy, but the

2

if they want to add something or take something

3

out of a statute, they would maybe ask us to do

2

administrative duties.

3 Q. Okay. So captain carpenter retired.

4

some research on that.

5 Q. Okay. What other command councils have you sat

4 A. Yes.
5 Q. About a year ago?

6

on?

7 A. I don't serve on any other boards; however, I

8

attend meetings on the search and rescue

9

advisory council and the jail command council.

10 Q. When did you start attending meetings of the

6 A. It was June 30th of 2010. No. 2011.

7 Q. Just about a year ago; right?

)

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. You assumed the administrative responsibilities

10

of his job at that point?

11

command council on the jail?

12 A. Sometime after July of 2011. I'm not sure when

11 A. Yeah. Some of them were split up. Some of the

12

financial stuff were given to Millie. Some of

13

I attended the first one. There are three or

13

the duties we passed along to the sergeants and

14

four a year. I believe probably December of

14

then I took on a lot of them. And the reason

15

2011.

15

16 Q. What caused you to start attending those command 16

why it was split up is because I'm still overseeing a lot of the enforcement duties and

17

councils regarding the jail?

18 A. Being that we lost our jail commander position

19

due to budget.

20 Q. Did you assume the responsibilities of the jail

17

search and rescue. So I didn't necessarily take

18

on all of his assigned duties.

19 Q. SO who took on the responsibility of supervising

20

the sergeants?

21

commander once you lost that position?

21 A. I did.

22 A. Some of them, yes.

22 Q. Okay. And you started that when captain

23 Q. Which ones? 24 A. I would say most of the administrative. 25 Q. Could you explain what those are.

23

carpenter retired?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Okay. How did you, since that time how did you

Page 39

Page 41

1 A. Well, I guess maybe the hiring meetings, like

1

go about adding that responsibility to your --

2

meeting with a medical contractor, the food

2

adding that responsibility to your weekly and

3

contractor, aSSisting and ordering and

3

daily duties?

4

purchasing type stuff.

4 A. Of, of my duties as jail commander or specific

5 Q. And at some point did you assume other duties

6

besides those administrative tasks?

5

to supervising the sergeants?

6 Q. Well, if I understood you, there are two

7 A. I guess I'm not sure what you're...

7

overarching components of the jail commander

8 Q. Okay. Was there ever --

8

position at the time you took it over and one is

9 A. I'm always assuming more duties. So I don't

9

supervising the sergeants and the other is the

10

know what you mean by that.

10

relatively high-level administrative

11 Q. All right. Did the jail commander position ever 11

responsibilities. Is that a fair summary?

12

have a written job description?

13 A. Yes. I believe so.

12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Okay. We've talked about how you took over some

14 Q. And where would that be kept?

14

of the administrative responsibilities and how

15 A. I assume with our, with the county's HR. I'm

15

others were given to other people; right?

16

sure the sheriff has a copy.

17 Q. Have you ever read it?

18 A. I don't recall.

19 Q. Do you know what responsibilities the jail

16 A. (No audible response.)
17 Q. Is that correct? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And the other major component was supervising

20

commander had when you had one?

20

the sergeants, which you solely took over;

21 A. In general.
22 Q. What would you say those were?
23 A. To supervise the sergeants and perform the

21

right?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. I want to know how you went about supervising

24

administrative duties to run the jail.

25 Q. Two basic--

24

the sergeants --

25 A. Okay.

11 (Pages 38 to 41)
Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit V; Page 3 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 4 of 16

Moyer, Andrew

July 6, 2012

Page 42

Page 44

1 Q.-- since, you know, you took over that

1

traveled upon. It was just done in the booking

2 responsibility.

2

office. So I just didn't, I didn't spend a lot

3 A. I would communicate with them. I would have

3

of time in the booking office. I would go, stay

4

meetings with them.

4

mobile in the jail and move around.

5 Q. How did that work out?

5 Q. Was it a component of your responsibility to

6 A. I think fairly well.

6

make sure that the mail policies were being

7 Q. All of them have lost their job; right?

7

complied with by your staff?

8 A. Yes.

8 A. Indirectly, yes.

9 Q. Was the fact that they all lost their job within

9 Q. And who directly had that responsibility?

10 a year not a reflection on the fact that the way

10 A. The sergeants.

11 that system was set up was not working very

11 Q. Did you in the past year issue performance

12 well?

12

evaluations to the sergeants in the jail?

13 A. No. The reason they were laid off was a

13 A. Sergeant Cutright.

14 budgetary reason.

14 Q. And why only him?

15 Q. SO if the budget had not changed, they would

15 A. Timing, both -- Some of them were not up for

16 still all be employed?

16 their evaluation yet and timing as far as my

17 A. Yes. We cut over $700,000 from our budget.

17

schedule goes.

18 Q. Okay. When you said you communicated with them, 18 Q. And what kind of evaluation did you give

19 please explain the kinds of communications that

19

Sergeant Cutright?

20 you had with them that constituted supervision.

20 A. Just a, I guess you would --

21 A. E-mail, phone, in person, in meetings. I would,

21

MR. ROBERSON: Without getting into the

22 I would spend more time back in the jail. I

22

details of the evaluation.

23 would do rounds with them and the deputies. I

23

THE WITNESS: Just a performance evaluation.

24 would observe formal inmate counts and rounds.

24 Q. BY MR. WING: I guess I should be more specific.

25 I would observe serving meals. I would observe

25

Was it a good performance evaluation? A

Page 43

Page 45

1

shakedowns, pod shakedowns.

1

negative performance evaluation?

2 Q. Pot shakedowns?

2

MR. ROBERSON: Object. I instruct you not

3 A. Pod.

3

to answer. I'm reminding you or reminding

4 Q. Oh, pod, POD?

4

myself actually that we've given you several

5 A. Yes.

5

state statutes before in response to your

6 Q. Any other activities that you would observe that 6

request for production. I assume the same

7

were conducted in the jail?

7

would, the same with your deposition questioning

8 A. I would observe people being booked in. I

8

that make disciplinary and personnel matters,

9

observed the kitchen workers, I performed jail

9

which I include evaluations under confidential

10

tours with or without a sergeant. So observing 10

and privileged. I'm instructing Undersheriff

11

the sergeants do that.

11

Moyer not to answer on that basis.

12 Q. Tours for whom?

12

Further, I'll withdraw my earlier objection

13 A. Grand jury tours, public tours, people from the 13

that the question is not reasonably calculated

14

public.

14

to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

15 Q. Okay.

15

MR. WING: So just to restate, it's your

16 A. And partnering, our partners as far as other

16

position that a state public records act

17

agencies, elected officials, that type of stuff.

17

provision prevents us from inquiring under

18 Q. Okay. Any other activities that you observed in 18

federal discovery rules? So despite the

19

the jail?

19

supremacy clause, that's your position?

20 A. Probably. I'm trying to think. There's a lot

20

MR. ROBERSON: We've cited three state

21

of activities. I did not, to my knowledge,

21

statutes, two of them I believe are in the

22

observe people sorting mail.

22

public records. The third one is I believe more

23 Q. Why not?

23

of a personnel statute. And yes, we are relying

24 A. I did not observe deputies sorting mail mainly

24

on those.

25

because it wasn't a duty that was, you know,

25 Q. BY MR. WING: Okay. Okay. Did you evaluate

12 (Pages 42 to 45) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit V; Page 4 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 5 of 16

Moyer, Andrew

July 6, 2012

Page 46

Page 48

1

Sergeant Cutright at all? Not asking you for

1

is.

2

what you decided about him. I'm asking you

2 A. Yeah. Incorrect. I do recall having a

3

whether your performance evaluation included at

4

all your view of his supervising the mail

3

discussion.

4 Q. With whom?

5

process? Is that a component?

5 A. Prior to that. I am not exactly sure. I just

6

MR. ROBERSON: Object. I'll instruct you

6

remember having a discussion. I believe it was

7

not to answer. Same objections.

7

with Sheriff Dickerson and my guess is it would

8

MR. WING: You're going to tell him not to

8

be Captain Carpenter in regards to going to

9

tell us whether Sergeant Cutright was evaluated

10

on his responsibility over the mail process?

9

postcards for personal mail.

10 Q. Why do you use the term "for personal mail"?

11

MR. ROBERSON: Correct.

12 Q. BY MR. WING: Have you ever evaluated any

13

employee based on their handling of the mail

11 A. Because I believe that was what the policy was,

12

the change was for.

13 Q. And what is your understanding of what personal

14

process in the jail?

14

mail as used in that context was at the time?

15

MR. ROBERSON: Object. Same objections.

15 A. Personal mail between inmates and their friends

16 Q. BY MR. WING: Have you personally ever conducted 16

and family.

17

the mail sorting, the mail processing?

17 Q. As opposed to inmates and --

18 A. No.
19 Q. And as you sit here, you've never observed it;

18 A. Their attorneys.
19 Q. Okay. So you just mean nonlegal mail?

20

is that correct?

21 A. Yes.

20 A. Or official mail.
21 Q. And how would you define official mail?

22 Q. Do you have any knowledge about how the mail

22 A. I believe it's, without looking at a policy,

23

process has changed over time since you became

23

which might be a better idea to refresh my

24

the undersheriff?

25 A. Yes.

24

memory.

25 Q. That's fine. I guess I want to distinguish

Page 47

Page 49

1 Q. And what is the basis of your knowledge?

1

between legal mail, which is with attorneys, and

2 A. Well, since late January, early February of this

2

official mail, I think you're suggesting might

3

year we've changed our policy several times.

4 Q. Did you participate in changing the policy?

5 A. Yes.

3

be with other government officials --

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. -- as opposed to let's say businesses?

6 Q. In what way?
7 A. Discussion.

6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Do you include businesses in personal mail or in

8 Q. With whom?

8

official mail, as you understood it?

9 A. County counsel Sarah Hanson and Sheriff

10

Dickerson, the jail sergeants.

9 A. I don't know.
10 Q. You don't remember?

11 Q. Is that all together or separate?

11 A. And I didn't have, I didn't get that depth of

12 A. Separate. Some of those might have been

12

conversation in regards to that policy. I

13

together as well. I mean, we've had lots of

14

talks, obviously, and possibly would have

13

wasn't overseeing the jail then.

14 Q. Okay. At the time that you had a discussion,

15

included deputies on some of those discussions. 15

you believe, with Sheriff Dickerson and Captain

16 Q. Were you involved in any way in the mail policy 16

Carpenter, did you have a position on whether

17

before January of 2012?

17

the jail should adopt a postcard-only policy for

18 A. No.

18

personal mail?

19 Q. Never partiCipated in discussions about changing 19 A. I don't recall if I said yea or nay, to be

20

the policy?

21 A. No.

20

honest.

21 Q. Did you at any time participate in evaluating

22 Q. Is that correct?

22

the pros and cons of adopting a postcard-only

23 A. Oh, incorrect.

23

policy for personal mail?

24 Q. Okay. Also I'm trying to avoid the double

24 A. I don't remember.

25

negative so that we're clear on what your answer 25 Q. You, at some pOint, learned that Sheriff

13 (Pages 46 to 49) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit V; Page 5 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 6 of 16

Moyer, Andrew

July 6, 2012

Page 50

Page 52

1

Dickerson had decided to go to a postcard-only

1 A. I don't remember.

2

policy; right?

2 Q. Within the past month or six weeks; is that

3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Did he tell you?

3

right?

4 A. Probably longer than that.

5 A. I don't remember who told me.

5 Q. The inmate manual that was in existence in 2011

6 Q. Did he show you the policy?

6

continued to be in existence until late May,

7 A. I don't think he did.

7

isn't that right, 2012?

8 Q. Had you ever read the mail policy before January 8 A. I don't remember the exact date. I would say

9

of 2012?

10 A. No.

9

sometime in May. I don't know--

10 Q. Of 2012?

11 Q. You are familiar with the concept of an inmate 11 A. Yes. I'm not sure it was late May.

12

manual; is that right?

12 Q. Okay. Do you have knowledge of whether the jail

13 A. Yes.

13

staff are expected to remove stamps from mail

14 Q. Have you ever read that?

14

when it comes in?

15 A. Not word for word. I've read sections.
16 Q. Which sections have you read?

15 A. Are you asking prior --
16 Q. Has it changed?

17 A. I couldn't tell you off the top of my head.

17 A. Without looking at a policy, I don't know if I

18 Q. What causes you to think that you've read any of 18

can answer that.

19

them?

19 Q. Well, just for now I'd like you to tell me what

20 A. When I have, have had dealings with inmates

20

you know.

21

since being back in the jail more often, I have

21

MR. ROBERSON: And you can answer if you

22

reviewed certain sections when they have said I 22

don't know.

23

didn't violate this because or the inmate manual 23

THE WITNESS: I don't know.

24

doesn't say this or then I'd go back and read

24 Q. BY MR. WING: Okay. What time of day or night

25

it.

25

is the mail processed, incoming mail?

Page 51

Page 53

1 Q. Were any of those portions regarding inmate

2

mail?

1 A. Now?
2 Q. Yes.

3 A. No.

3 A. On our night shift.

4 Q. I think you said the phrase "back in the jail."

4 Q. When was it before?

5

Was there a time that you used to be in the

6

jail? -

5 A. Before when?
6 Q. Before now.

7 A. No. I meant, we call it "back there" because

7 A. Before January? Well, we've had several

8

most of our offices we call, I guess we say "out 8

policies. So prior, to my knowledge, prior to

9

front."

9

our new policy, which took effect in, our old

10 Q. Okay.

10

new policy which took effect late January, early

11 A. And so when we go back in the jail, I would

11

February of 2012, prior to that I believe it was

12

tell, you know, someone I'm going back in the

12

day shift.

13

jail. That's what I meant.

13 Q. Okay. So if I understand you, before late

14 Q. Okay.

14

January 2012, the mail was processed during day

15 A. Sorry.

15

shift?

16 Q. That's all right. So as you sit here today,

16 A. I believe so.

17

you've never read the inmate mail portion of the 17 Q. Okay. And what was the purpose for the change

18

inmate manual; is that correct?

18

in time?

19 A. I believe I've read newer versions of the mail

19 A. After, after talking with Sergeant Cutright and

20

part but not, not in the manual itself, you

20

Sergeant Rigdon, the three of us believed that

21

know, just those versions.

21

it would, it would best be done by night shift

22 Q. Somebody's given you a draft?

22

who had less responsibilities so they could

23 A. Yes.

23

spend more time making sure that they fill out

24 Q. And when do you think the first time is that you 24

the proper notices and reviewing the policy as

25

read a newer version?

25

they sort it out, if necessary.

14 (Pages 50 to 53)
Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit V; Page 6 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 7 of 16

Moyer, Andrew

July 6, 2012

Page 54

Page 56

1 Q. .And by "proper notice," you're talking about due

2

process notice for somebody whose mail is

1

understand it.

2 Q. Sorry. Can you explain?

3

censored?

3 A. Based upon our old policy and conversations with

4 A. Yes. The prohibited mail notice.

4

our attorney.

5 Q. And so this change from day to night was a, it

5 Q. Can you explain to me what you mean by "based

6

was a response to PLN's lawsuit; isn't that

6

upon our old policy"?

7

right?

7 A. Well, our attorney said based upon our old

8 A. I wouldn't say that it was a direct response to

8

policy we have those violations.

9

the Prison Legal News lawsuit.

9 Q. Okay. Have you ever seen a Prison Legal News

10 Q. The policy that was implemented in January 2012 10

publ ication?

11

was a response to PLN's lawsuit; right?

12 A. I think indirectly I would say yes.

11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Where?

13 Q. Would it have happened without PLN's lawsuit?
14 A. It could have.

13 A. In an inmate's cell.
14 Q. And when was that?

15 Q. I understand it could have. But what makes you 15 A. I couldn't tell you the time. Prior to January

16

think it would have?

17 A. I guess if, if I became aware that we were

16

of 2012.

17 Q. And how--

18

having those violations, then it would have been 18 A. And post January of 2012 as well.

19

changed.

19 Q. Okay. And how was it that you came to see those

20 Q. Okay. Which violations?

20

PLN publications?

21 A. The, not allowing junk mail.

21 A. Doing rounds with deputies as well as

22 Q. What is junk mail?
23 A. Well, I'd like to refer to the policy to refresh

22

shakedowns.

23 Q. Okay. Have you ever read or looked through PLN

24

my memory.

25 Q. I'd just like to ask your best understanding

24

publ ication?

25 A. I've thumbed through it.

Page 55

Page 57

1

when you say "not allowing junk mail," what you 1 Q. What did you see?

2

mean.

2 A. I have never read it. Just the, just that it

3 A. Well, my personal opinion of junk mail is mail

3

looks like a pamphlet, pamphlet-style magazine.

4

that I receive that I don't want.

5 Q. Okay. And is that how you think the term is

4

I think it's gray with a blue heading.

5 Q. Can you explain what you mean by pamphlet style?

6

used when you said violations?

6 A. Well, it's not, you know, it doesn't have the

7 A. I don't know without looking at the policy. I

7

binder of a thick magazine. It's basically

8

don't know how we define the junk mail in the

8

folded paper.

9

policy.

9 Q. Does the jail have a policy regarding taking

10 Q. Okay. So any other violations of the law

10

staples out of magazines?

11

besides not allowing junk mail that you are

12

referring to?

11 A. I don't know.
12 Q. Okay. Is there, to your knowledge, a reason to

13 A. Due process to the sender.

13

do so?

14 Q. Any others?

14 A. Yeah. I've sat in on a class before where it

15 A. I can't recall.

15

was described that that's how they can create a

16 Q. Okay. What is your understanding, if any, of

16

heat source, by sticking a staple into a pencil

17

what PLN sent to the jail that was censored?

17

eraser and sticking it into a light circuit or

18 A. I don't know.

18

a, I'm sorry, not a light circuit, an electrical

19 Q. Have you ever looked at it?

19

outlet.

20 A. Of'what was censored?

20 Q. What kind of class did you sit in on? Who was

21 Q. Yes.

21

offering this?

22 A. No. I'm not aware of what was censored.

22 A. That was a, a class that was given to a group of

23 Q. SO what causes you to think that there were

23

volunteers. I believe the title of the class

24

violations?

25 A. Based upon our old policy is what, how I

24

was Things That Inmates Do.

25 Q. And do you know who offered this class?

15 (Pages 54 to 57) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit V; Page 7 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 8 of 16

Moyer, Andrew

July 6, 2012

1

loud? Is that how it went?

Page 66
1 Q. And you proposed changes --

Page 68

2 A. I think you're right. I believe so.
3 Q. Okay. And then people were asked if they had

2 A. Yeah.
3 Q. -- for that?

4

any questions?

4 A. That kind of stuff that was changes basically

5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And what questions did you get?

5

for that.

6 Q. Where are your suggestions?

7 A. I don't recall.

7 A. I gave those suggestions, what happened is when

8 Q. Were people asked for feedback on whether there 8

I received that copy from my attorney, I went,

9

should be any changes to the poliCies?

9

it was a, I don't know what day it was, but it

10 A. I believe we've -- I don't know in that setting

10

was late, it was after 4:00 p.m. because

11

or not. I know we have asked that several

11

Sergeant Rigdon and Sergeant Cutright were on

12

times.

13 Q. And --

12

swing shift at the time. And they came on duty

13

at 4:00 p.m. So it was sometime after 4:00 p.m.

14 A. I don't know if, if at that particular training

14

And we wanted to get the policy in effect right

15

if that was actually said or not. I don't

15

away. And I wasn't going to be around the next

16

remember.

17 Q. You were given a draft of the January policy

16

day at all, in the office at all, I believe.

17

And so I went back in the jail and we went

18

before it went into effect; right?

18

through that draft policy from our county

19 A. I believe so.
20 Q. And asked for your feedback; right?

19

counsel with myself, Sergeant Rigdon and

20

Sergeant Cutright, and made those changes of how

21 A. Yeah. I want to make clear I'm not sure,

21

it would differ from Columbia County versus

22

because I helped my attorney, Sarah Hanson,

22

Washington County.

23

provided a, me a draft copy that she had made, 23 Q. You did it kind of as a committee, the three of

24

in which I gave some feedback on to the sheriff, 24

you?

25

who made the final change. I'm not sure I saw 25 A. Yes. Yes. And I gave those, after we were

Page 67

Page 69

1

that final draft that he made before it went

1

done, I went back out and gave those to the

2

into effect.

3 Q. What suggestions did you make--

4 A. They were suggestions that changed titles of

2

sheriff so he could insert them and get that

3

policy into effect while --

4 Q. SO you made those --

5

forms because it came from the Washington County 5 A. -- while I was gone.

6

Sheriff's Office to our, my attorney. And my

6 Q. Sorry to interrupt you. Did you give a hard

7

attorney made changes to that and then sent it

7

copy with your handwritten notations on it to

8

to us. But my attorney requested that I look

8

the sheriff?

9

for things that were specific to Columbia County

9 A. Yes.

10

versus Washington County. So a lot of those

10 Q. Have you seen that again?

11

changes were that because they, one example

11 A. No.

12

would be they have a security threat group, I

12 Q. Do you know what happened to it?

13

believe is what they call that. Don't quote me

13 A. I believe the sheriff discarded that.

14

on the exact term. And we might call it a

14 Q. Did he tell you why?

15

deputy because we don't have the staff that they 15 A. Just because he thought he was, didn't need it.

16

do. So we rely on one person for that where

16 Q. Did he acknowledge to you that it was a mistake

17

they have a team for that.

17

to tell you that?

18

So it would be changed in our policy versus,

18 A. I don't believe he said that it was a mistake.

19

of mail coming in with gang-related activity.

19 Q. Do you believe it was a mistake?

20

They would send to a team to review. We would 20

MR. ROBERSON: Objection. This witness is

21

send it to a gang, our gang deputy, basically a

21

not a expert in the rules of discovery.

22

deputy who's received some gang training. So

22

You can answer to your understanding.

23

that kind of -- Also they didn't call the

23

THE WITNESS: I wish he would have still had

24

prohibited mail notice a prohibited mail notice.

25

They called it something else.

24

it.

25 Q. BY MR. WING: Okay. You are, I don't know if

18 (Pages 66 to 69)
Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit V; Page 8 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 9 of 16

Moyer, Andrew

July 6, 2012

Page 74

Page 76

1 A. "Nothing that I haven't passed on to the

1

of the jail cells?

2

attorneys.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Well, do you remember seeing such a thing that 3 Q. And --

4

you passed on to the attorneys?

5 A. I don't remember.
6 Q. Okay. You have, since January 2012, since this

4 A. Not me personally.
5 Q. Who did?
6 A. Don't know. It was assigned to down, I believe

7

lawsuit was filed, become much more actively

7

it might have even been deputies or sergeants.

8

involved in the adoption of and changes to the

8 Q. And this, do you recall that Ms. Chamberlain and

9

mail policies; is that right?

9

I came to do an inspection of the jail?

10 A. Much more active than prior to January?
11 Q. Yes.

10 A. I know you did. I was not there.
11 Q. I understand. But you knew we were going to be

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Okay. And did you play any role in what was

14

posted on the website about the inmate mail

12

coming; right?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Okay. And do you recollect that at

15

policy, the sheriff of Columbia County's

15

approximately the night of May 8th, going into

16

website?

16

May 9th, we were going to be showing up at your

17 A. What's on our website currently?
18 Q. From January --

19 A. Prior.
20 Q. After we filed our lawsuit, do you know what

21

happened to the text that was on the sheriffs

17

jail?

18 A. I don't recall what the date was.
19 Q. But does that sound about right?

20 A. To be honest, I don't remember.
21 Q. Okay. And did you instruct one of the deputies

22

website?

22

to put this in the dayroom shortly before we

23 A. At some point in time we removed it.
24 Q. And did you participate in that decision to

23

came to the jail?

24 A. I don't know when I did in relation to your

25

remove it?

25

inspection.

1 A. No.

Page 75

Page 77

1 Q. Was something new regarding the inmate mail

2 Q. How did you find out it was being removed?

2

placed in the dayrooms shortly before we came

3 A. I don't recall.

3

for our inspection?

4 Q. Did you participate at any point in what was

4 A. I don't know how, as far as relation to when you

5

later posted on the website?

6 A. Indirectly, yes. Not as a discussion of what

5

came, I can't recall when it was.

6 Q. Well, forget about the time --

7

will go on the website, but on the discussion

7 A. I believe it was before and not after.

8

about our general mail guide, yes.

9 Q. Okay. When you say "mail guide," what do you

8 Q. Okay. Then shortly before, right, like the same

9

day or the day before that?

10

mean?

10 A. I don't recall it being the same day or -- I

11

(Exhibit 101 marked for identification.)

11

don't recall exactly when.

12 Q. BY MR. WING: You're waiting for me to hand you 12 Q. Shortly before we came --

13

a document.

13

MR. ROBERSON: Object. Asked and answered.

14 A. Yeah.
15 Q. I have handed you what's been marked as

14

THE WITNESS: It was before. I don't know

15

if it was a week before, two weeks before. I

16

Exhibit 101. Is this the document you're

17

familiar with?

16

don't remember.

17 Q. BY MR. WING: And what was in the dayroom before

18 A. I'm not sure that this was ever put on our

18

you instructed the deputy to put Exhibit 101 in

19

website.

20 Q. Okay.

21 A. I don't believe so.

22 Q. Was this--

19

the dayrooms?

20 A. As far as inmate mail?
21 Q. As far as inmate mail.

22 A. There was an old memo.

23 A. This was what I was referring to by inmate mail

24

guide, but there is a newer version of this.

23

(Exhibit 102 marked for identification.)

24 Q. BY MR. WING: I hand you Exhibit 102. Is that

25 Q. Is this a document that you put in the dayroom 25

the memo that was in the dayroom before

20 (Pages 74 to 77) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit V; Page 9 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 10 of 16

Moyer, Andrew

July 6, 2012

Page 78

Page 80

1 Exhibit 101 was in the dayroom?

1 A. No.

2 A. Yes.

2 Q. Why not?

3 Q. And did this memo correctly identify the mail

3 A. I don't know.

4

policy of the sheriff's department as of

4 Q. Do you think that placing that in the dayroom

5 May 2012 when it was still in there?

5 was an effective way to communicate the

6 A. No.

6 sheriff's new policy?

7 Q. What was wrong with this memo in, that did not 7 A. Yes.

8

accurately reflect the policy?

8 Q. Why?

9 A. Give me some time here.

9 A. Well, it was just one way of communicating with

10 Q. Sure.

10 inmates.

11 A. I would say the part that says "magazines are 11 Q. Well, you hesitated quite a long time after I

12 not allowed inside the facility."

12 asked my question; right?

13 Q. Okay. What is the purpose of having this memo 13 A. Yes.

14 in the dayrooms?

14 Q. Why, if you thought it was effective, why isn't

15 A. I don't know.

15 your answer "of course"?

16 Q. Was it to tell the prisoners what the policies

16 A. Because I was trying to think of, if there was

17

are, right, so they would know what's allowed

17

any way why it would be ineffective. I can't

18 and what's not; isn't that correct?

18 think of one.

19 A. Well, I would be assuming. So I'm going to say 19 Q. SO if there are 15 or 20 other pieces of paper

20 I don't know. I didn't put it in there or

20 and it's just one in a pile, might that be one

21

instruct anybody to put it in there.

21

reason that it's not effective, somebody would

22 Q. There are other pieces of paper that's --

22 have to go find it?

23 A. I know why I instructed this piece to be put in 23 A. It might be. I don't know.

24 there and I can talk to that.

24 Q. If you came home from work one day and your

25 Q. Okay. That's Exhibit 101?

25 spouse had a stack of paper on the table, would

Page 79

Page 81

1 A. Yes.

1 that be an effective way to communicate

2 Q. Okay. I'll ask you about that in a minute.

2 something important to you that you had to go

3 A. Okay.

3 and find out that there's a stack of paper and

4 Q. There are other pieces of paper that are

4 something in there might be of use to you?

5 laminated that sit in the dayroom; right?

5 A. It would be one way.

6 A. I don't, I know there are, but I don't know what

6 Q. Would it be an effective way?

7 they are.

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Or why they're there?

8 Q. Why?

9 A. No.

9 A. Because I would look through it.

10 Q. Do you have any idea what they are?

10 Q. Just as a matter of course, even though that

11 A. No.

11 stack had been there every day, you'd wonder if

12 Q. Okay. Why did you instruct someone in your

12 there's something new in there?

13 staff to put Exhibit 101 in the dayroom?

13 A. Well, if, in this instance if someone told me

14 A. So that inmates would know about our new inmate 14 that there was something new in there.

15 mail policy.

15 Q. Tell me about that. Did that happen?

16 Q. And you thought that that was a place that they 16 A. That would, that was instructed to happen.

17 would find out about it?

17 Q. What did you say to somebody on your staff to

18 A. Yes.

18 communicate to the prisoners about Exhibit 101?

19 Q. And did you have any idea how many different

19 A. I believe it was something similar to what you

20 pieces of paper that are laminated sit in that

20 just said. I instructed the sergeants to make

21 pile?

21 sure that it gets communicated that our mail

22 A. No, I did not.

22 policy has changed.

23 Q. Okay. Did you make any effort to try to figure

23 Q. Did you tell them in what form to make that

24 out how likely it was the prisoners would

24 communication?

25 discover this new inmate mail guide?

25 A. No.

21 (Pages 78 to 81) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit V; Page 10 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 11 of 16

Moyer, Andrew

July 6, 2012

Page 94

Page 96

1 A. Well, I guess my understanding of your question

1 A. Yes.

2

was, was there anything noted in his evaluation

2 Q. And what do you intend to do about that?

3

in regards to inmate mail? And there was not.

4 Q. Okay. Let me make clear what I'm trying to do,

3 A. We've conducted training and changed our

4

procedures and policies.

5

which is one of his functions was to oversee the

5 Q. Okay. But what about those staff members who

6

processing of the mail, is that right, or was it

6

didn't follow pOlicy, is there no consequences

7

not?

7

to them?

8 A. At times I'm sure it was, depending upon which

8 A. No.

9

shift.

9 Q. Then it's correct there are no consequences?

10 Q. Okay. And you didn't only evaluate somebody for 10 A. There are no consequences for them.

11

the absence of known errors; right? You were

11 Q. If you would, please describe the steps that you

12

trying to decide whether somebody had done a

12

have been involved in taking to correct those

13

good job 'or a job that needed correction; is

13

violations that you believe existed when you

14

that true?

14

were notified of PLN's lawsuit. So since you

15 A. Yes.

15

got notice of the lawsuit in January, what steps

16 Q. SO, in essence, you did not evaluate him on the

16

have you been involved in taking to correct the ,

17

mail process because you had no information

17

violations? And if I may, I'm sorry to, if you

18

about whether he was doing a good job overseeing 18

could try to go chronologically, that would be

19

the mail process; is that true?

19

helpful.

20 A. Yeah. I had no information whether he was doing 20 A. Okay. Steps that I've taken since the PLN

21

a good or bad job.

21

lawsuit to correct the violations.

22 Q. Have you evaluated other sergeants during your 22 Q. Yes. You recognize that there were violations;

23

tenure?

23

right?

24 A. I assisted in the evaluations of the enforcement 24 A. Yes. I've been involved in some of the policy

25

sergeants.

25

changes, not writing final versions of policy,

Page 95

Page 97

1 Q. And who did the primary writing of the

1

that's the sheriff. But I've been involved in

2

evaluation?

2

that. I did write the draft prohibited mail

3 A. Sheriff Dickerson.

3

notice.

4 Q. Okay. So you've essentially not done, had the

4 Q. Where did you get -- You borrowed a lot of

5

primary responsibility for writing the

6

evaluation of anybody else except sheriff

5

that --

6 A. Yeah. I wrote that off of a Washington County

7

Cutright once; is that true?

7

Sheriff's Office version.

8 A. That's correct. And as far as actually doing

8 Q. When did you do that?

9

one, being in charge of and responsibilities of,

9 A. I don't recall. Sometime after the PLN lawsuit.

10

yes, just didn't get to it until now they are no

10

It was part of our first new policy update in

11

longer are employed.

11

late January, early February. So it would be

12 Q. Okay. Have you -- You have had the

12

prior to that. It's an attachment to that

13

responsibility though of reviewing evaluations

13

policy.

14

written of other staff and signing off on them;

14 Q. Between the filing of PLN's lawsuit and the

15

is that right?

15

January 26th new policy?

16 A. That is correct. 17 Q. Have you ever seen any comment in any

16 A. If that's the date, yes.
17 Q. Okay. Thank you. Okay. What else?

18

performance evaluation since you have been in 18 A. I assisted and attended the training, I believe,

19

the sheriff's office about handling inmate

19

in early February of the new policy. I have

20

mail--

20

directed staff to inform inmates of change of

21 A. Not that I can recall.

21

policy.

22 Q. -- following policies?

22 Q. And that was either second half of April or

23

And do you now have knowledge that you

23

early May?

24

believe your staff did not follow the sheriff's

25

mail policies?

24 A. That's been ongoing.
25 Q. Starting?

25 (Pages 94 to 97) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit V; Page 11 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 12 of 16

Moyer, Andrew

July 6, 2012

Page 146

Page 148

1 Q. ,SO where is it in the pod?

1 Q. Okay. But, I mean, there are other ways to give

2 A. It's, well, were you one of the ones that did

2

them the mail policy; right? You could give it

3

the inspections?

3

to them in paper. You could put that in the

4 Q. Yes.

4

plastic folder; right?

5 A. So there's the mailbox, we call it the mailbox.

5 A. Yeah, we could.

6

It's where they put the outgoing mail, kytes,

6 Q. And you could attach it to their inmate manual;

7

grievances and there's a little table on top

7

right?

8

where there's a pencil sharpener. That's where

8 A. We pretty much did.

9

it's put. Now, it could move around by the

9 Q. That's what the new inmate manual looks like?

10

inmates because there's other tables in there.

10 A. Pretty much. There's a couple things maybe that

11

So, but it's in the day area.

11

aren't in there. But for the most part. It's

12 Q. And there are several other pieces of paper that 12

not 100 percent, the policy, but --

13

are in clear plastic along with this post, this

13 Q. Yeah.

14

policy; right?

14 A. I think it's like 15 pages of it.

15 A. Yes.

15 Q. And is there a reason why they didn't get the

16 Q. Excuse me. This guide?

16

whole policy before the most recent inmate

17 A. Yeah. Not connected to it, but yes.

17

manual weeks ago?

18 Q. Okay.

18 A. I don't know.

19 A. There's other documents.

19 Q. Okay. Were there problems that you experienced

20 Q. You have a Spanish version of the inmate manual; 20

implementing the February policy?

21

is that true?

21 A. Were there problems?

22 A. Yes.

22 Q. Yeah.

23 Q. When did you find that out?

23 A. Yeah. I'd say yes to that.

24 A. I've known that. I don't know. Prior to the

24 Q. What problems do you recall?

25

lawsuit I've known that. I don't remember when 25 A. Well, there were several changes to the old

Page 147

Page 149

1

I found that out.

1

policy, also changes to the deputies' practices.

2 Q. When did the inmate mail guide that was given to 2

And in a jail type setting where you have, and I

3

prisoners to notify them of the change in mail

3

believe on that time we were on five eight-hour,

4

policy, when was that first translated into

4

five eights, which means we had three shifts

5

Spanish?

5

going, it's hard to get everybody on the same

6 A. The mail guide?

6

page without bringing everybody into a meeting

7 Q. Yes.

7

and then you got vacations and sick times and --

8 A. It has not been, to my knowledge.

8 Q. But I thought you had a training.

9 Q. Do you have any idea how many Spanish-speaking 9 A. -- it's hard. We did.

10

prisoners you have who need things in Spanish?

10 Q. And that didn't solve the problem?

11 A. No.

11 A. I think that solved a lot of the problems.

12 Q. What has access to the policy itself, the mail

12 Q. What problems--

13

policy?

13 A. Was there mistakes afterwards? I'm sure there

14 A. Our entire staff, for one.

14

was.

15 Q. Where, where would they go?

15 Q. What problems did you see?

16 A. Where? It's on what we call our 5 drive, which

16 A. I can't recall any specific problems. I guess

17

is a drive on our network. So it's not attached

17

one of the problems I saw was that the, it's one

18

to individual computers but it's on a drive that

18

of your exhibits here. This one. Exhibit 102

19

you can look up no matter what computer you are 19

was never pulled out of the pods. That was a

20

at the office logging on to. And everybody has

20

problem.

21

access to that, I believe.

21

(Exhibit 107 marked for identification.)

22 Q. Is there a reason that prisoners don't have

22 Q. BY MR. WING: Okay. I'm handing you

23

access to the mail policy?

23

Exhibit 107. About three-quarters of the way

24 A. They don't have access to computers. It's on

24

down the first page there's an e-mail from you

25

the website.

25

that says, "Yes. If it gets delivered by the

38 (Pages 146 to 149) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit V; Page 12 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 13 of 16

Moyer, Andrew

July 6, 2012

Page 174

Page 176

1 Q. .Okay. When you became the undersheriff, there 1 A. Well, it takes time. You can't implement a new

2

weren't very many policies that the department 2

policy immediately. We didn't have all the

3

has; is that correct?

3

4 A. Correct.

4

5 Q. And you borrowed a great number of them from 5

preposted envelopes and a system in place to

~:

effect that immediately. So it takes time to do

';,
'i·

that. We have to order it, put it on

6

Washington County; is that right?

6

commissary, get it in our indigent kits, create

7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Tweaked them to make them your own?

7

a system for our deputies reviewing that.

8

I mean, some of our deputies mayor may not

9 A. Yes.

9

have been hired before or after the

10 Q. But that's where you got a lot of them; right?

10

postcard-only policy went into place. We have

11 A. Yes. And I want to make a distinction. There's 11

deputies on all different shifts. We can't just

12

two policy manuals. There's a general sheriffs 12

communicate it instantaneously. Inmate mail is

13

office policy and then there's a jail

13

not the only thing we deal with at the sheriffs

14

operational policy. And what I'm referring to

14

office. So we have other things going on. So

15

in answering your question is our general

15

it's not any type of policy cannot take effect

16

policy, not the jail operational policy.

17 Q. Could you explain the difference, please.

16

instantaneously.

17 Q. If The Court did not order the department to get

18 A. The difference is that there was somewhat of a, 18

rid of its postcard-only policy, would you favor

19

I'm not too familiar again because when I came 19

keeping it?

20

over I didn't oversee the jail, but there was,

20 A. I have no intentions and in my conversation with

21

there was somewhat of a jail operational policy 21

the sheriff we have no intentions of going back

22

manual. But there was a very, very small amount 22

to a postcard-only policy --

23

of general poliCies. And so we created a policy 23 Q. Why?

24

manual to oversee all of our personnel and also 24 A. -- with or without, whatever the result is of

25

a lot of enforcement type stuff because the main 25

this lawsuit.

Page 175

Page 177

1

policy was only for jail operations. And so I'm

1 Q. Why?

2

not sure. I wasn't involved in any changes or

2 A. I think my personal opinion is I want to err on

3

additions to that jail operational policy

3

the side of caution as far as violating

4

manual.

4

someone's rights. My personal opinion is this:

5

(Exhibit 112 marked for identification.)

5

6 Q. BY MR. WING: Okay. Handing you Exhibit 112. 6

The postcard-only policy does not violate any constitutional rights, but I want to err on the

7

Did you receive this on or about June 11; 2012? 7

side of caution. And we've already made this

8 A. Yes.
9 Q. In this e-mail the sheriff acknowledges the

8

policy. I don't think there's a reason to

9

change that unless we have to for some reason

10

preliminary injunction; right?

10

change it again because of a judge's order or

11 A. Uh-huh.
12 Q. Is that a yes?

11

something. But I don't think we need to go back

12

to -- I mean, part of the problem with our staff

13 A. Yes. Sorry.

13

is the constant changes. So that's, you

14 Q. It's okay. He says, "Although the ruling does

14

mentioned problems before is the constantly

15

not take effect until the end of the month, we

15

changing it is going to make it harder for them

16

will immediately begin accepting envelopes for 16

to remember. So I don't see any reason to go

17

incoming mail." Did I read that correctly?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. But then he says in parentheses "Outgoing mail

17

back to postcard-only policy.

18 Q. I think you said it creates more of a safety

19

risk for your employees, didn't you?

20

will be addressed with the new inmate mail

20 A. I did. And we will deal with it.

21

policy that will come out. And until that time,

21 Q. But why would you not want to go back if you

22

we will continue to provide only postcards for

22

think that it would reduce the --

23

outgoing mail."

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Why is that the case?

23 A. I think I just explained all those. reasons.

24 Q. Just a second. I need for you to wait for me to

25

finish.

45 (Pages 174 to 177) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit V; Page 13 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 14 of 16

Moyer, Andrew

July 6, 2012

Page 178

Page 180

1

You don't think the postcard-only policy

1

(Record read as follows:

2 violates someone's rights and you think it

2

"Q SO the only reason why you wouldn't

3 creates more of a safety risk for your

3

go back to a postcard-only policy is

4

employees, but you're saying you wouldn't want 4

because the judge has told you to change

5 to go back to the postcard-only policy; is that

5

it and you have now changed it; is that

6 correct?

6

correct?")

7 A. Yes.

7

THE WITNESS: That's incorrect.

8 Q. Does the sheriff agree with you?

8 Q. BY MR. WING: Well, you've made a lot of

9 A. In my conversations with the sheriff, both of us 9 changes, right, in the past six months?

10 have absolutely no intention of going back to a 10 A. Yes.

11

postcard-only policy.

11 Q. And you said one of the downsides is that people

12 Q. And the sheriff also agrees with you that he

12 get confused by this; right?

13 thinks the postcard-only policy does not violate 13 A. Yes.

14 rights?

14 Q. It's hard to transition. Okay. You've now made

15 A. That I can't answer.

15 a change because you were ordered to; right?

16 Q. You've not talked about that with him?

16 A. Yes.

17 A. I don't know if I've had that exact conversation 17 Q. Okay. You're saying you'd stick with that

18 of do you think this is constitutional or not.

18 change even if the judge says I'm not going to

19 Q. Did you tell him that you think that it's

19 tell you that you got to stick with that change;

20 constitutional?

20

right?

21 A. I may have. I don't know. I don't remember 21 A. Yes.

22 specifically saying that to him, no.

22 Q. Your testimony is you wouldn't go back because,

23 Q. Did you have conversations with him about not 23

gee, we've already done it?

24 changing the postcard-only policy before the

24 A. I said that was one of the reasons. I think I

25 judge issued the preliminary injunction?

25

in my earlier testimony explained a few

Page 179

Page 181

1 A. About --

1 different reasons.

2 Q. We're not going to change the policy. That's

2 Q. Well, you said you wanted to err on the side of

3 what you guys decided; right?

3

not violating somebody's rights, but your belief

4 A. About not -- Okay.

4

is that it doesn't violate somebody's rights;

5 Q. Until the judge issued the order.

5

right?

6 A. I'm trying to get your question right. You are

6 A. That's my personal opinion. Yes.

7

asking if we had a conversation about not going

7 Q. Okay.

8 from envelopes to postcard only?

8 A. But I'm going to err on the side of any future

9 Q. No. I'm sorry. Let me rephrase my question.

9

legal opinions.

10 Before the judge issued a preliminary

10 Q. Sorry. I don't quite understand what you just

11 injunction, sheriff's department decided not to

11 said. Err on the side of --

12 give up its postcard-only policy; right?

12 A. Well, there's been court rulings around this

13 A. Yes.

13 country that have upheld postcard-only poliCies

14 Q. Okay. Why?

14 in some fashion or the other. I'm not a legal

15 A. I think for safety and security reasons and

15 expert. I haven't reviewed all those. But we

16 didn't believe we were violating anybody's

16 have a newer opinion and a lot closer to home,

17 constitutional rights by keeping that part.

17 and it's not a legal opinion but it's a, I

18 Q. SO the only reason why you wouldn't go back to a 18

believe he used the words in his ruling that it

19 postcard-only policy is because the judge has

19 mayor it is likely to. I can't remember the

20 told you to change it and you have now changed 20 exact words. And so there's no reason for us to

21

it; is that correct?

22 A. I'm sorry. Is the question, is the question

21 go there again.
22 Q. Suppose this case continues and a judge says,

23 whether the judge said change it and we changed 23 well, I said it was likely to but at the end of

24 it?

24 the day I don't think it does.

25

MR. WING: Can you read my question back. 25 A. I think I answered that by saying we won't go

46 (Pages 178 to 181) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit V; Page 14 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 15 of 16

Moyer, Andrew

July 6, 2012

Page 190

Page 192

1

didn't make any changes or adjustments to any of 1

publication?

2

the drafts or insert any new opinions into the,

2 A. Yeah. I would consider that a publication.

3

any of the versions of the inmate manual.

4 Q. Okay. What, to your knowledge, is the

3 Q. And where do publications have to come from?
4 A. If you're referring to the definition in our

5

difference between the May 25th mail policy and 5

policy, I'd like to refer to that.

6

the June 18th mail policy?

6 Q. Sure. You take your pick.

7 A. The main difference?
8 Q. Whatever you --

7 A. Yeah. Which one? I don't think you have the,

8

it in an exhibit, but you have that e-mail I saw

9 A. I believe the main difference is one allows

9

which has it attached.

10

envelopes and one doesn't. That's the main

10

MR. ROBERSON: Exhibit 110.

11

difference. The other probably main difference 11

THE WITNESS: Yes. That is considered a,

12

would be the sexually explicit definition.

12

publications are considered periodicals and

13

Although that may be in the May 25th policy.

13

books and periodicals of a magazine, newspaper,

14

I'd have to sit and compare the policies.

15 Q. Okay. Could you please turn to Exhibit 65.

14

newsletter or other publication formed of

15

printed sheets that is issued at regular,

16

Please take a look at that. And there's a

16

specified intervals by a publisher. So I could

17

second page.

17

consider this a newsletter and probably also a

18 A. Oh.
19 Q. It's an envelope that contained that.

18

publication under that definition.

19 Q. BY MR. WING: Okay. I'm not trying to talk you

20 A. Okay.

20

out of your statement that it will be delivered,

21 Q. Would you take a look at what that is, please.

21

but I want to make sure that we're on the same

22

Second page of Exhibit 65. Have you had an

22

page about this. Do you see who it was sent by?

23

opportunity to look at that?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. If this letter, an envelope with that content,

23 A. I didn't. No.
24 Q. Okay.
25 A. As far as I, a person, I saw that it was a

Page 191

Page 193

1

news article, was mailed to the jail tomorrow,

2

what is your understanding of what the mail

1

person, yes.

2 Q. Okay. And so if a publication is sent by a

3

'policy at the jail would dictate? Would it be

3

person, is that acceptable under your policy?

4

delivered?

5 A. If this envelope, so this is an envelope with

4 A. I believe a printed-out internet message is.
5 Q. You are reviewing your current policy; is that

6

this inside of it, would it be delivered

6

right?

7

tomorrow?

8 Q. Exhibit 65.

7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Okay.

9 A. Absolutely.
10 Q. And why is that?
11 A. Because that's what our policy says. And I have

9 A. I would, I would say that this also falls under

10

regular inmate mail.

11 Q. Okay. So you're just --

12

confidence our policy is being followed at this

12 A. If it came from a personal person, it would be

13

time.

14 Q. You said that with a smile.

13

regular inmate mail from the envelope. So we

14

would open it. It doesn't violate any other

15 A. Yes.

15

policy.

16

MR. WING: Why don't we take a short break. 16 Q. Okay. So having considered Exhibit 65, this

17

I want to see if, I might be fairly close here

17

print-off of a PLN news article from the

18

and I want to just gather my thoughts together. 18

internet, sent by an individual, would be

19

(Break taken from 4:11 to 4:24.)

20 Q. BY MR. WING: Just before the break we were

19

admitted under your current policy?

20 A. Yeah. I believe it's just like any

21

looking at Exhibit 65 and you said you thought 21

correspondence.

22

definitely this would be delivered in the jail;

22 Q. Okay. While I understand that the sheriff could

23

is that right?

23

overrule you, as things currently stand, you are

24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Okay. Is the second page of Exhibit 65 a

24

the final arbiter of what does and does not

25

violate the policy in the ordinary course;

49 (Pages 190 to 193) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit V; Page 15 of 16

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 99-5 Filed 09/13/12 Page 16 of 16

Moycr,.·Ancirew

July 6) 2012

239

1

C E RT I FIe ATE

.3

I, Aleshia K. ~·1acorn, CSR NO. 94,...0296, do

4

hereby certify that ANDREtriJ ·f\10YER personally

appea.re.d before. meat the time and place

6

rnentiQned in the caption herein; that the

witness was by me first duly sVvorn on oath, and

8

examined upon ()ral interrogatories propounded by

9

counsel; that said examinati.on, t.ogether with

10

the t<estimony of said vritness, vilas taken dO'0.rn by

11

me in stenotype and the:reaft·er reduced to

12

t,ypewriting"; .auld t.ha.t the foregoing transcript,

13

Pages 1 to 238, both i.nclusive,consti tutes a.

14

full; true and accuraterecQrd of said

15

exarnina.tio.rl of andtestiroQnygiven by sai.d

16

vJitness, ahdofa.llothe.r proceedings had during

1 -;
..J.. . /

the taking of saiddepositiQD, and of the whole

18

the.reof, to the best of rfly ability .

19

~\1itnessmy hand at Portland, Oregon; this

20

lBth day of July, 2012.

21

22

2.3

Aleshia K .M'acOrn

CSRNo. 94~0296

Beovich \Valter &. Friend

WING DECL; Exhibit V; Page 16 of 16

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 100 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 5
EXHIBIT VI
TO DECLARATION OF JESSE WING IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
WING DECL; Exhibit VI; Page 1 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 100 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 5
Mansheim, Jeffrey

July 6, 2012

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF OREGON

3

PORTLAND DIVISION

4

5 PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project

6 of the Human Rights Defense

7 Center,

No. 3:12-CV-71-SI

8

Plaintiff,

9

v.

10 COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA

11 COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF

12 DICKERSON, individually and

13 in his capacity as Columbia

14 County Sheriff,

15

Defendants.

16

17

18

19

20

DEPOSITION OF JEFFREY MANSHEIM

21

Taken in behalf of Plaintiff

22

July 6, 2012

23

24

25

Page 1

Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit VI; Page 2 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 100 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 5

Mansheim, Jeffrey

July 6, 2012

1 Q. 'Okay. Anything else?

Page 14
1 A. Correct.

Page 16

2 A. A working computer.

2 Q. Thank you. You've worked with Sergeant Cutright

3 Q. Fair enough. If you wanted to find out who

3 throughout that time period, I mean on and off?

4

entered the text that is Exhibit 12, we're going

4 A. Yes.

5

to use your, the website or Joomla or some kind 5 Q. Okay. When did you start doing work on the

6

of log on the computer to find that out. How

6 website for the Columbia County Sheriff's

7

would you go about finding that out?

7

Office?

8 A. I don't know.

8 A. Approximately end of -- I don't know.

9 Q. What is your background or training or education 9 Q. Approximately?

10

in software or computers?

10 A. It was at the time Sheriff Dickerson came into

11 A. I have a computer science degree from Portland 11 office and I don't recall. I think that was

12 Community College and a bachelor in information 12 2008 or 2009.

13

technology from the University of Massachusetts. 13 Q. Okay. I think the information we have is that

14 I've had, since 1985, so about approximately

14 he started in January 2009.

15

16 years I have IT experience.

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. You were employed at Nike; is that right?

16 Q. Does that sound about right to you?

17 A. Correct.

17 A. Yes, it does.

18 Q. What do you do at Nike?

18 Q. Okay. Is it the sheriff himself who asked you

19 A. I'm in the information technology department. 19 to work on the website?

20

Currently I work on websites.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Okay. Let's look for a minute at Exhibit 95.

21 Q. And you agreed?

22

Would you take a minute and tell me whether you 22 A. Yes.

23

recognize these as the e-mails that you provided 23 Q. And did he or anyone else tell you who would

24

to Mr. Roberson or his firm in response to our

24 have the authority to ask you to post something

25

request for documents?

25 on the website?

Page 15

Page 17

1 A. I do recognize those.

1 A. I don't remember.

2 Q. Those are all documents that you printed off

2 Q. What is your understanding of who has the

3 from your computer?

3 authority to ask you to post something on the

4 A. Yes.

4 website, if you know?

5 Q. Okay. And they're all documents that relate to

5 A. I don't know.

6 your reserve deputy work for Columbia County

6 Q. Who has asked you to post things on the website?

7 Sheriff's Office?

7 A. Sheriff Dickerson, Deputy McDowall, Sergeant

8 A. Yes.

8 Cutright, Deputy Rush, and Dorothea Jirka.

9 Q. Who is Sergeant Cutright?

9 Q. And who is she, please?

10 A. Sergeant Cutright is a sergeant in the Columbia 10 A. She is a civil, she's our civil records clerk at

11 County Jail.

11 the sheriff's office.

12 Q. You have been a reserve deputy with the Columbia 12 Q. Okay. Now, the first page of Exhibit 95 is an

13 County Jail now for approximately 13 years;

13 e-mail to you from yourself forwarding a message

14 right?

14 from Sergeant Cutright; is that correct?

15 A. Correct.

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. SO you've worked with Sergeant Cutright

16 Q. You can't really tell from this when Sergeant

17 throughout that time period; is that right?

17 Cutright sent it to you. Can you tell?

18 A. Can you restate the previous question about how 18 A. No.

19 long I've been a reserve deputy with, what

19 Q. Is it your impression that it would have been

20 division did you say?

20 about the same date as the message you forwarded

21 Q. I'm sorry. I have written this down correctly.

21 to yourself?

22 When did you say you started with the Columbia 22 A. Yes.

23 County Sheriff's Office?

23 Q. Okay. And he asked you to add information to

24 A. Approximately 1997, June.

24 the, it says "the jail side of the SO website."

25 Q. SO close to 15 years?

25 What does that mean?

5 (Pages 14 to 17) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit VI; Page 3 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 100 Filed 09/13/12 Page 4 of 5

Mansheim, Jeffrey

July 6, 2012

Page 18

Page 20

1 A. I don't know.

1 post something yourself, that is, to choose, I'm

2 Q. Did you do that?

2 going to put this up on the website?

3 A. I don't remember.

3 A. I have the technical ability.

4 Q. If you didn't, would there be some record of

4 Q. I understand. I'm talking about the authority.

5 what you did instead?

5 That's my question.

6 A. I don't know.

6 A. I don't know.

7 Q. SO do you ever remember being asked to post

7 Q. Have you ever done that?

8

something on the website that you did not do?

8 A. I don't remember.

9 A. Yes.

9 Q. Okay. Let's go ahead and number these pages.

10 Q. What was that?

10 Okay.

11 A. There was a request to add a page for auction

11 A. Sure.

12 notices and that request is not, I've not

12 Q. Do you need a pen? If you would, please.

13 fulfilled that request.

13

MR. ROBERSON: Do you mind if I number them?

14 Q. Why?

14

MR. WING: Sounds fine if you do it.

15 A. Matter of getting time in the schedule to do it.

15 Thanks.

16 Q. Did you tell somebody that you were not getting 16 Q. BY MR. WING: Mr. Mansheim, it may have been

17 to it?

17 explained to you, but we are expecting a call

18 A. I don't remember.

18 from The Court in this case at 9:30. And it's

19 Q. Okay. Do you remember what, if anything, you

19

nearly then, so we may be interrupted. Okay?

20 did in response to Sergeant Cutright's request

20 A. Okay.

21

in or about March 17, 2010?

21 Q. Thank you for making yourself available today.

22 A. I don't know.

22 A. You're welcome.

23 Q. Did you compare what Sergeant Cutright asked you 23

MR. ROBERSON: I have numbered Exhibit 95, 1

24 to do here in writing with the web print or shot

24 through 20.

25 print that was attached to Exhibit 94?

25

MR. WING: Thank you.

Page 19

Page 21

1 A. I'm sorry. Can you restate that again, please?

1 Q. BY MR. WING: Mr. Mansheim, if you would look at

2 Q. Visually, I'll show you. I'm asking you whether 2

page 4. Does this refresh your recollection

3

you compared, not asking you to do it now, just 3

about whether you did what Sergeant Cutright

4

asking you whether you did already compare the 4

asked in his, on page 1 of Exhibit 95?

5

web printout that we provided in Exhibit 94 with 5 A. Based on the timestamps, it does appear that,

6

the text that Sergeant Cutright asked you to put 6

yes, that's what I did.

7

on the website that's second and third page of

7 Q. You did, you posted the information contained in

8

Exhibit 95?

8

Mr., in Sergeant Cutright's request that are the

9 A. Are you asking me if I've compared this to the

9

second and third page of Exhibit 95; is that

10

actual exhibit?

10 what you did?

11 Q. Yes.

11 A. Yes.

12 A. No.

12 Q. Did you review these e-mails before producing

13 Q. Okay. When you are given instructions to post 13

them to Mr. Roberson?

14

something like Sergeant Cutright asked you in

14 A. Briefly.

15

the second and third page of Exhibit 95, do you 15 Q. Okay. And when did you do that?

16

enter it word for word or do you tinker?

16 A. Within the last week.

17 A. Typically word for word.

17 Q. Did you do anything else to prepare for your

18 Q. And if you were to tinker, would you show it to 18

deposition today?

19

somebody, say, you know, I've reworded this

19 A. I looked at the inmate mail page on the website

20

because I think it will read better or it's more

20 to find the current status.

21

clear or you missed a word? When you've done 21 Q. Okay. Anything else?

22

that, have you taken it to somebody and said, is 22 A. I reviewed the last time my friend logged into

23

this fine, or do you just post it?

23 the website, who helped build the website with

24 A. I would typically run it by somebody.

24 me.

25 Q. Do you have the authority, to your knowledge, to 25 Q. SO you built the, you and this friend built the

6 (Pages 18 to 21) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit VI; Page 4 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 100 Filed 09/13/12 Page 5 of 5

Mansheirn, Jeffrey

July 6, 2012

Page 54

1

C E R T I FIe ATE

2

3

I , Aleshia K. Ma.Gom, CSR No. 94--" 0296, do

h.erebycertify that J:EFFHEY

personally

appeared before rne at the time and place

6

rnentioned int.he caption herein; that the

7

was by

first duly sworn on oath, and

8

examined upon oral interrogatorieB propounded by

9

counsel; that s.aid e'xarnination, t>ogether with

10

the test..iluOhyof saidwi.tne·s$, was taken down by

11

me ins:tenotype and there·,after reduced to

12

typewriting.; and th.atthe foregoingt :canSCI: ipt,

13

Pages lto 54, bothinclusiVe I COlistitutes a

14

full, t.tue and accurate recOrd of said

15

examination of and testimony given by sal,d

16

witness, and of all other

fl.ad during

1 '7
.J..... I

the tCi<king of said deposition, q,nd of the whole

18

thereof (to the best of nryability._

19

Witness m.y hand at Portland, Oreg.ofl1 this

2012.

21

22

23

Aleshia

Macoro

24

CSRNo. 94-0296

BeovicllWalter & Friend

WING DECL; Exhibit VI; Page 5 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 100-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 6
EXHIBIT VII
TO DECLARATION OF JESSE WING IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
WING DECL; Exhibit VII; Page 1 of 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 100-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 6

Moyer, Andrew - Vol. 2

August 28, 2012

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF OREGON

3

PORTLAND DIVISION

4

5 PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project

6 of the Human Rights Defense

7 Center,

No. 3:12-CV-71-SI

8

Plaintiff,

9

v.

10 COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA

11 COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF

12 DICKERSON, individually and

13 in his capacity as Columbia

14 County Sheriff,

15

Defendants.

16

17

18

19

VOLUME II

20

DEPOSITION OF ANDREW MOYER

21

Taken in behalf of Plaintiff

22

August 28, 2012

23

24

25

Page 241
....

Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit VII; Page 2 of 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 100-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 6

Moyer, Andrew - Vol. 2

August 28, 2012

Page 258

Page 260

1 A. It's an e-mail.

1 Q. Well, in your last deposition we talked about

2 Q. The bottom half is an e-mail from Bryan Cutright 2

due process. Do you remember that?

3

to you on July 11, 2011; is that right?

3 A. Yes.

4 A. Yes.

4 Q. And do you remember we went over Exhibit 23 and

5 Q. And you were the jail commander; right?

5 some other exhibits showing the censorship of

6 A. Yes.

6

Prison Legal News mail?

7 Q. And in this document Mr. Cutright is asking you 7 A. Yes.

8

to get a stamp created for the mail and the form 8 Q. Okay. Before approving, instructing the

9

of the stamp is in the e-mail to you; right?

9 creation of a stamp like the one that Bryan

10 A. Yes.

10 Cutright asked you to in Exhibit 129, did you

11 Q. That's an e-mail -- Strike that.

11 look into what the requirements were for due

12

Did you get this stamp created?

12 process notice?

13 A. A stamp was created.

13 A. No.

14 Q. At your instruction; right?

14 Q. Why not?

15 A. Yes.

15 A. I don't know.

16 Q. And is either the same language that's in

16 Q. From what you know now, was the stamp that

17 Exhibit 129 or very similar; is that correct?

17 Sergeant Cutright asked you to create sufficient

18 A. That I don't know.

18 to provide due process notice?

19 Q. And the stamp you had created was then used by 19

MR. KRAEMER: Object to form.

20

the mail staff to censor mail; is that right?

20 Q. BY MR. WING: That's my question.

21 A. I don't know.

21 A. I'm sorry. Could you rephrase that?

22 Q. And at your last deposition you were asked

22

MR. WING: Could you restate the question

23

questions about your involvement and knowledge 23

for me. Just repeat it, please.

24

in the mail process and the censorship of the

24

25

mail. Do you remember that?

25

(Record read as follows:
"Q From what you know now, was the stamp

Page 259

Page 261

1 A. No.

1

that Sergeant Cutright asked you to create

2 Q. Do you remember being asked what you knew about 2

sufficient to provide due process

3 the process of the mail staff marking, censoring

3

notice?")

4 mail and you said you were not involved in that?

4

THE WITNESS: I don't know.

5 You had no idea. Do you remember that?

5 Q. BY MR. WING: So even though this lawsuit has

6 A. Not exactly, no.

6

been going on since January, you don't know

7 Q. Do you remember what your involvement was?

7

whether this satisfies due process?

8 A. I have never sorted mail.

8 A. I guess I don't understand your question.

9 Q. Let me show you what's

been marked as 9 Q. What don't you understand about it?

10 Exhibit 23. It was a piece of mail that was

10 A. Well, I don't, I don't, I don't understand it.

11 censored by Columbia County Jail. Do you see

11 Q. Well, I'm asking you whether the stamp that

12 the stamp on the front of that page?

12

Sergeant Cutright asked you to create would

13 A. (No audible response.)

13

provide due process notice of why mail was being

14 Q. You are nodding your head. Could you answer

14

rejected.

15 verbally?

15 A. The stamp itself?

16 A. I'm sorry. Yes.

16 Q. Well, the stamp, as you understand it, would

17 Q. Okay. Does that seem similar to the one that is

17

have places for somebody to check off on a line;

18 Mr. Cutright, Sergeant Cutright is asking you to

18

is that right?

19 create in Exhibit 129?

19 A. Yes.

20 A. Yes.

20 Q. Just like Exhibit 23; right?

21 Q. At the time that you authorized or instructed

21 A. Yes.

22 the creation of this stamp, did you look into

22 Q. Okay. So is the stamp that the sergeant asked

23 what was required to comport with due process

23

you to create in June -- July of 2011, would

24 under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution?

24

that provide due process notice to a person

25 A. Could you repeat that question?

25

whose mail was being censored?

6 (Pages 258 to 261) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit VII; Page 3 of 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 100-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 4 of 6

Moyer, Andrew - Vol. 2

August 28, 2012

Page 282

Page 284:

1

THE WITNESS: Yes.

1

with?

2

(Exhibit 135 marked for identification.)

3 Q. BY MR. WING: Handing you Exhibit 135, is this

2 A. I believe the solution was to, if the stamp is

3

loose, peel it off. If you can't peel it off,

4

also a pass-down note?

5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Do you see the second sentence which reads,

4

then don't peel it off.

5 Q. Doesn't that create a risk to safety, that

6

there's poison or drugs underneath the stamp?

7

"Please be careful when placing mail to be gone 7 A. It could.

8

over that is in Spanish on the shelf, found a

8 Q. But it's a risk that the jail's decided to take;

9

few letters that are mixed in with things."

9

is that right?

10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Okay. Again, you're not aware of any problem

10 A. Yes.
11 Q. In fact, doesn't the new policy remove the

12

with getting Spanish language mail handled in a 12

requirement of taking off stamps altogether?

13

timely fashion?

14 A. No.

15 Q. Is there any policy in place to make sure that

13 A. I don't know.

14 Q. Excuse me. I draw your attention to

15

Exhibit 132. The first paragraph, would you

16

Spanish language or any other foreign language 16

please read what it states.

17

that is, mail that is pulled out from the

18

regular mail gets handled in a timely fashion?

17 A. The number one?
18 Q. Yes.

19 A. Yes.
20 Q. What is that policy?

19 A. "Inmate Huck really does have a medical

20

condition which causes his arms to swell.

21 A. I'm not going to quote it without looking at it. 21

Medical is working with him. However, if he

22 Q. You think it's in the mail policy?

22

says he needs to see the nurses, he really does

23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Can you tell me generally what you think it is?

23

need to see the nurse."

24 Q. Why would somebody write that if a prisoner

25 A. In general terms what we did was take out the 25

really needs to see the nurse, they really need

Page 283

Page 285

1

requirement that it be translated and, meaning

1

to see the nurse?

2

that it's no longer a requirement for

2

MR. KRAEMER: Object to form.

3

100 percent of the time, that we can scan it for 3

THE WITNESS: I don't know.

4

certain words that we know and takes the

4 Q. BY MR. WING: Did it imply to you that prisoners

5

requirement out. So if we don't have someone to 5

complain about medical problems and they ask to

6

translate it, we can deliver it.

6

7 Q. How often is it being translated as compared to 7

see the nurse but the prison staff don't believe them?

8

you just scanning it to look for those words?

9 A. I don't know.

8 A. No.
9 Q. You don't think that has happened?

10

(Exhibit 136 marked for identification.)

11 Q. BY MR. WING: Here is Exhibit 136. I'd like to

12

direct your attention to the e-mail at the

10

MR. KRAEMER: Object to form.

11

THE WITNESS: I don't know.

12 Q. BY MR. WING: So what do you interpret

13

bottom of the page from a Mitch Watkins. Is he 13

paragraph -- the sentence that you just read to

14

a deputy?

14

mean?

15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Would you take a minute and read what he

15 A. My interpretation, that if inmate Huck requests

16

to see the nurse, that it's serious and he

17

wrote --

18 A. Out loud?

19 Q. -- to yourself. No. Just to yourself.

17

really needs to see the nurse.

18 Q. And why do you believe that one of your deputies

19

would need to say that?

20

Have you had an opportunity to read

20

MR. KRAEMER: Object to form.

21

Exhibit 136?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Do you recall this issue coming up?

21

THE WITNESS: I don't know.

22 Q. BY MR. WING: Does it surprise you?

23

MR. KRAEMER: Object to form.

24 A. Yes.
25 Q. What solution, if any, did the jail come up

24

THE WITNESS: No.

25 Q. BY MR. WING: Does it imply to you that if it's

12 (Pages 282 to 285)
Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit VII; Page 4 of 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 100-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 5 of 6

Moyer, Andrew - Vol. 2

August 28, 2012

Page 286

Page 288

1

not said, that another deputy might not actually 1

several deputies over and over again for the

2 allow Prisoner Huck to see the nurse?

2

same thing that he's already been given an

3 A. No.

3

answer to.

4 Q. Okay.

4 Q. SO where your deputy writes, "If you are the

5

(Exhibit 137 marked for identification.)

5

other deputy whom he says gives him

6 Q. BY MR. WING: This is Exhibit 137. Do you

6

contraband" --

7

recognize the message on the second half of the 7 A. Is this what he says?

8

first page as pass-down notes?

8 Q. -- "please stop it so he can be consistent."

9 A. Yes.

9

You don't interpretthat language to mean that

10 Q. January 1st, 2012; is that right?

10 the prisoner is claiming a deputy's giving him

11 A. Yes.

11 contraband?

12 Q. Second page of this document, that same e-mail, 12 A. I don't know.

13 the second paragraph on that page says, "Turner, 13

(Exhibit 138 marked for identification.)

14 Tim: Wrote a kite wanting contraband postcards 14 Q. BY MR. WING: Handing you Exhibit 138, do you

15 delivered to him. The kite and several answers 15 recognize e-mail at the bottom from Brooke

16 already given to him by deputies is 'no.' He

16 McDowall dated 7-19-2012?

17 doesn't need to keep asking. If you are the

17 A. Yes.

18 'other deputy' whom he says gives him

18 Q. It reads, "During booking time, we need to

19 contraband, please stop it so we can be

19 advise all inmates coming into the jail that the

20 consistent. "

20

mail policy has changed and they should read the

21

Did you read that correctly?

21

section in the inmate manual about mail." Did I

22 A. Yes.

22

read that correctly?

23 Q. Do you remember this e-mail?

23 A. Yes.

24 A. No.

24 Q. Is that on your instruction?

25 Q. Did the jail investigate whether any other

25 A. To advise inmates when coming into the jail?

Page 287

Page 289

1 deputy was giving this prisoner contraband?

1 Q. Yes.

2 A. I don't think so.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Why not?

3 Q. This was an instruction not too long after your

4 A. I don't know.

4 deposition; is that right?

5 Q. Has anyone, to your knowledge, ever alleged that 5 A. Yes.

6

deputies were share -- or any member of the jail 6 Q. SO why did you give out this instruction?

7

staff were giving contraband to a prisoner?

7 A. I've given that instruction several times

8 A. Say that question one more time, please.

8 because I want the inmates to be aware of the

9 Q. Sure. To your knowledge, has anyone ever

9 new mail policy.

10

claimed that a member of your staff was giving

10 Q. Are you aware of any other documentation of that

11 contraband to prisoners?

11 instruction besides this e-mail after your

12 A. No.

12 deposition?

13 Q. It appears, doesn't it, from Exhibit 137 that

13 A. No.

14 that's what inmate Turner was claiming?

14

(Exhibit 139 marked for identification.)

15 A. I don't know.

15 Q. BY MR. WING: Handing you several documents, I

16 Q. What do you interpret it to mean?

16 think there are probably eight in here. We're

17 A. This is written in the context from a deputy,

17 going to call Exhibit 139. They were handed to

18 not the inmate. So I don't know what the inmate 18 me by your lawyer, Greg Roberson, a few minutes

19 was claiming.

19 ago. Have you seen them before?

20 Q. Does it appear that that's what your deputy is

20 A. Yes.

21 reporting?

21 Q. What are they?

22 A. No.

22 A. These are inmate request forms.

23 Q. Okay. What is it that you think your deputy's

23 Q. Would you count them, please, and tell me how

24 reporting?

24 many there are.

25 A. I believe my deputy's reporting that he's asking 25 A. Seven.

13 (Pages 286 to 289) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit VII; Page 5 of 6

.,1
1
2 3 4
:)
6 -,
I
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 1.6 17
18 J.9 20 21 2.2
23
24

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 100-1 Filed 09/13/12 Page 6 of 6

.

fvloyer, Al1.dre\\' - VoL 2

__ __ _-_ __ /\UglISt 28,201.2

.....

.....

....

.....

....

c: E R T IF I CAT E

Paqe 325

I, Aleshia K. Macolu,CSH No* 94-0296, do

hereby c>ertify thatANDREt\1MOYER personally

appea.red bei6rerne at the tiree and place

mentioned in the caption herein; that the

'Nitnesswas by me first duly sworn on oath! and

upon oral interrogatories propounded by

couhsel; that said examination, together with

the testimony of said v'[i friess, was taken

by

me in stenotype and therea.fter recLuced to

typewriting; and that the foregQ.ing transcript,

Page;s 241 to 324, both irlclu'sive, constitutes a

full, true and accurate recordot said

examination of and testJrnony given. by said

wltnes$, and ·of all Dther proceedings had during

the t>aking of saldd.epositiOn,a·nd of the whole
thereof, to the best of my ability .

Witness my hand at Portland,

this

6t.h day of Septernber f 2D12.

Aleshia K..Macom

C'SR No.

96

Beovich \-Valter & Friend

WING DECL; Exhibit VII; Page 6 of 6

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 100-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 12
EXHIBIT VIII
TO
DECLARATION OF JESSE WING IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
WING DECL; Exhibit VIII; Page 1 of 12

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 100-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 12

Dickerson, Jeffrey - Vol. 2

August 28, 2012

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF OREGON

3

PORTLAND DIVISION

4

5 PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project

6 of the Human Rights Defense

7 Center,

No. 3:12-CV-71-SI

8

Plaintiff,

9

v.

10 COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA

11 COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF

12 DICKERSON, individually and

13 in his capacity as Columbia

14 County Sheriff,

15

Defendants.

16

17

18

19

VOLUME II

20

21

DEPOSITION OF JEFFREY M. DICKERSON

22

Taken in behalf of Plaintiff

23

August 28, 2012

24

25

Page 286
I I

Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit VIII; Page 2 of 12

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 100-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 12

Dickerson, Jeffrey - Vol. 2

August 28, 2012

Page 299

Page 301

1

for sure.

2 Q. Well, what's your memory? They attended the

1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And do you still have an opponents?

3

meeting. Did they sit there quietly or did they

3 A. As far as I know, I do.

4

encourage you to resume the warm lunches?

4 Q. How many opponents do you have?

5 A. No. There was, there was no encouragement to do 5 A. One.

6

anything other than to facilitate the meeting

6

MR. KRAEMER: How is this not material that

7

and because they're, they're our connection to

7

could have been answered in the first

8

these prisoners. They're also the connection to

8

deposition? What's this got to do with the

9

the criminal defense attorneys. And so they had

9

mitigation of damages defense?

10

a vested interest in whatever decision was made. 10

MR. WING: I don't think it has a lot to do

11

So they were invited to the table.

11

12 Q. Were there allegations from the criminal defense 12

with the mitigation of damages defense. It is, however, related to the sheriff's position on a

13

attorneys that the cold lunch actually violated

13

permanent injunction. Are you instructing him

14

the law?

14

not to answer?

15 A. I don't recall.
16 Q. Is there any documentation about this whole

15

MR. KRAEMER: I'm instructing him not to

16

answer.

17

process?

17 Q. BY MR. WING: I am going to ask a few questions

18 A. I don't know.
19 Q. Have you looked?

18

and you can repeatedly refuse to answer then.

19

Sheriff, do you have any idea what will happen

20 A. Yes. As far as the whole process, I don't know.

20

to the jail's mail policy if you are not

21

I think there -- I'm not sure.

21

reelected?

22 Q. Page 5 was, of Exhibit 139 was also a document 22 A. I refuse to answer.

23

you identified as a topic you were familiar

23 Q. You do refuse to answer?

24

with.

24

MR. KRAEMER: No. Wait a minute. Do you

25 A. Yes.

25

have any idea what would happen to the jail's

Page 300

Page 302

1 Q. What is the nature of that topic?

1

mail policy if he is not reelected?

2 A. Just the request by Inmate Osewengue, 0 S W -- 2

3

o 5 E, I'm sorry, WEN G U E, I believe.

3

MR. WING: That's my question. MR. KRAEMER: How is that not speculation?

4

That's what it appears to be, a request from him 4

I'm going to let him, if he can answer what

5

for consideration as far as how he can review

5

somebody else might do with the mail policy if

6

for discovery purposes his documents.

6

he's not reelected, I'm not going to fight that

7 Q. Was that an unusual request?

7

battle.

8 A. Not completely unusual.

8

You can answer that.

9 Q. So other inmates had asked for access to a

10

computer --

9

THE WITNESS: I have no idea.

10 Q. BY MR. WING: Have you had any discussions with

11 A. Yes.

11

your opponent about that topic?

12 Q. -- to review documents?
13 A. Yes.

12 A. No.
13 Q. Have you, is your opponent still employed by

14 Q. And had that been routinely denied?

14

you?

15 A. It's a, just a case by case. And I don't recall

15

MR. KRAEMER: Okay. Don't answer that.

16

any others than Mr. Osewengue as far as how we 16

THE WITNESS: I am not going to answer.

17

responded.

17

MR. WING: Really?

18 Q. Do you ever recall granting that request before? 18

MR. KRAEMER: Yeah. This isn't about the

19 A. I don't recall.

19

election. You could have asked him this before.

20 Q. Are you aware of any other documentation about 20

MR. WING: Whether this person is still

21

Mr. Osewengue's request or the jail's response

21

employed by him three months after his

22

to it other than page 5 of Exhibit 139?

22

deposition?

23 A. No other documentation that I'm aware of.

23

MR. KRAEMER: The answer is, it states --

24 Q. All right. Sheriff, are you still up for

25

re-election?

24

Don't answer the question.

25 Q. BY MR. WING: He was employed by you; isn't that

5 (Pages 299 to 302)
Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit VIII; Page 3 of 12

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 100-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 4 of 12

Dickerson, Jeffrey - Vol. 2

August 28, 2012

Page 319

Page 321

1 Q. . Do you know how many, approximately,

1 A. I, I can only assume what it means.

2

Spanish-speaking inmates you typically have?

2 Q. What do you assume it means?

3 A. No.

3 A. It was modified on November 18th, 2010.

4 Q. You mentioned that there are not very many ICE 4 Q. Is this the only Spanish language version of any

5 inmates usually. I'm not sure if that's the

5 inmate manual, to your knowledge?

6 exact words, but --

6 A. This is, this, to my knowledge, this is all the,

7 A. That's correct.

7

that I've seen in recent months is this right

8 Q. We just looked at an e-mail that said there was 8

here.

9

going to be an ICE roundup or I don't know what 9 Q. SO if there's a Spanish language prisoner who

10 the word would be, series of arrests presumably 10 was brought in last night to your jail, is this

11 and they asked for 25 beds. Do you remember 11 what they receive?

12 seeing that e-mail?

12 A. No.

13 A. Yes.

13 Q. What do they receive?

14 Q. Was that an unusual request?

14 A. The English version. That's, well, that's

15 A. That seems to be unusual.

15 what's supposed to happen.

16 Q. What would you say would be typical?

16 Q. Have you given instructions on that?

17 A. Between one and maybe five.

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. How often?

18 Q. To who?

19 A. Sporadic.

19 A. To, to our lieutenants.

20 Q. Okay. Has the current inmate manual been

20 Q. Okay. When we did an inspection of the jail

21 translated into Spanish?

21

back in May of this year when the old inmate

22 A. No.

22

manuals in English were being handed out, was

23 Q. Why not?

23 this the version of the Spanish inmate manual

24 A. It is in the process of being arranged to be

24 that would have been handed out at that same

25 changed.

25 time?

Page 320

Page 322

1 Q. Do you know that for a fact?

1 A. Probably.

2 A. I know we were in the process, yes, of trying to 2 Q. Okay. If I could draw your attention to page

3

make arrangements to have it done.

3

CC001974 of that document. I will show you here

4

(Exhibit 147 marked for identification.)

4

part of the way down, it's highlighted. Do you

5 Q. BY MR. WING: Sheriff, do you recognize

5

see the heading?

6 Exhibit 147 as the Spanish version of your

6 A. Yes.

7

former inmate manual?

7 Q. To your understanding, is this the portion of

8 A. It appears to be in the same format as our

8 the manual that says the jail does not accept

9

English one, version.

9

periodicals?

10 Q. Do you speak Spanish?

10 A. Yes.

11 A. No.

11 Q. Okay. And that's under a heading, I'm just

12 Q. Do you read Spanish?

12 going to spell it, PUB L I C A C ION E S,

13 A. I've had some college but I can't say that I

13 new word, PER 10, I call it an aigu but I

14 either speak it or read it.

14 don't know what it's called in Spanish,

15 Q. Okay. You see your

on the front page; is 15 01 CAS. Did I spell that correctly?

16 that right?

16 A. Yes.

17 A. Yes.

17

(Exhibit 148 marked for identification.)

18 Q. And above your -- There's a signature line.

18 Q. BY MR. WING: Exhibit 148. Tell me what that

19 Does it appear to you that it says the word

19 is.

20

"November 2010" in Spanish?

20 A. It's a version of the Columbia County Jail

21 A. Yes.

21

inmate manual.

22 Q. And in the bottom right-hand corner where it

22 Q. Okay. Is that the most recent version?

23

says Modificado eI18/11/10, do you see that?

23 A. I don't think so.

24 A. Yes.

24 Q. Did that version go into effect?

25 Q. What does that mean to you?

25 A. I believe so.

10 (Pages 319 to 322)
Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit VIII; Page 4 of 12

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 100-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 5 of 12

Dickerson, Jeffrey - Vol. 2

August 28, 2012

Page 323

Page 325

1

(Exhibit 149 marked for identification.)

1

2 Q. BY MR. WING: I hand you Exhibit 149. I ask you 2

all defendants. And then I've clipped on the verification page that I was provided by your

3

what that is.

3

lawyer this morning, two pages. Would you

4 A. I believe this is our most recent version of the

4

please look at that. Would you verify that that

5

inmate manual.

5

is what I have handed you?

6 Q. Do you know what the difference is?
7 A. I believe, well, I know there's some changes

6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And is your signature the last page of that

8

that were made to this because of some errors

8

document?

9

that were in this.

10 Q. Do you know what those are?

9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Do you know whose signature is on the page just

11 A. I can't, not without going through it.

11

before that?

12 Q. The manual makes reference to the law library. 12 A. Appears to be that of Sarah Hanson, our county

13

Is that the same law library that we saw in our

13

attorney.

14

inspection?

14 Q. Okay. Are you aware of any determination as to

15 A. I believe so.

15

how much time it takes to perform the mail

16 Q. And that is a library cart; is that correct?

16

processing at the jail?

17 A. It's a cart that has books on it, law books.
18 Q. Okay. The newest inmate manual makes a

17 A. No.
18 Q. Do you know how long it takes?

19

reference to the phrase "nuisance contraband" on 19 A. No.

20

page 15. Do you know what that means?

20 Q. Do you know if it takes more or less time than

21 A. I'd have to review the policy.

21

it took since the judge entered his preliminary

22 Q. Okay. I show you on page 15, it says "mail is

22

injunction?

23

nuisance contraband"?

23 A. I don't know.

24 A. Yes. I'd have to review the policy.

24 Q. Have you attempted to find out?

25 Q. What does that refer to?

25 A. No.

Page 324

Page 326

1 A. Again, I'd have to review our -- This is not a

1 Q. Why not?

2

policy.

3 Q. I see.

2 A. It's, I don't see the purpose.
3 Q. Okay. If we turn to page 4 of Exhibit 150,

4 A. This is the inmate manual.

4

there's an interrogatory answer, excuse me,

5 Q. Okay. It says, as defined on page 3 of this

5

interrogatory number 17 which asks generally for

6

manual. Do you see that? Does that help you? 6

you to identify the instances in which the jail

7 A. Turning to page 3. It appears to be a typo.

7

changed its poliCies, procedures or practices in

8 Q. Is there a place that defines it, to your

8

response to communication complaining about the

9

knowledge?

9

policy procedure or practice. Do you see that?

10 A. I believe it's in our policy manual, but I'd

11

have to look.

10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Okay. Your answer makes reference first to on

12 Q. Is there a limit on the amount of mail that a

12

or about March 26, 2010, the jail made changes

13

prisoner can accumulate in their cell?

13

to its inmate mail poliCies in response to a

14 A. Again, I'd have to look through the policy.

14

phone call from the ACLU. Do you see that?

15 Q. SO you don't know the answer to that?

15 A. Yes.

16 A. I don't know the answer right off the top of my 16 Q. It says "see Exhibit 95, pages 7 and 8." Do you

17

head.

17

know what this refers to?

18 Q. Do you think that there is a limit, you just

19

don't know how much it is?

18 A. Not specifically, no.
19 Q. Was it ever brought to your attention that the

20 A. I don't know.

20

ACLU had called?

21

(Exhibit 150 marked for identification.)

22 Q. BY MR. WING: Sheriff, I'm handing you

21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Who brought that to your attention?

23

Exhibit 150, which is identified, the caption

24

says Defendants' responses to Plaintiff's third

23 A. Originally I believe it was Sergeant Cutright.
24 Q. And was that, to your understanding, he brought

25

interrogatories and request for production on

25

it to your attention at the time that they made

11 (Pages 323 to 326) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit VIII; Page 5 of 12

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 100-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 6 of 12

Dickerson, Jeffrey - Vol. 2

August 28, 2012

Page 343

Page 345

1

deposition until after the ruling.

1

about changing your policies; is that right?

2

So you can read the question back. He can

2

MR. KRAEMER: Object to the form.

3

answer it. It is not my understanding from

3

THE WITNESS: Yes.

4

Judge Simon's ruling that this is the reason the

4 Q. BY MR. WING: Okay. And what is it that you

5

deposition was reopened.

5

think Prison Legal News could have said to you

6

(Record read as follows:

6

that would have made you change your policies?

7

"Q Have you not thought about it

7 A. It's hard to answer that question. There's so

8

before?")

8

many things.

9

THE WITNESS: I think that's, what sticks

9 Q. Like what?

10

out in my mind the most is what I've said.

10 A. As simple as we're Prison Legal News and we want

11 Q. BY MR. WING: And I asked if there was any other 11

to appeal your decision not to permit this mail

12

reason?

12

to be delivered.

13

MR. KRAEMER: You've answered the question. 13 Q. Now, you didn't have a policy for such an

14

I'm instructing him not to answer.

14

appeal, did you?

15 Q. BY MR. WING: Are you going to refuse to answer 15 A. I'd have to review our policy back then. I'm

16

that question?

16

under the impression that we did, but I'd have

17 A. I don't know how to answer it.

17

to review that policy.

18 Q. Well, I've asked for every reason. You said

18 Q. It was not in your inmate manual; right?

19

that's the main reason. Are there any other

19 A. No.

20

reasons?

20 Q. Is that correct?

21

MR. KRAEMER: Instruct him not to answer.

21 A. I believe it was not.

22

THE WITNESS: I am not going to answer.

22 Q. And it was not on your website; right?

23 Q. BY MR. WING: Do you intend to continue

23 A. That's correct.

24

defending your postcard-only policy as

24 Q. And you never sent Prison Legal News any

25

constitutional to the court?

25

notification on the censored mail or in the form

Page 344

Page 346

1

MR. KRAEMER: That's legal, you're asking , 1

of some other communication that they could

2

for attorney-client privilege matter now. I'm

2

appeal; is that right?

3

telling him not to answer that further. It's

3 A. I don't know that part of it.

4

beyond what this was reopened, the purpose of

4 Q. Do you agree that you were, you have been

5

reopening this deposition.

5

charged with knowing the law, what's permitted

6

MR. WING: So you're instructing him not to

6

under the Constitution in terms of censorship

7

answer?

7

during your entire tenure as sheriff? Is that

8

MR. KRAEMER: I am.

8

right?

9 Q. BY MR. WING: Okay. Sheriff, when you get

9 A. Yes.

10

elected to become the sheriff, do you take an

10 Q. Okay. Is it your view of law enforcement that

11

oath of office?

11

law enforcement needs to be notified before they

12

MR. KRAEMER: Don't answer. It's not the

12

are obligated to comply with the Constitution?

13

reason it was reopened.

13 A. No.

14 Q. BY MR. WING: Are you going to refuse to answer? 14 Q. Can you think of any circumstance where you have

15 A. I've been asked not to answer.

15

trained your staff not to arrest people where

16 Q. SO you refuse --

16

you believe there's probable cause that a crime

17 A. I refuse.

17

has been committed without first warning the

18 Q. -- to answer?

18

person?

19

MR. KRAEMER: We are way beyond the

19

MR. KRAEMER: Object to form.

20

seven hours that you're entitled to. I think

20

THE WITNESS: Can you repeat that question,

21

you have about 20 minutes left from when we

21

please.

22

started.

22

(Record read as follows:

23 Q. BY MR. WING: As I understand it, you are

23

"Q Can you think of any circumstance

24

contending that Prison Legal News should have

24

where you have trained your staff not to

25

contacted you before they sued to talk to you

25

arrest people where you believe there's

16 (Pages 343 to 346) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit VIII; Page 6 of 12

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 100-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 7 of 12

Dickerson, Jeffrey - Vol. 2

August 28, 2012

Page 347

Page 349

1

probable cause that a crime has been

1

are dealing or selling drugs with this drug

2

committed without first warning the

2

dealer, is that a reason why you might not

3

person?")

3

arrest them; you observe them?

4

THE WITNESS: Absolutely.

4 A. Say that again.

5 Q. BY MR. WING: Where are your examples of that? 5 Q. Drug dealers often buy drugs from somebody and

6 A. There are actually very few examples where we

6

sell them to somebody else; right?

7

have to arrest anybody. In Oregon the only time 7 A. Yes.

8

you pretty much are required to make an arrest

8 Q. SO if you observe this particular drug dealer

9

on probable cause is when domestic violence is

9

sell more and more drugs, you're going to maybe

10

involved. There are many times where a deputy 10

find out who's selling them, who's supplying

11

may not make an arrest and may give a warning 11

them to the drug dealer and who's buying them

12

prior to making that arrest, many, many times.

12

from the drug dealer; right?

13 Q. BY MR. WING: And how are they supposed to

13

MR. KRAEMER: Object to form.

14

decide?

15 A. Officer discretion.

14

THE WITNESS: It's hard to say.

15 Q. BY MR. WING: Well, am I making this up or is

16 Q. SO can you identify a circumstance where your

16

this standard law enforcement practice?

17

staff has not arrested a drug dealer because the 17

MR. KRAEMER: Object to form.

18

drug dealer said, thanks for letting me know. I

18

THE WITNESS: It's hard to get into that.

19

didn't know that I wasn't allowed to sell drugs?

19 Q. BY MR. WING: Why is it hard to get into that?

20

MR. KRAEMER: Object to form.

20

Is that true or not true?

21

THE WITNESS: I can't think of an example of 21

MR. KRAEMER: Object to form.

22

that.

22 Q. BY MR. WING: That that is a form, investigation

23 Q. BY MR. WING: Would you approve of such a

23

technique of law enforcement?

24

program?

25 A. It would depend.

24 A. It could be. Could be.
25 Q. Is it an investigation technique of your

Page 348

Page 350

1 Q. SO you can think of situations where you'd

1

department?

2

recommend that a drug dealer be just given a

2

MR. KRAEMER: Object to form.

3

warning for selling drugs?

3

THE WITNESS: I can't comment on that.

4 A. There are all kinds of reasons why you would not 4 Q. BY MR. WING: Why can't you comment on that?

5

arrest a drug dealer right off the bat.

6 Q. Like what?

5 A. I don't have specific knowledge about it.
6 Q. Does your office do drug buys?

7 A. You're using them to get after bigger fish, such 7

MR. KRAEMER: Okay. How does this have

8

as your client.

8

anything to do with mitigation of damages?

9 Q. Such as my client?

9

MR. WING: We can get the judge on the phone

10 A. Well, suppose he has, we are after a murderer 10

if you want to do that.

11

and we wanted to get that person and the drug 11

MR. KRAEMER: Get him on the phone. Call

12

dealer had that information, we may not arrest 12

him.

13

the drug dealer if we knew that a murderer was 13

MR. WING: Let's do this, let me get done

14

within our, our purview. So that's an example. 14

all the questions I can get done and then we can

15 Q. Do you also not address, arrest the drug dealer 15

do that.

16

when you know the drug dealer has violated the 16

MR. KRAEMER: I still need that exhibit.

17

law by selling drugs because you want to see the 17

MR. WING: I'm sorry?

18

drug dealer sell drugs again and build your

18

MR. KRAEMER: On the federal funding for the

19

case?

19

jail that you were going to ask him about, I

20 A. That's a hypothetical. The motive I can't

20

haven't seen that exhibit yet.

21

address.

21

MR. WING: It was the ICE.

22 Q. Is that an investigation technique that I just

22

MR. KRAEMER: It's the ICE exhibit? That's

23

described?

23

the one that you are talking about?

24 A. No.

24

MR. WING: I was asking him --

25 Q. And if you want to catch the other people who 25

MR. KRAEMER: I just needed, that's the one

17 (Pages 347 to 350)
Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit VIII; Page 7 of 12

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 100-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 8 of 12

Dickerson, Jeffrey - Vol. 2

August 28, 2012

Page 355

Page 357

1

THE WITNESS: I think the end goal should be 1

you didn't; right?

2

compliance with the Constitution, that people's

2 A. We didn't right away, no.

3

rights are upheld and that we can go, go home at 3 Q. Well, you didn't until you were ordered to by

4

night knowing that we've done everything in our 4

The Court; right?

5

power to protect people's rights.

6 Q. BY MR. WING: Do you think that the sheriffs

5 A. Correct.
6 Q. SO what reason would anybody have to believe

7

department harmed anyone by having

7

that if PLN had written you a letter or called

8

unconstitutional practices for the past

8

you on the phone rather than sued you, that you

9

three years?

9

would have given up the policy?

10

MR. KRAEMER: Object to form.

10

MR. KRAEMER: Object to form, argumentative

11

THE WITNESS: I don't know.

11

and vague.

12 Q. BY MR. WING: If the sheriffs department did

12

THE WITNESS: I don't know. I don't know

13

harm somebody, should the sheriffs department 13

how to answer that question. I really don't.

14

be accountable for compensating whoever it

14 Q. BY MR. WING: Well, if you're asked in front of

15

harmed?

15

the jury to answer that question by your own

16 A. I don't know. I don't know the nature of the

16

lawyer, to explain that if PLN had simply

17

harm. I can't comment on that.

17

contacted you, you would have given up the

18 Q. Well, if there is harm, I'm asking whether the

18

policy?

19

sheriffs department should be responsible for

19

MR. KRAEMER: Which policy?

20

compensating that?

20

MR. WING: The postcard-only policy.

21

MR. KRAEMER: What's this got to do with the 21 Q. BY MR. WING: Would you say yes, we would have

22

mitigation of damages?

22

or no, we wouldn't have?

23

MR. WING: This is exactly what mitigation

23 A. I don't know.

24

of damages is about.

24 Q. You haven't thought about it?

25

MR. KRAEMER: I don't understand how that's 25 A. I can't say I've given a lot of thought to how

Page 356

Page 358

1

exactly what this is about. That makes no sense 1

to answer that question in the midst of this

2

to me. I'm sorry. I'm just a little slow here.

2

lawsuit.

3

I don't understand what that has to do with

3 Q. SO you have no opinion at this point, is that

4

mitigation.

4

what you're saying?

5

MR. WING: Well, I'm asking whether the

6

sheriff thinks he should be responsible for

5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Should there be any consequence to you

7

paying the damages.

7

personally for being the sheriff while the

8

MR. KRAEMER: You already have an offer of 8

Constitution was repeatedly violated over the

9

judgment. What's that have to do with

9

past three years?

10

mitigation of damages? You're not explaining it 10

MR. KRAEMER: What's that have to do with

11

to me, so I'm telling him not to answer. Okay. 11

mitigation of damages? Because if that's not

12

Because I don't understand -- I understand what 12

part of the mitigation of damage defense, I'm

13

it has to do with damages. We have an offer of 13

telling him not to answer. That clearly could

14

judgment. You could have asked those questions 14

have been answered the first time or asked the

15

and I think you did to some extent the first

15

first time.

16

time. This is reopened for mitigation. I'm

16

MR. WING: So you're instructing him not to

17

telling him not to answer because I'm not

17

answer?

18

hearing how this is directed toward mitigation.

18

MR. KRAEMER: Yes, I am, unless you tell me

19 Q. BY MR. WING: Sheriff, is it your opinion that

19

how it has to do with the mitigation.

20

if Prison Legal News had asked you to get rid of 20

THE WITNESS: I am going to follow his

21

your postcard-only policy, you would have done 21

advice and not answer.

22

so?

22 Q. BY MR. WING: Could you read back the question,

23 A. I don't know.

23

please.

24 Q. Well, PLN notified you when it filed the lawsuit 24

25

that it wanted you to get rid of the policy and

25

(Record read as follows:
"Q Should there be any consequence to

19 (Pages 355 to 358) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit VIII; Page 8 of 12

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 100-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 9 of 12

Dickerson, Jeffrey - Vol. 2

August 28, 2012

Page 379

1

totally beyond how this has to do with the

1

2

failure to mitigate damages.

2

3

MR. WING: Well, I've already stated my

3

4

view. And if the sheriff --

4

5

MR. KRAEMER: Okay. You can answer whether 5

6

he got it wrong and I'll see where I go from

6

7

there.

7

8

THE WITNESS: I don't, I'm not even

8

9

concerned with that, whether -- I don't judge

9

10

whether The Court got it wrong or not. What I

10

11

consider is that the judge made a ruling and

11

12

we're going to go with what the judge said. And 12

13

I'm not fighting against it. I'm not opposed to

13

14

it. We're moving on.

14

15 Q. BY MR. WING: So far as I understand it, you 'are 15

16

not agreeing to a permanent injunction; right?

16

17

MR. KRAEMER: Don't answer that question.

17

18 Q. BY MR. WING: So are you refusing to answer?

18

19 A. Yes.

19

20

MR. KRAEMER: Yes. And we are way beyond 20

21

the seven hours also.

21

22 Q. BY MR. WING: Do you have strong views about 22

23

that?

23

24

MR. KRAEMER: Don't answer that question.

24

25 Q. BY MR. WING: Are you refusing to answer?

25

Page 381
MR. KRAEMER: About the scope of the lawsuit?
MR. WING: I'm sorry. The scope of the deposition.
MR. KRAEMER: All right. MR. WING: Okay. If I understand you, your position is that you would allow questions at the sheriff's deposition regarding the defendants' mitigation of damages defense and about documents that should have been produced previously but were not produced previously and no other topiCS. MR. KRAEMER: Well, actually I think that that summary -- No. I disagree. End of that. MR. WING: Can you articulate it? MR. KRAEMER: Yeah. First off, clearly over the last two-plus hours you have asked questions that fall outside the parameters of those issues and I've let you do it. We have a time limit. You are way past the time limit. And I want to emphasize when I say that so the record is clear, I don't think your time limit applies to those documents that we didn't produce and should have because I'm willing to agree you would say, well, I would have asked the prior

Page 380

1 A. Yes.

1

2 Q. Sheriff, we've gone over a series of inmate

2

3

request forms which dealt with requests from

3

4

prisoners like, to use a razor, clippers instead

4

5

of a razor. Do you remember those?

5

6 A. I do know that.

6

7 Q. Request to use a computer?

7

8 A. Yep.

8

9 Q. Then we went over a series of e-mails which

9

10

identified some of the same topics but also

10

11

those e-mails included Sergeant Rigdon going to 11

12

bat for a prisoner to get $4.74 back. Do you

12

13

remember those e-mails?

13

14 A. Yes.

14

15 Q. Are you aware of any other instances in which 15

16

the jail, the sheriff's department changed its

16

17

policies or procedures as a result of a

17

18

complaint or request?

18

19 A. As I sit here now I can't think of anything that 19

20

would apply to that.

20

21

MR. WING: Okay. Steve, I want to avoid

21

22

belaboring this topiC. I want to summarize our, 22

23

what I understand your position to be about the 23

24

scope of this lawsuit so that we don't have a

24

25

disagreement about --

25

Page 382
questions differently so I could maximize the time. So I don't agree that they apply to that and I think Judge Simon's ruling was clear that if you needed beyond the time you're allowed to ask questions under the failure to mitigate, you're entitled to a reasonable amount of time beyond the time limit. I agree with that. He didn't make that ruling, but I have no problem with that.
But even setting those aside, I think you were beyond the time you're allowed on other issues that you have talked about. I've allowed you to go into other issues. And to me it's just a matter of you want to stretch the leash further or farther out than I'm letting it beyond what I understand to be the scope of this deposition.
MR. WING: I'm trying to encapsulate this so that if we do have to address this with The Court, it's as simple as possible. I understand from your perspective you've allowed me to go further, but you've also then said, that's it. No more. And so I'm trying to articulate. I think you've said you believe the purpose of this deposition should be limited to asking

25 (Pages 379 to 382)
Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit VIII; Page 9 of 12

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 100-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 10 of 12

Dickerson, Jeffrey - Vol. 2

August 28, 2012

Page 383

Page 385

1 about the affirmative defense of failure to

1

THE WITNESS: Yes.

2

mitigate damages and, second, that you agree we 2 Q. BY MR. WING: Any communications you've had with

3

could ask questions about documents that should

3

the Sheriffs' Association members, other

4

have been produced earlier and nothing else.

4 sheriffs about implementation of your current

5 That's what you believe the purpose of this

5 policy, you refuse to answer questions about

6

deposition was limited to. You believe that you

6 that?

7

have allowed some other questions but you clamp 7

MR. KRAEMER: Correct.

8

down when you thought enough's enough; is that 8

THE WITNESS: Yes.

9

right?

9 Q. BY MR. WING: Does the sheriff's department

10

MR. KRAEMER: I'm not answering any more. I 10 apply criminal forfeiture laws?

11 just told you what I thought.

11

MR. KRAEMER: And how is that -- I'm lost

12

MR. WING: Okay. So if I have additional

12 with what that would have to do with a failure

13

questions about the upcoming election, you're

13 to mitigate.

14 refusing to answer them; right?

14

MR. WING: Yes.

15

THE WITNESS: Yes.

15

MR. KRAEMER: How does it have to do with

16

MR. KRAEMER: Correct.

16 the failure to mitigate?

17 Q. BY MR. WING: And by election, I mean your

17

MR. WING: We'll get there.

18

re-election. Okay. Questions about the current

18

MR. KRAEMER: How does it have to do with

19

mail policies which were created after I took

19 it? He can answer if I know how it has to do

20

your deposition. You refuse to answer questions

20

with it.

21

about that?

21

MR. WING: The point is if I have to have my

22

MR. KRAEMER: Correct.

22 questions vetted by you, then I don't get to ask

23

THE WITNESS: Yes.

23 my questions the way I want to ask them.

24 Q. BY MR. WING: Questions about the current inmate 24

MR. KRAEMER: Candidly, your comment, your

25

manual, which was in the most recent versions

25 representation of this e-mail exhibit and

Page 384

Page 386

1 which were created after your deposition and

1 federal funding, I have serious, serious

2

after The Court's order, you refuse to answer

2 concerns about that representation. And given

3

questions about that?

3 that especially today, your comment that somehow

4

MR. KRAEMER: Correct.

4

it's related but you're not going to tell me

5

THE WITNESS: Yes.

5 how; I think I'm entitled to know how it's

6 Q. BY MR. WING: Any specific questions about your 6

related before we go down this road, how it's

7

compliance with The Court's order, which was

7 related to a failure to mitigate defense.

8

issued after your deposition, you refuse to

8

MR. WING: It has to do with the sheriff's

9

answer questions about that?

9 department recovering monies from people that it

10

MR. KRAEMER: Correct.

10 arrests.

11

THE WITNESS: Yes.

11

MR. KRAEMER: Okay. You've answered enough.

12 Q. BY MR. WING: Questions, further questions about 12

You can answer.

13 your statement to the reporter who wrote the

13

THE WITNESS: That's not our purview.

14 article quoting you about the judge's order, you

14 Q. BY MR. WING: Do you recover monies from people

15

refuse to answer questions about that?

15 who you arrest?

16

MR. KRAEMER: Correct.

16 A. I don't think we do.

17

THE WITNESS: Yes.

17 Q. SO if somebody's running a meth lab and you

18 Q. BY MR. WING: Questions about your oath of

18 arrest them, you do not recover, if the house

19 office, you refuse to answer; right?

19 gets foreclosed on and you do not recover any of

20 A. Yes.

20 the money involved in the whole operation that

21 Q. Questions about your current understanding of

21

you've had to spend resources on?

22

the application of the due process provisions of

22 A. There are fees that people pay on a, for the

23

your current policies, you refuse to answer

23 service of civil papers. That's the, we collect

24

questions about that?

24 fees that don't even pay our costs. But there

25

MR. KRAEMER: Correct.

25

is a state fee that we apply.

26 (Pages 383 to 386) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit VIII; Page 10 of 12

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 100-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 11 of 12

Dickerson, Jeffrey - Vol. 2

August 28, 2012

Page 387

1 Q.. Okay. But do you know what I mean by

1

2

"forfeiture"?

2

3 A. I do. And I know that we don't, we don't

3

4

participate in the forfeiture.

4

5 Q. Okay. Apart from receiving money for civil

5

6

service of summons, is there any other way in

6

7

which the sheriff's department recovers money

7

8

from criminals or the public?

8

9 A. We charge fees.

9

10 Q. For services?

10

11 A. For services.

11

12 Q. And if you have to go rescue somebody, they 12

13

don't get charged for that?

13

14 A. No.

14

15 Q. I believe I also asked questions about what

15

16 responsibility you had personally for any

16

17 violations of the Constitution and that you

17

18

refused to answer those questions. I am

18

19 confirming that you refuse to answer those?

19

20 A. Yes.

20

21 Q. Is it your opinion that -- Strike that.

21

22

Is it your position that in response to

22

23

PLN's lawsuit, you moved as quickly as you could 23

24

to correct the deficiencies in your policy?

24

25

MR. KRAEMER: Object to form.

25

Page 389
And subject to that disagreement I'm going to conclude now. I don't think it's fruitful to go and have a battle with The Court right now.
MR. KRAEMER: All right. (Recess at 1:18.)
* * *

Page 388

1

THE WITNESS: I don't know if we moved as 1

2

quickly as we could.

2

3 Q. BY MR. WING: Is it your position that you moved 3

4

as quickly as you could to remedy the

4

5

deficiencies in your inmate manual regarding

5

6

mail?

6

7 A. I don't know.

7

8 Q. Is it your position that you've taken all

8

9

appropriate steps to discipline your employees

9

10 for any violations of the Constitution regarding

10

11

mail policies?

11

12

MR. KRAEMER: Object to form.

12

13

THE WITNESS: I don't know if we've done

13

14 everything we could.

14

15 Q. BY MR. WING: Do you have any current plans to 15

16

update or modify your inmate mail policy?

16

17 A. The plan is to update our Spanish language

17

18 policy.

18

19 Q. Do you mean inmate manual?

19

20 A. Yeah. I'm sorry. Inmate manual. And the

20

21

entire manual and policy is always up for review 21

22

and change, although we have no plans at this

22

23

point.

23

24

MR. WING: Steve, I'm not going repeat our 24

25

disagreement over the scope of the deposition.

25

CERTIFICATE

Page 390

I, Aleshia K. Macom, CSR No. 94-0296, do hereby certify that JEFFREY M. DICKERSON personally appeared before me at the time and place mentioned in the caption herein; that the witness was by me first duly sworn on oath, and examined upon oral interrogatories propounded by counsel; that said examination, together with the testimony of said witness, was taken down by me in stenotype and thereafter reduced to typewriting; and that the foregoing transcript, Pages 286 to 389, both inclusive, constitutes a full, true and accurate record of said examination of and testimony given by said witness, and of all other proceedings had during the taking of said deposition, and of the whole thereof, to the best of my ability.
Witness my hand at Portland, Oregon, this 6th day of September, 2012.

Aleshia K. Macom CSR No. 94-0296

27 (Pages 387 to 390) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit VIII; Page 11 of 12

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 100-2 Filed 09/13/12 Page 12 of 12

August 28,2012

Pa.gE:: 390

'1

C E R T I FIe ATE

2

If AleshiaK. MacOrh, CSR Nc>. 94-"-0296, do

hereby certifytbat JEFFREYlYl. DICI<Z'.ERSON

per$onal1y appeared before me at the time and

place rnentioned in the caption herein; that the

7

v4itr1ess was by rnefirst: duly sworn on oath, and

examined upon oral int.errogatories propounded by

9

counsel; that said examination, together v-Jith

10

tIle tes tirflony of sa.idr;vitness, liVas taken down by

11

me in stenotype. and thereafter reduGedto

12

typew:r.itingi and theft the foreg.oinqr transcript,

13

Pages 286 to 389, both inclusive, constitutes a

14

full, true and accurate record of said

examination of andtestirnony given by said

16

witness, and of allotherproceedin.gs had during

17

the taking ofsa.id depositiop, and of the whole

18

thereof ,to the best of rnya.bility .

19

Witness Iny hand at Po]:tland, Oregon, tb.is

.20

6th day of September, 2012.

21

22

23

Aleshia 1<. Macom

24

CSR No. 94-0296

BeovichWalter & Friend

WING DECL; Exhibit VIII; Page 12 of 12

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 100-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 5
EXHIBIT IX
TO DECLARATION OF JESSE WING IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY mDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
WING DECL; Exhibit IX; Page 1 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 100-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 5

Cutright, Bryan

August 28, 2012

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF OREGON

3

PORTLAND DIVISION

4

5 PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project

6 of the Human Rights Defense

7 Center,

No. 3:12-CV-71-SI

8

Plaintiff,

9

v.

10 COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA

11 COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF

12 DICKERSON, individually and

13 in his capacity as Columbia

14 County Sheriff,

15

Defendants.

16

17

18

19

20

DEPOSITION EXCERPT OF BRYAN CUTRIGHT

21

Taken in behalf of Plaintiff

22

August 28, 2012

23

24

25

Page 1

Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit IX; Page 2 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 100-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 5

Cutright, Bryan

August 28, 2012

Page 2

Page 4

1

BE IT REMEMBERED THAT, the deposition of

1

on the website?

2 BRYAN CUTRIGHT was reported by Aleshia K. Macom, 2 A. I think we requested that he enter the inmate

3 CSR No. 94-0296, on Tuesday, August 28, 2012,

3

mail, mail and visiting information on the

4 commencing at the hour of 1:37 p.m., the

4

website for us.

5 proceedings being reported at Hart Wagner,

5 Q. And when you say "the inmate mail," which

6 1000 SW Broadway, Suite 2000, Portland, Oregon.

6

version are you talking about?

7

7 A. It was when, I believe it was when the first

8

APPEARANCES

8

postcard change came out, when it changed to

9 MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS

9

postcards.

10

By Jesse A. Wing

10 Q. Do you believe that you made that request to

11

705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500

11

him?

12

Seattle, Washington 98104

12 A. I could have. I don't recall who made the

13

Appearing for Plaintiff

13

request. I don't know if it was made -- He was

14

14 the one doing it, I believe, at the time.

15 HART WAGNER LLP

15 Q. And are you just remembering this or did

16 By Steven Kraemer

16 somebody remind you of this?

17

1000 SW Broadway, Suite 2000

17 A. No. I know Jeff. I've known Jeff Mansheim for

18

Portland, Oregon 97204

18 years and I know he was doing part of that. So

19

Appearing for Defendants

19 I'm not sure if I made the request or if

20

20

Undersheriff Moyer made the request or maybe

21 Also Present: Jeff Dickerson

21

even the sheriff. I have no idea.

22

* * *

23

22 Q. Do you remember being asked this same

23

question --

24

24 A. Yes.

25

25 Q. -- when you were deposed before?

Page 3

Page 5

1

BRYAN CUTRIGHT,

1 A. Yes.

2 was thereupon produced as a witness and, after

2 Q. Do you remember what your answer was?

3

having been duly sworn on oath, was examined and 3 A. I don't.

4

testified as follows:

4 Q. Your answer was "I don't know."

5

5 A. Okay.

6

EXAMINATION

6 Q. You did know though, didn't you?

7

BY MR. WING:

7

MR. KRAEMER: Object to form. Arguing with

8 Q. Okay. Sergeant Cutright, who is Jeff Mansheim? 8 the witness now.

9 A. Jeff Mansheim is a, Mansheim, he is a reserve

9

THE WITNESS: It's pretty much the same as I

10 deputy, I believe still, for the sheriff's

10 don't know if I did it or the sheriff or the

11 office. I'm not 100 percent sure. But he does,

11 undersheriff. So ...

12 he's, his business in the private sector is

12 Q. BY MR. WING: Do you remember being asked, "And

13 something to do with computers.

13 who is responsible for maintaining the content

14 Q. Okay. And does he do anything -- Strike that.

14 on the website?" and you answering "I have no

15

While you were employed with the sheriff's

15 idea"? Is that what you remember?

16 department, did he do anything for the sheriff's

16 A. That's, that's what it says, then yes.

17 department regarding computers?

17 Q. Okay. At the time though you did, at the

18 A. I believe he was the one who created the, or

18 time --

19 helped, I wouldn't say create, helped to create

19

MR. KRAEMER: I'm sorry. What's this have

20 the web page for that sheriff's office and also

20 to do with the mitigation of damage defense or

21 did a few updates and stuff for the website.

21 any of the new e-mails that we didn't produce

22 I'm not sure how much, how much he did for it,

22 like we should have before?

23

but I know he was, he's pretty sharp with

23

MR. WING: It is entirely Exhibit 95, which

24 computers.

24 we didn't have at his deposition, Mr. Mansheim's

25 Q. Did you ever make requests to him to post things 25 deposition. So...

2 (Pages 2 to 5) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit IX; Page 3 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 100-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 4 of 5

Cutright, Bryan

August 28, 2012

Page 6

Page 8

1

MR. KRAEMER: What's Exhibit 95? That

1

Mr. Mansheim to update the website?

2

wasn't -- I'm sorry. I'm lost. Which

2 A. It would have been, it was discussed in a

3

Exhibit 95 that we didn't produce?

3

supervisor's meeting, anything we made changes

4

MR. WING: It was all of the documents that 4

to.

5

we got from Deputy Mansheim.

5 Q. And the supervisor's meeting is attended by the

6

MR. KRAEMER: Could I see -- I'm not

6

sheriff, the undersheriff --

7

following you. So you're saying that Exhibit 95

7 A. Most of the time the sheriff, the undersheriff

8

wasn't produced -- I thought we were --

8

and all the supervisors of the jail.

9

MR. WING: That's right.

9 Q. And the change in postcard policy was a

10

MR. KRAEMER: -- before?

10 substantial change, was it not?

11

MR. WING: That's correct.

11

MR. KRAEMER: Object to form.

12

MR. KRAEMER: Let me see 95, please, if

12

THE WITNESS: Yes.

13

that's the case.

13 Q. BY MR. WING: It was announced to the press;

14 Q. BY MR. WING: Sergeant--
is A. It's Bryan.

14

right?

15 A. I don't recall.

16 Q. Bryan, you've known for the past two to

16

MR. WING: All right. I don't have much

17

three years that Mr. Mansheim was the one who 17

more. Why don't we take a short break --

18

would post things on the website for the

18

MR. KRAEMER: That's fine.

19

sheriff; isn't that right?

19

MR. WING: -- and I will look at my notes.

20 A. I've known he has done that, correct. I don't 20

MR. KRAEMER: That's fine.

21

know if he's the only one that does that or if

21

(Recess at 2:19.)

22

he even still does that. I have no idea.

22

* * *

23 Q. Do you know of anybody else who does?

23

24 A. I don't. I don't deal with the website. I know 24

25

the sheriff has a lot of stuff on the website.

25

Page 7

1

I would assume that he probably keeps his own

1

2

information up on the website.

2

3 Q. Okay. Showing you what's marked as Exhibit 95, 3

4

do you see the first page?

4

5 A. I do.

5

6 Q. And it says, "Jeff, can you add this information 6

7

to the jail side of the 5.0. website?" Did I

7

8

read that correctly?

8

9 A. That is correct.

9

10 Q. And by "Jeff," do you interpret that to mean

10

11

Jeff Mansheim?

11

12 A. Yes. That's who it was sent to.

12

13 Q. And then you wrote, ''This is a change to the

13

14

mail policy"; is that correct?

14

15 A. Okay. That is correct.

15

16 Q. The next page includes changes to the mail

16

17

policy effective March 1st, 2010; is that right?

17

18 A. Yes, it does.

18

19 Q. And that's when the postcard-only policy became 19

20

effective; is that right?

20

21 A. I would assume. Yes.

21

22 Q. Okay. So you believe you were the one who

22

23

asked?

23

24 A. It says I did. Yes.

24

25 Q. Did you check with anybody before you asked 25

CERTIFICATE

Page 9

I, Aleshia K. Macom, CSR No. 94-0296, do hereby certify that BRYAN CUTRIGHT personally appeared before me at the time and place mentioned in the caption herein; that the witness was by me first duly sworn on oath, and examined upon oral interrogatories propounded by counsel; that said examination, together with the testimony of said witness, was taken down by me in stenotype and thereafter reduced to typewriting; and that the foregoing excerpted transcript, Pages 1 to 8, both inclusive, constitutes a full, true and accurate record of said examination of and testimony given by said witness, and of all other proceedings had during the taking of said deposition, and of the whole thereof, to the best of my ability.
Witness my hand at Portland, Oregon, this 6th day of September, 2012.

Aleshia K. Macom CSR No. 94-0296

3 (Pages 6 to 9) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit IX; Page 4 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 100-3 Filed 09/13/12 Page 5 of 5

Bryall

August 28 1 2012

[)dqe 9

1.

CR R T I FI CAT E

2

3

T-: , A.·-leS11-,L." la .K," 1t-\,1la1C··O··I·D.'. , C.·.S... ··J·. R·11\1'10.. 0J.4 -e.·O:f'i·.·9·t.0:. f 0.I 0

Lj

hereby certify that BRYAN COTRIGHT personally

5

appeared before me at the tirne and place

rnentioned in the caption herein; that the

7

witness was by me first duly sworn on oath, and

examined upon oral interrogatories propounded by

9

counsel; that said examination, together with

10

thetestirnony of said witness', was taken dOV.Jh by

11

me in stenotype and thereafter reduced to

12

typewri tirlg;and that the foregoing excerpted

13

'transcript, Pages 1 to 8, both inclusiVe,

14

cODstitutes aiull, trllc:a.nd accurate record of

15

sai,d examination of and testimony given by said

16

w.itness,anclof all

had duri.ng

17

the taking of said deposition, and of the 'vJhole

18

thereof , t o the bes,t of my ability.

19

1rV'itness my hand at Portland, Oregon, t.his

20

September, .2012.

21

22

23

24

CSR No. 94...,0296

.2..' r

Beovich

WING DECL; Exhibit IX; Page 5 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 100-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT X
TO DECLARATION OF JESSE WING IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY mDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
WING DECL; Exhibit X; Page 1 of 4

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 100-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 4

Rigdon, Lee

August 28, 2012

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF OREGON

3

PORTLAND DIVISION

4

5 PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project

6 of the Human Rights Defense

7 Center,

No. 3:12-CV-71-SI

8

Plaintiff,

9

v.

10 COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA

11 COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF

12 DICKERSON, individually and

13 in his capacity as Columbia

14 County Sheriff,

15

Defendants.

16

17

18

19

20

DEPOSITION EXCERPT OF LEE RIGDON

21

Taken in behalf of Plaintiff

22

August 28, 2012

23

24

25

Page 1
!
I
i,
I:
I !

Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit X; Page 2 of 4

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 100-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 4

Rigdon, Lee

August 28, 2012

Page 2

Page 4

1

BE IT REMEMBERED THAT, the deposition of

1

You can answer.

2 LEE RIGDON was reported by Aleshia K. Macom, CSR 2

THE WITNESS: I don't know.

3 No. 94-0296, on Tuesday, August 28, 2012,

3 Q. BY MR. WING: So might it take you more time to

4 commencing at the hour of 2:57 p.m., the

4

process the same number of postcards that you

5 proceedings being reported at Hart Wagner,

5

could fit the content on a three-page letter?

6 1000 SW Broadway, Suite 2000, Portland, Oregon. 6 A. It hasn't been my experience, no.

7

7 Q. Have you ever received 12, 14, 16 postcards?

8

APPEARANCES

8 A. Have I?

9 MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS

9 Q. Yes. Have you ever processed numerous

10 By Jesse A. Wing

10 postcards?

11

705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500

11 A. Yes, sir.

12

Seattle, Washington 98104

12 Q. Okay. And how long would it take you to process

13

Appearing for Plaintiff

13

16 postcards?

14

14 A. Not very long. I'm just scanning, you know,

15 HART WAGNER LLP

15 checking to make sure there's nothing on it and

16 By Gregory Roberson

16 scanning to make sure there's no information in

17

1000 SW Broadway, Suite 2000

17 there that's detrimental or anything that

18

Portland, Oregon 97204

18 shouldn't be and that's about it. But I don't

19

Appearing for Defendants

19

have to open up an envelope to do that.

20

20 Q. How long does it take you to open an envelope?

21 Also Present: Jeff Dickerson

21 A. Few moments, seconds.

22

* * *

23

22 Q. And once you get it open, what's involved?
23 A. Pulling the letter out.

24

24 Q. How much time does that take?

25

25 A. Second or two.

Page 3

Page 5

1

LEE RIGDON,

1 Q. Okay. So now we've got a few moments and a

2 was thereupon produced as a witness and, after

2 second or two. What's involved once you've got

3

having been duly sworn on oath, was examined and 3

the letter out?

4

testified as follows:

4 A. Scanning.

5

5 Q. And does that --

6

EXAMINAnON

6 A. Make sure there's nothing in the envelope.

7

BY MR. WING:

7 Q. Okay. And how much time does that take?

8 Q. And do you know for a fact that it has taken

8 A. Sir, I honestly don't know. I have never

9

more time to process the mail since The Court's

9 measured the time frame, but it takes a few

10 order?

10 seconds.

11 A. My personal experience -- That's an object or --

11 Q. Okay. And then once you're scanning the letter,

12

MR. ROBERSON: No. Go ahead and answer. 12 it doesn't take any more time to scan a letter

13

THE WITNESS: It takes me a little longer.

13 than it does an envelope -- I mean a postcard,

14 I mean, we've never done a study on it per se,

14 does it?

15 but I know it takes me longer.

15 A. I'd say no. Probably the same.

16 Q. BY MR. WING: And you're comparing a single

16 Q. Okay. So the increased amount of time that you

17 postcard with a single letter?

17 associate with letters is the taking of the

18 A. Uh-huh.

18 letter out of the envelope?

19 Q. Is that a yes?

19 A. Opening it and then getting it out, yes.

20 A. Yes, sir. I'm sorry. Yes.

20 Q. Okay. And to use your words, that's a few

21 Q. And if somebody wrote you a three-page letter to 21

seconds or a few moments; is that right?

22 prisoners, how many postcards would it take to

22 A. Yes.

23 equal the same amount of content as the

23 Q. Okay. Do you think when you were taking stamps

24 three-page letter?

24 off of postcards -- You took stamps off

25

MR. ROBERSON: Object to form.

25 postcards; right?

2 (Pages 2 to 5) Beovich Walter & Friend
WING DECL; Exhibit X; Page 3 of 4

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 100-4 Filed 09/13/12 Page 4 of 4

Jr - - - - -.-.--.-.---..- -...
1

Rigel o.n, Lee

A.ugust 28.) 2012
.."'--."'.-----'------ ._--

C ER T I F I CAT E

'1
·..1

I, Ale.shia K. MaCOffi, CSH No .. 94-0296, do

4

hereby certify that LEE RIGDON personally

oc-)

appeared before me at the time aJ?ld place

6

rnentioned in the capt ion herein i that the

7

witness was by me first duly sworn on oath, and

Q U

examined upon oral interrogatories propounded by

9

coUnsel; that said examinat.ion, together with

10

t.he ·test.imofry of said witness, was taken down by

11

TIle in stenotype and thereafter reduced to

12

typewriting-land that the foregoing transcript

13

excerpt, Pages 1 t.o 6, both inclusive,

14

const i t<utesa full, true andacGurate record of

15

saidexaminati.on of and testimony given by said

16

wi tness, and of all other proceedings .had during

17

the taking of said deposition,a.nd of the whole

18

theteof,to the best of my ability.

19

V'Jitness fi)Y hand at Portland, Oregon, tbis

20

6th d.ay of September, 2012.

2 1

'")-'1
.....

2"""'j

Ale·shia K. tJlacorn

:24

CSR No. 94 ... 0296

25

._-_ _-_ .....

_ ... - -

- - - - - - - _ _ ..... -----,-.

Beovich \Valter&Friend

WING DECL; Exhibit X; Page 4 of 4

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 101 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 19
Katherine C. Chamberlain, OSB #042580 katherinec@mhb.com Jesse A. Wing, pro hac vice jessew@mhb.com Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News MacDonald Hoague & Bayless 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104-1745 (206) 622-1604
Marc D. Blackman, OSB #730338 marc@ransomblackman.com Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Ransom Blackman LLP 1001 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1400 Portland, OR 97204 (503) 228-0487
Lance Weber,pro hac vice lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Human Rights Defense Center 1037 Western Ave., 2nd Floor West Brattleboro, VT 05303 (802) 257-1342

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,
Defendants.

No.3:12-CV-71-SI
PLN'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS' FAILURE TO MITIGATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

PLN'S MEMO IN SUPPORT OF SUMM. JUDG. ON DEFS' FAILURE TO MITIGATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (CV 12-71-SI) - 1
9870.05 fi136701

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
TeI206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 101 Filed 09/13/12 Page 2 of 19

Defendants' asserted affirmative defense seeks to break new ground, claiming that citizens of this Country have a duty to refrain from exercising their First Amendment rights whenever they believe the government might violate their free speech. Defendants' defense is illegitimate and futile as a matter of law, and unsupportable as a matter of fact.
I. FACTS The facts establishing Defendants' violations of Constitutional rights of prisoners and their correspondents, including PLN, are described in the Court's order granting a preliminary Injunction. Dkt. 64 at 5-9; see also Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Dkt. 15, at 4-13; Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment on Claims of Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Dkt. 98.
II. ARGUMENT The issue presented by this Motion is question of law: does an entity or person who suffers repeated acts of censorship and repeated denials of due process notice and an opportunity to appeal censorship decisions have a legal duty to attempt to persuade the violators to mend their ways before the person or entity exercises the Constitutional rights again? The answer to that question is clearly "no." A. Mitigation is Not a Defense to the Damages Alleged by PLN. Defendants assert that PLN sent mail to prisoners "for a period of over one year" expecting that some mail would be rejected for unconstitutional reasons. Dkt. 66, at 1. Even if true, that does not provide a "failure to mitigate damages" defense. 1

1 Defendants appear to argue that whether mail is solicited or not is relevant to damages. Dkt. 66, at 1, 4. They never explain why this would be so. Solicited or not, a publisher's mail to prisoners is protected by the First Amendment. See Hrdlicka v. Reniff, 631 F.3d 1044,1055 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 1544 (2012) ("a publisher has a First Amendment interest in distributing, and inmates have a First Amendment interest in receiving, unsolicited publications."). In PLN v Livingston, which notes that PLN has a right to send mail to prisoners, the Court explained: "The general right to receive unsolicited communications free from government interference is not only well-established, it is also quite valuable, a fact that is particularly apparent in the prison context: prisoners have an obvious interest, for example, in receiving unsolicited mailings from family members attempting to reconcile, ministries reaching

PLN'S MEMO IN SUPPORT OF SUMM. JUDG. ON DEFS' FAILURE TO MITIGATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (CV 12-71-SI) - 2
9870.05 fi136701

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 101 Filed 09/13/12 Page 3 of 19

Defendants concede that they are liable for their acts of censorship and due process violations. See, e.g., Ex. I at 151:13-232 (Q. "You believe that the sheriffs department violated the U.S. Constitution by not providing due process notice before January 26, 2012? A. Yes;"); id. at 162:23-165:7 (regarding rejection of Prison Legal News Magazine, "Q. And do you believe that the censorship of this item, the rejection of Exhibit 20 violated the 1st Amendment? A. Yes."); id. at 165:8-172:16 (admitting multiple violations ofPLN's First Amendment rights).
Yet, Defendants want to be able to argue to the jury that while they are liable for serially violating the Constitution for more than a year (over 100 unconstitutional acts against PLN alone), they are not responsible for all the damages they caused, because they appear to plan to claim to the jury they might have stopped if only PLN had asked. While their reaction to the filing of this lawsuit belies this assertion, even if it were true, it would not reduce the damages to which Plaintiff is entitled, for that would require a legal ruling that Plaintiff, not Defendants, have a responsibility to see that government entities behave constitutionally. There is no basis for such a ruling.
The many flaws with Defendants' intended defense include:
1. The Duty to Mitigate Damages Does Not Impose a Duty to Prevent The Defendant from Causing Damage.
The mitigation of damages defense applies when a Plaintiff fails to do something after, not before, suffering injury: "one injured by the tort of another is not entitled to recover damages for any harm that he could have avoided by the use of reasonable effort or expenditure after the commission of the tort." (Emphasis added) RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 918 (2006). Contrary to the entire thrust of Defendants' argument, "There can be no duty to mitigate

out to convicts, and those attempting to offer legal assistance, because prisoners would often be practically unable to initiate such contact themselves." 683 F.3d 201, 214 (5th Cir. 2012)

2 All Roman numeral exhibits are to deposition transcripts, which are attached to Declaration of Jesse Wing, submitted herewith.

PLN'S MEMO IN SUPPORT OF SUMM. JUDG. ON DEFS' FAILURE TO MITIGATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (CV 12-71-SI) - 3
9870.05 fiJ36701

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500
Seattle, Washington 98104 Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 101 Filed 09/13/12 Page 4 of 19

damages until the injury causing those damages actually occurs." Miller v. Lovett, 879 F.2d
1066, 1070 (2d Cir. 1989). As the Second Circuit explained in Miller, a civil rights case:
If a plaintiffs duty to mitigate damages were to include the duty to avoid the underlying injury, few arrestees could recover damages under § 1983 since most could have "avoided" engaging in the conduct that precipitated the arrest. By instructing the jury to consider whether Miller could have avoided the harm that he suffered, the district court created the erroneous impression that Miller could have mitigated his damages by walking away from the altercation.
Id. The Court went on to hold that a failure to mitigate damages instruction was "clearly and
erroneously prejudicial" and reversible error:
A properly phrased mitigation charge should limit the jury's consideration to what the plaintiff did or should have done after being injured. See E. Devitt, C. Blackmar & M. Wolff, Federal Jury Practice & Instructions § 85.13 (1987). It focuses on the plaintiffs duty "to prevent the aggravation" of injuries already received and "to effect a recovery from such injuries." Id. Miller, 879 F.2d at 1070. Miller has been cited with approval by the Ninth Circuit on other
grounds. See Reed v. Hoy, 909 F.2d 324,330 (9th Cir. 1989).
And this is true even when a Plaintiff acquiesces in violations. In Blackburn v. Snow,
771 F.2d 556,576-78 (1st Cir. 1985), the court rejected the government's argument that a visitor
to ajail who was strip searched could not claim damages because she visited the jail three times
knowing that she would be strip searched and thereby "consented":
[W]hether ... a constitutional right ... or a mere privilege, ... the Sheriff was not free to condition the visitation opportunity on the sacrifice of Blackburn's protected Fourth Amendment rights.
As in Miller, the First Circuit explained that-akin to the Defendants' mitigation defense here-
the "consent" argument suggests illegitimately that the plaintiff had a legal duty not to exercise
her rights because the government intended to violate them:
Nor is it any answer to say that Blackburn could have left at any time, or declined to return after the first strip search, for it is the very choice to which she was put that is constitutionally intolerable--and it was as intolerable the second and third times as the first.
Id.

PLN'S MEMO IN SUPPORT OF SVMM. JUDG. ON DEFS' FAILURE TO MITIGATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (CV 12-71-SI) - 4
9870.05 fi136701

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
TeI206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 101 Filed 09/13/12 Page 5 of 19

Each act of censorship and denial of due process is a separate violation. For example, in Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385, 395 (1986), the Supreme Court explained that "Each week's paycheck that delivers less to a black than to a similarly situated white is a wrong actionable under Title VII...." Under the government's theory of mitigation, a black employee would have a legal duty to mitigate his future unequal pay by complaining to his employer to comply with the law before showing up for work each week or risk blame for causing his own damages. That has never been the law.
Each act of censorship, like each rock thrown, is independently wrongful. A publisher could sue for the first broken window, the last broken window, or every broken window. If PLN was motivated to sue after the government had broken five windows, the government cannot legitimately complain-as in effect it does-that PLN should have told the Sheriff to stop throwing rocks earlier. The government and its top law enforcement officials are presumed to know that throwing rocks through Plaintiffs window-or censoring Plaintiffsmail-violates the Constitution. Prison Legal News v. Cook, 238 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2001) and Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2005), among many other binding court opinions, gave them ample notice that their conduct violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The fact that plaintiff did not sue immediately or call to tell the Sheriff he was violating the Constitution is not a failure to mitigate. Any requirement that Plaintiff tell the Sheriff to stop throwing rocks suddenly shifts the Sheriff s duty to know and obey the law onto PLN's shoulders at the risk of depriving PLN, who is innocent of any wrongdoing, of receiving make-whole compensation for the Sheriff s Constitutional violations.
None of the eight cases cited by Defendants in support of their motion to add a mitigation of damages defense to their Answer is to the contrary. Three of the eight are employment cases that unremarkably acknowledge wrongfully terminated employees are "entitled to an award of back pay, diminished by earnings in the interim." Smith v. Hampton Training Sch. for Nurses, 360 F.2d 577, 581 (4th Cir. 1966); Gieringer v. Ctr. Sch. Dist. No. 58,477 F.2d 1164 (8th Cir.

PLN'S MEMO IN SUPPORT OF SUMM. JUDG. ON DEFS' FAILURE TO MITIGATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (CV 12-71-SI) - 5
9870.05 fi136701

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
TeI206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 101 Filed 09/13/12 Page 6 of 19

1973) (same); Ramsey v. Hopkins, 447 F.2d 128, 128 (5th Cir. 1971). See also Pattee v. Georgia Ports Auth., 512 F. Supp. 2d 1372 (S.D. Ga. 2007). None of these cases suggests that a plaintiff had a duty to try to convince the employer not to fire them in the first place.
Commodity Credit Corp. v. Rosenberg Bros. & Co., 243 F.2d 504 (9th Cir. 1957) and 999 v. C.IT. Corp., 776 F.2d 866 (9th Cir. 1985), are breach of contract, not tort, cases. The former held that a government contractor had no claim when subsequent conduct by the government increased the price it had to pay to acquire product to supply under the contract. The latter held, under California law, that a plaintiff has no duty to "mitigate damages" by acceding to additional' terms imposed by the defendant in breach of contract unless those terms were trivial or inconsequential as a matter of law. PLN does not see how either of these cases bears on Defendants' mitigation defense.
The seventh case cited by the Defendants, Home Indem. Co. v. Lane Powell Moss & Miller, 43 F.3d 1322 (9th Cir. 1995), is a legal malpractice case in which the court held that a law firm was not entitled to a mitigation defense. PLN fails to see how this case supports Defendants' right to assert a mitigation defense.
Lawson v. Trowbridge, 153 F.3d 368, 377 (7th Cir. 1998), the final case cited by the Defendants, also fails to support a mitigation defense. In this case of wrongful arrest/false imprisonment/denial of medical care, the government asserted that the plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages by failing to post bail to secure his release. The court rejected this defense:
Whether jury instructions infused with common law doctrines such as avoidance of consequences have a place in suits involving the deprivation of constitutional rights is another question, also difficult. This much is certain--while there may be a case wherein the mitigation instruction used here has a place, this isn't the one. We have found no other court (probably for good reason) requiring a defendant to divert committed funds in order to avoid suffering injury at the hands of his jailors. Id. at 378. Notably, the Seventh Circuit cited Miller v. Lovett, in reaching its conclusion. See id., at 377.

PLN'S MEMO IN SUPPORT OF SUMM. JUDG. ON DEFS' FAILURE TO MITIGATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (CV 12-71-SI) - 6
9870.05 fi136701

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 101 Filed 09/13/12 Page 7 of 19

The fallacy of Defendants' position is shown by their implicit concession that Plaintiff s alleged failure to attempt to persuade them to abandon their unconstitutional conduct is no defense to liability. That being the case, how can it be a defense to damages? Only after a violation, does a plaintiff have a duty to mitigate damages and that duty applies only to the damages caused by that violation, not some future possible violation. See Miller v. Lovett, supra.
Defendants do not claim that Plaintiff failed to mitigate the damage caused by their unconstitutional rej ection of a constitutionally protected mailing; they claim that Plaintiff had a duty to stop them from committing future violations. Plaintiff had no such duty. Defendants do not have a cognizable failure to mitigate defense.
2. Duty to Mitigate Does Not Require a Party to Surrender Constitutional Rights.
Miller v. Lovett, 879 F.2d 1066, 1070 (2d Cir. 1989), and Blackburn v. Snow, 771 F.2d 556, 576-78 (1st Cir. 1985), make clear that a party has no duty to mitigate damages by forgoing the exercise of a Constitutional right. Defendants have not cited any case that suggests such a duty exists. This is unsurprising since there is no duty: would the government be entitled to argue to the jury that a peaceful protester's damages for false arrest should be reduced because she should have warned the police that arresting her would violate her First Amendment rights? Of course not.
Nearly fifty years ago, in a mail censorship case, the United States Supreme Court found it unconstitutional for the government to place a burden on the public to request delivery of specific mail in advance:
We rest on the narrow ground that the addressee in order to receive his mail must request in writing that it be delivered. This amounts in our judgment to an unconstitutional abridgment of the addressee's First Amendment rights. The addressee carries an affirmative obligation which we do not think the Government may impose on him.

PLN'S MEMO IN SUPPORT OF SUMM. JUDG. ON DEFS' FAILURE TO MITIGATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (CV 12-71-SI)-7
9870.05 fi136701

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 101 Filed 09/13/12 Page 8 of 19

Lamont v. Postmaster Gen. ofU 8.,381 U.S. 301, 307 (1965). That is precisely what the government apparently intends to argue to the jury here, essentially: "PLN failed in its duty to contact us in advance of sending its mail to our prisoners to ask that we deliver it." The Constitution cannot abide such an instruction to the jury. Defendants' defense that Plaintiff was required to notify the government of its intent to speak-like getting government permission-is akin to imposing a prior restraint so long as the speaker doesn't complain. Besides impermissibly chilling speech, that simply puts the cart before the horse.
3. Plaintiff had No Duty to Mitigate Damages for Defendants' Unconstitutional Conduct Depriving PLN of Due Process and Violation of PLN's Free Speech Rights.
The most ironic thing about Defendants' mitigation of damages defense is that it seeks to fault Plaintiff for failing to bring to Defendants' attention their own illegal conduct, when Defendants were illegally failing to give Plaintiffs and the prisoners they were communicating with notice of that very fact. Defendants admit they violated due process by not providing adequate notice or an opportunity to be heard. Compare Dkt. 1 at ~~4.4 through 4.4.6 with Dkt. 25 at ~~4.5 through 4.27,4.36,4.37,4.45 through 4.51, and 4.55 through 4.61. To allow Defendants to present a mitigation defense under these circumstances would reward Defendants for the very misconduct at issue.
Defendants assert that PLN should not have exercised its free speech rights without first trying to get the Sheriff on board with the United States Constitution. Defendants cite no precedent or logic for that proposition, and that is fatal to their affirmative defense.
4. Defendants Cannot Establish Their Affirmative Defense. Failure to mitigate damages is an affirmative defense for which the government bears the burden of proof. "[T]he Ninth Circuit has joined the overwhelming majority of federal courts in concluding that lack of mitigation is a recognized Rule 8 affirmative defense." Holscher v. Olson, CV-07-3023-EFS, 2008 WL 2645484 (E.D. Wash. June 30, 2008) (citing 999 v. C.lT Corp., 776 F.2d 866,870 n. 2 (9th Cir.1985); Modern Leasing, Inc. ofIowa v. Falcon Mfg. of

PLN'S MEMO IN SUPPORT OF SUMM. JUDG. ON DEFS' FAILURE TO MITIGATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (CV 12-71-SI) - 8
9870.05 fi136701

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 101 Filed 09/13/12 Page 9 of 19
Cal., Inc., 888 F.2d 59, 62 (8th Cir.1989). See also Sias v. City Demonstration Agency, 588 F.2d 692, 696 (9th Cir. 1978) (Title VII action); Binder v. Disability Group, Inc., 772 F. Supp. 2d 1172, 1184 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (Trademark infringement action).
Accordingly, as the cases cited above establish, the burden of proving a failure to mitigate damages is on the defendant. See, e.g., Sias, 588 F.2d at 696. The Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction 5.3 on "Mitigation" spells out that "The defendant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence: 1. that the plaintiff failed to use reasonable efforts to mitigate damages; and 2. the amount by which damages would have been mitigated."
Here, the Defendants cannot meet either element of their burden. B. Even if the Defense is Cognizable, As a Matter of Law Defendants Cannot
Show that it is Unreasonable for PLN to Engage in Communicating with Prisoners Via Mail Without First Trying to Convince Law Enforcement Officials to Comply with The Constitution. Placing the burden on PLN to notify the Defendants that PLN has not received due process turns the Constitution right on its head. The purpose of due process is for the government to notify PLN when the government has deprived PLN of some legally-protected interest-like free speech. Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 418 (1974), overruled in part by Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 ("The interest of prisoners and their correspondents in uncensored communication by letter, grounded as it is in the First Amendment, is plainly a 'liberty' interest within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment...."). Relying on Procunier, the Ninth Circuit has repeatedly held that a prison is required to provide such notice to publishers when censoring their mail. See, e.g., Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692, 701 (9th Cir. 2005). It mocks the whole concept to suggest that PLN must educate the government on its duty to give due process to PLN or else suffer loss or diminishment of its rights.

PLN'S MEMO IN SUPPORT OF SUMM. JUDG. ON DEFS' FAILURE TO MITIGATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (CV 12-71-SI) - 9
9870.05 fi136701

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 101 Filed 09/13/12 Page 10 of 19

Similarly, it is unreasonable to demand that PLN abstain from exercising its
constitutional right to communicate with prisoners unless it first notifies the public officials in
charge of the Columbia County Jail that they must comply with the Constitution.
C. Defendants Can Offer Only Mere Post Hoc Conjecture that They Would Have Stopped Violating the Law, Conjecture that is Refuted By the Available Evidence.
The premise of Defendants' failure to mitigate defense is that had PLN notified them that
they were violating the Constitution they would have stopped, ending the damage to PLN.
Defendants have no actual evidence to offer-just hypothetical self-serving speculation. And the
Defendants have failed at even that. At the Sheriffs follow-up deposition on the last day of
discovery, taken in part for the express purpose of allowing Plaintiff to explore his affirmative
defense of mitigation of damages, the Sheriff testified as follows:
Q. BY MR. WINO: Sheriff, is it your opinion that if Prison Legal News had asked you to get rid of your postcard-only policy, you would have done so? A. I don't know. Q. Well, PLN notified you when it filed the lawsuit that it wanted you to get rid of the policy and you didn't; right? A. We didn't right away, no.
Q. Well, you didn't until you were ordered to by The Court; right?
A. Correct. Q. SO what reason would anybody have to believe that if PLN had written you a letter or called you on the phone rather than sued you, that you would have given up the policy? MR. KRAEMER: Object to form, argumentative and vague. THE WITNESS: I don't know. I don't know how to answer that question. I really don't.
Ex. VIn at 356:19-357:13 (emphasis added). The Sheriffs failure to articulate any basis for his
own affirmative defense should put an end to it on summary judgment. The Sheriff would have
been the decision-maker responding to PLN's letter or telephone call, so the testimony of other
witnesses and the arguments of his lawyer cannot save this defense. The Sheriff fails to create an
issue of fact to allow his defense to get to the jury by answering "I don't know."

PLN'S MEMO IN SUPPORT OF SUMM. JUDG. ON DEFS' FAILURE TO MITIGATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (CV 12-71-SI) -10
9870.05 fi136701

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 101 Filed 09/13/12 Page 11 of 19

Further, after defending their Postcard-Only Policy in litigation for six months, refusing to forego the policy until enjoined by the Court, the Defendants can hardly be permitted to ask the jury to find that if only PLN had asked, rather than sued, the Sheriff would have changed his policy. That is contrary to all the evidence and to common sense.
Defendants cannot be permitted to argue that they would have given up their PostcardOnly Policy, and they should not be able to argue that they would have given up their magazine ban and their failure to afford due process either.
They did a terrible job giving notice of a reason for censorship. The Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction articulated the Jail's universal failure to identify a specific reason other than its Postcard-Only Policy for any of the mail that Defendants censored. See Dkt. 15, at 4-5. Apart from contemporaneously marking on certain pieces of mail that its Postcard-Only Policy was the reason for rejecting that mail, see Dkt. 15, at 4:16-18, 5:25, and 5:11-15, the Jail wrote only the following two censorship reasons on the rejected mail: (1) "RefuseNiolates Security," at id. at 4:13-16,4:22-5:5; and (2) "Contraband," at id. 4:26-5:2.
"Violates Security" and "Contraband" are vague and ambiguous, insufficient to document the reasons that Defendants actually censored these items of mail. Defendants should not benefit from their ambiguity in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment by being permitted to argue now that the reason for this censorship was their ban on magazines, or junk mail, or bulk mail, or catalogs, or some other reason. Nor should they be permitted now to contend that they would have changed their practices in censoring these items had Plaintiff called them.
Failure to specify a reason for censorship is a stark violation of due process, and as the wrongdoer the Defendants should not be afforded the chance to exploit their violation in this litigation. Two important reasons for adequate due process notice when mail is censored is to notify the sender and recipient of the purported basis for the censorship and to create an accurate contemporaneous record, which allows for meaningful judicial review. C./, Roberts v. Us. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 629 (1984) ("the requirement that government articulate its aims with a

PLN'S MEMO IN SUPPORT OF SUMM. JUDG. ON DEFS' FAILURE TO MITIGATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (CV 12-71-SI) - 11
9870.05 fi 136701

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 101 Filed 09/13/12 Page 12 of 19

reasonable degree ofclarity ensures that state power will be exercised only on behalf of policies
reflecting an authoritative choice among competing social values, reduces the danger of caprice
and discrimination in the administration of the laws, enables individuals to conform their conduct
to the requirements of law, and permits meaningfuljudicial review.") (Emphasis added).
Having violated clearly-established 38-year-old precedent, Procunier v. Martinez, 416 r
u.s. 396 (1974), and its progeny including other Oregon cases, that PLN was entitled to due
process notice of censorship, see, e.g., PLN v. Cook, 238 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2001), the
Defendants cannot be allowed to capitalize on their reckless disregard of the law. To do so
would create incentives to violate the law, not to follow it.
This is illustrated by the Sheriffs testimony when asked more broadly how he would
have responded to a letter or call from PLN:
Q. BY MR. WING: Okay. And what is it that you think Prison Legal News could have said to you that would have made you change your policies?
A. It's hard to answer that question. There's so many things.
Q. Like what? A. As simple as we're Prison Legal News and we want
to appeal your decision not to permit this mail to be delivered. Q. Now, you didn't have a policy for such an appeal, did you? A. I'd have to review our policy back then. I'm under the impression that we did, but I'd have to review that policy. Q. It was not in your inmate manual; right? A. No. Q. Is that correct? A. I believe it was not. Q. And it was not on your website; right? A. That's correct. Q. And you never sent Prison Legal News any notification on the censored mail or in the form of some other communication that they could appeal; is that right? A. I don't know that part of it.

PLN'S MEMO IN SUPPORT OF SUMM. JUDG. ON DEFS' FAILURE TO MITIGATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (CV 12-71-SI) - 12
9870.05 fi136701

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 101 Filed 09/13/12 Page 13 of 19

Ex VIII at 345:4-346:3. The Sheriffs Policy in effect at that time PLN filed this lawsuit, Ex. 62 (dated October 21, 2011), failed to require any notice to or opportunity to appeal for the publisher or other sender of incoming mail, or to the prisoner or intended recipient of rejected outgoing mail, see Dkt. 9-4; Ex. 62 at 6, ILD.1.b. And he never made his policy publicly available. Ex. 68 at ROG 7(d).
So, the Sheriff again left himself with no answer to present to the jury. His own deficient due process policies and practices undermine his suggestion that PLN bear the burden of trying to make sense of them. Indeed, apart from his staffs "postcard-only stickers" the Sheriffs staff failed to notify PLN of any meaningful justification for censoring its mail. It wasn't, and isn't, up to PLN to contact the government in search of reasons. The Sheriff has acknowledged this: "Q. Is it your view of law enforcement that law enforcement needs to be notified before they are obligated to comply with the Constitution? A. No." Id. at 346:10-13. That should be the end of the affirmative defense.
And, since no staff members signed or initialed the mail that they rejected the Jail cannot be permitted now to make up explanations for why it censored PLN's mail on top of which Defendants want to argue then that had PLN called or wrote to the Jail asking for an explanation the Jail would have agreed to forgo their censorship.
Further, the Defendants ignored many complaints alleging constitutional violations, see, e.g., Exs. 13-20,29, 38, and repeatedly wrote (or left in) in their policies, websites, memos to staff and prisoners, and their Inmate Manuals provisions that violated the Constitution. See, e.g., Plaintiffs Memorandum in Support Motion for Summary Judgment on Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Dkt. 98, at 20-21. The complaints began "the day the policy changed." Ex. II, at 145:3-15. And, the complaints identified above range all the way through PLN's lawsuit in 2012. No reasonable jury could conclude that Defendants would have changed their policies in response to a letter or telephone call from PLN.

PLN'S MEMO IN SUPPORT OF SUMM. JUDG. ON DEFS' FAILURE TO MITIGATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (CV 12-71-SI) - 13
9870.05 fi136701

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 101 Filed 09/13/12 Page 14 of 19

Indeed, Defendants' conduct to the contrary speaks louder than their speculation. Prisoners notified the government on numerous occasions that its mail policies and practices at issue violate the Constitution. Exs. 13-20,29, 38.3 That did not cause Defendants to cease their illegal conduct. Indeed, regarding their Postcard-only Policy, Defendants adopted a stock boilerplate answer that they sent in response to prisoner grievances. Ex. II at 145:16-146:9; Ex. 48 ("The attached letter will be the standard answer for the Columbia County Jail on all postcard grievances."); Exs. 13-20, 29. So, there is no reason to accept Defendants' bald assertion that they might have stopped their illegal behavior if PLN had asked.
And, after Plaintiff filed this lawsuit, on January 13, 2012, the Sheriff announced to the Court that he had adopted a new mail policy. See Dkt. 32 ~1 O. But, he never announced a change in policy to the rest of the world. Instead, when he took down his old unconstitutional policy from his website, he replaced it with a statement that the policy was under review. See Dkt. 45-1 at 2. Even under the scrutiny of litigation, the Sheriff left his statement on the website for more than four months after he told the court that he had adopted a new mail policy-failing to notify the public of his policy change. Ex. I at 107:8-108:4.
Similarly, although the Sheriff announced to the Court that the Jail never had a policy that prohibited delivery of magazines, see Dkt. 29 at 3 ("[t]he Jail's policies ... have always allowed inmates to receive magazines..."), along with PLN's reply brief in support of its Motion for Preliminary Injunction, on March 3,2012, PLN submitted the Sheriffs current Inmate Manual which pointedly prohibited magazines, see Dkt. 36 at 17 ("We do not accept any periodicals."). Months then passed during which the Jail, with the Sheriffs knowledge, continued to hand out the very same Inmate Manuals to newly-incarcerated prisoners stating that the Jail prohibits all periodicals. Ex. III at 101:11-103:10; Ex. I at 48:18-49:8; 122:12-126:9. This was true as of the date of the Mail Inspection at the Jail and as of the deposition of the Sheriff (May 8 and 9, 2012). Ex. III at 101:23-102:13; Ex. I at 125:24-126:9 ("If somebody was

3 Exhibits 1 through 76 are attached to the Declaration of Katherine Chamberlain, Dkt. 87.

PLN'S MEMO IN SUPPORT OF SUMM. JUDG. ON DEFS' FAILURE TO MITIGATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (CV 12-71-SI) - 14
9870.05 fiJ36701

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 101 Filed 09/13/12 Page 15 of 19

booked in the jail last night or within the past week, what inmate manual would they receive? A. The same one that we have" that "says no magazines are allowed" and the "due process provision...that [is] deficient."); Ex. 54.
At his deposition, the Sheriff admitted that the offending provision of the Inmate Manual violates the First Amendment. Id at 123:2-125:22. He admitted that the Jail was still continuing to issue the Inmate Manual informing prisoners that they could not receive magazines as of the day of his deposition, offering no justification for continuing to violate the First Amendment in this way. Id at 125:24-126:9. So, even after Plaintiff filed this lawsuit notifying Defendants of their unconstitutional mail policies, Defendants failed to correct their unconstitutional policy by affirmatively publicizing it to prisoners and by failing to notify the rest of the world that it was not longer in effect.
Additionally, as the Court knows, Defendants continued to maintain their irrational Postcard-Only Policy long after PLN filed this lawsuit, despite PLN's contact with Columbia County counsel and Defense counsel in three separate conversations before filing its Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Dkt. 9 at ~~16, 17, 19,20, 2l.
Allowing Defendants to argue that if PLN had only asked the Jail might have given up their unconstitutional ways would be futile, and grossly misleading to the jury. D. PLN Did Attempt to Mitigate
The government does not argue that PLN failed to mitigate the damages that flowed from each violation Gust that PLN did not attempt prevent the government from committing future violations). But even if the government made that assertion, it would fail. After the Jail censored its mailings, PLN did not give up. Rather, PLN mailed more materials to prisoners in the Jail to achieve its mission of communicating with the prisoners in Columbia County Jail. Indeed, that is the essence of the government's factual basis for its motion, that PLN kept sending mail to prisoners for more than a year. See Dkt. 66, at 1. But the Jail thwarted PLN's efforts, censoring those mailings as well. Defendants cannot legitimately contend that their

PLN'S MEMO IN SUPPORT OF SUMM. JUDG. ON DEFS' FAILURE TO MITIGATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (CV 12-71-SI) - 15
9870.05 fi136701

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 101 Filed 09/13/12 Page 16 of 19

repeated illegal activity directly undermining PLN's mitigation efforts requires PLN to take on a legal responsibility to educate the Sheriff on clearly established law under the First Amendment.
E. The Defense Can Challenge PLN's Damages But Not Argue Failure to Mitigate The government claims that "plaintiff continued to mail publications to the Jail for the
purpose of determining if the Jail would reject it." Dkt. 66, at 4. The government can argue this point to the jury, alleging that PLN was not as harmed as PLN claims. But the government is not entitled to argue as an affirmative defense that PLN failed to meet a legal obligation to mitigate its damages, accompanied by a jury instruction to that effect.
To mitigate, a fired employee must look for another job to earn wages. To mitigate, a person injured in a car crash must seek appropriate medical aid to heal the injuries. But if the fired employee applies to the same company again, and the Defendant violates the person's rights, again, it is no defense to damages for the employer to blame the employee, saying in effect "you failed to mitigate because you didn't warn us not to violate your rights" or because "you didn't tell us that we discriminated against you when we denied your first application."
Defendants think that they are entitled to an affirmative defense of failure to mitigate merely because PLN was investigating whether the Jail was violating the Constitution. PLN was investigating whether the Jail was engaged in a continual practice of censorship, or whether instead censorship occurred only sporadically or for a limited period or was due to negligence and not a County policy, practice, or custom. See Dkt. 8, -,r~11-31; Dkt. 44-0, ~~23-24; Dkt. 631. That could only be determined over time. Had PLN jumped the gun, the Defendants would now be arguing that their censorship and lack of due process were merely errors and mistakes by certain jail officials. PLN acted responsibly and carefully in its investigation. The time it took to do so does not provide a basis for a failure to mitigate defense. Post-Iqbal, plaintiffs and their attorneys have a heightened duty to investigate civil rights violations and ensure that constitutional violations are deliberate acts and not accidents, negligence, or mere mishaps which are not cognizable under section 1983. See Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986).

PLN'S MEMO IN SUPPORT OF SUMM. JUDG. ON DEFS' FAILURE TO MITIGATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (CV 12-71-SI) - 16
9870.05 fi136701

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
TeI206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 101 Filed 09/13/12 Page 17 of 19

Moreover, no precedent supports the Defendant's position. In fact, the body of Fair Housing Act opinions categorically rejects distinguishing the measure of damages available to testers from those available to others persons. For example, nearly thirty years ago, in an oftcited fair housing opinion, a federal court explained that the harm to testers can be just as real and serious as to other individuals:
The evidence also supports the award of actual damages to both Glindolyn and Cecil Johnson for the humiliation and emotional distress arisingfrom their audit to The Mansards. Mrs. Johnson's testimony left no doubt that she was deeply affected by the realization that The Mansards had not given fair consideration to her application.
Davis v. Mansards, 597 F. Supp. 334, 347 (N.D. Ind. 1984). And, the Court pointedly
concluded:
The fact that Mrs. Johnson was a tester does not affect the measure ofher actual damages. In 1984, no one should have to toughen themselves to racial discrimination-a tester has no reason to expect mistreatment at the hands of ostensibly fair-minded businesspeople. Id. In effect, the Court dismissed the notion that a tester had a duty to avoid testing because in the course of testing someone might violate the law. Yet, that is precisely the argument that Defendants make here. Moreover, in contrast with a tester-who does not intend to rent the apartment or buy the property they are inquiring about-PLN intends to reach the prisoner to communicate the contents of its monthly journal, its book catalog, its book offer, its subscription information and renewal notice, and its fundraising letter. Dkt. 44-0, ~~4-5, 8-11. Defendants suggest that by reading a single email between Lucy Lennox and Paul Wright about investigating the Jail that "neither desired to communicate with inmates at the jail." Dkt. 67, ~4c. Apart from the fact that the email doesnotsupportDefendants.speculation.this notion is crushed under the weight of the unrebutted evidence that PLN is a long-standing award-winning publisher whose main audience is prisoners in more than 2,000 federal, state, and local detention facilities around the country who the courts have long recognized is engaged in core political speech. See, e,g., PLN

PLN'S MEMO IN SUPPORT OF SUMM. JUDG. ON DEFS' FAILURE TO MITIGATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (CV 12-71-SI) -17
9870.05 fi136701

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax: 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 101 Filed 09/13/12 Page 18 of 19
v. Cook, 238 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2001). When PLN's mail is delivered to the intended prisoneraddressee in Jail, PLN accomplishes its mission. When the government thwarts that communication, PLN is harmed. And, the Court should not accept as a basis for allowing the government its affirmative defense the government's mislabeling of PLN' s First Amendment communications as worth less than other communications.
III. CONCLUSION The Court should grant summary judgment and dismiss Defendants' failure to mitigate defense. It is an affirmative defense on which the government bears the burden of proof. The defense fails as a matter of law that would impermissibly shift the burden to the plaintiff and mislead the jury, causing reversible error. And, no facts support the defense. DATED this 13th day of September, 2012.
MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS lsi Katherine Chamberlain
JESSE WING, admitted Pro Hac Vice KATHERlNE C. CHAMBERLAIN, OSB #042580 (206) 622-1604 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

PLN'S MEMO IN SUPPORT OF SUMM. JUDG. ON DEFS' FAILURE TO MITIGATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (CV 12-71-SI) - 18
9870.05 fi136701

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
TeI206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 101 Filed 09/13/12 Page 19 of 19
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on September 13, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing to the
Clerk of the Court using the CMlECF system which will send notification of such filing to the
following:
• Marc D. Blackman marc@ransomblackman.com,pat@ransomblackman.com
• Steven A. Kraemer sak@hartwagner.com,rcd@hartwagner.com
• Gregory R. Roberson grr@hartwagner.com,cej@hartwagner.com
• Lynn S. Walsh walsh@europa.com
• Lance Weber lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter .org,ahull@humanrightsdefensecenter.org
MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS
lsi Jesse Wing JESSE WING Admitted pro hac vice KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN OSB #042580 (206) 622-1604 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

PLN'S MEMO IN SUPPORT OF SUMM. JUDG. ON DEFS' FAILURE TO MITIGATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (CV 12-71-SI) - 19
9870.05 fi136701

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 106 Filed 10/09/12 Page 1 of 16

Steven A. Kraemer, OSB No. 882476 E-mail: sak@hartwagner.com Gregory R. Roberson, OSB No. 064847 E-mail: grr@hartwagner.com HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301
Of Attorneys for Defendants

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,
Plaintiffs,

No. 3:12-cv-0071-SI

v.
COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF DICKERSON, individual and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS’ AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF MITIGATION
Oral Argument: November 16, 2012

Defendants.

Columbia County, Columbia County Sheriff’s Office and Jeff Dickerson (collectively

referred to as “defendants”) submit this brief in response to Prison Legal News’ (“PLN” or

“plaintiff”) Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendants’ Failure to Mitigate Damages

Defense.

INTRODUCTION

In this case, PLN asserts two constitutional claims based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming

that the inmate mail policy at Columbia County Jail (the “Jail”) violates the First and Fourteenth

Amendments. (Compl. ¶¶ 5.5-5.8). PLN seeks summary judgment on the mitigation defense

only. In short, PLN argues that it had no duty to mitigate its damages in the context of this

lawsuit, confusing the exercise of a constitutional right with the duty to avoid or minimize

Page 1 - RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS’ AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF MITIGATION

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 106 Filed 10/09/12 Page 2 of 16

damages. PLN also argues that even if it had a duty to mitigate its damages, there is no evidence

to support the defense and it should be rejected as a matter of law. Neither argument has merit.

Mitigation concerns the calculation of damages. Liability is not at issue. PLN’s motion

raises two questions. First, is the generally recognized duty to mitigate applicable to PLN, a

§1983 plaintiff who alleges compensatory damages resulting from constitutional violations?

Second, if so, is there any evidence that PLN failed to take reasonable efforts to minimize its

claimed damages. The answer to both questions is yes. Accordingly, PLN’s motion for

summary judgment should be denied.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact

and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The

party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of showing the absence of any genuine

issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548 (1986). If the

moving party fails to carry out its burden, then the “non-moving party has no obligation to

produce anything, even if the non-moving party would have the ultimate burden of persuasion.”

Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Companies, 210 F.3d 1099, 1102-03 (9th Cir.2000).

If the moving party satisfies its initial burden, the burden shifts to the non-moving party

to demonstrate that a genuine issue as to any material fact actually exists. Celotex Corp, 477

U.S. at 323. This requires the production of evidence setting forth specific facts showing that

there is a genuine issue for trial. Estate of Tucker v. Interscope Records, 515 F.3d 1019, 1030 (9th Cir.2008). As the party opposing the motion for summary judgment, the evidence, and all

reasonable inferences from it, must be viewed in the light most favorable to the defendants. See

Universal Health Services, Inc. v. Thompson, 363 F.3d 1013, 1019 (9th Cir.2004).

FACTUAL SUMMARY

By now the court is familiar with the factual background of this case. On May 29, 2012,

this court issued an Opinion and Order on PLN’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction that sets

forth in detail the facts pertaining to the Jail’s inmate mail policy at issue in this case. (Dkt. 64 at

Page 2 - RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS’ AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF MITIGATION

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 106 Filed 10/09/12 Page 3 of 16

3-9).1 Because the issue presently before the court pertains to PLN’s claimed damages and not defendants’ liability for constitutional violations, defendant submits the following additional facts excluded from PLN’s motion for summary judgment.
Beginning in December of 2010 through July of 2011, PLN mailed at least thirty-seven copies of its monthly magazine to inmates in the Jail. (Compl. ¶¶ 4.4-4.29; Dkt. 8, Wright Decl. ¶ 10). The Jail rejected many of these mailings and either returned them to PLN or failed to deliver them to the inmates. (Compl. ¶¶ 4.5-4.64). During the same eight-month period, PLN mailed at least 26 “Informational Brochure Packets”2 (Id. ¶¶ 4.36-4.43); eight “Subscription Renewal Packets”3 (Id. ¶¶ 4.47-4.52); and two “Fundraising Packs” (Id. ¶¶ 4.57-4.63). These mailings were sent in envelopes by first-class U.S. mail. (Dkt. 8, Wright Decl. ¶ 11). Most of these mailings were rejected by the Jail. (Ans. ¶¶ 4.5-4.64). Nevertheless, by mid-February of 2011, PLN knew that the Jail did not deliver numerous mailings to inmates. (Ans. ¶¶ 4.7-4.17, ¶¶ 4.36-4.37 (admitting allegations but for mail sent to inmate Lloyd Meyers)).
In the beginning of the eight month period of mailings, PLN knew that the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office website stated that magazines were not allowed into the facility, and it had received the inmate mail section of the Jail’s inmate manual from an inmate. (Roberson Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. B (Wright Dep. 199:4-201:6); Id. ¶¶ 7-8, Exs. F-G (showing receipt by PLN of inmate mail section of inmate manual)). The inmate manual in effect in December of 2010 stated that magazines were not allowed into the facility. (Plf. Mot., Chamberlain Decl. Ex. 54, p.12 (“We do not accept any periodicals.”)).

1 The specific facts of the mail policy, though important background information, are of little relevance to the damages issue presently before the court. Defendants have admitted that some of its previous mail policies violated PLN’s constitutional rights. (Ans. ¶ 1.1).
2 These packets combine informational brochures, book catalogs and book offers into a single mailing. (Dkt. 8, Wright Decl. ¶ 15).
3 These packets combine subscription renewal letters and informational brochures into a single mailing. (Dkt. 8, Wright Decl. ¶ 26).

Page 3 - RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS’ AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF MITIGATION

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 106 Filed 10/09/12 Page 4 of 16

PLN seeks declaratory and injunctive relief as well as nominal and compensatory

damages arising out of the admitted and alleged constitutional violations. (Compl. ¶¶ 5.4, 5.8).

PLN seeks compensatory damages for each constitutional violation that occurred. (Id. at ¶¶ 7.2-

7.3). PLN does not specify the amount of compensatory damages it claims for each violation,

asserting that the amount “can only be determined by a jury at trial[.]” (Roberson Decl. ¶ 2, Ex.

A, p. 8). However, PLN suggests that $1,000 award for each violation “would be a reasonable

estimate.” (Id.). Accordingly, this component of PLN’s compensatory damages claim alone

allegedly amounts to over $100,000. (Plf. Memo at 3 (claiming over 100 constitutional

violations)). PLN also intends to recover the value of lost subscriptions and book purchases, in

an amount to be proven at trial. (Id.).

Two other components to PLN’s claim for compensatory damages are its “Diversion of

Resource Damages” and “Frustration of Mission Damages.” (Id. ¶ 2, Ex. A, pp. 7-8). PLN’s

claim for “Diversion of Resources Damages” seeks to recover the wages of several staff

members who spent time “investigating the mail policies and censorship” at the Jail and

“litigating censorship and due process claims” and “testing the mail policies and censorship

practices” at the Jail, including “the cost of materials and postage.” (Id. p. 9).

PLN currently estimates the “Diversion of Resources Damages” at $34,217.50, itemized

as follows:

Paul Wright

159 Hours at $200 per hour

$31,800

Zach Phillips

13.1 Hours at $105 per hour

$ 1,375

Dennis Curran

3 Hours at $90 per hour

$ 270

Jen Kovacs

10.3 Hours at $75 per hour

$ 772.50

(Id. p.7). Paul Wright’s annual salary is $60,000. (Id. ¶ 3, Ex. B (Wright Dep. at 162:17-

163:5)). His hourly rate for PLN is approximately $35. (Id.). Zach Phillips, a paralegal at PLN,

“diverts” 100% of his time to litigation activities. (Id. (Wright Dep. 74:21-75:3)). Paul Wright

admits that Zach Phillips is paid an hourly wage that is far less than what PLN is seeking as

damages in this lawsuit. (Id. (Wright Dep. 165:18-166:14, 167:12-19)). At the relevant time,

Page 4 - RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS’ AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF MITIGATION

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 106 Filed 10/09/12 Page 5 of 16

Phillips was actually paid an hourly rate of $11 with no benefits. (Id. ¶ 4, Ex. C (Phillips Dep.

23:3-12)). Dennis Curran, PLN’s Office Manager, was paid an hourly rate of $12 with no

benefits. (Id. at ¶ 5, Ex. D (Curran Dep. 17:16-18:3)).

Under its claim for “Frustration of Mission Damages,” PLN seeks to recover “future

expenditures” that it says will be necessary “to counter the adverse effects of Defendant’s

unconstitutional mail policy and censorship of incoming and outgoing mail [sic] prisoner mail,

including outreach, education, and testing.” (Id. ¶ 2, Ex. A, p. 7). These claimed future expenses

currently total $19,870.86, specified as follows:

Letters to Columbia Co. Jail Prisoners

$

Ads in St. Helen’s Chronicle and News Advertiser $

Presentation to local bar, legal services

$

Production of short video for families

$

Compliance Monitoring

$

$

(Id. p. 8).

1,131.00 826.86
3,500.00 2,500.00 11,913.00 19,870.86

PLN’s website states that after 20 years of litigation, it “always tried to resolve

censorship issues administratively.” (See id. ¶ 6, Ex. E). In his deposition, Paul Wright testified

that he and others working on behalf of PLN have sent letters to institutions expressing concern

about censorship practices or other possible violation of rights issues prior to filing a lawsuit.

(Id. ¶ 3, Ex. B (Wright Dep. at 24:14-25:25)). However, in the present matter, PLN sent no

letters or e-mails to the administrative staff at the Columbia County Jail or made any attempts to

express their concerns regarding the censorship issues with the Jail prior to filing this lawsuit.

(Id. (Wright Dep. 35:15-36:25)). Paul Wright testified that he believed that such efforts would

have been “futile” in this case. (Id.).

PLN first notified defendants of its censorship concerns when it filed the complaint in

this matter over a year after PLNs mailings were first rejected. (Dkt. 9, Plf. Mot. Prelim. Inj.,

Chamberlain Decl. ¶ 16, Ex. 14). Shortly after PLN filed its complaint in this matter, the Jail

issued a new inmate mail policy on January 26, 2012, with minor modifications on February 10,

2012. (Dkt. 32, Dickerson Decl. ¶ 10)). Corrections deputies were trained on the new policy on

February 1, 2012. (Id. ¶ 27, Ex. G).
Page 5 - RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS’ AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF MITIGATION

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 106 Filed 10/09/12 Page 6 of 16

LEGAL ANALYSIS

A. The Rule of Mitigation Applies To PLN’s Claimed Compensatory Damages.

It is well established that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 creates “a species of tort liability in favor of

persons who are deprived of rights, privileges, or immunities secured to them by the

Constitution.” Memphis Community School Dist. v. Stachura, 477 U.S. 299, 305, 106 S.Ct 2537

(1986) (quoting from Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 253, 98 S.Ct. 1042 (1978) (internal

quotation and citation omitted)); see also City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterrey,

Ltd., 526 U.S. 687, 709, 119 S.Ct. 1624 (1999) (“[T]here can be no doubt that claims brought pursuant to § 1983 sound in tort.”); Pony v. County of Los Angeles, 433 F.3d 1138, 1143 (9th

Cir.2006) (“The Supreme Court has construed claims brought under Section 1983 as tort claims

for personal injury.”). Damages in § 1983 “cases are designed to provide ‘compensation for the

injury caused plaintiff by defendant’s breach of duty.’” Stachura, 477 U.S. at 306 (quoting from

2 F. Harper, F. James, & O. Gray, Law of Torts § 25.1 (2d ed. 1986)). To that end, when a

plaintiff seeks damages for violation of a constitutional right under § 1983, “the level of damages

is ordinarily determined according to principles derived from the common law of torts.”

Stachura, 477 U.S. at 306 (emphasis added).

The duty to mitigate damages is a general rule of tort law that applies to determine the

amount of damages, if any, a plaintiff may recover. Under common law, “one injured by the

tort of another is not entitled to recover damages for any harm that he could have avoided by the

use of reasonable effort or expenditure after the commission of the tort.” Restatement (Second)

of Torts § 918 (2006). As one court has noted: “The doctrine is simple: ‘when a tort victim fails

to take reasonable steps to mitigate his damages, those damages are either cut down or eliminated altogether * * *.’” Lawson v. Trowbridge, 153 F.3d 368, 377 (7th Cir.1998) (quoting Brooks v. Allison Div. Of Gen’l Motors Corp., 874 F.2d 489, 490 (7th Cir.1989)).

The Ninth Circuit recognizes the broad application of the common law duty to mitigate damages. Sangster v. United Airlines, Inc., 633 F.2d 864, 867 (9th Cir.1980)(“As a broad

proposition, injured parties are expected to mitigate the damage they suffer.” ); see also 999 v.

Page 6 - RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS’ AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF MITIGATION

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 106 Filed 10/09/12 Page 7 of 16

C.I.T Corporation, 776 F.2d 866, 871 (9th Cir.1985)(“The general principle that victims of a
legal wrong should make reasonable efforts to avoid incurring further damage is undisputed.”
(internal quotations and citations omitted)). In Commodity Credit Corp Commodity Credit Corp.
v. Resenberg Bros. & Co., 243 F.2d 504, 511 (9th Cir.1957), the court summarized the duty to
mitigate as follows:
It is the general rule that one who is injured by the wrongful acts of another, whether as the result of a tort or of a breach of contract, is bound to exercise reasonable care and diligence to avoid loss or to minimize or lessen the resulting damage, and, to the extent that his damages are the result of his active and unreasonable enhancement thereof, or due to this failure to exercise such care, he cannot recover. He is bound to protect himself if he can do so with reasonable exertion or at a trifling expense, and can recover from the delinquent party only such damages as he could not, with reasonable effort, have avoided. He must do nothing to aggravate his loss, but must do all he can to mitigate or reduce it.
The Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instructions provide:
The plaintiff has a duty to use reasonable efforts to mitigate damages. To mitigate means to avoid or reduce damages. The defendant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence:
(1) that the plaintiff failed to use reasonable efforts to mitigate damages; and
(2) the amount by which damages would have been mitigated.
Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instructions § 5.3. The Ninth Circuit has held that a defendant is
entitled to an instruction concerning its theory of the case if it is supported by the law and has
some foundation in the evidence. Cauthier v. AMF, Inc., 788 F.2d 634, 635 (9th Cir.1986).
Federal courts have uniformly held that the duty to mitigate applies specifically to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 claims. See, e.g., McClure v. Indep. Sch. Dist., 228 F.3d 1205, 1214 (10th
Cir.2000) (14th Amendment violation); Lawson, supra, 153 F.3d at 376-77 (Fourth Amendment
claim for wrongful arrest and constitutional injuries while in jail); Meyers v. City of Cincinatti,
14 F.3d 1115, 1119 (6th Cir.1994) (“In a § 1983 case the plaintiff has a duty to mitigate
damages.”); Pattee v. Ga. Ports Auth., 512 F.Supp.2d 1372 (11th Cir. 2007) (First Amendment);
O’Neal v. Gresham, 519 F.2d 803, 805-06 (4th Cir.1975).

Page 7 - RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS’ AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF MITIGATION

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 106 Filed 10/09/12 Page 8 of 16

Accordingly, the rule of mitigation applies to PLN’s claimed compensatory damages in this Section 1983 case. PLN’s position is contrary to well established federal law and is not supported by any legal authority.4 B. The Evidence Of Failure To Mitigate Creates A Jury Question.
Whether a plaintiff has failed to mitigate damages is generally a question of fact for the jury. Jackson v. Shell Oil Co., 702 F.2d 197, 201-02 (9th Cir.1983). The jury question is whether the plaintiff acted reasonably under the circumstances to avoid or reduce its damages. Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instructions, §5.3.
The Ninth Circuit recognizes that pursuant to the rule of mitigation, an injured party may not recover compensatory damages to the extent the “damages are the result of [the plaintiff’s] active or unreasonable enhancement thereof * * *.” Commodity Credit Corp, supra, 243 F.2d at 511. The injured party may recover “only such damages as he could not, with reasonable effort, have avoided.” Id. Further, the injured party “must do nothing to aggravate his loss, but must do all he can to mitigate or reduce it.” Id.; see also Life Investors Insurance Co. Of America v. Horizon Resources Bethany, Ltd., 182 Ariz. 529 (App.1995) (citing McCormick On Damages, § 34 at 131 (1934) (damages should be reduced where a plaintiff’s “own voluntary activity has unreasonably exposed itself to damage or increased its injury”)).
Despite PLN’s contention otherwise, the evidence supports submitting the question of whether PLN used reasonable efforts to mitigate the damages comprising its compensatory damages claim to the jury. The unique circumstances of this case are that after having multiple mailings rejected and knowing that at least part of the Jail’s inmate policy was unconstitutional, PLN did not communicate with defendants or attempt resolution of its concerns administratively, as it publicly purports to try to do so, but instead continued sending mail to the inmates and expending “diverted” and expensive resources pursuing litigation. The evidence in this case

4 PLN made the same unsupported argument in its opposition to defendants’ motion for leave to amend its answer to include the defense of failure to mitigate damages, which this court rejected and allowed the amendment. (Dkt. 74).

Page 8 - RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS’ AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF MITIGATION

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 106 Filed 10/09/12 Page 9 of 16

supports the view that PLN had an incentive to pursue litigation rather than seek resolution prior

to filing a lawsuit. These facts are relevant to PLN’s compensatory damages claim. They are

not relevant to any issue of liability or the exercise of a constitutional right. Defendants are

entitled to present to the jury its theory that PLN failed to use reasonable efforts to minimize and

avoid aggravation and enhancement of the damages it includes in its compensatory damages

claim.

PLN acknowledges that its “diversion of resources” component of its claimed

compensatory damages is based on a calculation of hourly wages that are far higher than PLN

actually paid its employees. Paul Wright has testified that despite his $60,000 annual salary, he

is seeking compensatory damages of $200 per hour for his time spent time working on matters

concerning this lawsuit rather than other activities. (Roberson Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. B (Wright Dep.

162:17-163:5)). The same is true for Zach Phillips, a paralegal at PLN, who “diverts” 100% of

his time to litigation activities. (Id. (Wright Dep. 74:21-75:3, 165:18-166:14, 167:12-19)). The

evidence is that PLN seeks to profit from the hours spent by its staff working on the litigation

efforts in this matter, in an amount that is approximately six times the regular hourly wage.

The claimed damages comprising of these inflated rates demonstrate an incentive for

PLN to pursue litigation rather than to have made a reasonable effort to communicate with

defendants in attempt to resolve their censorship concerns prior to filing this lawsuit. Contrary to

PLN’s assertions, defendants do not contend that PLN was required to notify defendants of its

censorship concerns in order to recover damages. Rather, it is defendants’ position that this

evidence is necessary for the jury in evaluating the level of damages PLN may recover.

The evidence of defendants’ prompt response to the admitted unconstitutional provisions

of its inmate mail policy in contrast to PLN’s position that it would have been “futile” to seek a

resolution short of litigation is relevant to the jury’s determination of whether PLN could have

reasonably avoided or reduced the amount of the inflated “diversion of resources” component of

///

///
Page 9 - RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS’ AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF MITIGATION

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 106 Filed 10/09/12 Page 10 of 16

its claimed damages. The evidence is that Paul Wright’s assumption of futility turned out to be wrong with respect to many of PLN’s censorship concerns.5
As demonstrated by the evidence set forth in the Factual Summary, supra, PLN’s claim for compensatory damages places at issue the reasonableness of PLN’s decisions to “divert” resources to “investigating” its claims by continuing to send mail, knowing that many mailings would be rejected, and pursue litigation without making any attempt to communicate or resolve its concerns with defendants. C. PLN’s Arguments Do Not Support Summary Judgment.
1. PLN misstates the question presented by its motion for summary judgment. PLN begins its argument in support of summary judgment against the mitigation defense by misstating the question presented by its motion as whether a victim of unconstitutional conduct has a legal duty to attempt to persuade the violator to stop its unconstitutional conduct before the victim may again exercise its same constitutional right. This perspective on the role of the mitigation rule displays a misunderstanding of the rule and suggests a ridiculous scenario in an attempt to prevent the application of the rule to the circumstances of the present case. As stated earlier, PLN’s motion raises two straightforward questions: (1) whether the duty to mitigate applies to the compensatory damages PLN has claimed in this § 1983 action; and (2) whether there is evidence to support defendants’ theory that PLN did not act reasonably to reduce its claimed compensatory damages. PLN’s memorandum in support of summary judgment is wrought with mischaracterizations of defendants’ position, irrelevant factual scenarios and inappropriate attacks on the persuasiveness of the mitigation evidence. PLN’s arguments demonstrate a confusion of the issue of damages with the undisputed constitutional rights of a Section 1983 plaintiff. The duty to mitigate does not impose a standard of conduct or an affirmative duty to act in a particular manner. Rather, it is a

5 PLN’s claim that defendants have no evidence that the Jail would have changed its unconstitutional practices had PLN given pre-litigation notice of its concerns is not only wrong, it is of no import. The jury will not need to decide whether pre-litigation notice would have, in fact, caused defendants to change the mail policy. Rather, the evidence of the change in policy is relevant to challenge the reasonableness of PLN’s decision not to communicate or make any effort to resolve its concerns prior to litigation.

Page 10 - RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS’ AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF MITIGATION

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 106 Filed 10/09/12 Page 11 of 16

principle that applies to the calculation of the “level” of recoverable compensatory damages by requiring an injured party to take reasonable measures to minimize the damages suffered.
2. Mitigation does not require an injured party to surrender its constitutional rights.
PLN argues that a mitigation defense equates to the imposition of a duty to prevent the unconstitutional conduct from occurring, thereby requiring an injured party to surrender its constitutional rights. PLN made this same argument in its opposition to defendants’ motion to amend its answer. (Dkt. 74, Plf. Resp. at 6-7). Just as then, it is still without merit now.
Mitigation does not limit PLN’s free speech or due process rights. Mitigation requires PLN act reasonably under the circumstances to avoid or reduce resulting damage and refrain from active and unreasonable enhancement of damages. See Commodity Credit Corp., supra, 243 F.2d at 511 (9th Cir.1957). Mitigation has nothing to do with PLN’s desire to correspond with inmates; it has to do with PLN’s responsibility to act reasonably to avoid repeated use of excessive resources at inflated hourly rates and manufacturing claims at an estimate of $1,000 per constitutional violation.
PLN’s position is that they can send as much mail as they want to inmates, for as long as they want, using inflated hourly rates, and receive $1,000 per violation, with absolutely no duty to avoid skyrocketing damages. In essence, PLN is disclaiming any duty to act like a reasonable publisher. Contrary to PLN’s arguments, acting like a reasonable publisher does not require obtaining or requesting government permission prior to sending mail to inmates. Rather, a reasonable publisher, like PLN, who is well aware of its First and Fourteenth Amendment rights in over 20 years of litigation, would have sought an explanation from the institution that rejected its mail. The evidence shows that PLN did not act like a reasonable publisher. PLN continued to send mail to inmates knowing that the Jail would likely reject it. Mitigation does not excuse the constitutional violations, for which defendants have admitted. Rather it prevents the injured party from escaping the responsibility of acting like a reasonable victim of an unconstitutional violation.

Page 11 - RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS’ AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF MITIGATION

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 106 Filed 10/09/12 Page 12 of 16

PLN’s reliance on Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301 (1965) is misplaced. In Lamont, the Supreme Court held unconstitutional a federal statute restricting the delivery of mail considered “communist political propaganda” because it required the addressee of mail to request in writing that it be delivered. Id. at 307. Lamont does not address the rule of mitigation and has no instructional value here. Defendants do not suggest that PLN should have sought permission from the Jail to deliver its mail or make a written request to the Jail to deliver mail prior to sending mail. In fact, defendants have mostly admitted liability for constitutional violations.
3. PLN’s position that the duty to mitigate applies only to damages arising from each separate violation is untenable and without legal support.
PLN argues that the duty to mitigate applies only to damages arising after each discrete violation. PLN cites no case law to support this theory, and instead relies on the uncontroverted rule that the duty to mitigate comes into play after a plaintiff has suffered injury. (Plf. Memo., p. 3). Defendants do not dispute that the rule of mitigation applies after an injury has occurred. However, application of that rule in this case does not mean that PLN was relieved of the duty to take reasonable measures to avoid or reduce its damages after it realized that it was the victim of a constitutional violation and it continued to actively enhance its claimed damages.
PLN’s citation to Miller v. Lovett, 879 F.2d 1066, 1070 (2nd Cir.1989), in which the court instructed that the duty to mitigate does not require the victim of a constitutional violation to avoid the “precipitating” conduct that caused the injury, is not helpful here. In Miller, the court found that the given duty to mitigate instruction, under the facts of that case, created the erroneous impression that the plaintiff who suffered a one-time constitutional injury during an arrest could have mitigated his damages by choosing not to engage in “the conduct that precipitated the arrest” and by “walking away from altercation” that led to the arrest. Id. Miller does not support PLN’s argument that the duty to mitigate in this case applies to damages suffered after each individual violation. The facts of Miller are unlike those here where the PLN ///

Page 12 - RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS’ AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF MITIGATION

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 106 Filed 10/09/12 Page 13 of 16

knew of the unconstitutional policies and continued to “test” them with the expectation that the violations would persist.6
The Blackburn v. Snow, 771 F.2d 556 (1st Cir.1985) decision is equally unhelpful. In Blackburn, the court held that the plaintiff’s constitutional rights were violated when she was strip searched three times while visiting a jail, despite the defendant’s contention that she could not claim damages because she had consented to the searches. Blackburn did not address the rule of mitigation. The issue in Blackburn was whether the plaintiff could claim damages as a result of strip searches she “consented to” at a jail that violated the 14th Amendment. Id. at 567. The court rejected the defendant’s “consent” argument finding that, under the circumstances, the plaintiff could not have properly consented to the searches because the access to the jail was conditioned on that submission. Id. Whether a plaintiff allegedly consenting to constitutional violations can recover damages has no bearing on the present lawsuit. Defendants do not assert that PLN “consented” to having its mail rejected. Thus, PLN’s reliance on Blackburn is unfounded.
PLN’s suggestion that Bazeman v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385 (1986) supports its view that the duty to mitigate only applies to damages caused by each individual violation is wrong. Bazeman concerned racial discrimination in employment that violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Id. at 397-98. It did not address mitigation of damages or the application of the rule to constitutional violations. Id.
PLN’s “rock throwing” analogy and “pre-employment, unequal-pay complaint” scenario are also unhelpful. In fact, both highlight the illogic in PLN’s position. First, in the situation of actionable employment discrimination, the duty to mitigate does not require the wronged employee to complain to his discriminatory employer before showing up for work in order to recover damages for the unlawful conduct, as PLN suggests. Instead, as is clear throughout Title

6 PLN’s statement that Miller has been cited with approval by the Ninth Circuit on other grounds not at issue in this matter is pointless since that citation does not make Miller controlling or persuasive authority.

Page 13 - RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS’ AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF MITIGATION

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 106 Filed 10/09/12 Page 14 of 16

VII case law, the duty to mitigate in that context requires the employee who quits his job as a result of the unlawful conduct to make reasonable efforts to find alternative employment. In other words, the duty to mitigate simply requires the injured party to act reasonably under the circumstances.
Second, the “rock-throwing” analogy is also flawed in that it factually does not reflect the situation presented in this case. Perhaps if the facts of the “rock-throwing” scenario included that PLN knew the rock throwers were acting pursuant to a policy or practice that stated that it would throw rocks in the direction of PLN’s windows at a certain time each day and PLN stayed silent as to the harm it suffered due to the broken windows but continued to replace the windows with the top brand, highest quality windows on the market, then the factual analogy might be more applicable.
Despite PLN’s ill-fitting factual scenarios, the relevant issue is that PLN’s position is not supported by the law and, if adopted, would nullify the duty to mitigate damages involving similar constitutional violations. Indeed, adoption of PLN’s position would permit plaintiffs who sue for constitutional violations to purposefully incur hundreds of such violations and accrue vast sums of damages with no duty or responsibility to mitigate those damages.
4. PLN’s arguments as to the reasonableness of its conduct spotlights the factual dispute that presents a jury question.
PLN’s arguments attacking the evidence of its failure to use reasonable efforts to mitigate its claimed damages, demonstrates that this issue is not appropriate for summary judgment. PLN’s arguments go to the persuasiveness of the evidence; not the admissibility, relevance or absence thereof. As such, they are arguments for a jury and do not establish, as a matter of law, that PLN used reasonable care to mitigate its claimed compensatory damages.
PLN erroneously contends that the mitigation defense in this case is based solely on the position that had PLN notified defendants that its inmate mail policy violated the constitution, defendants would changed its practices “ending the damage to PLN.” (Plf. Memo, p. 10). Though the evidence that shortly after defendants first learned of PLN’s censorship concerns the inmate

Page 14 - RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS’ AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF MITIGATION

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 106 Filed 10/09/12 Page 15 of 16

mail policy was changed and staff trained on the new policy is relevant to the failure to mitigate defense in this case, it is not the only evidence defendants rely on in support of the defense.7 (See Factual Summary, supra, pp. 2-5).
PLN also makes the absurd argument that its duty to mitigate damages “incentives” defendants to violate the law. (Plf. Memo, p. 12). PLN fails to cite any case law that barred the mitigation defense on this basis.
PLN inexplicably argues that it mitigated its damages by continuing to send mail to inmates at the Jail despite the known censorship. (Plf. Memo, p. 15). This argument is illogical and, in any event, only lends support to defendants’ position that a factual dispute exists barring summary judgment on the mitigation defense.
PLN also incorrectly claims that defendants seek to apply the rule of mitigation “merely” because PLN was investigating the Jail. (Plf. Memo, p. 16). Mitigation applies broadly to all injured plaintiffs depending on what their claimed damages are, and not on whether a claim exists. In this matter, after PLN knew it had the viable constitutional claims asserted in the complaint, it made no effort to reduce its damages. Instead, it continued to devote more resources at inflated hourly rates to drum-up manufactured damages.
PLN engages in irrelevant speculation on what defendants would or would not argue had PLN actually mitigated its damages. (Plf. Memo, p. 16.) Despite the speculation that defendants would not have admitted constitutional violations, the evidence shows that defendants accepted liability and quickly reversed its unconstitutional conduct.
PLN claims it has a heightened duty to investigate civil rights claims post-Iqbal (presumably, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009)), which held that facts asserted in a

7 PLN’s contention that Sheriff Dickerson’s deposition testimony regarding his uncertainty as to whether the postcard only policy would have been changed if PLN had notified the Jail of its censorship concerns prior to filing a lawsuit somehow negates any basis for the affirmative defense and requires this court determine that PLN reasonably mitigated its damages as a matter of law, ignores both the contradictory evidence supporting the conclusion that it would have been reasonable for PLN to communicate with defendants prior to filing this lawsuit as a way to have minimized its claimed damages and the other evidence supporting a jury determination that PLN failed to mitigate its claimed damages. (See III. Factual Summary, supra, pp. 3-6.)

Page 15 - RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS’ AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF MITIGATION

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 106 Filed 10/09/12 Page 16 of 16

complaint must constitute plausible claims. (Plf. Memo, p. 16). However, pleading standards are irrelevant to mitigation of damages. PLN does not suggest that mitigation standards have changed pre-Iqbal or post-Iqbal. Moreover, whether PLN acted reasonably in continuing to expend the resources that constitute its “diversion of resources damages” in order to “investigate” the “continual practice of censorship” is a question for the jury.
PLN’s reliance on Davis v. Mansards, 597 F. Supp. 334, 347 (N.D. Ind. 1984), a “tester” case involving housing discrimination, does not assist its argument that defendants do not have a mitigation defense in this case because PLN was just “investigating” its claims for almost a year. A “tester” is a person who applies for rental housing with no intention of actually renting. PLN may send mail to a jail to “test” if the jail rejects it for an unconstitutional reason, but it still intends to communicate with the inmate. In any event, the question of whether the claimed compensatory damages PLN compiled during their “investigating” period could have reasonably been reduced or avoided is a question for the jury. “Tester” cases under the Fair Housing Act have no application here to the issue of mitigation.
CONCLUSION Mitigation is a defense applicable to PLN’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for compensatory damages. The evidence shows that PLN failed to use reasonable efforts to mitigate those damages. Viewing the facts in a light most favorable to defendants as the non-moving party, PLN’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendants’ Affirmative Defense of Mitigation should be denied. Respectfully submitted this 9th day of October, 2012.
HART WAGNER LLP
By: /s/ Steven A. Kraemer Steven A. Kraemer, OSB No. 882476 Of Attorneys for Defendants

Page 16 - RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS’ AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF MITIGATION

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 107 Filed 10/09/12 Page 1 of 2

Steven A. Kraemer, OSB No. 882476 E-mail: sak@hartwagner.com Gregory R. Roberson, OSB No. 064847 E-mail: grr@hartwagner.com HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301
Of Attorneys for Defendants

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,

No. 3:12-cv-0071-SI

Plaintiffs,

v.
COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF DICKERSON, individual and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,
Defendants.

DECLARATION OF GREGORY R. ROBERSON
In Support of Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendants’ Affirmative Defense of Mitigation

I, Gregory R. Roberson, declare as follows:

1. I am one of the attorneys representing defendants in this matter. The statements

in this declaration are based on my personal knowledge.

2. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and accurate copy of Plaintiff’s Supplemental

Initial Disclosures.

3. Attached as Exhibit B are true and accurate copies of excerpts of the deposition of

Paul Wright.

4. Attached as Exhibit C are true and accurate copies of excerpts of the deposition of

Zach Phillips.

///

Page 1 – DECLARATION OF GREGORY R. ROBERSON

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 107 Filed 10/09/12 Page 2 of 2
5. Attached as Exhibit D are true and accurate copies of excerpts of the deposition of Dennis Curran.
6. Attached as Exhibit E is a true and accurate copy of the beginning of an article available on plaintiff’s website. The document is deposition exhibit 86.
7. Attached as Exhibit F is a true and accurate copy of a document produced by plaintiff. The document is deposition exhibit 83. It is a letter from plaintiff to inmate Jason Quade.
8. Attached as Exhibit G is a true and accurate copy of a letter received by plaintiff from inmate Jason Quade. The document is deposition exhibit 84.
I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
Respectfully submitted this 9th day of October, 2012.
By: /s/ Gregory R. Roberson Gregory R. Roberson

Page 2 – DECLARATION OF GREGORY R. ROBERSON

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 107-1 Filed 10/09/12 Page 1 of 10
Katharine C. Chamberlain, OSB #042580 katherinec@mhb.com Jesse A. Wing, pro hac vice jessew@mhb.com Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News MacDonald Hoague & Bayless 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104-1745 (206)622-1604
Marc D. Blackman, OSB #730338 marc@ransomblackman.com Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News
Ransom Blackman LLP
1001 SW 5th Ave, Suite 1400 Portland, OR 97204 (503) 228-0487
Lance Weber, pro hac vice lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Human Rights Defense Center
1037 Western Ave, 2nd Floor
West Brattleboro, VT 05303 (802)257-1342

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,
Defendants.

No. 3:12-CV-71-SI
PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL INITIAL DISCLOSURES

PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL
INITIAL DISCLOSURES (CV 12-71-SI) - 1
9870.05 Ih271302

MacDonald Hoague & Bayless
705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961
EXHIBIT
PAGE I

A
OF JS

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 107-1 Filed 10/09/12 Page 2 of 10

In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A), Plaintiff discloses the following
information to Defendants:

A.

Individuals Likely to Have Discoverable Information.

1. Prisoners currently or formerly incarcerated at the Columbia County Jail,

including but not limited to:

Steven Adams
Marcus Albert
Arthur Bates Jr.
Robert Beckwith
Bradley Berg
Toni Bertasso Daniel Butts
Rusty Campo
Robert Clement
Anthony DeHerrera Cory Dell
Jacob Francoeur
Mark Gift
Kenna Haynes
William Hess
Nicholas Jones
Martin Kay George Lammi
Scott Lavelle
Troy McCarter
Shane McNutt
Robert Meader
Kanaan Meyers Jeffery Murray Lloyd Myers Billy Nelson
Samuel Oester
Jason Quade Gary Retherford Barry Shaft William Temple
Scott Thomas
Timothy Turner
Alisha Vandolah
Jeffery Vannatta
Robert Westmoreland
Eric Wilcoxson
Shaughnessy Williams

Last known address for individuals listed above:
Columbia County Jail
901 Port Avenue
St. Helens, OR 97051

PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL
INITIAL DISCLOSURES (CV 12-71-SI) - 2
9870.05 fli271302

MacDonald Hoague & Bayless
705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961
EXHIBIT

A

PAGE_2-_„0Fi_(l

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 107-1 Filed 10/09/12 Page 3 of 10

Nick Bierman
Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution 2500 Westgate Pendleton, OR 97801-9699
541-276-0700
Ralph Patterson
Snake River Correctional Institution 777 Stanton Blvd
Ontario, Oregon 97914-8335
541-881-5000
Andrew Plumber
Oregon State Correctional Institution
3405 Deer Park Drive Se
Salem, OR 97310-9385
503-373-0100
Cindy Seastone Coffee Creek Correctional Facility 24499 SW Grahams Ferry Road Wilsonville, OR 97070
503-570-6412
Ezra St. Helen
Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution 2500 Westgate Pendleton, OR 97801-9699
541-276-0700
John Weisenberger
Seatac Federal Detention Center PO Box 13900
Seattle, WA 98198
2. Individuals who have attempted to communicate with Columbia County prisoners
by mail, including but not limited to:
Oana Popa 7546 SW Aloma Way, APT 2, Bldg 35 Portland, OR 97223
503.956.0608
Nataliya Mikhaylova 184 N 17th Ave Cornelius, OR 97113
503-809-1575
Sharon Berg
1210 SE 51 Ave
Portland, OR 97215
971.570.5508

PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL
INITIAL DISCLOSURES (CV 12-71-SI) - 3
9870.05 I)i271302

MacDonald Hoague & Bayless 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500
Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961
EXHIBIT __ A
PAGE 3 OF ID

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 107-1 Filed 10/09/12 Page 4 of 10

Lucy Lennox
4128 S Hatch
Spokane, WA 99803
509.499.4703
These individuals are likely to have discoverable information about Plaintiffs claims,
including but not limited to the following topics: Defendants' mail policies and practices;
Defendants' censorship of mail; Plaintiffs communications or attempts to communicate with
prisoners, as well as receipt or non-receipt of materials mailed by Plaintiff; prisoners' attempts to
send mail to others outside the jail; family, friends, and other correspondents' attempts to
communicate with prisoners by mail; Defendants' failure to provide notice of censorship,
reasons for censorship, and opportunities to be heard to challenge censorship decisions;
Defendants' communications about censorship decisions, notice, opportunities to be heard, and
changes in Defendants' mail policies and practices; and the importance and value of
communications with publishers, family, friends, and others outside the Columbia County Jail. 3. Sheriff Jeffery M. Dickerson Sgt. Bryan Cutright Sgt. Ralph Lee Rigdon
c/o Steven Kraemer and Greg Roberson Hart Wagner LLP
1000 S.W. Broadway, 20,h Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205
Andrew Moyer, Jonathan Kermutt, Sheryll Westfall, and other individuals identified on Exhibit G to Dickerson Declaration (Dkt. 32-7) Columbia County Jail
901 Port Avenue
St. Helens, OR 97051
Jim Carpenter, former Jail Commander
Contact information unknown
These individuals are likely to have discoverable information about Plaintiffs claims and
damages, including but not limited to the following topics: Defendants' mail policies,
procedures, and practices; the drafting, interpretation, implementation of, and reasons for, the
Jail's inmate mail policies and amendments to the mail policies; Defendants' censorship of mail
at the Columbia County Jail; Defendants' failure to provide adequate notice of the reasons for
their censorship decisions; Defendants' failure to provide an opportunity to be heard to challenge

PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL
INITIAL DISCLOSURES (CV 12-71-SI) - 4
9870.05 Ih27!302

MacDonald Hoague & Bayless
705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961
EXHIBIT

A

PAGE_^0FX£>_

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 107-1 Filed 10/09/12 Page 5 of 10

the censorship decisions; Defendants' communications to jail staff, the public, and prisoners about the mail policies and changes thereto; Defendants' inadequate training and supervision of jail staff; and Defendants' awareness that their policies and practices violate the United States
Constitution.
Sheriff Dickerson is also likely to have discoverable information about the statements made by him in his Declaration(Dkt. 32) and Exhibits (Dkt. 32-1 through 32-8).
Sergeant Cutwright is also likely to have discoverable information about the statements made by him in his Declaration (Dkt. 30).
4. Paul Wright c/o Jesse Wing and Katherine C. Chamberlain MacDonald Hoague & Bayless
705 2nd Avenue, Suite 1500
Seattle, WA 98104-1745 (206) 622-1604 Mr. Wright is the founder and editor of Prison Legal News ("PLN"), a project of the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC). He has discoverable information about the factual allegations contained in Plaintiffs Complaint, including but not limited to: the content of Plaintiffs publications and other correspondence sent by mail to prisoners at the Columbia County Jail (subscription forms, informational brochures, book catalogs, the Prison Legal News monthly publication, fundraising letters, and renewal letters); the content ofbooks available for purchasethrough PLN; Plaintiffs methods of sending mail to prisoners at the Columbia County Jail; the mail that Plaintiff sent to prisoners at the Columbia County Jail; the mail that Defendants censored and returned to or did not return to Plaintiff; the reasons for censorship stamped or noted on the mail returned to Plaintiff; and the inadequacy of Defendants' notice to Plaintiff about the reasons for censorship and lack of notice of an opportunity to appeal. Mr. Wright also has discoverable information about Plaintiffs damages, and the information contained in his Declarations (Dkts. 8 and 44 and Exhibits attached thereto). Plaintiff may supplement these disclosures upon further investigation and discovery.

PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL
INITIAL DISCLOSURES (CV 12-71-SI) - 5
9870.05 Ih271302

MacDonald Hoague & Bayless
70S Second Avenue, Suite 1S00 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel206.62i.1604 Fax206.343.3961
EXHIBIT
PAGE_S_0Fjc>_

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 107-1 Filed 10/09/12 Page 6 of 10

8/28/12 SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURE:
Other individuals likely to have discoverable information are those individuals identified in discovery pleadings and documents produced by the parties, or in depositions.

B.

Documents Supporting Plaintiffs Claims.

Below is a description by category and location of all documents, electronically stored

information, and tangible things that Plaintiff has it in its possession, custody, or control that

Plaintiff may use to support its claims—all of which Plaintiff has served on Defendants via court

filings:

1. Mail censored by Columbia County Jail, and related documents. See Declaration

of Paul Wright in Support of Plaintiff s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 8-0) and

Exhibits (Dkts. 8-1 through 8-10); Lennox Declaration (Dkt. 10-0) and Exhibits (Dkt. 10-1

through 10-3); Lemiox Second Declaration and Exhibits (Dkt. 34).

2. The Columbia County Sheriffs publicly available Website; news articles and

statements by Defendants about their mail policies; the Oregon State DOC mail policy and other

information from the DOC's website; and the Federal Bureau of Prisons' mail policy and other

information from the BOP's website. See Declaration of Katherine C. Chamberlain (Dkt. 9-0)

and Exhibits (Dkts. 9-1 through 9-4); Declaration of Jesse Wing (Dkt. 8-1) and Exhibits (Dkt.

45-1).

3. Declarations of prisoners and their family and friends, regarding the Jail's mail

policies and practices, and evidence of censorship. See McCarter Dec. (Dkt. 11), Campo Dec.

(Dkt. 12); Kay Dec. (Dkt. 13); St. Helen Dec. (Dkt. 14); Williams Dec. (Dkt. 35); B. Berg (Dkt.

36); S. Berg Dec (Dkt. 37); Mikhaylova Dec. (Dkt. 38); Weisenberger Dec. (Dkt. 39), Popa Dec.

(Dkt. 40), and exhibits attached to each. Plaintiff may also rely on the Second Declaration of

Paul Wright (Dkt. 44-0) and Exhibits (Dkt. 44-1).

PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL
INITIAL DISCLOSURES (CV 12-71-SI) - 6
9870.05 ih27!302

MacDonald Hoague & Bayless
705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500
Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961
EXHIBIT
PAGE_l2_0FJo

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 107-1 Filed 10/09/12 Page 7 of 10

Plaintiff may supplement these disclosures upon further investigation and discovery, and may rely on documents filed by Defendants, or produced by Defendants as part of their Initial Disclosures or during discovery.
8/28/12 SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURE:
Plaintiff may also use documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, produced by the parties in discovery.

C.

Damages.

Plaintiff claims the following categories of damages:

1. Diversion of Resources Damages: Defendants'unconstitutional mail policy and

censorship of incoming and outgoing prisoner mail caused PLN to divert time and resources to

investigate the extent and nature of Defendants' mail policy and censorship practices. PLN's

diversion of resources damages include the following categories: (a) time spent by PLN staff

investigating the mail policies and censorship at Columbia County Jail, and litigating censorship

and due process claims; and (b) expenses incurred by PLN in testing the mail policies and

censorship practices at Columbia County Jail, including the cost of materials and postage.

Investigation and discovery continue. This disclosure may be supplemented.

PLN Staff Person
Paul Wright Zach Phillips
Dennis Curran Jen Kovacs
Materials and Postage

Hours 96 13.1 3 10.3

Rate
$ 200.00 $ 135.00 $ 100.00 $ 75.00

Value

$ 19,200.00

$ 1,768.50

$

300.00

$

772.50

$ 1,678.56

$ 23,719.56

2. Frustration of Mission Damages: Future expenditures will be necessary to counter the adverse effects of Defendants' unconstitutional mail policy and censorship of incoming and outgoing mail prisoner mail, including outreach, education, and testing. PLN's frustration of mission damages include the following categories: (a) the time and expense for

PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL
INITIAL DISCLOSURES (CV 12-71-SI) - 7
9870.05 (li271302

MacDonald Hoague & Bayless
705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

_A

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 107-1 Filed 10/09/12 Page 8 of 10

PLN to write, publish, and send letters (or postcards) to all Columbia County prisoners regarding

the Jail's mail policy and any declaratoryjudgment and injunction; (b) the time and expense for

PLN to prepare and publish an advertisement in the St. Helens Chronicle and News Advertiser to

be published at two different times; (c) the time and expense for PLN to prepare for, travel to,

and give a presentation to the local bar and legal services regarding the Jail's mail policy and any

declaratory judgment and injunction; (d) the time and expense for PLN to produce a short video

for online dissemination to prisoner's families and friends regarding the Jail's mail policy and

any declaratory judgment and injunction; and (e) the time and expense for PLN to perform

further testing and monitoring of Defendants' mail practices for compliance with the

Constitution and order of the Court for three years. Investigation and discovery continue. This

disclosure may be supplemented.

Letters to Columbia Co. Jail Prisoners
Ads in St. Helen's Chronicle and News Advertiser
Presentation to local bar, legal services
Production of short video for families
Compliance Monitoring

$ 1,131.00

$

826.86

$ 3,500.00

$ 2,500.00

$ 11,913.00

$ 19,870.86

3. Nominal Damages: Plaintiff seeks nominal damages for each violation by the

Defendants against Plaintiffs constitutional rights.

4. Compensatory Damages: Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages for Defendants'

censorship and denial of due process. The amount can only be determined by the jury at trial,

but for the purpose of setting insurance reserves, other Defendants have paid PLN $1,000 per

violation in prior settlements so that amount would be a reasonable estimate. Plaintiff will also

seek the value of lost subscriptions and book purchases, in an amount to be determined.

5. Punitive Damages: Plaintiff seeks punitive damages against the Sheriff Dickerson

in his individual capacity in an amount that can only be determined by the jury at trial.

6. Other: Plaintiff seeks a declaration that Defendants' policies, practices, and

customs violate the Constitution, a permanent injunction preventing Defendants from violating

PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL
INITIAL DISCLOSURES (CV 12-71-SI)
9870.05 (H27I302

MacDonald Hoague & Bayless 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500
Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961
EXHIBIT

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 107-1 Filed 10/09/12 Page 9 of 10

the Constitution, costs and reasonable attorney's fees, applicable interest, and other relief that the Court deems just and equitable.
Plaintiff may supplement these disclosures upon further investigation and discovery.

8/28/12 SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURE: The rates and hours for Plaintiffs
Diversion of Resources Damages are updated as follows:

Diversion of Resources Damages: Defendants' unconstitutional mail policy and

censorship of incoming and outgoing prisoner mail caused PLN to divert time and resources to

investigate the extent and nature of Defendants' mail policy and censorship practices. PLN's

diversion of resources damages include the following categories: (a) time spent by PLN staff

investigating the mail policies and censorship at Columbia County Jail, and litigating censorship

and due process claims; and (b) expenses incurred by PLN in testing the mail policies and

censorship practices at Columbia County Jail, including the cost of materials and postage.

Investigation and discovery continue. This disclosure may be supplemented.

PLN Staff Person
Paul Wright Zach Phillips
Dennis Curran Jen Kovacs
Materials and Postage

Hours 159.0
13.1 3
10.3

Rate
$ 200.00 $ 105.00 $ 90.00 $ 75.00

Value

$ 31,800.00

$ 1,375.50

$

270.00

$

772.50

$ 1.678.56

$ 35,896.06

DATED this 30th day of August, 2012.

MAO0t^ALI}Hp0£ipUE &^B^YLE£S

/ATHERINB-G. CHAMBERLAIN
)SB #042580
(ESSE A. WING, pro hac vice ^206)622-1604 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL
INITIAL DISCLOSURES (CV 12-71-SI) - 9
9870.05 fh271302

MacDonald Hoague & Bayless
705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961
EXHIBfl

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 107-1 Filed 10/09/12 Page 10 of 10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies under penalty of perjury according to the laws of the United States and the State of Washington that on this date I caused to be served in the manner noted below a copy of this document entitled PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL INITIAL DISCLOSURES on the following individual(s):
Counsel for Defendant^
Greg R. Roberson
Steven A. Kraemer
Hart Wagner LLP 1000 SW Broadway Ste 2000
Portland OR 97205
Phone: 503 222-4499, x 1214
Fax: 503 222-2301
Email: grr@hartwagner.com; sak@hartwagner.com
[ ] Via Facsimile [X] Via First Class Mail [X] Via Email [ ] Via Messenger [ ] Via Overnight Delivery
DATED this 30th day of August, 2012, at Seattle, Washington.

PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL
INITIAL DISCLOSURES (CV 12-71-SI) -10
9870.05 Ili27l302

MacDonald Hoague & bayless
705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961
PAGE _\d_ OF 10

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 107-2 Filed 10/09/12 Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

Page 1

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the Human Rights Defense

Center,

Plaintiff,

No. 3:12-CV-71-SI

v.

COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA

COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF
DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,

Defendants.

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF PAUL ALEXANDER WRIGHT Taken in behalf of Defendants June 7, 2012
EXHIBIT _jl__^
PAGE \ OF _ll

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 107-2 Filed 10/09/12 Page 2 of 9

Wright, Paul

June 7, 2012

Page 2
BE IT REMEMBERED THAT, the deposition of PAUL ALEXANDER WRIGHT was reported by Aleshia K. Macom, CSR No. 94-0296, on Thursday, June 7, 2012, commencing at the hour of 9:12 a.m., the proceedings being reported at Hart Wagner,
1000 SW Broadway, Suite 2000, Portland, Oregon.

APPEARANCES

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS

By Jesse A. Wing

10

705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500

11

Seattle, Washington 98104

12

and

13

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

14

By Lance Weber (Appearing telephonically)

15

1037 Western Avenue, 2nd Floor

16

West Brattleboro, Vermont 05303

17

Appearing for Plaintiff

18

19

HART WAGNER LLP

20

By Steven Kraemer

21

1000 SW Broadway, Suite 2000

22

Portland, Oregon 97204

23

Appearing for Defendants

24

25

Videographer: Jessica Walter

Beovich Walter & Friend

EXHIBIT __!!_——
PAGEJ2^-0F£L~

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 107-2 Filed 10/09/12 Page 3 of 9

Wright, Paul

June 7, 2012

Page 22

Page 24

l

that you can share this information without

1

uses.

2

relaying your strategies for litigation, you may

2 Q. BY MR. KRAEMER: Okay. That's fair enough.

3

do so.

3

You're unable to provide me with the factors

4

THE WITNESS: I think it would disclose our

4

that are used to determine whether to proceed

5

litigation strategies.

5

with litigation or to try to resolve matters

6

BY MR. KRAEMER: Okay. So I want to make sure,

6

outside of litigation because to give me those

7

because then I'll move on and then I'll file an

7

factors would require you to divulge work

8

appropriate motion with the court. And I don't

8

product or attorney-client privilege

•

want to waste everybody's time here.

9

information; do I understand that correctly?

10

You, as a spokesperson from PLN, you're

10 A. I cannot give you information about the factors

]:

unable to tell us, without divulging

11

I use in considering which places to pursue

12

attorney-client privilege or work product,

12

avenues other than litigation and you did not

13

situations in which you attempt to resolve

13

ask me for examples where we have done so prior.

14

disputes with correctional facilities by means

14 Q. Okay. Now I will ask you for examples. Can you

15

other than litigation. Do I have that accurate?

15

give me examples where you have pursued

]6

MR. WING: Objection, misstates your

16

resolution of differences or concerns about

17

question.

17

constitutional practices you have had with

18

BY MR. KRAEMER: Well, am I correct in what I

18

correctional facilities short of litigation?

19

just said, please?

19 A. Yes, I can.

20

I don't think so.

20 Q. Okay. Would you tell me, give me three or four

21

Okay. So how am I incorrect? Thank you for

21

of them.

22

cleaning that up.

22 A. I recently sent a letter to the Michigan

22.

I think that ultimately, ultimately the decision

23

Department of Corrections expressing my concerns

24

that we make on what course of action to pursue 24

over their use of tasers inside their prison

22

when we're faced with the illegal censorship of

25

system. Our attorneys acting on our behalf

Page 23

Page 25

1

our publication or the books that we distribute,

1

recently sent a letter to the Harris County Jail

we formulate our course of action with counsel,

2

in Texas expressing our concerns about their

3

with counsel's advice pretty much from the

3

mail censorship practices there. Within the

4

beginning. It's, it's a, it's a continuous

4

past year or two, attorneys acting on behalf of

5

process. In other words, lawyers are involved

5

the Human Rights Defense Center have sent

6

from the get-go and not as an afterthought or

6

letters expressing concerns about

not at the end of the process.

7

unconstitutional censorship practices by the

8 Q. Okay. And that would be the same with Columbia

8

Florida Department of Corrections and the

9

County, with the matter, you had lawyers

9

New York Department of Correctional Services.

10

involved from the beginning?

10

And I can go on, but I think that's a, you asked

11 A. Yes.

11

for three or four. That's four.

12 Q. Okay. And, again, I just want, and again, I

12 Q. Thank you. And I appreciate that. And these

13

want to move on. But before I move on, I want

13

are all situations where no complaint had yet

14

to make sure that I'm not missing something,

14

been drafted against the facility?

15

because I am a little slow at times here.

15 A. Correct.

16 A. Uh-huh.

16 Q. And this was done early on when you identified a

17 Q. You're unable to give me examples of where you

17

potential constitutional violation; correct?

18

have attempted to resolve disputes or

18 A. Correct.

19

disagreements with correctional facilities other

19 Q. And why was not, why was that not done with

than through litigation because it would require

20

Columbia County, if you can say so without

21

you to provide to me work product or

21

divulging any attorney-client privilege or work

attorney-client privileged information; do I

22

product information?

23

understand that correctly?

23 A. I believe it would be futile.

24

MR. WING: Objection. You didn't ask for

24 Q. Okay. You believed it would be futile.

examples. You asked for the factors that he

25

A. Yes.

Beovich Walter & Friend

7 (Pages 22 to 25
EXHiBiT 3

PAGE i

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 107-2 Filed 10/09/12 Page 4 of 9

Wright, Paul

June 7, 2012

Page 34

Page 36

1 Q. And to your knowledge, when you reviewed these

1 0. Okay. What would be the other part of your

2

documents in preparation for your deposition,

2

answer?

3

did you see any documents stating or suggesting

3 A. I thought it would be futile.

4

that stapled cards were being removed from your

4 Q. You said that before. Thank you.

5

magazines before they were being provided to the

5 A. Yes.

6

prisoners?

6 Q. I apologize. Okay. And the same question for

7 A. Can you repeat the question?

7

the due process, prior to the complaint being

8

MR. KRAEMER: Would you read the question

8

drafted and communicated to Columbia County, was

9

back.

9

there any communication to Columbia County from

10

(Record read as follows:

10

HRDC, PLN or any of its attorneys about your

11

"Q And to your knowledge, when you

11

concerns that the lack of any ability to appeal

12

reviewed these documents in preparation

12

a rejection of any mail violated the

13

for your deposition, did you see any

13

14th Amendment?

14

documents stating or suggesting that

14 A. No.

15

stapled cards were being removed from your

15 Q. I'm sorry. Go ahead.

16

magazines before they were being provided

16 A. No. I do not believe there was any

17

to the prisoners?")

17

communication prior to the initiation of the

18

THE WITNESS: I believe I did.

18

lawsuit.

19 Q. BY MR. KRAEMER: Okay. And do you know whether 19 Q. And am I correct that the reasons for that would

20

or not after receiving the complaint the

20

be one I would need to divulge work product, and

21

Columbia County Jail modified how it was

21

other than work product it's because you thought

22

handling the due process appeal of rejected

22

that Columbia County had a well-entrenched

23

mail? Do you know one way or the other?

23

policy of unconstitutional conduct and it

24 A. I believe I received information that they then, 24

wouldn't do any good?

25

that after we filed the lawsuit, they then

25 A. Correct.

Page 35

Page 37

1

instituted a practice or a policy of attempting

1 Q. All right. Without divulging work product, can

2

to notify the sender of the mail in some

2

you tell us why you did not file your lawsuit

3

instances, but it's far from clear to me how

3

much sooner?

4

that practice is followed, what they actually do 4 A. Our investigation into the practices and

5

in practice and if they actually do it.

5

policies of the Columbia County Jail were

6 Q. So, in other words, you don't know one way or

6

underway. Also I think, I guess the other

7

the other how they do it in practice; is that

7

question is sooner, I guess sooner than what?

8

correct? If you say it's far from clear. I'm

8 Q. Well --

9

not trying to be a smart-aleck.

9 A. Sooner than we did or —

10 A. No. No. No. From reading the policy, I don't 10 Q. Right.

11

understand it. That why I'm saying is that I've 11 A. I, I think that one of the things is, one of the

12

reviewed the policy. Having reviewed the

12

things is we need to investigate what the

13

policy, I do not understand what they actually 13

practices are at a given jail. I think that's

14

do.

14

number one. And then the reality is that we're

15 O. All riqht. To vour knowledqe, did PLN or HRDC

15

a small organization. We have very limited

16

send any letters or e-mails to the

16

resources and, you know, we're not the

17

administrative staff at the Columbia County Jail

17

government with its unlimited resources and, you

18

prior to preparing the complaint, letting them

18

know, copious means of doing things. So we

19

know of your concern that not allowing magazines

19

actually have to marshal our resources, find

20

was clearly unconstitutional?

20

attorneys that can represent us. And then the

21 A. No. I do not believe we did.

21

attorneys need to investigate the facts, ensure

22 Q. Okay. And if I were to ask you why you did not,

22

that it's, that it's a meritorious lawsuit and

23

can I assume you would say I would have to

23

we have a basis on which to proceed and then we

24

divulge work product?

24

have to get going.

25 A. Yes. That would be part of my answer.

25

So, I mean, all of this takes time to do.

Beovich Walter & Friend

10 (Pages 34 to 37)
EXHi3IT_JL_----
"AGE j^:" it .

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 107-2 Filed 10/09/12 Page 5 of 9

Wright, Paul

June 7, 2012

Page 74

Page 7 6

1 A. Whatever is needed. I mean, this is the context

1 Q. How many hours a week?

2

of we're a small organization and we have very

2

A. Around 30.

3

limited resources. And to make effective use of

3 Q. And Mr. Friedmann?

4

our limited resources, people have to do

4 A. Full time.

5

whatever comes up as needed.

5 Q. For purposes of - Let me just ask it

6 Q- Okay. So what will he do, for example, as

7

needed?

6

differently. Approximately how many

7

subscriptions go out per month of PLN, to your

8 A. If we need assistance, if someone needs

8

knowledge? Let me reword that before you answer

9

assistance packaging materials to go out, he

9

that because I don't like the way I asked that

10

might help with that. If — Generally he does

10

question.

11

not do that. But if, this is in the context of,

11

How many issues are sent out to recipients

12

like I say, we're a small organization and

12

each month?

13

everyone has to pitch in to do what's needed on 13 A. On average?

14

an as-needed basis. We don't have rigid, we

14 Q. On average.

15

have fairly well-defined job duties for what we

15 A. Around 7,000.

16

do, but for hourly office staff, it's, it's,

16 Q. All right. How many of those go out to

17

except for Mr. Phillips, as far as Julie and

17

subscribers?

18

Dennis go, they're more general office staff as

18 A. The number varies literally from month to month.

19

far as keeping, processing orders and keeping

19

So that will be anywhere from, depending on the

20

things going out.

20

month, like recently it will be anywhere from,

21 Q. Okay. So why don't we talk about Mr. Phillips

21

say, 4,900 to 6,000.

22

then. What is it he usually does?

22 Q. Okay.

23 A. He works as a paralegal under Mr. Weber's

23 A. And that's a number that changes monthly.

24

supervision.

24 Q. What is your understanding as to why it changes,

25 Q. Okay. Is the majority of his work related to

25

fluctuates so much monthly?

Page 75

Page 77

1

either investigation or the actual litigation

1 A. Because it literally depends, as a monthly

2

process?

2

magazine we're constantly adding subscribers and

3 A. Yes, it is.

3

we're also constantly losing subscribers. So,

4 Q- Okay. For example, he would be, would he be the

4

and the other thing is you can have really wide

5

one who helped to gather the information we've

5

fluctuations. Like if we do a big promotional

6

requested of HRDC in this lawsuit?

6

mailing, say we do a big promotional mailing

7 A. I know he helped gather some of the information 7

this month, two or three months from now we'll

8

requested. I don't know what information was

8

see a surge in new subscriptions but that also

9

gathered by him and what information was

9

means that a year or two from now when those

10

gathered by Mr. Weber and Ms. Hull.

10

subscriptions start to expire, all things being

11 Q. Okay. And Alex Friedmann, what is his role?

11

equal, we're going to lose more subscribers than

12 A. He is the assistant editor of Prison Legal News.

12

we normally would because we added more

13 Q. Does he have any involvement in the

13

subscribers than we normally would. So that's

14

investigation?

14

kind of, these are kind of the, the cycles of

15 A. In this case?

15

the publishing industry.

16 Q. Of any of the cases.

16 Q. Well, I guess you can educate me on this because

17 A. In some cases he does.

17

I don't know much about publishing. Why would

18 Q- Okay. But that's not his primary role?

18

you lose more subscribers than normal as an

19 A. Correct.

19

effect of gaining more subscribers?

20 Q. Ms. Etter, full time or part time?

20 A. Because all things being equal, I'll just use an

21 A. She is full time.

21

example. If you add 100 subscribers, and I

2 2 Q. Dennis Curran, full time or part time?

22

think this, everyone's ever subscribed to a

23

A. Full time.

23

magazine I think understands this, is people

24 Q. Mr. Phillips?

24

subscribe to a publication. Say you have 100

25 A. Part time.

25

people subscribe to a publication. A certain

Beovich Walter & Friend

20 (Pages 7/k to 77)
: j5
?±zl ± 2- 3FfL_

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 107-2 Filed 10/09/12 Page 6 of 9

Wright, Paul

June 7, 2012

Page 162

Page 164

1

discovery material and I've consulted with

1

should be doing, which is publishing a magazine,

2

attorneys about the potential

2

fundraising and things of that nature.

3

unconstitutionality of the, of the jail's

3 Q. And I appreciate that answer. I thank you for

4

policies and practices and I participated in

4

it.

5

bringing litigation to challenge, to challenge 5

So tell me why, if you were doing everything

6

those unconstitutional policies.

6

that you just told me you were doing and you

7 Q. Okay. So are you treating, I guess here's what

7

didn't have to be stuck in this room listening

8

I'm trying to get at without trying to define,

8

to me, your rate would be at whatever hourly

9

get too far -- I'm not trying to cut your answer

9

rate that would get you to $60,000 a year?

10

too finely here, but what I'm trying to find

10 A. No, it wouldn't be. There's a difference

11

out, when you select $200 an hour, are you

11

between, between actual rate and market rate.

12

basically considering yourself an expert for

12 Q. Well, let me ask it differently. If you were

13

this case? I'm not asking what your attorneys

13

doing the other things that you just identified,

14

think. I'm asking whether or not you are

14

your salary, would, you would be paid that

15

considering yourself as an expert in this case.

15

$60,000-a-year salary to be conducting those

16 A. I would say no.

16

other activities; correct?

17 Q. Okay. If you were not working on this lawsuit

17 A. Yes. But I would be bringing in more money for

18

right now, you would be working on the matters 18

the organization and I would be doing other

19

for which you receive $60,000 after a year's

19

things that are directly related with our core

20

worth of labor; correct?

20

focus. I mean, what I think that, when we talk

21 A. That is correct.

21

about market rates, for example, is when I'm

22 Q. And if you work 1,800 hours a year, I think that 22

hired by someone and they pay me $200 an hour,

23

comes out to about $34 an hour.

23

the, I think that's the market speaking, saying

24 A. Your question is?

24

at least someone thinks I'm worth $200 an hour.

25 Q. My question is if this is a case about your

25 Q. Okay. Would you go ahead and identify every

Page 163

Page 165

1

diversion of resources and basically you're

1

month where PLN's magazine did not get published

2

saying I can't work at 33 or 34 or $35 an hour

2

on time because the staff was diverting their

3

because I have to work on this lawsuit, isn't

3

resources to deal with this lawsuit?

4

that what your diversion of resources claim is?

4 A. This lawsuit has not affected our —

5

A. Yes. Correct.

5 Q. Okay. I just want you to identify the month.

6 Q. How do you justify going from that lower rate to

6

There should be names of months. Can you

7

$200 an hour?

7

identify one month where the magazine did not

8 A. Because I think it's a lost opportunity, it's

8

get out on time because your staff was diverting

9

the matter of lost opportunity in the sense that

9

resources to this lawsuit, sir?

10

the time I'm spending having to devote our

10 A. Well, what I was going to say is that this

11

scarce resources to bringing the Columbia County 11

lawsuit has not affected, nothing, nothing has

12

Jail into compliance with the Constitution is

12

affected our publication schedule —

13

time that I'm not spending on other matters that 13 Q. Okay.

14

are equally or more pressing, which include

14 A. — in the past number of years —

15

advocacy on behalf of detained. It also

15 Q. Okay.

16

includes for the organization for HRDC, for

16 A. ~ beyond things having to do more with our

17

example, the time I'm spending right here in

17

printer schedule.

18

this deposition is time I'm not spending

18 O. Okav. And I don't remember the - We'll

19

fundraising for our organization and doing other

19

probably come to this later if I decide to qo

20

things that we need. So there's only, as you

20

back, but you're actually, the rate you want for

21

note, there's only so many hours in the workweek 21

Zach PhilliDS for diversion of resources is

22

or the work year.

22

higher than he actually qets Daid bv PLN;

23 Q. Okay.

23

correct?

24 A. And we're taking those limited resources and

24 A. Correct.

25

we're spending them on this instead of what we

25 Q. And is that the same reason, because he can't be

42 (Pages 162 to 165)

Beovich Walter & Friend

PASE _Jd2_J •" -1—

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 107-2 Filed 10/09/12 Page 7 of 9

Wright, Paul

June 7, 2012

Page 166

Page 168

1

doinq these other thinqs that he should be doinq

2

In other words, you're not, you're not putting a

2

for the company?

2

higher rate on Columbia County because of

3 A. That is correct.

3

whatever reason, are you?

4 Q. What is it that he is not doing for the company

4 A. No. Actually we're giving Columbia County a

5

that has, well, let me just say, what is it he's

5

lower rate.

6

not doinq for PLN because his time and resources

6 Q. Okay. So if it were a larger county, if it was

7

have been diverted to this lawsuit?

7

Sacramento, sorry, Spokane higher, was it a

8 A. Because by having to divert his resources and

8

higher rate?

9

his time to work on this lawsuit, he's not doing

9 A. No. I think this goes by what the market rate

10

other work for the organization.

10

is in the geographic region. It has nothing to

11 Q. Okay. What other work isn't he doinq?

i]

do with the facility, the size. So, for

12 A. He could be working on other cases.

12

example, San Francisco or Los Angeles would

13 Q. Other litigation cases?

13

probably be a higher market rate. Nebraska

14

A. Yes.

i ••;

would probably be a lower rate.

15 Q. Okay. That's why he was hired; right? Isn't he

L5 Q. Okay. So go ahead and name two or three of the

16

the paralegal?

lawsuits where the rates have been higher that

17 A. Yes, he is.

....
you're seeking for your diversion of resources

18 Q. All right. Okay. So if I, I don't mean to be a

13

claim.

19

smart-aleck here, but I'm trying to put on my

L9 A. I don't know off the top of my head.

20

inadequate business hat. You're paying Zach,

20 Q. But you would have that information back at the

21

how much money a year was it?

21

office; correct?

22 A. I don't know what his yearly salary is.

2 2 A. Or my attorneys would. Yes.

23 Q. Okay. And it's written down so it doesn't, it

23 Q. Okay. If you provided this, please accept my

24

doesn't matter. But if instead he were to work

24

apology. There's been so much material

25

that 1800 hours a year or whatever the number is

25

exchanged here. Do your employees keep time

Page 167

Page 169

1

that he would work for you full time, only on

1

records specific to each litigation matter they

2

matters where you recovered all the money you

2

are working on?

3

want, the income from him would be substantially 3 A. Yes, they do.

4

more than what you pay him; correct?

4 Q. So if I want to know as to each day how many

5 A. I don't know about substantial, but yes, it

5

hours Dennis Curran worked on this lawsuit, I

6

would be more.

6

can get that document that will tell me

7 Q. Okay. Because you don't pay him anywhere near 7

three hours on April 4th?

8

the hourly rate you want to get for him in this

B A. Yes.

9

lawsuit. Is that a fair statement? Is that an

9 Q. From what you recall, have you provided that

10

accurate statement?

10

information to your attorney?

LI A. Can you reask the question?

11

L2 (J. Sure. Sure. The amount of money you pay him 12

MR. WING: You've got it, Steve.
MR. KRAEMER: Do we have those broken down

13

per hour working for HRDC is substantially less

13

by days? Okay. I didn't realize that. Thank

14

than the amount of money you want on an hourly 14

you.

L5

basis for his time in this lawsuit; correct? •

15

MR. WING: Yeah.

L6 A. There is a difference. Yes.

16 Q. BY MR. KRAEMER: Okay. You have a claim for

17 Q. And that would be the same for each of the other 17

frustration of mission damages.

18

lawsuits that he works on as well; correct?

18 A. Uh-huh.

L9 A. Yes. This is a difference.

19 Q. Can you identify any cases where PLN has taken

20 Q. If I were to look at interrogatories or

20

out advertisements in newspapers?

21

discovery requests from other lawsuits that HRDC 21 A. No. We have not done that yet.

22

has going right now or within the past year, and

22 Q. Okay. Has PLN or of course HRDC prepared the

23

if the same question was asked about how much

23

letters that you reference in response to

24

you expect per hour for each of your employees

24

interrogatory number 17 to send to prisoners?

25

who are working on litigation, is it the same?

25 A. No, because we haven't won the case yet. This

43 (Pages 166_to 169

Beovich Walter & Friend

:• • ~;

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 107-2 Filed 10/09/12 Page 8 of 9

Wright, Paul

June 7, 2012

Page 198

Page 200

1

for whatever reason he's asked us to stop or

l

letter.

2

it's been returned to us as undeliverable and we

2

A. Correct.

3

don't know where he is.

3 Q. Okay. And do you recall receiving copies of the

4

(Exhibit 83 marked for identification.)

4

inmate manual?

5 Q. BY MR. KRAEMER: Exhibit 83, would you take a

5 A. I know I've seen copies of the inmate manual for

6

look at that for a moment, please. Do you, do

6

Columbia County Jail and my attorneys have shown

7

you know why something was redacted under "Dear

7

them to me. And what their source is for them.

8

Jason"?

8

I do not know.

9

A. I do not know.

9 Q. Okay. The inmate manual stated that magazines

10 Q. To your knowledge, has Lance Weber ever

10

were not accepted; correct?

11

represented Jason Quade?

11 A. I believe so.

12 A. What do you mean by "represent"?

12 Q. Okay. So as of December 12, give or take a few

13 Q. Well, to your knowledge has Mr. Quade ever been

13

days, but as of sometime in December 2010, you

14

represented by Mr. Weber? I'm not sure how else

14

now had the website statinq maqazines were not

15

to ask that?

15

permitted and you now have a letter from Jason

16 A. Well, when you say "represent," like do you mean 16

Quade stating that he had included pages out of

17

has he signed a retainer agreement with

17

the inmate manual about the mail; correct?

18

Mr. Weber?

18 A. Uh-huh.

19 Q. No, not necessarily.

19 Q. Is that correct?

20 A. Okay. Well, I'm not sure what you mean by the

20 A. Yes. Based on the letter to Mr. Weber, yes.

21

word "represent."

21 Q. Okay. And assuminq Mr. Quade did, in fact,

22 Q. Has Mr. Quade, to your knowledge, ever utilized

22

include paqes out of the manual about the maiL

23

Mr. Weber as his lawyer, to your knowledge?

23

as he represented he did, you would now have two

24 A. And again, what do you mean by as "his lawyer"? 24

sources of information that the county's mail

25 Q. As opposed to what? I mean, as his attorney, to

25

policy at least as it relates to maqazines was

Page 199

Page 201

1

provide legal advice.

1

unconstitutional, correct, one being the website

2 A. I do not know that.

2

itself and the second being the information from

3

(Exhibit 84 marked for identification.)

3

Mr. Quade?

4 Q. BY MR. KRAEMER: Okay. Do you, do you recall

4 A. Correct.

5

Mr. Quade ever callinq HRDC?

5 Q. And that would be as of December 2010; correct?

6 A. I don't recall, top of my head. But based on

6 A. Correct.

7

Exhibit 83 where Mr. Weber writes to Mr. Ouade

7 Q. Okay.

8

and refer, and the letter says, re our

8

(Exhibit 85 marked for identification.)

9

conversation today, I would say it sounds like

9 Q. BY MR. KRAEMER: Mr. Wright, I'd like you to

10

Mr. Quade contacted HRDC and spoke with

10

kindly just identify Exhibit 85. I believe they

]1

Mr. Weber, based on the letter.

11

are your initial disclosures. Would you go to

12 Q. The, let me show you Exhibit 84. This appears

12

number two on page 3, kindly.

13

to be a letter that was sent by Mr. Quade to

13 A. Yes.

14

HRDC, attention Lance Weber.

14 Q. These four individuals you have listed as people

15 A. Uh-huh.

15

who have attempted to communicate with Columbia

16 Q. Two-page document. And the second page, the

16

County prisoners by mail, did PLN, HRDC or any

17

bottom appears to be a letter from Jason Quade,

17

of its agents contact these people initially or

18

but I can't tell for sure. I'm sorry. The

18

did you receive contact from these people as the

19

second page appears to be a letter from Jason

19

first communication with each one of them?

20

Quade to Lance Weber. Do you agree with that?

20 A. I believe that for the first three people they

21 A. Yes, I agree with that.

21

contacted us and for Ms. Lennox, we contacted

22 Q. And it's dated 12-12-10; correct?

22

her.

23 A. Correct.
24 £. And it appears to reference pages out of the

23 Q. Okay. Do you know, without divulging any work

24

product, why the first three people, let me

25

inmate manual that are being sent with the

25

reword that, how they came to contact you? Put

51 (Pages L$8 to 201

Beovich Walter & Friend

-r-e_Jl0f_3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 107-2 Filed 10/09/12 Page 9 of 9

Wright, Paul

June 7, 2012

Page 215

1

CERTIFICATE

2

3

I, Aleshia K. Macom, CSR No. 94-0296, do

4

hereby certify that PAUL ALEXANDER WRIGHT

5

personally appeared before me at the time and

6

place mentioned in the caption herein; that the

7

witness was by me first duly sworn on oath, and

8

examined upon oral interrogatories propounded by

9

counsel; that said examination, together with

10

the testimony of said witness, was taken down by

11

me in stenotype and thereafter reduced to

12

typewriting; and that the foregoing transcript,

13

Pages 1 to 214, both inclusive, constitutes a

14

full, true and accurate record of said

15

examination of and testimony given by said

16

witness, and of all other proceedings had during

17

the taking of said deposition, and of the whole

18

thereof, to the best of my ability.

19

Witness my hand at Portland, Oregon, this

20

18th dajr-e^June, 2012.

iftOWWife

21

22

^cK^fhow^^

23

Aleshia K. Macom

24

CSR No. 94-0296

25

Beovich Walter & Friend

EXHIBD . 6
PAGE_A-0F--i-

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 107-3 Filed 10/09/12 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

Page 1

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the Human Rights Defense Center,
Plaintiff,

No. 3:12-CV-71-SI

v.
COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF
DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,

Defendants.

TELEPHONIC DEPOSITION OF ZACH PHILLIPS Taken in behalf of Defendants
August 27, 2012

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 107-3 Filed 10/09/12 Page 2 of 4

Phillips, Zach

August 27,2012

Page 2

1

BE IT REMEMBERED THAT, the deposition of

ZACH PHILLIPS was reported by Aleshia K. Macom,

3

CSR No. 94-0296, on Monday, August 27, 2012,

4

commencing at the hour of 7:06 a.m., the

proceedings being reported at Hart Wagner,

6

1000 SW Broadway, Suite 2000, Portland, Oregon.

7

8

APPEARANCES

9

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS

10

By Jesse A. Wing

11

705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500

12

Seattle, Washington 98104

13

and

14

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

15

By Lance Weber and Alissa Hull (Appearing

16

telephonically)

17

1037 Western Avenue, 2nd Floor

18

West Brattleboro, Vermont 05303

19

Appearing for Plaintiff

20

HART WAGNER LLP

21

By Steven Kraemer

22

1000 SW Broadway, Suite 2000

23

Portland, Oregon 97205

24

Appearing for Defendants

25

ALSO PRESENT: Paul Wright (Telephonically)

Beovich Walter & Friend

C
-: 2 :-:M

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 107-3 Filed 10/09/12 Page 3 of 4

Phillips, Zach

August 27, 2012

Page 22

Page 24

1

track of your time?

2 A. A time record every day, yeah.

3 Q. And was that an actual piece of paper or did you

4

enter it into a computer?

5 A. It was an actual piece of paper.

6 Q. Is it a piece of paper that was formatted that

said something like HRDC time record or daily

activity sheet? What did it say? 9 A. I'm not, I'm not certain what it says. It has

10

boxes for filling in dates and times.

11 Q. Okay. Now, on the time record do you, you

12

simply put the number of hours you worked a day

13

or do you put the time you showed up at work and

14

the time you left?

15 A. Time I showed up and left.

16 Q. And do you put what you did on the record?

17 A. No.

18 Q. Okay. So if I were to look at one of those

19

pieces of paper, for example, for March 13th, it

20

wouldn't tell, it would not tell me what you did

21

that day, just how many hours you worked;

22

correct?

23 A. That's correct.

24 Q. Okay. What is your rate of pay right now by

25

the--Let me back up.

1

and cultural anthropology.

2

Okay. Are you planning on going to law school

3

at this time?

4

Eventually.

5

How did you start volunteering at HRDC? Did you

6

apply or did somebody suggest you go there? How

7

did that come about?

8 A. I heard about the magazine. And I started

9

reading the magazine and I liked it. And I

10

contacted Paul Wright and, yeah.

11 Q. Okay. Did you fill out a job application?

12 A. No. I don't think so.

13 Q. How did you come to be in possession of a

14

magazine that you started to read?

15 A. I think it was my cousin who told me about

16

Prison Legal News.

17 Q. All right. What did he tell you? 18 A. Said, hey, you know, there's this magazine you

19

might be interested in, because I was studying,

20

you know, prison-related issues in school.

21 Q. Okay. Was your cousin in jail or prison at the

22

time?

23 A. No.

24 Q. Had he, did he tell you how he came to be

25

familiar with the magazine?

Page 23

Page 25

1

Are you still paid hourly?

A. Yeah. I think he, I think he did some work for

2 A Yes.

Paul. I'm not sure if it was for the magazine.

_L_3 And how much are you being paid an hour now?
$12 an hour.

Q. Okay. What's his name? A. His name is Sam Phillips.

And when did it, when did it increase?

Q. What kind of studying were you doing in college

I think the last increase was about, was around

related to prison issues?

the beginning of 2012. ,

A. Well, I took several courses specifically about,

_Q All right. And what were you making before the

you know, prison-related law and including one

increase?

that was, you know, like a split class with half

10

11.

10

of the class being prisoners at the local jail.

11

Do you get benefits?

11

And I tutored in the local jail, GED stuff. And

12

No.

12

I'm trying to think if there was anything else.

13

At this time are you planning on leaving HRDC?

13

Class on the history, the history of prisons.

14

No.

14 Q So you tutor them to take their GED tests; is

15

Where did you go to college?

15

that what you're saying?

Hampshire College.

16 A Yeah. I didn't do that very much.

17

Hampshire as in the state?

17 Q Okay. Who is your contact at the local jail?

18

There's a state called New Hampshire.

18 A I really don't remember.

19

Yeah. I mean, Hampshire as in the state;

20

correct? I just want to make sure I'm

19

Q You don't remember?

20 A I don't remember her name, no.

21

understanding what you said correctly. It's

21 Q But it was a lady?

22

Hampshire?

22 A Yep.

23

Yes.

23 Q All right. Which jail are you referring to?

24

Okay. And what is your degree in?

2 4 A The Hampshire, Hampshire County but — Oh, what

25

I got a bachelor of arts and I studied prelaw

25

do they call the Massachusetts — It's been a

Beovich Walter & Friend

7 (Pages 22 to 25
na
PAGE 3 0FJL

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 107-3 Filed 10/09/12 Page 4 of 4

Phillips, Zach

August 27, 2012

Page 51

1

CERTIFICATE

2

3

I, Aleshia K. Macom, CSR No. 94-0296, do

A

hereby certify that ZACH PHILLIPS via telephone

r.'

appeared before me at the time and place

6

mentioned in the caption herein; that the

n

witness was by me first duly sworn on oath, and

8

examined upon oral interrogatories propounded by

9

counsel; thai: said examination, together with

10

the testimony of said witness, was taken down by

11

me in stenotype and thereafter reduced to

12

typewriting; and that the foregoing transcript,

13

Pages 1 to 50, both inclusive, constitutes a

14

full, true and accurate record of said

15

examination of and testimony given by said

16

witness, and of all other proceedings had during

17

the taking of said deposition, and of the whole

18

thereof, Lo the best of my ability.

19

Witness my hand at Portland, Oregon, this

20

4ch day of September, 2012.

21

; ••:• £J4a£n

22

:•:••' Oregon \fii

idM£lL 0^\,

23

!o\ ••••••••

94-0296

24

Aleshia K. Macom CSR No. 94-0296

Bcovich Walter & Friend

EXHIBIT a
PAGE_^_0F^|_

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 107-4 Filed 10/09/12 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

Page 1

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the Human Rights Defense

Center,

Plaintiff,

No. 3:12-CV-71-SI

v.

COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF
DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,

Defendants.

TELEPHONIC DEPOSITION OF DENNIS JOHN CURRAN Taken in behalf of Defendants
August 27, 2012

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 107-4 Filed 10/09/12 Page 2 of 5

Curran, Dennis

August 27, 2012

Page 2

1

BE IT REMEMBERED THAT, the deposition of

2

DENNIS JOHN CURRAN was reported by Aleshia K.

3

Macom, CSR No. 94-0296, on Monday, August 27,

4

2012, commencing at the hour of 8:54 a.m., the

5

proceedings being reported at Hart Wagner,

6

1000 SW Broadway, Suite 2000, Portland, Oregon.

7

8

APPEARANCES

9

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS

10

By Jesse A. Wing

11

705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500

12

Seattle, Washington 98104

13

and

14

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, Human Rights Defense Center

15

By Lance Weber and Alissa Hull (Appearing

16

telephonically)

17

1037 Western Avenue, 2nd Floor

18

West Brattleboro, Vermont 05303

19

Appearing for Plaintiff

20

HART WAGNER LLP

21

By Steven Kraemer

22

1000 SW Broadway, Suite 2000

23

Portland, Oregon 97205

24

Appearing for Defendants

2^

ALSO PRESENT: Paul Wright (Telephonically)

Beovich Walter & Friend

_.. ..».„

Tv

EXHISn 4^

PAGE 1^ OF S

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 107-4 Filed 10/09/12 Page 3 of 5

Curran, Dennis

August 27, 2012

Page 14

Page 16

1

A. No.

2 Q. And do you know why not?

3

A. No.

4 Q. Have you tried to do that?

5

A. No.

6 Q. Do you know if it can be done one way or the

7

other?

1

computer consultants, to your knowledge?

2 A. Paul Wright.

3 Q. Anybody else? 4 A. No, not that I know of.

5 Q. Do you know the name of any of the computer

6

consultants Mr. Wright has worked with?

7

A. Just first name.

8 A. I don't know.

9 Q. Do you have ~ Do you know how many paid

10

subscribers there are to the PLN magazine?

11 A. No, I don't.

8

Q- What's the first name?

9

A. Aaron.

10 Q. Aaron?

11

A. Yes.

12 Q. Have you ever seen that information?

12 Q. Is Aaron a man or a woman or do you know?

13 A. No, I haven't.

13 A. Man.

14 Q. Do you have any role in advertising?
15 A. I don't.

14 Q- And do you have an understanding as to why

15

Mr. Wright was working with Aaron?

16 Q. Do you know whether HRDC receives any income 16 A. He is our general computer specialist.

17

from advertisers whatsoever?

17 Q. Okay. How long has he been the general computer

18 A. I don't know.

18

specialist?

19 Q- Do you know who handles advertising, who

20

processes the advertising, deals with

19 A. I do not know.
20 Q- More than a year, to your knowledge?

21

advertisers at HRDC?

21 A. Yes.

22 A. Yes.

22 Q. So if the system crashes or something like that,

23 Q. Who's that? 24 A. Susan Schwartzkopf.

23

is he the person that generally comes in to

24

start looking at the problem?

25 Q. Do you know what the various sources of income 25 A. Yes.

Page 15

Page 17

1

are for HRDC? Let me reword that. Do you know

1 Q. Okay. Are you familiar with the name Lloyd

2

what the various sources of revenue are for

2

Weber?

3

HRDC?

3 A. No, I'm not.

4 A. No, I don't.

4 Q. Are you familiar with the name Charlie Detar?

5 Q. Other than subscriptions or orders that you are

6

processing, are you aware of any other source of

5

A. No.

6 Q- Do you know the name of the company Aaron works

7

revenue for HRDC?

7

for?

8 A. No, just the orders.

8 A. Not off the top of my head, no.

9 Q. So do I understand what you just said is you are

10

unfamiliar with any source of revenue for HRDC

9 Q. Do you know where his, where that company is

10

located?

11

other than the orders that are processed; is

11 A. Yes.

12

that what you said?

13 A. Yes. That's correct.

12 Q- Where is that? 13 A. Brattleboro, Vermont.

14 Q- Okay. Have you, have you ever worked with any

15

computer consultants while with HRDC, any

14 Q. Would you spell that. Bradboro?
15 A. Yes. It's BRATTLEBORO.

16

outside computer consultants?

16 Q. Okay. How much are you paid an hour?

17 A. Myself personally? No.

17 A. I am paid $12.50 an hour.

18 Q. Are you aware of anybody from or anybody at HRDC 18 Q. Has that chanqed at all over the past year?

19

working with any outside computer consultants?

19 A. Yes, it has.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q- Who? Who -- Let me reword that. Who at HRDC

22

has worked with outside computer consultants?

23 A. No one, like, personal.

20 9- When was it - When did you get a raise?
21 A. I don't recall.
22 Q- Was it in 2012 or 2011? ,
23 A. 2012.

24 Q- Okay. I'm not sure I follow that answer. Who

25

at HRDC has been the contact person for outside

24 Q. And before you received the raise how much were

25

you paid?

Beovich Walter & Friend

5 (Pages 14 to 17
P
PAGE 2> OF S

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 107-4 Filed 10/09/12 Page 4 of 5

Curran, Dennis

August 27,2012

Page 18

Page 20

1 A. $12 an hour.

l

all?

2 Q. Anv benefits?

2 A. No, I don't.

3 A. No.
4 Q. Are you full or part time?

3 Q. And you understand when I say PLN, I also mean

4

HRDC?

5 A. Full time.

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And when did you start? 7 A. I started in September of 2010.

6 Q- Of the magazine subscriptions you process, about

7

how many do you process in a given week?

8 Q. Did you start full time or part time?

8 A. A given week can vary.

9 A. I started part time. 10 Q. When did you go full time?

9 Q. What's the variance? 10 A. I'm sorry. Can you say that again?

11 A. I don't recall the exact date.
12 Q. What's the approximate date?

11 Q. Yeah. How much does it vary by? What would be

12

the low end in an average week and what would be

13 A. End of 2010.

13

the high end?

14 Q. How do you keep track of the hours you work?

15

MR. WING: Objection. Assumes facts not in

14 A. About 20 or so in a low and a high I couldn't

15

really say. I don't keep track.

16

evidence.

16 Q. Okay. And the subscriptions that you're

17 Q. BY MR. KRAEMER: How do you keep track of the 17

processing, that includes both paid and unpaid;

18

hours you work?

18

is that correct or not correct?

19

MR. WING: Same objection.

19 A. I only know of paid subscriptions.

20 Q. BY MR. KRAEMER: You can answer.

20 Q. Okay. So you're not involved, for example, if

21 A. Sorry. I couldn't hear.

21

an inmate asks for a three-month trial

22 Q. Okay. Do you keep track of the hours you work 22

23

so you can get paid?

23

subscription, that's not something you're involved with; is that correct?

24 A. Yes.

24 A. Correct.

25 Q. Okay. How do you keep track of the hours you

25

MR. KRAEMER: That*s all I have. Thank you.

Page 19

Page 21

1

work?

1

2 A. I keep track of them on a time sheet.

2

3 Q. Is it a software program or is it a hard copy

3

4

piece of paper?

4

5 A. It's a hard copy piece of paper.

5

6 Q. And then do you turn that in?

6

7 A. Yes.

7

8 Q- How often?

8

9 A. Turn it in every two weeks.

9

10 Q. To who?

10

11 A. To Susan Schwartzkopf.

11

12 Q. Does the time sheet identify what tasks you

12

13

perform on any given day?

13

14 A. No, it doesn't.

14

15 Q. Are you involved in trying to market or actively 15

16

sell any PLN product?

16

17 A. No, I'm not.

17

18 Q. Do you know if there's anybody in the office

18

19

where you work that is what we would commonly 19

20

refer to as a salesperson for PLN?

20

21 A. I don't know.

21

22 Q. Okay. So let me ask it differently, do you know 22

23

of any salespeople for PLN?

23

24 A. No, I don't.

24

25 Q. Do you know how PLN does its marketing, if at 25

(Recess at 9:23.)
***
6 (Pages 18 to 21)

Beovich Walter & Friend

EXHIBIT _j>

PAGE_i£QF_£...

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 107-4 Filed 10/09/12 Page 5 of 5

Outran, Deanis

August 27,2012

Page 22

1

CERTIFICATE

2

3

I, Aleshia K. Macom, CSR No. 94-0296, do

4

hereby certify that DENNIS JOHN CURRAN via

5

telephone appeared before me at the time and

6

place mentioned in the caption herein; that the

7

witness was by me first duly sworn on oath, and

8

examined upon oral interrogatories propounded by

9

counsel; that said examination, together with

10

the testimony of said witness, was taken down by

11

me in stenotype and thereafter reduced to

12

typewriting; and that the foregoing transcript,

13

Pages 1 to 21, both inclusive, constitutes a

14

full, true and accurate record of said

15

examination of and testimony given by said

16

witness, and of all other proceedings had during

17

the taking of said deposition, and of the whole

IS

thereof, to the best of my ability.

19

Witness my hand at Portland, Oregon, this

2C

4th day of September, 2012.

21

22

I f^'f Oregon \&%t

i a M. j0kti

»v\_

23

Aleshia K. Macom

24

CSR No. 94-0296

25

Bcovich Walter & Friend

"•-3: JEL-~?X

Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court deci S1011S

Page I of I

Twenty Years of PLN in Court
Since PLN was founded in 1990 we have been censored in prisons and jails around the country. We have always tried to resolve censorship issues
administratively, but in cases where the goal of prison officials was toban PLN orour books, that obviously wasn't possible. PLN has aggressively challenged censorship across the nation and we have won the vast majority ofour court battles. We have also litigated a number ofpublic records
cases involving prisons an .. .

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 107-5 Filed 10/09/12 Page 1 of 1

•p
;•-•' -i) rn

11'
.•
•.
"i
—1

^
*<n httDs://www.DrisonlegaInews.org/22305 displayArticle.aspx

3/6/2012

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 107-6 Filed 10/09/12 Page 1 of 2

Human Rights Defense Center
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
confidential legal mail: attorney correspondence
December 9,2010 Jason C Quade
Columbia Co Jail 901 Port Ave
St Helens, OR 97051 RE: Our Conversation Today
Dear Jason,
REDACTED

I didn'trealize it when I wastalking with you, but we have air eady signed you up for a free trial subscription toPrison Legal News back on November 19. We mailed you a copy ofthe
magazine onthatdate. Additionally, wesent you a book ina cardboard box and a regular sized
envelope containing three brochures. Did you rece ive any of those things ? We would like to make sure that inm atcs there and everywhere else around the country are able to receive books, magazines and other literature just likethe law says that theyaresupposed to be ableto do.

We look forward to hearing m ore from you about the facts concerning delivery of our mail. Also, we are interested in obtaining an affidavit from you about what you have seen with respect to mail being thrown away . I have en closed an exam pie affidavit for you to use as a
reference. Would you mind sending us an affidavit about things you have witnessed with respect to mail delivery? Don't hesitate to let me know ifyou have any questions and hang in there.

Very
HUMAN

Truly Yours,
RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

/

cc: Paul Wright

By: Lance T. Weber
General Counsel
PO Box 2420 West Brattlcboro, VT 05303
Phone: 802-579-1309 Fax: 866-735-7136
Email: lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org

F PLNCOL-00876 caHIdI 1 PAGE ) OF 2-

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 107-6 Filed 10/09/12 Page 2 of 2

Human Rights Defense Center
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights

CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL MAIL: ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT

February 23, 2011

Ezra St Helen 2010000397
Columbia County Jail
901 Port Ave
St Helens, Oregon 97051 RE: Correspondence concerning legal publications

Dear Mr. St Helen,
I am an attorney for the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC). Thank you for your interest in PrisonLegalNews (PIN). Monthly publication of PLN is one of HRDC's projects.

We have enrolled you for a free trial subscription. You should already be in receipt of your first sample issue, which was sent via first-class mail. We are also sending you a packet of informational brochures under separate cover. Additionally, PLN mailed a book to you, Protecting Your Health and Safety. I am writing to ask for confirmation of your receipt of these three (3) items which have all been mailed separately. Additionally, please confirm that you wish to receive materials from Prison Legal News, including our magazine, books, pamphlets and
other materials.

At HRDC we take censorship very seriously and we rely on our readers to determine which prisons and jails are interfering with our publication rights. If you have not received all three of the items mentioned above within the next few weeks, please write to us and let us know. If you receive a notice that any of our publications have been censored by staff, please consider filing a grievance and exhausting all available administrative remedies available to you. If possible, please provide copies of those grievancesand any other related documentation to our office.

Finally, if you know of other prisoners there who might be interested, in our publications and

who will be incarcerated for at least three (3) months, please share PLN's address with them and encourage them to write us to request a free trial subscription. We thank you in advance for your

kind attention to this letter.

Very Truly Yours,

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

cc: Paul Wright

By: Lance T. Weber
General Counsel

PO Box 2420 West Braltleboro, VT 05303
Phone: 802-579-1309 Fax: 866-735-7136
Email: lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org

IXHIBIl PAGE

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 107-7 Filed 10/09/12 Page 1 of 2

cfr?\ port yWe.

\; 1 : r
>» a

CD c

m

i<:« r~

z

:

0

0 -

0
-n

J^J

r')

tt
O)

^

ij !^=E .

ifi.j0^*C h3C*&8*W$- -#•' 4.

^LEGAC/OFFJCIAI

^T;,Lq,\ceT Weber

.•• *
:l

inuni.lnai.llnn.iL.Aiiaulnl,inn.ni.lihul.ini

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 107-7 Filed 10/09/12 Page 2 of 2

j

....

j.Zfesvf Lcv\OS^

JZ//Z./.IO.

\S?Ci&<a*l... yrflU* poop.. « <*<&»/> la. <rp tn QsJ$& . oy<Dj. /HAtfL '/.

REDACTED

,.4C£dfef 4*w- <w.cc(
j SWS AJ<C /Vo/+ Af>*r&-2{0

!>!

REDACTED

O^p'n G}vA^<?^fl-
PLNCOL-00867
EXHIBIT (7 PAGE 7-OF £~

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 114 Filed 10/16/12 Page 1 of 47

Steven A. Kraemer, OSB No. 882476 E-mail: sak@hartwagner.com Gregory R. Roberson, OSB No. 064847 E-mail: grr@hartwagner.com HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301
Of Attorneys for Defendants

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,
Plaintiffs,

No. 3:12-cv-0071-SI

v.
COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF DICKERSON, individual and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Oral Argument: November 16, 2012

Defendants.

Table of Contents
I. Summary of Argument ....................................................................................................... 1 II. Summary Judgment Standard ............................................................................................. 1 III. Relevant Facts ..................................................................................................................... 2
A. Timeline. ............................................................................................................................. 2 B. Defendants Took Immediate Action to Identify and Correct the Handling of Inmate Mail.
............................................................................................................................................. 3 C. Washington County Sheriff’s Office Promoted the Statewide Adoption of a PostcardOnly Policy. ................................................................................................................................ 5

Page i – TABLE OF CONTENTS

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 114 Filed 10/16/12 Page 2 of 47

D. After January and February of 2012, the IMP Continued to Remain Under Significant Review. ....................................................................................................................................... 6 E. Action Taken Prior to Court’s Opinion and Order on PLN’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. ................................................................................................................................... 7
1. Postcard Restriction on Personal Inmate Mail Was Clarified. ........................................ 7 2. A New Inmate Manual Was Issued in May, 2012. .......................................................... 8 3. Due Process Procedures Have Been Further Clarified. ................................................... 9 F. Action Taken After Court’s Opinion and Order Dated May 29, 2012. ............................ 10 G. The Sheriff’s Office Has Discarded the Postcard-Only Policy and Will Not Go Back. .. 10 H. Columbia County Has No Control Over the Mail Practices of the Sheriff’s Office, and the Sheriff’s Office Is Not an Agent of Columbia County. ............................................................ 10 IV. PLN Lacks Standing to Assert Injunctive and Declaratory Relief ................................... 10 V. PLN’s Claim for Injunctive Relief Is Moot ...................................................................... 12 VI. Summary Judgment On PLN’s Claim for Permanent Injunction Should be Denied ....... 14 A. Legal Standard for Permanent Injunction. ........................................................................ 14 B. PLN Has Failed to Meet its Burden for Permanent Injunction......................................... 15 1. No Demonstration of Irreparable Harm. ........................................................................ 15 2. No Showing of Success on the Merits Because the Prior Postcard-Only Policy Was
Constitutional under Turner v. Safley. ........................................................................... 17 3. Balance of Hardships Does Not Tip in PLN’s Favor for a Permanent Injunction. ....... 29 4. A Permanent Injunction Does Not Serve The Public Interest. ...................................... 29 C. PLN’s Arguments Do Not Support a Permanent Injunction. ........................................... 29 1. The Postcard Policy Has Been Eliminated and Defendants Will Not Reinstitute It. .... 30 2. Defendants Have Admitted to Unconstitutional Practices and No Longer Restricts Mail
to Postcard Form. ........................................................................................................... 30 3. Sheriff Dickerson Immediately Conformed the Jail Practices to the Constitution. PLN
Has Presented No Evidence that Its Mail Has Been Wrongfully Rejected Since Before January, 2012 and It Does Not Challenge the Current IMP. ......................................... 31

Page ii – TABLE OF CONTENTS

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 114 Filed 10/16/12 Page 3 of 47
4. Columbia County Sheriff’s Office Has Permanently Changed Its Mail Policy and Practices. ........................................................................................................................ 31
5. The Sheriff’s Office’s Training Was Adequate and Has Worked. ................................ 32 6. After Implementing Its New IMP in January and February, 2012, the Sheriff’s Office
Mistakenly Did Not Remove All References to Its Prior Practices. .............................. 33 7. After Determining that Some of its Mail Practices Were Unconstitutional, the Sheriff’s
Office Adopted New Practices and Moved Forward. .................................................... 35 8. Sheriff Dickerson Has Upheld His Oath........................................................................ 36 9. Sheriff Dickerson Has Held His Staff and the Sheriff’s Office Accountable................ 36 10. Undersheriff Moyer Also Acted Responsibly When He Learned that Constitutional
Violations Occurred. ...................................................................................................... 37 11. The Sheriff’s Office Does Not Keep Interim Draft Policies.......................................... 37 12. PLN’s Arguments Against Mootness Are Redundant and Unpersuasive. .................... 38 VII. PLN’s Summary Judgment Request for Declaratory Relief Should be Denied ............... 38 A. Legal Standard for Declaratory Relief. ............................................................................. 38 B. PLN’s Declaratory Relief Claim With Respect to the Delivery of Magazines and Due Process Requirements Is Unwarranted. .................................................................................... 39 1. The Claim for Declaratory Relief as to Magazines and Due Process Is Moot. ............. 39 2. The Claim for Declaratory Relief as to Magazines and Due Process Is Baseless. ........ 39 C. The Claim for Declaratory Relief as to a Non-existent Postcard-Only Policy Is Moot and Should Be Denied. .................................................................................................................... 41 VIII. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 42

Page iii – TABLE OF CONTENTS

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 114 Filed 10/16/12 Page 4 of 47

Cases

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) ........................................................... 16, 42

Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521 (2006) ........................................................................................... 18

Bennett v. Columbia County, No. 3:12-cv-00304-AA (D. Or.) .................................................... 17

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986)……………………………………………………1

City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 103 S. Ct. 1660 (1983) ............................................. 16

Covell v. Arpaio, 662 F. Supp.2d 1146 (D. Az. 2009).................................................................. 17

Daniels v. Harris, 2012 WL 3901646 (M.D. Ga. Aug. 8, 2012)............................................ 17, 20

eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (2006)............................................................... 14

El Dia, Inc. v. Hernandez Colon, 963 F.2d 488 (1st Cir. 1992) ................................................... 39

Forter v. Greer, 2012 WL 1340223 (D. Or. Apr. 17, 2012)......................................................... 25 Friedman v. Arizona, 912 F.2d 328 (9th Cir. 1990)…………………………………19, 20, 25, 27

Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000)

............................................................................................................................................ 11, 13

Frost v. Symington, 197 F.3d 348 (9th Cir. 1999) ........................................................................ 23

Gibbons v. Arpaio, 2008 WL 4447003, No. CV07-1456 (D. Az.) ............................................... 17

Gilmore v. People of the State of California, 220 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 2000) ................................ 15

Greater Los Angeles Council on Deafness, Inc. v. Zolin, 812 F.2d 1103 (9th Cir. 1987)...... 39, 40

Hershberger v. Scaletta, 33 F.3d 955 (8th Cir. 1994) .................................................................. 24

Jordan v. Arpaio, 2008 WL 22622401, No. CV08-00856 (D. Az.) ............................................. 17

Lermer Germany GmbH v. Lermer Corp., 94 F.3d 1575 (Fed.Cir. 1996) ................................... 14

Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639 (9th Cir. 1988) ............................................................................. 31

Manriquez v. Huchins, 2010 WL 3502529 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2010) .......................................... 40

Martinez v. May, No. 2:11-cv-14039 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 25, 2012)................................................... 21

Mauro v. Arpaio, 188 F.3d 1054 (9th Cir. 1999).............................................................. 19, 20, 25

Medley v. Arpaio, 2008 WL 3911138, No. CV08-00086 (D. Az.)............................................... 17

Norman-Bloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, 135 F.3d 1260 (9th Cir. 1998) ............... 13

Page i – TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 114 Filed 10/16/12 Page 5 of 47
Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Norton, 503 F.3d 836 (9th Cir. 2007) ............................................. 14 O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342 (1987)....................................................................... 25 Olagues v. Rossoniello, 770 F.2d 791 (9th Cir. 1985)...................................................... 14, 15, 38 Ostlund v. Bobb, 825 F.2d 1371 (9th Cir. 1987)........................................................................... 33 Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126 (2003) .............................................................................. 19, 21 Pergande v. Trumbo, No. 6:10-cv-06314-TC (D. Or.) ................................................................. 17 Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974) ................................................................................ 17 Rogers v. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, 2008 WL 898721, No. CV07-00641 (D. Az.)....... 17 Smith v. University of Washington Law School, 233 F.3d 1188 (9th Cir. 2000) .......................... 13 Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) ........................................................................... 17, 25 Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987)………………………………………………...18, 25, 28 United States v. Walsh, 759 F.2d 1353 (9th Cir. 1985)………………………………….38, 39, 40 Universal Health Services, Inc. v. Thompson, 363 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2004) ............................... 2 Van Poyck v. Singletary, 106 F.3d 1558, 1559 (11th Cir. 1997) .................................................. 24 Washington Public Power Supply System v. Pacific Northwest Co., 332 F.2d 87 (9th Cir. 1964)
.................................................................................................................................................. 39 Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008)................................. 14, 16 Statutes ORS 204.635................................................................................................................................. 10 ORS 206.210................................................................................................................................. 10 ORS 204.005................................................................................................................................. 10 Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3626.......................................................................... 15

Page ii – TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 114 Filed 10/16/12 Page 6 of 47

I. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

PLN seeks summary judgment on its claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, despite

providing no evidence that its mail, or that of any inmate at the Columbia County Jail (“Jail”),

has been wrongfully rejected since prior to the filing of its Complaint in January, 2012. PLN

does not challenge the current inmate mail practices of the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office

(“Sheriff’s Office”), yet it seeks extraordinary relief in the form of a permanent injunction and

declaratory relief. Defendants rely upon the Declaration of Gregory R. Roberson and

Declaration of Sheriff Jeffrey Dickerson, together with supporting exhibits, and the facts and

argument set forth below.

With respect to declaratory relief, defendants have mooted PLN’s motion. To the extent

PLN’s motion is not deemed moot, it does not have standing and has failed to prove that

declaratory relief should be granted at this summary judgement stage.

With respect to permanent injunctive relief, defendants have mooted PLN’s motion, and

even if not moot, PLN does not have standing and has failed to prove that the permanent

injunctive relief it seeks is necessary or appropriate.

Finally, PLN’s Motion does not distinguish between Columbia County, the Sheriff’s

Office, and Sheriff Dickerson. Columbia County has nothing to do with inmate mail, and neither

the Sheriff’s Office nor Sheriff Dickerson is an agent of Columbia County regarding inmate

mail. (Ans. ¶¶ 3.3-3.5.) For these reasons, PLN’s Motion must be denied as to defendant

Columbia County.

II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact

and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The

initial burden is on the moving party to point out the absence of any genuine issue of material

fact. Once the initial burden is satisfied, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to demonstrate

through the production of probative evidence that there remains an issue of fact to be tried.

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) . On a motion for summary judgment, the

Page 1 – RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 114 Filed 10/16/12 Page 7 of 47

evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Universal Health

Services, Inc. v. Thompson, 363 F.3d 1013, 1019 (9th Cir. 2004).

III. RELEVANT FACTS

As soon as Sheriff Dickerson determined that the Sheriff’s Office was handling some

inmate mail in an unconstitutional manner, the deficient practices and the mail policy were changed.1 All of the constitutional issues PLN raised in its complaint have been addressed and

eliminated. Below is a timeline of significant events demonstrating the action taken by

defendants to ensure that its inmate mail policy and practices comply with constitutional

standards.

A. Timeline.

To assist the Court, a brief timeline of significant events is given below. All of these events

are discussed and supported by evidence in Parts B-H, infra.

June, 2011

Last approximate date the Jail rejected PLN’s subscription renewal letter

July, 2011

Last approximate date the Jail rejected PLN’s magazine and informational

brochure packet

November, 2011 Last approximate date the Jail rejected PLN’s fundraising pack

December, 2011 The Jail rejected most of Lucy Lennox’s mailings of an article printed from

PLN’s website

January 13, 2012 Complaint filed

January 26, 2012 Adoption of new Inmate Mail Policy (hereinafter “IMP”) drafted from

Washington County Sheriff’s Office mail policy

February 1, 2012 Formal training on inmate mail procedures

///

///

1 Defendants incorporate the facts asserted in the Declaration of Sheriff Jeffrey Dickerson (Dkt. 32) and the Declaration of Bryan Cutright (Dkt. 30) filed in support of their response to PLN’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.

Page 2 – RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 114 Filed 10/16/12 Page 8 of 47

February 10, 2012 Minor revisions2 to inmate mail policy (“February IMP”)

Mid-February, 2012 The Jail rejected Lucy Lennox’s mailings of an article printed from PLN’s

website

February 16, 2012 Answer filed admitting constitutional violations

April 4, 2012

Hearing on PLN’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction

May 8, 2012

PLN’s Inspection of the Jail

May 16, 2012

New Inmate Manual issued with revised inmate mail procedures

May 25, 2012

Revised inmate mail policy (“May IMP”) retaining postcard restriction on

personal inmate mail

May 29, 2012

Court’s Opinion and Order on PLN’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction

June 18, 2012

Revised inmate mail policy (“June IMP”) discarding postcard restriction

July 3, 2012 July 5, 2012

Formal training on inmate mail procedures Minor revision3 to inmate mail policy (“current IMP”)

August 8, 2012

Formal training for additional staff on inmate mail procedures

B. Defendants Took Immediate Action to Identify and Correct the Handling of Inmate Mail.

The facts show that shortly after this lawsuit was filed, Sheriff Dickerson learned that

staff had been rejecting magazines and the Sheriff’s Office’s website incorrectly stated that

magazines were not allowed into the facility. (Dkt. 32, Dickerson Decl. ¶¶ 8-9.) Additional

investigation revealed that the inmate mail policies effective since at least 2009 provided due

process to the inmate for incoming mail, but was deficient as to the sender, and due process was

deficient for outgoing inmate mail. (See id. ¶ 4, Ex. A, pp.3-5; id. ¶ 5, Ex. B, pp.3-6; id. ¶ 6, Ex.

2 The revision to the January IMP in the February IMP was to clarify that the Prohibited Mail Notice form was the means to communicate the appeal process for mail that the Jail rejected. (Dkt. 32, Dickerson Decl. ¶ 10.)

3 The June IMP no longer limited inmates to receiving three books in a single mailing, however, one

reference to that rule was left in the June IMP. The July IMP removed the reference. (Dickerson Decl. ¶

5.)

Page 3 – RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499

Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 114 Filed 10/16/12 Page 9 of 47

C, pp.3-6; id. ¶ 7, Ex. D, pp.3-7.) This lawsuit was Sheriff Dickerson’s first notice that the

Sheriff’s Office had unconstitutional inmate mail practices. (Id. ¶¶ 8-9.)

At his deposition on May 10, 2012, Sheriff Dickerson testified that he understood that the

Sheriff’s Office had violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments with respect to handling

inmate mail. (Wing Decl. I (Dickerson Dep. 151:12-152:1, 167:1-13, 169:2-173:16).) Although

the Jail had rejected magazines on an inconsistent basis, the Sheriff’s Office’s inmate mail

policies had undergone no changes with respect to the receipt of magazines and all of them

contained the same language, which was that periodicals were accepted. (Dkt. 32, Dickerson

Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. A, p.3; id. ¶ 5, Ex. B, p.3; id. ¶ 6, Ex. C, p. ; id. ¶ 7, Ex. D, p.3 (“Books and/or

periodicals may be procured from outside the jail, however, any such book, hardbound or

otherwise, must be sent directly from the publisher or bookstore via the U.S. Mail.”).) The

evidence supports that the rejection of magazines and other correspondence by Jail staff was

done inconsistently. (Compare Compl. ¶¶ 4.5-4.23; Ans. ¶¶ 4.5-4.23 (admitting thirty-seven

magazines were rejected), with Plf. Mot. Prelim. Inj., Dkt. 11, McCarter Decl. ¶¶ 5-6; Dkt. 13,

Kay Decl. ¶ 6; Dkt. 14, St. Helen Decl. ¶¶ 5-6 (showing some magazines were delivered);

Roberson Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. G (September 16, 2011 shift summary email stating, “Please remove the

staples from the Prison Legal News papers and hand them out.”); Id. ¶ 9, Ex. H (January 23,

2012 Jail incident report stating that thirteen inmates reported regularly receiving Prison Daily

[sic] News); id. ¶ 3, Ex. B (Moyer Dep. 121:6-123:6, 219:7-220:9) (Undersheriff Moyer

instructed staff to interview inmates to determine if they were receiving Prison Legal News);

Dkt. 39, Plf. Mot. Prelim. Inj., Weisenberger Decl. ¶ 5 (stating that he received three magazines

regularly for eight months before being informed they were not allowed into the facility).)

Materials produced by PLN show that from late 2010 to the present, forty-one inmates

received six-month complimentary magazine subscriptions, a free book entitled Protecting Your

Health and Safety, and informational brochure packets; three of those inmates received a second

complimentary six-month subscription and duplicate copy of the free book and informational

brochure. (Roberson Decl. ¶ 11, Ex. J.) Twelve inmates began to receive these materials in

Page 4 – RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 114 Filed 10/16/12 Page 10 of 47

March and April, 2012, subsequent to the filing of this lawsuit. (Id. (inmates Bahr, Campo, Engle, Harris, Hinkle, Sanders, Stinson, Stratton, Vandolah, Wilcoxson, Wilke, Young).)
Sheriff Dickerson moved swiftly to comply with the First and Fourteenth Amendments and issued a new IMP on January 26, 2012, with minor modifications on February 10, 2012. (Dkt. 32, Dickerson Decl. ¶ 10; Roberson Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. B (Moyer Dep. 96:1-96:7) (drafting of prohibited mail notice); Id. (Moyer Dep. 195:15-21) (drafting of January IMP); see also id. ¶ 2, Ex. A (Dickerson Dep. 273:2-8) (January IMP adapted from Washington County Sheriff’s Office IMP).) Jail deputies were trained on the new inmate mail procedures on February 1, 2012. (Dkt. 32, Dickerson Decl. ¶¶ 27-28.) The revisions adopted in the new inmate mail policy and practice allowed publications to be delivered to inmates, as long as it did not violate other rules that protected jail security,4 and provided due process to the sender and receiver of inmate mail. (Dkt. 29, Defs. Resp. Plf. Mot. Prelim. Inj. at 3-9.) The postcard-only portion of the policy was maintained and restricted to personal inmate mail. (Id.)
Defendants filed its Answer to the Complaint on February 16, 2012, admitting most of PLN’s factual allegations and admitting liability for rejecting PLN’s magazines and other correspondence, and failing to provide adequate due process. (Compl. ¶ 1.1, Ans. ¶ 1.1.) C. Washington County Sheriff’s Office Promoted the Statewide Adoption of a
Postcard-Only Policy. The postcard restriction for personal inmate mail was spearheaded by the Washington County Sheriff’s Office. At a conference for the Oregon State Sheriff’s Association in December, 2009, presenters from the Washington County Sheriff’s Office discussed implementation of a postcard-only policy. (Id. ¶ 3, Ex. B (Moyer Dep. 221:2-8); Wing Decl. I (Dickerson Dep. 83:17-85:2).) The postcard restriction had passed constitutional muster, according to the presenters. (Roberson Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. B (Moyer Dep. 223:10-224:1).) An

4 In the Court’s Opinion and Order dated May 29, 2012, it found that there was a dispute as to whether the mail policy prohibited an inmate’s ability to reply to PLN’s catalog offers because the return mail was not in postcard-form. Although the Court noted this was a dispute, the intent of the policy, and the new practice of the Jail, was to allow that to occur.

Page 5 – RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 114 Filed 10/16/12 Page 11 of 47

“implementation plan” was provided that gave a suggested timeframe to implement the postcard restriction by the end of March, 2010 and that stated the postcard restriction had “withstood court challenges.” (Roberson Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. F.)
In April, 2011, after Washington County received an “upsurge” of prisoner-complaints about the postcard restriction after the ACLU sent postcards to inmates at the Washington County Jail, a standard response to those complaints was drafted by Washington County legal counsel and shared with the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office. (Wing Decl. ¶ II (Cutright Dep. 145:22-25); Roberson Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. E (showing Washington County legal counsel drafted the standard response).) This standard response was used by the Sheriff’s Office to respond to inmate complaints about the postcard-only policy. (Chamberlain Decl. Exs. 13, 15, 16, 17, 18.) D. After January and February of 2012, the IMP Continued to Remain Under
Significant Review. Although the January and February IMPs contained significant changes from prior policies, the Sheriff’s Office continued to improve its mail practices and procedures. (Dickerson Decl. ¶ 9.) For example, the Sheriff’s Office changed the definition of “sexually explicit” that was adopted from the Washington County Sheriff’s Office, deleting the part of the definition that stated “depiction[s] of lewdness, licentiousness, or graphic erotic behavior designed to cause sexual excitement.” (Compare Dickerson Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. B (current IMP), with Dkt. 32, Dickerson Decl. ¶ 10, Ex. F (February IMP); see also Roberson Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A (Dickerson Dep. 365:1-366:7) (training included covering the new definition of “sexually explicit”).) Another significant change was to require jail supervisors to approve of any decision by a deputy to reject a piece of mail. (Compare Chamberlain Decl. Ex. 63, pp.13-14, 15-16 (May IMP), with Dkt. 32, Dickerson Decl. ¶ 10, Ex. F (February IMP). See infra Part III.E.3 (explaining clarifications on due process procedures).) An issue arose as to whether stamps should be cut-off or peeled from postcards. (Chamberlain Decl. Ex. 41 (February 17, 2012 email reminder to peel-off stamps); id. Ex. 45 (February 24, 2012 email from a deputy explaining the problems with peeling stamps); Roberson

Page 6 – RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 114 Filed 10/16/12 Page 12 of 47

Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. D (Miller Dep. 92:12-94:4) (explaining that she did not take stamps off postcards); Wing Decl. II (Cutright Dep. 114:20-115:23) (explaining that stamps were removed and that removal was required by the policy).) The Sheriff’s Office came up with a practical solution, which was to peel-off the stamp when it was easy to do, but to otherwise leave it on. (Wing Decl. VII (Moyer Dep. 283:11-284:4).)
The Sheriff’s Office also decided to no longer limit the number of books or periodicals that can be delivered to an inmate in a single day. (Compare Dickerson Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. B (current IMP), with Dkt. 32, Dickerson Decl. ¶ 10, Ex. F (February IMP).)
E. Action Taken Prior to Court’s Opinion and Order on PLN’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. 1. Postcard Restriction on Personal Inmate Mail Was Clarified. In the Court’s Opinion and Order, it found that there were disputed facts as to whether
the February IMP prevented the delivery of some of PLN’s correspondence on the basis that it was not on a postcard. (Dkt. 64, Op. & O. Prelim. Inj. at 10.) The May IMP resolved those issues prior to the Court’s Opinion and Order. In that policy, “personal mail” was defined as “[m]ail to or from family, friends, or for personal business. Personal mail does not include legal mail, official mail, publications, or junk mail/bulk mail.” (Chamberlain Decl. Ex. 63, p.3.) The definition of “junk mail/bulk mail” was broadly defined as:
Printed materials, often sent as mass mailings, such as catalogs, advertisements, brochures, circulars, newsletters, and pamphlets whose primary purpose is to sell, promote or solicit for, a product or service. Junk mail/bulk mail may come using a variety of postage rates, including but not limited to bulk mail rates. Junk mail/bulk mail may be solicited or unsolicited.

(Id. Ex. 63, p.2-3.) “Publications” included “periodicals and books,” and periodicals included

magazines. (Id. Ex. 63, p.3.) These definitions allowed PLN’s magazines and other

correspondence to be delivered to inmates. (See id. Ex. 63, pp.4-5 (publications permitted), p.9

(junk/bulk mail permitted).)

///

///

Page 7 – RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 114 Filed 10/16/12 Page 13 of 47

Personal mail to and from inmates had to be sent and received in postcard form. (Id. Ex.

63, p.4.) Exceptions were made if an inmate needed to take care of personal business or was

involved in a rehabilitation program. (Id.; see also id. p.7 (personal business permitted).)

The Court expressed concern that the postcard restriction prevented “educational,

community, and religious organizations” from sending “lessons, books and periodical offers, and

fundraising appeals.” (Dkt. 64, Op. & O. Prelim. Inj. at 20.) Although there was a dispute over

whether the February IMP’s postcard restriction prohibited this material, the intent was that such

organizations could send these materials. In the May IMP, it was clarified that the postcard

restriction did not apply to mail from organizations. (Chamberlain Decl. Ex. 63, pp.2-5, 9.)

Furthermore, an inmate could communicate by letter to “other confining authorities, ... medical

provider[s], ... religious leader[s], ... [or] the news media.” (Chamberlain Decl. Ex. 63, p.3 (defining

“official mail”); id. (“personal mail” definition excluded “official mail”); p.5 (legal and official mail

procedures).)

2. A New Inmate Manual Was Issued in May, 2012.

After county counsel finished her review, a new inmate manual was issued on May 16,

2012 and a new mail guide was posted to the Sheriff’s Office website. (Chamberlain Decl. Ex.

56 (Inmate Manual); id. Ex. 9 (copy of inmate mail section of website); Plf. Mot., Berg Decl. ¶¶

8-9, Ex. C (Inmate Manual); Roberson Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A (Dickerson Dep. 213:20-214:3 (revised

inmate manual being reviewed by legal counsel).) The inmate manual expressly permitted

periodicals such as magazines and notified inmates of their appeal rights for rejected mail.

(Chamberlain Decl. Ex. 56, p.12 (periodicals allowed), p.16 (appeals process).) As PLN

mentions in its motion, the Jail mistakenly provided new inmates an old inmate manual for

several months prior to May 16, 2012 that stated that magazines were not permitted. (Wing

Decl. Ex. I (Dickerson Dep. 125:24-126:5).) Beginning May 16, 2012, all current inmates were

given a copy of the new inmate manual. The only version available at this time is in English, but

the Sheriff’s Office plans to issue a Spanish version when an update of the entire manual is

completed. (Dickerson Decl. ¶¶ 12-13.)
Page 8 – RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 114 Filed 10/16/12 Page 14 of 47

Prior to May, 2012, an outdated memorandum stating that magazines were not allowed in

the facility could still be found in some pods at the Jail. (Chamberlain Decl. Ex. 2.) By early

May, Undersheriff Moyer instructed jail staff to remove the old memorandum for the new mail

guide and explain the new mail process to the inmates. (Roberson Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. B (Moyer Dep.

81:17-82:13, 84:3-21).) Moyer made it clear these instructions could have been made at separate

times. (Id. (Moyer Dep. 84:14-21).) PLN inspected the Jail on May 8, 2012. Two emails sent to

jail staff prior to the May 8, 2012 date reminded staff that Moyer wanted the old mail

memorandum removed, if it was found. (Chamberlain Decl. Exs. 43-44.)

3. Due Process Procedures Have Been Further Clarified.

While denying PLN’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction on its due process claim, the

Court found that the February IMP’s due process procedures were “not a model of clarity, [but]

they appear to broadly afford due process notice to inmates and their correspondents.” (Dkt. 64,

Op. & O. Plf. Mot. Prelim. Inj. at 25.) Four days prior to the Court’s Opinion and Order on

May 29, 2012, the Sheriff’s Office issued a new IMP clarifying the due process procedures.

(Chamberlain Decl. Ex. 63.) The May IMP expressly required a Prohibited Mail Notice to be

completed by a jail deputy for each piece of mail that was found to have violated the policy for

incoming and outgoing inmate mail. (Id. Ex. 63, p.10 (Paragraph M), p.13 (Paragraph C).) To

ensure the consistent application of the new mail rules, a supervisor’s written approval was

required before a deputy could decide not to send or deliver inmate mail. (Id.; see also id. Ex.

63, p.16.) The Prohibited Mail Notice form was changed to more clearly state that it applied to

incoming and outgoing inmate mail when mail was rejected. (Id. Ex. 63, p.16.) The appeals

process was specified in the policy as well as on the Prohibited Mail Notice form. (Id. Ex. 63,

p.15 (Paragraphs A-B), p.16.) These due process procedures have largely remained unchanged

to the present time. (Dickerson Decl. ¶¶ 4-5, Exs. A-B.)

///

///

///
Page 9 – RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 114 Filed 10/16/12 Page 15 of 47

F. Action Taken After Court’s Opinion and Order Dated May 29, 2012.

In response to the Court’s Opinion and Order, the Sheriff’s Office updated its website to

state that the IMP was under review but that mail in envelopes would be accepted. (Chamberlain

Decl. Ex. 10.)

Inmates were allowed to use paper and envelopes after supplies were ordered. (See

Roberson Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. B (Moyer Dep. 175:9-176:16).)

The Sheriff’s Office issued a new IMP on June 18, 2012, with a minor revision on July 5,

2012. (Dickerson Decl. ¶¶ 4-5, Exs. A-B.) Staff was trained on the new mail procedures on

either July 3, 2012 or August 8, 2012. (Chamberlain Decl. Ex. 37; Roberson Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. B

(Moyer Dep. 113:20-118:13).)

G. The Sheriff’s Office Has Discarded the Postcard-Only Policy and Will Not Go Back.

The Sheriff’s Office has no intention of going back to the postcard-only policy.

(Roberson Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. B (Moyer Dep. 176:17-182:3).) When asked by PLN’s attorney if the

Court was legally wrong in issuing a preliminary injunction, Sheriff Dickerson stated, “I don’t

judge whether The Court got it wrong or not. What I consider is that the judge made a ruling and

we’re going to go with what the judge said. And I’m not fighting against it. I’m not opposed to

it. We’re moving on.” (Id. ¶ 2, Ex. A (Dickerson Dep. 378:22-379:14).)

H. Columbia County Has No Control Over the Mail Practices of the Sheriff’s Office, and the Sheriff’s Office Is Not an Agent of Columbia County.

Sheriff Jeff Dickerson is an elected official. See ORS chapters 204.005(1)(a) and 206. He

has authority to hire and terminate employees of CCSO subject to budgetary constraints imposed by

the Columbia County Board of Commissioners. See, e.g., ORS 204.601, ORS 204.635, ORS

206.210. Columbia County has no authority or control over the Sheriff’s Office’s inmate mail

practices. (Dickerson Decl. ¶ 6; see also Ans. ¶¶ 3.3-3.5.)

IV. PLN LACKS STANDING TO ASSERT INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Defendants incorporate the legal standards given in response to PLN’s Motion for a

Preliminary Injunction that PLN lacks standing. (Defs. Resp. Prelim. Inj. at 10-13.) Here, PLN

Page 10 – RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 114 Filed 10/16/12 Page 16 of 47

fails to meet the standard for Article III standing because it has not demonstrated any imminent injury that could be redressed by permanent injunctive or declaratory relief. See Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000).
In the Court’s Opinion and Order, it found that PLN had standing because there was a dispute over whether the then current IMP prohibited PLN’s mail. (Dkt. 64, Op. & O. Plf. Mot. Prelim. Inj. at 11.) That dispute no longer exists. PLN raised no objections about the Sheriff’s Office’s now current June IMP (with a minor revision on July 5, 2012), presumably because it has none. As for the Sheriff’s Office’s practices, the record shows that the last magazine rejected by the Jail was in July, 2011. (Compl. ¶ 4.23; Ans. ¶ 4.23 (admitting fact).) The last “informational brochure packet” rejected by the Jail was also in July, 2011. (Compl. ¶ 4.36; Ans. ¶ 4.36 (admitting fact).) The last subscription renewal letter rejected by the Jail was in June, 2011. (Compl. ¶ 4.47; Ans. ¶ 4.47 (admitting fact).) The last “fundraising pack” rejected by the Jail was in November, 2011. (Compl. ¶ 4.57; Ans. ¶ 4.57 (admitting fact).) Paul Wright stated in his March 6, 2012 declaration that PLN had an average of twenty subscribers at the Columbia County Jail in the prior year, although it is unknown to defendants whether there are any current subscribers. (See Dkt. 44, Wright 2d Decl. ¶ 35.)
The Court also found that PLN had standing to assert the rights of “other correspondents,” such as inmates and their family and friends, due to its advocacy for prisoners and contact with inmates and others who complained to PLN about the postcard-only policy. (Dkt. 64, Op. & O. Plf. Mot. Prelim. Inj. at 11.) The postcard-only policy was discarded in response to the Court’s issuance of a preliminary injunction, and as explained in Part III.G, the Sheriff’s Office has no intention of re-implementing it. Thus, no inmates or correspondents are in danger of suffering any imminent injury as a result of a non-existent postcard-only policy. PLN has not shown that any mail has been rejected by the Jail on the basis that it is not in postcard form since the Court issued the preliminary injunction, nor will any mail be rejected on this basis in the future.

Page 11 – RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 114 Filed 10/16/12 Page 17 of 47

PLN reasserts that it has “organizational” standing but has not shown that its resources are diverted or its mission frustrated under the current mail policy, or even the May IMP, which allowed PLN to mail its correspondence to inmates and receive book orders or subscription renewal forms in return. See supra Part III.E.1. V. PLN’S CLAIM FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IS MOOT
PLN seeks an order permanently enjoining defendants “from rejecting or otherwise censoring mail on the ground that it is not in the form of a postcard, or on the ground that it is a magazine or periodical[.]” PLN also seeks an order permanently enjoining defendants “from denying due process to prisoners and their correspondents when rejecting or otherwise censoring mail.” (Plf. Mem. at 22.) PLN’s request is stale. There is no policy or practice to enjoin. The Sheriff’s Office conformed its policy and practices to the First and Fourteenth Amendments in January, 2012 and the current IMP implemented in June, 2012 is not challenged by PLN.
As this Court has instructed, “[a] claim is moot ‘when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.’” (Dkt. 64, Op. & O. Plf. Mot. Prelim. Inj. at 10, quoting United States Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 396 (1990) (internal quotations and citations omitted).) Further, this Court recognized that “‘if events subsequent to the filing of the case resolve the parties’ dispute, [the court] must dismiss the case as moot[.]’” (Id., quoting Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 P.3d 1081, 1087 (9th Cir.2011).) Such is the case here. As the evidence demonstrates, defendants revised the then current IMP in compliance with this Court’s Opinion and Order so that the issues presented in PLN’s motion for permanent injunction are no longer live. The now current IMP entirely resolves PLN’s claims.
In its Opinion and Order, the Court declined to find that the dispute was moot because questions of fact remained on whether PLN’s could communicate with inmates through the mail. (Dkt. 64, Op. & O. Plf. Mot. Prelim. Inj. at 10.) These issues are no longer in dispute and the postcard restriction was discarded and will not be re-implemented. See supra Part III.G.

Page 12 – RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 114 Filed 10/16/12 Page 18 of 47

PLN argues that as to mootness it is defendants’ burden to prove that it will never violate

the Constitution again. (Plf. Mem. at 22.) This is not the standard. Rather, defendants must

prove that its cessation of a challenged practice make it “absolutely clear that the allegedly

wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.” Friends of the Earth, Inc., 528

U.S. at 180-81. PLN cites Norman-Bloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, 135 F.3d 1260,

1274 (9th Cir. 1998), for the proposition that defendants must show that its current IMP has

“completely and irrecovably eradicted the effects of the alleged violation.” (Plf. Mem. at 22.) In

Norman-Bloodsaw, the court denied that a dispute over employee medical testing was moot

because the defendants had merely claimed that the testing was discontinued. The defendants

did not issue a new policy prohibiting future testing, or even issue a statement that such testing

would not be conducted in the future; additionally, the defendants continued to keep on file the

results from the disputed testing. Id. at 1274-75. The facts of the present case are remarkably

different.

In the present case, the effects of the constitutional violations resulting from the old IMP

have been completely eliminated. Here, the Sheriff’s Office admitted liability and immediately

ceased unconstitutional conduct with respect to categorically rejecting magazines and other

correspondence and not providing due process notification for rejected mail. The admission of

liability, in addition to the consistent effort since then to revise the IMP to comply with

constitutional standards, makes it absolutely clear that the conduct will not be repeated in the

future. Smith v. University of Washington Law School, 233 F.3d 1188, 1194-95 (9th Cir. 2000)

(holding dispute moot because, after law school stopped the use of race in the admissions process

in response to a change in state law, if law school was “temerarious enough” to violate state law,

then plaintiff or others “can commence a new battle at that time”).

Further, PLN has not shown that the Jail has rejected its mail in violation of the

Constitution since prior to January, 2012. With respect to the postcard restriction, despite

defendants’ defense of the policy in court, the Sheriff’s Office has eliminated it in the current

IMP and represented that it will not be implemented in the future. See supra Part III.H. The

Page 13 – RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 114 Filed 10/16/12 Page 19 of 47

evidence is that the Sheriff’s Office is not categorically rejecting magazines and other correspondence, is providing due process when mail is rejected, and is not restricting incoming or outgoing inmate mail to postcard-form. Accordingly, defendants have met their burden and permanent injunctive relief has been mooted. VI. SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLN’S CLAIM FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
SHOULD BE DENIED A. Legal Standard for Permanent Injunction.
The decision to grant or deny a permanent injunction is an act of equitable discretion by the district court. eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006) The fact that this Court issued a preliminary injunction as to defendants’ postcard restriction on all incoming and outgoing inmate personal mail is not decisive here. Preliminary injunctive relief and a permanent injunction are “distinct forms of equitable relief that have different prerequisites and serve entirely different purposes.” Lermer Germany GmbH v. Lermer Corp., 94 F.3d 1575, 1577 (Fed.Cir. 1996).
To issue a permanent injunction, PLN must show (1) actual success on the merits, (2) an irreparable injury for which monetary damages are inadequate to compensate for that injury, (3) a remedy in equity is warranted considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, and (4) a permanent injunction is in the public interest. eBay, 547 U.S. at 391. Plaintiff bears the burden of proof on each of these elements of a permanent injunction. Olagues v. Rossoniello, 770 F.2d 791, 799, 803 (9th Cir. 1985).
Even if a plaintiff establishes success on the merits, an injunction does not follow as a matter of course and it remains in the Court’s equitable discretion whether to issue one. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 32 (2008) (citing Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 313 (1982)). “[Injunctive] relief is not automatic, and there is no rule requiring automatic issuance of a blanket injunction when a violation is found.” Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Norton, 503 F.3d 836, 843 (9th Cir. 2007). ///

Page 14 – RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 114 Filed 10/16/12 Page 20 of 47

In the context of a correctional facility, courts must abide by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1). This statute holds that prospective relief, such as a permanent injunction, “shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs.” Id.
The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right. The court shall give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the relief.
Id. § 3626(a)(2). This statute “operates simultaneously to restrict the equity jurisdiction of federal courts and to protect the bargaining power of prison administrators – no longer may courts grant or approve relief that binds prison administrators to do more than the constitutional minimum.” Gilmore v. People of the State of California, 220 F.3d 987, 999 (9th Cir. 2000)Error! Bookmark not defined.. B. PLN Has Failed to Meet its Burden for Permanent Injunction.
The circumstances of the case are not appropriate for the equitable remedy of a permanent injunction. At this summary judgment stage of the proceedings, PLN has the burden to show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact with respect to the four elements of permanent injunction. Olagues, 770 F.2d at 799, 803. PLN has not and cannot satisfy this burden. Moreover, PLN has failed to demonstrate that a permanent injunction is a necessary remedy, narrowly drawn and the least intrusive means to correct the constitutional violation. See Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).
1. No Demonstration of Irreparable Harm. The Supreme Court has instructed that a permanent injunction “is unavailable absent a
showing of irreparable injury, a requirement that cannot be met where there is no showing of any
real or immediate threat that the plaintiff will be wronged again – a ‘likelihood of substantial and
immediate irreparable injury.’” City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 110, 103 S. Ct. 1660

Page 15 – RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 114 Filed 10/16/12 Page 21 of 47

(1983)Error! Bookmark not defined., quoting O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 502, 94 S. Ct. 669 (1974). “[P]ast wrongs do not themselves amount to that real and immediate threat of injury * * *.” Id. at 103. The speculative nature of a claim of future injury “requires a finding that this prerequisite of equitable relief has not been fulfilled.” Id.; see Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008) (the mere possibility of irreparable harm is not sufficient).
The evidence is that PLN is no longer subject to a threat of constitutional injury and the likelihood of substantial, immediate and irreparable injury is speculative, at best. In support of its claim for a permanent injunction PLN relies solely on violations that occurred under prior policies and practices. Neither PLN, nor inmates and their correspondents, are at risk of suffering any harm caused by a non-existent and abandoned policy. The evidence shows that these policies and practices have been eliminated and abandoned, and there is no dispute that the current policy and practice comports with constitutional standards. See supra Part III.B, E, F, G. PLN’s argument that defendants cannot be trusted to maintain constitutionally acceptable policies and practices is contrary to the evidence and, in any event, does not satisfy the prerequisite for a permanent injunction. See infra Part VI.C. To the extent there is a genuine issue of material fact relating to whether defendants are to be trusted, PLN’s motion for summary judgment for declaratory and permanent injunctive relief should be denied. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-47 (1986).
Additionally, the evidence that PLN remained silent as to the constitutional violations that occurred in the months preceding the filing of this lawsuit and the continued initiation of mailings that PLN knew would be rejected under the old and admitted unconstitutional mail policies, suggests that the harm suffered in this case was not “great or immediate” irreparable injury. See Lyons, 461 U.S. at 112 (declining the “invitation to slight the preconditions for equitable relief” in the absence of “irreparable injury which is both great and immediate”).

Page 16 – RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 114 Filed 10/16/12 Page 22 of 47

Further, equitable relief is inappropriate when a plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 110. PLN has made no showing that the equitable remedy of a permanent injunction is necessary because there is no adequate remedy at law. There is an adequate remedy at law.5 As the Supreme Court has explained, if someone has “suffered an injury barred by the Federal Constitution, he has a remedy for damages under § 1983.” Lyons, 461 U.S. at 113. PLN has not demonstrated that monetary damages are inadequate to compensate for past violations. This is not like an environmental injury claim, where courts have held that violations can seldom be remedied with damages. See Norton, 503 F.3d at 843.
PLN’s two-pronged failure to demonstrate the existence of an irreparable injury for which such equitable relief is the only remedy precludes the issuance of a permanent injunction.
2. No Showing of Success on the Merits Because the Prior Postcard-Only Policy Was Constitutional under Turner v. Safley.
Defendants incorporate the facts and argument previously made to this Court. (Dkts. 2932, Defs. Resp. Plf. Prelim. Inj., and supporting declarations; Dkt. 50, Defs. Resp. Amicus Curiae Br.; Dkt. 76, Defs. Resp. Plf. Mot. Am. Op. & O.)6
The Supreme Court has recognized that controlling both incoming and outgoing inmate correspondence is a “necessary adjunct to penal administration.” Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490

5 Inmates have brought claims over postcard-only mail policies. See, e.g., Bennett v. Columbia County, No. 3:12-cv-00304-AA (D. Or.) (inmates challenging postcard restriction at Columbia County Jail); Pergande v. Trumbo, No. 6:10-cv-06314-TC (D. Or.) (inmate challenging postcard restriction at Umatilla County Jail); Daniels v. Harris, 2012 WL 3901646 (M.D. Ga. Aug. 8, 2012); Covell v. Arpaio, 662 F. Supp.2d 1146 (D. Az. 2009); Rogers v. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, 2008 WL 898721, No. CV0700641 (D. Az.) (not reported); Jordan v. Arpaio, 2008 WL 22622401, No. CV08-00856 (D. Az.) (not reported); Medley v. Arpaio, 2008 WL 3911138, No. CV08-00086 (D. Az.) (not reported); Gibbons v. Arpaio, 2008 WL 4447003, No. CV07-1456 (D. Az.) (not reported).
6 PLN argues that the higher standard announced in Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 408 (1974), overruled in part and on other grounds by Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989), applies to outgoing inmate mail. (Plf. Mem. at 13-14.) The Court rejected this argument. (Dkt. 78.) Defendants will apply Turner v. Safley.

Page 17 – RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 114 Filed 10/16/12 Page 23 of 47

U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989). Further, restrictive prison regulations, including First Amendment

restrictions, are permissible “if they are reasonably related to legitimate penological interests and

not an exaggerated response to those concerns.” Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521, 528 (2006).

Courts must give “substantial deference to the professional judgment of prison administrators.”

Id. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 79 (1987) established four factors to determine when a

regulation is “reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.”

PLN makes no argument that the Sheriff’s Office’s postcard-only policy affected the

delivery of its mail to inmates subsequent to January, 2012. (See generally Plf. Mot.) The prior

finding that disputed facts existed under the February IMP has been resolved, see supra Part

III.E.1, and PLN has not shown that any of its mail was rejected under the February IMP or May

IMP because it was in postcard-form. PLN does not specify which postcard-only policy it

challenges, but instead it brings an overall challenge to the very concept of restricting inmates

and their correspondents to postcards. Such a theoretical challenge seeking a permanent

injunction should be denied as insufficient to satisfy the principles of the equitable remedy. As

discussed below, defendants show that a postcard-restriction on personal inmate mail satisfies

the standard announced in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987).

a. Postcard Restriction Is Rational.

At the preliminary injunction stage, the Court agreed that the safety and security of jail

staff and inmates and the efficient use of a jail’s resources are legitimate penological interests.

(Dkt. 64, Op. & O. Prelim. Inj. at 16.) But the Court remained “unconvinced” that a postcard

restriction was rationally related to these interests. (Id. at 17.) Discovery and subsequent events

have further substantiated the rationality Sheriff’s Office’s postcard-only policy.

i. Envelope Mail Presents Increased Threats to Jail Security.

PLN argues that it was irrational for the Sheriff’s Office to follow the Washington

County Sheriff’s Office in adopting a postcard-restriction. (Plf. Mem. 4-7.) PLN cites no

authority for this contention. The Sheriff’s Office relied on the Washington County Sheriff’s

Office because it is a leader in Oregon for jail practices and procedures. (Dickerson Decl. ¶ 7.)

Page 18 – RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 114 Filed 10/16/12 Page 24 of 47

See Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 132 (2003) (court must “accord substantial deference to
the professional judgment of [corrections] administrators” in reviewing regulations). The Ninth
Circuit specifically recognized that a prison regulation can be rationally related without the jail
having to prove that prior problems existed.
To show a rational relationship between a regulation and a legitimate penological interest, prison officials need not prove that the banned material actually caused problems in the past, or that the materials are ‘likely’ to cause problems in the future. Moreover, it ‘does not matter whether we agree with’ the defendants or whether the policy ‘in fact advances’ the jail’s legitimate interests. The only question that we must answer is whether the defendants’ judgment was ‘rational,’ that is, whether the defendants might reasonably have thought that the policy would advance its interests.

Mauro v. Arpaio, 188 F.3d 1054, 1060 (9th Cir. 1999); see also Friedman v. Arizona, 912 F.2d

328, 332-33 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Turner requires that courts allow prison officials to anticipate

security problems and to adopt innovative solutions to the intractable problems of prison

administration.” (emphasis in original)).

The experiences of other correctional facilities demonstrate the increasingly sophisticated

nature of attempts by inmates and their correspondents to send or receive contraband through the

mail. In October, 2010, the Ventura County Sheriff’s Office (“VCSO”) adopted a postcard-only

policy on incoming and outgoing mail. (Roberson Decl. ¶ 13, Ex. L (Unsealed Docs, Davidson

Decl. ¶¶ 3-4).) Prior to the adoption of its policy, mail handlers confiscated narcotics, such as

black tar heroin and LSD, in the seams of envelopes (id., Martinez Decl. ¶ 6; Id., Hernandez ¶¶

6-7) as well as paperclips, staples (id., Hernandez Decl. ¶¶ 11-12), and razor blades (id.,

Wilkinson Decl. ¶ 8(b)(1).) An inmate can fashion multiple paperclips and staples into handcuff

keys or weapons. (Id., Martinez Decl. ¶ 13; id., Hernandez Decl. ¶ 11.) The glue strips of

envelopes have been found to be laced with heroin. (Id., Held Decl. ¶¶ 16-19.) “Mail

containers, such as manila envelopes, greeting cards, and their envelopes, as well as conventional

mail envelopes and the papers which they contain, are being used to smuggle narcotics and

currency into custody facilities.” (Id., Detective Decl. ¶ 7.) The type of contraband that can be

sent through envelope mail included metal wire, lithium, gunpowder, and plastic explosives.

Page 19 – RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499

Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 114 Filed 10/16/12 Page 25 of 47

(Id., Detective Decl. ¶¶ 8-9.) “Once concealed, I was personally unable to detect the heroin by feeling or manipulating the envelope. The tar heroin was detectable by scientific means or by tearing the bottom flap of the envelope.” (Id., Detective Decl. ¶ 19.)
Postcard restrictions to personal inmate mail are a rational response to reduce the contraband risks described above. Unlike envelopes, postcards do not have glue strips or flaps that can hide contraband such as drugs, needles, paperclips, staples, metal wires, lithium, gunpowder, or plastic explosives.
A recent case in Georgia highlights a specific security risk with outgoing inmate mail. A district court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to a postcard-only policy for incoming and outgoing inmate mail. Daniels v. Harris, 2012 WL 3901646 (M.D. Ga. Aug. 8, 2012) (applying Turner to both incoming and outgoing mail). The Walton County Jail’s (“WCJ”) postcard-only policy was restricted to non-legal mail. According to the court:
WCJ has encountered several problems with inmates receiving contraband from outside the prison. Because requests for contraband were buried inside of lengthy letters, the postcard-only mail policy assists in maintaining order and security by reducing the inmates’ ability to hide contraband request [sic] within letters to their family and friends.
Id. at *2. The Sheriff’s Office does not have to wait for an inmate to do the same before changing its mail procedures; it is rational to be proactive. See Mauro, 188 F.3d at 1060; Friedman, 912 F.2d at 332-33.
In upholding a postcard-only restriction on outgoing inmate mail, a district court in Florida found that the jail had demonstrated that the restriction “reduced mail-related incidents that impact security.” Martinez v. May, No. 2:11-cv-14039, p. 24 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 25, 2012) (attached as Exhibit M to the Declaration of Gregory R. Roberson). Specifically, the postcard restriction reduced the number of incidents in which inmates wrote “in sophisticated code to communicate with gang members” and “address[ed] envelopes to relatives, but sen[t] therein written communications of a threatening nature for the relatives to forward to other persons with whom the inmate is forbidden to communicate.” Id. p.14. Although postcards could be used for

Page 20 – RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 114 Filed 10/16/12 Page 26 of 47

the same purposes, the court found that the reduction in the number of incidents increased jail

security. Id. p.24.

The serious dangers experienced by VCSO were not limited to incoming inmate mail.

Gang members often use symbols and codes to send covert communications. (Roberson Decl. ¶

13, Ex. L (Unsealed Docs, Wilkinson Decl. ¶ 3.) Prisoners also use coded messages to

coordinate testimony, provide instructions to destroy evidence, and “generally confound criminal

investigators.” (Id., Wilkinson Decl. ¶ 7.) As determined by the Martinez court, the fact that a

postcard restriction does not eliminate the risk of these security problems does not mean that the

prison regulation is irrational; the reduction in the number of security-related incidents is

sufficient. See also Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 133 (2003) (prison regulations restricting

who can visit an inmate to reduce the number of visitors were rationally related to jail security).

Recent events in Oregon also support the rationality of a postcard-only policy. In April,

2012, an inmate housed in Multnomah County mailed six letters containing a white powder that

was represented to be anthrax. (Roberson Decl. ¶ 12, Ex. K.) Multnomah County does not limit

any inmate mail to postcards. (Dkt. 9, Plf. Mot. Prelim. Inj., Chamberlain Decl. Ex. 4.)

Referencing these events during his deposition, Undersheriff Moyer stated that a risk with

envelope mail is that inmates can hide contraband in them. (Roberson Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. B (Moyer

Dep. 169:1-170:18).) An inmate can get powder by grinding up toothpaste or pills and then send

it through the mail in an envelope, shutting down public buildings. (Id. (Moyer Dep. 169:15-

170:1).) The inmate who did it in Multnomah County was moved to the Columbia County Jail,

which at the time had a postcard-only policy for personal mail. (Id. (Moyer Dep. 170:6-8).)

Although the inspection of outgoing mail is similarly designed to determine if an inmate

has created a safety or security risk from hidden contraband or coded messages, it is certainly

rational in terms of jail security to have overlapping security systems in place to prevent harm to

the public and to inmates.

In addressing the rationality of the postcard-only policy, the Court’s Opinion and Order

cited to several Ninth Circuit opinions that held that it is irrational for a correctional institution to

Page 21 – RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 114 Filed 10/16/12 Page 27 of 47

treat standard-rate mail differently than first-class mail, or bulk-rate mail differently than first- or second-class mail, or to ban bulk-rate mail. (Dkt. 64, Op. & O. Plf. Mot. Prelim. Inj. at 18.) In those cases, the government could not put forth a rational reason to treat the mail differently. Here, the Sheriff’s Office made a rational distinction between personal inmate mail (i.e., to and from inmates and their family and friends, see Chamberlain Decl. Ex. 63, p.3) and other types of mail. This distinction had nothing to do with postage rates or treating one type of mail arbitrarily over other types of mail; it was based on the fact that friends and family of inmates are more likely to pass contraband through the mail, and inmates are more likely to make threats or prohibited requests to people they know via the mail. (See Dkt. 32, Dickerson Decl. ¶ 18.) These security risks are unlikely to come from people and entities that send business or legal mail.
ii. Efficient Use of Limited Jail Resources. Bryan Cutright’s testimony remains the most reliable statement on the time-savings gained by adopting the postcard-only policy in 2010. (Dkt. 30, Cutright Decl.) His deposition testimony further bolstered this fact. PLN misrepresents his testimony. Mr. Cutright did not state that his time-savings estimate was based on comparing a four-page letter with one postcard. (Wing Decl. II (Cutright Dep. 109:9-110:17).) In fact, he explained that the time-savings was based on his personal experience in processing all inmate mail, as well as on time-tracking studies of various deputy tasks, including mail processing, done several years ago. (Id. (Cutright Dep. 113:10-19).)7 His estimate was not based on an extrapolation of scanning a four-page letter versus one postcard. Because he removed stamps from mail, see Wing Decl. II (Cutright Dep. 114:20-115:23), his estimate included the amount of time taken to remove stamps. Lee Rigdon

7 Mr. Cutright did not accurately state the number of pieces of paper indigent inmates received. He stated that before the postcard policy, inmates “got two sheets of paper and two envelopes, or four sheets of paper and two envelopes.” (See Wing. Decl. II (Cutright Dep. 22:15-18) (emphasis added).) The October 21, 2011 IMP stated, “Indigent inmates will be provided writing material and postage for a maximum of two (2) personal mail pieces per week.” (Dkt. 32, Dickerson Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. D, p.1; see also id. ¶ 4, Ex. A (same language for mail policy effective November 16, 2009).) Thus, inmates received two pieces of paper per week, not four.

Page 22 – RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 114 Filed 10/16/12 Page 28 of 47

stated that he “had never done a study” on whether it took longer to process mail since the postcard-policy was ended, but he did say it took him a “little longer” to process mail after the Sheriff’s Office ended the postcard restriction. (Id. X (Rigdon Dep. 3:11-15).) This does not rebut Mr. Cutright’s more thorough testimony. PLN claims Sheriff Dickerson “did not do anything” to determine the time-saving, yet it also cites his testimony that he relied on Mr. Cutright. (Plf. Mem. at 9.)
The absence of a rigorous study relating to the time-saving is not required by Turner. “[E]ven in the absence of institution-specific or general social science evidence, as long as it is plausible that prison officials believed the policy would further a legitimate objective, the governmental defendant should prevail on Turner’s first prong.” Frost v. Symington, 197 F.3d 348 (9th Cir. 1999) (relying on Mauro, 188 F.3d at 1060).
PLN points to the financial burden of increased postage. This amount is minimal, and has nothing to do with the efficient use of the Jail’s limited resources.
PLN also discussed the effect of one aspect of the postcard-only policy, which was that indigent inmates received two postcards per week. Defendants agree that switching from two pieces of paper per week to two half-sized postcards reduced the amount of writing space available to an inmate by one-fourth, however, inmates were not limited in the number of postcards they could purchase. (See Dkt. 32, Dickerson Decl. ¶ 19.) PLN claims it was onesixteenth the amount of space, but that assumed eight pieces of paper for two half-sized postcards, see Plf. Mem. at 7-8, when in fact it was two pieces of paper. Regardless, this has nothing to do with the time-savings gained by the postcard restriction. The Constitution does not require a certain number of writing materials. See Van Poyck v. Singletary, 106 F.3d 1558, 1559 (11th Cir. 1997) (holding that inmates do not have a constitutional right to free postage and rejecting the argument that the Constitution requires five free letters per week); Hershberger v. Scaletta, 33 F.3d 955, 957 (8th Cir. 1994) (holding “indigent inmates have no constitutional right to free postage for nonlegal mail”).

Page 23 – RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 114 Filed 10/16/12 Page 29 of 47

PLN then raises its old arguments against the February IMP, see Plf. Mem. at 9-10, without any discussion of the May IMP that clarified the postcard restriction on personal mail. The intent of the February IMP was to apply the postcard restriction to inmate mail to and from and inmates and their friends and family. As discussed above, the May IMP clarified this issue. The Inmate Manual issued May 16, 2012, and provided to all inmates, conformed to the May IMP. (Chamberlain Ex. 56.)
PLN correctly notes that an article printed from PLN’s website and mailed to inmates by Lucy Lennox in February, 2012 was rejected by the Jail on the basis that it was not in postcard form. (Plf. Mem. at 9-10.) The Court does not need to reach the issue of whether this violated the First Amendment for two reasons. First, the Complaint does not allege that the rejection of Ms. Lennox’s “internet-generated” mailings violated the First Amendment; PLN alleges she was not provided due process. (Compl. ¶¶4.65-4.71.) Second, the current IMP allows this form of personal mail. (Wing Decl. V (Moyer Dep. 193:2-21) (stating that internet-generated mail is treated like any correspondence).) If the Court were to reach the merits, the mail was properly rejected because the postcard restriction is constitutional.
b. Alternative Avenues Exist. The Supreme Court in Turner stated that a prison regulation was reasonable if “there are alternative means of exercising the right that remain open to prison inmates. Where ‘other avenues’ remain available for the exercise of the asserted right, ... courts should be particularly conscious of the ‘measure of judicial deference owed to corrections officials ... in gauging the validity of the regulation.’” Turner, 482 U.S. at 90; id. at 81-82 (prison regulation banned correspondence between inmates at different institutions with exceptions for family, legal concerns, or if determined to be in the best interest of the prisoners). In interpreting Turner’s second prong, the Supreme Court said that “it was sufficient if other means of expression (not necessarily other means of communicating with inmates in other prisons) remained available.” Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 417-18 (1989). Accordingly, the second prong was “clearly satisfied” when a prison

Page 24 – RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 114 Filed 10/16/12 Page 30 of 47

regulation banned certain publications but still allowed a broad range of publications to be sent and

received. Id. at 418.

Importantly, the test is not whether the person can engage in the particular type of

expression he or she seeks (e.g., by written correspondence), but whether alternative means of

expressing the same message are available. See O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 352

(1987) (“In Turner, we did not look to see whether prisoners had other means of communicating

with fellow inmates, but instead examined whether the inmates were deprived of ‘all means of

expression.’” (citing Turner, 482 U.S. at 92)); see also Mauro, 188 F.3d at 1061 (alternative means

test satisfied because prison regulation banned depictions of frontal nudity but inmates could read

sexually explicit material and view depictions of clothed females); Friedman v. Arizona, 912 F.2d

328, 332 (9th Cir. 1990) (alternative means test satisfied because inmates were not denied “all

[alternative] means of expression” of their religion due to a prison regulation prohibiting full or

partial beards), cert. denied 498 U.S. 1100 (1991); Forter v. Greer, 2012 WL 1340223, *8 (D. Or.

Apr. 17, 2012) (holding that the “alternative means” test in Turner “merely requires that a plaintiff

has alternative means of religious expression, not that a plaintiff has ‘alternative means’ of engaging

in the particular religious practice,” where prisoner alleged that prison officials unconstitutionally

withheld certain written religious materials).

As pointed out by PLN, the Sheriff’s Office had (when the postcard restriction was

followed) alternatives means for inmates and their correspondents of communicating the same

messages. (Plf. Mem. at 10-11.) PLN claims that, as a publisher, it had no other practical way of

communicating with inmates other than through the mail. Although true, defendants have

demonstrated that PLN’s mail was not affected by the postcard restriction in the February and May

IMPs and PLN has not shown that any of its correspondence was rejected under those IMPs.

The Court expressed concern that the postcard restriction prevented “educational,

community, and religious organizations” from sending “lessons, books and periodical offers, and

fundraising appeals.” (Dkt. 64, Op. & O. Prelim. Inj. at 20.) Although there was a dispute over

whether the February IMP prohibited this material, the intent was that such organizations could send

Page 25 – RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 114 Filed 10/16/12 Page 31 of 47

these materials. In the May IMP and as explained above in Part III.E.1, it was clarified that the postcard restriction did not apply to mail from organizations. Furthermore, an inmate could communicate by letter to “other confining authorities, ... medical provider[s], ... religious leader[s], ... [or] the news media.” (Chamberlain Decl. Ex. 63, p.3 (defining “official mail”); id. (“personal mail” definition excluded “official mail”); p.5 (legal and official mail procedures).) Thus, inmates, such as Bradley Berg, could communicate with their pastors. (Dkt. 36, Berg Decl. ¶ 5 (stating that he refrained from communicating with his pastor due to the postcard-only policy).)
Under the postcard-only policy implemented by the Sheriff’s Office, photographs, report cards, and children’s drawings could be mailed to inmates in the form of a postcard. They could be shown during visiting times or discussed on the phone. If the drawing could not fit on a postcard (or even larger size such as a piece of paper), a photograph could be taken and sent to the inmate in the form of a postcard.
The Court stated that the postcard restriction placed a “hurdle” for constructive written communication between an inmate and his or her family and friends. (Dkt. 64, Op. & O. Prelim. Inj. at 20.) Under Turner, the alternative avenues analysis is not limited to the same kind of communication (here, written communication). Thus, telephone calls and jails visits, in addition to other forms of written communication, are alternative means. Further, hurdles can be put in place as long as they do not deprive the inmate (or their correspondents) other means of communication. In the declarations from family members submitted by PLN, they expressed their frustration with the postcard-only policy because it cost more (without giving any estimates of the increased cost, but they are likely minimal), they had to go buy postcards (which is no more burdensome than buying paper and envelopes), the writing space on a postcard was less than a piece of paper (there is no constitutional requirement that the medium for written communication must be at least 8.5 by 11 inches), and it was a long drive for some of them to visit an inmate. (Dkt. 37, Sharon Berg Decl. ¶¶ 4-7; Dkt. 39, Weisenberger Decl. ¶¶ 3-4; Dkt. 40, Popa Decl. ¶¶ 4, 6; Dkt. 53, Mendoza Decl. ¶ 7.) All of the family members were able to exercise the available alternative means of communication.

Page 26 – RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 114 Filed 10/16/12 Page 32 of 47

The Court stated that the postcard restriction inhibited rehabilitation. However, there is no

evidence in the record that the postcard-only policy inhibited any inmate’s rehabilitation. A specific

exception to the postcard restriction allowed an inmate involved in a rehabilitation program to

correspond with a specific person in letter form. (Chamberlain Decl. Ex. 63, p.4 (May IMP); see

also Dkt. 32, Dickerson Decl. ¶ 10, Ex. F, p.3 (February IMP).) An example includes “a letter sent

to reconnect with family prior to release.” (Chamberlain Decl. Ex. 63, p.4.)

The evidence establishes that even under the Sheriff’s Office’s postcard-only policy,

inmates had a broad ability to communicate with the outside world. An inmate could communicate

with loved ones on postcards, by phone, and during visiting hours. An inmate could read

newspapers, magazines, and books. An inmate could correspond by letter with his or her religious

leaders, to government officials, civil rights organizations, and the news media. An inmate could

freely correspond by letter to probation officers, district attorneys, state attorney generals,

governors, and court officials.

c. Impact on Resources.

As detailed in Part VI.C.1., the security risks inherent in envelope mail are real. The

disruptive effects of contraband entering or leaving a correctional facility can be wide-ranging, in

the case of white powder (harmless or not), or devastating to an individual inmate who should be

drug-free, or dangerous to jail staff and other inmates when weapons can be fashioned from

multiple paperclips or staples, and coded messages delivered to destroy evidence or coordinate

testimony. See supra Part VI.C.1. The fact that specific threats have not yet materialized at the

Columbia County Jail is not a reason to discount the significant impact on resources that will

follow from the contraband risks. See Friedman v. Arizona, 912 F.2d at 332-33 (under Turner

courts should allow prison officials to anticipate security problems). As methods of sending and

receiving contraband into a correctional facility become more sophisticated, a postcard

restriction on personal mail is a rational response to limit the impact on jail resources.

Furthermore, although the Court found the time-savings “modest, at best,” see Dkt. 64,

Op. & O. Prelim. Inj. at 22, it should also consider the resulting impact on a small county jail

Page 27 – RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 114 Filed 10/16/12 Page 33 of 47

when a postcard restriction on personal mail significantly reduces the chance that security

disruptions occur.

d. No Easy and Obvious Alternatives.

Although the Sheriff’s Office opened and inspected personal inmate mailed in envelopes

prior to the postcard restriction, and has done so since the Court issued a preliminary injunction,

the costs to security have been more than de minimus. See supra Part VI.C.1-2. The test is not

the financial cost of an alternative; it is the cost to the penological interest served (here, jail

security and efficiency). See Turner, 482 U.S. at 90-91 (“But if an inmate claimant can point to

an alternative that fully accommodates the prisoner’s right at de minimus cost to valid

penological interest, a court may consider that as evidence that the regulation does not satisfy the

reasonable relationship test.”) Although the Court in part relied on mail policies of other

correctional institutions, nothing is in the record but for the existence of the mail policy for these

institutions. (Dkt. 64, Op. & O. Prelim. Inj. at 22.) The resources and mail procedures of these

correctional institutions are likely to differ greatly. The Columbia County Jail is much smaller

than the Washington Department of Corrections or the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, and nothing is in

the record as to how similar the jail in Lane County is to the Columbia County Jail. (See

Dickerson Decl. ¶¶ 8, 10 (describing staffing reductions).) Further, the clear trend is for jails to

adopt postcard-only policies in response to the increasingly sophisticated nature of sending

contraband through the mail. See supra Part VII.C.1; (Dkt. 29, Defs. Resp. Plf. Prelim. Inj. at 19

(citing cases showing that correctional facilities across the county adopted postcard restrictions

on personal inmate mail).)

Oddly, PLN claims the Jail should have considered opening and inspecting inmate mail

during the night shift, investigate how contraband enters the facility, and how the mail

processing could be more efficient. The evidence shows this is exactly what the Sheriff’s Office

did. See supra Part III. While the postcard-only policy was in effect, mail processing was

changed to the night shift from the day shift in late 2011 or early 2012. (Plf. Mot, Wing Decl. II

(Cutright Dep. 121:6-23).) The reason was due to cuts in staffing levels. (Id.)

Page 28 – RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 114 Filed 10/16/12 Page 34 of 47

PLN offers no explanation for why there is a greater risk of contraband entering the Jail through outside workers, maintenance persons, and its own jail staff, than through personal inmate mail. (Plf. Mem. at 12.) The comparison to personal inmate mail makes no sense, and the records shows that the security risks are with personal inmate mail.8
3. Balance of Hardships Does Not Tip in PLN’s Favor for a Permanent Injunction. The third element PLN has the burden to establish is that a permanent injunction is warranted because of the balance of hardships between it and defendants. PLN has failed to demonstrate that it faces any hardships with respect to the issues raised in the Complaint: the Sheriff’s Office has changed it mail practices. 4. A Permanent Injunction Does Not Serve The Public Interest. PLN also fails to establish the fourth element for permanent injunction. Although the public interest is always implicated when the First Amendment is at issue, a permanent injunction is not appropriate here. A permanent injunction would only bind the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office. Given that the Sheriff’s Office will not re-institute the postcard restriction, the public interest is not served to enjoin conduct that defendants no longer engage in. C. PLN’s Arguments Do Not Support a Permanent Injunction. PLN’s position in support of a permanent injunction boils down to one argument, which is that the Sheriff’s Office cannot be trusted to follow its current IMP. PLN has dissected that argument into thirteen headings, giving the appearance of a multitude of reasons supporting the issuance of a preliminary injunction. However, scrutiny of the arguments reveals that they lack merit and either (1) attack parts of the past policy and practices that defendants have admitted are unconstitutional and have eliminated; (2) focus on a transitional time frame during which the Jail

8 PLN makes a claim that a deputy gave an inmate “contraband” and the Sheriff’s Office ignored it. (Plf. Mem. at 13.) What the evidence actually shows is that an inmate wrote a request for additional postcards and claimed that “another deputy” – unnamed – had given him some before. (Chamberlain Decl. Ex. 49; Wing Decl. VII (Moyer Dep. 287:9-22 (stating that there has never been claim that a deputy gave an inmate contraband).) There is no evidence that what the inmate said was true. A reminder message to other jail deputies to not give inmates extra postcards is a reasonable approach to the situation. Regardless, this evidence is not related to alternatives to a postcard restriction.

Page 29 – RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 114 Filed 10/16/12 Page 35 of 47

borrowed Washington County Sheriff’s Office’s IMP and then determined that further revisions were necessary; or (3) have no significance to this Court’s determination of whether to grant summary judgment and issue a permanent injunction.
1. The Postcard Policy Has Been Eliminated and Defendants Will Not Reinstitute It.
PLN argues that a permanent injunction should be issued because defendants chose to defend the postcard policy in court in response to PLN’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. (Plf. Mem. at 23.) To accept this logic would chill the right of litigants to seek a court’s determination of an issue of first impression. This is especially true in this matter because PLN failed to cite to a single case holding that postcard restrictions are unconstitutional and defendants cited to cases upholding postcard restrictions, which the Court distinguished. Further, on the broader issue of prison regulations affecting the method of inmate communication, which is what a postcard restriction is, no cases were cited to the Court. The cases cited to the Court have largely involved a content-based prison regulation. (Dkt. 50, Defs. Resp. Amicus Curiae Brief at 4-8 (discussing prison regulation cases); Dkt. 76, Defs. Resp. Plf. Mot. Amend Op. & O. Plf. Mot. Prelim. Inj. at 3-4 (same).)
Defendants have met their burden to show that the postcard-only policy has been eliminated and will not be re-instituted. See supra Part III.H & Part V.
2. Defendants Have Admitted to Unconstitutional Practices and No Longer Restricts Mail to Postcard Form.
When the Sheriff’s Office responded to inmate complaints relating to the postcard restriction, no court had ruled that such a restriction was unconstitutional. In fact, courts had upheld postcard restrictions on incoming inmate mail. (Defs. Resp. Plf. Mot. Prelim. Inj. at 1415 (citing cases).) None of the inmate complaints were answered by the Sheriff or Undersheriff, who have overseen the changes to the Sheriff’s Office’s inmate mail practices, and defendants have admitted that the Sheriff’s Office had prior unconstitutional practices with respect to magazine delivery and due process. The evidence relied on by PLN fails to rebut defendants’

Page 30 – RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 114 Filed 10/16/12 Page 36 of 47

showing that measures are in place to ensure that the prior unconstitutional conduct will not recur.
3. Sheriff Dickerson Immediately Conformed the Jail Practices to the Constitution. PLN Has Presented No Evidence that Its Mail Has Been Wrongfully Rejected Since Before January, 2012 and It Does Not Challenge the Current IMP.
PLN claims the Sheriff does not “respect” the U.S. Constitution, despite all the efforts recounted in Part III of this memorandum to rectify prior unconstitutional practices as soon as he learned of them and to comply with the Court’s preliminary injunction against the postcard restriction.
PLN misrepresents Sheriff Dickerson’s testimony by claiming that he said the Jail never had a ban on magazines. (Plf. Mem. at 25.) Sheriff Dickerson correctly stated that the old IMP allowed magazines, but its inmate manual reflected its practice (albeit, inconsistently applied) of not allowing magazines into the Jail. (Wing Decl. I (Dickerson Dep. 124:19-125:3).)
PLN suggests that Sheriff Dickerson will violate due process if the Jail is not monitored by this Court. (Plf. Mem. at 25.) However, PLN provides no evidence that due process has been violated since prior to January, 2012. PLN supports its position with a grievance of the postcardonly policy by inmate Brad Berg from December of 2011. (Id.) This grievance had nothing to do with due process, but was instead a complaint about the postcard-only policy. Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988) (grievance procedures do not create liberty interests protected by Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause), cert. denied 488 U.S. 898 (1988). According to the inmate manual’s instructions, Mr. Berg should have appealed to the Facility Supervisor, not the Sheriff. (Dkt. 36, Plf. Mot. Prelim. Inj., Berg Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. A, p.9.)
4. Columbia County Sheriff’s Office Has Permanently Changed Its Mail Policy and Practices.
PLN counts the number of revisions to the Sheriff’s Office’s inmate mail policies entirely ignoring the context of the changes. As explained above in Part III, the only significant change from the January IMP, which was adopted after PLN first notified the Sheriff’s Office of its unconstitutional practices, was the adoption of the June IMP discarding the postcard restriction.

Page 31 – RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 114 Filed 10/16/12 Page 37 of 47

Surprisingly, PLN criticizes Sheriff Dickerson for striving to develop and implement an

efficient mail policy. (Plf. Mem. at 26.) The Sheriff’s Office changed its mail policies to correct

unconstitutional procedures, adapted to the Court’s Opinion and Order, re-formulated parts of

Washington County Sheriff’s Office’s IMP for the Columbia County Jail, and corrected minor

errors. Though the current IMP reflects several revisions to the January IMP, these changes demonstrate a commitment to improved mail handling procedures and practices and should not

be viewed as evidence of a likelihood to return to admittedly unconstitutional policies and

practices.

PLN’s purely speculative argument that the next Sheriff will re-institute the postcard

restriction on inmate mail, is contrary to the evidence and cannot support the issuance of a

permanent injunction. 5. The Sheriff’s Office’s Training Was Adequate and Has Worked.

PLN’s critique of the Sheriff’s Office’s training is irrelevant because it does not argue or

provide any evidence showing that the current policy or practice at the Jail is unconstitutional.

PLN makes two misrepresentations by arguing that the Jail failed to provide due process

to Lucy Lennox when she mailed an article printed from PLN’s website to eleven inmates in

February, 2012. (Plf. Mem. at 27; Dkt. 34, Plf. Reply Mot. Prelim. Inj., Lennox 2d Decl. ¶¶ 4-5 (out of eleven mailings, the Jail returned three of them and two prohibited mail notices were

included); see also Chamberlain Decl. Ex. 30 (showing that of the eight envelopes that were not

returned to Ms. Lennox, the eight inmates were advised that that the mail would not be

delivered).) First, Ms. Lennox did receive due process notice. Second, her mail was properly

rejected under the then-applicable IMP.

Ms. Lennox received two prohibited mail notices informing her of the reason for the

rejection (i.e., that it was deemed personal mail not on a postcard) and of her right to appeal. (Dkt. 34, Lennox 2d Decl. ¶ 5, Exs. C, E.) She was reasonably on notice that all eleven mailings,

containing the same article, were not delivered for the same reason. Even if she had a due

process claim, her failure to appeal despite having been advised of her right means that she

Page 32 – RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 114 Filed 10/16/12 Page 38 of 47

waived it. See Ostlund v. Bobb, 825 F.2d 1371, 1373 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Waiver of a constitutional right must be knowing and voluntary.”).)
When Undersheriff Moyer was deposed on July 6, 2012, he was asked if Ms. Lennox’s mailings would be rejected under the “current” IMP, and he responded that they would not be rejected. (Wing Decl. V (Moyer Dep. 193:2-21).) The “current” IMP on July 6, 2012 was the one adopted on June 18, 2012 (with a minor correction on July 5, 2012) that discarded the postcard-only policy in response to the Court’s Opinion and Order. Accordingly, the evidence cited by PLN shows that the Sheriff’s Office’s training was effective because Ms. Lennox’s mailings were properly rejected in February, 2012 as personal mail not on a postcard.
PLN’s argument based on Bryan Cutright’s deposition testimony that he could not think of what the First and Fourteenth Amendments were at the time the questions were posed to him, is merely contentious and does not support the issuance of a permanent injunction. (Plf. Mem. at 28.) PLN did not ask Mr. Cutright any questions about whether inmates have free speech or due process rights, or show Mr. Cutright the text of those Amendments to refresh his memory. During Mr. Cutright’s deposition, he displayed a working knowledge of inmate’s First Amendment rights by stating that a Playboy magazine sent to an inmate was properly rejected because it contained inappropriate content. (Roberson Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. C (Cutright Dep. 176:14177:20); Chamberlain Decl. Ex. 22 (copy of Dep. Ex. 25 discussed by Mr. Cutright).) Mr. Cutright also testified in detail regarding the Jail’s pre- and post-lawsuit due process procedures. (Id. (Cutright Dep. 32:17-36:7).)
6. After Implementing Its New IMP in January and February, 2012, the Sheriff’s Office Mistakenly Did Not Remove All References to Its Prior Practices.
PLN criticizes the Sheriff’s Office for “withholding” information about the new inmate mail procedures because its website stated that IMP was “under review” for several months subsequent to the filing of the Complaint. (Plf. Mem. at 28.) This criticism is unwarranted and has nothing to do with PLN’s permanent injunctive relief claim. The website statement was correct. The Sheriff’s Office was revising its mail procedures. See supra Part III.D. The major

Page 33 – RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 114 Filed 10/16/12 Page 39 of 47

changes that resulted were redefining sexually explicit materials, dropping the cap on the number

of books and magazines that could be received in a single day, and ensuring that a supervisor

approved of any decision to reject mail prior to notifying the sender or receiver of the rejection.

Id.

The Sheriff’s Office did not “withhold” information from the public; members of the

public who wanted to know about any mail restrictions could get that information by calling the

Jail. Defendants are also unaware of any constitutional requirement that a jail must have certain

content on a website. If mail was sent to an inmate that violated the IMP, the sender and receiver

would receive a Prohibited Mail Notice, which would state the reason for the rejection and their

appeal rights. PLN cites no evidence that a member of the public was not told information about

the IMP.

Defendants admit that while the mail procedures were under a thorough review, they

mistakenly continued to provide the old Inmate Manual that contained erroneous language that

magazines were prohibited and an erroneous description of the current due process procedures

for rejected mail. Despite the outdated information contained in the Inmate Manual, consistent

with its IMP and practices, the Jail delivered every magazine to inmates during this time period

and provided due process for any rejected mail. On May 16, 2012, a new Inmate Manual was

issued to all inmates. See supra Part III.E.2. The new Inmate Manual expressly stated that

magazines were allowed into the facility and explained the Jail’s due process procedure for

rejected mail. Id.

Defendants also admit that in some of the jail pods, an outdated memorandum from

March, 2010 about the postcard-only policy was available to inmates until early May, 2012 that

stated that magazines were not allowed into the facility, which was not correct since January,

2012. Id. Two reminder emails sent to the jail staff on May 6 and 7, 2012 instructed staff to

remove the outdated memorandum. (Chamberlain Decl. Exs. 43-44.) Although PLN claims it

was misled, it relies solely on Undersheriff Moyer’s deposition testimony for this accusation.

(Plf. Mem. at 29.) The testimony cited does not support PLN’s contention that it was misled.

Page 34 – RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 114 Filed 10/16/12 Page 40 of 47

Undersheriff Moyer’s testimony was that he instructed his staff to explain the new mail process to inmates and to place the new mail guide into the jail pods, and his instructions could have been given at different times. (Roberson Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. B (Moyer Dep. 77:14-16, 81:17-82:13, 84:3-21).) Not remembering something is not misleading or dishonest, as PLN claims.
PLN cites to Mr. Berg’s request on February 7, 2012 for a copy of the new IMP. (Plf. Mem. at 29.) Mr. Berg’s request demonstrates that inmates were told of the new mail procedures back in February, 2012. (Chamberlain Decl. Ex. 28.) It was appropriate for the Jail to not provide Mr. Berg a copy of the new inmate mail policy because it was undergoing significant review. (See Dickerson Decl. ¶ 9; see also Wing Decl. I (Dickerson Dep. 211:13-212:20).) There is no evidence that Mr. Berg was given incorrect information about the Sheriff’s Office’s new mail procedures, and Mr. Berg only requested a copy of the IMP; he had no specific questions about what mail he could receive or send.
7. After Determining that Some of its Mail Practices Were Unconstitutional, the Sheriff’s Office Adopted New Practices and Moved Forward.
PLN criticizes Sheriff Dickerson for his investigation into the Sheriff’s Office’s mail practices. However, the Sheriff’s Office focused on “moving forward” after determining its prior mail practices were unconstitutional. (Wing Decl. I (Dickerson Dep. 120:24-121:3).) Undersheriff Moyer was also asked why the Jail rejected magazines even though the policy allowed them, he responded that people told him they did not know. (Roberson Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. B (Moyer Dep. 113:11-17).) The former Jail Commander Captain Jim Carpenter, who retired in June, 2011, confirmed what was admitted in the Answer to PLN’s Complaint: that that the Columbia County Jail had a prior practice of not allowing magazines. (Wing Decl. IV (Carpenter Dep. 74:7-77:25).) This is evidence of a desire to rectify the constitutional problems with its IMP and practices and is not evidence, as PLN suggests, of a continuing disregard for that result.
As noted by PLN, Sheriff Dickerson correctly stated that the incorrect language on the Sheriff’s Office website was derived from the incorrect language in the Inmate Manual. (Wing

Page 35 – RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 114 Filed 10/16/12 Page 41 of 47

Decl. I (Dickerson Dep. 120:3-10); Chamberlain Decl. Ex. 6 (showing that the “no magazines” language was posted to the Sheriff’s Office website on or about March 18, 2010 at the request of Sergeant Bryan Cutright).) PLN criticizes the Sheriff for not knowing by name the people who sort the mail in the front office. PLN provides no explanation for why this matters. It does not matter for purposes of this Court’s present determination, and is merely another point with no significance.
8. Sheriff Dickerson Has Upheld His Oath. Sheriff Dickerson has upheld his oath to uphold the Constitution by quickly rectifying the prior unconstitutional mail practices as soon as he learned of them. See supra Part III. PLN’s point that Sheriff Dickerson refused to answer some questions, on the advice of his counsel, at his continuation deposition on August 28, 2012, is again a point without significance.9 9. Sheriff Dickerson Has Held His Staff and the Sheriff’s Office Accountable. Although it is unclear why PLN’s dissatisfaction has anything to do with its motion for summary judgment on its injunctive relief claim, as explained in Part III of this memorandum, Sheriff Dickerson has held his staff and the Sheriff’s Office accountable by (1) admitting to constitutional violations in defendants’ Answer, (2) admitting to constitutional violations at his deposition, (3) issuing a new inmate mail policy correcting the unconstitutional practices, and having staff trained on the new mail procedures. In addition, Sheriff Dickerson has explained to all jail staff that they can be personally liable for constitutional violations. (Chamberlain Decl. Ex. 46.) PLN brushes aside these actions of accountability because Sheriff Dickerson did not discipline employees. As the evidence demonstrates, the constitutional violations were part of either a policy (e.g., postcard-only if the Court upholds its Opinion and Order) or practice (e.g.,

9 As PLN is aware, Sheriff Dickerson’s deposition was re-opened solely for PLN to inquire about defendants’ mitigation affirmative defense. Defendants also permitted PLN to question Sheriff Dickerson about discovery produced following his first deposition in May, 2012. PLN’s questions about Sheriff Dickerson’s oath of office should have been asked at his first deposition and, in any event, PLN was well past the seven-hour deposition limit under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1).

Page 36 – RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 114 Filed 10/16/12 Page 42 of 47

magazines and due process) of the Jail, and there is no evidence that Jail employees engaged in conduct intending to violate the constitutional rights of inmates.
Furthermore, as PLN knows, all senior staff members have either retired or been removed from a supervisory role. Jim Carpenter retired in June, 2011. (Roberson Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A (Dickerson Dep. 33:6-13).) Sergeant John McMiller retired in April, 2012. (Id. (Dickerson Dep. 26:4-25).) The four remaining sergeants – Bryan Cutright, Raquel Miller, Sheryl Westfall, and Lee Rigdon – were laid off in June, 2012 because budgets cuts required the elimination of the sergeant position. (Dickerson Decl. ¶ 10.) None of those employees have any supervisory role at the Jail. (Id.) The immediate jail supervisors since June, 2012 have been Lieutenants Tony Weaver and Brooke McDowall. (Id.; see also id. ¶ 3, Ex. B (Moyer Dep. 27:21-29:10) (explaining actions taken due to budget shortfalls).)
10. Undersheriff Moyer Also Acted Responsibly When He Learned that Constitutional Violations Occurred.
Undersheriff Moyer was actively involved in determining new mail procedures and ensuring they were followed. See supra Part III; Roberson Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. B (Moyer Dep. 101:3103:16) (summarizing his actions taken with respect to the mail procedures since January, 2012).) Although Undersheriff Moyer may not have personally reviewed discovery in this matter, he had received a report that the Jail was delivering magazines to inmates prior to the filing of this lawsuit. (Roberson Decl. ¶¶ 3, Ex. B (Moyer Dep. 121:6-123:6, 219:7-220:9); id. ¶ 9, Ex. H (report showing that thirteen inmates reported regularly receiving Prison Daily [sic] News).)
11. The Sheriff’s Office Does Not Keep Interim Draft Policies. PLN criticizes Sheriff Dickerson for discarding an edited version of Washington County’s IMP, marked up by Washington County’s legal counsel, which served as the template for the Sheriff’s Office’s January IMP. The Sheriff’s Office does not typically keep interim suggested changes to its policies; the policy drafts are discarded once the new policy is finalized. (Dickerson Decl. ¶¶ 11-12.)

Page 37 – RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 114 Filed 10/16/12 Page 43 of 47

12. PLN’s Arguments Against Mootness Are Redundant and Unpersuasive. As a final argument in support of its singular position that a permanent injunction should be issued because the Sheriff’s Office cannot be trusted to maintain its constitutionally sound current IMP and practices, PLN reasserts the argument made in support of its Motion for a Preliminary Injunction that the issues are not moot. (Plf. Mem. at 33-34). As explained earlier, the Court’s Opinion and Order on mootness at the preliminary injunction phase cannot simply be applied now to the current phase. The factual basis for that opinion has changed. There are now no longer any “live” issues. See supra Part IV. VII. PLN’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF SHOULD BE DENIED A. Legal Standard for Declaratory Relief. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a), the Court “may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration” in cases of “actual controversy.” The decision to grant declaratory relief is a matter of discretion. United States v. Walsh, 759 F.2d 1353, 1356 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing A.L. Mechling Barge Lines, Inc. v. United States, 368 U.S. 324, 331 (1961)). Plaintiff has the burden of showing that equitable relief is necessary. Olagues v. Rossoniello, 770 F.2d 791, 799, 803 (9th Cir. 1985). “Declaratory relief should be denied when it will neither serve a useful practical purpose in clarifying and setting the legal relations in issue nor terminate the proceedings and afford relief from the uncertainty and controversy faced by the parties.” Walsh, 759 F.2d at 1357; see also Greater Los Angeles Council on Deafness, Inc. v. Zolin, 812 F.2d 1103, 1112 (9th Cir. 1987) (same). The Ninth Circuit cautioned “against making declaratory judgments upon issues of public moment unless the need is clear, not remote or speculative.” Washington Public Power Supply System v. Pacific Northwest Co., 332 F.2d 87, 88 (9th Cir. 1964) (vacating declaratory relief on “serious and far-reaching questions of state and federal law” relating to approval of a hydroelectric project on the basis that subsequent events made the declaratory relief unnecessary). “[C]ourts should withhold declaratory relief as a matter of discretion if such redress is unlikely to

Page 38 – RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 114 Filed 10/16/12 Page 44 of 47

palliate, or not needed to palliate, the fancied injury, especially when refraining from issuing a declaratory judgment avoids the premature adjudication of constitutional issues.” El Dia, Inc. v. Hernandez Colon, 963 F.2d 488, 494 (1st Cir. 1992). The First Circuit in El Dia stated:
[W]e believe that declaratory judgments concerning the constitutionality of government conduct will almost always be inappropriate when the constitutional issues are freighted with uncertainty and the underlying grievance can be remedied for the time being without gratuitous exploration of uncharted constitutional terrain.
Id. B. PLN’s Declaratory Relief Claim With Respect to the Delivery of Magazines and Due
Process Requirements Is Unwarranted. 1. The Claim for Declaratory Relief as to Magazines and Due Process Is Moot. PLN’s claim for declaratory relief is moot with respect to magazine delivery and due
process procedures for the same reasons PLN’s claim for permanent injunctive relief is moot.
See supra Part V.
2. The Claim for Declaratory Relief as to Magazines and Due Process Is Baseless. PLN’s request for equitable relief with respect to defendants’ admitted error in categorically rejecting correspondence and not providing due process is unnecessary. There is no actual controversy over these issues. PLN’s declaratory judgment request is that of a general admonition and nothing more. PLN seeks a declaratory judgment that would say, in essence, “the Jail must deliver magazines and provide due process,” which it is already doing. As the Ninth Circuit has instructed, “[i]t serves neither the needs of the parties, nor the jurisprudence of the court, nor the interests of the public for the judiciary to employ the declaratory judgment procedure to announce legal rules imprecise in definition and uncertain in dimension. Precise resolution, not general admonition, is the function of declaratory relief.” Walsh, 759 F.2d 1353, 1357 (9th Cir. 1985). Given defendants’ admission of liability and change in the handling of inmate mail, equitable relief in the form of a declaratory judgment serves no useful purpose and fails to clarify or set the “legal relations in issue[.]” Id. at 1356. Defendants’ admission of

Page 39 – RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 114 Filed 10/16/12 Page 45 of 47

liability is a sufficient declaration of the legal relations between the parties. Manriquez v. Huchins, 2010 WL 3502529, *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2010) (admission of liability is sufficient declaration just as if defendants had denied liability but a verdict was entered against them).
Declaratory relief should also be denied when the issues are too fact-specific to permit a general ruling. Greater Los Angeles Council on Deafness, Inc. v. Zolin, 812 F.2d 1103, 1112 (9th Cir. 1987). PLN’s request for a general declaratory statement that due process must be given when mail is rejected is inappropriate because of the fact-specific nature of a due process claim, and because the declaratory statement would be too “imprecise in definition and uncertain in dimension.” See Walsh, 759 F.2d at 1357. The issues involved in the due process analysis are numerous and fact-specific, including whether: (a) mail was sent to an inmate; (b) mail was received by jail; (c) mail was rejected by jail staff for an impermissible reason; (d) notice of the rejection with the reason and appeal procedure was given to the sender and receiver of mail; (e) the notice of rejection was received by the sender or receiver; (f) the sender or receiver timely appealed the rejection; (g) a jail supervisor reviewed the appeal and denied it. The issuance of a declaratory statement in the nature PLN has requested could not definitively resolve inevitably reoccurring issues such as whether the reason given for the rejection was “impermissible” or whether the notice or appeal procedure was sufficient under the circumstances. PLN’s request for a general admonition should be denied.
Although absent from its Motion, PLN identifies four specific requests for declaratory relief in its supporting memorandum. (Plf. Mem. at 18-19.) All four requests should be denied for the reason that none challenge the Sheriff’s Office’s current mail policy or practices. Additionally, the four requests are without merit.
In its first and second request for declaratory judgment, PLN asks this court to declare that the Sheriff’s Office website on January 13, 2012 and a March 23, 2010 memorandum violated the Fourteenth Amendment because they failed to state any due process procedures. (Id.) PLN has failed to provide any authority or otherwise demonstrate that the omission of due

Page 40 – RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 114 Filed 10/16/12 Page 46 of 47

process procedures on these sources constitute a constitutional violation. It does not. Thus, it would be improper for the court to make such a declaration.
In its third and fourth requests for declaratory relief, PLN asks this court to declare the Sheriff’s Office’s October 21, 2011, 10 January 26, 2012, and February 10, 2012 IMPs unconstitutional. (Id.) None of these policies reflect the current practices at the Jail and defendants have already admitted, thereby declaring, that its October 21, 2011 mail policy was deficient. See supra Part III.B, F. Accordingly, PLN has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that declaratory relief is necessary, serves a practical purpose and is nothing more than a general admonition of unconstitutional policies and practices that defendants have already admitted. C. The Claim for Declaratory Relief as to a Non-existent Postcard-Only Policy Is Moot
and Should Be Denied. Defendants no longer restrict inmate mail to postcard-form and have no intention of reimplementing that policy. See supra Part III.G. PLN’s claim for declaratory relief is moot for the same reasons its claim for permanent injunction is moot. See supra Part V. As this Court has recognized, ‘“if events subsequent to the filing of the case resolve the parties’ dispute, [the court] must dismiss the case as moot[.]”’ (Id., quoting Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 P.3d 1081, 1087 (9th Cir. 2011).) The evidence is that PLN has eliminated the postcard-only policy and will not reinstitute it. Accordingly, PLN’s claim against the policy has been resolved and declaratory relief would serve no practical purpose. Alternatively, defendants have shown at this pre-adjudicative stage of the proceeding that there are genuine and material disputed facts over its current mail practices and the adoption, effect,

10 PLN incorrectly states that the Sheriff never made the October 21, 2011 IMP publicly available, citing to the answer given to Interrogatory No. 7(d). PLN’s interrogatory asked only if “modifications” to the inmate mail policies were made public. The answer to Interrogatory No. 7(d) was that the modifications made in the October 21, 2011 mail policy were not made public. There was nothing significant to notify the public about. As shown in the answer to Interrogatory No. 7(b), when significant modifications were made affecting the public, such as the postcard restriction, announcements to the public were made. (Chamberlain Decl. Ex. 68, p.8.)

Page 41 – RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 114 Filed 10/16/12 Page 47 of 47
and stoppage of the postcard restriction on personal inmate mail, requiring denial of PLN’s motion for summary judgment on its claim for declaratory relief. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-48 (genuine issues of material fact require denial of motions for summary judgment). To the extent the Court reaches the merits of PLN’s claim for declaratory relief, defendants’ prior postcard-only policy on personal inmate mail did not violate the First Amendment. VIII. CONCLUSION
For all the above-stated reasons, defendants ask the Court to deny PLN’s Motion for Summary Judgment for Declaratory and Permanent Injunctive Relief. PLN has failed to meet its burden to show that no disputed issues of fact exist and all of the necessary elements for permanent injunctive and declaratory relief are present.
Respectfully submitted this 16th day of October, 2012.
HART WAGNER LLP
By: /s/ Steven A. Kraemer Steven A. Kraemer, OSB No. 882476 Of Attorneys for Defendants

Page 42 – RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115 Filed 10/16/12 Page 1 of 3

Steven A. Kraemer, OSB No. 882476 E-mail: sak@hartwagner.com Gregory R. Roberson, OSB No. 064847 E-mail: grr@hartwagner.com HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301
Of Attorneys for Defendants

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,

No. 3:12-cv-0071-SI

Plaintiffs,

v.

DECLARATION OF GREGORY R.

ROBERSON

COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF DICKERSON, individual and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,

In Support of Defendants’ Response to PLN’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Defendants.

I, Gregory R. Roberson, declare as follows:

1. I am one the attorneys representing defendants in this matter. The statements in this

declaration are based on my personal knowledge.

2. Attached as Exhibit A are true and accurate excerpts from the depositions of Jeffery M.

Dickerson taken May 10, 2012 and August 28, 2012.

3. Attached as Exhibit B are true and accurate excerpts from the deposition of Andrew

Moyer taken on July 16, 2012.

4. Attached as Exhibit C are true and accurate excerpts from the deposition of Bryan

Cutright taken on May 9, 2012.

Page 1 – DECLARATION OF GREGORY R. ROBERSON

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115 Filed 10/16/12 Page 2 of 3

5. Attached as Exhibit D are true and accurate excerpts from the deposition of Raquel Miller

taken on May 9, 2012.

6. Attached as Exhibit E is a true and accurate copy of an email sent to Bryan Cutright from

the Oregon Jail Manager’s Association listserv on April 29, 2012. This email is deposition

exhibit No. 16.

7. Attached as Exhibit F is a true and accurate copy of one of several documents on a CD

provided by Washington County Sheriff’s Office’s Jail Commander Marie Tyler from

December 9, 2009.

8. Attached as Exhibit G is a true and accurate copy of a shift summary email for the

Columbia County Jail dated September 16, 2011.

9. Attached as Exhibit H is a true and accurate copy of a jail incident report from

January 23, 2012. This report is deposition exhibit No. 124.

10. Attached as Exhibit I is a true and accurate copy of a version of Washington County

Sheriff’s Office’s Inmate Mail Policy. This document is deposition exhibit No. 10.

11. Attached as Exhibit J are true and accurate copies of correspondence from Prison Legal

News/Human Rights Defense Center to inmates at the Columbia County Jail.

12. Attached as Exhibit K is a true and accurate copy of a newspaper article published on

May 24, 2012 on The Oregonian’s website.

13. Attached as Exhibit L are true and accurate copies of respondents’ Notice of Compliance

with Court’s Partial Unsealing Order filed in Garcia v. Chief Deputy David Tennessen, Ventura

County Superior Court Case No. MA-004-11 dated November 10, 2011. Included in the Notice

are the declarations of Sergeant Rob Davidson, Tracy Martinez, Jerry Hernandez, a sworn

detective of the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department, Aaron Wilkinson, and Jeffrey Held.

//

///

///

///
Page 2 – DECLARATION OF GREGORY R. ROBERSON

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115 Filed 10/16/12 Page 3 of 3
14. Attached as Exhibit M is a true and accurate copy of the Report of U.S. Magistrate Judge Patrick A. White in Martinez v. May, No. 11-cv-14039-MOORE (S.D. Fla. Apr. 25, 2012), followed by the docket available on the Southern District of Florida’s CM/ECF showing that Judge White’s Report was adopted by the Honorable K. Michael Moore on June 8, 2012.
I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
Respectfully submitted this 16th day of October, 2012.
By: /s/ Gregory R. Roberson Gregory R. Roberson

Page 3 – DECLARATION OF GREGORY R. ROBERSON

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-1 Filed 10/16/12 Page 1 of 12

Dickerson, Jeffrey

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project

of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,
Plaintiff,

No. 3:12-CV-71-SI

v.
COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF
DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,

Defendants.

May 10, 2012
Page 1

DEPOSITION OF JEFFREY M. DICKERSON Taken in behalf of Plaintiff
May 10, 2012

Beovich Walter & Friend

EXHIBIT A: Page 1 of 12

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-1 Filed 10/16/12 Page 2 of 12

Dickerson, Jeffrey

May 10,2012

Page 26

Page 28

1 A. I believe not. Things change, you know, over 1 A. Other than the sergeants are the first listed,

2

time. And actually one of the, there's a person 2

no.

3

who's not even here now who's on this page.

3 Q. There are one, two, three, four, five sergeants;

4 Q. And who Is that?

4

is that right?

5 A. Sergeant John McMiller.

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Okay. And how long ago did Sergeant John

6 Q. And then subtracting John McMiller, there are

7

McMiller cease to become an employee of the

7

four?

8

corrections division?

8 A. There are now four. Correct.

9 A. In April.

9 Q. Okay. Would you please describe their longevity

10 Q. And is he still employed? Is that a man?

10

with the sheriffs department.

11 A. Yes.

11 A. Well, I can't know for sure.

12 Q. John, yes.

12 Q. What is your - We've heard from Sergeant

13 A. John, yes.

13

Cutright. What is your understanding of

14 Q. Is Sergeant McMillan (sic) still employed by the

14

approximately how long Sergeant Westfall has

15

sheriffs department?

15

been with the sheriffs department?

16 A. No.

16 A. I'm not sure. It's been years. And she's a

17 Q. How did he become unemployed by the sheriffs

17

senior person.

18

department?

18 Q. Do you believe she has been there for 10 years

19 A. He retired effective April 19th, I believe.

19

or more?

20 Q. Have you replaced him?

20 A. Probably.

21 A. No.

21 Q. And Sergeant Miller?

22 Q. And was that April 19, 2012?

22 A. I know that she started in control as a

23 A. Yes.

23

technician and I think, again, I don't know

24 Q. Do you intend to replace him?

24

exactly the length of time that she was there.

25 A. No.

25 Q. Do you think that she's been there for 10 years

Page 27

Page 29

1 Q. Why not?

1

or more?

2 A. Budget. I expect there will be more layoffs

2 A. Possibly.

3

soon and there's no reason, I mean, it wouldn't

3 Q. You're not so sure as her compared to

4

make sense to hire someone to replace that.

4

Sergeant Westfall; is that right?

5 Q. Okay. How many layoffs do you anticipate?

5 A. I'm not so sure.

6 A. We have a staff reduction of approximately six

6 Q. Sergeant Rigdon?

7

and a half positions, one of those positions

7 A. I think, again, I don't know for sure.

8

will obviously be Sergeant McMiller's position

8 Q. Do you think he's been there for ten or more

9

and the remainder we have not made a final

9

years?

10

decision. But there's probably another. One of 10 A. I don't know.

11

them is a jail commander position that we were 11 Q. Okay.

12

going to try to hire but we eliminated.

12 A. Maybe close.

13 Q. So you'll need four-and-a-half more positions?

13 Q. Okay.

14 A. Yes.

14 A. Wait. Actually I can say yes because I know he

15 Q. And do you know how many of them will come from 15

was in the previous jail. So yes. Yes, he's

16

the corrections division?

16

been there ten or more years.

17 A. I have not made that final decision.

17 Q. Okay. You used the term "control" regarding

18 Q. Okay. Do you have an estimate?

18

Sergeant Miller. What is control as you used

19 A. I estimate there will be four-and-a-half

19

the term?

20

positions that go. I can't —

20 A. Well, originally when the new jail was built,

21 Q. You don't know where they'll come from?

21

they have, we have a control room and they

22 A. I don't know at this time.

22

designated technicians at a lower rate of pay

23 Q. Okay. Is there anything to be drawn from the

23

than deputy whose sole purpose was to, sole job

24

order in which these pictures and names are

24

was to be in the control room and operate that

25

there?

25

aspect of our jail.

8 (Pages 26 to 29)

Beovich Walter & Friend

EXHIBIT A: Page 2 of 12

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-1 Filed 10/16/12 Page 3 of 12

Dickerson, Jeffrey

May 10,2012

Page 30

Page 32

1 Q. The control room sits in the middle of a group

2

of pods?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Its kind of an enclosed structure?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And the person in the control booth can open and

7

close doors?

8 A. Doors, controls entrance and exits from the

9

facility —

10 Q. Okay.

11 A. - in general. Not just the jail, but the

12

entire sheriffs office.

13 Q. And you're saying Sergeant Miller was once a

14

technician whose job was to sit in the control

15

room and do those functions?

16 A. That's what I've heard.

17 Q. Okay.

18 A. It was before I was sheriff.

19 Q. Are you aware of any of the sergeants who have

20

more seniority of the sheriffs office than

21

Sergeant Cutright?

22 A. I believe, in fact, I know none have more

23

seniority than Sergeant Cutright.

24 Q. And do any of the deputies have more seniority

25

than Sergeant Cutright in the sheriffs

1 Q. Okay. Do all of the deputies have the same job

2

responsibilities? Let me rephrase this.

3

Okay. I realize that deputies might be

4

assigned to different shifts and during the

5

course of shifts there might be different

6

responsibilities. But what I'm trying to find

7

out is whether, as a general rule whenever a

8

deputy is assigned to a particular shift, their

9

responsibilities would be generally the same. A

10

sergeant might on one day ask them to do one

11

thing versus another, but do any of them have

12

specific assignments?

13 A. No, not really. I mean, they all have the same

14

job description.

15 Q. Okay. Are there special assignments?

16 A. From time to time.

17 Q. And who has the authority to issue a special

18

assignment to a deputy?

19 A. Any supervisor.

20 Q. Okay. And as you use the term "supervisor,"

21

that would be the sergeant -

22 A. Sergeant.

23 Q. - undersheriff or you?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Those are the only supervisors currently; right?

Page 31

Page 33

1

department?

1 A. Correct.

2 A. No.

2 Q. When is the last time you had somebody in a

3 Q. Who do you believe is your most senior deputy?

3

position other than those three supervisory

4 A. Most senior deputy?

4

positions?

5 Q. Yeah. And let me just say for the purpose of

5 A. Would have been June 30th, 2011.

6

these questions, I'm not asking about the

6 Q. Okay. And what happened on June 30th, 2011,

7

transportation and court security deputies.

7

that changed?

8 A. Right. It is either Deputy Kyles or

8 A. Okay. I thought you weren't done.

9

Deputy Ritchie. I believe it's Kyles.

9 Q. That's the end of my question.

10 Q. And approximately how long do you think

10 A. That was the approximate date that Captain Jim

11

Deputy Kyles has been at the sheriffs

11

Carpenter retired.

12

department?

12 Q. Okay. And he was the jail commander?

13 A. More than 10 years.

13 A. Correct

14 Q. How many deputies do you think you have who have 14 Q. Was there anybody else during the course of your

15

been there for five years or more?

15

tenure as elected sheriff who held a job title

16 A. Been there five years or more, would be nine. 16

as a supervisor other than sergeant, captain,

17 Q. Nine of them?

17

undersheriff or sheriff?

18 A. Yes.

18 A. No.

19 Q. Okay. So most of them; is that right?

19 Q. There's never been a lieutenant?

20 A. Nine of the 16. I believe there are 16. Yeah.

20 A. Sorry. I have to take that back. Yes. We have

21 Q. Okay. And we were there the other night doing

21

had a lieutenant position.

22

the inspection with Sergeant Miller and was it

22 Q. When?

23

Sergeant, excuse me, Deputy Moore who was there

23 A. It was in, I don't exactly remember the dates.

24

that night as well?

24

But we established it leading up to the

25 A. I believe so.

25

retirement of Captain Carpenter.

9 (Pages 30 to 33)

Beovich Walter & Friend

EXHIBIT A: Page 3 of 12

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-1 Filed 10/16/12 Page 4 of 12

Dickerson, Jeffrey

May 10,2012

Page 210

Page 212

1

MR. ROBERSON: Under the policy, Counsel?

1

new policy did not change how incoming and

2

MR. WING: No.

2

outgoing mail is treated?

3

MR. ROBERSON: Object to form.

3

MR. ROBERSON: Form.

4

Go ahead. You can answer.

4

THE WITNESS: That's not how I read this.

5

THE WITNESS: I would expect it. Sure.

5 Q. BY MR. WING: How do you read it?

6 Q. BY MR. WING: Would there be any reason not, for 6 A. This inmate is asking for a copy of the new mail

7

that not to happen?

7

policy. "We were told that the recent changes

8 A. No. No good reason.

8

would be posted." So he knows that there have

9 Q. Okay. Do you know what actually happened?

9

been changes. They just haven't been posted

10 A. No.

10

yet. What I believe the sergeant is saying is

11 Q. Okay.

11

what we told you is still in effect. We will

12

(Exhibit 67 marked for identification.)

12

get it out to you in written form as soon as we

13 Q. BY MR. WING: Just look at Exhibit 67. This

13

can, but there are still changes being made to

14

prisoner through the inmate request form says,

14

the actual wording of the policy. Therefore, to

15

"Could you provide me a copy of CCJ's new mail

15

put it in writing in some sort of final form for

16

policy, please?" Do you see that?

16

the inmates hasn't happened yet.

17 A. Yes.

17 Q. BY MR. WING: Okay. That's your interpretation

18 Q. And do you see the date that this is being

18

of-

19

requested?

19 A. That's my interpretation of what was written

20 A. Yes.

20

here.

21 Q. He then writes ~ And the date is when, please?

21 Q. Okay. Then later the answering deputy writes,

22 A. February 7, 2012.

22

"When the policy is finalized, the inmate

23 Q. That's after you adopted your January 26th

23

portion will be made available via a pod memo."

24

policy; is that right?

24

Is that right? Did I read it correctly?

25 A. Yes.

25 A. Yes.

Page 211

Page 213

1 Q. He then writes, "We were told that the recent

1 Q. Has that happened?

2

changes would be posted in the units, but that

2 A. Has it happened?

3

has not happened." Then the answer at the

3 Q. Yes.

4

bottom says, "The mail policy is changing and

4 A. Yes.

5

the information that affects inmates' mail as

5 Q. And that's the inmate...

6

far as outgoing and incoming mail remains the

6 A. Mail guide.

7

same."

7 Q. Inmate mail guide?

8

Is that true?

8 A. Yes.

9 A. It's what he wrote. I'm not sure what you mean 9 Q. And we've talked about the fact that that

10

by "is that true."

10

doesn't include information about due process;

11 Q. Is it true that the new policy did not affect

11

right?

12

the incoming or outgoing mail?

12 A. That's correct.

13

MR. ROBERSON: Object to form.

13 Q. And it does not include a clarification that

14

THE WITNESS: If you're asking me -- I'm

14

magazines are allowed; right?

15

trying to figure out what you're asking me. I'm

15 A. Right. But it doesn't prohibit the magazine.

16

sorry.

16 Q. And then it says, the deputy says, "After the

17 Q. BY MR. WING: I'm trying to be as direct as I

17

policy is finalized, that will be placed in the

18

can be. This prisoner has asked for a copy of

18

new upcoming inmate manual"; is that right?

19

the new policy; would you agree?

19 A. That's correct.

20 A. Yes.

20 Q. When will the new inmate manual be coming out?

21 Q. And the response says, as far as the incoming,

21 A. It is in the hands of legal counsel. I'm

22

outgoing mail goes, the policy is the same.

22

waiting.

23

Isn't that what he wrote?

23 Q. Okay. And this inmate was told this back on

24 A. That's what he wrote.

24

February 8th, 2012; right?

25 Q. And I'm asking you whether if s true that the

25 A. Yes.

54 (Pages 210 to 213)

Beovich Walter & Friend

EXHIBIT A: Page 4 of 12

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-1 Filed 10/16/12 Page 5 of 12

Dickerson, Jeffrey

May 10, 2012

Page 214

Page 216

1 Q. Okay. And you are still using the same inmate

l A. According to policy, yes.

2

manual that you've used; is that right?

2 Q. And so when you started there was the graveyard

3 A. Yes.

3

shift inspecting the mail?

4 Q. Okay. Can we please look at Exhibit 51. If

4 A. I don't know.

5

you'd look under the, on the first page,

5 Q. Were you responsible for shifting it from

6

paragraph number four, the second sentence

6

graveyard to daytime?

7

reads, "Legal mail will be limited to a

7 A. No.

8

reasonable amount and may be sent in addition to

8 Q. Do you know who was?

9

personal mail." Then it defines legal mail as

9 A. No, I do not.

10

correspondence to or from. Do you see that?

10 Q. Okay. Let's talk about your current mail

11 A. Yes.

11

policy. You've identified some terms, junk

12 Q. There's a list of them A through, and it goes

12

mail, bulk mail, personal mail. Do you know

13

through H on the next page; right?

13

what the definitions of those are or would you

14 A. Yes.

14

need to look them up?

15 Q. And what does H say?

15 A. I would need to look them up.

16 A. "Editor of any newspaper."

16 Q. Okay. Let's get you a copy of the policies

17 Q. Is that still how legal mail is defined?

17

which you attached to your declaration.

18 A. I don't know.

18

Remember. So that's Exhibit 3. I think that is

19 Q. Do you believe that the editor of any newspaper,

19

right there. If you want to check, I believe

20

that mail to and from the editor of any

20

Exhibit F is your current policy.

21

newspaper to prisoners or from prisoners should

21 A. Okay.

22

be treated as legal mail?

22 Q. If you wanted to find out what the definition of

23 A. We've changed our definitions. And so I don't 23

personal mail is, where would you look in your

24

know which one it falls under.

24

current policy?

25 Q. Okay. But I'm asking you whether you think it

25 A. It's in the definitions on page 2.

Page 215

Page 217

1

should be?

2 A. Under legal mail, no.

3 Q. For a period of time that's how you treated it,

4

however, right, until you came up with a new

5

policy?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Do you know why?

8 A. No.

9 Q. Can you turn to the last page, please.

10

Paragraph number four there says, "Graveyard

11

shift will log all outgoing mail in the inmate

12

management computer." Do you see that?

13

MR. ROBERSON: I don't, Counsel.

14

MR. WING: You know what, this is extra

15

copies. It looks like the beginning of the new

16

policy was added on there by mistake. Do you

17

see that, Greg? You've got extra pages that

18

should be taken off. You need page 5. Those

19

two. Okay.

20 Q. BY MR. WING: So if you look at page 5, do you

21

see paragraph 4 where it says, "Graveyard shift

22

will log all outgoing mail"? Do you see that?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Is that when mail was, outgoing mail was

25

inspected on graveyard shift?

1 Q. Okay. Does it look accurate to you?

2 A. Looks exactly like what I believe our policy to

3

be, yes.

4 Q. Are letters that are sent to prisoners, fall

5

within the definition of personal mail?

6 A. Not according to our policy.

7 Q. So when you were testifying earlier that

8

materials sent by Lucy Lenuox in an envelope to

9

prisoner was censored because it was personal

10

mail, are you saying that's not true under your

11

policy?

12 A. What our policy recognizes is allowable personal

13

mail.

14 Q. I don't understand your answer. Can you explain

15

what you mean?

16 A. What I mean is what this is talking about is

17

those things that we will allow. And personal

18

mail is, the only personal mail that's going to

19

be allowed in is going to be a postcard that's

20

mailed to or from family, friends, businesses

21

organizations or other unofficial entities.

22 Q. Okay. Are we in agreement though that this is,

23

whenever we look through the policy and find the

24

phrase "personal mail," this is what it means?

25 A. Yes.

55 (Pages 214 to 217;

Beovich Walter & Friend

EXHIBIT A: Page 5 of 12

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-1 Filed 10/16/12 Page 6 of 12

Dickerson, Jeffrey

May 10,2012

Page 270

Page 272

1 A. Staples could become contraband.

1

MR. WING: Okay. Let me take a short break.

2 Q. The jail gives publications to the inmates that

2

I think that I may be just about done here.

3

have staples; right?

3

(Break taken from 5:59 to 6:13.)

4 A. I believe so, but I — I just don't know. I

4

(Exhibits 70 and 71 marked for

5

really don't know if they do or not.

5

identification.)

6 Q- Likethe inmate manual, for example; right? 7 A. Oh, yeah. True.

6 Q. BY MR. WING: I just have a little more to

7

cover. Sheriff Dickerson, if an inmate manual

8 Q. Are the staples different?

8

has not been signed by you, is it possible that

9 A. Probably not.

9

it's nevertheless used?

10 Q. Have you been given any information besides what

10 A. It's possible.

11

you learned today that the prison staff, the

12

jail staff are having a hard time, making

11 Q. Okay. You remember signing another inmate

12

manual during your tenure as a sheriff besides

13

mistakes, applying your new mail policy?

13

the one that is Exhibit 50?

14 A. No.

14 A. I don't remember if I've signed more than one.

15 Q. You've seen some references today to how your

16

staff made wrong rejections and failed to issue

15 Q. Okay. Now, just, we're not going to spend time

16

going through this, but handing you Exhibit 70,

17

notices for due process in the past; right?

17

have you seen this before?

18 A. Prior to February 1st?

18 A. It's the Oregon jail standards. I've seen

19 Q. Yes.

19

Oregon jail standards before.

20 A. Yes.
21 Q. What steps do you have in place to monitor how

20 Q. Okay. This, as you'll see, is dated

21

January 2012. Do you think you've seen this

22

your staff is complying with your new policy?

22

version?

23 A. The only steps we have are through the grievance 23 A. No, I have not seen this version.

24

process.

25 Q. So if a prisoner doesn't grieve it, you're not

24 Q. Okay. You think you've seen one before January

25

of 2012?

Page 271

Page 273

1

monitoring it?

1

A. Yes.

2 A. Correct. Or if we don't get a prohibited, an

3

appeal back from a sender.

2 Q. Had you compared your current mail policy

3

against the mail standards of the Oregon

4

(Exhibit 69 marked for identification.)

4

Sheriffs' Association?

5 Q. BY MR. WING: Handing you Exhibit 69, is this an

5

A. No.

6

e-mail from Sarah Hanson?

7

A. Yes.

6 Q. Why not? 7 A. Because we relied on the Washington County

8 Q. Do you ~

8

policy as a, as a go-by.

9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And do you recall getting this e-mail on

9 Q. Okay. I hand you Exhibit 71. If you look past

10

the first page, I'm sorry, on Exhibit 71, you

11

February 6, 2012?

11

see that it looks like those are audit forms.

12 A. It's familiar to me.

12

Do you see that?

13 Q. Okay. What, if anything, did you do when you

13 A. Yes.

14

received this?

14 Q. Have you ever asked somebody from the Oregon

15 A. I'm not sure.

15

Sheriffs' Association or at their behest to

16 Q. Have you received other e-mails through the

17

e-mails from an Elmer Dickens through your

16

audit your mail policy?

17 A. No.

18

USTSERV participation?

19 A. I don't think I receive, I don't think I've ever

18 Q- Do you think that would be a good idea? 19 A. I don't think it's necessary.

20

received an e-mail from Elmer Dickens.

21 Q. I guess I mean have you received e-mails that

22

were authored by him that come to you through

20 Q. Okay. Did you learn anything in today's

21

deposition that will cause you to make changes

22

to your policies or procedures?

23

the Oregon Sheriffs' Association?

23 A. We will continue the review process of our mail

24 A. Perhaps. I'm not sure where they come from. I 24

policy. And certainly any information that I

25

know I've seen comments of his before.

25

have gotten from today, once I'm able to review

69 (Pages 270 to 273)

Beovich Walter & Friend

EXHIBIT A: Page 6 of 12

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-1 Filed 10/16/12 Page 7 of 12

Dickerson, Jeffrey

May 10,2012

Page 284

1

CERTIFICATE

2

3

I, Aleshia K. Macom, CSR No. 94-0296, do

4

hereby certify that JEFFREY M. DICKERSON

5

personally appeared before me at the time and

6

place mentioned in the caption herein; that the

7

witness was by me first duly sworn on oath, and

8

examined upon oral interrogatories propounded by

9

counsel; that said examination, together with

10

the testimony of said witness, was taken down by

11

me in stenotype and thereafter reduced to

12

typewriting; and that the foregoing transcript,

13

Pages 1 to 283, both inclusive, constitutes a

14

full, true and accurate record of said

15

examination of and testimony given by said

16

witness, and of all other proceedings had during

17

the taking of said deposition, and of the whole

18

thereof, to the best of my ability.

19

Witness my hand at Portland, Oregon, this

20

5th da^y—e4~-Iiune, 2012.

21

22

%a

23

Aleshia K. Macom

24

CSR No. 94-0296

25

Beovich Walter & Friend

EXHIBIT A: Page 7 of 12

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-1 Filed 10/16/12 Page 8 of 12

Dickerson, Jeffrey - Vol. 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the Human Rights Defense Center,
Plaintiff,

No. 3:12-CV-71-SI

v.

COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA

COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF
DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,

Defendants.

August 28, 2012
Page 286

VOLUME II
DEPOSITION OF JEFFREY M. DICKERSON Taken in behalf of Plaintiff
August 28, 2012

Beovich Walter & Friend

EXHIBIT A: Page 8 of 12

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-1 Filed 10/16/12 Page 9 of 12

Dickerson, Jeffrey - Vol. 2

August 28, 2012

Page 363

Page 365

1 A. I've committed that to staff.
2 Q. At what level?
3 A. The undersheriff.

1 Q. BY MR. WING: I'm handing you Exhibit 154. This

2

says that Defendants' responses to Plaintiffs

3

second interrogatories and request for

4 Q. Is that written down anywhere?

4

production to all defendants. Do you see that?

5 A. I believe it's in our mail guide.

5 A. On which page is this?

6 Q- That means if somebody appeals it up through the

7

process to him, is that what you mean?

6 Q. That is the caption. 7 A. Oh, okay. Yeah.

8 A. Yes.

8 Q. Just trying orient you to what this is.

9 Q. Okay. But if an inmate writes that they think

9 A. All right.

10

their 1st Amendment or 14th Amendment rights are

10 Q. And attached is several documents. Okay.

11

being violated by the mail policy or the

11 A. Okay.

12

practices of the jail and they notify one of the

13

lieutenants of that, the lieutenant has no

12 Q. And the last two appear to be the front and the

13

back cover of a magazine of Muscle and

14

obligation to draw that to your attention or the

14

Fitness --

15

attention of the undersheriff, according to your

15 A. Okay.

16

policy; is that right?

16 Q. -- with a woman in a bathing suit on the first

17 A. I don't know. I don't, I can't comment on that 17

one and a woman covering her breasts on the

18

without reading the policy.

18

second page. Do you see those?

19 Q. So you're not aware of a provision?

19 A. Yes.

20 A. Not aware that there is or that there isn't.

20 Q. Do you have any idea, were these used in a

21

MR. WING: Why don't we take a break.

21

training about mail?

22

(Break taken from 12:02 to 12:36.)

22 A. I believe they, I believe that there was a

23 Q. BY MR. WING: Sheriff Dickerson.

23

magazine that was passed around to deputies.

24 A. Yes.

24 Q. What was your understanding of the purpose of

25 Q. Remember we looked at Exhibit 143?

25

using that magazine in the training?

Page 364

Page 366

1 A. Yes.

1 A. To illustrate how our definition of —

2 Q. And I think that I just asked you to identify

3

the first page but not the second page. Could

2 Q. Sexually explicit? 3 A. —sexually explicit had changed.

4

you identify the second page for me.

5 A. The second page appears to be another, a

4 Q. So the training in July and August regarding the

5

mail policy was not limited to the issues that

6

separate course attendance roster. And I, if I

6

have been raised in this lawsuit?

7

recall, it's for those who might have missed the 7 A. That's correct.

8

original training.

9 Q. It appears like it's a different group of

10

people.

8 Q. Okay. Do you know of other issues in the mail

9

policy that were discussed besides the sexually

10

explicit definition that were not part of the

11 A. Yes.

11

issues in this lawsuit?

12 Q. But the same training?
13 A. Same.

12 A. I'd have to review the PowerPoint to, and our,

13

and our, and the lawsuit to be able to comment

14 Q. Is that your interpretation at least?

15 A. Same basic training, yes.

16 Q. And when is the date of the second training?

17 A. August 8th is what it says here.

18 Q. Okay. So little more than a month after the

19

first training?

14

on that.

15 Q. Okay. Do you believe there were others?

16 A. I don't know.

17 Q. Showing you again Exhibit 150, which is your

18

answers to the plaintiffs third request for

19

written discovery. Do you see that?

20 A. Yes.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Okay. Thank you. And again, you did not attend

22

the August training either; is that right?

21 Q. Request number 50 asks for, it says, "Please

22

produce all Columbia County Jail policies and

23 A. That's correct.

23

procedures regarding grievances by inmates,

24 Q. Okay.

25

(Exhibit 154 marked for identification.)

24

complaints by nonprisoners, communications from

25

any person or entity alleging violation of the

21 (Pages 363 to 366)

Beovich Walter & Friend

EXHIBIT A: Page 9 of 12

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-1 Filed 10/16/12 Page 10 of 12

Dickerson, Jeffrey - Vol. 2

August 28,2012

Page 375

Page 377

1

A. Yes.

1

that.

2 Q. Were you aware that the county deleted his

2 Q. And by "it" you're referring to the court order;

3

e-mails in April of 2012?

3

right?

4 A. I think I did, I did learn of that, yes.

4 A. No.

5 Q. Would that have been in violation of the

5 Q. What were you referring to?

6

instructions to preserve?

6 A. The concept that, of running a constitutional

7 A. I don't know.

7

jail.

8 Q. Did you give any instructions that documents

8 Q. So you are not answering questions about the

9

like these not be deleted?

9

court order? Let me just suggest, let's look at

10 A. I don't instruct county IT on anything.

10

the paragraph in front of it.

11 Q. Okay. So the answer is no?

11

MR. KRAEMER: What's this have to do with

12 A. No.

12

failure to mitigate damages? I'm lost. Ifs an

13 Q. You did not give any instructions?

13

article that comes out a couple weeks ago.

14 A. No. They don't report to me.

14

MR. WING: Uh-huh.

15 Q. And when you found out - When did you find out

15

MR. KRAEMER: It doesn't have to do with, I

16

that Sergeant McMiller'se-mails were deleted?

16

don't see what it has to do with failure to

17 A. I don't know.

17

mitigate damages defense.

18 Q. Was it just recently or back in April?

18

MR. WING: Well, it has to do with, you and

19 A. I don't know. I don't know if it was, how far

19

I don't agree about this, about what needs to

20

back it was.

20

happen in this deposition, but this has to do

21 Q. Did you contact anybody and say, this shouldn't

21

with the sheriffs publicly stated views about

22

be happening?

22

this lawsuit and about complying with The

23 A. My understanding, like I said, I don't know that 23

Court's order.

24

this is a violation of The Court's, of the

24 Q. BY MR. WING: So I'd like to ask if you'd please

25

requirements in this case. I don't know that.

25

look at the paragraph in front of this which

Page 376

Page 378

1 Q. So is it fair to say you did not contact

1

says, "Dickerson would not comment in detail

2

anybody -

2

about the pending lawsuit which continues to be

3 A. No, I did not.

3

active despite the sheriff complying with the

4 Q. - and say this should not be happening?

4

court order in modifying the jail's policy to

5 A. No.

5

reallow nonpersonal, nonpostcard personal

6 Q. That is correct?

6

correspondence. Wright and his law team is

7 A. That is correct.

7

working toward getting a permanent injunction."

8 Q. Thank you. Excuse me for a minute. I'm looking

8

Then it quotes you as saying, "I certainly have

9

for something that I had set down. Maybe we can

9

strong views about it, Dickerson said Monday."

10

just go off the record for a minute.

10

You're saying "it" is not about the lawsuit or

11

(Break taken from 12:58 to 12:59.)

11

The Court's order?

12

(Exhibit 157 marked for identification.)

12 A. It is about a wider concept than just the

13 Q. BY MR. WING: Sheriff, I'm handing you

13

lawsuit or The Court's order. The writer

14

Exhibit 157. Have you read this, this article

14

obviously applied it to just The Court's order.

15

about your case in Portland Tribune?

15 Q. And what are your strong views about it?

16 A. Yes, I have.

16 A. I think I've stated what my strong views are,

17 Q. You were quoted in that article; right?

17

that my strong view is that I would, I really

18 A. Yes.

18

want to believe that we would be running a

19 Q. Were you quoted accurately? Its down about

19

constitutional jail and that if there's anything

20

eight paragraphs.

20

that shows up to show that we're not doing so,

21 A. Yeah. I know what you're referring to. I don't 21

we want to change it and make it right.

22

know.

22 Q. DidThe Court get it wrong in issuing the

23 Q. It says, I certainly have strong views about it.

23

preliminary injunction?

24

Do you see that?

24

MR. KRAEMER: Object to form. Calls for a

25 A. Yeah. I probably made a comment similar to 25

legal conclusion. And how does, again, I'm

24 (Pages 375 to 378)

Beovich Walter & Friend

EXHIBIT A: Page 10 of 12

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-1 Filed 10/16/12 Page 11 of 12

Dickerson, Jeffrey - Vol. 2

August 28,2012

Page 379

l

totally beyond how this has to do with the

1

2

failure to mitigate damages.

2

3

MR. WING: Well, I've already stated my

3

4

view. And if the sheriff ~

4

5

MR. KRAEMER: Okay. You can answer whether 5

6

he got it wrong and I'll see where I go from

6

7

there.

7

8

THE WITNESS: I don't, I'm not even

8

9

concerned with that, whether ~ I don't judge

9

10

whether The Court got it wrong or not. What I

10

11

consider is that the judge made a ruling and

11

12

we're going to go with what the judge said. And

12

13

I'm not fighting against it. I'm not opposed to

13

14

it. We're moving on.

14

15

BY MR. WING: So far as I understand it, you are 15

16

not agreeing to a permanent injunction; right?

16

17

MR. KRAEMER: Don't answer that question.

17

18

BY MR. WING: So are you refusing to answer?

18

19

Yes.

19

20

MR. KRAEMER: Yes. And we are way beyond

20

21

the seven hours also.

21

22

BY MR. WING: Do you have strong views about

22

23

that?

23

24

MR. KRAEMER: Don't answer that question.

24

25

BY MR. WING: Are you refusing to answer?

25

Page 380

1 A. Yes.

1

2 Q. Sheriff, we've gone over a series of inmate

2

3

request forms which dealt with requests from

3

4

prisoners like, to use a razor, clippers instead

4

5

of a razor. Do you remember those?

5

6 A. I do know that.

6

7 Q. Request to use a computer?

7

8 A. Yep.

8

9 Q. Then we went over a series of e-mails which

9

10

identified some of the same topics but also

10

11

those e-mails included Sergeant Rigdon going to

11

12

bat for a prisoner to get $4.74 back. Do you

12

13

remember those e-mails?

13

14 A. Yes.

14

15 Q. Are you aware of any other instances in which

15

16

the jail, the sheriffs department changed its

16

17

policies or procedures as a result of a

17

18

complaint or request?

18

19 A. As I sit here now I can't think of anything that 19

2o

would apply to that.

20

21

MR. WING: Okay. Steve, I want to avoid

21

22

belaboring this topic. I want to summarize our,

22

23

what I understand your position to be about the

23

24

scope of this lawsuit so that we don't have a

24

25

disagreement about ~

25

Page 381
MR. KRAEMER: About the scope of the
lawsuit?
MR. WING: I'm sorry. The scope of the deposition.
MR. KRAEMER: All right. MR. WING: Okay. If I understand you, your position is that you would allow questions at the sheriffs deposition regarding the defendants' mitigation of damages defense and about documents that should have been produced previously but were not produced previously and no other topics. MR. KRAEMER: Well, actually I think that that summary - No. I disagree. End of that. MR. WING: Can you articulate it? MR. KRAEMER: Yeah. First off, clearly over the last two-plus hours you have asked questions that fall outside the parameters of those issues and I've let you do It. We have a time limit. You are way past the time limit. And I want to emphasize when I say that so the record is dear, I don't think your time limit applies to those documents that we didn't produce and should have because I'm willing to agree you
would say, well, I would have asked the prior
Page 382
questions differently so I could maximize the time. So I don't agree that they apply to that and I think Judge Simon's ruling was clear that if you needed beyond the time you're allowed to ask questions under the failure to mitigate, you're entitled to a reasonable amount of time beyond the time limit. I agree with that. He didn't make that ruling, but I have no problem
with that.
But even setting those aside, I think you were beyond the time you're allowed on other issues that you have talked about. I've allowed you to go into other issues. And to me it's just a matter of you want to stretch the leash further or farther out than I'm letting it beyond what I understand to be the scope of this deposition.
MR. WING: I'm trying to encapsulate this so
that if we do have to address this with The
Court, it's as simple as possible. I understand from your perspective you've allowed me to go further, but you've also then said, that's it. No more. And so I'm trying to articulate. I think you've said you believe the purpose of this deposition should be limited to asking
25 (Pages 379 to 382)

Beovich Walter & Friend

EXHIBIT A: Page 11 of 12

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-1 Filed 10/16/12 Page 12 of 12

Dickerson, Jeffrey - Vol. 2

August 28, 2012

Page 390

1

CERTIFICATE

2

3

I, Aleshia K. Macom, CSR No. 94-0296, do

4

hereby certify that JEFFREY M. DICKERSON

5

personally appeared before me at the time and

6

place mentioned in the caption herein; that the

7

witness was by me first duly sworn on oath, and

8

examined upon oral interrogatories propounded by

9

counsel; that said examination, together with

10

the testimony of said witness, was taken down by

n

me in stenotype and thereafter reduced to

12

typewriting; and that the foregoing transcript,

13

Pages 286 to 389, both inclusive, constitutes a

1^

full, true and accurate record of said

15

examination of and testimony given by said

16

witness, and of all other proceedings had during

17

the taking of said deposition, and of the whole

18

thereof, to the best of my ability.

19

Witness my hand at Portland, Oregon, this

20

6th day of September, 2012.

21

/^52i%

P7 Oregon \|

WUfKCW! ffM^s^

23

|s( CSR Imi

Aleshia K. Macom

24

WV

y^ /

CSR No. 94-0296

25

Beovich Walter & Friend

EXHIBIT A: Page 12 of 12

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-2 Filed 10/16/12 Page 1 of 22

Moyer, Andrew

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the Human Rights Defense

Center, Plaintiff,

No. 3:12-CV-71-SI

v.

COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA

COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF
DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,

Defendants.

July 6,2012
Page 1

DEPOSITION OF ANDREW MOYER Taken in behalf of Plaintiff
July 6, 2012

Beovich Walter & Friend

EXHIBIT B: Page 1 of 22

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-2 Filed 10/16/12 Page 2 of 22

Moyer, Andrew

July 6, 2012

Page 26

Page 28

1

back from retirement to work on facilities

1 A. Yes.

2

issues. We have a, I'm not sure of her exact

2 Q. Okay.

3

title, I believe it's office manager Millie

3 A. Because in, January 1st the fiscal year of

4

Wagner reports directly to him, and animal

4

January 1, 2011, we lost funding for the jail

5

control reports directly to the sheriff

5

commander's position, which we additionally

6

currently.

6

tried to get back this year and we lost. And

7 Q. No one else?

7

then losing the, we laid off the sergeants based

8 A. Not that I can recall.

8

upon a budgetary need because of we're allowed

9 Q. Okay. So was the reorganization effective

9

to lay off and required to lay off per the union

10

approximately June 23rd?

10

contract by classification. And they are a

11 A. Yeah. The lieutenants' positions were. The 11

separate classification and they are a

12

layoffs were effective June 28th.

12

classification that cost the most amount of

13 Q. Just to be clear, did you say that there was

13

money. And so by laying off so many, X

14

just one lieutenant or more?

14

sergeants, we, you know, if we were to make that

15 A. There is two lieutenants assigned to the

15

up at the deputy level, we would have had to lay

16

corrections division and one lieutenant in the 16

off more employees that make up that cost

l7

enforcement division.

17

difference. But you still have to have a

18 Q. And who is the other lieutenant besides

18

supervisor. And by reducing the amount of

19

Lieutenant McDowall who is assigned to the

19

supervisors, it creates that work, more of a

20

corrections division?

20

workload. And so they're going to have more

21 A. Lieutenant Tony Weaver, Jr.

21

authority and also to do some of the stuff that

22 Q. Is there a lieutenant, or excuse me. Is there a

22

sergeants didn't do, since we lost the jail

23

Tony Weaver, Sr., who is in any way involved in

23

position, the jail commander's position two

24

the sheriffs department?

24

years in a row. So we have given them, the

25 A. Yes. He's retired.

25

lieutenants have slightly more authority and

Page 27

Page 29

1 Q. Okay.

1

responsibility than the sergeants would have.

2 A. But yes. His father worked for the jail for

2 Q. Okay. Were the sergeants collectively

3

several years.

3

bargaining?

4 Q. Okay. So both lieutenants are of equal rank?

4 A. Yes.

5 A. Yes.

5 Q. Was that part of the union?

6 Q. That is, one doesn't report to the other?

6 A. Yes.

7 A. Correct.

7 Q. And are the lieutenants?

8 Q. They both report to you?

8 A. No.

9 A. They both report to me.

9 Q. So they're management?

10 Q. Doesyour department have a new organizational

10 A. Yes.

11

chart that's in writing?

11 Q. Okay. Thank you. Was your work as a trooper or

12 A. I don't believe so. I believe our old current

12

a cadet your first law enforcement involvement?

13

org charts, because we didn't specify it by name 13 A. No. I joined the State Police as an Explorer

14

or rank, so it specifies sheriff, undersheriff

14

scout.

15

and then it breaks out divisions. Basically

15 Q. I don't know what that means, please.

16

that hasn't changed. That still applies. So

16 A. A lot of agencies — It's confusing for, this is

17

there's not been a new one created since

17

kind of confusing because under the State Police

18

June 28th. But for the most part, the old one

18

at the time, State Police currently doesn't have

19

still applies because there's no ranks or names 19

any Explorers or cadets, but at the time they

20

in that.

20

had Explorers and cadets. A lot of agencies now

21 Q. Okay. Could you just simplyexplain why the

21

they have cadets and that's what State Police

22

denomination lieutenants as opposed to

22

Explorers were.

23

sergeants? Ifs just not immediately clear to

23

So an Explorer is kind of like a branch of

24

me why you leave one or the other rank out. Is

24

the Boy Scouts but police agencies have them as,

25

there a difference in duties?

25

it's like a Boy Scout type group that studied

8 (Pages 26 to 29)

Beovich Walter & Friend

EXHIBIT B: Page 2 of 22

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-2 Filed 10/16/12 Page 3 of 22

Moyer, Andrew

July 6,2012

Page 74

Page 76

1 A. Nothing that I haven't passed on to the

l

of the jail cells?

2

attorneys.

2

A. Yes.

3 Q. Well, do you remember seeing such a thing that 3 Q. And-

4

you passed on to the attorneys?

4 A. Not me personally.

5 A. I don't remember.

5 Q. Who did?

6 Q. Okay. You have, since January 2012, since this

6 A. Don't know. It was assigned to down, I believe

7

lawsuit was filed, become much more actively

7

it might have even been deputies or sergeants.

8

involved in the adoption of and changes to the

8 Q. And this, do you recall that Ms. Chamberlain and

9

mail policies; is that right?

9

I came to do an inspection of the jail?

10 A. Much more active than prior to January?

10 A. I know you did. I was not there.

11 Q. Yes.

11 Q. I understand. But you knew we were going to be

12 A. Yes.

12

coming; right?

13 Q. Okay. And did you play any role in what was

13 A. Yes.

14

posted on the website about the inmate mail

14 Q. Okay. And do you recollect that at

15

policy, the sheriff of Columbia County's

15

approximately the night of May 8th, going into

16

website?

16

May 9th, we were going to be showing up at your

17 A. What's on our website currently?

17

jail?

18 Q. From January --

18 A. I don't recall what the date was.

19 A. Prior.

19 Q. But does that sound about right?

20 Q. After we filed our lawsuit, do you know what

20 A. To be honest, I don't remember.

21

happened to the text that was on the sheriffs

21 Q. Okay. And did you instruct one of the deputies

22

website?

22

to put this in the dayroom shortly before we

23 A. At some point in time we removed it.

23

came to the jail?

24 Q. And did you participate in that decision to

24 A. I don't know when I did in relation to your

25

remove it?

25

inspection.

Page 75

Page 77

1 A. No.

1 Q. Was something new regarding the inmate mail

2 Q. How did you find out it was being removed?

2

placed in the dayrooms shortly before we came

3 A. I don't recall.

3

for our inspection?

4 Q. Did you participate at any point in what was

4 A. I don't know how, as far as relation to when you

5

later posted on the website?

5

came, I can't recall when it was.

6 A. Indirectly, yes. Not as a discussion of what

6 Q. Well, forget about the time -

7

will go on the website, but on the discussion

7 A. I believe it was before and not after.

8

about our general mail guide, yes.

8 Q. Okay. Then shortly before, right, like the same

9 Q. Okay. When you say "mail guide," what do you

9

day or the day before that?

10

mean?

10 A. I don't recall it being the same day or — I

11

(Exhibit 101 marked for identification.)

11

don't recall exactly when.

12 Q. BY MR. WING: You're waiting for me to hand you

12 Q. Shortly before we came -

13

a document.

13

MR. ROBERSON: Object. Asked and answered.

14 A. Yeah.

14

THE WITNESS: It was before. I don't know

15 Q. I have handed you what's been marked as

15

if it was a week before, two weeks before. I

16

Exhibit 101. Is this the document you're

16

don't remember.

17

familiar with?

17 Q. BY MR. WING: And what was in the dayroom before

18 A. I'm not sure that this was ever put on our

18

you instructed the deputy to put Exhibit 101 in

19

website.

19

the dayrooms?

20 Q. Okay.

20 A. As far as inmate mail?

21 A. I don't believe so.

21 Q. As far as inmate mail.

22 Q. Was this-

22 A. There was an old memo.

23 A. This was what I was referring to by inmate mail 23

(Exhibit 102 marked for identification.)

24

guide, but there is a newer version of this.

24 Q. BY MR. WING: I hand you Exhibit 102. Is that

25 Q. Is this a document that you put in the dayroom

25

the memo that was in the dayroom before

20 (Pages 74 to 77

Beovich Walter & Friend

EXHIBIT B: Page 3 of 22

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-2 Filed 10/16/12 Page 4 of 22

Moyer, Andrew

July 6,2012

Page 78

Page 80

1

Exhibit 101 was in the dayroom?

1

A. No.

2 A. Yes.

2 Q. Why not?

3 Q. And did this memo correctly identify the mail

3 A. I don't know.

4

policy of the sheriffs department as of

4 Q. Do you think that placing that in the dayroom

5

May 2012 when it was still in there?

5

was an effective way to communicate the

6 A. No.

6

sheriffs new policy?

7 Q. What was wrong with this memo in, that did not

7

A. Yes.

8

accurately reflect the policy?

8 Q. Why?

9 A. Give me some time here.

9 A. Well, it was just one way of communicating with

10 Q. Sure.

10

inmates.

11 A. I would say the part that says "magazines are 11 Q. Well, you hesitated quite a long time after I

12

not allowed inside the facility."

12

asked my question; right?

13 Q. Okay. What is the purpose of having this memo

13 A. Yes.

14

in the dayrooms?

14 Q. Why, if you thought it was effective, why isn't

15 A. I don't know.

15

your answer "of course"?

16 Q. Was it to tell the prisoners what the policies

16 A. Because I was trying to think of, if there was

17

are, right, so they would know what's allowed

17

any way why it would be ineffective. I can't

18

and what's not; isn't that correct?

18

think of one.

19 A. Well, I would be assuming. So I'm going to say 19 Q. So if there are 15 or 20 other pieces of paper

20

I don't know. I didn't put it in there or

20

and it's just one in a pile, might that be one

21

instruct anybody to put it in there.

21

reason that it's not effective, somebody would

22 Q. There are other pieces of paper that's -

22

have to go find it?

23 A. I know why I instructed this piece to be put in 23 A. It might be. I don't know.

24

there and I can talk to that

24 Q. If you came home from work one day and your

25 Q. Okay. That's Exhibit 101?

25

spouse had a stack of paper on the table, would

Page 79

Page 81

1 A. Yes.

1

that be an effective way to communicate

2 Q. Okay. I'll ask you about that in a minute.

2

something important to you that you had to go

3 A. Okay.

3

and find out that there's a stack of paper and

4 Q. There are other pieces of paper that are

4

something in there might be of use to you?

5

laminated that sit in the dayroom; right?

5 A. It would be one way.

6 A. I don't, I know there are, but I don't know what

6 Q. Would it be an effective way?

7

they are.

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Or why they're there?

8 Q. Why?

9

A. No.

9 A. Because I would look through it.

10 Q. Do you have any idea what they are?

10 Q. Just as a matter of course, even though that

11 A. No.

11

stack had been there every day, you'd wonder if

12 Q. Okay. Why did you instruct someone in your

12

there's something new in there?

13

staff to put Exhibit 101 in the dayroom?

13 A. Well, if, in this instance if someone told me

14 A. So that inmates would know about our new inmate 14

that there was something new in there.

15

mail policy.

15 Q. Tell me about that. Did that happen?

16 Q. And you thought that that was a place that they

16 A. That would, that was instructed to happen.

17

would find out about it?

17 Q. What did you say to somebody on your staff to

18 A. Yes.

18

communicate to the prisoners about Exhibit 101?

19 Q. And did you have any idea how many different

19 A. I believe it was something similar to what you

20

pieces of paper that are laminated sit in that

20

just said. I instructed the sergeants to make

21

pile?

21

sure that it gets communicated that our mail

22 A. No, I did not.

22

policy has changed.

23 Q. Okay. Did you make any effort to try to figure

23 Q. Did you tell them in what form to make that

24

out how likely it was the prisoners would

24

communication?

25

discover this new inmate mail guide?

25 A. No.

21 (Pages 78 to 811

Beovich Walter & Friend

EXHIBIT B: Page 4 of 22

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-2 Filed 10/16/12 Page 5 of 22

Moyer, Andrew

July 6,2012

Page 82

Page 84

1 Q. So how do you know they said anything to the

1 Q. Okay.

2

prisoners?

2 A. So three plus.

3 A. I don't.

3 Q. Three-plus months. Okay. Whydid it take you

4 Q. Did you tell them, your deputies ~

4

three-plus months to notify the prisoners they

5 A. I should say that it was communicated that they 5

were allowed to have magazines?

6

did make that announcement.

6 A. I'm not saying it did take three-plus months to

7 Q. Who communicated that to you?

7

notify the prisoners.

8 A. I don't recall. One of the sergeants.

8 Q. When did you notify the prisonersthat they

9 Q. And when did the sergeant tell you that?

9

could have magazines?

10 A. I don't recall when I made that instruction.

10 A. I don't recall, but I know it was prior to that

11 Q. Okay.

11

May 8th.

12 A. And I don't recall when I asked if they made it 12 Q. when did it happen?

13

or if they just told me.

13 A. I don't recall.

14

(Exhibit 103 marked for identification.)

14 Q. And in what form did you communicate it to the

15 Q. BY MR. WING: I hand you Exhibit106. I'm

15

prisoners?

16

sorry. Let's change that to be 103. The

16 A. I instructed our staff to communicate it with

17

hazards of letting the lawyers touch the papers.

17

the inmates as well as insert this inmate mail

18

I don't expect you to be familiar with this

18

guide into the pods.

19

document, but you'll see that it's an order

19 Q. And that instruction took place at the same

20

approving the parameters of the Rule 30(b)(6)

20

time?

21

depositions and the Rule 34 inspection of the

21 A. I don't recall if it did or not.

22

mail processing and jail premises. Do you see

22 q. You were aware that the inmate manual that was

23

that?

23

being given to prisoners as of the date that the

24 A. No.

24

inspection took place said no magazines are

25 q. That's what the heading said?

25

allowed; right?

Page 83

Page 85

1 A. Oh, right here?

2 Q. Yes.

3 A. Okay.

4 Q. Do you see that?

5 A. Uh-huh.

6 Q. Please say yes or no for the court reporter.

7 A. Yes. Sorry.

8 Q. On this page it says that the inspection of the

9

mail processing in the jail will take place on

10

May 8th, 2012, at 11:00 p.m. Doyou see that?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Okay. So vis-a-vis the inspection which took

13

place on May 8th pursuant to this court order -

14 a. You're talking about the inspection when you

15

guys came out to the jail?

16 Q. That's correct.

17 A. Okay.

18 Q. This should orient you in time.

19 A. Okay.

20 Q. How many months had elapsed since the January

21

lawsuit that was filed?

22 a. Three.

23 Q. So February, March, April and some portion of

24

January and some portion of May; right?

25 A. Yes.

1 A. I'm not, I do not recall that.

2 Q. Because you've never read it other than the

3

select portions that were brought to your

4

attention by inmates; right?

5

Correct.

6

So do you think that would be confusing to a

7

prisoner who comes in the jail and is given an

8

inmate manual and then is told that there's a

9

conflicting policythat's sitting in a pile of

10

paper?

11

MR. ROBERSON: Object to form.

12

You can answer.

13

BY MR. WING: Do you think that would be

14

confusing?

15

It could be.

16

You were aware, as the jail commander, that new

17

inmates are given an inmate manual when they

18

come to the jail; is that right?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And what's the purpose of that inmate manual? 21 A. To explain the procedures of inmate life at our

22

jail.

23 Q. Tell them what's expected of them; right?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And also to tell them what, how things work so

22 (Pages 82 to 85]

Beovich Walter & Friend

EXHIBIT B: Page 5 of 22

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-2 Filed 10/16/12 Page 6 of 22

Moyer, Andrew

July 6,2012

Page 94

Page 96

1 A. Weil, I guess my understanding of your question

l

A. Yes.

2

was, was there anything noted in his evaluation

2 Q. And what do you intend to do about that?

3

in regards to inmate mail? And there was not

3 A. We've conducted training and changed our

4 Q. Okay. Let me make clear what I'm trying to do,

4

procedures and policies.

5

which is one of his functions was to oversee the

5 Q. Okay. But what about those staff members who

6

processing of the mail, is that right, or was it

6

didn't follow policy, is there no consequences

7

not?

7

to them?

8 A. At times I'm sure it was, depending upon which

8 A. No.

9

shift.

9 Q. Then it's correct there are no consequences?

10 Q. Okay. And you didn't only evaluate somebody for

10 A. There are no consequences for them.

11

the absence of known errors; right? You were

11 Q. If you would, please describe the steps that you

12

trying to decide whether somebody had done a

12

have been involved in taking to correct those

13

good job or a job that needed correction; is

13

violations that you believe existed when you

14

that true?

14

were notified of PLN's lawsuit. So since you

15 A. Yes.

15

got notice of the lawsuit in January, what steps

16 Q. So, in essence, you did not evaluate him on the

16

have you been involved in taking to correct the

17

mail process because you had no information

17

violations? And if I may, I'm sorry to, if you

18

about whether he was doing a good job overseeing

18

could try to go chronologically, that would be

19

the mail process; is that true?

19

helpful.

20 A. Yeah. I had no information whether he was doing 20 A. Okay. Steps that I've taken since the PLN

21

a good or bad job.

21

lawsuit to correct the violations.

22 Q. Have you evaluated other sergeants during your

22 Q. Yes. You recognize that there were violations;

23

tenure?

23

right?

24 A. I assisted in the evaluations of the enforcement

24 A. Yes. I've been involved in some of the policy

25

sergeants.

25

changes, not writing final versions of policy,

Page 95

Page 97

1 Q. And who did the primary writing of the

2

evaluation?

3 A. Sheriff Dickerson.

4 Q. Okay. So you've essentially not done, had the

5

primary responsibility for writing the

6

evaluation of anybody else except sheriff

7

Cutright once; is that true?

8 A. That's correct. And as far as actually doing

9

one, being in charge of and responsibilities of,

10

yes, just didn't get to it until now they are no

11

longer are employed.

12 Q. Okay. Have you ~ You have had the

13

responsibility though of reviewing evaluations

14

written of other staff and signing off on them;

15

is that right?

16 A. That is correct.

17 Q. Have you ever seen any comment in any

18

performance evaluation since you have been in

19

the sheriffs office about handling inmate

20

mail -

21 A. Not that I can recall.

22 Q. - following policies?

23

And do you now have knowledge that you

24

believe your staff did not follow the sheriffs

25

mail policies?

1

that's the sheriff. But I've been involved in

2

that I did write the draft prohibited mail

3

notice.

4 Q. Where did you get ~ You borrowed a lot of

5

that»

6 A. Yeah. I wrote that off of a Washington County

7

Sheriffs Office version.

8 Q. When did you do that?

9 A. I don't recall. Sometime after the PLN lawsuit.

10

It was part of our first new policy update in

11

late January, early February. So it would be

12

prior to that. It's an attachment to that

13

policy.

14 Q. Between the filing of PLN's lawsuit and the

15

January 26th new policy?

16 A. If that's the date, yes.

17 Q. Okay. Thank you. Okay. What else?

18 A. I assisted and attended the training, I believe,

19

in early February of the new policy. I have

20

directed staff to inform inmates of change of

21

policy.

22 Q. And that was either second half of April or

23

early May?

24 A. That's been ongoing.

25 Q. Starting?

25 (Pages 94 to 97)

Beovich Walter & Friend

EXHIBIT B: Page 6 of 22

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-2 Filed 10/16/12 Page 7 of 22

Moyer, Andrew

July 6,2012

Page 98

Page 100

1 A. Starting sometime after the PLN lawsuit. I

l

I don't see — It must not be on here. I

2

don't recall when. Sometime after, I should say

2

believe it was either the week of, because I'm

3

more sometime after the first policy revision.

3

looking at the correction calendar. It was

4

So sometime after that January 26th date that

4

either before the week of that or after that.

5

you stated.

5

So that would be either the week of April 9th or

6 Q. Okay. Is it your testimony that you think in

6

the week of April 30th, which would go into

7

February you might have instructed staff to go

7

May 1,2nd, 3rd, 4th.

8

into the dayrooms and tell prisoners that there

8 Q. Okay. What do you remember coming up about your

9

was a new mail policy?

9

mail policy? Did you give a presentation on it?

10 A. I couldn't say if it was February for sure.

10 A. No.

11 Q. I'm not asking for sure. When is your best

11 Q. Did somebody ask you questions about it?

12

estimate of when you asked staff to go into the

12 A. I believe several people asked questions about

13

dayrooms and say there's a new policy?

13

it.

14

MR. ROBERSON: Object, asked and answered.

14 Q. Did you hand out a copy?

15

You can answer.

15 A. No.

16

THE WITNESS: I don't know.

16 Q. So what did you tell people about your new mail

17 Q. BY MR. WING: And could it be as recently that

17

policy?

18

it did not happen until May?

18 A. That we've changed. I talked about — Because

19 A. It could have.

19

your original question was did we talk about

20 Q. Okay. So you directed staff to inform inmates,

20

what we've done to correct those violations. I

21

as we've discussed; right?

21

talked about those violations.

22 A. Yes.

22 Q. You talked about the violations at the command

23 Q. Okay. What else did you do?

23

council meeting.

24 A. I have reviewed that one prohibited, that appeal 24 A. Yes.

25

by an inmate.

25 Q. What did you say about them?

Page 99

Page 101

1 Q. Regarding the magazine?

1 A. Just that we've taken steps to fix those issues

2 A. Regarding the magazine. I have had meetings 2

and changed our policy.

3

with attorneys. I've had meetings with the

3 Q. Okay. I think what you've identified is that

4

sheriff. I've had meetings with sergeants.

4

you participated in making some policy changes,

5

I've had meetings with deputies. I've had

5

although the sheriff is primarily in charge of

6

meetings with other jail commanders.

6

that; two, that you wrote a draft prohibited

7 Q. Which other jail commanders?

7

mail notice; three, that you attended the

8 A. Would be Sheriffs' Association jail command

8

training on the new mail policy in early

9

council. So I don't know who all was there, but 9

February, 2012; four, that you directed staff to

10

several.

10

inform inmates of a change in policy, you do not

11 Q. And that was about this lawsuit?

11

remember when that occurred; five, you reviewed

12 A. No. It was a general meeting about lots of

12

the appeal of a prisoner who wanted the

13

different jail issues, but we did talk about our 13

magazine; and six, you attended meetings with

14

mail policy. I won't necessarily say we talked 14

attorneys, sheriff, deputies, sergeants; and

15

about the lawsuit, but we talked about our new 15

seven, you attended this command council meeting

16

mail policy.

16

that you described. Anything else?

17 Q. So this was after January's new mail policy?

17 A. Yes. The direction of that mail guide to be

18 A. Yes. This was —

18

placed in the pods, also the direction of the

19 Q. April?

19

removal of the, your other exhibit. May I look

20 A. Oh, boy. I don't know the exact date.

20

at these?

21 Q. What's an approximate date?

21 Q. Sure. Thafs Sergeant Cutright's May 23rd,

22 A. You want an exact date? I can probably get it 22

2010, memo?

23

on my iPhone right now.

23 A. Yes. Exhibit 102.

24 Q. Please.

24

MR. ROBERSON: Did you say May or March of

25 A. I think I can go back that far on my calendar. 25

2010?

26 (Pages 98 to 101)

Beovich Walter & Friend

EXHIBIT B: Page 7 of 22

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-2 Filed 10/16/12 Page 8 of 22

Moyer, Andrew

July 6,2012

Page 102

Page 104

1

MR. WING: I meant to say March.

1 A. Yes.

2

THE WITNESS: March.

2 Q. Okay.

3 Q. BY MR. WING: And to put in Exhibit 101?

3 A. Under the policy where it says jail supervisors,

4 A. Yes. And that was separate.

4

yes. They fit that.

5 Q. Okay. One, all right. Anythingelse?

5 Q. And do you have any knowledge as to what

6 A. I have conducted a, another, not actually — I

6

determinations were actually made? Was any mail

7

shouldn't say I have conducted. I assisted and

7

delivered?

8

attended another training for new, new mail

8 A. Yes. There was mail delivered because they told

9

policy.

9

me.

10 Q. When was that?

10 Q. Do you know what ~

11 A. That was this week, Tuesday.

11 A. I have not seen what mail was delivered, no.

12 Q. So that would be the July 3rd?

12

But they did tell me that they did deliver mail.

13 A. Yes. That was a formal training prior to that.

13 Q. And do you have any knowledge of what change in

14

But we instituted a new, new policy June 18th, I

14

the policy caused those pieces of mail to be

15

want to say, don't quote me on the exact date,

15

delivered?

16

but I believe that to be true. And we've done

16 A. I do not.

17

informal trainings until this Tuesday where we

17 Q. Okay. Anything else?

18

did a formal training. We've also, I've also,

18 A. I mentioned the new, the training on the new

19

there's a newer mail guide than what your

19

policy?

20

exhibit is that has now been placed in the pods

20 Q. I think you did, on this past Tuesday.

21

and I've instructed that one to be placed into

21 A. Yes. Okay.

22

the pods and this one to be removed. I've given

22 Q. So please describe that-

23

further instruction again after the June 18th

23 A. There's been, although I did not, I wasn't

24

new policy to instruct inmates at booking that

24

involved in the change, there is a new, a second

25

there's a new policy and to make an announcement 2 5

new inmate manual that's been distributed to

Page 103

Page 105

1

into each pod.

2 Q. Anything else?

3 A. Probably.

4 Q. Well, now is the chance for me to find out what

5

that is. Just think.

6 A. I'm trying — Let me think.

7

MR. ROBERSON: To the best of your

8

knowledge.

9

THE WITNESS: Yeah. To the best of my

10

knowledge and memory. Oh, I've instructed in

11

which I received word that it has been

12

completed, our two new lieutenants went back

13

into all the, our current inmates' property for

14

undelivered mail under our old policy. And if

15

it fits our new policy, they delivered that

16

mail.

17 Q. BY MR. WING: Okay. When did that occur?

18 A. That's occurred since our last, since the

19

lieutenants became lieutenants. So since

20

June 23rd. But it's been completed.

21 Q. I'm sorry. Who did the actual determinations of

22

whether it should be delivered or not?

23 A. Lieutenant McDowall and Lieutenant Weaver.

24 Q. And they are supervisors within the meaning of

25

your policy; is that right?

1

every inmate that reflects our new policy from

2

June 18th.

3 Q. When was that occurred?

4 A. When was that delivered to the inmates?

5 Q. Yes.

6 A. Sometime within the past two weeks. I believe

7

actually it got finished this week. I don't

8

know when it got started.

9 Q. So probably didn't get distributed until this

10

week; is that what you're saying?

11 A. All I know is I was directed that it got

12

finished, that every inmate now has the most

13

current inmate manual this week, but I wasn't in

14

charge of creating that new inmate manual. So

15

I'm not sure when it was completed as far as to

16

get distributed.

17 Q. okay. How much mail was found that needed to be

18

delivered?

19 A. I do not know.

2 0 Q. Do you know how many inmates got mail because of

21

this?

22 A. I do not.

23 Q. Do you know anything about whether any of those

24

were magazines?

25 A. I do not.

27 (Pages 102 to 105)

Beovich Walter & Friend

EXHIBIT B: Page 8 of 22

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-2 Filed 10/16/12 Page 9 of 22

Moyer,,Andrew

July 6,2012

Page 110

Page 112

1

THE WITNESS: To my understanding of the

l A. Well, they wouldn't have to do the website.

2

prior - I'm not sure. I'd have to relook at

2

They could call.

3

both of them.

3 Q. And what would they be told?

4 Q. BY MR. WING: Okay. If you could turn to

5

page 13.

4 A. I don't know.
5 Q. Would you expect them to be told what the inmate

6 A. On Exhibit 105?

6

manual said?

7 Q- On Exhibit 105. If you look at paragraph 4 at

8

the bottom of the page.

7 A. I would expect them to be told what our policy

8

says.

9 A. Uh-huh.

9 Q. As you sit here today, do you have any

10 Q. "Mail rules," do you see that?
11 A. Yes.

10

information about what your staff who handled

11

mail for the prisoners believed the mail policy

12 Q. "Jail commander will ensure mail rules are a

13

part of inmate orientation." Do you see that

12

was before January 2012?

13 A. Can I reask that question so I know what you're

14

part of that sentence?

14

asking?

15 A. Yes.

15 Q. Okay.

16 Q. Has that always been true?
17 A. I don't know.

16 A. So you're asking if prior to January 2012 what

17

would my expectations be?

18 Q. Then it says, and the inmate manual —Excuse

19

me. "The jail commander will ensure mail rules

18 Q. No. So before your, before PLN filed its

19

lawsuit ~

20

are a part of inmate orientation in the inmate

20 A. Right.

21

manual." Do you know if that's always been

21 Q. ~ if you went and said to Sergeant Cutright, do

22

true?

22

we allow magazines? What do you think he would

23 A. I don't know.

23

have said?

24 Q. Then it says, "And we'll make copies of the

25

inmate mail guide available to the public." Do

24 A. I don't know.

25

MR. ROBERSON: Object, speculation.

Page 111

Page 113

1

you see that?

1 Q. BY MR. WING: Have you ever asked him?

2

A. Yes.

2 A. Prior to January 2012?

3 Q- Has that always been true?

3 Q. Yes.

4 A. I don't know.

4 A. I don't believe so.

5 Q. Do you know in what ways your jail makes the

5 Q. Okay. And just to be clear, prior to PLN filing

6

inmate mail guide available to the public?

6

this lawsuit, if you went and spoke to Jim

7 A. It's on our website currently. And if they

7

Carpenter at the last day on his job, last

8

would call and ask questions, we would answer

8

summer and said, do we allow magazines in the

9

questions based upon that.

9

jail? What do you think he would have said?

10 Q. Okay. 11 A. And it's also available to the inmates if they

10 A. I don't know.
11 Q. Okay. Have you ever investigated how it was

12

were to get questions, whether it be phone or by 12

that your staff understood the mail policy

13

mail from their family.

13

completely different than what you think the

14 Q- Did the jail expect —Strike that.

15

Did the sheriffs department expect the

14

policy actually stated?

15 A. I've inquired.

16

public to look to its website to find out what

16 Q. What did you find out?

17

the inmate mail rules were before January 2012?

17 A. A bunch of people saying "I don't know."

18 A. I don't think we expected the public to do

18 Q. Does that indicate a failure of leadership?

19

anything. I guess I don't understand what your 19 A. I think that's fair.

20

question is.

20 Q. Please describe the training that took place in

21 Q. Well, if the public wanted to find out what the

22

mail rules were before January of 2012, where

21

June, excuse me, earlier this week to implement

22

the new policy. What happened at that training?

23

were they expected to get that information?

23 A. It was similar to the February training. We

24 A. I think from the same areas.

24

handed out a complete, the entire policy to

25 Q- What do you mean "the same areas"?

25

every deputy. There was a PowerPoint which

29 (Pages 110 to 113]

Beovich Walter & Friend

EXHIBIT B: Page 9 of 22

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-2 Filed 10/16/12 Page 10 of 22

Moyer, Andrew

July 6,2012

Page 114

Page 116

1

basically was the new policy broken down into

1

the policy. Someone might ask a question and we

2

smaller sections per PowerPoint page, and then 2

would discuss it.

3

there was also discussion and there was also, in

3 Q. Can you remember any of the questions that were

4

fact, we used a... Reaching out for a word.

4

asked?

5 Q. Can you describe it?

5 A. Let me think for a second. I do remember one.

6 A. An example of a magazine.

6

It's on the tip of...

7 Q. What magazine?

7 Q. Whafs the nature of the question?

8 A. I don't know. It's like a car magazine or

8 A. I can think of it I just can't... it's right

9

something. It was used as an example for our

9

there.

10

new definition of sexually explicit material.

10

MR. ROBERSON: While you are thinking about

11 Q. How does the new definition of sexually explicit

11

it, Mr. Wing, I have the PowerPoint

12

material differ from the old definition?

12

presentation. I just haven't had time to number

13 A. I would like to look at the policy to answer

13

it and send it to you. If you wanted to make it

14

that. I can give you a very general description 14

an exhibit, I can go grab it.

15

because I was, I did, I was involved in some

15

MR. WING: Would you? And the undersheriff

16

discussion on this.

16

can think. Take a break.

17 Q. Okay.

17

(Break taken from 2:21 to 2:25.)

18 A. And the old version was subjective. This newer 18

(Exhibit 106 marked for identification.)

19

version takes the subjectiveness out and makes 19 Q. BY MR. WING: So, Undersheriff Moyer, did you

20

it more black and white, harder for our deputies 20

think of the question that was asked during the

21

to make a mistake based upon their personal

21

training?

22

feelings.

22 A. Yeah. I don't remember exactly, but it had to

23 Q. Okay. So you have mentioned that the entire,

23

do with mail, incoming mail without a return

24

the new policy was handed out, a PowerPoint,

24

sender.

25

including the text of the policy, and broken

25 Q. Without an address of a return sender?

Page 115

Page 117

1

down into sections was shown. There was some

1 A. Or even a name of return sender, yeah.

2

discussion?

2 Q. And what was the answer?

3 A. Uh-huh.

3 A. It was, we looked at it, the, I believe the

4 Q. Is that right? Yes?

4

deputy asked that question prior to that being,

5 A. Yes.

5

prior to that part of the policy. So we —

6 Q. And there was an example of a magazine, a car

6 Q. You covered it in the policy?

7

magazine that was used to show how the new

7 A. Covered it in the policy.

8

definition of sexually explicit would be

8 Q. Do you remember any other questions?

9

utilized regarding that magazine; is that right?

9 A. No. I believe there were a couple other

10 A. Yes.

10

questions, but I believe that's the one I

11 Q. Anything else happen during this meeting?

11

stepped in and addressed. McDowall and Weaver

12 A. At the meeting, yes. Not at the training. We

12

were the ones kind of conducting the training

13

had a —

14 Q. I'm sorry.

13

and I was there.

14 Q. Do you remember any other questions?

15 A. —Overall staff meeting and the training was

15 A. I don't remember. I remember that there were

16

about an hour to two hours in length of that

16

other questions. I don't remember what they

17

meeting.

18 Q. Okay. Yeah. I just want to focus on the

17

were.

18 Q. Was there like a fact sheet that was handed out?

19

training.

20 A. Yes. Just, no* There was just discussion

19 A. No. We just handed out the entire policy. 20 Q. Okay. Were any of the members of your staff not

21

included in that discussion were some questions 21

present for that training?

22

and answers.

22 A. Yes. One member was on vacation.

23 Q. What questions and answers?

23 Q. Who was that?

24 A. I don't, I couldn't tell you exactly. There was

24 A. That's Deputy Moore.

25

just, you know, we would read a certain part of 25 Q. And how will Deputy Moore become apprised of the

30 (Pages 114 to 117)

Beovich Walter & Friend

EXHIBIT B: Page 10 of 22

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-2 Filed 10/16/12 Page 11 of 22

Moyer, Andrew

July 6, 2012

Page 118

Page 120

1

training?

1

form that they used to use. And I don't recall

2 A. He will be lucky enough to get one-on-one

2

what that looked like, but I do remember seeing

3

training.

3

it. That's the only time I recall seeing it

4 Q. From who?

4 Q. Have you read the lawsuit that's been filed in

5 A. I don't know yet. When he gets back we'll

5

this case?

6

figure that out, whoever, I mean, it will either

6 A. Verbatim, word for word?

7

be myself, Lieutenant Weaver or Lieutenant

7 Q. What kind of reading is there? I mean, I'm

8

McDowall.

8

serious, what do you mean by "word for word?"

9 Q. Was the sheriff at the July 3rd training?

9

What does it mean to read something?

10 A. No. But he's the one who created the

10 A. Well, there's lots of ways of reading. I don't

11

PowerPoint. And he might have been there at the 11

know if I've read 100 percent of it.

12

very beginning of it. He was there at some

12 Q. Have you actually read a portion of it?

13

point in the staff meeting.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Okay. On a day-to-day level, who has the

14 Q. And if you think "read" is not quite the right

15

responsibility of ensuring that the new mail

15

word, what word would you use?

16

policy is implemented?

16 A. Yes. I read most portions of it, if not all.

17 A. Well, the deputies have the day-to-day

17 Q. When did you read it?

18

responsibility.

18 A. I don't recall. It was pretty early on. When

19 Q. Okay. And was anybody looking over their

19

we were first given notice, I'm trying to

20

shoulder?

20

remember how that actually happened. I don't

21 A. Every moment of them searching mail? No.

21

remember if I was served. I accepted service of

22 Q. No. Does anybody-

22

the sheriffs office service, I believe, because

23 A. I mean reviewing mail, no.

23

the sheriff was out of town, I believe. I

24 Q. And is there any effort in the works to ensure

24

forwarded that to our county counsel. But I'm

25

that they are complying with the policy?

25

not sure if that's — County counsel might have

Page 119

Page 121

1 A. Yes.

1

told me about it first. I can't remember.

2 Q. What is that effort?

2 Q. Okay. And in the lawsuit did you see any

3 A. In our new June 18th policy and without looking

3

allegations about whether the jail had censored

4

at the policy I can't quote it verbatim, but

4

and rejected PLN's mail?

5

there is a provision where all mail that is

5 A. Allegations, yes.

6

rejected at the deputy level, they will fill out

6 Q. What, if any, attempt did you make to determine

7

the prohibited mail notice with that piece of

7

whether those allegations were accurate or not?

8

mail and put it in a box, an inbox that's in our

8 A. I don't recall. I just recall gathering all the

9

booking office that is labeled mail to be

9

information I can and forwarding it to county

10

reviewed. And everybody's mail that is denied

10

counsel. I gathered policies. I asked my

11

will be reviewed by the, one of the two

11

sergeants to provide me with any mail grievances

12

lieutenants or myself before final rejection.

12

and, in which I forwarded to county counsel. I

13

In fact, on the new prohibited mail notice,

13

also, having firsthand knowledge that Prison

14

which I originally wrote, we have added a line

14

Legal News was, had been delivered to inmates, I

15

so now it's not just the deputy signing it, then

15

instructed my staff to find out which inmates

16

it goes and it's, required a supervisor to sign

16

have Prison Legal News because I knew that they

17

it so I know which supervisor reviewed it.

17

had them. That's one thing they did.

18 Q. Have you ever seen any mail rejection notices

18 Q. How did they do that? Did they find out?

19

before the ones you created?

19 A. They did.

20 A. Yes.

20 Q. How did they find that out?

21 Q. Where did you see them?

21 A. They went and interviewed inmates, asked them,

22 A. I was in the booking office. This is at the

22

do you have Prison Legal News or do you not, or

23

same time where I was meeting with Sergeant

23

have you ever gotten it?

24

Cutright and Sergeant Rigdon and reviewing one 24 Q. How did you get back the information from your

25

of the draft policies. And they showed me the

25

deputies or sergeants who interviewed the

31 (Pages 118 to 121)

Beovich Walter & Friend

EXHIBIT B: Page 11 of 22

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-2 Filed 10/16/12 Page 12 of 22

Moyer, Andrew

July 6, 2012

Page 122

Page 124

1

inmates?

l Q. Well, if it was important to you that your mail

2 A. Someone provided a report to me, which I

2

got delivered and the person who you wanted to

3

forwarded to our county counsel.

3

be able to read it never got to read it, what

4 Q. Written report?

4

would you want to have happen?

5 A. Yes. It was either a written report or maybe it 5 A. I don't know. I've never thought about that

6

was just an e-mail. I can't remember.

6

before. I don't, I've had my mail lost in the

7 Q. It was in writing?

7

mail before and I don't know. I've never

8 A. Yeah. It was in...

8

thought I should get anything for it.

9 Q. Okay. Were you aware, subsequently, that Prison

9 Q. Do you think people threw out your mail and

10

Legal News filed a motion for preliminary

10

that*s why it didn't get delivered?

11

injunction?

11 A. I have no idea.

12 A. I believe I've heard that. Yes.

12 Q. Would that make a difference to you, somebody

13 Q. Did you review any of the materials that were

13

intentionally kept your mail from going through?

14

filed?

14 A. Probably.

15 A. I don't believe so.

15 Q. So if you didn't get your refinance because you

16 Q. So you don't know, for example, whether there

16

sent something off, would that just seem like,

17

was censored material that was produced to the

17

oh, just don't do it again?

18

jail that showed that this had been censored by

18 A. I guess it would depend.

19

the jail?

19 Q. Depends on how important your mail is, isn't it?

20 A. No, I don't.

20 A. Uh-huh.

21 Q. Okay. Does it matter to you whether it was

21 Q. Is that a yes?

22

censored?

22 A. Yes. Sorry.

23 A. What do you mean by "censored"? You mean 23 Q. Thank you. And do you think mail is important

24

rejected?

24

to prisoners?

25 Q. That would be, that's one form of censorship,

25 A. I'm sure it is.

Page 123

Page 125

1

yes. So let's say that it was rejected. Does

1 Q. Probably more important than to your average

2

it matter to you whether Prison Legal News was

2

person?

3

rejected?

3 A. I don't think I would agree with that.

4 A. Yes.

4 Q. Why not?

5 Q. Okay. Why does it matter to you?

5 A. I think probably I would, in my personal

6 A. Because that would be a constitutional

6

opinion, I would think it would be less

7

violation.

7

important.

8 Q. What do you think could and should be done when

8 Q. Why is that?

9

a constitutional violation occurs like rejecting

9 A. Because I think written correspondence might be

10

somebody's mail? How do you remedy a violation

10

less important than, say, paying my mortgage as

11

like that?

11

far as causing me hardship. And inmates don't

12 A. Are you asking for my personal opinion?

12

do that kind of business from our jail.

13 Q. I'm asking for your opinion.

13 Q. How does their mortgage get paid?

14 A. My opinion is, in my opinion, in a perfect

14 A. I don't know.

15

world, two people get together and meet and

15 Q. Do you have any perception about the

16

discuss what, what violation occurred and seek a 16

significance of mail in the lives of prisoners

17

remedy there. And I think the most important

17

to them?

18

part in my opinion would be the remedy to fix

18 A. I can't say that I do.

19

that and so it wouldn't happen again.

19 Q. Okay. Can you think of any other time when the

20 Q. And what kind of remedy do you think is

20

sheriffs office has responded to a grievance or

21

appropriate for rejecting somebody's mail when

21

complaint by changing its policies?

22

they should have gotten it or rejecting

22 A. Grievance or complaint. I'm going to take a

23

somebody's mail when their mail should have been

23

moment to think about this one.

24

delivered?

24 Q. Please do. Take whatever time you need.

25 A. I don't know.

25 A. I can't think of one off the top of my head.

32 (Pages 122 to 125]

Beovich Walter & Friend

EXHIBIT B: Page 12 of 22

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-2 Filed 10/16/12 Page 13 of 22

Moyer, Andrew

July 6,2012

Page 166

Page 168

1 Q. And do you know whether it was actually

l A. I think it would be a great idea if we could get

2

confirmed that it was methamphetamine?

2

the technology in there. I mean, I can't, the

3 A. I do not.

3

problem exists where I can't put a, you know,

4 Q. Okay. Was that alleged incident part of the

4

just a regular computer in the pod hooked up to

5

discussion about adopting the postcard-only

5

the internet.

6

policy?

6 Q. That's the hurdle, you think?

7 A. I don't recall that. No.

7 A. That's, yeah. That's why I can't do it, because

8 Q. Do your deputies use gloves when they work the

8

even we've had protected computers in the

9

mail?

9

library be damaged and stuff. So that's the

10 A. I've never observed them sorting the mail. I

10

hard part. So the technology that I'm hearing

11

can't answer that.

11

about; and I haven't got it all firsthand

12 Q. If they were truly worried about hazardous

12

knowledge, but the technology that I'm hearing

13

substances, wouldn't you expect them to use

13

about is that there's companies that are looking

14

gloves?

14

into doing a kiosk type system in pods to where

15 A. I would, and I would use — I can answer what I 15

you can do that.

16

would use. And I would sort the mail with

16 Q. What about having people send e-mails, not

17

gloves on. That's just a speculation,

17

directly to the prisoners, but they send them to

18

assumption what they would do.

18

the sheriffs department, you print them off and

19 Q. Okay. Do you think that whether somebody uses

19

you give them to the inmate?

20

gloves or not might reflect how serious a threat

20 A. I haven't heard of that idea before, but that's

21

they thought that was?

21

another possibility.

22 A. Yes and no. I know, I know police officers and 22 Q. And do you think there is a greater or lesser or

23

deputies who put gloves on for every little

23

the same risk to security and safety at the jail

24

thing. So...

24

comparing incoming mail and outgoing mail?

25 Q. Has your jail considered accepting e-mails that

25 A. Say that again.

Page 167

Page 169

1

are sent to the jail than to be given to

1 Q. Okay. So you have got mail coming into the jail

2

prisoners as a way of encouraging people outside

2

for prisoners and you have got mail that the

3

the jail to send mail that way?

3

prisoners are sending out.

4 A. I don't know if our, if — I have considered it.

4 A. Yes.

5

I don't know —

5 Q. Do they pose the same risk, security and safety,

6 Q. You have?

6

to the jail?

7 A. I have. I don't know of, I guess I don't want

7 A. I don't know if I would say the same risk to the

8

to say that our sheriffs office has considered

8

jail, but the same risk to the public. So

9

it because it's kind of a new thing that's been

9

there's a penological interest in both.

10

discussed among jails that I've had that

10 Q. Whafs the risk to the public?

11

conversation and, with, you know, with newer

11 A. An inmate sending something out in an envelope.

12

technology I think that that possibility exists

12 Q. Like what?

13

in the future, possibly the near future.

13 A. Like powder.

14 Q. Do you know of any jails that are, have

14 Q. That they would get where?

15

implemented that?

15 A. They would grind up from anything that could be

16 A. I don't. I know there is some, I can't remember 16

made powder, toothpaste is one thing I've seen

17

which ones, but I know someone was, was looking 17

firsthand knowledge of, pills like an aspirin.

18

at it closer than me where they've actually

18 Q. What kind of risk does ground-up toothpaste pose

19

talked to vendors about it.

19

to the public?

20 Q. Okay.

20 A. It can shut an entire courthouse down, which

21 A. But I can't remember exactly what jail that was. 21

ifs done here in Portland.

22

I had this discussion at one of those jail

22 Q. Ifs not actually a risk. It's a fear; right?

23

command meetings, in feet, our most recent jail

23 A. Well, that's a risk, yes. Shutting an entire

24

commanders' meeting.

24

courthouse down, to me, is real.

25 Q. What do you think about that idea?

25 Q. So-

43 (Pages 166 to 169)

Beovich Walter & Friend

EXHIBIT B: Page 13 of 22

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-2 Filed 10/16/12 Page 14 of 22

Moyer, Andrew

July 6, 2012

Page 170

Page 172

1 A. That's a pretty big public alarm risk. 2 Q. Fair enough. Is it your testimony that your

1 A. Uh-huh.
2 Q. Is that a yes?

3

deputies would not catch an amount of powder put

3 A. Yes. Sorry.

4

in an envelope that would shut down a

4 Q. And you're saying that's worth, to avoid that

5

courthouse?

5

6 A. That's possible, because it's been done before 6

7

right here in Portland. In fact, that inmate is

7

risk, ifs worth limiting all communications from prisoners out to all those persons and entities just to postcards as opposed to

8

in my jail right now.

9 Q. And do you think that was a failure of somebody

8

letters?

9 A. As opposed to letters?

10

to do their job, to look at the mail?

10 Q. Yes.

11 A. I haven't reviewed that. So I'm unable to

11 A. Yes.

12

speculate on that.

12 Q. Okay.

13 Q. And so you think it's worth limiting all

13

(Exhibit 111 marked for identification.)

14

prisoners' communications with their families,

14 Q. BY MR. WING: Handing you Exhibit 111 --

15

friends, businesses, et cetera, because somebody

15 A. And that's my personal opinion.

16

might grind up toothpaste --

16 Q. Is that different from your opinion as the

17 A. Absolutely not. Absolutely not. That's not

17

undersheriff?

18

what I said at all.

18 A. No. I'm just saying it's not a legal opinion.

19 Q. Thafs the justification for the postcard-only

19 Q. I understand. I'm asking for your opinion as

20

policy.

20

the undersheriff. Have you seen Exhibit 111

21 A. But not limiting all communication, like what 21

before?

22

you just stated. That's not limiting all

22 A. Yes.

23

communications. Going from envelopes to

23 Q. Did you participate in that decision?

24

postcard is not limiting all communications.

25 Q. To postcards.

24 A. No.
25 Q. Wereyou surprised to see this?

Page 171

Page 173

1 A. To postcards.

2 Q. That's what I'm saying.

3 A. But you said all communication.

4 Q. So I'm asking you, is it your testimony that

5

limiting all communications to family, friends,

6

business associates, businesses, publishers,

7

from prisoners to those people and entities,

8

limiting those to postcards because a, one

9

prisoner might grind up a aspirin or toothpaste,

10

that's, in weighing those against each other,

11

you would choose limiting it to a postcard only?

12 A. For mail?

13 Q. Yes.

14 A. For mail only? Because, again, I'm not

15

submitting that's all communication because

16

there's other forms of communication that's

17

being existed.

18 Q. Well, I'm saying instead of letters, you limit

19

it to postcards; right?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And you're saying the risk, the reason why you

22

do it, the ones you've identified is that the

23

prisoner could grind up toothpaste or an aspirin

24

and ifs not a genuine safety risk, it's the

25

alarm that it would cause; right?

1 A. No.
2 Q. Why?

3 A. I don't know. I wasn't, if you're asking if I

4

was like surprised or shocked when I read this

5

e-mail? No.

6 Q. Why did there used to be a prohibition against

7

inmate-to-inmate correspondence?

8 A. I don't know.
9 Q. You were the jail commander; right?

10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Shouldn't you know the answer to that question?

12

it's your jail mail policy.

13 A. I didn't write the jail policy. No.

14 Q. Shouldn't you know the justification for the

15

policies that you are in charge of implementing?

16 A. Not necessarily, no.

17 Q. Okay. So do you know whether the current inmate

18

policy inmate mail policy allows

19

inmate-to-inmate correspondence?

20 a. The June 18th one?
21 Q. Yes.

22 A. Yes.
23 Q. It does allow it? 24 a. Yes, with the exception of if there's a no

25

contact order.

44 (Pages 170 to 173)

Beovich Walter & Friend

EXHIBIT B: Page 14 of 22

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-2 Filed 10/16/12 Page 15 of 22

Moyer, Andrew

July 6,2012

Page 174

Page 17 6

1 Q. Okay. When you became the undersheriff, there

1 A. Well, it takes time. You can't implement a new

2

weren't very many policies that the department

2

policy immediately. We didn't have all the

3

has; is that correct?

3

preposted envelopes and a system in place to

4 A. Correct.

4

effect that immediately. So it takes time to do

5 Q. And you borrowed a great number of them from

5

that. We have to order it, put it on

6

Washington County; is that right?

6

commissary, get it in our indigent kits, create

7 A. Yes.

7

a system for our deputies reviewing that.

8 Q. Tweaked them to make them your own?

8

I mean, some of our deputies may or may not

9 A. Yes.

9

have been hired before or after the

10 Q. But that's where you got a lot of them; right?

10

postcard-only policy went into place. We have

11 A. Yes. And I want to make a distinction. There's

11

deputies on all different shifts. We can't just

12

two policy manuals. There's a general sheriffs

12

communicate it instantaneously. Inmate mail is

13

office policy and then there's a jail

13

not the only thing we deal with at the sheriffs

14

operational policy. And what I'm referring to

14

office. So we have other things going on. So

15

in answering your question is our general

15

it's not any type of policy cannot take effect

16

policy, not the jail operational policy.

16

instantaneously.

17 Q. Could you explain the difference, please.

17 Q. If The Court did not order the department to get

18 A. The difference is that there was somewhat of a, 18

rid of its postcard-only policy, would you favor

19

I'm not too familiar again because when I came

19

keeping it?

20

over I didn't oversee the jail, but there was,

20 A. I have no intentions and in my conversation with

21

there was somewhat of a jail operational policy

21

the sheriff we have no intentions of going back

22

manual. But there was a very, very small amount 22

to a postcard-only policy ~

23

of general policies. And so we created a policy

23 Q. Why?

24

manual to oversee all of our personnel and also

24 A. —with or without, whatever the result is of

25

a lot of enforcement type stuff because the main 25

this lawsuit.

Page 175

Page 177

1

policy was only for jail operations. And so I'm

2

not sure. I wasn't involved in any changes or

3

additions to that jail operational policy

4

manual.

5

(Exhibit 112 marked for identification.)

6 Q. BY MR. WING: Okay. Handing you Exhibit 112.

7

Did you receive this on or about June 11, 2012?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. In this e-mail the sheriff acknowledges the

10

preliminary injunction; right?

11 A. Uh-huh.

12 Q. Is that a yes?

13 A. Yes. Sorry.

14 Q. It's okay. He says, "Although the ruling does

15

not take effect until the end of the month, we

16

will immediately begin accepting envelopes for

17

incoming mail." Did I read that correctly?

18 A. Yes.
19 Q. But then he says in parentheses "Outgoing mail

20

will be addressed with the new inmate mail

21

policy that will come out. And until that time,

22

we will continue to provide only postcards for

23

outgoing mail."

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Why is that the case?

1 Q. Why?

2 A. I think my personal opinion is I want to err on

3

the side of caution as far as violating

4

someone's rights. My personal opinion is this:

5

The postcard-only policy does not violate any

6

constitutional rights, but I want to err on the

7

side of caution. And we've already made this

8

policy. I don't think there's a reason to

9

change that unless we have to for some reason

10

change it again because of a judge's order or

11

something. But I don't think we need to go back

12

to — I mean, part of the problem with our staff

13

is the constant changes. So that's, you

14

mentioned problems before is the constantly

15

changing it is going to make it harder for them

16

to remember. So I don't see any reason to go

17

back to postcard-only policy.

18 Q. I think you said it creates more of a safety

19

risk for your employees, didn't you?

20 A. I did. And we will deal with it.
21 Q. But why would you not want to go back if you

22

think that it would reduce the -

23 A. I think I just explained all those reasons.

24 Q. Just a second. I need for you to wait for me to

25

finish.

45 (Pages 174 to 177)

Beovich Walter & Friend

EXHIBIT B: Page 15 of 22

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-2 Filed 10/16/12 Page 16 of 22

Moyer, Andrew

July 6, 2012

Page 178

Page 180

1

You don't think the postcard-only policy

l

(Record read as follows:

2

violates someone's rights and you think it

2

"Q So the only reason why you wouldn't

3

creates more of a safety risk for your

3

go back to a postcard-only policy is

4

employees, but you're saying you wouldn't want

4

because the judge has told you to change

5

to go back to the postcard-only policy; is that

5

it and you have now changed it; is that

6

correct?

6

correct?")

7

A. Yes.

7

THE WITNESS: Thafs incorrect.

8 Q. Does the sheriff agree with you?

8 Q. BY MR. WING: Well, you've made a lot of

9 A. In my conversations with the sheriff, both of us

9

changes, right, in the past six months?

10

have absolutely no intention of going back to a

10 A. Yes.

11

postcard-only policy.

11 Q. And you said one of the downsides is that people

12 Q. And the sheriff also agrees with you that he

12

get confused by this; right?

13

thinks the postcard-only policy does not violate

13 A. Yes.

14

rights?

14 Q. Ifs hard to transition. Okay. You've now made

15 A. That I can't answer.

15

a change because you were ordered to; right?

16 Q. You've not talked about that with him?

16 A. Yes.

17 A. I don't know if I've had that exact conversation 17 Q. Okay. You're saying you'd stick with that

18

of do you think this is constitutional or not.

18

change even if the judge says I'm not going to

19 Q. Did you tell him that you think that it's

19

tell you that you got to stick with that change;

20

constitutional?

20

right?

21 A. I may have. I don't know. I don't remember

21 A. Yes.

22

specifically saying that to him, no.

22 Q. Your testimony is you wouldn't go back because,

23 Q. Did you have conversations with him about not

23

gee, we've already done it?

24

changing the postcard-only policy before the

24 A. I said that was one of the reasons. I think I

25

judge issued the preliminary injunction?

25

in my earlier testimony explained a few

Page 179

Page 181

1 A. About —

1

different reasons.

2 Q. We're not going to change the policy. That's

2 Q. Well, you said you wanted to err on the side of

3

what you guys decided; right?

3

not violating somebody's rights, but your belief

4 A. About not — Okay.

4

is that it doesnt violate somebody's rights;

5 Q. Until the judge issued the order.

5

right?

6 A. I'm trying to get your question right. You are

6 A. That's my personal opinion. Yes.

7

asking if we had a conversation about not going

7 Q. Okay.

8

from envelopes to postcard only?

8 A. But I'm going to err on the side of any future

9 Q. No. I'm sorry. Let me rephrase my question.

9

legal opinions.

10

Before the judge issued a preliminary

10 Q. Sorry. I don't quite understand what you just

11

injunction, sheriffs department decided not to

11

said. Err on the side of--

12

give up its postcard-only policy; right?

12 A. Well, there's been court rulings around this

13 A. Yes.

13

country that have upheld postcard-only policies

14 Q. Okay. Why?

14

in some fashion or the other. I'm not a legal

15 A. I think for safety and security reasons and

15

expert. I haven't reviewed all those. But we

16

didn't believe we were violating anybody's

16

have a newer opinion and a lot closer to home,

17

constitutional rights by keeping that part.

17

and it's not a legal opinion but it's a, I

18 Q. So the only reason why you wouldn't go back to a

18

believe he used the words in his ruling that it

19

postcard-only policy is because the judge has

19

may or it is likely to. I can't remember the

20

told you to change it and you have now changed

20

exact words. And so there's no reason for us to

21

it; is that correct?

21

go there again.

22 A. I'm sorry. Is the question, is the question

22 Q. Suppose this case continues and a judge says,

23

whether the judge said change it and we changed 23

well, I said it was likely to but at the end of

24

it?

24

the day I don't think it does.

25

MR. WING: Can you read my question back.

25 A. I think I answered that by saying we won't go

46 (Pages 178 to 181)

Beovich Walter & Friend

EXHIBIT B: Page 16 of 22

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-2 Filed 10/16/12 Page 17 of 22

Moyer, Andrew

July 6,2012

Page 182

Page 184

1

back.

l

sheriff, there would be no more, quote, unquote,

2 Q. Even under those circumstances?

2

3 A. Correct. And that's how the sheriff and I feel.

3

bullshit write-ups, that we would respond to every single call that came in from the public

4 Q. The sheriff is up for re-election; is that

5

right?

4

and we would not let people out of jail early.

5

Those are three of the main things that I have

6 A. Yes.

6

heard that he said, has said.

7 Q. And when's that election take place?

7 Q. Okay. Thank you.

8 A. November.

8

MR. ROBERSON: Just to clarify, you don't

9 Q. And he has some challengers; is that right? 10 A. He has a challenger, yes.

9

know if he said those things; you just heard he

10

said those things.

11 Q. And are you his campaign manager again?

11

THE WITNESS: Correct. I have not heard he

12 A. I'm involved in his campaign. I don't know if 12

said those things firsthand. I have not heard

13

I've been officially titled anything yet.

13

them from his mouth.

14

Basically yes.

14 Q. BY MR. WING: I understand. I understand. Who

15 Q. Okay.

15

16 A. I don't have a business card saying that like

16

is in charge of updating the inmate manual most recently?

17

last time.

17 A. I believe that fell to three people, in

18 Q. And I'm not asking you to predict the outcome of

18

19

the election, but I'm curious, is there common

19

particular, and that would be Sergeant Outright, Sergeant Rigdon and Deputy Marcia Rush.

20

wisdom or perception about how serious of a

20

However, I believe the content itself, the

21

challenge this is?

21

wording, was the sergeant's and I think Deputy

22 A. My personal opinion is it's not much of a

22

Rush was more involved in the facilitating

23

challenge.

23

getting it printed, that kind of thing.

24 Q. Okay. And the person who is challenging is a

25

current employee; is that right?

24 Q. Okay. And to your knowledge ~ 25 A. I'm sorry. I want to go back.

Page 183

Page 185

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Who is that? 3 A. Deputy Dave Fuller.

4 Q. Day or Dave?

5 A. Dave.

6 Q. And he is a, in which department?

7 A. Enforcement.

8 Q. Do you know what his premise is as to why he

9

would be a better sheriff?

10 A. I'd only have speculation.

11 Q. Well, what he has said. 12 A. Well, he doesn't say a lot to me.

13 Q. So what you have heard he said.

14 A. What I have heard he said?

15 Q. Yes. 16 A. So I guess my, start my answer that this is all

17

speculation but, and rumor, but what I've --

18

MR. ROBERSON: Don't speculate. Don't

19

guess.

20

THE WITNESS: Then I guess I can't answer

21

that.

22 Q. BY MR. WING: Well, you can tell me what you've

23

heard. That's not a speculation. I'm asking

24

you to tell me what you've heard.

25 A. Okay. What I've heard is he said if he was

1 Q. Okay.

2 A. Was that question in regards to the most recent

3

inmate manual?

4 Q. Yes.

5 A. Okay. I was referring to the old inmate, the

6

prior to January when I answered that question.

7 Q. Okay.

8 A. The most very current inmate manual was the

9

sheriff.

10 Q. And there's been two?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Right?

13 A. And he did both. He may have asked other people

14

for input; but...

15 Q. Did he ask for your input?

16 A. No. Both times when we wanted to get that

17

rolling, I was, I was busy.

18 Q. Okay. During the sheriffs deposition there was

19

a break and he called you on the break. Do you

20

remember that?

21 A. Yes. I don't know for sure if it was a call or

22

an e-mail. Yeah, I think you're right It was

23

a call.

24 Q. And he asked you a question during that call.

25

Do you remember that question?

47 (Pages 182 to 185!

Beovich Walter & Friend

EXHIBIT B: Page 17 of 22

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-2 Filed 10/16/12 Page 18 of 22

Moyer, Andrew

July 6,2012

Page 190

Page 192

1

didn't make any changes or adjustments to any of 1

publication?

2

the drafts or insert any new opinions into the,

2 A. Yeah. I would consider that a publication.

3

any of the versions of the inmate manual.

3 Q. And where do publications have to come from?

4 Q. Okay. What, to your knowledge, is the

4 A. If you're referring to the definition in our

5

difference between the May 25th mail policy and

5

policy, I'd like to refer to that

6

the June 18th mail policy?

6 Q. Sure. You take your pick.

7 A. The main difference?

7 A. Yeah. Which one? I don't think you have the,

8 Q. Whatever you ~

8

it in an exhibit, but you have that e-mail I saw

9 A. I believe the main difference is one allows

9

which has it attached.

10

envelopes and one doesn't. That's the main

10

MR. ROBERSON: Exhibit 110.

11

difference. The other probably main difference

11

THE WITNESS: Yes. That is considered a,

12

would be the sexually explicit definition.

12

publications are considered periodicals and

13

Although that may be in the May 25th policy.

13

books and periodicals of a magazine, newspaper,

14

I'd have to sit and compare the policies.

14

newsletter or other publication formed of

15 Q. Okay. Could you please turn to Exhibit 65.

15

printed sheets that is issued at regular,

16

Please take a look at that. And there's a

16

specified intervals by a publisher. So I could

17

second page.

17

consider this a newsletter and probably also a

18 A. Oh.

18

publication under that definition.

19 Q. It's an envelope that contained that.

19 Q. BY MR. WING: Okay. I'm not trying to talk you

20 A. Okay.

20

out of your statement that it will be delivered,

21 Q. Would you take a look at what that is, please.

21

but I want to make sure that we're on the same

22

Second page of Exhibit 65. Have you had an

22

page about this. Do you see who it was sent by?

23

opportunity to look at that?

23 A. I didn't. No.

24 A. Yes.

24 Q. Okay.

25 Q. If this letter, an envelope with that content,

25 A. As far as I, a person, I saw that it was a

Page 191

Page 193

1

news article, was mailed to the jail tomorrow,

1

person, yes.

2

what is your understanding of what the mail

2 Q. Okay. And so if a publication is sent by a

3

policy at the jail would dictate? Would it be

3

person, is that acceptable under your policy?

4

delivered?

4 A. I believe a printed-out internet message is.

5 A. If this envelope, so this is an envelope with

5 Q. You are reviewing your current policy; is that

6

this inside of it, would it be delivered

6

right?

7

tomorrow?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Exhibit 65.

8 Q. Okay.

9 A. Absolutely.

9 A. I would, I would say that this also falls under

10 Q. And why is that?

10

regular inmate mail.

11 A. Because that's what our policy says. And I have 11 Q. Okay. So you're just-

12

confidence our policy is being followed at this

12 A. If it came from a personal person, it would be

13

time.

13

regular inmate mail from the envelope. So we

14 Q. You said that with a smile.

14

would open it. It doesn't violate any other

15 A. Yes.

15

policy.

16

MR. WING: Why don't we take a short break.

16 Q. Okay. So having considered Exhibit 65, this

17

I want to see if, I might be fairly close here

17

print-off of a PLN news article from the

18

and I want to just gather my thoughts together.

18

internet, sent by an individual, would be

19

(Break taken from 4:11 to 4:24.)

19

admitted under your current policy?

20 Q. BY MR. WING: Just before the break we were

20 A. Yeah. I believe it's just like any

21

looking at Exhibit 65 and you said you thought

21

correspondence.

22

definitely this would be delivered in the jail;

22 Q. Okay. While I understand that the sheriff could

23

is that right?

23

overrule you, as things currently stand, you are

24 A. Yes.

24

the final arbiter of what does and does not

25 Q. Okay. Is the second page of Exhibit 65 a

25

violate the policy in the ordinary course;

49 (Pages 190 to 193)

Beovich Walter & Friend

EXHIBIT B: Page 18 of 22

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-2 Filed 10/16/12 Page 19 of 22

Moyer, Andrew

July 6,2012

Page 194

Page 196

1

right?

1 A. Yes.

2 A. Yes. The only, only difference there would be

2 Q. And you see where it says, third paragraph down,

3

if I'm the one who rejected the mail in the

3

this is a message from Marie Tyler. Do you

4

first place, which is highly unlikely, then,

4

see-

5

then that appeal goes directly to the sheriff.

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Okay.

6 Q. "PLN is suing because the jail is not allowing

7 A. Yes.

7

in magazines like Prison Legal News and because

8 Q. But otherwise you are the final arbiter?

8

of the postcard-only. It appears that PLN,

9 A. Yes.

9

Prison Legal News, has been reviewing jail

10 Q. Okay. Thank you. You are, excuse me if I have

10

policies on the web and they are targeting those

11

forgotten this, but I think in the morning we

11

that don't seem up to snuff." Do you see that?

12

talked about the Oregon State Sheriffs'

12 A. Yes.

13

Association and you are on the LISTSERV? I

13 Q. "Every jail should review their mail policy. If

14

don't know if we've talked about that.

14

you're not allowing bulk or junk mail in, either

15 A. Yes. I'm on several LISTSERVS. I'm on the jail

15

solicited or unsolicited, you might want to get

16

LISTSERV. I'm on the search and rescue LISTSERV 16

it fixed. The Ninth Circuit ruling that

17

and the enforcement council LISTSERV.

17

prohibition doesn't pass the Turner test in

18 Q. Okay. And do you read the e-mails that come on

18

2005, Prison Legal News versus Lehman." Do you

19

the LISTSERV?

19

see that?

20 A. Not every one.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. But a fair number of them?

21 Q. Did you read that case, Prison Legal News versus

22 A. Yes.

22

Lehman?

23 Q. Okay. And you have seen e-mails that relate

23 A. I have after the...

24

specifically to Prison Legal News, have you not?

24 Q. The lawsuit was filed?

25 A. Yes.

25 A. Yeah. I gave, at some point in time I was

Page 195

Page 197

1 Q. And you have seen e-mails about your lawsuit

2

being discussed on the LISTSERV; is that right?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. In fact, you've had communications with, in

5

particular, folks from the Washington County

6

Sheriffs Department about your lawsuit; is that

7

right?

8 A. I'm not so sure I have — Oh, yes. As far as

9

getting draft policies and that kind of stuff?

10 Q. Yeah.

11 A. Yes. I don't believe I responded to any

12

LISTSERV e-mails.

13 Q. But, I mean, you've received them?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Okay. The policythat you adopted in January

16

when you - When I say "you" I mean the

17

sheriffs department ~

18 A. Right.

19 Q. - was largely drawn from the Washington County

20

mail policy; right?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Okay.

23

(Exhibit 116 marked for identification.)

24 Q. BY MR. WING: Do you recall receiving what is

25

marked as Exhibit 116?

1

provided a copy of that.

2 Q. What did you learn?

3 A. I learned a lot of things. I learned about the

4

due process that was required to go to the

5

sender. Well, actually I would say everything

6

in that case law was new to me because I had

7

never reviewed that case law before. But as far

8

as the violations that our policy existed was

9

one of the ones I talked about earlier in the

10

day here in my testimony was the due process to

11

the sender and the junk and bulk mail rejection.

12 Q. And what is your best understanding, not looking

13

for a word-by-word definition, of what bulk mail

14

is?

15 A. In my personal opinion, bulk mail is the same as

16

junk mail. Maybe it's the opposite. Junk mail

17

is the same as bulk mail.

18 Q. I think you said earlier your view of junk mail

19

is mail that you don't want?

20 A. Yeah.

21 Q. Okay. Do you have an understanding from reading

22

Prison Legal News versus Lehman of what bulk

23

mail is according to the court?

24 A. Basically unsolicited mail, which means, a

25

person might not be requesting it.

50 (Pages 194 to 197

Beovich Walter & Friend

EXHIBIT B: Page 19 of 22

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-2 Filed 10/16/12 Page 20 of 22

Moyer, Andrew

July 6,2012

Page 218

Page 220

1

If you think there's something on there that

1

Tony Weaver or somebody you spoke to spoke to

2

Ms. Hanson wrote, I could understand that you

2

Tony Weaver?

3

might decide to redact that, but I think the

3 A. Yeah. I could have asked a sergeant to have

4

whole tenor of the attorney-client privilege is,

4

somebody do that. So I can't say for certain

5

it's recognized that facts can't be considered

5

that I spoke to Tony Weaver.

6

privilege just because you give a copy to your

6 Q. Okay. But I think this incident as described

7

lawyer.

7

here is a product of you instructing somebody to

8

MR. ROBERSON: Well, what I'm hearing is

8

find out?

9

that there was a discussion between Undersheriff

9 A. Yes.

10

Moyer and his attorney about changes made to the 10 Q. Undersheriff Moyer, were you involved in

11

policy and he's testified to what he remembers

11

adopting a template response to prisoners who

12

his changes are, which I think is fine. But I

12

complained that they thought the postcard-only

13

think the document is work product and the

13

policy violated their constitutional rights?

14

conversations are attorney-client privileged.

14 A. No.

15

However, I am happy to take a look at that

15 Q. Have you ever seen that?

16

document again and get back to you.

16 A. Yes.

17

MR. WING: Yeah. And just to be clear, I'm

17 Q. How did you first become aware of that?

18

not asking him to disclose what his oral

18 A. I don't recall how I first become aware of it.

19

communications were, his discussions with her,

19

I don't recall how I first became aware of it.

20

but I think that the comments that he wrote are

20 Q. Okay. Did you support it?

21

not work product. He wrote them so that they

21 A. I guess when I first became aware of it, I

22

would be implemented in the policy. And we

22

didn't even read it. I wasn't in charge of the

23

can't allow somebody to give them to a lawyer to

23

jail when that first came about.

24

type and then they become attorney-client

24 Q. But-

25

privilege. So you'll look at that again?

25 A. So I knew that there, I knew that that was

Page 219

Page 221

1

MR. ROBERSON: Uh-huh. Sure.

1

generated.

2

MR. WING: Thank you.

2 Q. Okay. And then you did become aware of it and

3

MR. ROBERSON: I mean yes.

3

did you read it?

4 Q. BY MR. WING: We're all prone to that, aren't

4 A. I'm not sure if I've ever read that.

5

we? Okay. Let's get this wrapped up.

5 Q. What do you think about the general idea?

6

(Exhibit 124 marked for identification.)

6 A. Of a?

7 Q. BY MR. WING: Here is Exhibit 124. Have you

7 Q. An automatic response.

8

seen this before?

8 A. Of an automatic response?

9 A. Yes.

9 Q. Yeah. Let's look at Exhibit 43.

10 Q. When did you see it?

10 A. Okay.

11 A. Shortly after that date. This was the, what I

11 Q. Do you see the second page of Exhibit 43?

12

testified to earlier about that I directed after

12 A. Uh-huh. In general, in regards to an automatic,

13

I received notice of the lawsuit, I directed

13

automated response, there are good things and

14

somebody who now I see who it was. Although

14

bad things about automated responses.

15

just because he did it doesn't mean that's the

15 Q. And this particular template, whenever somebody

16

person who I talked to. But to, because I knew

16

says I think my constitutional rights are being

17

firsthand that I have seen Prison Legal News

17

violated, the 1st Amendment, when you do this,

18

delivered or be in, or inmates in possession of.

18

what do you think about this being the response?

19

So I wanted to find out how many inmates have it 19 A. I agree with it.

20

and are issued to it.

20 Q. Do you think that a good deal of review went

21 Q. So this says Prison Daily News. You think

21

into deciding whether to adopt the postcard-only

22

that's just a, somebody misunderstood, it's

22

policy?

23

actually Prison Legal News?

23 A. By whom?

24 A. Yes. That would be my opinion of that, yeah.

24 Q. That's one of the things it says in that

25 Q. Okay. And so you think that you either spoke to

25

template, doesn't it?

56 (Pages 218 to 221)

Beovich Walter & Friend

EXHIBIT B: Page 20 of 22

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-2 Filed 10/16/12 Page 21 of 22

Moyer, Andrew

July 6,2012

Page 222

Page 224

1 A. It doesn't say who.

l

both, but I believe it was their counsel.

2 Q. Well, okay. That's a great question. Did your

3

sheriffs department give a good deal of review

2 Q. And do you have any understanding about these

3

other lawsuits that you think ~

4

to deciding whether to adopt a postcard only

4 A. No.

5

policy?

5 Q. ~ you weren't told about?

6 A. I think we relied on a lot of review from the

6 A. No.

7

Washington County Sheriffs Office through the

8

Sheriffs' Association.

7 Q. So you don't know, for example, whether they

8

were brought by a prisoner?

9 Q. Is there any other policy you're aware of where

9 A. No, I don't.

10

you've adopted where you haven't really done

11

much independent assessment yourself, you relied

10 Q. Right, or whether the prisoner responded at all

11

or presented any evidence at all?

12

on another sheriffs department?

12 A. I do not.

13 A. I don't recall.

13

(Exhibit 125 marked for identification.)

14 Q. Okay. So it's true that your sheriffs

15

department didn't do a good deal of review

14 Q- BY MR. WING: Handing you Exhibit 125, do you

15

recognize this? I point your attention to the

16

before adopting ~

16

grievance which says, "I feel that the postcard

17 A. I'm not sure what review we did.

17

rule violates my 1st and 14th Amendment rights."

18 Q. So why do you agree with this since you don't

18

Do you see that?

19

know?

19 A. Yes.

20 A. I agree with the response. 21 Q. The response tells the prisoners that a good

20 Q- Did your department make any effort to

21

investigate that?

22

deal of review went into it; right?

22 A. I'm not sure. This grievance didn't make it to

23 A. And I believe Washington County did a good deal 23

me.

24

of review, from what I understand.

25 Q. And how did you learn that?

24 Q. Okay. But we have every reason to believe that

25

the response was the same as the second page of

Page 223

Page 225

1 A. In our meetings.

2 Q. Do you have any idea what review your sheriffs

3

department engaged in before adopting the

4

policy?

5 A. I don't. I don't recall exactly how that went.

6 Q. Do you recall anything?

7 A. Yeah. As I have testified earlier today, I

8

recall having a conversation about should we do

9

this or should we not.

10 Q. Was any one effort made to determine the

11

constitutionality of the postcard-only policy?

12 A. Yes. During our presentation it was brought up

13

by counsel from Washington County that it had

14

passed several constitutional testing in

15

different courts.

16 Q. This was when?

17 A. This was in, I believe that was back in the 2009

18

or 2010, before we went to the policy, I

19

believe.

20 Q. So you were at the meeting —

21 A. That their counsel had reviewed it. I think

22

that's who made the presentation. I don't

23

recall exactly. I wasn't in charge of the jail

24

then. But I don't know if it was the jail

25

commander or Washington County's counsel or

1

Exhibit 43, right, the template? Isn't that the

2

purpose of the template, when somebody writes

3

the-

4 A. Is that the same one?

5 Q. No. I'm just saying that's the purpose of the

6

template; right? When a prisoner says the

7

postcard-only policy violates my rights, then

8

you type in the person's name and you print off

9

the template?

10 A. Yes. But I'm not sure that all of our deputies

11

were using that template.

12 Q. Okay. But thafs what you would expect to

13

happen; right?

14 A. I've never given that order.

15 Q. Okay.

16 A. So I don't know.

17

(Exhibit 126 marked for identification.)

18 Q- BY MR. WING: This is Exhibit 126. Do you see

19

the grievance there, "Postcard-only policy

20

violates my 1st Amendment rights as well as the

21

rights of nonincarcerated recipients who wish to

22

receive prisoners' correspondence"? Do you see

23

that?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Again, if you look at the second page, what's

57 (Pages 222 to 225;

Beovich Walter & Friend

EXHIBIT B: Page 21 of 22

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-2 Filed 10/16/12 Page 22 of 22

Moyer, Andrew

July 6, 2012

Page 239

1

CERTIFICATE

2

3

I, Aleshia K. Macom, CSR No. 94-0296, do

4

hereby certify that ANDREW MOYER personally

5

appeared before me at the time and place

6

mentioned in the caption herein; that the

1

witness was by me first duly sworn on oath, and

8

examined upon oral interrogatories propounded by

9

counsel; that said examination, together with

10

the testimony of said witness, was taken down by

n

me in stenotype and thereafter reduced to

12

typewriting; and that the foregoing transcript,

13

Pages 1 to 238, both inclusive, constitutes a

14

full, true and accurate record of said

15

examination of and testimony given by said

16

witness, and of all other proceedings had during

17

the taking of said deposition, and of the whole

18

thereof, to the best of my ability.

19

Witness my hand at Portland, Oregon, this

20

18th day of July, 2012.

21

y^^^o

22

Oregon

vawr acohs^

23

Igl GSFf IS I Aleshia K. Macom

\ V 94-0296 / /

24

\Jx.

y^i

CSR No. 94-0296

25

Beovich Walter & Friend

EXHIBIT B: Page 22 of 22

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-3 Filed 10/16/12 Page 1 of 5

Cutright, Bryan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project

of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE
CENTER, Plaintiff,

No. 3:12-CV-71-SI

v.
COLUMBIA COUNTY; Columbia
County Sheriff's Office; JEFF DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,

Defendants.

May 9,2012
Page 1

30(b)(6) DEPOSITION OF BRYAN CUTRIGHT
Taken in behalf of Plaintiff
May 9, 2012

Beovich Walter & Friend

EXHIBIT C: Page 1 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-3 Filed 10/16/12 Page 2 of 5

Cutright, Bryan

May 9,2012

Page 30

Page 32

1

Dickerson's supplemental responses to

l Q. Where does the sheriffs office keep inmate

2

plaintiffs first interrogatories and request

2

files?

3

for production; is that right?

3 A. In the booking area in a file storage room.

4 A. Yes.

4 Q. And what is kept in the file?

5 Q. Have you seen this document before?

5 A. Everything pertaining to that inmate's arrest,

6 A. Not sure I've seen this document as is it's

6

their court information, any kytes, any mail

7

completed here, but I've seen parts of this

7

rejections, any grievances. There's a

8

document, yes.

8

classification file that is in part of their

9 Q. Okay. Did you see the -

9

file. It consists of classification material,

10 A. I seen the questions on it. I haven't seen the 10

any disciplinary write-ups.

11

responses on it.

11 Q. Anything else?

12 Q. Okay. And when did you first see the questions

12 A. That's pretty much content of them.

13

on Exhibit 6?

13 Q. Who selected which inmate files to pull?

14 A. I'm not sure the exact date.

14 A. I'm not sure who selected them. I had a list

15 Q. Were you involved in adopting the responses?

15

from our attorneys that they wanted to see these

16 A. Not that I recall.

16

files and...

17 Q. Were you involved in any way in gathering

17 Q. You mentioned that mail rejections are included

18

documents requested in Exhibit 6?

18

in inmate files. What's a mail rejection?

19 A. Yes.

19 A. It's a notice given to the inmate that a piece

20 Q. Please describe how you were involved in that.

20

of mail has been either returned to sender or it

21 A. A lot of them, I pulled the files for the

21

has, consists of contraband, some type of form

22

attorneys to review. I printed out reports out 22

they're not going to receive the piece of mail

23

of the Golden Eagle system of different mail

23

item.

24

scans, incoming, outgoing mail and made some 24 Q. When did the jail start using mail rejection

25

copies of some items out of the files.

25

notices?

Page 31

Page 33

1 Q. Anything else?

1 A. We've had prohibited mail notices for quite some

2 A. Not that I recall.

2

time. I'm not sure the exact date we started

3 Q. You mentioned pulling some files. What files

3

using them, but the current one we use started

4

are you referring to?

4

in February 2012.

5 A. Inmate files. A lot of the, there was a bunch

5 Q. And I understand you can't be exact. When do

6

of files that had to be reviewed. So I pulled

6

you believe that the jail started using

7

inmate files out of our people that were not

7

prohibited mail notices?

8

actually in custody. We file them in a file

8 A. If I had to guess, I'd say probably sometime

9

storage room and we pull each file to, for each 9

around 2008, 2009.

10

inmate when they come back or when we're

10 Q. And has the jail's use of prohibited mail

11

researching something from a past arrest.

11

notices or mail rejection notices changed -

12 Q. Are there any other files that you looked in or

12 A. Yes.

13

pulled to respond to these requests?

13 Q. - in the last three years?

14 A. We pulled several files during this process.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Any other files other than inmate files?

15 Q. How has it changed?

16 A. No.

16 A. The notice is totally different. It has a

17 Q. So am I correct that your involvement in

17

section for an appeal process and on the back of

18

responding to these requests for production

18

it, it has some other information added to it

19

included assisting with pulling inmate files and

19

The other one was just a short piece of paper

20

printing reports from the Golden Eagle system?

20

that said inmate's name, this item was rejected

21 A. Correct.

21

for this reason, a signature, and that was

22 Q. Anything else?

22

pretty much all that was on it.

23 A. Not that I recall. I would have to read every 23 Q. So the content, that is, the text of the

24

one of the things here to find out. But not

24

prohibited mail notice or mail rejection form,

25

that I can recall off the top of my head.

25

that has changed over time?

9 (Pages 30 to 33)

Beovich Walter & Friend

EXHIBIT C: Page 2 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-3 Filed 10/16/12 Page 3 of 5

Cutright, Bryan

May 9,2012

Page 34

Page 36

1

A. Yes.

1

doing the research on it, we realized there was

2 Q. Okay. Has the jail's use of these notices

2

not as many prohibited notices mail slips in the

3

changed in the last three years?

3

files as there should be.

4 A. The use hasn't changed but the frequency that

4 Q. And so how often were they being used?

5

they are used has changed.

5 A. I couldn't tell you.

6 Q. Tell me about that.

6 Q. Rarely?

7 A. In the past they weren't used as often as they

7 A. I would say rarely.

8

should be. Mail was just returned to sender

8 Q. And did you speak with any of the deputies or

9

without a prohibited mail slip being attached to

9

sergeants who processed the mail about how they

10

it. And the way the new form is, it's a

10

had been using those notices?

11

three-part form and one copy goes with the mail 11 A. I didn't personally.

12

that's being returned so that the sender knows

12 Q. Did you learn anything about how those notices

13

why it's returned.

13

had been used in the past?

14 Q. You mention that the notices were not used as

14 A. You know, I, at that point in time it wasn't a

15

often as they should be in the past?

15

matter of what was going on then. It was a

16 A. Correct.

16

matter of correcting the situation and making

17 Q. Okay. So when were they used back then, how is

17

sure that it happens the right way in the

18

it different now?

18

future.

19 A. They were used back, they were used back then, 19 Q. And were you involved in correcting the

20

they were supposed to be used back then all the 20

situation?

21

time. So they were used in the same principle,

21 A. No. I just spoke to the undersheriff.

22

but they weren't always followed through and

22 Q. Andrew Mover?

23

they weren't always done when something was 23 A. Yes.

24

returned to sender. And now it's more of a

24 Q. What did you tell him?

25

point to make sure it gets done.

25

MR. KRAEMER: Tell who? The lawyer?

Page 35

Page 37

1 Q. When you say the notices were supposed to be

1

MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Andrew Moyer.

2

used all the time, what do you mean? What event

2

MR. KRAEMER: Sorry. Thank you. Appreciate

3

prompts the use of that notice?

3

that?

4 A. For example, when the postcards are being used, 4

THE WITNESS: I just informed him that the

5

if the postcard was not going to be delivered,

5

slips weren't being used in the past like they

6

if it was unacceptable, material on there would

6

should have been, obviously because there's

7

prevent, or not prevent, but cause a security

7

virtually none in the files.

8

risk or violate one of the mail policies, it

8 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: And what did Andrew say?

9

would be returned to sender. And the slips

9 A. He said he would address the situation and talk

10

weren't always used when they were done that

10

to the supervisors, make sure that they start

11

way. So they weren't filed — If they were

11

using them as they're needed.

12

used, they weren't used properly because they

12 Q. Since the sheriff took office in January 2009,

13

weren't in the files.

13

have you had an occasion to supervise someone

14 Q. Did you or anyone else, to your knowledge,

14

processing the mail and their use of these

15

investigate what was going on with the

15

prohibited mail notices or mail rejection

16

prohibited mail notices and why they weren't

16

notices?

17

being used all the time?

17 A. The new forms, no.

18 A. No.

18 Q. How about the old forms?

19 Q. When did this change occur, that is, you've

19 A. Yes.

20

described that the prohibited mail notices

20 Q. Tell me about that.

21

weren't always used. They were supposed to be

21 A. They had a item that was not allowed to be in

22

used all of the time and now they're used more

22

the facility or rejected for some reason and I

23

frequently. When did that change occur?

23

would make sure, ask them, hey, did you fill out

24 A. We noticed that they weren't used as frequently 24

your slip yet? And if they said no, I would

25

when this lawsuit was filed. And when we were

25

say, you need to fill out the slip. Make sure

10 (Pages 34 to 37)

Beovich Walter & Friend

EXHIBIT C: Page 3 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-3 Filed 10/16/12 Page 4 of 5

Cutright, Bryan

May 9,2012

Page 174

Page 176

1 Q. Why?

2 A. The same as the last one. It doesn't violate

3

safety and security or the operation of the

4

facility and it falls under the junk/bulk mail.

5 Q. Does Exhibit 24, when taken as a whole, lack

6

serious literary, artistic, political,

7

educational, religious or scientific value?

8 A. I would say yes.

9 Q. That it does lack?

10 A. No. I would say that it does not lack. I'm

11

sorry. It would be accepted in.

12 Q. Do you consider Exhibit 24 to be personal mail?

13 A. No.

14 Q. Why not?

15 A. Because.

16

MR. KRAEMER: Asked and answered. Asked and

17

answered. You are asking - these exhibits are

18

practically identical. You're asking the exact

19

same questions. He's already told you the same

20

answer.

21

MS. CHAMBERLAIN: For the record, this

22

letter has not been a part of any exhibit

23

besides 24.

24

MR. KRAEMER: I apologize. You're correct.

25 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Sergeant, is it your

l

You can answer.

2

THE WITNESS: This letter, if I was scanning

3

the mail, wouldn't be opened unless the inmate

4

was there and it would be considered the same

5

thing as junk/bulk mail. It would be delivered

6

to him.

7 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Why would it be opened in

8

the presence of the inmate?

9 A. Because it's an envelope and it would be, I

10

would treat it as personally just as if it was

11

legal or official mail. Open it up and give it

12

to him.

13

(Exhibit 25 marked for identification.)

14 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: You've been handed

15

Exhibit 25. Do you recognize it?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. What is it?

18 A. It's a mail violation notice.

19 Q. Okay. What does it indicate?

20 A. Indicates Mr. Weisenberger had a, a piece of

21

mail restricted from going to him.

22 Q. Why was it restricted?

23 A. It says "Do not accept periodicals."

24 Q. Is that accurate?

25 A. No, it's not Doesn't match the policy.

Page 175

Page 177

1

testimony that you would consider ~ Strike

1 Q. So at the time that this mail violation notice

2

that.

2

was issued to prisoner Weisenberger, the jail

3

Is Exhibit 24 personal mail?

3

did accept periodicals; is that right?

4

MR. KRAEMER: Object to the form.

4 A. Per the policy, yes.

5

THE WITNESS: I would consider, if I was

5 Q. So is this an error to censor it?

6

reviewing the mail I would consider this

6 A. Yes. This should have been appropriately marked

7

bulk/junk mail.

7

under the form of nudity, I believe.

8 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Now, the jail policy

8 Q. Excuse me?

9

definition of personal mail is postcards mailed

9 A. It was a magazine that was inappropriate. It

10

from friends, postcards mailed to or from

10

wouldn't have been allowed in our facility

11

family, friends, organizations, businesses or

11

anyway, but that was just the wrong reason it

12

other unofficial entities.

12

was checked.

13 A. Correct.

13 Q. How can you determine based on Exhibit 25 that

14 Q. Is that correct?

14

there was nudity in this magazine?

15 A. Yes, it is.

15 A. Because I know it was a Playboy.

16 Q. Is personal mail also considered letters mailed

16 Q. How do you know that?

17

to or from family, friends, organizations,

17 A. I'm aware of the situation.

18

businesses or other unofficial entities?

18 Q. Based on what?

19

MR. KRAEMER: Object to form.

19 A. Based on Sergeant McMiller passing that

20

THE WITNESS: Could be.

20

information on to me.

21 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Okay. But you would still 21 Q. Was there any particular reason that the box

22

not consider this personal mail?

22

"inappropriate content" was not marked?

23

MR. KRAEMER: Object to form. It's

23

MR. KRAEMER: Wait. I am going to object to

24

argumentative now. He's already answered the

24

speculation if you're asking him why this other

25

question.

25

person didn't do something. How is that not

45 (Pages 174 to 177

Beovich Walter & Friend

EXHIBIT C: Page 4 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-3 Filed 10/16/12 Page 5 of 5

Cutright, Bryan

August 28, 2012

Page 9

1

CERTIFICATE

2

3

I, Aleshia K. Macom, CSR No. 94-0296, do

4

hereby certify that BRYAN CUTRIGHT personally

5

appeared before me at the time and place

6

mentioned in the caption herein; that the

7

witness was by me first duly sworn on oath, and

8

examined upon oral interrogatories propounded by

9

counsel; that said examination, together with

10

the testimony of said witness, was taken down by

11

me in stenotype and thereafter reduced to

12

typewriting; and that the foregoing excerpted

13

transcript, Pages 1 to 8, both inclusive,

14

constitutes a full, true and accurate record of

15

said examination of and testimony given by said

16

witness, and of all other proceedings had during

17

the taking of said deposition, and of the whole

18

thereof, to the best of my ability.

19

Witness my hand at Portland, Oregon, this

20

6th daj^Qi September, 2012

21

22

23

\°V "g^Se1 JSi Meshia K. Macom

24

\£Ss^l*s&/

CSR No. 94-0296

25

Beovich Walter & Friend

EXHIBIT C: Page 5 of 5

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-4 Filed 10/16/12 Page 1 of 4

Miller, Raquel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project

of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE

CENTER, Plaintiff,

No. 3:12-CV-71-SI

v.

COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA

COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF
DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,

Defendants.

May 9, 2012
Page 1

30(b)(6) VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF RAQUEL MILLER
Taken in behalf of Plaint.iff
May 9, 2012

Beovich Walter & Friend

EXHIBIT D: Page 1 of 4

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-4 Filed 10/16/12 Page 2 of 4

Miller, Raquel

May 9,2012

Page 90

Page 92

1

on. You know, this is going to your mom or

l Q. But ifs been quite some time?

2

whoever. Just cover it up.

2 A. Yeah.

3 Q. This notice, Exhibit H to -

3 Q. So you typically do not receive letters coming

4 A. This is a new notice, too, by the way.

4

into the jail now unless -

5 Q. That's what I was going to say. Before you had

5 A. Typically not.

6

that notice, what did you use?

6 Q. - unless they're legal mail; is that right?

7 A. We had another form, but it wasn't as nice as

7 A. Right.

8

this.

8

MS. CHAMBERLAIN: For the record, we're just

9 Q. Did it only have like four options on it?

9

about out of tape.

10 A. Sounds familiar.

10

MR. WING: That's okay. I don't think we

11 Q. Okay. Maybe kind of half a page?

11

need the tape to finish this up.

12 A. Yeah.

12 Q. BY MR. WING: You do not do not typically take

13 Q. Okay. That was the--

13

stamps off of the mail that comes in; is that

14 A. But I, I would fill in the blanks and tell them, 14

correct?

15

so thank you for clarifying. I meant in the

15 A. Uh-huh.

16

whole duration of my being here. So you're

16 Q. Is that true?

17

talking about this particular notice, and I'm

17 A. Yes.

18

sorry I didn't catch that when I first answered 18 Q. Was there a time that you did take stamps off?

19

it.

19 A. Yes. When it was envelopes.

20 Q. Okay. So before this current mail notice which

20 Q. Why?

21

is new as of January or February of this year;

21 A. That was just how we did at the time.

22

right?

22 Q. What were you instructed was the reason?

23 A. February.

23 A. Could be something hidden underneath it.

24 Q. Okay. The previous one was this like half-page

24 Q. Wouldn't that be true on --

25

document which had maybe four different

25 A. Yeah.

Page 91

Page 93

1

things --

1 Q. - postcards, too?

2 A. I believe so.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. - to check off? And that's the only other one

3 Q. So what have you been told about why that

4

you've had since you've been here; right?

4

process has changed and you no longer take the

5 A. That's the only one I remember.

5

stamps off?

6 Q. Okay. Tonight you did not reject any mail based

6 A. Nothing.

7

on the fact that it was not a postcard; is that

7 Q. And did that happen when you, did you no longer

8

right?

8

take the stamps off once they were just

9 A. Right.

9

postcards?

10 Q. Is that typical?

10 A. Yes.

11 A. Yeah.

11 Q. When prisoners were allowed to receive

12 Q. And how long has that been typical?

12

letters -

13 A. That we haven't rejected it because it's not a 13 A. Because, frankly, a lot of times they're getting

14

postcard?

14

photographs and we're not really going to cut

15 Q. Yes.

15

off the corner of a photograph or we're not

16 A. I guess I don't understand the question.

16

going to mangle it unless it looks like there

17 Q. Well, there was a time when you got more items

17

may be a reason to.

18

that were, you had to reject them because they

18 Q. Before the postcard-only policy was in place,

19

weren't on a postcard. At least when you had

19

did you take the stamps off of both letters and

20

the policy, postcard-only policy was new; right?

20

postcards?

21 A. Uh-huh.

21 A. I believe it was just letters at the time, too.

22 Q. Is that true?

22 Q. So the postcards could have stamps on them and

23 A. Right

23

you would not take them off when letters were

24 Q. Okay. How long did that transition period last?

24

allowed also, is that your recollection?

25 A. I'm not a good judge of that.

25 A. I don't really have a recollection of anything

24 (Pages 90 to 93)

Beovich Walter & Friend

EXHIBIT D: Page 2 of 4

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-4 Filed 10/16/12 Page 3 of 4

Miller, Raquel

May 9, 2012

Page 94

Page 96

1

specific on that.

l A. Golden Eagle.

2 Q. Do you recall being instructed that you no

2 Q. Can you show me in Golden Eagle how that

3

longer have to take stamps off of the mail?

3

information is recorded?

4 A. No.

4 A. Well, we would write a report and I logged off

5 Q. Do you have a blank postcard that you use ~

5

already. So give me a second here. What do you

6 A. Yes.

6

mean by "contraband," by the way?

7 Q. -here?

7 Q. How do you use the term "contraband" here in the

8 A. Uh-huh.

8

jail?

9 Q. Do you have one that we could mark as an

9 A. Well, you asked the question. So that's what I

10

exhibit?

10

was meaning by how am I to —

11 A. Yes. Let me get you one.

11 Q. I would like you to use it in the ordinary sense

12 Q. Thank you.

12

that you use it here in the jail.

13 A. This is not typical. It normally doesn't have a 13 A. Okay. So we are talking incoming or outgoing

14

label on it. Washington County messed up the 14

mail?

15

order accidentally or we got their order and it

15 Q. Let's start with incoming mail.

16

has their address on it. So we've put ours over 16 A. Okay. So if it was contraband, you would have

17

it. But we know where the labels came from, so 17

seen how I just did it with the prohibited mail

18

we're going to give those out to the inmates.

18

notice, and that would be the only way.

19 Q. Okay. Is it correct that we looked at some

19 Q. So it would not be reflected -

20

envelopes where the picture was bigger —

20 A. No.

21 A. Yes.

21 Q. - in the Golden Eagle?

22 Q. -of the sheriff?

22 A. No.

23 A. Uh-huh.

23 Q. Is that correct?

24 Q. Is that yes?

24 A. Yes.

25 A. Yes.

25 Q. And likewise there's not any central place that

Page 95

Page 97

1 Q. Okay. And otherwise this is a accurate

2

portrayal of the postcards that the prisoners

3

get to mail out?

4 A. It's the exact same size, if that's what you

5

mean. Yeah.

6 Q. And there are lines on the back -

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. ~ like there are on this one?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And there's a "to" area to write the, who's

11

receiving the mail?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Okay. Let's mark that as Exhibit 4.

14

(Exhibit 4 marked for identification.)

15 Q. BY MR. WING: Our inspection notice includes a

16

request to inspect any logbooks or other

17

documentation used to record incoming or

18

outgoing mail. You've shown us the Eagle,

19

Golden Eagle system; right?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Is there any other logbooks that contain that

22

type of information?

23 A. No.

24 Q. And is there any kind of logbook that identifies

25

any contraband that is found?

1

would list the contraband that was identified

2

from incoming mail; is that correct?

3 A. Right.

4 Q. Okay. Outgoing mail you're telling me -

5 A. Unless it was a violation of the law.

6 Q. And then?

7 A. Then it would become evidence.

8 Q. Okay. And then we'd go maybe to the prosecutor?

9 A. Right. And that's kind of what I was going for.

10

I was just going to show you where we put jail

11

incident reports.

12 Q. Okay.

13 A. But we would have to write something up and it

14

would be maybe, you know, Mr. Smith is writing

15

his wife that he's not supposed to have contact

16

with who's still in our facility. And so we'll

17

write a report on that as well.

18 Q. And the incident reports then might include

19

contraband found in mail that would violate the

20

law as opposed to just mail policy?

21 A. There's just a different place to put that

22

because we have to get case numbers and all

23

that.

24 Q. I understand. I'm just trying to clarify my

25

understanding. So you would put it in Golden

25 (Pages 94 to 97

Beovich Walter & Friend

EXHIBIT D: Page 3 of 4

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-4 Filed 10/16/12 Page 4 of 4

Miller, Raquei

May 9, 2012

Page 108

1

CERTIFICATE

2

3

I, Aleshia K. Macom, CSR No. 94-0296, do

4

hereby certify that RAQUEL MILLER personally

5

appeared before me at the time and place

6

mentioned in the caption herein; that the

7

witness was by me first duly sworn on oath, and

8

examined upon oral interrogatories propounded by

9

counsel; that said examination, together with

10

the testimony of said witness, was taken down by

11

me in stenotype and thereafter reduced to

12

typewriting; and that the foregoing transcript,

13

Pages 1 to 107, both inclusive, constitutes a

14

full, true and accurate record of said

15

examination of and testimony given by said

16

witness, and of all other proceedings had during

17

the taking of said deposition, and of the whole

18

thereof, to the best of my ability.

19

Witness my hand at Portland, Oregon, this

20

5th day^of June, 2012.

21

j<£§^0

|£[ pen 1? ^

23

1\ ^1\ *9*4-"02&96n J IWjI Aleshia K. Macom

24

V^ySs^ ^L/ CSR No. 94-0296

25

Beovich Walter & Friend

EXHIBIT D: Page 4 of 4

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-5 Filed 10/16/12 Page 1 of 4

Page 1 of2

From:

"Bryan"

Date:

Monday, May 02, 2011 10:50 AM

To:

"Hanson, Sarah" <Sarah.Hanson@co.columbia.or.us>; "Zemaitis, Cynthia"

<Cynthia.Zemaitis@co.columbia.or.us>

Subject: Fwd: Searches and Postcards

Sara and Cynthia,

[REDACTED -ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION]

*********** EMBEDDED MESSAGE: *************
Date: 2011/04/29 9:34:19 AM From: Marie Tvler@CO.WASHlNGTON.OR.US To: OJMA@LISTSERV.CO.MARlON.OR.US
Subject: Searches and Postcards A couple of items that might impact several others out there, we thought we would share - use if you like!!
1. Elmer Dickens, our attorney, has given us some good language to reply to grievances about postcards (that are in an upsurge given the ACLU postcards that we delivered) that will serve to shore up our side if any suits are brought forward on the subject. He said I am free to share, in case any of you are preparing responses to your inmates on the topic.
Postcard Grievance Response Template:
Thank you for expressing your concern about the Washington County Jail mail procedures. As you are aware, there are multiple ways for inmates to communicate with friends, family and others outside the jail. You may send and receive postcards, as well as have personal visits and use the telephone. You are also allowed to communicate with your attorney, and correspond with other officials, by writing letters using paper and envelopes to ensure your privacy. Our postcard policy was enacted after a good deal of review, and we believe that the policy decreases the opportunity for contraband to be introduced into the jail, which enhances jail safety and security. In addition, the use of postcards saves significant public resources as staff do not need to spend nearly as much time searching for contraband or for communications that threaten jail safety and security. In light of the clear benefits to jail safety and security, the reduced staff time required to process inmate mail, and the alternative methods
available to inmates to communicate with the outside, we believe that
our policy of requiring postcards for personal mail is appropriate and
reasonable. Your grievance is denied.

2. Below is information about a recent case in Arizona. We plan to adjust our search policy to include something along the lines of the boided language below.

CC 001306
5/7/2012

EXHIBIT E: Page 1 of 4

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-5 Filed 10/16/12 Page 2 of 4

Happy Friday - enjoy the weekend all.
Marie
From: Elmer Dickens
Byrd v. Maricopa County Sheriffs Dept.
In this case, a female cade conducted a search of a male inmate. The inmate was dressed only in thin pink boxers, and she used the back of her hand to check for contraband, including moving his penis and scrotum. The inmate sued, arguing that this non-emergency search was a strip search and was an unreasonable search under the fourth amendment. The 9th Circuit (en banc - all 28 judges) considered the issue, and found that although it wasn't really a strip search because he had some clothes on, it was way more than a pat or frisk search because the boxers were very thin and she manipulated his genitals. They held that the search violated the inmate's rights under the 4th Amendment. I
think the only important thing out of this case is that a pat or frisk search, if done on a barely dressed inmate of the opposite sex, could
violate the inmate's rights.
J-14-4 (4) provides that
a. A female deputy may frisk search a male inmate. (Note: This is based on controlling laws governing equal employment opportunities for female corrections deputies and male privacy rights under the Oregon Constitution, which prohibit unclothed searches by female deputies.)
Do you think it would be worthwhile to add a caveat - something like "A cross-gender frisk search may only be performed ifthe inmate is fully dressed. Ifthe inmate is wearing only underwear, a deputy of the
same sex must do the search" ???? elmer

Page 2 of2

CC 001307 5/7/2012
EXHIBIT E: Page 2 of 4

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-5 Filed 10/16/12 Page 3 of 4

Page 1 of2

From: Date:
To: Subject:

"Bryan" Friday, April 29, 2011 9:34 AM
<cutrightb@hotmail.com> Fwd: Searches and Postcards (Work)

*********** EMBEDDED MESSAGE: *************
Date: 2011/04/29 9:34:19 AM From: Marie Tvler@CO.WASHINGTON. OR. US
To:OJMA<5)LlSTSERV.CO.MARION.OR.US
Subject: Searches and Postcards
Acouple of itemsthat might impact several others outthere, we thought
we would share - use if you like!!
1. Elmer Dickens, our attorney, has given us some good language to reply to grievances about postcards (that are in an upsurge given the ACLU postcards that we delivered) thatwill serve to shore up ourside if any suits are brought forward on the subject. He said I am free to share, in case any of you are preparing responses to your inmates on the topic.
Postcard Grievance Response Template:
Thank you for expressing your concern about the Washington County Jail mail procedures. As you are aware, there are multiple ways for inmates
to communicate with friends, family and others outside the jail. You may send and receive postcards, as well as have personal visits and use the telephone. You are also allowed to communicate with your attorney, and correspond with other officials, by writing letters using paper and envelopes to ensure your
privacy. Our postcard policy was enacted after a good deal ofreview, and we believe that the policy decreases the opportunity for contraband
to be introduced intothe jail, which enhances jail safety and security. In addition, the use of postcards saves significant public resources as staffdo not need to spend nearly as much time searching for contraband or for communications that threaten jail safety and security. In light, ofthe clear benefits to jail safety and security, the reduced staff time required to process inmate mail, and the alternative methods available to inmates to communicate with the outside, we believe that our policy of requiring postcards for personal mail is appropriate and reasonable. Your grievance is denied.

2. Below is information about a recent case in Arizona. We plan to
adjustour search policy to include something along the lines ofthe
bolded language below.
Happy Friday - enjoy the weekend all.
Marie

CC 001390
5/7/2012

EXHIBIT E: Page 3 of 4

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-5 Filed 10/16/12 Page 4 of 4
Page 2 of2
From: Elmer Dickens
Byrd v. Maricopa County Sheriffs Dept.
In this case, a female cade conducted a search of a male inmate. The inmate was dressed only in thin pink boxers, and she used the back of her hand to check for contraband, including moving his penis and scrotum. The inmate sued, arguing that this non-emergency search was a
strip search and was an unreasonable search under the fourth amendment. The 9th Circuit (en banc - all 28 judges) considered the issue, and found that although it wasn't really a strip search because he had some clothes on, it was way more than a pat or frisk search because the boxers were very thin and she manipulated his genitals. They held that the search violated the inmate's rights under the 4th Amendment. I think the only important thing out of this case is that a pat or frisk search, ifdone on a barely dressed inmate of the opposite sex, could
violate the inmate's rights. j-14-4 (4) provides that
a. A female deputy may frisk search a male inmate. (Note: This is based on controlling laws governing equal employment opportunities for female corrections deputies and male privacy rights under the Oregon Constitution, which prohibit unclothed searches by female deputies.)
Do you think it would be worthwhile to add a caveat - something like "Across-gender frisk search may only be performed ifthe inmate is fully dressed. Ifthe inmate is wearing only underwear, a deputy of the
same sex must do the search" ???? elmer
CC 001391
5/7/2012
EXHIBIT E: Page 4 of 4

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-6 Filed 10/16/12 Page 1 of 3
OREGON STATE SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION
Oregon State Jail Command Council
TRANSITION TO POSTCARDS
FOR INMATE MAIL
Cmdr. Marie Tyler, WCSO
12-09-09
CC002303
EXHIBIT F: Page 1 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-6 Filed 10/16/12 Page 2 of 3
Postcards for Inmate Mail
Implementation Plan
Presented at OSSA December 9, 2009
Proposition Limit incoming and outgoing inmate mail (with the exception of legal and official) to postcards only, to greatly increase efficiencies and safety by minimizing contraband. Similar policies have been implemented elsewhere and have withstood court challenges. (AZ example)
Suggested Timeline
• December 2009:
o Review, change and implement new mail policy o Solicit, review and choose postcard vendor o Educate the staff, inmates and public of the policy changes o Replace envelopes in our indigent and intake packs with postcards • January 2nd, 2010: o Replace envelopes and writing paper with postcards in all indigent and
intake packs o Replace stamped envelopes with postcards on commissary menu • January-March 2010: o Continue education about new policy o Posting on website o Posting in the inmate living areas o Community news sources • March 31st, 2010:
o Inmates will only be permitted to send and receive postcards, legal or official mail, or mail that has been pre-approved by jail authorities.
Associated Costs
• Inmate mail materials are provided through commissary at cost to inmates with an ability to pay OR are provided through the indigent inmate fund (Inmate Welfare Fund) for inmates without resources.
• Commissary vendors may have an ability to substitute postage paid postcards for stamped envelopes and at a lower cost.
• Counties who choose to custom order postcards to sell through commissary are expected to pre-pay the cost of that printing.
• Washington County has volunteered to acquire and store the initial postcard order and sell at cost to other counties. Cost per postcard, both
CC002314
EXHIBIT F: Page 2 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-6 Filed 10/16/12 Page 3 of 3
the 5.5" x 8.5" and the 4-1/4" x 6", is $0.02. Counties are responsible for affixing postage stamps to the postcard; postage will cost $0.44 per card. Washington County will contract with its commissary vendor to put postage stamps on the postcards for $0.05 per card for a total cost of $0.51 per postcard or $5,100 for 10K postcards - more than most small jails might use in a year. By way of comparison, we sell stamped envelopes for $0.60 per envelope.
Acquiring Supplies To purchase postcards held at Washington County or to acquire vendor information if you elect to order independently -
Contact Timothy Ellsworth at 503.846.2390 or email, timothy ellsworth(S).co.washinqton.or.us He will arrange to transfer post cards to your facility and may use the Oregon Sheriff's Transport Association to move them without cost; or ship them via USPS or another qualified shipper.
Communications Planning and Considerations To facilitate migration to postcards only policy for incoming and outgoing inmate (social) mail, a CD is available with draft language changes. (Both Marion Co and Washington Co drafts) Bold items are also included, plus this plan.
Inmate rule manual language Mail processing forms Advising Inmates* Adjust recorded phone messages as needed* Adjust inmate mail guide publication Modify public web site where applicable*
Public Information Release
Notifying Local Bar Association* *These items are agency specific and notprovided on the CD
Questions?
Commander Marie Tyler, WCSO, 503.846.6366 marie tvler@co.washington.or.us
12/03/09
CC002315
EXHIBIT F: Page 3 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-7 Filed 10/16/12 Page 1 of 2
Origin: Exported on 2012/04/26 3:24:51 PM with GWAVA Reveal
From: "Jeff" <>
Subject: Fwd: Pass Down for September 16, 2011 (Forwarded Mail) To: sheriff.dickerson@vzw.blackberry.net
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 15:57:21 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-Library: Indy 9.00.10
Forwarded Mail ..**.«.».*. EMBEDDED MESSAGE: ************* Date: 2011/09/16 3:57:13 PM
From: Derek.Hibbs@co.columbia.or.us To: Department - Jail.Justice.Columbia County@co.columbia.or.us Subject: Pass Down for September 16, 2011
Pass Down for
September 16,2011 Total Population: 135
USM: 70 Booked in: 2 Released: 8 Booked and Released: 1
** ICE is running a Fugitive Operation this weekend and we have given then the go ahead for up to 25 beds for the weekend " " One USM for transport to Mult County on Monday September 19, 2011, Deputy Magnusen
has been notified.
** We are getting 10 USM inmates in on Wednesday September 21, 2011, Deputy Magnusen is aware of this and we will make sure that a Day Shift Deputy is available as a second for this transport. ** We are in need of additional outside workers, if anyone has any recommendation please pass them on to the Supervisors.
" Please find the time to conduct routine Shakedowns over the weekend.
** Schwirse and Hariin classified and moved to I Pod.
** Deherrera, Anthony moved to lock-down in AL2, due to refusal to move as directed. See Deputy McDowall's report. "" We have a trial scheduled for inmate Hendrix from Tuesday September 20 - Thursday September 22, 2011. Deputy McDowall will be handling the trial so please help to make sure
that the shifts are covered.
" Please remove the staples from the Prison Legal News papers and hand them out.
CC 001398
EXHIBIT G: Page 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-7 Filed 10/16/12 Page 2 of 2
** Dawson has been seen by medical and the nurse will be here over the weekend so ifthere are any other problems. Please make sure that if he has problems we need to make sure he sees the nurse while she is at the jail. Deputy Derek Hibbs Columbia County Sheriffs Office
901 Port Ave
St Helens, OR 97051 derek.hibbs@co.columbia.or.us (503)366-4699 fax (503)366-4631
CC 001399 EXHIBIT G: Page 2 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-8 Filed 10/16/12 Page 1 of 3

Date: 03/26/2012

JAIL INCIDENT
COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE

Page: 1

INCIDENT NO.: 2012000078

INCIDENT DATE/TIME: 01/23/2012 - 22:30

JAIL INCIDENT -FACTS OF INCIDENT CONTINUATION

SPOKE WITH SEVERAL INMATES ABOUT

Vandolah, Alisha
Shaft, Barry Temple, William Adams, Steven Bertasso, Toai Clement, Robert Deherrea, Anthony Haynes, Kenna
Oester, Samuel
Williams, Shaughnessy
Lupis, Victor

CC 000638
EXHIBIT H: Page 1 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-8 Filed 10/16/12 Page 2 of 3

Date :03/26/2012 2012000078

f*\ JAIL INCIDENT REPORT
COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE

INCIDENT DATE 01/23/2012 TIME: 22:30 DESC.SPOKE WITH SEVERAL INMATES ABOUT RECEIVING THEIR PDN

WHERE DID INCIOENT OCCUR?:COLUMBIA COUNTY JAIL
CAUSE OF INCIDENT: EVIDENCE COLLECTED:

Page: 2

FACTS OF INCIDENT
On 01/23/12, Bt approxiraately 2230 hrs, X aaked several inmotes about weather or not they received the Prison Daily Mews. All of the inmates X spoke with said that they were receiving their POH. Xcmate Adams, Steven said, "X get ray copy every month just like clock work." While speaking with Inmate Adams, Inmates Bennett and Mejia joined the conversation. I asked all three inmates i£ they believed the rest of the population were getting their copies as consistently as Inmate Adams. All three inmates agreed that they had not heard of any inmates in the Columbia County Jail ever having any issues receiving their copy of the Prison Daily News. TO S0583
The following inmates stated he/she receives the Prison Daily Newai
Butts, Daniel - per the rest of the inmates in B-SPCL Lavelle, Scott Vandolah, Alisha Shaft, Barry Temple, William Adams, Steven Bert&oso, Ton! Clement, Robert Deherrea, Anthony Hayneo. Kenna Oester, Samuel Williams, Shaughnessy Lupls, Victor
ACTION(S) TAKEN/RECCOMENDATION

INMATE(S) INVOLVED
INMATE NAME BUTTS. DANIEL ARMAUGH LAVELLE, SCOTT DAVID JR VANDOLAH ALISHA ROBIN SHAFT, BARRY DEVON TEMPLE, WILLIAM MATKEW ADAMS, STEVEN LEE BERTASSO.TONIALYSE CLEMENT, ROBERT CHARLES
OFRCER(S) INVOLVED

HOW INVOLVED? Participant
Participant Participant Participant Participant Participant Participant Participant

CELLL ASSIGNMENT B-PODMAX B-POD F-POD K-POD K-POD E-POD 6-POD E-POD

ENTERED BY: TONY WEAVER JR

OFFICER MAKING REPORT

_ X.

DATE

SUPERVISOR'S SIGNATURE

OPERATIONS MANAGER'S SIGNATURE

DATE

DATE
CC 000636

EXHIBIT H: Page 2 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-8 Filed 10/16/12 Page 3 of 3

Date: 03/26/2012 2012000078

OAIL INCIDENT REPORT^
COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE

INCIDENTDATE 01/23/2012 TIME: 22:30 DESC.SPOKE WITH SEVERAL INMATES ABOUT RECEIVING THEIR PDN

WHERE DIDINCIDENT OCCUR? :COLUMBIA COUNTY JAIL CAUSE OF INCIDENT:
EVIDENCE COLLECTED:

Page: 3

FACTS OF INCIDENT
On 01/23/12, at approximately 2230 hrs, I asked several inmates about weather or not they received the Prison Daily News. All of the Inmates I spoke with said that they were receiving their PDN. inmate Adams, Steven said, "I get my copy every month just like clock work." While speaking with Instate Adams, Inmates Bennett and Mejia joined the conversation. I asked all three inmates if they believed the rest of the population were getting their copies as consistently as Inmate Adams. All three inmates agreed that they had not heard of any inmates in the Columbia County Jail ever having any issues receiving their copy of the Prison Daily Hews. TW 50583
The following Inmates stated he/she receives the Prison Daily News:
Butts, Daniel - per the rest of the inmates in B-SPCL tavelle, Scott Vandolab, Alisha Shaft, Barry Temple, William Adams, Steven Bercaaso, Toni Clement, Robert Deherreo, Anthony Kaynes, Kenna oester. Samuel Williams, Shaughnessy Lupis, victor
ACTION(S) TAKEN/RECCOMENDATION

INMATE{S) INVOLVED
INMATE NAME DEHERRERA. ANTHONY MICHAEL HAYNES. KENNA LEANN OESTER, SAMUEL THOMAS WILLIAMS. SHAUGHNESSY LUPIS. VICTOR

HOW INVOLVED?
Participant Participant Participant Participant Participant

CELL ASSIGNMENT D.POD G-POD K-POD J-POD A-POD

OFFICER(S) INVOLVED

ENTERED BY: TONY WEAVER JR

X.
OFFICER MAKING REPORT

DATE

SUPERVISOR'S SIGNATURE

OPERATIONS MANAGER'S SIGNATURE

DATE

DATE
CC 000637

EXHIBIT H: Page 3 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-9 Filed 10/16/12 Page 1 of 19

Washington County Sheriff's Office Pat Garrett, Sheriff

Jail Policy J-12-1 October 22,2010
Affirmed: December 1,2011

Inmate Communication
INMATE MAIL
POLICY
Jail mail handling procedures mustsupport theinmate's need to communicate inwriting to carry outlegal business and maintain family and community ties. The procedures mustalso meetthe jail'sneed for efficient operations thatpreserve thegood order, safety, and security of thefacility,
inmates, and staff
DEFINITIONS
Contraband. 1)Controlled substances'as defined in ORS 475.005.2)Drug paraphernalia as defined by ORS 475.525.3) Any currency possessed by orunder thecontrol of an inmate confinedin acorrectional facility, except foranauthorized amountforaninmateatthe Community Corrections Center. 4) Any item that aperson in a correctional facility is prohibited bystatute, rule/or order from obtaining orpossessing,- and whose usewould •endanger the safety orsecurity of the facility or person within. 5)Anunauthorized item in an inmate's possession orin a cell, bunk,orcommon area. 6)An authorized item altered in any way. 7) More than the authorized number of anitem.
Indigent A financial condition when an inmate has less than $5 inhisorher inmate account and
has not had more than that amount for seven days.
Inflammatory material. Writings or other printed materials that pose athreat tothesecurity, safety, orgood order of thejail because it may incite oradvocate physical violence against others. This includes material that advocatesthe supremacy or hatred ofa racial, religious, national, orother group of people. {Note: Criticism of jail operations, programs, orstaff, onits own, is notinflammatory material. If thecriticism involves an illegal act orviolates ajail rule, staff will handle it as that type of prohibitedmail.)
Junk mail. Printed materials, often sent as massmailings, such as catalogs, advertisements, brochures, circulars, and pamphlets whose primary purpose is to sell, promote orsolicit for, a product or service, and.when taken asawhole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, educational, religious, or scientificvalue.Junk mailmaycomeusinga variety of postage
rates.
Legal mail. Incoming oroutgoing mail addressed toorfrom alicensed nattorney atjd isclearly marked "legal mail" on the address side of the envelope.

Supersedes: J-12-1 (January 4,2010) Position responsible for updates: Jail Administrative Lieutenant OJS: DI-A01,D1-A02, D1-A03, DI-A04,D1-A05, D1-A06, D1-A07, D1-A08, D1-A09, D1-A10. D1-B01. DI-B02. D1-C01.P1-C02. D1-C03. P1-C04

lof!9

CC 000613

EXHIBIT I: Page 1 of 19

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-9 Filed 10/16/12 Page 2 of 19

I J-12-1 J-12 1

October 22,2010

Mail handler. A staff member who picks up, transports, sorts, delivers, inspects, reads, or performs otherduties related to processinginmate mail.
Negotiable instrument A written document that represents an unconditionalpromise to pay a specified amountof moneyuponthe. demand ofits owner. Examples include checks and promissory notes.Negotiable instruments can be transferred from oneperson to another, as when a person writes "pay to the orderof on the back of a checkin orderto turn it over to
someone else.
Official mail. Incoming or outgoingmail addressed to or from the sheriff,jail commandstaff, county administrator, probation authorities, districtattorney, stateattorney general, Governor, court, a court official, and other confining authoritiesthat is clearly marked "official mail the address side of tbe envelope.
Periodical.A magazine, newspaper, or other publication formed of printed sheetsthatareissued at least fourtimes a yearat regular, specified intervals from a known office of publication. Periodicals usually must have a legitimate list of subscribersandrequesters.
Personal mail. Postcardsmailed to or from family, friends, organizations, businesses, or other
unofficial entities.
Sexually explicit 1) A pictorial depiction of anyof the following: actual orsimulated sexualacts (including sexual intercourse, oral sex,anal sex,ormasturbation); sexual penetration; bestiality; \ sexual violence; sadomasochism;excretory functions; and exposed genitalia, buttocks, or femalebreasts, unless the exposureis forlegitimatemedical,religious, or anthropological reasons. 2) A written or pictorial depiction of lewdness,licentiousness, or graphic erotic behavior designedto causesexualexcitement(pornography^. 3) Sex actsinvolvingchildren. Materials that violate state and local obscenity laws. {Note; Whether the materialis commercially produced or is personally madeor written hasnobearing on this definition.)
Two-party check. A check that the payeeendorses so thatanother person may cashit

PROCEDURES

INMATE MAIL OVERVIEW

1. Mail Limits and Restrictions
Staff will normally not limit, censor, or restrictthe volume, language, content, or sourceof mail or publications.

a. Generalreasons for limiting or restricting mail are:

(I) Thereis reason to believethatsuchcorrespondence would jeopardize personal safety, jail security orgoodorder, «f inmatetreatmentorwould facilitate violation of the
law.

2 of 19

CC 000614

EXHIBIT I: Page 2 of 19

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-9 Filed 10/16/12 Page 3 of 19

October 22,2010

J-12-1J-I3-1

' (2) There is reason to believe that a sentenced inmatein rehabilitative programs would benefit from a limit with whom he or she has contactor the publicationshe or she
receives.
(3) The volume of mail would placeanunreasonable burden on mailhandlers.
b. Specific reasons andexamples forlimiting, restricting, andprohibiting mail, which fall under each general reason category, arein Appendix I, Prohibited Mail.
c. Inmatesmay receive a disciplinary sanction thatrestricts personal mail. (Seepolicy J—7-6, Rules and Discipline.)
2. Sources of Incoming Mail Jail staff will only acceptwritten correspondence, notes, parcels, or documents forinmates that
have been deiivered bythe U.S. Postal Service and distributed byWashington County Central
Services.
3. Postcards for Personal or Personal Business Mail
Inmates may sendpostcards theyreceive in their lodging pack orthrough jail commissary. Inmates may receive postcards in any sizethatis delivered by theU.S. Postal Service up to a maximum size of 5-1/2" tall x-8-1/2"wide. The jail doesnot permitany other form of personal mail for inmates. Inmates.are not limited toaspecific number ofpostcards that they niay receive orsend. Lodged inmates receive an initial supply of postcards intheir lodging pack, and maypurchase additional postcards through jail commissary. Policy J-7-6. Discipline, sets limits on the numberof personal mail itemsallowed in aninmate'scell. Provisions for legal andofficial mail begin at paragraph 10,below.
4. Exceptionto Postcards for Inmates Within 30 Daysof CompletingSentence The Programs Manager may allow aninmate whois continuously involved in rehabilitation programs permission tocorrespond with aspecific person (both sending and receiving). The Program Manager must document that corresponding with theperson is in thebestinterest of aninmate's rehabilitation. A suitable examplemight include a lettersentto reconnect with family prior to release.
5. Photographs on Postcards Inmates mayreceivepostcards with photographs on onesideasallowed by theU.S! Postal Service andjail rules. No otherphotographs areallowed.
6. Indigent Inmate Mail
Indigent inmates may usetheir weekly indigent allowance to purchase an indigent writing pack for mail through jailcommissary. Thepack will consist of twopostage prepaid postcards, a pencil, and aneraser. Indigent inmates mustsubmit an Inmate Request form to obtain legal orofficial mailsupplies; thelegal orofficial mail will notcount aspart of the inmate's weekly allowance.

3 of 19

CC 000615

EXHIBIT I: Page 3 of 19

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-9 Filed 10/16/12 Page 4 of 19

I J-12-1J 12 1

October 22,2010 >S&j Formatted; Font 12 pt, Not Small caps

7. Addressing Inmate Mail
Incoming mailmust havethe inmate'sbooking nameandshould havetheinmate's booking number as part of the addressee information.
8. Return Address
Incoming mail musthavethenameand address of thesender. Thereturn address onlegal and official mail must havethe sender'sjob, agency, or firm title and address commercially preprinted or stamped.
a. If theinmateis in custody,a mailhandler will confiscate anymail withouta return name andaddress. Heor she will openit to bothidentifya sender's nameand to see if it contains negotiable instruments orotheritems thatneed to be listedonthe confiscation notice. This procedure alsoapplies whenmail is "refused"and returned to the jail.
b. If the-inmate is no longerin custody, themail handlerwill openthe mail to check for negotiable instruments, stamps,'official documents, or similar items of monetary or
official value.
(1) If there areno valuables, the mailhandler will throw themailawav. WHY WE
WOULD NOT PUT IT IN THE INMATE'S PROPERTY?
(2) Ifthemail contains valuables, themail handler willtake steps toidentify the sender
and return the mail to the sender. If a sender's name and address is not found, the mail handler will send the mail to the inmate's last known address. A mail handler will
destroy anymail, along withitsvaluables, that is returned tothejail after sending it to
the original sender or former inmate.
9. Postage-Due Mail
Thejail will notaccept orpay for any inmate mail with postage due. Thejail administrative sergeant will workwith thestaffof Central Services to have them refuse postage-due mail.
10. Junk Mail
Jail staffwillnet-accept soliritcd orjnsoljcjted^^ violates other mail restrictions fsuch ascontaining sexually explicit contentV A moil-handfe1

-Hern-requested andthe OKpeeted-feBe-peried-fbr-doIivory. iates-whe-bave-reqoested- to-reeeive
junk-mail in this manner. -In-most oasos, junk mail rcoeived-in an onvelope-will-not-fre
11. Personal Business Mail Needing Special Handling A jail sergeant ortheprograms director mayapprove mail that needs special handling so an inmatecan conductpersonal business. For example, the use of abusiness reply envelopeto
4ofl9

CC 000616

EXHIBIT I: Page 4 of 19

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-9 Filed 10/16/12 Page 5 of 19

October 22,2010

J-12-1J 12 1

send a document back to the originating firm or signing a mailed-inpersonal check to make a rent or car payment or renew a driver's license. Such a check must not have a blank payee line, The inmate must act to add a cosigner to a checking account or make other arrangements to prevent reoccurrenceof this need. Supporting documents, such as payment coupons or rent contracts, must accompany any personal business mail.

5 of 19
CC 000617
EXHIBIT I: Page 5 of 19

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-9 Filed 10/16/12 Page 6 of 19

I J-12-lJ-4-3-^

October 22, 2010

LEGAL AND OFFICIAL MAIL
12. Legal and Official Mat!
Jail staffmust protect therights of inmates toprivileged, confidential communication with
theirattorneys, the courts, andconfiningauthorities.
a. The sender is responsible for legitimately, properly, and clearly marking and addressing lega and official mailso thatjailstaff recognize it andtreat it asconfidential.
(1) The return address on all incoming legal and official mail must have the sender's job, agency, or firm titleand address either commercially preprinted ontheenvelope ora label, orasan inkstamp. The sender's name should behandwritten if notpreprinted.
Staff will treat all mail with returnaddresses that are completely handwritten as personal mail.
(2) The words "Legal Mail," "Official Mail," or similar designation must appear on the address sideof the envelope. Jail staffwillnotassume thecontents of anyletter from an attorney, law firm, orgovernment official is legal orofficial mail.
(3) Jail staff will treat improperly marked or addressed mail as personal mail.
b. Staffmugl ngt open recognized legal orofficial mail outside the presence of the inmate. They may open itinthepresence ofthe inmate to inspect it for contraband, but they must
not read its contents.
c. A staff membermust writea Jail Incident Reportifhe orsheinadvertently opensa piece of recognizable legal orofficial mail outside thepresence of theinmate.
d. Before tbe letter leaves thepod, pod deputies mustverify that any letter marked as legal or official mail is addressed toa person that qualifies for that privacy protection. Pod deputies will contact a shift sergeant if they suspect fraud.
e. Jail staff will pursue administrative, criminal, and disciplinary actions, as fitting, against
all those involved in the fraudulent use oflegal or official mail designations.
13. Contents of Envelopesand Parcels(Legal and Official Mail Only)
Anenvelope may only contain written correspondence that meets the definition oflegal or official mail. A parcel mayonly contain up tothree books orthree periodicals. Mail handlers will consider any other item inthe envelope orparcel as contraband and treat it as prohibited
"mail.'
14. Pre-Stamped Envelopes
Jail staffwill make pre-stamped First Class business sizeorroanila envelopes available for inmates tobuyfrom the commissary for legal orofficial mail. Indigent inmates may obtain pre-stamped envelopes for lega) or official mail per paragraph 6. Misrepresentation oflegal orofficial mail is strictly prohibited and mayresult in disciplinary action against theinmate

6 of 19

CC 000618

EXHIBIT I: Page 6 of 19

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-9 Filed 10/16/12 Page 7 of 19

October 22,2010

j-12-lJ-12-1

sender. An inmate mayask to mailanoversize oroverweight envelope using special postal services procedureslisted below.
15. Certified Mail Limits for Legal or Official Mail An inmate maysend upto two letters ascertified legal orofficial mail ina30-day period. The inmatemust have sufficient funds in his orher accountto pay forthe service.The jail administrative sergeant oracommand officer maymake exceptions tothevolume of certified mailan inmate sends and may approve credit to allow an indigent inmate to send certified legal or official mail.
16. Requests for Certified Mail An inmatethatneedsto send a letter using certifiedmail must fill out a Request for Certified Mail form (WCJ-119). Only apodsergeant ora programs director can approve thisrequest
and it mustbe for thepurpose of mailing legal, official, ormaterials related toaninmate's rehabilitation program that have been screened and approved by the programs director. The pod sergeant orprograms director will ensure that theinmate's correspondence isready to mail at the time of the request If an inmate's request is approved, the podsergeant or programs director will forward therequest toJail Administration.
a. Jail administrative staff will verify if the inmate has sufficient funds in bis or account
before processing any request. They will forward requests from indigent inmates tothe jail administrative sergeant orcorporal."Jail administration staffwill fill outthenecessary U.S. Postal Service forms—Receipt forCertified Mail (PS Form 3800) and Domestic Return Receipt (PS Form 3811). They will give the letter and the forms tojail accounting staff; accounting staffwillmailtheletter and charge theinmate for the postal fees forthese special services. The request form (WCJ-119) will bethe source document authorizing the
charge.' "
b. Staffwill pass the receipt on tothe inmate when it returns in incoming mail. They will return the Domestic ReturnReceiptpostcard to the postofficeif the inmate is no longer in
jail or at the CCC.
17. Other Special Postal Services An inmate willusean Inmate Request form (WCJ-12) to request permission tomail oversize
oroverweight items orfor other special postal services. If ajail sergeant orcommand officer approve?such arequest, jail administration staffwill coordinate with jail accounting staffto
mail the item and chargethe inmate the postal fees.
PUBLICATIONS
18. Publications
An inmate must havesomeone outside thejail prepay foranypublication be orsbereceives. An inmate maynotengage in anydelayed payment orcredit ordering of publications while
inside the jaiL

7 of 19

CC 000619

EXHIBIT I: Page 7 of 19

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-9 Filed 10/16/12 Page 8 of 19

J-12-1J 13 1

October 22,2010

19. Books
An inmate may receive up to three books on a single mail delivery day. Books must come directly from the publisher, a book club, or a bookstore. Books may be new or used. They may not be largerthan 9 inches by 12 inches.They may not have plastic or.metal bindings. Either hardbackor paperback books areacceptable for general populationinmates. Inmates in segregation, including medical segregation,may only receive paperbackbooks from recognized sources. Mail handlers will considerany other item in the envelope or parcel as contraband and treat it as prohibited mail.
20. Periodicals
An inmate may receive up to two periodicals on a single mail delivery day. Periodicals must be new and be delivered directly from the publisher or a bookstore.
Prohibited publications, books or periodicals.
The iail must determine whether a specific publication, book or periodical violates jail rules. This determination roust be made on an issue-bv-issue basis, and it js unacceptable to put a blanket prohibition on all issues ofa certain publication or periodical. If an issue of a publication, book or periodicalis determined to violateiail rules, it shouldbe returned to the
sender and notification to the sender and the inmate should be made pursuant to paragraph 32.
MONEY-BY-MAIL
21. Cashier's Check and Money Order Limits Jailstaffwill only accept, with limits, cashier checks, money orders, andgovernment checks, payable only to the inmate, for creditto aninmate's account Staff will callthe issuerto verify the amount jf they suspect forgery or the inmateor senderhas a historyof forgery. All checks and money orders must be signed properly. Acceptable sources and amount limits arethe following:
a. For money orders from merchants: $20per sender per day. b. Forcashier checks or money ordersfrom banks or the USPS: $100 per senderper day. c. For governmentchecks: No limit, but the check is subject to verification that the inmate is
eligible to receive it (Jail accounting staffwill do the verifying.)
22. Processing Money
The primary mail handlerwill open allincoming mail andremoveanycashandnegotiable instruments. J^wrijttenjsojTes^^
a.<;aprohiT3itedk"emV*WHY"?^\\""""~" \"^
a. For cashand acceptable negotiableinstruments within limit—
(1) The primarymail handler will—
(a) Fill out a Money-by-Mail Receipt(WCJ-30) for the totalreceived for deposit to
each inmate's account

8 of 19

CC 000620

EXHIBIT I: Page 8 of 19

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-9 Filed 10/16/12 Page 9 of 19

October 22, 2010

J-12-1J-K-4-

(b) Place all money orders and checks in one Cash Envelope (WCJ-196). List the money^^-
order or check number and amount on the outside of the envelope.Total the amountsSj^rS'i'1
of all enclosed items.
(c) Check to sec if any bill of SI 0 or more is counterfeit. (d) Place all currency in a separate Cash Envelope.Account for the denominations on
the face of the envelope. Total the amounts of all enclosed items. (e) Take both Cash Envelopes to the intake area and drop tbem in the safe. (f) Distribute the Money-by-Mail Receipts: yellow copy to the property room; white
copy to the booking file, and pink copy to the inmate.
(2) Propertyroom staff will credit the inmate's account with the amount listed on the Money-by-Mail Receipt and sendthe inmate a copy of the creditreceipt. (The inmate does not have to sign the credit receipt.The clerk shouldwrite "mailed in" on the signature line.)
The primary mail handler will return negotiable instruments to thesenderthat exceed limits, are from unacceptable sources, or arc otherwise unauthorized, such as payroll, personal, or two-party checks. To return the instrument, the mail handler will—
(1) Send a Returned Mai) form letter (WCJ-133-FL) to the sender along with the instrument being returned. Note on the letter the amount, number,and issuing institution of the check. Note the payee's name if it was not the inmate.
(2) Includea copy of the Inmate Mail Guide(WCJ-128) in the letter returning the
instrument
Send the inmate a copy of the form letter and keep a mail file copy for reference

REGULATING INMATE MAIL

23. Restrictions on Outgoing Mail Recipients
Ajail command offioar-mayprohibit an inmate from-aending unwonted moil toa-specifio person oroddrosc afrthe-requesfe oftoo person, la thecoae-of-a-minor; thoparent-or legal guiirdian-may-makg-the-requeafc Inmates who areprohibited from sending mail toa specific
recipient pursuant to a valid court order will not be allowed to send mail to that recipient and
maybe disciplined for attempting to do so. I
24. Regulating Inmate Mail Written in a Foreign Language Incoming mail written in a language otherthan English must be interpreted priorto delivery. The interpreter of inmatemail may be a designee from the Sheriffs Office or other law
enforcement agency.

^.mnmji-i; _. =
tt&MM&mmffimwm

If. after translation.-there are reasonable grounds to believe that the is-o-pes
language cententscontents of any mail couldposea risk to facility, commi
security, it will not be delivered. SJKjjmail ^^^^.Wllconpscatcj^^ace OUt^

CC 000621 EXHIBIT I: Page 9 of 19

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-9 Filed 10/16/12 Page 10 of 19

J-12-1J 12 1

October 22,2010

theinmate's property storage, and wil.1 return incoming mail tothesender, in each case giving
notice to the inmate or sender per paragraph 32 below.

25. Correspondence with Victims
Inmates maynotcorrespond with a victim of a crime for which theyare currently in custody in either pretrial or sentenced status. A jailcommand officermaymakeexceptions.

26. Mail with Health Care Appointment Information
To ensure transport security, a mail handler will confiscate anymail withinformation about upcoming health care appointments, and notify theinmate and sender oftheconfiscationr The
mail handler should inform heath care staff of the letter.

27. Gang-Related and Security Threat Group Materials In Mail
A mail handler willphotocopy incoming oroutgoing mail with gang-related orsecurity threat • group material and send thecopy totheSecurity Threat Group (STG) team. The mail haodler
' willconfiscate themail as a prohibited itemr and notify the sender perparagraph 32.? A iail STG team memberwillact according to procedures in policy J—14—13, Security Threat
Groups.

28:-Gorrespond<MK;e-Gourees
uiiojiacxacnf

srial-withotrt-ajail-^emmai!

59t28. Operating Commercial Business and Nonprofit Organization Mail
An inmate may notoperate a business ornonprofit organization from thejail by mail.
30:29. Commercial Business Transactions and Government Services by Mail
An inmate maynot conduct commercial business transactions bymail orrequest services from a government agency without theapproval of ajail command officer orin thecase of student loans, thejail programs manager orprogram educators. Examples of transactions and
requests include:
a. Buyingorselling anitem, real property, orservice b. Applying for a creditcard c. Applying fora commercial orstudentloan d. Opening a bank account e. Enrolling in a college course f. Applying for food stamps g. Any obligation of funds to which the inmate does not haveaccess
3J^30. Mail Monitoring
Absentacourt order, ajailcommand officer willonlyapprove a request to monitor a specific inmate's mail becausethere is reasonable belief thatthere is a legitimatepenological or public safety reason todoso.including butnotlimited tothewelfare and safety orthe inmates or. . staff, good orderor security of the facility, to protect property, tp preventthe commission of

10 of 19

CC 000622

EXHIBIT I: Page 10 of 19

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-9 Filed 10/16/12 Page 11 of 19

October 22,2010

J-12-lJ-Jg-J-

additional crimes or conspiracy to commit a crime,to thwartattemptsto destroy or tamper with evidence of crimes or to harassor intimidatewitnesses? The requester from outside the
jail must complete aRequest for Inmate Mail Monitoring (WCJ-194). Anapproved request will expire 30days after itsapproval date. The requester must submit anewrequest to continue monitoring. Jail staff willread theinmate's mailand decide ifanyofit applies to the request and will onlyforward copies ofmail that does apply. The requester must pick upthe copies inperson if from an agency within Washington County. The senior administrative
assistant in Jail Administration will coordinate the mail monitoring program.
33^31. Confiscating Prohibited Mail
Normally, mail handlers confiscate prohibited items. The sender of confiscated mail must be notified pursuant to paragraph 32. Staff-^Fhey may return prohibited mailto a sender if it is in, thebest interest of thejail not to store it, suchas perishables.
a/ Mail handlers will confiscate postcards, letters, cards, and publications in whole rather than removing orobliterating individual pages, passages, orwords with prohibited content Theywill confiscate items that exceed anumber limit as an entire setrather than passing ona selection that would meet the maximum number allowed.
b. If personal correspondence accompanies money sent bymail, the mail handlers will deposit the money into the inmate's accounting"[the corresjondence will beconfiscated. ^
WHY arewe confiscatingthe correspondence? What is ourrationale? Notification to the
sender must be sent pursuant to paragraph 32.
c. Mail handlers will useaProperty Transfer and Confiscation form (WCJ-32) toinform the inmateof the confiscation and use a copyasa tagforthe items. They will place confiscated itemsin theinmate's property storage, unless it is evidence in ajail disciplinary action oracrime. They will handle evidence according to the applicable policy: J-7-6, Rules and Discipline or J-14-16, Criminal Acts and Investigation. Staff will notnotify theinmate orsender if they confiscate items that are part of acriminal
investigation.
d. Mail handlers mustnotifythesender in writing that mail theysentwas confiscatedjQLnot
delivered to the inmate, unless the inmate is no longer in custody. They should use a
•Confiscated Mail Notice postcard (WCJ-129) for thenotification. Anynotice will give the reason and explain how thesender can informally appeal the.action.
e. A mail handler maydestroy any item inmail that presents ahealth orsafety risk if it were to be stored in thejail orreturned to sender, and notify thesender bv sending a
Confiscated Mail Notice^
PROCESSING INCOMING MAIL
33t32. Initial Processing of Incoming Mail
The primary mail handler will process incoming mail for inmates in the following manner

11 of 19

CC 000623

EXHIBIT I: Page 11 of 19

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-9 Filed 10/16/12 Page 12 of 19

J-12-1J 13 1

October 22,2010

a. Returnmail to thesender(unopened ifpossible) orthe USPSif any of the following apply:

(1) Incoming mailthatis nota standard postcard, exceptlegal or official mail

(2) The addressee cannot be identified because of missingorincomplete information

(3) Prohibited items areaffixed to the mail

(4) Foreign substances or stains areon the mail

(5) Odors, including perfume,arecoming from the mail

v

(6) The mailis from an inmatein another correctional facility

(7) The mail is from an inmateon electronic home detention

(8) It can otherwise beidentified as being orcontaining prohibited mail before it is opened

b. Handle mail without a return name and addressaccording to paragraph 8.

c. Look up.the inmate's name on an Alpha List Sorted byName report and write the inmate's pod number or"CCC" on the mail. Return mail tothe sender if the inmate isnot
in jail or at the CCC.
d. Separate legal and official mail from personal mail.
c. Open and inspect the contents of personal mail for contraband items and money.

(1) Remove and process money for deposit toan inmate's account according toparagraph
• 22.
(2) Confiscate any prohibited item. Correspondence enclosed inamoney-by-raail
envelope is a prohibited item.
(3) Have ajail sergeant orjail command officer look atpersonal business mail that may need approval for special handling. If approved, provide handling instructions tothe
pod deputy.
f. Removebooks from theirmailing parcel and place them inaziplock bagwiththeoriginal
mailing label.
g. Place mail ina foreign language in the"translation required" box. Take steps tolocate a staffmember who speaks mat language. If mail cannot betranslated within areasonable
time, the mail handler will forward the mail to a commandofficer.
h. Sort mail bypod and place in the pod mail bins in intake before 2130 hours (9:30 p.m.).

i. Place mailto return to the postofficein theCentral Services pickup box.

j. Place mail for CCC inmates in theCCC mail basket.

34r33. Pod Processing of Incoming Mail
Grave shift pod deputies willpick up themail for their pods when coming onduty. They, or . other staffif appropriate, willprocess theinmate mail for their pods as follows:

12 of 19

CC 000624

EXHIBIT I: Page 12 of 19

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-9 Filed 10/16/12 Page 13 of 19

October 22, 2010

J-12-1J 12 1

' a. Scan all personal postcards and publications for prohibited content Read in-depth only if
there is a legitimate jail interest
b. Remove postage stamps, flap-sealing tape, and gummed and adhesive address labels. (Remove labels only onpersonal mail—leave labels onlegal and official mail).
c. Remove subscription-ordering postcards from magazines.
d. Open recognizable legal and official mail in front of theinmate and inspect it onlyfor contraband—not content (Deputies, or otherstaff,must notread the contents.)
e. Deliver themail within eight hours of receiptPassing mail under.an inmate's door and placing booksby thedoor is acceptable.
f. ' Have the inmate write his or her name and booking number on the inside flap of books.
For magazines without mailing labels directly attached, have theinmate write hisorher name and bookingnumberonthe cover.Newspapers do not needmarking.
3634. Mail as Nuisance Contraband
Inmates are responsible for getting rid of any mailed item that puts them over the limits of . allowed fornuisance contraband underpolicyJ—7-6, Rules andDiscipline. An inmatemay transfer items to their bin intheproperty room using procedures in policy J-6-14, Property Transfer. Property room staffwill follow procedures inpolicy J-6-29, Inmate Property Control, if tHe volume ofmail an inmate transfers to hisorher property binexceeds the
remaining storagecapacityof the bin.
OUTGOING MAIL
3635. General Mail Rules for Inmates
Inmates—
a. May onlyuselead orcolored pencils to writecorrespondence. b.• May only usepostcards sold through thecommissary orissued bythe jail.
c. Must send legal, official or approved letters, notes, or other written materials using the USPSjj
or other approvedsystem.
d. Must put their first and last name, booking number, and the jail address as the return address. e. May notdraw orwrite anything on tbe outside of an envelope other than name and
address information and "legal" or "official"maildesignations. f. Maynot send outjail forms for others to fill outonbehalf of theinmate. g. May notsend mail toanother inmate ata correctional facility orone on electronic home
detention.
h. May notsend prohibited mail. Theyarc subject to disciplinary action for doing so. i. Should pass on prohibited mail rules topeople and businesses with whom they correspond.

13 of 19

CC 000625

EXHIBIT I: Page 13 of 19

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-9 Filed 10/16/12 Page 14 of 19

J-12-1J-12 1

October 22, 2010 Wx$i Formatted; Font; 12 ft NotSmajl caps"

3^36. Inspection of Outgoing Envelopes Before legal or official mail leaves the pod, pod deputies will verify the contents are legal or official mailbefore sealing the envelope. The inspectingdeputywill initial andwrite their
- DPSST number on the flap to show this verification. As appropriate,the deputy will returnit to the inmate, confiscate it as evidence in disciplinary proceedings, or contact a jail sergeant ' or jail command officer if—
a. The return name, booking number, and address are incomplete or false. b. There is drawing or non-address-related writing on the envelope. c. There is prohibited material on the envelope. d. Addressee informationis missing that could cause the letterto be undeliverableand
returned to the jail. e. It is amanila envelope whose addresseedoes not meet the criteria for being legal or
official mail or being a program-related certificate or diploma. f. They believe the envelope should be opened for a legitimatereason.
38t37. Opening and Inspecting Contents of Outgoing Mail Mail handlingstaff will not readoutgoinglegal or official mail unlessthey have the approval of a sergeantor command officer.
a. .A jail sergeantorjail command officer may have staff read outgoing mail at any time and for anyreason,except for legalor official mail. This authorization may be by housing area, classof inmate, individualinmate, or other basis. It may alsobe on an ongoing or a random
. basisand for any length oftime. However, a jail command officermust approveany ongoingmonitoring of a specific inmate, as previously noted.
b. Mail handlers will notify a jail sergeantorjail commandofficerif—
(1) They suspect outgoingmail contains contraband. (2) It may present a safetyor securityissue based on the addressee. .(3)Theyhavereasonable suspicion themailmaycontain other contents of legitimate jail
interest
39*38. Posting Outgoing Mail
Inmates will placeoutgoing mail in the mail bin for the pod. Jail staffwill return the mailbin to the intakearea when they go off duty. The primary mail handler will pick up outgoing mail from the intake areaeach normal business day. He or she will placethe mail in a Central Services pickup box before theregularly scheduled afternoon pickup on thatsame day.
40N39. Mali Delivery
Staff shoulddeliver mail to inmates within 24 hours of receiptat thejail. Reasonable exceptions areallowed whenspecial processing is required, such asfor mail delivered latein the day,needing translation, or items held as evidence in a criminal or disciplinary investigation, etc.

14 of 19

CC 000626

EXHIBIT I: Page 14 of 19

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-9 Filed 10/16/12 Page 15 of 19

October 22,2010

J-12-1J-43-4-

ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES
4fc40. Mail Rales
The administrative lieutenant will ensure mail rules are a partof inmate orientation and the Inmate Manual. The lieutenant will make copies of the Inmate Mail Guide available to the public Civilianstaff members who discoverapparent misconductas aresult ofreading inmate mail will report it via the chain of command.
42*tl. Mail Complaints Staff members will directmail complaints from the publicto ajail command officer. The officer should attempt to respond to the complainantwithin two businessdays. Inmates will use the inmate grievance process to lodge complaints or ask for the return of confiscated
items.
' 43*42. Mail Handler Supervision and Training The administrative lieutenantwill supervise the day-to-day handling ofinmatemail. He or she will assign staff to perform primary inmatemailduties. Staff who initially handleor open incominginmatemail shouldattend Central Services training on the safehandling of strange
or suspicious packages orreceive similar training from another source. Those who openmail should also receive trainingon recognizinggangand securitythreat group symbols and signs.
44V43. Change of Address Responsibilities and Forwarding Mail Inmatesareresponsible for submittingchangeof address requests to the publishers of the periodicals theyreceiveand to others thatsend themmail atthejail. Mail handlers will normally not forward mail for inmates who are no longer in jail custody.They will return correspondence andpackages unopened to the sender andthrow periodicals away.
4S^_Holding Man Mail handlerswill normally not hold mail for inmates released ortemporarily transferred to another facility. A jail command officer may make exceptions.
46*45. Mail for Inmates at the Community Corrections Center (CCC) Inmates in the sheriffs custody at the Community Corrections Center(CCC)aresubject to tbe samemail privileges, rulesandrestrictions as inmateslodged in the countyjail. A mail handler will sendpostcards, periodicals, allowed books andlegal orofficialmail over to the
inmateby placing them in theCCCmailbasketin Jail Administration. The mailhandler will contactajail sergeant orjail command officerif be or she finds criminal contraband or questionable material. For othercontraband, the mailhandler willreturn it to the senderor confiscate it andsendit to a CCC supervisor. The mail handler willnotethe name of tbe CCC supervisor on the Property Transfer and Confiscation form (WCJ-32).
4?t46. Returning Mail to Sender
To return postcards, a mail handler will use a stickeror stamp marked "return to sender," note the reason for refusalon the stamp, obliterate any mail-sorting barcode,andreturnit to the

15 of 19

CC 000627

EXHIBIT I: Page 15 of 19

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-9 Filed 10/16/12 Page 16 of 19

I J-12-1 J 12 1

October 22,2010

postoffice. To return unopened mail(other than postcards), a mail handler will use the "return to sender"stampin placeofthe sticker.
To returnmail that was opened,a mail handler must repackage it and send it at tbe expense of thejail to the sender. The mail handler will include a copy of the Returned Mail form letter (WCJ-133-FL) and the Inmate Mail Guide(WCJ-128) ifhe or she repackagestbe mail.
Mail handlers will useaProperty Transfer and Confiscation form (WCJ-32) to inform the
inmate when mail is returned to sender.

FORMS USED
Cash Envelope (WCJ-196) Confiscated Mail Notice (WCJ-129) Domestic Return Receipt (PS Form 3811) Gang Activity Report (InteragencyGangTeam) Inmate Mail Guide (WCJ-128 Inmate Request (WCJ-12) Jail Incident Report (CMS) Money-by-Mail Receipt (WCJ-30) Property Transferand Confiscation (WCJ-32) Receipt forCertifiedMail (PS Form3800) Request for Certified Mail (WCJ-119) Request forInmate Mail Monitoring (WCJ-194) Returned Mail (WCJ-133-FL)
REFERENCES
• US Constitution,Amendment 1 (free speech)
• US Postal Service Domestic Mail Manual • ORS 40.225 Rule 503, Lawyer-Client Privilege . • ORS 169.076, Standards for Local Correctional Facilities • WCSO Policies:
o J-6-14, Property Transfer o S-6-29, Inmate Property Control o J-7-4, Inmate Grievances o J-7-6, Rules and Discipline o J-12-5, Professional Visits o J—14—5, Contraband Control and Searches o J—14—13, Security Threat Groups • o J-14-16, Criminal Acts and Investigation

16 of 19

CC 000628
EXHIBIT I: Page 16 of 19

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-9 Filed 10/16/12 Page 17 of 19

October 22,2010

J-12-1J-13 1

Appendix 1: Prohibited Mail
Jail staff will not allow an inmate to receive or send mail that—
1. Contains—
a. Threats of physical barm, blackmail, extortion, or other criminal activity b. Plans for escape, criminal activity, or activity that violates jail rules c. Gang-related material d. Information that ifconveyed, could result in physicalharmto someone e. Sexually explicit materials £ Inflammatory material g. Contraband materials (see definition on page 1 andparagraphs 33-35), includingbut not
limited to such commonly mailed items as: (1) Books larger than 9 by 12 inches or with plastic or metalbindings (2) More than three books in a single piece of mail (3) Foreign substances,, such as:
(a) Bodily fluids
(b) Lipstick or perfume
(c) Glue'or paint
(d) Anything with an unusual stain or odorthatindicates a foreign substance maybe
present
Is written in code or suspected code Is written in a foreign languagenot read by a mail handleror other reasonably available
staff member
Was sentby an inmate to a third party who then forwarded to anotherinmate Was a form ofwritten communication not sent through the USPS or other approved system Is incoming mail and comes from an inmate lodged in tbe Washington County Jail, Community Corrections Center, or other corrections-monitored facility that lodges incustody inmates.This includesmental hospitalsandtreatment facilities.
7. Is to or from an inmate on electronic home detention. 8. Is to or from a victim of a crime that the inmate is in custody for in eitherpretrial or
sentenced status. 9. Would violate a court order.
10.May produce a hostilework environment, such assexualharassment 11. Does not promotejail program and rehabilitation treatment goals.

17 of 19

CC 000629

EXHIBIT I: Page 17 of 19

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-9 Filed 10/16/12 Page 18 of 19

I J-12-1J-12 1

October 22,

12.Is not an approved commercial business or government servicetransaction. 13. Is a credit or deferred billing transaction, such as "bill me later" subscriptionsor
merchandise bought on credit or collect-on-delivery terms.
14.Violates negotiable instrument limits on sources and maximum dollar amount 15. Is fraudulently marked as legal or official mail.

18 of 19

CC 000630
EXHIBIT I: Page 18 of 19

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-9 Filed 10/16/12 Page 19 of 19

October 22,2010
Addressing inmate mcH,3 Addressing outgoingmall, 12 Appendix 1:ProhibitedMoO.IS Books, 7, II, 16 Cash Envelope (WCJ-196), 7 Cashier? checks, 7 Central Service*, 3,4,11,13 Cortf fled mall, tending, 5 Change cfeddrcss, 14 Check Emits, 7 Commercial business mail, 9 Community Corrections Center
(CCC) null, H OomptsfsL ittbiI. 13 Coaflsaited Man Notice (WCJ-129),
10 .
ConiUcaliac incomingmail, II prohibited mail,9
Contraband
as prohibited mail, 16 CCC mail, 14 dcfroWoa,! inspceing incoming mail for,10 nuisance, 12 suspectinain outgoingman, 13 Correspondence courses,9 Correspondencewith victims, 8 Delivery In pod, II Delivery of incoming, 13 electronic home detention inmate, 16 Envelope* inspecting outgoing. 12 C-aog-rtlaled material as prctubtedmail, 16 in mail, 9 Governmcni cheeks,7 Government services by mall, 9 Outgoing rmQ, 12 -Health care appointment information,
8
Health Care Appointment Information, 8
Holding matt, 14 Incoming mail
initial processing,10 processing in pods,11 sources of, 3 Indigent definition, I rnJ8at£trrail,3 Inflammatory material as prohibited mail, 16 ' defslitioo, 1 Inmate Mall Galde (WCJ-128), 8,13 Inmate Request (WCJ-12), 6 Jail accounting stair, 6
Jail command officer
approvingbusinesstransaction, 9

INDEX approvins correspondence course,9 handling complarnu, 13 restricting oulgoiBgmai], 8 Jank mail, 1,4 Legal maO. 1,5,10,11,17
Mail
addressing,12
addressing incoming,3 as nuisance contraband, 12
eonuncrctai business, 9 complaints,13 confiscating, 9 deliveryof mccming. 13
destroying. 10 holding, 14 indigentinmate, 3 inmates at CCC, 14 inspecting incoming,10 inspectingoutgoing, 12
limits, 2 needing translating, 11 nonprofitorganization, 9
outgoing. 12 personal business,3 petting outgomc IJ processing incomingin pods, 11
proeesstag incomingtojail, 10
prohibited, 9,16 reading incoming,II reading legalor official mail,5, 11 readingoutgoing, 12 receivinggovernment services,9 rcfusIog,4 restrictingoutgoing, 8
restrictions, 2 returning to sender,10,12,14 rules, 13 rules for inmates, 12 sendingcertified,6 Mall complaints, 13
Mall buadler definition, I
supervision andtraining, 13
Mail monitoring, 9 Manila envelope, 12 Money order limits, 7 Moncy,proeesslng,7 Moncy-by-molt, 7 NegotiableInstrument
definition for,2 limit or source violations, 17 Nonprofit organization mall, 9 Nuisance contraband, 12 Official mail, 2,5,10, U, 17 Outgoing sail inspecting, 12 posting, 13 reading, 12 restricting. 8

J-12-IJ 12 1
Parcels, contents or, 5 Payrollcheck, 8 Periodical, definition for, 2 Periodicals, 2,7 Personal business mail
needingspecialhandling.4 receiving, 3 specialhandling,11 Personal check, 8
Personal mall
definition, 2 disciplinary sanction for,3 Photocopies, 5 Postage stamps, 5 Postage-due mall, 4 Printed sheets, 5 Prohibited mail confiscating, 9 Hitor, 16 Prohibiting mail, reason for, 3 Property Transfer end Confiscation (WCJ-32), |0,14 Publications, 6 Reading Incoming mail, 11 Reading legal or official mail, 5, II Reading outgoing mail, 12 Refusing mail, 4 Request for Certified Mail (WCJ-
. US)., 6 Request for Inmate Mail Monitoring
(WCJ-194),9 Restricting null, generally, 2 Restricting outgoing mail, 8
Return address
incomingmail,4 outgoing mail, 12 Returned Mail (WCJ-133-FL), 8,14 Returning mall, JO, 12,14
Rules
all mail, 13 availableto pubic, 13 for inmates, 12 outgoing mail, 12 ScxuaOyexplicitmaterial, 16 Sexually explicit, definition for, 2 Sexually harassingmail, 16 Special postal services,6 Translating mail, 11 Two-party check,2,8 Victim, corresponding with, 8 WCJ-119. Set Request for Certified Mail WCJ-12. &? Inmate Request WCJ-129. 5«r Confiscated Mail
Notice WCJ-133-FL. See Returned Mall WCJ-30. Jee Money-by-Mail Receipt
WCJ-32, fee Property Transfer and
Confiication

19 of 19
OC 000631
EXHIBIT I: Page 19 of 19

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 1 of 73

Human Rights Defense Center
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL MAIL: ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
December 23, 2011
Steven Adams 2011002552
Columbia County Jail
901 Port Ave
St Helens, OR 97051
RE: Correspondence concerning PLN literature
Dear Mr. Adams,
I am an attorney for the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC). I have been informed that you may have an interest in Prison Legal News (PLN). Monthly publication of PLN is one of ITRDC's projects along with the distribution of books and other literature of interest to prisoners.
I have been informed that PLN gave you a complimentary six month subscription. You should have already received your first sample via first-class mail. PLN also sent you a packet of informational brochures in a regular sized envelope. Additionally, PLN mailed a book to you about prisoners' rights and the American legal system called Protecting Your Health and Safety.
I am writing to ask whether you have received each of these three (3) items which have all been mailed separately. At HRDC we take censorship very seriously and we rely on prisoners to determine which prisons and jails are interfering with PLN's First Amendment rights. If you have not received all three of the items mentioned above please write to me and let me know. You should also be receiving a new issue of PLN every month for 6 months. If you receive a notice that any of PLN's publications have been censored by staff, please consider filing a grievance and inquiringabout the reason for the censorship. If possible, please provide copies of those grievances and any other related documentation to my office. Finally, if you know of other prisoners there who might be interested in our publications and who might be incarcerated for more than just a few months, please share PLN's address with them and encourage them to write in and request free information with no obligation. Thank you in advance for your kind attention
to this letter.
Very Truly Yours,
HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

cc: Paul Wright

By: Lance T. Weber, Esq.
PO Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303 Phone: 802-579-1309 Fax: 866-735-7136
Email: lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org

PLNCOL-00919

EXHIBIT J: Page 1 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 2 of 73

Human Rights Defense Center
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
confidential legal mail: attorney work product
March 12,2012
Richard Bahr 2011000357
Columbia County Jail
901 Port Ave
St Helens, OR 97051
RE: Correspondence concerning PLN literature
Dear Mr. Bahr,
I am an attorney for the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC). You have been identified as someone who may have a need for the information provided byPrison Legal News (PLN). Monthly publication of PLN is one of HRDC's projects along with the distribution of books and other literature of interest to prisoners at high risk of having their rights violated.
PLN has given you a complimentary six month subscription. This month you should expect to receive yourfirst subscription issue and you should receive a newissueevery month for 5 months thereafter. You should have already received your free introductory copy via first-class mail. PLN also sent you a packet
of informational brochures in a regular sized envelope. Additionally, PLN mailed a book to you about
prisoners' rights and theAmerican legal system called Protecting Your Health and Safety as a free gift.
I am writing to investigate whether you have received each of these three (3) items which have all been mailed separately. At HRDC, we rely on prisoners to help protect PLN's First Amendment rights. If you have not received all three of the items mentioned above (or any of the monthly subscription issues) please write to me and let me know. I'm also interested in hearing about any other problems you've been experiencing with incoming or outgoing mail. If you receive a notice thatany of PLN's publications have been censored by staff, please consider filing a grievance and inquiring about the reason for the censorship. If possible, please provide me with copies of those grievances. Finally, if you know of other prisoners who might be interested in PLN's publications and who will be incarcerated for several months or more, please share PLN's address with them and encourage them to write in and request a free subscription. Thank you in advance for your kind attention tothis letter. I wish you well in your struggles
and I look forward to hearing from you.
Very Truly Yours,
HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

cc: Paul Wright

By: Lance T. Weber, Attorney at Law
PO Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303 Phone: 802-579-1309 Fax: 866-735-7136
Email: lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org

PLNCOL-00920

EXHIBIT J: Page 2 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 3 of 73

Human Rights Defense Center
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL MAIL: ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
December 23, 2011
Arthur Bates Jr 2011002343
Columbia County Jail
901 Port Ave
St Helens, OR 97051
RE: Correspondence concerning PLN literature
Dear Mr. Bates,
I am an attorney for the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC). I have been informed that you may have an interest in Prison Legal News (PLN). Monthly publication of PLN is one of HRDC's projects along with the distribution of books and other literature of interest to prisoners.
I have been informed that PLN gave you a complimentary six month subscription. You should have already received your first sample via first-class mail. PLN also sent you a packet of informational brochures in a regular sized envelope. Additionally, PLN mailed a book to you about prisoners' rights and the American legal system called Protecting Your Health and Safety.
I am writing to ask whether you have received each of these three (3) items which have all been mailed separately. At HRDC we take censorship very seriously and we rely on prisoners to determine which prisons and jails are interfering with PLN's First Amendment rights. If you have not received all three of the items mentioned above please write to me and let me know. You should also be receiving a new issue of PLN every month for 6 months. If you receive a notice that any of PLN's publications have been censored by staff, please consider filing a grievance and inquiring about the reason for the censorship. If possible, please provide copies of those grievances and any other related documentation to my office. Finally, if you know of other prisoners there who might be interested in our publications and who might be incarcerated for more than just a few months, please share PLN's address with them and encourage them to write in and request free information with no obligation. Thank you in advance for your kind attention
to this letter.
Very Truly Yours,
HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

cc: Paul Wright

1/
By: Lance T. Weber, Esq.
PO Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303 Phone: 802-579-1309 Fax: 866-735-7136 Email: lweber(2)humanri2htsdefensecenter.org

PLNCOL-00921

EXHIBIT J: Page 3 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 4 of 73

Human Rights Defense Center
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights

confidential legal mail: attorney work product

February 23, 2011

Robert Beckwith 2011000082
Columbia County Jail
901 Port Ave
St Helens, Oregon 97051 RE: Correspondence concerning legal publications

Dear Mr. Beckwith,

I am an attorney for the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC). Thank you for your interest in Prison LegalNeM's (PLN). Monthly publication of PLN is one of HRDC's projects.

We have enrolled you for a free trial subscription. You should already be in receipt of your first sample issue, which was sent via first-class mail. We are also sending you a packet of informational brochures under separate cover. Additionally, PLN mailed a book to you. Protecting Your Health and Safety. I am writing to ask for confirmation of your receipt of these three (3) items which have all been mailed separately. Additionally, please confirm that you wish to receive materials from Prison Legal News, including our magazine, books, pamphlets and
other materials.
At HRDC we take censorship very seriously and we rely on our readers to determine which prisons andjails are interfering with our publication rights. If you have not received all three of the items mentioned above within the next few weeks, please write to us and let us know. If you receive a notice that any of our publications have been censored by staff, please consider filing a grievance and exhausting all available administrative remedies available to you. If possible, please provide copiesof those grievances and any other related documentation to our office.

Finally, if you know of other prisoners there who might be interested in our publications and who will be incarcerated for at least three (3) months, please share PLN's address with them and encourage themto write us to request a free trial subscription. We thank you in advance for your

kind attention to this letter.

Very Truly Yours,

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

cc: Paul Wright

By: Lance T. Weber General Counsel

PO Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303
Phone: 802-579-1309 Fax: 866-735-7136
Email: lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org

PLNCOL-00892

EXHIBIT J: Page 4 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 5 of 73

Human Rights Defense Center
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
CONFIDENTTAL LEGAL MAIL: ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
December 23, 2011
ToniBertasso 2011002507
Columbia County Jail
901 Port Ave
St Helens, OR 97051
RE: Correspondence concerning PLN literature
Dear Toni Bertasso,
I am an attorney for the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC). I have been informed that you may have an interest in Prison Legal News (PLN). Monthly publication of PLN is one of HRDC's projects along with the distribution of books and other literature of interestto prisoners.
I have been informed that PLN gave you a complimentary six month subscription. You should have already received your first sample via first-class mail. PLN also sent you a packet of informational brochures in a regular sized envelope. Additionally, PLN mailed a book to you about prisoners' rights and the American legal system called Protecting Your Health and Safety.
I am writing to ask whether you have received each of these three (3) items which have all been mailed separately. At HRDC we take censorship very seriously and we rely on prisoners to determine which prisons and jails are interfering with PLN's First Amendment rights. If you have not received all three of the items mentioned above please write to me and let me know. You should also be receiving a new issue of PLN every month for 6 months. If you receive a notice that any of PLN's publications have been censored by staff, please consider filing a grievance and inquiring about the reason for the censorship. If possible, please provide copies of those grievances and any other related documentation to my office. Finally, if you know of other prisoners there who might be interested in our publications and who might be incarcerated for more than just a few months, please share PLN's address with them and encourage them to write in and request free information with no obligation. Thank you in advance for your kind attention
to this letter.
Very Truly Yours, HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

cc: Paul Wright

By: Lance T. Weber, Esq.
PO Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303 Phone: 802-579-1309 Fax: 866-735-7136
Email: lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org

PLNCOL-00922

EXHIBIT J: Page 5 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 6 of 73

Human Rights Defense Center
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights

CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL MAIL: ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT

February 23, 2011

Nicholas Bierman 2010001554
Columbia County Jail
901 Port Ave
St Helens, Oregon 97051
RE: Correspondence concerning legal publications

Dear Mr. Bierman,

I am an attorney for the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC). Thank you for your interest in Prison Legal News (PLN). Monthly publication ofPLN is one ofHRDC's projects.

We have enrolled you for a free trial subscription. You should already be in receipt of your first
sample issue, which was sent via first-class mail. We are also sending you a packet of
informational brochures under separate cover. Additionally, PLN mailed a book to you,
Protecting Your Health and Safety. I am writing to ask for confirmation ofyour receipt ofthese three (3) items which have all been mailed separately. Additionally, please confirm that you wish to receive materials from Prison Legal News, including our magazine, books, pamphlets and
other materials.

At HRDC we take censorship very seriously and we rely on our readers to determine which
prisons and jails are interfering with our publication rights. Ifyou have not received all three of
the items mentioned above within the next few weeks, please write to us and let us know. If you
receive a notice that any ofour publications have been censored by staff, please consider filing a grievance and exhausting all available administrative remedies available to you. If possible, please provide copies ofthose grievances and any other related documentation to our office.

Finally, if you know of other prisoners there who might be interested in our publications and
who will be incarcerated for at least three (3) months, please share PLN's address with them and encourage them to write us to request a free trial subscription. We thank you in advance for your

kind attention to this letter.

Very Truly Yours, HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

Bv: Lance T. Weber
PO Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303 Phone: 802-579-1309 Fax: 866-735-7136 Email: lweber@humanri2htsdefensecenter.0n

PLNCOL-00889

EXHIBIT J: Page 6 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 7 of 73

Human Rights Defense Center
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights

confidential legal mail: attorney work product

February 23, 2011

Daniel Butts 2011000043
Columbia County Jail
901 Port Ave
St Helens, Oregon 97051 RE: Correspondence concerning legal publications

Dear Mr. Butts,
I am an attorney for the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC). Thank you for your interest in Prison Legal News (PLN). Monthly publication of PLN is one of HRDC's projects.

We have enrolled you for a free trial subscription. You should already be in receipt of your first sample issue, which was sent via first-class mail. We are also sending you a packet of informational brochures under separate cover. Additionally, PLN mailed a book to you, Protecting Your Health andSafety. I am writingto ask for confirmation of your receipt of these three (3) items which have all been mailed separately. Additionally, please confirm that you wish to receive materials from Prison Legal News, including our magazine, books, pamphlets and
other materials.

At HRDC we take censorship very seriously and we rely on our readers to determine which prisons andjails are interfering with our publication rights. If you have not received all three of the items mentioned above within the next few weeks, please write to us and let us know. If you receive a notice that any of our publications have been censored by staff, please consider filing a grievance and exhausting all available administrative remedies available to you. If possible, please provide copies of those grievances and any other related documentation to our office.

Finally, if you know of other prisoners there who might be interested in our publications and who will be incarcerated for at least three (3) months, please share PLN's address with them and encourage them to write us to request a free trial subscription. We thank you in advance for your

kind attention to this letter.

Very Truly Yours,

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

cc: Paul Wrisht

By: Lance T. Weber
General Counsel

PO Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303
Phone: 802-579-1309 Fax: 866-735-7136
Email: lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org

PLNCOL-00881

EXHIBIT J: Page 7 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 8 of 73

! s MacDonald Hoague & Bayless
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW

705 Second Avenue Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104-1745 Tel 206.622.16D4 Fax 206.343.3961
LEGAL MAIL
Daniel Butts, 2011000043 Columbia County Jail
901 Port Avenue
St. Helens, OR 97051

August 18,2011

Kenneth A. MacDonald Retired
Miguel A. Bocanegra Andrea Brenneke Katherine C Chambsrlain Andrew T. Chan Mel Crawford Timolhy K. Ford Katrin E Frank Felicia L Gittleman Ester Greenfield
Elizabeth Poh
Amy M. Royalty Joseph R. Shaeffer
David J. Whedbee
Jesse Wing

Dear Mr. Butts:
We representPrison Legal News (PLN), which publishes a monthly journal about prisoners' rights and distributes books about legalissues affecting prisoners. We are investigating whetherthe Columbia County Jail is censoring PLN's mail to you.
PLN sent the following mail to you at the Columbia County Jail in 2011:
A. Three double-sided single-page informational brochures, enclosed together in one white standard envelope. Exhibit A is a copy of the three brochures:
1. PLN Brochure and Subscription Order Form

2.

2010 PLN Book List

3. Brochure about two books for sale: (a) The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective
Assistance of Counsel and (b)Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the United States and Canada.

B. A paperback book titled Protecting Your Health & Safety sent to you in a small brown cardboard box. The book is 325 pages. Exhibit B is a copy of the front
and back cover ofthe book.

C. Prison LegalNews's 56^>age monthly journal. Exhibit C is an exampleof the front and back cover of a Prison Legal News journal.

EXHIBIT J: Page 8 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 9 of 73
Daniel Butts, 2011000043 August 18,2011 Page 2
Based on our investigation, we understand that you did not receive one or more of the items identified above. We would like to know whether that is correct and whether you received any ofthe other materials PLN sent to you at the Columbia County Jail. Also, ifthe Jail censored mail that PLN sent to you, we would like to know whether you received written notice from the Jail that mail addressed to you was rejected and not delivered to you.
Please review the enclosed Exhibits. Then, please read the enclosed declaration and indicate with a checkmark (v ) whether you received or did not receive the PLN mailings, and— if you did not receive one or more ofthe mailings—indicate with a checkmark ( • ) whether you received or did not receive written notification that mail addressed to you was rejected by the Jail. Next, please fill in the dates you were a prisoner at the Columbia County JaiL Finally, please sign and date the declaration, state the city you signed in, and send the declaration to me (with the attachedexhibits) in the enclosedself-addressed, postagepre-paid envelope.If possible,pleaseuse a pen to completethe declaration
We need your response by August 31,2011. After you mail us your signed declaration, please call our office at (206) 622-1604, and ask to speakto Came Wilkinson Our telephone numberis registered with the telephone services utilizedby Columbia County Jail. We have other questions for you. Thank you.
Sincerely,
MacDonald Hoague & Bayless /s/Katherine C. Chamberlain Katherine C. Chamberlain
Attorney, Licensed in Oregon and Washington Enclosures)
EXHIBIT J: Page 9 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 10 of 73

Human Rights Defense Center
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
confidential legal mail: attorney work product
August 2, 2011 Rusty Campo 2011001307
Columbia Co Jail 901 Port Ave
St Helens, Oregon 97501
RE: Correspondence concerning PLN literature
Dear Mr. Campo,
I am an attorney for the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC). Thank you for your interest in Prison Legal News (PLN). Monthly publication of PLN is one of HRDC's projects. Unfortunately, sometimes prisons and jails unlawfully interfere with PLN's publication rights.
I have been informed that PLN gave you a complimentary six month subscription. You should be receiving your first sample issue shortly via first-class mail. PLN also sent you a packet of informational brochures under separate cover. Additionally, PLN mailed a book to you, Protecting Your Health and Safety. I am writing to ask for confirmation of your receipt of these three (3) items which have all been mailed separately. At HRDC we take censorship very seriously and we rely on prisoners to determine which prisons and jails are interfering with PLN's First Amendment rights. If you have not received all three of the items mentioned above within the next few weelcs, please write to me and let me know. If you receive a notice that any of PLN's publications have been censored by staff, please consider filing a grievance and exhausting all available administrative remedies available to you. If possible, please provide copies of those grievances and any other related documentation to my office.
Finally, if you know of other prisoners there who might be interested in our publications and who will be incarcerated for at least three (3) months, please share PLN's address with them and encourage them to write in to request a free trial subscription. Thank you in advance for your
kind attention to this letter.
Very Truly Yours,
HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

cc: Paul Wright

By: Lance T. Weber
General Counsel
PO Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303 Phone: 802-579-1309 Fax: 866-735-7136
Email: Iweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.orf

PLNCOL-00937

EXHIBIT J: Page 10 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 11 of 73

»i MacDonald Hoacue &Bayless
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW

705 Second Avenue Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104-1745 Tel 205.522.1604 Fax 205.343.3951
LEGAL MAIL
Rusty D. Campo, 2011001307 Columbia County Jail
901 Port Avenue
St Helens, Oregon 97051

August 18, 2011

Kenneth A. MacDonald Retired
Miguel A. Bocanegra Andrea Brenneke Katharine C Chamberlain Andrew T. Chan Mel Crawford Timothy K. Ford Katrin EL Frank Felicia L. Gitlleman
Ester Greenfield Elizabeth Poh
Amy M. Royally Joseph R. Shaeffer
David J. Whedbee
Jesse Wing

Dear Mr. Campo:
We represent Prison Legal News (PLN), which publishes a monthly journal about prisoners' rights and distributes books about legal issues affectingprisoners. We are investigating whether the Columbia County Jail is censoring PLN's mail to yon.

PLN sent the following mail to you at the Columbia County Jail in 2011:
A. Three double-sided single-page informational brochures, enclosed together in one white standard envelope. Exhibit A is a copy ofthe three brochures:

1. PLN Brochure and Subscription Order Form

2.

2010 PLN Book List

3. Brochure about two books for sale: (a) TheHabeas Citebook:Ineffective Assistance of Counseland (b) Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbookto CorrespondencePrograms in the UnitedStates and Canada.
B. A paperback book titled ProtectingYour Health & Safetysent to you in a small brown cardboard box. The book is 325 pages. Exhibit B is a copy of the front
and back cover of the book.
C. PrisonLegal News's 56-page monthlyjournal. Exhibit C is an example of the
front and back cover of a Prison Legal News journal.

EXHIBIT J: Page 11 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 12 of 73
Rusty D. Campo, 2011001307 August 18,2011 Page 2
Based on our investigation, we understand that you did not receive one or more of the items identified above. We would like to know whether that is correct and whether you received any ofthe othermaterialsPLN sentto you at the Columbia CountyJaiL Also, if the Jail censoredmail that PLN sent to you, we would like to know whetheryou received written notice from the Jail that mail addressed to you was rejected and not delivered to you.
Please review the enclosed Exhibits. Then, please read the enclosed declaration and indicate with a checkmark (v) whether you received or did not receive the PLN mailings, and— if you did not receive one or more of the mailings—indicate with a checkmark(• ) whether you received or did not receive written notification that mail addressed to you was rejected by the
Jail. Next, please fillin the dates youwerea prisoner at the Columbia County Jail. Finally, please sign anddate the declaration, state the cityyousigned in, andsendthe declaration to me (with the attached exhibits) in the enclosed self-addressed, postage pre-paid envelope. If possible, pleaseuse a pen to complete the declaration.
We need your response by August 31,2011. Afteryou mailus your signed declaration, pleasecall our office at (206) 622-1604, and askto speak to Carrie Wilkinson. Ourtelephone number is registered withthe telephone services utilizedby ColumbiaCounty Jail. We have otherquestions for you. Thankyou.
Sincerely,
MacDonald Hoague &Bayless /s/Katherine C. Chamberlain Katherine C. Chamberlain
Attorney,Licensed in Oregon and Washington Enclosure(s)
EXHIBIT J: Page 12 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 13 of 73

Human Rights Defense Center
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights

confidential legal mail: attorney correspondence

April 18, 2012

Rusty D Campo
Columbia Co Jail 901 Port Ave
St Helens, OR 97051
RE: Correspondence concerning legal publications

Dear Mr. Rusty D Campo,

I am an attorney for the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC). Thank you for your interest in Prison Legal News (PLN). Monthly publication of PLN is one of HRDC's projects.

We have enrolled you for a free trial subscription. You should be receiving your first sample issue shortly via first-class mail. We are also sending you a packet of informational brochures under separate cover. Additionally, PLN mailed a book to you. Protecting Your Health and Safety. I am writing to ask for confirmation of your receipt of these three (3) items which have all been mailed separately.
At HRDC we take censorship very seriously and we rely almost exclusively on our incarcerated readers to inform us about which prisons and jails are interfering with our publication rights. If you have not received all three of the items mentioned above within the next few weeks, please write to us and let us know. If you receive a notice that any of our publications have been censored by staff, please consider filing a grievance and exhaust all available administrative remedies in an attempt to get them to release the material to you. If possible, please provide copies ofthose grievances and any other related documentation to our office.

Finally, if you know of other prisoners there who might be interested in our publications and who will be incarcerated for at least three (3) months, please share PLN's address with them and encourage them to write us to request a free trial subscription. We thank you in advance for your

kind attention to this letter.

Very Truly Yours,
HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

cc: Paul Wright

By: Lance T. Weber
General Counsel
Post Office Box 2420
West Brattleboro, VT 05303 Phone: 802-579-1309 Fax: 866-735-7136
Email: lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org

PLNCOL-00915

EXHIBIT J: Page 13 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 14 of 73

Human Rights Defense Center
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
confidential legal mail: attorney work product
December 23, 2011
Robert Clement 2011002143
Columbia County Jail
901 Port Ave
St Helens, OR 97051
RE: Correspondence concerning PLN literature
Dear Mr. Clement,
I am an attorney for the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC). I have been informed that you may have an interest in Prison Legal News (PLN). Monthly publication of PLN is one of HRDC's projects along with the distribution of books and other literature of interestto prisoners.
I have been informed that PLN gave you a complimentary six month subscription. You should have already received your first sample via first-class mail. PLN also sent you a packet of informational brochures in a regular sized envelope. Additionally, PLN mailed a book to you about prisoners' rights and the American legal system called Protecting Your Health andSafety.
I am writing to ask whether you have received each of these three (3) items which have all been mailed separately. At HRDC we take censorship very seriously and we rely on prisoners to detennine which prisons and jails are interfering with PLN's First Amendment rights. If you have not received all three of the items mentioned above please write to me and let me know. You should also be receiving a new issue of PLN every month for 6 months. If you receive a notice that any of PLN's publications have been censored by staff, please consider filing a grievance and inquiring about the reason for the censorship. If possible, please provide copies of those grievances and any other related documentation to my office. Finally, if you know of other prisoners there who might be interested in our publications and who might be incarcerated for more than just a few months, please share PLN's address with them and encourage them to write in and request free information with no obligation. Thank you in advance for your kind attention
to this letter.
Very Truly Yours,
HUMAN RJGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

cc: Paul Wright

By: Lance T. Weber, Esq.
PO Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303 Phone: 802-579-1309 Fax: 866-735-7136 Email: lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.ors

PLNCOL-00923

EXHIBIT J: Page 14 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 15 of 73

Human Rights Defense Center
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL MAIL: ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
December 23, 2011
Anthony Deherrera 2011001729 Columbia County Jail
901 Port Ave
St Helens, OR 97051
RE: Correspondence concerning PLN literature
Dear Mr. Deherrera,
I am an attorney for the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC). I have been informed that you may have an interest in Prison Legal News (PLN). Monthly publication of PLN is one of HRDC's projects along with the distribution of books and other literature of interest to prisoners.
I have been informed that PLN gave you a complimentary six month subscription. You should have already received your first sample via first-class mail. PLN also sent you a packet of informational brochures in a regular sized envelope. Additionally, PLN mailed a book to you about prisoners' rights and the American legal system called Protecting Your Health andSafety.
I am writing to ask whether you have received each of these three (3) items which have all been mailed separately. At HRDC we take censorship very seriously and we rely on prisoners to determine which prisons and jails are interfering with PLN's First Amendment rights. If you have not received all three of the items mentioned above please write to me and let me know. You should also be receiving a new issue of PLN every month for 6 months. If you receive a notice that any of PLN's publications have been censored by staff, please consider filing a grievance and inquiring about the reason for the censorship. If possible, please provide copies of those grievances and any other related documentation to my office. Finally, if you know of other prisoners there who might be interested in our publications and who might be incarcerated for more than just a few months, please share PLN's address with them and encourage them to write in and request free information with no obligation. Thank you in advance for your kind attention
to this letter.
Very Truly Yours,
HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

cc: Paul Wright

By: Lance T. Weber, Esq.
PO Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303 Phone: 802-579-1309 Fax: 866-735-7136
Email: lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org

PLNCOL-00924

EXHIBIT J: Page 15 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 16 of 73

Human Rights Defense Center
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights

confidential legal mail: attorney work product

February 23, 2011

Corey Dell 2010002487 Columbia County Jail
901 Port Ave
St Helens, Oregon 97051 RE: Correspondence concerning legal publications

Dear Mr. Dell,

I am an attorney for the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC). Thank you for your interest in Prison LegalNews (PLN). Monthly publication of PLN is one of HRDC's projects.

We have enrolled you for a free trial subscription. You should already be in receipt of your first sample issue, which was sent via first-class mail. We are also sending you a packet of informational brochures under separate cover. Additionally, PLN mailed a book to you, Protecting Your Health andSafety. I am writing to ask for confirmation of your receipt of these three (3) items which have all been mailed separately. Additionally, please confirm that you wish to receive materials from Prison Legal News, including our magazine, books, pamphlets and
other materials.

At HRDC we take censorship very seriously and we rely on our readers to determine which prisons and jails are interfering with our publication rights. If you have not received all three of the items mentioned above within the next few weeks, please write to us and let us know. If you receive a notice that any of our publications have been censored by staff, please consider filing a grievance and exhausting all available administrative remedies available to you. If possible, please provide copiesof those grievances and any other related documentation to our office.

Finally, if you know of other prisoners there who might be interested in our publications and

who will be incarcerated for at least three (3) months, please share PLN's address with them and encourage them to write us to request a free trial subscription. We thank you in advance for your

kind attention to this letter.

Very Truly Yours,

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

z

cc: Paul Wrisht

By: Lance T. Weber General Counsel

PO Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303
Phone: 802-579-1309 Fax: 866-735-7136
Email: lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.orj

PLNCOL-00880

EXHIBIT J: Page 16 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 17 of 73

MacDonald Hoacue & Bayless
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAV/

705 Second Avenue Suite 1500 Seattle. Washington 98104-1745 Tel 20B.622.1604 Fax 205.343.3951
LEGAL MAIL
Coryn Dell, 2010002487 Columbia County Jail
901 Port Avenue
St. Helens, Oregon 97051

Alec Bayless (1921-1991) Francis Hoague (1909-1993)
Kenneth A. MacDonald Retired
Miguel A. Bocanegra
Andrea Branneke KBlherine C Chamberlain Andrew T. Chan Mel Crawford
Timothy K. Ford
Kalrin E. Frank Felicia L Glttleman Ester Greenfield Elizabeth Poh Amy M. Royally Joseph R. Shaeffer David J. Whedbee Jesse Wing

Dear Mr. Dell:
We represent Prison Legal News (PLN), which publishes amonthly journal about prisoners' rights and distributes books about legal issues affecting prisoners. We are investigating whether the Columbia County Jail is censoring PLN's mail to you.
PLN sent the following mailto youat the Columbia County Jail in 2011:
a) Three double-sided single-page informational brochures, enclosed together in one
whitestandard envelope. Exhibit A is a copy of the three brochures:

i)

PLN Brochure and Subscription Order Form

ii)

2010 PLN Book List

iii) Brochure about two books for sale: (i) The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective
Assistance ofCounsel and (ii) Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the United States and Canada.

to

Apaperback book titled Protecting Your Health &Safety sent to you inasmall
brown cardboard box. The bookis 325 pages. ExhibitB is a copy of the front

and back cover ofthe book.

B) Prison Legal News's 56-page monthly journal. Exhibit C is an example ofthe
front and back cover of a Prison Legal News journal.

.
EXHIBIT J: Page 17 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 18 of 73
Coryn Dell 2010002487 August 18,2011 Page 2
Based on our investigation, we understand that you did not receive one or more of the items identified above. We would like to know whether that is correct and whether you received any ofthe other materials PLN sent to you at the Columbia County Jail. Also, if the Jail censored mail that PLN sent to you, we would like to know whether you received written notice from the Jail that mail addressed to you was rejected and not delivered to you.
Please review the enclosed Exhibits. Then, please read the enclosed declaration and indicate with a checkmark (v) whether you received or did not receive the PLN mailings, and— ifyou did not receive one or more of the mailings—indicatewith a checkmark (v) whether you received or did not receive written notification that mail addressed to you was rejected by the JaiL Next, pleasefill in the dates youwerea prisoner at the Columbia County Jail. Finally, please signand datethe declaration, statethe cityyou signed in, andsendthe declaration to me (withthe attached exhibits) in the enclosed self-addressed, postage pre-paid envelope. If possible, pleaseuse a pen to complete the declaration.
We need your response by August 31,2011. Afteryoumail us yoursigned declaration, please callour office at (206) 622-1604, and
askto speak to Carrie Wilkinson. Ourtelephone number is registered withthe telephone services utilizedby ColumbiaCountyJail. We have otherquestions for you. Thank you.
Sincerely,
MacDonald Hoague & Bayless
/s/Katherine C. Chamberlain
Katherine C. Chamberlain
Attorney, Licensed in Oregon and Washington
Enclosure(s)

„yt_>dii/_u

PLNCOL-00540
EXHIBIT J: Page 18 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 19 of 73

Human Rights Defense Center
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
confidential legal mail: attorney work product
March 12, 2012
Dennis Engle 2011002153 Columbia County Jail
901 Port Ave
St Helens, OR 97051
RE: Correspondence concerning PLN literature
Dear Mr. Engle,
I am an attorney for the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC). You have been identified as someone who may have a need for the information provided by Prison LegalNews (PLN). Monthly publication of PLN is one of HRDC's projects along with the distribution of books and other literature of interest to prisoners at high risk of having their rights violated.
PLN has given you a complimentary six month subscription. This month you should expect to receive your first subscription issue and you should receive a new issue every month for 5 months thereafter. You should have already received your free introductory copy via first-class mail. PLN also sent you a packet of informational brochures in a regular sized envelope. Additionally, PLN mailed a book to you about prisoners' rights and the American legal system calledProtecting Your Health andSafety as a free gift.
I am writing to investigate whether you have received each of these three (3) items which have all been mailed separately. At HRDC, we rely on prisonersto help protect PLN's First Amendment rights. If you
have not received all three of the items mentioned above (or any of the monthly subscription issues)
please write to me and let me know. I'm also interested in hearing about any other problems you've been experiencing with incoming or outgoing mail. If you receive a notice that any of PLN's publications have been censored by staff, please consider filing a grievance and inquiring about the reason for the censorship. If possible, please provide me with copies of those grievances. Finally, if you know of other prisoners who might be interested in PLN's publications and who will be incarcerated for several months or more, please share PLN's address with them and encourage them to write in and request a free subscription. Thank you in advance for yourkind attention to this letter. I wish you well in your struggles
and I look forward to hearing from you.
Very Truly Yours,
HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

cc: Paul Wrieht

By: Lance T. Weber, Attorney at Law
PO Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303 Phone: 802-579-1309 Fax: 866-735-7136 Em ail: 1weber(5)humanriahtsd efensecenter.org

PLNCOL-00925

EXHIBIT J: Page 19 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 20 of 73

Human Rights Defense Center
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights

confidential legal mail: attorney work product

February 23, 2011

Jacob Francoeur 2011000086
Columbia County Jail
901 Port Ave
St Helens, Oregon 97051 RE: Correspondence concerning legal publications

Dear Mr. Francoeur,
I am an attorney for the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC). Thank you for your interest in Prison Legal News (PLN). Monthly publication of PLN is one of HRDC's projects.

We have enrolled you for a free trial subscription. You should already be in receipt of your first sample issue, which was sent via first-class mail. We are also sending you a packet of informational brochures under separate cover. Additionally, PLN mailed a book to you, Protecting Your Health andSafety. I am writing to ask for confirmation of your receipt of these three (3) items which have all been mailed separately. Additionally, please confirm that you wish to receive materials from Prison Legal News, including our magazine, books, pamphlets and
other materials.
At HRDC we take censorship very seriously and we rely on our readers to determine which prisons and jails are interfering with our publication rights. If you have not received all three of the items mentioned above within the next few weeks, please write to us and let us know. If you receive a notice that any of our publications have been censored by staff, please consider filing a grievance and exhausting all available administrative remedies available to you. If possible, pleaseprovide copies of those grievances and any other related documentation to our office.

Finally, if you know of other prisoners there who might be interested in our publications and who will be incarcerated for at least three (3) months, please share PLN's address with them and encourage them to write us to request a free trial subscription. We thank you in advance for your

kind attention to this letter.

Very Truly Yours,

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

cc: Paul Wright

By: Lance T. Weber General Counsel

PO Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303
Phone: 802-579-1309 Fax: 866-735-7136
Email: lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org

PLNCOL-00883

EXHIBIT J: Page 20 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 21 of 73

Human Rights Defense Center
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
confidential legal mail: attorney work product
August 2, 2011
Mark Gift 2010000410 Columbia Co Jail 901 Port Ave
St Helens, Oregon 97501
RE: Correspondence concerning PLN literature
Dear Mr. Gift,
I am an attorney for the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC). Thank you for your interest in Prison Legal News (PLN). Monthly publication of PLN is one of HRDC's projects. Unfortunately, sometimes prisons and jails unlawfully interferewith PLN's publication rights.
I have been informed that PLN gave you a complimentary six month subscription. You should be receiving your first sample issue shortly via first-class mail. PLN also sent you a packet of informational brochures under separate cover. Additionally, PLN mailed a book to you, Protecting Your Health andSafety. I am writing to ask for confirmation of your receipt of these three (3) items which have all been mailed separately. At HRDC we take censorship very seriously and we rely on prisoners to determine which prisons and jails are interfering with PLN's First Amendment rights. If you have not received all three of the items mentioned above within the next few weeks, please write to me and let me know. If you receive a notice that any of PLN's publications have been censored by staff, please consider filing a grievance and exhausting all available administrative remedies available to you. If possible, please provide copies of those grievances and any other related documentation to my office.
Finally, if you know of other prisoners there who might be interested in our publications and who will be incarcerated for at least three (3) months, please share PLN's address with them and encourage them to write in to request a free trial subscription. Thank you in advance for your
kind attention to this letter.
Very Truly Yours,
HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

cc: Paul Wright

By: Lance T. Weber
General Counsel
PO Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303 Phone: 802-579-1309 Fax: 866-735-7136
Email: lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org

PLNCOL-00918

EXHIBIT J: Page 21 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 22 of 73

Human Rights Defense Center
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights

confidential legal mail: attorney cori*espondence

April 18, 2012

Nicholas A Harris Columbia Co Jail 901 Port Ave
St Helens, OR 97051
RE: Correspondence concerning legal publications

Dear Mr. Nicholas A Flarris,
I am an attorney for the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC). Thank you for your interest in Prison Legal News(PLN). Monthly publication of PLN is one of HRDC's projects.

We have enrolled you for a free trial subscription. You should be receiving your first sample issue shortly via first-class mail. We are also sending you a packet of informational brochures under separate cover. Additionally, PLN mailed a book to you, Protecting Your Health and Safety. I am writing to ask for confirmation of your receipt of these three (3) items which have all been mailed separately.
At HRDC we take censorship very seriously and we rely almost exclusively on our incarcerated readers to inform us about which prisons and jails are interfering with our publication rights. If you have not received all three of the items mentioned above within the next few weeks, please write to us and let us know. If you receive a notice that any of our publications have been censored by staff, please consider filing a grievance and exhaust all available administrative remedies in an attempt to get them to release the material to you. If possible, please provide copies of those grievances and any other related documentation to our office.

Finally, if you know of other prisoners there who might be interested in our publications and who will be incarcerated for at least three (3) months, please share PLN's address with them and encourage them to write us to request a free trial subscription. We thank you in advance for your

kind attention to this letter.

Very Truly Yours,

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

cc: Paul Wright

By: Lance T. Weber
General Counsel
Post Office Box 2420
West Brattleboro, VT 05303
Phone: 802-579-1309 Fax: 866-735-7136
Email: lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org

PLNCOL-00913

EXHIBIT J: Page 22 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 23 of 73

Human Rights Defense Center
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights

confidential legal mail: attorney work product

December 23, 2011

KennaHaynes 2011002213 Columbia Count}' Jail
901 Port Ave
St Helens, OR 97051

RE: Correspondence concerning PLN literature

Dear Kenna Haynes,

I am an attorney for the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC). I have been informed that you may have an interest in Prison Legal News (PLN). Monthly publication of PLN is one of HRDC's projects along with the distribution of books and other literature of interest to prisoners.

I have been informed that PLN gave you a complimentary six month subscription. You should have already received your first sample via first-class mail. PLN also sent you a packet of informational brochures in a regular sized envelope. Additionally, PLN mailed a book to you about prisoners' rights and the American legal system called Protecting Your Health and Safety.

I am writing to ask whether you have received each of these three (3) items which have all been mailed separately. At HRDC we take censorship very seriously and we rely on prisoners to determine which prisons and jails are interfering with PLN's First Amendment rights. If you have not received all three of the items mentioned above please write to me and let me know. You should also be receiving a new issue of PLN every month for 6 months. If you receive a notice that any of PLN's publications have been censored by staff, please consider filing a grievance and inquiring about the reason for the censorship. If possible, please provide copies of those grievances and any other related documentation to my office. Finally, if you know of other prisoners there who might be interested in our publications and who might be incarcerated for more than just a few months, please share PLN's address with them and encourage them to write in and request free information with no obligation. Thank you in advance for your kind attention
to this letter.

Very Truly Yours,
HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

cc: Paul Wright

'A
By: Lance T. Weber, Esq.
PO Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303 Phone: 802-579-1309 Fax: 866-735-7136
Email: lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.or£

PLNCOL-00926

EXHIBIT J: Page 23 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 24 of 73

Human Rights Defense Center
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights

confidential legal mail: attorney work product

February 23, 2011

William Hess 2010002207
Columbia County Jail
901 Port Ave
St Helens, Oregon 97051
RE: Correspondence concerning legal publications

Dear Mr. Hess,

I am an attorney for the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC). Thank you for your interest in Prison Legal News (PLN). Monthly publication of PLN is oneof HRDC's projects.

We haveenrolled you for a free trial subscription. You should already be in receipt of your first sample issue, which was sent via first-class mail. We are also sending you a packet of informational brochures under separate cover. Additionally, PLN mailed a book to you, Protecting Your Health and Safety. I am writing to ask for confirmation of your receipt of these three (3) items which haveall been mailed separately. Additionally, please confirm that you wish to receive materials from Prison Legal News, including our magazine, books, pamphlets and
other materials.

At HRDC we take censorship very seriously and we rely on our readers to determine which prisons and jails are interfering with ourpublication rights. If you have not received all three of
the items mentioned above within the next few weeks, please write to us and let us know. If you receive a notice that any of our publications have been censored by staff, please considerfiling a grievance and exhausting all available administrative remedies available to you. If possible, please provide copies of those grievances and any other related documentation to our office.

Finally, if you know of other prisoners there who might be interested in our publications and who will be incarcerated for at least three (3) months, please share PLN's address with them and encourage them to write us to request a free trialsubscription. We thank you in advance for your

kind attention to this letter.

Very Truly Yours, HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

cc: Paul Wright

By: Lance T. Weber General Counsel

PO Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303 Phone: 802-579-1309 Fax: 866-735-7136 Email: lweber(5)humanri2htsdefensecenter.or«

PLNCOL-00898

EXHIBIT J: Page 24 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 25 of 73

Human Rights Defense Center
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights

confidential legal mail: attorney correspondence

April 18, 2012

Brian C Hinkle Columbia Co Jail 901 Port Ave
St Helens, OR 97051
RE: Correspondence concerning legal publications

Dear Mr. Brian C Hinkle,

I am an attorney for the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC). Thank you for your interest in Prison Legal News (PLN). Monthly publication of PLN is one of HRDC's projects.

We have enrolled you for a free trial subscription. You should be receiving your first sample issue shortly via first-class mail. We are also sending you a packet of informational brochures under separate cover. Additionally, PLN mailed a book to you, Protecting Your Health and Safety. I am writing to ask for confirmation of your receipt of these three (3) items which have
all been mailed separately.

At HRDC we take censorship very seriously and we rely almost exclusively on our incarcerated
readers to inform us about which prisons and jails are interfering with our publication rights. If you have not received all three of the items mentioned above within the next few weeks, please write to us and let us know. If you receive a notice that any of our publications have been censored by staff, please consider filing a grievance and exhaust all available administrative remedies in an attempt to get them to, release the material to you. If possible, please provide copies ofthose grievances and any other related documentation to ouroffice.

Finally, if you know of other prisoners there who might be interested in our publications and
who will be incarcerated for at least three (3) months, please share PLN's address with them and
encourage them to write us to request a free trial subscription. We thank you in advance for your

kind attention to this letter.

Very Truly Yours,
HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

cc: Paul Wright

By: Lance T. Weber
General Counsel
Post Office Box 2420
West Brattleboro, VT 05303 Phone: 802-579-1309 Fax: 866-735-7136 Email: lweber(5)humanrishtsdefensecenter.org

PLNCOL-00908

EXHIBIT J: Page 25 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 26 of 73

Human Rights Defense Center
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights

confidential legal mail: attorney work product

February 23, 2011

Nicholas Jones 201001862
Columbia County Jail
901 Port Ave
St Helens, Oregon 97051
RE: Correspondence concerning legal publications

Dear Mr. Jones,

I am an attorney for the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC). Thank you for your interest in Prison Legal News (PLN). Monthly publication of PLN is one ofHRDC's projects.

We have enrolled you for a free trial subscription. You should already be in receipt of your first
sample issue, which was sent via first-class mail. We are also sending you a packet of
informational brochures under separate cover. Additionally, PLN mailed a book to you, Protecting Your Health and Safety. I am writing to ask for confirmation of your receipt of these
three (3) items which have all been mailed separately. Additionally, please confirm that you wish
to receive materials from Prison Legal News, including our magazine, books, pamphlets and
other materials.

At HRDC we take censorship very seriously and we rely on our readers to determine which prisons and jails are interfering with our publication rights. If you have not received all three of
the items mentioned above within the next few weeks, please write to us and let us know. If you
receive a notice that any of our publications have been censored by staff, pleaseconsider filing a grievance and exhausting all available administrative remedies available to you. If possible,
please provide copies ofthose grievances and any other related documentation to our office.

Finally, if you know of other prisoners there who might be interested in our publications and
who will be incarcerated for at least three (3) months, please share PLN's address with them and encourage them to write us to request a free trial subscription. We thank you in advance for your

kind attention to this letter.

Very Truly Yours,

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

cc: Paul Wright

By: Lance T. Weber
General Counsel

PO Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303
Phone: 802-579-1309 Fax: 866-735-7136
Email: lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.ort

PLNCOL-00891

EXHIBIT J: Page 26 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 27 of 73

Human Rights Defense Center
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights

confidential legal mail: attorney work product

February 23,2011

Martin Kay 2010001188 Columbia County Jail
901 Port Ave
St Helens, Oregon 97051
RE: Correspondence concerning legal publications

Dear Mr. Kay,
I am an attorney for the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC). Thankyou for your interest in Prison Legal News (PLN). Monthly publication of PLN is one of HRDC's projects.

We have enrolled you for a free trial subscription. You should already be in receipt of your first sample issue, which was sent via first-class mail. We are also sending you a packet of informational brochures under separate cover. Additionally, PLN mailed a book to you, Protecting Your Health and Safety. I am writing to ask for confirmation of your receipt of these three (3) items which haveall been mailed separately. Additionally, please confirm that you wish to receive materials from Prison Legal News, including our magazine, books, pamphlets and
other materials.

At HRDC we take censorship very seriously and we rely on our readers to determine which prisons and jails are interfering with our publication rights. If you have not received all three of the items mentioned above within the next few weeks, please write to us and let us know. If you receive a notice that any of our publications have been censored by staff, please consider filing a grievance and exhausting all available administrative remedies available to you. If possible, please provide copies of those grievances and any other related documentation to our office.

Finally, if you know of other prisoners there who might be interested in our publications and who will be incarcerated for at least three (3) months, please share PLN's address with them and encourage them to write us to request a free trial subscription. Wethank you in advance for your

kind attention to this letter.

Very Truly Yours,

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

cc: Paul Wright

By: Lance T. Weber General Counsel

PO Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303 Phone: 802-579-1309 Fax: 866-735-7136
Email: lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org

PLNCOL-00888

EXHIBIT J: Page 27 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 28 of 73

/^1m i?Pl MacDonald Hoague &Bayless
flWMftff,' 'SM ATIORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW

705 Second Avenue Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104-1745 Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961
s
LEGAL MAIL
Martin Kay, 2010001188 Columbia County Jail
901 Port Avenue
St Helens, OR 97051

August 18, 2011

Kenneth A. MacDonald Retired
Miguel A. Bocanegra Andrea Brenneke Kalherine C Chamberlain
Andrew T. Chan Mel Crawford
Timothy K. Ford Katrin E. Frank Felicia L Gitlleman
Ester Greenfield Elizabeth Poh
Amy M. Royally Joseph R. Shaeffer
David J. Whedbee Jesse Wing

Dear Mr. Kay:
We represent Prison Legal News (PLN), which pubhshes a monthly journal about prisoners' rights and distributes books about legal issues affecting prisoners. We are investigating whether the Columbia County Jail is censoring PLN's mail to you.

PLN sent the following mail to you at the Columbia County Jail in 2011:
A. Three double-sided single-page informational brochures, enclosed together in one white standard envelope. Exhibit A is a copy of the three brochures:

1. PLN Brochure and Subscription Order Form

2.

2010 PLN Book List

3. Brochure about two books for sale: (a) TheHabeas Citebook:Ineffective Assistance ofCounsel and (b) Prisoners' Guei-rilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the United States and Canada.

B. A paperback book titled Protecting Your Health &Safety sent to you in a small brown cardboard box. The book is 325 pages. Exhibit B is a copy of the front
and back cover of the book.
C. Prison Legal News's 56-page monthlyjournal. Exhibit C is an example of the frontand back cover of a Prison Legal News journal.

EXHIBIT J: Page 28 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 29 of 73
Martin Kay, 2010001188 August 18,2011 Page 2
D. A one-page PLN subscription renewal letter, enclosed with a copy ofthe three infonnational brochures described above, in a white standard envelope. Exhibit D is a copy ofthe letter and brochures.
Based on our investigation, we understand that you did not receive one or more ofthe items identified above. We would like to know whether that is correct and whether you received any of the other materials PLN sent to you at the Columbia County Jail. Also, ifthe Jail censored mail that PLN sent to you, we would like to know whether you received written notice from the Jail that mail addressed to you was rejected and not delivered to you.
Please review the enclosed Exhibits. Then, please read the enclosed declaration and indicate with a checkmark ( v) whether you received or did not receive the PLN mailings, and— if you did not receive one or more ofthe mailings—indicate with a checkmark ( v ) whether you received or did not receive written notification that mail addressed to you was rejected by the JaiL Next, please fill in the dates you were a prisoner at the Columbia County Jail. Filially, please sign and date the declaration, state the city you signedin, and send the declarationto me (with the attached exhibits) in the enclosed self-addressed,postage pre-paid envelope. If possible, please use a pen to complete the declaration.
We need your response by August 31,2011. After you mail us your signed declaration, please call our office at (206) 622-1604, and ask to speak to CarrieWilkinson. Our telephone number is registeredwith the telephone services utilized by Columbia County Jail. We have other questions for you. Thank you.
Sincerely,
MacDonald Hoague & Bayless /s/Katherine C. Chamberlain Katherine C. Chamberlain
Attorney, Licensed in Oregon and Washington Enclosure(s)
EXHIBIT J: Page 29 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 30 of 73

Human Rights Defense Center
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL MAIL: ATTORNEY CORRESPONDENCE WITH
PRISONER
September 9,2010
Andrew Kowalczyk 2010001712 Columbia County Jail
901 Port Avenue
St. Helens, OR 97051-3018
Dear Mr. Kowalczyk,
My name is Adam Cook; I serve as counsel for the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC), a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation. Prison Legal News is a project of the Center.
I am aware that PLN's Editor, Paul Wright, sent you an info pack, a complimentary trial
subscription toPrison Legal News, and a copy ofthe book, Protecting Your Health and Safety.
I am writing tofind out whether ornot you received anything from us, especially the magazine or thebook? If not, have you received any notice from thejail about it? If so, would you send
that to us? We have had trouble before sending the legal news to the jails. We take censorship of ourmaterials very seriously and want to make surethejail does not censor our publications.
Also, if you know of other prisoners who would like a free trial subscription to Prison Legal News, please tell them to write to Prison Legal News, using the address atthe bottom ofthis letter. Thesooner they writethe sooner PLN can starttheir trial subscriptions.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I look forward to yourresponse.
Sincerely,
Adam Cook. Esq.

Post Office Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303 Phone: 802-579-1309 Fax: 866-735-7136
Email: adam k cook@yahoo.com

PLNCOL-00905

EXHIBIT J: Page 30 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 31 of 73

Human Rights Defense Center
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
confidential legal mail: attorney work product
George Lammi 2011001225 Columbia County Jail
901 Port Ave
St Helens, Oregon 97051
RE: Correspondence concerning PLN literature
Dear Mr. Lammi,
I am an attorney for the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC). Thank you for your interest in Prison Legal News (PLN). Monthly publication of PLN is one of HRDC's projects. Unfortunately, sometimes prisons and jails unlawfully interfere with PLN's publication rights.
I have been informed that PLN gave you a complimentary six month subscription. You should be receiving your first sample issue shortly via first-class mail. PLN also sent you a packet of informational brochures under separate cover. Additionally, PLN mailed a book to you, Protecting Your Health and Safety. I am writing to ask for confirmation of your receipt of these three (3) items which have all been mailed separately. At HRDC we take censorship very seriously and we rely on prisoners to determine which prisons and jails are interfering with PLN's First Amendment rights. If you have not received all three of the items mentioned above within the next few weeks, please write to me and let me know. If you receive a notice that any of PLN's publications have been censored by staff, please consider filing a grievance and exhausting all available administrative remedies available to you. If possible, please provide copies of those grievances and any other related documentation to my office.
Finally, if you know of other prisoners there who might be interested in our publications and who will be incarcerated for at least three (3) months, please share PLN's address with them and encourage them to write in to request a free trial subscription. Thank you in advance for your
kind attention to this letter.
Very Truly Yours,
HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

cc: Paul Wright

By: Lance T. Weber
General Counsel
PO Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303
Phone: 802-579-1309 Fax: 866-735-7136
Email: lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org

PLNCOL-00899

EXHIBIT J: Page 31 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 32 of 73

__HJffll MacDonald Hoacue &Bayless
k--?}\%fi lj fel HL3j.] ATTORNEYS ANO COUNSELORS AT LAW

705 Second Avenue Suite 1500 Seattle. Washington 98104-1745
Tel 205.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

LEGAL MAIL
George Lammi, 2011001225 Columbia County Jail
901 Port Avenue
St. Helens, OR 97051

August 19,2011

•
Ales Bayless (1921-1991) Francis Hoague (1909-1993)
Kenneth A MacDonald Retired
Miguel A. Bocanegra Andrea Brenneke Katharine C. Chamberlain Andrew T. Chan Mel Crawford Timothy K. Ford Katrin E. Frank Felicia L Gittleman Ester Greenfield Elizabeth Poh Amy M. Royally Joseph R. Shaeffer David J. Whedbee Jesse Wing

Dear Mr. Lammi:
We represent Prison Legal News (PLN), which pubhshes amonthly journal about prisoners' rights and distributes books about legal issues affecting prisoners. We are investigating whether the Columbia County Jail is censoring PLN's mailto you.
PLN sent the following mail to you at the Columbia County Jail in 2011:
A. Three double-sided single-page informational brochures, enclosed together in one white standard envelope. Exhibit A is a copy of the three brochures:
1. PLN Brochure and Subscription Order Form

2.

2010 PLN Book List

3. Brochure about two books for sale: (a) Hie Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel and (b)Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the United States and Canada.

B. A paperbackbook titledProtecting Your Health & Safety sent to you in a small brown cardboard box. The book is 325 pages. Exhibit B is a copy of the front
and back cover of the book.

C. Prison LegalNews's 56-page monthly journal. Exhibit C is an exampleof the
front and back cover of a Prison Legal News journal.

EXHIBIT J: Page 32 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 33 of 73
George I__j_i, 2011001225 August 19,2011 Page 2
Based on our investigation, we understand that you did not receive one or more ofthe items identified above. We would like to know whether that is correct and whether you received any ofthe other materials PLN sent to you at the Columbia County Jail. Also, ifthe Jail censored mail that PLN sent to you, we would like to know whether you received written notice from the Jail that mail addressed to you was rejected and not delivered to you.
Please review the enclosed Exhibits. Then, please read the enclosed declaration and indicate with a checkmark (v ) whether you received or did not receive the PLN mailings, and— ifyou did not receive one or more of the mailings—indicate with a checkmark ( v) whether you received or did not receive written notification that mail addressed to you was rejected by the Jail. Next,please fill in the dates you were a prisonerat the Columbia CountyJail. Finally,
pleasesignand date the declaration, statethe city you signedin, and sendthe declaration to me (withthe attached exhibits) in the enclosed self-addressed, postagepre-paid envelope. If possible, pleaseuse a pen to complete the declaration.
We need your response by August 31,2011. Afteryou mail us your signeddeclaration, pleasecallour officeat (206) 622-1604, and askto speak to Carrie Wilkinson. Ourtelephone number is registered withthe telephone servicesutilized by Columbia County Jail. We have other questions for you. Thank you.
Sincerely,
MacDonald Hoague & Bayless /s/Katherine C. Chamberlain Katherine C. Chamberlain
Attorney, licensed in Oregon and Washington Enclosure(s)
EXHIBIT J: Page 33 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 34 of 73

Human Rights Defense Center
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights

confidential legal mail: attorney work product

February 23, 2011

Scott Lavelle 2010000245
Columbia County Jail
901 Port Ave
St Helens, Oregon 97051 RE: Correspondence concerning legal publications

Dear Mr. Lavelle,
I am an attorney for the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC). Thank you for your interest in Prison Legal News (PLN). Monthly publication of PLN is one of HRDC's projects.

We have enrolled you for a free trial subscription. You should already be in receipt of your first sample issue, which was sent via first-class mail. We are also sending you a packet of informational brochures under separate cover. Additionally, PLN mailed a book to you, Protecting Your Health andSafety. I am writing to ask for confirmation of your receipt of these three (3) items which have all been mailed separately. Additionally, please confirm that you wish to receive materials from Prison Legal News, including our magazine, books, pamphlets and
other materials.
At HRDC we take censorship very seriously and we rely on our readers to determine which prisons andjails are interfering with our publication rights. If you have not received all three of the items mentioned above within the next few weeks, please write to us and let us know. If you receive a notice that any of our publications have been censored by staff, please consider filing a grievance and exhausting all available administrative remedies available to you. If possible, please provide copiesof those grievances and any otherrelated documentation to our office.

Finally, if you know of other prisoners there who might be interested in our publications and who will be incarcerated for at least three (3) months, please share PLN's address with them and encourage them to write us to request a free trial subscription. We thank you in advance for your

kind attention to this letter.

Very Truly Yours,

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

cc: Paul Wright

By: Lance T. Weber General Counsel

PO Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303
Phone: 802-579-1309 Fax: 866-735-7136
Email: lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org

PLNCOL-00894

EXHIBIT J: Page 34 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 35 of 73

Human Rights Defense Center
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights

confidential legal mail: attorney work product
December 23, 2011

Scott Lavelle 2011002501
Columbia County Jail
901 Port Ave
St Helens, OR 97051
RE: Correspondence concerning PLN literature

Dear Mr. Lavelle,
I am an attorney for the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC). I have been informed that you may have an interest in Prison Legal News (PLN). Monthly publication of PLN is one of HRDC's projects along with the distribution of books and other literature of interest to prisoners.
I have been informed that PLN gave you a complimentary six month subscription. You should have already received your first sample via first-class mail. PLN also sent you a packet of informational brochures in a regular sized envelope. Additionally, PLN mailed a book to you about prisoners' rights and the American legal system called Protecting Your Health and Safety.
I am writing to ask whether you have received each of these three (3) items which have all been mailed separately. At HRDC we take censorship very seriously and we rely on prisoners to determine which prisons and jails are interfering with PLN's First Amendment rights. If you have not received all three of the items mentioned above please write to me and let me know. You should also be receiving a new issue of PLN every month for 6 months. If you receive a notice that any of PLN's publications have been censored by staff, please consider filing a grievance and inquiring about the reason for the censorship. If possible, please provide copies of those grievances and any other related documentation to my office. Finally, if you know of other prisoners there who might be interested in our publications and who might be incarcerated for more than just a few months, please share PLN's address with them and encourage them to write in and request free information with no obligation. Thank you in advance for your kind attention
to this letter.
Very Truly Yours,
HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

cc: Paul Wright

v/n By: Lance T. Weber, Esq.
PO Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303
Phone: 802-579-1309 Fax: 866-735-7136
Email: lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org

PLNCOL-00927

EXHIBIT J: Page 35 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 36 of 73

Human Rights Defense Center
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights

confidential legal mail: attorney work product

February 23, 2011

Troy McCarter 2010002022 Columbia County Jail
901 Port Ave
St Helens, Oregon 97051 RE: Correspondence concerning legal publications

Dear Mr. McCarter,
I am an attorney for the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC). Thank you for your interest in Prison Legal News (PLN). Monthly publication of PLN is one of HRDC's projects.

We have enrolled you for a free trial subscription. You should already be in receipt of your first sample issue, which was sent via first-class mail. We are also sending you a packet of informational brochures under separate cover. Additionally, PLN mailed a book to you, Protecting Your Health andSafety. I am writing to ask for confirmation of your receipt of these three (3) items which have all been mailed separately. Additionally, please confirm that you wish to receive materials from Prison Legal News, including our magazine, books, pamphlets and
other materials.
At HRDC we take censorship very seriously and we rely on our readers to determine which prisons and jails are interfering with our publication rights. If you have not received all three of the items mentioned above within the next few weeks, please write to us and let us know. If you receive a notice that any of our publications have been censored by staff, please consider filing a grievance and exhausting all available administrative remedies available to you. If possible, please provide copies of those grievances and any other related documentation to our office.

Finally, if you know of other prisoners there who might be interested in our publications and

who will be incarcerated for at least three (3) months, please share PLN's address with them and encourage them to write us to request a free trial subscription. We thank you in advance for your

kind attention to this letter.

Very Truly Yours,

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

cc: Paul Wright

By: Lance T. Weber General Counsel

PO Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303 Phone: 802-579-1309 Fax: 866-735-7136 Email: lweber(S)humanrightsdefensecenter.or£

PLNCOL-00897

EXHIBIT J: Page 36 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 37 of 73

lk¥jfi ilEq MacDonald Hoacue &Bayless
jfi.yjJL'r-]-^ [:"• attorneys and counselors a; law

705 Second Avenue Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 9B104-1745 Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961
LEGAL MALL

August 18, 2011

Alec Bayless (192 Francis Hoague (1
Kenneth A. MacDt Retired
Miguel A. Bocanegra Andrea Brenneke
Kalherine C Chamberlain Andrew T. Chan Mel Crawford
Timothy K. Ford Katrin E. Frank Felicia L Gittlernan Esler Greenfield Elizabeth Poh Amy M. Royalty Joseph R. Shaeffer David J. Whedbee Jesse Wing

Troy McCarter, 2010002022 Columbia County Jail
901 Port Avenue
St. Helens, OR 97051

Dear Mr. McCarter:
We represent Prison Legal News (PLN), which pubhshes a monthly journal about prisoners' rights and distributes books about legal issues affecting prisoners. We are investigating whether the Columbia County Jailis censoring PLN'smailto you.
PLNsentthe following mail to you at the Columbia CountyJail in 2011:
A. Three double-sided single-page informational brochures, enclosed together in one white standard envelope. Exhibit A is a copy of the threebrochures:

1. PLN Brochure and Subscription Order Form

2.

2010 PLN Book List

3. Brochure about two books for sale: (a) The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel and (b) Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the United States and Canada.

B. Apaperback book titled Protecting Your Health &Safety sent to you ina small
brown cardboard box. The book is 325 pages. Exhibit B is a copy of the front
and back cover ofthe book.

C. Prison Legal News's 56-page monthly journal. Exhibit Cis an example of the
front and back cover of a Prison Legal News journal.

EXHIBIT J: Page 37 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 38 of 73
Troy McCarter, 2010002022 August 18,2011 Page 2
D. A one-pagePLN subscription renewal letter, enclosed with a copy of the three ii_on_atio__ brochures described above, in a white standard envelope. Exhibit D is a copy of the letter and brochures.
Based on our investigation, we understand that you did not receive one or more ofthe items identified above. We would like to know whether that is correct and whether you received anyofthe othermaterialsPLN sent to you at the Columbia CountyJail. Also, ifthe Jail censored mail that PLN sent to you, we would like to know whether you received written notice from the Jail that mail addressed to you was rejected and not delivered to you.
Please review the enclosed Exhibits. Then, please read the enclosed declaration and indicate with a checkmark( v) whetheryou receivedor did not receive the PLN mailings, and— ifyoudidnot receive one or moreof the mailings—indicate with a checkmark (v ) whether you received or did not receive written notification that mail addressed to you was rejected by the
Jail. Next, please fillin the dates youwerea prisoner at the Columbia County Jail. Finally, please sign anddate the declaration, state thecityyousigned in, andsend the declaration to me (with theattached exhibits) in the enclosed self-addressed, postage pre-paid envelope. If possible, please use a pen to complete the declaration.
We need your response by August 31,2011. Afteryoumail us your signeddeclaration, pleasecall our officeat (206) 622-1604, and
askto speak to Carrie Wilkinson. Ourtelephone number is registered withthe telephone services utilized by Columbia County Jail.Wehaveotherquestions for you. "Thank you.
Sincerely,
MacDonald Hoague & Bayless /s/Katherine C. Chamberlain Katherine C. Chamberlain
Attorney, Licensed in Oregon and Washington Enclosure^)
EXHIBIT J: Page 38 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 39 of 73

fjgj MacDonald Hoacue &Bayless
JM ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW

705 Second Avenue Suite 1500 Seattle. Washington 98104-1745 Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961
August 18, 2011
LEGAL MAIL
Ryan G. Sanders, DOC #17856614 Oregon State Correctional Institution
3405 Deer Park Drive SE
Salem, OR 97310-9385

Kenneth A. MacDonald Retired
Miguel A. Bocanegra Andrea Brenneke Kalherine C Chamberlain Andrew T. Chan Mel Crawford Timothy K. Ford Katrin E Frank Felicia L Gittleman Ester Greenfield Elizabeth Poh Amy M. Royalty Joseph R. Shaeffer David J. Whedbee Jesse Wing

Dear Mr. Sanders:
Werepresent Prison Legal News (PLN), which publishes a monthly journal about prisoners' rights and distributes books aboutlegal issuesaffecting prisoners. We are investigating whether the Columbia County Jail censoredPLN's mail to you.
PLN sent the following mail to you at the Columbia County Jail in 2011:
A. Threedouble-sided single-page informational brochures, enclosedtogether in one white standard envelope. Exhibit A is a copy of the three brochures:

1. PLN Brochure and Subscription Order Form

2.

2010 PLN Book List

3. Brochure about two books for sale: (a) 77ze Habeas Citebook:Ineffective Assistance of Counsel and (b) Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the United States and Canada.

B. A paperback book titled Protecting Your Health &Safety sent to you in a small
brown cardboard box. The book is 325 pages. Exhibit B is a copy of the front
and back cover ofthe book.

C. Prison LegalNews's 56-page monthlyjournal. Exhibit C is an example of the
front and back cover of a Prison Legal News journal.

EXHIBIT J: Page 39 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 40 of 73
Ryan G. Sanders,DOC #17856614 August 18,2011 Page 2
Based on our investigation, we understand that you did not receive one or more ofthe items identified above. We would like to know whether that is correct and whether you received any ofthe othermaterialsPLN sentto you at the ColumbiaCountyJail. Also, ifthe Jail censoredmail that PLN sent to you, we would like to know whether you received written notice from the Jail that mail addressed to you was rejected and not delivered to you.
Please review the enclosed Exhibits. Then, please read the enclosed declaration and indicatewith a checkmark (v) whetheryou receivedor did not receivethe PLN mailings, and— if youdidnot receiveone or more of the mailings—indicate with a checkmark (v ) whetheryou received or did not receive written notification that mail addressed to you was rejected by the
JaiL Next, please fill in the dates youwere a prisoner at the Columbia County JaiL Finally, please sign anddate the declaration, state thecityyousigned in, and send the declaration to me (with theattached exhibits) in the enclosed self-addressed, postage pre-paid envelope. If possible, please use a pen to complete the declaration.
We need your response by August 31,2011. After youmailus yoursigned declaration, please callouroffice at (206) 622-1604, and askto speak to Carrie Wilkinson. Our telephone number is registered withthe telephone services utilized by the Oregon StateDOC. Wehave otherquestions for you. Thankyou.
Sincerely, MacDonald Hoague & Bayless
/s/Katherine C. Chamberlain Katherine C. Chamberlain
Attorney, Licensed in Oregon and Washington Enclosure(s)
EXHIBIT J: Page 40 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 41 of 73

Human Rights Defense Center
DEDICATED TO PROTECTING HUMAN RIGHTS

CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL MAIL: ATTORNEY CORRESPONDENCE

April 18, 2012

Ryan G Sanders
Columbia Co Jail 901 Port Ave St Helens, OR 97051
RE: Correspondence concerning legal publications

Dear Mr. Ryan G Sanders,

I am an attorney for the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC). Thank you for your interest in Prison Legal News (PLN). Monthly publication of PLN is oneof HRDC's projects.

We have enrolled you for a free trial subscription. You should be receiving your first sample issue shortly via first-class mail. We are also sending you a packet of informational brochures under separate cover. Additionally, PLN mailed a book to you, Protecting Your Health and Safety. I am writing to ask for confinnation of your receipt of these three (3) items which have
all been mailed separately.

At HRDC we take censorship very seriously and we rely almost exclusively on our incarcerated readers to inform us about which prisons and jails are interfering with our publication rights. If you have not received all three of the items mentioned above within the next few weeks, please write to us and let us know. If you receive a notice that any of our publications have been censored by staff, please consider filing a grievance and exhaust all available administrative remedies in an attempt to get them to release the material to you. If possible, please provide copies ofthose grievances and any other related documentationto ouroffice.

Finally, if you know of other prisoners there who might be interested in our publications and who will be incarcerated for at least three (3) months, please share PLN's address with them and encourage them to write us to request a free trial subscription. We thank you in advance for your

kind attention to this letter.

Very Truly Yours,
HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

cc: Paul Wright

By: Lance T. Weber
General Counsel
Post Office Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303 Phone: 802-579-1309 Fax: 866-735-7136
Email: lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org

PLNCOL-00916

EXHIBIT J: Page 41 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 42 of 73

Human Rights Defense Center
DEDICATED TO PROTECTING HUMAN RIGHTS
CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL MAIL: ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
Cindy M Seaston 2011000819 Columbia County Jail
901 Port Ave
St Helens, Oregon 97051
RE: Correspondence concerning PLN literature
Dear Ms. Seaston,
I am an attorney for the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC). Thank you for your interest in Prison Legal News (PLN). Monthly publication of PLN is one of HRDC's projects. Unfortunately, sometimes prisons and jails unlawfully interfere with PLN's publication rights.
I have been informed that PLN gave you a complimentary six month subscription. You should be receiving your first sample issue shortly via first-class mail. PLN also sent you a packet of informational brochures under separate cover. Additional!}', PLN mailed a book to you, Protecting Your Health and Safety. I am writing to ask for confirmation of your receipt of these three (3) items which have all been mailed separately. At HRDC we take censorship very seriously and we rely on prisoners to determine which prisons and jails are interfering with PLN's First Amendment rights. If you have not received all three of the items mentioned above within the next few weeks, please write to me and let me know. If you receive a notice that any of PLN's publications have been censored by staff, please consider filing a grievance and exhausting all available administrative remedies available to you. If possible, please provide copies of those grievances and any other related documentation to my office.
Finally, if you know of other prisoners there who might be interested in our publications and who will be incarcerated for at least three (3) months, please share PLN's address with them and encourage them to write in to request a free trial subscription. Thank you in advance for your
kind attention to this letter.
Very Truly Yours,
HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

cc: Paul Wright

By: Lance T. Weber
General Counsel
PO Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303 Phone: 802-579-1309 Fax: 866-735-7136
Email: lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org

PLNCOL-00901

EXHIBIT J: Page 42 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 43 of 73
PLNCOL-00902
EXHIBIT J: Page 43 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 44 of 73

/ifflJtSJi MacDonald Hoague &Bayless ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW

705 Second Avenue Suite 1500 Seattle. Washington 9B104-1745 Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3951
i
LEGAL MAIL
Cindy M. Seastone, 2011000819
Columbia County Jail
901 Port Avenne
St. Helens, OR 97051

August 19, 2011

Alec Bayless (1921-1991) Francis Hoague (1909-1993)
Kenneth A. MacDonald Retired
Miguel A. Bocanegra Andrea Brenneke Kalherine C. Chamberlain
Andrew T. Chan Mel Crawford
Timothy K. Ford
Katrin E. Frank Felicia L Glttleman Ester Greenfield Elizabeth Poh
Amy M. Royalty Joseph R. Shaeffer David J. Whedbee

Dear Ms. Seastone:
We represent Prison Legal News (PLN), which pubhshes amonthly journal about prisoners' rights and distributes books about legal issues affecting prisoners. We are investigating whether the Columbia County Jail is censoring PLN's mail to you.
PLN sent thefollowing mail to you at the Columbia County Jail in 2011:
A. Three double-sided single-page informational brochures, enclosed together inone white standard envelope. Exhibit Ais a copy ofthethree brochures:

1. PLN Brochure and SubscriptionOrder Form

2. 2010 PLN Book List
3. Brochure about two books for sale: (a) The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance ofCounsel and (b) Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the United States and Canada.
B Apaperback book titled Protecting Your Health &Safety sent to you in asmall
brown cardboard box. The book is 325 pages. Exhibit B is a copy ofthe front
and back cover of the book.
C. Prison Legal News's 56-page monthly journal. Exhibit Cis an example ofthe
front and back coverof a Prison Legal News journal.

EXHIBIT J: Page 44 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 45 of 73
Cindy M. Seastone, 2011000819 August 19,2011 Page 2
Based on our investigation, we understand that you did not receive one or more of the items identified above. We would like to know whelher that is correct and whether you received any ofthe other materials PLN sent to you at the Columbia County Jail. Also, if the Jail censored mail that PLN sent to you, we would like to know whether you received written notice from the Jail that mail addressed to you was rejected and not delivered to you.
Please review the enclosed Exhibits. Then, please read the enclosed declaration and indicate with a checkmark ( v) whether you received or did not receive the PLN mailings, and— if you did not receive one or more of the mailings—indicate with a checkmark (v) whether you received or did not receive written notification that mail addressed to you was rejected by the Jail. Next, please fill in the dates you were a prisonerat the ColumbiaCounty Jail. Finally, please sign and date the declaration, state the city you signedin, and send the declarationto me (with the attachedexhibits)in the enclosedself-addressed, postagepre-paid envelope. If possible, please use a pen to completethe declaration.
We need your response by August 31,2011. After you mail us your signed declaration, pleasecall our office at (206) 622-1604, and
ask to speakto Carrie Wilkinson. Our telephone number is registered with the telephone servicesutilizedby Columbia County Jail. We have otherquestions for you. Thank you.
Sincerely,
MacDonald Hoague & Bayless /s/Katherine C. Chamberlain Katherine C. Chamberlain
Attorney, Licensed in Oregon and Washington Enclosures)
rrr-'r
EXHIBIT J: Page 45 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 46 of 73

Human Rights Defense Center
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL MAIL: ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
August 2, 2011 Barry Shaft 2011000612 Columbia Co Jail
901 Port Ave
St Helens, Oregon 97501
RE: Correspondence concerning PLN literature
Dear Mr. Shaft,
I am an attorney for the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC). Thank you for your interestin Prison Legal News (PLN). Monthly publication of PLN is one of HRDC's projects. Unfortunately, sometimes prisons and jails unlawfully interfere withPLN's publication rights.
I have been informed that PLN gave you a complimentary six month subscription. You should be receiving your first sample issue shortly via first-class mail. PLN also sent you a packet of informational brochures under separate cover. Additionally, PLN mailed a book to you, Protecting Your Health and Safety. I am writing to ask for confirmation of your receipt of these three (3) items which have all been mailed separately. At HRDC we take censorship very seriously and we rely on prisoners to determine which prisons and jails are interfering with PLN's First Amendment rights. If you have not received all three of the items mentioned above within the next few weeks, please write to me and letme know. If you receive a notice that any
of PLN's publications have been censored by staff, please consider filing a grievance and exhausting all available administrative remedies available to you. If possible, please provide copies ofthose grievances and any other related documentation to myoffice.
Finally, if you know of other prisoners there who might be interested in our publications and who will be incarcerated for at least three (3) months, please sharePLN's address with them and encourage them to write in to request a free trial subscription. Thank you in advance for your
kind attention to this letter.
Very Truly Yours, HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

cc: Paul Wright

By: Lance T. Weber
General Counsel
PO Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303 Phone: 802-579-1309 Fax: 866-735-7136
Email: lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org

PLNCOL-00906

EXHIBIT J: Page 46 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 47 of 73

MacDonald Hoague &Bayless
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW

705 Second Avenue Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104-1745 Tel 205.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961
LEGAL MAIL
Barry Shaft, 2011000612 Columbia County Jail
901 Port Avenue St. Helens, OR 97051

August 19,2011

Alec Bayless (1921-1991) Francis Hoague (1909-1993)
Kenneth A. MacDonald Retired
Miguel A. Bocanegra Andrea Brenneke Katherine C. Chamberlain Andrew T. Chan Mel Crawford Timothy K. Ford Kalrin E. Frank Felicia L Glllleman Ester Greenfield
Elizabeth Poh
Amy M. Royalty Joseph R. Shaeffer
David J. Whedbee Jesse Wing

Dear Mr. Shaft:
We represent Prison Legal News (PLN), which publishes amonthly journal about prisoners' rights and distributes books about legal issues affecting prisoners. We are investigating whether theColumbia County Jail is censoring PLN's mail to you.

PLN sent the following mailto you at the Columbia CountyJail in 2011:
A. Threedouble-sided single-page informational brochures, enclosed together in one white standard envelope. Exhibit A is a copyof the three brochures:

1. PLN Brochure and Subscription Order Form

2.

2010 PLN Book List

3. Brochure about two books for sale: (a) TJie Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel and (b) Prisoners' Gueirilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the United States and Canada.

B. A paperback book titled Protecting Your Health &Safety sent to youin a small
brown cardboard box. The book is 325 pages. Exhibit B is a copy of the front
and back cover of the book.

C. Prison Legal News's 56—page monthly journal. Exhibit C is an example of the front and back cover of a Prison Legal Newsjournal.

EXHIBIT J: Page 47 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 48 of 73
Barry Shaft, 2011000612 August 19,2011 Page 2
Based on our investigation, we understand that you did not receive one or more ofthe items identified above. We would like to know whether that is correct and whether you received any of the other materials PLN sent to you at the ColumbiaCounty Jail. Also, if the Jail censored mail that PLN sent to you, we would like to know whether you received written notice from the Jail that mail addressed to you was rejected and not delivered to you.
Please review the enclosed Exhibits. Then, please read the enclosed declaration and indicate with a checkmark (v ) whether you received or did not receive the PLN mailings, and— ifyou did not receive one or more ofthe mailings—indicate with a checkmark (v ) whether you received or did not receive written notification that mail addressed to you was rejected by the Jail. Next,please fill in the datesyou were a prisonerat the Columbia County Jail. Finally, please signand datethe declaration, statethe city you signed in, and sendthe declaration to me (withthe attached exhibits) in the enclosed self-addressed, postage pre-paidenvelope. If possible, pleaseuse a pen to completethe declaration.
We need your response by August 315 2011. After you mail us your signed declaration, please call our office at (206) 622-1604, and
askto speakto CarrieWilkinson. Ourtelephone number is registered with the telephone services utilized by Columbia County JaiL We have other questions for you. Thank you.
Sincerely,
MacDonald Hoague & Bayless fslKatherine C. Chamberlain Kalherine C. Chamberlain
Attorney, Licensed in Oregon and Washington Enclosure(s)

,4-_AUbcM;._i.

^PLNCOL-00722p
EXHIBIT J: Page 48 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 49 of 73

Human Rights Defense Center
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights

confidential legal mail: attorney work product

February 23, 2011

Ezra St Helen 2010000397
Columbia County Jail
901 Port Ave
St Helens, Oregon 97051
RE: Correspondence concerning legal publications

Dear Mr. St Helen,
I am an attorney for the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC). Thank you for your interest in Prison Legal News (PLN). Monthlypublication of PLN is one of HRDC's projects.

We have enrolled you for a free trial subscription. You should already be in receipt of your first sample issue, which was sent via first-class mail. We are also sending you a packet of informational brochures under separate cover. Additionally, PLN mailed a book to you, Protecting Your Health andSafety. I am writing to ask for confirmation of your receipt of these three (3) items which have all been mailed separately. Additionally, please confirm that you wish to receive materials from Prison Legal News, including our magazine, books, pamphlets and
other materials.
At HRDC we take censorship very seriously and we rely on our readers to determine which
prisons and jails are interfering with our publication rights. If you have not received all three of
the items mentioned above within the next few weeks, please write to us and let us know. If you receive a notice that any of our publications have been censored by staff please consider filing a grievance and exhausting all available administrative remedies available to you. If possible, please provide copies of those grievances and any other related documentation to our office.

Finally, if you know of other prisoners there who might be interested in our publications and who will be incarcerated for at least three (3) months, please share PLN's address with them and encourage them to write us to request a free trial subscription. We thank you in advance for your

kind attention to this letter.

Very Truly Yours,

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

cc: Paul Wright

By: Lance T. Weber General Counsel

PO Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303 Phone: 802-579-1309 Fax: 866-735-7136
Email: lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org

PLNCOL-00877

EXHIBIT J: Page 49 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 50 of 73

MacDonald Hoague &Bayless
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW

705 Second Avenue Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104-1745 Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961
LEGAL MAIL

August 18, 2011

Kenneth A. MacDonald Retired
Miguel A. Bocanegra
Andrea Brenneke Kalherine C Chamberlain Andrew T.Chan Mel Crawford
Timothy K. Ford Kalrin E Frank Felicia L Gittleman Ester Greenfield Elizabeth Poh AmyM. Royalty Joseph P.. Shaeffer David J. Whedbee Jesse Wing

Ezra St Helen, 2010000397 Columbia County Jail
901 Port Avenue
St. Helens, Oregon 97051

Dear Mr. St. Helen:
We representPrison Legal News (PLN), which publishes a monthly journal about prisoners' rights and distributes books about legal issues affecting prisoners. We are investigatingwhether the Columbia CountyJail is censoringPLN's mail to you.

PLN sent the following mail to you at the Columbia County Jail in 2011:
A. Three double-sidedsingle-page informationalbrochures, enclosed together in one white standard envelope. Exhibit A is a copy of the three brochures:

1. PLN Brochure and Subscription Order Form

2.

2010 PLN Book List

3. Brochure about two books for sale: (a) TheHabeas Citeboolc Ineffective Assistance ofCounsel and (b) Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the United States and Canada.

B. A paperback book titledProtecting Your Health & Safety sent to you in a small brown cardboard box. The book is 325 pages. Exhibit B is a copy of the front
and back cover ofthe book.

C. Prison LegalNews's 56-page monthlyjournal. Exhibit C is an example of the
front and back cover of a Prison Legal News journal.

EXHIBIT J: Page 50 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 51 of 73
Ezra St Helen, 2010000397 August 18,2011 Page 2
D. A one-page PLN subscriptionrenewal letter, enclosed with a copy ofthe three informational brochures described above, in a white standard envelope. Exhibit D is a copy ofthe letter and brochures.
Based on our investigation, we understand that you did not receive one or more of the items identified above. We would like to know whether that is correct and whether you received any ofthe other materials PLN sent to you at the Columbia County Jail. Also, ifthe Jail censored mail that PLN sent to you, we would like to know whether you received written notice from the Jail that mail addressed to you was rejected and not delivered to you.
Please review the enclosed Exhibits. Then, please read the enclosed declaration and indicate with a checkmark ( v ) whether you received or did not receive the PLN mailings, and— if you did not receive one or more ofthe mailings—indicate with a checkmark ( v ) whether you received or did not receive written notification that mail addressed to you was rejected by the Jail. Next,please fill in the datesyou were a prisoner at the ColumbiaCounty JaiL Finally, please sign and date the declaration, state the city you signed in, and send the declaration to me (with the attached exhibits) in the enclosedself-addressed, postage pre-paid envelope. If possible, please use a pen to complete the declaration.
We need your response by August 31,2011. After you mail us your signed declaration, please call our office at (206) 622-1604, and ask to speak to Carrie Wilkinson. Our telephonenumber is registered with the telephone services utilizedby Columbia CountyJail. We have other questionsfor you. Thank you.
Sincerely,
MacDonald Hoague & Bayless /s/Katherine C Chamberlain Katherine C. Chamberlain
Attorney, Licensed in Oregon and Washington Enclosure(s)
EXHIBIT J: Page 51 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 52 of 73

Human Rights Defense Center
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights

confidential legal mail: attorney correspondence

April 18,2012

Rondo S Stimson Columbia Co Jail 901 Port Ave
St Helens, OR 97051
RE: Correspondence concerning legal publications

Dear Mr. Rondo S Stimson,

I am an attorney for the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC). Thank you for your interest in Prison Legal News (PLN). Monthly publication of PLN is one of HRDC's projects.

We have enrolled you for a free trial subscription. You should be receiving your first sample issue shortly via first-class mail. We are also sending you a packet of informational brochures under separate cover. Additionally, PLN mailed a book to you, Protecting Your Health and Safety. I am writing to ask for confirmation of your receipt of these three (3) items which have
all been mailed separately.

At HRDC we take censorship very seriously and we rely almost exclusively on our incarcerated readers to inform us about which prisons and jails are interfering with our publication rights. If you have not received all three of the items mentioned above within the next few weeks, please write to us and let us know. If you receive a notice that any of our publications have been censored by staff, please consider filing a grievance and exhaust all available administrative remedies in an attempt to get them to release the material to you. If possible, please provide copies of those grievances and any other related documentation to our office.

Finally, if you know of other prisoners there who might be interested in our publications and who will be incarcerated for at least three (3) months, please share PLN's address with them and encourage them to write us to request a free trial subscription. We thank you in advance for your

kind attention to this letter.

Very Truly Yours,

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

cc: Paul Wright

By: Lance T. Weber
General Counsel
Post Office Box 2420
West Brattleboro, VT 05303 Phone: 802-579-1309 Fax: 866-735-7136
Email: lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.or£

PLNCOL-00914

EXHIBIT J: Page 52 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 53 of 73

Human Rights Defense Center

^

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights

CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL MAIL: ATTORNEY CORRESPONDENCE
April 18,2012
Anthony Stratton
Columbia Co Jail 901 Port Ave
St Helens, OR 97051
RE: Correspondence concerning legal publications

Dear Mr. Anthony Stratton,

I am an attorney for the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC). Thank you for your interest in Prison Legal News (PLN). Monthly publication of PLN is oneof HjRDC's projects.

We have enrolled you for a free trial subscription. You should be receiving your first sample issue shortly via first-class mail. We are also sending you a packet of informational brochures under separate cover. Additionally, PLN mailed a book to you, Protecting Your Health and Safety. I am writing to ask for confirmation of your receipt of these three (3) items which have
all been mailed separately.

At HRDC we take censorship very seriously and we rely almost exclusively on our incarcerated
readers to inform us about which prisons andjails are interfering with our publication rights. If you have notreceived all three of the items mentioned above within the next few weeks, please write to us and let us know. If you receive a notice that any of our publications have been censored by staff, please consider filing a grievance and exhaust all available administrative remedies in an attempt to get them to release the material to you. If possible, please provide copies ofthose grievances and anyother related documentation to ouroffice.

Finally, if you know of other prisoners there who might be interested in our publications and who will be incarcerated for at least three (3) months, please share PLN's address with them and encourage them to write us to request a free trial subscription. Wethankyou in advance for your

kind attention to this letter.

Very Truly Yours,
HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

cc: Paul Wright

By: Lance T. Weber
General Counsel
Post Office Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303 Phone: 802-579-1309 Fax: 866-735-7136
Email: lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org

PLNCOL-00907

EXHIBIT J: Page 53 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 54 of 73

\ 1 Human Rights Defense Center

\J

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights

CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL MAIL: ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
August 2, 2011 William Temple 2011000529
Columbia Co Jail 901 Port Ave
St Helens, Oregon 97501
RE: Correspondence concerning PLN literature
Dear Mr. Temple,
I am an attorney for the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC). Thank you for your interest in Prison Legal News (PLN). Monthly publication of PLN is one of HRDC's projects. Unfortunately, sometimes prisons andjails unlawfully interfere with PLN's publication rights.
I have been informed that PLN gave you a complimentary six month subscription. You should be receiving your first sample issue shortly via first-class mail. PLN also sent you a packet of informational brochures under separate cover. Additionally, PLN mailed a book to you, Protecting Your Health andSafety. I am writing to ask for confinnation of yourreceipt of these three (3) items which have all been mailed separately. At HRDC we take censorship very seriously and we rely on prisoners to determine which prisons and jails are interfering with PLN's First Amendment rights. If you have not received all three of the items mentioned above within the next few weeks, please write to me and let me know. If you receive a notice that any of PLN's publications have been censored by staff, please consider filing a grievance and exhausting all available administrative remedies available to you. If possible, please provide copies of those grievances and anyother related documentation to my office.
Finally, if you know of other prisoners there who might be interested in our publications and who will be incarcerated for at least three (3) months, please share PLN's address with them and encourage them to write in to request a free trial subscription. Thank you in advance for your
kind attention to this letter.
Very Truly Yours,
HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

cc: Paul Wright

By: Lance T. Weber
General Counsel
PO Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303 Phone: 802-579-1309 Fax: 866-735-7136
Email: lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.or£

PLNCOL-00938

EXHIBIT J: Page 54 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 55 of 73

JSJ _fp>l MacDonald Hoague &Bayless s _ _ ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW

705 Second Avenue Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104-1745 Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961
LEGAL MAIL

August 19,2011

Alec Bayless (1921-1991) Francis Hoague (1909-1993)
Kenneth A. MacDonald Retired
Miguel A. Bocanegra Andrea Brenneke Katherine C. Chamberlain Andrew T. Chan
Mel Crawford
Timothy K. Ford
Katrin E. Frank Felicia L Glttleman Ester Greenfield Elizabeth Poh
Amy M. Royally Joseph R. Shaefier
David J. Whedbee
JesseWing

William Temple, 2011000529 Columbia County Jail
901 Port Avenue
St. Helens, OR 97051

Dear Mr. Temple :
We represent Prison LegalNews (PLN), whichpubhshes a monthlyjournal about prisoners' rights and distributes books about legal issues affecting prisoners. We are investigatingwhether the Columbia CountyJail is censoringPLN's mail to you.
PLN sent the following mail to you at the Columbia County Jail in 2011:

A Three double-sided single-page informational brochures, enclosed together in one white standard envelope. Exhibit A is a copy of the three brochures:

1. PLN Brochure and Subscription Order Form

2.

2010 PLN Book List

3. Brochure about two books for sale: (a) TheHabeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel and (b) Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the United States and Canada.
B. A paperback book titledProtecting Your Health &. Safety sent to you in a small brown cardboard box. The book is 325 pages. Exhibit B is a copy of the front
and back cover of the book.
C. Prison LegalNews's 56-page monthly journal. Exhibit C is an example of the front and back cover of a Prison Legal News journal.

EXHIBIT J: Page 55 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 56 of 73
William Temple, 2011000529 August 19,2011 Page 2
Based on our investigation, we understand that you did not receive one or more of the items identified above. We would like to know whether that is correct and whether you received any of the other materials PLN sent to you at the Columbia County Jail. Also, if the Jail censored mail that PLN sent to you, we would like to know whether you received written notice from the Jail that mail addressed to you was rejected and not delivered to you.
Please review the enclosed Exhibits. Then, please read the enclosed declaration and indicate with a checkmark (v) whether you received or did not receive the PLN mailings, and— if you did not receive one or more of the mailings—indicate with a checkmark (v) whether you received or did not receive written notification that mail addressed to you was rejected by the
Jail. Next, pleasefill in the dates youwere a prisoner at the Columbia CountyJail. Finally, . please signanddatethe declaration, statethe city yousignedin, and send the declaration to me (withthe attached exhibits)in the enclosedself-addressed* postagepre-paid envelope. If possible, please use a pen to completethe declaration.
We need your response by August 31,2011. After you mail us your signed declaration, please call our office at (206) 622-1604, and
ask to speakto CarrieWilldnson. Ourtelephone number is registered with the telephone services utilizedby Columbia CountyJail. We have other questions for you. Thank you.
Sincerely,
MacDonald Hoague & Bayless /s/Kaiherine C Chamberlain
Katherine C. Chamberlain
Attorney, Licensed in Oregon and Washington Enclosure(s)

"5B7D_e5n_rr

PLNCOL-00765
EXHIBIT J: Page 56 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 57 of 73

Human Rights Defense Center
DEDICATED TO PROTECTING HUMAN RIGHTS

CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL MAIL: ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT

February 23, 2011

Scott Thomas 2010002488
Columbia County Jail
901 Port Ave
St Helens, Oregon 97051 RE: Correspondence concerning legal publications

Dear Mr. Thomas.

I am an attorney for the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC). Thank you for your interest in Prison Legal News (PLN). Monthly publication of PLN is one of HRDC's projects.

We have enrolled you for a free trial subscription. You should already be in receipt of your first sample issue, which was sent via first-class mail. We are also sending you a packet of informational brochures under separate cover. Additionally, PLN mailed a book to you. Protecting Your Health andSafety. I am writing to ask for confirmation of your receipt of these three (3) items which have all been mailed separately. Additionally, please confirm that you wish to receive materials from Prison Legal News, including our magazine, books, pamphlets and
other materials.

At HRDC we take censorship very seriously and we rely on our readers to determine which prisons andjails are interfering with our publication rights. If you have not received all three of the items mentioned above within the next few weeks, please write to us and let us know. If you receive a notice that any of our publications have been censored by staff, please consider filing a grievance and exhausting all available administrative remedies available to you. If possible, please provide copies of those grievances and any other related documentation to our office.

Finally, if you know of other prisoners there who might be interested in our publications and who will be incarcerated for at least three (3) months, please share PLN's address with them and encourage them to write us to request a free trial subscription. We thank you in advance for your

kind attention to this letter.

Very Truly Yours,

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

cc: Paul Wright

By: Lance T. Weber General Counsel

PO Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303
Phone: 802-579-1309 Fax: 866-735-7136
Email: lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.orf

PLNCOL-00895

EXHIBIT J: Page 57 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 58 of 73

Human Rights Defense Center
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL MAIL: ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
December 23, 2011
Timothy Turner 2011002227 Columbia County Jail
901 Port Ave
St Helens, OR 97051
RE: Correspondence concerningPLN literature
Dear Mr. Turner,
I am an attorney for the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC). I have been informed that you may have an interest in Prison Legal News (PLN). Monthly publication of PLN is one of HRDC's projects along with the distribution of books and other literature of interest to prisoners.
I have been informed that PLN gave you a complimentary six month subscription. You should have already received your first sample via first-class mail. PLN also sent you a packet of informational brochures in a regular sized envelope. Additionally, PLN mailed a book to you
about prisoners' rights and the American legal system called Protecting Your Health and Safety.
I am writing to ask whether you have received each of these three (3) items which have all been mailed separately. At HRDC we take censorship very seriously and we rely on prisoners to determine which prisons and jails are interfering with PLN's First Amendment rights. If you
have not received all three of the items mentioned above please write to me and let me know. You should also be receiving a new issue of PLN every month for 6 months. If you receive a notice that any of PLN's publications have been censored by staff, please consider filing a
grievance and inquiring about the reason for the censorship. If possible, please provide copies of those grievances and any other related documentation to my office. Finally, if you know of other prisoners there who might be interested in our publications and who might be incarcerated for more than just a few months, please share PLN's address with them and encourage themto write in and request free information with no obligation. Thank you in advance for your kind attention
to this letter.
Very Truly Yours,
HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

cc: Paul Wright

By: Lance T. Weber, Esq.
PO Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303 Phone: 802-579-1309 Fax: 866-735-7136 Email: lweber(5)humanrightsdefensecenter.org

PLNCOL-00931

EXHIBIT J: Page 58 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 59 of 73

Human Rights Defense Center
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights

confidential legal mall: attorney work product

February 23, 2011

Alisha Vandolah 2010002105
Columbia County Jail
901 Port Ave
St Helens, Oregon 97051
RE: Correspondence concerning legal publications

Dear Ms. Vandolah,
I am an attorney for the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC). Thank you for your interest in Prison Legal News (PLN). Monthly publication of PLN is one of HRDC's projects.

We have enrolled you for a free trial subscription. You should already be in receipt of your first sample issue, which was sent via first-class mail. We are also sending you a packet of informational brochures under separate cover. Additionally, PLN mailed a book to you, Protecting Your Health and Safety. I am writing to ask for confinnation of your receipt of these three (3) items which have all been mailed separately. Additionally, please confirm that you wish to receive materials from Prison Legal News, including our magazine, books, pamphlets and
other materials.
At HRDC we take censorship very seriously and we rely on our readers to determine which prisons and jails are interfering with ourpublication rights. If you have not received all three of the items mentioned above within the next few weeks, please write to us and let us know. If you receive a notice that any of our publications have been censored by staff, please consider filing a grievance and exhausting all available administrative remedies available to you. If possible, please provide copies of those grievances and any other related documentation to ouroffice.

Finally, if you know of other prisoners there who might be interested in our publications and who will be incarcerated for at least three (3) months, please share PLN's address with them and encourage them to write us to request a free trial subscription. We thank you in advance for your

kind attention to this letter.

Very Truly Yours,

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

cc: Paul Wright

By: Lance T. Weber General Counsel

PO Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303 Phone: 802-579-1309 Fax: 866-735-7136
Email: lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org

PLNCOL-00878

EXHIBIT J: Page 59 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 60 of 73

[;1 MacDonald Hoague &Bayless
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW

705 Second Avenue Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington
9B104-1745 Tel 206.622.1604
Fax 206.343.3961
_T_EUG>A_T> iMt_A_T_T
AHsha Vandolah, 2010002105 Columbia County Jail
901 Port Avenue
St. Helens, OR 97051

Kennelh A. MacDonald
RelirBd Miguel A. Bocanegra
Andrea Brenneke Katherine C. Chamberlain Andrew T.Chan Mel Crawford Timolhy K. Ford
Katrin E. Frank Felicia L Gittieman
EEslitzearbGertheePnofhield
Amy M. Royalty'
K j.wtedbee Jesse wlnB

Dear Ms. Vandolah:
Werepresent Prison LegalNews(PLN), whichpublishes a monthlyjournal about prisoners' rights and distributes books about legal issues affectingprisoners. We are investigating whether the Columbia CountyJail is censoringPLN's mail to you.

PLN sent the following mail to you at the Columbia County Jail in 2011:
a) Three double-sided single-page informational brochures, enclosed together in one white standard envelope. Exhibit A is a copy of the three brochures:

i) PLN Brochure and Subscription Order Form

ii) 2010 PLN Book List

hi) Brochure about two books for sale: (i) TheHabeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel and (ii) Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the United States and Canada.
b) A paperback book titledProtecting Your Health & Safety sent to you in a small brown cardboard box. The book is 325 pages. Exhibit B is a copy of the front
and back cover of the book.
c) Prison Legal News's 56-page monthlyjournal. Exhibit C is an example of the front and back cover of a PrisonLegal News journal.
d) A one-page PLN subscription renewal letter, enclosed with a copy of the three informational brochures described above, in a white standard envelope. Exhibit D is a copy of the letter and brochures.

EXHIBIT J: Page 60 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 61 of 73
Alisha Vandolah, 2010002105 August 18,2011 Page 2
Based on our investigation, we understand that you did not receive one or more of the items identified above. We would like to know whether that is correct and whether you received any ofthe other materials PLN sent to you at the Columbia County Jail. Also, if the Jail censored mail that PLN sent to you, we would like to know whether you received written notice from the Jail that mail addressed to yon was rejected and not delivered to you.
Please review the enclosed Exhibits. Then, please read the enclosed declaration and indicate with a checkmark (v ) whether you received or did not receive the PLN mailings, and— if you did not receive one or more of the mailings—indicate with a checkmark (v ) whether you received or did not receive written notification that mail addressed to you was rejected by the JaiL Next, please fill in the dates you were a prisoner at the Columbia County Jail. Finally, pleasesign and date the declaration, state the city you signed in, and send the declarationto me (with the attached exhibits) in the enclosed self-addressed, postage pre-paid envelope. If possible, please use a pen to complete the declaration.
We need your response by August 31,2011. After you mail us your signed declaration, please call our office at (206) 622-1604, and ask to speak to Carrie Wilkinson. Our telephonenumber is registered with the telephone services utilized by Columbia County JaiL We have other questions for you. Thank you.
Sincerely,
MacDonald Hoague & Bayless /s/Katherine C. Chamberlain Katherine C. Chamberlain
Attorney, Licensed in Oregon and Washington Enclosure(s)
EXHIBIT J: Page 61 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 62 of 73

Human Rights Defense Center
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights

confidential legal mail: attorney correspondence

April 18, 2012

Harley C Vandolah
Columbia Co Jail 901 Port Ave St Helens, OR 97051
RE: Correspondence concerning legal publications

Dear Mr. Harley Vandolah,
I am an attorney for the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC). Thank you for your interest in Prison Legal News (PLN). Monthly publication of PLN is oneof HRDC's projects.

We have enrolled you for a free trial subscription. You should be receiving your first sample issue shortly via first-class mail. We are also sending you a packet of informational brochures under separate cover. Additionally, PLN mailed a book to you, Protecting Your Health and Safety. I am writing to ask for confirmation of your receipt of these three (3) items which have
all been mailed separately.

At HRDC we take censorship very seriously and we rely almost exclusively on our incarcerated readers to inform us about which prisons and jails are interfering with our publication rights. If you have not received all three of the items mentioned above within the next few weelcs, please write to us and let us know. If you receive a notice that any of our publications have been censored by staff, please consider filing a grievance and exhaust all available administrative remedies in an attempt to get them to release the material to you. If possible, please provide copies of those grievances and any otherrelated documentation to our office.

Finally, if you know of other prisoners there who might be interested in our publications and who will be incarcerated for at least three (3) months, please share PLN's address with them and encourage them to write us to request a free trial subscription. We thank you in advance for your

kind attention to this letter.

Very Truly Yours.
HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

cc: Paul Wrisht

By: Lance T. Weber
General Counsel
Post Office Box 2420
West Brattleboro, VT 05303 Phone: 802-579-1309 Fax: 866-735-7136 Email: lweber(5)humanrightsdefensecenter.org

PLNCOL-00909

EXHIBIT J: Page 62 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 63 of 73

iff ii Human Rights Defense Center

VV^- ^

Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights

CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL MAIL: ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT

February 23, 2011

Jeffrey Vannatta 2011000104 Columbia County Jail
901 Port Ave
St Helens, Oregon 97051
RE: Correspondence concerning legal publications

Dear Mr. Vannatta,

I am an attorney for the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC). Thank you for your interest in Prison Legal News (PLN). Monthly publication of PLN is oneof HRDC's projects.

We have enrolled you for a free trial subscription. You should already be in receipt of your first sample issue, which was sent via first-class mail. We are also sending you a packet of informational brochures under separate cover. Additionally, PLN mailed a book to you, Protecting Your Health andSafety. I am writing to ask for confirmation of your receipt of these three (3) items which have all been mailed separately. Additionally, please confirm that you wish to receive materials from Prison Legal News, including our magazine, books, pamphlets and
other materials.

At HRDC we take censorship very seriously and we rely on our readers to determine which prisons and jails are interfering with our publication rights. If you have not received all three of the items mentioned above within the next few weeks, please write to us and let us know. If you receive a notice that any of our publications have been censored by staff, please consider filing a grievance and exhausting all available administrative remedies available to you. If possible, please provide copies of those grievances and any other related documentation to ouroffice.

Finally, if you know of other prisoners there who might be interested in our publications and who will be incarcerated for at least three (3) months, please share PLN's address with them and encourage them to write us to request a free trial subscription. We thank you in advance for your

kind attention to this letter.

Very Truly Yours,

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

cc: Paul Wright

By: Lance T. Weber General Counsel

PO Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303 Phone: 802-579-1309 Fax: 866-735-7136 Email: lweberfShumanrightsdefensecenter.org

PLNCOL-00885

EXHIBIT J: Page 63 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 64 of 73

Human Rights Defense Center
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights

CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL MAIL: ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
August 2, 2011
Robert Westmoreland 2011001188 Columbia Co Jail 901 Port Ave
St Helens, Oregon 97501
RE: Correspondence concerning PLN literature
Dear Mr. Westmoreland,
I am an attorney for the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC). Thank you for your interest in Prison Legal News (PLN). Monthly publication of PLN is one of HRDC's projects. Unfortunately, sometimes prisons andjails unlawfully interfere with PLN's publication rights.
I have been informed that PLN gave you a complimentary six month subscription. Y'ou should be receiving your first sample issue shortly via first-class mail. PLN also sent you a packet of informational brochures under separate cover. Additionally, PLN mailed a book to you, Protecting Your Health andSafety. I am writing to ask for confinnation of your receipt of these three (3) items which have all been mailed separately. At HRDC we take censorship very seriously and we rely on prisoners to determine which prisons and jails are interfering with PLN's First Amendment rights. If you have not received all three of the items mentioned above within the next few weelcs, please write to me and let me know. If you receive a notice that any of PLN's publications have been censored by staff, please consider filing a grievance and exhausting all available administrative remedies available to you. If possible, please provide copies of those grievances and any other related documentation to my office.
Finally, if you know of other prisoners there who might be interested in our publications and who will be incarcerated for at least three (3) months, please share PLN's address with them and encourage them to write in to request a free trial subscription. Thank you in advance for your
kind attention to this letter.
Very Truly Yours,
HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

cc: Paul Wrieht

n^
By: Lance T. Weber
General Counsel
PO Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303
Phone: 802-579-1309 Fax: 866-735-7136
Email: lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org

PLNCOL-00936

EXHIBIT J: Page 64 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 65 of 73

MacDonald Hoacue& Bayless
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW

705 Second Avenue Suite 1500
Seattle, Washington 98104-1745 Tel 206.622.1604
Fax 206.343.3951
LEGAL MAIL

August 19, 2011

Alec Bayless (1921-1991) Francis Hoague (1909-1993)
Kennelh A MacDonald Retired
Miguel A Bocanegra Andrea Brenneke Kalherine C Chamberlain Andrew T. Chan Mel Crawford Timolhy K. Ford Kalrin E. Frank Felicia L Glllleman Ester Greenfield Elizabeth Poh Amy M. Royalty Joseph R. Shaeffer David J. Whedbee Jesse Wing

Robert Westmoreland, 2011001188 Columbia County Jail 901 Port Avenue St. Helens, OR 97051

Dear- Mr. Westmoreland:
We represent Prison Legal News (PLN), which pubhshes amonthly journal about prisoners' rights and distributes books about legal issues affecting prisoners. We are investigating whether theColumbia County Jail is censoring PLN's mail to you.

PLN sent the following mail to you at the Columbia County Jail in 2011:
A. Threedouble-sided single-page informational brochures, enclosed together in one white standard envelope. ExhibitA is a copyof the threebrochures:

1. PLN Brochure and Subscription Order Form

2.

2010 PLN Book List

3. Brochure about two books for sale: (a) The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel and (b) Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the United States and Canada.

B. Apaperback book titled Protecting Your Health &Safety sent to you in a small
brown cardboard box. The book is 325 pages. Exhibit B is a copy of the front
and back cover ofthe book.

C. Piison Legal News's 56-pagemonthly journal. Exhibit C is an example of the
front and back cover of a Prison Legal News journal.

IE5?PLNCOL-00807^ EXHIBIT J: Page 65 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 66 of 73
Robert Westmoreland, 2011001188 August 19,2011 Page 2
Based on our investigation, we understand that you did not receive one or more ofthe items identified above. We would like to know whether that is correct and whether you received any ofthe othermaterialsPLN sent to you at the Columbia CountyJaiL Also, if the Jail censored mail that PLN sent to you, we would like to know whether you received written notice from the Jail that mail addressed to you was rejected and not delivered to you.
Please review the enclosed Exhibits. Then, please read the enclosed declaration and indicate with a checkmark (v ) whether you received or did not receive the PLN mailings, and— if you didnot receive one or more of the mailings—indicate with a checkmark (v) whetheryou received or did not receive written notification that mail addressed to you was rejected by the JaiL Next, please fill in the dates youwere a prisoner at the Columbia CountyJaiL Finally,
please sign anddatethe declaration, state the cityyousigned in, andsendthe declaration to me (with the attached exhibits) in the enclosed self-addressed, postage pre-paid envelope. If possible, please use a pen to complete the declaration.
We need your response by August 31,2011. Afteryoumailus your signeddeclaration, please callour office at (206) 622-1604, and
askto speak to Carrie Wilkinson. Our telephone number is registered with the telephone servicesutilizedby Columbia CountyJail. We have otherquestionsfor you. Thank you.
Sincerely,
MacDonald Hoague & Bayless
/s/Katherine C. Chamberlain
Katherine C. Chamberlain
Attorney, Licensed in Oregon and Washington
Enclosure(s)

•intmtamiiuii

;

/"- *.

'-.'.-

"

'k

~ „"" ,

-PLNCOL-00808

EXHIBIT J: Page 66 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 67 of 73

Human Rights Defense Center
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights

confidential legal mail: attorney work product

March 12,2012

Eric Wilcoxson 2011000522
Columbia County Jail
901 Port Ave
St Helens, OR 97051

RE: Correspondence concerning PLN literature

Dear Mr. Wilcoxson,

I am an attorney for the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC). You have been identified as someone who may have a need for the infonnation provided by Prison Legal News (PLN). Monthly publication of PLN is one of HRDC's projects along with the distribution of books and other literature of interest to prisoners at high risk of having their rights violated.

PLN has given you a complimentary six month subscription. This month you should expect to receive your first subscription issue and you should receive a new issue every month for 5 months thereafter. You should have already received your free introductory' copy via first-class mail. PLN also sent you a packet of informational brochures in a regular sized envelope. Additionally, PLN mailed a book to you about prisoners' rights and the American legal system called Protecting Your Health andSafety as a free gift.

I am writing to investigate whether you have received each of these three (3) items which have all been mailed separately. At HRDC, we rely on prisoners to help protect PLN's First Amendment rights. If you have not received all three of the items mentioned above (or any of the monthly subscription issues) please write to me and let me know. I'm also interested in hearing about any other problems you've been experiencing with incoming or outgoing mail. If you receive a notice that any of PLN's publications have been censored by staff, please consider filing a grievance and inquiring about the reason for the censorship. If possible, please provide me with copies of those grievances. Finally, if you know of other prisoners who might be interested in PLN's publications and who will be incarcerated for several months or more, please share PLN's address with them and encourage them to write in and request a free
subscription. Thank you in advance for your kind attention to this letter. I wish you well in your struggles
and I look forward to hearing from you.

Very Truly Yours,
HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

7 ////!__

cc: Paul Wright

By: Lance T. Weber, Attorney at Law

PO Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303
Phone: 802-579-1309 Fax: 866-735-7136
Email: lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org

PLNCOL-00932

EXHIBIT J: Page 67 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 68 of 73

Human Rights Defense Center
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights

confidential legal mail: attorney correspondence

April 18,2012

Jon Wilke Columbia Co lail 901 Port Ave
St Helens, OR 97051
RE: Correspondence concerning legal publications

Dear Mr. Jon Wilke,

I am an attorney for the Pluman Rights Defense Center (HRDC). Thank you for your interest in Prison Legal News (PLN). Monthly publication of PLN is oneof HRDC's projects.

We have enrolled you for a free trial subscription. You should be receiving your first sample issue shortly via first-class mail. We are also sending you a packet of informational brochures under separate cover. Additionally, PLN mailed a book to you, Protecting Your Health and
Safety. I am writing to ask for confirmation of your receipt of these three (3) items which have
all been mailed separately.

At HRDC we take censorship very seriously and we rely almost exclusively on our incarcerated readers to inform us about which prisons and jails are interfering with our publication rights. If you have not received all three of the items mentioned above within the next few weelcs, please
write to us and let us know. If you receive a notice that any of our publications have been
censored by staff, please consider filing a grievance and exhaust all available administrative remedies in an attempt to get them to release the material to you. If possible, please provide copies ofthose grievances and any other related documentation toour office.

Finally, if you know of other prisoners there who might be interested in our publications and
who will be incarcerated for at least three (3) months, please share PLN's address with them and
encourage them to write us to request a free trial subscription. We thank you in advance for your

kind attention to this letter.

Very Truly Yours,

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

cc: Paul Wright

By: Lance T. Weber
General Counsel
Post Office Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303 Phone: 802-579-1309 Fax: 866-735-7136
Email: lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org

PLNCOL-00911

EXHIBIT J: Page 68 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 69 of 73

Human Rights Defense Center
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL MAIL: ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
December 29, 2011
Shaughnessy Williams 2011000534 Columbia County Jail
901 Port Ave
St Helens, Oregon 97051
RE: Correspondence concerningPLN literature
Dear Shaughnessy Williams,
I am an attorney for the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC). I have been informed that you may have an interest in Prison Legal News (PLN). Monthly publication of PLN is one of HRDC's projects along with the distribution of books and other literature of interest to prisoners.
I have been informed that PLN gave you a complimentary six month subscription. You should have already received your first sample via first-class mail. PLN also sent you a packet of informational brochures in a regular sized envelope. Additionally, PLN mailed a book to you
about prisoners' rights and the American legal system called Protecting Your Health and Safety.
I am writing to ask whether you have received each of these three (3) items which have all been mailed separately. At HRDC we take censorship very seriously and we rely on prisoners to determine which prisons and jails are interfering with PLN's First Amendment rights. If you have not received all three of the items mentioned above please write to me and let me know. You should also be receiving a new issue of PLN every month for 6 months. If you receive a notice that any of PLN's publications have been censored by staff, please consider filing a grievance and inquiring about thereason for the censorship. If possible, please provide copies of those grievances and any other related documentation to my office. Finally, if you know of other prisoners there who might be interested in our publications and who might be incarcerated for more than just a few months, please share PLN's address with them and encourage them to write inand request free information with no obligation. Thank you in advance for your kind attention
to this letter.
Very Truly Yours, HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

cc: Paul Wright

By: Lance T. Weber, Esq.
____^____
PO Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303 Phone: 802-579-1309 Fax: 866-735-7136
Email: lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org

PLNCOL-00933

EXHIBIT J: Page 69 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 70 of 73

Human Rights Defense Center
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights
confidential legal mail: attorney work product
March 12, 2012
Joshua Young 2011002350 Columbia County Jail
901 Port Ave
St Helens, OR 97051
RE: Correspondence concerning PLN literature
Dear Mr. Young,
I am an attorney for the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC). You have been identified as someone who may have a need for the information provided by Prison LegalNews(PLN). Monthly publication of PLN is one of HRDC's projects along with the distribution of books and other literature of interest to prisoners at high risk of having their rights violated.
PLN has given you a complimentary six month subscription. This month you should expect to receive your first subscription issueand you should receive a new issue every month for 5 months thereafter. You should have already received your free introductory copy via first-class mail. PLN also sent you a packet of informational brochures in a regular sized envelope. Additionally, PLN mailed a book to you about prisoners' rights and the American legal system called Protecting Your Health andSafety as a free gift.
I am writing to investigate whether you have received each of these three (3) items which have all been mailed separately. At HRDC, we rely on prisoners to help protect PLN's First Amendment rights. If you
have not received all three of the items mentioned above (or any of the monthly subscription issues)
please write to me and let me know. I'm also interested in hearing about any otherproblems you've been experiencing with incoming or outgoing mail. If you receive a notice that any of PLN's publications have been censored by staff, please consider filing a grievance and inquiring about the reason for the censorship. If possible, please provide me with copies of those grievances. Finally, if you know of other prisoners who might be interested in PLN's publications and who will be incarcerated for several months or more, please share PLN's address with them and encourage them to write in and request a free subscription. Thank you in advance for yourkind attention to this letter. I wish you well in your struggles
and I look forward to hearing from you.
Very Truly Yours,
HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER

cc: Paul Wright

By: Lance T. Weber, Attorney at Law
PO Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303 Phone: 802-579-1309 Fax: 866-735-7136
Email: lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org

PLNCOL-00934

EXHIBIT J: Page 70 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 71 of 73

PRISONLEGAL NEWS
Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights

P.O. Box 2420, West Brattleboro, VT 05303— 802-257-1342

www.prisonlegalnews.org

pwright@.prisonlegalnews.org

August 7,2010

Alexander Yracheta # 2009003698
Columbia County Jail
901 Port Avenue
St Helens, Oregon 97051
Dear Alexander,
I am the editor of Prison Legal News. I thought you might be interested in PLN.
Under separate coverI have sent youa sample copy of PLN; please confirm receiptof the magazinewhen it arrives. I have also started a free subscriptionto the magazine per your request. Under separate cover I am sending a copy of the book Protecting Your Health & Safety, write to confirm that you have received the book as well.
If you do not receivethe magazines, book, or get a censorship noticeplease send it to me at the above address. If you have filed any grievances or appeals concerning censorship, pleasecontinue to sendthose and the responses to me as well. Sendall further correspondence directlyto me at the Vermont address above. I havereason to believe that the Columbia county jail censors publications such as ours.
If you know of other prisoners, who will be at the jail for at least six months and who are interestedin getting a free subscriptionto PLNmid a law book, ask them to write to me at the address above and I will start a subscription for them.
Thank you for yourtime and attention in this matter. I look forward to your reply.

In struggle,
Paul Wright, Editor Prison Legal News

PLNCOL-00917
EXHIBIT J: Page 71 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 72 of 73

MacDonald Hoague & Bayless
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW

705 Second Avenue Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 93104-1745 Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961
August 18, 2011
LEGAL MAIL
Alexander Yracheta, DOC# 15812228
Columbia River Correctional Institution 9111 NE Sunderland Avenue Portland, OR 97211-1799

Alec Bayless (1921-1991) Francis Hoague (1909-1993)
Kenneth A. MacDonald Retired
Miguel A. Bocanegra
Andrea Brenneke Katherine C Chamberlain Andrew T. Chan Mel Crawford Timolhy K. Ford Katrin E. Frank Felicia L Glttleman Ester Greenfield Qizabelh Poh
Amy M. Royalty Joseph R. Shaeffer
David J. Whedbee
Jesse Wing

Dear Mr. Yracheta:
We representPrison Legal News (PLN), which pubhshes a monthly journal about prisoners' rights and distributes books aboutlegal issuesaffecting prisoners. We are mvestigating whether the Columbia CountyJail censored PLN's mail'to you.
PLN sent the following mail to you at the Columbia County Jail in 2011:
A. Three double-sided single-page informational brochures, enclosed together in one white standard envelope. Exhibit A is a copy of the three brochures:

1. PLN Brochure and Subscription Order Form

2.

2010 PLN Book List

3. Brochure about two books for sale: (a) TlieHabeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel and (b) Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the United States and Canada.

B. A paperback book titled Protecting Your Health & Safety sent to you in a small brown cardboard box. The book is 325 pages. Exhibit B is a copy of the front
and back cover ofthe book.

C. PrisonLegal News's 56-page monthlyjournal. Exhibit C is an example of the front and back cover of a Prison Legal News journal.

?PLNCOL-00824j;
EXHIBIT J: Page 72 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-10 Filed 10/16/12 Page 73 of 73
Alexander Yracheta, DOC# 15812228 August 18,2011 Page 2
Based on our investigation, we understand that you did not receive one or more of the items identified above. We would like to know whether that is correct and whether you received any ofthe other materials PLN sent to you at the Columbia County JaiL Also, if the Jail censored mail that PLN sent to you, we would like to know whether you received written notice from the Jail that mail addressed to you was rejected and not delivered to you.
Please review the enclosed Exhibits. Then, please read the enclosed declaration and indicate with a checkmark (^ ) whether you received or did not receive the PLN mailings, and— if you did not receive one or more ofthe mailings—indicate with a checkmark (• ) whether you received or did not receive written notification mat mail addressed to you was rejected by the JaiL Next,please fill in the dates you were a prisoner at the ColumbiaCounty Jail. Finally, please sign and date the declaration, statethe city you signedin, and send the declaration to me (withthe attached exhibits) in the enclosed self-addressed, postagepre-paid envelope.If possible,please use a pen to completethe declaration.
We need your response by August 31,2011. After you mail us your signed declaration,please call our office at (206) 622-1604, and ask to speakto CarrieWilkinson. Ourtelephone numberis registeredwith the telephone services utilizedby the Oregon StateDOC. We have other questionsfor you. Thank you.
Sincerely,
MacDonald Hoague & Bayless /s/Kaiherine C Chamberlain Katherine C. Chamberlain
Attorney, Licensed in Oregon and Washington Enclosures)
EXHIBIT J: Page 73 of 73

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-11 Filed 10/16/12 Page 1 of 1
alQ/tfiYtfle under investigation for letters with powder sent to Portland buildings
n
OregonLive.com
Everything Oregon
Jail inmate under investigation for letters with powder sent to Portland buildings
Published: Thursday, May 24, 2012, 5:37 PM Updated: Thursday, May 24, 2012, 10:03 PM
Bryan Denson, The Oregonian

The FBI is investigating a 31-year-old inmate for a series of jailhouse mailings of mysterious white powder, including at least one to a federal prosecutor purporting to be anthrax and others to buildings around Portland, according to court records made public Thursday.

Andrew L. Barnett, who is being held in the Columbia County Jail, was awaiting

trial in the Justice Center Jail in Portland last August when he allegedly threw a

mixture of urine and feces into the face of a sheriff's deputy, a superseding

view full size
Multnomah
County Sheriff
Andrew Barnett

indictment alleges.
On April 26, Barnett allegedly mailed a letter to the prosecutor in his case -Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen Peifer —threatening him "with death by exposure to Anthrax," according to a search warrant application sworn out by

the FBI on May 11. The papers accuse Barnett of mailing two previous threats to Peifer, one last December,

another in February.

The latest letter (with a return address of "Barnett, Andrew") encouraged Peifer to snort the purported anthrax and concluded with a short statement, "I want you gone!!!!," according to an FBI affidavit.

Similar threatening letters were sent to six buildings in Portland in late April and early May, but testing of the powdery substance inside the envelopes showed the material was non-toxic, the FBI reported.

The bureau's search warrant was intended to obtain a DNA sample from Barnett and link him to the phony
anthrax letters.

— Bryan Denson

© 2012 OregonLive.com. All rights reserved.
blog.orogonlive.com/portland_impact/print.html?ontry=/2012/05/jail_inmate_undor_inv estigatio.html

1/2
EXHIBIT K: Page 1 of 1

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-12 Filed 10/16/12 Page 1 of 22

1 Alan E. Wisotsky - State Bar No. 68051 Jeffrey Held - State Bar No. 106991
2 WISOTSKY, PROCTER & SHYER 300 Esplanade Drive, Suite 1500
Oxnard, California 95036 ¥s*
Phone:(805)278-0920 4 Facsimile: (805) 278-0289 5 E-Mail: jheld@wps-law.net

6 Attorneys for Respondent, ASSISTANT UNDERSHERIFF GARY PENTIS (sued and served as DOE 1) [EXEMPT FROM
7 FILING FEE- GOV. CODE Section 6103]

8

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

9

FOR THE COUNTY OF VENTURA

10
In re STEVEN GARCIA, REANNA 11 SANCHEZ, VICTORIA NINE, SARAH
MURPHY McCOMACK, BROOKS BECK, on
12 Habeas Corpus on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
13
Petitioners,
14
vs.
15
CHIEF DEPUTY DAVID TENNESSEN, and
16 DOES 1 through X, in their official capacity as jail administrators,
17
Respondents.
18

CASENO.MA-004-11
NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE WITH COURT'S PARTIAL UNSEALING ORDER
Judge: Rebecca S. Riley Filed: January 26,2011
Trial: None set

19

TO: MOVING PARTY, VENTURA COUNTY STAR BY IT'S COUNSEL OF RECORD,

20 LAURA COTA AND TO PETITIONERS AND TO THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD, MICHAEL

21 McMAHON:

22

In accordance with Judge Riley's order of November 1,2011, respondent now complies fully

23 with that order. Respondent attachesheretoauthenticphotocopies ofthe formerly sealed declarations

24 filed on March 9, 2011, redacted in accordance with Judge Riley's order. These redactions are to

25 paragraph 3 of the declaration of Jerry Hernandez; paragraph 8(a) of the declaration of Aaron

26 Wilkinson; the entirely unredacted declaration of Rob Davidson; the entirely unredacteddeclarationof

27 Tracy Martinez; the entirelyunredacted declaration of JeffreyHeld; and, the redacted declaration of

28 an individual declarant whose identity was kept sealed by Judge Riley's November 1, 2011, order,

1 NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE WITH COURTS PARTIAL UNSEALING ORDER

EXHIBIT L: Page 1 of 22

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-12 Filed 10/16/12 Page 2 of 22

those redacted paragraphs being paragraphs 3, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18 and 22. In further compliance with Judge Riley's order, the sealed brief filed the same date as the
sealed declarations is appended hereto, with the remaining" single redaction being the unnamed
declarant's name, found on page one, line 16.

Dated: November jQ , 2011

WISOTSKY, PROCTER & SHYER

10

11

12
X
13

e<

14

15

< "5 UJ 16
0- Z. uj WXl-

O

17

CO

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

for Respondent
NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE WITH COURT'S PARTIAL UNSEALING ORDER
EXHIBIT L: Page 2 of 22

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-12 Filed 10/16/12 Page 3 of 22

1 Re
^cSTE^i-fi'al-v-Chief Deputy D*vid *•—••»
2

3

DECLARATION OF SGT. ROB DAVIDSON

4

I, Sgt. Rob Davidson, declare as follows:

r♦

5

1. I make this declaration of facts based upon information

6 which is personally known to me. If called to testify as a witness

7 to the information contained in this declaration, I would compe

8 tently and accurately do so under penalty of perjury of the laws of

9 the State of California.

10

2.- I am the Legal Sergeant for the Ventura County Sheriff's

11 Department, Detention Services Division. I have held that position

12 continuously and full time since July of 2008. I have been a sworn

13 peace officer since 1994. In my capacity as the Legal Sergeant, I

14 am knowledgeable concerning jail operations, jail policies and

15 practices, as well as records concerning the jail's inmate

16 population.

17

3. On October 8, 2010, the Ventura County Sheriff's

18 Department, Detention Services Division, adopted and implemented

19 revised Article 36 of the Detention Services Division policy

20 entitled wInmate Mail Guidelines."

21

4. This policy limits incoming and outgoing inmate mail to

22 postcards, no smaller than A" x 6" and no greater than 6" x 11".

23 An exception is made for privileged communication. Privileged mail

24 is sometimes referred to as "confidential" or -legal mail." As a

25 general description, privileged mail includes correspondence to and

26 from privileged sources, such as lawyers, courts, and doctors.

27 / / /

28 / / /

DECLARATION OF SGT. ROB DAVIDSON

EXHIBIT L: Page 3 of 22

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-12 Filed 10/16/12 Page 4 of 22

1

5. Attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibit

2 _G_ is an authentic photocopy of the six-page policy referenced in

-3 my declaration.

/

4

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State

5 of California that the foregoing information is true and correct.
6 Executed this ^ff^day of Flf^fl£-/, 2011, at Ventura,

7 California.

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DECLARATION OF SGT. ROB DAVIDSON

EXHIBIT L: Page 4 of 22

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-12 Filed 10/16/12 Page 5 of 22

1 Re ?,^~eJteVen Garcia' et al- v- Chief Deputy David Tennessen VCSC Case No. MA-004-11 2

3 f"
4

,**

DECLARATION OF TRACY MARTINEZ

I, Tracy Martinez, declare as follows:

5

1. I make this declaration of facts based upon information

6 which is personally known to me. If called to testify as a witness

7 to the information contained in this declaration, I would compe

8 tently and accurately do so under penalty of perjury of the laws of

9 the State of California.

10

2. I am employed by the Ventura County Sheriff's Department

11 in the capacity of Administrative Assistant in the Detention

12 Services Legal Unit. I have been so employed, continuously and

13 full time, for the last two and a half years.

14

3. I have been employed by the Ventura County Sheriff's

15 Department, continuously and full time, since 1993. Before that,

16 I worked for the Sheriff's Department from 1989 to 1992.

17

4. Between 1989 and 1991, I was assigned to the Detention

18 Services Division as a cadet in the mailroom. It was my job to

19 collect, locate, search, and sort inmate mail for all of the

20 Ventura County Sheriff's Department's custodial facilities.

21

5. In that capacity, I was trained to perform this job by

22 previous mail clerks, as well as sworn personnel.

23

6. In the performance of these duties, I discovered

24 narcotics concealed in the incoming mail.

25

7. These narcotics were concealed under postage stamps and

26 in the seams of envelopes.

27

8.

28 / / /

The narcotics which I recognized were tar heroin.

DECLARATION OF TRACY MARTINEZ

EXHIBIT L: Page 5 of 22

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-12 Filed 10/16/12 Page 6 of 22

1

9. In addition, I discovered suspicious, unknown substances,

2 such as blank sheets of paper which appeared to have been saturated

3 in some liquid so that there" were pater marks or spots which looked

4 like they had been wet at one time.

5

10. I disposed of all of these items.

6

11. While processing inmate mail in that job assignment, in

7 addition to narcotics, I located other items which were considered
8 contraband. These items could have jeopardized the safety and

9 security of our jail staff, as well-as the inmates.

10

12. These items consisted of paperclips and staples.

11

13. These paperclips and staples which I occasionally dis

12 covered while processing inmate mail, in my job assignment as a 13 cadet, could have been fashioned into handcuff or shackle keys.

14 Additionally, several of these small sharp metal objects could have 15 been linked together into a long metal object which could have been

16 utilized as a weapon.

17

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State

18 of California that the foregoing information is true and correct.

19

Executed this /^ day of February, 2011, at Ventura,

20 California.

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DECLARATION OF TRACY MARTINEZ

EXHIBIT L: Page 6 of 22

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-12 Filed 10/16/12 Page 7 of 22

Re: In re Steven Garcia, ec a I „ <~h,- * „

VCSC Case No. MA-004-11

Deputy David Fennessen

DECLARAITOH nt .T^py^jrgr^n^
I, Jerry Hernandez, declare as follows':
1. In,ake this declaration of facts based upon infection which is personally known to me. If called to testify as awitness to the information contained in this declaration, Iwould compe. tently and accurately do so under penalty of perjury of the laws of
the State of California.
2. Iam acaptain employed by the Ventura County Sheriff's Departs. Ihave held that position continuously and full time
since 2001. Ihave been asworn employee of the Ventura Counfcy
Sheriff's Department since 1985.
3.

4. In 1985, Iwas adeputy sheriff assigned to the women's facility at the Branch Jail Honor Far. in Oiai, California. One of my duties as adeputy in that position was to sort and examine mail
for contraband.
5. It was there that Iwas trained to identify methods by
21j which persons sent in contraband hidden in the mail. By "contra-
22j band," Imean either narcotics or narcotics containers.
6. I examined all forms of mail, including postcards,
envelopes, and letters.
7. During those times that Iperformed this duty, Ifound
drugs hidden under stamps or contained within the paper materials
xn letters and both standard and manila envelopes.
28 [| / / /
l
DECLARATr0tt~OF"jiRRY_HERNANDE2

EXHIBIT L: Page 7 of 22

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-12 Filed 10/16/12 Page 8 of 22
8. Less frequently, Ialso discovered postcards which had been modified by bei„g split in tMO by asharp ^^ ^ ^ _ razor blade, whic,*, Were^hen glued back together with the contraf-'
band concealed inside.
9- Ialso examined Polaroids which were sent to inmates and
as amatter of practice, removed the backing of the Polaroids to
search for drugs.
10. During that time, Ifound black tar heroin and LSD I
also found other, unknown substances, which Idiscarded.
11. While Idid not discover any sharp metal objects, such as staples or paperclips, contained in the envelopes during my time in that assignment, such objects would have fit in the same locations in the envelopes. These sharp metal objects could have been used
to fashion handcuff keys or weapons.
12. It is imperative that jail facilities, such as the Sheriff's Department operates, be as free as possible of contra band, such as drugs and sharp metal objects which can be fashioned
into handcuff and shackle keys and weapon,. The attempted
smuggling of this contraband into jails has been along-ten, |
historical problem. Law enforcement needs to be able to examine the containers in which mail arrives at the facility in order to effectively interdict the supply of contraband into the jails which
231 we operate in order to.enhance the safety and security of the
custodial staff, as well as ctnhee iinnmmaattees-, ^to~ prevent attempted
/// /// // / ///
DECLAMCCON OT JERRj"iiER»ANDE2
EXHIBIT L: Page 8 of 22

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-12 Filed 10/16/12 Page 9 of 22
1 escapes; and to prevent injuries, even death, from accidental
2 overdoses of drugs.
3 Ideclare under penalty of perjury under," the Jrffc of the State
c of California that the foregoing information is true and correct.
|5 Executed this $& day o£ February, 2011f afc ^ ^^
6 California.
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
117 I
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DECLARATION OF JERRy HERNANDEZ
EXHIBIT L: Page 9 of 22

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-12 Filed 10/16/12 Page 10 of 22

1 Re: In re Steven Garcia, et al. v. Chief Deputy David Tennessen

VCSC Case No. MA-004-11

tennessen

2

3

DECLARATION OF

4

Lr

* i declare as follows:

5

1. I make this declaration of facts based upon information

6 which is personally known to me. If called to testify as a witness

7 to the information contained in this declaration, I would compe

8 tently and accurately do so under penalty of perjury of the laws of

9 Ithe State of California.

10

2. I am currently employed by the Ventura County Sheriff's

11 Department as a sworn deputy. I have been so employed continuously

12 and full time since October 1, 1994, when I graduated from the

13 Ventura County Criminal Justice Training Center. I was promoted to

14 the rank of senior deputy in July of 2000.

15

3.

16

17

4. During that time, I was assigned to narcotics enforcement

18 for five years. I have testified as a narcotics expert in the

19 Ventura Superior Court. I have also testified in narcotics prose

20 cutions in the Los Angeles Superior Court and in the federal

21 district court.

22

5. I have been involved in over 190 narcotics purchases and

23 the writing and execution of search warrants for narcotics-related

24 offenses.

25

6. As a detective, I have had contact with dozens of

26 narcotics users, dealers, and informants. During my conversations

27 with these individuals, I have gained an understanding of how drug

28 / / /

DECLARATION OF

EXHIBIT L: Page 10 of 22

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-12 Filed 10/16/12 Page 11 of 22

1 sales, drug manufacturing, drug smuggling, and other illicit parts

2 of the narcotics trade occur.

3

7. Mail containers, such as manila envelopes, ^greeting

4 cards, and their envelopes, as well as conventional mail envelopes

5 and the papers which they contain, are being used to smuggle

6 narcotics and currency into custody facilities.

7

8. Having had the smuggling techniques demonstrated to me,

8 and having had hands-on experience utilizing these techniques, it

9 is my belief that other contraband could .-also be smuggled into a

10 custodial facility using these same techniques.

11

9. Such contraband could include metal wire, lithium,

12 gunpowder, and conceivably even plastic explosives.

13

10. During the fourth week of October of last year, I inter

14 viewed a confidential reliable informant (hereinafter referred to

15 as "CRI") . The purpose of this meeting was to discuss and to have
16 CRI demonstrate for me how the mail was being used to smuggle 17 contraband, especially narcotics, into custody facilities.

18

11. Before my meeting with CRI, and with the permission of

19 the Ventura County Sheriff's Department, I obtained quantities of

20 crystal methamphefamine and tar heroin from the Sheriff's property

21 room (from adjudicated cases). Using the actual heroin and meth-

22 amphetamine, I asked CRI to demonstrate different techniques which 23 CRI has used to conceal narcotics within the letters and envelopes.

24

12. During CRI's demonstration, I had hands-on experience and

25 completed CRI's techniques for concealing the narcotics within

26 envelopes and letters.

27

13.

28

DECLARATION OF

EXHIBIT L: Page 11 of 22

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-12 Filed 10/16/12 Page 12 of 22

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .15 16 .17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

(a)
(b) (c) (d) (ej
14. 15 16

DECLARATION OF

EXHIBIT L: Page 12 of 22

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-12 Filed 10/16/12 Page 13 of 22

1 2

^4

5

17. The methamphetamine was detectable using other scienti

fie

6 means.

7

1!

8

9

(a)

10

11

12

13

14

(b)

15

16

17

18

(c)

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DECLARATION OF

EXHIBIT L: Page 13 of 22

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-12 Filed 10/16/12 Page 14 of 22

1

(d)

2

3

4

5

(e)

6

7

8

9

10

(f)

11

12

13

14

19. Once concealed, I was personally unable to detect the

15 heroin by feeling or manipulating the envelope. The tar heroin was

16 detectable by scientific means or by tearing the bottom flap of the

17 envelope.

18

20. During my discussions with informants in the past, I have

19 learned about underground economies within custody facilities.

20 These economies can compromise the security of the custody facility

21 by placing inmates in positions of authority and influence over 22 other inmates, by virtue of having valuable contraband, including

23 U.S. currency.

24

21. The currency in these economies includes paper money and

25 other items of value, such as narcotics: During my conversation

26 with CRI, CRI told me that CRI had participated in these 27 underground custody economies, using U.S. currency in the form of

28 / / /

DECLARATION OF

EXHIBIT L: Page 14 of 22

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-12 Filed 10/16/12 Page 15 of 22

1 paper money, almost always $100 bills, concealed within the flaps
2 of envelopes.

3

22

4

5

6

7

8

9

I declare under penalty of pexjury under the laws of the State

10 of California that the foregoing information is true and correct.

11

Executed this ol^ day of February, 2011, at Ventura,

12 California.

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DECLARATION OF

EXHIBIT L: Page 15 of 22

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-12 Filed 10/16/12 Page 16 of 22

1 Re 2

In re Steven Garcia, et al. v. Chief Deputy David Tennessen
VCSC Case No. MA-004-11

3

DECLARATION OF AARON WILKINSON

4

I, Aaron Wilkinson, fdeclarjs- as follows:

5

1. I make this declaration of facts based upon information

6 which is personally known to me. If called to testify as a witness

7 to the information contained in this declaration, I would compe

8 tently and accurately do so under penalty of perjury of the laws of

9 the State of California.

10

2. ••--.. I am currently employed by the Ventura County Sheriff's

11 Department as a classification deputy. I graduated from the

12 Ventura County Sheriff's Academy in September of 2006. I have been

13 employed continuously and full time since then. During that time 14 period, I have been assigned to the Pretrial Detention Facility.

15

3. In my capacity as a classification deputy, I have

16 received training in intelligence gathering, criminal street gang

17 activity, and prison gang activity. This training includes the

18 detection and evaluation of gang communications, prison politics,-

19 and the use of symbols and codes (covert communications), which are

20 used by prisoners to avoid detection by jail staff.

21

4. I have served as a classification deputy for approxi

22 mately three yeas. My assignment entails intelligence and infor
23 mation gathering and evaluation, interviewing inmates, developing

24 confidential informants, and monitoring the overall activities and

25 conduct of those confined.

26

5. As part of my responsibilities, I frequently interact

27 with inmates and conduct searches of their housing locations and

28 any area to which prisoners have access within the Ventura County

l DECLARATION OF AARON WILKINSON

EXHIBIT L: Page 16 of 22

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-12 Filed 10/16/12 Page 17 of 22

1 detention facilities.

2

6. I also review incoming and outgoing mail, as allowed by

3 the Sheriff's Department's Policies and Procedures Manual. This

4 practice is designed to detect contraband, in aaditioR^ to items
5 prohibited by jail rules and policies. It is also designed to 6 discover gang intelligence and intentions and .to interdict gang 7 orders and directives which are intended to disrupt jail opera

8 tions, assault inmates within our facilities, and/or intimidate
9 rival gang members as well as witnesses in criminal prosecutions.

10

7. Many of the operations, undertaken have resulted in the

11 detection of the types of messages described in the previous para

12 graph, as well as attempts to coordinate testimony, order the

13 destruction of evidence in criminal prosecutions, and generally

14 confound criminal investigators.

15

8. To illustrate the threats posed to the safety, security,

16 and orderly operation of our jail facilities, I provide the

17 following examples of contraband items discovered and gang intel

18 ligence interdicted in the course of my responsibilities as a 19 deputy sheriff:

20

(a)

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DECLARATION OF AARON WILKINSON

EXHIBIT L: Page 17 of 22

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-12 Filed 10/16/12 Page 18 of 22

1

.2

3

4

5

6

(b) (1) I have also discovered razor blades hidden in

7 the flaps and creases of envelopes which are in prisoners' cells

8 during these same cell searches.

9

(2) These items pose a threat to che safety of the

10 guards and inmates in our jail facility, not only because of their

11 current possession by the inmate in custody, but also because it is

12 commonplace for inmates to mail envelopes out of the facility to

13 other inmates in higher security areas of the jail. By "higher 14 security," I mean inmates who pose increased security, risks based

15 upon their current charged crime or past criminal conduct and/or

16 history.

17

9. For all of the reasons stated in this declaration, I

18 believe, based upon my training and experience as a classification 19 deputy, that the ability to send sealed correspondence from within

20 a locked detention facility greatly increased the likelihood that 21 the jail environment would become vulnerable to violent attacks and

22 criminal enterprises.

23.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State

24 of California that the foregoing information is true and correct.

25

Executed this ±:.<7* day of MMCX

, 2011, at Ventura,

26 California.

27
^-s5T\.

28

AARON WILKINSON

DECLARATION ZT A A? LA" X I LY. I XSCK

EXHIBIT L: Page 18 of 22

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-12 Filed 10/16/12 Page 19 of 22

1 Re vn*nenSteVZn Garcia< et al- v- Ch^ Deputy David Tennessen VCSC Case No. MA-004-11
2

3

DECLARATION OF JEFFREY HELD

I, Jeffrey Held, declare as follows,:

5

1. I am an attorney admitted to" practice law before all the

6 courts of the State of California. I am employed as an attorney in

7 the Law Offices of Alan E. Wisotsky, counsel of record for respon

8 dents Chief Deputy David Tennessen and Assistant Undersheriff Gary

9 Pentis.

2. I make this declaration based upon information which is 11 personally known to me. If called to testify as a witness to the
12 information contained in this declaration, I would competently and
13 truthfully do so under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State
14 of California.

15

3. On March 2, 2011, I personally researched multiple

16 dictionary definitions of the word "letter," in the sense of

17 correspondence. I conducted this research by actually examining

18 the hardbound dictionaries themselves and did not rely upon any

19 secondary sources to inform my understanding of the standard

20 meaning of the word "letter," in the sense of correspondence.

21

4. According to the Random House Webster's Unabridged

22 Dictionary (2d ed., 2001), the definition of a letter is "A written

23 or printed communication addressed to a person or organization and

24 usually transmitted by mail." This definition appears on page

25 1104. There is absolutely no reference to envelopes or sealed

26 containers whatsoever.

27

5. According to the Merriam-Webster' s School Dictionary (no

28 edition, 2004), the definition of a letter is "A written or printed

l
DECLARATION OF JEFFREY HELD

EXHIBIT L: Page 19 of 22

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-12 Filed 10/16/12 Page 20 of 22

1 message addressed to a person or organization." This definition

2 appears on page 546. There is no reference whatsoever to envelopes

3 or sealed containers within which the communication might be
4 enclosed. '*" ^

5

6. According to the Concise Oxford English Dictionary (11th

6 ed. rev., 2008), page 818, a letter is defined as "A written, typed

7 or printed communication, sent by post or messenger." There is no

8 reference whatsoever to envelopes or containers within which the

9 communication might be enclosed.

10

7. According: t'o the Oxford American Dictionary and Thesaurus

11 (2d ed., 2009), page 745, a letter is defined as "A written, typed,

12 or printed communication sent by mail or messenger." No reference

13 whatsoever is made to envelopes or containers.

14

8. According to the 1995 edition of Merriam-Webster's Desk

15 Dictionary, page 313, a letter means "A written or printed

16 communication." No reference whatsoever is made to envelopes or

17 containers.

18

9. According to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary

19 (11th ed., 2009), page 713, a letter means MA direct or personal

20 written or printed message addressed to a person or organization."

21 There is no reference whatsoever to envelopes or containers.

22

10. According to the American Heritage Desk Dictionary (4th

23 ed., 2003), page 487, a letter means "A written or printed communi

24 cation." No reference whatsoever is made to envelopes or containers.

25

11. According to the New American Webster Handy College

26 Dictionary (4th ed., 2006), page 419, a let,ter means "A written

27 communication." No reference whatsoever is made to envelopes or

28 containers.

DECLARATION OF JEFFREY HELD

EXHIBIT L: Page 20 of 22

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-12 Filed 10/16/12 Page 21 of 22

1

12. Recent news coverage of smuggling of contraband into

2 jails and prisons has indicated that the problem sought to be

3 addressed by the Sheriff's Department's challenged mail policy is

4 one of great proportion. Multiple'" standard news accounts on 5 February 15, 2011, described a drug smuggling operation.

6

13. According to these news articles, five alleged members of

7 a Yuba County-based white supremacist gang were arrested on

8 February 14, 2011, on charges that they smuggled heroin into a

9 state prison by hiding the drug in the glue strips of envelopes.

«£

10

14. In November of 2010, prison officials, in conjunction

11 with local police and the state Department of Justice, launched an

12 investigation dubbed Operation Forseti, named after the mythical

13 Norse god of justice. At that time, a Susanville prison guard

14 noticed a suspicious envelope sent to an inmate who is a member of 15 the New Order gang.

16

15. News accounts widely attributed a description of the

17 operation to current Attorney General, Kamala Harris.

18

16. Attorney General Harris told news reporters that an

19 analysis of an envelope revealed that its glue strip was laced with

20 heroin.

21

17. The news accounts further stated that in January of 2011,

22 investigators intercepted two more envelopes containing heroin sent

23 to two New Order members housed in the Susanville prison.

24

18. These envelopes contained nearly a gram of heroin. A

25 gram of heroin is worth $500 in prison, which is about five times

26 the street value, according to Attorney General Harris.

27

19. Attorney General Harris was widely quoted in news

28 accounts published on February 15, 2011, as having stated the

3
DECLARATION OF JEFFREY HELD

EXHIBIT L: Page 21 of 22

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-12 Filed 10/16/12 Page 22 of 22

1 previous day, "Today's operation demonstrates the criminal

2 ingenuity of inmates and their associates outside of prison walls."

3

20. News accounts stated that the five gang members were

4 charged-with cpnspiracy to distribute heroin within a prison. Five

5 inmates were also charged with a variety of violations.

6

21. According to Attorney General Harris, the interdiction

7 and seizure of these drug-containing envelopes provided probable

8 cause to search seven locations in the Yuba City area. During

9 those searches, two weapons, three grams of heroin, and a quarter

10 ounce of me thamjphefamine were confiscated.

j

11

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws, of the State

12 of California that the foregoing information is true and correct.

13

Executed this *J• 1V day of March, 2011, at Ventura, California.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DECLARATION OF JEFFREY HELD

EXHIBIT L: Page 22 of 22

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-13 Filed 10/16/12 Page 1 of 38

Case 2:ll-cv-14039-KMM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2012 Page 1 of 29

OSCAR M. MARTINEZ, et al. , Plaintiffs,
v.
PAUL C. MAY, SHERIFF, Defendant.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 11-14 039-Civ-MOORE MAGISTRATE P. A. WHITE
REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. Introduct ion
This case stems from three, now consolidated, pro se civil rights actions brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 (this case, and cases 11-14 038-Civ-MOORE and 11-14045-Civ-MOORE) against the Okee chobee County Sheriff, by former Okeechobee County Jail ("OCJ") de tainees (respectively, Oscar M. Martinez, Johnny R. Johnson, and David L. Reed) , objecting to an OCJ outgoing mail policy which became effective on 2/1/2011. The new OCJ policy restricted nonlegal, non-privileged outgoing inmate mail to correspondence using pre-franked postcards, obtainable by inmates through the OCJ com missary. Previously, outgoing non-legal, non-privileged inmate mail could be written on sheets of paper and sent via the U.S. Postal Service in envelopes bearing regular postage stamps.

The consolidated cases had a tortuous procedural history which is discussed below, in Section II of this Report, in order to place pending claims and motions in context and to clarify the present procedural posture of the case. In brief, the operative pleading is now the pro se Amended Complaint (filed at DE#28, in this case) . This Cause is before the Court upon two motions pending on the docket in this case: 1) a Motion for Summary Judgment by the Defen dant Sheriff MAY (DE#48), as to which the plaintiffs were advised of their right to respond (See Orders of Instruction, Case 11-

EXHIBIT M: Page 1 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-13 Filed 10/16/12 Page 2 of 38

Case 2:ll-cv-14039-KMM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2012 Page 2 of 29

14045, DE#45; and Case 11-14039, DE#52);1 and 2) a Summary Judgment

1

As noted, infra, MAY, in fact, filed two virtually identical Summary

Judgment motions on 10/11/211, one in Case 11-14045-Civ-KMM (DE#44, which was

dismissed as moot upon consolidation of the cases), and the motion which remains

pending in this Case 11-14039-Civ-KMM (DE#48). Pursuant to Brown v. Shinbaum. 828

F.2d 707 (11 Cir.1987), Orders of Instruction were entered (DE#45 in Case 11-

14045-Civ-KMM, directed to plaintiff JOHNSON; and DE#52 in Case 11-14039-Civ-KMM,

directed to Plaintiffs MARTINEZ and REED), to inform the Plaintiffs as pro se

litigants, of their right to respond to Defendant MAY'S motion(s) for summary

judgment, and to provide them instruction regarding requirements under

Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 for a proper response to such a motion.

Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that summary judgment is proper

[i] f the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the mov ing party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

In Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986), the Court held that
summary judgment should be entered only against

a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. In such a situation, there can be 'no genuine issue as to any material fact,' since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the non-moving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial. The moving party is 'entitled to judgment as a matter of law' because the non-moving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of her case with respect to which she has the burden of proof. (citations omitted)

Thus, in Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986), the Court held that summary judgment should be entered only against a party who fails to make a show
ing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. In such a situation, there can be 'no genuine issue as to any material fact,• since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the non-moving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial. The moving party is 'entitled to judgment as a matter of law' because the non-moving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of her case with respect to which she has the burden of proof, (citations omitted). Thus, pursuant to Celotex and its progeny, a movant for summary judgment bears the initial re sponsibility of informing the court of the basis for his motion by identifying those parts of the record that demonstrate the nonexistence of a genuine issue of material fact. This demonstration need not be accompanied by affidavits. Hoffman v. Allied Corp., 912 F.2d 1379, 1382 (11 Cir.l990).If the party seeking summary judgment meets the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genu ine issue of material fact, the burden then shifts to the nonmoving party, to

EXHIBIT M: Page 2 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-13 Filed 10/16/12 Page 3 of 38

Case 2:ll-cv-14039-KMM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2012 Page 3 of 29

Motion by Plaintiff MARTINEZ (DE#49) in which neither plaintiff Reed or Johnson joined.

II

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND, AND CURRENT POSTURE OF THE CASE

Plaintiffs Reed, Martinez and Johnson, on 2/1/2011, separately submitted virtually identical pro se civil rights complaints pur
suant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. See Reed v. May, 11-14038-Civ-Moore (DE# 1, by David L. Reed, then detained under OCJ #32376); Martinez v.
May, 11-14039-Civ-Moore (DE#1, by Oscar M. Martinez, then detained under OCJ #33088); and Johnson v. May, 11-14045-Civ-Moore (DE#1, filed by Johnny R. Johnson, detained under OCJ# 06830).

[Note: Case 11-14 045 was originally assigned to the Honorable Jose E. Martinez, United States District Judge. On 7/7/11, the matter was transferred to the Calendar of the Honorable K. Michael Moore, United States District Judge (see DE#23, in Case 11-14045-CivMoore); and the case subsequently was consolidated with this case
(see DE#s 25-27 in Case 11-14045-Civ-Moore)].

The three original complaints (DE#1 in each case) sought only a permanent injunction, requiring Sheriff May to alter the OCJ mail policy "to allow inmates to freely send and receive personal

come forward with sufficient evidence to rebut this showing with affidavits or
other relevant and admissible evidence. Avirgan v. Hull, 932 F.2d 1572, 1577 (11 Cir.), cert, denied, 112 S.Ct. 913 (1992) . It is the nonmoving party's burden to
come forward with evidence on each essential element of his claim sufficient to
sustain a jury verdict. Earlev v. Champion International Corp., 907 F.2d 1077, 1080 11 Cir.1990) . The non-moving party cannot rely solely on his complaint and other initial pleadings to contest a motion for summary judgment supported by evidentiary material, but must respond with affidavits, depositions, or otherwise to show that there are material issues of fact which require a trial Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); Coleman v. Smith, 828 F.2d 714, 717 (11 Cir.1987). If the evidence pre sented by the nonmoving party is merely colorable, or is not significantly proba tive, summary judgment may be granted. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986); Baldwin County, Alabama v. Purcell Corp., 971 F.2d 1558 (11 Cir.1992). "A mere 'scintilla' of evidence supporting the opposing party's posi tion will not suffice; there must be enough of a showing that the jury could reasonably find for that party." Walker v. Darby, 911 F.2d 1573, 1577 (11 Cir. 1990) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., supra).

EXHIBIT M: Page 3 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-13 Filed 10/16/12 Page 4 of 38
Case 2:ll-cv-14039-KMM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2012 Page 4 of 29
correspondence in paged letter and stampped [sic] envelope form."
On 3/21/11, a Report (DE#10) in Case 11-14038-Civ-Moore recom mended in part the consolidation of that case into Case 11-14039Civ-Moore. On 4/22/11, Judge Moore adopted the Report and ordered consolidation of the two matters into Case 11-14039, and adminis trative closure of Case 11-14038.(DE#16, Case 11-14038-Civ-Moore).
A Motion by Plaintiff Reed, for leave to Amend, had been submitted for filing in Case 11-14038-Civ-Moore (DE#18), and pursuant to Judge Moore's Order (DE#19) the Clerk was directed to
file the motion in Case 11-14039-Civ-Moore. Reed's Motion to Amend was docketed in Case 11-14039-Civ-Moore (at DE#16) . A second Motion
to Amend was filed by Reed in Case 11-14 039 (DE#20) . A Report was entered in Case 11-14039-Civ-Moore (DE#22) recommending that Reed be permitted to file a proposed amended complaint, to be filed by him, and also by plaintiff Martinez, if possible (but stating that the proposed amended pleading should not add individual capacity claims against May, or claims for punitive damages).
On 8/6/11, Plaintiffs Reed and Martinez, in Case 11-14039-CivKMM, jointly filed a proposed Amended complaint (DE#28). It sought a Declaratory Judgment stating that the OCJ Postcard only policy violates First Amendment Rights, and Injunctive relief in form of an order requiring an alteration of policy, to allow OCJ inmates' outgoing personal mail to be via paged letters in envelopes with self-purchased postage. The Amended Complaint also sought: costs; Nominal Damages; Compensatory Damages of $50,000 per plaintiff; and "ANY OTHER RELIEF deemed just, proper, and equitable."
On 8/13/11 Johnson filed a Motion in Case 11-14045-Civ-Moore (DE#30) to adopt Plaintiff Martinez's Amended Complaint from Case 11-14039-Civ-Moore; and that motion was granted (Order DE#31). On 9/19/11 Johnson moved (Motion DE#38) for consolidation of his case (11-14045-Civ-Moore) with Case 11-14039-Civ-Moore. The Motion was
EXHIBIT M: Page 4 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-13 Filed 10/16/12 Page 5 of 38
Case 2:ll-cv-14039-KMM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2012 Page 5 of 29
deferred for ruling by Judge Moore (Order, DE#4 0).
The Defendant May filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, in Case 11-14039-Civ-Moore, on 10/11/11 (DE#48).
On 10/11/11 May also filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in Case 11-14045-Civ-Moore (DE#44) that was virtually identical to his
motion of the same date in Case 11-14039-Civ-Moore.
On 10/11/11 the Clerk received/docketed a 2-page Summary Judgment Motion and Memorandum by Plaintiff Martinez in Case 1114039-Civ-Moore (DE#s 49 and 50, both dated 10/4/11). On 10/14/11 Defendant May filed his Response in Opposition (DE#51).
On 10/19/11 Plaintiff Johnson in Case 11-14045-Civ-Moore was advised by Order of Instruction (DE#45) of his right to oppose defendant May's Summary Judgment Motion in that case (DE#44); and on 10/19/11, in Case 11-14039-Civ-Moore the Plaintiffs Martinez and Reed were advised by Order of Instruction (DE#52) of their right to oppose defendant May's Motion for Summary Judgment (DE#48).
On 10/28/11 in Case 11-14039-Civ-Moore defendant Reed filed a Motion (DE#55) for extension of time to respond to May's summary judgment motion. The Motion was unopposed (DE#60), the extension was granted (Order DE#62), and Reed's Response (DE#68, dated 12/1/11) was filed in Case 11-14039-Civ-Moore.
In Case 11-14039-Civ-Moore Plaintiff Martinez also filed a
Declaration (DE#64) and Response (DE#65) dated 11/28/11, in oppo sition to May's Motion (DE#48) for Summary Judgment; and Defendant May on 12/9/11 filed a Reply (DE#67) in support of his Motion.
In the interim, Plaintiff Reed, on 11/16/11, filed a Motion in Case 11-14045-Civ-Moore (DE#47) asking the court to Consolidate Case 11-14045-Civ-Moore with Case 11-14039-Civ-Moore, and to Defer
EXHIBIT M: Page 5 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-13 Filed 10/16/12 Page 6 of 38
Case 2:ll-cv-14039-KMM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2012 Page 6 of 29
Ruling on Summary Judgment. Following a paperless Report and
Recommendation in Case 11-14045-Civ-Moore (DE#49) on the Motion to
Defer Ruling on the Summary Judgment motion, an Order was entered by Judge Moore on 12/30/12 (DE#51) denying the Motion to Defer ruling (DE#47). On 1/27/12 Judge Moore entered an Order (DE#52) Ordering consolidation of Case 11-14045-Civ-Moore into Case 1114039-Civ-Moore, and further ruling that all pending motions in
Case 11-14045 were denied, as moot.
At that juncture, all three matters had been consolidated into one Case [11-14039-Civ-Moore] ; and the sole pending motions were May's Motion for Summary Judgment (DE#48) and Martinez's Motion for Summary Judgment (DE#49) in Case 11-14039-Civ-Moore. With respect to Motions, that remains the current posture of the case.
At the outset of each of the three §1983 actions (at DE#5, in each case), an Order of Instructions was entered advising each pro
se plaintiff of essential requirements in his case, the first of which was (at Hi of each Order) that he must promptly file a Notice with the Clerk upon every and every change in his address. The Orders cautioned that failure to file a Notice may result in dismissal of the plaintiff's case for lack of prosecution (Order, Hi) , and further cautioned that it is the plaintiff's duty to serve upon the defendant, through counsel of record, a copy of each and
every one of the plaintiff's filings. (Order, ^J3) .
As noted, the Plaintiffs are no longer confined at the OCJ. Martinez filed a Notice dated 8/23/11 (Case 11-14039-Civ-Moore, DE#3 0) that he was transferred from OCJ to the Florida DOC (FDOC).
Reed gave Notice on 9/28/11 that he was moved to the FDOC (Case 1114039-Civ-Moore, DE#43); and Johnson filed a Notice dated 12/27/11
(Case 11-14045-Civ-Moore, DE#50) that he was in the FDOC.
Plaintiff Johnson's last filing was his 12/27/11 Notice (DE#50 in Case 11-14045-Civ-Moore) that he was FDOC prisoner #539459 at
EXHIBIT M: Page 6 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-13 Filed 10/16/12 Page 7 of 38
Case 2:ll-cv-14039-KMM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2012 Page 7 of 29
Florida State Prison (FSP) , in Raiford. In Case 11-14039-Civ-Moore,
Martinez's last filings included his Notice dated 11/28/11, stating he was FDOC prisoner #H23 078 at Suannee CI Workcamp (SCI Workcamp), in Live Oak (DE#63); and Reed's last filing was his Notice dated 3/17/12, stating he was FDOC prisoner #K82661 at Columbia CI Annex (CCI Annex) , in Lake City (DE#70) . In conjunction with preparation of this Report, a review of public records maintained and published by the Florida DOC (the DOC's Corrections Offender Network at http://www.dc.state.fl.us) reveals that Reed remains at CCI Annex,
with an estimated Release Date in November 2 018; and that Johnson remains at FSP, with an estimated Release Date in June 2020; but that Martinez is no longer an FDOC prisoner, having been released
to the street from SCI on 2/23/2012 [with a "Stated Residence Upon Release": 1117 11th Street East, Winter Haven, FL 33880]. The Clerk has updated Martinez's address on the CM/ECF docket in this case.
Ill Plaintiff Martinez, and His Motion (DE#49)
The record shows that Martinez's last filings were his Notice,
Declaration and Response (DE#s 63, 64, 65), all dated 11/28/11 and
docketed 12/1/11. Martinez has filed nothing in the case for more than 4% months; it is 2 months since his release from Florida DOC custody, and he has filed no Notice of Change of Address, as required. It appears that he has abandoned his lawsuit.
It therefore appears that, as to Martinez, the amended complaint is properly subject to dismissal for lack of prosecution, and further, that dismissal of Martinez's pending Summary Judgment Motion (DE#49) would be appropriate under the circumstances, especially if Martinez files no Objections to this Report with the District Judge within the time allotted for him to do so.
Even if the Court were reticent to dismiss Martinez's case
for lack of prosecution, and were to conclude that Martinez's pending Rule 56 Motion and Memo should be considered (DE#s 49, 50) ,
EXHIBIT M: Page 7 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-13 Filed 10/16/12 Page 8 of 38

Case 2:ll-cv-14039-KMM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2012 Page 8 of 29

along with his Declaration and Response (DE#s 64, 65) opposing May's Rule 56 Motion, it is apparent that defendant May is entitled to summary judgment in his favor in this case based on May's showing made through his Motion (DE#4 8) and Attachments (DE#48-1).
IV The Plaintiffs' Complaints and Prayers for Relief
The plaintiffs' initial complaints (DE#1 in each case) sought only injunctive relief. The sole reason that their complaints did not become moot upon their transfers from the OCJ to the FDOC is the fact that Plaintiff Martinez's amended complaint [which Johnson and Reed adopted] included a prayer for Nominal Damages, which un der the circumstances of this case, as it now stands, is the sole relief they could possibly receive if they prevailed on the merits.
1. The Plaintiffs' Transfers from the OCJ Mooted Their Claims for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
Here, where there was no class certification, and there is nothing to suggest that the three plaintiffs might soon be returned
to confinement in Okeechobee County at the OCJ,2 their prayers for injunctive and declaratory judgment were mooted upon their transfer
from the OCJ to the FDOC. See Spears v. Thigpen, 846 F.2d 1327, 1328 (11 Cir.1988) (holding that absent Class Certification, an inmate's claim for injunctive and declaratory relief in a Section 1983 action fails to present a case or controversy once the inmate has been transferred)(citing Whal v. Mclver, 773 F.2d 1169, 1173 (11 Cir. 1985)); Tucker v. Phvfer, 819 F.2d 1030, 1035 (11 Cir.1987)(claim of prisoner seeking declaratory relief regarding conditions in which he was held as a juvenile became moot when he reached the age of majority); Zatler v. Wainwricrht, 802 F.2d 397,

2

FDOC records indicate that Reed and Johnson, respectively, will like

ly be incarcerated for 6 years and 18 years beyond the present; and the records

indicate that when Martinez was released from the FDOC, it was upon expiration

of sentence, and he was released not with an address in Okeechobee County, but

rather an address in Winter Haven, which is located in Polk County, Florida.

8

EXHIBIT M: Page 8 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-13 Filed 10/16/12 Page 9 of 38
Case 2:ll-cv-14039-KMM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2012 Page 9 of 29
399 (11 Cir.1986)(inmate's release from prison mooted claim for declaratory and injunctive relief); Cotterall v. Paul, 755 F.2d 777, 780 (11 Cir.1985)(past exposure to even illegal conduct does not in and of itself show a pending case or controversy regarding injunctive relief if unaccompanied by any continuing present injury or real and immediate threat of repeated injury); McKinnon v. Talladega County, 745 F.2d 1360, 1365 (11 Cir.1984) (inmate's transfer to a different jail moots claim for declaratory and injunctive relief); Dudley v. Stewart, 724 F.2d 1493, 1494 (11 Cir.1984) (transfer from county jail to state prison mooted claims for injunctive and declaratory relief against county jailers).
2. Plaintiffs' Claims for Compensatory Damages Are Foreclosed, and the Amended Complaint Can Proceed Solely as a Result of Plaintiffa' Prayer for Nominal Damages
Insofar as the plaintiffs in their amended complaint have in cluded a prayer for $50,000 in Compensatory Damages per plaintiff, they are entitled to no such relief. Their complaint, as amended, asserts a First Amendment claim, with no associated physical injury. The claim for compensatory damages is foreclosed under Title 42 U.S.C., Section §1997e(e), as part of the Prison Litiga tion Reform Act of 1995 ("PLRA"). Section 1997e(e), provides that no federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner for mental and emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury. The Courts of this Circuit have held, for purposes of §1997e(e), that a prisoner must show a physical injury which is more than de minimis, although it need not be significant, Harris v. Garner, 190 F.3d 1279, 1286-87 (11 Cir.1999), reh'g en banc granted and opinion vacated, 197 F.3d 1059 (11 Cir.1999), opinion reinstated in pertinent part en jbanc, 216 F.3d 970, 984-85 (11 Cir.2000); and the Courts have held that absent such a showing the prisoner/plaintiff may not recover compensatory or punitive damages for mental or emotional injury. See Al-Amin v. Smith, 637 F.3d 1192, 1198 (11 Cir. 2011) (holding, that in a case where a
EXHIBIT M: Page 9 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-13 Filed 10/16/12 Page 10 of 38

Case 2:ll-cv-14039-KMM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2012 Page 10 of 29

First Amendment deprivation, but no physical harm, is alleged, com pensatory and punitive damages are precluded under the PLRA) (citing Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528, 531 (11 Cir.2002); Slicker v. Jackson, 215 F.3d 1225, 1229 (11 Cir. 2000) (actual injuries required for compensatory damages); Osterback v. Ingram, No. 3:96CV580/LAC/SMN, 2000 WL 297840 at *10, 13 Fla. L. Weekly D 133 (N.D.Fla.2000) , aff'd. 263 F.3d 169 (11 Cir.2001) (Table), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 906 (2002) (without more than a de minimis injury, compensatory or punitive damages not recoverable).
The absence of physical injury, however, would not necessarily foreclose the plaintiffs from recovering nominal damages if they were to prevail in the case. Al-Amin, supra, 637 F.3d at 1198; Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1162 (11 Cir.2003)(holding §1997e(e) does not bar suits by prisoners who have not alleged a physical injury if they seek nominal damages). See Memphis Community School District v. Stachura, 477 U.S. 299, 308-309, n. (1986) (noting that nominal damages are an appropriate means of "vindicating" rights whose deprivation has not caused actual, provable injury).
Here, therefore, because of their request for Nominal Damages, the plaintiffs' amended complaint is subject to scrutiny.

V

THE PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS, AND THE PARTIES/ OPPOSING MOTIONS

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND RESPONSIVE FILINGS

The gravamen of the Plaintiffs' amended complaint (DE#28) is the claim that, effective 2/1/2011, Sheriff May instituted a new inmate mail policy, which in pertinent part provides that all outgoing personal inmate mail was to be restricted to correspon dence written on pre-stamped postcards, made available through the jail's canteen/commissary. [The policy also restricts incoming nonlegal/non-privileged mail to postcards,3 but the three plaintiffs

See Inmate Mail SOP#422.00, §IV.A.l (at DE#48-1, p. 12)
10

EXHIBIT M: Page 10 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-13 Filed 10/16/12 Page 11 of 38
Case 2:ll-cv-14039-KMM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2012 Page 11 of 29
in their amended complaint in this case complain only about their personal outgoing mail being restricted to postcards]. The plaintiffs complain that prior policy allowed inmates' personal correspondence to be written on sheets of paper, mailed in selfstamped envelopes. They claim that they were informed by the Jail Administrator, Ronnie White [not designated here as a defendant], that the reasons for the new policy were financial and security concerns, and that with regard the financial concerns outgoing "indigent mail" at the OCJ sent by those unable to afford their own stamps was costing the Okeechobee County Sheriff's Office nearly $10,000 per year. The plaintiffs state that they were among 21 inmates who on 1/18/11 signed a petition for alteration of the new mail policy. In the Amended Complaint they state that they asked that the postcard only rule for outgoing mail be changed to permit those inmates who supply their own postage to send out paged letters in stamped envelopes, using stamps available for purchase at the jail canteen. [A copy of that petition is attached to each of the plaintiff's original complaints, as Ex.A-1]. The plaintiffs
further indicate that David Reed, "for the Inmates of the
Okeechobee County Jail," sent a l/24/ll letter to Sheriff May, advising that his failure to "reach some resolution regarding the issue" would result in suit by Reed and other inmates in federal court, challenging the new policy as unconstitutional. The plaintiffs indicate that the letter of 1/24 was never answered, and that the postcard only policy took effect on 2/1/11.4
Martinez in his Declaration (DE64) states that he and others were
verbally told that if they did not like the reasons given for the policy, they could file grievances, and he states that the petition and letter followed.
If the plaintiffs' letter and petition were to be liberally construed as an inmate grievance or grievances, their contention that the letter and petition were ignored, or not answered, does not itself state a claim for relief. The Constitution does not entitle prisoners and pretrial detainees in state or federal facilities to grievance procedures, Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72, 75 (4 Cir.1994), cert, denied 514 U.S. 1022, 115 S.Ct. 1371, 131 L.Ed.2d 227 (1995);
Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8 Cir.1993); Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (8 Cir.1991); Stewart v. Block, 938 F.Supp. 582, 588 (C.D.Cal.1996); Brown v. Dodson, 863 F.Supp. 284, 285 (W.D.Va. 1994) ; and since even if a grievance mechanism has been created for the use of states inmates the mechanism involves
11
EXHIBIT M: Page 11 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-13 Filed 10/16/12 Page 12 of 38
Case 2:ll-cv-14039-KMM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2012 Page 12 of 29
The plaintiffs Martinez, Reed, and Johnson claim that the new mail policy unnecessarily restricts their rights secured under the First Amendment, arguing that "there is no legitimate institution interest in the restriction of this right by confining inmates' outgoing correspondences to postcards only." They argue that since the jail regularly sends inmates' outgoing legal mail in "paged letter and self stamped form," submitted unsealed for the purpose of inspection, it would "pose no significant burden on the jail effeciant [sic] operation of the institution" if they were allowed [as requested in their prayer for relief] "to send outgoing personal correspondence on paged letters and in envelopes with self applied and purchaced [sic] postage."
The defendant May, through his Motion for Summary Judgment (DE#48), and Affidavit (Ex.A, DE#48-1) with attached copy of the new Mail Policy, SOP# 422.00, effective on the 2/1/11 date of dis tribution (Ex.A-1, at DE#48-1), proffers the following evidence. The average daily OCJ population is 225-23 5 inmates with an average stay of 6 months. The jail employs 78 staff members. To accommodate vacations and other work absences, there are 10 employees on duty for each shift (8 Corrections Officers, and 2 civilians); and mail is typically processed both during daytime and nighttime shifts. During the day, the 2 civilians staff the commissary, and process outgoing mail. There are about 100 pieces of outgoing mail per day. May states that "in addition," there are 8-10 pieces of outgoing legal mail per day. May indicates that before the postcard only
a procedural right, not a substantive one, and it does not give rise to a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause, Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1430 (7 Cir.1996); Hoover v. Watson, 886 F.Supp. 410, 418 (D.Del.1995); Brown v. Dodson, supra at 285; and thus, if the state elects to provide a grievance mechanism, violations of its procedures, or even a failure to respond to the prison grievance, do not give rise to a §1983 claim, Buckley v. Barlow, supra, 997 F.2d at 495; Hoover v. Watson, supra, 886 F.Supp. at 418-19. When the claim underlying the administrative grievance involves a constitutional right, the prisoner's right to petition the government for redress is the right of access to the courts, which is not compromised by the prison's refusal to entertain his grievance. Flick v. Alba, supra, 932 F.2d at 729. Here, the plaintiffs have had access to the courts though their bringing of this lawsuit.
12
EXHIBIT M: Page 12 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-13 Filed 10/16/12 Page 13 of 38
Case 2:ll-cv-14039-KMM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2012 Page 13 of 29
policy, about $10,000 per year was spent by the jail providing stamps to indigent inmates, an estimate derived based on the cost of each stamp costing 44C. It was determined that this cost to the jail could be significantly reduced if the jail changed its policy, to allow inmates' outgoing personal mail to be sent only on post cards that are pre-franked at 24C each, a 20C savings on postage.5
Sheriff May, in his Affidavit, further states that concerns regarding security and orderly operation of the jail were also an underlying reason for the mail policy change. May, through his Affidavit, supported by attached exhibits, cites various examples of how conversion to the postcard only policy was hoped to serve those institutional/governmental needs.
Specifically, May states that, previously, inmates who could afford them were allowed to purchase 44C stamps by the book at the commissary, and that had led to disruption of orderly operation of the jail system, because availability of stamps by the book led to their use as wa form of currency" by inmates, and sometimes led to fights and other inappropriate behavior including sexual activity. May, without detailed statistics, states that use of postcards has reduced the number of known incidents of bartering.
May states that the postcard only policy has reduced the num ber of other types of incidents/abuses impacting on security and orderly jail operations, and cites exhibits attached to his Affida vit as supporting evidence. These include, inter alia, inmates
Regardless of whether the 8-10 pieces of legal mail are included within the cited total of 100 pieces of outgoing mail [so that 90-92 are nonlegal] , or whether the legal mail is in addition to the 100 pieces [for a daily total of 108-110 pieces] the cost for indigent mail [$10,000 per year, as cited by Sheriff May], is significant. Even if May's statistics cited in his affidavit were interpreted to mean that about 9% of the outgoing indigent mail costing the OCJ $10,000 per year was non-legal, it would appear that the cost to the institution for the other 91%, presumably personal in nature, would have been about $9,100 per year, still a significant expense.
13
EXHIBIT M: Page 13 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-13 Filed 10/16/12 Page 14 of 38
Case 2:ll-cv-14039-KMM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2012 Page 14 of 29
writing in sophisticated code to communicate with gang members [see Ex.A-3]; inmates addressing envelopes to relatives, but sending therein written communications of a threatening nature for the relatives to forward to other persons with whom the inmate is forbidden to communicate, including victims [or others in violation of restraining orders], or a witness the inmate seeks to pressure to drop charges [see Ex.A-2]. In addition, Sheriff May states that depriving inmates of envelopes for outgoing personal mail has reduced incidents in which inmates obtain cash from jail staff as part of illegal or inappropriate behavior, and then use an outgoing envelope to send the contraband money via mail to their families.
Sheriff May also cites the use of outgoing mail to communicate with other inmates, by putting another inmate's name and address as the return address on an envelope, and sending it to a fictitious address, so that when it is returned as undeliverable, the envelope goes not to the inmate who mailed it, but to the other inmate whose name was illegally placed in the return address on the envelope, [see Ex.A-4] . May acknowledges that even the switch to postcards has not entirely eradicated this forbidden activity, as the same thing can be done with a postcard.
Among Sheriff May's Exhibits is a staff Memo dated l/14/ll [Ex.A-5], indicating that as part of the new no-envelope/postcardonly policy [effective 2/1/11] inmates are not to be given
envelopes except for legal purposes, and that they are not to be given cards (for Birthdays, holidays, etc.), envelopes, or stamps.
Sheriff May cites two other examples of inmate mail-related activities that are chilled by the use of postcards. [While it would appear that these examples do not directly impact on institutional security, as other cited examples might, they are, according to May, impermissible behavior]. May cites inclusion by inmates of explicit sexual drawings in mail sent via envelope; and he cites a second example, that inmates used to tear plastic bags
14
EXHIBIT M: Page 14 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-13 Filed 10/16/12 Page 15 of 38

Case 2:ll-cv-14039-KMM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2012 Page 15 of 29

into strips [a destruction of jail property] and make woven objects such as crosses to mail to persons outside the jail.
Sheriff May notes in his affidavit, with supporting exhibit [Ex.A-1], that inmates' outgoing legal mail is not affected by the new policy. In his affidavit May states that the policy denying use of envelopes [and requiring postcards] serves two security-related purposes: that illegal activity will be more easily detected, and that attempts of inmates to engage in illegal activity will be chilled. [See Affidavit, stating: "Because postcards do not require the use of an envelope, it is much more likely that attempts to breach security through the use of an envelope will be detected by staff or not even attempted by an inmate."].
Presumably, outgoing mail inspection would go more quickly under the new policy, because inspection of postcards would be easier than inspecting voluminous numbers of envelopes to ensure nothing impermissible was hidden inside. In the instant case, from a plain reading of May's affidavit, it is not clear that any time saved by easier [more rapid] inspection of 100 pieces or more of outgoing mail per day would have the benefit of freeing up staff assigned to inspect mail, so that they could devote more time to other, security-related, assignments.6 This is because Sheriff May explicitly states that there are 2 civilians on each shift, and that "during the day shift, the two civilian employees, who are assigned to the commissary, process all outgoing mail." Sheriff May states that there are 8 Corrections Officers on each shift. May
does not make clear whether Corrections officers are involved in

6

Defendant May's Motion (DE#48, at pp. 19-20) cites an Arizona district

court case, Covell v. Arpaio, 662 F.Supp.2d 1146 (D.Ariz. 2009) (a First Amendment

case in which the policy that was being challenged had restricted incoming mail

to metered postcards, and an analysis using the deferential reasonableness

standard from Turner v. Safely, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) was employed). Here, Sheriff

May cites the Covell Court decision, and argues that "the court noted that

eliminating stamped mail allowed the jail's limited security staff to devote more

time to prison security assignments."

15

EXHIBIT M: Page 15 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-13 Filed 10/16/12 Page 16 of 38
Case 2:ll-cv-14039-KMM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2012 Page 16 of 29
mail processing/inspection; and he does not indicate that the 2 civilians on each shift in any way engage in, or may engage in, security related activities [apart from the benefit that inmate mail inspection, as permitted under the law, makes the jail
environment a safer one] .
May nonetheless argues in his Motion [as he indicated in his Affidavit], that the postcard only policy chills forbidden or illegal mail-related actions by inmates, reducing the number of attempts [because inmates perceive that the risk of detection is increased when use of envelopes is forbidden]. May correctly notes that outgoing mail has always been subject to inspection, for security reasons, if necessary. At the same time, May argues that the postcard only policy is not itself a form of censorship of outgoing mail, insofar as the inmates are not told what lawful content they may include in their outgoing mail. He argues that the policy only restricts the amount of space per mailing on which inmates can write such permissible content in each mailing. He notes that inmates who are not indigent may purchase as many
postcards as they wish in order to send additional content to desired recipients; and notes that even indigent inmates, in addition to free envelopes and stamps for legal mail, are allowed two free pre-franked postcards per week on which to write outgoing non-legal/non-privileged personal communication.
Fiscal concerns, like security concerns, have been held by the
Courts to be legitimate penological interests even in First Amend ment cases decided pre-Turner under the "least restrictive means"
test. See Martinelli v. Dugger, 817 F.2d 1499, 1506-1507 (11 Cir.1987),7 cert, denied, 484 U.S. 1012 (1988)(prison authorities
can make reasonable attempts to balance a prisoner's freedom of
religion with the goal of avoiding excessive administrative
Martinelli was decided on June 1, 1987, the same day as Turner
16
EXHIBIT M: Page 16 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-13 Filed 10/16/12 Page 17 of 38
Case 2:ll-cv-14039-KMM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2012 Page 17 of 29
expense); Bach v. Coughlin, 508 F.2d 303, 307-308 (7 Cir.1974) (prison authorities can make reasonable attempts to balance a prisoner's right of access to the courts with prison budgetary considerations); Walker v. Blackwell, 411 F.2d 23, 26 (5th Cir.1969) (considerations of administrative expense outweigh prisoner's right to a religious diet).
More recently, in a case raising religious dietary claims, the Eleventh Circuit found that budgetary concerns, and containment of costs were a compelling governmental interest. See Muhammad v. Sapp, No. 09-14943, 388 Fed.Appx. 892, 897, 2010 WL 2842756 at *3 (11 Cir. July 21, 2010) (denying inmate claim under the RLUIPA in which inmate sought strict adherence to kosher practices, finding cost containment and budgetary concerns were compelling governmental interests, and citing with approval, Baranowski v. Hart, 486 F.3d 112, 125-26 (5th Cir.2007) (holding budgetary and security concerns were a compelling governmental interest justifying the failure to provide kosher meals to a Jewish inmate)). The Eleventh Circuit, in Muhammad v. Sapp, supra, also citing Martinelli v. Dugger, 817 F.2d 1499 (11 Cir.1987), further
stated, as follows:
We addressed a prisoner's First Amendment challenge to a prison's dietary regulations in Martinelli v. Duaaer, 817 F.2d 1499 (11th Cir.1987), abrogation recognized by Harris v. Chapman, 97 F.3d 499, 503 (11th Cir. 1996) . In that case, an inmate brought a §1983 action against corrections officials. He argued that the prison's refusal to honor his request for a full kosher diet infringed upon his First Amendment rights. Id. at 1501. Applying the "least restrictive means" test, we concluded that the prison's dietary regulations were "rationally related to the goal of avoiding excessive adminis trative expense" because the defendants presented evidence that providing full kosher meals would be too costly. Id. at 1506-07 & 1506 n. 25. After this Court decided Martinelli, the Supreme Court held
17
EXHIBIT M: Page 17 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-13 Filed 10/16/12 Page 18 of 38

Case 2:ll-cv-14039-KMM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2012 Page 18 of 29

that "prison regulations alleged to infringe constitutional rights are judged under a 'reasonableness' test" - not the more stringent least restrictive means test that we had applied.
See O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 349, 107 S.Ct. 2400, 2404, 96 L.Ed.2d 282 (1987). (explaining that the reasonableness test was
necessary "[t]o ensure that courts afford appropriate deference to prison officials").

The FDOC submitted an affidavit establishing that complying with Muhammad's dietary requests was too costly because it would require the operation of special kitchens or food preparation facilities. Under those circumstances and in light of Martinelli, we cannot say that i t would be i t
obvious to all reasonable correctional officials
that denying Muhammad's dietary *899 request
violated federal law. See Crawford \v. Carrroll,
529 F.3d 961, 977-78 (11 Cir. 2008)]. Accordingly,
we conclude that the defendants were entitled to
qualified immunity on that claim.

Muhammad v. Sapp, supra,388 Fed.Appx., at 898-99,
2842756, at *5.

2010 WL

Under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution,
prison inmates have not only a right of access to the courts,8 but
also a right to freedom of expression which includes the right to send and receive mail. This right must be balanced against the au thority of jail or prison officials to maintain institutional order and security, which generally is accomplished through inspection, and if necessary censorship and/or withholding of inmate/prisoner mail, or seizure of contraband. See generally, Thornburcrh v.

8

Jail inmates have a right under the First Amendment to have their

attorney mail, both incoming and outgoing, opened only in their presence. Al-Amin

v. Smith, 511 F.3d 1317, 1331-34 (11 Cir.2008) (holding that the Circuit's prior

holding in Tavlor v. Sterrett, 532 F.2d 462 (5 Cir.1976); and Guaiardo v.

Estelle, 580 F.2d 748 (5 Cir.1978), that incoming legal mail from an inmate's

attorneys, properly marked as such, may be opened only in the inmate's presence

and only to inspect for contraband, was not changed by Turner v. Saflev)).

18

EXHIBIT M: Page 18 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-13 Filed 10/16/12 Page 19 of 38
Case 2:ll-cv-14039-KMM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2012 Page 19 of 29
Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407 (1989); Turner v. Safley, 428 U.S. 78, 89 (1987); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 538, 575-77 (1974); Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 412-13 (1974), over ruled in part by Thornburgh, supra, 490 U.S. 401, 411-414 (overruling Martinez to the extent that the case distinguished incoming mail from prisoners versus incoming mail from non-prisoners in determining the appropriate standard of review). The federal courts accord substantial deference to prison administrators to regulate prisoner mail where necessary to preserve important penological interests. Thornburorh, 490 U.S. at 407-08; Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. at 4 04-05. The First Amendment right of prisoners to send and receive mail "must be exercised with due regard for the 'inordinately difficult undertaking' that is modern prison administration." Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 407 (quoting Turner, 482 U.S. at 85).
The Eleventh Circuit, however, has held that the Supreme Court's Procunier v. Martinez standard for the censorship of
prisoner mail applies to prison regulations involving outgoing mail; while regulations affecting the sending of mail to prisoners must be analyzed under the reasonableness standard established in the Court's Turner v. Safely decision. Perry v. Secretary, Florida Dept. of Corrections, 664 F.3d 1359, 1364-65, n.l (11 Cir. 2011).
The Eleventh Circuit, in Perry explained, as follows:
In Turner v. Saflev, the Supreme Court considered regulations on inmate-to-inmate correspondence and inmate marriages. 482 U.S. 78, 81, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 2257, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987). After thoroughly discussing its precedent, the Court held that "when a prison regulation impinges on inmates' constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological
interests." Id. at 89, 107 S. Ct. at 2261. The Court also set out a series of factors gleaned from Pell,
Jones, and Bell to help courts in determining the reasonableness of a regulation: (1) whether there
19
EXHIBIT M: Page 19 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-13 Filed 10/16/12 Page 20 of 38
Case 2:ll-cv-14039-KMM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2012 Page 20 of 29
is "a valid, rational connection between the regulation and the prison legitimate governmental interest;" (2) "whether there are alternative *13 65 means of exercising the right;" (3) "the impact accommodation of the asserted constitutional right will have on guards and other inmates, and on the allocation of prison resources;" and (4) "the existence of obvious, easy alternatives[, which] may be evidence that the regulation is not reasonable, but is an exaggerated response to prison concerns." Id. at 89-90, 107 S.Ct. at 2262 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Using these factors, the Court upheld the regulations on inmate-to-inmate correspondence but rejected the regulation on inmate marriages. Id. at 81, 107 S.Ct. at 2257. Finally, the Supreme Court limited Martinez to regulations involving only outgoing mail and held that regulations affecting the sending of mail to prisoners be analyzed under the standard established in Turner.FN1 Thornburgh. 490 U.S. at 413-14, 109 S.Ct. at 1881-82.
FN1. The Court specifically stated: [W] e acknowledge today that the logic of our analyses in Martinez and Turner requires that Martinez be limited to regulations concerning outgoing corres pondence .... [0]utgoing correspondence was the central focus of our opinion in Martinez. The implications of outgoing correspondence for prison security are of a categorically lesser magnitude than the implications of incoming materials. Any attempt to justify a similar categorical distinction betwe3n incoming correspondence from prisoners
and incoming correspondence from nonprisoners would likely prove futile
.... To the extent that Martinez itself
suggests such a distinction, we today
overrule that case ....
Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 413-14, 109 S.Ct. at 1881-82.
20
EXHIBIT M: Page 20 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-13 Filed 10/16/12 Page 21 of 38
Case 2:ll-cv-14039-KMM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2012 Page 21 of 29
Perry, 664 F.3d 1359, 1364-65, n.l (11 Cir. 2011).
A prison [or jail] regulation regarding outgoing inmate correspondence must be "generally necessary" to a legitimate governmental interest. Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 411 (interpreting Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 94 S.Ct. 1800, 40 L.Ed.2d 224); Spradley v.
Sistrunk, Case No. 2:92-CV-136-FTM-17D, 1996 WL 467511 *4 (M.D.Fla.
Aug. 13, 1996) (citing Thornburgh, 490 U .S. at 414) . There must be "a 'close fit' between the challenged regulation and the interest purported to serve." Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 411. Indeed, outgoing correspondence is less of an issue for prison security and order than the implication of incoming materials. Id. As noted supra, however, the Courts have recognized that the exercise of inmate rights must be weighed against the difficulties of modern prison administration. Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 407. Prison officials may impose regulations necessary for the operation and administration of the facility, including inspecting the contents of the prisoners' outgoing mail as long as long as it is "accompanied by minimum procedural safeguards." Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. at 417; see also Al-Amin, supra, 511 F.3d at 1333-1334.
It appears that no District Court in this Circuit, nor the Eleventh Circuit or the United States Supreme Court, have found on summary judgment that a postcard only policy such as that
instituted at the OCJ, constituted a violation of the inmates' First Amendment rights. At least 3 district court cases from this Circuit have held, as did this Court on initial screening, that
allegations of an unjustified limitation on outgoing prisoner mail states a plausible First Amendment claim, and dismissal of such a claim at the frivolity stage would be premature. Johnson v Smith, Sheriff Barrow County, 2:10-CV-236, 2011 WL 344085 *4 (N.D.Ga. February 1, 2011); Daniels v. Ozburn, No. 3:ll-CV-45 (CAR), 2011 WL 2604757 (M.D.Ga., May 18, 2011); Rufus v. Chapman, No. 3:ll-CV-74 (CAR), 2011 WL 3627315, at*3 (M.D.Ga., July 29, 2011). In Johnson,
21
EXHIBIT M: Page 21 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-13 Filed 10/16/12 Page 22 of 38

Case 2:ll-cv-14039-KMM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2012 Page 22 of 29

Daniels, and Rufus, the Courts noted that while it was possible that the alleged postcard policy existed for a valid security reason, the Court could not make that assumption at the stage of initial screening. [That determination required further factual development of the case] . It is further noted, however, that in at least one reported case, from Colorado, plaintiffs, proceeding as a class, and seeking only injunctive relief, obtained a stipulated resolution resulting in a permanent injunction enjoining the El Paso County Jail from enforcing the postcard-only policy, or any other policy that limits prisoners' outgoing mail to postcards. See
Martinez v. Maketa, No. lO-cv-02242-WYD-KLM, 2011 WL 2222129
(D.Colo., June 7, 2011).9
In their Amended Complaint in this case, the plaintiffs Martinez, Reed, and Johnson explicitly state that "we requested that the provision that restricts an inmates outgoing mail to postcards only be changed to permit those inmates who supply their own postage to send out paged letters in stamped envelopes."
Here, where the OCJ policy which they challenge, and the concerns that they raise, have to do with outgoing inmate mail, it is assumed that the two prong inquiry employed under Procunier v. Martinez applies. That being so, then the policy/practices being

9

In Martinez v. Maketa, on September 14, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a

class action complaint challenging the El Paso County Jail's recently implemented

postcard-only policy, which limited the vast majority of outgoing prisoner

correspondence to postcards. They complained that the postcard-only policy

violated the free speech rights of inmates under the United States and Colorado

Constitutions. On November 10, 2010, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for

preliminary injunction, which was set for hearing on December 22, 2010. Then days

before the hearing, the Defendant rescinded the postcard-only policy and, shortly

thereafter, stipulated in pertinent part that class certification in this case

should be granted. On December 20, 2010, the Court entered a stipulated order

granting a preliminary injunction that enjoined the Defendant from enforcing the

postcard-only policy or any other policy that limits prisoners outgoing mail to

postcards. The parties thereafter entered into the stipulated resolution

resulting in the permanent injunction enjoining the Jail from future enforcement

of the postcard only policy or other policy limiting outgoing mail to postcards.

22

EXHIBIT M: Page 22 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-13 Filed 10/16/12 Page 23 of 38
Case 2:ll-cv-14039-KMM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2012 Page 23 of 29
challenged must: (1) further an important or substantial govern mental interest unrelated to the suppression of expression; and (2) extend no further than necessary or essential to the protection of the particular governmental interest involved. Procunier v.
Martinez, 416 U.S. at 412-13. See Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 413.
The officials at the OCJ have the authority to inspect and regulate outgoing inmate mail concerning escape plans, criminal activity, etc., whether within or without the facility, and regard ing threats of blackmail or extortion, encoded messages, and con traband, where security and order constitute a compelling govern
mental interest. Procunier v. Martinez, at 412-413; Thornburgh. at
411-12 (citing Martinez). Cost containment in the face of budgetary constraints also may represent a compelling governmental interest. See Muhammad v. Sapp, supra. Cf Martinelli, supra.
Examination of the three plaintiffs' pleadings in this case reveals that they include no allegation whatsoever that any parti cular piece of outgoing mail submitted by them to OCJ authorities for processing was actually censored for content, although Martinez in his Declaration and Opposition (DE#s 64, 65) in answer to May's Summary Judgment Motion (DE#48) , argues that the policy effectively prevented all pretrial detainees from sending commercially prepared "birthday, Father's Day, Mother's Day, and Christmas cards." The OCJ policy (SOP# 422.00) being challenged contains procedural safeguards serving to address due process concerns relating to inspection, see Martinez, at 417; Al-Amin, at 1333-1334, by forbidding censorship unless the outgoing mail contains enumerated forbidden content,10 and specifying what occurs when offending
10 The outgoing mail, except privileged/legal mail, is subject to
inspection at any time, but particularly if there is reason to suspect that: it contains threats of physical harm agains persons or threats of criminal activity; it threatens blackmail or extortion; it contains plans for
activities in violation of institutional rules; it is in code; or it contains information which, if communicated, would create a clear and present danger of
violence and physical harm to some person. See Inmate Mail SOP#422.00, §IV.B. 3.(a) to (f), (at DE#48-1, p.13).
23
EXHIBIT M: Page 23 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-13 Filed 10/16/12 Page 24 of 38

Case 2:ll-cv-14039-KMM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2012 Page 24 of 29

correspondence is indentified, including that offending postcards may be destroyed per policy, or returned to sender; and that mail containing any of the enumerated prohibitions will be referred to the Detention Deputy Captain for further action.11
The plaintiffs contend that a less restrictive alternative would be to revert back to use of envelopes and allow all nonindigent inmates to buy unlimited numbers of stamps; and they con tend that doing so would impose no increased financial burden on the OCJ and its budget. They argue that the new postcard only poli cy could be left in place and applied only to the indigent inmates. It is apparent, however, that this set of arguments by the three plaintiffs in this case overlooks the fact that cost-savings were not the only institutional interest that the Sheriff was seeking to further through the new policy. Allowing the non-indigent inmates to purchase unlimited numbers of stamps, and to send unlimited numbers of outgoing paged-letters in envelopes would undermine the security interest that the Sheriff also intended to serve through the postcard only policy. [It is further noted that if a "split" policy were instituted by the Sheriff/OCJ, allowing non-indigent inmates to send outgoing mail in multi-paged letters via envelope, but allowing indigent inmates to send only outgoing postcards, doing so could raise the specter of an Equal Protection violation].
Although Plaintiff Reed argues in his sworn response (DE#68),
and the Sheriff admits in his Affidavit (DE#48, Ex.A), that the
postcard only requirement has not eradicated 100% of securityrelated abuses that the policy was intended to curb, the policy has, as proffered by Sheriff May's Affidavit, reduced mail-related incidents that impact security; and neither Reed nor the other plaintiffs have proffered evidence to show otherwise. Plaintiff Martinez's Motion for Summary Judgment (DE#49) and Memorandum

11

See Inmate Mail SOP#422.00, §§IV.A.3, IV.B.3.(a)-(f), and §IV.B.5

(at DE#48-1, pp.12-13).

24

EXHIBIT M: Page 24 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-13 Filed 10/16/12 Page 25 of 38
Case 2:ll-cv-14039-KMM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2012 Page 25 of 29
(DE#50), which are unsworn, also do not provide evidence to demonstrate that the OCJ postcard policy has not reduced mailrelated incidents impacting on security.
Sheriff May indicates that use of postcards for outgoing
inmate mail is the least restrictive alternative that could be
implemented which would serve both of the dual interests underlying the policy [achieving significant cost-savings on the indigent mail front, while at the same time uniformly [for both indigent and non-
indigent inmates] ^achieving a reduction of the security risks that
were posed by allowing use of envelopes to send multi-paged written
correspondence.
The plaintiffs, without specifics, assert that the OCJ policy increases the risk that persons handling the outgoing inmate mail may see its contents. This is not disputed. [The Court notes, that between its tendering to jail officials for mailing, and receipt into the hands of the addressee, it is most likely that a postcard would be exposed to staff handling the mail at the OCJ. Thereafter, anonymous postal workers handling the mail [postcards] for pro cessing and delivery might see its content. Such mail also could be read by persons unknown, other than the addressee, at the address
to which it is delivered, if the addressee is not the one who
retrieves it from the postal box at the delivery address] . Insofar as the plaintiffs' concern relates to persons at the OCJ reading the content of their postcards, however, it is noted that where security concerns warranted in any particular case, the plaintiffs' outgoing mail [even if it were in envelopes] was always subject to scrutiny to ensure that it did not include coded language, inappro priate delivery or return address designations, contraband, etc.
As noted, the plaintiffs have not said that, as to themselves, any correspondence was censored. They also have not stated that they, personally, were chilled in regard to the content of anything that they wrote or would have written while confined at the OCJ, by
25
EXHIBIT M: Page 25 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-13 Filed 10/16/12 Page 26 of 38
Case 2:ll-cv-14039-KMM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2012 Page 26 of 29
virtue of the fact that they could not hide the contents from the eyes of anyone but the addressee through use of an envelope. They have contended that the postcard-only/no-envelope policy deprived them of the opportunity to include greeting cards in mailings to loved ones, but they do not allege, nor does any evidence suggest that they could not write the same greeting on a postcard that they would have written on a commercially prepared card.
There is not binding authority in this Circuit, or from the United States Supreme Court, which holds that a jail outgoing mail policy such as that implemented by the OCJ is unconstitutional.
The plaintiffs have not suggested, or demonstrated the exis
tence of a less restrictive alternative that would serve both of
the legitimate governmental interests (security, and cost savings) which defendant May has shown were the reasons for implementing the Postcard only OCJ outgoing mail policy, and which his Affidavit and exhibits demonstrate have been served/furthered as a result of the use of that policy. Thus, when employing the standard enunciated
in Procunier v. Martinez, for consideration of First Amendment
claims relating to outgoing inmate mail, and viewing the evidence available from the record, it is apparent that there existed dual, important and substantial governmental interests underlying imple mentation of the policy being challenged, that the policy was not implemented for the purpose of suppressing expression of speech, that there was no readily available alternative that would serve both of the governmental interests in question, and it is apparent that under the circumstances the policy/restriction was no greater than necessary to further the governmental interests involved. See
Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 413; Procunier, 416 U.S. at 412-13.
Even if the Court were, instead, to apply the "reasonableness" standard enunciated under Turner v. Saflev, as the defendant May urges that it should, the Defendant May would still be entitled to summary disposition of the claims in his favor, and the plaintiffs
26
EXHIBIT M: Page 26 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-13 Filed 10/16/12 Page 27 of 38
Case 2:ll-cv-14039-KMM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2012 Page 27 of 29
would not. First, it is apparent that the OCJ policy is "reasonably related" to both legitimate penological interests, maintenance of security and order of the institution, and cost savings. Second, there were for the plaintiffs Martinez, Reed, and Johnson, apart from writing paged letters to be sealed in envelopes, alternative means of communication with people they wished to contact. They presumably could afford to purchase stamps [because they proposed as an alternative, relaxation of the policy to permit those inmates who could afford to buy them, the privilege of purchasing unlimited numbers of stamps, so the could send paged-letters in envelopes], and to the extent that was so, they could purchase multiple prefranked postcards if they wanted to say more to a recipient than could be written on a single postcard. [Sheriff May's Affidavit
indicates that the inmates also had alternative means of commun
ication: including visitation, and phone privileges]. Third, the implementation of the policy, while limiting the quantity of words that could be written in a single mailing since the surface of a postcard is smaller than that of pages of paper previously sent inside envelopes, did not seek to limit what any one inmate permis sibly could write. [While things that could not permissibly be written in a sealed letter, also could not be written on a prefranked postcard; concomitantly, the same things that permissibly could be written by letter, could still be expressed and sent by postcard]. The impact of the accommodation to which the plaintiffs claim they should have been entitled, essentially re-instituting the prior policy allowing basically unfettered writing of multipaged letters to be sealed in envelopes, would, according to Sheriff May's evidence, have a significant impact on institutional security, and the jail's personnel [e.g., if re-instituted, it would again increase security risks that the postcard policy had sought to lessen]. Fourth, it does not appear that ready alterna tives existed, but were ignored, so as to suggest that the policy that was instituted was an exaggerated response to prison concerns. As discussed, the plaintiffs have not suggested the existence of obvious and easy alternatives to the newly instituted postcard only
27
EXHIBIT M: Page 27 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-13 Filed 10/16/12 Page 28 of 38

Case 2:ll-cv-14039-KMM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2012 Page 28 of 29

policy, which would simultaneously serve both of the important governmental interests (reducing security risks; while achieving cost savings, and making easier and more efficacious, the process of screening of outgoing mail). Turner, supra, 482 U.S., at 89-90.

VI

CONCLUSION

In sum, here, the Plaintiffs Reed and Johnson, and Plaintiff Martinez who himself filed a motion for summary judgment, have not shown that there exists a genuine issue of material fact which would preclude summary disposition of their amended complaint in the favor of the Defendant May, based on the showing made by May through his summary judgment motion and evidence submitted therewith. Celotex v. Catrett, supra.

For the above stated reasons, it is recommended that: (1) the
Defendant May's Motion for Summary Judgment (DE#48) should be GRANTED, as to all claims; (2) insofar as it appears that Plaintiff Martinez has abandoned this lawsuit, the amended complaint should be dismissed as to Martinez, for lack of prosecution, and Martinez's Motion for Summary Judgment (DE#49) should be dismissed; (3) alternatively, the Plaintiff Martinez's Motion for Summary Judgment (DE#49) should be DENIED, as to all claims; and (4) and
this case should be CLOSED.

Objections to this report may be filed with the District Judge within fourteen days of receipt of a copy of the report.

Dated: April 25th, 2009

cc:

Oscar M. Martinez, Pro Se 1117 11th Street East Winter Haven, FL 33 880

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28

EXHIBIT M: Page 28 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-13 Filed 10/16/12 Page 29 of 38

Case 2:ll-cv-14039-KMM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2012 Page 29 of 29

David L. Reed, Pro Se DC# K82661
Columbia C.I. - Annex
253 SE Corrections Way Lake City, FL 32025

Johnny R. Johnson, Pro Se
DC# 539459 Florida State Prison 7819 NW 228th Street Raiford, FL 32026

Richard A. Giuffreda, Esquire Purdy, Jolly, Giuffreda & Barranco,
2455 East Sunrise Blvd., Suite 1216 Fort Lauderdale, FL 333 04

P.A

29
EXHIBIT M: Page 29 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-13 Filed 10/16/12 Page 30 of 38

10/14/12

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd
U.S. District Court
Southern District of Florida (Ft. Pierce)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:ll-cv-14039-KMM

CLOSED

Martinez v. May Assigned to: Judge K. MichaelMoore Cause: 42:1983 State Prisoner CivilRights
Plaintiff Oscar M. Martinez

Date Filed: 02/02/2011 Date Terminated: 06/08/2012
Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Oscar M. Martinez
1117 11th Street East
Winter Haven, FL 33880
PROSE

V. Consol Plaintiff David L. Reed Prisoner ID: K82661
Consol Plaintiff
Johnny R. Johnson
Prisoner ID: 539459

represented by David L. Reed
K82661 Columbia Correctional Institution-Annex Inmate Mail/Parcels
253 SE Corrections Way Lake City, FL 32025
PROSE
represented by Johnny R. Johnson
539459 Florida State Prison Inmate Mail/Parcels 7819 NW 228th Street
Raiford, FL 32026
PROSE

V. Defendant
SheriffPaulCMay

represented by Richard A. Giuffreda Purdy Jolly Giufireda & Barranco PA

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?920333208389882-L_1_0-1

1/9

EXHIBIT M: Page 30 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-13 Filed 10/16/12 Page 31 of 38

10/14/12

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd

2455 E Sunrise Boulevard Suite 1216
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33304
954-462-3200 Fax:462-3861
Email: richard@purdylaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY A TTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 02/02/2011

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Paul C. May. Filing fee $ 350.00. IFP Filed, filed by Oscar M. Martinez.(lh) Modified event for MJSTAR on 3/21/2011 (wc). (Entered: 02/02/2011)

02/02/2011

2 Judge Assignment RE: Electronic Complaint to Judge K. Michael Moore (Hi) (Entered:
02/02/2011)

02/02/2011 02/02/2011

3 Clerks Notice ofMagistrate Judge Assignment to Magistrate Judge Patrick A. White. Pursuant to Administrative Order 2003-19 for a ruling on all pre-trial, non-dispositive matters and for a Report and Recommendation on any dispositive matters, (lh) (Entered: 02/02/2011)
4 MOTION for Leave to Proceed informa pauperis by Oscar M. Martinez. (Ih) (Entered: 02/02/2011)

02/10/2011

5 ORDER OF INSTRUCTIONS TO PRO SE CIVIL RIGHTS LITIGANTS. Signed by
Magistrate Judge Patrick A. White on 2/10/2011. (tw) (Entered: 02/10/2011)

02/10/2011

6 ORDER PERMITTING PLAINTIFF TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT
OF FILING FE BUT ESTABLISHING DEBT TO CLERK OF $350.00 and Granting 4 Motion for Leave to Proceed informa pauperis. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patrick A. White on 2/10/2011. (tw) (Entered: 02/10/2011)

03/14/2011 03/21/2011

1 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Oscar M. Martinez. (Ibc) (Entered: 03/14/2011)
8 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS on 42 USC 1983 case re 7 MOTION for
Preliminary Injunction filed by Oscar M. Martinez Recommending: l)the complaint shall proceed against SheriflfMay; 2) the claim shall not proceed as a class action on behalfof the inmates at Okeechobee CountyJail; 3) the plaintiffs mtoion for a temporary restraining order (DE# 7) shall be denied. Objections to R&Rdue by 4/7/2011. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patrick A. White on 3/21/2011. (br) Modified text on 3/21/2011
(wc). (Entered: 03/21/2011)

03/24/2011 03/29/2011

9 MOTION to Withdraw Previous Motion for a Summons and Complaint to be served
upon the defendant by Oscar M. Martinez. Responses due by 4/11/2011 (Ibc) (Entered:
03/25/2011)
10 ORDER granting 9 Motionto Withdraw motion for service.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patrick A. White on 3/29/2011. (cz) (Entered: 03/29/2011)

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?920333208389882-L_1_0-1

2/9

EXHIBIT M: Page 31 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-13 Filed 10/16/12 Page 32 of 38

10/14/12
04/15/2011 04/15/2011 04/19/2011 04/20/2011
04/29/2011

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd
11 NOTICE ofAttorney Appearance by Richard A. Gkiflreda on behalfofPaul C. May (Giuffreda, Richard) (Entered: 04/15/2011)
11 Defendant Sheriffs ANSWER and Affirmative Defenses to Complaint by Paul C. May. (Giuffreda, Richard) (Entered: 04/15/2011)
11 SCHEDULING ORDER: Amended Pleadings due by 8/19/2011. Discovery due by 8/5/2011. Joinder of Parties due by 8/19/2011. Motions due by 9/9/2011.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patrick A. White on 4/18/2011. (tw) (Entered: 04/19/2011)
14 PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon PlaintiffOscar Martinez? Complaint 1 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. THIS MATTER was referred to the Honorable Patrick A. White, United States Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report 8 recommending thatthe Complaint 1 shall proceed against SheriflfMay, the claim shall not proceed as a class action on behalfofthe inmates at Okeechobee County Jail, and that Plaintiffs Motion for a Preliminary Injunction 7 be denied. No objections were filed. Upon consideration ofthe Petition, Report, and Objection, and aftera de novo review of the record, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction 7 is DENIED. The Complaint 1 shall proceed against SheriflfMay, however the claim shall not proceed as a class action. It is former ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Magistrate Judge White's Report and Recommendation 8 is ADOPTED. This case shall remain OPEN. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 4/20/2011. (rgl) (Entered: 04/20/2011)
15 MOTION to Consolidate Cases and Join Parties by Oscar M. Martinez. Responses due by 5/16/2011 (Ibc) (Entered: 05/02/2011)

04/29/2011 05/04/2011 05/16/2011
05/16/2011
06/08/2011 06/08/2011

16 MOTION to Amend Complaint by David L. Reed. Responses due by 5/16/2011 (tp) (Entered: 05/04/2011)
17 PAPERLESS ORDER DENYING AS MOOT Plaintiffs Motion to Consolidate 15 .
Reed v. May, Case No. 11-14038, has already been consolidated with this case. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 5/4/2011. (rgl) (Entered: 05/04/2011)
18 RESPONSE to Motion re (18 in 2:11 -cv- 14038-KMM) MOTION to Amend/Correct, (16 in 2:1 l-cv-14039-KMM) MOTION to Amend/Correct filed by Paul C. May. Replies due by 5/26/2011. Associated Cases: 2:1 l-cv-14039-KMM, 2:1 l-cv-14038KMM(Ghinreda, Richard) (Entered: 05/16/2011)
19 RESPONSE to Motion re (17 in 2:11-cv-14038-KMM, 17 in 2:11-cv-14038-KMM) MOTION Joinder of Parties MOTION to Consolidate Cases filed by Paul C. May. Replies due by 5/26/2011. Associated Cases: 2:11-cv-14039-KMM, 2:11-cv-14038KMM(Giufireda, Richard) (Entered: 05/16/2011)
20 MOTION for Leave to File an Amended Complaint by David L. Reed, (drz) (Entered: 06/08/2011)
21 Request for Documents by David L. Reed (drz) (Entered: 06/08/2011)

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov /cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?920333208389882-L_1_0-1

3/9

EXHIBIT M: Page 32 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-13 Filed 10/16/12 Page 33 of 38

10/14/12
06/13/2011 06/15/2011 07/11/2011 08/02/2011 08/08/2011
08/18/2011 08/18/2011 08/23/2011 08/26/2011 08/29/2011 08/29/2011 08/29/2011

22 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS granting in part and denying in part16 MOTION to Amend/Correct filed by David L. Reed. Objections to R&R due by 6/30/2011. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patrick A. White on 6/9/2011. (tw) (Entered: 06/13/2011)
23 RESPONSE to Motion re 20 MOTION for Leave to File an Amended Complaint filed by Paul C. May. Replies due by 6/27/2011. (Giuffreda, Richard) (Entered: 06/15/2011)
24 NOTICE ofCompliance /Service of Defendant Sheriffs Response to Plaintiff Reed's Requestfor Documents by Paul C. May re 21 Notice (Other) filed by David L. Reed (Gkiflfreda, Richard) (Entered: 07/11/2011)
25 Required Disclosure for Discovery by David L. Reed (drz) (Entered: 08/02/2011)
26 PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon PlaintiffOscar Martinez! Motion to Amend Complaint 16 . THIS MATTER was referred to the Honorable Patrick A. White, United States Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report 22 recommending that the Motion1 be granted in part and denied in part. No Objections were filed. Upon consideration ofthe Motion and Report, and after a de novo review of the record, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion 1 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. It is ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiffs unopposed motionto amend to clarify details within the claim and organize the fects to make them more coherent is GRANTED. 2. Plaintiffshall be permitted to file a Proposed Amended Complaint, also signed by PlaintiffOscar Martinez if possible. 3. Plaintiffs motionto amend to name SheriflfMay in his individual capacity is denied, and the motion to add punitive damages is DENIED. It is former ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Magistrate Judge White's Report and Recommendation 22 is ADOPTED. This Case shall remain OPEN. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 8/8/2011. (rgl) (Entered: 08/08/2011)
27 MOTION to Grant a Temporary Order Permitting LegalCoorespondence Among Plaintins by David L. Reed, (drz) (Entered: 08/19/2011)
28 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Paul C. May, filed by Oscar M. Martinez, David L. Reed.(drz) (Entered: 08/19/2011)
29 ORDER denying 27 Motion for an order to permit legal correspondence with inmates, the plaintiffs must work within the Rules and Regulations oftheir place ofconfinement.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patrick A. White on 8/23/2011. (cz) (Entered: 08/23/2011)
30 NOTICE ofChange ofAddress by Oscar M. Martinez(Address Updated) Associated Cases: 2:1 l-cv-14039-KMM, 2:1 l-cv-14038-KMM(drz) (Entered: 08/26/2011)
31 MOTION for Additional Time Extension by Oscar M. Martinez, (drz) (Entered: 08/29/2011)
32 MOTION to Correspond by Oscar M. Martinez, David L. Reed, (drz) (Entered: 08/29/2011)
33 MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Oscar M. Martinez. Responses due by 9/15/2011

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?920333208389882-L_1_0-1

4/9

EXHIBIT M: Page 33 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-13 Filed 10/16/12 Page 34 of 38

10/14/12
08/31/2011
08/31/2011 09/06/2011

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd
(drz) (Entered: 08/29/2011)
34 ORDER denying 32 Motion to correspond withother inmaters, the plaintiffmust work within the Rules and Regulations ofhis place of incarceration, if the prison authorities permit himto correspond with other inmates he may due so ; denying33 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patrick A. White on 8/31/2011. (cz) (Entered: 08/31/2011)
35 ANSWER and Affirmative Defenses to Amended Complaint by Paul C. May.(Ghoflreda, Richard) (Entered: 08/31/2011)
36 MOTION for ExtensionofTime to File Motion for Summary Judgment by Paul C. May. Responses due by 9/23/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Text ofProposed Order)(Giuflreda, Richard) (Entered: 09/06/2011)

09/07/2011 09/07/2011
09/09/2011 09/19/2011
09/20/2011 09/21/2011 09/21/2011 09/22/2011

37 RESPONSE to Motion re 31 MOTION for Extension ofTime to Complete Discovery filed by Paul C. May. Replies due by 9/19/2011. (Giuffreda, Richard) (Entered: 09/07/2011)
38 ORDER denying 31 Motion for Extension ofTime to Complete Discovery until plaintiff can confer with defendant Reed, the plainitffmay confer with Reed only with permission from his place ofincarceration; granting 36 Motion for Extension ofTime to defendants to file motion for summaryjudgment on or before 10/11/11.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patrick A. White on 9/7/2011. (cz) (Entered: 09/07/2011)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings as per DE 38 : Motion for summaryjudgment due by 10/11/2011. (Ik) (Entered: 09/09/2011)
39 Clerk's Notice ofUndeliverable Mail re 29 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief
US Mail returned for: return to sender inmate no longer at this facility, no forwardinginfo provided.. The Court has not located an updatedaddressfor thisparty. After two unsuccessfulnoticing attempts, noticesfrom the Court will no longer be sent to this party in this case untila correct address isprovided.US Mail returned for Oscar Martinez First return/attempt (rb) (Entered: 09/19/2011)
40 Supplemental Request for Documents by David L. Reed. Associated Cases: 2:11-cv14039-KMM, 2:1 l-cv-14038-KMM(drz) (Entered: 09/20/2011)
41 ORDER denying 40 Motion motion for documents from the Sheriff; the plaintiffmay direct his discovery requests directly to the parties or make arrangements for the payment and service ofsubpoenas on non parties.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patrick A. White on 9/21/2011. (cz) (Entered: 09/21/2011)
42 ORDER On or before September 30, 2011, the plaintiffshall inform the Court ifhe wishes to continue to litigate. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patrick A. White on 9/21/2011. (tw) (Entered: 09/21/2011)
Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings as per DE 42 : Miscellaneous Deadline 9/30/2011. (Ik) (Entered: 09/22/2011)

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov /cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?920333208389882-L_1_0-1

5/9

EXHIBIT M: Page 34 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-13 Filed 10/16/12 Page 35 of 38

10/14/12
10/03/2011 10/03/2011 10/04/2011 10/05/2011 10/06/2011 10/11/2011 10/11/2011 10/11/2011 10/14/2011 10/19/2011
10/26/2011
10/28/2011 10/28/2011 10/28/2011

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd
_a NOTICE ofChange ofAddress by David L. Reed, system updated (yha) (Entered: 10/03/2011)
44 MOTION/Notice to Continue Litigation by Oscar M. Martinez. Responses due by 10/20/2011 (yha) (Entered: 10/03/2011)
45 ORDER granting 44 Motion to Continue to litigate this lawsuit.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patrick A. White on 10/4/2011. (cz) (Entered: 10/04/2011)
46 Required Disclosure(s) for Discovery by Oscar M. Martinez, David L. Reed (yha) (Entered: 10/05/2011)
47 PRETRIAL STIPULATION by Paul C. May (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Defendant's Exhibit List, # 2 Exhibit B-Defendant's Non-Inmate Witness List)(Giuflreda, Richard) (Entered: 10/06/2011)
48; MOTION for SummaryJudgment (and Memorandum ofLaw) by Paul C. May. Responses due by 10/28/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Ronnie White AflBdavit, # 2 Text ofProposed Order)(Giufireda, Richard) (Entered: 10/11/2011)
49 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Oscar M. Martinez. Responses due by 10/28/2011 (yha) (Entered: 10/11/2011)
50 MEMORANDUM of Law re 49 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Oscar M. Martinez, (yha) (Entered: 10/11/2011)
5i RESPONSE in Opposition re 49 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by PaulC. May. (Giuffreda, Richard) (Entered: 10/14/2011)
52 ORDER OF INSTRUCTING PRO SE PLAINTIFF CONCERNING to 48 MOTION
for Summary Judgment (andMemorandum o/Z,aw,).(Responses due by 11/18/2011). Signed by Magistrate Judge Patrick A. White on 10/19/2011. (tw) (Entered:
10/19/2011)
53 Clerk's Notice ofUndeliverable Mail re 45 Order on Motion to Continue. US Mail
returned for: return to sender, not deliverable as addressed, update current address, resent document. Updated addressfound and document resent to new address.US mail returned for David L. Reed Updated adress and resent document, (rb) (Entered: 10/26/2011)
54 NOTICE ofChange ofAddress by David L. Reed (Systemupdated) (jua) (Entered: 10/31/2011)
55 MOTION for Extension ofTime to File Response, Pleading, Objection, or Submit Evidence as to 48 MOTION for SummaryJudgment (and Memorandum ofLaw) by David L Reed, (jua) (Entered: 10/31/2011)
56 MOTION to CompelDiscovery and Objections to the Defendants Response to Plaintiff Reed's Supplemental Request for Documents Dated September 19, 2011 by David L. Reed. Responses due by 11/17/2011 (jua) (Entered: 10/31/2011)

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?920333208389882-L_1_0-1

6/9

EXHIBIT M: Page 35 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-13 Filed 10/16/12 Page 36 of 38

10/14/12
10/28/2011 10/28/2011 10/31/2011 10/31/2011
10/31/2011 11/07/2011
12/01/2011 12/01/2011 12/01/2011 12/07/2011 12/09/2011
12/09/2011 12/22/2011
03/23/2012 04/05/2012

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd
51 SPECIAL NOTICE to the Court and Second Notice ofAddress Change by David L. Reed (System updated) (jua) (Entered: 10/31/2011)
58 NOTICE to the Court by David L. Reed Qua) (Entered: 10/31/2011)
59 RESPONSE to Motion re 56 MOTION to Compel Discoveiy filed by Paul C. May. Replies due by 11/10/2011. (Giuflfreda, Richard) (Entered: 10/31/2011)
60 RESPONSE to Motion re 55 MOTION for Extension ofTime to File Response/Reply as to 48 MOTION for Summary Judgment (and Memorandum ofLaw) filed by Paul C. May. Replies due by 11/10/2011. (Giuffreda, Richard) (Entered: 10/31/2011)
61 NOTICE by Paul C. May re 59 Response to Motion ofFiling Exhibits A&BtoDE 59 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A & B)(Gkiflfi-eda, Richard) (Entered: 10/31/2011)
62 ORDER granting 55 Motion for Extension ofTime to File Response/Reply to summary judgement is due on or before 12/5/11; denying __5 Motion to Compel for the reasons stated indefendants' response.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patrick A. White on 11/7/2011. (cz) (Entered: 11/07/2011)
63 NOTICE ofChange of Address by Oscar M. Martinez (System updated) (jua) (Entered:
12/02/2011)
64 DECLARATION by Oscar M. Martinez (jua) (Entered: 12/02/2011)
65 RESPONSE inOpposition re 48 MOTION for Summary Judgment (and Memorandum ofLaw) filed by Oscar M. Martinez, (jua) (Entered: 12/02/2011)
66 Clerks Notice ofReceipt of Partial Filing Fee received on 12/5/2011 in the amount of$ 8.00, receipt number FLS100029530 (ar2) (Entered: 12/07/2011)
67 RESPONSE in Support re (49 in2:1 l-cv-14039-KMM) MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Paul C. May. Associated Cases: 2:1 l-cv-14039-KMM, 2:11-cv14038-KMM(Giufireda, Richard) (Entered: 12/09/2011)
68 RESPONSE to Motion re 48 MOTION for Summary Judgment (and Memorandum of Law) filed by David L. Reed. Replies due by 12/19/2011. (yha) (Entered: 12/12/2011)
69 REPLY to Response to Motion re 48 MOTION for SummaryJudgment (and Memorandum ofLaw) filed by Paul C. May. (Giuffreda, Richard) (Entered:
12/22/2011)
70 NOTICE ofChange ofAddress by David L. Reed (System Updated) Associated Cases: 2:1 l-cv-14039-KMM, 2:1 l-cv-14038-KMM(cqs) (Entered: 03/23/2012)
71 PAPERLESS ORDER REFERRING 48 49 Motions for Summary Judgment. PURSUANT to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Magistrate Rules ofthe Local Rules ofthe Southern District of Florida, the above-captioned cause is referred to Magistrate Judge Patrick A. White to issue a Report and Recommendation with respect to any and all pending Motions for Summary Judgment 48 49 . Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 4/5/2012. (dwe) (Entered: 04/05/2012)

https://ecf.f lsd.uscourts.gov /cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?920333208389882-L_1_0-1

7/9

EXHIBIT M: Page 36 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-13 Filed 10/16/12 Page 37 of 38

10/14/12
04/19/2012 04/25/2012
05/07/2012
05/09/2012
06/08/2012

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd
12 NOTICE ofInquiry by David L. Reed (Docket Sheets for Associated Cases: 2:11-cv14039, 2:1 l-cv-14038 mailed 4/19/2012) (ail) (Entered: 04/19/2012)
73 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS on 42 USC 1983 case. Denying as to all claims 49] MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Oscar M. Martinez, Granting as to all claims 48 MOTION for Summary Judgment (and Memorandum of Law) filed by Paul C. May. This case should be closed. Objections to R&R due by 5/14/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patrick A. White on 4/25/2012. (tw) (Entered: 04/25/2012)
74 MOTION for Extension ofTime to File Objections as to 73 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS on 42 USC 1983 case re 49 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Oscar M. Martinez, 48 MOTION for Summary Judgment (and Memorandum of Law) filed by Paul C. May by Oscar M. Martinez, (cqs) (Entered: 05/08/2012)
75 PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Petitioner's Motion for Extension ofTime to File Objections 74 . UPON CONSIDERATION ofthe Motion, the pertinent portions ofthe Record, and beingotherwise fully advised inthe premises, it is herebyORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Petitioner's Motion 74 is GRANTED IN PART. Petitioner may file objectionsto the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation on or before June 1, 2012. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 5/9/2012. (dwe) (Entered: 05/09/2012)
76 PAPERLESS ORDER ADOPTING 73 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION.
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiffs Oscar M. Martinez, David L. Reed, and Johnny R. Johnsons Complaints made pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The cases were consolidated and the operative pleading is now the pro se Amended Complaint 28 .
THIS MATTER was referred to the Honorable Patrick A. White, United States
Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report73 recommending that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 48 be granted. Though an extension oftime was provided to Plaintiffs to file Objections, no Objections were timely filed. Upon consideration ofthe Complaint, Report, and after a de novo review ofthe record, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 48 is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs Amended Complaint 28 is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that
Magistrate Judge White's Report and Recommendation 73 is ADOPTED. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to CLOSE this case. All pendingmotions not otherwise ruled upon are DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 6/8/2012. (dwe) (Entered: 06/08/2012)

06/11/2012

77 Case No Longer Referred to Magistrate Judge Patrick A. White/Case Closed by the District Judge. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patrick A. White on 6/11/2012. (br) (Entered: 06/11/2012)

PACER Service Center
https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov /cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?920333208389882-L_1_0-1

8/9
EXHIBIT M: Page 37 of 38

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 115-13 Filed 10/16/12 Page 38 of 38

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd
Transaction Receipt

10/14/2012 17:15:03

PACER Login: hh0351

Client Code:

Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 2:ll-cv-14039-KMM

Billable Pages: 6

Cost:

0.60

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?920333208389882-L_1_0-1

9/9
EXHIBIT M: Page 38 of 38

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 116 Filed 10/16/12 Page 1 of 4

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 116 Filed 10/16/12 Page 2 of 4

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 116 Filed 10/16/12 Page 3 of 4

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 116 Filed 10/16/12 Page 4 of 4

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 116-1 Filed 10/16/12 Page 1 of 15

COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE JAIL OPERATIONS JEFF DICKERSON, SHERIFF
INMATE MAIL POLICY J603-R09 (06118/12)

EFFECTIVE: JuNE18, 2012
SUPERSEDES INMATE MAIL POLICY REVISED MAY 25, 2012
OJS: D-1O1THRu D-1 17, D-105, D-212, D-302, F-101THRu F-103
ACA: 3-.ALDF.3D-16THRu 5D08

Applies to all staff.
Li1IIII
Jail mail handling procedures must support an inmate’s need to communicate in writing to carry out legal business and maintain family and community ties. The procedures must also meet the Jail’s need for efficient operations that preserve the good order, safety, and security of the facility, inmates, and staff.
DEFINITIONS
Book. A printed composition bound in a volume.
Contraband. 1) Controlled substances as defined in ORS 475.005(6). 2) Drug paraphernalia as defined by ORS 475.525(2). 3) Any currency or negotiable instrument. 4) Any item that a person in a correctional facility is prohibited by statute, rule, or order from obtaining or possessing, and whose use would endanger the safety or security of the facility or person in the facility. 5) An unauthorized item in an inmate’s possession or in a cell, bunk, or common area. 6) An authorized item altered in any way. 7) More than the authorized number of an item.
Inmate Mail. Written correspondence to or from an inmate in the Columbia County Jail,
Indigent. An inmate who has less than $5 in his or her inmate account and has not had more than that amount for seven days.
Inflammatory material. Written or printed materials that pose a threat to the security, safety, or good order of the jail because it may incite or advocate physical violence against others. This includes material that advocates the supremacy or hatred of a racial, religious, national, or other group of people. (Note: Criticism of jail operations, programs, or staff, on its own, is not inflammatory material. If the criticism involves an illegal act or violates a jail rule, staff will handle it as that type of prohibited mail.)
Jail Commander. The Columbia County Jail Commander or his/her designee.
Jail Supervisor. Any Corrections Deputy designated at the rank of sergeant or higher.
Junk mail/Bulk mail. Printed materials, often sent as mass mailings, such as catalog advertisements, brochures, circulars, newsletters, and pamphlets whose primary purpose is to sell, promote or solicit for, a product or service. Junk mail/bulk mail may come using a variety of postage rates, including but not limited to bulk mail rates. Junk Mail/Bulk Mail
CC001622

EXHIBIT A: Page 1 of 15

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 116-1 Filed 10/16/12 Page 2 of 15

J603-R09

may be solicited or unsolicited.

June 18, 2012

Legal mail. Incoming or outgoing mail addressed to or from an attorney.

Negotiable instrument. A written document that represents an unconditional promise to pay a specified amount of money upon the demand of its owner. Examples include checks and promissory notes. Negotiable instruments can be transferred from one person to another, as when a person writes "pay to the order of" on the back of a check in order to turn it over to someone else.

Official Mail. Incoming or outgoing mail addressed to or from the sheriff, jail command staff, probation authorities, district attorney, state attorney general, Governor, court, a court official, and other confining authorities, or addressed to or from the inmate’s medical provider, or addressed to or from the inmate’s religious leader, or addressed to or from the news media.

Periodical. A magazine, newspaper, newsletter, or other publication formed of printed sheets that is issued at regular, specified intervals by a publisher.

Prohibited Mail Notice. A written notice that is: A. mailed to the sender or intended receiver of inmate mail who is not incarcerated in the Columbia County Jail; and B. is also provided (by jail staff) to the current inmate who is a sender or intended receiver of inmate mail,
when said mail has been confiscated by the jail for any reason (See Prohibited Mail Notice at the end of this chapter). A Prohibited Mail Notice MUST be provided to the sender AND intended receiver of all incoming and outgoing mail that is confiscated by the jail.

Publication. Periodicals and books.

Sexually explicit: 1) A pictorial depiction of any of the following: actual or simulated sexual acts (including sexual intercourse, oral sex, anal sex, or masturbation); sexual penetration; bestiality; sexual violence; sadomasochistic behavior; excretory functions; and exposed genitalia (to include pubic hair), anus or female nipple or areola, unless the exposure is for legitimate medical, religious, or anthropological reasons. 2) Sex acts involving children. 3) Materials that violate state and local obscenity laws. (Note: Whether the material is commercially produced or is personally made or written has no bearing on this definition.)

PROCEDURES

INMATE MAIL

1.

Inmate Mail Limits and Restrictions/Overview

The Columbia County Jail will normally not limit, censor, or restrict the volume, language, content, format or source of inmate mail. However, some limitations are necessary to assure the safety, and security of inmates, jail staff, and the public, as well as to assure the efficient operation of the Jail.

2.

Specific Limitations on Inmate Mail

A.

Publications. Publications are permitted in the Jail, subject to the following

C000 1623

EXHIBIT A: Page 2 of 15

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 116-1 Filed 10/16/12 Page 3 of 15

J603-R09
B.

requirements:

June 18, 2012

(1) An inmate must have someone outside the jail prepay for any publication he or she receives. An inmate may not engage in any delayed payment or credit ordering of publications while inside the jail

(2) Books. Books must come directly from the publisher, a book club, or a bookstore. Books may be new or used. Books may not be larger than 9 inches by 12 inches. Books may not have plastic or metal bindings. Either hardback or paperback books are acceptable.

(3) Periodicals. Periodicals must be new and be mailed directly from the publisher or bookstore.

(4) No blanket prohibition. Mail handlers will determine whether a specific publication violates jail rules. However, this determination must be made on a case by case basis. There shall be no blanket prohibition on any publication.

Legal and Official Mail.

(1) Jail staff must protect the rights of inmates to privileged, confidential communication with their attorneys, the courts, and confining authorities.

(2) A sender of legal or official mail is responsible for legitimately, properly, and clearly marking and addressing legal and official mail so that jail staff recognize it and treat it as being confidential, as follows:

(a) The return address on all incoming legal and official mail must have the sender’s job, agency, or firm title and address either commercially preprinted on the envelope or a label, or as an ink stamp. The sender’s name should be handwritten if not preprinted.
(b) The words "Legal Mail," "Official Mail," or similar designation must appear on the address side of the envelope. Jail staff will not assume the contents of any letter from an attorney, law firm, or government official is legal or official mail without the designation of "Legal Mail" or "Official Mail" on the address side of the envelope.

(3) Staff must not open recognizable legal or official mail outside the presence of the inmate. They may only open it in the presence of the inmate to inspect it for contraband, but they must not read its contents.

(4) A staff member must write a Jail Incident Report if he or she inadvertently opens a piece of recognizable legal or official mail outside the presence of the inmate. If such inadvertent reading of legal or official mail occurs, the staff member responsible will also notify a supervisor as soon as practicable.

(5) Before legal or official mail leaves the pod, staff must verify that any letter marked as legal or official mail is addressed to a person that qualifies for that privacy protection. Deputies will contact a Jail Supervisor if they suspect fraud.

CCOO 1624

EXHIBIT A: Page 3 of 15

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 116-1 Filed 10/16/12 Page 4 of 15

J603-R09

June 18, 2012

(6) Jail staff will pursue administrative, criminal, and disciplinary actions, as fitting, against all those involved in the fraudulent use of legal or official mail designations.

C. Other Prohibited Content/Contraband

(1) An inmate may not receive or send inmate mail that contains:

(a) Threats of physical harm, blackmail, extortion, or other criminal activity;

(b) Plans for escape, criminal activity, or activity that violates jail rules;

(c) Gang-related material;

(d) Information that, if conveyed, could result in physical harm to someone;

(e) Sexually explicit materials;

(f)

Inflammatory material;

(g) Contraband including but not limited to such commonly mailed items as:

i.

Books larger than 9 by 12 inches or with plastic or metal

bindings;

ii.

Controlled substances as defined by ORS 475005(6);

iii.

Foreign substances, such as bodily fluids, lipstick or

perfume, glue or paint or anything with an unusual stain or

odor that indicates a foreign substance may be present;

(h) Cash or negotiable instruments;

(i)

Food or beverages, electronic devices, clothing or similar personal

property.

(2) An inmate may not send or receive inmate mail that:

(a) is written in code or suspected code;

(b) Was not sent through the United States Postal Service or other approved system;

(c) Is to or from a person with whom the inmate is prohibited from communicating;

(d) Would violate a court order;

4
ccool625

EXHIBIT A: Page 4 of 15

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 116-1 Filed 10/16/12 Page 5 of 15

J603-R09

June 18, 2012

(e) May produce a hostile work environment by sexual harassment or otherwise;

(f) Is a credit or deferred billing transaction, such as "bill me later" subscriptions or merchandise bought on credit or collect-on-delivery terms;

(g) Is fraudulently marked as legal or official mail;

(h) Includes logistical information about an inmate’s upcoming health care appointment(s).

D. Sources of Incoming Mail. Jail Staff will only accept incoming inmate mail that has been delivered by the U.S. Postal Service unless otherwise specifically authorized by the Jail Commander.

E.

Postage-Due Mail. The jail will not accept or pay for incoming inmate mail with

postage due.

3.

General Limitations on Inmate Mail

In addition to the specific limitations on inmate mail set forth above, additional limitations may apply in the following circumstances:

A.

There is reason to believe that such correspondence would jeopardize personal

safety, jail security or good order, inmate treatment, or would facilitate violation of

the law.

B.

Inmates may receive a disciplinary sanction that restricts non-legal and/or non

official mail. (See Policy J212, Rules and Discipline.)

4.

General Provisions for Inmate Mail

A.

Indigent Inmate Mail. Indigent inmates may obtain an indigent hygiene kit through

the commissary program once per week. No inmate will be denied a weekly

indigent hygiene kit based on an inability to pay. The indigent hygiene kit consists

of 2 sheets of paper and two postage prepaid envelopes, a pencil and hygiene

items. Additional paper and envelopes are available for purchase in accordance

with Policy J605(Commissary).

B. Addressing Inmate Mail. Incoming mail must have the inmate’s booking name as part of the addressee information.

C. Return Address. Incoming mail must have the name and address of the sender. The return address on legal and official mail must have the sender’s job, agency, or firm title and address commercially preprinted or stamped.

D. Certified Mail/Special mail services.

C0001 626

EXHIBIT A: Page 5 of 15

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 116-1 Filed 10/16/12 Page 6 of 15

J603-R09

June 18, 2012

(I) The inmate must have sufficient funds in his or her account to pay for all special mail services. A Jail Supervisor may approve credit to allow an indigent inmate to send certified mail.
(2) An inmate who needs to send a letter using certified mail must fill out an Inmate Request Form. Any Corrections Deputy or Supervisor can process the request in the following manner:
(a) Jail staff will verify if the inmate has sufficient funds in his or her account before processing any request. They will forward requests from indigent inmates to a supervisor. The inmate will fill out the necessary U.S. Postal Service forms Receipt for Certified Mail (PS Form 3800) and Domestic Return Receipt (PS Form 3811). The letter and the forms will be forwarded to front office staff who will mail the letter and charge the inmate for the postal fees for these special services. The inmate request form will be the source document authorizing the charge.
(b) Jail Staff will provide the Domestic Return Receipt to the inmate when it returns in incoming mail. They will return the Domestic Return Receipt postcard to the post office if the inmate is no longer in Jail when it returns in the mail.
E. Inmate Request Form. An inmate shall use an Inmate Request Form to request to mail oversize or overweight items, or for other special postal services. Funds will be drawn from the inmate’s account to cover the costs.
F. Junk/Bulk Mail. Jail staff will accept solicited and unsolicited junk mail and solicited and unsolicited bulk mail for inmates, unless it violates other mail restrictions (such as containing sexually explicit content).
G. Pre-Stamped Envelopes. Jail staff will make pre-stamped First Class business size or manila envelopes available for inmates to buy from the commissary. Indigent inmates may obtain envelopes per paragraph 4.A.
H. Inmate Mail Written in a Foreign Language. Incoming and outgoing mail written in a language other than English may be interpreted prior to delivery to determine whether the mail violates these rules.

PROCESSING INMATE MAIL

INCOMING INMATE MAIL

1.

Mail Intake.

A.

Incoming Inmate Mail will be processed by night shift Corrections Deputies.

B. Night Shift Corrections Deputies will confiscate unopened mail when:

C0001627
EXHIBIT A: Page 6 of 15

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 116-1 Filed 10/16/12 Page 7 of 15

J603-R09
C. D. E.
F.

June 18, 2012
(1) The addressee cannot be identified because of missing or incomplete information;
(2) Prohibited items are affixed to the mail;
(3) Foreign substances or stains are on the mail;
(4) Odors, including perfume, are coming from the mail;
(5) The mail can otherwise be identified as being or containing prohibited mail before it is opened;
(6) The inmate is no longer in the jail.
Night Shift Corrections Deputies will look up the inmate’s name on the inmate list and write the inmate’s pod number on the mail.
Night Shift Corrections Deputies will review all inmate mail for prohibited content/contraband, and will remove loose postage stamps, loose flap-sealing tape, and loose gummed and adhesive address labels, leaving labels on legal and official mail. Deputies need not remove stamps, tape or labels that are firmly affixed to the mail.
Night Shift Corrections Deputies will determine whether mail includes the name and return address of the sender. If the mail does not have the name and return address, the Corrections Deputy will confiscate the mail. The Deputy will open any envelopes without the sender’s name and return address to attempt to identify the sender’s name and address and to inspect the mail for prohibited content/contraband. If the sender’s address can be identified, the mail will be returned to sender. If the sender’s name and address still cannot be identified, the mail will be stored for the inmate, unless the inmate is no longer in jail in which case the mail will be returned to the post office and marked, "undeliverable." However, in the event an inmate is no longer in jail and the mail contains negotiable instruments or other valuables, and no sender can be identified, any written material inside the envelope will be returned to the post office and marked "undeliverable" but the valuables will be retained as abandoned property in the Sheriff’s Office main property room to be disposed of according to law. The corrections staff member processing the abandoned property will fill out a property room property form and submit the property in the temporary evidence lockers. Before mail is returned, stored, forwarded, or destroyed under this section, the Corrections Deputy will get approval of a Jail Supervisor.
Night Shift Corrections Deputies will open all inmate mail (except for legal and official mail) to inspect for prohibited content/contraband. Upon a determination that prohibited content/contraband is present, Night Shift Corrections Deputies will confiscate the mail.

ccooi 628 EXHIBIT A: Page 7 of 15

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 116-1 Filed 10/16/12 Page 8 of 15

J603-R09
G.

June 18, 2012
If cash or negotiable instruments are found in inmate mail, the mail and funds will be confiscated and returned to sender. The Prohibited Mail Notice shall include the amount of funds, number, and issuing institution of any negotiable instrument as well as the payee’s name if it was not the inmate’s.

H. Night Shift Corrections Deputies will remove publications from their mailing parcels.

Night Shift Corrections Deputies will place inmate mail written in a foreign language in the "translation required" box and will take steps to locate a staff member who speaks that language. If such mail cannot be translated within a reasonable time by a staff member, the Corrections Deputy will forward the mail to a Jail Supervisor for direction.

Night Shift Corrections Deputies will sort inmate mail by pod and place it in the pod folders in booking before 0800 hours (8:00 am.).

K. Before mail is returned, stored, forwarded, or destroyed under this section, the Corrections Deputy will get approval of a Jail Supervisor. Night Shift Corrections Deputies will fill out a Prohibited Mail Notice for each item of confiscated mail and place it in the "Needs Review" box for a Jail Supervisor’s review. A Jail Supervisor will review each Prohibited Mail Notice. If the Jail Supervisor does not agree with the Prohibited Mail Notice, the mail will be delivered. If the Jail Supervisor does agree with the Prohibited Mail Notice, the Jail Supervisor will sign the Prohibited Mail Notice. The Prohibited Mail Notice will then be sent to the sender of the mail (if known). A copy of the Prohibited Mail Notice will also be provided to the inmate (if known and still in jail). A copy of the Prohibited Mail Notice will be retained in the inmate’s file.

L. Day Shift Corrections Deputies will pick up the mail for their pods when coming on duty. They, or other staff if appropriate, will process the inmate mail for their pods as follows:

(1) Open recognizable legal and official mail in front of the inmate and inspect it only for contraband - not content (staff shall not read the contents);

(2) Deliver the mail as soon as practical upon receipt. Passing inmate mail under an inmate’s door and placing books by the door is acceptable, except for legal and official mail;

2. Grievances/Appeals. Corrections Deputies will forward any grievances and/or appeals related to inmate mail to the Jail Commander for a determination of compliance with the Inmate Mail Policy and applicable legal requirements.

CCOO 1629
EXHIBIT A: Page 8 of 15

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 116-1 Filed 10/16/12 Page 9 of 15

J603-R09
3.

June 18, 2012
Return to Sender. Corrections Deputies will place mail to return to sender in the booking pickup box.

4. Mail Delivery. Staff should deliver mail to inmates within 24 hours of receipt at the Jail. Reasonable exceptions are allowed when special processing is required, such as for mail delivered late in the day, mail needing translation, or mail held as evidence in a criminal or disciplinary investigation, etc.

OUTGOING INMATE MAIL
1. General Mail Rules for Inmates
Inmates
A. May only use lead or colored pencils to write correspondence.
B. Must send inmate mail through the USPS or other approved system.
C. Must put their first and last name, booking number, and the jail address as the return address.
D. May not draw or write anything on the outside of an envelope other than name and address information and "legal" or "officia" mail designations.
E. May not send out jail forms for others to fill out on behalf of the inmate.
F. May not send prohibited content or contraband. Inmates are subject to disciplinary action for doing so.

2. Posting Outgoing Mail. Inmates will place outgoing inmate mail, unsealed, in the designated mailbox located inside of their pod (except for the case of legal or official mail).
3. Processing Outgoing Legal/Official Mail. Outgoing legal or official mail shall be processed in this manner:
A. Inmates must obtain a correction deputy’s verification that any legal or official mail complies with this Policy prior to the mail being sealed and placed in the designated mailbox in their pod.
B. The corrections deputy shall inspect the inmate’s legal and/or official mail in the presence of the inmate for contraband only. The deputy shall not review or read the content of legal or official mail.

CCOO1 630
EXHIBIT A: Page 9 of 15

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 116-1 Filed 10/16/12 Page 10 of 15

J603-R09
C.
D.

June 18, 2012
After inspecting the legal or official mail for compliance with this Policy, the corrections deputy will have the inmate seal the envelope and deliver it to the deputy. The deputy will then initial and write his or her DPSST number on the flap to show this verification.
After verifying that the legal or official mail complies with this Policy and writing his or her initials and DPSST number on the flap, the deputy shall place this sealed envelope of legal or official mail in the outgoing mail box within the pod.

The Night Shift Corrections Deputies will pick up the mail out of the mailboxes in the pods and deliver it to the booking area to be processed.

4. Processing, Opening and Inspecting Contents of Outgoing Mail
A. Corrections Deputies will not read outgoing legal or official mail unless they have the approval of the Jail Commander,
B. Corrections deputies may read outgoing mail at any time and for any reason, except for legal or official mail. This may be by housing area, class of inmate, individual inmate, or other basis. It may also be on an ongoing or a random basis and for any length of time. However, the Jail Commander must approve any ongoing monitoring of a specific inmate.
C. Corrections Deputies processing the outgoing mail will inspect the contents for contraband and/or other safety or security threats.
D. Corrections Deputies will notify a Jail Supervisor if
(1) They suspect outgoing mail contains contraband or otherwise violates this Policy.
(2) They suspect that the mail may present a safety or security issue based on the addressee.

(3) They have reasonable suspicion the mail may contain other contents of legitimate jail interest.
E. A Jail Supervisor will determine whether inmate mail contains contraband or is otherwise prohibited by this Policy. If mail is deemed to be prohibited, a Jail Supervisor will notify the inmate and may give the inmate an opportunity to correct the problem(s). If the inmate refuses to correct the mail, the mail will be confiscated. If an inmate corrects the problem(s), the mail will be included in outgoing mail.
F. Mail may be confiscated immediately if appropriate in the discretion of the Jail Supervisor.

10 CC 00 163 1

EXHIBIT A: Page 10 of 15

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 116-1 Filed 10/16/12 Page 11 of 15

J603-R09

June 18, 2012

G. Outgoing Inmate Mail will be sealed by the corrections deputy or deputies processing the outgoing mail and then placed in the outgoing mail basket and delivered to the front office for the regularly scheduled morning pickup on that same day as long as it is not a weekend or holiday. Outgoing mail should be processed within one business day after being received from the inmate.
H. An inmate and addressee will be provided with a Prohibited Mail Notice whenever outgoing inmate mail is not mailed due to a violation of this Policy. However, if the inmate is allowed to correct a problem with the mail, the inmate will be notified, but a Prohibited Mail Notice is not required unless the inmate declines to correct the problem.

CONFISCATED MAIL
Disposition. Unless otherwise specified in this Policy, an inmate mail that is confiscated pursuant to this Policy may either be returned to the sender, or stored with the inmate’s belongings in the Jail’s sole discretion based on the best interest of the Jail. A Jail Supervisor may authorize the destruction of any item that presents a health or safety risk if stored in the jail, or return it to sender, or as otherwise authorized by this Policy.
2. Prohibited Mail Notice Required. If a Jail Supervisor signs a Prohibited Mail Notice, the sender and addressee of the confiscated inmate mail must be notified of the confiscation whether the disposition was to return the mail, store it, or destroy it. However, if the mail is evidence in a criminal investigation, no notification will be given. Notice will be given through delivery of a Prohibited Mail Notice in the form attached to this Policy. The Prohibited Mail Notice will give the reason for the confiscation and explain the appeal process.
3. Confiscation in whole. Corrections Deputies will confiscate inmate mail in whole rather than removing contraband or obliterating individual pages, passages, or words of prohibited content.
4. Stored Inmate Mail. Corrections Deputies will use a Prohibited Mail Notice to inform the inmate of the confiscation and use a copy as a tag for the items placed in storage.

ADMINISTRATION
Mail as Nuisance Contraband. Inmates are responsible for getting rid of any mailed item exceeding the number of items allowed in their cells as nuisance contraband under Policy J212, Rules and Discipline. An inmate may transfer items to their bin in the property room using procedures in Policy J208, Secure Storage

CCOO 1632

EXHIBIT A: Page 11 of 15

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 116-1 Filed 10/16/12 Page 12 of 15

J603-R09

of Inmate Property.

June 18, 2012

2. Gang-Related and Security Threat Group Materials in Mail. Corrections Deputies will photocopy incoming or outgoing inmate mail with gang-related material and send a copy to the Gang Deputy.

3. Mail Monitoring. This section does not apply to legal or official mail.

A. The Jail may monitor an inmate’s mail for investigatory purposes as follows:

(1) Upon receipt of a warrant; or

(2) When there is a legitimate penological or public safety reason to do so. Examples of legitimate penological interest include but are not limited to, the welfare and safety of the inmates or staff, the good order or security of the facility, the protection of property, the prevention of the commission of a crime or conspiracy to commit a crime, the prevention of the destruction or tampering with evidence, and the prevention of harassment or intimidation of witnesses.

B. If a request to monitor inmate mail comes from another law enforcement agency, the agency must complete a Request for Inmate Mail Monitoring. An approved request will expire 30 days after its approval date. The requester must submit a new request to continue monitoring. Jail staff will read the inmate’s mail and decide if any of it applies to the request and will only forward copies of mail that does apply. The requester must pick up the copies in person if from an agency within Columbia County. The Jail Commander will coordinate the mail-monitoring program. The Jail Commander must approve the request.

4. Mail Rules. The Jail Commander will ensure mail rules are a part of inmate orientation and the Inmate Manual and will make copies of the Inmate Mail Guide available to the public.

5.

Mail Complaints. Staff members will direct mail complaints from the public to a

Jail Supervisor. The Jail Supervisor should attempt to respond to the complainant

within two business days. Appeals related to receipt of Prohibited Mail Notices

shall be addressed pursuant to paragraph 10, below.

6.

Mail Handler Supervision and Training. A Jail Supervisor will supervise the day-

to-day handling of inmate mail. He or she will assign staff to perform primary

inmate mail duties. Staff who initially handle or open incoming inmate mail should

attend training on the safe handling of strange or suspicious packages or receive

similar training from another source. Those who open mail should also receive

training on recognizing gang and security threat group symbols and signs.

00001633
EXHIBIT A: Page 12 of 15

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 116-1 Filed 10/16/12 Page 13 of 15

J603-R09
7.

June 18, 2012
Change of Address Responsibilities and Forwarding Mail. Inmates are responsible for submitting change of address requests to the publishers of publications they receive and to others that send them mail at the Jail. Corrections Deputies will normally not forward mail for inmates who are no longer in Jail custody. They will return correspondence and packages unopened to the sender and throw publications away.

8. Holding Mail. Corrections Deputies will normally not hold mail for inmates released or temporarily transferred to another facility. The Jail Commander may make exceptions.

9.

Returning Mail to Sender. Before mail is returned to its sender, Corrections

Deputies will obliterate any mail sorting bar code and will mark the mail "Return to

Sender". A Prohibited Mail Notice will be mailed separately from mail that is

returned unopened

To return mail that was opened, a Corrections Deputy must repackage it and send it at the expense of the Jail to the sender. The Corrections Deputy will include a copy of the Prohibited Mail Notice with repackaged mail.

10. Appeals.

A. By Inmates. Inmates wishing to appeal a decision to deny delivery of incoming inmate mail or the mailing of outgoing inmate mail must follow the normal grievance procedure set forth in the Inmate Manual and Policy J207, Inmate R/ghts,

B. By Others. If a person believes that any incoming or outgoing inmate mail was improperly confiscated by the Jail, they may appeal the action to the Jail Commander by sending a written letter stating the specific reason(s) why the action was improper. The letter must be received within 15 days from the date of the Prohibited Mail Notice. Or, if no Prohibited Mail Notice was received, the letter must be received within 15 days from the date the person knew or should have known of the appealed action. The letter shall include the sender’s name and return address. The Jail Commander will consider the appeal and will issue a decision on the appeal within 15 days of receiving the letter. However, if the Jail Commander made the initial decision regarding the mail in question, the Sheriff will consider the appeal and issue the decision. The appeal process will be set forth in the Prohibited Mail Notice.

13 C0001 634
EXHIBIT A: Page 13 of 15

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 116-1 Filed 10/16/12 Page 14 of 15

J603-R09
Ilk C.WMIIA COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE Jeffrey Al. Dickerson, Sheriff

June 18, 2012
Address: 901 Port Ave. St. Helens, OR 97051 Phone: (503) 366-4611 Fax: (503) 366-4644 Web Address: www.co .columbia,or.us/sheriff

PROHIBITED MAIL NOTICE

Because of rules contained in the Columbia County Jail Inmate Mail Policy,

we are U returning or U storing or Udestroying the U letter or U publication or U other

described as:

sent U to U from inmate

, Booking #

The mail was confiscated for the following reason(s):

U It contains sexually explicit material at page(s):

U It contains prohibited content or contraband:

U It did not come directly from a publisher, book club, or bookstore.

U Other

The reverse side of this letter is an Inmate Mail Guide which contains guidance on mail rules and appeal information. You may also go to the Jail’s web page to find the information. The inmate has also received this notice and can appeal this decision through the Inmate Grievance Procedure set forth in the Inmate Manual.

APPEALS: Inmates can appeal decisions to confiscate mail through the Inmate Grievance Procedure set forth in the Inmate Manual. Others who believe that mail was improperly confiscated may appeal the decision by sending in a written letter stating the reasons it is believed that the decision was wrong within 15 days from the date of this Notice. The letter should identity specifically how our action was improper, and include the name and return address of the appealing party. Appealing parties are not required to provide a phone number, but it may be useful if we need further clarification. We will send the appealing party a decision on the appeal within 15 days of our receipt of the appeal. Please direct appeals to:

Jail Commander ATTN: Confiscated Mail Appeal Columbia County Sheriff’s Office 901 Port Ave. St. Helens, OR 97051

Mail Handler and DPSST #

Jail Supervisor and DPSST # 14
C000 1635
EXHIBIT A: Page 14 of 15

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 116-1 Filed 10/16/12 Page 15 of 15

J603-R09

June 18, 2012

This Guide is intended to be a summary of some of the provisions in the Inmate Mall Policy that may be of most interest to members of the public. The Guide IS NOTintended to be a complete description of all policies related to Inmate Mail. For detail please see the Inmate Mail Policy.
INMATE MAIL GUIDE
Policy

Jail mail-handling procedures support both the inmates’ and the public’s need to communicate in writing, to carry out legal and official business, and maintain family and community ties. Procedures also meet the Jail’s need for efficient operations that preserve the good order, safety, and security of the facility, inmates, and staff. To that end, the following guide has been prepared to assist the public in complying with the Inmate Mail Policy.
The Jail’s general Policy is that it will not limit, censor, or restrict the volume, language, content, format or source of inmate mail. However, some limitations are necessary for the security of inmates, jail staff, and the public, as well as for the efficient operation of the Jail.
Inmate Mail. Inmates may generally send and receive mail in any form delivered by the U.S. Postal Service. Personal property such as food, beverages, clothing and similar items are not allowed to be mailed to and from inmates and will be confiscated. Photographs are allowed provided they don’t otherwise violate the Policy.
Publications. Inmates may receive publications, including but not limited to, books, magazines, newsletters and newspapers. However, the publication must be mailed directly from the publisher, book club or a bookstore. Addressing Inmate Mail. Inmate mail must have the inmate’s booking name as part of the addressee information. Incoming mail must have a return address including the name and address of the sender.
Prohibited Mail. Jail staff will not allow an inmate to receive or send mail that
Contains A. Threats of physical harm, blackmail, extortion, or other criminal activity; B. Plans for escape, criminal activity, or activity that violates jail rules; C. Gang-related material; D. Information that, if conveyed, could result in physical harm to someone; E. Sexually explicit materials; F. Inflammatory material; G. Contraband materials including but not limited to such commonly mailed items as:
(1) Books larger than 9 by 12 inches or with plastic or metal bindings; (2) More than three books in a single piece of mail; (3) Controlled substances as defined by ORS 475.005(6); (4) Foreign substances, such as: a) bodily fluids; b) lipstick or perfume; c) glue or paint; d) anything
with an unusual stain or odor that indicates a foreign substance may be present; 2. Is written in code or suspected code; 3. Was a form of written communication not sent through the USPS or other approved system; 4. Is to or from a victim of a crime that the inmate is in custody for in either pretrial or sentenced status; 5. Would violate a court order; 6. May produce a hostile work environment, such as sexual harassment; 7, Is a credit or deferred billing transaction, such as "bill me later" subscriptions or merchandise bought on
credit or collect-on-delivery terms; 8. Is fraudulently marked as legal or official mail.
For more specific information about prohibited mail please review the full Inmate Jail Policy J603-
Appeals. Both the inmate and an outside person have the right to appeal a decision to confiscate inmate mail. With very limited exceptions, the Jail will provide a Notice of Prohibited Mail to both the sender and addressee when inmate mail is returned or confiscated. The Notice of Prohibited Mail will explain the reason why the inmate mail was returned or confiscated and will explain the appeals process. The appeal process for an inmate follows the Jail’s normal grievance process. The appeal process for everyone else requiren a letter explaining the reason for the appeal, and providing contact information. The letter must be received within 15 days from the date of the Prohibited Mail Notice. The Jail will respond within 15 days of receipt of the letter.

15

C0001636

EXHIBIT A: Page 15 of 15

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 116-2 Filed 10/16/12 Page 1 of 15

COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE JAIL Op.eAT1oNs
JEFF DICKERSON, SHERIFF
INMATE MAIL POLICY J603-R10 (07/05/12)

EFFECTIVE: JULY 5,2012
SUPERSEDES INMATE MAIL POLICY REVISED JUNE 18, 2012
OJS: DIOITURU D-1 17,D105, D-212, D-302, F101THRu F-103
ACA: 3-ALDF3D-1 6 THRU 5D-08

Applies to all staff.
POLICY
Jail mail handling procedures must support an inmate’s need to communicate in writing to carry out legal business and maintain family and community ties. The procedures must also meet the Jail’s need for efficient operations that preserve the good order, safety, and security of the facility, inmates, and staff.
DEFINITIONS
Book. A printed composition bound in a volume.
Contraband. 1) Controlled substances as defined in ORS 475.005(6). 2) Drug paraphernalia as defined by ORS 475.525(2). 3) Any currency or negotiable instrument. 4) Any item that a person in a correctional facility is prohibited by statute, rule, or order from obtaining or possessing, and whose use would endanger the safety or security of the facility or person in the facility. 5) An unauthorized item in an inmate’s possession or in a cell, bunk, or common area. 6) An authorized item altered in any way. 7) More than the authorized number of an item.
Inmate Mail. Written correspondence to or from an inmate in the Columbia County Jail.
Indigent. An inmate who has less than $5 in his or her inmate account and has not had more than that amount for seven days.
Inflammatory material. Written or printed materials that pose a threat to the security, safety, or good order of the jail because it may incite or advocate physical violence against others. This includes material that advocates the supremacy or hatred of a racial, religious, national, or other group of people. (Note: Criticism of jail operations, programs, or staff, on its own, is not inflammatory material. If the criticism involves an illegal act or violates a jail rule, staff will handle it as that type of prohibited mail.)
Jail Commander. The Columbia County Jail Commander or his/her designee.
Jail Supervisor. Any Corrections Deputy designated at the rank of sergeant or higher.
Junk mail/Bulk mail. Printed materials, often sent as mass mailings, such as catalog advertisements, brochures, circulars, newsletters, and pamphlets whose primary purpose is to sell, promote or solicit for, a product or service. Junk mail/bulk mail may come using a variety of postage rates, including but not limited to bulk mail rates. Junk Mail/Bulk Mail

LSfWILIE1

EXHIBIT B: Page 1 of 15

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 116-2 Filed 10/16/12 Page 2 of 15

J603-R10

may be solicited or unsolicited.

July 5, 2012

Legal mail, Incoming or outgoing mail addressed to or from an attorney.

Negotiable instrument. A written document that represents an unconditional promise to pay a specified amount of money upon the demand of its owner. Examples include checks and promissory notes. Negotiable instruments can be transferred from one person to another, as when a person writes "pay to the order of" on the back of a check in order to turn it over to someone else.

Official Mail. Incoming or outgoing mail addressed to or from the sheriff, jail command staff, probation authorities, district attorney, state attorney general, Governor, court, a court official, and other confining authorities, or addressed to or from the inmate’s medical provider, or addressed to or from the inmate’s religious leader, or addressed to or from the news media.

Periodical. A magazine, newspaper, newsletter, or other publication formed of printed sheets that is issued at regular, specified intervals by a publisher.

Prohibited Mail Notice A written notice that is:

A.

mailed to the sender or intended receiver of inmate mail who is not incarcerated in

the Columbia County Jail; and

B.

is also provided (by jail staff) to the current inmate who is a sender or intended

receiver of inmate mail,

when said mail has been confiscated by the jail for any reason (See Prohibited Mail Notice

at the end of this chapter). A Prohibited Mail Notice MUST be provided to the sender AND

intended receiver of all incoming and outgoing mail that is confiscated by the jail.

Publication. Periodicals and books.

Sexually explicit: 1) A pictorial depiction of any of the following: actual or simulated sexual acts (including sexual intercourse, oral sex, anal sex, or masturbation); sexual penetration; bestiality; sexual violence; sadomasochistic behavior; excretory functions; and exposed genitalia (to include pubic hair), anus or female nipple or areola, unless the exposure is for legitimate medical, religious, or anthropological reasons. 2) Sex acts involving children, 3) Materials that violate state and local obscenity laws, (Note: Whether the material is commercially produced or is personally made or written has no bearing on this definition.)

PROCEDURES

INMATE MAIL

Inmate Mail Limits and Restrictions/Overview

The Columbia County Jail will normally not limit, censor, or restrict the volume, language, content, format or source of inmate mail. However, some limitations are necessary to assure the safety, and security of inmates, jail staff, and the public, as well as to assure the efficient operation of the Jail.

Specific Limitations on Inmate Mail.

A.

Publications. Publications are permitted in the Jail, subject to the following

CC 001912

EXHIBIT B: Page 2 of 15

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 116-2 Filed 10/16/12 Page 3 of 15

3603-RIO B.

requirements:

July 5, 2012

(1) An inmate must have someone outside the jail prepay for any publication he or she receives. An inmate may not engage in any delayed payment or credit ordering of publications while inside the jail.

(2)

Books. . Books must come directly from the publisher, a book club, or a

bookstore. Books may be new or used. Books may not be larger than 9

inches by 12 inches. Books may not have plastic or metal bindings. Either

hardback or paperback books are acceptable.

(3)

Periodicals, , Periodicals must be new and be mailed directly from the

publisher or bookstore.

(4)

No blanket prohibition. Mail handlers will determine whether a specific

publication violates jail rules. However, this determination must be made on

a case by case basis. There shall be no blanket prohibition on any

publication.

Legal and Official Mail.

(1)

Jail staff must protect the rights of inmates to privileged, confidential

communication with their attorneys, the courts, and confining authorities.

(2) A sender of legal or official mail is responsible for legitimately, properly, and clearly marking and addressing legal and official mail so that jail staff recognize it and treat it as being confidential, as follows:

(a)

The return address on all incoming legal and official mail must have

the sender’s job, agency, or firm title and address either

commercially preprinted on the envelope or a label, or as an ink

stamp. The sender’s name should be handwritten if not preprinted.

(b)

The words "Legal Mail," "Official Mail," or similar designation must

appear on the address side of the envelop’".. Jail staff will not

assume the contents of any letter from an attorney, law firm, or

government official is legal or official mail without the designation of

"Legal Mail" or "Official Mail" on the address side of the envelope.

(3)

Staff must not open recognizable legal or official mail outside the presence

of the inmate, They may only open it in the presence of the inmate to

inspect it for contraband, but they must not read its contents.

(4)

A staff member must write a Jail Incident Report if he or she inadvertently

opens a piece of recognizable legal or official mail outside the presence of

the inmate. If such inadvertent reading of legal or official mail occurs, the

staff member responsible will also notify a supervisor as soon as

practicable.

(5)

Before legal or official mail leaves the pod, staff must verify that any letter

marked as legal or official mail is addressed to a person that qualifies for

that privacy protection. Deputies will contact a Jail Supervisor if they

suspect fraud.

CC 001,913

EXHIBIT B: Page 3 of 15

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 116-2 Filed 10/16/12 Page 4 of 15

J603-R10 C.

July 5, 2012
(6) Jail staff will pursue administrative, criminal, and disciplinary actions, as fitting, against all those involved in the fraudulent use of legal or official mail designations.

Other Prohibited Content/Contraband,

(1)

An inmate may not receive or send inmate mail that contains:

(a)

Threats of physical harm, blackmail, extortion, or other criminal

activity;

(b)

Plans for escape, criminal activity, or activity that violates jail rules;

(c)

Gang-related material;

(d)

Information that, if conveyed, could result in physical harm to

someone;

(e)

Sexually explicit materials;

(1)

Inflammatory material;

(g)

Contraband including but not limited to such commonly mailed items

as:

i.

Books larger than 9 by 12 inches or with plastic or metal

bindings;

ii.

Controlled substances as defined by ORS 475.005(6);

iii.

Foreign substances, such as bodily fluids, lipstick or perfume,

glue or paint or anything with an unusual stain or odor that

indicates a foreign substance may be present;

(h)

Cash or negotiable instruments;

(i)

Food or beverages, electronic devices, clothing or similar personal

property.

(2)

An inmate may not send or receive inmate mail that:

(a)

is written in code or suspected code;

(b)

Was not sent through the United States Postal Service or other

approved system;

(c)

Is to or from a person with whom the inmate is prohibited from

communicating;

(d)

Would violate a court order;

(e)

May produce a hostile work environment by sexual harassment or

4
CC 001914

EXHIBIT B: Page 4 of 15

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 116-2 Filed 10/16/12 Page 5 of 15

J603-RIO

otherwise;

July 5, 2012

(f)

Is a credit or deferred billing transaction, such as "bill me later’

subscriptions or merchandise bought on credit or collect-on-delivery

terms;

(g)

Is fraudulently marked as legal or official mail;

(h)

Includes logistical information about an inmates upcoming health

care appointment(s).

D.

Sources of Incoming Mail, Jail Staff will only accept incoming inmate mail that

has been delivered by the U.S. Postal Service unless otherwise specifically

authorized by the Jail Commander.

E.

Postage-Due Mail. The jail will not accept or pay for incoming inmate mail with

postage due.

3.

General Limitations on Inmate Mail.

In addition to the specific limitations on inmate mail set forth above, additional limitations may apply in the following circumstances:

A.

There is reason to believe that such correspondence would jeopardize personal

safety, jail security or good order, inmate treatment, or would facilitate violation of

the law.

Inmates may receive a disciplinary sanction that restricts non-legal and/or non official mail. (See Policy J212, Rules and Discipline.)

General Provisions for Inmate Mail

A.

Indigent Inmate Mail. Indigent inmates may obtainan indigent hygiene kit through

the commissary program once per week. No inmate will be denied a weekly

indigent hygiene kit based on an inability to pay. The indigent hygiene kit consists

of 2 sheets of paper and two postage prepaid envelopes, a pencil and hygiene

items. Additional paper and envelopes are available for purchasein accordance

with Policy J605(Commissary),

B.

Addressing Inmate Mail. Incoming mail must have the inmate’s booking name

as part of the addressee information.

C.

Return Address. Incoming mail must have the name and address of the sender.

The return address on legal and official mail must have the sender’s job, agency, or

firm title and address commercially preprinted or stamped.

D.

Certified Mail/Special mail services.

(1)

The inmate must have sufficient funds in his or her account to pay for all

special mail services. A Jail Supervisormay approve credit to allow

anindigent inmate to send certified mail. An inmate who needs to send a

CC 001915

EXHIBIT B: Page 5 of 15

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 116-2 Filed 10/16/12 Page 6 of 15

3603-RIO
E. F. G. H.

July 5, 2012
letter using certified mail must fill out an Inmate Request Form. Any Corrections Deputy or Supervisor can process the request in the following manner:

(a)

Jail staff will verify if the inmate has sufficient funds in his or her

account before processing any request. They will forward requests

from indigent inmates to a supervisor. The inmate will fill out the

necessary U.S. Postal Service forms Receipt for Certified Mail (PS

Form 3800) and Domestic Return Receipt (PS Form 3811). The

letter and the forms will be forwarded to front office staff who will

mail the letter and charge the inmate for the postal fees for these

special services. The inmate request form will be the source

document authorizing the charge.

(b)

Jail Staff will provide the Domestic Return Receipt to the inmate

when it returns in incoming mail. They will return the Domestic

Return Receipt postcard to the post office if the inmate is no longer

in Jail when it returns in the mail.

Inmate Request Form. An inmate shall use an Inmate Request Form to request to mail oversize or overweight items, or for other special postal services. Funds will be drawn from the inmate’s account to cover the costs.

Junk/Bulk Mail, Jail staff will accept solicited and unsolicited junk mail and solicited and unsolicited bulk mail for inmates, unless it violates other mail restrictions (such as containing sexually explicit content).

Pre-Stamped Envelopes. Jail staff will make pre-stamped First Class business size or manila envelopes available for inmates to buy from the commissary. Indigent inmates may obtain envelopes per paragraph 4.A.

Inmate Mail Written in a Foreign Language. Incoming and outgoing mail written in a language other than English may be interpreted prior to delivery to determine whether the mail violates these rules.

PROCESSING INMATE MAIL

INCOMING INMATE MAIL

Mail Intake,

A.

Incoming Inmate Mail will be processed by night shift Corrections Deputies.

Night Shift Corrections Deputies will confiscate unopened mail when:

(1)

The addressee cannot be identified because of missing or incomplete

information;

(2)

Prohibited items are affixed to the mail;

(3)

Foreign substances or stains are on the mail;

CC 001916

EXHIBIT B: Page 6 of 15

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 116-2 Filed 10/16/12 Page 7 of 15

J603-R10
C. D.
E.

July 5, 2012

(4)

Odors, including perfume, are coming from the mail;

(5)

The mail can otherwise be identified as being or containing prohibited mail

before it is opened;

(6)

The inmate is no longer in the jail.

Night Shift Corrections Deputies will look up the inmate’s name on the inmate list and write the inmate’s pod number on the mail.

Night Shift Corrections Deputies will review all inmate mail for prohibited
content/contraband, and will remove loose postage stamps, loose flap-sealing tape, and loose gummed and adhesive address labels, leaving labels on legal and official mail, Deputies need not remove stamps, tape or labels that are firmly affixed to the mail,

Night Shift Corrections Deputies will determine whether mail includes the name and return address of the sender. If the mail does not have the name and return address, the Corrections Deputy will confiscate the mail. The Deputy will open any envelopes without the sender’s name and return address to attempt to identify the sender’s name and address and to inspect the mail for prohibited content/contraband. If the sender’s address can be identified, the mail will be returned to sender. If the sender’s name and address still cannot be identified, the mail will be stored for the inmate, unless the inmate is no longer in jail in which case the mail will be returned to the post office and marked, "undeliverable." However, in the event an inmate is no longer in jail and the mail contains negotiable instruments or other valuables, and no sender can be identified, any written material inside the envelope will be returned to the post office and marked ’undeliverable’ but the valuables will be retained as abandoned property in the Sheriff’s Office main property room to be disposed of according to law. The corrections staff member processing the abandoned property will fill out a property room property form and submit the property in the temporary evidence lockers., . Before mail is returned, stored, forwarded, or destroyed under this section, the Corrections Deputy will get approval of a Jail Supervisor,

F. Night Shift Corrections Deputies will open all inmate mail (except for legal and official mail) to inspect for prohibited content/contraband. Upon a determination that prohibited content/contraband is present, Night Shift Corrections Deputies will confiscate the mail.
G. If cash or negotiable instruments are found in inmate mail, the mail and funds will be confiscated and returned to sender. The Prohibited Mail Notice shall include the amount of funds, number, and issuing institution of any negotiable instrument as well as the payee’s name if it was not the inmate’s.

CC 001917

EXHIBIT B: Page 7 of 15

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 116-2 Filed 10/16/12 Page 8 of 15

J603-R10
H.

July 5, 2012
Night Shift Corrections Deputies will remove publications from their mailing parcels

Night Shift Corrections Deputies will place inmate mail written in a foreign language in the ’translation required box and will take steps to locate a staff member who speaks that language. If such mail cannot be translated within a reasonable time by a staff member, the Corrections Deputy will forward the mail to a Jail Supervisor for direction.

J. Night Shift Corrections Deputies will sort inmate mail by pod and place it in the pod folders in booking before 0800 hours (8:00 am.).

K. Before mail is returned, stored, forwarded, or destroyed under this section, the Corrections Deputy will get approval of a Jail Supervisor. Night Shift Corrections Deputies will fill out a Prohibited Mail Notice for each item of confiscated mail and place it in the "Needs Review" box for a Jail Supervisor’s review. A Jail Supervisor will review each Prohibited Mail Notice. If the Jail Supervisor does not agree with the Prohibited Mail Notice, the mail will be delivered. If the Jail Supervisor does agree with the Prohibited Mail Notice, the Jail Supervisor will sign the Prohibited Mail Notice. The Prohibited Mail Notice will then be sent to the sender of the mail (if known). A copy of the Prohibited Mail Notice will also be provided to the inmate (if known and still in jail). A copy of the Prohibited Mail Notice will be retained in the inmate’s file.

L. Day Shift Corrections Deputies will pick up the mail for their pods when coming on duty. They, or other staff if appropriate, will process the inmate mail for their pods as follows:

(1) Open recognizable legal and official mail in front of the inmate and inspect it only for contraband - not content (staff shall not read the contents);

(2) Deliver the mail as soon as practical upon receipt. Passing inmate mail under an inmate’s door and placing books by the door is acceptable, except for legal and official mail;
2. Grievances/Appeals. Corrections Deputies will forward any grievances and/or appeals related to inmate mail to the Jail Commander for a determination of compliance with the Inmate Mail Policy and applicable legal requirements.
3. Return to Sender. Corrections Deputies will place mail to return to sender in the booking pickup box.

4. Mail Delivery. Staff should deliver mail to inmates within 24 hours of receipt at the Jail. Reasonable exceptions are allowed when special processing is required, such as for mail delivered late in the day, mail needing translation, or mail held as evidence in a criminal or disciplinary investigation, etc.

CC 001918

EXHIBIT B: Page 8 of 15

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 116-2 Filed 10/16/12 Page 9 of 15

J603-RIO

July 5, 2012

OUTGOING INMATE MAIL
General Mail Rules for Inmates
Inmates
A. May only use lead or colored pencils to write correspondence.
B. Must send inmate mail through the USPS or other approved system.
C. Must put their first and last name, booking number, and the jail address as the return address.
D. May not draw or write anything on the outside of an envelope other than name and address information and "legal" or official" mail designations.
F. May not send out jail forms for others to fill out on behalf of the inmate.
F. May not send prohibited content or contraband. Inmates are subject to disciplinary action for doing so.

2. Posting Outgoing Mail, Inmates will place outgoing inmate mail, unsealed, in the designated mailbox located inside of their pod (except for the case of legal or official mail).
3. Outgoing legal or official mail shall be processed in this manner:
A. Inmates must obtain a correction deputy’s verification that any legal or official mail complies with this Policy prior to the mail being sealed and placed in the designated mailbox in their pod.
B. The corrections deputy shall inspect the inmate’s legal and/or official mail in the presence of the inmate for contraband only. The deputy shall not review or read the content of legal or official mail.
C. After inspecting the legal or official mail for compliance with this Policy, the corrections deputy will have the inmate seal the envelope and deliver it to the deputy. The deputy will then initial and write his or her DPSST number on the flap to show this verification.
D. After verifying that the legal or official mail complies with this Policy and writing his or her initials and DPSST number on the flap, the deputy shall place this sealed envelope of legal or official mail in the outgoing mail box within the pod.
CC 001 919

EXHIBIT B: Page 9 of 15

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 116-2 Filed 10/16/12 Page 10 of 15

J603-R10

July 5, 2012

The Night Shift Corrections Deputies will pick up the mail out of the mailboxes in the pods and deliver it to the booking area to be processed.

4. Processing, Opening and Inspecting Contents of Outgoing Mail
A. Corrections Deputies will not read outgoing legal or official mail unless they have the approval of the Jail Commander.
B. Corrections deputies mayread outgoing mail at any time and for any reason, except for legal or official mail. This may be by housing area, class of inmate, individual inmate, or other basis. It may also be on an ongoing or a random basis and for any length of time. However, the Jail Commander must approve any ongoing monitoring of a specific inmate.
C. Corrections Deputies processing the outgoing mail will inspect the contents for contraband and/or other safety or security threats.
D. Corrections Deputies will notify a Jail Supervisor if.
(1) They suspect outgoing mail contains contraband or otherwise violates this Policy.
(2) They suspect that the mail may present a safety or security issue based on the addressee.
(3) They have reasonable suspicion the mail may contain other contents of legitimate jail interest.
E. A Jail Supervisor will determine whether inmate mail contains contraband or is otherwise prohibited by this Policy. If mail is deemed to be prohibited, a Jail Supervisor will notify the inmate and may give the inmate an opportunity to correct the problem(s). If the inmate refuses to correct the mail, the mail will be confiscated. If an inmate corrects the problem(s), the mail will be included in outgoing mail.
F. Mail may be confiscated immediately if appropriate in the discretion of the Jail Supervisor.
G. Outgoing Inmate Mail will be sealed by the corrections deputy or deputies processing the outgoing mail and then placed in the outgoing mail basket and delivered to the front office for the regularly scheduled morning pickup on that same day as long as it is not a weekend or holiday. Outgoing mail should be processed within one business day after being received from the inmate.
H. An inmate and addressee will be provided with a Prohibited Mail Notice

CC 001920

10

EXHIBIT B: Page 10 of 15

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 116-2 Filed 10/16/12 Page 11 of 15

J603-R10

July 5, 2012
whenever outgoing inmate mail is not mailed due to a violation of this Policy. However, if the inmate is allowed to correct a problem with the mail, the inmate will be notified, but a Prohibited Mail Notice is not required unless the inmate declines to correct the problem.

CONFISCATED MAIL
Disposition. Unless otherwise specified in this Policy, any inmate mail that is confiscated pursuant to this Policy may either be returned to the sender, or stored with the inmate’s belongings in the Jail’s sole discretion based on the best interest of the Jail. A Jail Supervisor may authorize the destruction of any item that presents a health or safety risk if stored in the jail, or return it to sender, or as otherwise authorized by this Policy.
2. Prohibited Mail Notice Required. If a Jail Supervisor signs a Prohibited Mail Notice, the sender and addressee of the confiscated inmate mail must be notified of the confiscation whether the disposition was to return the mail, store it, or destroy it. However, if the mail is evidence in a criminal investigation, no notification will be given. Notice will be given through delivery of a Prohibited Mail Notice in the form attached to this Policy, The Prohibited Mail Notice will give the reason for the confiscation and explain the appeal process.
3. Confiscation in whole. Corrections Deputies will confiscate inmate mail in whole rather than removing contraband or obliterating individual pages, passages, or words of prohibited content.
4. Stored Inmate Mail. Corrections Deputies will use a Prohibited Mail Notice to inform the inmate of the confiscation and use a copy as a tag for the items placed in storage.

ADMINISTRATION
Mail as Nuisance Contraband. Inmates are responsible for getting rid of any mailed item exceeding the number of items allowed in their cells as nuisance contraband under Policy J212, Rules and Discipline. An inmate may transfer items to their bin in the property room using procedures in Policy J208, Secure Storage of
Inmate Property.
2. Gang-Related and Security Threat Group Materials in Mail, Corrections Deputies will photocopy incoming or outgoing inmate mail with gang-related material and send a copy to the Gang Deputy,
3. Mail Monitoring. This section does not apply to legal or official mail.
A. The Jail may monitor an inmate’s mail for investigatory purposes as follows:
(1) Upon receipt of a warrant; or

CC 001921

11

EXHIBIT B: Page 11 of 15

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 116-2 Filed 10/16/12 Page 12 of 15

J603-R10

July 5, 2012

(2) When there is a legitimate penological or public safety reason to do so. Examples of legitimate penological interest include but are not limited to, the welfare and safety of the inmates or staff, the good order or security of the facility, the protection of property, the prevention of the commission of a crime or conspiracy to commit a crime, the prevention of the destruction or tampering with evidence, and the prevention of harassment or intimidation of witnesses.

B. If a request to monitor inmate mail comes from another law enforcement agency, the agency must complete a Request for Inmate Mail Monitoring. An approved request will expire 30 days after its approval date. The requester must submit a new request to continue monitoring. Jail staff will read the inmate’s mail and decide if any of it applies to the request and will only forward copies of mail that does apply, The requester must pick up the copies in person if from an agency within Columbia County. The Jail Commander will coordinate the mail-monitoring program. The Jail Commander must approve the request.

4.

Mail Rules, The Jail Commander will ensure mail rules are a part of inmate

orientation and the inmate Manual and will make copies of the Inmate Mail Guide

available to the public.

5. Mail Complaints. Staff members will direct mail complaints from the public to a

Jail Supervisor. The Jail Supervisor should attempt to respond to the complainant

within two business days. Appeals related to receipt of Prohibited Mail Notices

shall be addressed pursuant to paragraph 10, below.

6.

Mail Handler Supervision and Training. A Jail Supervisor will supervise the day-

to-day handling of inmate mail. He or she will assign staff to perform primary inmate

mail duties. Staff who initially handle or open incoming inmate mail should attend

training on the safe handling of strange or suspicious packages or receive similar

training from another source. Those who open mail should also receive training on

recognizing gang and security threat group symbols and signs.

Change of Address Responsibilities and Forwarding Mail. Inmates are responsible for submitting change of address requests to the publishers of publications they receive and to others that send them mail at the Jail. Corrections Deputies will normally not forward mail for inmates who are no longer in Jail custody. They will return correspondence and packages unopened to the sender and throw publications away.

Holding Mail. Corrections Deputies will normally not hold mail for inmates released or temporarily transferred to another facility. The Jail Commander may make exceptions.

9.

Returning Mail to Sender. Before mail is returned to its sender, Corrections

Deputies will obliterate any mail sorting bar code and will mark the mail "Return to

Sender". A Prohibited Mail Notice will be mailed separately from mail that is

12
CC

EXHIBIT B: Page 12 of 15

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 116-2 Filed 10/16/12 Page 13 of 15

J603-RIO
returned unopened

July 5, 2012

To return mail that was opened, a Corrections Deputy must repackage it and send it at the expense of the Jail to the sender. The Corrections Deputy will include a copy of the Prohibited Mail Notice with repackaged mail.
10. Appea’s,

A. By inmates, Inmates wishing to appeal a decision to deny delivery of incoming inmate mail or the mailing of outgoing inmate mail must follow the
normal grievance procedure set forth in the Inmate Manual and Policy J207, Inmate Rights.

B. By Others. If a person believes that any incoming or outgoing inmate mail was improperly confiscated by the Jail, they may appeal the action to the Jail Commander by sending a written letter stating the specific reason(s) why the action was improper. The letter must be received within 15 days from the date of the Prohibited Mail Notice. Or, if no Prohibited Mail Notice was received, the letter must be received within 15 days from the date the person knew or should have known of the appealed action. The letter shall include the sender’s name and return address. The Jail Commander will consider the appeal and will issue a decision on the appeal within 15 days of receiving the letter. However, if the Jail Commander made the initial decision regarding the mail in question, the Sheriff will consider the appeal and issue the decision. The appeal process will be set forth in the Prohibited Mail Notice.

CC 001923 EXHIBIT B: Page 13 of 15

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 116-2 Filed 10/16/12 Page 14 of 15

J603-R10
& COLUMBIA COUNTY
UULIEUI U
Jeffrey M. Dickerson, Sheriff

July 5, 2012
Address: 901 Port Ave. St. Helens, OR 97051 Phone: (503) 366-4611 Fax: (503) 366-4644 Web Address: www.co ,columbia.or,us/sheriff

PROHIBITED MAIL NOTICE Date:

Because of rules contained in the Columbia County Jail Inmate Mail Policy,

we are 0 returning or 0 storing or Jdestroying the 0 letter or publication or ED other described as:

sent 0 to 0 from inmate

Booking #

The mail was confiscated for the following reason(s):

0 It contains sexually explicit material at page(s):

0 It contains prohibited content or contraband:

O It did not come directly from a publisher, book club, or bookstore.

O Other

The reverse side of this letter is an Inmate Mail Guide which contains guidance on mail rules and appeal information. You may also go to the Jail’s web page to find the information. The inmate has also received this notice and can appeal this decision through the Inmate Grievance Procedure set forth in the Inmate Manual.

APPEALS: Inmates can appeal decisions to confiscate mail through the Inmate Grievance Procedure set forth in the Inmate Manual. Others who believe that mail was improperly confiscated may appeal the decision by sending in a written letter stating the reasons it is believed that the decision was wrong within 15 days from the date of this Notice. The letter should identify specifically how our action was improper, and include the name and return address of the appealing party. Appealing parties are not required to provide a phone number, but it may be useful if we need further clarification, We will send the appealing party a decision on the appeal within 15 days of our receipt of the appeal, Please direct appeals to:

Jail Commander ATTN: Confiscated Mail Appeal Columbia County Sheriff’s Office 901 Port Ave. St. Helens, OR 97051

Mail Handler and DPSST #

Jail Supervisor and DPSST #

CC 001924
14

EXHIBIT B: Page 14 of 15

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 116-2 Filed 10/16/12 Page 15 of 15

J603-R10

July 5, 2012

This Guide is intended to be a summary of some of the provisions in the Inmate Mail Policy that may be of most interest to members of the public. The Guide IS NOT intended to be a complete description of all POiC55 related to Inmate Mail. For detail please see the Inmate Mail Policy.
INMATE MAIL GUIDE
Policy
Jail mail-handling procedures support both the inmates’ and the public’s need to conmunicate in writing, to carry out legal and official business, and maintain family and cornmunityties. Procedures also meet the Jail’s need for efficient operations that preserve the good order, safety, and security of the facility, inmates, and staff. To that end, the following guide has been prepared to assist the public in complying with the Inmate Mail Policy.
The Jail’s general Policy is that it will not limit, censor, or restrict the volume, language, content, format or source of inmate mail. However, some limitations are necessary for the security of inmates, jail staff, and the public, as well as for the efficient operation of the Jail.
Inmate Mall. Inmates may generally send and receive mail in any form delivered bythe U.S. Postal Service. Personal property such as food, beverages, clothing and similar items are not allowed to be mailed to and from inmates and will be confiscated. Photographs are allowed provided they don’t otherwise violate the Policy.
Publications. Inmates may receive publications, including but not limited to, books, magazines, newsletters and newspapers. However, the publication must be mailed directly from the publisher, book club or a bookstore, Addressing Inmate Mail. Inmate mail must have the inmate’s booking name as part of the addressee information. Incoming mail must have a return address including the name and address of the sender.
Prohibited Mail, Jail staff will not allow an inmate to receive or send mail that-
1. Contains A. Threats of physical harm, blackmail, extortion, or other criminal activity; B. Plans for escape, criminal activity, or activity that violates jail rules; C. Gang-related material; D. Information that, if conveyed, could result in physical harm to someone; E. Sexually explicit materials; F. Inflammatory material; G. Contraband materials including but not limited to such commonly mailed items as; (1) Books larger than 9 by 12 inches or with plastic or metal bindings; (2) Controlled substances as defined by ORS 475.005(6); (3) Foreign substances, such as; a) bodily fluids; b) lipstick or perfume; c) glue or paint; d) anything with an unusual stain or odor that indicates a foreign substance may be present;
2. Is written in code or suspected code; 3. Was a form of written communication not sent through the USPS or other approved system; 4. Is to or from a victim of a crime that the inmate is in custody for in either pretrial or sentenced status; 5. Would violate a court order; 6. May produce a hostile work environment, such as sexual harassment; 7. Is a credit or deferred billing transaction, such as "bill me later" subscriptions or merchandise bought on credit
or collect-on-delivery terms; 8. Is fraudulently marked as legal or official mail.
For more specific information about prohibited mail please review the full Inmate Jail Policy J603-,
Appeals. Both the inmate and an outside person have the right to appeal a decision to confiscate inmate mail, With very limited exceptions, the Jail will provide a Notice of Prohibited Mail to both the sender and addressee when inmate mail is returned orconfiscated. The Notice of Prohibited Mail will explain the reason whythe inmate mail was returned or confiscated and will explain the appeals process. The appeal process for an inmate follows the Jail’s normal grievance process, The appeal process for everyone else requires a letter explaining the reason for the appeal, and providing contact information, The letter must be received within 15 days from the date of the Prohibited Mail Notice, The Jail will respond within 15 days of receipt of the letter.

CC 001925

15

EXHIBIT B: Page 15 of 15

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 117 Filed 10/23/12 Page 1 of 14
Katherine C. Chamberlain, OSB #042580 katherinec@mhb.com Jesse A. Wing, pro hac vice jessew@mhb.com Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News MacDonald Hoague & Bayless 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104-1745 (206) 622-1604
Marc D. Blackman, OSB #730338 marc@ransomblackman.com Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Ransom Blackman LLP 1001 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1400 Portland, OR 97204 (503) 228-0487
Lance Weber,pro hac vice lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Human Rights Defense Center 1037 Western Ave., 2nd Floor West Brattleboro, VT 05303 (802) 257-1342

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,
Defendants.

No.3:12-CV-71-SI
PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS' FAlLURE TO MITIGATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS' FAILURE TO MITIGATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (CV 12-71-SI) - 1
9870.05 fj160907.003

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 117 Filed 10/23/12 Page 2 of 14

The Sheriff wants the Court to permit him to shift blame for his long-standing policy and practice of violating the United States Constitution from himself to Prison Legal News. His stated rationale is that PLN was obligated to warn him of his reckless disregard for the First Amendment and ask that he stop his censorship and denial of due process before PLN exercised its rights again and before PLN investigated his unconstitutional conduct. This is not the law and the Sheriff has failed to cite any precedent for his constitutionally destructive notion, which would establish an entirely new form of exhaustion requirement contrary to existing law. Nor has he offered any facts that support his defense if it was legitimate under the law.
First, Defendant claims but fails to show that PLN had a duty to mitigate its damages by informally educating Defendants that they were violating the Constitution before PLN continued to exercise its First Amendment rights.
Second, Defendants have not articulated a single fact that had PLN mitigated in the manner Defendants claim that Defendants would have changed their behavior.
Both points are fatal to Defendants' defense. The question presented is not whether the defense of failure to mitigate damages ever applies to a section 1983 claim, but rather how it applies to this section 1983 action. Defendants have the burden of showing that a mitigation of damages defense applies, but its only articulated theory is illogical and contrary to law, and Defendants offers no facts that support a legitimate defense.
I. FACTS Defendants have not presented a question of fact for the jury. None of the facts articulated by the Sheriff in his brief support his defense of failure to mitigate damages. 1 He emphasizes the kinds of damages that PLN claims, the wages that PLN pays its employees, the

1 Defendants offer the Sheriff s website and his Inmate Manual as evidence that PLN-like the rest of the public, the prisoners, and his deputies- must have known the Sheriff would violate their rights. Defs Resp. at 3. This is ironic since the Sheriff has taken refuge in his claimed ignorance of what was posted on his own website for two years, Dkt. 29 at 3, n.l, and his failure to notice the unconstitutional provisions in his inmate manual, Dkt. 99-1, at 21 (Dickerson Dep. at 123:13-124:18: "I did not catch the differences between our policy and what our manual said, the inmate manual said.").

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS' FAILURE TO MITIGATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (CV 12-71-SI) - 2
9870.05 fj160907.003

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 117 Filed 10/23/12 Page 3 of 14

rates PLN claims as damages, and that PLN first notified Defendants they had been repeatedly violating the Constitution when PLN filed this lawsuit. But none of this has any relevance to a mitigation of damages defense.2 Defendants have not identified any damages that PLN could have mitigated let alone how PLN could have mitigated them but didn't.
These damages include the diversion of resources in the form of considerable time that PLN spent investigating Defendants' illegal conduct, such as responding to and investigating the complaints of prisoners and their families about Defendants' censorship. See Dkt. 46, at 24-25. As the Court has recognized, PLN has challenged the constitutionality of Defendants' policies and practices not only on its own behalf but also on behalf of prisoners and the multitude of family members, friends, businesses, and others who correspond with them. And, similarly, Defendants have not shown how PLN could mitigate its frustration of mission damages, which are necessary to counter the Defendants' unconstitutional behavior. See Fair Housing ofMarin v. Combs, 285 F.3d 899, 905 (9th Cir. 2002).
At his deposition, Undersheriff Moyer was asked for a single example that would support a mitigation defense. He could come up with none:
Q. BY MR. WING: Undersheriff Moyer, I asked you earlier in the deposition whether you could think of any situation in which the sheriffs department has changed its policy because of a grievance or a complaint. Do you remember that question?
A. Yes.

2 PLN's damages calculations have no bearing on whether Defendants state a legitimate failure to mitigate defense; Defendants point to no precedent that says otherwise. But they try to make the calculations relevant by calling them "inflated" since there is a difference between what PLN pays its employees and the rates it claims as damages. Besides being irrelevant, Defendants are wrong. Courts have held that market rates are an entirely appropriate measure of damages. See,
e.g., Fair Housing ofMarin v. Combs, 2000 WL 365029, * 3 (N.D. Cal. 2000) (awarding market
rates for diversion of resources damages to fair housing organization because "it is completely reasonable to charge an hourly rate that does not match the pro rata salary of the individual; to find otherwise would place into question the fees and costs associated with a litany of professionals (including attorneys) whose hourly rate and salary prorated to the hour bear only passing resemblance to one another."), aff'd, Fair Housing ofMarin v. Combs, 285 F.3d 899 (9th Cir.2002).

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS' FAILURE TO MITIGATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (CV 12-71-SI) - 3
9870.05 fj160907.003

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 117 Filed 10/23/12 Page 4 of 14

Q. And you could not think of one then. Can you think of one now? A. I can't. ... Wing Reply Dec., Ex. 1 (Moyer Dep. at 238:5-14). Mr. Moyer conceded that it was an important question and claimed that he would research the matter. Id. at 238:14-19. It is telling that Mr. Moyer could think of nothing. Ultimately, the Sheriff and his Undersheriff have offered no examples to the Court. In contrast, Plaintiff has offered numerous counter-examples, which are the only evidence on this issue in the case. As a factual matter, Defendants have failed to show any genuine issue of material fact that would support their defense. Accordingly, the Court should enter partial summary judgment in PLN's favor and dismiss Defendants' defense of failure to mitigate damages.
II. ARGUMENT
A. Defendants Bear the Burden to Prove Their Affirmative Defense But Fail to Do So
Defendants cite to the Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instructions, which state they bear the burden of proving a defense of failure to mitigate damages, Def s Resp. at 7, but Defendants have not, and cannot, show that mitigation of damages has any legal application here and they have identified no facts to support the defense even if it had any application.
Allowing Defendants to pursue the failure to mitigate defense they describe would create a perverse incentive for them to continue violating the Constitution until someone challenges them. In essence, their defense is that whenever they violate someone's constitutional rights the victim of their illegal conduct acts unreasonably if it exercises its rights again without first asking Defendants to change their ways. That is not the law so it is unsurprising that Defendants have been unable to identify any precedent to support their position.
Such a defense would shift the burden of following the Constitution away from the public officials sworn to uphold it and onto the general public. It would also severely impair constitutional rights, erecting barriers of time, money, unequal access, and ability. In an employment matter, it is clear that a terminated employee must attempt to mitigate by looking

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS' FAILURE TO MITIGATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (CV 12-71-SI) - 4
9870.05 fj160907.003

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 117 Filed 10/23/12 Page 5 of 14
for another job. But what must a member of the public do to mitigate against a public official's manifest refusal to comply with the Constitution? Defendants claim only that "The duty to mitigate does not impose a standard of conduct or an affirmative duty to act in a particular manner. Rather, it is a principle that applies to the calculation of the 'level' of recoverable compensatory damages by requiring an injured party to take reasonable measures to minimize the damages suffered." Def s Resp. at 10-11.
Defendants fail to articulate what would have been reasonable conduct on the part of Plaintiff and they fail to show that it would have made a difference. Would a telephone call to the Defendants have been sufficient or did it need to be a letter? Did the caller need to get through to the Sheriff himself or would it have been enough to talk to a deputy since the Sheriff claimed to be unaware of his staff s practices? Would a letter from a member of the public have been enough or did it need to be prepared and sent by a lawyer so as to carry the necessary weight to be taken seriously by the government? Did the letter need to reference studies, identify evidence, or supply legal citations? Was analysis of the known facts applied to the law required of such a letter? Who must have actually received the letter to the government for it to be reasonably considered, or does that matter? How long must a member of the public wait for an answer before exercising its Constitutional rights again? Must the public negotiate or can it take a stand, or is it just the effort that matters? Defendants do not even attempt to explain what they claim PLN had to do to satisfy this exceedingly vague requirement that it imagines members of the public have, let alone how it would be clearly conveyed in instructions to ajury.
Defendants fail to present any facts to support a defense that they would have changed their ways in response to a request from PLN. They deny this on the sole ground that that they finally changed some of their unconstitutional conduct, but only after PLN sued them and in the

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS' FAILURE TO MITIGATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (CV 12-71-SI) - 5
9870.05 fj160907.003

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 117 Filed 10/23/12 Page 6 of 14

face of PLN' s motion for preliminary injunction. That is not evidence of voluntary compliance at all, let alone evidence that Defendants would have changed their conduct before litigation.3
And, Defendants wrongly claim that whether "defendants have no evidence that the Jail would have changed its unconstitutional practices had PLN given pre-litigation notice of its concerns .. .is of no import." Defs Resp. at 10 n. 5. Defendants, not Plaintiff, bear the burden of presenting evidence in the first instance that efforts of mitigation likely would have mitigated the harm that they caused.
More than forty-five years ago, the Ninth Circuit articulated the Defendant's "burden of proving a failure to mitigate damages" in the context of a federal employment discrimination dispute:
To satisfy this burden, defendant must establish (1) that the damage suffered by plaintiff could have been avoided, [i]. e. that there were suitable positions available which plaintiff could have discovered andfor which he was qualified; and (2) that plaintifffailed to use reasonable care and diligence in seeking such a position. (Emphasis added). Sias v. City Demonstration Agency, 588 F.2d 692, 696 (9th Cir. 1978). And, as the Ninth Circuit explained, on a motion for summary judgment-where a defendant bears the burden on its affirmative defense-the defendant must present evidence that "during the time in question there were substantially equivalent jobs available, which [plaintiff] could have obtained, and that she failed to use reasonable diligence in seeking one." E.E.O.C. v. Farmer Bros. Co., 31 F.3d 891, 906 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing id.). In other words, to withstand summary judgment, Defendants must present actual evidence that mitigation efforts would have likely reduced PLN's harm. Wilson v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. .,56 F.3d 1226, 1232 (lOth Cir. 1995) ("[The plaintiffs] general failure to seek employment for eighteen months before trial does not alone suffice to justify a mitigation instruction; the defendant must also show that appropriate jobs were available.") (Emphasis

3 Defendants claim that they have provided other evidence but do not articulate what that evidence is or how it supports their defense. See Defs Resp. at 15 (stating merely "(See Factual Summary, supra, pp. 2-5)").

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS' FAILURE TO MITIGATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (CV 12-71-SI) - 6
9870.05 fj160907.003

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 117 Filed 10/23/12 Page 7 of 14

added). The mere theoretical possibility is not a sufficient showing, and that is all Defendants have offered.
And, in fact, the evidence shows that Defendants would not have readily changed their conduct in response to a request that they do so. As shown in Plaintiff s Motion, Defendants repeatedly ignored prisoner grievances about their postcard-only policy and then refused to change that policy until ordered to do so by the Court. Yet, in their brief, Defendants do not mention this at all let alone try to explain why it is anything other than the best illustration of how they would have responded to a request from PLN too.
The Sheriff admitted under oath that he knew when he first read the Inmate Manual at the beginning of his tenure that it prohibited magazines and that it did not provide for due process but he did nothing to correct these illegalities. He plainly admitted that the provisions in his Manual violated the Constitution. In short, he was aware of the directions he was giving to his staff and to prisoners but knowingly ignored that they were unconstitutional. 4 He cannot be heard now to imply that if only PLN pointed out what he already knew that he would have changed his practices.

4 To matter legally, the Defendant must show that the avenues of mitigation allegedly available must be meaningful. In the employment context, for example, an employer must show that jobs available were "substantially equivalent" to count as mitigation. See, e.g, Jackson v. Shell Oil Co., 702 F.2d 197,202 (9th Cir. 1983) ("To meet its burden of showing that there were suitable alternative positions available, Shell demonstrated the presence of only one possibility, the position with Diamond. Jackson refused to apply for that job, contending that it was not 'substantially equivalent' to his position with Shell."). As Plaintiff showed in its briefs and at oral argument, even in response to full blown litigation including a motion for preliminary injunction, Defendants' initial efforts were feeble and inadequate: as examples, the January and February 2012 mail policies were a confusing, illogical mess and the training was ineffective; Defendants failed to update their website for five months, they failed to replace the Cutright Memorandum (banning magazines) in the prisoner pods until Plaintiff conducted its on-site inspection, and they continued to issue their Inmate Manuals (banning magazines and not affording due process) to every prisoner who entered the facility. These responses are not "substantially equivalent" to compliance with the Constitution and PLN could have expected even less compliance in response to an informal request to Defendants.

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS' FAILURE TO MITIGATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (CV 12-71-SI)-7
9870.05 fj160907.003

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 117 Filed 10/23/12 Page 8 of 14

Even if a mitigation defense exists along the lines that Defendants asserts, the facts explained above render any such defense dead on arrival. And, by continuing to send its mailings every month to communicate its message to prisoners despite Defendants' unconstitutional practice of censorship, PLN was engaged in reasonable efforts to reduce the harm that the Defendants were causing.
Defendants should not be permitted to confuse the jury with their deceptive defense and unsupported claims that they would have done things differently if PLN had only asked.
1. The Defense Argued by Defendants is Nothing More than Comparative Negligence, Which Defendant Has Not Pleaded And As a Matter of Law Does Not Apply Here
As Plaintiff showed at length in its Motion, the duty to mitigate damages arises only after the Defendants have violated the Plaintiff s rights and only to ameliorate the harm caused by that violation-not to prevent future violations. PI's Mot. at 3-5. Defendants never explain how asking them to stop future violations ameliorates the harm caused by the past ones. That is fatal to the defense.
The defense that Defendants describe in their Response brief is really a form of comparative negligence, dressed up as mitigation ofdamages. Comparative negligence limits a plaintiff s damages where the plaintiff was found partly to blame for the cause of the injury in the first place. See, e.g., Phillips v. Monday & Associates, Inc., 235 F. Supp. 2d 1103, 1105 (D. Or. 2001) ("Under the comparative negligence statutes, the trier of fact determines the parties' relative negligence and determines the plaintiffs damages."). But Defendants did not plead comparative negligence as defense. Nor could they successfully.
A comparative (or contributory) negligence defense is limited to negligence actions; it is not a defense to intentional torts, like government censorship. "The general rule is that contributory negligence is a defense only to actions grounded on negligence ...." Curry v. Fred Olsen Line, 367 F.2d 921, 928 (9th Cir. 1966) (holding that California follows the general rule);

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS' FAILURE TO MITIGATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (CV 12-71-SI) - 8
9870.05 fjI60907.003

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 117 Filed 10/23/12 Page 9 of 14

Field v. Mans, 516 U.S. 59, 70 (1995) ("contributory negligence is no bar to recovery because fraudulent misrepresentation is an intentional tort.").
"Comparative negligence is not applied in suits for violations of federal constitutional rights under § 1983." Quezada v. County ofBernalillo, 944 F.2d 710,721 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Clappier v. Flynn, 605 F.2d 519,530 (10th Cir.1979) (§ 1983 does not allow comparison of fault between the plaintiff and defendant)); Jackson v. Hoffman, No. 91-4054-RDR, 1994 WL 114007, at *1 (D. Kan. 1994) (noting that "comparative negligence is not applied in § 1983").
For example, in Quintana v. Baca, 233 F.R.D. 562, 565-66 (C.D. Cal. 2005), where a prisoner brought a constitutional challenge to the Los Angeles County Jail assigning him and other prisoners to sit on the floor, the Court rejected the government's "defense of comparative negligence," holding that "the Court does not see how it is applicable to this case; i.e. how fault for the alleged floor-residing injury could be apportioned between the plaintiff and the defendant." The Court explained: "Either the defendant failed to provide the plaintiff with sufficient seating, and this amounts to a constitutional violation, or he did not." Id. (citing Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330-31 (1986), for the proposition that "negligence does not give rise to a § 1983 claim," suggesting that comparative negligence cannot be a defense to an intentional constitutional violation).
Similarly, in Logan v. City ofPullman Police Dept., CV-04-214-FVS, 2006 WL 994759, * 2 (E.D. Wash. Apr. 14, 2006), the Court held: "because comparative fault is inapplicable in the context of an intentional tort, Morgan, 137 Wash.2d at 896, 976 P.2d at 623, the Court concludes Defendants' affirmative defense of comparative fault is inapplicable to Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claims." In explanation, the court stated, "in the Ninth Circuit, liability under Section 1983 requires proof "the acts or omissions of the defendant were intentional." Id. (citing Manual of Model Civil Rule Instructions (9th Cir. 2004 ed.), Section 11.1, www.ce9.uscourts.gov." Id.

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS' FAILURE TO MITIGATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (CV 12-71-SI) - 9
9870.05 fj160907.003

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 117 Filed 10/23/12 Page 10 of 14

For the same reason, federal courts have likewise rejected attempts to defend against employment discrimination claims based on defenses that the employee was negligent. See Smith v. Sheahan, 189 F.3d 529, 534 (7th Cir.1999) ("[t]here is no assumption-of-risk defense to charges of workplace discrimination."). In this vein, just a few months ago, in E.E. O. C. v. Prod.
Fabricators, Inc., CIV. 11-2071 MJD/LIB, 2012 WL 2775009, * 6-7 (D. Minn. July 10, 2012),
in a Title VII action, the Court struck "Defendants' affirmative defenses of contributory negligence and assumption of the risk" on these grounds. Defendants cannot defend against the damages caused by their intentional torts by claiming that the Plaintiff could have avoided them.
To support the basic and unremarkable concept that a Plaintiff must attempt to mitigate its damages even under section 1983, Defendants cite to four employment cases. Defs Resp. at 7. But this is no help to the Defendants, who have not articulated a viable failure to mitigate damages defense and who have no legal basis for asserting a comparative fault defense against their intentionally tortious misconduct-which is the only defense their theory fits.
The Court in E.E. O. C. v. Prod. Fabricators, Inc. explained: "failure to mitigate is distinct from comparative fault ... [because] [t]he duty to mitigate arises after the plaintiff has
been injured, [while] the duty of care before." Id. at * n. 4. There is no comparative fault
defense here because there is no negligence claim. And, there is no failure to mitigate defense here because Defendant has not articulated any actions that PLN could have taken, let alone should have taken, to ameliorate the harm flowing from Defendants past violations. That is a major reason why Defendants cannot rely on an employee's duty to look for another job after wrongful termination as precedent for a failure to mitigate damages defense here. In an employment case, the employee is seeking future lost wages so must mitigate that future harm by looking for work. That would ameliorate lost future wages caused by the prior termination. Here, by contrast, Defendant has not articulated any way that PLN could, let alone did, fail to mitigate damages flowing from the government's prior deprivation of its speech. Asking the government to change its behavior-which is the only failure that Defendants allege-may

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS' FAILURE TO MITIGATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (CV 12-71-SI) - 10
9870.05 fj160907.003

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 117 Filed 10/23/12 Page 11 of 14

prevent future violations but not remedy past ones. This is why Defendants have no legitimate failure to mitigate defense and why employment litigation fails to serve as relevant precedent for Defendants here.
Also notable is the fact that the terminated employee generally mitigates by looking for a job with a different employer from the one who discriminated against her. The Defendant employer must show failure to mitigate by affirmatively presenting the many jobs that the employee could have gotten had she applied for them, and must likewise show that the employee likely would have gotten one of the jobs but for her unreasonable failure to seek them. Here, however, the sole focus of Defendants' criticism is that PLN was obligated to seek relief from the bad actors themselves-the Defendants. This is a seriously flawed approach for two reasons: (1) Defendants concede that they, not Plaintiff, were the sole source of any mitigation that could have occurred; (2) Defendants have presented no evidence that they would have changed their ways had PLN just asked. Indeed, while they seem to imply it, nowhere in their brief do Defendants actually state that they would have changed any policy or practice if PLN has asked. And Defendants supply no testimony or other evidence in support of their motion to state this either.
Lastly, Defendants' claim that PLN should have contacted them is not enough to present this defense to ajury. Courts have recognized that where a plaintiffs attempt to mitigate damages would have been futile, it is not an appropriate defense. "'Mitigation' does not require an exercise in futility." RBC Bank (USA) v. Glass, 773 F. Supp. 2d 1245, 1247 (N.D. Ala. 2011). In Pathways Psychosocial v. Town ofLeonardtown, MD, 223 F. Supp. 2d 699,709 (D. Md. 2002), for example, the court rejected the defendant's request for a mitigation of damages instruction because the defense was based on the theory that was "that Plaintiffs would have been petitioning the same groups which discriminated against them in the first place." Citing precedent from the Fourth and Ninth Circuits, the court explained that a plaintiff is not required to engage in a futile attempt to mitigate by asking the defendant not to violate the law again:

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS' FAILURE TO MITIGATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (CV 12-71-SI) - 11
9870.05 fj160907.003

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 117 Filed 10/23/12 Page 12 of 14

In the employment context, plaintiffs do not have to pursue employment with a firm after being rejected based on discrimination if they justifiably believe that it would be futile. EEOC v. Service News Co., 898 F.2d 958, 963 (4th Cir.1990); see also Thorne v. City ofEI Segundo, 802 F.2d 1131, 1137 (9th Cir.1986) (plaintiff not required to accept job offer when plaintiff would be walking back into hostile work environment). 223 F. Supp.2d at 709. The Court held that "Like the plaintiff in Service News, 898 F.2d at 963-964, Plaintiffs' belief in the futility of their further efforts to appeal the zoning decision was "rooted in the factual context of [their] rejection." See also Ingram v. Madison Square Garden Ctr., Inc., 535 F. Supp. 1082, 1092 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) affd and modified, 709 F.2d 807 (2d Cir. 1983) (on class action claims under Title VII and sections 1981 and 1985, the Court rejected the defendant's mitigation argument, "Since feelings of futility justified the victims' failure to apply for Garden laborer jobs, it is obviously absurd for the defendant to argue, as it does, that these claimants should
nevertheless be required to make this futile application for mitigation purposes."); c.!
Phillips v. Monday & Associates, Inc., 235 F. Supp. 2d 1103, 1107 (D. Or. 2001) (denying amendment to Answer because "proposed amendment to add contributory fault raises a futile defense rather than a reasonable issue of law").
Unlike mitigation of wages in employment cases where it is in the discretion of a third party to hire the plaintiff for a new job, here Defendants were in complete control of the only mitigation option that they claim was available. Having violated the law repeatedly and never implementing the only mitigation available (i.e., changing their practices) until after PLN sued them, Defendants now have not been able to show, even through self-serving testimony, that they would have changed their ways if only PLN had asked.
2. The Defense is Illogical and Contrary to the Constitution Defendants' defense is premised on a simple but incorrect notion: that since Defendants made a practice of violating the First Amendment, PLN had a legal obligation to refrain from exercising its First Amendment rights until PLN attempted to persuade Defendants to follow the law. Defendants' cramped and narrow interpretation of constitutional rights is the latest

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS' FAILURE TO MITIGATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (CV 12-71-SI) - 12
9870.051)160907.003

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 117 Filed 10/23/12 Page 13 of 14

Exhibit A on why a permanent injunction is needed to force them to comply with the First and
Fourteenth Amendments. Any Sheriff who urges this interpretation on the Federal Court has not
irrevocably eradicated his unconstitutional policies and practices. Constitutional rights reside in
the People, and here in the Press as well. These rights are not granted by public officials, to be
doled out or permitted once the People or the Press has been sufficiently persuasive and patient.
After she had been arrested the first time, did Rosa Parks have a legal obligation to ask
the authorities to forgo racial segregation before she sat in the front of a Birmingham bus a
second time? It is a galling notion. Yet, thatis the Sheriffs premise here: it was unreasonable
for PLN to try to send its mailings to our prisoners if PLN knew or should have known that we
would censor them; PLN shares the blame because it did not ask us to change our ways first. As explained below, that notion finds no aid and comfort in the law. A section 1983 Defendant is
expected to know clearly established law and avoids liability for damages by following the law,
not by shifting blame to the victim of its deliberate acts of misconduct. Members of the public
have no legal responsibility to warn public officials to follow the Constitution before exercising
their constitutional rights the first time or the fiftieth. III. CONCLUSION
Defendants have failed to meet their burden of showing that their affirmative defense has
any application to this case and have failed to show there are genuine issues of material fact in
dispute which if believed would support their defense. Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully asks
the Court to please enter an order granting partial summary judgment on the affirmative defense
in favor of PLN and against Defendants. DATED this 22nd day of October, 2012. MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS
lsi Jesse Wing JESSE WING Pro Hac Vice Admission KATHERlNE C. CHAMBERLAIN OSB #042580 (206) 622-1604 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS' FAILURE TO MITIGATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (CV 12-71-SI) - 13
9870.05 fj160907.003

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 117 Filed 10/23/12 Page 14 of 14
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on October 23, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing to the Clerk
of the Court using the CMlECF system which will send notification of such filing to the
following:
• Marc D. Blackman marc@ransomblackman.com,pat@ransomblackman.com
• Steven A. Kraemer sak@hartwagner.com,rcd@hartwagner.com
• Gregory R. Roberson grr@hartwagner.com,cej@hartwagner.com
• Lynn S. Walsh walsh@europa.com
• Lance Weber lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org,ahull@humanrightsdefensecenter.org
MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS
lsi Jesse Wing JESSE WING Pro Hac Vice Admission KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN OSB #042580 (206) 622~ 1604 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS' FAILURE TO MITIGATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (CV 12-71-SI) - 14
9870.05 fj160907.003

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 118 Filed 10/23/12 Page 1 of 7
Katherine C. Chamberlain, OSB #042580 katherinec@mhb.com Jesse A. Wing,pro hac vice jessew@mhb.com Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News MacDonald Hoague & Bayless 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104-1745 (206) 622-1604
Marc D. Blackman, OSB #730338 marc@ransomblackman.com Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Ransom Blackman LLP 1001 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1400 Portland, OR 97204 (503) 228-0487
Lance Weber,pro hac vice lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Human Rights Defense Center 1037 Western Ave., 2nd Floor West Brattleboro, VT 05303 (802) 257-1342

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,
Defendants.

No.3:12-CV-71-SI
DECLARATION OF JESSE WING IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS' FAILURE TO MITIGATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

DECLARATION OF JESSE WING IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS' FAILURE TO MITIGATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (CV 12-71-SI) - 1
9870.05 fj220902

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 118 Filed 10/23/12 Page 2 of 7
I, Jesse Wing, declare as follows: I am one of the attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News. I am over the age of 18, and am competent to testify. 1. Exhibit 1 is a copy of excerpts from the deposition of Andrew Moyer taken July 6,2012. I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States of America and the State of Washington that t~e foregoing is true and correct.
DATED this 2~2~day of October, 2012, at Seattle, Washington.

DECLARATION OF JESSE WING IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS' FAILURE TO MITIGATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (CV 12-71-SI) - 2
9870.05 1j220902

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 118 Filed 10/23/12 Page 3 of 7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October~, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing to the
Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the
following:
• Marc D. Blackman marc@ransomblackman.com,pat@ransomblackman.com
• Steven A. Kraemer sak@hartwagner.com,rcd@hartwagner.com
• Gregory R. Roberson grr@hartwagner.com,cej@hartwagner.com
• Lynn S. Walsh walsh@europa.com
• Lance Weber lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org, ahull@humanrightsdefensecenter.org
MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS
/s/ Jesse Wing JESSE WING, Pro Hac Vice Admission KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN OSB #042580 (206) 622-1604 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

DECLARATION OF JESSE WING IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS' FAlLURE TO MITIGATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (CV 12-71-SI) - 3
9870.05 fj220902

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 118 Filed 10/23/12 Page 4 of 7
EXHIBIT 1
TO DECLARATION OF JESSE WING
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
ON DEFENDANTS' FAILURE TO MITIGATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 118 Filed 10/23/12 Page 5 of 7
Moyer, Andrew

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF OREGON

3

PORTLAND DIVISION

4

5 PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project

6 of the Human Rights Defense

7 Center,

No. 3:12-CV-71-SI

8

Plaintiff,

9

v.

10 COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA

11 COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF

12 DICKERSON, individually and

13 in his capacity as Columbia

14 County Sheriff,

15

Defendants.

16

17

18

19

20

DEPOSITION OF ANDREW MOYER

21

Taken in behalf of Plaintiff

22

July 6, 2012

23

24

25

July 6, 2012
Page 1
,
· ·
. :
· :
:
, .... ... ,
; •·•
..
·

Beovich Walter & Friend

.'.:...:.'... , ......'.: .:.. ,'................ '..... '.>.,' '..

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 118 Filed 10/23/12 Page 6 of 7
Moyer, Andrew

July 6, 2012

1 2 3 4 5 Q. 6 7 8 9 10 11 A. 12 Q. 13 14 A. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

mentioned. MR. WING: Okay. I have no more questions
right now. All right. Thanks. (Brief pause.)
BY MR. WING: Undersheriff Moyer, I asked you earlier in the deposition whether you could think of any situation in which the sheriff's department has changed its policy because of a grievance or a complaint. Do you remember that question? Yes. And you could not think of one then. Can you think of one now? I can't. I think that's a very important question and it's the type of thing that myself or Sheriff Dickerson would do, which is why I'm certain that we probably have an example of it. But I can't think of it. And I think I'll do some research on that.
MR. WING: Okay. Thank you for your time. (Recess at 5:34.)
* * *

Page 238
.
: • ..
,.'
..
:...
:
..:.
.:
i

Beovich Walter & Friend

II:

I

.:.:.

: ... :

.' ... : . . :

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 118 Filed 10/23/12 Page 7 of 7

M.oycr, Andre\v

July 6~ 2012

1
<<->.•
3
t]
5
f':~ "}
(")
0
() :;J
10 11
J 12
1 3 14 1 j :1 6 3. 7 1:3 1 9 .20 2 ..L 22 23 2 <I

C E R T I FIe ATE

II Aleshia K. Macoro, CSR No. 94-0296, do

r'le' 1"'e' t1nat TE'I-) ! ,..L. t)• V ;1 c·-e--''"J·-~t_ ·~l.•,•t-.::'.y·"['

- .A··L?\II,l.-[yrc. <,rw;',rV.,IJ1 . . •M. O~ ·~.L. ,:-\. "l.:\~')~c:.'r,--c-.:.::(.)t·~na•J..••l- ~i!

appeared before me at the time and place

ment~oned in the caption herein; that the

witness was by me first duly sworn on oath, and

examined upon oral interrogatories propounded by

counsel; that said examination, together with

the testimony of said witness, was taken down by I

me in stenotype and thereafter reduced to

Pag(-?;s 1 to 238, both LncltlSive, consti tutes a

full, tru€ and accurate record of said

examination of and test~nonv cliven bv said

..4

_'

"'"

witness, and of all other proceedings had during

the taking of said deposition, and of the whole

thereof, to the best of my ability_

hand at Portland, Oregon, tbis

18th day of July, 2012.

Aleshia K. Macoro
eBB. No. 94 - 0 296

Beovich·\Valter & Friend

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 119 Filed 11/02/12 Page 1 of 41
Katherine C. Chamberlain, OSB #042580 katherinec@mhb.com Jesse A. Wing, pro hac vice jessew@mhb.com Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News MacDonald Hoague & Bayless 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104-1745 (206) 622-1604
Marc D. Blackman, OSB #730338 marc@ransomblackman.com Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Ransom Blackman LLP 1001 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1400 Portland, OR 97204 (503) 228-0487
Lance Weber,pro hac vice lweber@hurnanrightsdefensecenter.org Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Human Rights Defense Center 1037 Western Ave., 2nd Floor West Brattleboro, VT 05303 (802) 257-1342

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,
Defendants.

No.3:12-CV-71-SI
REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY mDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

9870.05 tk022204

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500
Seattle, Washington 98104 Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 119 Filed 11/02/12 Page 2 of 41

TABLE OF CONTENTS
L The Constitutional Controversy is Alive, Vibrant, and Very Much In Dispute ............................................ 1

A. Despite Claiming That He Has Abandoned His Policy, the Sheriff s Vigorous Defense of its Constitutionality Shows That He is Wedded to It . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1

B. The Sheriff Has Not Rendered PLN's Request for Declaratory Relief Moot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2

1. The Constitutional Questions are Still in Dispute and Must Be Decided to Adjudicate Plaintiffs Claim for Damages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2

2. The Court Has Already Decided that Policies Affect the Public Interest, and a Declaration Would Educate All Oregon Jails and the Public ..................... 3

3. PLN Seeks Declaratory Judgment that is Specific and Appropriate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

C. The Sheriff Has Failed to Prove He Has Irrevocably Eradicated His Unconstitutional Policies; Injunctive Relief is Necessary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5

1. Rather Than Taking Responsibility for Adopting a Harmful and Unconstitutional Policy, the Sheriff Defends His Postcard-Only Policy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6

2. Defendants Have Not Shown Any Serious Obstacle to Prevent Them From Reverting to Their Old Ways ........... 10

3. Defendants Halted its Magazine Ban and Began The Process of Correcting its Lack of Due Process Policies and Practices Only After Litigation Commenced ........ 10

4. The Sheriff Did Not Voluntarily Cease His Unconstitutional Postcard-Only Policy; He Ceased Only When Ordered by the Court. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

5. Defendants Have Failed to Carry Their "Heavy Burden" of Proving That PLN, Prisoners, and Their Correspondents Will Not Suffer Irreparable Harm in the Absence of a Permanent Injunction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - i
9870.05 fk022204

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 119 Filed 11/02/12 Page 3 of 41

6. The Sheriff discounts the Irreparable Injury That he Will Cause to PLN, Prisoners, and the Public Unless the Court Enters a Permanent Injunction .................... . 13
7. In Its Opening Brief, Plaintiff Showed Success on the Merits and Defendants' Response Fails Show Otherwise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14
a. The Unpublished Decisions of District Courts in Cases Where the Plaintiff Presented No Evidence or Argument Are Not Binding or Persuasive. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
b. Defendants After-The-Fact Justifications for Their Postcard-Only Policy are Unsupported and Unpersuasive ...................... 16
c. Defendants Fail to Show Any Material Facts Are in Dispute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18
d. Defendants' Reliance on Hearsay, Irrelevant Evidence about Jails in Another State, And Witnesses and Evidence That They Failed to Disclose in Discovery Should Not be Considered. . . . . .. 22
D. The PLRA Does Not Apply. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23
E. PLN Has Organizational Standing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25
F. Sheriff Has Admitted Disposing of Evidence in Violation of His Established Legal Obligations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26
G. Columbia County is Liable. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27
H. Motion to Strike . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29
1. Declarations and Materials Submitted in a California State Case are Hearsay are Irrelevant, and Defendants Did Not Disclose These Witnesses or Documents in Discovery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29
2. The Oregon Live News Article is Hearsay, and There is No Showing the Author Has Personal Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31

REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - ii
9870.05 tk022204

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 119 Filed 11/02/12 Page 4 of 41
3. Throughout Discovery Defendants Possessed Washington County's "Transitions to Postcards for Inmate Mail" CD But Failed to Produce It to Plaintiff Until Long After Discovery Ended ................ 32 I. Balance of the Hardships and the Public Interest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33 II. CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33

REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - iii
9870.05 fk022204

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 119 Filed 11/02/12 Page 5 of 41

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program v. Wood, 584 F. Supp. 2d 1314 (M.D.
Ala. 2008) ............................................................................................................................... 23 Arceo v. Salinas, 2:11-CV-02396 KJN P, 2012 WL 1813523 (E.D. Cal. May 17,
2012) ......................................................................................................................................... 5 Associated Press v. Otter, 682 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 2012) .............................................................. 14 Avery v. Burke County, 660 F.2d 111 (4th Cir. 1981) .................................................................... 5 Biberdor/v. Oregon, 243 F. Supp. 2d 1145 (D. Or. 2002) ........................................................... 27 Brewster v. Shasta County, 275 F.3d 803 (9th Cir. 2001) ................................................ 25,26,27 City o/Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) .................................................................. 12, 13
City 0/Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283 (1982) .................................................. 11 Clark v. City 0/Lakewood, 259 F.3d 996 (9th Cir. 2001) ............................................................ 25
Clement v. California Dept.o/Corr., 364 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2004) ........................................... 21 Daniels v. Harris, 3:11-CV-45 CAR, 2012 WL 3901646 (M.D. Ga. Aug. 8,2012) ............. 15, 16 DeJohn v. Temple Univ., 537 F.3d 301 (3d Cir. 2008) ................................................................... 7 eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006) ........................................................... 11 Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) ............................................................................................ 14 Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) ....................................................................................... 4, 5 F. T C. v. Affordable Media, 179 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 1999) ......................................................... 11 Fujitsu Ltd v. Fed Exp. Corp., 247 F.3d 423 (2d Cir. 2001) ...................................................... 26 Gieck v. Arpaio, CV07-1143-PHX-NVW, 2008 WL 2604919 (D. Ariz. June 23,
2008) ....................................................................................................................................... 16 Gilmore v. People o/the State o/California, 220 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 2000) .......................... 22,23

REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - iv
9870.05 fk022204

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 119 Filed 11/02/12 Page 6 of 41

Greater Los Angeles Council on Deafness, Inc. v. Zolin, 812 F.2d 1103 (9th Cir. 1987) ......................................................................................................................................... 3
Jones v. Metzger, 456 F.2d 854 (6th Cir. 1972) ........................................................................... 21 Jones v. Wittenberg, 330 F. Supp. 707 (N.D. Ohio 1971) ............................................................ 21 Keller v. Washington County, CIV.06 692 ST, 2007 WL 1170634 (D. Or. Apr. 10,
2007) .................................................................,...................................................................... 27
LGS Architects, Inc. v. Concordia Homes ofNevada, 434 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2006) ................................................................................................................................... 7, 11
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) ................................................................... 25 Martinez v. May, No. 2:11-cv-14039 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 25, 2012) ................................................... 15 Ohlinger v. Watson, 652 F.2d 775 (9th Cir. 1980) ....................................................................... 11 Pembaur v. City ofCincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (1986).................................................................... 28 PLNv. Cook, Case No. 98-cv-1344 (D. Or. 1998) ....................................................................... 24 PLNv. Sacramento, 2:11-cv-00907 (E.D. Cal. 2011) .................................................................. 24 PLN v. Schwarzenegger, Case No. 4:07-cv-02058 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ........................................... 24 Prison Legal News v. Chelan County, No. CV-11-337-EFS (E.D. Wa. filed
September 9, 2011) ................................................................................................................. 24 Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 272 F. Supp. 2d 1151 (W.D. Wa. 2003) ..................................... 24 Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2005) ...................................................... 24 Prison Legal News v. Schwarzenegger, 608 F.3d 446 (9th Cir. 2010) ......................................... 24 Richard Green (Fine Paintings) v. McClendon, 262 F.R.D. 284 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)................ 24,25 Rouse v. Washington State Dept. ofCorr., C08-5620FDB, 2009 WL 1011623
(W.D. Wash. Apr. 15, 2009) ..................................................................................................... 5
Rouser v. White, 707 F. Supp.2d 1055 (E.D. Cal. 2010) .............................................................. 12 Sefick v. Gardner, 164 F.3d 370 (7th Cir. 1998) ...................................................................... 6, 10 Skinner v Switzer, 131 U.S. 1289 (2011) ...................................................................................... 23 Smith v. Univ. of Washington, 233 F.3d 1188 (9th Cir. 2000).............................................. 6, 7, 10

REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY mDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INmNCTIVE RELIEF - v
9870.05 fk022204

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 119 Filed 11/02/12 Page 7 of 41
Thalheimer v. City ofSan Diego, 645 F.2d 1109 (9th Cir. 2011) ................................................. 12 Turpin v. Mailet, 619 F.2d 196 (2d Cir. 1980) ............................................................................... 5
us. v. Oregon State Medical Soc., 343 U.S. 326 (1952) ............................................................... 6
United States v. Government of Virgin Islands, 363 F.3d 276 (3d Cir. 2004) ...................... 6, 7, 10 United States v. Odessa Union Warehouse Co-op, 833 F.2d 172
(9th Cir. 1987)......................................................................................................................... 11 Withers v. Levine, 615 F.2d 158 (4th Cir. 1980)............................................................................. 5 Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) .............................................. 26
STATUTES
Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 110 Stat. 1321-66 ........................................................... 23

REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - vi
9870.05 fk022204

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 119 Filed 11/02/12 Page 8 of 41
I. The Constitutional Controversy is Alive, Vibrant, and Very Much In Dispute. A. Despite Claiming That He Has Abandoned His Postcard-Only Policy, the Sheriff's Vigorous Defense of its Constitutionality Shows That He is Wedded to It. For nearly one-third of his brief, the Sheriff vigorously defends his Postcard-Only Policy
as rational and constitutional. See Dkt. 114 at 22-34. He claims his policy was, and remains, important to protecting the security of his facility in light of the experience of other jails with dangerous contraband, and to reduce the expenses of running his own jail because of his limited staff and budget. Id. at 24-26. And he claims adopting postcard-only policies is "the trend" for jails. Id. at 33.
But, at the same time, the Sheriff testified: "I don't judge whether the Court got it wrong or not. What I consider is that the judge made a ruling and we're going to go with what the judge said. And I'm not fighting against it." Id. at 15.
His testimony under oath is hard to square with his extensive briefing to this Court in defense of the policy. In one breath, the Sheriff testifies that he is not disputing the findings and conclusions of the Court. In the next breath, the Sheriff contends that he is right and the Court is wrong. Both cannot be true. The truth is found in his request for relief: he has asked the Court to deny Plaintiff s summary judgment motion on the ground that PLN has made "No Showing of Success on the Merits Because the Prior Postcard-Only Policy Was Constitutional under Turner v. Safley." (Bold and capitalization in original). Id at 22. In other words, the Sheriff asks the Court to reverse course and hold that the Sheriff was right and that the policy he adopted was fully constitutional and in tum the Court's issuance of a preliminary injunction to the contrary was erroneous. And, despite this request, the Sheriff claims that even if the Court finds that the Sheriff s policy is constitutional he will nevertheless not resume following it. The Sheriffs positions are contradictory and undermine his credibility.

REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 1
9870.05 fk022204

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 119 Filed 11/02/12 Page 9 of 41

B. The Sheriff Has Not Rendered PLN's Request for Declaratory Relief Moot. 1. The Constitutional Questions are Still in Dispute and Must Be Decided to Adjudicate Plaintiff's Claim for Damages.
As explained above, the Sheriff is an avid supporter, still, of his Postcard-Only Policy and asks the Court to find that the Policy comports with the Constitution. Evidently there is still a live controversy and the Sheriffwants it resolved in his favor. Despite this, he tells the Court that it should deny Plaintiff's request for declaratory relief as moot. It is not so.
PLN has a claim for damages that must be decided. To do so the Court must necessarily determine whether Defendants' Postcard-Only Policy, No-Magazines Policy, and Due Process Policy (or lack thereof), and enforcement of those policies unconstitutionally infringed the constitutional rights of PLN and other non-prisoner and prison correspondents alike who the Court has held PLN's challenge also represents. 1 The Court's determination will be a declaratory judgment.
With regard to their No-Magazines policy, Defendants claim that they "admitted error" in categorically rejecting magazines andso, declaratory relief regarding the ban is unnecessary. Dkt. 114 at 44. But Defendants have not admitted that they had a No-Magazines policy that violated the Constitution. Although the Sheriff admitted in his deposition that the Jail's rejection of some incoming magazines violated the First Amendment, throughout this lawsuit the Defendants have denied Plaintiff's allegation that the Jail banned magazines, and used the magazine ban to censor Prison Legal News, Dkt. 80 at ~~4.74 and 4.74.1. And in response to Plaintiff's allegation that Defendants' magazine ban was unconstitutionally overbroad and burdened the First Amendment rights ofPLN, prisoners, and other correspondents, Dkt. 1 at ~~4.74.3, 4.74.4, Defendants stated only "Defendants admit that some of its past mail policies violated some of Plaintiff's constitutional rights," Dkt. 80 at ~~4.74.3, 4.74.4 (emphasis added). This is an extremely vague admission, if it can be called an admission at all. And, as discussed in Plaintiff's opening brief, Defendants failed to correct their unconstitutional policy for many

1 Plaintiff seeks damages for the PLN mailings censored by the Jail and for the Jail's failure to provide PLN due process, as well as diversion of resources and frustration of mission damages.

REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 2
9870.05 fk022204

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 119 Filed 11/02/12 Page 10 of 41

months, even after this litigation began. Dkt. 98 at 20. Thus, there is an actual controversy. Did Defendants have a No-Magazines policy or practice? And does such a policy or practice violate the First Amendment?
2. The Court Has Already Decided that the Sheriffs Policies Affect the Public Interest, and a Declaration Would Educate All Oregon Jails and the Public.
"The decision to grant declaratory relief' should always be made with reference to the public interest,' ... , recognizing that declarations can serve an important educational function for the public at large as well as for the parties to the lawsuit. ..." Greater Los Angeles Council on Deafness, Inc. v. Zolin, 812 F.2d 1103, 1112 (9th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted). In Zolin, the Ninth Circuit discussed its reversal of the denial of declaratory relief where "plaintiffs had been wronged and deserved to have their position vindicated even if damages were unavailable to compensate them." Id. And, there the "the district court had disregarded the public-education function that a declaration can serve." Id. In reversing, the Court explained "Because the searches were clearly unlawful, we ordered the district court to enter an appropriate declaration in plaintiffs' favor." Id. The Ninth Circuit further noted that declaratory relief can be beneficial because "It may even forestall future litigation." Id.
In its May 29,2012 Order, the Court found that entering a preliminary injunction was in the public interest. Dkt. 64 at 24 ("A court order enjoining Defendants from enforcing the postcard-only mail policy will permit non-party members of the public to more easily communicate with inmates."). And, as pointed out in Plaintiffs motion, many jails in the state of Oregon are waiting to hear whether a postcard-only policy satisfies Constitutional muster. Dkt. 98 at 39-40. Defendants still vigorously defend their Postcard-Only Policy but do not want the Court to determine whether it violated the law. Wholly apart from PLN's strong interest in obtaining declaratory relief to have its position vindicated, the interests of the countless prisoners and other correspondents whose rights Defendants have violated, the public education value, and forestalling future litigation, are all compelling reasons to issue a declaratory judgment.
3. PLN Seeks Declaratory Judgment that is Specific and Appropriate.

REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY WDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INmNCTIVE RELIEF - 3
9870.05 tk022204

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 119 Filed 11/02/12 Page 11 of 41

Additionally, the Sheriff contends that "PLN's request for a general declaratory statement that due process must be given when mail is rejected is inappropriate because of the fact-specific nature of a due process claim," and because that "would be too 'imprecise.'" Dkt. 114, at 45. He listed numerous issues that he believes are factors in due process analysis. Id. He is wrong for several reasons. First, PLN wants more than a general admonition. It wants a prescription for compliance, in accordance with the stipulated preliminary injunction that PLN sent to the Sheriff s lawyers before filing its motion for preliminary injunction. See Dkt. 9-4 at 4-7. Second, it is apparent from the "issues" he identifies that this Sheriff needs such a prescription to comply with the law. The salient issues are simple: whenever the Jail censors incoming or outgoing mail it must (1) promptly provide notice to the sender and addressee of what the Jail censored, from whom, why, and what the appeal rights are; and (2) actually afford the sender and addressee a reasonable appeal process conducted by persons who did not censor the materials. There is nothing fact-specific or especially complicated about these fundamental concepts to interfere with a clear order, and the Sheriff s portrayal of them as such raises alarm bells that he still does not understand what the Constitution requires no matter what language his lawyers have written into his mail policies.
The Sheriff argues that it would be "improper" for the Court to declare that the content of his website on January 13, 2012, and the March 23, 2010 Memorandum-which fail to identify any due process procedures-are constitutionally inadequate. Dkt. 114 at 45-46. He claims that "PLN has failed to provide any authority or otherwise demonstrate that the omission of due process procedures on these sources constitute a constitutional violation. It does not." Id. (emphasis added). But the Sheriff is wrong. First, the Sheriff communicated his mail policies to the public, prisoners, and his Jail staff via his website and the March 2010 Memorandum. See discussion, Dkt. 98 at 20. Second, more than 35 years ago, in Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976), the United States Supreme Court declared that public officials could be held liable for deprivations of constitutional rights that they caused through their "acts or omissions."

REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 4
9870.05 fk022204

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 119 Filed 11/02/12 Page 12 of 41

(Emphasis added). The Second Circuit cited Estelle in an excessive force case for this proposition, explaining: "We see no reason why an official policy cannot be inferred from the omissions of a municipality's supervisory officials, as well as from its acts." Turpin v. Mailet, 619 F.2d 196,201 (2nd Cir. 1980). And the Fourth Circuit applied the Estelle standard to wrongful sterilization by the government: "Official policy may be established by the omissions of supervisory officials as well as from their affirmative acts." Avery v. Burke County, 660 F.2d 111, 114 (4th Cir. 1981) ("the conduct of the boards may be actionable if their failure to promulgate policies and regulations rose to the level of deliberate indifference ...."). "It is enough that an identifiable group of people, of whom Avery is a part, is subject to constitutional deprivations through the inaction of the boards." Id.
For example, in Withers v. Levine, 615 F.2d 158 (4th Cir. 1980), the Fourth Circuit held that supervisory officials who were charged with the responsibility to make rules could be subject to liability under section 1983 if their unreasonable failure to make rules caused their employees' unconstitutional practices. This standard applies to First Amendment claims as well. See also Rouse v. Washington State Dept. o/Corr., C08-5620FDB, 2009 WL 1011623 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 15,2009) ("The proper inquiry is whether the combined acts or omissions of state prison personnel violated plaintiffs First Amendment rights as outlined in the complaint.") (Emphasis added); Arceo v. Salinas, 2:11-CV-02396 KJN P, 2012 WL 1813523 (E.D. Cal. May 17,2012) ("under the First Amendment, a prisoner must show that he suffered an "actual injury" as a result of the defendants' actions by explaining how the challenged official acts or omissions" caused the deprivation).
c. The Sheriff Has Failed to Prove He Has Irrevocably Eradicated His
Unconstitutional Policies; Injunctive Relief is Necessary. The Sheriff fails to meet his "heavy burden" of showing that he will never again implement his Postcard-Only Policy. The Sheriffs conduct is contrary to the hallmarks of cases where courts have found a Defendant has met its burden, which are that the Defendant repudiates its prior policies or practices acknowledging that they were illegal and takes action that presents

REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 5
9870.05 fk022204

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 119 Filed 11/02/12 Page 13 of 41

a serious obstacle to returning to its old ways. When a defendant's voluntary conduct results from impending litigation, a court should be wary of finding mootness, which is plainly the case here. The United States Supreme Court cautioned the lower courts in these circumstances: "It is the duty of the courts to beware of efforts to defeat injunctive relief by protestations of repentance and reform, especially when abandonment seems timed to anticipate suit, and there is probability of resumption." Us. v. Oregon State Medical Soc., 343 U.S. 326, 333, (1952).
In United States v. Government of Virgin Islands, 363 F.3d 276,285 (3d Cir. 2004), the Third Circuit found the Governor's last minute "voluntary" termination of a purportedly illegal contract insufficient to moot the lawsuit against the government: "The timing of the contract termination-just five days after the United States moved to invalidate it, and just two days before the District Court's hearing on the motion-strongly suggests that the impending litigation was the cause of the termination." See also Smith v. Univ. of Washington, 233 F.3d 1188,1194 (9th Cir. 2000) (finding mootness less appropriate when cessation occurred due to the "prodding effect" of litigation, which "tends to indicate that the change was not really voluntary at all."). Similarly, in a situation involving closing a public forum to speech, the Seventh Circuit concluded that a mere voluntary change in policy made after the lawsuit was filed did not satisfy the demanding mootness standard. Sejick v. Gardner, 164 F.3d 370, 372 (7th Cir. 1998) ("the current no-display policy, adopted after the commencement of this suit, is not implemented by statute or regulation and could be changed again, so this voluntary cessation of the challenged conduct does not eliminate the controversy.").
Court should be unmoved to find mootness by a defendant's lukewarm explanation for its cessation. In Government of Virgin Islands, the Third Circuit remarked that "the Governor's sole justification for the termination of the contract was that 'such termination is in the best interest of the Government.' But this statement is extremely general, and surely does not provide any assurance that a similar contract would not be entered into again." 363 F.3d at 284. Indeed, in rejecting mootness of a preliminary injunction appeal where the defendant stated it would stop its

REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 6
9870.05 fk022204

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 119 Filed 11/02/12 Page 14 of 41

copyright infringement, the court remarked that if such a promise were sufficient: "any defendant could moot a preliminary injunction appeal by simply representing to the court that it will cease its wrongdoing." LGS Architects, Inc. v. Concordia Homes ofNevada, 434 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006). Instead, the Court of Appeals held that "Concordia's representation that it has no intention to use LOS's architectural plans in the future does not make it 'absolutely clear' that Concordia will permanently refrain from future infringement." Id.
In DeJohn v. Temple Univ., 537 F.3d 301,310 (3rd Cir. 2008), a student sued Temple University claiming that its sexual harassment policy was so overbroad that it violated the First Amendment. When Temple revised its policy during litigation, the District Court nevertheless entered a permanent injunction prohibiting enforcement of Temple's old policy. The Third Circuit affirmed: "Like the timing of the contract termination and the Virgin Islands' continued defense of its contract, here Temple's timing of the policy change, as well as its continued defense of its former policy, do not meet the 'formidable' burden of demonstrating that there is no reasonable expectation that it would reimplement its former policy." Id. at 311.
The Sheriff cites Smith v. University of Washington Law School, 233 F.3d 188 (9th Cir. 2000), in support of his mootness argument but the Court held the circumstances there did not really involve voluntary cessation and the facts there reveal what is missing here to support mootness. First, the Ninth Circuit explained: "The only truly voluntary aspect is that the Law School did stop using race, ethnicity, and national origin as factors once 1-200 was passed and the directive from the president of the University was issued." Id. at 1194 (emphasis added). In other words, the Court found that the Law School stopped its policy once the state legislature enacted a law prohibiting the policy for all state entities. Second, the Court remarked that "The Law School did not waitfor litigation or internal University discipline before doing that." Id. (emphasis added). Both of these facts strongly distinguish this case from Smith, and other cases where the Courts have found voluntary cessation, as discussed below.

REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 7
9870.05 fk022204

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 119 Filed 11/02/12 Page 15 of 41

1. Rather Than Taking Responsibility for Adopting a Harmful and Unconstitutional Policy, the Sheriff Defends His Postcard-Only Policy.2
One of the most telling red flags undermining a defendant's claim that it will not return to its old unconstitutional ways, is defense of its policy and practices as constitutional. The Sheriff shows that in spades here.
The Sheriff claims that he has accepted the Court's decision that his policy likely violated the First Amendment and that he is "moving on." See Dkt. 114 at 15. But his extensive briefing in support of his recent policy and behavior shows that he remains a staunch advocate of his Postcard-Only Policy. This is further illustrated by his amassing evidence from newspaper accounts and from declarations of other law enforcement officials defending their own such policies in other litigation. And the Sheriff's claimed commitment to the First Amendment is countered by his dismissive attitude towards the adverse impact that his Postcard-Only Policy has had on his prisoners and their correspondents, chilling their speech and interfering with their Constitutional rights, their communication with family and friends, and the positive effects for rehabilitation. As the Court has recognized: "Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the postcard only mail policy creates a hurdle to thoughtful and constructive written communication between an inmate and his or her unincarcerated family and friends ... These are not insignificant considerations. The limits imposed by the IMP's postcard-only mail policy not only restrain PLN and inmates' First Amendment rights, they inhibit rehabilitation." See Dkt. 64 at 20-21.
The Sheriff has not "moved on" in any sense of the word. He remains a fan of his unconstitutional policy and practices that he personally adopted, implemented, and oversaw for more than two years (from March 2010 until June 2012). He has not acknowledged any downside or harmful impact of his policy. The sole reason his policy is not in place today is that he was compelled by the power of the United States judiciary to give it up. And he did that only

2

As discussed in Section C.6.(c) ("Admissions" of Liability), the Sheriff also fails to take

responsibility in this lawsuit for adopting and implementing an unconstitutional No-Magazines

Policy and Due Process Policy.

REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 8
9870.05 fk022204

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 119 Filed 11/02/12 Page 16 of 41

after a fight; a fight to which his extensive briefing reveals he is still very much actively committed.
He (or his successor) cannot return to their old ways (his opponent in the election is an employee of his) temporarily because of the preliminary injunction. His mere word that he does not intend to return to the policy that he personally adopted and strongly favors is unreliable and cold comfort. The number of new versions of his mail policies, many of which contained mixed up, confusing, contradictory, illogical, and still unconstitutional provisions, that he has adopted since January 2012 reveal just how impermanent and unfixed his policies are. Indeed, he testified that his policies are always being reevaluated. See Dkt. 99-1 at 34. He probably intends that as a positive statement that he is always trying to improve them; it can just as readily mean the opposite. His history of policy-making changes did not begin this year when he was under the watchful eye of the court; instead it began two years ago, in 2010, when he adopted and ratified the unconstitutional policies and practices that harmed the Plaintiff and many others.
Moreover, the transitory nature of the Sheriffs policies, which he can and has changed at will and without anyone's approval, review, or formal process, undermines his claim that he has irrevocably eradicated his unconstitutional policies. He has the sole authority and discretion to reverse course so by definition his recent policy changes are not irrevocable. And his continued fondness for his unconstitutional policy dashes the idea that he has "eradicated" it. Indeed, it is easy to see him returning to his old policy in the event he finds a viable toehold in the future to do so, such as claiming changed circumstances (e.g., discovery of contraband) or a ruling of another district court in the Ninth Circuit.
It appears that to persuade the Court a permanent injunction is unnecessary, the Sheriff wants credit for complying with the Court's order to stop enforcement of his unconstitutional Postcard-Only Policy. See Dkt. 114 at 15. But unwillingness to be in contempt of court is a weak foundation to build on. Indeed, the logical conclusion to draw is that since a preliminary

REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 9
9870.05 &022204

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 119 Filed 11/02/12 Page 17 of 41
injunction was required to stop the Sheriffs illegal conduct temporarily, a permanent injunction is required to stop him permanently.
2. Defendants Have Not Shown Any Serious Obstacle to Prevent Them From Reverting to Their Old Ways.
In contrast to Smith, when the state legislatuire enacted a law, Columbia County has not issued any ordinance banning Postcard-Only Policies, requiring delivery of magazines, requiring due process, or regarding any other aspect of this case. Indeed, the Defendants claim that Columbia County is not involved in any way. See Dkt. 114. at 6. As pointed out in Plaintiff s Opening Memorandum, Dkt. 98 at 31, the Sheriff can-and has-unilaterally changed his mail policies frequently and almost overnight, and for years kept them from public view and scrutiny. In contrast, the passage of law by the state legislature usually follows public hearings, requires the political will of numerous elected officials reaching a public agreement after the public introduction of a bill in two houses, and the signature of the governor (or a legislative override), and is recorded in published volumes available to the public.
3. Defendants Halted its Magazine Ban and Began the Process of Correcting its Lack of Due Process Policies and Practices Only After Litigation Commenced.
In contrast to Smith, and like the Defendants in Government of Virgin Islands and Sejick, see supra, the Sheriff did wait for litigation before making changes to his mail policy, despite receiving numerous complaints-for nearly two years-from prisoners challenging the constitutionality of his mail policy. See Dkt. 98 at 29.
The Sheriff claims that PLN's request is moot because he stopped censoring PLN's mail. See Dkt. 114. at 18-19. He claims that the prerequisites for preliminary versus permanent injunction are different-yet he does not explain the difference or even how any difference applies here. Id at 19. And, again, he only stopped censoring PLN's mail in response to this lawsuit, and only stopped censoring non-postcard mail by order of the Court.

REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 10
9870.05 fk022204

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 119 Filed 11/02/12 Page 18 of 41

4. The Sheriff Did Not Voluntarily Cease His Unconstitutional PostcardOnly Policy; He Ceased Only When Ordered By the Court.
To obtain a permanent injunction, the plaintiff must demonstrate "that it has suffered an irreparable injury." eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388,391 (2006). PLN has established that fact, as well as the other three elements required. In this case, where the Defendant ceased its Postcard-Only Policy only when ordered to by the Court, Defendants cannot overcome the presumption that they would violate the Constitution in the absence of a permanent injunction. See United States v. Odessa Union Warehouse Co-op, 833 F.2d 172, 176 (9th Cir. 1987) (there is "a presumption of irreparable harm arising from failure to enforce a federal statute intended to protect the public" and "an inference arises from Odessa's past violations that future violations are likely to occur.").
"The reason that the defendant's conduct, in choosing to voluntarily cease some wrongdoing, is unlikely to moot the needfor injunctive reliefis that the defendant could simply begin the wrongful activity again...." FT.C. v. Affordable Media, 179 F.3d 1228,1238 (9th Cir. 1999) (emphasis added). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has explained that for the very same reason, "It is exceedingly rare ... for a defendant's voluntary termination of allegedly wrongful activity to render an appeal moot." LGS Architects, Inc. v. Concordia Homes ofNevada, 434 F.3d 1150, 1153 (9th Cir. 2006) (emphasis added). "The standard for the voluntary cessation exception to mootness is 'whether the defendant is free to return to its illegal action at any time." Affordable Media, 179 F.3d a 1238) (citation omitted); Ohlinger v. Watson, 652 F.2d 775, 780 (9th Cir. 1980) (denying claim of mootness on the ground that "The State should not be allowed 'to defeat injunctive relief by protestations of repentance and reform. "') (Citation omitted).
Here, in the absence of a permanent injunction, Defendants would be as free to return to their illegal policies and practices as when they adopted them. Their mere say so, is insufficient evidence that they will never again violate the Constitution. See City ofMesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283, 289 (1982) (denying mootness because "the city's repeal of the

REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 11
9870.05 fk022204

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 119 Filed 11/02/12 Page 19 of 41

objectionable language would not preclude it from reenacting precisely the same provision if the District Court's judgment were vacated.").
In Thalheimer v. City a/San Diego, 645 F.3d 1109, 1126 (9th Cir. 2011), like here, "The City acknowledges that it adopted the new provision in direct response to the district court's earlier issuance of a preliminary injunction against enforcement ofECCO §§ 27.2950-51 as applied to political parties." The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's preliminary injunction, and noted, "These concerns are of particular force in a case like the present one, in which the 'voluntary cessation' occurred only in response to the district court's judgment." ld. (citation omitted).
"[A] preliminary injunction is only awarded where plaintiff has shown that he is likely to receive such a permanent injunction after trial." Rouser v. White, 707 F. Supp. 2d 1055, 1071 (E.D. Cal. 2010). A "plaintiffs claim for injunctive relief has not become moot because defendants could resume their conduct at any time." ld. "Furthermore, to the extent that defendant is actually currently in compliance with the terms of plaintiffs proposed preliminary injunction, plaintiffs burden is merely to show that the voluntary cessation does not demonstrate assurance of revival of the conduct." Rouser v. White, 707 F. Supp. 2d 1055, 1071 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (granting preliminary injunction under PLRA to halt likely violations of prisoner's First Amendment rights caused by policies or practices).
5. Defendants Have Failed to Carry Their "Heavy Burden" of Proving That PLN, Prisoners, and Their Correspondents Will Not Suffer Irreparable Harm in the Absence of a Permanent Injunction.
After acknowledging that Defendants bear the "heavy burden" of proof to make it "absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur," see Dkt. 114 at 18, the Defendants ignore this obligation and instead attempt, wrongly, to
shift the burden of proof to PLN by citing City a/Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 u.s. 95 (1983). But
Lyons is not a voluntary cessation case, and the Court there did not require the Defendant to meet the heavy burden that the Sheriff bears here. Further, the Lyons Court explained that Lyons

REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 12
9870.05 fk022204

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 119 Filed 11/02/12 Page 20 of 41

would have had standing for injunctive relief if he alleged an unconstitutional policy or practice,
which is exactly what PLN has alleged, and proven:
In order to establish an actual controversy in this case, Lyons would have had not only to allege that he would have another encounter with the police but also to make the incredible assertion either, (1) that all police officers in Los Angeles always choke any citizen with whom they happen to have an encounter, whether for the purpose of arrest, issuing a citation or for questioning or, (2) that the City ordered or authorized police officers to act in such manner.

Lyons, 461 U.S. at 105-06 (emphasis added). And, the facts illustrate this point. Lyons involved a single act of unconstitutional conduct
that the Court held could happen again to Lyons only through a possible chance encounter with law enforcement in which they believed he violated the law. In contrast, PLN has shown that the Sheriff and his staff had a policy and a practice of repeatedly inflicting widespread harm on the public-at-Iarge for innocent conduct, namely on PLN, on prisoners, and on the whole range of their correspondents-all of whose rights the Court has recognized an injunction would protect. And, unlike in Lyons, PLN and those whose interests it represents will continue to have regular contact with Defendants since PLN will continue to communicate with prisoners in the Columbia County Jail and prisoners will continue to send written communications, as will their other correspondents. As a result, whenever the Sheriff implements such unconstitutional mail policies there is a high likelihood that he will harm PLN and countless third parties.
6. The Sheriff Discounts the Irreparable Injury That He Will Cause to PLN, Prisoners, and the Public Unless the Court Enters a Permanent Injunction.
The Sheriff further reveals that he views violating the First Amendment as a mere tort without significant consequence: he relies on Lyons to say that when he repeatedly violated the Constitutional rights of PLN and hundreds of prisoners and their correspondents, those harms were not "great or immediate" nor did they amount to "irreparable injury" because the public can recover damages. See Dkt. 114 at 21-22. The United States Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit say otherwise. Lyons did not involve the First Amendment, which makes all the difference. "To say that the plaintiffs will not suffer harm because they will be able to witness

REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 13
9870.05 fk022204

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 119 Filed 11/02/12 Page 21 of 41

part of Leavitt's execution is like saying that the public would not suffer harm were it allowed to read only a portion of the New York Times. The [] rationale ignores the rule that '[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.'" Associated Press v. Otter, 682 F.3d 821, 825-26 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976)).
Indeed, this undermines Defendants' position that Plaintiff fails to show irreparable harm because "PLN is no longer subject to a threat of constitutional injury" and the likelihood of injury is "speculative" because Defendants' "policies and practices have been eliminated and abandoned." Dkt. 114 at 21. Defendants only halted their Postcard-Only Policy when ordered to do so by the Court. Id. at 8. In the Court's order granting Plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction, it found that "PLN has established that IMP's postcard-only mail policy causes irreparable harm." Dkt. 64 at 23. It is now Defendants' burden to show that they have irrevocably eradicated their unconstitutional behavior, see Dkt. 98 at 27-28, which they have not shown here. In fact, as discussed below, Defendants spend 11 pages of their opposition brief trying to justify their Postcard-Only Policy and show that it is constitutional-which clearly reveals that Defendants would still be censoring mail that is not a postcard if the Court had not ordered them to stop.
7. In Its Opening Brief, Plaintiff Showed Success on the Merits; Defendants' Response Fails Show Otherwise.
The Court has already determined that Plaintiff "is likely to succeed on the merits with respect to its free speech claim. " Dkt. 64 at 22. In its opening brief and supporting materials, Plaintiff has now shown actual success on the merits of its First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment claims. See Dkt. 98. And, as shown below, the argument and evidence submitted to the Court with Defendants' opposition brief add nothing to what they presented to the Court in opposition to Plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction. Therefore, the Court should enter a permanent injunction.

REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 14
9870.05 fk022204

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 119 Filed 11/02/12 Page 22 of 41

a. Unpublished District Court Decisions in Cases Where the Plaintiff Presented No Evidence or Argument Are Not Binding or Persuasive.
In support of his Postcard-Only Policy, the Sheriff relies on an unpublished magistrate's opinion rejecting apro se prisoner's challenge to ajail postcard-only policy in Georgia. See Dkt. 114 at 20 (citing Daniels v. Harris, 3:11-CV-45 CAR, 2012 WL 3901646 (M.D. Ga. Aug. 8, 2012) report and recommendation adopted, 3:11-CV-45 CAR, 2012 WL 3901644 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 7,2012). Prisoners are even more ill-equipped than the average free person to proceed pro se, and they face huge obstacles to challenging such policies while incarcerated. So it is unsurprising that the pro se pris.oner in Daniels did not file any opposition to summary judgment. Id. at *2 ("Because Plaintiff has failed to file any response in opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court accepts as accurate and relies upon the assertions contained within the Defendants' evidence submitted in support of their motion."). The complete absence of evidence and argument challenging the policy at issue renders the magistrate's unpublished opinion of little persuasive value. See id. at *6 ("Because Plaintiff has not presented any evidence to show that the postcard policy was an exaggerated response to legitimate concerns ... Plaintiff has failed to establish that the WCJ's postcard-only mail policy violates his constitutional rights, and Plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive relief.").
Defendants also supply a magistrate's unpublished opinion, not found on Westlaw, and with nearly identical circumstances as Daniels. See Dkt. 114 at 25 (citing Martinez v. May, No.2: 11-cv-14039 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 25, 2012). In May, the court rejected pro se prisoners' challenge to an outgoing postcard-only policy. See Dkt. 115-13. One prisoner failed to prosecute the case at all and that the other two prisoners who continued to do so had been transferred from the jail and offered no evidence whatsoever to defend against the jail's summary judgment motion. The court's analysis in the face of no evidence submitted by the prisoners was short, generic, and essentially nothing more than accepting unrebutted claimed fears and representations of the jail officials. Here, the Court has been presented with ample evidence that

REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY mDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INmNCTIVE RELIEF - 15
9870.05 tk022204

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 119 Filed 11/02/12 Page 23 of 41

Defendants' policy is irrational. The opinions in Daniels and May on an uncontested summary judgment record are simply not useful to the Court's analysis here.3
b. Defendants After-The-Fact Justifications for Their PostcardOnly Policy are Unsupported and Unpersuasive.
First, Defendants try to distinguish their own irrational policies from those that the Ninth Circuit has found unconstitutional by claiming the Sheriffs Postcard-Only Policy was "based on the fact that friends and family of inmates are more likely to pass contraband through the mail, and inmates are more likely to make threats or prohibited requests to people they know via the mail." See Dkt. 114 at 27. But that would have been ajustification for treating mail to and from businesses differently than mail to and from friends and family, not for adopting the Sheriffs Postcard-Only Policy to both businesses and personal correspondents, which is what Defendants did. The Sheriffs policy that PLN challenged in January 2012 (the October 21,2011 revision), Dkt. 91-11, made no distinction between business and personal mail. The January and February versions likewise defined "Personal Mail" as "postcards mailed to or from family, friends, organizations, businesses, or other unofficial entities." Dkts. 32-5 at 2, and 32-6 at 2 (emphasis added). Yet despite this explicit definition, in his brief the Sheriff now claims that "The intent of the February IMP was to apply the postcard restriction to inmate mail to and from inmates and their friends and family." See Dkt. 114 at 29.
Three months later, after oral argument revealed a multitude of deficiencies in his policy, including this one, the Sheriff claims he finally "clarified" the word "businesses" out of his Postcard-Only Policy. Id. In doing so, the Sheriff implies that he had not intended his policy to restrict to postcard correspondence to or from businesses, like PLN. But he never says this. And

3 The Court in Gieck v. Arpaio, CV07-1143-PHX-NVW, 2008 WL 2604919, * 8 (D. Ariz. June
23,2008) explained the futility of relying on such opinions, pro se or otherwise: "Plaintiff has brought his counsel a case without facts, with no proof that the jails' mail policy hurt him in any specific way. This challenge to the legality of the mail policy on its face alone fails. Judgment must be entered against Plaintiff, but it is stillborn precedent for the Defendant. A real case with real facts or a different challenge of the context and justification of the mail policy, with supporting evidence, would demand a fresh look. "

REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY mDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INmNCTIVE RELIEF - 16
9870.05 fk022204

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 119 Filed 11/02/12 Page 24 of 41

this would be contrary to the plain wording of the definition he wrote after being sued by PLN and in the face of PLN's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The Sheriff cannot create a question of fact by implying now that he meant the opposite of what he wrote in his policy. And further, the definition he wrote for "Personal Mail" in his May 25,2012 version simply muddied the issue by defining that phrase to include "personal business" mail, which covered subscription renewal notices, letters, and other correspondence to and from businesses such as PLN. See Dkt. 92. Such "clarity" did not alleviate the Sheriffs policy violations of PLN's constitutional rights.
Second, in support of his opposition to PLN's preliminary injunction motion, the Sheriff submitted only provocative statements from Sergeant Cutright that various kinds of contraband could theoretically be enclosed in envelopes and that it takes more time to inspect an envelope than a postcard. He offered no evidence of a contraband problem and only vague estimations of time-savings. He has not done any better now, even after the Court found his prior submission insufficient to show a rationale relationship to a legitimate governmental interest. In fact, the Sheriff has offered no new evidence of a contraband problem and the evidence of alleged cost savings is worse for him than before.
In support of his opposition brief, the Sheriff offered testimony of now laid-off Sergeant Cutright and former Sergeant-now part time Deputy-Rigdon that it takes "a little longer" to inspect a letter as compared to a postcard. See Dkt. 114 at 28. Deputy Rigdon actually testified that the difference is a matter of seconds. See Dkt. 100-4 at 3.
The poor quality of the evidence purporting to support Defendants' position is seen in their own words. On page 27 of their brief, they write: "Bryan Cutright's testimony remains the most reliable statement on the time-savings gained by adopting the postcard-only policy in 2010." See Dkt. 114 at 27. Yet, on the very same page, they write: "Mr. Cutright did not accurately state the number of pieces of paper indigent inmates received." Id. at 27 n. 7.
Defendants also claim that PLN misrepresented his testimony about comparing the time it takes to process a four-page letter with one postcard. Dkt. 114 at 27. But PLN simply quoted his

REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 17
9870.05 fk022204

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 119 Filed 11/02/12 Page 25 of 41

testimony, accurately, so Defendants' objection has no basis whatsoever. Compare Dkt. 98 at 12 with Dkt. 99-2 at 15.
In other words, the evidence to support the Sheriff s justifications for adopting and maintaining his Postcard-Only Policy deteriorated under the scrutiny and challenge of discovery. The evidentiary record in favor of the Sheriff s policy is substantially weaker now than the record on which the Court issued its preliminary injunction finding that the policy likely violated the First Amendment. For this reason, the Court need not re-analyze the same evidence to reach the same conclusion, this time finding actual rather than likely '.'iolations.
c. Defendants Fail to Show Any Material Facts Are in Dispute Throughout their brief, Defendants make a number of incorrect or unsupported assertions about Plaintiffs claims and the "facts" in this case. They include, but are not limited to: Ms. Lennox's Mailings. Defendants claim that PLN's Complaint did not allege that they violated the First Amendment by censoring Ms. Lennox's "internet-generated" mailings. Dkt. 114 at 24. But that's not true. Under the heading "Ban on Speech that is Not a Postcard," PLN's Complaint states: "Defendants have used their Postcard-Only Mail Policy to censor correspondence from other... individuals. For example, Defendants rejected numerous PLN articles that Lucy Lennox printed from the PLN website and mailed to certain prisoners at the Columbia County Jail." Dkt. 1, ~ 4.73.4. Alternative Avenues. Without offering any evidence whatsoever, Defendants claim that "All of the family members were able to exercise the available alternative means of communications." Dkt. 114, at 31. Defendants' bald assertion cannot be credited on summary judgment, and in fact is contradicted by the evidence Plaintiff has submitted on the obstacles and difficulties that family and friends faced. See Dkts. 38-40, 53. Defendants have presented no evidence to inform the Court or rebut the Court's conclusion that the "postcard-only mail policy drastically restricts an inmate's ability to communicate with the outside world." Dkt. 64 at 20.

REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 18
9870.05 tk022204

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 119 Filed 11/02/12 Page 26 of 41

Impact on Resources. Defendants claim that the Court should consider the impact on the Jail's resources, including the "real" "security risks inherent in envelope mail" and "the resulting impact on a small county jail when a postcard restriction on personal mail significantly reduces the chance that security disruptions occur." Dkt. 114, at 32-33. But in its Order granting the preliminary injunction, the Court concluded that "accommodating letters and periodicals is unlikely to have a 'significant ripple effect' on inmates and staff' and "the time savings afforded to the Jail by the postcard-only mail policy is modest, at best." Dkt. 64 at 21-22. And on summary judgment Defendants offer no new information for the Court to consider. They present no evidence of any specific financial, personnel, or other burdens the Jail allegedly faced or will face if it is permanently enjoined from going back to it its old ways.
Easy and Obvious Alternatives. In its opening brief, PLN pointed out that instead of adopting his Postcard-Only Policy, the Sheriff should have switched mail processing from the busy daytime shift to the graveyard shift. Dkt. 98 at 18. Defendants retort that they did so. Dkt. 114, at 33 ("The evidence shows this is exactly what the Sheriffs Office did.") But they did so nearly two years after adopting their challenged policy because of reduced staff, id., not when they were considering whether to adopt a postcard-only policy or instead whether to change their mail processing in some other alternative way, if needed. This just shows that there was an easy alternative that was available to improve mail handling efficiency back in 2010. Defendants also claim that they investigated how contraband enters the facility and how to conduct the mail processing more efficiently, id., but cite to no evidence in support of that proposition so it must be discarded.
"Admissions" of Liability. Defendants contend again and again that their "admissions" of liability, see, e.g., Dkt. 114 at 10, 18, 21, 34, 44, make "absolutely clear" that their conduct will not be repeated in the future, id. at 18. But other than the Sheriff admitting in his deposition that the Jail's censorship of some specific pieces of mail violated the Constitution, Defendants have not made any clear admissions of liability. Instead, their Answer stated only that

REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 19
9870.05 fk022204

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500
Seattle, Washington 98104 Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 119 Filed 11/02/12 Page 27 of 41

"Defendants admit that some of its past mail policies violated some of Plaintiff s constitutional rights." Dkt. 25 ~~ 1.1,4.74.3-4.74.4, 5.2, 5.6. Even in their Amended Answer, Dkt. 80, filed on July 30,2012, near the end of discovery, Defendants still repeated only the same vague "admission." They failed to specify which mail policy provisions, and which versions of those policies, violated Plaintiff s constitutional rights, and which violations were caused by these unconstitutional policies. And to date, Defendants have not admitted that any of their mail policies violated the rights of prisoners or other correspondents.
Before filing this motion, Plaintiff communicated and conferred with Defendants at length for months seeking clarity on which facts and issues were in dispute and needed to be resolved by the Court. See Wing Reply Dec. ~~2-5. Plaintiff asked Defendants to stipulate to the undisputed facts and to admit that their Postcard-Only, No-Magazines, and Due Process policies violated the Constitution. Id. Plaintiff provided a draft stipulation and asked Defendants to sign it, suggest changes, propose their own. But Defendants declined to do so and Plaintiff was forced to file this motion addressing all facts and legal issues. Id.
"Swiftness" of Response. Defendants contend that they "took immediate action," "moved swiftly," and "quickly rectified" their unconstitutional mail policies as soon as they learned of them, and "conformed [their] policy and practices to the First and Fourteenth Amendments in January, 2012." See Dkt. 114 at 8, 10,41. But the undisputed facts set forth in Plaintiffs opening brief show otherwise. See Dkt. 98 at 28-29, 33-35. Indeed, in its Preliminary Injunction Order, the Court identified numerous problems with Defendants revised policies. See, E.g., Dkt. 64 at 31.
Indigent Mail. Defendants claim they "agree that switching from two pieces of paper per week to two half-sized postcards reduced the amount of writing space available to an inmate by one-fourth" See Dkt. 114 at 28 (emphasis added). But they don't agree with PLN, because two postcards affords only one-fourth the writing space of two pieces of paper since prisoners were prohibited from writing content anywhere on the side of the postcard for writing the addressee's

REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 20
9870.05 fk022204

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 119 Filed 11/02/12 Page 28 of 41

contact information and where there was a photograph of Oregon's first sheriff. And Defendants assert there was no limit to the number of postcards a prisoner could write. Id. But this ignores the obstacle faced by indigent prisoners who could not afford to buy postcards or by other prisoners or correspondents who could not afford to pay the postage to send mUltiple postcards.4
PLN's Mail Has Been Censored. The Sheriff also contends that none of PLN' s mail has been censored since before the lawsuit was filed, see Dkt. 114 at 6, yet he admits that under his brand new policy "PLN correctly notes that an article printed from PLN's website and mailed to inmates by Lucy Lennox in February, 2012 was rejected by the Jail on the basis that it was not in postcard form," id. at 29. That was PLN's mail. The news articles were printed from PLN's website and PLN had asked Ms. Lennox to send the 11 mailings. See Dkt. 63-1. The Complaint does not list these particular mailings because the Sheriff censored them in February, after PLN filed its lawsuitS during the same time period as other evidence before the Court that is relevant to whether an injunction is necessary.
The Sheriff cites testimony of his Undersheriff that the most recent iteration of his mail policy would allow internet-generated mail like Ms. Lennox's mailings, but in the next breath states that "the mail was properly rejected because the postcard restriction is constitutional." See Dkt. 114 at 29. His conclusion is directly contrary to the Ninth Circuit's opinion in Clement v. California Dept. a/Carr., 364 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2004), which held that prisons cannot censor

4 Defendants assert that prisoners do not have a constitutional right to free postage, Dkt. 114 at 28, but there are circuit opinions to the contrary, see, e.g., Jones v. Wittenberg, 330 F. Supp. 707, 719 (N.D. Ohio 1971) ("Indigent prisoners shall be furnished at public expense writing materials and ordinary postage for their personal use in dispatching a maximum of five (5) letters per week."), affd sub nom., Jones v. Metzger, 456 F.2d 854 (6th Cir. 1972). More importantly, Defendants' position that they need not afford indigent prisoners free postage undermines their claim that their Postcard-Only Policy has no adverse impact since through that policy they denied indigent prisoners postage to mail more than two postcards, thereby dramatically undercutting PLN's ability to receive communications from those prisoners and prisoners' ability to communicate with the rest of their correspondents in the outside world.

5 The Sheriff incorrectly suggests that PLN's Complaint does not allege First Amendment violations for his censorship of mailings sent by Ms. Lennox. See Dkt.114 at 24.

REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 21
9870.05 fk022204

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 119 Filed 11/02/12 Page 29 of 41

materials on the ground that they are generated from the internet. As PLN has explained, the Sheriff cannot evade Clement through adoption of another irrational policy that subsumed nearly all internet-generated materials. The Sheriffhas made no promise that in the absence of an injunction he will not return to censoring such materials. Indeed, in his opposition brief to PLN's motion for preliminary injunction, he claimed that such materials violated the so-called Publisher's Only Rule. See Dkt. 29 at 18. Accordingly, his latest explanation that his policy allows such materials is nothing more than a convenient re-interpretation adopted after the Court entered its preliminary injunction. The ease with which the Sheriff adopts new policies and "clarifies" or re-interprets what they mean should give the Court pause.
In their opposition brief, Defendants have failed to rebut many other arguments set forth in Plaintiff s opening Memorandum (Dkt. 98), or to articulate any genuine facts of material dispute. Despite the temptation, Plaintiff has avoided repeating those same arguments here to show that Plaintiff prevails as a matter of law and the material facts are undisputed.
In sum, Defendants claim there are disputed material facts, see Dkt. 114 at 20, but there is no section of their brief supporting this contention and they fail to identify any such disputes.
d. Defendants' Reliance on Hearsay, Irrelevant Evidence about Jails in Another State, and Witnesses and Evidence That They Failed to Disclose in Discovery Should Not be Considered.
In response to Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, Defendants filed: declarations and materials from a California case regarding alleged contraband issues that occurred long ago at another jail, an Oregon Live online news article about alleged contraband sent by a prisoner at the Multnomah County Jail; and documents from the Washington County Jail that Defendants failed to produce in discovery. For the reasons stated Plaintiffs motion to strike (Section H, below), this evidence should be stricken and not considered by the Court.
D. The PLRA Does Not Apply Defendants claim that any injunction entered by the Court is subject to the PLRA. Dkt. 114 at 20. They are mistaken. For this proposition, they cite to Gilmore v. People ofthe State of

REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 22
9870.05 fk022204

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 119 Filed 11/02/12 Page 30 of 41

California, 220 F.3d 987, 992 (9th Cir. 2000). But Gilmore involved a collection of suits brought by prisoners about their conditions of confinement and contains a footnote citing part of the Congressional Record that is contrary to Defendants' position: "[The PLRA] amends 18 U.S.C. §3626 to require that prison conditions remedies do not go beyond the measures necessary to remedy federal rights violations and that public safety and criminal justice needs are given appropriate weight in framing such remedies. Specifically, the section places limits on the type of prospective relief available to inmate litigants." Id. at 997, n. 11 (emphasis added). Defendants cite to no cases that hold the PLRA applies to lawsuits, like this one, that are brought by non-prisoners to vindicate their own rights.
Indeed, applying the PLRA as Defendants urge would improperly extend a limitation intended for prisoners to curtail the Constitutional rights of all entities, organizations, and people who are not incarcerated. That is not the law or what Congress intended. A recent opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court supports this analysis. Last year, Justice Ginsburg wrote, "More generally, in the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), 110 Stat. 1321-66, Congress has placed a series of controls on prisoner suits, constraints designed to prevent sportive filings in federal court." Skinner v Switzer, 131 U.S. 1289,1299 (2011) (emphasis added).
The PLRA simply does not apply to lawsuits brought by non-prisoners, like PLN. Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program v. Wood, 584 F. Supp. 2d 1314, 1316 (M.D. Ala. 2008). In Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program, a nonprofit organization sought access to youth confined in Alabama detention facilities. The court held, "ADAP [a nonprofit] seeks to enforce its own right of access under federal law and brings no claim concerning the conditions at DYS [state agency] or the lives of persons confined there. Therefore, the prospective-relief provisions of the PLRA do not apply." The Court also explained that, "The provisions respecting prisoner suits also do not apply because ADAP is clearly not a 'prisoner' under the statute." Id. (Emphasis added).

REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 23
9870.05 fk022204

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 119 Filed 11/02/12 Page 31 of 41

Here, PLN-a non-prisoner-is the only Plaintiff. PLN's challenge to vindicate its own rights will hopefully inure to the benefit of prisoners as well as to countless non-prisoner correspondents (family, friends, publishers, etc.) alike. But the benefits conferred to some nonparties do not transform the character of the lawsuit from an action by a publisher with broad standing under the First Amendment to challenge a blanket censorship ban into a prisoner lawsuit about conditions of confinement. More than fifteen years has elapsed since the PLRA was enacted yet Defendants offer no precedent or analysis to suggest that the law applies to a lawsuit filed by a non-prisoner. Defendants neither pled the PLRA in their Amended Answer6 nor raised this argument in opposition to Plaintiff s motion for preliminary injunction. The Court should evaluate whether to extend the existing injunction by the same standards under which it was granted, which were the proper standards.
PLN's position is further supported by the other permanent injunctions obtained by PLN against prisons for mail censorship that have been issued by Federal District Courts and those affirmed by the Ninth Circuit, none which applied the PLRA. See, e.g., Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2005), Prison Legal News v. Cook, 238 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2001); PLN v. Cook, Case No. 98-cv-1344 (D. Or. 1998) Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 272 F. Supp. 2d 1151 (W.D. Wa. 2003) affd, 397 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2005); Prison Legal News v. Chelan County, No. CV-11-337-EFS (E.D. Wa. filed September 9,2011), Dkt. 44-1 at 46-54, PLN v. Spokane County, Case No. 2:11-cv-00029 (E.D. Wa. 2011), Dkt. 31-2, PLN v. Sacramento, 2: 11-cv-00907 (E.D. Cal. 2011); and PLN v. Schwarzenegger, Case No. 4:07-cv02058 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
Moreover, in addressing a different provision of the PLRA, the Ninth Circuit has rejected application of the PLRA to PLN's attorney fees. See Prison Legal News v. Schwarzenegger, 608
6 It appears that Defendants' argument may be an affirmative defense, that should have been raised in the Answer. C.! Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199,216 (2007) ("failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense under the PLRA... ").

REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 24
9870.05 fk022204

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 119 Filed 11/02/12 Page 32 of 41

F.3d 446,454 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that on a First Amendment "§ 1983 suit by a plaintiff who is not a prisoner...the PLRA's limits do not apply.").
If Congress had intended to restrict the Federal Judiciary's ability to order equitable relief to free persons and entities who regularly interact with prison officials, like publishers as well as vendors of food, clothing, and other goods and services intended for consumption by prisoners, the legislation would have clearly provided for the same. It did not do so and all indications are that it did not intend to do so. The Defendants have not provided any support to the contrary. PLN's Complaint that the Defendants have repeatedly violated its rights would not reasonably be described as a proceeding with respect to "the effects of actions by government officials on the lives of persons confined in prison." The Court should not accept Defendants' barebones invitation to so reframe PLN's lawsuit.
E. PLN Has Organizational Standing.7 Defendants' entire argument against finding that PLN has organizational standing is confined to a single sentence that claims PLN has not shown that it has been harmed since May 2012. See Dkt. 114 at 17. Since PLN's lawsuit covers censorship and denial of due process going back more than two years to 2010, Defendants' position amounts to a concession that PLN in fact has organizational standing for the full breadth of its claims. And events occurring in recent months are irrelevant because "[s]tanding is determined by the facts that exist at the time the complaint is filed." Clarkv. City ofLakewood, 259 F.3d 996,1006 (9th Cir. 2001)(citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555,569 n. 4 (1992)). F. Sheriff Has Admitted Disposing of Evidence in Violation of His Established
Legal Obligations. The Sheriff admits that he discarded "an edited version" of his January 2012 mail policy adopted in response to PLN's lawsuit on the grounds that he normally does not keep drafts of

7 Plaintiff s claim for diversion of resources damages and frustration of mission damages is contingent on the Court finding that Plaintiff has organizational standing.

REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 25
9870.05 fk022204

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
TeI206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 119 Filed 11/02/12 Page 33 of 41

policies. Dkt. 114 at 42. This draft, which he says was edited by his staff and by a lawyer of another county, was highly relevant and discoverable.
Promptly after learning that litigation has been initiated, lawyers have an obligation to inform their client to place a litigation hold on all potential evidence, and in tum the client is required to take reasonable steps to preserve all potential evidence, which includes ceasing normal or routine practices of discarding documents.
"The obligation to preserve evidence arises when [a] party has notice that the evidence is relevant to litigation or when a party should have known that the evidence may be relevant to future litigation." Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212, 216 (S.D.N.Y. 2003); accord Fujitsu Ltd. v. Fed. Exp. Corp., 247 F.3d 423,436 (2d Cir. 2001). "The duty to preserve attaches at the time that litigation is reasonably anticipated." Richard Green (Fine Paintings) v. McClendon, 262 F.R.D. 284, 289 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (citing Zubulake, 220 F.R.D. at 216). "[T]his commonly occurs at the time a complaint is filed," but can be earlier than that. McClendon, 262 F.R.D. at 289.
"When the duty to preserve attaches, a litigant 'must suspend [her] routine document retention/destruction policy and put in place a "litigation hold" to ensure the preservation of relevant documents. '" Id. (quoting Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 229 F.R.D. 422,430 (S.D.N.Y.2004). "This step, however, is only the beginning of a party's discovery obligations" since "Once a 'litigation hold' is in place, a party and her counsel must make certain that all sources of potentially relevant information are identified and placed 'on hold' ...." McClendon, 262 F.R.D. at 289 (quoting Zubulake, 229 F.R.D. 422).
Here, the Sheriff blows past his legal responsibilities to retain evidence and then unapologetically chalks it up to following his claimed routine practice, without any seeming recognition that he violated the law. Dkt. 114 at 42. Likewise, Defense counsel is silent on what, if any, litigation hold instructions they gave to Defendants, or when. Id.

REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 26
9870.05 &022204

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 119 Filed 11/02/12 Page 34 of 41

Since the Sheriff destroyed the documents it is impossible for Plaintiff to assess what relevant evidence they may have revealed. The lack of seriousness with which he took his obligation then and his attitude towards it now just reinforces the theme that he is not much concerned with following the rules or holding himself accountable.
G. Columbia County is Liable. "A county is a 'person' subject to liability under § 1983 if its official policies cause the constitutional violation at issue." Biberdorfv. Oregon, 243 F. Supp. 2d 1145, 1154 (D. Or. 2002) (citing Brewster v. Shasta County, 275 F.3d 803, 805 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted)). Likewise, a county may be held liable for the conduct of its Sheriff, which is an officer of the county. See ORS 204.005(1); see, e.g., Keller v. Washington County, CIV.06 692 ST, 2007 WL
1170634, * 17 (D. Or. Apr. 10,2007) ("Washington County is a public body (ORS
30.260(4)(b)), the Sheriff is an officer of the county (ORS 204.005(1)), and Miller is an employee of the Sheriff. Therefore, the OTCA applies to Keller's false imprisonment and negligence claims against Washington County.")
Defendants claim that the Sheriff is not an agent of Columbia County so his behavior cannot lead to liability for Columbia County. See Dkt. 114 at 15. For this point, they cite to Oregon law stating that he is an elected official and has the power to hire and fire employees. Id. And they cite to conclusory statements by the Sheriff. Id. But this establishes nothing. Defendants do not cite to any precedent supporting their assertion, let alone that sets forth the standards or proper analysis.
The Governor of Oregon is an elected official and he has the power to hire and fire and is subject to the spending power of the Oregon legislature, but he is an agent of the State. And, the President of the United States is an elected official with the power to hire and fire and is subject to the budgets enacted by Congress, yet he is likewise an agent of the Federal government. So, on what line of authority do Defendants claim the slim facts that they offer render the Sheriff not

REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 27
9870.05 tk022204

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500
Seattle, Washington 98104 Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 119 Filed 11/02/12 Page 35 of 41

an agent of the County for which he serves as an executive with policy-making authority over the
Columbia County Jail? Defendants do not bother to explain.
In Pembaur v. City ofCincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (1986), the Supreme Court explained that
municipal liability (including counties) flows from the actions of the local government's policy-
maker on the issue:
Authority to make municipal policy may be granted directly by a legislative enactment or may be delegated by an official who possesses such authority, and of course, whether an official hadfinal policymaking authority is a question of state law. However, like other governmental entitjes, municipalities often spread policymaking authority among various officers and official bodies. As a result, particular officers may have authority to establish binding county policy respecting particular matters and to adjust that policy for the county in changing circumstances. To hold a municipality liable for actions ordered by such officers exercising their policymaking authority is no more an application ofthe theory of respondeat superior than was holding the municipalities liable for the decisions ofthe City Councils in Owen and Newport.
Id. at 483 (Emphasis added). In Pembaur, the Supreme Court held that "In ordering the Deputy
Sheriffs to enter petitioner's clinic the County Prosecutor was acting as the final decisionmaker
for the county, and the county may therefore be held liable under § 1983." Id. at 485.
A sheriff does not act for himself; he is either an agent of his local government or of the
state. See, e.g., Brewster v. Shasta County, 275 F.3d 803, 806 (9th Cir. 2001) ("The question in
Streit was whether a California sheriff, in administering the county's policy for release from
county jails, acted for the county or the state). As explained above, under Oregon law the Sheriff
is a "county" officer and Oregon law provides that the county he works for establishes his wages.
See ORS 204.116(1) ("the governing body of each county shall fix the compensation of its own
members and of every other county officer...."). The Sheriffs discovery responses show that
Columbia County pays his wages. Exhibit A to Reply Declaration of Jesse Wing.
The unconstitutional conduct at issue occurred at the Columbia County Jail, which is paid
for by Columbia County taxpayers with funds allocated by the Columbia County Board of
Commissioners. See Dkt. 114 at 15. State law provides for the election of a Sheriff ofColumbia

REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 28
9870.05 fk022204

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 119 Filed 11/02/12 Page 36 of 41

County, who is paid by Columbia County, to arrest and detain persons on behalf of Columbia County in its Jail. The Sheriff is the policy-maker-not for his jail-but for the Jail of Columbia County. He is plainly a County agent for the purposes of liability of the County for his unconstitutional policies and practices. Defendants have not shown otherwise.
H. Motion to Strike PLN moves to strike the following submissions by Defendants as violative of FRCP 56.8
1. Declarations and Materials Submitted in a California State Case are Hearsay and Irrelevant, and Defendants Did Not Disclose These Witnesses or Documents in Discovery.
Conceding that Columbia County has no contraband problem and that the Sheriff's time savings are exceedingly meager, the Sheriffhas apparently gone in search of contraband problems elsewhere. He found them asserted in declarations submitted in litigation in California by law enforcement officials in defense of their own policies. Defendants improperly submitted their declarations here as Dkt. 115-12, and they should be stricken in their entirety.
First, by submitting declarations from witnesses who Defendants never disclosed in discovery, the Sheriff violated the discovery rules. Defendants never identified these witnesses as lay witnesses in their Initial Disclosures or at any other point in discovery. Wing Reply Declaration, ~ 6. And Defendants did not offer these witnesses as experts presenting testimony about this litigation, provide qualifications or argument that they are experts, answer discovery requested by Plaintiff about expert witnesses, or comply with any of the requirements of Rule 26 mandatory disclosures about experts. Id.
Second, the declarations are not probative of any facts at issue before the court, and not admissible as required by FRCP 56(c)(2). Sergeant David's declaration merely authenticates a jail policy that Defendants did not attach, and which is irrelevant here. See Dkt. 115-12 at 3-

8 Pursuant to CR 7-1 Plaintiffs counsel attempted to confer with Defense counsel to resolve this dispute before filing this motion to strike. See Wing Reply Dec., ~9.

REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 29
9870.05 fk022204

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 119 Filed 11/02/12 Page 37 of 41

4. The declaration of Tracy Martinez, an administrative assistant, claims that over twenty years ago he saw some narcotics in incoming mail under postage stamps, saw "suspicious blank paper," and that paperclips and staples can be made into keys or weapons. Id. at 5-6. Hearsay testimony about events that occurred twenty years ago in California is useless. And, as Plaintiff has pointed out, more postage stamps are needed to mail several postcards than a single letter so the Postcard-Only Policy increased the risk of such contraband. Moreover, the Sheriff has given up removing postage stamps, see Dkt. 99-3 at 12 and Dkt. 114 at 12, and the Inmate Manual that he issues to prisoners contains staples, see Dkt. 99-3 at 8, so the Sheriffhas ignored the alleged import of the testimony he offers to the Court.
Similarly, the declaration of Jerry Hernandez describes some contraband that he claims to have seen 26 years ago. Dkt. 115-12 at 7-9. Yet, the only weapon he describes finding was hidden in the body of a postcard. How this helps Defendants is a mystery.9 Id. Then Defendants offer a six-page declaration in which the declarant's name and signature have been completely redacted, as have large portions of the testimony. Id at 10-15. Unsworn declarations violate Rule 56 and it is impossible to assess the legitimacy of statements of an unknown witness. Indeed, there is no reason to think that even Defendants know who this witness is. The witness claims to have been taught how to hide contraband in envelopes but then reveals that jail staff can easily uncover the contraband by tearing a comer of the envelope. That is an easy and available alternative to censoring all letters.
The declaration of Aaron Wilkinson, which is also redacted, states that he found contraband in envelopes-not when inspecting them upon arrival through the mail-but instead upon finding them in a prisoner's cell. Id at 16-18. This raises the obvious question of whether the contraband was transported by envelope or just hidden there once inside the cell, and

9 Defendants' reliance on the experiences ofj ail staff in another state, from long ago, just to make the point that prisoners sometimes try to smuggle contraband is akin to offering as evidence a DVD of the movie the Shawshank Redemption. Contraband can conceivably be smuggled into a jail, but that possibility alone does not justify infringing the Constitutional rights of prisoners and their correspondents, or make Defendants' restrictive mail policy rational.

REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 30
9870.05 fk022204

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 119 Filed 11/02/12 Page 38 of 41

Wilkinson's declaration draws from this that jails should not allow prisoners to send "sealed" mailfrom within the jail to another prisoner within the jail. This has nothing to do with the policies at issue before the Court. The last declaration, of Jeffrey Held, is from a lawyer who testifies that he personally looked up the word "letter" in several dictionaries and believes the definitions do not include transport via envelope. Id. at 19-22. How this is useful to Defendants is unclear. Finally, he reports a third-hand account that the Attorney General of California has found narcotics in prisoner mail. Such irrelevant and double hearsay cannot be permitted here.
These declarants are not occurrence or percipient witnesses-their declarations do not describe any policies, censorship, or anything else about the Columbia County Jail, PLN, or the facts of this case. Their statements all relate to unspecified events that occurred in another state under unknown conditions, many of them extremely stale. And, except for the most generic proposition that correspondents sometimes try to send contraband to prisoners via the mailwhich is not in dispute-none of the declarations are probative of the issues before this Court.
In sum, under FRCP 56(c)(2), PLN moves to strike these documents (Dkt. 115-12 in its entirety) and all argument about these documents, on grounds of hearsay, FRE 802, that the events described therein are stale and irrelevant, that unknown content has been redacted that could cast doubt on that which remains, that one declaration is missing a name and signature in violation ofFRCP 56(c)(4), that one declaration is mere lawyer argument, FRE 602, and because Defendants failed to identify these witnesses or their knowledge until well after the discovery deadline in violation of the discovery rules, FRCP 26(a). See Wing Reply Dec. ~ 6.
2. The Oregon Live News Article is Hearsay, and There is No Showing the Author Has Personal Knowledge.
Again, in an effort to find contraband problems elsewhere that have not been found at Columbia County, the Sheriff offers a newspaper article stating that a prisoner housed in Multnomah County was under investigation for mailing six letters containing white powder. Dkt. 115-11. To begin with, the news article is double hearsay so the Court should strike it. The Sheriff offers the article as evidence of the truth of the matter reported in the article but it fails to

REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY WDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INmNCTIVE RELIEF - 31
9870.05 fk022204

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 119 Filed 11/02/12 Page 39 of 41

meet any hearsay exception. See FRE 802, FRCP 56(c)(2). Moreover, Defendants fail to explain that this article states that substance was not in fact toxic. Defendants point out that the Multnomah County Jail "does not limit any inmate mail topostcards... seeDkt.114 at 26, but one purported recipient of the letter was a prosecutor at the courthouse and even Columbia County did not prohibit prisoners from sending a letter to such public officials, see Dkt. 91-11 at 2.
And Defendants fail to explain why Multnomah could not have easily prevented the prisoner's hoax by inspecting his mail as the jail officials are authorized to do. Instead,. Defendants focus on the ability of a prisoner to create harmless white powder and mail it in an envelope as a hoax. But that kind of overblown argument could be used to undermine all communications with the outside world. For example, without warning, a prisoner can make threats over the telephone or in person but that does not justify prohibiting all telephone calls or in-person visits. And gang members can write symbols or codes on postcards just as well as in letters or hide something under a stamp on either form of correspondence.
In short, Defendants' reliance on the allegations in the news article reveals their ongoing belief in and commitment to exaggerated responses to security concerns.
PLN moves to strike Defendants' submission ofDkt. 115-11, the newspaper article alleging that a person confined in the Multnomah County Jail mailed a non-toxic substance to public officials. The article is impermissible hearsay, FRE 802, the events described therein are irrelevant, FRE 402, Defendants fail to establish that the author possesses personal knowledge as required by FRCP 56(c)(4), and this article was not produced in discovery as required by FRCP 26. See Wing Reply Dec. ~ 7.
3. Throughout Discovery Defendants Possessed Washington County's "Transitions to Postcards for Inmate Mail" CD But Failed to Produce It to Plaintiff Until Long After Discovery Ended.
Lastly, PLN moves the strike Defendants' submission ofDkt. 115-6, which are documents from a CD entitled "Transitions to Postcards for Inmate Mail" purportedly authored

REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 32
9870.05 fk022204

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 119 Filed 11/02/12 Page 40 of 41
by Washington County. Defendants possessed these documents throughout the lawsuit but failed to produce them until well after the discovery deadline, in violation of the discovery rules. Wing Reply Dec. '8.
I. Balance of the Hardships and the Public Interest The Court has already recognized that if Defendants implement their Postcard-Only Policy "The Constitutional hardship is far greater than the modest impact on Defendants' time and resources. Dkt. 64 at 23. Since the Court issued its opinion, Defendants have failed to articulate any hardship whatsoever that it has experienced from ceasing its Policy. Similarly, the analysis conducted by the Court in its Preliminary Injunction on the public interest factor, and the Court's finding that its favors entering an injunction, has not changed either. And, since PLN has established actual success on the merits and the Sheriff claims there is a trend among jails to adopt postcard-only policies, entry of injunctive relief serves the important function advancing the public interest in enforcement of the First Amendment. IV. CONCLUSION PLN respectfully requests that the Court please grant its motion for summary judgment and award to PLN declaratory and injunctive relief on all issues, and strike from the record Defendants' improperly submitted evidence.
DATED this 2nd day of November, 2012.
MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS lsi Jesse Wing
KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN OSB #042580 JESSE WING, pro hac vice (206) 622-1604 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY mDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INmNCTIVE RELIEF - 33
9870.05 fk022204

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 119 Filed 11/02/12 Page 41 of 41
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on November 2, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing to the
Clerk of the Court using the CMlECF system which will send notification of such filing to the
following:
• Marc D. Blackman marc@ransomblackman.com,pat@ransomblackman.com
• Steven A. Kraemer sak@hartwagner.com,rcd@hartwagner.com
• Gregory R. Roberson grr@hartwagner.com,cej@hartwagner.com
• Lynn S. Walsh walsh@europa.com
• Lance Weber lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org,ahull@humanrightsdefensecenter.org
MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS
lsi Jesse Wing KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN OSB #042580 JESSE WING Pro Hac Vice Admission (206) 622-1604 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 34
9870.05 fk022204

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 120 Filed 11/02/12 Page 1 of 15
Katherine C. Chamberlain, OSB #042580 katherinec@mhb.com Jesse A. Wing, pro hac vice jessew@mhb.com Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News MacDonald Hoague & Bayless 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104-1745 (206) 622-1604
Marc D. Blackman, OSB #730338 marc@ransomblackman.com Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Ransom Blackman LLP 1001 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1400 Portland, OR 97204 (503) 228-0487
Lance Weber,pro hac vice lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Human Rights Defense Center 1037 Western Ave., 2nd Floor West Brattleboro, VT 05303 (802) 257-1342

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,
Defendants.

No.3:12-CV-71-SI
DECLARATION OF JESSE WING IN SUPPORT OF REPLY MEMORANDUM RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

DECLARATION OF JESSE WING IN SUPPORT OF REPLY MEMORANDUM RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (CV 12-71-SI) - 1
9870.05 1k020904

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Te1206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 120 Filed 11/02/12 Page 2 of 15
I, Jesse Wing, declare as follows: I am one of the attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News. I am over the age of 18, and am competent to testify. 1. Exhibit A is a true copy of a page from the Columbia County, Oregon Payroll Register for the period 11112012 - 113112012 showing that Columbia County paid wages to Sheriff Jeffrey M. Dickerson. 2. Prior to filing this motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff communicated and conferred with Defendants for months seeking clarity on which facts and issues the parties could stipulate to and which were in dispute and needed to be resolved by the Court. Plaintiff asked Defendants to stipulate to the undisputed facts and to admit that their Postcard-Only, NoMagazines, and Due Process policies violated the Constitution. Plaintiff also provided a draft stipulation and asked Defendants to sign it, suggest changes, or to propose their own stipulation. But Defendants declined to do so forcing Plaintiff to file this motion addressing all facts and legal issues. 3. Exhibit B is a true copy of a letter dated June 4,2012 from Plaintiffs counsel Katherine C. Chamberlain to Defense counsel Steven A. Kraemer and Greg R. Roberson. 4. Exhibit C is a true copy of an e-mail dated June 20,2012 from Plaintiffs counsel Jesse Wing to Gregory Roberson. 5. Exhibit D is a true copy of an e-mail and letter dated July 11, 2012 from Jesse Wing to Gregory Roberson. 6. At no time prior to filing their opposition to summary judgment did Defendants identify or disclose as witnesses or persons with knowledge to the Plaintiff the persons who signed declarations submitted as Dkt. 115-12. Defendants did not disclose these individuals or their declarations, in any Initial or Supplemental Initial Disclosures, any interrogatory answers, in any documents produced, or in depositions.

DECLARATION OF JESSE WING IN SUPPORT OF REPLY MEMORANDUM RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (CV 12-71-SI) - 2
9870.05 lk020904

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 120 Filed 11/02/12 Page 3 of 15
7. At no time prior to filing their opposition to summary judgment did Defendants identify or disclose the Oregon Live online news article, Dkt. 115-11, submitted with their opposition brief.
8. Defendants did not produce the Washington County documents it submitted with its opposition brief, Dkt. 115-6, until October 4, 2012, after discovery had closed in August, and after PLN filed its motion for summary judgment. The Defense stated that the documents were found in the office of Captain Carpenter.
9. Prior to filing the motion to strike contained in Plaintiff s Reply in support of summary judgment, Plaintiffs counsel sought to confer with Defense counsel Gregory Roberson to resolve this dispute, but Mr. Roberson stated that he did not have time to discuss the issues raised by Plaintiffs counsel.
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States of America and the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct.
DATED this 2nd day of November, 2012, at Seattle, Washington.
-Je-ss-e-w-:r-""~-"'.-".-+.' .--=-----~

DECLARATION OF JESSE WING IN SUPPORT OF REPLY MEMORANDUM RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (CV 12-71-SI) - 3
9870,05 fk020904

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 120 Filed 11/02/12 Page 4 of 15
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on November 2, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing to the
Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the
following:
• Marc D. Blackman marc@ransomblackman.com,pat@ransomblackman.com
• Steven A. Kraemer sak@hartwagner.com,rcd@hartwagner.com
• Gregory R. Roberson grr@hartwagner.com,cej@hartwagner.com
• Lynn S. Walsh walsh@europa.com
• Lance Weber lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org,ahull@humanrightsdefensecenter. org
MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS
/s/ Jesse Wing KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN OSB #042580 JESSE WING Pro Hac Vice Admission (206) 622-1604 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

DECLARATION OF JESSE WING IN SUPPORT OF REPLY MEMORANDUM RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (CV 12-71-SI) - 4
9870.05 fk020904

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 120 Filed 11/02/12 Page 5 of 15
EXHIBIT A
TO DECLARATION OF JESSE WING IN SUPPORT OF REPLY MEMORANDUM
RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Wing Decl Ex A, Page 1 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 120 Filed 11/02/12 Page 6 of 15

Payroll
Payroll Regi'ster '

User: Printed:

ripaj 0311512012 - 2~38 PM

_..

C·.' : '">"O.• '"1'I(U."''mi .,':.",,:I.~Ji·l':a·::·:.''''· C·'t";A'):U!!"1""1Mi'l1t"f'1tl
--230 StralidS~et ~t Hel~fti,O~9tO!1

Department: lQO.06

Employee No: Redacted

Nam~: jeFFREY MDICKERsON

ncpanment. 100-06

Check Numher:

0 .fer,pt(: 'i2/111011 - ltJ31l2oU-

P~ylDl.1d/nen

R:ite Cod~ Shift Code

Hours Hourly Rate

Grf;l~sW:.tges

DedAmount

'Bc~ A.~OUijt Task

\VIC GILA;cc:ount

c:»

1002

lO02..:Ex~mpt;.Une~llployment

<?900 60PO-Cclll'hune AUOW311ce

fED Fcdc;rat IIlC!lme T*

'113.33 :0'.00

40.71000

1~Q57.QQ
50.QO

Redacted

1720 99999

CO
Mooo

FICA. FICA EI~lpl~yec Portion

(.)

MEDI Medicare Employee Portion

U

Redacted

Redact,
STATir 'SUite liicomc Tait
1VBF WBF Qt{!gQ~OQ- ~1l~ploye'~
2SHFCV % Sr. HeleM Fep
Redacted
VICA.R FIC.>\ Emptoycd'u.rtion
Redacted

Redacted

UNEMfiR Uncmployme\it - Employer W1C-R Workds Camp -EmplQyer WOr--R WBF Oregon OQ - employer

~~deral Gross: .Re.tifemcntGross:
Cbcc~ :N~riiber:
p~y!D~diB~i)

Totals:

11333

7.107.00 7.101.00
o

State Gross: FLSA Gross:

7,107.00
·7~O57.00

Peri~d: 1/17.2012· l13112012 Rate Code ~hift Code

Hours

FICA Gms!i~ Gross Wages:
Hourly Rate

PR - Payroll Regillter(O)/15/2012 .. 2:38 PM)

7..107.00

7..107.00

7,107.00 7...107;00

Medicare Gross: Net Amount:

7,107.00 Other Gross: Q.OO R~tirj:ment 2 Gross:

GrossWugcs

'Oed'Amount Ren Amount Task

W/C GlLAccount

0;00 Red!
Pnge 1nn

Wing Decl Ex A, Page 2 of 2

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 120 Filed 11/02/12 Page 7 of 15
EXHIBITB
TO DECLARATION OF JESSE WING IN SUPPORT OF REPLY MEMORANDUM
RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Wing Decl Ex B, Page 1 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 120 Filed 11/02/12 Page 8 of 15

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW

705 Second Avenue Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104-1745
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

VIA EMAIL & U.S. MAIL
Steven A Kraemer Greg R. Roberson Hart Wagner LLP 1000 SW Broadway Ste 2000 Portland OR 97205

June 4,2012

Alec Bayless (1921-1991) Francis Hoague (1909-1993)
Kenneth A. MacDonald Retired
Michael J. Allen Miguel A. Bocanegra Andrea Brenneke Katherine C. Chamberlain Andrew T. Chan Mel Crawford Timothy K. Ford Katrln E. Frank Felicia L. Gittleman Ester Greenfield Elizabeth Poh Amy M. Royalty Joseph R. Shaeffer Kirsten Taniguchi David J. Whedbee Jesse Wing

Re: PLN v. Columbia County, et al.
USDC District of OR Cause No. CV-12-71-S1

Dear Steve and Greg:

We would like to schedule a telephone conference with you to confer about the following motions:

Motion to Amend Order

We intend to file a'FRCP 59(e) Motion to Amend the Court's Order on Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Dkt. 64. It is clear that Martinez, not Turner, applies to restrictions on outgoing mail. See, Barrett v. Belleque, 544 F.3d 1060, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008) (reversing dismissal of First Amendment claim where district court failed to apply Martinez standard for censorship of outgoing mail). Therefore, we intend to ask the Court to amend the Order Granting Plaintiff s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, to include a short summary of the Martinez standard and statement that since the Jail's policy did not meet the lower Turner standard, it failed to meet the higher Martinez standard as well. This issue was previously briefed by the parties.

Motion for Summary Judgment

We also plan to file a Motion for Summary Judgment seeking judgment on all claims, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief. At our conference, we would like to discuss the following:

Wing Decl Ex B, Page 2 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 120 Filed 11/02/12 Page 9 of 15

Steven A Kraemer Greg R. Roberson Hart Wagner LLP June 4,2012 Page 2

1. Will Defendants stipulate to liability on all claims, a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction?
2. If Defendants will not so stipulate:
a. Will Defendants clarify the statement in their answer that "Defendants admit that some of its past mail policies violated some of Plaintiffs constitutional rights" (Dkt. 25 at~~l.l, 4.74.3-4.74.4,5.25.6) (emphasis added), to make clear which alleged constitutional violations are in dispute and which are undisputed?
b. Will Defendants admit that the facts alleged by Plaintiff and admitted by Defendants (Dkt. 26 at ~~ 4.5-4.27,4.36-4.41,4.45-4.51,4.55-4.61,4.654.71) constitute violations of the 1st and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution?
c. Will Defendants admit all facts set forth in Plaintiffs Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Dkt. 15 at pgs. 2-13, and if not, will Defendants identify which facts they contend are in dispute?
d. Will Defendants admit all facts set forth in Plaintiffs Reply Brief, Dkt. 46 at pgs. 1-19, and if not, will Defendants identify which facts they contend are in-dispute?
Please let us know when you are available on Wednesday, June 6,2012 to confer about these motions. If you are not available on Wednesday, please let us know what dates and times you are available to confer this week. Thank you.
Sincerely,
. LDn~UE&

KCC/idm cc: Client
Marc D. BlacIanan

.L b e r l a i n

Wing Decl Ex B, Page 3 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 120 Filed 11/02/12 Page 10 of 15
EXHIBIT C
TO DECLARATION OF JESSE WING IN SUPPORT OF REPLY MEMORANDUM
RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Wing Decl Ex C, Page 1 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 120 Filed 11/02/12 Page 11 of 15

Jesse Wing
From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Jesse Wing Wednesday, June 20, 2012 1:36 PM Gregory Roberson Katherine C. Chamberlain; Brina M. Carranza PLN v. Columbia - MSJ Issues

Dear Greg:

To help facilitate our call this afternoon I am sending you the list of issues for Plaintiffs summary judgment motion, asking whether Defendants will stipulate to the following:

i)

Postcard-Only Policy:

(1) that their censorship of the PLN mail that is specifically identified in the Complaint and attached to Mr. Wright's declaration violated the First Amendment?

(2) that their censorship of Lucy Lennox's mail that is specifically identified in the Complaint and her declarations violated the First Amendment?

(3) that their Postcard-Only Policy violated the First Amendment?

(4) to be permanently enjoined from censoring mail on the ground that it is not in the form of a postcard?

ii) No Magazines Policy:

(1) that their censorship of the PLN journals that is specifically identified in the Complaint and attached to Mr. Wright's declaration violated the First Amendment?

(2) that their practice of censoring magazines and periodicals violated the First Amendment?

(3) that their Mail Policy that was posted on the Sheriffs website at the time this lawsuit was filed (1/13/12) and contain in the Inmate Manual ("We do not accept magazines" and "We do not accept any periodicals") violated the First Amendment?

(4) to be permanently enjoined from censoring mail on the ground that it is a magazine or periodical?

iii) Due Process

(1) that their censorship of PLN mail that is specifically identified in the Complaint and attached to Mr. Wright's declaration did not afford due process notice and an opportunity to be heard to PLN in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment?

(2) that their censorship of mail that is specifically identified in the Complaint and attached to Ms. Lennox's declaration did not afford due process and an opportunity to be heard to Ms. Lennox in violation of the 14th Amendment?

1
Wing Decl Ex C, Page 2 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 120 Filed 11/02/12 Page 12 of 15
(3) that the Mail Policy that was posted on the Sheriff s website at the time this lawsuit was filed (1113/12), which contained no provisions for due process, violated the 14th Amendment?
(4) that the Mail Policy dated October 21,2011, which failed to require notice to the publisher or other sender of incoming mail, or to the prisoner or intended recipient of rejected outgoing mail, violated the 14th Amendment?
(5) that the Mail Policy dated January 26,2012, which was deficient in its due process notice and opportunity to appeal provisions, violated the 14th Amendment?
(6) to be permanently enjoined from denying due process to prisoners and their non-prisoner correspondents when censoring mail, and to be enj oined to require notice to the sender and addressee of: the identity of the mail, the specific reason for rejection, the identity of the mail policy, and the rights to appeal and appeal procedures?
iv) Internet-Generated Mail (1) that censoring mail on the basis that it was generated from the internet, such as the censorship of Lucy Lennox's mail ofPLN news articles that was specifically identified in the Complaint and her declarations, violated the First Amendment?
(2) to be permanently enjoined from censoring mail on the ground that it was generated from the internet?
v) Catalogs, Bulk Mail, Unsolicited Mail (l) that censoring mail on the basis that it is a catalog, was sent via bulk mail rate, or was unsolicited by a prisoner-addressee violate the First Amendment?
(1) to be permanently enjoined from censoring mail on the ground that it is a catalog, was sent via bulk mail rate, or was unsolicited by a prisoner-addressee ?
Jesse Wing MacDonald Hoague & Bayless 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, WA 98104
• 206.622.1604 I Fax 206.343.3961
[81 jessew@mhb.com www.mhb.com
This email is intended only for the individual(s) to whom it is addressed and it may be a confidential communication protected by law. Any
unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, disclosure, or copying is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by return email and delete this message from your system.
2
Wing Decl Ex C, Page 3 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 120 Filed 11/02/12 Page 13 of 15
EXHIBITD
TO DECLARATION OF JESSE WING IN SUPPORT OF REPLY MEMORANDUM
RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Wing Decl Ex D, Page 1 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 120 Filed 11/02/12 Page 14 of 15

Jesse Wing
From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments:

Jesse Wing Wednesday, July 11,20124:38 PM 'Gregory Roberson' Katherine C. Chamberlain; Brina M. Carranza PLN v. Columbia County -- Stipulation re Liability 2012-07-11 LTR to OC re stip re liability.pdf; Stip re Liability.pdf

Hi Greg, Attached is a letter from me and our proposed stipulation to Defendants' liability on certain claims for your review. We look forward to hearing back from you this week to move this forward. Thank you, Jesse

Jesse Wing
MacDonald Hoague & Bayless
705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, WA 98104
if 206.622.1604 I Fax 206.343.3961
~ jessew@mhb.com www.mhb.com

This email is intended only for the individual(s) to whom it is addressed and it may be a confidential communication protected by law. Any unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, disclosure, or copying is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by return email and delete this message from your system.

1
Wing Decl Ex D, Page 2 of 3

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 120 Filed 11/02/12 Page 15 of 15

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW

705 Second Avenue Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington ·98104-1745
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

VIAE-MAIL
Greg R. Roberson Hart Wagner LLP 1000 SW Broadway Ste 2000 Portland OR 97205

July 11, 2012

Alec Bayless (1921-1991) Francis Hoague (1909-1993)
Kenneth A. MacDonald Retired
Michael J. Allen Miguel A. Bocanegra Andrea Brenneke Katherine C. Chamberlain Andrew T. Chan Mel Crawford Timothy K. Ford Katrin E. Frank Felicia L. Gittleman Ester Greenfield Elizabeth Poh Amy M. Royalty Joseph R. Shaeffer Kirsten Taniguchi David J. Whedbee Jesse Wing

Re: PLN v. Columbia County, et al. USDC District of OR Cause No. CV-12-71-S1

Dear Greg:

I'm writing as part of our continuing efforts to confer about plaintiff's intention to file a summary judgment motion. In our discussions, you stated that the defendants are willing to stipulate to liability on certain claims that plaintiff has filed and we agreed to send you a
proposed stipulation based on our discussions and the e-mail that Katie sent to you summarizing what stipulation the defense would agree to. Please fmd attached that proposed stipulation for your review.

The vast majority of the stipulation is drawn from plaintiff's Complaint, setting forth the facts and admissions using the same paragraphs set forth in the Complaint. I changed the . wording to put it in stipulation form, added a couple of paragraphs of basic law near the beginning-some of it drawn from your opposition to our preliminary injunction motion-and I removed the allegation about prisoner Lloyd Meyers who the jail's records show was not in the jail when PLN sent its mailing to him.

Since the stipulation comes mostly from the Complaint, you should be able to focus on the additions and changes. Please let me know by the end of the week whether this stipUlation is acceptable or if you have changes to suggest. I'm available to discuss them at any time, before noon on Friday.

Very truly yours,

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS

Wing Decl Ex D, Page 3 of 3

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 121 Filed 11/09/12 Page 1 of 6

Steven A. Kraemer, OSB No. 882476 E-mail: sak@hartwagner.com Gregory R. Roberson, OSB No. 064847 E-mail: grr@hartwagner.com HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301
Of Attorneys for Defendants

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,
Plaintiffs,

No. 3:12-cv-0071-SI

v.
COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF DICKERSON, individual and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,

SURREPLY MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO STRIKE
Oral Argument: November 16, 2012

Defendants.

Pursuant to LR 56-1(b), defendants oppose plaintiff Prison Legal News’ (PLN) motions

to strike three exhibits attached to the Declaration of Gregory R. Roberson and submitted in

support of defendants’ Response to PLN’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Claims for

Declaratory and Injunctive Relief: (1) a document containing implementation guidelines for a

postcard restriction on inmate mail, Ex. F; (2) declarations from employees of the Ventura

County Sheriff’s Department, Ex. L; and (3) an online newspaper article, Ex. K.

I. Document on a CD Entitled “Transition to Postcards for Inmate Mail.”

The Court should deny PLN’s motion to strike Exhibit F to Roberson’s declaration,

which was a document on a CD entitled “Transition to Postcards for Inmate Mail.” The CD was

discovered on September 27, 2012 by retired Captain Jim Carpenter when he cleared out papers

Page 1 – SURREPLY MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO STRIKE

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 121 Filed 11/09/12 Page 2 of 6

in his former office. (Carpenter Decl. ¶¶ 2, 4). The CD was in a stack of other CDs. (Id. ¶ 4). Mr. Carpenter did not previously remember having the CD. (Id. ¶ 6). The CD contained documents relating to an Oregon State Sheriff’s Association conference in December, 2009. (Id. ¶ 5, Ex. A). Mr. Carpenter immediately gave the CD to Sheriff Jeffrey Dickerson. (Id. ¶ 8). Defendants produced the CD and its contents to PLN on October 4, 2012. (2d Roberson Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. A).
According to F.R.C.P. 26(a)(1)(E), “A party must make its initial disclosures based on the information then reasonably available to it.” Prior to the discovery cutoff, it was not possible to produce the contents of the CD because the CD was in a stack of other CDs and Mr. Carpenter did not remember it existed until he accidently found it. During his deposition, Mr. Carpenter said he had a poor memory, even in 2009, although he did recall attending the December, 2009 OSSA conference. (Roberson Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. C (Carpenter Dep. 30:4-35:14, 84:24-85:12)).
F.R.C.P. 26(e)(1) imposes on defendants the duty to supplement discovery responses “in a timely manner if the party learns that in some material respect the disclosure or response is incomplete or incorrect.” According to the Advisory Committee Notes, “The obligation to supplement disclosures and discovery responses applies whenever a party learns that its prior disclosures or responses are in some material respect incomplete or incorrect.” F.R.C.P. 26, Advisory Committee Notes, 1993 Amendments. In this matter, defendants supplemented its discovery production in a timely manner soon after Sheriff Dickerson discovered the existence of the CD on September 27, 2012, the same day Mr. Carpenter found it.
Defendants’ initial disclosures stated that they may use “documents produced in response to plaintiff’s discovery requests” to support its defenses in this matter. (2d Roberson Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. B, p.2). The documents on the CD are relevant and responsive to PLN’s discovery requests for documents relating to the implementation of the postcard restriction on inmate mail. (Dkt. 115, Roberson Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. F). Defendants were not required to supplement its initial disclosures because it had already disclosed to PLN that it may use documents produced to PLN

Page 2 – SURREPLY MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO STRIKE

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 121 Filed 11/09/12 Page 3 of 6

in support of its defenses. However, defendants formally supplemented their initial disclosures

on November 7, 2012 to include documents on the CD. (2d Roberson Decl. ¶ 7).

The fact that defendants found the documents after the discovery cutoff date does not

foreclose their admissibility. “The purpose of a discovery cutoff date is to protect the parties

from a continuing burden of producing evidence and to assure them adequate time to prepare

immediately before trial. A discovery cutoff date does not, however, affect admissibility of

evidence obtained outside of the discovery process of the case in which the cutoff date is

ordered.” Whittaker Corp. v. Execuair Corp., 736 F.2d 1341, 1344 (9th Cir. 1984) (citations

omitted). In Whittaker, it was error for the trial court to exclude the admission of documents

obtained after the discovery cutoff, where the discovery was exchanged in a separate action

between the parties. Id. In the present case, the CD was inadvertently discovered and promptly

produced approximately four months prior to trial.

II. Declarations from the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department Are Admissible.

A. Testimony Is Relevant and Not Stale.

The declarations from the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department were based on the

personal knowledge of the declarant and signed under penalty of perjury; they are not “stale,” as

PLN suggests, because they were signed in 2011 and relate to the adoption of a postcard policy

in 2010, the same year the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office adopted its postcard policy. Each

declarant described his or her training and experience with contraband in mail or the sending of

coded messages. The facts are relevant to show that the adoption of a postcard restriction on

incoming and outgoing mail is a rational response to contraband threats. PLN admits the

declarations are relevant for the “proposition that correspondents sometimes try to send

contraband to prisoners via the mail,” yet it also claims they are “irrelevant.” (Plf. Reply at 31).

PLN’s attacks on the merits of the declarations demonstrate that that the declarations are

relevant; the attacks go to the weight of the evidence, not their admissibility. PLN’s attacks are

also inaccurate. Captain Jerry Hernandez was a full-time deputy with duties to sort and examine

mail from 1985 to 2001. Thus, his experience was not limited to one year in 1985. (Dkt. 115,

Page 3 – SURREPLY MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO STRIKE

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 121 Filed 11/09/12 Page 4 of 6

Roberson Decl. ¶ 13, Ex. L (Hernandez ¶ 2)). Deputy Aaron Wilkinson’s mail inspection duties were from 2006 to 2009. (Id. (Wilkinson Decl. ¶¶ 2, 4, 6)). Tracy Martinez’s experience from 1989 to 1991 highlights the long-standing problems associated with envelope mail. (Id. (Martinez ¶ 4)). In October, 2010, a confidential reliable informant showed a detective, whose identity was sealed by the court, how to conceal narcotics within envelopes and letters. (Id. (Detective Decl. ¶¶ 6-12)). The experience of the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department with the increasingly sophisticated nature of smuggling contraband through envelopes and letters is directly relevant to the advantages and rationality of a postcard restriction on inmate mail.
B. Hearsay. Defendants agree that portion of Mr. Held’s declaration relied upon by defendants – showing that drugs have been hidden in the glue strip of envelopes – was hearsay. (Id. (Held Decl. ¶¶16-19)). Defendants withdraw reliance on his declaration. None of the other declarants’ statements contain hearsay. Their observations were based on their personal knowledge, training, and experience, and were made in the context of explaining the reasons the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department adopted a postcard policy for incoming and outgoing inmate mail. C. The Declarations Were Obtained After the Discovery Cutoff to Respond to
PLN’s Arguments in its Motion.
The challenged declarations were obtained in response to PLN’s suggestion in its motion that a jail cannot rely on the experiences of other jails when formulating policies. (Dkt. 98, PLN’s Mot., Mem. at 3-5 (arguing that following the lead of the Washington County Sheriff’s Office was “irrational”), 12 (“Indeed, the Jail did not adopt its Postcard-Only Policy to address an actual problem ….”), 13 (“Defendants could have investigated whether, and if so how, contraband actually enters the Jail ….”). PLN filed its motion after the discovery cutoff. Defendants submitted the declarations to rebut PLN’s arguments and to show the rationality of the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office’s prior postcard restriction.

Page 4 – SURREPLY MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO STRIKE

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 121 Filed 11/09/12 Page 5 of 6

A discovery cutoff date does not prohibit a party from searching for evidence outside of

formal discovery to support its claims and defenses. Los Angeles News Service v. CBS

Broadcasting, Inc., 305 F.3d 924, 933 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that a parties’ stipulation to not

conduct further discovery did not forbid a party from obtaining relevant information outside of

the discovery rules and using it to support a motion for summary judgment); cf. Seattle Times

Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 34 (1984) (holding that information gathered independently from

the discovery process is not subject to the court’s inherent control over documents produced in

discovery). In the present case, defendants are not limited to using documents produced prior to

the fact discovery deadline to support its defenses, particularly in light of the fact that PLN filed

its motion after the discovery cutoff. Defendants obtained the declarations on October 5, 2012,

see 2d Roberson Decl. ¶¶ 4-5, and submitted them to PLN on October 16, 2012, along with their

response brief. Thus, the declarations were submitted in a timely fashion. See F.R.C.P. 26(e)(1).

Although not required given defendants initial disclosures, defendants formally supplemented

their initial disclosures on November 7, 2012. (2d Roberson Decl. ¶ 7).

D. Redactions Were Pursuant to a State Court’s Order.

The redactions to some of the declarations were ordered by the state court judge. (Dkt.

115, Roberson Decl. ¶ 13, Ex. L, p.1). Defendants cannot violate a court order by submitting

unredacted declarations. Defendants are not relying on any redacted factual information. PLN

complains that the declaration of the unnamed detective is “unsworn,” which is not accurate.

The detective’s declaration was sworn but his name redacted pursuant to the court’s order.

This is not a situation in which defendants are relying on statements that are not part of

the public record, or are withholding relevant information from PLN. Here, a state court ordered

certain factual information – not relied upon by defendants – redacted. The Court should admit

the declarations that have redactions. Cf. Spreadbury v. Bitterroot Public Library, 2011 WL

5530577 (D. Mont. Nov. 14, 2011) (refusing to strike a police report that was redacted pursuant

to a state court order on the basis that there was no legal authority for a federal court to enforce a

state court’s ruling).
Page 5 – SURREPLY MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO STRIKE

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 121 Filed 11/09/12 Page 6 of 6
III. Defendants Withdraw Exhibit K. Defendants withdraw Exhibit K to the Declaration of Gregory R. Roberson, thus mooting
PLN’s motion. Defendants’ continue to rely on Undersheriff Moyer’s statement that the threat of an inmate mailing white powder in an envelope is eliminated for personal inmate mail with the Columbia County Sheriff’s Offices’ prior postcard policy. (Dkt. 115, Roberson Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. B (Moyer Dep. 169:1-170:8)).
Respectfully submitted this 9th day of November, 2012.
HART WAGNER LLP
By: /s/ Greg Roberson Gregory R. Roberson, OSB No. 064847 Steven A. Kraemer, OSB No. 882476 Of Attorneys for Defendants

Page 6 – SURREPLY MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO STRIKE

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 122 Filed 11/09/12 Page 1 of 2

Steven A. Kraemer, OSB No. 882476 E-mail: sak@hartwagner.com Gregory R. Roberson, OSB No. 064847 E-mail: grr@hartwagner.com HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301
Of Attorneys for Defendants

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,

No. 3:12-cv-0071-SI

Plaintiffs,

v.

SECOND DECLARATION OF GREGORY

R. ROBERSON

COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF DICKERSON, individual and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,

In Support of Defendants’ Surreply in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motions to Strike

Defendants.

I, Gregory R. Roberson, declare as follows:

1. I am one the attorneys representing defendants in this matter. The statements in this

declaration are based on my personal knowledge.

2. The fact discovery deadline in this matter was August 31, 2012.

3. PLN filed its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Declaratory and Injunctive Relief on

September 13, 2012. In its motion, PLN argued that a postcard restriction on inmate mail

was irrational in part because it was not adopted in response to a specific threat that had

occurred at the Columbia County Jail. Dkt. 98 at 3-4.

4. On October 3, 2012, attorney Jeffrey Held agreed to provide defendants declarations that

were filed in compliance with a court’s order in In re Garcia et al. v. Chief Deputy David

Page 1 – SECOND DECLARATION OF GREGORY R. ROBERSON

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 122 Filed 11/09/12 Page 2 of 2
Tennessen et al., Ventura County Superior Court Case No. MA-004-11 in California. Mr. Held defended Respondent Assistant Undersheriff Gary Pentis in the matter. 5. My office received a copy of the declarations from Mr. Held’s office on October 5, 2012. 6. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and accurate copy of an email from Greg Roberson to Jesse Wing and Katherine Chamberlain dated October 4, 2012. 7. Defendants supplemented its initial disclosures on November 7, 2012. Attached as Exhibit B is a true and accurate copy of Defendants’ Third Supplemental FRCP 26(a)(1) Disclosures. 8. Attached as Exhibit C are true and accurate excerpts from the deposition of Jim Carpenter taken on July 5, 2012.
I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
Respectfully submitted this 9th day of November, 2012.
By: /s/ Gregory R. Roberson Gregory R. Roberson

Page 2 – SECOND DECLARATION OF GREGORY R. ROBERSON

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 122-1 Filed 11/09/12 Page 1 of 2

Gregory Roberson
From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:
Attachments:

Gregory Roberson Thursday, October 04, 2012 12:45 PM Jesse Wing; 'Katherine C. Chamberlain' Brina M. Carranza; Jennifer King PLN v. Columbia County - Additional CD with discovery
CC002303-2343.PDF

Jesse and Katie:
Jim Carpenter recently cleaned-out the office he used when he was the Jail Commander. As he did this, he found a CD in a stack of other CDs. The CD contained documents from Washington County and Marion County relevant to the institution of the postcard restriction on inmate mail in 2010. You may already have some of these documents.

Greg Roberson Hart Wagner LLP 1000 SW Broadway Suite 2000 Portland, OR 97205 Tel: (503) 222-4499 Fax: (503) 222-2301

EXHIBIT ^
PAGE 1 QF

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 122-1 Filed 11/09/12 Page 2 of 2
OREGON STATE SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION
Oregon State Jail Command Council
r.-C4 •-.;;..
V*1 TRANSITION TO POSTCARDS
FOR INMATE MAIL
Cmdr. Marie Tyler, WCSO
12-09-09
A EXHIBIT
PAGE _2L OF Z_

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 122-2 Filed 11/09/12 Page 1 of 5

Steven A. Kraemer, OSB No. 882476
E-mail: sak@hartwaener.com
Gregory R. Roberson, OSB No. 064847
E-mail: grr(5),hartwagner.com HART WAGNER LLP
1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503)222-2301
Of Attorneys for Defendants

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the
HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,

No. 3:12-0071-SI

Plaintiff,
v
COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE; JEFF
DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,

DEFENDANTS' THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL FRCP 26(a)(1)
DISCLOSURES

Defendants.
In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1), defendants disclose the following:

1.
Defendants object to producing name and contact information ofindividuals likely to
have discoverable information if the name and/or contact information of the individual is subject
to attorney-client privilege, work product or materials prepared in anticipation oflitigation. Subject to these objections, defendants disclose the following:
a. Sheriff Jeff Dickerson. He can be reached through defense counsel. He has
discoverable information regarding the adoption of defendants' inmate mail policies.

///

Page 1-DEFENDANTS' THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL

FRCP 26(a)(1) DISCLOSURES * **ov *

*-•*-'•

^^„ ._._.„

o
"***"*««• "f EXHIBIT J>
""^ISSHST "" PAGE J „ 0 F ^ _ mnn <i\v Rrniwlwitv. 1 wpiifiefh Floor
Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503)222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 122-2 Filed 11/09/12 Page 2 of 5

b. Undersheriff Andy Moyer. He can be reached through defense counsel. He has discoverable information regarding the adoption of defendants' inmate mail policies.
c. Sergeant Bryan Cutright. He can be reached through defense counsel. He has discoverable information regarding the adoption of defendants' inmate mail policies.

d. Sergeant Lee Rigdon. He can be reached through defense counsel. He has

discoverable information regarding the adoption of defendants' inmate mail policies.

e. Plaintiffs representatives to be disclosed through discovery. It is expected that their

testimony will relate to plaintiffs claimed damages.

f. All individuals identified in documents to be produced by plaintiff, all documents produced in discovery and all documents provided in response to subpoena, if any.

g. All individuals named in any interrogatory response, if any.

h. All individuals listed in plaintiffs Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) disclosures.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE: Without waving the above objections, defendants are
not withholding any privileged information about witnesses it may use to support itsdefenses.

2.
Defendants object to producing documents subject to attorney-client privilege, work product or materials prepared in anticipation oflitigation. Subject to these objections, defendants may use its mail policies, documents relating to the amount ofmail received by the Columbia County Jail, documents produced in response to plaintiffs discovery requests, and anticipated discovery from

plaintiff to support itsdefenses. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE: Defendants may use itsmail policies attached as Exhibits
A-H tothe Declaration of SheriffJeffDickerson. The documents relating to the amount of mail
received by the Columbia County Jail are data contained in the Jail's Golden Eagle software and database program; there are no such records to produce at this time from Golden Eagle that

defendants may use to supportits defenses.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE (U/07/2012): Declarations attached as Exhibit L to

the Declaration ofGregory R. Roberson In Support ofDefendants' Response to PLN's Motion

Pa8ee 2- DFFRRECCFEPPN226D6((Aaa)N£(1nT)SDD' IITSSHCCILLROODSSUUSURRPEEPSSLEMENTAL

*

ww

,oooS.wIIA..iRr,oT,uWtwnA»(y!,NTE>Rvc,Xn,Pichino«r EXHIBIT "D2 Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 PAGE Z^ OF ^
Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 122-2 Filed 11/09/12 Page 3 of 5
for Partial Summary Judgment on Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. The declarants can be reached through their counsel, Jeff Held at Wisotsky, Proctor & Shyer, 300 Esplanade Drive, Suite 1500, Oxnard, CA 93036, telephone number (805) 278-0920.
Documents on a CD entitled "Transition to Postcards For Inmate Mail" produced to PLN on October 4,2012.
3.
Defendants seek attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 that will be decided in a posttrial proceeding.
4.
Defendants will produce a copy of its agreement with City County Insurance Services that may satisfyajudgment in this action.
SUPPLEMENTAL REPONSE: Enclosed. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE (06/12/2012): CC001563-CC001588.
Defendants reserve the right to supplement and amend these disclosures as the claims and defenses are developed through discovery.
Respectfully submitted this 7th day of November, 2012.
HART WAGNER LLP
By: Steven A. Kraemer, OSB No. 882476
Gregory R. Roberson, OSB No. 064847
Of Attorneys for Defendants

Page 3 - DEFENDANTS' THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL FRCP 26(a)(1) DISCLOSURES

HART WAGNER LLP
1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor Portland, Oregon 97205
Telephone: (503) 222-4499
Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

EXHIBIT _2 ,
PAGE JL OF 51

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 122-2 Filed 11/09/12 Page 4 of 5
for Partial Summary Judgment on Deelaralorv and Injunctive Relief. The declarants ean be reached through their counsel. Jeff Hold, at Wisotsky. Proctor & Shyer. 300 Esplanade Drive, Suite 1500, Oxnard. CA 93036. telephone number (805) 278-0920.
Documents on a CD entitled "Transition to Postcards for Inmate Mail" produced to PLN
on October 4, 2012.
3.
Defendants seek attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. sj 1988 that will be decided in a posttrial proceeding.
4.
Defendants will produce a copy of its agreement with City County Insurance Services that may satisfy a judgment in this action.
SUPPLEMENTAL REPONSE: Enclosed. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE (06/12/2012): CC001563-CC001588.
Defendants reserve the right to supplement and amend these disclosures as the claims and
defenses are developed through discovery.
Respectfully submitted this 7lh day of November. 2012.
HART WAGNER LLP
Hv {$&{[
Steven A^Kraemer. OSB No. 882476
Gregory R. Roberson, OSB No. 064847
Of Allornevs for Defendants

Page 3 - DEFENDANTS' THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL
FRCP 26(a)(1) DISCLOSURES

IIAIM WACNKK l.l.P
IMIOSAV. linniilwsiy, Twentieth Hi.
IWlliiml. On-siim 97205
IVU-ph.Mie: (5IIJ) 222-4AW DApC
Ksii-siniik: (503)222-231)1

8
OF $-

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 122-2 Filed 11/09/12 Page 5 of 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Ihereby certify that on the 7lh day ofNovember, 2012,1 served the foregoing
DEFENDANTS' THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL FRCP 26(a)(1) DISCLOSURES, on the following
parties at the following addresses:
Marc D Blackman Ransom Blackman LLP 1001 SWSthAveSte 1400 Portland OR 97204 (Catherine C Chamberlain
Jesse Wing MacDonald Hoague & Bayless
705 Second Ave Ste 1500 Seattle WA 98104
e-mailing to them a true and correct copy thereof.
Gregory R.^Roberson

Paue I - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

pageJL0F-^-
MAUI WAGNKK 1.1.1'
Attorneys :it Law 1000 S.W. m-oadw ay. Twentieth Floor
Portland. Oregon 97205 Telephone (503) 222-4499

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 122-3 Filed 11/09/12 Page 1 of 9 Carpenter, Jim

July 5, 2012

Page 1

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF OREGON

3

PORTLAND DIVISION

4
5 PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project 6 of the Human Rights Defense

7

Center,

8

Plaintiff,

No. 3:12-CV-71-SI

9

v.

10

COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA

11

COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF

12 DICKERSON, individually and

13 in his capacity as Columbia

14 County Sheriff,

15

Defendants.

16

17

18

19

20

DEPOSITION OF JIM CARPENTER

21

Taken in behalf of Plaintiff

22

July 5, 2012

23

24

25

Beovich Walter & Friend

PAGE.lZoTlL

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 122-3 Filed 11/09/12 Page 2 of 9 Carpenter, Jim

July 5,2012

Page 2

1

BE IT REMEMBERED THAT, the deposition of

2

JIM CARPENTER was reported by Aleshia K. Macom,

3

CSR No. 94-0296, on Thursday, July 5, 2012,

4

commencing at the hour of 10:02 a.m., the

5

proceedings being reported at Hart Wagner,

6

1000 SW Broadway, Suite 2000, Portland, Oregon.

7

8

APPEARANCES

9

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS

10

By Katherine C. Chamberlain and Jesse A. Wing

11

705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500

12

Seattle, Washington 98104

13

Appearing for Plaintiff

14

15

HART WAGNER LLP

16

By Steven Kraemer

17

1000 SW Broadway, Suite 2000

18

Portland, Oregon 97205

19

Appearing for Defendants

20

***

21 22 23 24 25

Beovich Walter & Friend

EXHIBIT e
PAGE "2- QF^

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 122-3 Filed 11/09/12 Page 3 of 9
Carpenter, Jim

July 5, 2012

Page 3

1

EXAMINATION INDEX

2

3

Examination by Ms. Chamberlain

Page
4

4

5

6

EXHIBIT INDEX

7

Exhibit No.

Item

8

91

Deposition notice

9

92

May 5, 2011 Postcard grievance

10

response template

11

93

Inmate grievance form

Page
133
138 142

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Beovich Walter & Friend

^
EXHIBIT
PAGE J OF

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 122-3 Filed 11/09/12 Page 4 of 9 Carpenter, Jim

July 5,2012

Page 4

1

JIM CARPENTER,

2

was thereupon produced as a witness and, after

3

having been duly sworn on oath, was examined and

4

testified as follows:

5

6

EXAMINATION

7

BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN:

8 Q. Good morning, Mr. Carpenter.

9 A. 10 Q.
11
12

Morning. I'm Katie Chamberlain. I'm one of the attorneys
representing Prison Legal News in this matter.
For the record, Mr. Carpenter is here with Steve

13

Kraemer; the court reporter.

14

Mr. Carpenter, how do you go, what, what do

15

people call you at the jail? Do they call you

16

commander?

17 A. Captain.

18 Q. Captain Carpenter? Okay. Could you please

19

spell your full name for the record.

20 A. Jim, JIM, Carpenter, CARPENTER.

21 Q. Is Jim short for James?

22

A.

23 q.

24

25

No.
Okay. I'm going to be asking you some questions
today. And if you don't understand one of my
questions, I am going to need you to let me know

Beovich Walter &Friend

EXHIBIT a
PAGE *•/• OF °)

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 122-3 Filed 11/09/12 Page 5 of 9

Carpenter, Jim

July 5, 2012

Page 30

Page 32

1 still had to deal with the stamps coming in 2 through the mail; is that right?
3 A. 1 believe so.
4 Q. Okay. So the Columbia County Jail ended up 5 adopting a postcard-only policy; correct?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. Okay. And were you involved in makingthat 8 happen?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. How were you involved? 11 A. 1listened to what was said at the meeting, at 12 the OSSA meeting, and the sheriff, I believe the 13 sheriff, it may have been brought up at the 14 sheriffs meeting. I wasn't in there. But the

meeting that happened in December 2009?
2 A I believe so.
3 Q And was SheriffDickerson at that meeting?
4 A Yes.
5 Q What about UndersheriffMoyer?
6 A I don't know.
7 Q Okay. But am I correct that you were actually 8 at the part of the meeting where Washington 9 County was introducing the idea of a 10 postcard-only policy?
11 A. That is correct.
12 Q. Okay. And did the sheriff ask you to look into 13 whether it would be at the appropriate, at the 14 Columbia County Jail; is that right?

15 sheriff asked me to look into it. I, at the

16 meetings they said that, at the meeting they

17 said that Washington County would purchase all

18 the postcards. So it would be less of an

19 expense to the inmates. And we would get those

20 from Washington County, purchase them from

21 Washington County.

22

I relayed that to the sheriff and ultimately

23 the sheriff made the decision to go with the

24 postcard program.

25 Q. Did 1hear you say that, did I hear you mention

15 A. Yes. Well, I think he asked me to look into the

16 process of it.

17 Q. Okay. What do you mean by that? 18 A. How you would implement it, how we were going to

19 implement it if we did.

20 Q. So how did you look into that? 21 A. I talked with Marie Tyler on one occasion on the

22

phone.

23 Q. Who's Marie Tyler? 24 A. She's with Washington County Sheriffs.

25 Q What did you talk to her about?

Page 31

Page 33

1 a meeting that you were not at?

1 A. She's the one that brought it up at the OSSA

2 A. No.

2 meeting. And I've always been taught don't

3 Q. No. I thoughtyou said, youjust testified I

3 reinvent the wheul. And so they are a bigger

4 wasn't there. What were you referring to?

4 agency than we are, much bigger, and wejust

5

Can you read that back.

5 followed along with their process.

6

(Record read as follows:

6 Q. So what did you speak with her about on the

7

"A I listened to what was said at the

7 phone?

8

meeting,at the OSSA meeting, and the

8 A. About purchasing the postcards. 1think that

9

sheriff, I believe the sheriff, it may

9 was the main thing. About where the postcards

10

have been brought up at the sheriffs'

10 would come from and the cost of the postcards.

11

meeting.")

11 Q. How long was your discussion with her?

12 Q. BYMS. CHAMBERLAIN: So when you referto the 12 A. It was very short, as I remember.

13 sheriffs' meeting, what do you mean?

13 Q. A few minutes?

14 A. Well, at the OSSA meeting that we went to,

14 A. Yeah.

15 there's break-out sessions. And the jail

15 Q. Now, at the OSSA meetingwhen the idea of

16 commanders in one meeting, I think the

16 postcard-only policy was introduced, was there a

17 undersheriffs are in another meeting and the

17 discussion about why counties should adopt this

18 sheriffs are in another meeting. And at times

18 policy?

19 they come together and they talkabout what went

19 A. I don't remember. 1 know there was discussion,

20 on at the meetings. And many times in a jail 21 commanders' meeting we're talking about

20 but it's been a long time ago.
21 Q. Was there a discussion regarding the pros and

22 something, they may be talking about the same

22 cons of having a postcard-only policy?

23 thing in the sheriffs' meetingsand I was not at

23 A. Yes.

24 that portion of the meeting. 25 Q. Thank you for explaining that. Was this an OSSA

24 Q. What do you remember about that? 25 A. 1just remember that we talkeda lot about

Beovich Walter & Friend

9 (Pages 30 to 33)
EXHIBIT
PAGE ^ ¥ ^

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 122-3 Filed 11/09/12 Page 6 of 9

Carpenter, Jim

July 5, 2012

Page 34

safety and security of the facilities and we

2 talked about cost savings. And although it

2

3 wasn't really an important part of it, I think

3

4 we talked a little bit about time savings, which

4

5 is cost savings.

5

6

Anything else?

6

7

That's what I can remember.

7

8

Was there any discussion about what the possible 8

9 negative effects of postcard-only policy would

9

10

be?

10

11 A. I don't remember.

II

12 Q. Was there any discussion about prisoners'

12

13 rights?

13

14 A. We did talk about if, if they would be as, if it

14

15 would be much different for the prisoner than

15

16 what they were doing now. And the thought was

16

17 they could write anything on a postcard that

17

18 they could write in an envelope because we

18

19 inspect the envelopes for basic safety and

19

20 security anyway before they go out. So we

20

21

didn't feel there was a, there was a problem as

21

22

far as inmates were concerned.

22

23 Q. At the time that you attend that meeting in

23

24 Decemberof 2009, you had previously done the

24

25 mail inspection yourselfat some point in the

25

Page 36
Now, prior to the postcard-only policy, inmates at the Columbia County Jail could write multiple pieces of paper, front and back, and put them in an envelope with a stamp on it and send it out; is that right?
Yes.
Okay. So at the OSSA meeting was there any discussion at all about potential negative effect of the postcard-only policy?
1 don't remember.
You mention that one of the topics was cost savings. What was discussed in that regard?
What was discussed?
Yes.
The only part I remember was that it would take the employee a lot less time to scan the mail.
Why? Why? Because they don't have to open the envelope, take the paper out, go through all the
paper. They can just pick it up and look at it and send it on its way. Less, less had to be done as far as looking for contraband because it wasn't in an envelope. Any other reason there was cost savings?
Not that 1 can remember.

Page 35

Page 37

1 past; is that right?

2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Okay. And how typically did inmates communicate 4 by mail? Did they usually send letters in 5 envelopes or did they usually send postcards?

6

How did that work?

7 A. I think the usual thing was letter envelopes.

8 Q. Usually one piece of paper in an envelope?

9 Multiple pages or did it vary?

10 A. It varied.
11 Q. Was there a discussion at the OSSA meeting that 12 prisoners had less room to write on a postcard

13 than they did using letters -

14 A. I don't think that was in discussion.

15 Q. Do you agree?
16 A. Do I agree with what? 17 Q. Doyou agree that postcards provide less space

18 for an inmate to write to someone when compared
19 to writing on multiple pieces of paper and 20 putting them in an envelope? 21 A. Well, I would say that it could be less space. 22 But I feel like they write smaller and they

23 write on both sides of it and they can write as
24 many postcards as they want. So I don't think

25 that's, I didn't feel that was an issue.

1 Q. Had any studies been done on the amount of

2 savings or —

3 A. Not that I know of.
4 Q. Before implementing the postcard-only policy at

5 the Columbia County Jail, did you have any

6 discussions with the leadership at the jail

7 about whether or not that kind of policy would

8 be appropriate?
9 A. Who do you mean when you say the leadership of

10 the jail?
11 Q. Sergeants, first sergeants, undersheriff,

12

sheriff?

13 A. Well, we brought up the postcard policies

14 several times before we implemented them, and to 15 the bestof my recollection nobody really had an 16 issue with it, a negative issue with it.

17 Q. Soyou never received any negative feedback?

18 A. Not that 1 remember.
19 Q. At the time that the sheriff asked you to 20 determine how to implement the policy, had a

21 decision already been made to adopt a

22 postcard-only policy?

23 A. 1 don't remember.
24 Q. How was the decision made to adopt a 25 postcard-only policy at the Columbia County

Beovich Walter & Friend

zI0j£ages34to37) PAGEj£_0F_^_

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 122-3 Filed 11/09/12 Page 7 of 9

Carpenter, Jim

July 5, 2012

Page 82

Page 84

1 phone. There be was not a specific deputy.

2

So therewasn't somesort of recording like

3

press 3 to hear about inmate mail?

4

Not that I know of.

5

And did you play any role in ensuring that the

6 deputiesthat answered that phone line had

7 up-to-date information about the mail policies

8 and procedures?

Well, I was just shown it and asked if I knew of

2

this document.

i
j

MR. KRAEMER: Don't talk about what was

4

discussed.

5

THE WITNESS: Sorry.

6 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Didyou look at anyother

7

documents?

8 A. Not that I remember.

9 A. No.
10 Q. Who did that? II A. Sergeant Cutright. 12 Q. And did you take any steps to make sure he was 13 doing that?

9 0. This was two days ago?

10 A. Yes.

II Q. And you're not sure if you looked at any other

12

documents?

13 A. No.

14 A. No.
15 Q. What about the jail's website, who was 16 responsible for making sure that the website had

14 Q. Okay. You had mentioned, Captain Carpenter, 15 earlier in your deposition that you didn't,
16 don't have a great memory.

17 up-to-date information available to the public

17 A. That's correct.

18 about the inmate mail procedures and policies?

19 A. The sheriff.

20 Q. So how did, how did that work? Did you play any 21 role in providing information to the sheriff to

22 put on the website?

23

No.

24

Who did that?

18 o. Why is that? 19 A. Well, 1don't know why that is. My grandfather,

20 grandmother both had Alzheimer's disease and I'm

21

fighting a little bit of my memory.

22 Q. Okay. How long have you struggled with that?

23 A. For a while.

24 Q. More than a few months?

25

I didn't. I don't know.

25 A. Yes.

Page 83

Page 85

1 Q. Did you take any steps to make sure that indeed 2 whatsays, what it says here, the inmate guide 3 actually happened, that is, information was 4 provided to the public on the sheriffs website

5

about inmate mail?

6 A. I didn't know anythingabout the website. I had

7

never been on the website.

8 Q. So am I correct in assuming you did not take any

9 steps to make sure that that was happening?

10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. I direct yourattention to Exhibit 12, please.

12 Have you seen this before? 13 A. Have I seen this printout before?

14 Q. Yes.

15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Okay. When was that?

17 A. On Tuesday.
18 Q. Okay. And prior to Tuesday of this week, had

19 you seen this before?

20 A. No.
21 Q. Okay. Did you review any other documents on

22 Tuesday?

23 A. Not that I remember.
24 Q. And did you review this document in preparation

25 for your deposition?

Q. Okay. Did you struggle with that while you were

2 the jail commander?

3 A. Some.
4 Q. Includingthat first year that you were the jail

5

commander?

6 A. Doesthis get into the medical thing?

7

MR. KRAEMER: Well, she's getting pretty

8 close and I think that's appropriate. I don't

9 think she's there yet.

10

THE WITNESS: Yeah. Little bit.

11 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: In 2009 you had some

12 A. I believe I was, yeah.

13 Q. - memory problems? Okay. We're interrupting

14 each other again. 1know it's hard for the

15 court reporter. So let'stry and be careful

16

about that.

17

So do you recognize the information in

18

Exhibit 12?

19

I recognize it as being pretty much what's in

20

the inmate manual.

21 Q. Okay. Werethere any exceptions?

22 A. I haven't read it that close.

23 Q. Why don'tyou take a moment to lookat

24

Exhibit 12.

25

I believe it's pretty much what's in the inmate

Beovich Walter & Friend

22 (Pages 82 to 85)
.2:ofj2_

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 122-3 Filed 11/09/12 Page 8 of 9

Carpenter, Jim

July 5, 2012

Page 86

Page 88

1

manual.

2 Q. So is the content of Exhibit 12 what you

3 understand to be the jail's policies and

4 procedures or summary of those policies and

5 procedures regarding inmate mail at the time

6 that you were jail commander?

7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Okay. Could you take a look, please, at

9 Exhibit 6. Have you seen Exhibit 6 before?

10 A. Yes.
11 Q. When did you see it?

12 A. It was sent to me in the mail.

13 Q. When was it sent to you?

14 A. I don't remember the date.
15 Q. Was it in the past couple weeks?

16 A. Maybe in the past three weeks or so.

17 Q. And was Exhibit 6 sent to you in this form, that

18 is, with the questions and responses included?

19 A. I don't believe so.
20 Q. So did you just receive the questions or what is

21 it that you remember receiving?

22 A. I just received the letter and, I didn't receive

23

this.

24 Q. Okay.

25 A. I just, I just received a letter in the, 1

1 your deposition?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Okay. And did you take steps to look for any

4

documents?

5 A. I don't have access to those now that I'm

6

retired.

7 Q. Okay. Did you read the request for documents?

8 A. Did I read it?

9 Q. Yes.

10 A. I believe so.

11 Q. And did you take any steps to look for documents

12 you may have in your possession at home or at

13

work?

14 A. 1don't have any.

15 Q. Okay. You knew that as soon as you read it?

16 A. Yes. 1didn't take anything when I left the

17

sheriffs office.

18 Q. Do you have a personal e-mail account?

19 A. Do I have a personal e-mail account?

20 Q. Yes.

21 A. Sure.

22 Q. Okay. And did you have it, do you have any

23 information in your personal e-mail account 24 regarding your work at the Columbia County

25

Sheriffs Office?

Page 87

Page 89

1 didn't receive this. 1just received a letter

2 saying that I was going to be —

3

MR. KRAEMER: Don't say what it said.

4

THE WITNESS: I just received a letter.

5 Q. BY MS. CHAMBERLAIN: The letter from your

6 attorney?

7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Okay. And did you receive something like

9

Exhibit 6? Sounds like it looked familiar to

10 you.

11 A. Like this? No.
12 Q. You may just be referring to the heading on the

13 first page? 14 A. Yeah. This first page. I mean, I remember this

15 part right here.

16 Q. Okay. 17 A. But I don't remember any, I didn't get any of

18

that.

19 Q. Okay. Have you at any time since February this

20 year received a copy of the request for

21 documents that Prison Legal News asked the

22 sheriff to produce?

23 A. I, in the letter that I received it did ask for

24

documents in there.

25 Q. Okay. Are you referring to the subpoena for

1 A. None.

2 Q. So you never forwarded e-mails —

3 A. No.

4 Q. - to that personal account?

5 A. No, I didn't.

6 Q. Okay. What is your current job with the

7

Columbia County Sheriffs Office?

8 A. I'm a facilities person. I help the maintenance

9 man, make sure that the facility is functioning

10 properly.

11 Q. When you say facilities, what facilities are you

12 referring to? 13 A. The jail itself, the building, the outside of

14 the building, in the building.

15 Q. So do you supervise the maintenance persons? 16 A. No. I don't supervise them. I work with them.

17 Q. Okay. So what specifically do you do?

18 A. Well, whatever comes up with the facility, I try

19 to facilitate it as far as making sure that, for

20 instance, had a leak in the water pipe. Because

21

I was there when they built the facility, 1was

22 involved in making sure that the repair of that

23 was done properly and helped with the people

24 that put it in and the people that designed it

25

and so forth.

Beovich Walter & Friend

PAGE

23 (Pages 86 to 89)
o

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 122-3 Filed 11/09/12 Page 9 of 9

Carpenter, Jim

July 5. 2012

CERTIFICATE

Page 144

2

3

I, Aleshia K. Macom, CSR No. 94-0296, do

4

hereby certify that JIM CARPENTER personally

5

appeared before me at the time and place

6

mentioned in the caption herein; that the

7

witness was by me first duly sworn on oath, and

8

examined upon oral interrogatories propounded by

9

counsel; that said examination, together with

10

the testimony of said witness, was taken down by

11

me in stenotype and thereafter reduced to

12

typewriting; and that the foregoing transcript,

13

Pages 1 to 143, both inclusive, constitutes a

14

full, true and accurate record of said

15

examination of and testimony given by said

16

witness, and of all other proceedings had during

17

the taking of said deposition, and of the whole

18

thereof, to the best of my ability.

19

Witness my hand at Portland, Oregon, this

20

18th daj^of July, 2012.

21

22

23

Aleshia K. Macom

24

CSR No. 94-0296

25

Beovich Walter & Friend

 </s> IllfflgffigTFacilities JCima-seSu3rr:e1p2ly-ctov-P0l0f M07SJ1-ISnjIunctDioonc-uCmarepnentt1er2D3ecLFDiOleCd 11/09/12 Page 1 of 5
Steven A. Kraemer, OSB No. 882476 E-mail: sak@hartwagner.com Gregory R. Roberson, OSB No. 064847
E-mail: grr@hartwagner.com
HART WAGNER LLP
1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301
OfAttorneys for Defendants

Pagel

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the
HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,
No. 3:12-cv-0071-SI
Plaintiffs,

COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA
COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF DICKERSON, individual and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,

DECLARATION OF JIM CARPENTER
In Support of Defendants' Surreply in Opposition to PLN's Motions to Strike

Defendants.

I, Jim Carpenter, declare as follows:
1. The statements in this declaration are based on my personal knowledge. 2. In late September, 2012, UndersheriffAndrew Moyer told me to clear out the office I used
when I was Captain at the Columbia County Jail.
3. I retired as Captain in June, 2011. I continue to work part-time at the Columbia County
Sheriffs Office in a facilities position. 4. While going through the papers in the office, I found a CD entitled "Transition to Postcards
for Inmate Mail." The CD was in a stack of other CDs.
5. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and accurate copy of the front of the CD.

Page 1 - DECLARATION OF JIM CARPENTER

HART WAGNER LLP
1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor Portland, Oregon 97205
Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 123 Filed 11/09/12 Page 2 of 5
K-.,.; '••'.;'',

(11/8/2012) Facilities JCima-sSeu3rr:e1p2ly-ctov-P0l0f M07S1J-ISnjIunctDioonc-uCmarepnent t1er2D3ecl.FDiOleCd 11/09/12 Page 3 of 5

Page 2

6. I was not aware that the CD existed and I do not remember receiving it at any time. 7. I probably received it at the Oregon State Sheriffs Association conference held in
December, 2009.
8. I gave the CD to SheriffJeffrey Dickerson on September 27, 2012, which is also the day I
found it.
I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING IS
TRUE AND CORRECT.
Respectfully submitted this 7!h day of November, 2012.
By:
Sm^rpenter

OFFICIAL SEAL TIMMI SUE HALD NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON
COMMISSION NO. 441912
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUGUST 13, 2013
Ql4n^H^in^^i^J^X^

Page 2 - DECLARATION OF JIM CARPENTER

HART WAGNER LLP
1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor Portland, Oregon 97205
Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 123 Filed 11/09/12 Page 4 of 5
OREGON STATE SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION Oregon State Jail Command Council
/
/
i,7f s*-
^ A.
TRANSITION TO POSTCARDS
FOR INMATE MAIL
Cmdr. Marie Tyler, WCSO
12-09-09

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 123 Filed 11/09/12 Page 5 of 5

* * * Personal Journal ( Nov. 8. 2012 8:36AM ) * * *
D 2)

<TX>
Date Time Destination
Nov. 8. 8:29AM 915032222301

e
G3TESM

TXtime Page Result
0*24" P. 3 OK

User Name

p. 1
lanual print)
File No.
5131

<RX)
Date Time Sender

File

Mode

RXt ime Page Result User Name

No.

TX Count

#

Batch

M

Me mo r y

S

Standard

>

Reduct ion

Q

RX Notice R e a.

CD

Folder

008234
C L D H A

Co n "f i dent i a 1 Send later Detail Store 6/0. Server RX Notice

RX Count

Transfer

©

Forwardina

F

Fine

X

LAN-Fax

Ma i 1

017625

P E U + <•>

SEP Code ECM Super Fine Del i v e r y I P-FAX

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 123-1 Filed 11/09/12 Pagelo1. !o>flj1
OREOON STATE SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION Oregon 8laU Jail Command Council
/
jjMQ^
3
'<*)
TRANSITION TO POSTCARDS FOR INMATE MAIL
Cmdr. Morle Tyler, WCSO
12-09'09
EXHIBIT _
PAGE 4 OF \

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 1 of 113 Page ID#: 3306 1

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

3

4 PRISON LEGAL NEWS,

)

)

5

Plaintiff,

) Case No. 3:12-CV-0071-SI

)

6

vs.

) November 16, 2012

)

7 COLUMBIA COUNTY, et al., ) Portland, Oregon

)

8

Defendants. )

9

10

11

12

MOTION HEARING

13

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

14

BEFORE THE HONORABLE MICHAEL H. SIMON

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 2 of 113 Page ID#: 3307 2

1

APPEARANCES

2 FOR THE PLAINTIFF: 3 4

Jesse Wing Katherine C. Chamberlain MacDonald Hoague & Bayless, Suite 1500 705 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98104

5

6 FOR THE DEFENDANTS: 7 8

Steven A. Kraemer Gregory R. Roberson Hart Wagner LLP 1000 SW Broadway, Suite 2000 Portland, OR 97205

9

10 Via telephone:

Alissa Hull

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22 COURT REPORTER: 23 24

Dennis W. Apodaca, RMR United States District Courthouse 1000 SW Third Avenue, Room 301 Portland, OR 97204 (503) 326-8182

25

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 3 of 113 Page ID#: 3308 3

1

(November 16, 2012)

2

P R O C E E D I N G S

3

(Open court:)

4

THE COURT: Good afternoon.

5

COUNSEL: Good afternoon.

6

THE CLERK: Your Honor, this is the time set for

7 oral argument in civil case 12-71-SI, Prison Legal News

8 versus Columbia County, et al.

9

For the record, we have Alissa Hull, who is

10 appearing today pro hac vice. Her application hasn't made

11 it up to us yet. Counsel, beginning with the plaintiffs,

12 can you please state your names for the record.

13

MR. WING: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Jesse

14 Wing on behalf of Prison Legal News.

15

MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Katie Chamberlain on behalf of

16 Prison Legal News.

17

MR. KRAEMER: Steve Kraemer for defendants, Your

18 Honor.

19

MR. ROBERSON: Greg Roberson for defendants.

20

THE COURT: All right. Good afternoon.

21

We have before us today several items. We have

22 plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment regarding

23 declaratory and injunctive relief. That's Docket 85.

24 Included within that, in the reply brief, we see a motion

25 to strike -- that's Docket 119 -- several portions of

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 4 of 113 Page ID#: 3309 4

1 defendants' evidence.

2

Then we also have plaintiff's motion for partial

3 summary judgment to dismiss defendants' affirmative

4 defense of failure to mitigate. I have reviewed all of

5 the briefing. I have reviewed a portion of the evidence,

6 although my staff have reviewed all of the evidence, I

7 understand, but I have reviewed a portion of it. I have

8 reviewed all of the briefing.

9

I would like to begin with a few questions. At

10 some point you will all have an opportunity to say

11 anything that you want to say about any germane topic, but

12 I want to begin with some questions, primarily beginning

13 with questions for defendants.

14

With respect to plaintiff's motion for partial

15 summary judgment for declaratory and injunctive relief,

16 with respect to that portion of that motion that concerns

17 the challenge to the postcard-only policy under the

18 First Amendment, are there any evidentiary facts that are

19 material to that issue that are in dispute?

20

MR. ROBERSON: Your Honor --

21

THE COURT: A little louder, please.

22

MR. ROBERSON: Do you want me to address that

23 now or do you have other questions?

24

THE COURT: Right now. I am going to take you

25 through a lot of questions. I do promise you that, I

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 5 of 113 Page ID#: 3310 5

1 guess at the end of my questions, you will have the

2 opportunity to say anything else anybody wants to say. I

3 have a series of questions. I would like to hear that one

4 first.

5

And please speak up.

6

MR. ROBERSON: Thank you, Your Honor. The

7 challenge to the postcard policy, the terms are what they

8 are. I don't think PLN is arguing that the postcard

9 policy had terms different than what it states.

10

THE COURT: I'm sorry. Can you begin by

11 answering my question yes or no? If the answer to my

12 question is yes, tell me what the evidentiary facts are.

13 If the answer is no, we will deal with that.

14

MR. ROBERSON: Your Honor, we think there are

15 disputed facts, questions of fact that require the denial

16 of PLN's motion on the postcard policy violating the

17 First Amendment.

18

THE COURT: All right. Will you tell me what

19 several of the most important ones are one at a time,

20 please.

21

MR. ROBERSON: The first is the security risks

22 that are inherent in envelope mail versus a postcard that

23 does not have to be put in an envelope. We have detailed

24 what those security threats are. PLN is disputing that

25 those are threats. I think they agree that those things

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 6 of 113 Page ID#: 3311 6

1 could occur, but they are disagreeing because it never

2 happened at the Columbia County Jail.

3

THE COURT: So where is the evidentiary dispute?

4 I understand that you have put forward some of the

5 potential security risks. I know that some of them

6 identified the California declaration. We will get to

7 that issue later. I understand you have identified some

8 of the security risks. If I have got it right, some of

9 the risks are contraband that could be under postage

10 stamps, although I'm not quite sure how I see that's

11 relevant since postage stamps could also be on postcards.

12

But I notice you also put in there might be

13 metal paperclips, staples, razor blades, a variety of

14 potential types of weapons and/or contraband contained

15 under the gummed flaps of envelopes or within the leaves

16 of paper. I understand that.

17

But what is the evidentiary dispute? I don't

18 see the plaintiffs denying that those threats or risks

19 exist. Do you?

20

MR. ROBERSON: Well, I think they deny that

21 those threats exist, but they also admitted that those

22 things can happen.

23

THE COURT: Right. See, I'm trying to figure

24 out, do we need a trial to resolve that issue and other

25 issues. So do we need a trial to resolve the question of

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 7 of 113 Page ID#: 3312 7

1 whether there are the risks or threats or potential

2 dangers that can come in an envelope?

3

MR. ROBERSON: Your Honor, our position is we do

4 need a trial on that. Part of the issue here is what

5 inferences are drawn from the facts? What inferences are

6 drawn from the facts that the parties maybe could agree

7 on? This is on a summary judgment record. We're entitled

8 to those reasonable inferences.

9

THE COURT: Okay. What are the inferences that

10 you say you are entitled to?

11

MR. ROBERSON: That these security risks -- on

12 the security risk issue, that these justify treating

13 personal inmate mail differently than mail from an

14 organization.

15

THE COURT: Now, is that an inference or is that

16 a conclusion? My understanding -- and feel free to

17 disagree with me -- but my understanding is an inference

18 is akin to circumstantial evidence. We have certain basic

19 evidentiary facts. From those, we can infer other facts.

20 On the other hand, here, I don't think that there is a

21 dispute that there are security risks or threats that can

22 come in envelopes, but the question is going to be

23 ultimately how does one balance those against

24 First Amendment rights?

25

So are you saying that the question of how does

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 8 of 113 Page ID#: 3313 8

1 one balance it is a fact question?

2

MR. ROBERSON: I think the legal question on the

3 Turner test, evaluating each of the factors, is the job of

4 the Court. But the reasonable inferences drawn from the

5 facts such as what the jail perceived to be threats to

6 envelope mail, the jail's adoption of the postcard policy,

7 these are things that PLN spends about half of its brief

8 simply attacking the sheriff for defending a postcard

9 policy. The essential argument is the sheriff just can't

10 be trusted or believed.

11

We want you to hear from the sheriff himself at

12 a trial for the issues that a jury gets to resolve and for

13 the issues that Your Honor gets to resolve.

14

THE COURT: So the Turner issue is for me or the

15 jury?

16

MR. ROBERSON: I believe the balancing test is

17 for Your Honor.

18

THE COURT: Okay. So what you want to hear as

19 part of the factual presentation is the sheriff's

20 explanation for why he came to the balance that he came

21 between security risks versus, say, First Amendment

22 interests and that should, you say, be part of the full

23 evidentiary record that the Court needs to hear as part of

24 making its Turner analysis?

25

MR. ROBERSON: Yes, Your Honor.

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 9 of 113 Page ID#: 3314 9

1

THE COURT: Okay. So that's security risk. Any

2 other evidentiary issues that you believe are in dispute?

3

MR. ROBERSON: PLN has raised -- they have made

4 this argument that the jail had a policy of banning

5 magazines. We admitted in our answer all of the facts.

6 We admitted liability in our answer, and we've put forth

7 evidence that we had an unconstitutional magazine practice

8 prior to the filing of the lawsuit. To be honest, I think

9 both sides have said there is no evidentiary dispute about

10 that. They have said that we obviously have a policy of

11 banning magazines, and we've said that we don't. But the

12 policy says what the policy says. It allows periodicals.

13 To the extent there is any dispute, there is disputed

14 facts on that and that requires denial of PLN's motion

15 finding that we had a policy of banning magazines prior to

16 the lawsuit filing.

17

THE COURT: Well, let me make sure I understand

18 what you say the disputed fact is, because as far as I see

19 it, it is undisputed that you had a written policy that

20 allowed magazines. I don't think I saw a dispute from the

21 plaintiffs on that. If I did, they can correct me later.

22 I think it is also undisputed that from time to time you

23 prohibited or your client prohibited magazines. Neither

24 of those facts, I think, are in dispute. You can correct

25 me if you disagree. I just need to figure out what's the

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 10 of 113 Page ID#: 3315
10

1 legal consequence of having a written policy that says

2 magazines are allowed, but on a fair number of occasions

3 not allowing magazines on other written statements to

4 inmates and family telling them that they can't send in

5 magazines.

6

None of those underlying evidentiary facts seem

7 to me to be in dispute. But what the parties are

8 disputing, as far as I can tell, is what the legal

9 consequences are of those undisputed evidentiary items.

10

Do you disagree?

11

MR. ROBERSON: Regarding their argument that we

12 had a policy of banning magazines, there is a material

13 dispute of fact, Your Honor. I think the briefing makes

14 that clear.

15

THE COURT: What is the evidentiary dispute?

16 What pieces of evidence are in dispute? It is undisputed

17 that you had certain documents that say what they say.

18

MR. ROBERSON: Right.

19

THE COURT: I think it is undisputed that from

20 time to time you did what they say you did. So what is

21 the evidentiary dispute as opposed to the labeled or

22 nominal dispute?

23

MR. ROBERSON: PLN has pointed to non-policy

24 documents and argued that that is a policy. We dispute

25 that those documents mean what PLN is saying they

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 11 of 113 Page ID#: 3316
11

1 represent.

2

THE COURT: Okay. So the parties agree, for the

3 most part, on the terms of what certain documents say.

4 The parties probably seem to agree on certain actions that

5 took place and statements that were made. But in terms of

6 municipal liability, the County can only be held liable

7 under 1983 if they had a municipal policy. So you are

8 arguing that whether those undisputed evidentiary facts

9 constitute a policy of a municipality is disputed.

10

Do I have that right?

11

MR. ROBERSON: I think you have that right,

12 Your Honor.

13

THE COURT: Now, why isn't that a legal dispute

14 as opposed to a factual dispute?

15

MR. ROBERSON: Well, I think it bleeds into

16 both, Your Honor. You mentioned the County. We have a

17 separate argument for Columbia County.

18

THE COURT: Okay.

19

MR. ROBERSON: Another disputed fact, though, is

20 part of the analysis is whether the adoption of the

21 postcard policy was an exaggerated response to a perceived

22 problem. That's in Turner. That's in Beard v. Banks and

23 other cases we cited. Whether something is an exaggerated

24 response to something is a factual issue. That is

25 disputed and it certainly is something that is drawn from

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 12 of 113 Page ID#: 3317
12

1 the inferences of the evidence before you.

2

THE COURT: Okay.

3

MR. ROBERSON: It's something that you should

4 hear testimony on at a trial.

5

THE COURT: Is it your position as well that's a

6 question for me to draw from the evidence at trial as

7 opposed to the jury?

8

MR. ROBERSON: Yes, Your Honor.

9

THE COURT: Okay.

10

MR. ROBERSON: Another dispute we have is the

11 adequacy of the sheriff's training of its deputies in the

12 inmate mail policies and practices, the supervision of the

13 deputies, who we can identify that were rejecting mail, in

14 violation of the Constitution. Those are also disputed

15 facts.

16

THE COURT: Okay.

17

MR. ROBERSON: We have a dispute over what the

18 Web site should have said at different times. I think a

19 lot of these, if I could --

20

THE COURT: I'm not following you on that one.

21

MR. ROBERSON: Okay. PLN has stated that our

22 Web site is a violation of the Constitution because it

23 didn't have due process procedures written on it.

24

THE COURT: Well, now, that's not an evidentiary

25 dispute, is it? That's a legal dispute between you and

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 13 of 113 Page ID#: 3318
13

1 plaintiff. Am I wrong?

2

MR. ROBERSON: I agree with you, Your Honor.

3

THE COURT: Right now, let's focus on cataloging

4 the evidentiary piece. I'm trying to visualize what a

5 trial like this would be on these issues that you contend

6 should be for trial and not for summary judgment.

7

MR. ROBERSON: Another issue, Your Honor, is,

8 and I think this goes to what we've already discussed as

9 inferences drawn from the facts as opposed to facts. Part

10 of your analysis on Turner is the alternative means

11 available to inmates and the correspondence, and there are

12 disputed facts as to whether those -- I think PLN agrees

13 those are available. So we have a dispute over whether

14 they have -- whether the postcard policy presents an undue

15 burden on those folks.

16

THE COURT: All right.

17

MR. ROBERSON: I think testimony on that

18 issue -- factual testimony on that issue will be important

19 to Your Honor's balancing the Turner test.

20

THE COURT: All right. Other evidentiary

21 disputes on this First Amendment issue -- by the way, I'm

22 not going to hold you to this.

23

MR. ROBERSON: I think I have covered the main

24 ones.

25

THE COURT: This is for my understanding. It is

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 14 of 113 Page ID#: 3319
14

1 not a trick question to limit you. Any other primary

2 evidentiary disputes on the First Amendment issue you can

3 think of right now?

4

MR. ROBERSON: No. I think we have hit the

5 highlights.

6

THE COURT: What about the due process issue on

7 policy. Are there any disputed evidentiary questions on

8 that issue?

9

MR. ROBERSON: I don't believe so, Your Honor.

10 PLN is not even challenging the due process procedures in

11 the current inmate policy or in the one that was adopted

12 in May.

13

THE COURT: No. But they are moving for partial

14 summary judgment, or they are asking for a declaration

15 that defendants' due process policy violated the

16 Fourteenth Amendment. So am I hearing you correctly say

17 that there is no evidentiary matter; I can resolve that on

18 summary judgment, I should just resolve it in defendants'

19 favor?

20

MR. ROBERSON: Well, a couple of things,

21 Your Honor. If it is regarding our pre-lawsuit due

22 process procedures, there is no point in issuing a

23 declaratory relief. It doesn't serve any practical

24 purpose. We have admitted that our prior due process

25 procedures were a violation of the Constitution. We have

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 15 of 113 Page ID#: 3320
15

1 admitted that in this briefing. We've admitted it in our

2 answer. We've admitted it in our response to preliminary

3 injunction. So that aspect of your equitable discretion

4 should be there is no need to issue a ruling on that.

5

THE COURT: What about for trial on damages? Do

6 we tell the jury that it is undisputed that there were due

7 process violations by the defendant and now it is passed

8 to the jury to decide whether or not they caused damages,

9 and if so, how much?

10

MR. ROBERSON: Yes, Your Honor.

11

THE COURT: Okay.

12

MR. ROBERSON: If we are discussing the January

13 and February inmate due process procedures in those two

14 policies, Your Honor has already denied PLN's request in

15 the preliminary injunction order.

16

THE COURT: Yeah, I know.

17

All right. That answers a number of my initial

18 questions on that.

19

Shall we turn now briefly to plaintiff's motion

20 to strike some of the evidence that defendant presented

21 with their response primarily attached to the declaration

22 of you, Mr. Roberson.

23

As I understand it, there are three categories,

24 one of which you have withdrawn. There was the Oregon

25 Live news article. That's Docket 1511. Plaintiff moved

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 16 of 113 Page ID#: 3321
16

1 to strike that primarily based on hearsay grounds. If I

2 understand it correctly, you withdraw that exhibit, right?

3

MR. ROBERSON: Yes, Your Honor.

4

THE COURT: All right. That's done.

5

With respect to the document in Docket 115-6,

6 that's the transitions to postcard for inmate mail that

7 was discovered in late September by Captain Carpenter. I

8 understand your response to that. I will hear from

9 plaintiff on that in a few minutes. I have no questions

10 for you on that document.

11

But with respect to the California declarations,

12 let me take you through them and ask you a few questions;

13 first, some specifics about the declarations and then some

14 big-picture questions.

15

With respect to the declaration of Sergeant Rob

16 Davidson, what am I supposed to get out of that? What's

17 the relevance of Sergeant Davidson's declaration? What

18 does that tell me that's relevant to this case? That's

19 Docket 115-12 at Exhibit L, page 3. I didn't really

20 understand the relevance of Sergeant Davidson's

21 declaration.

22

MR. ROBERSON: We relied on Sergeant Davidson's

23 declaration to show that Ventura County adopted a policy

24 for incoming and outgoing mail.

25

THE COURT: All right. I don't mean to be rude,

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 17 of 113 Page ID#: 3322
17

1 but so what?

2

MR. ROBERSON: Just for context for the other

3 declarations.

4

THE COURT: So Sergeant Davidson is to help give

5 context to the others but no independent evidentiary

6 value. That's fine.

7

MR. ROBERSON: Right.

8

THE COURT: Okay. Then with respect to the

9 declaration of Tracy Martinez, one of the things that I

10 glean from that was that narcotics were concealed under

11 postage stamps and in the seams of envelopes. You are not

12 making a point, are you, that contraband can be under

13 postage stamps? That's not relevant to this case, is it,

14 or is it?

15

MR. ROBERSON: I think it is relevant to this

16 case.

17

THE COURT: How so, because postage stamps are

18 also on postcards. As a matter of fact, the same number

19 of words would probably take more postcards than to be in

20 one letter with one postage stamp. So I'm not sure I

21 quite understand your postage stamp point given that you

22 are not prohibiting postage stamps from being on postage

23 cards.

24

MR. ROBERSON: I see your point, Your Honor.

25 Columbia County Jail was removing stamps from postcards

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 18 of 113 Page ID#: 3323
18

1 because they could contain contraband underneath.

2

THE COURT: Absolutely. I get that. But

3 whether or not it is a postcard-only policy or letter

4 policy, the fact that there can be contraband under a

5 postage stamp, I think, is legally irrelevant to that

6 question, but you are welcome to tell me why I am wrong.

7

MR. ROBERSON: We agree. Contraband could be

8 under a stamp on an envelope as well.

9

THE COURT: Okay. Now, I do see that

10 Tracy Martinez tells us that contraband can also be

11 concealed under the seams of envelopes. That's what I was

12 getting from that. I didn't quite know what to get

13 from -- and I see she also talks about paperclips and

14 staples. I get that. Was there anything in paragraph 9

15 about this suspicious, unknown substance on a blank sheet

16 of paper. I didn't know quite what to make of that. If

17 the answer is nothing, that's fine too. I get from

18 Tracy Martinez the risk of contraband in the seams of

19 envelopes and staples and paperclips.

20

MR. ROBERSON: I think that's the point,

21 Your Honor. I don't think we cited to paragraph 9 in that

22 declaration.

23

THE COURT: That's fine. I think -- although I

24 will give plaintiff a chance later to tell me if they

25 disagree -- I think I can take judicial notice of an

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 19 of 113 Page ID#: 3324
19

1 adjudicative fact as a matter of common sense that

2 contraband can be concealed in seams of envelopes and

3 envelopes can contain metal paperclips and staples. So

4 I'm not sure I need additional evidence for that. But I

5 see the evidentiary purpose of that aspect of the Martinez

6 declaration.

7

With respect to Hernandez, basically it is the

8 same. Is it the same concepts, same points, or am I

9 missing something else? Mr. Hernandez talks about drugs

10 within the paper materials and letters and in envelopes.

11 He also talks about the fact that postcards have been

12 modified by being split in two by a sharp objects, such as

13 a razor blade and glued back together. He talks about

14 paperclips and things like that. Anything else I'm

15 missing from the Hernandez declaration?

16

MR. ROBERSON: No, Your Honor.

17

THE COURT: The next declaration, it is on pages

18 10 through 15, the one that the name has been redacted,

19 you are not offering that, are you, the unredacted,

20 unnamed declaration?

21

MR. ROBERSON: We are offering that, Your Honor.

22

THE COURT: Okay. How could I possibly accept

23 as evidence an unsigned, unnamed declaration? Under what

24 rule would I accept that?

25

MR. ROBERSON: I think you can in this instance

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 20 of 113 Page ID#: 3325
20

1 because the redaction was made pursuant to state court

2 order. I don't think you are required to adhere to the

3 state court order, but Your Honor can decide to accept it

4 given that the first page of Exhibit L showed that all the

5 redactions were in accordance with the state court's

6 order. That is evidence that this obviously did have a

7 name on it and a state court judge decided to redact it

8 for reasons of security or privacy.

9

THE COURT: Well, what's the purpose of a

10 declaration in opposing summary judgment?

11

MR. ROBERSON: To provide evidence of facts.

12 Maybe it is such a basic question that I'm flubbing it,

13 Your Honor.

14

THE COURT: Well, I will tell you how I would

15 answer that. I think the purpose of a declaration or a

16 sworn statement is to say, "If this case were to go to

17 trial, we would have admissible evidence of the

18 following," and then if we have a signed declaration from

19 John Smith, I could then take -- well, if this case were

20 to go to trial, John Smith would be a competent witness

21 based on whatever is revealed in the declaration.

22 John Smith would be under oath, just like you have to be

23 at trial. And assuming that it is first-hand knowledge as

24 opposed to hearsay, John Smith would be allowed to testify

25 at trial consistent with his declaration. Then that could

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 21 of 113 Page ID#: 3326
21

1 tell me, well, we would then have admissible evidence at

2 trial consistent with the content of John Smith's

3 declaration.

4

Are you representing to me that whoever was the

5 declarant of Exhibit L, page 10 of 22 and following, will

6 be one of the witnesses that you will be calling at trial?

7

MR. ROBERSON: He is not a witness that we will

8 be calling at trial.

9

THE COURT: In that case I just don't think I

10 can accept Exhibit L, page 10 of 22 through page 15 of 22

11 contained in Docket 115-12, and I'm going to strike that.

12

With respect to the declaration of Aaron

13 Wilkinson, I guess the relevant portion seems to be in

14 paragraphs 7 and 8 or so. What's the relevance of Aaron

15 Wilkinson's declaration? I guess paragraph 7 and 8 seem

16 to be it. Am I missing something else?

17

MR. ROBERSON: Yes, paragraphs 7 and 8.

18

THE COURT: All right. I cannot figure out what

19 I'm supposed to get from the declaration of Jeffrey Held,

20 Exhibit L, 19. So what am I missing?

21

MR. ROBERSON: Your Honor, you are not missing

22 anything. We cited at paragraphs 16 through 19 of that

23 declaration, and I went through that in the surreply

24 memorandum that we're relying on those paragraphs. That

25 means we're not relying on the L declaration at all

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 22 of 113 Page ID#: 3327
22

1 anymore.

2

THE COURT: Very good. To the extent it is part

3 of the motion, I'm striking Jeffrey Held's declaration.

4 That could be a wasted effort if you are not relying on

5 it. So the record is clear, I'm not going to rely on

6 Jeffrey Held's declaration or on the portion of the

7 declarations that have no name.

8

Okay. That answers my questions about the

9 motions to strike.

10

One final question that I have for defendants at

11 this stage right now is the following: Let's assume that

12 I deny the motion for partial summary judgment on the

13 grounds that you have identified that there really needs

14 to be trial testimony and there are disputed evidentiary

15 facts that the Court needs to consider as part of its

16 Turner analysis. How do we deal with that at trial? What

17 do we tell the jury that this trial is about with respect

18 to them? Do we tell them that there is a First Amendment

19 violation? Do we tell them that I will tell them at the

20 end of the trial whether there is a First Amendment

21 violation? How do we deal with that?

22

MR. ROBERSON: I think if Your Honor is ready to

23 rule on the postcard issue under the First Amendment at

24 the conclusion of the testimony, then yes.

25

THE COURT: All right. So --

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 23 of 113 Page ID#: 3328
23

1

MR. ROBERSON: You could inform the jury that.

2

THE COURT: So what you are saying is at the

3 conclusion of the evidence, basically as part of the jury

4 instructions if -- hypothetically -- if I were to conclude

5 after hearing all of the evidence that the postcard policy

6 and/or the magazine policy violates the First Amendment, I

7 would so instruct the jury as part of their jury

8 instructions, and then we turn to the jury for whether

9 damages have been caused, and if so, what amount. Is that

10 what you are saying?

11

MR. ROBERSON: Yes. And that is why Your Honor

12 can deny declaratory relief on that issue at this stage,

13 because, one, there is disputed facts; two, we're only

14 here on PLN's equitable claims. We are not here on their

15 claim for damages. You can declare a postcard policy

16 unconstitutional and not enter declaratory relief but make

17 a finding to the jury on the claim for damages that there

18 was a First Amendment violation.

19

THE COURT: I missed that last point. Would you

20 repeat that last point a little louder, a little slower.

21

MR. ROBERSON: You can decline to enter

22 declaratory relief and issue a finding on PLN's claim for

23 damages, which is not at issue today, for the jury,

24 finding that the postcard policy or at least the one in

25 this case violated the Constitution.

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 24 of 113 Page ID#: 3329
24

1

THE COURT: Okay. You know, as long as you are

2 here, with respect to the failure to mitigate affirmative

3 defenses, let's move to that motion a little bit. I know

4 it is plaintiff's motion. But would you tell me a little

5 bit more about what you mean in your affirmative defense

6 that plaintiffs failed to mitigate their damages?

7

MR. ROBERSON: I think PLN has made an issue of

8 this, that we are somehow trying to argue and mitigate the

9 relevance for liability, but we've made it clear -- the

10 case law makes it clear -- this only applies to the jury's

11 consideration of awarding damages. In this case PLN

12 continued to send mail into the jail, knowing that it was

13 being rejected. Mr. Wright stated in his deposition that

14 they always try to resolve these things without a lawsuit,

15 and they failed to do that in this case. We are not

16 saying that they had to do that. They could have filed

17 the lawsuit after 50 violations. But that's what the jury

18 needs to consider when they are measuring damages.

19

THE COURT: Let me ask you hypothetically:

20 Assume a person wants to challenge, let's say, a strip

21 search of a visitor. Assume hypothetically that, under

22 the circumstances, the strip search is unconstitutional.

23 If a friend of an inmate wants to go visit the inmate, and

24 they are subjected to, by assumption -- by hypothetical --

25 an unconstitutional strip search, and let's say she

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 25 of 113 Page ID#: 3330
25

1 complains about it, and they say, "Too bad, that's our

2 policy," and then she wants to visit -- the friend -- the

3 inmate a month later, and she undergoes another strip

4 search, an unconstitutional strip search. Maybe it

5 happens a third time. And then finally after the third

6 time, she sues. Is there an argument that the defendant

7 in that circumstance can present to the jury that she has

8 failed to mitigate her damages by not suing after the

9 first time?

10

MR. ROBERSON: With just three instances, I

11 think the Court can say no juror would consider that

12 reasonable to have to bring the lawsuit after the first

13 time, so I don't.

14

THE COURT: So your argument here is premised on

15 or predicated on the number of mailings that the defendant

16 sent in, the large number?

17

MR. ROBERSON: Correct. And the length of time.

18 It is PLN's knowledge of what is occurring. So the number

19 and length of time. Further, I think since it is

20 mitigation of damages, the Court has to look at the type

21 of damages being asserted. In your example, I assume that

22 is largely a non-economic damage component.

23

THE COURT: Yes.

24

MR. ROBERSON: PLN is all economic damages.

25 They are very limited resources. Frustration of mission.

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 26 of 113 Page ID#: 3331
26

1 Those are all economic damages that they are asserting.

2 So I think mitigation applies in this instance even though

3 it may not apply in your example.

4

THE COURT: Okay. Understood. By the way,

5 speaking of which, what's your opposition to the PLN's

6 request for partial summary judgment on the question of

7 their organizational standing?

8

MR. ROBERSON: That is a version of the

9 third-party standing doctrine. We are here on their

10 equitable claims only. No mail has been rejected since

11 the filing of the lawsuit; at least none of PLN's mail has

12 been rejected. The only evidence is Lucy Lennox sent some

13 mail in February, about eleven pieces of mail, and those

14 were rejected because they weren't on a postcard. Due

15 process notice was given to her, and she didn't exercise

16 her right to appeal. That is the evidence of injury to

17 third parties.

18

Your Honor, this isolated incident that Lucy

19 Lennox is alleging violated her rights, I think an element

20 of this organizational standing is a finding that she

21 cannot litigate her own rights.

22

THE COURT: I'm not following you.

23

MR. ROBERSON: I think PLN has to show that

24 Lucy Lennox, or the Court has to find that Lucy Lennox had

25 some hindrance in bringing her own claim. There is no

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 27 of 113 Page ID#: 3332
27

1 such evidence in this case.

2

THE COURT: Well, I think what they are asking

3 for, and this is the first section in their motion for

4 partial summary judgment on declaratory and injunctive

5 relief, they are asking that the Court declare that they

6 have organizational standing to challenge defendants' mail

7 policies and practices, which as I read their memorandum,

8 I think it is page 2. They say, "Plaintiff has

9 organizational standing when it suffers injury by

10 frustration of its mission and diversion of its

11 resources."

12

It is not clear to me, and I'm going to ask

13 plaintiffs this in a few minutes, whether they want me to

14 make a finding now that their organizational mission has

15 been frustrated and their resources have been diverted.

16 My question to you really is: If that's what they are

17 asking you for, is that a disputed issue of fact?

18

MR. ROBERSON: Our position is that PLN's

19 mission is the issue a monthly magazine. That's their

20 stated mission. There is a corollary to that, which is

21 investigating jail mail practices.

22

THE COURT: And advocacy too. That's part of

23 their stated mission, isn't it?

24

MR. ROBERSON: Yeah. Sorry. I didn't mean

25 to --

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 28 of 113 Page ID#: 3333
28

1

THE COURT: Which may or may not be bringing

2 lawsuits like this, but that's a different issue. I'm

3 confused. Part of it, I'm going to turn back to

4 plaintiffs in a few moments. But it is confusing to me

5 exactly what they are asking for in that first declaration

6 that they have organizational standing, but I figured that

7 as long as we were already talking -- you and me -- I

8 thought I'd ask you, what is your basis for opposing it?

9

MR. ROBERSON: Standing in PLN's own right,

10 which I don't think is organizational standing, we don't

11 think PLN has standing before this record. Your question

12 is for organizational standing, so can PLN represent the

13 interests of Lucy Lennox and prisoners? Our position is

14 that those folks have to have some kind of hindrance to

15 not remediate themselves. We've put in the record

16 references to multiple lawsuits where prisoners were

17 challenging postcard policies. Again, I don't think we

18 are talking about magazines and due process on this issue.

19 It is just the postcard policy.

20

THE COURT: And what's the case law that says

21 that a member of an organization has to have a hindrance

22 to litigate on their own before their organization has

23 organizational standing?

24

MR. ROBERSON: Can you ask that again?

25

THE COURT: Sure. Sure. What case do I look to

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 29 of 113 Page ID#: 3334
29

1 to see this point that an individual has to be hindered in

2 bringing their own lawsuit before an organization can

3 bring a lawsuit on behalf of its members?

4

MR. ROBERSON: The cases we cited in support of

5 the preliminary injunction we think should apply to an

6 organizational standing doctrine as well. Those cases,

7 the third party that had a hindrance involved a statute

8 that had a criminal prosecution consequences if those

9 folks engaged in speech. There is nothing like that in

10 this case. There is no threat of criminal prosecution for

11 Ms. Lennox or prisoners for engaging in First Amendment

12 rights.

13

THE COURT: How does this translate to an

14 environmental standing, or does it? Environmental

15 organizations bring cases.

16

MR. ROBERSON: Correct.

17

THE COURT: Do you know how this concept applies

18 in those situations, or does it?

19

MR. ROBERSON: The cases brought by

20 environmental organizations, I believe, are just under the

21 third-party standing doctrine, whereas organizational

22 standing is kind of subset of that. I'm not aware offhand

23 of a case brought by an environmental organization where

24 they asserted organizational standing. PLN cases have

25 been Fair Housing Act cases.

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 30 of 113 Page ID#: 3335
30

1

THE COURT: Okay. Very good. Thank you,

2 Mr. Roberson. I will come back to you and give you an

3 opportunity to say any other points you want to make.

4

But let me turn to plaintiffs now and ask the

5 following: With respect to your motion to strike, the CD

6 transitions for the postcards for the inmate mail, Docket

7 115-6, now that you have seen the defendants' response,

8 including the declaration of Mr. Carpenter, is there

9 anything more to your objection there? I think

10 Mr. Carpenter's declaration pretty much explains that

11 situation. He discovered it. He is retired. He

12 discovered it in late September and promptly produced it

13 to you. Do you wish to pursue that motion to strike any

14 further?

15

MR. WING: Your Honor, as a preliminary matter,

16 I just want to let you know there may be some questions

17 that Ms. Chamberlain would be responding to. I just want

18 to let you know.

19

THE COURT: No problem.

20

MR. WING: Thank you.

21

Yes, I guess the point that I would like to make

22 regarding the CD is it clearly was not a basis for the

23 sheriff's decision or he would have known about it and he

24 would have used it. So it smells like post-hoc evidence.

25 I think on that basis it doesn't belong in this record.

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 31 of 113 Page ID#: 3336
31

1 We have had months and months and months of collecting

2 documents and deposing witnesses. To produce something

3 like this, when we no longer have an opportunity to

4 investigate it, I think, warrants a strike. But that's

5 the only point.

6

THE COURT: Okay. I am going to deny the motion

7 to strike on that point. If you want more time to

8 investigate that late-produced evidence, you can have it.

9 Work it out with defendants. If you can't work it out,

10 contact my chambers, and we will help you to work it out.

11 But if you need to take additional discovery on that

12 document, even though it was produced after close of

13 discovery, you can.

14

MR. WING: Thank you.

15

THE COURT: The Oregon Live news article is

16 withdrawn.

17

I am not dealing with the Jeffrey Held or

18 no-name declarations.

19

I do think that the other declarations are

20 close, but let me ask you this: Do they really say

21 anything that I can't just take judicial notice of anyway;

22 namely, that contraband can be found in the seals of

23 envelopes, that envelopes and letters can contain staples

24 or metal paperclips? By the way, I understand the fact

25 that their own inmate mail policy that they give inmates

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 32 of 113 Page ID#: 3337
32

1 also has a paperclip. I get that.

2

But is there anything that is that material in

3 the Davidson, Martinez, Hernandez or Wilkinson

4 declarations? Otherwise, I am inclined to deny the motion

5 to strike and receive it primarily out of an abundance of

6 caution. Is there anything there that I'm missing?

7

MR. WING: It is a fair point, I concede,

8 Your Honor. I guess I would feel more comfortable if you

9 took judicial notice of it, because, in part, these people

10 are not identified as witnesses. I think one of the

11 points that I think you made very well is: Are these

12 people trial witnesses? If you don't strike them, we have

13 a concern that -- again, we have not taken depositions.

14 These people are in California. This is really late in

15 the game to introduce new witnesses. We have a pretty

16 strenuous objection to them being admitted for that

17 purpose.

18

THE COURT: I'll tell you, since they haven't

19 been disclosed to you previously, absent extraordinary

20 circumstances, I'm not going to allow them to become trial

21 witnesses, absent good cause for why they weren't

22 disclosed. If there is good cause, I will give you an

23 opportunity to depose them probably. I don't know about

24 expense issues, but we will deal with that later. For

25 summary judgment right now, though, I am going to deny the

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 33 of 113 Page ID#: 3338
33

1 motion to strike with respect to those four declarations.

2

All right. Let's get to the merits of this. We

3 are here on partial summary judgment, and let's focus for

4 a little bit on whether it is a declaration or whether it

5 is preliminary injunction -- put that aside for right now.

6 Let's focus on the postcard-only policy and the

7 First Amendment. I'm hearing the defendants argue that I

8 need to hear the explanation from the sheriff to evaluate

9 the sheriff's credibility to properly balance the security

10 risks or the threats versus First Amendment concerns. I

11 need to hear from the sheriff or the other witnesses, and

12 maybe from even other witnesses for the plaintiffs, to

13 balance whether or not the postcard-only policy is an

14 exaggerated or not an exaggerated response.

15

I know that there are some alternative means

16 that are theoretically available to postcards, and I see

17 your argument that those are inadequate. But I'm hearing

18 the argument that, well, I need to hear that testimony and

19 evaluate that testimony so I can evaluate in context the

20 adequacy of those alternatives or inadequacy of those

21 alternatives.

22

And you know, that makes some sense to me. Go

23 ahead and try to talk me out of it, but it does make sense

24 to me.

25

MR. WING: I would like to provide some context

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 34 of 113 Page ID#: 3339
34

1 and history in which I think their suggestion must be

2 placed.

3

There are a string now going back now maybe back

4 15 years of cases in front of the Ninth Circuit in which

5 the Ninth Circuit has applied the Turner test, and I think

6 we would find not a single trial.

7

Crofton v. Rowe. That's gift subscriptions,

8 1999.

9

2001, PLN v. Cook.

10

PLN v. Lehman, 2005.

11

Ashker -- I can't remember -- it is a California

12 case.

13

Clement is the Internet-generated materials.

14 Ashker is the book labels.

15

Not a single case involves going to trial.

16

The rational basis test says, is this rational?

17 The defendants have had now ten months to provide evidence

18 to this Court as to why their behavior and their thought

19 process for adopting this policy is rational. They can't

20 say, in my view, on summary judgment, well, granted, we

21 have not provided you information that really shows the

22 threshold, but you ought to let us show up at trial and

23 try to convince you in person.

24

I think that as to that series of cases I have

25 identified for you, there is no way on the record that

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 35 of 113 Page ID#: 3340
35

1 they presented to find their stated reasons rationally,

2 and I'm happy to go through a number of those.

3

But here is the point I would make: All of it

4 is based on their evidence. It is based on the documents

5 that they produced, it is based on their testimony, and it

6 is based on their declarations. So this is not a

7 circumstance like we see in employment litigation or fair

8 housing litigation where it is a question of what somebody

9 was thinking. Did they really intend to discriminate?

10 Did the person show up and say the things that they are

11 accused of saying? That's the not the issue at all.

12

The Court is presented with a series of facts.

13 It is not even a dispute about how much mail they have to

14 process or what time of day they process it. The sheriff,

15 if you look at his declaration, says nothing about why he

16 adopted this policy. He says nothing about the security

17 risks or how serious they are.

18

This was his chance. Instead, we have provided

19 a raft of evidence that the Columbia County Jail has never

20 had a contraband problem, incoming or outgoing; that they

21 attended a meeting and the sheriff's explanation was, hey,

22 all of my colleagues were doing this; I simply didn't want

23 to be left out. That's not a real terrific rational

24 reason for a governmental official to curtail the

25 First Amendment.

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 36 of 113 Page ID#: 3341
36

1

The second reason was, you know, it is possible;

2 it really is possible. Every single one of the cases that

3 I cited to you from the Ninth Circuit acknowledged that it

4 is possible, and without a trial, the fact that it is

5 merely possible does not meet the rational basis test. I

6 think the defense has missed the chance. I don't think

7 they could come up with evidence to present a triable fact

8 for you to take your time and the jury's time to listen.

9

THE COURT: How would this trial be different if

10 I grant partial summary judgment on that question versus I

11 don't?

12

MR. WING: The jury would be instructed that the

13 series of violations that we have outlined, the defendant

14 has not disputed that those events occurred. I'll

15 disagree with them that they have told you that they

16 violated the Constitution in each one of those. Their

17 answer is remarkably vague. It says some of our former

18 policies were unconstitutional.

19

First of all, you save many, many, many hours of

20 the jury trying to determine whether each violation

21 constitutes a violation of the Constitution.

22

Secondly, the presentation of the evidence is

23 targeted at one concept, which is, what are the damages

24 for this? I'm not trying to convince you that there has

25 been a constitutional violation.

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 37 of 113 Page ID#: 3342
37

1

And secondly (sic), that there needs to be

2 declaratory or injunctive relief. If all of that is

3 resolved through these motions, the jury will simply sit

4 there, hear what the defendants did, why they said they

5 did it, PLN explains diversion of its resources and

6 frustration of the mission, and then the jury will adjourn

7 to decide.

8

I don't know if I have answered your question.

9 I attempted to.

10

THE COURT: No, I'm fine. All right.

11

MR. WING: Your Honor, may I address one other

12 thing?

13

THE COURT: Sure. Anything you want.

14

MR. WING: This goes back to the issue of what's

15 disputed and what's not disputed. We want to point out,

16 as the Court knows, the rational basis is a sine qua non.

17 If the Court doesn't find rational basis, then we do not

18 spend time on the other three factors.

19

We think, as I elaborate more, if the Court

20 gives me time, that what has happened since early April

21 when we were here for oral argument, the evidence has

22 become overwhelming as to the other three factors,

23 rendering it unnecessary to have a trial. The Court need

24 not consider what all the other avenues are, and the Court

25 need not consider whether the defendants could do

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 38 of 113 Page ID#: 3343
38

1 something instead of adopt a postcard-only policy. I

2 would simply point to the fact that the past few months

3 they have been doing something else, and they have not

4 presented you with any evidence that it has been a problem

5 since you entered your preliminary injunction.

6

THE COURT: I see. What precisely is plaintiff

7 asking me to do with respect to the organizational

8 standing aspect of its partial portion?

9

MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Your Honor. I will cover

10 that. To back up a minute, in our original motion for

11 preliminary injunction, we asked the Court to find that

12 PLN had standing in its own right. It has third-party

13 standing, which is sometimes called the overbreadth

14 doctrine and also organizational standing. Your Honor has

15 already determined that PLN has standing in its own right

16 and has third-party or overbreadth standing.

17

I am a little bit confused by defense argument

18 that we need to show third-party standing or we need to

19 show that we can adequately serve the interests of third

20 parties to a high organizational standing. That has

21 already been determined by Your Honor in its May order.

22

THE COURT: Although would you step back a

23 moment and explain to me the difference between those

24 three.

25

MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Sure. So for PLN to have

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 39 of 113 Page ID#: 3344
39

1 standing in its own right, you have the basic elements of

2 standing: Injury, causation, redressability. Your Honor

3 has already found that.

4

For third-party standing or overbreadth

5 doctrine, Your Honor has to find that there is injury and

6 that PLN is adequately situated to represent the interests

7 and bring forth the interests of the third parties not

8 before the Court who these policies being challenged also

9 affect. In this case it is the prisoners and their

10 correspondents, and Your Honor already found on passage

11 12.

12

For organizational standing, PLN has to show two

13 specific elements with regard to injury. That is, that

14 its resources are being diverted and that the challenged

15 policy is frustrating its mission. Specifically with

16 regard to frustration of mission, PLN has to show that its

17 mission was frustrated by the defendants' conduct. We

18 have submitted both a declaration of Paul Wright with our

19 motion for preliminary injunction that supports that. We

20 have also -- actually defendants provided to the Court

21 PLN's supplemental and initial disclosures which outline

22 and also describe its frustration of mission and diversion

23 resources damages. That's docket 107-1.

24

With regard to the first piece of the injury

25 element of organizational standing, which is frustration

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 40 of 113 Page ID#: 3345
40

1 of mission, there is evidence in the record that is not

2 disputed that PLN's core mission is public education,

3 advocacy and outreach in support of the rights of

4 prisoners and in furtherance of basic human rights.

5 Certainly PLN, having its mail being censored and rejected

6 and not being provided due process, frustrates its mission

7 in both educating prisoners and communicating with

8 prisoners at the Columbia County Jail. It frustrates its

9 very core mission.

10

For the second element, diversion of resources,

11 Prison Legal News must show that combating Columbia County

12 Jail's conduct has caused a diversion in organizational

13 resources. We have provided materials to the Court

14 through the declaration of Paul Wright that prisoners

15 wrote to Prison Legal News complaining about this conduct

16 of defendants, and it then diverted its resources by

17 investigating that complaint, testing the mail policy and

18 then by filing this lawsuit as well.

19

And then the second two elements, organizational

20 standing or causation of redressability, which we've met

21 here --

22

THE COURT: Let me ask you two follow-up

23 questions to this. The first is going to be very, very

24 basic. You know, it is better for the Court to ask a real

25 basic question than walk away confused.

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 41 of 113 Page ID#: 3346
41

1

What's the difference between organizational

2 standing and standing in its own right, you know, the

3 first standing?

4

MS. CHAMBERLAIN: That is a good question,

5 Your Honor. And --

6

THE COURT: In that case, maybe it is not so

7 basic.

8

MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Maybe it is not so basic.

9 Maybe Mr. Wing will take a stab at that.

10

MR. WING: Do you mind, Your Honor?

11

THE COURT: Of course not.

12

MR. WING: Your Honor, I am most familiar with

13 organizational standing in the context of fair housing

14 cases. Within the context of fair housing cases, you tend

15 to see the articulation of organizational standing coming

16 when you have a person who, let's say, is a tester. They

17 go out and get turned away from renting an apartment, and

18 they have a claim because they were turned away.

19

The defense then says, well, the housing

20 association or the organization that arranged for itself

21 is not hurt itself. So the U.S. Supreme Court in the

22 Havens case and in Gladstone said: Well, that's not

23 right. The fact is here is how we will articulate the way

24 the organization has standing under those circumstances.

25

We have articulated PLN having organizational

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 42 of 113 Page ID#: 3347
42

1 standing in part because it is the type of damages that we

2 are claiming here. I think there is no difference between

3 standing in your own right or organizational standing. It

4 is simply a way of understanding the type of damages that

5 PLN is claiming.

6

THE COURT: That's the way I was looking at it,

7 in that I have already found, post preliminary injunction,

8 that you have standing in your own right -- did you want

9 to say something?

10

MS. CHAMBERLAIN: No.

11

THE COURT: And that PLN can assert its own

12 claims, can assert its own damages, and I found just

13 standing in its own rights.

14

It is unclear to me exactly what more you are

15 asking me to find now. What I'm hearing, I think you are

16 asking me to find, is to make the factual finding that

17 your resources have been diverted and that you have been

18 frustrated in your mission and now, jury, go ahead and

19 figure out how much damages to award for that.

20

Am I hearing you right?

21

MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Your Honor, yes, but I do want

22 to explain. With the damages PLN seeks to have standing

23 in its own, we are seeking compensatory damages and

24 punitive damages and so forth. But for the frustration of

25 mission and diversion of resources damages, that's

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 43 of 113 Page ID#: 3348
43

1 somewhat related to both PLN's standing in its own right

2 and its third-party standing because it has diverted

3 resources to investigate this case and how the defendants'

4 conduct has affected its own communications with prisoners

5 and how it has affected third-party communications with

6 prisoners as well.

7

We need the Court to find that PLN has

8 organizational standing in addition to third party

9 standing so that we can present evidence to the jury and

10 ask the jury to award damages for diversion of its

11 resources and frustration of its mission. Those are

12 particular damages that link to organizational standing.

13

THE COURT: Because I don't think, and we will

14 see when we get closer to our pretrial conference and I

15 see what motions in limine or evidentiary objections the

16 defendants may have, but I don't think I have a problem

17 with you arguing to the jury that your resources have been

18 diverted, that your mission has been frustrated, and if

19 the jury agrees with you, then they can award you damages.

20

Where I'm having a great deal of reluctance is

21 in me telling the jury or having you tell the jury: The

22 Court has found that our resources have been diverted and

23 our mission has been frustrated, and your job now, jurors,

24 are to put a dollar figure on that.

25

Am I misunderstanding something?

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 44 of 113 Page ID#: 3349
44

1

MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Well, Your Honor, procedurally

2 what has happened here, we made a motion for summary

3 judgment for the Court to find that PLN has organizational

4 standing, and the defendants' response was a single

5 sentence stating that PLN has not shown that its resources

6 are diverted or its mission frustrated under the current

7 mail policy or even the May INP, which allowed PLN to mail

8 correspondence to inmates -- in return. That was the sole

9 response, and the case law shows that standing is

10 evaluated at the time the complaint is filed, not at the

11 time of motion for summary judgment. Defendant simply did

12 not dispute the fact that we provided to the Court

13 regarding diversion of resources and frustration of

14 mission at the time the lawsuit was filed.

15

So I argue that the defense hasn't really made a

16 case that this should go to the jury on whether or not

17 there has been any frustration of mission or any diversion

18 of resources or damages. We certainly agree that the

19 value of those damages is a question for the jury.

20

THE COURT: As a matter of ruling on your motion

21 for summary judgment, if I were to deny that motion, if I

22 were to deny -- there it is. If I were to deny Docket 86,

23 the motion for partial -- strike that.

24

MR. WING: 64 perhaps, Your Honor.

25

THE COURT: It goes back. No, it goes back to

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 45 of 113 Page ID#: 3350
45

1 the 85. It is just one piece of 85. It is the first

2 request under 85.

3

If I were to deny that piece of it but allow you

4 to argue to the jury that part of your damages have been

5 that you have had resources diverted and your mission has

6 been frustrated, and if the jury agrees with you, they can

7 award appropriate damages. That accomplishes what you are

8 asking for; am I correct?

9

MS. CHAMBERLAIN: It does.

10

THE COURT: Okay. I just don't want to preclude

11 the jury from deciding whether or not your resources have

12 been diverted or what your mission is and whether it has

13 been frustrated.

14

Okay. Anything else for plaintiff right now on

15 any of these issues? Then we will go back to the defense.

16 I am going to go back and forth until everybody has said

17 whatever they want to say.

18

MR. WING: You did ask them questions about the

19 mitigation defense. I don't know that it warrants my

20 spending time on that now.

21

THE COURT: I'll tell you what my tentative

22 thinking is on the failure to mitigate affirmative

23 defense. That is, my tentative thinking is I want to hear

24 the evidence at trial. If I hear evidence that there has

25 been failure to mitigate, then I will so instruct the

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 46 of 113 Page ID#: 3351
46

1 jury. If I don't hear evidence of failure to mitigate,

2 then I won't instruct the jury on that point. I am very

3 reluctant to throw out that affirmative defense at this

4 stage, and I'll tell you, in large part, because it is

5 just not clear to me what is and is not at issue in that

6 failure to mitigate.

7

I have a sense that after hearing the evidence,

8 hearing the opening statement and hearing the testimony,

9 it will become clearer. By the way, I have read all of

10 the briefing, and it is not clear to me. But I think it

11 will become clearer to me as we proceed to trial, and then

12 I will note, when I do my final jury instructions, whether

13 I'm going to give or not give a failure to mitigate

14 affirmative defense. That's my tentative thinking.

15

MR. WING: Your Honor, I think that if the jury

16 is allowed to hear from the defendants that Prison Legal

17 News had an obligation to write a letter, pick up the

18 phone, my own view from reading their briefs is that

19 that's going to be a big part of what they do. That's

20 going to be a big part of their argument. That's going to

21 imply, I believe, wrongly, as a matter of law, that PLN

22 somehow failed in its obligation, and the only way I could

23 see the Court, from our perspective, curing that would be

24 at the end to say: You know, all that you heard pummeled

25 into your minds again and again and again, I want you to

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 47 of 113 Page ID#: 3352
47

1 disregard that because PLN didn't have a legal obligation

2 to do that.

3

THE COURT: Well, let me jump in here. Nobody

4 is arguing whether anybody had a legal obligation to do

5 anything until closing argument. Nobody is arguing legal

6 obligations in opening statement. The opening statement

7 is going to be what are the facts going to show. I will

8 not let any witness talk about who does and who does not

9 have any legal obligation.

10

Then my general practice, and I don't plan on

11 changing it here, is I will give legal instructions before

12 closing argument, substantive legal instructions. I do

13 substantive legal instruction and then closing arguments

14 and then final process instructions, selection of a

15 foreperson and questions for the Court, stuff like that.

16

So I will decide probably the night before, the

17 day before you do your closing arguments whether there

18 will or will not be a failure to mitigate affirmative

19 defense allowed and what the instruction would be if it is

20 allowed. You will all know that the day before you do

21 your closing arguments. And then if I allow it, you all

22 make your closing arguments based upon what my instruction

23 is. You can say: Here is what the evidence showed during

24 trial and here is what Judge Simon has instructed you and

25 here is how we view it fitting together.

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 48 of 113 Page ID#: 3353
48

1

I don't see how it will affect the evidence that

2 comes in, and I totally agree with you. Nobody should be

3 allowed to argue in opening statement or through a witness

4 what somebody's legal obligation was, and I am going to be

5 the only one who tells the jury what the legal obligations

6 are. That's how I see it. Do you disagree?

7

MR. WING: Well, I would anticipate -- are you

8 able to hear me okay?

9

THE COURT: Yes.

10

MR. WING: I would anticipate the defense in

11 their opening statement saying: The evidence is going to

12 show that month after month Prison Legal News sent

13 materials in without picking up the phone, without sending

14 a letter, without making any effort to try to get this

15 matter resolved before bringing this to trial.

16

THE COURT: Right.

17

MR. WING: I think that is akin to the Miller

18 case and the Blackburn case that we cited in our brief.

19 If the woman was coming to court and saying: Yes, I went

20 through a strip search, and I went through a strip search

21 again, and I went through a strip search again, and the

22 implication through the presentation of testimony and

23 opening statement could be: Yeah, you really shouldn't

24 have exercised your rights until you got with the

25 government and tried to convince them to follow the law.

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 49 of 113 Page ID#: 3354
49

1

I, after litigating civil rights cases for 21

2 years, think that there is the imputation that government

3 officials must be right. They have a hard job. I think

4 this kind of argument unfairly allows the government to

5 put the burden on the plaintiff by suggesting that the

6 plaintiff had some obligation to inform the government of

7 the law. That's, I think, a real legitimate concern.

8

I will point out that, again, the defense had

9 the opportunity, in response to summary judgment, to give

10 you a scintilla of evidence that contacting them would

11 have made any difference. They have not offered you even

12 a scintilla of evidence, and I'll point out I don't see,

13 as a matter of law, how they could say to the jury: If

14 only you had called us up about the postcard-only policy,

15 we would have done something else. We have provided you a

16 raft of prisoner complaints. And as you know, in April,

17 they argued in front of you that they were not going to

18 drop their postcard-only policy, and they didn't until you

19 ordered it. I'm at a loss to understand how they could

20 present to the jury in argument that PLN should have just

21 picked up the phone.

22

I finally want to make the point that mitigation

23 of damages -- I know you have read the briefing so maybe

24 it is really unnecessary for me to point this out again.

25

THE COURT: Go ahead.

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 50 of 113 Page ID#: 3355
50

1

MR. WING: But from the Restatement to all of

2 the cases cited, it simply cannot affect what comes in the

3 future. Mitigation of damages is what did you do to stop

4 the harm from the past violations? The defense is all

5 about why didn't you pick up the phone, because then the

6 next violation would not have occurred.

7

THE COURT: That's not the way I read it. I

8 read your transcript cites from the sheriff. It wouldn't

9 have made a bit of difference if you picked up the phone

10 and told him what you thought he was doing was illegal. I

11 see that. I don't think that's in dispute. What I'm

12 hearing from the defendants, and maybe I'm not hearing it

13 right, but what I thought I was hearing was you multiply

14 the damages by having so many postcards sent instead of

15 bringing a lawsuit earlier; at least that's how I'm

16 hearing it. I don't think I'm misunderstanding it.

17

But that's what I thought their mitigation

18 argument is. If there were a hundred -- I know there is a

19 slight difference in the parties in terms of the instances

20 of postcards. But if there were a hundred postcards that

21 were sent, should they be allowed to argue that if you

22 would have brought a lawsuit earlier, then maybe instead

23 of after 20, 25, 30, or 50, you wouldn't have a hundred

24 instances, and shouldn't the jury consider that as part of

25 their damage calculations? That's what I'm hearing them

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 51 of 113 Page ID#: 3356
51

1 argue. I honestly don't know the answer to that right

2 now. I don't see it in the briefing that either side has

3 given me, but I'm thinking, perhaps unrealistically, that

4 the answer might be clearer after I hear all of the

5 evidence.

6

MR. WING: Well, I would submit to you that

7 there is a reason why it is not clear to you, and that's

8 because not a single case has ever decided that question

9 that somehow it is an obligation of a plaintiff to come to

10 court at a time that is more convenient or less avoiding

11 of damages. I have just never seen such a case. I think,

12 from my standpoint, that it would be error to allow the

13 defendants to argue that now this is a burden. Any given

14 time there are many, many reasons people don't bring

15 lawsuits. I think what you are going to find, from

16 practicing civil rights law, I have a very serious concern

17 about this.

18

What we see over the years is what started out

19 as a simple violation of constitutional rights becomes a

20 series of maneuvers that are designed to make it extremely

21 difficult for plaintiffs to be able to bring a simple

22 case. It happens in employment law. You have to be

23 qualified for the job, but you also have to be, under the

24 Americans with Disabilities Act, able to perform the job

25 but also have a substantial effect on your daily life

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 52 of 113 Page ID#: 3357
52

1 activities. It is like jumping over a hurdle and having a

2 low ceiling.

3

What we're hearing here is you should have

4 brought your lawsuit earlier and that means where you

5 might be in a position where you have not done enough

6 investigation or established that this is really a

7 practice. So now the plaintiff is going to have to show

8 that they didn't do it too early but they also didn't do

9 it too late.

10

I don't think that's the law, and I'm very

11 concerned about the law developing that way. I think a

12 jury could easily not be aware of the ramifications and

13 should not be entitled to consider and come out with that

14 kind of ruling.

15

THE COURT: So if I agree with you and grant

16 partial summary judgment dismissing their failure to

17 mitigate affirmative defense, what does that do for what

18 evidence may or may not come in? I am trying to visualize

19 now what your motions in limine would look like.

20

MR. WING: I think our motion in limine would

21 state that the defendants are not able to present evidence

22 or repetitious evidence that the plaintiff failed to

23 comply with a burden. Certainly the dates --

24

THE COURT: Failed to comply with what?

25

MR. WING: The plaintiff --

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 53 of 113 Page ID#: 3358
53

1

THE COURT: You are welcome to be seated.

2

MR. WING: I'm sorry.

3

THE COURT: That's fine. You either have to sit

4 or speak a bit louder.

5

MR. WING: Okay. I'll have to try to think more

6 how to frame that because I understand your question to be

7 asking me, does the plaintiff suggest that they can't

8 identify the dates that events occurred? I think they

9 need to be able to identify the date that events occurred.

10 I do think that perhaps it is under 403 analysis. There

11 are facts that can be stated in cases but certainly undue

12 emphasis or repetition of those facts leads to an unfair

13 bias. I think that that's the circumstance we would be

14 dealing with, and that's probably how it would be

15 articulated, and we would have to rely on your judgment

16 and discretion about whether they were overstepping those

17 bounds. That's the way I see that.

18

THE COURT: Thank you. All right. Anything

19 further for plaintiffs at this time? I promised both

20 sides we will keep going back and forth until you are all

21 talked out.

22

MR. WING: I believe that if you have more

23 questions, that's a great way to proceed. We have more to

24 say, but if we do it via your questions, it is perhaps

25 more effective.

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 54 of 113 Page ID#: 3359
54

1

THE COURT: All right. Let's right now go back

2 to defendant and hear what some of their responses are to

3 some of the things you have just been talking about.

4

MR. ROBERSON: Thank you, Your Honor. I want to

5 address standing.

6

THE COURT: One second. We have been going

7 about an hour and a half or so. Dennis, did you want a

8 break? How are you doing?

9

THE COURT REPORTER: I'm fine, Judge.

10

MR. ROBERSON: There is discussion that the

11 Court had already found that seek --

12

THE COURT: Could you sit down and talk a little

13 louder, please. By the way, I don't think I have a

14 hearing problem. I have had it tested fairly recently. I

15 don't think I do. I have had no trouble with jury trials.

16 I don't know if it is our sound system or what, but would

17 you both please speak up.

18

MR. ROBERSON: There is discussion that PLN --

19 that plaintiff has standing in its own right and that

20 issue has already been decided. We disagree with that.

21 On the summary judgment record, Your Honor still has to

22 find that there is standing.

23

THE COURT: But tell me specifically, what do I

24 have to find on that question? What do I need to look

25 for?

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 55 of 113 Page ID#: 3360
55

1

MR. ROBERSON: In the Ninth Circuit opinion that

2 PLN cited in its reply, the Clark opinion, stated you can

3 have standing on claim for damages, but not standing on

4 the claims for equitable relief. Here, you are only

5 presented with issues on their equitable relief claims.

6 So the question is whether PLN has standing on those

7 claims. So the prior briefing regarding the preliminary

8 injunction that Your Honor did find that PLN had standing

9 on its own right on the basis that the February inmate

10 mail policy, which the preliminary injunction was just a

11 facial challenge to that policy, that that could possibly

12 snag or have some of PLN's mail rejected under its terms.

13 That was your finding.

14

We are on the summary judgment record now. PLN

15 has not shown any evidence that under the January,

16 February or any other subsequent mail policy that their

17 mail has been rejected. So the issue is, have they

18 suffered an injury in fact under Article III?

19

THE COURT: But if we look at standing as of the

20 time of the filing of the complaint -- and I see your

21 point. Their motion is captioned "Motion for Partial

22 Summary Judgment on Claims for Declaratory and Injunctive

23 Relief." So you are not then going to be objecting to

24 their arguing to the jury, as part of monetary damages,

25 that their resources have been diverted; that their

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 56 of 113 Page ID#: 3361
56

1 mission has been frustrated; let them present proof of

2 that, and if the jury agrees, let them recover their

3 damages. Am I hearing you correctly?

4

MR. ROBERSON: We would phrase it slightly

5 different. On their claim for damages, you know, we agree

6 that they suffered some damages. What those are is

7 different than what we are going to call a dispute.

8

THE COURT: Sure. And whether they suffered

9 damages caused by defendants' conduct and what value to

10 place on them if they have been caused, that's for the

11 jury to decide.

12

All right. I'm not hearing really a

13 disagreement here.

14

Continue.

15

MR. ROBERSON: So on these equitable claims,

16 they have not suffered an injury in fact, and there is no

17 standing.

18

You've raised the issue of organizational

19 standing. In those fair housing cases, it is the

20 organization asking for damages. So equitable relief is

21 not at issue. So you raised a very good point of that

22 organizational standing, and I think you are correct. It

23 is just another variation of standing in our own right

24 under Article III.

25

THE COURT: Okay. Got it.

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 57 of 113 Page ID#: 3362
57

1

Let's talk a little bit about this failure to

2 mitigate. I read the portions of the sheriff's transcript

3 that plaintiffs quoted. There is no factual issue in my

4 opinion. There is no genuine issue that if they would

5 have informed the sheriff that they believed that the

6 postcard-only policy violated First Amendment, it would

7 have made a bit of difference. Are you challenging that

8 or disagreeing with that, and if so, what is your

9 evidence?

10

MR. ROBERSON: Just on the postcard policy?

11

THE COURT: The postcard-only policy.

12

MR. ROBERSON: No, I don't think there is

13 evidence that the jail would have dropped its postcard

14 policy in response to the phone call.

15

THE COURT: Then what is this failure to

16 mitigate affirmative defense really about? Is it simply

17 the number or quantity of instances? Is your position,

18 you know, instead of having a hundred instances of mail

19 that were either rejected or censored or whatnot, they

20 should have brought a lawsuit earlier. Is that what that

21 defense is all about?

22

MR. ROBERSON: They could have brought a lawsuit

23 earlier. That's part of it. The evidence shows that -- I

24 think this is a disputed fact, but why PLN's mail is

25 rejected. There is some evidence that it was because of

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 58 of 113 Page ID#: 3363
58

1 the postcard policy. We think it is because some of the

2 staff had a misconception as to whether magazines and

3 other correspondence should be delivered, because the

4 policy said magazines are allowed.

5

So when it comes to the failure to mitigate

6 defense, a reasonable publisher who has subscribers and is

7 getting their magazine back for whatever reason, whether

8 it is postcards, whether it is no magazines allowed at the

9 facility, whatever the reason is, PLN was not acting like

10 a reasonable publisher. They continued to send mail.

11 They were not curious what was going on with the jail

12 staff, and they didn't call Sheriff Dickerson or some

13 senior member of the jail to say anything.

14

THE COURT: Okay.

15

MR. ROBERSON: And they say that's what they do.

16

THE COURT: Okay. What else do you want to

17 respond to? The ball is back in your court.

18

MR. ROBERSON: On the failure to mitigate,

19 Your Honor?

20

THE COURT: On any topic that you want in these

21 pending motions.

22

I have already made my rulings on the

23 evidentiary rulings. Just so it is clear, I'm allowing in

24 the California declarations for Davidson, Martinez,

25 Hernandez, Wilkinson.

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 59 of 113 Page ID#: 3364
59

1

I'm allowing in the transition to postcards for

2 inmate mail. That's Docket 115-6.

3

You have withdrawn the Oregon Live news article.

4

You are not relying on, and I am striking the

5 Jeffrey Held declaration.

6

I'm striking, over objection, the Exhibit L

7 pages 10 to 15, the no name. So we don't need to talk

8 about that.

9

So now we have the two basic motions before us,

10 the declaratory and injunctive relief, Docket 85, and the

11 failure to mitigate motion, which is Docket 86.

12

This argument has been very helpful to me.

13 Things are jelling in my head, but you are now welcome to

14 talk about anything else you want relevant to those two

15 motions.

16

MR. ROBERSON: Mr. Wing stated that the jail

17 does not present -- excuse me -- the defendants have not

18 presented a scintilla of evidence on mitigation. I think

19 that is incorrect. Our answer alone shows our conduct.

20 We admitted liability.

21

Mr. Wing says that he doesn't like the way we

22 phrased it in the answer, but in support of his reply, in

23 their reply they said that we talked about the issues

24 involved in the motion for summary judgment for months,

25 and we wouldn't agree to anything. All of that is

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 60 of 113 Page ID#: 3365
60

1 incorrect.

2

Our answer admitted liability. There are

3 certainly e-mails and correspondence regarding what we

4 agree with. We had conversations about it. We changed

5 our policy within days. We changed our mail practice

6 within days, right when we got notice -- right when the

7 sheriff got notice that there was some problems.

8

THE COURT: Well, I see that you have changed

9 the due process issues fairly promptly, but you didn't

10 change the postcard-only policy until I issued my order,

11 right?

12

MR. ROBERSON: Right.

13

THE COURT: Yes.

14

MR. ROBERSON: Mr. Wing claims that the jury

15 won't understand your instructions. I think that's

16 somewhat insulting to our jury system.

17

THE COURT: I don't think that's what he meant.

18

MR. ROBERSON: There was some discussion

19 earlier, I think, when Ms. Chamberlain was speaking -- I'm

20 sorry -- both of them were speaking about the postcard

21 issue and the First Amendment. Mr. Wing said in 15 years

22 of cases none have gone to trial. That's totally

23 irrelevant. Certainly if there is questions of fact here,

24 we can have a trial. We didn't file our own motion for

25 summary judgment, because we believe there are questions

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 61 of 113 Page ID#: 3366
61

1 of fact.

2

THE COURT: Well, what evidence do I look to

3 that you filed that show me that the reasons for the

4 postcard-only policy rationally related to legitimate

5 penological interest?

6

MR. ROBERSON: The evidence that we submitted in

7 support of the rationality of the policy?

8

THE COURT: Yes.

9

MR. ROBERSON: We submitted the declarations

10 from Ventura County. We submitted Sergeant Cutright's

11 declaration. I think there have been two declarations

12 from Sheriff Dickerson.

13

THE COURT: Feel free to paraphrase the

14 material, the important portions. Tell me where you are

15 getting it from.

16

MR. ROBERSON: I actually don't have Sheriff

17 Dickerson's declaration from the preliminary injunction

18 briefing before me, but he explained in that declaration

19 specifically that personal mail has increased threats

20 compared to other types of mail. That was the intent of

21 the postcard policy, was to be limited to that.

22

We have also cited case law that has come out

23 even since your ruling, and we pointed out Supreme Court

24 case law, including Ninth Circuit case law, R.O. v. Papayo

25 (phonetic), in an effort to convince you to lift the

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 62 of 113 Page ID#: 3367
62

1 preliminary injunction and point out case law that we

2 think that the Court should consider before deciding this

3 issue.

4

THE COURT: Okay. That answers my question.

5

MR. ROBERSON: I think it is important to point

6 out that again that we are only here on the equitable

7 relief claims, not the claim for damages.

8

PLN -- we haven't discussed the permanent

9 injunction yet, but we could move to that next. I feel

10 like we have been totally discussing declaratory relief so

11 far, Your Honor, and standing.

12

THE COURT: You are correct, although I'm

13 planning on using a lot of what has already been said in

14 the analysis on the permanent declaration issue.

15

MR. ROBERSON: I think the most important issue

16 on the permanent injunctive claim, if the Court gets

17 beyond standing and mootness issues, is the irreparable

18 harm aspect. We are only focused here on future imminent

19 harm. PLN has to make a showing of that, and none of

20 their mail has been rejected. They are not even

21 challenging what the current mail policy statement states.

22

THE COURT: But if you look at the criteria set

23 forth most recently by the Supreme Court in the Monsanto

24 case, which, frankly, quotes the eBay case that you are

25 both relying on, the requirement for a permanent

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 63 of 113 Page ID#: 3368
63

1 injunction is not a likelihood of future irreparable

2 injury. It is the establishment of past irreparable

3 injury. Am I right? I think the answer to my question is

4 yes. That's what Monsanto and eBay say. They refer to it

5 in the past tense.

6

MR. ROBERSON: It is irreparable harm that

7 cannot be remedied with a claim for damages.

8

THE COURT: Right, agreed. See, Winter tells us

9 for preliminary injunctive relief, I have to look to a

10 likelihood of future injuries. For permanent injunctive

11 relieve, the language of Monsanto, which frankly just

12 quotes eBay, the first element is, has there been

13 irreparable damage? And if there has been, assuming there

14 is a constitutional violation, I think there has been. It

15 occurred before my preliminary injunction order. But why

16 isn't that enough for permanent injunctive relief?

17

MR. ROBERSON: It is irreparable damage that

18 cannot be remedied with a monetary award. That's the key

19 part.

20

THE COURT: Right. But aren't there plenty of

21 cases that talk about the fact that monetary awards are

22 insufficient to remedy First Amendment violations?

23

MR. ROBERSON: There are cases that state that,

24 Your Honor.

25

Here, PLN's essential argument is that you just

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 64 of 113 Page ID#: 3369
64

1 can't believe the sheriff. They spend half of their

2 briefing on that issue.

3

THE COURT: Fair enough. I don't think I'm

4 going to make a decision, certainly not on summary

5 judgment, that you can't believe the sheriff. That is not

6 summary judgment material. But I don't think that I need

7 to make any conclusions about that. Let us assume that

8 this sheriff had total credibility, was completely

9 credible, and you were absolutely convinced that this

10 sheriff would never reinstitute that policy. Fine. So

11 what? Elections come -- what is the sheriff is elected

12 to? What's the term? Four years?

13

MR. ROBERSON: I believe so.

14

THE COURT: I know it is outside the record to

15 ask, but was he re-elected?

16

MR. KRAEMER: He was.

17

THE COURT: Fine. So four years from now what

18 if he is not re-elected? I don't think the credibility of

19 the sheriff is relevant. Maybe if he had a history of

20 violating past injunctions, that would be relevant. But

21 there is no evidence from the plaintiff that he does. I'm

22 just looking at the basic test of a permanent injunction

23 that eBay and Monsanto from the Supreme Court tell us, and

24 although I can't remember the last two elements, although

25 it is probably the basic stuff of injunctions, the first

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 65 of 113 Page ID#: 3370
65

1 element is, has there been past instances of irreparable

2 damage? "Irreparable" includes, by definition, that it

3 can't be remedied by monetary relief. Then I don't see

4 any requirement at all that you have to inquire whether it

5 is likely to be repeated. So now I don't see how the

6 credibility of the sheriff is even relevant to that issue,

7 at least absent evidence that we had someone -- strike

8 that. I just don't see how it is relevant in light of

9 what Monsanto and eBay tell us.

10

Now, that said, there is plenty of other

11 equitable balancing I need to do in deciding whether or

12 not to grant injunctive relief, and I have got to sort

13 through the Prison Litigation Reform Act. I understand

14 the arguments on the limitations of that and how it

15 applies to inmates. I am still sorting my way through

16 that. There is plenty of other equitable relief that I

17 need to balance, but I don't think part of that equation

18 entails any credibility analysis of the sheriff. By the

19 way, we don't make credibility determinations on summary

20 judgment anyway.

21

MR. ROBERSON: So the issue is if --

22

THE COURT: I'll save you a little bit of stress

23 on this because it will put it back on plaintiff. My

24 inclination is I don't see the value, the point, of making

25 a final decision now on a summary judgment record on

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 66 of 113 Page ID#: 3371
66

1 either equitable or declaratory or injunctive relief at

2 this stage. We will see at trial on this.

3

I think any decision, including my need to

4 balance the equities, will be better informed after I hear

5 trial witnesses and watch cross-examination. That's the

6 direction I'm planning on going. We will see what

7 plaintiff has to say about that.

8

MR. ROBERSON: We agree with that, Your Honor.

9

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Wing or Ms. Chamberlain,

10 what do you say to that? I see your point that many of

11 the key facts really are not in dispute, but we are not

12 going to be asking the jury to decide on declaratory

13 judgment or permanent injunctive relief, but the jury is

14 going to be hearing an awful lot of the same evidence, and

15 I don't think it will significantly expand the scope of

16 the trial to include the evidence that I will then factor

17 in as I balance the equities.

18

MR. WING: I think, Your Honor, it would be a

19 much longer trial. I think, as we pointed out in our

20 brief, there are a whole series of acts and statements by

21 the sheriff which essentially show that the plaintiff is

22 entitled to preliminary -- excuse me -- to a permanent

23 injunction.

24

As a practical matter, I will also point out

25 that this is the kind of thing that either keeps the case

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 67 of 113 Page ID#: 3372
67

1 going or resolves the case. That is, if the Court enters

2 a permanent injunction, there is a reasonable chance that

3 this case will resolve. Otherwise -- and I will put this

4 in a broader light. The defendants say: Gee, you are

5 claiming a whole bunch of violations, and you took a whole

6 lot of time in bringing the lawsuit. They are now

7 fighting about everything, and they are wanting to add an

8 additional defense. They are adding late evidence. They

9 don't want you to make a decision.

10

So now we are going to have a much longer trial.

11 We are going to spend a lot more time on this case. There

12 is something that doesn't mesh. Of course, the jury

13 doesn't get to hear that part. The jury gets to hear

14 possibly the plaintiff took time, but they don't get to

15 hear all of the efforts that the defense put in this case

16 to keep it going and make it last longer. That's

17 inequitable right there.

18

But the public interest is not served by delay.

19 One of the things that the cases that we cited talk about

20 is the purpose of declaratory and injunctive relief for

21 education. We've submitted to you e-mails from the list

22 of the sheriffs' association, at least three different

23 e-mails, that show that there are sheriffs and jail

24 commanders all around the state waiting for your decision.

25

THE COURT: I will tell you one thing, and I

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 68 of 113 Page ID#: 3373
68

1 don't think they've asked me that. I'm not lifting my

2 preliminary injunction. It is not going anywhere. They

3 didn't ask, so I don't want to jump the gun on that. But

4 this preliminary injunction is in place. Let me be a

5 little bit more judicial on this. No one has moved for a

6 lifting of the preliminary injunction. So unless and

7 until such a motion gets filed and I get persuaded that

8 that should be the case, this preliminary injunction stays

9 in place. You may use my preliminary injunction order and

10 opinion for whatever educational purposes you want. I

11 assume you already have. But the injunction is not going

12 anywhere, that opinion is not going anywhere, unless there

13 is a motion and I'm persuaded it should be lifted. That's

14 not an invitation, by the way.

15

MR. KRAEMER: I should point out, Judge, I think

16 we are beyond the motion deadline.

17

THE COURT: Fine. Let me ask you this: I don't

18 know whether it is now or at trial -- but when I

19 eventually have to decide between permanent injunctive

20 relieve and declaratory injunctive relief, let's talk

21 about this. Let us assume that I have not changed my

22 evaluations of rationality from the preliminary injunction

23 and assume that nothing that I hear at trial persuades me

24 otherwise. That means you are going to get a declaratory

25 judgment. Why is not that sufficient? What extra benefit

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 69 of 113 Page ID#: 3374
69

1 is really needed or achieved with a permanent injunction

2 that would not be the case with declaratory relief?

3

MR. WING: I'm going to start with what I think

4 is a sort of a rhetorical point. Why ever give a

5 permanent injunction then? It would never be needed,

6 because under the circumstances, if the Court has said

7 "This is illegal," presumably people would listen and say,

8 "Oh, okay, then I'm not going to do that anymore." Why

9 ever enter a permanent injunction?

10

The reason to enter a permanent injunction

11 include finality and clear and direct prescription for

12 what should happen. I will tell you that my co-counsel

13 Ms. Chamberlain will talk to you in a bit more detail

14 about what needs to be in a permanent injunction for due

15 process. From our perspective, the defense didn't and

16 doesn't understand that.

17

The cases talk about the value of a permanent

18 injunction in terms of establishing the rights between the

19 parties. From our perspective, the defendants may well --

20 but suppose there is a declaration -- they may well try

21 other things, develop more evidence from waltzing back in

22 and say, "Well, now we have a contraband problem. So

23 that's why we adopted the postcard-only policy." Those

24 were different facts.

25

I think a permanent injunction says you need to

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 70 of 113 Page ID#: 3375
70

1 move on because this is not a constitutional policy or

2 practice. I think also for the public interest, a

3 permanent injunction tells the other jails in the state

4 that there are consequences for adopting a policy with an

5 irrational basis. I would point out that in each of the

6 cases that I cited a permanent injunction was entered and

7 upheld by the Ninth Circuit.

8

So one could also do the flip side, which is if

9 you didn't enter a permanent injunction, what message

10 would that send? And I think there would be a message

11 sent: Even though Monsanto and eBay say, essentially, the

12 party is entitled to a permanent injunction, I chose not

13 to. Granted, it might be within your discretion, and we

14 could argue whether it would be an abuse of discretion,

15 but I think it would send a message that either the Court

16 would not want to give to this sheriff or other sheriffs

17 around Oregon, which is I'm just going to trust that you

18 all make better decisions. I don't think that's warranted

19 here.

20

I do want to point out something that I found --

21 excuse me one minute.

22

THE COURT: Sure.

23

MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Excuse me, Your Honor. I

24 wanted to clarify that one of the reasons we need a

25 permanent injunction is that a declaratory relief -- you

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 71 of 113 Page ID#: 3376
71

1 declaring that the past policy and practices were

2 unconstitutional -- provides some clarity about what was

3 unacceptable in the past. But the defendants need a

4 permanent injunction so that the Court can tell them here

5 is what you need to do in the future.

6

THE COURT: Well, where I would be inclined to

7 go then, and tell me if my memory is incorrect, because I

8 was planning on re-reading my order and opinion before

9 this argument, but I forgot to do it. But I think I

10 remember what I said. Unless the evidence, whether it be

11 now or at trial, changes my evaluation, I think a

12 postcard-only policy violates the First Amendment for the

13 reasons I said in my original order and opinion, the one

14 that is dated May 29th, 2012.

15

I think that applies to both incoming and

16 outgoing mail, as I've said in that opinion. But if I

17 recall correctly, the policies that I looked at with

18 respect to the due process issue, I held did not violate

19 due process, at least that's how I recall my order and

20 opinion. I don't know whether I made these comments or

21 just thought it. They were not the model of clarity. I

22 think I actually said that. They weren't perfect, but I

23 didn't find them as rising to the level of due process

24 violation. And since then, we have the May revised

25 policies and the June and July revised policies, since

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 72 of 113 Page ID#: 3377
72

1 then they have only been getting better. So if I didn't

2 find a due process violation before, certainly it is not

3 sufficient to grant preliminary injunctive relief. I

4 wouldn't anticipate that I would find a due process

5 violation now, thus would not be giving declaratory or

6 injunctive relief with respect to the due process claim.

7

MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Your Honor, with regard to the

8 due process claim, you are correct that the opinion did

9 state that the defendants' prior policy did not provide a

10 model of clarity, but since it was the preliminary

11 injunction that was before you, you didn't make a decision

12 regarding the constitutionality of their due process

13 policies. We think declaratory relief regarding whether

14 the policy posted on the Web site, the policy in the

15 Cutright memo and the January and February policies with

16 regard to either statements about due process or the

17 omission of proper due process procedures, declaratory

18 relief is needed and is in the public interest to make

19 clear what was not sufficient.

20

THE COURT: Do I do that, or do I look at their

21 current, most recent policy and decide whether that's

22 sufficient?

23

MS. CHAMBERLAIN: For us to ask the jury to

24 award PLN damages with regard to the due process

25 violations, we are going to need a finding from the Court

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 73 of 113 Page ID#: 3378
73

1 that their past policies violated the Constitution.

2

THE COURT: That's fair. You might not get

3 that. Unless the evidence changes, you are going to get

4 the one on the postcard and the First Amendment. But at

5 least when I was taking a look at the preliminary

6 injunctive stage, it didn't seem to me that the due

7 process argument was, I guess as I put it in the

8 preliminary injunction motion, likely to succeed.

9

MS. CHAMBERLAIN: There are several stages --

10 not stages -- but policies that we are looking at here.

11 We are looking at policies that were in place prior to

12 January 13, 2012, before we filed this lawsuit, and the

13 policies that were made public and available also to the

14 inmates were both the policy on the Web site and the

15 policies in the inmate manual. We provided Your Honor

16 with many examples in the briefing about why those

17 policies were insufficient and did not provide due process

18 in a number of areas. So I think that declaratory relief

19 in that regard would be warranted and very appropriate.

20

THE COURT: All right. I'll take a closer look

21 at it. I'll tell you right now, the way I view this

22 case -- and it is an important case -- is the

23 postcard-only policy for incoming and outgoing mail

24 constitutional? I think that's a very, very important

25 issue. That's what I view as the thrust of this case. I

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 74 of 113 Page ID#: 3379
74

1 understand what you are saying. I will continue to take a

2 close look at the due process issues.

3

MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Thank you.

4

Your Honor, I also wanted to briefly touch on

5 the no magazines issue. At the time we were before you in

6 April regarding the preliminary injunction, we had just

7 barely starting discovery, and we now know a lot more. At

8 that time the policy before Your Honor was both -- there

9 was an October 2011 policy that we were not aware of at

10 the time the lawsuit was filed, and there was the January

11 and February 2012 policy and in that, the policies were

12 provided to you, it said that publications would be

13 received and were acceptable.

14

What we have learned through discovery though is

15 that piece of paper, those policies, that piece of paper,

16 were not available to the inmates. They weren't available

17 to the public on the Web site.

18

THE COURT: And a lot of the deputies didn't

19 even know about it.

20

MS. CHAMBERLAIN: That's correct, Your Honor.

21 That's because the document given to the deputies was the

22 two-page Cutright memo from 2010 that very clearly banned

23 magazines.

24

THE COURT: Right.

25

MS. CHAMBERLAIN: That's also an issue.

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 75 of 113 Page ID#: 3380
75

1

THE COURT: There was a failure to communicate,

2 I get that.

3

All right. Why don't we do this, let's take a

4 ten-minute break, and then I will give both sides an

5 opportunity to have any final words they want to say.

6

All right. We don't have Mary here, but let's

7 come back at ten to 4:00.

8

(Recess.)

9

(Open court; proceedings resumed:)

10

THE COURT: All right. So the plaintiffs are

11 the movants. Any final words from the plaintiff before we

12 hear from the defendants?

13

MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Your Honor. I just

14 wanted to follow up on a couple of things. One was

15 regarding the no magazines policy and practice. You and I

16 were briefly going back and forth about that. You said

17 you understand that there is a failure to communicate

18 about magazines. Actually, I don't think there was a

19 failure to communicate. I think that the evidence clearly

20 shows that there were multiple communications made to

21 inmates and to the jail staff. That communication clearly

22 said, "We don't accept magazines." It was on the Web site

23 for two years. It was in the Cutright memo for two years.

24 It was in the inmate manual until May of this year. If

25 there was also a part of the standard form for the

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 76 of 113 Page ID#: 3381
76

1 prohibited mail notice, which I understand wasn't used

2 very often; that is, the form wasn't used very often, but

3 there was a checkmark place that said, "We don't accept

4 periodicals."

5

THE COURT: Is there any evidence though in the

6 record that the people who were making those

7 communications were aware of this earlier written policy

8 that said magazines are allowed?

9

MS. CHAMBERLAIN: I don't know of any evidence

10 of that.

11

THE COURT: I didn't see any.

12

MS. CHAMBERLAIN: What the deposition testimony

13 did show is that the employees who have been there the

14 longest, Captain Carpenter, 22 years, and

15 Sergeant Cutright, 17 years, had never seen a magazine in

16 the jail. So I think that evidence corroborates the fact

17 that their policy, as stated on its Web site, the Cutright

18 memo, the inmate manual and the form was being followed.

19

I also wanted to follow up with you regarding --

20 I think we are in agreement that the major issue in

21 dispute, disputed by the parties, is the postcard-only

22 policy and whether it is constitutional.

23

But with regard to magazines and due process, in

24 defendants' answer and, again, in its amended answer, I

25 think it is Docket 80 that was filed in late July,

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 77 of 113 Page ID#: 3382
77

1 defendants repeatedly admit to the fact that magazines

2 were censored and the fact that they failed to provide due

3 process notice and an opportunity to be heard, but they

4 have not admitted that those policies and practices

5 violated the Constitution in any sort of clear manner.

6

I think that the -- I'm paraphrasing here. I

7 think the language that they repeat a few times in the

8 answer is that the defendants admit that some of its mail

9 policies violated some of plaintiff's constitutional

10 rights.

11

Since I believe we are in agreement that the

12 facts are not in dispute with regard to magazines and due

13 process, I think the issues is ripe before the Court to

14 make a determination that the no magazine policy and the

15 policy of banning magazines was unconstitutional, in

16 violation of First Amendment, and that the policy and

17 practice of failing to provide adequate due process notice

18 and opportunity to be heard violated the Fourteenth

19 Amendment.

20

So those issues will go to the jury on damages,

21 and we don't need to present evidence, which is already

22 undisputed at trial. I think that would be a waste of our

23 judicial resources.

24

THE COURT: Thank you.

25

MR. WING: If you don't mind, Your Honor.

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 78 of 113 Page ID#: 3383
78

1

THE COURT: I do not.

2

MR. WING: Thank you. I want to just follow up

3 that the only testimony about this in the record from the

4 sheriff is that he read his inmate manual when he first

5 started, and he saw that it banned magazines. So again, I

6 don't think there is any basis for concluding that this

7 was just a miscommunication. Everything that anybody else

8 saw or heard was that magazines were not allowed. The

9 prior policy didn't say they were allowed. It just didn't

10 ban them.

11

THE COURT: Right.

12

MR. WING: The policy that one man knows is not,

13 I don't believe, properly called a policy.

14

Okay. As to the other matters, I think that

15 there is quite a bit of undisputed evidence as to what

16 facts actually occurred, and we would ask that the Court

17 find those facts, and we would certainly be willing to

18 provide the format for that to set it all forth. But to

19 save everything for trial, when there are undisputed

20 facts, runs counter to summary judgment. The whole series

21 of facts that could be found to be true by the Court and

22 would save a great deal of time and preparation in calling

23 witnesses. Those facts would then be presented to the

24 jury, even if the Court decides that it wants to wait on

25 some form of injunctive or declaratory relief and that

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 79 of 113 Page ID#: 3384
79

1 would substantially reduce the time spent at trial.

2

I also want to point out that there are

3 prisoners and family members who could be called, and

4 that's quite a bit of time and energy in bringing people

5 from jail or finding them. This is a lot bigger of an

6 enterprise than simply there is a bunch of employees who

7 the employer might bring. We think the Court could

8 substantially reduce the scope of the trial and, quite

9 frankly, is called upon to do that under Rule 56 where

10 facts are undisputed.

11

Finally, I would like to make a point, which is

12 I think, intended or not, the delay in making a decision

13 has effect on the longevity of the case, on what the rest

14 of the jails in Washington likely perceive the judge is

15 having a hard time making a decision about. This is a

16 close call. There are facts that may be presented at

17 trial that could win the judge over on these topics. From

18 our perspective, that's both not a helpful message to the

19 community and also an unfair opportunity for the defense,

20 who has had the opportunity on the preliminary injunction

21 and now on these motions, to try to come back with other

22 things. We think at this point they have had two very

23 serious opportunities, and we have established what we

24 think is a very compelling case and would ask the Court to

25 enter declaratory injunctive relief that it deems to

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 80 of 113 Page ID#: 3385
80

1 believe probably will enter but only after perhaps a

2 seven-day trial.

3

We ask that the Court go ahead and make those

4 decisions now, make your findings. We thank you very much

5 for your time, and I would be happy to answer any

6 questions.

7

THE COURT: Thank you. Defendants' last words.

8

MR. ROBERSON: Thank you, Your Honor.

9

We think that the only remaining issues to

10 decide in this case is the rationality of the postcard

11 policy under the First Amendment and damages to PLN. We

12 think there are questions of fact on that rationality, so

13 we should have a trial. We don't think due process and

14 magazines are at issue on liability. Our briefing, our

15 answer makes that clear.

16

THE COURT: In what way? What's your answer?

17

MR. ROBERSON: Our answer and amended answer

18 admitted virtually every fact except for one and admitted

19 to violating the Constitution. Our briefing at the

20 preliminary injunction phase, our briefing now, our

21 conversations with PLN's attorneys have made clear what we

22 are considering the violations to be on due process and

23 magazines. We agree those magazines should have been

24 delivered to the inmates. So with an admission of

25 liability, that sets the legal relations between the

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 81 of 113 Page ID#: 3386
81

1 parties, and there is no need for declaratory relief on

2 that issue. It serves no practical purpose, which is

3 what -- the language the case law uses. I don't have

4 anything further, Your Honor.

5

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. I am going to

6 tell you what I'm going to do, because I think it is

7 pretty clear in my head.

8

As I said, I think this case raises difficult

9 but important issues. I think that if it is not resolved

10 by the parties, and if you get an opinion from me, whether

11 it be now or after trial, I would fully expect it would go

12 up to the Ninth Circuit, as well it should, and let them

13 decide some of these issues.

14

Now, I think that the question, and I agree with

15 the defendant on this point of rationality in the sense of

16 that's what it really comes down to in terms of liability

17 issues. As I said in the preliminary injunction order and

18 opinion, based upon the evidence that I have seen at that

19 stage, I don't think it satisfies the rationality test,

20 and that's why I entered the preliminary injunction.

21

Now that I'm being called upon to issue a final

22 declaration and a permanent injunction, I have to weigh

23 very carefully the appropriate standard. The standard

24 before me right now on plaintiff's motion for partial

25 summary judgment is whether or not there is a genuine

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 82 of 113 Page ID#: 3387
82

1 issue of material fact, whereas at trial -- and I'm going

2 to put a footnote by the word "trial," and I am going to

3 come back to that in a minute or two. But the standard at

4 trial is simply preponderance, and I think that makes a

5 very big difference.

6

For that reason, I am denying both motions right

7 now, the motion for partial summary judgment regarding

8 declaratory relief and injunctive relief, Docket 85, and

9 the plaintiff's motion to dismiss defendants' failure to

10 mitigate affirmative defense. That's Docket 86.

11

But let me speak a little bit further. I think

12 that these are matters that will be best addressed after I

13 see trial evidence. As I said, I put a footnote by the

14 word "trial."

15

In a few minutes I am going to talk to you about

16 our pretrial conference and what has to be done leading up

17 to that, but one of the things that you all need to do,

18 and I will consider at the pretrial conference, is you

19 need to prepare very detailed witness statements and

20 present to me your documentary exhibits as well as any

21 objections to the opposing side's documentary exhibits,

22 also motions in limine, and we will talk about that in a

23 few minutes.

24

But I am entitled to base a decision, a trial

25 decision, using a preponderance standard based upon the

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 83 of 113 Page ID#: 3388
83

1 witness statements and the exhibits that I would receive

2 in evidence if I find that there is no genuine dispute at

3 that stage and a directed verdict or a motion for judgment

4 as a matter of law would be appropriate.

5

So I will revisit this issue with you at the

6 time of the pretrial conference. But even if I decide to

7 let it go forward for a trial, I will still then make

8 these decisions on declaratory relief and permanent

9 injunction relief, based on the trial record under a

10 preponderance standard as opposed to the summary judgment

11 standard.

12

Now, that said, let me tell the parties how I

13 intend to be looking at everything. I don't see any

14 difference today than the way I viewed it in my

15 preliminary injunction decision with respect to the

16 postcard-only policy, both incoming and outgoing. I do

17 see that there probably is a genuine dispute sufficient to

18 deny partial summary judgment, but on a preponderance

19 standard I don't think it is even that close of a call.

20

Now, I will weigh the evidence when we get to

21 trial. I will consider it very closely and very

22 carefully, but I'm going to let you all know how I look at

23 the postcard-only policy.

24

Same thing with the magazines policy, and I

25 think you all fleshed out the issues pretty nicely. It

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 84 of 113 Page ID#: 3389
84

1 doesn't matter if there was a document that said magazines

2 are allowed, if in fact they were not being allowed and

3 no one knew of that document. So the question is, what

4 was the real policy of the county at that time to allow

5 magazines or not to allow magazines? It sure looks from

6 the evidence that if one were to apply a preponderance

7 standard as opposed to a summary judgment standard, one

8 would say that the county had an unconstitutional policy

9 with respect to prohibiting magazines.

10

With respect to the due process issues, I made a

11 misstatement a few moments ago back before our break, and

12 I think you are right. I think plaintiff is right. When

13 I addressed the issue of due process at the time of the

14 motion for preliminary injunction, I was looking at the

15 policy that was in place, the due process policy in place

16 at that time and asking if there was a need to enter

17 preliminary injunctive relief pending final resolution,

18 and I concluded, no, there was not. I still think that

19 was the right decision.

20

But I don't think that's the question I need to

21 answer at trial. At trial, the question is going to be,

22 at least for declaratory relief, which would then probably

23 lead to permanent injunctive relief, is what was the state

24 of the due process afforded at the time the lawsuit was

25 filed? That is a different question from what was the

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 85 of 113 Page ID#: 3390
85

1 state of the due process procedures in place at the time

2 of the motion for preliminary injunctive relief, which

3 would then inform the question of, do I need to do

4 something preliminarily pending trial?

5

I think you all know that the due process

6 procedures were tremendously improved between the process

7 that existed at the time the lawsuit was in place versus

8 the time that I ruled on the motion for preliminary

9 injunctive relief.

10

I also think that I understand your point about

11 the censoring that took place, and my understanding is

12 that I would need to rule on for declaratory relief, which

13 would also inform permanent injunctive relief, was there

14 unconstitutional censoring that had taken place at the

15 time or before the time that the lawsuit was filed? And

16 if there was, then there should be a declaratory ruling to

17 that effect, and that may inform whether or not there

18 should be permanent injunctive relief to that effect going

19 forward.

20

But all of those issues, I think, will be better

21 informed upon the preponderance standard than a summary

22 judgment standard.

23

Similarly, with respect to defendants' failure

24 to mitigate affirmative defense, I am still having trouble

25 understanding exactly what defendant wants to present in

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 86 of 113 Page ID#: 3391
86

1 that respect and whether it should or shouldn't be

2 precluded for the reasons that the plaintiff articulates

3 in its second motion, Docket 86, or even for other

4 reasons, perhaps a 403 analysis. But that's going to be

5 better informed when I actually see what are the proposed

6 witness statements that defendant intends to present, what

7 are the exhibits that the defendant intends to present. I

8 understand that some of this may be coming out in

9 cross-examination of plaintiff's witnesses, so maybe I'll

10 deal with that when I see plaintiff's motions in limine on

11 some of those issues. But for right now, faced with an

12 affirmative defense and sufficient lack of clarity that

13 causes me to have concern under a summary judgment

14 standard, I'm denying that motion as well.

15

I'm not saying that the defendants have a right

16 to present an affirmative defense of failure to mitigate.

17 I'm saying I'm not going to grant a partial summary

18 judgment at this stage, and we will take a closer look at

19 the pretrial conference when we deal with the evidentiary

20 issues.

21

Now, speaking of pretrial conference and trial,

22 you all know that our trial date is Tuesday, February 5th.

23 It is set for a seven-day jury trial. I'm keeping clear

24 that period. I am moving our criminal cases before it and

25 after it, so I'm not going to interfere with the certainty

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 87 of 113 Page ID#: 3392
87

1 of that trial date for you all. You all have seen my

2 trial management order. It is Docket 79. To the extent

3 that you either haven't read it or don't have it fresh in

4 your memory right now, let me just sort of summarize a few

5 of the key points for you.

6

The way I do my trial management order and

7 pretrial activities is all geared off of the pretrial

8 conference and things come in four waves or four stages.

9 The first is 28 days before the pretrial conference -- by

10 the way, everything I'm about to say now is set forth in

11 the trial management order, Docket 79. To the extent that

12 I say something slightly different than what's in there,

13 what's in the document governs, unless you ask me to

14 modify it, and then I will consider it.

15

But from recollection, we start by looking at

16 the first wave of 28 days before the pretrial conference,

17 and the pretrial conference, you know, is scheduled for

18 January 28th, 2013, 1:30 p.m. here.

19

So 28 days before that is New Year's Eve,

20 Monday, December 31st. That's when the first wave of

21 plaintiff's materials are due. CM/ECF never sleeps. So

22 even though the Court might be closed on that day, that's

23 when things are due. If you want to file it before that,

24 feel free, but that's when things are due.

25

Most of the burden, I think the entire burden of

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 88 of 113 Page ID#: 3393
88

1 the first wave, is on plaintiffs, on that first wave.

2 That includes such things as, with respect to the jury

3 portion here, your witness statements -- frankly, there

4 are other portions -- your witness statements. I do

5 expect very detailed witness statements.

6

Let me finish my criteria on these witness

7 statements. There shall be no unfair or unreasonable

8 surprise. You really don't need to put in every jot and

9 tittle of what a witness is going to say on direct

10 examination, but you do need to put everything that they

11 are going to say on direct examination that is necessary

12 in order to prevent unfair surprise or prejudice to the

13 other side.

14

So if the witness is being examined on direct

15 examination and the other side objects on the grounds that

16 it is not in the witness statement, we will take a look.

17 If it is not in the witness statement, I'll ask the

18 objector, how is this prejudicial to you? How are you

19 being hurt about not knowing about this? But I'll have a

20 fairly low threshold for that answer. If there really is

21 a legitimate argument: Well, if I would have known they

22 would be asking about such and such, I would have brought

23 these documents, or I would have prepared this line of

24 cross-examination. Then that line of direct examination

25 will not be permitted.

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 89 of 113 Page ID#: 3394
89

1

If there really isn't a material point, we won't

2 fuss about it. But if it is a material point that really

3 causes them some surprise, then that line of direct

4 examination will not be allowed. There is no way around

5 that by saying, "And I will ask the witness on direct

6 examination other questions consistent with his or her

7 deposition testimony." That doesn't count as giving fair

8 notice to the other side of what will be on direct

9 examination.

10

So did you have a question?

11

MR. WING: I do when you are done with that.

12

THE COURT: Go ahead.

13

MR. WING: When you use the phrase "direct

14 examination," the plaintiffs going first, does that

15 include for us to identify what we will be asking

16 witnesses using the term "hostile witnesses"? In other

17 words, the defense witnesses. I would like to understand.

18

THE COURT: Fair enough.

19

MR. WING: Yeah.

20

THE COURT: Fair enough. There is greater

21 leeway allowed with hostile witnesses, but only to the

22 following extent: You will need to disclose the topic

23 areas that you intend to inquire about on direct

24 examination from hostile witnesses. I recognize that with

25 a hostile witness, you are less able to predict the

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 90 of 113 Page ID#: 3395
90

1 answers; and hence, what the testimony will show. But

2 other than impeachment evidence, which I will describe

3 later, this is not the time for any surprises, including

4 the direct examination of a hostile witness or an adverse

5 witness.

6

So if there is going to be an adverse witness,

7 then what your witness statements will need to say is: I

8 will be asking the witness about this topic and that topic

9 and the other topic and why they did this or they didn't

10 do that. I understand that there is a little bit less

11 control over your ability to predict what their testimony

12 will be, but there is no restriction that you should face

13 or that I will allow on giving fair notice to what you

14 will be asking about in an adverse direct so that the

15 other side can appropriately prepare for cross-examination

16 of that witness and bring in whatever relevant documents

17 they need to bring in in order to explain their side of

18 the explanation.

19

Does that answer your question?

20

MR. WING: It very much does. I have a

21 follow-up question, if that's permitted.

22

THE COURT: Sure.

23

MR. WING: You mentioned that these detailed

24 witness statements can be considered by you on a

25 preponderance of the evidence. So I want to be respectful

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 91 of 113 Page ID#: 3396
91

1 to both your desire to have sufficient detail, but I also

2 want to know how much detail because in that respect, you

3 know, if I give you a ten-page disclosure of a witness,

4 that would be helpful for the preponderance decision, but

5 it might also irritate you if the purpose is to just

6 identify what the topic areas are. So I'm trying to

7 balance what you are asking.

8

THE COURT: It won't irritate me.

9

MR. WING: Okay.

10

THE COURT: I will read it all beforehand.

11 There is no need to include sort of the irrelevant

12 material or the flavor of or some of the color. But if it

13 is a material point, you should put it in there.

14

MR. WING: Thank you.

15

THE COURT: And so one thing that is due in this

16 first wave are witness statements. The other thing, of

17 course, that's due are exhibit lists and providing the

18 other side with a hard copy of the exhibits and the Court

19 with a binder of the exhibits.

20

By the way, I would also encourage both sides to

21 confer before this first wave even begins to make sure

22 that there is minimal duplication of exhibits. There is

23 no need to see the same document marked as a plaintiff's

24 exhibit and a defendants' exhibit. If a plaintiff

25 introduces a portion of an exhibit, and the defendant

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 92 of 113 Page ID#: 3397
92

1 wants the balance of it, just put the whole exhibit in if

2 that's what you agree on as part of the plaintiff's

3 exhibit. It will make it easy for the Court to follow but

4 also for the jury to follow and to minimize duplication.

5 If it is the same document, I'm not going to want

6 plaintiff referring to Plaintiff's 13 and defendant

7 referring to Defendants' 211. There is no point. It

8 confuses me and the jury.

9

So anyway, you will have to have witness

10 statements, exhibits.

11

Since you are going to be asking for declaratory

12 and injunctive relief, that means proposed findings and

13 conclusions for the bench portion of this.

14

Also, the first wave includes proposed jury

15 instructions, proposed verdict form. Feel free to consult

16 with each other beforehand to minimize the disagreements

17 over those things. I'll make you do that later anyway, so

18 you might as well do it before. But see if you can get as

19 much agreement as you can either on verdict form or jury

20 instructions. Frankly, I'm not hearing that much

21 disagreement for the questions that will be before the

22 jury, so maybe you can work that out.

23

Also in the first phase, a trial brief on any

24 other issues that you think would be helpful. You don't

25 need to repeat what's already there. If you want to add

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 93 of 113 Page ID#: 3398
93

1 additional points and arguments in law in a trial brief,

2 feel free.

3

Motions in limine, of course, are important.

4

With respect to proposed voir dire questions, I

5 will do the first phase of the voir dire. Feel free to

6 suggest to me whatever you want me to be asking the jury.

7 But then after that, I'm going to let the attorneys

8 conduct attorney-conducted voir dire. We will talk more

9 about what the appropriate limitations are on

10 attorney-conducted voir dire. My guess is that most

11 experienced trial lawyers as you all are know what's

12 appropriate and what's inappropriate. So do I. I will

13 keep an eye out for that. We will talk more about that in

14 the pretrial conference. I will let the attorneys conduct

15 reasonable attorney-conducted voir dire. So far nobody

16 has really gone beyond about 15 minutes or so.

17

If you are using your time wisely and well, you

18 can have more than 15 minutes for the attorney-conducted

19 voir dire portion of it. But attorney-conducted voir dire

20 is not to do a mini-opening statement. It is not to

21 elicit commitments from the jury. It is to learn relevant

22 attitudinal background issues, how they process and

23 receive information, any biases, things like that. You

24 know that.

25

If you are using your time effectively and

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 94 of 113 Page ID#: 3399
94

1 properly and you need more than 15 minutes, I'll be quite

2 flexible. But so far I have had four jury trials this

3 year. Nobody has gone beyond 15 minutes. But I will give

4 plaintiff an opportunity and defendant an opportunity to

5 do that. But if there are things that you would like me

6 to cover in the Court portion of the voir dire, put those

7 in your requested or suggested materials in the first

8 phase.

9

We will talk about demonstratives later, but I

10 don't require that until after the pretrial conference.

11 Because so many of the evidentiary objections will be

12 ruled on at the pretrial conference, I will pre-admit

13 almost everything or rule on objections, if there are

14 proper objections. After the pretrial conference, you

15 will know what's in, what's not in, and then you can

16 better formulate your demonstratives.

17

I think that covers the important stuff in the

18 first phase. If I've left anything out, go with what's in

19 the written material.

20

Then we go to the second phase. Now the burden

21 is on the defendants. Not only do they have to do exactly

22 the same thing plaintiff has just done, they have to

23 also -- and now we are talking about 21 days before the

24 pretrial conference, or January 7th -- they have to file

25 their objections to what they have just seen from the

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 95 of 113 Page ID#: 3400
95

1 plaintiff. Any objections to plaintiff's witness

2 statements, lay or expert. Any objections to plaintiff's

3 exhibits.

4

By the way, I did leave out any deposition

5 testimony that's intended to be used in lieu of live

6 witnesses or as substantive evidence, that needs to be

7 presented in the first phase.

8

Any objections that the defendants may have to

9 that. Any additional pieces of substantive deposition

10 testimony under the rule of completeness. Any responses

11 to the plaintiff's motions in limine as well as any

12 defendants' motions in limine. All of that burden is on

13 the defendant in the second phase.

14

The third stage, which will be 14 days before

15 the pretrial conference, or January 14th, a little bit

16 less burdensome on the plaintiff, but it is basically

17 responding to any objections that the defendants may have

18 to plaintiff's evidence. Responding to defendants'

19 motions in limine and the like. It is all set forth in

20 the order.

21

And then seven days before, which will be

22 January 21st, the defendants can respond to whatever is

23 then before them from the plaintiff's side. Also by that

24 a stage I have asked the parties to work together on a

25 prepared joint statement of what this case is about that

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 96 of 113 Page ID#: 3401
96

1 I'll read to the prospective jurors and an agreed-upon

2 neutral statement of the facts and to let you know what

3 disputes you have been able to resolve among yourselves.

4

By this fourth stage, seven days before the

5 pretrial conference, you will have seen each other's

6 objections to evidence, each other's responses to those

7 objections. You are directed to confer. Hopefully, you

8 can resolve many of those objections. Whatever you can't,

9 just let me know what's still on my plate for resolution

10 seven days later, which I will address at the pretrial

11 conference January 28th starting at 1:30.

12

I have had some pretrial conferences that take

13 an hour or less; some that go all day. It depends on how

14 much has been resolved beforehand and how much hasn't and

15 what we still need to resolve.

16

Also, we should have a sense at that pretrial

17 conference really what are the disputed issues, if any,

18 that a jury will need to resolve or that I will need to

19 have a trial to resolve before I can deal with the issues

20 of declaratory and injunctive relief.

21

A related issue that will come up in this case,

22 what do I tell the jury in terms of my conclusions about

23 what constitutional violations have taken place so the

24 jury will understand that their job is just to address

25 damages. What should I say about that? So if you can all

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 97 of 113 Page ID#: 3402
97

1 agree on that, fine. If you can't, I will see each side's

2 proposed positions, and I will deal with that and let you

3 know what my decision is at the time of the pretrial

4 conference.

5

Now, I did say in the course of exhibits and

6 witness statements, you don't have to give to each other

7 impeachment exhibits or tell them about impeachment

8 witnesses. You do have to give that to me. You do that

9 in a sealed fashion. Probably the easiest thing to do is

10 not file those electronically. Have those delivered in a

11 sealed envelope and call them impeachment exhibits.

12

Let me show you sort of my view of what an

13 impeachment exhibit is. If it goes to the substance in

14 any way, including any part or claim or defense, it is not

15 impeachment. What impeachment is, is why a witness is

16 less credible than might otherwise appear. A witness can

17 be less credible because he or she has some bias. A

18 witness can be less credible because that witness has a

19 conviction. That witness can be less credible because any

20 of the other 404(b) or -- 608(b) issues. A witness can be

21 less credible because of prior inconsistent statements.

22 None of that, if it is not offered for substantive

23 evidence, needs to be disclosed to the other side.

24

If it is true impeachment, it can be kept from

25 the other side. So keep in mind that there are relatively

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 98 of 113 Page ID#: 3403
98

1 few things that are true impeachment. One takes the

2 chance if one doesn't disclose to the other side that it

3 might not be admissible unless it really is true

4 impeachment. That's what my view of what impeachment

5 evidence is.

6

We can talk more about the trial day and how

7 that will work at the time of trial. We can talk more

8 about what to do with demonstrative evidence. We can talk

9 more about the trial day at the pretrial evidence. We can

10 talk more about demonstrative evidence and what needs to

11 be done and disclosed at the time of the pretrial

12 conference. I won't take up your time now unless somebody

13 has questions about that.

14

The last thing I'm planning on saying, and then

15 I'll open it up and take whatever questions you want. I

16 have disclosed an awful lot about how I tentatively view a

17 lot of these issues. It wouldn't be inappropriate now for

18 both sides to have discussions about do we read really

19 need to go through with trial, or are there things we can

20 do to streamline trial.

21

I don't know whether or not you have all gone

22 through a settlement conference or a mediation. I'm not

23 going to -- it is not my style to push anybody

24 particularly hard to do it. I'm not going to order you to

25 a settlement conference, but it is not a bad idea. The

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 99 of 113 Page ID#: 3404
99

1 reason I why I say it is not a bad idea is because if you

2 have to go to trial, one side or the other is going to be

3 disappointed with the outcome, and sometimes both sides

4 are disappointed with outcomes. That's just our business.

5 That's just our profession sometimes.

6

But at least if you have gone to the trouble of

7 talking with the other side about a settlement or even a

8 partial settlement -- whether that's lawyer-to-lawyer

9 communication or a settlement conference or a mediation --

10 you have at least tried. If you can't settle it, if you

11 can't resolve it, so be it. That's why we have courts

12 for. That's why we have trials for.

13

But if you haven't even tried resolving it in

14 that fashion, then you might be kicking yourselves if you

15 are disappointed at trial and you say: You know what,

16 there might have been a better outcome at trial. I wish

17 we would have tried to talk settlement.

18

By the way, before taking the bench, I tried

19 cases for 30 years; 25 years in private practice, five

20 years for the Government. In my opinion, and I feel very

21 strong about this, it does not show weakness to be the

22 first side to talk about the possibility of settlement

23 with the other side. If anything, it may show a little

24 bit of strength. So don't be reluctant to talk about

25 those issues with the other side based upon showing

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 100 of 113 Page ID#: 3405
100

1 weakness. It doesn't show weakness. I think that's an

2 unsophisticated view of the matter.

3

If you need the Court's assistance in finding a

4 settlement judge or a staff mediator from the Court, just

5 let Mary, my courtroom deputy, know. We will find a judge

6 for you or get you to the staff mediator.

7 Justice Susan Leeson is a former justice from the Oregon

8 Supreme Court. She is a superb mediator. She knows

9 Oregon law really well. She has excellent mediation

10 skills. She is available. If you need her, ask Mary. If

11 you want a settlement judge in the courthouse, let Mary

12 know. If you all can agree on who you think might be the

13 right Judge, let Mary know, and we will ask that person.

14 If you want to know who is available, she can send out a

15 general request to folks. That's if you want.

16

Realize that even if you can't settle the entire

17 dispute, if you settle pieces of it, that may or may not

18 be in your interest. It will certainly reduce what has to

19 be tried. I don't know whether there is any aspects of a

20 stipulated declaratory or stipulated permanent injunction

21 that you can all agree on. Maybe you can agree on some

22 issues but not others. Fine. I'm here to resolve

23 whatever you can't agree on. Maybe you can or can't agree

24 upon the jury portion of damages. Fine. Maybe you can

25 agree on everything but attorney fees. Fine. Agree on

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 101 of 113 Page ID#: 3406
101

1 what you can agree on. I'll deal with what you can't

2 agree on.

3

That's all I'm going to say about that. I don't

4 expect to raise the issue of settlement or mediation again

5 at the pretrial conference because, as I said, I really

6 don't strongarm people into settling their cases, but I

7 want to make sure they are aware of my view it is a good

8 idea to fully explore the issue before trial and to let

9 you know, if you need the Court's assistance -- other than

10 me serving as a mediator; that's not going to happen. But

11 if you need us to find someone for you, I'll do that.

12 Other than that, I don't expect to raise the issue again.

13

I think that covers all that I wanted to talk

14 about with you. I will now turn it over to you in case

15 you have any comments or questions. I will start with

16 plaintiff.

17

MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Your Honor. This was

18 helpful for you to go over your expectations. I do have a

19 question about the trial brief. You seem to be very well

20 informed about the facts and law and so forth, but I can

21 understand how a summary of the facts and law can still be

22 helpful. Can you provide us with a little bit more

23 specificity on what would be helpful?

24

THE COURT: Here is what is most helpful to me,

25 two points: First, I'm still having trouble visualizing

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 102 of 113 Page ID#: 3407
102

1 what our trial will look like. What's going to be for me

2 and what's going to be for the jury to decide? To the

3 extent you can all confer and reach agreement on that, let

4 me know. To the extent that you disagree, it would be

5 very helpful for me to know your differing perspectives.

6 I would like to know if what plaintiff thinks what the

7 trial is going to look like is this, and the defendant

8 thinks it is going to look like something else, that would

9 be helpful for me to know before we get to our pretrial

10 conference. So that's important.

11

And one of the big issues that is still

12 struggling in my mind, given the ruling I just made, is

13 what should I say to the jury and what do I need to do

14 before I say this to the jury in terms of what their

15 question is? When do I decide, especially if I decide I

16 want to hear all of the testimony, when do I tell the jury

17 that there is a violation of the Constitution and what it

18 is and now their job is to determine damages?

19

I'm not wedded to this particular view, but

20 maybe what I do if I need to hear the entire trial

21 testimony, maybe I explain to the jury right up front the

22 role of the Court and the role of a jury and say: One of

23 the things that's for me to decide is whether or not there

24 has been a violation of the Constitution, either the

25 First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, the due process

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 103 of 113 Page ID#: 3408
103

1 issue, the free speech issue, the postcard issue, the

2 magazine issue, the due process issue, the censoring

3 issue, and I will let them know that in final jury

4 instructions. I'll tell them -- by the way, I'm not

5 saying this is what I'm going to do. I'm looking for your

6 feedback. And I tell them: If I find that there is no

7 violation, then there is nothing for you to do, which I

8 don't think I really want to tell them that.

9

But I'll give them more detailed and specific

10 instructions in terms of what areas they need to focus on

11 in those final instructions. That doesn't strike me as

12 all that satisfying or smart, but I don't know what else

13 to do.

14

So I would like you all to think about it. If

15 you can reach agreement, fine. If you can't reach

16 agreement, give me your respective differing views. But

17 I'm trying to visualize what I tell the jury and when I

18 tell them various things. So that's what I'm struggling

19 with.

20

The second area of the trial brief that would be

21 helpful, if there is remaining disagreements with the

22 other side on certain legal propositions, you just

23 disagree with their interpretation of the law, I would

24 like to see sort of a little pinpoint articulation of what

25 those disputed issues are and what cases you want me to

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 104 of 113 Page ID#: 3409
104

1 read. If you really disagree in terms of how to interpret

2 and apply the case of X versus Y, tell me that's something

3 I need to pay attention to, and I should read closely

4 X versus Y. "Here is how you interpret it" and then see

5 how the other side interprets it, and we will talk about

6 that at pretrial conference.

7

Those are the two most important things for me

8 in a trial memorandum.

9

MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Thank you.

10

THE COURT: Other questions or comments?

11

MR. WING: Yes, Your Honor. We may cover this

12 in the pretrial conference. How many jurors?

13

THE COURT: Sure. In federal court civil cases,

14 it is a minimum six, of course, absent stipulation. What

15 we normally do, if it is a very short trial, probably only

16 have seven. When I have a week-long trial, I have eight.

17 With a seven-day trial like this, especially with some

18 prisoners, especially with some folks who might not --

19 well, I will probably know this in voir dire. I may go to

20 nine. When we have got gone to eight, it is our general

21 practice in this building to let all eight deliberate to

22 unanimous verdict so we don't have any alternates.

23

By the way, it is the opinion of more

24 experienced, older judges that I have heard and plus my

25 experience as a trial lawyer, it doesn't make a difference

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 105 of 113 Page ID#: 3410
105

1 whether it is a six-two, unanimous or eight. It really

2 doesn't. I have been hearing that for decades. I now

3 believe it from a trial lawyer's perspective, and I think

4 I have seen it as a trial judge in the cases that I have

5 tried earlier this year. Would 12 make a difference? I

6 don't know; maybe. But six versus eight don't.

7

Four for a seven-day trial, should we go to nine

8 in a case like this? Probably not, but I would be

9 interested in both of your opinions on that. But most

10 likely we will seat eight in the box. No one will be an

11 alternate, and they all have to deliberate. If we lose

12 one or if we lose two during the course of trial or during

13 deliberations, no big deal. It is not a mistrial as long

14 as we have six at the end of the verdict, which is a

15 unanimous verdict.

16

MR. WING: Thank you. I'm sorry.

17

THE COURT: Don't apologize. You can have as

18 much time as you need and ask anything you want.

19

MR. WING: Some judges have sort of a standard

20 set of jury instructions that they typically have. I

21 started putting things together. I didn't want to

22 duplicate. I would like to have any thoughts you have

23 about that. It is just use the ones you think need to be

24 used?

25

THE COURT: I have only been doing this about 17

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 106 of 113 Page ID#: 3411
106

1 months, but so far from the preliminary and

2 non-substantive instructions on the case, I have been

3 following just the basic Ninth Circuit model instructions.

4 For the 1983 claims here, I would anticipate using the

5 Ninth Circuit model instructions. Almost out of an

6 abundance of caution, unless both sides agree, if there is

7 an applicable Ninth Circuit instruction, I will probably

8 use that model. If there is not a model instruction, then

9 I will do it the old-fashioned way. I will look at what

10 both sides have to say and carve out something with

11 clarity and precision and understandability is of

12 paramount importance.

13

I will probably put together sort of -- I always

14 have. It is a work in progress. I will send to you all

15 by e-mail what my general voir dire comments look like,

16 what my general preliminary instructions look like. You

17 don't need to spend your time on that. Work on the

18 substantive stuff of what you want for the jury.

19

And again, to the extent that you can all agree,

20 1983, especially damages only, shouldn't be all that

21 complicated. Where I think it will be more complicated

22 and where you all should spend the greatest part of your

23 time hopefully agreeing, but if not, send me your best

24 thinking on it, is what I should be saying to this jury

25 this case is about and what their job is. If you all can

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 107 of 113 Page ID#: 3412
107

1 agree on that, fine. If you can't agree on it, that's

2 where your efforts could be best spent because that's

3 where I am going to be spending a lot of time and

4 attention and thought on, telling the jury what this case

5 is about from their perspective. Did I answer that

6 question?

7

MR. WING: I think so. The follow-up is, do you

8 typically want to receive jury instructions with

9 authorities at the bottom and then a separate set that

10 don't have authorities?

11

THE COURT: This is set forth in the trial

12 management order.

13

MR. WING: I'm sorry.

14

THE COURT: No problem. Go ahead and put

15 authorities on the bottom of one set. I don't need a

16 clean set. Just send them to Mary by e-mail in Word

17 format. Therefore, we don't need a second set because we

18 cut and paste. So give me your authorities and show me

19 where you are modifying from any models, if that's what

20 you want to propose. But as long as you send it to us by

21 e-mail in Word format, it is very easy for us to cut and

22 paste.

23

What I normally do, by the way, I normally do

24 this in two phases. I will take the jury instructions

25 that you all agree on or disagree on and come up with one

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 108 of 113 Page ID#: 3413
108

1 sort of master set. Then probably the day before final

2 conference, I'll send it to you as the tentative state of

3 my thinking, let you sleep on it, think about it, and then

4 give me your arguments of where I'm making a mistake

5 substantively or typographically the next day.

6

MR. WING: Thank you.

7

THE COURT: Other questions, comments, issues?

8

MR. KRAEMER: Nothing, Your Honor.

9

THE COURT: Okay. If you think that you are

10 going to need substantially less than seven days, let Mary

11 know please, and we will release that for other

12 activities.

13

If, in light of my ruling and your further

14 thinking, you think you need substantially more than seven

15 days, let Mary know that as soon as possible.

16

Oh, by the way, one of the things that I expect

17 to see in the witness statements are realistic time

18 estimates of direct examination. Keep in mind the

19 following is just not going to be acceptable -- a

20 seven-day trial we should be okay. But I have seen

21 circumstances where, let's say, a case is scheduled for a

22 three-day trial, and you add up all of the time of let's

23 say plaintiff's direct examinations, not even counting

24 opening and closing and instructions and voir dire, and it

25 adds up to about five trial days, not even counting

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 109 of 113 Page ID#: 3414
109

1 cross-examination. That doesn't work.

2

You have got seven days set aside for this. I'm

3 assuming that since probably most or many of the

4 plaintiff's witnesses might be -- I don't know about

5 most -- a fair number might be called adversely. I would

6 expect defendants, if they wanted to, could go beyond the

7 scope of the direct and get out their testimony in

8 plaintiff's case, if they wanted to, so they didn't need

9 to call someone back. If they wanted to call someone back

10 instead in their case, I would let them do that. But then

11 I wouldn't let them say the same thing and get out the

12 same story twice. I would sustain a cumulative objection.

13 But on the other hand, if it is someone called adversely,

14 and they just don't want that person to come back to trial

15 three days hence, I would let them go beyond the scope of

16 direct but then be limited to non-leading questions.

17

Anyway, that being said, I would like to see in

18 the witness statements, a realistic assessment of direct

19 examination times. I think a rough rule of thumb that

20 errs on the side of caution is a one-to-one correspondence

21 between time for direct examination and time for

22 cross-examination. And if that rule of thumb on both

23 plaintiff's and defendants' is applied and we're within a

24 seven-day window, we don't have a problem. If it adds up

25 to 14 days, we have got a big problem, and we will need to

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 110 of 113 Page ID#: 3415
110

1 figure out what to do about that at the pretrial

2 conference. It might be that I'll start striking

3 witnesses as cumulative or for some other reason. So you

4 all need to figure that out beforehand.

5

By the way, just for your general knowledge, I

6 do think six hours of trial testimony per day is

7 reasonable. We will generally start trial at 9:00, end at

8 5:00, a 15-minute break mid-morning and a 15-minute break

9 mid-afternoon. Unless we are really pressed for time, an

10 hour and a half for lunch. If we are pressed for time, an

11 hour for lunch. I will see how that progresses.

12

I generally do not allow sidebars. I do not

13 generally return the jurors to the witness jury room so we

14 can talk about something outside their presence. If you

15 need to be heard outside the presence of the jury while

16 the jury is here, most likely I will tell you to save it

17 for our next break; move on to another topic. I really

18 want to make maximum use of the jury's time while we have

19 them so we really can get in six hours per day of jury

20 time while they are here.

21

The corollary, of course, if there is anything

22 you need, let me know in advance. We will make ourselves

23 available before trial starts, during any of the breaks,

24 after the trial days end. I will listen to whatever you

25 want to say outside the presence of the jury, but during

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 111 of 113 Page ID#: 3416
111

1 break time: Mid-morning break, afternoon break, lunch

2 break, before or after trial. We are not going to have

3 the jury coming back and forth or whispering sessions at

4 the bench.

5

Anything else? I have probably covered a lot

6 and exhausted you. By the way, you are always welcome, if

7 you have any more questions of this sort or anything else,

8 just send Mary an e-mail. Copy the other side, of course,

9 and we will get you a response.

10

We are here to try to facilitate this process.

11 I know it is very burdensome on you all. I also recognize

12 the calendar that you have here and the holidays, but

13 that's life. But whatever we can do to answer your

14 questions and make things as easy as appropriate, we will

15 do.

16

I do think that these are important issues, and

17 I'm treating them as such. That said, if you want to

18 resolve them without my assistance, feel free.

19

MS. CHAMBERLAIN: Thank you, Your Honor.

20

MR. WING: Thank you.

21

THE COURT: All right. Very good. We will be

22 in recess. It was excellent argument and excellent

23 briefing.

24

Thank you.

25

COUNSEL: Thank you.

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 112 of 113 Page ID#: 3417
112

1

(End of proceedings.)

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 126 Filed 11/26/12 Page 113 of 113 Page ID#: 3418
113

1

2

--oOo--

3

4

I certify, by signing below, that the foregoing

5 is a correct transcript of the record of proceedings in

6 the above-entitled cause. A transcript without an

7 original signature, conformed signature or digitally

8 signed signature is not certified.

9 /s/ Dennis W. Apodaca
10 DENNIS W. APODACA, RMR, FCRR, RPR Official Court Reporter
11

November 26, 2012 DATE

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 129 Filed 12/30/12 Page 1 of 5

Katherine C. Chamberlain, OSB #042580 katherinec@mhb.com Jesse A. Wing, pro hac vice jessew@mhb.com Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News MacDonald Hoague & Bayless 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104-1745 (206) 622-1604
Marc D. Blackman, OSB #730338 marc@ransomblackman.cOln Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Ransom Blackman LLP 1001 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1400 Portland, OR 97204 (503) 228-0487
Lance Weber, pro hac vice lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Hmnan Rights Defense Center 1037 Western Ave., 2nd Floor West Brattleboro, VT 05303 (802) 257-1342

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project ofthe HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,
Defendants.

No.3:12-CV-71-SI PLAINTIFF'S TRIAL BRIEF

PLAINTIFF'S TRIAL BRIEF (CV 12-71-SI) - 1
9870.05 fl270902

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 129 Filed 12/30/12 Page 2 of 5
PlaintiffPrison Legal News respectfully submits the following trial brief addressing the issues raised by the Court at oral argument on Plaintiffs lnotion for summary judgment.
I. Who Decides What at Trial Under Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent, PLN believes that the Court will decide the following: 1 1. Whether Defendants' policies and practices (Postcard-Only and Magazine Ban)
violated the First Amendment, and under what standard (e.g., Turner v. Safely or Procunier v. Martinez); 2. Whether Defendants' policies and practices (relating to due process notice and opportunity to be heard) violated the Fourteenth Alnendment; 3. The specific acts of censorship and lack of notice and opportunity to be heard committed by Defendants that constituted violations of the Constitution, since that is part and parcel of applying Turner or Martinez and due process precedent;2 4. Declaratory relief, since it is a form of equitable relief; 5. Injunctive relief, since it is a form of equitable relief; and 6. Nominal damages, since they are lnandatory under Ninth Circuit law. 3

1 See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-90 (1987), Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 408 (1974), overruled in part on other grounds by Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 417 (1989), and Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692, 696 (9th Cir. 2005).
2 And, in any event, Defendants have admitted the acts of censorship as well as the acts of failure to afford due process. They just dispute the legal consequences of their acts. Under the circumstances, it is unnecessary to ask the jury to "find" what acts occurred just so the Court can decide whether those admitted acts violated the Constitution.
3 See Schneider v. County ofSan Diego, 285 F.3d 784, 794-95 (9th Cir. 2002) (plaintiff "legally entitled to judgment with a mandatory nominal damages award of $1.00 as a symbolic vindication of her constitutional right").

PLAINTIFF'S TRIAL BRIEF (CV 12-71-S1) - 2
9870.05 fl270902

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
TeI206.622.J604 Fax206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 129 Filed 12/30/12 Page 3 of 5

In turn, once the Court has decided issues numbered one through six above, and has instructed the jury of its findings and conclusions, Plaintiff believes that the jury will decide the following fact issues and decide the appropriate relief:
1. Whether to award compensatory (economic and presumed) damages and, if so, how much.
2. Whether to award punitive damages and, if so, how much.
II. What to Tell the Jury, and When PLN believes that the Court should approach this jury trial in the same lnanner as it approaches trials where it is asked to render a directed verdict or judgment as a matter of law only after the jury is impaneled. That is, at the beginning of the trial, the Court should issue typical jury instructions about the nature of the case and the parties' respective positions about their claims. See PLN's proposed Jury Instruction No.2. PLN has articulated in its proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and its proposed Jury Instruction Nos. 21 and 22 what it anticipates the Court will find and then instruct the jury on. But, for the following reason, PLN believes that the Court should wait to explain to the jury that the Court has decided or will decide the legal issues until it has done so: 1. Regardless of the scope of the jury's role, the jury melnbers should pay the same
attention to the evidence because most of the evidence relating to liability also relates to the issues of compensatory and punitive dmnages; 2. Telling the jury that their role is limited in some way may inadvertently tend to reduce the attention that they pay to certain evidence or skew their focus on the evidence, or it may confuse them about what to pay attention to; and 3. Once the Court actually makes its decisions it will have clarity on what to instruct the jury, which has the added advantage of reducing the chances of having to correct prior pronouncements.

PLAINTIFF'S TRIAL BRIEF (CV 12-71-S1) - 3
9870.05 tl270902

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 129 Filed 12/30/12 Page 4 of 5
III. Issues of Law in Dispute In addition to the core dispute over the constitutionality of Defendants' policies and practices and the issues raised in the parties' respective motions in limine, PLN believes that the Court will need to address the proper standard for determining whether Defendants' censorship of outgoing prisoner mail violated the First Amendment. PLN contends that Defendants' conduct is governed by Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 408 (1974), whereas Defendants contend that it is governed by Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-90 (1987). PLN relies on its prior briefing, see Dkt. 15 at 17-18, Dkt. 71, Dkt. 98 at 13-14, and on its oral argument on the preliminary injunction regarding this issue. Respectfully submitted, DATED this 30th day of December, 2012.
MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS
Is/Jesse Wing KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN OSB #042580 JESSE WING Admitted pro hac vice (206) 622-1604 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

PLAINTIFF'S TRIAL BRIEF (CV 12-71-SI) - 4
9870.05 fl270902

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 129 Filed 12/30/12 Page 5 of 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on December 30,2012, I electronically filed the foregoing to the
Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the
following: • Marc D. Blackman marc@ransOInblackman.cOIn,pat@ransomblackman.com • Steven A. Kraemer sak@hartwagner.com,rcd@hartwagner.cOIn • Gregory R. Roberson grr@hartwagner.com,cej@hartwagner.com • Lynn S. Walsh walsh@europa.com • Lance Weber lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org,ahull@humanrightsdefensecenter.org
MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS
Is/Jesse Wing KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN OSB #042580 JESSE WING Admitted Pro Hac Vice (206) 622-1604 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

PLAINTIFF'S TRIAL BRIEF (CV 12-71-SI) - 5
9870.05 fl270902

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 134 Filed 12/31/12 Page 1 of 7
Katherine C. Chamberlain, OSB #042580 katherinec@mhb.com Jesse A. Wing, pro hac vice jessew@mhb.com Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News MacDonald Hoague & Bayless 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104-1745 (206) 622-1604
Marc D. Blackman, OSB #730338 marc@ransomblackman.com Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Ransom Blackman LLP 1001 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1400 Portland, OR 97204 (503) 228-0487
Lance Weber, pro hac vice lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Human Rights Defense Center 1037 Western Ave., 2nd Floor West Brattleboro, VT 05303 (802) 257-1342

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,
Defendants.

No.3:12-CV-71-SI
PLAINTIFF'S ITEMIZED LIST OF SPECIAL DAMAGES

PLAINTIFF'S ITEMIZED LIST OF SPECIAL DAMAGES (CV 12-71-SI) - 1
9870.0511312204

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 134 Filed 12/31/12 Page 2 of 7

Plaintiff claims the following categories of damages:

A. Diversion of Resources Damages: Defendants' unconstitutional mail policy and

censorship of incoming and outgoing prisoner mail caused PLN to divert time and resources to

investigate the extent and nature of Defendants' mail policy and censorship practices. PLN's

diversion of resources damages include the following categories: (i) time spent by PLN staff

investigating the mail policies and censorship at Columbia County Jail, and litigating censorship

and due process claims; and (ii) expenses incurred by PLN in testing the mail policies and

censorship practices at Columbia County Jail, including the cost of materials and postage.

PLN Staff Person Paul Wright Zach Phillips Dennis Curran Jen Kovacs Materials and Postage

Hours 186 14.6 4.2 10.3

Rate $200.00 $105.00
$90.00 $75.00

Value $37,200.00
$1,533.00 $378.00 $772.50 $221.70
$40,105.20

Because the diversion is ongoing up to and including trial, PLN will present updated

damages testimony regarding the time spent by PLN staff at trial.

Nature of evidence that will support Plaintiffs claim for diversion of resources damages:

Plaintiffs Proposed Trial Exhibit Nos. 168, 169, 172, and 173, and the testimony of Paul Wright,

Zach Phillips, and Dennis Curran. See Wright, Phillips, and Curran Witness Statements.

B. Frustration of Mission Damages: Future expenditures will be necessary to counter the adverse effects of Defendants' unconstitutional mail policy and censorship of incoming and outgoing prisoner mail, including outreach, education, and testing. PLN's frustration of mission damages include the following categories: (1) the time and expense for PLN to write, publish, and send letters (or postcards) to all Columbia County prisoners regarding the Jail's mail policy and any declaratory judgment and injunction; (2) the time and expense for PLN to prepare and publish an advertisement in the St. Helens Chronicle and News Advertiser to be published at two different times; (3) the time and expense for PLN to prepare for, travel to, and give a presentation to the local bar and legal services regarding the Jail's mail policy and any

PLAINTIFF'S ITEMIZED LIST OF SPECIAL DAMAGES (CV 12-71-SI) - 2
9870.05 m 12204

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Te1206.622.l604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 134 Filed 12/31/12 Page 3 of 7

declaratory judgment and injunction; (4) the time and expense for PLN to produce a short video for online dissemination to prisoner's families and friends regarding the Jail's mail policy and any declaratory judgment and injunction; and (5) the time and expense for PLN to perform further testing and monitoring of Defendants' mail practices for compliance with the Constitution and order of the Court for three years.

Letters to Columbia Co. Jail Prisoners Ads in St. Helen's Chronicle and News Advertiser Presentation to Local Bar, Legal Services Production of Short Video for Families Compliance Monitoring

$1,351.00 $826.86
$3,500.00 $4,850.00 $10,671.00 $21,198.86

The following will be necessary to rectify the damage done by Columbia County's

unconstitutional mail policy and practices so that the public and prisoners are fully informed

about the outcome of the case, including changes in Columbia County's mail policy and the

requirements of the U.S. Constitution as it relates to incoming and outgoing prisoner mail:

1. Letters to Columbia Co. Jail Prisoners: This expenditure is necessary to:

(i) notify the prisoners that they are allowed to receive magazines, periodicals, pUblications, gift

subscriptions to publications, mail generated from the internet, and correspondence that is not a

postcard; (ii) notify the prisoners that they are allowed to send outgoing mail that is not on a

postcard; (iii) notify prisoners of their rights and the rights of their correspondents to receive due

process notice and an opportunity to be heard when the Columbia County Jail censors their

incoming or outgoing mail; (iv) inform prisoners of their constitutional rights and the

constitutional rights of their families, friends, publishers, and others, with whom they wish to

correspond or from whom they wish to receive mail; (v) notify prisoners of the outcome of this

case and any declaratory judgment and injunction entered by the Court; and (vi) rectify the

confusion caused by the Jail's failure to accurately inform the prisoners and the public about the

Jail's mail policy and caused by the Jail's failure to follow the Constitution or its own claimed

mail policies.

PLAINTIFF'S ITEMIZED LIST OF SPECIAL DAMAGES (CV 12-71-SI) - 3
9870.05 11312204

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Te1206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 134 Filed 12/31/12 Page 4 of 7

PLN estimates that preparing 150 letters for mailing takes 6 hours of staff time (@ $105 per hour), 2 hours of Paul Wright's time to draft the letters (@ $200/hour), and that the cost of sending those letters will be $321.
2. Ads in St. Helen's Chronicle and News Advertiser: This expenditure is necessary to notify families and friends of prisoners, and others who wish to correspond with prisoners, that they are allowed to purchase gift subscriptions to publications for prisoners, send mail generated from the internet, and correspond with prisoners by means other than the use of a postcard; and to inform them on the topics listed in parts (i) through (vi) above.
PLN estimates that preparing an advertisement will take 1 hour of Paul Wright's time (@ $200 per hour), and that the two advertisements will cost $313.43 as quoted by a newspaper representative. See Plaintiffs Proposed Trial Exhibit No. 170
3. Presentation to Local Bar and Legal Services: This expenditure is necessary to inform and advise lawyers and organizations that have contact with prisoners, or their friends and family, on the topics listed in parts (i) through (vi) above.
PLN estimates: $1,000 for Paul Wright's travel and lodging expenses, including travel from Vermont to Oregon and hotel and local transportation expenses; 5 hours (@ $200 per hour) for Paul Wright to prepare for and give the presentation to the local bar and legal services organizations, and answer questions by attendees; and 15 hours (@ $100 per hour) of travel time for Mr. Wright.
4. Production of Short Video for Families: This expenditure is necessary to notify prisoners' family members and friends who are not in the Columbia County area that they are now allowed to purchase gift subscriptions to publications for prisoners, send mail generated from the internet, and correspond with prisoners in ways that are not limited to the use of postcards, and to inform them on the topics listed in parts (i) through (vi) above.
PLN has received an estimate that production of a five minute video will cost $4,850. See Plaintiffs Proposed Trial Exhibit No. 171.
5. Compliance Monitoring: This expenditure is necessary to test Defendants' compliance with a constitutional mail policy and any injunction entered by the Court.

PLAINTIFF'S ITEMIZED LIST OF SPECIAL DAMAGES (CV 12-71-SI) - 4
9870.05 11312204

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Te1206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 134 Filed 12/31/12 Page 5 of 7
PLN estimates: $1,461.00 for the cost of materials and postage for six biannual mailings to 25 prisoners at the Columbia County Jail. Mailings will include sample issues of Prison Legal
News (cost of materials and postage: $5.30 in 2013, $5.40 in 2014; $5.50 in 2015; 50 per year =
$810 in total), informational subscription brochures, book catalogs, and book offers (cost of materials and postage: $2.16 in 2013, $2.17 in 2014; $2.18 in 2015; 50 per year = $325.50 in total), and inquiry/follow-up letters (cost of materials and postage: $2.16 in 2013, $2.17 in 2014; $2.18 in 2015; 50 per year = $325.50 in total).
For the sample issues and informational brochures, PLN estimates .2 hours of staff time to prepare each biannual mailing (30 hours total @ $105 = $3,150), and 2 hours of Paul Wright's time
to plan and supervise each set of biannual mailings (12 hours total @ $200 = $2,400).
For the inquiry/follow-up letters, PLN estimates 2 hours of staff time to prepare and mail each of the biannual mailings and to compile and analyze testing data (12 hours total @ $105 per hour = $1,260), and 2 hours for Paul Wright to plan and supervise each biannual mailing (12 hours total @ $200 = $2,400).
Nature of evidence that will support Plaintiffs claim for frustration of mission damages: Plaintiffs Proposed Trial Exhibits 170 and 171, and the testimony of Paul Wright and Zach Phillips. See Wright and Phillips Witness Statement.
Plaintiff also claims the following categories of damages: nominal damages for each violation by the Defendants against Plaintiffs constitutional rights; presumed damages for actual injury such as Defendant's interference with PLN's ability to disseminate its views to its intended audience, to develop and foster new subscribers, readers, and donors, and to encourage them to support its perspective and take actions consistent with its message; and punitive damages against the Sheriff Dickerson in his individual capacity.

PLAINTIFF'S ITEMIZED LIST OF SPECIAL DAMAGES (CV 12-71-SI) - 5
9870.05 fl312204

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Te1206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 134 Filed 12/31/12 Page 6 of 7
DATED this 31st day of December, 2012.
MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS
Is/Jesse Wing KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN OSB #042580 JESSE WING Admitted Pro Hac Vice (206) 622-1604 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

PLAINTIFF'S ITEMIZED LIST OF SPECIAL DAMAGES (CV 12-71-SI) - 6
9870.05 11312204

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Te1206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 134 Filed 12/31/12 Page 7 of 7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on December 31, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing to the
Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the
following:
• Marc D. Blackman marc@ransomblackman.com,pat@ransomblackman.com
• Steven A. Kraemer sak@hartwagner.com,rcd@hartwagner.com
• Gregory R. Roberson grr@hartwagner.com,cej@hartwagner.com
• Lynn S. Walsh walsh@europa.com
• Lance Weber lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org,ahull@humanrightsdefensecenter.org
MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS
/s/ Jesse Wing KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN OSB #042580 JESSE WING Admitted Pro Hac Vice (206) 622-1604 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

PLAINTIFF'S ITEMIZED LIST OF SPECIAL DAMAGES (CV 12-71-SI) - 7
9870.05 fl312204

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Te1206.622.l604 Fax 206.343.3961

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 135 Filed 12/31/12 Page 1 of 38
Katherine C. Chamberlain, OSB #042580 katherinec@mhb.com Jesse A. Wing,pro'hac vice jessew@mhb.com Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News MacDonald Hoague & Bayless 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104-1745 (206) 622-1604
Marc D. Blackman, OSB #730338 marc@ransomblackman.com Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Ransom Blackman LLP 1001 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1400 Portland, OR 97204 (503) 228-0487
Lance Weber,pro hac vice lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Human Rights Defense Center 1037 Western Ave., 2nd Floor West Brattleboro, VT 05303 (802) 257-1342

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,
Defendants.

No.3:12-CV-71-SI
PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS

PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED JURy INSTRUCTIONS (CV 12-71-SI)
9870.05 fl306701

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
TeI206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 135 Filed 12/31/12 Page 2 of 38

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1

Duty of Jury

~

~

Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury

2

Instruction 1.1 B (2007)

2

Claims and Defenses

Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury

3

Instruction 1.2 (2007) (modified)

3

What is Evidence and What is Not Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury

4

Evidence

Instructions 1.6 and 1.7 (2007)

(modified)

4

Ruling on Objections

Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury

5

Instruction 1.10 (2007)

5

Conduct of Jury

Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury

6

Instruction 1.12 (2007) (modified)

6

Taking Notes

Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury

7

Instruction 1.14 (2007) (modified)

7

Questions to Witnesses By Jurors Ninth Circuit Model Civil

8

Instruction 1.15 (2007)

8

Outline of Trial

Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury

9

Instruction 1.19 (2007)

9

Deposition in Lieu of Live

Ninth Circuit Model Civil

10

Testimony

Instruction 2.4 (2007) (modified)

10

Evidence for Limited Purpose

Ninth Circuit Model Civil

11

Instruction 1.8 (2007)

11

Stipulations of Fact

Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury

12

Instruction 2.2 (2007) (modified)

12

Duty of Court

Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury

13

Instruction 1.1 C (modified)

13

What is Evidence and What is Not Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury

14

Evidence

Instructions 1.6 and 1.7 (2007)

(modified)

14

Direct and Circumstantial Evidence Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury

15

Instruction 1.9 (2007)

15

Credibility of Witnesses

Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury

16

Instruction 1.11 (2007)

16

Expert Opinion

Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury

17

Instruction 2.11 (2007)

17

Equal Treatment of Parties

Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury

18

Instruction 4.1 (2007) (modified);

Hardenbrook v. United Parcel

Serv., Co., CV07-509-S-EJL, 2010

WL 3540124, *8 (D. Idaho

Sept. 3,2010)

18

Stipulations of Fact

Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury

19

Instruction 2.2 (2007) (modified)

PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED JURy INSTRUCTIONS (CV 12-71-SI) - i
9870.05 fl306701

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 135 Filed 12/31/12 Page 3 of 38

- ~

",' "c,

19

Liability of the Government - Scope

~'i"""""X
Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury

20

,','

of Authority Not at Issue

Instruction 4.2 (2007) (modified);

Nintl1 'Circuit Model Civil Jury

Instruction 9 (Civil Rights Actions

- 42 U.S.C. § 1983); Devereaux v.

Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1074 (9th

Cir.2001)

20

Burden of Proof- Preponderance of Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury

21

the Evidence

Instruction 1.3 (2007) (modified)

21

The Court Finds That Defendants Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89- 22

Violated Plaintiffs Free Speech

90 (1987); Prison Legal News v.

Rights

Lehman, 297 F.3d 692, 696 (9th

Cir.2005)

22

Court Finds That Defendants

Shanks v. Dressel, 540 F3d 1082, 23

Violated PLN's Due Process Rights 1090 (9th Cir. 2008); Hahn v. Star

Bank, 190 F.3d 708, 716 (6th Cir.

1999); David Hill Dev., LLC v.

City ofForest Grove, 3:08-CV-

266-AC, 2012 WL 5381555, *25

(D. Or. Oct. 30,2012); Ruffv.

County ofKings, CV-F-05-631

OWWGSA, 2009 WL 5111766,

*4 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2009)

23

Damages - Generally

Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury

24

Instructions 5.1 and 5.2 (2007)

(modified)

24

Measuring Economic Damages

Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury

25

Instruction 5.2 (2007) (modified);

S. California Hous. Rights Ctr. v.

Krug, 564 F. Supp.2d 1138, 1152-

53 (C.D. Cal. 2007); Fair Housing

ofMarin v. Combs, 2000 WL

365029, at *3-4, affd, Fair

Housing ofMarin v. Combs, 285

F.3d899 (9th Cir. 2002); Housing

Rights Center v. Snow, 2007 WL

91148, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 3,

2007); Us. v. Balistrieri, 981 F.2d

916, 933 (7th Cir. 1992); Bellwood

v. Dwivedi, 895 F.2d 1521, 1526

(7th Cir. 1990).

25

Presumed Damages

Schwartz & Pratt, Section 1983 26

Litigation: Jury Instructions,

Instruction 18.02.1; Memphis

Community School Dist. v.

PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CV 12-71-SI) - ii
9870.05 fl30670J

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 135 Filed 12/31/12 Page 4 of 38

.1;~;••. </~:•.• ,;;....;..••.•.·.•. )

26

Nominal Damages

27

Punitive Damag~s

28

Duty to Deliberate

29

Communication With Court

30

Return of Verdict

.••....;..; ;.•..••.••• £: .• :; ••. .

... '

.; .

,.iV····.:.:·

.< •••:" . ,....,.

Stachura, 477 U.S. 299, 310-12

(1986); Preferred Com-

munications, Inc. v. City ofLos

Angeles, 13 F.3d 1327, 1334 (9th

Cir. 1994); City of Watseka v.

Illinois Pub. Action Council, 796

F.2d 1547, 1558 (7th Cir. 1986),

affd, 479 U.S. 1048 (1987);

Brooks v. Andolina, 826 F.2d

1266, 1269 (3d Cir. 1987);

Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 167,

195 (D.C. Cir. 1977)

Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury

27

Instructions 5.6 (2007) (modified);

Schneider v. County ofSan Diego,

285 F.3d 784, 794-95 (9th Cir.

2002)

Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury

28

Instruction 5.5 (2007) (modified)

Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury

30

Instruction 3.1 (2007)

Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury

31

Instruction 3.2 (2007) (modified)

Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury

32

Instruction 3.3 (2007) (modified)

PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CV 12-71-SI) - iii
9870.05 f1306701

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 135 Filed 12/31/12 Page 5 of 38
Plaintiff Prison Legal News respectfully sublnits the following proposed jury instructions:

PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED mRY INSTRUCTIONS (CV 12-71-SI) - 1
9870.05 £1306701

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 135 Filed 12/31/12 Page 6 of 38
INSTRUCTION NO.1 (To Be Given Before Trial)
Duty of Jury Ladies and gentlemen: You are now the jury in this case. lt is my duty to instruct you on the law. You must not infer from these instructions or from anything I may say or do as indicating that I have an opinion regarding the evidence or what your verdict should be. lt is your duty to find the facts from all the evidence in the case. To those facts you will apply the law as I give it to you. You must follow the law as I give it to you whether you agree with it or not. And you must not be influenced by any personal likes or dislikes, opinions, prejudices, or sympathy. That means that you must decide the case solely on the evidence before you. You will recall that you took an oath to do so. In following my instructions, you must follow all of them and not single out some and ignore others; they are all important.

Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction 1.lB (2007).

PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED JURy INSTRUCTIONS (CV 12-71-SI) - 2
9870.05 £1306701

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 135 Filed 12/31/12 Page 7 of 38

INSTRUCTION NO.2 (To Be Given Before Trial)
Claims and Defenses To help you follow the evidence, I will give you a brief summary of the positions of the parties. Plaintiff Prison Legal News ("PLN") is a project of the Human Rights Defense Center, a non-profit corporation. PLN publishes a monthly journal of corrections, news, and analysis by the same name: Prison Legal News: Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights. PLN has about 7,000 subscribers, including attorneys, journalists, public libraries, judges, and prisoners at about 2,200 correctional facilities nationwide. In addition to publishing its monthly jounlal, PLN is maintains a website of articles and legal documents, distributes books of interest to prisoners and publishes self-help, non-fiction reference books. Its mission is public education, prisoner education, advocacy, and outreach in support of the rights of prisoners and basic human rights. Defendant Sheriff Jeff Dickerson is the Columbia County Sheriff. He operates Defendant Columbia County Sheriffs Department and the Jail for Defendant Columbia County. The Sheriff adopted a Jail policy that prohibited all mail in envelopes, restricting all incoming and outgoing mail to postcards only. The Jail also prohibited delivery of magazines to prisoners. And, the Jail did not provide due process notice to the sender or the intended recipient when the Jail censored mail nor did it afford them the opportunity to challenge the Jail's censorship decisions. The Jail then censored numerous letters, book catalogs, and monthly subscription news journals that PLN mailed to Columbia County prisoners. PLN claims that it suffered damages as a result of the Defendants' censorship and lack of due process notice and an opportunity to challenge Defendants' censorship decisions. PLN has the burden of proving these claims. [DEFENDANTS TO INSERT DESCRIPTION OF THEIR DEFENSES]
Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction 1.2 (2007) (modified to give particulars of case.)

PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED JURy INSTRUCTIONS (CV 12-71-SI) - 3
9870.05 fl306701

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 135 Filed 12/31/12 Page 8 of 38

INSTRUCTION NO.3 (To Be Given Before Trial) What is Evidence and What is Not Evidence The evidence you are to consider in deciding what the facts are consists of: 1. the sworn testimony of any witness; 2. the exhibits which are received into evidence; and 3. any facts to which the lawyers have agreed. In reaching your verdict, you may consider only the testimony and exhibits received into evidence and the facts to which the patiies have agreed. Certain things are not evidence, and you may not consider them in deciding what the facts are. I will list them for you: (1) Arguments and statements by lawyers are not evidence. The lawyers are not witnesses. What they have said in their opening statements, will say in their closing arguments, and at other times is intended to help you interpret the evidence, but it is not evidence. If the facts as you remember them differ from the way the lawyers have stated them, your melnory of them controls. (2) Questions and objections by lawyers are not evidence. Attorneys have a duty to their clients to object when they believe a question is improper under the rules of evidence. You should not be influenced by the objection or by the court's ruling on it. (3) Testimony that has been excluded or stricken, or that you have been instructed to disregard, is not evidence and must not be considered. In addition sometimes testimony and exhibits are received only for a limited purpose; when I give a limiting instruction, you must follow it. (4) Anything you may have seen or heard when the court was not in session is not evidence. You are to decide the case solely on the evidence received at the trial.
Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instructions 1.6 and 1.7 (2007) (Modified to say agreed facts are evidence and to select from among bracketed options.)

PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED JURy INSTRUCTIONS (CV 12-71-SI) - 4
9870.05 fl306701

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 135 Filed 12/31/12 Page 9 of 38
INSTRUCTION NO.4 (To Be Given Before Trial)
Ruling on Objections
There are rules of evidence that control what can be received into evidence. When a lawyer asks a question or offers an exhibit into evidence and a lawyer on the other side thinks that it is not permitted by the rules of evidence, that lawyer may object. If I overrule the objection, the question may be answered or t~e exhibit received. If I sustain the objection, the question cannot be answered, and the exhibit cannot be received. Whenever I sustain an objection to a question, you must ignore the question and must not guess what the answer might have been.
Sometimes I may order that evidence be stricken from the record and that you disregard or ignore the evidence. That means that when you are deciding the case, you must not consider the evidence that I told you to disregard.

Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction 1.10 (2007).

PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED JURy INSTRUCTIONS (CV 12-71-SI) - 5
9870.05 fi306701

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 135 Filed 12/31/12 Page 10 of 38
INSTRUCTION NO.5 (To Be Given Before Trial)
Conduct of Jury I will now say a few words about your conduct as jurors. First, you are not to discuss this case with anyone, including members of your family, people involved in the trial, or anyone else; this includes discussing the case in internet chat rooms or through internet blogs, internet bulletin boards or e mails. Nor are you allowed to permit others to discuss the case with you. If anyone approaches you and tries to talk to you about the case, please let me know about it immediately; Second, do not read or listen to any news stories, articles, radio, television, or online reports about the case or about anyone who has anything to do with it; Third, do not do any research, such as consulting dictionaries, searching the Internet or using other reference materials, and do not make any investigation about the case on your own; Fourth, if you need to communicate with me simply give a signed note to the bailiff to give to me; and Fifth, do not make up your mind about what the verdict should be until after you have gone to the jury room to decide the case and you and your fellow jurors have discussed the evidence. Keep an open mind until then. Finally, until this case is given to you for your deliberation and verdict, you are not to discuss the case with your fellow jurors.

Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction 1.12 (2007) (modified to select from bracketed options.)

PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED JURy INSTRUCTIONS (CV 12-71-SI) - 6
9870.05 fl306701

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 135 Filed 12/31/12 Page 11 of 38
INSTRUCTION NO.6 (To Be Given Before Trial)
Taking Notes If you wish, you may take notes to help you remember the evidence. If you do take notes, please keep them to yourself until you and your fellow jurors go to the jury room to decide the case. Do not let note taking distract you. When you leave, your notes should be left in the courtroom. No one will read your notes. They will be destroyed at the conclusion of the case. Whether or not you take notes, you should rely on your own memory of the evidence. Notes are only to assist your memory. You should not be overly influenced by your notes or those of your fellow jurors.

Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction 1.14 (2007) (modified to select from among bracketed options.)

PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED JURy INSTRUCTIONS (CV 12-71-SI)-7
9870.05 f1306701

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
TeI206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 135 Filed 12/31/12 Page 12 of 38
INSTRUCTION NO.7 (To Be Given Before Trial) Questions to Witnesses By Jurors You will be allowed to propose written questions to witnesses after the lawyers have completed their questioning of each witness. You may propose questions in order to clarify the testimony, but you are not to express any opinion about the testimony or argue with a witness. If you propose any questions, remember that your role is that of a neutral fact finder, not an advocate. Before I excuse each witness, I will offer you the opportunity to write out a question on a form provided by the court. Do not sign the question. I will review the question with the attorneys to determine if it is legally proper. There are some proposed questions that I will not permit, or will not ask in the wording submitted by the juror. This Inight happen either due to the rules of evidence or other legal reasons, or because the question is expected to be answered later in the case. If I do not ask a proposed question, or if I rephrase it,. do not speculate as to the reasons. Do not give undue weight to questions you or other jurors propose. You should evaluate the answers to those questions in the same manner you evaluate all of the other evidence. By giving you the opportunity to propose questions, I am not requesting or suggesting that you do so. It will often be the case that a lawyer has not asked a question because it is legally objectionable or because a later witness may be addressing that subject.

Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction 1.15 (2007).
PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CV 12-71-SI) - 8
9870.05 fl306701

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 135 Filed 12/31/12 Page 13 of 38
INSTRUCTION NO.8 (To Be Given Before Trial)
Outline of Trial Trials proceed in the following way: First, each side may make an opening statement. An opening statement is not evidence. It is simply an outline to help you understand what that party expects the evidence will show. A party is not required to make an opening statement. The plaintiff will then present evidence, and counsel for the defendant may cross examIne. Then the defendant may present evidence, and counsel for the plaintiff may cross examIne. After the evidence has been presented, I will instruct you on the law that applies to the case and the attorneys will make closing arguments. After that, you will go to the jury room to deliberate on your verdict.

Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction 1.19 (2007).

PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CV 12-71-SI) - 9
9870.05 fl306701

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 135 Filed 12/31/12 Page 14 of 38
INSTRUCTION NO.9 (To Be Given During Trial) Deposition in Lieu of Live Testimony
A deposition is the sworn testimony of a witness taken before trial. The witness is placed under oath to tell the truth and lawyers for each party may ask questions. The questions and answers are recorded. When a person is unavailable to testify at trial, the deposition of that person may be used at the trial.
The deposition of [witness] was taken on [date] . You should consider deposition testimony, presented to you in court in lieu of live testimony, insofar as possible, in the same way as if the witness had been present to testify.
Do not place any significance on the behavior or tone of voice of any person reading the questions or answers.

Ninth Circuit Model Civil Instruction 2.4 (2007) (modified to select from among bracketed options.)

PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED JURy INSTRUCTIONS (CV 12-71-SI) - 10
9870.05 £1306701

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 135 Filed 12/31/12 Page 15 of 38
INSTRUCTION NO. 10 (To Be Given During Trial) Evidence for Limited Purpose Some evidence may be admitted for a limited purpose only. When I instruct you that an item of evidence has been admitted for a limited purpose, you must consider it only for that limited purpose and for no other. [The testimony [you are about to hear] [you have just heard] may be considered only for the limited purpose of [describe purpose] and for no other purpose.]

Ninth Circuit Model Civil Instruction 1.8 (2007).

PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED WRY INSTRUCTIONS (CV 12-71-SI) - 11
9870.05 f130670J

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
TeI206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 135 Filed 12/31/12 Page 16 of 38
INSTRUCTION NO. 11 (To Be Given During Trial)
Stipulations of Fact The parties have agreed to certain. facts that will be read to you. You should therefore treat these facts as having been proved.
[INSERT STIPULATED FACTS]

Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction 2.2 (2007) (modified to select among bracketed options.)

PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CV 12-71-SI) - 12
9870.05 £1306701

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 135 Filed 12/31/12 Page 17 of 38
INSTRUCTION NO. 12 (To Be Given After Trial)
Duty of Court
Members of the Jury: Now that you have heard all of the evidence, it is my duty to instruct you as to the law of the case.
Each of you has received a copy of these instructions that you may take with you to the jury room to consult during your deliberations.
You must not infer from these instructions or from anything I may say or do as indicating that I have an opinion regarding the evidence or what your verdict should be.
lt is your duty to find the facts from all the evidence in the case. To those facts you will apply the law as I give it to you. You must follow the law as I give it to you whether you agree with it or not. And you must not be influenced by any personal likes or dislikes, opinions, prejudices, or sympathy. That means that you must decide the case solely on the evidence before you. You will recall that you took an oath to do so.
In following my instructions, you must follow all of them and not single out some and ignore others; they are all important.

Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction 1.1 C (2007) (modified to select from bracketed options.)

PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED mRY INSTRUCTIONS (CV 12-71-SI) - 13
9870.05 fl306701

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 135 Filed 12/31/12 Page 18 of 38

INSTRUCTION NO. 13 (To Be Given After Trial) What is Evidence and What is Not Evidence The evidence you are to consider in deciding what the facts are consists of: 1. the sworn testimony of any witness; 2. the exhibits which are received into evidence; and 3. any facts to which the lawyers have agreed. In reaching your verdict, you may consider only the testimony and exhibits received into evidence and the facts to which the parties have agreed. Certain things are not evidence, and you may not consider them in deciding what the facts are. I will list them for you: (1) Arguments and statements by lawyers are not evidence. The lawyers are not witnesses. What they will say in their closing arguments, and at other times is intended to help you interpret the evidence, but it is not evidence. If the facts as you remember them differ from the way the lawyers have stated them, your memory of them controls. (2) Questions and objections by lawyers are not evidence. Attorneys have a duty to their clients to object when they believe a question is improper under the rules of evidence. You should not be influenced by the objection or by the court's ruling on it. (3) Testimony that has been excluded or stricken, or that you have been instructed to disregard, is not evidence and must not be considered. In addition sometimes testimony and exhibits are received only for a limited purpose; when I have given a limiting in·struction, you must follow it. (4) Anything you may have seen or heard when the court was not in session is not evidence. You are to decide the case solely on the evidence received at the trial.
Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instructions 1.6 and 1.7 (2007) (modified to select from among bracketed options.)

PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CV 12-71-SI) - 14
9870.05 fl306701

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 135 Filed 12/31/12 Page 19 of 38
INSTRUCTION NO. 14 (To Be Given After Trial) Direct and Circumstantial Evidence
Evidence may be direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence is direct proof of a fact, such as testimony by a witness about what that witness personally saw or heard or did. Circumstantial evidence is proof of one or more facts from which you could find another fact. You should consider both kinds of evidence. The law makes no distinction between the weight to be given to either direct or circumstantial evidence. It is for you to decide how much weight to give to any evidence.

Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction 1.9 (2007).

PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED JURy INSTRUCTIONS (CV 12-71-SI) - 15
9870.05 fl306701

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 135 Filed 12/31/12 Page 20 of 38
INSTRUCTION NO. 15 (To Be Given After Trial) Credibility of Witnesses In deciding the facts in this case, you may have to decide which testimony to believe and which testimony not to believe. You may believe everything a witness says, or part of it, or none of it. Proof of a fact does not necessarily depend on the number of witnesses who testify about it. In considering the testimony of any witness, you may take into account: (1) the opportunity and ability of the witness to see or hear or know the things testified to; (2) the witness's memory; (3) the witness's manner while testifying; (4) the witness's interest in the outcome of the case and any bias or prejudice; (5) whether other evidence contradicted the witness=s testimony; (6) the reasonableness of the witness's testimony in light of all the evidence; and (7) any other factors that bear on believability. The weight of the evidence as to a fact does not necessarily depend on the number of witnesses who testify about it.

Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction 1.11 (2007).

PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED JURy INSTRUCTIONS (CV 12-71-SI) - 16
9870.05 fl306701

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 135 Filed 12/31/12 Page 21 of 38
INSTRUCTION NO. 16 (To Be Given After Trial)
Expert Opinion Conditional Instruction: Plaintiff submits this proposed instruction for use only in the event that the Court denies Plaintiff's motion in limine to exclude Defendants' expert witness. Otherwise, the Court should issue no expert opinion instruction.
Some witnesses, because of education or experience, are permitted to state opinions and the reasons for those opinions.
Opinion testimony should be judged just like any other testimony. You may accept it or reject it, and give it as much weight as you think it deserves, considering the witness's education and experience, the reasons given for the opinion, and all the other evidence in the case.

Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction 2.11 (2007).

PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CV 12-71-SI) - 17
9870.05 fl306701

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 135 Filed 12/31/12 Page 22 of 38
INSTRUCTION NO. 17 (To Be Given After Trial) Equal Treatment of Parties All parties are equal before the law and a corporation is entitled to the same fair and conscientious consideration by you as any party.

Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction 4.1 (2007) (modified to select from among bracketed options.); Hardenbrook v. United Parcel Serv., Co., CV07-509-S-EJL, 2010 WL 3540124, *8 (D. Idaho Sept. 3,2010) (affirming utility ofjury instruction stating that "[a]ll persons are equal before the law and a corporation is entitled to the same fair and conscientious consideration by you as any other person.").

PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CV 12-71-SI) - 18
9870.05 fl306701

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 135 Filed 12/31/12 Page 23 of 38
INSTRUCTION NO. 18 (To Be Given After Trial)
Stipulations of Fact The parties have agreed to certain facts set out below. You should therefore treat these facts as having been proved.
[INSERT STIPULATED FACTS FROM PRETRIAL ORDER]

Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction 2.2 (2007) (modified to say the stipulated facts are set out below and to describe the stipulated facts in the pretrial order.)

PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CV 12-71-SI) - 19
9870.05 f130670J

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
TeI206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 135 Filed 12/31/12 Page 24 of 38
INSTRUCTION NO. 19 (To Be Given After Trial) Liability of the Government -- Scope of Authority Not at Issue Under the law, a local governing body, such as a County, is considered to be a person. It can only act through its employees, agents, or officers. Therefore, a government is responsible for the acts of its employees, agents, and officers performed within the scope of authority.

Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction 4.2 (2007) (modified "corporation" to "local governing body, such as a County"); Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction 9 (Civil Rights Actions-42 U.S.C. § 1983) ("It is well settled that a 'person' subject to § 1983 liability can be an individual sued in an individual capacity or in an official capacity, or a local governing body. Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1074 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc)").

PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED JURy INSTRUCTIONS (CV 12-71-SI) - 20
9870.05 fl306701

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 135 Filed 12/31/12 Page 25 of 38
INSTRUCTION NO. 20 (To Be Given After Trial) Burden of Proof -- Preponderance of the Evidence When a party has the burden of proof on any claim or affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence, it means you must be persuaded by the evidence that the claim is more probably true than not true. You should base your decision on all of the evidence, regardless of which party presented it.

Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction 1.3 (2007) (modified to select from among bracketed options.)

PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED JURy INSTRUCTIONS (CV 12-71-SI) - 21
9870.05 f1306701

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Te1206.622.l604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 135 Filed 12/31/12 Page 26 of 38
INSTRUCTION NO. 21 (To Be Given After Trial) The Court finds that Defendants Violated Plaintiff's Free Speech Rights
The plaintiff has the burden of proving that the acts of the defendants Sheriff Dickerson, the Columbia County Sheriffs Department, and Columbia County deprived the plaintiff of particular rights under the United States Constitution. Under the First Amendment to the Constitution, a citizen and a publisher have the right to free expression.
I have found, and I instruct you, that Defendants' Postcard-Only Policy and ban on magazines violate the First Amendment. Further, I have found that each of the sixty-five (65) PLN mailings that Defendants censored, Trial Exhibits 1 through 65, are speech protected by the First Amendment. And, I have found that each of the eighteen (18) mailings of PLN news articles that Lucy Lennox printed from PLN's website that Defendants censored, Trial Exhibits 71 through 87 and 89, are speech protected by the First Amendment.
Accordingly, I instruct you that Defendants Sheriff Dickerson, the Columbia County Sheriff s Departlnent, and Columbia County violated the First Amendment and violated PLN's rights to free speech and expression by: (1) adopting and enforcing its Postcard-Only Policy prohibiting incoming and outgoing mail in envelopes; (2) banning magazines and periodicals from the Jail; and (3) censoring each ofPLN's sixty-five (65) newsjoumals, subscription materials, book offers, book catalogs, renewal letters, fundraising letters, and other mail to pnsoners.

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-90 (1987); Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692, 696 (9th Cir. 2005).

PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED JURy INSTRUCTIONS (CV 12-71-SI) - 22
9870.05 fl30670 I

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 135 Filed 12/31/12 Page 27 of 38
INSTRUCTION NO. 22 (To Be Given After Trial) Court Finds That Defendants Violated PLN's Due Process Rights The plaintiff has the burden of proving that the acts of the defendants Sheriff Dickerson, the Columbia County Sheriffs Department, and Columbia County deprived the plaintiff of particular rights under the United States Constitution. Under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, before being deprived of a protected interest in life, liberty, or property by the government, a citizen and a publisher has the right to due process. I instruct you that Defendants Sheriff Dickerson, the Columbia County Sheriffs Department, and Columbia County violated the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause by: (J) failing to adopt and enforce provisions in their mail policies that afford the sender and intended recipient of mail due process rights to: (a) adequate written notice when Defendants censor their mail; and (b) an opportunity to challenge the censorship decision. I also instruct you that each of the Defendants violated Prison Legal News's due process rights by failing to afford PLN written notice and an opportunity to challenge Defendants' censorship decisions when they censored each ofPLN's sixty-five (65) mailings.
Shanks v. Dressel, 540 F.3d 1082, 1090 (9th Cir. 2008); Hahn v. Star Bank, 190 F.3d 708, 716 (6th Cir. 1999); David Hill Dev., LLC v. City afForest Grove, 3:08-CV-266-AC, 2012 WL 5381555, *25 (D. Or. Oct. 30,2012); RujJv. County ofKings, CV-F-05-631 OWWGSA, 2009 WL 5111766, *4 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2009).

PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED WRY INSTRUCTIONS (CV 12-71-SI) - 23
9870.05 fl306701

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 135 Filed 12/31/12 Page 28 of 38
INSTRUCTION NO. 23 (To Be Given After Trial)
Damages-Generally
It is the duty of the Court to instruct you about the measure of damages. Since I have instructed you that Defendants violated Prison Legal News's constitutional rights on each of its claims, you must determine its damages. PLN has the burden of proving damages by a preponderance of the evidence. Damages means the amount of money that will reasonably and fairly compensate PLN for any injury you find was caused by Defendants. It is for you to determine what damages, if any, have been proved. The law has not furnished us with any fixed standards by which to measure the value of censorship or denial of due process. With reference to these matters, you must be governed by your own judgment, by the evidence in this case, and by these instructions.

Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instructions 5.1 and 5.2 (2007) (modified to reflect a directed finding of liability and to not select any bracketed options.)

PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED mRY INSTRUCTIONS (CV 12-71-SI) - 24
9870.05 fl306701

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 135 Filed 12/31/12 Page 29 of 38

INSTRUCTION NO. 24 (To Be Given After Trial) Measuring Economic Damages In determining the measure of economic damages, you should consider:
Plaintiffs diversion of resources. These damages are equivalent to "opportunity costs" of the activities that the Plaintiff had to forego to address a defendant's action. Examples include the costs of investigating complaints, testing possible violations of the law, and litigating to prove and redress a defendant's actions. One measure of such costs is reasonable hourly rates multiplied by the time expended by the Plaintiff on these activities.
Frustration of Plaintiff s mission. These damages are future costs that the Plaintiff will be forced to expend to rectify the effects of a defendant's actions. Plaintiff is entitled to recover expenditures necessary to counterbalance the effects of a defendant's unconstitutional practices. Examples of such expenditures include those for education, outreach, advertising, monitoring, and testing.
Since I have instructed you that the plaintiff suffered violations of its constitutionallyprotected rights, you must decide what if any diversion of resources or frustration of mission damages the plaintiff is entitled to for each violation. It will be for you, the jury, to determine the amount. The damages awarded should be reasonable and should compensate the plaintiff for harm that it suffered and probably will suffer from the defendant's wrongful conduct.

Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instructions 5.2 (2007) (modified to reflect a directed finding of liability and to add diversion of resources and frustration of mission.); S. California Hous. Rights Ctr. v. Krug, 564 F. Supp. 2d 1138, 1152-53 (C.D. Cal. 2007); Fair Housing ofMarin v. Combs, 2000 WL 365029, at *3-4, affd, Fair Housing ofMarin v. Combs, 285 F.3d 899 (9th Cir. 2002); Housing Rights Center v. Snow, 2007 WL 91148, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan.3, 2007); Us. v. Balistrieri, 981 F.2d 916, 933 (7th Cir. 1992); Bellwood v. Dwivedi, 895 F.2d 1521, 1526 (7th Cir. 1990).

PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED JURy INSTRUCTIONS (CV 12-71-SI) - 25
9870.05 fl306701

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 135 Filed 12/31/12 Page 30 of 38

INSTRUCTION NO. 25 (To Be Given After Trial)
Presumed Damages In this case the plaintiff seeks to recover what the law calls "presumed damages" for the actual losses suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the defendants' violation of the plaintiffs First Amendment rights as a result of the defendants' censorship of PLN' s mail to prisoners and of the policy that impeded prisoners from sending mail to the Plaintiff.
Presumed damages may be awarded when the plaintiff seeks compensation for harms that are likely to have occurred, but are difficult to establish. If you find that the plaintiff suffered violations of its federally protected rights, I am instructing you, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff is entitled to an award of presumed damages for each violation.
It will be for you, the jury, to determine the amount of presumed damages. You may not award damages for the abstract value or importance of the constitutional right to free speech. The damages awarded should be reasonable in relation to the harm that the plaintiff suffered from the defendants' wrongful conduct, and thereby fairly compensate plaintiff for harm that may be impossible to measure precisely.

Schwartz & Pratt, Section 1983 Litigation: Jury Instructions, Instruction 18.02.1; Memphis Community School Dist. v. Stachura, 477 U.S. 299, 310-12 (1986); Preferred Communications, Inc. v. City ofLos Angeles, 13 F.3d 1327, 1334 (9th Cir. 1994); City of Watseka v. Illinois Pub. Action Council, 796 F.2d 1547, 1558 (7th Cir. 1986), affd, 479 U.S. 1048 (1987) (affirming $5,000 award for injury to First Amendment rights because of "(1) its inability to recruit new members in Watseka, (2) its inability to disseminate its views to Watseka residents, and (3) its inability to encourage Watseka citizens to support IPAC positions on various issues by signing petitions or contacting local legislators. "); Brooks v. Andolina, 826 F.2d 1266, 1269 (3d Cir. 1987) (prisoner entitled to general damages for First Amendment violations related to his mail); Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 167, 195 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (affirming award for "loss of an opportunity to demonstrate constitutes loss of First Amendment rights 'in their most pristine and classic form'" even where not "a case in which the demonstration was thwarted altogether").

PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED JURy INSTRUCTIONS (CV 12-71-SI) - 26
9870.05 fl306701

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 135 Filed 12/31/12 Page 31 of 38
INSTRUCTION NO. 26 (To Be Given After Trial)
Nominal Damages
The law which applies to this case authorizes an award of nominal damages. I have instructed you that on 65 occasions the Defendants have violated the Plaintiffs Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process. Plaintiff requests nominal dmnages for the deprivation of its due process rights. I instruct that you must award nominal damages of one dollar per violation for the violation of Plaintiff s due process rights.

Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instructions 5.6 (2007) (modified to add "that a violation of the law occurred" and "as to that claim" and to remove "not to exceed"); Schneider v. County ofSan Diego, 285 F.3d 784, 794-95 (9th Cir. 2002) (plaintiff "legally entitled to judgment with a mandatory nominal damages award of $1.00 as a symbolic vindication of her constitutional right").

PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CV 12-71-SI) - 27
9870.05 £1306701

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 135 Filed 12/31/12 Page 32 of 38

INSTRUCTION NO. 27 (To Be Given After Trial)
Punitive Damages
You may, but are not required to, award punitive damages. The purposes of punitive damages are to punish a defendant and to deter similar acts in the future. Punitive damages may not be awarded to compensate a plaintiff.
The plaintiff has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that punitive damages should be awarded, and, if so, the amount of any such damages.
You may award punitive damages only if you find that the defendant's conduct that harmed the plaintiff was malicious, oppressive or in reckless disregard of the plaintiff s rights. Conduct is malicious if it is accompanied by ill will, or spite, or if it is for the purpose of injuring the plaintiff. Conduct is in reckless disregard of the plaintiff s rights if, under the circumstances, it reflects complete indifference to the plaintiff s safety or rights, or if the defendant acts in the face of a perceived risk that its actions will violate the plaintiff s rights under federal law. An act or omission is oppressive if the defendant injures or damages or otherwise violates the rights of the plaintiff with unnecessary harshness or severity, such as by the misuse or abuse of authority or power or by the taking advantage of some weakness or disability or misfortune of the plaintiff.
If you find that punitive damages are appropriate, you must use reason in setting the amount. Punitive damages, if any, should be in an amount sufficient to fulfill their purposes but should not reflect bias, prejudice or sympathy toward any party. In considering the amount of any punitive damages, consider the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct, including whether the conduct that harmed the plaintiff was particularly reprehensible because it also caused actual harm or posed a substantial risk of harm to people who are not parties to this

PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED JURy INSTRUCTIONS (CV 12-71-SI) - 28
9870.05 fl306701

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 135 Filed 12/31/12 Page 33 of 38
case. You may not, however, set the amount of any punitive damages in order to punish the defendant for harm to anyone other than the plaintiff in this case.
Punitive damages may not be awarded against Defendants Columbia County and Columbia County Sheriffs Department. You may impose punitive damages against any other Defendant. Punitive damages may be awarded even if you award plaintiff only nominal, and not cOlnpensatory, damages.

Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction 5.5 (2007) (modified to select among bracketed options, to preclude an award against Defendants Columbia County and Columbia County Sheriffs Department, and to remove language suggesting an award against two defendants)

PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED JURy INSTRUCTIONS (CV 12-71-SI) - 29
9870.05 £1306701

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Te1206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 135 Filed 12/31/12 Page 34 of 38
INSTRUCTION NO. 28 (To Be Given After Trial)
Duty to Deliberate When you begin your deliberations, you should elect one member of the jury as your presiding juror. That person will preside over the deliberations and speak for you here in court. You will then discuss the case with your fellow jurors to reach agreement if you can do so. Your verdict must be unanimous. Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but you should do so only after you have considered all of the evidence, discussed it fully with the other jurors, and listened to the views of your fellow jurors. Do not hesitate to change your opinion if the discussion persuades you that you should. Do not come to a decision simply because other jurors think it is right. It is important that you attempt to reach a unanimous verdict but, of course, only if each of you can do so after having made your own conscientious decision. Do not change an honest belief about the weight and effect of the evidence simply to reach a verdict.

Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction 3.1 (2007).
PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED JURy INSTRUCTIONS (CV 12-71-SI) - 30
9870.05 fi306701

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 135 Filed 12/31/12 Page 35 of 38
INSTRUCTION NO. 29 (To Be Given After Trial) Communication With Court
If it becomes necessary during your deliberations to cOlnmunicate with me, you may send a note through the bailiff, signed by your presiding juror or by one or more members of the jury. No member of the jury should ever attempt to communicate with me except by a signed writing; I will communicate with any member of the jury on anything concerning the case only in writing, or here in open court. If you send out a question, I will consult with the parties before answering it, which may take some time. You may continue your deliberations while waiting for the answer to any question. Remember that you are not to tell anyone including me how the jury stands, numerically or otherwise, until after you have reached a unanimous verdict or have been discharged. Do not disclose any vote count in any note to the court.

Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction 3.2 (2007) (modified to select from among bracketed options.)

PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CV 12-71-SI) - 31
9870.05 fi306701

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 135 Filed 12/31/12 Page 36 of 38
INSTRUCTION NO. 30 (To Be Given After Trial)
Return of Verdict
A verdict form has been prepared for you. After you have reached unanimous agreement on a verdict, your presiding juror will fill in the form that has been given to you, sign and date it, and advise the court that you are ready to return to the courtroom.

Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction 3.3 (2007) (modified to select among bracketed options).

PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED JURy INSTRUCTIONS (CV 12-71-SI) - 32
9870.05 fl306701

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 135 Filed 12/31/12 Page 37 of 38
Additional Possible Instructions
No proposed instructions are submitted on the following topics because liability will be decided by the Court. Plaintiff reserves the right to submit proposed instructions in the event that the Court rules that any of these topics are issues for the jury to decide:
1. Censorship under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution; 2. Denial of due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of Constitution; 3. Section 1983 claim-introductory instruction; 4. Section 1983 claim against local governing body defendants based on official policy,
practice, custom, and act of final policy-maker--elements and burden of proof; 5. Section 1983 claim against individual defendant; and 6. Color of State Law
DATED this 31 st day of December, 2012.
MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS /s/ Jesse Wing
JESSE WING, admitted pro hac vice KATHERlNE C. CHAMBERLAIN OSB #042580 (206) 622-1604 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED JURy INSTRUCTIONS (CV 12-71-SI) - 33
9870.05 fl306701

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 135 Filed 12/31/12 Page 38 of 38
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on December 31, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing to the
Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the
following:
• Marc D. Blackman marc@ransomblackman.com,pat@ransomblackman.com
• Steven A. Kraemer sak@hartwagner.com,rcd@hartwagner.com
• Gregory R. Roberson grr@hartwagner.com,cej@hartwagner.com
• Lynn S. Walsh walsh@europa.com
• Lance Weber lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org,ahull@humanrightsdefensecenter.org
MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS
/s/ Katherine C. Chamberlain KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN OSB #042580 (206) 622-1604 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CV 12-71-SI) - 34
9870.05 fl306701

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 136 Filed 12/31/12 Page 1 of 6
Katherine C. Chamberlain, OSB #042580 katherinec@mhb.com Jesse A. Wing, pro hac vice jessew@mhb.com Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News MacDonald Hoague & Bayless 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104-1745 (206) 622-1604
Marc D. Blackman, OSB #730338 marc@ransomblackman.com Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Ransom Blackman LLP 1001 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1400 Portland, OR 97204 (503) 228-0487
Lance Weber,pro hac vice lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Human Rights Defense Center 1037 Western Ave., 2nd Floor West Brattleboro, VT 05303 (802) 257-1342

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,
Defendants.

No.3:12-CV-71-SI
PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED SPECIAL VERDICT FORM

PLTF'S PROPOSED SPECIAL VERDICT FORM (CV 12-71-SI) - 1
9870.05 fl296702

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 136 Filed 12/31/12 Page 2 of 6 Plaintiff Prison Legal News respectfully submits the following proposed special verdict form:
PLTF'S PROPOSED SPECIAL VERDICT FORM (CV 12-71-SI) - 2
9870.05 fl296702

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 136 Filed 12/31/12 Page 3 of 6

1. On Prison Legal News's claim that Defendants censored sixty-five (65) ofPLN's mailings in violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, what amount of damages will fairly compensate Prison Legal News for this violation?
Answer: Economic Damages Presumed Damages $_ _ _ _ __
2. On Prison Legal News's claim that Defendants censored sixty-five (65) pieces of mail without providing due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, award nominal damages in the amount of$1.00 per violation.
Answer: Nominal Damages

3. Do you find that Prison Legal News should be awarded punitive damages against

Defendant Sheriff Dickerson for violation of the First Amendment to the United States

Constitution?

Answer: Yes

No - - -

If yes, what do you find to be the amount of punitive damages? Answer: $- - - - - - - - -

4. Do you find that Prison Legal News should be awarded punitive damages against

Defendant Sheriff Dickerson for violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

Constitution?

Answer: Yes

No - - -

If yes, what amount of punitive damages do you award? Answer:

PLTF'S PROPOSED SPECIAL VERDICT FORM (CV 12-71-SI) - 3
9870.05 fl296702

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 136 Filed 12/31/12 Page 4 of 6 DATED: _ _ _ _ _ _, 2013.
Presiding Juror
PLTF'S PROPOSED SPECIAL VERDICT FORM (CV 12-71-SI) - 4
9870.05 11296702

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 136 Filed 12/31/12 Page 5 of 6
DATED this 31 st day of December, 2012. MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS lsi Jesse Wing JESSE WING, admitted pro hac vice KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN OSB #042580 (206) 622-1604 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News
PLTF'S PROPOSED SPECIAL VERDICT FORM (CV 12-71-SI) - 5
9870.05 f1296702

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 136 Filed 12/31/12 Page 6 of 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on December 31, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing to the Clerk of the Court using the CMlECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: • Marc D. Blackman marc@ransomblackman.com,pat@ransomblackman.com • Steven A. Kraemer sak@hartwagner.com,rcd@hartwagner.com • Gregory R. Roberson grr@hartwagner.com,cej@hartwagner.com • Lynn S. Walsh walsh@europa.com • Lance Weber lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter .org,ahull@humanrightsdefensecenter.org
MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS lsi Jesse Wing
KATHERlNE C. CHAMBERLAIN OSB #042580 (206) 622-1604 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News
PLTF'S PROPOSED SPECIAL VERDICT FORM (CV 12-71-SI) - 6
9870.05 f1296702

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 138 Filed 12/31/12 Page 1 of 40
Katherine C. Chamberlain, OSB #042580 katherinec@mhb.com Jesse A. Wing, pro hac vice jessew@mhb.com Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News MacDonald Hoague & Bayless 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104-1745 (206) 622-1604
Marc D. Blackman, OSB #730338 marc@ransomblackman.com Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Ransom Blackman LLP 1001 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1400 Portland, OR 97204 (503) 228-0487
Lance Weber,pro hac vice lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Human Rights Defense Center 1037 Western Ave., 2nd Floor West Brattleboro, VT 05303 (802) 257-1342

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,
Defendants.

No.3:12-CV-71-SI
PLAINTIFF'S SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

PLAINTIFF'S SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (CV 12-71-SI) - 1
9870.05 tl316705

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle Washington 98104
Tel 206.621.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 138 Filed 12/31/12 Page 2 of 40

Plaintiff submits the following suggesting findings of fact and conclusions of law: 1

I. PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC) is a Washington Non-Profit Corporation. For the past 21 years, the core ofHRDC's mission has been public education, prisoner education, advocacy, and outreach in support of the rights of prisoners and in furtherance of basic human rights. 2. One of the proj ects of HRDC is the operation of Prison Legal News, which publishes a monthly journal of the same name, maintains a website (www.prisonlegalnews.org). operates an email list, distributes books of interest to prisoners and publishes self-help, nonfiction reference books. PLN's monthly journal of corrections news and analysis is titled Prison Legal News: Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights. 3. Prisoners of all types from pre-trial detainees to convicts, family and friends of prisoners, and prisoner advocates, are among the intended beneficiaries of PLN' s activities. 4. Since PLN's founding in 1990, it has communicated its journals, books, letters, catalogs, and brochures via mail to tens of thousands of prisoners all over the country. 5. Prison Legal News has approximately 7,000 subscribers in the United States and abroad, including prisoners, attorneys, journalists, public libraries, and judges. PLN distributes its publication to about 2,200 correctional facilities across the United States, including the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Washington Department of Corrections, and the Oregon Department of Corrections. 6. Prison Legal News regularly receives correspondence from prisoners in correctional facilities around the country in which they ask questions and report on prison conditions.
1 Plaintiff reserves the right to amend or supplement these suggested findings of fact and conclusions of law before, during, or at the close of trial, to conform to the evidence admitted and the rulings of the Court.

PLAINTIFF'S SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (CV 12-71-SI) - 2
9870.05 tl316705

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 138 Filed 12/31/12 Page 3 of 40

7. Prison Legal News engages in core protected speech and expressive conduct on matters of public concern, such as operations of prison facilities, prison conditions, prisoner health and safety, and prisoners' rights.
8. Defendant Columbia County is a municipal corporation formed under the laws of the State of Oregon. "A county is a 'person' subject to liability under § 1983 if its official policies cause the constitutional violation at issue." Biberdorfv. Oregon, 243 F. Supp. 2d 1145, 1154 (D. Or. 2002 (citing Brewster v. Shasta County, 275 F.3d 803, 805 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted)).
9. Defendant Columbia County Sheriff s Office is a department of Columbia County and operates the Columbia County Jail located in St. Helens, Oregon. The Columbia County Jail facility houses federal and state convicted prisoners and pretrial detainees.
10. Defendant Jeff Dickerson is the elected Sheriff of Columbia County. He began his term as Sheriff on January 1, 2009. His current term runs from January 1, 2013 to December 31,2016.
11. During his tenure as Sheriff, Defendant Dickerson has been and continues to be an agent of Columbia County and the Sheriff s Office. As Sheriff, he is responsible for the op~rations of the Columbia County Jail, and the training and supervision of the Jail staffwho interpret and implement the Jail's mail policy for prisoners. He is the final policymaker for the Jail policy governing mail for prisoners.
12. Each of the acts and omissions of persons stated herein were taken under color of state law and within the scope of their official duties as employees and officers of Columbia County and the Columbia County Sheriffs Office.
II. STANDING 1. The Court has already held that PLN has standing in its own right and third-party standing. See Dkt. 64, at 11. The Court clarifies its holding that PLN has standing in its own right to confirm that PLN has "organizational standing" under Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982), because it has asserted that it suffers injury by frustration of its mission and

PLAINTIFF'S SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (CV 12-71-SI) - 3
9870.05 £1316705

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 138 Filed 12/31/12 Page 4 of 40

diversion of its resources, that there is a causal connection between its injury and the challenged conduct, and the relief sought would redress those injuries. Smith v. Pac. Properties and Dev. Corp., 358 F.3d 1097, 1105 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Fair Housing ofMarin v. Combs, 285 F.3d 899, 905 (9th Cir. 2002)).
III. CENSORSHIP AND DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS 1. Prison Legal News publishes and distributes a soft-cover monthly journal, and publishes and distributes paperback books, about the criminal justice system and legal issues affecting prisoners. PLN mailed its monthly journal, informational brochures, subscription forms, book catalogs, book offers, renewal letters, and fundraising letters to prisoners confined in the Columbia County Jail.
Monthly Publications 2. PLN's monthly journal is a 56-page publication titled Prison Legal News: Dedicated to Protecting Human Rights and contains various articles on corrections news and analysis, about prisoner rights, court rulings, management of prison facilities and prison conditions. 3. On or about December 8, 2010 PLN mailed a December 2010 Prison Legal News publication addressed to prisoner Rusty Campo at the Columbia County Jail. Although he was confined as a prisoner in the Jail at the time, Defendants rejected the Prison Legal News publication sent to him by PLN. By censoring PLN's publication, Defendants violated PLN's and the prisoner-addressee's clearly-established free speech rights as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 4. On or about January 13,2011, PLN mailed a January 2011 Prison Legal News publication addressed to prisoner Rusty Campo at the Columbia County Jail. Although he was confined as a prisoner in the Jail at the time, Defendants rejected the Prison Legal News publication sent to him by PLN. By censoring PLN's publication, Defendants violated PLN's and the prisoner-addressee's clearly-established free speech rights as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

PLAINTIFF'S SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (CV 12-71-SI) - 4
9870.05 fl316705

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 138 Filed 12/31/12 Page 5 of 40

5. On or about January 31, 2011, PLN mailed its September 2008 Prison Legal News pUblication addressed to each of the following prisoners at the Columbia County Jail:
Prisoner Name Daniel Butts Cory Dell Jacob Francoeur William Hess Although they were confined as prisoners in the Jail at the time, Defendants rejected the Prison Legal News publication sent to each prisoner by PLN. By censoring each ofPLN's four publications, Defendants violated PLN's and the prisoner-addressees' clearly-established free speech rights as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 6. On or about January 31,2011, PLN mailed its November 2009 Prison Legal News publication addressed to prisoner Nicholas Bierman at the Columbia County Jail. Although he was confined as a prisoner in the Jail at the time, Defendants rejected the Prison Legal News publication sent to him by PLN. By censoring PLN's publication, Defendants violated PLN's and the prisoner-addressee's clearly-established free speech rights as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 7. On or about January 31, 2011, PLN mailed its January 2010 Prison Legal News publication addressed to prisoner Andrew Plumber at the Columbia County Jail. Although he was confined as a prisoner in the Jail at the time, Defendants rejected the Prison Legal News publication sent to him by PLN. By censoring PLN's publication, Defendants violated PLN's and the prisoner-addressee's clearly-established free speech rights as protected by the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution. 8. On or about February 1, 2011, PLN mailed its July 2009 Prison Legal News
publication addressed to each of the following prisoners at the Columbia County Jail:
Prisoner Name Ezra St. Helen Scott Thomas

PLAINTIFF'S SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (CV 12-71-SI) - 5
9870.05 f1316705

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 138 Filed 12/31/12 Page 6 of 40

Although they were confined as prisoners in the Jail at the time, Defendants rej ected the
Prison Legal News publication sent to each prisoner by PLN. By censoring both ofPLN's
publications, Defendants violated PLN's and the prisoner-addressees' clearly-established free
speech rights as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
9. On or about February 1, 2011, PLN mailed its November 2009 Prison Legal
News pUblication addressed to each of the following prisoners at the Columbia County Jail:
Prisoner Name Robert Beckwith Scott Lavelle Lloyd Myers Alisha Vandolah Jeffrey Vannatta Although they were confined as prisoners in the Jail at the time, Defendants rejected the Prison
Legal News publication sent to each prisoner by PLN. By censoring each ofPLN's five
publications, Defendants violated PLN's and the prisoner-addressees' clearly-established free
speech rights as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
10. On or about February 3, 2011, PLN mailed its January 2010 Prison Legal News
publication addressed to prisoner Kanaan Meyers at the Columbia County Jail. Although he was
confined as a prisoner in the Jail at the time, Defendants rejected the Prison Legal News
publication sent to him by PLN. By censoring PLN's publication, Defendants violated PLN's
and the prisoner-addressee's clearly-established free speech rights as protected by the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
11. On or about February 3, 2011, PLN mailed its July 2009 Prison Legal News
publication addressed to each of the following prisoners at the Columbia County Jail:
Prisoner Name Troy McCarter Shane McNutt Robert Meader Jason Quade Although they were confined as prisoners in the Jail at the time, Defendants rejected the Prison
Legal News publication sent to each prisoner by PLN. By censoring each ofPLN's four

PLAINTIFF'S SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (CV 12-71-SI) - 6
9870.05 £1316705

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 138 Filed 12/31/12 Page 7 of 40

publications, Defendants violated PLN's and the prisoner-addressees' clearly-established free speech rights as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
12. On or about February 3,2011, PLN mailed its September 2008 Prison Legal News publication addressed to each of the following prisoners at the Columbia County Jail:
Prisoner Name Nicholas Jones Martin Kay Although they were confined as prisoners in the Jail at the time, Defendants rejected the Prison Legal News publication sent to each prisoner by PLN. By censoring both ofPLN's publications, Defendants violated PLN's and the prisoner-addressees' clearly-established free speech rights as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 13. On or about February 10,2011, PLN mailed its February 2011 Prison Legal News publication addressed to each of the following prisoners at the Columbia County Jail:
Prisoner Name Troy McCarter Ezra St. Helen Although they were confined as prisoners in the Jail at the time, Defendants rejected the Prison Legal News publication sent to each prisoner by PLN. By censoring both ofPLN's publications, Defendants violated PLN's and the prisoner-addressees' clearly-established free speech rights as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 14. On or about March 10,2011, PLN mailed its March 2011 Prison Legal News publication addressed to prisoner Ezra St. Helen at the Columbia County Jail. Although he was confined as a prisoner in the Jail at the time, Defendants rejected the Prison Legal News publication sent to him by PLN. By censoring PLN's pUblication, Defendants violated PLN's and the prisoner-addressee's clearly-established free speech rights as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 15. On or about April 11, 2011, PLN mailed its April 2011 Prison Legal News publication addressed to prisoner Troy McCarter at the Columbia County Jail. Although he was confined as a prisoner in the Jail at the time, Defendants rejected the Prison Legal News

PLAINTIFF'S SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (CV 12-71-SI)-7
9870.05 fl316705

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 138 Filed 12/31/12 Page 8 of 40

publication sent to him by PLN. By censoring PLN's publication, Defendants violated PLN's and the prisoner-addressee's clearly-established free speech rights as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
16. On or about May 18,2011, PLN mailed its May 2011 Prison Legal News
publication addressed to prisoner Ezra st. Helen at the Columbia County Jail. Although he was
confined as a prisoner in the Jail at the time, Defendants rejected the Prison Legal News publication sent to him by PLN. By censoring PLN's publication, Defendants violated PLN's and the prisoner-addressee's clearly-established free speech rights as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
17. On or about June 9, 2011, PLN mailed its June 2011 Prison Legal News publication addressed to each of the following prisoners at the Columbia County Jail:
Prisoner Name
Ezra st. Helen
Martin Kay Although they were confined as prisoners in the Jail at the time, Defendants rejected the Prison Legal News publication sent to each prisoner by PLN. By censoring both ofPLN's publications, Defendants violated PLN's and the prisoner-addressees' clearly-established free speech rights as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
18. On or about June 30, 2011, PLN mailed its May 2008 Prison Legal News publication addressed to each of the following prisoners at the Columbia County Jail:
Prisoner Name George Lammi Jeffrey Murray Cindy Seaston Although they were confined as prisoners in the Jail at the time, Defendants rejected the Prison Legal News publication sent to each prisoner by PLN. By censoring each ofPLN's three publications, Defendants violated PLN's and the prisoner-addressees' clearly-established free speech rights as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

PLAINTIFF'S SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (CV 12-71-SI) - 8
9870.05 fl316705

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 138 Filed 12/31/12 Page 9 of 40
19. On or about July 20,2011, PLN mailed its May 2009 Prison Legal News publication addressed to each of the following prisoners at the Columbia County Jail:
Prisoner Name Mark Gift Ralph Patterson Barry Shaft William Temple Robert Westmoreland Although they were confined as prisoners in the Jail at the time, Defendants rejected the Prison Legal News pUblication sent to each prisoner by PLN. By censoring each ofPLN's five publications, Defendants violated PLN's and the prisoner-addressees' clearly-established free speech rights as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 20. For the journals that Defendants returned to Prison Legal News, Defendants: (a) placed a sticker on the mail stating: "As of April 1, 2010 The Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS, This applies to ALL incoming and out going mail"; (b) stamped the mail "INSPECTED BY COLUMBIA COUNTY JAIL" and handwrote checkmarks next to "RETURN TO SENDER" and "REFUSENIOLATES SECURITY"; or (c) merely stamped the mail "RETURN TO SENDER." 21. In each of the thirty-six (36) instances of censorship described above, Defendants did not provide PLN due process notice or an opportunity to appeal the censorship decisions. In each instance, Defendants violated PLN's clearly-established right to due process as protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 22. In each of the thirty-six (36) instances of censorship described above, Defendants did not provide the prisoner-addressees due process notice or an opportunity to appeal the censorship decisions. In each instance, Defendants violated the prisoner-addressees' clearlyestablished right to due process as protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

PLAINTIFF'S SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (CV 12-71-SI) - 9
9870.05 £1316705

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 138 Filed 12/31/12 Page 10 of 40

Informational Brochures, Subscription Order Forms, Book Catalogs 23. Prison Legal News sent informational brochures about PLN and subscription order forms, book catalogs, and book offers to prisoners at the Columbia County Jail in white standard # 10 envelopes via first-class mail. 24. Prison Legal News Brochure and Subscription Order Form: Prison Legal News sent certain prisoners at the Columbia County Jail an informational brochure about its organization and pUblications. The double-sided single-page brochure includes: a description of the topics covered in PLN's monthly journal, subscription rates, special subscription offers, and an order form; a description of three books available for purchase or included with a subscription to Prison Legal News-Protecting your Health & Safety, With Liberty for Some: 500 Years of Imprisonment in America, and Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money from Mass Incarceration; and other information about PLN's bookstore. 25. Book Catalog: Prison Legal News sent certain prisoners at the Columbia County Jail its 2010 PLN Book List. The double-sided single-page book list includes a description of 43 books, dictionaries, and resource materials available for purchase. The books available for purchase include information about a variety of topics, including but not limited to: the basic rights of prisoners regarding health and safety; the American criminal justice system; selfrepresentation in court; finding the right lawyer; DNA testing; issues related to imprisoned women; developing a successful re-entry plan upon release from prison; searching for ajob;
u.s. crime and poverty; and the mental health crisis in prisons and jails.
26. Book Offers: Prison Legal News sent certain prisoners at the Columbia County Jail a double-sided single-page informational brochure about two books for sale: The Habeas Citebook: Ineffective Assistance ofCounsel, a handbook containing case citations, pleadings, and forms designed to help a prisoner seek habeas corpus relief; and Prisoners' Guerrilla Handbook to Correspondence Programs in the United States and Canada, a handbook on high school, vocational, paralegal, undergraduate, and graduate courses available through correspondence study.

PLAINTIFF'S SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (CV 12-71-SI) -10
9870.05 fl316705

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 138 Filed 12/31/12 Page 11 of 40

27. Collectively, the PLN Brochure, Book List, and Book Offer described above are referred to as "Informational Brochure Packs."
28. Prison Legal News mailed Informational Brochure Packs addressed to each of the following prisoners at the Columbia County Jail:

Prisoner Narne Robert Beckwith Daniel Butts Cory Dell Jacob Francoeur Mark Gift Nicholas Jones Martin Kay George Lammi Scott Lavelle Troy McCarter Shane McNutt Robert Meader Kanaan Meyers
Jeffrey Murray Ralph Patterson Andrew Plumber Jason Quade Cindy Seaston Barry Shaft Ezra St. Helen William Temple Scott Thomas Alisha Vandolah Jeffrey Vannatta Robert Westmoreland

Date Mailed to Prisoner January 31, 2011 February 3,2011 February 3, 2011 February 3, 2011 July 20,2011 February 3, 2011 February 1, 2011 June 30, 2011 January 31, 2011 February 1, 2011 January 31, 2011 February 3, 2011 January 31, 2011 and February 4,2011 June 30, 2011 July 20, 2011 January 31, 2011 February 1, 2011 June 30, 2011 July 20,2011 February 1,2011 July 20, 2011 February 1,2011 February 1,2011 February 3, 2011 July 20, 2011

Although they were confined as prisoners in the Jail at the time, Defendants rejected the Prison Legal News Informational Brochure Packs sent to each prisoner by PLN. By censoring each of PLN' s twenty-six (26) Informational Brochure Packs, Defendants violated PLN's and the prisoner-addressees' clearly-established free speech rights as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
29. For the Informational Brochure Packs that Defendants returned to Prison Legal News, Defendants: (a) placed a sticker on the mail stating: "As of April 1, 2010 The Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS, This applies to ALL incoming and out going

PLAINTIFF'S SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (CV 12-71-SI) - 11
9870.05 fl31670S

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 138 Filed 12/31/12 Page 12 of 40

mail"; (b) stamped the mail "INSPECTED BY COLUMBIA COUNTY JAIL" and handwrote

checkmarks next to "RETURN TO SENDER" and "REFUSENIOLATES SECURITY"; or (c)

merely stamped the mail "RETURN TO SENDER." 30. In each of the twenty-six (26) instances of censorship described above,
Defendants did not provide PLN due process notice or an opportunity to appeal the censorship decisions. In each instance, Defendants violated PLN's clearly-established right to due process

as protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

31. In each of the twenty-six (26) instances of censorship described above,

Defendants did not provide the prisoner-addressees due process notice or an opportunity to appeal the censorship decisions. In each instance, Defendants violated the prisoner-addressees' clearly-established right to due process as protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Renewal Letters 32. Prison Legal News sent subscription renewal letters along with Informational

Brochure Packs ("Subscription Renewal Packs") to certain prisoners at the Columbia County Jail

in white standard # 10 envelopes via first-class mail. 33. Each personalized subscription renewal letter mailed to a prisoner at the
Columbia County Jail included information for the prisoner-addressee that his individual

subscription was nearing its end.

34. In May and June 2011, Prison Legal News mailed Subscription Renewal Packs

addressed to each of the following prisoners at the Columbia County Jail:

Prisoner Name William Hess Martin Kay Troy McCarter Shane McNutt Andrew Plumber Jason Quade Ezra St. Helen Alisha Vandolah

Date Sent 6/16/11 6/16/11 6/16/11 6/16/11 6/16/11 5/21111 6/16/11
6/16/11

PLAINTIFF'S SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (CV 12-71-SI) - 12
9870.05 fl316705

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 138 Filed 12/31/12 Page 13 of 40

Although they were confined as prisoners in the Jail at the time, Defendants rej ected the Prison Legal News Subscription Renewal Packs sent to each prisoner by PLN. By censoring each of PLN' s eight (8) Subscription Renewal Packs, Defendants violated PLN's and the prisoner-addressees' clearly-established free speech rights as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
35. For the Subscription Renewal Packs that Defendants returned to Prison Legal News, Defendants: (a) placed a sticker on the mail stating: "As of April 1, 2010 The Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS, This applies to ALL incoming and outgoing mail"; or (b) merely stamped the mail "RETURN TO SENDER."
36. In each of the eight (8) instances of censorship described above, Defendants did not provide Prison Legal News due process notice or an opportunity to appeal the censorship decisions. In each instance, Defendants violated PLN's clearly-established right to due process as protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
37. In each of the eight (8) instances of censorship described above, Defendants did not provide the prisoner-addressees due process notice or an opportunity to appeal the censorship decisions. In each instance, Defendants violated the prisoner-addressees' clearly-established right to due process as protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Fundraising Letters and Brochures 38. Prison Legal News sent fundraising letters along with Informational Brochure Packs ("Fundraising Pack") to certain prisoners at the Columbia County Jail in white standard # 10 envelopes via standard rate nonprofit mail. 39. Each fundraising letter mailed to a prisoner at the Columbia County Jail included information for the prisoner-addressee about PLN's history, PLN's efforts to protect civil rights across the country, and its journal and books available for purchase. 40. In approximately November 2011, Prison Legal News mailed Fundraising Packs addressed to prisoners William Temple and Barry Shaft at the Columbia County Jail. Although they were confined as prisoners in the Jail at the time, Defendants rejected the Prison Legal

PLAINTIFF'S SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (CV 12-71-SI) - 13
9870.05 f1316705

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 138 Filed 12/31/12 Page 14 of 40

News Fundraising Packs sent to each prisoner by PLN. By censoring both ofPLN's Fundraising Packs, Defendants violated PLN's and the prisoner-addressees' clearly-established free speech rights as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
41. For the Fundraising Packs that Defendants returned to Prison Legal News, Defendants merely stamped them "RETURN TO SENDER" without stating a reason for censorship.
42. In both instances of censorship described above, Defendants did not provide Prison Legal News due process notice or an opportunity to appeal the censorship decisions. In both instances, Defendants violated PLN's clearly-established right to due process as protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
43. In both instances of censorship described above, Defendants did not provide the prisoner-addressees due process notice or an opportunity to appeal the censorship decisions. In both instances, Defendants violated the prisoner-addressees' clearly-established right to due process as protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
PLN Online Articles 44. PLN maintains a website containing information about PLN's resources. In addition to information about PLN's monthly magazine and books for sale, PLN's website contains information about breaking news and a database of articles, publications, legal briefs, and other information about state and federal issues affecting prisoners. Individuals can visit the website and view PLN' s news content, or become a member of PLN and search for and print articles of interest to them-for themselves or to send to others, including prisoners who do not have access to computers or the internet. 45. Since prisoners do not generally have access to the internet, they rely on friends, family members and other supporters who are not incarcerated to download and print articles from PLN's website and mail those documents to the prisoners in jails or prisons. 46. PLN has purposely designed its website so that non-prisoners can research topics of interest and importance to prisoners, and then download, print and mail the information to

PLAINTIFF'S SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (CV 12-71-SI) - 14
9870.05 fl316705

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500
. Seattle Washington 98104 Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 138 Filed 12/31/12 Page 15 of 40
prisoners because PLN lacks the resources to communicate this information individually to each and every prisoner who desires it.
47. PLN's website invites anyone who corresponds with prisoners to utilize the material on the website to educate prisoners. The website states: "Prisoners generally do not have internet access. We encourage the distribution of information on our website to incarcerated persons by printing it out and mailing it to them. If you are volunteering your time to research a topic for someone in prison, jailor other detention facility please feel free to print out articles and send them to the prisoner."
48. PLN operates a free emaillistserv, which has approximately 1,500 subscribers who receive scores of emails on a weekly basis related to detention facility news and litigation. Many of the recipients of these emails print and mail articles of interest to friends and relatives in prisons and jails.
49. Several times per week, friends or relatives contact Mr. Wright by telephone asking him to talk them through the steps of locating material on a particular topic of interest or need on PLN's website for the stated purpose of printing and mailing it to a prisoner who is their family member or friend.
50. An individual, Lucy Lennox, sent legal articles that she printed off of PLN' s website to certain prisoners at the Columbia County Jail in standard #10 envelopes via U.S. Mail.
51. The legal articles mailed by Ms. Lennox to prisoners at the Columbia County Jail include a critique of prison privatization, and research findings about the goals and results of the move toward privatization. The articles also identify a correspondence school book available for sale, and include introductory descriptions ofPLN's 20 "Breaking News" headlines about various topics, including but not limited to sex abuse in prison, poor forensics used to secure criminal convictions, private prison companies behind Arizona's immigration law, and the death penalty in Texas.

PLAINTIFF'S SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (CV 12-71-SI) -15
9870.05 fl316705

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 138 Filed 12/31/12 Page 16 of 40

52. In December 2011, Ms. Lennox mailed the PLN online articles to the following prisoners at the Columbia County Jail:

Prisoner Name Steven Adams Arthur Bates Jr. Toni Bertasso Daniel Butts Robert Clement Anthony Deherrera Kenna Haynes Scott Lavelle Billy Nelson Samuel Oester Cindy Seastone Barry Shaft William Temple Timothy Turner Alisha Vandolah

Date Sent 12/15/11 12/15/11 12/21/11 12/15/11 12/15/11 12/22/11 12/22/11 12/15/11 12/15/11 12/15/11 12/15/11 12/15/11 12/15/11 12/20/11 12/15/11

Although they were confined as prisoners in the Jail at the time, Defendants rejected the

Prison Legal News online articles sent to each of the fifteen (15) prisoners by Ms. Lennox.

53. For the PLN articles that Defendants returned to Ms. Lennox, Defendants:

(a) placed a sticker on the mail stating: "As of April 1, 2010 The Columbia County Jail ONLY

ACCEPTS POSTCARDS, This applies to ALL incoming and out going mail"; (b) stamped the

mail "INSPECTED BY COLUMBIA COUNTY JAIL" and handwrote checkmarks next to

"RETURN TO SENDER" and "REFUSENIOLATES SECURITY"; (c) stamped the mail

"INSPECTED BY COLUMBIA COUNTY JAIL" and handwrote checkmarks next to

"RETURN TO SENDER" and "CONTRABAND"; or (d) stamped the mail "INSPECTED BY

COLUMBIA COUNTY JAIL" and handwrote "no envelope mail".

54. In each of the fifteen (15) instances of censorship described above, Defendants

did not provide Ms. Lennox due process notice or an opportunity to appeal the censorship

decisions. In each instance, Defendants violated Ms. Lennox's clearly-established right to due

process as protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

PLAINTIFF'S SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (CV 12-71-SI) - 16
9870.05 fl316705

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 138 Filed 12/31/12 Page 17 of 40

55. In each of the fifteen (15) instances of censorship described above, Defendants did not provide the prisoner-addressees due process notice or an opportunity to appeal the censorship decisions. In each instance, Defendants violated the prisoner-addressees' clearlyestablished right to due process as protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
56. On February 7, 2012, Ms. Lennox printed multiple copies of the legal article titled "Prison Legal News Files Censorship Suit Against Florida DOC" from the Prison Legal News website to send to 11 prisoners at the Columbia County Jail. She enclosed the printed articles in separate envelopes and sent them to the following prisoners at the Columbia County Jail:

Name Steven Adams Toni Bertasso Robert Clement Anthony Deherrera Kenna Haynes Scott Laville Samuel Oester Barry Shaft William Temple Alisha Vandolah Shaughnessy Williams

Inmate No. 2011002552 2011002507 2011002143 2011001729 2011002213 2011002501 2011002123 2011000612 2011000529 2010002105 2011000534

57. The Columbia County Jail rejected three of these mailings, those to Scott Lavelle,

Alisha Vandolah, and Shaughnessy Williams, and returned them to Ms. Lennox unopened, on

February 7 and 8, 2012. The Jail returned the envelope to me, unopened. The returned

envelopes were stamped and marked "INSPECTED BY COLUMBIA COUNTY JAIL,"

"RETURN TO SENDER," and "CONTRABAND." Ms. Lennox received two Prohibited Mail

Notices, regarding Alisha Vandolah and Shaughnessy Williams, stating that the Sheriffs Office

"denied" her mail because "It is deemed personal mail and not on a postcard." Ms. Lennox did

not receive a Prohibited Mail Notice regarding any other mailing that she sent.

58. In the censorship described above of Ms. Lennox's mailing to Scott Lavelle,

Defendants did not provide Ms. Lennox due process notice or an opportunity to appeal the

PLAINTIFF'S SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (CV 12-71-SI) - 17
9870.05 fl316705

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 138 Filed 12/31/12 Page 18 of 40

censorship decisions and violated her clearly-established right to due process as protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
59. The Prohibited Mail Notices directed Ms. Lennox to "the jail's web page at www.co.columbia.or.us/sheriff. to find information about the Jail's mail policy. When she visited the site on March 1, 2012, the website had posted a notice that the mail policy is "under review."
60. The Columbia County Jail's Postcard-Only Policy meant that no family member, no friend, nor any other concerned individual could ever utilize PLN's website to print and mail information from PLN's website or listserv to prisoners in custody in the Jail. The policy prevented prisoners from receiving free material on the PLN website about prisoners' criminal or civil legal rights, about health and safety issues in Jail, about reasonable accommodation or treatment of medical or mental health issues, about their right to effective assistance of counsel and how to represent themselves in court, or about a host of other important issues to prisoners.
61. Indeed, the Jail's policy prevented individuals from mailing to prisoners from the website PLN's article reporting the Ninth Circuit's opinion in Clement v. California Dep't of Corr., 364 F.3d 1148, (9th Cir. 2004), which informed readers that "The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the statewide permanent injunction issued by the U.S. District Court (N.D. Cal.) enjoining the California Department of Corrections' (CDC) policy prohibiting prisoners from receiving Internet-generated mail." The Jail's policy also prevented prisoners from receiving in the mail the amicus brief filed by Prison Legal News in Clement on July 1, 2003.
62. PLN hosts "legal briefs and other informational material" for purposes of downloading, printing and mailing to prisoners.
IV. DECLARATORY RELIEF 63. Trial courts are vested with broad discretion to fashion equitable relief. In accordance with the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02, the court has a '''duty to decide the appropriateness and the merits of the declaratory request irrespective of its conclusion as to the propriety of the issuance of the injunction.'" Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 468

PLAINTIFF'S SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (CV 12-71-SI) - 18
9870.05 fl316705

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 138 Filed 12/31/12 Page 19 of 40

(1974) (quoting Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S. 241, 254 (1967)). Here, declaratory judgment is necessary.
First Amendment 64. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects a publisher's
right to correspond with prisoners through the mail, Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 408 (1989), which includes mailing magazines, catalogs, letters, and other subscription and nonsubscription correspondence, Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692, 699 (9th Cir. 2005); Prison Legal News v. Cook, 238 F.3d 1145, 1149 (9th Cir. 2001). Likewise, the First Amendment protects a prisoner's right to receive correspondence from a publisher. Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396,417-18 (1974), overruled in part on other grounds by Thornburgh, 490 U.S. 401; Krug v. Lutz, 329 F.3d 692, 696-97 (9th Cir. 2003).
A. Postcard-Only Policy Incoming Mail
65. In Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987), the Supreme Court set forth the legal standard that applies to governmental restrictions on incoming mail. In short, Defendants have the burden of showing that their policy is "reasonably related to legitimate penological interests"
under the four Turner factors: (1) whether the regulation is rationally related to a legitimate and neutral governmental objective, (2) whether there are alternative avenues that remain open to the inmates to exercise the right, (3) the impact that accommodating the asserted right will have on other guards and prisoners, and on the allocation of prison resources; and (4) whether the existence of easy and obvious alternatives indicates that the regulation is an exaggerated response by prison officials.
Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692, 699 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Turner). The first of these factors can be dispositive. Id.
(1) Rational Relationship Factor: Defendants' Policy is Not RationallyRelated to a Legitimate Penological Objective
66. In response to PLN's Preliminary Injunction motion, Defendants offered two
objectives for their Postcard-Only Policy, which the Court found legitimate-"safety and

PLAINTIFF'S SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (CV 12-71-SI) -19
9870.05 fJ316705

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 138 Filed 12/31/12 Page 20 of 40

security of the Jail's inmates and staff and the efficient use of the Jail's limited resources." Dkt. 64 at 16.
67. The key question for incoming mail is whether the Postcard-Only Policy is rationally related to enhancing security and improving efficiency. Defendants contend that the policy is rationally related to those objectives because it prevents the introduction of contraband into the jail. But, as the Court held in its order granting a preliminary injunction, the "Defendants have failed to offer evidence or even an intuitive, common-sense reason why the post-card only mail policy more effectively prevents the introduction of contraband than opening and inspecting letters." Dkt. 64 at 17.
68. Nothing has changed since the Court entered that order. And, while inspecting postcards is faster than inspecting a letter, "[t]he speed at which a mail handling staff can inspect mail, however, does not establish a rational link between the policy and reducing contraband." Id. at 17-18, 19 ("the time-savings is too modest to demonstrate a significant rational relationship between the postcard-only policy and improving the Jail's efficiency.") Indeed, the evidence presented strongly confirms these conclusions.
The SheriffAdopted His Postcard-Only Policy Primarily to Copy Other Sheriffs, Not to Reduce Contraband or Save Limited Resources 69. When asked to explain why he adopted the policy, the Sheriff offered two reasons. The first, his primary explanation, was that he wanted to be in sync with other jails in Oregon. In his words, he adopted the policy to achieve "standardization" with what he thought other sheriffs might do. After attending an Oregon Sheriffs Meeting in December 2009 where the idea of restricting mail to postcards was discussed, the Sheriff asked his Jail Commander, Jim Carpenter, to review the concept with this jail staff, and then decided to implement a PostcardOnly Policy. He adopted the challenged policy because someone running another facility apparently thought it was a good idea, not because of his own experience running the Columbia County Jail. That is not a rational basis for adopting the policy.

PLAINTIFF'S SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (CV 12-71-SI) - 20
9870.05 £1316705

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 138 Filed 12/31/12 Page 21 of 40

The Jail Did Not Have a Mail Contraband Problem 70. Sheriff Dickerson's second stated reason for adopting the Postcard-Only Policy was jail security. In response to Plaintiff s motion for preliminary injunction, the Sheriff listed a variety of prohibited contraband including "bodily fluids, lipstick, perfume, glue, paint, and unidentifiable substances" that can contain hazardous or illegal materials. Dkt. 32 ~11. He said that envelopes can hide contraband such as "needles, blades, similar weapons, and handcuff keys." Id. at ~~13-14. He also told the Court that mail must be inspected for "threats of physical harm, blac1anail, extortion, other criminal activity, sexually explicit material, gang-related material, and plans for escape." Id. at ~12. And he asserted that postcards are "easier and quicker to inspect for contraband and prohibited content" and "the risk of contraband being present in mail from an inmate's family or friends is greater than the risk of contraband being present in mail that comes from legal or publisher sources." Id. at ~~16, 18. 71. But the Sheriff has failed to identify a single circumstance in which something harmful was actually concealed or sent to a prisoner at the Jail in an envelope, and did not describe a single event that led him to adopt the Postcard-Only Policy. When questioned about whether there was a legitimate reason to believe his policy would increase security the Sheriff offered none. And, the Sheriff admitted that he has never heard of any problem with threats or contraband entering his Jail through the mail before, or after, adopting his policy. 72. Since a rational relationship to a legitimate penalogical objective is a sine qua non of constitutionality under Turner, the Court need analyze Defendants' policy no further. See Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692, 699 (9th Cir. 2005) ("The first factor of these factors constitutes sine qua non." Therefore, if a regulation is not rationally related to a legitimate and neutral governmental objective, a court need not reach the remaining three factors.") (Citation omitted). 73. Nevertheless, in evaluating the other three factors, the Court finds that they all support a finding that the Sheriff s Postcard-Only Policy violates the First Amendment.

PLAINTIFF'S SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (CV 12-71-SI) - 21
9870.05 £1316705

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle Washington 98104
Tel 206.621.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 138 Filed 12/31/12 Page 22 of 40
(2) Alternative Avenues Factor: Prisoners and Their Correspondents Have No Reasonable Alternative Way to Exercise Their Free Speech Rights
74. Defendants contend that prisoners and their correspondents may exercise their
First Amendment rights by visiting, calling, or by sending multiple postcards. Dkt. 29 at 18-19.
But the Court disagrees. No reasonable alternatives exist:
As the Court stated in its preliminary injunction:
[The] postcard-only mail policy drastically restricts an inmate's ability to communicate with the outside world. It prevents an inmate's family from sending items such as photographs, children's report cards and drawings, and copies of bills, doctor reports, and spiritual and religious tracts ... It prevents an inmate's friends and other correspondents from sending printed copies of articles published in newspapers, magazines, or the internet. It prevents educational, community and religious organizations from sending lessons, book and periodical offers, and fundraising appeals... Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the postcard-only mail policy creates a hurdle to thoughtful and constructive written communication between an inmate and his or her unincarcerated family and friends ... These are not insignificant considerations. The limits imposed by the IMP's postcard-only mail policy not only restrain PLN and inmate's First Amendment rights, they inhibit rehabilitation ... Dkt. 64 at 20-21.
75. The evidence presented since the preliminary injunction was entered only
strengthens the Court's conclusion. Columbia County prisoners may receive visitors only twice
a week, on two set days, for a maximum of 30 minutes per visit. Prisoners can make outgoing
calls only during times when they are out of their cells. Outgoing local calls cost $2.35 for 15
minutes. The Jail does not permit incoming calls for prisoners except in exceptional
circumstances (e.g. a prisoner's attorney needs to reach him or a death in the prisoner's family).
And, sending multiple postcards is substantially more costly than sending a single letter. And
notably, the resources in what the Jail calls its "law library," which is merely a library cart, are
scarce.
76. So, for prisoners, PLN, and other correspondents, there are no practical alternative
ways for them to communicate.

PLAINTIFF'S SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (CV 12-71-SI) - 22
9870.05 f1316705

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 138 Filed 12/31/12 Page 23 of 40

(3) Impact Factor: Any Effect of Accommodating Right on Staff, Prisoners, and Resources is Minimal
77. Defendants contend "the unfettered ability of persons to send inmates materials in any form ... would greatly increase the risks of contraband entering the Jail, along with the time required for screening personal mail." Dkt. 29 at 19 (emphasis added). The Court has not seen any evidence to support this contention, even after entering a preliminary injunction more than six months ago. This is consistent with the Court's conclusion that "accommodating letters and periodicals is unlikely to have a 'significant ripple effect' on inmates and staff ... [and] the timesavings afforded to the Jail by the postcard-only mail policy is modest, at best." Dkt. 64 at 2122.
78. This is also consistent with Defendants' admission that they did not have a contraband problem before adopting the Postcard-Only Policy. Going back to their prior policy has not "greatly increased" the risks of contraband entering the jail. And any alleged timesavings is much smaller than the Defendants have alleged.
(4) Easy and Obvious Alternatives Factor: There Were Easy and Obvious Alternatives, Which Defendants Failed to Even Consider, Suggesting an Exaggerated Response by Prison Officials
79. The Court has already held that an easy and obvious alternative to the PostcardOnly Policy was for the Defendants to open and inspect letters, which according to Sergeant Cutright, required only 30 to 60 additional minutes each day. Dkt. 64 at 22. The evidence presented since then only strengthens the Court's conclusion.
80. First, the time it takes to open and inspect the contents of envelopes is far less than Sergeant Cutright estimated in February 2012. Dkt. 30 ~4.
81. Second, although Defendants claim that the mail processing takes them away from other tasks so they adopted the policy at issue, Dkt. 32 ~25, they did not disclose to the Court that they have switched processing the mail from the middle of the day to the middle of the night when the Jail was much less busy. This did not require removing any tasks from the night

PLAINTIFF'S SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (CV 12-71-SI) - 23
9870.05 f1316705

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle Washington 98104
Tel 206.621.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 138 Filed 12/31/12 Page 24 of 40

shift, which undermines the Defendants' assertion that mail processing takes staff away from other tasks to a meaningful extent that their Postcard-Only Policy changed.
82. Third, the Jail complained that it had to remove postage stamps from every letter. Yet, the same is true of postcards and in any event, after PLN's lawsuit the Jail has now given up that policy for all mail. This choice reveals that the time-consuming process of removing stamps, unchallenged by PLN, was not that important to protect the security interests of the Jail.
83. Finally, the Sheriff never tried to determine whether, let alone how, contraband actually enters the jail so as to target any response. Indeed, the Jail did not adopt its PostcardOnly Policy to address an actual problem, because contraband was not arriving by mail. The Sheriff acknowledged that contraband can get into the Jail through outside workers, jail staff, or maintenance persons, but the Jail does not check their bags and relies on "trust" alone to prevent jail staff from bringing in contraband.
84. Thus, there were easy and obvious alternatives to a Postcard-Only Policy to achieve Defendants' purported objective to enhance security and save time. This would have been consistent with many other detention facilities that did not adopt such a policy, such as the Bureau of Prisons, the Oregon Department of Corrections, the Washington Department of Corrections, the Multnomah County Jail, and the Lane County Jail.
85. Defendants could have investigated whether, and if so how, contraband actually enters the Jail tailoring a plan to control it, moved the mail processing to the nightshift,reevaluated how they process the mail to make it more efficient, and stopped removing stamps. Or, they could have kept processing mail the same way they had since there was no problem they actually sought to solve (modified, of course, to comply with the Constitution). But Defendants did not explore any of these alternatives in lieu of adopting their policy.
86. All four Turner factors strongly support the conclusion that Defendants' PostcardOnly Policy as it applied to incoming mail violates the First Amendment, and that adopting and applying this policy to censor magazines, book catalogs, internet-generated articles, and subscription-related correspondence violated well-established law. See, e.g., Prison Legal News

PLAINTIFF'S SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (CV 12-71-SI) - 24
9870.05 fl316705

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 138 Filed 12/31/12 Page 25 of 40

v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2005); Clement v. California Dept. o/Corr., 364 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2004); Prison Legal News v. Cook, 238 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2001).
Outgoing Mail 87. Governmental restrictions on outgoing mail are analyzed under Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396,408 (1974), overruled in part on other grounds by Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 413-14 (1989) (recognizing that Procunier still applies to regulations concerning outgoing mail); Barrett v. Belleque, 544 F.3d 1060, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008) ("Procunier is controlling law in the Ninth Circuit and elsewhere as applied to claims involving outgoing prisoner maiL"). 88. Under Procunier, a government restriction on outgoing mail is justified only if "the regulation or practice in question ... further[s] an important or substantial governmental interest unrelated to the suppression of expression.... [and] the limitation of First Amendment freedoms ... [is] no greater than is necessary or essential to the protection of the particular governmental interest involved." 416 U.S. at 413-14. (Emphasis added). "When a prison regulation affects outgoing mail as opposed to incoming mail, there must be a 'closer fit between the regulation and the purpose it serves.'" Witherow v. PafJ, 52 F.3d 264,265 (9th Cir. 1995). 89. Defendants concede that outgoing mail is less likely to contain contraband, so it takes them less time to process outgoing mail. Sergeant Cutright testified that in his 17-year tenure he has never encountered contraband being sent out of the Jail. And, when asked to identify the reasons for adopting a Postcard-Only Policy for outgoing mail, as Defendants' FRCP 3O(b)(6) designee, Sergeant Cutright testified that "it wasn't even addressed" and Defendants did not even consider whether to adopt such a policy for outgoing mail, they just decided to adopt one for all inmate mail "in general." 90. Defendants' Postcard-Only Policy for outgoing mail does not further an important or substantial governmental interest and is greater than necessary or essential to protect the governmental interest involved. Therefore, Defendants' policy fails under Procunier. In fact, because there is less of a risk to prison security and Defendants failed to even evaluate whether

PLAINTIFF'S SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (CV 12-71-SI) - 25
9870.05 fl316705

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 138 Filed 12/31/12 Page 26 of 40

to adopt its Postcard-Only Policy as it pertains to outgoing mail let alone articulate a legitimate basis, application of that Policy to outgoing mail is even less rational than its application to incoming mail so fails the Turner test as well.
91. Defendants' Postcard-Only Policy as to outgoing mail violated the clearlyestablished First Amendment rights of Prison Legal News and prisoners and their correspondents, including family, friends, and other publishers.
B. Magazine Ban 92. For years, the Jail distributed Inmate Manuals to its prisoners that explicitly
prohibited magazines or periodicals: "Periodicals: We do not accept any periodicals." November 18,2010 version. Between 2009 and November 2010, while Defendants considered several modifications to their Inmate Manual, each time they affirmed their bans:
• "Publications: We do not accept magazines." (2009 version, at 14). • "Periodicals: We do not accept any periodicals." (July 8, 2010 version, at 14 ). • "Periodicals: We do not accept any periodicals." (July 23,2010 version, at 16). • "Publications: We do not accept magazines." (September 30,2010 version). • The Sheriffs Spanish-language version notified Spanish-speakers of this prohibition too:
"Publicaciones periodicas: No aceptamos ninguna publicacion periodica (periodicos, revistas, etc." 93. Defendants widely communicated the same prohibition in March 2010 when Sergeant Cutright wrote a Memorandum titled "Mail Procedure Changes," which was distributed to the entire Corrections Division, to all prisoners, and was published on the Sheriff s website. The Memo stated: "Magazines are not allowed inside the facility." Jail supervisors reviewed the content before the Memo was distributed. Sergeant Cutright, who testified as the Sheriff s Office's FRCP 30(b)(6) designee on the interpretation, and implementation of the Jail's Mail Policy since January 1, 2009, described the Memo as a "summary of the mail policy," and testified that the purpose of writing the memo was to:

PLAINTIFF'S SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (CV 12-71-SI) - 26
9870.05 fl316705

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 138 Filed 12/31/12 Page 27 of 40

[H]ighlight some changes made to the policy in 2010. It was also written, the biggest point was so we could add this information to the internet so the public would know what the change to the policy was or what the mail policy of the Columbia County Sheriffs Office at that time was." 94. The Sheriff's Office posted a similar notice on its website on March 18,2010, that stated "Magazines: Are not allowed inside the facility." Prior to January 19,2012, the Sheriff's Office added additional information about its prohibition on magazines: "Publications: We do not accept magazines." So, at the time that PLN filed this action, the Sheriffs website stated in two places on its website, that the Jail prohibits magazines. 95. Defendants enforced this ban on magazines, as illustrated by several mail rejection notices to prisoners and by Defendants censorship numerous issues of the Prison Legal News journal over the course of several months. Defendants claim that effective October 2011 they adopted a Revised Policy, which is ambiguous about whether magazines are permitted. Although the Sheriff stated in his Revised Policy that the policy shall "be available to the public through the Sheriff's office website," at page 3, he never posted the policy. 96. Although Defendants claim that while they may have had a practice, but not a policy, of banning magazines these facts now show that they had apolicy of banning magazines. '" [O]fficial policy' often refers to formal rules or understandings-often but not always committed to writing-that are intended to, and do, establish fixed plans of action to be followed under similar circumstances consistently and over time." Pembaur v. City a/Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 480-81 (1986). That fairly describes the Defendants' routine and multiple instructions, in writing, to their staff and prisoners, and notices to the outside world, that all magazines were prohibited. 97. "When an official has final authority in a matter involving the selection of goals, his choices represent policy." Wellington v. Daniels, 717 F.2d 932, 936 (4th Cir. 1983) (citation omitted) ("Since Chief Austin is responsible for the choice and implementation of police department practices and procedures, his acts and omissions reflect government policy. Therefore, municipal liability attaches to acts or omissions performed pursuant to that policy.")

PLAINTIFF'S SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (CV 12-71-SI) - 27
9870.05 fl316705

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 138 Filed 12/31/12 Page 28 of 40

98. The undisputed evidence establishes that the Sheriff s jail staff read and blindly followed the Sheriff s Office's directives that the Jail banned magazines, regardless of whether a document that the Sheriff points to as his formal written "policy" did not specify that magazines were banned. In other words, it is plain the Defendants' actual policy-as repeatedly written and implemented-was to ban magazines.
99. In Sergeant Cutright's 17 years with the Sheriff s Office, including many years processing the mail and supervising the mail processing, he testified that he has "never" seen a magazine arrive for an inmate at the facility. Captain Jim Carpenter, who worked for the Jail for 22 years and was the Jail Commander from 2009-2011, testified that throughout his tenure, the practice and custom of the Jail was to prohibit magazines and periodicals. He could not remember what the policy was, but it was the Jail's "procedure" to ban magazines. He testified that "As long as I worked at the jail, that I can remember, we never accepted magazines." In Captain Carpenter's 22 years at the Columbia County Jail, he has only seen one magazine at the Jail and it was rejected.
100. Corrections deputies told prisoners that magazines were not permitted. When a prisoner asked whether there are any restrictions on the number of type of magazines that can be delivered, the Jail responded "We Do Not Allow Magazines." And, as documents from prisoner files reveal, corrections deputies censored magazines because they were not permitted by the Jail. In fact, the Sheriff Office's rarely-used Mail Violation Notice form has a checkbox for "Do not accept periodicals." In short, Defendants' complete ban effectuated a complete chill on prisoners receiving magazines that was near absolute.
101. If the Sheriff is accurately reporting that the Jail's mail policy always permitted magazines then the Jail's custom and practice is to violate its written policy, as well as the Constitution. If, contrary to the Sheriffs representation, the Jail's longstanding policy was to ban magazines then his word is unreliable and the Jail's policy has been to violate the Constitution for as long as anyone can remember. Under either scenario, the undisputed facts establish that Defendants told their staff, inmates, and the public, that their mail policy prohibited

PLAINTIFF'S SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (CV 12-71-SI) - 28
9870.05 £1316705

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 138 Filed 12/31/12 Page 29 of 40

magazines, and the Jail censored magazines. This likely suppressed most attempts to obtain magazines, and when they were sent the Jail censored them accordingly.
102. A blanket ban on magazines, the Defendants concede, violated the First Amendment. That law was clearly established long before Sheriff Dickerson became Sheriff of Columbia County at the beginning of2009. See, e.g., Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2005); Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957, 960 (9th Cir. 1999).
103. Defendants' magazine ban violated the clearly established First Amendment rights of Prison Legal News and prisoners and their correspondents, including family, friends, and other publishers.
C. Lack of Procedural Due Process Protections 104. "[T]he decision to censor or withhold delivery of a particular letter must be
accompanied by minimum procedural safeguards." Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396,417418 (1974), overruled in part on other grounds by Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401,408 (1989). Thus, the Fourteenth Amendment has repeatedly been held to require that prison officials provide notice and an opportunity to appeal their censorship decisions to prisoners and their correspondents, including publishers. See, e.g., Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692, 701 (9th Cir. 2005); Martin v. Kelley, 803 F.2d 236,243-44 (6th Cir. 1986); Montcalm Pub. Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 109 (4th Cir. 1996).
105. Defendants concede that they failed to afford PLN due process notice and an opportunity to be heard when they censored sixty-five (65) mailings to prisoners. This violated the Fourteenth Amendment, which was clearly established well before 2009. See, e.g., Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2005); Prison Legal News v. Cook, 238 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2001).
106. After this lawsuit was filed, Defendants provided PLN with a Mail Policy dated October 21, 2011, which had never been publicly available or provided to prisoners. This policy failed to require constitutionally adequate due process to prisoners and their correspondents. While it required the Jail to provide the prisoner-addressee notice when the Jail censored

PLAINTIFF'S SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (CV 12-71-SI) - 29
9870.05 fl316705

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 138 Filed 12/31/12 Page 30 of 40

incoming mail (which the Jail routinely failed to do), the policy failed to require any notice to or opportunity to appeal for the publisher or other sender of incoming mail, or to the prisoner or intended recipient of rej ected outgoing mail.
107. After PLN filed its lawsuit, Defendants revised their mail policies on January 26 and February 10,2012. As noted by the Court previously, the notice provisions in these policies were "not a model of clarity" and the due process provisions did "not expressly apply to outgoing mail." Dkt. 64 at 25. Indeed, the due process provisions were scattered and confusing, and the Corrections staff continued to fail to provide adequate due process when censoring inmate mail, including failing to provide due process notice to Lucy Lennox for several mailings that she sent to prisoners that the Jail censored in February 2012.
108. Where, as here, unconstitutional conduct results from the absence of adequate policies that absence violates the Constitution. Withers v. Levine, 615 F.2d 158 (4th Cir. 1980) (supervisory officials responsible to make rules may be subject to section 1983 liability where failure to make rules causes their employees' unconstitutional practices); Dimarzo v. Cahill, 575 F.2d 15, 17-18 (1st Cir. 1978). "It is true that an official policy can be inferred from a municipality's omissions as well as from its acts." Wellington v. Daniels, 717 F.2d 932, 935-36 (4th Cir. 1983) (citing, among others, Turpin v. Mailet, 619 F.2d 196,202 (2d Cir.1980)); see also Green v. Baca, 306 F. Supp. 2d 903, 918 (C.D. Cal. 2004) (noting that law enforcement may be liable for having "an unconstitutional lack of policies" that lead to unconstitutional conduct).
109. For these reasons, the following mail policies violated the Fourteenth Amendment: (1) Defendants' publicly available mail policy posted on its website on January 13, 2012, which failed to provide for any due process rights; (2) the March 23, 2010 Memo sent to all Corrections Staff and posted in the prisoner dayrooms of each Jail pod, which failed to provide for any due process rights; (3) Defendants' October 21,2011 mail policy, which failed to require any notice or opportunity to appeal to the sender of incoming mail or to the prisoner or intended recipient of rejected outgoing mail; and (4) Defendants' January 26, 2012, and

PLAINTIFF'S SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (CV 12-71-SI) - 30
9870.05 fl316705

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 138 Filed 12/31/12 Page 31 of 40

February 10, 2012, mail policies, which failed to require the Jail to provide due process to prisoners and intended-recipients of outgoing mail.
110. Defendants' custom and practice of not providing due process notice or an opportunity for the mail sender, intended recipient, or prisoner to appeal the Jail's censorship decisions violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
111. Defendants' inadequate policy and their practices and customs resulted in the deprivation of Prison Legal News's and the prisoner-addressees' due process rights when Defendants censored PLN's monthly journal, informational brochures, subscription forms, book catalogs, book offers, renewal letters, fundraising letters, and online articles without affording PLN and the prisoner-addressees notice and an opportunity to challenge the censorship decisions.
112. Likewise, Defendants' policy resulted in the deprivation of Lucy Lennox's and the prisoner-addressees' due process rights when Defendants censored Ms. Lennox's mailings of PLN on-line articles.
113. Defendants violated PLN's clearly-established First and Fourteenth Amendm,ent rights for which Defendants are liable for damages.
V. PERMANENT INJUNCTION 114. To obtain a permanent injunction, "A plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction. eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006). 115. PLN has shown that it has suffered "an irreparable injury" and therefore a permanent injunction would be warranted ifPLN satisfies the other three elements. "[A]n alleged constitutional infringement will often alone constitute irreparable harm." Monterey Mechanical Co. v. Wilson, 125 F.3d 702, 715 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal citation omitted). And,

PLAINTIFF'S SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (CV 12-71-SI) - 31
9870.05 fl316705

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 138 Filed 12/31/12 Page 32 of 40

"The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury." Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976); Associated Press v. Otter, 682 F.3d 821, 825-26 (9th Cir. 2012). This likewise satisfies the second element, that money damages are inadequate.
116. On the third element, the Defendants cannot show any harm since as a direct result of PLN' s lawsuit they have now given up their ban on magazines and adopted much improved due process policies. And, as a result of the Court's preliminary injunction, the Defendants were ordered to cease enforcement of their Postcard-Only Policy, and they claim that they will not re-adopt that policy regardless of how the Court rules.
117. The public would not be disserved by entry of a permanent injunction. An injunction would have a neutral effect on the public in general but would advance the public interest by enforcing free speech and due process of many prisoners and their correspondents, including publishers.
118. Defendants have contended that their so-called "voluntary cessation" of their unconstitutional policies and practices have rendered PLN's request for equitable relief moot. That is not correct. First, the current test articulated by the United States Supreme Court in eBay Inc., provides that a plaintiff is not required to show risk of future harm but instead may obtain a permanent injunction by showing that it "has suffered" irreparable harm already. 547 U.S. at 391. Defendants are not able to render prior irreparable harm moot by changing their behavior or policies, voluntarily or not.
119. But even if Defendants' cessation could moot PLN's request for permanent injunctive relief, it does not do so here.
120. The Defendants bear '''[t]he heavy burden ofpersua[ding]' the court that the challenged conduct cannot reasonably be expected to start up again." Friends o/the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (Toe), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 170, 189 (2000) (burden of proof "lies with the party asserting mootness.") To do so, the Defendants must meet a very high threshold:

PLAINTIFF'S SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (CV 12-71-SI) - 32
9870.05 f1316705

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 138 Filed 12/31/12 Page 33 of 40

[T]he standard we have announced for determining whether a case has been mooted by the defendant's voluntary conduct is stringent: "A case might become moot if subsequent events made it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur." Id. at 189 (emphasis added) (citation omitted). The Sheriff must show the court that "interim relief or events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation." Norman-Bloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, 135 F.3d 1260, 1274 (9th Cir. 1998). 121. In this case, Defendants refused to cease their Postcard-Only Policy until ordered to do so by the Court. That is not properly labeled voluntary cessation. In Thalheimer v. City of San Diego, 645 F.3d 1109, 1126 (9th Cir. 2011), as here, "The City acknowledges that it adopted the new provision in direct response to the district court's earlier issuance of a preliminary injunction against enforcement ofECCO §§ 27.2950-51 as applied to political parties." In affirming the district court's preliminary injunction, the Ninth Circuit noted, "These concerns are of particular force in a case like the present one, in which the 'voluntary cessation' occurred only in response to the district court's judgment." Id. (citation omitted). 122. Further, several months after the Court's entry of the preliminary injunction against that Policy, on summary judgment Defendants vigorously defended their Postcard-Only Policy as constitutional and beneficial, and could see no risk of harm to anyone. Defendants have not, and cannot, overcome the presumption that they would violate the Constitution in the absence of a permanent injunction. See United States v. Odessa Union Warehouse Co-op, 833 F.2d 172, 176 (9th Cir. 1987) (there is "a presumption of irreparable harm arising from failure to enforce a federal statute intended to protect the public" and "an inference arises from Odessa's past violations that future violations are likely to occur."). 123. Similarly, a permanent injunction is warranted by Defendants' magazine ban and failure to afford due process. The Sheriff has repeatedly changed his policies even during the course of this litigation, has the authority to do so by himself without any process or consultation, and his successor could do so even ifhe does not. "The reason that the defendant's conduct, in choosing to voluntarily cease some wrongdoing, is unlikely to moot the needfor

PLAINTIFF'S SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (CV 12-71-SI) - 33
9870.05 fl316705

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 138 Filed 12/31/12 Page 34 of 40

injunctive reliefis that the defendant could simply begin the wrongful activity again...." F. T. C. v. Affordable Media, 179 F.3d 1228, 1238 (9th Cir. 1999) (emphasis added). The standard for the voluntary cessation exception to mootness is 'whether the defendant is free to return to its illegal action at any time." Affordable Media, 179 F.3d a 123 8) (citation omitted); Ohlinger v. Watson, 652 F.2d 775, 780 (9th Cir. 1980) (denying claim of mootness on the ground that "The State should not be allowed 'to defeat injunctive relief by protestations of repentance and reform. "') (Citation omitted).
124. Here, in the absence of a permanent injunction, Defendants would be as free to return to their illegal policies and practices as when they adopted them. Their mere say so, is insufficient evidence that they will never again violate the Constitution. See City ofMesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283, 289 (1982) (denying mootness because "the city's repeal of the objectionable language would not preclude it from reenacting precisely the same provision if the District Court's judgment were vacated.").
125. The Sheriff s conduct does not alleviate this concern. Prisoners wrote numerous grievances, and complained orally, that the Jail's Postcard-Only Policy was harmful to them and their correspondents outside the jail, and that it was unconstitutional. The complaints began "the day the policy changed." But the Sheriff persisted in his policy. The Sheriff admitted that he read the Inmate Manual when he first took office "cover to cover" but saw nothing "that needed to be changed" even though the manual explicitly banned magazines and failed to afford due process rights. He did not correct the manual for three years, until nearly six months after PLN filed its lawsuit during which time the Jail continued to issue the manual with its unconstitutional provisions to prisoners.
126. And the trainings on his new policies adopted in response to PLN's lawsuit appear to have been poorly planned and implemented. He did not attend them, problems with implementation continued at least after the first training, and the training was primarily reading the entire lengthy mail policies out loud, rather than focusing on the specific changes prompted by the Jails' unconstitutional behavior. One indication that the trainings were insufficient is that

PLAINTIFF'S SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (CV 12-71-SI) - 34
9870.05 fl316705

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle Washington 98104
Tel 206.621.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 138 Filed 12/31/12 Page 35 of 40

Sergeant Cutright, who led the first training and was a designee of the Defendants to testify about their mail policies, testified in his deposition that he could not identify what the First Amendment was.
127. After purporting to initiate an investigation into how the unconstitutional policies and practices came about, the Sheriff stopped early on. He chose not to ask witnesses who likely knew the answers and he did not impose discipline on any employees. And although Undersheriff Moyer has been the Jail Commander in charge of implementation of the mail policies since mid-2011, at the time of his deposition he had never read them or the summary of those policies in the Inmate Manual routinely issued to incoming prisoners.
128. The evidence does not support Defendants' position. Accordingly, even if voluntary cessation precedent applied, Defendants have failed to carry their heavy burden to prove that PLN, prisoners, and their correspondents will not suffer constitutional violations in the absence of a permanent injunction.
The PLRA Does Not Apply 129. For the first time, on summary judgment after discovery was closed, Defendants raised what appears to be an affirmative defense that any injunction entered by the court is subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act. C.! Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199,216 (2007) ("failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense under the PLRA...."). The court disagrees. The PLRA does not apply to lawsuits brought by non-prisoners, like PLN. For example, in Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program v. Wood, 584 F. Supp. 2d 1314, 1316 (M.D. Ala. 2008), a nonprofit organization sought access to youth confined in Alabama detention facilities. The court held, "ADAP [a nonprofit] seeks to enforce its own right of access under federal law and brings no claim concerning the conditions at DYS [state agency] or the lives of persons confined there. Therefore, the prospective-relief provisions of the PLRA do not apply." The Court also explained that, "The provisions respecting prisoner suits also do not apply because ADAP is clearly not a 'prisoner' under the statute." Id. See also Skinner v Switzer, 131 U.S. 1289, 1299 (2011) ("More generally, in the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), 110 Stat. 1321-

PLAINTIFF'S SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (CV 12-71-SI) - 35
9870.05 tl316705

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 138 Filed 12/31/12 Page 36 of 40

66, Congress has placed a series of controls on prisoner suits, constraints designed to prevent sportive filings in federal court.") (Emphasis added).2
130. Further, while not dispositive, the conclusion that the PLRA does not apply to non-prisoner lawsuits is further supported by numerous other permanent injunctions against prisons and jails for censorship and due process issued by Federal District Courts and affirmed by the Ninth Circuit, none which applied the PLRA. See, e.g., Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2005), Prison Legal News v. Cook, 238 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2001); PLN v. Cook, Case No. 98-cv-1344 (D. Or. 1998) Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 272 F. Supp. 2d 1151 (W.D. Wa. 2003) affd, 397 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2005); Prison Legal News v. Chelan County, No. CV-11-337-EFS (E.D. Wa. filed September 9,2011), Dkt. 44-1 at 46-54, PLNv. Spokane County, Case No. 2:11-cv-00029 (E.D. Wa. 2011), Dkt. 31-2, PLNv. Sacramento, 2:11-cv00907 (E.D. Cal. 2011); and PLN v. Schwarzenegger, Case No. 4:07-cv-02058 (N.D. Cal. 2007); cf Prison Legal News v. Schwarzenegger, 608 F.3d 446,454 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that on a First Amendment "§ 1983 suit by a plaintiff who is not a prisoner...the PLRA's limits do not apply.").
131. The Court finds that the permanent injunction it is entering meets the standard of ebay Inc., is consistent with the District Court and Ninth Circuit rulings enjoining unconstitutional censorship and violations of due process by prisons and jails cited above, and is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct Defendants' repeated violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct these violations.

2 For this proposition, they cite to Gilmore v. People o/the State o/California, 220 F.3d 987, 992 (9th Cir. 2000). But Gilmore involved a collection of suits brought by prisoners and contains a footnote contrary to Defendants' position: "[The PLRA] amends 18 U.S.C. §3626 to require that prison conditions remedies do not go beyond the measures necessary to remedy federal rights violations and that public safety and criminal justice needs are given appropriate weight in framing such remedies. Specifically, the section places limits on the type of prospective relief available to inmate litigants." Id. at 997, n. 11 (emphasis added).

PLAINTIFF'S SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (CV 12-71-SI) - 36
9870.05 fl316705

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 138 Filed 12/31/12 Page 37 of 40

132. ACCORDINGLY, the COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: Declaration
133. By adopting and enforcing a Postcard-Only Policy, Defendants the Columbia County Sheriff Jeffrey Dickerson, the Columbia County Sheriff s office, and Columbia County violated the First Amendment and violated PLN's rights to free speech and expression, and the rights of the prisoners and their other correspondents.
134. By adopting and enforcing a ban on magazines and periodicals, Defendants the Columbia County Sheriff Jeffrey Dickerson, the Columbia County Sheriffs office, and Columbia County violated the First Amendment and PLN's rights to free speech and expression, and the rights of the prisoners and their other correspondents.
135. Each ofPLN's sixty-five (65) news journals, subscription materials, book offers, book catalogs, renewal letters, fundraising letters, and other mail to prisoners, Trial Exhibits 1 through 65, that Defendants censored are speech protected by the First Amendment. Each of the eighteen (18) mailings of PLN news artiCles that Lucy Lennox printed from PLN's website that Defendants censored, Trial Exhibits 71 through 87 and 89, are speech protected by the First Amendment.
136. By censoring each ofPLN's sixty-five (65) news journals, subscription materials, book offers, book catalogs, renewal letters, fundraising letters, and other mail to prisoners, Defendants the Columbia County Sheriff Jeffrey Dickerson, the Columbia County Sheriffs Department, and Columbia County violated the First Amendment and violated PLN's rights to free speech and expression and the rights of the prisoners to who PLN sent those censored mailings.
137. Defendants Sheriff Dickerson, the Columbia County Sheriff s Department, and Columbia County violated the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause by: (1) failing to adopt and enforce provisions in their mail policies that afford the sender and intended recipient of mail due process rights to: (a) adequate written notice when Defendants censor their mail; and (b) an opportunity to challenge the censorship decision.

PLAINTIFF'S SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (CV 12-71-SI) - 37
9870.05 f1316705

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 138 Filed 12/31/12 Page 38 of 40

138. By censoring each ofPLN's sixty-five (65) news journals, subscription materials, book offers, book catalogs, renewal letters, fundraising letters, and other mail to prisoners without affording PLN and the prisoners to whom these mailings were sent due process notice or an opportunity to challenge the censorship decisions, Defendants violated the due process rights of Prison Legal News and those prisoners.
Injunction Defendants the Columbia County Sheriff, the Columbia County Sheriff s office, and Columbia County are permanently enjoined: (1) from censoring or rejecting mail on the ground that it is not in the form of a postcard; (2) from censoring or rejecting mail on the ground that it is a magazine or periodical; and (3) from denying due process to prisoners or their correspondents when rejecting mail. Specifically, for each piece of mail that Defendants censor or reject, the Defendants must give written notice to the sender and addressee of the following:
(a) The identity of the mail censored or rejected, described in sufficient detail that the mail can be matched to the mail rejection notices sent the sender and addressee.
(b) Each specific reason the mail was censored or rejected, described sufficiently that the sender can cure or challenge the Jail's decision;
(c) The identity and basic substance of any mail policy on which the Defendants rely as a justification for the censorship or rejection; and
(d) The sender or addressee's rights to appeal the censorship or rejection, including the identity of the official to whom an appeal may be submitted, any requirements of what must be contained in an appeal, any deadlines or timeframes for appeal, and a reasonable timeframe by which the Defendants will issue a decision on the appeal to the appellant.

PLAINTIFF'S SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (CV 12-71-SI) - 38
9870.05 fl316705

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 138 Filed 12/31/12 Page 39 of 40
DATED this 31 st day of December, 2012.
MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS
lsi Jesse Wing KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN OSB #042580 JESSE WING, admitted pro hac vice (206) 622-1604 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

PLAINTIFF'S SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (CV 12-71-SI) - 39
9870.05 fl3 16705

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle Washington 98104
Tel 206.621.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 138 Filed 12/31/12 Page 40 of 40
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on December 31,2012, I electronically filed the foregoing to the
Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the
following:
• Marc D. Blackman marc@ransomblackman.com,pat@ransomblackman.com
• Steven A. Kraemer sak@hartwagner.com,rcd@hartwagner.com
• Gregory R. Roberson grr@hartwagner.com,cej@hartwagner.com
• Lynn S. Walsh walsh@europa.com
• Lance Weber lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter .org,ahull@humanrightsdefensecenter.org
MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS
Is/Jesse Wing KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN OSB #042580 (206) 622-1604 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

PLAINTIFF'S SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (CV 12-71-SI) - 40
9870.05 f1316705

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 144 Filed 01/07/13 Page 1 of 15

Steven A. Kraemer, OSB No. 882476 E-mail: sak@hartwagner.com Gregory R. Roberson, OSB No. 064847 E-mail: grr@hartwagner.com HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301
Of Attorneys for Defendants

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,
Plaintiffs,

No. 3:12-cv-0071-SI

v.
COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF DICKERSON, individual and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,

DEFENDANTS’ ALTERNATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Defendants.

In addition to Plaintiff’s suggested findings of facts not objected to by Defendants,

Defendants submit the following alternative suggested findings of fact and conclusions of law.

DEFENDANTS’ SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT

I. Additional Facts Regarding the Parties

A. Plaintiff’s core mission also includes advocating for its rights in court, devoting its

resources to the investigation of and litigation against correctional institutions, and

promoting its litigation activities.

B. Defendant Sheriff Dickerson has authority to hire and terminate employees of CCSO

subject to budgetary constraints imposed by the Columbia County Board of

Commissioners.

Page 1 – DEFENDANTS’ ALTERNATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 144 Filed 01/07/13 Page 2 of 15

C. Columbia County does not hire and terminate employees of CCSO, nor did it create the

inmate mail policy for the Jail.

D. CCSO has reduced its staff by the equivalent of 8.5 positions since 2009, a reduction of

about one-third from 2009 levels, due to the reduction in revenues to fund operations.

E. Since the postcard policy went into effect in March, 2010, CCSO reduced its sworn jail

staff by five positions, a reduction of about one-fifth from 2010 levels.

F. The Columbia County Jail’s funded capacity dropped from 255 inmates to 150 inmates in

2011.

II. Facts Regarding Standing, Mootness, and Plaintiff’s Equitable Claims

G. CCSO and Sheriff Jeff Dickerson admitted liability for the rejection of Plaintiff’s

magazines and other correspondence in violation of the First and Fourteenth

Amendments. See generally Defendants’ Answer and Defendants’ Suggested Findings

of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

H. CCSO changed its inmate mail policy and practice shortly after the lawsuit was filed to

allow the delivery of mail such as Plaintiff’s magazines and other correspondence.

I. Plaintiff’s mail has not been rejected by CCSO since the filing of this lawsuit.

J. CCSO has delivered plaintiff’s mail so long as the inmate was in custody since the filing

of this lawsuit.

K. Sheriff Dickerson has represented CCSO will not re-institute the postcard policy,

regardless of any Order of this Court, absent a change in the law that would permit a

postcard policy, although even then the Sheriff does not know at this time if there would

be a change in the current policy.

III. Additional Facts Regarding the Merits

Facts Relevant to Magazines and Due Process

L. Defendants incorporate the mail procedures contained in CCSO Inmate Mail Policy J603-

R05 (October 21, 2011), see Plaintiff’s Proposed Trial Exhibit 113, and subsequent

policies, J603-R06 (January 26, 2012), J603-R07 (February 10, 2012), J603-R08 (May

Page 2 – DEFENDANTS’ ALTERNATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 144 Filed 01/07/13 Page 3 of 15

25, 2012), J603-R09 (June 18, 2012), J603-R10 (July 5, 2012), see Defendants’ Proposed

Trial Exhibits 272-276.

M. Each policy permitted periodicals such as Plaintiff’s magazine to be delivered to inmates

so long as the magazine did not violate other restrictions in the policy.

N. Prior to January 26, 2012, the Jail did not deliver many magazines addressed to inmates

in violation of the policy, but delivered some.

O. CCSO’s Inmate Mail Policy effective October 21, 2011 did not provide the person

corresponding with an inmate with notice or an opportunity to appeal the Jail’s decision

to reject mail. The policy also did not provide the inmate with notice or an opportunity to

appeal the Jail’s decision to reject an inmate’s outgoing mail. Although the policy

provided the inmate with notice and an opportunity to appeal the Jail’s decision to reject

incoming inmate mail, the jail often did not do so.

P. CCSO’s inmate mail policies including and subsequent to January 26, 2012, provided

notice and an opportunity to appeal to the sender and receiver of inmate mail.

Q. As of January 26, 2012, the Jail delivered magazines according to its policy.

R. As of January 26, 2012, the Jail provided notice and an opportunity to appeal according

to its policy.

S. The changes to the Jail’s mail policy and practices with respect to magazines and due

process was in response the notice that Plaintiff’s lawsuit provided to Defendant Sheriff

Jeff Dickerson that the Jail had these problems.

Postcard Policy – Application to Plaintiff’s Mail

T. Each of CCSO’s postcard policies (the policies effective until the Court’s Opinion and

Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction dated May 29, 2012) were

restricted to inmates and their family and friends. However, the Jail rejected many

mailings, such as those from Plaintiff, on the basis that it was not in postcard form, in

violation of its policy.

Postcard Policy - Constitutionality
Page 3 – DEFENDANTS’ ALTERNATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 144 Filed 01/07/13 Page 4 of 15

U. CCSO adopted a postcard policy because it would reduce the risk of contraband from

entering and leaving the facility.

V. CCSO adopted a postcard policy because it would reduce mail costs and save staff

resources.

W. At the time of the postcard policy’s adoption, no court had ruled that it was

unconstitutional.

X. The postcard policy was proposed by members of the Washington County Sheriff’s

Office at an Oregon State Sheriff’s Association conference, and had passed legal review

by its counsel.

Y. The Washington County Sheriff’s Office is considered by Sheriff Dickerson to be a

leader in Oregon on jail policies and procedures, and it frequently assists smaller county

jails, including Columbia County, in developing and implementing jail policies and

procedures.

Z. The postcard policy was permitted by the Oregon Jail Standards put forth by the Oregon

State Sheriff’s Association Jail Command Council.

AA. The postcards available to inmates were half the size of a regular sheet of paper.

BB. Contraband is broadly defined as objects, substances, and other materials that inmates are

not allowed to possess. Inmates possessing contraband can harm themselves and others,

and prohibited items can become a form of currency among inmates, which can often

lead to violence, extortion, and other criminal behavior.

CC. Contraband can be drugs, bodily fluids, glue, paint, gunpowder and other explosives,

lipsick, and perfume. These can be hidden in the flaps and glue strips of envelopes such

that they are difficult to detect. The can also be hidden between multiple sheets of paper.

DD. Objects that are contraband include handcuff keys, metal wires, razor blades, and knives.

EE. Items can become contraband depending on how many the inmate possesses. Examples

include paper clips and staples, which can be sued to fashion weapons or makeshift

handcuff keys.
Page 4 – DEFENDANTS’ ALTERNATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 144 Filed 01/07/13 Page 5 of 15

FF. These small contraband objects can be hidden in the flaps and glue strips of envelopes

such that they are difficult to detect by corrections staff. The can also be hidden between

multiple sheets of paper.

GG. Inmate mail must be scanned or read by jail deputies, with some exceptions, such as for

mail defined as legal.

HH. Inmates are prohibited from communicating plans for escape, criminal activity, violations

of jail policies, or threats of physical harm. They are not allowed to coordinate testimony

or discuss criminal activity, destroying evidence or intimidating witnesses.

II. Inmates often attempt to contact people with whom they are under a court order not to

communicate with.

JJ. Gang members are particularly adept as using coded messages to discuss prohibited

topics. They can use symbols or can imbed a message in a communication that is

difficult to detect by corrections officers, but the person receiving the communications

can easily decipher.

KK. Inmates and their family and friends were not restricted in the number of postcards they

could use to communicate.

LL. Inmates were not restricted from written communications. They could receive magazines

(and did after January 26, 2012), newspapers, books, and solicited and unsolicited junk

and bulk mail.

MM. The postcard policy did not restrict inmates and their family and friends from

communicating in others ways, such as through jail visits and phone calls.

NN. For persons using postcards to communicate with inmates, the costs of postcards and

additional stamps was comparable to the costs of envelopes, sheets of paper, and stamps.

OO. Postcards are easier to hold in one’s hand than multiple sheets of paper.

PP. Postcards are easier to turn over to inspect both sides than multiple sheets of paper.

QQ. Postcards are on thick paper, which makes them more durable than sheets of paper. It

also easier to identify foreign substances on postcards than on sheets of paper.

Page 5 – DEFENDANTS’ ALTERNATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 144 Filed 01/07/13 Page 6 of 15

RR. It is easier to scan or read postcards than doing the same with sheets of paper.

SS. It is easier to identify prohibited topics being discussed on a postcard that doing the same

with a sheet of paper.

TT. The postcard policy saved the Jail thirty to sixty minutes per day of staff time depending

of the volume of mail.

UU. By reducing the risk of contraband from entering the facility, the postcard policy avoided

the expenditure of staff resources in the event that contraband enters the facility.

VV. By reducing the risk of contraband from entering or exiting the facility, the postcard

policy made inmates, jail staff, and the intended and potential correspondents of inmates

(family, friends, crime victims, co-conspirators, gang members, co-defendants) safer.

WW. CCSO’s Inmate Mail Policy, effective May 25, 2012, clarified the previous postcard

policy, and ensured the following: (1) inmate mail from educational, community, and

religious organizations was not required to be in postcard form, (2) inmate mail to

confining authorities, religious leaders, and the news media was not required to be in

postcard form.

XX. CCSO stopped enforcing its postcard policy on May 29, 2012.

YY. CCSO decided it will not re-institute the postcard policy.

Lucy Lennox’s Mailings

ZZ. The two Prohibited Mail Notices received by Ms. Lennox (see #57) provided a reason for

the Jail’s rejection and an opportunity for her to appeal the Jail’s decision to reject it.

AAA. Ms. Lennox said that because three of her mailings in February, 2012 were returned to

her, the Jail may have not delivered the other eleven.

BBB. Ms. Lennox did not appeal the Jail’s decision not to deliver her February, 2012 mailings.

CCC. Ms. Lennox sent her mailings in December, 2011 and February, 2012 solely because Paul

Wright asked her to participate in this lawsuit.

///

///
Page 6 – DEFENDANTS’ ALTERNATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 144 Filed 01/07/13 Page 7 of 15

DEFENDANTS’ CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Columbia County Is Not Liable

A. Defendant Sheriff Jeff Dickerson is not an agent of Defendant Columbia County with

respect to the Jail’s inmate mail policy and practices. See, e.g., ORS 204.601, ORS

204.635, ORS 206.210.

B. Defendant Columbia County Sheriff’s Office is not an agent of Defendant Columbia

County with respect to the Jail’s inmate mail policy and practices. Id.

Constitutional Violations

C. The parties have agreed that Defendant Columbia County Sheriff’s Office violated the

First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution by returning Plaintiff’s mail

addressed to inmates at the Jail and not providing due process. The First and Fourteenth

Amendment rights of both Plaintiff and the inmate with whom they desired to

communicate with were violated.

Plaintiff Lacks Third-Party Standing for Equitable Relief

D. The Court finds that Plaintiff lacks third-party standing to bring its equitable claims on

behalf of inmates and their family and friends because Plaintiff has not shown that the

ability of inmates and their family and friends to assert their own rights is sufficiently

hindered. See Coalition of Clergy, Lawyers, and Professors v. Bush, 310 F.3d 1153,

1163 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 410-11 (1991)). Nothing

about CCSO’s inmate mail policy and practices threatened inmates and their

correspondents with criminal prosecution, nor were they forced to forego their rights

entirely. See The Pitt News v. Fisher, 215 F.3d 354, 364 (3d Cir. 2000), cert. denied 531

U.S. 1113 (2001).

Mootness

E. To prove a dispute is moot, Defendants must prove that its cessation of a challenged

practice make it “absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not

reasonably be expected to recur.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental

Page 7 – DEFENDANTS’ ALTERNATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 144 Filed 01/07/13 Page 8 of 15

Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81 (2000). The Court finds that CCSO’s admission of liability and immediate cessation of the unconstitutional conduct with respect to having rejected magazines and other correspondence and not providing due process notification for rejected mail demonstrates this conduct has been “irrevocably eradicated.” See Norman-Bloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkely Laboratory, 135 F.3d 1260, 1274 (9th Cir. 1998); see also Smith v. University of Washington Law School, 233 F.3d 1188, 1194-95 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding dispute moot because, after law school stopped the use of race in the admissions process in response to a change in state law, if law school was “temerarious enough” to violate state law, then plaintiff or others “can commence a new battle at that time.”) F. Likewise, the Court is satisfied that CCSO will not re-implement the postcard policy absent a change in the law, and possibly not even if that occurs and accordingly, finds the dispute moot.
Declaratory Relief G. The admissions of liability in Defendants’ Answer established the legal relations between
the parties with respect to the delivery of Plaintiff’s mail, including its magazines, subscription renewal letters, fundraising appeals, and advertising material, and to the provision of due process. The admissions of liability extended to the constitutional rights of Plaintiff’s inmate correspondents as well. Furthermore, Defendants have admitted that CCSO’s handling of inmate mail prior to January 26, 2012 was part of an unconstitutional practice subject to liability pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Accordingly, the Court finds it is unnecessary to enter declaratory relief relating to the delivery of Plaintiff’s magazines, subscription renewal letters, fundraising appeals, and advertising material. Greater Los Angeles Council on Deafness, Inc. v. Zolin, 812 F.2d 1103, 1112 (9th Cir. 1987); United States v. Walsh, 759 F.2d 1353, 1356 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing A.L. Mechling Barge Lines, Inc. v. United States, 368 U.S. 324, 331 (1961)).

Page 8 – DEFENDANTS’ ALTERNATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 144 Filed 01/07/13 Page 9 of 15

H. Plaintiff and Defendants dispute whether CCSO’s postcard policies were a violation of

the First Amendment pursuant to Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987).

I. The Court declines to apply Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 417-18 (1974),

overruled in part on other grounds by Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 408 (1989) to

outgoing inmate mail restrictions. The Court will apply Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78

(1987).

J. The Court finds that CCSO’s postcard policies did not violate the First Amendment.

a. Rational Relationship to the Legitimate Penological Interest of Jail Security.

The Court finds that jail security is a legitimate penological interest. Thornburgh

v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 414 (1989). The parties agree CCSO’s postcard policy

was neutral because it operated without regard to the content of the expression.

(Dkt. 64, Op. & O. Plf. Mot. Prelim. Inj. at 16 n.1, citing Turner, 482 U.S. at 90.)

For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that CCSO’s postcard policy was

rationally related to maintaining security at the jail by reducing the contraband

risk presented by inmate mail. The Court also finds that it was rational to limit

the use of postcards to correspondence between an inmate and their family and

friends, i.e., mail that is not defined as legal or official mail, and excepting

magazines, bulk, and junk mail, due to the increased risks inherent in this type of

correspondence.

b. Rational Relationship to the Legitimate Penological Interest of Jail

Efficiency. The Court finds that a correctional institution’s efficient use of

resources is a legitimate penological interest. Freeman v. Texas Dep’t of

Criminal Justice, 369 F.3d 854, 861 (5th Cir. 2004). For the reasons stated above,

the Court finds that Sheriff Jeff Dickerson rationally believed that CCSO’s

postcard policy would save staff resources by reducing mail-processing times.

See Mauro v. Arpaio, 188 F.3d 1054, 1060 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that “prison

official need not prove that the banned material actually caused problems in the

Page 9 – DEFENDANTS’ ALTERNATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 144 Filed 01/07/13 Page 10 of 15

past, or that the materials are ‘likely’ to cause problems in the future”). The Court

also finds that CCSO’s postcard policy was a rational management of staff

resources because it reduced the risk of contraband from entering and exiting the

jail, which made it less likely that jail resources would have to be dedicated to the

interception and investigation of contraband incidents.

c. Alternative Avenues of Communication. In analyzing this factor, the Court is

required to determine “whether ‘other avenues’ remain available for the exercise

of the asserted right.” Turner, 482 U.S. at 90; see also Thornburgh, 490 U.S.

417-18 (second Turner factor “clearly satisfied” when a prison regulation banned

certain publications but still allowed a broad range of publications to be sent and

received); O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 352 (1987) (“In Turner, we

did not look to see whether prisoners had other means of communicating with

fellow inmates, but instead examined whether the inmates were deprived of ‘all

means of expression.’” The Court finds that CCSO’s postcard policy merely

changed the form of communication, i.e., from that of letters in envelopes to that

of postcards. Thus, written communication remained available to inmates and

their correspondents. In addition to written communication, inmates had phone

and visitation privileges. Accordingly, the Court finds that CCSO’s postcard

policy did not deprive inmates of “all means of communication,” nor did it

prohibit written communication.

d. Impact on Resources. The Court must consider the impact of accommodating

the asserted right on the jail staff and inmates and the allocation of prison

resources generally. Turner, 482 U.S. at 90. Here, the asserted right is

communication by regular-size sheets of paper and the use of envelopes. The

Court finds that stopping the postcard policy increases the risk that contraband

enters or exits the jail and, thus, the risk of a consequent use of valuable resources

when contraband is intercepted. Accordingly, the Court finds this factor satisfied

Page 10 – DEFENDANTS’ ALTERNATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 144 Filed 01/07/13 Page 11 of 15

because accommodating the asserted right will have a “ripple effect” on inmates,

jail staff, and the jail’s resources generally. Id.

e. No Easy and Obvious Alternatives. This factor requires the Court to address

whether easy and obvious alternatives exist to the postcard policy that “fully

accommodates the prisoner’s right at de minimis cost to valid penological

interest.” Turner, 482 U.S. at 90-91. Here, the cost is to the interest of jail

security and the efficient use of resources. The Court finds that CCSO lacks an

easy and obvious alternative that allows inmates to communicate with family and

friends but still results in the same level of jail security and use of resources that

the postcard policy achieves. Requiring CCSO to return to the use of letters and

envelopes results in more than a de minimis cost to jail security and the efficient

use of resources.

K. Qualified Immunity for Postcard Policy. Alternatively, if the Court finds that CCSO’s

postcard policy violated the First Amendment, and to the extent Plaintiff claims equitable

relief against Defendant Sheriff Jeff Dickerson in his personal capacity, he has immunity

because it was not clearly established when the postcard policy was implemented that it

violated the First Amendment. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009);

Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 200-01 (2001). Courts have upheld postcard policies for

inmate mail similar to CCSO’s postcard policy. See, e.g., Covell v. Arpaio, 662 F.

Supp.2d 1146 (D. Az. 2009) (postcard policy for incoming inmate mail upheld as

constitutional); Daniels v. Harris, 2012 WL 3901646 (M.D. Ga. Aug. 8, 2012) (postcard

policy for incoming and outgoing inmate mail upheld as constitutional); Martinez v. May,

No. 2:11-cv-14039, p. 24 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 25, 2012) (postcard policy for outgoing mail

upheld as constitutional) (attached as Exhibit M to the Declaration of Gregory R.

Roberson at Docket #115).

L. Due Process for Lucy Lennox’s Mailings. Defendants have previously agreed that

CCSO did not provide due process to Lucy Lennox or to her inmate correspondents for

Page 11 – DEFENDANTS’ ALTERNATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 144 Filed 01/07/13 Page 12 of 15

her December, 2011 mailings. To the extent Plaintiff claims that Lucy Lennox’s

February, 2012 eleven mailings violated Ms. Lennox’s due process, the Court finds that

she waived any such claim because each piece of mail contained the same article and

after three were returned to her with two Prohibited Mail Notices that informed her of the

reason for the rejection and a process to appeal, she was reasonably on notice that all

eleven were not delivered and she chose not to file an appeal. See Ostlund v. Bobb, 825

F.2d 1371, 1373 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Waiver of a constitutional right must be knowing and

voluntary.”).

M. Qualified Immunity for Lucy Lennox’s Mailings. If the Court rules that Lucy

Lennox’s February, 2012 mailings violated her due process rights, and to the extent

Plaintiff clams equitable relief against Defendant Sheriff Dickerson in his personal

capacity, he has immunity because it was not clearly established that in the unique

circumstances of Lucy Lennox’s eleven identical mailings, due process required her to

receive eleven notices of the reason for the rejection and of her right to appeal. Pearson,

555 U.S. at 236; Saucier, 533 U.S. at 200-01.

Permanent Injunctive Relief

N. To obtain a permanent injunction, Plaintiff must show (1) actual success on the merits,

(2) an irreparable injury for which monetary damages are inadequate to compensate for

that injury, (3) a remedy in equity is warranted considering the balance of hardships

between the plaintiff and defendant, and (4) a permanent injunction is in the public

interest. eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006). Plaintiff bears the

burden of proof on each of these elements of a permanent injunction. Olagues v.

Rossoniello, 770 F.2d 791, 799, 803 (9th Cir. 1985).

O. Success on the Merits re Magazines and Due Process. Defendants have admitted in

their Answer to constitutional violations regarding Plaintiff’s magazines and due process

matters. , However, the Court is not finding that had Plaintiff brought these matters to the

attention of Defendants prior to filing this lawsuit, Defendants would not have made the

Page 12 – DEFENDANTS’ ALTERNATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 144 Filed 01/07/13 Page 13 of 15

changes to its policies and practices they in fact have made, without the necessity of Plaintiff filing this lawsuit P. Irreparable Harm. Plaintiff cannot rely on previous claims of harm and must demonstrate the reasonable possibility of a recurrent injury for a permanent injunction to issue. United States v. Laerdal Mfg. Corp., 73 F.3d 852, 854-55 (9th Cir. 1995). The factors to consider are:
the degree of scienter involved; the isolated or recurrent nature of the infraction; the defendant’s recognition of the wrongful nature of his conduct; the extent to which the defendant’s professional and personal characteristics might enable or tempt him to commit future violations; and the sincerity of any assurances against future violations.
Id. (quoting F.E.C. v. Furgatch, 869 F.2d 1256, 123 (9th Cir. 1989)). In this instance, the Court finds that Plaintiff is not challenging CCSO’s current inmate mail policy and practices, and failed to submit evidence that there was a reasonable chance of recurrent harm to Plaintiff and inmates and their correspondents. Further, the Court finds that CCSO and Sheriff Jeff Dickerson recognized the gravity of the unconstitutional conduct by admitting liability in their Answer and quickly remedying the unconstitutional conduct. It is unlikely that CCSO and Sheriff Dickerson will engage in this type of unconstitutional conduct in the future. Q. Balance of Hardships. Plaintiff does not face any hardships as the evidence submitted demonstrates no ongoing harm to Plaintiff, inmates or their correspondents. Furthermore, the Court is satisfied that CCSO will not re-implement the postcard policy, regardless of the Court’s decision on its constitutionality, and is abiding by the First and Fourteenth Amendments with respect to inmate mail. R. Public Interest. The Court must assess the impact an injunction would have on nonparties and continues to find “the public interest factor largely neutral,” see Dkt. 64, Op. & O. Plf. Prelim. Inj. at 24, and even more so now given that Plaintiff does not challenge the current inmate mail policy and practices of CCSO.

Page 13 – DEFENDANTS’ ALTERNATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 144 Filed 01/07/13 Page 14 of 15

S. In the event a permanent injunction is ordered, the Court must comply with 18 U.S.C. §

3626(a) by ensuring that prospective relief “is narrowly drawn, extends no further than

necessary to correct the violation of Federal right, and is the least intrusive means

necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §

3626(g)(2), the statute applies to “any civil proceeding arising under Federal law with

respect to prison conditions of confinement or the effects of actions by government

officials on the lives of persons confined in prison,” excepting habeas corpus

proceedings. The Court finds that it must abide by this statute.

T. Plaintiff argues that 18 U.S.C. § 3626 does not apply because it was enacted by the

Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321-66 to 1321-77,

and Plaintiff argues the Act only applies to lawsuits brought by prisoners. The Court

declines to adopt Plaintiff’s position. Subsection (g)(2) of the statute, as cited above,

directly conflicts with Plaintiff’s position. In addition, the authorities cited by Plaintiff

refer to Sections 803 and 804 of the Act, which are codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1997a-h, 28

U.S.C. § 1915, and other statutes that specifically relate to prisoner lawsuits. Section 802

of the Act amended 18 U.S.C. § 3626 and it is not exclusive to prisoner lawsuits.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s authorities are not on point.

U. The Court finds Plaintiff’s permanent injunctive relief request requiring CCSO to provide

written notice to the sender and addressee for “each piece of mail,” “identifying” the mail

in “sufficient detail” and the “identity and basic substance” of the reason for the rejection,

the “identify of the official to whom an appeal may be submitted,” to be too inexact to

serve any practical purpose and also to be in excess of the requirements of procedural due

process. See Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 417-19 (1974), overruled on other

grounds by Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) (due process requires notification

to the sender and addressee of inmate mail notice of the rejection and a reasonable

opportunity to appeal to a jail official other than the one who made the decision to reject

the mail); Prison Legal News v. Cook, 238 F.3d 1145, 1152 (same). Accordingly, the

Page 14 – DEFENDANTS’ ALTERNATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 144 Filed 01/07/13 Page 15 of 15
Court declines to adopt Plaintiff’s suggested permanent injunction conditions for due process. V. The Court finds Plaintiff’s permanent injunctive relief request barring CCSO from rejecting mail on the ground that it is not in the form of a postcard or a magazine to be unnecessary and the Court exercises its discretion to not permanently enjoin CCSO given that there has been no showing of a risk of recurrent injury. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 32 (2008) (citing Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 313 (1982)) (holding that a court may decline to enter permanent injunctive relief even if a plaintiff succeeds on the merits). Respectfully submitted this 7th day of January, 2013.
HART WAGNER LLP
By: /s/ Steven A. Kraemer Steven A. Kraemer, OSB No. 882476 Of Attorneys for Defendants

Page 15 – DEFENDANTS’ ALTERNATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 146 Filed 01/07/13 Page 1 of 3

Steven A. Kraemer, OSB No. 882476 E-mail: sak@hartwagner.com Gregory R. Roberson, OSB No. 064847 E-mail: grr@hartwagner.com HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301
Of Attorneys for Defendants

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,
Plaintiffs,

No. 3:12-cv-0071-SI

v.
COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF DICKERSON, individual and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,

DEFENDANTS’ EXPERT WITNESS STATEMENT

Defendants.

Defendants submit the following summary of expected expert witness testimony to be

presented at trial.

1. Serena Morones

Estimated Time for Direct: 45 minutes

Qualifications: Certified Public Accountant specializing in financial analysis and

business valuation. Her analysis followed the general procedures and practices she uses in

analyzing financial losses, or lack thereof, in business related matters, both involving litigated

mattes and in matters not in litigation. She will testify about her background and experience that

qualify her to give her opinions in this matter. She will explain the concepts of business

valuation and financial accounting.

Page 1 – DEFENDANTS’ EXPERT WITNESS STATEMENT

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 146 Filed 01/07/13 Page 2 of 3

Serena Morones will testify regarding her review of records relating to this matter. A copy of her report and CV was previously submitted to plaintiffs’ counsel and she was deposed in this matter. Ms. Morones will testify consistent with her report and deposition testimony. The report she prepared in this matter and her CV containing her qualifications is attached. The following testimony will supplement her report and is consistent with her deposition testimony.
Ms. Morones will testify that plaintiff has not provided documentation that any financial resources were diverted, its mission frustrated, or that it lost revenue in the form of subscription renewals, book orders, or advertising. She reviewed plaintiff’s disclosures, interrogatory answers, annual reports, tax forms, testimony from plaintiff’s employees, W-2 statements, employees’ resumes, and plaintiff’s summaries of its mailings.
She will testify that in analyzing plaintiff’s documents to determine if it sustained any damages for a diversion of resources, she looked for, among other things, documentation that plaintiff incurred extraordinary expenses or even a missed business opportunity as a result of having some of its mail rejected by the Columbia County Jail (CCJ) or pursuing this litigation. Using standard financial and accounting techniques, and after analyzing the business records provided by plaintiff, Ms. Morones is of the opinion the records do not support that plaintiff incurred any extraordinary expense or a missed opportunity to conduct its business. Ms. Morones will testify she is familiar with the concept of diversion of resources, she will testify how a diversion of resources is calculated, as explained in her deposition and expert report, and that she has calculated these types of losses for her clients, as well as in cases where she acted as an expert consultant.
Regarding plaintiff’s claim for damages for “frustration of mission,” Ms. Morones will testify plaintiff did not produce documentation any such damages were sustained. To form this

Page 2 – DEFENDANTS’ EXPERT WITNESS STATEMENT

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 146 Filed 01/07/13 Page 3 of 3
opinion, she looked for documentation that plaintiff suffered a quantifiable financial harm caused by CCJ’s mail practices. The documents from plaintiff that she reviewed, including its website, literature, annual reports, and employees’ testimony, show that plaintiff substantially promotes its litigation activities as part of its core mission. These litigation activities have substantially increased in recent years. Plaintiff’s financial records, and the other documents provided to her, do not demonstrate that plaintiff’s mission was diverted, reduced, impeded, or frustrated in any quantifiable way. Plaintiff did not provide documentation that revealed any reduction in subscriptions, book purchases, or advertising revenue as a result of any mail being rejected by CCJ. Plaintiff provided no documentation showing, or even suggesting, that it lost revenue.
Ms. Morones will testify that the hourly rates charged by plaintiff for its employees’ time is not supported by the cost data provided by plaintiff, nor did plaintiff provide support for the excessive rates claimed. Further, plaintiff did not support with documentation or supporting testimony justifying Paul Wright’s hours of purported “diverted” work.
Respectfully submitted this 7th day of January, 2013.
HART WAGNER LLP
By: /s/ Steven A. Kraemer Steven A. Kraemer, OSB No. 882476 Of Attorneys for Defendants

Page 3 – DEFENDANTS’ EXPERT WITNESS STATEMENT

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 147 Filed 01/07/13 Page 1 of 2

Steven A. Kraemer, OSB No. 882476 E-mail: sak@hartwagner.com Gregory R. Roberson, OSB No. 064847 E-mail: grr@hartwagner.com HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301
Of Attorneys for Defendants

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,
Plaintiffs,

No. 3:12-cv-0071-SI

v.
COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF DICKERSON, individual and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,

DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

Defendants.

We, the jury, being first duly empanelled, do find:

1. What are Plaintiff’s damages, if any? $_______________________

2. Did Plaintiff fail to mitigate its damages?

ANSWER:

Yes _____ No _____

If your answer is “yes,” please enter the amount of Plaintiff’s damages that would have

been mitigated in the space provided below. This amount must be less than the amount you

answered in Question No. 1.

$_______________________
Page 1 – DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 147 Filed 01/07/13 Page 2 of 2

Do not reduce the damages by this amount, if any, because the court will do so when entering judgment.

3. If you did not award Plaintiff damages, you must award Plaintiff nominal damages. Please enter an amount of up to $1.00 in the space provided below.
$______________________ nominal damages

4. Was Sheriff Jeff Dickerson’s conduct malicious, oppressive or in reckless

disregard of Plaintiff’s First and/or Fourteenth Amendment rights?

ANSWER:

Yes _____ No _____

If your answer is “No,” do not answer any further questions. Have your presiding juror

sign and date this verdict form. If your answer is “Yes,” proceed to the next question.

5. Should punitive damages be awarded against Sheriff Jeff Dickerson?

If your answer is “No,” do not answer any further questions. Have your presiding juror

sign and date this verdict form. If your answer is “Yes,” proceed to the next question.

ANSWER:

Yes _____ No _____

6. What amount of punitive damages, if any, do you award the Plaintiff? $_______________________ punitive damages

Please have your presiding juror sign and date this Verdict Form.

DATED this ___ day of February, 2013.

Presiding Juror
Page 2 – DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 149 Filed 01/07/13 Page 1 of 2

Steven A. Kraemer, OSB No. 882476 E-mail: sak@hartwagner.com Gregory R. Roberson, OSB No. 064847 E-mail: grr@hartwagner.com HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301
Of Attorneys for Defendants

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,
Plaintiffs,

No. 3:12-cv-0071-SI

v.
COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF DICKERSON, individual and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,

DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

Defendants.

We, the jury, being first duly empanelled, do find:

1. What are Plaintiff’s damages, if any? $_______________________

2. Did Plaintiff fail to mitigate its damages?

ANSWER:

Yes _____ No _____

If your answer is “yes,” please enter the amount of Plaintiff’s damages that would have

been mitigated in the space provided below. This amount must be less than the amount you

answered in Question No. 1.

$_______________________
Page 1 – DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 149 Filed 01/07/13 Page 2 of 2 Do not reduce the damages by this amount, if any, because the court will do so when entering judgment. 3. If you did not award Plaintiff damages, you must award Plaintiff nominal damages. Please enter an amount of up to $1.00 in the space provided below.
$______________________ nominal damages Please have your presiding juror sign and date this Verdict Form. DATED this ___ day of February, 2013.
Presiding Juror
Page 2 – DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED VERDICT FORM

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 153 Filed 01/07/13 Page 1 of 23

Steven A. Kraemer, OSB No. 882476 E-mail: sak@hartwagner.com Gregory R. Roberson, OSB No. 064847 E-mail: grr@hartwagner.com HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301
Of Attorneys for Defendants

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,
Plaintiffs,

No. 3:12-cv-0071-SI

v.
COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF DICKERSON, individual and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,

DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS

Defendants.

Defendants respectfully request the Court give the following instructions to the jury.

Defendants reserve the right to modify, supplement, or withdraw these instructions based upon

the evidence at trial. Pursuant to LR 51.1 and the Court’s Civil Trial Management Order, the

following is an index of proposed jury instructions, followed by a complete version of each

proposed instruction.

Respectfully submitted this 7th day of January, 2013.

HART WAGNER LLP

By: /s/ Steven A. Kraemer
Steven A. Kraemer, OSB No. 882476 Of Attorneys for Defendants

Page 1 – DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 153 Filed 01/07/13 Page 2 of 23

DEFENDANTS’ REQUESTED JURY INSTRUCTIONS
1. Summary of Claims and Defenses Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction No. 1.2 (2007) (modified)

2. Burden of Proof – Preponderance of the Evidence Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction No. 1.3 (2007) (modified)

3. Two or More Parties – Different Legal Rights Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction No. 1.5 (2007) (modified)

4. Conduct of the Jury Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction No. 1.12 (2007) (modified)

5. Impeachment Evidence - Witness Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction No. 2.8 (2007) (modified)

6. Expert Opinion Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction No. 2.11 (2007) (modified)

7. Equal Treatment of Parties – Municipal Entities Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction No. 4.1 (2007) (modified)

8. Section 1983 Claim Against Defendant Sheriff Jeff Dickerson in Individual Capacity – Elements and Burden of Proof Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction No. 9.2 (2007) (modified)

9. Section 1983 Claim Against Local Governing Body Defendants Based on Act of Final Policymaker – Elements and Burden of Proof Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction No. 9.5 (2007) (modified)

10. Fourteenth Amendment - Procedural Due Process – Inmate Mail U.S. Const. Am. XIV; Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 417-19 (1974), overruled on other grounds by Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989); Krug v. Lutz, 329 F.3d 692, 697-98 (9th Cir. 2003); Prison Legal News v. Cook, 238 F.3d 1145, 1152 (9th Cir. 2001).

11. First Amendment Ninth Circuit Model Jury Instruction No. 9.10 (2007) (modified)

12. Damages – Causation Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction No. 9.8 (2007) (modified)

13. Damages – Proof Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction Nos. 5.1 and 5.2 (2007) (modified)

14. Damages – Mitigation Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction No. 5.3 (2007) (modified)

Page 2 – DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 153 Filed 01/07/13 Page 3 of 23
15. Damages – Avoidance of Double Recovery Stringer v. Dilger, 313 F.2d 536, 541 (10th Cir. 1963); Bender v. City of New York, 78 F.3d 787, 793 (2d Cir. 1996); Greenwood Ranches, Inc. v. Skie Const. Co., Inc., 629 F.2d 518, 522 (9th Cir. 1980); Ham Marine, Inc. v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 72 F.3d 454, 462 (5th Cir. 1995); MidAmerica Fed. Sav. & Loan Assoc. v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 962 F.2d 1470, 1473 (10th Cir. 1992).
16. Damages – Nominal Damages Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction No. 5.6 (2007) (modified) ALTERNATIVE INSTRUCTION
Should the Court determine that plaintiff has met its burden in proving that Sheriff Jeff Dickerson’s conduct was malicious, oppressive or in reckless disregard of plaintiff’s First and/or Fourteenth rights, defendants request the following additional instruction:
17. Damages – Punitive Damages Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction No. 5.5 (2007) (modified)

Page 3 – DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 153 Filed 01/07/13 Page 4 of 23

DEFENDANTS’ REQUESTED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 1 Summary of Claims and Defenses

To help you follow the evidence, I will give you a brief summary of the positions of the parties:
Plaintiff is Prison Legal News, a project of the Human Rights Defense Center, a Washington Non-Profit Corporation. Plaintiff publishes and distributes a monthly magazine and certain books about the criminal justice system and legal issues affecting prisoners.
Defendants are Columbia County Sheriff’s Office (CCSO) and Sheriff Jeff Dickerson. Sheriff Dickerson became the elected sheriff of CCSO on January 1, 2009, and he was re-elected on November 6, 2012. Defendant CCSO manages the Columbia County Jail.
Beginning in December, 2010, Plaintiff mailed its monthly magazine, informational brochures, fundraising letters, and advertising material (subscription forms, book catalogs, book offers) to inmates at the Columbia County Jail in envelopes addressed to individual inmates. Plaintiff and Defendants agree that CCSO staff rejected many of the pieces of mail and did not provide Plaintiff or inmates notice of their appeal rights.
Plaintiff claims that Defendants’ rejection of the mail and lack of notice of their appeal rights violated the United States Constitution’s free speech clause in the First Amendment and the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment. Defendants have admitted in the Answer they filed in this case the rejection of the mail and lack of notice of their appeal rights did violate the United States Constitution as claimed by Plaintiff and defendants changed their practices and policies immediately after receiving a copy of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
Plaintiff claims that it suffered damages as a result of the constitutional violations. Defendants deny Plaintiff suffered any damages, but also contend that if Plaintiff did suffer any damages, it was caused by Plaintiff’s own actions in continuing to send material to the jail after Plaintiff knew the material would be rejected and in not notifying Jail administrative staff or

Page 4 – DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 153 Filed 01/07/13 Page 5 of 23
other County officials of Plaintiff’s concerns about the constitutional violations or by not filing this lawsuit sooner. Plaintiff has the burden of proving damages, if any.
Defendants assert an affirmative defense to Plaintiff’s claim for damages on the basis that Plaintiff failed to mitigate any damages. Plaintiff denies that it failed to mitigate its damages. Defendants have the burden of proof of on their affirmative defense.

Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction No. 1.2 (2007) (modified)

Page 5 – DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 153 Filed 01/07/13 Page 6 of 23
DEFENDANTS’ REQUESTED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 2 Burden of Proof – Preponderance of the Evidence
When a party has the burden of proof on any claim or affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence, it means you must be persuaded by the evidence that the claim or affirmative defense is more probably true than not true.
You should base your decision on all of the evidence, regardless of which party presented it.

Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction No. 1.3 (2007) (modified)

Page 6 – DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 153 Filed 01/07/13 Page 7 of 23
DEFENDANTS’ REQUESTED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 3 Two or More Parties – Different Legal Rights
You should decide the case as to each party separately. Unless otherwise stated, the instructions apply to all parties.

Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction No. 1.5 (2007) (modified)

Page 7 – DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 153 Filed 01/07/13 Page 8 of 23

DEFENDANTS’ REQUESTED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 4

Conduct of the Jury

I will now say a few words about your conduct as jurors.

First, keep an open mind throughout the trial, and do not decide what the verdict should be

until you and your fellow jurors have completed your deliberations at the end of the case.

Second, because you must decide this case based only on the evidence received in the case

and on my instructions as to the law that applies, you must not be exposed to any other information

about the case or to the issues it involves during the course of your jury duty. Thus, until the end of

the case or unless I tell you otherwise:

Do not communicate with anyone in any way and do not let anyone else communicate with

you in any way about the merits of the case or anything to do with it. This includes discussing the

case in person, in writing, by phone or electronic means, via e-mail, text messaging, or any Internet

chat room, blog, Web site or other feature. This applies to communicating with your fellow jurors

until I give you the case for deliberation, and it applies to communicating with everyone else

including your family members, your employer, and the people involved in the trial, although you

may notify your family and your employer that you have been seated as a juror in the case. But, if

you are asked or approached in any way about your jury service or anything about this case, you

must respond that you have been ordered not to discuss the matter and to report the contact to the

court.

Because you will receive all the evidence and legal instruction you properly may consider to

return a verdict: do not read, watch, or listen to any news or media accounts or commentary about

the case or anything to do with it; do not do any research, such as consulting dictionaries, searching

the Internet or using any other reference materials; and do not make any investigation or in any

other way try to learn about the case on your own.

The law requires these restrictions to ensure the parties have a fair trial based on the same

evidence that each party has had an opportunity to address. A juror who violates these restrictions

jeopardizes the fairness of these proceedings, and a mistrial could result that would require the

Page 8 – DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 153 Filed 01/07/13 Page 9 of 23
entire trial process to start over. If any juror is exposed to any outside information, please notify the court immediately.

Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction No. 1.12 (2007) (modified)

Page 9 – DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 153 Filed 01/07/13 Page 10 of 23
DEFENDANTS’ REQUESTED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 5 Impeachment Evidence -- Witness
The evidence that a witness has been convicted of a crime on a prior occasion may be considered, along with all other evidence, in deciding whether or not to believe the witness and how much weight to give to the testimony of the witness and for no other purpose.

Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction No. 2.8 (2007) (modified).

Page 10 – DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 153 Filed 01/07/13 Page 11 of 23
DEFENDANTS’ REQUESTED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 6 Expert Opinion
Some witnesses, because of education or experience, are permitted to state opinions and the reasons for those opinions.
Opinion testimony should be judged just like any other testimony. You may accept it or reject it, and give it as much weight as you think it deserves, considering the witness’s education and experience, the reasons given for the opinion, and all the other evidence in the case.

Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction No. 2.11 (2007) (modified)

Page 11 – DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 153 Filed 01/07/13 Page 12 of 23
DEFENDANTS’ REQUESTED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 7 Equal Treatment of Parties – Municipal Entities
The fact that a defendant is a municipal entity should not affect your decision. All persons are equal before the law and municipal entities such as Columbia County and the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office are entitled to the same fair and conscientious consideration by you as any party.

Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction No. 4.1 (2007) (modified)

Page 12 – DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 153 Filed 01/07/13 Page 13 of 23
DEFENDANTS’ REQUESTED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 8 Section 1983 Claim Against Defendant Sheriff Jeff Dickerson
in Individual Capacity – Elements and Burden of Proof In order to prevail on Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim against Defendant Sheriff Jeff Dickerson, Plaintiff must prove each of the following elements by a preponderance of the evidence: 1. Defendant Sheriff Jeff Dickerson acted under color of law; and 2. Defendant Sheriff Jeff Dickerson’s acts or failures to act deprived Plaintiff of its particular rights under the United States Constitution as explained in Instruction Nos. 10 and 11. A person acts “under color of law” when the person acts or purports to act in the performance of official duties under any state, county, or municipal law, ordinance, or regulation. I instruct you that the Defendant Sheriff Jeff Dickerson acted under color of law.

Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction No. 9.2 (2007) (modified)

Page 13 – DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205

Telephone: (503) 222-4499

Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 153 Filed 01/07/13 Page 14 of 23
DEFENDANTS’ REQUESTED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 9 Section 1983 Claim Against Local Governing Body Defendants Based on Act of Final Policymaker – Elements and Burden of Proof
In order to prevail on Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim against Defendant Columbia County Sheriff’s Office alleging liability based on the act of a final policymaker, Plaintiff must prove each of the following elements by a preponderance of the evidence:
1. Defendant Sheriff Jeff Dickerson acted under color of law; 2. The acts of Defendant Sheriff Jeff Dickerson deprived Plaintiff of its particular rights under the United States Constitution as explained in Instruction Nos. 10 and 11. 3. Defendant Sheriff Jeff Dickerson had final policymaking authority from Defendant Columbia County Sheriff’s Office concerning these acts; and 4. When Defendant Sheriff Jeff Dickerson engaged in these acts, he was acting as a final policymaker for Defendant Columbia County Sheriff’s Office. A person acts “under color of law” when the person acts or purports to act in the performance of official duties under any state, county, or municipal law, ordinance, or regulation. I instruct you that Defendant Sheriff Jeff Dickerson acted under color of law. I instruct you that Defendant Sheriff Jeff Dickerson had final policymaking authority from Defendant Columbia County Sheriff’s Office concerning the acts at issue and, therefore, the third and fourth elements require no proof.

____________________________ Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction No. 9.5 (2007) modified.

Page 14 – DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 153 Filed 01/07/13 Page 15 of 23
DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 10 Fourteenth Amendment – Procedural Due Process – Inmate Mail Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants deprived it of its right to Procedural Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The fundamental requirement of procedural due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. In this case, Plaintiff alleges Defendants deprived it of its rights to procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment when Defendants did not give notice to Plaintiff of the reason for the rejection of its mail and an option to request an appeal of Defendants’ decision to reject the mail. In their Answer Defendants have admitted to depriving Plaintiff of its Procedural Due Process rights.

______________________ U.S. Const. Am. XIV; Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 417-19 (1974), overruled on other grounds by Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989); Krug v. Lutz, 329 F.3d 692, 697-98 (9th Cir. 2003); Prison Legal News v. Cook, 238 F.3d 1145, 1152 (9th Cir. 2001).

Page 15 – DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 153 Filed 01/07/13 Page 16 of 23
DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 11 First Amendment
Plaintiff alleges that the defendants deprived it of its First Amendment rights. Under the First Amendment a publisher has the right to communicate with inmates. In this case, plaintiff alleges defendants deprived it of that right when it rejected the magazines and other material described to you previously. In their Answer, defendants have admitted to depriving plaintiff of its First Amendment rights.

_________________________ Ninth Circuit Model Jury Instruction No. 9.10 (2007) (modified)

Page 16 – DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 153 Filed 01/07/13 Page 17 of 23
DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 12 Damages – Causation
In order to establish that the acts of the defendants deprived plaintiff of its particular rights under the United States Constitution as explained in later instructions, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the acts were so closely related to the deprivation of the plaintiff’s rights as to be the moving force that caused the ultimate injury.

____________________________

Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction No. 9.8 (2007) modified.

Page 17 – DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 153 Filed 01/07/13 Page 18 of 23
DEFENDANTS’ REQUESTED JURY INSTRUCTION NO.13 Damages - Proof
It is the duty of the Court to instruct you about the measure of damages. In this case, I have instructed you that Defendants are liable to Plaintiff. Accordingly, you must determine Plaintiff’s damages, if any.
Plaintiff has the burden of proving damages by a preponderance of the evidence. Damages means the amount of money that will reasonably and fairly compensate Plaintiff for any injury you find was caused by Defendants. You should consider the following:
1. The reasonable value of Plaintiff’s alleged economic loss, if any. It is for you to determine what damages, if any, have been proved. Your award must be
based upon evidence and not upon speculation, guesswork or conjecture.

Ninth Circuit Civil Jury Instruction Nos. 5.1 and 5.2 (2007) (modified)

Page 18 – DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 153 Filed 01/07/13 Page 19 of 23
DEFENDANTS’ REQUESTED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 14 Damages -- Mitigation
The Plaintiff has a duty to use reasonable efforts to mitigate damages after it first suffers an injury caused by Defendants. To mitigate means to avoid or reduce damages.
Defendants have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence: 1. That Plaintiff failed to use reasonable efforts to mitigate damages; and 2. The amount by which damages would have been mitigated.

Ninth Circuit Civil Jury Instruction No. 5.1 (2007) (modified); 999 v. CIT Corp., 776 F.2d 866, 871 (9th Cir. 1985); Commodity Credit Corp v. Resenberg Bros. & Co., 243 F.2d 504, 511 (9th Cir. 1957).

Page 19 – DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 153 Filed 01/07/13 Page 20 of 23
DEFENDANTS’ REQUESTED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 15 Damages – Avoidance of Double Recovery
Plaintiff is entitled to be compensated only for the injuries Plaintiff actually suffered. Plaintiff is to be made whole, but not entitled to be put in a better condition than it would be in had the wrong not been committed. In this matter, Plaintiff’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by Defendants. Plaintiff, however, is not entitled to a separate damage award for the violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Rather, only one recovery may be obtained. I instruct you that if you determine Plaintiff is entitled to damages, you must award only one amount.

Stringer v. Dilger, 313 F.2d 536, 541 (10th Cir. 1963); Bender v. City of New York, 78 F.3d 787, 793 (2d Cir. 1996); Greenwood Ranches, Inc. v. Skie Const. Co., Inc., 629 F.2d 518, 522 (9th cir. 1980) (plaintiff not entitled to a separate compensatory damage award under each legal theory seeking the same relief); Ham Marine, Inc. v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 72 F.3d 454, 462 (5th Cir. 1995) (“Even though recovery is premised on two different theories, a plaintiff cannot recover the same damages twice,” so allowing damages for tortious interference on top of damages for breach of contract “would result in a double recovery”); MidAmerica Fed. Sav. & Loan Assoc. v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 962 F.2d 1470, 1473 (10th Cir. 1992) (“It is well established that double recovery is precluded when alternative theories seeking the same relief are pled and tried together.”).

Page 20 – DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 153 Filed 01/07/13 Page 21 of 23
DEFENDANTS’ REQUESTED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 16 Nominal Damages
The law which applies to this case authorizes an award of nominal damages. If you find that Plaintiff has failed to prove damages as defined in these instructions, you must award nominal damages. Nominal damages may not exceed one dollar.

Ninth Circuit Civil Jury Instruction No. 5.6 (2007)
Page 21 – DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 153 Filed 01/07/13 Page 22 of 23

DEFENDANTS’ REQUESTED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 17 -- ALTERNATIVE Damages – Punitive Damages
Plaintiff seeks punitive damages against Defendant Sheriff Jeff Dickerson. You may, but are not required, to award punitive damages. The purposes of punitive damages are to punish a defendant and to deter similar acts in the future. Punitive damages may not be awarded to compensate Plaintiff.
Plaintiff has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that punitive damages should be awarded, and, if so, the amount of any such damages.
You may award punitive damages only if you find that Defendant Sheriff Jeff Dickerson’s conduct that harmed Plaintiff was malicious, oppressive or in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. Conduct is malicious if it is accompanied by ill will, or spite, or if it is for the purpose of injuring Plaintiff. Conduct is in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights if, under the circumstances, it reflects complete indifference to Plaintiff’s safety or rights, or if Defendant Sheriff Jeff Dickerson acts in the face of a perceived risk that his actions will violate Plaintiff’s rights under the Constitution. An act or omission is oppressive if Defendant Sheriff Jeff Dickerson injures or damages or otherwise violates the rights of Plaintiff with unnecessary harshness or severity, such as by the misuse or abuse of authority or power or by the taking advantage of some weakness or disability or misfortune of Plaintiff.
If you find that punitive damages are appropriate, you must use reason in setting the amount. Punitive damages, if any, should be in an amount sufficient to fulfill their purposes but should not reflect bias, prejudice or sympathy toward any party. In considering the amount of any punitive damages, consider the degree of reprehensibility of Defendant Sheriff Jeff Dickerson’s conduct, including whether the conduct that harmed Plaintiff was particularly reprehensible because it also caused actual harm or posed a substantial risk of harm to people who are not parties to this case. You may not, however, set the amount of any punitive damages in order to punish Defendant Sheriff Jeff Dickerson for harm to anyone other than Plaintiff in this case.

Page 22 – DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 153 Filed 01/07/13 Page 23 of 23
In addition, you may consider the relationship of any award of punitive damages to any actual harm inflicted on Plaintiff.
Punitive damages may not be awarded against Defendant Columbia County Sheriff’s Office. Punitive damages may be awarded even if you award Plaintiff only nominal, and not compensatory damages.

Ninth Circuit Civil Jury Instruction No. 5.5 (2007) (modified)

Page 23 – DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 160 Filed 01/07/13 Page 1 of 12

Steven A. Kraemer, OSB No. 882476 E-mail: sak@hartwagner.com Gregory R. Roberson, OSB No. 064847 E-mail: grr@hartwagner.com HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301
Of Attorneys for Defendants

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,
Plaintiffs,

No. 3:12-cv-0071-SI

v. DEFENDANTS’ TRIAL BRIEF

COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF DICKERSON, individual and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,

Defendants.

Defendants Columbia County, Columbia County Sheriff’s Office, and Sheriff Jeff

Dickerson submit the following trial brief:

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Prison Legal News asserts constitutional claims arising from mail sent to

inmates at the Columbia County Jail (CCJ) in 2010 and 2011. During that time and up to

the present time, CCJ was operated by the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office (CCSO) and

Jeff Dickerson was Columbia County’s sheriff. Plaintiff mailed magazines, books, and

advertising material to inmates. CCSO rejected some of this mail in violation of the First

Amendment’s free speech clause and the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause,

Page 1 – DEFENDANTS’ TRIAL BRIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 160 Filed 01/07/13 Page 2 of 12

and defendants have admitted that CCSO is liable to plaintiff for damages determined by a jury.
The jury will whether damages are owed to plaintiff and, if so, the amount. The Court will decide whether plaintiff is entitled to declaratory and permanent injunctive relief, and should make its decision after hearing all the evidence at trial. The jury should not learn of the Court’s decisions on plaintiff’s claims for declaratory and permanent injunctive relief.
The Court will decide the constitutionality of CCSO’s postcard policy. However, it is not relevant for the jury’s consideration of damages that it learn of the Court’s prior ruling on plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, or the Court’s ultimate decision on CCSO’s postcard policy. Defendants agree that it is relevant for the jury that CCSO had a postcard policy and that its staff rejected some of Plaintiff’s mail on that basis that it was not on a postcard.
Ensuring that the jury only hears evidence relevant to the issues it must decide obviates the need for plaintiff’s proposals stated in its trial brief. See Plf. Tr. Br. at 3. Plaintiff wants the jury to hear all the testimony, even though it agrees that the Court will decide six issues and the jury will only decide damages. Id. at 2-3. Plaintiff’s proposal increases the chance of confusing the jury given the weight and number of issues that the Court must decide, and it also unnecessarily lengths the jury portion of the trial.
FACTUAL SUMMARY In March, 2010, CCSO implemented a policy that limited correspondence to and from inmates and their friends and family to postcards. The policy was adapted from a proposal by the Washington County Sheriff’s Office, whose Jail Commander, Sheriff, and legal counsel proposed it at an Oregon State Sheriff’s Association conference in December, 2009. Mail excluded from the postcard restriction included periodicals, books, and mail defined as legal or official mail.

Page 2 – DEFENDANTS’ TRIAL BRIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 160 Filed 01/07/13 Page 3 of 12

In August, 2010, plaintiff’s founder and editor, Paul Wright, decided to mail complimentary issues of Prison Legal News, plaintiff’s monthly magazine, and a book, to inmates at the Columbia County Jail. When he made this decision, Wright knew CCSO’s website stated inmates were not allowed to receive magazines. By the end of 2010, Wright also knew that CCSO’s inmate manual stated that magazines were not allowed in the jail. After CCSO rejected some of plaintiff’s magazines, Wright substantially increased the amount of mail sent to the jail. Plaintiff also sent advertising material and fundraising appeals to inmates. None of plaintiff’s mailings were on postcards.
Over the course of approximately one year, jail staff delivered some of the mail but not all of it. In total, jail staff rejected thirty-seven magazines (Compl. ¶¶ 4.5-4.23; Ans. ¶¶ 4.5-4.23), twenty-five informational brochure packets (Compl. ¶ 4.36; Ans. ¶¶ 4.36-4.37), eight subscription renewal packets (Compl. ¶ 4.47; Ans. ¶ 4.47), and two fundraising packets (Compl. ¶ 4.57; Ans. ¶ 4.57). Plaintiff was aware that its mail was being returned. Despite knowing that some of its mail was not being delivered, plaintiff continued to send mail to inmates at the jail. Plaintiff made no inquiry with CCSO’s staff or Sheriff Dickerson as to why some of its mail was being returned. Plaintiff was aware that the rejected mailings violated its First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
These problems were identified and corrected by Sheriff Dickerson after he received notice of them when plaintiff filed its lawsuit on January 13, 2012. A new mail policy was adopted on January 26, 2012 (with minor revisions on February 10, 2012) and jail staff was trained on it. CCSO retained the postcard policy on mail between inmates and their family and friends.
CCSO’s mail policy and practices continued to be revised. In May, 2012, CCSO issued a revised mail policy, retaining the postcard restriction but clarifying its due process procedures. CCSO also updated its inmate manual and website with the new mail procedures.

Page 3 – DEFENDANTS’ TRIAL BRIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 160 Filed 01/07/13 Page 4 of 12

After the Court issued a preliminary injunction regarding CCSO’s postcard policy

on May 29, 2012, CCSO discarded it, issued a new mail policy that allowed inmates to

send and receive letters from their family and friends, trained its staff, and updated its

website and inmate manual.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

I.

CCSO Has Admitted to Constitutional Violations

Defendants have admitted in their Answer that CCSO’s rejection of plaintiff’s

mail violated plaintiff’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Although CCSO’s

inmate mail policy was facially constitutional with respect to plaintiff’s mail – it

permitted the delivery of magazines and its postcard policy was restricted to an inmates’

correspondence with family and friends – CCSO’s practice violated these rights.

II. Plaintiff’s Claimed Damages Are Excessive and Unreasonable

a. Plaintiff Has Failed to Prove Damages

Plaintiff seeks economic, “presumed,” and nominal damages from defendants, and

punitive damages against Sheriff Jeff Dickerson. Plaintiff’s economic damages are

briefly addressed here, but all of plaintiff’s damages are subject to defendant’s motions in

limine because they are improper requests.

Plaintiff calls its economic harm “diversion of resources” that it defines essentially

as any time its staff spends on litigation. But there will be no evidence that plaintiff

suffered damages due to a lost opportunity, so its time spent on litigation did not cause

any loss. Plaintiff will call Serena Morones, a Certified Public Accountant specializing

in financial loss and business valuation, to testify regarding plaintiff’s lack of economic

damages.

Plaintiff’s characterization of its “diversion of resource” damages appears similar

to a post-judgment proceeding to award attorney fees and costs, which is not appropriate

pre-judgment and not appropriate for a jury to award.

Page 4 – DEFENDANTS’ TRIAL BRIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 160 Filed 01/07/13 Page 5 of 12

Plaintiff also seeks economic damages that it labels “frustration of mission,” but is

really a request for money that it says is necessary to be spent in the future to counteract

defendants’ prior unconstitutional conduct. Plaintiff relies upon housing discrimination

cases filed under the Fair Housing Act, and not 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cases, in which these

types of damages are awarded to counteract the effects of longstanding and ongoing

patterns of discrimination. In this case, plaintiff has not submitted any evidence showing

a need to counteract any lingering effects of defendants’ unconstitutional conduct.

b. Plaintiff’s Failed to Mitigate Its Damages

Defendants are entitled to an instruction on Plaintiff’s failure to mitigate. Plaintiff

again seeks to dismiss it. Mitigation is a defense to damages, not to liability. See

Sangster v. United Airlines, Inc., 633 F.2d 864, 867 (9th Cir. 1980) (“As a broad

proposition, injured parties are expected to mitigate the damage they suffer.”); 999 v.

C.I.T Corporation, 776 F.2d 866, 871 (9th Cir.1985) (“The general principle that victims

of a legal wrong should make reasonable efforts to avoid incurring further damage is

undisputed.” (internal quotations and citations omitted)). By seeking to exclude it,

plaintiff is claiming that it does not have to act reasonably to minimize its damages.

Plaintiff cites no authority in support of this position.

Contrary to plaintiff’s claim, defendants do not claim that plaintiff had to “warn”

defendants or “refrain” from exercising its constitutional rights. Plaintiff could send as

much mail to the jail as it desired. The question presented by defendants’ mitigation

defense is how much of plaintiff’s purported damages would have been avoided had

plaintiff acted reasonably. To support its mitigation defense, defendants will present the

testimony of Paul Wright and numerous exhibits showing that plaintiff communicated

with inmates at the jail to determine if the inmates were receiving plaintiff’s mail.

Wright quickly learned that the jail was not delivering some of plaintiff’s mail, and he

knew it was unconstitutional. If it truly desired to communicate with its inmate

correspondents, a reasonable publisher would take mitigation action by inquiring with the

Page 5 – DEFENDANTS’ TRIAL BRIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 160 Filed 01/07/13 Page 6 of 12

jail as to why its mail was not being delivered or, if it was not happy with the result of the

inquiry, filing a lawsuit sooner. This does not excuse CCSO’s unconstitutional conduct,

but it is evidence that will help the jury calculate the value of the rights violated.

The evidence will show that CCSO’s mail practices immediately changed once

Sheriff Jeff Dickerson learned of the problems and accordingly, a portion of plaintiff’s

claimed damages could have been avoided. Plaintiff’s concern that it will be unfairly

prejudiced because the jury may believe the plaintiff should have stopped sending its

mail to inmates at the jail can be minimized with a limiting instruction. Further, plaintiff

put itself in this position by taking no action to notify the Sheriff’ office of the violations,

but then filing this lawsuit seeking money damages for each of the violations.

III.

Declaratory Relief Is Not Appropriate

Plaintiff seeks a Declaration (1) that CCSO’s postcard policy violated the First

Amendment and (2) CCSO’s rejection of plaintiff’s magazines and failure to provide

notice and an opportunity to appeal violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. See

Dkt. 138, Plf. Suggested Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law at 37-38.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a), the Court “may declare the rights and other legal

relations of any interested party seeking such declaration” in cases of “actual

controversy.” The decision to grant declaratory relief is a matter of discretion. United

States v. Walsh, 759 F.2d 1353, 1356 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing A.L. Mechling Barge Lines,

Inc. v. United States, 368 U.S. 324, 331 (1961)). Plaintiff has the burden of showing that

equitable relief is necessary. Olagues v. Rossoniello, 770 F.2d 791, 799, 803 (9th Cir.

1985). “Declaratory relief should be denied when it will neither serve a useful practical

purpose in clarifying and setting the legal relations in issue nor terminate the proceedings

and afford relief from the uncertainty and controversy faced by the parties.” Walsh, 759

F.2d at 1357; see also Greater Los Angeles Council on Deafness, Inc. v. Zolin, 812 F.2d

1103, 1112 (9th Cir. 1987) (same).

Page 6 – DEFENDANTS’ TRIAL BRIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 160 Filed 01/07/13 Page 7 of 12

The admission of liability in defendants’ Answer for CCSO’s rejection of

plaintiff’s magazines and failure to provide due process established the legal relations

between the parties. Hence, there is no need for the Court to declare the legal relations of

the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a) with respect to those issues. No practical

purpose is served by such a declaration. See Walsh, 759 F.2d at 1357.

With respect to CCSO’s postcard policies, including the versions implemented in

January, 2012 and May, 2012, the Court should find them constitutional under Turner v.

Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987). Thus, the Court should deny plaintiff’s claim for declaratory

relief that CCSO’s postcard policy violated the First Amendment.

Substantial deference is given to prison administrators in the adoption of security

measures to protect the safety of inmates, corrections officers, and the public. See Beard

v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521, 528 (2006); Overton v. Bazetta, 539 U.S. 126, 132 (2003). This

is especially true when a county jail is involved. Turner, 482 U.S. at 85 (“Where a state

penal system is involved, federal courts have … additional reason to accord deference to

the appropriate prison authorities.”); Martinez v. Procunier, 416 U.S. 396, 405 (1974)

(same), overruled in part by Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989).

The Turner Court identified four factors to be considered in evaluating the

constitutionality of a prison regulation: (1) whether the regulation is rationally related to

a legitimate and neutral governmental objective; (2) whether there are alternative avenues

that remain open to inmates to exercise the right; (3) the impact that accommodating the

asserted right will have on other guards and prisoners, and on the allocation of prison

resources; and (4) whether the existence of easy and obvious alternatives indicates that

the regulation is an exaggerated response by prison officials. Prison Legal News v. Cook,

238 F.3d 1145, 1149 (citing Turner, 482 U.S. at 89-90).

The key issue in this matter is whether the postcard policy bears a rational

relationship the CCSO’s legitimate penological interest in jail security and efficiency.

Turner, 482 U.S. at 89. The inquiry is whether CCSO “might reasonably have thought

Page 7 – DEFENDANTS’ TRIAL BRIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 160 Filed 01/07/13 Page 8 of 12

that the policy would advance its interests” in security and efficiency. Mauro v. Arpaio, 188 F.3d 1054, 1060 (9th Cir. 1999); see also Friedman v. Arizona, 912 F.2d 328, 332-33 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Turner requires that courts allow prison officials to anticipate security problems and to adopt innovative solutions to the intractable problems of prison administration.”).
Importantly, the Constitution does not require a certain number of writing materials. See Van Poyck v. Singletary, 106 F.3d 1558, 1559 (11th Cir. 1997) (holding that inmates do not have a constitutional right to free postage and rejecting the argument that the Constitution requires five free letters per week); Hershberger v. Scaletta, 33 F.3d 955, 957 (8th Cir. 1994) (holding “indigent inmates have no constitutional right to free postage for nonlegal mail”). Since the Constitution does not require a jail to provide an indigent inmate postage and sheets of paper for non-legal mail, it follows that a jail that only provides free postcards to indigent inmates does more than what the Constitution requires. Under this situation, these inmates could freely correspond using postcards with their friends, family, and others, and it would not be unconstitutional. It is therefore rational to restrict inmates to the use of postcards for their outgoing mail. And this is without even considering the risk of contraband entering or exiting the facility.
Sheriff Dickerson determined that the postcard policy would advance the security of the jail by reducing the possibility that contraband would enter and leave the jail through the mail. This was a rational conclusion. Postcards are mailed without the need for envelopes. Envelopes can hide contraband in the flaps and glue strips. Contraband can also be hidden in between sheets of paper. Contraband is much easier to identify with postcards because they are easier to handle and inspect than sheets of paper. Also, because the postcard policy did not regulate the content of a communication, and no limit was placed on the number of postcards an inmate could send or receive, it was a completely neutral regulation.

Page 8 – DEFENDANTS’ TRIAL BRIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 160 Filed 01/07/13 Page 9 of 12

The adoption of the postcard policy saved the jail thirty to sixty minutes per day.

More importantly, the policy was rationally related to providing for the safety of inmates

and staff, and reducing the chances of various types of contraband from entering the

facility.

Furthermore, inmates had many options to communicate with the outside world

and receive communications. The postcard policy did not apply to periodicals,

newspapers, books, or mail defined as legal or official. Inmates could communicate in

person or by phone with their family and friends. “Where ‘other avenues’ remain

available for the exercise of the asserted right, … courts should be particularly conscious

of the ‘measure of judicial deference owed to corrections officials … in gauging the

validity of the regulation.” Turner, 482 U.S. at 90. The postcard policy affects only the

form that an inmate may send or receive mail from his or her family and friends, so

Turner is satisfied because inmates could still correspond in writing with their friends and

family and inmates were not deprived of all means to communicate with those family and

friends. See O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 352 (1987) (“In Turner, we did

not look to see whether prisoners had other means of communicating with fellow

inmates, but instead examined whether the inmates were deprived of ‘all means of

expression.’” (citing Turner, 482 U.S. at 92)); Friedman v. Arizona, 912 F.2d 328, 332

(9th Cir. 1990) (alternative means test satisfied because inmates were not denied “all

[alternative] means of expression” of their religion due to a prison regulation prohibiting

full or partial beards), cert. denied 498 U.S. 1100 (1991).

For these reasons and those stated in its prior briefings to the Court, it should find

that CCSO’s postcard policies did not violate the First Amendment.

Even if the Court were to find that CCSO’s postcard policies violated the First

Amendment, it should deny declaratory relief because CCSO has discarded the postcard

policy and determined that it will not re-institute it.

/// Page 9 – DEFENDANTS’ TRIAL BRIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 160 Filed 01/07/13 Page 10 of 12

IV. Permanent Injunctive Relief Is Not Appropriate

Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction enjoining defendants from (1) prohibiting

CCSO from rejecting mail solely on the grounds that it is not in the form of a postcard,

(2) prohibiting CCSO from rejecting mail solely on the grounds that it is a magazine, and

(3) requiring due process to the sender and receiver of mail.

To issue a permanent injunction, plaintiff must show (1) actual success on the

merits, (2) an irreparable injury for which monetary damages are inadequate to

compensate for that injury, (3) a remedy in equity is warranted considering the balance of

hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, and (4) a permanent injunction is in the

public interest. eBay v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006). Plaintiff bears

the burden of proof on each of these elements of a permanent injunction. Olagues v.

Rossoniello, 770 F.2d 791, 799, 803 (9th Cir. 1985). Even if a plaintiff establishes

success on the merits, an injunction does not follow as a matter of course and it remains

in the Court’s equitable discretion whether to issue one. Winter v. Natural Resources

Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 32 (2008) (citing Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456

U.S. 305, 313 (1982)). “[Injunctive] relief is not automatic, and there is no rule requiring

automatic issuance of a blanket injunction when a violation is found.” Northern

Cheyenne Tribe v. Norton, 503 F.3d 836, 843 (9th Cir. 2007).

In this matter, plaintiff’s request for a permanent injunction is flawed because it

only relies on past harm to show “irreparable harm.” See Dkt. 138, Plf. Findings of Fact

& Conclusions of Law at 31 (“PLN has shown that it has suffered “an irreparable injury”

and therefore a permanent injunction would be warranted ….”). The case plaintiff cited,

Monterey Mechanical Co. v. Wilson, 125 F.3d 702, 705 (9th Cir. 1997), involved a

preliminary injunction. To obtain a permanent injunction, plaintiff cannot rely on

previous claims of harm and must demonstrate the reasonable possibility of a recurrent

injury for a permanent injunction to issue. United States v. Laerdal Mfg. Corp., 73 F.3d

852, 854-55 (9th Cir. 1995). The factors to consider are:

Page 10 – DEFENDANTS’ TRIAL BRIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 160 Filed 01/07/13 Page 11 of 12

the degree of scienter involved; the isolated or recurrent nature of the infraction; the defendant’s recognition of the wrongful nature of his conduct; the extent to which the defendant’s professional and personal characteristics might enable or tempt him to commit future violations; and the sincerity of any assurances against future violations.

Id. (quoting F.E.C. v. Furgatch, 869 F.2d 1256, 123 (9th Cir. 1989)). In this instance, plaintiff has no reasonable expectation of recurrent harm. Furthermore, CCSO recognized the gravity of the unconstitutional conduct by admitting liability in their Answer and it quickly remedied the unconstitutional conduct.
In the event a permanent injunction is ordered, the Court must comply with 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a) by ensuring that prospective relief “is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3626(g)(2), the statute applies to “any civil proceeding arising under Federal law with respect to prison conditions of confinement or the effects of actions by government officials on the lives of persons confined in prison,” excepting habeas corpus proceedings.
Plaintiff disagrees, but is silent as to the meaning of subsection (g)(2), which clearly applies § 3626(a) to this action. Plaintiff argues that 18 U.S.C. § 3626 does not apply because it was enacted by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104134, 110 Stat. 1321-66 to 1321-77, and plaintiff argues the Act only applies to lawsuits brought by prisoners. However, each the authority cited by Plaintiff refer to Sections 803 and 804 of the Act, which are codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1997a-h, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and other statutes that specifically relate to prisoner lawsuits. Section 802 of the Act amended 18 U.S.C. § 3626 and by its terms it applies to any civil action regarding prison conditions or the effect of government action on the lives of prisoners. /// ///

Page 11 – DEFENDANTS’ TRIAL BRIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 160 Filed 01/07/13 Page 12 of 12
CONCLUSION In accordance with the arguments set forth above, damages, if any, should be determined by the jury for the constitutional violations and the Court should deny plaintiff’s claims for declaratory and permanent injunctive relief. Respectfully submitted this 7th day of January, 2013.
HART WAGNER LLP By: /s/ Steven A. Kraemer
Steven A. Kraemer, OSB No. 882476 Of Attorneys for Defendants

Page 12 – DEFENDANTS’ TRIAL BRIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 208 Filed 02/22/13 Page 1 of 25
Katherine C. Chamberlain, OSB #042580 katherinec@mhb.coln Jesse A. Wing, pro hac vice jessew@mhb.com Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News MacDonald Hoague & Bayless 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104-1745 (206) 622-1604
Marc D. Blackman, OSB #730338 marc@ransomblackman.com Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Ransom Blackman LLP 1001 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1400 Portland, OR 97204 (503) 228-0487
Lance Weber,pro hac vice lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Human Rights Defense Center 1037 WestelTI Ave., 2nd Floor West Brattleboro, VT 05303 (802) 257-1342

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff:
Defendants.

No.3:12-CV-71-SI
PLAINTIFF'S POST-TRIAL MEMORANDUM ON INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

PLAINTIFF'S POST-TRIAL MEMORANDUM ON INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (CV 12-71-SI) - 1
9870.05 gb212205

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Te1206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 208 Filed 02/22/13 Page 2 of 25

I. INTRODUCTION This is an iInportant free speech case about the govermnent's decision to prohibit mail that was not a postcard, about its longstanding ban on magazines, and about its repeated failure to require and provide due process notice of the reason for censorship and an opportunity to be heard. Plaintiff has asked the Court to declare that Defendants' policies and practices violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and to permanently enjoin them. On May 29, 2012, the Court entered a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants' enforcement of its Postcard-Only Mail policy. On February 8, 2013, after a bench trial, the Court asked the parties to submit post-trial briefing on several issues relating to Plaintiff s request for injunctive relief, including: the legal criteria for a pemlanent injunction; the application of the trial evidence to the legal standard; whether the Sheriff s credibility and limited political term impact the Court's analysis; and whether the injunction should be permanent or a limited term. Plaintiff addresses the Court's questions below. l
II. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF A. Standard
The parties agree that the Supreme Court set forth the standard for permanent injunctive relief in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388,391 (2006). See Dkt. 98 at 26 (Plaintiffs Motion for SUlnmary Judgment); Dkt. 114 at 19 (Defendants' Response). The Court has also recognized that the criteria set forth in eBay, and later in Monsanto v. Geertson Seed Farms, 130 S.Ct. 2743, 2756 (2010), establish the criteria for granting a pennanent injunction. See Appx. A (November 16,2012, Transcript of Summary Judgment Hearing, at 62:22-63:5). The Ninth Circuit likewise has held this is the standard. See, e.g., Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Norton, 503 F.3d 836, 843 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting eBay as setting standard for injunctive

1 Plaintiff does not address the Court's questions regarding datnages in this post-trial memoranduln. Pursuant to agreement with defense counsel and communications with the Couli, Plaintiff will submit a second brief regarding damages, if necessary.

PLAINTIFF'S POST-TRIAL MEMORANDUM ON INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (CV 12-71-SI) - 2
9870.05 gb212205

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 208 Filed 02/22/13 Page 3 of 25

relief); see also Idearc Media Corp. v. Northwest Directories, Inc., 623 F.Supp.2d 1223, 1234 (D. Or. 2008) (same). In eBay, the Supreme Court instructed:
According to well-established principles of equity, a plaintiff seeking a pennanent injunction must satisfy a four-factor test before a court Inay grant such relief. A plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to cOlnpensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction. eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391(2006) (holding that four-factor test historically applied in courts of equity applies equally to patent disputes as it does to other
cases). The standard for a permanent injunction is the same as for a preliminary injunction,
except that the plaintiff must show actual success on the merits rather than a likelihood of
success. Amoco Production Co. v. Village o/Gambell, AK, 480 U.S. 531, 546 (1987). The Ninth Circuit and its district courts have repeatedly issued and affirmed permanent
injunctive reliefwhe~e prisons and jails have violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments
when censoring mail. See, e.g., Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2005), Clement v. California Dept. o/Corr., 364 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2004); Ashker v. California Dept. o/Corr., 350 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2003); Prison Legal News v. Cook, 238 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2001); Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957, 958 (9th Cir. 1999); Prison Legal News v. Chelan County, No. CV-II-337-EFS (E.D. Wa. 2011) (Trial Exhibit 158); PLN v. Spokane County, Case No. 2:11-cv-00029 (E.D. Wa. 2011) (Trial Exhibit 159).
B. The Facts Presented at Trial Confirm that the Court Should Enter a Permanent Injunction
1. Postcard-Only Policy a. Success on the Merits
In the Court's Opinion and Order granting Plaintiff s Motion for Preliminary Injunction,
the Couli applied the standard enunciated in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-90 (1987), and determined that Plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that Defendants'

PLAINTIFF'S POST-TRIAL MEMORANDUM ON INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (CV 12-71-SI) - 3
9870.05 gb212205

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 208 Filed 02/22/13 Page 4 of 25

Postcard-Only Mail Policy violated the First Amendlnent of the United States Constitution. Dkt. 64 at pgs. 15-22.
Subsequently, in discovery, Plaintiff obtained additional evidence establishing that Defendants' Postcard-Only Mail Policy was not rationally related to a legitimate penological interest, as the Court held the evidence would likely show. Plaintiff also obtained additional evidence on the other Turner factors-alternate avenues, impact of accommodating right, and easy and obvious alternatives-all of which support a finding that Defendants' policy was unconstitutional. This evidence was submitted with Plaintiff s Memorandum in Support of Its Motion for SUlnmary Judgment. See Dkt. 98 at pgs. 8 through 19. At the hearing on Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court denied Plaintiffs motion, preferring to rule on Plaintiff s claims for declaratory and permanent injunctive relief under a preponderance of the evidence standard after a trial on the merits.
At trial, Plaintiff presented the testimony and documentary evidence that it had filed in support of its summary judgment motion. See trial testimony and Trial Exhibits 95, 120, 130141, 144-146, 148-156, 159, 196. This included the mail policies of other well-run correctional institutions including Multnomah and Lane County Jails, the Oregon and Washington Departlnent of COlTections, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons-which do not restrict mail to postcards. See Trial Exhibits 148-151?
In addition, new and uncontroverted testimony at trial established that the other avenues for prisoners to communicate and receive information-by postcard, telephone, and in-person visits-are even more restrictive than previously described by Plaintiff in its pretrial briefing. See trial testimony of Commander Carpenter, Sergeant Cutright, Bradley Berg, Nataliya

2 See also, ICE Policy 5.1: COlTespondence and Other Mail, Section V.A., located at http://www.ice.gov/doclib/detention-standards/20 11 /colTespondence_and_other_mail.pdf ("Facilities shall not limit detainees to postcards and shall allow envelope mailings.") Plaintiff was not aware of this policy in time to introduce it at trial, but the testimony at trial was that Columbia County Jail is an ICE facility, so Plaintiff provides the ICE policy to the Court now so that it is fully informed.

PLAINTIFF'S POST-TRIAL MEMORANDUM ON INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (CV 12-71-SI) - 4
9870.05 gb212205

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 208 Filed 02/22/13 Page 5 of 25

Mikhaylova, and Patricia Mendoza; and Trial Exhibits 128, 129, 134, 139. In-person visits are

not private; prisoners must meet with friends and family while sitting next to other prisoners, and

their visitors are required to sit in a room lined with other visitors-all of which forecloses the

possibility of private or confidential communications protected froln strangers. Prisoner phone

calls are substantially more expensive than sending a letter, the calls are recorded, and the

phones are located in a room where more than a dozen other prisoners could be present and listen

to their calls. While the Columbia County Jail once had multiple educational programs available

to prisoners, those programs no longer exist. The Jail's law "library"-a cart-includes very few

legal resources for prisoners. Also, the practical and cost hurdles presented by the Postcard-Only

Policy prevented or deterred prisoners, and their friends and family, from fully exercising their

free speech rights. These conditions make the right to communication by letter even more

important. b.

Monetary Damages are Inadequate

This element and the showing of irreparable harm "are often merged because they

involve the same analysis." N & N Catering Co., Inc. v. City ofChicago, 26 F. Supp. 2d 1067,

1079 (N.D. Ill. 1998). Since Plaintiff has already shown irreparable harm, it has established this

element.

'''Unlike monetary injuries, constitutional violations cannot be adequately remedied

through damages.'" Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109,1138 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation

omitted).

This is particularly true of violations of the First Amendn1ent. The Ninth Circuit "and the

Supreme Court have repeatedly held that' [t]he loss of First An1endment freedoms, for even

minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury. '" Klein v. City ofSan

Clemente, 584 F.3d 1196, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373,

(1976), and citing Sammartano v. First Judicial Dist. Court, in &for County ofCarson City, 303
F.3d 959,973-74 (9th Cir. 2002); s. O. C., Inc. v. County ofClark, 152 F.3d 1136,1148,
us. amended, 160 F.3d 541 (9th Cir. 1998); Jacobsen v. Postal Service, 812 F.2d 1151, 1154

PLAINTIFF'S POST-TRIAL MEMORANDUM ON INmNCTIVE RELIEF (CV 12-71-SI) - 5
9870.05 gb212205

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 208 Filed 02/22/13 Page 6 of 25

(9th Cir. 1987)). See also Appx. A (November 16,2012, Transcript of Summary Judgment Hearing at 63:18-24: "MR. ROBERSON: It is irreparable damage that cannot be remedied with a monetary award. That's the key part. THE COURT: Right. But aren't there plenty of cases that talk about the fact that monetary awards are insufficient to remedy First Amendment violations? MR. ROBERSON: There are cases that state that, Your Honor.")
Here, PLN suffered irreparable harm because Defendants' repeatedly interfered with the organization's cOlTIlnunications of protected speech to prisoners in the Columbia County Jail. The suppression of PLN' s speech prevented it from achieving its expressive purposes and permanently deprived it of the opportunity to reach individual prisoners in a timely manner. The testimony of prisoner Brad Berg about how important receiving Prison Legal News is and how it is shared among the prisoners in the Jail illustrates the harm that cannot be remedied with money when PLN's speech is stifled. See also, Trial Exhibit 173. In the absence of a permanent injunction, nothing would prevent Defendants fronl reinstating their policy causing irreparable harm to PLN again.
c. The Court has Already Determined that Plaintiff Established the Harm, Hardships, and Public Interest Factors
The Court has already determined that PLN suffered irreparable harm, that the balance of hardships warrants an equitable remedy, and that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction. Dkt. 64 at 23 ("PLN has established that the IMP's postcard-only mail policy causes irreparable harm... The balance of equities tips in PLN's favor. PLN has established that the IMP's postcard-only mail policy burdens its First Amendment rights, as well as the First Amendment rights of imnates and their correspondents... The constitutional hardship is far greater than the modest impact on Defendants' time and resources."), and 24 (concluding that that public interest factor is "largely neutral" and to the extent it affects the court's analysis, "it favors PLN."). The evidence that PLN presented at trial strengthened the Court's previous findings.

PLAINTIFF'S POST-TRIAL MEMORANDUM ON INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (CV 12-71-SI) - 6
9870.05 gb21220S

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 208 Filed 02/22/13 Page 7 of 25

On the public interest prong of an injunction, the Ninth Circuit has explained: "We have also consistently recognized the' significant public interest' in upholding free speech principles" where the government's policies "infringe not only the free expression interests of [plaintiffs], but also the interests of other people' subjected to the same restrictions." Klein v. City ofSan Clemente, 584 F.3d 1196, 1208 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). Here, Defendants' restrictions harmed many third parties, whose interests PLN seeks to protect. In the context of a preliminary injunction to protect such First Amendment rights, the Ninth Circuit has held that "The balance of equities and the public interest thus tip sharply in favor of enjoining" the unconstitutional behavior. Id. They apply equally in favor of a permanent injunction. This is particularly true where, as here, at trial Defendants failed to articulate any way in which the Court's preliminary injunction has caused them any hardship whatsoever.
2. Postcard-Only Policy Regarding Outgoing Mail PLN's prior briefing explains why Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396,408 (1974), overruled in part on other grounds by Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 413-14 (1989), not Turner, governs outgoing mail. And that briefing provides compelling argument and evidence establishing that the Sheriffs Postcard-Only Policy for outgoing mail does not meet the Procunier standard because it does not further an important or substantial governmental interest and is greater than necessary or essential to protect the governmental interest involved. Therefore, Defendants' policy fails under Procunier. See Dkt. 15 at 21-22; Dkt. 46 at 38-39; Dkt. 71; Dkt. 98 at 18-19; and Dkt. 138 at ~~87-91. At trial, Sergeant Cutright and Sheriff Dickerson affinned their deposition testimonyestablishing that Defendants never considered whether there was any reason, let alone an important or substantial reason, to adopt a postcard policy for outgoing mail. The evidence is that outgoing mail is less likely to contain contraband and that the Jail had never had a problem with contraband leaving the Jail through the outgoing mail. This evidence was undisputed. Thus, Plaintiff has met its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendants failed to meet the Procunier standard.

PLAINTIFF'S POST-TRIAL MEMORANDUM ON INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (CV 12-71-SI) - 7
9870.05 gb212205

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 208 Filed 02/22/13 Page 8 of 25

And, since Defendants did not meet the lower Turner standard for its Postcard-Only Policy which Defendants applied to all incolning and outgoing mail, they also fail to Ineet the higher Procunier standard for outgoing mail.
3. Magazine Ban a. Success on the Merits
Prison policies that effectively ban magazines are unconstitutional. See Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692, 699 (9th Cir. 2005); Prison Legal News v. Cook, 238 F.3d 1145, 1149-51 (9th Cir. 2001). At issue in this case was whether Defendants had a magazine ban and whether they censored or deterred prisoners from receiving magazines while incarcerated at the Columbia County Jail.
At the time the Court considered PLN's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, the only evidence before the Court was the Columbia County Sheriffs Office's website, which stated that magazines are "not allowed" (and which the Sheriff claimed was incorrect), and the Jail's claimed mail "policy" that stated that "periodicals may be procured[.]" The Court concluded that "[b]ecause the IMP pennits inmates to receive PLN's journal, the court limits its consideration ofPLN's free speech claim to the IMP's postcard-only mail policy for both incolning and outgoing personal mail." Dkt. 64 at 15.
Since then, discovery revealed that for many years Defendants told staff, prisoners, and the public that it banned magazines, and few, if any, of Defendants' agents and staffwere aware of the document titled "Inmate Mail Policy" that said otherwise. Compare Trial Exhibits 98 (March 23,2010 Memoranduln), 107-112 (Inmate Manuals), 101 (CCSO websites), 143 and 194 (Inmate Request Forms), with 113 (document titled "Inmate Mail Policies"). And Defendants' practice was to not accept magazines. See Trial Exhibits 118 and 119 (lnail rejection forms), and 28-55 (rejected PLN magazines); and trial testimony of Sergeant Cutright, Commander Carpenter, Sergeant Rigdon, and Bradley Berg. The evidence establishing Defendants' magazine ban and near-absolute chill of speech is summarized in PlaIntiff s Memorandum in

PLAINTIFF'S POST-TRlAL MEMORANDUM ON INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (CV 12-71-S1) - 8
9870.05 gb212205

MAcDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 208 Filed 02/22/13 Page 9 of 25

Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment at pgs. 19-22. The testiInony and exhibits admitted at trial confinned that Defendants had a long-standing culture that bamled magazines.
The undisputed evidence admitted at trial included the following: • From at least 2009 until May 2012, every time a prisoner was booked at the Columbia
County Jail, Defendants provided the prisoner with an Inmate Manual that stated either "We do not accept lnagazines" or "We do not accept any periodicals." See Exhibits 107 through 112. • On March 23,2010, the Sheriffs Office issued a Memorandum titled "Mail Procedure Changes" to the Corrections Division and all inmates, which stated "Magazines are not allowed inside the facility." See Exhibit 98. Defendants kept this Memorandum in the Jail's inmate holding cells until May 2012. See testimony of Bradley Berg; Trial Exhibit 126, 127; testimony of Undersheriff Moyer. • From at least August 2010 through January 19,2012, Defendants' website stated "We do not accept magazines" and "Magazines: Are not allowed inside the facility." See Exhibit 101. • Defendants' mail rejection fonn included the pre-printed words "Do not accept periodicals." See Trial Exhibits 118, 119. • When prisoners inquired, Defendants told prisoners that the Jail does not accept magazines. See Trial Exhibits 143, 194. • Defendants' communications about their magazine ban and practice of banning lnagazines deterred prisoners from obtaining magazines while incarcerated at the Columbia County Jail. Sergeant Bryan Cutright "never" saw a magazine arrive at the Jail during his 17-year tenure. Jail Commander Jiln Carpenter saw one magazine arrive at the Jail during his 22 years of employment, and it was rejected. See trial testimony of Jail Commander Carpenter, Sergeant Cutright, and Bradley Berg.
In sum, at trial, Plaintiff established by a preponderance of the evidence that for years Defendants told jail staff, prisoners, and the public, that the Jail did not allow magazines, and acted accordingly by censoring magazines that arrived at the Jail.

PLAINTIFF'S POST-TRIAL MEMORANDUM ON INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (CV 12-71-SI) - 9
9870.05 gb212205

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 208 Filed 02/22/13 Page 10 of 25
Despite all this Defendants have argued that their actual "policy" was found elsewhere in a document titled "Inmate Mail Policy." But they failed to present any testitnony at trial that employees ever knew of that document, read or relied upon it, let alone enforced it. In fact, all evidence is to the contrary. Accordingly, the Defendants' actual "policy" was their widelypublicized and regularly enforced magazine ban. See City o/St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 131 (1988) ("Refusals to carry out stated policies could obviously help to show that a municipality's actual policies were different from the ones that had been announced."); . Redman v. County o/San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1445 (9th Cir. 1991) ("[T]he routine failure (or claimed inability) to follow the general policy... constitutes a custom or policy which overrides, for Monell purposes, the general policy."); Ware v Jackson County, MO, 150 F.3d 873, 882 (8th Cir. 1998) ("[T]he existence of written policies of a defendant are of no lnoment in the face of evidence that such policies are neither followed nor enforced.").
b. Monetary Damages are Inadequate Plaintiff incorporates the discussion from the Postcard-Only Policy section above, which is equally applicable to the magazine ban.
c. Irreparable Harm, Balance of Hardships, and Public Interest Factors PLN suffered irreparable harm when Defendants censored its magazines, preventing PLN from reaching its intended audience, in violation of its First Amendment rights. See Trial Exhibits 28-55; and Dkt. 203 (Stipulation); trial testimony of Paul Wright. As the Court has already recognized, Dkt. 64 at 23, the Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court have repeatedly held that "the loss of First Amendment freedoms, even for minimal periods of titne, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury." Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976). For the same reasons articulated by the Court regarding Defendants' Postcard-Only Policy, the balance of hardships weighs in PLN's favor and the public interest factor supports a decision by this Court to enjoin Defendants' ban on magazines

PLAINTIFF'S POST-TRIAL MEMORANDUM ON INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (CV 12-71-SI) - 10
9870.05 gb212205

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 208 Filed 02/22/13 Page 11 of 25

4. Lack of Due Process a. Success on the Merits
With its nlotion for sununary judgment, PLN submitted the evidence establishing that at the time this litigation commenced Defendants' due process policies and practices failed to provide constitutionally adequate due process when they censored mail. See Dkt. 98 at pgs. 2224. At trial, Plaintiff presented the testimony and exhibits cited in its Inotion, and Defendants admitted that it failed to provide due process notice and an opportunity to be heard to PLN, Ms. Lennox, and the prisoner-addressees, when Defendants censored their mail. See trial testiInony of Sergeant Cutright, Jail Commander Carpenter, Sheriff Dickerson, Bradley Berg, and Nataliya Mikhaylova; Dkt. 203 (Stipulation); and Trial Exhibits 1-65, 71-90, 98, 100, 101, 113, 114, 115, 142.
b. Monetary Damages are Inadequate Plaintiff incorporates the discussion from the Postcard-Only Policy section above explaining the constitutional violations are irremediable with Inoney. That is equally applicable here. And since due process is intended to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard in order to allow timely correction of constitutional violations then Defendants' denial of due process leads directly to the deprivation of First Amendment rights, which cannot be adequately remedied financially. c. Irreparable Harm, Balance of Hardships, and Public Interest Factors Plaintiff suffered irreparable harm when Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and the prisoner-addressees adequate due process notice of the reason for censorship of its mail and failed to provide an opportunity to be heard to challenge the censorship decisions. Defendants often marked "contraband" or "violates security" and the reasons for censoring and returning Plaintiff s mail-providing no effective notice of the actual reason the mail was censored. Defendants wholly failed to provide any information about appeal rights or procedures to Plaintiff. And they did not provide any notice, or 0ppoIiunity to be heard, to the prisoneraddressees that Plaintiff had sent them mail that was rejected. See Dkt. 203 (Stipulation). As a

PLAINTIFF'S POST-TRIAL MEMORANDUM ON INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (CV 12-71-SI) - 11
9870.05 gb212205

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 208 Filed 02/22/13 Page 12 of 25

result of Defendants inadequate due process procedures, and practices, Plaintiff was unable to reach its intended audience-the prisoners it sent mail to at the Coluinbia County Jail. It was unable to share its monthly journal articles, book catalog, and other materials, and was unable to further its core mission of educating prisoners about their rights and provide self-help information to help them while incarcerated and to prepare for life after incarceration. See trial testimony of Paul Wright and Trial Exhibits 1-65.
At trial, Defendants failed to articulate any hardship should the Court enter a permanent order requiring thein to provide constitutionally adequate due process notice and an opportunity to be heard to the senders and intended recipients of incoming and outgoing Inail.
The public interest would be served, not disserved, if the Court enters a permanent injunction requiring due process. A court order that requires Defendants to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard when they censor mail will help to ensure that Defendants do not return to their old ways-when providing notice was rare and when it was given it was severely inadequate, and notice of an opportunity to be heard was not provided at all. A court order requiring due process will assist prisoners and the public to understand why their mail is censored, correct their mail so that it will be delivered or challenge the Jail's censorship decision. Ultimately, providing due process will help facilitate prisoners' conlmunications to and from the outside world, and will promote rehabilitation and recidivisin-which is an incredibly important public and penological interest. See Trial Exhibit 156 (BOP Report titled "Prison Education Program Participation and RecidivisIn"), 173 (letter from CCJ prisoner to PLN). C. Credibility Is Not Relevant
As the Court has already recognized, the credibility of the policy-maker is not part of the four-part test for permanent injunctive relief. See Appx. A (Noveinber 16,2012, Transcript of SUmInary Judgment Hearing, at 64:3-65:20: "Let us assume that this sheriff had total credibility, was completely credible, and you were absolutely convinced that this sheriff would never reinstitute that policy. Fine. So what? ... So four years froin now what ifhe is not re-elected? I don't think the credibility of the sheriff is relevant.

PLAINTIFF'S POST-TRIAL MEMORANDUM ON INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (CV 12-71-SI) - 12
9870.05 gb212205

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 208 Filed 02/22/13 Page 13 of 25

· .. I just don't see how it is relevant in light of what Monsanto and eBay tell us.... There is plenty of other equitable relief that I need to balance, but I don't think part of that equation entails any credibility analysis of the sheriff.").
PLN is not aware of any caselaw that says otherwise. D. Defendants Failed to Show Voluntary Cessation
At the close of trial, the Court asked the parties the following question: [I]fthe Court were to conclude as a factual finding as a result of this trial that Sheriff Dickerson is "an honorable and conscientious public servant who in the Court's opinion will follow a Court's declaratory ruling unless binding or applicable precedent change it or require it to be changed, basically he will follow the law, how should, if at all, the Court deal with the reality that this lawsuit is also against Columbia County and the ColUlnbia County Sheriff s Office and that Sheriff Dickerson will not be the sheriff forever and cannot bind his successors?
Plaintiff believes voluntary cessation caselaw simply does not apply, but addresses it to the extent the Court's question calls for such analysis.
1. Voluntary Cessation Standard
To render Plaintiffs claim for injunctive relief moot, Defendants have the "heavy burden" of persuading the Court that their "voluntary conduct" make it "absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur." Friends o/the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000). See also Fed. Trade Comm 'n v. Affordable Media, LLC, 179 F.3d 1228, 1238 (9th Cir. 1999) (standard is "whether the defendant is free to return to its illegal action at any time."); Norman-Bloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkeley Lab., 135 F.3d 1260,1274 (9th Cir. 1998) ("heavy burden" to show that wrongful behavior cam10t be reasonably expected to recur). This doctrine protects against defendants who "seek to evade sanction by predictable protestations of repentance and reform." City News and Novelty, Inc. v. City o/Waukesha, 531 U.S. 278,284, n.1 (2001) (internal quotation tnarks omitted). Plaintiff has previously explained, in detail, why Defendants cannot meet their heavy burden to prove voluntary cessation as to any of PLN' s claims. See Dkt. 119 at pgs. 12-21; Dkt. 46 at pgs. 7-20. And at trial, Defendants failed to advance their position.

PLAINTIFF'S POST-TRlAL MEMORANDUM ON INJUNCTIVE

RELIEF (CV 12-71-SI) - 13

'.

9870.05 gb212205

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 208 Filed 02/22/13 Page 14 of 25

2. Sheriff Dickerson's Behavior Was Not Voluntary
At trial, Sheriff Dickerson admitted that he continued to enforce his Postcard-Only Mail Policy until the Court entered its preliminary injunction. See testimony of Sheriff Dickerson, and Trial Exhibits 104, 116,272,273,274. Thus, there was nothing voluntary about the sheriffs decision to stop banning non-postcard mail. It was court ordered.
Also, the sheriff decided to amend his mail "policy" to permit delivery of "magazines" and improve his due process policies only after this litigation commenced. And he did not infonn the prisoners or the public that the Jail permits the delivery of magazines or provides due process and an opportunity to be heard, until after he was questioned about failing to do so in his deposition in May 20 12-four months after PLN filed suit. Thus, the evidence reveals that the Sheriff only changed these aspects of his policy due to the prodding effect of litigation. So, these changes were not voluntary at all. See United States v. GovernmentofVirgin Islands, 363 F.3d 276,285 (3d Cir. 2004); Smith v. Univ. of Washington, 233 F.3d 1188, 1194 (9th Cir. 2000); Sefickv. Gardner, 164 F.3d 370,372 (7th Cir. 1998), and discussion in Dkt. 119 at pg. 13.
To fully respond to the Court's question, and in case the court determines that it should apply a voluntarily cessation analysis to some aspect of this case, Plaintiff explains below why Defendants fail to meet their heavy burden.
3. Sheriff Dickerson Did Not Make It "Absolutely Clear" that His Unconstitutional Behavior Could Not Reasonably Be Expected to Recur
a. Postcard-Only Policy Sheriff Dickerson's adoption of a new mail policy that permits the delivery of nonpostcard mail did not Inoot Plaintiffs claim for pennanent injunctive relief. As stated above, the Sheriff adopted a new mail policy that pemlits non-postcard mail only in response to the Court's directive that he halt his existing policy. Adherence to the terms of a preliminary injunction does not render a claim for permanent relief moot; it merely shows that that an injunction is effective. "An enjoined party ought not to be rewarded merely for doing what the court has directed." llA Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller, Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2961 at

PLAINTIFF'S POST-TRIAL MEMORANDUM ON INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (CV I2-71-SI) - 14
9870.05 gb212205

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 208 Filed 02/22/13 Page 15 of 25

405 (1995). If adhering to the Court's order were enough, then a plaintiff who successfully obtained preliIninary relief could only later obtain a pennanent injunction by showing that the defendant was in contempt of the court's preliminary order. That is not the standard. See Walling v. Harnischfeger Corp., 242 F.2d 712, 713 (7th Cir. 1957) (denying defendant's motion to vacate pennanent injunction solely on basis that its compliance for 12 years rendered the prospective application of the injunction inequitable; holding "We would not approve trading [defendant's] sustained obedience for a dissolution of the injunction. Compliance is just what the law expects.").
Silnilarly, the Sheriffs testimony that he does not intend to return to his Postcard-Only Policy because it would be administratively cumbersome is a weak and tenuous rationale that does not satisfy his heavy burden to show voluntary cessation. A promise to refrain from future violations of the law is not sufficient to establish Inootness. See U S. v. Concentrated Phosphate Export Ass'n, 393 U.S. 199,203-204 (1968) (holding that "appellees' own statement that it would be uneconomical for them to engage in any further joint operations"-the challenged conduct in that case-"cannot suffice to satisfy the heavy burden of persuasion which we have held rests upon those in appellees' shoes."). What is seen as cumbersome or not economical today-or to this Sheriff--could readily change when the economy, the budget, or the person in charge is different tomorrow.
Also, the Sheriffs continued defense of his Postcard-Only Policy as constitutional prevents Plaintiffs request for injunctive relief from being moot. See Walling v. Helmerich & Payne, 323 U.S. 37,43 (1944) (reversing district court's decision to deny injunction where defendant discontinued challenged practice two months after litigation comlnenced, holding "Respondent has consistently urged the validity of the split-day plan and would presumably be free to resume the use of this illegal plan were not some effective restraint made."); Donovan v. Cunningham, 716 F.2d 1455,1461 -1462 (5th Cir. 1983) (holding that defendants' "assurances that they do not intend to serve as ERISA fiduciaries in the future are clearly insufficient to meet their burden of persuasion. .. This is particularly true in the face of appellees' continuing

PLAINTIFF'S POST-TRIAL MEMORANDUM ON INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (CV 12-71-SI) - 15
9870.05 gb212205

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 208 Filed 02/22/13 Page 16 of 25

insistence that their discontinued activities were legal and their continued occupation of positions that would enable resulnption of' the challenged activities).
Lastly, without a permanent injunction, nothing prevents the Sheriff, or his successor, from adopting a Postcard-Only Policy again.
b. Magazine Ban and Lack of Due Process Although the Sheriff adopted a new mail "policy" in response to this litigation, which permits periodicals (including magazines) and iInproved his due process procedures, he failed to disseminate the policy to the public and prisoners for at least four months. See testimony of Sheriff Dickerson and Bradley Berg, and Trial Exhibits 167 (Sheriffs Answer to Interrogatory No.7), 101-106 (CCSO website, January through June 2012), 111 (2010 Inmate Manual), 147 (inmate request for new mail policy, denied), 197 (ImnateMail Guide).3 So for several months after PLN's lawsuit notified them that their ban and practices violated the Constitution, Defendants continued to lead the public and prisoners to believe that those policies and practices were in force, adversely affecting hundreds of prisoners and their correspondents. And when the Sheriff was asked at trial what stopped him from posting a couple of sentences on his website that stated the Jail allowed Inagazines and would provide due process to the sender and intended recipient when the Jail censored mail, the Sheriff testified that "nothing" stopped him. This corrective action would have taken only minutes. He also adlnitted that he could have, but did not, instruct his staff to mark-out the short sentence in the inmate manual that prohibited periodicals. And he acknowledged that nearly a full year elapsed before he updated the Spanish language version of the inmate Inanual to allow periodicals. Bradley Berg testified that at least one-third of the jail population is Spanish-speaking, revealing that this failure to update likely continued deterring protected speech long after the sheriff was aware that the Inail policy, as stated in his manual, was unconstitutional.

3

In contrast, when Defendants adopted the Postcard-Only Mail Policy in 2010, they issued

a press release, spoke to the local newspaper about the policy, and posted information about the

policy on the CCSO website. See Trial Exhibit 96,97,99,101.

PLAINTIFF'S POST-TRIAL MEMORANDUM ON INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (CV 12-71-SI) - 16
9870.05 gb212205

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 208 Filed 02/22/13 Page 17 of 25

Further, the Sheriff claims that he had a purported written "policy" that did not ban magazines and periodicals throughout his tenure as Sheriff. See Trial Exhibits 296-300. But the evidence at trial showed that the actual "policy," and the practice and custom at the Columbia County Jail, was to ban them. So, the adoption of a purported policy was, and is, insufficient for Defendants to establish that violations will not occur again.
4. The Sheriff's Office and Columbia County Have Not Shown Voluntary Cessation
At trial, the Coluillbia County Sheriff s Office and Columbia County failed to offer any evidence to show that they voluntarily halted their unconstitutional policies and practices or that their unconstitutional behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur. In fact, defense witnesses testified that they still believe their adoption of a Postcard-Only Policy was a good idea, and the purported reasons for adopting a Postcard-Only Policy in the first place-to reduce the risk of contraband entering the jail, to save time and resources, and to achieve uniformity with other jails-are still alive. Indeed, Undersheriff Moyer testified that the Court's preliminary injunction has placed the Jail at risk. And the only reason the current Sheriff gave for not returning to his Postcard-Only Policy in the future was because it would be administratively cumbersome to go back. These facts show that the Sheriff s Office and Columbia County stand by their Postcard-Only Policy and the pressures that purportedly caused them to adopt the policy in the first place continue. For these reasons, Defendants have failed to make it "absolutely clear" that their unconstitutional behavior is not likely to recur.
As the Court has already pointed out, the Sheriff does not bind his successors. And without a permanent injunction, nothing stops the County or the Sheriffs Office or the next sherifffroill deciding to implement a Postcard-Only Policy, lllagazine ban, or unconstitutional due process policy or practices again. E. Term of Injunction
As shown above, Plaintiff has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that it meets the standard for permanent injunctive relief. At trial, Defendants did not offer any evidence that

PLAINTIFF'S POST-TRIAL MEMORANDUM ON INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (CV 12-71-SI) - 17
9870.05 gb212205

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 208 Filed 02/22/13 Page 18 of 25
the patiicular circumstances of this case walTant a less-than-pennanent injunction and none are apparent.
If circumstances arise in the future, Defendants may obtain relief by establishing that prospective application "is no longer equitable." See FRCP 60(b). To modify or vacate the permanent injunctions, they may seek relief when: there has been a significant Chatlge in the factual conditions that make compliance substantially more onerous; enforcement would be detrimental to the public interest; the terms are unworkable because of unforeseen obstacles; or the statutory or decisional law has changed to make legal the conduct that has been enjoined. See Rufo v. Inmates ofSuffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 383-385, 388 (1992); S.E.C. v. Coldicutt, 258 F.3d 939, 945 (9th Cir. 2001). Defendants have not shown any such basis here.
III. CONCLUSION Plaintiff respectfully asks that the Court please enter the requested permanent injunction on all claims. It is essential to ensuring that Defendants abide by the First and Fourteenth Amendments when processing incoming and outgoing prisoner mail. And, an injunction will send a crucial message to other counties in Oregon and elsewhere who have adopted, or who are contelnplating adoption of, unconstitutional mail policies that it is not worth taking the risk.
DATED this 22nd day of February, 2013.
MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS
Is/Jesse Wing KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN OSB #042580 JESSE WING Adnlitted Pro Hac Vice (206) 622-1604 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

PLAINTIFF'S POST-TRIAL MEMORANDUM ON INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (CV 12-71-SI) - 18
9870.05 gb212205

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 208 Filed 02/22/13 Page 19 of 25
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on February 22, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing to the Clerk
of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the
following:
• Marc D. Blackman marc@ransomblackman.com,pat@ransomblackman.com
• Steven A. Kraemer sak@hartwagner.com,rcd@hartwagner.com
• Gregory R. Roberson grr@hartwagner.com,cej@hartwagner.com
• Lynn S. Walsh walsh@europa.Gom
• Lance Weber lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org,ahull@humanrightsdefensecenter.org
MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS
Is/Jesse Wing KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN OSB #042580 JESSE WING Admitted Pro Hac Vice (206) 622-1604 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

PLAINTIFF'S POST-TRIAL MEMORANDUM ON INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (CV 12-71-SI) - 19
9870.05 gb212205

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BA"LESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 208 Filed 02/22/13 Page 20 of 25
APPENDIX A TO
PLAINTIFF'S POST-TRIAL MEMORANDUM ON INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 208 Filed 02/22/13 Page 21 of 25

1

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

3

4 PRI SON LEGAL NEWS,

5

Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:12-CV-0071-SI

6

vs.

November 16, 2012

7 COLUMBIA COUNTY, et al.,

Portland, Oregon

8

Defendants.

9

10

11

12

MOTION HEARING

13

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

14

BEFORE THE HONORABLE MICHAEL H. SIMON

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 208 Filed 02/22/13 Page 22 of 25

1 preliminary injunction and point out case law that we

Page 62

2 think that the Court should consider before deciding this

3 issue.

4

THE COURT: Okay. That answers my question.

5

MR. ROBERSON: I think it is important to point

6 out that again that we are only here on the equitable

7 relief claims, not the claim for damages.

8

PLN -- we haven't discussed the permanent

9 injunction yet, but we could move to that next. I feel

10 like we have been totally discussing declaratory relief so

11 far, Your Honor, and standing.

12

THE COURT: You are correct, although I'm

13 planning on using a lot of what has already been said in

14 the analysis on the permanent declaration issue.

15

MR. ROBERSON: I think the most important issue

16 on the permanent injunctive claim, if the Court gets

17 beyond standing and mootness issues, is the irreparable

18 harm aspect. We are only focused here on future imminent

19 harm. PLN has to make a showing of that, and none of

20 their mail has been rejected. They are not even

21 challenging what the current mail policy statement states.

22

THE COURT: But if you look at the criteria set

23 forth most recently by the Supreme Court in the Monsanto

24 case, which, frankly, quotes the eBay case that you are

25 both relying on, the requirement for a permanent

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 208 Filed 02/22/13 Page 23 of 25

1 injunction is not a likelihood of future irreparable

Page 63

2 injury. It is the establishment of past irreparable

3 injury. Am I right? I think the answer to my question is

4 yes. That's what Monsanto and eBay say. They refer to it

5 in the past tense.

6

MR. ROBERSON: It is irreparable harm that

7 cannot be remedied with a claim for damages.

8

THE COURT: Right, agreed. See, Winter tells us

9 for preliminary injunctive relief, I have to look to a

10 likelihood of future injuries. For permanent injunctive

11 relieve, the language of Monsanto, which frankly just

12 quotes eBay, the first element is, has there been

13 irreparable damage? And if there has been, assuming there

14 is a constitutional violation, I think there has been. It

15 occurred before my preliminary injunction order. But why

16 isn't that enough for permanent injunctive relief?

17

MR. ROBERSON: It is irreparable damage that

18 cannot be remedied with a monetary award. That's the key

19 part.

20

THE COURT: Right. But aren't there plenty of

21 cases that talk about the fact that monetary awards are

22 insufficient to remedy First Amendment violations?

23

MR. ROBERSON: There are cases that state that,

24 Your Honor.

25

Here, PLN's essential argument is that you just

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 208 Filed 02/22/13 Page 24 of 25

1 can't believe the sheriff. They spend half of their

Page 64

2 briefing on that issue.

3

THE COURT: Fair enough. I don't think I'm

4 going to make a decision, certainly not on summary

5 judgment, that you can't believe the sheriff. That is not

6 summary judgment material. But I don't think that I need

7 to make any conclusions about that. Let us assume that

8 this sheriff had total credibility, was completely

9 credible, and you were absolutely convinced that this

10 sheriff would never reinstitute that policy. Fine. So

11 what? Elections come -- what is the sheriff is elected

12 to? What's the term? Four years?

13

MR. ROBERSON: I believe so.

14

THE COURT: I know it is outside the record to

15 ask, but was he re-elected?

16

MR. KRAEMER: He was.

17

THE COURT: Fine. So four years from now what

18 if he is not re-elected? I don't think the credibility of

19 the sheriff is relevant. Maybe if he had a history of

20 violating past injunctions, that would be relevant. But

21 there is no evidence from the plaintiff that he does. I'm

22 just looking at the basic test of a permanent injunction

23 that eBay and Monsanto from the Supreme Court tell us, and

24 although I can't remember the last two elements, although

25 it is probably the basic stuff of injunctions, the first

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 208 Filed 02/22/13 Page 25 of 25

113

1

2

--000--

3

4

I certify, by signing below, that the foregoing

5 is a correct transcript of the record of proGeedings in

6 the above-entitled cause. A transcript without an

7 original signature, conformed signature or digitally

8 signed signature is not certified.

9 /s/ Dennis W. Apodaca
10 DENNIS W. APODACA, RMR, FCRR, RPR Official Court Reporter
11

November 26, 2012 DATE

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 209 Filed 02/22/13 Page 1 of 29

Steven A. Kraemer, OSB No. 882476 E-mail: sak@hartwagner.com Gregory R. Roberson, OSB No. 064847 E-mail: grr@hartwagner.com HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301
Of Attorneys for Defendants

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER, Plaintiffs, v.

COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF DICKERSON, individual and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,

Defenda

nts.

No. 3:12-cv-0071-SI DEFENDANTS’ POST TRIAL BRIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 209 Filed 02/22/13 Page 2 of 29
TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1 II. Legal Argument........................................................................................................ 1
A. Equitable Relief is Not Warranted in this Case .................................................... 1 B. Permanent Injunctive Relief Is Not Appropriate .................................................. 4
1. The plaintiff should not succeed on the merits with respect to the postcard policy. .................................................................................................................... 6
2. No irreparable injury for which monetary damages are inadequate ....................11 3. A remedy in equity is not warranted ................................................................... 12 4. A permanent injunction is not in the public interest............................................ 13 C. The Evidence Does Not Support an Award of Punitive Damages. .................... 14 D. Plaintiff Presented Insufficient Evidence to Allow the Jury to Consider
Awarding Diversion of Resources or Frustration of Mission Damages............. 17 1. Diversion of resources ......................................................................................... 17 2. Frustration of Purpose.......................................................................................... 19 E. Plaintiff’s Own Conduct in Failing to Notify the Defendants of Alleged
Violations Should Prevent It From Manufacturing or Creating Damages. ........ 20 F. Presumed Damages are Not Appropriate in this Case........................................ 20

Page i – DEFENDANTS’ POST TRIAL BRIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 209 Filed 02/22/13 Page 3 of 29

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Althouse v. Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office, 2013 W.L. 536072 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 12, 2013) .................................................... 7, 8, 9, 10
American States Ins. Co. v. Kearns, 15 F.3d 142, 144 (9th Cir 1994) ................................ 4 Asociacion de Trabajadores de Lake Forest v. City of Lake Forest,
624 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 17, 18, 19 Bailey v. Andrews, 811 F.2d 366 (7th Cir. 1987) ......................................................... 22, 23 Broderick v. Evans, 570 F.3d 68 (1st Cir. 2009)................................................................ 15 Caldwell v. LeFaver, 928 F.2d 331 (9th Cir. 1991) ............................................................ 2 Calhoun v. Detella, 319 F.3d 936 (7th Cir. 2003).............................................................. 20 Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 (1978)................................................................... 21, 22, 23 Chamberlain v. Allstate Ins. Co., 931 F.2d 1361 (9th Cir 1991) ........................................ 4 City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983)..................................................... 2, 3, 13 City of Watseka v. Illinois Public Action Council, 796 F.2d 1547 (7th Cir. 1986) ............ 22 Conboy v. AT&T Corp., 241 F.3d 242 (2nd Cir. 2001)..................................................... 23 County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625 (1979) ........................................................ 3 Covell v. Arpaio, 662 F. Supp.2d 1146 (D. Az. 2009) .................................................... 8, 9 Doe v. Turner, 361 F Supp 1288 (S.D. Iowa 1973) ..........................................................12 Dubner v. City and County of San Francisco, 266 F.3d 959 (9th Cir. 2001) ................... 14 eBay v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (2006) ............................................................ 5 Eggar v. City of Livingston, 40 F.3d 312, 316 (9th Cir. 1994) ........................................... 2 Fair Employment Council v. BMC Mktg. Corp.,
28 F.3d 1268 (D.C. Cir. 1994)................................................................................. 17, 18 Fair Hous. of Marin v. Combs, 285 F.3d 899 (9th Cir. 2005) ........................................... 19 Fern v. Turman, 736 F.2d 1367 (9th Cir 1984)................................................................... 4 Foulk v. Charrier, 262 F.3d 687 (8th Cir. 2001)................................................................ 20 Fowler v. Assoc. of Comm. Orgs. for Reform, 178 F.3d 350 (5th Cir. 1999) .............. 18, 19 Friends of Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Servs. 528 U.S. 167 (2000) ........................... 3 George v. City of Long Beach, 973 F.2d 706 (9th Cir. 1992) ........................................... 23 Gibbons v. Arpaio, 2008 WL 4447003, No. CV07-1456 (D. Az.) ..................................... 9 Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982).................................................... 19 Hodgers-Durgin v. de la Vina, 199 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 1999) ........................................... 3 Jamison v. Alachua County Jail,
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99225, No. CV10-00250 (N.D. Fla.)....................................... 10 Jeffries v. Harleston, 21 F.3d 1238 (2d Cir. 1994)............................................................ 15

Page i – DEFENDANTS’ POST TRIAL BRIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 209 Filed 02/22/13 Page 4 of 29

Jolivet v. DeLand, 966 F.2d 573 (10th Cir. 1992).............................................................. 15 Jordan v. Arpaio, 2008 WL 22622401, No. CV08-00856 (D. Az.).................................... 9 Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996) ................................................................................ 13 Log Cabin Republicans v. United States, 658 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2011) ............................ 3 McCordle v. Haddad, 131 F.3d 43 (2d Cir. 1997) ............................................................ 15 Medley v. Arpaio, 2008 WL 3911138, No. CV08-00086 (D. Az.) ..................................... 9 Memphis Community School Dist. v. Stachura, 477 U.S. 299 (1986) ........................ 21, 22 Morrow v. Harwell, 768 F.2d 619 (5th Cir. 1985) ............................................................. 12 Ngo v. Reno Hilton Resort Corp., 140 F.3d 1299 (9th Cir. 1998) .................................... 14 Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Norton, 503 F.3d 836 (9th Cir. 2007).................................... 5 O’Keefe v. Van Boening, 82 F.3d 322, 326 (9th Cir. 1996) ................................................ 8 O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342 (1987) ........................................................... 11 O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (1974) .................................................................. 2, 3, 13 Olagues v. Rossoniello, 770 F.2d 791 (9th Cir. 1985) ........................................................ 5 Omar v. Maketa, 2011 WL 4485955, No. CV 10-08975 (D. Colo.)................................. 10 Partington v. Gedan, 961 F.2d 852 (9th Cir. 1992) ............................................................ 2 Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82 (1971) .............................................................................. 12 Perfect 10, Inc. V. Google, Inc., 653 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2011) ........................................ 5, 6 Perry v. Sheahan, 222 F.3d 309 (7th Cir. 2000) ............................................................. 2, 3 Price v. Cameron, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121550, No. CV11-00199 (M.D. Fla.) ......... 10 Public Affairs Associates, Inc. v. Rickover, 369 US 111 (1962) ......................................... 4 Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976) ................................................................................ 13 Rogers v. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office,
2008 WL 898721, No. CV07-00641 (D. Az.) ................................................................. 9 Scocca v. Smith, 2012 WL 2375203, *3 (N.D. Cal. June 22, 2012) ................................. 18 Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 47-48 (1983) ........................................................................ 14 Spann v. Colonial Vill. Inc., 899 F.2d 24 (D.C. Cir. 1990)............................................... 17 Thomas v. City of Portland, 2007 WL 2286254, *18 (D. Or. Aug. 3, 2007).................... 14 Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989)........................................................................ 8 Trevino v. Gates, 99 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 1996) ................................................................... 22 Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987)................................................................... 6, 9, 10, 11 United States v. Anderson Seafoods, Inc.,
447 F. Supp. 1151, 1160 (N.D. Fla. 1978), aff’d, 622 F.2d 157 (5th Cir 1980) ........... 12 United States v. Kosoko, 2010 WL 3636276, No. CV08-00332 (D. Nev.) ...................... 10 United States v. Washington, 759 F.2d 1353, 1356–1357 (9th Cir 1985) .......................... 4 Valero Terrestrial Corp. v. Paige, 211 F.3d 112 (4th Cir. 2000) ........................................ 3

Page ii – DEFENDANTS’ POST TRIAL BRIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 209 Filed 02/22/13 Page 5 of 29
Ward v. City of San Jose, 967 F.2d 280 (9th Cir. 1991) ................................................... 14 Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305 (1982) ........................................................ 5 Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) ............................. 5 Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 711–712 (1977)......................................................... 12 Wulf v. City of Wichita, 883 F.2d 842, 867 (10th Cir. 1989) ............................................ 14 Statutes 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ............................................................................................. 14, 17, 21, 22

Page iii – DEFENDANTS’ POST TRIAL BRIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 209 Filed 02/22/13 Page 6 of 29

Defendants submit the following memorandum of authorities in response to the

court’s questions following the completion of the first stage of trial.

I. INTRODUCTION

The testimony and exhibits submitted at trial demonstrate that neither Sheriff

Dickerson, nor his staff, knowingly violated the Constitution. When it was finally

brought to the attention of the Sheriff, via the Complaint, of the unconstitutional practices

that were occurring, they were stopped and appropriate changes implemented.

Defendants’ evidence also showed that, had plaintiff notified the Sheriff, or County

Counsel, of the unconstitutional practices that were occurring at the jail when plaintiff

first began monitoring the jail, the activities would have stopped at that time.

The only significant issues in dispute in this entire, yearlong lawsuit, are whether

the postcard policy violated the Constitution and how much in damages plaintiff should

receive.

II. LEGAL ARGUMENT

A. Equitable Relief is Not Warranted in this Case

The first issue the court asked the parties to address involved the question of

injunctive relief. As injunctive relief is a form of equitable relief, in this section

defendants will first address the issue of equitable relief generally (which includes

plaintiff’s claim for a declaratory judgment as it is also a form of equitable relief). In the

next section, defendants will specifically discuss the criteria for granting a permanent

injunction.

At the outset, defendants request that the court reject all of plaintiff’s claims for

equitable relief, which include the claims for a declaratory judgment and permanent

injunction. Defendants are no longer engaging in the conduct which plaintiff asserts is

unconstitutional. Even if one assumes the plaintiff had been deprived of a constitutional

right in the past, there is not a real and immediate threat that the same deprivation will

occur in the future so as to justify equitable relief. Page 1 – DEFENDANTS’ POST TRIAL BRIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 209 Filed 02/22/13 Page 7 of 29

In the case of City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 108 (1983), the United

States Supreme Court rejected a plaintiff’s claim for equitable relief in a case challenging

the use of chokeholds. By the time the case reached the Supreme Court, the Los Angeles

Board of Police Commissioners had imposed a six-month moratorium on the use of

certain chokeholds, except under circumstances where deadly force is authorized. Id.

The Court noted that it was “no more than speculation to assert either that Lyons himself

will again be involved in one of those unfortunate instances, or that he will be arrested in

the future and provoke the use of a chokehold by resisting arrest, attempting to escape, or

threatening deadly force or serious bodily injury.” Id. Therefore, even though Lyons had

standing to pursue his claim for damages against the city based on the prior actions of its

officers, the Court found that he did not have standing to seek injunctive relief. See also

O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (1974) (even if plaintiffs were subjected to

discriminatory practices in past, that is not enough for injunctive relief without

continuing, present adverse effects); Eggar v. City of Livingston, 40 F.3d 312, 316 (9th

Cir. 1994) (plaintiffs lack standing to challenge alleged municipal court policy of denying

counsel to indigent persons accused of crime because their being subjected to policy in

future was too speculative); Partington v. Gedan, 961 F.2d 852, 862 (9th Cir. 1992), as

amended, (July 2, 1992) (attorney challenging disciplinary proceedings could not

demonstrate concrete likelihood of future deprivations); Caldwell v. LeFaver, 928 F.2d

331, 335 (9th Cir. 1991) (past exposure to alleged unlawful conduct insufficient to

establish standing to seek injunction).

The rationale of Lyons has been applied to bar equitable requests for declaratory

relief, as well as injunctive relief. For example, in the case of Perry v. Sheahan, the

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that the plaintiff lacked standing to seek

declaratory and injunctive relief in an action alleging a violation of his constitutional

rights by law enforcement officials who seized firearms and other items from his

apartment during an eviction. 222 F.3d 309, 313-315 (7th Cir. 2000). As in this case, the

Page 2 – DEFENDANTS’ POST TRIAL BRIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 209 Filed 02/22/13 Page 8 of 29

court found that declaratory and injunctive would not help the plaintiff because it was

unlikely that the plaintiff would be subjected to a future injury because (1) most of the

property seized from him had been returned after a summary judgment motion had been

filed and (2) plaintiff made no showing that he was likely to be subjected to an eviction in

the future. Id. at 314-315. The court noted that the plaintiff alleged only past injury and

could not demonstrate a realistic threat that he would be the subject of another forcible

eviction in the county that would result in the seizure of his property. A plaintiff must

demonstrate a “realistic threat” that it will again be to subjected to an unconstitutional

practice. Id. at 313 (citing Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102.)

A request for declaratory judgment may be rendered moot by governmental

changes that cure the constitutional defects. For example, when a statute is amended or

repealed “the case is moot, there is no exception for declaratory relief.” Log Cabin Republicans v. United States, 658 F.3d 1162, 1167 (9th Cir. 2011), see also, Valero Terrestrial Corp. V. Paige, 211 F.3d 112, 116 (4th Cir. 2000)(statutory changes that

discontinue a challenged practice are usually enough to render a case moot, even if the

legislature has the power to reenact the statute after the lawsuit is dismissed). See, also

County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631 (1979) (case was moot where County

complies with court order and displayed no inclination to reinstate discriminatory hiring

practices). A case may be found “moot if subsequent events made it absolutely clear that

the allegedly wrongful behaviour could not reasonably be expected to recur.” Friends of

Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Servs. 528 U.S. 167, 170 (2000).

In the case of Hodgers-Durgin v. de la Vina, 199 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 1999), the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, rejected a claim for equitable relief where the plaintiffs

lacked sufficient evidence to show that they would be stopped by the border police and

subjected to unconstitutional conduct in the future. In making this determination, it was

noted that courts will “assume that [defendants] will conduct their activities within the

law.” Id. at 1041 (quoting O’Shea, 414 U.S. at 497). The court ultimately concluded that

Page 3 – DEFENDANTS’ POST TRIAL BRIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 209 Filed 02/22/13 Page 9 of 29

there was insufficient evidence of a future injury because the named plaintiffs had only been stopped once in ten years of traveling across the border.
In addition to the reasons set forth above, a district court may refuse to grant declaratory relief as a matter of discretion. The Declaratory Judgment Act “gave the federal courts competence to make a declaration of rights; it did not impose a duty to do so.” Public Affairs Associates, Inc. v. Rickover, 369 US 111, 112 (1962). “Essentially, the district court ‘must balance concerns of judicial administration, comity, and fairness to the litigants.’” American States Ins. Co. v. Kearns, 15 F.3d 142, 144 (9th Cir 1994) (quoting Chamberlain v. Allstate Ins. Co., 931 F.2d 1361, 1367 (9th Cir 1991)). Courts will also weigh factors such as whether the evidentiary record is adequate and whether granting relief will settle the legal relations in issue and terminate the proceedings. United States v. Washington, 759 F.2d 1353 (9th Cir 1985); Fern v. Turman, 736 F.2d 1367, 1370 (9th Cir 1984).
In the case at hand, the previous policies at issue in this case are no longer in use. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any likelihood that the defendants will not “conduct their activities within the law” and will revert to the former policies. Accordingly, plaintiff is not entitled to any form of equitable relief, either by way of a declaratory judgment or a permanent injunction. B. Permanent Injunctive Relief Is Not Appropriate
In addition to the authority cited above as to equitable relief in general, there are further reasons to support the denial of plaintiff’s request for the extraordinary equitable remedy of a permanent injunction. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction enjoining defendants from (1) prohibiting Columbia County Sheriff’s Office (“CCSO”) from rejecting mail solely on the grounds that it is not in the form of a postcard, (2) prohibiting CCSO from rejecting mail solely on the grounds that it is a magazine, and (3) requiring due process to the sender and receiver of mail.

Page 4 – DEFENDANTS’ POST TRIAL BRIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 209 Filed 02/22/13 Page 10 of 29
The United States Supreme Court has set forth the test for a permanent injunction as follows:
According to well-established principles of equity, a plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction must satisfy a four-factor test before a court may grant such relief. A plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury, (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction. eBay v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006). A plaintiff must also establish actual success on the merits. Perfect 10, Inc. V. Google, Inc., 653 F.3d 976, 979-80 (9th Cir. 2011) (noting that in eBay, the Supreme Court noted that a permanent injunction involves “actual success” on the merits). Plaintiff bears the burden of proof on each of these elements of a permanent injunction. Olagues v. Rossoniello, 770 F.2d 791, 799, 803 (9th Cir. 1985). Even if a plaintiff establishes success on the merits, an injunction does not follow as a matter of course and it remains in the Court’s equitable discretion whether to issue one. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 32 (2008) (citing Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 313 (1982)). “[Injunctive] relief is not automatic, and there is no rule requiring automatic issuance of a blanket injunction when a violation is found.” Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Norton, 503 F.3d 836, 843 (9th Cir. 2007). A permanent injunction is not warranted in this case because: (1) the postcard policy is constitutional, (2) there is no irreparable injury for which monetary damages are inadequate compensation, (3) a remedy in equity is not warranted considering the balance of hardships between plaintiff and defendants, and (4) a permanent injunction is not in the public interest.

Page 5 – DEFENDANTS’ POST TRIAL BRIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 209 Filed 02/22/13 Page 11 of 29

1. The plaintiff should not succeed on the merits with respect to the postcard policy.
The court has indicated that, with respect to the postcard policy, it has not made a final decision as to whether the policy is constitutional and indicated that defendants were entitled to brief the issue of the constitutionality of the policy. Accordingly, defendants will first address whether plaintiff can achieve “actual success” on this claim before proceeding to the additional factors plaintiff is required to prove to obtain a permanent injunction as to all claims. See Perfect 10, 653 F.3d at 979-80.
A prison regulation does not violate the First Amendment if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987). The Turner Court identified four factors to be considered in making this determination: (1) whether the regulation is rationally related to a legitimate and neutral governmental objective; (2) whether there are alternative avenues that remain open to inmates to exercise the right; (3) the impact that accommodating the asserted right will have on other guards and prisoners, and on the allocation of prison resources; and (4) whether the existence of easy and obvious alternatives indicates that the regulation is an exaggerated response by prison officials. Prison Legal News v. Cook, 238 F.3d 1145, 1149 (citing Turner, 482 U.S. at 89-90). The test applies to regulations affecting a publisher’s right to communicate to inmates. Id.
Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that there is a First Amendment violation based upon these four factors.
a. Rational Relationship to Legitimate and Neutral Governmental Interest. At the preliminary injunction stage, the Court agreed that the safety and security of jail staff and inmates and the efficient use of a jail’s resources are legitimate penological interests. (Dkt. 64, Op. & O. Prelim. Inj. at 16.) At that time, the Court was not yet convinced that a postcard restriction was rationally related to these interests. (Id. at 17.) Defendants submit that the evidence at trial supports the rationality of the postcard

Page 6 – DEFENDANTS’ POST TRIAL BRIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 209 Filed 02/22/13 Page 12 of 29

policy. As well, there is another court decision recently approving the use of a similar

postcard policy. See, Althouse v. Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office, 2013 W.L. 536072

(S.D. Fla. Feb. 12, 2013).

It was undisputed the Sheriff’s Office administrators attended a conference

sponsored by a reputable organization (Oregon State Sheriff’s Association) and taught by

reputable instructors (Washington County Jail Commander and County Counsel) where

the implementation of a postcard only policy was discussed. Indeed, the evidence in this

case demonstrated it was the topic of a presentation. The administrators learned a

number of key pieces of information that support defendants’ position that the decision to

implement the postcard policy had a rational relationship to legitimate and neutral

government interests. They were taught a postcard only policy reduces the chance of

contraband entering the jail. They were taught the postcard policy was Constitutional and

had already been approved by another Federal Court within this Circuit. They were

taught the postcard policy saved time processing the mail.

Admittedly, the evidence at trial demonstrated, at most, one or two instances

where contraband may have entered the facility through the mail, as far back as witnesses

could recall. However, that cannot be the standard by which this court determines

whether the mail policy had a rational relationship to a legitimate and neutral government

interest. If it were, then an argument could be made that mail should not even be

inspected at an individual jail until that individual jail could demonstrate contraband

entered the jail through the mail. Likewise, one could argue individuals coming into the

jail should not be searched until such time as that individual jail documented contraband

being brought into the facility by an inmate who had not been searched. Defendants are

aware of no case law suggesting that the administrators at a jail are not permitted to learn

from the experiences at other jails. In this case, the postcard policy was implemented at a

presentation that was based upon the experiences learned at other jails. Defendants

readily acknowledge many may disagree with the decision made to enact the postcard

Page 7 – DEFENDANTS’ POST TRIAL BRIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 209 Filed 02/22/13 Page 13 of 29

policy, including plaintiff and, at least initially, this court. However, the standard should

not be whether or not plaintiff, or even this court, might choose to implement a postcard

only policy if it were administering the jail. Rather, the standard is only whether there is

a rational relationship to a legitimate and neutral governmental interest, and defendants

respectfully submit the evidence offered at trial demonstrated that relationship existed.

Plaintiff was able to show that the time savings for the jail was, at best, minimal.

However, that was nothing more than a product of the fact that Columbia County is a jail

with a small inmate population, made even smaller by drastic and real budget cuts. Put

another way, had this been a facility where 300, or 3,000 pieces of mail are processed

each day, the time savings would have been much greater, eventually reaching the point

of being substantial. The standards should not be different, depending upon the size of

the facility.

The current mail policy allows plaintiff’s magazines, catalogs, brochures,

subscription renewal forms, and fundraising letters to be distributed to inmates as long as

they are mailed from plaintiff’s business address. The postcard policy bears a rational

relationship to legitimate and neutral interests.

The postcard policy was rationally related to the needs of the Jail’s limited

resources and need for security and safety of inmates and the jail’s staff. These goals are

legitimate penological interests. Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 414 (1989); see

also, O’Keefe v. Van Boening, 82 F.3d 322 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[P]revention of criminal

activity and the maintenance of prison security are legitimate penological interests which

justify the regulation of both incoming and outgoing prisoner mail”).

There are several district court cases upholding postcard policies, including one

issued earlier this month. See Althouse, 2013 W.L. at 536072. In Covell v. Arpaio, 662

F. Supp.2d 1146 (D. Az. 2009), the court granted the defendant’s motion for summary

judgment against the plaintiff’s claim that restricted incoming inmate mail to postcard

size. The court found that the postcard restriction was a neutral policy that was rationally

Page 8 – DEFENDANTS’ POST TRIAL BRIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 209 Filed 02/22/13 Page 14 of 29

related to the legitimate purpose of reducing the risk of contraband entering the facility

and compromising jail security. Id. at 1153; see also, Rogers v. Maricopa County

Sheriff’s Office, 2008 WL 898721, No. CV07-00641 (D. Az.) (not reported) (dismissing

plaintiff’s claim relating to postcard restriction for failure to state a claim); Jordan v.

Arpaio, 2008 WL 22622401, No. CV08-00856 (D. Az.) (not reported) (dismissing

plaintiff’s claim relating to a postcard restriction for failure to state a claim); Medley v.

Arpaio, 2008 WL 3911138, No. CV08-00086 (D. Az.) (not reported) (denying plaintiff’s

motion for a preliminary injunction for failing to show that legal mail was barred by the

postcard restriction); Gibbons v. Arpaio, 2008 WL 4447003, No. CV07-1456 (D. Az.)

(not reported) (granting jail’s motion for summary judgment against plaintiff’s claim that

postcard restriction violated the First Amendment).

At the preliminary injunction stage, this court had found that the evidence at that

stage was insufficient as to a rational relationship with legitimate penological interests

and declined to follow the conclusion of Covell. However, as stated above in this section,

at trial the evidence demonstrated that in addition to the policy saving time, it also served

to prevent or deter contraband from entering the facility. The jail officials were aware of

the types of contraband that had been found at other jails. In light of this evidence, and

the recent Althouse decision, defendants submit that they have established at trial that the

postcard policy bears a rational relationship to a legitimate and neutral government

interest.

b. Second Turner Factor: Alternative Avenues for Plaintiff.

The evidence established that alternative methods of communication were

available. Although plaintiff presented a number of witnesses who complained about the

limitations of the other methods of communication that were available, it is worth

pointing out there is no suggestion that any of these other methods were unconstitutional.

For example, there was no suggestion that the nature of the telephone calls or the nature

of the personal visits were any different at Columbia County than at any other facility

Page 9 – DEFENDANTS’ POST TRIAL BRIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 209 Filed 02/22/13 Page 15 of 29

throughout the entire country. There was no suggestion that a letter is reviewed more closely than a postcard. Further, there was no evidence whatsoever that a postal worker has any interest, let alone the time, to read postcards between inmates and people outside of facilities. Indeed, this is nothing but speculation. Likewise, there was no evidence presented by plaintiff that a postcard policy inhibited rehabilitation or communication with family members, at least to the extent that such limitation reaches the point of being unconstitutional.
c. Third Turner Factor: Impact on Inmates, Jail Staff, and Jail Resources. Again, under the postcard policy, plaintiff’s correspondence was distributed to inmates. To the extent that plaintiff has standing to challenge defendants’ personal mail policy, the unfettered ability of persons to send inmates materials in any format— postcard, non-postcard, hardcover books, soft cover books, magazines, notepads, post-it pads, etc.— greatly increased the risks of contraband entering the Jail, along with the time required for screening personal mail. “When an accommodation of an asserted right will have a significant ‘ripple effect’ on fellow inmates or on prison staff, courts should be particularly deferential to the informed discretion of corrections officials.” Turner, 482 U.S. at 90. Plaintiff had previously claimed it was not aware of other jails or prisons that limit inmates to postcards for personal mail. A review of case law shows that jails across the country have adopted postcard restrictions on incoming and outgoing inmate mail. See, e.g., Althouse, 2013 W.L. at 536072 (Palm Beach County detention facilities); Jamison v. Alachua County Jail, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99225, No. CV10-00250 (N.D. Fla.) (Alachua County Jail); Price v. Cameron, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121550, No. CV1100199 (M.D. Fla.) (Charlotte County Jail); United States v. Kosoko, 2010 WL 3636276, No. CV08-00332 (D. Nev.) (North Las Vegas Detention Center); Omar v. Maketa, 2011 WL 4485955, No. CV 10-08975 (D. Colo.) (Cheyenne Mountain Re-Entry Center).

Page 10 – DEFENDANTS’ POST TRIAL BRIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 209 Filed 02/22/13 Page 16 of 29

d. Fourth Turner Factor: Existence of Easy and Obvious Alternatives Suggesting an Exaggerated Response by Prison Officials.
Again, under the postcard policy, plaintiff’s correspondence addressed to inmates at the jail was distributed. The burden is on plaintiff to show that there are obvious and easy alternatives to the postcard restriction on personal mail. See O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 350 (1987). This test is not a “least restrictive alternative” test:
[P]rison officials do not have to set up and then shoot down every conceivable alternative method of accommodating the claimant’s constitutional complaint. But if an inmate can point to an alternative that fully accommodates the prisoner’s right at de minimis cost to valid penological interests, a court may consider that as evidence that the regulation does not satisfy the reasonable relationship standard. Turner, 482 U.S. at 90-91. Because of the increased risk of contraband with personal mail and the time-consuming nature of screening personal mail for appropriate mail violations, discarding the postcard restriction would have more than a de minimis cost to the Jail. Plaintiff has the burden to show otherwise and has not done so. For the above reasons, the postcard policy satisfied the Turner test in all respects, and defendants request that the court find that the policy was not in violation of the First Amendment. 2. No irreparable injury for which monetary damages are inadequate Plaintiff has not submitted evidence to show “irreparable” harm. The evidence at trial revealed just the opposite. For example, a great deal of time was spent both with Paul Wright and Sheriff Dickerson discussing the various material sent to the jail, but not delivered to inmates. Plaintiff’s own evidence established plaintiff was aware its mail was not being delivered no later than late 2010, perhaps as early as in August, 2010. The evidence also established Mr. Wright was fully aware of the applicable constitutional rights and case law related to the very issues in this lawsuit. PLN had multiple attorneys providing appropriate legal advice. Although plaintiff certainly had the choice whether or not to notify jail administration of unconstitutional practices, and it can make the

Page 11 – DEFENDANTS’ POST TRIAL BRIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 209 Filed 02/22/13 Page 17 of 29

decision how to communicate its concern about unconstitutional practices to the jail (via telephone call, email, letter or a Complaint), it should not be permitted to come to this court and claim “irreparable harm” for which money damages are not adequate, when plaintiff made the knowing choice to take no steps to stop the harm from occurring and, actually took affirmative steps to allow itself to be harmed – by continuing to send material to the jail, knowing it would be rejected. Therefore, even if this court decides a declaratory judgment on the postcard policy or even the other issues before it (the failure to provide due process and the rejection of the magazines as separate First Amendment violations), the evidence demonstrates that a Declaratory Judgment, without a permanent injunction, is sufficient. The declaratory judgment is a “milder alternative to the injunction remedy.” Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 111 (1971).1 A declaratory judgment is more appropriate when a court finds that officials, such as Sheriff Dickerson, are making good-faith efforts to rectify violations of federal law. Morrow v. Harwell, 768 F.2d 619, 627-28 (5th Cir. 1985).
3. A remedy in equity is not warranted As set forth in Section A above, incorporated herein, the evidence is undisputed that the postcard policy was been changed to be consistent with the court’s order. As well, the jail voluntarily implemented a practice to ensure that the written policy permitting magazines was followed. This was done upon the first notice to defendants of

1 As set forth above, defendants do not agree or concede that a declaratory judgment should be entered in this case, but simply point out that if the court finds that the plaintiff is entitled to some form of relief, then any remedy beyond a declaratory judgment would be unnecessary. Courts generally do not grant injunctive relief if declaratory relief will suffice. Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977). For example, a court will not grant an injunction as further relief to a declaratory judgment when the court expects its declaration to be given full credence. Doe v. Turner, 361 F Supp 1288, 1292 (S.D. Iowa 1973). Similarly, no injunction will ordinarily issue without evidence that the defendant may ignore the declaratory judgment. United States v. Anderson Seafoods, Inc., 447 F. Supp. 1151 (N.D. Fla. 1978), aff’d, 622 F.2d 157 (5th Cir 1980).

Page 12 – DEFENDANTS’ POST TRIAL BRIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 209 Filed 02/22/13 Page 18 of 29

an allegation that there were alleged unconstitutional practices regarding magazines. There is no evidence that unconstitutional policies are currently in place, or that unconstitutional practices exist at this time. Plaintiff has failed to show the likelihood of future harm and, thus, an award in equity is not warranted.
4. A permanent injunction is not in the public interest The issuance of a permanent injunction will not advance the public interest because there is nothing to be gained where the mail policy regarding postcards was revised, and the practice involving magazines was voluntarily changed to be consistent with the written policies to allow magazines. The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that, absent a threat of immediate and irreparable harm, the federal courts should not enjoin a local government to conduct its business in a particular way. See O'Shea, 414 U.S. at 488; Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); Lyons, 461 U.S. at 95; Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996). For example, in Rizzo v. Goode, the Court overturned an injunction that would have revised the internal procedures of the Philadelphia police department to minimize incidents of unconstitutional police conduct. Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 380-81. The Court was concerned about “inject[ing] itself by injunctive decree into the internal disciplinary affairs” of a local government. Id. Similarly, there is no need for the extraordinary remedy of a permanent injunction in this case. The evidence has established that the Sheriff’s Office has no history of knowingly violating the Constitution and no history of violating any Order of this court. Further, a permanent injunction, that would by definition be limited to this Sheriff’s Office, prohibiting conduct this Sheriff’s Office will no longer engage in, in any event, does not serve the public interest because, to the extent the message the court wants to send is the postcard policy is unconstitutional, that message can be given with a declaratory judgment, without a permanent injunction.

Page 13 – DEFENDANTS’ POST TRIAL BRIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 209 Filed 02/22/13 Page 19 of 29

C. The Evidence Does Not Support an Award of Punitive Damages.

The court has also asked the parties to consider the evidence at trial and address

whether the court should allow punitive damages to be presented to the jury. Defendants

submit that the evidence in this case is not sufficient for the jury to consider an award of

punitive damages against Sheriff Dickerson.

A jury may assess punitive damages in an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when the

defendant’s conduct is shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent, or when it

involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others. Smith

v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30 (1983). Punitive damages “are never awarded as of right, no matter

how egregious the defendant’s conduct.” Id. at 52. An award for punitive damages

requires an assessment of the defendant's subjective state of mind. Wulf v. City of

Wichita, 883 F.2d 842 (10th Cir. 1989). “Punitive damages are available against

individual [government officials] in a § 1983 claim only where the [officials’] ‘conduct is

shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent, or when it involves reckless or callous

indifference to the federally protected rights of others.’” Dubner v. City and County of

San Francisco, 266 F.3d 959, 969 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Smith, 461 U.S. at 56). Punitive

damages may not be awarded where a defendant’s conduct is merely negligent. Ngo v.

Reno Hilton Resort Corp., 140 F.3d 1299, 1304 (9th Cir. 1998), cert dismissed, 526 U.S.

1142 (1999) (analysis under similar standard used for Title VII claims). An award of

punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “requires proof that the defendant ‘almost

certainly knew that what he was doing was wrongful and subject to punishment.’”

Thomas v. City of Portland, 2007 WL 2286254, *18 (D. Or. Aug. 3, 2007) (quoting Ngo,

140 F.3d at 1304) (emphasis added). Even if there is liability, punitive damages will not

be awarded when there is a lack of evidence that an officer “acted with evil intent.”

Ward v. City of San Jose, 967 F.2d 280, 286 (9th Cir. 1991).

Plaintiff does not advance any evidence that Sheriff Dickerson had the required

state of mind to support an award of punitive damages. The federal courts have

Page 14 – DEFENDANTS’ POST TRIAL BRIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 209 Filed 02/22/13 Page 20 of 29

cautioned against awarding punitive damages automatically after a determination that the

constitution was violated. For example, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has held

that although a defendant police officer’s warrantless search violated clearly established

Fourth Amendment law, the plaintiff was not entitled to a punitive damages jury

instruction. McCordle v. Haddad, 131 F.3d 43 (2d Cir. 1997). The court rejected the

plaintiff's argument that because the officer's search violated clearly established Fourth

Amendment principles, “his conduct ipso facto revealed reckless or callous indifference

to her rights. To accept that proposition would essentially expose a defendant to . . .

punitive damages for any conduct not protected by qualified immunity, and would

thereby make the availability of punitive damages equal to the availability of

compensatory damages.” Id. at 53. In evaluating whether the defendant officer had

sufficient motive or intent to support a punitive damages instruction, the court found it

significant that the defendant officer had given the plaintiff “a break by crossing off one

of the charges he had written onto the ticket.” Id. This positive conduct on the part of

the officer appears to have played into the court’s decision that there was insufficient bad

intent.

Importantly, when examining a case involving the interception of jail mail, the

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals found that punitive damages were not appropriate when

(1) there was no evidence that the defendant knew his actions were unconstitutional and

(2) the defendant stopped the behavior when advised that it was unconstitutional. Jolivet v. DeLand, 966 F.2d 573, 577 (10th Cir. 1992). The Second Circuit Court of Appeals also

vacated an award of punitive damages in a free speech case where the jury had decided

that the defendants were motivated by a reasonable expectation that a plaintiff’s speech

would disrupt the effective and efficient operation of the university. Jeffries v. Harleston,

21 F.3d 1238, 1249 (2d Cir. 1994), cert. granted, judgment vacated on other grounds, 513 U.S. 996 (1994). See also, Broderick v. Evans, 570 F.3d 68, 74-75 (1st Cir. 2009)

(upholding court’s refusal to give punitive damages instruction in retaliation case because

Page 15 – DEFENDANTS’ POST TRIAL BRIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 209 Filed 02/22/13 Page 21 of 29

there was no evidence that defendant acted with a conscious purpose to violate the law). The evidence for punitive damages against Sheriff Dickerson is even weaker in this case, than in any of the cases cited above.
First, with respect to the postcard policy, this court has noted that its decision is the first to have held such a policy to be in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Moreover, Sheriff Dickerson attended a conference in which a well respected colleague recommended the institution of the policy. He further testified that he had no intention of being a “test case” and that he would not have adopted such a policy if there was any doubt as to its legality. Thus, he most certainly could not have been aware that at some point in the future a federal court would have held the policy to be in violation of the constitution. Accordingly, the jury should not be permitted to consider an award of punitive damages with respect to the postcard policy.
Second, with respect to the practice of rejecting the magazines and the Due Process violations, the evidence was undisputed that Sheriff Dickerson delegated the operation of the jail to experienced staff, already working for the Sheriff’s Office, when he was elected. Indeed, his testimony was that of all departments within the Sheriff’s Office, the jail was near the bottom of his concern, in part because it was inspected by outside agencies. No significant concerns (and none at all related to the issues in this lawsuit) were brought to his attention. Further, the evidence was undisputed that Sheriff Dickerson did not have experience or training in operating a jail or, specifically, in legal issues surrounding inmate mail. The delegation of these tasks to personnel the Sheriff understood to be experienced and qualified would seem entirely appropriate but, at a minimum, demonstrates that no reasonable juror could find that he was at any time possessed of an evil motive or intent, or that his conduct involved a reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others. As stated, the evidence clearly showed he wasn’t even aware the rights were being violated.

Page 16 – DEFENDANTS’ POST TRIAL BRIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 209 Filed 02/22/13 Page 22 of 29

D. Plaintiff Presented Insufficient Evidence to Allow the Jury to Consider Awarding Diversion of Resources or Frustration of Mission Damages. The court had indicated that it was still considering the issues presented
concerning diversion of resources and frustration of mission damages. As set forth below, defendant argues that such damages should not be awarded in this case.
1. Diversion of resources Damages for a “diversion of resources” are not appropriate in this case. A plaintiff seeking these types of damages must provide evidence that outreach is necessary to “reach out” and address “ongoing” problems associated with unconstitutional conduct. Spann v. Colonial Vill. Inc., 899 F.2d 24, 27-29 (D.C. Cir. 1990). There must be some increase of resources separate and apart from its standard mission which places “concrete drains on [its] time and resources.” Id. In the case of Asociacion de Trabajadores de Lake Forest v. City of Lake Forest, 624 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2010), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed a claim for these damages in the context of determining whether the plaintiff, an organization, had standing. Importantly, it does not appear that the court was asked to decide whether these damages were recoverable in a claim asserted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Rather, in the context of determining in the first instance whether the plaintiff had standing to file suit, the court referred to some of the Fair Housing Act cases which discussed these types of damages. In Lake Forest, the court rejected plaintiff’s assertion that it had suffered an injury and, therefore, found it lacked standing. In reaching this decision, the court noted that a party “‘cannot manufacture the injury by incurring litigation costs or simply choosing to spend money fixing a problem that would otherwise not affect the organization at all.’” Id. at 1088 (quoting Fair Employment Council v. BMC Mktg. Corp., 28 F.3d 1268, 127677 (D.C. Cir. 1994). The organization “must instead show that it would have suffered some other injury if it had not diverted resources to counteracting the problem.” Id. The

Page 17 – DEFENDANTS’ POST TRIAL BRIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 209 Filed 02/22/13 Page 23 of 29

court concluded that the plaintiff failed to assert any factual allegations to show that it was forced to divert resources to help an association of day laborers. Similarly, in this case, plaintiff presented no evidence that it incurred damages because it took time away from the usual and customary work performed by its employees. Rather, it has essentially “manufacture[d] the injury by incurring litigation costs” which is exactly what the court held could not result in a claim for damages. Moreover, the costs of employee time spent mailing out newsletters that were rejected did not take the employees away from their usual work so that they could help prisoners. In fact, the processing of mailings was their usual work. They are simply asking for time spent on tasks they would have been performing anyway if the mail was not rejected.2 Moreover, even if the employee’s time was recoverable, plaintiff has not submitted evidence to support the inflated numbers sought by plaintiff in this case, which greatly exceed the actual hourly rates paid to employees for their work. See, Def’s Motions in Limine, pp. 6-7.
Also, plaintiff cannot seek recovery to pay for future acts that it would like to take to do what it believes would counteract the injury. “An organization may sue only if it was forced to choose between suffering an injury and diverting resources to counteract the injury.” Lake Forest, 624 F.3d at 1088, n.4 (citing BMC Mktg., 28 F.3d at 1277) (emphasis added). See also, Scocca v. Smith, 2012 WL 2375203, *3 (N.D. Cal. June 22, 2012) (sending official to pre-litigation meeting was not a diversion of resources where no showing was made that plaintiff had to “choose between suffering an injury and diverting resources”). Plaintiff has not yet incurred these costs, and the costs were not forced upon them.
In Fowler v. Assoc. of Comm. Orgs. for Reform, 178 F.3d 350 (5th Cir. 1999), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals also reviewed these damages in the context of determining

2 As well, in regard to defendant’s mitigation defense, plaintiff continued to process

mailings it knew would be rejected, thereby making the decision to incur costs on mail

that it believed would not be delivered.

Page 18 – DEFENDANTS’ POST TRIAL BRIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 209 Filed 02/22/13 Page 24 of 29

whether the plaintiff had organizational standing by incurring diversion of resources

damages when assisting with voter registration efforts. In Fowler, the court rejected

almost all of the plaintiff’s theories of recovery, including litigation costs, monitoring

costs and some voter registration drives that did not involve counteracting an area that

had not implemented various Voting Rights Act requirements. The court did allow one

limited claim for damages to survive summary judgment because plaintiff had provided

evidence that it instituted a voter registration campaign in a particular location because of

past failures to implement the voting act requirements in those geographical areas.

Plaintiff lacks this type of evidence in the case at hand.

2. Frustration of Purpose

At the outset, since no diversion of resources has been established, plaintiff cannot

obtain damages for frustration of its mission or purpose. The Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals has noted that a plaintiff must show “both a diversion of resources and a

frustration of its mission.” Lake Forest, 624 F.3d at 1088 (emphasis added) (citing Fair Hous. of Marin v. Combs, 285 F.3d 899, 902 (9th Cir. 2005)). Accordingly, in the case at

hand, because diversion of resource damages should not be awarded, plaintiff is also not

entitled to request frustration of mission damages.

Additionally, these types of damages are not appropriate because there was no

showing of a significant drain on plaintiff’s resources. This court had previously

requested information on the impact of the case of Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455

U.S. 363 (1982) on the “frustration of mission” damages allegation. In Havens, the court

stated that to recover such damages, a plaintiff must show “that it had diverted significant

resources to counteract the defendant’s conduct; hence, the defendant’s conduct

significantly and ‘perceptibly impaired’ the organization’s ability to provide its

‘activities-with the consequent drain on the organization’s resources. ...’” Id. at 379.

Such an injury must be “concrete and demonstrable.” Id. In the case at hand, plaintiff

has not provided evidence of a “significant” impairment or “drain” on its resources.

Page 19 – DEFENDANTS’ POST TRIAL BRIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 209 Filed 02/22/13 Page 25 of 29

E. Plaintiff’s Own Conduct in Failing to Notify the Defendants of Alleged Violations Should Prevent It From Manufacturing or Creating Damages. Plaintiff should not be permitted to manufacture a theory of damages when it
could have easily and with little or no effort notified the jail that it believed the jail had unconstitutional mail practices and polices. The evidence is undisputed that the first knowledge from plaintiff of potential unconstitutional conduct came to the defendants when the Complaint was filed, with no prior communication from plaintiff. As the evidence has demonstrated, plaintiff became aware of such violations in 2010, yet continued to send publications knowing and expecting they would be ejected. In fact, almost all of the material was submitted by plaintiff only after plaintiff became aware it was certain it would be rejected. Put bluntly, plaintiff made the odd business decision to expend its claimed limited resources, some of it donated to plaintiff, on sending material to the jail it knew would not be delivered.
Plaintiff should not be rewarded for such wasteful, litigious activities. F. Presumed Damages are Not Appropriate in this Case.
Finally, the court had also provided defendants with the opportunity to address the issue of presumed damages. In requesting presumed damages, plaintiff is essentially stating that there must be damages awarded if there is a constitutional violation. However, that is not the law. Rather, in a case such as this where there is a lack of proof of damages, the appropriate award is one of nominal, not presumed damages. See, e.g., Calhoun v. Detella, 319 F.3d 936, 942 (7th Cir. 2003) (prisoner may recover nominal damages for constitutional violation when he cannot establish compensable harm); Foulk v. Charrier, 262 F.3d 687 (8th Cir. 2001) (if jury found no monetary value to constitutional violation, it could award nominal damages).
Importantly, presumed damages require that (1) an injury actually occurred because of a constitutional violation and (2) it is “difficult to establish” the value of the injury, thereby requiring this “substitute” remedy. Memphis Community School Dist. v.

Page 20 – DEFENDANTS’ POST TRIAL BRIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 209 Filed 02/22/13 Page 26 of 29

Stachura, 477 U.S. 299, 310-11 (1986). In this case, defendants submit that plaintiff has

failed to show that it suffered an injury in that it can produce no evidence such as a

delayed production schedule, loss of subscriptions etc. Moreover, an injury would not be

“difficult to establish” because there are means of proving such damages, if they actually

had occurred. However, this is simply a case in which no evidence of such damages was

presented. Plaintiff’s lack of proof in this regard should not permit it to manufacture a

presumed damages claim. As stated above, the appropriate damages in a case such as

this is an award of nominal damages.

In Stachura, the Supreme Court held that presumed damages “are a substitute for

ordinary compensatory damages, not a supplement for an award that fully compensates

the alleged injury.” Id. (emphasis in original). Presumed damages are supposed to

“roughly approximate the harm that the plaintiff suffered and thereby compensate for

harms that may be impossible to measure.” Id. (emphasis added).

The United States Supreme Court has explained that the basic purpose of

42 U.S.C. § 1983 damages is “’to compensate persons for injuries that are caused by the

deprivation of constitutional rights.’” Id. at 304 (citing Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247,

254 (1978)). Thus, Section 1983 authorizes compensatory damages not only for “out-of-

pocket loss and other monetary harms, but also such injuries as impairment of reputation

. . . personal humiliation and mental anguish and suffering.” Id. at 307. However,

Section 1983 does not permit a jury to award damages based on its “subjective perception

of importance of the constitutional rights as an abstract matter.” Id.

The Court explained:

[D]amages based on the “value” of constitutional rights are an unwieldy tool for ensuring compliance with the Constitution. History and tradition do not afford any sound guidance concerning the precise value that juries should place on constitutional protections. Accordingly, were such damages available, juries would be free to award arbitrary amounts without any evidentiary basis, or to use their unbounded discretion to punish unpopular defendants. . . . Such damages would be too uncertain to be of any great value to plaintiffs,

Page 21 – DEFENDANTS’ POST TRIAL BRIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 209 Filed 02/22/13 Page 27 of 29

and would inject caprice into determinations of damages in § 1983 cases. We therefore hold that damages based on the abstract “value” or “importance” of constitutional rights are not a permissible element of compensatory damages in such cases. Id. at 310. Also instructive is the case of Trevino v. Gates, 99 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 1996), which further shows that presumed damages are not appropriate in this matter in which plaintiff has requested actual damages. Specifically, the court held: Damages are not presumed to flow from every constitutional violation. Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 263, 98 S.Ct. 1042, 1052, 55 L.Ed.2d 252 (1978). Presumed damages are appropriate when there is a great likelihood of injury coupled with great difficulty in proving damages. Id. at 264, 98 S.Ct. at 1052. Id. at 921 (emphasis added). In this case, there are types of damages plaintiff could potentially recover and, thus, presumed damages are not appropriate. The case of City of Watseka v. Illinois Public Action Council, 796 F.2d 1547, 1558 (7th Cir. 1986), aff’d 479 US 1048) has been relied upon by plaintiff in support of its position. However, it appears to be an outlier which does not strictly follow the principles set forth in Stachura. Stachura said in no uncertain terms that presumed damages are a substitute for compensatory damages, but nevertheless and without explanation) the court in Illinois Public Action Council seemed to allow both presumed and itemized compensatory damages. Notably, one year after the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in Illinois Public Action Council, it seemed to rule just the opposite in Bailey v. Andrews, 811 F.2d 366 (7th Cir. 1987). The court specifically noted: [W]e are bound by the Supreme Court’s decision in Stachura that “damages based on the abstract ‘value’ or ‘importance’ of constitutional rights are not a permissible element of compensatory damages in [§ 1983] cases.” The district court’s Instruction 31A, allowing the jury to consider the inherent value of Bailey’s constitutional rights, thus gave the jury an impermissible measure by which to assess damages.

Page 22 – DEFENDANTS’ POST TRIAL BRIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 209 Filed 02/22/13 Page 28 of 29

Id. at 376 (internal citation omitted). The United States Supreme Court has rejected claims for presumed damages for a
procedural due process violation. Carey, 435 U.S. at 264 (holding that “plaintiffs should be put to their proof on this issue, as plaintiffs are in most tort actions”). The courts have seemed to consistently reject presumed damages in all but rare cases with nonquantifiable damages. See, e.g., George v. City of Long Beach, 973 F.2d 706, 708 (9th Cir. 1992) (nominal damages instruction is appropriate in Section 1983 case against police officers alleging warrantless arrest when no actual damages are proved), cert. denied 507 U.S. 915 (1993).
The issue of presumed damages has also been addressed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Conboy v. AT&T Corp., 241 F.3d 242 (2nd Cir. 2001). In Conboy, the Court held that, as a general matter, federal law permits the recovery of presumed damages only in very limited circumstances. As the Supreme Court has explained, presumed damages are generally available only where the offense, by its very nature, is “virtually certain” to cause mental and emotional distress, so “there arguably is little reason to require proof of this kind of injury.” 241 F.3d at 251, citing Carey, 435 U.S. at 262 (referring to cases rejecting presumed damages and noting that courts have awarded such damages in only a few limited situations, such as in the common law of defamation per se). / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

Page 23 – DEFENDANTS’ POST TRIAL BRIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 209 Filed 02/22/13 Page 29 of 29

Plaintiff has not met its burden to demonstrate that this is one of those rare cases in

which damages are unquantifiable and should, therefore, be “presumed” to exist. In this

case there are ways in which a plaintiff could have potentially sustained damages.

However, plaintiff simply has not sustained such damages. Therefore, the appropriate

measure of damages is that of nominal, not presumed, damages. Respectfully submitted this 22nd day of February, 2013.

HART

WAGNER LLP

By:

/s/ Steven A. Kraemer

Steven A. Kraemer, OSB No. 882476 Of Attorneys for Defendants

Page 24 – DEFENDANTS’ POST TRIAL BRIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 210 Filed 03/04/13 Page 1 of 10

Steven A. Kraemer, OSB No. 882476 E-mail: sak@hartwagner.com Gregory R. Roberson, OSB No. 064847 E-mail: grr@hartwagner.com HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301
Of Attorneys for Defendants

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER, Plaintiffs,

No. 3:12-cv-0071-SI

v. COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF DICKERSON, individual and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S POST-TRIAL MEMORANDUM ON INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Defenda

nts.

Defendants submit the following memorandum of authorities in response

Plaintiff’s Post-Trial Memorandum on Injunctive Relief.

A. Standing

At the outset, defendants request that the court consider the recent decision of the

United States Supreme Court in Clapper v. Amnesty International, 2013 W.L. 673253,

___ S.Ct. ___ (Feb. 26 2013). In Clapper, the court further reviewed the principle of

organizational standing. The Clapper case rejected a claim by the plaintiff when the

court found that the plaintiff had failed to establish that there was a reasonable likelihood

Page 1 – DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S POST-TRIAL MEMORANDUM ON INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 210 Filed 03/04/13 Page 2 of 10
of a harm to occur in the future. The court stated that a “speculative chain of possibilities does not establish that injury … is certainly pending.” Id. While that case involved a review of the federal FISA surveillance statute and not the constitutional claims at issue in this case, the reasoning of the court’s analysis of the standing issue is of particular importance to the case at hand. In this case where the challenged mail policies are no longer in force at the jail, the plaintiff similarly offers only a “speculative chain of possibilities” that it could be subjected to the violations alleged in this case.
The ruling in Clapper is consistent with the decisions cited in Defendant’s PostTrial Brief which demonstrate that there must be a current ongoing threat of injury at the time the court examines whether to award equitable relief, such as a declaratory judgment or permanent injunction which are requested in this case.1

1 See Friends of Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Servs. 528 U.S. 167, 170 (2000) (case may be found “moot if subsequent events made it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behaviour could not reasonably be expected to recur”); County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631 (1979) (case was moot where County complies with court order and displayed no inclination to reinstate discriminatory hiring practices); O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (1974) (even if plaintiffs were subjected to discriminatory practices in past, that is not enough for injunctive relief without continuing, present adverse effects); Log Cabin Republicans v. United States, 658 F.3d 1162, 1167 (9th Cir. 2011) (when a statute is amended or repealed “the case is moot, there is no exception for declaratory relief”); Valero Terrestrial Corp. v. Paige, 211 F.3d 112, 116 (4th Cir. 2000) (statutory changes that discontinue a challenged practice are usually enough to render a case moot, even if the legislature has the power to re-enact the statute after the lawsuit is dismissed); Eggar v. City of Livingston, 40 F.3d 312, 316 (9th Cir. 1994) (plaintiffs lack standing to challenge alleged municipal court policy of denying counsel to indigent persons accused of crime because their being subjected to policy in future was too speculative); Partington v. Gedan, 961 F.2d 852, 862 (9th Cir. 1992), as amended, (July 2, 1992) (attorney challenging disciplinary proceedings could not demonstrate concrete likelihood of future deprivations); Caldwell v. LeFaver, 928 F.2d 331, 335 (9th Cir. 1991) (past exposure to alleged unlawful conduct insufficient to establish standing to seek injunction).

Page 2 – DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S POST-TRIAL MEMORANDUM ON INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 210 Filed 03/04/13 Page 3 of 10

B. Standard for Equitable Relief Defendants agree with plaintiff that the case of eBay v. MercExchange, LLC, 547
U.S. 388, 391 (2006) sets forth the standard for a preliminary injunction. However, plaintiff neglects other considerations that the courts have held to be necessary for a preliminary injunction.
First and foremost, a plaintiff must demonstrate the likelihood of success on the merits. Perfect 10, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 653 F.3d 976, 979-80 (9th Cir. 2011). As set forth in Defendants’ Post-Trial Brief and below, defendants submit that plaintiff has not established success on the merits as to the postcard policy in that the evidence at trial satisfied the standards set forth in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987). See Defs’ Post Trial Brief, pp. 6-11.
Secondly, plaintiff appears to presume it meets the standards for equitable relief because it prevailed at the preliminary injunction stage. However, plaintiff has not demonstrated the need for equitable relief. The evidence at trial supports a finding that the postcard policy is constitutional. Additionally, plaintiff failed to show it suffered “irreparable harm” when it continued to send mail to the jail, anticipating and knowing it would be rejected. A remedy in equity is also not warranted because the jail voluntarily implemented a practice to ensure that the written policy permitting magazines was followed and changed its procedures to provide for due process notices. As well, the postcard policy was changed after this court’s ruling and the evidence at trial established that there is no intention to return to the policy if it is disfavored by the court. Finally, a permanent injunction is not in the public interest given the hesitancy of the federal courts to enjoin local governments and, in particular local law enforcement, from conducting business in a particular way. See, e.g., Rizzo v.Goode, 423 US. 362, 380-81 (1976); Defs’ Post-Trial Brief, p. 13.

Page 3 – DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S POST-TRIAL MEMORANDUM ON INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 210 Filed 03/04/13 Page 4 of 10

Third, plaintiff’s argument that the “courts have repeatedly issued and affirmed

permanent injunctive relief” in such situations is not persuasive. Many of the examples

cited by plaintiff pertain to consent decrees with terms agreed upon by the parties. The

other cases involve no analysis as to why a permanent injunction should be issued or how

the plaintiff had satisfied the criteria for obtaining an injunction. Rather, the courts in

those cases simply referenced or mentioned that a permanent injunction was issued.

None of these cases conducted an analysis of the criteria for issuing an injunction that the

United States Supreme Court has required in cases in which the challenged conduct is no

longer occurring or is unlikely to reoccur. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996);

O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (1974); Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 380-381; City of Los Angeles

v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 108 (1983).

For example, the cases cited by plaintiff reflect the following:

2011 2011 2005 2004 2001
1999

PLN v. Chelan County, Case No. CV-11-337 (E.D. Wa. 2011) PLN v. Spokane County, Case No. 2:11-cv-00029 (E.D. Wa. 2011) PLN v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2005)
Clement v. California Dept. of Corr., 364 F. 3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2004)
Prison Legal News v. Cook, 238 F. 3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2001)
Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957, 958 (9th Cir. 1999)

Consent Decree.
Consent Decree.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals did not examine or address lower court’s decision to grant permanent injunction.2 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals examined the breadth and scope of an injunction, but not whether the standard for an injunction had been met. Opinion has no mention of a permanent injunction. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the Department of Corrections and its officials. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals did not examine or address lower court’s decision to grant permanent injunction

2 The decision from the district court also did not analyze the criteria for issuing an

injunction, but simply ruled that a permanent injunction should be issued after making a

finding of liability. 272 F. Supp. 2d. 1151 (W.D. Wash. 2011).

Page 4 – DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S POST-TRIAL MEMORANDUM ON INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 210 Filed 03/04/13 Page 5 of 10

Moreover, the fact that such injunctions were issued in other cases does not relieve

plaintiff from its burden in establishing the need for a permanent injunction in this case.

Olagues v. Rossoniello, 770 F.2d 791, 799, 803 (9th Cir. 1985) (noting that plaintiff bears

the burden of proof on each of the elements of a permanent injunction).

C. The Facts Presented at Trial Do Not Support an Award of a Permanent Injunction

1. Postcard Policy

a. Lack of Success on the Merits

Defendants have explained in their post-trial brief that this claim should not

succeed on its merits. In addition and in response to plaintiff’s assertions, defendants

point out that Sheriff Dickerson testified that there were approximately 8-10 other

facilities using the postcard policy. The fact that some other jurisdictions have not

implemented a postcard policy has no bearing on its constitutionality.

Furthermore, plaintiff’s assertion that a letter is a more private method of

communication is also without merit. There is no evidence that a letter is treated more

confidentially during handling by corrections officers than a postcard, or that this even

matters. The evidence was that the letters, just like the postcards, are scanned by mail

handlers for illegal content.

The reference to the law library cart further fails to advance plaintiff’s argument

and has no relevance on this case.

b. No Showing of Irreparable Harm

Plaintiff states that it has shown irreparable harm, but fails to explain how it has

suffered this harm. Rather, it argues that, as to the First Amendment allegations, the

court should automatically find irreparable harm. However, as previously stated with

respect to the postcard policy, the court will first need to determine whether the First

Amendment was actually violated. But even when a court determines that a

constitutional violation exists, that does not automatically mean that a plaintiff has

Page 5 – DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S POST-TRIAL MEMORANDUM ON INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 210 Filed 03/04/13 Page 6 of 10
suffered irreparable harm. Plaintiff is correct that there is authority which indicates that the loss of First Amendment freedoms constitutes irreparable injury. However, the cases dealt with an actual threat to free speech due to a policy currently in place, as opposed to the instant case where the policy was changed. See, e.g., Klein v. City of San Clemente, 584 F.3d 1196, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2009) (plaintiff received preliminary injunction against enforcement of currently existing ordinance prohibiting the placement of leaflets on parked vehicles; opinion did not address the higher permanent injunction standard).
Moreover, plaintiff’s argument that defendants “repeatedly interfered” with plaintiff’s communications is disingenuous in that plaintiff was a primary cause of alleged “repeat” violations. After plaintiff knew of defendants’ practices, it failed to notify anyone at the jail of any unconstitutional policies, it intended to take financial advantage of the repeated violations and continued to send mail knowing and expecting it would be rejected.
c. Plaintiff has not argued that a remedy in equity is warranted. It appears that plaintiff has not addressed the third eBay factor to demonstrate that a remedy in equity is warranted. As stated in defendant’s post-trial brief, the evidence does not support this requirement for a permanent injunction.
d. An injunction is not in the public interest. Once again, plaintiff appears to assume that it should prevail in its request for a permanent injunction because it prevailed in its pre-trial request for a preliminary injunction. However, when there is no immediate threat of harm, the federal courts are hesitant to enjoin a local government to conducts its business in a particular way. See Rizzo, 423 US. at 380-81; Defs’ Post-Trial Brief, p. 13.

Page 6 – DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S POST-TRIAL MEMORANDUM ON INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 210 Filed 03/04/13 Page 7 of 10

2. Postcard Policy as to Outgoing Mail Plaintiff has made a separate argument as to the application of the postcard policy to outgoing mail. Plaintiff asserts that the court should treat this differently than the incoming policy which defendants indicate was justified by security concerns, citing the case of Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 408 (1974), overruled in part by Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989). However, the Procunier decision discussed the censorship of mail based on content3. The case at hand is not about regulating particular categories of mail content, but rather concerns mail in the form of a postcard. As well, for purposes of the equitable relief sought by plaintiff with the claims for declaratory judgment and permanent injunction, the postcard policy is no longer in use and, thus, there is no evidence of a potential harm to plaintiff. 3. Magazine Ban
a. Success on the Merits and Lack of Irreparable Harm Defendants have admitted that the prior practice of excluding magazines was unconstitutional.4 However, of primary importance for purposes of the request for equitable relief in the form of a declaratory judgment or permanent injunctive relief, upon the first notification to defendants by plaintiff (the filing of the lawsuit), defendants changed their practice so that it was consistent with the written policy allowing magazines. This practice is no longer followed and, thus, plaintiff cannot succeed in its request for injunctive relief at this stage. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 108 (1983). See also Defs’ Post-Trial Brief, pp. 2-4.

3 The court has previously recognized that the “parties do not dispute that the [jail mail policy] is neutral.” 5/29/12 Opin. & Order (Docket No. 64). 4 Plaintiff asserts that its knowledge of the practice was “revealed” in discovery. Pl’s Post-Trial Memo, p. 8. However, the evidence at trial demonstrated that the practice was reflected on the court’s website and, thus, could not have been “revealed” to plaintiff in discovery.

Page 7 – DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S POST-TRIAL MEMORANDUM ON INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 210 Filed 03/04/13 Page 8 of 10

b. Plaintiff has not argued that a remedy in equity is warranted. As set forth in Section 1.b. above, this requirement for a permanent injunction was not addressed.
c. A Permanent Injunction Would Not Advance the Public Interest. Because the past practice of excluding magazines was changed after notification from plaintiff of an alleged violation, a permanent injunction would be of no benefit to the public. See O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (1974) (even if plaintiffs were subjected to discriminatory practices in the past, that is not enough for injunctive relief without continuing, present adverse effects). 4. Plaintiff’s Due Process Claims
a. Lack of Success on the Merits As with the claim against the exclusion of magazines, defendants admitted in their Answer, that due process was not provided when mail was rejected. However, once defendants were notified of this, the jail changed its procedures. Thus, plaintiff has not shown success on the merits. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 at 108. As set forth above and in Defendant’s Post-Trial Brief, there must be an actual threat of harm to receive equitable relief. See, e.g. Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Norton, 503 F.3d 836, 843 (9th Cir. 2007) (noting that equitable relief “is not automatic”).
b. The Public Interest would not be served with an Injunction. Once again, the alleged unconstitutional conduct is no longer at issue and a permanent injunction against a law enforcement agency would not be of benefit to the public interest. O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. at 488. D. Sheriff Dickerson’s Testimony as to Intent Is Relevant Plaintiff asserts that the court should not consider the credibility of Sheriff Dickerson in deciding whether to issue an injunction. However, rather than an issue of credibility, the issue as to Sheriff Dickerson’s intent is actually about the lack of

Page 8 – DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S POST-TRIAL MEMORANDUM ON INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 210 Filed 03/04/13 Page 9 of 10
sufficiency of plaintiff’s evidence in light of plaintiff’s burden of proof. For example, if this were a claim to be decided by a jury, the court could resolve the matter against plaintiff and issue judgment as a matter of law because plaintiff does not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to demonstrate the threat of irreparable harm. F.R.C.P. 50(a)(1)(A). Even if, for the sake of argument, the standard of F.R.C.P. 50(a)(1)(A) is not met, at the very least, the preponderance of the evidence does not establish a threat of future harm, which is required for the plaintiff to obtain equitable relief. See Olagues v. Rossoniello, 770 F.2d at 799, 803. There is no evidence of an ongoing constitutional violation that needs to be remedied by the court through the issuance of declaratory or injunctive relief. E. Defendant Demonstrated It Will Comply With the Law
Plaintiff seeks to argue that defendants did not adequately show they will comply with the law. However, in making this argument, plaintiff cannot point to any evidence to the contrary. Upon receiving the first notice of alleged unconstitutionality of the magazine and declined mail notification procedures, those were changed. With respect to the postcard policy, the decision in this case was the first to hold such a policy unconstitutional. After the court’s ruling, that policy was also changed. Sheriff Dickerson was clear that he has no desire to go back to it, regardless of this court’s ruling. No evidence was offered to the contrary. / / / / / / / / / / / /

Page 9 – DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S POST-TRIAL MEMORANDUM ON INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 210 Filed 03/04/13 Page 10 of 10

F. Term of Injunction

Defendant agrees with plaintiff that the standard for a permanent injunction is

“indefinite” and submits that is the very reason why a permanent injunction should not be

issued. This extraordinary remedy would place the defendants and their predecessors

under the oversight of the court for years to come. Plaintiff has failed to sustain its

burden of proof to demonstrate that such a remedy is needed in this case. Respectfully submitted this 4th day of March, 2013.

HART

WAGNER LLP

By:

/s/ Steven A. Kraemer

Steven A. Kraemer, OSB No. 882476 Of Attorneys for Defendants

Page 10 – DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S POST-TRIAL MEMORANDUM ON INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

HART WAGNER LLP 1000 S.W. Broadway, Twentieth Floor
Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 222-4499 Facsimile: (503) 222-2301

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 211 Filed 03/05/13 Page 1 of 12
Katherine C. Chamberlain, OSB #042580 katherinec@mhb.com Jesse A. Wing, pro hac vice jessew@mhb.com Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News MacDonald Hoague & Bayless 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104-1745 (206) 622-1604
Marc D. Blackman, OSB #730338 marc@ransomblackman.com Of Attonleys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Ransom Blackman LLP 1001 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1400 Portland, OR 97204 (503) 228-0487
Lance Weber,pro hac vice lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News Human Rights Defense Center 1037 Western Ave., 2nd Floor West Brattleboro, VT 05303 (802) 257-1342

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFF DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,
Defendants.

No.3:12-CV-71-SI
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' POST-TRIAL MEMORANDUM RE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' POST-TRIAL MEMORANDUM RE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (CV 12-71-SI) - 1
9870.05 gc046701

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 211 Filed 03/05/13 Page 2 of 12

The two thousand prisoners who spend time in the Columbia County Jail each year, their faInilies and friends, Plaintiff, and those whose interests it represents, currently enjoy their First Amendment rights to communicate for one reason-the Preliminary Injunction this Court entered on May 29,2012. The vigor with which defendants have defended the case since that time-and their continued insistence that their policies were not only constitutional, but good ideas-demonstrate that declaratory relief and a permanent injunction are the only ways to ensure that the Columbia County Jail will continue to honor those rights.
This record does not warrant acceptance of Defendants' claim that a permanent injunction is unnecessary. The only reasons they give for this claim is that it would be inconvenient to return to their unconstitutional policies and they have not enjoyed the experience of this litigation. The casual trigger for Defendants' unconstitutional policies-a talk by an ulmamed deputy county counsel at an OSSA conference-renders these reasons too slitn a reed on which to deny the relief Plaintiff seeks. Moreover, the reluctant acceptance-not a philosophical embrace-of this Court's preliminary injunction that was displayed by Defendants' employees who testified at trial, belies Defendants' claim that they can be trusted to voluntarily honor these fundamental constitutional principles. Their failure to recognize the constitutional infirmities of their old ways and repudiate them mandates that a permanent injunction be issued. And it certainly militates against burdening Plaintiffs with monitoring the jail's policies and practices and filing another action if and when they are changed.
Moreover, even if the current Sheriff would be expected to act more carefully in the future, that would not guarantee that his successor will do so. The Sheriff acknowledged at trial that he cannot bind his successor. There is no reason to expect that the next Sheriff will not attend another OSSA conference, hear someone talk about the benefits of a postcard-only policy, and decide to implement it.
These circumstances undermine Defendants' argument that declaratory and injunctive relief are unnecessary. For contrary to Defendants' explicit and implicit views about the principles at stake, they are matters of great public importance. A pennanent injunction is

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' POST-TRIAL MEMORANDUM RE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (CV 12-71-SI) - 2
9870.05 gc046701

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Te1206.622.l604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 211 Filed 03/05/13 Page 3 of 12

essential not only to ensure that the Columbia County Jail continues to honor the First Amendment rights of those within and outside that facility, but that other jails in Oregon do so as well. Denying a permanent injunction would not only illegitimately deprive PLN and the public their First Amendment rights, but would constitute a nlissed opportunity to educate those jails.
I. Permanent Injunction Defendants acknowledge that the Supreme Court's 2005 eBay opinion governs, Dkt. 209 at 5, but they cite only to cases that predate eBay, id. at 2, 12, and n. 1, or apply a voluntary cessation standard, id. at 3, which does not apply because Defendants ceased violating the Constitution only when enjoined. Complying with a court order is not voluntary. Defendants lead their brief by relying on City ofLos Angeles v. Lyons, for the claimed proposition that like Mr. Lyons, PLN lacks standing to seek injunctive or even declaratory relief. Dkt. 209 at 7. But there is no fit here and Defendants fail to address the infirmities in their attempt to rely on Lyons, which PLN pointed out in its summary judglnent Reply brief, Dkt. 119 at 19-20. Most obviously, the Supreme Court held that Lyons would have had standing for injunctive reliefifhe had shown that he would likely have another encounter with the police and that the police had an unconstitutional policy or practice. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 105-06. PLN will have future encounters with Defendants when it sends mail to its subscribers in the Columbia County Jail, and Defendants had a Postcard-Only Policy that precluded delivery ofPLN's mailI-which Defendants still defend. So, it is disingenuous for Defendants to pretend Lyons and its progeny apply. PLN has standing to seek equitable relief, which the Court recognized when it granted a preliminary injunction. Defendants claim PLN has not met any of the four elements of a permanent injunction. Dkt. 209 at 5. They are mistaken.

1 Without explanation, Defendants state in their brief that "under the postcard policy, plaintiff s correspondence was distributed to inmates." Dkt. 209 at 15. To the contrary, the undisputed trial evidence established that Defendants repeatedly censored PLN's enveloped nlail pursuant to their Postcard-Only Policy. See, e.g., Trial Exhibits 1-4,6-7,9-14,16,18-19,24-26,31-35,4255,61 (containing sticker stating "As of April 1, 2010 The Columbia County Jail ONLY ACCEPTS POSTCARDS, This applied to ALL incoming and out going mail.")

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' POST-TRIAL MEMORANDUM RE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (CV 12-71-SI) - 3
9870.05 gc046701

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 211 Filed 03/05/13 Page 4 of 12

A. PLN has Proven the Merits of its Challenge to the Postcard-Only Policy At trial, PLN established every fact that the Court relied on in granting its preliminary injunction. PLN showed through the testimony of virtually every defense witness that the Defendants had no contraband probleln and had no history of one; that any difference in the time it takes to process envelopes versus postcards is de minimis; that there is no evidence the preliminary injunction would interfere or has interfered with staff ability to perform their duties; that there is no evidence the injunction has caused or would cause a reduction in security; that there is no evidence the injunction has caused or would cause a ripple effect; that the PostcardOnly Policy caused widespread censorship of prisoner mail and the Inail from PLN and other correspondents; and that the Policy caused a chill on protected speech and undermined the ability of prisoners and their correspondents to communicate Ineaningfully. In short, Defendants' policy was delnonstrated to be irrational-a sine qua non for constitutionality. That means PLN has shown the Defendants' policy violated the first prong of the Turner test, without the need to consider the other three elements. See Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692, 699 (9th Cir. 2005). But Plaintiff proved that the other three elements favor PLN as well. At trial, Plaintiff established that alternative forms of communication such as telephone, visitation, and postcards are not adequate substitutes for letters contained in envelopes. None are private from strangers (as opposed to jail deputies). As a result, prisoners and their correspondents-the evidence showed-refrained from meaningful exchange of information about mental and physical health and other confidential personal matters. They refrained from communicating private identifiers and account information such as with their banks. The undisputed testimony showed that the Postcard-Only Policy reduced speech and that in doing so interfered with rehabilitation, transition back to the community, and avoiding recidivism. On the facts of this case, analysis of the third element---effect on staff resources-is identical to that under first element since the only claimed ilnpacts were on staff time and jail safety, neither of which were iInpacted at all by the Court's injunction.

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' POST-TRIAL MEMORANDUM RE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (CV 12-71-SI) - 4
9870.05 gc046701

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BA YLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 211 Filed 03/05/13 Page 5 of 12

Similarly, the analysis under the fourth element shows that the Defendants adopted a policy to fix a problem they never had, that they have not offered any reason to believe they were about to face, and did so using a method that did not confer any meaningful benefit on the jail but caused substantial harm to the constitutional rights of thousands. Defendants' "response" to having no problem was therefore an exaggeration. This is illustrated by the fact that a nUlnber of well-run facilities cited by the Plaintiff do not have a postcard-only policy, see Trial Exhibits 148-152, and that Federal ICE Detention Standards prohibit facilities that house ICE prisoners from adopting or otherwise enforcing postcard-only policies, see Dkt. 208 at 4 n.2. Defendants' reference to a handful ofjails that have such a policy does not undermine this fact. 2
In their post-trial brief, Defendants claim that "the evidence at trial supports the rationality of the postcard policy," Dkt. 209 at 11, and "the evidence offered at trial delnonstrated that relationship existed," id. at 13. But Defendants point to no testimony or documentary evidence adlnitted at trial in support of these bald assertions. There was no admitted evidence that favors Defendants on any of the Turner factors. Defendants merely offered as evidence that they heard from others at a conference generically that adopting a postcard-only policy could reduce the time it takes to process mail and the risk of contraband entering the jail. In the face of all the evidence offered by Plaintiff that these assertions are not accurate, Defendants offered nothing. They did not offer testimony from anyone with knowledge and experience dealing with dangerous contraband that enveloped mail might pose a greater risk of contraband than postcards. They did not introduce studies or even calculations conducted before and after the Postcard-Only Policy was adopted, implemented, or enjoined showing the amount of contraband, if any, purported to be found in the mail, showing that time was saved or lost, showing any burden on jail resources, or relating to any other factor at issue. At trial, Defendants offered as

2 Defendants erroneously assert that "Plaintiff had previously claimed it was not aware of other jails or prisons that limit inmates to postcards for personal mail." Dkt. 209 at 10. That is not correct. Plaintiff stated that it is not aware of any state prison or federal correctional facility that adopted a postcard-only policy, Dkt. 8'~ 37, and Defendants have not identified any that do.

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' POST-TRlAL MEMORANDUM RE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (CV 12-71-S1) - 5
9870.05 gc046701

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washingto'n 98104
Te1206.622.l604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 211 Filed 03/05/13 Page 6 of 12

evidence only the generic and conclusory view reported second-hand that someone else purportedly believed such a policy could be helpful.
In their post-trial brief, Defendants offered nothing more. They point to a recent unpublished opinion, Althouse v. Palm Beach County Sheriffs Office, 12-80135-CIV, 2013 WL 536072 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 12,2013), which upheld a postcard-only policy in Florida. But in Althouse, the jail's bald assertions that it had a significant contraband problem appear to have gone entirely unchallenged by the plaintiff. It also appears from the opinion that the pro se plaintiff did not challenge the jail's naked claims that contraband was lnuch more easily hidden in enveloped mail, that it took much more time to process enveloped n1ail than to process envelopes, and that the processing time significantly reduced the time that the jail staff could spend on other important lnatters. As a result, the opinion is of no use here.
In contrast, in the case at bar, Defendants failed to show that contraband is much more easily hidden in envelopes. They failed to show that the methods they had used for decades to prevent contraband from entering the Jail became ineffective. And, at trial PLN undermined their assertions that it takes more time to process enveloped mail and that processing time interferes with jail staffs' other duties. See, e.g., Dkt. 209 at 8. (Defendants admit that "Plaintiff was able to show that the time savings for the jail was, at best, minimal.,,).3
And, with virtually no analysis, the Althouse opinion concluded that alternative forms of communication-visits and telephone calls-are adequate. This is directly contrary to this Court's findings in its preliminary injunction order, Dkt. 64 at 20-21, which is strongly supported

3 Defendants clain1 the lack oftilne savings is merely the result of the size of the jail so should be disregarded. They are wrong. First, their policy must be rational for their jail. And second, their speculation is not logical. PLN has shown there was likely no time savings from the PostcardOnly Policy. See Testimony of Sergeant Lee Rigdon. But even a de minimis savings multiplied does not alnount to significant savings for a larger institution. If the Columbia County Jail had spent five fewer seconds for each of 37 pieces of mail, then that would be a total of 3 minutes "saved." In a jail ten times the size, the savings would be 30 minutes-a de minimis savings even for Colulnbia County. And ajail ten times the size would have lnore staff that process the mail rendering such a savings even more insignificant.

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' POST-TRIAL MEMORANDUM RE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (CV 12-71-SI) - 6
9870.05 gc046701

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 211 Filed 03/05/13 Page 7 of 12

by the trial testit110ny ofNataliya Mikhayova, Brad Berg, and Patricia Mendoza. This Court is in the best position to assess the legitimacy of these Defendants' claims based on the undisputed live trial testimony in this contested litigation with argument presented by lawyers on both sides. And, in contrast to Althouse, where jails have faced serious challenges to their postcard-only policies, they have abandoned them. See Trial Exhibits 158 tlrrough 161. The Althouse court's opinion evaluating an uncontested declaration in a pro se case adds nothing to the Court's analysis here.
None of the other handful of rulings that Defendants cite as upholding postcard-only policies are persuasive either. Dkt. 209 at 8-9. Indeed, this Court has already rejected them: "Defendants cite several District Court cases from the District of Arizona addressing im11ate mail policies. Only one, Covell v. Arpaio, 662 F. Supp. 2d 1146 (D. Az. 2009), thoroughly addresses each of the Turner factors," and the "the court declines to follow Covell.,,4 Dkt. 64, at 19. Defendants offer no basis for the Court to reconsider its decision.5

4 The other cited opinions are perfunctory and meaningless as precedent: Rogers v. Maricopa County Sheriffs Office, CV07641PHXDGCDKD, 2008 WL 898721, *2 (D. Ariz. Mar. 31,2008) (dismissing complaint brought under Fourteenth Amendment-not First Amendl11ent-for failure to state a claim because "The Fourteenth Amendment does not guarantee inmates the right to receive 'all' mail."); Jordan v. Arpaio, CV08-856-PHX-DGCECV, 2008 WL 2262401, *2 (D. Ariz. May 30, 2008) (dismissing complaint for failure to state a claim because "Plaintiff fails, however, to allege that the policy does not serve a legitimate penological interest."); Medley v. Arpaio, CV08-086-PHX-MHMDKD, 2008 WL 3911138, *3-4 (D. Ariz. Aug. 21, 2008) (holding plaintiff failed to show that the Defendants' policy barred receipt of legal documents that she sought so denied "without prejudice her Motion for a Prelil11inary Injunction regarding Plaintiffs policy limiting to 'postcards only' all incoming l11ail deemed nonprivileged."); Gibbons v. Arpaio, CV071456PHXSMMJCG, 2008 WL 4447003 (D. Ariz. Oct. 2, 2008) (holding "Plaintiff offers no argument on any of the separate Turner factors" and Plaintiffs affidavits did not address the "merits of the claim or the Turner factors" so "Turner's first prong is satisfied.")

5 It is plain that these opinions were not the product of a meaningful adversarial process in which the truth could have been expected to unfold. Two were dismissed for failure to state a clail11 due to pleading errors, one merely denied a prelil11inary injunction, and in the fourth the opinion reflects that the plaintiff failed support the merits of his claim at all. This is unsurprising since these cases were brought by prisoners pro se. Litigating against the government under a fourpart rational basis balancing test without legal representation in the complex area of the First Amendment and section 1983 litigation would be hard enough for any lay person. It is still more

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' POST-TRlAL MEMORANDUM RE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (CV 12-71-SI)-7
9870.05 gc046701

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
TeI206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 211 Filed 03/05/13 Page 8 of 12

B. PLN Has Suffered an Irreparable Injury for Which Money Damages are Inadequate
In the face of PLN' s citations to long-standing precedent of the United States Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit declaring that First Amendment violations constitute irreparable harm that cannot be remedied by Inoney, Dkt. 208 at 5-6, Defendants cite no contrary authority at all. Nor could they.
"The Supreme Court has made clear that' [t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury." Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976) (emphasis added). There is nothing equivocal about the Supreme Court's adlnonition: a showing that the First Amendment is violated establishes irreparable hann. And the Ninth Circuit has heeded this plain principle. See, e.g., Sammartano v. First Judicial Dist. Court, in &/or County o/Carson City, 303 F.3d 959, 973 (9th Cir. 2002); S.O.C., Inc. v. County o/Clark, 152 F.3d 1136, 1148 (9th Cir. 1998). The undisputed facts at trial show that Defendants repeatedly censored PLN's Inail-an irreparable injury that PLN has already suffered as a matter of law.
Defendants attempt to derail the straightforward analysis of this prong by arguing that PLN did not take steps to notify the Sheriff that his Postcard-Only Policy was unconstitutional. But this allegation isn't relevant, and Defendants fail to cite any precedent to the contrary. A government official's suppression of free speech and free press communicated through the United States mail does not become reparable at law depending on whether the plaintiff tried to stop the suppression in advance. Defendants' failure to mitigate damages defense siInply has no place in the irreparable harm analysis under the First Amendment.
Furthermore, it is undisputable that before PLN filed its lawsuit, Defendants deliberately rejected numerous prisoner complaints that the policy was unconstitutional, the Sheriff testified at trial that he was certain his policy was constitutional, he refused to forgo his policy until the

difficult for a person incarcerated, who cannot easily access legal resources or the internet, and likely cannot obtain discovery on issues of security in the jail in which they are confined.

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' POST-TRIAL MEMORANDUM RE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (CV 12-71-SI) - 8
9870.05 gc046701

MAcDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 211 Filed 03/05/13 Page 9 of 12

Couli enjoined it, and since then Defendants have fought in favor of their policy tooth and nail for the past year. There are no other steps PLN could have taken to "stop the hann from occurring. "
Silnilarly, Defendants claim that PLN "has failed to show the likelihood of future hann, and, thus, an award in equity is not warranted." Dkt. 209 at 29. But this is not PLN's burden to show. Likelihood of future hann is not a component of the eBay standard. And even under voluntary cessation law, it is Defendants, not Plaintiff, who bear the "heavy burden" to show that they have "irrevocably eradicated" their unconstitutional policies. See Dkt. 208 at 13-17. Defendants have not, and cannot meet that burden. Id.
c. Balance of the Hardships Favors PLN
Defendants claim that PLN "has failed to show the likelihood of future harm, and, thus, an award in equity is not warranted." Dkt. 209, at 29. But this is a standing concept, not properly resurrected as a factor in balancing hardships. Consistent with its evaluation of this factor on PLN's motion for preliminary injunction, the Couli should evaluate the hardship of enjoining the policy versus allowing Defendants to enforce it.
And Defendants wrongly claim that PLN has the burden to show likelihood of future hann. This is not a component of the eBay standard and Defendants offer no cites to the contrary. Under voluntary cessation law, which is the only precedent Defendant tries to fall back on, it is Defendants' who bear a "heavy burden" to show that they have "irrevocably eradicated" their unconstitutional policies. See Dkt. 208 at 13-17. Defendants did not voluntarily cease their Postcard-Only Policy and they have not, and cannot meet their heavy burden.
On the merits of this factor, the Couli held in its Preliminary Injunction that the hann to PLN caused by the Postcard-Only Policy tips the equities in PLN's favor. The evidence ofhann established at trial confirmed the Couli's conclusion. And Defendants have failed to identify any way in which a permanent injunction would constitute even an inconvenience let alone a hardship on theln. When granting the Preliminary Injunction, the Couli held that it was insufficient evidence of a hardship that "Defendants face the possibility of spending 30 to 60

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' POST-TRIAL MEMORANDUM RE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (CV 12-71-SI) - 9
9870.05 gc04670J

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 211 Filed 03/05/13 Page 10 of 12
additional minutes each day opening and inspecting letters." Dkt. 64 at 23. At trial, PLN showed that any impact was far less; it was negligible at best. Since then, Defendants were ordered to halt their policy and claim they are in compliance with the Court's existing injunction. That means they face no hardship whatsoever.
D. A Permanent Injunction is in the Public Interest As to this prong too, Defendants state their position in a variety of ways but they all boil down to the same argument that an injunction should not issue because PLN cannot show a threat of immediate harm. But the only reason a violation will not occur is because the Defendants are subject to the court's order, which should be converted from a preliminary to permanent injunction. More importantly, however, is that Defendants' argument is ilTelevant to the public interest analysis. As the Couli explained in its Preliminary Injunction, "The public interest inquiry primarily addresses [the] impact on non-parties rather than patiies." Dkt. 64 at 23-24 (quoting Sammartano v. First Judicial Dist. Court, in &for County ofCarson City, 303 F.3d 959, 974 (9th Cir. 2002». The Court then held that this factor: "favors PLN. A court order enjoining Defendants from enforcing the postcard-only mail policy will permit non-party members of the public to more easily communicate with inmates." Dkt. 64 at 24. That remains true today. As the Ninth Circuit has declared, "it is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party's constitutional rights." Sammartano, 303 F.3d at 974. E. Magazine Ban and Due Process In their opening brief, Defendants hardly mention their magazine ban and their failure to afford due process. Accordingly, PLN relies on its opening brief articulating the reasons that the Court should enter declaratory and injunctive relief on both of these claims.

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' POST-TRIAL MEMORANDUM RE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (CV 12-71-SI) - 10
9870.05 gc046701

MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 211 Filed 03/05/13 Page 11 of 12
DATED this 5th day of March, 2013.
MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS
lsi Jesse Wing KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN OSB #042580 JESSE WING Admitted Pro Hac Vice Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' POST-TRIAL MEMORANDUM RE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (CV 12-71-SI) - 11
9870.05 gc04670J

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622. I604 Fax 206.343.3961

Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 211 Filed 03/05/13 Page 12 of 12
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 5, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing to the Clerk of
the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: • Marc D. Blackman nlarc@ransolnblackman.com,pat@ransomblackman.coln • Steven A. Kraemer sak@hartwagner.com,rcd@hartwagner.com • Gregory R. Roberson grr@hartwagner.com,cej@hartwagner.com • Lynn S. Walsh walsh@europa.com • Lance Weber lweber@humanrightsdefensecenter.org,ahull@humanrightsdefensecenter.org
MACDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS
Is/Jesse Wing KATHERINE C. CHAMBERLAIN OSB #042580 JESSE WING Admitted Pro Hac Vice (206) 622-1604 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Prison Legal News

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' POST-TRIAL MEMORANDUM RE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (CV 12-71-SI) - 12
9870.05 gc046701

MACDoNALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel 206.622.1604 Fax 206.343.3961

 </s> IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,

Case No.: 3:12-cv-00071-SI

Plaintiff, v.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; JEFFREY DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,

Defendants.

Jesse Wing and Katherine C. Chamberlain, Macdonald, Hoague & Bayless, 1500 Hoge Building, 705 Second Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104; Lance Weber, Human Rights Defense Center, 1037 Western Avenue, Second Floor, West Brattleboro, VT 05303; Marc D. Blackman, Ransom Blackman, LLP, 1001 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 1400, Portland, OR 97204. Attorneys for Plaintiff.
Steven A. Kraemer and Gregory R. Roberson, Hart Wagner, LLP, 1000 S.W. Broadway, 20th Floor, Portland, OR 97205. Attorneys for Defendants.

SIMON, District Judge. INTRODUCTION
This case concerns the constitutionality of a county jail’s inmate mail policies. Defendants Columbia County, the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office (the “CCSO”), and Sheriff Jeffrey Dickerson (collectively “Defendants”) operate the county jail in Columbia County,

Oregon (the “Jail”). Plaintiff Prison Legal News (“PLN”) alleges that Defendants violated the
First Amendment by rejecting dozens of PLN’s publications and letters mailed to inmates
incarcerated in the Jail. PLN also alleges that Defendants violated the Fourteenth Amendment by
failing to provide both PLN and inmates with notice of and an opportunity to appeal the Jail’s
rejection of PLN’s publications and letters. PLN alleges that these violations are traceable to
three policies in effect at the Jail: (1) a policy limiting inmates’ personal mail, both incoming and
outgoing, to postcards only (the “postcard-only policy”); (2) a policy prohibiting inmates from
receiving magazines (the “magazine policy”); and (3) a policy that failed to provide for constitutionally adequate procedural due process protections (the “notice and appeal policy”).1
Based on these allegations, PLN makes two claims for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
which provides a cause of action against state and local governments and their officials for
violations of a person’s federal constitutional or statutory rights. In its first claim, PLN asserts
that Defendants’ postcard-only and magazine policies violate PLN’s First Amendment rights, as
well as the First Amendment rights of inmates at the Jail and their other correspondents (the
“speech claim”). Compl. ¶¶ 5.1-5.4. In its second claim, PLN asserts that Defendants’ notice and
appeal policy violates PLN’s Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process rights and the
procedural due process rights of inmates and their other correspondents (the “due process
claim”). Compl. ¶¶ 5.5-5.8
1 As discussed below, Defendants contend that they did not have “policies” that prohibited magazines or failed to provide constitutionally sufficient procedural due process. Rather, they contend that Jail staff merely failed to deliver magazines and afford proper notice in practice. Whether Defendants had such policies or Jail staff simply failed to deliver magazines and afford proper notice in practice is crucial to determining whether Columbia County, the CCSO, and Sheriff Dickerson in his official capacity are liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). In adopting the shorthand “magazine policy” and “notice and appeal policy,” the Court merely names those portions of PLN’s allegations and does not prejudge whether Defendants’ conduct with respect to magazines and procedural due process protections was the result of “policies.”
Page 2 – FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

In response, Defendants maintain that the postcard-only policy is constitutional. They admit, however, that inmates have a First Amendment right to receive magazines and inmates and their correspondents have a Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process. Am. Answer at ¶¶ 1.1, 5.2, 5.6; Dkt. 203. Defendants also admit that they rejected dozens of PLN publications, including numerous issues of PLN’s eponymous journal and that Defendants failed to provide PLN or the inmate-addressees with adequate due process notice and an opportunity to appeal those rejections. Am. Answer; Dkt. 203. Despite these admissions, Defendants contend that they did not have a “policy” of prohibiting magazines. Rather, they argue that CCSO staff simply, but incorrectly, rejected magazines notwithstanding an official “policy” that stated that magazines were permitted. Defendants also contend that CCSO staff failed to afford constitutionally sufficient procedural due process notwithstanding an official policy to the contrary.
Shortly after filing this action in January 2012, PLN moved for a preliminary injunction to enjoin Defendants “from enforcing unconstitutional jail mail policies” and to order Defendants to provide inmates, PLN, and inmates’ other correspondents with procedural due process protections. Dkt. 7. In Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), the United States Supreme Court promulgated a four-factor test to guide courts in determining whether a correctional institution’s challenged regulations satisfy constitutional requirements. On May 29, 2012, this Court issued an Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part PLN’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Dkt. 64; Prison Legal News v. Columbia Cnty., 3:12-cv-00071-SI, 2012 WL 1936108 (D. Or. May 29, 2012). The Court found that PLN was likely to succeed in showing that Defendants’ postcard-only policy failed to satisfy the four-factor test set forth in Turner. Accordingly, the Court enjoined Defendants “from restricting all incoming and outgoing inmate
Page 3 – FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

personal mail to postcards only.” Dkt. 64 at 26. On the basis of the record available at the time, the Court concluded that Defendants’ inmate mail policy permitted magazines, although the Court noted that Defendants had admitted that they failed to deliver PLN’s journal in practice. The Court found that there was an insufficient evidentiary record to determine whether Defendants unconstitutionally failed to afford inmates and their correspondents procedural due process.
In its preliminary injunction opinion, the Court also found that PLN had standing to assert its claims in two ways. Dkt. 64 at 10-13. First, the Court found that PLN had standing in its own right because Defendants rejected dozens of pieces of mail sent from PLN to inmates. Second, the Court found that PLN had standing pursuant to the “overbreadth doctrine.” According to the overbreadth doctrine, a plaintiff “may challenge an overly broad statute or regulation by showing that it may inhibit the First Amendment rights of individuals who are not before the court.” 4805 Convoy, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 183 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 1999). At that stage in the proceedings, the Court did not consider whether PLN had standing to obtain a permanent injunction. That issue is discussed in the Conclusions of Law below.
The Court denied PLN’s motions for summary judgment, and the case was set for trial. Dkt. 125. In its Complaint, PLN requested a permanent injunction, declaratory relief, and nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages. Compl. at ¶¶ 7.1-7.3. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 42(b), the Court bifurcated the case so that two separate trials could be held. Dkt. 198. The first trial, held February 6-8, 2013, was tried to the bench and is intended to resolve liability and, if appropriate, equitable relief.2 After trial, the parties filed post-trial briefs. Dkt. 208-11. These Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law address liability and equitable
2 The parties agreed that the Court should resolve all liability issues without a jury. Pl.’s Trial Br. at 2; Defs.’ Trial Br. at 2; Pretrial Conference Tr. at 7-8.
Page 4 – FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

relief. A second trial, before a jury, may be necessary to resolve any remaining claim for damages.
FINDINGS OF FACT Based on the evidence presented at trial, the Court makes the following findings of fact pursuant to Rule 52(a). To the extent any of the findings of fact should more properly be considered conclusions of law, they should be treated as such. A. Credibility of Witnesses In these findings of fact, the Court relies on the testimony of the following witnesses who testified at trial: former CCSO Sergeant Bryan Cutright; former Jail Commander Jim Carpenter; former CCSO Sergeant Raquel Miller; former CCSO Sergeant Ralph Lee Rigdon; Undersheriff Andrew Moyer; Sheriff Jeffrey Dickerson; Paul Wright; and Patricia Mendoza. Having observed and considered the testimony of each of these witnesses, the Court concludes that they provided credible testimony. B. The Parties PLN is a project of the Human Rights Defense Center, whose mission is to “advocate for progressive reform and change within the nation’s criminal justice system[.]” Wright Test. at 4.3 PLN publishes a monthly magazine of the same name. Id. at 5. In addition, PLN operates several websites, publishes nonfiction reference books, arranges public speaking and advocacy on behalf of prisoners, and organizes campaigns seeking “reform and change within the criminal justice system both locally and nationally.” Id. PLN publishes and mails to inmates a variety of publications. These include:
3 At this time, neither party has ordered an official transcript of the trial. The Court’s citations to the record are to unofficial and uncorrected transcripts. In the event that an official transcript is prepared, page numbers may differ.
Page 5 – FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

(1) PLN’s monthly journal, “Prison Legal News.” See Ex. 66; (2) Informational brochures (one double-sided page). See Ex. 67; (3) Subscription renewal letters. See Ex. 56; (4) Book offers (one double-sided page). See Ex. 69. (5) Book catalogs (one double-sided page). See Ex. 68; and (6) Fundraising appeals. See Ex. 64. PLN combines informational brochures, book catalogs, and book offers into a single mailing that it calls an “info pack.” Wright Test. at 16; see, e.g., Exs. 1-27. PLN combines subscription renewal letters and informational brochures into a single mailing that it calls a “subscription renewal pack.” See, e.g., Exs. 56-63. Info packs, subscription renewal packs, and fundrainsing appeals are mailed in envelopes. Sheriff Dickerson has served as the Sheriff of Columbia County since 2009. Dickerson Test. at 206. He is the “chief executive officer of the peace in Columbia County” and is paid by Columbia County. Id. Sheriff Dickerson runs the CCSO. Id. The CCSO employees the equivalent of 38 full-time employees. Id. at 139. At the time the Jail adopted the postcard-only policy in March 2010, the Jail had approximately 200 inmates. Cutright Test. at 81. The inmate population dropped to approximately 130 in May 2012. Id.; Dickerson Test. at 69. On average, the Jail processes approximately 35 pieces of outgoing inmate mail and 37 pieces of incoming inmate mail each day. Miller Test. at 176-77; Dkt. 201. C. The Jail’s Inmate Mail Policies The parties introduced ten versions or iterations of the Jail’s written inmate mail policy (“IMP”) into evidence, ranging from the policy adopted in January 2008 to the policy adopted in July 2012. Exs. 113, 272-76, 297-300. The October 2011 IMP was the policy in effect when
Page 6 – FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

PLN filed this action. Ex. 113. All of the IMPs distinguish between legal (sometimes called “privileged”) mail and personal mail. Legal mail is inmate mail to or from individuals and agencies such as courts, attorneys, CCSO staff, the governor, and the state attorney general. See, e.g., Exs. 113, 272. Inmates are largely free to send or receive legal or privileged mail without restriction. Personal mail is inmate mail to or from friends, family, organizations, and businesses. See, e.g., Ex. 272. D. The Postcard-Only Policy
In 2009, Sheriff Dickerson, Undersheriff Moyer, and Commander Carpenter attended a conference of the Oregon State Sheriffs’ Association. Carpenter Test. at 148. During the conference, the Washington County Sheriff’s Office presented a session on postcard-only inmate mail policies. The Washington County Sheriff’s Office advised attendees that a postcard-only policy would enhance the security and safety of jails and save time. Dickerson Test. at 144-45. Based on what he learned at the conference, Commander Carpenter believed that with a postcard-only policy “there would be less chance of contraband because there were not envelopes” in which to conceal contraband. Carpenter Test. at 150.
After the conference, the CCSO considered implementing a postcard-only policy. Id. at 135-37. Although one of the rationales for the postcard-only policy discussed at the conference was the prevention of contraband, the Jail did not have a problem with contraband arriving in the mail. Commander Carpenter testified that during his 22-year career at the Jail he could recall contraband entering the Jail through the mail only one time:
[COUNSEL:] But the jail didn’t have a problem with contraband coming in through the mail prior to the adoption of the postcard-only policy, did it? [MR. CARPENTER:] No, ma’am.
Page 7 – FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

[COUNSEL:] In fact, in your 22 year tenure, you can only think of one time when contraband may have come in through the mail? [MR. CARPENTER:] We believe so. Due to our diligence.
Id. at 134. Sergeant Miller, who processed the mail “many, many times” over the course of eleven years working for the CCSO, never personally found anything “unsafe” in the mail. Miller Test. at 162, 179. During a meeting convened to discuss implementing a postcard-only policy, no one stated that contraband had been entering the Jail through the mail. Id. at 136.
Another of the proposed rationales for adopting a postcard-only policy was that it could save time. The amount of time the Jail could save by switching to a postcard-only policy, however, was de minimis. Sergeant Rigdon testified that inspecting a letter required only a few seconds more than inspecting a postcard:
[COUNSEL:] So you had a lot of experience processing inmate mail at the Columbia County Jail, right? [MR. RIGDON:] Yes, sir. [COUNSEL:] And based on your experience it takes few moments or seconds to open an envelope; is that true? [MR. RIGDON:] Correct. [COUNSEL:] And it takes a second or two to take the letter out of the envelope?
[MR. RIGDON:] Yes. [COUNSEL:] And it takes a few seconds to a scan a letter, right? [MR. RIGDON:] Yes. If it is one page, yeah. If it is several pages, it might take longer, but yeah. [COUNSEL:] And it probably takes the same amount of time to scan a letter that it takes to scan a postcards?
Page 8 – FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

[MR. RIGDON:] If we are talk talking about a one page type deal, I would say, yes, that's probably accurate. [COUNSEL:] So any increase [in the] amount of time [it takes] to process a letter versus a postcard is caused by opening a letter and taking the letter out of the envelope; is that correct? [MR. RIGDON:] Yes, sir. [COUNSEL:] And that increased amount of time is a few seconds or a few moments, right? [MR. RIGDON:] Well, I have never timed it, sir but yes. Rigdon Test. at 11. Commander Carpenter added that he was unaware whether the postcard-only policy “actually saved any time.” Carpenter Test. at 135. Nonetheless, Commander Carpenter recommended to Sheriff Dickerson that the CCSO adopt a postcard-only policy. Dickerson Test. at 146-47. Sheriff Dickerson agreed and directed the CCSO to implement the policy. Id. at 147. Defendants have identified three reasons for why they adopted the postcard-only policy: (1) to makes their procedures consistent with other sheriffs’ offices; (2) to prevent the introduction of contraband into the Jail; and (3) to save time. Cutright Test. at 76; Dickerson Test. at 53, 145. Although Defendants implemented the postcardonly policy, in part, to prevent the introduction of contraband into the Jail, Sheriff Dickerson agreed that he did not implement the policy “to solve a known problem” of contraband entering the Jail. Dickerson Test. at 54 (emphasis added). At the time they adopted the postcard-only policy, Defendants believed that this policy would be constitutional. According to Commander Carpenter, “Washington [C]ounty said that [postcard-only policies] had been tested in other states and that it went through the courts in several other states and that they felt it was a legal thing to do.” Carpenter Test. at 152-53. Sheriff Dickerson recalled “a presentation by Washington County that included a lawyer
Page 9 – FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

advising that the limited knowledge so far about postcards was that it had been tried in at least one court” and that court found that a postcard-only policy was constitutional. Dickerson Test. at 147.
The March 2010 IMP was the first IMP at the Jail to adopt a postcard-only policy. Ex. 299. It provided that “[a]ll correspondence to and from inmates of the Columbia County jail will be in the form of a post card [sic] unless it is legal or official mail.” Ex. 113. Under a heading labeled “Outgoing mail,” the policy added that “[a]ll outgoing mail from inmates to their family and friends will be in the form of a postcard o[r] special occasion card that has been purchased from the Columbia County commissary account.” Id. The Jail adopted revised IMPs in July 2011 and October 2011. Exs. 113, 300. Those IMPs retained the postcard-only policy in substantially the same form.
After PLN filed this action on January 13, 2012, the Jail adopted several revised IMPs. Exs. 272-76. The Jail’s revised policies, promulgated in January, February, and May, retained the postcard-only policy. Exs. 272-74. The May 2012 IMP provided that “[e]xcept as otherwise provided below, personal mail may be sent and received by inmates only in postcard form.” Ex. 274 at 3. Unlike the IMPs in effect before PLN filed this action, the January, February, and May 2012 IMPs contained an exception to the postcard-only policies for inmates who were within 30 days of completing their sentence. The Jail issued revised IMPs that did not contain a postcard-only policy after the Court issued its preliminary injunction on May 29, 2012. Exs. 275-76. E. Magazines
All of the IMPs provided that inmates may receive periodicals, so long as the periodicals were sent directly from the publisher or a bookstore. Exs. 113, 272-76, 296-300. Nonetheless,
Page 10 – FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Defendants did not in fact allow magazines to enter the Jail. Jail staff did not consult or follow the IMPs when deciding whether to permit inmates to receive magazines. Dickerson Test. at 242; Moyer Test. at 188. Instead, Jail staff relied on the Jail’s written inmate manual, which expressly stated that the Jail does “not accept magazines.” Ex. 107-11; Cutright Test. at 46; Dickerson Test. at 243. Commander Carpenter testified that it was the CCSO’s actual practice to prohibit magazines in the Jail. Carpenter Test. at 131. During the course of his 22-year career with the CCSO, Commander Carpenter only once observed a magazine arrive by mail for an inmate, and, on that occasion, Jail staff rejected it. Id. Sergeant Rigdon testified that he believed the Jail had a policy prohibiting magazines. Rigdon Test. at 5. Sergeant Miller testified that it was her understanding that magazines were not permitted in the Jail. Miller Test. at 21. On March 23, 2010, Sergeant Cutright distributed a memorandum to corrections staff and inmates that stated that “[m]agazines are not allowed inside the facility.” Ex. 98; Cutright Test. at 52. That memorandum remained in inmate areas of the Jail until May 2012. Moyer Test. at 203. The CCSO’s website also stated that magazines were not permitted in the Jail. Exs. 100-01. On two occasions, inmates filed inmate request forms asking if they could receive magazines. In both cases, Jail staff replied that magazines are not permitted. Exs. 143, 194; Cutright Test. at 57-58. F. Notice and Appeal
The Jail’s IMPs state that inmates will receive notice when the Jail rejects incoming inmate mail. They also state that inmates should receive an opportunity to appeal the Jail’s censorship decisions. The October 2011 IMP provided, for example:
If mail is rejected the inmate/addressee will receive written notification explaining: i. The correspondence has been rejected, ii. The reason it was rejected,
Page 11 – FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

iii. The process to informally appeal the rejection to the jail commander.
A copy of the notification will be placed in the inmate’s file. Ex. 113; see also Exs. 296-99. Notwithstanding this provision, CCSO staff “rarely” provided inmates with notice when the Jail rejected incoming mail. Cutright Test. at 61, 64-66.
The October 2011 IMP did not require Jail staff to notify the senders of incoming mail when staff rejected their mail. It also did not require Jail staff to notify inmates when the Jail rejected outgoing mail.
After PLN filed this action, the Jail adopted several substantially revised IMPs. These IMPs promulgated new rules governing notice and appeal requirements for incoming inmate mail. The January and February 2012 IMPs contained several paragraphs addressing notice. Ex. 272 (January 2012 IMP) and 273 (February 2012 IMP). Paragraph 30, located in a section of each of these IMPs titled “Regulating Inmate Mail,” provided:
Normally, mail handlers confiscate prohibited items. The sender of confiscated mail must be notified pursuant to paragraph 31. . . .
a. [ . . . ]
b. Mail handlers will use a Prohibited Mail Slip to inform the inmate of the confiscation and use a copy as a tag for the items. They will place confiscated items in the inmate’s property storage[.]
c. Mail handlers must notify the sender in writing that mail they sent was confiscated or not delivered to the inmate, unless the inmate is no longer in custody. They should use a Prohibited Mail Slip for the notification. Any notice will give the reason and explain how the sender can informally appeal the action.
Page 12 – FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Ex. 273. Paragraph 31, located under the heading “Processing Incoming Mail,” requires mail handlers to “[s]end a notice of right to reconsideration with returned mail. Send a notice of right to reconsideration to senders of confiscated mail.” Id.
The February 2012 IMP also provided that “[m]ail handlers will use a Prohibited Mail Slip to inform the inmate and the sender when mail is returned to sender.” Id. The Prohibited Mail Notice consists of check-boxes allowing a mail handler to indicate the reason that a piece of incoming mail was returned or confiscated. The check-box choices include such descriptions as: “personal mail and not on a post card”; “contains sexually explicit material”; “did not come directly from a publisher.” At the bottom of the Prohibited Mail Notice is a paragraph describing the appeal process. Ex. 273. The January and February 2012 IMPs, however, did not provide that inmates should receive notice when the Jail rejected or censored outgoing inmate mail.
The Jail revised the notice and appeal provisions again in the May, June, and July 2012 IMPs. The July 2012 IMP, the most recent IMP received in evidence, provides for a notice and appeal process for both incoming and outgoing inmate mail. Ex. 276. With respect to incoming inmate mail, the July 2012 IMP provides that Jail staff will provide a Prohibited Mail Notice to both the sender and the intended inmate when the Jail rejects incoming mail. Id. For outgoing mail, the July 2012 IMP states that both “inmate and addressee will be provided with a Prohibited Mail Notice[.]” Id. A separate section addressing confiscated mail provides that if “a Jail Supervisor signs a Prohibited Mail Notice, the sender and addressee of the confiscated mail must be notified of the confiscation whether the disposition was to return the mail, store it, or destroy it.” Id. The IMP provides an appeal process for both inmates and their unincarcerated correspondents. Id. A sample Prohibited Mail Notice is attached to the July 2012 IMP. Like the
Page 13 – FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Prohibited Mail Notice attached to the February 2012 IMP, it requires Jail staff to indicate the reason why the mail was rejected. Id. It also explains the appeal process. Id. G. Effects of Defendants’ Policies
The Jail returned or failed to deliver dozens of PLN publications mailed to inmates, including PLN’s journal, info packs, subscription renewal packs, and fundraising appeals. Wright Test. at 17; Exs. 1-15, 17-50, 52-65; Dkt. 203. The Jail also returned nearly 20 letters sent from Lucy Lennox, an unincarcerated individual, to inmates. Exs. 71-87, 89. Inmates filed numerous grievances with the CCSO protesting the postcard-only policy. Exs. 130-33, 135, 140. Further, Defendants stipulated that they “did not provide PLN or the prison-addressees due process notice or an opportunity to appeal the censorship decisions when the Jail censored” PLN’s mail. Dkt. 203. Defendants also stipulated that they “did not provide Ms. Lennox or the prisoner-addressees with due process notice or an opportunity to appeal the censorship decisions when the Jail censored” mail Ms. Lennox sent to inmates. Id.
In addition, the postcard-only policy prohibited inmates and their correspondents from sending a variety of items through the mail. Sheriff Dickerson confirmed that the policy would prohibit items such as children’s report cards, bills in need of payment, and articles printed from the internet:
[COUNSEL: The postcard-only policy] prevented families from sending their children’s report cards, right? [SHERIFF DICKERSON:] They couldn’t send the actual card. [ . . . ] [COUNSEL:] The postcard-only policy would prevent copies of bills being sent to prisoners, right? [SHERIFF DICKERSON:] Yes. Generally.
Page 14 – FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

[COUNSEL:] Prevent sending doctors’ reports? [SHERIFF DICKERSON:] Yes. [COUNSEL:] Would prevent copies of articles that were published in newspaper or magazines or on the Internet, right? [SHERIFF DICKERSON:] Yes. [COUNSEL:] Prevent educational, community or religious organizations sending in lessons, whether religious or otherwise, right? [SHERIFF DICKERSON:] Yes. Dickerson Test. at 78-79. Patricia Mendoza, whose husband was incarcerated in the Jail, was unable to mail her husband a legal document because of the policy. Mendoza Test. at 7. In addition to preventing inmates and their correspondents from sending items through the mail, the postcard-only policy reduced the quality and quantity of communication between inmates and their correspondents. Sheriff Dickerson testified that the postcard-only policy limited the amount of space in which an inmate could write. He added that the limitation on space resulted in “a reduction in communication” and a “minimization of [inmates’] speech.” Dickerson Test. at 74-75. The postcard-only policy also caused inmates and their correspondents to limit the topics they communicated about through the mail. Ms. Mendoza explained that she did not feel comfortable addressing some topics on postcards because they did not feel private: “I just didn’t feel comfortable saying certain things because it is open mail. I didn’t know if our local post office was going to read it. . . . I didn’t feel comfortable writing certain things.” Mendoza Test. at 4-5. She was also concerned that her children might read the postcards. “Normally we talk about our kids or financial issues. I was concerned about what he would write
Page 15 – FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

on a postcard. If my kids were to check the mail I didn’t know if they were going to read my mail.” Id. at 5.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW As noted above, PLN seeks injunctive, declaratory, and monetary relief for violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Pursuant to the Court’s order bifurcating this case, presently before the Court is the issue of liability and, if appropriate, equitable relief. A. Preliminary Legal Issues 1. Standing Defendants challenge PLN’s standing to obtain a permanent injunction.4 Defs.’ Post-Trial Br. at 1-4. Defendants argue that because they “are no longer engaging in the conduct [that] plaintiff asserts is unconstitutional,” there is “not a real and immediate threat that the same deprivation will occur in the future.” Defs.’ Post-Trial Br. at 1. Among other requirements, a plaintiff has standing to seek “injunctive relief only if he can show that he faces a ‘real or immediate threat that he will again be wronged in a similar way.’” Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 970 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 111 (1983)) (emphasis added); see also Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 493 (2009) (“To seek injunctive relief, a plaintiff must show that he is under threat of suffering ‘injury in fact’ that is concrete and particularized [and] the threat must be actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical . . . .” (citation omitted)). The Ninth Circuit has described two ways in which a plaintiff may demonstrate that an injury is likely to recur: “First, a plaintiff may show that the
4 Defendants also argued at the preliminary injunction stage of this litigation that PLN lacked standing and that this case was moot. In its preliminary injunction opinion, the Court rejected those arguments. Prison Legal News v. Columbia Cnty., 3:12-cv-00071-SI, 2012 WL 1936108, at *5-6 (D. Or. May 29, 2012). Defendants’ standing argument here applies only to PLN’s request for equitable relief.
Page 16 – FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

defendant had, at the time of the injury, a written policy, and that the injury ‘stems from’ that policy. Second, the plaintiff may demonstrate that the harm is part of a ‘pattern of officially sanctioned . . . behavior, violative of the plaintiffs’ [federal] rights.’” Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990, 998 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 861 (9th Cir. 2001). (alterations in original). “Standing is determined by the facts that exist at the time the complaint is filed.” Clark v. City of Lakewood, 259 F.3d 996, 1006 (9th Cir. 2001).
PLN has shown that its injuries stemmed from written policies or officially sanctioned patterns of practice that were in effect at the time PLN filed its complaint. As discussed below, at that time, Defendants maintained written policies and customs that restricted inmates’ incoming and outgoing personal mail to postcards, prohibited magazines, and failed to provide for constitutionally sufficient due process notice.5 PLN’s injuries resulted from these policies and customs. As such, PLN has standing to pursue injunctive relief.
2. Mootness Defendants also argue that PLN’s claims are moot, again because Defendants’ have amended their policies. Defs.’ Post-Trial Br. at 3. Unlike standing questions, mootness “inquiries . . . require courts to look to changing circumstances that arise after the complaint is filed[.]” Clark, 259 F.3d at 1006 (emphasis added). Nonetheless, a “defendant’s voluntary cessation of allegedly unlawful conduct ordinarily does not suffice to moot a case.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 174 (2000). A case becomes moot only “if subsequent events made it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.” Id. at 189 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis added). The “party alleging mootness bears a heavy burden in seeking dismissal.”
5 The existence and scope of these policies are discussed below.
Page 17 – FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Rosemere Neighborhood Ass’n v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 581 F.3d 1169, 1173 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
In response to the Court’s preliminary injunction, Defendants eliminated the postcardonly policy. Further, Defendants have voluntarily amended the IMP to provide adequate due process protections and clarified that the Jail permits inmates to receive magazines. Nonetheless, it is not absolutely clear that Defendants will not reinstitute the postcard-only policy or the magazine ban in the future. Nor is it absolutely clear that Defendants will not roll back the IMP’s procedural due process protections. Although Sheriff Dickerson testified credibly that he will not reinstitute any constitutionally violative policies, the position of Columbia County Sheriff is an elected office and a future sheriff may not choose to adhere to the same policies. Thus, Defendants have failed to meet their heavy burden of demonstrating that the allegedly wrongful conduct could not reasonably be expected to recur. B. Liability
To prevail on a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of evidence (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. Long v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006) (elements of § 1983 claim); Dias v. Elique, 436 F.3d 1125, 1129 (9th Cir. 2006) (a plaintiff must prove § 1983 claim by a preponderance of evidence).
There is no dispute in this case that Defendants acted under color of state law. Thus, the only question is whether Defendants violated rights secured by the Constitution. The Court considers this question separately with respect to the postcard-only policy, magazine policy, and notice and appeal policy.
Page 18 – FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Postcard-Only Policy
PLN alleges that Defendants violated its First Amendment rights, and the First
Amendment rights of inmates and their correspondents, by rejecting inmate mail that was not on
a postcard. Compl. at ¶¶ 5.1-5.4. Defendants admit that they rejected numerous letters sent from
PLN to inmates. Dkt. 203. They contend, however, that their postcard-only policy does not
violate the First Amendment. Defs.’ Post-Trial Br. at 6-11.
Publishers, such as PLN, “have a First Amendment right to communicate with prisoners
by mail, and inmates have a First Amendment right to receive this mail.”6 Prison Legal News v.
Lehman, 397 F.3d 692, 699 (9th Cir. 2005) (“PLN II”). The scope and potency of these rights
are, however, “subject to substantial limitations and restrictions in order to allow prison officials
to achieve legitimate correctional goals and maintain institutional security.” Walker v. Sumner,
917 F.2d 382, 385 (9th Cir. 1990). To determine whether a correctional institution’s regulation
that “impinges on inmates’ constitutional rights” is valid, the court must determine whether that
regulation “is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.”7 Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S.
78, 89 (1987).
6 The First Amendment is made applicable against state and local governments by the Fourteenth Amendment. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 277 (1964).
7 PLN contends that the standard articulated in Turner applies only to incoming mail, and the standard articulated in Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974), overruled in part by Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989), applies to prison regulations governing outgoing mail. Pl.’s Post-Trial Br. at 7. PLN is correct. Martinez “is controlling law in the Ninth Circuit and elsewhere as applied to claims involving outgoing prisoner mail.” Barrett v. Belleque, 544 F.3d 1060, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Abbott, 490 U.S. at 413 (“[T]he logic of our analyses in Martinez and Turner requires that Martinez be limited to regulations concerning outgoing correspondence.”). Nonetheless, it is unnecessary to apply the more demanding Martinez test to the postcard-only policy with respect to outgoing mail. Under Martinez, “the regulation . . . in question must further an important or substantial governmental interest unrelated to the suppression of expression,” and “the limitation of First Amendment freedoms must be no greater than is necessary or essential to the protection of the particular governmental interest involved.” 416 U.S. at 413. The Martinez standard is more protective of inmate rights than the Turner
Page 19 – FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

In Turner, the Supreme Court promulgated “a four-pronged test that guides courts in
determining whether a challenged regulation passes constitutional muster.” Frost v. Symington,
197 F.3d 348, 354 (9th Cir. 1999). Under the Turner test, courts must determine:
(1) whether the regulation is rationally related to a legitimate and neutral governmental objective; (2) whether there are alternative avenues that remain open to the inmates to exercise the right; (3) the impact that accommodating the asserted right will have on other guards and prisoners, and on the allocation of prison resources; and (4) whether the existence of easy and obvious alternatives indicates that the regulation is an exaggerated response by prison officials.
Prison Legal News v. Cook, 238 F.3d 1145, 1149 (9th Cir. 2001) (“PLN I”) (citing Turner, 482
U.S. at 89-90). These factors apply not only to regulations governing inmates’ rights to receive
mail, but also “to regulations affecting publishers’ rights to send materials to prisoners.” Id.
(emphasis omitted). “The first of these factors constitutes a sine qua non.” Walker, 917 F.2d
at 385. In other words, “if a regulation is not rationally related to a legitimate and neutral
governmental objective, a court need not reach the remaining three factors.” PLN II, 397 F.3d
at 699.
a. Rational relationship
Under the first Turner factor, “there must be a valid, rational connection between the
prison regulation and the legitimate governmental interest put forward to justify it.” Turner, 482
U.S. at 89 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). This requires the Court to “determine
whether the governmental objective underlying the policy is (1) legitimate, (2) neutral, and (3)
standard because it requires a “closer fit between the regulation and the purpose it serves.” See Abbott, 490 U.S. at 412. As explained below, the Court finds that the postcard-only policy fails to satisfy the Turner test with respect to both incoming and outgoing mail. Because the restrictions limiting outgoing personal mail to postcards fail to survive the more deferential Turner test, the Court need not also consider whether those restrictions survive the more demanding Martinez test.
Page 20 – FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

whether the policy is ‘rationally related to that objective.’” Mauro v. Arpaio, 188 F.3d 1054, 1059 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (quoting Abbott, 490 U.S. at 414).
As discussed in the Findings of Fact, Defendants identified three objectives in adopting the postcard-only policy: (1) to standardize their procedures with other sheriffs’ offices; (2) to enhance security; and (3) to promote efficiency. Security and efficiency are legitimate penological objectives. Abbott, 490 U.S. at 415 (the “legitimacy of the Government’s purpose in [protecting prison security] is beyond question”); Freeman v. Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 369 F.3d 854, 861 (5th Cir. 2004) (“staff and space limitations, as well as financial burdens, are valid penological interests”). Standardizing procedures with other sheriffs’ offices, however, is not a legitimate penological objective. Achieving consistency in mail policies between correctional institutions may streamline administration. Even so, the administrative convenience achieved by such standardization is not in itself a penological objective except to the extent that doing so may indirectly support security or efficiency.
Whether a regulation is neutral depends on whether it operates “without regard to the content of the expression.” Turner, 284 U.S. at 90. The postcard-only policy provides for no restrictions based on content, and the parties do not dispute that it is neutral.
The remaining question under the first factor is, therefore, whether the postcard-only policy is rationally related to the objectives of enhancing security and promoting efficiency. A “regulation cannot be sustained where the logical connection between the regulation and the asserted goal is so remote as to render the policy arbitrary or irrational.” Turner, 482 U.S. at 89-90. Although the Court must uphold a regulation that bears a rational relationship to a legitimate penological interest, this standard “is not toothless.” Abbott, 490 U.S. at 414 (1989) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “Turner requires prison authorities to show more
Page 21 – FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

than a formalistic logical connection between a regulation and a penological objective.” Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521, 535 (2006).
The government may demonstrate a rational relationship by showing “an intuitive, common[-]sense connection” between the Jail’s policy and its objectives. Frost, 197 F.3d at 356. If the plaintiff does not “present sufficient evidence to refute [that] common-sense connection . . . ‘[the government] need not prove that the banned material actually caused problems in the past, or that the materials are “likely” to cause problems in the future.’” PLN I, 238 F.3d at 1150 (quoting Mauro, 188 F.3d at 1060). “The only question is whether prison administrators reasonably could have thought the regulation would advance legitimate penological interests.” Id. If, however, the plaintiff presents sufficient evidence to refute the government’s common-sense connection between the regulation and its objectives, the government “must present enough counter-evidence to show that the connection is not so ‘remote as to render the policy arbitrary or irrational.’” Frost, 197 F.3d at 357 (quoting Mauro, 188 F.3d at 1060).
There is not an intuitive, common-sense connection between the postcard-only policy and enhancing jail security. Defendants contend that a postcard-only policy enhances security because contraband may be concealed within envelopes. Carpenter Test. at 150; Defs.’ Post-Trial Br. at 7. This rationale, however, is only compelling to the extent that it is compared to a policy of permitting inmates to send and receive letters without the jail opening envelopes and inspecting their contents. Compared to a “no inspection” policy, Defendants are undoubtedly correct that there is a common-sense connection between adopting a postcard-only policy and enhancing security. If Jail staff did not open and inspect envelopes and their contents, inmates and their correspondents could easily send and receive contraband. Before adopting the postcard-
Page 22 – FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

only policy, however, the Jail did not have a “no inspection” policy. Instead, CCSO staff opened and inspected letters to and from inmates. Miller Test. at 170. To determine whether there is a common-sense connection between the postcard-only policy and enhanced security, the Court must analyze the postcard-only policy within the context of the Jail’s other practices and regulations. See PLN I, 238 F.3d at 1150 (rejecting state’s argument that ban on certain mail reduced prisoner’s accumulation of paper, and hence fire hazards, because separate prison regulation already limited amount of paper prisoner may store in cell). When the postcard-only policy is compared to a policy of opening envelopes and inspecting their contents, the rational relationship between the postcard-only policy and enhancing security dissolves. Defendants did not at trial, and do not in their post-trial briefing, offer any explanation why a postcard-only policy is more effective at preventing the introduction of contraband than opening envelopes and inspecting their contents. Defendants have, therefore, failed to present “an intuitive, common[-]sense connection” between the postcard-only policy and enhancing security.
Even if there were a common-sense connection between the postcard-only policy and enhancing security, PLN presented evidence that convincingly refutes that connection. Defendants did not have a problem with contraband entering the Jail through the mail. In fact, Defendants concede that there were “at most[] one or two instances where contraband may have entered the facility through the mail[.]” Defs.’ Post-Trial Br. at 7 (emphasis added). Sheriff Dickerson agreed that the postcard-only policy was not adopted in response to a known contraband problem. Defendants’ postcard-only policy was a solution in search of a problem.
Under Ninth Circuit precedent, Defendants need not prove that there have been past episodes of contraband entering the Jail through the mail in order to establish a rational connection between the postcard-only policy and enhancing security. Casey v. Lewis, 4
Page 23 – FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

F.3d 1516, 1521 (9th Cir. 1993). Even so, the absence of an inmate mail security problem at the Jail enervates Defendants’ contention that the postcard-only policy is rationally related to enhancing security. Cf. Mauro, 188 F.3d at 1060 n.3 (“Although it is not required that prison officials be able to show that the prohibited materials have actually caused problems in the past, . . . their ability to do so certainly strengthens their case.” (internal citation omitted)). Turner does not give prison officials a “blank check” to restrict constitutional rights. See Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499, 547 (2005) (Thomas, J., dissenting).
In the absence of evidence demonstrating an inmate mail security problem, and without a credible explanation of why a postcard-only policy is more effective at preventing the introduction of contraband than opening envelopes and inspecting their contents, the Court concludes that the postcard-only policy not rationally related to enhancing jail security. Further, the Ninth Circuit has regularly rejected claims that policies broadly prohibiting certain classes of mail have a rational relationship to enhancing security. See, e.g., PLN I, 238 F.3d at 1150 (correctional institution “has presented no evidence supporting a rational distinction between the risk of contraband in subscription non-profit organization standard mail and first class or periodicals mail”); Morrison v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896, 902 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[A]lthough the defendants presented evidence that contraband is sometimes included in bulk rate, third, and fourth class mail, the defendants have failed to present any evidence that the risk of contraband in first or second class mail is any lower than the risk of contraband in mail that is sent bulk rate, third, or fourth class[.]”); Ashker v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 350 F.3d 917, 923 (9th Cir. 2003) (invalidating requirement that books mailed to inmates have an approved book label or vendor stamp as not rationally related to reducing contraband, in part because correctional institution searches mail regardless); PLN II, 397 F.3d at 700 (overturning ban on requested bulk mail).
Page 24 – FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

With respect to promoting efficiency, Defendants adopted the postcard-only policy in order to save time. There is a common-sense connection between the postcard-only policy and promoting efficiency: Postcards do not need to be opened and they have no contents that need inspection (although their text may still need to be read for security purposes). PLN presented convincing evidence, however, to refute this common-sense connection. Sergeant Rigdon testified that the increased amount of time to open and inspect a letter compared to inspecting a postcard amounted to only a few seconds or moments. On average, the Jail processed approximately 37 pieces of incoming and 35 pieces of outgoing mail each day. Thus the combined savings accrued under a postcard-only policy could amount to only several minutes each day. Defendants concede that “the time savings for the [J]ail was, at best, minimal.” Defs.’ Post-Trail Br. at 8. The de minimis savings in time achieved by the postcard-only policy is too small to create a rational connection between the policy and promoting efficiency at the Jail. See PLN I, 238 F.3d at 1151 (“We do not believe that requiring delivery of non-profit organization standard mail will unduly burden the [correctional institution].”); Morrison, 261 F.3d at 903 (noting that in PLN I, “we held that the ‘efficient use of staff time’ argument cannot justify an effective ban on non-profit subscription publications”); PLN II, 397 F.3d at 700 (rejecting ban on for-profit subscription publications as not rationally related to controlling volume of mail).
The Court concludes, therefore, that the postcard-only policy fails to satisfy Turner’s rational relationship factor. Even though the rational relationship factor is the sine qua non, it is, nonetheless, useful to consider the remaining Turner factors as well. In doing so, the Court must bear in mind that the “real task . . . is not balancing these factors, but rather determining whether [Defendants] show[] more than simply a logical relation” between the postcard-only policy and their legitimate penological goals. Beard, 548 U.S. at 533.
Page 25 – FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

b. Alternative avenues The second factor of the Turner test “is whether there are alternative means of exercising the right that remain open to prison inmates.” Turner, 482 U.S. at 90. “In applying this factor, ‘the right in question must be viewed sensibly and expansively.’” Mauro, 188 F.3d at 1061 (quoting Abbott, 490 U.S. at 417). Thus, the Supreme Court has upheld a prohibition on inmates’ ability to attend the Jumu’ah, a Muslim religious ceremony, because inmates were permitted to participate in other Muslim religious ceremonies. O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342 (1987). The Supreme Court has also upheld a restrictive prisoner visitation policy in part because “inmates may communicate with persons outside the prison by letter and telephone.” Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 135 (2003). The Court noted that “[a]lternatives to visitation need not be ideal . . . ; they need only be available.” Id. The postcard-only policy erects a barrier to many forms of communication between inmates and their unincarcerated correspondents. It prevents an inmate’s family from sending items such as photographs, children’s report cards and drawings, and copies of bills, doctor reports, and spiritual and religious tracts. Dickerson Test. at 78-79. It prevents an inmate’s friends and other correspondents from sending printed copies of articles published in newspapers or magazines, or on the internet. See, e.g., Exs. 71-87. It prevents educational, community, and religious organizations from sending lessons, book and periodical offers, and fundraising appeals. See, e.g., Exs. 1-15, 57-65. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the postcard-only policy creates a hurdle to thoughtful, personal, and constructive written communications between an inmate and his or her unincarcerated family and friends. Mendoza Test. at 4-5. As the Court explained in its preliminary injunction opinion, Dkt. 64, these are not insignificant considerations. The postcard-only policy not only restrains PLN and inmates’ First
Page 26 – FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Amendment rights, it also inhibits rehabilitation. The Supreme Court has noted that “the weight of professional opinion seems to be that inmate freedom to correspond with outsiders advances rather than retards the goal of rehabilitation.” Martinez, 416 U.S at 412.
Nonetheless, other avenues of communications are available. The Jail permits inmates to place phone calls and receive visitors. Cutright Test. at 84-85. Phone calls and visits cannot replace the ability to send items such as photographs, drawings, report cards, and bills. As the Supreme Court provided, however, the alternatives need not be ideal, only available. On balance, Turner’s second factor may be neutral: The postcard-only policy limits an important avenue of communication, but inmates retain other avenues.
c. Effects on staff, inmates, and resources The third Turner factor “is the impact accommodation of the asserted constitutional right will have on guards and other inmates, and on the allocation of prison resources generally.” Turner, 482 U.S. at 90. According to Turner, “courts should be particularly deferential to the informed discretion of corrections officials” when accommodating a constitutional right that will have “have a significant ‘ripple effect’ on fellow inmates or on prison staff.” Id. In Turner, the Court found that allowing certain inmate-to-inmate correspondence could “be exercised only at the cost of significantly less liberty and safety” for inmates and staff generally and, therefore, the court upheld certain restrictions on such correspondence. Id. at 92-93. This factor often weighs heavily when courts consider mail policies that restrict potentially disruptive content, such as depictions or descriptions of violence, escape, or criminal activity, sexually-explicit materials, and role-playing games, see, e.g., Frost, 197 F.3d at 351-52; Bahrampour v. Lampert, 356 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2004), or where the challenged regulation saves the prison substantial resources, see, e.g., Bazzetta, 539 U.S. at 135.
Page 27 – FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Here, accommodating letters is unlikely to have a “significant ripple effect” on inmates and staff. As explained above, there is no evidence that a postcard-only policy is more secure than opening envelopes and inspecting their contents. In addition, the time-savings afforded to the Jail by the postcard-only mail policy is de minimis. Thus, the third Turner factor suggests that the postcard-only is not rationally related to legitimate penological goals.
d. Easy and obvious alternatives The final Turner factor requires the court to “consider ‘whether the existence of easy and obvious alternatives indicates that the regulation is an exaggerated response by prison officials.’” Morrison, 261 F.3d at 905 (quoting PLN I, 238 F.3d at 1149). If a “claimant can point to an alternative that fully accommodates the prisoner’s rights at de minimis cost to valid penological interests, a court may consider that as evidence that the regulation does not satisfy the reasonable relationship standard.” Turner, 482 U.S. at 91. This factor favors PLN. As noted above, before implementing the postcard-only policy in 2010, Defendants opened and inspected envelopes and their contents. Given that opening envelopes and inspecting their contents effectively prevents the introduction of contraband into the Jail and requires only a de minimis amount of additional time, it is an easy and obvious alternative. The inmate mail policies in other correctional institutions also support this conclusion. Other jails in Oregon, as well the Washington State Department of Corrections and the United States Bureau of Prisons, have mail policies that permit inmates to send and receive letters and periodicals. Exs. 148-52. These policies provide further evidence that opening envelopes and inspecting their contents is an easy and obvious alternative to the Jail’s postcard-only policy. Morrison, 261 F.3d at 905 (policies at other correctional institutions are relevant to consideration of fourth Turner factor).
Page 28 – FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

e. Other case law In their post-trial brief, Defendants cite to several cases in which other district courts have upheld postcard-only mail policies. Only two cases, however, thoroughly considered the Turner factors: Covell v. Arpaio, 662 F.Supp.2d 1146 (D. Az. 2009) and Althouse v. Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office, 12-80135-CIV, 2013 WL 536072 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 12, 2013). In Covell, the district court held that the defendant’s inmate mail policy, which limited inmates to receiving metered postcards, was reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest in reducing contraband. The district court provided two reasons for this holding. First, the inmate mail policy in Covell prohibited the use of postage stamps. The defendant argued that correspondents could smuggle drugs into the jail under stamps. The district court agreed. Covell, 662 F.Supp.2d at 1153-54. The district court’s rationale on this point is not transferrable here because the postcard-only does not forbid the use of postage stamps. Second, the district court found that the defendant’s postcard-only policy prevented the introduction of “notepad bindings [that] have been hollowed to conceal contraband[.]” Id. at 1153. In this case, however, Defendants have not pressed the same argument, nor is there any evidence that contraband has ever been introduced into the Jail in notepad bindings. Even if the evidence here had shown that notepad bindings presented a risk of contraband, the Jail could prohibit the mailing of notepads to inmates or confiscate notepads when opening envelopes and inspecting their contents. Banning inmates from receiving all letters because notepad bindings may conceal contraband is an exaggerated response to this security concern. In light of these considerations, the Court declines to follow Covell. In Althouse, an unincarcerated citizen proceeding pro se challenged the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office’s (“PBCSO”) postcard-only policy. The district court applied the Turner
Page 29 – FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

test and granted summary judgment in favor of the PBCSO. 2013 WL 536072, *3-6. The court concluded that the PBCSO’s postcard-only policy “logically advances the goals of institutional security and safety, and it is not an exaggerated response to those objectives.” Id. at *6.
The Court declines to follow Althouse. The evidence in this case leads this Court to reach different conclusions than the Althouse court regarding the first and third Turner factors. Concerning the first Turner factor, the Althouse court found that “[s]ealed envelopes provide a greater opportunity for the introduction of drugs and weapons into jail facilities than postcards because envelopes can contain multiple pages of paper with folds and creases that lend themselves to smuggling contraband.” Id. at *5. Evidence in this case, however, establishes that opening and inspecting letters, as the Jail did before adopting the postcard-only policy, effectively prevented the introduction of contraband into the Jail. Evidence also established that the Jail did not have an inmate mail security problem before adopting the postcard-only policy. Thus, in this case, the postcard-only policy does not bear a rational relationship to enhanced security.
With respect to the third Turner factor, the Althouse court noted that the PBCSO’s postcard-only policy “gives the jail security staff more time to deal with prison security assignments because they can spend less time screening envelopes for contraband.” Id. The evidence here, however, establishes that the Jail’s postcard-only policy could achieve only de minimis savings in time.8 Thus, in this case, the postcard-only policy does not afford Jail staff a meaningful amount of additional time to deal with other security assignments.
8 The difference in time savings may be due in part to the substantial difference in size between the PBCSO and the CCSO. The PBCSO incarcerates approximately 3,000 inmates, more than 23 times the population of the Jail in May 2012. Id. at *1. On a per inmate basis, however, there may not be a material difference. That issue has not been developed either in this
Page 30 – FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The Court concludes, therefore, that Defendants’ postcard-only policy is not reasonably related to legitimate penological objectives. The evidence adduced at trial failed to establish that the Jail had experienced any problems with contraband entering the Jail through the mail. Even if the Jail had experienced problems with correspondents sending contraband through the mail, no evidence showed that opening envelopes and inspecting their contents was an ineffective or inefficient method of intercepting contraband. As the Court noted in its preliminary injunction opinion, the potential dangers posed by contraband within the Jail are undeniably serious. See Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 132 S.Ct. 1510, 1518–20 (2012). Nonetheless, jail “walls do not form a barrier separating . . . inmates from the protections of the Constitution.” Turner, 482 U.S. at 84.
The postcard-only policy blocks one narrow avenue for the introduction of contraband— within envelopes—at too great an expense to the First Amendment rights of inmates and their correspondents. PLN has thus proven by a preponderance of evidence that Defendants violated its First Amendment rights, as well as the First Amendment rights of inmates and their correspondents.
2. Prohibition on Magazines Defendants concede that inmates have a First Amendment right to receive magazines.9 Defendants also concede that, in practice, they failed to deliver magazines in the Jail. Defendants have argued, however, that they did not have a “policy” prohibiting magazines in the Jail. They
case or in Althouse. Also, the plaintiff in Althouse was pro se any may not have fully explored the PBCSO’s claimed time savings.
9 In his opening statement, counsel for Defendants stated that “the County, the Sheriff’s Office was violating the Constitution and was doing so repeatedly with not accepting magazines. . . . We don’t dispute that. We have never disputed that. We have admitted that.” 2-52013 Tr. at 33
Page 31 – FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

point out that the IMPs have consistently stated that inmates may receive magazines. PLN argues, however, that Defendants did have a policy of prohibiting magazines because “Defendants told staff, prisoners, and the public that it banned magazines, and few, if any, of Defendants’ agents and staff were aware of the document titled ‘Inmate Mail Policy’ that said otherwise.” Pl.’s Post-Trial Br. at 8.
Whether Defendants had a policy prohibiting magazines or whether Jail staff simply failed to deliver magazines in practice is important in establishing Defendants’ liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A municipality, such as Columbia County, the CCSO, and Sheriff Dickerson in his official capacity, “may not be sued under § 1983 for an injury inflicted solely by its employees or agents.”10 Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). Rather, to establish liability under § 1983 against a municipal defendant, a plaintiff must “identify a municipal ‘policy’ or ‘custom’ that caused the plaintiff’s injury.” Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997) (citing Monell, 436 U.S. at 694). “Monell’s ‘policy or custom’ requirement applies in § 1983 cases irrespective of whether the relief sought is monetary or prospective.” Los Angeles Cnty. v. Humphries, 131 S. Ct. 447, 453-54 (2010).
The Court concludes that Defendants had a policy of prohibiting magazines. Although the IMPs permitted magazines, the inmate manuals stated that magazines were not permitted in the Jail. Jail staff relied on the inmate manuals, rather than the IMPs, to determine whether to permit inmates to receive magazines. Thus, the IMPs did not set the Defendants’ policy with respect to magazines. See Ware v. Jackson Cnty., 150 F.3d 873, 882 (8th Cir. 1998) (“[T]he existence of written policies of a defendant are of no moment in the face of evidence that such policies are neither followed nor enforced.”).
10 An “official-capacity suit is, in all respects other than name, to be treated as a suit against the entity.” Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 (1985).
Page 32 – FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Defendants also had a “custom” of prohibiting magazines. Municipal defendants may be liable under § 1983 even in the absence of a formal policy permitting the challenged conduct where the plaintiff can “show a longstanding practice or custom which constitutes the standard operating procedure of the local government entity.” Trevino v. Gates, 99 F.3d 911, 918 (9th Cir. 1996) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted). As described in the Findings of Fact, several CCSO staff testified that they believed and understood that magazines were not permitted in the Jail. Commander Carpenter only once observed a magazine arrive by mail for an inmate, and the Jail staff rejected it. The CCSO’s website expressly stated that magazines were not permitted in the Jail. Inmates were advised, both in a memorandum prepared by Sergeant Cutright, and in response to individual requests, that magazines were not permitted. The evidence is overwhelming that the Jail had a custom of prohibiting magazines. The Court concludes, therefore, that because Columbia County, the CCSO, and Sheriff Dickerson in his official capacity had a policy or custom of prohibiting inmates from receiving magazines, those Defendants are liable under § 1983 for violations of inmates’ First Amendment right to receive magazines. As noted above, Defendants have stipulated that they rejected numerous issues of PLN’s journals. PLN has, therefore, proven by a preponderance of evidence that Defendants violated its First Amendment rights.
3. Notice and appeal policy Inmates have a “Fourteenth Amendment due process liberty interest in receiving notice that [their] incoming mail is being withheld by prison authorities.” Frost, 197 F.3d at 353. The Ninth Circuit has not addressed what specific procedural due process safeguards a correctional institution must provide. In Martinez, however, the Supreme Court affirmed a district court order that “required that an inmate be notified of the rejection of a letter written by or addressed to
Page 33 – FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

him, that the author of that letter be given a reasonable opportunity to protest that decision, and that complaints be referred to a prison official other than the person who originally disapproved the correspondence.” 416 U.S. at 418-19. Although the Martinez Court did not express an opinion as to whether the district court’s order represented the minimum due process owed, the Court concludes that those protections represent the constitutionally required minimum degree of procedural due process. Martin v. Kelley, 803 F.2d 236, 243-45 (6th Cir. 1986) (holding that due process safeguards described in Martinez are the minimum owed).
Defendants concede that inmates and their correspondents have a constitutional right to due process and that Defendants failed to satisfy that right. Opening Statement at 35; Defs.’ Trial Br. at 4; Dkt. 203. Even so, Defendants have not unequivocally admitted that their IMPs were constitutionally deficient with respect to due process. Rather, they have admitted only that the Jail failed to afford inmates and their correspondents procedural due process in practice. Id. As discussed above, whether Defendants maintained an unconstitutional policy or custom or whether, instead, Jail staff failed to afford procedural due process safeguards in practice is important in determining whether Columbia County, the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office, and Sheriff Dickerson in official capacity may be held liable under §1983. Monell, 436 U.S. at 694; Humphries, 131 S. Ct. at 453-54.
The Court concludes that the IMP in effect at the time PLN filed this action, the October 2011 IMP, failed to provide a constitutionally adequate minimum degree of due process. As described in the Findings of Fact, the October 2011 IMP provided that inmates should receive notice when the Jail rejected a piece of incoming mail. Ex. 113. That IMP also provided that the inmate must be told the reason why the mail was rejected and be given an opportunity to appeal the rejection to the Jail commander. Id. Despite those protections, however, the October 2011
Page 34 – FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

IMP was constitutionally deficient in two areas. First, it failed to provide that inmates’ correspondents be given notice and an opportunity to appeal the Jail’s decision to reject incoming mail. Second, it did not provide that inmates receive notice and an opportunity to appeal when the Jail rejected their outgoing mail.
In addition, the Court concludes that Defendants had a custom of failing to provide notice and an opportunity to appeal, even when the Jail’s IMPs provided that such notice was required. Defendants stipulated that they “did not provide . . . the prison-addressees due process notice or an opportunity to appeal the censorship decisions when the Jail censored” PLN’s mail. Dkt. 203. Defendants also stipulated that they “did not provide . . . the prisoner-addressees due process notice or an opportunity to appeal the censorship decisions when the Jail censored” mail that Ms. Lennox sent to inmates. Id. CCSO staff admitted that the Jail rarely provided inmates with notice. Cutright Test. at 61, 64-66. This evidence establishes that the Jail had a “longstanding practice or custom” that constituted its “standard operating procedure.” The Court concludes that Defendants had both a policy and custom of failing to afford constitutionally sufficient due process. PLN thus has proven by a preponderance of evidence that Defendants violated its Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment rights of inmates and their correspondents. C. Permanent Injunction
To obtain a permanent injunction, a “plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.” eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547
Page 35 – FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

U.S. 388, 391 (2006). “The decision to grant or deny permanent injunctive relief is an act of equitable discretion by the district court[.]” Id. Where, as here, a plaintiff seeks an injunction against a state or local government agency, “federal courts must be constantly mindful of the special delicacy of the adjustment to be preserved between federal equitable power and State administration of its own law.” Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 378 (1976) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
1. Postcard-Only Policy a. Irreparable injury
PLN has demonstrated irreparable harm because the “loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976); see also Assoc. Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Coal. for Econ. Equity, 950 F.2d 1401, 1412 (9th Cir. 1991) (“We have stated that an alleged constitutional infringement will often alone constitute irreparable harm.” (internal quotation marks, citation, and alterations omitted)).
b. Inadequacy of damages In cases, like this one, that involve constitutional violations, this factor merges with the first factor. See Nelson v. Nat'l Aeronautics & Space Admin., 530 F.3d 865, 882 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Unlike monetary injuries, constitutional violations cannot be adequately remedied through damages and therefore generally constitute irreparable harm.”), rev’d and remanded on other grounds, 131 S. Ct. 746 (2011). Because PLN has shown that Defendants violated the First Amendment, and because the loss of First Amendment freedoms constitutes irreparable harm, PLN has demonstrated that monetary damages are inadequate.
Page 36 – FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

c. Balance of equities The third factor requires the court to balance the equities. “In assessing whether the plaintiffs have met this burden, the district court has a duty to balance the interests of all parties and weigh the damage to each.” Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1138 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks, citation, and alteration omitted). PLN has established that the Jail’s postcard-only policy burdens its First Amendment rights, as well as the First Amendment rights of inmates and their correspondents. Defendants face the possibility of spending a minimal amount of additional time each day opening envelopes and inspecting their contents. The constitutional hardship is far greater than the insignificant impact on Defendants’ time and resources. During trial, Sheriff Dickerson testified that he would not re-adopt the postcard-only policy if the Court did not issue a permanent injunction but merely declared the policy unconstitutional. Dickerson Test. at 132. Thus, the Court must consider whether injunctive relief is needed beyond declaratory relief. The party seeking a permanent injunction “must satisfy the court that relief is needed. The necessary determination is that there exists some cognizable danger of recurrent violation.” United States v. W. T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 633 (1953). The Court takes the Sheriff at his word that he would not re-adopt a postcard-only policy if the Court issues a declaratory judgment and does not order a permanent injunction. Even so, however, the Court still concludes that the balance of equities favors a permanent injunction enjoining the postcard-only policy. The sheriff’s office is an elected position and a sheriff does not have the authority to bind his or her successor. Moreover, Defendants did not voluntarily and promptly amend their IMP to remove the postcard-only policy after PLN filed this action. Rather, Defendants retained the postcard-only policy until the Court issued its preliminary injunction. In
Page 37 – FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

addition, Defendants have never admitted that the postcard-only policy is unconstitutional. In light of these considerations, the Court concludes that the balance of equities tips in favor of granting a permanent injunction.
d. Public interest
“The public interest inquiry primarily addresses [the] impact on non-parties rather than parties.” Sammartano v. First Judicial Dist. Court, 303 F.3d 959, 974 (9th Cir.2002). “When the reach of an injunction is narrow, limited only to the parties, and has no impact on non-parties, the public interest will be at most a neutral factor in the analysis rather than one that favors granting or denying the preliminary injunction.” Stormans, Inc., 586 F.3d at 1138-39 (internal quotation marks, citation, and alteration omitted). Here, however, the public interest favors entering a permanent injunction. A permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from enforcing a postcardonly policy will permit inmates and non-party members of the public to more easily and effectively communicate with each other by mail. The parties have not suggested that a permanent injunction will affect any other non-parties.
e. Scope of injunction After considering each of the four factors set forth by the Supreme Court in eBay, the Court concludes that a permanent injunction enjoining the postcard-only policy is warranted. Before issuing a permanent injunction, however, the Court must consider the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3626. The PLRA provides: Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right. The court shall give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the relief.
Page 38 – FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

18 U.S.C. § 3626(a). An “injunction employs the least intrusive means necessary when it heels close to the identified violation, and is not overly intrusive and unworkable and would not require for its enforcement the continuous supervision by the federal court over the conduct of state officers.”11 Clement v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 364 F.3d 1148, 1153 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks, citations, and alterations omitted).
As described in the Conclusion below, in addition to providing declaratory relief, the Court will issue a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from restricting all incoming and outgoing inmate personal mail to postcards only. This injunction applies only to the Columbia County Jail and to no other correctional institution. The injunction will address only the postcard-only inmate mail policy and does not intrude on any other aspect of the Jail’s administration. The injunction will not provide for ongoing Court supervision and will not require Defendants to submit compliance reports, institute trainings, or submit revised policies to the Court for review. The Court finds, therefore, that such an injunction would be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the First Amendment violations, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right. See id. (upholding district court injunction where injunction did not require court supervision and was only broad enough to enjoin the unconstitutional policy).
11 In its Suggested Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, PLN contends that the PLRA does not apply to this case because the PLRA only applies to actions brought by prisoners. Dkt. 138 at 35. PLN is incorrect and the cases PLN cites for its contention do not so hold. Certain sections of the PLRA apply only to suits by prisoners, such as, for example, § 803, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1997e, which requires prisoners to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 802 of the PLRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3626, quoted above, however, applies to “any civil action with respect to prison conditions.” (Emphasis added.) No provisions in § 802 limit its application to suits brought by prisoners.
Page 39 – FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

2. Magazines a. Irreparable injury
As noted above, the “loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Elrod, 427 U.S. at 373. Consequently, PLN has satisfied the first factor of the eBay test.
b. Inadequacy of damages PLN has also satisfied the second factor of the eBay test because, as explained above, “constitutional violations cannot be adequately remedied through damages[.]” Nelson, 530 F.3d at 882.
c. Balance of Equities As explained above, in assessing this factor, the Court “has a duty to balance the interests of all parties and weigh the damage to each.” Stormans, Inc., 586 F.3d at 1138 (internal quotation marks, citation, and alteration omitted). A permanent injunction requiring Defendants to deliver magazines to inmates would protect the First Amendment rights of both inmates and publishers. Defendants have not stated that a permanent injunction would tax their resources. Defendants argue, however, that the equities do not favor an injunction for a different reason. An injunction is unnecessary, they contend, because “the [J]ail voluntarily implemented a practice to ensure that the written policy permitting magazines was followed.” Defs.’ Post-Trial Br. at 13. The “court’s power to grant injunctive relief survives discontinuance of the illegal conduct.” W. T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. at 633. Nonetheless, as noted above, “the moving party must satisfy the court that relief is needed.” Id. “In determining whether to impose an injunction where a defendant has ceased the offending conduct, courts may consider ‘the bona fides of the defendant’s expressed intent to comply’ with the law, ‘the effectiveness of the discontinuance,’
Page 40 – FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

and ‘the character of the past violations.’”12 E.E.O.C. v. KarenKim, Inc., 698 F.3d 92, 100 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting W. T. Grant, 345 U.S. at 633; internal alterations omitted).
These considerations weigh against issuing an injunction. It is true that for many years Defendants unconstitutionally prohibited magazines in the Jail. Even so, Defendants have admitted that inmates have a First Amendment right to receive magazines and that Defendants violated that right repeatedly by repeatedly rejecting issues of PLN’s journal. Sheriff Dickerson credibly testified that he did not know that the First Amendment required the Jail to allow inmates to receive magazines when he took office in 2009. Dickerson Test. at 237. The Sheriff also credibly testified that had he known, he would have ensured that inmates could receive magazines. Id. The IMPs have consistently provided that inmates may receive magazines. Defendants have informed CCSO staff that they should rely on the IMPs when processing mail and have held two training sessions in which the most recent IMPs were read to CCSO staff. Rigdon Test. at 197-98. The Court concludes that Defendants have made a genuine and credible effort to correct their unconstitutional prohibition on magazines. The balance of equities thus tips against issuing a permanent injunction with regard to magazines.
d. Public Interest As noted above, the “public interest inquiry primarily addresses [the] impact on nonparties rather than parties.” Sammartano, 303 F.3d at 974. A permanent injunction would benefit
12 The question of whether a defendant’s voluntary discontinuance of illegal conduct tips the balance of equities against issuance of a permanent injunction bears many similarities to the mootness question, discussed above. Despite the similarities, however, “the two inquiries are strikingly different.” Sheely v. MRI Radiology Network, P.A., 505 F.3d 1173, 1182 n.10 (11th Cir. 2007). A “defendant seeking dismissal on mootness grounds under the doctrine of voluntary cessation bears the extremely heavy burden of showing that it is absolutely clear that he will not revert to his old ways. But whether a permanent injunction is appropriate . . . turns on whether the plaintiff can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that this form of equitable relief is necessary.” Id.
Page 41 – FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

inmates and magazine publishers by ensuring that inmates receive the magazines to which they subscribe. Accordingly, this factor favors an injunction.
On the whole, however, the Court concludes that a permanent injunction is not warranted with respect to Defendants’ unconstitutional policy or custom prohibiting inmates from receiving magazines. Defendants have expressed a credible willingness to comply with the law. Where, as here, “constitutional violations are found, but state officials have shown their readiness to meet constitutional requirements, the court should limit its initial response to a grant of declaratory relief.” Morrow v. Harwell, 768 F.2d 619, 627 (5th Cir. 1985).
3. Notice and appeal provisions a. Irreparable harm
Unlike with PLN’s First Amendment claim, it is not clear that PLN has suffered irreparable harm merely because Defendants have failed to provide the required procedural due process. There is no question that the denial of First Amendment rights constitutes irreparable harm. Elrod, 427 U.S. at 373. Moreover, under Ninth Circuit precedent, an “alleged constitutional infringement will often alone constitute irreparable harm.” Goldie’s Bookstore, Inc. v. Superior Court, 739 F.2d 466, 472 (9th Cir. 1984) (citing Wright & Miller, 11 FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2948 at 440 (1973)). The Ninth Circuit has not held, however, that irreparable harm inevitably flows from deprivations of procedural due process. Other circuits have held that the denial of due process does not create a presumption of irreparable harm. See, e.g., Gonzalez-Droz v. Gonzalez-Colon, 573 F.3d 75, 81 (1st Cir. 2009) (denial of procedural due process, without more, does not automatically trigger a finding of irreparable harm); Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1177-78 (11th Cir. 2000) (presumption of irreparable harm only applicable to invasion of privacy and violation of First Amendment rights).
Page 42 – FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The Court need not resolve whether Defendants’ unconstitutional deprivation of PLN’s right to procedural due process constitutes irreparable harm. As discussed below, the Court finds that the balance of equities tips in favor of not issuing a permanent injunction on this issue. The Court, therefore, leaves this question for another day or another court.
b. Inadequacy of damages Because the Court finds that the balance of equities strongly favors not issuing a permanent injunction, the Court declines to address this factor.
c. Balance of Equities Defendants’ most recent IMP, the July 2012 IMP, provides that CCSO staff must provide notice and an opportunity to appeal to both the sender and the recipient of incoming and outgoing mail when that mail is censored or rejected. Under the standard described in Martinez and adopted above, this is constitutionally sufficient procedural due process. Accordingly, the Court must determine whether the equities favor a permanent injunction even though Defendants have voluntarily implemented a constitutional policy. As discussed above, three factors are relevant in “determining whether to impose an injunction where a defendant has ceased the offending conduct.” KarenKim, 698 F.3d at 100. Those are (1) the bona fides of the defendant’s expressed intent to comply with the law; (2) the effectiveness of the discontinuance; (3) and the character of the past violations. Id. These factors tip the balance of the equities against issuance of a permanent injunction on this issue. Defendants promptly admitted that they repeatedly violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, Sheriff Dickerson testified credibly that the Jail would not continue to violate the Constitution. PLN has not presented any evidence suggesting that the Jail has continued to violate its or anyone else’s procedural due process rights since Defendants adopted
Page 43 – FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

the July 2012 IMP. The Court is cognizant that the Jail consistently failed to afford procedural due process before PLN filed this action. Nonetheless, over the last year, Defendants have displayed a genuine determination to correct their deficient notice and appeal policies. Thus, the balance of equities counsels against issuing a permanent injunction.
d. Public Interest Finally, the Court must consider the public interest. The “public interest inquiry primarily addresses [the] impact on non-parties rather than parties.” Sammartano, 303 F.3d at 974. A permanent injunction requiring Defendants to provide constitutionally sufficient procedural due process to inmates and their correspondents would ensure that inmates’ correspondents, who are not party to this case, are guaranteed their constitutional rights. Consequently, the inmates and their correspondents would benefit. This factor favors an injunction. On the whole, however, a permanent injunction is not warranted. Defendants have voluntarily amended their IMP to provide the required level of procedural safeguards. As stated above, where “constitutional violations are found, but state officials have shown their readiness to meet constitutional requirements, the court should limit its initial response to a grant of declaratory relief.” Morrow, 768 F.2d at 627. D. Declaratory Relief The Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, allows individuals to seek a declaration of the constitutionality of the disputed governmental action. See Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Envtl. Study Grp., Inc., 438 U.S. 59, 71 n.15 (1978). To issue a declaration, the Court must address two conditions. “First, the court must inquire whether there is a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction.” Am. States Ins. Co. v. Kearns, 15 F.3d 142, 143 (9th Cir.
Page 44 – FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1994). Second, “the court must decide whether to exercise that jurisdiction. The statute gives discretion to courts in deciding whether to entertain declaratory judgments[.]” Id. at 143-44.
The Court concludes that declaratory relief is appropriate for both PLN’s free speech claims (concerning both the postcard-only policy and the magazine policy) and PLN’s due process claim (concerning the notice and appeal policy). First, for the reasons discussed above, the Court concludes that PLN has standing for both claims and neither claim is moot. There is, therefore, an actual controversy.
Second, exercise of the Court’s discretion is appropriate. The Court “may consider equitable, prudential, and policy arguments when deciding whether” to exercise its discretion to issue a declaration. Veoh Networks, Inc. v. UMG Recordings, Inc., 522 F. Supp. 2d 1265, 1271 (S.D. Cal. 2007) (citing MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 136 (2007)). Equitable considerations weigh in favor of awarding declaratory relief. As described above, Defendants’ postcard-only policy, magazine policy, and notice and appeal policy violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Those policies resulted in numerous individual constitutional violations. Declaratory relief will, therefore, serve to vindicate the rights of PLN and the rights of inmates and their unincarcerated correspondents. Prudential considerations also favor declaratory relief. Declaratory relief will clarify the degree of constitutional protection that must be afforded to inmate mail and, accordingly, will provide guideposts to Defendants in the event they wish further to amend their IMP. Accordingly, the Court will enter declaratory relief.
CONCLUSION The Court will issue a separate Order that PERMANENTLY ENJOINS Defendants from restricting all incoming and outgoing inmate personal mail to postcards only. The Order will provide that Defendants shall not refuse to deliver or process personal inmate mail solely on
Page 45 – FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

the grounds that it is not on a postcard. In the Order, the Court will also DECLARE that inmates have a First Amendment right to receive magazines and that it would be unconstitutional for Defendants to refuse to deliver magazines to inmates solely because they are magazines. The Court will also DECLARE that inmates and their unincarcerated correspondents have a Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process when Defendants reject their mail and that, at a minimum: (1) an inmate must be notified when Defendants reject correspondence written by or addressed to the inmate; (2) senders of rejected correspondence must be given a reasonable opportunity to appeal the rejection; and (3) appeals must be referred to a prison official other than the person who originally rejected the correspondence. Within 28 days from the date of these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the parties shall inform the Court whether there is any need for the Court to proceed further with regard to Plaintiff’s claim for money damages. If there is no such need, the parties shall submit to the Court by that deadline, either jointly or separately, a proposed form of Final Judgment that contains proposed permanent injunctive and declaratory relief consistent with these Findings and Conclusions.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated the 24th day of April, 2013.
/s/ Michael H. Simon Michael H. Simon United States District Judge
Page 46 – FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

 </s> IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PRISON LEGAL NEWS, a project of the HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
COLUMBIA COUNTY; COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; JEFFREY DICKERSON, individually and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff,
Defendants.

Case No. 3:12-cv-00071-SI
OPINION AND ORDER ON FEES AND EXPENSES

Jesse A. Wing and Katherine C. Chamberlain, Macdonald, Hoague & Bayless, 1500 Hoge Building, 705 Second Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104; Lance Weber, Human Rights Defense Center, 1037 Western Avenue, Second Floor, West Brattleboro, VT 05303; Marc D. Blackman (deceased), Ransom Blackman, LLP, 1001 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 1400, Portland, OR 97204. Of Attorneys for Plaintiff.

Steven A. Kraemer, Kari A. Furnanz, and Gregory R. Roberson, Hart Wagner, LLP, 1000 S.W. Broadway, 20th Floor, Portland, OR 97205. Of Attorneys for Defendants.

PAGE 1 – OPINION AND ORDER ON FEES AND EXPENSES

Michael H. Simon, District Judge. INTRODUCTION
After a four-day bifurcated bench trial addressing only issues of liability and equitable relief, Plaintiff Prison Legal News (“PLN” or “Plaintiff”) prevailed in its civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Columbia County, the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office, and Sheriff Jeffrey Dickerson (collectively “Defendants”). Section 1983 allows a cause of action against state and local governments and their officials for violations of a person’s federal constitutional or statutory rights. Defendants operate the county jail in Columbia County, Oregon (the “Jail”). In its first claim (which Plaintiff called “Count One”), PLN asserted that Defendants’ “postcard only” and “no magazine” policies for inmate mail violated PLN’s First Amendment rights, as well as the First Amendment rights of inmates at the Jail and their correspondents in addition to PLN. In its second claim (which Plaintiff called “Count Two”), PLN asserted that Defendants’ “notice and appeal” policy for rejected inmate mail violated PLN’s Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process rights and the procedural due process rights of inmates and their correspondents. PLN prevailed on both claims, and the Court determined that PLN was entitled to declaratory and permanent injunctive relief. After the conclusion of the liability and equitable relief trial, the parties stipulated that Defendants would pay Plaintiff $15,000 to resolve Plaintiff’s claim for money damages, thereby eliminating the need for another trial. After the Court entered Judgment, PLN timely moved for an award of attorney’s fees and expenses. ECF 221. Defendants oppose PLN’s motion. For the reasons that follow, the Court awards PLN $763,803.45 in attorney’s fees and $38,373.01 in expenses.
STANDARDS FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES In a civil rights lawsuit brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the district court may award the prevailing party its reasonable attorney’s fees as part of costs. 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b); A.D. v. Cal. PAGE 2 – OPINION AND ORDER ON FEES AND EXPENSES

Highway Patrol, 712 F.3d 446, 460 (9th Cir. 2013). A district court’s disposition of a motion for attorney’s fees must “provide a reasonably specific explanation for all aspects of a fee determination” in order to allow for “adequate appellate review.” Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542, 558 (2010).
The preferred method of calculating reasonable attorney’s fees is the “lodestar” method. Id. at 551-52. This is because the lodestar method produces an award that roughly approximates the fee that the prevailing attorney would have received if he or she had been representing a paying client who was billed by the hour in a comparable case, is readily administrable, and is objective. Id. Additionally, one purpose of the federal fee-shifting statutes is to ensure that a prevailing plaintiff’s counsel receives a fee that is “sufficient to induce a capable attorney to undertake the representation of a meritorious . . . case.” Id. at 552. The lodestar method of calculating attorney’s fees yields a fee that is presumptively sufficient to achieve this objective. Id. Although the lodestar calculation results in a presumptively reasonable fee, this fee may be adjusted in certain circumstances. Id.
The lodestar amount is the product of the number of hours reasonably spent on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate. McCown v. City of Fontana, 565 F.3d 1097, 1102 (9th Cir. 2009).1 In making this calculation, the district court should take into consideration various reasonableness factors, including the quality of an attorney’s performance, the results obtained, the novelty and complexity of a case, and the special skill and experience of counsel. See Perdue, 559 U.S. at 553-54; Gonzalez v. City of Maywood, 729 F.3d 1196, 1209 n.11 (9th Cir. 2013).
1 It is “well established that time spent in preparing fee applications” is also compensable. Gonzalez v. City of Maywood, 729 F.3d 1196, 1210 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Anderson v. Director, OWCP, 91 F.3d 1322, 1325 (9th Cir. 1996) (quotation marks omitted)).
PAGE 3 – OPINION AND ORDER ON FEES AND EXPENSES

In determining the number of hours reasonably spent, “the district court should exclude hours ‘that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.’” McCown, 565 F.3d at 1102 (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983)). The party seeking an award of attorney’s fees “has the burden of submitting billing records to establish that the number of hours it has requested [is] reasonable.” Gonzalez, 729 F.3d at 1202.
The district court may determine, in one of two ways, whether hours are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary, and thus excludable. The court may conduct an hour-byhour analysis of the fee request. Id. at 1203. Alternatively, “when faced with a massive fee application the district court has the authority to make across-the-board percentage cuts either in the number of hours claimed or in the final lodestar figure.” Id. (quoting Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392, 1399 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation marks omitted)). “[W]hen a district court decides that a percentage cut (to either the lodestar or the number of hours) is warranted, it must ‘set forth a concise but clear explanation of its reasons for choosing a given percentage reduction.’” Id. (quoting Gates, 987 F.2d at 1400). The Ninth Circuit recognizes one exception to this rule: “‘[T]he district court can impose a small reduction, no greater than 10 percent—a ‘haircut’— based on its exercise of discretion and without a more specific explanation.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106, 1112 (9th Cir. 2008)).
In addition, other courts, including the District of Oregon, specifically caution against both block-billing and providing vague or otherwise inadequate descriptions of tasks because these practices hinder a court’s ability to assess the reasonableness of the time expended. See, e.g., U.S. District Court, District of Oregon, Message from the Court Regarding Attorney Fee Petitions, available at http://www.ord.uscourts.gov/index.php/court-policies-517/fee-petitions (last updated Feb. 6, 2013). Applying this cautionary statement, United States Magistrate Judge
PAGE 4 – OPINION AND ORDER ON FEES AND EXPENSES

John Acosta has noted, “the court may excuse this method when the billing period is no more
than three hours.” Noel v. Hall, 2013 WL 5376542, at *6 (D. Or. Sept. 24, 2013). For block-
billing periods in excess of three hours, however, Judge Acosta has reduced each applicable
entry by fifty percent.
Accordingly, the block-billed time requested over the three-hour maximum will be reduced by fifty percent. Such a reduction is warranted because the vague nature of the entry makes it impossible for the court to make any assessment as to the reasonableness of that time expended. See Lyon v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., 656 F.3d 877, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (“The fee award may be reduced if [plaintiff’s] renewed request is supported only by block-billing statements of the relevant activity, although a fee award cannot be denied on this basis.”). Id. (alteration and emphasis in original).
After determining the number of hours reasonably spent, the district court then calculates
the reasonable hourly rates for the attorneys and paralegals whose work comprise the reasonable
number of hours used in calculating the lodestar amount. For this purpose, the “‘prevailing
market rates in the relevant community’ set the reasonable hourly rates.” Gonzalez, 729 F.3d at
1205 (quoting Dang v. Cross, 422 F.3d 800, 813 (9th Cir. 2005)). “‘Generally, when determining
a reasonable hourly rate, the relevant community is the forum in which the district court sits.’”
Id. (quoting Prison Legal News v. Schwarzenegger, 608 F.3d 446, 454 (9th Cir. 2010)). Within
this geographic community, the district court should consider the experience, skill, and
reputation of the attorneys or paralegals involved. Id.
In determining reasonable hourly rates, typically “[a]ffidavits of the plaintiffs’ attorney
and other attorneys regarding prevailing fees in the community, and rate determinations in other
cases, particularly those setting a rate for the plaintiffs’ attorney, are satisfactory evidence of the
prevailing market rate.” United Steelworkers of Am. v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 896 F.2d 403, 407
(9th Cir. 1990). In addition, courts in the District of Oregon have the benefit of several billing PAGE 5 – OPINION AND ORDER ON FEES AND EXPENSES

rate surveys. One useful survey is the Oregon State Bar 2012 Economic Survey (“OSB 2012
Survey”), which contains data on attorney billing rates based on type of practice, geographic area
of practice, and years of practice. A copy of the OSB 2012 Survey is available at
http://www.osbar.org/_docs/resources/Econsurveys/12EconomicSurvey.pdf (last visited on
November 18, 2013).
Another useful survey, although somewhat more limited in scope, is the Morones Survey
of Commercial Litigation Fees, updated as of January 1, 2012 (“Morones 2012 Survey”). The
Morones 2012 Survey contains data on attorney billing rates based on years of experience but is
confined to commercial litigation attorneys practicing in Portland, Oregon. The Morones 2012
Survey reports data for 306 attorneys from 18 law firms (out of 28 law firms requested to
provide data). A copy of the Morones 2012 Survey is available at, among other places, the
United States District Court for the District of Oregon PACER electronic case files in the case of
Prison Legal News v. Columbia County, No. 3:12-cv-00071-SI (ECF 229-2 and ECF 231-2).
There is a strong presumption that the fee arrived at through the lodestar calculation is a
reasonable fee. Perdue, 559 U.S. at 552. A district court may, however, adjust the lodestar
amount in “rare” and “exceptional” cases, such as when a particular factor bearing on the
reasonableness of the attorney’s fee is not adequately taken into account in the lodestar calculation.2 See Perdue, 559 U.S. at 552-54 (finding that, in certain circumstances, the superior
2 Factors that may be relevant to the reasonableness of a fee include: (1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved; (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (4) the preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case; (5) the customary fee; (6) time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; (7) the amount involved and the results obtained; (8) the experience, reputation, and the ability of the attorneys; (9) the “undesirability” of the case; (10) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and (11) awards in similar cases. See Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. 1975). Based on subsequent case law, a twelfth factor identified in Kerr, the fixed or contingent nature of the fee, is no longer a valid factor to PAGE 6 – OPINION AND ORDER ON FEES AND EXPENSES

performance of counsel may not be adequately accounted for in the lodestar calculation); Cunningham v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 879 F.2d 481, 488 (9th Cir. 1988) (finding that although in ordinary cases the “results obtained” factor is deemed adequately accounted for in the lodestar calculation, it may serve as a basis to adjust the lodestar when “an attorney’s reasonable expenditure of time on a case [is not] commensurate with the fees to which he is entitled”).
DISCUSSION A. Attorney’s Fees
Plaintiff initially requested $826,313 in attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. ECF 221. This amount is comprised of $812,543 for work performed (2,656.9 hours) in the litigation other than the preparation of the fee petition, and $13,770 for work performed (41.3 hours) in preparing the fee petition. ECF 223 at 8-93; ECF 223-3; ECF 223-14. With its reply, Plaintiff requested an additional $22,357.50 for work performed (69.5 hours) in responding to Defendants’ objections to Plaintiff’s request for fees and costs. ECF 270 at 5; ECF 270-2. Plaintiff arrived at these amounts by multiplying the number of hours expended on the litigation (including the fee petition) by the hourly rates for Plaintiff’s attorneys and paralegals. Plaintiff notes that these totals reflect reductions that Plaintiff has already made “where time arguably could have been more efficiently spent.” ECF 222 at 10. Plaintiff contends that both the number of hours worked for which fees are requested and the hourly rates requested are reasonable and that PLN’s fee request is a “conservative” lodestar. Id. Plaintiff does not seek any upward adjustment to its lodestar amount.
consider in determining reasonable attorney’s fees. See In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 942 n.7 (9th Cir. 2011).
3 Page numbers cited for ECF documents refer to the ECF page number at the top of the page, even if the document’s internal pagination may differ.
PAGE 7 – OPINION AND ORDER ON FEES AND EXPENSES

Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s request on four primary grounds. First, Defendants argue that plaintiff did not achieve a more favorable result than the offer of judgment tendered by Defendants. Second, Defendants argue that the number of hours that Plaintiff’s attorneys and paralegals expended on the litigation were excessive in light of the significance and complexity of the lawsuit and the results obtained. Third, Defendants argue that the hourly rates requested by Plaintiff’s attorneys are unreasonable. Fourth, Defendants argue that the time spent by Plaintiff’s attorneys on specific tasks should be excluded or reduced. Defendants’ arguments are addressed in turn.
1. Defendants’ Offer of Judgment Defendants argue that under Rule 68(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if a defendant provides an offer of judgment in a Section 1983 case (where attorney fees may be awarded as costs to a prevailing plaintiff) and the prevailing plaintiff does not obtain a final judgment that is more favorable than the unaccepted offer, the plaintiff may not recover fees or costs incurred after the date of the offer. Defendants assert that they provided Plaintiff with an offer of judgment on March 6, 2012, less than two months after the lawsuit was commenced, in the amount of $21,000. ECF 245-8. Defendants further assert that Plaintiff’s claim for money damages ultimately was resolved by stipulation for $15,000, which is $6,000 less than Defendants’ unaccepted offer of judgment for $21,000. Based on these facts, Defendants conclude, “plaintiff’s counsel should not be compensated for the work performed after the offer was issued,” which Defendants calculate to be $710,608.50. ECF 244 at 8-9. Defendants’ argument, however, omits a crucial point. In Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed on January 13, 2012, Plaintiff sought preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and declaratory relief, in addition to money damages. ECF 1. Plaintiff told Defendants as early as February 6, 2012, that Plaintiff would only discuss resolving Plaintiff’s claim for money damages, attorney PAGE 8 – OPINION AND ORDER ON FEES AND EXPENSES

fees, and costs after Defendants agreed to stipulate to a permanent injunction and consent decree. ECF 245-7. Yet, when Defendants provided their offer of judgment to Plaintiff on March 6, 2012, that offer expressly stated that “defendants do not offer to allow judgment against them for declaratory relief, a preliminary injunction and a permanent injunction or any other equitable relief.” ECF 245-8.
A judgment containing declaratory and permanent injunctive relief can be more valuable to a plaintiff than money damages. In Lish v. Halper's Magazine Foundation, 148 F.R.D. 516, 519-520 (S.D.N.Y. 1993), the court held that a final judgment containing a judicial determination of copyright violation but no money damages was more favorable than the offer of judgment that included money damages only. The court explained that:
[M]oney damages are not the only measure of whether a plaintiff has obtained a ‘more favorable’ judgment within the meaning of Rule 68 . . . . [T]he judicial determination of copyright violation confers a benefit on a plaintiff which he would not have obtained merely by the entry of judgment in his favor: that is, to use the precedent established by a court finding in future instances. Id. at 520; see also, Lightfoot v. Walker, 619 F. Supp. 1481, 1485 (D.C. Ill. 1985) (holding that a judgment including declaratory relief on constitutional claims and injunction was “far more favorable” than the Rule 68 offer that did not include the injunctive relief obtained); Reiter v. MTA New York City Transit Authority, 457 F.3d 224, 229 (2d Cir. 2006) (holding that a judgment of $10,000 plus reinstatement of employment was more favorable than an offer of judgment for $20,001 alone, and the district court's decision to enforce the offer was clearly erroneous and failed to “appreciate the significance of equitable relief in civil rights litigation”). In the present case, Plaintiff prevailed in obtaining a Judgment that provides both declaratory and permanent injunctive relief in the protection of free speech and procedural due process rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. This result, by itself, would exceed
PAGE 9 – OPINION AND ORDER ON FEES AND EXPENSES

in value Defendants’ Rule 68 offer of $21,000. When the additional $15,000 stipulated payment is included, this is not even a close question. Defendants’ argument under Rule 68 is rejected.
2. Total hours expended by Plaintiff’s counsel Defendants argue that Plaintiffs should not recover for the time spent pursuing unsuccessful arguments and claims. Defendants cite McCown for the proposition that the district court erred when it failed properly to analyze the plaintiff’s fee request in light of whether the plaintiff achieved a level of success that makes the hours reasonably expended a satisfactory basis for the fees award. McCown, 565 F.3d at 1103. In McCown, the plaintiff sued a city, the city’s police department, and an individual officer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force in connection with the plaintiff’s arrest. After most of the claims asserted by the plaintiff were dismissed on summary judgment, the plaintiff settled his remaining claim for $20,000, not including attorney fees. Id. at 1100. The plaintiff received no other relief. Id. at 1104. The plaintiff then sought more than $301,000 in attorney’s fees. Id. at 1101. After making several reductions to the hourly rates and the number of hours expended, the Court award the plaintiff $200,000 in fees. Id. at 1102. The defendants appealed. In McCown, the Ninth Circuit held that “[a] plaintiff is not eligible to receive attorney’s fees for time spent on unsuccessful claims that are unrelated to a plaintiff’s successful § 1983 claim.” Id. at 1103. The court explained, however, that “where the plaintiff presents different claims for relief that ‘involve a common core of facts’ or are based on ‘related legal theories,’ the district court should not attempt to divide the request for attorney’s fees on a claim-by-claim basis. Instead, the court must proceed to the second part of the analysis and ‘focus on the significance of the overall relief obtained by the plaintiff in relation to the hours reasonably expended on the litigation.” Id. (citations omitted). In McCown, the Ninth Circuit concluded that although the district court correctly treated all of the plaintiff’s claims as related for purposes of PAGE 10 – OPINION AND ORDER ON FEES AND EXPENSES

determining attorney’s fees, the district court erred by not taking into account the plaintiff’s limited success when determining a reasonable award. Id. at 1103-5. The Ninth Circuit directed the district court on remand to consider “whether, and to what extent, McCown’s suit benefitted the public. The public benefit of a suit must have enough of an impact to justify a fully compensatory fee award despite limited success on damages claims.” Id. at 1105.
In the pending case, Plaintiff’s claims all involved a common core of facts or were based on related legal theories. Thus, as in McCown, the relevant inquiry is on the overall relief obtained by Plaintiff in relation to the hours reasonably expended. Defendants argue that PLN “continued to pursue this case even when defendants admitted liability for some portions, revised policies and offered monetary compensation.” ECF 244 at 11. As with Defendant’s first argument, based on Defendants’ Rule 68 offer of judgment, the flaw in Defendants’ argument here is that Plaintiff’s lawsuit was about much more than money damages. Although Defendants admitted liability to some extent “for some portions” of Plaintiff’s two claims, Plaintiff ultimately prevailed on liability beyond what Defendants were willing to concede. More importantly, Defendants were never willing to stipulate to permanent injunctive relief, relying solely on the argument that its current administration had no present intention to fail to abide by the Court’s preliminary injunction order and any declaratory relief that may issue. The Court has previously explained why permanent injunctive relief was both necessary and appropriate with respect to Defendants’ “postcard only” policy. See ECF 214 at 35-39 (Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law). Because Defendants were never willing to stipulate to permanent injunctive relief or a consent decree, Plaintiff was required to proceed to trial to obtain that relief.
Further, the injunctive and declaratory relief entered in this case benefitted the public and not just the specific Plaintiff, PLN. Although society always benefits when constitutional rights
PAGE 11 – OPINION AND ORDER ON FEES AND EXPENSES

are enforced and protected, here other members of the public received a more tangible benefit as a result of PLN’s successful lawsuit. This action brought specific injunctive relief not only to PLN but also to all inmates at the Jail and their family and friends and others who wish to correspond with them in ways not otherwise feasible under the Jail’s “postcard only” policy. See ECF 214 at 14-15 (Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law). And this benefit will continue to accrue to others in the future in light of the permanent nature of the injunction.
Notwithstanding the benefit both to PLN and to the public generally resulting from the Court’s final injunctive and declaratory relief, PLN spent a great deal of time in discovery, motion, and pretrial work on matters related to PLN’s various theories of money damages, primarily “diversion of resources” and “frustration of mission.” Ultimately, PLN chose not to litigate its claim for money damages to a final judicial resolution, but instead accepted a negotiated, and modest, payment from Defendants. Not every avenue that a party pursues in litigation needs to be successful in order to support a fee recovery for time actually spent, and here PLN prevailed on all of its key liability claims and received valuable and important injunctive and declaratory relief, in addition to its modest amount of stipulated money damages. Considering all of the fee-related factors that this Court must consider, the fact that the timesheet summaries submitted in support of the fee petition are relatively “massive,” and that Plaintiff has already reduced its fees to some extent before submitting its fee request (see ECF 222 at 10), the Court believes it appropriate to reduce Plaintiff’s fee request by a modest ten percent “haircut.” In the Court’s judgment, this result is more appropriate than imposing either a greater reduction or no reduction at all. Such a small reduction is within the discretion of the Court without the need for a more specific explanation. Gonzalez v. City of Maywood, 729 F.3d at 1203; see also Moreno, 534 F.3d at 1112. The Court so exercises its discretion here.
PAGE 12 – OPINION AND ORDER ON FEES AND EXPENSES

3. Hourly rates of Plaintiff’s counsel

Plaintiff seeks to recover the following hourly rates for the following five attorneys and

four paralegals:

Jesse Wing (attorney, 21 years experience)

$400

Marc Blackman (attorney, 39 years experience)

$400

Lance Weber (attorney, 15 years experience)

$350

Katherine Chamberlain (attorney, 8 years experience) $300

Alissa Hull (attorney, 2 years experience)

$210

Troy Locati (investigator/senior paralegal)

$175

Carrie Wilkinson (senior paralegal)

$125

Zach Phillips (paralegal)

$105

Kara McBride (paralegal)

$90

ECF 223 at 8 (Declaration of Jesse Wing).

Plaintiff submitted several declarations describing the skills and experience of these

attorneys and paralegals. Plaintiff also submitted eight declarations from experienced and well

respected Oregon litigation attorneys, including several attorney fee experts, who support the

reasonableness of the rates sought by Plaintiff. See Declarations of Carol J. Bernick (ECF 226), Charles F. Hinkle (ECF 227)4, Gregory P. Lynch (ECF 228), David B. Markowitz (ECF 229),

Robert Meyer (ECF 230), Daniel H. Skerrit (ECF 231), Dana L. Sullivan (ECF 232), and Eric D.

Wilson (ECF 233).

4 The Court notes that Mr. Hinkle’s declaration provides the standard billing rate in 2007 for the undersigned when this district judge was then an attorney in private practice with 26 years of experience. The hourly rate listed for 2007 is $495.
PAGE 13 – OPINION AND ORDER ON FEES AND EXPENSES

Defendants argue that counsel should be compensated “at the prevailing rate in the community for similar work; no more, no less.” ECF 244 at17 (citing Moreno, 534 F.3d at 1111). The Court agrees with this principle. Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s requested hourly rates are excessive, not in line with the OSB 2012 Survey, and higher than rates awarded in other cases to the attorneys in this case. In support of their position, Defendants rely on, among other things, three declarations. See Declarations of Susan Dunaway (ECF 247), Kathryn Mary Pratt (ECF 249), and William Blair (ECF 248).
Plaintiff refers the Court to the OSB 2012 Survey, “Hourly Billing Rate by Total Years Admitted to Practice, Portland.” In comparison to those rates, Plaintiff’s requested rates are essentially at or below the 75th Percentile for all attorneys except the most junior, Ms. Hull (where her requested rate is $210, the OSB 75th Percentile rate for her level of experience is $198, and the 95th Percentile rate for her level of experience is $246). The Court also notes that Jesse Wing’s requested rate is $400, while the OSB 75th Percentile rate for his level of experience is $399, which is essentially $400.
Defendants argue that the Court should also give weight to other OSB categories, such as “Civil Litigation, Plaintiff (excludes personal injury).” See, e.g., Pratt Decl., at ¶¶ 6, 8. This category shows lower average hourly rates, but is not adjusted to reflect the experience of counsel. The Court accepts the general proposition that, other things being equal, more experienced attorneys generally provide greater value to clients in terms of efficiency, expertise, and insight, especially in more complex areas of litigation, than less experienced counsel. This would justify higher hourly rates for more experienced counsel, and the market confirms this proposition. Hence, it is more appropriate to consider the OSB 2012 Survey category of “Hourly Billing Rate by Total Years Admitted to Practice,” even though a fair argument can be made that
PAGE 14 – OPINION AND ORDER ON FEES AND EXPENSES

this category may overstate a fair rate in some cases. See Pratt Decl., at ¶ 8. It also, however, may understate a fair rate in other cases. See Markowitz Decl., at ¶¶ 6-7.
In addition to reviewing the OSB 2012 Survey, the Court has also reviewed the Morones 2012 Survey of commercial litigation fees. The Court notes that Morones fee surveys in earlier years were able to achieve higher rates of survey responses than comparable OSB surveys. See Markowitz Decl., at ¶ 7. (Data regarding respective survey response rates for the two 2012 surveys were not presented to the Court.) When viewed in the light of the Morones 2012 Survey, the attorney’s fees requested by Plaintiff are below average for Wing and Blackman ($400 versus $412 and $448, respectively), slightly above average for Webber ($350 versus $346), above average for Chamberlain ($300 versus $269), and below average for Hull ($210 versus $269).
Finally, Defendants ask the Court to consider that many of the same attorneys for Plaintiff were awarded lower hourly rates in a similar case brought after the pending lawsuit began and after this Court issued its preliminary injunction in favor of Plaintiff in this case. See Prison Legal News v. Umatilla County, 2013 WL 2156471 (D. Or. May 16, 2013). The defendants in that case, however, served an offer of judgment, which Plaintiff accepted less than two months after that litigation began. Id. at *2. In response to the plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees in that case, U.S. Magistrate Judge Sullivan found that Plaintiff’s counsel have “significant experience in the realm of prisoners’ rights litigation, a specialized area of the law,” but concluded that “because this case was resolved in its early stages, before any litigation on the merits or significant discovery, the specialization and experience of, and risk to, PLN’s counsel is not a considerable factor.” Id. at *6. Thus, this Court does not give significant weight to the hourly rates awarded to the plaintiff in the Umatilla County case, notwithstanding a significant overlap in the plaintiff’s counsel in that case with Plaintiff’s counsel here.
PAGE 15 – OPINION AND ORDER ON FEES AND EXPENSES

All of these factors have been considered by the Court, which finds the requested hourly rates for Plaintiff’s attorneys and paralegals to be reasonable. The requested rates adequately reflect the prevailing market rates in the community, which the Court determines to be Portland, Oregon. Plaintiff’s requested rates are consistent with both the 2012 OSB Survey (75th Percentile, Total Years Admitted to Practice, Portland) and the 2012 Morones Survey of Commercial Litigation Fees in Portland. They are also supported by the expertise and experience of Plaintiff’s attorneys and paralegals and the complexity of prisoners’ rights constitutional litigation, especially in the context of free speech rights under the First Amendment.
4. Specific tasks Defendants also raise nine objections to specific tasks that Plaintiff includes in its request for attorney’s fees. Defendants’ objections are addressed in turn.
a. Pre-litigation investigation and preparation of the complaint Defendants argue that the time spent by Plaintiff investigating this matter before filing its Complaint and in researching and drafting the Complaint (166.7 hours, valued at $42,834) is excessive. ECF 244 at 21. The Complaint in this case was filed on January 13, 2012. ECF 1. Defendants note that in 2011 Plaintiff filed three lawsuits in other jurisdictions challenging similar “postcard only” policies. ECF 244 at 22. Defendants further note than in 2009, 2010, and 2011, Plaintiff filed four lawsuits in other jurisdictions, addressing other issues, but also seeking preliminary injunctive relief. Id. at 23. Defendants further argue that Plaintiff conducted this prelitigation activity without ever “reaching out” to Defendants “to let them know that plaintiff believed [Defendants’] policies were unconstitutional.” Id. at 21. The Court observes that Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF 1, is factually detailed and appears to have been carefully and painstakingly constructed. The Court further observes that there is no obligation on a civil rights plaintiff to contact a putative defendant before filing suit. That said, PAGE 16 – OPINION AND ORDER ON FEES AND EXPENSES

the number of hours spent on pre-litigation investigation and preparation of the complaint does seem somewhat high. For that reason, among others, the Court will assess a ten percent “haircut.”
b. Office conferences Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s fee petition reflects “multiple office ‘conferences’ among attorneys,” and Defendants identify approximately 16 hours of such conferences. ECF 244 at 23-24. The Court has reviewed Defendants’ objection and concludes that it is without merit.
c. Clerical tasks Defendants argue that they have “identified a number of non-billable clerical tasks” that should be removed from any fees that are awarded. ECF 244 at 24. According to Defendants, these tasks consist of “coding” by paralegals Kara McBride and Carrie Wilkinson (35.4 hours, valued at $4,145) and “IT tasks” by investigator/paralegal Troy Locati (45.9 hours, valued at $8,032.50). Id. at 25. With regard to the coding tasks performed by the two paralegals, the Court has reviewed Defendants’ objection and concludes that it is without merit. With regard to the “IT tasks” by investigator/paralegal Troy Locati, these tasks include, according to Defendants, copying [electronic] files, updating laptops, and conferring with others about IT tasks. Plaintiff explains that the work performed by these paralegals are all “core paralegal and non-clerical work.” ECF 271 at 18; ECF 266 at 2. Although these tasks are sufficiently related to legal work to be recoverable, charging an hourly rate of $175 for Mr. Locati has not been sufficiently justified and, therefore, may be somewhat excessive. See ECF 266 at 2-3. Rather than perform a more detailed analysis of his specific entries, however, which have a total value of approximately $8,000, the Court has considered this issue, along with others, in its decision to impose a ten percent “haircut” overall. PAGE 17 – OPINION AND ORDER ON FEES AND EXPENSES

d. Time spent pursuing unsuccessful legal theories Defendants argue that the time spent by Plaintiff pursuing unsuccessful legal theories (369.8 hours, valued at $120,810) and the time spent by Plaintiff focusing on their money damage claims (282.3 hours, valued at $94,407) are excessive. ECF 244 at 26. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s time entries. These issues, among others, support the Court’s ten percent “haircut.”
e. Electronic formatting of emails Defendants argue that the time spent by Plaintiff litigating over the production of Defendant’s emails in a particular format (12.65 hours, valued at $3,575) is excessive. ECF 244 at 27. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s time entries. Other than generally supporting the Court’s ten percent “haircut,” the Court concludes that Defendants’ argument is unpersuasive.
f. Time spent litigating the motion for preliminary injunction Defendants argue that the time spent litigating the motion for preliminary injunction (327.8 hours, valued at approximately $95,000) is excessive. ECF 244 at 27. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s time entries. Other than generally supporting the Court’s ten percent “haircut,” the Court concludes that Defendants’ argument is unpersuasive.
g. Time spent preparing the motion for attorney fees Defendants argue that “Plaintiffs are not entitled to payment for fees and costs associated with preparing the fee motion because the offer of judgment limited recovery to fee[s] incurred prior to the date of the offer.” ECF 244 at 28. The Court has already rejected this argument. See Section A(1) supra. Defendants further argue, in the alternative, that the time spent by Plaintiff in preparing its fee petition (41.3 hours, valued at $13,770) is excessive. ECF 244 at 28. The Court has reviewed the extensive and well documented fee petition and rejects Defendants’ argument. PAGE 18 – OPINION AND ORDER ON FEES AND EXPENSES

h. Block Billing Defendants argue that “[d]ue to the prolific use of block billing by plaintiff’s counsel in

this case, defendants could not segregate all the tasks as multiple tasks would be included in

individual time entries. Thus, defendants request that the court exercise its discretion in making

an overall reduction to account for the block billing.” ECF 244 at 29. The Court has reviewed

Plaintiff’s time entries, ECF 223-3, ECF 224-2, ECF 225-2, and ECF 270-2, and does not see

“prolific use of block billing” as represented by Defendants. In fact, Plaintiff’s counsel appears

to follow the practice and requirements of this district by including separate descriptions of work

and separate time entries whenever any daily expenditure of time exceeds three hours. Plaintiff’s

time records are to be commended, and Defendants’ argument is without merit.

i. Other Deductions Defendants also object to other specific time entries, which Defendants argue should not

be recovered. These entries, more fully described in the Declaration of Gregory R. Roberson

(ECF 245 at ¶¶ 16-18), include what Defendants characterize as “inapplicable legal issues.”

ECF 244 at 29. The Court has reviewed the objections described in ¶¶ 16-18 of the Roberson

Decl. and finds the objections to be without merit. These items are fairly recoverable to a

prevailing plaintiff.

5. Summary of final lodestar calculations
Fees requested in initial fee petition: (ECF 223 at 8 ¶ 23, ECF 223-3, ECF 224-2, ECF 225-2) (not including the preparation of the fee petition)
Fees requested for the initial preparation of the fee petition: (ECF 223 at 9 ¶ 25, ECF 223-14)
Additional fees for time spent after the initial fee petition: (ECF 270-2)
Sub-total:

$812,543.00
$13,770.00 $22,357.50 $848,670.50

PAGE 19 – OPINION AND ORDER ON FEES AND EXPENSES

Less ten percent reduction (“haircut”) Net fee award

–$84,867.05 $763,803.45

B. Expenses Plaintiff requests $38,373.01 in litigation expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

ECF 221; ECF 223 at 8; ECF 223-13; ECF 224 at 6; ECF 224-6; and ECF 225-2 at 15-16.

Defendants object on several grounds. ECF 250. First, Defendants argue that Plaintiff did not

submit a cost bill pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Second, Defendants argue that several of the

costs requested by Plaintiff are not recoverable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 or 28 U.S.C. § 1821.

Third, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to provide adequate documentation for some of

the costs requested. Id. Defendants’ arguments are not well taken, primarily for the reason that

Defendants fail to appreciate the distinction between “taxable costs” recoverable by a prevailing

party pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and non-taxable costs that may be awarded as part of a

reasonable attorney’s fee under an expense-shifting statute, such as 42 U.S.C. §1988.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1920, a judge or clerk of the court “may tax as costs” certain expenses

specifically described in, and limited by, that statute when a party timely files a “bill of costs.”

Such expenses are referred to as “taxable costs,” and generally they may be recovered by a

prevailing party pursuant to Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The United

States Supreme Court has explained that Section 1920 “define[s] the full extent of a federal

court’s power to shift litigation costs absent express statutory authority.” W. Va. Univ. Hosps.,

Inc. v. Casey, 499 U.S. 83, 86 (1991). Thus, absent express statutory authority, a prevailing party

who timely files a bill of costs may not recover expenses other than those that are specifically

authorized by Section 1920.

In the pending civil rights lawsuit, however, PLN is not seeking to recover taxable costs

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Instead, PLN invokes the express statutory authority of 42 U.S.C. PAGE 20 – OPINION AND ORDER ON FEES AND EXPENSES

§ 1988 as the basis for its right to recover its litigation expenses, regardless of whether those expenses would be recoverable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920.
Under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, “the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs.” Under wellestablished precedent, this statutory provision allows the “recovery of reasonable out-of-pocket expenses that ‘would normally be charged to a fee paying client.’ Expenses normally charged to fee-paying clients include ‘photocopying, paralegal expenses, and travel and telephone costs.’” Woods v. Carey, 722 F.3d 1177, 1179 n.1 (9th Cir. 2013) (citations omitted). In other words, under a statute allowing for a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs, such as 42 U.S.C. § 1988, “‘reasonable attorney’s fees’ include litigation expenses . . . when it is ‘the prevailing practice in a given community’ for lawyers to bill those costs separate from their hourly rates.” Grove v. Wells Fargo Financial California, Inc., 606 F.3d 577, 580 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted).
Thus, Defendants’ arguments that Plaintiff failed to file a bill of costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and that some of the expenses requested by Plaintiff in its motion are not taxable costs under that particular statute are not well taken. Further, Defendant does not argue that the expenses requested by Plaintiff in its motion are not expenses normally charged to fee-paying clients. The Court has reviewed the specific expenses identified by Plaintiff and concludes that they are the sorts of expenses normally charged to fee-paying clients. Finally, the Court is satisfied with the evidentiary support provided by Plaintiff. Defendants argue that Plaintiff only lists the costs of depositions but has failed to provide “deposition invoices.” Defendants cite no legal authority that requires the production of invoices. In the absence of a reason to question the representations of Plaintiff’s counsel, the Court accepts those representations as sufficient. See
PAGE 21 – OPINION AND ORDER ON FEES AND EXPENSES

ECF 223 at 15-16; ECF 223-13. Accordingly, under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, the Court allows as part of Plaintiff’s reasonable attorney’s fees the identified and requested litigation expenses in the amount of $38,373.01.
CONCLUSION Plaintiff’s motion for award of attorney’s fees and expenses (ECF 221) is granted in part. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, Plaintiff is awarded $763,803.45 in attorney’s fees and $38,373.01 in expenses. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 24th day of March, 2014.
/s/ Michael H. Simon Michael H. Simon United States District Judge
PAGE 22 – OPINION AND ORDER ON FEES AND EXPENSES

 </s> Case 3:12-cv-71 As of 04/02/2018 08:42 AM PDT Page 1 of 20 Page ID#: <pageID>
CT, TERMINATED,
U.S. District Court District of Oregon (Portland (3)) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:12−cv−00071−SI

Prison Legal News v. Columbia County et al Assigned to: Judge Michael H. Simon Case in other court: US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
13−35786
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 14−35291 Cause: 28:1983 Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 01/13/2012 Date Terminated: 05/28/2013 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Prison Legal News a project of the Human Rights Defense Center

represented by Jesse A. Wing MacDonald, Hoague & Bayless 1500 Hoge Building 705 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 206−622−1604 Fax: 206−343−3961 Email: JesseW@mhb.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine C. Chamberlain MacDonald Hoague & Bayless 705 Second Ave. Suite 1500 Seattle, WA 98104−1745 206−622−1604 Fax: 206−343−3961 Email: katherinec@mhb.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lance Weber Human Rights Defense Center PO Box 1151 Lake Worth, FL 33460 561−360−2523 Fax: 866−735−7136 Email: lance@lanceweber.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc D. Blackman Ransom Blackman, LLP 1001 SW Fifth Avenue Suite 1400 Portland, OR 97204 (503) 228−0487 Fax: (503) 227−5984 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alissa R. Hull Human Rights Defense Center P.O. Box 2420 West Brattleboro, VT 05303 802−579−1309

Case 3:12-cv-71 As of 04/02/2018 08:42 AM PDT Page 2 of 20 Page ID#: <pageID>
Fax: 866−228−1681 Email: ahull@humanrightsdefensecenter.org TERMINATED: 09/16/2013 PRO HAC VICE

V. Defendant Columbia County
Defendant Columbia County Sheriff's Office

represented by Kari A. Furnanz Hart Wagner, LLP 1000 SW Broadway Suite 2000 Portland, OR 97205 (503) 222−4499 Fax: (503) 222−2301 Email: kaf@hartwagner.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven A. Kraemer Kraemer & Lewis PO Box 1469 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 503−763−3875 Fax: 503−763−3901 Email: skraemer@cisoregon.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory R. Roberson Hart Wagner, LLP 1000 SW Broadway Suite 2000 Portland, OR 97205 503−547−0576 Fax: 503−547−0543 Email: greg@petersonlaw.net ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Janet Marie Schroer Hart Wagner, LLP 1000 SW Broadway Suite 2000 Portland, OR 97205 (503) 222−4499 Fax: (503) 222−2301 Email: jms@hartwagner.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Steven A. Kraemer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory R. Roberson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Janet Marie Schroer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case 3:12-cv-71 As of 04/02/2018 08:42 AM PDT Page 3 of 20 Page ID#: <pageID>

Kari A. Furnanz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Sheriff Jeff Dickerson individually and in his capacity as Columbia County Sheriff

represented by Steven A. Kraemer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gregory R. Roberson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Janet Marie Schroer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kari A. Furnanz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Partnership for Safety and Justice

represented by Lynn S. Walsh 209 S.W. Oak Street Suite 400 Portland, OR 97204 503−790−2772 Fax: 503−227−6840 Email: walsh@europa.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 01/13/2012
01/13/2012 01/18/2012
01/27/2012 01/27/2012 01/30/2012 01/31/2012 01/31/2012

# Docket Text
1 Complaint. Filing Fee in amount of $350 collected. Receipt No. 44935. Summons issued as to all defendants. Jury Trial Requested: yes.Filed by Prison Legal News against All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (tll) (Entered: 01/18/2012)
2 Summons Issued as to All Defendants (tll) (Entered: 01/18/2012)
3 Discovery and Pretrial Scheduling Order and Notice of Case Assignment to Judge Michael H. Simon. Discovery is to be completed by 5/17/2012. Joint Alternate Dispute Resolution Report is due by 6/18/2012. Pretrial Order is due by 6/18/2012. Ordered by Judge Michael H. Simon. (tll) (Entered: 01/18/2012)
4 Order Granting Application for Special Admission Pro Hac Vice of Lance Weber for Prison Legal News. Application Fee in amount of $100 collected. Receipt No. 45117 issued. Signed on 1/27/2012 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (ecp) (Entered: 01/30/2012)
5 Order Granting Application for Special Admission Pro Hac Vice of Jesse Wing for Prison Legal News. Application Fee in amount of $100 collected. Receipt No. 45118 issued. Signed on 1/27/2012 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (ecp) (Entered: 01/30/2012)
6 Notice of Appearance of Gregory R. Roberson appearing on behalf of All Defendants Filed by on behalf of All Defendants (Roberson, Gregory) (Entered: 01/30/2012)
7 Motion for Preliminary Injunction . Oral Argument requested. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 01/31/2012)
8 Declaration of Paul Wright . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Motion for Preliminary Injunction 7 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−H, # 2 Exhibit I−P, # 3 Exhibit Q−X, # 4 Exhibit Y−JJ, # 5 Exhibit KK−YY, # 6 Exhibit ZZ−HHH, # 7 Exhibit III−KKK, # 8 Exhibit LLL−Part 1, # 9 Exhibit LLL−Part 2, # 10 Exhibit MMM−RRR) (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 01/31/2012)

Case 3:12-cv-71 As of 04/02/2018 08:42 AM PDT Page 4 of 20 Page ID#: <pageID>

01/31/2012
01/31/2012 01/31/2012 01/31/2012 01/31/2012 01/31/2012 01/31/2012 02/01/2012 02/01/2012 02/01/2012 02/10/2012 02/10/2012 02/10/2012 02/10/2012 02/13/2012 02/14/2012 02/16/2012 02/16/2012 02/16/2012

9 Declaration of Katherine Chamberlain . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Motion for Preliminary Injunction 7 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−9, # 2 Exhibit 10−12, # 3 Exhibit 13, # 4 Exhibit 14−22) (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 01/31/2012)
10 Declaration of Lucy Lennox . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Motion for Preliminary Injunction 7 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit I−V, # 2 Exhibit VI−X, # 3 Exhibit XI−XV) (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 01/31/2012)
11 Declaration of Troy McCarter . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Motion for Preliminary Injunction 7 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−D) (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 01/31/2012)
12 Declaration of Rusty D. Campo . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Motion for Preliminary Injunction 7 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−C) (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 01/31/2012)
13 Declaration of Martin Kay . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Motion for Preliminary Injunction 7 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−D) (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 01/31/2012)
14 Declaration of Ezra St. Helen . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Motion for Preliminary Injunction 7 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−D) (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 01/31/2012)
15 Memorandum in Support . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Motion for Preliminary Injunction 7 .) (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 01/31/2012)
16 Affidavit of Service of Complaint 1 upon Columbia County served on 1/25/2012 Filed by Prison Legal News. (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 02/01/2012)
17 Affidavit of Service of Complaint 1 upon Jeff Dickerson served on 1/25/2012 Filed by Prison Legal News. (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 02/01/2012)
18 Affidavit of Service of Complaint 1 upon Columbia County Sheriff's Office served on 1/25/2012 Filed by Prison Legal News. (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 02/01/2012)
19 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Answer . Filed by All Defendants. (Roberson, Gregory) (Entered: 02/10/2012)
20 Declaration of Gregory R. Roberson . Filed by All Defendants. (Related document(s): Motion for Extension of Time to Answer a Complaint/Petition 19 .) (Roberson, Gregory) (Entered: 02/10/2012)
21 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response/Reply to Motion for Preliminary Injunction 7 . Filed by All Defendants. (Roberson, Gregory) (Entered: 02/10/2012)
22 Declaration of Gregory R. Roberson . Filed by All Defendants. (Related document(s): Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to a Motion 21 .) (Roberson, Gregory) (Entered: 02/10/2012)
23 ORDER − Granting Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Motion for Preliminary Injunction 21 Response is due by 2/17/2012. Ordered by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja) (Entered: 02/13/2012)
24 ORDER − Granting Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to Answer 19 . Answer is due by 2/17/2012. Ordered by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja) (Entered: 02/14/2012)
25 Answer to 1 Complaint with Jury Demand . Filed by Columbia County, Columbia County Sheriff's Office, Jeff Dickerson. (Kraemer, Steven) (Entered: 02/16/2012)
26 Second Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response/Reply Unopposed to Motion for Preliminary Injunction 7 . Filed by All Defendants. (Roberson, Gregory) (Entered: 02/16/2012)
27 Declaration of Gregory R. Roberson . Filed by All Defendants. (Related document(s): Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to a Motion 26 .) (Roberson,

Case 3:12-cv-71 As of 04/02/2018 08:42 AM PDT Page 5 of 20 Page ID#: <pageID>

02/16/2012 02/21/2012 02/21/2012 02/21/2012
02/21/2012
02/22/2012 03/06/2012 03/06/2012 03/06/2012 03/06/2012 03/06/2012 03/06/2012 03/06/2012 03/06/2012 03/06/2012 03/06/2012
03/06/2012

Gregory) (Entered: 02/16/2012)
28 ORDER − Granting Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to File Response Motion for Preliminary Injunction 26 . Response is due by 2/21/2012. Ordered by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja) (Entered: 02/16/2012)
29 Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Filed by All Defendants. (Related document(s): Motion for Preliminary Injunction 7 .) (Kraemer, Steven) (Entered: 02/21/2012)
30 Declaration of Bryan Cutright In Support of Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Filed by All Defendants. (Related document(s): Response 29 .) (Kraemer, Steven) (Entered: 02/21/2012)
31 Declaration of Gregory R. Roberson In Support of Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Filed by All Defendants. (Related document(s): Response 29 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (Kraemer, Steven) (Entered: 02/21/2012)
32 Declaration of Jeffrey M. Dickerson In Support of Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Filed by All Defendants. (Related document(s): Response 29 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H) (Kraemer, Steven) (Entered: 02/21/2012)
33 Order − Setting a Telephone Rule 16 Conference to discuss the pending motion and a case schedule for 3/8/2012 at 09:30AM. The Court will initiate the call to the parties. Ordered by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja) (Entered: 02/22/2012)
34 Declaration of Lucy Lennox. Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Motion for Preliminary Injunction 7 .) (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 03/06/2012)
35 Declaration of Shaughnessy Williams. Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Motion for Preliminary Injunction 7 .) (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 03/06/2012)
36 Declaration of Bradley Berg. Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Motion for Preliminary Injunction 7 .) (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 03/06/2012)
37 Declaration of Sharon R. Berg. Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Motion for Preliminary Injunction 7 .) (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 03/06/2012)
38 Declaration of Nataliya Mikhaylova. Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Motion for Preliminary Injunction 7 .) (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 03/06/2012)
39 Declaration of John Weisenberger. Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Motion for Preliminary Injunction 7 .) (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 03/06/2012)
40 Declaration of Oana Popa. Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Motion for Preliminary Injunction 7 .) (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 03/06/2012)
41 Motion to Appear as Amicus Curiae . Filed by Partnership for Safety and Justice. (Walsh, Lynn) (Entered: 03/06/2012)
42 Memorandum in Support . Filed by Partnership for Safety and Justice. (Related document(s): Motion to appear as amicus curiae 41 .) (Walsh, Lynn) (Entered: 03/06/2012)
43 ORDER − Granting Partnership for Safety and Justice's Motion to Appear as Amicus Curiae 41 . The Court will discuss a case schedule at the Telephone Rule 16 Conference set for 3/8/2012. Ordered by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja) (Entered: 03/06/2012)
44 Second Declaration of Paul Wright. Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Motion for Preliminary Injunction 7 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−13) (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 03/06/2012)

Case 3:12-cv-71 As of 04/02/2018 08:42 AM PDT Page 6 of 20 Page ID#: <pageID>

03/06/2012 03/06/2012 03/07/2012 03/08/2012
03/15/2012 03/22/2012 03/28/2012 03/29/2012 03/30/2012 04/04/2012
04/24/2012
04/24/2012 04/26/2012

45 Declaration of Jesse Wing. Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Motion for Preliminary Injunction 7 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−9) (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 03/06/2012)
46 Reply to Motion for Preliminary Injunction 7 Oral Argument requested. Filed by Prison Legal News. (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 03/06/2012)
47 Amicus Brief . Filed by Partnership for Safety and Justice. (Related document(s): Motion to appear as amicus curiae 41 .) (Walsh, Lynn) (Entered: 03/07/2012)
48 MINUTES of Telephone Conference: Order − Setting a case schedule as follows: Setting a further Status Conference for 3/15/2012 at 09:30AM. The Court will initiate the call to the parties. Defendants' response to Partnership for Safety and Justice's Amicus Brief 47 is due by 3/22/2012. Setting a Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction 7 for 4/4/2012 at 09:30AM in Portland, Courtroom 13B, before Judge Michael H. Simon. Marc D. Blackman, Katherine C. Chmaberlain and Jesse Wing present as counsel for plaintiff(s). Steven Kraemer and Gregory Roberson present as counsel for defendant(s). Court Reporter: Dennis Apodaca. Judge Michael H. Simon presiding. (mja) (Entered: 03/08/2012)
49 MINUTES of Telephone Conference: Status of case discussed as stated on the record. Marc D. Blackman, Katherine Chamberlain, Jesse Wing present as counsel for plaintiff(s). Steven Kraemer and Gregory Roberson present as counsel for defendant(s). Court Reporter: Dennis Apodaca. Judge Michael H. Simon presiding. (mja) (Entered: 03/15/2012)
50 Response to Amicus Curiae Brief of the Partnership for Safety and Justice . Filed by All Defendants. (Related document(s): Motion to appear as amicus curiae 41 .) (Kraemer, Steven) Modified text on 3/23/2012 (sss). (Entered: 03/22/2012)
51 Order − At the parties' request, the Court is setting a Telephone Conference for 3/29/2012 at 11:00AM. The Court will initiate the call. Ordered by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja) (Entered: 03/28/2012)
52 MINUTES of Telephone Conference: Discovery discussed as stated on the record. Marc D. Blackman, Katherine Chamberlain, Lance Weber and Jesse Wing present as counsel for plaintiff(s). Gergory R. Roberson present as counsel for defendant(s). Court Reporter: Dennis Apodaca. Judge Michael H. Simon presiding. (mja) (Entered: 03/29/2012)
53 Declaration of Patricia Mendoza . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Motion for Preliminary Injunction 7 .) (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 03/30/2012)
54 MINUTES of Oral Argument Hearing: Order − Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction 7 is taken under advisement as of 4/4/2012. The deadline for the close of discovery is 8/16/2012. Dispositive Motions are due by 9/13/2012. Setting a Telephone Status Conference for 7/6/2012 at 9:30AM. The Court will initiate the call to the parties. MarC D. Blackman, Katherine C. Chamberlain, and Jesse Wing present as counsel for plaintiff(s). Steven A. Kraemer and Gregory R. Roberson present as counsel for defendant(s). Court Reporter: Dennis Apodaca. Judge Michael H. Simon presiding. (mja) (Entered: 04/04/2012)
55 OFFICIAL COURT TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS FILED Motion Hearing held on April 4, 2012 before Judge Michael H. Simon, Court Reporter Dennis W. Apodaca, telephone number (503) 326−8182. Transcript may be viewed at Court's public terminal or purchased from the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. Afterwards it may be obtained through PACER−See Policy at ord.uscourts.gov. Notice of Intent to Redact Transcript is due by 5/4/2012. Redaction Request due 5/18/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/29/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/26/2012. (Apodaca, Dennis) (Entered: 04/24/2012)
56 Order − At the parties' request, the Court is setting a Telephone Conference to discuss a discovery matter for 4/26/2012 at 03:15PM. The Court will initiate the call. Ordered by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja) (Entered: 04/24/2012)
57 MINUTES of Telephone Conference: Status of case discussed as stated on the record. Order − Setting a further Telephone Status Conference for 4/27/2012 at

Case 3:12-cv-71 As of 04/02/2018 08:42 AM PDT Page 7 of 20 Page ID#: <pageID>

04/27/2012 04/30/2012
04/30/2012 05/29/2012 05/29/2012 05/29/2012 05/29/2012
06/08/2012 06/08/2012 06/08/2012 06/12/2012 06/12/2012 06/15/2012 06/15/2012 06/15/2012 06/19/2012 06/22/2012

11:00AM. The Court will initiate the call to the parties. Marc Blackman and Jesse Wing present as counsel for plaintiff(s). Leslie Edenhofer present as counsel for defendant(s). Court Reporter: Dennis Apodaca. Judge Michael H. Simon presiding. (mja) (Entered: 04/26/2012)
58 Order − At the parties' request, the Court is resetting the Telephone Conference from 4/27/2012 to 4/30/2012 at 11:00AM. The Court will initiate the call to the parties. Ordered by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja) (Entered: 04/27/2012)
59 MINUTES of Telephone Conference: Order − Discovery matter discussed as stated on the record. Jesse Wing present as counsel for plaintiff(s). Leslie Edenhofer present as counsel for defendant(s). Court Reporter: Dennis Apodaca. Judge Michael H. Simon presiding. (mja) (Entered: 04/30/2012)
60 Order Approving Parameters of Rule 30(b)(6) Depositions and Rule 34 Inspection of Mail Processing, Jail Premises and Documents. Signed on 4/30/12 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja) (Entered: 04/30/2012)
61 Motion to Compel Production of Documents. Oral Argument requested. Filed by Columbia County Sheriff's Office. (Roberson, Gregory) (Entered: 05/29/2012)
62 Memorandum in Support . Filed by Columbia County Sheriff's Office. (Related document(s): Motion to compel 61 .) (Roberson, Gregory) (Entered: 05/29/2012)
63 Declaration of Gregory R. Roberson In Support. Filed by Columbia County Sheriff's Office. (Related document(s): Motion to compel 61 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D) (Roberson, Gregory) (Entered: 05/29/2012)
64 Opinion and Order − Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, Dkt. 7 , is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Pending final resolution of this litigation, the court ORDERS that not later than 30 days from the date of this Order, Defendants must refrain from restricting all incoming and outgoing inmate personal mail to postcards only and shall not refuse to deliver or process personal inmate mail solely on the grounds that it is not on a postcard. Signed on 5/29/12 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja) (Entered: 05/29/2012)
65 Motion to Amend/Correct Answer. Oral Argument requested. Filed by All Defendants. (Roberson, Gregory) (Entered: 06/08/2012)
66 Memorandum in Support . Filed by All Defendants. (Related document(s): Motion to Amend/Correct 65 .) (Roberson, Gregory) (Entered: 06/08/2012)
67 Declaration of Gregory R. Roberson . Filed by All Defendants. (Related document(s): Motion to Amend/Correct 65 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (Roberson, Gregory) (Entered: 06/08/2012)
68 Response of PLN to Motion to Compel Production of Documents 61 . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 06/12/2012)
69 Declaration of Jesse Wing In Support of PLN's Opposition. Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Motion to compel 61 .) (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 06/12/2012)
70 Motion to Amend/Correct Opinion,, 64 . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 06/15/2012)
71 Memorandum in Support . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Motion to Amend/Correct 70 .) (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 06/15/2012)
72 Declaration of Katherine C. Chamberlain . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Motion to Amend/Correct 70 .) (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 06/15/2012)
73 OPINION and ORDER − Defendants' Motion to Compel 61 is DENIED. Signed on 6/19/12 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja) (Entered: 06/19/2012)
74 Response in Opposition to Motion to Amend/Correct Answer 65 . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 06/22/2012)

Case 3:12-cv-71 As of 04/02/2018 08:42 AM PDT Page 8 of 20 Page ID#: <pageID>

06/22/2012 07/02/2012 07/02/2012 07/06/2012
07/06/2012 07/30/2012 08/15/2012 08/15/2012 08/15/2012 08/16/2012 09/13/2012 09/13/2012 09/13/2012
09/13/2012 09/13/2012

75 Declaration of Jesse Wing . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Response in Opposition to Motion 74 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3) (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 06/22/2012)
76 Response in Opposition to Motion to Amend/Correct Opinion,, 64 70 . Filed by All Defendants. (Roberson, Gregory) (Entered: 07/02/2012)
77 Declaration of Gregory R. Roberson In Support of. Filed by All Defendants. (Related document(s): Response in Opposition to Motion 76 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Roberson, Gregory) (Entered: 07/02/2012)
78 MINUTES of Telephone Conference: Order − Defendants' Motion to Amend Answer 65 is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Opinion 70 is DENIED. Setting a Pretrial Conference for 1/28/2013 at 01:30PM in Portland, Courtroom 13B, before Judge Michael H. Simon. Setting a 7−Day Jury Trial for 2/5/2013 at 09:00AM in Portland, Courtroom 13B, before Judge Michael H. Simon. Marc D. Blackman, Katherine C. Chamberlain, Lance Weber and Jesse Wing present as counsel for plaintiff(s). Steven A. Kraemer and Gregory R. Roberson present as counsel for defendant(s). Court Reporter: Dennis Apodaca. Judge Michael H. Simon presiding. (mja) (Entered: 07/06/2012)
79 Trial Management Order. Signed on 7/6/12 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja) (Entered: 07/06/2012)
80 Amended Answer to 1 Complaint with Jury Demand . Filed by Columbia County, Columbia County Sheriff's Office, Jeff Dickerson. (Roberson, Gregory) (Entered: 07/30/2012)
81 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Filed by Prison Legal News. (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 08/15/2012)
82 Joint Memorandum in Support of Motion to Extend Discovery Deadline. Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Motion for Extension of Time 81 .) (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 08/15/2012)
83 Declaration of Katherine C. Chamberlain In Support of Joint Motion to Extend Discovery Deadline. Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Motion for Extension of Time 81 .) (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 08/15/2012)
84 ORDER − Granting the parties' Joint Motion to Extend Discovery Deadline 81 . Discovery is to be completed by 8/31/2012. Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Interrogatory No. 23 and Request for Production No. 28 are due by 8/31/2012. Ordered by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja) (Entered: 08/16/2012)
85 Motion for Summary Judgment on Claims for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Oral Argument requested. Filed by Prison Legal News. (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 09/13/2012)
86 Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendants' Failure to Mitigate Affirmative Defense. Oral Argument requested. Filed by Prison Legal News. (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 09/13/2012)
87 Declaration of Katherine C. Chamberlain in Support of Plaintiff's Motions for Summary Judgment. Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment 85 , Motion for Summary Judgment 86 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10) (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 09/13/2012)
88 Exhibits 11 − 20 re Declaration, 87 . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 12, # 2 Exhibit 13, # 3 Exhibit 14, # 4 Exhibit 15, # 5 Exhibit 16, # 6 Exhibit 17, # 7 Exhibit 18, # 8 Exhibit 19, # 9 Exhibit 20) (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 09/13/2012)
89 Exhibits 21 − 35 re Declaration, 87 . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 22, # 2 Exhibit 23, # 3 Exhibit 24, # 4 Exhibit 25, # 5 Exhibit 26, # 6 Exhibit 27, # 7 Exhibit 28, # 8 Exhibit 29, # 9 Exhibit 30, # 10 Exhibit 31, # 11 Exhibit 32, # 12 Exhibit 33, # 13 Exhibit 34, # 14 Exhibit 35) (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 09/13/2012)

Case 3:12-cv-71 As of 04/02/2018 08:42 AM PDT Page 9 of 20 Page ID#: <pageID>

09/13/2012

90 Exhibits 36−50 re Declaration, 87 . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 37, # 2 Exhibit 38, # 3 Exhibit 39, # 4 Exhibit 40, # 5 Exhibit 41, # 6 Exhibit 42, # 7 Exhibit 43, # 8 Exhibit 44, # 9 Exhibit 45, # 10 Exhibit 46, # 11 Exhibit 47, # 12 Exhibit 48, # 13 Exhibit 49, # 14 Exhibit 50) (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 09/13/2012)

09/13/2012

91 Exhibits 51−62 re Declaration, 87 . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 52, # 2 Exhibit 53, # 3 Exhibit 54, # 4 Exhibit 55, # 5 Exhibit 56, # 6 Exhibit 57, # 7 Exhibit 58, # 8 Exhibit 59, # 9 Exhibit 60, # 10 Exhibit 61, # 11 Exhibit 62) (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 09/13/2012)

09/13/2012

92 Exhibits 63 − 69 re Declaration, 87 . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 64, # 2 Exhibit 65, # 3 Exhibit 66, # 4 Exhibit 67, # 5 Exhibit 68, # 6 Exhibit 69) (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 09/13/2012)

09/13/2012

93 Exhibits 70−73 re Declaration, 87 . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 71, # 2 Exhibit 72, # 3 Exhibit 73) (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 09/13/2012)

09/13/2012 94 Exhibits 74 re Declaration, 87 . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 09/13/2012)

09/13/2012 95 Exhibits 75 re Declaration, 87 . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 09/13/2012)

09/13/2012 96 Exhibits 76 (parts 1 and 2) re Declaration, 87 . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 76 (part 2)) (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 09/13/2012)

09/13/2012

97 Second Declaration of Bradley Berg . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment 85 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C) (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 09/13/2012)

09/13/2012 98 Memorandum in Support . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment 85 .) (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 09/13/2012)

09/13/2012

99 Declaration of Jesse Wing . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment 85 , Motion for Summary Judgment 86 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit I, # 2 Exhibit II, # 3 Exhibit III, # 4 Exhibit IV, # 5 Exhibit V) (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 09/13/2012)

09/13/2012 100 Exhibits VI − X re Declaration, 99 . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit VII, # 2 Exhibit VIII, # 3 Exhibit IX, # 4 Exhibit X) (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 09/13/2012)

09/13/2012 101 Memorandum in Support . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment 86 .) (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 09/13/2012)

09/27/2012 102 Order − Setting Oral Argument on the pending Motions for Summary Judgment 85 & 86 for 11/16/2012 at 01:30PM in Portland, Courtroom 13B, before Judge Michael H. Simon. Ordered by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja) Modified on 9/28/2012 to correct the date for the hearing to November (mja). (Entered: 09/27/2012)

10/03/2012 103 Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response/Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment on Claims for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief 85 . Filed by All Defendants. (Roberson, Gregory) (Entered: 10/03/2012)

10/03/2012 104 Declaration of Gregory R. Roberson . Filed by All Defendants. (Related document(s): Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to a Motion 103 .) (Roberson, Gregory) (Entered: 10/03/2012)

10/03/2012 105 ORDER − Granting Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 103 Response is due by 10/16/2012. Ordered by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja) (Entered: 10/03/2012)

10/09/2012 106 Response to Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendants' Failure to Mitigate Affirmative Defense 86 Oral Argument requested. Filed by All Defendants. (Roberson, Gregory) (Entered: 10/09/2012)

Case 3:12-cv-71 As of 04/02/2018 08:42 AM PDT Page 10 of 20 Page ID#: <pageID>
10/09/2012 107 Declaration of Gregory R. Roberson . Filed by All Defendants. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 106 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G) (Roberson, Gregory) (Entered: 10/09/2012)
10/10/2012 108 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment re Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Filed by Prison Legal News. (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 10/10/2012)
10/10/2012 109 Declaration of Jesse Wing . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment 85 , Motion for Extension of Time 108 .) (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 10/10/2012)
10/11/2012 110 ORDER − Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment re Declaratory and Injunctive Relief 108 . Reply due by 11/2/2012. Ordered by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja) (Entered: 10/11/2012)
10/15/2012 111 Unopposed Motion to File Excess Pages . Filed by All Defendants. (Roberson, Gregory) (Entered: 10/15/2012)
10/15/2012 112 Declaration of Gregory R. Roberson . Filed by All Defendants. (Related document(s): Motion to File Excess Pages 111 .) (Roberson, Gregory) (Entered: 10/15/2012)
10/16/2012 113 ORDER − Granting Defendants' Motion to File Excess Pages 111 up to and including 43 pages. Ordered by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja) (Entered: 10/16/2012)
10/16/2012 114 Response to Motion for Summary Judgment on Claims for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief 85 Oral Argument requested. Filed by All Defendants. (Roberson, Gregory) (Entered: 10/16/2012)
10/16/2012 115 Declaration of Gregory R. Roberson . (Related document(s): Response to Motion 114 ) Filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M) (Roberson, Gregory) Modified on 10/16/2012 to add related document information(ecp). (Entered: 10/16/2012)
10/16/2012 116 Declaration of Jeffrey M. Dickerson . Filed by All Defendants. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 114 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (Roberson, Gregory) (Entered: 10/16/2012)
10/23/2012 117 Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendants' Failure to Mitigate Affirmative Defense 86 . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 10/23/2012)
10/23/2012 118 Declaration of Jesse Wing . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment 86 .) (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 10/23/2012)
11/02/2012 119 Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment on Claims for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief 85 . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 11/02/2012)
11/02/2012 120 Declaration of Jesse Wing . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment 85 .) (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 11/02/2012)
11/09/2012 121 Sur−Reply Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motions to Strike Oral Argument requested. Filed by All Defendants. (Roberson, Gregory) (Entered: 11/09/2012)
11/09/2012 122 Declaration of Gregory R. Roberson . Filed by All Defendants. (Related document(s): Sur−Reply to Motion 121 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C) (Roberson, Gregory) (Entered: 11/09/2012)
11/09/2012 123 Declaration of Jim Carpenter . Filed by All Defendants. (Related document(s): Sur−Reply to Motion 121 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Roberson, Gregory) (Entered: 11/09/2012)
11/15/2012 124 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Attorney Alissa Hull . Filing fee in the amount of $100 collected; Agency Tracking ID: 0979−3099430. Filed by Prison Legal News. (Weber, Lance) (Entered: 11/15/2012)

Case 3:12-cv-71 As of 04/02/2018 08:42 AM PDT Page 11 of 20 Page ID#: <pageID>
11/16/2012 125 MINUTES of Motion Hearing: Order − Plaintiff's Motions for Partial Summary Judgment 85 & 86 are DENIED for the reasons stated on the record. Plaintiff's motion to Strike defendants' evidence is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART for the reasons stated on the record. Katherine C. Chamberlain, Jesse A. Wing and Alissa Hull present as counsel for plaintiff(s). Steven A. Kraemer and Gregory R. Roberson present as counsel for defendant(s). Court Reporter: Dennis Apodaca. Judge Michael H. Simon presiding. Modified on 11/16/2012 (mja). (Entered: 11/16/2012)
11/26/2012 126 OFFICIAL COURT TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS FILED Motion Hearing held on November 16, 2012 before Judge Michael H. Simon, Court Reporter Dennis W. Apodaca, telephone number (503) 326−8182. Transcript may be viewed at Court's public terminal or purchased from the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. Afterwards it may be obtained through PACER−See Policy at ord.uscourts.gov. Notice of Intent to Redact Transcript is due by 12/6/2012. Redaction Request due 12/20/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 12/31/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 2/28/2013. (Apodaca, Dennis) (Entered: 11/26/2012)
11/27/2012 127 Order Granting Application for Special Admission Pro Hac Vice of Alissa R. Hull for Prison Legal News. Application Fee in amount of $100 collected. Receipt No. 0979−3099430 issued. Signed on 11/27/2012 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (ecp) (Entered: 11/29/2012)
12/30/2012 128 Exhibit List . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 12/30/2012)
12/30/2012 129 Trial Brief . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 12/30/2012)
12/30/2012 130 Motion in limine . Oral Argument requested. Filed by Prison Legal News. (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 12/30/2012)
12/30/2012 131 Memorandum in Support Plaintiff's Motions in Limine. Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Motion in Limine 130 .) (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 12/30/2012)
12/30/2012 132 Declaration of Jesse Wing in Support of Plaintiff's Motions in Limine. Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Motion in Limine 130 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12) (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 12/30/2012)
12/30/2012 133 Voir Dire . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 12/30/2012)
12/31/2012 134 Statement of Special Damages . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 12/31/2012)
12/31/2012 135 Proposed Jury Instructions . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 12/31/2012)
12/31/2012 136 Proposed Jury Verdict Form. Filed by Prison Legal News. (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 12/31/2012)
12/31/2012 137 Designation of Deposition Testimony . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E) (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 12/31/2012)
12/31/2012 138 Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 12/31/2012)
12/31/2012 139 Witness List , Witness Statement . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 12/31/2012)
01/07/2013 140 Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum. Filed by Prison Legal News. (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
01/07/2013 141 Memorandum in Support . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum 140 .) (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
01/07/2013 142 Witness List . Filed by All Defendants. (Kraemer, Steven) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
01/07/2013 143 Declaration of Jesse Wing . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum 140 .) (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 01/07/2013)

Case 3:12-cv-71 As of 04/02/2018 08:42 AM PDT Page 12 of 20 Page ID#: <pageID>
01/07/2013 144 Alternative Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Filed by All Defendants. (Kraemer, Steven) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
01/07/2013 145 Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum. Filed by Prison Legal News. (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
01/07/2013 146 Expert Statement . Filed by All Defendants. (Kraemer, Steven) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
01/07/2013 147 Proposed Jury Verdict Form. Filed by All Defendants. (Kraemer, Steven) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
01/07/2013 148 Memorandum in Support . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum 145 .) (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
01/07/2013 149 Proposed Jury Verdict Form. Filed by All Defendants. (Kraemer, Steven) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
01/07/2013 150 Declaration of Jesse Wing . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum 145 .) (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
01/07/2013 151 Designation of Deposition Testimony . Filed by All Defendants. (Kraemer, Steven) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
01/07/2013 152 Proposed Voir Dire . Filed by All Defendants. (Kraemer, Steven) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
01/07/2013 153 Proposed Jury Instructions . Filed by All Defendants. (Kraemer, Steven) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
01/07/2013 154 Objection(s) to Plaintiff's Suggested Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Filed by All Defendants. (Related document(s): Findings of Fact 138 .) (Kraemer, Steven) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
01/07/2013 155 Objection to Trial Exhibit . Filed by All Defendants. (Kraemer, Steven) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
01/07/2013 156 Objection(s) to Plaintiff's Lay Witness List and Witness Statements. Filed by All Defendants. (Related document(s): Witness List, Witness statement 139 .) (Kraemer, Steven) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
01/07/2013 157 Objection(s) to Plaintiff's Substantive Evidence Deposition Designations. Filed by All Defendants. (Related document(s): Deposition Testimony Designation 137 .) (Kraemer, Steven) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
01/07/2013 158 Objection(s) to Plaintiff's Proposed Jury Instructions. Filed by All Defendants. (Related document(s): Jury instructions − Proposed 135 .) (Kraemer, Steven) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
01/07/2013 159 Objection(s) to Plaintiff's Proposed Special Verdict Form. Filed by All Defendants. (Related document(s): Jury Verdict Form − Proposed 136 .) (Kraemer, Steven) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
01/07/2013 160 Trial Brief . Filed by All Defendants. (Kraemer, Steven) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
01/07/2013 161 Exhibit List . Filed by All Defendants. (Kraemer, Steven) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
01/07/2013 162 Motion in limine . Filed by All Defendants. (Kraemer, Steven) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
01/07/2013 163 Declaration of Gregory R. Roberson In Support of Defendants' Motions in Limine and Defendants' Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's Motions in Limine. Filed by All Defendants. (Related document(s): Motion in Limine 162 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−H, # 2 Exhibit I, # 3 Exhibit J, # 4 Exhibit K−N) (Kraemer, Steven) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
01/07/2013 164 Response and Objections to Motion in limine 130 . Filed by All Defendants. (Kraemer, Steven) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
01/13/2013 165 Response of Plaintiff to Motion in limine 162 Oral Argument requested. Filed by Prison Legal News. (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 01/13/2013)

Case 3:12-cv-71 As of 04/02/2018 08:42 AM PDT Page 13 of 20 Page ID#: <pageID>
01/13/2013 166 Declaration of Jesse Wing . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Motion in Limine 162 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D) (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 01/13/2013)
01/13/2013 167 Designation of Deposition Testimony (Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Objections to Plaintiff's Deposition Designations). Filed by Prison Legal News. (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 01/13/2013)
01/14/2013 168 Cross Designation of Deposition Testimony and Plf's Objections to Defendants' Designation of Deposition Testimony. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Part 1, # 2 Attachment Part 2, # 3 Attachment Part 3) (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 01/14/2013)
01/14/2013 169 Exhibit List , Plf's Response to Defendants' Objections to Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 01/14/2013)
01/14/2013 170 Witness Statement , Plf's Response to Defendants' Objections to Plaintiff's Witness Statements. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 01/14/2013)
01/14/2013 171 Witness Statement , Plf's Objections to Defendants' Expert and Lay Witnesses and Witness Statements. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 01/14/2013)
01/14/2013 172 Objection to Trial Exhibit , Plf's Objections to Defendants' Trial Exhibits. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 01/14/2013)
01/14/2013 173 Declaration of Jesse Wing In Support of Plf's Objections to Ds' Trial Exhibits and Plf's Response to Ds' Objections to Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Exhibit List 169 , Objection to Trial Exhibit 172 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3) (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 01/14/2013)
01/15/2013 174 Scheduling Order by Judge Michael H. Simon. Order − Due to a conflict in the Court's schedule, the Court is resetting the Pretrial Conference from 1/28/2013 to 1/30/2013 at 01:30PM in Portland, Courtroom 13B, before Judge Michael H. Simon. Ordered by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja) (Entered: 01/15/2013)
01/22/2013 175 Response . Filed by All Defendants. (Related document(s): Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum 140 , Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum 145 .) (Roberson, Gregory) (Entered: 01/22/2013)
01/22/2013 176 Declaration of Gregory R. Roberson in Support of Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Petition for Writs of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum for Witnesses Berg and Bennett. Filed by All Defendants. (Related document(s): Response 175 .) (Roberson, Gregory) (Entered: 01/22/2013)
01/22/2013 177 Response to Plaintiff's Objections to Defendants' Substantive Deposition Testimony Designations and Cross Designations. Filed by All Defendants. (Related document(s): Deposition Testimony Designation, 168 .) (Roberson, Gregory) (Entered: 01/22/2013)
01/22/2013 178 Response to Plaintiff's Objections to Defendants' Expert and Lay Witnesses and Witness Statements. Filed by All Defendants. (Related document(s): Witness statement 171 .) (Roberson, Gregory) (Entered: 01/22/2013)
01/22/2013 179 Response to Plaintiff's Objections to Defendants' Proposed Trial Exhibits. Filed by All Defendants. (Related document(s): Objection to Trial Exhibit 172 .) (Roberson, Gregory) (Entered: 01/22/2013)
01/22/2013 180 Declaration of Gregory R. Roberson in Support of Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Objections to Defendants' Proposed Trial Exhibits. Filed by All Defendants. (Related document(s): Response 179 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2) (Roberson, Gregory) (Entered: 01/22/2013)
01/23/2013 181 Motion for Extension of Time to File Joint Status Report, Joint Neutral Statement and Joint Fact Stipulations. Filed by All Defendants. (Roberson, Gregory) (Entered: 01/23/2013)
01/23/2013 182 Declaration of Gregory R. Roberson in Support of Defendants' Opposed Motion to Extend Deadline to File Joint Status Report, Joint Neutral Statement of Case and Joint

Case 3:12-cv-71 As of 04/02/2018 08:42 AM PDT Page 14 of 20 Page ID#: <pageID>
Fact Stipulations. Filed by All Defendants. (Related document(s): Motion for Extension of Time 181 .) (Roberson, Gregory) (Entered: 01/23/2013)
01/23/2013 183 Proposed Findings of Fact (Plaintiff's Objections to Defendants' Alternative Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law). Filed by Prison Legal News. (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 01/23/2013)
01/23/2013 184 Proposed Jury Instructions (Plaintiff's Objections to Defendants' Proposed Jury Instructions and Verdict Form). Filed by Prison Legal News. (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 01/23/2013)
01/23/2013 185 ORDER − Granting Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time 181 .Joint Status Report, Joint Neutral Statement and Joint Fact Stipulations are due by 1/24/2013. Ordered by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja) (Entered: 01/23/2013)
01/24/2013 186 Order − ORDER At the pretrial conference scheduled for January 30, 2013, counsel should be prepared to discuss the legal bases for the recovery of: (1) "diversion of resources" damages, including, among other things, whether litigation expenses are recoverable as "diversion of resources" damages (see La Asociacion de Trabajadores de Lake Forest v. City of Lake Forest, 624 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2010); Spann v. Colonial Vill., Inc., 899 F.2d 24 (D.C. Cir. 1990); and Ass'n of Cmty. Organizations for Reform Now v. Fowler, 178 F.3d 350 (5th Cir. 1999)); (2) "frustration of mission" damages, including under what circumstances, if any, prospective "frustration of mission" damages are available in cases brought under Section 1983 (see Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982)); and (3) "presumed" damages, including under what circumstances, if any, such damages are recoverable for specific, non−abstract harms that are unquantifiable (see Memphis Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. Stachura, 477 U.S. 299 (1986); Trevino v. Gates, 99 F.3d 911, 922 (9th Cir. 1996); and City of Watseka v. Illinois Pub. Action Council, 796 F.2d 1547, 1565 (7th Cir. 1986)). Ordered by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja) (Entered: 01/24/2013)
01/24/2013 187 Joint Status Report . Filed by All Defendants. (Roberson, Gregory) (Entered: 01/24/2013)
01/24/2013 188 Statement of Joint Neutral Statement of Case . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 01/24/2013)
01/25/2013 189 Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandumre Witness Bradley Berg. Filed by Prison Legal News. (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 01/25/2013)
01/25/2013 190 Memorandum in Support of Corrected Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum re Bradley Berg. Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum 189 .) (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 01/25/2013)
01/25/2013 191 Declaration of Jesse Wing in Support of Corrected Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum re Bradley Berg. Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum 189 .) (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 01/25/2013)
01/25/2013 192 Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandumre Witness James Bennett. Filed by Prison Legal News. (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 01/25/2013)
01/25/2013 193 Memorandum in Support of Corrected Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum re James Bennett. Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum 192 .) (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 01/25/2013)
01/25/2013 194 Declaration of Jesse Wing in Support of Corrected Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum re James Bennett. Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Writ of Habeas Corpus ad testificandum 192 .) (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 01/25/2013)
01/29/2013 195 Supplement Plaintiff's Supplemental Evidence to Its MIL Opposing Defs' Trial Exhibit 264. Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Motion in Limine 130 .) (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 01/29/2013)
01/29/2013 196 Declaration of Jesse Wing . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Motion in Limine 130 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 01/29/2013)

Case 3:12-cv-71 As of 04/02/2018 08:42 AM PDT Page 15 of 20 Page ID#: <pageID>
01/30/2013 197 Order Issuing Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum re: Witness Bradley Berg. Signed on 1/30/13 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja) (Entered: 01/31/2013)
01/31/2013 198 MINUTES of Pretrial Conference: Order − On its own motion, the Court has bifurcated this case and will hold two separate trials pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b). The first trial will commence on February 5, 2013, and will be a bench trial to address and resolve the following issues identified in Plaintiff's trial brief [Dkt. 129] at page 2: (1) whether Defendants' policies and practices violated the First Amendment and under what standard; (2) whether Defendants' policies and practices violated the Fourteenth Amendment; (3) the specific acts of censorship and lack of notice and opportunity to be heard committed by Defendants that constituted violations of the Constitution; (4) declaratory relief, if any; and (5) injunctive relief, if any. The second trial, to be scheduled at a later time and to be heard before a jury, will address all remaining issues of damages, if any. Plaintiff's Corrected Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum re Witness Bradley Berg 189 is GRANTED. All other pending motions [Dkts. 130, 140, 145, 162, and 192] are DENIED for the reasons stated on the record with leave to renew.Pretrial Conference. Marc D. Blackman, Katherine C. Chamberlain and Jesse Wing present as counsel for plaintiff(s). Steven A. Kraemer, Gregory R. Roberson and Kari Furnanz present as counsel for defendant(s). Court Reporter: Dennis Apodaca. Judge Michael H. Simon presiding. (mja) (Entered: 01/31/2013)
02/05/2013 199 MINUTES of Court Trial − Day − 1: Opening statements given. Witnesses sworn and evidence adduced. Court is in recess until 2/6/2013 at 09:00AM in Portland, Courtroom 13B, before Judge Michael H. Simon. Marc D. Blackman, Katherin C. Chamberlain, and Jesse A. Wing present as counsel for plaintiff(s). Steven A. Kraemer and Gregory R. Roberson present as counsel for defendant(s). Court Reporter: Dennis Apodaca. Judge Michael H. Simon presiding. (mja) (Entered: 02/05/2013)
02/06/2013 200 Supplemental Exhibit List . Filed by All Defendants. (Kraemer, Steven) (Entered: 02/06/2013)
02/06/2013 201 Supplemental Designation of Deposition Testimony . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 02/06/2013)
02/06/2013 204 MINUTES of Court Trial − Day − 2: Witnesses sworn and evidence adduced. Court is in recess until 2/7/2013 at 09:30AM in Portland, Courtroom 13B, before Judge Michael H. Simon. Marc D. Blackman, Katherine C. Chamberlain and Jesse A. Wing present as counsel for plaintiff(s). Steven A. Kraemer and Gregory R. Roberson present as counsel for defendant(s). Court Reporter: Dennis Apodaca. Judge Michael H. Simon presiding. (mja) (Entered: 02/08/2013)
02/07/2013 202 Supplemental Exhibit List (Plaintiff's). Filed by Prison Legal News. (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 02/07/2013)
02/07/2013 203 Stipulation by Prison Legal News. Filed by Prison Legal News. (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 02/07/2013)
02/07/2013 205 MINUTES of Jury Trial − Day − 3: Witnesses sworn and evidence adduced. Court is in recess until 2/8/2013 at 10:00AM in Portland, Courtroom 13B, before Judge Michael H. Simon. Marc D. Blackman, Katherine C. Chamberlain and Jesse A. Wing present as counsel for plaintiff(s). Steven A. Kraemer and Gregory R. Roberson present as counsel for defendant(s). Court Reporter: Dennis Apodaca. Judge Michael H. Simon presiding. (mja) (Entered: 02/08/2013)
02/08/2013 206 MINUTES of Court Trial − Day − 4: Witnesses sworn and evidence adduced. Plaintiff and Defendant rest. See Clerk's list of exhibits and witnesses. The parties' supplemental briefing is due by 2/22/2013. Rebuttal briefing due by 3/5/2013. Setting Oral Argument for 3/21/2013 at 2:30PM in Portland, Courtroom 13B. before Judge Michael H. Simon. Marc D. Blackman, Katherine C. Chamberlain and Jesse A. Wing present as counsel for plaintiff(s). Steven A. Kraemer and Gregory R. Roberson present as counsel for defendant(s). Court Reporter: Dennis Apodaca. Judge Michael H. Simon presiding. (mja) (Entered: 02/08/2013)
02/08/2013 207 Clerks List of Exhibits & Witnesses. (mja) (Entered: 02/08/2013)
02/22/2013 208 Trial Memorandum Plaintiff's Post−Trial Memorandum on Injunctive Relief. Filed by Prison Legal News. (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 02/22/2013)

Case 3:12-cv-71 As of 04/02/2018 08:42 AM PDT Page 16 of 20 Page ID#: <pageID>
02/22/2013 209 Trial Brief Defendants' Post Trial Brief. Filed by All Defendants. (Kraemer, Steven) (Entered: 02/22/2013)
03/04/2013 210 Trial Memorandum Defendants Response to Plaintiffs Post−Trial Memorandum on Injunctive Relief. Filed by All Defendants. (Kraemer, Steven) (Entered: 03/04/2013)
03/05/2013 211 Trial Memorandum Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Post−Trial Memorandum re Injunctive Relief. Filed by Prison Legal News. (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 03/05/2013)
03/05/2013 212 Scheduling Order by Judge Michael H. Simon. Order − On the Court's own motion, the Oral Argument Hearing set for 3/21/2013 is RESET to 3/20/2013 at 02:30PM in Portland, Courtroom 13B, before Judge Michael H. Simon. Ordered by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja) (Entered: 03/05/2013)
03/20/2013 213 MINUTES of Proceedings: Order − Matter taken under advisement this 20th Day of March, 2013. Marc D. Blackman and Jesse A. Wing present as counsel for plaintiff(s). Kari Furnanz and Steven A. Kraemer present as counsel for defendant(s). Court Reporter: Dennis Apodaca. Judge Michael H. Simon presiding. (mja) (Entered: 03/21/2013)
04/24/2013 214 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Order − The Court will issue a separate Order that PERMANENTLY ENJOINS Defendants from restricting all incoming and outgoing inmate personal mail to postcards only. The Order will provide that Defendants shall not refuse to deliver or process personal inmate mail solely on the grounds that it is not on a postcard. In the Order, the Court will also DECLARE that inmates have a First Amendment right to receive magazines and that it would be unconstitutional for Defendants to refuse to deliver magazines to inmates solely because they are magazines. The Court will also DECLARE that inmates and their unincarcerated correspondents have a Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process when Defendants reject their mail and that, at a minimum: (1) an inmate must be notified when Defendants reject correspondence written by or addressed to the inmate; (2) senders of rejected correspondence must be given a reasonable opportunity to appeal the rejection; and (3) appeals must be referred to a prison official other than the person who originally rejected the correspondence. Within 28 days from the date of these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the parties shall inform the Court whether there is any need for the Court to proceed further with regard to Plaintiff's claim for money damages. If there is no such need, the parties shall submit to the Court by that deadline, either jointly or separately, a proposed form of Final Judgment that contains proposed permanent injunctive and declaratory relief consistent with these Findings and Conclusions. Signed on 4/24/2013 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja) (Entered: 04/24/2013)
05/22/2013 215 Proposed Form of Order Submitted re Final Judgment. Filed by Prison Legal News. (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 05/22/2013)
05/22/2013 216 Memorandum in Support of Proposed Final Judgment and Notice that Damages are Resolved. Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Proposed Form of Order or Judgment 215 .) (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 05/22/2013)
05/22/2013 217 Proposed Form of Order Submitted . Filed by All Defendants. (Furnanz, Kari) (Entered: 05/22/2013)
05/22/2013 218 Memorandum in Opposition Defendants' Objections to Plaintiff's Proposed Form of Judgment. Filed by All Defendants. (Furnanz, Kari) (Entered: 05/22/2013)
05/23/2013 219 Proposed Form of Order Submitted Praecipe to Submit Replacement (Proposed) Final Judgment. Filed by Prison Legal News. (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 05/23/2013)
05/28/2013 220 Final Judgment. Signed on 5/28/2013 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja) (Entered: 05/28/2013)
06/11/2013 221 Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs. Filed by Prison Legal News. (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 06/11/2013)
06/11/2013 222 Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Motion for Attorney Fees 221 .) (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 06/11/2013)

Case 3:12-cv-71 As of 04/02/2018 08:42 AM PDT Page 17 of 20 Page ID#: <pageID>
06/11/2013 223 Declaration of Jesse Wing . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Motion for Attorney Fees 221 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14) (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 06/11/2013)
06/11/2013 224 Declaration of Lance Weber . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Motion for Attorney Fees 221 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F) (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 06/11/2013)
06/11/2013 225 Declaration of Marc Blackman . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Motion for Attorney Fees 221 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 06/11/2013)
06/11/2013 226 Declaration of Carol Bernick . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Motion for Attorney Fees 221 .) (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 06/11/2013)
06/11/2013 227 Declaration of Charles Hinkle . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Motion for Attorney Fees 221 .) (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 06/11/2013)
06/11/2013 228 Declaration of Gregory Lynch . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Motion for Attorney Fees 221 .) (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 06/11/2013)
06/11/2013 229 Declaration of David Markowitz . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Motion for Attorney Fees 221 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C) (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 06/11/2013)
06/11/2013 230 Declaration of Robert Meyer . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Motion for Attorney Fees 221 .) (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 06/11/2013)
06/11/2013 231 Declaration of Daniel Skerritt . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Motion for Attorney Fees 221 .) (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A, # 2 Appendix B) (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 06/11/2013)
06/11/2013 232 Declaration of Dana Sullivan . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Motion for Attorney Fees 221 .) (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 06/11/2013)
06/11/2013 233 Declaration of Eric Wilson . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Motion for Attorney Fees 221 .) (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 06/11/2013)
06/21/2013 234 Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response/Reply Defendants' Unopposed Motion to Extend Deadline to File Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Award of Attorneys Fees and Costs to Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs 221 . Filed by All Defendants. (Furnanz, Kari) (Entered: 06/21/2013)
06/21/2013 235 Declaration of Kari A. Furnanz in Support of Defendants' Unopposed Motion For Extension of Time to File Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Award of Attorneys Fees and Costs. Filed by All Defendants. (Related document(s): Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to a Motion, 234 .) (Furnanz, Kari) (Entered: 06/21/2013)
06/21/2013 236 ORDER − Granting Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs 221 . Response is due by 7/9/2013. Ordered by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja) (Entered: 06/21/2013)
06/25/2013 237 Motion Defendants' F.R.C.P. 52/F.R.C.P. 60 Motions. Oral Argument requested. Filed by All Defendants. (Furnanz, Kari) (Entered: 06/25/2013)
06/25/2013 238 Memorandum in Support of Defendants' F.R.C.P. 52/F.R.C.P. 60 Motions. Filed by All Defendants. (Related document(s): Motion − Miscellaneous 237 .) (Furnanz, Kari) (Entered: 06/25/2013)
06/25/2013 239 Declaration of Kari A. Furnanz in Support of Defendants' F.R.C.P. 52/F.R.C.P. 60 Motions. Filed by All Defendants. (Related document(s): Motion − Miscellaneous 237 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−Defendants' Offer of Judgment) (Furnanz, Kari) (Entered: 06/25/2013)

Case 3:12-cv-71 As of 04/02/2018 08:42 AM PDT Page 18 of 20 Page ID#: <pageID>
07/03/2013 240 Response in Opposition to Motion Defendants' F.R.C.P. 52/F.R.C.P. 60 Motions 237 . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 07/03/2013)
07/09/2013 241 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response/Reply to Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs 221 . Filed by All Defendants. (Furnanz, Kari) (Entered: 07/09/2013)
07/09/2013 242 Declaration of Kari A. Furnanz In Support Of. Filed by All Defendants. (Related document(s): Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to a Motion 241 .) (Furnanz, Kari) (Entered: 07/09/2013)
07/09/2013 243 ORDER − Granting Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees and costs 241 Response is due by 7/11/2013. Ordered by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja) (Entered: 07/09/2013)
07/11/2013 244 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs 221 . Filed by All Defendants. (Furnanz, Kari) (Entered: 07/11/2013)
07/11/2013 245 Declaration of Gregory R. Roberson . Filed by All Defendants. (Related document(s): Memorandum in Opposition 244 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit U, # 22 Exhibit V, # 23 Exhibit W, # 24 Exhibit X, # 25 Exhibit Y, # 26 Exhibit Z) (Furnanz, Kari) (Entered: 07/11/2013)
07/11/2013 246 Declaration of Steven A. Kraemer . Filed by All Defendants. (Related document(s): Memorandum in Opposition 244 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (Furnanz, Kari) (Entered: 07/11/2013)
07/11/2013 247 Declaration of Susan Dunaway . Filed by All Defendants. (Related document(s): Memorandum in Opposition 244 .) (Furnanz, Kari) (Entered: 07/11/2013)
07/11/2013 248 Declaration of William Blair . Filed by All Defendants. (Related document(s): Memorandum in Opposition 244 .) (Furnanz, Kari) (Entered: 07/11/2013)
07/11/2013 249 Declaration of Kathryn Pratt . Filed by All Defendants. (Related document(s): Memorandum in Opposition 244 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (Furnanz, Kari) (Entered: 07/11/2013)
07/11/2013 250 Memorandum in Opposition DEFENDANTS OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS REQUESTS FOR COSTS to Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs 221 . Filed by All Defendants. (Furnanz, Kari) (Entered: 07/11/2013)
07/12/2013 251 Motion to File Excess Pages re Memorandum in Opposition 244 . Filed by Columbia County, Columbia County Sheriff's Office, Jeff Dickerson. (Furnanz, Kari) (Entered: 07/12/2013)
07/12/2013 252 Motion to Strike Defendants' Overlength Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Defendants' Objections to Plaintiff's Requests for Costs. Filed by Prison Legal News. (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 07/12/2013)
07/12/2013 253 Memorandum in Support . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Motion to Strike 252 .) (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 07/12/2013)
07/12/2013 254 Declaration of Jesse Wing . Filed by Prison Legal News. (Related document(s): Motion to Strike 252 .) (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 07/12/2013)
07/12/2013 255 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to File Excess Pages re Memorandum in Opposition 244 251 . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 07/12/2013)
07/12/2013 256 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion to File Excess Pages re Memorandum in Opposition 244 251 . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Wing, Jesse) (Entered: 07/12/2013)
07/15/2013 257 ORDER − Granting Defendants' Motion to File Excess Pages 251 . Ordered by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja) (Entered: 07/15/2013)
07/15/2013 258 ORDER − Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants' Overlength Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees 252 is DENIED. Ordered by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja) (Entered: 07/15/2013)

Case 3:12-cv-71 As of 04/02/2018 08:42 AM PDT Page 19 of 20 Page ID#: <pageID>
07/22/2013 259 Reply in Support of to Motion Defendants' F.R.C.P. 52/F.R.C.P. 60 Motions 237 Oral Argument requested. Filed by All Defendants. (Furnanz, Kari) (Entered: 07/22/2013)
07/23/2013 260 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply Brief, Unopposed Motion to File Excess Pages re Motion for Attorney Fees 221 . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 07/23/2013)
07/23/2013 261 Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time and for Leave to File Excess Pages. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Motion for Extension of Time, Motion to File Excess Pages 260 .) (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 07/23/2013)
07/23/2013 262 Declaration of Katherine C. Chamberlain In Support of Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time and for Leave to File Excess Pages. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Motion for Extension of Time, Motion to File Excess Pages 260 .) (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 07/23/2013)
07/23/2013 263 Declaration of Jesse Wing In Support of Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time and for Leave to File Excess Pages. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Motion for Extension of Time, Motion to File Excess Pages 260 .) (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 07/23/2013)
07/23/2013 264 ORDER: Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time and for Leave to File Excess Pages 260 . Plaintiff Reply is due by 8/8/2013, and may be up to 30 pages in length. Ordered by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja) (Entered: 07/23/2013)
07/31/2013 265 ORDER − DENYING Defendants' Fed. R. Civ. P. 52 and 60 Motions 237 . The Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 214 remain unchanged. Ordered by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja) (Entered: 07/31/2013)
08/08/2013 266 Declaration of Jesse Wing In Support of Plaintiff's Reply In Support of Motion for Award of Fees and Costs. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Motion for Attorney Fees 221 .) (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 08/08/2013)
08/08/2013 267 Declaration of Carrie A. Wilkinson In Support of Plaintiff's Reply In Support of Motion for Award of Fees and Costs. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Motion for Attorney Fees 221 .) (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 08/08/2013)
08/08/2013 268 Declaration of Lance Weber In Support of Plaintiff's Reply In Support of Motion for Award of Fees and Costs. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Motion for Attorney Fees 221 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Lance Weber In Support of Plaintiff's Reply In Support of Motion for Award of Fees and Costs) (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 08/08/2013)
08/08/2013 269 Declaration of Paul Wright In Support of Plaintiff's Reply In Support of Motion for Award of Fees and Costs. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Motion for Attorney Fees 221 .) (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 08/08/2013)
08/08/2013 270 Declaration of Katherine C. Chamberlain In Support of Plaintiff's Reply In Support of Motion for Award of Fees and Costs. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Related document(s): Motion for Attorney Fees 221 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Katherine C. Chamberlain In Support of Plaintiff's Reply In Support of Motion for Award of Fees and Costs, # 2 Exhibit 2 to Declaration of Katherine C. Chamberlain In Support of Plaintiff's Reply In Support of Motion for Award of Fees and Costs, # 3 Exhibit 3 to Declaration of Katherine C. Chamberlain In Support of Plaintiff's Reply In Support of Motion for Award of Fees and Costs) (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 08/08/2013)
08/08/2013 271 Reply to Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs 221 . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Chamberlain, Katherine) (Entered: 08/08/2013)
08/26/2013 272 Notice re Order on Motion − Miscellaneous 265 NOTICE OF APPEAL Filed by All Defendants (Related document(s): Order on Motion − Miscellaneous 265 .) (Furnanz, Kari) (Entered: 08/26/2013)
08/28/2013 273 Amended Notice of Appeal to the 9th Circuit from Order on Motion − Miscellaneous 265 Filing fee $455 collected; Agency Tracking ID 0979−3404293: . Filed by All Defendants. (Furnanz, Kari) (Entered: 08/28/2013)

Case 3:12-cv-71 As of 04/02/2018 08:42 AM PDT Page 20 of 20 Page ID#: <pageID>

08/30/2013

USCA Case Number and Notice confirming Docketing Record on Appeal re Notice of Appeal 273 . Case Appealed to US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Case Number 13−35786 assigned. (schm) (Entered: 08/30/2013)

09/12/2013 274 Notice of Change of Address. Filed by Prison Legal News (Weber, Lance) (Entered: 09/12/2013)

09/12/2013 275 Notice of change of attorney information Filed by Prison Legal News (Weber, Lance) (Entered: 09/12/2013)

09/23/2013 276 Transcript Designation and Order Form Court Reporter: Dennis Apodaca. regarding Notice of Appeal 273 . Filed by Defendants. Transcript is due by 10/28/2013. (Schroer, Janet) Modified on 9/24/2013 to reflect correct name of filer (mja). (Entered: 09/23/2013)

03/24/2014 277 ORDER − Plaintiff's motion for award of attorney's fees and expenses 221 is granted in part. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, Plaintiff is awarded $763,803.45 in attorney' s fees and $38,373.01 in expenses. Signed on 3/24/2014 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja) (Entered: 03/24/2014)

04/08/2014 278 Notice of Appeal to the 9th Circuit from Order on Motion for Attorney Fees, 277 Filing fee $505 collected; Agency Tracking ID 0979−3635935: . Filed by All Defendants. (Schroer, Janet) (Entered: 04/08/2014)

04/09/2014

USCA Case Number and Notice confirming Docketing Record on Appeal re Notice of Appeal 278 . Case Appealed to US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Case Number 14−35291 assigned. (schm) (Entered: 04/09/2014)

05/14/2014 279 Supplemental Judgment − Based on the Court's Opinion and Order on Fees and Expenses dated March 24, 2014 277 , IT IS ADJUDGED that Plaintiff is awarded $763,803.45 in attorney's fees and $38,373.01 in expenses. Signed on 5/14/2014 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja) (Entered: 05/14/2014)

05/15/2014 280 Amended Notice of Appeal to the 9th Circuit from Judgment, 279 Filing fee $505 collected; Receipt No. 0979−3635935: . Filed by All Defendants. (Schroer, Janet) (Entered: 05/15/2014)

06/23/2014 281 Satisfaction re Judgment, 279 by All Defendants. Filed by All Defendants. (Schroer, Janet) (Entered: 06/23/2014)

07/01/2014 282 MANDATE of USCA for the 9th Circuit, USCA # 13−35786 and 14−35291, re Notice of Appeal 278 , Notice of Appeal 273 , Notice of Appeal 280 . Defendants−Appellants unopposed motion to dismiss these appeals with prejudice is granted. Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). As requested, each party shall bear its own costs and attorneys fees on appeal. A copy of this order shall serve as and for the mandate of this court. (dsg) (Entered: 07/01/2014)


[CONTENT] January 13, 2012 | the Prison Legal News | PLN | the U.S. District Court | Oregon | 1983 | Columbia County ||| Human Rights Defense Center | First Amendment | the First Amendment | Jail ||| PLN | the Columbia County Jail ||| First ||| Fourteenth Amendment ||| May 29, 2012 | Michael H. Simon | the First Amendment ||| Simon ||| Prison Legal News | 2012 | 1936108 | D. ||| May 29, 2012 ||| Simon ||| September 13, 2012 | PLN ||| two | 2013 ||| February 5 to February 8 | Simon |||  ||| Simon ||| first | first ||| February 8 | Simon | Sheriff | Court ||| April 24, 2013 | Simon ||| Simon | Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law | the Final Judgment | May 28, 2013 ||| Simon ||| Simon | a First Amendment | a First Amendment ||| the First Amendment ||| Simon | a Fourteenth Amendment ||| Prison Legal News | 942 ||| 2d 1068 | D. | 2013 |||  ||| June 25, 2013 | Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ||| the First Amendment |||  ||| July 31, 2013 ||| the Ninth Circuit | August 2013 |||  ||| March 24, 2014 | Simon | 802,176.46 ||| 2014 | 1225100 | D. | 2014 |||  ||| second | April 2014 | June 2014 |||  |||  ||| The Ninth Circuit | July 1, 2014 |||  [SUMMARY] On January 13, 2012, the Prison Legal News (PLN) filed a civil rights lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for Oregon under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Columbia County. The plaintiff, represented by Human Rights Defense Center and private counsel, asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages, claiming that the defendants' "postcard only" and "no magazine" policies for inmate mail violated the plaintiff's First Amendment rights, as well as the First Amendment rights of inmates at the Jail and their correspondents. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that the policy resulted in the unlawful censorship of PLN's books and magazines, which are sent to individual subscribers in custody at the Columbia County Jail. The plaintiff claimed that these mailings were protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The plaintiff also alleged the defendants' "notice and appeal" policy for rejected inmate mail violated the plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process rights and the procedural due process rights of inmates and their correspondents.

On May 29, 2012, Judge Michael H. Simon granted the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction in part, holding that the jail's policy likely violated the First Amendment. Judge Simon ordered the defendants to stop restricting all incoming and outgoing inmate personal mail to postcards only and to stop refusing to deliver or process inmate mail solely on the grounds that it is not on a postcard. Prison Legal News v. Columbia Cnty., 2012 WL 1936108 (D. Or. May 29, 2012). Judge Simon rejected the jail's arguments that the policy was rationally related to both safety and the efficient use of the jail's limited resources. 

On September 13, 2012, PLN moved for partial summary judgment on the claims for declaratory and injunctive relief and on the defendants' affirmative defense of failure to mitigate damages. These issues went to two separate trials in 2013: a bench trial and a jury trial. 

From February 5 to February 8 the parties argued before Judge Simon in the bench trial. The defendants argued that the rationale behind the policy was preventing the introduction of contraband and saving time during mail inspection. Following the trial, Judge Simon found that this rationale was not supported by the evidence. This was the first time a postcard-only policy went to trial, so it is the first available legal precedent that can be used in future litigation against postcard-only policies. 

On February 8, after the bench trial, Judge Simon asked the parties to submit post-trial briefing on several issues relating to the plaintiff's request for injunctive relief, including: the legal criteria for a permanent injunction; the application of the trial evidence to the legal standard; whether the Sheriff's credibility and limited political term impact the Court's analysis; and whether the injunction should be permanent or a limited term. 

On April 24, 2013, Judge Simon held that the jail's policy was unconstitutional. Judge Simon issued a Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and entered the Final Judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against all defendants on May 28, 2013. Judge Simon permanently enjoined the defendants from restricting incoming and outgoing inmate personal mail to postcards only. Judge Simon also declared that inmates have a First Amendment right to receive magazines, and publishers have a First Amendment right to send magazines to inmates and have their magazines delivered. As such, the defendants' policy and custom of prohibiting magazines violated the First Amendment. Judge Simon also declared that that inmates and their unincarcerated correspondents have a Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process when the defendants reject their mail and that the defendants must notify an inmate and the unincarcerated correspondent when the defendants reject correspondence written by or addressed to the inmate, including a description of the rejected mail and the basis for the rejection. Prison Legal News v. Columbia Cnty., 942 F. Supp. 2d 1068 (D. Or. 2013). Subsequently, the plaintiffs moved to recover attorney fees and costs. 

On June 25, 2013, the defendants moved for the court to amend its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, as well as for relief from the judgment. They claimed that the plaintiffs lacked standing for the claims, that the claims were moot based off of corrective actions taken, and that the postcard policy is not a violation of the First Amendment. They sought to have the declaratory judgment removed and claimed that the preliminary injunction should be found an unnecessary remedy by the court. On July 31, 2013, the court denied the motions and the findings and conclusions were left in place. The defendants appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit in August 2013. While the appeal was pending, the court sent the parties to mediation.

On March 24, 2014, Judge Simon in the district court granted the plaintiff's motion for attorney fees in part, awarding the plaintiff a total of $802,176.46 in attorney fees and expenses. 2014 WL 1225100 (D. Or. 2014). The appellate court then stayed its proceedings in order to give the defendants time to appeal the attorney fees decision.

The defendants filed the second appeal in April 2014 and in June 2014, the appeals were consolidated. However, the defendants subsequently moved, unopposed, to dismiss the appeal. The parties may have engaged in settlement talks, but it is unclear why the defendants sought voluntary dismissal. The Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal with prejudice on July 1, 2014 and the case is now closed. Each party paid its own costs for the appeal.